criterionforum.org

^ No prob. For some odd reason, I felt like visting Korine's fan site last night, seeing if anything is coming up and found this news. It is a strange, yet oddly perfect combination indeed, and really can't wait to see what comes from it.

Jackson went onto claim that the difference between 24 and 48 fps is "significant", likening the technological evolution to when "vinyl records were supplanted by digital CDs".

Good analogy since like Vinyl 24 FPS won't go out of style.

Movies aren't supposed to be lifelike, etc

Last week when I was watching Biutiful in a cinema the screen turned for a few seconds into a flickering, juddery mess during a reasonably steady handheld pan across a snow covered forest. If higher framerates mean that distracting moments like this that kill immersion can be avoided, then I'm all for them.
48/60 fps will take a while to get used to, but if it allows more freedom for the filmmaker in shot design, I'm all for them. I love the 24 fps feel and I don't want that to be completely abandoned, but I see no reason we should fear changing things up.

Now all of a sudden I'm eager to see The Hobbit.

This stupidity is making me have a headache. Whether from Cameron or Jackson's mouth the idea is stupid headline grabbing. It is an attempt to appear artistic without actually doing that. I have seen films, theatrically even, at rates other than 24 FPS and there is no difference to the naked eye. If you want to shoot at 60 FPS and than play it back at 24, fine, there is the potential for something interesting out of that. What these two yahoos are suggesting though is pure showy bullshit and it's making me more angry the more I think of it. What they're doing is totally loathsome. Yes 24 FPS is arbitrary, but it at least keeps regulation and exist for a god damned reason these people are terrible. I may have said something like this in joking in the past but right now I'm dead serious. I hate these deluded money grubbing asshats beyond belief. At best they're simply idiots with no understanding of history and are more than a little deluded. At worst they are the most disgusting sort of corporatist out there. Micheal Bay has more dignity and ethics than these two.

domino harvey wrote:Movies aren't supposed to be lifelike, etc

If there's one thing I demand from my movies about wizards fighting goblins and dragons, it's realism

knives wrote:This stupidity is making me have a headache. Whether from Cameron or Jackson's mouth the idea is stupid headline grabbing. It is an attempt to appear artistic without actually doing that. I have seen films, theatrically even, at rates other than 24 FPS and there is no difference to the naked eye. If you want to shoot at 60 FPS and than play it back at 24, fine, there is the potential for something interesting out of that. What these two yahoos are suggesting though is pure showy bullshit and it's making me more angry the more I think of it. What they're doing is totally loathsome. Yes 24 FPS is arbitrary, but it at least keeps regulation and exist for a god damned reason these people are terrible. I may have said something like this in joking in the past but right now I'm dead serious. I hate these deluded money grubbing asshats beyond belief. At best they're simply idiots with no understanding of history and are more than a little deluded. At worst they are the most disgusting sort of corporatist out there. Micheal Bay has more dignity and ethics than these two.

I don't like it when people try new things either.

What will this new thing accomplish Sausage beyond deregulation? I've seen 12, 18, and probably a few other frame rates in theaters before and there's never any discernible difference so what will this accomplish.

Techno-obsession is all the rage nowadays. We may not like it, but Jackson is far from strictly a filmmaker; he's a total new media guy, and in all honesty probably far more interested nowadays in moving forward technology than in telling stories to an audience in a theater. Deal with it.

How is that moving forward technology though instead of just slapping on a different coat.

Wake me when Greenaway does it.

knives wrote:What will this new thing accomplish Sausage beyond deregulation?

At best, a better looking film. At worst, a one-off no one will attempt again.

knives wrote:I've seen 12, 18, and probably a few other frame rates in theaters before and there's never any discernible difference so what will this accomplish.

I don't know what 48 fps looks like. I know it will be different from 12 or 18 because of the increased amount of information. The difference may well be subtle. I don't know. There are many things to be angry about in life, but this is not one of them.

Well said, Mr. Sausage.

I think the difference in the look of 12 and 18 frames per second and the standard 24 is striking, personally. Maybe some are more sensitive to this than others.

Personally I'm happy that this is what I have to be most angry at in the moment. Also I think I'm more angry over why they're doing this and how they're presenting that than the actual action.

knives wrote:What will this new thing accomplish?

Twice as much work for CGI animators, with the added benefit that their work will look more obviously fake.

Also, I could be wrong, but I would assume that most theaters are not currently equipped to play something at a frame rate that doesn't exist.

Most digital projectors out there right now have the ability to project at up to 144 fps. They just need a firmware update to enable the higher framerates.

Due to recent events in Japan, shooting on "The End" from Abbas Kiarostami has been bumped to September. It was originally suppose to start shooting last month. I'm just glad the project hasn't been scrapped!

Filmbiz has a brief bit about the plot:

The End tells the story of Akiko, a pretty young student sells herself to help pay for her studies. But then she comes across an unusual client, a learned old scholar who shows her great kindness. An extraordinary relationship develops between Akiko and the old man.

Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained

Weird, when I saw it a few months ago I thought "I'm surprised Tarantino hasn't remade this yet"

Murdoch wrote:Weird, when I saw it a few months ago I thought "I'm surprised Tarantino hasn't remade this yet"

Technically he has, though I think he was only actor.

You call that acting?

Anyway, a poster here claims to have read the Django Unchained script (can't figure out how to link directly to a comment, it's #15 by "lawnorder"). Not surprisingly, it doesn't sound like any more of a "remake" of Django than Basterds was of the Castellari film. It also sounds like Mandingo is Tarantino's big inspiration here.

Bleeding Cool has posted the sales poster for Dario Argento's Dracula 3D, which was in production last fall and is being sold at Cannes. I'm sure the film will be awful. Didn't even know Argento had a new film in the can. Cast includes Asia Argento and Rutger Hauer.

Nicolas Winding Refn will squeeze in one more independent film before filming a big remake of Logan's Run at Warners. Luke Evans and Kristin Scott Thomas will star in Only God Forgives. The playlist has some info about the plot. Seems like it's about a British gangster operating in Thailand. Sounds interesting!