Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen

[Disco Stu]

It's actually been a pretty interesting season for films this Fall.
 
In recent weeks I've watched The Master (which was incredible), Killing Them Softly (which was so-so), End of Watch (which was an interesting take on the buddy-cop movie), and more recently Seven Psychopaths (which was fun, but as a huge fan of the McDonagh brothers slightly disappointing).

Yeah, I'm reluctant to see Seven Psychopaths.  In Bruges was just such a freakin' masterpiece, I don't want to be disappointed.

[Pixelated Pixies]

Yeah, I'm reluctant to see Seven Psychopaths.  In Bruges was just such a freakin' masterpiece, I don't want to be disappointed.

Agreed. In Bruges was hilarious. Have you seen 'The Guard' by any chance? I'm not sure how wide that release was elsewhere in the world?

[Dasmos]

Anyway, saw Skyfall lat night. I liked it. My wife was lukewarm on it.
I will never forgive her for whispering her dead-on comparison to Home Alone during the last battle. Pretty much ruined the entire ending for me. But, gotta give her props: the comparison was spot-on.

Haha my friends and I made that comparison as well, but it hardly matter because Home Alone is an awesome film.

[Disco Stu]

Yeah, I'm reluctant to see Seven Psychopaths.  In Bruges was just such a freakin' masterpiece, I don't want to be disappointed.

Agreed. In Bruges was hilarious. Have you seen 'The Guard' by any chance? I'm not sure how wide that release was elsewhere in the world?

I have not seen it, sadly.  I remember it getting an incredibly limited theater release in America, so I've just been hoping for it to show up on Netflix.

[tendoboy1984]

My dear mother is taking me to see The Hobbit on opening night! It's an early birthday gift. (I'll be 28 on December 18)

[ThePerm]

Vanilla Sky - Pretty good, I knew where it was going, but actually it set itself up to go other directions as well. Not sure if they were red herrings, or the writer forgot where he was going.

[Morari]

Don't forget to watch Open Your Eyes, the Spanish film that Vanilla Sky was based on. It even shares some of the same cast.

[Stratos]

Surprised no one has mentioned anything about Hobbit yet.

I was a little underwhelmed with it. Don't get me wrong, it was enjoyable. I just think that a few of the directions Jackson chose were not the best for telling the story. It's a great 'Lord of the Rings' prequel, but not the best telling of Hobbit.

Part of this may just be that Hobbit is very near and dear to my heart. My father read it to me as a small child with great story telling voices. I also had influence from the Mind's Eye audio recordings of it along with the animated version. So mostly I think I latched on to certain lines and scenes in the book that were altered or had lines dropped in the Jackson version.

I was also a lot more nitpick-y about book-to-film differences than with any of the Rings films. Probably due to the nostalgia I have for Hobbit versus the nostalgia for Rings. As a kid I grew to appreciate both Hobbit and Rings in different ways and I think Jackson's Hobbit suffers a bit from being in the same art style of Jackson's Ring's. He tried and got very close to breaking what I feared would be a negative impact in the art style. But something about it in a few areas just missed where I had hoped it would be.

I did watch the 3D/48fps version but I do not think that impacted my ability to enjoy the film. I actually wish that Rings could be done over in the same way as I enjoyed both the higher film rate and the 3D. This is the first live action film I would watch again in 3D and I believe that it is in part due to the higher frame rate.

My opinion of the film may change once the rest of the story is released. Throughout the film I kept arguing with myself over how the story, even with the appendices, could work out in three separate films.

So, I give it a solid 4 Out Of 5 Awkward Belching Dwarf Stars as a telling of The Hobbit.
As a prequel to Jackson's Lord of the Rings it is a 5 Out Of 5 Epic Stars

[tendoboy1984]

So why are most movies stuck in 24 frames-per-second when video games strive for higher frame rates (30 to 60 frames)?

[ThePerm]

because 24fps has an epic feel. When you up the framerate you start to see that its just a bunch of people acting on a set. Though I watched Blue Crush on a Sony tv where the frame rate was artificially upped, and it made the movie that much cooler.

[Pixelated Pixies]

because 24fps has an epic feel. When you up the framerate you start to see that its just a bunch of people acting on a set. Though I watched Blue Crush on a Sony tv where the frame rate was artificially upped, and it made the movie that much cooler.

It has also been argued by some that having less frames can make the experience more immersive. My understanding of the argument is that by having fewer frames the image on screen is less realistic and more dream like, and as a result audiences supposedly find it easier to suspend their disbelief and give themselves over to the story. I'm not sure how much of that I accept though.
 
As to why films were originally, and continue to be, shown at 24FPS, I read somewhere that it's merely arbitrary. 24 FPS happened to be the median frame output for projectors.

[NWR_insanolord]

It seems like the more realistic nature of higher frame rates would make it preferable for things like live sports and nature documentaries, even though it's not ideal for most movies.

[BranDonk Kong]

The problem with high frame rates in movies is that it makes everything look so real, that it looks fake, if that makes any sense. Watching a Blu Ray on my PS3 where the TV actually switches to 24FPS native is by far the best movie viewing experience. The only things high frame rates are good for are live sports, video games, and 3D video.

[ThePerm]

im thinking one of the issues is on set piece movies. On location I can imagine it being more natural. The problem is when using higher frames it resembles video like a news cast. As I said Blue Crush looked great, and that all takes place on a beach. Pirates of the Caribbean looked like I was watching a play and standing on stage with them, which is terrible. It probably has more to do with lighting then anything else.

Here's my theory: Generally, in the past movies had to be lit ultra high inside buildings to look right. If you didnt light inside it would look too dark. Outside this wasn't important unless you were getting night shots. At a higher frame rate it is probably better to use natural light. The extra movement information would allow us to see darker scenes better. Also, with digital it's possible to capture a greater contrast at lower light levels.

[nickmitch]

I always thought 24 fps was the minimum the frame rate had to be for you eyes to see movement and not a series of pictures. I think I heard that in school, but don't remember too well. I could be wrong.

Don't forget to watch Open Your Eyes, the Spanish film that Vanilla Sky was based on. It even shares some of the same cast.

The guys on Box Office Poison had it as their movie of the month and said it was mostly a shot for shot remake, with little difference between the two.

[broodwars]

Well, I saw the Hobbit -part 1 (*sigh*) today, and overall I really enjoyed it. There were a few places where I feel Jackson added some elements that really didn't make the movie better (such as Thorin's pale white orc nemesis, or when Jackson pretty much shot-for-shot references Frodo's "ring fall" from Fellowship), but overall I think it's a pretty good adaptation.  Plus, I enjoyed how the new scenes working in background information from the Appendices gave me content I hadn't seen acted out before in other mediums.

I could have done with a LOT less shaky cam, though.  Some scenes were pretty hard to watch since the camera jumps so much it's hard to tell what you're looking at.

[nickmitch]

UGH! I hate shakey cam. It really hurt my experience watching The Hunger Games (before the actual games started) and made me flat out not like Public Enemies.

[ThePerm]

I always thought 24 fps was the minimum the frame rate had to be for you eyes to see movement and not a series of pictures. I think I heard that in school, but don't remember too well. I could be wrong.

Don't forget to watch Open Your Eyes, the Spanish film that Vanilla Sky was based on. It even shares some of the same cast.

The guys on Box Office Poison had it as their movie of the month and said it was mostly a shot for shot remake, with little difference between the two.

its about 60frames for the average person, some people see at higher rates. Thats why tv's are often made at 60hz

[broodwars]

UGH! I hate shakey cam. It really hurt my experience watching The Hunger Games (before the actual games started) and made me flat out not like Public Enemies.

Thankfully, the shaky cam only appears a few times in the movies during some of the action sequences, and it's more "extremely quick pans" than a true "shaky cam".

[nickmitch]

Well, that I can certainly live with.

@Perm, that's interesting. I googled it a little and didn't really come up with a satisfying answer.

[ThePerm]

yeah, i googled it looking for a better source. Couldn't find one. Its something to note that you see much more stuff then you're allowed to perceive as well. Your brain filters a lot of stuff out, and can alter your perception of things.

http://www.simonslab.com/videos.html

[tendoboy1984]

because 24fps has an epic feel. When you up the framerate you start to see that its just a bunch of people acting on a set. Though I watched Blue Crush on a Sony tv where the frame rate was artificially upped, and it made the movie that much cooler.

It has also been argued by some that having less frames can make the experience more immersive. My understanding of the argument is that by having fewer frames the image on screen is less realistic and more dream like, and as a result audiences supposedly find it easier to suspend their disbelief and give themselves over to the story. I'm not sure how much of that I accept though.
 
As to why films were originally, and continue to be, shown at 24FPS, I read somewhere that it's merely arbitrary. 24 FPS happened to be the median frame output for projectors.

People bitch and complain about their video games not being "OMG 60 FPS!", but it's perfectly acceptable for movies to be less than 30 FPS? What's with the double standard? I find 30 frames to be perfectly fine for video games.

And the other thing I don't get is... Why are movies and TV shows still shot with film when home media has transitioned to digital formats and optical discs? If the rest of the world moved on from film, then can't the movie/TV industries make that transition too? You don't see music still being recorded on cassettes...

[TJ Spyke]

Many films are digital. There is a different film though, many movies look better on film and many directors prefer it.

[BranDonk Kong]

Movies and video games couldn't be any more different, tendoboy. There is no double standard, there are two, completely different, unrelated standards.

[Ceric]

yeah, i googled it looking for a better source. Couldn't find one. Its something to note that you see much more stuff then you're allowed to perceive as well. Your brain filters a lot of stuff out, and can alter your perception of things.

http://www.simonslab.com/videos.html

I feel accomplished.  I counted 15 passes and I saw the gorilla.
Now I couldn't tell you if the people in black even passed the ball.  I assumed they did.

@Tendoboy:
The real difference is that movie watching is passive and videogame playing is active.  I can judge how long it take for my button press to animation to happen.  Movie watching you just let flow over like a river going over a rock.