|
|
This topic comprises 10 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
|
|
Author
|
Topic: HFR in 2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Connor Wilson
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 190
From: Sterling, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2011
|
posted 12-08-2013 02:14 PM
No, that's the theater, Jon.
Terry, my experiences with RPX/Atmos have been much, much better than ETX/Atmos. I would certainly go the extra miles for RPX/Atmos in that theater. No harsh EQ, nothing overpowering, just a clean, powerful-sounding theater. The Atmos setup in Tyson's is- based on my experiences- puny and too loud compared to Kingstowne.
And I am skeptic about the 100,000 watts thing. It could be marketing BS.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 12-08-2013 10:40 PM
quote:
nd I am skeptic about the 100,000 watts thing. It could be marketing BS.
It's probably marketing BS done by some guy who, in the 1980s, thought his car stereo was badass because he had an amp that "puts out 1000 watts" and probably had no clue about what criteria was used to make that measurement.
Besides, wattage is only part of the picture. You can have 100,000 watts and still have crappy speakers, bad dampening, shitty alignment, blown drivers, etc etc.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 12-09-2013 09:30 AM
quote:
I did a query for showtimes for 12/13/2013 for all the variations of "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" and here are the number of unique theaters showing each:
It turns out that the theatres showing Hobbit DOS in HFR have doubled.
‘Hobbit’ Sequel’s High Frame Rate Theaters Nearly Doubled – But Warner Bros. Keeps It Quiet
Thousands of theaters will show “Desolation of Smaug” at director Peter Jackson’s preferred speed, but Warner Bros. and Jackson hope the divisive format stays out of the spotlight.
“The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug” arrives in theaters next week with a marketing blitz reserved for billion-dollar franchises, but a key aspect of the fantasy sequel is sneaking through unnoticed.
Director Peter Jackson shot the film at 48 frames per second, double the standard speed, in an attempt to make its 3D crisper and more realistic. The first “Hobbit” film was shown at the higher frame rate — one of a half dozen different formats viewers could watch it in – and Jackson hailed it as the future of film.
The studio is substantially expanding the number of theaters this time around. As many as 750 theaters will exhibit “The Desolation of Smaug” in the enhanced projection — up from roughly 450 theaters the first time.
The growth overseas is even more impressive, as “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug” will screen on almost 2,500 screens internationally — up from 1,669 last time.
Despite those increases, discussion around his use of higher frame rates has been virtually non-existent in recent months. That stands in sharp contrast to a year ago, when dissections on the merits of faster shooting and projection dominated many stories leading up to the release of 2012′s “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.”
“The issue with the last one was the focus in a lot of the press was on the format and not the movie,” Warner Bros. domestic distribution chief Dan Fellman told TheWrap. “This time we downplay the formats and are playing up the movie.”
Jackson has acknowledged that they want to shift the focus with the sequel, telling a reporter at a recent premiere of the film that “technology drove a lot of the reviews” last time.
Critics screenings for “Desolation of Smaug” were offered in standard projection, so that it will not factor into reviews. Some major exhibitors have opted not to stress the higher frame rate screenings with expansive splash pages as they did before, even though they will continue to offer the film at the higher speed.
The reticence to bang the drum for higher frame rates is filtering into the online buzz around the film. Last year, at a similar point prior to “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey”s’ debut, conversation about the films amped up frame rates on Twitter, Facebook and other digital platforms were eight times more prevalent than they are as its sequel gets ready to launch, according to social media tracker Fizziology.
“There’s almost no social conversation and buzz around frame rates this year,” Ben Carlson, Fizziology’s president and co-creator, said. “That may be indicative of a change in strategy…the smallness of the high frame rate conversation seems to signal it’s not as big a part of the marketing and publicity.”
Carlson said that once the last film debuted, reactions across the web were evenly divided between those who thought it made the 3D imagery pop and others who argued that it left them feeling dizzy.
The absence of chatter about the film’s higher frame rate may be attributable to its lack of “newness,” but there’s no question the studio wants to avoid the great debate that greeted the release of the first “Hobbit” film.
“You don’t want to lead with your chin,” as one former studio executive put it.
A special high frame rate sneak peek at the exhibition trade show Cinemacon in April, 2012 sparked a wave of withering articles and left the studio scrambling to put out public relations fires.
The discussion over the benefits and demerits of the new technology also dominated many reviews, leaving some critics like New York magazine’s David Edelstein, who likened it to “tatty summer-stock theater,” and Slate’s Dana Stevens, who compared it to an ’”80s-era home video,” unimpressed.
Part of the problem was the hype, as Jackson, James Cameron and other prominent filmmakers rhapsodized about how 48 frames per second represented the next revolution in filmmaking — a step forward that was analogous to the introduction of sound and color and the growing popularity of 3D.
(Cameron, who will shoot his follow-ups to “Avatar” at higher frame rates, is one of the only prominent filmmakers to follow Jackson’s lead.)
The controversy had no impact on the film’s bottom line, as “An Unexpected Journey” still grossed more than $1 billion worldwide. Yet the lack of conversation this go round has been noticeable.
“They seem a little gun shy after what happened the last time,” a rival studio executive said.
The mixed reaction didn’t scare off the major theater chains. A spokesman for AMC Theaters, which offered the higher frame rate versions of the first film in roughly 140 theaters, said it will screen 48 frame copies in “dozens and dozens” of theaters this time.
Regal Cinemas is the most bullish, expanding from 100 locations for the first film to nearly 400 high frame rate compatible theaters this go-round and reporting strong sales as a result.
“With the original ‘Hobbit,’ we kept selling out of tickets for our high frame rate auditoriums,” Russ Nunley, a spokesman for Regal, said. ” There was a huge demand from moviegoers who wanted to see the film exactly the way director Peter Jackson shot it.”
Likewise, IMAX will double the number of screens with the technology to more than 100 worldwide, IMAX Entertainment CEO Greg Foster told TheWrap. He said that number will rise, because the company is still determining screen counts in China.
Some exhibitors remain conflicted about its value even as they have expanded the number of theaters that can screen higher frame rate productions.
“Some theater owners were fine with it,” an exhibition executive said. “But except for people who are really, really into that kind of experience, it’s not a big draw.”
At a reported cost of $10,000 to update equipment to screen films at 48 frames per second, it represents a relatively small expenditure for the bigger chains. Still, the format does not exert the same pull on audiences that 3D or IMAX, with their premium ticket prices, enjoy.
Fellman agreed, suggesting most moviegoers don’t consider format when selecting a particular showing of a film. Those who do care will go out of their way to see it at the higher frame rate.
They will just have to find those theaters on their own.
“We’re not going out of our way to spell out the pros and cons of every format,” Fellman said. “It’s there; it’s one of a variety of formats.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 12-09-2013 04:21 PM
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Some of the reviews are appearing, it seems some critics are liking the HFR this time around.
Has anything changed with the implementation?
I wonder how many people would object to the first one in HFR, now that some time has passed and less a big deal is being made of the whole affair.
I had no issues with it the first time around, so I expect none this time either. I do wish that I could see it in HFR, Atmos, and 2D, but that's not gonna happen, so I guess I get to pick the first two and be happy with that. The 3D in the first one wasn't bad, but it wasn't necessary either.
As of today, we're up to 652/23 theaters for Thursday (3D/3D IMAX) and 409/18 for Friday.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 10 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
and expect it to not be brain (and ear) assaultive - you can't hear the nuance of the mixing if every other sound element drowns it out. Tysons' may have the larger screen, but one it's not High Frame rate (only the IMAX screen is), and two it's just too damn loud.
Printer-friendly view of this topic