Movies No theaters in the US will show Gemini Man as it was meant to be seen

[TwinIon]

I know there isn't a great love for high frame rate in film (despite an ever growing love for it in games), but I remain very interested in what filmmakers can do with it. Ang Lee remains one of the few prominent directors pushing for different formats, shooting Gemini Man at an impressive in 4k at 120 FPS in 3D. However, no theater in the US will get that combination of specs. (They did bring in a special projector for the premier, and several screens in Asia will show it with all the bells and whistles).

 

There are 12 Dolby Cinema theaters in the US that will show the film at 120fps in 3D, but only at 2K resolution. Those theaters are listed in the article.

 

All other HFR (high frame rate) showings, including IMAX and Dolby Cinema, will be at 60fps, also in 2K.

 

2D showings will be at a standard 24fps, but they will be in 4K.

 

With a 38% on RT with only 34 reviews, I don't think I'm going to be able to justify going up to LA to see this in 120fps. There are a few theaters around me that will show it at 60fps, so I might venture farther than normal to try that out.

 

We still don't know what higher frame rate Avatar 2 will be shown in, and Cameron has been teasing glasses free 3D for a while now. Maybe that film will convince theaters to invest in some new projectors.

[Greatoneshere]

Man, poor Ang Lee. I miss good Ang Lee. Crouching Tiger alone remains a high watermark of filmmaking, and he's made so many other gems.

[Zaku3]

PowerDVD has a setting for 24FPS and I couldn't take it. Perhaps my TV just doesn't like that refresh rate but everything looked off.

[skillzdadirecta]

1 hour ago, TwinIon said:

I know there isn't a great love for high frame rate in film (despite an ever growing love for it in games), but I remain very interested in what filmmakers can do with it. Ang Lee remains one of the few prominent directors pushing for different formats, shooting Gemini Man at an impressive in 4k at 120 FPS in 3D. However, no theater in the US will get that combination of specs. (They did bring in a special projector for the premier, and several screens in Asia will show it with all the bells and whistles).

 

There are 12 Dolby Cinema theaters in the US that will show the film at 120fps in 3D, but only at 2K resolution. Those theaters are listed in the article.

 

All other HFR (high frame rate) showings, including IMAX and Dolby Cinema, will be at 60fps, also in 2K.

 

2D showings will be at a standard 24fps, but they will be in 4K.

 

With a 38% on RT with only 34 reviews, I don't think I'm going to be able to justify going up to LA to see this in 120fps. There are a few theaters around me that will show it at 60fps, so I might venture farther than normal to try that out.

 

We still don't know what higher frame rate Avatar 2 will be shown in, and Cameron has been teasing glasses free 3D for a while now. Maybe that film will convince theaters to invest in some new projectors.

 

Hmmm... the Century City theater isn't far from me at all. I was thinking about checking this out anyway Thursday or Friday. May go see it there.

[Keyser_Soze]

@sblfilms will be the only theater in the country to do it right.

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

@sblfilms will be the only theater in the country to do it right.

Yes, glorious 4K 24fps

[johnny]

I read that it was kinda distracting watching with that many frames since we are used to much less 

[Spork3245]

I loved The Hobbit in HFR. I wish there was a way to view the handful of movies shot in HFR at home, but, to my knowledge, all home releases are at 24fps.

[Bacon]

People only dislike the higher frame rate because they aren't used to it.  No one can change my mind on this. 

[EternallDarkness]

I'm just ready for the damn film to be out, not because I really want to see it but because I am so sick of seeing the preview for it! Seriously the theaters near m have been showing the damn preview with every movie for like 9 months now!

[Keyser_Soze]

1 hour ago, EternallDarkness said:

I'm just ready for the damn film to be out, not because I really want to see it but because I am so sick of seeing the preview for it! Seriously the theaters near m have been showing the damn preview with every movie for like 9 months now!

 

There is no PERFECT version of me.

[Greatoneshere]

5 hours ago, Bacon said:

People only dislike the higher frame rate because they aren't used to it.  No one can change my mind on this. 

 

No, it's bad because costume desginers, set designers, production designers haven't found a way to make things not look like you are just shooting a behind-the-scenes documentary on a set when something is shot at 48+ FPS. Sure, we aren't used to it either, but there are technical aspects that haven't adapted either. Why even bother anyway? Things are fine in their current FPS.

[TwinIon]

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

No, it's bad because costume desginers, set designers, production designers haven't found a way to make things not look like you are just shooting a behind-the-scenes documentary on a set when something is shot at 48+ FPS. Sure, we aren't used to it either, but there are technical aspects that haven't adapted either. Why even bother anyway? Things are fine in their current FPS.

At 24fps there is very much an artificial distance created between the viewer and the film. The quality of the projection, the lack of depth, the motion blur from the frame rate; they all serve to create a separation between us and what we're seeing. Certainly there is a built up expectation that we've adapted to, and I think it absolutely can work to the art form's advantage. However, I also think there is something to the idea that removing those barriers could prove to be an interesting tool for artists. If watching a film really could look like you were seeing it through a window, I think it would change the potential impact of a film. Higher frame rates are only a single piece of that puzzle, but I think it's an interesting idea that I'd love to see become reality. 

 

I think there's a good chance that it's a technique that would work only sparingly, but could be incredibly effective if the tech was there. I can imagine a movie like Victoria, a single shot movie made primarily in real locations, could be really amazing. Maybe it becomes something used sparingly like Black and White, maybe it becomes the new standard, either way, I do think there is room in the artform for different capture and display tech that could really become an amazing tool for directors to manipulate the audience.

 

You're right that, even if the tech was perfect, the rest of the production process would need to catch up, but I think that's doable.

[CitizenVectron]

6 hours ago, Bacon said:

People only dislike the higher frame rate because they aren't used to it.  No one can change my mind on this. 

 

I think it really places a lot of extra stress on CGI, especially in action scenes. It's like how when we moved to HD everyone noticed the low-quality sets on local news, etc. With regular blur at 24/30fps, it's easier to kind of ignore faults in the CGI/animation, but at higher frame rates those issues stand out.

[Greatoneshere]

1 minute ago, TwinIon said:

At 24fps there is very much an artificial distance created between the viewer and the film. The quality of the projection, the lack of depth, the motion blur from the frame rate; they all serve to create a separation between us and what we're seeing. Certainly there is a built up expectation that we've adapted to, and I think it absolutely can work to the art form's advantage. However, I also think there is something to the idea that removing those barriers could prove to be an interesting tool for artists. If watching a film really could look like you were seeing it through a window, I think it would change the potential impact of a film. Higher frame rates are only a single piece of that puzzle, but I think it's an interesting idea that I'd love to see become reality. 

 

I think there's a good chance that it's a technique that would work only sparingly, but could be incredibly effective if the tech was there. I can imagine a movie like Victoria, a single shot movie made primarily in real locations, could be really amazing. Maybe it becomes something used sparingly like Black and White, maybe it becomes the new standard, either way, I do think there is room in the artform for different capture and display tech that could really become an amazing tool for directors to manipulate the audience.

 

You're right that, even if the tech was perfect, the rest of the production process would need to catch up, but I think that's doable.

 

I don't disagree on any point, but we're clearly not there yet. That doesn't mean I don't think people should try, but maybe account for all those other issues. Also, best to make sure the film is still compelling in 24fps so the film isn't just a gimmick and yet even that doesn't seem to be done.

[skillzdadirecta]

Film doesn't look like real life because it's not supposed to. What helps us suspend disbelief IS the dreamlike quality that film exibits and the frame rate is part of that puzzle. I stare at high frame rate footage everyday and while it does look great for some things, particularly documentary footage, sports and other non fiction projects, it is a hindrance for fiction. Can that change? Sure. Art is subjective and artists always adapt to the technology as it advances... but I don't think anyone wants their movies to look like British Television  We probably won't see any real change until the next generation of filmmakers who came of age during the digital revolution replace all of old guard. The kids who are making movies on their phones and editing on their laptops and posting to youtube for fun. Those will be the kids to really shake things up.

[Brick]

Higher framerates also don't look right because it gets rid of natural looking motion blur that our eyes create in everyday life. Test it out yourself by waving your hand really fast out in front of you, and you'll see it blur, but watch a video of that at 60fps and you will still see the hand clearly. High framerates are good for things like sports so you can easily follow the puck or ball, and obviously for games because of the input from you the player, but it serves no purpose in a passive format like film. Plus no matter how realistic the film is, even if it's based on true events, it's still a fantasy because it's a movie, so why would I want it to look like real life, and be all jarring because of it, Esp. when things like higher framerates are doing the opposite of making it look like real life because of those things I mentioned, only bringing me out of the experience, and making me lose my suspension of disbelief because something doesn't look right? 

[skillzdadirecta]

I just watched Will Smith on The Late Show and Colbert was saying how he saw the movie in Ang Lee's screening room the way it was meant to be seen and he said it LITERALLY looks like real life. He was very complimentary but I got the feeling that he would have preferred to see it in a traditional format and even said that he wanted to see it again at 24fps. Now I'm REALLY curious. 

[Guest]

Lighting higher frame rate stuff is also different, and I think trying to light for a bunch of different finish frame rates hurts the overall look of the film  

[Kal-El814]

24fps was initially settled on because of a compromise between motion looking convincing at that speed and the cost of film stock, right? Only superficially related to the topic, but I'd heard that before and figured one of you would know.

[skillzdadirecta]

7 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

24fps was initially settled on because of a compromise between motion looking convincing at that speed and the cost of film stock, right? Only superficially related to the topic, but I'd heard that before and figured one of you would know.

 

That was part of it and in fact, Thomas Edison pushed for the standard frame rate to be 46 frames per second. Here's an article that gives a good overview and also explains why higher frame rates work for games but might not be the best option for fiction film.

 

https://www.filmindependent.org/blog/hacking-film-24-frames-per-second/

[skillzdadirecta]

Another thing that Will Smith said that I kinda agree with is that the reason Ang Lee is pushing the technology is because he realizes how good home theaters have gotten and that he wants to give audiences an experience they can ONLY get in theaters. That is actually not a bad rationale for pushing the limits of the tech although I'm not sure if higher framerates are the way to go. But I DO think this film is intended to be seen in 3D as well... not just with the higher framerate and the high fps may be beneficial to a 3D experience.

[number305]

11 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Another thing that Will Smith said that I kinda agree with is that the reason Ang Lee is pushing the technology is because he realizes how good home theaters have gotten and that he wants to give audiences an experience they can ONLY get in theaters. That is actually not a bad rationale for pushing the limits of the tech although I'm not sure if higher framerates are the way to go. But I DO think this film is intended to be seen in 3D as well... not just with the higher framerate and the high fps may be beneficial to a 3D experience.

There are obviously people here that could comment on that better than me... but that never stopped me before :)

 

It seems to me this would work against theater owners.  Needing to have extremely expensive upgrades to show what is right now just this one movie is not going to really drive much traffic to your theater.  And even if this was to become the next cool thing that everyone needed to see in a theater - they would obviously just start selling equipment so you could watch it that way at home too.  So in the end it would be a very costly upgrade for the theater with a very narrow opportunity to recoup the costs. 

[skillzdadirecta]

1 minute ago, number305 said:

There are obviously people here that could comment on that better than me... but that never stopped me before

 

It seems to me this would work against theater owners.  Needing to have extremely expensive upgrades to show what is right now just this one movie is not going to really drive much traffic to your theater.  And even if this was to become the next cool thing that everyone needed to see in a theater - they would obviously just start selling equipment so you could watch it that way at home too.  So in the end it would be a very costly upgrade for the theater with a very narrow opportunity to recoup the costs. 

 

Yeah this technology that he's using isn't cost effective for most home consumers just yet, it isn't even cost effective for most theaters yet... it will be eventually but most people are JUST now getting 2K and 4K TV's and still predominately watch 720p programming on them. Yes it is very costly for theaters to upgrade, which is why they haven't done it yet, but the what Ang lee seems to be saying is that if you don't give people a reason to go to the theater, they won't especially when they can get a similar experience in their homes.

[number305]

1 hour ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

Yeah this technology that he's using isn't cost effective for most home consumers just yet, it isn't even cost effective for most theaters yet... it will be eventually but most people are JUST now getting 2K and 4K TV's and still predominately watch 720p programming on them. Yes it is very costly for theaters to upgrade, which is why they haven't done it yet, but the what Ang lee seems to be saying is that if you don't give people a reason to go to the theater, they won't especially when they can get a similar experience in their homes.

I'm not real sure that HFR is going to drive people.  3D is maybe more of a gimmick that might get people in the door.  Especially for younger people it seems they are content to watch content on an ipad or mobile screen - even if they are a few feet away from a nice 4k tv hanging on the wall.

 

I do enjoy the theater experience for some movies.  But I fear for it's future.  I can see it going down the same path of newspapers and magazines.

[skillzdadirecta]

31 minutes ago, number305 said:

I'm not real sure that HFR is going to drive people.  3D is maybe more of a gimmick that might get people in the door.  Especially for younger people it seems they are content to watch content on an ipad or mobile screen - even if they are a few feet away from a nice 4k tv hanging on the wall.

 

I do enjoy the theater experience for some movies.  But I fear for it's future.  I can see it going down the same path of newspapers and magazines.

 

It's not JUST high frame rate though... it's the HFR combined with the 4K resolution combined with the 3D  and it supposedly looks like looking outside your window. I don't know if it's a selling point OR if it looks good or if it will drive folks to theaters. What I DO know is that Ang Lee, Cameron and others are looking for things to differentiate the theater going experience from the home experience. It's one of the reason why anamorphic was introduced as a format when TV's became widely available and folks were worried that THAT would be the downfall of cinema

[SuperSpreader]

No worries, no one is gonna see this one anyway

[johnny]

6 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

It's not JUST high frame rate though... it's the HFR combined with the 4K resolution combined with the 3D  and it supposedly looks like looking outside your window. I don't know if it's a selling point OR if it looks good or if it will drive folks to theaters. What I DO know is that Ang Lee, Cameron and others are looking for things to differentiate the theater going experience from the home experience. It's one of the reason why anamorphic was introduced as a format when TV's became widely available and folks were worried that THAT would be the downfall of cinema

I wish I could see it how it’s intended. My theatre has 3D and “high frame rate” labeled on fandango. Probably will check it out. 

[number305]

16 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

It's not JUST high frame rate though... it's the HFR combined with the 4K resolution combined with the 3D  and it supposedly looks like looking outside your window. I don't know if it's a selling point OR if it looks good or if it will drive folks to theaters. What I DO know is that Ang Lee, Cameron and others are looking for things to differentiate the theater going experience from the home experience. It's one of the reason why anamorphic was introduced as a format when TV's became widely available and folks were worried that THAT would be the downfall of cinema

In my opinion the secret sauce for getting people to theaters is good exclusive content.  If there is a fantastic movie and the only way you can see it (for at least several months) is by going to a theater then you will put butts in the seats.  I'm not convinced any of the gimmicks drive people much.  

 

The problem theaters are facing that is new and unprecedented is that the best movie of this fall is going to be on Netflix (the Irishman).

[skillzdadirecta]

1 hour ago, number305 said:

In my opinion the secret sauce for getting people to theaters is good exclusive content.  If there is a fantastic movie and the only way you can see it (for at least several months) is by going to a theater then you will put butts in the seats.  I'm not convinced any of the gimmicks drive people much.  

 

The problem theaters are facing that is new and unprecedented is that the best movie of this fall is going to be on Netflix (the Irishman).

 

You could very well be right except theatrical distribution has done this in the past and it worked... as I said anamorphic filming format, 3-D and other "gimmicks" were created to differentiate the theater going experience from watching television at home. As I said, you could be right, but this line of thinking is not without precedent.

[number305]

51 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

You could very well be right except theatrical distribution has done this in the past and it worked... as I said anamorphic filming format, 3-D and other "gimmicks" were created to differentiate the theater going experience from watching television at home. As I said, you could be right, but this line of thinking is not without precedent.

Well I have never claimed to be original      I'm not really prognosticating... just discussing.  I hope theaters stay around.  They make for a fun Friday night sometimes.

 

Streaming has already hurt them.  Scorsese I think is putting more pressure on 'Cinema' than Marvel has recently by going the Netflix route.  Disney could easily decide to debut one of their tentpole flix on Disney+ to drive more subscribers.  That is probably more likely than not eventually.  All of that is going to put a crunch on theaters.

[skillzdadirecta]

6 minutes ago, number305 said:

Well I have never claimed to be original      I'm not really prognosticating... just discussing.  I hope theaters stay around.  They make for a fun Friday night sometimes.

 

Streaming has already hurt them.  Scorsese I think is putting more pressure on 'Cinema' than Marvel has recently by going the Netflix route.  Disney could easily decide to debut one of their tentpole flix on Disney+ to drive more subscribers.  That is probably more likely than not eventually.  All of that is going to put a crunch on theaters.

 

This is a GREAT point that no one is really talking about. I think he'd argue that he had to because the studios wouldn't finance his film but other filmmakers have actually turned down deals with some of the big streaming giants because they wanted to still have their films screened in theaters. As far as Disney is concerned, @sblfilms can speak more tom this than me but it wouldn't really make sense for Disney to forego theatrical releases entirely because they would be leaving money on the table. The only way that makes sense is if they adopted a "pay-per-view" pricing model and released their films at a higher cost exclusively for home viewing than just bundling them in their service. Disney has arguably kept the theatrical model alive the last couple of years between their Marvel film, Star Wars films, Pixar and their Live action adaptations. People have been predicting the death of theaters for decades... since before either of us was born... and while attendance will ebb and flow, I don't think it will ever disappeer completely.  The number of screens may shrink but people will always go to the movies.

 

I do think that content is key and that it's going to get harder and harder for filmmakers to convince audiences to go to see films that aren't "event" films or spectacles.

[skillzdadirecta]

Holy shit this script has been around since 97?? Damn.

[nublood]

Movie looks very 3 stars on Netflix for me. Unless you've always wanted to see old Will Smith battle the Fresh Prince of Bel Air.

[Spork3245]

1 hour ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Holy shit this script has been around since 97?? Damn.

 

Yea, they had to wait 22 years for Smith to age so he could play both parts.