MovieChat Forums > Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk (2016) Discussion > Who did see it in 120 fps 4K 3D ? Where?

Who did see it in 120 fps 4K 3D ? Where?


Please write a short report about the experience.

And where you saw it.

What was the audience reaction like?

Does the technology work better in the war scenes ?

Did you sit close to the screen ?


Thanks!

reply

I saw it tonight at Lincoln Square in that format (first showing of general release, and my brother and sister saw it earlier at New York Film Festival).

Audience reaction was mostly positive though did hear one person who thought it made the picture look like a soap opera, indeed it worked best in the war scenes and wide open environments where you could really appreciate the image detail and depth (the halftime sequence was another standout), and I sat in the sixth row.

reply

I just saw it at the Arclight Hollywood last night in the Cinerama Dome.

Obviously everyone who is there is excited to see what it looks like. They're talking about the frame rate before it starts.

And then it starts. The first shot is not 120fps, it is a quick shot from a pixelated consumer camcorder showing War footage and then BOOM! The movie starts.

When the audience saw the first shot, we kinda freaked out in a good way. The guy next to me made that noise that you make when you've just seen something impressive and humbling, sort of a drawn out single laugh.

I was shocked. The one word to describe it is CLARITY. I've never seen anything so crystal clear in my life. It looked mre real than real life. The 3D was jaw droppingl. I even did that thing where you shut one eye and then to other to see if there is parallax with the foreground and background, and there was (meaning it was shot with 3D cameras).

The movement was perfectly smooth. You never realize how blurry a regular movie is until you see this. I saw The Hobbit in 48 FPS and it was nothing like this. That felt like what My Bloody Valentine 3D was compared to Avatar 3D.

As for the technology and how it should be used, here she the thing. The movie kinda sucks unfortunately so I can't really say if it should have been used the whole time or not. I'd have to see it used with a better movie.

But the war scene... Jesus, the war scene. There was a 10 minute sequence near the end of the movie that blew everyone's minds. It was the most intense war scene I've ever seen in my life. That is as close to war as I ever want to get. I used to think Saving Private Ryan was intense and felt real because of the stuttering frame rate and sound design and everything, but this movie literally takes you there and puts you in the middle. This entire movie should have been a war movie and it would be winning the Oscar, I guarantee it.

I didn't sit super close to the screen. I had the entire screen in my field of view and it literally felt like I was looking through a window into real life. The characters seem to be floating in front of me.

If you live close to New York or Los Angeles, please see this movie. Overall the story kinda sucks but the visuals are incredible. Just that war sequence by itself is well worth the price of admission. Every single person in the theater was stuck to their seat in silence.

reply

Thank you very much !

I'm dying to see this myself, but I'm in Europe...

It sounds awesome.

reply

Don't worry, this was just the first stab at something like this. When Avatar 2 comes out it is going to look even better than this and blow everyone's *beep* minds away.

reply

Doesn't sound like you've seen Hacksaw Ridge

reply

That movie was crap.

reply

I was going to skip it, but if YOU think it's crap then it must be excellent. I'm going to have to check it out now.

http://www.pro-rock.com/

reply

This entire movie should have been a war movie and it would be winning the Oscar, I guarantee it.


I can't believe I'm saying this but I really do agree with you. I could EASILY see this film going so much further if they focused more on the war scenes. A damn shame.

reply

Your report is interesting (I only had the 2D 24fps version available in my city). I went to the second two "Hobbit" movies in 48fps 3D, and did not like the experience, although I love regular 3D. You mention the clarity, but what I'm still trying to determine is why anyone would want to have such clarity, aside from it being a gimmick. Film is about unreality. A "more real than reality" picture such as you describe is not necessarily desirable no matter what genre of film it is.

-----------------------------
"Walker told me I have AIDS."
--Haley Joel Osment

reply

You mention the clarity, but what I'm still trying to determine is why anyone would want to have such clarity, aside from it being a gimmick. Film is about unreality. A "more real than reality" picture such as you describe is not necessarily desirable no matter what genre of film it is.


To put things simply, this is the same type of thinking that opposed sound and color. Literally the very same thoughts you just expressed were being expressed almost a century ago when we were shifting from silent to sound and from black and white to color. These things were considered gimmicks for their time until enough directors eventually accepted the newest technology and the rest became history. People are naturally averse to change, and that's precisely why it's up to the filmmakers to shape the future, not the viewers. If the clarity can help enhance a storyteller's vision then all the better.

___
PSN ID: Kev_Cypunk

reply

That's not the same thing and you know that. I would like to have viewed "Billy" in its intended format to actually appraise it, but it wasn't available. I can only judge the two HFR films I did go to -- the second two "Hobbits". Obviously audiences and distributors did not like this format, and the critical reaction to "Billy" in the super-HFR has been quite negative. "X-Men: Days of Future Past" was shot in HFR but not released in it, which has to tell you something. It's a guarantee that it's not a gimmick that is going to catch on.

The HFR negates cinematography. Movies are lit and certain lenses are used to make a scene look a certain way, to create an unreal/real world. Then the HFR comes along and destroys all that because it makes things look hyper-real to the point of fakeness. As many have said, it looks like video, which is not desirable. Movies today are shot on digital video, and the filmmakers try to soften it to look like film because that's what is desirable, and not just because we're used to it. HFR makes video look like video.

-----------------------------
"Walker told me I have AIDS."
--Haley Joel Osment

reply

Movie makers will adapt to higher digital resolutions and frame rates in the same way they adapted from black and white and silent to color and sound. Innovation in technology always requires more effort to be made but that does not mean it should be avoided. These next few years will be the proving grounds for what it's capable of and once this gets the push it deserves it'll go mainstream and be accepted as the new standard. Cinema really needs this right now. When TV came movie theaters attracted audiences with 70mm widescreen epics. Now with internet streaming keeping people at home this industry needs something new to get people to go out and watch something on the big screen again.

___
PSN ID: Kev_Cypunk

reply

Saw this at the Arclight Dome in Hollywood last week.

I’ve seen all the Hobbit films in HFR and just had to compare, especially something being presented at 5 times the normal rate. The only way I can describe the experience was that I felt like I was watching a live high quality 3D documentary, especially the dialogue and war scenes. At times there were several people in a shot and some of the actors looked a little distorted. Some of the other scenes like the stadium pre half time ones, looked like I was almost watching real life but with limited vision through a window. Since my peripheral vision can still see the entire room, that just added to reality not being convincing enough. The stadium halftime scenes looked great, like I was watching a high res live concert. There was a cheerleader scene where they meet the soldiers prior to the show and the women looked so amazing! I immediately thought of how an erotic film would work quite well in this format. And yes this was probably the best 3D I’ve ever seen and I usually avoid 3D.

I think this would work great for Sci-Fi films with a heavy amount of images or a concert movie, but even better would be a Virtual Reality head set where there is no outside distraction. Then we would be talking something truly amazing!

reply

I think this would work great for Sci-Fi films with a heavy amount of images


I'm a film student and if I ever succeed I intend to use a really powerful camera to shoot my science fiction idea at the highest available resolution/fps of the time. Look out for a cyberpunk epic within the next decade projecting at a super smooth frame rate, that's how you'll know if I made it or not. I don't think directors are fully taking advantage of what this digital technology can easily do nowadays but it seems to be starting now. We just have to give it time to grow. It's good to see audiences are accepting the future of cinema way more readily than the snobby press is, just gives me more motivation to do what I want to do.

___
PSN ID: Kev_Cypunk

reply

I also saw it at the AMC at Lincoln Square in NYC.

The reactions of the audience were quite normal for the most part except for one specific war scene towards the end (which I believe is the scene CrzyCobb mentioned). I literally jumped in my seat and gasped; I was almost embarrassed by the way I reacted until I realized that a few people around me had acted the same way.

I have mixed feelings about this movie in general because I found myself arrested by the war scenes. However, many of the more standard scenes (ie. the sequence with Steve Martin's character in his sort of office) felt sort of awkward. The big stadium scenes were kind of a mixed bag. The wide shots during the concert were stunningly clear, and I'd love to see this technology be used for a concert movie. I really felt as if I was there watching the concert myself. The closer shots - sometimes extras closer to the camera looked off and stood out for the wrong reasons? It reminded me of an old video game or something where they'd only animate the characters closest to the front of a crowd and kind of make everyone else in the crowd unanimously blend into a collective pack.

Some of the more typical shots you'd find in almost any movie looked totally different and gave a completely different feeling. Off the top of my head, I can think of two moments where Billy is standing in place and there's a 360 pan shot focused on his face. Again, I got a weird feeling of disconnect and artificiality because the movement of the camera is so fluid. It made me think of a customization screen in a video game like The Sims where you can rotate your character and put clothes and accessories on them. This almost sounds ridiculous when I type it out but it was noticeably unusual to me.

I think I was in the 10th row of seats. I had to pick my seat before I walked in without seeing the inside of the theatre which seems to be standard at AMCs in Manhattan now (ew). When the previews came on, I initially had second thoughts about ending up so close to the screen because I almost always pick something way further back. Thinking about it now, I think I made the right choice. It definitely added to the realness of the visuals and the overall experience.

reply

Digital Video garbage. This is not film. This is video/television on steroids.

It's time for a backlash against digital photography, motion pictures, music, sfx

reply