It was, but he has also done all of the Underworlds and the Total Recall remake so I'm guessing Live Free or Die Hard was a fluke more than anything
I was going to say I liked the Total Recall remake, however that might be an unfair thing to do since now I think about it I realise I remember nothing about it other than Kate Beckinsale being kind of baller.
This video seems to do a pretty good visual comparison, make sure you have the setting set to at least 720p48fps. Can you still not see the difference?
(Note that this is an application where the 48fps won't look as weird and alien as it would for a something staged)
the fourth die hard movie is awesome. bruce willis laughs essentially for the whole movie and the character seems completely aware that he is in a movie
I loved the third one when it came out, but I recently watched it again and now I think it's my least favorite (not counting 5, because I'm never watching it).
It just falls all the way apart once it gets to the dump truck and school stuff in the second half.
the fourth die hard movie is awesome. bruce willis laughs essentially for the whole movie and the character seems completely aware that he is in a movie
That little laugh when he gets off the jet is so sublime
I saw The Hobbit in HFR and it blew my mind. My brain wanted nothing to do with it at first. The opening shots of Bilbo in his home opening a trunk looked absolutely comical, like it was set to fast-forward. I am still convinced that that scene WAS being played too fast. But the shot of the water when the group reaches Rivendell was one of the most beautiful things I had ever seen. In HFR 3D it looked like you could reach out and get your hands wet.
I'm convinced that HFR will eventually be "figured out" and used for certain experiences. I seriously want to visit the alternate dimension where The Force Awakens is in HFR 3D.
This video seems to do a pretty good visual comparison, make sure you have the setting set to at least 720p48fps. Can you still not see the difference?
(Note that this is an application where the 48fps won't look as weird and alien as it would for a something staged)
I can't tell. Granted I do wear glasses and my vision's not the best but I couldn't point to a single difference. I didn't see what the big deal with The Hobbit was either. Not saying this is great news, if I had to choose between the world slowly fading away into a blur over the passage of years and watching an occasional movie that was visually annoying, I'd choose the latter every time.
0
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
Still seems like total conjecture to me.
Like, I wouldn't be surprised, and the X-Men have a massive enough universe that I think Fox could pull it off
Ive never understood the 'all this person can do is play (their name)' complaint
Some of the most fun people on screen ever do that
Walken, Connery, Willis, jack nicholson.. its not really a problem as long as they're cast right
Christopher Walken is an amazingly good actor. And it's up to personal preference whether that's fun to watch or not. I like to see good actors and to see them deservedly succeed. Poor actors that fit a certain type perfectly cast over and over and over is dull as dishwater.
I seem to remember Bruce Willis being both good and funny in the Whole Nine Yards, and I know some of the dialogue scenes in that were completely improvised (such as when he goes on a tangent about the kind of vegetables he can grow in his garden).
What is this obsession with "fun", as if it was the ultimate goal of an actor or movie?
Some actors are good at the box office, and some actors are good at their craft, and I think that both should get the credit they deserve. Bruce Willis can sell a movie, he definitely deserves credit for it.
Having said that, Die Hard and all of its iterations are fun, and they are horrible movies at the same time.
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
+1
TrippyJingMoses supposes his toeses are roses.But Moses supposes erroneously.Registered Userregular
It absolutely can, and I love it when it is. Its just one side of it.
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
Jack Nicholson is one I'm always confused by people saying he always plays himself. He's been acting since the 1950s and actually has a pretty diverse portfolio behind him. Sure, in later years he kind of falls into just a few different types of characters, but that doesn't discount his earlier work and based on how he is in interviews and such I don't think "himself" really matches the few archetypes he still plays (for one, in real life he usually seems far happier and laid back then most of his actual roles where he is comically grumpy or serious & angry).
+3
FishmanPut your goddamned hand in the goddamned Box of Pain.Registered Userregular
edited October 2015
HFR is fantastic for sports, and there's little reason not to use it for docos, either. There's nothing particularly wrong with it for movies, either, except well, people are used to what they're used to.
Red do a great job dissecting the history, reasons, benefits, drawbacks, and possibilities of different framerates (with a bunch of examples that help make things clear) in their article on their site.
Jack Nicholson is one I'm always confused by people saying he always plays himself. He's been acting since the 1950s and actually has a pretty diverse portfolio behind him. Sure, in later years he kind of falls into just a few different types of characters, but that doesn't discount his earlier work and based on how he is in interviews and such I don't think "himself" really matches the few archetypes he still plays (for one, in real life he usually seems far happier and laid back then most of his actual roles where he is comically grumpy or serious & angry).
I get the same feeling with Robert Deniro, he may be typecast in a certain part of his career, but when you see him in interviews, he is a complete diferent person. And in his earlier, more diverse work, you can really see a huge range.
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
Here's a line that always gets me funny looks: Arnold Schwarzenegger is a good actor...under very specific circumstances.
To expand:
While he's played a fairly diverse range of characters, the range that he is good at is actually fairly narrow (though probably a little wider than most people immediately think). But he is good at that range. He's better at playing that specific narrow range of characters than many other people who would be incapable of selling it like he does.
Are those characters realistic human beings? Usually not in the slightest. But he's still good at portraying them as they are intended to be portrayed(which is his job), and was fortunate enough to get popular in an age where people weren't looking for portrayals of realistic human beings.
His timing is also a lot better that most people give him credit for (when he's playing a character that's in his zone at least, outside of that zone he has trouble with delivery that can mess things up even when his timing is still good).
Being yourself in front of eight cameras and three dozen crew members and scores of blinding lights while on a ludicrously tight timeline is so goddamn hard that using "he's just being himself" is the silliest, dumbest critique of an actor imaginable
Not to mention the prospect of selling a few million dollars worth of tickets with your "self" is not exactly a thing that anybody can do
+14
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
Being yourself in front of eight cameras and three dozen crew members and scores of blinding lights while on a ludicrously tight timeline is so goddamn hard that using "he's just being himself" is the silliest, dumbest critique of an actor imaginable
Not to mention the prospect of selling a few million dollars worth of tickets with your "self" is not exactly a thing that anybody can do
Some actors are legends for how naturalistic they are or were. Jimmy Stewart springs to mind.
This video seems to do a pretty good visual comparison, make sure you have the setting set to at least 720p48fps. Can you still not see the difference?
(Note that this is an application where the 48fps won't look as weird and alien as it would for a something staged)
If you pause this video when it's doing the side by side comparison the images look exactly the same. There should be much more motion blur on the 24ps shots so that they don't look jerky. Which makes me think they shot this at a shutter speed suited for 48 frames per second and just dropped some frames out for the comparison,
Which basically means, 24fps on any movie will look better than the 24fps here does.
Posts
I was going to say I liked the Total Recall remake, however that might be an unfair thing to do since now I think about it I realise I remember nothing about it other than Kate Beckinsale being kind of baller.
This video seems to do a pretty good visual comparison, make sure you have the setting set to at least 720p48fps. Can you still not see the difference?
(Note that this is an application where the 48fps won't look as weird and alien as it would for a something staged)
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
Absolutely. The first was the best, closely followed by the second, and the third is a little way behind, but still grea-
wut
It just falls all the way apart once it gets to the dump truck and school stuff in the second half.
That little laugh when he gets off the jet is so sublime
I'm convinced that HFR will eventually be "figured out" and used for certain experiences. I seriously want to visit the alternate dimension where The Force Awakens is in HFR 3D.
but it really does feel like self-parody that only bruce willis is aware of, and that made it work for me.
it's also the last thing kevin smith did that was worthwhile!
I never bothered with any of the others.
come at me
die hard IS incredibly stupid
Ugh, don't start this one.
Last time I suggested anything other than it was the best movie ever of all time the pitchforks and the torches came out.
but they're listening to every word I say
It's kind of meant to be exactly that goofy, as a result
Moonlighting is still Bruce Willis' best work though
the problem, tho, is that he was a terrible comedy actor.
really he's just an awful actor in anything. all he can play is bruce willis
I need heat, light and farm tools.
Some of the most fun people on screen ever do that
Walken, Connery, Willis, jack nicholson.. its not really a problem as long as they're cast right
Fox abandons movies for television dominance in that universe.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
I can't tell. Granted I do wear glasses and my vision's not the best but I couldn't point to a single difference. I didn't see what the big deal with The Hobbit was either. Not saying this is great news, if I had to choose between the world slowly fading away into a blur over the passage of years and watching an occasional movie that was visually annoying, I'd choose the latter every time.
Like, I wouldn't be surprised, and the X-Men have a massive enough universe that I think Fox could pull it off
But I'm gonna wait on something more official
Christopher Walken is an amazingly good actor. And it's up to personal preference whether that's fun to watch or not. I like to see good actors and to see them deservedly succeed. Poor actors that fit a certain type perfectly cast over and over and over is dull as dishwater.
Like, its great, don't get me wrong
but he does not exactly sink into his roles
Some actors are good at the box office, and some actors are good at their craft, and I think that both should get the credit they deserve. Bruce Willis can sell a movie, he definitely deserves credit for it.
Having said that, Die Hard and all of its iterations are fun, and they are horrible movies at the same time.
It absolutely can, and I love it when it is. Its just one side of it.
Red do a great job dissecting the history, reasons, benefits, drawbacks, and possibilities of different framerates (with a bunch of examples that help make things clear) in their article on their site.
I get the same feeling with Robert Deniro, he may be typecast in a certain part of his career, but when you see him in interviews, he is a complete diferent person. And in his earlier, more diverse work, you can really see a huge range.
you're still delivering lines and reacting to things in fun and interesting ways or giving a performance
just because its similar to your natural personality doesn't mean you aren't acting?
Ultron was not filmed at 60 frames per second so whatever you're watching has been modified in some way, perhaps through interpolated frames
Yeah, I would argue that every actor is, to some extent, playing themselves
That's a part of acting
Fox and Marvel have both refuted it now.
http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/fantastic-four/37372/update-fox-denies-fantastic-four-rumours#ixzz3oereZTx8
To expand:
While he's played a fairly diverse range of characters, the range that he is good at is actually fairly narrow (though probably a little wider than most people immediately think). But he is good at that range. He's better at playing that specific narrow range of characters than many other people who would be incapable of selling it like he does.
Are those characters realistic human beings? Usually not in the slightest. But he's still good at portraying them as they are intended to be portrayed(which is his job), and was fortunate enough to get popular in an age where people weren't looking for portrayals of realistic human beings.
His timing is also a lot better that most people give him credit for (when he's playing a character that's in his zone at least, outside of that zone he has trouble with delivery that can mess things up even when his timing is still good).
Not to mention the prospect of selling a few million dollars worth of tickets with your "self" is not exactly a thing that anybody can do
Some actors are legends for how naturalistic they are or were. Jimmy Stewart springs to mind.
That's pretty cool. And unexpected.
If you pause this video when it's doing the side by side comparison the images look exactly the same. There should be much more motion blur on the 24ps shots so that they don't look jerky. Which makes me think they shot this at a shutter speed suited for 48 frames per second and just dropped some frames out for the comparison,
Which basically means, 24fps on any movie will look better than the 24fps here does.