Gemini Man (2019)

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

I heard most of the action scenes look very staged and slow in 120FPS compared to the standard 24.

And this is the problem in a nutshell. As James Cameron has just stated, it’s just a tool to be used sparingly, not a new format. I agree 100%. The fact this film has flopped may mean that Hollywood will steer well clear of the HFR. I’m happy about that. I don’t want movie magic to become documentary like.

Many were saying Cameron would shoot the next Avatar in HFR but it appears only certain shots will feature the increased frame rate to enhance certain 3D shots. Good choice Jim!

[Talal86]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

The fact this film has flopped may mean that Hollywood will steer well clear of the HFR.

the HFR had nothing to do with its performance, though. I mean I can't see an average joe saying I won't watch this because the framerate is not 24fps

[Damon1281]

I liked the HFR. To me, the obvious stuttering particularly in panning shots at 24 frames, look like crap. Maybe they could find a rate that smoothed that out but avoided the soap opera affect. How about 35 FPS?

[pwarner184]

Aye, the frame rate stuff wasn't the issue; the issue was the dull, dull film it had been bolted onto.

[NARMAK]

Originally Posted by John The Grudge

24fps is stupid. Every film should be shot at 120fps. Modern OLED TVs have a native 120fps refresh rate. Motion is really rubbish at 24fps. It's hilarious reading reviews for this. They all seem to go over the top lauding how wonderful 24fps is and how fake anything higher looks. There's bugger all cinematic about crappy jerky motion.

24p is what gives things the "cinematic look" we're all so used to and moving into HFR throws that out the window for most folks which is why it's not going anywhere. Stuff in HFR ends up getting a "Soap Opera" effect and it will not let you hide certain things 24p could mask per the posts above if you get it wrong.

To me, as mentioned by James Cameron, HFR is a tool best used for specific scenarios. HFR also has its uses outside Hollywood movies relying on 24p for their cinematic look and feel. So you might find HFR much more applicable to sports and nature documentary content.

[testmon112]

Its' weird because when it comes to motion, spectacle and action. I really like 120fps/HFR. Watching football and sports at 60fps is great. But when it comes to heavy dialogue scenes, it really does expose the production design, costumes, props and exposes the whole 'illusion' of it all.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by Damon1281

I liked the HFR. To me, the obvious stuttering particularly in panning shots at 24 frames, look like crap. Maybe they could find a rate that smoothed that out but avoided the soap opera affect. How about 35 FPS?

Even in 30fps (such as Oklahoma!’s 70mm version, which is included on the Blu Ray) I think there are hints of the soap opera effect or making the set more apparent (kinda works for this as it is based on a Broadway play and feels closer to that in the interior sets).

Despite sometimes apparent blur in panning shots, I love the look of 24fps, and even traditional shot on film movies (don’t want to see everything become digitally filmed), though I do think HFR is very immersive and an interesting experience that I would like to see used on select films going forward, it’s not like every movie has to look the same.

[John The Grudge]

This is a decent demonstration of the problem with lower frame rates. It's not blur but a horrid jerkiness when objects move across the screen.

https://www.testufo.com/framerates#c...=stars&pps=960

[Frank TJ Mackey]

How bad was this thing? I have a feeling I'm going to slightly enjoy it based on how much everyone says it sucks.

Ang Lee is no longer a big deal to me and I don't care about 3D or frame rate. I wonder if it's worth seeing at all on normal home video when it drops....

[AFFanAttic]

Originally Posted by Frank TJ Mackey

How bad was this thing? I have a feeling I'm going to slightly enjoy it based on how much everyone says it sucks.

Ang Lee is no longer a big deal to me and I don't care about 3D or frame rate. I wonder if it's worth seeing at all on normal home video when it drops....

It's just a really flat script, and the younger Will Smith fluctuates from looking totally passable to outright bizarre.

I thought it was interesting to see it in high frame rate. I'm relieved that I had an easier time with it than I did The Hobbit like ten years ago. Outside of that tech-demo purpose though, it feels like a story that didn't go through nearly enough development. Which is crazy considering the script or story has been floating around since like the 90's.

It's not hilariously bad, but I say Redbox it or whatever if you're already darkly curious as to how much of a misfire it is.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Frank TJ Mackey

How bad was this thing? I have a feeling I'm going to slightly enjoy it based on how much everyone says it sucks.

Ang Lee is no longer a big deal to me and I don't care about 3D or frame rate. I wonder if it's worth seeing at all on normal home video when it drops....

Without the 3D/HFR, it's just a direct-to-video action movie. The technical bells-and-whistles are what make it worth watching at all.

[Cremildo]

[aiman04]

I hope someone will have a good script to shoot in HFR.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Without the 3D/HFR, it's just a direct-to-video action movie. The technical bells-and-whistles are what make it worth watching at all.

I'd agree with that. I kinda didn't mind the story, but it felt like something that we might have seen in the 90's, or early 2000's, which makes sense given how long the movie had been in development.

[Stanis]

This is streaming for Prime members, included in this month's promo. The story is really by the numbers. There's a lot of uncanny valley too, not as bad as some movies though. Will Smith's character(s) are so boring action movie, no wit or charm at all. The frame rate on Amazon I assume is 24p (which I prefer), but it also made it very apparant during the fight sequences that they speed up and slow down the editing of punches/kicks to make them swifter, kind of like in old James Bond films. At first I thought it was a higher fps due to this, but I think it was a choice by the editors, they did it a lot with the Younger Smith, maybe to avoid the issues with The Irishman where no matter how young you made De Niro look with a computer, he moved like a geriatric case? Anyway, my 2 cents, movie in general was extremely meh, not horrible.

[levcore]

I don't think the fight scenes are sped up, it's just the digital doubles being animated that way.

[Jar Jar Stinks]

I watched this on Hulu last night. I'm not a fan of Will Smith, yet I enjoyed it quite a bit. Not sure why it gets so much hate. I thought the story was fine. There were some good action sequences and the effects looked credible to me.