Ian McKellen Speculates That X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST Will Be Shot In 3D And 48FPS

High five my ass.

Anyway, I've yet to see the 48 FPS. As of now, rather shot on film and maybe some IMAX and I'd be in heaven :D

this sequel gets more interesting day after day.

2014, come fast!

NO, not in 48 fps, were the fact that everyone has been saying it looks like shit enough to not do it?

high five everyone!

3-D? Yeah, sure, if they want.

48 fps? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

I do NOT want that to become the new standard. I haven't seen any examples of the technique yet, but being a film student (and already disliking the look of 30 fps), I know that the look of the movies that shoot in it is going to be pretty much the opposite of cinematic. High definition imagery is all well and good, but sacrificing mood and visual smoothness to get a crisper image is a f%$#ing TERRIBLE idea, and I pray to whatever deity influences such things that it never catches on.

(Not that I'm really afraid it will-- if all the feedback the Hobbit has gotten so far is any indicator, the 48 fps look is so bad that it pretty much ruins the movie for people.)

Z

IMAX and on film.If they wanted to look like a cartoon shooting on video and at 48 frames per second.

Trank doin FF, Mangold doin Wolverine and Vaughn doin 1st class all point to Fox sorting their shit out its just a shame Singers (never liked any of his xmen movies bland bland bland and the less said about his superman movie the better) been brought back in to do the 1st class sequel but I have a feeling Fox are gonna be the true victors outta them and disney/marvel in the long run, we might actually get some well made, cool films outta fox whereas marvels efforts have been somewhat lackluster in my opinion, their choice of directors has always seemed incredibly uninspired to me -

Whedon, favro,Branagh, The rocketeer fella all stink of directors chosen to fulfill the disney/marvel middle of the road money mens visions and not their own idiosyncratic visions which is how films should always be created, dont get me wrong marvels films arent awful, they just aint all that great either.

Give me a director with an idiosyncratic vision over generic cine-verse friendly directors all day long.

Vaughn (kick ass, 1st class), Snyder(300,watchmen superman), Nolan (Batman Trilogy), Webb (Amazing Spiderman), Del Toro (hellboy), Trank(chronicle,FF), Mangold(wolverine), Rodriguez(sin city), Mc teigue (V for Vendetta), Burton (Keaton batman, Gunn (super) all (except Mangold who im sure will) have made great superhero/comic book adapted/inspired films with a real weight and coolness behind them which didnt pander to a studio/moneymen perceived generic audience and werent restricted by the limitations of a 'cine-verse' (which has been Disney/Marvels downfall in my opinion).

However their is hope for Marvel with both Shane Black (iron man 3) and Gunn (gotg)being hired. Its just The Russo bros(capt A winter soldier) and Alan Taylor (thor 2) who worry me slightly.

Comic book and superhero/power movies lend themselves brilliantly to Auteuristic directors with an idiosyncratic visual/atmospheric vision and a darker (not necessarily gritty, Nolanesque) style, this is where I believe Marvel have been going wrong, an unpopular opinion sure but one that at the least merits consideration. Marvel be it due to the restrictions of a 'cine-verse' ( a mouth watering proposition to any comic book fan but one not so mouth watering to a good cinema fan who credits a films quality usually to an unrestricted director who is allowed to fulfill his/her own vision and not that of the studios moneymen) or be it due to Disney aiming at too younger an audience/market havent quite made the masterpiece such a great cast of characters deserve. yup yup yup