Home
Superhero Store
Members Area
Learn How
Media
Community
Classifieds
CBM Master List
JoshWildingNewsAndReviews Home : News : Videos : Pictures : Polls : Contact

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

By no means confirming that it will actually happen, Sir Ian McKellen talks here about the possibility of Bryan Singer shooting X-Men: Days of Future Past in 3D and 48 Frames Per Second as he's reportedly a big fan of how The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey turned out.

Follow Josh:
View CBM Profile Follow on Facebook Follow on Twitter Follow on Google
By Josh Wilding - 12/7/2012
Talking to Movies Are My Jam while promoting the release of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Sir Ian McKellen has revealed that Bryan Singer was such a fan of what Peter Jackson has done in regards to 3D and the 48 Frames Per Second format, that he wouldn't be at all surprised to see the highly anticipated sequel to Matthew Vaughn's 2011 movie also shot in that way. Purely speculation at this point, but an exciting thought nonetheless. He also talks a little about Twitter (you can find him at @IanMcKellen) and his enthusiasm to return to the world of the X-Men. Check out the video below and be sure to sound off with your thoughts in the usual place!




Source: Movies Are My Jam
DISCLAIMER: This article was submitted by a volunteer contributor who has agreed to our code of conduct. ComicBookMovie.com is protected from liability under "safe harbor" provisions and will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. For expeditious removal, contact us HERE.
1
LIKE!
15 Comments
Nomis1800 - 12/7/2012, 7:53 AM
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
TankD - 12/7/2012, 7:53 AM
please no
gambgel - 12/7/2012, 8:03 AM
this sequel gets more interesting day after day.

2014, come fast!
ATrueHero1987 - 12/7/2012, 8:04 AM
I don't see why not. Almost every filmed now has to be released in 3D...even though most of those movies have little 3D scenes in it.
mr2324jgf - 12/7/2012, 8:47 AM
In less than 24 hours you wrote that he's not officially part of the movie but it will most likely be shot in 3d and 48fps.... bravo
Boogie138 - 12/7/2012, 8:48 AM
high five everyone!
DukeAcureds - 12/7/2012, 9:36 AM
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
HAVE YOU NO HONOR?!! HAVE YOU NO HONOOORRR???!!!!?!?!?!
SuspenseSmith - 12/7/2012, 10:22 AM
48 fps makes sense for 3D. Technically you're still getting 24 fps for each eye.

The thing is with 24 fps, most frames are blurry to give the illusion of movement. But when you blur a 3D image, it gives you head aches and makes the 3D worthless.

With 48 fps, every frame is clear because they have enough frames per second to show motion without "cheating" with a blurred image.
fettastic - 12/7/2012, 10:27 AM
I find it extremely unlikely that it will be shot in 48 frames. The Hobbit has had extreme backlash because of it. So much so that the studio actually downscaled its rollout! I believe that is the first time that has ever happened because of something technical.

All the reviews so far seem to be mixed on HFR. The vista shots are spectacular, but close and medium shots look very cheap. A mixed bag is not worth paying twice as much for SFX so I think The Hobbit will be a one-off. WB might not even let Jackson present the other films in HFR.

I wish I could see it for myself but I'm not driving from Madison to Chicago just for that.
fettastic - 12/7/2012, 10:31 AM
My 3DTV used to give me a headache, but with a firmware update Samsung fixed the artifacting problem with 120Hz frame creation. So now the image is smooth and no longer bothers me.

It's kind of too bad that no technology currently exists to bring HFR (frame for frame) into the home so we can all check it out, although I guess there is some website we can go to see it on our computers. But knowing I can get probably 75% of its effect artifically on my TV will do for now.
TheFox - 12/7/2012, 1:36 PM
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
deamon - 12/7/2012, 1:56 PM
Nooooooo, just no 3D!
harley2011 - 12/7/2012, 4:40 PM
IMAX and on film.If they wanted to look like a cartoon shooting on video and at 48 frames per second.
AUSSYACE - 12/7/2012, 8:59 PM
GAY MAGNETO = WRONG WRONG WRONG...
JacksonVegaIII - 12/8/2012, 6:43 AM
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

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.

.