According to Rotten Tomatoes, a documentary about war, director Peter Jackson

In the mid-2000s, director Peter Jackson highly traveled to the success of the Rings Lord, winning several awards of the academy and made dollars. For their next Jackson movie, they allowed to give up a high -profile “Vanity” project: Remake $ 200 million, $ 200 million “King Kong” as the 1933 original was one of his favorite movies. The movie itself was just okay. However, when he did “King -Kong”, Jackson seemed to develop a new artistic interest.

You see, Jackson knew about the cut out sequence of “spider”, which has been cut since 1933 “King -Kong”. So he decided – just like a side project – to use his analysis to recreate what it might look using an ancient movie and effects. The results are quite interesting (You can see them online) but Jackson clearly bit the mistake. After his spider experiment, Jackson obsessed with rest and recovery.

After another erroneous catch in Prestige (“wonderful bones”) and his own very critically, George Lucas, similar to the prequel-trilogy (“Hobbit” films), Jackson finally gave himself a permit to think of his restoration habits. It turned out that the British Museum of the Imperial War had the centuries of silent films of English soldiers who fought at the front during the First World War and addressed Jackson in 2015 to restore the material in the modern context. In response, Jackson went wild wild, staining footage and using digital tricks to change the early lines to look smoother and modern, constantly remixing it in 3D. The centuries -old shots suddenly looked as if it was shot on modern digital chambers.

Jackson was also presented with old BBC interviews with soldiers of the Patriotic War, so he chose to play audio over his recovered staff. A film titled “They don’t age” was released in theaters in 2018 to get very critical recognition, as evidenced by its 99% score Rotten tomatoes. (You can check out /Own review of the movie here.)

The action of the film, which was used for shooting on earthly staff during the First World War, passed through cameras of 13 frames per second. When he ran back, it either looked “risen” to his eyes or ran incredibly fast. Prior to the invention of synchronization in the late 1920s, there was no nationwide standard as to how fast the film should pass through a camera or projector, so many dumb films, it seems, possess the same “cut” or “too fast” qualities. Because of this, Jackson used digital tools to “fill” the missing frames used for “they will not grow old”, leading it to the standard after the sound of 24 frames per second.

Jackson also hired professional lips readers to find out what the First World War soldiers say when they were shot. He then recruited the actors to perform his “dialogue”, essentially adding human voices to where he had never been recorded. In addition, Jackson integrated new sound effects for the camera tanks, as well as switching clothes, splashing dirt and other surrounding noises.

The result is as realistic as you can hope. “They don’t age”, feels a museum work; This is the worship of British soldiers who bring to life new miraculous restoration technologies. Meanwhile, audio records allow soldiers to have their actual voices related to the experience they fought in the trenches. They talked about their terrible conditions, the situation with the bathroom and long breaks. “They don’t age,” makes the age -old conflict feel immediate and man.

Most critics were fascinated by the experiment and glad to see how the digital lacquer Jackson discovered the same, unrefined young people. Some of them are small and unrestrained. Keep in mind that in the 1910s, when footage was shot, no one had a second instinct as they should behave in front of the camera. They seem relaxed and cute in such a way that there is no modern man.

A lot of reviews (including the one I wrote for IGN Back that day) he felt that Jackson’s restoration had some complex ethics. Jackson did not necessarily “enliven the staff to life,” but adapted the old staff to fit what the modern eyes used to. In practice, it looks great, but it is philosophically to equate your actions with directors, staining black and white classics or by creating digital avatars of dead actors.

Recall that the frames are the way it does from the technique that is at the time, so maybe it is our work as viewers to get used to it, not the other way around. How often do we need to “update” old frames to make it expenditure for modern eyes? And how much time to the main part of what we see is not a reproduction, but brand new footage? After all, almost half of what we perceive in “they do not age” was created artificially.

Some critics also point out that “they do not age”, there is not enough historical context. The point is not the meaning of the war, or the reasons that people are fighting, but themselves. It works as a movie experiment and veterans honor, but it’s not a great story.

A single “rotten” movie movie, located on Rotten Tomatoes, comes with Molded Hutchinson writing for Silent London. She felt the digital restoration actually made footage less Realistically, as if Jackson was irresponsibly using soldiers in real life as an excuse to make new digital avatars, indulging in his technical intrusive. She wrote that they “smoothed” the movements of 24 frames per second, made the soldier swim a terrible way, while the coloring gave everyone really the same artificial “peach” skin. The film, she said, was more like digital rotoscopy than proper recovery.

This is definitely a great movie to ignite the discussion.