Peter Jackson Responds to Early 48FPS 'Hobbit' Footage Complaints

April 28, 2012

Peter Jackson - The Hobbit

Last week's CinemaCon convention definitely left an impact on the movie industry, both good and bad, with some amazing presentations, and others that left a bad taste with many attendees. The biggest point of contention coming out is 48FPS and HFR (high frame rates), and The Hobbit footage/demo that not many enjoyed. While the Hobbit content itself looked great, even I admitted in our video blog that 48FPS didn't impress me the way I was hoping it would. As expected, Peter Jackson himself and Warner Bros have now responded in statements to EW's Anthony Breznican, and honestly they don't do much to quell concerns.

I fully expected Warner Bros and Mr. Jackson to instantly hear all of the negative feedback, not only from our video blog and tweets, but from many vocal members of the press complaining all across the internet. I want to love 48FPS and HFR, and I want it to look amazing, but the 10 minutes of footage we saw earlier this week didn't hit me the way I wanted it to. Just as my 3D-loving friend Jim Dorey of MarketSaw recently remarked, "at least dissing 3D is so 2011 now that HFR has taken over." Indeed. So what exacly does Peter Jackson, still hard at working filming the two Hobbit movies, have to say about this early 48FPS negativity?

"Nobody is going to stop," he said. "This technology is going to keep evolving." … "At first it's unusual because you’ve never seen a movie like this before. It’s literally a new experience, but you know, that doesn’t last the entire experience of the film; not by any stretch, after 10 minutes or so,” Jackson tells EW. "That's a different experience than if you see a fast-cutting montage at a technical presentation."

Yes, one of the rebuttals to all the complaints was that the footage we were shown included a lot of fast cuts that didn't really give us time to get soaked into the world and cinematography in the way he's shooting it. But, on the other hand, many complaints I heard were for brightly lit scenes that looked fake, or sets that seemed like nothing more than sets, not the lush world of Middle Earth we've come to know and love so well from Lord of the Rings. That said, Jackson doesn't have much to say to complainers/cynics. "I can't say anything… Just like I can’t say anything to someone who doesn’t like fish. You can’t explain why fish tastes great and why they should enjoy it." Did he really just compare watching movies at 48FPS to eating fish?

When The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, the first half of the this two-part adaptation, hits theaters in December, I'm hoping that the 48FPS finished film looks spectacular, and they fix all the problems that I have with HFR (mainly the sped-up motion). Jackson is hoping for the same, making a poignant remark: "There can only ever be a real reaction, a truthful reaction, when people actually have a chance to see a complete narrative on a particular film." But that won't be until December, or whenever they start screening the finished film. In the meantime, one scene that did get some positive reactions he addresses:

"A couple of the more negative commenters from CinemaCon said that in the Gollum and Bilbo scene [which took place later in the presentation] they didn’t mind it and got used to that," Jackson says. "That was the same 48 frames the rest of the reel was. I just wonder if it they were getting into the dialogue, the characters and the story. That’s what happens in the movie. You settle into it."

I hate to say it, but the reasons why that scene worked well are because it was dark, it was fully rendered, and it was shot well (no cuts, no big camera movements). Sure, the characters like Gollum and Bilbo are great to see, but if he really wanted to have the audience get "into the dialogue, the characters and the story" and forget about the 48FPS they should've shown closer to 30 minutes, like Pixar's Brave, rather than just 10 minutes. Haven't they been shooting for almost a year already? They should have enough to work with.

Warner Bros, who is releasing The Hobbit this time around, still seems confident that everything will turn out great in the end and this is the future. also spoke with Dan Fellman, president of domestic distribution at Warner Bros, who said: "It might not initially be accepted by all, but eventually [Jackson] feels it will be and eventually it can only improve." He adds, "I think by the time he presents this film finished, the majority of moviegoers will accept it and be pleased." I hope that's the case, and maybe this CinemaCon presentation was the very first shock-and-awe moment in the history of HFR digital cinema.

Given how initially excited I was for 48FPS/60FPS movies last year after James Cameron's demo, I still want this technology to work like they promise, I still want the benefit of HFR (for 3D) to be the future, if it can be improved. Maybe we won't really get a sense of truly spectacular HFR until Cameron shoots Avatar 2 at 60FPS, just like the way he proved how 3D could really be an immersive experience with Avatar a few years after the 3D craze had already begun. Right now the HFR craze is just beginning, and this was only the world's first 10 minute glimpse. Maybe the footage will improve in the 8 months they have left until release.

To wrap up, it seems like the movie theaters are still all for converting their digital projectors to 48FPS as well. "Amy Miles, CEO of Regal Entertainment Group, said she hoped to upgrade between 2,500-2,700 of the company’s 3-D projectors to show films at 48 frames per second." That connects with the buzz we were reporting before CinemaCon, that movie theaters are being pushed to have their systems upgraded in full by December. But, for those still concerned or just not interested, don't worry they'll still show it in 24FPS, in every format, in addition to IMAX, 3D and 2D. For now, we'll have to keep our eyes open for more HFR updates, and any opportunities to see how, if at all, they're improving the 48FPS footage. Any thoughts?

Find more posts: Discuss, Hobbit, Movie News



"Amy Miles, CEO of Regal Entertainment Group, said she hoped to upgrade between 2,500-2,700 of the company’s 3-D projectors to show films at 48 frames per second." Will there be other upgrades needed for Avatar 2 when it's released at 60 FPS? That would be costly, I suppose. But I agree that "nobody is going to stop". They'll keep searching for different ways to improve. Let's hope it's all for the best.

Isildur_of_Numenor on Apr 28, 2012


No, there shouldnt need to be an additional upgrade, as Barco, Christie and NEC (who make the digital projectors found in 85% of the world's theatres), as well as Sony, and the IMB/server companies are working to ensure the HFR upgrades will handle up to 120fps playback. During the week Barco showed a 120fps (per eye) 3D demo of live action footage (no CGI - it was footage of guys boxing and doing MMA) and it looked impressive. Sony had a 60fps 3D demo in their booth as well - all live action - and it looked like 30fps TV footage, a la live sports/talk shows/the news, etc. I didnt get to see Christie's or NEC's demos, but if it was all live action footage as well, I think it's safe to assume it will appear that way (read: like the way live action 30fps video content looks like on our TVs and projectors today...less jarring). This all leads me to believe that perhaps the CGI elements are really what's creating the visual issues with HFR footage.

Dan Lantowski on Apr 28, 2012


Wasn't the 'test footage' shown without FX and what-not? It sounds like it was way too early to show anything... I hold my judgement until there's more development. I mean, c'mon! This is Peter Jackson here...

Agent Kid Society on Apr 28, 2012


 Nah, the footage had lots of FX, lots of blue screen, lots of everything. Gollum is a CG character and in the scene he's referring to, he was fully rendered. The trolls (and that whole scene) also looked very close to finished as well. But yea, I have faith in Jackson... which is why I keep saying time and time again that maybe it'll look perfect by December. That's still a long time away!

Alex Billington on Apr 28, 2012


Thanks for being level-headed Alex. It seems like everybody is jumping ship on this even though the movie has months and months of post-production ahead of it. I have a hard time believing that someone like Peter Jackson would really shoot an entire film in 48fps if he didn't think it was going to look anything short of amazing.

axalon on Apr 28, 2012


Exactly!! "I have a hard time believing that someone like Peter Jackson would really shoot an entire film in 48fps if he didn't think it was going to look anything short of amazing." And had done tests to confirm beforehand, too.

Alex Billington on Apr 28, 2012


 Or maybe he's just being a tool, who wants to innovate via greedily forcing down a trainwreck down our throats. 3D hasn't worked as well as Jim Cam wanted it to go did it? Ring me up when "Cloud Atlas" opens, a movie that may actually be revolutionary, not Avatar or Hobbit.

Hu on Apr 28, 2012


I was hoping they'd show some Cloud Atlas footage... I saw the official logo for it in WB's "coming up" montage, but no actual footage yet. Will definitely keep you updated on this film, too!

Alex Billington on Apr 28, 2012


Well, even Cameron had come out at one point to state that the studios were overusing 3D, post-conversion in particular.  

Carlo on Apr 28, 2012


@Carlo yeah then he released a post converted version of Titanic.

DoomCanoe on Apr 28, 2012

11 only made him 2.7 billion at the box office...what a failure it turned out to be

Geoffrey Shauger on Apr 29, 2012


As a glasses wearer, 3D is simply a non-starter.   As for high frame rate films, it seems like the industry thinks that the audience will just accept yet another ticket price increase without impact.  I think otherwise.  My family used to see 2 to 3 films a month.  Due to the ticket price increases, we have simply forgone the film experience in favor of renting a Redbox movie.  Their loss.

Alexmcdonoughwi on Apr 28, 2012


Did we not hear the same bleating about Avatar when early scenes were shown?    I will wait for the finished product.

cinemabandit. on Apr 28, 2012


 Avatar is empty visual candy.

Hu on Apr 28, 2012


Avatar was pretty much Aliens with glowsticks, basically a bad Vietnam movie in space.

Crapola on Apr 29, 2012


See my post to Hu...I take it you cover the graveyard shift at Chevron?

Geoffrey Shauger on Apr 29, 2012


If you worked in my Gas Station you'd understand why I don't like bad movies. Between the junkies trying to steal Magnum ice lollies and people leaving without paying, it's a tough day. I don't even have to leave my booth though, it's pretty mellow and I can smoke weed on the lunch breaks. Cinema is escapism I suppose Geoffrey, I get that, I know that Avatar had dancing lights on the screen and technically it looked amazing and other-worldly, but putting box office figures doesn't do much for me, who cares how much money it makes? That has nothing to do with how good the story is. My favourite film is Dead Mans Shoes, made for a budget of £723,000, and it took in £101,186 at the box office. It's a  million times better than Avatar and has a lot more to say. But I suppose working in a petrol station makes my opinion invalid.

Crapola on Apr 29, 2012


Just watched the trailer on Youtube. Cannot wait to see this movie!! (Dead Mans Shoes)

Yarball on May 15, 2012


Which explains the 80%+ at RottenTomatoes...the Golden Globe for best picture....the 2.7 billion at the box office....yeah...empty visual candy. you find it mentally taxing when you pump gas all day?

Geoffrey Shauger on Apr 29, 2012


I get the impression that Shauger here must have been raped by a gas station attendant at some pivotal point in his mental development. There's a lot of misplaced anger there, lol. Or he just really loves blue rabbits f***ing. 

Scotty97 on Apr 29, 2012


You want people to go to the movies? Make great films for that audience. I personally didn't like Avatar but a lot of people did and that made a lot of money (yes, 3D prices helped, but it still had the same attendance as Dark Knight) which is another example.  Hollywood pretending people go to these films because of the technology used is bullshit. Its like with 3D, those films aren't blockbusters because they are in 3D, they would have been blockbusters regardless. But hollywood turns around and says that their success could have to do with 3D (while technically yes, they make extra money because of the extra cost, their attendance and popularity has little to do with the format.) I'm sure when the Hobbit is a success Hollywood will be telling us that this is the audience responding to the FPS. I've never seen 48 FPS. And I can tell you that I have never ever had a problem with the way film looks. I can tell you there has never been a burning desire from anyone really, in the history of film, to say "eww, lets change the frame rate." Technology moving forward is great....when theres a purpose. 

Al on Apr 28, 2012


 Incredibly awesome post, I totally agree with you, 3d with purpose can work, 3d made just to be shoved into our faces sucks, its garbage, its going to be the same with 48FPS, if it does the same with some high definition (like bluray) movies, that end up looking as video games, as in they look so defined, it just loses the sense of immersion in the world...

Wylles on Apr 28, 2012


 How can something that looks more defined or "real" make you lose sense of being there? If anything it increases the reality of you being there.

Miguelincito on May 1, 2012


Actually the less blur issue is not true. Jackson is filming at 48 FPS, but he has adjusted his shutter speed to create the same amount of Blur at 24 FPS. So it will look like the TV frame Blending feature that everyone says the Movie will avoid looking like. I personally think he got the idea after visiting the BestBuy   Electronics department, and decided to recreate that same look frame for frame. Also, for all those out there who say that you have never seen HFR video before, you actually have, It's called Soap Opera. Average Soap Opera is film at 60p (60i, but it still looks the same). In Addition, Viewers of the release video complained that the HFR caused the Visual Effects, Make up, and Sets to stand out, which reduced it's realism. HFR is counter intuitive, and Jackson isn't seeing it. What would be truly innovative is filming 48p, dropping half the frames for standard showing, then letting it switch to 48p in places where Judder occurs, then back to 24p when it goes away. A Hybrid System if you will. Interesting times ahead. Viva La 24p! -Cheers!

Daniel Natzke on May 11, 2012


Yes, it increases the reality of us being on...a painted set. THAT'S the problem.

L on Jun 22, 2012


great post, Al. the only immediate purpose i can see for 48fps is that it is supposed to make 3D look less blurry. that technology *may* have a knock-on effect and change other aspects of film-making, so for the long term benefits i guess we'll have to wait and see. but in the short term, it seems like tech for the sake of tech. i respect Jackson and all he has done to date, and i remain excited for The Hobbit. but i wish we were all talking about the film more, not the technology. i know it's the movie *business*, and there is always a commercial imperative, but the business now seems to be taking precedent over the movies.

son_et_lumiere on Apr 29, 2012


Did James Cameron really prove that 3D could be an immersive experience?  Because I don't remember that.  It felt like just another 3D movie to me. HFR sounds like it's going to be a transition along the lines of color.  When color movies were first being made, many people thought that they looked ridiculous and unrealistic.  What it really is, and what's probably true of HFR, is that it just doesn't look CINEMATIC.  We've all grown up with 24 fps as being the standard for movies just as people in the 40s grew up with b/w as the standard.  48 fps looks to us like a home video (video is 30 fps - a noticeable different from film's 24) and we associate it with something cheap.  On top of that the higher frame rate probably allows our brains to process more information about what we're seeing, making us recognize the "fakeness" of sets and CGI.  It's just something we're going to have to get used to.  I don't mind it as much as 3D.  At least we won't have to put something on our face. That said I agree wholeheartedly with Alexmcdonoughwi  It's getting dumb to charge more for all these formats, especially when the cheaper ones are relegated to tiny crowded theaters.  If you're going to replace a format, just replace it.  It's bad enough that ticket prices go up every year anyway.  We really are entering an era where movie theaters are a luxury for the upper class.  I live in NYC and it already happened to Broadway.  Hope you guys have a comfortable couch, because that's where you'll be watching Avatar 4.

Boiler Bro Joe on Apr 28, 2012



Al on Apr 28, 2012


i have to admit that i got fairly immersed in Avatar, but i got more thrown off more by the atrocious script than by any bad technology. having said that, i think you're dead on about that 'cinematic' look with 24fps, and the way HFR is being pushed. it's going to be hard for everyone who's grown up on 24fps - which is *everyone* - to get used to the 'window on the world' realism of HFR. the latest thing and cool CG effects will always draw in the crowds. ultra-realism with a big film like The Hobbit will do the same. but if the *content* is weak, people will vote with their feet.

son_et_lumiere on Apr 29, 2012


Good argument, but I cannot agree. If you take a look at very early Color footage, the color in it is not natural at all, it is HIGHLY over-saturated, and is to an effect quite ridiculous, just as the original viewers described it. But the color adjusted and evened out in the end, not the people. Though color didn't begin to take the dominance it has now until TV threatened the Studios in the 1950s. In the 50s, a huge explosion of formats were pushed to compete with TV; Color, 3D, 4D, Vista Vision, and...High Frame Rates.  Although the high frame rates did not pick up because it made people get motion sickness. 3D and High Frame rates came back in the 70s and 80s when Home Video came out, and now Internet Streaming is the new threat, so guess what's come back? 3D, and High Framerates, the leftovers of the Format Push of the 1950s, but of course these are the ones that people liked for a little while, but then became uninterested with; Primarily cause it captures too much reality, the very thing that Cinema is trying to help us escape from.Thank you for your Level-Headedness,-Cheers!

Daniel Natzke on May 11, 2012


I actually would like to have seen HFR content during the show in 2D as well as 3D. Another thought is to consider the idea of having variable frame rates, with, say, 24fps for the more epic shots where the traditional film look makes sense and then 48, 60 or even 120fps for scenes with fast pan shots, etc. This would allow even more creativity from the filmmakers, and it should technically be possible with the imaging setups of the current crop of digital cinema projectors. What's interesting is that during last year's tech presentation by Cameron, there was much less negative feedback and little to no mentions of an overly video/LCD frame interpolation processing look, which makes me wonder if there was some sort of technical issue. During the Hobbit footage, some scenes actually looked like they were sped up shots of content that was actually to be projected at 24fps. Overall, I dont think final judgment should be made just yet, and I also think that a lot of kinks are/will be worked out. I can just say for certain right now that select content is better suited for 24fps projection to help give a more mystical, imaginative - Id even say dreamlike feel, as that's how our memories tend to work when recalling real world events, movies, etc in our heads (versus the push toward content that looks like a CGI Optimus Prime is on set with Shia Lebouf, as opposed to an actual, life-sized model/puppet of OP). And maybe that's more of the issue: Some CGI pieces are not helping the HFR look and somehow the CGI actually looks less realistic at higher frame rates (perhaps something needs to be done on the digital VFX side?). Someone should do a comparison of footage shot at 24 and 48fps with a real life character and a CGI background + secondary character, versus the same scene but shot with a real life version of the background and live person/puppet as the secondary character. One 24fps comparison we can do right now are the original edition Star Wars Ep IV through VI scenes versus their Special Edition CGI-enhanced versions.

Dan Lantowski on Apr 28, 2012


i don't care about 3D, imax, HFR, 48/60/120 fps..........just give me a good movie - characters, story.....etc....

beevis on Apr 28, 2012


It's funny, I've made animations at 12 frames per second and they worked okay, my eyes and brain fill in the blanks, like everyone elses do. I think a little with HD and this new frame rate that it is a little too clean visually, it's good to see something clearly. It's true Beevis, I think narrative and characters should come first, not technology, it is only a tool. Saying that, I think 90% of the cinema-going public really don't care about story or characters and just want to watch things blow up. Sometimes I speak with people and realise I'm in the minority when it comes to stuff like that.

Crapola on Apr 29, 2012


yup, right with you on that @beevis:disqus / Crapola. i am tired of discussions about new releases being as much about the technology, or the potential franchise prospects, than they are about the actual film. it doesn't matter how pretty the film looks. did it have a good script, direction, and acting? hardware's taking priority over content. but like Crapola says, the appetite for poorly written, badly acted popcorn-munchers is hardly waning at the moment.

son_et_lumiere on Apr 29, 2012


exactly. seems like with most of the so-called "big" releases, all that's being talked about (for the most part) is the technology.......and i'm sick of it.

beevis on Apr 29, 2012


sad to say - i think you're right about  90% of the public don't care about story or characters......don't have to look any further than the comments on this site.

beevis on Apr 29, 2012


I agree with this part of the thread. The movies that are truly immersing are the ones that draw your mind into the story through emotion. Directors seem to forget that films are not just consumed by the eyes--they are processed by the brain. We don't need 3-D because our mind can immerse us in a scene. It's why we feel tense at what might be just off screen in a suspense film. It's why we're aroused during a love scene. It's why we feel a rush when a character plunges over a cliff. Our brain does this, just like it also knows how to fill in action and make 24fps feel like a "window on the world." I don't know why directors seems so willing to forget that we're active visual consumers.

Tstef on Apr 29, 2012


Many others are saying this, and I'm now just going to add to the pile. High framerates make CGI look like shit, and elaborate sets look more fake. Never ever use it for sci-fi or fantasy.

OfficialJab on Apr 28, 2012


I just want to enjoy the movie going experience.

Xerxexx on Apr 28, 2012


I wish Peter Jackson had specifically responded to the complaints that the footage looked fake. I understand the point he made that people can only judge after seeing the completed movie. But is he also saying in effect that the audience will get used to the "fakeness" of the footage. I also think it may have been better to use the higher frame rates on a movie unrelated to a trilogy. I feel like no matter how it looks people are going to compare it to the previous Lord of the Rings movies that are already highly renowned and known for their cinematic quality. I also think that if this was the future of cinema at least some of the viewers (many very knowledgable on cinema and its history) would have walked away from the screening confidently stating that what they saw was the next step in movie making. If anything I think higher frame rates will become another tool that filmmakers use similar to 3d and digital.

Vault on Apr 28, 2012


I don't think there is anything that will make the 48 FPS look different by December...the higher framerate is the higher framerate...I wouldn't expect any of the motion effects to change. Because 48 FPS isn't changing the ways movies's literally changing the way they move...the movement within the image, the motion. From what I understand, a 24 FPS, because of the see every frame twice. At 48 FPS, you see every frame during fast motion, it feels like it's moving faster even though you are seeing more because no frame is being shown to you twice due to the shutter. It's just going to have to be a matter of getting used to it. Will it make certain things look 'cheaper'? possibly....but Trumbull has said himself that as you go up in framerates...the type of shots that you can show has to change because of it...the language of the film has to change because you aren't showing them a screen, you're showing the viewers a 'window' you can't film the same exact way. It's very different, it is going to take some getting used to, but it is also technically superior without a doubt. The idea that the world should be thought of as round instead of flat probably scared and pissed of a lot of people...but it's a truth we had to come to terms with.

Chris_G on Apr 28, 2012


It's the studios that want the new technology (to fend off the home television threat... AGAIN); audiences want better, more engaging stories.

Max Renn on Apr 29, 2012


Better stories aren't going to bring audiences back to the theater. A good story is a good story whether you watch it on a computer, TV, or a giant screen...if you count in all of the people watching movies in the theater, on TV, on the internet, and on DVD/BD...I would say that movies are just as popular, if not more, than ever.... But yes, it IS about getting people back into the theater...that is the best place to see a movie as far as I'm concerned...but some theater experiences are lousy. Guys like Cameron and Jackson are trying to do something to make films worth seeing in a theater again. 3D and higher framerates and more engagement is one of the keys...bigger, brighter screens is another key. People need to see a great movie in the absolute best way possible...and that will bring the interest back to the theater viewing...once is has more of a sense of spectacle.

Chris_G on Apr 29, 2012


The problem, though, is that this isn't a question of attaining "the truth." It's simply a question of taste. 48fps might be better on some dimensions, but if it's worse on others then what makes it "technically superior without a doubt." You need to quantify some objective criteria to say that. 

Tstef on Apr 29, 2012


You lost me at "last week".

mooreworthy on Apr 28, 2012


Dont sell LOR 1.2.3 more than 3billion? Main core of LOR 1.2.3 is BATTLE If this one battle be great for me doesn't any difference between 48 or less! I love Peter Jackson hisself, look at the picture he is really really hobbit himself Can't wait for another BATTLE

Ehsan Davodi on Apr 28, 2012


This really has me worried, super high definition and super bright just kills movies for me. a good example is Hugo, while i loved all the night scenes (thought they were remarkable) everything that took place in day light or lighted areas looked completely fake and i knew it was a set on a sound stage. Just took me completely out of the movie. But I will trust Jackson and will hold off judgment till I see the final product.

happy camper on Apr 28, 2012


Alex, how can you have faith in someone who realeses Fellowship of the ring on Bluray with fucked up colors and doesn't comment on that? Everything has to evolve, sure. But not for the pure sake of evolving. If Nolan doesn't embrace 48fps it sucks. 🙂

Ryderup on Apr 28, 2012


My god, when will this technical bs end?  Just focus on making GOOD MOVIES. My god, is that so fucking hard to get?? 

Buzzfunk on Apr 29, 2012


Good movies isn't enough if people are getting sub-par theater experiences and that is driving them out of theaters and to their TVs and computers. The standard for what is a passable theater experience needs to be upped, bigger, brighter, sharper screens. The presentation has to be top notch. But on top of that, films need to have qualities that are much more valuable on the big screen. 3D is one of them, and ticket sales showed it...and 48 FPS is an extension of makes the effect even more realistic and immersive. And THAT is what will make a theater viewing unique and memorable again. It can't just be a big screen, it has to be a huge screen, and it has to be bright, and the image has to be clear, and between that and the film...the audience needs to go on a trip, have an experience, take the ride and truly 'get into it' in a way that current theater standards don't allow. Good films will always be crucial...but I know for a fact that good films under poor conditions don't hold a candle to the best experience, I've seen my fair share of great movies in sub-par theaters.

Chris_G on Apr 29, 2012


Most of the cinemas where I live are multiplex style, so I doubt the projectionist is even there for the whole film, sometimes the lights are left on, sometimes the sound cuts out and are empty on the most part. It's better to watch online in your house. Cinema is dead. They always refuse me at the cinema in my underwear too.

Crapola on Apr 29, 2012


you had me for some of that. we accept poor presentation too often. you pay good money and should absolutely get the best screens, sounds and service. but why should cinema *have* to be an amusement ride? are more people buying tickets for 3D, or is it just that ticket prices are more expensive? if your audience isn't 'truly 'getting into it' ', it's usually because it's just simply not a good film. we should be focusing on ensuring the best delivery first, and additional distractions second.

son_et_lumiere on Apr 29, 2012


It's hard to bring up inflation and ticket sales when most of the films that dominate the top of that list have been re-released numerous times officially and unofficially...and plenty of them in an age with no or little piracy and either a weak home market or no home market at all... I'm not saying it has to be an amusement ride...but if there is a way to add a greater sense of spectacle to a theater make it MORE than 'just seeing a movie on a big screen' then we should push toward that. The intent should be to wow audiences...NOT just with the movie and it's content, but with the presentation.

Chris_G on Apr 29, 2012


interesting, thanks for your reply. i still think that the social buzz around a film centres on 'was it good?' rather than 'what was the 3D like?' but i also agree that not nearly enough attention is paid to the way in which theatres screen films. maybe @buddha1822:disqus's article on laser projection shows one way around that? thanks for the discussion.

son_et_lumiere on Apr 30, 2012


I'm not sure that films need to have qualities that are much more valuable on the big screen (beyond their current state). A big part of seeing a movie is for the communal experience. People like having these moments, which explains sports, theater, and almost every corner of our culture. 3-D tickets are, on average, only 15% of a film's admissions now--even when that film dominates a large share of 3-D screens and is a blockbuster. That number has not really moved as more 3-D screens have become available (at least not domestically). It's not exactly a ringing endorsement.  I'd also disagree that good films under poor conditions are that bad. I've seen plenty of great films with bad projection, noisy patrons, bad smells, etc. And honestly, I still remember them as great films and unforgettable experiences because they drew me in. Maybe people are ready to embrace a future of Transformers 2s in IMAX 3-D Super High Def Digital whatever. Personally, I'd rather have a wonderful low-tech masterpiece on a crappy screen. 

Tstef on Apr 29, 2012


I'd like to see some sightable data on the '3D tickets account for 15% of a film's admissions'....because just the other day an article noted that roughly 56% of the advanced purchase tickets for The Avengers were for 3D hearing that on average 3D tickets account for 15% is quite outrageous to me. Every time a 3D movie comes out box office mojo makes note of how much business came from 3D venues...and it is always a hell of a lot more than 15%. I know that the first time I saw Captain America, it was in a lousy theater...and I didn't think it was that great. A second viewing in a much better theater had me really liking the movie. My lasting impression of the movie over time is much more in line with the 2nd viewing with the better presentation.

Chris_G on Apr 29, 2012


My god, when will this technical bs end?  Just focus on making GOOD MOVIES. My god, is that so fucking hard to get?? 

Buzzfunk on Apr 29, 2012


A question, It seems to me that it`s not just about 24 vs 48 or 2D vs 3D and video vs film it`s more of how you use it how you film with the technology rather than what technology you use that makes the difference?    And one big problem I have are the theatres, Often they don`t seem to project the movies correctly. One simple example was when I saw Rango in theatres, It had no color and it was so grainy that it felt like I sat in a foggy room watching it on an old VHS casette blown up to the extent you just got a hedace so that you just wanted your money back seen it later on tv and I could hardly believe it was the same movie.    Transformers 3 3d Was cropped so that part of the movie was out of picture out of focus so that some things happened out of screen. One of the most beautiful ones were Inception which looked glorious in the teatre crisp full of color and The Social network which also looked great in the theatre.   Blade runner 1992 cut was projected so good that it looked better in the theatre than on blueray Why should one go to the cinemas paying so much for it when often it looks worse than vhs quality. but thats mostly the theatres fault  

Loser on Apr 29, 2012


Too early to judge anything. I've seen rough cut footage at 24fps and they looked like shit. Once it's complete, then there's room to truly judge.

Quanah on Apr 29, 2012


Whether A awful movies like John Carter-Golden Compass-Green Lantern in 100000000000000000000000 FPS can bring people to cinemas? Or indi film like Borat with worst picture can? Let's be hope "Hobbit" filmed Masterpiece then technology will be important Of course we believe in GREAT JACKSON but we want compeletly masterpiece and this is very difficult problem than FPS

Ehsan Davodi on Apr 29, 2012


filmmakers should NOT be taking criticism from fans on an incomplete piece of work. what kind of world do we want to live in where artists yield to artistic demands from their audience?

Luke on Apr 29, 2012


 Sure they should. It is their movie but who are they making it for? It's being made for people, and fans of the source material, to enjoy. If that enjoyment is going to be tainted by some kind of experimental b.s. then they should be listening. I'm sure the studios will be...

Bl00dwerK on Apr 29, 2012


hatters gonna hate man, the point is that the freaking hobbit is going to be released this year and it's gonna be awesome and epic. would you rather have a hobbit with the lattest tech or no hobbit at all. be greatful with what we're getting haha

Jeremystormsky on Apr 29, 2012


Jeremy, if they were releasing the Hobbit projected onto a piece of bread covered with jam, I'd still go see it. I'm excited aboot that no doubters. Just dunno if I have to see the inbetween frames so much. I suppose it'll be easier to do slowmo with all those extra frames.

Crapola on Apr 29, 2012


It's James fucking Cameron, man. Trust. And relax.

Daniel Vu Tran on Apr 29, 2012


eh, pretty sure it's Peter fucking Jackson, man. 

Scotty97 on Apr 29, 2012


LMFAO. Sorry about that, I was reading someone's Avatar comment and it must have Freudian slipped me xD

Daniel Vu Tran on Apr 29, 2012


awesome.  good slip though.  😉

Solo_Calrissian on Apr 30, 2012


so it will still be a film, right? we'll still be able to watch it? we'll be able to see the film with our eyes and/or hear it with our ears, won't we? THEN WHAT THE HELL IS EVERYBODY PEEING THEIR PANTS FOR?!

Rusty Shackelford on Apr 29, 2012


Remember, the Hobbit will be playing at many 24 FPS theaters.  See it that way if you want.

greedo on Apr 29, 2012


I'm sure many will.

Max Renn on Apr 29, 2012


I'm not sure if this is a choice that will be readily availble. Say there is a theater that has all digital screens, and the theater gets the software upgrades across all of their screens for higher frame rates...I doubt they'll go out of there way to show it in both...more than likely they'll pick 48 FPS and that will be the end of it. Just like theaters that don't upgrade are going to exclusively offer 24FPS. This is going to be a change that isn't marketed to the masses like 3D...and choices between the two are very likely not going to be promoted....and could very well not be available at all.

Chris_G on Apr 29, 2012


I'm not anti-48-fps, but I do have to say that the teaser trailer did look rather 'fake.'  I don't know why, but it did.

ZI LA on Apr 29, 2012


guuuuaaaaaahhhhh... his rationale is that eventually, you'll get really into the story and then forget the fact that you're watching something that looks like crap?? i suppose if you bite the pillow hard enough, it'll eventually take your mind off the fact you're getting ass raped? not good and wrong headed. movies have a specific look like impressionist paintings have a specific look.  the fact that impressionism is not a perfect replication of reality is not a knock against the art form. in the same way, just because 48fps makes things look "more life like" is not necessarily a good thing. honestly, where the fuck have these people been?  if i wanted to see even 60fps, i can just watch broadcast television.

jin choung on Apr 30, 2012


I'm just happy that the world of LOTR is coming back to the big screen, having been done by Peter Jackson.  Can't wait to see the finished product.  It's obvious that the industry is evolving... I just hope when it's all said and done that it wasn't at the expense of the people who keep the industry thriving. 

Solo_Calrissian on Apr 30, 2012


I have to agree with the comment/s about 24fps and the 'dream-like' quality. Part of me believes that when we refer to the 'magic' of film, this framerate has something do with it. 24fps is quite a specific number of frames after all, why did we settle on that number? It's just about the point when our brains accept a sequence of still images as completely fluid. A sweet spot, if you will. Moving up to 30 frames - our association with television aside - things you wouldn't have previously noticed become apparent. I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but camera movements become much more critical. Handheld footage at 30 frames is bad enough (if you've ever made home videos) so surely out of the question at 48. Goodbye to cinema verite? This type of camera work in a 30 second news segment - bearable, a two hour picture - headache. As others have mentioned, production values will have to go up due to our heightened awareness of sets - as will ticket prices. In my mind it goes without saying that the visual language of cinema, along with certain genres will have to change if this is indeed the future (and not the death nail). For me, films like There Will Be Blood would be hard to imagine with an increased framerate. 48fps would surely be incongruous with these types of slow movers, which depend on putting us into a trance like state - as opposed to heightening our awareness with the 'realism' of jarring movement. But who knows... If it does become genre specific, will people become disenchanted with 'slow boring' 24fps, potentially killing off films which aesthetically don't work at higher frame rates? I think we're reaching the point where cinema becomes purely experiential, cerebral and running counter to emotional engagement. Narrative = art house = home video.

John Louis on May 3, 2012


Left about half way through to go watch something else It sucks A$$ in a major way.

Kaos Ktrl on Dec 25, 2012

New comments are no longer allowed on this post.



Subscribe to our feed -or- daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main account on twitter:
For the latest posts only - follow this one:

Add our updates to your Feedly - click here

Get the latest posts sent in Telegram Telegram