Jackson's 'The Hobbit' Debuts in 48FPS - Will the Future Be in HFR?
by Alex Billington
December 5, 2012
In darkened movie theaters last Friday morning, November 30th, history was made. New Line/Warner Bros screened one of the very first movies shot in 48FPS 3D - Peter Jackson's The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, the first part in a trilogy based on the J.R.R Tolkien classic - to critics nationwide who were anxiously waiting to see it. I sat Friday morning inside the Dolby screening room in New York City, quietly, patiently waiting with a scattering of other members of the press around me for this landmark screening to begin. Would anyone like it? Would the person next to me get nauseous from HFR? Would the whole 48FPS experience be a revelation or a disaster? We were all about to find out. In a hole in the ground there lived…
The events leading up to this screening have been memorable, which is why it was such an odd and quiet morning, as everyone agreed to follow Warner Bros' embargo (now up this week) and only speak amongst themselves. Ever since this past CinemaCon, where WB screened 10 minutes of HFR footage to an exhibitor plus press crowd to mediocre reactions, they haven't been showing or pushing 48FPS/HFR publicly at all. It was only recently noticed as a format listed in TV spots as "HFR 3D". That's the way I've experienced The Hobbit—twice already, mostly to confirm my feelings on the experience (and because I'm a huge LOTR geek and had to go again, my precious). My claim: I believe HFR is here to stay, as long as audiences embrace it.
Now, I'm not going to get too technical here, as I just want to talk about the experience. If you recall in my CinemaCon video blog, my thoughts on the HFR experience in April were iffy. I wasn't into it, even though I'm generally open to technological advances. I was waiting for this experience in full, and having seen The Hobbit twice, I really feel as if I can say that HFR (aka 48FPS or 60FPS) is indeed the future. However, I am nervous thinking those thoughts emerging after that first screening because—well, let's say a few people so far seem to hate the HFR experience. They don't ever want to see another movie like that again. Uh oh?
I think the big problem is that we will need to get used to HFR (High-Frame Rates), just because we have to. Essentially, every movie we've ever seen up until now, everything we've ever watched, every film we've ever loved, that has defined our tastes and our lives, we've seen in 24FPS. The Hobbit is literally the first film to ever be shot in 48FPS and shown that way, and it's unlike anything we've ever seen. And everyone knows the old saying: no one likes change. It's so different, it doesn't look right, doesn't look like Lawrence of Arabia — even though that might actually look great in HFR 3D. While yes, maybe we shouldn't have to "get used to" something in cinema, this isn't a new style, it's almost just the technology catching up with the times.
Peter Jackson explained at a press conference recently that HFR is much more of a format choice, like 3D, for filmmakers to use. And because it actually benefits the 3D in many ways (and potentially detracts - more on that later) filmmakers may want to use it to match modern technology like video games that already offer this kind of FPS. Especially with Peter Jackson and The Hobbit setting the precedent, along with James Cameron's Avatar sequel coming up, which may even be made at 60FPS. Jackson stated via ComingSoon:
"Warner Bros. were very supportive. They just wanted us to prove that the 24 frame version would look normal, which it does, but once they were happy with that, on first day, when we had to press that button that said '48 frames' even though on that first day we started shooting at 48 FPS, you could probably say there wasn't a single cinema in the world that would project the movie in that format. It was a big leap of faith."
"The big thing to realize is that it's not an attempt to change the film industry," Jackson added. "It's another choice. The projectors that can run at 48 frames can run at 24 frames - it doesn't have to be one thing or another. You can shoot a movie at 24 frames and have sequences at 48 or 60 frames within the body of the film. You can still do all the shutter-angle and strobing effects. It doesn't necessarily change how films are going to be made. It's just another choice that filmmakers have got and for me, it gives that sense of reality that I love in cinema."
The experience I had watching The Hobbit the first time was on of utter fascination: was I seeing a glimpse at the future of cinema? A glorious, grand, epic, fun adventure about a small little Hobbit and thirteen of his Dwarf friends running across the hills and valleys of Middle Earth to reclaim some mountain taken over by a dragon. Was the HFR distraction just a temporary interference or greater hindrance? The one thing I can say: I've never seen a film, so many of the action scenes and visual moments in this, look like this. Ever. And I say that with an optimistic outlook on the future of movies - I've never experienced visuals like this.
One thing that we all have to acknowledge going into this is that, yes, Peter Jackson and Warner Bros are turning J.R.R. Tolkien's one long book into three long movies - a trilogy, in Middle Earth. I love the Lord of the Rings series (ROTK is listed as my all-time favorite) and I am more than excited to be back for another adventure. Almost to the point where, having been through this experience once before, I know that as much as I am enjoying (or not) the current movie, there's quite a bit more to come. Not only an Extended Edition of An Unexpected Journey, but two other entire movies to finish the story. So, this is just the beginning…
I remember back to the days of Fellowship of the Ring in 2001, two years before Return of the King would arrive and go on to win 11 Oscars. It was a similar experience to now. The visual effects were pretty good (one of the four Oscars FOTR won was for Best Effects) but we hadn't seen Gollum at all yet, and ohh—all the battles in Return of the King, just wait. You ain't see nothing yet! So maybe we ain't seen nothing of The Hobbit, yet? Especially of HFR? Sure, PJ did stretch out one story into an amusing overlong fantasy tale, but at the same time, it took two additional years to recognize the brilliance in the LOTR trilogy of 11 years ago.
Which also makes me think - if we got a glimpse at future technology then, are we getting a glimpse at future cinematic technology now, with An Unexpected Journey being shown in HFR? It certainly feels that way. If you throw aside expectations and the hope that this will be everything Fellowship of the Ring was (which is the case but almost to a fault, it's a bit too similar in structure) and enjoy the story, it's fun to get lost in the entertainment of The Hobbit all over again. It is one big, epic kids' movie with some singing and goofy antics throughout and a ragtag team of misfit dwarf heroes, hand-crafted with the abundant beauty of imagination.
Being able to use 48FPS and 3D this time, Jackson is able to create a world that looks and feels completely real (in a fantasy-world-come-to-life way), but almost too real. Many of the complaints with HFR are about how realistic it makes everything seem, so much so that it's actually easy to tell what is an indoor set, what is an outdoor shot, what is CG; because it's almost too video game smooth. It has crystal clarity. However, I found that with a little imagination I was able to get lost in the story because it was if Jackson and his New Zealand team was creating the purest sense of performance art adapted from narrative text, created and captured for viewing on a big screen. A "real-life" fantasy story envisioned in as true to real-life as possible.
So what if it looks too realistic? Isn't that that the point — striving for (fantasy) "realism"? Video games have always pushed to increase the FPS (Frames-Per-Second) in gaming to achieve a lifelike smoothness, less visual lag so to say. Why can't movies do the same? Others have stated that 48FPS is only "fixing" the old, broken system of 24FPS, which was initially easier to use in projection systems of early days, and optimized motion blurring. We've become used to seeing everything, literally every movie in our lives up until now, in 24FPS, and have come to know the feeling so well that anything new and never-seen-before is wrong at first.
As for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey itself, it is certainly still a wondrous and massively entertaining movie. It is also very long and does have many setups and introductions to get through before setting out on the "journey", but it's exhilarating being back in Middle Earth. By the end all I wanted was the next one, which is how I felt during Lord of the Rings. This movie is all about the setups. He's introducing so many characters and connections and relationships and feelings and storylines and moments that will all connect, or pay off, or play in, later on down the line. I'm fine with that because it's part of the bigger anticipation for the over-arcing story of The Hobbit trilogy, as told by Peter Jackson. I'm just unhappy we have to wait again.
There were a number of action sequences that thoroughly dazzled me. They aren't the most groundbreaking in terms of stunt choreography, but visually, I've honestly never seen action like this. The scenes that stuck out in particular: fighting the trolls; the mountain battle crashing/jumping across rocks; their Goblin Town escape sequence and fights; and the final flaming tree battle, especially the end with Thorin. I think the HFR 3D enhanced this action even more cinematically. When they're swinging on gigantic rocks, there's not a moment of motion blur, it's crystal clear—every last detail can be seen—from start to finish with everything going on, even during sweeping camera movements. It's here where that action choreography pays off, every little hop and skip and hammer smash can be seen hitting dead on, like real characters in this grand story.
Where HFR really shines (or at least should) is with three elements: water, fire and smoke. So much so that it was actually distracting, since those three have important roles in Middle Earth. One critic I talked to after the screening kept complaining about the HFR saying that he was always more intrigued by how shiny and perfect the water looked, or the smoke (which in HFR 3D looks about as realistic as smoke can possibly look), not the scene itself. Again, it's the wonder of technology, we're so used to how something looks that seeing it look so perfectly clear again in 48FPS can be distracting, but in time we will get used to it. In time.
I didn't really want to quote her, but one of the most vicious attacks on The Hobbit and HFR 3D comes from Jen Yamato at Movieline. She says pretty much what everyone is thinking when they see 48FPS for the first time - it looks like awful reality TV in overblown Best Buy showfloor HD. From her review on Movieline:
"HD TV did look rather freaky at first, I'll give him that, and there's a shared quality of too much visual information that The Hobbit's 48 fps shares with high-def television. But it didn't take a few minutes of adjusting to get used to it; even two hours and 40 minutes later my brain was rejecting the look of it. It felt like watching daytime soaps in HD, terrible BBC broadcasts, or Faerie Tale Theater circa 1985, only in amazingly sharp clarity and with hobbits."
That really can't be denied, it's a bit weird at first and does make the world almost 80's TV surreal—as if we can point out the sets ourselves. With time, better set lighting work and post-processing will improve that. The other problem with HFR has to do with the eerie double-motion effect. I realized while watching that because we're used to seeing 24FPS most of the time, when we see double the amount of frames (48) in the same amount of time, it looks as if everything moves at double speed. It wasn't until my second viewing when all the motion seemed to appear normal, no longer jittery or sped up. I believe I was getting used to it. HFR has a growing number of dissenters, but does that mean audiences will be into it or not? Am I alone?
Another critic I knew I could count on was Jeff Wells, who wrote an interesting plea in support of 48FPS, despite otherwise disliking The Hobbit. "Let me explain something else. 48 fps is a lot closer to what life looks like with your eyes. It's much clearer and sharper and more vivid than 24 fps, which looks like that special neverland called 'cinema' -- a very peculiar world with very specific climates and textures, and all of it fake. No matter what Pond, Debruge, Yamato and Rocchi are telling you, there's nothing wrong, trust me, with a movie looking more vivid and life-like and less like the other-worldly realm of 24 fps, which the harumphs prefer because -- it really comes down to this -- they've been watching it all their lives."
His post echoes some of my own sentiments about how it's completely new, but is still the way we should be seeing things now anyway, and likely will continue to. Which is how I felt seeing Hobbit the second time around, 48FPS was starting to feel like the "norm", because every computer screen I'm looking at is already HFR. Of course, this particular format "isn't for everything", as they'll say. It's best suited for fantasies, superheroes, animated films and so on. Just as with 3D, not everything is meant for that enhancement, and the same with HFR. But I expect years down the line this might be the norm, and we'll be used to this clarity and crispness in most movies, even if it doesn't look like the way we're used to watching now. Wells adds:
"Let me explain a third thing. Once you've seen a big, empty, splashy, FX-driven film at 48 fps, you'll never again be fully satisfied with seeing a big, empty, splashy, FX-driven film at 24 fps. 48 fps is perfect for comic-book whack-offs, Star Trek or Star Wars flicks, monster movies, vampire movies, pirate movies, adventure flicks, zombie flicks, animated features… anything that isn't straight drama or any kind of impressively written, character-driven adult fare aimed at anyone with a year or two of college.
All of that is true. The times I was most impressed were the action scenes. A couple of huge sequences where things are swinging and the camera is moving fast, and yet the action seems flawlessly captured. It reminds me of a video game, but I actually mean that in a really good way. Like the N64 3D Mario platformer, as if envisioned into fantasy movie happening for real in front of you. Which is the thought that made me realize this is going to make Avatar 2 look totally phenomenal. Can you remember how that mostly-CGI movie looked the very first time you saw it? Despite its story, there are some moments in the second half that are visually astounding. I imagine the action in that, in 3D, will look even better in HFR—many years from now.
In answer to all the complaints about how all the details look so cheap and so movie-set-ish in HFR, I think this will improve with time. It is the future, but there's a ways to go. In the same way color, sound and even 3D allowed filmmakers to push the format and experiment with expanding the tools of cinema on their own, HFR is a tool that filmmakers can "choose" to use to challenge themselves with to enhance the experience. To make it seem real and even, one day, perhaps hyper-real for some crazy sci-fi action movie. After going to see The Hobbit in HFR 3D, just imagine what Star Trek 2 would look like in HFR. (Also, I do realize by the time most people see The Hobbit at release, they will have seen the Star Trek 2 IMAX 3D prologue, too.)
When first seeing The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, while I was enjoying the introductory experience at hand, I was also thinking of the future - in terms of the next two movies and last half of the story yet to come, and the progress of technology in the meantime (as we wait for this trilogy; and James Cameron to make Avatar 2). Don't forget that Peter Jackson shot The Hobbit on 48 RED 3D cameras, and they captured every last damn detail. With HFR now introduced to the masses, it will allow filmmakers to enhance cinema in the ways they choose to make their artwork feel more like an adventure or experience. I expect this is only the first of many HFR movies we'll see in the near future, much to the unhappiness of many critics I'm sure.
The most I can say is, try to get used to it, give it a shot. Is it so bad? Am I the crazy one here? Maybe I was gazing too far into Peter Jackson's palantír and got lost on the other side with James Cameron, because I enjoyed most of the experience, especially the spectacle of epic visual storytelling. Maybe not as much as Fellowship (maybe an extended cut will fix that?) but I must see the next two movies to really round things up. By mid-2014 when the final film in the trilogy hits, don't expect The Hobbit: There and Back Again to get a limited HFR release in 400 theaters. I expect it in 3,000 — as long as the audiences are in for the experience like they were with Avatar a few years ago. We'll find out soon, they decide the fate of HFR now.
Whatever the fate, Peter Jackson has once again sucked me into his Middle Earth series for another round of waiting. The Desolation of Smaug, which is a hell of a title, arrives in only 373 more days. Though I wouldn't call An Unexpected Journey perfect, the world he's (re)established for us to visit is perfect. The characters he introduces us to are all wonderful, ready to be molded. There's a growing Aragorn vibe from Thorin, played by Richard Armitage, who is the film's badass. Gandalf (Ian McKellen) & Bilbo (Martin Freeman) are great. Balin, played by Ken Stott, is one of my other favorites, almost the elder of the company, such a heartfelt character. There are 12 others they're turning into Pippin & Merry all over again.
My suggestion with An Unexpected Journey: just sit back and enjoy the ride. It's only a part of the complete journey, it's only part of history. The first feature-length HFR movie released in 2012. Will audiences go for it, or will this High Frame-Rate format be deemed a disaster? Does it even matter? Filmmakers like Peter Jackson and James Cameron may keep it alive anyway. Which is why I believe, based on what I saw, we'll be seeing a lot more HFR in the future. Even if it's just the occasional animation, fantasy or sci-fi movie, they're going to look amazing in HFR 3D, if the filmmaker can use these visual tools in effective and exciting ways.
At the most basic level, High Frame-Rates (48FPS or 60FPS) enhance the experience of 3D by minimizing technical issues caused by modern 3D projection. Essentially it prevents flickering in the image, eliminates any extra motion blur, and prevents the loss of any brightness or clarity. This should prevent viewers from getting sick, but a couple of headlines make it seem that's not the case so far. The point is, it helps make 3D really look the way it should, and it's clear by watching the smoke from Gandalf's pipe in a few The Hobbit scenes that it can really make cinema look even better, more realistic shall we say, than it ever has before.
I'm already excited to see the next two movies in Peter Jackson's Hobbit trilogy. I'm excited to see where the future of HFR goes. I don't have many complaints any more, especially after two nearly-three-hour Hobbit viewings. Will audiences enjoy it, will critics come around, or will it go down the drain like HD-DVD? I'm excited to see how HFR pushes filmmakers and the overall visual quality of cinema. If this is only the first of three movies showing us once again how cinema technology can push the storytelling experience, I'm even more anxious to see what he's going to show us the next few years. As Gandalf says to Bilbo, "the world is not in your books and maps, it's out there." HFR could be the future, or not. Only time, and money, will tell.
I think you need to realize that movies are not video games. You want to be in the video game since you are the controller, in a movie, you're watching. It's fantasy. I'd argue that dramas are best for 48FPS because it makes you more involved. I don't want to see the sets in a fantasy flick. I think you're trying to convince yourself you like it, which is sad.
BK on Dec 5, 2012
Is "HFR" the new word for 60 FPS? As it seems like when it was first announced the studio was calling it 60 FPS. // Personally, I think HFR will do best in any movie that relies heavily on digital effects. I do not think a Coen Brothers or PTA film would benefit much from 60 FPS.
DAVIDPD on Dec 6, 2012
I got the impression Alex is trying to convince himself more than us as well.
Emagsamurai on Dec 6, 2012
24FPS is not real, it is imperfect and we just got accustomed to it. Video games is not movies, and movies to 24FPS is not closer to reality if we want to enjoy a vivid real experience in a movie theater. I like film-look in many kind of movies, but in action movies and even more in 3D movies, enjoy the sharpness and effect free sequences in fast action scenes 48FPS is a right step. Something similar happened with the DSLR and its video capability, every body want 24FPS to look more "film or professional" and people just related 30 or 60FPS with TV look, a terrible mistake btw.
Alexander Ramos on Dec 6, 2012
48FPS is like 3D, how many people loved 3D when it came out? I did not but I enjoyed its use in Prometheus and people are seeing movies in 3D. So just like 3D, 48FPS will get better and we will like it some day. But i have no issues with 120Hz TV's today so i expect to like 48FPS from the start. I am over 30 so i do not fall into the kid category.
daniel fritzen on Dec 7, 2012
That seems nice and whatever and all, but honestly I just want to watch the movie already haha
Fidel Reyes on Dec 5, 2012
You have the actors matched with the wrong characters in the article. Bilbo/Gandalf. Great article. I'm interested to see how 48fps looks in the movie theater, I will give it a fair chance. I do relate with motion blur with films though, so I am predicting it will be quite hard for people to accept.
Tricia Kula on Dec 5, 2012
You heard it here FIRST!!! The Hobbit will not match the grandeur of the Lord of the Rings movies. It will be such an utter disappointment and only fanboys of the book or fanboys who just loves movies will give it its due Too bad.... I feel sorry for Jackson.
LOTR Fan on Dec 5, 2012
The Hobbit was never meant to be grand or epic. It has much more in common with fairy tales. Hence wolves, trolls, scary forests, spooky mountains, riddles, a simple invisibility ring... Remember at the beginning of FotR when Bilbo was telling his story? He was telling it to a bunch of little kids. The Hobbit=an adventure with fairy tales woven in. LOTR= an epic with an adventure at the center The Hobbit is a story aimed at little kids, but also for everyone, and LOTR is for meant for your older kids, but also for everyone.
si1ver on Dec 5, 2012
People are so ignorant...
Alexander Ramos on Dec 6, 2012
I think HFR might get rejected by most people (the complaints will no doubt scare off some moviegoers who were on the fence about it). I have not seen HFR yet, I like the idea of it making the 3D camera moves "smoother" etc - but if it radically changes the visual experience then I'm not sure I'll like it. I read complaints that said the CGI looks very fake @ 48fps. And if they're not charging more for HFR 3D than they do for 24fps 3D, then there's no financial incentive for the studio to shoot that way if people aren't very receptive toward it. I could see a scenario where it becomes a well-regarded premium format, used by certain filmmakers but nowhere near mainstream. Think of IMAX: everyone said Nolan shooting on IMAX was a game changer (and it was indeed awesome), but how many filmmakers since have actually used the format? Bay, Abrams, and Bird are the only three I can think of. I think HFR will meet a similar fate, at least in the short-term.
John on Dec 5, 2012
The reviews are out. The Hobbit will fall short of the expectations that LOTRs was. This movie is getting hammered on its reviews. Probably here as well when a review comes out. Sad day for LOTRs fans. PJ lost his midas touch.
Phillip Manning on Dec 5, 2012
No, Critics are just dolts who don't understand the source material. If you're familiar with LOTR and the Hobbit you won't have the stupid expectation that the latter will be EXACTLY like the former. Therefore you can see it for the epic masterpiece that it is... wholly different in tone from LOTR.
Justin Buell on Dec 6, 2012
I have never read any of the source material and have absolutely no expectation that the latter will be anything like the former. That's why I have no interest in it. The LOTR characters are why I enjoyed those films. I don't give a crap about Bilbo Baggins or the rest of the hobbits...
BloodwerK on Dec 6, 2012
then why did you come to a forum about a movie you care nothing about?
beevis on Dec 6, 2012
Probably here to get the commentary on the format, less so for the movie. Or maybe not. I was, though. I think it's incredibly damaging to a film's visual effects, and Avatar 2 will need a ton of work if it's going to look convincing at 60. Then again, it's possible a lot of that movie will be shot underwater, which would look unbelievable at higher framerates.
OfficialJab on Dec 6, 2012
"Probably here to get the commentary on the format, less so for the movie.". In a nutshell, yes. I just had the opportunity to express my lack of interest in the film. Win / win...
BloodwerK on Dec 6, 2012
I was looking to make a negative comment about it. Same reason anybody else on the internet reads and comments on anything they aren't interested in. Is that the response you wanted / expected?
BloodwerK on Dec 6, 2012
People like you are the reference of many blogger and critics, saying nothing true and trying to bring attention to their websites. It is really sad people just trolling on internet.
Alexander Ramos on Dec 6, 2012
I dont "troll" on the internet. Troll is something you kids came up with. When I post something negative I'm not looking for a response. In fact, I'm not looking for a response ever. I post simple because I fell like it. I comment mostly about things I like, but also about things I don't. The Hobbit happens to be one of the things I dont...
BloodwerK on Dec 7, 2012
i'm with you, justin....although i am NOT excited for the HFR edit: was looking at some other early response to the film - and most are not saying anything positive about the 48 fps - in fact, there are a lot of negative comments about it. the good news is that the film will still be shown in 24fps to most people as a minority of theatres have the technology to use this 48 frame nonsense. here's a quote from one critic (mike ryan) after seeing the film: ", if you're curious about the technology, see it in 48 FPS -Honestly- if only to see something you've never seen before. But if you're just a fan of the Lord of the Rings trilogy and you want to watch The Hobbit without any distractions, see it in 24 FPS" - end quote. i'll be seeing this in 24FPS.....i think it's a huge mistake to test new technology on such a big release.
beevis on Dec 6, 2012
I've seen it in HFR, I want to see it again in HFR. I think it's a mistake to let others decide for yourself. Who is better judge on this matter anyway than people such as Peter Jackson and James Cameron? Do they need more money? Probably not. They are doing it because they feel passionate about it. Like it or not, this is how the director intended his film to be seen, and how I think people should see this film.
Roger on Dec 21, 2012
Are you implying Alex is a dolt, and the rest of the team at FS? You should be more careful how you explain your thoughts.
Jen on Dec 6, 2012
you aren't reading the reviews correctly - many critics are being harsh on the HFR - not the movie. most are saying that if you liked LotR, you'll like hobbit. there does seem to be some criticism about the length of the film.....i'll have to see it first, but (at over 3 hours) it might seem long. we'll know next week.
beevis on Dec 6, 2012
Hmm, seems as of you are not reading correctly. How did you gets over 3 hours for this movie?? It stands at 2hrs 46min with the credits. So actual film time is less than 2 1/2hrs. Also, I've read some of the more favorable critics reviews and on par to what Phillip said. Maybe you have to go back and read more carefully. Sorry, I'm not trying to make an example of your mistakes. But you did have one if not more.
Sooners4life on Dec 6, 2012
sooners, i could care less what you think. one critic said 3 hours and 9 minutes. i DO NOT CARE if it's that or 2 and half hours. and although i don't care about reviews at all - i looked at over a dozen after phils post and 9 or 10 of them liked the movie and not the HFR. i'm sure there are many reviews anyone can cite AND i'm sure there will be those who don't like th film. - i was just trying to give some perspective that not EVERYONE is hating the film and it isn't being "hammered". and even if the critics were all down on the movie for whatever reasons- i'm still going to be there opening night. i find your "gotcha!" post really childish.
beevis on Dec 6, 2012
Hammered by idiots...? People are talking about The Hobbit and many of them have not idea what they are watching. People even have not idea The Hobbit like kids' story is completely different than The Hobbit as part of the War of the Ring. I stopped to read reviews many years ago, that is nothing and read the opinion of a ignorant just because he doesn't like a movie is a waste of time.
Alexander Ramos on Dec 6, 2012
Longest article ever?
BloodwerK on Dec 6, 2012
Matt Peloquin on Dec 6, 2012
Sounds more like the suspension of disbelief is significantly reduced rather than just "you're used to 24fps movies".
castingcouch on Dec 6, 2012
I wonder if CGI artists will be paid more now that they have to render twice as many frames...
Jason Harris on Dec 7, 2012
I would rather spend less money, experience the movie and be engrossed in the story, than have to pay for it twice so my brain can adjust to 48fps to get the "full effect." Seems like a bad deal to me.
Smurfman Sassafras on Dec 7, 2012
The only reason i want to see the hobbit is for the new framerate, otherwise the movie looks boring. The lord of the rings trilogy are some of my favorite movies but the hobbit, despite what the say, does not need three movies.
rgqh6j256j on Dec 7, 2012
Hold the phone. I was under the impression that the 48FPS tech was just 24 frames per-eye-per-second, thus a full brightness, no flicker, 24FPS film experience in 3D. I don't see how that technique could give a movie the smoothed "video" look. Also are all these screenings on new projection equipment with proprietary polarization lenses too?
Mitchel MacLatchie on Dec 13, 2012
Don't understand what the controversy is about. High frame rates have been around for a long time--it's called VIDEO. 24fps carried the day for narrative motion picture storytelling a long time ago for its more dreamlike quality.
Average_Minnesotan on Dec 13, 2012
There were awesome 48fps scenes and there were really terrible ones. The terribles ones like Radagast speed-driving over a battlefield or the camera quickly following people grabbing something or the over-acting of Freeman. To me it seems, that those scenes need to be shot and acted differently with a camera running at 48fps. But again: Some scenes just looked stunning!
Thomas Henz on Dec 29, 2012
New comments are no longer allowed on this post.