The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
- Thread starter Eric Boellner
- Start date
The Lord of the Rings trilogy looked gorgeous. I prefer that look to The Hobbit.
The HFR 48 was a fun experience. I went with some friends and we were all there to see this latest film making technique, so that made it fun and exciting.
The positive is this was some of the crispest 3d I've ever seen. Normally 3d is difficult on my eyes, i'm always twisting my head to get the right angle, avoid glare, or just deal with the glasses. But this was just spot on super crisp bright fantastic looking 3d.
The negative is it looked like a crisp 3d reality TV show. Is there any way to get this awesome 3d with the LOTOR film look? That would be the sweet spot IMO. The HFR look was just not pleasing. Why do we think soap operas look cheap in the first place? It's because they are so edgy, and crisp, hyper real, and not soft and creamy and dreamy like film. The HFR was huge detriment to this film IMO. The hyper real video/soap opera look definitely was jarring. One friend said is this produced by the BBC?
I kept thinking, why are these big stars from teh Lord of the RIngs playing in this reality show? It was SO jarring to look at. I am not sold on HFR. I thought it would look fantastic, and the 3d is great, but the overall look is just bright, contrasty, edgy, overly sharp, cheap and horrid.
There were some scenes where it worked, like the fight with the Rock Giants. Otherwise, really did not like it.
Story wise, this is way, way, way to strung out.
The entire Hobbit could EASILY fit into this one movie. Jackson drags out every scene until he kills the drama in it, stomps on it, then stabs it, burns it, then scatters the ashes, then collects the scattered ashes one at a time, so he can take them somewhere else and scatter them again.
I thought we would never leave the Shire, and we almost didn't. We should have seen the fight with Smaug at the end of Act 2.
the movie seemed to be more about the Pale Orc than Bilbo. I don't think the books went into so much background and detail about the Pale Orc, and OMG! the flashbacks. It was like one big flashback. I thought when Gandalf lit his pipe we'd have to flashback and see how he got the matches and where he bought the pipe.
The HFR 48 was a fun experience. I went with some friends and we were all there to see this latest film making technique, so that made it fun and exciting.
The positive is this was some of the crispest 3d I've ever seen. Normally 3d is difficult on my eyes, i'm always twisting my head to get the right angle, avoid glare, or just deal with the glasses. But this was just spot on super crisp bright fantastic looking 3d.
The negative is it looked like a crisp 3d reality TV show. Is there any way to get this awesome 3d with the LOTOR film look? That would be the sweet spot IMO. The HFR look was just not pleasing. Why do we think soap operas look cheap in the first place? It's because they are so edgy, and crisp, hyper real, and not soft and creamy and dreamy like film. The HFR was huge detriment to this film IMO. The hyper real video/soap opera look definitely was jarring. One friend said is this produced by the BBC?
I kept thinking, why are these big stars from teh Lord of the RIngs playing in this reality show? It was SO jarring to look at. I am not sold on HFR. I thought it would look fantastic, and the 3d is great, but the overall look is just bright, contrasty, edgy, overly sharp, cheap and horrid.
There were some scenes where it worked, like the fight with the Rock Giants. Otherwise, really did not like it.
Story wise, this is way, way, way to strung out.
The entire Hobbit could EASILY fit into this one movie. Jackson drags out every scene until he kills the drama in it, stomps on it, then stabs it, burns it, then scatters the ashes, then collects the scattered ashes one at a time, so he can take them somewhere else and scatter them again.
I thought we would never leave the Shire, and we almost didn't. We should have seen the fight with Smaug at the end of Act 2.
the movie seemed to be more about the Pale Orc than Bilbo. I don't think the books went into so much background and detail about the Pale Orc, and OMG! the flashbacks. It was like one big flashback. I thought when Gandalf lit his pipe we'd have to flashback and see how he got the matches and where he bought the pipe.
The theater I went too last night was empty, and the movie was so boring (after the interest in HFR 3D wore) that I tried to fall asleep to pass the time. Couldn't =T
I think, however, for the general audience all versions will be successful. After the initial twenty to thirty minute adjustment period I can see most of the viewership getting into it as a new experience.
One thing that I'm anticipating now, though... Pixar and HFR. I'll continue to take my traditional cinema in 24P flavor, but for CGi and Video Games, I'm on board for higher frame rates.
I went to see it last evening for the 7.30pm showing, there were a bare double handful of people around, which at least meant there weren't hoards of teenagers texting and chatting.
It wasn't boring to me, the "preamble" was IMHO necessary at it's length, as it's not setting up a 2-3 hour movie, but a 8-9 hour one, just as LOTR is a 10+ hour movie depending on whether you watch the theatrical or extended cut. We need to see *why* Thorin et al are trying to regain Erebor. I did look at my watch, but only to see if my now ageing bladder would hold out :embarasse and was astonished to see it was 10.30 already!
I didn't mind the hyper clarity at all since that was what PJ was after, an immersive reality, rather than a dream, what did tend to take me out of the story was that the 3D looked "fake", now I have to admit to being a 3D novice, as nothing that's been shot in 3D has interested my enough to go and see it, but the depth looked like layers of 2D which especially occurred with deep backgrounds. I you *look* at real landscapes (eg mountains) they still look deep even though they may be miles away, whereas these looked like 2D plates. On a positive note I didn't get a headache or even worse vertigo which I was afraid of as I have somewhat wonky eyes (And may be why the 3D didn't look right)
But then perhaps I'm just a Tolkein geek :happy:
It wasn't boring to me, the "preamble" was IMHO necessary at it's length, as it's not setting up a 2-3 hour movie, but a 8-9 hour one, just as LOTR is a 10+ hour movie depending on whether you watch the theatrical or extended cut. We need to see *why* Thorin et al are trying to regain Erebor. I did look at my watch, but only to see if my now ageing bladder would hold out :embarasse and was astonished to see it was 10.30 already!
I didn't mind the hyper clarity at all since that was what PJ was after, an immersive reality, rather than a dream, what did tend to take me out of the story was that the 3D looked "fake", now I have to admit to being a 3D novice, as nothing that's been shot in 3D has interested my enough to go and see it, but the depth looked like layers of 2D which especially occurred with deep backgrounds. I you *look* at real landscapes (eg mountains) they still look deep even though they may be miles away, whereas these looked like 2D plates. On a positive note I didn't get a headache or even worse vertigo which I was afraid of as I have somewhat wonky eyes (And may be why the 3D didn't look right)
But then perhaps I'm just a Tolkein geek :happy:
Barry_Green
Moderator
Saw it yesterday in 2D/24fps. Haven't seen 3D or 48fps yet.
I was kind of expecting the worst, since so many people have been so harsh and so brutal on it. In general, it was a slightly slow, slightly boring, but generally competent member of the LOTR family. There was certainly no visible problem with makeup, or sets, or contrast, or blown out skies, or unnatural motion, or excessive makeup, or anything like that. It looked and felt the same as the other LOTR films. As for the story, well, this wasn't really JRR Tolkien's "The Hobbit", it was more like "Peter Jackson's vision of what JRR Tolkien would have written if he'd gotten around to rewriting the Hobbit like he said he was going to", which is basically how I think he described it during an interview.
The CG was a bit much, I mean, the goblin king came across as more of a joke than as a menacing creature, the white orc was a bit fake looking, but no worse than most CG characters...
There were some instances of noticeable 24p judder, as you would expect, but again, no different from any other film.
(disclaimer: I was in the back 1/3 of the theater; I normally sit in the front 1/3, so perhaps things would have looked a tad faker up close; plus, this was a medium-sized screen, not a mega massive screen).
Will attempt to get to a Cinemark XD Massive-Screen 3-D HFR screening at some point to see if that changes the perceptions, but ... I don't know that I'm in any rush to see this again at all any time soon, so that would be a research project if I undertook it.
Maybe it was my low expectations that led to a reasonably satisfying experience (at least as compared to what people have been saying about it) but -- if you're concerned HFR or 3D will "ruin" it for you, and you just want to watch a movie, try the 2D 24FPS version. It looks and plays like a regular movie should.
I was kind of expecting the worst, since so many people have been so harsh and so brutal on it. In general, it was a slightly slow, slightly boring, but generally competent member of the LOTR family. There was certainly no visible problem with makeup, or sets, or contrast, or blown out skies, or unnatural motion, or excessive makeup, or anything like that. It looked and felt the same as the other LOTR films. As for the story, well, this wasn't really JRR Tolkien's "The Hobbit", it was more like "Peter Jackson's vision of what JRR Tolkien would have written if he'd gotten around to rewriting the Hobbit like he said he was going to", which is basically how I think he described it during an interview.
The CG was a bit much, I mean, the goblin king came across as more of a joke than as a menacing creature, the white orc was a bit fake looking, but no worse than most CG characters...
There were some instances of noticeable 24p judder, as you would expect, but again, no different from any other film.
(disclaimer: I was in the back 1/3 of the theater; I normally sit in the front 1/3, so perhaps things would have looked a tad faker up close; plus, this was a medium-sized screen, not a mega massive screen).
Will attempt to get to a Cinemark XD Massive-Screen 3-D HFR screening at some point to see if that changes the perceptions, but ... I don't know that I'm in any rush to see this again at all any time soon, so that would be a research project if I undertook it.
Maybe it was my low expectations that led to a reasonably satisfying experience (at least as compared to what people have been saying about it) but -- if you're concerned HFR or 3D will "ruin" it for you, and you just want to watch a movie, try the 2D 24FPS version. It looks and plays like a regular movie should.
That reminds me of The Shining. I heard that Stephen King hated the Kubrik movie version of his novel. He liked the remake better which he thought was closer to his novel. Of course the Kubrik directed
movie is a masterpiece, and the remake is a piece of crap. Or like Lucas adding the really crappy looking CGI Jabba the Hut into the original Star Wars movie. Sometimes the best art happens because the creators don't get what they want.
I actually prefer the TV The Shining over the Kubrick version.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Saw it in 24f 3D last weekend. Great effects and look, some marvelous set pieces - mostly so because of VFX. Story-wise it was a train wreck.
I plan to see it again once it comes out on Blu-Ray to further analyze it, but I don't expect that to be a particularly enjoyable experience. I'll just try to get clearer on what worked and what didn't. I had a difficult time staying awake, especially early on.
I think Peter Jackson has dug a huge "I always make really long, really flashy movies" hole for himself. Like too many others before in too many ways to count (and in many pursuits other than film), he's doomed himself (IMHO) by trying to put quantity over quality, and style over substance. Many have tried, almost none have succeeded...
But big box office so far, to say the least. Which is actually kind of depressing to me...
YMMV
I plan to see it again once it comes out on Blu-Ray to further analyze it, but I don't expect that to be a particularly enjoyable experience. I'll just try to get clearer on what worked and what didn't. I had a difficult time staying awake, especially early on.
I think Peter Jackson has dug a huge "I always make really long, really flashy movies" hole for himself. Like too many others before in too many ways to count (and in many pursuits other than film), he's doomed himself (IMHO) by trying to put quantity over quality, and style over substance. Many have tried, almost none have succeeded...
But big box office so far, to say the least. Which is actually kind of depressing to me...
YMMV
Batutta
Major Contributor
So I finally saw the 3D 48fps version of this and...believe it or not I actually thought it looked pretty great. I was fairly skeptical to say the least as I don't like 120hz frame interpolation on HDTV's, and while the effect was similar, it was without the artifacts. The image was incredibly detailed, and the 3D was probably the best I've seen. Very easy to watch. The problems I usually have with 24fps 3D (ghosting, blurry motion), were almost nonexistent here. I actually think they should have gone for an even higher frame rate, 72 or 96hz. I mean if you're going to do this, you might as well go all out and completely eliminate motion artifacts, and I did still see some judder on occasion on extremely fast movements. I truly don't agree with those who say the sets and the make-up look more fake in HFR. They looked the same to me as they did in 2D. If anything, the CGI characters looked more believable in 3D HFR than they did in the 2D version, less videogame-like and more integrated into the image. Anyway, that's my two cents. I was truly skeptical, but for 3D presentations, I think high frame rate is the way to go for sure...As for the film, seeing it again it's clear the biggest weakness is that Bilbo has no specific mission to carry out. He is just tagging along as the Dwarves move from point A to point B. In the first LOTR film, Frodo had to take the Ring to Rivendell, and then was tasked with taking it to Mount Doom. Bilbo has nothing to do in this really, which makes him a weak protagonist.
I agree that Bilbo appears weak in this film, however, during the story, as told in the book, he grows in strength and resourcefulness until he become a central protagonist. His "purpose" was ostensibly to be a burgler, however I suspect Gandalf had a deeper purpose.
Starscream
Active member
it was visually really impressive, first movie where i actually enjo'd the 3D
and oc the effects and landscapes were good as usual.
but the whole movie was indeed wayy to stretched
i would like to enjoy the happy, funny Hobbit story without getting force feed'd with the whole LOTR lore and more flashbacks than a drug-ridden 'nam veteran.
anyway, from a VFX point of view i was impressed. 48 fps worked surprisingly good. for that movie.
and oc the effects and landscapes were good as usual.
but the whole movie was indeed wayy to stretched
i would like to enjoy the happy, funny Hobbit story without getting force feed'd with the whole LOTR lore and more flashbacks than a drug-ridden 'nam veteran.
anyway, from a VFX point of view i was impressed. 48 fps worked surprisingly good. for that movie.
If you just told the bare Hobbit story then yes perhaps it would go into a single 3 hour movie (But not shorter), however what is going on in The Hobbit (The book) turns out to be only the tip of the iceberg of what was going on in Middle Earth at the time, and which IMHO needs to be told, as it also sets up what happens in LOTR, eg the three meetings of The White Council and the overthrow of Dol Guldur, which I'm hoping they will show. I just wish PJ hadn't let his love of the grotesque get the better of him in the design of goblins and wargs (Not mentioned in The Hobbit, which talks of "wolves" only). I'm also not too sure about Radagast discovering the Morgul blade in Dol Guldur, it doesn't ring true, however it does give him an opportunity to show some of his strength as an incarnated maiar spirit.
I do get the feeling that PJ probably regards this as his last chance to visit Middle Earth so wants to tell everything he wants to. I think the Tolkein family / estate won't let him touch the tales in The Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales, This being partly out of a rather sniffy attitude to film in general from Christopher Tolkein (Reflecting his father's attitude). However one or two of the younger generation don't have the same attitude. The Lay of Leithien would make a brilliant film but is far to central to the Tolkein Family to let anyone anywhere near it.
Phew!
I do get the feeling that PJ probably regards this as his last chance to visit Middle Earth so wants to tell everything he wants to. I think the Tolkein family / estate won't let him touch the tales in The Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales, This being partly out of a rather sniffy attitude to film in general from Christopher Tolkein (Reflecting his father's attitude). However one or two of the younger generation don't have the same attitude. The Lay of Leithien would make a brilliant film but is far to central to the Tolkein Family to let anyone anywhere near it.
Phew!
Batutta
Major Contributor
Yes, and that's why I am kind of reserving final judgement on this film until I see the whole thing. It's a 9 hour movie chopped into 3 parts, and this is only the first "ACT" as it were. But one of the triumphs of the Lord of the Rings films, or even more so the first Star Wars trilogy, is that they work as individual films while also serving the whole. Not really so in this case.
OK, I get your point, however in The Hobbit (The book), Bilbo *is* a sort of "Tag-along" until they reach Erebor, since he was engaged soley as a burglar to get the dwarves' gold back for them (If indeed that was Gandalf's sole purpose). In FOTR Frodo had to take the ring from the start, so wa sa central caracter from the off. Bilbo will only grow into being a central caracter later on.
I do think the dwarves getting captured by the trolls and later the goblins works better in the film than the book, where they appear rather comical and inefective compared to the doughty warriors they are in the rest of the legendarium, and how they're portraid by PJ.
I do think the dwarves getting captured by the trolls and later the goblins works better in the film than the book, where they appear rather comical and inefective compared to the doughty warriors they are in the rest of the legendarium, and how they're portraid by PJ.
ripupthehwy
Well-known member
I agree. Saw it in 48fps 3D. To me, however some of the animated CG shots looked more like 24p (like the giant nearsighted bafoons who wanted to cook and eat the hobbits). Then went back to 48fps when live actors were in the shots. JMHO.
Anyway, with the advent of 120hz tv's (seems every TV store now displays movies on them, giving the videoy/soap opera, tv look) it seems the electronics manufacturers are inadvertantly slowly getting the public used to non-24frame presentations of movies. Now with the Hobbit, I wonder if this is just the beginning of trying to pull us away from 24frame movies in the future. YUCK
It's all about making more money.
Shooting in 48frames instead of 24 will eat up more storage. So more storage space to buy. Then will come 48fps TV screens and solid state type DVD players to buy. On and on it goes.
Last edited:
LiamR
Well-known member
Saw the 2d, 24fps version today, didn't like it, looked fake, they should of shot it on film, blah blah blah, that wasn't my main problem. Like many have said the story was drawn out and a bit boring. I agree with the statement about each LOTR / Star Wars film being able to stand on it's own, for me this felt like Deathly Hallows Part 1, I just wouldn't watch it again. As a trilogy I will probably enjoy it, but as a stand alone film... didn't do it for me.
I do have one major gripe with the film, the actor who played Thorin, kept doing these epic head lift line deliveries and it was very, very annoying.
I do have one major gripe with the film, the actor who played Thorin, kept doing these epic head lift line deliveries and it was very, very annoying.
Saw yesterday 3D 48fps. (PAL eh eh eh 
In my opinion in the movie everything looks FAKE.
Art design, costumes, lighting.
Horrible screenplay (the story of course is beautiful).
"Flat" direction from Jackson.
And the 48 fps is... DISGUSTING - soap opera syle.
Hope this technology dies as soon as possible.
bye
In my opinion in the movie everything looks FAKE.
Art design, costumes, lighting.
Horrible screenplay (the story of course is beautiful).
"Flat" direction from Jackson.
And the 48 fps is... DISGUSTING - soap opera syle.
Hope this technology dies as soon as possible.
bye
Barry_Green
Moderator
Okay, I have now seen it in both 24fps 2D and 48fps HFR 3D versions, and have been able to reach some definite conclusions...
First, as referenced in post #85 in this thread, I saw it in 2D 24fps first, and thought it looked fine. It looked like the LOTR films, with comparable costuming, set design, lighting, and art direction.
Afterwards, I saw the 3D version on the best screen in town -- a Cinemark XD screen, massive size, filling the field of view, and in 3D, and in 48FPS HFR.
Initially I will say that the HFR most definitely helped with the experience of 3D; I normally simply do not care for 3D at all, and it fatigues me, but this was some of the easiest-to-watch 3D I've ever experienced.
Second, the HFR version looked much sharper, crisper, clearer, and pans were much smoother.
Third, the HFR utterly destroyed the "cinematic" aspect of the film.
Totally, thoroughly, and utterly, completely, finally, and without a shred of restraint, it destroyed it.
It looked awful, in terms of cinema. It looked fake, it looked like a behind-the-scenes video. It sucked out the grandeur, majesty, and suspension of disbelief. The film lacked the gravity and weightiness of an epic, and instead felt more like ... dare I say it? It kind of felt like an old 1980's video-shot drama.
Can all the blame be really laid at the feet of a frame rate? Actually, yes, it can. Because this was a film with the best acting, the best lighting, the best costuming, the best set dressing, the best art direction, the best photography, the best sound design, the best camerawork, the best musical score, and the best effects that money can buy. And I saw it in both versions. And the 24fps version looked exactly like what I would expect, and the 48fps version looked -- there is no other word for it -- it looked cheap. Fake. Even, dare I say it, it looked amateur, in comparison to the 24fps version.
I spent $15 to see this because I have the utmost respect for Peter Jackson, and I wanted to experience the film as he envisioned it and as he intended for it to be seen. And since this was a grand experiment and the first substantial move forward in film technology since ... since ... well, I don't count 3D, because I don't think that's really truly a move forward, so maybe 48fps could be the equivalent of an advancement comparable to the introduction of color... so I went in with trepidation, expecting it to look "like video" (because how could it not?) but also with faith and trust in the master who crafted the LOTR trilogy.
... and ... I hated it. Because it looked exactly like video.
48fps has been praised because it is higher resolution and more lifelike, more like looking through a window. This is true -- it is. It is sharper, and clearer, and definitely more like looking through a window. But it is that very quality which basically ruined the experience of the film (to my eyes, at least). Because it no longer looked like a "movie", with the epic nature and the overall grandeur that that implies. Instead, what it looked like, I swear, is: it looked like some actors on a stage, wearing costumes and wigs and fake beards, performing a stage play.
Again -- why should we be surprised? That's what we've been told over and over -- "high frame rate is more like reality", and "3D is more like reality". Is reality what we want? We already have an art form that involves actors on sets in reality, with the depth of real 3-D: stage plays. How many of us go to stage plays? How many stage plays do you see, on a yearly basis, as compared to how many movies you see? In general audiences don't appear to value the "reality" of real-time action and real-time 3D of "real" stage plays, as much as they do the suspension of disbelief and transportation to another reality that a movie (frequently) offers.
Does 48FPS have a place in cinema? I don't know. Maybe in some specific sections, if we had variable-timebase technology where we could shoot the drama in 24fps and ramp up to faster frame rates for action scenes, maybe that's a valid place. Or in concert films, sure. Live events broadcast on a large screen, sure, have all the high frame rates you want. Animation? Maybe. As Kholi mentioned, it might be interesting to see a Pixar film in 48fps or 60fps.
But for general drama and cinema? I am choosing these words carefully when I write this: I believe that the 48fps experience ruined the film. I had experienced it in 24fps, and found it generally pleasing, well-crafted, and reasonably enjoyable. In the 48fps version I found it irritating, fake, cheapened, and frankly I found my attention wandering. It just didn't feel important; it felt ignorable.
My hat is off to Mr. Jackson for taking this bold risk, and for attempting to bring something new to the viewer, even if (ultimately) I really didn't care for it. I also salute his genius in going for a protectable format such as 48fps, which allowed for an effortless conventional 24fps version to be released. I further commend that he gave us the freedom of choice to experience it in either the new way, or the conventional way. For me, that choice has now been clearly made, and I will most definitely not bother with the 3D/48fps versions of the upcoming two films.
To anyone who's reading this who has only seen the 48fps version, and who has complained about all the things that so many reviewers have complained about, I urge you -- next time you're at the theater, just stick your head in a 2D/24fps screening for a couple of minutes. You may be shocked by just how normal and pleasant it looks, in comparison.
Finally, longtime DVXUser readers will know just how many times we've had the frame rate debate, about "why was 24fps chosen" and "nobody really likes 24fps, it's just the slowest speed that allowed for sound reproduction" and whatnot. From my perspective, this question has been decidedly and definitively answered once and for all. I will choose 24fps specifically for the look, and will avoid faster frame rates (for dramatic narrative production) specifically to avoid the look that the higher frame rate imbues to the footage. The Hobbit is a perfect test case to compare these two frame rates and the experience of watching a film in them, because (as said before) everything else is equal: art, camerawork, sound, framing, focus, composition, acting, costuming, lighting, everything. The only difference is the frame rate. And it makes a massive difference.
Thanks to Peter Jackson's visionary efforts, the palette of choices for filmmakers has just expanded. I, for one, appreciate the options but do not foresee taking advantage of them, as the tried and true 24fps look is vastly (dare I say immeasurably) preferable.
First, as referenced in post #85 in this thread, I saw it in 2D 24fps first, and thought it looked fine. It looked like the LOTR films, with comparable costuming, set design, lighting, and art direction.
Afterwards, I saw the 3D version on the best screen in town -- a Cinemark XD screen, massive size, filling the field of view, and in 3D, and in 48FPS HFR.
Initially I will say that the HFR most definitely helped with the experience of 3D; I normally simply do not care for 3D at all, and it fatigues me, but this was some of the easiest-to-watch 3D I've ever experienced.
Second, the HFR version looked much sharper, crisper, clearer, and pans were much smoother.
Third, the HFR utterly destroyed the "cinematic" aspect of the film.
Totally, thoroughly, and utterly, completely, finally, and without a shred of restraint, it destroyed it.
It looked awful, in terms of cinema. It looked fake, it looked like a behind-the-scenes video. It sucked out the grandeur, majesty, and suspension of disbelief. The film lacked the gravity and weightiness of an epic, and instead felt more like ... dare I say it? It kind of felt like an old 1980's video-shot drama.
Can all the blame be really laid at the feet of a frame rate? Actually, yes, it can. Because this was a film with the best acting, the best lighting, the best costuming, the best set dressing, the best art direction, the best photography, the best sound design, the best camerawork, the best musical score, and the best effects that money can buy. And I saw it in both versions. And the 24fps version looked exactly like what I would expect, and the 48fps version looked -- there is no other word for it -- it looked cheap. Fake. Even, dare I say it, it looked amateur, in comparison to the 24fps version.
I spent $15 to see this because I have the utmost respect for Peter Jackson, and I wanted to experience the film as he envisioned it and as he intended for it to be seen. And since this was a grand experiment and the first substantial move forward in film technology since ... since ... well, I don't count 3D, because I don't think that's really truly a move forward, so maybe 48fps could be the equivalent of an advancement comparable to the introduction of color... so I went in with trepidation, expecting it to look "like video" (because how could it not?) but also with faith and trust in the master who crafted the LOTR trilogy.
... and ... I hated it. Because it looked exactly like video.
48fps has been praised because it is higher resolution and more lifelike, more like looking through a window. This is true -- it is. It is sharper, and clearer, and definitely more like looking through a window. But it is that very quality which basically ruined the experience of the film (to my eyes, at least). Because it no longer looked like a "movie", with the epic nature and the overall grandeur that that implies. Instead, what it looked like, I swear, is: it looked like some actors on a stage, wearing costumes and wigs and fake beards, performing a stage play.
Again -- why should we be surprised? That's what we've been told over and over -- "high frame rate is more like reality", and "3D is more like reality". Is reality what we want? We already have an art form that involves actors on sets in reality, with the depth of real 3-D: stage plays. How many of us go to stage plays? How many stage plays do you see, on a yearly basis, as compared to how many movies you see? In general audiences don't appear to value the "reality" of real-time action and real-time 3D of "real" stage plays, as much as they do the suspension of disbelief and transportation to another reality that a movie (frequently) offers.
Does 48FPS have a place in cinema? I don't know. Maybe in some specific sections, if we had variable-timebase technology where we could shoot the drama in 24fps and ramp up to faster frame rates for action scenes, maybe that's a valid place. Or in concert films, sure. Live events broadcast on a large screen, sure, have all the high frame rates you want. Animation? Maybe. As Kholi mentioned, it might be interesting to see a Pixar film in 48fps or 60fps.
But for general drama and cinema? I am choosing these words carefully when I write this: I believe that the 48fps experience ruined the film. I had experienced it in 24fps, and found it generally pleasing, well-crafted, and reasonably enjoyable. In the 48fps version I found it irritating, fake, cheapened, and frankly I found my attention wandering. It just didn't feel important; it felt ignorable.
My hat is off to Mr. Jackson for taking this bold risk, and for attempting to bring something new to the viewer, even if (ultimately) I really didn't care for it. I also salute his genius in going for a protectable format such as 48fps, which allowed for an effortless conventional 24fps version to be released. I further commend that he gave us the freedom of choice to experience it in either the new way, or the conventional way. For me, that choice has now been clearly made, and I will most definitely not bother with the 3D/48fps versions of the upcoming two films.
To anyone who's reading this who has only seen the 48fps version, and who has complained about all the things that so many reviewers have complained about, I urge you -- next time you're at the theater, just stick your head in a 2D/24fps screening for a couple of minutes. You may be shocked by just how normal and pleasant it looks, in comparison.
Finally, longtime DVXUser readers will know just how many times we've had the frame rate debate, about "why was 24fps chosen" and "nobody really likes 24fps, it's just the slowest speed that allowed for sound reproduction" and whatnot. From my perspective, this question has been decidedly and definitively answered once and for all. I will choose 24fps specifically for the look, and will avoid faster frame rates (for dramatic narrative production) specifically to avoid the look that the higher frame rate imbues to the footage. The Hobbit is a perfect test case to compare these two frame rates and the experience of watching a film in them, because (as said before) everything else is equal: art, camerawork, sound, framing, focus, composition, acting, costuming, lighting, everything. The only difference is the frame rate. And it makes a massive difference.
Thanks to Peter Jackson's visionary efforts, the palette of choices for filmmakers has just expanded. I, for one, appreciate the options but do not foresee taking advantage of them, as the tried and true 24fps look is vastly (dare I say immeasurably) preferable.
Wow, great post by Barry Green. Film could have run through the cameras more quickly and projectors could have been made faster, but that didnt' happen because it looked great already. People have had decades to decide that the soap opera look was superior to 24fps film, and they haven't. I don't see how that's going to change because of digital cameras and projectors.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Agreed; the faster frame rate has always looked horrible for narrative, but I was hoping that maybe there would be some magic that would happen through the combination of the faster frame rate and the 3-D. For me, at least, that didn't happen; the faster frame rate still looked as horrible as always, and although the 3-D was smoother and more watchable, it was still more a distraction than an enhancement to the experience, IMO.