The Hobbit 48fps/ HIGH FRAME RATE discussion thread.

[The Josh]

They enjoyed the film, but shared the same issues many of us felt. It's too long, too much filler. And a trilogy that isn't needed.

I'll give more weight to any of these issue if they're actually a fan of Tolkien and know the material. Otherwise its like noise in the wind as far as I'm concerned.

 

[cokebabies]

You can enjoy a movie while still pointing out what's flawed with it. They go both sides. Best critics on the internet. Easily.


Not their fault. They had 3 bashing reviews of the Star Wars prequels, which go into more detail then "IT SUCKS", and their dumb, outside of the forum, fans expect them to tear everything a new *******. And they don't. They find out either what made the film work, or didn't. Without going
IT SUCKS **** YOU.

They enjoyed the film, but shared the same issues many of us felt. It's too long, too much filler. And a trilogy that isn't needed. Hell, I love their Prometheus review. It's spot on. They don't hate it. They don't love it. They see the faults, and the good stuff, all while going after the people who took the hate to a beyond asinine level.

I like Plinkett's stuff much more than those two guys (I forget the name of their segment), but all three do a good job of skewering flaws in movies that they actually liked.

While they are all reviewers, they still strive for humor. And it is MUCH easier to draw humor from a negative review than a positive review.

 

[CelticPredator]

I'll give more weight to any of these issue if they're actually a fan of Tolkien and know the material. Otherwise its like noise in the wind as far as I'm concerned.

That's such an unfair way to look at anything.

 

[CelticPredator]

I like Plinkett's stuff much more than those two guys (I forget the name of their segment), but all three do a good job of skewering flaws in movies that they actually liked.

While they are all reviewers, they still strive for humor. And it is MUCH easier to draw humor from a negative review than a positive review.

It is. But it's also better to actually learn something, and get something out of a review other then "It's good!" or "It sucks!"

And that's why I love them. Even if you disagree beyond all reason, they still show you something you never thought of, and actually makes you think. Very refreshing.

 

[The Josh]

That's such an unfair way to look at anything.

I don't know what to tell ya. I listen to any opinion but some to me hold more water than others. Not trying to be rude.

 

[Sachiel]

This article explains the issues I had with it pretty well. The HFR 3D certainly had an 'uncanny valley' effect on me.

HIGH FRAME RATES AND THE UNCANNY VALLEY
“You’ve got guys like Cameron and Jackson saying, let’s make it more real because the more realistic, the better; the higher the definition, the more 3-D, the more this, the more that. They’re not taking into account what’s called The Uncanny Valley in psychology. The Uncanny Valley says that, statistically, if you map out a consumer’s reaction to something they’re seeing, if they’re seeing something artificial and it starts to approach something looking real, they begin to inherently psychologically reject it."

"Not every person perceives the Uncanny Valley, however. There are some people that just do not reject things that look too real, although the vast majority of people do experience that phenomenon. So you’re going to get some individuals who see it and go, This looks great! The problem is anecdotes are not evidence. You have to look at the public as a whole, and I think that’s what Jackson and Cameron are not doing."

FORWARD-MOVING HFR VS. TRADITIONAL FILM CONVENTIONS
“There are all sorts of conventions in film that are not found in reality. People talk to each other in ways that they don’t in reality. Things are lit in ways that they’re not lit in reality. The make-up, the hair, the props, everything is fake. If you stand on a film set and you watch the actors performing, you don’t for a second think that it’s real. There are acting conventions that we have chosen to accept."

“One thing a lot of people are saying about The Hobbit in 48 is that the acting is bad — well, the acting’s not bad, they’re simply acting with cinematic conventions but it’s such a high frame rate that the motion looks too real and you can see through the artifice of the acting.”

THE NECESSARY SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF — WHICH 48 FPS LACKS
“It’s psychological: we need suspension of disbelief, and suspension of disbelief comes from the lower frame rate. The lower frame rate allows our brains to say, Okay — I’m not perceiving 40 conscious moments per second anymore; I’m only perceiving 24, or 30, and therefore this is not real and I can accept the artificial conventions of the acting and the lighting and the props. It’s an inherent part of the way our brain perceives things. Twenty-four or 30 frames per second is an inherent part of the cinematic experience. It’s the way we accept cinema. It’s the way we suspend our disbelief.”

“Those high frame rates are great for reality television, and we accept them because we know these things are real. We’re always going to associate high frame rates with something that’s not acted, and our brains are always going to associate low frame rates with something that is not. It’s not a learned behavior; [Some say] you watch it long enough and you won’t associate it with cheap soap operas anymore. That’s nonsense. The science does not say that. It’s not learned behavior. It’s an inherent part of the way our brains see things.”

 

[Niltusk]

This article explains the issues I had with it pretty well. The HFR 3D certainly had an 'uncanny valley' effect on me.

Thats actually a good read.

 

[darthviper107]

That's not what the Uncanny Valley is, that only applies to humans and whether we accept them as real people

 

[Sachiel]

Well I had no problem with the CGI characters in HFR, only the live actors.

 

[Bullseye]

Finally got to see this in 48fps IMAX 3D. While it certainly has some advantages over 24fps specifically panning sequences and it appears to enhance 3D and in particular depth perception I still prefer the cinematic feel to 24fps. Alot of the imagery felt like a demo for a 4k ultra high definition shot for a documentary. It just did not look right for me. I did think the 3D was fantastic and certainly close to Avatar in its achievement. Interesting experiment but I'll be watching the sequels in traditional 24fps.

 

[Fritz]

Went to see it in HFR tonight with the family and I thought it was great. I didn't spend any time getting used to it or adjusting to it. I found it easier and more relaxing than watching on IMAX 3D. But I concede that it's not really the same movie experience. It did seem like a documentary rather than a movie but that doesn't bother me. Now I know I'm in the minority because even my wife and both daughters said they preferred it on IMAX 3D. And to those of you that don't like it, I get it. But when I go see the Desolation of Smaug on opening night, it'll be in HFR. However, when the blu-ray is released even though I'll buy the 3D/Bluray/DVD/Digital combo pack, I still have no intention of watching in 3D at home. Oh and also, I don't know if it was my imagination but the sound did seem better tonight than in IMAX.

 

[EnShinNoi]

I think HFR drastically improves 3D viewings. The only negative I can think of is it's more difficult integrating cgi but most scenes were handled well. It's a pity I won't get to see the film in 2D at 48fps

 

[CelticPredator]

Well, if you change the settings on your TV, every film you watch can look like 48fps.

 

[The Josh]

Well, if you change the settings on your TV, every film you watch can look like 48fps.

That's like rendering a film to 3D after the fact. It's not quite the same as if it was done that way originally. The 48fps was not nearly as awful as some folks want to make it out to be. Actually after leaving I decided to see the others that way at least once and I'd like to have had the option of seeing it that way in 2D 48fps. The clarity of my IMAX location reminded me of what it will look like on Blu.

 

[CelticPredator]

It doesn't look like a movie. And that is why it's so horrible. That is why it could very well destroy the entire experience of seeing something in the theater.

Watching Django a few weeks after The Hobbit made me realize why 48fps is really, honestly a terrible thing. You show me any scene in Django like that, and it stops being a movie. It stops looking like something fake, and becomes something real. And that's not good.

I don't know why people strive for realism in film. I don't know why people require it now, in every film.

Immersion is entirely possible with no technology. You just need a good story to lock yourself into. I got immersed in Django, and that film didn't have any gimmicks. I just don't get this push for technology. It's disgusting, and it ruins film. People who like it? I just don't get it.

 

[steveo]

It doesn't look like a movie. And that is why it's so horrible. That is why it could very well destroy the entire experience of seeing something in the theater.

Watching Django a few weeks after The Hobbit made me realize why 48fps is really, honestly a terrible thing. You show me any scene in Django like that, and it stops being a movie. It stops looking like something fake, and becomes something real. And that's not good.

I don't know why people strive for realism in film. I don't know why people require it now, in every film.

Immersion is entirely possible with no technology. You just need a good story to lock yourself into. I got immersed in Django, and that film didn't have any gimmicks. I just don't get this push for technology. It's disgusting, and it ruins film. People who like it? I just don't get it.

Well said! That's my belief as well. I go to movies to be taken away from reality. Isn't that the reason movies were invented in the first place?

 

[The Josh]

It doesn't look like a movie. And that is why it's so horrible. That is why it could very well destroy the entire experience of seeing something in the theater.

Watching Django a few weeks after The Hobbit made me realize why 48fps is really, honestly a terrible thing. You show me any scene in Django like that, and it stops being a movie. It stops looking like something fake, and becomes something real. And that's not good.

I don't know why people strive for realism in film. I don't know why people require it now, in every film.

Immersion is entirely possible with no technology. You just need a good story to lock yourself into. I got immersed in Django, and that film didn't have any gimmicks. I just don't get this push for technology. It's disgusting, and it ruins film. People who like it? I just don't get it.

It looked like a Blu-ray which is just fine with me. Sorry

 

[darthviper107]

I don't know why people strive for realism in film. I don't know why people require it now, in every film.

Because people complain about how stuff doesn't look realistic.

 

[herzograven]

you guys have no idea how happy i am to read so many sensible comments here arguing against HFR, which is just a terrible idea and made a decent film (HOBBIT) look plain awful.

i have no issues with digital, but HFR just looks awful. i don't care what the brain can process in terms of FPS, all i know is that anything above 30 FPS starts to look terrible and unreal.

i don't care if sell outs directors like cameron/spielberg, or crappy directors like bay want to use HFR, but i was deeply disappointed that jackson ruined THE HOBBIT with that HFR garbage.

 

[Adolfo]

If there was no choice but to see this in HFR then I would agree that it sucks...As long as a choice is available I'm ok with it...Some like it, some dont...For me personally 24fps non 3d, non imax is fine and has been fine enough for me for the last half century...as long as the story is good who gives a crap...I think it's for the younger crowds to get used too...Even when I get Blu-Ray I think it changes a lot from the versions I've seen especially the older films...Sometimes I refuse to buy Blu-Ray because I want the older feel when watching....After the Hobbit I decided to from now on see only 24fps non 3d versions when going to the theater....As long as we have a choice it's all good...That's all I care about in regards to this thread and HFR versions...I wont bash it because film is about experimentation whether it's technique or technology