The Hobbit

[Advocate]

this movie was slow and cartoony.

I read multiple reviews about the movie. You are not the only one complaining about the cartoony look. The blame can be focused on Jackson's implimentation of HFR(High Frame Rate). Films up to now have been shot in 24 fps. He decided to film it in 3D and at 48FPS. A ton of critics and audiences have been complaining of being drawn back from the film because of it. Water, fire, and metal seems shiny. Shiner than usual. The set pieces while wonderful .. seem video game-y. Oh and yes the other big complaint is the slow burn, until the bitter end. A couple critics said that upon a second viewing their eyes adjusted and they liked it the second time around.

http://www.firstshowing.net/2012/pet...buts-in-48fps/

[A Robot Bit Me]

I've yet to read a single favorable thing about this movie.

I do think 48 FPS sounds kind of neat. I know 24 FPS is "just how film looks," but there's nothing inherently magical about it.

[Advocate]

I've yet to read a single favorable thing about this movie.

I do think 48 FPS sounds kind of neat. I know 24 FPS is "just how film looks," but there's nothing inherently magical about it.

Well its like watching a video game at 36 fps vs 60 fps. Think about us the video game culture watching a movie at a frame rate closer to what a video game looks like. Now take that and put it with the masses who haven't played a video game since ... say Pong.

This has nothing to do with the overall movie. I also heard its boring and not that great.

[Dolemite]

I'm hearing that the 48fps gives the film a "camcorder" type quality in terms of movement/clarity, like a home movie. I'm also hearing that it makes the live-action actors stand more much more blatantly on the CG sets, and makes some of the CG effects look very fake.

I don't understand. What is it about the 48fps format that attracted Jackson to begin with?

[Advocate]

It improves the 3D.

Snippit from the article I linked:

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.

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.

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'shere 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.

edit: The bigger question is ... Korly, how did the 9 minute preview of Star Trek Into Darkness look?

[Dolemite]

Eh. Even if I did want to see this, I'd see the 2D version.

The bigger question is ... Korly, how did the 9 minute preview of Star Trek Into Darkness look?

Yeah, that's what I'm more interested in as well.

[Anthony]

I saw this movie as well. It had moments where it was good. Andy Serkis was amazing, as always. Um. Hmm. That's about all I really have... Trying to think of other good things.... Ian McKellen was quite good as well, just in general, more emotional and, young than his previous time playing gandalf.

I've only read the book once like, a decade and a half ago, but it seemed to REALLLY take some giant liberties all over the place, which I wouldn't mind except they almost all sucked. I would say skip it, the only reason to see it in theaters is for amazing shots of New Zealand. Man this movie makes you want to go to New Zealand.

[Josh]

I know 24 FPS is "just how film looks," but there's nothing inherently magical about it.

But there is! In the same way, imo, that music recorded to tape has a different feel than music recorded digitally.

I don't want my feature length flicks to look like I shot them on my phone.

I don't understand. What is it about the 48fps format that attracted Jackson to begin with?

Novelty.

[Some Stupid Japanese Name]

That's why I <3 my plasma tvs. I hate how processing in LCDs makes film look like tv broadcasts.

[Diff-chan]

Yea, there is nothing inherently perfect about 24fps, except for tradition. It doesn't mean that it is a tradition worth getting rid of.

Well its like watching a video game at 36 fps vs 60 fps. Think about us the video game culture watching a movie at a frame rate closer to what a video game looks like. Now take that and put it with the masses who haven't played a video game since ... say Pong.

This has nothing to do with the overall movie. I also heard its boring and not that great.

Well, the difference between games an movies is that games are interactive, so with more frames you get smoother response. I've long said that 60fps isn't about the graphics but the control.