Did you hear Warner Bros. screened ten minutes of The Hobbit at Las Vegas’ CinemaCon this week? Chances are you did – it didn’t go so well. Complaints weren’t lobbed against the acting or narrative, but how the film looked in 3D when projected at 48 frames per second – a new standard filmmakers like James Cameraon and Hobbit director Peter Jackson are hoping to push on theatre owners. To put it in easiest terms, the concern is that the clarity of 48fps gives films a shot-on-video / soap opera look – not ideal conditions, especially for an event film as prestigious as Hobbit.
Now Peter Jackson has spoken out about the controversy to EW, trying to pour water on the (admittedly small, for now) fire:
“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. That’s a different experience than if you see a fast-cutting montage at a technical presentation.”
“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. 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.”
Last week our very own Renn Brown wrote this piece that puts the entire issue in pristine perspective. If you don’t want to see the film in 48fps, it’s very likely you won’t have to – as some theatres won’t be so keen to adopt such unproven tech (especially after the week’s events).
For continuity’s sake, I would have preferred Jackson shot Hobbit on the same Kodak 200T and 500T stock he shot the original trilogy on. A few bloggers and theatre owners griping about a footage presentation doesn’t diminish my excitement for this film. But, as a fan of the beautiful originals, it does give me pause.
Source: Entertainment Weekly
13 comments
Maybe everyone who hasn’t seen the footage projected in 48 fps should just STFU and wait for the movie? And those that did see the footage should wait to judge the film based on seeing the entire film, not on seeing a selection of scenes that weren’t even finished? I think that’s the gist of what Jackson is saying here, seems fair to give him the benefit of the doubt. I’ll be honestly shocked if WB put this amount of money and resources behind a new, untested technology that is obviously flawed and bet it on a two films this big.
I agree, Jackson deserves the benefit of the doubt. There is so much fearmongering going on right now on the net, that its almost pathetic how upset some people are getting. I really think people need to just watch the movie and go from there. Either it works or it doesn’t. But 10 minutes of unfinished footage is not enough for people to make an honest evaluation.
There is too much elitism in regards to and Us vs Them mentality concerning art people vs tech. I for one am in favor of both.
Sure, Jackson deserves the “benefit of the doubt”. But I’m not buying this “unfinished footage” crap for one second. The purpose of this screening was to try and win a select audience over, you don’t do that but showing something that is nowhere near finished. The footage in that reel must have been close to how it will look in December. If it looked like shit, it looked like shit. Just don’t try to sell this “unfinished” bullshit excuse, it doesn’t wash.
48fps is neither a new or untested technology, it’s as old as cinema itself- it’s frame-rate speed. There’s not much that will change how it looks no matter how it’s graded, it’s very much an aesthetic choice, and if 48fps looks flat like 24fps interlaced video then that’s how it will look when released in December regardless of post-prod. Unless they soften it, which defeats the purpose, it will look harsher to the eye.
Yeah, this was footage intended to win over an audience full of exhibitors. It was meant to be “judged”.
And if you’ve seen The Lovely Bones you know Jackson’s “Trust Rating” isn’t at an all time high right now.
” 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.””
He’s just describing watching a Soap Opera here.
Does this “acceptance” kick in at the exact same point that you forget/don’t even notice or appreciate that you’re watching a 3D presentation anymore? LOL.
The only experience i can relate here was when I was in Vegas last. We just got back from going out and my suite had very high end, high resolution flat screens. I must say I couldnt adjust to it. The movie we watched didnt have that soft dreamy effect, everything was too crisp and it looked like it was filmed with a digital camera. It didnt feel like a movie at all. So if this 48 FPS is anything like that I must say its not gonna go well with me or the majority of people who just want to see some great fantasy and could care less about being on the cutting edge of film tech. I mean seriously, is there any reason we need this much detail thrown at our eyes? It feels like a george lucas overkill.
Also the main idea seems to be, it makes 3D more comfortable to the eye. I have no urge to watch 3D movies and wish this fad would just die out.
Cause you don’t like it is not really an argument to say 3D films shouldn’t be made, though.
Why not? If we’re voting w/ our wallets…
I’m boycotting seeing this until Peter Jackson hears my demands and reshoots the film, just like I boycotted buying the Star Wars blu ray collection until they release the original cuts of the original trilogy… LOL. People just need to shut up with their yapping and enjoy the movie for chrissakes. I’m not letting it ruin my enjoyment of the film.
So you have a consensus on that?
The falling box office of 3D releases perhaps, you fucking dropkick.
But what if it does ruin your enjoyment of the film? Oh, and I like that you used “film.”
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.