Why Are People So Angry About The Hobbit Being 48fps?

@gladspooky said:

@Warchief

because the internet. also because the internet.

people are pissed because A. ITS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I AM USED TO! and B. HOW FUCKING DARE HE [Jackson] TRY SOMETHING DIFFERENT WITH MY BELOVED HOBBIT STORY [that is being broken up into 3 movies...]

It's not new...

It is.

@TheHT: I don't know if I noticed that, but it defiantly made the 3d, though i hate to use this cliche, seem "smoother". Not that the action was too fast to comprehend in 24, but 48 was defiantly better. I think the people who felt it looked cheap, would actually say the same with it in 24. Which is than more of a hit on the movie itself.

The hobbit continues to do, what few movies do to do 3D correctly, instead of everything popping out (except for moments like say bubbles in water, which is incredibly subtle anyways), It's more like your looking into a box. It's almost like instead of a screen, it's a theater. It's the same reason I like the 3DS.

@rebgav said:

@devilzrule27 said:

I can just imagine what the same people complaining about 48fps would be like back in the late 20's early 30's complaining about talkies ruining film. haha People just hate things that a different.

Ha, I can imagine a dumb strawman argument too!

@RadixNegative2 said:

Just came back from seeing it in 48fps.

I can't imagine going back to 24fps. The movie was so much more immersive and every shot even more breathtaking than 24fps (which I saw yesterday).

It even made the 3D better as @Vade mentioned. I've never been a fan of 3D (gives me eye strain), but oh man was this something else!

So, according to an article I read a few days ago the move to 48fps was somewhat motivated by the desire to eliminate blurring in the action sequences. Did you feel that it was successful in that regard?

Most of the higher framerate stuff I've seen suggests that to really eliminate blur from objects in motion you have to go much, much further than 48fps.

Ah yes, I think so. Usually for 3D movies if the action gets fast my eyes unfocus and I kinda lose track on what's going on. My eyes also get very strained on 3D and sometimes I feel a bit nauseous. I was going to drop 3D movies all together but a friend insisted I should see the new 48 fps stuff because it should be better for the 3D effect. From what I've seen that's all true. No sore eyes, action looked smooth the whole movie and I didn't get headaches or anything.

saw it a few days ago, enjoyed the hell out of it

@TheHT said:

@BlatantNinja23 said:

I saw the film in both 3D and HFR 3D and I preferred it in 48fps. There were some moments where things seemed like it was speeding up a little, but it wasn't enough to bother me. I hope 48fps becomes more common, at least movies that are going to be filmed in 3D. Really curious about what Cameron is going to do in 60.

I also just liked the movie in general, I don't really understand the critics complaints. It feels like I watched a different movie, I just don't get where "it looks like shit" is coming from.

SPOILER WARNING: Click here to reveal hidden content.

They nailed the riddle scene with gollum and bilbo, this alone makes me happy the movie exists.

Did you find that the HFR 3D was a very noticable increase in immersion than the standard 3D?

Personally I did. Watched in 48fps and 3D, and it never felt off or made my eyes sore. I noticed the 48fps more in the beginning of the movie, but I think that was mostly because of being aware of it beforehand and looking for it. I soon got used to it though, and found it quite pleasing. It's different, but I welcome it. Looking forward to the second movie.

Saw it. Liked it. Going to see it again, in DBox.

Ok, so I saw it for myself. God damn this movie looks amazing in 3d. Even with the shitty smudged glasses that literally weigh your face down, I was really impressed by it all. Now I'm wondering how Avatar compares to this, since I skipped that one in 3d. I won't lie, I did have a bit eye strain, but it went away after a while. Still much better than the blurry mess when I went to go see 3d Tron.  This was the first 3d film I saw that didn't feel cheap or gimicky, even though it did have some object fly in your face moments, which I almost attempted to dodge a few times. Go see this movie in 3d you fools. Pick a theater with clean glasses. Oh, and for the record, didn't notice any weirdness with the 48 fps one bit, even when fully aware and attempting see it.

OK, I saw the movie and it was every bit as bad as I thought it would be. I loved the LOTR movies. The 48fps ruined it for me. I'm surprised people on this forum either don't notice it or like it.

Anyways, I just wanted to point out I am not the only naysayer:

We can't recommend seeing it in Jackson's preferred format of 48 frames per second (sometimes billed as HFR, or High Frame Rate) -- it rips away the "curtain" of film and gives us souped-up, ultra-clear video instead.

http://movies.msn.com/paralleluniverse/2012-geek-movies-hits-and-misses/photo-gallery/feature/?gt1=28101&photoidx=9

@Zuldim said:

So for those who haven't heard, Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit" Trilogy will be shot in 48 frames per second, as opposed to the traditional 24fps. There will still be 24fps versions of the film shown, as only some projectors can handle 48fps movies, but the result is people are getting really angry about it! I keep hearing comments like "48fps looks like a bad soap opera" or "48fps will be one of the biggest financial mishaps in the history of cinema"... And I don't get it. I get that our brains have been trained to see movies at 24fps and like how that looks, but isn't this just an example of people catching up with the times?

I've been playing games a 30-60 fps for years, and games look absolutely gorgeous like that, to the point where, when it drops to around 24, I think it looks horrible, and really reduces my enjoyment. (Of course, when I've brought this point up, I've gotten the response "Only a gamer would say games look great.", which is absolutely moronic.) How is this situation any different from that? Is it? Are these people just being stupid? Do they have a valid point I'm not seeing?

I'm not. Makes me want to see it more .

@Skytylz said:

@NekuSakuraba said:

@JerichoBlyth

It's a gimmick to make it seem fresh and exciting despite the linear story being stretched over three films.

I'm sick of people saying this, The Hobbit can easily make 3 films without being stretched out.

Are you serious? You actually think they can make 9 hours of movies based purely on the Hobbit? Its a pretty short book, that I love, but even I think it's ridiculous that it is being made into three films.

Also, haha at linear story when talking about a movie.

Does it even take 9 hours to read the book?

Got to love all the people on this thread tricking themselves into thinking that 24 fps movies have always been crap.

"Citizen Kane, Godfather, Shawshank. All Crap! I might as well watch a slide show!"

Does it even take 9 hours to read the book?

"Took 9 hours to write...thought it'd take 9 hours to read"

- Tolkien ala Fry from Futurama.

@SuperiorArmbar said:

@Skytylz said:

@NekuSakuraba said:

@JerichoBlyth

It's a gimmick to make it seem fresh and exciting despite the linear story being stretched over three films.

I'm sick of people saying this, The Hobbit can easily make 3 films without being stretched out.

Are you serious? You actually think they can make 9 hours of movies based purely on the Hobbit? Its a pretty short book, that I love, but even I think it's ridiculous that it is being made into three films.

Also, haha at linear story when talking about a movie.

Does it even take 9 hours to read the book?

If I stayed focused, I could read it in the time it takes to watch the first movie. So no, it isn't even close to 9 hours long.

I saw it in 48 FPS 3D last night after seeing it in 24 FPS 2D. It looked gorgeous to me. My friend said any time there was an action-y part with lots of motion, everything still looked a bit weird/sped-up to him (but thought for the most part the 3D was great.) For me, after a couple minutes, everything looked normal except way more detailed and clear. I thought the CG in particular looked way, way better in 3D/48 FPS. I definitely believe in 3D now.

I went to go see it with some fear the 48fps was doing to detrimental to my experience at the movies. It was anything but that, the movie looked gorgeous in 48fps.