The DU Lounge
Related: Culture Forums, Support ForumsI saw The Hobbit in 48fps, the technology was revolutionary but the filmmaking was terrible
This weekend a revolutionary new film technology has been unveiled to the masses with the release of The Hobbit in 48 fps high definition 3D. Most theaters are not yet equipped to use this technology so the majority of people will see the film in the standard 24 fps format that movies have been presented in since the early days of film, but those who see it in 48 fps will get a very different experience.
I have seen the trailers for The Hobbit in the standard 24 fps so I basically know what the version most people saw looks like, and I can tell you the difference between 24 fps and 48 fps is much bigger than you would imagine. The two versions of the film do not look anything alike, the 48 fps version has a completely different look and feel. The 3D effects in the 48 fps version are by far the most realistic I have ever seen, the image is so crisp and clear that it looks like you are watching the actors perform live on a stage right in front of you. This movie in 48 fps does not look like anything you have ever seen before, this really is a big step forward in technology that will drastically change the way movies are made in the future.
There is one very big problem with the 48 fps version however and that is the increased quality of the picture brings out the flaws in the filmmaking in a big way. The set designs, creature effects and makeup all look absolutely ridiculous in the 48 fps version. The image is quality is so real that it makes you see just how fake the world it takes place in is. You can tell whether everything is real, CGI or a set piece, the CGI monsters in particular look just plain stupid.
I loved the original Lord of the Rings trilogy, but I thought The Hobbit was a train wreck. It was probably the worst movie I have seen all year and it pains me to say that because I really wanted to like the movie. The story drags on with pointless material that was not even in the book, there is some seriously bad acting particularly among the dwarves, the characters are just not as compelling as they were in the original trilogy, and the whole movie seems more like a cash grab rather than a serious piece of filmmaking.
I know I would not have liked the movie in 24 fps either, but seeing it in 48 fps made me realize just how awful it really was because the flaws were so glaring in the higher definition. I will say however that this movie did convince me that 48 fps is the future, once a great filmmaker figures out how to use this technology the right way you are going to see some absolutely beautiful movies. Filming in 48 fps is going to be a real art however, the Hobbit has the technology but they did not have the art design to make it work.
If you are curious to see what the future holds for movies then it is probably worth it to go to the 48 fps version of the movie, just don't expect that it is going to make you like the movie itself more because it will probably make you like it less. You will be impressed by the technology, but you will also recognize just how important it is to have the artistic skill required to make the technology work.
Baitball Blogger
(46,737 posts)Thanks for the technical info. If I'm not totally absorbed in a movie I love to scan the background for the little things most people miss the first time around.
cemaphonic
(4,138 posts)and the decision to make a trilogy out of a not especially long book made it look like a trainwreck to me.
Plus, Jackson's King Kong was alright, but pretty bloated and self-indulgent.
This one will probably have to work through my Netflix queue.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)and ended up loving it. I really enjoyed the 3D HFR. I did not like LOTR though and am not much in to action films so others reactions may differ.