Slashdot Mirror
Why The Hobbit's 48fps Is a Good Thing
An anonymous reader writes "Last year, when we discussed news that The Hobbit would be filmed at 48 frames per second, instead of the standard 24, many were skeptical that format would take hold. Now that the film has been released, an article at Slate concedes that it's a bit awkward and takes a while to get used to, but ends up being to the benefit of the film and the entire industry as well. 'The 48 fps version of The Hobbit is weird, that's true. It's distracting as hell, yes yes yes. Yet it's also something that you've never seen before, and is, in its way, amazing. Taken all together, and without the prejudice of film-buffery, Jackson's experiment is not a flop. It's a strange, unsettling success. ... It does not mark the imposition from on high of a newer, better standard — one frame rate to rule them all (and in the darkness bind them). It's more like a shift away from standards altogether. With the digital projection systems now in place, filmmakers can choose the frame rate that makes most sense for them, from one project to the next.'"
The movie has hairy, disgusting trolls.
But it yielded Tim Benzedrine. That alone was worth it.
Along those lines, a quote in TFA made me wonder exactly which book Peter Jackson was basing the plot on?
An interminable sequence in Bilbo’s hutch culminates in a dorky, dwarven drinking song, performed alongside animated plates and spoons.
Bored of the Rings?
We Boggies are a hairy folk,
Who like to eat until we choke.
Loving all like friend and brother,
We hardly ever eat eat other.
Gorging out from morn till noon,
But don't forget your plate and spoon.
Now, I would pay good money to see that film.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Here's what I get out of all these discussions we keep having out on the net:
Pundits, media, theater owners, film majors, digital projector manufacturers: It's better... no really it is! .... it's mor elike real life!
Viewers: Er.... No it isn't.
PMTOFMDP&M: Yes, no you don't understand it's B E T T E R
Viewers: Er... I think I know what you're saying, but... yeah it's not better
PMTOFMDP&M: But really you'll come to see this as better soon. you're realize that it's sharper and more like real life!
Viewers: It's not sharper. In fact most digital cameras used to capture this have lower resolution than native 35, 60 or 70mm cameras, not to mention your low resolution projectors.
PMTOFMDP&M: Yeah but
Viewers: I don't want things to be more like real life. If I wanted that I would watch Reality TV.
PMTOFMDP&M: It's better. Trust us.
Viewers: OK... fine. Do I get to pay the same price for the film?
PMTOFMDP&M: Er... no because it's BETTER. You need to spend more money because it's BETTER
Viewers: Hmmm... ok, I'm sure you're right. After all you were totally right about the mass appeal of 3D!
It's further proof that one does not simply walk into Mordor.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
I bought $50 monster cables from Best Buy. You mean they weren't worth all that?
21st Century Renaissance Man
Sure I have.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
A lot fo the magic of film was 24fps.
Oh yes, like wagon wheels going backwards. I also pine for the days of scratches, dust spots and pubic hairs on the big screen. And nothing but nothing beats the exhilaration of watching the celluloid melt because the projector stalled.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.