Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Northern Mine Barrage :
How come PJ never saw any problems with 48 fps?
First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All


Dec 10 2012, 6:43am

Post #1 of 57 (5275 views)
How come PJ never saw any problems with 48 fps? Can't Post

Iīm feeling a little sorry for Peter Jackson. All this anticipation and hype about 48 FPS, and then nobody seems to like it. He seems to be the only person that really has no trouble with it. It is peculiar; looking at 48 fps dailies for about two years, how come he and his crew never saw any problems with it? Or are PJ so powerful, nobody dares to question him anymore?

And why didnīt WB overrule this controversial decision on their mega-budget gamble? This new technology now seems to become a huge flop! Will the next two movies even be shown in this format at all now??

Cabin Boy

Dec 10 2012, 6:48am

Post #2 of 57 (925 views)
Well among the critics it is like hit and miss [In reply to] Can't Post

Some loved it as well. I guess we have to wait it to be judged by the audience to decide whether it's a flop or not. It may just become popular

Sailing Master

Dec 10 2012, 6:49am

Post #3 of 57 (933 views)
Why are you saying nobody seems to like it? [In reply to] Can't Post

I keep reading stuff where people like it. Some like it, and some don't.

Arthur: What manner of man are you that can summon up fire without flint or tinder?
Tim: I... am an enchanter.
Arthur: By what name are you known?
Tim: There are some who call me... 'Tim'...?
Arthur: ...greetings, Tim the Enchanter.

Aragorn the Elfstone

Dec 10 2012, 6:56am

Post #4 of 57 (905 views)
There's nothing "wrong" with it, per se.... [In reply to] Can't Post

It's just that we've been viewing movies at 24fps for 80-something years. We're all used to it - no one more than the film industry. This was always going to get a divisive reaction. Pete and his team simply had a couple years of filming in the format to get used to the look of it. That's why they're excited about the increased frame rate.

I'm a big fan of the way film has looked throughout the majority of the industry's history - in fact, I'm viewing The Hobbit in 2D 24fps first because I'm such a traditionalist when it comes to movies. But I'm also excited about giving 48fps a chance on a second or third viewing.

If things go in the direction of 48fps, don't think for a second it will be easy. Getting the industry to make this change will be like pulling teeth from a baby. If anyone EVER thought otherwise, they were being naive.

"All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds awake to find that it was vanity; But the dreamers of day are dangerous men. That they may act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible."
- T.E. Lawrence

(This post was edited by Aragorn the Elfstone on Dec 10 2012, 6:57am)


Dec 10 2012, 7:06am

Post #5 of 57 (920 views)
The Lucas Effect [In reply to] Can't Post

You are saying Jackson, like Lucas, has no one to give him a dose of reality? I doubt that's true. Also, generalizations like "nobody" and assumptions and generalizations like "never" about him and his crew are unreliable unless you are privy or there was an interview with such admissions. It all leads up to a hyperbolic argument heavy with fallacies and no basis in fact. So I would just take more care in your indictment.

Assuming all your facts are true, how do you know "nobody" likes it? If, Jackson does, as you say, that makes at least one. How do you know he and his crew never saw any problems? How do you know no one questioned him about it? Why would WB overrule Jackson if they also see value in it, pushing your "nobody" even further out of line. Is it really a gamble? Or just an introduction to a long term strategy? How do you know which? The movie isn't out yet, so how do you know it's a flop? It might be, but we don't know that yet. The showing of 48 FPS was a long time ago to a limited crowd before the movie was even completed.

48 FPS is closer to the truth in terms of vision. I suspect it's more about change than anything else, as people say, like sound, color, and digital clarity of both versus their older mediums. I'm going to give it a chance, but only after seeing a 2D showing first at 24 FPS. I think that would be fair, if not a cynical double-dip by the studios. Then we can make our own subjective judgments, but we shouldn't base our arguments on things we don't know.

Your last question is a good one because it is the only sentence that does not make generalizations and assumptions.

(This post was edited by JWPlatt on Dec 10 2012, 7:09am)

Able Seaman

Dec 10 2012, 7:24am

Post #6 of 57 (809 views)
As long as we can choose how we see the movie [In reply to] Can't Post

I see no problems.

But if you are "such a traditionalist when it comes to movies." You should see it first in black and white and without sound.

I am kidding, but for some people movies stopped being an art form with the apparition of sound.

If 48fps is a gimmick or if people reject it, it will not last very long.

For now the challenge is to attract people to the theaters.

But studios also consider the possibility of removing the theatrical release from the eaquation at all. So I will always support new ways of presenting a movie in theaters, were it belongs in the first place.

Aragorn the Elfstone

Dec 10 2012, 7:29am

Post #7 of 57 (823 views)
Traditionalist film lover I am - but still one in his '20s... [In reply to] Can't Post

So not that much of a traditionalist. Wink

"All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds awake to find that it was vanity; But the dreamers of day are dangerous men. That they may act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible."
- T.E. Lawrence

Able Seaman

Dec 10 2012, 7:47am

Post #8 of 57 (762 views)
And that's my point ;) [In reply to] Can't Post

My kids will probably want to see movies in the traditional way, in 3d, 8k, 70fps, imax360. Not in that atrocious new holo-projection that makes people sick. :D

Powder Monkey

Dec 10 2012, 7:49am

Post #9 of 57 (780 views)
HFR [In reply to] Can't Post

In the beginning I was enthousiastic for the HFR-thing. Reading the reviews i'm getting somewhat 'colder' for it. I will see it for myself tomorrow.

Why did they do it in HFR? Maybe Peter did it mainly for artistic reasons. But I also think that they were a bit afraid that the hobbit would not attract a big enough audience. By filming it in HFR even people who didt like LOTR will come and watch what its all about. Cause essentialy most people are curious although they dont like change. Its sad that a lot of people will judge the film on the HFR-thing.

Aragorn the Elfstone

Dec 10 2012, 7:54am

Post #10 of 57 (789 views)
It reduces motion blur, which benefits 3D... [In reply to] Can't Post

PJ isn't the first person to push the idea of using higher frame rates in movies (James Cameron has been talking it up big time) - he's just the first to actually do it. I think his primary reason is just that he's interested in pushing the medium forward (or at least what he perceives to be forward).

"All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds awake to find that it was vanity; But the dreamers of day are dangerous men. That they may act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible."
- T.E. Lawrence

(This post was edited by Aragorn the Elfstone on Dec 10 2012, 7:59am)


Dec 10 2012, 8:02am

Post #11 of 57 (735 views)
Some people like it, some people don't. [In reply to] Can't Post

What's the problem?

Want Hobbit Movie News? Hobbit Headlines of the Week!


Dec 10 2012, 8:03am

Post #12 of 57 (790 views)
I am a PROPONENT of HFR (as of today, at least!) [In reply to] Can't Post

Stop being a smartass! You know fully aware what I mean, and I use some generalizations for the sake of argument!

For the record, I am saddened by the 48 fps reception as well. I canīt fathom that a format that is meant to give a sharper picture and a more realistic motion is a bad thing. How can something that is more realistic to how we perceive it naturally look more fake?

If itīs true that it looks like a BBC HD documentary, I think that is a good thing! I think those look fantastic, and I want my movies to be as realistic and immersive as possible!

When I see it myself on Saturday, I can have my own opinion, but until them I am deeply concerned and depressed that this new format seems to be hated by so many.

Morok Cloudkeeper

Dec 10 2012, 8:03am

Post #13 of 57 (772 views)
Because he watched 48fps for hours and hours [In reply to] Can't Post

So he got used to it well.

Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle.

The Preciousss
Powder Monkey

Dec 10 2012, 8:14am

Post #14 of 57 (741 views)
I guess it is only a matter of getting used to it [In reply to] Can't Post

I remember the first time I saw a Bluray on a 55' inch FullHD TV and kept thinking, this looks brilliant, but I only keep staring at the pores of the actor skin or at individual leaves in the background. The detail was so high that I could not concentrate on the whole. Nowadays of course I grew so accustomed to the format that I can barely tolerate non HD formats and get distracted by the poor quality.

I think the same will be true when I have seen my first 5-10 48fps movies. Peter and the team have already reached that stage, where they can enjoy the format and are not distraceted by it anymore....


Dec 10 2012, 8:37am

Post #15 of 57 (722 views)
Where The Heck Did I Put My Sarcasm Meter? [In reply to] Can't Post

LOL. Well, I read THAT wrong, didn't I?

Ok, you're welcome for the support. ;)

Morok Cloudkeeper

Dec 10 2012, 8:37am

Post #16 of 57 (718 views)
Exactly [In reply to] Can't Post

I found 3D to be a little bit distracting at first. But after seeing about 6 3D movies in cinemas until now, I really got used to it.

Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle.

Cabin Boy

Dec 10 2012, 8:52am

Post #17 of 57 (778 views)
This may sound harsh but... [In reply to] Can't Post

I think the truth is he was trying to do what Avatar did with "3D".

His movie the lovely bones ran along side Avatar and got crushed. regardless of how you feel about Avatar or 3D

(personally i thought it was a neat movie and i basically despise the 3D craze, every movie HAS to be 3D these days...who cares!!?? in all honesty it takes me out of the movie having the glasses on and the effects constantly reminding me the movies in 3D, yes Avatar looked cool, but that was it really basic cliche story that was an original experience because of the 3D...sorry for the rant haha)

as a film maker he must have taken notice of its box office numbers and how 3D has taken over the movie industry and thought "well ill learn from my mistakes" and so he decided with his next big film he too would push some new cinematic experience, 48 fps. It didn't matter if the next new thing looked good he just knew he wanted to be the one pioneering it the way Avatar is, I can't blame him say critics LOVED 48 fps and some other movie did it and the hobbit got "beat out" because the new good "looking" movie got all the media attention the same way Avatar did.

luckily i don't think the 48 fps did anything to the actual movie itself (story telling wise etc..) so I don't really care, but I do feel bad for him since I think it's pretty much certain that 48 fps won't catch on and the "studio" people will probably give him a hard time about pushing a VERY expensive new "gimmick" that flopped.

again though the movie itself should be fine and still pull in a ton of money... the issue is taht people will probably opt not to see it in 48 fps, theaters might opt not to play it in 48 fps if people stop wanting to watch it that way, and especially for the next 2 films if people didn't like that experience they definitely will not watch it in that format and a lot of money will be lost.

but hey maybe it'll catch on right? i haven't seen the thing yet and maybe it really is something that just takes time to get used to, who knows?

(This post was edited by FiliSonOfDis on Dec 10 2012, 8:53am)


Dec 10 2012, 8:54am

Post #18 of 57 (763 views)
Recent science supports the "adaptation" idea [In reply to] Can't Post

I posted this in another thread, but it bears repeating here. There may be another reason why so many of the critics are having trouble adjusting to the 48fps. Recent experiments published this month in the journal Proceedings of The Royal Society (B) by Deborah Apthorp and David Alais of Univ. of Woolongong shed some new light on how humans detect motion (a summary for the non-scientist can be found here ). Basically, the brain's visual cortex contains some neurons that respond to objects and others that respond to motion. In 1999 a researcher named Wilson Geisler theorized that some object-detecting neurons might help detect motion by responding to "blur". The new experiments, which involved putting subjects in an MRI, seem to support Geisler's theory. This detection of blur must include some learning flexibility by the brain's neurons. People who constantly watch 24 fps movies (i.e., film critics) may have a substantially longer adjustment time to the faster frame rate, due to the lack of blur, while Jackson and the whole production team have had loads of time to adapt. The fans as a whole may be able to adapt more quickly than the critics, so we should wait for the fan reaction to 48 fps before judging whether or not it has succeeded.
The writeup for lay people in the link mentions the reactions to "The Hobbit". It would be interesting to put those film critics in an MRI!

Don't mess with my favorite female elf.

Able Seaman

Dec 10 2012, 9:34am

Post #19 of 57 (675 views)
I don't think that [In reply to] Can't Post

"they were a bit afraid that the hobbit would not attract a big enough audience".
If there is one thing that Warner Bro. knows, it's the fact that the Hobbit will be huge.
The first trilogy made aroud 3 billions dollars worlwide on its theatrical release.
If there was an absolutly certain box office hit to make in Hollywood it was the Hobbit.


Dec 10 2012, 9:44am

Post #20 of 57 (704 views)
why is everyone using the word "flopped"?? [In reply to] Can't Post

the movie isnt out yet, how can it flop?

at least in my cinema when I look at the which version of the film is sold out more, HFR seems to be sold out more than either 3D 24fps or 2D.
But I guess taking in money doenst mean anything and cinemas will stop projecting in HFR becuase they are selling more tickets than they can handle Unimpressed

(This post was edited by Chopsta123 on Dec 10 2012, 9:44am)

Powder Monkey

Dec 10 2012, 11:00am

Post #21 of 57 (628 views)
HFR [In reply to] Can't Post

True, Lotr was great en has a big fanbase. But i think a lot of people will also think 'oh no, not another Lotr-film' (yeah such 'creature's do exist, we're not all lotrfans) but the HFR ,eventually, will atract them to the cinema. Also by adding HFR they can give something new to the middle earth experience. This way they can anticipate a potential déja vu-feeling.


Dec 10 2012, 11:10am

Post #22 of 57 (586 views)
Good point [In reply to] Can't Post

In Reply To
But i think a lot of people will also think 'oh no, not another Lotr-film'... but the HFR ,eventually, will atract them to the cinema.

that would explain some of the negative reviews.

like some people here already said,
we are so used to the usual 24 fps it takes really some time to get used to the new 48 fps.
PJ and his crew were directly contfronted by it over several month, so... yeah it takes some time getting used to 48 fps, like getting the first dvd or blu ray with its new players.

(This post was edited by Durhil on Dec 10 2012, 11:11am)

Able Seaman

Dec 10 2012, 11:35am

Post #23 of 57 (579 views)
I see your point [In reply to] Can't Post

And I don't want to insist, but 3 billions dollars worldwide is not the result of a fanbase.
It is a cultural event.
Don't forget that each movie outperformed the previous one.
And it ended with eleven oscars for RotK.

For me the only reason for the use of a 48 fps format is the 3D.
You will notice there is no options for 48 fps 2D screenings.
The 48fps is meant to "upgrade" the 3D.
Motion blurs in 3D are more painfull to watch in 3D.
In 24 fps 3D you have make a shot last for at least 5 or 7 seconds for the eye to adapt to the depth of the 3D.
This is no more the case in 48fps.
And 3D projections are darker than 2Ds because each eye sees only 12 images. But with 48 fps the image is as bright as intended.

48fps is just the middle road.
The goal is more than 70 fps.

If you want to reach public's awarness with this format, pick the biggest, most popular movie possible....and cross your fingers.

Cabin Boy

Dec 10 2012, 12:19pm

Post #24 of 57 (556 views)
Sweet jesus [In reply to] Can't Post

I cringe so hard at the posts of the OP.......

"How can Jackson not see the problems"?

It's because there is no problem here, the critics reporting abnormally fast motion just don't realize that they're just not used to it.

80 years of 24 fps: old habits die hard, it's divisive, like it's supposed to be. Just like 3D: loads hate it, loads love it.

Reactions vary wildly, I can see Alex Billington from Firstshowing on Twitter who didnt like it the first time, and loved it the second time, and is showing the love in his tweets, Josh Wildling from CBM loves it as well and doesnt understand the "Benny Hill" comments or "BBC look", and you see others who hate it.

But everything has been said in this thread, Jackson, Lesnie and his team have been doing HFR for at least 2 years, and I like to think that they know what they're doing.

Singer already professed his love of 48 fps, Cameron wants to shoot in HFR, WB obviously believes in the format, you have tons of movie theaters executives that are convinced and made the investment, you have tons of people who like it and tons who don't.

I keep reading "it looks spectacular, unbelievable", and "it looks like crap". You know what, see it for yourself and then if you don't like, you don't.

What's annoying is that some critics are writing 48 fps off after seeing the movie, what they don't realize is that, you get used to it, just like with everything.

I'll bet that next year, when DOS hits, reactions will be completely different, people will have been exposed a bit to HFR 3D and we'll hear much less complaints.

Now, I understand the "TV look" remark, it's also because higher framerates are associated to TV programs, etc, we need to rethink everything basically.

It's just a different form of cinema, I'll say it again, but I've seen 48 FPS Red Epic footage, and I was freaked out at first, I'm a huge advocate of 24 fps as the "film look", but always am pissed with the blurry pannings, and strobbing.

It did seem to move unnaturally fast, at first, but it's because I'm used to seeing 24 fps, I watched the clip 10 times in a row, and it seemed natural, comfortable, so smooth and crisp.

I went back to the same clip downconverted in 24 fps (same process for The Hobbit) and it looks so jerky, blurry as anything, your eye is literally being sent so much more information in 48 fps, you have all those details you didnt know were there, it's unveiled, suddenly.

48 fps is there to stay, but I believe, that like 3D, it's suited for certain types of movies, not dramas, or that kind of thing, and you can also (as been said before, and as Douglas Trumbull, THE pioneer in terms of HFR development, did) mix it up a bit:

Like having the dialogue scenes or narrative scenes in 24 fps, and all the action, outside shots, vista shots in 48 fps.

Now, I'm seeing it on Wednesday in IMAX 3D HFR, I'm super excited, and I'm sure I'm gonna love it, but I'll keep an eye for any "issues" (which are not technical issues right, rather artistic stuff).

(This post was edited by Hengist on Dec 12 2012, 2:12pm)

Able Seaman

Dec 10 2012, 12:24pm

Post #25 of 57 (552 views)
I suspect the post was tongue in cheek... [In reply to] Can't Post

The OP used sarcasm to make its point...
At least I read it that way. Otherwise...well I disagree...

(This post was edited by Notanelvishname on Dec 10 2012, 12:26pm)

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.