Cannes: Another Jewelry Heist? $2.6M Necklace Missing After … 
‘Hangover III’ With Weak $11M Wed/Thurs Kicks … 
Specialty B.O. Preview: ‘Before Midnight’, … 
2012-2013 Season Network Rankings: CBS Sweeps In Final … 
Full 2012-2013 TV Season Series Rankings 
TOLDJA! Paramount Pocketing $190M From Disney For Marvel … 
‘Good Morning America’ Hits 19-Year Viewership … 
MGM Buys ‘Modern Family’ Producer Ben … 
‘Fashion Police’ Writers Chant On Picket Lines: … 
Universal Makes Seven-Figure Deal For ‘The School For … 
Steven Soderbergh Will Interrupt Retirement To Direct And … 
Cannes: EOne Announces Itself As Player In U.S. … 
Will LIN TV Stations Go Dark On Time Warner Cable? 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Modern Family’, ‘Law … 
Hammond On Cannes: Paramount’s ‘Nebraska’ … 
Hot Trailer: Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s ‘Don … 
Hammond On Cannes: A New Day Comes To The Fest As HBO and … 
Cannes: Fleming Reflects And Finds Talented Trio A Breath … 
Hot Trailer: ‘Man Of Steel’ 
CBS Wins Season & Ties Sweep In Demo; ABC Tops Adults … 
Cannes: Weinstein Co Acquires Keanu-Reese Sci-Fi Pic … 
We’ve all seen movies that made us want to puke–especially during the summer–but Warner Bros is taking exception to a silly spate of reports that the revolutionary 48-frames per second format of Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey had left some audience members nauseous and dizzy, even complaining of migraines. This seems to have all the veracity of those rumors that Entertainment Tonight‘s Mary Hart was creating seizures among watchers prone to them (the rest of us just felt our brain cells atrophy listening to her inane, gushy sweet celeb coverage). Here is Warner Bros’ statement:
“We have been screening the full-length HFR 3D presentation of THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY extensively and feedback has been extremely positive, with none of thousands who have seen the film projected in this format expressing any of the issues described by two anonymous sources in media reports. We share the filmmakers’ belief that by offering filmgoers the additional choice of HFR 3D, alongside traditional viewing formats, they have an opportunity to be part of a groundbreaking advancement in the moviegoing experience and we look forward to having audiences everywhere share in this new way of storytelling.”
Loading ...
now there’s a press release i can get behind. it’s an option people, stop bitching.
It’s not an option if you want to see it in IMAX. Not at my local theaters, at least. Perhaps after the massive fallout once it’s released wide will force theaters to offer 24FPS IMAX showings as well as 48FPS.
The bigger problem is how cheap and artificial this ultra-HD makes the sets and costumes look. It makes a multibillion dollar movie look like a cheap sitcom.
It is a fact that making stereoscopic motion information look stroby and like crap will reduce motion sickness in the viewer. The military has actually studied that. What happens is the badness of it causes you to tune out and not engage visually. You can solve motion sickness by just sticking shutter glasses on a person and blanking rapidly so they’re eyes don’t follow the images well. So if you have a serious problem with motion sickness, you might want to stick to 2D or maybe even 24fps 3D. But 48fps will be more engaging, look better (especially with a lot of detailed action), and strain the eyes & brain less… especially with 3D. Strain and fatigue is a very different sensation than motion sickness, though. And people who have a sickness issue will have a problem with Dancer in the Dark or any Paul Greengrass movie due to the camera issues long before they will simply because the image motion is smoother in something like The Hobbit HFR.
Turns out they got sick from how bad the movie is, not because of the 48 frames.
Since THE HOBBIT is so far getting scathing reviews, calling it even more boring and dull than the LOTR trilogy yet still weighing in at 3 hrs, let’s fabricate some reports of people barfing, so then we can come out with a press release saying how wonderful and brilliant and groundbreaking our movie is.
I mean, really, it does suck so we must sugar coat it all we can!
Scathing? I’ve seen plenty of reviews saying it’s just great, but not nearly as good as LotR.
Mary Hart’s voice really did trigger epileptic seizures in one person in upstate New York but I can’t remember if it was a man or a woman. However it happened and it’s medically documented there was something specific about Mary’s voice that made this elderly person go into shock.
The 48 fpm speed can definitely make some people feel dizzy. There was a kids cartoon in Japan with a flashing strobe light and it made kids who watched it on TV feel dizzy and throw up. The human brain can only process so much data and if it’s too much too fast some people are not able to handle it and they really will become unbalanced they might even faint from the information overload. It’s akin to motion sickness for these people.
I think the fact that it’s an option to see it in 48fps should make people stop complaining. I saw it in 48fps on Monday, and while I did have issues with it some of the time (it’s the first time they’re doing it, cut them some slack) a lot of sequences people NEED to see at the higher frame rate. It’s absolutely dazzling at times, though it needs work.
Give it a try. Be a part of cinematic history and just see it . I too had mixed feelings, but I give them a break as it is the first time they’re doing it.
Yeah, it was my neighbor Kramer
And that episode was based on the real life incident. Do some research.
True story. My friend, Kramer had seizures.
Does anyone know how this trainwreck is tracking? What are the projected opening weekend numbers?
What is with the online Hobbit backlash? Is it simply a “now it’s my turn” type of thing after the previous trilogies success? One simple glance at the reviews shows the opposite of “scathing reviews” so these headline-like statements that posters make just come off as dumb at this point.
And this is coming from someone who has no interest in 3D or a higher frame-rate. So I’ll be opting for the 2D version myself. But still, I have that choice. Any whining about it at this point would simply be for the sake of it.
If I were Peter Jackson, I would have turned into the angriest, meanest, most maliciously rude guy on the planet. I can’t recall so many things going wrong on such a big production for a long time (Cleopatra?). The very fact that at least one film exists is an achievement in itself.
Shooting at 48 frames per second just uses up twice as much film twice as fast it doubles the cost of the film stock needed for no reason it’s a waste of money. You also need special projectors in theaters that can project the film at that speed and that’s additional expense.
James Cameron wants to shoot the next two Avatar films at 60 frames per second. He thinks it will enhance the experience. Sorry James it will just make your movies even more expensive than they would be at normal film speed.
Jackson isn’t using twice as much film since he’s not even shooting film. Sure, there are added costs for digital but it sure isn’t as much as film.
Cameron can use any gimmick he likes; they still won’t make his movie any better or make him a better filmmaker.
I’ve read that it only costs about $1500 (for the software upgrade) to digitally project at 48 fps. Much less than I would have thought.
That said, I hated the way Hobbit looked in 48fps 3-D, and I generally like 3-D. The film’s also way too long and not nearly as good as LOTR was. Can’t believe there are still two more installments.
Upgrade costs vary depending on your existing equipment. Some early adopting digital theaters will need to get completely new projectors if they want to have the ability to show 48 fps. That’s why there is such a wait and see attitude from some theaters.
Yeah, and they said the same thing about “Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat” in 1896, “This is Cinerama” in 1952, and “The Exorcist” in 1973. The human body must acclimate to innovation.