Peter Jackson’s ‘The Hobbit’ Turning Stomachs

- 12-04-12Film Posted by Jason McAnelly

“And after we gorge ourselves, it’s off to the vomitorium!”

People all over the world are waiting around to see Peter Jackson’s much-anticipated Lord of the Rings “prequel”, The Hobbit.  A whole country full of lucky wankers – namely New Zealand – gets to see the thing early.  And while we should all be jealous, we should also all heed the warning that some New Zealander’s are sending:

People watching The Hobbit are becoming physically ill.

And before you ask, no it’s not the quality of the movie that’s doing it.  It is, in fact, Jackson’s experimental, crazy-ass, high-tech 48 frames per second format that he decided to shoot the thing in.  One might think that the more frame rate the better the movie, but that just doesn’t appear to be the case.  In addition to complaining about sick stomachs, people are also saying that the flick looks unnatural and that the higher frame rate is unnerving.

Normally, we human beings watch movies at 24 fps.  The new 48 fps format is still in its early stages and The Hobbit is the first film to bring its marvel to a world-wide audience.  Unfortunately, it just doesn’t seem to be working out.

Luckily, the 48 fps is only in select theaters, so you can just avoid it entirely and stick with the 24 fps if you fear for your stomach’s health.  Otherwise, you might want to bring a barf bag, just in case.

Me, I’ll pass on the new technology.  I never liked being used as a guinea pig anyways and I’m there for the story, not the fancy camera tech.  What do the folks in Internet land think?  Want to see this new frame rate or could care less?

 

Thanks to blastr for the heads-up.

Category: Film

Tags: , , , ,

Advertisements

  • TheObstacle

    I’m not sure what the fuss is about — video games and high-def TV on my home big-screen have been at 60FPS for years. It’s about time movies caught up.

    • Chazmanite1138

      There’s a big difference between film and video frames. Video may be shown at 60 fps, but each frame doesn’t “blink” on for that fraction of a second like a frame of film does. Video frames get redrawn 60 times a second, not flashed at you that quickly. The video stream is just that, a stream on continuous images whereas film is a series of images flashed at you and relying on “persistence of vision” to create the illusion of continuous movement.

      While I don’t have any proof, I am guessing that the human eye and brain may not be capable of comfortably and enjoyably processing 48 fps. So, essentially, let’s stop trying to fix what isn’t broken to just rack up more ca$h from entertainment.

      • Stephen Sywak

        Years ago, Doug Trumbull (“Silent Running”) tried 60fps, with film. He called it “ShowScan” It (obviously) never caught on, and used a HECK of a lot of film.

        His claim was that we humans (at least in North America) are used to a 60 Hz “flicker” from our AC-Driven environment, and so 60 FPS would convince us we were watching reality. Technically, I think it was a success, but not financially.

        I wonder if 48 FPS is, perhaps, close to 60 Hz, but not close enough, and causing some sort of “beat frequency” phenomenon in people’s visual perception centers. In England (and Australia), the AC runs at 50 Hz, an awful lot closer to 48 Hz (48 FPS).

        http://kropla.com/electric2.htm

  • idiotproof67

    Well written script, top acting quality, brilliant cinematography, excellent sound design, high production, etc… Higher frame rate? Couldn’t give a monkeys. Anything remotely resembling a video game image would turn me off.

  • Beau

    I wonder if it could be theaters that aren’t digital that are running the 48 and causing issues.
    My theater is all digital so it shouldn’t be any different than watching tv at home with a faster frame rate or a video game.

  • Garyvdh

    Sounds like someone is seriously over-exaggerating the situation.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Zakuri.Babcock Zachary Babcock

    I’ve played video games for years at 60 fps. We don’t even process all the information at that rate anyway. That’s why cartoons are drawn at 12-24 fps because our eye doesn’t process much faster than that and we fill in the blanks. It may be flicker causing a mild type epileptic fit for some people. There exist military weapons that are used to suppress crowds using light pulses and supersonic sound frequencies. for a difference in quality check this out you should download the full quality video to see it. http://mckack.tumblr.com/post/3535190601/60fps-vs-24fps

  • HeatherWind

    My husband and I saw the film at the higher frame rate and yes there was a noticeable difference – at times it didn’t look like a film at all, it looked like you were watching a live performance on stage. The clarity was absolutely stunning at times. I think I do regret seeing it the first time in this format only because there were moments where that pulled focus away from the action, but that often happens for me in 3D films. But I didn’t have any nausea or the headache I’d half expected from eye strain – and I’m a near-sighted, glasses wearing woman that can’t play first person shooters because of the motion sickness.

Advertisement