Much has already been said about the
release of The Hobbit: An Unexpected
Journey in 48 fps* (also known as High Frame Rate, or HFR), with critics
and film enthusiasts sharply divided into “love” and “hate” camps. Before 48 fps and The Hobbit became a moot point and (gasp!) the new norm, I thought
it was time to throw in my two cents. I
was “fortunate” enough to catch the film in a theater (The Alamo Drafthouse
South) with projection equipment capable of showcasing the new process. As I understand it, the primary advantage of the
higher framerate is a smoother, ultra-high resolution image, which
theoretically makes 3D easier on the eyes.
While the level of detail was certainly impressive, it also left me all
too cognizant of the artificiality of the effects. This was especially noticeable in the
Rivendell scene, in which the CGI-rendered backdrop of Rivendell reminded me of
one of those old Hamm’s beer lighted signs with the moving waterfall in the
background. Suddenly, The Hobbit seemed
like a stage show, performed by a repertory troupe. My wife was similarly unimpressed with this
new, “innovative” process, likening it to a live-action popup book. Instead of being whisked away by the
immersive experience that director Peter Jackson likely intended, I felt
somewhat detached from the action. To be
fair, I realize that we could be experiencing a technology in its infancy,
without all of the bugs worked out.
Maybe it’s simply a matter of refining 48 fps, dialing it back a bit, to
modulate that sense of hyper-reality (or the “uncanny valley” as some coined
it). For now, however, at the risk of
sounding like an old fuddy duddy, I’m looking forward to watching it again in
good old standard 2D, 24 fps.
* You can find a brief explanation of 48
fps, along with a discussion of the pros and cons here.
Okay, so how was the movie, projection
aside? Short answer: It’s still worth
seeing, if you temper your expectations.
On its journey from book to film, The
Hobbit experienced a long, troubled road to production. The finished product is clearly a compromise
between Peter Jackson and the production companies. Considering the box office
returns generated by the The Lord of the
Rings trilogy, and the amount of money necessary to bring The Hobbit to life,
Jackson was likely under enormous pressure to create a new trilogy with the
scope and breadth of the original films.
As a result, The Hobbit: An
Unexpected Journey appears to be riding the coattails of the good will
generated by Jackson’s first foray into Middle Earth. The source material, a comparatively short
novel, could easily have been transformed into one 3-hour movie, but now it’s
being broken into two 3-hour parts, with a third film presumably veering off on
a tangent from the book (based on Tolkien’s scribblings?). There
are some fun cameos, including welcome faces from The Lord of the Rings films, but this only contributes to the
perception that the filmmakers had to keep adding things in to pad out the
material. I’m not a big fan of the 1977
Rankin-Bass animated adaptation of The Hobbit, but it’s interesting to note
that they managed to tell the whole story in less than 90 minutes. Some critics found fault with The Hobbit’s lighter tone, but I don’t
really have a problem with that. The book
was aimed at a younger audience, compared to The Lord of the Rings. If The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and
its yet-to-be released sequels had preceded
The Lord of the Rings films, it’s likely that the jump in tone would have
barely registered on anyone’s critical radar.
Misgivings aside, I’m sure I’ll be there for the second installment of The Hobbit. P.T. Barnum would be proud.
Thanks for explaining the whole frame rate thing. I plan on watching it in the 48 FPS and then when the extented cuts come out to DVD. I can just watch it in regular 24 FPS
ReplyDeleteYeah, I'm anxious to see it in good old 24 fps, as nature intended. ;)
ReplyDelete