Alidar Jarok wrote:
I'm willing to give it a chance. I trust Peter Jackson to do things right.
That being said here, how many people here are upset with the visual presentation for the 48 fps who also complain about other visual presentations (too much CGI and 3D).
It's not the same - even the 3D which I rail against regularly. Even with 3D, it still looks like a movie. This isn't a case of trying to adjust to anything "new" and "scary". This is a case where, in a quantifiable manner, a technological advance is actually making something worse in people's opinion. I don't care for 3D but that's because I don't enjoy it. I still acknowledge that 3D movies still look like "movies", and a side benefit is the 2D version often ends up being more vivid, colorful, and detailed (which is ironic since 3D usually looks washed out and blurry to a lot of people). CGI is only an issue if it's poorly done, really. This move to the faster FPS is fundamentally changing how the movie looks, and not to the better.
There were people who thought back in the 1960s that video was a far superior look to film. You don't hear that much anymore. The fact it was shot mostly on video (with 16-mm exteriors) is why we'll never see classic-era Doctor Who on Blu-ray. Or All in the Family, for that matter. Now we have a new format that is making film look like video and it cheapens the experience.
There's also another issue here. The Hobbit doesn't really count in this too much because it's based on very strong source material (translation: even Owe Boll could not f--- it up), but even so, I'd rather filmmakers concentrate on the story, the cast, the characters, than spending time reinventing the wheel. The Hunger Games' huge success this past few week shows you don't need big gimmicks like 3D to get people to go to the movies. That whole argument that "oooh they need 3D or a million FPS to get people to buy tickets" is an outright lie and you have your proof courtesy Miss Katniss and Co.
The Hobbit could be done in Claymation and make $500 million, so it'll be a hit regardless what people think of the presentation. At least that's the theory. Back in 2002 I'd have sworn on a stack of Bibles that a Star Trek movie was a guaranteed hit, too. But Nemesis was sunk was a groundswell of negative word of mouth, and just because Jackson and Tolkien's name is on it doesn't make The Hobbit immune. Enough people get annoyed by the new FPS, it's going to cause a problem.
The key will be people's responses to further preview showings. Maybe this was a fluke. Maybe if they show a fully finished excerpt, or fix a setting somewhere, people will go "OK, that works". If so, great. But a repeat of what we just saw at, say, San Diego ComicCon, and Jackson might as well release the thing right to Blu-ray...