Comments on: 48fps Version Of ‘The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey’ Will Only Play In Limited Release

By: Huffy

Huffy — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:49:40 +0000

I'd be interested in seeing what it looks like before I judge the idea of 48fps but I already hate the way the cinematography has changed since the LOTR films. The colors are way too garish and the CG sets stand out more in the Hobbit trailer, which is pretty unforgivable considering they had ten years of SFX advancements and what is probably a healthier budget to work with.

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:49:40 +0000

Cain, you should proofread your article:

"And that latter point in particular, seems to be a stickiest." — A stickiest?

"…some projecters aren't able to make the boost, so theater owners in some case would need to buy all new equipment. But even if projects can be upgraded, the process isn't easy…" shouldn't projects be projectors?

By: Cde.

Cde. — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:49:40 +0000

Peter Jackson is attempting to redefine what we consider the 'cinematic look'. It's a bold step and to me it's worth putting in the extra effort to witness. To me it's a much more interesting and practical attempt to shift the medium than 3D.

By: Casey

Casey — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:49:39 +0000

If I can't find a 48fps theater near me, I will just wait for Bluray.
I thought that was the whole point of things like 3D and 48fps… to give me a reason to go to the movies again.
Tsk tsk, Warner.

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:49:39 +0000

I am very curious to see what 48fps looks like. I'm not a big LOTR fan, but I'll plunk down the cash to see how this shit looks.

By: starway2001

starway2001 — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:49:39 +0000

So which is it? The article is biased against the higher frames rates, obviously, but which is it… Warner Bros has cooled or the theater owners won't be ready for the format?