Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit: coming to cinemas near you, in six different formats
2D in 24 frames per second. 2D in 48 frames per second. 3D in 24 frames per second. 3D in 48 frames per second. IMAX 3D in 24 frames per second. IMAX 3D in 48 frames per second.
These are the six different formats — that’s right, six — Peter Jackson’s first adaptation of The Hobbit (a two-parter) will reportedly be available in when it arrives in cinemas worldwide December 14. One ring to rule them all, and six different ways to see it.
When obsessive filmmakers of a certain breed of technological aspiration hit a “king of the world” level of popularity — think James Cameron, think George Lucas — making great looking blockbusters sometimes isn’t enough. The challenge becomes to climb the movie mount and descend a cinephille messiah, to part the red seas of convention and pave the way for game-changing formats and technological innovations.
Lucas set a benchmark with Star Wars and the formation of Industrial Light and Magic. Cameron built his own cameras and introduced the world to 3D as we (now) know it via Avatar. Jackson is hard at work prepping his own ludicrously expensive pet project: to shoot and project The Hobbit at 48 frames per second, double the conventional rate, with the hope that the process will catch on. In case it doesn’t, the film will also be available in plain ol’ 24 fps.
His argument is that 24 is not a god-given number and that movie viewing can be improved with a higher rate. According to Jackson, 48 fps enhances colour and clarity and creates more “lifelike” images.
The entrepeneuring auteur, however, would have been less than encouraged by the responses of a small number of test viewers who saw a 10 minute preview of The Hobbit at this year’s CinemaCon convention, held last week in Las Vegas.
“Saw ten minutes of Hobbit in 48fps 3D. Very exciting, but I’m now very unsure about higher framerates. 48fps feature films will likely divide moviegoers — I expect to see stronger hate, more so than 3D,” tweeted Slashfilm.com’s Peter Sciretta (for a good list of other reactions, head over to this story published at Inside Movies).
Now is a particularly inauspicious time for Jackson to be trying his hand at launching game-changing technology, with or without Middle Earth’s magical assistance.
3D remains a highly contentious format in critical and popular senses. Consensus amongst reviewers is skeptical at best and box office figures suggest the honey moon period was short, audiences having cottoned on to the knowledge that they are shelling out more of hard-earned for a darker and blurrier experience. If exhibitors decide to ask for more again for optional 3D 48 fps screenings, expect tumbleweeds to roll through cinemas. There are also issues associated with projectors capable of displaying the higher rate.
On the other hand, Jackson’s idea was probably a much better one than Cameron’s. If it doesn’t pick up this time around, a higher frame rate is inevitable at some stage. The technology in fact isn’t new; a 60 fps process was developed decades ago, though used almost exclusively in theme parks.
But six formats for The Hobbit? Six?? Some Lord of the Rings obsessive, somewhere out there, will surely figure out a way to watch them all back-to-back.
Categories: News & commentary
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Never mind the six formats, why on (middle) earth does The Hobbit need to be filmed in two parts? The obvious answer is to make more money, but it’s just one book and not particularly long. In fact, it’s barely half as long as the first book of Lord of The Rings, which only merited a single-film adaptation.
by Maninmelbourne on May 1, 2012 at 9:13 am
Because we wants it precioussss … YESSS … WE NEEDS IT!
by aidan on May 1, 2012 at 10:54 am
Maninmelbourne, if you’re a purist for the text then I suggest you don’t watch The Hobbit at all. It’s in two parts because it contains a whole lot of invented stuff that is perhaps mentioned in passing in the book.
As for 48 fps, I reckon it’ll be a bit like CDs versus vinyl, a few pseudo-hipsterish types will pretend to care, the rest of us will think it’s great.
by wilful on May 1, 2012 at 11:24 am
The less flippant answer is there is a great deal in the book that is alluded to, but not included in the narrative, that was later fleshed out in appendices and described in the LOTR (apparently .. I’m not an obsessive Tolkien fan).
Now you could make the argument that these details should stay in appendices, but I won’t.
by aidan on May 1, 2012 at 11:36 am
I think I’ll wait till it’s filmed properly…..
In FULL HOLOGRAPHIC SPLENDOUR.
Then, I *might* even *pay* for the privilege of watching it.
by paddy on May 4, 2012 at 5:54 pm
I will not pay any more than I currently do to watch conventional 2D. End of.
by Mark Duffett on May 4, 2012 at 6:16 pm
My dinky little Sony camera does 1080p at 50fps… Does that mean if I record then watch both episodes of the Hobbit on my camera they will (mercifully) be over quicker?
by Tim Laris on May 5, 2012 at 12:34 am
I have no opinion nor interest in the technics but the Hobbit was a child’s story, full of the classes with which Tolkein was imbued (goblin & trolls had workin’ class accents, pure cockney for one, oop north for tuther). Even the elves were little more than bottom of the garden outlines (look at their role in LotR) but, let us enjoy the brilliant & erudite invention of the author, for all his (period) constraints.
The way Jackson altered the story of LotR, giving real places to .. gasp.. females.. is far beyond anything Tolkein would have understood as necessary and it worked brilliantly. Arwen was a cypher and Galadriel merely a narrative device in the books.
I, for one, welcome our new Lord of Middle Earth.
by AR on May 5, 2012 at 7:23 pm
None of these formats are particularly novel or controversial: Chances are you have a TV that shows them already. You can see plenty of HD 50fps media on any modern TV, and 3D HD 50fps is available for major sports events.
As for the six formats: Don’t worry so much about it, Luke. The master copy will be in stereoscopic 48fps in “4K” resolution, and every other format from IMAX film to DVD to analogue TV will be converted downward from that. It’s a well-worn path.
by Christian Kent on May 5, 2012 at 7:25 pm