While my review of The Hobbit is still forthcoming, there’s something even larger at play that is the first question out of everyone’s mouth, “What was the 48fps like?”
“Was it any good?”
“Should I bother?”
And I think the answer to those last two questions is a resounding, “Yes.”
Of course, there are undoubtedly a few of you asking, “What in the name of Sauron is 48fps?” In fact, I told a few people how great I thought it looked, people that I thought were plugged into what was going on, and that was their first question. “What’s that?”
Well, without descending into the condescending, here’s the brief overview: movies for the last 80 years have been shot and projected at 24 frames per second. The Hobbit is the first major Hollywood film release that has been shot and in some cases (not all, due to outrage and skepticism) projected in 48 frames per second. What does that mean? It means that all the motion blur you get between shots are gone. It means everything is in a crystal clarity that is breathtaking to behold. It’s the film equivalent of jumping from VHS to Blu-ray. It’s a marked difference in image quality and clarity.
Battles that were once just blur are now rendered in stunning quality, allowing me to drag my eyes to any part of a battle and focus in. Landscapes are incredible. Sets and props are rendered in a detail higher than anything we’ve ever seen, which means there will need to be a new renaissance in those fields of artistry.
I think all the reports are true: when you see The Hobbit, there is a period of adjustment. For me it was between 5 and 10 minutes and it was because I was actively looking for the differences in projection rate. After that, the film became immersive and never once kicked me out of the film again. To that end, it would have been wise of the studio to make sure there was a 20 minute trailer reel or short presentation that showed off 48fps BEFORE the film started so that when The Hobbit started, all the stigma and “getting used to it” were gone.
But it might only be required for the first viewing. I talked to another gentleman in the press (and a sometime Big Shiny Robot, Nexus 9) who was seeing the film for the second time and he found that those issues were simply not present on a second viewing.
Make no mistake: this is a different way at looking at cinema, and for many people (and I would say virtually all of the naysayers) it’s going to be a hard adjustment. We’ve been accustomed for so long as of to what films “look” and “feel” like and this is a step beyond.
I’ve likened it to how jarring it must have seemed to audience used to a jerky, hand-cranked variable 14-24fps frame rate of the silent era to the consistent 24fps paradigm. It was an increase in quality, but must have been awkward during the transition period.
Try these two clips on for size:
The first is from Charlie Chaplin’s masterpiece, The Immigrant.
Compare the look of that to the look and sound of Al Jolson’s (admittedly racist) number in the Jazz Singer just ten years later. The film had to stay synced at a constant frame rate to maintain the sound and must have seemed jarring to an audience used to the jerky nature of silent films to that point.
Now imagine the leap of slightly over a decade later, when the technology grew up even further. Would you have a hard time adjusting to a story told in color? Here’s a scene from Gone With the Wind…
This early color process was extremely difficult and a new technology. They had to film each color spectrum on separate reels of film and combine them in post production to produce a color image. It didn’t look like reality. And with the nature of color dominating mood and theme in the film, set dressers used to black and white had to completely relearn how to learn their craft. Which is why you saw black and white movies winning Best Picture Oscars on a fairly consistent basis through 1960, with Billy Wilder’s masterpiece The Apartment.
The art of storytelling and dressing sets and costume design was more tried and true in Black and White. But color pressed on. It was a tool in the storyteller’s kit and people grew used to it and we moved on.
Another thing to consider is the time at which the movie comes. Watch this clip from Alfred Hitchcock’s Marnie:
It looks like standard Hitchcock fare, yes? You know it was a commercial and critical failure? Not because it was bad, though it was lesser Hitchcock, but because audiences in 1964 were thirsty for movies that looked more realistic and were shot on location. Marnie utilizes many, many bad matte paintings, rear-projections, and mechanical horses and moving backgrounds that would have seemed revolutionary a decade prior. But with movies like James Bond forcing audiences to ask for more, it just didn’t click at the box office. Time has been much better to Marnie, and it’s watched in context with Hitchcock, not the fickle demands of the audience of the day and what they were used to. He stayed too locked in the technology of days gone by and paid a price with the success of the movie.
I think the 48fps phenomenon is exactly like all of these examples. It is a new tool in the toolbox of filmmakers. For those whose story it will enhance, it will do so. But there are naysayers reacting to it in a knee-jerk way, saying it’s just the latest gimmick, but why do we need to think of film as constrained to the limitations of 24fps? Tradition? It doesn’t make sense. That’s like saying Gone With the Wind should have been black and white because color was just a gimmick.
The Hobbit looks stunning. I truly felt immersed in that world watching it in 48fps. I think those that approach it with an open mind and give it a chance will find the same thing. It’s a beautiful film and the 48fps even clears and clarifies the 3D, making it not only more bearable (I’m not typically a 3D fan), it felt more immersive than a film ever has.
Some have been complaining that it looked like Masterpiece Theatre or some other soap-opera like production because it had an odd quality that we associate sometimes with programs like that instead of film. I argue this has everything to do with their misconception of what things should look like, not what they actually look like.
Bottom line is this: The Hobbit looks fantastic in 48fps. I wouldn’t want to see it any other way (though I’m curious to see 48fps without the 3D). It was immersive, detailed, and stunning. I hope to see more films utilize this tool. I wouldn’t be surprised if the new Star Wars films were filmed with this technology and I’d be happy and grateful for it.
Is it different? Yes. Is it unlike anything you’ve seen before? Yes. Does that make it bad? Not in the least. It added a depth to locations and places I’d seen a hundred times in the Lord of the Rings movies and breathed new life into them. Seeing Rivendell literally forced the breath from me it was that awesome. And I say that not as slang, but actually awe-inspiring.
If you’re not sold on 48fps after the first time, give it another go. You’ll definitely see something new.