Peter Jackson defends filming techniques used in 'The Hobbit'
Director addresses new frame-rate critics
Director Peter Jackson has defended the new filming techniques he uses in "The Hobbit" trilogy after critics slammed the format following early previews. Jackson has shot the movies using 48 frames per second, rather than the usual 24 frames per second, which has been the standard rate of images projected since 1927. Critics who have reviewed the film have dismissed the increased number of frames as "kitch" and "fake", but Jackson is adamant filmmaking has to move forward to prevent movies from looking outdated.
Bing: More about 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' | More about Peter Jackson
He tells the BBC, "24 frames is jarring to me now. It looks primitive. Change is good, it takes people some time to get used to it. Ultimately, it's not critics who are going to decide if this (the new format) is going to be adopted or not, it's the audience. (There will always be) people who have a particular strong feeling that film should be unchanged and that we got it right in 1927, just like there are people who play vinyl records still, whereas most of the world has moved to CDs and we got used to that."
Related: Who's who in 'The Hobbit' | 'Hobbit' 101
Only a small proportion of cinemas carrying the first installment in the trilogy, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey," will be able to use the 48 frames version, which is designed to improve picture quality.
"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is out in theaters Friday, Dec. 14.
Higher frame rate means truer to life. Classic cinema wonks will complain because it's different than what they're used to, but in reality, 24 fps is more "fake" because the human eye can perceive a "frame rate" in excess of 150 fps when viewing the world around us.
I say it's about time cameras are getting rid of some chop. 24 fps jerkiness drives me nuts, especially in panning scenes.
Ok, I can understand the "looking dated" rationale if EVERYONE was doing this, but it sounds more to me like he's creating the need, not fulfilling it. So what if a movie looks "dated "- you only have to worry about that if the story and acting and direction were sub-par. People still love "Gone with the WInd," The Godfather," "Citizen Cane," oh, hell, even a chick flick like "DIrty Dancing." No one is going to stop watching these movies just because we've made advances in filming techniques.
Too Fast for comfort! It makes you nauseus along with a headache!
How about 28 frames per second instead so that people can watch and follow the actual story.
Being too fast as well as causing the deaths of too many animals adds up to poor directorial choices and a poor movie------they ruined a tremendous story through lack of respect, lack of professionalism and greed!
To make a comparison between frame rate and the transition to sound and color is silly. It isn't groundbreaking at all - we've experienced higher frame rates from television since it's inception (29.97 fps).
I think a more adequate comparison would be aspect ratio (widescreen vs 4:3, etc). In the end, it's another tool the artists can use or not use depending on the effect they are trying to create. Just as 3D doesn't always translate to a better storytelling experience, the same will be true of higher frame rates. Heck, if we learn the lesson from "The Artist" or "Schindler's List" - we find that color isn't always necessary either.
Just like how "The Wizard of Oz" made creative use of both black and white and color - I think we'll find hybrid production that utilize high frame rates when it makes sense, and lower when it serves the creative needs of the production.
I think what the critics don't like about high frame rates, is that it reminds them of television - especially pre-digital television (with 29.97 frames interlaced, you had an effective frame rate close to 60fps) - and most lower-budget television shows pre-2000 shot at the native 29.97fps interlaced (soap operas, game shows) - while bigger budget shows utilized a film frame rate and upconverted. So when a critic (or general audience member) sees that type of smooth motion, it reminds them of lower budget productions). The trick will be to break that mindset.
I'm not really sure what 48 frames per second looks like, so I couldn't specifically comment on it just yet. What I can say is that I think watching High Def TV (Movies or sitcoms) suck. It's so clear, it makes it look like watching a live "on the set" version. I want to watch a movie, not imagine I'm on the set or watching a play. (I wonder if anyone gets what I'm saying?) It doesn't have the right feel for me.
On the other hand, High Def TV (sports and live events) are awesome because it makes you feel like you are watching them live, like it's supposed to be. So if 48 frames per second make the movie "feel" like it's High Def at home, then it's going to suck....in my opinion.
Q
movie news
- Armie Hammer opens up on sex life, '50 Shades'
- Universal rescues 'Dumb and Dumber To' with Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels
- Edward Furlong charged with assault in LA
- Angelina Jolie stunt double says News Corp. tampered with her phone
- George Jones biopic in the works
- Brad Pitt's son plays a zombie in 'World War Z'
- James Franco launches $500,000 Indiegogo campaign
- Bruce Lee statue unveiled in Los Angeles
- Terence Stamp has mixed feelings about Superman reboot
- Helen Mirren in 'The Audience' sets NT Live record
