Peter Jackson Responds To Negative Critiques Of The First Hobbit Footage

You can’t explain why fish tastes great and why they should enjoy it.”

And for some people, the taste of fish just doesn’t jibe with their palate. It sounds like Jackson has started buying into the “It’s got to be good if he’s doing it” aura some fans have created around him.

I’m a bit lost in the very last part. So each way of watching the film (2D, 3D, IMAX) will have two versions each (the 24 and 48 frames)?

Yes, that’s correct.

I dont see what the big deal is.  24 fps is pretty ancient, we’re just all used to it. Videogames dont look right unlress they’re at 30fps minimum, 60 being the target usually.  24fps has all sorts of problems in terms of pans (which Jackson is so very good at doing on dramatic vistas) – so the workaround is to apply motionblur to compensate for the lack of visual info (the aforementioned 24fps)  

I think so much of it is subconscious – we’re *used* to movies being 24fps… so when we see “made for TV movies”  25/50 30/60 (as is the norm with interlaced broadcasting) we think they look “cheaper”

Our own TV at home does the whole “tru-motion” thing, upsampling 24/25fps content to 100 – albeit in a very messy way, but on the lowest setting its acceptable.  Its a startling thing to see at first when you see a known movie at this higher framerate.

I think Douglas Trumbull experimented with high-framerate film in the 80s with films like IMAX pioneer “Brainscan” – but it was a very prohibitive cost thing.

I for one look forward to checking it out in 48fps if my local cinema supports it!

Or maybe he has faith in his artistic vision!

 And that’s fine – but there’s got to be better ways of expressing that faith than knocking people’s visual taste just because they don’t like his choice of tech. If he had just said something to the effect of, “I’m very interested in exploring this new technology with this project, but we’re releasing it in a variety of formats to fit in our viewers’ tastes,” he’d have been fine. But knocking fans like this is the kind of petty shot at “haters” you usually see from a Jersey Shore knucklehead.

You are taking a sentence and over thinking it. I think the availability in all of these formats is enough for everyone. I don’t mind him pushing something he believes is a better way of viewing movies no more than I mind someone that explains why Pepsi is better than Coke.

 He’s not explaining why he likes one more than the other; he’s belittling the other point of view. And is this really a case of me “overthinking it,” or of you just accepting a celebrity’s voice as gospel?

This really is a case of you overthinking it.

All I know is, in several parts of Avatar the frame rate looked distractingly choppy, so anything that solves that problem gets my vote.

Also, “Gandalf exploring the tombs of the now-reanimated wringwraiths” HOLYFUCKINGSHIT

that is exactly what those who saw the ten minutes of footage are complaining about
http://cards.tarotsmith.com/

Even though I know I should eat fish and that people enjoy eating fish, it instantly activates my gag-reflex and I end up very queasy for hours if I eat it. I have the same response to shaky-cam and 3D. 

Thankfully he’s releasing this movie in alternative formats. 

I don’t get it. I didn’t find anything wrong with the trailer. All I know is I enjoyed it and thought it was awesome.

I really don’t like how high-def television and movies are getting. Seeing every wrinkle and crevice in a close-up someone’s face is just too much. I loved the dream-like quality of the trilogy, so I hope The Hobbit looks similar, if only for continuity’s sake. Ultimately, it’s the director’s movie. And I have no doubt it will be awesome.

 I hear your concern about his statement, but after reading it over (and as someone who likes fish ;->), I don’t think he was saying that people *have* to enjoy it, just that he can’t see why they don’t. I can’t see why some people like my sister don’t enjoy fish either–she should! It’s delicious. But we don’t eat it when she visits and that’s fine. I think that’s all he was saying, that there’s no reason people shouldn’t enjoy the new technology, but it does just come down to that intangible matter of taste.

I am really glad i will be able to view the film at both 24-frames and 48-frames. I have seen some TV’s that have a 48-frames screen, and you can be watching any movie, no matter how beautiful, and it looks exactly like your watching a soap opera. I watched that TV for a whole week, and I never got used to it. There is diffrence of something being new being diffrent, and we have to get accustomed to, and then there is something that just looks bad. We don’t remeber films because they looked like we were there, we remember them because they transcended reality and took us to a more amazing, atmospheric world. 

However, I will give Jackson the benefit of the doubt, and see both versions.

We’ve got an HDTV, and unless you’re watching an HD channel or a Blu-Ray, yeah, everything looks like a documentary, or a soap opera.  But it’s something you get used to.  Better yet, I was watching the LotR trilogy on it a while back – on DVD, 10 years later – and it stood up.  There were a few choppy moments here and there, but for the most part, you couldn’t tell it wasn’t made for an HD screen.  If his previous work holds up that well, I’ve no worries about the Hobbit.

In other news, my fiancee is now afraid to take me to the movies, because whenever I see a trailer for the Hobbit, I start slapping him in excitement.  Just, like, his leg, not his face.  But still.  So exciting