Latest Movie News Headlines

Chances are you will not see The Hobbit in 48FPS...

Aug. 8, 2012by:

After so much has been made of Peter Jackson's THE HOBBIT and its 3D exhibition in 48fps, Variety is now reporting that Warner Bros will be scaling back their plans for the high-frame-rate release of the film, relegating it to only a few locations. From Variety:

"According to source familiar with Warner's release plans for Peter Jackson's first HOBBIT, the HFR (high-frame-rate) version will go out to only select locations, perhaps not even into all major cities."

Presumably, that means that if you're living in a major city that isn't Los Angeles or New York, you're likely f*cked. More on that when the details actually come in. But the decision from WB should come as no surprise following the extremely mixed word-of-mouth that came out of CinemaCon earlier this year (not to mention the decision to only unveil HOBBIT footage at Comic-Con in 2D 24fps). However, the Variety report does go on to mention that "the picture now looks vastly better than the test footage shown this April at CinemaCon, which had not yet undergone post-production polishing and got a mixed reception from exhibitors." Is this true or just spin on the part of WB, which is claiming that the scaling back is in an effort to "protect the format"? What does that even mean?

The reality now is that THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY will be a test. Should word-of-mouth be positive in the few 48fps locations it will be exhibited, then expect THE HOBBIT: THERE AND BACK AGAIN to expand a little further, and so on with the third film.
Source: Variety

MORE FUN FROM AROUND THE WEB

Strikeback
Not registered? Sign-up!
Or

+8
4:32AM on 08/08/2012

now that's

showing some confidence!

You would think for something they are so passionate about they wouldn't chicken out on it/half ass it like this. Oh well, maybe it's for the better... problem is it could be for the worse and most will never know!
showing some confidence!

You would think for something they are so passionate about they wouldn't chicken out on it/half ass it like this. Oh well, maybe it's for the better... problem is it could be for the worse and most will never know!
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
5:24AM on 08/08/2012
so the point in filming and then advertising? grow some damn balls, give people the option to watch the version they want.
so the point in filming and then advertising? grow some damn balls, give people the option to watch the version they want.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
5:53AM on 08/08/2012
It's ok for me. I don't care much about 48 fps. Mainly because I heard it looks like video and also because it will let ticket prices rise again. But that's just my opinion...
It's ok for me. I don't care much about 48 fps. Mainly because I heard it looks like video and also because it will let ticket prices rise again. But that's just my opinion...
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
9:46PM on 08/08/2012
that's the problem, I mean it's cool if you don't like it -- but you haven't experienced it yet so you can't make a fair judgement and by them doing this most won't even be able to make a proper opinion on where they stand on it.
that's the problem, I mean it's cool if you don't like it -- but you haven't experienced it yet so you can't make a fair judgement and by them doing this most won't even be able to make a proper opinion on where they stand on it.
6:07AM on 08/08/2012
Called it.
Called it.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
6:52AM on 08/08/2012

Not the least bit surprising...

Considering PJ's announcement that he wants to "make a shitload more money" (oh, sorry, I meant "stretch The Hobbit into 3 films at the last second"), the decision to go to a frame rate that is NOT being universally panned makes total sense. Money, money, money!
Considering PJ's announcement that he wants to "make a shitload more money" (oh, sorry, I meant "stretch The Hobbit into 3 films at the last second"), the decision to go to a frame rate that is NOT being universally panned makes total sense. Money, money, money!
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
7:26AM on 08/08/2012
Why would they chicken out after saying that the polished final product looks so much better than what they showed? We fixed it but we don't trust it???
I still don't get why they even presented the 48 fps material in an unpolished, unfinished state.
Why would they chicken out after saying that the polished final product looks so much better than what they showed? We fixed it but we don't trust it???
I still don't get why they even presented the 48 fps material in an unpolished, unfinished state.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
7:31AM on 08/08/2012
Cause as much as you "polish" 48 FPS, it still looks like a nature documentary instead of a film.
Cause as much as you "polish" 48 FPS, it still looks like a nature documentary instead of a film.
+9
9:01AM on 08/08/2012

Don't push opinion.

I wish everybody would stop saying their trying to change the world, and simply state their experimenting with the nature of things. Jackson and this 48fps superiority talk is annoying. Just say you tried it, got some good and bad feedback and if it works - it works.
I wish everybody would stop saying their trying to change the world, and simply state their experimenting with the nature of things. Jackson and this 48fps superiority talk is annoying. Just say you tried it, got some good and bad feedback and if it works - it works.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+4
10:38AM on 08/08/2012
Wasn't planning to, anyway. 24 FPS is fine by me.
Wasn't planning to, anyway. 24 FPS is fine by me.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
12:47PM on 08/08/2012

I'd see it

Just to see what 48 fps looks like. I very curious.

And i'd probably go a second time in regular for the comparison and to see the movie with out the distraction.
Just to see what 48 fps looks like. I very curious.

And i'd probably go a second time in regular for the comparison and to see the movie with out the distraction.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
-9
12:50PM on 08/08/2012
i hope so. this movie will suck for two reasons alone: 100% digital and 48 frames.
too bad it will still look awful when converted to 24frames (because of digital and original 48 frames)
i hope so. this movie will suck for two reasons alone: 100% digital and 48 frames.
too bad it will still look awful when converted to 24frames (because of digital and original 48 frames)
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
1:40PM on 08/08/2012
Yeah because all the trailers look terrrrrrrible T________T.
That's sarcasm by the way.
Yeah because all the trailers look terrrrrrrible T________T.
That's sarcasm by the way.
1:38PM on 08/08/2012

It was always gonna be a test.

These movies are costing over half a billion of WB's money. It was foolish to think that they were ever going to put a risky new film format in every theater nationwide. But I doubt it's gonna be ONLY in big cities, if you really want to see it in 48fps, you're gonna be able to.
These movies are costing over half a billion of WB's money. It was foolish to think that they were ever going to put a risky new film format in every theater nationwide. But I doubt it's gonna be ONLY in big cities, if you really want to see it in 48fps, you're gonna be able to.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
9:30PM on 08/08/2012
Can't wait to plunk down $50 for a ticket to the latest 48fps RealD DBox shitfest. With Smellovision.
Can't wait to plunk down $50 for a ticket to the latest 48fps RealD DBox shitfest. With Smellovision.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
View All Comments

Latest Movie News Headlines


Top
Loading...
JoBlo's T-Shirt Shoppe | support our site... Wear Our Gear!