10. The People vs. 48FPS vs. Peter Jackson
Peter Jackson’s latest trip to Middle-Earth, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, was unveiled last week to mostly middling reviews, though I’m pretty sure a lot of the negative criticism comes from the fact that the director chose to shoot the thing in 48FPS (double the frame rate, basically) and critics are having a hard time getting “involved” as a result. Almost every critic who came out and said that the magic was lost based a large portion of their reviews on that 48FPS issue, meaning that the film might be getting panned as a result of the frame-rate instead of, say, the story.
Peter Jackson wants 48FPS to be the next big thing, but almost nobody agrees that making cinema hyperealistic is a good thing, (especially if your film is set in a fictional world of elves and dwarves and hairy prosthetic feet). Then there’s the fact that people have reported feeling sick whilst their eyes are trying to adjust to something they don’t even want to see. So the response has basically been, “No thanks Peter Jackson,” something that James Cameron should consider when mounting Avatars 2-10.
At its core, the decision to shoot in 48FPS should be based on whether or not it immerses the viewer and enhances the cinematic experience. The verdict is that it does not. Let 2012 mark the death of it, then.
Agree or disagree with our choices? Which lessons did you learn from 2012 in cinema? Let us know in the comments section below.
