I'm not a fan of 3D. I'd actually want the fad to go away. BUT....some filmmakers can make wonderful use of it and it works damn well. Sadly..those are few. Scorsese, Cameron, and Scott. I think those are the only ones who made it an actual filmmaking tool instead of using it as a toy.

I'll definitely see this in 48fps 3D if I can. If my only option is 24fps, I'll probably see it a few weeks after opening weekend.

While Scott's use of 3D has been the best so far, and Scorsese's was good but gimmicky, I expect Jackson to handle it right. That said, I'm holding out hope that I'll be blessed with seeing Wisseau's masterpiece in 3D before I die.

I haven't seen a single modern-era 3D film (including Avatar in 3D) and am in no hurry to start. I'm more like one of those home viewers who has just given up on theaters.

But I have to admit that for this, I'd love to see it with all the available bells and whistles.

Yes you got me.

I wasn't around when color and widescreen were used for the first time so I don't know how it would have felt to change to them, but I daresay they both provided more value to the narrative than 3D and 48fps will, based on their longevity and wide adoption.

If the 3D is that great, why not film romantic comedies that way too? Why not use 48fps so we can feel we're right at the table with that couple on their first date? Color and widescreen have helped all types of films. I don't believe 3D or 48fps will do so. It's there for the "wow" factor, which only works if you are indeed wowed by that kind of thing.

I will give the Hobbit a shot in the "intended" manner if it easily accessible to me, but I certainly won't go out of my way to find a theater out of my area to do it. As I've said before, if this movie needs those two things to be successful at storytelling, that's not a good thing IMO.

Well then, time will tell whether 3D or faster framerates gain ubiquity and longevity. However, it should be pointed out that neither are new concepts to movies.

Thomas Edison advocated 46fps for film, but the cost of film caused the industry to settle on the bare minimum framrate they felt they could get away with: 24fps. Faster framerate standards have been proposed in the early 80s (Showscan) and late 90s (Maxivision), but the cost of film and replacing the projectors kept those attempts marginalized. Only now with digital filming and projecting has the costs of faster framerates become incremental.

For 3D, motion pictures have used it since 1915. However, it's only been since digital filming and projection has come along that they've been able to deliver a stable, in-sync 3D image of good enough quality. 48fps is said to improve the 3D effect as well.

Well, I've heard of people complaining of comedies like "The Hangover" being filmed in scope. "Do we really need that wide of an image for a comedy?" they ask. So not every technical option for film is appealing to everyone.

However, more films may indeed be filmed in 48fps in the future, if The Hobbit is shown to be a success. Keep in mind that when The Hobbit started filming, no theater projector could handle showing 48fps material, and most still can't (although it's thought that a firmware update could be used for a number of existing digital projectors). Not even many cameras can shoot in that format, and certainly not film cameras.

It's similar to 3D; it needs a major blockbuster hit like Avatar to move it to the next level. At least I doubt we'll see any "faux 48fps" films like we've seen post-production conversions to 3D.

And right now, both 3D and 48fps do cost extra to film in, so are both going to be limited to projects that the studios think would best benefit from the process. This isn't unlike both color and widescreen, which both saw their uses first in "event" pictures. I'm sure romantic comedies were among the last to get the widescreen/color upgrades.

It certainly doesn't need these two features, as the director and studio are both fine with showing it in theaters without either. However, the vast majority of films don't "need" color or widescreen either. Lawrence of Arabia likely could've been shot in Academy Ratio in B&W and it would've still be an incredible film, with excellent performances and story, and likely still some striking photography. However, shooting it in color and scope (and viewing it that way) undoubtedly enhances the experience.

It seems like what you're saying here is it never caught on because it was basically crap before digital. I happen to think it's still crap and a not-so-obvious cash grab.

Maybe the director wanted to show more info on the screen in The Hangover - I don't know. 3D isn't showing us more info. Framing is an artform. Maybe someone will make an artform out of 3D. Haven't seen it yet.

Avatar is precisely why I'm not impressed with these new techniques. The movie was weak. I don't really care how pretty it looks. It's obvious more effort went into the look than the story. That's been a pitfall for quite a while. Look at the SW prequels. Tons of CG-effects that look awesome but have no soul. Technical tools are great when used to enhance a good story. Otherwise it's just visual masturbation. Maybe PJ will be the first to pull it off.

They might not have needed them when they weren't common, but they need them now. People have become used to the cinematic experience of color and widescreen for decades now. That goes to show these were worthwhile advances. I am willing to bet 3D and 48fps will never see the same level of adoption regardless of the cost, because I simply don't believe they will enhance the experience in the same way color and widescreen did.

It's basically your opinion that it's still crap. I will state that on a technical level, however, the technology has greatly improved. However, I will concede that 3D has a number of issues with it dealing with how humans normally perceive 3D. 3D films are presenting a 3D image to us in a non-standard way. There's only two fixed images available, instead of the multitude of angles and focuses that human eye processes at. There will always be some people unable to view current 3D tech in comfort, or at all. Maybe with some future holographic filming techniques, I don't know.

Contrast that with 48fps, however, which I think can be experienced by all without issues, and should enhance the experience for most, if we can get used to it.

[QUOTE=bunkaroo;11340363]Maybe the director wanted to show more info on the screen in The Hangover - I don't know. 3D isn't showing us more info. [quote]
You're saying that showing an entire extra dimension doesn't count count as "more info"? At the least, there's a secondary angle for all the shots for you to pick from (close one eye).

And whether showing in scope "shows more info on the screen" is debatable. The theater screen would have to be scope itself for that aspect ratio to maximize it. More typically, the screen is a less wide ratio that's matted to scope, which means scope films show less info on these screens. And HDTVs definitely show less image info in scope. Scope is to provide a wider aspect ratio, not specifically more info.

Additionally, the question wasn't whether the director wanted a specific look or not, but whether that specific style was "necessary" or even "appropriate" for a comedy, similar to you wondering whether comedies would adapt 3D or faster framerates. If the director feels like one of those features may add to the film, they could certainly be used in the future and those technologies become more popular (assuming they do).

I feel I must note that I provided Avatar as an example of a financially successful movie that helped drive a particular film technology (in this case, 3D) into wider use. I certainly won't praise or defend Avatar on a critical level.

What's important with a new technology is that studios see it as worth the cost. 3D hit that threshhold with Avatar, as evidenced by the rush of 3D films afterward. The Hobbit may do the same with 48fps.

They're certainly necessary from a financial standpoint, studios likely insist on them for most films, but not from a artistic or narrative one. Films are still occasionally shot in B&W, not for cost reasons, but because of artistic choice. Shooting in 4:3 is even rarer, especially as TV has migrated to 16:9, but it's still occasionally done for framing reasons. Hell, one of the critical hits last year (that also did reasonably well box office) was a 4:3, B&W, silent film:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1655442/

Again, I doubt it's fair to say that The Hobbit "needs" either 48fps or 3D. However, it's also far too early to dismiss either one as not a worth successor to other film technological advancements like color and widescreen. Pretty much every advancement started out as a "visual gimmick" to get butts in seats, so to dismiss them so quickly (and with 48fps, sight unseen) seems shortsighted.

In fact, widescreen was developed, not out of some desire to add more artistic value to film, but specifically to draw people back to the theater in the 1950s, when everyone started buying those new-fangled televisions, and staying home to watch I Love Lucy.

Ticket sales were way down in the early 50s because of television, and a gimmick was needed to create the perception that you could see something in the theater that you couldn't see at home. In other words, it was a blatantly obvious cash grab, but it worked, and it brought people back to the theater.

Thanks for confirming that! I wasn't sure I was allowed to have one.

Unless there's someone or something in a 3D film that can only be seen by seeing it in 3D, I don't see how it adds "more" info. It's just different info.

I misspoke when I said "more". I understand it's not always about more, but rather the "right" image. So what I meant was the director perhaps felt he wanted to frame for ~2.35:1 in the Hangover. That's fine. Now, if someone didn't like the 2.35:1 version and the theaters were charging more to see it in 2.35:1 and making that the dominant version available, I'd have a problem with that.

That kind of proves my point that the quality of the films won't matter as long as they're financially successful. The LOTR trilogy was highly successful and was a great piece of cinema, all without the bells and whistles of 3D and 48fps. This is why I am skeptical the Hobbit all of a sudden needs these tools to be good.

I am still open to 48fps, but if it's simply being used as a means to push 3D more, then I'm not interested. I may enjoy 48fps on its own - we'll see.

I'm aware of the history. Thankfully it was a change that actually wound up greatly expanding what filmmakers could do with the medium.

What I'm saying is I don't personally believe 3D or 48fps will impact filmmaking to the same degree. I think 48fps has a better chance to make an impact though. I just hope they don't have to walk hand in hand all the time.

It adds depth to the image, which doesn't exist in the 2D image and can only be inferred. This lack of depth in 2D was exploited in LOTR to make the hobbits look smaller in certain shots, when in reality they were simply standing further away from the camera.

I think you can argue whether depth in an image is necessary or preferable, but to continue to say that 3D doesn't add anything to the image is simply absurd.

I don't think any theater charges extra to view a film in scope, but it's certainly is the dominant AR available for that film. Again, it was people arguing about whether the aspect ratio was "necessary" or "appropriate" for a comedy, not necessarily about whether it cost more to see it that way. To flip that argument, if 3D didn't cost extra in theaters, would your opinion of it improve?

Nobody is stating that the Hobbit "needs" either feature to be good, and as I pointed out before both the studio and director are for showing the film without either in theaters. Obviously they think the film will still be good without them. This seems to be a straw man you keep coming back to.

In regards to LOTR, it definitely succeeded without these features. However, it's impossible to say whether it could've been even more successful with these features or not. Certainly I could imagine the experience having been improved with one or the other, or both. With the rereleases of Titanic and Star Wars Ep 1 in 3D, studios and filmmakers are looking at whether films that were successful in 2D could be enhanced by viewing in 3D.

3D and 48fps are enhancements, just like color and widescreen were. Whether they're "necessary" is hard to say; as has been pointed out before, even sound in a film isn't strictly speaking "necessary." Whether they will become as prevalent as some of the earlier "visual gimmicks" is hard to say as well. But you shouldn't just dismiss them as "visual gimmicks" that won't take hold and become as ubiquitous as color and widescreen now are.

It'll probably be hard to see The Hobbit Part 1 in theaters in 48fps without 3D, I highly doubt any theaters will be showing it that way. You could always use some 2D glasses though to view it in 2D
http://www.2d-glasses.com/
http://www.thinkgeek.com/product/e9b4/
http://www.amazon.com/Hank-Greens-2D.../dp/B004X4L1UC

screw 3D...End of discussion....(I'm assuming that was part of that bloated obese argument right above me?)

How do you feel about 48fps?

Well, if it's the preferred way of seeing it according to PJ, isn't that the same as saying it needs those features?

Anyway, I'll save you from having to write any more dissertations on the subject directed at me. Suffice it to say, I haven't been convinced of its merits at this point.

Oh and fixed this one for you:

No. A preference isn't a requirement, by definition. Most directors would prefer you to see their movie in a theater. Would you say that means that most movies need to been seen in a theater?

Would I say that? No. Would some directors? Well based on the trailers they're running before films these days talking about seeing movies on the big screen where they belong, I'd say yes.

Even if a director is saying it's just preferred, that's basically the same as saying your experience will be diminished if you don't see it in their preferred way. Otherwise why even mention a preferred way of viewing? I don't believe that will be true of the Hobbit. End of story.

When will people on the Internet understand that you don't have to explicitly state "in my opinion", as it is inherent to every point in a discussion?

I don't see movies in theaters much anymore. Do you have a link to one of these ads? Are they saying that theatrical viewing is necessary, or just better?

Well, anything where a director thinks a particular feature enhances the experience of a film, if seen without that feature the experience would, by definition, be diminished.

However, this is true of all enhanced features available. For example, surround sound, which is common in theaters but lacking in many homes. Or even screen size. Bigger is better in most cases, but most homes don't have screens the size of a movie theaters'. There's all sorts of things that add to a movie experience that people may miss out on based on how they view the film. 3D and 48fps are just the two most recent.

I do think that those that see The Hobbit in 24fps 2D will not have any worse an experience than if the film had been shot solely in that format. Those that see it in 3D and/or 48fps will possibly have an even more immersive experience. Does that mean that the film needs to be seen in 3D and 48fps in order to be enjoyed? No.

It's typically implied, but there are those on the internet that do conflate their opinion with empirical fact. I once had an argument on Usenet with people that thought that the quality of a film (whether it's good or it's bad) could be determined objectively.

You'd think it isn't necessary, but when people keep coming at you incessantly for having that opinion, sometimes it bares repeating it is in fact just an opinion.

OK I LOL'd at the bolded. It just seems ironic given your strenuous defense of 3D and 48fps when neither of those will likely be mainstays of HT any time soon. But I understand why you want them.

Anyway, the ad mentions "the way they were meant to be seen" or something very close to that. I don't recall if it's an anti-pirating clip against watching stuff on computer monitors or just reinforcing the "theater is better" principle. I believe the final slogan is "Go Big or Go Home" should you feel inclined to do the research for it.

Just because it's an opinion doesn't mean people can't disagree with it.

I don't necessarily want them; I saw Dark Knight Rises in theaters without either of those features and enjoyed that. I skipped seeing Avengers in 3D due largely to it being a post conversion. It's more that I'm interested in seeing it as Peter Jackson wants it to be seen, and reserving judgement until then.

I looked up the slogan, and the ad I found does not match the one you described:
http://my.spill.com/profiles/blogs/r...guys-trying-to


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E56cwVN5rXk

Maybe you're confusing ad campaigns?

Again and again and again apparently!

No that's the one. So it says "No movie should be reduced to this", shows a movie playing a small computer monitor or TV, and says Go Big or Go Home. How does that not match what I said? I said:

'I don't recall if it's an anti-pirating clip against watching stuff on computer monitors or just reinforcing the "theater is better" principle."

What do you think the ad is saying?

I was going back to this statement:
I thought the ad was representing directors in some way, or possibly having directors explicitly quoted.

The ad in question was made by a movie theater chain. Of course a movie theater chain is going to say movies should be seen in theaters. I don't see how that ad is representative of any director's opinion though.