You Won't Have To Pay Extra To See THE HOBBIT In 48 Frames-Per-Second

You will however still have to pay for the higher 3D ticket prices! Regardless, the good news is that theatres in the US won't be charging moviegoers higher ticket prices for those hoping to catch The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in 48fps this Winter.

Follow Josh:

By Josh Wilding - 8/22/2012

Earlier this month, it was revealed that Warner Bros. would only be releasing the 48 frames-per-second version of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in select location across North America (there's no word on what they'll be doing overseas at this point). That's not good news for fans who don't live near a major city, but the studio reportedly want to be careful while judging the reaction to the presentation, especially after VERY mixed reviews at CinemaCon earlier this year. However, the good news now is that you won't have to pay extra to see Peter Jackson's highly anticipated return to Middle-Earth in the format this December. According to Showblitz, Warner Bros. expressed a desire for exhibitors not to charge even more on top of the already high 3D ticket prices and they have agreed. For now. It is unfortunately likely that this will change in future depending on just how widespread the 48fps format becomes...

The adventure follows the journey of title character Bilbo Baggins, who is swept into an epic quest to reclaim the lost Dwarf Kingdom of Erebor from the fearsome dragon Smaug. Approached out of the blue by the wizard Gandalf the Grey, Bilbo finds himself joining a company of thirteen dwarves led by the legendary warrior, Thorin Oakenshield. Their journey will take them into the Wild; through treacherous lands swarming with Goblins and Orcs, deadly Wargs and Giant Spiders, Shapeshifters and Sorcerers.

Although their goal lies to the East and the wastelands of the Lonely Mountain first they must escape the goblin tunnels, where Bilbo meets the creature that will change his life forever…Gollum.

Here, alone with Gollum, on the shores of an underground lake, the unassuming Bilbo Baggins not only discovers depths of guile and courage that surprise even him, he also gains possession of Gollum’s "precious" ring that holds unexpected and useful qualities … A simple, gold ring that is tied to the fate of all Middle-earth in ways Bilbo cannot begin to know.

STARRING:

Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins
Ian McKellen as Gandalf the Grey
Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield
Andy Serkis as Gollum
Hugo Weaving as Elrond
Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug
Luke Evans as Bard the Bowman
Christopher Lee as Saruman the White
Cate Blanchett as Galadriel
Elijah Wood as Frodo Baggins
Orlando Bloom as Legolas

RELEASE DATE: December 14th, 2012.

DISCLAIMER: This article was submitted by a volunteer contributor who has agreed to our code of conduct. ComicBookMovie.com is protected from liability under "safe harbor" provisions and will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. For expeditious removal, contact us HERE.

29 Comments

	Asterisk - 8/22/2012, 4:49 PM Login to report abuse I wouldn't mind seeing this in 3D or the 48 fps. However...why isn't there a new trailer?
	aztecRaingod - 8/22/2012, 4:57 PM Login to report abuse Um, thanks? Charging more to see this in higher FPS would have been the lamest scheme of all time.
	rocky - 8/22/2012, 4:59 PM Login to report abuse I would've paid extra to see this at 48fps and in 3D but glad that I won't have to. Really really curious to see how this format looks. Last I read it seemed like they were going to give the film some treatment to give it a more "cinematic" look.
	Maximus101 - 8/22/2012, 5:03 PM Login to report abuse They really need to get rid of 3D, it's such a waste of the extra few bucks. This movie should be awesome though, be the last big movie of 2012!
	marvel72 - 8/22/2012, 5:28 PM Login to report abuse @ Maximus101 you don't have to see the movie in 3d,all the while people keep going to 3d showings they'll keep making them.
	Theodora - 8/22/2012, 5:35 PM Login to report abuse Can someone in a nutshell explain what this frame rate business is all about? What makes it different to a normal film, why did the critics hate it?
	Spidey31 - 8/22/2012, 5:35 PM Login to report abuse Just cause its shot in 3D doesn't mean it's gonna be avatar like or be worth it. TASM was filmed in 3D but the 3D was the same as any other convert film.
	OdinsBeard - 8/22/2012, 5:36 PM Login to report abuse so how will people know? i can see it now.. Average overweight american family in line at box office: "would you like to view it in 24 frames per second or 48?" "what?"
	OdinsBeard - 8/22/2012, 5:39 PM Login to report abuse catwoman1@ it's closer to the way the human eye views things. it looks like you're really there - which sounds a lot better than it actually is. a lot of TVs coming out have up-converters in them and sometimes when you watch sitcoms the picture and movement are so clear it looks like you're watching a play. sometimes it looks cheap is the problem. when i saw the trailer at 48fps it looks like an episode of kevin sorbos Hercules for some reason..
	Bane2099 - 8/22/2012, 5:44 PM Login to report abuse Good, cuz I wasnt planning to pay extra, damn tickets are expensive enough as is :]
	Boekelaar - 8/22/2012, 5:48 PM Login to report abuse It sucks that we're not going to get to see Jacksons vision of the film but I'm also glad as I don't think movies need to be seen in 48fps. Movies should suspend belief and engage the audience and I can't help but think that 48fps would only distract me from the film. I also feel the same about 3D as when I watch a 3D film I always wonder how the scene looks in 2D and if this really needs to be in 3D. However Avatar and Hugo are excluded from this as they were engaging and used 3D as a tool rather than a gimmick.
	Wiredwizard - 8/22/2012, 5:49 PM Login to report abuse I doubt it's going to matter either way for me. If I had money to bet, I'd put it all down that the only places here in Canada where it'll show in 48fps will be Toronto, Vancouver & Montreal, none of which do me any good.
	Facade - 8/22/2012, 5:55 PM Login to report abuse I'm gonna have to drive over a hour just to see it in 48fps, thank god I won't have to pay extra ;P
	95 - 8/22/2012, 6:09 PM Login to report abuse Good. We dodged a bullet there. Very interested as far as how the "realness" of the higher frame rate complements the stereoscopic depth. Although, I fear that the "charge-for-48fps" will come up later when James Cameron's nausea-fest returns to theaters in 2015 or whenever. I'll boycott that shit.
	SimyJo - 8/22/2012, 6:24 PM Login to report abuse SimyJo's Top Tip of the Day™: "See all your films in an exclusive higher frames-per-second format by rapidly blinking twice as often as you normally do at the cinema!".
	DrDoom - 8/22/2012, 6:26 PM Login to report abuse 48 FPS is silly. Cinema is supposed to be 24 FPS.
	patriautism - 8/22/2012, 6:28 PM Login to report abuse At that frame rate I'm pretty sure it will look cheap. video is shot at 60 FPS and at that frame rate film will look a lot like video.
	ckal - 8/22/2012, 6:54 PM Login to report abuse Shame that films are still using technology 100 years old.
	CrimsonReign - 8/22/2012, 6:58 PM Login to report abuse I am not watching any format that looks like a soap opera.
	lokibane2012 - 8/22/2012, 7:06 PM Login to report abuse @ckal Why is it a shame? It's not like we're still watching black-and-white. 48fps makes movies look like some atrocious BBC documentary. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.
	fettastic - 8/22/2012, 8:21 PM Login to report abuse Their BS excuse for charging more for 3D was the cost of the glasses......although they would still charge you whther or not you brought your own glasses. Now they want to charge extra for 48fps...something that doesn't cost the theater an extra penny? This is why people stay home, I'm tellin' ya. Modern HDTVs turn ANYTHING into 48fps anyway so I don't even understand the need to film it that way. There's no way to preserve it and display it at home either on a disc format, televised or streamed. I guess their idea is that it will catch on like wildfire and the public will demand an all new home video format, new TVs, new broadcast specs, etc.? Well since the invention of 120hz TVs, most people don't like it, so good luck with that.
	SuspenseSmith - 8/22/2012, 9:34 PM Login to report abuse I thought that was a given. It's sad that it's not.
	Ichaos - 8/22/2012, 11:47 PM Login to report abuse @patriautism What kind of video camera do you have? Video is typically at 29.9999999 frames per second or commonly refered to as 30 frames per second in US and Japan at least. Other parts of the world its 24 which is closer to film.
	Ichaos - 8/22/2012, 11:48 PM Login to report abuse your probably thinking fields not frames
	Theodora - 8/23/2012, 4:37 AM Login to report abuse @Splenda Thanks :)
	OnLeatherWings - 8/23/2012, 6:26 AM Login to report abuse No 48 fps and no 3D for me.
	grampageezer - 8/23/2012, 7:16 AM Login to report abuse i'd LOVE to see the movie in 48 fps, but I'm betting I won't be able to in my small-town market here. What pisses me off thought, is I have to wait until 2013, and 2014 to see the complete trilogy. Then we won't be able to buy the extended versions on blu rays or DVDs until 2015, 2016, and then 2017.
	patriautism - 8/23/2012, 7:22 AM Login to report abuse @Ichaos Modern full progressive HD video cameras shoot at 60 FPS.. It is called 60p.. Here is an example of a video shot in it.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JKVy_8SXBQ please get informed before trying to correct someone.
	batfan175 - 8/23/2012, 9:18 AM Login to report abuse wow. Aren't they merciful?