Peter Jackson Strikes Back At Critics Of THE HOBBIT's 48 Frames Per Second Projection

Peter Jackson Strikes Back At Critics Of THE HOBBIT's 48 Frames Per Second Projection

The first wave of reviews for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey were not kind to the 48fps format, and at the New York press conference for the movie today, Peter Jackson has responded to those comments. "Anyone under the age of 20 or so doesn't really care and thinks it looks cool."

Talking at the New York press conference of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey today, director Peter Jackson has addressed the critics of the 48 Frames Per Second format. With some critics comparing the look of the movie to the 'Benny Hill Show', some may now decide to avoid seeing it as Jackson intended. However, he was quick to defend 48fps and below is a transcription of what the filmmaker had to say thanks to SuperheroHype. Check back on CBM this Sunday to read my review of the film and on Tuesday for highlights from the London press conference.

"I'm fascinated by reactions. I'm tending to see that anyone under the age of 20 or so doesn't really care and thinks it looks cool, not that they understand it but they often just say that 3D looks really cool. I think 3D at 24 frames is interesting, but it's the 48 that actually allows 3D to almost achieve the potential that it can achieve because it's less eye strain and you have a sharper picture which creates more of the 3-dimensional world."

"Warner Bros. were very supportive. They just wanted us to prove that the 24 frame version would look normal, which it does, but once they were happy with that, on first day, when we had to press that button that said '48 frames' even though on that first day we started shooting at 48 FPS, you could probably say there wasn't a single cinema in the world that would project the moviein that format. It was a big leap of faith."

"The big thing to realize is that it's not an attempt to change the film industry. It's another choice. The projectors that can run at 48 frames can run at 24 frames - it doesn't have to be one thing or another. You can shoot a movie at 24 frames and have sequences at 48 or 60 frames within the body of the film. You can still do all the shutter-angle and strobing effects. It doesn't necessarily change how films are going to be made. It's just another choice that filmmakers have got and for me, it gives that sense of reality that I love in cinema."

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.


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.

Posted By:
Josh Wilding
Member Since 3/13/2009
Filed Under "Fantasy" 12/5/2012 Source: SuperheroHype
DISCLAIMER: is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]
1 2
RorMachine - 12/5/2012, 12:38 PM
I appreciate the risks he's taking in wanting to revolutionize cinema, and as he says, nobody is forcing people to see it in the HFR, but yeah I'll be seeing it normally first..I hope! Not actually sure what format the screening I see will be in.
hoperidesalone - 12/5/2012, 12:42 PM
Thing is - I think a lot of people are going to see it in both formats. The 48 fps out of sheer curiosity. I think it's all a big marketing scheme.
TheSonicScrew - 12/5/2012, 1:00 PM
No see I like where he wants it to go...movies that have 24fps to keep the cinematic effect but with 48fps segments for maybe action scenes with a lot of 3D....basically this could be a way to just get rid of the annoying blurriness of 3D, which would be great
DrDoom - 12/5/2012, 1:05 PM
To be honest, Jackson can eat shit on this one. 48 fps is [frick]ing stupid for a cinematic experience. Love him for what he did with LOTR, but on this one he's dead wrong.
siggisuperman - 12/5/2012, 1:15 PM
Love how people have decided they hate it already without seeing how it looks. I want to see it but to be honest I don't expect I'd like it but just like with 1080p LED HD tv's, I thought it was too much first, but then my brain adjusted.
sicknimon - 12/5/2012, 1:19 PM
Has there been anything else done 48 FPS that I can compare to? Honestly other than Dredd 3D I haven't been to impressed with 3D at all.... That includes TASM, Avengers, Harry Potter, Tron *cough*, yeah... never did see Avater in 3D
HavocPrime - 12/5/2012, 1:44 PM
I want to see it in both to see what the fuss is about, and I find it way weird to see Peter Jackson look so thin lol
DukeAcureds - 12/5/2012, 2:05 PM
Critics: Peter Jackson's 48fps doesn't work. It wasn't broke. It didn't need fixing.
Jackson: Yeah...well... I asked what the moronic children thought of it and they said it was cool, so... um...
Fail, Jackson. Fail.
Pooh - 12/5/2012, 2:10 PM
I only see the 3d version if I have no other choice. 2d rules!
luckylu - 12/5/2012, 2:20 PM
im the gripe is that the 3d quality is better and more clear?
HitGirl13 - 12/5/2012, 2:21 PM
3D does nothing for me as a format. I'm totally ignorant on what they are talking about here.. 24 v 48 frames per second but wouldn't it be wise or at least fair to watch it first and then complain?
maxxgone - 12/5/2012, 2:27 PM
this is sad to see jackson's ego not allowing him to step back and admit, "yeah i dropped the ball here. im wrong, the tech is not ready yet & i shouldn't have done it with a 300 mill epic. rather i shoulda done it on a smaller project."

plus you just know he is now surrounded by 'yes men & women' who wouldn't dare tell the man he's mistaken. which is really too bad because its within honest criticisms that better decisions/visions come from.
KungFuKoala - 12/5/2012, 2:28 PM
How many of you complaining about 48fps own playstation or xbox? Most games are created at 60fps, so you should be more than ready for 48fps. That's why Jackson mentioned the under 20s - they are a generation of people who are already primed for a higher frame rate experience.
bhorwith22 - 12/5/2012, 2:29 PM
It is not an opinion. It is a measurable scientific FACT that 48fps is superior to 24fps.
pro346 - 12/5/2012, 2:39 PM
If you don't like 48 fps just see it in 24 fps! Most cinemas will only show it in 24 fPS what's the big deal? Atleast the guy is trying to push the limits
FOOM - 12/5/2012, 2:41 PM
Bitch Bitch Bitch.
From what I've seen so far the movie looks like a feast for the eyes but why don't we do what normal people do and actually watch the whole film from beginning to end before casting judgement?
bababoozer - 12/5/2012, 2:48 PM
Sounds like Jackson has caught Lucasitis. Not all he touches is gold......
BubblesShedAndBreakfast - 12/5/2012, 2:52 PM
I'll reserve judgment till I see the movie...
batfan175 - 12/5/2012, 2:56 PM
@DukeAcureds: except that when you don't try you don't succeed either so...I think the only gripe with the film so far is the 48fps issue, as most critics seem to agree that the acting, cinematography, script, etc. are good but it is true that the Hobbit is structurally not that different from LOTR just with lower stakes so maybe the question that many non-readers watching this are asking is "where is the sense of novelty"? Plus, I can see problems with ahving too much CGI in it but I personally am veruy much looking forward to the film because it seems everyone is so bent on criticising 48fps that they're bringing down the whole film because of it, which is not really reviewing the film as a whole. i can admire jackson's efforts but it seems like he anted to be like James cameron with Avatar and people did not respond to it as well as he thought, which does not mean that the film is a flop in its 24fps version.
marvel72 - 12/5/2012, 3:00 PM
i'm still gonna watch no matter what the frame rate is.
CrimsonReign - 12/5/2012, 3:05 PM
I HATE the soap opera effect...
yourdaddy - 12/5/2012, 3:09 PM
48fps is shit.

i have seen enough content in it to know exactly what the problem is with it. and the several 'benny hill' comparisons in reviews have all but assured me that this suffers from the same. (funnily enough, i was under 20 for each of my other encounters with 48fps, and i didn't think it was 'cool')

nonetheless its far from a deal breaker. it's a return to middle earth from peter jackson. and i'll just be watching in 24fps anyways.

i'm not taking the critics too seriously on this though, overall. most of the complaints are either invalid, or don't bother me personally:
1) "48fps has a benny hill effect" - true. but i'll be watching in 24fps, as will most of the rest of the world.
2) "its geared towards kids" - well duh. the book was written for children. if jackson made dramatic tonal or other changes to masturbate his ego, he'd just drive away fans for being unfaithful to the books. i'm with jackson on this. and besides, once we get all these middle earth films and watch them in chronological order. it'll be a bonus for the tone to gradually get darker as the story progresses, as opposed to vice versa. jackson was forward thinking on this one
3) "too much detail in the beginning makes the pace slow for first half" - well again, this'll be better when we watch all three hobbit films back to back. remember, it's really one movie split into three. and while that might not make for the best movies individually as it did for lotr, nobody's going into these long and demanding films looking for a generic film. it's with very specific expectations that people go to see these. and it will fulfill those expectation, I believe.
CapFan79 - 12/5/2012, 3:15 PM
Well, I'll be seeing in non-3D regular 24 fps, just like I saw LOTR. I might check out 48 fps if I can, but not at first. Plus the Blu-Ray and all that will look just like the others since TV's don't do 48 fps...yet. That'll be the next gimmick to gouge consumers, but for movies I prefer teh cinematic quality. I don't want my movies to look like I'm watching soccer.
Niem8211 - 12/5/2012, 3:29 PM
harley2011 - 12/5/2012, 3:40 PM
His rationale for doing it in the first place was ridiculous. Movies are not supposed to look like plays. The fact that he had to resort to what the twilight crowd thinks shows what a stupid mistake it was.
spidermanfan2099 - 12/5/2012, 3:52 PM
I think it was a good idea to shoot it in 48fps, considering most cinema's will only show it at 24fps anyway, when 48fps becomes more popular in later years (it will, all superior tech becomes popular) it'll double the shelf life of the movie, allowing for a second (or 3rd) round at the the cinema and keeping up with modern films that are showing at the time. I think its quite nice having the choice tbh... i'm intrigued by the 48, I know it'll lose that haze that makes a movie a movie and not a BBC Nature Documentary, but its just a step forward.
INSTANTJUSTICE - 12/5/2012, 4:17 PM

"I'm tending to see that anyone under the age of 20 or so doesn't really care and thinks it looks cool"

Under 20 year olds don't make $200 million films.

Facade - 12/5/2012, 4:23 PM
Wow, people bitching about being offered a choice?! I'll watch it both ways and decide for myself which is best for me.

I appreciate that option.

Thank you PJ for considering the fact that 3D gives some of us a head ache after awhile.
NovemberGrey - 12/5/2012, 4:41 PM
I'm not a fan of this current force fed 3d, wearing glasses takes away from the movie experience in my mind, and until they've perfected 3d without glasses technology, I'll prefer watching in 2d. With that said, Jackson is correct. 48fps holds much greater potential of realistic life like 3d images than 24 fps. The real issue is that film look isn't one that mimic's reality, and there's a reason films look a certain way, while broadcast sports looks another.
Azazel1 - 12/5/2012, 4:50 PM
@Harley-I agree with you, movies should no look like plays....
DukeAcureds - 12/5/2012, 4:52 PM
batfan175@ That's the nail that should be hit on the head a lot, right there. Structure.
You say it's not that different structurally and being that it is now a trilogy, you're right. But one of the two major differences between The Hobbit and LOTR is structure. The other is tone. In both of these The Hobbit is simpler and more self-contained. A simpler, more family-friendly tone and a simpler structure. One book. Not an epic, like LOTR. Not adult, like LOTR. It should be one film. Thta's the difference, structurally. Sure it's linear quest film. Gandalf gets a Hobbit from the Shire gives him a band of merry warriors and sends him on a quest to a scary place and back. Thta part of the structure is the same, but if you want to watch LOTR or show somebody LOTR or even read the gorram books like old folks used way back when, then there is a whole hell of a lot of LOTR to get through. It's one shit[frick] of a commitment. The Hobbit, however, should be something you can watch as if it were the same as any other film or book, but about a quest on Middle-Earth. I couldn't believe when The Return of the King won the Oscar, because as a stand alone movie it really doesn't work. None of the three do. Thta's what's special about The Hobbit. It should work as a self-contained movie. It has more of a right at winning a Best Picture Oscar than any LOTR movie. We should be able to see it as a family classic in the same way that we see Mary Poppins or some such film. Can you imagine if Mary Poppins had been a trilogy. I can't see it being much of a classic, anymore. You know what I mean? Forget 48fps 3D. The real mistake was turning The Hobbit into just another Lord of the Rings Trilogy, but weaker.
NoAssemblyReqd - 12/5/2012, 5:34 PM
Love me some Peter Jackson, but right now it sounds like he's in George Lucas-ian denial circa 1999.
NoAssemblyReqd - 12/5/2012, 5:42 PM
I'm not against the idea of 48fps -- I just wish it hadn't been used on this particular group of films. Now there's a big visual incongruency between his two trilogies. (I do realize we have a choice -- I hope we have the same choice when the movie hits blu ray).

It's a catch-22, I guess. Safer to roll out 48fps on a surefire hit than to risk using it on some experimental film.
Hellmont - 12/5/2012, 6:23 PM
Its funny so many of you complain about the use of 48 fps.
When each time you watch TV your watching TV at 60fps not at 24fps. 1080i runs at 60fps

No, 48fps doesnt create a benny hill effect because your not accellerating the video content from 24fps to 48fps in post production your recording the video content at 48fps which gives you greater detail because now there is twice the amount of video DATA. Hence camera panning is quicker and tigher and requires more delicacy from the DP.

For those of you who are opposed to 48fps

Get your heads out of your ASSES and come to the realization that you dont know what your talking about because you wouldnt be able to distinguish 24fps from 48fps if someone played a video for you. Most ppl cant tell the difference between 1080 and 720. Which are the same ppl who cant tell the difference between a wave file and an MP3. And now you whine and complain about a 48fps.???

SimyJo - 12/5/2012, 6:26 PM
Ok THATS the dumbest statement from whom I thought to be an intelligent director.
I don't know what prompted him to come out with that rubbish but he really orc to know better.

*Newsflash to Peter Jackson*
YOUR BIGGEST FANS FOR THE LOTR AND HOBBIT TRILOGIES ARE NOT - I REPEAT NOT - UNDER TWENTY YEARS OF AGE. (for many reasons as well as they wouldn't have the patience to sit through another 9+ hours of your extended "MY PRECIOUSSSS" edition.

I'm sure others will know what I'm tolkien about.
vtopa - 12/5/2012, 6:36 PM
I'm going to wait and see what it looks like on the big screen and with some 3D glasses before I judge ANYTHING. For those of you who are criticizing Jackson now, please give it a rest. You haven't seen the flick yet and he delivered the greatest trilogy of ALL TIME (better than Star Wars, yes).
Super12 - 12/5/2012, 6:47 PM
So not a single person on this board has seen the film yet, but they can say it is definitely wrong to do 48fps? Talk to me after the movie comes out. You might be right, but don't talk till it comes out.
Gr33n4rrow - 12/5/2012, 8:29 PM
Well Sir Pete,

I live in Auckland and I will be seeing it at midnight on release. I have faith that your hard work on the 48fps will impress me, but will have an open mind until then. I also love due to the time zones across the world we get to see it first!!
fungusmonkey - 12/5/2012, 9:22 PM
It's not so much a "just wait until you see the technology" situation as it's just a basic lesson in cinematography. Shooting at 48fps makes things look extremely jittery because the shorter timespan between frames means less motion blur, so the illusion of motion that is present in typical 24fps shoots isn't there. However, Jackson has created a sort of workaround by increasing the shutter angle to 270 degrees, essentially adding *more* motion blur per frame to come as close to 24 fps footage as he can.

If that made sense to you, essentially they're trying very hard to make 48fps look as much like the tried-and-true "cinematic" feel of 24fps. That's why we use 24fps - because it looks like "film" and not "video". So, if you're asking why shoot in 48fps instead of 24fps if you're just trying to make one look like the other... the answer is because it improves the look of 3D film and it's much harder for people to pirate.

So. If you really like 3D movies (I don't know anyone who does), 48fps will probably excite you. If you love classic film and the beauty of the 2D medium... it's not going to be a big deal. Just higher ticket prices for everyone.
ChanceX74 - 12/5/2012, 9:57 PM
Hellmont: Sorry, 1080i is not 60 frames per second for HDTV broadcasts, it's 30. The other component you are ignoring is the "i" in 1080i, meaning interlaced. Interlaced means you are not getting a complete frame per instance, you are only getting an alternating half.

Each field occurs every 60th of a second: the first field having all the odd lines and the second field having all the even. Your TV combines these together with soft de-interlacing to form a complete frame of video.

Hence, you may be confused in that you are getting 60 FIELDS per second, but only 30 frames (60/2=30)).
1 2

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.