The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Great review, Jeff. I actually saw it again last night after our Saturday viewing, but this time to check out the 3D High Frame Rate version. Here are my thoughts on the tech:

For 85 years, ever since the first synchronized sound films started to gain traction, we have been watching films at 24 frames per second. We’ve learned through experience that 24fps is “cinematic” as an aesthetic, mostly subconsciously.

Television, on the other hand has always been a little different, especially in the US. At 30fps it has a different “feel”, a little closer to sitting across from the person and places on the screen as it “feels” in real life. We’ve learned to interpret this aesthetic as being less “cinematic” and related to broader types of programming – news, talk shows, sports, sitcoms, etc.

Unlearning this reaction is not an easy task. Most people with an eye for image presentation expect certain touches and rhythm that 24fps provides that isn’t *quite* there at 30fps. In the last handful of years HDTVs have had the 120hz mode which essentially doubles the frame rate of TV images, and this only enhances that gap.

The 48fps HFR of The Hobbit isn’t quite as jarring as the 120hz for TV, primarily because instead of doubling frames artificially there are ACTUAL frames present in the image. Therefore the clarity and detail is impeccable without the mild “shake” that can be noticed by the keen eyed viewer of 120hz.

That being said, it tweaks the reaction to the presentation. The best way I can describe it is like this: I had the impression that I was sitting on a stage with the actors performing, and therefore felt the artificiality of live theater, which is an odd feeling when you are not really in that setting. Again, this is a learned reaction over time, so it’s not necessarily wrong, but just a mismatch for the event of a theatrical film based on experience. If you’ve ever seen classic BBC Miniseries such as Elizabeth R or any of the Jane Austin adaptations shot on standard def video you may also get what I’m describing. Many call it the so-called “soap opera” look, which is apt because daytime soaps for decades were shot on 30fps video.

Then, at moments of vistas and wide shots of cities, it reminded me eerily of travel TV programs. Rick Steves’ Middle Earth, if you will. Which is to say, the scope of perception was again changed. My inherent reaction to that is to not think of narrative storytelling, but of sight seeing if I ever visited France. Once again… just odd.

So, in short, in HFR it’s the best looking travelogue miniseries chapter I’ve ever seen, but it just doesn’t have that nuance of 24fps that my mind thinks of when I think of “cinema”.

I’m reminded of the old adage about Technicolor vs. Black & White for films in the 30s-40s. Technicolor was used for hyper-realism, to accentuate the non-reality of the vibrancy of the colors, while black & white, because it was so associated with film Newsreels of the time, felt more “real” to the audiences of their day. This tendency was eventually unlearned and we all now accept the more natural color photography to be quite pleasing aesthetically and for what we consider realism, while BOTH classic Technicolor and Black & White films seem distant and artificial in their own ways. Will HFR 48fps eventually be accepted for theatrical feature films the way we’ve come to accept modern color photography? Perhaps. But it will be a long way to break 85 years of learned subconscious expectations.

As for the 3D – exceptionally well done. As for the Atmos sound – it was nice, but it wasn’t mind blowing. If I didn’t have knowledge that it was there I’d have a hard time noting the difference to regular well presented theater sound.

And I still love the film upon the second viewing. I honestly could watch it again right then if it wasn’t 2:30am.

LikeLike