Concerning HFR

What is the deal with 48 fps?

As a child, did you ever have a storytime when you listened to lots of essential but frankly quite dull background detail, and then just as things seemed to have got going and your imagination had lost itself in the world of the story, your mother told you it was bedtime. That rather represents my feelings about The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. I have now seen it three times, and with each viewing the fatigue at the exposition and delay of getting into the plot has increased, but so has the genuine sense that the whole trilogy kicks into life in the second half of this first film, and I cannot wait for part two.

Part two contains many exciting mysteries, but we have already had the big technological reveal of High Frame Rate (HFR). The decision to shoot these films at 48 frames per second was taken in order to improve the 3D experience. I first saw this film in IMAX which (bar a few exceptions) is projected at 24 frames per second (fps), and the usual 3D problems were there. There is often a blurring that takes place in 3D which is immensely distracting. Furthermore, the process of 3D removes a third of the colour.

What 48 fps does is give the eye more detail to take in, and this serves to cut out the blurring, and the nature of projecting the increased number of frames improves (though does not eliminate) the colour loss. Both of these were evident improvements in the HFR projection of The Hobbit.

Review: The Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey

No masterpiece, but there is much to enjoy in this return to Middle Earth

It is the case that Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy is to my generation what the original Star Wars trilogy was to the children of the 70s and 80s. Every Christmas for three years, those films were amazing and formative experiences, showing our young eyes what cinema was capable of. They have swiftly become almost untouchable. I have never fully trusted anyone who has said that they don’t really get The Lord of the Rings. They seem like tricksy Hobbitses.

The LOTR/Star Wars analogy is most apt, because both generations craved more and both generations have had their moment of truth. With the Star Wars generation, it was a case of be careful what you wish for, and the fear amongst Tolkien fans, who learnt from this travesty, is palpable. After all, a slim volume has been transformed into not one, not two, but three films, and we are terrified that we are not about to be transported back to Middle Earth but rather to an accountant’s spreadsheet.

Of course, in such situations, the fanboy is his own worst enemy. He lets his expectations rocket high into the stratosphere, preventing himself from having the relaxed open-mind which let him fall in love with the material in the first place. Given that, the usual reaction to such big releases is torn between cries of “It’s a masterpiece!” and “It’s an abomination!”

In the case of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, it is neither of the two. It is a fine addition to the cinematic Tolkien saga, but it has its problems. These problems are not insuperable, and when the initial furore has died down, it will be evident that Jackson should have our faith that he can really hit top gear with instalments two and three.

The First Hobbit Trailer has Arrived

A quick word on the long awaited trailer for next year’s first instalment of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. Kevin Maher, writing on The Times’ Film Spy blog (£), described it “as the tiniest bit underwhelming”, before revealing that he (surprise, surprise) was not a Lord of the Rings fan. I can tell him, as a member of the generation that was blown away by the original trilogy, that he is flat out wrong. In the same way that some people should just change the channel when Jeremy Clarkson comes on, Mr Maher should avoid this film at all costs. He is just going to get upset.

For the rest of us, this was very exciting stuff indeed. Sure, there’s a large thrill out of simply seeing Middle Earth back on screen, but with that nostalgia come many fears as well. How can these films possibly live up to the originals? Will the magic have gone? Will it be Star Wars all over again?

Is 3D dying or has it merely stumbled?

The future for 3D looks pretty bleak, but are things as bad as they seem?


Two weeks ago, I was able to ask Mark Kermode a question: how long do you think 3D has to last? “Less than 12 months”, he replied. I was staggered by his confidence. After all, there are two big films coming up this year which will make money in 3D, namely the Spielberg-Jackson production of Tintin and Martin Scorsese’s Hugo. Then, in 15 months’ time, we have The Hobbit in 3D. There seems to be plenty of opportunity for the medium to fire itself back to life.

Whatever happened to Jack Black?

The comic-actor's career promised much in 2005. How has it got to low level it's at today?

With apes ruling at the cinema at present, my mind turned to one of my favourite films of the last decade: the Peter Jackson remake of King Kong. Now, many will say that it’s far too long, far too self-indulgent and far too sentimental. I will accept all bar the last of those, but it is an absolute blast, made with care and love, and delivering some really beautiful moments of cinema, as well as stunning visual effects.

The Serkis Phenomenon

Andy Serkis performing as Caesar in Rise of the Planet of the Apes

The time has come to honour Andy Serkis

 

In a small room somewhere, about 12 years ago, an unknown British actor did something which changed cinema forever. He was auditioning to be the voice of a very big role - one of the most famous literary characters ever – but he didn’t just do the voice but gave an entire performance, changing himself physically and working through the scene as any actor playing a normal part would.