The Hobbit: 3D, 24fps, HFR...my observations

So tonight I saw THE HOBBIT: An Unexpected Journey... in Real D 3-D ETX 24fps with ATMOS sounds... then I saw 20+ minutes in 2D 24fps...then saw 2/3 of it in HFR 3D IMAX. 

Yes my brain has melted.  But I now feel that I have done ample research to have a solid opinion on all the different formats.  And the results are somewhat suprising.  Read on if you want... (I'll keep plot spoilers to a minimum, but I will comment a bit on the film.)

REAL D: 3D: ETX 24fps with DOLBY ATMOS:  This is the first time I saw it.  The movie is pretty slow going and basically feels like 2 hours of exposition followed by 45 minutes of Rad.   The 3D looked cool.  24fps looks great.  The images felt like a video game, especially the big CGI stuff.  It was like watching Drakes Fortune or God Of War in 3D.  Not that the original LOTR wasn't heavy on the CG, and some of it is spectacular, but sometimes, when closer to the characters, it felt like a video game.  They made good use of 3D (which if done well is cool to me, and here it's done well).  The environments are awesome (as you'd expect in an LOTR film). 

The Dolby Atmos 64 track sound was directional, clear, solid...but not very punchy.  It could have been louder and had more bam, pop, pow!  Which surprised me, I would have figured the sound would have been the best part since it has 64 tracks.  Now, the dwarves voices came from all over, and they really used it to great degree for some Gollum stuff.  But oddly, the Imax sound was more live when it came to atmosfear, wind, bugs and battle.  I like my big action movies to THUNDER, and this was more like a subtle symphony than a kick ass surround sound rock concert.  Both are great, just depends on what you're listening for.


2D 24fps:  Oddly... this looked the most natural.  The CG was blended perfectly (except for Rivendale Long Shots, which only looked non pixelated, non-moire in HFR).  But overall this felt the most natural, was the least distracting.  The lighting felt correct, and there was no video game feel.  It made me focus most on the storytelling and least on the machinery that was telling the story.  (Which for me is the point.  I know it's not for all filmmakers.).  I would not have expected the 2D and the 24fps 3D to have such vastly different feels (natural vs. video game).  Granted, I didn't see the whole movie this way, but I did see numerous all CG characters that felt videogame-y in 3D. 


HFR IMAX 3D.  Honestly, it's laughable, but it's NOT as bad as "smooth motion" on HDTV's (Which is the worst thing that's happened to video/film/tv since...well, ever.)   Still, anytime HFR got to something on a human (or hobbit) scale, it looked really fake if it was moving.  Shots that had minimal movement looked like a window, but as soon as a person moved (or for sure if they moved fast) it felt so strange.  It didn't feel more real to me, as some people have said.  It felt like a...soap opera.  (Big surprise.  This is what happens when you ramp up frame rates above 30fps.)  It's like one of those cheap-o History channel recreations from the early days.  Or a soap opera.  Or anything shot on interlaced video.  It screams video and is pretty distracting.  Because I'd seen the movie earlier I was just amused by how weird it looked, rather than annoyed.  Had this been my first viewing, it likely would have constantly distracted me from the story. 

However ,something unexpected......in the scenery shots, helicopter shots, or big epic battle shots, it's looked pretty cool.  Vivid and energetic.  Sometimes spectacular.   I don't think the distractions anytime people were talking is worth the spectacle, but it was an interesting experience none the less.  Maybe there's a secret frame rate (30 or 36 or something that might give both).

(Does anyone know if parts of LIFE OF PI were shot HFR?  There seemed to be certain times it had a similar feel to the "window" aspect of the wide shots of the Hobbit.  But the motion wasn't nearly as distracting.  Almost like they shot in 30 or 36 fps.  Just guessing here though).

So, that's my technical review of The Hobbit.
Ultimately all of this is just preference and choice.
As long as they give us the choice of 24fps, I don't really care if they shoot movies in HFR. (Even though I don't expect I'll go see any more in HFR.  I love, love LOVE 24fps. )

So make your choice of frame rates, just don't force your choice or opinion on the rest of us.  (James Cameron, I'm talking to you...make sure we got 24fps options on Avatar 2. :)