Should the frame rate affect a review?

Until now, we've never had to consider the impact frame rate would/should have on critical response. Should it matter to the review, one way or another? I'm going to see the film in both 48fps and 24fps and see if it really makes a difference. I suspect it will affect my enjoyment, but I wonder if it should affect my opinion from a critical standpoint. What do you think?
Bill Edmunds
12-4-2012 12:06 PM

Thread Replies

Please log in to participate in this forum.

D P.

D P

Let me ask you this: do you think, say, Avatar's reviews took the 3D into account? Obviously they did.

The frame rate was an artistic choice in Jackson's part,and as Jonas Lundbye wrote below it is Jackson's preferred format. In other words its part of the entire aesthetic package, it definitely should be taken into account.

Dec 12 - 07:01 AM

jvcarroll

James C.

From what I've gathered, the 48-frame rate has eroded the beautiful texture that audiences enjoyed from the LOTR trilogy. If these overly crisp images expose the makeup and digital effects in a way that cheapens the experience then the it should factor into the review. This film has a $270 million production budget, plus another $100M or so to market it. I understand Jackson wanting to incorporate the new technology, but this film franchise might not have been the best candidate for it. We'll see. I really do hope it's good.

Dec 5 - 08:37 PM

Jonas Lundbye

Jonas Lundbye

yes because peter jackson thinks it should be viewed in 48fps and 3D and if that distracts the viewer in any way it should

Dec 5 - 01:39 PM

Kevin Richardson

Kevin Richardson

48FPS will never look right. Here's why: Your monitor has a refresh rate which is independent of the "frame rate." That's how you can watch a film shot at 24FPS on a monitor with a refresh rate of 120. Even physical (non digital) film in a film projector is flashed or refreshed several times before advancing the frame - same principal in analog form. On why people are getting sick: Blurs are what create the illusion of motion when you project a bunch of still images quickly (film - nothing really moving), they exist when you look at anything moving fast past you with your eyes - the brain itself has a sample rate, that's why fast action does not appear stroboscopic to us. In film, or digital cinema blurs have to be captured with an exposure long enough to capture the blur, otherwise it no longer feels or looks natural, as we don;t perceive action that way. A series of sharp images played quickly does not create a blur, because there is no true motion - its just a bunch of still images projected quickly. 24 is better for these reasons and a better use of time and money is to improve sound.

Dec 5 - 10:09 AM

anthony d.

anthony de la Vega

http://www.lukeletellier.com/

watch the post-converted 48FPS Hobbit trailer on this site...it will give everyone here a better idea of what to expect. honestly, it blew my mind...i loved it

Dec 5 - 07:16 AM

Jack Gaydon

Jack Gaydon

If this is an accurate reflection of what the film looks like at 48fps, then I have I am firmly of the belief that all the reviewers being negative about it are just chatting rubbish for the sake of it/to get attention. That looked absolutely amazing!

Dec 5 - 09:17 PM

Jack Gaydon

Jack Gaydon

If this is an accurate reflection of what the film looks like at 48fps, then I am firmly of the belief that all the reviewers being negative about it are just chatting rubbish for the sake of it/to get attention. That looked absolutely amazing!

Dec 5 - 09:17 PM

Sam Macartney

Sam Macartney

Unless it makes it unwatchable, no.

Dec 5 - 01:33 AM

James Dere

James Dere

i believe it should. as stated earlier, it makes use of a different frame rate, which effects presentation.

Dec 5 - 01:22 AM

Vinny Andreotti

Vinny Andreotti

Now here's a thread worth debating. If you were forced to see it in 48fps, that would be one thing, because if you're watching something that looks like a newscast, it effects presentation and takes you out of the experience, which is a legitimate gripe (not saying that's how it looks that's just what I hear). That being said, you have the option of seeing it in traditional 24fps, which I'm sure the filmmakers made sure of, which kind of railroads the whole argument right there. More options for a consumer? Who can complain?

Dec 4 - 08:36 PM

All-Knowing Panda

The Panda

Honestly no, at least not drastically.

Dec 4 - 07:01 PM

Michael Lena

Michael Lena

In short: hell no, the frame rate should not affect the review, especially since the frame rate is not forced upon the audience, and they have ability to chose either 24 or 48 FPS.

Dec 4 - 04:46 PM

David Tanny

David Tanny

Well, Peter Jackson prefers people try his new gimmick, so maybe in a way, it should be a factor.

Dec 4 - 01:37 PM

Bill Edmunds

Bill Edmunds

The reason I'm asking is because, thus far, one of the primary complaints from those who haven't liked the film has been the increased frame rate. It seems to be a central focus.

Dec 4 - 01:26 PM

Kevin Richardson

Kevin Richardson

48FPS will never look right. Here's why: Your monitor has a refresh rate which is independent of the "frame rate." That's how you can watch a film shot at 24FPS on a monitor with a refresh rate of 120. Even physical (non digital) film in a film projector is flashed or refreshed several times before advancing the frame - same principal in analog form. On why people are getting sick: Blurs are what create the illusion of motion when you project a bunch of still images quickly (film - nothing really moving), they exist when you look at anything moving fast past you with your eyes - the brain itself has a sample rate, that's why fast action does not appear stroboscopic to us. In film, or digital cinema blurs have to be captured with an exposure long enough to capture the blur, otherwise it no longer feels or looks natural, as we don;t perceive action that way. A series of sharp images played quickly does not create a blur, because there is no true motion - its just a bunch of still images projected quickly. 24 is better. A better place to spend time and money is on sound - the sampling rate in digital is inferior to what our ears can process.

Dec 5 - 10:11 AM

Thom Stone

Thom Stone

yes. glad someone knows their shit. :)

Dec 8 - 09:34 PM

Thaddeus Venture

Thaddeus Venture

Well, I don't think it should since viewing it that way is OPTIONAL. Though a review is still just an opinion. Doesn't bother me either way.

Dec 4 - 12:59 PM

Michael Bevington

Michael Bevington

It shouldn't. It should depend on the quality of the film itself.

Dec 4 - 12:57 PM

Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile