You know what movies make me want to puke? Metaphorically, it’s terrible movies, like I’m puking up my agony that someone made something so against my tastes. Literally, something like that scene in Kingpin with that woman’s — arrp — legs, the part that also makes Woody Harrelson puke. But in all my 30 years, never has a film’s movement gotten to me, as seen in the shaky-cam found-footage genre, nor from any way it was shown to me, as in 3-D or something like that. But all anybody has talked about for the last couple of months when it comes to The Hobbit has been the advanced frame rate. I guess because they’d gone through all the other information in the previous two or three years.
Negative press has surrounded the “too-real” visual format, which has reportedly caused nausea and dizzy spells in New Zealand viewers. Guess what, guys? Bryan Singer tweeted “Just saw #Hobbit. Having some serious frame rate envy.” So obviously, your sickness was either faked or you’re different from him or something. In any case, this sort of hysteria happens sometimes with movies like The Exorcist, and even is attributed to readings from author Chuck Palahniuk’s book Haunted. They usually turn out to be exaggerations, but if anybody’s word on the matter should be heard, it’s from the production company, right? Here’s the official statement from Warner Bros. concerning the FPS issue:
We have been screening the full-length HFR 3D presentation of THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY extensively and feedback has been extremely positive, with none of thousands who have seen the film projected in this format expressing any of the issues described by two anonymous sources in media reports. We share the filmmakers’ belief that by offering filmgoers the additional choice of HFR 3D, alongside traditional viewing formats, they have an opportunity to be part of a groundbreaking advancement in the moviegoing experience and we look forward to having audiences everywhere share in this new way of storytelling.
Peter Jackson shared his thoughts with Total Film.
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. 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.
I can’t imagine why anyone wouldn’t want to see it in this manner initially, just to have the experience. Jaws 3-D made a big profit, people, and that movie sucked banana boat balls. If this kind of movie isn’t your thing to begin with, then I guess your avoidance of a potential double whammy is admirable, but suck it up. You’re not that different from everyone else, and don’t make that kind of thinking a hobbit.
In any case, I’m pretty sure there are people out there willing to pay ticket prices just to watch the preview for Star Trek Into Darkness, and would consider a good vomit and dizzy spell a small price to pay for fulfilling the priorities of the inner fanatic.