We went at midnight!! Darned good movie if I must say so myself. We only saw it in 2D at the regular framerate though, so I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who saw it at the new framerate!

I saw it this afternoon. Maybe an overly cold movie theatre marred my enjoyment of the movie, but I was seriously bored through the whole thing. It was so slow paced and padded with filler that it was over halfway through before the story arc became discernible. I suppose Tolkein fans would have a different opinion; I have not even read The Hobbit or any of the LOTR books. As a standalone film, it failed to engage.

Ngau and I are at odds on the high frame rate. Ngau says he prefers 2D in normal 24 fps, but likes 3D at the higher frame rate because it flickers less. He really dislikes the dimness of regular 3D.

I felt like the higher frame rate broke suspension of disbelief. It looked like a bunch of actors in fake beards and silicone masks waving plastic swords around on a set. They were huge, elaborately built sets, but still sets. Intellectually, I get that it's because my mind has been conditioned to associate a higher frame rate with cheesy soap operas and home videos, but it still made the fantasy world feel much less real.

How could a high framerate make for less realism? I can see how excessive resolution could do that, but too-smooth motion? I don't quite get that.

They used the first line from the book, but they changed it. I didn't like that.

I liked everything else about it, though.

I'm a Tolkien fan, but I kinda have to agree with Kea -- I liked the additions from the appendices, but it felt like a third of the movie was the party going through tension-less theme-park-style action sequences. I think I would have loved it even at two and a half hours, but padding out to three was just too long.

I haven't seen it in HFR yet, but even at 24fps the effects weren't nearly as good as LotR's 10 year old effects. I'm kinda dreading how it's going to look at 48.

drachefly, I've heard a couple of possible reasons people perceive 48fps the way they do, but I don't think it's known for sure. One reason could be overcome in time: people associate 24fps (or 25fps, in areas with 50Hz power) with "movies" and higher frame rates with "TV" (30p, 50i, or 60i feel like "soap opera"). People are trained to associate higher frame rate with lower production value and project that bias on what they're seeing, but with enough exposure to 48fps movies that would go away.

Another reason people might react this way is not one that is going anywhere: 24fps is about as low a frame rate as most people can watch without consciously perceiving flicker, but its low enough that they're unconsciously filling in some visual information themselves. This sort of unconscious engagement with the image makes suspension of disbelief easier, so even though it objectively looks less "real", we accept it as such more readily than an objectively more real looking image that feeds us more information. Now, I haven't seen that hypothesis examined in a scientific context so it could be complete poop, but it kinda makes sense.

I'm no movie or effect specialist, however I saw it at the higher framerate, and everything looked sped up and cheesy. I liked the story, but I will admit it dragged on and on and on.

I think too much realism might be a bad thing. At 48 fps, you are intensely aware that you are watching a bunch of LARPers running around in costumes. Which, of course, you are.

It's like when animators rely too much on rotoscoping (when they trace over live action footage). It looks creepy and stiff because it's too realistic.

I'm not sure I'm going to see this one. The Hobbit was my favorite book as a kid, but I don't want to see nine hours of it. The LOTR series severely strained my tolerance for length, and there was at least every good reason to make that one a trilogy.