by Evil Eye » Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:35 pm
Overall, yes, I do. I think it should become the standard, in fact, now that we have the means.
There were a couple things about it that bothered me though... I wasn't a fan of how Jackson opted for more CGI in The Hobbit, as opposed to LOTR, in which the majority of fake things were prosthetics and set pieces. The 48fps seemed to magnify the 'cartoony' effect/fakeness of the CGI slightly (might've even just been because 48fps has more clarity), which I didn't care for.
The only other thing that sort of took me out of the movie was when the camera would pan across a shot slowly. It's hard to explain, but when your gaze naturally moves from one spot to another, it doesn't move at a steady pace or keep a consistent focus, taking in everything between points A and B. When the camera pans, it does, and it messes with your eyes when they follow it. That's always a problem in film, to some extent, but the higher frame rate (again) magnified the effect to a much more noticeable degree, IMO.
Clarity of thought before rashness of action...