I went to the movies today and saw The Hobbit. I made it an experience because, and I know this will surprise a lot of people, this was my first 3D movie. I never had an interest in seeing a 3D movie. It seemed like a gimmick more than moviemaking to me, sight unseen. Yes, I was comparing things to the old days when stuff was thrown at the camera for effect. I would have passed up this time on seeing a movie in 3D but I was curious about HFR.

This is the controversial process Peter Jackson used for filming The Hobbit. Film is normally shot at 24 frames per second. The Hobbit was shot in 48 frames per second. Early reports were mixed on how it worked on the film, but the vocal naysayers hated the process and declared it made things look too fake. When I saw a lot of theaters in town were going to have 48 HFR showings, but most if not all would be in 3D, I had to take the plunge.

So let’s start with the important part, how was the movie? If you saw any of the Lord of the Rings movies you can expect to see the same thing in this movie. Action, adventure, some humor and a lot of amazing shots. If I have one small complaint it would be that thematically, this first of three Hobbit films is very similar in tone to the first Lord of the Rings. I want to clarify that it is in tone but not in story. It makes a lot of sense when you know the books, but if you are coming at this as a general audience member you might be a forgiven for feeling a bit of déjà vu. The film is grand in scope but it is still a story about a hobbit, and that brings the grandeur down to scale I think most will like.

Before I saw the movie, I had a discussion with someone about the merits of 3D and HFR. It was suggested I should see the movie in 2D then see it in 3D HFR. While I gave a very good philosophical reason why I shouldn’t do that, mostly relying on the integrity of film and how it should hold up to scrutiny in any format, my practical reason for taking a chance and seeing it full bore was financial. If a film is bad, seeing it in 3D or in HFR isn’t going to make the film any better. Paying to see a bad film 2 or 3 times just because of a technique isn’t a good thing. It would be similar to a few years ago, around 1999, when millions of people went to theaters to see a bad movie just so they could see a trailer to The Phantom Menace. It’s was a waste of money to do that just to see a trailer.

All that being said, I have to say I liked HFR but I also have to say I didn’t see that much difference in the process. It was incredibly clear to watch. I’ve heard so many bad things about 3D as far as dark visuals but what I saw was very crisp and clear. I don’t know if it was just a very well shot 3D movie or if the 48 HFR improved the 3D process. The best way I can explain the difference to me would be to say it is like the difference between Revenge of the Sith in DVD and Revenge of the Sith in Blu-Ray. The Blu-Ray version is cleaner than the DVD version, but not by much. You really have to look to see the difference. An obsessive film fan might complain about the difference between the two but if you don’t have high end equipment to compare, you probably wouldn’t see a big difference. HFR to me seemed very crisp and clean but I didn’t see a major difference between it and regular digital film.

I think many people were bothered by the differences between the two is this is a fantasy film. There’s not a lot of stuff in the frame that isn’t digitally enhanced. Since things are generated to begin with, any flaw or non-flaw is going to stand out. Think about it, there aren’t a lot of romantic comedies that are shot in 3D. Can you think of a romantic comedy that would benefit from 3D? So putting 3D on a romantic comedy might be a bit jarring to anyone who is used to them being set a certain way. The Hobbit pushes the envelope of filmmaking and for me I’m happy it took the leap. Now we have to see how other filmmakers work with HFR and hopefully they will have projects that will work with the format.