Peter Jackson: Everyone Just Chill Out About 48 FPS Hobbit

Peter Jackson is currently experiencing the direct opposite of the CinemaCon Oscar Hype phenomenon explored here last week, with his Hobbit — shot at the adventurous rate of 48 frames per second — drawing more than a few skeptics out of the geek woodwork. This calls for damage control.

“Nobody is going to stop,” Jackson told EW late Friday, days after his 10-minute Hobbit preview was dismantled by the CinemaCon press corps. “This technology is going to keep evolving." That wasn't all, and oddly or not, Jackson's admonitions didn't sound so different from those of CinemaCon darling Ang Lee, who would really rather you just wait and see the entire movie before leaping to conclusions:

"At first it’s unusual because you’ve never seen a movie like this before. It’s literally a new experience, but you know, that doesn’t last the entire experience of the film–not by any stretch, [just] 10 minutes or so,” Jackson tells EW. “That’s a different experience than if you see a fast-cutting montage at a technical presentation.”

So what does he say to people who just decide they don’t like the glossy new look of the format he’s using?

“I can’t say anything,” Jackson acknowledges. “Just like I can’t say anything to someone who doesn’t like fish. You can’t explain why fish tastes great and why they should enjoy it.” [...]

When it debuts Dec. 14., The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey will be the first major performance for 48-frames, while this week’s showcase was just an audition. Jackson says those who remain unconvinced should wait to see more before closing their minds completely. “There can only ever be a real reaction, a truthful reaction, when people actually have a chance to see a complete narrative on a particular film,” he said.

Now watch it sweep the Oscars. I'm just saying.


Follow S.T. VanAirsdale on Twitter.
Follow Movieline on Twitter.


  • Andrew says:

    I don't like fish.

    But I was hoping that the 48fps would solve the problem that many people have with 3d giving them headaches. I know many people with vision issues that keep them from enjoying 3d because of the headaches and motion sickness it can cause, and I was quite excited to hear that an increased frame rate might solve that for them.

  • The Cantankerist says:

    Beg pardon.

    I like fish.

    I have a simpler solution: I don't go to 3D movies. I expect I've avoided migraines on several fronts.

    • SD says:

      I don't like fish but I have the same solution for 3D.

      I watched the 25min Avatar preview in 3D and found it dark and blurry and have avoided it since.

  • j'accuse! says:

    Not a fan of Peter's attitude. This kind of condescending bullshit is the kind of talk that convinces people not to give it a go. He'll probably never read this, and never care if he does, but he's lost this viewer.

    • Tony says:

      What are you expecting him to say? Do you want him to get on his knees and grovel, begging people to see the movie? Anyone working in a creative industry knows you can't please everyone all the time. If someone doesn't like what he's doing, that's fine. but he's not going to change it just because some people whine.

    • Tony says:

      And by the way, I have only seen a couple 3D movies and I thought they were a waste. I don't go to them anymore. And I'm not even a fan of Peter Jackson's... I hated Lord of the Rings. But you know what? I don't complain and make a fuss about him losing a viewer. I just go on living my life while he does his thing.

      • j'accuse! says:

        No Tony, no groveling is expected. One would have hoped that the The Lovely Bones experience would have tempered Mr. Jackson's hubris a little.

  • Max Renn says:

    I don't enjoy 3D movies or motion interpolation, so when I see this movie it'll be in 2D and 24 fps.

    • Deckmaster says:

      It's not interpolation. It was filmed at 48 fps, those frames aren't artificially added in. I personally enjoy watching videos at 60 fps so 48 doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

  • plantsdance says:

    you guys are all picky morons. get over yourselves. this movie will most likely be awesome so if you really want to miss out then even better. one less fat sweaty idiot at the theater. and i have seen some really good 3D films. the problem is most of the films released in 3D are's not because of the 3D it's because they would be terrible movies even in 2d.

    • Sure thing guy. Everyone who disagrees with you is a fat, sweaty idiot. Not to be mean...but when you were writing that kind of looked like an asshole.

  • I think Garth summed it up...

    "We Fear Change"

  • Jon Kapp says:

    3D movies only exist because of the bootleggers that sneak in with High Def Camcorders to midnight showings in Budapest Hungary and then sell the movie around the world where you end up buying it from some street vendor in El Monte, California.
    You cant film a 3D movie with a digital camcorder and turn around and make a 3D copy of it...3D is a "you must buy a ticket and go to the movie and buy the glasses and sit in the theatre and watch it" type of experience that can't be bootlegged.
    I really believe that is the main motivator behind Hollywood's "3D" craze....nothing more nothing less

    • Duder NME says:

      Completely agreed. This is chiefly a piracy deterrent and it would be dumb for Hollywood to abandon such an easy fix, despite how audiences adversely react to it.

  • Samdul says:

    OK... let's get one thing straight. 3D gives people headaches, etc. because the eyes are attempting to do what they do naturally - focus on different areas of the image. On a 3D film, if the background is out of focus and you attempt to look at it the fake 3D effect will cause your eyes to try and focus the background. The problem is it can't be done and you get eye strain. This can *not* be fixed by simply going to 48fps. With 3D you must ignore anything other than what's "in focus" and that's just not the way most people watch films. I look at backgrounds, secondary characters, etc. and find 3D to be distracting. It's been a big gimmick *every* time Hollywood has attempted the process and typically fades away after a few years. Give me 3D *without* glasses and we'll talk, otherwise forget it.

    3D exists for much the same reason the "wide screen" movie came into its own in the 50s... Because Hollywood is looking for something to get people back into the theaters and out from in front of the TV. In the 50s it was to break away from the old academy ratio that TV was emulating. Today, we have wide screen at home on the TV so they need something else to draw you out amongst the rude cell phone using crowds at the theaters. 3D is what they are banking on. Unfortunately for the producers, around here the number of 3D showings is decreasing as people avoid the extra cost and annoyances.

    I'll go see "The Hobbit" in the theater but it'll be in glorious 2D.

  • anonymous says:

    "I think Garth summed it up...

    "We Fear Change". "

    I haven't seen it yet so I don't know whether I will like or not but if it does have a tv soap opera video look as some people are saying than I am going to hate it and it has nothing to do with fearing change. I just don't like that look in a movie. Sometimes newer isn't better.

  • I really liked your article.Really thank you!