Get off my lawn, 48 fps! I detest the "soap opera" look of motion-smoothing, and understand why it would be very disconcerting to see in cinema, especially fantasy cinema. But, it's the content of movies these days, not the format, that is making me feel increasingly old and irrelevant these days.

Despite the high accuracy of compact discs, there are many who believe that vinyl still offers a superior sonic experience. This despite CDs having a higher frequency response range and other technlogical advantages.

Then, other digital formats (MP3, etc.) have come into prevalence and become "acceptable" despite their inferior sound quality.

Not sure how this fits into the higher FPS argument above, just something I was thinking of.

I wonder if the success or failure of The Hobbit at 48fps will effect what James Cameron does with Avatar2 (which is also rumored to be filmed at 48fps)

Will CGI critters look more or less convincing at 48 fps? I'm curious enough that I won't avoid going to The Hobbit on account of it, but I hope there will be a 24 fps option for the Blu-ray release. (Or maybe it will have no option but to be 24 fps?) The future is relentless.

I just hope theaters don't go through with the awful plan I've heard floating around which is to stop charging more for 3D screenings of movies than 2D screenings, instead raising the price of 2D screenings to subsidize the 3D*. :mad:




* Although the more I've thought about it the more I figure that really the theaters want to raise the prices in general and they're using 3D as the excuse.

Theaters are doing a great job of keeping me happily ensconced in my living room.

1) Back in the 80's Brainstorm used segments at 90fps. I didnt' really notice the difference nearly as much as those segments going to a wider aspect ratio. So I'm not quite sure what the advantage or disadvantage is to 48fps.

2) I ranted about this on Facebook recently, but AMC is charging more for something called "ETX" which is nothing more than letting you sit in their multiplex cinema with the best sound and biggest screen that they were charging regular price for a month ago. They received a pointed letter from me, and have lost me as a customer. If I must pay extra, I want something. 3D. IMAX. Other local theaters have offered plush leather chairs. Or no kids allowed. Or alcohol served. But AMC's ETX offers nothing - except charging you more for what they once did not.

Not a trend I'm happy with.

What if they raised the prices across the board, charging the same price (somewhere in between their previous normal price and the higher "ETX" price) for any theater, whether it's the biggest screen with the best sound, or the tiniest screen with crap sound showing the romantic comedy that came out 8 weeks ago? Would you be happier with that trend? Because that would be the alternative.

Yes, I'd be just as happy with that. Um, sorry GD, but that's exactly what all multiplexes have always been doing. Have you paid a different ticket price for that tiny theater of theirs, only slightly bigger than a 1 percenter's home screening room? No, never. Multiplexes have a wide variety of different size theaters, and charge the same price for all of them.

Well, at least, till now. But, as far as I know, only AMC is experimenting with this.


I thought they made all their money off the popcorn anyway. What do theaters care what admission prices are?

On the other hand, one gripe I've always had with the neighborhood multiplex is that many movies are shown in multiple theaters with no easy way to tell which one is in the theater with the best sound and bigger screen. This would at least take care of that problem.