Dorkman wrote:I like barbecue sauce a lot, but I don't want it on my fucking cereal. Let games be games and films be films.
That's fine, but I don't think the hobbit really looked like a video game. I was highlighting that higher frame rates are not outside our realms of experience, and that by providing more immersion it made my viewing of the film better.
Dorkman wrote:Which is why I'm hopeful HFR will quickly be dismissed as not worth the significant extra cost.
I assume you mean cost in post? I can see the overhead in roto and render times, but surely the same argument could have been made for the shift to 3D? That hasn't ruined the industry; I think we're seeing more bums on seats, because the cinema is an event again.
Dorkman wrote:I don't understand the question. If films become more expensive to produce in the U.S. they will stop being produced in the U.S. It's already been happening for a while.
My point is films will become more expensive everywhere. 3D + HFR is easier on the eye, and the higher frame rate means more attention needs to be paid to detail - especially when live action and CG actors are on screen together. It would make sense for established houses to leverage the quality difference in their negotiations, as it will be more obvious when low cost providers have been used (and may affect the reviews).