Originally Posted by psylockolussus
Yeah I get that, most 3D films disappointed so I didn't watch any films on 3D this year. But since this could be the 1st X-Men 3D film that will be released, then I will totally watch it!
If thats true then I say a big NO for 48frames per second. I remembered my professor on film course told us that movies has lesser amount of fps because the film would look smoother compare to TV shows that uses more frames per second. And when we were filming scenes for our movie projects. We always used less than 30fps.
What a shame about this news. Avatar was the last movie I saw where I felt the 3D enhanced the experience. I was reading this interesting article that was saying that when 3D movies first came out, the depth of 3D was much deeper, giving it an entirely new feel than anything we'd ever seen before. I remember watching a 3D rerelease of Nightmare Before Xmas when 3D first came out and being completely blown away because I felt like I could reach out and touch the clay figurines. But the "deep" 3D kept giving people headaches so they toned it down to what we see now-- just a bit, enough to make those foreground elements seem a little separate from the background ones. Which makes 3D kind of pointless, really.
As for 48fps, I have a colleague who insists it is the future, the way that "talkies" were the inevitable future for film in the 1920's. I'm not so sure about that. I was extremely turned off by the 48fps trailer... it does look like a soap opera (minus the halo-effect lights), or a reality TV show, or a "behind the scenes of The Hobbit" rather than the actual movie. Talkies are one thing but as an audience we have two major things working against this new technology:
1) Though PJ insists "it's different", and it is (frames are there rather than being interlaced), the uncanny similarity to soap operas, reality TV, and made for TV movies means that we already have an association with this type of technology: CHEAP. It will take years to undo that association, if it can be undone.
2) Removing that "window" effect means making it hard for us to suspend disbelief. If a movie is good and/or well-made, regardless of whether it's soundless or black and white or 18fps, we will become engaged. If it does its job right, we forget that we're in a theatre and we become involved with the hero's journey. Robots and aliens? Sure no problem. Wizards and wands? Absolutely that's a thing! Bruce Willis manages to survive 392 certain-death events in the span of 2 hours? Sounds legit. But by removing that "glass pane" it all seems startlingly out of place and unbelievable. Every moment feels like "This is a movie this is a movie". It brings us out of the story. Not to mention, that "clearer" image PJ is bragging about means that we see things we shouldn't, like Ian McKellen's contact lenses and where the dwarf prosthetics end and the actors underneath begin (as reviews have revealed).