And this is where the debate rests. You have one half of the camp siding against the format, because it has its imperfections and it certainly only caters to specific scenes. But when used properly it really does help bridge that gap from watching a 3D movie and being a part of it. The arguments against the tech aren’t wrong though, because like all new things this could potentially get forced upon us on a large scale, which could lead to even more surcharges and studio up-conversions.
That would be horrible, because a film should be designed with the format in mind from the creation and not added on as a last minute rush attempt to grab a couple extra bucks. Studios will more-than-likely use this approach, because that’s what they do. They capitalize on everything, even if it doesn’t fit the film that they’re attaching it to. Just see any 3D post-conversion.
The other side of the argument is for the technology and all that it has to offer. This could give filmmakers an entirely different way to shoot their movies, which means an entirely different way for us to experience them. Imagine how this technology could change animated films or action movies that are full of constant motion. Could this technology even lend a hand to the shaky cam found-footage genre or would that only give you a bigger headache?
This is all very sacred ground, because the world of actual film is slowly dimming. Film cameras are being swapped with digital and projectors now feature state-of-the-art 4K projection. Some hate this forceful shove out the door that traditional film is getting and most tie that in directly with the adoption of HFR3D.
I see no reason why the two can’t exist together, but knowing how Hollywood works I can see why most fear the technology and all it has to bring. Children growing up now might consider HFR3D to be the only true source of viewing media, meaning that actual film could be viewed as outdated and not as good, much like how some ignorant folks view black and white or silent films. All this means is that we film-lovers need to do our job in help spreading the wonderful history of cinema.
For all we know HFR3D could fail miserably and quickly shift its way out of theaters and most of the spotlight within years. Or it could be the future of the industry and something that’ll change what we consider normal when viewing media. There’s no reason why we should have to pick one or the other, because both have their boundaries and both give off a very different (but intended) feel. It’s all just a matter of taste and personal preference, with artistic merit getting blurred in the middle, with no real marker for clarification.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a fit title for Jackson’s film, because the visual experience is out of left field and something that’s unexpected and takes time to warm up to. Was it the right choice for Jackson to test out this new format on an already established property? Probably not. But Jackson’s doing it anyways and what matters now is how he tweaks the format to make sure we’re seeing the best version of The Hobbit possible. HFR3D proposes an uncertain future at this point and it really is too early to call it a winner or a loser.