Boy, I was out to lunch -literally- in my time zone and I come back to see alot more here.

As I said, I haven't seen it yet and when I do it might make me puke or worse take me out of the movie experience because I'm seeing too much. But I just don't like someone saying don't do anything new. Maybe HFR will only end up in gaming or amusement park attractions or nature specials. Or maybe 10 years from now it will be pervasive and watching something in another format will feel like looking at a black & white movie. I don't know. But after only one major attempt at it I don't want critics who've decided they speak for us all to say never do it again.

Well at least if it does become the standard, it can always be dithered down to 24fps, which is better than starting with less and digitally creating more, like up-converting.......now there is a lie that never should have been sold!  Just like I would much prefer musicians releasing their music in 24bit/96k master audio and allowing the consumers to dither down to MP3 or 16bit/44.1k CD quality if that's what they wanted.

Well monkeyfoot if you puke and hate it that'll be an opinion that I can respect because it'll be formed from your point of view and not others'

Has anyone else seen it in both 24 and 48 yet? I've been waiting to discuss it once other folks have seen both.

CyanideRush, I have tix to see it in IMAX this thursday, it won't be HFR, we have 4 AVX cinema's in my city that have been allocated for HFR, but I need to see the 9mins of Star Trek so I'll have an opinion of both formats in 2 days, I'll come back here and share my thoughts for sure!

Based on Peter's track record wtih LOTR and his apparent commitment to detail and the books (I have the extended editions and have watched all the behind the scenes stuff, etc. and watched FOTR about 50 times, and I've been following the saga of this movie being made for literally 9 years), this was a major dissapointment for me.  I saw it in 3D and it missed on more than a few marks.  The CGI looked cheap, the tone and coloration dont fit the story, the forced, Pale Orc really was an insult, comedic stylings of a Giant Orc and his design just plain dumb, Goblin town was waaaay overdone, no talking animals, and a BLUE frickin' Smaug!!!!  I'm not happy.  I'm not happy at all.

People keep saying that this is "new", but it's not.  It may be new in its format as a theatrical experience, but it's not new.  PBS is a prime example.  Most of the marterial on that station is filmed above the standard 24FPS.  The old Dr. Who series?  I remember wondering why it looked so much better than other TV shows, and it was because that's how the BBS filmed.  There are plenty of TV show out there that are filmed at a higher rate of FPS.

The only thing new is trying to film a feature film in that format.  And I think that the problem is that our "artisans" haven't had a chance to adapt to the process.  You guys -know- that fans have a keen eye these days.  Critics chomp at the bit to be the first to post about film flaws.  48FPS is going to make that even easier because of the clarity.  Actors, set designers, costumers, make up artists now have to adapt to an even more critical eye.

I got used to my 240 HZ Tv pretty fast.  I enjoy the realism.  Seems like its happening right in front of you and not like film.  Not sureI understand the arguement here.  So Joel, you want it to look fake cause your used to fake, and looking real is bad.  That's your arguement?

 I think the argument is that when it looks that real it looks fake. Ive seen the trumotion on samsung and it doesnt work, i can automatically sense its not right and realize how fake everything looks. 

There's a poll on a local news site here in New Zealand about 48fps and while only a thousand respondents so far who'd seen it, 66.2% rated it as 'Amazing' and only 13.1% 'Hated it', with the balance undecided.

I had an adjustment period of about 10 minutes watching the film. I had the same thing when I switched to HDTV.