This is a well-written article, but it seems to me like a lot of words to say, "The association with other high-frame-rate media made me uncomfortable and the movie harder to sit back and lazily process." The author says as much in several places, but then does not seem to think that that should be considered in their points about "magic," immersion, and art. I found very little relevant evidence (even given that the premise is subjective and somewhat abstract), and they make foggy points like this with no real assertion:
> In the opening hour of The Hobbit shown in 3D HFR – I don’t recall hearing a single sigh, or laugh. Not one.
Okay? Correlation does not imply causation. Maybe the audience of the 3D HFR show was more Tolkien and/or cinema fans that were taking the movie less lightheartedly, or were more introverted. And what does this even mean to say? The related point further on saying that the movie is too comedic - and in the wrong places - doesn't serve his premise any better.
I hadn't read much from the perspective of those against HFR, but if this is the only real argument, I think it's time to start pushing. There's no reason not to have all the visual information we can, and lower technology-imposed limitations. If filmmakers actually think that stuttering and blurs improve a movie, they can still add them! That's no reason to limit the technology, though.
For the record, my experience was similar. It was hard to shake the "home movie" feeling as I was watching it, and suspension of disbelief was a little harder. However, I recognized this as a personal limitation, and I was able to enjoy the visuals and the experience regardless. I don't think that seeing more movies like this could be anything but an improvement.
> In the opening hour of The Hobbit shown in 3D HFR – I don’t recall hearing a single sigh, or laugh. Not one.
Okay? Correlation does not imply causation. Maybe the audience of the 3D HFR show was more Tolkien and/or cinema fans that were taking the movie less lightheartedly, or were more introverted. And what does this even mean to say? The related point further on saying that the movie is too comedic - and in the wrong places - doesn't serve his premise any better.
I hadn't read much from the perspective of those against HFR, but if this is the only real argument, I think it's time to start pushing. There's no reason not to have all the visual information we can, and lower technology-imposed limitations. If filmmakers actually think that stuttering and blurs improve a movie, they can still add them! That's no reason to limit the technology, though.
For the record, my experience was similar. It was hard to shake the "home movie" feeling as I was watching it, and suspension of disbelief was a little harder. However, I recognized this as a personal limitation, and I was able to enjoy the visuals and the experience regardless. I don't think that seeing more movies like this could be anything but an improvement.