Peter Jackson has followed up his Lord of the Rings trilogy with the first in The Hobbit Triology (I kid you not. It will actually be quicker to read the book than watch the films).

I watched it at 24 fps in 2D and thought it was over-long in places, beautiful in others. I thought the riddle scene was absolutely stunning- not visually (although it was very well done visually) nor because of the CGI on gollum (which was awesome CGI) but because of the performances of Martin Freeman and Andy Serkis. The achievement of the film to my eyes was translating that excellent performance by a live actor to a CGI motion captured bunch of pixels. I enjoyed it.

Then I went back and watched it in HFR 3D. When the film opened, there was a ripple of uneasy laughter in the theatre because the HFR initially looked speeded up. Ian Holm’s Bilbo looked like the 1970’s Benny Hill show sped-up chase sequences. Still, bearing in mind Peter Jackson’s exhortation that it would take 20 minutes or so to “tune in” visually, I stuck with it.

Unfortunately although the sped-up effect did diminish, it never went away for me and some of the later action and chase sequences still looked like the Benny Hill show.

Worse, I just couldn’t get away from the ghastly impression that I was watching the behind-the-scenes video of the film, rather than the film itself. You know how you look at the behind-the-scenes footage, and it looks crap, like a bunch of actors dressed in silly costumes and wigs jumping around a set? And when you see the final movie footage, the magic has happened and it looks like Middle Earth?

The magic never happened for me.

Sure, a few shots looked much better in 3D HFR, having looked slow and contrived in 2D 24 fps (I’m guessing those were compromised by them shooting for the 3D HFR version primarily and editing accordingly). But the movie as a whole? I couldn’t get over how bad it looked.

I don’t know how much of it is my conditioned expectations. I could never get away from the VERY STRONG visual impression that I was looking at Sir Ian McKellen, an actor, dressed in a straggly wig, wearing contact lenses (I swear I could see them in some shots) and a slightly grubby woollen costume running around various film sets and the mountains of New Zealand.

In 24 fps 2D, I saw Gandalf the Grey striding around Middle Earth.

Maybe the problem for me is the claimed strength of 48 fps- that it looks more real. So much more real that it looks like what it is, actors, sets and CGI, rather than what our imagination wants to be there to fill in the gaps. Maybe it is the very lack of visual information that helps construct the dream-like world of the movies.

Add to that the inevitable headache because I like to lean my head just a little to the side when I watch films, it turns out. Just enough to force me to sit bolt upright and consciously stop myself from doing it, and when I relax a bit, the headache starts to lurk.

Whatever, neither 3D nor HFR are for me. I hope at least some film-makers continue to shoot in pure 24 fps 2D without compromising to simultaneously shoot 3D HFR. And I have to tell film-makers planning on a pure 3D or HFR release that I’m unlikely to go see your film.

Is this the future of cinema? Not for me. Maybe it is just associations from having watched TV at 50i all my life: maybe even higher frame rates (120 fps?) would look like something else entirely. Maybe it was the interaction with 3D, which I dislike. Maybe I’m a luddite complaining about the advent of sound, colour, widescreen, or noir lighting? (I quite like the right movie in black and white, silent, 4:3 and film noir). Or maybe I’m complaining about insane shaky-cam, the over the top teal and orange effect and other effects which I think will date the films very badly and be relegated to the “special choice” locker. 3D HFR though I think should be consigned to the “never again” locker.