Peter Jackson has recently shown some footage of The Hobbit that has created a rather large fuss, and not necessarily in a good way. Ten minutes of footage revealed Jackson's use of a rather divisive breakthrough (more like breakdown, according to some) technology: The film is being shot at 48 frames per second, rather than the standard 24 fps. That may sound like gobbledegook, but it's actually quite easy to picture. You know that cheap-looking sharpness on some TV shows (it is sometimes referred to as the "Soap Opera effect"), where you actually feel that you are in the same room as the characters, usually saturated in blink-inducing colour? Well it looks like that. You can imagine it, can't you?

The difference is obviously quite alarming, judging by the reactions it provoked from the attendant media, with some declaring outright that "it didn't look particularly good" while others were content to hedge their bets slightly with pronouncements that judging it from the 10 minutes shown wasn't really "the right representative look at it" - more needs to be seen before the nay or the yea is fixed upon. 

I am a little wary of it myself. Obviously I haven't seen it yet, not being lucky enough to be at the Las Vegas Comic Con, but the descriptions seem to be that it's quite an intrusive and shocking effect. I love the trilogy so much, for its beauty, escapism and grandeur as much as anything else, and it seems as though this 'realistic' look will almost certainly detract from that. You may hold the example of 3D up as a template for new technologies, but I think you would be making a tiny mistake: 3D is far from accepted as successful, especially by little old me. However, I have faith in Peter Jackson. I have faith that he knows what he is doing and that his vision for Thorin, Bilbo and Smaug will be nothing short of his usual excellence.

Joss is boss

Vindication for Joss Whedon. His new Avengers is making super-powered waves in the UK film media, with plenty of 4 and 5 star reviews to its name.

Whedon is nowhere near as prolific as he should be. Held in high favour by the cultish few for the ridiculously excellent Buffy, Firefly and Serenity. As one of the wittiest writers around, not to mention one of the most vocal and loveable feminists in Hollywood, he is very high on my 'fantasy dinner party wish-list'. Can't wait to see a comic book movie that has plenty on offer for the head and the heart.

A super genre

The wonderful Tom Hiddleston has recently written an apology, a defence, for the (currently ubiquitous) superhero genre. As a film fan, I have had to defend any number of excellent comic book and superhero films from the dismissive snobbery with which they are often greeted. They are judged as silly, pointless and without meaningful parallels to real life. Can I, I am asked, in all good conscience, say that Batman Begins or The Dark Knight are as good as The Godfather? Yes, I believe I can.

Genre shouldn't be important when judging a film's worth. If superhero movies are treated with disdain, surely that means that animation should be even further down the list: goodbye Studio Ghibli and the genius of Hayao Miyazaki, goodbye Up and the Toy Story trilogy. It's a very childish and narrow minded stance to take, especially when the themes and dramatic tropes of the genre are even more far-reaching than films that subscribe to the realism some critics find so important. Due to the scale of some of the superhero films, Thor, for example, these movies often encompass a huge variety of human emotion and circumstance purely because they depict grand, extreme conditions and occurrences. As Tom points out, Shakespeare wasn't exactly known for his quiet, banal observations of the human condition; he wrote genuine pot-boilers, soaked in blood and murder and sex, yet he is still held to be the paragon of literary genius.

If you enjoy it and it fulfils its brief, then it is a good film. Surely it should be as simple as that?