This weekend Ain't It Cool News reported that Bryan Singer's Days of Future Past had been secretly shot and would be released in 48FPS, the controversial high frame rate we had previously seen in The Hobbit. 48FPS is considered by today's tech-driven filmmakers to be a better viewing experience than old fashioned 24FPS, especially in 3D. AICN only ran the story when they had two sources verify it to them, saying that Fox was keeping quiet because of backlash against The Hobbit, but that the studio was very happy with the result.
Except the studio is straight up denying that the film was shot in 48FPS. With the movie coming out in about seven months you'd think they would be honest if they intended to release in the high frame rate format, right? So what the heck happened in this case? This wouldn't be the first time someone fed AICN bad info just for the fun of doing it, but their second sourcing - and AICN writer Eric Vespe's belief in that source - makes it weird. I'm wondering if DOFP was shot digitally in such a way that would allow SInger and the studio to take a look at 48FPS footage and make a decision later. At the same time, I know that's a big, big choice on a movie with lots of FX - 48FPS means double the frames, which means twice as many special FX frames. That doesn't seem like a decision left to post.
I, for one, hope to see no future 48FPS movies. While The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug will be getting a 48FPS rollout in some theaters, I'll be sticking to good old 24 this time, after giving the whole film a shot at 48. In the future whenever given a choice I will always pick a 2D, 24FPS screening of any movie. Including X-Men: Days of Future Past.