This is a couple of days old, but I just think it’s worth noting how exceptional it is — historically, culturally — to hear a U.S. President riff knowledgably and comfortably on the legacy of Led Zeppelin.

Somewhat brazenly, I decided to prune this latest Oscar Poker chat (# 103) down to 16 minutes and 47 seconds. This is because MSN critic Glenn Kenny (in his third visit) is highly articulate and perceptive in discussing Zero Dark Thirty, and because everything else we discussed doesn’t stand up to this portion. A good one.

TheWrap‘s Brent Lang is reporting that Rise of the Guardians “is projected to lose $50 million for DreamWorks Animation, according to an executive with knowledge of the movie’s projections. Produced for a reported $145 million and featuring the voices of Hugh Jackman and Chris Pine, Guardians has underachieved at the box office despite getting strong reviews. Since opening over the Thanksgiving holiday, the film has grossed $48.8 million domestically and another $57 million foreign, according to Box Office Mojo.”

The Hobbit‘s review embargo went up an hour ago, and right off the bat I’m reading all kinds of descriptions of how 48 frames-per-second photography doesn’t cut it. It’s too new, too specific, too crackling — a “fiasco,” according to a Movieline headline for a Jen Yamato story. TheWrap‘s Steve Pond called the process “a little disturbing and uncomfortable,” and Variety‘s Peter Debruge said that with 48 fps “everything takes on an overblown, artificial quality in which the phoniness of the sets and costumes becomes obvious.”

And MSN’s James Rocchi tweeted that we can “blame Tolkien for the dull plotting, but blame Peter Jackson for the ruinous 48fps.” Rim shot!

Let me explain something. The 48 fps feeling of discomfort or unfamiliarity, if you insist on that being your primary response, goes away after 20 minutes or a half hour or thereabouts. You get used to it and then it’s nothing. It doesn’t get in the way, it doesn’t call attention to itself — it’s just there. And it’s fine.

Let me explain something else. 48 fps is a lot closer to what life looks like with your eyes. It’s much clearer and sharper and more vivid than 24 fps, which looks like that special neverland called “cinema” — a very peculiar world with very specific climates and textures, and all of it fake. No matter what Pond, Debruge, Yamato and Rocchi are telling you, there’s nothing wrong, trust me, with a movie looking more vivid and life-like and less like the other-worldly realm of 24 fps, which the harumphs prefer because — it really comes down to this — they’ve been watching it all their lives.

All the harumphs really know is that 48 fps ain’t 24 fps, and so they’re saying “eff this noise!” But if you can just roll with the new way and stop having a hissy fit about it not looking like 24 fps, it’s pretty cool. And it’s really ideal for big, empty, drawn-out and wildly bloated movies like The Hobbit because at least it looks so much more gleaming and molecular than 24 fps, like it’s happening on the other side of an absolutely spotless glass window.

Let me explain a third thing. Once you’ve seen a big, empty, splashy, FX-driven film at 48 fps, you’ll never again be fully satisfied with seeing a big, empty, splashy, FX-driven film at 24 fps. 48 fps is perfect for comic-book whack-offs, Star Trek or Star Wars flicks, monster movies, vampire movies, pirate movies, adventure flicks, zombie flicks, animated features…anything that isn’t straight drama or any kind of impressively written, character-driven adult fare aimed at anyone with a year or two of college.

My personal preference is that straight adult fare should be shot at 30 fps because it looks a lot cleaner than 24 fps and reduces pan blur and makes the action seem smoother. And all the rest of the films (i.e., those described above) should be shot at 48 fps. And believe me, the harumphs will eventually ease up and settle in.

As for The Hobbit itself, it’s a major slog. I began looking at my watch at the 25-minute mark, at which point I moaned and muttered to myself, “God…over two hours to go!” It’s like being on a long dull plane ride to Alaska without wifi. It’s ponderous, meditative and glacially paced, and sporadically or episodically cranked up in the usual Jackson style. The acting is always broad (except for Martin Freeman‘s low-key Bilbo Baggins), but everything is always frenzied and amplified and compounded with the heroes facing terrible, insurmountable odds, and the action scenes always ending in a cliffhanger with the “oh my God!” rescue never happening until the very last second, and with nobody “good” ever getting seriously hurt, much less killed. They might be unconscious and look dead, but they’ll wake up sooner or later.

I knew it would be like this, and it was. Tolkien’s “The Hobbit” was a relatively slim volume but Jackson has turned it into a big lumbering trilogy. I really can’t bear the idea of watching two more three-hour-long Hobbit flicks…and I don’t think I will.

Blouin ArtInfo columnist J. Hoberman has written the following about today’s New York Film Critics Circle balloting. I love this — it sounds like horse-race reporting from Del Mar or Santa Anita:

1. “An early favorite for Best Director, The Master‘s Paul Thomas Anderson was overwhelmed by Zero Dark Thirty‘s Kathryn Bigelow on the second ballot, with Argo‘s Ben Affleck finishing a distant third. (Strikingly, Steven Spielberg, who failed to get a single first ballot vote, was never in contention.) By this time, it was evident that Zero Dark Thirty would run the table and, indeed, The Master finished third for Best Picture behind Argo, although it took three ballots for the obviously exhausted voters to decide the winner.”

2. “In the acting awards, Sally Field (Lincoln) finally defeated initial front-runner Anne Hathaway (The Dark Knight Rises, Les Miserables) for Best Supporting Actress on a fourth ballot while, in a rare second ballot win, Matthew McConaughey (Magic Mike, Bernie) beat out Christoph Waltz (Django Unchained) and Tommy Lee Jones (Lincoln).”

3. “The closest and most surprising race saw Rachel Weisz (The Deep Blue Sea) edged Jennifer Lawrence (The Hunger Games, Silver Lining Playbook) and Emmanuelle Riva (Amour). Last year’s winner Jessica Chastain (Zero Dark Thirty) was a factor throughout, tying for the lead on several ballots. (This race was by far the most polarized; only three of the 16 ballots cast for Lawrence or Chastain cited both actresses.)”

4. “By contrast Daniel Day Lewis (Lincoln), possibly the most feted actor in NYFCC history, led on every ballot but still required three rounds of voting to best the closely bunched trio of Jack Black (Bernie), Joaquin Phoenix (The Master) and Denis Lavant (Holy Motors).”

5. “Greig Fraser was named Best Cinematographer for Zero Dark Thirty, beating the initial favorite, The Master, on the third ballot. Although heavily favored, Tony Kushner’s Lincoln screenplay needed four ballots to win over those for Zero Dark Thirty and Moonrise Kingdom. “

Dustin Hoffman‘s Quartet (12.28) is running at 89% on Rotten Tomatoes. I’ve been invited to but have missed two or three screenings. And I have the screener on my shelf and I haven’t popped it in. This procrastination ends tonight. I’m sorry for being a dilletante.

“I agree with you that Life of Pi did a beautiful job with 3-D, but after the first 10 minutes, I actually was no longer interested in the 3-D. It didn’t make a bit of difference to me whether it was in 2-D or 3-D. After the first few minutes, I was just annoyed to have glasses on and the decreased luminosity of the screen.” — Francis Coppola speaking to MTV.com’s Josh Horowitz in 12.3 interview.

Earlier today the occasionally brilliant Joe Bomowski wrote the following: “I’ve seen a lot of HE commenters complain about the ‘rom-com cliches’ in the third act of Silver Linings Playbook. So what exactly path would you maestros wish upon it? I think it fully earns that feel-good redemption at the end. It’s sort of what makes the movie. By the time Cooper and Lawrence are circling the dance floor and all the players are there for it, you’re watching basically 1991 Martin Scorsese directing a pretty much perfect character-based romantic comedy.

“But you guys are out there booing and going ‘this is too conventional, this is too easy’? What would be better? Cooper goes insane and slaughters everybody? Lawrence blows that guy at the bar and Cooper kills himself and a big Gaspar Noe title that says ‘FUCK CAPITALISM’ flashes on screen in black-on-white font?

“Why can’t it be a little conventional or feel-good and STILL WORK? I’m sure all you naysayers would still moon over every frantic Howard Hawks screwball with a happy ending and the snappy guy getting the tough dame. What’s with this criteria that post-1981, and more specifically, post-‘negative blog commenter turning 27,’ that absolutely anything romantic or un-cynical or ‘happy’ is automatically weak or bad or bullshit?”

Wells afterthought: There’s a correlation, I suspect, between SLP hate and the lonely-guy or homely-guy lifestyle. Those who haven’t experienced wonderful luck or exceptional fortune in the romantic realm…well, they might be having a slightly tougher time with this kind of film. I myself have known mostly disappointment and frustation and some heartbreak but I remember the lucky days, the randy days & the days of wine and roses and occasional amazement, so I have a place in my head for it. Or my heart, rather. I know, I know — why, then, is Joe Bomowski, the king of L.A. pain, an SLP fan? Because life is full of exceptions and there are no hard and fast rules that apply all the way around the track. But the general blowsy rule is that people who have trouble getting laid are more likely to be against SLP than people who are getting it regularly or score occasionally and are cool with this.

You’ll get no argument from me about the New York Film Critics Circle giving Zero Dark Thirty their Best Picture award; ditto ZDT‘s Kathryn Bigelow winning Best Director. My support of ZDT (which I saw for the second time last night) is as ardent as my love affair with Silver Linings Playbook, and I’m delighted that all the lightweights who’ve been telling me ZDT is too cold and not audience-friendly enough are now going “hmmm, what are we not seeing….is it because we’re too shallow?”

On top of which I predicted the ZDT win four days ago.

There’s absolutely no basis for any complaint about Lincoln‘s Daniel Day Lewis winning the Best Actor trophy. I said from the beginning that despite that Matthew Modine-imitating-Walter Brennan voice, he nails Abe pretty damn well. And yes, I’m feeling a small measure of comfort from the fact that Lincoln has received no Best Picture momentum from this morning’s voting, and that Steven Spielberg wasn’t named Best Director.

Rachel Weisz winning the NYFCC’s Best Actress award for her tragic infidel performance in Deep Blue Sea is, I’m sorry, a seriously odd call. To paraphrase a Spencer Tracy line in Judgment at Nuremberg, “You’re going to have to explain why they gave this award to Rachel Weisz…you’re going to have to explain this very carefully.”

My own Weisz explanation: On its own terms Weisz’s performance in this murky, submerged drama is quite sad and affecting as far as it goes, but The Deep Blue Sea is something I just wanted to escape from. I’ve felt all along that Terrence Davies‘ film is far too dreary and fatalistic. It’s covered in a kind of amber, candle-lit ’50s murk, as if there wasn’t enough electricity to go around in post war Britain, and this seems to work as a visual metaphor for doldrums and social imprisonment. And the fact that Weisz’s character, a socially respectable married woman in her late 30s or early 40s, has an affair with an unstable military guy with a hair-trigger temper (Tom Hiddleston) lessens sympathy and compassion for her character as you ask yourself. “Why did this basically decent woman choose such a flaming asshole to have an affair with?” So it’s not a matter of Weisz not giving a highly commendable performance. She’s never not affecting or skillful. It’s the pathetic character she’s playing. A vote for a performance is never just a vote for a performance — you’re also voting for how much you identify with a character or recognize him/her in yourself. And so when I heard the news this morning it was like “what the eff?”

Sally Field winning for Best Supporting Actress seems like a huge slapdown for Les Miserables. The consensus over the last week and or so has been that no matter what happens to Tom Hooper‘s film award-wise or commercially, Anne Hathaway — who gives the one Les Miz performance that absolutely everyone has been knocked out by or at least greatly admires — will surely win Best Supporting Actress honors from critics and industry groups alike. But she didn’t today. That means something.

I’m figuring that the NYFCC reaction to Les Miz is so negative or mixed that the backwash surged into the room and drowned the Hathaway support in its crib. How else to explain the Field win? She was fine as the troubled Mary Todd Lincoln — angry, edgy, seething — but I didn’t come out of Lincoln going “holy bejeesus, Sally Field was really amazing!” I came out going “I have to admit that DDL really nailed it and so did Tommy Lee Jones.”

Hooray for Matthew McConaughey winning Best Supporting Actor for his performances in Magic Mike and Bernie.

Do I expect that Academy members will now open themselves up a bit more to Zero Dark Thirty or at least not be so quick to dismiss it? Naaah. They’re mules for the most part, and they’re gonna vote for the movies that talk to them and make them feel good, and to hell with the judgment of history. Do you think all the dead Academy members who voted for Around The World in Eighty Days as Best Picture in early ’57 care that this decision is now regarded as one of the most shameful in the history of world culture? Of couse not. They’re either floating around with angel wings in heaven or roasting on spits down in hell. Either way they don’t care. They can’t.

The bottom line is that the Academy Awards are all about serving the emotional needs and catering to the commercial interests of the community, or a lowest-common-denominator representation of same. And that’s why Silver Linings Playbook, which is easily as accomplished in its own way as Zero Dark Thirty or Lincoln or The Master or Les Miserables are in theirs, will surge with the HFPA and particularly with the Academy, as least as far as nominations are concerned. Oh, wait…it hasn’t taken off the way it should have with Joe & Jane Popcorn. I forgot about that.

SLP is the only Best Picture contender that makes you feel good if not euphoric at the end (unless, of course, you’re one of the haters), and is brilliantly doled out to boot.

Congrats also to Tony Kushner winning the Best Screenplay award for Lincoln, and to Amour for wining Best Foreign Language Film, and to Frankenweenie for winning the Best Animated Feature trophy, and to Greig Fraser for winning the Best Cinematography award for Zero Dark Thirty.

As of 8:30 am Pacific the New York Film Critics Circle had given its Best Documentary prize to The Central Park Five, a fine, sturdy, New York-centric doc that nonetheless bothered me for reasons I’ve explained. (No need to dredge it all up again.) And the Best First Film award went to David France‘s How To Survive a Plague. I’m off to a 9 am appointment and won’t be free until 11 am.

It would appear that JJ Abrams‘ Star Trek: Into Darkness (Paramount, 5.17.13) is enveloped in some kind of apocalyptic wasteland along with a time travel flourish of some kind. It would therefore appear that things are going to be grim, grim, grim all over due to “an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization,” leading Captain Kirk to “lead a manhunt into a war-zone world to capture a one-man weapon of mass destruction,” etc.