The Hobbit movies

[faemir]

With Jackson at the helm. I'M SO EXCITED!

Although it's being filmed in 3D which makes me althought WETA were the ones working on effects for Avatar which is the best use of 3D so far. But still. I'm glad LotR came out before 3D became popular...

[PlaysLikeMyung]

FINALLY

[axeman90210]

the still need to figure out the whole "the company that owns the rights to the film is billions of dollars in debt and about to go into bankruptcy" deal before I really get excited.

[blackngold29]

the still need to figure out the whole "the company that owns the rights to the film is billions of dollars in debt and about to go into bankruptcy" deal before I really get excited.

The funny thing about that is that New Line was in super debt when they started filming the LoTR. Had it flopped, New Line would've died. Seems to be a repeating pattern.

Not so thrilled about the 3D either, but hey it's The Hobbit with Jackson in charge so I won't be too greedy.

[yorost]

What is so bad about filming it in 3D?  They aren't going to force you to watch it in 3D, right?  If the 3D is done well it could look fantastic, too.

[blackngold29]

What is so bad about filming it in 3D?  They aren't going to force you to watch it in 3D, right?  If the 3D is done well it could look fantastic, too.

That is true, but when you watch movies in 2D that were filmed in 3D (and I actually loved Beowulf in 3D), there tend to be moments that they make it look obvious they were trying to have an axe fly past your head or something that would never be there if it were 2D. So if you think of it as one big project (LoTR and Hobbit) 2D would've been better for consistency. Then again, if it comes out in 3D, I'll be watching it in 3D, so whatever.

[Chino]

If the movie is filmed in 3D it will look awesome.

[AcidLameLTE]

the still need to figure out the whole "the company that owns the rights to the film is billions of dollars in debt and about to go into bankruptcy" deal before I really get excited.

This.

[Gadough]

Looking forward to it.

[orcus116]

If the movie is filmed in 3D it will look awesome.

And completely take away from any seriousness the movie tries to convey.

[yorost]

That's ridiculous.  We naturally perceive depth, but we should assume movies cannot go there without compromising an entire film?  It's an idiotic purist argument to say filmmakers should not try to push into 3D.

[orcus116]

Not really. I still have no idea what 3D adds to a movie. In fact the few 3D movies I have seen the 3D parts were noticeably distracting. I wasn't perceiving natural depth or whatever you want to call it, I felt like I was watching a moving Magic Eye book.

[j]

^I feel the same way.  I can see the potential for some genres of film (action movies, etc.), but it's never added much to a movie experience for me, other than distraction, like you said.  To me, it just comes across as really superfluous in most cases.

-J

[Quadrochosis]

^I feel the same way.  I can see the potential for some genres of film (action movies, etc.), but it's never added much to a movie experience for me, other than distraction, like you said.  To me, it just comes across as really superfluous in most cases.

-J

This.

[yorost]

Just because it is distracting now or has mostly been a crappy novelty in the past doesn't mean it will always be that way.  Adding depth perception is a natural extension to media since that is another step towards what we naturally observe.

It's a stupid purist argument to say 3D is what will wreck a movie.  What wrecks a movie is those that use technology, not the technology itself.  If the technology in fact cannot be wielded properly to make a good film, then the powers in charge should know that and avoid it.  3D itself is not what makes 3D films bad.  If they can wield it well, all the more power to them.

[bout to crash]

Looking forward to it, but not the 3D thing.

[j]

Just because it is distracting now or has mostly been a crappy novelty in the past doesn't mean it will always be that way.  Adding depth perception is a natural extension to media since that is another step towards what we naturally observe.

It's a stupid purist argument to say 3D is what will wreck a movie.  What wrecks a movie is those that use technology, not the technology itself.  If the technology in fact cannot be wielded properly to make a good film, then the powers in charge should know that and avoid it.  3D itself is not what makes 3D films bad.  If they can wield it well, all the more power to them.

Yeah I agree, I don't think anybody was saying it will ruin the movie.  Personally, I have yet to see it utilized effectively, and when I've seen it in action it's seemed completely unnecessary (except Avatar I guess, that's the exception IMO).

I'm sure it will improve in both technology and utilization.

-J

[bout to crash]

Yeah, I'm sure it will improve too but let's not fool ourselves into thinking this is all going to happen just for The Hobbit because we really want it to be good. I'm not saying it's guaranteed to be badly done, just skeptical. 

[orcus116]

Even as technology I haven't seen any examples of its use that I'd prefer it over regular 2D. I really see it as more of a lateral movement as far as film-making goes instead of any sort of progression, which some people believe is the case. The only real distinctive shots that can be pulled off "3D only" are the stuff mentioned earlier like swords and axes and shit flying into the screen which has always seemed goofy to me. Hopefully Jackson can come up with something creative though cause I'd love to see it to make me give a damn about it.

[sonatafanica]

A big part of filmmaking is giving visual depth to what is essentially 2-dimensional, and I myself have never seen a 3D film and it enjoyed it more because of its ability to make someone's finger point really close to my eyes, which is about the extent of what's been done with it, essentially.

Then again, who cares.

[bout to crash]

Yeah.
Shit, if Jackson can do something creative with it that'll be awesome. I'm just not holding my breath.

[orcus116]

Ebert beautifully sums up all my thoughts on 3D:

https://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/30/why-i-hate-3-d-and-you-should-too.html

His points towards the end about 3D in capable hands is really where I stand. For every Cameron who can execute its use properly there's a dozen or so Paul WS Anderson's who see it as a tool for "let's throw shit at the audience!".

[Volk9]

Some parts in LOTR wouldve looked amazing in 3D. Imagine Helms Deep

[TheVoxyn]

Bah, 3d.

[faemir]

I'm confident however that Jackson knows exactly what he's doing. He would not use 3D unless he thought it could we well used - hell LotR had more miniatures instead of cgi than most films at the time because he realised the value in them. It's not like he would suddenly 'sell out'.

[hefdaddy42]

I'm happy it's finally greenlit, but I'm ambivalent about the 3D.

[AcidLameLTE]

"Martin Freeman to play Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit":

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11604193

[ariich]

"Martin Freeman to play Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit":

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11604193

Yeah saw that today. He seems to be in everything these days, but thinking about it he would actually probably be a pretty good Bilbo.

[bosk1]

"Martin Freeman to play Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit":

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11604193

Lots of other interesting bits in that news release as well.  (And I was also reminded of how much I hate unions)

[Accelerando]

Fuck yeah, Graham McTavish is playing fuckin Dwalin 

[faemir]

Martin Freeman as Bilbo? Hell yes!

[RobD]

Didn't expect Freeman at all, but that seems like a great choice. Am I the only one to have read that through the BBC site where the link said "Freeman to play Bilbo in The Hobbit" and thought the Gordon had got the role instead?

[Zydar]

Didn't expect Freeman at all, but that seems like a great choice. Am I the only one to have read that through the BBC site where the link said "Freeman to play Bilbo in The Hobbit" and thought the Gordon had got the role instead?

Or Morgan Freeman.

[RobD]

I honestly don't know which is weirder

[Ħ]

This is probably the last movie I'm going to actually want to see.  I know it won't be better than the LotR trilogy, but still, I can't wait.