The Hobbit movies

[rumborak]

Part 7!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CtQGtwxTAc

I think they called that one building "tin shed" just so they can make it sound funny with their NZ accent.

rumborak

[senecadawg2]

3 things.

1. Check out this 10 hour youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zAGuLWGS64&feature=related

2. Peter Jackson has decided not to show the previews being shown at comic-con in 3D or 48 fps.

https://www.firstshowing.net/2012/the-hobbit-gets-cold-feet-comic-con-footage-will-not-be-3d48fps/

One of my most anticipated presentations at Comic-Con 2012 is Warner Bros' Hall H panel on Saturday, partially due to The Hobbit getting a big show. It's obvious this (Comic-Con) is the perfect fanbase for Peter Jackson to bring footage to and introduce his cast to, but apparently it's not the crowd for 48FPS. As we all know, when Jackson revealed the first 10 minutes of 48FPS Hobbit footage at CinemaCon earlier this year, reactions were very negative (even I agreed, unfortunately). I was looking forward to seeing how this crowd would react to 48FPS and if it looked any better now. But, it looks like that will not be happening.

Director Peter Jackson spoke with the LA Times' Hero Complex as prep for his presentation on Saturday, but one of the most revealing and interesting news items in it, was that he would not be showing the footage in 3D or 48FPS, at all. That is quite a surprise. Especially because I was hearing buzz that they tried to tweak the 48FPS to look even better. His quote about Comic-Con is one of the most honest I've ever heard.

    "I think it’s more about protecting the downside, rather than helping the film in any significant way. There is a huge audience waiting to see The Hobbit, and any positive press from Comic-Con will truthfully have little impact on that. However, as we saw at CinemaCon earlier this year, with our 48 frames per second presentation, negative bloggers are the ones the mainstream press runs with and quotes from. I decided to screen the Hobbit reel at Comic-Con in 2-D and 24 frames per second, so the focus stays firmly with the content and not the technical stuff. If people want 3-D and 48fps, that choice will be there for them in December."

Wow. Cold feet? Or, as our friends at The Playlist said, "nice dodge?" Too nervous they're going to get more negative reactions? Why not flaunt the new 48FPS? I am truly surprised and kind of shocked that he made this decision about the footage. I honestly felt like the Comic-Con crowd and these fans would be the most open to 48FPS, and accepting of the other creative choices Jackson has made (we all trust in him, right?). But I guess that won't be the case anymore. I am still very curious to see how the footage plays and I'm sure fans (myself included) will be going crazy anyway. And if anyone asks Jackson about 48FPS during the Q&A.

We'll still be at the Warner Bros' presentation on Saturday, and we'll keep you updated on any other news or any other happenings regarding The Hobbit. Are you still concerned about seeing 48FPS footage?

Personally, I think this is a good decision on Jackson's part. The preview should be about the material itself, not the technical aspects by which it is shown. When it comes out in December, I will gladly view it in every format available.


3. This movie is going to be SOOOOOO good!!!!

[DebraKadabra]

3. These movies are going to be SOOOOOO good!!!!

 

FTFY

[Super Dude]

Any word on when more footage will reach the wider public?

[senecadawg2]

Any word on when more footage will reach the wider public?

I don't know... I'd give a finger to catch the first 10 minutes of the film at comic-con. Preferably not my own finger, but a finger nonetheless...

I'm also curious about the length of the film.

[Super Dude]

Hell, I can get you a toe by 3 o'clock this afternoon.

[senecadawg2]

Reactions seem to be very positive from the Comic-Con preview...

SAN DIEGO (AP) — If reaction to "The Hobbit" footage at Comic-Con is any indication, Peter Jackson has another couple of blockbusters on his hands.

The crowd attending Jackson's "Hobbit" preview at the fan convention Saturday went wild over a 12-minute reel the filmmaker and his colleagues screened.

Broken into two films, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" and "The Hobbit: There and Back Again," the 3-D epic is Jackson's prequel to his "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, whose finale won 11 Academy Awards, including best picture and director.

"An Unexpected Journey" arrives in theaters Dec. 14, with "There and Back Again" following in December 2013.

The films are based on J.R.R. Tolkien's prequel novel, chronicling how tiny hobbit Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) acquired the ring of power that causes all the ruckus in "The Lord of the Rings," Jackson's three-part adaptation of Tolkien's fantasy saga.

Along with Jackson and Freeman, "The Hobbit" panel at Comic-Con featured "Lord of the Rings" co-stars Ian McKellen, who reprises his role as the wizard Gandalf, and Andy Serkis, who is back as twisted ring-keeper Gollum. Also on hand was Richard Armitage, who plays the dwarf Thorin Oakenshield.

Jackson showed 12 minutes of footage that included a chillingly comic exchange between Bilbo and Gollum; a tender moment between McKellen's Gandalf and Cate Blanchett, reprising her role as elf queen Galadriel; and the pivotal moment when Bilbo discovers the ring.

A surprise guest was Elijah Wood, who starred as hobbit Frodo Baggins in "The Lord of the Rings."

Freeman said he never felt intimidated as a newcomer to Jackson's team.

"Obviously, you can't really take intimidation or pressure to work with you, because you won't do your best work," Freeman said. "And you won't do your best playing, which is an actor's job."

Jackson shot "The Hobbit" in 3-D and at 48 frames a second, twice the speed that has been the standard since the 1920s. The higher frame rate allows for greater visual clarity, though it requires costly upgrades to digital projectors for cinemas showing films at that speed.

At the Cinema Con theater owner's convention in April, Jackson got a mixed reception for preview footage of "The Hobbit" shown at 48 frames a second. Some observers thought the images were too clear, so realistic that it took away from the magic of the film medium.

At Comic-Con, Jackson chose to show his footage at the traditional 24 frames a second, saying the best way to experience the higher projection speed is by watching an entire movie at 48 frames a second, not just excerpts.

[DebraKadabra]

December 14th cannot get here fast enough!

[senecadawg2]

December 14th cannot get here fast enough!

No kidding. Also... While I think this is highly unlikely, it is an interesting idea.


https://www.eonline.com/news/330234/will-the-hobbit-end-up-being-a-trilogy-peter-jackson-thrills-comic-con

Even an unfinished unexpected journey is better than no journey at all.
Peter Jackson screened a whopping 12 1/2 minutes of the hugely anticipated first half of his Lord of the Rings prequel saga, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, today for a packed-within-an-inch-of-its-life Hall H at Comic-Con.
And, despite the soundtrack that Jackson called "temporary" and the yet-to-be-perfected special effects (no Smaug yet), we can tell you one thing:

We cannot wait for the finished product!
Before Jackson popped out, the audience watched another of his production diaries, this one featuring glimpses of Beorn's house, Lake Town, being fire-bombed, Stephen Fry as the master of Lake Town, Smaug's gold and nice shots of Orlando Bloom's Legolas, Luke Evans' Bard and Martin Freeman's Bilbo Baggins.
"This is a movie made by fans for fans," Jackson said, referring to his own love of all things Middle-earth.
"We write the script as we're shooting," the New Zealander explained, noting that he likes to wait until he's finished shooting before he can even envision the final cut. "We're not very good at making short movies, unfortunately," he added.
And, it turns out, he may not be that great at only doing two movies at a time, either!
MORE: Is Jessica Biel Wolverine's Newest Villain?
Jackson, who was joined on The Hobbit panel today by Ian McKellan, Martin Freeman, Andy Serkis and Elijah Wood, told HitFix.com on the film's press line that he's considering splitting The Hobbit: There and Back Again into two films—if New Line Cinema, MGM, et al. will let him.
"We've been certainly talking to the studio about some of the material we can't film," the faithful J.R.R. Tolkien fan said. "And we've been asking them if we can do a bit more filming next year. Which I don't know what would come of that, whether that would be extended additions or not. But those discussions are ongoing...I'd like to shoot a bunch more material that we can't shoot. There's so much good stuff in the appendices that we haven't been able to squeeze into these movies. That's a discussion that we're having, yeah."

Who else talks about a book's appendices these days?! Not to mention, Jackson has probably already shot enough footage to make for the best DVD extras of all time.
Illustrating the method to Jackson's madness, Serkis said on the panel that he was supposed to work on the films for two weeks—and ended up staying a year and a half.
"It was a remarkable and extraordinary experience," he said. When asked to do a bit of Gollum for the crowd, Serkis obliged, saying in the creature's raspy, tortured voice: "For f--k's sake, do I have to?!"
If nothing else, there will some excellent extended cuts one day. But if Jackson has his way, Bilbo Baggins' journey may unexpectedly be only one-third over when The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey hits theaters Dec. 13, 2013.

[DebraKadabra]

Interesting.  While I wouldn't mind some of the Appendix stuff to be made into its own movie, that may have been better accomplished at the time the LOTR trilogy was filmed.

[Kotowboy]

From twitter :

" Jackson confirms the movie is *At Least* 2.5 hours long. The movie is not short...But the hobbits still are. "

[The King in Crimson]

Jesus, there's nowhere near enough material in the Hobbit to make it worth three films, even counting in the additional Appendices material.  That's just... stupidly, stupidly excessive.

The Hobbit would work as one (long) film and I supported the decision to make two films because there's some good background material that could help make the connections to the Lord of the Rings films a bit stronger.  However, I think making three films is a bad move.  It smacks of losing control of the entire production.

[BlobVanDam]

That does not surprise me in the slightest given the length of the LOTR movies. At least you'll be getting your money's worth on that one.

[Kotowboy]

Jesus, there's nowhere near enough material in the Hobbit to make it worth three films, even counting in the additional Appendices material.  That's just... stupidly, stupidly excessive.

The Hobbit would work as one (long) film and I supported the decision to make two films because there's some good background material that could help make the connections to the Lord of the Rings films a bit stronger.  However, I think making three films is a bad move.  It smacks of losing control of the entire production.

It smacks more of Hollywood being obsessed with trilogies at the moment. or worse - if a trilogy already is in place - splitting the third instalment into two seperate films.

I bet the reports of FOX begging Ridley Scott to make an Alien film again with total control came with the stipulation that he had to sign on for three movies.

[senecadawg2]

From twitter :

" Jackson confirms the movie is *At Least* 2.5 hours long. The movie is not short...But the hobbits still are. "

I'm expecting two 3 hour movies, given that it's coming from Peter Jackson.

[The King in Crimson]

It sounds like Jackson is the one who is pushing for splitting the first film, not New Line.  I'm sure New Line won't mind ("Another film?  More money? Okay!"), but Jackson is the catalyst here, at least according to that article.

If Jackson is just covering for New Line's meddling, then his blatant obfuscation of the facts is making me lose a ton of respect for him.

[Perpetual Change]

From what I understand, the film is being split into two, with a third film potentially dealing with appendixes and leading up to LotR. Actually, that has been the plan since the early days, only then it was one Hobbit film and one Appendix film covering the time from the Hobbit to LotR. I'm skeptical that there will be enough material for  a good film covering the events between The Hobbit-LotR, but there's a lot of stuff which can legitimately be covered.

(Minor spoilers)

-Aragorn's birth/early childhood
-Aragorn and Awren's early relationship; Aragorn's various activities pre-LotR
-The White Council drama pre-Saruman LOTR
-Sauron revealing himself in Mordor
-Aragorn first meeting with Gandalf
-Gondor going to war with Modor
-Moria goes to war and falls
-Gollum being tracked and imprisoned in Mirkwood (early LotR I think)

Those are just want come to mind. You have to imagine, if they interspersed all those sorts of events from the appendixes into the hobbit, it could easily become a two or three part thing. But it'd have to cease just being the Hobbit, and instead be a series of movies that is not only about the finding of the ring, but also about the rise of Mordor, the deterioration of the White council, the early adventures of Aragorn, and the aftermath of the Dwarves in Moria that you don't know about originally until you get to that chapter in LotR. I could see them easily stretching the hobbit out over two or three films if they were planning to do all that.

[Pols Voice]

I just read Jackson saying they didn't use any miniatures for The Hobbit. It's all CGI. Kind of disappointing for me...the miniature or "bigature" work on LOTR was superb.

[senecadawg2]

A little bit late on this piece of gold. To be honest, I don't know why I find this to be so funny...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcv4gJoJ7PM

[Heretic]

From what I understand, the film is being split into two, with a third film potentially dealing with appendixes and leading up to LotR. Actually, that has been the plan since the early days, only then it was one Hobbit film and one Appendix film covering the time from the Hobbit to LotR. I'm skeptical that there will be enough material for  a good film covering the events between The Hobbit-LotR, but there's a lot of stuff which can legitimately be covered.

(Minor spoilers)

-Aragorn's birth/early childhood
-Aragorn and Awren's early relationship; Aragorn's various activities pre-LotR
-The White Council drama pre-Saruman LOTR
-Sauron revealing himself in Mordor
-Aragorn first meeting with Gandalf
-Gondor going to war with Modor
-Moria goes to war and falls
-Gollum being tracked and imprisoned in Mirkwood (early LotR I think)

Those are just want come to mind. You have to imagine, if they interspersed all those sorts of events from the appendixes into the hobbit, it could easily become a two or three part thing. But it'd have to cease just being the Hobbit, and instead be a series of movies that is not only about the finding of the ring, but also about the rise of Mordor, the deterioration of the White council, the early adventures of Aragorn, and the aftermath of the Dwarves in Moria that you don't know about originally until you get to that chapter in LotR. I could see them easily stretching the hobbit out over two or three films if they were planning to do all that.

This would be incredibly interesting, but somewhat hard to pull off, I'd say. I'd love to see it happen though, but only with a possible third film-- I wouldn't want the tale from the Hobbit to lose any of its magic, if you will.

[ehra]

edit: nevermind, I can't read.

[Pols Voice]

So a third movie is confirmed. Since a short book gets three movies, maybe there should have been 12 LOTR movies.

I knew Jackson would find more ways to screw this up. I don't want a bunch of bloated stuff from the appendices stuck onto The Hobbit. Talk about completely missing the point and feel of the original novel.

[senecadawg2]

So a third movie is confirmed. Since a short book gets three movies, maybe there should have been 12 LOTR movies.

I knew Jackson would find more ways to screw this up. I don't want a bunch of bloated stuff from the appendices stuck onto The Hobbit. Talk about completely missing the point and feel of the original novel.

I for one am very excited about this. While I realize that it has the potential to become bloated and/or fall apart, I think there are many exciting possibilities with all the material in the appendices. If they can pull it off smoothly, I think this can be very, very good.

[ariich]

I don't see why it should be bloated. The LOTR films had SO MUCH cut out from the stories because there was just too much in there.

[Pols Voice]

I wish they kept the LOTR appendices stuff separate and made a "bridge movie" out of that. The Hobbit is a simple story and now it's going to be a mega-epic, drawn-out thing. Plus having to wait longer to see the ending. I honestly have NO idea how they're going to pull this off.

I think part of my disappointment is seeing how much stuff was cut from the LOTR books to make those movies, but for The Hobbit, they're adding tons of stuff to make it longer. Maybe Bombadil can get a cameo now.

[Ħ]

Only if he sings the Bombadillo theme song.

[Super Dude]

I don't see why it should be bloated. The LOTR films had SO MUCH cut out from the stories because there was just too much in there.

And PJ still managed to stick some of his own shit in there, or so I've heard.

[Fluffy Lothario]

I won't judge til I see the movies, but I trust Jackson to not turn it into three movies unless he felt they had the material for it and it wouldn't weaken the films.

I wish they kept the LOTR appendices stuff separate and made a "bridge movie" out of that. The Hobbit is a simple story and now it's going to be a mega-epic, drawn-out thing. Plus having to wait longer to see the ending. I honestly have NO idea how they're going to pull this off.

I think part of my disappointment is seeing how much stuff was cut from the LOTR books to make those movies, but for The Hobbit, they're adding tons of stuff to make it longer. Maybe Bombadil can get a cameo now.

This has always been a joint Hobbit/appendices material project, right from the beginning.

Also, when LOTR came out, Jackson was a borderline nobody, and epics/trilogies/fantasies weren't half as in as they are now. The whole project was a long shot. Jackson himself would most likely agree that the story could have benefited from more than three films, but at the time, he was extremely lucky to be trusted to make even those three.

The circumstances surrounding the creation of these movies are completely different. Jackson's in a position that if he wants three films, he gets three films. Had he made The Hobbit first, and was making LOTR now, and he wanted seven films, he'd probably have gotten seven films. But that's not the way things have played out.

[Perpetual Change]

I think there's two things that need to be factored in:

1. According to my Kindle, 25 percent of Lord of the Rings is appendix material. While it's not ALL usable, much of it is.
2. The Lord of the Rings movies were critically acclaimed, but also criticized for being "too long". The special editions were around 4 hours each. The Hobbit with the LotR appendixes mixed in could easily make a 4/5 hour movie.

So I could see The Hobbit being effectively broken down into three shorter, perhaps 90 minute, movies. That sounds really cheap, but if it buys them time to go back and film that appendix material I'll be happy, cause some of it is really good and deserves filming.

[RuRoRul]

Not sure what to think about it being split to give a third movie. The two films already seemed like the indulgent way of tackling the Hobbit and extra Middle Earth material. After seeing The Lord Of The Rings (both the films themselves and the documentaries of how they were made) I have a lot of trust in Peter Jackson and plenty of reason to assume any changes will be for the best, but it's things like this that make me await The Hobbit as much with trepidation as excitement.

[DebraKadabra]

Not sure what to think about it being split to give a third movie. The two films already seemed like the indulgent way of tackling the Hobbit and extra Middle Earth material. After seeing The Lord Of The Rings (both the films themselves and the documentaries of how they were made) I have a lot of trust in Peter Jackson and plenty of reason to assume any changes will be for the best, but it's things like this that make me await The Hobbit as much with trepidation as excitement.

This is my take on it too.

[Pols Voice]

The thing is, I don't have the faith in Jackson that other people do. FOTR is my favorite movie of all time, but I felt TTT and ROTK had their problems. Too many changes/additions, and some pacing problems. ROTK especially seemed kind of off to me in a lot of ways, but of course that's the most critically acclaimed of the three so what do I know. Plus I didn't like his King Kong remake.

I've viewed The Hobbit with some wariness for a while. I didn't want 3D, 48 fps, or three movies. At first I thought 2 movies was pushing it. Plus some of the dwarf designs are just weird, like Bifur with the axe in his head, or Kili the totally human-looking hunky dwarf.

Just because the LOTR appendices exist doesn't mean they need to be shoehorned into The Hobbit. I felt like the tone of The Hobbit shouldn't be as epic and huge as the LOTR movies, but now it likely will be. And with so much stuff unrelated to Bilbo thrown in, I suspect it will just seem too different from the book for me. Sometimes less is more.

I'm not much of a movie fan *at all*, and this was literally the only announced movie I was looking forward to, so I have a lot of vested interest in it not sucking. I don't want Jackson to screw it up like Lucas screwed up Star Wars and Indiana Jones.

[Ħ]

Why are the drawbacks of 48 fps? Isn't that twice as much as normal?

[Ħ]

I felt like the tone of The Hobbit shouldn't be as epic and huge as the LOTR movies, but now it likely will be.

From the trailer, it doesn't look that way. It seems like it will be much more playful and lighthearted.

[Orbert]

Why are the drawbacks of 48 fps? Isn't that twice as much as normal?

The most common criticism is that by having double the framerate, it actually looks "too real".  Like the difference between watching a film and watching a videotape.  With film, there is an inherent softness to the picture that seems to allow the viewer to suspend disbelief more easily.  With videotape, the image is sharper, and that can make you more aware that you're watching actors on sets, not characters in a story.