Author Topic: The Hobbit movies (Read 172466 times)

Ħ · « **Reply #280 on:** July 30, 2012, 08:38:17 PM »

Hm, you would think that the move to being more realistic would be desirable.

Orbert · « **Reply #281 on:** July 30, 2012, 09:29:09 PM »

Read the early reviews. PJ showed the first 48fps trailers at some event recently, and the response was almost all negative regarding the "look" of the film. All the trailers making the rounds now are 24fps, and PJ is saying that that's because most theaters cannot do 48fps. While that's true, it's also true that most modern theaters use digital projection now anyways, and The Hobbit movies would be shot at 48fps, converted to digital, and projected that way. So it's spin, damage control.

That's the extremely cynical side. The less cynical point out that ultimately, increased frame rate *should* look better overall, and it's just that our eyes and brains have become accustomed to the look of 24fps and associate it with movies. Similarly, our brains associate the hyperrealism of 48fps with video and TV and stuff we know inherently is fake.

Example: The black and white footage in DT's Metropolis Live in NY DVD. It's supposed to be memories, less realistic because it's black and white, reminiscent of an old movie. But it doesn't look like that at all; it just looks like black and white video. IMO, Mike made a huge blunder by not actually shooting those scenes on black-and-white film. The effect would have been 100 times better. It would've "felt" right. Instead, the black and white video takes you out of the moment, not into it.

Anyway, the optimistic say that we will eventually get used to film at 48fps. It's just that we're used to a certain look. PJ says 48fps is the wave of the future, and someone has to lead the way. But those "red" cameras are really expensive, and the results they give are getting mixed reviews at best. We shall see.

snapple · « **Reply #282 on:** July 30, 2012, 09:32:22 PM »

the human eye can't see much more than 50fps, if I'm not mistaken

MetalJunkie · « **Reply #283 on:** July 30, 2012, 09:35:21 PM »

Quote from: snapple on July 30, 2012, 09:32:22 PM

the human eye can't see much more than 50fps, if I'm not mistaken

I can fairly accurately guess the frame rate of whatever game I'm playing up to around 60fps.

snapple · « **Reply #284 on:** July 30, 2012, 09:49:02 PM »

Quote from: MetalJunkie on July 30, 2012, 09:35:21 PM

Quote from: snapple on July 30, 2012, 09:32:22 PM
the human eye can't see much more than 50fps, if I'm not mistaken
I can fairly accurately guess the frame rate of whatever game I'm playing up to around 60fps.

It's somewhere in that range. When people tell me they get 200fps (old game) I usually laugh. They wouldn't be able to tell if it wasn't for the fps counter.

senecadawg2 · « **Reply #285 on:** July 30, 2012, 11:11:43 PM »

Quote from: Pols Voice on July 30, 2012, 07:51:37 PM

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.

While I did have some issues with TTT, I thought the ROTK was nearly perfect in every way imaginable. With that being said, TTT was still brilliant (relative to almost 99% of all movies made in the last decade). King Kong was decent, but not incredible.

Quote from: Pols Voice on July 30, 2012, 07:51:37 PM

I've viewed The Hobbit with some wariness for a while. I didn't want 3D, 48 fps, or three movies.

Don't dispair, if you want to view it in regular 2d 24 fps, that will be an option (at least, from what I understand).

yorost · « **Reply #286 on:** July 30, 2012, 11:26:10 PM »

I was worried two films would be too much for The Hobbit, even with non-book scenes added. 3! Sure, less cuts from the nook, but I'm now most interested in just how he manages pacing. A lot of the cuts from Lord of the Rings helped the movies stay engaging, I think. This is like an opposite decision.

Fluffy Lothario · « **Reply #287 on:** July 31, 2012, 02:31:27 AM »

I also have no interest in seeing these films with the 3d, or in the 48fps, if a regular option is available.

@Pols: when I last rewatched the LOTR films, even though ROTK is my traditional favourite, I felt that there was some unique quality to Fellowship. It is almost certainly the best at capturing the feel and the colour and the tone of Middle-Earth itself. I'd also agree that it is the least flawed of the films, though for me, that doesn't automatically make it the best. Even with its flaws, ROTK is a mammoth. (And on a sidenote, I also didn't like King Kong sooo much).

I guess I'm not so worried if I end up not liking these films because I don't like The Hobbit as a book very much, and my fandom for LOTR and everything has died down a lot in recent years in general. For me, they're more of just a curiosity these days. If I really like them, cool, if not, I'm not really losing anything.

Super Dude · « **Reply #288 on:** July 31, 2012, 04:37:01 AM »

Quote from: Ħ on July 30, 2012, 08:15:51 PM

Quote from: Pols Voice on July 30, 2012, 07:51:37 PM
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.

Based on that trailer, yeah, maybe it won't be epic, but playful and lighthearted?

ehra · « **Reply #289 on:** July 31, 2012, 06:02:20 AM »

Quote from: snapple on July 30, 2012, 09:49:02 PM

Quote from: MetalJunkie on July 30, 2012, 09:35:21 PM
Quote from: snapple on July 30, 2012, 09:32:22 PM
the human eye can't see much more than 50fps, if I'm not mistaken
I can fairly accurately guess the frame rate of whatever game I'm playing up to around 60fps.

It's somewhere in that range. When people tell me they get 200fps (old game) I usually laugh. They wouldn't be able to tell if it wasn't for the fps counter.

I'm pretty sure the human eye absolutely can detect differences faster than 60 FPS. The problem there is that many monitors are 60 Hz anyway, making a super high FPS pointless.

senecadawg2 · « **Reply #290 on:** July 31, 2012, 09:34:44 AM »

Quote from: yorost on July 30, 2012, 11:26:10 PM

I was worried two films would be too much for The Hobbit, even with non-book scenes added. 3! Sure, less cuts from the nook, but I'm now most interested in just how he manages pacing. A lot of the cuts from Lord of the Rings helped the movies stay engaging, I think. This is like an opposite decision.

I would be completely fine with 3 slower paced films if I thought that they effectively captured the story, character development, and middle earth in general (as described by Tolkein).

yorost · « **Reply #291 on:** July 31, 2012, 12:36:43 PM »

Sure, but pacing is a big part of presentation of those elements. He wasn't hailed for Lord of the Rings for bringing out every scene he could, he was hailed for making a quality transition to movies through intelligent condensing of the material. It just seems like such a mismatch that the short lighthearted novel gets three movies while the huge epic of 6 books(3 print novels) also gets 3 movies. Not saying it won't happen, but I don't think the 6 movies are going to feel right together.

bosk1 · « **Reply #292 on:** July 31, 2012, 12:51:06 PM »

I hear you. I thought he did a phenominal job with LOTR. The theatrical releases about pushed the limit of what you could make an audience sit through, while making very intelligent choices about what to include, how to include it, and what not to include, as well as what to add that wasn't really in the books, but made sense to make it work as a screen play. And the extra scenes on the DVD releases took it to another level. But for The Hobbit, it just seems like three movies is far too much. I'm trying to trust Jackson, but I'm neverous.

ariich · « **Reply #293 on:** July 31, 2012, 12:59:35 PM »

Quote from: yorost on July 31, 2012, 12:36:43 PM

Sure, but pacing is a big part of presentation of those elements. He wasn't hailed for Lord of the Rings for bringing out every scene he could, he was hailed for making a quality transition to movies through intelligent condensing of the material. It just seems like such a mismatch that the short lighthearted novel gets three movies while the huge epic of 6 books(3 print novels) also gets 3 movies. Not saying it won't happen, but I don't think the 6 movies are going to feel right together.

It's a bit different though - the LOTR films had so much stuff taken out, including entire characters and multi-chapter sections. That's not a complaint at all, it was the only way to do the films properly. The only way you could possibly do the entire book is as a multi-season TV show really. But the point remains that the amount of content that was made into the films was much much smaller than the book.

And I agree about the pacing, but for me the theatrical versions didn't get it right, they felt rushed and some things didn't really make sense. The extended versions are fantastic for this, but need to be watched in multiple chunks because of their length. So really, I think of LOTR as 6 normal-length films.

BlobVanDam · « **Reply #294 on:** July 31, 2012, 01:03:04 PM »

I'm not familiar with the books at all, so I'll just reserve judgement on this until I've seen them (and I'll see them regardless). I almost got the impression from the Peter Jackson comments that he's doing it just for the sake of completeness, so hopefully that's not the case, and it all works out in terms of pacing and story.

ariich · « **Reply #295 on:** July 31, 2012, 01:32:13 PM »

Yeah from my understanding it sounds like it'll still only be the first two films that are primarily based on The Hobbit with a bit of stuff from the LOTR appendices, and the third film be mainly taken from the appendices to bridge the gap between the two stories. If that's the case, and the story is told in the right way, then it's a great idea!

Kotowboy · « **Reply #296 on:** July 31, 2012, 01:33:58 PM »

Wonder if they'll do a Silmarillion trilogy so they can do a trilogy trilogy. Then release a 20 disc box set of every film extended with all the special features for $$$$$$

bosk1 · « **Reply #297 on:** July 31, 2012, 01:35:14 PM »

Yo, dawg, I hear you like triologies, so I'm say this three times.
Yo, dawg, I hear you like triologies, so I'm say this three times.
Yo, dawg, I hear you like triologies, so I'm say this three times.

Ħ · « **Reply #298 on:** July 31, 2012, 02:07:06 PM »

Just watched the extended version of FOTR yesterday. It's a good movie, but visually, it's starting to get dated. The lighting in many of the scenes makes it look like it's just actors on a set.

jammindude · « **Reply #299 on:** July 31, 2012, 02:18:35 PM »

Quote from: ariich on July 31, 2012, 01:32:13 PM

Yeah from my understanding it sounds like it'll still only be the first two films that are primarily based on The Hobbit with a bit of stuff from the LOTR appendices, and the third film be mainly taken from the appendices to bridge the gap between the two stories. If that's the case, and the story is told in the right way, then it's a great idea!

I'm thinkin that he's just interjecting the appendix stuff throughout the story.

It sounded to me like the first movie was the journey to Lonely Mountain, and the second movie was the journey back, which would include the Battle of the Five Armies, ending with Bilbo coming home. But then the second movie got to be *too* huge, so they decided to split it up. I still think the trilogy is ultimately going to be Bilbo's story, and end with him coming home.

bosk1 · « **Reply #300 on:** July 31, 2012, 02:30:30 PM »

Not sure why people seem to think the first one is done. It's not. They may be done shooting it, but there's still a lot of time to play around with it. Even if the above was the original plan, they could still move the ending for the first movie farther back in the story and just edit it a bit differently. Wouldn't surprise me if they ended the first film with them leaving Beorn's house and about to enter Mirkwood. The second could be the journey through Mirkwood, the stay at Laketown, and then the finding of the secret door. The third would then be the awakening and slaying of Smaug, the Battle of Five Armies, and the journey home. Seems a bit thin for 3 movies, but if you put a lot of the appendix material in there, that's a logical way to chop it up.

yorost · « **Reply #301 on:** July 31, 2012, 02:30:49 PM »

Quote from: ariich on July 31, 2012, 12:59:35 PM

Quote from: yorost on July 31, 2012, 12:36:43 PM
Sure, but pacing is a big part of presentation of those elements. He wasn't hailed for Lord of the Rings for bringing out every scene he could, he was hailed for making a quality transition to movies through intelligent condensing of the material. It just seems like such a mismatch that the short lighthearted novel gets three movies while the huge epic of 6 books(3 print novels) also gets 3 movies. Not saying it won't happen, but I don't think the 6 movies are going to feel right together.
It's a bit different though - the LOTR films had so much stuff taken out, including entire characters and multi-chapter sections. That's not a complaint at all, it was the only way to do the films properly. The only way you could possibly do the entire book is as a multi-season TV show really. But the point remains that the amount of content that was made into the films was much much smaller than the book.

Not sure what you mean 'a bit different'. I was referring to massive cuts/changes on scenes and characters in Lord of the Rings, even in the extended editions.

ehra · « **Reply #302 on:** July 31, 2012, 07:36:46 PM »

Quote from: Kotowboy on July 31, 2012, 01:33:58 PM

Wonder if they'll do a Silmarillion trilogy so they can do a trilogy trilogy. Then release a 20 disc box set of every film extended with all the special features for $$$$$$

Depending on how The Hobbit turns out, I think a Silmarillion movie (or three or whatever) could be pretty great. I doubt it'll ever happen, though. I'm a little cloudy on the exact details so hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a Silmarillion movie would need to get the ok from Christopher Tolkien who doesn't strike me as someone who'd be ok with the amount of changes Peter Jackson makes in his movies (for better or worse). I think film rights to The Hobbit and The Lord of The Rings belong to someone else entirely, which is likely why we've even got the movies we have.

WindMaster · « **Reply #303 on:** July 31, 2012, 07:41:03 PM »

My god, the excitement for december 14th is almost too much. I will watch this movie so hard.

j · « **Reply #304 on:** July 31, 2012, 07:49:46 PM »

For the record, I'm really excited for these movies no matter how many films the material is dragged out across or what framerate they're filmed in. I can't wait to see them.

That said, part of the greatness of The Hobbit is in its brevity. The fact that Tolkien managed to give so much background, tell so much story, and get so much character development into such a relatively short work. Bilbo came so far and experienced so much, yet in the end it still "felt" like he had just left home. I'm worried that that (among other things) may be either inadvertently lost or prove impossible to convey if the story is spread out over two epic films, let alone three.

-J

Fluffy Lothario · « **Reply #305 on:** July 31, 2012, 08:00:16 PM »

Quote from: ariich on July 31, 2012, 12:59:35 PM

for me the theatrical versions didn't get it right, they felt rushed and some things didn't really make sense.

Lumpy Orc Commander: What of the wizard?
Witch-King: I WILL BREAK HIM
And then nothing happens, unless you're watching the extended edition.

jammindude · « **Reply #306 on:** July 31, 2012, 08:24:46 PM »

Quote from: Fluffy Lothario on July 31, 2012, 08:00:16 PM

Quote from: ariich on July 31, 2012, 12:59:35 PM
for me the theatrical versions didn't get it right, they felt rushed and some things didn't really make sense.
Lumpy Orc Commander: What of the wizard?
Witch-King: I WILL BREAK HIM
And then nothing happens, unless you're watching the extended edition.

I don't even know anyone who watches the theatrical releases. I've never owned them...I havn't seen them since I was in the theater...

I hate to sound all kvlt...but in this case it applies. The extended versions are the *REAL* versions of the films...the theatrical versions are the equivalent of watching the made for TV version of Terminator 2.

Ħ · « **Reply #307 on:** July 31, 2012, 09:01:56 PM »

I'm excited to see how Smaug is portrayed. I'm assuming he'll be in CGI, so I hope it's not too tacky.

Orbert · « **Reply #308 on:** July 31, 2012, 09:34:38 PM »

Quote from: j on July 31, 2012, 07:49:46 PM

For the record, I'm really excited for these movies no matter how many films the material is dragged out across or what framerate they're filmed in. I can't wait to see them.

That said, part of the greatness of The Hobbit is in its brevity. The fact that Tolkien managed to give so much background, tell so much story, and get so much character development into such a relatively short work. Bilbo came so far and experienced so much, yet in the end it still "felt" like he had just left home. I'm worried that that (among other things) may be either inadvertently lost or prove impossible to convey if the story is spread out over two epic films, let alone three.

I think that's a legitimate concern. The Hobbit was a children's story, written for his son. He managed to give it a much broader scope in the way he introduced certain elements that hinted at much larger things. Don't get me wrong; I think it's a great story, a masterpiece of storytelling. But its beauty is in its simplicity. PJ wants to make it a huge epic, a prequel trilogy to Lord of the Rings. Okay, I understand the reasons for doing so. It's not just about the money; it really would be cool to see the book really fleshed out well. But I think it would lose some of its charm that way.

I was rather looking forward to a single film as a prequel, had my doubts about making it two, and now I've kinda swung the other way. If he's gonna make it huge and epic and an actual trilogy, sure, I'd love to see it. I just don't want it to suck.

senecadawg2 · « **Reply #309 on:** August 01, 2012, 09:05:43 AM »

Quote from: ehra on July 31, 2012, 07:36:46 PM

Quote from: Kotowboy on July 31, 2012, 01:33:58 PM
Wonder if they'll do a Silmarillion trilogy so they can do a trilogy trilogy. Then release a 20 disc box set of every film extended with all the special features for $$$$$$

Depending on how The Hobbit turns out, I think a Silmarillion movie (or three or whatever) could be pretty great. I doubt it'll ever happen, though. I'm a little cloudy on the exact details so hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a Silmarillion movie would need to get the ok from Christopher Tolkien who doesn't strike me as someone who'd be ok with the amount of changes Peter Jackson makes in his movies (for better or worse). I think film rights to The Hobbit and The Lord of The Rings belong to someone else entirely, which is likely why we've even got the movies we have.

The Silmarillion would be very interesting, although I find it to be highly unlikely. It reads like a history book.

PlaysLikeMyung · « **Reply #310 on:** August 01, 2012, 11:43:47 AM »

personally I think there's something to be said for a 'straight-to-dvd' release of the silmarillion or any other tolkien works. the nerds will come out and buy it regardless. I know I will.

a theatrical version would surely flop

senecadawg2 · « **Reply #311 on:** August 01, 2012, 01:18:31 PM »

Quote from: PlaysLikeMyung on August 01, 2012, 11:43:47 AM

personally I think there's something to be said for a 'straight-to-dvd' release of the silmarillion or any other tolkien works. the nerds will come out and buy it regardless. I know I will.

a theatrical version would surely flop

A worthy plan. I too would surely buy it.

j · « **Reply #312 on:** August 01, 2012, 07:41:09 PM »

Quote from: Orbert on July 31, 2012, 09:34:38 PM

I was rather looking forward to a single film as a prequel, had my doubts about making it two, and now I've kinda swung the other way. If he's gonna make it huge and epic and an actual trilogy, sure, I'd love to see it. I just don't want it to suck.

You and me both brother.

Quote from: PlaysLikeMyung on August 01, 2012, 11:43:47 AM

a theatrical version would surely flop

I bet if it was marketed properly it could be successful. Maybe not LOTR trilogy box office record breaking successful, but I bet it would make money (again, with the right marketing campaign).

-J

BlackInk · « **Reply #313 on:** November 13, 2012, 02:08:49 PM »

Entire soundtrack available for free online stream here:

https://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=35757

MoraWintersoul · « **Reply #314 on:** November 13, 2012, 02:25:37 PM »

Quote from: Orbert on July 31, 2012, 09:34:38 PM

Okay, I understand the reasons for doing so. It's not just about the money; it really would be cool to see the book really fleshed out well. But I think it would lose some of its charm that way.

Completely agree.

Also, they wouldn't have to do the entire Silmarillion. There are some stories from it that are quite cinematic though.

News: The staff at DTF wish to remind you all that a firm grasp of the rules of Yahtzee can save your life and the lives of your loved ones. Be safe out there.

Author Topic: The Hobbit movies (Read 172466 times)