So it seems like this year folks are trying to outdo the 3D craze. I already knew Christopher Nolan was providing more than an hour of 70 mm IMAX footage for The Dark Knight Rises, but I just learned that Peter Jackson is filming his Hobbit films at 48 fps. I wonder how significantly different that will look to the human eye.
I am probably the only one who disagrees with these upcoming prequels (and this is from someone who really liked the LOTR movies, and read and re-read all of the books).
just because the dwarves were designed to look different to each other (which comes natural), doesn't necessarily require their look to branch out of the boundaries of what Tolkien's original idea of dwarves should represent (I'm sure their name, "the longbeards", wasn't for no reason ;) ). There is always a way of doing what the author intended without taking the obvious route; which is the case in this instance.
I think the whole project is being made with an entirely different attitude then "Lord of the Rings" was back in 1997-2003, if you know the story of both productions. I honestly do not believe it will end up to become just as good as its predecessor; guess you will all find out by December of this year, or the next.
as for the 48fps, apparently it didn't go too favorably with some viewers at a preview screening.
Yes, you are right, many were not impressed. This article presents an interesting scientific explanation. Apparently the problems was with the closer shots, but the distance shots reportedly looked better.
I'm willing to postpone judgment till I watch it for myself, and fortunately the movie will be released in theaters in various formats including 24 fps, so if the 48 fps doesn't work out, you can watch in the the good ol' traditional way.
As for the dwarves' representations, I understand the beard-related concern, though I think the reasoning is logical. My biggest concerns actual center around the expansion of the story, including such characters as Gimli and Legolas (though I can see their making cameos due to their relation to other characters more central to the story. I just worry that too many liberties will be taken and it will distract from the original story. But the trailer was very well done and I enjoyed all three LOTR films very much. My hopes and excitement remain high.
Well I didn't see that coming:
I'm not going to watch these films until I read the book.
To put it frankly, I thought that perhaps splitting The Hobbit into two films was a good idea, but making three out of it is terrible. The LOTR books are larger and richer than the lone Hobbit, yet they crammed them all into three lengthy films (and I do prefer the extended cuts). The Hobbit is still rich enough to make two standard films without taking too many liberties, but now I worry that much of this will simply be Middle Earth according to Peter Jackson, and not very faithful to Tolkein's vision. I don't know what could be gained by this except perhaps creating an entirely unique bridge between the two tales, but I still don't feel it is wise. Sorry, I think I've repeated myself enough. If you still cannot tell, I don't support this move.
Evangeline Lilly has opened up about her mysterious new character Tauriel in The Hobbit, saying she plays a "big shot" in Peter Jackson's double feature.
The former Lost star told Entertainment Weekly that Tauriel - a Mirkwood elf who doesn't appear in JRR Tolkein's books but was written by Jackson solely for the film adaptations - was a "warrior".
"She's actually the head of the Elven guard. She's the big shot in the army," said Lilly.
"So she knows how to wield any weapon, but the primary weapons that she uses are a bow and arrow and two daggers. And she's lethal and deadly. You definitely wouldn't want to be caught in a dark alley next to Tauriel."
The Canadian actress also said Tauriel appears in the second Hobbit film more than the first.
"She comes into the first film near the end, and has a very small part to play. Her role in the second film is much more involved ... I think the role is becoming a bit more demanding than I had expected it to be.
"There's a lot more for me to do now, which is a lot of fun, but it's a little more pressure."
Lilly told EW she still had five months worth of The Hobbit to shoot in New Zealand, but was loving her time here.
"In some ways, it feels really familiar. I'm from Canada, and New Zealand feels like you took all the best bits of Canada and squished them onto a tiny island like Hawaii. I was absolutely blown away by the beauty of the South Island.
"I seem to be landing really great locations on a lot of my work. I hope that continues, knock on wood."
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey will premiere on December 13 next year in Wellington and the second film, The Hobbit: There and Back Again, is set to be released on December 12 the following year.
A couple of things strike me as interesting, though not worthy of their own thread, yet still only somewhat on topic:
My brother sent me this link. It's supposed to be about the losers of the Battle for Middle Earth. Kind of a different take on a classic story, much like Wicked does for the Wizard of Oz. Looks interesting.
And maybe this next one is already well-known, but it interested me when I found it.
Though I haven't taken the time to watch it through, from what I saw it's a fan film spanning the time when Gandalf departs from Frodo's home in search for more information including his and Aragorn's search for Gollum and when Gandalf returns with information about the Ring.
Both could be interesting takes on the Tolkein universe.
darth_ender said:
but now I worry that much of this will simply be Middle Earth according to Peter Jackson.
The Appendices more likely.
John Williams score to Return of the Jedi Remastered/Remixed:
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/JOHN-WILLIAMS-Star-Wars-Episode-VI-Return-of-the-Jedi-Remastered-Edition/topic/14606/page/1/
fishmanlee said:
darth_ender said:
but now I worry that much of this will simply be Middle Earth according to Peter Jackson.
The Appendices more likely.
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/The-Hobbit-movie-Dwarves/post/587994/#TopicPost587994
Just a bit of news (nothing visual about the film or more info on the script)
The recording sessions for the score of the film have apparently begun.
(in English: The Music is being recorded for the film now)
John Williams score to Return of the Jedi Remastered/Remixed:
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/JOHN-WILLIAMS-Star-Wars-Episode-VI-Return-of-the-Jedi-Remastered-Edition/topic/14606/page/1/
http://www.examiner.com/article/the-hobbit-movie-news-details-on-second-film-third-sequel-gets-release-date
The second Hobbit movie will no longer be called There and Back Again. It will now be called The Desolation of Smaug, with the third film (still shaking my head) will assume the former name. However, my hopes are a bit higher, as the report is that Jackson will be utilizing unpublished Tolkein notes to broaden the story. I understand the need for artistic licenses, and the LOTR trilogy did just that, a certain amount of faithfulness must be held to, especially when dealing with a single book being expanded into three films, while the LOTR trilogy had to be condensed so drastically. But utilizing Tolkein's unpublished vision is something I can condone.
What I wish (and I don't know how this would be done, but it certainly would be interesting) is that somehow Bilbo's "false" version of Riddles in the Dark could make its way into the film along with the true. Perhaps his fib to the dwarves could be shown in flashback, but with the alternate tale.
Comparison of the original and revised chapter expanding Gollum's character.
So I'm getting behind a trilogy better now, just because I do like the idea of more background information being made accessible. As long as Jackson shows fidelity to Tolkein's intents for the most part, I think I can support the full trilogy.
This article struck me as interesting:
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1694086/the-hobbit-trailer.jhtml
It includes the new trailer (finally!), which I can't watch right now but I'm excited to see.
Most interesting to me was the background information on Radagast the Brown. So much of Gandalf's wizard order is merely inferred and not revealed in the books. Seeing another wizard would be, frankly, pretty stinkin' cool. And while never explicitly stated, it seems that the Necromancer in the Hobbit was likely supposed to be Sauron in the end, or considering the Hobbit preceded TLOTR by so many years, he served merely as an inspiration for the later expanded Sauron idea. It seems that the Hobbit films will definitively tie the two together.
Also fun, if you'd like to play some riddles in the dark, go here:
http://apps.warnerbros.com/thehobbit/riddles/us/
You can guess and submit your own.
Tobar should be bumping this thread. I'm excited to see this as well. I don't think I'll make it to a 48 fps theater after all, but I can live with that. I'm excited!
A Tobar never bumps the wrong thread, nor does he mispost, he bumps precisely the thread he means to.
darth_ender said:
So I'm getting behind a trilogy better now, just because I do like the idea of more background information being made accessible. As long as Jackson shows fidelity to Tolkein's intents for the most part, I think I can support the full trilogy.
This article struck me as interesting:
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1694086/the-hobbit-trailer.jhtml
It includes the new trailer (finally!), which I can't watch right now but I'm excited to see.
Most interesting to me was the background information on Radagast the Brown. So much of Gandalf's wizard order is merely inferred and not revealed in the books. Seeing another wizard would be, frankly, pretty stinkin' cool. And while never explicitly stated, it seems that the Necromancer in the Hobbit was likely supposed to be Sauron in the end, or considering the Hobbit preceded TLOTR by so many years, he served merely as an inspiration for the later expanded Sauron idea. It seems that the Hobbit films will definitively tie the two together.
Also fun, if you'd like to play some riddles in the dark, go here:
http://apps.warnerbros.com/thehobbit/riddles/us/
You can guess and submit your own.
I'm pretty sure that the Necromancer is Sauron in LOTRO (the MMO), though I skimmed that part.
The blue elephant in the room.
@Tobar... :)
@mrebo...I guess the Necromancer was originally just a plot device until LOTR, where he was supposed to be the same individual. But Tolkein didn't have it all mapped out yet when he wrote The Hobbit.
http://www.shmoop.com/hobbit/the-necromancer.html
So I'm wondering, how do folks here enjoy the frame rate? How was the story? Would it have been better to keep the story as one or two films? Or do you think it made a good first of three tales?
It's odd. I enjoyed the film while also being disappointed by it. It was an enjoyable film and they got a lot right but they lost something.
Right now I'm reading the Hobbit for the first time and what I've enjoyed the most about it is Tolkien's dialog and characterizations. The way he writes the interactions between the characters just leaps off the page for me. Which is why I was so disappointed that Peter Jackson took it upon himself to rewrite almost all of it.
I could understand embellishing things that were left vague in the book like "then they agreed that they should stay for the night." Making up something for that would be fine but the dialog in the book was so perfect why mess with it? As for his other embellishments like Thorin's hate for Elves, the white Orc or the whole Radagast portions of the film, I can't comment on. So far I've only managed to read maybe a chapter past where the film ended and this is my first time reading Tolkien so I'm not that familiar with the lore.
Tobar said:
Thorin's hate for Elves
This is a necessary consequence of the film being made after Tolkein wrote LOTR and after Jackson made his films. The dwarf/elf relationship is clearly one of animosity, whereas he may not have had that all figured out as much when he wrote The Hobbit. These new films are very much an adaptation of the book, in the context of the previous films, and this is one area where it shows.
Is this the correct thread for Hobbit film discussion? I couldn't find a better one, but am open to such things if it exists.
I think the following thread sort of supplanted this one, but it doesn't really matter. Whatever you prefer.
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/The-OTcom-J-R-R-Tolkien-Middle-Earth-Discussion-Thread/topic/15054/
I saw Part 2 yesterday. Overall I enjoyed it, although a few action bits went on too long (as is PJ's usual mode of operation). The barrel chase was particularly ridiculous.
A liar and a thief! The barrels were ridiculous. And the love story. So much felt forced. I greatly look forward to what our Editors might do with all this material.
The blue elephant in the room.
Yeah, you have pretty much summed up my perspective.
Although the end sequence with Smaug, although extended and made up, was really, really great.
TV's Frink said:
I saw Part 2 yesterday. Overall I enjoyed it, although a few action bits went on too long (as is PJ's usual mode of operation). The barrel chase was particularly ridiculous.
The Barrel riding scene seemed primarily created for 3D its a nonsensical scene but it has them dodging arrows or something. Cannot completely remember exactly. Its like the overdone effect they did in the other films of Legolas arrow with Camera zoom but now for 3D.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.