The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

al28283

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'm not a fan of 3D, but there is a huge difference between, say, Avatar in 3D, which was filmed that way from the outset, and a 2D movie like Thor which gets a post-production 3D conversion.

The Hobbit movies will be 3D done right, judging from the production diaries.

Avatar was both, no movie has been completely filmed in 3d. it's not opssible yet

Vokes

I've been humming that Misty Mountain tune all day. Tis great! Looks like Shore is on to another winner.

david75

The dwarves singing might be the thing that stop sit being farcical. They have a legitimate grievance and theyre meant to be pissed off. We dont need twelve Gimli's lightening the mood and being clowns. Hope they get the mood right. Names aside, nowhere in any of Tolkiens writings are the Dwarves anything but grumpy dark and out for revenge. Ok, that wouldn't work completely in a film context but it does need to be the overriding tone.

jpm4

david75 wrote: »

The dwarves singing might be the thing that stop sit being farcical. They have a legitimate grievance and theyre meant to be pissed off. We dont need twelve Gimli's lightening the mood and being clowns. Hope they get the mood right. Names aside, nowhere in any of Tolkiens writings are the Dwarves anything but grumpy dark and out for revenge. Ok, that wouldn't work completely in a film context but it does need to be the overriding tone.

Well that just isn't really true in The Hobbit. Bombur for example doesn't serve any other purpose save for comic relief, and there are lots of other instances in the book where the tone is fairly light where the dwarves are concerned.

krudler

like the teaser poster:

Mickeroo

The first thing that popped into my head when I saw that poster was "Oh, so they do have Tile Warehouse in middle earth"

david75

Another earthquake in new Zealand.

paddy kerins

david75 wrote: »

Another earthquake in new Zealand.

That's awful. Hopefully it's not too bad

WatchWolf

New video blog

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150554790416807

WatchWolf

New video blog

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150554790416807

Jimmy Iovine

A new picture of Bilbo has just been released.

bnt

They're still bringing in new cast: the latest is Billy Connolly, to play Dwarf warrior Dain Ironfoot.

Dain is a character from the book, the leader of the Dwarf army from the Iron Hills who comes to the party's rescue at the Battle of Five Armies, and who later becomes King under the Mountain after Thorin is killed.

beardedmaster

bnt wrote: »

They're still bringing in new cast: the latest is Billy Connolly, to play Dwarf warrior Dain Ironfoot.

I could not be happier. He was a favourite character of mine and I was worried that the character himself was even being scrapped.
Billy Connolly too... **** yeah...

WolfForager

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjYn845i08A

WolfForager

http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/24/2972858/48fps-preview-the-hobbit-reaction

48FPS getting mixed reactions.

Sad Professor

Jeff Wells loved it and he detests Jackson and the LOTR films.

The state of cinema as most of us know it changed radically today when 10 minutes of footage from Peter Jackson's 48 frames-per-second 3D The Hobbit were shown on the huge Collisseum screen inside Caeser's Palace today. 48 fps 3D is such a startling and game-changing thing that it's like the introduction of sound in 1927, CinemaScope in 1953, and high-end 3D with Avatar. I was knocked back in my seat...open-mouthed. This is the most startlingly "real" form of cinema I've ever seen, so much so that it isn't "cinema." And there's the rub.

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2012/04/48_frames_chang.php

I'm not sure how weight I'd put on his opinion. He also hates grain and thinks all Blu-ray transfers should look like wax works.

bnt

There's a fundamental rule that relates to anything information-related, which is: more is always better. You can always lose data that you have, but you can't always recreate data that you don't have. I expect there will be 24fps prints for cinemas that aren't capable of 48fps digital or film, so you could always seek out one of those if you can't stand 48fps. Or wait for the DVDs. Personally, I've been keen on the idea of higher frame rates for many years now, and I think the chance of disappointment is low. :pac:

Oafley Jones

Sad Professor wrote: »

Jeff Wells loved it and he detests Jackson and the LOTR films.


http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2012/04/48_frames_chang.php

I'm not sure how weight I'd put on his opinion. He also hates grain and thinks all Blu-ray transfers should look like wax works.

He isn't quite Harry Knowles, but Wells is someone I'd pay zero attention to.


Few thoughts strike me when I look at the reaction on line.

There's almost universal praise for the quality of the exterior shots.
Is this because we've some conditioning when it comes to higher FPS with nature documentaries etc. - unlike the 24FPS which cinema has been accustomed to for 90 years.

Hobbit is an extremely heavy in terms of makeup, digital effects and studio sets. I wonder what the reaction would be to the type of scenes that you'd find in a Woody Allen film. Is it just that sets, make-up etc have to catch up the cameras?

Or is it that the tech isn't there yet and it looks like arse, like most of the stuff that was shot on the viper system?

Sad Professor

The judder you see in 24fps is most noticeable in exterior panning shots, so they would benefit the most from 48fps.

But I don't think the sets are the problem, nor is it that audiences aren't used to higher frame-rates. The problem is they are used are to them but associate them with television rather than cinema. This has been an issue with the transition from 35mm to digital as well.

Also, some of the criticisms seem to centre on the fact that the film probably hasn't been colour graded yet. Digitally-shot films look terrible in their raw form.

Jimmy Iovine

Sorry for being stupid about these things but what's the difference between the 24fps and 48fps? What's the advantage in changing?

Sad Professor

Movement is smoother basically, closer to real life. Of course, whether cinema should look like real life is up for debate. Mostly it will probably help 3D, less eye strain and headaches.

Mindkiller

Public Enemies is a good (or bad?) example

Sad Professor

Public Enemies was 24fps. The smeary motion blur effect you saw in that film was due to Mann using an extremely slow shutter speed to capture the night without using artificial lighting. What you can see in those sequences is incredible, he just went a bit overboard.

The Hobbit won't have that problem. If anything the 24fps version (that most of us will end up watching) may end up looking strobey due to the removal of frames.

Jimmy Iovine

Interesting. I can't say I saw much need for it but I haven't really been to the cinema since last year so I wouldn't have noticed.

I presume that very few cinemas will be able to show it. Do you know of any in Manchester or Liverpool? I'll be over in that area of the world when it's released. Would the Imax cinemas be able to show the 48fps? It might be worth a trip up from Bangor if they were.

007IRE

norrie rugger wrote: »

Really??

No thats bull****

007IRE

humanji wrote: »

Well they better shoot a hell of a lot of background footage in NZ before they come here. It won't look too good having Bilbo wandering through ghost estates.

We do have amazing scenery here as well ya know.

Basq

You're replying to an almost 2 year old rumour?

david75

What, they're coming to film in Ireland?
we were the only other place considered for location before it was decided on NZ..

Tayleur

Latest video blog

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ze5S0eqn_k

Mickeroo

Poster for Comic Con by the looks of it, me likey!!