The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Antar Bolaeisk

Roar wrote: »

It looks very green screenish, doesn't it? Not entirely convinced I have to say

I was thinking the same, it does look like a big cgi fest...

Kinda regret watching the trailer as well, there's too much in it. Why wasn't I stronger!

Mickeroo

I saw plenty of miniature work in the trailer too, seems to be a mix of miniatures in much the same way LOTR was. The LOTR movies never went for a hyper realistic look and I would have been surprised if they changed the style for this, especially since it's Jackson directing again.

Sad Professor

There was actually no minatures used in the film. It's all CGI.

Mickeroo

Sad Professor wrote: »

There was actually no minatures used in the film. It's all CGI.

Really? Was sure some of it looked like miniatures, particularly the large falling rock. Thats a shame, I thought the miniature work in the other films was great.

david75

No miniatures made or shot for this film. But ther aren't any really big structures/monuments/towers in this story. Not in the LOTR sense.
Sad to see they've let that go and hope they still do the spe ial edition boxsets like the excellent Minas Tirith model or the bag end one.

I was in the skeptical camp about this. Three films!? I'm all for e landing the appendices. After all the tale of Aragorn and Arwen being brought into LOTR added the only sense of weight and poetry those films had to offer. Hopefully PJ manages the appenice content more effectively and usefully than burying it in the special editions.

But why oh why oh why do the dwarves all have Def Leppard hair dos??????
Looks awful.

krudler

Sad Professor wrote: »

There was actually no minatures used in the film. It's all CGI.

thats a pity, a lot of the miniature work in LOTR still holds up, there's a few dodgy shots here and there but overall its excellent.

johnny_ultimate

I'd easily rank the special effects in LOTR as some of the best of all time. Such a wonderful mix of methods and technologies, from towering sets to CGI. Rewatching the series within the last year, the explicitly computer generated creatures such as Gollum were the only ones somewhat showing their age, but mostly has lost none of its spectacle or scale. It's a shame they've gone full digital on this one, as LOTR excels as most satisfying hybrid of modern technology and traditional techniques.

Alas, technology marches ever onwards. *sniff*

Sad Professor

A series of humorous alternate endings to the new trailer which give a sense of the film's lighter tone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxSpGd5OUsg

krudler

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'd easily rank the special effects in LOTR as some of the best of all time. Such a wonderful mix of methods and technologies, from towering sets to CGI. Rewatching the series within the last year, the explicitly computer generated creatures such as Gollum were the only ones somewhat showing their age, but mostly has lost none of its spectacle or scale. It's a shame they've gone full digital on this one, as LOTR excels as most satisfying hybrid of modern technology and traditional techniques.

Alas, technology marches ever onwards. *sniff*

definitely, its a great mix of practical and digital effects, even the little things like the forced perspective shots with the Hobbit actors, there's a great shot of Frodo talking to Gandalf on his cart early in FOTR and its done by simply having Elijah Wood sitting a few feet behind Ian McKellan on a separate wodden bench but the camera perspective makes it look like they're looking directly at each other. simple but brilliant.

Compare how the sets which had greenscreen elements like the top of Minas Tirith when Gandalf is talking to Pippin outside on the battlements hold up against the Star Wars prequels, which all cgi background, or the majority of them save the odd bit of doorframe or floor have aged horribly, and look stale and digital and dare I say it, soulless.

Jimmy Iovine

I can't wait for this.

I'm going on teaching practice in the next few months and I'm seriously considering incorporating "The Hobbit" into a couple of my lessons.

If it works alright then it could be very, very good.

tok9

Sad Professor wrote: »

A series of humorous alternate endings to the new trailer which give a sense of the film's lighter tone.

In fairness, while LOTR was a serious movie it had it's fair share of light moments also.

That trailer has also got me quite excited.

PunkFreud

After I saw the first trailer for ye movie, I couldn't wait for this.

Since the announcement of the turning into 3 movies, I've lost hope in the film. The trailer looks like a trailer for the first half of a film. There doesn't seem to be any real climax. Itll probably just end after someone (probably Thorin) saying some open ended line. I don't know how they're going to make this into 3 films.

jpm4

PunkFreud wrote: »

After I saw the first trailer for ye movie, I couldn't wait for this.

Since the announcement of the turning into 3 movies, I've lost hope in the film. The trailer looks like a trailer for the first half of a film. There doesn't seem to be any real climax. Itll probably just end after someone (probably Thorin) saying some open ended line. I don't know how they're going to make this into 3 films.

There is more than enough in The Hobbit for 2 films running 2 to 2 1/2 hours. People harp on about how short the book is but there are still lots of events to cover, and particularly adventure style stuff that will work well on the big screen. Add in the appendixes and you have plenty for 3 films.

I have faith in Jackson - he has delivered the goods way more often than he has dropped the ball, and delivered the defining cinematic experience of my generation. Can't wait.

qz

This may be jumping the gun a HUGE amount, but when do you reckon I could book tickets for this? I managed to see Fellowship 11 times when it came out!

Sarxos

qz wrote: »

This may be jumping the gun a HUGE amount, but when do you reckon I could book tickets for this? I managed to see Fellowship 11 times when it came out!

The Dark Knight (also from Warners) starting booking about 6 weeks in advance, so I'd imagine Odeon and Cineworld will do likewise around the start of November.

You can already book Skyfall tickets with Odeon and that movie is 5 weeks away.

qz

Gent. I'm away for a month on Dec 17 and NEED to bring my Dad to this on the 14th. (And then I'll probably go again on the 15th and 16th!).

Headshot

Can i ask what kind of cinema screen would be best to watch this movie in?

I presume Imax ?

Zubeneschamali

Headshot wrote: »

Can i ask what kind of cinema screen would be best to watch this movie in?

Jackson is making it to be watched in 3D at 48 frames per second. I have no idea if there will be a screen in Ireland capable of projecting it that way.

Sarxos

It's unlikely to be shown in 48fps. It will be shown 3D in the brand new IMAX screen that Cineworld is installing in Screen 17.

krudler

Sarxos wrote: »

It's unlikely to be shown in 48fps. It will be shown 3D in the brand new IMAX screen that Cineworld is installing in Screen 17.

will 48fps not look very..un-movielike? its like when you seen tv's that have the horrible enhancement that stops blurring so everything looks way too clear, hopefully its nothing like that though. Be interesting to see if 48fps takes off, being that 24fps has been the norm for, well forever.

Sarxos

Jackson's been saying lately that the 48fps is going to be a limited run, and that most places will get the 24fps version. From what was coming out of comic-con about the 48fps footage people were saying that it looked hyper-real and thus unbelievable.

splashthecash

Sarxos wrote: »

It's unlikely to be shown in 48fps. It will be shown 3D in the brand new IMAX screen that Cineworld is installing in Screen 17.

IMAX in Cineworld..!!



When is this happening??

Mickeroo

New poster with all the dwarfs:



It's not really all that long now until the first omes out really

SmokeyEyes

Mickeroo wrote: »

New poster with all the dwarfs:



It's not really all that long now until the first omes out really

I'm really trying to not build my expectations up too much for this! I adore the books and LOTR managed to be pretty epic and was beautifully made (even with the few minor bits I didn't really like) but this poster kind of worries me a little, I don't know why!

I have every faith the movies will be great but it looks a little more fake in the poster and even in the trailer than LOTR or something? Hope I'm just worrying and it'll be just as good!

david75

I might know why you feel that. The dwarves were an agrieved, bitter race who felt hard done by, by every other race particularly the Elves. And this galvanized their own greed and covetuousnous. They weren't wacky zany or slapstick despite how the telling of the tale might have been in the Hobbit. They were going to get their sh!t back.

So of course PJ, casting the widest net possible, goes for the lowest common denominator and makes it something the kids can love, the knuckle dragging public can like despite themselves, and fukc the the true fans they'll go see it multiple times and buy it all up anyways. And throw in a 'hot dwarf'.. Just for the mammies out there.

I'm still hopeful these films will be great but he's made a balls of the dwarves totally and utterly.

My twenty cents.

Oafley Jones

SmokeyEyes wrote: »

I'm really trying to not build my expectations up too much for this! I adore the books and LOTR managed to be pretty epic and was beautifully made (even with the few minor bits I didn't really like) but this poster kind of worries me a little, I don't know why!

I have every faith the movies will be great but it looks a little more fake in the poster and even in the trailer than LOTR or something? Hope I'm just worrying and it'll be just as good!

The prosthetics have been bothering me since the first behind the scenes spots. At first I though it was due to the new cameras and a requirement for different make-up techniques but in every piece of footage - regardless of format - they've stood out as being poor. Here again they look artificial and cartoony and the worse offenders are made all the more obvious by the dramatic difference between normal looking actor Kili and Bombur - it looks as if he photo bombed a freak show.

Simian!

Oafley Jones wrote: »

...Here again they look artificial and cartoony and the worse offenders are made all the more obvious by the dramatic difference between normal looking actor Kili and Bombur - it looks as if he photo bombed a freak show.

Look at James Nesbitt in the top row - he's normal too. The prosthetics are way too distracting. The fake hair annoys me just as much. It's just SO obviously fake that I can't look at a single one of those dwarves and not notice it - it's like the inside of an old mattress. It's something that has bugged me for a long time and I see it quite a lot in films. The most recent offender I can think of is Woody Harrelson in the hunger games.

Sad Professor

Poster is fine IMO. Far better than some of those awful LOTR posters.

Oafley Jones

Simian! wrote: »

Look at James Nesbitt in the top row - he's normal too. The prosthetics are way too distracting. The fake hair annoys me just as much. It's just SO obviously fake that I can't look at a single one of those dwarves and not notice it - it's like the inside of an old mattress. It's something that has bugged me for a long time and I see it quite a lot in films. The most recent offender I can think of is Woody Harrelson in the hunger games.

That's because James Nesbitt is playing the character of "hot dwarf for the teenage girl demographic".

jpm4

david75 wrote: »

I might know why you feel that. The dwarves were an agrieved, bitter race who felt hard done by, by every other race particularly the Elves. And this galvanized their own greed and covetuousnous. They weren't wacky zany or slapstick despite how the telling of the tale might have been in the Hobbit. They were going to get their sh!t back.

So of course PJ, casting the widest net possible, goes for the lowest common denominator and makes it something the kids can love, the knuckle dragging public can like despite themselves, and fukc the the true fans they'll go see it multiple times and buy it all up anyways. And throw in a 'hot dwarf'.. Just for the mammies out there.

My twenty cents.

Not sure what you are getting at above to be honest - are you suggesting Tolkien did not give an accurate portrayal of the Dwarves in the book The Hobbit? How does that make any sense?

Having 13 memorable and distinctive Dwarves in the film was always going to be challenging - it certainly didn't happen in the book anyways only Thorin, Bombur, Balin and maybe Fili and Kili stand out in any way, and even the last 3 are a stretch. It looks like Jackon is doing his best and what is wrong with making something the kids will love anyway? The film is primarily based on a children's book.