The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Cantona's Collars

Saoirse Ronan has signed up for a role in the movie.http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a300707/saoirse-ronan-joins-the-hobbit-cast.html

david75

She's in as a madey uppy character called Itaril who isnt even in the efin book!!! this things gone off the rails and they havent even started shooting!

im sure shes a lovely girl but she cannot act worth a ****e...alarm bells ringing everywhere..

JP Liz V1

http://www.rte.ie/ten/2011/0128/ronans.html

Irish actress Saoirse Ronan has joined the cast of 'The Hobbit', reuniting with 'The Lovely Bones' director Peter Jackson. According to IFTN, the movie's casting director Ros Hubbard confirmed Ronan's involvement in the film.
Speaking about the strong Irish presence in the movie, with Aidan Turner and James Nesbitt already signed up, Hubbard said: "We had been wanting to put Aidan Turner into film for a long time because he had done an awful lot of TV and we told him when we finally met him, 'We are going to concentrate on getting you into the movies.' I didn't think it would be as big as this. But how great for him."
"And Jimmy is thrilled to bits, his whole family have gone out, it is just wonderful. And working with Peter Jackson is like working with a family. So they'll have a great time."
"Saoirse's family will go too, everyone is very close and very loving on those sorts of jobs. It's not like typical studio movies at all."

She was great in The Lovely Bones and Atonement but I'm not sure who she'll be playing in the Hobbit

mikhail

david75 wrote: »

im sure shes a lovely girl but she cannot act worth a ****e...alarm bells ringing everywhere..

She's received nothing but positive reviews in anything I've read on her. Granted, I've only seen her in Atonement and The Way Back, but she's not done anything to merit that statement in my experience either.

Git101

david75 wrote: »

im sure shes a lovely girl but she cannot act worth a ****e...alarm bells ringing everywhere..

It would appear that an awful lot of people disagree with you but hey, what would they know

bnt

david75 wrote: »

She's in as a madey uppy character called Itaril who isnt even in the efin book!!! this things gone off the rails and they havent even started shooting!

As you might imagine, the Tolkien-related forums are all over this e.g. here. That page lists the casting note as follows:

ITARIL - female, A woodland Elf, this character is one the Silvan Elves. The Silvan Elves are seen as more earthy and practical. Shorter than other elves, she is still quick and lithe and physically adept, being able to fight with both sword and bow. Showing promise as a fighter at a young age, ITARIL was chosen to train to become part of the Woodland King’s Guard. This is the only life she has ever expected to live, until she meets and secretly falls in love with a young ELF LORD. This role will require a wig and contact lenses to be worn. Some prosthetic make-up may also be required. LEAD. AGE: 17-27.

The consensus seems to be that she's not going to involved in Bilbo's quest directly but in the Elven side of the story.

david75

oh god..sounds dreadful..

jaykhunter

so when's this film start shooting? This is one of those projects i'm convinced won't see light of day. Once the cameras start rolling there's no turning back....

Sad Professor

jaykhunter wrote: »

so when's this film start shooting? This is one of those projects i'm convinced won't see light of day.

It was supposed to start shooting in February. But Peter's ulcer has caused it to get delayed a bit. Maybe a month or so.

It'll definitely get made. There's far too much money at stake. A great deal of which has already been spent.

david75

New Line gave them a total freehand in making LOTR...whoevers financing this seems to be exering all kindsa pressure to sex it up..Hollywood style...they havent a clue and in doing so theyre losing out and screwing it up.

WolfForager

Wait, New Line aren't behind it this time?

Balls..

david75

Nope. Tolkien had sold the rights to the Hobbit to MGM years and years ago. His only stipulation being that if it was ever filmed he didn't want it 'Disneyfied'.

A huge part of the delay in production was that MGM are currnetly smashed broke. They've borrowed against the success that the Hobbit will hopefully be, but by the looks of things theyre really interfering with the process, there was a lot of talk of them using Focus groups to see what people wanted the films to be and what they wanted to see in them...hence all these changes and actors from the rings trilogy being brought in to try guarantee its success by jogging peoples memories, as if that needs doing..

F**k that..They should just trust PJ and let him do his thing. These movies will be the death of him by the sounds of things, he's having a f*ck of a time making them..the rights issue, then the unions, now the studio getting involved.. sounds nightmarish.

Richard Dower

Are there big set pieces/battles in The Bobbit books? [get the pun?}

david75

Yup. Battle of the 5 armies at the end of the book but this is 2 films so it'll also have the white council taking the fight to the necromancer in Mirkwood and discovering it's Sauron..big battle there too..it'll all be intercut so no knowing the timeline or sequence of events til we see it.

also Smaug attacking Lake Town should be a kinda battle..

jaykhunter

david75 wrote: »

huge part of the delay in production was that MGM are currnetly smashed broke. They've borrowed against the success that the Hobbit will hopefully be, but by the looks of things theyre really interfering with the process, there was a lot of talk of them using Focus groups to see what people wanted the films to be and what they wanted to see in them...hence all these changes and actors from the rings trilogy being brought in to try guarantee its success by jogging peoples memories, as if that needs doing..

That scares me. Films would be so much worse if the general public had a say in different aspects of it. How do they not have complete faith in Peter Jackson after LOTR's success? C'mon!

david75

The answer is in me post. MGM are flat stoney broke, they owe $3 billion or thereabouts. Theyve had to borrow the funds to have the Hobbit made but are counting on it to be a success on LOTR level but to try and guarantee that, they're doing whatever they can to make it happen, meaning loads ofd characters from LOTR reprising their roles, knowing the public at larges affinity and even love in some cases for these characters. But they need it to appeal to the widest possible audiences too in order to sell tickets so hardcore Tolkien purists be damned. Change everything to make as much money as possible. Depressing but there ye go.

qz

First official pic of the cast (sans outfits).

Sad Professor

New pre-production photos at AICN:



Here's a similar picture taken 12 years ago.

Basq

F*ck The Biggest Loser.. PJ's weight loss over the course of the three LOTR was fecking astounding!

Duggy747

Sad Professor wrote: »

Here's a similar picture taken 12 years ago.

Jaysus, he looks more like John Goodman in that picture.

Linguo

This is very exciting:D

Got such a buzz watching the LOTR trilogy in the screen recently as part of their oscar winners selection, has made me even more excited about the hobbit:D:D

david75

:eek:


Jedward confirmed for The Hobbit
movie news | 01 Apr 2011 | 3 comments
Peter Jackson casts the duo as Fili & Kili in his 'Lord Of The Rings' prequel.
Irish twins John and Edward Grimes (aka Jedward) were today confirmed for Peter Jackson's upcoming Lord Of The Rings prequel 'The Hobbit'.
The XFactor duo will play the roles of the dwarves Fili and Kili, who help Bilbo Baggins and Gandalf on their quest.
Peter Jackson reportedly headhunted the duo on the recommendation of Sir Ian McKellen. Speaking of their casting Jackson said "I needed twins for these parts and they have a perfect look for the film, we are working on vocal coaches to try tone down their Irish accent as it doesn't suit the tone needed for Middle Earth".
Jedward, who are currently practicing for the Eurovision Song Contest will also be required to sing in the movie. Fans were upset that Tolkien's 'The Ballad Of Bilbo Baggins' was cut by Jackson from the LOTR trilogy but Jackson plans to have the twins sing the fan favorite in the movie.
Speaking of their casting in The Hobbit Jedward said "Oh My God, we're so excited, we loved the Lord Of The Rings films, Gollum is so cool, we can't wait to get on set and do our thing".
Below is a picture of Jedward in wardrobe, preparing their prosthetics especially designed by Peter Jackson's SFX company WETA Digital.

slave1

down with thee, not even given the spirit of the day it is, blasphemy

Sad Professor

http://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-jackson/48-frames-per-second/10150222861171558

Jackson has revealed he is shooting The Hobbit at 48 frames per second. I'm a bit concerned about how this will look when projected on film. They'll obviously have to leave out every second frame which, without the blur, is going to make things look very jumpy. I assume this means they'll have to do some digital manipulation to add blur and make it look right. Hmmmm

Should look great projected digitally though.

mikhail

Sad Professor wrote: »

http://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-jackson/48-frames-per-second/10150222861171558

Jackson has revealed he is shooting The Hobbit at 48 frames per second. I'm a bit concerned about how this will look when projected on film. They'll obviously have to leave out every second frame which, without the blur, is going to make things look very jumpy. I assume this means they'll have to do some digital manipulation to add blur and make it look right. Hmmmm

Should look great projected digitally though.

I'm not sure, but on a theoretical level, I think it should look okay on film. It's not like normal film recording leaves the shutter open for the entire 1/24th of a second - your brain does quite a bit of blurring as it is.

WolfForager

Why would they leave out every second frame?

Sad Professor

mikhail wrote: »

I'm not sure, but on a theoretical level, I think it should look okay on film. It's not like normal film recording leaves the shutter open for the entire 1/24th of a second - your brain does quite a bit of blurring as it is.

Yeah, but the shutter still has to be open long enough to create enough blur to provide smooth motion. A lot will depend, I guess, on what shutter speed Jackson and Lesnie use. But given that they are talking about reducing the blur, it's fair to say it's going to be faster. Although 48fps will certainly convert to 24 easier than 60, which is what Cameron is planning to shoot the Avatar sequels in.

However, I'm sceptical about higher frame rates that reduce blur because I'm not sure that's how the eye/brain really perceives motion. My fear is that it will end up looking like some nasty tv movie/soap opera. We so are so used to the blur and flicker of 24fps. 48-60fps might look more realistic, but has the cinematic experience ever been about realism? We go to movies to escape, no? And the grainy, romantic film look and the flickery, blurry motion all contribute to that feeling of being in another world.

WolfForager wrote: »

Why would they leave out every second frame?

For film projection they will have to convert the film to 35mm which is projected at 24 frames per second. I'm assuming that to do this they will have to leave out every second frame and add motion blur to compensate for the faster shutter speed. Otherwise we'd be left with a strobe effect, which (to take an extreme example) would be similar to the Ridley Scott slow motion effect that he uses in all his films now days (and that he stole from Spielberg).

WolfForager

Sad Professor wrote: »

For film projection they will have to convert the film to 35mm which is projected at 24 frames per second. I'm assuming that to do this they will have to leave out every second frame and add motion blur to compensate for the faster shutter speed. Otherwise we'd be left with a strobe effect, which (to take an extreme example) would be similar to the Ridley Scott slow motion effect that he uses in all his films now days (and that he stole from Spielberg).

Are they not moving on from 35mm though? I thought he mentioned something about cinemas having to upgrade their equipment in the FB Note. (In a roundabout way "10,000 roughly will be able to play 48FPS").

johnny_ultimate

Was there not something about I think it was Revenge of the Sith only having digital copies? They must have sorted that out before release, but I distinctly remember some sort of hullaballoo over it before release, and only cinemas with digital projectors were going to be showing it.

But this is going to be what six or seven years on, and if it's shot digitally it should be shown that way. I'd imagine most modern cinemas would have upgraded by now. It's the ones in smaller rural areas or poorer countries that may not yet be on the bandwagon given the frightening expense of digital projectors.

Sad Professor

WolfForager wrote: »

Are they not moving on from 35mm though? I thought he mentioned something about cinemas having to upgrade their equipment in the FB Note. (In a roundabout way "10,000 roughly will be able to play 48FPS").

I assume he is referring to theatres with digital projectors, not all of which currently support 48fps. The film is being shot on digital but it still has to be transferred to 35mm for film projection, which means they'll have to convert to 24fps.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Was there not something about I think it was Revenge of the Sith only having digital copies? They must have sorted that out before release, but I distinctly remember some sort of hullaballoo over it before release, and only cinemas with digital projectors were going to be showing it.

I think Lucas threatened that at some point in an attempt to increase the take up of digital projection. It didn't work.