Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 7

[georgec]

Originally Posted by craigdbfan

I feel that was done on purpose. There's a more adventure folksy, heck even Rankin/Bass sort of feel to a lot of them. I mean just listen to the ending/credit song for The Hobbit in comparison to those of all three of the LOTR films. They scaled it down on purpose I think.

I see what you mean. Yea, it reminds me of Williams' SW prequel scores. There were some great cues, but much of the music was, for want of better word, "filler" or "incidental" without being as catchy.

Not every score need be 100% catchy, but when I first listened to the FOTR score I was impressed strongly with the fellowship theme, Bag End theme, Rivendell theme, etc. After listening to The Hobbit the only thing that stuck out was the Lonely Mountain theme, apart from identifiable music from Shore's previous scores.

I don't mean to complain at all as the score is fantastic, but it's just something I noticed.

[redhawk23]

Also though, similar to the Star Wars prequel situation, the music simply won't be as distinct because we are getting it in the context of listening to the Lord of the Rings score for over a decade. We know how everyone involved approaches this material.

[georgec]

Exactly. And it's perfectly fine. I think if I hadn't heard the previous LOTR scores then I'd definitely be more impressioned.

[DarthSkywalker]

I read that someone who saw the film compared it more to ROTK then FOTR. Considering the material, I am not sure why that is.

[Kane52630]

The motif of the Misty Mountains song (and the song itself) is the main catchy party for me in the score so far.


Also I went ahead and borrowed The Hobbit book since it's been over a decade since I last (partially) read it. I got to say, the first chapter alone could fill 25-30 mins of the movie. Having the movie in 3 parts is making more sense to me than ever before.

[CapedCrusader14]

Originally Posted by DarthSkywalker

I read that someone who saw the film compared it more to ROTK then FOTR. Considering the material, I am not sure why that is.

Well that's just great.

*sarcasm*

[Solidus]

Originally Posted by Kane52630

The motif of the Misty Mountains song (and the song itself) is the main catchy party for me in the score so far.


Also I went ahead and borrowed The Hobbit book since it's been over a decade since I last (partially) read it. I got to say, the first chapter alone could fill 25-30 mins of the movie. Having the movie in 3 parts is making more sense to me than ever before.

Well the thing is also when I went back and re-read it, I kinda felt the same way. Of course I knew that the Appendix stuff could fill a lot of these three films. But in honestly just reading the book it could easily be very long as well. The reason is a lot of the actual "writing" in The Hobbit was aimed towards children so many things were simplified and just glossed over details. Like how many times the Dwarves would "talk about these great adventures in the past" then that was all we knew.

I think to make the Battle of the Fiver Armies better we really do need to get to know the Dwarves, and their past (and that of their ancestors). But really I kinda realized that the simple writing in The Hobbit kinda glosses over things that could easily be filled in.

So I'm more confident in them making this into three movies then I was before. There is a lot of stuff in the Appendix and the book at self then I remembered.

[jf300]

There's also the case of making The Battle of Five Armies an actual battle rather than having our main character unconscious throughout and then waking up to find it over.

The final battle, knowing Jackson, will probably take about 30 minutes including all the build up.

[DarthSkywalker]

Originally Posted by jf300

There's also the case of making The Battle of Five Armies an actual battle rather than having our main character unconscious throughout and then waking up to find it over.

The final battle, knowing Jackson, will probably take about 30 minutes including all the build up.

It is going to need to be a lot longer then that if you include all the build up.

The way the movies look right now, the second film is going to more then likely end right before or after Smaug's visit to Laketown.

[Slushy]

Why was Lord Of The Rings made before the Hobbit?

[DarthSkywalker]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Why was Lord Of The Rings made before the Hobbit?

A much easier sell probably.

[lime]

Originally Posted by DarthSkywalker

Terrible quality, but the footage is wow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cUCT1jSSNw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jMLCi_ujPk

Do we have this two spots in good quality yet?

[HowardStark]

Originally Posted by redhawk23

Slashfilm included a quote from Peter Jackson from an LATimes interview originally held at comicon. In it Jackson includes his thoughts about the frustrations of practical effects and stuntwork and the new films' increased reliance on CGI.


I can't help but find this quote to be troubling. Obvious Peter Jackson is far more qualified than me to judge the state of cgi tech and the competance of his own employees and their designs, but we've seen these kinds of attitudes before and not always with the best results. While he describes the frustrations of being tied to human anatomy with designs and setpieces, those limitations often force some much needed restraint on artists. Its a major reason why the effects work on Jurrassic Park still hold up in varying degrees today. How many potentially great scene have we seen undercut by weightless or poorly textured cg?

Maybe the technology finally has caught up to the whims of directors to be freed from the limitations of the past, but I'm still sceptical. This also shows a clear divide between Jackson and Del Toro in their approach.
GDT certainly uses CGI but he's also not afraid to push the limitations of practical effects. Jackson does specifically mention that his frustrations lies with speaking characters, but even then, we have seen great puppetry and robotics work over the years.

Perhaps the real limitations lie with what performers are willing to subject themselves to. I have the ustmost respect of Andy Serkis, but with actors like Doug Jones, who says you can space the eys out?

I am pretty sure he was kinda referring more or less about LOTR and Lurtz costume and the speaking goblins took hours in make up and needed special mouth designs if were talking orcs or goblins. I think he is just meaning its easier to not risk tearing the prostetics.

[Brain Damage]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Why was Lord Of The Rings made before the Hobbit?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe it was an issue with the rights.

[Brain Damage]

Originally Posted by HowardStark

I am pretty sure he was kinda referring more or less about LOTR and Lurtz costume and the speaking goblins took hours in make up and needed special mouth designs if were talking orcs or goblins. I think he is just meaning its easier to not risk tearing the prostetics.

Well, that's a shame considering the Uruks and orcs in LOTR looked so damn good. When Fellowship came out I was 7 or 8 and Lurtz scarred the living daylights out of me, and that's because he looked so real and so dangerous, especially when interacting with the other actors and the sets.

At best, CGI would be just attempting to recreate the realistic look of the orcs and uruks, and I have a feeling if that's the case, it won't look anywhere near as good.

[Excelsior.]

Heavy makeup may hinder the facial muscles used to emote complex emotions and instead we get violent movements of the neck and mouth as an attempt to overcompensate. So I understand completely what bothers jackson about prosthetics and why he chose to go the motion captured way, at least for the faces. Remember, Davy Jones blew away pretty much every CGI and made up creatures back in 2006, and Jackson has had six years to develop on that wonderful tech. I have absolutely no doubt the orcs will look, move and emote better than ever before.

Now the sanitized digital look of the movie is another matter. I am not a big fan of that.

[ThePhantasm]

Originally Posted by Excelsior.

Heavy makeup may hinder the facial muscles used to emote complex emotions and instead we get violent movements of the neck and mouth as an attempt to overcompensate.

I liked that aspect of it. Made the orcs seem even more inhuman and frightening.

[DarthSkywalker]

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

I liked that aspect of it. Made the orcs seem even more inhuman and frightening.

I don't know how inhuman it made them look after years and years of watching films with prosthetics.

[Excelsior.]

While the Orcs and Uruk hais are inherently fouler creatures, in the book they seemed a bit less consistently angry and hateful and a bit more rounded as sentient beings. At least Saruman's Uruk's seemed to have a few noble qualities to them like the sense of utmost duty to their lord that would enable them to run and run without rest in bringing Merry and Pipin to Isengard. Perhaps Jackson wants to capture that in these installments?

[:eek:]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Why was Lord Of The Rings made before the Hobbit?

Lord of the Rings are more popular books than The Hobbit, and I think LotR always was Peter Jackson's dream project (after all he originally never had plans of returning as a director for The Hobbit)

[cabel]

If I recall correctly, Jackson originally wanted to film the Hobbit alongside LOTR and release them as a trilogy (Hobbit being the first one, LOTR split between the other two). But the rights to the Hobbit were still tied up with MGM, so Jackson refocused on LOTR as a trilogy.

[Octoberist]

Wait all the orcs and goblins are all CG this time around? I thought I saw countless dudes in costume, perhaps with the Orc, and the CG was reserved for the Gobs?

[Vartha]

Originally Posted by Brain Damage

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe it was an issue with the rights.

Yup that was the major problem.

[Vartha]

Originally Posted by lime

Do we have this two spots in good quality yet?

just found this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwhJLoJ6txg

[Quasimod0]

Originally Posted by Kane52630

The motif of the Misty Mountains song (and the song itself) is the main catchy party for me in the score so far.


Also I went ahead and borrowed The Hobbit book since it's been over a decade since I last (partially) read it. I got to say, the first chapter alone could fill 25-30 mins of the movie. Having the movie in 3 parts is making more sense to me than ever before.

The misty mountains song sung by the dwarves is AMAZING. gives me chills