Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 5

[Lucien]

double

 

[Lucien]

Gandalf was actually a Maia of Manwë. This is possibly one of a few reasons the Elves saw Gandalf as having more authority than Saruman (to Saruman's disdain) , Manwë being the King of the Valar. Saruman being of Aulë also explains his disposition toward industrial machinations and forging his own Ring of Power, Aulë being the Valar of Smithery.

 

[Dark Sentinel]

Gandalf was actually a Maia of Manwë. This is possibly one of a few reasons the Elves saw Gandalf as having more authority than Saruman (to Saruman's disdain) , Manwë being the King of the Valar. Saruman being of Aulë also explains his disposition toward industrial machinations and forging his own Ring of Power, Aulë being the Valar of Smithery.

You're right. But he spent most of his time in Lórien's gardens in Valinor, where he lived. And he learned of pity from Nienna.

Plus, it's easy to think that Gandalf would be a Maia of Lórien because of his Valinórean (sic ROTK) name Olórin, which I believe means "dreamer" in Quenya. I know it has something to do with dreams/dreaming at any rate.

 

[Boom]

In short: Gandalf is a ****ing boss.

 

[Kane52630]

 

[Thundercrack85]

A badass-looking dwarf. There's a first.

No disrespect to Gimli.

Elrond still looks constipated.

 

[Marvolo]

No excuses!



For those who're curious, here are the "Valar" and some of the "Maiar" of which Lucien is referring to (FYI, I don't need wiki for this **** ):

Manwë, Ulmo, Aulë, Oromë, Tulkas, Námo (Mandos), Irmo (Lórien), Varda, Yavanna, Nienna, Estë, Nessa! Vairë and Vána...oh, and Melkor (aka Morgoth)

The Maiar are of the same race as the Valar, but of a different order, and are usually associated with one or more Valar. For instance, Gandalf (or Olórin) is a Maia in the service of Lórien, Saruman (Curumo) is a Maia of Aulë and Radagast (Aiwendil) is a Maia of Yavanna. Fun fact: before he defected to Morgoth's side, Sauron was a Maia in the service of Aulë.

You're welcome t:

It would seem Aulë is batting 0 for 2.

 

[Marvolo]

Spoiler

Can't wait to see him tear **** up!

 

[CGHulk]

Wow pretty!
http://www-images.theonering.org/images/hobbittrailer02/hobbittrailer02-044.jpg

Frame by frame analysis.
http://www.theonering.net/torwp/201...-journey-trailer-2-frame-by-frame-analysis-2/

 

[Marvolo]

Wow pretty!
http://www-images.theonering.org/images/hobbittrailer02/hobbittrailer02-044.jpg

Frame by frame analysis.
http://www.theonering.net/torwp/201...-journey-trailer-2-frame-by-frame-analysis-2/

I preferred the model Rivendale they used in the LOTR trilogy, but it'll do. Is pretty.

Oh and the one ring.net mentioned something I had forgotten about. Remember back in production hell when they were considering moving the production to Eastern Europe? Talk about dodging a bullet. These films just wouldn't be the same without New Zealand's landscape.

Oh and judging by this picture and the size of Radagast in relation to his surrounding I am pretty sure that he has shrunk himself to ride the bunny sled. I don't think he is using giant bunnies.

Spoiler

Wargs

Spoiler

Gollum

Spoiler

Goblin King Notice Crown Spoiler for spoilers and size

Spoiler

Gandalf up a burning tree

Spoiler

Runtime rumor of 3 hour and 15 minutes Could be BS.
http://www.wildaboutmovies.com/images_5/TheHobbitMovies-TheHobbitTrailer-PeterJackson.php

 

[jmc]

^ Are they not using minatures this time?

 

[Marvolo]

^ Are they not using minatures this time?

Not too long ago I heard that they closed the Bigatures department so I'm gonna say probably not.

 

[tecnowraith]

Has it been mentioned that will the animals including the eagles will actually talk in the film? If my memory is correct , didn't the animals talk in book?

 

[regwec]

The Eagles should have had speaking parts in LOTR, so I don't know whether they will in this. Radagast's role seems to be much expanded, so it seems likely that we will see him conversing with animals. Whether that will be like Tarzan or Narnia remains to be seen.

 

[superkong 500]

Maybe I'm the only one but I don't like how the wargs look, they're way too skinny and hairless. But what I like less is that they look fake as hell, I hope they're a work in progress and come december they'll look photorealistic. Also why did PJ decided to make the goblins cgi? There's no logical reason for this, he could have used suits and prosthetics(like in LoTR) or if he was going with a very animalistic look just enhance the make-up digitally. The one goblin fighting bilbo gives itself away with the super rapid movement, I like the extra gross designs it just doesn't make any sense to make them cgi.

The biggest problem will come when the dwarves fight them, they'll fall without weight and too fast, and more importantly, if you can tell they're cgi then the grittiness and intensity of the fights is greatly diminished. If limbs(specially heads) get chopped they'll fly off weightless. I just hope that when orcs appear(wether its in this one or the next film) they are guys in suits and not full cgi creatures.

 

[Pink Ranger]

Maybe I'm the only one but I don't like how the wargs look. they're way too skinny and hairless, but what I like less is that they look fake as hell.

They're Brazilian wargs.

 

[corby]

Not too long ago I heard that they closed the Bigatures department so I'm gonna say probably not.

 

[Octoberist]

Not too long ago I heard that they closed the Bigatures department so I'm gonna say probably not.

I had no idea. What a shame.

 

[redhawk23]

Don't get me wrong, Gollum has always looked fairly good, especially at the time, but that Still a few posts up from the trailer is absolutely amazing.

He looks completely solid and existing in that space. Look at the teaxturing. Look at the whites of his eyes!

Astounding, plain and simple.

 

[Marvolo]

This was my reaction as well. Yeah one or two model shots were iffy but the rest were great. Wish Jackson had stuck with that.

 

[BobbyCorwin88]

Not too long ago I heard that they closed the Bigatures department so I'm gonna say probably not.

Well of course they can't, they're shooting digital at 48fps. When shot and lit correctly on 35mm film, those kind of miniatures can look 99% real. Film has the ability to bring out just enough detail but leave enough out so that the viewer has a hard time discerning if it's real or not. If you film it long enough you can kind of lose the illusion, so the trick is not to stay on it for too long. The guys who did the miniature work on LOTR were nothing short of geniuses and I was so amazed, and still am today, at how real those buildings and structures look.

The problem with shooting all digital like this, is that it brings out more detail, which is kind of double-edged sword. On the one hand detail is great, especially when you really want to bring it out. It works great for documentaries and TV shows because it helps the show pop and the image is very noticeable and engaging. But when you shoot a huge fantasy epic such as this, you kind of want to bring the audience out of their real life element so to speak, and give it more of a rustic tone and look to it. That's what's so great about LOTR. The cinematography suggests something of a storybook feel as the images use nice touches of brown and green to make it look old and seasoned. But with digital, you see a lot more vibrant colors and detail. It's not all bad. Bag End looks great and I love a lot of the shots I've seen. But if some of you have been wondering why some of the CGI is very noticeable, it's because putting a digital layer on a digital image is not as real-looking as placing a digital layer on exposed film. Film makes CGI look better and more real, simply because the two kind of clash in a good way.

I'm really worried with how all this CGI might look at 48fps in 3D no less. I'm all for innovation, but this isn't selling me at the moment. I really do believe the trick to selling a fantasy movie is to try and make it look as other-worldly as possible and shooting in this method doesn't accomplish that.

 

[regwec]

I think you are probably right. It is slightly unfortunate that a largely experimental technology is being used on a movie that is so keenly awaited. I expect some things will look amazing, and some will look fake and unsatisfactory. We shall see.

 

[Cobblepot]

First thing I noticed was the CGI...damn shame.

 

[Marvolo]

Well of course they can't, they're shooting digital at 48fps. When shot and lit correctly on 35mm film, those kind of miniatures can look 99% real. Film has the ability to bring out just enough detail but leave enough out so that the viewer has a hard time discerning if it's real or not. If you film it long enough you can kind of lose the illusion, so the trick is not to stay on it for too long. The guys who did the miniature work on LOTR were nothing short of geniuses and I was so amazed, and still am today, at how real those buildings and structures look.

The problem with shooting all digital like this, is that it brings out more detail, which is kind of double-edged sword. On the one hand detail is great, especially when you really want to bring it out. It works great for documentaries and TV shows because it helps the show pop and the image is very noticeable and engaging. But when you shoot a huge fantasy epic such as this, you kind of want to bring the audience out of their real life element so to speak, and give it more of a rustic tone and look to it. That's what's so great about LOTR. The cinematography suggests something of a storybook feel as the images use nice touches of brown and green to make it look old and seasoned. But with digital, you see a lot more vibrant colors and detail. It's not all bad. Bag End looks great and I love a lot of the shots I've seen. But if some of you have been wondering why some of the CGI is very noticeable, it's because putting a digital layer on a digital image is not as real-looking as placing a digital layer on exposed film. Film makes CGI look better and more real, simply because the two kind of clash in a good way.

I'm really worried with how all this CGI might look at 48fps in 3D no less. I'm all for innovation, but this isn't selling me at the moment. I really do believe the trick to selling a fantasy movie is to try and make it look as other-worldly as possible and shooting in this method doesn't accomplish that.

Yep, and it also makes make-up, prosthetics, and sets look more like make-up, prosthetics, and sets. Its one thing I've noticed about this film. The dwarves with the heavy prosthetics and make-up and fake hair, it all looks like that. You can see the line between them and the added stuff. Back when the first Hobbit footage was shown at the convention this was one of the complaints. That 48fps makes it all look like what it is. The costumes don't look like clothes they look like costumes, and I now see exactly what they mean. Gandalfs nose prosthetic was a standout to me because I can see where it doesn't quite match with his real nose. You can see the differenc3e in color and the faintest indication of where his real nose ends and the added bit begins. Bofur's beard and chin is particularly fake looking. Many may not notice this stuff, but if 48 and higher frame rates are going to be usedat all the crew will have to work even harder because what worked on 24fps doesn't work as well on 48fps. Make-ups and prosthetics need to be more seemless. Sets can't just be a front with plywood behind. Attention to detail is essential at high frame rates and so far it looks like Jackson's crew haven't entirely hit that mark required of higher frame rates.

Hey, its still LOTR and I'm gonna go in excited and like a kid at christmas, but I do wish this wasn't one of the films to use the framerate. Of all films I wish it hadn't been these three.

 

[redhawk23]

I question the use of supposedly improved technology that produces footage substandard to the technology used a decade before.