Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 8

[HowardStark]

I think 2D is what this should be seen in. Now Star Wars is a 3D Event and btw I can't wait to finally see 3D A New Hope or the original trilogy.

 

[terry78]

I'll probably see it in 3D just to see how it looks once, but I won't be doing it more than once.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Which would equal 2 movies at an hour and a half length.

The 5 endings were story.

How many movies are 90 mins now? "Shorter" films nowadays clock in between 100 and 120 mins. The bigger films all easily pass the 2 hour mark. Even Bayforms, where each films runs over 140 mins. Quantum of Solace was considered extremely short at 107 mins.

Anything over 1 hour.

So that would include the four hour films as well.

 

[C. Lee]

How many movies are 90 mins now? "Shorter" films nowadays clock in between 100 and 120 mins. The bigger films all easily pass the 2 hour mark. Even Bayforms, where each films runs over 140 mins. Quantum of Solace was considered extremely short at 107 mins.

So that would include the four hour films as well.

I'm not going to bother answering you.

I just read where you have been talked about trolling in this thread in the past, and that made me remember talking to you before in other threads about your trolling behavior....so I won't bother discussing things with you.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Trolling? Bringing up and arguing points that some fans do not want to acknowledge is not trolling. However, writing blatant inaccuracies is fine as long as you show pure optimism towards the project.

And the fact that they did release the ROTK at 201 mins, why would there be "extended edition" of this 164 mins film that is apparently already bloated? It reeks of cash grab.

 

[hammerhedd11]

Every film ever made is a "cash grab". Don't kid yourself. It's a business. Just be happy that someone who holds such affection for the material is the one controlling the ship.

 

[Spider-Who?]

It reeks of cash grab.

Everything is a cash grab. Hell, even the book itself was a cash grab. If Tolkien cared more about giving England its own mythology than he did about money, he would have handed out copies on the street instead of going to a publisher.

The fact of the matter is, everything ever sold was and will be made for the money. Sure, there is love of the craft, but in the end there's always a point where money comes into play. That is not necessarily a bad thing, nor does it automatically negate the love the artist holds for their work.

There's no point in standing on a soap box and saying its a cash grab, because everyone around you is rolling their eyes and saying "duh". Personally, I'm totally fine with it do long as the movies entertain me. The more time I get to spend in middle-earth the better.

 

[echostation]

this is so far getting mixed reviews... defn not as good as the original LOTR... has Peter Jackson gone too far and overly serious in thinking he is a master filmmaker in terms of HObbit?

 

[Marvolo]

Eric Walkuski's review from Joblo.com. He is a casual fan of the originals. Doesn't dislike them but doesn't go crazy over them. Anyways he gives it a 7/10.

About the film:

People who love the original trilogy can rest assured that THE HOBBIT is wholly keeping with the general aura and atmosphere of those movies, while perhaps falling somewhat short of the novelty that they presented a decade ago.

About the 48fps:

We'll wrap up with a quick word about the 48fps: I'd recommend skipping it. THE HOBBIT looks completely bizarre for at least the first 20 minutes, as characters appear to move too fast and a strange inauthentic quality hangs over most of the Hobbiton sequences. One does adjust, more or less, but just when you think you're used to is, a scene comes along that throws you out of the immediacy of the picture once again. Action scenes or sweeping aerial shots look appropriately grand, but simple conversations or character moments are unorthodox in a most unwelcome way. I'm glad I saw this high frame rate experiment, if only for the sake of saying now I know what it looks like, but I don't think I'd want to witness THE HOBBIT – or any other movie – this way again.

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/review-the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey

 

[Kane52630]

http://n8ma.deviantart.com/art/THE-HOBBIT-318049849

 

[matrix_ghost]

I assume the only way to see it in 48fps is in 3D, because all the advance showings with the high frame rate options near me are only in Real D.

True.
The 48 fps was meant to smooth out the imperfections you get with 3-D .
'Hobbit opens next tuesday in Holland but i'm going to watch it Friday in HFR.
Even if it sucks balls , i'd still like to see what the big fuss is with High Frame Rates.

I am curious though if Cameron is going to go 60 fps with the Avatar sequels.

 

[Marvolo]

http://n8ma.deviantart.com/art/THE-HOBBIT-318049849

I wonder why Beorn is on that poster? I thought he was bumped to part 2.

 

[Kane52630]

It's a fanmade poster I found floating around.

 

[craigdbfan]

this is so far getting mixed reviews... defn not as good as the original LOTR... has Peter Jackson gone too far and overly serious in thinking he is a master filmmaker in terms of HObbit?

Too much blue.

 

[Marvolo]

Too much blue.

Clearly there was too much teal.

 

[HowardStark]

For some reason I liked the poster best with Gandalf By himself. And Joblo reviewers are very hard to please and give allot of negative reviews.

 

[HowardStark]

How many movies are 90 mins now? "Shorter" films nowadays clock in between 100 and 120 mins. The bigger films all easily pass the 2 hour mark. Even Bayforms, where each films runs over 140 mins. Quantum of Solace was considered extremely short at 107 mins.



So that would include the four hour films as well.

Today usually the 90 min films are the romantic comedies or animated features.

 

[Marvolo]

For some reason I liked the poster best with Gandalf By himself. And Joblo reviewers are very hard to please and give allot of negative reviews.

I frequent Joblo.com, and their reviews are generally fair. Out of their last 28 reviews 20 received a rating of 7 or higher. Eric and Jim Law tend to give high ratings to good films, and favorable scores to decent films. Chris Bumbray is the one that is the hardest to please, but he gave the Hobbit a 7.

 

[HowardStark]

Bare in mind haven't read many reviews there but maybe i am getting it mixed up with The site that the head guy is friends with Stallone.

 

[HowardStark]

Now on RT Chris gives good praise to the acting By McKellan and Bilbo which really has not be discussed on here. Also how will the low key actors be in the film as well that plays the Dwarfs

 

[Marvolo]

Bare in mind haven't read many reviews there but maybe i am getting it mixed up with The site that the head guy is friends with Stallone.

Could be that other site, but Joblo had a moment a ways back when Chris Bumbray went through this spell of tearing every movie he reviewed a new a$$hole. I got pretty turned off by it, but the community called him out on it, and things got worked out. I'm not sure exactly what was going on with him, but he has been much more fair in his reviews since.

Now on RT Chris gives good praise to the acting By McKellan and Bilbo which really has not be discussed on here. Also how will the low key actors be in the film as well that plays the Dwarfs

In Eric's review he said that Armitage as

Throrin stands out because he's their humorless King, and while Armitage is imposing, he's no Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) in the charisma department.

 

[spidey-dude]

I think 2D is what this should be seen in. Now Star Wars is a 3D Event and btw I can't wait to finally see 3D A New Hope or the original trilogy.

I dunno this was one of the best 3D ive seen, wasnt jarring at all

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Everything is a cash grab. Hell, even the book itself was a cash grab. If Tolkien cared more about giving England its own mythology than he did about money, he would have handed out copies on the street instead of going to a publisher.

The fact of the matter is, everything ever sold was and will be made for the money. Sure, there is love of the craft, but in the end there's always a point where money comes into play. That is not necessarily a bad thing, nor does it automatically negate the love the artist holds for their work.

There's no point in standing on a soap box and saying its a cash grab, because everyone around you is rolling their eyes and saying "duh". Personally, I'm totally fine with it do long as the movies entertain me. The more time I get to spend in middle-earth the better.

There is a big and clear difference between asking someone to pay for the film and then to cut out material so you can put it back in a sell another version of the film.

If the "authentic" version of the film is the extended edition, which would still be shorter then the ROTK theatrical cut, why not release that one in theaters? The LOTR extended editions were understandable considering the length of the films. If this film is theoretically thin already, if there is more genuine, good and insightful material out there, why isn't it all ready in the film, especially when the last LOTR was longer?

There is making money and then there is clear contradictory statements, like talking about how you made a the films a trilogy because you have so much material, but then releasing Extended Editions of the films. You have too much material for 2 films, now you have too much for 3 films?

There is also the real chance that we will be scraping the bottom of the barrel here. I don't find the LOTR EE to necessarily be better films, but they most definitely add something. They are aren't full of completely superfluous material, but more supplementary material. It is good for lazy afternoons.

The reason we will see a EE is because they did it last time.

 

[Bruce Malone]

I was just reading the ign review and the comment was made on how all the orcs/goblins are now cgi and how they obviously stick out. Just watching that released clip of the goblin fight and I have to agree.

Re-watching the The LOTR trilogy recently and the make-up/prothetics on the orcs and uru-kai were fantastic. I feel like this is a case of jackson going all "George Lucasy" and thinking if it's not cg it's not worth it now.

 

[redhawk23]

Jackson certainly seems to feel that practical effects are no longer worth the frustration of what he perceives as their limitations. In a recent interview with the LA Times he mentions a focus on not being restricted to "the human triangle" as far as facial features go.

Prosthetic makeup is always frustrating. At the end of the day, if you want the character to talk, which a lot of the Orcs and goblins do, you can design the most incredible prosthetics, but you’ve still got eyes where the eyes have to be and the mouth where the mouth has to be. That human triangle, two eyes and a mouth, is very difficult to disguise, no matter what you do with the ears and heads and chins and noses. One of the things we’re doing on ‘The Hobbit’ — which is definitely technology that we have available now that we didn’t have 10 years ago — we often shoot the Orcs as people in suits but they just have a leotard on their head with motion capture dots on it. A lot of the Orcs even though they’re played by performers, the makeup is going to be CG makeup, which allows me to put their eyes further apart. They can open their mouths and scream in a much more dynamic way than they ever could.

As I've mentioned before, its ironic that Jackson is leaving behind practical effects due to the limitations of facial features and yet the work of the originally intended director of these films, Guillermo del Toro features creatures and characters with all kinds of eye lines and mouths and body parts, and of all different sizes, largely done with practical effects and for mere fractions of the cost of Jackson's films from the past decade.