[D'rek]

Whether they are filming it in 3-D or not, they *are* apparently filming it at a higher image-rate (frame rate?) than most movies. I forget the numbers exactly, something like 24 fps is the usual and they're doing it in 48 fps. If anyone has tried watching shows converted from standard definition to HD, with the HD TVs' speed-boost thingy feature (forget what it's called) and found that it becomes annoyingly realistic and looks like it was all shot by a home camcorder... this is the same effect. Brace yourself.

[QuickTidal]

D, on 23 April 2011 - 03:25 PM, said:

Whether they are filming it in 3-D or not, they *are* apparently filming it at a higher image-rate (frame rate?) than most movies. I forget the numbers exactly, something like 24 fps is the usual and they're doing it in 48 fps. If anyone has tried watching shows converted from standard definition to HD, with the HD TVs' speed-boost thingy feature (forget what it's called) and found that it becomes annoyingly realistic and looks like it was all shot by a home camcorder... this is the same effect. Brace yourself.

Yeah, this is an annoying thing that my gf's HD TV does, but you can fiddle with the setting so the res-up doesn't do it. The problem is we are all used to watching TV with a blur/drag of a few miliseconds which has been imperceptible till now, but HD shows things exactly how they were shot, and that makes for the "realistic camcordery" thing...but by fiddling a few settings you can get the blur/drag you are used to to show up again and STILL be HD quality sharpness.

That said, I would never be concerned with a film with that shooting frame-rate. The reason is that films like this go through like 20 different filters in post-production....it won't look like that I promise you.

For example, if you look at rough raw footage from LOTR (in some of the special features on the DVD's) it looks like campy shit...it's not until it is layered through the proper filters in post that it looks like the gorgeous films we love. This has always been the way, with every film. Most notably, the Star Wars prequels...all shot on High Def Cam's and not proper film cameras....but after they go through post, they look just fine.

[Tsundoku]

masan, on 22 April 2011 - 04:02 PM, said:

General Pattonhammer, on 15 April 2011 - 09:33 PM, said:

I took the 3-D comment by Peter Jackson as him taking a piss (I hope that is the case anyway).

The vid has been taken down, anybody got another link as i'm lazy. I sincerely hope you are right although the pressure from the studio execs for 3D will be massive. It will be a lot easier to justify hiking up the prices for the biggest film of the year.

I'm with Sombra on the 3D issue, I fucking hate it.

Is this it? Just found it on rotten tomatoes:

http://www.rottentom...ailers/11142704

[Beezulbubba]

^^^ The Rotten Tomatoes link didn't work for me. I found it again on YouTube again:



I actually paid more attention this time, at the beginning (0:24 mark) looks like one of of them fancy 3D cameras, so indeed it looks like the Hobbit will be in 3D.

Spoiler

Ohhhh! that probably means we will get to see the arrow (first person) as it finds Smaug's weakness!.... lame!

[QuickTidal]

Why does everyone forget that they always release 3D-ified films in 2D as well?

ALWAYS.

AVATAR, CLASH OF THE TITANS, GREEN HORNET ect...I saw all of them in 2-Dimensions people!

What do you think they do when the DVD/BluRay comes out....2D.

AKA, we don't need to complain about 3D anymore...you don't have to see it that way.

That is all I have to say about that.

That said, this video diary got me SUPER excited, just playing Howard Shore's "Concerning Hobbits" in the background made me giddy!

[Tsundoku]

Some movies just have to be seen on the Big Screen to get the full experience. I just resent the fact that in the last year, anything vaguely "blockbuster-ish" automatically has to be in 3D (even if is tacked on - and poorly at that in many cases). So if I want to see it, I have to catch a 10am screening at a cinema an hour away, instead of 3-4 a lot closer as they may not - especially in the case of my local cineplex - even HAVE 2D sessions.

Everything will be shot in 3D soon. Witness the uptake of it in pr0n (heh, see the Sex and Zen remake, which outsold Titanic ... in Hong Kong) and soon to be in most TV. Basic 3D TVs are in homes now for what you once paid for a decent but not top of the line plasma/LCD/LED widescreen.

But I can't watch them. I have tried at a mates place. The glasses do NOT work in combination with mine.

I'm sure they'll iron out the kinks one day, but too late for me.

Yes I know blind people have it far worse, but it's not as if they enjoyed 2D now is it?

On topic - why 2 movies for The Hobbit? The book itself is half the size of any of the 3 LOTR installments, and (thankfully) PJ chopped the shit out of LOTR. Is it because The Hobbit is a much faster-paced novel, meaning you can expand certain sections that only had a short mention in the book, ie the battle of the 5 armies?

This post has been edited by Sombra: 13 May 2011 - 10:15 PM

[QuickTidal]

Sombra, on 13 May 2011 - 09:39 AM, said:

Everything will be shot in 3D soon. Witness the uptake of it in pr0n (heh, see the Sex and Zen remake, which outsold Titanic ... in Hong Kong) and soon to be in most TV. Basic 3D TVs are in homes now for what you once paid for a decent but not top of the line plasma/LCD/LED widescreen.

Er...no. 3D is not bringing the returns for such an overhaul. 3D is not like HD. 3D is a gimmick that doesn't really need to work for a lot of movies. While studios are busy 3D-ifying things now, I am sure that in a few years time it will be looked back at with moderate forms of slight amusement as a failed carnival experiment. 3D once showed it face before, in the 80's...it was huge...around films like JAWS 3D and FRIDAY THE 13th Part 4...and studios did it for a while, but it died out.

Aside from digital sound and projection, nothing so different has ever happened in the history of cinema...as you can see there are a thunderous amount of people who loathe 3D-ified films..and studios do take note of this. In fact, I don't know if you know but there are WHOLE jobs at every major Hollywood studio marketing dept's that soul purpose consists of trawling through internet comments sections and reviews ect to find what people are saying about that studios films...and through those comments, the thick headed suits who run those places will EVENTUALLY get the idea that 3D is the suck most of the time...but first they have to do it for a while against the grain of popular opinion...cause that's the kind of weight Hollywood suits have.

It'll go...give it time. I'll actually go on record as saying probably by the end of 2012...or 2013.

and 3D TV's are lame. Like super lame. Have you ever sat in front of one? They are ridiculous. They won't catch on, trust me.

[Tsundoku]

Yeah, they also did that wacky 3D thing back in the 50s or 60s. Ever seen it? Quite funny.

I admit that apparently (I'm taking people's word for it here), this new version of 3D CAN actually enhance a film visually. You just have to do it right, and subtly so that it blends in with the rest. I guess I'm not against the medium so much as the bandwagon.

If you are right and it goes the way of the dodo by he end of 2013 - tell you what, I'll buy you a Coke.

Yes, I have tried the 3D TV at my mates place. It gave me a headache.

[QuickTidal]

Sombra, on 13 May 2011 - 10:21 PM, said:

If you are right and it goes the way of the dodo by he end of 2013 - tell you what, I'll buy you a Coke.

I want a goat and a laptop too. A good one, not one of those leper laptops!

[Beezulbubba]

Quote

Stephen Fry joins Hobbit cast as the Master of Laketown

Writer and broadcaster Stephen Fry is to have a role in The Hobbit, its director Peter Jackson has announced.

The film-maker said he was "thrilled" to confirm Fry would be playing 'The Master of Laketown' in one or both of the Lord of the Rings prequels he is currently shooting in New Zealand.

"I've known Stephen for several years," wrote the director in a casting update posted on the Facebook website.

"He's a terrific actor and will create a very memorable Master for us."

According to Jackson, he and Fry are currently working on a new version of classic World War II film The Dam Busters.

Laketown, or Esgaroth, is a place where elves and humans meet to trade in the fictional universe of JRR Tolkien.

Martin Freeman and Sir Ian McKellen are among the other British actors currently working on Jackson's eagerly awaited addition to the Rings saga.

The Hobbit: Part 1 is due in cinemas in December 2012, with its follow-up due for release 12 months later.

LINK

[Primateus]

Stephen Fry = instant awesomeness!

[QuickTidal]

Well, Orlando Bloom is now confirmed by Jackson as returning to reprise his role in some way.

http://www.comingsoo...ws.php?id=78145

[Binder of Demons]

QuickTidal, on 27 May 2011 - 07:45 PM, said:

Well, Orlando Bloom is now confirmed by Jackson as returning to reprise his role in some way.

http://www.comingsoo...ws.php?id=78145

Well that just knocked back the awesomeness factor a few notches.

[Tsundoku]

Binder of Demons, on 28 May 2011 - 05:07 AM, said:

QuickTidal, on 27 May 2011 - 07:45 PM, said:

Well, Orlando Bloom is now confirmed by Jackson as returning to reprise his role in some way.

http://www.comingsoo...ws.php?id=78145

Well that just knocked back the awesomeness factor a few notches.

The gay and pre/teen female audiences will be excited, however.

[QuickTidal]

I truly have no problem with him appearing. He may not have been in The hobbit book, but his father was and so was his elf clan...so I can't see how it harms the story to have him in.

Only die-hard Hobbit purists will get upset methinks.

[Jade-Green Pig-Hog Swine-Beast]

I think it'll be cool, as long as it's in keeping with the story and it's just a brief appearance like...an invented conversation or two or something similar. If they start including him in bits where he's just not supposed to be then that's getting silly, but I don't think Jackson would stoop to those levels of unfaithfulness just to please Legolas fans.

[Beezulbubba]

Link: http://geektyrant.co...the-hobbit.html

Quote

Benedict Cumberbatch to voice Smaug in THE HOBBIT

We already knew that Benedict Cumberbatch was cast in Peter Jackson's The Hobbit, but we didn't know what role he would play. We thought he might take on the role of Bard the Bowman, but that role was filled by Luke Evans earlier today. Turns out Cumberbatch will end up being the voice of the dragon Smaug, and portrayig him via motion capture, which is pretty cool. He is also going to lend his voice to the character Necromancer.

The actor plays Sherlock Holmes on the BBC/PBS series Sherlock alongside Martin Freeman who plays Bilbo Baggins. He also starred in Danny Bolyle's stage broduction of Frankenstien, and will be seen in Steven Spielberg's War Horse. Apparently he is quite the talented actor.

[McLovin]

Sombra, on 13 May 2011 - 09:39 AM, said:

On topic - why 2 movies for The Hobbit? The book itself is half the size of any of the 3 LOTR installments, and (thankfully) PJ chopped the shit out of LOTR.

More movies = more money. Look at Potter 7.

Of course, your counterargument will be, but then why didn't they expand LOTR? Look at Potter 5 (longest book, shortest film). Not all decisions make sense.

[QuickTidal]

I don't want to necro a thread so I'll just post this here.

Remember folks, today is the day the LOTR Extended Edition trilogy gets released on BluRay and it seems to have a decent (in Canada anyways) price ($64.99 everywhere)...at least for the next few days...after which it looks like it goes up to $120....

Just a random heads up. I'll be buying mine.

[Beezulbubba]

http://www.slashfilm...acksons-hobbit/