[worry]

While Gimli was probably the butt of too many jokes in LOTR, the Hobbit is certainly a more whimsical tale by a long stretch, dwarves included...if anything, PJ has made the story a little darker than the book by folding it into the world of his previous adaptation (and apparently including Gandalf's solo adventures). All that said, it's a 2.5 min trailer dominated by a single dwarf song in the very beginning of the story, with only brief hints of scenes in the rest of the movie. I'm optimistic.

[MWKarsa]

Considering Tolkien wrote The Hobbit as a children's book it is defintely "lighter" than LOTR and certain things were changed/adapted when JRR wrote LOTR to reflect that so I can't disagree with the darker tone to match the movie versions of the story as presented by PJ. I treat the books and movies as separate things and can enjoy them both in different ways. I'm pumped to see this movie and probably just as pumped for the soundtrack as the LOTR soundtracks were fantastic.

I will be interested to see if the movie shows the scene where the troop is stuck up a tree surrounded by wolves with Gandalf flinging flaming pinecones at them- I doubt it but it would be funny to see.

[worry]

I hope they do! It's kind of an awesome MacGyver moment and Ian McKellen has that playful mischievous twinkle in his eye enough to make the moment work on screen in a non-cartoony way.

[QuickTidal]

worrywort, on 22 December 2011 - 02:20 AM, said:

I hope they do! It's kind of an awesome MacGyver moment and Ian McKellen has that playful mischievous twinkle in his eye enough to make the moment work on screen in a non-cartoony way.

Indeed, I also hope that scene is in the film! I'm sure PJ could do it justice and make it look great!

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Aragorn never makes an appearance in the Hobbit, does he? It's been a while...

[QuickTidal]

Raymond Luxury Yacht, on 23 December 2011 - 11:58 AM, said:

Aragorn never makes an appearance in the Hobbit, does he? It's been a while...

No, and he won't even be in the tie-in LOTR fleshing out bits either as Viggo Mortenson has not been contacted. But that makes sense since he's human and would have been at best a kid during the events of THE HOBBIT.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 23 December 2011 - 01:13 PM

[polishgenius]

QuickTidal, on 23 December 2011 - 01:13 PM, said:

No, and he won't even be in the tie-in LOTR fleshing out bits either as Viggo Mortenson has not been contacted. But that makes sense since he's human and would have been at best a kid during the events of THE HOBBIT.

He's human, but of Numenorean descent and therefore very long-lived; he's 87 in LotR which would make him in his late 20s I think in the Hobbit.

But I don't think Gandalf had found him yet by the time of the book. The first few pages, although told jokingly, imply that he looked for a Hero but couldn't find one, and that's why he settled on a Burglar.

[HiddenOne]

I can't watch the trailer -

Nerdgasm interruptus

[MWKarsa]

Aragorn was about 10 during the time of the Hobbit and though staying at Rivendell as a foster-son to Elrond at the time Bilbo passsed through his ancestry was concealed. Gandalf and Aragorn first meet 15 years after the events of the Hobbit.

[polishgenius]

MWKarsa, on 23 December 2011 - 04:22 PM, said:

Aragorn was about 10 during the time of the Hobbit and though staying at Rivendell as a foster-son to Elrond at the time Bilbo passsed through his ancestry was concealed. Gandalf and Aragorn first meet 15 years after the events of the Hobbit.

You're right. I counted back the years from Bilbo's leaving party to the Hobbit but I consistently fail to remember that there's nearly two decades between the first chapter of LotR and the rest of it.

[QuickTidal]

I'm sure you've all heard the hubub back in April about Jackson showing ten minutes of footage (at CinemaCon) in 48FPS (as it was shot) in contrast with industry standard 24FPS and that it divided the people who saw it since it's so much more REAL looking it can tend to look like HD TV...some liked it and some didn't. Purists like the flickery, dated look of 24FPS as they feel it gives films a warm tone...and 48FPS they claim steals it.

I for one am quite excited that it's been shot at the higher framerate as it will be clearer, and much more fluid overall. I also feel that once your eyes adjust we will wonder how we watched flickery 24FPS in the first place.

At any rate, Jackson is shooting with RED camera's and so here's a link...

http://www.red.com/s...n-red/red-reels

Click on EPIC 700 REEL and watch. That is true 48FPS, 4K digital...and I think it looks GORGEOUS.

Curious what others think of this hubub.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 25 May 2012 - 04:36 PM

[worry]

That didn't look anything like the complaints made it sound. I've heard alternately that it made it look like older British TV dramas, or that it would look like home video (something like Atanarjuat/The Fast Runner: ) and it didn't really look like either.

[QuickTidal]

worrywort, on 25 May 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

That didn't look anything like the complaints made it sound. I've heard alternately that it made it look like older British TV dramas, or that it would look like home video (something like Atanarjuat/The Fast Runner: ) and it didn't really look like either.

Indeed, which is why I can't understand the folks who seem bothered by it.

They also seem to equate it to the upsampling that HD TV's use to get the faster framerate effect for HD stuff...which is a whole different ballgame that adds frames that aren't there to begin with.

Basically I have faith in folk like Jackson and James Cameron who are pushing this, they ADORE films and film-making and would not do something that was detrimental or a step backward.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 25 May 2012 - 09:43 PM

[QuickTidal]

Oh and the TATTOO film at the link is the better example since it doesn't have all the slow mo...but even THAT one looks good to me. I see the hyper realism, but with proper lighting and post-prod I think it looks really polished!

[Traveller]

QuickTidal, on 25 May 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

worrywort, on 25 May 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

That didn't look anything like the complaints made it sound. I've heard alternately that it made it look like older British TV dramas, or that it would look like home video (something like Atanarjuat/The Fast Runner: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=I_h-n3BAAQU ) and it didn't really look like either.

Indeed, which is why I can't understand the folks who seem bothered by it.

They also seem to equate it to the upsampling that HD TV's use to get the faster framerate effect for HD stuff...which is a whole different ballgame that adds frames that aren't there to begin with.

Basically I have faith in folk like Jackson and James Cameron who are pushing this, they ADORE films and film-making and would not do something that was detrimental or a step backward.

Really? George Lucas loves films and film making, and.... well. I'm not saying it will be bad, but not everything in HD is better.. in some ways the costumes and sets in older films that are set way in the past actually look better than new ones. The faster framerate highlights every stitch and speck of dust, which means extra detail has to be spent making everything look perfect. Which ends up looking wrong imo, because clothes, armor, swords and skin were not all pristine, clean and perfect. So I can kind of see the point of the criticism.

The new tech might be good for some types of film, but I'd prefer to see older and current film tech used more creatively - for me, LotR's would benefit from some filters and soft edges for atmosphere, rather than a load of wide shots of perfectly crisply rendered but soulless cg images.

I really would have liked to see Del Toro handle this on his own after what Jackson did to LotRs. I haven't forgiven him for Kong, either... a film he loved, like I did, as a child, and then turned into a load of CG bollocks, just because the technology was available to do so.

We'll see.

This post has been edited by Traveller: 03 August 2012 - 09:08 PM

[worry]

But the CG stuff was the best thing about Kong....Kong/Serkis himself, the island, the dinos, the creepy crawlies. It was the actual humans (other than Naomi Watts) who were off base and distracting.

Lovely Bones, on the other hand, had some of the worst, most disruptive CG I've seen in any film of any era.

[Nocturnal]

So this is going to be a trilogy, right?

[Studious Lock]

It is now, PJ recently confirmed they are making 3 movies, probably to make more money. I dont care, as long as they make the movies well they can have my money.

[Nocturnal]

Hmm, well I just don't see why do they need to split it that much. I don't recall that much reading material in The Hobbit book. I just hope they don't make serious changes in the movie because of that.

And how is it going to get split anyway? At which points in the book? Any news on that?

This post has been edited by Nocturnal: 03 August 2012 - 11:58 PM

[worry]

I think you can find that info here:
http://www.hobbitmoviepsychic.com