Peter Jackson announced that there will be a third Hobbit film:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-jackson/an-unexpected-journey/10151114596546558
That's a remarkable amount of footage for a ~300 page book, compared to say Lord of the Rings (which is maybe 1500 pages?)
I have this feeling there's going to be a lot of walking haha
Ya, over all I LOVE the extended edition of LOTR accept for the first movie... Just seems very SLOW.
Agreed, there was a certain pacing to the book where everything just kept getting bigger and bigger, that didn't translate too well in the first extended edition film.
They're taking the hobbits to Megaprofitsgard!
Quote from: Darren Dirt on July 30, 2012, 07:14:34 PM
They're taking the hobbits to Megaprofitsgard!
An army of Jar-Jar Binks' fighting forever IN THREE DEE
Two = likely great and true to the book without fluff.
Three I am gravely concerned.
Quote from: Lazybones on July 30, 2012, 08:30:03 PM
Three I am gravely concerned.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=gravely+concerned&tbm=isch
Perhaps a bit extreme choice of words? #fwp #humblingperspective
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2k_EiYh4IU
new trailer (at least one I haven't seen before)
spoiler-filled [p]review sums it up as "a lot of fun, however long and uneven"
http://www.slashfilm.com/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-hfr-3d-review-peter-jacksons-latest-is-rousing-yet-repetitive/
(but lots of camera sweeps over/through epic battles -- yay!)
I like the book, it's an easy read you can get through in a couple nights more or less, I'm not surprised in the least that they are going to pad it out (see thread title).
What could have been a nice tight film has been stretched out into a trilogy for reasons I suspect are less artistic and more profit motivated.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on December 06, 2012, 10:19:52 AM
stretched out into a trilogy for reasons I suspect are less artistic and more profit motivated.
or maybe half half?
It seems Mr. Jackson himself, personally, loves the NZ landscape, and therefore loves the epic panning and slow, lengthy walks (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=clerks+2+Lord+of+the+rings+walking) and whatnot that were clearly his signature of the LOTR 10+ hour experience. Why not do the same for the "prequel" trilogy? #cheekmeettongue
Yeah, one of the biggest complaints most moviegoers had with LOTR is going to be amplified.
He should just make a big HD documentary about New Zealand and get it out of his system.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on December 06, 2012, 11:31:38 AM
He should just make a big HD documentary about New Zealand and get it out of his system.
but NOT in 48fps 3D (imho)
"Some audience members have reported nausea while others have reported migraines."
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/191750/the-hobbit-apparently-not-only-looks-crazy-but-may-make-you-barf
Yeah, not a feature I'm looking forward to.
Also it makes it look cheap, like old video.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on December 06, 2012, 01:19:50 PM
Yeah, not a feature I'm looking forward to.
Also it makes it look cheap, like old video.
I think it makes it look more like a soap opera. They tend to use 30-60 fps cameras. Everything looks more fluid or something. something to get used to I think. It's amazing how a higher framerate is seen as worse than a much lower frame rate with some motion blur added in. Just what we're used to I think.
I remember watching Dr. Who when they made the transition from film to VTR and it was jarring even on a small screen.
Hmm, I don't remember that. When did they switch it?
Quote from: Thorin on December 06, 2012, 02:01:53 PM
Hmm, I don't remember that. When did they switch it?
5th Doctor (Peter Davidson) back in the early 80s.
It changed the video quality.
It got worse with 7th Doctor (Sylvester McCoy)
so... for anyone who has seen this film (which my son tells me was fantastic) I gotta ask:
Is there a whole lotta walking (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIOS97_8Y3E) like in LOTR?
I haven't seen it yet myself but one friend I have indicated that yes, there is a lot of long sweeping cinematography (aka "walking").
http://www.bite.ca/bitedaily/2012/12/peter-jackson-is-confused-that-the-hobbit-is-bombing/
(http://bite-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/facebook-33-Hobbit.jpg)
Well, no matter how disappointed (http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/12/hobbit-review/) the fans** or critics, at least Jackson can say it's no Tim Burton re[make/boot/invention] of Dark Shadows (http://www.bite.ca/bitedaily/2012/11/tim-burtons-movie-making-to-do-list/tim-burton-to-do-list-2/). (Then again, Burton didn't need fans to create a flowchart (http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/12/hobbit-dwarves-flowchart/) to explain how to tell characters apart.)
**
Frank Badura billbillbillbill ? 24 days ago −
Read the books. You cannot fully appreciate how mediocre this movie is unless you see Tolkien's grace. I mean, seriously, they just botched the execution, took liberties and overall, screwed with it. The sad thing is that the people who made the twilight movies made the effort to stay true to the book (well twilight is more of a very long and bad magazine), yet Peter Jackson didn't pay the same respect to a better book with more intellectual, precise fans who unlike twilight fans, are actually deserving of respect.
30 7 ?Reply?Share ?
Cruz Cruzer Frank Badura ? 24 days ago
A guy who who read Twilight is badmouthing the Hobbit...
74 6 ?Reply?Share ?
Frank Badura Cruz Cruzer ? 24 days ago
I liked the hobbit book, the lotr trilogy, and the silmarillion I was taking a subtle shot at twilight fans while pointing out that it's infuriating that baktagh like twilight gets more respect than the hobbit.
"Often in The Hobbit, there's a spectacular amount of crap happening on-screen. For all its wild action, there's very little actual tension ... I don't make the comparison lightly, but too often in The Hobbit Jackson falls into the same traps George Lucas did while making the Star Wars prequels. He confuses action with excitement, and the result is a film devoid of tension, with no risk and therefore no payoff. It was almost exactly as satisfying and dramatically engaging as watching a stranger play a video game." (http://kotaku.com/5968069/the-hobbit-feels-like-a-video-game-thats-not-a-good-thing?post=55199149)
dang.
I'd hardly call
The Hobbit a "bomb"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/business
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit:_An_Unexpected_Journey#Reception
QuoteBox office
As of January 6, 2013 An Unexpected Journey has grossed $263,820,000 in the United States and Canada and $561,820,000 elsewhere, bringing to a worldwide total of $824,820,000.[2] It is thus far the fifth highest-grossing film of 2012,[68] and the 34th highest-grossing film of all time.[69] It scored a worldwide opening weekend of $222.6 million,[70] including $15.1 million from 452 IMAX theaters around the world, which was an IMAX opening-weekend record for December.[71]
Additionally I think the hate stems from two main points:
-Increased film speed in the 3D version
-Stretching it out over 3 films
Both of which are absurd.
As for the elephant in the room, the Lord of the Rings books are far better than the films, but that's a matter of opinion, and yet both can be enjoyed.
I'll reserve judgement / mockery until after I've seen 'em :)
Quote from: Mr. Analog on January 08, 2013, 09:51:52 AM
Additionally I think the hate stems from two main points:
-Increased film speed in the 3D version
The usually-funny "Half In The Bag" guys did an actually really serious, intellectually fascinating discussion/analysis of the experience of watching 48fps projected film, compared to normal 24fps film (and 30fps video)...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFh6c_CwdBg#t=22m5s (until ~27 minutes)
bottom line:
-less motion blur
-more clarity in the image
-since neither one of those is "normal" ot our brains, this change makes it incredibly difficult for our minds to focus on what's going on when there's any kind of complex action sequence, especially if the camera is not still (and even makes normal walking/running look "weird")