THE HOBBIT (2012/2013): News, Rumors, Pics Till Release

[JarodRussell]

I seriously doubt those "48fps looks like soap opera" claims are valid.
But I understand that the cinemas won't make expensive investments for ONE movie only. Although I heard that for digital cinemas it's only down to a software upgrade, the projectors can handle 48fps just fine.

[Set Harth]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

I seriously doubt those "48fps looks like soap opera" claims are valid.

It's probably a smear campaign started by someone who was once beaten up by 48 fps.

[JarodRussell]

Set Harth wrote:

---

It's probably a smear campaign started by someone who was once beaten up by 48 fps.

It's more like that it just looks a little bit different, and all fundamental film fans are reacting like fundamental video gamers when a new game drops down to 50 frames per second: OMG, it lags, that atrocity is unplayable!

[mswood]

kirk55555 wrote:

---

I love the LOTR books and movies, but I have to say I agree with some of the people that posted here. Three movies is way too much. Two movies was pushing it, but three is ridiculous. I don't care wether it was for money reasons (which I think is likely, reguardless of what other people in this topic have said) or because the people making them really wanted to make 3 movies, it makes no sense to make a book that was probably half the size of the other books into 3 seperate movies. I blame Harry Potter. They got away with splitting #7 (which I actually thought worked) so now everyone is cashing in on what they did. That doesn't mean the Hobbit movies won't be good, I'm sure they'll be great, and i'm sure I'll see them if at all possible.

Still, I think its stupid to make three movies, and probably very hard unless they just make up half the stuff. I'm prepared to have the first 50 minutes of movie one just deal with bilbo's history from age 0-whatever age he was when he went on the adventure, or maybe they'll tell the untold story of Gandalf's childhood and how he became the Wizard he was during the LOTR's books (my guess is that Radagast teased him mercilessly ).

Why on Earth do you feel this way?

Do you often read books and film's of said book?

Because if you do you would realize that a ton of material is cut out of film adaptions. While some of that is due to the visual nature of film, the majority is done strictly to get a film between 2 and 2 and a half hours. Artistic reasons are almost never used to decide that one film isn't proper length for one book.

Even at nearly twice the length of an average film the extended editions of Lord of the Rings left out a ton of material (some again for artistic reasons, others due strictly because they only could get a one film per book commitment.

How do you feel about tv movies or miniseries. They are frequently based on books, usually far more faithfully and are split into multiple parts.

I have made several examples on this thread of long form adaptions of various books that are considered the best version of those releases. And they tend to be close to the same length as the Hobbit and what 3 ,2 hour 2 and a half hour films would take up.

Ever watch Band of Brothers on HBO? Its a great miniseries, great. Better then most films released each year. And guess what its based on one book. Its 14 pages longer then the Hobbit and was made into an 11 hour miniseries. Its one of the highest rated tv productions of all time.

There are numerous examples of long form release of books, there are also numerous high quality short stories (that are a quarter of the length of the Hobbit) that were made into full length award winning films.

Now just to be clear, I am not saying the Hobbit is going to be good (though I am hopeful of that), I am saying that books have plenty of material for multiple films, we just don't normally see them at the movies we normally see them on the television. But that doesn't mean that there isn't enough in the books. Because that is absolutely false.

[Deckerd]

There will be plenty of soft focus, protracted bed scenes with the heroes again, obviously.
That and a lot of forced laughter in the non-fighting moments.

[mswood]

Evil Twin wrote:

---

Because I don't want my epic fantasy film looking like a soap opera, thankyouverymuch.

While I am never want one new format to completely overshadow the options of seeing it in the other, the estimate is that they would (for the first one at least) only be able to get 48 frames in 50% of theaters so it seems very unlikely that the majority of people would be unable to see the film in 24 frames.

BUt I can't wait to see it 48 frames, now though I am wondering how far I am going to have to travel to see it in that form. But I was always going to see it 24 frames normal, 24 frames 3D, 48 frames normal and 48 frames 3D to make a valid comparison of it.

For example Avatar is really one of only about three films that I liked the 3D on (though it was still beautiful without it). But most films are not shot in 3D there are done after production. The hobbit was filmed for 3D and filmed for 48 frames, they actually have to convert it down to 24 frames. I generally like to see films how they were filmed for, if possible and then the standard way for comparison.

[mswood]

Deckerd wrote:

---

There will be plenty of soft focus, protracted bed scenes with the heroes again, obviously.
That and a lot of forced laughter in the non-fighting moments.

Yes because in 11 hours we got so many bed scenes? And how many scenes actually have characters laughing? I mean really I am trying to think of some and I can't.

[Deckerd]

Try the very first interaction of the movie. Elijah Wood and, forgive me, Ian McKellen don't do relaxed laughter in any way convincingly.

[Wereghost]

Some aspects of the first Shire scenes in Fellowship do feel forced. After seven minutes of austere exposition we're into scenes with old friends we've never seen before sharing reminiscences of events we've never been privy to, and to an outsider it's maybe less than convincing. Not that this is necessarily a fault as such; instead of charming us, FOTR asks us to be patient and invest in it. I wonder how these early scenes will be viewed in light of The Hobbit.

The first bed scene that comes to mind is the reunion scene near the end of ROTK. The second is the one where Frodo wakes up in Rivendell in the first film.

[mswood]

Deckerd wrote:

---

Try the very first interaction of the movie. Elijah Wood and, forgive me, Ian McKellen don't do relaxed laughter in any way convincingly.

Yeah, after a bit I found several (yes I actually put them in and watched them sped up), and in the extended cut a few more.

Gandalf and Frodo when "A Wizard is never late", Gandalf again laughs when the fireworks go off for the children chasing his cart, an extra Hobbit pouring a cup of ale, Frodo pushing Sam to dance with Rosie, in Rivendell the Hobbits laughing and hugging after Frodo is well (see Return of the King for similar), Gimili over Legolas' suggestion about getting him a box to see, and can it be called laughter Merry & Pippin greeting Aragorn, Gimili, Legolas ect at Isengard? and then there are a few times you might add an orc character, Gollum, and the Meat's back on the Table, Boy's line outside of Fanghorn.

So yeah I think its safe to say I missed some.

In the extended Cut there is a brief laughter in the Tavern in Hobbiton, when Merry & Pippin flip Boromir on his bum, and Gimili during the drinking Game.

[mswood]

As for Bed scenes their aren't many.

THe Hobbits in the Prancing Pony (well another near the Prancing Pony), then Frodo in a sick bed in Rivendall. Frodo in his sick Bed in Return of the King. Extended Cuts include Theodred mortally wounded, Eowyn in the House of Healing.

We have a couple camping scenes, but no beds, or bed like structures. We also have scenes with Arwen (vision Aragorn sees in extended cut dying) and Eowyn sleeping in the Great Hall that look more like chez then beds, but who knows.

And would the branches and roots in Lothlorien be considered a bed?

I think the only one anyone really ever bitches about is the one in Return of the King.

[Dream]

Deckerd wrote:

---

There will be plenty of soft focus, protracted bed scenes with the heroes again, obviously.
That and a lot of forced laughter in the non-fighting moments.

You should have just said there will be lots of walking and then even more walking.

[JoeZhang]

Plus homoerotic longing between two short characters.

[Deckerd]

JoeZhang wrote:

---

Plus homoerotic longing between two short characters.

one of the keen ones should count up the screen minutes of longing/sad gazes.

[mswood]

Deckerd wrote:

---

one of the keen ones should count up the screen minutes of longing/sad gazes.

I actually loved those. Especially after Moria. I loved the expressions when the first get out of the mountain.

But the other 629 times were pretty good to.