THE HOBBIT (2012/2013): News, Rumors, Pics Till Release
- Thread starter Skywalker
- Start date
If Serkis doesn't win an Oscar for "Rise of The Planet of the Apes" i'm sure he'll get one for "The Hobbit"
With all the advancements in motion capture and texture rendering Hobbit Gollum will put LOTR's Gollum to shame.
With all the advancements in motion capture and texture rendering Hobbit Gollum will put LOTR's Gollum to shame.
That got me hot and bothered. Excuse me...I gotta go to my garage and build a time machine so I can see this baby ASAP!
I liked it as well. I am trying to spread it around.
I couldn't agree more! I'm still miffed about the use of color in moving pictures. And don't get me going about sound. I do not need to *hear* people talking! And in stereo at that!
I was ready to camp out for this well before I knew there'd be a 3D version. That said, 3D holds no allure for me, due to the lackluster examples I have seen in a few others. Yet it seems to me that if it's going to be done, Jackson & Co are doing it "the right way" from what's been show in his documentaries to date.
With Howard Shore scoring the films and Weta involved again.... I'm VERY confident it's being done as well as is possible.
Oh my gosh! Amazing. I really can't wait until next year, that looks simply perfect.
Excuse me while I just go watch the trailer again and/or just think about how it's only a year and it will go by quicker than I think.
Best bits of the trailer were introducing all the dwarves one after the other, and the very end.
Excuse me while I just go watch the trailer again and/or just think about how it's only a year and it will go by quicker than I think.
Best bits of the trailer were introducing all the dwarves one after the other, and the very end.
Not sure if he can win an Oscar for what would amount to a 10 minute segment. That's not "supporting actor", that's "cameo".
Wow.
It's like we've never been away.
WHY ISN'T IT DECEMBER 2012 RIGHT NOW?!?!
It's like we've never been away.
WHY ISN'T IT DECEMBER 2012 RIGHT NOW?!?!
I didn't even try. I unleashed The Squee.Dear lord. I tried not to squee.
I failed.
Tell that to Judi Dench.
True, shooting begain with Bag End and Gollum's bit (to free up Serkis to co-direct). As of now they've done Rivendell and bits of Mirkwood, including the spider rescue (you can see webs on Gloin's face in the trailer),the Trollshaws and a flashback of Gandalf encountering Thrain. I believe they are currently filming Beorn and the Wood Elves now.
I felt the same way about 3D. I'm hoping that what Scorsese did with Hugo will raise the bar for Peter Jackson.
I'll be in my bunk...
I seriously didn't give a damn about this, and then I saw the trailer, saw Cate Blanchett, saw Ian Holm, Ian McfreakingKellan, and yeah, you can say I'm looking forward to this now.
I still think they could have told this story perfectly with a single movie - having read the book numerous times I just don't think it works as a two-parter (especially with what appears to be a ton of added stuff that'll probably have Tolkienites screaming). That said, Jackson did right by me with the LOTR trilogy, and I do appreciate bigtime the fact they're maintaining continuity of cast, even bringing in Ian Holm, so I'm sure it'll be a good couple of movies. I'm a little concerned that Thorin is being made out to be more like Aragorn than Hans Conried (if you ever saw the animated version, you'd know) but I'm willing to see how it plays out. In 2-D of course!
(And somewhere in that mess of dwarves is supposed to be Sylvester McCoy of Doctor Who fame, but I don't know which one.)
That still doesn't address the fact that there are many, many people for whom viewing a 3-D movie is simply a physically uncomfortable, "take you out of the movie" experience, not counting those who simply can't see the effect at all. As I mentioned elsewhere, a myth has arisen around the idea that "oh, well, there'll always be a 2-D version playing somewhere." Wrong. I live in a city of a million people and I was unable to see Hugo, Three Musketeers, Toy Story 3, the last Resident Evil film and about 3-4 other movies because either no one brought it in as 2-D or they played it in one screen out of dozens of theatres. And when I went to see Harry Potter Deathly Hallows 2 in 2-D the picture was so dark and muddy I was reminded of the Boston Globe expose that revealed some theatres are showing 2-D prints using 3-D projectors, which just doesn't work right. The result is I no longer become excited about theatrical releases - I'm disenfranchised as far as that goes and if they closed all the movie theatres tomorrow I'd be rather ambivalent as opposed to if they closed all the DVD/Blu-ray shops (which is coming, I know - pretty soon I'll be a hermit; nah, my feet are too hairy - I'll be a hobbit. ).
The only good thing about 3-D movies is that the 2-D versions often look really really good on HD because of the added resolution. So if nothing else, Hobbit 1 & 2 will be a kick-ass Blu-ray release.
Alex
(And somewhere in that mess of dwarves is supposed to be Sylvester McCoy of Doctor Who fame, but I don't know which one.)
That still doesn't address the fact that there are many, many people for whom viewing a 3-D movie is simply a physically uncomfortable, "take you out of the movie" experience, not counting those who simply can't see the effect at all. As I mentioned elsewhere, a myth has arisen around the idea that "oh, well, there'll always be a 2-D version playing somewhere." Wrong. I live in a city of a million people and I was unable to see Hugo, Three Musketeers, Toy Story 3, the last Resident Evil film and about 3-4 other movies because either no one brought it in as 2-D or they played it in one screen out of dozens of theatres. And when I went to see Harry Potter Deathly Hallows 2 in 2-D the picture was so dark and muddy I was reminded of the Boston Globe expose that revealed some theatres are showing 2-D prints using 3-D projectors, which just doesn't work right. The result is I no longer become excited about theatrical releases - I'm disenfranchised as far as that goes and if they closed all the movie theatres tomorrow I'd be rather ambivalent as opposed to if they closed all the DVD/Blu-ray shops (which is coming, I know - pretty soon I'll be a hermit; nah, my feet are too hairy - I'll be a hobbit.
).The only good thing about 3-D movies is that the 2-D versions often look really really good on HD because of the added resolution. So if nothing else, Hobbit 1 & 2 will be a kick-ass Blu-ray release.
Alex
Sylvester McCoy isn't playing one of the dwarves, rather he's playing Radagast the Brown, a wizard that's part of The White Council.
Also, the added material that expands the story into two films are from The Return of the King appendices and covers what Gandalf was doing during his absences from The Hobbit narrative, i.e. investigating the Neucromancer at Dol Gundar (hence Galadriel's and Saruman's return and Radagast's appearance).
Also, the added material that expands the story into two films are from The Return of the King appendices and covers what Gandalf was doing during his absences from The Hobbit narrative, i.e. investigating the Neucromancer at Dol Gundar (hence Galadriel's and Saruman's return and Radagast's appearance).
Similar threads
