or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Hobbit - Page 20

post #571 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

He didnt had that opinion the first time, since he went a head and showed the clips in 48fps despite that it wasnt the best way of experience 48fps. I guess they wernt prepared for the backlash it would generate.
Yup. In fact, he was quite excited about demonstrating 48fps clips, oblivious that audience reaction would be different from his.
post #572 of 944
People here were surprised that the clips you showed at Comic-Con were not 3D, and were not the 48 frames per second format that you hope to advance with The Hobbit. Have you licked whatever those bugs were when you first showed the footage?
Quote:
JACKSON: The 48 looks completely fantastic. What my experience has been with 48, and I’ve seen a lot of frames of this over the last year and one-half is, you get used to it. You sit there and think, wow, this doesn’t look like any film I’ve seen before. And then, within 10 minutes, you just forget about it and at the end you think, wow, that was actually really nice. It’s smooth and easy on the eyes, especially in 3D. It’s immersive. It’s like Showscan, the old Doug Trumbull 60 frames per second process. You really feel immersed in it. And yet I don’t think it does 48 any justice just to screen 10 minutes of clips, without a narrative and without allowing people time to get into the story. After CinemaCon, where we screened a six or seven-minute reel, I went on the internet to see what people thought of the first footage of The Hobbit. And nobody was commenting on the footage, good or bad. Everyone had opinions about the 48 frames. You had the film purists saying, this doesn’t look like cinema, it doesn’t look like film. Well, no, it doesn’t, it’s completely different. Those negative comments were getting picked up and spun around the world by all the bloggers. I didn’t want to risk that at Comic-Con. I wanted people to look at the actors, at the performance, the story, and I didn’t want Comic-Con stories to be all about 48 frames. Especially when it’s only a 12 minute clip reel and it’s in Hall H in a convention center, and not even in a cinema. The 3D looks like crap in that hall, so I wasn’t going to be screening 3D. I just wanted the focus to be the movie.

But you will release the film in 3D, 48 frames per second, right?
Quote:
JACKSON: In December, there will be plenty of screens showing in 48 frames. We’re not going to overdo the 48 frames, but it’s very important that it’s used as a test for the industry. We’ll have some premium screens showing 48, but there will be lots showing 24 frames. People who are curious can see it. I just think frame rate is a really important issue for the future of the industry. I think 48 is really spectacular and if it can get kids off their iPads and home entertainment systems and back into the movie theaters, I think it is something everyone has to look at very seriously. And to do it justice, you’ve got to look at it in a feature length film. Not a clip in Hall H.

I recall James Cameron telling me that The Lord of the Rings showed him things that helped as he was figuring out Avatar. Is it a responsibility for you top guys to continue to move the technological ball forward?
Quote:
DEL TORO: I think it is. High frame rates have been something the industry has always been curious about. But in the days of 35 mm, cameras could shoot high frame rates but every cinema in the world had these mechanical projectors that couldn’t project any higher than 24 frames. It was never feasible to push the frame rates because you literally had no way of projecting them in anything other than a theme park. Now, with the advent of all the digital projectors, they’re all capable of high frame rates. Why, as an industry where we have dwindling audiences especially among the kids, should we be content to sit back and say that we got it right in 1927? And say that that’s what cinema should look like, same as in 1927, and don’t change a thing. No! The kids aren’t going to give a toss about the frame rates. If something feels immersive to them, if it feels more exciting, spectacular, sharper, clearer, that’s what they’re going to like. I don’t think any 17 year old is going to say, I prefer the strobing, the re-panning and the motion blur of 24 frames. Those 17 year olds are just going to sit there, look at the higher frame rate and say, this is cool. This is cool! As an industry, we’ve got to try and get people back in the cinemas. Whether that’s the way to do it, I don’t know. But I’m trying. It’s an experiment, but I personally think it looks fantastic. I think this time next year, there will be a lot of movies shooting in 48, including some big tent poles. If I had a dollar to place a wager, I’d place my dollar there.

Peter, why was this right for 3D and 48 fps?
Quote:
JACKSON: Everyone is used to seeing 3D now. We have filmed in 3D. We’re not doing a post-conversion. I think what we did is a much more immediate and realistic look at 3D, and it’s been surprisingly easy, too. The cameras and the rigs that were available to us, even though they were prototypes when we first began, performed really, really well and very, very easily. They were easy to use fast. It hasn’t slowed us down, at all. The 48 fps takes away the art effects that we’re used to seeing in cinema, and that’s what people are gonna have to get used to. But, I find that you get used to it pretty quickly, when you sit and watch it. We’re used to seeing strobing. We’re used to seeing a panning shot, which is like a series of still frames that shutters its way along. You don’t get that with 48 frames. And yet, it doesn’t impede our ability to color time the film and put a really creative grade on the movie. Everything is the same as it normally is. And, the fact that you don’t have so much motion blur makes it feel quite sharp, as well. You get something that, to me, is much more akin to shooting on 65mm. You get a very fine detail with the 48 frames. It’s weird because, back in 1998, when we first started working on The Lord of the Rings, for awhile, I seriously tried to convince the studio to shoot in 65mm ‘cause I really thought that The Lord of the Rings should have been shot in that format. But, at the time, the cameras were huge, cumbersome and difficult. The negative that we would shoot would have to be sent away to America to be processed, so we couldn’t even see any of the rushes from New Zealand. We’d have to ship them to America, and then back again. So, the whole thing really wasn’t actually possible. For me, I finally get to shoot my 65mm quality film.


http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/
Edited by Lee Stewart - 7/16/12 at 9:27am
post #573 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

oblivious that audience reaction would be different from his.
Great. I had just now gotten my hatred of George Lucas out of my mind, and you bring him up here...
post #574 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by sb1 View Post

Great. I had just now gotten my hatred of George Lucas out of my mind, and you bring him up here...
Stephen....it's 5 PM....tongue.gif
post #575 of 944
Will 'The Hobbit' become a trilogy, or just extended versions on home media?
Quote:
DEADLINE

DEADLINE: The Hobbit is different than the epic quest of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Tonally, how does it compare?

JACKSON: The tone is partially set by the novel, which is very much a children’s novel. That all goes back to JRR Tolkien writing The Hobbit first, for children, and only after did he develop his mythology much more over the 16 or 17 years later when The Lord of the Rings came out, which is way more epic and mythic and serious.
What people have to realize is we’ve adapted The Hobbit, plus taken this additional 125 pages of notes, that’s what you’d call them. Because Tolkien himself was planning the rewrite The Hobbit after The Lord of the Rings, to make it speak to the story of The Lord of the Rings much more.

In the novel, Gandalf disappears for various patches of time. In 1936, when Tolkien was writing that book, he didn’t have a clue what Gandalf was doing. But later on, when he did The Lord of the Rings and he’d hit on this whole epic story, he was going to go back and revise The Hobbit and he wrote all these notes about how Gandalf disappears and was really investigating the possible return of Sauron, the villain from The Lord of the Rings. Sauron doesn’t appear at all in The Hobbit. Tolkien was retrospectively fitting The Hobbit to embrace that mythology.

He never wrote that book, but there are 125 pages of notes published at the back of Return of the King in one of the later editions. It was called The Appendices, and they are essentially his expanded Hobbit notes. So we had the rights to those as well and were allowed to use them.

So we haven’t just adapted The Hobbit; we’ve adapted that book plus great chunks of his appendices and woven it all together. The movie explains where Gandalf goes; the book never does. We’ve explained it using Tolkien’s own notes. That helped inform the tone of the movie, because it allowed us to pull in material he wrote in The Lord of the Rings era and incorporate it with The Hobbit. So we kept the charm and the whimsy of the fairy tale quality through the characters. Through the dwarves and Bilbo, who is more of a humorous character. He doesn’t try to be funny but we find him funny and find his predicament more amusing than that of Frodo in The Lord of the Rings. That was more serious.
So the whimsy is there, but tonally I wanted to make it as similar to The Lord of the Rings, because I wanted it to be possible for the people, the crazy people in the world who want to watch these films back to back one day…


Quote:
geeksofdoom

Despite just being one book, The Hobbit is being extended to two films: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and The Hobbit: There and Back Again. This will allow director Peter Jackson to tell a more expansive and detailed story. But during the San Diego Comic-Con, reports of the film expanding to three films started to surface. This, of course, trickled down to everyone’s Twitter feed, and a variety of sources drilled Jackson during a press conference.

Jackson acknowledged that there were talks of turning The Hobbit into three films, but with The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey being released this year, the film split would probably occur at The Hobbit: There and Back Again.


Speaking to Hitfix, Jackson said:(video)

That’s a discussion we’re having, yeah. We have certainly been talking to the studio about some of the material we can’t film, and we’ve been asking them so we can do a bit more filming next year. Which, I don’t know what would come of that, whether it’d be extended editions or whatnot. But those discussions are ongoing.

So Jackson wants to do more filming to possibly extend The Hobbit into three films, but according to a report from Variety, Warner Bros. wants to keep The Hobbit at two. It also could be that we are merely misinterpreting what we are reading, and Jackson could possibly be talking about reshoots. So even if WB does give the go-ahead for some extra filming, that doesn’t mean that it would end up on the final cut. For all we know it could end up on the extended editions.

Jackson went on:

People often assume we earmark scenes for the Extended Edition, which is not true. It may be that we write a scene halfway through the shoot we think we need to tell the story. It’s not until you assemble the film that you start to decide. You end up with a film that’s too long that you need to trim down in order to distribute it… We don’t really know until we get to the end what’s going to be in the extended cut. There will certainly be extended cuts of these I’m sure.


It’s very premature. I mean we have an incredible source material with the appendices because ‘The Hobbit’ is obviously a novel but we also have the rights to use this 125 pages of additional notes where Tolkien expanded the world of ‘The Hobbit’ published at the end of ‘Return of the King’ and we’ve used some of it so far and just in the last few weeks as we’ve been wrapping up the shooting and thinking about the shape of the story.


Fran and I have been talking to the studio about other things we haven’t been able to shoot and seeing if we [can] persuade them to do a few more weeks of shooting, probably more than a few weeks actually, next year.

And what form that would actually end up taking, well the discussions are pretty early. So there isn’t really anything to report but there’s other parts of the story that we’d like to tell that we haven’t been able to tell yet.



post #576 of 944
Production Diary 8:
post #577 of 944
It's Offical; The Hobbit to become a trilogy.
Quote:

An unexpected journey

by Peter Jackson on Monday,
July 30, 2012 at 8:30am ·

It is only at the end of a shoot that you finally get the chance to sit down and have a look at the film you have made. Recently Fran, Phil and I did just this when we watched for the first time an early cut of the first movie - and a large chunk of the second. We were really pleased with the way the story was coming together, in particular, the strength of the characters and the cast who have brought them to life. All of which gave rise to a simple question: do we take this chance to tell more of the tale? And the answer from our perspective as the filmmakers, and as fans, was an unreserved ‘yes.'

We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance. The richness of the story of The Hobbit, as well as some of the related material in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, allows us to tell the full story of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and the part he played in the sometimes dangerous, but at all times exciting, history of Middle-earth.

So, without further ado and on behalf of New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Wingnut Films, and the entire cast and crew of “The Hobbit” films, I’d like to announce that two films will become three.

It has been an unexpected journey indeed, and in the words of Professor Tolkien himself, "a tale that grew in the telling."

Cheers,

Peter J
post #578 of 944
Just saw that a few minutes ago coolscan. You are quick on the draw this morning.wink.gif

Lets see what Peter and crew can do with 3 films now, for The Hobbit and related material in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings.
http://collider.com/the-hobbit-3-trilogy-2014/184894/
https://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-jackson/an-unexpected-journey/10151114596546558
post #579 of 944
Ugh 3 now.... I had read about this possibility a few weeks ago and really hoped they wouldn't do this. As much as I love LOTR, and the Hobbit being a childhood favorite, I just don't see how they can possibly span that story into 3 movies, "additional notes" included or not.
post #580 of 944
3 movies over 3 years?

sorry i can't wait that long.
post #581 of 944
post #582 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wally View Post

3 movies over 3 years?
sorry i can't wait that long.

Yep.. looks like we'll have to watch the shorter version that's coming out instead... rolleyes.gif

tongue.gif
post #583 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by damelon View Post

Ugh 3 now.... I had read about this possibility a few weeks ago and really hoped they wouldn't do this. As much as I love LOTR, and the Hobbit being a childhood favorite, I just don't see how they can possibly span that story into 3 movies, "additional notes" included or not.

The hobbit would have been great as 2 movies, but in order to bridge the Hobbit and LotR he would definitely need 3.

For example, people who watched LotR just accepted that saruman was corrupted by sauron.. just because evil is tempting yatayata yata. People accepted that sauron was just an eye in the sky with a big ass army, no explanation needed. Theres some white council stuff that happens during the hobbit but is only hinted at in the book. As a movie it would look like a giant gaping hole in the storyline.
Edited by ssjLancer - 7/31/12 at 4:54pm
post #584 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wally View Post

3 movies over 3 years?
sorry i can't wait that long.

Closer to one and a half years from the release of the first film this December.....

Dec 2012: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Dec 2013: Second film
Summer 2014: Third film

So from this December to Summer 2014 for the third film, is only around a year and a half, if they hold to showing the third installment summer of 2014.

More info from the this link concerning possible titles for the second and third film.
http://collider.com/the-hobbit-3-trilogy-2014/184894/
post #585 of 944
let I get this straight. Everytime a movie based on a popular book comes out, we get nothing but complaints about what is cut out, what would have made more sense to go somewhere or how they should have explained something that wouldn't be obvious to those who haven't read. Now we get a director willing to add as much of that as he can and its too much?
post #586 of 944
FWIW, I saw the trailer today at an IMAX TDKR presentation.

I got pi$$ed off at PJ all over again....
The trailer shows the Shire absolutely, positively does NOT look like the FOTR BD.

OK boys, be sure to rush out and hand over your hard-earned $$$ to see these 2 3 Hobbit movies and support this a-hole who chooses cash over fans.mad.gifmad.gif
post #587 of 944
^^^ In all fairness, maybe "addressing" the issue and getting in trouble with New Line all over again wasn't the objective while he was filming The Hobbit... wink.gif

...btw here in Montreal when I saw TDKR (the 15/70 IMAX presentation that is) there was no trailer at all. The film started right away. Loved it. smile.gif (the IMAX digital presentation did have a few trailers, and yes The Hobbit was one of them IIRC)
post #588 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

FWIW, I saw the trailer today at an IMAX TDKR presentation.
I got pi$$ed off at PJ all over again....
The trailer shows the Shire absolutely, positively does NOT look like the FOTR BD.
#1: Why should the Shire look the same as in FOTR? It is much earlier in time, a more innocent time, before darkness has started to descend on Middle Earth.

#2: This is an early Trailer. The mood/look in the finished color grading is not set yet, which happens at the end of the finished edit some months from now.

#3: PJ wanted to shoot LOTR in 70mm but couldn't because of lack of 70mm labs in NZ. That limited the possibility of mood/color adjustments. Now he shoots 5K digital and will of course utilise the new set of tools.

FOTR got it's finished grade in 2001, and PJ was never really happy with it. They learnt by that and The Two Towers and The Return of the King had a much better finish. Now, a decade later, film making has developed (technical/practical), so expect that The Hobbit will look a little different than LOTR.
Quote:
OK boys, be sure to rush out and hand over your hard-earned $$$ to see these 2 3 Hobbit movies and support this a-hole who chooses cash over fans.mad.gifmad.gif
Haters will be haters even before they have seen the finished product, which of course is all very mature and rational. tongue.gif

Peter Jackson is to me the a director who really honestly want to tell the story to the best of his ability. And use his power as a director to push the producers to give him budgets that doesn't limit him artistic or the full extent of the story that he thinks that needs to be told, nor the use of the best of today's film making technology.
I have never seen him do anything just for the $$$.
If he wanted a "more comfortable life", he would have left The Hobbit as couple of one-and-a-half to two-hour films, and never cared to make long extended versions of LOTR.
Remember that he also doesn't have 100% control of the franchise. Don't forget the producers, who also tried to "screw him" any which way out of the profits of the LOTR franchise.

Peter Jackson is one of the rare film makers who stick to traditional storytelling in his movies at the same time as he push for and develop new technology and image expression, later copied by guy's like James Cameron.
If Cameron had been brave and technically creative in pushing film making further "into the future" like Jackson, he would have shot Avatar as a 80% Live Action and not as a "half ass" motion capture animation.

To accuse Peter Jackson of being a director that is just "milking the $$$" is so wide off the marks and show such astounding lack of insight into film making that it almost becomes childish trolling.
post #589 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Haters will be haters even before they have seen the finished product, which of course is all very mature and rational. tongue.gif
If you are talking about me, then you have missed my other posts about LOTR being the most impressive cinematic achievement in decades.rolleyes.gif

Quote:
If he wanted a "more comfortable life", he would have left The Hobbit as couple of one-and-a-half to two-hour films, and never cared to make long extended versions of LOTR.
To accuse Peter Jackson of being a director that is just "milking the $$$" is so wide off the marks
I guess you aren't familiar with Tolkein's books....

FOTR = 531 pages
TTT = 416 pages
ROTK = 624 pages
The Hobbit = 310 pages

Yeah, WAAAAAAY "off the mark."

Quote:
Peter Jackson is one of the rare film makers who stick to traditional storytelling in his movies at the same time as he push for and develop new technology and image expression, later copied by guy's like James Cameron.
If Cameron had been brave and technically creative in pushing film making further "into the future" like Jackson, he would have shot Avatar as a 80% Live Action and not as a "half ass" motion capture animation.
.
rolleyes.gifrolleyes.gif

Quote:
such astounding lack of insight into film making that it almost becomes childish trolling
OK, now I know you're just funnin'....
post #590 of 944
As Peter Jackson has noted, Tolkien's ROTK includes an extensive set of appendices. Appendix A, "Annals of the Kings and Rulers" is the main one and includes a whole lot of story material (this is actually where Aragorn and Arwen's romance is described). The second appendix is a fairly detailed timeline of the Third Age, while the third one is a family tree of some of the Hobbits (the last two are about the Shire calendar and a language primer). Between The Hobbit and the three primary LOTR appendices, I can see where there is three movies' worth of material, either directly adapted or used as a foundation to build/extrapolate upon, enough to fully bridge the gap between The Hobbit and LOTR as Tolkien himself probably intended.

It should be restated that Tolkien's principal writing project was the collection of stories that would in time be called the Silmarillion, sort of a Middle Earth equivalent to the Old Testament, describing the First and Second Ages. He wrote The Hobbit strictly as a stand-alone story for his children, and when the published version became very popular, his publisher requested a sequel. Well, what first started off as a mere sequel became something a whole lot different when Tolkien realized that The Hobbit could in fact be made part of the timeline that occured after the Silmarillion, that is was part of the same universe. For example, the Hobbit's Necromancer was in fact Sauron in hiding. And so The Lord Of The Rings took a major turn and became the epic saga of the final phase of the Third Age. There's over 3,000 years of history in the Third Age, and LOTR takes place at the very end. I think PJ just wants to incorporate as much of that history as possible, so I think we'll see pre-Hobbit stuff as well as post-Hobbit.
Edited by IceAgeTom - 8/1/12 at 9:24am
post #591 of 944
Talking about the Hobbit 15/70 trailer, was it 3D processed in post? I know the full movie is shot in stereoscopic, but the trailer felt really off and looked like the view-master post crap.

If that's how it's going to be finished, count me as catching a 2D screening.
post #592 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

I guess you aren't familiar with Tolkein's books....
FOTR = 531 pages
TTT = 416 pages
ROTK = 624 pages
The Hobbit = 310 pages
Yeah, WAAAAAAY "off the mark."
rolleyes.gifrolleyes.gif
The familiarity with the books are not the important part here, but the understanding of how a book becomes a movie is what you seems to not understand.
You can't really "film a book". A movie based on a book is an Adaptation of of the stories told in book form.
Standard for movie scripts are; One page of movie scripts become One Minute of movie time. Standard length of movie scripts are 130 pages = approximately a 2 hour movie.
Dialogue takes more space on a Screen-writing page than action description, but in a movie that might even out in the screen time used.

The Hobbit movies where never meant to be strictly The Hobbit story. The Hobbit story is just the "basic story-timeline"
There are a lot of important "second hand" descriptions that only take up some few lines in the book here and there that needs to be "fleshed out" for continuity, and even more happenings that is just "mentioned" in the book that could become whole stories, like what IceAgeTom mentions in his post and Peter Jackson's quotes in my earlier post (particularly the Deadline quotes).

Peter Jackson mentioned "fleshing out" The Hobbit for movies already back in 2006;
Quote:
There's a lot of sections in which a character like Gandalf disappears for a while. From memory — I mean, I haven't read it for a while now — but I think he references going off to meet with the White Council, who are actually characters like Galadriel and Saruman and people that we see in Lord of the Rings. He mysteriously vanishes for a while and then comes back, but we don't really know what goes on. There's clearly lots of interesting politics happening concurrently with [Bilbo's] story, and doing two movies would allow you to explore a lot of those dark areas. You could make it feel more epic and more politically complicated.
And
Quote:
Christopher Lee, who played Saruman in Jackson's films, said he would have liked to have shown the Wizard's corruption by Sauron, but he would not be comfortable flying to New Zealand at his age. However, later on, it was confirmed that he would in fact be reprising his role as Saruman.
http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/The_Hobbit_(films)

I always thought he ultimately planned for a much more extended "LOTR" kind of movie(s), just that he kept quiet about it to see how things developed.
It is a lot of rich material available, both in The Hobbit and the Appendixes, but also in the LOTR books. Some are used as short segments in the openeings of the LOTR movies, but other stories are told in the LOTR books about "Historical happenings in Middle Earth".

We might even see Viggo Mortenson and Liv Tyler in a part of one of The Hobbit movies.

Here are some more speculations of possible stories, in addition to the ones already mentioned, that can be added to the main story line.
Quote:
There are no details yet of how Jackson and his co-writers Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens would stretch “The Hobbit” into three. The Times speculates that the Battle of the Five Armies, which climaxes the book, would be held over to the third part. That would theoretically allow Bilbo’s pivotal encounter with Smaug in his treasure-crammed lair and the dragon’s last flight to climax part two.

What would Jackson and company import from the “LOTR” appendices, which stretch to 102 pages (though not all is in narrative form)? It had been rumored that Jackson had wanted to find a way of working “LOTR”’s Strider/Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) into “The Hobbit,” as he did Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) and Legolas (Orlando Bloom). In the partial tale of Aragorn and Arwen included in Appendix A, Tolkien tells of the slaying of Aragorn’s grandfather by hill-trolls, his father’s murder by orcs, and describes his meeting with Arwen and early courtship of her. So the filmmakers have license to integrate Mortensen and Liv Tyler, who played Arwen in “LOTR," and they could perhaps do it through a tale told by Gandalf.

The corresponding (and action-packed) tale of the romance of Lúthien the half-elven and the mortal man Beren – which costs the maid her immortality, as marriage to Aragon costs Arwen hers – could also be incorporated.
It is not only told by Aragorn to the hobbits in “LOTR,” but mentioned in Appendix A: “Together they wrested a silmaril [a talismanic Elven jewel] from the Iron Crown of Morgoth,” under whom Sauron served as a lieutenant.
From Artinfo.com

There is also a 60-year gap between The Hobbit and the start of Fellowship Of The Ring (if I remember right), that it would be wonderful if they could fill, so The Hobbit and LOTR Six movies connects and become one long story, like J.R.R.Tolkien seems to have been working on when he passed away.


Quote:
such astounding lack of insight into film making that it almost becomes childish trolling
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

OK, now I know you're just funnin'....
Not at all. rolleyes.gif
You show both lack understanding of how a book is adapted to screen and what type of movies The Hobbit production always planned to make.

If you all this time have been under the impression that Peter Jackson at any point wanted to make a kind of compressed "Jolly children's story" type of Hobbit movies, then of course you are in for a disappointment.
But as you stated;
Quote:
then you have missed my other posts about LOTR being the most impressive cinematic achievement in decades.rolleyes.gif
Based on that, I can't understand that you don't want to see as much as possible about the happenings in Middle Earth, and in that context your ugly statements about Peter Jackson extending The Hobbit to a trilogy like LOTR and doing it only for the $$$, is quite confusing when you admire the LOTR movies so much. confused.gif

cool.gif
Edited by coolscan - 8/2/12 at 9:16am
post #593 of 944
I guess no word on whether--now that it's three separate movies--there will be extended edition DVDs. 12 hours of The Hobbit would be insane!
post #594 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Based on that, I can't understand that you don't want to see as much as possible about the happenings in Middle Earth

Sometimes less is more. I think the theatrical cut of FOTR is superior to the extended cut.
post #595 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

The Hobbit movies where never meant to be strictly The Hobbit story. The Hobbit story is just the "basic story-timeline"
There are a lot of important "second hand" descriptions that only take up some few lines in the book here and there that needs to be "fleshed out" for continuity, and even more happenings that is just "mentioned" in the book that could become whole stories, like what IceAgeTom mentions in his post and Peter Jackson's quotes in my earlier post (particularly the Deadline quotes).
Peter Jackson mentioned "fleshing out" The Hobbit for movies already back in 2006;
And
I always thought he ultimately planned for a much more extended "LOTR" kind of movie(s), just that he kept quiet about it to see how things developed.
It is a lot of rich material available, both in The Hobbit and the Appendixes, but also in the LOTR books. Some are used as short segments in the openeings of the LOTR movies, but other stories are told in the LOTR books about "Historical happenings in Middle Earth".
We might even see Viggo Mortenson and Liv Tyler in a part of one of The Hobbit movies.
Here are some more speculations of possible stories, in addition to the ones already mentioned, that can be added to the main story line.
There is also a 60-year gap between The Hobbit and the start of Fellowship Of The Ring (if I remember right), that it would be wonderful if they could fill, so The Hobbit and LOTR Six movies connects and become one long story, like J.R.R.Tolkien seems to have been working on when he passed away.

You show both lack understanding of how a book is adapted to screen and what type of movies The Hobbit production always planned to make.
If you all this time have been under the impression that Peter Jackson at any point wanted to make a kind of compressed "Jolly children's story" type of Hobbit movies, then of course you are in for a disappointment.
But as you stated; Based on that, I can't understand that you don't want to see as much as possible about the happenings in Middle Earth, and in that context your ugly statements about Peter Jackson extending The Hobbit to a trilogy like LOTR and doing it only for the $$$, is quite confusing when you admire the LOTR movies so much. confused.gif
I don't really care if PJ wants to make this film project not be based on Tolkein's The Hobbit...I really don't (frankly, the book is a slog IMO).
It's all fine with me.
However, he shouldn't call it The Hobbit...call it Adventures from Middle Earth or some other such thing.

The Hobbit is a very well known book, many people have read it and are very familiar with its story.
They will be buying tickets to see Tolkein's "The Hobbit" by the guy who did the award-winning LOTR of recent memory, not a film project done to suit PJ's business plan.


Quote:
the familiarity with the books are not the important part here, but the understanding of how a book becomes a movie is what you seems to not understand.
You can't really "film a book". A movie based on a book is an Adaptation of of the stories told in book form.
Standard for movie scripts are; One page of movie scripts become One Minute of movie time. Standard length of movie scripts are 130 pages = approximately a 2 hour movie.
Dialogue takes more space on a Screen-writing page than action description, but in a movie that might even out in the screen time used.
I never brought up the question of movie scripts and I never said "film a book."
Please do not try this little misquoting/mis-direction game around here....there are a lot of smart people on this forum.

"130 pages = approximately a 2 hour movie."
Numbers....you want numbers?
WE GOT NUMBERS!

Let's look at those numbers for a moment.
FOTR Theatrical = 178 minutes
FOTR Extended = 208 minutes
Novel (Hardbound) = 531 pages

TTT Theatrical = 179 minutes
TTT Extended = 223 minutes
Novel (Hardboud) = 416

ROTK Theatrical = 201 minutes
ROTK Extended = 251 minutes
Novel (Hardbound) = 624 pages.....Sorry, but I don't have a hardcopy of ROTK and am just using Wikipedia's numbers here.

As has been noted, PJ considers the Theatrical Cuts to be his Director's Cuts, which is fine.
By his admission, he was able to tell the story of FOTR @ ~21 seconds per page: (178/531) = .34 per minute.
Using the "perferred" EE's, FOTR @ ~24 seconds per page: (208/531) = .39 per minute.

TTT Theatrical is done @ ~25.8 seconds per page: (179/416) = .43 per minute.
TTT EE is @ ~32.4 seconds per page: (223/416) = .54 per minute.

ROTK Theatrical is @ ~ 19.2 seconds per page: (201/624) = .32 per minute.
ROTK EE is @ 24 seconds per page: (251/624) = .40 per minute.

IMO, the EEs get about 90% of the books, what didn't make onto the screen really shouldn't have anyway.

Which brings us to The Hobbit...
If The Hobbit was a 2 hour movie (120 minutes), the math is thus....rate is @ ~23.4 seconds per page: (120/310) = .39 per minute.

Assuming there will be 3 Hobbit movies at say...2 hours each....the math says:
Rate is @ ~70 seconds per page: (360/310) = 1.16 per minute.

What does all of this prove?
It proves PJ is full of it....again.
And much more importantly, it proves being condescending to other forum members always comes around to bite one on the A$$..



Now, where did I put my margarita......
post #596 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

"130 pages = approximately a 2 hour movie."
Numbers....you want numbers?
WE GOT NUMBERS!
Let's look at those numbers for a moment.

130 pages of a movie script, not a novel.... *cough* can I have some margarita too? wink.gif
post #597 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

*cough* can I have some margarita too? wink.gif
Here ya go:

The following recipe is the result of 3 years of research and half of my liver functionality:
2 part 1800 Silver Reserva Tequila (or a high quality Gold Tequila)
2 part Triple Sec
1 part Grand Marnier
2 part fresh squeezed lime juice (yup, ya gotta squeeeeeeze it yourself)
3 part bottled water

Throw into blender for 2 seconds, pour over ice, no salt.
Mmmmm......oh, and tips ARE accepted....tongue.gif
post #598 of 944
The Hobbit's Revolutionary 48-Frame Format Will Be a Limited Release
Quote:
After all that hoopla about The Hobbit being the first 48-frames-per-second film (twice the regular rate), it's actually going to release pretty minimally in that format. The first piece to the newly trilogized saga will send its high frame-rate version to "only select locations, perhaps not even into all major cities," Variety reports. It appears Warner Bros. wants to test the reaction to the new format before tripling down on it as the future of film.

http://www.vulture.com/2012/08/the-hobbit-48-frame-format-release.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thr%2Fvulture+%28The+Hollywood+Reporter+-+Vulture+Inbound%29
post #599 of 944
I guess its to much money involved for them to risk if the audience gets a to negative reaction. Because even if it just the 3D 48fps screening that will get the negative reaction. The word of mouth will spill over to the 24fps 3D and 24fps 2D.

On the other hand with the right marketing 48fps could attract large number of people that wants to see how it looks.
post #600 of 944
Titles and release dates:

"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey," Dec. 14, 2012.

"The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug," Dec. 13, 2013.

"The Hobbit: There and Back Again," July 18, 2014.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home