Hobbit gets greenlight.. Shooting in February IF...

[Jaime Vallés]

I personally loved how they made Gollum in the LOTR trilogy. I also loved the look of the hobbits. They're supposed to look almost like humans, but shorter, with hairy feet and pointy ears. I felt they nailed it in the trilogy, and would be disappointed if they changed their approach in the new films... unless they make them look just as good with some other technique. Whatever works is fine by me, as long as it works.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

By the way we already have a fantasy film which was semi-stylized and done with performance capture:

Can't say I was a huge fan of the stylization over just straight up and up photorealism.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

By the way we already have a fantasy film which was semi-stylized and done with performance capture:

Can't say I was a huge fan of the stylization over just straight up and up photorealism.

And as seductive as this is for a technology, we have a long way to go.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley

The reason AVATAR'S Na'vi and LOTR's Gollum is acceptable is that they are not in the strictest sense "Human". Someday... the synthespians will rule! Just not right now.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

And as seductive as this is for a technology, we have a long way to go.

Benjamin Button says Wahhh?

[/IMG]

 

[Mark Collins]

Benjamin Button says Wahhh?

[/IMG]

Just putting this out there, Benjamin Button could be a totally civilized Gollum based on that first shot.

 

[Phil Bates]

That's a fair statement, we're young in 3d. So I am curious to see where it goes, though it looks like 3d is already dying. I doubt it'll completely go away...

Shawn, I'm curious about this since everything I'm hearing from producers and production houses is just the opposite. Are you seeing a slowdown in the industry somewhere?

Thanks,
Phil

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

IMDb Pro wrote today:

Peter Jackson.

The announcement, made jointly by New Line president and COO Toby Emmerich, Warner Bros. president
and COO Alan Horn, and MGM co-ceo Steve Cooper, says the "the two films based on 'The Hobbit' are now greenlit
and will begin principal photography in February 2011, under the direction of Peter Jackson."

But technical specification still say they will shoot in Color :laugh:

LINK>>>

Maybe it's still early to know but it would be good if they could shoot on Epic 3D.

 

[Tom Lowe]

By the way we already have a fantasy film which was semi-stylized and done with performance capture:

Can't say I was a huge fan of the stylization over just straight up and up photorealism.

I don't think Beowulf was very stylized. Maybe a little, but something like the Hobbit could be much more stylized.

I think Beowulf was essentially just the best humans they could do at the time.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Beowulf was supposed to be stylized. But they just kept adding detail. I don't know if they retcon'ed the look after failing at photorealism but the 'official' line is that it's intentionally stylized and that they tried going photorealic but decided to back off. They wanted something more mythic. Which I guess you could argue is sort of what The 300 did as well--except they achieved it with real semi-stylized human beings.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Yeah, Beowulf kind of fell into a no-mans land. Not photo-real human, but not stylized enough to set it apart from a photo-real human attempt. With something like a 10-foot-tall Navi, we don't have a frame of reference to compare against. I think Hobbit you would want it fairly stylized. Gandalf, for example, might have more pronounced features.

I hate to use the old 70s Hobbit cartoon again, but look how stylized the characters were in that film. All of the characters had impossibly big noses and arms and chins and beards, etc.

 

[Craig Ryan]

I have to disagree with the notion that Avatar achieved a "photo real" reality. Of course, it really boils down to opinion, but I found Avatar to be way less acceptable as photo real than the examples given of Benjamin Button and Davey Jones in Pirates.

My problem with Avatar was that I was constantly having to adjust my level of "suspended disbelief". Here's why:

In most live action films, we are given a live action world with live action people. It IS real; we accept it as reality thus believing everything we see for the next 2 hours is real, so we invest in the characters and go with it. When a CGI element enhances this established reality, we generally will accept it as well. IE: Lieutenant Dan's legs. In the extreme case, we get a CGI character: Gollum in LOTR. Most of LOTR was shot on huge sets or on location, or "bigatures", all enhanced by CGI elements. Gollum was a character in the context of a world we've already accepted as real. The fact that his CGI was even more impressive enhanced that, AND of course Andy Serkis gave an incredible performance that was translated entirely. This why in Pirates, another film shot mostly on sets or on location, has CGI characters that felt very photoreal and acceptable. Benjamin Button for the same reason, and the fact that it was based of off Brad Pitt, who's face is instantly recognizable.

On the other hand, we have films that are entirely animated. When we are presented with a world that is entirely animated, our sense of disbelief is adjusted for that reality. This is why people wept during Toy Story 3...I almost did too.

I think Avatar would have been much better if it was done entirely CGI..IE, no live action. I know it's just not me, as countless others seem to agree, that entirely CGI environments with live action actors rarely feel real. Combine that with a plethora of CGI characters it becomes even more difficult to accept it as reality. It becomes a battle: do we invest in the animated reality, or the live action reality? We can't really do both, so in the end, it becomes more upsetting and annoying. It takes you out of the story. Can you imagine if Woody in Toy Story was actually Tom Hanks thrown in there as a live action character? That's the feel I got from Avatar; a clashing of reality.

So the idea that The Hobbit be done entirely CGI is not a bad one, but it would be disappointing for those of us who would love to see the story told in a live action reality. I hope it's done the same way LOTR was done: as a SALAD of filmmaking techniques. Use everything you can to best tell the story, and when it can be done with live action material, DO IT. Minatures, prosthetics, makeup, animatronics, you name it.

Forgot to add: I'd much rather have the film shot in IMAX than 3D. Of course there's the idea of IMAX 3D too. Probably have to wait until RED releases it's large format brains in the next few years. I'm not totally against 3D, but I don't think anyone has "got it" yet. Until then, leave it out of established stories like The Hobbit that have been cherished, and don't need to be potentially ruined by experimenting with a technique still in its infancy.

 

[Joseph Hutson]

Yeah, Beowulf kind of fell into a no-mans land. Not photo-real human, but not stylized enough to set it apart from a photo-real human attempt. With something like a 10-foot-tall Navi, we don't have a frame of reference to compare against. I think Hobbit you would want it fairly stylized. Gandalf, for example, might have more pronounced features.

I hate to use the old 70s Hobbit cartoon again, but look how stylized the characters were in that film. All of the characters had impossibly big noses and arms and chins and beards, etc.

I guess it's all about the angle that the directorial team want to take it. As for LOTR, they treated it as an historical piece and tried to give every bit of realism as they could. Now, we will see how the Hobbit stories will be handled.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I have to disagree with the notion that Avatar achieved a "photo real" reality. Of course, it really boils down to opinion, but I found Avatar to be way less acceptable as photo real than the examples given of Benjamin Button and Davey Jones in Pirates.

Agreed. I love Avatar as a film and it was convincing enough in many ways, but photo-real it was not. Kind of like the initial reaction to the first trailer released. "OMG, it looks like a cartoon!" was the outcry... And many fanboys and apologists insisted that the final would be much better. Well ya know what, those were all final shots in that trailer. In the end it didn't matter. It was an all-around great sci-fi/fantasy experience.

Benjamin Button was well done, but there were a few shots that I swear the head and body ratio just looked wrong or the exact lighting or skin's reaction to light just wasn't 100%. But once again, a great film and the limitations of the effects did not detract from the story one bit.

Davey Jones was pretty impressive in the second Pirates. But the enhancements made in the third were most impressive. The tracking of the tentacle extensions was flawless the whole way through and the organic motion was near perfect and I loved the randomness, the breathing, etc.. Still not 100% perfect in the sense of a rendered visual, but they were able to compensate for this with final grading and finishing of the film. As Gavin said above, if tentacle faces were real, I would have not questioned it's authenticity either.

I think Avatar would have been much better if it was done entirely CGI..IE, no live action. I know it's just not me, as countless others seem to agree, that entirely CGI environments with live action actors rarely feel real.

Hmmm... I'm not sure about the all-CGI Avatar. It would have worked well, I don't know if it would have been better. I have a tough time with suspending my disbelief at most any film, so not really an issue for me. I'm the psycho that is always semi-consciously looking for render errors in the CGI or goofs in the compositing, etc.. Even my first time seeing a film. Not that I want to find those things, but I'm always semi-consciously analyzing the shots I find interesting or thinking through how I would accomplish a certain FX visual and then looking for tell-tale signs of how it was done within the film I'm watching.

So the idea that The Hobbit be done entirely CGI is not a bad one, but it would be disappointing for those of us who would love to see the story told in a live action reality.

All CGI Hobbit would be just fine. But I like the LOTR series and what Jackson did with it. To me, Ian McKellen IS Gandalf. I wouldn't want it any other way. We have a frame of reference for Hobbits as already done by the previous films, lets continue. Gollum can most certainly be CGI. And the technology has improved much in the last decade, so I would expect him to be better and more realistic than before... Obviously the trolls, eagles and wolves will all be CGI and Smaug himself. I always had a different vision of the Elves than what Jackson portrayed in LOTR. More magical, spindly and beautiful creatures. But Jackson set a style and precedent with the LOTR films, so why screw with it. It worked just great. The Orcs/goblins would probably be the same (people in suits with rubber noses, etc..) for consistency as well. To me, that would all fit the same universe and would complete the package.

There's no casting information, just rumors. Originally, I wanted Ian Holm to continue as Bilbo. But he may just be too old for the part these days. Bilbo in his adventure days was a much younger hobbit... Ah, well... It will be interesting. I would like to see as many of the LOTR cast return as possible and where applicable. Ian McKellen, Hugo Weaving, etc..

Forgot to add: I'd much rather have the film shot in IMAX than 3D.

That would be far more interesting to me as well. And I think we're going to see a LOT of large format production once RED releases the Epic 645. Even the Scarlet and Epic FF35 will bring a significantly larger acquisition frame to the table for cinema. The Canon 5D2 and other full-frame DSLRs are doing it now to some extent, but the quality and cinema abilities just are not there. At any rate, I have a sci-fi feature in a somewhat casual pre-production mode. I intend to shoot it on Epic 645 and think with some of what I have planned, it will be just as visually interesting as shooting in 3D. And by that time, it may even be more interesting if audiences are overly desensitized to 3D. Which is already happening at an alarming pace. The post side of Epic645 is somewhat of an unknown. Sure, it's going to be the same, or better, than what we have now... However, the acquisition frames will be 4X larger than 5K from Epic-X. I would refuse to distill it down to under 4K for anything other than final distribution to HD or Blu-Ray. Ideally, post would be in 8K (maybe 6K) as is ideal for IMAX and 65mm scans right now. My wallet already hurts from thinking about it.

 

[Shawn Nelson]

Shawn, I'm curious about this since everything I'm hearing from producers and production houses is just the opposite. Are you seeing a slowdown in the industry somewhere?

Thanks,
Phil

Exactly, I see that the 'selling' side (i.e. producers and production houses) very much want this to explode, but the 'demand' side is already losing interest.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/27/technology/3D_technology_dying.fortune/

 

[Tom Lowe]

We'll see about that, Shawn. Look at how well Jackass just did - 3D.

Up till now most of these "3D" films have not been real 3D.

Have you seen Hubble IMAX 3D yet?

 

[Shawn Nelson]

We'll see about that, Shawn. Look at how well Jackass just did - 3D.

Up till now most of these "3D" films have not been real 3D.

Have you seen Hubble IMAX 3D yet?

Im not "anti 3d anything", i'm anti "3d for everything". Jackass 3d is probably the absolute best sort of thing to use 3d for, nonstop gimmicks designed for an experience.

No I havent seen Hubble IMAX 3d, but I'd love to! That's also the sort of thing that 3d is good for.

I took my wife to see Avatar and she was enjoying it until half way through she got incredible painful headaches and looked down at her lap, I told her to close one eye until she felt okay. She has great vision and doesnt wear glasses.

 

[Subhadip Sen]

I am eagerly anticipating Herzog's Cave of Forgotten Dreams. Seems like the perfect material for 3D.

 

[Omar Saad]

I honestly think that much of the drop off in 3D ticket sales is coming from movies that are quick / bad 3D conversions. Whether or not you liked the story in Avatar, the majority of the feedback was something along the lines of "the 3D was amazing" or "it was more of an experience than a movie", even from those who did not particularly enjoy the story. Do you honestly think Clash of the Titans or The Last Airbender got that kind of word of mouth?

Let's see what a movie shot in S3D does... like say Tron. If it gets crazy numbers, I think it'll be safe to say that if done well, 3D will still bring in big audiences. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Keep in mind also that even stagnant ticket sales thanks to 3D would mean that ticket sales are "up".

Even a slow loss of ticket sales in theater would probably translate into a boost to the industry as compared to without 3D.

 

[Daniel Browning]

I took my wife to see Avatar and she was enjoying it until half way through she got incredible painful headaches and looked down at her lap, I told her to close one eye until she felt okay. She has great vision and doesnt wear glasses.

Was it on film with plastic glasses? If so, then it matched my experience. The only time I ever had a headache on a 3D movie was Avatar on IMAX 3D. Normally I don't watch film -- in fact, I pity those poor, backwards folk who don't have modern amenities such as running water, electricity, or 2K digital projection. I haven't darkened the door of ye olde film projection theater for about six years. The only exception was to see Avatar on IMAX 3D and compare it with 2K + Dolby Real3D glasses. In addition to the headache, the projector focus was off and had a slight but annoying jitter.