Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

The Hobbit...

In this article at a Comic-Com Q&A session; http://www.deadline.com/2012/07/com...ow-48-frames-can-save-moviegoing/#more-301516 Peter Jackson talks about 48 Fps can save Movie going, but also why he didn’t bring it with him. Any how I found the article interesting.

“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.” Peter Jackson

Humberto Rivera
 
I guess that we’re in a “Transitory” 48 Fps Stage, everyone has an opinion. Truth be told, a 48 Fps films comes in many different variations including the nostalgic 24 fps 2D, all of these formats can be extracted for the 48 Fps original variation. They are all available for whatever format we want to see-it in. So why all the argument? Don’t know?

He re is the latest; http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplayl...ays-48fps-has-an-alien-quality-to-it-20120719 , and time go marching on, but remember, if you did not insure yourself for the future with 48 Fps, there is no turning back. Just another opinion!

Humberto Rivera
 
The Hobbit is now a trilogy as of today. Peter Jackson made it official on his Facebook page about an hour ago.
 
Well, it's official now, The Hobbit is now a trilogy!

official press release:
Peter Jackson will make a third film in his upcoming adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s enduringly popular masterpiece The Hobbit, it was jointly announced today by Toby Emmerich, President and Chief Operating Officer, New Line Cinema, Gary Barber and Roger Birnbaum, Co-Chairman and Chief Executive Officers, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, and Jeff Robinov, President, Warner Bros. Pictures Group. Jackson, the Academy Award®-winning filmmaker behind the blockbuster “The Lord of the Rings” Trilogy, recently wrapped principal photography on what he originally planned to be a two-film adaptation of The Hobbit, which is set in Middle-earth 60 years before The Lord of the Rings.

Jackson stated, “Upon recently viewing a cut of the first film, and a chunk of the second, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens and I were very pleased with the way the story was coming together. We recognized that 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, gave rise to a simple question: do we tell more of the tale? And the answer from our perspective as filmmakers and fans was an unreserved ‘yes.’ We know the strength of our cast and of the characters they have brought to life. We know creatively how compelling and engaging the story can be and—lastly, and most importantly—we know how much of the tale of Bilbo Baggins, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur would remain untold if we did not fully realize this complex and wonderful adventure. I’m delighted that New Line, MGM and Warner Bros. are equally enthusiastic about bringing fans this expansive tale across three films.” Emmerich stated, “We completely support Peter and his vision for bringing this grand adventure to the screen over the course of three films. Peter, Fran and Philippa’s reverence for the material and understanding of these characters ensure an exciting and expanded journey that is bound to please fans around the world.”

“With the abundance of rich material, we fully endorse the decision to further develop what Peter, Fran and Philippa have already begun. We are confident that, with the great care the filmmakers have taken to faithfully bring this journey to the screen, the film will be welcomed by the legions of fans across the globe,” said Barber and Birnbaum. Robinov added, “Peter, Fran and Philippa have lived in this world and understand more than anyone its tremendous breadth and scope, and the relationships that bind it together. We strongly support their vision to bring this great work fully to life.”
 
L. Langer said:
The Hobbit is now a trilogy as of today. Peter Jackson made it official on his Facebook page about an hour ago.
Click to expand...

So would anyone care to guess this means they'll be shooting more extensive pickups? Or just reworking the footage they already have in the can?
 
Stephen Brock said:
So would anyone care to guess this means they'll be shooting more extensive pickups? Or just reworking the footage they already have in the can?
Click to expand...

It's hard to say but if they are shooting the Elves VS Sauron smackdown, it will likely be a restructuring of the first and second films with a lot of new footage in the first and second parts while the third is composed of what was mostly the second film (battle of five armies) along with whatever Peter Jackson wants to cover between LOTR and The Hobbit from the appendices.
 
I think it's merely a case of PJ not being able to help himself. He shoots so much and has such a passion for the work that he wants to cram as much material in there for the fans. Realistically, making three movies out of a relatively short novel makes no sense. Two was a pragmatic compromise instead of making one REALLY long movie; I always thought they should split the movies right when they enter Mirkwood Forest. Now I have no idea what they'll do.

And, yes, this is a money grab on the part of the studio too.
 
Why so negative? Sure there is some money-making thoughts involved, but it doesn't look like the studios forced Peter into doing this. Sure they love that idea, but they left the decision to the director, and if he decides to make three movies out of the whole footage, instead of cutting it down, then i'm not questioning. He's right, he had the chance to shoot more than just the Hobbit story, and he took it. I think thats great, that chance would've never have appeared again. His passion for the material is fantastic, it makes a huge difference.

Can't wait to see Part1.

BTW, Jim, you have to make a deal about a REDRAY-release! ;)
 
The hobbit is only a 300 page book with very few points for three climaxes to carry three movie endings in my opinion( **potential spoilers***maybe how they could do it - 1 exiting the mountain meeting beorn..., 2 escaping the spiders and arriving at the river mens town.. not correct but been a while since I read it, 3 the actual ending of the book). And to be honest I'm not the biggest fan of appendices material being placed in the movie at the expense of the original story(weather through omission or pacing issues). Now Jackson has great visuals and for the most part is very good at adapting the material for the movies so I'm sure I'll be happy I just don't want to have to wait three years or more to finish the story again, and a short story at that when compared to the lord of the rings. Heck I would have preferred he did the hobbit in one... and first... and then six lord of the rings movies including tom bombadil as well as the burning of the shire.... but then again I never expected to see this universe depicted so gloriously on screen so I can't really complain.

more spoilers******
edit: actually they could go movie one: set up trolls arrive at caves after rivendel - not much of a movie
movie two: caves, ring, golum, and end on arriving at beorns - a little better
movie three: dark woods spiders, men, treasure, battle - now this is the good stuff
the more I think of it, three movies makes a whole lot more sense than two!
 
Stephen Matthews said:
The hobbit is only a 300 page book with very few points for three climaxes to carry three movie endings in my opinion( **potential spoilers***maybe how they could do it - 1 exiting the mountain meeting beorn..., 2 escaping the spiders and arriving at the river mens town.. not correct but been a while since I read it, 3 the actual ending of the book). And to be honest I'm not the biggest fan of appendices material being placed in the movie at the expense of the original story(weather through omission or pacing issues). Now Jackson has great visuals and for the most part is very good at adapting the material for the movies so I'm sure I'll be happy I just don't want to have to wait three years or more to finish the story again, and a short story at that when compared to the lord of the rings. Heck I would have preferred he did the hobbit in one... and first... and then six lord of the rings movies including tom bombadil as well as the burning of the shire.... but then again I never expected to see this universe depicted so gloriously on screen so I can't really complain.

more spoilers******
edit: actually they could go movie one: set up trolls arrive at caves after rivendel - not much of a movie
movie two: caves, ring, golum, and end on arriving at beorns - a little better
movie three: dark woods spiders, men, treasure, battle - now this is the good stuff
the more I think of it, three movies makes a whole lot more sense than two!
Click to expand...

Third movie is probably gonna be the bridge between The Hobbit and LOTR.
 
I disagree with the whole "three films is too much for one book" argument. Films based off books never get to cover the entire story due to the method of telling a story via cinema, and the way we watch them. With 3 films we might come close to capturing The Hobbit, much truer to the original than we've ever seen. Maybe it's not what people want from the film. But it's certainly what I want, and shit I'm happy about that.

But more than anything I've said, trust Peter to make the decision on how many films it needs to be the best it can be. If he says three, it is three.
 
Josef Gatti said:
But more than anything I've said, trust Peter to make the decision on how many films it needs to be the best it can be. If he says three, it is three.
Click to expand...


I couldn't agree more. Honestly, I don't have much of any opinion whether or not it should be one film, three films, six films...I just know that PJ has pretty much already proven himself to be a worthy interpreter of Tolkien's work and I don't think there's much sense in over-critiquing what is almost certainly going to be a huge success no matter what. :-] (both financially and creatively!)
 
According to the latest video blog they've shot footage equivalent of 22,817,520 ft. of 35mm. I actually almost don't want to know how much is it in terabytes...
 
According to video blog #2 they broke the shoot into 3 blocks of 3 months each and now it's a trilogy... Coincidence?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top