|
Nilbop posted:PS Dear Pete please shoot some movies in Ulster love Nilbop
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 10:40 |
|
|
WebDog posted:They were actually going to before things got sorted out in NZ. I know. I have a few actor friends who were super psyched for it, and then crushed when New Zealand was finally chosen, as much sense as it made. They all ended up getting extra roles in GoT though so it's all good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 19:28
|
|
|
Beardless posted:... Or he could move to, y'know, New Zealand. Where the movie we're actually talking about is being filmed. There's a particularly rich Irish green, though... as a Kiwi it blew me away when I visited my own ancestral boghole down in Kerry (actually a lovely little valley).
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 11:11
|
|
|
WebDog posted:They were actually going to before things got sorted out in NZ. There was never any chance of them not shooting in NZ though. All this talk of taking it to Ireland or Eastern Europe was just part of Warner Bros' sabre-rattling in the wake of the actor's union debacle, in order to coerce a better deal out of the NZ government.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 14:57
|
|
|
Nice banner released (click to embiggen)
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 21:46
|
|
|
Bioalchemist posted:Nice banner released (click to embiggen) Could you possibly have picked a worse image host? The pop-under with the auto-play news broadcast was icing on the shitcake. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 21:56
|
|
|
Oh gently caress yes. That is really poorly put together, but goddamn does it look exactly like The Hobbit. e: Though I think that looks pretty definitively like the plot of the first film in a linear way. I think we can assume it ends in about the same place as the film will. feedmyleg fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Jul 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 21:58
|
|
|
Erwin posted:Could you possibly have picked a worse image host? The pop-under with the auto-play news broadcast was icing on the shitcake. lol imgur was taking about 5 min to upload the image so I googled for an alternative and just clicked on one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 21:59
|
|
|
I think it came from here (with magnifier thingy) http://www.ew.com/ew/special/0,,20399642_20610399,00.html The wargs look a bit more wolfy this time around, and I'm liking the first look of Beorn (in bear mode). EDIT: this is the highest res version I can find (equivalent to the magnified version in the link above): http://img2-2.timeinc.net/ew/i/2012/07/09/the-hobbit-scroll/HOBBIT-SCROLL_6000.jpg Mr. Gibbycrumbles fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Jul 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 22:12
|
|
|
Beorn! All right, and I presume the giant pot is from the trolls scene, and there's Gollum and Rivendell and the forest fire and and the barrels and and and 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 00:25
|
|
|
Yay, glad to see the Wargs looking like they should and not like mutated hyenas. And Beorn! Looks like he's got some odd people hair thing going, but it could just be a weird angle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 01:41
|
|
|
I'm assuming that's Radagast standing serenely in front of that bear. I'm really looking forward to seeing how they deal with Radagast.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 07:14
|
|
|
boogs posted:I'm assuming that's Radagast standing serenely in front of that bear. I'm really looking forward to seeing how they deal with Radagast. It's Gandalf. That's clearly his hat and staff, so...
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 07:16
|
|
|
Okay good I didn't want to say anything since it has been a real long time since I read the Hobbit but what the gently caress is that bear about? I don't remember a bear.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 07:27
|
|
|
kiimo posted:Okay good I didn't want to say anything since it has been a real long time since I read the Hobbit but what the gently caress is that bear about? I don't remember a bear. That's Beorn, the shape-shifting werebear man who lives out in the middle of nowhere and doesn't like visitors. There's a very amusing scene in the book where Gandalf has to figure out how to get Beorn to happily welcome A LOT of dwarves and a hobbit to spend the night at his house.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 07:28
|
|
|
I guess we now know exactly where film 1 will end  That's a great image though, thanks for posting it!
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 07:53
|
|
|
Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:http://img2-2.timeinc.net/ew/i/2012/07/09/the-hobbit-scroll/HOBBIT-SCROLL_6000.jpg Lightsabres!? Awesome! I didn't know Bilbo had the Force. Makes sense though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 23:13
|
|
|
Wank posted:Lightsabres!? Awesome! I didn't know Bilbo had the Force. Makes sense though. It's sting, it glows blue when there are Orcs around, though that picture does make it seem a little too bright.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 23:34
|
|
|
Wank posted:Lightsabres!? Awesome! I didn't know Bilbo had the Force. Makes sense though.  Sting Glows Blue when Orcs are near
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 23:35
|
|
|
Not sold on that Gandalf poster, it's a terrible piece of photoshop composition and it looks plain weird. The most memorable illustrations of Gandalf pacing through the Shire are fast-paced and over the shoulder scenes of a man with a plan. This looks like a man soliciting his victorian ankle for spare change. To seal my fate as an angry raging nerd, his hat should be blue. They bothered to weave that bit of the description from the Hobbit into the first scenes of LOTR, so it would seem reasonable they stuck to that. Eh, it's a teaser poster. I'm probably nitpicking.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 00:56
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:
It shouldn't do that in the forest amidst the spiders, though, should it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 01:00
|
|
|
arioch posted:It shouldn't do that in the forest amidst the spiders, though, should it? Maybe Saruman made Arach-Hai!
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 01:35
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Maybe Saruman made Arach-Hai! I wish we had a YOSPOS Nice! button in every forum for posts like this. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 02:50
|
|
|
Troll statues from Comic Con:  A clearer confirmation of what we can already (just about) see from the trailer; the trolls are identical to the LotR designs (apart from the faces, but the statues are keeping these hidden for now).
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 14:37
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Maybe Saruman made Arach-Hai! I don't think we've ever seen Sting or Glamdring drawn in the presence of Uruk Hai either. Also: Nice!
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 14:54
|
|
|
arioch posted:I don't think we've ever seen Sting or Glamdring drawn in the presence of Uruk Hai either. (  )
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 15:20
|
|
|
arioch posted:It shouldn't do that in the forest amidst the spiders, though, should it? It's an interesting point. Sting (along with Orcrist and Glamdring) were forged in Gondolin, which was but a stone's throw away from Ered Gorgoroth, home to Ungoliant's children (buttloads of giant spiders). In fact, Sting was forged to have special powers against giant spiders, although it was never said whether this included glowing in their presence, or indeed whether or not Orcrist and Glamdring also had +1's (or whatever) against arachnids... It will be interesting to see how PJ interprets this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 15:36
|
|
|
Erwin posted:String glows when Frodo offers the ring to Aragorn at Amon Hen, warning them of the approaching Uruk Hai. Oops. Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:It's an interesting point. Sting (along with Orcrist and Glamdring) were forged in Gondolin, which was but a stone's throw away from Ered Gorgoroth, home to Ungoliant's children (buttloads of giant spiders). In fact, Sting was forged to have special powers against giant spiders, although it was never said whether this included glowing in their presence, or indeed whether or not Orcrist and Glamdring also had +1's (or whatever) against arachnids... http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Sting posted:Sting also glowed in the presence of the giant spider descendants of Ungoliant, such as the spiders of Mirkwood and Shelob.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 16:55
|
|
|
But it wasn't glowing in the presence of Shelob in the movie. Time for Return of the King: The Extended Special Edition! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 05:23
|
|
|
Ash1138 posted:But it wasn't glowing in the presence of Shelob in the movie. Time for Return of the King: The Extended Special Edition!
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 09:35
|
|
|
What kind of presence will The Hobbit have at comic-con? Any chance of a new trailer?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 10:48
|
|
|
Trump posted:What kind of presence will The Hobbit have at comic-con? Any chance of a new trailer? No new trailer but there will be footage. The "reel" will be shown in 2D and at 24fps, as a reaction to the negative comments on 48fps from the CinemaCon presentation. http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2012/07/11/the-hobbit-at-comic-con-peter-jacksons-san-diego-plan/ Peter Jackson posted:We are also using extensive parts of the appendices which were published at the end of “Return of the King.” This is not just ”The Hobbit” — it’s “The Hobbit” set in a much greater context of events taking place throughout Middle-earth during this period. The material is so rich. In fact only this last week or two, we’ve been talking to the studio about allowing us to shoot some additional material next year, to fully complete the story. (from the above link) Still finding more Tolkien to film? Don't mind if I do. Also, trolls: 
Mr. Gibbycrumbles fucked around with this message at 11:20 on Jul 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 11:11
|
|
|
Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:No new trailer but there will be footage. The "reel" will be shown in 2D and at 24fps, as a reaction to the negative comments on 48fps from the CinemaCon presentation. Cool, thanks. I wonder how much of this choice was really PJs and how much was the studio wanting to avoid the backlash? He seemed to be 100% dedicated to 48fps up untill now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 11:39
|
|
|
Trump posted:Cool, thanks. I wonder how much of this choice was really PJs and how much was the studio wanting to avoid the backlash? He seemed to be 100% dedicated to 48fps up untill now. Probably studio - I agree with them though, the negative reactions to the tech totally drowned out the positive reactions to the actual content, so all the media latched onto was a bunch of negative whining about 48fps. With that out of the equation, they can talk about the good stuff for a change.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 11:47
|
|
|
Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:Probably studio - I agree with them though, the negative reactions to the tech totally drowned out the positive reactions to the actual content, so all the media latched onto was a bunch of negative whining about 48fps. With that out of the equation, they can talk about the good stuff for a change. I imagined this would be the case when I originally heard they would filming in 48fps as well as the industry standard. I wouldn't be suprised if they released it in both 28/48 at major cinemas and hopefully they do the same when it's released on blue-ray/dvd.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 15:21
|
|
|
Ironza posted:I imagined this would be the case when I originally heard they would filming in 48fps as well as the industry standard. It was very loudly publicized after the previously mentioned backlash, that it will be released in both 24 and 48 fps version, in both 2D and 3D. And I'm pretty sure it's only filmed at 48fps, though I don't know what they'll do about the lack of motion blur when it's converted to 24fps.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 16:01
|
|
|
Trump posted:And I'm pretty sure it's only filmed at 48fps, though I don't know what they'll do about the lack of motion blur when it's converted to 24fps. Rewatch the trailer to see what it will look like at 24.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 16:12
|
|
|
I did a bit of Googling and could not find any 48fps footage of the movie, in a clip or trailer. Or was I being dumb and that doesn't exist online?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 16:32
|
|
|
^^^^ Nope. They've stated that they won't be releasing any of the 48fps footage prior to the film's actual release. You can find examples of 48fps footage online, but I've seen no such examples which also match the unique shutter solution being used on The Hobbit. ^^^^Trump posted:It was very loudly publicized after the previously mentioned backlash, that it will be released in both 24 and 48 fps version, in both 2D and 3D. Jackson and Lesnie chose to shoot 48fps with a 270 degree shutter, which doesn't seem like it would be the best fit for normal motion at 48fps... but I haven't actually shot any tests for that kind of motion, so my take is theoretical. Shooting with that angle does have one obvious advantage though: 24fps playback will have motion blur which is almost identical to footage shot natively at 24fps with the standard 180 degree shutter. Bugblatter fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Jul 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 10:40 |
|
|
Some arse-slappingly good close-ups of the troll's faces here: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/56942
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 19:04
|
|