|
BobTheSpy posted:Everyone on the IMDB boards already seems to loving hate this movie so much. Man, people judge poo poo quickly without actually experiencing it, don't they? The real question is what in the hell are you doing on the IMDB boards? Jesus Christ, run for your life.
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 15:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 06:27 |
|
|
Yeah, do all your discussing on Something Awful. It's much less cynical here! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 15:56
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Which I find even more astonishing because for a movie like this, I'm so hyped up/excited for it that I know I'm just going to be completely uncritical of the film the first time I see it. I probably won't really be able to judge it on its merits as a film until I've seen it a second time, so for people to HATE it before they've even seen it knocks me for a loop. It's not like George Lucas is making it! No, but there are some things to be cautious about. The decision to stretch it to three movies is pretty worrying. Even with the additional material that's something that could really hurt the pacing and overall design of the films. I don't know if it'll be bad or not but I can't say I blame people for being cautious.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 16:43
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:No, but there are some things to be cautious about. The decision to stretch it to three movies is pretty worrying. Even with the additional material that's something that could really hurt the pacing and overall design of the films. I don't know if it'll be bad or not but I can't say I blame people for being cautious. The problem is that people look at the length of the Hobbit and the length of the Lord of the Rings and say "Wait a second, if they made 3 movies out of 3 books, how are they going to make 3 movies out of 1 book and it still be good? They must have added in stupid poo poo OMG ITS GONNA BE TERRIBLE" The problem is that they are simply not factoring in what is different about these movies. The first thing is that of course they are adding in some (good) material from the LOTR appendices. The BIG factor is that the Hobbit is not as short of a story as it appears to be (and that LOTR is not as long as it appears to be). Lord of the Rings is awfully wordy and Tolkien took several pages to say and do things that would take a minute to tell on screen. The Hobbit is written much differently. It is a children's story and the book is anything but wordy. In fact it is very succinct in the way it tells the story. There are no dull moments in it because they are completely left out or glossed over with a single sentence. Some of these moments (like moments when Bilbo and the dwarves are traveling) are going to be spread out a bit in the films. This time will probably be spent building the characters of the dwarves since they aren't really given any character in the books. If that's going to make the movie bad for people than I don't know what to tell them. When your characters face adversity, the audience only really cares if they know and like the characters. That won't happen if you don't give them more moments for the audience to like them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 18:59
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:The problem is that they are simply not factoring in what is different about these movies. The first thing is that of course they are adding in some (good) material from the LOTR appendices. The BIG factor is that the Hobbit is not as short of a story as it appears to be (and that LOTR is not as long as it appears to be). Lord of the Rings is awfully wordy and Tolkien took several pages to say and do things that would take a minute to tell on screen. The Hobbit is written much differently. It is a children's story and the book is anything but wordy. In fact it is very succinct in the way it tells the story. There are no dull moments in it because they are completely left out or glossed over with a single sentence. Some of these moments (like moments when Bilbo and the dwarves are traveling) are going to be spread out a bit in the films. This time will probably be spent building the characters of the dwarves since they aren't really given any character in the books. If that's going to make the movie bad for people than I don't know what to tell them. When your characters face adversity, the audience only really cares if they know and like the characters. That won't happen if you don't give them more moments for the audience to like them. I'm also worried about the fact they are stretching the story out over three films, and while you make some good points that there is a lot of original Tolkien material to fill up the time, my concern comes from somewhere else: King Kong. While not a terrible film - it had some fantastic sequences - it was an unfortunate example of Peter Jackson bloat (no fat jokes, please) when he has a big budget and lots of creative control. It just went on, and on, and on, and what could have been a good 1.5 to 2 hour film was turned into 3-hour mess. Now we are getting not one, but three, Hobbit films, each likely over 2.5 hours long. The fact that they were originally designed as two films before being stretched to three late in the production is not making me feel any better. But hey, it's Jackson, and I'm a massive fan (again, no fat jokes) of the first trilogy. If he avoids his King Kong excesses, the Hobbit trilogy could be just as good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 21:19
|
|
|
The two posts above exactly triangulate the way I feel about it. LOTR is about 60% landscape descriptions and 10% songs, so I do think there's enough stuff in the Hobbit to fill three films. But I'm skeptical about Jackson, Walsh and Boyens' instincts when it comes to filling space. And if any of the dwarves are annoying the whole thing's going to be a bit painful. WE'LL SEE. I think I'll pop down to the opening on the 28th, take some photos for the thread. Weta have been putting up huge figures from the movie everywhere, the Gollum at Wellington airport is incredible. sebmojo fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Nov 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 22:24
|
|
|
Also it's a mistake to characterize it as "stretching" the story into three movies. They just decided it would be cruel to give us two 4.5 hour movies. They're doing our asses a favor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 22:27
|
|
|
kenlyric posted:Also it's a mistake to characterize it as "stretching" the story into three movies. They just decided it would be cruel to give us two 4.5 hour movies. They're doing our asses a favor. If it is going to be three, It really should be 3 x 120min movies. No more. Even less since it will be 3D. 3 x 100 mins would be about right. I watched the first disc of TTT:EE last night and boy, does it suck. I have not watched it for years. I worry that The Hobbit we get in theatres is basically going to be The Hobbit:EE. At any rate, I am sure I will enjoy it but have a lot to whinge about it - same as LOTR really.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 22:50
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:The problem is that people look at the length of the Hobbit and the length of the Lord of the Rings and say "Wait a second, if they made 3 movies out of 3 books, how are they going to make 3 movies out of 1 book and it still be good? They must have added in stupid poo poo OMG ITS GONNA BE TERRIBLE" The Hobbit is a full story, but 3 films is still pretty exceptional. There is no 'downtime' but there's still places where pacing can be screwed up pretty easily and where content can be stretched out further than it needs to be. 2 films felt reasonable enough. 3 films feels like it gives Jackson and friends a lot more change to pace things badly, something they've had a problem with before.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 22:52
|
|
|
kenlyric posted:Also it's a mistake to characterize it as "stretching" the story into three movies. They just decided it would be cruel to give us two 4.5 hour movies. They're doing our asses a favor. Maybe, but it was very late in the process when they decided to make it into three films, and seems driven as much by the studio wanting an extra film in the theaters as any real necessity. I recall watching one of the last production diaries, when primary filming was just finishing, the actors were all saying goodbye and moving on, and it was still planned as two movies then. To add another entire film to a series after primary filming is complete seems...odd. It's also probably unprecedented. Now, knowing Jackson, they probably had enough footage in the can for three films at that point (or four, or five) but I don't think concerns about stretching or padding are completely unfounded. Like I say, it's mostly King Kong that has me worried, the original films were great.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 23:35
|
|
|
DentArthurDent posted:Maybe, but it was very late in the process when they decided to make it into three films, and seems driven as much by the studio wanting an extra film in the theaters as any real necessity. I really think that more than anything, the reason the story's being stretched out so much is that they're really making the dwarves three-dimensional characters with their own character arcs etc. And that's a good thing. I recommend reading the Official Movie Guide that came out recently. There's interviews with all 13 dwarf actors, and they all talk about their characters and it sounds like an effort's really been made to distinguish them all. I think it does take a trilogy of build up so that you really care about the fate of the dwarves in the final battle. So yeah, combine the arcs of 15 main characters with all the action set pieces, the ring, the stuff drawn from the appendices, and so on, and you have enough for a really packed trilogy of films. edit: One example is Ori. When we first saw this photo:  we thought "ok he's the goofy looking one with the bowl haircut". But since reading the Official Movie Guide I know that in the movies he'll be the young, shy one who's been sheltered his entire life and this is his first journey out into the world; and he looks up to his brother Nori who is a bit of a rough/badass type; and he has a complicated relationship with his other brother Dori, who acts more like a fussy parent to him and doesn't want him on the trip, so Ori is keen to prove himself; and he also feels empathy with Bilbo as they're both naive fish-out-of-water types on this trip; and over the course of the films we'll see him grow in bravery to the point where, years later, he'll be one of Balin's crew who goes to take back Moria and dies tragically in the chamber of Marzabul. I mean, that's actually a lot of character arc, he's not just the goofy-looking one. Hedrigall fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Nov 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 23:43
|
|
|
I think one advantage that the Hobbit trilogy will have over LOTR is the humor. I'm hoping if there are some slow slogs during parts of the movies, at least they will be funny.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 23:59
|
|
|
Hedrigall posted:we thought "ok he's the goofy looking one with the bowl haircut". But since reading the Official Movie Guide I know that in the movies he'll be the young, shy one who's been sheltered his entire life and this is his first journey out into the world; and he looks up to his brother Nori who is a bit of a rough/badass type; and he has a complicated relationship with his other brother Dori, who acts more like a fussy parent to him and doesn't want him on the trip, so Ori is keen to prove himself; and he also feels empathy with Bilbo as they're both naive fish-out-of-water types on this trip; and over the course of the films we'll see him grow in bravery to the point where, years later, he'll be one of Balin's crew who goes to take back Moria and dies tragically in the chamber of Marzabul. I mean, that's actually a lot of character arc, he's not just the goofy-looking one. Let's see how much of this actually makes it into the movies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 00:08
|
|
|
Bombur also has a lot of depth: he's the fat one who'll fart a lot and probably fall over a few times. Jackson! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 00:19
|
|
|
They should've introduced a 14th dwarf named Lucky who tragically dies just before the movie begins, prompting the hiring of a Hobbit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 01:01
|
|
|
casa de mi padre posted:They should've introduced a 14th dwarf named Lucky who tragically dies just before the movie begins, prompting the hiring of a Hobbit. Do I smell a new trilogy leading up to the Hobbit?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 03:56
|
|
|
With the PETA thing and the PR Firm idiot who revoked the press pass of the woman who wrote some negative articles, I am picturing Peter Jackson sitting in his house just yanking his hair out bit by bit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 04:00
|
|
|
Is there even any truth at all to the PETA thing? It's pretty damning that the whistle blowing came from people who got fired.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 04:17
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Is there even any truth at all to the PETA thing? It's pretty damning that the whistle blowing came from people who got fired. I like that Peter Jackson et all said the only instances of poorly-treated animals they were able to find were from the guys who made the accusations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 04:28
|
|
|
I made a comment debunking te story on the PETA article about the Hobbit...but since they moderate all their comments, I doubt it'll get posted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 04:32
|
|
|
The decision to make it into 3 films was made around the time that film 1 was in editing. My theory is they figured out where to end the first one, realized how much story they still had in the can and said "oh gently caress". It would be a lovely problem to have if it weren't a shoe-in to make like a billion dollars. But since it will almost certainly make poo poo tons of money, WB gave film 3 the green light without a second thought (and with dollar signs in their bugging-out eyeballs)
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 04:49
|
|
|
I wonder if they're going to do more re-shoots for the third film? Or just rearranging what they've already shot?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 05:46
|
|
|
Hatter106 posted:I wonder if they're going to do more re-shoots for the third film? Or just rearranging what they've already shot? A combination of both. They have re-shoots scheduled, but they have a huge chunk of the material in the can. Edit: Whoo, that was a hell of a typo. TheBigBudgetSequel fucked around with this message at 06:13 on Nov 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 06:04
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:A combination of both. They have re-shoots scheduled, but they have a huge chunk of penis in my can. Wha? quote:Edit: Whoo, that was a hell of a typo. Oh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 12:09
|
|
|
The letters are like, right next to each other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 12:38
|
|
|
Sorry, this is probably really easy to find and I'm just useless, but does anyone have access to a list of which cinemas in the US are equipped with the right sort of camera to see the film in the higher FPS? I'm going to be in New York over December on my honeymoon (I'm Australian) and I want to find the best possible cinema to see it in as a treat for both of us. Can't work out which cinema that would be in New York, so if anyone has any ideas there too, great!
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 11:38
|
|
|
Blamestorm posted:Sorry, this is probably really easy to find and I'm just useless, but does anyone have access to a list of which cinemas in the US are equipped with the right sort of camera to see the film in the higher FPS? I'm going to be in New York over December on my honeymoon (I'm Australian) and I want to find the best possible cinema to see it in as a treat for both of us. Can't work out which cinema that would be in New York, so if anyone has any ideas there too, great! I never feel like an official movie site will have the info I want either. (seriously) http://www.thehobbit.com/hfr3d/index.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 18:26
|
|
|
Theonering.net also has a list that I'm hoping is more accurate. It has the theater a mile away from my apartment listed as showing it in HFR 3D, but I don't see it on that official list.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 19:24
|
|
|
So I was visiting my parents this week when I saw a TV spot for The Hobbit. I called my mum over to have a look since we've been anticipating this movie since it was announced. She watches a moment, then turns to me and says, "But Das Boo, I don't want to see the Mickey Mouse Club movie." Now when I ask her what the hell that was about, she just laughs and walks away. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 19:35
|
|
|
Diabolik900 posted:Theonering.net also has a list that I'm hoping is more accurate. It has the theater a mile away from my apartment listed as showing it in HFR 3D, but I don't see it on that official list. Upon further examination, it looks like they listed all the New Jersey theaters under New York on the official list. I guess either list is fine then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 20:04
|
|
|
Diabolik900 posted:Upon further examination, it looks like they listed all the New Jersey theaters under New York on the official list. The official list shows one Indianapolis, IN location, but Fandango only shows an IMAX 3d showing, not an HFR showing. The onering.net list leaves that theater off. Had my hopes up for a few seconds 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 22:20
|
|
|
Thanks for the list !I feel like a moron for not even checking the official movie site, I assumed it would be virtually content free - now I know to check in future.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 22:39
|
|
|
Das Boo posted:So I was visiting my parents this week when I saw a TV spot for The Hobbit. I called my mum over to have a look since we've been anticipating this movie since it was announced. She watches a moment, then turns to me and says, "But Das Boo, I don't want to see the Mickey Mouse Club movie." You got trolled by your mum  Also,  HOLD ON TO YOUR BUTTS quote:Peter Jackson So expect a new production video in the next few hours!
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 01:23
|
|
|
PJ just posted on facebook that a new video will be up soon. What "soon" means is anyones guess though... EDIT: Beaten... drat you!
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 01:24
|
|
|
While you wait for PJ's new video, in more "Air New Zealand is a tad obsessed with the Hobbit" news, a Hobbit-painted 777 now exists, and will be cruising between LA, London, and Auckland. http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/7993038/Air-NZ-unveils-Hobbit-plane Wellington is also holding a series of events to celebrate the premiere - today I am off to the Hobbit artisan market.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 01:55
|
|
|
It's up! https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151345300446807 'Department of Internal Beard-Hairs'. Octy fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Nov 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 06:43
|
|
|
BEARD MOCAP edit: someone for the love of god make a gif of the dancing beards-on-stick-figures. Hedrigall fucked around with this message at 07:05 on Nov 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 06:55
|
|
|
Oh man every shot of the movie looks amazing, particularly the Goblin stuff 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 08:12
|
|
|
Our country's movie theater monopoly opened ticket sales today at 10:00. Well, at that time their website completely died. Now I'm wondering if their ticket sales system is shared between the theatres and internet. If yes, no one can buy a ticket anywhere. If no, I could go buy a physical ticket for myself right now. Sounds like too much effort though. It's just a movie anyways.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 09:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 06:27 |
|
|
Between the vlogs, trailers and tv spots, I feel like I've seen way too much of the movie now, but I don't even remotely have the willpower to stop looking at spoilers. I don't think it's as bad as Prometheus though, where - in a single trailer - they went and methodically spoiled every important story beat of the film in chronological order. By the way, in that latest vlog, I loved the shot that showed young versions of Balin and Thorin in Smaug's initial assault on Erebor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 16:18
|
|
