Of course the natural question is, even if you say "yes 48 fps is great and film should start making more of them that way", should The Hobbit have been made that way, being a fantasy movie? Maybe it just needs that old dreamy, surreal look of 24 fps film.
The Hobbit movies
-
-
Upload the raw film to like Rapidshare or something so nothing is lost.
Fantastic idea.
Also, there will be some differences between my footage and The Hobbit. Jackson is using RED Epics to film the Hobbit, and I unfortunately won't be able to get my hands on one of those beauts till next semester. I will still use the best camera I can get, and I'll make sure it's digital,not film.I do think it's a significant benefit, it keeps panning shots and movement shots in general from being really blurry. If someone was to do a handheld type film like Cloverfield at 48fps it might aleviate some of the motion sickness people feel with it, since it won't just be blurry camera movement all over the place. It will help action scenes be clearer and camera movement in general. I personally feel like it's enough of a change.
The entirety response is not specific to you, but just a general statement.
See, this talk of motion blur is making it sound like it's an actual problem that films have. They don't. Blur is easily remedied by messing with the shutter speed.
Go back and watch all the LotR films. There's no problem with motion blur.
Now, yes, it can definitely help POV films like Cloverfield, but a general film, it's really not necessary.
And now I'm just becoming a broken record, so I'll stop now.
-
Well, if it's just a shutter speed problem then that needs to be fixed. But not everyone does that, so this is a kind of workaround I guess.
-
Well, if it's just a shutter speed problem then that needs to be fixed. But not everyone does that, so this is a kind of workaround I guess.
The thing is, with shutter speed, you can give your movie as much motion blur as you want.
Films like Saving Private Ryan operate on a high shutter speed eliminating a ton of blur. While films like, LotR will operate on a mostly low shutter speed, except for some of the actions sequences, where they might ramp it up a bit.
For example: [hide][/hide]
That was done with a very low shutter speed. To get rid of that you just use a normal shutter speed. Though at normal, there might still be blur if you're moving the sparklers, so you might ramp the shutter speed up, and then the subject can wave the sparklers all they won't and there will be no blur.Now, shutter speed can't do it all of course. If you're whipping the camera around 100 mile an hour, there will of course be blur.
48fps definitely has some benefits, but using motion blur as an argument for the change is really kind of moot.
Especially when camera's like the RED Epic have such amazing shutter speeds.
But yeah, I echo everyone's sentiments. I'm all for a test of 48fps, but I really wish The Hobbit wasn't that test.
-
@Nex:
For example: [hide][qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Sparklers_with_a_slow_shutter_speed.JPG/800px-Sparklers_with_a_slow_shutter_speed.JPG[/qimg][/hide]
You have any other sparkler shots with different quality to compare with? Thats kind of a perfect thing to use as a quality example, since theres thousands of tiny details in there, usually a lot of blur, and the natural contrast makes it easy to see
-
Loved the end! I also love that they do these blogs. I loved watching the LOTR and King Kong making of's.
Also great to see Orlando Bloom.
-
The decision to recast Legolas this late in production might prove to be the best one.
!
-
Yeah, I guess after they got Bloom into the makeup, they decided he'd just aged too much to play the role anymore in a prequel. Or maybe his asking price was too high for whats basically a cameo.
-
Apparently all initial photography on the movies has now wrapped. Yaaaye. Now its all post production and pickups. We sould have one more final production diary eventually.
Also.
[hide]
http://s3.amazonaws.com/coolproduction/ckeditor_assets/pictures/7910/original/hobbitscroll.jpg?1341883248[/hide] -
There should be a big preview coming out via Comic-Con as well.
-
Finished reading the book today. Great stuff is all I can say. I can see how this would work as two movies and the second should be more in style with what I think the fans are expecting.
-
omg ze spoilerz [http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/07/14/59080-the-hobbitcon-hall-h-presentation-torn-round-up-part-one/#more-59080
h](http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/07/14/59080-the-hobbitcon-hall-h-presentation-torn-round-up-part-one/#more-59080)ave yet to see any general comments on the fps stuff.
Q&A:
-
It was presented at the standard 24 fps at comic con, so don't expect any sort of comments on frame rate.
-
Ah, ok then.
Would have thought they'd show it in full speed, wonder if they just wanted to avoid any negative reactions that the last showing got.
-
Production diary 8-final days of shooting, and a little bit of comicon.
-
Alright…still have some concerns (probably less than I did prior to FOTR, actually), but I am thoroughly excited for this film. :)
Incidentally.....
wtf….lol. Weird animated short from the 60's. Well, I think I'd be exaggerating to say "animated".
The monster lizard Slag? :blink:
Best part is when Bilbo makes a magical bow, kills "Slag" and marries the princess....best Hobbit ever!
-
Hobbit production diaries never fail to give me a warm smile after watching them.
And that is how the magic actually works.
-
I'd like to mention that two have become three: http://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-jackson/an-unexpected-journey/10151114596546558
-
I was hearing rumors about that….guess it's confirmed then. All I can say is that the reason for doing that better be more about "we have so much great footage that when I put it all together, it just felt more like 3 movies" and not "we really want to make money off a third film".
-
I was hearing rumors about that….guess it's confirmed then. All I can say is that the reason for doing that better be more about "we have so much great footage that when I put it all together, it just felt more like 3 movies" and not "we really want to make money off a third film".
That seems to be their reason, that and the amount that's been cut. So wa-hey! All the better for us ^^ But really, they're guaranteed to make so much already it's almost immaterial.
-
Yeah, that's fine…something about shifting the vision so suddenly doesn't sit right with me....honestly, LOTR could have probably been made into 6 films more easily than the Hobbit could be made into 3, extra material or not. But like I said, as long as it's more an artistic decision rather than a profit one I'll be happy for it.
-
I'm down with three movies. they're pulling from the Hobbit, AND the LotR appendecies, and some other stuff, there's PLENTY of material there to use. The Hobbit by itself is easily a 5 hour movie if you aren't cutting anything even without the extra appendecies content, so… no worries here. PJ and crew have proved themselves.
I imagine that the plan had been for both films to be roughly 2 hours theatrical, and as much as 3 in the extended edition for a 6 hour movie. So three 2 hour movies works out about the same... especially if they DO have enough footage to also make extended editions still after that. (And with an extra 2 months shooting, they should.) We could end up with 8 or 9 hours of movie total, and that's a GOOD thing.
LotR could have been 5 or 6 movies, since its final running time was some 12 hours, I'm really not concerned about this. Plus the dvds will have crazy ammounts of special features probably. MORE behind the scenes goodies? Yes please! And we get to have a December event for 3 years straight again? Haven't really had that since... LotR!
The ONLY downside is that it'll now take until 2014 to see them all, and 2015 for all the dvds. (Or I guess go with the blu rays this time...)
-
Does this mean Hobbit 3 and Avatar 2 will premiere around the same time?
-
My initial reaction was being a little miffed, then a I thought about it…. we get more of peter jackson vision of tolkiens material, that's nice I guess.
But really until I've seen hobbit part 1 to much can change. -
I don't understand how Jackson is okay with making omissions from the LotR books, but can't apparently bring himself to omit a sincgle scene from The Hobbit.
I was already miffed that it was 2 films, and I was just starting to be okay with that.
I am now officially worried about what we're going to be getting.
-
@Nex:
I don't understand how Jackson is okay with making omissions from the LotR books, but can't apparently bring himself to omit a sincgle scene from The Hobbit.
He didn't have the clout or track record then to do more then. (Heck, Lord of the Rings didn't even have the clout then.) As it is he gave like 3 hours of extra story material on the dvd's… an entire extra movie's worth. if he'd had the time and budget to shoot another 3 or 4 hours of movie at the time, I'm sure he would have. (Though cutting Tom Bombadill and scouring of the shire were both wise choices, they'd each be an extra half hour that completely deviated from the main narrative. Tom's material handed over to tree beard worked fine, and placed better in the second film.)
The Hobbit is a weird case because Tolkien basically rewrote and expanded on it it over the course of his entire life after it was published (50 years!) to tie into LotR better, but couldn't be brought to change the tone of the fan beloved original work (aside from the Gollum scene) so his ultimate intent ended up in the appendices and unfinished notes.
The Hobbit is not a thin story. At times, even the book arguably feels like an abridged version of itself story-wise, with several major story elements referenced in the briefest of terms and barely expanded on at all. (Okay, gandalf is going to go off and do... something else for a while.) These movies are a fantastic opportunity to expand greatly on some of the plot points the book brushes over in just a few words/paragraphs. There is a wealth of material here, a ton of story that is hardly told in The Hobbit. 1 page a minute equals 300 minutes equals 5 hours. The unabridged audiobook takes 11 hours.
Even condensing scenery descriptions into visuals, its a dense book. Even before you get to the expanded appendicies material, there's a TON there to make a full blown adaptation of 6 or 7 hours. Movies usually trim lengthy books down to 2 hours because... they have to. Cut scenes, trim dialogue, condense with visuals taking less time to show than to describe... but there's usually cuts. Hobbit as a series of short mini-adventures lends itself better to breaking apart and expanding.
In addition to expanding the story to fully realize plot elements from the book, you then have content pulled in from the appendices, again representing a lot of threads and stories taking place around the same time.
The expanded movie might actually be closer to Tolkien's eventual vision than the actual book was, weird as that sounds. I know its also weird to say LotR benefited from edits, while Hobbit should benefit from expansions, but... it's true.
-
Yeah, very true. I fully believe they're doing the Hobbit movie justice by adding in some of Tolkien's other materials. Had the Hobbit been made BEFORE LOTR, it would have been very, very different for both movies.
Also, remember that when PJ was trying to find a producer for LOTR, NOBODY but New Line was even remotely willing to make more than one film. He was originally shooting for two….it was NLC's idea to make it into a trilogy. Setting a trend for a lot of movie makers to pre-plan trilogies - it was not something that was being done successfully before then.
-
But aren't there certain Appendices they aren't allowed to use because they count as their own books and the producers don't have the rights?
-
I wonder if in the future we'll ever The Silmarillion and The Children of Hurin get adapted. If they ever get the rights to make movies, do you think that they deserve it?
-
But aren't there certain Appendices they aren't allowed to use because they count as their own books and the producers don't have the rights?
They can't use the Silmarillion, and a handful of other things. (Which is fine, Silmarillion is pretty much all ancienter history anyway.)
But everything in LotR (and remember, there's basically an entire extra LotR book of just appendices) and Hobbit, and some of the lost notes related to that, they can.
I wonder if in the future we'll ever The Silmarillion and The Children of Hurin get adapted. If they get the rights to make movies, do you think that they deserve it?
Not until Christopher Tolkien dies. He's done so, so much to the credit of his father's legacy, but he hates the movies and has control of the estate, (In terms of tone and loyalty to the work… even though they're more faithful than they have any right to be.) but the rights to Hobbit and Rings were sold decades ago, so there's not much he can do about it. He is 87 however. But even if he died tomorrow (horrible thing to say, I know) I doubt Jackson would be up for yet another round of this intense workload.
And Silmarillion wouldn't work very well as a movie. As a tv mini-series maybe. Its a bunch of short stories, some of them unfinished or contradicting, with lots of siring and decendants and begatting going on over many many years. Kind of like the bible, hard to make a cohesive extended whole out of it.
-
Why oh why do I get the feeling that The Hobbit trilogy is going to be slowing (and boring) as heck?
-
@The:
Why oh why do I get the feeling that The Hobbit trilogy is going to be slowing (and boring) as heck?
it won't be.
There's a forest of spiders, monsters, a fight with a dragon, a war with a necromancers, a battle of five distinct armies, some eagles… lots of stuff.
Split into three there's actually distinct big battle set pieces to end the films now. Smaug can get much of the second film to himself now, instead of just being the first half of it. And we'll get more time to establish the THIRTEEN dwarves as unique characters. (LotR was crowded with 9 leads... Hobbit starts with 15 counting Gandalf!)
The first film will probably set up Bilbo and the dwarves, establishing the characters and running The Party through Rivendell, Mirkwood, Beorn, Burt, Tom & Bill, Goblin Town, etc. The second film will deal with the town of Dale, The Lonely Mountain with Smaug a la Gollum in the Two Towers. The third film will feature Bard the Bowman, and The Battle of Five Armies a la Battle of Pelennor Fields in the Return of the King.
-
@RobbyBevard:
Have you read the book recently? Or the LotR appendecies?
it won't be.
Hopefully.
I mean… I have read every single book before I saw the movies, and, when I did see The Fellowship of the Ring, I was bored out of my mind (except for Moria); loved the Two Towers though, and Return of the King.
-
I'm just curious, I just read stuff was cut out of the LOTR trilogy. How much was cut out exactly??
-
I'm just curious, I just read stuff was cut out of the LOTR trilogy. How much was cut out exactly??
Tom Bombadil… ;(
-
I'm just curious, I just read stuff was cut out of the LOTR trilogy. How much was cut out exactly??
The two big things are Tom Bombadill (who would have halted the story to a grinding stop in the first movie) and the scouring of the shire, which would have been an extra half hour at the epilogue after all the ring drama was over. (And people already complained about the 20 minutes of endings!)
There's a ton of other little stuff too, like Merry and Pippin wandering around town at length and making friends that don't do much in the story, other minor characters that have great importance in the world but only two lines of dialogue, the lengthy trip back where the crew meets everyone they met along the way, and them stopping every five pages to sing a song about the history of the world, some small character moments like everyone being blindfolded before ging into the elven woods…
There was also stuff addedor pretty dramatically changed (Faramir especially) or extended... like the battle for Helms Deep was just a couple pages in the book, but a major 40 minute event in the movie.
A lot of little stuff was cut, but for the most part, they were smart cuts that made the pacing work better. (They cut the last... 100 pages or so out of Return of the King.) The stuff added or changed (and they talk about this at length in the commentaries and special features) was mostly to suit the nature of them being movies. (For instance, in the books Frodo and Sam's story was 90% done in Two Towers, but much of that material got moved to Return of the King to synch up the timelines and so they'd have something to actually do.)
-
@RobbyBevard:
The two big things are Tom Bombadill (who would have halted the story to a grinding stop in the first movie) and the scouring of the shire, which would have been an extra half hour at the epilogue after all the ring drama was over. (And people already complained about the 20 minutes of endings!)
There's a ton of other little stuff too, like Merry and Pippin wandering around town at length and making friends that don't do much in the story, other minor characters that have great importance in the world but only two lines of dialogue, the lengthy trip back where the crew meets everyone they met along the way, and them stopping every five pages to sing a song about the history of the world, some small character moments like everyone being blindfolded before ging into the elven woods…
There was also stuff addedor pretty dramatically changed (Faramir especially) or extended... like the battle for Helms Deep was just a couple pages in the book, but a major 40 minute event in the movie.
A lot of little stuff was cut, but for the most part, they were smart cuts that made the pacing work better. (They cut the last... 100 pages or so out of Return of the King.) The stuff added or changed (and they talk about this at length in the commentaries and special features) was mostly to suit the nature of them being movies. (For instance, in the books Frodo and Sam's story was 90% done in Two Towers, but much of that material got moved to Return of the King to synch up the timelines and so they'd have something to actually do.)
Tom Bomb. should be in everything.
-
A man in a big yellow hat coming out and going "This ring has no power over me and I am immune to it… and I sing songs and can bend nature to my will and am a major mysterious entity of obvious power that never re-enters the story" would have completely destroyed the ring's credibility... and stopped the movie an hour in for for 20 minutes right where it was starting to gain momentum.
And the scene with the tree eating the hobbits was given to Treebeard and it worked fine there. For all intents and purposes he filled all the roles of Tom without breaking the flow.
(WHich is a problem I have with the books. They tend to stop and have relaxing breaks every other chapter where they are protected by an outside force, rather than maintain tension... but I've talked about that at length before.)
-
I'm seriously considering reading The Hobbit again before the film comes out to sort of refresh my memory of it. It's been years since I read it after all. The only thing I don't know is, which edition should I read? Since it's been re-published and re-issued so much…
-
@RobbyBevard:
A man in a big yellow hat coming out and going "This ring has no power over me and I am immune to it… and I sing songs and can bend nature to my will and am a major mysterious entity of obvious power that never re-enters the story" would have completely destroyed the ring's credibility... and stopped the movie an hour in for for 20 minutes right where it was starting to gain momentum.
And the scene with the tree eating the hobbits was given to Treebeard and it worked fine there. For all intents and purposes he filled all the roles of Tom without breaking the flow.
(WHich is a problem I have with the books. They tend to stop and have relaxing breaks every other chapter where they are protected by an outside force, rather than maintain tension... but I've talked about that at length before.)
Well isn't Tom Bomb. basically like…God in the Lord of the Rings universe; the pinnacle of light?
-
I'm just curious, I just read stuff was cut out of the LOTR trilogy. How much was cut out exactly??
Robby laid it out for you, I'd just like to add, that as someone who was a fan of the books before the films came out, I prefer the movies.
While I loved the story, Tolkein's writing style was not for me. The books were slow, had lost of unnecessary elements (Tom, and the sacking of the shire) and the movie made it all so much tighter. Made me like characters I could have cared less about, and, in my mind, are still one of the greatest cinematic triumphs of all time. The music, the acting, the story (credit to Tolkein, where it is due) everything about them is wodnerful, in my opinion.I sit with friends as marathon the whole trilogy (extended cuts!) at least once every year, whereas I only read the books once every few years.
@The:
Tom Bomb. should be in everything.
Tom is the worst character of anything ever, and I wish there was a way to leave him out of The Hobbit.
-
IIRC, nobody knows exactly what Tom Bombadil is… He's just sort of there, and he is able to do things that nobody else can do. Whatever he is, he has odd powers nobody else does and the ring has literally no ill effect on him whereas everyone else in the entire LoTR universe feels an immense pull by the Ring. He claims to have "Always Been", and apparently has some control or hold over Nature, because at the council of Elrond, someone brings up the logical question "If the ring don't affect this guy, why don't we just give it to him?". It's determined that Tom wouldn't be able to handle an attack from Sauron because "The Earth itself would efentually buckle" implying that he's like... A force of nature or a spirit of the land or something. Even more solidifying this, Gandalf says another good reason not to give it to him is that he has absolutely no concept of the importance of the situation because he doesn't care about the lives of mortals, so he would literally forget about the ring and probably lose it.
Tolkien admitted later that he put Tom in there literally to have something "Mysterious" in the story. That he went out of his way to document EVERYTHING ELSE to the point that you basically can look up and find out if a hobbit sneezed on the second Tuesday in June on Year 36 of the second age. He wanted there to be one thing left that was "Mysterious" for fans to ponder. In that regard I guess he succeeded.
--- Update From New Post Merge ---@Nex:
Tom is the worst character of anything ever, and I wish there was a way to leave him out of The Hobbit.
It's been so long since I read it, refresh my memory, what part did Tom play in the Hobbit? I legitimately don't remember him being there.
-
I could've sworn I heard Tom Bomb. was a "metaphor" for God in the Lord of the Rings somewhere. I might have been tripping balls, though; seems to happen to me from time-to-time.
-
In one of his letters, Tolkien confirmed that the "God" within the fictional universe of his story exists separately of the world depicted and there is no physical embodiment of him in middle earth. That's pretty much the closest he can come to saying it short of actually saying "No, Tom Bombadil isn't god"
-
It's been so long since I read it, refresh my memory, what part did Tom play in the Hobbit? I legitimately don't remember him being there.
He doesn't. I got confused some how. o.0
Right after I made that post I went to check. Not in there. I was remembering the other Toms. My mistake.
There are a lot of Toms.
-
@Nex:
Robby laid it out for you, I'd just like to add, that as someone who was a fan of the books before the films came out, I prefer the movies.
While I loved the story, Tolkein's writing style was not for me. The books were slow, had lost of unnecessary elements (Tom, and the sacking of the shire) and the movie made it all so much tighter.I agree. I understand when people say the scouring of the shire was a huge point, and that taking it out changes the entire message of the book… but its such a tacked on extra bit after hundreds of pages of the ring already being destroyed. As a "part of folklore and history" as Tolkien wrote it, it works as a chronicling of events... but for story flow and pacing, its terribly out of place. (But, he had different goals and inpsirations that... anyone else.)
As is, everything important characterwise with Sarumon and Wormtounge was still in the extended edition of RotK anyway... he just didn't get around to screwing up the hobbit village and forcing them to became an anti-climax army.
The ONE cut, the one moment I really miss.... is the part where they're going to blindfold Gimli to lead him into the forest, and Legolas goes "No way. He's my friend. If you blindfold him you have to blindfold me too." Its a great character moment and it makes their friendship much stronger in my eyes... but I can also see that it would basically be a several minute scene standing around talking about putting on a blindfold for it to carry any weight, and that just wouldn't work... since they're walking and leading towards a reveal moments later anyway.
-
@The:
Hopefully.
I mean… I have read every single book before I saw the movies, and, when I did see The Fellowship of the Ring, I was bored out of my mind (except for Moria); loved the Two Towers though, and Return of the King.
FOTR is my favorite. ROTK second, and I honestly don't care for TTT all that much…it's kind of the necessary evil movie to me. Some of the stuff they changed in there just bugs the crap out of me. Brad Dourif as Wormtongue was awesome though, as was most of the earlier scenes of Rohan.
-
Heh. Two Towers is my favorite of the films, if I have to pick one, though that's in large part thanks to Sam's Speech at the end. You know the one – everyone knows the one.
For me, that one speech is the whole trilogy summed up. Yes, it's kind of on the nose and obvious in that way, but it just works. And I largely credit that to Astin's performance. It's just such a powerful scene and something I watch often.
-
I have a hard time taking that speech seriously since it's almost like he's making a joke about how they're really not supposed to be in Osgiliath; because they weren't.