Reply to Topic
Looks pretty cool, let's hope the dwarf-stuff doesn't get too goofy.
__________________
You used up all the glue on purpose!
You used up all the glue on purpose!
The Hobbit
Agreed, with the addendum that some added goofiness is tolerable, if not outright necessary. The story is much more light-hearted and I hope that's reflected in the film. Particularly given that they're using a frame story. It should feel a bit more like a fantastic fable, both in terms of the colors used and the tone of the film, as opposed to LOTR's "this is actually happening right now" tenor.
So far, so good: it looks a little lighter, but not too much.
So far, so good: it looks a little lighter, but not too much.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
If you want to achieve greatness, stop asking for permission
And here's the trailer on Youtube, though I recommend watching the Apple trailer above for best quality.
&feature=g-logo&context=G24ff3feFOAAAAAAAAAA
&feature=g-logo&context=G24ff3feFOAAAAAAAAAA
- The dwarves look awesome! Loved it when they all started chanting/singing together...very cool.
- Ian McKellan looks fantastic! Does he even age? I love Gandalf, and there's so much of him in The Hobbit which means lots of screentime too!
- Martin Freeman is going to do well, I just know it. He's so charming and funny in "The Office" which will no doubt serve Bilbo's character well.
Overall, this movie has everything going for it. Why do we have to wait so long?!?!?!
Overall, this movie has everything going for it. Why do we have to wait so long?!?!?!
__________________
"If we choose, we can live in a world of comforting illusion."
- Christopher Nolan
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I really need to read the book again it has probably been more then 15 years, but I do remember a part from when the dwarves first showed up, something about doing the dishes or something having to do with the dishes and it looked like there was a bit of that in the trailer. I can't remember exactly but wasn't there a lot of singing in The Hobbit?
Another thing is isn't a year a long time for a Trailer to be released before the movie comes out, and not a Teaser but a real Trailer.
Another thing is isn't a year a long time for a Trailer to be released before the movie comes out, and not a Teaser but a real Trailer.
__________________
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Yup, plenty of signing. And the song about the dishes was incorporated into the old Rankin Bass cartoon (Bilbo was voiced by Orson Bean, otherwise often known as Dr. Lester in Being John Malkovich). That's the tone I get from this trailer: 85% like the LOTR films and 15% like the old cartoons. Which is exactly what I want from it.
Speaking of which, you can watch the whole thing on YouTube. Here's part one:
Speaking of which, you can watch the whole thing on YouTube. Here's part one:
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
If you want to achieve greatness, stop asking for permission
Another thing is isn't a year a long time for a Trailer to be released before the movie comes out, and not a Teaser but a real Trailer.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
That's the tone I get from this trailer: 85% like the LOTR films and 15% like the old cartoons. Which is exactly what I want from it.
You can watch the whole Bakshi film on Youtube in parts, starting with . It's a far cry from what we're used to these days, but it's still a pretty fun watch. And you can see Bakshi experimenting with using live action elements (sometimes quite well, actually), which he used most famously in 1992's Cool World.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Bah, a whole year to wait. Not fair. 
__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...
X
Favorite Movies
I'm not bothered. LOTR i think was the more popular and acclaimed series. I reckon The Hobbit will find its audience too.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I thought the trailer was great. I hope they are able to strike that balance in tone between what filmgoers will expect from a "Lord of the Rings" movie and the much lighter story that "The Hobbit" actually is. It was written specifically for children, after all.
__________________
"I made mistakes in drama. I thought drama was when actors cried. But drama is when the audience cries." - Frank Capra
Family DVD Collection | My Top 100 | My Movie Thoughts | Frank Capra
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I wouldn't fret yet, but cause for concern?
The Hobbit looks 'made for TV'
http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/the-hobbi...-for-tv--.html
The Hobbit looks 'made for TV'
Ten minutes of the movie adaptation of 'The Hobbit' footage was screened at CinemaCon in LA yesterday... and people hated it.
Bloggers over at IGN said it looks 'made for TV', while ComingSoon.net compared it to old episodes of 'Doctor Who'.
A viewer overheard by the Chicago Tribune said it reminded him of 1970s show ‘I, Claudius’.
The problems seem to stem from director Peter Jackson’s decision to shoot in 3D at 48 frames per second (fps).
Films are usually shot at 24fps, and have been for decades, but the advent of High Definition digital screens has allowed TV shows to inch their frame rate higher - that's what makes HD look so sharp, and objects occasionally appear to move faster than usual. Now Peter Jackson has decided to follow suit, and it sounds like it's not a good look for the big screen.
A projectionist, cited in the LA Times, said: "It was too accurate - too clear. The contrast ratio isn't there yet, everything looked either too bright or black."
If it really is this tech shift that's causing the bad buzz for 'The Hobbit', it might not have such a big problem come release day, since not all cinemas are kitted out for 48fps digital projection. But Jackson's commitment to the change may yet cause him some headaches... and his audience too.
The footage itself showed a battle scene, some trolls and a sequence featuring Gollum.
The film stars Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins, and sees Sir Ian McKellen return as Gandalf and Andy Serkis reprise his role as Gollum.
'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' hits UK cinemas on the 14 December 2012.
Bloggers over at IGN said it looks 'made for TV', while ComingSoon.net compared it to old episodes of 'Doctor Who'.
A viewer overheard by the Chicago Tribune said it reminded him of 1970s show ‘I, Claudius’.
The problems seem to stem from director Peter Jackson’s decision to shoot in 3D at 48 frames per second (fps).
Films are usually shot at 24fps, and have been for decades, but the advent of High Definition digital screens has allowed TV shows to inch their frame rate higher - that's what makes HD look so sharp, and objects occasionally appear to move faster than usual. Now Peter Jackson has decided to follow suit, and it sounds like it's not a good look for the big screen.
A projectionist, cited in the LA Times, said: "It was too accurate - too clear. The contrast ratio isn't there yet, everything looked either too bright or black."
If it really is this tech shift that's causing the bad buzz for 'The Hobbit', it might not have such a big problem come release day, since not all cinemas are kitted out for 48fps digital projection. But Jackson's commitment to the change may yet cause him some headaches... and his audience too.
The footage itself showed a battle scene, some trolls and a sequence featuring Gollum.
The film stars Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins, and sees Sir Ian McKellen return as Gandalf and Andy Serkis reprise his role as Gollum.
'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' hits UK cinemas on the 14 December 2012.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
If you want to achieve greatness, stop asking for permission
I wouldn't fret yet, but cause for concern?
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Another article about the lame 48fps in 3D, from Huffington Post:
All is not well in Middle Earth.
Director Peter Jackson debuted ten minutes of footage from his upcoming "Lord Of The Rings" prequel, "The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey," at CinemaCon in Las Vegas on Tuesday, and the number of negative reactions was startling.
Jackson is shooting the hotly anticipated film in 3D and using new 48fps (frames per second) technology, which is twice the standard frame rate that has been used to make movies since the 1930s. "The Hobbit" will be the first major studio film to be shot using 48fps.
Unfortunately, the new technology has not received a warm response. Following the CinemaCon presentation, the website FilmDrunk noted that "everyone hated it."
Badass Digest's Devin Faraci said the footage had "that soap opera look you get from badly calibrated TVs at Best Buy."
He continued:
"The footage I saw looked terrible … completely non-cinematic. The sets looked like sets … sets don’t even look like sets when you’re on them live, but these looked like sets. The magical illusion of cinema is stripped away completely.”
An anonymous projectionist from a competing studio echoed those sentiments in an interview with Los Angeles Times. "It looked like a made-for-TV movie. It was too accurate -- too clear," the projectionist said. "The contrast ratio isn't there yet -- everything looked either too bright or black."
Advocates of 48fps, most notably "Avatar" director James Cameron and Jackson himself say that the technology will help address the problems people had with early 3D. As Jackson said last year:
Looking at 24 frames every second may seem ok–and we’ve all seen thousands of films like this over the last 90 years–but there is often quite a lot of blur in each frame, during fast movements, and if the camera is moving around quickly, the image can judder or “strobe.”
Shooting and projecting at 48 fps does a lot to get rid of these issues. It looks much more lifelike, and it is much easier to watch, especially in 3-D.
Audiences will have to wait until December 2012, when the first of the two "Hobbit" films is released, to decide for themselves.
Director Peter Jackson debuted ten minutes of footage from his upcoming "Lord Of The Rings" prequel, "The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey," at CinemaCon in Las Vegas on Tuesday, and the number of negative reactions was startling.
Jackson is shooting the hotly anticipated film in 3D and using new 48fps (frames per second) technology, which is twice the standard frame rate that has been used to make movies since the 1930s. "The Hobbit" will be the first major studio film to be shot using 48fps.
Unfortunately, the new technology has not received a warm response. Following the CinemaCon presentation, the website FilmDrunk noted that "everyone hated it."
Badass Digest's Devin Faraci said the footage had "that soap opera look you get from badly calibrated TVs at Best Buy."
He continued:
"The footage I saw looked terrible … completely non-cinematic. The sets looked like sets … sets don’t even look like sets when you’re on them live, but these looked like sets. The magical illusion of cinema is stripped away completely.”
An anonymous projectionist from a competing studio echoed those sentiments in an interview with Los Angeles Times. "It looked like a made-for-TV movie. It was too accurate -- too clear," the projectionist said. "The contrast ratio isn't there yet -- everything looked either too bright or black."
Advocates of 48fps, most notably "Avatar" director James Cameron and Jackson himself say that the technology will help address the problems people had with early 3D. As Jackson said last year:
Looking at 24 frames every second may seem ok–and we’ve all seen thousands of films like this over the last 90 years–but there is often quite a lot of blur in each frame, during fast movements, and if the camera is moving around quickly, the image can judder or “strobe.”
Shooting and projecting at 48 fps does a lot to get rid of these issues. It looks much more lifelike, and it is much easier to watch, especially in 3-D.
Audiences will have to wait until December 2012, when the first of the two "Hobbit" films is released, to decide for themselves.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I really and truly hope that the 3D transfer remains awful in the final cut so people will avoid it and choose the standard version instead. Maybe that will finally be the death knell for 3D filmmaking.
I can't for the life of me understand why studios (and now filmmakers) keep trotting out the 3D technology. They've been doing it off and on for decades in the hopes of making an extra buck on what they market as "new" or "better." Fewer and fewer people are seeing films at the cinema these days and they want to charge people even more to see this crap?
My single worry is that, even if I dodge the 3D version of the film, I'm still going to have to watch something that was filmed at 48fps. There's a reason 24fps has been the industry standard for 80 years. It's beautiful. It's familiar. It works. I don't want this film, or any other film, to look like a badly calibrated VIZIO HD television.
So here's hoping Jackson heeds the warning and dials down the framerate in post. 3D is evil, man. No one should use this technology. It must be cast back into the fiery chasm from whence it came.
I can't for the life of me understand why studios (and now filmmakers) keep trotting out the 3D technology. They've been doing it off and on for decades in the hopes of making an extra buck on what they market as "new" or "better." Fewer and fewer people are seeing films at the cinema these days and they want to charge people even more to see this crap?
My single worry is that, even if I dodge the 3D version of the film, I'm still going to have to watch something that was filmed at 48fps. There's a reason 24fps has been the industry standard for 80 years. It's beautiful. It's familiar. It works. I don't want this film, or any other film, to look like a badly calibrated VIZIO HD television.
So here's hoping Jackson heeds the warning and dials down the framerate in post. 3D is evil, man. No one should use this technology. It must be cast back into the fiery chasm from whence it came.
X
Favorite Movies
X