Retro_Link Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 haha yeah, but given the general public wont have a clue what 24fps and 48fps are, what are they gonna say to help people choose their tickets?... "Want your film to look like an epidode of Doctor Who... then 48fps is for you!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retro_Link Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 That's awesome, glad they kept it simple. And i love the LOTR lettering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 As interesting as it would've been to see del Toro's take on The Hobbit, having Peter Jackson back really solidifies the connection to the LotR trilogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retro_Link Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 As interesting as it would've been to see del Toro's take on The Hobbit, having Peter Jackson back really solidifies the connection to the LotR trilogy.Well you would have thought so, but then Peter Jackson went and changed the filming process... which could have more of an impact/jaring connection to the LotR trilogy than having a new director. But you are right, that it's great he stayed on. He's the right person for the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 Changed the filming process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnus Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 It has a higher frame rate than movies usually have. I'm sure there was a discussion about this a few months ago. I assume that's what he meant, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flameboy Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 As interesting as it would've been to see del Toro's take on The Hobbit, having Peter Jackson back really solidifies the connection to the LotR trilogy. Agreed and besides with our current state of constant reboots and remakes Del Toro may yet get a get a crack at the whole shabang..... Have they said up until what point the 1st part finishes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coolness Bears Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 It's shot in 48 fps and at an initial screening I don't think people enjoyed it as it felt TOO real or something and took them out of the magic of Tolkien. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 It has a higher frame rate than movies usually have. I'm sure there was a discussion about this a few months ago. I assume that's what he meant, anyway. Oh, yeah, that. I'm honestly not worried at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaggis Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 I saw the trailer at the cinema yesterday, and genuinely thought it (the movie in general) looked awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted July 30, 2012 Author Share Posted July 30, 2012 So, The Hobbit has now been split into three films instead of two. Here's how I think they will be split: This will probably have the least "distractions" from the main story, and I think that meeting Beorn will be a good end point for this film, so it will be the short trek to Rivendell and the journey under and over the Misty Mountains. It will probably have a better name than the one I just gave it. It will be the journey through Mirkwood, and will also show what Gandalf was getting up to at this point. It will delve into the Necromancer (Sauron) more and show the Battle of Dol Guldur. A good ending point would be the Lake-town. I can also see it expanding the elf city much more (with an appearance from the prince - Legolas) The chapter dealing with Smaug. Reaching the mountain, the history of the mountain (the Dwarves and Smaug), the end battle and the journey back home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnus Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Oh, man. I hope the split the last movie into two parts, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted July 30, 2012 Author Share Posted July 30, 2012 Don't forget the Extended Editions. There's always and Extended Edition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnus Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I remember back when students used to watch the movie version of a book to save time. English teachers everywhere will be thrilled by this news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted July 30, 2012 Author Share Posted July 30, 2012 Random fact: If you take The Two Towers and Return of the King (normal, not extended), combined them and then split them into three films, each film would be 2 hours and 6 minutes long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retro_Link Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Here's Peter Jacksons statement... It is only at the end of a shoot that you finally get the chance to sit down and have a look at the film you have made. Recently Fran, Phil and I did just this when we watched for the first time an early cut of the first movie - and a large chunk of the second. We were really pleased with the way the story was coming together, in particular, the strength of the characters and the cast who have brought them to life. All of which gave rise to a simple question: do we take this chance to tell more of the tale? And the answer from our perspective as the filmmakers, and as fans, was an unreserved ‘yes.' We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance. 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, allows us to tell the full story of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and the part he played in the sometimes dangerous, but at all times exciting, history of Middle-earth. So, without further ado and on behalf of New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Wingnut Films, and the entire cast and crew of “The Hobbit” films, I’d like to announce that two films will become three. It has been an unexpected journey indeed, and in the words of Professor Tolkien himself, "a tale that grew in the telling." Cheers, Peter J I don't fully understand what they're doing with this. Surely it's very difficult to have shot two films, and then interspurce them with more scenes from the books and turn them into three... Or is he filming a third film that goes on the end of The Hobbit which tells an extended story with a few more scenes, but is largely an untold adventure with elements from the other sections and stories Tolkien has told through some of his other books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fierce_LiNk Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I...don't really know what to make of this. Half a decade ago, I would have been excited by this. Sang it from the rooftops. But, I dunno now. I'm already not hyped for it due to Senor Jackson's altering of camera and frame-rate. I feel it'll look too unfamiliar...when really what we all want is just more of what we had in Lord of the Rings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retro_Link Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I...don't really know what to make of this. Half a decade ago, I would have been excited by this. Sang it from the rooftops. But, I dunno now. I'm already not hyped for it due to Senor Jackson's altering of camera and frame-rate. I feel it'll look too unfamiliar...when really what we all want is just more of what we had in Lord of the Rings. I think strangely we've got the choice as to what format we see the film in. The footage they screened at Comic-Con was in the traditional format as a result of not having the time/facilities to set up and screen it in 40fps... and as a result the impressions were FAR more positive than they had been for the initial 40fps footage released earlier in the year. There's also the fact of how they are going to equip cinema's/expect cinema's to pay to screen the footage in 40fps. I think that decision by Jackson has been a HUGE error, and as a result it may not be an option at many cinema's anyway! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fierce_LiNk Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I think strangely we've got the choice as to what format we see the film in. The footage they screened at Comic-Con was in the traditional format as a result of not having the time/facilities to set up and screen it in 40fps... and as a result the impressions were FAR more positive than they had been for the initial 40fps footage released earlier in the year. There's also the fact of how they are going to equip cinema's/expect cinema's to pay to screen the footage in 40fps. I think that decision by Jackson has been a HUGE error, and as a result it may not be an option at many cinema's anyway! That just confuses things even more for me. The film has been filmed in a particular way, and it's meant to be viewed in that way. Yes, it's great having all these different cinema-options, but it confuses the fuck out of people like me. I just want to go to the cinema and watch the film that Jackson wanted us to see. Potentially, there could be 4 different viewing options. 3D normal, 2D normal, 2D40FPS, 3D40FPS... I do hope that this gets sorted, so we all know which version is the most worthwhile watching. That's one thing I loved about Avatar. It was pointless seeing the 2D version, because the 3D visuals were the selling point. I wonder if the visuals will be the selling point in this, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnus Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I just like how a decade ago, he turned three books into three movies, but now he needs three movies to tell the story of one book. How times have changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Gibbs Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I can only imagine he basically filmed so much, to cut it into 2 movies would leave enough for a third movie on the cutting room floor so rather than that he will cut it into 3 movies and film an additional bits he needs to perfect this, for me its only a good thing because the Hobbit is one of the best books ever written (in my opinion anyway) and should be explored correctly without compromising the tale in anyway. As much as LOTR was three movies, he filmed enough so he could do mammoth extended editions which really could have been split into 6 two hour movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 As far as I can make out, he had to cut a lot to get the two films but wanted too film a little more to better suit a third film, so it was actually decent and not just a miss-mash of what was not in the first two films. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retro_Link Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/08/08/the-hobbit-will-get-limited-release-in-48-frames The Hobbit Will Get Limited Release in 48-Frames Warner Bros. will reportedly only give a limited release to the much talked-about 48 frames-per-second (aka high-frame-rate) version of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey when it opens December 14, perhaps skipping some major metropolitan markets altogether. "People who have seen much of the film in 48 frames-per-second 3D tell Variety the picture now looks vastly better than the test footage shown this April at CinemaCon, which had not yet undergone post-production polishing and got a mixed reception from exhibitors," according to Variety. "But the studio still wants to protect the format by going into a limited release for the HFR version, hoping to test the marketplace and expand the HFR release for the second and third installments -- provided auds are enthusiastic. As of now, there are still no theaters ready for HFR projection, though some require only a software upgrade that will be ready in September. Warners is satisfied with the pace of efforts to ready theaters for HFR." Think I'll just see the standard version anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Hopefully i'll be able to see both, so i can compare. I doubt they'll bring the HFR version to my town, but if i did get the chance, i think it'd be worth a few pounds out of curiosity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts