Thorin holding a big oak branch in his hand during the filming of a battle. Fuck yeah. They are totally going to cover the war between the dwarves and the orcs. Man, this makes me so hopeful for the other awesome stuff in the appendices that Peter Jackson will include. Edit: and now I got to the part where they specifically talk about how they use the appendices. Haha, way to jump the gun.
Yeah that video just confirmed to me that this movie is going to be awesome. Thanks for sharing it.
On December 11 2012 06:15 Cainam wrote: All you guys who are worried about it being 3 films need to have some faith in Peter Jackson. He only gave us the greatest trilogy ever made! Dude knows how to make movies.
LoTR is the perfect example of a totally unimaginative, only illustrative adaption, without any soul or understanding of what made the original work great, or the difference between cinema or litterature. The success of the trilogy was made thanks to the people whose relationship to Tolkien's work lied in the realm of fantasm and the fact that geek culture was becoming mainstream (the movie also contributed to that phenomenon, no doubt). For those of us who felt differently, the trilogy was a souless epic, devoid of any characters, originality and rythm, in one word a total bore. Don't mistake me, I like Tolkien a lot. But I think it deserves better than a pompous succession of action scenes devoid of any meaning. I'd rather have an adaptation less faithful to the details but more to the spirit, or at least with any semblance of spirit. Here it seems worse, as Jackson seems intent on telling The Hobbit on the same tone he used for LoTR. The two works are extremely different, and I'm afraid the charming and light tone in Tolkien's children book will be lost.
I do agree that Jackson's tone of the films is rather hit and miss erring towards straight action especially in the latter two. But I've rather made my peace with it over the years. The books continue to exist unchanged and movies also exist and have re-introduced LotR's to the public conscious. I can't remember the book sales post-movies, but they are quite substantial.
I also think it helps build into the greater myth that Tolkien had hoped to create for Britain- having none of their own that had not been changed by the French. From movies to the art of Ted Nasmith, John Howe and Alan Lee to music (ranging from folk to rock to metal) inspired by Tolkien's works to the massive shadow he cast on the fantasy genre, it all contributes to the wider mythology that he hoped to create.
I think The Hobbit is aiming for a middling ground in style. From the early reviews, it seems there is much more light-heartedness compared to LotRs. So I think it's too early to say the light tone will be lost in its entirety.
On the otherhand, the darkening tone of The Hobbit is not out of keeping of Tolkien's own changing thoughts on the story. The story of the story is something he was always considering and he had recontextualized The Hobbit as being the version told by the hobbits to their children, but that there were other tellings of the wider story. He was of course, dissuaded from re-writing The Hobbit in the style of the LotR's. But he definitely saw it as a version of the story transmitted down, but other variations were possible.
Well, if I'm allowed to make a distinction between the three parts of LoTR, I think The Fellowship is an average movie and is still entertaining, but I was sleepy druing most of the following two. I think the last 30min or so of The Return of the King are among the longest minutes I spent watching a screen. I don't think it really harmed the book in any way, and I don't really care. What I don't like is people pretending what Jackson did is good film-making. I'll probably watch the first installement of this, because after all, I do like Tolkien, but my hopes are not high, and the fact that the movie will be in three part is not helping, regardless of extra-material which doesn't change much to the problem.
I used to be a huge Lord of the Rings fan, but haven't picked up the books in years. The release of the Hobbit is helping rekindle that old love though. I'm rereading the books, but I'm also picking up alot of the other supplemental materials, such as the Tolkien Bestiary.
On December 11 2012 06:15 Cainam wrote: All you guys who are worried about it being 3 films need to have some faith in Peter Jackson. He only gave us the greatest trilogy ever made! Dude knows how to make movies.
Difference is that Lord of the Rings had 3 times the pages. Ofc it was shortend hence the "extended" and "special extended" and what not. They could so integrate things out of the book that fell short (and ofc sell the same DVD several times ^^).
Really curious how it works out with the Hobbit, but imo it´s too streched out for such a book. I´ll be glad I´m wrong.
There were massive portions of the LOTR that were completely cut out, like Tom Bombadil, the Scouring of the Shire, and much more. They probably could have made 6-10 movies out of those books instead of 3.
On December 11 2012 06:15 Cainam wrote: All you guys who are worried about it being 3 films need to have some faith in Peter Jackson. He only gave us the greatest trilogy ever made! Dude knows how to make movies.
LoTR is the perfect example of a totally unimaginative, only illustrative adaption, without any soul or understanding of what made the original work great, or the difference between cinema or litterature. The success of the trilogy was made thanks to the people whose relationship to Tolkien's work lied in the realm of fantasm and the fact that geek culture was becoming mainstream (the movie also contributed to that phenomenon, no doubt). For those of us who felt differently, the trilogy was a souless epic, devoid of any characters, originality and rythm, in one word a total bore. Don't mistake me, I like Tolkien a lot. But I think it deserves better than a pompous succession of action scenes devoid of any meaning. I'd rather have an adaptation less faithful to the details but more to the spirit, or at least with any semblance of spirit. Here it seems worse, as Jackson seems intent on telling The Hobbit on the same tone he used for LoTR. The two works are extremely different, and I'm afraid the charming and light tone in Tolkien's children book will be lost.
I disagree, there were a number of film critics who saw early review screenings who complained that the films were too light hearted and weren't dark enough like LOTR was. It's difficult for both to be true.
I cant wait to see this movie this weekend. To be honest, ive never seen any Lord of the Rings movies in their entirety because the first one came out when I was little and my dad and I saw it and it scared me haha. I loved reading the Hobbit though and there is a lot of hype about this movie so i will totally be seeing it.
This is a noob question, but is it only in 48 FPS or 24 as well?
On December 11 2012 09:14 TommyP wrote: I cant wait to see this movie this weekend. To be honest, ive never seen any Lord of the Rings movies in their entirety because the first one came out when I was little and my dad and I saw it and it scared me haha. I loved reading the Hobbit though and there is a lot of hype about this movie so i will totally be seeing it.
This is a noob question, but is it only in 48 FPS or 24 as well?
It's in both. I think there are only 1000 theatres capable of doing 48 fps. To be honest, I wonder if the number of people that came out dizzy had more to do with 3D than to do with more fps.
On December 11 2012 19:05 ujonecro wrote: So how about that fps? I can see it in 2d,3d and that 48fps 3d. Which one do you recommend?
^
I can see it in IMAX, 3d or 'old' 2d. What should I do? I go to the cinema like once a year if that's a relevant fact and I've never seen a 3d movie before.
3D HFR is new. I like to try new things. Why shouldn't you? You can always watch it again, in 2D. I wouldn't watch normal 3D. That's just silly when you think about it. 12 Hours left. Booyaka.
EPT
