Guillermo Del Toro Officially not directing The Hobbit
Posted: Mon, 31st May 2010, 1:07am
Post 1 of 88
Just a few days after speaking frankly about the financial troubles that were causing delays for the production of "The Hobbit," Guillermo Del Toro and Peter Jackson officially announced today that Del Toro will no longer be directing the films, although he plans to stay attached to the project long enough to complete his work on the screenplays. In a letter to The One Ring, Del Toro and Jackson spoke at length today about the reasons behind Del Toro's departure from the project, but it really boils down to the delay. Right now, Del Toro's already spent two years preparing the films
full article herehttp://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12-6-motion-captured/posts/breaking-guillermo-del-toro-officially-not-directing-the-hobbit
Posted: Mon, 31st May 2010, 3:33pm
Post 2 of 88
Posted: Tue, 1st Jun 2010, 8:51am
Post 3 of 88
Gerty sad face.
I'm really not particularly interested in seeing this unless Del Toro directs.
Posted: Tue, 1st Jun 2010, 9:20am
Post 4 of 88
Tarn wrote:I'm really not particularly interested in seeing this unless Del Toro directs.
Don't worry, it'll never actually get made.
Posted: Sat, 19th Jun 2010, 6:28pm
Post 5 of 88
Posted: Sat, 19th Jun 2010, 6:44pm
Post 6 of 88
Terrible news, honestly. District 9 was a good movie, but Blomkamp hasn't proven his consistency, and hasn't shown an ability to do anything close to the genre/feel of the Hobbit. It's honestly devastating that Del Toro backed out. What the hell? Something like the Hobbit is likely a career film. The internet and critics alike were overwhelmingly positive in response to Del Toro's directorial announcement. Are there published reasons for calling it quits? Good reasons? I demand justice.
I haven't thought about who would be next best, but I think Jackson, then Del Toro, would be best. Here's hoping this isn't true and they sign some no name short film director or something, who has shown an ability to shoot this kind of film. Can anyone think of other good potentials? I'm at a loss.
Posted: Sat, 19th Jun 2010, 7:59pm
Post 7 of 88
Jackson doesn't want to direct. That's why they had Del Toro in the first place. And apparently the reason he quit is because the MGM situation kept delaying the start of production, and he has other movies he has committed to. Jackson has said that if he has to
, he might direct, if only to protect the studio's investment. As perfect as that is supposed to be, I don't like the sound of an reluctant and/or unmotivated Peter Jackson.
I think Blomkamp would be good, just because of his relationship with Jackson. But as long as the script is good, and Jackson oversees, I don't think it matters who directs. Although I hear Brett Ratner is actually on the shortlist...
My choice would be David Yates
. He's done an excellent job with Harry Potter, and he just wrapped filming on it, so he should be free by the time production starts.
Posted: Sat, 19th Jun 2010, 8:49pm
Post 8 of 88
I think Harry Potter is fun, but they aren't really *good* films in my opinion. I'd rather have Blomkamp than Yates because District 9 was pretty damn good, and the Hobbit is classic literature, it doesn't deserve to be botched.
I know Jackson can't direct, I was simply stating the directors I'd prefer to direct. But I agree, I don't want him to do it if he doesn't have his heart in it.
I certainly hope Blomkamp can direct that style of shooting, acting, and storytelling. It's very different than any of his other work. We'll see, assuming he's the director.
Posted: Sat, 19th Jun 2010, 8:57pm
Post 9 of 88
District 9 was fantastic at getting you to feel for the ugly buglike alien creatures without resorting to cheap Hollywood tricks or forcing you into it, and I get the feeling that'd come in really handy for something like The Hobbit, which is filled with fantastical creatures. I'd definitely prefer Blomkamp over Yates, who I think didn't do the Potter books justice.
Posted: Sat, 19th Jun 2010, 11:15pm
Post 10 of 88
Serpent wrote:I think Harry Potter is fun, but they aren't really *good* films in my opinion. I'd rather have Blomkamp than Yates because District 9 was pretty damn good, and the Hobbit is classic literature, it doesn't deserve to be botched
I know we're just talking opinion, but: You don't think any of the HP movies are *good*
? But District 9 is 'pretty damn good'? Really?
Considering the material and, well, the last HP film (among many of the others, too)- do you really not think Yates would do The Hobbit a greater justice than Neil Blomkamp would? Have you not seen
the last Potter film? It's rather excellent, if you ask me, and perfectly synced-up with that 'ominous-but-gleeful' tone Middle Earth needs.
For all its successes, make no mistake- District 9 is a mockumentary and not as much a full-fledged feature. Which isn't to discount it as a movie; but knowing that makes me exceedingly
worried about someone as untested as Blomkamp dealing with such touchy and iconic franchise fare. And I don't even like/care about LOTR or anything Hobbit-related.
But maybe that's just me.
Posted: Sun, 20th Jun 2010, 12:03am
Post 11 of 88
Peter Jackson had no track record to prove he could make LOTR other than a handful of "so-bad-they're-good" slasher comedies and one critically acclaimed drama.
And look how that turned out.
Personally I'd rather not see PJ step back into the directors seat for the sole fact that I think he'd second guess himself too much and try to best himself, and would fail horribly. This is why I was so excited to see Guillermo, who has a similar sensibility about film, direct this movie. Oh well.
I'd be all for Blomkamp. I think just because the man has only done one style of movie doesn't mean he can't do others... (I hate pigeonholing new directors like that) and I love the idea of bringing in fresh blood so to speak to give it that energy that the Hobbit needs, while still retaining PJ as a producer to ensure it doesn't betray the world of LOTR.
Posted: Sun, 20th Jun 2010, 3:01am
Post 12 of 88
ben3308 wrote:I know we're just talking opinion, but: You don't think any of the HP movies are *good*? But District 9 is 'pretty damn good'? Really?
Since when is "pretty damn good" over-the-top praise? I liked it, it did what it was trying to do near perfectly.
do you really not think Yates would do The Hobbit a greater justice than Neil Blomkamp would? Have you not seen the last Potter film? It's rather excellent, if you ask me, and perfectly synced-up with that 'ominous-but-gleeful' tone Middle Earth needs.
I have no idea how Blomkamp would do on the "middle earth feel," but I just think he's a more artful director. So, yes. The fact that 9 was mockumentaryish and VERY different style is exactly what worries me too. I just wouldn't want Yates on it. Harry Potter films are just "pretty good" without the "damn" factor for me, if that makes sense. They don't do a good job at what they're trying to do (IMO). Actually, I take that back, they are made to make money, so they do a pretty good job at that. Don't get me wrong, I love the Harry Potter films. They just lack that artful quality, kinda hard to put into words (and to further clarify, I'm not saying artistry didn't go into Harry Potter, it's just kind of hard to explain what I mean in words). I'd also like to note the creative development of District 9, which I just happen to have more respect for than Yate's and others' work on the latest Harry Potter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_9#Development
Posted: Sun, 20th Jun 2010, 5:32am
Post 13 of 88
I think what Serpent is trying to explain in regards to Harry Potter is that it displays excellent workmanship, but little heart. To me, it feels like the characters are just going through the motions, without really having any proper personality like in the books. Out of curiosity, did you read any of the the books, Ben?
Posted: Sun, 20th Jun 2010, 5:58am
Post 14 of 88
Just re-read my post, horribly worded. I have reasons. But yeah, Pooky said sort of what I was trying to say. Blomkamp definitely has the heart required. I feel like he is one of those directors who would only take projects that would allow him to do that. Yates has some heart, clearly, but he's directed a lot of movies, and lacks consistency in heart, made Harry Potter, etc. (this is my opinion). I would just worry that Yates goes Harry Potter on The Hobbit, which would mean that lack of heart in a high budget project. But maybe if he had the time and less studio pressure, like I'm sure he does in Potter. I don't know, that's just why my reaction is to prefer Blomkamp over Yates, regardless of his ability to nail the fantasy world.
Posted: Mon, 21st Jun 2010, 8:30am
Post 15 of 88
Blomkamp could be a very good choice, specifically due to his understanding of VFX and CG creatures. D9 had probably the best integrated creatures I've seen outside of Avatar, so he'd be a great match for some Gollumming.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2010, 10:25am
Post 16 of 88
its a shame because i'd have loved to have seen it, but saying that i wouldn't want del toro to direct, in an earlier interview he said he was going to change most of the creatures, e.g the wargs. If it ain't broke don't fix it
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2010, 4:50pm
Post 17 of 88
I suppose from my point-of-view it's more of a 'better safe than sorry' approach. New directors are great and often offer a lot of vision and insight that is lost on more seasoned pros- and in some rarities this can be overwhelmingly positive as was the case with Peter Jackson. Sure, I'll completely give you that. But I, to know surprise I'm sure, agree with Ben because I too often see studios take iconic pictures and muddle them up because (aside from not having good scripts-which can be recoverable with talented enough people) they think they're being really edgy and smart hiring new, untested arthouse sort of directors.
I need not look any further than the completely unbearable Wolverine movie or evidence of this- directed by the otherwise-extremely-talented Gavin Hood. A man that, before Wolverine, had made the much smaller and much better African film Tsotsi. Now do I think he's entirely to blame for Wolverine? No, not at all. But he completely dropped the ball- and there's some pretty clear evidence in the scope, pacing, production design, editing, visual effects, everything- that the man was just plain overwhelmed. He didn't have experience to know what hebeas doing or handle a project like that.
Or take Mark Steven Johnson- an incredibly visionary director who made Simon Burch and went on to direct Daredevil. A movie with lots of huge potential and promise in it's stylization and production design- but just lacking in that necessary level of experience to keep the film even.
I suppose I disagree myself because I haven't been sold on Blomkamp yet. District 9 just didn't work for me- and I don't think the format has/will transfer over to such iconic fare as The Hobbit. I'm anxious, so to speak, about it.
But that's just me.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2010, 7:44pm
Post 18 of 88
I have to say I was never really keen on del Toro directing the hobbit. Also, I'm probably in the minority on this, but I really don't like the idea of actors from the Lord of The Rings trilogy reprising their roles. I'd much rather have The Hobbit be made by people who had nothing to do with LOTR, with a totally different cast and a completely different approach. I love LOTR, it's one of my favourite films (counting all 3 films as one), but I'd rather see The Hobbit be something new and different that doesn't try to partially inhabit that world. Unless of course Jackson directs it, although I like the idea of that even less than del Toro.
Posted: Fri, 25th Jun 2010, 7:48pm
Post 19 of 88
Posted: Fri, 25th Jun 2010, 7:50pm
Post 20 of 88
And the cycle continues...
Posted: Fri, 25th Jun 2010, 8:10pm
Post 21 of 88
If this is true, I kind of feel bad for Del Toro. Just because Jackson was against directing this thing from the start, and then he ends up getting talked into it all along... it's almost a waste of Del Toro's time. I'm also a little perplexed as to the studio's motives. They couldn't get the project going with Del Toro at the helm, but all of a sudden they're (according to the article) making strides towards an end-of-the-year start date with Jackson directing?
Posted: Wed, 30th Jun 2010, 3:10am
Post 22 of 88
jawajohnny wrote:If this is true, I kind of feel bad for Del Toro. Just because Jackson was against directing this thing from the start, and then he ends up getting talked into it all along... it's almost a waste of Del Toro's time. I'm also a little perplexed as to the studio's motives. They couldn't get the project going with Del Toro at the helm, but all of a sudden they're (according to the article) making strides towards an end-of-the-year start date with Jackson directing?
I understand what you mean. Del Toro suddenly leaves and the same thing happens just as fast with Peter Jackson getting ready to lead the rest of the way. I do feel a little bad for Toro. He had it all prepared and then it was gone for him.
Like a kid that made an unfinished sand castle at the beach and saw that it was too complicated and left it for someone else to either add more to it or destroy it and make a new one all together.
Last edited Fri, 2nd Jul 2010, 3:27pm; edited 1 times in total.
Posted: Wed, 30th Jun 2010, 5:44pm
Post 23 of 88
regardless of whoever directs or makes it. will the hobbit be stretched out over 3 films and dragged over a 5 year period like the lord of the rings was? or will it be packed into a nice comfortable 3 and a half hour film?
Posted: Wed, 30th Jun 2010, 5:49pm
Post 24 of 88
Two movies, December 2012 and December 2013. That is, if they get made on time and/or the world doesn't end.
Posted: Wed, 30th Jun 2010, 6:11pm
Post 25 of 88
videofxuniverse wrote:regardless of whoever directs or makes it. will the hobbit be stretched out over 3 films and dragged over a 5 year period like the lord of the rings was? or will it be packed into a nice comfortable 3 and a half hour film?
Well, since The Hobbit book wasn't divided into three books like the LOTR books were, I can't see why they'd try to make it into three films.
Posted: Wed, 30th Jun 2010, 6:48pm
Post 26 of 88
That is so silly, the Hobbit does NOT need to be in two parts. It's a very simple story and can easily, EASILY be adapted for a single feature screen play. I'm sure they will be good, but I really want it to be one complete thing. The only positive thing I see about this is 2 separate fun events. But I don't care if they cut stuff from the book, shorten it, etc. The Hobbit is just a tale that should be in one story. It's not an epic like Lord of the Rings. Anyways, hope they get this all figured out.
Posted: Wed, 30th Jun 2010, 7:15pm
Post 27 of 88
The original plan was to do one Hobbit movie... and then another original movie that would bridge the gap between that and the Lord of the Rings movies. I wonder if they'll now be incorporating parts of that movie into the two Hobbit movies? Maybe that would justify making two.
Posted: Thu, 1st Jul 2010, 12:25pm
Post 28 of 88
Serpent wrote:That is so silly, the Hobbit does NOT need to be in two parts. It's a very simple story and can easily, EASILY be adapted for a single feature screen play.
peter jackson isnt exactly known for his short films. When other directors take 15 minutes to explain a story, jackson will spend an hour
Posted: Fri, 2nd Jul 2010, 7:32am
Post 29 of 88
I wonder how everyone would react if steven spielberg or george lucas randomly took the film into their own hands..
Posted: Fri, 2nd Jul 2010, 8:08am
Post 30 of 88
if lucas took it over it would be filled with ewoks and stormtroopers after all that was all in his original vision
Posted: Fri, 2nd Jul 2010, 8:22am
Post 31 of 88
videofxuniverse wrote:if lucas took it over it would be filled with ewoks and stormtroopers after all that was all in his original vision
Don't forget vine swinging monkeys.
Posted: Fri, 2nd Jul 2010, 3:30pm
Post 32 of 88
VRBstudios wrote:I wonder how everyone would react if steven spielberg or george lucas randomly took the film into their own hands..
Yeah, not sure how that would turn out.
With the fans I mean.
Posted: Wed, 6th Oct 2010, 9:26am
Post 33 of 88
In other news, turns out Peter Jackson is OFFICIALLY directing The Hobbit. Glad to hear it, personally.http://www.tor.com/blogs/2010/10/peter-jackson-to-actually-direct-the-hobbit
Posted: Wed, 6th Oct 2010, 5:48pm
Post 34 of 88
I think I'm gonna cry. Holy sh*t yes. What's up with all the good movie news lately? It's like people are striving for sanity this month.
Posted: Wed, 6th Oct 2010, 10:25pm
Post 35 of 88
*raises arms in praise* Yes! Yes! Beautiful!
Posted: Wed, 6th Oct 2010, 11:03pm
Post 36 of 88
While I'm a big fan of Jackson's LOTR, I kind of feel that we got enough of it with three 4-hour movies (extended editions). Two more seems like it'll just dilute the whole thing, unless Jackson does something different this time around.
Posted: Thu, 7th Oct 2010, 4:33pm
Post 37 of 88
I don't want Jackson to turn into George Lucas. I don't. I don't.
I don't think he even really wants to do this project either - why do you think he was so ready to toss the ball to Del Toro? He's scared of not matching his previous efforts. I'm worried that'll affect the project. A lot.
Posted: Thu, 7th Oct 2010, 8:09pm
Post 38 of 88
I also really hope it isn't just another LotR film, because it deserves to be something much different. Is there any word on the writers?
Posted: Thu, 7th Oct 2010, 9:31pm
Post 39 of 88
Aculag wrote:I also really hope it isn't just another LotR film, because it deserves to be something much different/
I think as long as he keeps that fact in mind, none of his thoughts or past filmography/decisions will affect the film. I think this will end up beautiful, given the interviews I've seen with Jackson talking about his work on LotR. He's the only one who I trust has the passion for it.
Posted: Sun, 28th Nov 2010, 5:48pm
Post 40 of 88
Posted: Sun, 28th Nov 2010, 6:33pm
Post 41 of 88
That's a real shame.
The RED is a great camera, and it really works well for more contemporary projects (like The Social Network), but LOTR is one of those antiquated-style franchises. Film should be the standard, something grand and classic and tried and true.
The money-made and experience for the moviegoers, and cost incurred in doing 3D just seems nonsensical to me, too. For all three of those factors, it seems like something like, say, shooting the whole movie (or parts) in 65-70mm IMAX instead- and having a big IMAX launch and run- would make just as much 'gimmick money', as I call it, but be a much richer, more-valuable, and less money-grabbing-feel tactic.
I hate to say it to PJ, but: Learn from Nolan, you dumbass. Inception was a huge movie and wasn't 3D. Wasn't shot on digital. The Dark Knight Rises is going to be even bigger than that, and it's both being shot full-IMAX, and not going 3D.
Finally, though I was never a big LOTR fan, it'll be a shame to see The Hobbit (likely) look so distinctly different than the LOTR trilogy in the 3D/digital setups and filmmaking being different inherently, and film offering a different visual aesthetic for the first three films- especially since it's all with the same cast/style/director/etc.
In something like the Harry Potter films, there's a growth and progression between films, and changes in format or consistency are allowable- welcomed, even. But LOTR? Where we've already got the whole solid Academy Award-winning trilogy?
No, keep it the same. Keep consistency, for Christ sakes!
/rant against inconsistency in franchises, shooting digital on a period/fantasy film, and having 3D/
Posted: Sun, 28th Nov 2010, 7:29pm
Post 42 of 88
While I do think it's a risk to shoot it digitally, and in 3D no less, I disagree with you Atom. I really think The Hobbit deserves to stand on its own, as a separate entity from the LOTR series. This is why I was so excited for Del Toro to direct. The book isn't part of the LOTR series, it's an entirely different tale, featuring a small handful of the same characters. It shouldn't look or feel anything like the other three movies. Consistency has nothing to do with it, because it isn't a continuation, it's a completely different story.
It's not Lord of the Rings 4: The Hobbit. It's The Hobbit.
Last edited Sun, 28th Nov 2010, 7:32pm; edited 1 times in total.
Posted: Sun, 28th Nov 2010, 7:30pm
Post 43 of 88
Agreed with Atom completely. Weird to say that.
The only exciting thing about this is that it'll allow the 3D amateur market to really flourish very quickly, and all the kinks will be ironed out in a year or two. I am hoping to shoot a fairly large film end of next year/early 2012 - and was banking on amateur level 3D to be ready. Looks like it will be.
Posted: Sun, 28th Nov 2010, 9:14pm
Post 44 of 88
While film is tried and true, has anyone seen RED Epic footage on the silver screen yet? I bet it's pretty sexy, and I'm sure they will make it look 'organic' or classic to a degree.
So I guess I could agree with Aculag, but I'm also a bit on-the-fence skeptical. If it's not what I'm hoping for, then I'll wished they would've done almost exactly what Atom suggested, but with 3D somewhere in the mix as a possibility. I'm a supporter of the 3D option, so I'm glad they've decided to shoot it in 3D. And I'll echo Evman's sentiment about lower cost 3D. Very exciting.
Regardless, I very much trust Jackson visually, so even if it isn't optimal I'm sure it will look great, hopefully nothing that would take away from the film. That many REDs though, that's pretty...epic.
Posted: Mon, 29th Nov 2010, 10:41am
Post 45 of 88
My thing is sort of the same as The Avengers in casting Mark Ruffallo as the Hulk. Sure, you could say 'well, it's a standalone movie directed by Joss Whedon', but if you're then going to attempt to keep all these other characters and 'universe' and things the same from other reference films, as both The Avengers and The Hobbit are trying to do, and then go and recast a character or change the visual style (or, in the case of 3D, way and approach you go about to make the movie entirely) my question is:
Why even try at all if you're not dedicated to keeping consistency in the first place?
Posted: Mon, 29th Nov 2010, 1:41pm
Post 46 of 88
So far the Hobbit film seems about as consistent with the Lord of the Rings as the book is. The Hobbit is a children's book, the Lord of the Rings are a life's work epic written afterwards in a very different style. They were both approached extremely differently from a storytelling standpoint, which is kind of what Jackson is doing here (to what degree he does it to in the end, we'll see).
To me your question seems almost rhetorical, but I think it's pretty obvious why they've chosen to shoot the film utilizing 3D cameras. Can't you just watch it in 2D if you don't like it? I know different decisions are made with 3D in mind, but I can't imagine how that would really take away from the film.
As I said though, I'm personally ecstatic about everything and seeing this in 3D, so I can't really relate as well. I don't think the visual storytelling relates to nor impacts the consistencies in other categories either, such as characters. In the book, for example, I imagined Gandalf was the same person, but the movie playing in my head came across very differently. When was the last time you read the Hobbit Atom? You might want to recompare it to The Lord of the Rings, and maybe Jackson's current and future decisions would sit better.
Some of the things Jackson did with The Lovely Bones depiction were interesting, and I'd love to see what he can do here. If this change is any kind of indication to an overall new approach to the shooting/editing style, that would be the hypothetical icing on the cake for me, assuming it actually ends up coming together nicely. This thought is unrelated to your comment, I just truly hope he puts quite a Hobbit spin on it, as that's the only thing I'm worried about.
Posted: Mon, 21st Mar 2011, 2:09am
Post 47 of 88
Production has officially started. Press release, and two awesome set pictures here
Posted: Mon, 21st Mar 2011, 12:16pm
Post 48 of 88
I'm ecstatic about the 3D for two reasons:
1. Sexiest 3D evarrrr (because of the cameras used)
2 (and much more importantly). No more half-fake looking forced perspective shots! Yay! Now they will have to go through the trouble in all the shots with Gandalf, Bilbo and the dwarves to make them actually small in 3D space. That's the best part of films shot in "real 3D". The director, cinematographer and visual effects supervisor can't cut corners by tricking us with a 2D image. They have to spend the time and money to make the entire film work in 3D-space and that is what helps my immersion. I don't really care about 3D-effect itself, but when I sit down to watch my 2D-Hobbit-Blu-ray I'll be happy to see the whole thing without the occasional VFX-bloopers, and flat looking compositions (that take me right out of the film) in LotR.
Posted: Mon, 21st Mar 2011, 10:11pm
Post 49 of 88
Um, the only time you could complain about the compositing in LOTR is when they didn't use forced perspective. Although the far, far majority of the time it was next to impossible to tell which of the 4 techniques they used to make small hobbits was being implemented.
For my money, tricking us with 2d works much better than tricking us with 3d.
Very excited to hear The Hobbit is into production though, and am looking forward to its eventual release.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Mar 2011, 6:37am
Post 50 of 88
Axeman wrote:Um, the only time you could complain about the compositing in LOTR is when they didn't use forced perspective.
I'll admit, the small people stand ins were even more obvious than the forced perspective (which as you say was stellar in most shots). But that isn't the compositers fault.
Axeman wrote:For my money, tricking us with 2d works much better than tricking us with 3d.
Who said anything about tricking? That's my point. In 3D you can't use any last minute quick composting of stock footage to complete your shot. You can't have quick time constraints on lighting (as lighting is ten times harder to make look organic in 3D). Everything
has to be "scientifically" (as Ben called Wally Pfister's cinematography) and meticulously done. I think the LotR films are the most impressive films I've seen in scope and cinematography. Every 2 seconds there is another "money shot" that other films would be lucky to have just one of. But Jackson is a Guerrilla filmmaker, and sometimes he was tempted to be very effective on LotR. It worked 90% of the time and he saved money he could put on screen in form of more post production money. Still the 10% of the time it didn't work (Wolves of Isengard scene that was badly planned and the VFX suffered for it) shows. In 3D he dosen't have the option of Guerrilla filmmaking anymore.
Things have to be planned and executed. You do end up with a more sterile movie like Avatar and Tron: Legacy, but I much prefer it to just one "worst shot".
Last edited Tue, 22nd Mar 2011, 8:29am; edited 1 times in total.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Mar 2011, 6:40am
Post 51 of 88
Is it bad that I haven't even seen Return of the King all the way through and have no interest in this, while I had insane hype and anticipation for Fellowship?
Posted: Tue, 22nd Mar 2011, 7:18am
Post 52 of 88
Not bad. But I would say you're in for a treat if you get hold of the films and see them all close together. Any reason you didn't see Return of the King all the way through?
Posted: Tue, 22nd Mar 2011, 7:54am
Post 53 of 88
Bored by it. Lost care in the characters by the end of Two Towers. Never any non-sold-out shows in theaters. Inevitably, then, missed a theatrical showing.
And those are really important to my enjoyment of, well, most
movies. The reason I saw The Lincoln Lawyer today. I don't 'wait for the DVD' on anything. It's just not the same for me.
So I guess you could say I just 'missed my opportunity' on that one. Just like anyone who didn't see How To Train Your Dragon in 3D theatrically did last year.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Mar 2011, 8:14am
Post 54 of 88
Atom wrote:So I guess you could say I just 'missed my opportunity' on that one. Just like anyone who didn't see How To Train Your Dragon in 3D theatrically did last year.
I'm one those suckers.
I was really busy at the time, but I'm still kicking myself for it.
Still didn't you guys have a home-cinema set up? It's really not that big a downgrade if you don't count the whole audience/atmosphere of seeing it in the theatre (which I guess you do). You could bring along some friends who are fans (but not annoying fans that will quote the film as it plays). If you want it to be even longer The Extended Edition is out on Blu-ray soon
. It will be the ultimate Lord of the Rings box-set for a while.
You really should see it just for popular culture purposes if nothing else. (As I should probably see Pulp Fiction and The Lion King asap). Regular moviegoers might get bored with the characters or plot, but people that are interested in film and filmmaking like you and I will find other things to appreciate about the films. The amount of work and courage that went into the production is quite amazing.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Mar 2011, 2:02pm
Post 55 of 88
Plus, Return of the King is easily the best of the three.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Mar 2011, 2:11pm
Post 56 of 88
Aculag wrote:Plus, Return of the King is easily the best of the three.
Easily- in my eyes i've not seen a film that surpasses it- not even Avatar- for me it was perfect in every field of film making as well as basic audience enjoyment values. Also i'm a massive fan of lord of the rings and have watched all 3 films at least once a year...i think i might need to get out a bit more...
Posted: Tue, 22nd Mar 2011, 2:56pm
Post 57 of 88
Staff Only wrote:Not bad. But I would say you're in for a treat if you get hold of the films and see them all close together.
Agreed. However, if you plan to watch them all in the same day make sure you clear your schedule. Depending on which versions you have you're spending anywhere from 9-12 hours in front of the television. The extended editions are more enjoyable in my opinion, but that could just be me geeking out
Posted: Thu, 7th Apr 2011, 7:45am
Post 58 of 88
Posted: Thu, 7th Apr 2011, 9:18am
Post 59 of 88
You terrified me with that link, thought he was going to be directing second unit exclusively, instead of portraying Gollum. That's cool, good for him.
Posted: Tue, 12th Apr 2011, 7:26am
Post 60 of 88
Wow!Check this out
. Cue stong opinions..
I'm all for it. Obviously.
Posted: Tue, 12th Apr 2011, 7:47am
Post 61 of 88
Awful. Strobe, jitter, lack-of-smoothness. This isn't DSLRs we're talking about here, it's the natural and accustomed- and quite frankly more-cinematic- standard.
Ultra-smoothness to me feels too streamlined, too surreal in a futuristic way, and flat-out unfitting for 'cinema'.
This is horribly sad and disconcerting news in my book. A George-Lucas-style move, and everyone knows exactly what I mean by that. I don't know that I can enjoy a movie, regardless of content, that I'm taken out of on such a basic, broad, and fundamental level as framerate. Like soap operas, or nkrmal-speed 60fps footage we shoot- just nkt right. Unnatural and inorganic. Which is even more a travesty in my book as it's coming off of the rather excellent and in many ways 'old school filmmaking' of the LOTR films, and tackling antiquated, fantasy, old-world-style material like The Hobbit. It just won't feel right, regardless of the technique approached. Just as 240hz TVs or 'cinemotion' BluRay settings confuse and bother people.
The eye and the lens alike- they aren't meant to see moving images without blur. It's one of the biggest troubles and deadest giveaways in CGI to even add in.
Just.......I think this is just awful, terrible news. Hello, Avatar McBestBuyFloorModelHDTV: The Movie. Nice to meet you.
Posted: Tue, 12th Apr 2011, 7:51am
Post 62 of 88
You know what that means, right? A 48 fps surcharge "cuz we're showing double the frames!!!"
While I've grown to love the 24fps look, I'm excited by his comments about 48fps in 3D. Sounds intriguing, though I still worry that it may end up looking like a Spanish telenova when all is said and done.
Posted: Tue, 12th Apr 2011, 8:02am
Post 63 of 88
When I go back in to finish writing The Atomic Guide I think I'm going to have to add in a section called 'Dim Digital Projection, The 3D Fad, Video-y EVERYTHING, and 48fps Soap Opera/Mexican TV Show Standards: The Death of Cinema, How No One Seems to Care About It, and Why You Should Be Scared'.
And I'm not even a film purist or proponent or user or anything. But these radical changes (or 'leaps' as people have loved to call them) are horribly troubling the past 2-3 years. I fear for the existence of theaters, for the good old fashioned theater experience, for my wallet with the continual tacked-on fees, and of the proliferation of viewing gimmicks.
This honestly pisses me off and makes me sad, and I don't even really care about this film. I hope it tanks so as not to set a precedent for the 48fps standards in the film industry. Jackson compares it to switching from vinyl to CD, but I would argue not so at all. It's not a matter (or measure) of quality that is the concern, it's in the presentation. It's not taking a track of music and moving it to a higher-quality medium, it's taking the notes in the track and doubling them. Fundamentally changing it. At least, that's my thought on it. Hopefully at least a few on here agree.
How awful, seriously.
Posted: Tue, 12th Apr 2011, 8:14am
Post 64 of 88
mercianfilm wrote:Also i'm a massive fan of lord of the rings and have watched all 3 films at least once a year...i think i might need to get out a bit more...
Posted: Tue, 12th Apr 2011, 8:19am
Post 65 of 88
Atom wrote:'Dim Digital Projection, The 3D Fad, Video-y EVERYTHING, and 48fps Soap Opera/Mexican TV Show Standards: The Death of Cinema, How No One Seems to Care About It, and Why You Should Be Scared'.
I believe that surpasses the previous entry
for longest chapter title ever!
More seriously though, I'm not a fan of 3D ON EVEERRRRYYYTHINGGGGG. It is gimmicky. Plus, since I enjoyed LOTR so much in 2D, I can't see why there's a need for an extra D in the Hobbit (let alone 48fps 3D). Avatar and Tron were built for 3D, most other 3D releases just don't seem worth it.
Posted: Tue, 12th Apr 2011, 8:21am
Post 66 of 88
Also in the 'lolwut?' arena for me on this project, actor Andy Serkis is the second unit director on both films.
I love the guy as an actor, don't get me wrong, but this is wildly perplexing/odd news to me.
Posted: Tue, 12th Apr 2011, 11:06am
Post 67 of 88
Atom wrote:Also in the 'lolwut?' arena for me on this project, actor Andy Serkis is the second unit director on both films.
I love the guy as an actor, don't get me wrong, but this is wildly perplexing/odd news to me.
Staff Only wrote:Nice!
Not surprising to me at all. Did you know Fran Walsh directed the famous Gollum scene
in Two Towers? Peter Jackson laughs at it in the commentary: "It's my favorite scene in the film, and I didn't even direct it."
Who knows how much directing experience Walsh has. That scene is pretty complex and VFX heavy, but with a good DP and VFX supervisor, all the director has to do is really
understand the scene. That's what Walsh did, and that's what Jackson sees in Serkis. Serkis also wants to direct in the future so this is a good opportunity for him. The guy is very talented and I'm sure he'll do great.
Atom wrote:When I go back in to finish writing The Atomic Guide I think I'm going to have to add in a section called 'Dim Digital Projection, The 3D Fad, Video-y EVERYTHING, and 48fps Soap Opera/Mexican TV Show Standards: The Death of Cinema, How No One Seems to Care About It, and Why You Should Be Scared'.
Don't know if this is a joke, but I wouldn't put a sarcastic film-political (in the sense that you can call this 'politics') rant in your presumably serious filmmaking guide. A few well thought out paragraphs that talk about the pros and cons with this would be great and interesting, but if you know anything about journalism the Fox News kind: "This sucks and you
should be sacred!" is amateurish crap. You need to present both sides of any topic, and make a clear distinction between fact and your personal opinion. Your guide was looking good last time a saw it, so no need to sully it with a rant.
Atom wrote:Hello, Avatar McBestBuyFloorModelHDTV: The Movie. Nice to meet you.
I agree that it's lame to be stuck as "that film". Still both great (Finding Nemo) and not so great (Into the Blue) films have been "that film" through the years. Seeing Avatar in every electronics store does take away from the film, in my opinion, but it dosen't really
take away from the film. If you know what I mean.
Posted: Tue, 12th Apr 2011, 1:37pm
Post 68 of 88
Run for the hills! Something is different than we're used to and we should be afraid of it having never seen it!!!
Last edited Tue, 12th Apr 2011, 2:04pm; edited 1 times in total.
Posted: Tue, 12th Apr 2011, 1:59pm
Post 69 of 88
From a fairly young age the strobing effect on horizontal pans in the cinema irritated and perplexed me. Took me a good while longer to discover what caused it.
As I understand it, 24fps was chosen because it's the bare minimum needed to create a vaguely natural sense of movement and audio fidelity, while having the least amount of film running through the camera. Why? So that studios didn't have to pay for more film than was absolutely necessary. This wasn't from the start of cinema, either - films were shot at slower framerates in the early days, until they realised that increasing the framerate was better all round. But anyway: 24fps wasn't settled on for some pure, beautiful, artistic reason, but for a combination of artistic and (primarily) economic.
Anyway, personally I'd like to see filmmakers free to shoot and project at whatever framerate they want. The idea of forcing everyone to shoot 24fps forever "because it's cinematic" irritates me, just as forcing everyone to move up to 48fps would also irritate me.
I will be intrigued to see the results.
Posted: Tue, 12th Apr 2011, 3:12pm
Post 70 of 88
Evman wrote:Run for the hills! Something is different than we're used to and we should be afraid of it having never seen it!!!
I'm all for it. Jackson is a director that I trust a lot, and if he says this is going to work, I have no reason to doubt him. I'm excited about new film technology, and I see no reason to blatantly hate on it just because it's new and different. That's the view of a stubborn film professor who still thinks digital cinema will never be as good as film, just because film is what's always been there. If it had been done before and the results were atrocious, then it makes sense, but with no basis for comparison, it's hard to find anything really wrong with the format, except that it isn't exactly the same as what people have been using for 100 years...
If artists only ever stuck to a single medium, the whole artistic community would be a very boring place. Changing mediums/formats is what drives the industry to innovate, and I am on board with that 100%. I also think that 3D is out of hand lately, but that's mostly because of bad conversions. Jackson is doing 3D the right way, and trying something new with it. I'll decide if it worked or not after I've seen the film, but for now, I'm excited.
Posted: Tue, 12th Apr 2011, 4:32pm
Post 71 of 88
As with my thoughts on digital projection, I'm not saying limit yourself to one medium as much as I'm asking to retain some standards. 24fps is a quality framerate that people enjoy and has been used successfully for nearly a century.
I'm not saying don't try anything, but I think it's foolish to see any experimentation as 'the future', just as I am disheartened by comments from even Jackson that proclaim it- or anything for that matter- as 'the future'.
I've no problem with 3D movies being released, for instance- and I absolutely loved the technology in Tron Legacy. But I'm not so naive I think that is or should be the future of movies.
It's intriguing presentation and experimentation in the context of a film, and if someone were to tell me tomorrow they wouldn't release the film in 2D also, I'd be extremely sad.
There is a place for experimentation and difference, but it always needs to be held to a standard. That's all. My fear, as with digital projection in many cases, is that there is no standard to uphold when it's seen as 'the future' and therefore a natural progression of something better.
That's my worry and the heart of my frustration. Like the rise of digital projection, I don't see as much quality digital cinema as I do simply a decline in quality film projection. And that's extremely sad to me. That one medium can cause the death of a great one- most-especially one that retains a similar (if not better) measure of quality when done right.
The trick to it is, no one wants to do it right when a totally different and easier option (note I didn't say better) is out there. Christopher Nolan and JJ Abrams. They seem about the only people that get this these days.
In the case of digital projection, 3D, and 48fps- it's something different. Alternate in presentation, not quality. And the danger, and reason I tell people- enthusiasts who understand it at least, to be scared- is that the general public doesn't understand this. And people, even smart, passionate, well-intentioned, and talented people like Peter Jackson, have a tendency to misrepresent this truth.
Saying something is 'the future', or assuming it is inherently better- often leads impressionable people to take opinion as fact, and that's how we do away with sure, good things and set a precedent for something that *could* be good, but is far from a guarantee. This is the trend and inevitability we see in un-cinematic, eerily-smooth LED TVs today, and in movies like Date Night or Public Enemies. Because the smoothness worked for one, it was assumed all could get away with it without standards.
Because in some movies somewhere digital filmmaking worked exceedingly well, and because those people claimed it was 'the future', it was assumed by people like the creators of Date Night or Public Enemies that their lesser-quality, not-the-same precision digital film could passably be considered a 'feature film' measure of quality.
Posted: Tue, 12th Apr 2011, 4:53pm
Post 72 of 88
I definitely agree with that. That was one of my big issues with the Avatar hype. It's impossible for anyone to say what the future of cinema is, and I think what most of these innovations are doing is paving the way for the future, instead of creating it. You have to experiment with new things in order to innovate for the future, but to espouse something as "the future today" like Jim Cameron did is a little on the foolhardy/arrogant side.
It's similar to what I mentioned in the DSLR thread. DSLRs are in no way the future of amateur filmmaking, but they provide the inspiration and lay the framework for what will eventually be the future of amateur filmmaking. I think these experiments with new digital cinema cameras are working toward the same end, but I do certainly agree that it's silly to assume that every film will be projected at 48fps in 50 years. There's just no way of knowing, and with the market expanding and changing and innovating as much as it has lately, it becomes even more of a fool's errand to try and pinpoint what technology will stick and what won't.
Over the last seven years or so, I've been involved with this company in Colorado that has been working on little mini-portable video players. For a LONG time, they insisted on using tiny discs with large capacities, and the player would sit in your pocket and stream video to another device. At the time, the guy in charge of the project really believed that it was the future of portable entertainment. Two years of research and development later, and Apple releases the video iPod and changes everything.
But like I say, without these experiments, there would be no real innovation. I admit that I'm at least a little scared that The Hobbit is going to be a massive failure because of all of the risks they're taking with it, because I loved the LOTR trilogy. But at the same time, I'm excited to see if those risks pay off.
I'll never lose affection for the warmth of a properly (or hell, even improperly) projected 35mm film, but I'm a big believer in advancement of technology, especially in the arts, so I will only ever be excited for things like this. It's the same reason that I have an enormous MP3 collection on my computer, and am a huge proponent of digital music distribution, but when I really want to listen to an album, I buy the vinyl.
Posted: Tue, 12th Apr 2011, 5:11pm
Post 73 of 88
I haven't followed this topic much so I'm probably going to reiterate something already said, but this is my 2 cents anyway
I've just finished reading a couple of the most recent posts and as far as 48fps and 24fps are concerned, I think it should be up to the director based on what he sees fit for his film. For instance, a film like TAKEN, (my favorite film at the moment) I think looks best at 24fps, but take something like Star Trek and the futuristic, super smooth feel of 48fps may be warranted. (I don't know if Star Trek was or was not shot at a higher frame rate than 24fps, I'm just saying that in a film of that type, 48fps would make sense.)
So I'm not for or against it. I think it works some times, and not others. I think that the frame rate definitely has an effect on the overall "mood" of a movie. I think depending on the film, either could be used for the benefit of the "mood".
Posted: Tue, 12th Apr 2011, 5:30pm
Post 74 of 88
I agree with Aculag - I'm excited to see where this goes. I get the feeling that 48fps in 3D will look much better than 48fps in 2D, but we shall see.
Does anyone have any 48fps footage to see what it's like? All I can find is slowed to 24fps.
Posted: Tue, 12th Apr 2011, 9:24pm
Post 75 of 88
Aculag wrote:DSLRs are in no way the future of amateur filmmaking, but they provide the inspiration and lay the framework for what will eventually be the future of amateur filmmaking.
I disagree. Over a year ago, people were saying that DSLR's were the future of amateur filmmaking. Here we are, a year or more into the future, and DSLR's are very much the NOW of amateur filmmmaking, which proves those claims a year ago were correct, right? Obviously they aren't the end-all of amateur filmmaking, nothing ever will be, but they have proved to be the future, and will continue to do so, for a while.
They also lay groundwork for the next step of the future, as you say, but surely you must realize that the eventual future is always going to involve a progression of current tech?
Posted: Wed, 13th Apr 2011, 12:16am
Post 76 of 88
Axeman wrote:They also lay groundwork for the next step of the future, as you say, but surely you must realize that the eventual future is always going to involve a progression of current tech?
Yes, in fact, I believe I spent the majority of the post you quoted saying that exact same thing. That's the point I was making by bringing up DSLRs in the first place. Maybe I was a little too strong in saying they're "in no way" the future.
I never said that DSLRs weren't at one time the future of amateur filmmaking. At all times before HDSLRs existed, they were the future of amateur filmmaking. Back when I got my first DSLR, a Canon 20D, I thought "wouldn't it be great if this could shoot video?" At one time, the XL1s was the future of amateur filmmaking. So you could still say that DSLRs are the future of amateur filmmaking, and you'd be right, because the future is five seconds from now as well as five hundred years from now. I could say that they ARE the future, and I could say that they're NOT the future, and I'll still be right, because "the future" is just about the most nebulous term that exists. I could probably talk about the semantics of the future for a week, and we'd never get anywhere...
Of course, I could argue that the future doesn't even exist, and all there will ever
be is the NOW of amateur filmmaking, but that might be a little too philosophical for this discussion.
But anyway, Axeman, that whole rambling thing was just to say that I think we actually agree, it's just that, especially with brand new tech, it's hard to define the future. Which, I think is the point that's been made in the last several posts, and where I was going with the DSLR thing.
Posted: Wed, 13th Apr 2011, 8:01am
Post 77 of 88
Aculag is officially in the running for Most Rambling Post Award.
To carry on the DSLR point for a little while...it's a good example of new tech being embraced even though it isn't perfect. It offers specific advantages and disadvantages over a normal video camera.
I suspect the 48fps thing will be similar - improve in some areas, and take away in others. Removing horizontal judder would be great, especially in 3D projection. That judder makes me feel seriously weird when I'm watching a 3D film. But it may well also remove some of the 'raw filmic' nature that people associate with cinema.
I guess we'll find out.
Posted: Wed, 13th Apr 2011, 3:32pm
Post 78 of 88
Tarn wrote:Aculag is officially in the running for Most Rambling Post Award.
Must be a slow year.
Posted: Thu, 14th Apr 2011, 7:18am
Post 79 of 88
Not if I have anything long-winded to say about it...
Posted: Thu, 14th Apr 2011, 7:23am
Post 80 of 88
Posted: Thu, 14th Apr 2011, 7:44am
Post 81 of 88
Posted: Thu, 14th Apr 2011, 11:21am
Post 82 of 88
That video has made me really excited for this, it just brought a lot of memories of my anticipation for each film during the lotr series. Definitely going to be good.
Posted: Thu, 14th Apr 2011, 5:37pm
Post 83 of 88
Got a glimpse of that first thing this morning, and I have to say it made my day. I'm so pumped up with excitement right now. This is going to be great!
Posted: Thu, 14th Apr 2011, 6:09pm
Post 84 of 88
Yeah. That was awesome.
Posted: Thu, 14th Apr 2011, 6:29pm
Post 85 of 88
They're at it again!
Posted: Thu, 14th Apr 2011, 6:29pm
Post 86 of 88
Sweet, I love that Jackson's doing production videos again, it was awesome when he did it for King Kong!
Posted: Thu, 14th Apr 2011, 6:36pm
Post 87 of 88
Excellent! He's clearly putting the same level of care and love into this as he did LOTR and King Kong. Everything looks spot on. Definitely brought up a lot of memories. Lots of goosebumps. So exciting.
Posted: Thu, 14th Apr 2011, 8:39pm
Post 88 of 88
Yeah, and Jackson seems so enthusiastic! I love that. With all the bad stuff happening around this production, and Jackson's ulcer I was worried directing this would be a chore. I'm really feeling this. The whole "In a hole in the ground; there lived a Hobbit." was so spot on. I hope they end the trailer with that.