Heh, good one. As for me, I love bright clear crisp cinematography and am really looking forward to 48 fps.Originally Posted by Teiman
I was just alerted that the part of Beorn is being played by Mikael Persbrandt, who plays Gunvald Larsson in the Swedish crime series Beck.
Now I am definitely seeing this movie despite the sexy dwarf problem, because Persbrandt is probably my favorite actor of the past ten years.
That's not true. Cinema isn't interlaced.
Each frame is flashed 3 (or 2, depending on projector) times, but this has nothing to do with interlaced.
That's what Jackson is doing. He is planning on a 24 fps version done through step printing (in this case skipping every other frame). This only works for specific shutter speeds though. For a typical 180 degree shutter this approach would result in a rather juddering 24 fps version.Since 48 has x2 more information than 24, perhaps is possible to discard every odd frame and generate a 24 FPS version from the 48 FPS version, for these that want the old "feeling".
Trolls, no doubt, will discuss this long enough for the light of the morning to show.
They need to produce a 24fps version for theaters incapable of projecting the 48 hz version. Still won't look like something shot in 24, though.
lovely photo collage thingy
http://bitcast-a-sm.bitgravity.com/s...full-small.jpg
Oh, yes! Is that Beorn I see?
Hmm, these Wargs look more like wolves than hyenas.
As they should! A good choice by Jackson in the eyes of folks like me who want the films to hew as closely to the books as possible.
Yeah, one of my biggest beefs with the LotR trilogy is that the wargs were so cat-like. I don't care if it mildly breaks continuity from that trilogy, glad to see him doing it properly this time.
Ayup. The books weren't ambiguous about them looking like wolves...Plus "warg" comes from "varg," which means "wolf" in Scandihoovian.
The last frame in the collage is Barrels out of Bond. Is that the break point between the two movies?
I don't recall reading anything official saying where they're breaking it, but this is the most common speculation that I've read, yes.
EDIT: Okay, according to the Wikipedia article, the break is going to be right around the finding of the ring. Hmmmm.
Ugh. It's official. The Hobbit is now a fucking trilogy of movies.
That's really bizarre. I truly believe this story could be told, and told well, in a 2.5 hour movie. Why stretch it out into 8 hours? Well, besides the actual reason, of course - butts in seats. Such a dumb thing.
On the plus side, if all three part sturn out brilliant, I guess it will have worked out for the best, right?
http://www.deadline.com/2012/07/pete...e-three-films/
That's an odd call to make so late in production.
The proposed subtitle for the third movie that someone in the comments proposed are gold
“An Unexpected Film”
“Milking the Shire”
“There and back again again”
“The Lord of the Hobbit”
sigh....Well, soon the Indie moviemakers will take over...
I don't know how we got away from the idea that going to a movie, watching it, enjoying and and then going home because it was over. If you want to make a sequel, fine. But this thing where we wait basically 3 years to see ONE story is getting tiresome, kinda like 3D.
The linked article says he's gone back to the RotK appendixes idea, so it sounds like he's going to try to create a bridge between The Hobbit and LoTR. While there's nothing inherently wrong with that plan, three films seems overblown and Jackson's previous additions to Tolkien's work were easily the worst parts of the films.
And of course, after the third Hobbit film releases, they'll be all set to serve up "The Hobbit Trilogy: Extended Edition".
Personally, I can't wait for the sequel trilogy - "The Hobbit - The hidden years"....
Hobbit's Gone Wild, The Uncensored Uncut Spring Break Blue Ray Edition!
Two would have been fine, but I guess we'll have to see how this is framed. If the new trilogy ends with the end of The Hobbit, then it will probably be a stretch. On the other hand, the extended editions of LOTR showed that Jackson's style is to film a lot of stuff he doesn't use, so its very possible they can make three reasonable length theatrical films with minimal additional work. That was the talk a few days ago, anyway.
Its ironic because this likely means the pace of the films will be closer to Tolkiens at times relaxed pacing as opposed to the faster pace Jackson employed in the first trilogy.
Edit: Word on TheOneRing.net, which tends to be accurate, is that they are simply stretching story to three films, not adding a "bridge" film focused on what happens between The Hobbit and LOTR.
Last edited by Sarkus; 07-30-2012 at 10:45 AM.
I equally love and hate this idea. The Hobbitt doesn't need 8-9 hours, but, if done right I will probably watch all of it and be happy.
And I really don't need all the extra stuff....I mean I couldn't get through the Silmarillion.
Eight or nine hours as theatrical releases would be excessive, but if instead we get three two hour films as opposed to two three hour films I'm not going to be upset about that. The nine hour version can be the extended edition releases.
Looking forward to once again seeing each movie in the theater twice, then buying the theatrical edition on disc, then buying the extended edition on disc, and finally, inevitably, buying the "Lord of the Rings - The One Set Edition" of all 6 movies, extended with all new bouns material and digitally remastered for Direct Brain Interface (DBI) or whatever technology comes after Blu-Ray.
Fuckin Ungoliant and shit
Yeah, this was what he talked about at Comic Con, evidently...pulling some stuff from the LotR appendices. I don't know that it's a "bridge" film, but definitely stuff outside the scope of The Hobbit that's relevant.The linked article says he's gone back to the RotK appendixes idea, so it sounds like he's going to try to create a bridge between The Hobbit and LoTR. While there's nothing inherently wrong with that plan, three films seems overblown and Jackson's previous additions to Tolkien's work were easily the worst parts of the films.
I'm not THRILLED about a trilogy, but I'm not too quick to condemn it, either. I'll give it a fair shot, only because I thought he did a pretty great job with LotR.
I was kinda blown away when I heard it was going to be two.
Now? I think I'll just get them on Netflix.
Wait till we get the four-part epic Farmer Giles of Ham.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote