Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Will The Hobbit be in 3-D
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All

hunter771
Registered User


Mar 2 2010, 12:42am

Post #101 of 117 (11356 views)
Shortcut
3d? [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
and 3D is still too young and diverts totally from the story. TH is not just another random everyday movie from Hollywood.


TH is art, just like LoTR. If they film TH in 3d, It should be an afterthought because LoTR was a masterpiece and besides avatar, Hollywood has yet to make legendary movie(s). 3D would be cool, but it isn't necessary. LoTR didn't have 3DLaugh

long have you hunted me
long have I eluded you


thesithempire
Rivendell

Mar 2 2010, 6:56am

Post #102 of 117 (11352 views)
Shortcut
That's just not true [In reply to] Can't Post

It's silly to say that 3D "diverts from the story." It's only a diversion for the first five minutes after you put on the glasses (and that lessens each time you see a 3D film), after which it's the opposite as it brings you far deeper into the environment of the world and story.

This new 3D format has proved extremely popular (Home Media reported 72% of those surveyed want it). But every time there's a new technology, there are naysayers who vehemently decry it, saying "It's better the old way. We don't need it," blah, blah, blah, ad infinitum. Remember how CGI was denounced from the rooftops. Well, it's now standard, and everyone's favorite trilogy (yes, the LOTR) couldn't have been done without it. In the case of 3D, the technology isn't make or break like that. It's like going from DVD to blu-ray. It's not necessary, per se, but it's very nice!

For those who don't want that, I'm sure there will still be be standard 2D films for the next few years.


macfalk
Valinor


Mar 2 2010, 9:11am

Post #103 of 117 (11385 views)
Shortcut
I'm a "nay-sayer"... [In reply to] Can't Post

because I have actually seen a 3D movie (Avatar) and that didn't impress me once. It felt more like an excuse for these "ooooh" "aaaah" effects. Making Avatar in 3D was just to cover up the weak storyline.

Without being an expert, 3D obviously takes A LOT more time to do. Would you want another extra, superflous waiting period just for some 3D effects?

As someone said, TH is not supposed to be a random "eye-candy" movie.


farmer maggot
Rivendell

Mar 2 2010, 10:38am

Post #104 of 117 (11216 views)
Shortcut
If 3D is done well then I absolutely agree with you on this [In reply to] Can't Post

I saw Avatar just last week and went from neutral on 3D to very impressed indeed. Done well the results can be a stunning enhancement to the visual experience of the story - in this case it made a truly alien world very real, immediate and engaging. I personaly think the work that WETA and the conceptual artist acheved on this film is breathtaking and unparalleled. Of course it will work better for some viewers than others but for the vast majority audience it is a big plus - witness the Avatar box office takings of $2.5 billion (and still going). Even if you take off 25% for the added 3D ticket cost this still ROTK by such a margin that it means many, many more viewings than ROTK and it shows no sign of stopping yet. The studios cannot possibly ignore that fact.

In fact, a decision to go 3D on the Hobbit would mean more studio revenue, a bigger budget for the film and probably an even greater incentive to quickly green-light it, release it and gain the benefit while the power of the 3D effect is still strong, not buried in other, less creative blockbusters.

Also consider that, in the UK, Avatar is being shown in 2D on many screens around the country because only certain chains/cinemas are yet 3D equipped - you have an automatic choice. It is actually quite easy to show a 2D version of a 3D film using this polarising system (it is virtually just showing one eye image). The cinemas want to get in as many viewers as possible - I cannot see them taking away that choice and limiting their own audiences.

Finally, just to be controversial, I believe that the LOTR films were absolute masterpieces of cinema which I loved and still love, but I am not convinced that they might not have been even better in truly creative 3D. What stunned and drew me into the LOTR films was the staggering realism and loving, dedicated attention to detail in theose productions that made the fantasy world as real as reality and brought the story so much to life. From what I have seen in Avatar a 3D production might have made that effect even stronger certainly not damaged it. Only if we do see a remade 3D version of the Trilogy films will I be able to be sure of this opinion.

Viewing any creative work will always be subjective so I hope the choice will always remain but I bet we will see all of LOTR and The Hobbit showing in 3D for new generation audiences in not too many years - 3D is just too sucessful and popular to ignore.


Growlithe the Grey
Rivendell


Mar 2 2010, 2:35pm

Post #105 of 117 (11410 views)
Shortcut
3D is not just a gimmick [In reply to] Can't Post

First films were in black and white.
Then films were in color.
Then films were in widescreen.

Each progression that film has taken over the years has been to more closely replicate what we see with our own eyes. Is 3-D sound a gimmick? Should we go back to mono because the envelopment of multichannel audio is too distracting? Or is the correct word to describe multi channel audio "immersive?"

3D technology is finally to a point where for most people, it's not headache inducing or problematic on the eyes. Some people are still bothered by it, and for those people, I hope they still have 2D versions for you to enjoy. (And realistically, all they have to do is "turn off" one of the two "eyes" of a 3D film in order to show it in 2D).

But to suggest that 3D is simply pointless, has no value, or even worse, that it detracts from the story or somehow lessens the experience? Anything that can put you deeper within a film world is better. Just like color, widescreen, and multi channel audio brings us closer into that world, so does 3D. It more closely approximates how we interpret and see the world, and therefore there's more potential for a 3D film to suck you deeper into the universe you're seeing on screen. Is it necessary? Of course not. Is stereo sound necessary? Of course not. Is widescreen necessary? Of course not. But every last one of those things has the very big potential to draw you further into the experience, and make you feel that much more a part of that world.

We're not talking about 3D for the sake of having things fly into your face. It's 3D for the sake of seeing those mountains that are hundreds of miles in the distance. It's for seeing the layers of depth in a dense forest. Let's face it... who here wouldn't want to step foot into Middle Earth in person? 3D gives us the opportunity to get that much closer to truly feeling what it would be like to walk through that world.

I'm not saying 3D is for everyone - even with the newest digital technology, some people still are bothered by it. But much of the problems with previous incarnations of 3D technology are long gone. Less ghosting, less alignment issues, less brightness/color/contrast issues, less headaches, less motion sickness. 3D is a vastly superior way of presenting a visual medium when your goal is immersion. And to me, that's a large part of what films are all about. Not just story and characters (although they are probably the most critical thing) but also being drawn into the world you see on screen. 3D achieves that like 2D can't. It's not necessary, but it is a very big enhancement. Just as stereo sound provides a more immersive and enveloping environment than mono does, so does stereo vision.

Now, I actually do take issue with the 2D to 3D conversion process that is sometimes used for films. I think that if you're doing to do 3D, you either film in 3D (with a dual lens system) or don't bother. Don't "fake" the 3D afterwards in the computer. Even with a good 2D to 3D conversion, there's something lost in the process that can't be replicated with a true dual lens or dual camera system. Point being, if they made the Hobbit films in 3D, with 3D cameras (not just 3D conversion), I'd be extremely excited. Being immersed in Middle Earth would be amazing.


Growlithe the Grey
Rivendell


Mar 2 2010, 3:26pm

Post #106 of 117 (11259 views)
Shortcut
One bad apple spoils the bunch? [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
because I have actually seen a 3D movie (Avatar) and that didn't impress me once. It felt more like an excuse for these "ooooh" "aaaah" effects. Making Avatar in 3D was just to cover up the weak storyline.

Without being an expert, 3D obviously takes A LOT more time to do. Would you want another extra, superflous waiting period just for some 3D effects?

As someone said, TH is not supposed to be a random "eye-candy" movie.



Your knock is on the film, not the medium. We shouldn't abandon 3D just because you didn't like one 3D film that you saw, just as we shouldn't abandon any other technology just because one artist produces a bad song, movie, or TV show. When color film first came onto the scene, I'm sure there were a couple of REALLY crappy films that used tons of over saturated sets and costumes to take advantage of the new medium. But just because those movies were awful doesn't mean that color film didn't have the potential to greatly enhance the film experience.

Also, I wouldn't say 3D takes a LOT more time to do. In fact, in terms of overall production time, I don't really think 3D adds a significant amount of time to production. Avatar was in the pipeline for so long because it was outrageously visual effect laiden. Not having been 3D wouldn't have singnificantly reduced production time. Not to mention that Weta is now at least somewhat fimiliar with the 3D process, so a lot of the time consuming bugs were ironed out during Avatar.

Just because the Hobbit isn't some "random eye candy" movie does not by any means imply that it can't benefit from 3D. Making a film in 3D doesn't suddenly mean that you're making it for the sake of gimmickery or because your story sucks. 3D can be an invaluable tool in the enhancement of a film. The best film could potentially benefit from 3D.

And honestly, yes, I'd wait an extra six months for 3D, even though I think it would be far less than that in additional production time. Also, it wouldn't just be for "some 3D effects." We're talking a whole extra layer of immersion that just isn't there without 3D. Again, should be abandon stereo audio? Should we ditch HD in favor of SD? Why do we not just watch all movies on a portable DVD player. Why do we even go to a theater in the first place? The answer is that any developments that can improve the visual experience and create a more immersive film experience are beneficial to the art of film. The technology in and of itself doesn't guarantee a better film - just like color or widescreen or HDTV doesn't guarantee an improved piece of art. It does, however, give the artist the ability to futher enhance the immersion into the meticulously crafted worlds they create. Considering the Hobbit may already be delayed a year past the original anticipated release date, they may have months of additional production and post production time on their hands. It's quite possible that 3D wouldn't bump back the release date at all.

We see our world in 3D. We should not be reluctant to employ that feature in films if the technology is sufficient to do so. Again, I have no issue if 3D simply isn't up your alley. That's fine, I'm not asking anyone to love 3D if they simply don't. But if a film can be shot in 3D and still displayed in 2D (which as I mentioned in another post is ridiculously easy to do) then it's unfair to rob those of us who crave an immersive 3D experience of that added beneficial feature. A film using cheaper CGI can get relased faster, does that mean they should do that too? How about the costumes? Less detailed constumes are quicker to make. Less intricate sets are quicker to build. If the Hobbit isn't just a "random eye candy" film, why not cut back on all these superfluous additions because they just extend the time needed to create the film? Heck, they can probably crank this film out in a month or two if they just do an audio only version of the Hobbit. Obviously I'm being ridiculous here, but I think the analogy is apt. The more you can do to detail, immerse, and plus a film, the more enjoyment you can get out of it. As long as the enhancement isn't detracting from the art of the film, why not go the extra mile to do everything you can? 3D doesn't have to change the story telling of the films. They can still be every bit as good as they would be in 2D, only with the added bonus of being 3D.


SteveDJ
Rivendell

Mar 2 2010, 4:41pm

Post #107 of 117 (11189 views)
Shortcut
But that's my point - 3-D is wasted money on Hobbit [In reply to] Can't Post

The story of the Hobbit will bring in the crowd. Spending an addition 100-200 million on 3-D is NOT going to yield the added returns that Avatar got. They would be lucky to break even on the added expense -- so, is it really worth it?


Matthew
Registered User

Mar 2 2010, 5:05pm

Post #108 of 117 (11145 views)
Shortcut
S3D [In reply to] Can't Post

I saw my first 3D film in the late fifties as well, Thirteen Ghosts(?) I am reasonably sure that the 3D discussion is behind the probable delay until 2012. I wish some solid info about the cast and the shooting schedule would be published.


hunter771
Registered User


Mar 2 2010, 10:25pm

Post #109 of 117 (11221 views)
Shortcut
I agree but... [In reply to] Can't Post

some directors use 3d just to make the movie appealing, and to cover up the fact that the movie just has a generic plot. The hobbit would be awesome in 3D, though.

long have you hunted me
long have I eluded you


Mirabella_Bunce
Rivendell

Mar 2 2010, 10:33pm

Post #110 of 117 (11189 views)
Shortcut
Perzactly [In reply to] Can't Post

The thing about Avatar that made it work is that the STORY was gripping and wonderful and moving and all that good stuff, and is/will be even if not viewed in 3D. If it had not been such a great story - that is, if it had been written purely to make people go "Woooo that sure felt real!" - then Avatar would not have been a good movie. Period.

My biggest fear is that if they decide to invest in all those 3D resources, they will have to write completely new material to showcase it. And for each second of "new stuff written just to showcase our great 3D department's awesome skills" they will have to leave out a second of the original story. And as we have learned the hard way, there are just not enough seconds available in a theatrical film. On top of that, the people who will write the new segments, while they may know filmography cold, are not as great as Tolkien was at just plain spinning a great yarn.

I can only think of a few things in the original material that would lend itself well to bothering with the expense of 3D. The first thing that comes to mind is when Bilbo climbs up to the top of the tree in Mirkwood and sees all the butterflies and spiders. That would actually be something I'd look forward to seeing!

But I'm afraid that once they start with 3D, they'll feel obligated to spend inordinately long periods of movie-time showing apocryphal acrophobic action scenes like Dwarves swinging from spider threads for fifteen minutes at a stretch, so that all the big 3D non-book-reading moviegoers can go "woooooo! eeeeeee!" And that would just put a big roadblock right in the middle of moving the story itself along. Kind of like those interminable Giant-bugs-eating-the-Redshirts scenes in a certain film PJ was involved in *coughKing Kongcough,* which went on for so long I sometimes forgot what movie I was watching.

But GDT is a storyteller above all else, so maybe he'll be able to Just Say No to all the schlock I'm afraid they'll try to make him add if they plunk down funding for 3D. Maybe he'll even think of more ways than I can to actually use it to good effect on The Existing Material!


(This post was edited by Mirabella_Bunce on Mar 2 2010, 10:36pm)


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Mar 3 2010, 2:50am

Post #111 of 117 (11259 views)
Shortcut
It is not a Gimmick. It is a fad. When the Glasses are gone then it will be acceptable.// [In reply to] Can't Post

 

Kangi Ska

At night one cannot tell if crows are black or white.




(This post was edited by Kangi Ska on Mar 3 2010, 2:51am)


SirDennisC
Half-elven


Mar 3 2010, 3:37am

Post #112 of 117 (11273 views)
Shortcut
But [In reply to] Can't Post

look at the types of films that are made in 3D vs all other films... it seems 3D is only ever considered for action, fantasy, and/or horror genres; and even then is indicated more often in animated works over live action fare.

If The Hobbit was being conceived of as a drama first, would we even be having this conversation?

ps I agree about adding 3D after the fact... the recent Toy Story 1&2 Redux double bill was vastly disappointing.


(This post was edited by SirDennisC on Mar 3 2010, 3:40am)


PWOKristy
Bree

Mar 3 2010, 4:46pm

Post #113 of 117 (11234 views)
Shortcut
Re.: [In reply to] Can't Post

Hello,

I'd love it if the 2 Hobbit movies were shot in 3D. I don't get all the people that are somehow "against" having it in 3D. It's how we see the world! Duh. Geez.

Regards,
Kristy.

There should be women, in the 2 upcoming movies! Period. And I am not a bad guy. But I do like some of the Uruk-hai and Orcs.


Eowyn of Penns Woods
Valinor


Mar 3 2010, 10:32pm

Post #114 of 117 (11136 views)
Shortcut
Uhhh, I don't see the world through cardboard dweeb glasses. Can't speak for you. ;)// [In reply to] Can't Post



macfalk
Valinor


Mar 3 2010, 10:55pm

Post #115 of 117 (11250 views)
Shortcut
yeah, and its probably also the cause of the delay. [In reply to] Can't Post

 


PWOKristy
Bree

Mar 3 2010, 11:17pm

Post #116 of 117 (11083 views)
Shortcut
Re.: [In reply to] Can't Post

Exasperated and serious. Oi. We see the world in 3D. Duh.

There should be women, in the 2 upcoming movies! Period. And I am not a bad guy. But I do like some of the Uruk-hai and Orcs.


Tinners
Registered User

Mar 25 2010, 9:41am

Post #117 of 117 (11130 views)
Shortcut
3D techology is still in its infancy [In reply to] Can't Post

Although I like the idea of 3D movies I think that a lot more has to be done to make the effect look completely natural to veiwers.
I think over exaggerating the 3D effect can spoil the overall scene by drawing your attention to the forground and away from whats happening
in the middle and far distance . The tendancy to throw things at the audiance can also be hard to resist - If Smaug starts eating my popcorn i'll go
buy the dvd and watch it at home.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.