The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Will The Hobbit be in 3-D



Anduril1993
Rivendell

Feb 11 2010, 12:46pm


Views: 17426
Will The Hobbit be in 3-D

 


(This post was edited by Ataahua on Feb 11 2010, 7:59pm)


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Feb 11 2010, 12:56pm


Views: 15942
Not at release. //

 

Kangi Ska

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




Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Feb 11 2010, 2:24pm


Views: 15744
Don't be so sure

I know that when this came up last year GdT said that there was no plans at that time to produce the films in 3D, but given the apparent delays in finishing the script, Jackson's stated desire to use 3D (generally speaking), and the unprecedented success of Avatar, I would not be surprised if that decision got reversed.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

www.arda-reconstructed.com


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Feb 11 2010, 2:47pm


Views: 15912
GDT repeated his intent not to do three D

and after seeing Avatar last weekend I am convinced that it would be a big mistake to release The Hobbit(s) in 3-D.

It just is not needed.

Kangi Ska

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




Darkstone
Immortal


Feb 11 2010, 2:54pm


Views: 15786
Well personally....

...I'm hoping for Sensurround, Smell-O-Vision, Electroshock, and Cinerama, with Split Screen action and multiple endings the audience gets to vote on.

******************************************
That hobbit has a pleasant face,
His private life is a disgrace.
I really could not tell to you,
The awful things that hobbits do.


Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Feb 11 2010, 2:58pm


Views: 15803
Link please

When and where did GdT repeat his intent not to do 3D, since Avatar's release? I'm pretty sure I have read everything that he has said or that has been reported that he has said, and I haven't seen anything on the subject since it came up last fall. If you have link to the contrary, I would be very curious to see it.

I'm not saying that I think that the films should be in 3d; in fact I saw Avatar in 2D and was perfectly happy to do so. But the reality is that there is going to be increasing pressure from the studios to these particular films in 3D (and likely from Jackson too). The studios have one goal and one goal only - to make as much money as possible. If they think that making the films in 3D will help them approach Avatar's success, they will insist on that happening.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

www.arda-reconstructed.com


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Feb 11 2010, 3:47pm


Views: 15712
Here on His last visit

You will note that he does not specifically deny it in the text, he does lump it with two other rumors he has also denied I took it as affirmation of his previous denial.

"Much is happening and much more will occur before production starts. We've made an effort to keep the project from becoming inert. I read so much speculation on the net (Bilbo being a CG character, the film being 3D, David Tennant as Bilbo) and meanwhile our lives over here are also quite interesting and busy. I would love to share much, but then wild surges occur and deadlines are bypassed.

Suffice to say, we are all progressing strongly and, as a director, my own vision for the movie (both parts) gets stronger every day. At this stage I have seen it in my head and I am full of unholy fire. I dream of it. Every single night."


http://newboards.theonering.net/forum/gforum/perl/gforum.cgi?post=236156#236156

Kangi Ska

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




Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Feb 11 2010, 3:48pm


Views: 15931
I am thinkin' lobotomies all around. //

 

Kangi Ska

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




(This post was edited by Kangi Ska on Feb 11 2010, 3:50pm)


Darkstone
Immortal


Feb 11 2010, 3:54pm


Views: 15721
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me. /

 

******************************************
That hobbit has a pleasant face,
His private life is a disgrace.
I really could not tell to you,
The awful things that hobbits do.


dormouse
Half-elven

Feb 11 2010, 3:56pm


Views: 15666
I'm sure you're right ...

... about pressure from the studios, particularly after the success of Avatar. But I really hope that Guillermo's earlier comments hold true and they don't go for 3D with The Hobbit. From what I've heard of Avatar it really has only the 3D and CGI stuff to recommend it and draw audiences in, the story is pretty weak and predictable and many who've seen it are disappointed. The Hobbit is a very good story and if it's written and acted well, which I'm sure it will be, flashy gimmicks won't be necessary and might even detract. Maybe it's just me, but I hope they don't go that way. 2D with all the artistry of Alan Lee, John Howe and Weta to bring the visual aspects of the film into being will be just fine.


Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Feb 11 2010, 4:01pm


Views: 15704
Thanks!

Personally, I think it is too much of a leap to consider that an affirmation of his previous denial, but your mileage may vary. For myself, I think this statement in that same post is more relevant:

"But news- all news-, from everyone, ever- are shifting until we get the green light."

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

www.arda-reconstructed.com


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Feb 11 2010, 4:02pm


Views: 15625
I am falling through the hole in the ring.

For me 3-D is too much like a gimmick. It appeals to the Gamer Crowd but the glasses are a pain in the keester especially if you already wear lenses. Avatar was beautiful but too much like watching a video game for my tastes. The plot was weak and certain visual content defied any rational understanding. I could believe all the big floating rocks but where was all the water running off of them coming from? I really believe that the 3-D treatment will not happen until a 3-D version of LotR is released and that is not going to happen for a while.

Kangi Ska

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




Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Feb 11 2010, 4:04pm


Views: 15606
Hear-hear! //

 

Kangi Ska

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




SirDennisC
Half-elven


Feb 11 2010, 4:29pm


Views: 15820
Hello, standing right here --

can hear what you are saying about us gamers.

Check out this headline: "The nays have it: 'Gamers' tip vote against 3D Hobbit" -- is what it would read if there was such a story, and if voting on film form and content weren't an even bigger gimmick.


Arwen's daughter
Half-elven


Feb 11 2010, 4:31pm


Views: 15805
Nah, I'm still hoping for B&W

So that the technology level seems to advance through the pentology for those lucky viewers in the future who get to watch The Hobbit before LOTR for the first time. Doesn't make any sense if the first two have better effects than the last 3. Cool



My LiveJournal
My Costuming Site
TORn's Costume Discussions Archive
The Screencap of the Day Schedule for February


moreorless
Gondor

Feb 11 2010, 4:36pm


Views: 15648
I do see it being potentially suitable

While 3d's normally just a gimmick I felt Avatar did show how it can be used to help increase an audiences perception of a location. The locations themselves were rather OTT(although with high enough rainfall you do get large waterfalls on plateau mountains such as Angel Falls) and the story didnt have a vast amount of depth but Cameron did seem to understand how to film 3d to achieve the above.

Tolkien was obviously very concerned with location and giving the reader a strong perception of space/time and Jackson spent alot of time trying to achieve at least the former of those with LOTR so I can see why he'd be keen to try something new with The Hobbit.

The problem I spose though could be that because Avatar was largely CG they didnt need to lug around a 3d camara to multiple locations where as The Hobbit is likely to use alot more live action footage and real location work.


(This post was edited by moreorless on Feb 11 2010, 4:38pm)


Plurmo
Rohan

Feb 11 2010, 5:01pm


Views: 15732
B&W and Silent.

No more anguish about talking animals and singing elves.



Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Feb 11 2010, 5:02pm


Views: 15746
Magic Lantern.//

 

Kangi Ska

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




Patty
Immortal


Feb 11 2010, 5:02pm


Views: 15640
Choice.

I'd like to have the same choice we had with Avatar. Those of you who don't want to see it in 3D can enjoy your 2D version.

Regardless, I think the cat is out of the bag (or Pandora's box has been opened) or however you want to say it--Avatar's 3D success has impacted movies (especially ones that are 2 years away) in a way that studios won't be willing to go back from. $15 a seat? Yeah, they'll be all over that.

Permanent address: Into the West


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Feb 11 2010, 5:07pm


Views: 15648
Going Forward

"Jackson spent alot of time trying to achieve at least the former of those with LOTR so I can see why he'd be keen to try something new with The Hobbit"

I think not. I think it will happen going forward but not to the Hobbit(s) not now.


Kangi Ska

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




Darkstone
Immortal


Feb 11 2010, 5:08pm


Views: 15798
Kinda like the first part of Wizard of Oz.

I'm hoping they can get Christian Berger as cinematographer. His B&W work on The White Ribbon (2009) was spectacular!

******************************************
That hobbit has a pleasant face,
His private life is a disgrace.
I really could not tell to you,
The awful things that hobbits do.


Eowyn of Penns Woods
Valinor


Feb 11 2010, 5:47pm


Views: 15882
Me, too. I feel a glug coming on... //



almas_sparks
Rohan

Feb 11 2010, 6:07pm


Views: 15699
I hope it will be

Avatar`s 3D is incredibly immersing as opposed to gimmicky 3D used in My Bloody Valentine 3D and Final Destination 3D. It`s really the next step in enhancing movie experience like sound,color and cinemascope were before it. It`s happening because it`s the next logical step in theatrical movie experience evolution.

My point is that it`s OK if The Hobbit goes forth with the progress and embraces 3D but if it doesn`t, that`s OK too. At least it`s been made.

That said, can`t wait for Clash of the Titans 3D but most of all Inception. Paris folding into itself...in 3D...July cannot come soon enough!


GaladrielTX
Tol Eressea


Feb 11 2010, 6:09pm


Views: 15699
When GdT posted here

a few months ago saying that there had been absolutely no discussion of 3D, I’m pretty sure it was before the release of Avatar. At the time, I agreed with him that 3D wouldn’t be appropriate; however, I did a 360 degree change of heart shortly after the theater lights went down and they started playing previews of upcoming 3D movies and the beginning of Avatar. It occurred to me that The Hobbit moviemakers would have to have a very strong will and be extremely difficult to impress in order to stick with their original viewpoint on this after seeing the possibilities of this technology to remove yet another barrier to experiencing a movie visually. Frankly, what I saw won me over to 3D. I realize that lots of fans have other preferences, though, so I agree with Patty that it’d be great if we had a choice like we did with Avatar to see it in 3D or 2D.

~~~~~~~~

The TORNsib formerly known as Galadriel.



(This post was edited by GaladrielTX on Feb 11 2010, 6:09pm)


almas_sparks
Rohan

Feb 11 2010, 6:12pm


Views: 15660
There would be 3D and 2D choice

because there are still not enough 3D theaters. Until all theaters get 3D equipment (which won`t be soon), they`ll have to do 3D/2D release split.


Plurmo
Rohan

Feb 11 2010, 6:57pm


Views: 14727
I don't even consider the possibility

of The Hobbit being 2D only. The whole industry is moving into 3D and block busters are what they need in order to make big improvements in the technology. The Hobbit is arguably even more suitable for 3D than LOTR.


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Feb 11 2010, 7:04pm


Views: 14833
3-D is not necessary for either.

It is good for computer animated graphics, and when the glasses go away It will be suitable for all audiences. I do not believe that it would improve the quality of The Hobbit one wit.

Kangi Ska

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




Plurmo
Rohan

Feb 11 2010, 7:25pm


Views: 14790
I agree, but this time

I'm thinking about industry logic only. There's a fierce competition going on and The Hobbit is an opportunity for knowledge expansion. They (GDT, PJ, RT) will not spend half a dozen years (or more) on a 2D only endeavour while their competitors (including inside ones, in the case of Weta) explore 3D.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think our focus should be on how to create a good 3D adaptation of The Hobbit.


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Feb 11 2010, 7:45pm


Views: 14761
I do not see

A 3-D release of the Hobbit prior to a 3-D release of the The Lord of the Rings. This is really improbable any where in the near future. I am certain that the studio can not re-engineer Peters movies without his cooperation and I am certain he would want to oversee such a process. Looking at Peters scheduled work, I doubt he gets back to the possibility ant time soon. On top of this I find transforming classic movies by colorization, inserting newly shot scenes or even re-filming them to be a questionable process. 3-D is just one more thing on the list.

No wait-wait H1 in 2-D H-2 opens in 2-D and becomes a 3-D film with the flight of Smaug kind of like the Wizard of OZ's color thingi. Or GDT shoots the entire thing in Spanish with sub-titles. Or Both or...

Kangi Ska

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




(This post was edited by Kangi Ska on Feb 11 2010, 7:49pm)


Plurmo
Rohan

Feb 11 2010, 9:05pm


Views: 14794
I try, but

I cannot see it other way. There are just too many scenes inside bounded spaces like the tunnels and halls under the Misty Mountains, Mirkwood, Thranduil's Caves, Erebor. Besides, how will they avoid the temptation of vertiginous dives upon the Carrock and fantastic "sentient clouds" in Bo5A? Honestly I think Manwë-related spirits like Carrioncrow and Almas Sparks are in for some great aerials.

To capture the hearts of the audience the makers must first capture the hearts of the people involved in the job. Part of those are technicians who would feel downcast by the possibility of staying a lot of years inside a 2D framework while their friends do 3D stuff. Remember all the work they put on Gollum. That passion would be lost, and we all know without passion there would be no LOTR movies.

The question is will GDT be able to deliver a good adaptation of The Hobbit in 3D or will he spend just too much effort on visual effects at the expense of the plot?

PS: thinking about falling through the hole in the ring, this time I hope they do it very slowmo, because I want to become invisible for a while and also have a peep at the Shadow World.


Eldy
Gondor


Feb 12 2010, 12:42am


Views: 14791
I saw Avatar twice...

...once in 2D, once in 3D. It wasn't IMAX 3D, so I can't comment on that, but it wasn't more immersing to me. There were a few times when you saw stuff float out towards you (mercifully few times, though), but that works counter to immersion. It reminds you that you're watching technological tricks and jolts you out of the moment of storytelling. I don't think 3D adds much, but it distracts a good deal.


almas_sparks
Rohan

Feb 12 2010, 12:51am


Views: 14730
it would be absolutely amazing

to see all that in 3D, experience the caves and tunnels and wide spaces and flight on eagles.

I mean, they are making Tintin on 3D and Tintin is,like, big in Europe but not in North America. OTOH, whole world anticipates The Hobbit and it won`t be in 3D? That would be soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo disappointing! The Hobbit is an event! Not just a movie. An event! And there will be 2D versions anyway (because there aren`t enough 3D theaters) so both 3D and 2D fans will be pleased.


Idril Celebrindal
Tol Eressea


Feb 12 2010, 2:23am


Views: 14770
And Glorious Technicolor! //

 


With caffeine, all things are possible.

The pity of Bilbo will screw up the fate of many.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Feb 12 2010, 3:25am


Views: 14745
So

I guess you are staying home if it only releases in 2-D?

Kangi Ska

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




Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Feb 12 2010, 3:36am


Views: 14775
I also saw Avatar this weekend

It was a good thing it didn't have much of a plot. It was all about the visual effects. There were a couple times when the 3-D effects re interesting but on a whole I find it interferes with getting into the movie and constantly reminds you that you are watching it. It was real pretty and had lots of big explosions. I had just watched the Blur Ray Extended Version of King Kong and noticed that a lot of the effects in Avatar were variations on sequences done for Kong.

Kangi Ska

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




Rogash
Bree

Feb 12 2010, 6:05am


Views: 14633
Useless

It is the same thing for me,and I have fear for The Hobbit in 3D because of smal effect which will be improve only for this 3D,and the script would be changed.For example,In Avatar there are some moment create for 3D,and when you see it in 2D,it sound be wrong.And I don't want 3D for The Hobbit.
Moreother Avatar is fart away from any LOTR films,and they were in 2D.Stupid 3DLaugh


(This post was edited by Ataahua on Feb 13 2010, 12:16am)


Rogash
Bree

Feb 12 2010, 6:09am


Views: 14725
Some grammatical errors

Forgive me all,I'm FrenchBlush


Glorfindel
Rivendell

Feb 12 2010, 6:17am


Views: 14713
Hey, I wonder if you could clear something up...

.. not being technologicially savvy I need a few things explained to me. If one is using real locations, as TH will undoubtedly do, does the 3D technology really enhance those locations? I've been trying to think of any recent 3D films that are not CGI or animations that I can sit and watch in order to make an informed opinion. Can anyone steer me in the right direction?

At this point I'm not a fan of 3D but as I agree with Kangi that the glasses are a pain, especially if you are watching it with littlies. You spend more time trying to get theirs to stay on than watching the film. My smallest ended up watching 3D Journey to the Centre of the Earth without his glasses as he said he couldn't see with them on. He'd spent the first quarter of the movie munching his ice cream and pushing his glasses up on his face by the lenses, with the result he couldn't see because of all the choco chip smears. Money well spent... not.

As I say I've only seen 3D CGI and animations and while the technology is undoubtedly amazing I don't really see how, as others have said, 3D can enhance a terrific story. Avatar was amazing visually but it was basically Pocahontas on Pandora. I don't have any burning desire to see it twice. James Cameron believes that Avatar is the 'ultimate immersive media'. I reckon a ripping yarn can still do that without resorting to 3D.

But please I would welcome the opportunity to educate myself otherwise.

Cheers

Glorfindel


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Feb 12 2010, 10:53am


Views: 14864
The next BIG thing...

Now falling down the Hobbit hole, reaching left-grasping right, astonished by the wonders to our digital delight, oblivious to our mounting speed we ride the plunging spell looking for the next big thing before we hit the bottom of the well.

Just say NO to The Hobbit in 3-D.

Kangi Ska

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




(This post was edited by Kangi Ska on Feb 12 2010, 10:55am)


sphdle1
Gondor


Feb 12 2010, 12:42pm


Views: 14675
I found

Avatar's 3-D was just average, but at the same time didn't take away from the story line, and I was surprised at how good the story and message were. Usually 3D pops out at you more and has at least one or two 'roller coaster' rides. Avatar had a perfect opportunity to fly through the air down the mountain, along the rivers, etc., but didn't utilize the 3-D that way. In some ways it was good that they didn't go over the top with it, though I wished they had done one good flying scene.

I hope they do The Hobbit films in 3D.


sphdle1
Gondor


Feb 12 2010, 12:47pm


Views: 14769
What if

We all hop in barrels, and they roll us around while watching it through 3D virtual reality glasses, and when it comes to the Elves/barrel rolls scene, we'll feel like we're right in the movie?


sphdle1
Gondor


Feb 12 2010, 1:05pm


Views: 14720
I found the 3D

very subtle in Avatar. I actually like the thrill ride every now and then throughout a 3D movie, but Avatar didn't do that for me...I guess they must have looked at it from the perspective of not wanting people to be jolted out of the moment of storytelling. So for me it did the opposite...I was pulled back to reality because I was expecting and wondering why they weren't captializing on the 'flying through the air' scenes, which could have been more of a thrill ride (like in 'A Christmas Carol').
However now that I know not to expect the full crazy thrill ride 3D experience, I think the 3D version would be great a second time round. I can't imagine watching it in 2D now, and still feel like I'm right there.

Contrary to what most people are thinking, I found the story and message very profound and touching, because when I left the theatre, I wasn't touched by the 3D, but rather, was uplifted by the story itself, which compells me to go back and watch it again. They sucked me right in, with how they did the Na'vi, and their story. I was right in that movie believing they were an actual tribe that exists. I personally thought the story and plot were awesome and inspiring.

I hope they do the same with The Hobbit, but knowing it is a more subtle 3D experience like Avatar.


sphdle1
Gondor


Feb 12 2010, 1:10pm


Views: 14734
I totally agree

Having both 2D and 3D should not spoil it for anyone. If you don't like the idea of it in 3D, just go to the 2D theatre, but don't wish others that have embraced 3D, not to have their experience in 3D.


Darkstone
Immortal


Feb 12 2010, 2:00pm


Views: 14840
And Stereophonic sound!

Of course that goes without saying nowadays. Is anything in monoaural anymore?

******************************************
That hobbit has a pleasant face,
His private life is a disgrace.
I really could not tell to you,
The awful things that hobbits do.


Patty
Immortal


Feb 12 2010, 5:00pm


Views: 14810
I'm wondering, Eldorion...

if the screen size made a big difference? I found the IMAX 3D to be a completely immersive experience. Yes, at first I was aware of the 3D, but I quickly forgot to think "special effects" and just became part of the story, and I'm wondering if it may be because the screen was so danged big?Sly It's too late for AVATAR, cause you've seen it and formed your non-IMAX opinion of 3D, but if you ever see an IMAX 3D movie, let me know if you still feel the same.

Permanent address: Into the West


almas_sparks
Rohan

Feb 12 2010, 5:38pm


Views: 14810
same here

Agree with all you said!

IMO, polling people about Hobbit 3D on this forum and polling people leaving the theater after seeing Avatar about Hobbit 3D is bound to produce opposite reactions. Here, No to 3D will prevail, while Avatar audiences will give resounding Yes to 3D. I don`t think I have to point out which group is majority and which one is minority. Cool

Anyways, I`ll be very disappointed if The Hobbit isn`t given a 3D chance at least on IMAX (keep 2D for everything else if you want). LOTR didn`t have IMAX release which is dumbfounding.The Hobbit would really benefit from it, and I`m talking IMAX not LIEMAX (those small screens that call themselves IMAX). I mean, they make Tintin in 3D. I couldn`t care less. Tintin is big in Europe and I`m not from there and don`t care. But if something that clearly isn`t a global sensation can go 3D, surely one of the most anticipated movies in the world can. especially since there`s always a 2D option that goes together with 3D release.


Eldy
Gondor


Feb 12 2010, 6:26pm


Views: 14615
It was definitely subtle

I'm very glad for that. The few other 3D movies I've seen all used it as a terrible gimmick, and Avatar's relative constraint was a very good thing. I still don't think it made a huge difference though; I didn't find 3D more immersive than 2D, and the picture quality seemed somewhat less (though maybe that was just my eyes, or the glasses). In any event, not really worth the extra ticket price.

IMHO Tongue


Eldy
Gondor


Feb 12 2010, 6:30pm


Views: 14744
Might have been

I've been to a few different IMAX theatres at various museums. Some of the screens are just larger version of cinema screens, but one was a half-globe that surrounded the seating on three sides. That one was especially amazing.

It's been some time since I saw anything in IMAX 3D, but as far as I recall it's better than regular 3D. I wanted to see Avatar in IMAX to round out my experience of all three ways of seeing it, but I couldn't find a theatre showing it. Unimpressed I recognize that the IMAX experience is probably better, though.


Plurmo
Rohan

Feb 12 2010, 6:52pm


Views: 14590
Glorfindel, what follows is my non-expert's reply.

As far as I know 3D technology cannot enhance real locations beyond what digital cinematography (be it 2D or 3D) can do. I don't know if the real world can be enhanced beyond what, for example, HDR (high dynamic range) provides (if that's what you really mean by "enhance").

I'm also unaware about the image enhancing properties of choco chip smears but in this place the smallest persons are said to be able to change the course of the future. Who knows if your smallest wasn't really trying some very unorthodox form of image processing?

Till now what we have seen is how 3D can damage a terrific story (the 2008 Journey to the Center of the Earth you mention is a case in point). Will GDT and PG "ride the plunging spell to the bottom of the well?" I hope not. I hope they achieve the proper balance between story-telling and visual profusion. There's no point in making The Hobbit movie if you cannot carry Almas on the back of Smaug through the flames while fulfilling Kangi's desire for a pure Tolkien experience.

Oblivious to my mounting tardiness I ride TORn's plunging spell... till someone kicks my bottom and I end up down in Hell.


lazygarfield
Bree


Feb 12 2010, 7:02pm


Views: 14588
Sorry...

.... to burst your bubble but Inception is not in 3D. It was shot in 2D and that too in normal film, and will be converted to the IMAX format. Just the IMAX format, mind you, not the 3D format.

And yeah, that shot of Paris folding into itself was sweeeeet.

If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.


lazygarfield
Bree


Feb 12 2010, 7:46pm


Views: 19047
maybekindasortayes

You know, as much as you can deny it, there's no doubt the, right now, The Hobbit is one of those movies that must be in serious considerations to 3-Dimensionalize.

Think about it, the success of Avatar has sent all studios into a frenzy. We already knew filmmakers like Steven Spielberg, Peter Jackson etc. were going to try out 3D themselves. After the movie's success, we can add Roland Emmerich, Lou Leterrier to the mix.

And, think about it, why won't the studios make it in 3D? The process of converting a 2D movie to 3D takes just $5 million now, and will obviously lessen by the time The Hobbit comes around.

Infact, theres a high probability that they shoot the film KEEPING 3D in mind, so that it doesn't come off as cheap.

If theres one thing, it can learn from Avatar, its that you can effectively use 3D without stupidly breaking the 4th wall every now and then, and instead, create a fully immersive world. And lets face it, would you not want to be immersed in Middle-Earth? In the Shire? Rivendell? Fly over an Eagle? Walk through Mirkwood Forest? Don't lie to me sweety, you know you want it...

If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.


sphdle1
Gondor


Feb 12 2010, 7:55pm


Views: 19141
It would be nice if

they stocked the 3D glasses, and didn't charge extra for 3D movies (especially when they are not IMAX theatres).

During the times I forgot about the 3D (when on the ground and not flying...), I thought about it later, and felt more immersed in those parts of the movie than I usually do...almost like there was some extra magic to the story that made me feel like I was right there.

I do find it matters more where you sit in the theatre for 3D...unless it's IMAX, I find that if you sit from the midway point and back, the screen appears too small in 3D and is not as good...with 3D, the close to the screen the bigger it seems, and the more immersed I feel, especially once I forget about the 3D and just melt into the movie.


Captain Salt
Tol Eressea


Feb 12 2010, 11:33pm


Views: 19123
Please no!

Goblins in 3-D?! Let's hope they don't give us smell-o-vision also.


(This post was edited by Captain Salt on Feb 12 2010, 11:34pm)


Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Feb 13 2010, 4:56am


Views: 19250
Just say yes

I just saw Avatar in IMAX 3D after previously having seen it in 2D, and I have to say that I am totally sold on the idea of using 3D for the Hobbit. I am convinced that in the right hands, the format could be used to enhance the excellent story, rather than distract from it. If for no other reason than for the butterflies that Bilbo sees when he climbs the tree in Mirkwood, I would gladly pay the extra price.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

www.arda-reconstructed.com


Glorfindel
Rivendell

Feb 13 2010, 5:31am


Views: 19262
Thank you Plurmo!

Not sure my youngest is a budding cinematographer but as the Journey to the Centre of the Earth was pretty pants he couldn't really be making his viewing experience any worse!

I'm still not convinced The Hobbit needs 3D for the total immersive experience though. Good storytelling can still do that and I have faith that GDT, Jackson, Walsh and Boyens will deliver that by the bucket load. Maybe I should have seen Avatar in IMAX - indeed I can't remember if I have ever seen a film in IMAX but the kids tell me that there's no point to 3D if it's not on the wrap around screen.

When you get down to the rub I really don't care if it's 2D, 3D or smellovision (although the rolling around in the barrel experience would just make me vomit so that's a non-starter). I won't be thinking it's a missed opportunity. When the lights go down I'll be grinning like a Cheshire Cat because I'm back in Middle Earth.


dormouse
Half-elven

Feb 13 2010, 10:00am


Views: 19009
(applause)


Quote
When the lights go down I'll be grinning like a Cheshire Cat because I'm back in Middle Earth.



Amen to that!!!!


almas_sparks
Rohan

Feb 13 2010, 12:53pm


Views: 19140
Agreed, 3D can enhamce, not ruin an excellent story

Avatar 3D, that is, not old gimmicky one.

I mean, if the story is good, how can immersive 3D ruin it? I just don`t get this argument that some people bring up. Good movie is a good movie, bad one is bad one. Good won`t become bad thanks to 3D and bad won`t become good thanks to 3D. Transformers 2 would`ve been garbage on 3D too while LOTR would`ve been great.


(This post was edited by almas_sparks on Feb 13 2010, 12:55pm)


almas_sparks
Rohan

Feb 13 2010, 12:56pm


Views: 19028
buaaaaaaaaaa,sniff,sniff,buaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

needs crying smilie badly! FrownFrownFrown


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Feb 13 2010, 3:41pm


Views: 19008
Not old gimmicky one, but the new and improved gimmicky one! //

 

Kangi Ska

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




macfalk
Valinor


Feb 13 2010, 6:11pm


Views: 19053
As long as we have a choice between seeing it in 2D or 3D, I don't care.

 


(This post was edited by macfalk on Feb 13 2010, 6:11pm)


Plurmo
Rohan

Feb 13 2010, 9:56pm


Views: 18950
You're most welcome, Glorfindel.

"I'm still not convinced The Hobbit needs 3D for the total immersive experience though."

I agree completely. I don't think there's any need for 3D, I only think its inevitable.
-------------------------------

Doctor! I'm not mad! Yes, it was dark but I swear I saw it: a
Cheshire Cat and a Cheshire Kitten grinning in the dark!



Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Feb 13 2010, 11:17pm


Views: 19424
I'm sure you don't mean to be rude

However, that comment came across as quite pithy and almost rude to me. Particularly having just seen Avatar in IMAX 3D and being frankly amazed at how ungimmicky the 3D was. Of course your mileage may vary, but to me the discussion is more interesting and valuable when people's points of view are taken seriously rather than dismissed with pithy one-liners. You can take that for what it is worth.

I certainly don't think that 3D will determine whether The Hobbit films are artistically successful; that will depend on the script, and the acting, and the cinematography, and the directing (and the score, and the costumes, and the sets, and the bigatures, and a bunch of other stuff, and most of all, assuming the adaptation is done well, on the source material). If The Hobbit remains in 2D it won't make me any less excited to see the films. But I am convinced now that the 3D technology could make the films even better than they otherwise would be.

Again, your mileage may vary.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

www.arda-reconstructed.com

(This post was edited by Voronwë_the_Faithful on Feb 13 2010, 11:18pm)


7777777
Rivendell


Feb 13 2010, 11:45pm


Views: 19012
I've never seen a movie in 3D...

mostly because I'm not really interested in wearing glasses for several hours.

Has anyone here tried to watch a 3D movie without the glasses?

"Something, something, something Darkside. Something, something, something complete."


Buchanicus
Lorien


Feb 14 2010, 1:00am


Views: 19069
3D...not for me.

3D...sigh. Personally, it's not for me at all, and I would really like for The Hobbit to stay far away from it. Now, this is my personal opinion, I'm not going to try and say that my point of view is the right one, or that those who ebjoy the format are wrong in some way. I just have some issues with the "technology" that ultimately lead me to have no interest in 3D.

I have seen sevral movies in 3D. All three times I experienced Nausea, eye strain and an overall discomfort wearing the 3D glasses...especially on top of the glasses that I already wear. It was the same after seeing Nightmare Before Christmas, Beowulf, and even Avatar. Amy "immersive" sensation was replaced by discomfort. Overall, not an enjoyable experience. Alsoi after seeing Avatar in 2D, then seeing in in 3D, I thought the movie looked blurry in places and darker than the digital 2D version of the film. My opinion (again, not saying it's the only one that matters) the digital theater experience is far more satifying and enjoying....and thats before considering the above mentioned discomfort.

So... we get to the issue of choice. If there was a gaurantee that there would always be a choice in seeing these moveis in 2D or 3D, then it really wouldn't be that big of a deal. But that is something that is already begining to be a problem. For example, ther are 3 theaters that are in close proximity to me. The main one, the theater I go to 90% of the time showed Avatar on 5 screens it opening weekend. 4 of these screens showed the movie in 3D, 1 showed it in 2D...4 showtimes all day. Now I'll admit I'm not entirely sure how long they continued having their 4 showtimes of 2D Avatar, but I can tell you that they have had no 2D showings in well over a month. The other two "nearby" theaters both showed the movie on two screens and only showed it in 3D. Now in concerns to this trend and to the film version of The Hobbit, a movie at least two years from release, that doesn't bode well for those of us who want 2D. The choice is being takne out of our hands, and that is directly because of money. They can and will and do charge more for films in 3D. The theater I often go to charges $4.50 more per film, bringing the cost for one ticket to one show, $14.00. And that is what theaters and studios care about the most. That is why after the numbers started to roll in for Avatar, then the decision was made to turn Clash of the Titans and Harry Potter into 3D movies. Retrofit them so to say. And that really bothers me, because they know (and will) charge more to see these films. These are not films "made for" the 3D experience like Avatar and the upcoming Alice in Wonderland...they were turned this way because of money, trend and gimmick...yes I will use the word gimmick in concerns to converting films to 3D rather than shooting them in 3D. That, I feel, is a gimmick to get people to spend the extra money. Another misguided solution to combat pirating. Because you can't pirate 3D (yet), so people have to come to the theater to get the 3D experience. But, I believe that it may promote pirating because people don't want to pay that much and/or don't want to see it in 3D.

I have believe in GdT and PJ and the design/production team behind The Hobbit films. I believe that they are insanely talented and creative people, and for these films to be a success, they have to be able to share the vision that they have and want to put on the big screen. I do not think that adding a "3rd dimension" is something that is necessary for this project. Even though there is gonna be tons of FX and creatures and fighting and spectacular settings and is a fantasy story (which seem to be the kinds of movies that "have" to be in 3D now), I thinks it's the equivalent of putting the Godfather or the like in 3D...because to me the LotR films and ultimatley The Hobbit films are more then just "theater experiences". They are bigger and more prestigious than that.

Again, all of this is just my opinion, I think this is an extremely subjective subject. I don't think that there is a right or wrong, just preferences and feelings and emotions. Hell, I just love it when people are emotional about films in any way! My personal view on this whole subject is that movies and going to the theater to see them is my favorite thing to do and is my number one interest and I'm very passionate about that and I don't want my hobby to become somethin that I no longer enjoy. That is all.

TORn member formally known as ryan1976.


Eldy
Gondor


Feb 14 2010, 1:08am


Views: 19132
If you take the glasses off...

...you get a blurry image and, in the case of Avatar at least, two copies of everything. The technology Cameron uses involves presenting two images on screen, which the glasses somehow combine to make it look 3D. 3D films aren't watchable without the glasses.


Plurmo
Rohan

Feb 14 2010, 1:26am


Views: 19029
What I see without the glasses

is quite similar to someone with astigmatism reading your username.Smile


7777777
Rivendell


Feb 14 2010, 4:20am


Views: 19176
Sounds like lots of fun...

I think I'll pass.... I don't watch many movies at all(still haven't gotten around to seeing any of GTD's movies) and 3D doesn't sound very appealing.

"Something, something, something Darkside. Something, something, something complete."

(This post was edited by 7777777 on Feb 14 2010, 4:23am)


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Feb 14 2010, 10:36am


Views: 19234
Pleas catch Pan's Labyrinth. You won' regret it. //

 

Kangi Ska

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




Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Feb 14 2010, 10:46am


Views: 18953
I really want to be amazed by the story telling not the technology.

The relative newness of the format (though I saw my first polorized 3-D film in 1967) and the glasses that don't fit well over mine and the fact that my spouse is blind in one eye all work against me enjoying what is happening on the screen. But above all of this. I want the Five movies to be a set. They can do what ever they want later. "The five movie Blue Ray 3-D Box Set" ( by the way I heard that the first flat panel 3-D televisions hit the market at the end of last year,) will come along I am sure but here at the beginning of all things I do not want to be distracted.

And by the way: No rudeness intended: just a bit of frustration with the topic.We get crotchety when we get old. Blush

Kangi Ska

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




(This post was edited by Kangi Ska on Feb 14 2010, 10:50am)


7777777
Rivendell


Feb 14 2010, 6:41pm


Views: 19091
I'll put it at the top of my list. TX//

 

"Something, something, something Darkside. Something, something, something complete."


sphdle1
Gondor


Feb 15 2010, 12:59pm


Views: 19037
I respect

some don't want to watch The Hobbit in 3D, however there are many of us that do, and if there are 'options' in theatres for both, why would it be a problem? Those who don't want 3D can go to the regular 2D theatre, but don't wish others not to have 3D in other theatres.

If there are plenty of 2D theatres showing the Hobbit, why would anyone be against having 3D theatres for those who would like that experience..?


sphdle1
Gondor


Feb 15 2010, 1:01pm


Views: 19045
Totally agree!

 


almas_sparks
Rohan

Feb 15 2010, 4:00pm


Views: 18958
Amen!

My thoughts exactly.


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Feb 15 2010, 6:19pm


Views: 19163
It is OK to want 3-D Hobbits

but if what has been said holds true, the movies will not be filmed in 3-D. I do not doubt the Director's statement in regards to this matter.

There may be many good reasons besides those already mentioned on this thread and some of them could be involved in the cost of production. I am sure that cost / benefits analysis is run on these types of things and the outcome of such scrutiny may come down against 3-D in this case. If it does not add to the estimated profits of the two films then the only way that it could happen is if the chosen producer & director insisted adamantly.

Kangi Ska

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




Anduril1993
Rivendell


Feb 15 2010, 7:22pm


Views: 19069
Sorry i didn't mean to be rude!!!

 


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Feb 15 2010, 7:32pm


Views: 24771
I think I was the almost-rude one. But if you feel an apollogy is in order go ahead.

I am always glad to share my guilt.SmileSmileSmile

Kangi Ska

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




balinman
Rivendell


Feb 15 2010, 7:38pm


Views: 25032
Will The Hobbit be in 3-D?

absolutley not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


sphdle1
Gondor


Feb 15 2010, 7:58pm


Views: 24855
I wonder though

since the success of Avatar, using the new 3D camera technology, and seeing that WETA did the CGI to back up this technology, I wonder if GTD/PJ might talk to James Cameron, and re-think their original plan..? Cameron may have paved the way to make 3D less expensive overall to film, and with WETA involved, it would be an easy transition and perfect fit for the Hobbit..


Huan71
Lorien

Feb 16 2010, 12:37am


Views: 24898
Pans is a must! :0)...and 4D anyone? lol

I most definitely agree with your recommendation of Pans Labyrinth...one of my favourite films!

I have to confess though that i've loved my 3D film experiences'.
So, i guess i'd like the OPTION of seeing it in 3D. But, i do think they overprice! I don't need a new set of glasses each time thank you! I'll use the old ones and pay less! (I wish!)
I've been told that making films 3D when they weren't filmed that way doesn't look very effective and the picture quality in general is pretty poor. I've not had first hand experience, but it wouldn't surprise me! So, i think re-doing LotR's would be a bit of a botch job....
I am interested as to why people assume that filming in 3D is more likely to lead to a poor film? (script, story, camera work etc). I don't get that..sorry! i just think it adds to the depth of field and makes the image seem more real. I saw an advert for a live action "dance" film here in the UK that was shot in 3D and it looked fantastic! So, it's not just the "cartoon" stuff that its being done on!
One final thought...What with 'time' being the 4th dimension, doesn't that make ALL films either 3D OR 4D???Crazy

Guillermo Del Toro's Hobbit...
A master piece in the making?!


almas_sparks
Rohan

Feb 16 2010, 1:19am


Views: 24765
Hobbit will be released in 2012

And GDT never said 3D is out of question, just that they aren`t considering it at the moment. So as he speaks, no discussion but doesn`t mean there won`t be any. It`s a long way until 2012 and many things can change. Right now, they don`t even have the whole studio (only a half of it), second script and cast. 3D decisions can always come later because of the conversion option.


Buchanicus
Lorien


Feb 16 2010, 2:11am


Views: 25078
Like I said...

If there is always option, it's not that big of a deal. I think everybody should be able to enjoy films the way they want to. But, as I said in my post above, the option is becoming very limited (see my first post), the theaters in my area are no longer showing Avatar in 2D and haven't been for well over a month, in fact the only 2D showings in my area that I ever knew of were 4 showings on one screen at one theater for a very limited time (like I said in my first post). If that trend continues...will there be any option in two years by the time The Hobbit is released?

If you read my first post, you'll see the concerns I have with 3D, it's all about choice and preferences and comfort levels with what is my favorite hobbie becoming something that is not an enjoyable experience for me. But what I didn't really get across was that I think making a film 3D for any other reason that an artistic choice (that being specifically the vision GdT has) is a huge mistake and insulting to fans of film and of the source material. GdT himself has stated that there are no plans for the film to be in 3D, and that is something that needs to be consider during the things they have done and are doing in order for that to be a smart, succesful and artistic choice. Like I said, I believe in GdT and PJ and am beihnd their vision and for these films to be successful thry need to have control over the look of theire vision. If that for some reason becomes 3D, so be it. But to make THESE movies in 3D because it is trendy, or because it is "neat", or because they can charge more for tickets, is something I can't get behind. These arne't just any old movies.

This is all once again my personal feelings, opinion and point of view

TORn member formally known as ryan1976.

(This post was edited by Buchanicus on Feb 16 2010, 2:17am)


almas_sparks
Rohan

Feb 16 2010, 2:26am


Views: 25076
Business and art aren`t mutually exclusive

Film-makers are business man as well as artists. They have to pay attention to demand and if there`s demand for sound over silence, color over B&W and 3D over 2D, than they`ll make their art in these media.

As for 2D Avatar getting pulled, again, it`s all about demand. Theaters keep a movie on screens that sell well and drop those that don`t. So if Avatar 3D sells much better in comparison to 2D, than theater will keep 3D ones and drop the rest to make room for new movies.

Also, what GDT said a month or two ago is not set in stone. He elaborated on the situation at that time,not for what may be a year from that statement. I`ve learned the hard way not to hold directors responsible for statements that don`t come to pass. Besides, studio decides if the movie will get 3D makeover or not. Director is a hired hand. if the studio says 3D, it`ll be 3D filmed or converted. But as of now, they have only 1/2 of the studio.


Buchanicus
Lorien


Feb 16 2010, 3:10am


Views: 24748
Ok...


In Reply To
Film-makers are business man as well as artists. They have to pay attention to demand and if there`s demand for sound over silence, color over B&W and 3D over 2D, than they`ll make their art in these media.

As for 2D Avatar getting pulled, again, it`s all about demand. Theaters keep a movie on screens that sell well and drop those that don`t. So if Avatar 3D sells much better in comparison to 2D, than theater will keep 3D ones and drop the rest to make room for new movies.



This is exactly the point I was trying to make in both posts about my concerns with 3D. The choice is being limited and taken away. 3D films make me nauseous, cause me eye strain, the glasses are uncomfortable over my own glasses, and the format does nothing for me. Going to movies being my number one hobbie and passion, I certainly don't want the experience to cause me discomfort...and to have to pay more to not enjoy it too! Theaters charge more for 3D over 2D and that influences the format they choose to screen it. Demand is skewed when you raise the price of one format over the other and have 1 out of 5 screens showing it for a couple of weeks vs. a couple of months. You suggest that I have a problem with the advancement of technology, that in no way is accurate. This particular technology causes me a lot of discomfort (and I'm not the only one), and I'm concerned that something I LOVE to do is something that is no longer going to be enjoyable for me. That is the main reason why I'm not very big on 3D. I think it's great if you're really passionate about the format, but for me it's just not an enjopyable experience so therefore, I personally have no interest in The Hobbit (anthoher thing that I am VERY passionate about) being in 3D.

TORn member formally known as ryan1976.


jimdorey
The Shire

Feb 18 2010, 6:18pm


Views: 25007
There really is no choice now...

As I have posted before and covered on my site, THE HOBBIT(s) will be in S3D.

Yes I know Guillermo said it won't be and I respect him for coming out valiantly and saying that but I have to make some points here:

1. PJ and GDT have talked about going 3D - this is without question.
2. The studio wants it in S3D, there cannot be any doubt here. What business would NOT want at least another 25% box office tacked on? And that is a conservative estimate.
3. THE HOBBIT is delayed. Hmmm. Could it be the studio is stepping in now (pushing 3D), realizing the potential of the franchise when compared to a brand new original AVATAR that has raked in $2.4b and still going strong?

Seriously. Hollywood and Wellywood are businesses too. Who created the lion's share of those AVATAR 3D special effects? Oh yeah, you know who. Why would they NOT use that expertise for their own good - their own projects?

AVATAR has $2.4 BILLION dollars so far. Think about that. That is well over DOUBLE ROTK!! Mind boggling I know. If you don't think entertainment has changed post AVATAR think again.

There is artistic choice and then there is pragmatic choice. AVATAR proved that they can be one in the same. I still believe that my sources were correct in insisting that THE HOBBITs will be in S3D.

If it isn't, I will be very disappointed indeed. So will many. You can still see the 2D version if you wanted just like AVATAR, but we all know which version the world chose to view Pandora.

Once again, I want to say how much I admire GDT and the work he has done. His work ethic and creativeness is second to none. Guillermo promised to contact me should he decide to go S3D with THE HOBBITs and I am patiently standing by. Not to say I told you so, but to congratulate him. The world needs THE HOBBIT in 3D.


shadowdog
Rohan

Feb 19 2010, 5:47pm


Views: 24887
What is S3D?

My precious????


Huan71
Lorien

Feb 21 2010, 11:46am


Views: 24759
Stereoscopic 3D!

I think it's just a full and correct description.

An interesting article,
If your an interested person...Smile

http://www.variety.com/...goryid=1009&cs=1

Guillermo Del Toro's Hobbit...
A master piece in the making?!


shadowdog
Rohan

Feb 21 2010, 8:07pm


Views: 24862
Aha Showing my age

I thought all 3D was stereoscopic. Of course I last saw a 3D movie back in the 50s. Blush With those silly cardboard glasses with one red and one green lens.


squire
Half-elven


Feb 21 2010, 8:41pm


Views: 24913
All 3D is stereoscopic

The only way 3D can work in film is to wear twin lenses (stereo, scope) so that one eye sees one arrangement of objects on the 2D screen and the other sees a slightly different arrangement. The brain translates that into a perception of depth, since it mimics how our slightly separated eyes process actual depth in the real 3D world. Stereo music, of course, uses two tracks of sound in two speakers for a similar effect.

The main difference between the 1950s and today is that they now use polarized lenses and plastic eyeglass frames, rather than red/blue filters in cardboard frames! But the gimmick is the same. It's up to the director and cinematographer to use the trick in an effective way. Some succeed more than others.

What stereoscopic 3D doesn't do is enable you to "look behind" a projected object on the screen, by moving your head left or right, or "look above or below" by tilting your head up or down. That is one of the reasons the illusion is only partly satisfactory to the brain.



squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion; and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary


Guillermo
Rivendell

Mar 1 2010, 5:26am


Views: 40798
As promised-

I wouldn't read much on it just yet, but now, after all this time, after AVATAR doing the Box Office it did, we have had enquires from above about The Hobbit being in 3-D.

No impositions or heavy leaning. Just enquires. Just fulfilling my promise to let you all know if discussions ever started.

Cheers

GDT


N.E. Brigand
Half-elven


Mar 1 2010, 6:04am


Views: 24761
"Pithy" generally has positive connotations.


Quote
However, that comment came across as quite pithy and almost rude to me.



The dictionary I have to hand defines pithy as "terse and full of substance or meaning".

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Silmarillion in the Reading Room, Aug. 9 - Mar 7. Please join the conversation!

This week: "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age".
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.


Orchunter
Registered User

Mar 1 2010, 12:50pm


Views: 25136
Re: As promised

I wonder if by making the film in 3D, if that would change the production schedule of the movie at all? Sorry for the basic question but I am from michigan and have no idea of what goes on in making a movie. Now if you want to know how to make a automobile then i might be able to help Smile


PettyMim
Rivendell


Mar 1 2010, 1:10pm


Views: 24786
I don't know much about these things either...

but I think the general feeling is that it will take longer to make if it's to be in 3D. When it comes to TH movie - not many around here like hearing the word "Delay", I'm sure GDT doesn't either but with Avatar bringing in so much bucks I'm not surprised that the powers that be are enquiring about a 3D Hobbit - after all it's still in pre-production.

Garlic Bread?!


DiveTwin
Rohan


Mar 1 2010, 4:38pm


Views: 24818
Was wondering about this ...

Was wondering about this recently myself, although with the success of Avatar I'm sure everyone has.

It also occurred to me the aftermarket might also play a heavy role here. The post-screening DVD sales so many studios count on to significantly add revenue and profits to their bottom line has been in a steep decline. It is certainly playing a role with the demise of MGM and what the sale price for that property should be. I think most studios are now forced to consider new ways to recoup their investments.

Theaters are concerned about the competition home DVD viewing brings to the table, especially in bad economies. Even in good economies the large acceptance of HD television, easy availability of Blu-Ray / DVD's and the cost savings have fostered concerns their audience might prefer to stay home. 3-D offers a new way to differentiate themselves and offer a new experience they hope will propel people off the couch and back into the theaters.

Factor in a justification to charge a higher ticket price along with the success of Avatar ... and I would say this is being considered very, very strongly now. Maybe almost a lock.

"Do not come between the Nazgul and his prey"

(This post was edited by DiveTwin on Mar 1 2010, 4:40pm)


SteveDJ
Rivendell

Mar 1 2010, 5:56pm


Views: 24741
How much of Avatar's $$$ was just because...

I've had my previous complaints about 3-D movies in the past, but will concede that after seeing Avatar (in 3-D), was pleased that there wasn't too much in-your-face parlor tricks to remind you that you're watching in 3-D. They mostly let the film just play out, ...just in 3-D.

Now, it was indeed a beautiful film. And it was the first live-action film to do 3-D so well. That generated a lot of buzz and interest.

So, I wonder, how much of Avatar's box office $$$ was generated just because people felt they had to go see this ground-breaking achievement? Remember, most people agree that the Avatar's story is not that spectacular - just the visuals.

Now that it is done, the next 3-D film will just be "more of the same". Hence, does spending the extra on 3-D continue to pay for itself?


thesithempire
Rivendell

Mar 1 2010, 6:23pm


Views: 24741
3D sounds good to me

First of all, I think it's fantastic that Del Toro is as committed to the fans as he is, taking the time to come here personally and address the issue. Mr. Lucas aught to take note.

Secondly, if 3D happens, that would be great! There's no question this format's being enjoy by young and older viewers alike. I took my mom to see Avatar last week. She's not someone who's interested in new technology, or likes to be inconvenienced by having to wear glasses over her glasses. But she loved it (movie and 3D experience), and that says a lot.

Either way, I think The Hobbit (s) are going to be amazing, and are absolutely in the best hands they could be in! GDT, if you're reading, keep up the great work and say hi to Cuaron and Inarritu!


Legalize_Athelas
Lorien

Mar 1 2010, 7:12pm


Views: 24622
For TH, the story is tops.

You're right, the "just right" 3-D enhancements to the beautiful world of Pandora turned a solid action epic into a cash cow on 'roids. Most of the readers here, however, WILL see The Hobbit because of its story, regardless of its dimensions.

I saw Avatar not for the cheesy story line but to be blown away by technology. The futuristic setting was perfect for some kick-butt 3-D. BUT, TH is more "Olde English..." is "more of the same" even appropriate for it? Who knows what WETA will have cooked up in a year or two?

As long as the story comes first, there should be no problems whatsoever.

Got Necroquestions? I'll give you Necromanswers.


mordor89
Bree

Mar 1 2010, 8:16pm


Views: 24602
reply

AWESOME THANK YOU GDT


now all we need to do is tell these iditos its not being delayed to 12





DawnWolf
Registered User


Mar 1 2010, 8:59pm


Views: 24566
3D Shire? Yes, please!

I agree with jimdorey. There is really no other choice for studios and creators but to make the Hobbit in 3D. To do it otherwise would be a step back and I think they all know it.

I love 3D Pandora and I know I will love 3D Middle-Earth and Shire. Wink

I hope I won't be disappointed. Evil

Every day is fine day.


macfalk
Valinor


Mar 1 2010, 9:38pm


Views: 24431
step back?!

no, making TH in 2D would NOT be a step back. It's the original way to do it, and 3D is still too young and diverts totally from the story. TH is not just another random everyday movie from Hollywood.


dormouse
Half-elven

Mar 1 2010, 11:29pm


Views: 24508
I agree, macfalk...

I can understand that after the success of Avatar the studios will have dollar signs whirling before their eyes at the thought of 3D. It happens. It happens in publishing, the world I know about, where one very successful book will spawn a trail of imitations. It's inevitable and understandable but it doesn't always work out as intended.

My hope is to see a Hobbit film brought to the screen with the care, attention to detail and pure artistry that we saw in LotR - with everything focussed on bringing Guillermo's vision of Tolkien's world to life. The LotR films didn't need 3D and 3D wouldn't have improved them in any way. Having been awestruck by the artistry that went into the look of those films, especially by the skill of the concept artists, designers and modelmakers, I can't imagine a Hobbit film designed for 3D as anything but a disappointment. Seems to me that when 3D is introduced into the mix it takes over and everything is designed for 3D, not for the story.

But with any luck, maybe the film-makers will realise that by the time 'The Hobbit' comes out 3D epics will probably have become a bandwagon that's starting to creak at the seams.... Who knows - a beautifully crafted 2D epic with jawdropping use of miniatures and stunning real-world landscapes might become the new moneyspinner.... Wink Just sayin'.......


hunter771
Registered User


Mar 2 2010, 12:42am


Views: 11362
3d?


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


Views: 11358
That's just not true

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


Views: 11391
I'm a "nay-sayer"...

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


Views: 11222
If 3D is done well then I absolutely agree with you on this

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


Views: 11416
3D is not just a gimmick

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


Views: 11265
One bad apple spoils the bunch?


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


Views: 11195
But that's my point - 3-D is wasted money on Hobbit

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


Views: 11151
S3D

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


Views: 11227
I agree but...

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


Views: 11195
Perzactly

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


Views: 11265
It is not a Gimmick. It is a fad. When the Glasses are gone then it will be acceptable.//

 

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


Views: 11279
But

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


Views: 11240
Re.:

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


Views: 11142
Uhhh, I don't see the world through cardboard dweeb glasses. Can't speak for you. ;)//



macfalk
Valinor


Mar 3 2010, 10:55pm


Views: 11256
yeah, and its probably also the cause of the delay.

 


PWOKristy
Bree

Mar 3 2010, 11:17pm


Views: 11089
Re.:

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


Views: 11136
3D techology is still in its infancy

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.