|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Feb 15 2010, 7:32pm
Post #76 of 117
(30925 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think I was the almost-rude one. But if you feel an apollogy is in order go ahead.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I am always glad to share my guilt.
Kangi Ska
At night one cannot tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
balinman
Rivendell
Feb 15 2010, 7:38pm
Post #77 of 117
(31186 views)
Shortcut
|
absolutley not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
sphdle1
Grey Havens
Feb 15 2010, 7:58pm
Post #78 of 117
(31009 views)
Shortcut
|
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
Post #79 of 117
(31052 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Pans is a must! :0)...and 4D anyone? lol
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
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???
Guillermo Del Toro's Hobbit...
A master piece in the making?!
|
|
|
almas_sparks
Rohan
Feb 16 2010, 1:19am
Post #80 of 117
(30919 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Hobbit will be released in 2012
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
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
Post #81 of 117
(31232 views)
Shortcut
|
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
Post #82 of 117
(31230 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Business and art aren`t mutually exclusive
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
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
Post #83 of 117
(30902 views)
Shortcut
|
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
Post #84 of 117
(31161 views)
Shortcut
|
|
There really is no choice now...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
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
Post #85 of 117
(31041 views)
Shortcut
|
My precious????
|
|
|
Huan71
Lorien
Feb 21 2010, 11:46am
Post #86 of 117
(30913 views)
Shortcut
|
I think it's just a full and correct description.
An interesting article,
If your an interested person...
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
Post #87 of 117
(31016 views)
Shortcut
|
I thought all 3D was stereoscopic. Of course I last saw a 3D movie back in the 50s.  With those silly cardboard glasses with one red and one green lens.
|
|
|
squire
Half-elven
Feb 21 2010, 8:41pm
Post #88 of 117
(31067 views)
Shortcut
|
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
Post #89 of 117
(46953 views)
Shortcut
|
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
Post #90 of 117
(30915 views)
Shortcut
|
|
"Pithy" generally has positive connotations.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
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
Post #91 of 117
(31290 views)
Shortcut
|
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
|
|
|
PettyMim
Rivendell
Mar 1 2010, 1:10pm
Post #92 of 117
(30940 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't know much about these things either...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
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
Post #93 of 117
(30972 views)
Shortcut
|
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
Post #94 of 117
(30895 views)
Shortcut
|
|
How much of Avatar's $$$ was just because...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I've had my previous complaints about 3-D movies in the past, but will concede that after seeing Avatar (in 3-D), was pleased that there wasn't too much in-your-face parlor tricks to remind you that you're watching in 3-D. They mostly let the film just play out, ...just in 3-D.
Now, it was indeed a beautiful film. And it was the first live-action film to do 3-D so well. That generated a lot of buzz and interest.
So, I wonder, how much of Avatar's box office $$$ 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
Post #95 of 117
(30895 views)
Shortcut
|
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
Post #96 of 117
(30776 views)
Shortcut
|
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
Post #97 of 117
(30756 views)
Shortcut
|
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
Post #98 of 117
(30720 views)
Shortcut
|
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. 
I hope I won't be disappointed. 
Every day is fine day.
|
|
|
macfalk
Valinor
Mar 1 2010, 9:38pm
Post #99 of 117
(30585 views)
Shortcut
|
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
Post #100 of 117
(30662 views)
Shortcut
|
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.... Just sayin'.......
|
|
|
|
|
