|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_V_
Lorien
Dec 6 2007, 7:58pm
Post #1 of 9
(1246 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Poll: I do not want a CGI "Hobbit" film
|
Can't Post
|
|
I request that the poll on the front page (which was for Thanksgiving) be changed to ask if people are for or against these CGI "The Hobbit" rumors.
I do not support a CGI adaptation of the Hobbit even if Peter Jackson is at the helm. Quite simply it defeats the entire purpose of having a "live action" film.
I have no idea why they're even entertaining this as a serious idea, unless its because the rights to the Hobbit are running out and they want to get the film done in a hurry.
From the rumor reports some people are going "yay, the Hobbit! CGI looks nifty!"
....I myself did a double-take and shouted "What the hell?!" A CGI Hobbit film is not what I want at all.
WHY aren't they focusing on a live-action film? has anyone asked simply WHY they have these hints towards a CGI Hobbit?
EDIT: Someone just told me they thought that what they meant by "3D Hobbit film" is actually that the film will be "live action" but they'll go above and beyond and it will be SUCH a high-quality live action film that it will be in 3D.
.....I'm actually excited about that, if its true.
...so what's going on? Is it "CGI" or "a live action film done with expensive high quality 3D?"
(This post was edited by Draug the Unspeakably Violent on Dec 6 2007, 8:06pm)
|
|
|
weaver
Half-elven
Dec 6 2007, 9:04pm
Post #2 of 9
(980 views)
Shortcut
|
|
you could do a poll on the pollantir if you like!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I have not followed the technical aspect of this as much as others, but from what I gather this latest info is saying 3-D, not CGI. The kind of thing you wrote about in your "edit" part of your post....
Weaver
|
|
|
BuckyUnderbelly
Lorien
Dec 6 2007, 10:18pm
Post #3 of 9
(1006 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yes, definitely there's a difference between 3D and CGI ...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Where things gets muddled and confusing with this rumor is that people keep referencing Beowulf. It makes some sense because that's the most recent (and by far the biggest) 3D movie out there. But Beowulf also just happens to be an entirely CG movie as well. The two technologies aren't necessarily the same thing.
What we're really talking about, as I understand it, are really three different technologies here.
1) CGI: Means images that are entirely created in a computer. It doesn't mean 2D or 3D. CGI can be used in either format.
A specific category of CGI, motion capture, is the technique used to create Gollum, Kong and the entire films of Polar Express and Beowulf. (Not to mention most videogames produced in the last 10 years.) And, of course, there are many, many CGI elements in the live-action LOTR trilogy. In any case, CGI effects and characters can be created for both 2D and 3D movies. They're not specific to either dimension.
2) Live Action 3D: There's been a huge advance in recent years in 3D photography. Partly due to the development of IMAX, but mostly because of James Cameron's tireless fascination and involvement with the technology. He's currently shooting his gigantic 3D extravaganza Avatar in NZ right now with Weta Digital. (But like Beowulf, that movie, too includes heavy use of CGI elements and motion capture.) However, as I read the Moviesaw report, The Hobbit movies would not be shot Beowulf style -- i.e. motion capture -- but rather be shot as live-action with a 3D camera. And then, of course some digital 3D effects would be added afterward. So ... essentially just like the LOTR trilogy ... only in super fancy 3D.
3) There's also a computer process (I believe called Real 3D, or something like that) that Hollywood has been using for a couple of years now that can retrofit existing 2D movies into 3D. (With the use of some snazzy Buddy Holly-style plastic glasses.) This process was used first on Disney's Chicken Little a while back to some success. And it was also used earlier this year on the theatrical re-release of Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas. Lucas has been said to be circling the process with plans of converting the Star Wars films into this format. And PJ has reportedly been very interested in converting the existing LOTR trilogy as well. But this would not entail reshooting the films as all CG. It just makes them compatable with the snazzy glasses. (It's all kinds of sciency stuff I don't quite understand!)
Anyhow, I believe the rumor is that PJ will shoot a two-part, live-action Hobbit with heavy use of digital effects and characters (as in LOTR). The big differerence would be that he'd shoot it with the fancy new 3D cameras so that the films would be presented in 3D when they hit theaters. Then after that, they'd re-release the original LOTR trilogy into theaters after retrofitting it with the Real 3D process.
Hope that helps clarify!
"In Hollywood the screenplay is a fire hydrant. And there's a line of dogs around the block." -- Frank Miller
(This post was edited by BuckyUnderbelly on Dec 6 2007, 10:24pm)
|
|
|
Elven
Valinor
Dec 7 2007, 1:04am
Post #4 of 9
(968 views)
Shortcut
|
any technology that PJ would use is still in development.
Technology is trying to catch-up to the creative mind maybe 
The Road Goes Ever On and On ...
Happy 70th Birthday to The Hobbit!!
Tolkien was a Capricorn!
..*sing & sway* "All we are saying ..Is Give Pete A Chance" ...
"Your friends are with you Peter"
Let the Hobbit Happen!!!
|
|
|
Patty
Immortal
Dec 7 2007, 1:04am
Post #5 of 9
(972 views)
Shortcut
|
the added dimension of "depth", not just a flat image. It makes whatever is shot (CGI creatures or real people) look as if they were something you could reach out and touch.
Interested now? I know I am!
For Gondor!
(This post was edited by Patty on Dec 7 2007, 1:06am)
|
|
|
Owlyross
Rohan
Dec 7 2007, 9:34am
Post #6 of 9
(963 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Nobody has ever said it would be CGI
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
By being in 3D it means that they will use super-expensive cameras to film from loads of different angles so that when we see it in the cinema we can wear those funny looking specs and see things in three dimensions. That sounds exciting to me...
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Benjamin Franklin
The world is a tragedy to those who feel, but a comedy to those who think.
Horace Walpole (1717 - 1797)
|
|
|
_V_
Lorien
Dec 8 2007, 2:52am
Post #7 of 9
(940 views)
Shortcut
|
Anyhow, I believe the rumor is that PJ will shoot a two-part, live-action Hobbit with heavy use of digital effects and characters (as in LOTR). The big differerence would be that he'd shoot it with the fancy new 3D cameras so that the films would be presented in 3D when they hit theaters. Then after that, they'd re-release the original LOTR trilogy into theaters after retrofitting it with the Real 3D process.
Hope that helps clarify!
A Elbereth Gilthoniel...
|
|
|
_V_
Lorien
Dec 12 2007, 3:36pm
Post #8 of 9
(917 views)
Shortcut
|
If it's actually a Live Action film, and "3D" just means its shot better, I'm all for it; I just thought "3D" meant "CGI"
(This post was edited by Draug the Unspeakably Violent on Dec 12 2007, 3:37pm)
|
|
|
TomthePilgrim
Rohan
Dec 19 2007, 4:33pm
Post #9 of 9
(950 views)
Shortcut
|
|
When it comes to CGI, how much is too much . . .
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
CGI is absolutely necessary for these films, but PJ seems to use it properly.
Beowulf is an example of the overuse of CGI. It really emphasized action and depth at the expense of realistic character portrayal.
His past projects show that PJ prefers miniatures to CGI when it can be used, and it's hard to believe he'd try a new way of filming for The Hobbit.
Not that he's confirmed as the director. He still says he's too busy, although speculation abounds . . . see Thread "Would you wait for PJ to direct" for further info.
"I am Gandalf, and Galdalf means me!"
The Road goes ever on and on
Down from the door where it began.
Now far ahead the Road has gone,
And I must follow, if I can,
|
|
|
|
|
