Concerning 3D in The Hobbit

BlueMan

BlueMan

Rivendell
I am not against 3D generally. I enjoyed it a lot in Avatar and Toy Story 3 to name just two of the most enjoyable 3D experiences I had. Having said that, I do have serious doubts if it is such a good idea for PJ to try out 3D with TH ...

Directing a movie in 3D demands a completely different procedure and pace from PJ and will change the rhythm of the movie: The veteran editor Walter Murch just wrote in a letter to Roger Ebert that you cannot cut action scenes as quickly in 3D because the eye needs a few seconds to get used to each shot.

You can read the text here.

This means that we cannot expect to see the breathtakingly fast action scenes we had in LOTR (think of Moria or Helm's Deep). I believe that PJ will not give in to the cheap temptation to throw stuff at the camera (and the audience) all the time as the first 3D movies and some of the lesser new ones do. He is good friends with James Cameron and Pixar who have avoided this use of 3D for cheap effect at all cost.
(Interestingly, PJ used to throw lots of stuff at the camera in his 2D movies and it used to be part of his cinematic handwriting - in the quirky tradition of the films of Sam Raimi etc. This time around, I'm quite sure he will stay away from it, though)

All in all, this comes down to a full-blown change of style that PJ might be forced to agree to. Even if he does not realize this before the shoot, it will come to importance during the editing (remember, Walter Murch is an editor).

I can see now more and more why GDT opposed the notion of The Hobbit in 3D. I originally felt, it was merely a question of taste and didn't really care either way but in light of what I hear about how you have to direct differently, how you have to stage the camera and the actors differently and how apparently the editing is influenced, too - well, I worry that this might not work to the benefit of the movies.
 
...that they don't like the hectic, quick cuts editing in action scenes because it makes them lose track of what is going on.

I guess you can't please them all...
 
keep in sync with the aesthetic of the LOTR films to some degree. Also, PJ did not have a lot of time to prepare for the shoot, just a few months which were already crowded with the actors' strike, location scouting and casting ... I just wonder how much time he had to spend on thinking about how to use 3D and how to connect it to the filmic universe of LOTR.
These are questions any director has to face. GDT did even address them: He was against 3D for all these reasons (even without being in a rush). (EDIT: To clarify, GDT was and is not generally against 3D, he will use it in At The Mountains Of Madness, but he was openly against using it for TH) Now, apparently PJ is confident he can tackle it. But I am not, that's all. The sooner he addresses the matter publicly, the sooner I'll hopefully be able to feel good about it.
 
Last edited:
I personally am not worried in the least about the 3D aspect of TH, as it is really a gimmic. Not that I don't enjoy 3D, but it doesn't add as much to the work as what is claimed. I doubt PJ will try anything too crazy. Don't worry!
 
long before the world knew what they were (I knew), and has been working in the 3D medium for his animated Tin Tin films.

Not to mention WETA is responsible for Avatar. He knows what he is doing. If anything, he will be teaching people some things.
 
So he does have practical experience with 3D - even though he was directing neither of these films and they had a different style from PJ's Tolkien movies.

I am afraid Sir Peter seems to be feeling the stress though ... obviously stress gives you stomach ulcers :(

I hope he gets better soon and doesn't get too stressed out.
 
I don't get why people confuse future Hobbit in 3D with movies like Avatar. I'm sure, visually it will be the same as Lotr was, though you will sense some objects - but only with 3D glasses on.
 
You can expect to see the same breathtakingly fast action scenes like LOTR, only they will be shown in both 2D and 3D. The rhythm of the movie is not going to change. PJ knows this will be shown in 2D as well, and he'll want to remain true to continuity with the LOTR movies, so I don't think there will be any difference on screen for those who watch the 2D version.
Sure it might take them a bit longer to edit, but these people know what they're doing...with the type of cameras PJ is using, it will be almost seamless while filming, so I don't think it will be much different at all...it will be like taking target practice with a double barrel shot gun.

So I don't agree that the style will change at all. As you said
"He is good friends with James Cameron and Pixar who have avoided this use of 3D for cheap effect at all cost. (Interestingly, PJ used to throw lots of stuff at the camera in his 2D movies and it used to be part of his cinematic handwriting - in the quirky tradition of the films of Sam Raimi etc. This time around, I'm quite sure he will stay away from it, though) "

I think he will keep doing what he did in the LOTR films, and will likely throw things at the camera, but maybe he will let them come out past the screen...i.e. Arrows, etc. (though in 2D they will look the same as LOTR)

So I don't think there will be a full blown change, or any change for that matter.
 
To shoot in 3D still means you point a camera at actors, sure - but you have to organize things in front of the camera differently to get a good 3D effect. And, as Walter Murch says, it really comes down to the biological ability of human eyes to take in the 3D image ... that's why you cannot cut away from a shot as quickly if you want the film to work in 3D .... he explains it rather well, read the letter.

If you don't know who Walter Murch is: He is one of the best and most acclaimed editors of film history, a true legend who has been around far longer than most other editors and he certainly knows what he is talking about.

I expect to see a different editing style for sure and I do not mind, I will see The Hobbit several times in theatres, both in 3D and 2D. I just wonder if Pj has had enough time to figure it all out. We'll see.
 
I'm not a big fan of the way films in recent years attempt to give the impression of intense action by cutting from one thing to another to another within the space of a second or two (although I never had this problem with The Lord of the Rings). I like my shots to be graceful and substantial. Intensity should come from the screenplay, not the editing room.
 
I don't think Jackson's focus will be on getting the best 3D effects, pun intended. They can cut away from shots in 3D just as fast...they just have to be a bit more careful when filming and editing, but they can make it the same as any 2D...newer editors that that specialize in and are more accustomed to 3D, can do just about anything. Maybe they will need to employ John Refoua &/or Stephen E. Rivkin to get it done, but I bet they have ways to cut away from shots at lightening speed...as a matter of fact, James Cameron and PJ know each other very well, and I would bet PJ & his editors got all the tricks they need to know with the newest technologies for doing 3D...why would PJ reinvent the wheel when JC, who worked closely with WETA on Avatar, has her all figured out...

The other part about the article I don't like is that its Roger Ebert's, and I usually don't agree with anything he has to say. Walter Murch sounds like he is too old school and doesn't have the know how when it comes to 3D...how many 3D movies has he done? He didn't receive an Academy Award for 3D editing... I would trust Cameron and his editors for anything 3D.
 
Last edited:
WETA has already done a lot of things that were impossible. And Jackson is a kid in a candy story. I think Jackson is going to revolutionize 3-D. We're going to see things we never imagined. All the 3-D that has come before is going to look like 2 1/2-D in comparison.
 
Last edited:
but editing certainly goes hand in hand. In fact, editors are often the silent screenplay writers.

[:)]
 
No, we don't need to be frothed to death with a kaleidoscope of action. This kind of 'depth' by itself in the end is shallow. I think being reflective is maturity, and it demands the 'graceful and the substantial'. It is what TH deserves.

I believe 3-D can be an unbelievable enhancement for TH. But like anything else, the tool at hand has to be wielded deftly. But it has to act in concert with all the other proper tools of film making as well. Balance is everything.
 
In fact I would go so far as to say the only film I have seen that I dont feel was damaged by 3D was Avatar, which I saw in both formats and thought was mostly so so.

I think the important fact to note in that paticular article is that the human eye is not built for this sort of 3D. If you read the article he talks about how eyes dont want to focus and converge at different points. This is made worse when the point of convergence keeps jumping. Think of it like trying to focus on something in your peripheral vision without moving your eyes or head, then swapping to another point and another and another, it is either impossible (certainly is for me my glasses arent big enough) or very very hard. Which is what causes many people to get headaches, thier brain simply cannot handle the task of watching a film and dealing with these rapidly changing visual anomalies.

Personally I dont get headaches I just find the films to be less impressive through 3D glasses, I could argue that it is due to the compression of the image caused by split projection, or the light quality and quantity is lower, but I will leave that to someone who actually knows what they are talking about. To me it makes the film less immersive sure it gains a 3rd visual dimension but loses a dimension of immersion, which isnt a trade off I feel is worth it to have an imaginary spear fly at you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top