Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Lord of the Rings Movies

Hobbit Film Finally Gets Green Light, To Be Shot in 3-D 261

Posted by timothy
from the lighter-fare dept.
An anonymous reader writes with word that "after much kerfuffle and uncertainty, the Hobbit film has finally been greenlit," with Peter Jackson as director. Says the linked story: "The announcement did not state whether the two-part prequel to The Lord of the Rings would be shot in New Zealand. Matt Dravitzki, Jackson's assistant at Wingnut Films, said an annoucement on the place of filming would be 'probably a week or two away.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hobbit Film Finally Gets Green Light, To Be Shot in 3-D

Comments Filter:
  • STEREOSCOPIC (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Woek (161635) on Saturday October 16, 2010 @02:42AM (#33915730)

    Using the term 3D for stereoscopic video is probably already so entrenched in the media that it's useless to try and correct them, but it irritates the hell out of me...
    There's a huge difference though. A 3D image (the closest we have is a hologram) is one where you can change your viewpoint by moving your head. The perspective changes when you move away or closer. This means that no matter where you are relative to the image, the stereoscopic image that your eyes register is always correct. The fixed images of stereoscopic video don't change, and the perspective is only correct for one position relative to the image. This is what gives people headaches.
    I'm holding out for holographic (worthy of the term 3D) displays!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ColdWetDog (752185)

      I'm holding out for holographic (worthy of the term 3D) displays!

      Five years from now! I promise!

    • by Njovich (553857)

      A 3D image is one where you can change your viewpoint by moving your head

      Well, this is your definition, and there is no official definition... all 3D image says is that it is an image, and there are 3 dimensions. If you accept that a 'normal' film has 2 dimensions, then from the perspective of the viewer, stereoscopic adds depth. This is a third dimension. There are many different types of 3D images, and I'm sure most people are aware that the one in cinemas now is stereoscopic.

      So, it adds an extra dimensio

      • by Legion303 (97901)

        "When they get to make real physical 3D style movies (we could call it theater plays), I'm sure they'll be able to get a new marketing term."

        3D-EXTREME! [tm]
        3DX [tm]
        EyeJack [tm]
        CrapFest 3000 [tm]

  • by hedgemage (934558) on Saturday October 16, 2010 @02:46AM (#33915742)
    Peter Jackson was able to get very good visual effects on the LotR trilogy because he used camera tricks rather than digital editing to achieve the illusion of a world populated by big and little people.
    The technique called "foreshortening" was used quite a bit, like when Gandalf first sits with Bilbo and has tea in his kitchen. The actors were there, but the set was arranged and props and actors placed so that Bilbo was farther away from the camera than Gandalf, and therefore appeared little while Gandalf was 'human sized'. Its a simple gimmick and worked great. Using a 3D camera setup may not work with this unless you deliberately went frame by frame and edited the 3D in afterward since shooting it with multiple cameras would cancel out the single-perspective trick of foreshortening.
    • That's a really interesting point I hadn't considered, but I think far more effects shots in LotR were handled with scale doubles and digital compositing (which has evolved to perfection). Weta developed all kinds of amazing in-camera gimmicks that were abandoned for simpler, easier to control effects. The Hobbit story also requires fewer interactions between people at different scales. I don't think it will be an issue or something hasn't already been given deep consideration during the last couple of year

  • ... but Peter Jackson is nearly 2-D. The photo in TFA is the first time I've seen him not looking like a rotund hobbit -- ironically, a spherical shape that would lend itself nicely to a 3-D movie, should he choose to cast himself.
  • pity (Score:2, Interesting)

    by bhcompy (1877290)
    Pity it's Jackson. I would love to have seen what del Toro could have done with it. He's more suited to the fact that the Hobbit is in itself a dark fantasy kids story, which is what del Toro is the best alive at.
    • He would have shit all over the source material, is what he would have done. At least with Jackson there is a shred of a chance that the themes of The Hobbit might survive.
      • Re:pity (Score:5, Interesting)

        by bonch (38532) on Saturday October 16, 2010 @04:43AM (#33916102)

        Yeah, Jackson sure proved how much he cared about the source material. I'm sure Tolkien fans loved seeing Gimli rolling down a hill for comic relief, Aragorn's life-saving horse, and Galadriel the Incredible Hulk.

        Del Toro prefers animatronics because CGI doesn't look real enough for creature footage. You probably would have gotten a more authentic film from him than "pan the camera around everything" Jackson. A lot of the outdoor scenery in the LOTR films was pretty bland and ordinary-looking compared to the version of Middle-Earth in the book, which was alive, conscious, and menacing. In the book, Saruman didn't try to take down the mountain to stop the fellowship--the mountain itself did. That kind of ominous threat from the world around them would have come through in a Del Toro version. It would have been surreal and fantastical instead of just static footage of New Zealand plains.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by AP31R0N (723649)

          He had to do SOMETHING to make it watchable. Note the inversion of action to dialog/history essay ratio. The books were as dry as history texts.

          i'll forgive the liberties.

  • by assemblerex (1275164) on Saturday October 16, 2010 @02:58AM (#33915806)
    the story! That's what Bilbo Baggins hates!!
  • New Game (Score:3, Informative)

    by LKWPETER (1913886) on Saturday October 16, 2010 @02:58AM (#33915812)
    lets count how often Gandalf, for no reason at all, holds his staff to the camera. AND ITS ALL DUDES! what benefit does 3D have if i dont get any 3D boobies?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      AND ITS ALL DUDES! what benefit does 3D have if i dont get any 3D boobies?

      I'm pretty sure Bombour will be at least a D-cup...

    • by bonch (38532)

      Don't worry, Peter Jackson wants to make it two films, with the first film being the Hobbit we know and the second film being an entirely brand new piece of fiction not written by Tolkien. I'm sure it'll be chock full of bullshit that looks cool.

      • by Fizzl (209397)

        I'm all for it!
        Movie directed by Peter Jackson -- chock full of bullshit that looks cool -- sounds awesome!

      • by pokerdad (1124121)

        Don't worry, Peter Jackson wants to make it two films, with the first film being the Hobbit we know and the second film being an entirely brand new piece of fiction not written by Tolkien. I'm sure it'll be chock full of bullshit that looks cool.

        Doesn't that pretty much sum up LotR.

      • At least you will get to see Bilbo escape bad guys on his totally extreme BMX bike flying out of the screen in 3D! [sound of rock guitar in background] EXTREME!

        Yes, I'm still upset about the skateboarding elf.

  • FTA... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Krokus (88121) on Saturday October 16, 2010 @03:40AM (#33915938) Homepage

    Weta Digital in Wellington was heavily involved in 3-D visual effects for James Cameron's Avatar and is also working in 3-D for the first Tintin film, directed by Steven Spielberg.

    wtf?

    • by MavEtJu (241979)

      Can't wait for it. Let's hope they do all episodes, specially the ones about the moon-expedition. Best rocket ever!

    • by Spatial (1235392)

      The reason you noticed that is the reason they're making it. Brand recognition.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by WWWWolf (2428)

      Weta Digital in Wellington was heavily involved in 3-D visual effects for James Cameron's Avatar and is also working in 3-D for the first Tintin film, directed by Steven Spielberg.

      wtf?

      This was the first I had heard of it, too... It appears to be based on Rackham's Treasure arc [wikipedia.org]. Yay for sharks with frigging laser beams! I mean, faux-shark submarines!

  • by niktemadur (793971) on Saturday October 16, 2010 @03:50AM (#33915960)

    Smaug!

  • Anyone else (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dunbal (464142) * on Saturday October 16, 2010 @04:14AM (#33916018)

    get the feeling that Hollywood is trying to shove 3D down our throats lately?

    • by gilesjuk (604902)

      How do you think the world got widescreen? everyone was happy with the squarer sized films until TV came along. TV sales resulted in less people going to the cinema so they came up with widescreen ratios.

      3D has been tried any times, what is new is the software and camera technology to make it work better. But it's still a gimmick and just gets in the way of making the film.

    • by selven (1556643)

      Of course. A 10 GB 3D movie takes 14 times longer to torrent than a 700 MB normal movie.

    • Have to buy old movies revamped into 3D, a new TV & player, probably new receiver, too, since there'd be a new DRM system....

    • Re:Anyone else (Score:4, Insightful)

      by theurge14 (820596) on Saturday October 16, 2010 @12:18PM (#33918152)

      Hollywood needs a reason to get people to go to theatres. Otherwise everyone is just going to download BluRay rips through torrent and watch it on their huge flatscreen TVs at home.

  • by Rogerborg (306625) on Saturday October 16, 2010 @04:15AM (#33916020) Homepage
    I can't see a studio putting money into it unless there's some bullshit female character retconned in. I mean, Peter, Petey, Petey baby, does Thorin really have to be a dude? We've already spoken to Salma Hayek's agent, man, she'd be perfect for Thorina, Warrior Princess.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      http://www.movies.spoilertv.com/2010/01/hobbit-casting-call.html [spoilertv.com]

      [ITARIL] FEMALE, A WOODLAND ELF, this character is one the Silvan Elves. The Silvan Elves are seen as more earthy and practical. Shorter than other elves, she is still quick and lithe and physically adept, being able to fight with both sword and bow. Showing promise as a fighter at a young age, ITARIL was chosen to train to become part of the Woodland King’s Guard. This is the only life she has ever expected to live, until she meets and secretly falls in love with a young ELF LORD. This role will require a wig and contact lenses to be worn. Some prosthetic make-up may also be required. LEAD. AGE: 17-27. ACCENT – STANDARD R.P.

  • Movie ruined before the first frame was filmed. wtg guys.
    • Why oh why are they going for 3-D? I'd have more confidence in the movie if they'd gamble on its content instead of THREEDEE to make it successful.

  • Unnecessary (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ParkedStar (1909314)
    I don't think I'd bother with the 3D version of the Hobbit; on a 2D screen - it is 3D enough for me. Plus I'd rather focus on the great (but complex) storyline than less-than-remarkable 3D effects or re-adjusting my glasses...
  • by houghi (78078) on Saturday October 16, 2010 @05:29AM (#33916224)

    This is done by something wonderful called perspective. Whether done by design or by evolution is another matter.

    As far as this being a new technology: from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopy [wikipedia.org]
    It was first invented by Sir Charles Wheatstone in 1838

    For me 3D won't be 3D until I can walk around it.

  • I'm glad that the Lord of the Rings was filmed when this shit didn't exist yet.

    Or actually, when it existed but was not considered the holy grail of film-making.

  • It is not about what it adds to the movie, or not. It is about what it adds to the marketing process. Avatar was a mediocre movie if you take away the 3D and hype surrounding the movie. It was a very well played marketing event, where the masses just felt they had to see this movie. The 3D movies after that did not play this game as well. Jackson, of course, has proved he knows exactly how to play it. So this movie will be a big event, that everybody has to watch, and they will discuss the 3D, whether it is
  • No matter what, it cannot be avoided in that the difference in views between the left and right eyes of a 3d film are optimized only for viewing at a particular distance from the screen. The exact distance depends on a combination of the exact size of the screen and the manufacturing of the film. This is not to say that at that exact distance, the 3d effect is always extremely noticeable at that position, but that if you sit in closer to the screen than that distance, your left and right eyes must turn fu
  • by shikaisi (1816846) on Saturday October 16, 2010 @08:33AM (#33916810)
    Terrific! I'd pay to see a hobbit being shot, whether it was in 3-D or not. Furry little bastards!
  • Fortunately, we'll also get a 2D version.

It is not for me to attempt to fathom the inscrutable workings of Providence. -- The Earl of Birkenhead

Working...