Hobbit Film Finally Gets Green Light, To Be Shot in 3-D 261
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.'"
STEREOSCOPIC (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Five years from now! I promise!
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
And 5 years later, we'll get a holographic star wars, with new scenes, and new characters.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
"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]
This could be a problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
The other thing is, other than Gandalf and the Men/Elves, one wouldn't need to worry about size differences-- aside from the Wizard, Bilbo's companions are all Dwarves!
Don't forget Beorn! Though judging from LOTR, he'll probably be removed from the plot, just like Tom Bombadil was :(
Re: (Score:2)
I lost no sleep over Tom being cut.
God that character was annoying.
Re: (Score:2)
A forced perspective prop, like the cart you mention, involves building something with odd angles that look like they could be normal right angles from a certain POV only. (I'm sure you are well aware of this, I point it out for anyone reading the thread who isn't) Shots using that prop only work from a selected angle and distance range because those angles will look increasingly distorted with only minor changes of POV. The more you want somebody to be 20 feet away from the camera, so they look half the si
The film may be in 3-D... (Score:2)
pity (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:pity (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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.
3D Glasses and cgi plates! Blunt the eyes and bend (Score:5, Funny)
New Game (Score:3, Informative)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for it!
Movie directed by Peter Jackson -- chock full of bullshit that looks cool -- sounds awesome!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
wtf?
Re: (Score:2)
Can't wait for it. Let's hope they do all episodes, specially the ones about the moon-expedition. Best rocket ever!
Re: (Score:2)
The reason you noticed that is the reason they're making it. Brand recognition.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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!
First one to say the word after 49 posts (Score:3, Funny)
Smaug!
Anyone else (Score:4, Insightful)
get the feeling that Hollywood is trying to shove 3D down our throats lately?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
We got widescreen because we started making decent home theatres and wanted to watch movies at home, and technology caught up.
So much ignorance of the history of film/TV in one small post...I suggest you go look up those histories and educate yourself. For the first half of this century, films absolutely were 4:3 (well, 1.37:1, which
Re: (Score:3)
Of course. A 10 GB 3D movie takes 14 times longer to torrent than a 700 MB normal movie.
At most it would be double, so 1.4GB. (Score:2)
At most 3d would take double the bandwidth, having dual frames instead of single frames.
They are simply trying to cash in on the extra box office from the 3D surcharge.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
How are they going to fix the sausage fest? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
wow (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Screw this (Score:2)
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.
The "right" application of 3D (Score:2)
The problem with "glasses based" 3D (Score:2)
Hobbit to be shot (Score:5, Funny)
3D doesn't matter (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Many of us nerds have vision problems, so 3d dont work for us.
(Hey the typical nerd always wears glasses, right?)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The typical nerd also likes gadgets, like 3D and funny glasses, for its own sake. Using more useless (gadgets) is highly approved in nerddom.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Some people can't hear. I suggest we get rid of the sound too on TVs. We can all use subtitles!
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever the case though, I can't shake the feeling it's just one huge fad.
Re: (Score:2)
I wore glasses for decades until I got my implant and became a cyborg. Best money I ever spent! My eye implant is my favorite device -- I have better than 20-20 at all distances. I'm 58 and don't even need reading glasses, where I used to have contacts AND reading glasses.
Re:3-D (Score:4, Insightful)
And I suppose we should get rid of stairs, because some people can't use them, too.
Look we get it, some people are disabled and won't see a benefit. That doesn't mean we should decide that no one will see a benefit like some kind of Vonnegut story.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, just as color is. And 5.1 sound. And stereo.
Following your vision, we should all get back to monophonic sound with b&w movies. Or maybe just to comic books. Those images moving around are a distraction to the movie.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:3-D (Score:5, Insightful)
So when the whole fad dies we'll expect your apology, where?
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with the grandparent, and from my part, there won't be an apology if it dies again. For two reasons:
1. I happen to like 3D, and will watch 3D content. If it dies it won't be because I didn't support it, so I won't have to apologize for that.
2. 3D content trivially translates to the old 2D, by simply watching either the left or right image. So it's not like anybody loses the ability to watch the movie just because the 3D hardware can't be found anymore. Since the movie will be just as available to pe
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So when the whole fad dies we'll expect your apology, where?
The 3D fad or the Hobbit one. Whichever one dies...why an apology.....it dies,it dies.
Re: (Score:2)
Same place as the last half dozen times 3D was the next big thing in movies and entertainment: you can pick up a whole bunch of semi-worthless 3D gear for next to nothing.
Re:3-D (Score:4, Funny)
This coming from Anonymous Coward, the one responsible for all of the Frosty Piss and racist trolls?
You, sir, are the most prominent Noise component of Slashdot's signal to noise ratio. Grow a pair and get a nick.
(This post brought to you by the Reverend Jack Daniels.)
Re: (Score:2)
Most slashdot readers are able to make up their own fucking minds, anonymous dickhead.
Re: (Score:2)
Not happy with anonymously trolling me, some people feel the need to anonymously stalk me. I feel loved.
Re:3-D (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you expect 3D to "improve the overall storytelling process"? Or even high quality video and sound for that matter? This isn't about the story, it's about immersion.
What do you mean you "lose interest"? Are you trying especially hard to notice the 3D effect? Since it's fixed position 3D it won't react to your vision like a normal real life scene, so I think trying to study it too hard might be what gives any headaches.. I wouldn't know as I've never had motion sickness or any other problems from playi
Re: (Score:2)
3D is best used to simply add depth to a normal film so that everything appears more lifelike and vivid. You know, characters are in a field and far things seem far and close things seem close with focus to infinity. The moment they start using 3D for effects that are about 3D, things start to go downhill.
Avatar was an excellent example. 3D effects for their own sake were pretty scarce. For the most part you forgot you were watching 3D and simply immersed into the film.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just like with every other technology, starting from human history and the discovery of fire and a wheel.
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." - Picasso
I guess that's what you get when people have no foresight. But I agree that 3D is overused right now, just like stereo was when it was young. Have you listened to Voodoo Child lately? That song flys left and right like a dunk sailor.
Re:3-D (Score:5, Insightful)
That statement is as insightful as ever.
Just think about what it implies. Of course, I do not know if it truely was an ignorant comment, but to me it reads as very terse, subtle and clever commentary about human nature
Re:3-D (Score:5, Interesting)
I think extraordinary people can say dumb things, just like the rest of us. I think it's still a dumb comment, unless you mean to say that it's somehow a self-referentially terse, subtle and clever about how stupid people can be. In which case, wow.
Re:3-D (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, it's an extra technology that improves movie for those that like the 3-D effect. It doesn't affect the quality of the movie. Good and bad movies will still be made. It's weird that here on slashdot, a news for nerd site, people are so much against emerging technologies.
Wrong.
Scenes are added to even the very best 3D movie to do nothing but show off the 3D effect. When viewed in 2D (and often in 3D actually) they end up looking truely awful, and serving to do nothing but ruin immersion and make you remember you're in a cinema.
It's not amazing that nerds are against it – nerds are often against tech that makes things worse, not better.
Re:3-D (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, it's an extra technology that improves movie for those that like the 3-D effect. It doesn't affect the quality of the movie. Good and bad movies will still be made. It's weird that here on slashdot, a news for nerd site, people are so much against emerging technologies.
Wrong.
Scenes are added to even the very best 3D movie to do nothing but show off the 3D effect. When viewed in 2D (and often in 3D actually) they end up looking truely awful, and serving to do nothing but ruin immersion and make you remember you're in a cinema.
This. Also, the director will always avoid partial objects in the foreground (no one wants a fuzzy half of a face jumping out at them). In my opinion, what is lost (artistic ability/license) is far greater than what is gained (axes/bullets/spears appearing to fly directly at me). I thought Avatar was visually breathtaking, but the likelihood of the shooting of 'Riddles in the Dark' being hamstrung by 3D "aesthetic requirements" is pretty fucking disappointing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have no more mod points, so I'll post. I've often tried to state the same thing, but you articulated it better than I have been able.
I think directors will mostly outgrow the "random stuff flying at audience" gimmick as the novelty wears off. After that, I think they will realize that unlike previous technology jumps, 3D doesn't give directors and cinematographers more freedom to be creative, it restricts them to filming in a way that "works in 3D".
Re: (Score:2)
It may restrict the director but so did HD. Millions of special effects techniques have become obsolete as video and display technology have improved and the effects no longer hold up under a clear picture.
That's well worth it in my opinion. 3D used to make it look like you are watching real events unfold through a window is how it should be. Things should never fly at me just for the sake of doing so. There is a time and place for that sort of thing. For instance, in First Knight Lancelot runs the gauntlet
axes/bullets/spears are not what is gained. (Score:3, Insightful)
Avatar hit so hard because it felt so real. It was like 2+hour dream. I was floored by it.
aside: they need to
a). move to 60fps, or
b). work on their motion blur technology
because when you see it on Imax the differences between frames is like 5 feet on the screen, and it's only 24fps, which is OK for normal film because your mind can patch in the lost frames using the blur data, but for digital shots it doesn't have the information to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats a flaw in the film itself, not the technology. The technology adds depth. That is a undeniable improvement.
It isn't 3D's fault that idiot directors can't resist the urge to make 3D show off effects any more than it is the fault of dynamic range technology that idiot sound effects people can't resist the urge to a wide dynamic range on the dialogue and claim it offers a better experience.
P.S. Idiot sound guys. Make explosions boom, make whispers audible to the average 60yr old at the middle volume sett
Re: (Score:2)
Dear "idiot" sound guys, please don't do what this guy suggests and put dynamic range compression all throughout our films, it's already ruined our music, don't add to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong.
Scenes are added to even the very best 3D movie to do nothing but show off the 3D effect. When viewed in 2D (and often in 3D actually) they end up looking truely awful, and serving to do nothing but ruin immersion and make you remember you're in a cinema.
Maybe I just missed these moments, but if I recall correctly both Up and Toy Story 3 were available in 3D, and they were great movies. I never even saw Toy Story 3 in 3D.
Just because most 3D movies are gimmicky doesn't mean all are. It's just that most movies suck regardless.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know many people who are opposed to the idea of 3D itself, since most such films can also be seen in 2D. The problem with 3D and other new technology is that there is a tendency to use it as a gimmick to sell an otherwise pointless film, or to use it at a point in the film where older technology would be better. This isn't always the case, such as Citizen Kane [wikipedia.org]. It is credited with using many innovations, but tastefully. However, in today's market it seems that every movie tends to be a gimmick of so
Re:3-D (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, nerds already wear glasses, so wearing glasses over glasses is awkward. Second, 3D television sales have been a disaster, so it's a pointless technology that only works well on a gigantic screen and not a standard sized television. Third, people mock 3D because they see it exactly for what it is--a desperate gimmick for theaters trying to compete with technology in the home as well as an excuse to charge extra for ticket prices, which was the primary reason Avatar became the highest grossing film.
People aren't "against emerging technologies." It's not even a new technology. People are against cheesy gimmicks. You cite a videogame as an example for 3D, which already shows you how gimmicky it is and how it places emphasis on visuals, not storytelling. It may be great for Left 4 Dead, but for a two hour movie trying to tell a story?
3D fads in film have come and gone several times before. It's not some new trend. They had this shit in the 1950s with the old red and blue glasses.
Re: (Score:2)
"Second, 3D television sales have been a disaster, so it's a pointless technology that only works well on a gigantic screen and not a standard sized television."
So bad sales == technology doesn't work?
FAIL.
Re: (Score:2)
It "works" in the sense of complying with specs. It doesn't "work" in the sense that it doesn't do something people want done.
$15 vs $10 did not make Avatar the highest $$$ (Score:2)
It certainly helped but everyone that went to see it liked it. Charging $15 was not the "primary reason" it made so much. The "primary reason" was that it was an excellent film.
Re: (Score:2)
Every single person I know personally who saw it agrees that it either sucked or was mediocre (depending on which person I ask), but that they loved the special effects. I think 3D is completely worthless just like it was in the 50s with movies like Creature from the Black Lagoon, and I only made it through about 20 minutes of Avatar before I had to turn it off in disgust. You saying it was an "excellent film" makes another piece of my soul die.
I didn't like it. It was successfully overhyped. (Score:2)
"but everyone that went to see it liked it"
Certainly not. I went with 6 people, 2 really liked, 2 were indifferent and two disliked (myself included).
It was the most over-hyped movie of the decade. Successful massive over-hype plus novelty for many who wanted to see great 3D possibly for the first time.
It was a mediocre, extremely cliched story with excellent CGI and annoying 3d, that still included standard 3D tropes of spears/guns jutting out of the screen.
I won't see Avatar 2. Fool me once...
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't that be said about any visual improvement? I'm sure colour was similarly gimmicky when it first became commercial.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
starting from human history and the discovery of fire and a wheel
I always start with Animal Husbandry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cue in the usual "I don't need 3D", "Why don't they make better movies instead of playing with technology?" and "In the old times they at least made good movies" that fills every slashdot story that has something to do with 3-D movies.
Look, it's an extra technology that improves movie for those that like the 3-D effect. It doesn't affect the quality of the movie. Good and bad movies will still be made. It's weird that here on slashdot, a news for nerd site, people are so much against emerging technologies.
I personally like the 3-D effect in movies. In fact I even like it in games - Left4Dead is a lot scarier when the infected run towards you in 3-D.
Also, the technology gets better in intervals. Recently there have popped up Nintendo's new handheld console and 3-D tv's that work without glasses. The effect will only improve over time, but you need to take the intermediate steps to get there. Just like with every other technology, starting from human history and the discovery of fire and a wheel.
As the first poster, you are rebutting anti-3D posts that don't exist yet!
What gives? Are you a lawyer?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
so basically saying, a new technology does not affect how an artist creates its work is like saying, if michelangelo would have worked on a wacom tablet, it would still be michelangelo. it would and it wouldn't.
everything you use takes up some space in your production. having 3d on the set affects how you take your shots, h
Re: (Score:2)
Look, it's an extra technology that improves movie for those that like the 3-D effect. It doesn't affect the quality of the movie.
If the director and DP are overly conscious of the "need" for 3-D effects, then, yes, it will very likely negatively impact the quality of the movie.
Re: (Score:2)
Haha, thanks for mentioning him. I always think about that sketch [youtube.com] whenever 3D gets mentioned on
Re:Greenlit vs greenlighted (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
No. I will go to watch whatever I want because I like it. Your opinion is irrelevant. You go whatever you like, though.
Actually, I
Re: (Score:2)
Because of the foreshortening technique used to make the Hobbit actors shorter than everyone else, I doubt there won't be a ton of postprocessing.