[Movies] The Hobbit (Possible Spoilers)

[Lomppa]

Hello. I heard some place that the Hobbit was going to be a trilogy, its that something some one can verify here?
Read the book about 10 years ago, and i do remember it pretty well, and i dont understand how they will squeez that much movie out of it.
Dont get me wrong, i dont think its a bad thing, but i was really looking forward to see the fight vs Smaug!

[Maklor]

First off it's off topic and you could have searched on google to find out in 10 seconds.. but yes it will be.

[Draenox]

It is going to be a trilogy, first movie is called "An Unexpected Journey", second is "The Desolation of Smaug" and the third is "There and Back Again".

Really looking forward to those movies

[Sythari]

Yeah it will be, I was so excited when it was announced in 2 parts, then extended to 3 I screamed like a little girl. Already have my tickets booked to see it on the 14th, going to have to avoid the internet for the day on the 13th .

[Ogretron]

Yes, there will be 3. Just Google "hobbit trilogy" and you will find your answer.

[reohh]

This doesnt belong in General Discussions, but yes it will be a trilogy

[Lomppa]

Ok thanks Draenox.

Sorry for being halfway social and asking about it Maklor, but i much more like it this way then to type questions in to google.

[sTyLnK]

Yeah it will be, I was so excited when it was announced in 2 parts, then extended to 3 I screamed like a little girl. Already have my tickets booked to see it on the 14th, going to have to avoid the internet for the day on the 13th .

Well you might want to avoid the net now. The movie is already out in New Zealand. :P

[Everything Nice]

There's already a thread on the Hobbit in this section.

Right here (Clicky!)

[Amirila]

While I'm excited that there will be so many movies of one book, I don't understand how. The book is 300 pages, that's usually a bit thin for TWO movies. But people told be that so much happens in it (I read it a while ago). But Tolkien was an author that described things very greatly.

But anyway, it will be an awesome trilogy and hopefully as good as LotR!! (Tickets for the 12th, check)

[Wolfbear]

They are taking content out of Tolkien's other works, not just the Hobbit, to make these movies as well so they can put more stuff in the movies.

[starkey]

Well you might want to avoid the net now. The movie is already out in New Zealand. :P

Premiere was 28th November, rest of nz get too see it on 12th December

[Mongoose19]

The New York Daily News describes The Hobbit as eye popping. Ethan Sacks writes, “Lighter and funnier than its ‘Lord of the Rings’ predecessors, ‘The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey’ remains faithful to the fantasy world last seen in the 2003 Academy Award-winning ‘The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.’”

Collider gives The Hobbit an “A-“, saying, “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a classic adventure quest in the making; packed with colorful characters, gorgeous settings and plenty of action, the only setbacks are technical ones.”

The Playlist gives The Hobbit a “B+”, saying “As epic, grandiose, and emotionally appealing as the previous pictures, ‘The Hobbit’ doesn’t move far from the mold, but it’s a thrilling ride that’s one of the most enjoyable, exciting and engaging tentpoles of the year.”

The Hollywood Reporter review says: "Spending nearly three hours of screen time to visually represent every comma, period and semicolon in the first six chapters of the perennially popular 19-chapter book, Jackson and his colleagues have created a purist's delight, something the millions of die-hard fans of his Lord of the Rings trilogy will gorge upon."


Apparently LotR and Tolkien fans in general will likely get much more enjoyment out of the movie due to its adherence to the novel. Impatient non-readers may find themselves out of place. Lucky for me I'm a nerd! I'll eat it all up and ask for seconds, probably thirds.

Yea thats good I actually wanna see book with actors, not a vision of the book.

[Everything Nice]

Premiere was 28th November, rest of nz get too see it on 12th December

12th of December is too far away

[Northy]

I'm probably the only person in the world who is happy the movie is long. More middle-earthy goodness. Heck, make it 6 hours...
Can't wait for Extended Edition releases.

[xylophone]

Basicly 48 fps is what they use in like soap operas or live events if you know what I mean. If you are from UK then Eastenders is an example of how Hobbit will look. It looks fake, not cinematic and to be honest cheap.

Personally that's one thing I like whenever I channel surf through the soap operas.

[Scummer]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but YouTube won't show anything above 30fps. It's impossible to see the 48fps on an YouTube video.

That explains EVERYTHING.

[Shinzai]

Just a side note about the 48fps videos that had been released to the public previously - they were released without any after effects/CGI work done. The reason why the sets looked like sets, was... because they were just sets. Closed screenings of the fully finished footage at 48fps, with all after effects/CGI/lighting in place has been widely regarded as very impressive by those who were able to see it.

It may be strange moving at 48fps when released, but I fully intend to see both the 48fps/3D and 2D/24fps versions.

[mludd]

Basicly 48 fps is what they use in like soap operas or live events if you know what I mean. If you are from UK then Eastenders is an example of how Hobbit will look. It looks fake, not cinematic and to be honest cheap.

No, it won't look fake, you and others who have trained themselves to think "30/29.97 fps = direct-to-TV, 24 fps = cinema" might think so but no.

The early clips shown weren't, from what I've read, fully posted (post = post-production, not "posted on teh intarwebz").

24 fps is horribly low and the only reason movies wound up at that frame rate was because it was a trade-off between smooth motion and the cost of film back in the day. Then once everyone standardized on 24 fps the cost of new equipment kept most producers of movies from even trying to go to higher frame rate.


What makes soap operas look like shit isn't just the frame rate, it's also the crummy lighting, limited budgets for wardrobes and sets and acting that often feels like the actors are just phoning it in (seriously, look at the lighting, post work, sets and wardrobes used in the average soap opera and compare it to a big budget movie, there's a huge difference, even in TV shows with a decent-sized budget it's rare to see lighting, post, sets and wardrobes near the quality of most movies).

Now, when you get accustomed to seeing all these bad things along with a higher frame rate while the choppy and blurry 24 fps frame rate is only used for "real movies" you begin to associate the former with cheap and ugly productions (since it's an easy visual cue that you can pick up on almost immediately).

Edit: Cameras deserve a mention as well, a new RED cam that can capture proper high-res video will give much better results than a cheaper camera that just barely handles 1080p @ 30 fps with the same lighting, sets and all that junk. Guess which cameras are used for big budget movies and which are used for long-running soap operas with a tight budget...

[Arrowstorm]

I wonder if the critics are just doing this to thrive on conflict. Seems like that, when they focus on such minor and ridiculous things. Some of them seems like being positive, but then throws the 48fps card and deems the whole movie a fail. Are they angry Peter Jackson didn't instantly throw the 48fps idea out the window when they didn't like the 10 minutes they saw in Las Vegas earlier this year?

And then they talk about the length, which they also criticized in Fellowship of the Ring, despite it being the best of three movies in some peoples opinion, and being the shortest of the trilogy (and they didn't seem to complain all that much about length during those.) Heck, I only watch the movies in Extended Edition!