I read the book when I was younger. Personally i thought it was pretty terrible - here's hoping the films will turn out better..
So there was 10 minutes of Hobbit footage (unfinished editing and not fully color-corrected, mind you, so some people complained and the actors didn't look right in their outfits) previewed on Tuesday (I don't know where you can see it online, if you even can), but apparently the high speed film looks 'hyper-real.'
Originally Posted by Associated Press
The new Hobbit footage has faced some criticism. (the looks of it, not the content)
http://movies.ign.com/articles/122/1223523p1.html
This is worrying news
http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/the-hobbi...-for-tv--.html
Yeah well, 9 times out of ten for me, the book is better than the movie.
Forrest Gump is one of the few exceptions I can think of off the top of my head. Now with that said, just because I say "the book is better than the movie" doesn't necessarily mean the movie sucked. I liked LotR the book better than the movies, but they are some of my favorite movies.
Putin khuliyo
Caught up on all the production blogs today. Some really interesting stuff. The craziest part was the logistics of their location shoots. Moving all those people, equipment and sets to the various places in NZ as well as providing food, water, electricity, shelter, data access for everyone is a remarkable feat in and of itself.
Can't wait to see it this December. Should be great in 3D.
In 2013 when the second part of the Hobbit ends, my life will be complete. That's how much I am looking forward to this movie.
Still waters run deep.
Looks like you never read The Hobbit, it's just one book and there is much more emphasis on Dwarves than the one Hobbit in the entire book. LoTR has * a lot* more hobbitty things.
Anyways, it's a good book. I loved all three LoTR movies, but Fellowship was my favorite all said and done because IMO it's by far the most adventurous one of the three, and the Hobbitt is essentially an adventure story. What I'm not quite sure of is how they are going to get two movies out of it, perhaps they will be just a couple hours long each because The Hobbit book is about half the length of each of the LoTR books, which left out a lot of details and could easily have each been made into two three-four hour films themselves.
I would be looking forward to it but i hate Martin freeman so once i get over that it will probably be good..
I just don't think he's a good actor..
I'm worried after the reviews the 10 mins got in terms of the viewing quality.
Still, we really can't make complete assessments until it is out. But lets be honest we'd probably see it anyway.
I'm probably gonna wind up watching it in 3D at Imax.
Awwwww Yeaaahhhh! my and my fiancee can't WAIT to see this.
I think that's awesome. For those who wish to know who have only seen the films, the Necromancer is none other than Sauron . Tolkien originally thought about including it, but was concerned that it would be too distracting for young audiences.
It's rare when a series of movies attempts to outdo the books from which they are derived. I hold the Hobbit in higher esteem than LOTR, so I am very apprehensive about how well these are made.
Last edited by Callace; 2012-05-01 at 12:47 AM.
It's supposed to be sharper and more realistic looking. Kind of like watching it on Blu-Ray. I personally dislike the quality of of movies in the theatre. I've always found them dim and grainy compared to what I can see at home. I'm not talking about small theatres either. Anything they can do to make the picture better for theatre is a good thing in my books. People will of course complain about it because it's something new and that's what everyone does.