[Movies] The Hobbit Trilogy (Possible Spoilers)

[Nycrolieben]

I read the book when I was younger. Personally i thought it was pretty terrible - here's hoping the films will turn out better..

[Callace]

So, is anyone else as excited for this two part movie event as I am? I'm giddy as a school girl.

Part one is scheduled for release December 14, 2012 and will be titled "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey."

Part two is scheduled for release December 13, 2013 and will be titled "The Hobbit: There and Back Again."

Love the names, they're straight outta the book. Anyways if you want to keep up with Hobbit news/production check it out.

http://www.thehobbitblog.com/
http://www.facebook.com/video/video....81557&comments

At first I was skeptical because I thought the movies might possibly detract from young kids learning to read the book first, but now I'm excited, irregardless.

[Herecius]

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.'

Indeed, the footage was vivid, with grass blades, facial lines and soaring mountains appearing luminous and pronounced. The actors looked almost touchable, as if they were performing live on stage.

[Jon]

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.'

The new Hobbit footage has faced some criticism. (the looks of it, not the content)

http://movies.ign.com/articles/122/1223523p1.html

[Deleted]

This is worrying news
http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/the-hobbi...-for-tv--.html

[Adam Jensen]

People really overuse the phrase, "Book was better than the movie." Originally that term was used for bad movies based off a book, now its used all over the place. Books have more detail because they have to give you enough detail so you can draw your own picture, where movies draw the picture for you and its up to you to understand it. My opinion, if the movie or tv show rendition is good/excellent then its not better or worse than the book its on equal standing. Basically if you don't want to read the book, the movie/tv show works nearly as well. Reading is always good for you though.

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.

[Callace]

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.'

So real that it breaks the cinematic experience some people have said. It will be interesting for audiences to get used to. 24fps does seem awfully slow by today's standards.

[Fuzzzie]

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.

[Saturate]

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.

[PBitt]

I'm not looking forward to it as much as I was the Lord of the Rings trilogy, since I didn't like the Hobbit books quite as much (mostly because of the increased emphasis on Hobbits; I don't like them) but I'll definitely be watching.

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.

[Deleted]

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..

[Scummer]

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.

[Frontenac]

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.

They are adding the events surrounding the battle of the White Council against the Necromancer of Dul Guldur.

[YoungNasteyman]

Awwwww Yeaaahhhh! my and my fiancee can't WAIT to see this.

[Callace]

They are adding the events surrounding the battle of the White Council against the Necromancer of Dul Guldur.

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.

[Fuzzzie]

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.

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.

[Callace]

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.

I think the complaint is that it looks *so* realistic that it is jarring to the senses. Sound like fun to me.

[Frontenac]

I think the complaint is that it looks *so* realistic that it is jarring to the senses. Sound like fun to me.

I've read that it's so realistic that you can see the make up, false beards and wigs. If that's true, then, yes, it will be distracting.

[Callace]

I've read that it's so realistic that you can see the make up, false beards and wigs. If that's true, then, yes, it will be distracting.

So ultimately, it will feel like a super high-production play + CGI.

[Fuzzzie]

I've read that it's so realistic that you can see the make up, false beards and wigs. If that's true, then, yes, it will be distracting.

I think the beards are pretty over-the-top to begin with. Probably why people think they look "fake". At least they're not blue like in the book.