The Hobbit finds a director

[ATB]

I don't remember reading about Galadriel in the Hobbit...

If what you remember reading about in The Hobbit is your baseline for these three movies, you've got a whole bunch of surprises coming.

 

[CeeKay]

Sooo this showed up as an official poster.  I think someone was asleep on the job...

well F*@k you too Miss Gal-Laid-By-All.

[Blackjack]

Yikes, AMC already selling tickets.

For the "regular" version (non high-frame rate 3D):
Early tickets for The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey at "regular frame rate" AMC screens

And for the brave...
Early tickets for AMC theaters showing the 48FPS 3D version
*I might be brave, it's showing at a theater near me.  

If it's twice the regular frame rate speed, is the movie over in half the amount of time? 

[metallicorphan]

Yup,that says 9 days to go the premier in Wellington is on the 28th of this month


><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Unfortunately though i got that picture from a news story about the high amount of animals deaths during the Hobbit production,it seems a large amount of animals were kept on a farm that turned out to be somewhat of a shithole

http://news.sky.com/story/1013341/hobbit-film-blamed-for-27-animal-deaths

Horses, goats, chickens and one sheep died at a farm near Wellington, New Zealand, which was filled with "death traps", according to the handlers.

The American Humane Association (AHA), which is overseeing animal welfare on the films, said no animals were harmed during actual filming.

But it admitted there had been shortcomings in its oversight system, which monitors film sets, but not the facilities where animals are housed and trained.

"We do know those deaths were avoidable and we took steps to make sure it didn't happen again."

They said three horses, six goats, six sheep and a dozen chickens were buried after dying at the farm. Two other horses were also injured, but survived.

One horse, a miniature named Rainbow, had to be put down after breaking its back falling from a steep bank. Another was found dead with its head submerged in a stream.

Some of the other animals perished after falling into sinkholes or contracting worms.

Mark Stubis, a spokesman for the AHA, said the farm had been investigated in August 2011.

He said: "We made safety recommendations to the animals' living areas.

"The production company followed our recommendations and upgraded fence and farm housing, among other things."

Mr Dravitsky said the company no longer leases the farm and has no animals left on the property.

He added that Mr Jackson himself adopted three of the pigs used during filming.

[ATB]

Uh. Ok.

[leo8877]

It's sad that this kind of thing happens. 

[metallicorphan]

well,less than a week to go for The Hobbit part 1

so

lets talk about the sequel ... Entertainment Weekly is

not sure whether to put the following in spoilers,and its best that in those circumstances when you are not sure,to do so just in case(Those who have read the book will no doubt know the following anyway)

Spoiler for Hiden:

With the Dec. 14 opening of the first installment of director Peter Jackson’s Hobbit trilogy, subtitled An Unexpected Journey, only days away, rabid J.R.R. Tolkien fans are already looking ahead and speculating about how the story will play out over the two films that’ll follow. Well, here’s a big clue. In this exclusive first image from the second film, The Desolation of Smaug, in theaters Dec. 13, 2013, we see Bilbo Baggins going for the gold. To be more exact, we see Martin Freeman’s reluctant hobbit hero splayed out on a massive pile of treasure, looking up in hobbit-y alarm at what we can probably safely assume is an enormous and not very happy fire-breathing dragon named Smaug.

But hold on, you might be saying: Isn’t The Hobbit basically all about a quest to reclaim a pile of gold from a dragon? If we see this climactic scene in the second movie, what’s left for the final film, There and Back Again, due July 18, 2014? In fact, as anyone who’s read the book knows, the tale of The Hobbit — which Jackson is expanding considerably by drawing on some 120 pages of appendices Tolkien wrote to The Lord of the Rings that elaborate on the story — actually continues well past the face-off with Smaug at the Lonely Mountain, culminating eventually in the epic battle Battle of Five Armies, involving Laketown men, orcs, dwarves, goblins, elves, wargs, and giant eagles. “The dragon is a huge, wonderful, amazing part of the story, but it doesn’t end there,” says screenwriter and producer Philippa Boyens. “Everyone can suspect there’s a rather large battle in film three.”

[ATB]

Read some complaints that because it was filmed in such a high resolution or whatever, everything looks fake and terrible.

[metallicorphan]

Read some complaints that because it was filmed in such a high resolution or whatever, everything looks fake and terrible.

we were talking about this a few pages/months back,something about it being filmed in 48fps(probably not,but i can't be arsed going back and checking),and some saying(Leo or CK) that it looks like a soap Opera

FWIW.-the trailers looked fine




EDIT:there is a 13 minute TV special here,it's a pretty cool vid(youtube page is in Russian,but the video is in English)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHfs41EaV7A

[metallicorphan]

Digital Spy has a review of the film Here


Highlights of the review in the spoilers

Spoiler for Hiden:

Structurally, Peter Jackson's long-awaited return to Middle-earth is so remarkably close to his first outing in Fellowship of the Ring that you sense, subconsciously or otherwise, that he has intentionally used that beloved adaptation as a blueprint.

Anyone expecting a story as rich and complex as Rings will be disappointed, and frankly, anyone expecting that only has themselves to blame - The Hobbit is manifestly a children's book, and its big-screen incarnation is an essentially lightweight adventure, with only a handful of really developed characters and a series of obstacles in place of an actual villain.

The latter will change in the next two films with the introduction of thieving dragon Smaug and black magic-botherer The Necromancer (both only glimpsed here). In all likelihood, the world of Middle-earth will shift gradually towards the darker one seen in Rings, becoming less cosy and more compromised along with Martin Freeman's soulful Bilbo. As a straightfoward first chapter, though, this is big-hearted and immaculately detailed stuff.

The first 20 minutes or so are the roughest in the film, making it clear upfront just how poorly action sequences of any scale at all are served by the controversial 48fps format. The jarring speed and smoothness of motion, combined with the cartoonish 3D, give a would-be epic backstory sequence the feeling of a computer game. Even once your eyes (and stomach) have adjusted, the format feels like an innovation too far.

A few visually stunning moments at Rivendell aside, Journey falters most when it moves away from Freeman. Jackson and co-writers Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens were ruthless with the text of Rings, cutting out characters and backstory left, right and centre, but here - presumably knowing that they've got to stretch this thing out over three films - they're much too generous, allowing a few unforgivably exposition-heavy scenes to drag their otherwise nimble-footed adventure down. On the flip side, there's an extended one-on-one sequence between Bilbo and Gollum (Andy Serkis, as compelling as ever) that will leave you wishing to watch an entire film of the same.

They suggest you watch the film in 2D(which i am going to be doing just that).. they gave it

Spoiler for Hiden:

4

out of 5

[TiLT]

I'll be watching it in 48Hz 3D this Thursday, stomach-churning be damned! I'm pretty eager to embrace new technology as long as I don't feel it's a gimmick (I love 3D when done right, and feel that it really enhances a game or movie in those cases), going so far as to put serious money into a quality 3D plasma screen last year. Too bad it sounds like my TV and Blu-ray player might not be able to handle 48Hz 3D when it comes out on Blu-ray (IF that comes out on Blu-ray).

[metallicorphan]

I didn't realise but there are (Currently) 10 other reviews over on Metacritic...not a great metacritic score right now(64)
http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey/critic-reviews

[Ralph-Wiggum]

With 41 reviews counted on Rotten Tomatoes, The Hobbit currently has the largest discrepancy between all critics (76%) and top critics (29%) that I can remember.

[TiLT]

It's probably the kind of movie that will put off fans of The Lord of the Rings that have little to no knowledge of The Hobbit. I expect the less patient viewers to lose interest quickly.

[Purge]

71, 14. Yikes.

[metallicorphan]

71, 14. Yikes.

what's the 14 part?

[leo8877]

71, 14. Yikes.

what's the 14 part?

Rottens maybe? (even though it says 12)

[Roguetad]

I saw one of the extended trailers in the movie theater last week, and it's really odd how some of the dwarves look great, while a few of them look laughably bad.  And when I say bad, I mean the makeup and special effects.  There are 1 or 2 of the dwarves that look like they walked on set from Saturday Night Live.  I can't help but wonder wtf with some of the makeup. 

[Purge]

71, 14. Yikes.

what's the 14 part?

Rottens maybe? (even though it says 12)

The pro reviews keep dropping.
Not that it sways my opinion. I'm going to end up seeing it in theatre.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

The 48 fps decision seems to be getting crushed in the reviews I've read. They all seemingly state that it makes the film look cheap. Perhaps I'll just see it at 24 fps.

[CeeKay]

The 48 fps decision seems to be getting crushed in the reviews I've read. They all seemingly state that it makes the film look cheap. Perhaps I'll just see it at 24 fps.

I was going to go out of my way to see the 48, but now I'll settle for 24.

[CeeKay]

It's probably the kind of movie that will put off fans of The Lord of the Rings that have little to no knowledge of The Hobbit. I expect the less patient viewers to lose interest quickly.

yeah, this one is going to be a love letter to the fans.  newbies need not apply

[ATB]

The 48 fps decision seems to be getting crushed in the reviews I've read. They all seemingly state that it makes the film look cheap. Perhaps I'll just see it at 24 fps.

I was going to go out of my way to see the 48, but now I'll settle for 24.

How does one do this? Will most theaters have the 24? Or will 48 be the standard?

[heloder]

Few theaters are equipped for 48 fps.

[metallicorphan]

Few theaters are equipped for 48 fps.

woohoo,my AMC Manchester isn't on that list

Thanks for that link,Heloder

[Scraper]

Few theaters are equipped for 48 fps.

woohoo,my AMC Manchester isn't on that list

Thanks for that link,Heloder

Somehow my theater is on that list. They usually show the big movies on several different screens though so I'm hoping they have a 24fps option.

[leo8877]

Few theaters are equipped for 48 fps.

woohoo,my AMC Manchester isn't on that list

Thanks for that link,Heloder

Somehow my theater is on that list. They usually show the big movies on several different screens though so I'm hoping they have a 24fps option.

Same here!

[metallicorphan]

some sad news

It seems that Ian McKellen has been fighting Prostate Cancer for the last 6-7 years,but thankfully it's being monitored and has not spread
http://news.sky.com/story/1023812/ian-mckellen-reveals-prostate-cancer-battle

I do like that last part i bolded

Sir Ian McKellen, fresh from fighting the goblins of the Misty Mountains, has revealed how he has been battling something closer to home - prostate cancer.

The 73-year-old will be hitting cinema screens across the UK on Friday with the release of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.

But Sir Ian, who plays Gandalf the Grey in the Hobbit trilogy, revealed he had been coping with cancer for the past "six or seven" years.

He told the Daily Mirror: "You do gulp when you hear the news. It's like when you go for an HIV test. You go 'Aargh! Is this the end of the road?'"

Sir Ian said his cancer was being monitored to ensure it does not spread.

But he explained: "If it is contained in the prostate it's no big deal.

"Many, many men die from it, but it's one of those cancers that is totally treatable, so I have 'waitful watching'."



He told the paper the cancer had been contained, it was not spreading and he had not needed any treatment.

Sir Ian also had some advice for people of a similar age - do some exercise, which in his case is pilates.

He said: "I recommend it to anyone of my age because the temptation is not to exercise as you get older. Well you should."

Sir Ian recalled how he was initially undecided about reprising the role of Gandalf following the three Lord Of The Rings films.

But he said: "I didn't want anyone else to play Gandalf. It's mine!"

he should of added "My Precioussss" 



><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Major Nelson saw the film last night in 48fps and in 3D and he had nothing but great things to say about the film(posting on his twitter account)..but then again i can't see him slagging anything off on his twitter account or blog...or full stop

[Blackjack]

Forbes (didn't even know they ran reviews) had an enthusiastic take:

'The Hobbit' Review: Peter Jackson's Return To Middle Earth Is A Triumph
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2012/12/12/the-hobbit-review-peter-jacksons-return-to-middle-earth-is-a-triumph/

One major aspect of the visual style of this film is the much-debated 48 frames per second. I’ve heard some reviewers claim it looks like a cheap BBC televised production, but that’s utter nonsense. It looked glorious, a level of detail and clarity that enhanced the colors and texture and movements of every scene. It’s akin to the difference between watching a DVD on a regular television, and a Blu-ray on a flat screen HDTV. When the movie begins, for a couple of minutes the difference in fluidity of movement, the precision of details and depth, is striking. But very quickly your eyes adapt, and the effect is breathtaking.

A big advantage to the new frame rate is that action scenes, even very fast paced sequences full of quick edits and (in one scene) literally hundreds of characters going in every direction, are never hard to follow or blurred by movement. It’s so crisp and clear that you can take it all in and understand what’s going on despite the scale of some of these sequences. Likewise, this means the 3D effect never lacks clarity or blurs from movement, and the result is a 3D depth into the scenery that is perfect throughout. A moment to comment on that — The Hobbit is one of those films that uses 3D to create a sense of space and weight to scenes, delving into the screen rather than just trying to project items out at the audience.
...
I’ll put it to you like this: If you saw the The Lord of the Rings trilogy in theaters and liked it, The Hobbit is faster paced, has more humor and wit, has better special effects and CGI, has more action, and is in a beautifully vivid 3D. That’s the basic truth of the comparison between the former trilogy and this new film. Now, you also need to realize that this film has a lighter overall tone, which can perhaps best be described as the difference between the tone of The Dark Knight Rises compared to The Avengers, although not *quite* as stark a contrast (but pretty close).

I remain eager to see it (at least once in the 48 fps version), even if I've never read The Hobbit, and I've not been terribly impressed with Jackson's post LOTR trilogy work (King Kong remake, and the - most would say - misguided adaptation of The Lovely Bones).

[ATB]

Did you read the FOTR series?

Any particular reason you haven't picked up the hobbit? It's a quick fun read.

[Ironrod]

I wasn't going to see this one. The LoTR movies were enough of that for me. But I'm curious about the framerate tech. Must one see it in 3D to get the high framerate version? I hate 3D.

[metallicorphan]

Sorry Ironrod i can't answer if the high frame rate is for 2D movies as well,i guess it all depends on the cinema itself



I just got back from this,i saw it in 2D and from Heloder's list i was at a 24fps cinema...and the woman who sold me the ticket didn't have a clue,but i did manage to make myself look like a cinema geek when asking,so...er....score!!


First off,2D+24fps-the film looked great,i didn't notice any difference from any other films i have seen,whether i should of done,i don't know

I really enjoyed the film,i thought it was great stuff...even having read the book a number of times there were parts i was unaware of(i guess because of the Appendix filler),but even some things i recognized i was unsure of what happened next(maybe because its been awhile since last reading,I dunno)

Childrens Book?-well,yeah the book of The Hobbit was aimed at Children,and maybe this film is not as serious as the LOTR trilogy as there are fun parts in the film,but there's also a lot of seriousness in this one...certainly a lot of dark scenes,fight scenes and gore to some extent,so be weary taking the little ones(i think this film was a 12 certificate here)



Martin Freeman-admittedly,he took a while for me to settle into thinking he was Bilbo,but when it did happen,Freeman made Bilbo his character

yes,maybe the film did take a while to get going like some reviews have suggested,but the start certainly wasn't as bad as reviews seem to focus on


One thing that stood out in the film,was easily the return of...

Spoiler for Hiden:

Gollumn,he has never looked better(CGI wise that is),the looks of anxiety and puzzlement on his face when he is figuring out Bilbo's riddles are fantastic

which makes me sad,because that is it for Gollumn,unless they add him in again for some reason in the next films(they shouldn't i don't think,even Appendix wise he doesn't appear again until The Fellowship of the Ring)

One 'bad' thing from the film IMO:
perhaps the films fault,is that it tries too hard at times to connect this film to the original trilogy,sure its good hearing the same music from the original trilogy when something familiar appears,but it happened one too many times perhaps

Yup,that's it,my one fault with the film i can at least think off right now...there are probably more,but i enjoyed the film too much to think right now what they are

Oh okay,one more(it's no biggie)

Spoiler for Hiden:

When Bilbo finds the ring....it's nothing like in the prologue of Fellowship(flat on his chest,hands in the dirt,smiling)i thought they would/could of at least set it the exact same,okay its not Holm in the part for that scene like the prologue,but still

He just picked it up from a standing position(i think),looked at it for a second and put it immediately in his pocket

.. strange decision

especially as i have pointed out how Peter Jackson seems to remind you that this is connected to the LOTR trilogy with the music settings all the time

okay i have one more thing to say....an important point i think

The Dwarves,with there being so many as central characters,they can take some time getting used to..its not like Fellowship where the nine already were recognizable because of their various races,in this film when the Dwarves start to become individuals is when the film really starts to work,IMO

I think i will probably go and see this again,and yeah i will go to see it in 3D with 48fps..now that i have seen it how i wanted to see it(which was....how Lord of the Rings looked)


Better than ANY of the original Lord of the Ring films?....probably not,but it certainly on par a lot and certainly make itself its own film,and not just 'the film before the LOTR trilogy'.I have enjoyed this film and what happened in this film has made me more excited for the next one

So yeah....bring on next December 

[TiLT]

I just returned from seeing the movie in its full 48Hz 3D glory, and what glory it was! Went with a friend, and we both agreed that the 48Hz effect worked very well indeed. He said that he had never been to a movie that had felt so real before. It's probably going to be a bit jarring if you've never seen a movie with more than 24Hz before since you'll immediately suspect the movie is on fast forward, but for anyone who knows what this looks like, it's great! The picture looks incredibly crisp even during fast camera movement. You know those battles in the LOTR movies where just about everything looks blurred and hard to make out in the chaos? That doesn't happen here. Every little detail is easy to follow if you want to. The overall effect is like you could just step into the screen and be a part of Middle-earth if you wanted to. Now I want more movies to be filmed like this!

I was a bit lukewarm to the concept of splitting the movies into three before seeing this, but as a Tolkien fan it felt right. They spend a lot of time on the small things, things that would have been skipped in a regular Hollywood movie. In Fellowship of the Ring I always wanted the party to last a bit longer so we could partake a bit more in the innocent parts of hobbit life before the dark quest begins, but here the leisurely pace means that you don't feel as if the movie is rushing you along to the next action sequence. In the end it felt like a much shorter movie than it actually was.

There are less major changes to the plot here than in the LOTR movies, though some things were changed and some content from the LOTR appendices was added. Most notably, Azog the orc is a prominent part of the plot here even though he doesn't feature in the book (as far as I can remember). The first seeds for the Necromancer plot are planted, making it clear to the viewer that there is more to this tale than the mere slaying of a dragon.

All in all, I'm very pleased.

[metallicorphan]

TiLT- Great news that you loved the 3D and 48fps/hz version,that just means the film is awesome whichever version you see,i'll defo go and see it again then


I think the extended versions will have more at the beginning of the film,in Hobbiton i mean just going off the first official Trailer there were things in that trailer that i did not see in the film(that should of been in this first film)

Spoiler for Hiden:

30seconds-Bilbo going about Hobbiton Market

Bilbo stepping up to the Shards of Nasril at Rivendell


Gandalf leaning against a rock having a smoke*

and what looks like Gandalf where Radagast was where he saw the Necromancer*

Gandalf fighting with someone(can't really tell who it is),similar to the Gandalf Vs Saruman stick fight in Fellowship*


however the ones marked with *could of been moved to movie 2 as i think this trailer was out before the announcement that it was to be 3 movies instead of 2,but the first two should of been in this movie

Peter Jackson confirmed just the other day that there will be an extended version adding at least 20-25 minutes 
http://www.hypable.com/2012/12/08/hobbit-unexpected-journey-extended-edition-run-time/

[TiLT]

Unlike the LOTR movies, I'm not sure this one is going to benefit from an extended version. The Hobbit Part 1 feels like the extended versions of the LOTR movies already.

[Scuzz]

My daughter saw the movie last night at an LA showing, in 3D. She is, of course an LOTR superfan and can probably quote the dialogue from all those movies so maybe her opinion is to be expected but she loved it. She liked the added material and is looking forward to seeing the next movies. She did say she hated the 3D glasses, but who doesn't.

[metallicorphan]

Lost a lot of faith in critics over this film,RT is now showing the film is at 66%(Attack of the Clones is 67%),58% on Metacritic,they have got this massively wrong IMO

[Ironrod]

Ugh, 3-hour runtime and weak reviews? Maybe a rental someday. I was a LOTR fan when I was a kid but never liked the Hobbit much. Think I'll hold out for another movie to see that 48 fps technology, which is the only thing about this movie that entices me.

[Harkonis]

I really enjoyed the 3d in this, and I'm not a big fan of 3d overall

[USMC Kato]

I really enjoyed the 3d in this, and I'm not a big fan of 3d overall

Did you see the HFR version? If so any thoughts?