The Hobbit loses Guillermo Del Toro

can't wait for the inevitable lotr reboot.

I'd love to see Turin Turambar's story in film. But I'd make some fucker like Lynch do it. But I know such people wouldn't.

there's so much cool stuff in the silmarillon - ungoliant, morgoth vs fingolfin, fëanor, flight of the noldor, crossing of the helcaraxë, first appearance of galadriël, glaurung the dragon and the whole hurin/turin story, fall of gondolin, ancalagon the black, númenor, gil-galad and the last alliance of elves and men... bloody loads!

  On 8/4/2012 at 4:52 PM, encey said:

I shamelessly just want to be immersed in the visuals of the world and to enjoy some great special effects. If I want characterization, I'll just read the book and fill it in proper with my mind.

 

Side note: Instead of writing 'shamelessly,' I began to typo 'shemales' ... :/

  On 8/4/2012 at 10:42 PM, BCM said:

the whole hurin/turin story,

After reading The Children of Hurin, I actually thought it was the perfect length to make a movie out of, and has a linear enough narrative to not confuse the people who seem to think Tolkien is confusing (people can't handle lots of names, apparently). It's rather grim as well...it could easily make for a dope film that isn't as twee as LOTR.

But, it's a perfect story to be destroyed by Hollywood. A badass character, action, romance (they'd change it so it's not his sister), cheesy filmography. I'm hating it already.

lol, yes. i meant theoretically, of course. i'm sure they would Michael Bay that bitch.

  On 8/4/2012 at 6:25 PM, GORDO said:

wtf, shemales in the hobbit? that is travesty!

etymological lol

I cum just for 3 things: gollum. Sir droll homo Ian Mckellen. And New Zealand scenery. Direction will probably be lacking, as in the other films.

compson, you left out Radagast, but no loss there.

hehe,

Im excited for the visuals and hopefully I can see it in 3D 48fps because I hear they are pulling back on the 48fps and only doing select theaters. Which sounds really lame but maybe it doesn't look as good as they hoped?

  On 9/17/2012 at 11:19 AM, compson said:

hehe,

 

Im excited for the visuals and hopefully I can see it in 3D 48fps because I hear they are pulling back on the 48fps and only doing select theaters. Which sounds really lame but maybe it doesn't look as good as they hoped?

People were complaining about the 48 fps at screenings. As expected people said it looked like a soap opera.

  On 9/17/2012 at 11:24 AM, Squee said:

  On 9/17/2012 at 11:19 AM, compson said:

hehe,

 

Im excited for the visuals and hopefully I can see it in 3D 48fps because I hear they are pulling back on the 48fps and only doing select theaters. Which sounds really lame but maybe it doesn't look as good as they hoped?

 

People were complaining about the 48 fps at screenings. As expected people said it looked like a soap opera.

Some were, it was also not graded footage so that might explain the soap opera aspect... regardless I am eager to see what 3D looks like at higher frame rates... our vision certainly doesn't process at 24fps 2D.

higher frame rates in 2D do look odd because the lack of motion blur. The lack of depth makes it seem flat and dull or less cinematic:

  Quote

3D in cinemas doesn't break up the framerate, so each eye gets 24fps. The problem with 3D is that the low framerate and the ugly motionblur feel very fake. If they would pump the framerate up to something like 120fps they will barely need motion blur anymore. You will still see things blurry in action scenes, but that effect happens inside your eyes and is the same as you experience everyday. So high framerate will reduce another headache factor.

So when something pans across the screen quickly in 3D, even if you focus your eyes solely on that object/person/etc it will appear blurry around the edges and its movement won't be as defined as it would be in reality. But if you increase the frame rate, you would see that object with more clarity and the surrounding elements would be more blurry (peripheral vision).. adding that level of depth changes the way one could compose action. I suspect that the added layer of depth and clarity would make for the possibility of having a few different focal points on the screen... because the viewer won't be able to process all the information on their first viewing. So perhaps it is too overwhelming but I suspect that has more to do with traditional composition and editing structures that don't suit what should be wider shots and longer cuts for 48fps 3D.

The tecnological aspect of it sounds plausible, but how to artistically compensate in your new smooth 3d world? I can't imagine it working in the next decade at least.

Who knows, but I am excited to see when someone does it.

I am too. I also wonder where and who is gonna pull it off.

I want to see this but I'm afraid I will be fucking angry afterwards. So, I don't know whether to go or not.

  On 9/17/2012 at 1:23 PM, mokz said:

I want to see this but I'm afraid I will be fucking angry afterwards. So, I don't know whether to go or not.

I felt the same with Prometheus.

Generally over the past decade, about 80% of movies I have been looking forward too have sucked ass.

Every now and then something turns out great though. Hope this is one of them.

And even rarer is it that something turns out brilliant that had not even been on my radar.

  On 9/17/2012 at 1:30 PM, feltcher said:

  On 9/17/2012 at 1:23 PM, mokz said:

I want to see this but I'm afraid I will be fucking angry afterwards. So, I don't know whether to go or not.

 

I felt the same with Prometheus.

My boss just gave me an assignment: Watch Prometheus again.

:(

Anyway, I watched The Grey yesterday. Man, I was on the edge of my seat most of the time. I was really surprised by it. I liked how the wolves were being kept in the background, almost like you would do with a monster in a monster movie, and I actually think they looked pretty good even though they were CGi.

The ending ruined the movie for me. It went straight from a 9/10 to a 6/10.

I couldn't get past the first 30 minutes of The Grey.

Why the fuck did I post this here? I thought this was the movie thread. Fuck.

For hollywood action type films or something like Prometheus/The Hobbit I don't approach them with the same kind of mindset that I would of something like Eyes Wide Shut or There Will Be Blood/The Master. I view them more as external reflection of todays culture whether consciously or not... so Avatar for example was a story told a million times and its creatures weren't original but more a slight twist. There isn't any subtly or art behind this approach but in addition to its visual breakthrough (to some) the moment when an audience shares an emotional bound is when concepts such as American foreign policy and Environmental laws have impact on ignorance... despite it lacking subtly, it makes obvious social and cultural topics a bit clearer to some who may have not put much thought into the subject. So that is not to say Avatar is some kind of revolutionary work of art because its not saying anything unique or intellectually complex, but it does achieve the goal of delivering emotion (as noted by its huge box office success). Perhaps something people specifically brought older family members to, so they could share agreement on something they typically would argue about? Getting a bit wordy now, I enjoyed Prometheus because I felt its emotional/climatic build was agnostic, which I think disappoints people because it lacks any kind of exciting belief... (spoilers) but I enjoyed how our creator kills pretty much everyone and how lame/flawed people were compared to the robot. I think this reflects positive ideas to society and watching it in that manner does add some subtly of control over aesthetics and art direction choices. So a bit interesting to re-watch.