[Epic Movie] The Hobbit: Part 1 (coming December 2012)

I think that's unfair. Name me one masterpiece achievement that didn't have good source material? So to ding a guy who took good source material and converted it to good material is unfair. That's why they have Oscars for Adapted Screenplay, which he got nominated for on the first one and won for the third one which you said was such a slog.

Of course it's your opinion. But don't make it sound like good source + budget is auto Oscar winning masterpiece. There are plenty of examples otherwise. Remember that people thought it was impossible to make this series into a movie when this was first announced.

 

Yes. Given how great the source material is, it would've taken a hack on par with Brett Ratner to f-ck it all up. Tolkien did all the heavy lifting. A number of directors could have pulled off the same job.

Before the Rings trilogy Jackson made some modest cult classics and one good film (Heavenly Creatures). Since, he's given us the terrible King Kong and the psychedelic pedophilia hot mess The Lovely Bones.

Career and talent wise Jackson's on par with Zemeckis, JJ Abrahms and Chris Columbus. He's an good craftsman but not on the genius level of a Fincher, 70's - 80's Spielberg or 80's - 90's Cameron.

 

Freightners or Dead Alive do nothing for you?

 

The Frightners does nothing for me. Dead Alive is a fun B cult film. I don't think it's any better than other films of the same genre.

 

Considering just how much extra material was included in the "extended" versions of LOTR, I'm hoping that he decided to do the extended version of The Hobbit flicks with the first release. That would be a nice surprise. I can't get enough of Tolkien anyway. I've read every novel multiple times, beginning in the 1960's, and while I will complain about the changes Jackson will no doubt make (Elves at Helm's Deep??) to The Hobbit, he's no George Lucas. These films will be damn good. Count on it.

 

Regarding the "trouble with pacing," I'd have to disagree and say he did quite well.

Admittedly, the first film was probably the best in this regard, and in fact one of the better-paced films I've seen in recent memory, especially considering its length (I'm talking about the theatrical cut -- the extended cut was fine but did hurt the pacing somewhat), but it was also an easier film to pace well because it basically followed only a single group of characters for the entire movie. The other two films were burdened with groups of characters which were in totally different physical locations, and so he basically had to make three or four different films and artificially cut them together. Not many films have to deal with a handicap like that.

Incidentally, I thought the second film was the only one that genuinely became a better movie with the extended footage. It needed more room to breathe, and was given more of a proper ending in the director's cut release. Whereas for the first film, as I already mentioned, the pacing suffered, and the last film just became too damned long at 4 hours and 10 minutes. But I will say that people who complain about the "multiple endings" in the final film are insane. You can't take any of the ending material out without changing the meaning of the films, and having a long wrap-up is perfectly appropriate for what was basically one long continuous 11-hour film. A 5-minute conclusion would have been silly.

First of all, King Kong wasn't "terrible." It was an entertaining action-adventure movie. I don't think anyone would argue that it's a really deep and meaningful film, but it didn't have to be. Not sure what's so "terrible" about it.

In any case, I'm not going to argue over Jackson's talent and technical skill. What I will say is that after watching those hours upon hours of behind-the-scenes featurettes on the extended DVDs more times than I can count, I'm constantly impressed by his uncompromising devotion to the project, his creation of a friendly, we're-all-a-family attitude around the production, and his approach to visuals.

As the first trait, it's pretty amazing the lengths they went to in order to make those films. They actually went out and built the Golden Hall of the Rohirrim on location. They built all of the props rather than bringing stuff in (and often made things in multiple sclaes). They used no stock sounds. He went out and got the most renowned Tolkien illustrators in Alan Lee and John Howe to conceptually design the film (and tried to get Ted Nasmith, who sadly declined the offer). Sure, the big-ass budget helped a lot. But I think it's safe to say that Jackson pushed for a higher degree of authenticity than most directors would have gone for.

The family atmosphere... as great as James Cameron is -- and Aliens and Terminator 2 are a couple of my favorite films ever -- the guy is a jerk and a dictator on set. I guess the results bear out his directorial style, but I think the love for the project from the entire cast and crew shines through in LotR like it does for few other films. Or maybe it's just that clean New Zealand air... or the fact that the shoot was so damned long that crew bonded more than a film crew normally would. Still...

As for the visuals. We all know George Lucas is an idiot. He wants to play with his CG even when it's totally unnecessary, and could be done a better way. Heck, I liked the special effects on the early Star Wars films -- with the physical puppets -- a lot more than some of the silly CG aliens that Lucas put on scenes for the prequel trilogy. In contrast, Jackson, more than any other director I know, used a crap-ton of miniatures, which seems like a great approach, and worked unbelievably well. And when CG creatures did appear, they were uniformly spectacular. That Balrog is the most impressive movie monster I've ever seen, and may remain so for another few decades. He also delivered some pretty amazing shots from a combination of miniatures and CG finessing, like the long shot of Orthanc leading up to Gandalf imprisoned at the top.

Incidentally, I also loved the music in those films -- probably my favorite element, actually -- but that's kudos to Howard Shore more than Peter Jackson.

If he has a weakness, it's characters. He too easily resorts to easy stereotypical movie characters and characteristics. Gimli, Pippin, and Merry were often made into comic relief characters more than was appropriate. I thought Elrond's character was done a disservice. And a character like Faramir that would have complicated the One Ring dynamics was unceremoniously flipped around and made to go in the exact opposite direction.

But hey, I could nitpick all day. You can't have everything. In any case, suffice it to say that making LotR wasn't simply a matter of "not f-ing it up." Give me a break. Great source material is butchered all the time, and LotR isn't exactly the easiest material to adapt. Peter Jackson may not be the best director ever, but he's a damned fine one.

 

WB plans limited release of high-frame-rate 'Hobbit'; may not include all major cities

 

What BS.

As Roger Ebert points out, almost half of American theaters already have projectors capable of 48 frames. I'd bet virtually anything that the only reason the 48-frame Hobbit is getting such a "limited release" is because the theaters are going to use it as an excuse to up their prices, and they want to see how the public will react to that. What other reason could there be? The studio is honestly worried that people are going think 48 frames doesn't look good?

 

Trailer 2:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yYz0JWJioOM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Ummmm why do the graphics look worse than the LoTR trilogy??

 

Maybe because The Hobbit takes place before the LotR trilogy?

 

I watched only 30 seconds of the trailer because I don't want anymore spoilers (and yes I have already read the book). I am so ready for this movie. There are few things that can motivate a 35 year old father. A prequel to the foremost trilogoy of my young adulthood is that occassion.

 

I WILL PAY!

 

Looks great!

Combination of good action scenes, plus some LOLs thrown in for good measure- after all, it is more of a 'kids' movie than LOTR.


And Radagast!

 

Sets look fake, prosthetic make looks even worse. But nerds have no standards so it will be a modest hit.

 

First TV trailer:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/SZ6WX0EI31Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

91 Cinemas Where You’ll Be Able To See The Hobbit At 48fps


Greenway Grand Palace Stadium 24 & RPX, Houston, TX
Houston Marq’e Stadium 23 & IMAX, Houston, TX

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/11/05/91-cinemas-where-youll-be-able-to-see-the-hobbit-at-48fps/

I'm thinking maybe that West Oaks Edwards as well. It doesn't show up on IMDB yet.

 

is it imax 3d in 48fps? Or just regular 3d screens?