Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Hobbit Film Finally Gets Green Light, To Be Shot in 3-D

timothy posted about 4 years ago | from the lighter-fare dept.

Lord of the Rings 261

An anonymous reader writes with word that "after much kerfuffle and uncertainty, the Hobbit film has finally been greenlit," with Peter Jackson as director. Says the linked story: "The announcement did not state whether the two-part prequel to The Lord of the Rings would be shot in New Zealand. Matt Dravitzki, Jackson's assistant at Wingnut Films, said an annoucement on the place of filming would be 'probably a week or two away.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

3-D (2, Insightful)

odies (1869886) | about 4 years ago | (#33915632)

Cue in the usual "I don't need 3D", "Why don't they make better movies instead of playing with technology?" and "In the old times they at least made good movies" that fills every slashdot story that has something to do with 3-D movies.

Look, it's an extra technology that improves movie for those that like the 3-D effect. It doesn't affect the quality of the movie. Good and bad movies will still be made. It's weird that here on slashdot, a news for nerd site, people are so much against emerging technologies.

I personally like the 3-D effect in movies. In fact I even like it in games - Left4Dead is a lot scarier when the infected run towards you in 3-D.

Also, the technology gets better in intervals. Recently there have popped up Nintendo's new handheld console and 3-D tv's that work without glasses. The effect will only improve over time, but you need to take the intermediate steps to get there. Just like with every other technology, starting from human history and the discovery of fire and a wheel.

Re:3-D (2, Insightful)

rossdee (243626) | about 4 years ago | (#33915642)

Many of us nerds have vision problems, so 3d dont work for us.

(Hey the typical nerd always wears glasses, right?)

Re:3-D (2, Insightful)

klingens (147173) | about 4 years ago | (#33915654)

The typical nerd also likes gadgets, like 3D and funny glasses, for its own sake. Using more useless (gadgets) is highly approved in nerddom.

Re:3-D (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33915756)

I don't like useless gadgets. If they don't serve some function, it's just a fashion item. And that doesn't make you a nerd.

Re:3-D (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33915978)

I don't quite understand how a gadget could not have a function.

Every gadget serves a function. Whether that function is something that necessarily needs to be addressed at this point in time is another kettle of fish.

Re:3-D (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33915690)

I've got amblyopia (lazy eye) and had no problems watching Avatar with contact lenses in.

There'll be a flattened, 2D version of the film to watch anyway.

Stuck with glasses. (1)

dasherjan (1485895) | about 4 years ago | (#33915796)

Not everyone can wear contacts, and it sucks when I have to deal with a scratch on my lenses because the 3D glasses never seem to fit over my glasses correctly. I personally wont see it in the theaters if they only have the 3D option. Since I don't expect everyone else to do without just because I can't use it without issues.

Re:3-D (1)

Nos. (179609) | about 4 years ago | (#33915760)

I'm in the same boat. Both my eyes are lazy (well I have Amblyopia in both eyes). It especially shows up if I'm tired or have had a drink or too. One eye will lose focus and wonder off, which destroys any 3D effects. So, as long as they release everyday high-def versions, I'm fine with it also being available in 3D.

Re:3-D (3, Insightful)

HawaiianToast (618430) | about 4 years ago | (#33915802)

Well, I'm pretty blind and I love the new 3D (as seen in Avatar at least; there's some lesser quality 3D going around in other flicks). The plastic 3D glasses conveniently fit over my large and very nerdy glasses. I understand some people have other issues, but I'll bet its a very small minority.

Re:3-D (1)

ZankerH (1401751) | about 4 years ago | (#33916032)

I don't wear glasses, my eyes are just unaligned so I don't have depth perception.

(you insensitive clod)

Re:3-D (4, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | about 4 years ago | (#33915660)

So when the whole fad dies we'll expect your apology, where?

Re:3-D (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33915680)

Oh fucking great, this retard is posting again. Expect a 30% decline in overall ./ quality soon folks.

Re:3-D (3, Funny)

FiloEleven (602040) | about 4 years ago | (#33915704)

This coming from Anonymous Coward, the one responsible for all of the Frosty Piss and racist trolls?

You, sir, are the most prominent Noise component of Slashdot's signal to noise ratio. Grow a pair and get a nick.

(This post brought to you by the Reverend Jack Daniels.)

Re:3-D (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33915734)

Nicks are for attention whores.

Re:3-D (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33915822)

+1 Funny

-1 Offtopic

But seriously, if you want to improve S/N, there's a filter for that. But you still capture more information leaving it off.

Posting as AC to improve unfiltered S/N.

Re:3-D (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33915710)

Oh fucking great, this retard is posting again.

Odd, that's exactly what I thought when I saw your post.

Expect a 30% decline in overall ./ quality soon folks.

Too late. Your presence here, oh fellow anon, has already caused the decline.

Re:3-D (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 4 years ago | (#33916052)

Most slashdot readers are able to make up their own fucking minds, anonymous dickhead.

Re:3-D (1)

vadim_t (324782) | about 4 years ago | (#33915970)

I agree with the grandparent, and from my part, there won't be an apology if it dies again. For two reasons:

1. I happen to like 3D, and will watch 3D content. If it dies it won't be because I didn't support it, so I won't have to apologize for that.

2. 3D content trivially translates to the old 2D, by simply watching either the left or right image. So it's not like anybody loses the ability to watch the movie just because the 3D hardware can't be found anymore. Since the movie will be just as available to people to watch as any normal one, my support for 3D won't deny anything to anybody, so I won't have to apologize for that either.

So what could there possibly have to be an apology for, if the 3D tech goes away?

Re:3-D (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33916328)

Watch Friday the 13th part 3. It is horrible and the main reason for that is that it was shot in 3D.

There have been few movies, were the added 3D, did not make the movie worse.

If movie makers ever will get away from trying to display the 3D and show off, I will welcome it. However, in every wave of 3D so far, this has not happened.

I hope that it will end differently this time, but I have not so much hope.

Re:3-D (2, Insightful)

sempir (1916194) | about 4 years ago | (#33916318)

So when the whole fad dies we'll expect your apology, where?

The 3D fad or the Hobbit one. Whichever one dies...why an apology.....it dies,it dies.

Re:3-D (4, Interesting)

nixNscratches (957550) | about 4 years ago | (#33915732)

Maybe if 3D actually worked for more people, was used in ways that improved the overall storytelling process and was less expensive, you wouldn't hear so many criticisms of it. It works for me, marginally, but I usually end up with a headache and after a few minutes I lose interest. It ruins immersion for me, whether it's a game, or a movie so it's safe to say I'm not a big fan.

Re:3-D (2, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | about 4 years ago | (#33916152)

How do you expect 3D to "improve the overall storytelling process"? Or even high quality video and sound for that matter? This isn't about the story, it's about immersion.

What do you mean you "lose interest"? Are you trying especially hard to notice the 3D effect? Since it's fixed position 3D it won't react to your vision like a normal real life scene, so I think trying to study it too hard might be what gives any headaches.. I wouldn't know as I've never had motion sickness or any other problems from playing games or watching movies.

Still haven't worked out the best tactic for watching 3D movies myself, such as should I try to refocus for objects in the background etc? But I think the best way is probably just relax and not think about it too much.

I certainly don't want them "improving the overall storytelling process" by pushing objects pointedly towards the camera every few scenes though.

Re:3-D (1)

Totenglocke (1291680) | about 4 years ago | (#33916156)

Considering for several years I used to get massive headaches from first person games, I've never had issues with 3D movies. I'd say, it depends on what they DO with the 3D. If they use it to make shots pop a little more (such as My Bloody Valentine 3D, where you could actually see inside the ribcage and such) instead of just cheesy "the bullet is coming right at you!", then I think 3D can actually make a movie better (god knows it made the mediocre My Bloody Valentine better). 3D is a tool, and like any tool, it's usefulness is determined by what you do with it.

Re:3-D (1)

shaitand (626655) | about 4 years ago | (#33916226)

3D is best used to simply add depth to a normal film so that everything appears more lifelike and vivid. You know, characters are in a field and far things seem far and close things seem close with focus to infinity. The moment they start using 3D for effects that are about 3D, things start to go downhill.

Avatar was an excellent example. 3D effects for their own sake were pretty scarce. For the most part you forgot you were watching 3D and simply immersed into the film.

Re:3-D (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33915738)

I prefer 2d over wearing glasses and mild headaches. The problem is when the local cinema only shows a movie in 3d and charges extra whether you want it or not. It is happening already; that's why I didn't see Toy Story 3 for example.

Re:3-D (2, Insightful)

Biogenesis (670772) | about 4 years ago | (#33915774)

Just like with every other technology, starting from human history and the discovery of fire and a wheel.

"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." - Picasso

I guess that's what you get when people have no foresight. But I agree that 3D is overused right now, just like stereo was when it was young. Have you listened to Voodoo Child lately? That song flys left and right like a dunk sailor.

Re:3-D (4, Insightful)

Fizzl (209397) | about 4 years ago | (#33916118)

"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." - Picasso

I guess that's what you get when people have no foresight

That statement is as insightful as ever.
Just think about what it implies. Of course, I do not know if it truely was an ignorant comment, but to me it reads as very terse, subtle and clever commentary about human nature

Re:3-D (4, Insightful)

beelsebob (529313) | about 4 years ago | (#33915804)

Look, it's an extra technology that improves movie for those that like the 3-D effect. It doesn't affect the quality of the movie. Good and bad movies will still be made. It's weird that here on slashdot, a news for nerd site, people are so much against emerging technologies.

Wrong.

Scenes are added to even the very best 3D movie to do nothing but show off the 3D effect. When viewed in 2D (and often in 3D actually) they end up looking truely awful, and serving to do nothing but ruin immersion and make you remember you're in a cinema.

It's not amazing that nerds are against it – nerds are often against tech that makes things worse, not better.

Re:3-D (5, Insightful)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | about 4 years ago | (#33915882)

Look, it's an extra technology that improves movie for those that like the 3-D effect. It doesn't affect the quality of the movie. Good and bad movies will still be made. It's weird that here on slashdot, a news for nerd site, people are so much against emerging technologies.

Wrong.

Scenes are added to even the very best 3D movie to do nothing but show off the 3D effect. When viewed in 2D (and often in 3D actually) they end up looking truely awful, and serving to do nothing but ruin immersion and make you remember you're in a cinema.

This. Also, the director will always avoid partial objects in the foreground (no one wants a fuzzy half of a face jumping out at them). In my opinion, what is lost (artistic ability/license) is far greater than what is gained (axes/bullets/spears appearing to fly directly at me). I thought Avatar was visually breathtaking, but the likelihood of the shooting of 'Riddles in the Dark' being hamstrung by 3D "aesthetic requirements" is pretty fucking disappointing.

Re:3-D (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33915954)

Agreed. Grandparent was unfairly moderated. It's a simple fact that "3d" requires the director to make artistic compromises that do affect the 2d version of the film (see parent for example). Furthermore, 3d directors are far too tempted to "break the plane" with an "it's coming right for us!!1" moment.

Personally I don't usually mind the compromises in shot composition, but I absolutely refuse to watch any a 3d movie where a 3d object breaks the plane. That trick got old when I was a kid in the 80s.

tl;dr: IMHO, 3d should be restricted to depth beyond the screen, as if you're looking through a window.

Re:3-D (2, Interesting)

Neuticle (255200) | about 4 years ago | (#33916062)

I have no more mod points, so I'll post. I've often tried to state the same thing, but you articulated it better than I have been able.

I think directors will mostly outgrow the "random stuff flying at audience" gimmick as the novelty wears off. After that, I think they will realize that unlike previous technology jumps, 3D doesn't give directors and cinematographers more freedom to be creative, it restricts them to filming in a way that "works in 3D".

/God help us if Paul "Shakey-cam" Greengrass ever start filming in 3D

Re:3-D (-1, Flamebait)

Fizzl (209397) | about 4 years ago | (#33916130)

I have no more mod points, so I'll post.

No-one gives a shit-tit-fucking-god-damn-fuck if you had mod points or if you are about to post, so just get on with it you piece of ass-fucking-turkey-gobling-diddleydoo-poo-head cunt.

Re:3-D (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33916146)

And this comment applies to all these assholes, not just gp.

Re:3-D (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33916232)

You've been here long enough to know that lamenting a lack of mod points in a reply is a long-standing and very commonly used way to show appreciation to the parent.

So, who pissed in your Cheerios this morning?

Re:3-D (1)

shaitand (626655) | about 4 years ago | (#33916262)

It may restrict the director but so did HD. Millions of special effects techniques have become obsolete as video and display technology have improved and the effects no longer hold up under a clear picture.

That's well worth it in my opinion. 3D used to make it look like you are watching real events unfold through a window is how it should be. Things should never fly at me just for the sake of doing so. There is a time and place for that sort of thing. For instance, in First Knight Lancelot runs the gauntlet and there is a scene where he looks down and there are axes flying from side to side and at him and so forth. Showing that in 3D from his perspective with objects coming at you would be appropriate only because it immerses you in the challenge the character is facing.

The gimmick shots will go away on their own. What worries me is that the technology is mature enough to be enjoyable rather than a distraction but there isn't much content.

Re:3-D (1)

strack (1051390) | about 4 years ago | (#33915922)

thats not 3ds fault. thats the fault of the director being a idiot.

Re:3-D (1)

shaitand (626655) | about 4 years ago | (#33916248)

Thats a flaw in the film itself, not the technology. The technology adds depth. That is a undeniable improvement.

It isn't 3D's fault that idiot directors can't resist the urge to make 3D show off effects any more than it is the fault of dynamic range technology that idiot sound effects people can't resist the urge to a wide dynamic range on the dialogue and claim it offers a better experience.

P.S. Idiot sound guys. Make explosions boom, make whispers audible to the average 60yr old at the middle volume setting on the typical 600w surround system from walmart. Use lower levels only for things like leaves falling and the like that won't ruin the film if you don't hear them.

Re:3-D (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33915894)

I'm not against new technology, I'd just like one that is real, not a stupid fad (yeah, fad). You want 3D, you can have it, and all the baby steps - and buying new equipment each time.

Re:3-D (1)

Krokus (88121) | about 4 years ago | (#33915908)

Look, it's an extra technology that improves movie for those that like the 3-D effect. It doesn't affect the quality of the movie. Good and bad movies will still be made.

The reason I dislike movies being made in 3-D is because once the decision has been made to do so, 95% of the time the 3-D technology drives the movie a la Doctor Tongue. It's like the director/studio just can't help themselves; they have to be constantly drawing attention to it. This drives me crazy.

Hopefully, they will go the "Avatar" route and just make the thing in 3-D, and any "into the camera" stuff will be minimal and come across as natural. If 2-D morphing was exploited when it first came out in the same way as 3-D has historically been exploited, "Willow" would have been a much different movie, and not for the better.

Re:3-D (1)

tsm_sf (545316) | about 4 years ago | (#33916004)

[...] a la Doctor Tongue.

Haha, thanks for mentioning him. I always think about that sketch [youtube.com] whenever 3D gets mentioned on /.

Re:3-D (1)

kainosnous (1753770) | about 4 years ago | (#33915950)

I don't know many people who are opposed to the idea of 3D itself, since most such films can also be seen in 2D. The problem with 3D and other new technology is that there is a tendency to use it as a gimmick to sell an otherwise pointless film, or to use it at a point in the film where older technology would be better. This isn't always the case, such as Citizen Kane [wikipedia.org] . It is credited with using many innovations, but tastefully. However, in today's market it seems that every movie tends to be a gimmick of some kind. That makes it tempting to be at least a little skeptical initially.

Re:3-D (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33915964)

Dude..trust us...when the left for dead infected folks run towards you in real life, it MUCH more scarier.

Re:3-D (5, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | about 4 years ago | (#33916044)

First off, nerds already wear glasses, so wearing glasses over glasses is awkward. Second, 3D television sales have been a disaster, so it's a pointless technology that only works well on a gigantic screen and not a standard sized television. Third, people mock 3D because they see it exactly for what it is--a desperate gimmick for theaters trying to compete with technology in the home as well as an excuse to charge extra for ticket prices, which was the primary reason Avatar became the highest grossing film.

People aren't "against emerging technologies." It's not even a new technology. People are against cheesy gimmicks. You cite a videogame as an example for 3D, which already shows you how gimmicky it is and how it places emphasis on visuals, not storytelling. It may be great for Left 4 Dead, but for a two hour movie trying to tell a story?

3D fads in film have come and gone several times before. It's not some new trend. They had this shit in the 1950s with the old red and blue glasses.

Re:3-D (1)

chrismcb (983081) | about 4 years ago | (#33916046)

Actually it does affect the quality of the movie. Directors are always going for the "3d money shot" where something flies out of the screen. AND the movie is out of focus half of the time. And how do you call a 60 year technology an emerging technology?

Re:3-D (1)

Berkyjay (1225604) | about 4 years ago | (#33916070)

See, the problem is that 3D is purely a money making gimmick. Do you think Lucas and Cameron spent all those years pushing it and developing for it just for artistic integrity? F no! They both knew that it was a good money making machine that will puts peoples butts back into the empty theater seats. So I can give two shits whether you actually like it. You are in a very small minority. Most of the people who actually go see 3D movies are the mindless idiots who go see Michael Bay movies. You want technological innovation? Well then make digital film cameras capable of the richness that analog film gives you at half the price. Or figure out how to make non-creepy digital characters. All I see is the big tech companies trying to cash in and making all TV's 3D and charging more for them. Next thing you know you won't be able to buy a non-3D TV. Just like how it's getting harder and harder to buy a 1920x1200 resolution monitor because display makers are trying to cash in on the 1080p craze.

Re:3-D (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33916148)

Look, it's an extra technology that improves movie for those that like the 3-D effect. It doesn't affect the quality of the movie.

You didn't watch Avatar in 2D did you?

Of course 3D affects the quality of movies. They don't just magically get more budget to compensate for the huge amount of time and complexity 3D adds. They have to make compromises somewhere.

Personally, the most enjoyable and best movies recently where relatively low-budget productions that had novel ideas and didn't rehash old boring crap with new effects.

Re:3-D (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 4 years ago | (#33916200)

That is because most of us greybeards have been around long enough to know Stereovision is a fad that comes around every 25 years or so, and that with the exception of a damned few films made each time it has come around by and large what you get is "Dr Tongue's 3D house of Pancakes". This isn't a natural evolution, like say B&W to color, or sound to stereo to surround, this is just another blatant attempt to try to milk more money from the public from an effect that 1.-many with glasses or even slight vision problems can't enjoy, 2.-many of us who do not have vision problems still get a headache after watching the crap more than an hour, and 3.- Ruins the traditional "family and friends come over to watch a show" experience by making expensive glasses mandatory.

I'm sorry, but after being drug to several 3D movies I see nothing that impresses me anymore than the last time it came around in the 70s. It was lame and overused then, it'll be lame and overused now. Want to impress us greybeards? Give us REAL 3D video, where we can walk around the viewing area and the view changes. Now THAT would be impressive. Using the latest tech to make a "new" version of tech we've had since the 50s? Not impressive at all.

Re:3-D (1)

DudemanX (44606) | about 4 years ago | (#33916210)

starting from human history and the discovery of fire and a wheel

I always start with Animal Husbandry.

Re:3-D (1)

JambisJubilee (784493) | about 4 years ago | (#33916220)

Try naming ONE film in 3D which has either a good plot or good acting.

Re:3-D (1)

cyn1c77 (928549) | about 4 years ago | (#33916236)

Cue in the usual "I don't need 3D", "Why don't they make better movies instead of playing with technology?" and "In the old times they at least made good movies" that fills every slashdot story that has something to do with 3-D movies.

Look, it's an extra technology that improves movie for those that like the 3-D effect. It doesn't affect the quality of the movie. Good and bad movies will still be made. It's weird that here on slashdot, a news for nerd site, people are so much against emerging technologies.

I personally like the 3-D effect in movies. In fact I even like it in games - Left4Dead is a lot scarier when the infected run towards you in 3-D.

Also, the technology gets better in intervals. Recently there have popped up Nintendo's new handheld console and 3-D tv's that work without glasses. The effect will only improve over time, but you need to take the intermediate steps to get there. Just like with every other technology, starting from human history and the discovery of fire and a wheel.

As the first poster, you are rebutting anti-3D posts that don't exist yet!

What gives? Are you a lawyer?

Re:3-D (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | about 4 years ago | (#33916240)

Shooting a movie in 3d adds significant cost to the production of the movie and hence yes 3D can really make a movie worse as cuts are taken elsewhere to provide funds to shoot in 3d, look at the complete and utter garbage that has come out in 3D so far. I am not against 3D (though I prefer 2D as the semi 3D in movies gives me headaches and the glasses are uncomfortable), just that so far hollywood is shooting blanks when it comes to 3d and you would have to be a pretty brave person to bet that any movie targetted for 3D at this stage is going to be good.

until someone can actually point to a movie that is both good and in 3D then it is you that is wearing the rose coloured glasses, the rest of us are just putting up with the reality of the utter shit that has been produced with 3d thus far.

Episode 3 sucks. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33915644)

Minority Report would have been a very good picture, if not a great one, if not for a few needless ommissions and intrusions.

The Arwen sequence was included for no other reason than to give the highly overrated Liv Tyler screen time. There just doesn't seem to be enough of a reason to beef up her role. Yeah, sure, the reason commonly given is that it's supposed to give the female viewers something to watch, but it's not like the gals are bored with everything else that's going on. I'm not saying the romantic angle should go unplayed, just that it should be lavished with such loving detail.

Aragorn's fake death was played for dramatic purposes, as if there wasn't enough drama in the story to go around and if there hasn't been enough fake deaths in the first film.

Both of these sequences/occurrences squandered screen time that could have been used to include the Huorns (basically the reason the Ents were called Treeherders) and Shelob, the giant spider. The Huorns are instrumental in routing the Orcs at Helm's Deep; they are an important element in the story. In the film, the defeat of the Orcs wasn't terribly convincing since there were still hordes of them. There didn't seem enough of a reason for them to just turn and flee. A burst of sunlight wouldn't seem to be enough, especially since these Orcs were the Uruk-hai, specially bred to move about in sunlight. In the book, the Orcs were crushed between Gandalf's contigent and the Huorns, which make a lot more sense and would have made a much better movie. There was plenty of time to establish the Huorns if not for unnecessary dream sequences.

Shelob, the spider, was also ommitted for no clearly good reason. Presumably, Shelob will be featured in the the third movie (won't there be enough to take care of in the third movie?). In the book, Frodo seems to be mortally wounded by her and goes into a sort of coma, yet one more time the fake character death card will have to be played (making Aragorn's fake death seem all the more excessive) but at least with Shelob and Frodo, it's warranted and would have made an astounding finish to the film, as it did the second book of Lord of the Rings. (It probably inspired the less-than-happy ending in The Empire Strikes Back and look how good a film that was). It also would have given Samwise (and thus, the Hobbits, who have thus far been little other than "the little people) his moment to shine, as he takes on and defeats Shelob. I disagree there wasn't enough time. For one, as I said before, I don't think the time was spent wisely in telling the story; for another, an extra half an hour to 45 minutes would have been sufficient. Judging from audience reaction to the film, very few would have minded an extended film. Oh well, it will have to wait till the third film. But imagine the anticipation for Return of the King that would have been created if Shelob was included in Towers. Instead, it will just be something that happens in the third film that's quickly resolved (it will have to, I imagine, if the rest of the story is to be told with any sort of efficiency).

Re:Episode 3 sucks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33915662)

You can go suck a dick AC, Minority Report was a million times better than your life will ever fucking be.

Re:Episode 3 sucks. (2, Informative)

Angeret (1134311) | about 4 years ago | (#33915868)

Okay Tom, you can take a break now.

Re:Episode 3 sucks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33915898)

Fuck you moron, Shelob was in RotK. All that whine and no mention of Tom Bombadil? Again, fuck you.

Return of the King (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33915652)

Return of the King is the greatest of the Tolkien trilogy by New Zealand director Peter Jackson. Although I've seen the other two and read the book, I felt it would also stand alone well enough for people who hadn't done either.

The storytelling is much more professional that the first one - which maybe laboured to introduce so much information - or the second one - which has little let up from the tension of long battle scenes. In Return of the King, there is an emotional sting at the start, as we watch the transformation of Gollum from warm, fun-loving guy to murderous, mutated wretch. The movie then moves deftly between different segments of the story - the sadness of the lovely soft-focus Liv Tyler as fated Arwen whose travails and woman's love succeeds in having the Sword that was Broken mended, the comradeship of Sam and Frodo (Sean Astin & Elijah Wood) that is tested to the limits, the strong commanding presence of Gandalf (Ian McKellen) who keeps an eye on things whilst turning in an Oscar-worthy performance, the ingenious and very varied battle scenes, and the mythical cities of that rise out of the screen and provide key plot elements.

Re:Return of the King (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33915880)

Jackson's RotK was a steaming lump of horse shit and anyone who has ever actually read a Tolkien book knows this.

STEREOSCOPIC (5, Insightful)

Woek (161635) | about 4 years ago | (#33915730)

Using the term 3D for stereoscopic video is probably already so entrenched in the media that it's useless to try and correct them, but it irritates the hell out of me...
There's a huge difference though. A 3D image (the closest we have is a hologram) is one where you can change your viewpoint by moving your head. The perspective changes when you move away or closer. This means that no matter where you are relative to the image, the stereoscopic image that your eyes register is always correct. The fixed images of stereoscopic video don't change, and the perspective is only correct for one position relative to the image. This is what gives people headaches.
I'm holding out for holographic (worthy of the term 3D) displays!

Re:STEREOSCOPIC (2, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 4 years ago | (#33915850)

I'm holding out for holographic (worthy of the term 3D) displays!

Five years from now! I promise!

Re:STEREOSCOPIC (1, Redundant)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about 4 years ago | (#33915900)

And 5 years later, we'll get a holographic star wars, with new scenes, and new characters.

Re:STEREOSCOPIC (2, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 4 years ago | (#33915994)

You can watch Greedo missing from any angle!

Re:STEREOSCOPIC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33916006)

And now we have a tie-in to xkcd [xkcd.com] .

Re:STEREOSCOPIC (1)

noidentity (188756) | about 4 years ago | (#33916260)

Agreed. Last time I checked, almost all movies are already in 3D. And if anyone claims they aren't, what do you have to say about all the so-called 3D games we've had for the past decade and a half? So I take it the terms you suggest are 3D (what movies have been in since the beginning), stereoscopic (movie shot with two cameras), and holographic (like a hologram, or real life).

This could be a problem... (5, Insightful)

hedgemage (934558) | about 4 years ago | (#33915742)

Peter Jackson was able to get very good visual effects on the LotR trilogy because he used camera tricks rather than digital editing to achieve the illusion of a world populated by big and little people.
The technique called "foreshortening" was used quite a bit, like when Gandalf first sits with Bilbo and has tea in his kitchen. The actors were there, but the set was arranged and props and actors placed so that Bilbo was farther away from the camera than Gandalf, and therefore appeared little while Gandalf was 'human sized'. Its a simple gimmick and worked great. Using a 3D camera setup may not work with this unless you deliberately went frame by frame and edited the 3D in afterward since shooting it with multiple cameras would cancel out the single-perspective trick of foreshortening.

Re:This could be a problem... (0)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | about 4 years ago | (#33915856)

1. Record the Gandalf half of the scene (two cameras)
2. Record the Bilbo half, on a smaller but identical set (two cameras)
3. Hollywood Magic (TM)
4. ???
5. Profit!

Re:This could be a problem... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33915890)

I think the Bilbo half would be on a bigger set, chief.

Re:This could be a problem... (0)

GNious (953874) | about 4 years ago | (#33916218)

1. Record the Gandalf half of the scene (two cameras)
2. Record the Bilbo half, on a smaller but identical set (two cameras)
3. Hollywood Accounting (TM)
4. ???
5. Profit!

there ... fixed that for you.

Re:This could be a problem... (1)

Purity Of Essence (1007601) | about 4 years ago | (#33915914)

That's a really interesting point I hadn't considered, but I think far more effects shots in LotR were handled with scale doubles and digital compositing (which has evolved to perfection). Weta developed all kinds of amazing in-camera gimmicks that were abandoned for simpler, easier to control effects. The Hobbit story also requires fewer interactions between people at different scales. I don't think it will be an issue or something hasn't already been given deep consideration during the last couple of years of preproduction. Weta are at the forefront of 3D movie technology. I trust them to do it right ... I'm just not so sure about Peter Jackson's directorial restraint.

Re:This could be a problem... (1)

magus_melchior (262681) | about 4 years ago | (#33915928)

They called it "forced perspective" in the behind-the-scenes footage. It's an incredibly neat trick if pulled off carefully, but it does limit the number of angles you can shoot-- the forced perspective shots with Gandalf and Frodo riding in the cart, for example, are pretty consistently at the same angle. Another thing is, it forces the actors to skew their line of sight, so they must react and "talk" to empty space rather than the other actor. It is possible to have a moving forced perspective shot, but it requires multiple dollies rather than just one, which can be incredibly difficult to time properly. It was most heavily used in the first LotR film because there were many more shots where the audience had to take in the size difference between Men/Wizards/Elves and Hobbits (Gandalf in the Shire, Bree, etc.), but the later films used a lot less of this because you just don't use forced perspective in massive battle scenes. In those cases you got results more easily with digital doubles, stunt doubles, actors on their knees, etc.

I'm guessing Jackson and co. will default primarily to digital, where either the Hobbits or the Big Folk are on a mocap/greenscreen stage, and the other sized folks are shot on set. That's what they did for some of the Bag End scenes where Gandalf shared the scene with Frodo or Bilbo.

The other thing is, other than Gandalf and the Men/Elves, one wouldn't need to worry about size differences-- aside from the Wizard, Bilbo's companions are all Dwarves!

The film may be in 3-D... (1)

Patik (584959) | about 4 years ago | (#33915764)

... but Peter Jackson is nearly 2-D. The photo in TFA is the first time I've seen him not looking like a rotund hobbit -- ironically, a spherical shape that would lend itself nicely to a 3-D movie, should he choose to cast himself.

Greenlit vs greenlighted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33915780)

Greenlit? Seriously.

Re:Greenlit vs greenlighted (4, Informative)

SheeEttin (899897) | about 4 years ago | (#33915838)

"Lit" is a perfectly acceptable past tense of "light". In fact, I prefer it.

pity (1, Interesting)

bhcompy (1877290) | about 4 years ago | (#33915784)

Pity it's Jackson. I would love to have seen what del Toro could have done with it. He's more suited to the fact that the Hobbit is in itself a dark fantasy kids story, which is what del Toro is the best alive at.

Re:pity (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 4 years ago | (#33915934)

He would have shit all over the source material, is what he would have done. At least with Jackson there is a shred of a chance that the themes of The Hobbit might survive.

Re:pity (4, Interesting)

bonch (38532) | about 4 years ago | (#33916102)

Yeah, Jackson sure proved how much he cared about the source material. I'm sure Tolkien fans loved seeing Gimli rolling down a hill for comic relief, Aragorn's life-saving horse, and Galadriel the Incredible Hulk.

Del Toro prefers animatronics because CGI doesn't look real enough for creature footage. You probably would have gotten a more authentic film from him than "pan the camera around everything" Jackson. A lot of the outdoor scenery in the LOTR films was pretty bland and ordinary-looking compared to the version of Middle-Earth in the book, which was alive, conscious, and menacing. In the book, Saruman didn't try to take down the mountain to stop the fellowship--the mountain itself did. That kind of ominous threat from the world around them would have come through in a Del Toro version. It would have been surreal and fantastical instead of just static footage of New Zealand plains.

Re:pity (0)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 4 years ago | (#33916300)

Are you actually trashing Peter Jackson for tearing LoTR to shreds? It was one of the most faithful film adaptations ever - the reason for its success. You're in to films way too much, dude, you need to take a break.

Native 3D (1)

TarMil (1623915) | about 4 years ago | (#33915790)

At least it will be *shot* in 3D, not postprocessed into 3D. It has a chance not to look like crap.

Re:Native 3D (1)

bonch (38532) | about 4 years ago | (#33916108)

Because of the foreshortening technique used to make the Hobbit actors shorter than everyone else, I doubt there won't be a ton of postprocessing.

3D Glasses and cgi plates! Blunt the eyes and bend (4, Funny)

assemblerex (1275164) | about 4 years ago | (#33915806)

the story! That's what Bilbo Baggins hates!!

Dammit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33915810)

And there's another good story ruined by things flying at the camera for no good reason.

getting sick of hollywoods hardon for 3d.

It got old in the 80's... Let it go already.

New Game (3, Informative)

LKWPETER (1913886) | about 4 years ago | (#33915812)

lets count how often Gandalf, for no reason at all, holds his staff to the camera. AND ITS ALL DUDES! what benefit does 3D have if i dont get any 3D boobies?

Re:New Game (2, Funny)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | about 4 years ago | (#33915896)

AND ITS ALL DUDES! what benefit does 3D have if i dont get any 3D boobies?

I'm pretty sure Bombour will be at least a D-cup...

Re:New Game (1)

bonch (38532) | about 4 years ago | (#33916058)

Don't worry, Peter Jackson wants to make it two films, with the first film being the Hobbit we know and the second film being an entirely brand new piece of fiction not written by Tolkien. I'm sure it'll be chock full of bullshit that looks cool.

Re:New Game (1)

Fizzl (209397) | about 4 years ago | (#33916182)

I'm all for it!
Movie directed by Peter Jackson -- chock full of bullshit that looks cool -- sounds awesome!

STOP THIS 3D SHIT ASAP (1)

acedotcom (998378) | about 4 years ago | (#33915844)

Gimmicks do not make the movie better
Simulating an extra dimension does not make the film more fun, it just adds an extra level of hassle to something you should just be able to sit down and enjoy.
If you are the guy that goes to 3d movies, stop it. You are just making it worse for everyone.
I I dont wear regular glasses....So I am not bitching about headaches. I just want to see an nice big screen with a nice bright picture. Not a bunch of bullshit gimmicks "flying" out of the screen because I am too lazy to go to another theatre with cheaper tickets or too stupid to care.
God damn this 3d shit really grinds my fucking gears.

Re:STOP THIS 3D SHIT ASAP (1)

vadim_t (324782) | about 4 years ago | (#33915988)

If you are the guy that goes to 3d movies, stop it. You are just making it worse for everyone.

No. I will go to watch whatever I want because I like it. Your opinion is irrelevant. You go whatever you like, though.

I I dont wear regular glasses....So I am not bitching about headaches. I just want to see an nice big screen with a nice bright picture. Not a bunch of bullshit gimmicks "flying" out of the screen because I am too lazy to go to another theatre with cheaper tickets or too stupid to care.

Actually, I agree stuff flying out of the screen is stupid. It's more interesting when used in a more subtle way like in Avatar and UP.

But it's like with video and then sound itself. At first it was "Look, I filmed a person sneezing!" (one of the first video recordings, seriously) and "Hey, there's SOUND!!!". Then some years later people finally got tired of that and came up with something really interesting to do with the tech.

FTA... (5, Interesting)

Krokus (88121) | about 4 years ago | (#33915938)

Weta Digital in Wellington was heavily involved in 3-D visual effects for James Cameron's Avatar and is also working in 3-D for the first Tintin film, directed by Steven Spielberg.

wtf?

Re:FTA... (1)

MavEtJu (241979) | about 4 years ago | (#33916142)

Can't wait for it. Let's hope they do all episodes, specially the ones about the moon-expedition. Best rocket ever!

First one to say the word after 49 posts (2, Funny)

niktemadur (793971) | about 4 years ago | (#33915960)

Smaug!

Anyone else (3, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | about 4 years ago | (#33916018)

get the feeling that Hollywood is trying to shove 3D down our throats lately?

Re:Anyone else (1)

gilesjuk (604902) | about 4 years ago | (#33916194)

How do you think the world got widescreen? everyone was happy with the squarer sized films until TV came along. TV sales resulted in less people going to the cinema so they came up with widescreen ratios.

3D has been tried any times, what is new is the software and camera technology to make it work better. But it's still a gimmick and just gets in the way of making the film.

How are they going to fix the sausage fest? (2, Interesting)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 4 years ago | (#33916020)

I can't see a studio putting money into it unless there's some bullshit female character retconned in. I mean, Peter, Petey, Petey baby, does Thorin really have to be a dude? We've already spoken to Salma Hayek's agent, man, she'd be perfect for Thorina, Warrior Princess.

Jackson's directing it himself? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33916094)

The last I heard, he was going to be producing it only, with the directing done by someone else (Guillermo Del Toro maybe). Now it seems he's directing it himself.

Translation: "The last non-Tolkien movie that I directed tanked, so I figured I'd better get back to directing something that I know the fans want."

wow (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 4 years ago | (#33916106)

Movie ruined before the first frame was filmed. wtg guys.

Re:wow (1)

Lord Lode (1290856) | about 4 years ago | (#33916136)

Why oh why are they going for 3-D? I'd have more confidence in the movie if they'd gamble on its content instead of THREEDEE to make it successful.

Unnecessary (2, Insightful)

ParkedStar (1909314) | about 4 years ago | (#33916110)

I don't think I'd bother with the 3D version of the Hobbit; on a 2D screen - it is 3D enough for me. Plus I'd rather focus on the great (but complex) storyline than less-than-remarkable 3D effects or re-adjusting my glasses...

I already have every movie in 3D (2, Interesting)

houghi (78078) | about 4 years ago | (#33916224)

This is done by something wonderful called perspective. Whether done by design or by evolution is another matter.

As far as this being a new technology: from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopy [wikipedia.org]
It was first invented by Sir Charles Wheatstone in 1838

For me 3D won't be 3D until I can walk around it.

Screw this (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 4 years ago | (#33916228)

I'm glad that the Lord of the Rings was filmed when this shit didn't exist yet.

Or actually, when it existed but was not considered the holy grail of film-making.

The "right" application of 3D (1)

PietjeJantje (917584) | about 4 years ago | (#33916266)

It is not about what it adds to the movie, or not. It is about what it adds to the marketing process. Avatar was a mediocre movie if you take away the 3D and hype surrounding the movie. It was a very well played marketing event, where the masses just felt they had to see this movie. The 3D movies after that did not play this game as well. Jackson, of course, has proved he knows exactly how to play it. So this movie will be a big event, that everybody has to watch, and they will discuss the 3D, whether it is good or bad, and it won't matter, like Avatar, because those people discussing it already payed for the movie. Personally, I'm gutted Guillermo isn't going to make it, but "just" Jackson. The LOTR was excellent, but had its failings, mostly with the characters and story telling. It was a series of rollercoaster events with no depth. Jackson's weak points are Guillermo's strong points. Since the Hobbit is a smaller movie (in the sense of less rollercoasting) it would have been perfect for Guillermo, and at least very interesting considering the movies he had made in the past. I hope the Hobbit turns out well, but frankly I expect a 3D King Kong/Avatar type of movie with little depth, which, of course, will make huge amounts of money nevertheless. The 3D of course suggests Jackson will still not be concentrating on depth. I'll be happy if he manages to avoid jumping the shark. He came close sometimes in LOTR, with Legolas surfing the enormous CGI elephants, and an CGI army of the undead flooding a battle field.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?