What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Peter Jackson to make The Hobbit (3 Viewers)

Anyone know if Legolas is just going to be a cameo or a decent sized part?
legolas was not in the hobbit. actually, it was odd that an elf who lacked lineage, was sent to accompany the fellowship.
Legolas was a prince at the time of The Fellowship of the Ring. Similar in stature and lineage to Boromir who represented Gondor as son of the Stweard of Gondor.
legolas greenleaf was a 'lesser' wood elven prince. there were billions of noldorian 'high' elves in rivendell at the time of the council. it was odd that he was selected to defend all of middle earth from evil.boromir was the heir to the stewardship of gondor and considered the second most powerful human in middle earth. (aragorn was in exile and had not claimed the kingship yet)
[tolkien nerd]I think 'high' elves were those who had been to Valinor and returned to Middle Earth during the Wars against Morgoth and for the silmarils. Not many of them likely remained at the time of LOTR (Galadriel, Celeborn, Cirdan, Elrond, Gildor Inglorion, Glorfindel were the only named ones).Regardless, I agree that Legolas showing up was rather strange - as the elves of Mirkwood were very different from those of Rivendell/Gray Havens/Lothlorien and it seemed out of character for any of them to care about the happenings elsewhere.[/tolkien nerd]
Huge :nerd: alertThranduil was a Sindar Elf (those "high" elves who didn't go to Valinor). After Beleriand was destroyed at the end of the first age, he traveled east with his father to Mirkwood where there was a settlement of Silvan elves. They took his father as lord and Thranduil took up the rule when his father was killed during the Last Alliance. He adopted the Silvan language for everyday use since the vast majority of his subjects were Silvan but he himself (& Legolas) was of a higher race of elves (Celeborn was another Sindar).The reason Legolas went to Rivendell was that Thranduil felt threatened by the rise of Sauron (same reason Gloin & Gimli were in Rivendell) and was seeking advice. Before (& during) the Council, there was no plan to have Legolas (& Gimli & Merry &...) form a company to take the Ring to Mordor (though I think Elrond was nudging things that way). Some of those that volunteered to go did so spur-of-the-moment (such as Legolas & Gimli; also Merry & Pippin were almost left out).In any case, Legolas was one of the dozen or two most "royal" elves in Middle Earth at the time (at least, of those that were named). The films didn't really do a good job of explaining the background dynamic that went into the Council due to time contraints, I suppose, but it also would have been boring as hell on the screen.
IIRC, I thought one of the characters (in the books) asked why not just send a dozen or so High Elves on the quest...to which Gandalf said that the goodness or light that emanates from them would be a beacon to Sauron. He'd have no trouble finding them.
 
Anyone know if Legolas is just going to be a cameo or a decent sized part?
legolas was not in the hobbit. actually, it was odd that an elf who lacked lineage, was sent to accompany the fellowship.
Legolas was a prince at the time of The Fellowship of the Ring. Similar in stature and lineage to Boromir who represented Gondor as son of the Stweard of Gondor.
legolas greenleaf was a 'lesser' wood elven prince. there were billions of noldorian 'high' elves in rivendell at the time of the council. it was odd that he was selected to defend all of middle earth from evil.boromir was the heir to the stewardship of gondor and considered the second most powerful human in middle earth. (aragorn was in exile and had not claimed the kingship yet)
[tolkien nerd]I think 'high' elves were those who had been to Valinor and returned to Middle Earth during the Wars against Morgoth and for the silmarils. Not many of them likely remained at the time of LOTR (Galadriel, Celeborn, Cirdan, Elrond, Gildor Inglorion, Glorfindel were the only named ones).Regardless, I agree that Legolas showing up was rather strange - as the elves of Mirkwood were very different from those of Rivendell/Gray Havens/Lothlorien and it seemed out of character for any of them to care about the happenings elsewhere.[/tolkien nerd]
Huge :nerd: alertThranduil was a Sindar Elf (those "high" elves who didn't go to Valinor). After Beleriand was destroyed at the end of the first age, he traveled east with his father to Mirkwood where there was a settlement of Silvan elves. They took his father as lord and Thranduil took up the rule when his father was killed during the Last Alliance. He adopted the Silvan language for everyday use since the vast majority of his subjects were Silvan but he himself (& Legolas) was of a higher race of elves (Celeborn was another Sindar).The reason Legolas went to Rivendell was that Thranduil felt threatened by the rise of Sauron (same reason Gloin & Gimli were in Rivendell) and was seeking advice. Before (& during) the Council, there was no plan to have Legolas (& Gimli & Merry &...) form a company to take the Ring to Mordor (though I think Elrond was nudging things that way). Some of those that volunteered to go did so spur-of-the-moment (such as Legolas & Gimli; also Merry & Pippin were almost left out).In any case, Legolas was one of the dozen or two most "royal" elves in Middle Earth at the time (at least, of those that were named). The films didn't really do a good job of explaining the background dynamic that went into the Council due to time contraints, I suppose, but it also would have been boring as hell on the screen.
IIRC, I thought one of the characters (in the books) asked why not just send a dozen or so High Elves on the quest...to which Gandalf said that the goodness or light that emanates from them would be a beacon to Sauron. He'd have no trouble finding them.
You also have to remember that Sauron was in fact The Necromancer who took up residence in (IIRC) Dol Gulder....a fortress in Mirkwood. The Mirkwood Elves would have naturally been concerned. Some of that will be touched on in The Hobbit.
 
At 51 seconds of the trailer, who is the human on the right? Looks a bit like Aragorn but I don't think he is in this movie...

Anyone know if Legolas is just going to be a cameo or a decent sized part? Bloom is listed for the first movie but not the second from what I can see on IMDB
I'm sure he will be in it, but only a small part. His father is Thranduil, King of the Woodland Realm of Northern Mirkwood, also known as the 'Elvinking' in The Hobbit. The Dwarves spend some time in their prison after being captured in Mirkwood. He will likely show up next to his father when he addresses the dwarves although he is not mentioned in The Hobbit, he was certainly alive at the time.
I can't figure out who that person is at 51 seconds. It looks like it is the intro. meeting of characters at Bag End, but there were no Men there in the book, just Gandalf and the dwarves and Bilbo. Perhaps a new character, who knows.
Thorin Oakenshield
No. Thorin doesn't enter the frame until :54 or so. This guy is 2-3 spots to the left of Thorin.
Right, it is definitely not Thorin. The guy is huge in comparison to the Dwarves and looks like a human.
The guys at theonering.net have screencapped every scene. They say this is Kili. Thorin looks more human than some of the other dwarves and Kili is his nephew. Looks to me in the screencap linked below that Kili is standing much closer to the camera than the other two, making him look larger. Also, I think the other two are sitting down.My link

 
So I'm not really into the whole story but I did see the LOTR trilogy a few years ago. What is the Hobbit in relation to those movies?
Its the story of how Frodo's Uncle (the guy who had the big birthday celebration and then left to go see the elves) found the One ring.
 
Anyone know if Legolas is just going to be a cameo or a decent sized part?
legolas was not in the hobbit. actually, it was odd that an elf who lacked lineage, was sent to accompany the fellowship.
Legolas was a prince at the time of The Fellowship of the Ring. Similar in stature and lineage to Boromir who represented Gondor as son of the Stweard of Gondor.
legolas greenleaf was a 'lesser' wood elven prince. there were billions of noldorian 'high' elves in rivendell at the time of the council. it was odd that he was selected to defend all of middle earth from evil.boromir was the heir to the stewardship of gondor and considered the second most powerful human in middle earth. (aragorn was in exile and had not claimed the kingship yet)
[tolkien nerd]I think 'high' elves were those who had been to Valinor and returned to Middle Earth during the Wars against Morgoth and for the silmarils. Not many of them likely remained at the time of LOTR (Galadriel, Celeborn, Cirdan, Elrond, Gildor Inglorion, Glorfindel were the only named ones).[/tolkien nerd]
those noldrian elves did have descendants, arwen, Elladan and Elrohir, for example. elrond, who was born in the early 3rd age, son of celeborn and galadrial, participated the battle of the last alliance.
I thought Elrond was half elven?
 
At 51 seconds of the trailer, who is the human on the right? Looks a bit like Aragorn but I don't think he is in this movie...

Anyone know if Legolas is just going to be a cameo or a decent sized part? Bloom is listed for the first movie but not the second from what I can see on IMDB
I'm sure he will be in it, but only a small part. His father is Thranduil, King of the Woodland Realm of Northern Mirkwood, also known as the 'Elvinking' in The Hobbit. The Dwarves spend some time in their prison after being captured in Mirkwood. He will likely show up next to his father when he addresses the dwarves although he is not mentioned in The Hobbit, he was certainly alive at the time.
I can't figure out who that person is at 51 seconds. It looks like it is the intro. meeting of characters at Bag End, but there were no Men there in the book, just Gandalf and the dwarves and Bilbo. Perhaps a new character, who knows.
Thorin Oakenshield
No. Thorin doesn't enter the frame until :54 or so. This guy is 2-3 spots to the left of Thorin.
Right, it is definitely not Thorin. The guy is huge in comparison to the Dwarves and looks like a human.
The guys at theonering.net have screencapped every scene. They say this is Kili. Thorin looks more human than some of the other dwarves and Kili is his nephew. Looks to me in the screencap linked below that Kili is standing much closer to the camera than the other two, making him look larger. Also, I think the other two are sitting down.My link
Great thanks! I had posted earlier wondering if it was a camera angle that caused him to look human sized.
 
Anyone know if Legolas is just going to be a cameo or a decent sized part?
legolas was not in the hobbit. actually, it was odd that an elf who lacked lineage, was sent to accompany the fellowship.
Legolas was a prince at the time of The Fellowship of the Ring. Similar in stature and lineage to Boromir who represented Gondor as son of the Stweard of Gondor.
legolas greenleaf was a 'lesser' wood elven prince. there were billions of noldorian 'high' elves in rivendell at the time of the council. it was odd that he was selected to defend all of middle earth from evil.boromir was the heir to the stewardship of gondor and considered the second most powerful human in middle earth. (aragorn was in exile and had not claimed the kingship yet)
[tolkien nerd]I think 'high' elves were those who had been to Valinor and returned to Middle Earth during the Wars against Morgoth and for the silmarils. Not many of them likely remained at the time of LOTR (Galadriel, Celeborn, Cirdan, Elrond, Gildor Inglorion, Glorfindel were the only named ones).[/tolkien nerd]
those noldrian elves did have descendants, arwen, Elladan and Elrohir, for example. elrond, who was born in the early 3rd age, son of celeborn and galadrial, participated the battle of the last alliance.
I thought Elrond was half elven?
It is complicated. Here is the explanation from wiki
Although Elrond was considered half-elven, that was not meant to be an exact percentage value; he and his brother Elros were also descended from the Maiar, angelic beings who had come to Middle-earth thousands of years before. Elrond, along with his parents, his brother, and his children, were granted a choice between Elven or human fates by the Valar. Elrond chose to travel into the West and live as an immortal Elf, while his twin Elros chose mortality.
 
I thought Elrond was half elven?
Sorta. His dad (Earendil) was half human/half elf. His mom (Elwing) was half elf/half Maia (demigods). The Halfelven refers more to the fact that he and his brother were given a choice by the Valar to choose a race to belong to. Elros chose human and became king of the Dundedain (Aragorn from LOTR is his descendent). Elrond chose to be an elf and became immortal. His kids also have the same choice (Arwen chooses mortality to be with Aragorn).
 
‘The Hobbit’ might look a little too good

As you may know, Peter Jackson is directing his two ‘Lord of the Rings’ prequels in 3D and at 48 frames per second, twice the old standard of 24 frames per second. ‘The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey’ will be the first major movie filmed at this rate.

Well today he screened 10 minutes of footage at CinemaCon in Las Vegas, and according to some, it sorta sucked. Because now the images are actually too crisp and clear, and it doesn’t look like a movie any more.

Devin Faraci on Badass Digest says:

“…it has that soap opera look you get from badly calibrated TVs at Best Buy. The footage I saw looked terrible … completely non-cinematic. The sets looked like sets … sets don’t even look like sets when you’re on them live, but these looked like sets. The magical illusion of cinema is stripped away completely.”

A reporter from Variety (via IndieWire) was slightly kinder:

“…a thing to behold. Totally different experience. Not all will like the change. 48 fps has an immediacy that is almost jarring … unfortunately, (it also) looks a bit like television.”

Jim Vejvoda of IGN Movies said this:

"I didn't go into CinemaCon expecting to write anything less than great things about The Hobbit, but the very aesthetic chosen by Peter Jackson has made me very nervous about this film. It just looked ... cheap, like a videotaped or live TV version of Lord of the Rings...I still have hope for The Hobbit, but I'd be lying if I didn't say my expectations for the film have now been greatly diminished."

Heres an article with more details: http://movies.ign.com/articles/122/1223523p1.html

 
I saw the article the other day. Could someone explain the difference between the 24 vs. 48 frames per second and how that might make it look cheap?

 
I saw the article the other day. Could someone explain the difference between the 24 vs. 48 frames per second and how that might make it look cheap?
Extremely vivid. Crisp.Imperfections are easily seen. Colors are exacting. More unforgiving visuals.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Shooting the film in 48 is a huge mistake. The consequence will be huge. The sets will look fake.

What a bad decision that was...

 
I saw the article the other day. Could someone explain the difference between the 24 vs. 48 frames per second and how that might make it look cheap?
Next time you're in or near a store that sells TV, look at the most expensive TVs and you'll know immediately when you see it. It sucks. And I'm sure there is a way to convert it to 24 fps once he realizes it sucks and/or that people don't like it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From Grantland, Jackson talks about the negative press of the 24 FPS

Last week a bit of an uproar broke out over the advance footage of The Hobbit that Peter Jackson screened at CinemaCon. The issue in question is that The Hobbit — the adaptation of the Tolkien classic that Jackson is splitting into two movies — is being shot not in the standard 24 frames per second, but in a revolutionary, groundbreaking, first-of-its-kind 48 frames per second. As E! helpfully explains, “Despite his declaration that the new frame rate would offer up hyper-real visuals with a clarity and depth audiences don't get at 24 fps, providing a richer, more immersive big-screen experience, several film exhibitors and bloggers felt 48 fps wasn't ‘cinematic’ enough in the vein of his Lord of the Rings trilogy, comparing it to the crisp imagery people find on a hi-def television set.” A round of preemptive griping and groaning ensued, and a nation of Tolkien obsessives waited, hopefully, for Jackson to bow down to their technical expertise and remedy the error of his ways. But nope. Uh-uh. Petey Jackson ain’t having it.Responding this weekend, Jackson totally shot the detractors down, in his own pleasingly calm manner: “At first it's unusual because you've never seen a movie like this before. It's literally a new experience, but you know, that doesn't last the entire experience of the film — not by any stretch, [just] 10 minutes or so. That's a different experience than if you see a fast-cutting montage at a technical presentation.” Also, as with Lord of the Rings, there will be “extensive digital grading” done on “The Hobbit, to make it consistent and give it the feeling of otherworldliness — to get the mood, the tone, the feel of the different scenes.” And, to the point: “There can only ever be a real reaction, a truthful reaction, when people actually have a chance to see a complete narrative on a particular film.”Come on. Did you nerds really think you could rattle Peter Jackson? The guy has already been through the fanboy wringer in the most immense way on three Lord of the Rings movies, not to mention adaptations of such variety as King Kong and The Lovely Bones. At this point, nearly four decades in the game, he’s heard nitpicky criticism from superfans about everything. And, surely, he knows that this is only the beginning for The Hobbit’s complaint cycle, and that — out there, somewhere — there’s a general ticket-buying audience just living their lives, blissfully ignorant about frame rates. Oh, and one last thing — as to those who still won’t be convinced that 48 fps is the superior technique, even with his "wait and see" promises? What say you then, Pete? "I can't say anything ... Just like I can't say anything to someone who doesn't like fish. You can't explain why fish tastes great and why they should enjoy it." Or, in other words: Seriously, you guys, shut the eff up for now.
 
Is this the same as the soap opera effect on lcds? Returned my LCD for a plasma because of that.
I don't think so. I believe that has more to do with refresh rate, but I'm certainly no expert.I think (hope) it will be fine. You can make 48fps still look cinematic with your style. People are worried it will look to much like "video" (aka tv shows), but I believe that shows like Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead are shot on video and they still look very cinematic.24fps has run its course anyway. It's just what people had gotten used to just like they do with any change in video format. Unintentional motion blur and all that nonsense aren't stylistic, they're a technological limitation that can now be overcome.
 
I think the following statement Jackson made will make the film look much different than what people saw during the clip that likely has not gone through this post processing yet.

"Also, as with Lord of the Rings, there will be “extensive digital grading” done on “The Hobbit, to make it consistent and give it the feeling of otherworldliness — to get the mood, the tone, the feel of the different scenes.”

 
This doesn't make me want to see it any less, in fact, if anything its had the opposite effect. Now I want to see what this 48 fps hubbub is all about.

 
Is this the same as the soap opera effect on lcds? Returned my LCD for a plasma because of that.
Yes, based on the complaints, that's what they're talking about.And Thrones is shot with a Arri Alexas, which while digital, have a more cinematic look than most digital cameras.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seem like I read that theaters will have to upgrade projectors to take advantage of the 48fps tech. If so, how does it appear on the older projectors?

 
I was at CinemaCon and saw the Hobbit footage. I saw exactly what people are talking about. I agree that it felt like a made for tv movie in that you could "feel" that it was fake. Gandalf shuffling through a cave felt like the tv show Land of the Lost.

I'm still hopeful though and chalked it up to lack of post production as Jackson explained before it showed. He said the only reasons 24 fps started was because it was the least amount of frames so it wasn't jittery and still balanced the high cost of film (less film used) back in the day.

I've always been annoyed by ghosting and blurry images in quickly changing scenes, especially as the editing cuts are sometimes too numerous IMO. It's time for the upgrade in fps as the technology is there as most theatres are converted to digital projectors.

 
I'm still hopeful though and chalked it up to lack of post production as Jackson explained before it showed.
I think this is definitely it. He stated in an interview I linked above that the movie still has to go through post processing which will add extensive digital grading which is going to make it look and feel more "grainy" for lack of a better term.
 
Is this the same as the soap opera effect on lcds? Returned my LCD for a plasma because of that.
I don't think so. I believe that has more to do with refresh rate, but I'm certainly no expert.I think (hope) it will be fine. You can make 48fps still look cinematic with your style. People are worried it will look to much like "video" (aka tv shows), but I believe that shows like Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead are shot on video and they still look very cinematic.24fps has run its course anyway. It's just what people had gotten used to just like they do with any change in video format. Unintentional motion blur and all that nonsense aren't stylistic, they're a technological limitation that can now be overcome.
I was at CinemaCon and saw the Hobbit footage. I saw exactly what people are talking about. I agree that it felt like a made for tv movie in that you could "feel" that it was fake. Gandalf shuffling through a cave felt like the tv show Land of the Lost. I'm still hopeful though and chalked it up to lack of post production as Jackson explained before it showed. He said the only reasons 24 fps started was because it was the least amount of frames so it wasn't jittery and still balanced the high cost of film (less film used) back in the day. I've always been annoyed by ghosting and blurry images in quickly changing scenes, especially as the editing cuts are sometimes too numerous IMO. It's time for the upgrade in fps as the technology is there as most theatres are converted to digital projectors.
I agree with both of these. Thanks for the first hand report. I personally believe that the post-processing will probably "fix" a lot of what I was reading about. The rest, some of it is just hating change for any reason, or hanging on to the 24 for nostalgic reasons. Sounds like people complaining about HD because they can see the pimple that was covered up on the actor's face.
 
If you've watched the Appendecies to the LOTR DVDs, you'll know that Jackson and crew put in some heavy, heavy post-production work. And that was 10 years ago. I can't imagine that technology isn't much better now for this sort of thing and that Jackson won't use it to make this film look amazing (say whatever you want about the LOTR films, but they looked fantastic).

 
If you've watched the Appendecies to the LOTR DVDs, you'll know that Jackson and crew put in some heavy, heavy post-production work. And that was 10 years ago. I can't imagine that technology isn't much better now for this sort of thing and that Jackson won't use it to make this film look amazing (say whatever you want about the LOTR films, but they looked fantastic).
I likes all of them. :shrug:
 
Two Hobbit films have just become three Hobbit films. :)
Better include pretty much everything from the book then, or it'll look like a money grab.Lord of the Rings trilogy (3 books)- 3 movies

The Hobbit (1 book)- 3 movies

:confused:
LOTR could have been 5 quality films, no doubt. Heck there was like an additional films worth (2+ hours) on the extended version when they were working/scripting with constraints.

And additional 40+ minutes on the normal version which caused two films to go 20 minutes over the 3-hour mark.

They probably dont want any of the Hobbit films to go over 3 hours.

 
Two Hobbit films have just become three Hobbit films. :)
Better include pretty much everything from the book then, or it'll look like a money grab.Lord of the Rings trilogy (3 books)- 3 movies

The Hobbit (1 book)- 3 movies

:confused:
:goodposting:

and it's not even a long book, IIRC.

eta: the wife just saw a preview for it and thought it looked great, fwiw.
I'm reading The Hobbit now, just started last week. And it's only 300 pages in small papaerback. How are they going to extract 3 movies out of so little content? Maybe it's actually a lot of action but it looks short.
 
Two Hobbit films have just become three Hobbit films. :)
Better include pretty much everything from the book then, or it'll look like a money grab.Lord of the Rings trilogy (3 books)- 3 movies

The Hobbit (1 book)- 3 movies

:confused:
:goodposting:

and it's not even a long book, IIRC.

eta: the wife just saw a preview for it and thought it looked great, fwiw.
I'm reading The Hobbit now, just started last week. And it's only 300 pages in small papaerback. How are they going to extract 3 movies out of so little content? Maybe it's actually a lot of action but it looks short.
100 pages per movie? :lmao: Looks like with the extra characters that have been added, Jackson is going to explore Gandalf's adventures against the Necromancer while the Hobbits are crossing Mirkwood. He could get a movie out of that I bet.

 
Two Hobbit films have just become three Hobbit films. :)
Better include pretty much everything from the book then, or it'll look like a money grab.Lord of the Rings trilogy (3 books)- 3 movies

The Hobbit (1 book)- 3 movies

:confused:
:goodposting:

and it's not even a long book, IIRC.

eta: the wife just saw a preview for it and thought it looked great, fwiw.
I'm reading The Hobbit now, just started last week. And it's only 300 pages in small papaerback. How are they going to extract 3 movies out of so little content? Maybe it's actually a lot of action but it looks short.
Id imagine the fight scenes alone could be extended quite a bit in a movie setting - maybe out of necessity.Also there is rumored to be a lot added to Beorn, Radagast and the Sylvan Elves.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
more hobbit = more awesome.isnt Aragorn in the movie but not in the book? Im thinking Jackson added alot and that's fine with me
Aragorn is not in the movie. There was talk about it late last year but nothing came of it. Viggo said he would do it if something gets planned but it might be too late now. Jackson went deep into the hundreds of pages notes and appendicies written later by Tolkien. This won't just be based on the single book The Hobbit
 
Two Hobbit films have just become three Hobbit films. :)
Better include pretty much everything from the book then, or it'll look like a money grab.Lord of the Rings trilogy (3 books)- 3 movies

The Hobbit (1 book)- 3 movies

:confused:
:goodposting:

and it's not even a long book, IIRC.

eta: the wife just saw a preview for it and thought it looked great, fwiw.
I'm reading The Hobbit now, just started last week. And it's only 300 pages in small papaerback. How are they going to extract 3 movies out of so little content? Maybe it's actually a lot of action but it looks short.
Id imagine the fight scenes alone could be extended quite a bit in a movie setting - maybe out of necessity.Also there is rumored to be a lot added to Beorn, Radagast and the Sylvan Elves.
I read somewhere that the movie(s?) will go beyond the book and bridge the time between "The Hobbit" and "Fellowship".
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top