The Hobbit Movie: 2007

Big news here guys. The Hobbit is gonna be filmed in 2005 in New Zealand and released in '07. But here is the shocker. No Peter Jackson! I cant believe that New Line would make an Lotr film without Pete. It makes no sense what so ever. The director will be Paul Anderson(Resident Evil) who Im sure is a very capable director.
Ian Mckellen and Andy Serkis are back as well as Weta and Mark Ordesky. But I am very worried that without PJ this movie will not work. I mean the only reason for LOTR's success was because of PJ's amazing vision and he was the driving force the whole time. Ill will see it but its gonna feel really weird watching a Tolkien movie without PJ at the helm.

Are you kidding me? Paul Anderson?!?!? This movie is gonna SUCK! I mean there will be a large gap of time between ROTK and The Hobbit and they won't be able to get all the same actors or achieve the same visual style or special effects or anything with a whole new crew on the film. This is the worst idea ever. LOTR was great because Peter Jackson was a capable director. But Anderson? Almost all of his movies suck, like Resident Evil and the upcoming AVP (which may be good but probably won't). I hope this project never happens.

As many of you may know, I'm an avid Alien and Predator fan, and have been extatic about the upcoming Alien Vs. Predator movie directed by Paul Anderson. However, I think I may have to agree with TGP here. Paul Anderson thus far doesn't have a very good track record. I personally liked his film "Event Horizon", as well Resident Evil was "ok", but when you look at his others like "Mortal Kombat", and "Soldier"... we may be looking at a total flop concerning The Hobbit. I'd like to give Paul W.S. Anderson the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he'll learn from his past mistakes, and maybe as TGP insinuated, Alien Vs. Predator will show what he's learned so far. I'll be extremely peaved if AVP winds up as fodder. It would be an insult to the LOTR series if Hobbit flops.
I can't wait to see what Eddie has to say about this developement however... he should have some choice words. lol :D

- Josh

After careful deliberation, and noteing the current date... I'd like to retract my last post.

lol... ya got me. Good one rotkfan!

- Josh :D

this IS a joke, right?

if it isn't, then new line deserves every negative feedback that it gets.

IF this is a joke, than good one, rotkfan!
On a related note, fu*k April Fool's Day! I must be the most gullible person alive, for I fall for all these stupid jokes. That, or it's not a joke and I'm falling for it when it actually isn't a joke. Either way, I'm gullible and it's not nice to exploit gullible people :)
(JK, No hard feelings...)

TORN talked to New Line Cinema. The announcement has been confirmed!!!!!

It has been confirmed that it is a hoax, that is!
But there is supposed to be another announcement tomorrow (4/2),
though I am not holding my breath.

Hmmmm.........
So maybe that batmobile THINGIE is a bad dream too?

Well...

"They" are starting a letter writing (etc...) campaign. Details in a few days - bla blah blaahhh.

You sounded like Jimmy435 when he praises Lucas. :D

Paul Anderson is a god of directing.

I can't believe he hasn't received more accolades for his films. Event Horizon was great, Soldier was even better. Resident Evil showed just how well he can work both with actors and FX at the same time.

I don't see why everyone would be so concerned with him directing the Hobbit.

I think his vision could supercede our current perceptions of Jackson's trilogy as long as they gave him the funds that Jackson received.

Now, please disregard everything I just wrote.

Sean (oh crap, it's not April Fools' any more, is it?)

P.S.: any news on the REAL announcement?

Well, if anything else, this has been an entertaining thread that's lead to anarchic ambiguity. We'll have to see what this mysterious "second announcement" pans out to be. Personally, I (along with droves of other LOTR fans here) hope that a Hobbit movie "with Peter Jackson at the helm" becomes a reality. It stands to reason however that this "second announcement" will be nothing more than a public admission to the spoof. On the other hand, the conspiracist in me thinks this could all have been a publicity stunt of sorts to ascertain public interest.

"What does your heart tell you?"

- Josh

Let me explain. This was not a joke on my part. I read the so called "official" press release on theonering.net and as it turns out that was actually as you have guessed-a hoax. Although that would have been good joke I swear at the time of making this topic I had no idea. On the other hand I am very relieved Anderson is not directing. Like mra said there IS gonna be an announcment today. So maybe Pete might direct after all! We can only hope.

Could the grain issue be a compromise?
Are the bigger grain films faster or allow more saturated colors?

LOL... man, I think I may have to go after a Masters in film studies Eddie. Every time I bring up a question that I can't seem to see the solutions to (concerning film or movies)... your answers seem like they were there all the time, I just couldn't see them. Great analogy with the comic book feel in X2! I never would have thought of that. I completely understand what you were talking about with the "jerky" look in DV concerning slo-mo or fast motion, versus film. I guess I just didn't know that it was DV that was causing that. You have to love the shots that the technology "bullet time" allows though!

Concerning standard DVD's on HDTV... you're probably right, in some cases. But what about the DVD's that look flawless on my screen? I'll have to see what Big Fish looks like, and some of the other new movies releasing to DVD, and report back to you. I've been going through my collection to see if I could come up with some examples (other than X2) for both you and John... I haven't found any yet, but if you check out my library - EXTERNAL LINK - you'll see this could take a while.

Thanks Eddie.

- Josh 8)

Josh,

It's very possible with the "X-Men" movies that someone wanted the film to look like pages from a comic book. With comics, you can see the dots that are used to create colors, and you can also see the bumps of the paper's texture. Therefore, grainier film could've been used to replicate the look and feel of reading a comic book.

The strobing effect of video technology (digital and analog) occurs when you film things in fast or slow motion. When shooting with video, fast or slow motion looks jerky because video is unable to capture smooth motion. The image seems to skip every other frame (i.e. when shooting slo-mo, an object moves in large chunks rather than in small steps). However, when using film, fast and slow motion looks continuous rather than "skippy". Mind you, this is something that occurs during shooting and not when you watch things hitting the pause button every second, but even when you watch step-motion with your DVD player, you can see what I'm discussing.

Eddie

P.S. Well, tube TVs last longer than any other TV types, though different people like the looks of different TVs. I'm sure that if you're seeing "grain" with "X2" on one type of TV, then you're probably going to see it elsewhere (unless your TV is incorrectly calibrated?). Of course, you're watching DVDs with a res of 500 on an HDTV that has a res of 768? You're gonna see "faults" that aren't really faults, lol.

I agree. I had forgotten about when you told me about the differing grains. I haven't heard of the "strobe effect", what's that about? So it sounds like (at the moment) that either way, we just can't win. Either you have the grainy problems when viewed on HDTV's, or you get this "strobe effect". Don't get me wrong about standard film. There are some DVD's out there that look PHENOMINAL on my tv! I love them! It's just those few DVD's out there that because they used a larger grain film initially when filming, or the compression when transferred to DVD was horrible, or what have you that it becomes distracting as you watch, and pulls you out of the story (which would negate the point of watching the movie in the first place).

I know you've said that a lot of times directors will go with larger grain film to get that "gritty" feel to a movie... which I could understand with maybe a Western where you want it to "feel" old. However, in the movies of late (I'll keep using my standard example) such as "X2 X-men United" I feel there's no justification there. It makes me wonder if it was just the bottom line that kept them from useing a finer grain film (if that was the culpret). As I mentioned, it's just very frustrating to be pulled out of a story because something in the film distracts you. Directors seem to keep distractions down to a minimum (unless they're trying to distract you) to keep you in the movie, and keep you focused on their goal. I believe you had made mention also Eddie, that it may have something to do with projection HDTV's? I'm going to have to go to the electronics store, and check out a tube HDTV. They must be head and shoulders above projections.


- Josh :D

Yes, grain is more noticeable in some movies when compared to others, but that has to do with what type of film stock is being used (with some being grainier than others).

Currently, film is better than DV. However, when DV is able to match film's resolution one day, then I agree that DV will come into wide use with film being abandoned. (This is a matter of time and money, not necessarily an issue of whether or not DV will become "better" than film.) However, when the technologies are "comparable", then the difference becomes an issue of taste. I'm sure that DV will one day be able to capture the kind of depth that film does, but DV still has this strobe-light effect that is inherent in video technology (it can not be avoided, even with 24p or VIPER cameras). Also, some of us will always feel nostalgic about grain (even though many of you complain about it, lol).

Eddie,

Don't you mean when he praises "DV is just better"? While I acknowledge (and agree with you) that film is currently "5 times higher" (thus superior) in resolution to DV, I do agree with Jimmy (which I do loosely) on the fact that DV will EVENTUALLY become a better medium and higher in resolution than film. While this may not come about until a few years (or more) after HDDVD is in full swing, I believe it will happen.

BTW Eddie, did we come to the conclusion on the "grainy" discussion that it was a fault of compression? Meaning that in some movie's it's more noticible than in others on DVD?

- Josh 8)

In general, film stock that work better in low light conditions are granier than film used for bright conditions.

I'll have to go back and look at my Tim Burton DVD's to see if that rings true. If anyone's movies are "dark" (both figurative and literal) Tim's are.


- Josh

Josh,

"Bullet Time" in "The Matrix" was shot on film, though. I think that the whole series was shot on film!

As for some movies looking "flawless"...again, it could be that people in charge of video mastering are making movies "too clean" to the point of making it look like DV instead of film.

Eddie

P.S. By the way, getting a Master's in Film Studies or in Film Production won't really teach you about film grain/video/etc. This information is actually floating around the Internet and in industry magazines like "American Cinematographer", and all you have to do is apply what you learn in real life to what you see in movies. :)

I dunno, it all looks pretty real to me--especially during that battle arena scene during "Star Wars 2".

:D

Good question, Nacht, and the answer probably lies in how differing people react to the situation. But does an automobile mechanic's knowing the intricacies of a car engine spoil his driving experience? Does a stage makeup artist applying makeup to actors' faces diminish his or her enjoyment of watching a play? Does analyzing a movie detract from one's appreciation of the movie? I doubt it. Most of the actors I've known enjoy watching performances, no matter how much behind-the-scenes knowledge they have. We all suspend our disbelief, to one degree or another.

John

I don't know, it seems the more I know about the technology, and secrets to "the magic" it tends to detract from it. I guess that comes back to the old addage "ignorance is bliss". I worked for a video game company for a couple of years (we also did some SFX for movies), and got to see a lot of "how it all works". In a lot of ways it sort of ruined movie watching for me. Where I used to think "how'd they do that?" now I can see a lot (if not all) of the flaws when it comes to CG. I've often wondered that about directors, actors, or anyone else working intricately within movies, if it ruins watching movies for them now.

Whoa! Just mentioning Jimmy's name starts the DV debate all over again!

Now for my two cents on the subject:
Hologram is better! Case closed.

Sean (I feel like Pavlov's dog at the sound of the ringing bell!) ;)

It's kind of funny to me to think that a director watching a movie might be sitting in the theater thinking to himself... "I would have shot that at an entirely different angle", or "what kind of crap shot was that?!"

- Josh

This could help get "The Hobbit" off the ground (faster than an eagle)
According to Yahoo! news......
"With Sony apparently unable to construct a final offer for MGM, it's looking increasingly likely that Time Warner will swoop in and grab the prize."
- EXTERNAL LINK -

So, Warner, who "owns" New line, could end up with MGM. Since New Line and MGM both own certain rights to "The Hobbit", this deal would make the making of "The Hobbit" much more likely. 8)

8).............................................................................8)..............................................................8)

i dont think this will come even close to the lotr trilogy. when i read the books, i always felt like the hobbit was more of a kid-oriented story. it doesn't have much action, and is very short. it actually seemed more along the lines of an extremely long bedtime story, or an animated disney movie to me(. And besides, without peter jackson, whats the point? i think this is just company executives trying to make a quick buck by riding right on the coat tails of the lotr trilogy.

PJ could still do it.8)
8)