"The Hobbit" has started filming

[Darth Nader]

Wellington, NZ, March 21, 2011—Production has commenced in Wellington, New Zealand, on “The Hobbit,” filmmaker Peter Jackson’s two film adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s widely read masterpiece... The two films, with screenplays by Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Guillermo del Toro and Peter Jackson, will be shot consecutively in digital 3D using the latest camera and stereo technology. Filming will take place at Stone Street Studios, Wellington, and on location around New Zealand.

link

Yay!

[Simplicio]

I'm kinda meh on the idea of a Hobbit movie, but I'm glad they've finally started filming so that they can finish filming and Martin Freeman can go back to making more Sherlock Holmes episodes.

[Chefguy]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

I'm kinda meh on the idea of a Hobbit movie, but I'm glad they've finally started filming so that they can finish filming and Martin Freeman can go back to making more Sherlock Holmes episodes.

At least he looks like a hobbit.

[gaffa]

Finally!

Damn shame about the 3D nonsense. I'm so happy they are filming - Ian McKellen is not getting any younger.

[Hampshire]

3D? Booooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!
I'll be glad when the fad dies off the second time around.

[DMark]

Glad to hear it.
And boy, would I love to have even 1% of opening weekend box office receipts for that film...

[Lust4Life]

I'm really looking forward to it, but the problem is that when I look forward to a movie in advance (Which is not very often) it usually turns out to be incredibly disappointing.f

[Grey]

"...Shapeshifters and Sorcerers" and 3D - sigh

I will not hate this until I see it.
I will not hate this until I see it.
I will not hate this until I see it.

Ok fine, I will try not to hate this before I see it.

[What Exit?]

I'm looking forward to it but also expect to be disappointed so at least my expectations are not crazy high like they were for the "Fellowship of the Ring".

[Chefguy]

Originally Posted by gaffa

Finally!

Damn shame about the 3D nonsense. I'm so happy they are filming - Ian McKellen is not getting any younger.

Are you shitting me? Scratch that one off my theater-going list.

[Walmarticus]

Aw fuck! The trilogy was the very definition of epic, with only two dimensions. It packed about five extra dimensions of awesome.

[Eyebrows 0f Doom]

Awesome! I can't wait!

[Chimera]

For some reason I cannot help but wish that John Candy was alive to do a "3d house of Hobbits" parody along the lines of this old SCTV classic;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87WgmGHz9U4

Imagine Frodo or Gollum moving the ring toward the camera and back along with that music effect.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by Grey

"...Shapeshifters and Sorcerers" and 3D - sigh

The Hobbit has both a shapeshifter and a sorcerer. Whats the sigh for?

[The Second Stone]

I think The Hobbit could work quite nicely in 3D if it is carefully thought out. Avatar had that kind of thought put into it. (So did the recent grindhouse schlock Drive Angry.) But most movies don't benefit from it.

[Grey]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

The Hobbit has both a shapeshifter and a sorcerer. Whats the sigh for?

Because the last thing I want is for the focus of this movie to be on anyone other than Bilbo. I understand marketing is going to be for those who have no idea what "The Hobbit" is about. I understand they'll focus on special effects and likely throw in crap like the White Council assault on the Necromancer but I don't like it.

That and I'm trying to figure out how the use of 3D is going to work with the cool perspective forcing the LotR used.

[Tim R. Mortiss]

Most 3D movies are available in 2D as well. And it's the 2D version that I'll be watching. Don't need that 3D distraction!

[Jas09]

Originally Posted by Grey

Because the last thing I want is for the focus of this movie to be on anyone other than Bilbo. I understand marketing is going to be for those who have no idea what "The Hobbit" is about. I understand they'll focus on special effects and likely throw in crap like the White Council assault on the Necromancer but I don't like it.

But even if you don't add anything except what was directly in the book, you have to include the shapeshifter and the sorceror, no? It's not like Gandalf and Beorn are minor characters that should be cut out....

[jackdavinci]

Originally Posted by gaffa

Damn shame about the 3D nonsense.

Originally Posted by Chefguy

Are you shitting me? Scratch that one off my theater-going list.

I could see why someone might personally want not to see the 3D version of a movie, but not why someone would boycott the 2D version just because a 3D version also exists.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by jackdavinci

I could see why someone might personally want not to see the 3D version of a movie, but not why someone would boycott the 2D version just because a 3D version also exists.

Maybe if they keep repeating "gimmick" over and over again, someone will eventually believe them.

[Peremensoe]

A case can be made--I have occasionally attempted to make it--that the intent to present a film in 3D encourages the producer, screenwriter and director to plan and arrange scenes to maximize the use and impact of the 3D effect, rather than concentrating on the values of traditionally great films.

I know some here disagree, but I think that's exactly what happened with Avatar.

In the case of Peter Jackson and The Hobbit, I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt until it comes out. I think--I hope--that Jackson and company won't neglect the important stuff, and will visualize the scenes first and foremost in 2D.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by spark240

A case can be made--I have occasionally attempted to make it--that the intent to present a film in 3D encourages the producer, screenwriter and director to plan and arrange scenes to maximize the use and impact of the 3D effect, rather than concentrating on the values of traditionally great films.

I know some here disagree, but I think that's exactly what happened with Avatar.

Of course you're wrong, but I explain this in every thread and no one seems to have gotten the message yet.

ETA: or even came up with a counterargument to my argument that the 3d use in Avatar was exactly analogous to other explorations of the visual space in 2d sci-fi movies. they don't even respond to my well-thought out posts. Of course, the next time 3d is mentioned in any thread, the supposed gimmickyness of Avatar is brought up yet again. I don't even like the movie that much to make this worthwhile.

[The Second Stone]

I thought that Avatar didn't use 3D as a gimmick, but as a way to further immerse the audience in the set/scenary. For that reason I thought that it worked because it achieved that immersion, which I felt added to the experience. The story itself was derivative and highly unoriginal, but the presentation of the story was quite remarkable.

[Baron Greenback]

I still would like Guillermo del Toro to make these films, but Jackson will do a fine job.

[NoClueBoy]

How many movies will it take to film the Silmarillion?

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by NoClueBoy

How many movies will it take to film the Silmarillion?

I'd like to see the War of Wrath as an anime-style film. The Ainulindale, of course, is best left to the imagination. The rest of it would be doable if the writers they'd need to flesh out the story were good enough (i.e. better than the one they had for the LOTR)

[What Exit?]

Originally Posted by NoClueBoy

How many movies will it take to film the Silmarillion?

An HBO Miniseries perhaps? About 12-18 hours worth. Lets see how well Game of Thrones works out for them. They might bite if it works well.

[What Exit?]

Originally Posted by Ludovic

I'd like to see the War of Wrath as an anime-style film. The Ainulindale, of course, is best left to the imagination. The rest of it would be doable if the writers they'd need to flesh out the story were good enough (i.e. better than the one they had for the LOTR)

Good lord, you want to see anime-style War of Wrath and like 3D and you expect people to treat you seriously?

[Ludovic]

To be fair I don't think it would make all that great a 3-D anime

[The Second Stone]

I've never seen an anime I liked.

[Mahaloth]

Originally Posted by Hampshire

3D? Booooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!
I'll be glad when the fad dies off the second time around.

I assume we can go see it in 2D if we want. I assume it will screen in both.

[Peremensoe]

Originally Posted by Ludovic

Of course you're wrong, but I explain this in every thread and no one seems to have gotten the message yet.

ETA: or even came up with a counterargument to my argument that the 3d use in Avatar was exactly analogous to other explorations of the visual space in 2d sci-fi movies.

Are the analogous movies you're thinking of also "highly unoriginal," as Second Stone says? Do they or do they not have virtues of concept, theme, plot, character writing, character acting, sound, and film syntax that were lacking in Avatar?

Suppose I grant you that Avatar is a truly wonderful exploration of visual space... that, alone, isn't a quarter of the way to a good movie for me.

[The Second Stone]

It was beautiful and I've never seen anything like it before or since. If they did the same level with a good original story like The Hobbit, then that would be something. To the extent that The Hobbit was original when it was written or as presented today. It may come off as cliche, but it has potential. Of the three LOTR movies, only Fellowship stands up for me, and the extended version at that. It was truly a different world that the director took us to. Now if that same director can step his game up with The Hobbit as far as otherworldliness goes, then 3D might be an extra kick on top of that.

Of the more than a dozen recent 3d movies I've seen in the Avatar era, only Avatar and Drive Angry used it really well, and for different reasons.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by spark240

Are the analogous movies you're thinking of also "highly unoriginal," as Second Stone says? Do they or do they not have virtues of concept, theme, plot, character writing, character acting, sound, and film syntax that were lacking in Avatar?

Suppose I grant you that Avatar is a truly wonderful exploration of visual space... that, alone, isn't a quarter of the way to a good movie for me.

It's true that they used a lot of their creative power in the visual sphere: like I said, it's not my favorite movie. What isn't true is the accusation that they had to go out of their way to make 3-D a huge part of the movie. I didn't see anything that wouldn't look just as much in place in a visually stunning 2-D sci-fi movie -- all they had to do with the vast majority of the 3-D awesomeness in Avatar is just film it in 3-D.

[Peremensoe]

Originally Posted by Ludovic

What isn't true is the accusation that they had to go out of their way to make 3-D a huge part of the movie.

So you're saying that if Avatar had been conceived as a 2D film all along, the story still wouldn't have been any good?

[John DiFool]

Originally Posted by What Exit?

An HBO Miniseries perhaps? About 12-18 hours worth. Lets see how well Game of Thrones works out for them. They might bite if it works well.

Ain't gonna happen unless and until the Tolkien estate sells the rights, which they won't. I don't know when it will go public domain tho, or if that is applicable.

[The Second Stone]

If the price were right the estate might sell the rights to Jackson. They made good money off LOTR and Jackson was faithful enough to the spirit of the works they they shouldn't have been offended. JRRT originally sold the rights for 10k (US I think) and he had no objection to selling the movie rights. Prof Christopher Tolkien thinks that they got the short end of the stick, which they did, but there is no reason not to do it if the price is fair.

I'd like to see something in multi installments if they do it. It is a much longer story, but I really wonder if somebody could do it.

[What Exit?]

Originally Posted by John DiFool

Ain't gonna happen unless and until the Tolkien estate sells the rights, which they won't. I don't know when it will go public domain tho, or if that is applicable.

For a large enough amount of money and some creative over-site and if they feel HBO does a fair job on Game of Thrones the estate may well sell the rights. As to public domain, the book was published in 1973, I know as I have at least one first printing. So it will be a very long wait. Even the Hobbit has many more years.

[Grey]

Originally Posted by Jas09

But even if you don't add anything except what was directly in the book, you have to include the shapeshifter and the sorceror, no? It's not like Gandalf and Beorn are minor characters that should be cut out....

Bah! Gandalf is a wizard.

Beorn is a minor character, more or less. Similar to Barliman Butterbur from LotR - you'd never go on about "Innkeepers and evil spirits". Heck Bard and the elf king have more pages devoted to them than Beorn.

I'm also planning on being this unreasonable until I see the film after which I reserve the right to say I was simply trying to manage my expectations.

[Chefguy]

Originally Posted by jackdavinci

I could see why someone might personally want not to see the 3D version of a movie, but not why someone would boycott the 2D version just because a 3D version also exists.

If they also have 2D, I'll go. I think 3D is overpriced and a poor substitute for bad filmmaking.

[Jas09]

Originally Posted by Grey

I'm also planning on being this unreasonable until I see the film after which I reserve the right to say I was simply trying to manage my expectations.

A perfectly good reason to be unreasonable!

[C K Dexter Haven]

Originally Posted by Chefguy

If they also have 2D, I'll go. I think 3D is overpriced and a poor substitute for bad filmmaking.

Some 3D movies have been excellent, and the 3D is a visual enhancement. Yeah, it's probably a fad designed to give the movie an edge over people just waiting for the video, but it has been used very well (TOY STORY 3, for instance) to increase the dramatic and visual impact. It's very different from the 1950s bits with 3D throwing spears at the audience. Well-done 3D is more subtle.

[Chefguy]

Originally Posted by C K Dexter Haven

Some 3D movies have been excellent, and the 3D is a visual enhancement. Yeah, it's probably a fad designed to give the movie an edge over people just waiting for the video, but it has been used very well (TOY STORY 3, for instance) to increase the dramatic and visual impact. It's very different from the 1950s bits with 3D throwing spears at the audience. Well-done 3D is more subtle.

Bah! Humbug, I say! I watched Toy Story 3 on demand and found it to be charming and very well done. The absence of 3D effects (which I didn't know had been used in the film) took nothing away from it that I could see. There's no substitute for good story, good editing and good cinematography, IMO.

[What Exit?]

Actually the only recent 3D movie that really worked for me was Journey to the Center of the Earth. But this was a crappy movie that we went to see just for the 3D effects. We saw Toy Story 3 in 3D at the movies and 2D since and it was no real difference and still the weakest of the Toy Story movies. A far cry from Up! or Wall-E

[teela brown]

So, did they ever cast the Voice of Smaug?

[NoClueBoy]

Originally Posted by teela brown

So, did they ever cast the Voice of Smaug?

Sean Connery available?


Too type-casty?

[Darth Nader]

Gilbert Gottfried!

Too soon?

[What Exit?]

Originally Posted by teela brown

So, did they ever cast the Voice of Smaug?

Rumored to be Leonard Nimoy

[Eyebrows 0f Doom]

So is there a full confirmed cast list for this film yet anywhere? I'm a bit surprised Hugo Weaving still hasn't been announced since Elrond has a significant part, and I'm also curious if David Tennant is actually playing Thranduil or not.

[congodwarf]

I'm sorry if this has been covered in one of the many previous Hobbit threads but,


FRODO??? WTF?!?!?!