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.
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.
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.
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)
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
