The Hobbit Page 41

  • Page

    of 52 First / Last

  • nickthegun 3 Jan 2013 12:48:53 59,452 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    To be honest, when you look at his back catalogue, its a fucking miracle that miramax gave him three movies and a huge mag of cash to make lord of the rings.

    Absolutely nothing on his CV says he could pull that off (Yes, heavenly creatures is great and the frighteners is ok but still)

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • Buztafen 3 Jan 2013 12:49:51 16,176 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    God help us if Man of Steel turns out to be 3 hours long...;)
  • nickthegun 3 Jan 2013 12:50:33 59,452 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    It will be closer to three than two, im sure.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • disusedgenius 3 Jan 2013 12:50:41 5,283 posts
    Seen 20 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    It's about ego.
    Nah, I think you're over thinking it. It's usually just a lack of studio control over the directors. Studios want short films to squeeze more money from the viewings, directors want what's best for the story. With all the success of DC box sets and things the current trend has just shifted a bit.
  • MrE26 3 Jan 2013 12:52:33 1,930 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    King Kong drags like fuck, & he even put out an extended edition later on. It was his dream project though, & after LotR he was basically given free reign to do whatever the fuck he wanted.

    I didn't have any problems with The Hobbit's pacing though, but i do love the extended versions of LotR. It takes a while to get going, & it could have easily lost a good 20-30 minutes at the start without negatively impacting the film, but boredom was never an issue for me.
  • Buztafen 3 Jan 2013 12:53:18 16,176 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    It will be closer to three than two, im sure.
    Most likely, but how long can it actually take to put on a blue onesie and a cape?
  • kalel 3 Jan 2013 12:53:28 86,962 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    To be honest, when you look at his back catalogue, its a fucking miracle that miramax gave him three movies and a huge mag of cash to make lord of the rings.

    Absolutely nothing on his CV says he could pull that off (Yes, heavenly creatures is great and the frighteners is ok but still)
    They didn't really tbh. He went to them with a treatment for two films, which then became one. Then New Line came into the picture.
  • kalel 3 Jan 2013 12:54:40 86,962 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    It's about ego.
    Nah, I think you're over thinking it. It's usually just a lack of studio control over the directors. Studios want short films to squeeze more money from the viewings, directors want what's best for the story. With all the success of DC box sets and things the current trend has just shifted a bit.
    Nah, I think you're romantising it. Best for the storylol.
  • disusedgenius 3 Jan 2013 12:59:47 5,283 posts
    Seen 20 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    Nah, I think you're romantising it. Best for the storylol.
    Ah sure, bad phrase to use. I do mean it in a more straightforward way though. They're getting paid to get the script filmed - you spend all that time filming it you're not going to want to cut more than you have to (moreso if you wrote it as well).

    Edited by disusedgenius at 13:00:15 03-01-2013
  • kalel 3 Jan 2013 13:01:46 86,962 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Buztafen wrote:
    God help us if Man of Steel turns out to be 3 hours long...;)
    It probably will with Nolan and Sneider on board, especially as it seems to fancy itself as a Malick-esque meditation on existence judging from the trailer.

    The Donner original is just over two hours and that's a true epic movie, with three distinct acts each with its own setting, cast and soundtrack. It just about justifies its length, although in truth it drags a bit in the first couple of acts. It could probably lose 15 minutes or so.

    I'll probably enjoy the new one being long if its good just because I like Superman, but that won't mean I'll protest how it somehow had to be that long.
  • kalel 3 Jan 2013 13:08:04 86,962 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    ...you spend all that time filming it you're not going to want to cut more than you have to (moreso if you wrote it as well).
    There's a bit of that, but I think there's a bit of ego as well. Nolan in particular clearly fancies himself as the next Kubrick, and I'm certain his idea of himself influences his approach, and the length of his films is a part of that.

    Jackson perhaps not so much, although I still think there's an element of it with him as well.
  • Deckard1 3 Jan 2013 13:09:07 27,703 posts
    Seen 58 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Invincible homersexual guy with every super power known to man flies about a bit, works at a paper, falls in love with a man lady, has some green magic rocks that kill him thrown at him, they don't kill him because he's all invincible and shit so he flies about a bit more. The end. I see no reason for it to be any more than 17 minutes long.

    Edited by Deckard1 at 13:10:01 03-01-2013

    Hush you ponce

  • mrpon 3 Jan 2013 13:13:14 28,755 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Deckard1 wrote:
    Invincible homer

    Give yourself 5 or gig, you're worth it.

  • Deckard1 3 Jan 2013 13:17:49 27,703 posts
    Seen 58 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    My phone actually suggested that, yet it doesn't suggest homosexual. Which is strange.

    Hush you ponce

  • Feanor 3 Jan 2013 13:43:31 14,144 posts
    Seen 59 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Mola_Ram wrote:
    Speaking of Jackson, more people should see his earlier stuff. I'm not just talking about bad taste, but other film fanboy stuff like Forgotten Silver. It's sensational.
    I only saw that recently on DVD, (and it was great) but I remember the controversy when it first was shown on NZ TV because a lot of people got spitting mad when they found out it was a mockumentary.
  • LeoliansBro 3 Jan 2013 13:54:03 43,815 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I wonder how much of the 3x3 hour film structure was a studio thing, rather than Jackson.

    Just wondering.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • nickthegun 3 Jan 2013 13:58:26 59,452 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Apparently, the order came quite late. I was reading an interview with Martin Freeman who said that principle shooting had almost finished when the order for another film came in and, because they already filmed so much footage, they didnt have to film much extra at all to complete a third movie.

    By the sounds of it, it was a case of jackson basically saying 'We have enough footage for three movies' and the suits saying 'ok, make it so'.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • LeoliansBro 3 Jan 2013 14:01:10 43,815 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Yep, that's what I wondered. If you're looking for a director who stomps over the studio with his 'artistic vision', go talk to Nolan.

    I think Jackson has a fair old ego on his shoulders these days and believes he can wring 9 hours out of the Hobbit, but in fairness he can point to LOTR for a genuine, epic achievement.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • kalel 3 Jan 2013 14:49:43 86,962 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    And King Kong as a genuine epic failure.
  • ronuds 3 Jan 2013 14:53:52 21,788 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Where does The Frighteners stand?
  • kalel 3 Jan 2013 14:54:47 86,962 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    S'alright.
  • nickthegun 3 Jan 2013 14:54:59 59,452 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    In the middle. Its just unappreciated enough to be 'cult' and its MJFs last hurrah.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • LeoliansBro 3 Jan 2013 14:56:34 43,815 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    And King Kong as a genuine epic failure.
    Yeah fair, I think that's one of a handful of films I own but have never watched.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • kalel 3 Jan 2013 15:12:42 86,962 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I wonder if PJ would be considered for a "classic" epic, like a new version of War and Peace or something. I'm sure his talents could extend beyond geeky stuff. His main skill is his use of landscape imho. He'd be great for something like Laurence of Arabia.
  • Deleted user 3 January 2013 15:27:11
    Deckard1 wrote:
    My phone actually suggested that, yet it doesn't suggest homosexual. Which is strange.
    It's in denial.
  • Salaman 3 Jan 2013 15:43:28 18,959 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I'm about to order tickets for next week.

    3d 48FPS: yaay or naaay?
    I'm sure it's been discussed to death in here but I'm trying to avoid any and all posts in this thread as I don't really care for anyone's opinion of the movie until I've seen it.
  • disusedgenius 3 Jan 2013 15:44:54 5,283 posts
    Seen 20 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Yay. Works better for 3D.
  • silentbob 3 Jan 2013 16:01:26 28,956 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Go see it in HFR and make your mind up then see it again in 24FPS if you think it sucks ass but liked the movie. Or perhaps the other way round.

    It's pretty subjective, but as jarring as I found it, it is the way it was 'meant' to be seen.

    VR News: www.roadtovr.com -- Follow us on Twitter.

  • nickthegun 3 Jan 2013 16:05:05 59,452 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I wanted to see it first in bog standard-o-vision so i could watch it as a film and im going to go and see it again with all the bells and whistles and watch it as a technical exercise.

    i know that sounds gay but I really wanted to see it without half my mind reeling at the visuals and i also want to see this new tech in action.

    Edited by nickthegun at 16:05:56 03-01-2013

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • disusedgenius 3 Jan 2013 16:11:47 5,283 posts
    Seen 20 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    On that note, I found it jarring in 24fps 3D (which I saw before the HFR version) as a lot of the pans don't really work well in that format. So you're fucked either way, basically, so don't worry about it.
  • Page

    of 52 First / Last

Log in or register to reply