DiscussMormonism.com

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Trailer #1
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Trailer #2
The Hobbit Trailer Alternate Endings

This first of three movies.....

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
The Hobbit: There and Back Again

.....should get us at least to "fifteen birds in five fir trees" judging by the scenes in the trailers. I know Beorn is cast for the next two.

Among other things, I would be interested in your opinion of the differences between formats if you are able to compare. The movie, depending on theater capabilities, will be shown in 24 fps 2D, 48 fps 2D, 24 fps 3D, 48 fps 3D, and IMAX 3D.

I really enjoyed the Fellowship of the Ring trilogy, and am looking forward to The Hobbit. However, I'm now sure how Peter Jackson is going to turn a short children's tale into a 6+ hour trilogy. My guess is that he will bring some of the content (like Tom Bombadil) that was cut from LOTR into The Hobbit.

H.

He's going to expand on what wasn't detailed in the book, such as what Gandalf did while he was away from the adventure, and what's in the appendices.

So we should have or possibly have:

1. More on the White Council such as it's decision to attack Dol Guldur in southern Mirkwood.
2. It's obvious from the trailer that Radagast is expanded on. He's riding the rabbit pulled sleigh and examining some hedgehogs.
3. Thror and Thrain, the sires of Thorin. Hope to see at some point Smaug's decent on the Lonely Mountain and the destruction of Dale. It might be too much to expect the Dwarves' war on the Orcs to avenge Thror's murder by Azog but would expand on Dain Ironfoot.
4. Aragorn's meeting of Arwen. His service in Rohan and Gondor. His explorations of the East and South (including an attack on the Corsairs of Umbar). Gollum's visit to Mordor and Aragorn's hunt and capture of him.
5. Am pretty sure we won't be seeing any Tom Bombadil as that occurred during LOTR.
7. Would be too much to expect any expansion on Gondolin (because of the swords), or Ungoliant (because of the spiders; also wasn't done in LOTR with Shelob); those being based in the Silmarillion.
8. I don't think it would be a long shot to expand on the Rings and their creation. Would be nice to see Numenor. Those are in the appendices.
9. The history of the kings of Gondor and Rohan, if there, would be only enough to advance or explain the movie plot.

All-in-all it should be good, but I am sensing lots of deja vu watching the trailers so I don't expect it to be as good as LOTR when the desire to see it in movie form had been pent up for decades and I had no problem seeing each movie five or six times in the theaters.

Am guessing the break in the adventure for the first movie will be the rescue by the eagles since I don't see Beorn cast but I do see Gandalf standing in a tree with unseen but obvious flames below.

bcspace wrote:Among other things, I would be interested in your opinion of the differences between formats if you are able to compare. The movie, depending on theater capabilities, will be shown in 24 fps 2D, 48 fps 2D, 24 fps 3D, 48 fps 3D, and IMAX 3D.

If I were to see it in a theater, I would see it in 48fps 2D. But if I didn't like the high frame rate effect, I would ask for my money back after 20 or 30 minutes and see it in 24fps 2D.

I'm generally not a fan of 3D.

And then there's this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... iness.html

bcspace wrote:He's going to expand on what wasn't detailed in the book, such as what Gandalf did while he was away from the adventure, and what's in the appendices.

So we should have or possibly have:

1. More on the White Council such as it's decision to attack Dol Guldur in southern Mirkwood.
2. It's obvious from the trailer that Radagast is expanded on. He's riding the rabbit pulled sleigh and examining some hedgehogs.
3. Thror and Thrain, the sires of Thorin. Hope to see at some point Smaug's decent on the Lonely Mountain and the destruction of Dale. It might be too much to expect the Dwarves' war on the Orcs to avenge Thror's murder by Azog but would expand on Dain Ironfoot.
4. Aragorn's meeting of Arwen. His service in Rohan and Gondor. His explorations of the East and South (including an attack on the Corsairs of Umbar). Gollum's visit to Mordor and Aragorn's hunt and capture of him.
5. Am pretty sure we won't be seeing any Tom Bombadil as that occurred during LOTR.
7. Would be too much to expect any expansion on Gondolin (because of the swords), or Ungoliant (because of the spiders; also wasn't done in LOTR with Shelob); those being based in the Silmarillion.
8. I don't think it would be a long shot to expand on the Rings and their creation. Would be nice to see Numenor. Those are in the appendices.
9. The history of the kings of Gondor and Rohan, if there, would be only enough to advance or explain the movie plot.

All-in-all it should be good, but I am sensing lots of deja vu watching the trailers so I don't expect it to be as good as LOTR when the desire to see it in movie form had been pent up for decades and I had no problem seeing each movie five or six times in the theaters.

Am guessing the break in the adventure for the first movie will be the rescue by the eagles since I don't see Beorn cast but I do see Gandalf standing in a tree with unseen but obvious flames below.

Very interesting! I always assumed the Hobbit would be a single movie--the plot of that book is just a string of events lined up in a nice row as the group travels from west to east, as I recall. Throwing in all of these other details makes it more of a LOTR prequel then simply the telling of the Hobbit story.

Thanks for the information--I'm looking forward to the movies! When is the first one out?

In 10 days. Dec 14th.

They did do some video blogs of behind the scenes production. This one for example, shows, among other things, scene work from Barrels out of Bond. In the book, they are completely enclosed for several days as they floated down the river with Bilbo riding on top worried sick if the dwarves were slowly drowning or if they could breathe. As you can see here, they are bobbing about with their heads out.

The Hobbit Production Video #7 [HD] Behind the Scenes with Peter Jackson

Orlando Bloom alert.

cinepro wrote:

bcspace wrote:Among other things, I would be interested in your opinion of the differences between formats if you are able to compare. The movie, depending on theater capabilities, will be shown in 24 fps 2D, 48 fps 2D, 24 fps 3D, 48 fps 3D, and IMAX 3D.

If I were to see it in a theater, I would see it in 48fps 2D. But if I didn't like the high frame rate effect, I would ask for my money back after 20 or 30 minutes and see it in 24fps 2D.

I'm generally not a fan of 3D.

And then there's this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... iness.html

I don't understand all the frame rate stuff. Is the frame rate effect your are talking about the same thing I notice when I go to my friend's house to watch a movie on his blue ray player and HD TV and the movie looks like a live TV shot of a movie set? I find it really distracting.

Since this is filmed in New Zealand, is there any hobbit on sheep action for people like Pahoran?

- Doc

bcspace wrote:In 10 days. Dec 14th.

They did do some video blogs of behind the scenes production. This one for example, shows, among other things, scene work from Barrels out of Bond. In the book, they are completely enclosed for several days as they floated down the river with Bilbo riding on top worried sick if the dwarves were slowly drowning or if they could breathe. As you can see here, they are bobbing about with their heads out.

The Hobbit Production Video #7 [HD] Behind the Scenes with Peter Jackson

Orlando Bloom alert.

Legolas wasn't in "The Hobbit", was he?

No matter...would love to see Orlando again as a sexy elf!

Brad Hudson wrote:

cinepro wrote:If I were to see it in a theater, I would see it in 48fps 2D. But if I didn't like the high frame rate effect, I would ask for my money back after 20 or 30 minutes and see it in 24fps 2D.

I'm generally not a fan of 3D.

And then there's this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... iness.html

I don't understand all the frame rate stuff. Is the frame rate effect your are talking about the same thing I notice when I go to my friend's house to watch a movie on his blue ray player and HD TV and the movie looks like a live TV shot of a movie set? I find it really distracting.

Possibly. Expensive TV's have a lot of features that manipulate this kind of thing.

An old-fashioned movie was like one of those books where you flick through the pages, and it shows a series of still shots one at a time. The standard for that has always been to show 24 still frames per second (fps). The way these images flick across the screen is the key feature to the way movies look on the big-screen.

The Hobbit is the first movie made at 48 fps, where it does the same general thing, but it shows 48 still images a second rather than just 24. Theoretically this will make the motion more smooth, but I haven't seen it so I'll withold judgment.

In contrast, old-fashioned TV has sensors that zip across the columns and rows of the screen in real-time--thus they aren't properly capturing still frames at all. For example, when a TV camera captures the pixel on the bottom corner of the screen, it is capturing what happened about 1/30th of a second after what was captured in the top corner of the screen. So technically, a TV wouldn't be 30 frames per second, but 30 cycles per second. (This is why on old VCRs, the picture jumped around when you paused it--there just weren't complete still frames to stop on).

Modern digital recorders will capture a series of actual frames where each frame captures a descrete instant in time. Before high-definition camcorders, the option to capture a true 24 fps (rather than 60 cycles-per-second) is one of the things that distinguished expensive camcorders from the cheap ones.