212 replies to this topic

[3CityApache]

Isis, on 13 November 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

OOOH. One month to go. OH MY!

Right. To the first one, god dammit. I still can't believe there's going to be a third one.

[Calibandar]

Some sad "Hobbit" news:

http://hosted.ap.org...EMPLATE=DEFAULT

Linked through Theonering.net. Apparently several animals died due to negligence and incompetence on the part of the production company.

Quote

WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP) -- Animal wranglers involved in the making of "The Hobbit" movie trilogy say the production company is responsible for the deaths of up to 27 animals, largely because they were kept at a farm filled with bluffs, sinkholes and other "death traps."
The American Humane Association, which is overseeing animal welfare on the films, says no animals were harmed during the actual filming. But it also says the wranglers' complaints highlight shortcomings in its oversight system, which monitors film sets but not the facilities where the animals are housed and trained.
A spokesman for trilogy director Peter Jackson on Monday acknowledged that horses, goats, chickens and one sheep died at the farm near Wellington where about 150 animals were housed for the movies, but he said some of the deaths were from natural causes.
The spokesman, Matt Dravitzki, agreed that the deaths of two horses were avoidable, and said the production company moved quickly to improve conditions after they died.

Reminds one of the "Luck" tv show from HBO last year, and what happened to the horses there. That ended up shutting down the show.

Edited by Calibandar, 19 November 2012 - 03:05 PM.

[Calibandar]

Interesting article I just read on Wired. Really echoes my complaints about what they did wrong with the characters in LoTR.
Also interesting to me that this writer had the same feelings on seeing Gandalf in the trailer in that scene with Galadriel, and stating how afraid he is. It reeks badly of the same treatment given of Aragorn, but, the film will hopefully prove my fears ( and Wired's writer) wrong.

http://www.wired.com...hobbit-trailer/

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

Where does everyone think the first one is going to end? And I'm upset that I have to wait more than a year to see Smaug interact with Bilbo.

[Howdyphillip]

I am seriously thinking of giving this movie a pass for several reasons. First of all, The Union busting tactics that the production pulled were egregious. They even went so far as to threaten to pull the movie from New Zealand if the legislature didn't vote their way.

Secondly, I was more than a little skeptical of this movie being made in two three hour parts. The source material just doesn't warrant that. With the addition of the third movie, There is absolutely no way they are going to tell the story that I grew up with and loved.

Finally, this news of animal deaths has really left me with a bitter taste in my mouth.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

Howdyphillip, on 24 November 2012 - 12:12 AM, said:

I am seriously thinking of giving this movie a pass for several reasons. First of all, The Union busting tactics that the production pulled were egregious. They even went so far as to threaten to pull the movie from New Zealand if the legislature didn't vote their way.

Secondly, I was more than a little skeptical of this movie being made in two three hour parts. The source material just doesn't warrant that. With the addition of the third movie, There is absolutely no way they are going to tell the story that I grew up with and loved.

Finally, this news of animal deaths has really left me with a bitter taste in my mouth.

I think the third movie is coming from the appendix that was published at the end of the Return of the King. I'm not thrilled about it but I'm guessing it is going to take place between the Hobbit and the Fellowship.

Edited by Arch-MaesterPhilip, 24 November 2012 - 01:00 AM.

[Calibandar]

Quote

Where does everyone think the first one is going to end?

You might find this of interest:


http://www.theonerin...ing-the-blanks/

[Isis]

I see you keep posting links from TORn but don't mention the one fearuring rebuttal of the claims of animal cruelty. Why so unbalanced?

[Roose Bolton's Pet Leech]

Howdyphillip, on 24 November 2012 - 12:12 AM, said:

First of all, The Union busting tactics that the production pulled were egregious. They even went so far as to threaten to pull the movie from New Zealand if the legislature didn't vote their way.

We have a Tory Government. It's not like they need an excuse to union bust (though in this case, the new legislation was pretty bloody nasty). Then it turned out that the film-makers weren't really going to pull out at all, so not only were they bullies, they were lying bullies.

I will see the movie, but the sense of excitement I had when LOTR came out is replaced by a bad taste in the mouth.

[Calibandar]

Quote

I see you keep posting links from TORn but don't mention the one fearuring rebuttal of the claims of animal cruelty. Why so unbalanced?

No one responded to my posting of the original link, so when I read the rebuttal on TORN, it didn't seem worthwhile coming back here and posting about it. If we'd been in a debate about it, it might have come back with the production company's rebuttal. Also, having read it, I still lean towards the accusations being true, insofar as one can judge it from a distance and with limited info at hand.

I don't have an agenda here, but rumours of animal cruelty and neglect on the Hobbit filmset is something I personally find disconcerting, and quite surprising.

Edited by Calibandar, 24 November 2012 - 03:03 PM.

[Dark_Owl]

My interest in this film did peak when I saw a trailer in 48fps (well, 60fps converted to 48) although it won't be shown in that format anywhere near me. As it stands, I have a very pessimistic outlook about it. The trilogy seems like a bloat- sure ego trip and with each film being about 2.5 hours long, I'm certain it's going to stretch the material out until the seams begin to rip. Basically, rather than an attempt to adapt the Hobbit, it feels like Jackson is instead trying to transform it into another LOTR.

The other thing I find disheartening is that, despite Jackson's claims of using the juicy 'appendices' material, it seems like most of the additional scenes are merely excuses for more action. We have stuff like “Warg Scouts”, “Thunder Battle” and Radagast being attacked/chased by giant spiders, all of which seem to have a substantial running time. I don't know, but if you're going to turn a children's novel into a three-film epic, I'd appreciate more substantial reasoning than stone-transformers hitting each other. As far the pacing goes, I'm also anxious on that note, looking at the soundtrack, the first chapter of the book seems to take up almost an hour of screentime. It seems that the Peter Jackson who once talked about keeping the narrative moving, and cutting things to keep the pace steady, is no longer there.

On another note, I could see film one sorely lacking a strong antagonist, neither Smaug or the Necromancer have any major influence at this point in the story, and the Great Goblin doesn't do too much either. Eh, we'll see. Although I do also wonder what the third film will be like, since, as far as I know, both the dragon and Sauron will be taken care of in the second film. Wait...it's a battle isn't it? Oh. OH. Oh. Jackson's going to try to out-do Pelenor Fields, isn't he?

Edited by Dark_Owl, 25 November 2012 - 06:05 AM.

[red snow]

ticket booked for a large IMAX screen before going home for xmas. A tolkien film really should get me in the holiday mood. I haven't read the book for over 20 years but figure this may be the best way to approach the film as my memory of the story is very vague,

[Arrogant Bastard]

I'll probably go see this, but my enthusiasm waned a lot when I read that Jackson is making this a trilogy. I imagine each movie is going to be around three hours, so I don't know what the hell he's going to fill up all that time with.

I dug out my old copy of the Hobbit, and it's less than 250 pages. Two movies seemed like a stretch; three is ridiculous. The commercials haven't really impressed me either; looks like a lot of added action scenes, such as an apparent Bilbo Gollum sword fight that I'm pretty sure did not happen.

Still, it will be nice to see another Middle Earth movie around Christmas; hard to believe it's almost been ten years since I've done that.

[polishgenius]

Arrogant Bastard, on 25 November 2012 - 10:14 AM, said:

, such as an apparent Bilbo Gollum sword fight that I'm pretty sure did not happen.

That's an orc/goblin, not Gollum, and in fairness, most of the additional material isn't going to be made up out of the whole cloth, as has been said.

But I think quite a few people share most of your concerns...

[cseresz.reborn]

http://www.deadline....it-oscars-2013/

[Dark_Owl]

Over 40 new images for the Hobbit: http://www.blackfilm...rom-the-hobbit/

I think the shots of the White Council, with the twilight backdrop, look lovely. Gollum looks fantastic. Those trolls, on the other hand, look bad, too cartoonish. That still of him holding Bombur looks like it belongs in a Pixar animation.  

Edited by Dark_Owl, 27 November 2012 - 05:22 PM.

[A Bear covered in Fluff]

Are you guys watching the premiere? that red carpet is massive!
<3 the decor i just wish i could have seen all of the interviews. i had class in the middle of it

[The Anti-Targ]

Howdyphillip, on 24 November 2012 - 12:12 AM, said:

I am seriously thinking of giving this movie a pass for several reasons. First of all, The Union busting tactics that the production pulled were egregious. They even went so far as to threaten to pull the movie from New Zealand if the legislature didn't vote their way.

Secondly, I was more than a little skeptical of this movie being made in two three hour parts. The source material just doesn't warrant that. With the addition of the third movie, There is absolutely no way they are going to tell the story that I grew up with and loved.

Finally, this news of animal deaths has really left me with a bitter taste in my mouth.

Roose Bolton, on 24 November 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

We have a Tory Government. It's not like they need an excuse to union bust (though in this case, the new legislation was pretty bloody nasty). Then it turned out that the film-makers weren't really going to pull out at all, so not only were they bullies, they were lying bullies.

I will see the movie, but the sense of excitement I had when LOTR came out is replaced by a bad taste in the mouth.

If anything it's worse than that. Warner Bros. were actually fine with the existing contract legislation, all they wanted was the tax breaks to be increased. So the whole union thing was smoke and mirrors. But the manufactured crisis was a perfect excuse to eviscerate what little labour protections there were for people working on movies.

I know one or 2 people who worked (yes past tense) at Weta. They are pretty shit employers by their reckoning. They expect everyone to work for love not money, and everyone other than admin staff is a contractor so there's no job stability. Being a contractor is all well and good, after all if the projects don't come in and there's no work Weta can't exactly carry lots of staff with no income. But the crap pay and conditions while people are on contract is rather shitty.

I'll be going to see it on the big screen for sure. I think my little protest might be not buying the Blu-ray or DVD when it comes out.

Huge hype at today's red carpet world premier. I biked past the area where they had an artisan village set up and a big screen for people to watch the red carpet interviews. Stuck in my craw when people were all "yay the shafting that was done to keep the movies here was all worth it" when they were being interviewed.

One interesting interview I saw on TV was when a journalist asked Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchet and Elija Wood about the fact that NZ cast and crew were employed on far worse conditions than foreign cast and crew and they looked quite taken aback by it. Hugo and Elija said they didn't know about it and Cate just looked around all nervous and didn't know what to say. Which is fascinating given there was allegedly a black list threat doing the rounds of the acting unions in Aussie and Hollywood, so how strange that these Ausse and US actors had no clue of the shennanigans going on. Maybe they did know but acted all surprised and innocent (they are actors aftter all), but I'm inclined to think all the black list stuff was part of the smoke and mirrors.

[The Anti-Targ]

Arrogant Bastard, on 25 November 2012 - 10:14 AM, said:

I'll probably go see this, but my enthusiasm waned a lot when I read that Jackson is making this a trilogy. I imagine each movie is going to be around three hours, so I don't know what the hell he's going to fill up all that time with.

I dug out my old copy of the Hobbit, and it's less than 250 pages. Two movies seemed like a stretch; three is ridiculous. The commercials haven't really impressed me either; looks like a lot of added action scenes, such as an apparent Bilbo Gollum sword fight that I'm pretty sure did not happen.

Still, it will be nice to see another Middle Earth movie around Christmas; hard to believe it's almost been ten years since I've done that.

I think rather than have all the Necromancer stuff Gandalf does happening off stage like in the book Jackson will tell that story in a fair bit of detail. I think there's plenty of other preipheral stuf that ahppens at the time of Bilbo's journey that it mentioned in other Tolkein works that Jackson is bringing in. So all the filler is being adapted from Tolkein canon. Jackson mentioned that when he was planning the number of shooting days while it was still slated as two movies it ended up coming up to 226 principle filming days, which is exactly the same number of days as for the LOTR trilogy. That meant more or less the same amount of film footage as LOTR having to be cut down to 2 films rather than 3.

I was worred about 3 movies from 250 pages, but with adding Tolkein material to flesh out the whole story I don't think Jackson is likely to produce a snorefest with hours of superfluous drivel.

[cseresz.reborn]

http://www.stuff.co....azzles-audience

It would be fair to assume, that Economic Development Minister Gerry Brownlee, who was heavily involved in the negotiations with Warner Bros, didn't have much of a choice than loving the movie, but his praises sounded sincere.

...

"The best bit for me though was the 3000 names at the end that worked on this production."