I seriously doubt Sir Ian is going to drop out because of age.

First consider what he's done in these last ten years; not roles or schedule for an unhealthy man of his age.

Then there's his lifestyle which has killed off a lot of really talented people over the last thirty years; he's obviously been cautious in protecting himself. Again a sign of good health.

Then I consider my dad who made it to 80 years through two bouts with cancer, and he definitely didn't have the money like Sir Ian probably has.

No, I'd say Sir Ian will (should) be around for a while. Ya never know though.

Not that this would make sense to most of you, but I have more concern over world situations stopping this more than anything else, (like a total financial collapse that shuts all wallets, or some kind of threat that keeps everybody at home).

[quote=""Thranduil""]I seriously doubt Sir Ian is going to drop out because of age.

First consider what he's done in these last ten years; not roles or schedule for an unhealthy man of his age.

Then there's his lifestyle which has killed off a lot of really talented people over the last thirty years; he's obviously been cautious in protecting himself. Again a sign of good health.

Then I consider my dad who made it to 80 years through two bouts with cancer, and he definitely didn't have the money like Sir Ian probably has.

No, I'd say Sir Ian will (should) be around for a while. Ya never know though.

Not that this would make sense to most of you, but I have more concern over world situations stopping this more than anything else, (like a total financial collapse that shuts all wallets, or some kind of threat that keeps everybody at home).[/quote]

Hopefully Sir Ian is the real Gandalf and can live for thousands of years.

and sorry about ur dad

[quote=""Olorin""]...The thing re: the movie that I'd worry the most about is that one of the actors would keel over, like Sir Ian. He's 71.[/quote]

71 isn't 'old' anymore. Granted you're no spring chicken at 70, but 70's are the new 50's.

Less than 100 years ago the average lifespan for a male in the US was....45.

When Social Security was enacted, it was set up so you collected it at age 65 because most people died before their 60th birthday.

Of course many people die in their 70's, but more and more people are reaching their 80's and still pretty active.

[And you think I'm saying all this because I'm getting old (isn't that right, Fin? ye irreverent upstart youngster). Perish the thought.]

But 71? Think of Paul Newman, Gregory Peck, Sean Connery.

And just for tangential interest, I read this when I Wiki'd Connery. Many or all of you may have known this from watching the EE interviews, but it is news to me:


[Quoted]
Connery stated in interviews for the film (included on the DVD release) that he was offered a role in The Lord of the Rings series, declining it due to "not understanding the script." CNN reported that the actor was offered up to 15% of the worldwide box office receipts to play Gandalf, which had he accepted, could have earned him as much as $400 million for the trilogy. After the series went on to become a huge hit, Connery decided to accept the lead role in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, despite not "understanding" it either.

-----

So, even if it's difficult to see anyone but McKellan as GtG (it is for me) do you think Connery could have pulled it off and made a convincing Gandalf? It might help to imagine him in the book version first. He is, after all, no mean actor.

Thanks EG

I have to say that I am very glad that Connery declined to be Gandalf. Not only would it have been hard for me (and many others) to disassociate his face from all the other roles in my memory and focus on him as Gandalf, just hearing him say that about this role reinforces my belief his decision was the best for all involved. Gandalf is not a role to be taken lightly, and as good an actor as Connery can be, if you don't 'get' the character and the script, how can you hope to do it any justice? You need some basic understanding of Tolkien's world in order to even begin to grasp the complexities of Gandalf, understanding his mannerisms, purpose and personality, and then acting it out within the context of the huge story that is The Lord of the Rings.

Connery would have been clued out, and that could only have done the movie harm. $400 million would have been nice, but I'm sure he's not hurting for cash. Ironically enough, the League of Extraordinary Gentleman, while not a truly awful movie, it could/should have been way better, and tanked badly at the box office. Not one of Connery's shining moments on the screen, and in retrospect, makes his no-LOTR decision that much more of a forehead-slapper. DOH!

Just saying, I will echo what Val said.

It's unfortunate that with the legendary career that Connery had, he allowed League to be his swan song.

Of course, he's still alive, so never say never. If Christopher Lee absolutely refuses to do Saruman again, Connery might be a good substitute, lack of Tolkien knowledge notwithstanding since Saruman's part in this would be rather small.

From the words of the man himself: NO GREEN LIGHT!

.... hurry up!!!!!!!

[quote=""Valkrist""]MGM is a company that is about to go bankrupt and in a way they are about to take The Hobbit into bankruptcy hell with them when they go down. It's all to do with American copyright laws, bankruptcy laws."[[/quote]

And here is where it becomes possible for the Hobbit to NEVER BE MADE.
Swallowed in legal ramifications beyond want, desire, certainty, JRR Tolkien's brilliant literature, or Sed's opinion.

If there has ever been a time in my life where I want to be wrong this is it.

When it comes to The Hobbit, I absolutely DO NOT want to say I told you so.

I'm thinking that MGM going completely out of business may be The Hobbit's best hope. If they were forced to liquidate their assets then both the Bond franchise, and The Hobbit copyright would be declared assets and have to be sold.

But at what cost? This is where law comes into play, and I don't know these laws. Does the copyright revert back to what MGM payed the Tolkien estate for it in terms of it's value? Or does the law state "current market value?"

If it were current market value, does that make it $50 million? $100 million? And then add the cost of the making of the films. My point is; could this become a cost to e xp ectation of profit margin that wipes it out.

These are the technical issues that haunt the back of my mind concerning this Hobbit issue. It's easy to say it's a no brainer for a profit, but these are the very things that take decisions from go to no go.

This teeters on the brink of disaster. It's so sad.

YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HOBBIT GETS GREEN LIGHT!!!!!!!!

http://movies.ign.com/articles/112/1128314p1.html

why does this seem like its just another rumor?


lol it'll probably hit me tomorrow and I'll have a huge heart attack and never live to see it... XD! ( no offence to anyone suffering from heart problems)

SyFy confirms. That's two reputable folks reporting it. If it's rumor, then these two groups will have major egg on their face.

The One ring.net is also posting it, along with several sites they listed...

YES!!! The two movies are finally going to be made, AND Peter Jackson is set to direct. Fantastic!

I'll believe it when the credits of the second film are rolling on the screen.

[quote=""Sedhal""]I predict the Hobbit will get a green light sometime in October of 2010... I'd say around the middle of the month. 15th? Possibly 16th? I think maybe more like 15th. Mark my words. [/quote]



WOW, I sure am good. Hey, anyone want me to predict a winning lottery number?

This is for you Val:

The two films based on "The Hobbit" are now greenlit and will begin principal photography in February 2011, under the direction of Peter Jackson, it was jointly announced today by Toby Emmerich, President and Chief Operating Officer, New Line Cinema, Alan Horn, President and Chief Operating Officer, Warner Bros. and Steve Cooper, co-Chief Executive Officer of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.

I wasn't up for celebration based on claims from all the sources who've been plugging the rumor mill.

Weta has officially stated in their own forum;

"And so it begins".

Now, getting back to the 3D debate.
Based on Avatars 3D IMAX e xp erience; I can't help but visualize a Middle Earth that's even more real.

When I picture the Bag end shots from FOTR in my mind in 3D, all I see is an even more cool set. Like Gandalf sitting by the fire when Frodo comes in and picks up the ring. That shot alone is very dimensional.

I can only think that in 3D it would feel that much more real, more alive.

There will be 2D showings for those of you who don't want to see it in 3D btw.

[quote=""Thranduil""]Now, getting back to the 3D debate.
Based on Avatars 3D IMAX e xp erience; I can't help but visualize a Middle Earth that's even more real.

When I picture the Bag end shots from FOTR in my mind in 3D, all I see is an even more cool set. Like Gandalf sitting by the fire when Frodo comes in and picks up the ring. That shot alone is very dimensional.

I can only think that in 3D it would feel that much more real, more alive.

There will be 2D showings for those of you who don't want to see it in 3D btw.[/quote]

For some reason my eyes burn when i watch films in 3D

[quote=""Thranduil""] That shot alone is very dimensional.

[/quote]



Yeah, and that was accomplished through REAL techniques of filmmaking. Impressive, huh?

For some reason my eyes burn when i watch films in 3D

maby its because ,that the glogers ,you usely get handed when whatsing 3d,s
is not shield.your eye vision ,just by looking side to side ore down,you get extrakted.by the real eye vision.(like looking over the sceean).understand what i mean?

All TORn has was that it "was reported that" the movies had been greenlit. I'm still not breaking out the champagne just yet.

Avatar was neat in 3D but as good as it was, it still felt gimmicky. I dont' want The Hobbit to feel gimmicky.

[quote=""Olorin""]All TORn has was that it "was reported that" the movies had been greenlit. I'm still not breaking out the champagne just yet.

Avatar was neat in 3D but as good as it was, it still felt gimmicky. I dont' want The Hobbit to feel gimmicky.[/quote]

they have the official warner brothers/ new line statement up as well

threre a long parth to go from the 70`s movie making to 2010.
3d avater is not just nice its great.

uwe bovl ,is the best directer of eny movie ever
hahaha.and he is going to make the hobbit good luck .

[quote=""Thranduil""]This is for you Val:

The two films based on "The Hobbit" are now greenlit and will begin principal photography in February 2011, under the direction of Peter Jackson, it was jointly announced today by Toby Emmerich, President and Chief Operating Officer, New Line Cinema, Alan Horn, President and Chief Operating Officer, Warner Bros. and Steve Cooper, co-Chief Executive Officer of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.

I wasn't up for celebration based on claims from all the sources who've been plugging the rumor mill.

Weta has officially stated in their own forum;

"And so it begins". [/quote]


The Weta post was under the Weta logo by Weta studios in "The Hobbit" thread.

[quote=""Sedhal""]Yeah, and that was accomplished through REAL techniques of filmmaking. Impressive, huh? [/quote]

People said the same thing about sound when talkies came out, and again when they went to color.

Spare me your insinuations that 3D is not a real technique; that's like saying digital has ruined film making. You sure as hell aren't going to be making your film without the aid of the computer (if you make it at all), anymore than you can claim ALL your artwork is done by hand.

While I'm at it. If a picture is worth a thousand words; you should have at least 50,000 words on paper based on all the artworks you've done. Do you?

Maybe you should try to get something done by storyboarding the whole thing out so you know what to write.

At least then Joseph Fiennes quote from Shakespeare in Love will quit rolling through my head, "It's all safely locked up here".<points to his head.

[quote=""Sedhal""]WOW, I sure am good. Hey, anyone want me to predict a winning lottery number? [/quote]

If you were really that good you would have already hit the lottery and not only be directing your own film, but producing it as well.

Of course, you'd still need a script, screenplay, and storyboard.

[quote=""Thranduil""]There will be 2D showings for those of you who don't want to see it in 3D btw.[/quote]

Well, seeing as I'll be going about three times a week (give or take a day) to see it, I'll divide my viewings between 2D and 3D, accordingly.

[quote=""Elvenguard13""]For some reason my eyes burn when I watch films in 3D [/quote]
EG, I was reading about 3D movies.... some people simply can’t watch them because their brains don’t like making the adjustments. Some people get nauseated as if from motion sickness.
An MD said this: That’s because the signals that your brain is receiving from your eyes say that you are moving in relation to your immediate surroundings, but your inner ear (in charge of balance) is saying that you’re not moving.

And about eyes:When the vision is broken up into 2 parts as is done with 3D glasses, then the brain and eye muscles have a much harder time keeping them in proper alignment.

So some people, apparently lots of people, can adapt.
But some can’t, and those folks e xp erience eye strain, which, in your case, is probably manifesting itself as burning.

[quote=""Thranduil""]....There will be 2D showings for those of you who don't want to see it in 3D btw.[/quote]
That is good, because I am susceptible to motion sickness.

[quote=""Fingolfin""]Well, seeing as I'll be going about three times a week (give or take a day) to see it, I'll divide my viewings between 2D and 3D, accordingly. [/quote]
What concerns me is that , let’s say I can watch 3-D without throwing up (need that vomiting smiley again).
And it’s so superior to the 2D version, but all I have is a 2D TV. So the only way I can watch it at home is 2D.
So I’ve set myself up for disappointment if I watch it at home.

Yes, it is finally at long last basking in the beautiful green glow of a green light!!!
Next I want to hear that all our must-have cast members have signed, that it's going to be filmed in NZ, and last but not least, who's going to play Bilbo?

Say, where's Curunir been lately? Now he can start spilling some beans for us!

queue Dance Party!

[quote=""Thranduil""]People said the same thing about sound when talkies came out, and again when they went to color.

Spare me your insinuations that 3D is not a real technique; that's like saying digital has ruined film making. You sure as hell aren't going to be making your film without the aid of the computer (if you make it at all), anymore than you can claim ALL your artwork is done by hand.

While I'm at it. If a picture is worth a thousand words; you should have at least 50,000 words on paper based on all the artworks you've done. Do you?

Maybe you should try to get something done by storyboarding the whole thing out so you know what to write.

At least then Joseph Fiennes quote from Shakespeare in Love will quit rolling through my head, "It's all safely locked up here".<points to his head.[/quote]



I'll only address what's actually relevant here.

When color came out, it WAS a gimmick. Why do you think so many red-haired people were in early TV shows? Red is colorful. Here's one for you. They went back and colorized Citizen Kane and King Kong. That's almost like putting 3D to Lord of the Rings. Gee.


Not to mention sound and color had long been parts of filmmaking before dialogue and true color. Why don't you check out some old footage with a single monochrome color added (sepia, violets, etc), or some where they had multiple effects going (coloring the film by hand). Music is still sound. Dialogue is sound. Digital sound is still sound. Digital footage is still footage. 3D is not 2D. Sculptures are not paintings. It should be considered an entirely different medium where it's headed. It's more of an e xp erience -- a theme park ride. I'm all for 3D e xp loration and virtual worlds, adventures, etc. But why satisfy this gimmick on something as important as the Hobbit...

And guess what. 3D movies shown on 2D look horrible. We'll see what you think in a few years when you put The Hobbit on your home theater and wonder why it looks worse than Lord of the Rings.

The Hobbit should have stayed clear of this gimmick until they refined it to the point of not needing to wear uncomfortable glasses for the duration of a Peter Jackson film (think of that?). And you might as well throw the film away once it's out of the theater, unless you're rich enough for the 3D setup and feel like wearing the glasses every time you watch it.

But OH woooow! I would never have been able to tell that the rock in the foreground was in front of the SUN in the background without that amazing state of the art 3D effect.



This movie will last forever. This current 3D will NOT. Think about it.

Well, at least the movie won't be in 3D on every screen, but most likely IMAX... which I perfer. Oh well, at least it's getting made. We could be watching 3D nothing.. bwa ha ha haaaaaaaaaaa

But that's the thing... when it's NOT 3D it lacks definition. It's not that I don't want to see it in 3D. If that's the way it's made, that's how I want to watch it every single time. And it's going to look amazing, no doubt. The problem is that can't be done. And when it's not 3D, whelp... there goes a whole dimension (literally) of the filmmakers' focus and energy and all we get in return is a fuzzier image.


I still say this is a piss-poor choice for a guinea pig for a technology that will be obsolete within the next decade. It will not hold up in the long term. Very unwise and hasty. Treebeard would not approve either.

[quote=""Sedhal""]But that's the thing... when it's NOT 3D it lacks definition. It's not that I don't want to see it in 3D. If that's the way it's made, that's how I want to watch it every single time. And it's going to look amazing, no doubt. The problem is that can't be done. And when it's not 3D, whelp... there goes a whole dimension (literally) of the filmmakers' focus and energy and all we get in return is a fuzzier image.


I still say this is a piss-poor choice for a guinea pig for a technology that will be obsolete within the next decade. It will not hold up in the long term. Very unwise and hasty. Treebeard would not approve either.[/quote]

Guinea pig? House of Wax was made in the 40's if I'm not mistaken.

George Lucas got slammed for all the reasons you've criticized 3D when he made Star Wars and said video & digital were the future and GEE, lets see, there taking Star Wars to 3D.

We don't have icons for how hard I'm laughing.

Noble effort Sed. Understandable thinking; the same reasoning has been around since film started for every new change that has come along.

Nickelodeon to Panavision to Sony to computer; what part of reality don't you get? I thought you were a big fan of evolution?

You're not the only person to study film & film history, and your opinion sounds more like a gimmick than a valid argument.

Your problem, Thranduil, as it has always been, is that you like putting words in my mouth and oversimplifying my viewpoint to easily dismiss it. Let's take all those God emails, for example. You pushed and pushed and pushed your way of thinking. I took it until I got tired of hearing how ignorant and unenlightened I was. Then I pushed back and you made me out to be an atheist which I am NOT. There's no mid-ground for you. You think so entirely black and white and you may be laughing hard but I'm actually shocked someone I like and respect can be so incredibly closed-minded, passing it off as enlightenment.

Let me say again. I was not around when Lucas made Star Wars. And people criticizing him was not the same way of thinking as this. Use your brain. Honestly. There's a world of difference between an original work showcasing an evolution in special effects and a prequel we've been waiting years for that is being made on the platform of a shaky technology. It is. Still. You like recalling the history of technologies? House of Wax? Wow. And look how far along they've come with 3D. Now you still need glasses and it's being used as a bandaid for mediocre special effects (Avatar) and the inability to adequately convey atmosphere. It's a distraction still. Just like CGI had been in many films. Why are some films so dated? Probably when they're e xp loring a method of technology that has not been solidly worked out. This 3D crap will be the same. Ten years from now we'll look at Avatar's 3D and say "WOW, that looks fake".

Do I need to repeat that I find 3D interesting and would love to see where it goes in the future? Or that, it's just that I don't want the Hobbit to be used as a proving ground for it? What's hard to grasp about this... and you've still failed to address the points I'm actually making, (loss in home quality, inability to hold up in years to come, etc), but you're doing a fine job blaming me for Star Wars criticism.

And by the way. You're the anti-evolution one, are you not?

Actually Sed, my problem is more than likely many peoples problem in this forum;
they just don't say anything for the very reason they can e xp ect what you've said here.

You're such an easy target. Getting under your skin is simple since you are such a narcissistic windbag who always has to prove himself by making statements such as this:

"I still say this is a piss-poor choice for a guinea pig for a technology that will be obsolete within the next decade. It will not hold up in the long term."

You consistently speak as if your OPINION is absolute truth and you cannot be

dare I say it, WRONG.

AND BEFORE you go into another immature 3 page rant as you did the last time I told you you were wrong, let me warn you I still have those 3 emails which I would be more than happy to post for others enjoyment.

Since you've taken this off topic and made it extremely personal I'll let it go, however, I did make my faith clear to you from day one and did so because I wanted to continue to do what I also did from day one. Encourage you!

It took multiple emails to convince you to post your artworks here in the forum, and I would say most people here in the forum understand why I did. I have never stopped encouraging you to pursue your dream. I admit I changed my technique, and I'm hoping to piss you off enough that you'll take on an attitude of;

"I'll show you, and prove you wrong, and make you eat your words!"
So please do!

Scroll down a few (or up depending on how you have your settings here) and you'll notice I made a suggestion about doing a storyboard for your film. Considering you DO have the story in your head and can clearly see it in your mind. Considering you draw more than you write your script. Draw it out shot for shot and then I'm sure your writers block will disappear altogether and the next thing ya know you'll have a screenplay to boot.

There are talkers, and then there are doers. Actions speak volumes over words. Talk is cheap; I read what? Three pages of script? You've applied to how many film studios? Contacted who? With what?

You're letting your life slip by; I warned you about that 18 months ago.

There is a huge wall standing in your way, it has YOUR name on it, and it's your EGO that denies it; TEAR IT DOWN!

Here's to hoping our moderators will allow this post to stand. Good luck

I want martin freeman for Bilbo!!!!!!!

[quote=""Elvenguard13""]I want martin freeman for Bilbo!!!!!!! [/quote]


I agree completely! I think he would be great in the role. Double

Sed and Thrand, *** lol. That stuff's just silly. You have different meanings, let's leave it at that lol. I have to agree with Sed on the 3D thing though, it would ruin the movie.

Oh, and to hell with Martin Freeman, Morgan Freeman is twice the actor =D

lol agreed ^

Well since you want to divert this off the 3D trail again, Thrand, let me humor you.

You weren't "making your faith" clear to me. You ridiculed me and practically called me ignorant for not swallowing (no pun intended, but while we're on that topic, I have some wonderful material from you that could trump whatever I've said by a million, so don't make BS threats about posting my emails to the board out of context -- they'll just get deleted anyway -- too much justified profanity on my part) your OPINION. Yes, it's your OPINION. Two can play at that game and nothing makes you 100% right either. Dare I call you wrong? Look at yourself in the mirror. Honestly.


You're trying to spark me into action to prove you wrong? I don't need that. I know exactly what you've been trying to do. It's not going to work and it's not what I need. Why do you think I've mostly ignored those comments? If I could simply whip up what I need in five minutes of insults, I would do it WITHOUT the insults. I want this more than anyone. I want it more than you want me to have it. It's my one passion in life. So PLEASE don't act like you can motivate me to make the entire thing overnight. That's not at all how art or good stories are made. There's something called a creative process. You can't motivate me to do what I'm hammering myself over every hour of the day. If it was only a matter of doing it, I would DO IT. It's not that simple by any means.


And for your information, I have FIFTY-three pages that I've been rewriting for the past five months. Why do you feel the need to get involved or even bring this up? It's hard enough dealing with it on my own, I don't need your flak.

You don't just wake up and write an entire universe like you'd make a cabinet.


And talk about what others are afraid to voice? Speak for yourself. And I'll speak for myself: I feel like I can't even have an opinion that differs from yours without some freaking character assessment from you and comments about my personal life and work. You're so busy projecting your own issues onto others, and so obviously desperate to do so, you're missing the point a great deal of the time. Just drop it. It's irrelevant.

[quote=""Sedhal""]lol agreed ^

Well since you want to divert this off the 3D trail again, Thrand, let me humor you.

You weren't "making your faith" clear to me. You ridiculed me and practically called me ignorant for not swallowing (no pun intended, but while we're on that topic, I have some wonderful material from you that could trump whatever I've said by a million, so don't make BS threats about posting my emails to the board out of context -- they'll just get deleted anyway -- too much justified profanity on my part) your OPINION. Yes, it's your OPINION. Two can play at that game and nothing makes you 100% right either. Dare I call you wrong? Look at yourself in the mirror. Honestly.


You're trying to spark me into action to prove you wrong? I don't need that. I know exactly what you've been trying to do. It's not going to work and it's not what I need. Why do you think I've mostly ignored those comments? If I could simply whip up what I need in five minutes of insults, I would do it WITHOUT the insults. I want this more than anyone. I want it more than you want me to have it. It's my one passion in life. So PLEASE don't act like you can motivate me to make the entire thing overnight. That's not at all how art or good stories are made. There's something called a creative process. You can't motivate me to do what I'm hammering myself over every hour of the day. If it was only a matter of doing it, I would DO IT. It's not that simple by any means.


And for your information, I have FIFTY-three pages that I've been rewriting for the past five months. Why do you feel the need to get involved or even bring this up? It's hard enough dealing with it on my own, I don't need your flak.

You don't just wake up and write an entire universe like you'd make a cabinet.


And talk about what others are afraid to voice? Speak for yourself. And I'll speak for myself: I feel like I can't even have an opinion that differs from yours without some freaking character assessment from you and comments about my personal life and work. You're so busy projecting your own issues onto others, and so obviously desperate to do so, you're missing the point a great deal of the time. Just drop it. It's irrelevant.[/quote]

You're the one who changed the 3D conversation into a personal attack. Anyone can scroll back through this thread and see in post #1621 where you began.

You're absolutely right about your emails being deleted; fortunately for you.
The rest that's in red is a typical description of how you project your own behavior unto others and those emails would prove it further.

And your last remark here about my issues, can easily be re-read changing issues to opinion. It would read like this:

You're so busy projecting your own opinion onto others, and so obviously desperate to do so, you're missing the point a great deal of the time. (Boy if that doesn't describe you to a T. Just scroll back).

Just scroll back and re-read. While you're at it, why don't you go back and re-read most of your posts in this forum. How many times have you been called arrogant? They are your posts Sed. Not mine, nor anyone else's.

The clock is ticking, we'll all see if you walk the walk you talk so much.

Ok... let's keep this thread on topic about the Hobbit and relevant topics. I'd agree the discussion about whether or not the Hobbit should or should not be filmed in 3-D is relevant. But lets all allow for differences of opinion, and respect those opinions, not chastise and ridicule people about those said opinions. Everything else needs to find a new home for discussion.

My opinion is best summed up by what I felt when I heard they were going 3D. Cautious disappointment.

Let's get one thing straight here, 3D has been around for a while but has only been worthwhile in the last few years. While the directors/producers can see it as a new art form, the only thing studios are seeing it as is a gimmick. They're looking to tap into a market of people that few movies are able to tap in to. Idiots who like to look at stuff. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that folks who like 3D are idiots.

All of us here are going to see The Hobbit films. All LOTR fans will. Fantasy/sci-fans will too. And probably a decent amount of action/adventure fans. But what about the folks who only tear themselves away from their beer kegs to see awesome films like Jackass 3D?! They want a movie too! Something pretty with depth. It's an untapped market that most studios are realizing they can get money from with 3D. It looks cool. These folks won't be able to list all the dwarves and e xp lain why Gollum is a wretched creature and such, but they can say "Dude, when I seen that dragon was like...totally coming out of that screen, it was mad cool."

Personally I've seen a handful of films in 3D. Only one of which I enjoyed. I didn't bother seeing Avatar because the premise and story didn't appeal to me. And unfortunately pretty things flying out the screen isn't enough to get my $20.

So I think the Hobbit could benefit from this, especially if it's -shot- for 3D, not converted later. I don't think it will harm it -too- much to see it in 2D, though.

Also, jumping back to EG's post a while back, 3D films bother my eyes, too. I usually have to take the glasses off and close my eyes for a bit every half hour or so...:\

[quote=""Thranduil""]You're absolutely right about your emails being deleted; fortunately for you.[/quote]


No, fortunately for you. Because I still have the entire conversation(s) (yep -- your end too, which makes me look like a saint). It's probably best not to challenge someone to a duel when you have a spork in your holster.

Not to mention... post 1621? There was nothing personal or disrespectful in that post. It was just my opinion after all, was it not? Try post 1627 if you're looking for where it got personal and irrelevant.

You can PM me any further concerns. I think I'm done with this place. Everyone who agrees with you can thank you for pushing my buttons on your high horse and getting me to leave. I enjoy talking with all you guys but I'm just not interested in the mommy/daddy character study with every topic we disagree on. It's pathetic.


And hooray for the Hobbit. Congratulations to everyone who has been waiting this long. I wasn't wrong for being optimistic after all

ummm....yeah!!! What GW said!

"Cautious disappointment" is a good way of putting it.
I wish it wasn't going to be filmed in 3D, but there you have it.

And I do also think it is the gimmick du jour for the movie industry... not that 3d per se is a gimmick.
But, to paraphrase GW, it is the draw, the bait to get the Tolkien-ignorant paying customers into the seats.

What I see the future cinematic e xp erience to be is something like the realism in Bradbury's "The Veldt", but on a much larger scale.

I have to say that unlike Cameron, I see PJ as taking this 3D to be complementary to the film. Not defining it.

We'll probably get some epic shots of Middle Earth, but it won't be the main focus with random 3D scenes. I think we can agree that PJ wants quality. He's not going to half-ass this one.

I was less than thrilled when I heard it would be shot in 3D because I'm still not convinced that 3D isn't just the flavor of the month. At a minimum, it's Hollywood's hot new way to get people to shell out even more for a movie ticket than they already do. 3D done well—Avatar, Up, Toy Story 3—looks amazing. 3D done poorly—Clash of the Titans—seriously detracts from the visual quality of the movie.

However, I have every confidence that PJ will make this movie look as good as it can. And I think Cameron will be giving him pointers too...they've already met recently, and you can bet this was discussed. I'm not sure what it will look like in 2D, once you've seen it in 3D, though. I guess I'll know in about a month when I get the (2D) BD of Avatar, special edition.

In the mean time, as BC said, let's discuss this topic but keep it a civil discussion, and not let it degenerate into ad hominem attacks that nobody wants to read. We should be rejoicing—The Hobbit has a green light! We should be wildly speculating—who's going to be in it? Where will it be filmed?

And by the way...where is Curunir? He hasn't been on the site in over a month!

If my remarks about 3D seemed to invoke my favor of it, I'd prefer to say they weren't intended to. I simply meant that when 3D is applied without the gimmick shots it adds dimension that makes the characters more real and therefore more alive; but that's in my mind.

3D has always faced the challenge of hurting peoples eyes which is why the goal is to eliminate the glasses. Due to technological advances, it's is believed that holograms will become a reality about the same time as 3D with no glasses.

Can you imagine "Holomascope"? (I get dibs on that btw, lol). Cinema in the round. Played out in 3D reality with no glasses EG!

Anyway, House of Wax was apparently made in 1953, so 3D goes back 57 years as far as a movie studio release goes. Starred Vincent Price (Edward Scissorhands creator for you youngin's) and also Charles Buchinski, AKA, Charles Bronson; he was 19 years old and had no lines in the movie because he couldn't speak English well enough at that time. Trivial tid bits.

2D or 3D; bring on the Hobbit! Lets hope it still gets made in New Zealand and the union gets a major kick in the crotch for their insolence!

Not too concerned about who plays Bilbo, I'm sure whoever is chosen will fit the bill. I'm looking forward to who will play the dwarf's, and of course, who plays me, lol. Lets hope EG's pick is correct and he gets that part, (don't forget he worked with GDT in Hellboy 2), I think he's perfect.