Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hobbit Film Finally Gets Green Light, To Be Shot in 3-D

Posted by timothy on from the lighter-fare dept.

An anonymous reader writes with word that "after much kerfuffle and uncertainty, the Hobbit film has finally been greenlit," with Peter Jackson as director. Says the linked story: "The announcement did not state whether the two-part prequel to The Lord of the Rings would be shot in New Zealand. Matt Dravitzki, Jackson's assistant at Wingnut Films, said an annoucement on the place of filming would be 'probably a week or two away.'"

6 of 261 comments (clear)

  1. New Game by LKWPETER · · Score: 3, Informative

    lets count how often Gandalf, for no reason at all, holds his staff to the camera. AND ITS ALL DUDES! what benefit does 3D have if i dont get any 3D boobies?

  2. Re:Greenlit vs greenlighted by SheeEttin · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Lit" is a perfectly acceptable past tense of "light". In fact, I prefer it.

  3. Re:Episode 3 sucks. by Angeret · · Score: 2, Informative

    Okay Tom, you can take a break now.

  4. Re:3-D by lostguru · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not all 3D content translates to 2D by just removing one image, just as a stereo signal does not become mono by removing one side. I don't know for live action, but in the CG world rendering in 3d means render one image for left, one for right, and one for 2d if that is different.

    --
    Jayne: "These are stone killers, little man. They ain't cuddly like me."
    98% of America's teens drink alcohol, smok
  5. Re:FTA... by WWWWolf · · Score: 2, Informative

    Weta Digital in Wellington was heavily involved in 3-D visual effects for James Cameron's Avatar and is also working in 3-D for the first Tintin film, directed by Steven Spielberg.

    wtf?

    This was the first I had heard of it, too... It appears to be based on Rackham's Treasure arc. Yay for sharks with frigging laser beams! I mean, faux-shark submarines!

  6. Re:Anyone else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Film is not and never was 4:3. TV were like that due to technology limits of having to scan a beam across the tube's surface. Early TVs were almost round because of this.

    We got widescreen because we started making decent home theatres and wanted to watch movies at home, and technology caught up.

    So much ignorance of the history of film/TV in one small post...I suggest you go look up those histories and educate yourself. For the first half of this century, films absolutely were 4:3 (well, 1.37:1, which is close enough). It wasn't until TVs became commonplace that Hollywood realized that they needed to alter the picture format for theaters to entice people to continue going to the theater. That's why we got widescreen in the theaters. And now 50+ years later, we have it at home (not scope, but 16:9).