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

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.'"

Comments

3-D

[odies]

Cue in the usual "I don't need 3D", "Why don't they make better movies instead of playing with technology?" and "In the old times they at least made good movies" that fills every slashdot story that has something to do with 3-D movies.

Look, it's an extra technology that improves movie for those that like the 3-D effect. It doesn't affect the quality of the movie. Good and bad movies will still be made. It's weird that here on slashdot, a news for nerd site, people are so much against emerging technologies.

I personally like the 3-D effect in movies. In fact I even like it in games - Left4Dead is a lot scarier when the infected run towards you in 3-D.

Also, the technology gets better in intervals. Recently there have popped up Nintendo's new handheld console and 3-D tv's that work without glasses. The effect will only improve over time, but you need to take the intermediate steps to get there. Just like with every other technology, starting from human history and the discovery of fire and a wheel.

Re:3-D

[rossdee]

Many of us nerds have vision problems, so 3d dont work for us.

(Hey the typical nerd always wears glasses, right?)

Re:3-D

[klingens]

The typical nerd also likes gadgets, like 3D and funny glasses, for its own sake. Using more useless (gadgets) is highly approved in nerddom.

Re:3-D

[QuantumG]

So when the whole fad dies we'll expect your apology, where?

Re:3-D

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got amblyopia (lazy eye) and had no problems watching Avatar with contact lenses in.

There'll be a flattened, 2D version of the film to watch anyway.

Re:3-D

[Biogenesis]

Just like with every other technology, starting from human history and the discovery of fire and a wheel.

"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." - Picasso

I guess that's what you get when people have no foresight. But I agree that 3D is overused right now, just like stereo was when it was young. Have you listened to Voodoo Child lately? That song flys left and right like a dunk sailor.

Re:3-D

[HawaiianToast]

Well, I'm pretty blind and I love the new 3D (as seen in Avatar at least; there's some lesser quality 3D going around in other flicks). The plastic 3D glasses conveniently fit over my large and very nerdy glasses. I understand some people have other issues, but I'll bet its a very small minority.

Re:3-D

[beelsebob]

Look, it's an extra technology that improves movie for those that like the 3-D effect. It doesn't affect the quality of the movie. Good and bad movies will still be made. It's weird that here on slashdot, a news for nerd site, people are so much against emerging technologies.

Wrong.

Scenes are added to even the very best 3D movie to do nothing but show off the 3D effect. When viewed in 2D (and often in 3D actually) they end up looking truely awful, and serving to do nothing but ruin immersion and make you remember you're in a cinema.

It's not amazing that nerds are against it – nerds are often against tech that makes things worse, not better.

Re:3-D

[Arthur Grumbine]

Look, it's an extra technology that improves movie for those that like the 3-D effect. It doesn't affect the quality of the movie. Good and bad movies will still be made. It's weird that here on slashdot, a news for nerd site, people are so much against emerging technologies.

Wrong.

Scenes are added to even the very best 3D movie to do nothing but show off the 3D effect. When viewed in 2D (and often in 3D actually) they end up looking truely awful, and serving to do nothing but ruin immersion and make you remember you're in a cinema.

This. Also, the director will always avoid partial objects in the foreground (no one wants a fuzzy half of a face jumping out at them). In my opinion, what is lost (artistic ability/license) is far greater than what is gained (axes/bullets/spears appearing to fly directly at me). I thought Avatar was visually breathtaking, but the likelihood of the shooting of 'Riddles in the Dark' being hamstrung by 3D "aesthetic requirements" is pretty fucking disappointing.

Re:3-D

[bonch]

First off, nerds already wear glasses, so wearing glasses over glasses is awkward. Second, 3D television sales have been a disaster, so it's a pointless technology that only works well on a gigantic screen and not a standard sized television. Third, people mock 3D because they see it exactly for what it is--a desperate gimmick for theaters trying to compete with technology in the home as well as an excuse to charge extra for ticket prices, which was the primary reason Avatar became the highest grossing film.

People aren't "against emerging technologies." It's not even a new technology. People are against cheesy gimmicks. You cite a videogame as an example for 3D, which already shows you how gimmicky it is and how it places emphasis on visuals, not storytelling. It may be great for Left 4 Dead, but for a two hour movie trying to tell a story?

3D fads in film have come and gone several times before. It's not some new trend. They had this shit in the 1950s with the old red and blue glasses.

Re:3-D

[Fizzl]

"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." - Picasso

I guess that's what you get when people have no foresight

That statement is as insightful as ever.
Just think about what it implies. Of course, I do not know if it truely was an ignorant comment, but to me it reads as very terse, subtle and clever commentary about human nature

Re:3-D

[somersault]

How do you expect 3D to "improve the overall storytelling process"? Or even high quality video and sound for that matter? This isn't about the story, it's about immersion.

What do you mean you "lose interest"? Are you trying especially hard to notice the 3D effect? Since it's fixed position 3D it won't react to your vision like a normal real life scene, so I think trying to study it too hard might be what gives any headaches.. I wouldn't know as I've never had motion sickness or any other problems from playing games or watching movies.

Still haven't worked out the best tactic for watching 3D movies myself, such as should I try to refocus for objects in the background etc? But I think the best way is probably just relax and not think about it too much.

I certainly don't want them "improving the overall storytelling process" by pushing objects pointedly towards the camera every few scenes though.

Re:3-D

[sempir]

So when the whole fad dies we'll expect your apology, where?

The 3D fad or the Hobbit one. Whichever one dies...why an apology.....it dies,it dies.

Re:3-D

[zippthorne]

And I suppose we should get rid of stairs, because some people can't use them, too.

Look we get it, some people are disabled and won't see a benefit. That doesn't mean we should decide that no one will see a benefit like some kind of Vonnegut story.

STEREOSCOPIC

[Woek]

Using the term 3D for stereoscopic video is probably already so entrenched in the media that it's useless to try and correct them, but it irritates the hell out of me...
There's a huge difference though. A 3D image (the closest we have is a hologram) is one where you can change your viewpoint by moving your head. The perspective changes when you move away or closer. This means that no matter where you are relative to the image, the stereoscopic image that your eyes register is always correct. The fixed images of stereoscopic video don't change, and the perspective is only correct for one position relative to the image. This is what gives people headaches.
I'm holding out for holographic (worthy of the term 3D) displays!

Re:STEREOSCOPIC

[ColdWetDog]

I'm holding out for holographic (worthy of the term 3D) displays!

Five years from now! I promise!

This could be a problem...

[hedgemage]

Peter Jackson was able to get very good visual effects on the LotR trilogy because he used camera tricks rather than digital editing to achieve the illusion of a world populated by big and little people.
The technique called "foreshortening" was used quite a bit, like when Gandalf first sits with Bilbo and has tea in his kitchen. The actors were there, but the set was arranged and props and actors placed so that Bilbo was farther away from the camera than Gandalf, and therefore appeared little while Gandalf was 'human sized'. Its a simple gimmick and worked great. Using a 3D camera setup may not work with this unless you deliberately went frame by frame and edited the 3D in afterward since shooting it with multiple cameras would cancel out the single-perspective trick of foreshortening.

Anyone else

[Dunbal]

get the feeling that Hollywood is trying to shove 3D down our throats lately?

Re:Anyone else

[theurge14]

Hollywood needs a reason to get people to go to theatres. Otherwise everyone is just going to download BluRay rips through torrent and watch it on their huge flatscreen TVs at home.

Unnecessary

[ParkedStar]

I don't think I'd bother with the 3D version of the Hobbit; on a 2D screen - it is 3D enough for me. Plus I'd rather focus on the great (but complex) storyline than less-than-remarkable 3D effects or re-adjusting my glasses...

axes/bullets/spears are not what is gained.

[electrosoccertux]

Avatar hit so hard because it felt so real. It was like 2+hour dream. I was floored by it.

aside: they need to
a). move to 60fps, or
b). work on their motion blur technology

because when you see it on Imax the differences between frames is like 5 feet on the screen, and it's only 24fps, which is OK for normal film because your mind can patch in the lost frames using the blur data, but for digital shots it doesn't have the information to do that.

Re:pity

[AP31R0N]

He had to do SOMETHING to make it watchable. Note the inversion of action to dialog/history essay ratio. The books were as dry as history texts.

i'll forgive the liberties.