The Hobbit in 3D is..

33 Comments

  • nizar - 14 years ago

    I want that movie in 3d I think that's amazing because I think it would be amazing Gulom d3

  • metalgeek - 14 years ago

    Being one-eyed, I would not enjoy the film in 3D.

  • David Ferry - 14 years ago

    We were shown with Avatar that 3D is finally reaching a place of artistically enhancing film. The images and visual depth in Avatar was in no way distracting or "cheap." It was done very beautifully and the depth was more real than anything else we have seen. I was at first very opposed to the idea of The Hobbit being released in 3D but now I am a believer, and would in no way be disappointed if it is released in 3D.
    For those of you who still think this is a bad idea..they always release a non 3D version in theaters as well, so stop worrying. In my opinion, from here on out (especially when it involves Weta), 3D is going to only enhance the visual storytelling in film, and not take away. I'm all for it!

  • Telpeath Undomiel - 14 years ago

    Did anyone read the comment (i'm not sure where) that GDT is going to give the Hobbit a "whole new look." I'm not exactly sure what that means, but it could definitely become problematic for you Anti-3D people out there. (I think I read this on AP)

    @Erik Wraamann: I agree with you - PJ will not let anything bad happen - such as making a cheap looking set, making characters completely unbelievable, etc. I have total faith in the decision of PJ and GDT.

  • tolkienfanatic - 14 years ago

    I would not like it if GDT did the hobbit in 3D. I have never liked those films.

    1) It gives me headaches....

    and 2) I really think it's just unnessecary....

    Ireally don't even like well-done 3D films. Bt that is just my personal opinion!

  • Erik Wraamann - 14 years ago

    If the films will be offered in both 2D & 3D ( and why wouldn't they be ? ) the issue is moot. I personally don't need the newest parlor trick to enhance Tolkien. We all love the trilogy without 3D so obviously it is unnecessary. Staying true to professor Tolkien's vision is the primary key to success in crafting these films. Having Peter Jackson involved is clearly the most important key to the puzzle. Peter would never let Del Toro do anything to cheapen or damage this great work of literature.

  • oysteinsevag - 14 years ago

    Let me first say that I have every confidence in PJ and GDT to make a great interpretation of The Hobbit. I will go and see the film in whatever dimension they choose to make it.

    With that said I will now say I would prefer if the film was in 2D rather than 3D. Yes there is the continuity issue with LOTR, but that is only one reason I would prefer 2D over 3D.

    I don't particularly like 3D mostly because I am one of those people who get a headache watching it. But more than that I don't care much for 3D because I don't think most design studios have perfected CGI. Until movies get to the point where I cannot tell the difference between CGI and actual film, I don't see a reason to add another layer that the eyes have to process.

    I did not care for the effects of AVATAR because the CGI-Digital Film Capture was not seamless. Yes it was amazing and yes it was revolutionary in terms of scope and the lightness they brought to 3D imaging; but the world still looked fake. That CGI problem has not been fixed and still has a long way to go till we get to the point of seamless integration. Until the digital masterminds can make a “mystical/alien” world look so real it becomes reality I am not interested in seeing anything in 3D that has to transition between CGI and Digital Film Capture.

    That being said UP was fantastic, it was okay in 3D, but part of the reason it worked is because it was an entirely and exclusively digital environment. There was no switching back between the CGI environment and the Studio Set. That was the only reason the film worked so well in 3D.

    Since as far as I know The Hobbit is going film on sets with real actors and not generate every shot via a computer I think it would be in the best interest of the filmmakers to shoot in 2D and perhaps finally break the wall between CGI and reality. It would be tremendous progress to get to a point where you cannot tell when you are looking at a digital creation or an actual magical creature. After all these films will tell the story of Smaug, the Misty Mountain Goblins and Beorn. If I can look up on the screen and see a living breathing dragon that is so lifelike it makes me believe that dragons once existed on Earth, Middle Earth and everything in between I will be very pleased. Until then let’s leave the 3D to the Toy Story’s and Shrek’s of the world.

    Finally, and this is my last point-GDT and PJ are both very good at breaking down barriers in the 2D world they have been the guys pushing innovation in CGI, Animatronics, Puppetry, Modeling, Rendering and Motion Capture. Most of these are still new to the industry I would like to see them get some things right:
    1. Eyes on creatures that are as expressive as the eyes on a lizard, or person, or bear
    2. Facial expressions on magical creatures that actually move in billions of different ways and little tics that we all have when we talk or frown or stare into nothingness
    3.Skin, Hair, and surfaces with a texture that can be identified and related to something we can identify-So far all of the skin or hair I have seen is very flat, it has no wrinkles or creases, no kinks or split ends, the surfaces come in two types, textured and bumpy or smooth and flat, nothing is as it is in reality, a bit of both.

    When these guys can make these three things happen on a 2D screen I will happily go and see more things on the 3D screen. Until then there is enough that still needs to be done to create the digital fictional characters and environments before we apply yet another layer that creates an additional “fake” barrier between us and the environment.

    ~R

  • Serai Harper - 14 years ago

    This is a TERRIBLE idea. I certainly will not go to see this film if it is made in 3D, first and foremost because I am one of the many people who cannot watch 3D movies. In order for the technology to work, a person's eyes must focus on exactly the same spot. Surprise, surprise, there actually is variation in this! There are many people for whom 3D does not work; for us 3D is merely a cause of headaches and annoyance. And second, because it's a technology still in its infancy, whatever King Cameron may say, and thus filmmakers are still much too infatuated with the process to understand that their WHEEE and GEE WHIZ moments are juvenile and narcissistic, taking away from the story rather than enhancing it. I find it disheartening that Jackson would subject "The Hobbit" to this treatment out of his misplaced enthusiasm for an industry fad. And I'm especially disappointed that he wouldn't take into account all the fans who will not be able to see the film if it is made this way. Why not make the film in 2D and then convert some copies for those who want to see it in 3D? This is being done with some films now. 3D will also severely limit the number of theaters that could play the movie, since there are so few equipped for it. I can't imagine the backing studio (whichever one it turns out to be) will be very happy about losing revenue that way. THUMBS DOWN.

  • Carroll Thorn - 14 years ago

    Absolutely no. Although a movie with a poor story line like "Avatar" benefited both visually and financially by offering the 3D option, it was purely a visual movie, and had it not been for Weta, it would not even have been that." The Hobbit", however, is a literary masterpiece, and I think it would be a cheap, terrible diservice to Tolkien and to the fans to reduce it to such a gimmick.

  • TheTallHobbit - 14 years ago

    The world is 3D. Making it in 3D makes it more real. There are limitations to 2D. There are more capabilities of telling the story better in 3D.

  • Straelbora - 14 years ago

    The weakest points of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy is precisely the kind of filmmaking that 3-D would only enhance to the worst, that is, Peter Jackson's penchant for 'over the top' as opposed to subtle. Think of the two or three hours of cascading skulls from the Kingdom of the Dead, for example. Think of the endless stream of stumbling dinosaurs on the ledge from "King Kong." I know that del Toro is directing, but I just fear the story as written by Tolkien would take a back seat to "how cool can we make this scene using 3-D?"

  • Clarissa - 14 years ago

    I'm sorry, on second thought, let me change that. Lily and Edward person, or whoever you are, I agree with you when you say that LOTR fans can be narrow-minded when it comes to special effects and modern technology. I suppose that just because something is new does not mean that it will destroy stories and classics. I'm terribly sorry for my last post, and if I knew how to delete it I would.

  • Clarissa - 14 years ago

    No.

    3D will distract from the actual story of The Hobbit and some will, without even realizing it, be focusing more on the effects rather than the story line. I personally think that it is a horrible ideal altogether and people should stop talking and worrying about it so much.

  • Steelsheen - 14 years ago

    @ Moof, not wanting The Hobbit in 3D because its "intrusive and distracting" is like saying that you dont want your hair messed up in a roller coaster ride. 3D experience is SUPPOSED to be as interactive a sensation as possible, hence the term "3D". also you said that "it will only serve as a distraction from the narrative", if a movie is guilty of this it means that the storytelling is weak, which is no fault of the 3D technicians but the writers, director and editors. 3D, CGI and special effects are meant to ENHANCE storytelling, not make up for it. a weak screenplay set to special affects may survive on the first pass, but will fall flat on succeeding screenings. its been that way for 2D, 3D doesnt make it any different.

  • Steelsheen - 14 years ago

    why are people thinking 3D is a bad idea? are the purists out in full force yet again? sometimes i feel that if any of Tolkien's work on film isnt set to song ,in black and white featuring one man reading it from the book you people will trash it right away. which is exactly how you all sounded before FOTR wrecked havoc at the box office.

    now you're saying that it will "break continuity" with the LOTR films if The Hobbit was done in 3D? what are you people smoking? what makes you think that LOTR will remain in in 2D in the first place? dont you know that the main thrust of the 3D effort isnt just to enhance viewing experience for new films but more so to make well-loved older movies like Star Wars and LOTR into 3D? the 3D plan has been around since the 90s, its just now that technology and financial backing has caught up.

    i've read and heard a lot about 2D/3D debate, but this is the most inane reason i've come across so far, "not wanting a film to go 3D because it breaks franchise continuity" pfffft. putting something on 3D isnt going to make up for mediocre storytelling, just as big flashy explosions and special effects hasnt hidden or made up for it in the past 30 years. doesnt mean they should stop using those in storytelling. same rule applies in 3D.

    and i always thought that LOTR fans are smarter and more discerning. you people just displayed your ignorance and narrow mindedness.

  • Jim Dorey - 14 years ago

    You would not lose continuity as there will still be a 2D version. You have the best of both worlds. And of course the LOTR will be converted too. :-)

  • Phil - 14 years ago

    @Lily and Edward - you are both correct of course (hence my sarcasm).

  • Phil - 14 years ago

    @Lily and Edward - you are both correct of course (hence my sarcasm).

  • Richard - 14 years ago

    See "Up" in 3D for an example of how 3D can really enhance the experience of a movie. I think this is a perfectly valid option as long as shots are not contrived purely to demo the 3D effect. At every turn, the question needs to be asked, is this the way I would create this shot if it were 2D only? If not, then rethink the shot.

  • Mac BZ - 14 years ago

    Earth to commentors, Phil is being facetious!

  • Robin - 14 years ago

    I really hope GDT and Sir PJ don't make any changes what so ever due to a fan poll - they are the filmmakers. My wish however is that they keep this ridiculus 3D-crap far away from "The Hobbit"; but again, it's all up to them.

  • xavier - 14 years ago

    Definetely not in 3D. I agree with John, we would lose continuity. Should be 2D and that's it. Hope GDT and Sir PG get the result of this poll.

  • Edward - 14 years ago

    Phil, Are you on crack? Pop culture references? Written for 3-D? Eegads. Tolkien began building these stories during World War I. I don't think he had 3-D in mind at the time. Also, the whole point of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings was to form a psuedo-mythology for the long lost history of England and Northern Europe. Nothing could be more out of place than pop culture references.

  • John - 14 years ago

    I'd have to say that I'd rather it not be in 3D, but mainly for the reason that it breaks continuity with the LOTR films. My hope is that GDT keeps the look and feel similar to the LOTR films, though The Hobbit definitely has a brighter "feel" in the books, akin to a bedtime story vs. a darker novel. I suppose I can see 3D used for depth, but I really do think that the way in which studios are rationalizing this rush to 3D is manipulated.

    Most of these films are being released on the very best screens (IMAX) in ONLY 3D, making it seem like many of us are seeing the film for the express purpose of watching it in 3D. I would more than happily plunk myself down in front of The Hobbit on an IMAX screen without the 3D, and in fact I'd prefer it, but I doubt I'll be given that option. So, like the masses, rather than seeing it on an inferior screen, I'll probably have to endure the 3D experience to get it on the big IMAX screen I prefer.

  • Lily - 14 years ago

    Phil, hope you're not dissapointed, but Tolkien never wrote those parts and i don't think he would have approved...
    As for pop culture references...
    I don't think that's what LotR or the Hobbit is about. Let's concentrate on the story, no 3D for me.

  • Phil - 14 years ago

    3D would be a phenomenal idea for the film. Think how much better the three jackson films would have been in 3D. There weren't nearly enough awesome special effects or pop culture references in jackson's flims, and del torro could work a whole bunch into his movie. The wizard fight would have been even cooler if they had flown around in 3D! And wouldn't it have been fabulous if Gimli had made that dwarf tossing joke before flying out of the screen towards you! When Tolkien wrote those parts I bet he was thinking of 3D and how spectacular it would all look in a movie.

  • Lee - 14 years ago

    I trust Weta. The story is too good to be swallowed by 3D. If they do it, they'll do it right.

  • Telpeath Undomiel - 14 years ago

    Moof, of course I don't want it to be intrusive and as distracting as possible. That was definitely not what I was suggesting at all. All I am saying is that if they do decide to make the movie 3D, they need to make the 3D used - in ways that haven't been thought about. I haven't yet seen a 3D film that was impressive. I will admit that I am incredibly skeptical of the Hobbit being made 3D (let me put that straight). I am, however, saying that if they do make it so, I hope they learn what works and what doesn't in 3D. In Avatar, the imagery was brilliant, but the 3D had nothing to offer. Quite frankly, the 3D experience didn't make the movie better - same goes for Alice. I think if they use the money to make the movie 3D, they better find a way to make the 3D experience better than the original - how I don't know.

    Moof, I will agree with you that the 3D distracts one from the narrative. In Avatar, I felt that I was so overwhelmed with the 3D that I lost some of the dialogue and messages (which is why I also saw it in 2D). That is the challenge if they do so create it in 3D. So, in other words, if they have the money to do it in 3D, they must make sure that the narrative & imagery is enhanced by the 3D - not diminished.

  • Moof - 14 years ago

    So in other words, Telpeath Undomiel, you want the 3D to be as intrusive and distracting as possible. That doesn't sound like a movie I want to watch. The Hobbit should not be in 3D just like every other movie should not be in 3D because it will only ever serve as a distraction from the narrative, which is the whole point of watching a movie (with admittedly, a few exceptions over the years). If I wanted to pay an extra 4 dollars for my movie ticket... well I don't. So don't try and make me.

  • Matt MN - 14 years ago

    This would be a very difficult project to do in 3D (IMO).
    You have lots of bluescreen and false-size sets AND forced-perspective
    because of the different size of the characters played by full-sized actors.
    But PJ & co. may do it as they never back away from a challenge.
    IMO, it is unnecessary, especially since LOTR is 2D.

  • Welling4Superman - 14 years ago

    I'm all for it! It's all about options. If I don't want to see it in the 3D format, I simply watch it in the traditional 2D.

  • Froggish - 14 years ago

    If the movie is done in 3D, I'll be disappointed and just wait for it to come out on DVD. While I've been looking forward to this movie for years, I have no interest in 3D films—I just don't get the visual appeal, and I don't want to sit for three hours with heavy 3D glasses on my face.

  • Telpeath Undomiel - 14 years ago

    I think that it would be a good idea if, and only if, they are able to actually use the 3D to enhance the film. In movies such as Avatar and Alice in Wonderland, it had the 3D, but the 2D was just as good, if not better. I think each of these movies used the technology, but nothing was incredibly done. I think that if Peter Jackson was to use 3D technology in this film, he would need to find a way to do something that hasn't been done before.

    GDT needs to join up and discover a way to make the movie come alive if they choose to do it in 3D. Maybe Smaug might be a great thing to have in 3D (Fire coming right at us, arrows flying in our faces, etc.). Otherwise, if it doesn't enhance the story line, there is no point in adding it. If the imagery continues from the Trilogy to this film - It may not need 3D magic to bring in the bucks.

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars


Submit Comment