Orlando Bloom cast as Legolas in the Hobbit

[Calamity Panfan]

^ psh nothing beats this one

[video]Y30LAj502mY[/video]

(seriously the rankin/bass cartoon put the emphasis on the BASS in that movie. I want a range that low)

[Valigarmander]

^ Thurl Ravenscroft. It's a little too late to cast him in this film, though.

[CaptHayfever]

^^You're a mean one, Mr. Gollum.

^Barry Carl is still alive, though.

Perfect end credits music for part 1:
[yt]LxSEDnJ-1eA[/yt]

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Booyakasha]

'Fifteen Birds' rules. I really like the gleefully malicious variety of goblin---all too often you don't see but the roaring mindless cannon fodder variety, which isn't a tithe as interesting.

[Kil'jaeden]

For some reason I do not think they will keep the singing goblins. They are supposed to hiss and make spitting sounds until Aragorn cuts them in half, after all.

[SCARY WIZARD]

I LIKE DEAN O'GORMAN

[video]eM--4UklaL4&[/video]

Maybe I'm too used to the Rankin-Bass version of the story, but I can't get used to such sexy dwarves.

I wonder what the poster racks at stores are going to look like?

[Valigarmander]

Wow, this thread has been lying here since January?

So anyway, old news, but the movie is being filmed at 48 fps instead of the standard 24 fps. I'm worried it might take some getting used to.

[Deepfake]

*instead of 24fps

24 is like a magic number, gotta say, probably just because it's been standard for so long - it's very forgiving and really lends a cinematic feeling, IMO

That said, a higher framerate with 60fps being the goal is certainly amicable and immediate feeling to the viewer. The difference on my camera between 60 and 30 is pretty shocking. Filesize being a concern, and being a bit lowfi on the editing side, I still like to render to 24 - Moving cameras might be a problem elsewhere, but if I do any pans they've got to be in editing, sadly.



I'm disappointed that this being a 3D film has impacted the process so much, though, as many of the shots are obviously closer than I'd prefer, and all for the sake of making the 3D work. It lends it a for-tv appearance in 2D, and I'm pretty over the higher cost of entry for 3D cinema. 3D gaming is awesome, but in film? It makes it difficult to appreciate the framing of a shot while viewed in 3D, so it's like they're not even trying anymore.

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

3D movies are fine, but not everything needs to do it, and that's the problem. Imagine a Michael Moore documentary in 3D. It's the only qay his intensity could be more in-your-face.

[Deepfake]

^ No, it's not fine. I restricts films to middling or close framing and that negatively impacts the artistic presentation.

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

^ Despite my opinion that Avatar sucked, it did 3D very well and the movie looks fine in 2D. That's also the general consensus (aside from it sucking).

[Deepfake]

Actually it had a lot of wide, shallow shots in an effort to negate the poor framing in other 3D films which eroded the 3D depth to the point of the effect being negligible. I've played games in 3D since around 2002 and have had access to true-depth 3D, and can safely say that Avatar did it so poorly that Cameron shouldn't have bothered.

[Booyakasha]

'Avatar' had much, much worse problems than poor implementation of 3D.

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

^^ Well, you're more knowledgeable than I am on the subject of film...and most other subjects. I'm just reciting opinions I've come across, and my own. I think it looks fine. As for gaming, I've never played any 3D games apart from the 3DS. I want to some day.

^ Yeah, I agree. That about sums up my views on Avatar. My friend really loves it and it kind of pisses me off.

[Deepfake]

Avatar was so... Captain Planet meets Jurassic Park. I never understood why my friends liked Captain Planet, it was clearly broken even as a superhero or scifi franchise, and Jurassic Park was exciting for its technology and settings but otherwise is a pretty bland film. The plot and concepts were pretty clearly distilled from the most generic facets of 90s Hollywood. Of course, Hollywood's mostly gotten somehow even more soulless since then, so no surprise that it succeeded, but more for the generic Disney-alike adventure than for its technology.

- - - Updated - - -

I think it looks fine.

That's kind of what I was saying, though - Avatar had good framing and shots even in 2D at the cost of the effect of the 3D. The Hobbit has closer shots to emphasize the effect of the 3D, but the 2D previews are pretty underwhelming, and the CGI in 2D is especially suffering for it as they're unable to do most post fx they'd normally do on CGI for a 2D film due to it being tailor-made for 3D.

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

HEART

^ Jurassic Park was awesome when I was a kid. Now it's just okay. It was still better than its sequels, though, which is usually how it goes. Jeez, what a mess those were.

So, you're saying that Avatar played it safe, walking the fence, and the result was a a film that didn't really deliver either way, 2D or 3D, right? Well, I agree then. Good try on the director's part, though. I'd have done the same thing.

I guess 3D movies are more of a novelty, hm?

[Booyakasha]

I'm not sold on 3D as anything that enhances a narrative. I've yet to see the film where that happens. I grant I don't see most films---I'm given to understand 'Hugo', for example, did it a sight better than 'Avatar' and your worthless Dreamworks kids' movies have. Like, up until the past couple years, 3D hadn't been a cinematic thing since the giant ant flicks of the fifties. I'm not saying it can't be done well---I'm just saying there's maybe a reason it disappeared for fifty-odd years.

Like, right, basic stance? 1. Immersion is crucial to a good cinema experience. 2. Bad 3D hurts immersion. 3. I can't imagine wanting to pay more for a potentially worse cinema experience. That's just what it is.

[Deepfake]

Yeah, but wowing audiences with 3D in the cinema is going to break immersion - once the viewer's no longer conscious of it, it's not doing anything a decently shot and edited 2D film had never done. For the audience experience, it's just a hook.

In gaming, the inverse is true. The depth is a necessary tool for immersion that can lend itself tremendously to suspense, horror, or even simple judging of distance. Games went "3D" years ago, long before the 32-bit generation, but have been limited in such a way due to a lack of depth perception thanks to 2D displays. 3D Mario games refuse to present the player with tiers of platforms between gaps, because that perception is missing.

- - - Updated - - -

I guess 3D movies are more of a novelty, hm?

For cinema, 3D is a hat trick.

[CaptHayfever]

The only time I actually liked the 3D on a movie was Tron Legacy, because of the way it was selectively implemented; only the part of the film in the computer world had the effect, & all of the straight lines & visible vectors in said world allowed it to stand out while still allowing proper framing.
That said, I didn't pay to see it; I saw it at a friend's house 6 months later on his 3D TV. The upcharge on 3D tickets is absurd.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[monstrman]

I saw clash of the titans in 3D and there was more 3Dof in the credits than the actual movie. 3D is real dumb and people who go see it are wasting money on 10 cent glasses they charge you a dollar for. Oh, and they reuse them