Re: News from the set [2]

by Eldorion Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:06 am

TORn posted a very lengthy summary of the footage that was shown which I will read later when I'm actually awake. Razz

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/04/27/55378-hobbit-footage-review-massive-spoilers-full-coverage-analysis/

by Eldorion Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:14 am

Nevermind, I just had to point out a few "highlights" first.

This showed Sir Christopher Lee in front of greenscreen, looking at the table where Gandalf has just placed a Morgul blade. Urgent discussion ensues about the nature of the weapon, and a luminous Cate Blanchett gets the lion’s share of the expository dialogue. She explains how the Men of the North once battled against the Witch-King of Angmar, and succeeded in burying him in a spell-protected crypt, “so dark and deeply buried it would never see light again.” Gandalf raises his eyebrows as if to say, “It’s right here now, so never say never.” Hugo Weaving provides the deep-voiced “But that’s impossible!” incredulity of the scene while the faintest flicker of wickedness passes across Saruman’s face. I loved it! Intrigue and nervousness among the White Council… sounds great except it doesn’t exist in J.R.R. Tolkien like that. Nowhere in the books did the Dúnedain show the ability to imprison the Nazgûl. This is our first evidence of the filmmakers’ applying new narrative invention within material culled from the Appendices of LOTR. We evidently won’t see the Battle of Fornost or hear Glorfindel’s famous prophecy being uttered about the Witch-King’s ultimate fate, as his dark enemy flees into the distance. So be prepared to tell your non-Tolkien reading friends what really happened with the Nazgûl.

Cut to the prison-crypt, where Gandalf is investigating in the dark, using only his staff as a light source, and then BAM! there’s Radagast right behind him. Here is the wonderful Sylvester McCoy giving us a daftly adorable new wizard. Strange that Radagast is not shown as a member of the White Council, though. Setting that aside, I must admit McCoy’s portrayal, along with Martin Freeman’s wonderful Bilbo, are the two performances I most admire so far.

Radagast? Oh let me tell you, he’s just got so much going on! He is wearing a funnily-shaped hat with dominant brown and black hues, underneath which is revealed a bird’s nest with hatchlings making a mess all in his hair and beard! McCoy brings a disarming, childlike quality to the character. As Gandalf whips around to see who is sneaking up on him, he exhales rather irritated, “Oh, it’s you,” followed by Radagast’s frightened admission that the crypt they’re standing in “is not a nice place to meet.” He also has a glowing crystal piece in his staff, and leaning over the vertical shaft, they both look down over the edge, as Gandalf counts a total of nine tombs, all with their spells broken and bars ripped.

I’m not remembering these clips in the correct order they were shown, but we also see a brief shot of Radagast being pulled along the forest floor in a sled drawn by mighty grey jackrabbits! I kid you not, it was a ramshackle version of an Iditarod dogsled, made of twisted branches and bracken, pulled by six or seven oversized rabbits. I think it was Radagast, but he went by so fast — what other character could it be? And this point the filmmakers are making a complete departure from Tolkien but it honestly doesn’t bother me. I like the idea that the writers and WETA’s clever artists can come up with something wholly new. It seems quite silly on paper, but it’s also whimsical enough to fit in nicely with the tone of The Hobbit book. It’s definitely no sillier than a line-up of farm animals setting up a feast and doing catering service in Beorn’s house, is it?

I believe this Radagast will be a most memorable character that moviegoers love to love. I think he’s an innovation for this story. Can’t wait to see more of McCoy in this role.

The bolded sections are some of the stuff that's been causing outrage here already. However, also of note are the underlined sections, which is where TORn of all sites admits that the film-makers are just making shit up. Of course, they don't mind (they are TORn) but for them to even admit this in the first place really says something about the extent of what PJ and Co. have done to The Hobbit. I might need to adjust my way of thinking about this movie so that I'll be able to laugh at the ridiculous stuff come December. Razz

...

by Lancebloke Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:22 am

They should call this:

An Unexpected Journey - Loosely based on the hobbit.

Sounds like a lot of bullshit to me! I know they don't have access to the wider universe outside of LotR and The Hobbit, but I don't understand why they couldn't make a good adaptation using the same general story (there is a lot in the appendicies that could have been used) instead of just making utter donkey bollocks up.

The trilogy made up a few bits but was largely in keeping with the book... this just seems to be basically a different story (if anyone has read and seen the bourne trilogy [the later ones were writeen by different people] then this has the same hallmarks of using a name to make a different story popular)

by Norc Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:21 pm

I've stopped reading this thread cause it makes me fucking depressed.

by Mrs Figg Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:37 pm

My sentiments entirely Norc, I am fucking depressed too.

what makes it even worse all this crappy stuff is going to look hyper real, you are going to see it up close and personal, if they want whimsy and charming characters you need a cinematic look to the film to make it work, giant bunnies on cheap looking video effects is going to be laughable.

by Norc Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:42 pm

I overheard some of my fellow students behind me talking about exactly this article and even though I hardly speak to them (I don't know if people on my school knows I'm a supernerd) but I had to turn around and say "the hobbit is going to be shit".

my only hope now is that I only can be pleasently surprised.

by halfwise Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:58 pm

My dear Norcy and Figgy - I know I've said it before and been told all the reasons that I'm wrong, but despite what other faults PJ may have I still believe he'll make a film that looks good, however ludicrous other aspects may be.

I really want you to share my optimism, because I can't stand to see two such darling girls suffer unless I'm the cause of it. I love you

by Mrs Figg Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:15 pm

by Lancebloke Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:13 pm

The thing with this is... it really makes me want to see it so that I can make my own decision. I am not too bothered about the quality of it just yet as I would imagine that if the story is good enough then I will forget about the quality quite quickly (as I do when I go from HD back to SD). The whole fect that it is going to be in a cinema and projected should add an element of grit to it that should help however clear the original looks.

I just dont want this to feel like another installment of Harry Potter. Although I don;t know why as the book is far more inclined to that sort of thing and it would be wrong to take the WC parts out of that whole theme and make it serios as that probably woudlnt work too well.

I dont know any more. Roll on December so I can decide!

by David H Fri Apr 27, 2012 4:33 pm

This has actually been quite helpful to me. As I've said before, my plan from the beginning has been to set my expectations as low as possible so that I won't find myself ranting and walking out in the middle of a film I paid good money for (a lesson learned from Ralph Bakshi).

Thanks to the new revelations, I can happily say that my expectations are now lower than I would have ever believed possible. Suspect

by **Amarië** Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:01 pm

David H wrote:This has actually been quite helpful to me. As I've said before, my plan from the beginning has been to set my expectations as low as possible so that I won't find myself ranting and walking out in the middle of a film I paid good money for (a lesson learned from Ralph Bakshi).

Thanks to the new revelations, I can happily say that my expectations are now lower than I would have ever believed possible.

*sigh* Same here, and here I was thinking I was being VERY pessimistic all this time, and then it seems I have been far to optimistic. Sad

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:04 pm

There is a question to be asked here about what counts as adaptation. I see now why PJ's name gets 3 mentions in the trailer and Tolkien one in the final shot along with all the producers and stuff.
But when you are doing Tolkien- a world so carefully constructed and dated, can you just ignore all that and make your own version of history up? (I am thinking of the tomb of the Ring-wraiths here mainly). And if you do make it up surely it is no longer anything to do with Tolkien.

by halfwise Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:10 pm

I'm trying to figure out what structural reason they may have for the tomb of the ringwraiths. They don't affect the Hobbit at all; is it just that they are trying to tie up loose ends for LoTR? Admittedly this is one of Tolkien's loose ends, but I don't see why it was so all fired important to drag it in. Portents for the White Council to discuss?

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:15 pm

Far as I can tell and some of this is pure guess work- in the trlls hoard they will find a morgul-blade belonging to the witch-king. Gandalf will take it to the council- then go investigate- the tombs bein opened will hint that the Necromancer is Sauron (actually its a hell of a lot more than a hint).
But there is severe problems here- firstly the Dunedain of the north never entombed the ringwraiths. There is no tomb. Secondly it makes it too obvious who the Necromancer is.

by David H Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:15 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote: can you just ignore all that and make your own version of history up? (I am thinking of the tomb of the Ring-wraiths here mainly).

Clearly he can Rolling Eyes

Pettytyrant101 wrote:And if you do make it up surely it is no longer anything to do with Tolkien.

I don't think so. I know I'd be even angrier if he made the same movie and gave Tolkien no credit whatsoever. That would be inexcusable plagiarism. Mad

by Mrs Figg Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:37 pm

I was wondering about the tomb of the ringwraiths too, how does it tie in with the WC? I can only imagine that Gandalf has had some trouble with the wraiths and goes to explore Dol guldur only to find the Nec and his minions in residence, maybe the Nec is using the wraiths as a kind of personal guard, well at this stage of the game Tolkien has been thrown out with the bath water so its anyones guess.

by David H Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:39 pm

I think the answer to why PJ inserted the tombs is probably as simple as that he likes vampire and mummy movies and he wanted to steal those undead idioms to make the 9 more spooky. More spooky I agree with, but this ain't right!

I'm at a loss to explain the bunnies. I think rabbit stew sounds like a perfect dinner when the movie is released.

by Mrs Figg Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:42 pm

You should feed them your glow in the dark carrots first. :carrot:

by David H Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:48 pm

Perfect, Mrs Figg! I'll make a big pot. All of Forumshire is invited!

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:39 pm

“Buried with him, when Angmar fell,” Galadriel said. “And sealed deep within the rock, in a tomb so dark and deeply buried it would never see light again.”
“Why am I here, Gandalf?” he asks in a whisper. “This is not a nice place to meet.”
“No,” Gandalf agrees, peering down into the abyss. “It is not.”
“These are dark spells, Gandalf — old, and full of hate. Who is buried here?”
“If he had a name it has long since been lost,” Gandalf replies. “He would have been known only as a servant of evil.”

As well as bunnie pulled sleds, birds nest under hats am I the only one appaled at the sub-Dungeons and Dragons standard of dialogue being presented here? It's awful. Tolkien would have gnawed his hand off at the wrist rather than write this stuff.

by Mrs Figg Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:52 pm

I agree its utter drivel, its embarrasingly bad. I dont think your edits are going to be able to remove all the dross on these films. I cant believe I just said that. Only a few days ago I was PJ's biggest whoop whooper and now look at me, a sorry deflated defiled shadow of a woman. Mad

by David H Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:04 pm

Birds on the head and bird poo in the hair and beard sounds like T H White's Merlin. It'll be interesting to see if more of Radagast's character is borrowed from White.

by Kendalf Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:05 am

THE CONTENT
There's absolutely no point in me laying out my personal response to what was revealed this week at CinemaCon because I concur with absolutely everybody here. My forehead is deeply, deeply imbedded in my palm.

Still, I was wondering...

1) Is there any justification (no matter how very, very, very small) for those freaking bunnies? I scoured my mind and the web for, er, minutes trying to uncover some sort of reference to Radagast and rodents, even if it was just one line, one title given to him, say, like "bird-tamer". The nearest I got was the fact that the "Lord of the Rings Online" role-playing game has a Radagast-related side-quest called "Friend of Hares". But all that did was get me wondering why they had such a reference!!

2) When exactly are Gandalf and Radagast expected to go investigating the Ringwraiths' tomb? After the meeting of the White Council, whilst Elrond, Saruman and Galadriel make preparations for the assault on Dol Guldur? Or is the assault now out of the window, replaced by this spooky (and much smaller-scale) confrontation? If it doesn't replace the assault, that's a flashback to Gandalf meeting Thrain in Dol Guldur, an investigation of a Nazgul tomb and an assault on the Necromancer's fortress all in Part I (probably)!! A darker tone? I should coco!

THE IMAGE
Like Lance, Halfwise and others, I'm a little more relaxed on the quality of the image. I do distinctly remember watching a blu-ray on my new 100Hz TV, thinking "Eh? That looks weird" and reverting it to 24fps but I'm sure that, in the cinema, after six months' post-production, and with a longer period to get used to the new feel (not just 10 short minutes), it'll all turn out fine. Better than fine, actually. I still think it's going to be ground-breaking.

PS Yes, I know Hz and fps aren't the same thing, but my experience has helped me understand CinemaCon's sceptics.

by Pettytyrant101 Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:28 am

I've been doing some rooting about on this 48 frames problem and basically there are two problems with it.
The reason at least two of the reviewers were reminded of BBC tv dramas from the 1970's in very simple- the BBC were shooting on film cameras at 50fps. That is the look you get when you do that- so I am skeptical this can be 'solved' as technically its not a problem- its supposed to look like that-that is the look shooting at those frame rates produces.
The second problem is its a 70's BBC TV look but in ultra HD. So every imperfection shows up. 24fps puts a gloss on things, which also masks a lot of stuff like wigs, false beards, makeup, props etc.
There also seem to be issues with lighting and contrast, white is to bright and black is too dark- this is more likely to be solved in post and eventually on set when they get the hang of lightiing 48fps films in the future.

On your other points Kendalf

1- not that I am aware of but the Lore Masters here will dig something up if its to be found, I have no doubt.

2- my own guess is the morgul blade referred to will be in the Troll's hoard and will replace Glamdring, which in PJ's Gandalf will simply always have from the start, no explanation. This will lead him to going to either going to Rivendell, having the Council and going to the tomb to meet Radagast, or going to the tomb first, but from the awful dialogue at the Council I reckon the former.
I have no idea however where they will put the Thrain stuff.

I fear the TH is going to suffer the structuring fate of TT and RotK- which is cuttting away to often to other events and taking away from emotional involvment in any of the main stories and especially from the (should be) simple story of Bilbo and the Dwarves.

by halfwise Sat Apr 28, 2012 3:08 am

I'm just guessing but I would think with the faster frame rates there would be an exposure issue. Since they are no longer using film I would think this may be less of a problem, but any time you do something different little unexpected details rear their heads. Again, I think since it's all digitized they likely will be able to fix the problems, but we'll see. Still don't like 3D though.