Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sly Oyster)   Can't tell if the official Hobbit 3D glasses are so heinous that they've circled back into cool or just ugly   (slyoyster.com ) divider line
    More: Fail, Hobbit 3D, hobbits, nuisance  
•       •       •

7069 clicks; posted to Geek » on 03 Aug 2012 at 9:41 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



59 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-03 07:55:03 AM  
Did they steal the Harry Potter font?
 
2012-08-03 08:00:28 AM  

Elvis_Bogart: Did they steal the Harry Potter font?


The Chinese sweatshop that made both of them only had that font.
 
2012-08-03 09:30:00 AM  
Third Hobbit film? When the hell did that happen?
 
2012-08-03 09:35:24 AM  
3D? Aw shiat. I hate it when directors cater to giggling 6-year-olds.
 
2012-08-03 09:46:03 AM  
There i no reason to turn the Hobbit into three movies other than a shameless money grab. If you can do the entire LoTR in 3 films you can do the Hobbit in one or two.
 
2012-08-03 09:47:31 AM  
3D?

Ugh. That is not what I wanted to hear.
 
2012-08-03 09:47:39 AM  

hillbillypharmacist: Third Hobbit film? When the hell did that happen?


A few days ago. Unless the movies are now 2 hours each instead of 3, it's going to be a bloated mess.
 
2012-08-03 09:49:05 AM  

Rev.K: 3D?

Ugh. That is not what I wanted to hear.


Not only that, it's shot with a new frame rate that filmmakers like Jackson and James Cameron think is mind blowing, but to normal people looks like a '70s soap opera.
 
2012-08-03 09:55:44 AM  
They don't look any worse than those big windshield sunglasses that many women decide to wear.

www.eleganteyes.com

Plus they are much cheaper.
 
2012-08-03 09:59:33 AM  
"Flintstones. Meet the Flintstones. They have primitive technology..."
 
2012-08-03 10:04:23 AM  
Fugly. Your friendly local blacksmith could turn out something less clunky using hand-made nails.

Maybe they should have allowed the Elves to come up with 3-d eyeglass designs instead of farming the work out to the Orcs.

How about little hairy hobby feet? I'd like little hairy hobbit feet glasses. They'd be funny and still be less fugly, and I'm by no means a foot fetishist.
 
2012-08-03 10:05:33 AM  

Rev. Skarekroe: Not only that, it's shot with a new frame rate that filmmakers like Jackson and James Cameron think is mind blowing, but to normal people looks like a '70s soap opera.


Our American brains are trained to think that low FPS blurrier motion equals major Hollywood production, while more realistic high FPS video means equals cheap digital home movie recorder.

I'm not saying that's good or bad, but it is remarkable.
 
2012-08-03 10:08:48 AM  

Carth: There i no reason to turn the Hobbit into three movies other than a shameless money grab. If you can do the entire LoTR in 3 films you can do the Hobbit in one or two.


You really can't do LoTR in 3 Films, have you seen the Full Extended Editions? It's closer to 6 movies.

Instead of doing 1 or 2 2hour movies and releasing the other few hours on Bluray only, just releasing all 6 in theaters makes sense.

Only HARDCORE geeks would have gone to see 6 LoTR movies.
 
2012-08-03 10:09:31 AM  

jonny_q: Rev. Skarekroe: Not only that, it's shot with a new frame rate that filmmakers like Jackson and James Cameron think is mind blowing, but to normal people looks like a '70s soap opera.

Our American brains are trained to think that low FPS blurrier motion equals major Hollywood production, while more realistic high FPS video means equals cheap digital home movie recorder.

I'm not saying that's good or bad, but it is remarkable.


No I believe its that the Special Effects and backdrops look fake because the real stuff looks so good in comparison. It just forces them to spend that much more on props and CGI. Of course, apparently it still takes a little while to get used to it.
 
2012-08-03 10:11:11 AM  
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-08-03 10:24:01 AM  

DoBeDoBeDo: Carth: There i no reason to turn the Hobbit into three movies other than a shameless money grab. If you can do the entire LoTR in 3 films you can do the Hobbit in one or two.

You really can't do LoTR in 3 Films, have you seen the Full Extended Editions? It's closer to 6 movies.

Instead of doing 1 or 2 2hour movies and releasing the other few hours on Bluray only, just releasing all 6 in theaters makes sense.

Only HARDCORE geeks would have gone to see 6 LoTR movies.


In theaters LOTR 9 hours 17 minutes The extended edition was 11 hours 22 minutes. The source material was 1142 pages so the extended edition it was about 100 pages per hour.

The Hobbit trilogy is going to be 9 hours long out of a 320 page book so it will be about an hour every 30 pages.
 
2012-08-03 10:24:17 AM  
Are they...are they keys? I don't recall keys being a major part of the Hobbit...

As for three movies, not surprised...even though it should probably only be one movie, I assume that you can put them together as one and it would be about like the extended cut of Return of the King.
 
2012-08-03 10:27:06 AM  

MindStalker: jonny_q: Rev. Skarekroe: Not only that, it's shot with a new frame rate that filmmakers like Jackson and James Cameron think is mind blowing, but to normal people looks like a '70s soap opera.

Our American brains are trained to think that low FPS blurrier motion equals major Hollywood production, while more realistic high FPS video means equals cheap digital home movie recorder.

I'm not saying that's good or bad, but it is remarkable.

No I believe its that the Special Effects and backdrops look fake because the real stuff looks so good in comparison. It just forces them to spend that much more on props and CGI. Of course, apparently it still takes a little while to get used to it.


This is a horrible comparison, but I was at Meijers in the TV section looking at one of those crazy ultra high def rich contrast magic televisions and they had on Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland and it was I sanely jarring to see the soft edge of CGI against hard masks around the real people and sets.

I've always wondered with this rush of CGI and 3D are we in a way trying to get back to theater? A spectacle within a 3dimensional space. I mean assholes are trying to introduce smells and sound/motion effects into movies now. Why are we making this wack ass spectacle when actual things and people are here?

/will not see the Hobbit if it's in 3D
//don't care what Peter Jackson says, this and three movies is milking nerds for cash
 
2012-08-03 10:29:07 AM  

Elvis_Bogart: Did they steal the Harry Potter font?


No it's the same as The Lord of the Rings font. Although Harry Potter, LotR, and the Star Wars prequels were definitely on the same wavelength for "epic fantasy title"
 
2012-08-03 10:35:56 AM  

Mawson of the Antarctic: /will not see the Hobbit if it's in 3D
//don't care what Peter Jackson says, this and three movies is milking nerds for cash



And Action movies milk Jocks for cash. This is true for all audiences.

//Nerds do tend to have more disposable income though.
 
2012-08-03 10:39:22 AM  

Rev. Skarekroe: A few days ago. Unless the movies are now 2 hours each instead of 3, it's going to be a bloated mess.


On the plus side, they'll likely be a fan edit that conforms it to the actual narrative of The Hobbit, cutting out the excess. That could be an awesome 2-3 hour movie.
 
2012-08-03 10:39:43 AM  

MindStalker: Mawson of the Antarctic: /will not see the Hobbit if it's in 3D
//don't care what Peter Jackson says, this and three movies is milking nerds for cash


And Action movies milk Jocks for cash. This is true for all audiences.

//Nerds do tend to have more disposable income though.


Well, LOTR was popular for everyone, so the movie going audience will get suckered out of cash.
 
2012-08-03 11:10:19 AM  
it's not impossible to make three enjoyable movies from the source material. Nothing to get worked up about. I'm kinda looking forward to it.
 
2012-08-03 11:10:58 AM  

jonny_q: Rev. Skarekroe: Not only that, it's shot with a new frame rate that filmmakers like Jackson and James Cameron think is mind blowing, but to normal people looks like a '70s soap opera.

Our American brains are trained to think that low FPS blurrier motion equals major Hollywood production, while more realistic high FPS video means equals cheap digital home movie recorder.

I'm not saying that's good or bad, but it is remarkable.


Not quite. Starting in the 1950s there were people pushing for a higher frame rate, but it never went anywhere because most filmmakers preferred the aesthetic look of 24fps.

The latest push is the result of 3D because it works much better with a higher frame rate. If it wasn't for the fact that James Cameron thinks 3D is the greatest thing ever and wants all films shot that way, The Hobbit would have been shot at 24 fps.
 
2012-08-03 11:11:24 AM  
They're so terrible they wrap around to cool only to go back to terrible again.
 
2012-08-03 11:13:24 AM  

Carth: There i no reason to turn the Hobbit into three movies other than a shameless money grab. If you can do the entire LoTR in 3 films you can do the Hobbit in one or two.


The running time of the films has been revealed, and someone calculated the running time per page of the original book: there will be about one minute and forty seconds of film for every page of The Hobbit.

That's enough time that you could cover the entire book in perfect detail - every snippet of dialogue, every visual described, etc.

They're not going to do that, of course. They're going to make up a bunch of crap that's not in the book.

/relevant username
 
2012-08-03 11:18:45 AM  

Dr. Whoof: Are they...are they keys? I don't recall keys being a major part of the Hobbit...

As for three movies, not surprised...even though it should probably only be one movie, I assume that you can put them together as one and it would be about like the extended cut of Return of the King.


Well, there was the key that Gandalf gave Thorin which was kind of important. It kinda sorta opens the door into the mountain and all...
The glasses are still fugly and stupid though.

Definitely won't see this in 3D.
 
2012-08-03 11:37:50 AM  

Carth: DoBeDoBeDo: Carth: There i no reason to turn the Hobbit into three movies other than a shameless money grab. If you can do the entire LoTR in 3 films you can do the Hobbit in one or two.

You really can't do LoTR in 3 Films, have you seen the Full Extended Editions? It's closer to 6 movies.

Instead of doing 1 or 2 2hour movies and releasing the other few hours on Bluray only, just releasing all 6 in theaters makes sense.

Only HARDCORE geeks would have gone to see 6 LoTR movies.

In theaters LOTR 9 hours 17 minutes The extended edition was 11 hours 22 minutes. The source material was 1142 pages so the extended edition it was about 100 pages per hour.

The Hobbit trilogy is going to be 9 hours long out of a 320 page book so it will be about an hour every 30 pages.


Has it been confirmed that the films are all going to be three hours long? I wonder if the move to three movies over two is at least partially to cut down the run time. If you have, say, three 130 min movies, that gets you 390 minutes for 320 pages, or not quite a page a minute - 50-60 pages an hour. Still slower than LOTR, but not quite the 30 pages an hour dragfest you mentioned above.

Also, it's been a while since I read the Hobbit, but having just recently re-read LOTR, there are TONS of pages that had nothing to do whatsoever with moving the plot forward. Like the poetry, and the songs, and family lineages, ancient history, digressions into racial migration, industrial allegory, etc. - stuff that wasn't necessarily bad on the page, but mostly wasn't translated to the screen. And don't forget the Scouring of the Shire and Tom Bombadil were both cut completely as well - that's probably a good hundred pages minimum that were removed, speeding up the pace from what you figured.

The point, before I got lost in a digression, is that I don't remember a lot of extraneous crap in The Hobbit, as it was a much simpler tale with far fewer digressions. I'm just curious if I'm misremembering, or if more of what's on the page will actually make it to the screen. Basically, would 50-60 pages of The Hobbit contain as much plot as 100 pages of LOTR? Then cutting the films shorter and splitting them in three (even though it's an obvious cash grab) might not make them drag as much as is feared.
 
2012-08-03 11:52:01 AM  

Rev.K: 3D?

Ugh. That is not what I wanted to hear.


movies shot in 3D (Stereoscopic shooting) from start to finish are good in it (see: Avatar), the rest - where they "after the fact try to hack" suck (see: everything NOT Avatar to date)

PJ is shooting 9k resolution, 48fps per eye.


As For three movies/pace

they're pulling in stuff from the appendices. lots of stuff from the appendices.
 
2012-08-03 12:00:09 PM  

Kazan: PJ is shooting 9k resolution, 48fps per eye.


That's going to be a really choppy movie when there's only a few people watching. Might as well be a slideshow at that point.
 
2012-08-03 12:05:24 PM  

jbtilley: Kazan: PJ is shooting 9k resolution, 48fps per eye.

That's going to be a really choppy movie when there's only a few people watching. Might as well be a slideshow at that point.


lol what?

not sure if joke, or just ignorant that movies run at 24fps traditionally....
 
2012-08-03 12:07:17 PM  
I'm trusting Jackson on this, the battle of the five armies was basically (spoiler) told to Bulbo after he got knocked out, a couple of pages = a big ass-battle sequence.
 
2012-08-03 12:09:56 PM  
And so it begins. Everyone wants to hate The Hobbit. The internet will kill this movie no matter how great it really is.
 
2012-08-03 12:15:51 PM  

Carth: DoBeDoBeDo: Carth: There i no reason to turn the Hobbit into three movies other than a shameless money grab. If you can do the entire LoTR in 3 films you can do the Hobbit in one or two.

You really can't do LoTR in 3 Films, have you seen the Full Extended Editions? It's closer to 6 movies.

Instead of doing 1 or 2 2hour movies and releasing the other few hours on Bluray only, just releasing all 6 in theaters makes sense.

Only HARDCORE geeks would have gone to see 6 LoTR movies.

In theaters LOTR 9 hours 17 minutes The extended edition was 11 hours 22 minutes. The source material was 1142 pages so the extended edition it was about 100 pages per hour.

The Hobbit trilogy is going to be 9 hours long out of a 320 page book so it will be about an hour every 30 pages.


Only if there's no Silmarillion back story in the first, and no appendix/bridging shiat in the last. Way more source material that most folks are remembering. It's all One giant narrative detailing the history of Middle Earth.
 
2012-08-03 12:32:27 PM  

whither_apophis: I'm trusting Jackson on this, the battle of the five armies was basically (spoiler) told to Bulbo after he got knocked out, a couple of pages = a big ass-battle sequence.


The battle better not include anyone surfing down a staircase or elephant trunk.
 
2012-08-03 12:35:37 PM  

Oakenshield: Carth: DoBeDoBeDo: Carth: There i no reason to turn the Hobbit into three movies other than a shameless money grab. If you can do the entire LoTR in 3 films you can do the Hobbit in one or two.

You really can't do LoTR in 3 Films, have you seen the Full Extended Editions? It's closer to 6 movies.

Instead of doing 1 or 2 2hour movies and releasing the other few hours on Bluray only, just releasing all 6 in theaters makes sense.

Only HARDCORE geeks would have gone to see 6 LoTR movies.

In theaters LOTR 9 hours 17 minutes The extended edition was 11 hours 22 minutes. The source material was 1142 pages so the extended edition it was about 100 pages per hour.

The Hobbit trilogy is going to be 9 hours long out of a 320 page book so it will be about an hour every 30 pages.

Only if there's no Silmarillion back story in the first, and no appendix/bridging shiat in the last. Way more source material that most folks are remembering. It's all One giant narrative detailing the history of Middle Earth.


They've already made it clear that they're including the information from "The Quest of Erebus" as well as some other materials, and will be expanding on the role of the White Council and the battle against the Necromancer. I'm mostly interesting in seeing how much of the backstory of Sauron they decide to include, and whether or not they explain anything with Morgoth, Numenor, or any of the Silmarillion. They might include the 5 wizards being sent to Middle-Earth, but I'm also wondering how much they'll get into the stuff about Eru and the Valar and Maiar.

//regarding book length vs movie length, many parts of LoTR were completely skipped in the films, so the if you remove those sections of the books the page:hour ratio is lower. Examples include the Scouring of the Shire and Tom Bombadil.
 
2012-08-03 12:39:49 PM  

Samwise Gamgee: Carth: There i no reason to turn the Hobbit into three movies other than a shameless money grab. If you can do the entire LoTR in 3 films you can do the Hobbit in one or two.

The running time of the films has been revealed, and someone calculated the running time per page of the original book: there will be about one minute and forty seconds of film for every page of The Hobbit.

That's enough time that you could cover the entire book in perfect detail - every snippet of dialogue, every visual described, etc.

They're not going to do that, of course. They're going to make up a bunch of crap that's not in the book.

/relevant username


They'll spend a quite few more minutes on battles, exploring dragon lairs, hiding in underground caves and being chased by trolls and a bit less on walking through forests. You could get that amount of screen time without inventing dialog or new characters.
 
2012-08-03 01:03:26 PM  
Those look comfortable.
 
2012-08-03 01:38:11 PM  
Maybe they are going to put the Tom Bombidil footage in these movies therefore the need for more movies

/I said movies twice
 
2012-08-03 01:47:30 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: Third Hobbit film? When the hell did that happen?


When they realized they could make 50% more money that way.
 
2012-08-03 01:50:19 PM  

Rev. Skarekroe: Rev.K: 3D?

Ugh. That is not what I wanted to hear.

Not only that, it's shot with a new frame rate that filmmakers like Jackson and James Cameron think is mind blowing, but to normal people looks like a '70s soap opera.


To each their own. I like the higher FPS.
 
2012-08-03 01:54:13 PM  

Wasilla Hillbilly: it's not impossible to make three enjoyable movies from the source material. Nothing to get worked up about. I'm kinda looking forward to it.


I'm a bit concerned about stretching the story out over three movies. But, at the same time, I've got to acknowledge that Jackson did a fantastic job on LotR, so I think he's earned the benefit of the doubt. I'm certainly not going to refuse to see the first movie because of this.
 
2012-08-03 01:55:19 PM  

Kazan:
movies shot in 3D (Stereoscopic shooting) from start to finish are good in it (see: Avatar), the rest - where they "after the fact try to hack" suck (see: everything NOT Avatar to date)


Films shot in 3D are better than those converted in post. But calling them "good" is debatable.

PJ is shooting 9k resolution, 48fps per eye.


They shot at 5k.
 
2012-08-03 02:06:15 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Wasilla Hillbilly: it's not impossible to make three enjoyable movies from the source material. Nothing to get worked up about. I'm kinda looking forward to it.

I'm a bit concerned about stretching the story out over three movies. But, at the same time, I've got to acknowledge that Jackson did a fantastic job on LotR, so I think he's earned the benefit of the doubt. I'm certainly not going to refuse to see the first movie because of this.


Also, unless something has changed, they will all be released on my birthday. So I can feel like it's all about me :0
 
2012-08-03 02:06:58 PM  

Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: They shot at 5k.


you're right, my error.

Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: Films shot in 3D are better than those converted in post. But calling them "good" is debatable.


do you have a problem seeing the effect or something? or are you one of those people that get eye strain from the new 3D technique?

properly done it works well.
 
2012-08-03 02:14:09 PM  

degenerate-afro: They don't look any worse than those big windshield sunglasses that many women decide to wear.

[www.eleganteyes.com image 452x600]

Plus they are much cheaper.


thetorchonline.com

Ssssssshhhhhhhhh.
 
2012-08-03 02:56:16 PM  

Kazan: Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: They shot at 5k.

you're right, my error.

Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: Films shot in 3D are better than those converted in post. But calling them "good" is debatable.

do you have a problem seeing the effect or something? or are you one of those people that get eye strain from the new 3D technique?

properly done it works well.


No, I don't have any problems seeing the effect nor does it really bother me. I just don't see any real benefit over the 2D version. Our eyes have no problem perceiving depth in a 2D image. I don't really need it forced upon me. To each their own though.
 
2012-08-03 03:09:36 PM  

Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: Kazan: Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: They shot at 5k.

you're right, my error.

Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: Films shot in 3D are better than those converted in post. But calling them "good" is debatable.

do you have a problem seeing the effect or something? or are you one of those people that get eye strain from the new 3D technique?

properly done it works well.

No, I don't have any problems seeing the effect nor does it really bother me. I just don't see any real benefit over the 2D version. Our eyes have no problem perceiving depth in a 2D image. I don't really need it forced upon me. To each their own though.


with a 2d image you can perceive depth only because the brain is really good at pattern analysis - primarily lighting and perspective. and film makers regularly abuse perspective to trick our eyes (making the hobbits look hobbit sized).

with stereoscopic imaging you're actually seeing depth, not just guessing it. (though forced perspective tricks still work)
 
2012-08-03 03:33:29 PM  

Kazan: with stereoscopic imaging you're actually seeing depth, not just guessing it.


I get that. But as you said, the brain is really good at figuring that out on its own. So while I may be seeing true depth in a stereoscopic image, the amount of time it takes my brain to recognize the same depth in a 2D image is negligible in comparison. I'm not really getting anything extra out of seeing it stereoscopically.

Now if we were viewing some kind of 3D where if I move my head I can see some sort of parallax, then I'm getting something out of it. But then we're talking about some sci-fi holographic kind of stuff, and entirely different kind of medium.
 
2012-08-03 03:44:30 PM  

NeoCortex42: whither_apophis: I'm trusting Jackson on this, the battle of the five armies was basically (spoiler) told to Bulbo after he got knocked out, a couple of pages = a big ass-battle sequence.

The battle better not include anyone surfing down a staircase or elephant trunk.


What about Dwarf tossing, that still OK?
 
Displayed 50 of 59 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report