The Hobbit films, previously to be directed by Guillermo del Toro and now to be directed by Peter Jackson again.

There was a NYT profile of Fran Walsh on Sunday; she and the other writer added a LOTR chick or two to the scenario, and you know they prolong things.

Wait, did they (Jackson and the studios) decide to stretch this out from one to three films in post-production?

Or is that their story at least?

I'm assuming they shot it and then didn't want to cut one precious shot of two actors on two different sized sets composited together.

it was conceived of as two, apparently.

Run all six of these suckers back to back, it's the Berlin Alexanderplatz of fantasy films.

It's the Empire of do not want.

more like the Hundred Years War

I learned to appreciate LOTR when visiting relatives on Thanksgiving and Christmas Eve and watching the things unfurling slowly in the background but fuck if any of it makes sense.

re-read the Hobbit last month, a great little book, but really cannot bring myself to care about this

adore the lotr movies, entire hobbit project is a depressing error BUT

http://pmcmovieline.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/hobbit-48-fps-peter-jackson.jpg

would see it if it were directed by slavoj zizek

reminds me of this

http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/unused-audio-commentary-by-howard-zinn-and-noam-chomsky-recorded-summer-2002-for-the-fellowship-of-the-ring-platinum-series-extended-edition-dvd-part-one

ha i was thinking of that too

it's my single favorite mcsweeney's thing (not a v rich field)

"Think about the strangeness of today's situation. Thirty, forty years ago, we were still debating about what the future will be: Valar, Melkor, whatever. Today, nobody even debates these issues. We all silently accept global capitalism is here to stay. On the other hand, we are obsessed with cosmic catastrophes: Sauron securing the ring of power; the departure of the elves to Valinor. So the paradox is, that it's much easier to imagine the end of all life on middle-earth than a much more modest radical change in capitalism."

everything you always wanted to know about the balrog but were afraid to ask gandalf

the problem with saruman was that he was "not violent enough"

'it is an uncontroversial fact, a truism, if you will, that gandalf has killed more people than sauron. it isn't even worth discussing.'

ah, comedy writers working out Third Way guilt.

if Sauron had really been hot shit, he would have fired the Nazgul and aimed drone rockets at the Shire.

"scoured" it, if you will

it was saruman chickened out of that one tbh

4/5 in Empire.

Empire will never give a bad rating to a film they've had a massive feature on.

very true. their positive 90s reviews for the later Batman films spring to mind.

I always imagine they send several critics to watch the film, and pick the one who had the most positive reaction to write it up.

i always imagine they big up anything that teenage boys of all ages get a boner for

That One Substitute English Teacher: 25 Things You'll Totally Believe

Don't really GAF what ain't it cool, Empire or any nerd service sites think tbf. This thing could be a botch or a fumble but who knows, the people involved are pretty fuckin smart and they surprised me before.

the Aint It Cool review of Dark Knight Rises was ridiculously over-the-top in its geekery and seemed to be out of step with everyone else on the planet's opinion give or take. is it always like that these days?

Haven't they always been like that? I find AICN's house style utterly insufferable.

totally

the AICN review seemed reasonable. They're not all Harry Knowles

"Mr Beaks", who works at AICN, is excellent.
The others - not.

yeah, this is a bit of an ordeal. You really feel the stretching of the source material.
It seems like he sort of wanted it have a lighter feel than LOTR (Radagast and his ridiculous bunnies, Barry Humphries as comedy goblin king) but couldn't resist laying on the moody flashbacks, overwrought score and endless hordes of cgi goblins. I feel like the only reason for these movies to exist was to see Smaug realised on screen and of course you don't even get that with this one.

maybe when this is eventually released on DVD, instead of doing extended editions like they did with LOTR, they will make reduced editions. I would probably watch those.

so... what are the second and third films going to be called? idgi

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

The Hobbit: There and Back Again

The Hobbit IV: Creature of Hobbit

I didn't notice the 48fps business at all btw. I think there might be something wrong with me

it only works on special projectors/screens iirc?

Yeah, only select theaters. Folks say it is akin to the atrocious "soap opera" setting of hi-def TVs.

They also say the image is so sharp the flaws are massively apparent. One review mentioned seeing Sir Ian's contact lens edge, another the fact that the staffs and stuff now look like cheap resin replicas.

no, my screening was in 48fps

oh right, it's probly shit then

It was basically the only reason i went so i was a tad miffed. Maybe i am visually impaired in some way though

bought a ticket to see this in glorious 48FPS 3D at Cinerama on Friday evening. Pretty much planning on more or less hating this, but maybe it'll get the better of me.

my mom is totally psyched for this

just not excited about this in the slightest. not sure why; maybe the negative advance talk, but also, it just seems anticlimactic after LotR.

^^^ this. I cared when the film was announced but it just seems like a chore now.

if you want to know what the future of the Hobbit movies will be like, imagine a big hairy foot stamping on a human face, forever