Go Back   Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums > Movie Talk! > Upcoming Movie Talk
MOVIE FAN CENTRAL FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 10-22-2010, 01:17 AM
Damn. How nuts is that. I cant understand all the ins and outs of what is being said later on but one thing is clear - Peter wants to make his movie in New Zealand and SOMEONE is impeding him.
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 10-22-2010, 02:12 AM
I didn't realize how just the threat of the strike fucks over the ability to make the film. Even though the union retracted it, WB doesn't want to risk spending three years with this gargantuan project in troubled waters. It's like deciding if you should keep you babysitter after she seriously threatens to cut you child's throat, only for her to say it was all a bluff minutes before her shift starts.

Peter is right, the worst damage is done. I hope they can make a deal Monday but Jesus, I certainly don't blame WB if they decide to move the production. Money is tight along with the relaxation of knowing actors won't threaten to cut your balls off they'll get better tax incentives elsewhere. Still.... hope they reach an agreement. New Zealand is as much of a character in this universe as anyone.
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 10-22-2010, 06:51 AM
I love Bill Nighy, but him as the smoky and deep voiced Smaug? I dunno, I thought someone along the lines of Tom Waits or Ron Perlman would've sounded better.
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 10-22-2010, 04:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by APzombie View Post
New Zealand is as much of a character in this universe as anyone.
I don't know if I completely agree with this. The landscapes and environment of the LOTR trilogy were fantastic, but I don't think they were irreplaceable. If they shoot The Hobbit movies somewhere else, I don't think it'll make THAT much of a difference . . . say as compared to replacing Ian McKellan.
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 10-22-2010, 04:52 PM
So you'd replace this with another location?



'tis a real place in New Zealand.
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 10-22-2010, 07:27 PM
Yeah, The Shire scenes definitely need to be filmed in New Zealand... but I think any other location is fair game.
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 10-23-2010, 06:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
So you'd replace this with another location?



'tis a real place in New Zealand.
It's a real place in NZ when the LOTR crew built it there. If they built it there, couldn't they build another one someplace else?

Don't get me wrong, I think it would be better if they used the same sets and what not, but I don't think it'll be as bad as losing Ian McKellan, Hugo Weaving, or one of the other cast members if they moved filming someplace else.
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 10-23-2010, 10:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monotreme View Post

Also, for the record, Che was shot mostly on 16mm, with some scenes shot on the RED and some on 35mm as well. So it's a real hodge-podge, and I don't remember it exactly right now, but I'm sure that if I took another look at it I could spot what was shot on film and what was digital. That's just the way it goes.
Actually, if I remember correctly, it was shot all on the Red One digital camera. They rented some film cameras just in case as the prototype cameras weren't ready but they made it in time

http://vimeo.com/9031359
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 10-23-2010, 12:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigred760 View Post
It's a real place in NZ when the LOTR crew built it there. If they built it there, couldn't they build another one someplace else?

Don't get me wrong, I think it would be better if they used the same sets and what not, but I don't think it'll be as bad as losing Ian McKellan, Hugo Weaving, or one of the other cast members if they moved filming someplace else.
All they built were the doors and walls and what not. The LOCATION is all free standing.
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 10-23-2010, 02:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigred760 View Post
It's a real place in NZ when the LOTR crew built it there. If they built it there, couldn't they build another one someplace else?

Don't get me wrong, I think it would be better if they used the same sets and what not, but I don't think it'll be as bad as losing Ian McKellan, Hugo Weaving, or one of the other cast members if they moved filming someplace else.
If i remember correctly from the extended edition behind the scenes, it took almost a year to naturally cultivate the shire before the production team even went there to add houses and doors. Jackson purchased the land and kept it in tact. considering WB wants them to start filming ASAP, they could be fucked if they go to Eastern Europe.
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 10-25-2010, 03:28 PM
Check it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tu49...ayer_embedded#!
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 10-25-2010, 07:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
So you'd replace this with another location?



'tis a real place in New Zealand.
Let me set this straight first. I'd NOT relocate if possible. I'd love to see NZ get these movies.

Now, Prof. Tolkien loved England and the UK. That being said, do you not think there are locales that would suit these sets in the UK? Ireland? Eastern Europe? The USA? Sure there are and they would be equally adept as these fictional locales.

Let's just hope that the folks in NZ, especially the union folk, realize what they've endangered here rearing their ugly heads at the most inopportune moment. They've put this production at jeopardy, 1000's of jobs on the line, the countries reputation as a whole and their fledgling movie industry. Gee, thanks for strangling the Golden Goose.

Anyone for a fricassee?

Last edited by Otis_Driftwood; 10-26-2010 at 10:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 10-25-2010, 08:43 PM
http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/q-int...eo?vid=3851237
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 10-28-2010, 08:33 PM
Apparently they're staying in New Zealand. Good stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 10-31-2010, 11:40 PM
Good Deal. I'm just stoked it's finally greenlit.
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 11-03-2010, 04:35 PM
IMDb lists Leonard Nimoy as "rumored". I would LOVE for him to be cast as the Elvenking of Mirkwood (as I suggested years ago), but he's supposedly retired. He's a big Hobbit fan, though, and it's a small role, so you never know.

Here's a breakdown. They cast the dwarves much younger than I expected. I definitely overshot it suggesting Ray Winstone for Thorin.

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2010...r-hobbit-cast/

Last edited by dannywalker17; 11-03-2010 at 04:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 11-04-2010, 02:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannywalker17 View Post
IMDb lists Leonard Nimoy as "rumored". I would LOVE for him to be cast as the Elvenking of Mirkwood (as I suggested years ago), but he's supposedly retired. He's a big Hobbit fan, though, and it's a small role, so you never know.
I thought he just retired from playing "Spock," since he made an appearance in Star Trek last year. Of course, he may be against playing any character with pointy ears at this point, like a elf. Either the filmmakers or Nimoy might want to avoid any comparisons to Spock.
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 11-05-2010, 10:41 PM
Could he be the voice of Smaug or even the Goblin king?
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 11-05-2010, 10:58 PM
sure Nimoy isn't just singing the theme song?
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 11-14-2010, 12:36 PM
After thinking about it for a bit, could Nimoy be up for the part of Thrain II...Thorin's father?
Reply With Quote
  #221  
Old 11-14-2010, 07:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by APzombie View Post
sure Nimoy isn't just singing the theme song?
I've been around here for awhile, and rarely post, but every once in a while something so golden is said that merits an immediate response.

That was hilarious. Thank you.

For those of you who have never discovered the greatest joy online...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC73PHdQX04
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 11-29-2010, 02:41 AM
Looks like the Hobbit is not going to be shot using the new technology developed by Cameron & Co. Jackson is going with Red's 3D system, which is the old school style of 3D. Instead of using cameras with two robotic lenses that move independently and focus like the human eye, it uses two static stationary lenses side by side (exact same method that has been used since the 50s).

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=52300

Last edited by Silverload; 11-29-2010 at 04:40 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 11-29-2010, 05:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverload View Post
Looks like the Hobbit is not going to be shot using the new technology developed by Cameron & Co. Jackson is going with Red's 3D system, which is the old school style of 3D. Instead of using cameras with two robotic lenses that move independently and focus like the human eye, it uses two static stationary lenses side by side (exact same method that has been used since the 50s).

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=52300
I'd just as soon not have 3D period. Unnecessary, flavor of the day!
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 11-29-2010, 06:18 PM
Am I the only one who finds this a little ridiculous? I've done a fair amount of work as an extra and the calls are often race-specific.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101129...ndhobbitracism
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 12-09-2010, 02:00 PM
The latest news:

-Cate Blanchett is officially signed on to return
-Sylvester McCoy (from Dr. Who) is playing Radagast
-Orlando Bloom is expected to return as Legolas
-negotiations are ongoing with Hugo Weaving, Andy Serkis, and Ian McKellen


I'm seeing some backlash over the idea of adding characters that would have been around but weren't mentioned in the books (Galadriel and Legolas). I don't see why it's a big deal. It makes sense to me. People are acting like they're shoehorning in Elijah Wood and Sean Bean or something. Geez.

Last edited by dannywalker17; 12-09-2010 at 02:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 12-11-2010, 10:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannywalker17 View Post
The latest news:

-Cate Blanchett is officially signed on to return
-Sylvester McCoy (from Dr. Who) is playing Radagast
-Orlando Bloom is expected to return as Legolas
-negotiations are ongoing with Hugo Weaving, Andy Serkis, and Ian McKellen


I'm seeing some backlash over the idea of adding characters that would have been around but weren't mentioned in the books (Galadriel and Legolas). I don't see why it's a big deal. It makes sense to me. People are acting like they're shoehorning in Elijah Wood and Sean Bean or something. Geez.
Agreed. I figured Blanchett would be back when they mentioned, last year sometime, that the White Council (of which Galadriel and Radagast are members) would be a part of the story. As for Legolas, I'm not surprised. After all, Mirkwood is a major part of the story, and his father Thranduil is a major character, so why not? Plus, I stopped giving Tolkein purists any credibility after Jackson's showed you could tinker with some parts of LOTR while staying true to the spirit of the story.
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 12-27-2010, 08:52 AM
When do they start shooting? Anyone know? Seems like I read somewhere, perhaps on TORN, that shooting would begin in the next few weeks?! I figured it would be soon, seeing that it is starting Summer in NZ. Maybe sometime in February?

Just itching for some good "Hobbit" news.
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 12-29-2010, 03:28 PM
Yeah I thought it was January or February, but you'd think we'd be hearing more news tidbits.
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 01-08-2011, 11:43 AM
New Hobbit stuff. TORN is saying that Elijah Wood will be reprising his roll as Frodo Baggins for the Hobbit. I suppose you have to tie in LOTR w/Hobbit in some way and what better way than have some flashbacks w/Frodo.

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2011...in-the-hobbit/
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 01-08-2011, 11:47 AM
I wonder in what capacity Frodo will be used; flashbacks, like Otis Driftwood mentioned is probably a good bet. Or it could just something to tie the two franchises together. He'll be in the final scenes of the second movie and that'll be it.
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 01-08-2011, 12:26 PM
I'm glad to hear Elijah Wood is returning as Frodo; I'd imagine he'll be used either in the prologue or the epilogue. I'm all for continuity with this series and seeing him Gandalf, Gollum (voiced by Serkis), Galadriel, Elrond, and Legolas again will be awesome
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 01-08-2011, 01:57 PM
i figured aside from Mckellen, Blanchet and maybe Weaving would return. The amount of characters from LotR's coming back is a little discomforting. I wouldn't want them to turn The Hobbit into a self reflecting circle-jerk. It should stand on it's own two (big) feet.

That being said, even if Legolas was in the books (which he is not), I would still protest Bloom coming back, becasue he is a terrible actor and it is a poorly written, boring character.
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 01-10-2011, 10:31 PM
Well, looks like the regulars are all just about signed on. TORN is reporting the signing of Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis today.

Here it is:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blo...-gandalf-69960
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 01-11-2011, 05:07 AM
Excellent. I still feel like this is teetering on the brink of disaster, but I really, REALLY hope PJ can still bring the goods.
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 01-11-2011, 05:42 AM
Teetering on becoming a disaster? I mean, it might not reach the same heights as The Lord of the Rings Trilogy did, but there is no way this movie will be anything less than magnificent. I new that the moment Peter Jackson decided to return to the director's chair.
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 01-11-2011, 06:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemovies View Post
Teetering on becoming a disaster? I mean, it might not reach the same heights as The Lord of the Rings Trilogy did, but there is no way this movie will be anything less than magnificent. I new that the moment Peter Jackson decided to return to the director's chair.
I love PJ as much as the next guy - but mainly pre-LOTR PJ. Of course, that trilogy was a masterpiece of cinema. But his two films since then have been very lackluster, especially the last one (Lovely Bones). I'm afraid to say it, but I feel like PJ has lost his touch, which happens sometimes to directors who get in over their heads - the hubris kicks in. The Hobbit seemed like it was going to be interesting and different when Guillermo del Toro was involved - bring some new blood into the mix - but now with post-LOTR PJ back at the helm, filming in digital and in 3D, bringing back Orlando Bloom and Elijah Wood... I kind of wish these films would just stand on their own. Not to mention all the production issues this film has been plagued with. I really, sincerely hope that I am wrong and these turn out to be a masterpiece. But for now, I'm still not 100% on board, with the way things are going.
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 01-11-2011, 07:09 AM
I actually dug The Lovely Bones. It wasn't a great movie, but it was an interesting one and I liked it.

King Kong took a while to get off the ground, but once did it was, at times, exquisite and breathtaking and truly thrilling to behold. It's not quite on LOTR level, but it comes pretty damn close at it's best. It's a flawed film, but still fantastic IMO.

So I got no problems with Jackson. I don't think he's lost his touch at all. And nobody knows this world better than he does. I was relieved and excited when Jackson came back on board as director.

And truth be told, I don't think Del Toro is as great as people claim him to be. Pan's Labyrinth was an interesting combination of a gritty war time story and fantasy but I don't think it's quite the masterpiece people claim it to be.
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 01-11-2011, 08:43 AM
Peter Jackson should've been the first and only choice. I had no problem once it was announced that del Toro was going to do it, but PJ would make it connect better to the LOTR trilogy. And I'm glad to see all the actors that can return to this universe return to it - like Serkis, McKellan, Lee, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 01-12-2011, 02:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemovies View Post
I actually dug The Lovely Bones. It wasn't a great movie, but it was an interesting one and I liked it.

King Kong took a while to get off the ground, but once did it was, at times, exquisite and breathtaking and truly thrilling to behold. It's not quite on LOTR level, but it comes pretty damn close at it's best. It's a flawed film, but still fantastic IMO.

So I got no problems with Jackson. I don't think he's lost his touch at all. And nobody knows this world better than he does. I was relieved and excited when Jackson came back on board as director.

And truth be told, I don't think Del Toro is as great as people claim him to be. Pan's Labyrinth was an interesting combination of a gritty war time story and fantasy but I don't think it's quite the masterpiece people claim it to be.
Well, to each his own. I thought that King Kong was the bloated, overlong, overdense, overdone, over-everything result of PJ's hubris, and that The Lovely Bones was one of the most disastrous movies in recent memory, and that Pan's Labyrinth is one of the freshest and most striking films of the last decade. But that's just me I know PJ knows this world better than anyone. But there was pre-LOTR PJ and post-LOTR PJ. And all I can hope is that the very indie-oriented PJ from LOTR will prevail over mainstream post-LOTR PJ.
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 01-15-2011, 03:26 AM
With the recent cast additions, I can rest easy. Just have to wait now.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump