Peter Jackson's The Hobbit
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 248
- Joined: August 23rd, 2005
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
- Contact:
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 8371
- Joined: October 16th, 2004
- Location: Orlando
- Contact:
Peter Jackson & Guillermo del Toro online chat transcript
http://www.wetanz.com/holics/index.php?itemid=695
http://www.wetanz.com/holics/index.php?itemid=695
-
- AV Team
- Posts: 6755
- Joined: February 8th, 2005
- Location: The US of A
"The Hobbit" delayed again...
http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b164103 ... _tv-movies
Studio reorganization is to blame now...
Don't expect either film before Q4 2012...
http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b164103 ... _tv-movies
Studio reorganization is to blame now...
Don't expect either film before Q4 2012...
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 5207
- Joined: September 27th, 2007
Oh, wait, now how is that "pulling a Spiderman" on DelToro/Jackson?GeorgeC wrote:"The Hobbit" delayed again...
http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b164103 ... _tv-movies
Studio reorganization is to blame now...
Don't expect either film before Q4 2012...
What, did DelToro refuse to make it and they kicked him off?
I thought Sony was "pulling an Eisner Toy Story 3" on Sam Raimi to scare him into making it anyway!
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: January 23rd, 2006
- Location: The Middle of Nowhere
Relax, people. This is for the best, really. If Del Toro had made the Hobbit films immediately after signing on (was it two years ago? three?), Jackson's LOTR would still have been fresh in people's minds and Del Toro's film's might not have compared favorably. However, by the time these films are released, it will have been ten years since LOTR and that's enough time for these films to be judged on their own merits, rather than be compared to something they couldn't possibly match. Besides, with The Hobbit delayed, perhaps Del Toro will devote more time to his project at Disney (which is guaranteed to be interesting).
The Official Lugofilm Ltd Youtube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/bartsimpson83
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25867
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
Yep...better to have a ten year gap when people won't remember them as well.
Except...for the HD versions that are about to arrive on Blu-ray in April and will bring everything back clearer than when the films were in the theaters. D'oh!
But it seems odd that a studio reshuffle would hiccup a major production like this. I sense some smoke and mirrors to hammer out some other production details rather than this holding anything up. I'd put money on not wanting to clash with the final Potter release, or pre-production planning for locations or cast.
Except...for the HD versions that are about to arrive on Blu-ray in April and will bring everything back clearer than when the films were in the theaters. D'oh!
But it seems odd that a studio reshuffle would hiccup a major production like this. I sense some smoke and mirrors to hammer out some other production details rather than this holding anything up. I'd put money on not wanting to clash with the final Potter release, or pre-production planning for locations or cast.
Re: Peter Jackson's THE HOBBIT - yes, you read that right!
The Hobbit got pushed back 2013...
That's right.
You read it right!
Part One of The Hobbit will not hit theaters until December 2013.
Maybe by then the 3-D craze will die down and we'll get back to an era where more sensible films with meaningful content get produced instead of all teen-shlock and agenda-driven movies.
I don't mind IMAX so much but honestly I don't think it makes pictures any better, either. Just a bigger screen, bigger image. You decide if the extra $3-$4 is worth it.
I can't make this stuff up!
It's just the way life happens.
That's right.
You read it right!
Part One of The Hobbit will not hit theaters until December 2013.
Maybe by then the 3-D craze will die down and we'll get back to an era where more sensible films with meaningful content get produced instead of all teen-shlock and agenda-driven movies.
I don't mind IMAX so much but honestly I don't think it makes pictures any better, either. Just a bigger screen, bigger image. You decide if the extra $3-$4 is worth it.
I can't make this stuff up!
It's just the way life happens.
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25867
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
Re: Peter Jackson's THE HOBBIT - yes, you read that right!
Don't look at me...
I'm not the one that broke the story.
It was reported on a couple of sites and there have been a lot of problems with MGM lately... economy, bad movie slates, no real direction, etc.
Anyhow,
Nice to see you're alive Ben!
You've been quiet.... lately.
(So, there's now a non-animation cinema review up? I've seen a few of the Ripley's shorts on TCM when they get around to showing them. Interesting curiosities but not enough to entice me to buy...)
I'm not the one that broke the story.
It was reported on a couple of sites and there have been a lot of problems with MGM lately... economy, bad movie slates, no real direction, etc.
Anyhow,
Nice to see you're alive Ben!
You've been quiet.... lately.
(So, there's now a non-animation cinema review up? I've seen a few of the Ripley's shorts on TCM when they get around to showing them. Interesting curiosities but not enough to entice me to buy...)
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25867
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
Quiet!? 
We've just been discussing in our Staff Forum how much I've been adding to the front page (and the forum) this month! I'm pooped, so will be off for a few days while I catch up on other things.
The "Cinema Classics" reviews are just very occasional things that we post from time to time on titles that might appeal to the fringes of our readers. It goes without saying that if you're of an "older age" and into animation, there's a chance you're a child of the golden age of cinema either originally or through television. As such, there are tons of titles that interest me outside pure animation that have the same feel or tone, and when a chance comes along to see them again and spread a little extra "here's something you might enjoy", I think it's fun to occasionally expand a few horizons. And remember that the guys making animated features nowadays have fed off live-action influences for years, so sometimes it's neat to point out where a reference came from, or the kinds of films that have informed filmmakers like those at Pixar, for example.
BTW, those reviews are usually shorter than our main ones, even if they share the space on the front page. That's all they are: little pointers to some other things out there that might appeal. Not that we're at all breaking away from our priority on animation here: despite a couple more live-action titles coming up in our current animation mix, don't worry...you won't start seeing totally inappropriate adult-themed title reviews on what remains a family friendly website start to pop up. All our reviews can be justified one way or another to tie in with our interests and what we do here, both on the fringes and in the main. But if there's the opportunity to review a title that's offered to us, then why not?
BTW, the Ripley shorts are just that, "interesting curios", and a sale will be on how much you like to see such things. For me, the dawn of sound and shorts like the Vitaphone films, are just as fascinating to me, on a sliding scale, as anything else on film. They're of their time, and probably overpriced again for a WBAC title, but the vintage nature is gold for those into that kind of thing.
We've just been discussing in our Staff Forum how much I've been adding to the front page (and the forum) this month! I'm pooped, so will be off for a few days while I catch up on other things.
The "Cinema Classics" reviews are just very occasional things that we post from time to time on titles that might appeal to the fringes of our readers. It goes without saying that if you're of an "older age" and into animation, there's a chance you're a child of the golden age of cinema either originally or through television. As such, there are tons of titles that interest me outside pure animation that have the same feel or tone, and when a chance comes along to see them again and spread a little extra "here's something you might enjoy", I think it's fun to occasionally expand a few horizons. And remember that the guys making animated features nowadays have fed off live-action influences for years, so sometimes it's neat to point out where a reference came from, or the kinds of films that have informed filmmakers like those at Pixar, for example.
BTW, those reviews are usually shorter than our main ones, even if they share the space on the front page. That's all they are: little pointers to some other things out there that might appeal. Not that we're at all breaking away from our priority on animation here: despite a couple more live-action titles coming up in our current animation mix, don't worry...you won't start seeing totally inappropriate adult-themed title reviews on what remains a family friendly website start to pop up. All our reviews can be justified one way or another to tie in with our interests and what we do here, both on the fringes and in the main. But if there's the opportunity to review a title that's offered to us, then why not?
BTW, the Ripley shorts are just that, "interesting curios", and a sale will be on how much you like to see such things. For me, the dawn of sound and shorts like the Vitaphone films, are just as fascinating to me, on a sliding scale, as anything else on film. They're of their time, and probably overpriced again for a WBAC title, but the vintage nature is gold for those into that kind of thing.