RocShemp

In the first pic he looks like Kevin Costner cosplaying as Sabertooth.

Josh-da-man

Zathras live for the One, Zathras die for the One.

RocShemp

Holy shit! You're right!

mndtrp

First thing I thought of was the Thundercats.

Why So Blu?

Yes!

Solid Snake

*hums MacGyver theme*

covenant

Looks like we are finally seeing del toro's influence.

RocShemp

Yes, because clearly we hadn't seen it before.



They braided his fucking eyebrows and made one of his thumbs into a penis.

RocShemp

Original concept art for Beorn.

Why So Blu?

Well played.

hanshotfirst1138

I wonder which of his GDT design elements, if any, will wind up in the trilogy when all was said and done, the first felt like 100% Jackson to me. How much was the film split when he was involved, did he work on designs stuff for what would become all three films? He talked about designing the spiders and stuff, so I assume he worked on most of the Hobbit proper, and PJ started more or less from scratch when he came on? The "creative consultant" thing is kind of nebulous.

You have no idea how much I did not need that image. What does that have to do with del Toro.

Neither are nice places.

Why would it be a rehtorical question? Am I expected to have polymathic knowledge of cinema history ?

Figures he'd be a key figure in it . It probably wasn't that difficult for a huge chain like AMC, but apparently it's still hurting smaller cinemas pretty hard in some places, especially given how scarce how 35mm prints have obviously become.

Did Jackson Lucas it and change stuff on the BR?

I don't know, I mean even then, wouldn't it require a huge screen? Wouldn't having a player which could handle 4K for home viewing be sort of redundant unless you had a super-powerful projector? I mean, on my 38-inch TV, would it be a hugely marked difference? Obviously, the level of detail will vary depending on what medium it is and what the artist wants to depict, of course.

In the special features on the James Bond DVDs, Lowry argue that 4K is slightly higher than the resolution of 35mm.

That was what I was getting at. Even if it doesn't come to a point where it's redundant in technical terms, mightn't there be one where you'd have to have your face pressed against the screen to see the difference in image quality?

That's what I was wondering. Especially for home viewing, and even for the cinema, I would think there'd come a point when you could see pretty much all there was to see at a certain distance with the naked. I guess IMAX not withstanding.

Thanks.

RocShemp

When Del Toro was to direct, he designed Thorin with giant thorn-like "antlers" because he felt that the name Thorin sounded like "thorn" and therefor he should have a crown of thorns. The more outlandish looks of the Dwarves, like the aforementioned Nori (though I only mentioned the penis-thumb in jest) and now Beorn (who was not described as such in the book) seem more in keeping with Del Toro's aesthetic than that of Jackson's.

Jay G.

Jackson didn't make any editorial changes. The cuts are the same, the audio's the same, the CGI's the same, and the lighting's the same. There was some controversy about the tinting on the EE version of FOTR on Blu-ray, with some feeling it too green or blue in certain scenes:
http://social.entertainment.msn.com/...1-5242860255f2

Here's a comparison video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vwcm-73kZE8



And here's a documentary about the digital color grading in FOTR:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr3fMPUqlhQ


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjt18bUUOXk


It should be noted that the Star Wars trilogy has had its own series of color grading issues over the years, but that usually gets overshadowed by the more immediately apparent editorial changes Lucas has made.

Josh-da-man

This isn't a deliberate change, it's a fuck-up. Somewhere, somehow, in the production process, the green got punched up and nobody noticed caught it. The entire movie looks terrible. I remember on another board that someone went through and compared screen shots of the theatrical blu-ray and the extended blu-ray and discovered that the green had been consistently pushed up in every single pixel. Not to mention that the blacks have also been crushed to shit, rendering dark scenes nearly unwatchable.

And of course nobody involved will acknowledge the mistake.

Why So Blu?

Yeah, I don't think we need to re-visit the whole color tinting thing with FOTR - I'll have a fucking aneurysm. Not because they're wrong but because I initially started out as one of the bashers and when I got the Blu-ray set of EE's I couldn't even tell the difference. I was like is this what I almost popped a blood vessel for? It looks great! To date, every single demo or screengrab DOES NOT reflect what the actual Blu-ray looks like.

/offtopic

RocShemp

Yeah, the EE looks fine. But then I always felt that the TE of FOTR looked subpar compared to the transfers of the sequels. I know they claimed that they figured out a better way to do it when TTT went into post production but it still irked me and I was surprised they didn't use a brand new master for the TE BD of FOTR.

hanshotfirst1138

Hmm. Perhaps it's best that he didn't wind up directing it.

Yes, well, now the penis-thumb is imprinted in my brain forever, thank you .

Interesting. There was actually some talk about the changes of the color grading in first Matrix movie when the ultimate DVD collection came out, and a friend of my who does home video QC actually remember getting caught between his boss and a director about how the film was supposed to look, so I'm wondering how commonplace this kind of thing is.

Before the 1997 edition, you mean? Because my assumption was that they scanned the film digitally for the first time to create the SE. When they did that, I'm sure Lucas and co. made any number of changes, but as you said, more people focused on the other stuff.

It amazes me that people in professional positions who sell things to millions of people can get away with this "deliberate creative decision" stuff. Hopefully they'll do a new encode for the inevitable big-ass boxed set when both trilogies are done, but I wouldn't hold my breath.



It sounds like it's a case of the encoding the post production rather than the masters themselves.

Jay G.

Actually, there was tinkering done prior to 97:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...pecial_Edition
Also, the 97 SEs weren't full digital restorations. Only the FX shots were scanned digitally, the remaining shots were restored chemically. The deteriorated state of the negatives in 97 led to the need for a lot of color correction:
http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/savingstarwars.html

For the TE Blu-ray of FOTR, they used a transfer of a theatrical print of the film, as that film didn't have a full DI for the entire film, yet. The TEs of TTT and ROTK looked better because they always had a full DI.

As for whether the green tint is noticeable on the FOTR EE, Why So Blu? is correct that a lot of people have reported it being not that noticeable on a lot of TV setups. The comparison images online highlight the difference, but when watching the Blu-ray, most people end up just watching the film and not looking for the tint.

EddieMoney

So many acronyms. My head is about to explode.

Alex Start

Really want to see that movie

Dr. DVD

I see this one doing just about as good worldwide as the first Hobbit, but perhaps fizzling after one weekend in the U.S. due to the second Anchorman movie. These movies seem geared toward the overeseas market as much as domestic.

Why So Blu?

The first Hobbit film made:

303,003,568 domestically.

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hobbit.htm

I doubt it'll bomb. People are gearing up for it,

Supermallet

I've heard a lot of people say that the trailers for this one have them more interested than the first one.

hanshotfirst1138

My understanding is that when you factor in all of the overseas profits and the fact the production was split between the three films, the first one made a pretty good chunck of change, if not quite up to what the first trilogy did. I hate waiting a year between these, I suppose that's a compliment in and of itself. The probably won't win the oscars the first trilogy did, but that's OK, I'm having fun all the same.

johnnysd

I just rewatched the first Hobbit movie and it was better than I thought on first viewing. The ridiculous falls they survive in the second half are still ridiculous, but it was a pretty decent film. I think the main problem is that it hits so many of the same notes as the original trilogy (especially the eagles) that it feels a bit repetitive, but I have hopes for the remaining two. The trailers for the second movie have been solid.