Subscribe RSS
Comment RSSJackson Says Tintin Done & Hobbit Staying 2D
27.11.09 # News # 11 Comments
Peter Jackson has updated the world on Tintin and the upcoming Hobbit movies. “Tintin is great. It’s made,” he said while in London for the premiere of The Lovely Bones. “The movie is cut together and now [we] are turning it into a fully-rendered film. So the movie, to some degree, exists in a very rough state.” You’ll have to wait a long time to see it though (if you actually care) because it’s going to take 2 years to do all the CGI.
At the same press conference Jackson discussed the progress of The Hobbit, currently in the pre-production stages. “We’re writing the screenplays with him (Guillermo Del Toro), so in terms of the script, there is continuity. We’re writing Ian McKellen’s dialogue just the same as we did in Lord Of The Rings. But Guillermo, being the director, will obviously take the script and interpret that and shoot his film. So that’ll be interesting to see. That’s actually the reason I wanted him to do it. I felt like I’d be trying to compete with myself and deliberately do things differently, which is not the way I want to work. I want it to be natural.”
Any of you folks who regularly visit Movie-Moron may know of my deep-seated hatred for 3D, so it comes as a great relief to me to find out that The Hobbit will NOT be shot in 3D after earlier suggestions it might. “Guillermo wants to shoot in 35mm, old-fashioned film,” Jackson said, “which suits me, because he wants to keep it in the same space as the original trilogy”.
However Jackson followed up to say he was a fan of 3D believing it “only adds to the experience”. His only complaint about it was “the image being a little dull…It does feel like you’re looking at the movie with sunglasses on. But literally, that could just be about getting brighter bulbs in the projectors.”
All I can say is that I’m glad this technology wasn’t around and popular before he made Lord of The Rings!
Source: BBC
Posted by 
I just don’t understand this venom people have for 3D? If I had a choice between watching the same film in 2D or 3D I’d nearly always pick 3D.
I watched ‘Bolt’ in 3D. It helped the film not suck.
Im not a fan of 3D films, the last thing I seen in 3D was My Bloody Valentine, and I can safely say that it sucked. But maybe that movie would have sucked anyway, so I dont know, but really, 3D just isnt as good as it could be in my opinion. It gives me headaches, and i think the price is ridonkulous too. Its double the price for a 3D film, and it just ruins the film!
I dont hate 3D, but given the choice between a 2D film and a 3D one, I’d pick 2D
@Mutant, I saw My Bloody Valentine 3-D as well, and yeah it would have sucked in 2-D too, can’t believe how many positive reviews it got. I agree 3-D’s a long way from perfect, it seems to ‘wear off’ for me after 15 minutes so I hardly notice, my brain seems to flatten it. But just to add an extra dimension to a movie, literally, I enjoy it. Makes a change.
3d is a function that will be artful when it has it’s citizen Kane or Wizard of Oz, until someone can render it a useful craft it will be a gimmick.
Totally agree with Miles — 3D can sacrifice content for form which is not even that good!
3-D is in one word
SUCKY!!!!
it is a cool concept but it just doesnt have the same feeling as a 2-D movie( which is a good feeling)
glad its not going to be in the hobbit.
great!
I have the feeling that avatat tricked us with the whole special effects thing and nearly no content.
Man I absolutely love Tintin. That comic brings back so many good memories.
@Miles,
Was “avatar” citizen kane for 3d?