Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[The Hobbit] The the Battle of the the Five Armies trailer is out!

1161719212277

Posts

  • KruiteKruite Registered User regular
    To be honest, the fact that Chris is able to piece together his father's work is a little bit of a feat in itself. I especially like the The Tale of Turin that he published (his father had quite a few different version of this tale and he pieced together the best parts of them all to make the "finished" version complete and continuous.) I would suggest reading it for anyone who hasn't already.

  • Unco-ordinatedUnco-ordinated Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    - The Hobbit films will be released in SIX different formats: 2D, 3D, and IMAX, each in 24fps and 48fps.

    I can imagine the headaches this will cause.

    "Hello, yes, I was wondering if you are showing the hobit at 24fps or 48fps?"

    "...*click*"

    Finding a showing in 24fps isn't going to be hard; after all, it's the only thing most theaters have the capability to project.

    But I'm interested in seeing a 48fps showing in 3D, as Jackson intended. That may take some . . . . .scouring?


    :winky:

    What I'd like to know is, which version will show up on the Blu-Ray? Bundle them together or release separate versions (like the stupid BD3D brand)?

    But yes, thanks for the explanation. It's not going to stop me from checking it out though, I'm pretty curious what it'll look like.

    Steam ID - LiquidSolid170 | PSN ID - LiquidSolid
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    - The Hobbit films will be released in SIX different formats: 2D, 3D, and IMAX, each in 24fps and 48fps.

    I can imagine the headaches this will cause.

    "Hello, yes, I was wondering if you are showing the hobit at 24fps or 48fps?"

    "...*click*"

    Finding a showing in 24fps isn't going to be hard; after all, it's the only thing most theaters have the capability to project.

    But I'm interested in seeing a 48fps showing in 3D, as Jackson intended. That may take some . . . . .scouring?


    :winky:

    What I'd like to know is, which version will show up on the Blu-Ray? Bundle them together or release separate versions (like the stupid BD3D brand)?

    But yes, thanks for the explanation. It's not going to stop me from checking it out though, I'm pretty curious what it'll look like.

    Blu Ray will be 1080p24, as that is the standard guaranteed to play on all Blu Ray players.

    There will be a BR3D release, which I assume will have a 24 and a 48 disc in the box.

    Can any BR drives in peoples' homes right now play 48fps discs? Is there already an HDMI Standard that carries 3D1080p48? Are TVs that can do 120/240hz already set up to receive 48p footage?

    I mean, a whole bunch of people JUST updated their home theaters so they could watch Avatar in 3D. If James Cameron asks them to do an upgrade again in less than three years, there will be blood.

  • Mego ThorMego Thor "I say thee...NAY!" Registered User regular
    Perhaps not blood, but at the very least a resounding "meh".

    kyrcl.png
  • BlackDragon480BlackDragon480 Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    - The Hobbit films will be released in SIX different formats: 2D, 3D, and IMAX, each in 24fps and 48fps.

    I can imagine the headaches this will cause.

    "Hello, yes, I was wondering if you are showing the hobit at 24fps or 48fps?"

    "...*click*"

    Finding a showing in 24fps isn't going to be hard; after all, it's the only thing most theaters have the capability to project.

    But I'm interested in seeing a 48fps showing in 3D, as Jackson intended. That may take some . . . . .scouring?


    :winky:

    I have it fairly easy, as living around Kansas City, which is the corporate headquarters of AMC, I have two "flagship" theaters near me (within 15 miles) that AMC is always keeping up to date with the latest projectors and amenities. So I will have no trouble finding showings in all 6 formats.

    Odds are, I'll see an IMAX 3D/48fps showing and an IMAX 2D/24fps showing come December, as I'm definitely curious to see how the final products look.

    steam_sig.png
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    - The Hobbit films will be released in SIX different formats: 2D, 3D, and IMAX, each in 24fps and 48fps.

    I can imagine the headaches this will cause.

    "Hello, yes, I was wondering if you are showing the hobit at 24fps or 48fps?"

    "...*click*"

    Finding a showing in 24fps isn't going to be hard; after all, it's the only thing most theaters have the capability to project.

    But I'm interested in seeing a 48fps showing in 3D, as Jackson intended. That may take some . . . . .scouring?


    :winky:

    I have it fairly easy, as living around Kansas City, which is the corporate headquarters of AMC, I have two "flagship" theaters near me (within 15 miles) that AMC is always keeping up to date with the latest projectors and amenities. So I will have no trouble finding showings in all 6 formats.

    Odds are, I'll see an IMAX 3D/48fps showing and an IMAX 2D/24fps showing come December, as I'm definitely curious to see how the final products look.

    The only reason I have no desire to it in IMAX is because it wasn't shot natively in that format. If that's the only way to see it in 48fps, however, I guess I'll bite the bullet.

    I'm nicely pinned between a very good local AMC and their Dallas flagship, so I do have more options than most people, I'd gather.

  • BlackDragon480BlackDragon480 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    _J_ wrote: »
    - The Hobbit films will be released in SIX different formats: 2D, 3D, and IMAX, each in 24fps and 48fps.

    I can imagine the headaches this will cause.

    "Hello, yes, I was wondering if you are showing the hobit at 24fps or 48fps?"

    "...*click*"

    Finding a showing in 24fps isn't going to be hard; after all, it's the only thing most theaters have the capability to project.

    But I'm interested in seeing a 48fps showing in 3D, as Jackson intended. That may take some . . . . .scouring?


    :winky:

    I have it fairly easy, as living around Kansas City, which is the corporate headquarters of AMC, I have two "flagship" theaters near me (within 15 miles) that AMC is always keeping up to date with the latest projectors and amenities. So I will have no trouble finding showings in all 6 formats.

    Odds are, I'll see an IMAX 3D/48fps showing and an IMAX 2D/24fps showing come December, as I'm definitely curious to see how the final products look.

    The only reason I have no desire to it in IMAX is because it wasn't shot natively in that format. If that's the only way to see it in 48fps, however, I guess I'll bite the bullet.

    I'm nicely pinned between a very good local AMC and their Dallas flagship, so I do have more options than most people, I'd gather.

    I may go traditional screen for the 2D/24fps showing, but I will definitely go IMAX for the 3D. Compared to RealD, I find the color saturation and contrast ratios to be far better on IMAX projectors, so if I see a 3D film, it's always IMAX, regardless of it's shot in the 15/70 format or not.

    BlackDragon480 on
    steam_sig.png
  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    It worth noting that Cameron, who is pushing so hard for 3D to be the wave of the future, owns a 3D camera/projector manufacturing consortium. Or that Jackson, pushing for 48 fps, owns Weta, an effects house that would essentially double their revenue for digital work when their workloads get doubled.

  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    It worth noting that Cameron, who is pushing so hard for 3D to be the wave of the future, owns a 3D camera/projector manufacturing consortium. Or that Jackson, pushing for 48 fps, owns Weta, an effects house that would essentially double their revenue for digital work when their workloads get doubled.

    48fps wouldn't double the workload of digital effects. That shit is keyframed unless motion captured (and then once the motion capture is cleaned up it's not usually one key per frame). Also, the lack of motion blur would actually make it easier for digital artists to composite their work. Less motion blur = easier keying stuff out. Sharper image = easier keying stuff out. So no, that's not really worth noting.

    Death of Rats on
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    It's also quite plausible that Cameron and Jackson have sunk money into those things because they honestly think they're really awesome.

  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    Interesting piece on BAD.com about 24fps vs. 48fps.

    Faraci here comes off as a bit of an alarmist and traditionalist (which he admittedly is), but he raises the good point that I had actually raised earlier in this thread, namely that the move to 48 or 60fps, while offering an alarmingly different visual experience, doesn't really influence the narrative in any measurable positive way.

    In rebuttal, he offers that IMAX should be pushed as the way of the future, and makes goods points:
    - IMAX is a truly unique visual experience.
    - It offers immersion without the Uncanny Valley effect.
    - Instituting 3D, higher framerates, and sharper resolutions has resulted in higher ticket prices at the theater, but no real improvement in the cinematic experience; IMAX, at the very least, justifies its cost.
    - Home theater technology will eventually catch up with the improvements Jackson and Cameron are pushing; not so with IMAX.

  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    It's also quite plausible that Cameron and Jackson have sunk money into those things because they honestly think they're really awesome.

    And the fact that someone like Cameron makes relatively few movies yet is trying to force both the industry and the exhibitors over to a technology he stands to make a huge profit on whether or not the public wants it is a huge sign of artistic altruism.

  • Linespider5Linespider5 It’s cool to have a code name. It’s not that weird.Registered User regular
    It's also quite plausible that Cameron and Jackson have sunk money into those things because they honestly think they're really awesome.

    And the fact that someone like Cameron makes relatively few movies yet is trying to force both the industry and the exhibitors over to a technology he stands to make a huge profit on whether or not the public wants it is a huge sign of artistic altruism.

    Well now, art is hardly ever a democracy at its best, now is it? As if James Cameron making 5 movies a year would in any way more favorably justify his opinion on the shape of things to come.

    No, what this is about is that James Cameron is a very wealthy and powerful individual in the film industry who also is, whether you like everything he does or how he does it, also a director who makes his own self-designed projects more often than not.

    Someone who is wealthy and powerful in a field that has seen better days would be just the sort of person to argue in favor of changes they want to implement in an effort to restore that field's prominence. Not to mention the odds of someone with the money and the influence who wouldn't be championing technology and ideas that they themselves don't also own or are heavily invested in. Money where mouth is and all that.

    'Artistic Altruism,' I have to say, is quite possibly the funniest phrase about art I've heard in a long time.

    2014png.png
  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    It's also quite plausible that Cameron and Jackson have sunk money into those things because they honestly think they're really awesome.

    And the fact that someone like Cameron makes relatively few movies yet is trying to force both the industry and the exhibitors over to a technology he stands to make a huge profit on whether or not the public wants it is a huge sign of artistic altruism.

    Well now, art is hardly ever a democracy at its best, now is it? As if James Cameron making 5 movies a year would in any way more favorably justify his opinion on the shape of things to come.

    No, what this is about is that James Cameron is a very wealthy and powerful individual in the film industry who also is, whether you like everything he does or how he does it, also a director who makes his own self-designed projects more often than not.

    Someone who is wealthy and powerful in a field that has seen better days would be just the sort of person to argue in favor of changes they want to implement in an effort to restore that field's prominence. Not to mention the odds of someone with the money and the influence who wouldn't be championing technology and ideas that they themselves don't also own or are heavily invested in. Money where mouth is and all that.

    'Artistic Altruism,' I have to say, is quite possibly the funniest phrase about art I've heard in a long time.

    Who said art is a democracy? It also isn't a dictatorship.

    And yes, him making more movies would lend greater weight to his desires. If you think 3D is the future, then put out a bunch of great 3D movies to show why. Don't rest on your Avatar tech demo and try to stand as impresario of post converted garbage. That's called putting your money where your mouth is. Not trotting out a tech demo and then forcing others to adapt or die.

    I don't understand your last sentence. It comes off like you trying to be cynical about a phrase I coined in cynicism.

  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    I would likely be much more interested in hearing Cameron's case if, you know, his films were worth a shit.

    TheBlackWind
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    What?

    Tolkien writes and never releases something.

    Tolkien Died.

    Little Tolkien inherits his father's stuff, including drafts and notes.

    ?????

    Little Tolkien doesn't own it! It belongs to the internet!


    So, I'm calling bullshit on that.

    Do you not understand the idea of public domain at all? Or just IP law in general?

    Do you?

    It's his. It isn't ours and it shouldn't be.

    Wait, so you are arguing against the idea of public domain?

    What the fuck are you on?

    I'm arguing against the idea that a thing should be in the public domain just because a bunch of fans decide it should be.

    I don't like how entitled the internet has made consumers of art, this discussion on Chris Tolkien has been a good example.

    Public domain is good and proper, but I think that content creators should still get to keep their shit. Also, since in this specific instance it's Chris Tolkien who has released a bunch of content, it is technically his. Some notes in a drawer don't count as public domain.

    That's the fuck I am on, @shryke

    JRRT has been dead for 40 years. He owns nothing. Christopher Tolkien did not write the Lord of the Rings. I don't think you get this.

    Why should his estate still own it? This is the same bullshit argument Disney makes for why nothing ever enters the public domain anymore.

    There is nothing "entitled" about suggesting that the work of a guy who's been fucking dead for 4 decades should be public domain and you are a silly goose for trotting that bullshit argument out.

    shryke on
  • EddEdd Registered User regular
    Interesting piece on BAD.com about 24fps vs. 48fps.

    Faraci here comes off as a bit of an alarmist and traditionalist (which he admittedly is), but he raises the good point that I had actually raised earlier in this thread, namely that the move to 48 or 60fps, while offering an alarmingly different visual experience, doesn't really influence the narrative in any measurable positive way.

    If there is any one good thing to come out of this debate, I think it will be that a lot of people will re-evaluate what it is about 24fps that is so damned important. If the final conclusion is "a whole lot, for many good reasons," and the tech push softens, then at least it is an issue that will have necessitated some careful, measured thought to get there, which will in turn advance understanding of what cinema is and what it does. I hope. Essentialist arguments about the "magic" of 24fps really aren't too persuasive. This is not a warrant for change in itself, but it's certainly no argument against it.

    He's dead-on about IMAX though, except that greater IMAX penetration suggests a movie-going experience completely dominated by big, loud genre films. I'm strangely okay with the idea of DTV losing its stigma so that quieter, more intimate (even Oscar bait) films can be released as such, while the "theatrical experience" can remain more focused on epic fare. Whether that would lead to the collapse of the industry is another matter.

  • CarpyCarpy Registered User regular
    Interesting piece on BAD.com about 24fps vs. 48fps.

    Faraci here comes off as a bit of an alarmist and traditionalist (which he admittedly is), but he raises the good point that I had actually raised earlier in this thread, namely that the move to 48 or 60fps, while offering an alarmingly different visual experience, doesn't really influence the narrative in any measurable positive way.

    In rebuttal, he offers that IMAX should be pushed as the way of the future, and makes goods points:
    - IMAX is a truly unique visual experience.
    - It offers immersion without the Uncanny Valley effect.
    - Instituting 3D, higher framerates, and sharper resolutions has resulted in higher ticket prices at the theater, but no real improvement in the cinematic experience; IMAX, at the very least, justifies its cost.
    - Home theater technology will eventually catch up with the improvements Jackson and Cameron are pushing; not so with IMAX.

    Why is the last point good for me as a consumer? If we are looking at tech upgrades for the medium I want something I can theoretically reproduce at home.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    What?

    Tolkien writes and never releases something.

    Tolkien Died.

    Little Tolkien inherits his father's stuff, including drafts and notes.

    ?????

    Little Tolkien doesn't own it! It belongs to the internet!


    So, I'm calling bullshit on that.

    Do you not understand the idea of public domain at all? Or just IP law in general?

    Do you?

    It's his. It isn't ours and it shouldn't be.

    Wait, so you are arguing against the idea of public domain?

    What the fuck are you on?

    I'm arguing against the idea that a thing should be in the public domain just because a bunch of fans decide it should be.

    I don't like how entitled the internet has made consumers of art, this discussion on Chris Tolkien has been a good example.

    Public domain is good and proper, but I think that content creators should still get to keep their shit. Also, since in this specific instance it's Chris Tolkien who has released a bunch of content, it is technically his. Some notes in a drawer don't count as public domain.

    That's the fuck I am on, @shryke

    JRRT has been dead for 40 years. He owns nothing. Christopher Tolkien did not write the Lord of the Rings. I don't think you get this.

    Why should his estate still own it? This is the same bullshit argument Disney makes for why nothing ever enters the public domain anymore.

    There is nothing "entitled" about suggesting that the work of a guy who's been fucking dead for 4 decades should be public domain and you are a silly goose for trotting that bullshit argument out.

    We weren't talking about LOTR, which has already been made into films and other adaptations several times, we were talking about all the extra shit like The Silmarillion and Children of Hurin and such, which was released by Chris Tolkien from his father's uncompleted manuscripts.

    Maybe learn what you're talking about before you start strutting and honking about public domain.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • VariableVariable Ted Hitler Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    that seems like he's just applying certain attributes to imax because he likes it. you could easily say the extra frames justify the cost... if you liked them. or that 3d justifies its cost. or that imax doesn't (I would rather see a movie normally than pay extra for imax).

    BNet-Vari#1998 | WiiU-Variable | 3DS-3866-8105-7478 | Steam | Twitch
    Sig%20-%20Hearthstone%20DoA.png
  • AbsoluteZeroAbsoluteZero Registered User regular
    I have a feeling that the poor looking presentation of The Hobbit has more to do with the fact that the footage isn't finished than it has to do with the frame rate. I'm going to guess the amount of post production done on the 10 minute reel was minimal at best.

    3DS Friend Code: 0817-5033-8184 // Nintendo Network ID: AbsoluteZero
  • Undead ScottsmanUndead Scottsman Death Groupie Registered User regular
    I don't get that. Wasn't the whole point of the 10 minutes of footage to show off how awesometastic 48fps is? Why the hell would you not take the time to post-produce those ten minutes to help show off the tech? It's honestly a little frustrating to me to see Jackson cry foul about "You don't have time to adjust to it when it's a jumpy montage" or "it hadn't been color corrected yet" when both of those things were in his power to correct before showing it off to the public. He's coming up with every excuse as to why people aren't liking 48fps EXCEPT that they just don't like 48fps.

    steam_sig.png
  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    Could be that now is the time they had to show it to distributors to get theaters ready for it, and they simply didn't have enough time considering they must be right in the middle of post production on the first Hobbit film.

  • BlackDragon480BlackDragon480 Registered User regular
    Could be that now is the time they had to show it to distributors to get theaters ready for it, and they simply didn't have enough time considering they must be right in the middle of post production on the first Hobbit film.

    I could see this, if there was an incredibly low capacity in the current infrastructure (i.e. 10-20% penetration in the current market), but it's a bit of a mountain out of molehill situation.

    AMC (2nd largest theater chain in the US) is going to have all of it's theaters updated to Sony 4K capable projectors by the end of this year, so every AMC theater (if not every screen) should theoretically be capable of displaying The Hobbit at 48fps by the time of it's release. And REG (Regal Entertainment Group, the biggest theater chain in the US) is in the middle of a similar refitting initiative, although they aren't projected to have 4K/48fps compatible projectors in every theater till sometime in 2013, but more than half should be refitted come the Hobbit's release.

    Those 2 companies combined make-up over 1/3 of the available screens in the US, and smaller companies like Dickinson, B&B Theaters, and Cinemark have been updating theaters at a near equal pace the last couple of years. So by December this year, I'd expect than somewhere between 35-50% of available screens in the US could theoretically carry the Hobbit in the 48fps formats. Of course, there is no obligation for theater chains to project it at 48fps, but the capability will already be there in a good portion of the market when it comes time for the movie to drop, so I don't think it was strictly necessary for PJ to take the risk he did to try and force the issue.

    We'll just have to wait and see what sort of market impact his plea at CinemaCon makes, closer to December.

    steam_sig.png
  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    JRRT has been dead for 40 years. He owns nothing. Christopher Tolkien did not write the Lord of the Rings. I don't think you get this.

    Why should his estate still own it? This is the same bullshit argument Disney makes for why nothing ever enters the public domain anymore.

    There is nothing "entitled" about suggesting that the work of a guy who's been fucking dead for 4 decades should be public domain and you are a silly goose for trotting that bullshit argument out.

    Why (out of curiosity) wouldn't it go to him? (no being snarky, but seriously want to know)

    If Tolkien had built him a real nice house or something, it wouldn't belong to the public in 40 years would it?

  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    Because one is real property and the other is intellectual property.

    etxvv5.jpg
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Or, because we've made a distinction between the two for whatever reason (its tenuous at best) and the internet has made people incredibly entitled when it comes to IPs.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    well, I don't want to muddy up the Hobbit thread with that debate

  • HedgethornHedgethorn Associate Professor of Historical Hobby Horses In the Lions' DenRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    What?

    Tolkien writes and never releases something.

    Tolkien Died.

    Little Tolkien inherits his father's stuff, including drafts and notes.

    ?????

    Little Tolkien doesn't own it! It belongs to the internet!


    So, I'm calling bullshit on that.

    Do you not understand the idea of public domain at all? Or just IP law in general?

    Do you?

    It's his. It isn't ours and it shouldn't be.

    Wait, so you are arguing against the idea of public domain?

    What the fuck are you on?

    I'm arguing against the idea that a thing should be in the public domain just because a bunch of fans decide it should be.

    I don't like how entitled the internet has made consumers of art, this discussion on Chris Tolkien has been a good example.

    Public domain is good and proper, but I think that content creators should still get to keep their shit. Also, since in this specific instance it's Chris Tolkien who has released a bunch of content, it is technically his. Some notes in a drawer don't count as public domain.

    That's the fuck I am on, @shryke

    JRRT has been dead for 40 years. He owns nothing. Christopher Tolkien did not write the Lord of the Rings. I don't think you get this.

    Why should his estate still own it? This is the same bullshit argument Disney makes for why nothing ever enters the public domain anymore.

    There is nothing "entitled" about suggesting that the work of a guy who's been fucking dead for 4 decades should be public domain and you are a silly goose for trotting that bullshit argument out.

    We weren't talking about LOTR, which has already been made into films and other adaptations several times, we were talking about all the extra shit like The Silmarillion and Children of Hurin and such, which was released by Chris Tolkien from his father's uncompleted manuscripts.

    Maybe learn what you're talking about before you start strutting and honking about public domain.

    "Released by Chris Tolkien" is a bit of an understatement. It's been a long time since I looked into it, but a good chunk of the published Silmarillion -- somewhere around 10-20%, IIRC -- was written by Christopher himself: chapters that the elder Tolkien never updated or made consistent after the publication of the Lord of the Rings and its Appendices.

  • DelduwathDelduwath Registered User regular
    Have you guys read "The History of Middle-Earth"? It's basically Christopher Tolkien documenting in excruciating detail all of his father's work (as well as the work he himself has done to get JRRT's notes into a publishable format). I read the first couple of books in the series, and there are some samples of the text Christopher had to go off of. Just to give you an idea of what sorts of things he had to deal with: (1) sometimes, JRRT would change his mind about the name of a character mid-draft and not bother to go back and update that name in the already-written portion, (2) some drafts were written in pencil, erased, and then re-written - on the same piece of paper - again; oftentimes, the original pencil wasn't fully erased, and would show through the new text, (3) JRRT had many different versions of some of the events in the history of Middle-Earth; there wasn't always a clear indication of which version was JRRT's preferred, "real" one.

    From what I've read, Christopher Tolkien is a crotchety man whose grip on his father's works is a bit too tight for my preferences; that being said, the fact that The Silmarillion, the Unfinished Tales, and the Children of Hurin have seen the light of day is an absolute testament to his devotion to his fathers work and the incredible, intense amount of work that he himself had to do to collect, collate, edit, and at times fill in gaps in JRRT's manuscripts. John Ronald Reuel may have written the original works, but Christopher did not just sit on a pile of pages, collecting cash-money-money. He absolutely busted his ass.

    weapon_rex.jpg
  • GnomeTankGnomeTank Registered User regular
    Delduwath is spot on. I think Christopher Tolkien can be a miser at times, but he has absolutely done his fathers work proud. The Lord of the Rings universe is a richer place because Christopher Tolkien actually cared about his fathers work. He took painstaking care to make sure he kept his fathers intent and message intact, while adding depth where his father had left it out.

    Tolkien fans that have some axe to grind against Christopher are geese, and should be treated as such. Most of them don't even realize how much work Christopher has done to get LoTR in the shape that it's in today.

    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, NintendoID: Brainling, FF14: Zillius Rosh
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    That story is quite refreshing actually. There are many stories of entitled bastards and such. Good to hear Christopher Tolkien is not one of them.

    steam_sig.png
  • HedgethornHedgethorn Associate Professor of Historical Hobby Horses In the Lions' DenRegistered User regular
    Delduwath wrote: »
    Have you guys read "The History of Middle-Earth"? It's basically Christopher Tolkien documenting in excruciating detail all of his father's work (as well as the work he himself has done to get JRRT's notes into a publishable format). I read the first couple of books in the series, and there are some samples of the text Christopher had to go off of. Just to give you an idea of what sorts of things he had to deal with: (1) sometimes, JRRT would change his mind about the name of a character mid-draft and not bother to go back and update that name in the already-written portion, (2) some drafts were written in pencil, erased, and then re-written - on the same piece of paper - again; oftentimes, the original pencil wasn't fully erased, and would show through the new text, (3) JRRT had many different versions of some of the events in the history of Middle-Earth; there wasn't always a clear indication of which version was JRRT's preferred, "real" one.

    From what I've read, Christopher Tolkien is a crotchety man whose grip on his father's works is a bit too tight for my preferences; that being said, the fact that The Silmarillion, the Unfinished Tales, and the Children of Hurin have seen the light of day is an absolute testament to his devotion to his fathers work and the incredible, intense amount of work that he himself had to do to collect, collate, edit, and at times fill in gaps in JRRT's manuscripts. John Ronald Reuel may have written the original works, but Christopher did not just sit on a pile of pages, collecting cash-money-money. He absolutely busted his ass.

    Every fan of the Lord of the Rings should at least flip through Return of the Shadow, the sixth volume of The History of Middle Earth, where Christopher documents at excruciating length the writing of The Fellowship of the Ring. The uneven nature of the book -- especially compared to The Two Towers and The Return of the King -- is much more evident but also much more explicable when you realize that Tolkien got his merry band of hobbits (led by the terribly named "Bingo Baggins") all the way to Rivendell before he decided that the magic ring Bilbo found was Sauron's ring, and that this wasn't going to be a happy little bedtime story for his children the way that The Hobbit was.

  • HedgethornHedgethorn Associate Professor of Historical Hobby Horses In the Lions' DenRegistered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Edit: double post.

    Hedgethorn on
  • jungleroomxjungleroomx Aaron Hernandez shot me through the heartRegistered User regular
    Wouldn't 48fps put the movie into "soap opera vision"?

    On the one hand, special effects could look ridiculously good without the animators and post people having to approximate motion blur (The slow motion scenes in Transformers, especially the one on the highway really show how photoreal the effects were). It's not the visual imagery of the special effects these days that make them look good or bad, it's the animations and the motion blur (for most of the major CGI effect movies).

    On the other hand... soap opera vision.

    Spoiler:
  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    I have to agree with Hedgethorn and Delduwath: Christopher Tolkien has done a hell of a lot of work in getting the post Return of the King books into print. That guy hell of deserves his copyright.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Aye, that's been my point. People can come in and bitch about trumped up, internet entitled IP bullshit, but Christ Tolkien isn't Little Dune and until Kevin J Anderson starts releasing LOTR sequels he won't be.

    He took his father's life work and continued it. He's earned his IP rights and I don't much care for people thinking other wise just cause they think he's a miser.

    Fans aren't owed shit. Sorry.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    Fans aren't owed shit. Sorry.

    I don't know that anyone argued they were.

    Still doesn't make Chris Tolkien any less of a crank.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Fans aren't owed shit. Sorry.

    I don't know that anyone argued they were.

    Still doesn't make Chris Tolkien any less of a crank.

    It's a bigger issue that I see ripples of everytime someone tries to argue "technicality of IP law" with me.

    And I'm willing to have a gentleman's disagreement with you on the crankness of Chris Tolkien, I understand your position even if I don't agree with it.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    Fans aren't owed shit. Sorry.

    I don't know that anyone argued they were.

    Still doesn't make Chris Tolkien any less of a crank.

    It's a bigger issue that I see ripples of everytime someone tries to argue "technicality of IP law" with me.

    And I'm willing to have a gentleman's disagreement with you on the crankness of Chris Tolkien, I understand your position even if I don't agree with it.

    *shakes on it*



    Crossthreadery alert, re: framerates.

Sign In or Register to comment.