Brought to you by

Peter Jackson: Filming The Hobbit In 3D Is A ‘Dream Come True’

Gizmodo AU

For The Hobbit, director Peter Jackson has got into the habit of popping up regular production videos to give anxious fans a peek behind the short and hairy-footed curtain of his latest interpretation of J.R.R Tolkien’s seminal work. In the most recent clip, Jackson has no qualms providing us his opinion of 3D.

Shooting The Hobbit in 3D is a dream come true. If I had the ability to shoot Lord Of The Rings in 3D, I certainly would have done it.

The reality is, it’s not that difficult to shoot in 3D. I love it when a film draws you in an you become part of the experience, and 3D helps immerse you in the film.

Jackson mentions that he did shoot 3D during the first three Lord Of The Rings films. The only problem is that all the shots he took were stills, which, unless you take a lot of them, are hard to turn into a feature film. He does however express a desire to put them on “3D Blu-ray”.

The production video is fantastic — it goes into a lot of detail about the RED Epic 3D cameras and mirror system used in filming and is generally very insightful on all things The Hobbit. Being an NZ native, the plethora of Kiwi accents also puts me at ease.

3D movies never made the massive impact Hollywood thought they would, yet, the industry’s still keen. I’m curious — what would it take for 3D to go mainstream? Is it a comfort thing? The cost? Personally, I’m waiting for it to be beamed directly into my brain.

That, or holodecks.

[YouTube, via Blastr]

Discuss

(22 Comments)
  • [–]

    moloko

    Saturday, November 5, 2011 at 1:32 PM

    Just start making 3D films properly and people might start to like it. Release movies where 3D does not belong at all and is just there to state that it is a 3D movie to get another $2 or $3 from admission eg. pretty much every 3D movie made apart from Avatar. Will be interesting to see what the Hobbit movie will end up like since the book was pretty Meh compared to The Lord of the Rings.

    • [–]

      Damo

      Saturday, November 5, 2011 at 3:02 PM

      Agreed. There has to be a reason to use three d. If it’s a gimmick it will have the lifespan of a gimmick.

    • [–]

      Julien

      Saturday, November 5, 2011 at 3:18 PM

      “the book was pretty Meh”?
      Tolkein wrote it for his CHILDREN. It’s almost absurd to compare the two works.

    • [–]

      Daniel Timmons

      Saturday, November 5, 2011 at 5:06 PM

      I liked The Hobbit alot better than Lord of The Rings..

      • [–]

        Roman

        Sunday, November 6, 2011 at 12:40 AM

        same. but maybe only because i read it first before i could understand the lord of the rings.
        still has a fantastic plot that could translate into a movie quite well

    • [–]

      AmyGray

      Monday, February 20, 2012 at 6:25 AM

      The best solution to 3D? Just kill it. I hate 3D movie especially where I wear glasses.

      And i’m dying to see The Hobbit. Please tell me it will be available in non 3-D format.

  • [–]

    Ozoneocean

    Saturday, November 5, 2011 at 5:15 PM

    I wonder why certain big directors are so hot for 3D? One wonders if the camera companies aren’t giving them lots of freebies or something?

    I wasn’t excited a all for this, but it looks really cool! I love all the beardy dwarf faces! -you have to wonder where Jackson is going to shoe-horn in his female characters though…? I don’t remember there being many in the book, (maybe 2?) and he loves to try and “balance” things.

    I do have to wonder at the thing with the concept artists… why in the world do they fully draw up two large versions of the same image in different colours? Are they really THAT conservative? It’s hard to believe… Conventionally what you’d do is draw up one image in pencil (or charcoal or whatever), scan it, colourise it and print out different coloured copies for further work.
    But what any normal concept artist these days would do is draw it up on their Cintiq tablet and do all the alterations on the screen in different layers. It’s faster, less mistakes, you only need one artist, and there’s less messing around and less likelihood for dissipaters.

    • [–]

      Ozoneocean

      Saturday, November 5, 2011 at 5:18 PM

      “disasters”.
      Oh the irony. :(

      • [–]

        bob

        Sunday, November 6, 2011 at 5:53 PM

        surely for the 3d to work the two images are slightly different… left & right eyes??

  • [–]

    Thomas

    Saturday, November 5, 2011 at 7:03 PM

    Would 3D screw with the forced perspective used to make some people look smaller in some shots? It’ll be interesting to see what physical trickery they use to make the 3D work really well…

    • [–]

      MrTaco

      Sunday, November 6, 2011 at 1:23 AM

      Interesting point, never would have thought of that.

  • [–]

    Cardiackevin

    Saturday, November 5, 2011 at 9:07 PM

    Not 3D, it’s stereoscopic. A gimmick.

    • [–]

      3d fan

      Sunday, November 6, 2011 at 8:48 AM

      hate to tell you 3d is stereoscopic always has been. This is hardly a gimmick the whole production is designed and shot around 3d unlike other productions where 3d has been an afterthought . For a really fantastic use of 3d check out the documentary called pina .

  • [–]

    Paul

    Saturday, November 5, 2011 at 10:18 PM

    Human eye doesn’t see in frame rates..

    • [–]

      Damo

      Sunday, November 6, 2011 at 8:48 AM

      The point made surely was that after 48fps the human eye can’t detect the frames.

  • [–]

    Kev

    Sunday, November 6, 2011 at 11:33 AM

    Kia haha! The sweet soothing richness of the kiwi always hits the spot ay!

  • [–]

    andy

    Sunday, November 6, 2011 at 4:48 PM

    I’d rather see it in 2D …3D is a marketing gimmick at the present time …

    • [–]

      Lillee

      Monday, November 7, 2011 at 10:17 AM

      Although I don’t have a problem watching 3D using glasses, I am sort of glad he is filming it in 3d because that means the content will contain 3d data which can be later converted into whatever 3D technology we will have in 10, 15, 20yrs time. 3D of today is ok, but not great. In the future it will be great, and then we can enjoy The Hobbit in all of it’s glory using that technology, get it?

  • [–]

    Adz

    Monday, November 7, 2011 at 9:06 AM

    I agree with the Breakfast Wrap comment. Finish this then make a sequel to Bad Taste.
    We want to see Derek land on the alien planet with his chainsaw!
    ‘I’m coming to get you bastards!’

    • [–]

      Captain Pajama Shark

      Tuesday, November 8, 2011 at 3:34 PM

      “Suck Spunning Steel Shuthed”

  • [–]

    Osiris Fox

    Monday, November 7, 2011 at 11:52 AM

    I have no problem with 3D if that’s the native filming technique used. I have a huge problem with 2D movies that are converted to 3D in post production. That is what is ruining 3D. Scumbag studios looking for a quick buck.

  • [–]

    Katey Power

    Tuesday, November 22, 2011 at 4:06 PM

    An Australian auction house have acquired limited edition J.R.R Tolkien works, complete with Elvish and English inscriptions in Tolkien’s own handwriting. Here’s the link: http://bayeastauctions.com.au/lot_details.php?lot=177950&auction=384

Join The Discussion