Ian McKellan Gives 3D Description of Bilbo on the Set of The Hobbit

Ian McKellan Gives 3D Description of Bilbo on the Set of The Hobbit

Check out the description Gandalf himself gives of seeing Martin Freeman as Bilbo in 3D on the set of The Hobbit.

By Hawksblueyes - Mar 08, 2011 04:03 PM EST
Filed Under: Fantasy
Source: Ian McKellen.com

With a seemingly endless stream of setbacks surrounding the much anticipated film The Hobbit, it's nice to see some info coming in that shows any form of progress. A few weeks ago we were able to see the first photo's of sets and props and that seems to have been enough to get the proverbial ball rolling.

Today, Gandalf himself (Ian McKellen) left the following update on his official site.

I've seen Bilbo — in three dimensions.

I was visiting old friends in the Stone Street offices and heard Martin Freeman was just round the corner by the permanent greenscreen, done up as Bilbo, testing his costume in front of the 3D cameras. Indeed, there he was in the open air, mostly oblivious to the camera, though turning this way and that as required. Martin improvised a hobbity gait, padding back and forth, testing his big hairy Hobbit feet, pointy ears and little tum.

Beneath the shade of a tent, in a sun hat, Andrew Lesnie was remotely controlling the two lenses within the mighty camera which digitally records in 3D. His screen showed the familiar 2D image but next to it, above the director's chair, was a large colour screen in full magical three dimensions, much as it will appear in the cinema — courtesy of the spy-glasses that transform the blurred outlines onscreen to the high definition exactitude of the 3D effect.

Three Bilbos simultaneously, two performances on screen and the actor beyond: which was the real one? Martin Freeman was transmuting into a character whose reality will soon be as authentic as his own.
RED ONE Looks Set For A Disastrous Opening Weekend After Taking In Just $3.7M From Thursday Night Previews
Related:

RED ONE Looks Set For A Disastrous Opening Weekend After Taking In Just $3.7M From Thursday Night Previews

RED ONE Star Dwayne The Rock Johnson Mocked For Sharing Bizarre Story About Watching OPPENHEIMER In IMAX
Recommended For You:

RED ONE Star Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson Mocked For Sharing Bizarre Story About Watching OPPENHEIMER In IMAX

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

Hawksblueyes
Hawksblueyes - 3/8/2011, 4:45 PM
;P
AVEN
AVEN - 3/8/2011, 4:59 PM
:(
selinakyle
selinakyle - 3/8/2011, 5:14 PM
booyaaaaaa.
Illuminatus
Illuminatus - 3/8/2011, 5:14 PM
o_O
ReillyParker
ReillyParker - 3/8/2011, 5:15 PM
nice Hawks
AVEN
AVEN - 3/8/2011, 5:26 PM
Omelette du... fromage!!!


NeoBaggins
NeoBaggins - 3/8/2011, 5:37 PM
3D? What the [frick]?
Hawksblueyes
Hawksblueyes - 3/8/2011, 5:48 PM
I worry about you sometimes Intruder. ;P
LEEE777
LEEE777 - 3/8/2011, 6:18 PM
C(O_0)D
MovieMann
MovieMann - 3/8/2011, 6:28 PM
I keep trying to get upset about this movie being in 3D but I just cant!
McGeckoWilson
McGeckoWilson - 3/8/2011, 6:29 PM
Ugh, is The Hobbit REALLY gonna be in 3D? There has got to be a way to kill the fad, except that I'm seeing this on opening day (well, midnight) and it'll probably only be available in 3D. There should be a campaign to end 3D, except for random kids movies and sh!t like 'Tron'. Thank God for Christopher Nolan for shunning 3D but seriously Peter Jackson, I thought you would've known better...
kookevin3
kookevin3 - 3/8/2011, 7:15 PM
If you all have a probelm with 3D then just the 2D version. Whiney [female dog]es
dfresh
dfresh - 3/8/2011, 7:56 PM
Gandalf is quite the wordsmith.
ManThing
ManThing - 3/8/2011, 8:12 PM
kewl. I love that guy. McKellan.
jbak368
jbak368 - 3/8/2011, 8:36 PM
YOU may not like 3D, but rest assured that plenty of people DO, and since most 3D movies get shown in both formats there really isn't much for you to complain about. I think 3D is [frick]ing awesome when used properly, but I don't complain when movies don't use it. It's another tool in the director's toolbox, and it should be there for directors who decide it's the tool they need.
NeoBaggins
NeoBaggins - 3/8/2011, 9:27 PM
Damn, I thought Mr. Jackson was above this. The novelty of 3D tarnishes the class and quality, weatehr or not yous see it in 3D. It's a stupid distraction used for films that have no ambition of being more than forgotten. I thought the Hobbit was a bad idea at first. But now that Jackson is back on the case, McKellen is Gandalf and it's going to happen anyway, I'm looking forward to it. Then I see this 3D shit and it just makes it sound like ass. Of course I'm going to see it, I'm just a bit ashamed and disappointed in Jackson for following the fad. At least it's shot IN 3D instead of that cheap, money-stealing, after-the-fact, rip-off conversion thing they do in post.
jbak368
jbak368 - 3/8/2011, 9:37 PM
I really can't believe all the hate for this. When I saw Avatar, the first thing I thought was "I can't wait to see a superhero movie (specifically Spiderman or Superman) that looks like this." Whether you like it or not, 3D is not just a novelty item this time. It's coming to TV's, it's coming to Games, soon there will be no glasses for any of it, and it isn't going anywhere.
OdinsMissingEye
OdinsMissingEye - 3/8/2011, 11:11 PM
There is actually justified reasons why cinema purists don't like watching movies in 3D, for one when it is a big named movie being shown all the main theatres will be used for the 3D showing, leaving anyone that wants to watch it in 2D stuck in the smallest crappiest theatre which is only accessible via making ones way through a multitude of conrete underground labyrinths and pipes only to arrive there and discover that its packed out because management underestimates how many people prefer watching movies in 2D. And dont forget that some small cinemas in smaller towns dont even give the 2D choice.

Secondly and for me by far the most prevelent reason why some people dont wish to watch movies in 3D is the loss of colour and brightness of the picture due to the tint in the glasses, this is a big deal and something that has been poorly overlooked with the 3D format.

I thought it was hilarious when I went to see tron and everybody in the cinema had their glasses on for the first 20 minute 2D part of the film, raise your hand if you where one of those people:)
jbak368
jbak368 - 3/8/2011, 11:45 PM
My recommendation is that you do research before deciding which print to see then. Cinemablend.com, for example, has a regular feature in which they grade a film's 3D based on a number of factors and recommend whether you'd be better off with 2D or 3D. I don't always like 3D, and I don't go see movies that are supposed to have shitty 3D, but I don't think there should be this weird backlash against it in instances where it could be really cool. I'm glad Nolan isn't using it, because it wouldn't fit with the established style, but with films like The Amazing Spider-Man and The Hobbit, that's shit I would like to see in eye-popping high quality 3D. The director just has to know what they're doing - on Avatar Cameron knew brightness was an issue, and he made sure everything was bright enough to be clear. The backlash should be against bad 3D, not against 3D itself, just like people should complain about bad CGI, not CGI itself. When the tool is used properly by a skilled crafstman, the results will reflect that.
NeoBaggins
NeoBaggins - 3/8/2011, 11:49 PM
OdinsMissingEye, ah, the voice of reason. Where I live, I'm sure everyone will be FORCED to see THOR in 3D from what they're advertising. And my favorite theatre has a dungeon for movies that have been out for more than two weeks and/or not the 3D version. It's like watching a flatscreen in a livingroom full of strangers.

I had some self time after a lot of work and thought it would be fun to see Narnia in 3D... until I paid a million dollars for the ticket, glasses, SMALL popcorn and medium drink. I've paid less with a date, who says she doesn't want anything outside, then asks 10 minutes into the movie. I lowered my glasses and couldn't believe how much color and light was DESTROYED by the glasses. It was a sunny day on a white beach scene with this crazy water portal thing. The glasses absolutely ruined the shot. And what people are failing to realize with the Avatar defense is, they keep claiming it's the same method as Avatar when it is clearly NOT. The 3D in Avatar was more of a digital enhancement touch. It was for maximum clarity and crisp depth over blurry, in-your-face 3D. These films look nothing like that. If a film is made to be a 3D film, fine. That's what Avatar and Pirahnna is for. You don't have to slap it onto the Hobbit. It's like eating a 50 dollar steak wrapped in newspaper.
jbak368
jbak368 - 3/9/2011, 12:12 AM
Yes, the 3 dollars more that the glasses cost made the whole experience cost more than a date.

Narnia was not filmed in 3D, nor was it planned to be in 3D while filming, and is therefore not a good example. How is it slapping it into The Hobbit when it's always been part of the plan? Hell this article is about some [frick]ing test footage, not principal photography. Clearly they are planning the 3D out carefully.

If you live in an area where your only choices are a shitty 3D version or a shitty cinema, I'm sorry, that blows, but lots of us live in places where the cinema-going options are more varied than that, and there's no reason we shouldn't be able to see the movie in 3D if we want to.
OdinsMissingEye
OdinsMissingEye - 3/9/2011, 12:31 AM
Can you just imagine what its going to be like having Jar Jar Binks in your face up close and personal with the re-release of Episode 1 in 3D, there is going to be mass brain hemorrhaging throughout the cinemas of the world, it'll be a bloody nightmare of unimaginable proportions, think ill be passing on that.
jbak368
jbak368 - 3/9/2011, 12:42 AM
@OdinsMissingEye - Me too. Deciding not to go see a shitty movie isn't an argument against 3D, although I'm sure the 3D will probably be really well done for the prequels, but it absolutely won't make up for how terrible the movies are, nor am I arguing that 3D could or should ever do that.
OdinsMissingEye
OdinsMissingEye - 3/9/2011, 1:09 AM
I know its not an argument for 3D, I just wanted to remind people how far gone Lucas is from reality.

And im in agreement with what your saying about using 3D only with films that put the effort into making them quality 3D productions, and you might be right about Cameron adjusting the brightness to compensate for the loss with the glasses, but there was still alot of loss in the colour which is something that needs improving.

For me personally im just not into it, it ruins the cinema experience imo, Lord of the Rings was awesome, 3D wouldnt have made anymore enjoyable.

And you must know that its not about directors goin 'Hey lets make this a 3D movie' its the producers trying to draw in more cash with a gimmick, yes in some movies its alright, but almost 99% of all Fantasy/Sci-fi movies are being released in 3D and many people just don't have a choice to see it any other way.

It would be interesting to take a poll and see how many people actually enjoy 3D more over 2D, I think it might come as a surprise to many of these production companys to see how many people are just not into it.
NeoBaggins
NeoBaggins - 3/9/2011, 1:45 AM
jbak368 I thought I was the one who was supposed to be upset. Calm down and respect another persons opinion and PERSONAL EXPERIENCES- Experiences a presumptuous child wouldn't know anything about to comment so strongly on. I said the crumby screen for 2D was at my FAVORITE THEATER, so when you say stuff like "your only choices are a shitty 3D version or a shitty cinema, I'm sorry," you aren't making any sense and showing vast ignorance. If THOR is only available in 3D, it will be shown on the best screens, not in the dungeon. Duh?

So, I must conclude that you understand fully why 3D is classless when associated with something that will most likely be great, you just don't want to hear it voiced (your unwarranted anger is telling). And who said you shouldn't be able to see it in 3D? Isn't that OBVIOUS at this point? And speaking of obviously 3D, since when was this ALWAYS the plan for the film?
AC1
AC1 - 3/9/2011, 2:50 AM
Awesome! I actually don't mind 3D, as long as it's put to good use, but I dont know if it's really necessary for the Hobit... I could see it working for Green Lantern, The Amazing Spiderman, and Star Wars though
KeithM
KeithM - 3/9/2011, 7:11 AM
@OdinsMissingEye: I've seen a few films in 3D, but I choose 2D out of preference and that won't change until they (a) learn to tell a story in three dimensions instead of STILL poking things out of the screen at you (b) Get rid of the stupid glasses (c) Drop the "IN 3D" from the title of the movie (you can tell when it stops being a gimmick when they stop advertising it as a 'feature' - you don't see films coming out these days saying "IN FULL COLOUR" do you?) (d) drop the ticket prices and (e) fix all the things that are wrong with the picture quality and conversion process.

Take a look at Resident Evil: Afterlife 3D (in 2D) to highlight some of the worst problems with 3D (putting aside the fact that RE:A completely sucks anyway) - there are whole scenes where the slo-mo/freeze frame kicks in to highlight the 3D-ness of the 'splosions and whizzbang of the imagery - and all it does is grind the film to a complete halt - made even worse in 2D because there aren't even any pokey out bits to go "ooh" over.

Filmmakers are using it to take us OUT of the movie instead of using it to bring us IN and that is the main problem with this gimmicky 3D fad. Others like Toy Story 3 just tell their story and don't take 3D into account at all, which is good on the one hand, but as a consequence it makes seeing it in 3D utterly pointless.

So far, Avatar has been the ONLY movie worth seeing in 3D over 2D - and that's because it's the ONLY movie made and with shots composed specifically for that process, and doesn't work as well as a normal 2D film (mainly because the story was crap and the 3D 'experience' is its main selling point).

So yeah, 2D>3D and probably will be for quite some time yet.
jbak368
jbak368 - 3/9/2011, 8:13 AM
Wasn't trying to insult everyone. Obviously we're all entitled to our opinions. And I do totally understand that it gets used as a cheap cash in. I don't go see those movies. As far as being a presumptuous child, I find that most of those around here can't spell, and I'm not too old but I'm a wee bit older than that. As far as anger, I'm not angry, I'm just trying to say that being totally against 3D is an over-reaction IMHO. I'm sorry if my tone comes across as angry; it was not my intention. Slightly sarcastic maybe. And yes, the thought of Jar Jar in 3 crisp dimensions is truly sickening.
NeoBaggins
NeoBaggins - 3/9/2011, 11:10 AM
jbak368 Being totally against 3D might be an over-reaction. But who said anything about being totally against it?

Anyway, I may see it in 2D and later in 3D since they are filming it in 3D as opposed to the crappy conversion. Lucas can kiss my ass although I'm curious about the opening space battle in episode 3 in 3D. When I first saw it I thought about how it would look in 3D. The originals might sucker me in for sure. I'll just sneak in and see it free. The conversion may look awful.
Nemesys
Nemesys - 3/9/2011, 11:51 AM
Personally I love 3D when its done correctly. The thing that sucks for me is that I already have 4 eyes, and adding 2 more eyes on top of the 4 is really ungainly and uncomfortable. I just try not to let it pull me out of the experience.
PurpleHaze92
PurpleHaze92 - 3/9/2011, 12:28 PM
LOTR=GAY
jbak368
jbak368 - 3/9/2011, 12:35 PM
@Nemesys - I would bet that within the next couple of years you won't need the glasses anymore. Several companies, including Apple, are working on tech that would make 3D work without glasses for a room full of people.
AvariForlorn
AvariForlorn - 3/10/2011, 1:29 PM
@PurpleHaze92
AvariForlorn
AvariForlorn - 3/10/2011, 1:32 PM
Does anyone really think the movie being filmed in 3D is going to make it worse? Don't see it in 3D then. No one is forcing you. I for one am excited to see what a great movie will be like enhanced by 3 dimensions. So far movies in 3D have been sub-par but I think great story + great experience will truly be something to behold.
View Recorder