The Hobbit - starts filming March 21

[Kit Rae]

Not in the movie. He'd gotten a lot older when we meet him again in Rivendell before the meeting of free folk regarding the journey of the ring.

The OP was talking about Bilbo at the end of ROTK. Here is Bilbo from the beginning of FOTR.

Bilbo in Rivendell, about 17 years after he left the Shire, without the Ring.

Bilbo about three years later at the end of ROTK, about 2 years after the Ring was destroyed. They threw another 50 years on him.

 

[Jayn]

I watched it for the sixth time tonight (- I love it that much!) but for the first time in HFR. I can see why people didn't like it, but after getting used to it for a few scenes, it wasn't distracting at all to me. I thought the depth of field that it added was incredible! I could see details in Bilbo's house that I never noticed in 24f - Like you could see the set dressing in the back rooms not seen in the other versions. The 'riding in the rain' & stone giant scenes were where the 3-D effect really was amazing to me. The one thing I thought was slightly distracting was how the lighting on the hyper-focused actors looked against their surroundings. That had to be hard to edit that right.

 

[SmilingOtter]

I do wish they'd pointed out in FOTR that it had been so long between Bilbo's departure and the start of Frodo's journey.

 

[VortexRunner]

I do wish they'd pointed out in FOTR that it had been so long between Bilbo's departure and the start of Frodo's journey.

They did subtly hint at it. Especially when Frodo is saying "How does one pick up the pieces..." He'd had time to settle back into his house. Sam gets married - I don't think that all happened in a week or so love

 

[Nwerke]

Agree...in the film it feels like they're consecutive events.

VortexRunner - Otter means at the start of the films - Frodo's journey to the War of the Ring. It's seventeen years after Bilbo's party.

 

[Kit Rae]

Adding in the spans of time like that would have required even more exposition in the films, plus aging Frodo slightly. Not really necessary to tell the story. In the film it does appear that the 17 year gap was maybe just a few months or a year. I think Pete or someone else in the DVD commentary noted that they ignored the time span there.

I think Bilbo's slightly older look in Rivendell may have been Jackson implying that without the Ring, he was aging faster. Another thing to consider is that much of what makes him look older in Rivendell is simply the warm cross lighting highlighting his wrinkles, not necessarily old age makeup. In some shots he does not really look any older than he did in the Shire. Ian Holm just acts as if he were much older.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

They didn't just ignore the time span from the book, they removed it completely with the notion that once the ring had been "discovered" by Gandalf to be in Bilbo's possession and have him let it go, that it was insane to have it take 17 years to start the journey to destroy the ring. Meaning... it's barely months apart from when Gandalf leaves Frodo with the ring to when he returns and sends him on his quest.

And Bilbo HAS age makeup on in Rivendell. He IS shown to be much older - he even moves like a much older man, whereas he moved around a lot less burdened when he left the Shire. Even what he mentions to Frodo regarding wanting to see all the places he once visited again, but couldn't because, as he put it: "age has finally caught up with me". That's pretty clear that he's aging really fast now without the ring. It's all there, spelled out pretty clearly ON film.

 

[EyeofSauron]

are people really saying gollum didnt age? i mean did you see him before the ring and 500 years after?

 

[Too Much Garlic]

are people really saying gollum didnt age? i mean did you see him before the ring and 500 years after?

The argument is from the time he lost the ring till we see him again in Fellowship.

Not much different.

Bilbo ages much more rapidly in just a few months to basically being unable to travel after he let go of the ring and arrived at Rivendell.

 

[Kit Rae]

I was not aware this was an argument, just an answer to the OP's question, but if you think the difference in visible age from Rivendell Bilbo to Bilbo at the end of ROTK is "Not much different" then I think just about everyone who has seen the film, or looked at the screen grabs above, would argue that It's silly to even debate it.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

I was not aware this was an argument, just an answer to the OP's question, but if you think the difference in visible age from Rivendell Bilbo to Bilbo at the end of ROTK is "Not much different" then I think just about everyone who has seen the film, or looked at the screen grabs above, would argue that It's silly to even debate it.

That comment was for Gollum. I didn't discuss Bilbo until the next paragraph after that.

 

[Kit Rae]

Jackson said they made Gollum a bit younger looking. Barely any difference in the film that I could see, other than maybe a few less wrinkles under the eyes and a few extra strands of hair.

Young Gollum.

Old Gollum.

I assume because Gollum had the Ring for over 500 years, and that it physically changed his body, that effect of the Ring's absence would not have deteriorated his body his as much as they did Bilbo, who only possessed the Ring for a short time. Tolkien never addressed this in the books that I recall anyway, just the fact that Bilbo was much older in Rivendell 17 years later, and aged much more after the Ring ended. If Gollum had lived after the Ring was destroyed, he likely would have rapidly deteriorated just like Bilbo.

 

[Bryancd]

Double post..

 

[Bryancd]

Just got back from a 3D 48fps matinee. I have now seen this film in IMAX 3D, 2D, and 3D HFR and have to say the most seem less, best visual experience was today. IMAX just made the CGI too noticeable. And I think I just am not a fan of the IMAX screen, it's just too much. The 2D was nice and made Radagast and the rabbits chase and the escape from Gonlin Town look less artificial. 3D HFR had very clear and sharp 3D effects and yet made those two segments which I found problematic much better. I also didn't find the 48fps image to look like video at all. Seemed like HD Blu-ray clarity on a big screen to me.

 

[EyeofSauron]

i do see quite a difference between young and old gollum in the pics. also, old gollum looks so much more real

 

[Too Much Garlic]

The first Gollum picture is near exact to the scene in RotK where he talks to himself in the water before leading them up the stairs to the tunnel.

 

[Nwerke]

Just got back from a 3D 48fps matinee. I have now seen this film in IMAX 3D, 2D, and 3D HFR and have to say the most seem less, best visual experience was today. IMAX just made the CGI too noticeable. And I think I just am not a fan of the IMAX screen, it's just too much. The 2D was nice and made Radagast and the rabbits chase and the escape from Gonlin Town look less artificial. 3D HFR had very clear and sharp 3D effects and yet made those two segments which I found problematic much better. I also didn't find the 48fps image to look like video at all. Seemed like HD Blu-ray clarity on a big screen to me.

Saw it again in 2D 24FPS this week. Zero 'video' issues, as expected - but after seeing it in 3D HFR the dropoff in clarity was way more of a wrench than I anticipated. It was like trying to go back and watch VHS after getting used to DVD.

So if you didn't think the weird look reminded you of video, I'm struggling to understand what it did remind you of. Blu-ray movies on my big screen remind me of...movies. :lol Do you run your TV with motion smoothing on all the time? If so...that's the look we're talking about.

I'm torn now. HFR is GREAT...fifty percent of the time.

 

[Kit Rae]

Saw it again in 2D 24FPS this week. Zero 'video' issues, as expected - but after seeing it in 3D HFR the dropoff in clarity was way more of a wrench than I anticipated. It was like trying to go back and watch VHS after getting used to DVD.

Exactly what I experienced, but I did like the film look of the dialogue scenes more. For the prologue and Moria flashbacks I wanted to see some of the background action details again when I saw it in 24 fps, that I remembered from the first time seeing it in HFR. They were simply gone in the 24 fps version, especially in the moving camera pans.

 

[Nwerke]

Yep. I'm gonna have to suck it up and see it again in HFR while I have the chance.

Agree ten thousand per cent regarding dialogue scenes.

 

[rodneyfaile]

I still think if you spend some time watching a newer tv with 240hz refresh rate, you will soon prefer HFR.

It even makes the old classic movies look so good!