-
The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
First the obligatory link to the Comic-con + end of production video on Peter Jackson's facebook page
So yeah, apparently instead of two films they're making three.
That's, er, good, I guess (why make two movies when you can make three).
Or rather, I hope. Some of the casting choices are truly inspired (Sylvester McCoy for Radagast and Barry Humphries for the goblin king) and the glimpses of dale are quite tantalizing.
I wonder where all the extra story will be coming from (and if it will be worth while), and how they'll break the films up. Will the round journey between Bag-End and Erebor really take 9 hours?
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Is three films really necessary for a book that's shorter than any of the three Lord of the Rings books?
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
While three films kinda surprises me too, there's a lot that goes on in the book that we don't really see or just gets summarized. And that's not even counting material that's entirely from the appendices. Book length isn't exactly the best indicator for how long it should be in visual form, for example:
Lord of the Rings: 1,349 pages, including prologue but not appendices, 557 minutes total for all three movies
A Game of Thrones: 835 pages, first season is 565 minutes.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Welcome to Peter Jackson's new trilogy; LOTR: The Appendices (Also Hobbit).
Eh, it just feels increasingly like the project is being blown out of all proportion and that The Hobbit story itself will suffer in favour of all of the other LOTR material that has nothing really to do with it, all in the name of trying to recreate his big success.
Though it'll likely be worth watching either way.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lord Seth
Is three films really necessary for a book that's shorter than any of the three Lord of the Rings books?
It is if you expect each movie to gross $300 million in box office sales.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Looking at how they did Helm's Deep, I believe the Battle of Five Armies can take one film on its own, at least. Two films for the rest of the book is not that much, I'd guess.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
I can't be honest if I don't say that this sounds entirely like a cash-grab.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Well, Jackson's first trilogy is my favorite movie of all time (the Extended Version of course), so I suppose I'll just have to make do with a sixth masterpiece on my movie shelf. :smallsigh: My life is soooooo difficult...
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
To sum up most of the opinions I have encountered, not necessarily on this forum or in this thread:
We, "the fans" are being given more of what we want.
:smallfurious: :smallfurious: :smallfurious:
AAAAAANNNNNGGGGGEERRRRR!
(clear and obvious exaggeration, but only to a point)
*deep breath*
Seriously, after all the hate from LoTR for skipping material (the outrage over Tom Bombadil was insane), now "the fans" are being given more material and they are angry.
Okay.
I officially don't want to live on this planet anymore.
Peter Jackson is a very fortunate artist who has been given something special, the ability to take his work and really make it shine, really tell a great story, fully and completely. Moreover, one hopes that this will allow them to skip the 4-5 hour long Extended cuts, by simply making the film/s of the correct length and covering off all the content they want.
The self-entitled "fans" who feel that hollywood owes them anything, have officially ruined this for me. I was happy when I read the news. Now I'm just pissed off that so many people could turn and spit in the face of something giving them more of what they ask for.
Seriously internets? Fail.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Karoht
To sum up most of the opinions I have encountered, not necessarily on this forum or in this thread:
We, "the fans" are being given more of what we want.
:smallfurious: :smallfurious: :smallfurious:
AAAAAANNNNNGGGGGEERRRRR!
*deep breath*
Seriously, after all the hate from LoTR for skipping material (the outrage over Tom Bombadil was insane), now "the fans" are being given more material and they are angry.
Okay.
I officially don't want to live on this planet anymore.
Eh I agree with you.
In my day, we had animated Bilbo Baggins and a fishman Gollum, 70's singers AND WE LIKED IT!!!
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Tell them movie 3 is about Saruman going back in time to scour the Shire and they'll love it again.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
I don't seem to recall the fans demanding three movies instead of two...
The Hobbit isn't that long of a book. Two movies already seemed like a lot to cover it and now it's being extended to three. If they can pull it off without it seeming padded, great. Wonderful! I loved The Hobbit. I prefer it to LotR. But wondering whether or not there is enough source material to fill three films is a valid concern.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Karoht
Okay.
I officially don't want to live on this planet anymore.
You'll need this, good sir.
And for Eru's sake take me with you!
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheSummoner
I don't seem to recall the fans demanding three movies instead of two...
The Hobbit isn't that long of a book. Two movies already seemed like a lot to cover it and now it's being extended to three. If they can pull it off without it seeming padded, great. Wonderful! I loved The Hobbit. I prefer it to LotR. But wondering whether or not there is enough source material to fill three films is a valid concern.
Well, there's enough LOTR universe stuff that could be explored that doesn't get fully delved into in the books that you could easily make three movies. Particularly if they draw off the Silmarillion, which is basically 90% sentences like "And then Eyrindrel and Grlyalmor went on an adventure for six years in which they killed like, eighty dragons, before bringing back the Stone of the Sacred Tree" where a director could easily cram in a dozen film's worth of content.
Of course, that means it's up to the writing team to fill in the huge, huge blanks, which some fans may feel they can't or shouldn't do.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
This does seem odd to me. I can see The Hobbit ending up a two-movie story, given all the events that are covered only briefly in the book, but three does seem more than is necessary. Maybe the third will end up as that movie covering the time in between The Hobbit and LotR that was initially rumored to be the second Hobbit movie? That would make more sense to me than three movies to cover just the events of the book.
Zevox
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Karoht
*deep breath*
Seriously, after all the hate from LoTR for skipping material (the outrage over Tom Bombadil was insane), now "the fans" are being given more material and they are angry.
Neil Gaiman doesn't like Tom Bombadil. If it's good enough for Neil, it's good enough for me!
Seriously though, my largest complaint about LotR was that Peter Jackson ruined my favorite character: Faramir.
P.S. It feels like a cash grab and they're diverging from the Hobbit and adding some pieces from other source material. I'm concerned that this decision was based on monetary concerns, rather than a need for a third movie for story purposes. We'll see how it affects pacing and plot and whether the movies feel like they're dragging or some pieces feel tacked on (I'm looking at you 2nd and 3rd movie Arwen).
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
I have a feeling the third film will be more along the lines of Unfinished Tales, covering material that happens between the Hobbit and LOTR. I don't think they plan to stretch out the Hobbit material itself (which, despite being a shorter book in comparison to LOTR, has quite a lot of story beats / events in it... thus I've always been on board with the two film plan).
I do wish, however, that Jackson was instead filming some Silmarillion material as a third film, instead of the in-between material. We'll see how it goes. The LOTR film trilogy was wonderful, aside from ROTK, so I'm optimistic that these 3 movies will be superb as well.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
I realize that there is probably enough middle earth material to cram a dozen movies worth of content into it, but that isnt the point. This is supposed to be The Hobbit. Not The Hobbit and Everything Else. That being said, I COULD see this being stretched out into a third film. Working backwards, I wouldnt be surprised if the death of smaug would be the end of film 2, and film 3 is the 13 dwarves and bilbo dealing with the siege, the battle of five armies, and bilbos trip home. That is rather a lot of stuff. Film 2 could start either at the entrance of mirkwood, or shortly after the eagles drop them all off on the other side of the river. Include the necromancer events, and you have a LOT of adventure going on. And of course the first one is the fellowship. We get to see all the main characters introduced, the plot of the story explained, and some solid bits of adventure. We get to see elrond, trolls, gollum, goblins, and yeah, thats one heck of a solid amount of events. You could even include dealing with Smaug in the third film if you want to shift it around a bit. Thats the good thing about The Hobbit. there are a LOT of potential transition points in the story.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Well how long are the films going to be? 3+ hours like LotR, or 1.5?
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
The first film is 2.5 hours.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
I have mixed feelings about this, on one hand overall I liked Jackson's LotR so I have a level of confidencebin him. However, it seems that everything major that Jackson changed or added (rather than left out) was awful. This includes gimli as comic relief, butchering Faramir and making the army of the dead show up at Minas Tirith. So I don't know how to feel about this. Still excited though.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Traab
This is supposed to be The Hobbit. Not The Hobbit and Everything Else.
I'm not sure where you're getting this concept of predestination. It's a film project, not someone's dying wish.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
shadow_archmagi
I'm not sure where you're getting this concept of predestination. It's a film project, not someone's dying wish.
Well.... its The Hobbit. Its a movie based on the book. Thats what it has always been about. Thats how it has been marketed. "Hey guys! We are going to turn The Hobbit into a film! Come and see it!" Im just not sure if I would enjoy it if all of a sudden peter jackson starts cramming in even more than the necromancer into this film set in the interests of making an extra film. If the hobbit will honestly fit into three movies without being stretched or padded by unconnected stuff, then great, I will be fine with watching 7 and a half hours of the hobbit. If not, I wont be happy because it will no longer be The Hobbit. It will be, The Hobbit, Plus Other Stuff.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Traab
It will be, The Hobbit, Plus Other Stuff.
This is what it has been planned to be from Day 1. Jackson has been very up front about the fact that they'd be following Gandalf during his absences from the party and showing various events leading up to LOTR. I personally don't mind it so long as it is well done, as most of the "Other Stuff" material still comes from Tolkien's writings / drafts / plans / appendices etc.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lord Seth
Is three films really necessary for a book that's shorter than any of the three Lord of the Rings books?
Yes! Of course!
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Well, if anyone is capable of doing the Hobbit well, I'd trust it in the hands of the guy that did Lord of the Rings. *shrug*
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Actually, I always thought it was "There and Back Again, a Hobbit's Tale". I'm sure there's plenty of material that Bilbo left out which can be well depicted in the new films. Like when they all stop off at a Tim Horton's for the first time. That's always worthy of noting in any journey.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ninjadeadbeard
You'll need this, good sir.
And for Eru's sake take me with you!
Agreed.
I also need "Shut up and take my money" but I feel posting that would be unnecessary, and be seen as over the top fanboyism.
The argument that 3 books took up 3 films so one book should take one film is silly. LoTR has many events that get swept over rather quickly. Helms Deep for instance, the actual lead up and battle is only a handful of pages, yet it made up the bulk of an entire film (if you factor in lead up) on its own.
LoTR was also PLANNED to take up 3 films, and if Peter Jackson had his way, it would have taken 5 because it would have told a more complete story.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
hmmm I´m not entirely sure about 3 films, 2 I could very well see but a third?
Either I misremember some of the stuff going on or the third film (with the splitting I imagine now) will be quite boring ^^
Anyway Peter Jackson has done a wonderful job with lotr (except for the ghost army ^^) so I trust him to do another good work with the hobit now :smallsmile:
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fragenstein
Actually, I always thought it was "There and Back Again, a Hobbit's Tale". I'm sure there's plenty of material that Bilbo left out which can be well depicted in the new films. Like when they all stop off at a Tim Horton's for the first time. That's always worthy of noting in any journey.
I now have the urge to a Mount Doom made out chocolate ice cream.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
I suspect it may also have something to do with length.
If there's two films each 2.5-3 hours long, in the wake of several critics saying that Dark Knight Rises was too long, it might be possible that the producers and/or director are unwilling to submit the audience to a movie of that length again in the immediate future and are breaking it into three, smaller chunks.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ThePhantasm
This is what it has been planned to be from Day 1. Jackson has been very up front about the fact that they'd be following Gandalf during his absences from the party and showing various events leading up to LOTR. I personally don't mind it so long as it is well done, as most of the "Other Stuff" material still comes from Tolkien's writings / drafts / plans / appendices etc.
Day 1 of Peter Jackson's involvement, perhaps, but not Day 1 of the project.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cheesegear
I suspect it may also have something to do with length.
If there's two films each 2.5-3 hours long, in the wake of several critics saying that Dark Knight Rises was too long, it might be possible that the producers and/or director are unwilling to submit the audience to a movie of that length again in the immediate future and are breaking it into three, smaller chunks.
That actually makes a lot of sense. Movie theaters like shorter movies because they charge per showing, not per minute of film, and a shorter film can have more showings per day. I seem to recall, they struggled to get Return of the King under three hours for it's theatrical release.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tiki Snakes
Day 1 of Peter Jackson's involvement, perhaps, but not Day 1 of the project.
According to what information? Even when Del Toro was involved it was going to be 2 parts, and Jackson was working extensively with Del Toro on the script. Jackson has always been involved as the producer, from day 1. Check the wikipedia article on the film. There's a number of sources citing Del Toro discussing how they would explore Gandalf's departures from the party, material leading up to LOTR, etc.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Karoht
*deep breath*
Seriously, after all the hate from LoTR for skipping material (the outrage over Tom Bombadil was insane), now "the fans" are being given more material and they are angry.
Let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment. In my entire life I've only read one book by Tolkien, and it just so happened to be Lord of the Rings. It's been over a decade since I read the book, but I remember when I watched the movie in theaters, I expected two things:
- Gandalf being dragged down by the Balrog.
- Tom Bombadil.
Keep in mind that this is coming from a casual fan who read the book as a kid. Tom plays a pretty memorable role in the story, and cutting him out made an impression.
That said, I don't think people are angry at Jackson for giving them more material. They're mad that this is obviously nothing more than an attempt at getting more money. They're mad and unsure of if Jackson will be able to stay faithful to the original, which is much shorter than the LoTR trilogy novels, when he stretches one shorter book over the course of three movies (whereas lotr was 3 books over the course of, hey - three movies).
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
I admit that I havent been following this movie rabidly, but as far as I know, the only "extra" stuff included in the film was gandalf and the wizards council kicking necromancer butt, which got skipped over in the book, but at least got a mention there.I dont mind if that is the kind of extra stuff that will be included, things mentioned briefly in the book, but not gone into any detail. Another example might be beorn and his bear-venture into the mountains to determine if the dwarves were lying about what happened.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ThePhantasm
According to what information? Even when Del Toro was involved it was going to be 2 parts, and Jackson was working extensively with Del Toro on the script. Jackson has always been involved as the producer, from day 1. Check the wikipedia article on the film. There's a number of sources citing Del Toro discussing how they would explore Gandalf's departures from the party, material leading up to LOTR, etc.
I am sorry Phantasm, but saying "go look at wikipedia" invalidates your argument. Especially if its true. :smallbiggrin:
I can myself just... NOT GOING to see the third one in theatres and getting it in the DVD boxset instead. Definitely seeing the first two, if the second one feels like it closes at a good time, I can just wait to see The Hunt For Gollum-as actually produced by Peter Jackson. :smallwink:
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
I heard it would cover a lot of Necromancer stuff. I assume it'll draw some stuff from the Silmarillion, and I also heard that Tom Bombadil would be in these movies (Not that I'm overjoyed, personally I found him a bit out-of-place in the Fellowship). The only thing I'm not looking forward to is that I'll have to wait so long for each part. :P
For my part, I'm looking forward to solo-Gandalf adventures.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Remeber that PJ always plays his actions scenes really long and with pleny of slow motion!
In terms of the number of actions scenes, the Hobbit is longer than / as long as LotR.
We've got to get in trolls, the Misty Mountains, goblins, Gollum, escape (including more goblins and wargs), eagles, Beorn, Mirkwood, spiders, Wood Elves, escape (including barrels), Laketown, under the mountain, conversations with Smaug, theft of treasure, attack by Smaug, Smaug's defeat, theft of more treasure, Battle of Five Armies.
Whereas LotR only has leaving the Shire, Bree, Weathertop, Rivendell, Misty Mountains, Moria (including orcs and balrog), Amon Sul (breaking the Fellowship), then hunting the orcs / taming Gollum, ousting Saruman's influence over Theoden, Helms Deep, Shelob, crossing Mordor / the Battle of Pelennor Fields, the Black Gate / destruction of the Ring.
LotR's got way more filler and exposition compared with the Hobbit, which is a very fluffy, fast-paced and fun-filled book, lacking in the stodge of LotR.
In-universe, it's the difference between Bilbo's and Frodo's writing styles. If Bilbo had written LotR, it'd be much shorter!
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Don't be silly people. This is clearly the Star Wars model of film making.
First you make the concluding trilogy.
Then you make the prequel trilogy that most peoplefind awkward.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Succubus
Well, if anyone is capable of doing the Hobbit well, I'd trust it in the hands of the guy that did Lord of the Rings. *shrug*
Even the best directors can make flops.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mutant Sheep
I am sorry Phantasm, but saying "go look at wikipedia" invalidates your argument. Especially if its true. :smallbiggrin:
Yeah, I know... I've been feeling lazy today. Didn't want to bother finding all the articles and citing them myself...
I think most of you guys are judging this too harshly too far in advance. It might be a cash grab, but it might also be the best thing for the film adaption (film being, after all, a different medium than books). Or it could be both. But it seems rather early in the game to get annoyed by this move, given that we don't even know which parts of the story will be included in each movie.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
The basic problem with taking 3 movies to tell the story of The Hobbit is that there's the very real risk of people losing interest after the first 1/3 of the story is told. Or at least, losing interest in paying that money to movie theaters. Definitely cable pay-per-view for my house.
I sat through the LotR trilogy in the theaters, and it was good, but then they did this whole special director's cut edition thing and that was way too much LotR to sit through even in the comfort of my own home with the ability to pause the movie. I'm probably in the minority, but I'm perfectly okay with taking just the "best parts" of the book for movie adaptation. The boat travel scene in the first LotR movie, the one that took 10 minutes in the director's cut, I took my fast forward button to it. I mean, I get it, they're on a big epic quest, New Zealand is beautiful, but I really do have other things that demand my attention in life.
Also, general backlash against movies that are so long that they need to bring back intermissions for potty breaks and leg stretching.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Winter_Wolf
I sat through the LotR trilogy in the theaters, and it was good, but then they did this whole special director's cut edition thing and that was way too much LotR to sit through even in the comfort of my own home with the ability to pause the movie. I'm probably in the minority, but I'm perfectly okay with taking just the "best parts" of the book for movie adaptation. The boat travel scene in the first LotR movie, the one that took 10 minutes in the director's cut, I took my fast forward button to it. I mean, I get it, they're on a big epic quest, New Zealand is beautiful, but I really do have other things that demand my attention in life.
I thought the director's cut, like most director's cuts, was dull also. There's a reason why producers hire editors to cut out scenes :smallsmile:
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
snoopy13a
I thought the director's cut, like most director's cuts, was dull also. There's a reason why producers hire editors to cut out scenes :smallsmile:
It wasn't a director's cut. Jackson made a cut of the film that went to theaters, but always intended to go back and add in the extra bits. The producers weren't involved.
Also, I refuse to watch the theatrical cuts because they're so inferior to the Extended. My family watches the whole trilogy on New Years as our tradition. Not tired of it yet.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rallicus
Let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment. In my entire life I've only read one book by Tolkien, and it just so happened to be Lord of the Rings. It's been over a decade since I read the book, but I remember when I watched the movie in theaters, I expected two things:
- Gandalf being dragged down by the Balrog.
- Tom Bombadil.
Keep in mind that this is coming from a casual fan who read the book as a kid. Tom plays a pretty memorable role in the story, and cutting him out made an impression.
That said, I don't think people are angry at Jackson for giving them more material. They're mad that this is obviously nothing more than an attempt at getting more money. They're mad and unsure of if Jackson will be able to stay faithful to the original, which is much shorter than the LoTR trilogy novels, when he stretches one shorter book over the course of three movies (whereas lotr was 3 books over the course of, hey - three movies).
One book? :smallconfused: Lord of the Rings is a trilogy. Based on the bits you've mentioned, I assume you mean The Fellowship of the Ring.
My impression, after reading the entire trilogy, was that Tom Bombadil was completely unnecessary. Those chapters were a bunch of talking about what had already been shown in the book up to that point, singing, and me wishing that the bloody story would just continue already. He didn't really do anything aside from giving the hobbits a place to rest for a bit before they continued their journey. It was almost as slow as the Council of Elrond, but at least the Council actually served some purpose in furthering the plot. The encounter with the barrow wights was more significant, as that's where the hobbits actually acquired their weapons.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Armin
In my day, we had animated Bilbo Baggins and a fishman Gollum, 70's singers AND WE LIKED IT!!!
Somehow, this new trilogy will always be a bit disappointing to me (though I think it will be good).
Why?
No musicals. I'll especially miss the goblin song.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Axinian
Somehow, this new trilogy will always be a bit disappointing to me (though I think it will be good).
Why?
No musicals. I'll especially miss the goblin song.
But they do plan on including several of the songs from the book. Just saying.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
From the moment this was announced they said it was going to be The Hobbit + things the things between the Hobbit and the beginning of Fellowship. I had at first assumed way back when that the first movie would be Hobbit and the second movie would be the other stuff. When they started talking about the Hobbit part being the two movie I thought it odd as how would they now have time to do that other stuff.
Now I see it as
First movie: First half of Hobbit
Second movie: Second half of Hobbit
Third movie: Appendecies and lead in to LotR
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Succubus
I now have the urge to a Mount Doom made out chocolate ice cream.
Welp, time to write Close Encounters of the Third Kind/LOTR fanfic.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Axinian
Somehow, this new trilogy will always be a bit disappointing to me (though I think it will be good).
Why?
No musicals. I'll especially miss the goblin song.
You go my lads! Ho ho, my lads! Seriously, that was the awesomest badass song in the entire crappy film. Honestly, there were a number of good parts, Smaug freaking ruled. FEAR SMAUG!
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Devonix
From the moment this was announced they said it was going to be The Hobbit + things the things between the Hobbit and the beginning of Fellowship. I had at first assumed way back when that the first movie would be Hobbit and the second movie would be the other stuff. When they started talking about the Hobbit part being the two movie I thought it odd as how would they now have time to do that other stuff.
Now I see it as
First movie: First half of Hobbit
Second movie: Second half of Hobbit
Third movie: Appendecies and lead in to LotR
Interesting viewpoint.
It was announced/leaked fairly early on that the first film would end with (if I have to spoiler tag this I swear...) one of the following:
-Bilbo encountering Gollum and the Ring.
-Bilbo making a mad dash with the Ring in his possession
I guess the big question I have now is, what endpoint will the first film have, or will it remain with that endpoint on release day.
My prediction:
First Film: Setup and establishment of some relevant and likely recent Middle Earth History, and some life in Hobbiton, Gandalf showing up, some hyjinx, Bilbo leaving, with the first film ending at the Misty Mountains.
Second Film: Everything from the Misty Mountains up to Smaug. Includes Gandalf taking a side quest somewhere along the lines.
Third Film: Defeat Smaug, Battle of the Five Armies, Ending and Epilogue, with the obvious connections being made to LoTR.
Peter Jackson really seems like a fan of the big buildup before a big battle, and he also seems like a fan of big battles. I fully expect the Third Film to be War and More War, and an ending.
Just some thoughts.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mangosta71
One book? :smallconfused: Lord of the Rings is a trilogy. Based on the bits you've mentioned, I assume you mean The Fellowship of the Ring.
It was split into three volumes due to publication limitations of the time, but was written as a single novel (in 6 "books"). Tolkien had originally intended to publish the Silmarillion and LotR together. In his published letters (#126 specifically) Tolkien noted that "(I had in my letter made a strong point that the Silmarillion etc. and The Lord of the Rings went together, as one long Saga of the Jewels and the Rings, and that I was resolved to treat them as one thing, however they might formally be issued.) I noted that the mass naturally divides only between The Silmarillion and The Lord (each about 600,000 words), but that the latter is not divisible except into artificial fragments."
My emphasis in bold. It's one story, just published serially. Depending on what your definition of "trilogy" is, either view has traction.
Quote:
My impression, after reading the entire trilogy, was that Tom Bombadil was completely unnecessary. Those chapters were a bunch of talking about what had already been shown in the book up to that point, singing, and me wishing that the bloody story would just continue already. He didn't really do anything aside from giving the hobbits a place to rest for a bit before they continued their journey. It was almost as slow as the Council of Elrond, but at least the Council actually served some purpose in furthering the plot. The encounter with the barrow wights was more significant, as that's where the hobbits actually acquired their weapons.
He's not important to the narrative and Tolkien is on record saying as much (in another letter). He's important in that he represents a philosophical point - the limit on the Ring's influence: it has none over somebody who has renounced the idea of Control. The point is also made that while this may be a laudable state of being, in the real world there must be others who will fight on their behalf (Bombadil could not hold the Ring in trust - Sauron would win at the end).
Most (all?) adaptations I've seen of the story strip out most of the philosophical underpinnings. Tom has no place in the narrative without those points, and so I don't really miss him in, say, the film trilogy as it exists.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ThePhantasm
The first film is 2.5 hours.
That's not so bad. That's what? 7.5 hours for the whole thing. It's still a lot short than the LotR trilogy.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Karoht
To sum up most of the opinions I have encountered, not necessarily on this forum or in this thread:
We, "the fans" are being given more of what we want.
:smallfurious: :smallfurious: :smallfurious:
AAAAAANNNNNGGGGGEERRRRR!
(clear and obvious exaggeration, but only to a point)
*deep breath*
Seriously, after all the hate from LoTR for skipping material (the outrage over Tom Bombadil was insane), now "the fans" are being given more material and they are angry.
Okay.
I officially don't want to live on this planet anymore.
Peter Jackson is a very fortunate artist who has been given something special, the ability to take his work and really make it shine, really tell a great story, fully and completely. Moreover, one hopes that this will allow them to skip the 4-5 hour long Extended cuts, by simply making the film/s of the correct length and covering off all the content they want.
The self-entitled "fans" who feel that hollywood owes them anything, have officially ruined this for me. I was happy when I read the news. Now I'm just pissed off that so many people could turn and spit in the face of something giving them more of what they ask for.
Seriously internets? Fail.
There is a gap between "skipping material" and "adding new material to the existing story" Ill be honest with you, yeah, I was upset the the scouring of the shire got completely cut out and never happened, and I was curious to see a movie version of bombadil, but my main problem with the lotr series was him changing the freaking canon. I understand some things dont translate between mediums well, but thats no excuse to straight up change the way the story goes.
In this movie trilogy thats going to come out, it isnt going to take three movies to tell The Hobbit. Its going to take three movies to tell The Hobbit, and tons of other bits and pieces that are only peripherally a part of the story. Like gandalf going off to chase off the necromancer, or whatever beorn did to check out the dwarves story, or what bilbo spent his time doing in the wood elf kings castle before he got the chance to break the dwarves out, or whatever else he wants to add in.
And thats assuming this is all he is doing, adding in extra scenes to cover these mentioned but not detailed events from the book. If the reason for a third movie is because he has gone off on a tangent talking about things that have little or nothing to do with the story, like a flashback showing us what lead the three oddly intelligent trolls to be in that clearing at that time, or ancient history of middle earth about the ancient kings of numenor or whatever, then I think we have a right to be annoyed. Because we want to see The Hobbit, and we are going to have to watch three films stuffed with what amounts to filler, just to be able to see the story we wanted.
If you watch anime at all its the same thing as cramming in a half dozen filler arcs before the main plot continues. You dont care about these little side quests that have no bearing on the main story and never get mentioned again, you want the story to keep moving!
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
On the other hand, I'd say those mentioned but not detailed scenes are worth seeing. The Hobbit is a book with a lot of things going on, but a number of them we don't see in any real detail. And some of those things (like the Council of Wizards dealing with the Necromancer) sounds really freaking cool.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Winter_Wolf
The basic problem with taking 3 movies to tell the story of The Hobbit is that there's the very real risk of people losing interest after the first 1/3 of the story is told. Or at least, losing interest in paying that money to movie theaters. Definitely cable pay-per-view for my house.
I sat through the LotR trilogy in the theaters, and it was good, but then they did this whole special director's cut edition thing and that was way too much LotR to sit through even in the comfort of my own home with the ability to pause the movie. I'm probably in the minority, but I'm perfectly okay with taking just the "best parts" of the book for movie adaptation. The boat travel scene in the first LotR movie, the one that took 10 minutes in the director's cut, I took my fast forward button to it. I mean, I get it, they're on a big epic quest, New Zealand is beautiful, but I really do have other things that demand my attention in life.
That's true and I subscribe it. There's also the consideration that not all the viewers are fan of the original book, and cannot care less about what was written, and so on.
My wife enjoyed the first film of LOTR, but she found it a little longer. The third one? She threatened to divorce if I dared to suggest it once again... and it was the theatrical version.
I can sympatize with this PoV... 3 films for a single story are many. As a fan, i can be pleased, but as a generic customer? not so much.
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
My single most fav character in the LOTR entire movie trilogy is Gandalf the Grey. Not the White. The Grey.
So if The Hobbit is getting padded so that we get more Gandalf the Grey, then no complaints from me at all. :smallredface:
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Sorry for the slight interruption but when the LOTR movies came out at the cinema I went to each, when they were released on dvd I went for the extended versions mostly because of the extras.
(And I still haven't managed to watch all of them, and find the start of the fellowship the most boring but thats more due to what I know lies ahead!:smallwink:)
As for the Hobbit, well thats my xmas present covered for the next four years!:smallbiggrin:
Only real question is imax 3d or regular?:smallwink:
I agree I'd love to know what else is going to be put into thits trilogy since from what I remember it sounds like part 1 might end with them meeting croaching in someones cave followed by Bilbo waking up a cranky wyrm with the third being the big battle of this series!
I think thats been mentioned earlier in this thread, but I am wondering what else to expect, since you've been mentioning the LOTR I was wondering if there was any bits in the Hobbit that might be ignored for the sake of the story?
-
Re: The Hobbit Film... trilogy.
Here's my question: How would Tolkien have preferred it to be done? On the one hand, The Hobbit doesn't contain any of that extra material. On the other hand, he didn't have the greater story in mind when he wrote it. Sure, he made changes here and there after the fact but that's not the same thing as adding all that extra material into the story (though he did later provide it in another context)
But given that this is being adapted for a new medium, and gives a sort of ability to start fresh, there's no particular reason, pragmatically, why the story can't be told without all that background lore creeping in. The only question I have, is whether or not Tolkien would have wanted it that way.