Hobbit incoming!!!

[Aragorn_cro]

Hobit is soon to be released! What are your feelings about it :)? Me, personally cannot wait to watch it on the big screen.

[Eakin]

Whatever this "Hobit" movie is, I suspect it will be vastly inferior to "The Hobbit" which is also coming out soon

Even if it weren't well, The Hobbit, which I've read cover to cover well over a dozen times (and incidently find vastly superior to the main trilogy) I'd probably go see it just because of how much I enjoyed Sherlock.

Wish it weren't getting stretched into three movies, though, that seems excessive.

Also, you might wanna tweak your avatar image.

[Killer Angel]

You can even enjoy the soundtrack!
(all credit for the link, goes to Trixie. After all, she's Great and Powerful)

[Tev]

I'm a little worried - stretching it out, new story lines and trying to make fairy tale EPIC sounds like they're going to make yet another cluster****.

But hey, I thought movie with premise like Avengers can't be good . . .

edit: oh and 48 FPS . . .

[GloatingSwine]

I'm fairly convinced it will suck, to be honest.

The extra backstory they're crowbarring in has no place in the story of The Hobbit, doesn't impact or affect it in any way other than explaining where Gandalf went in the last third, which isn't really relevant to anything, he's not there, deal with it, and is only going to slow down the pace of the story because it's not actually a very long story, and could easily be done in one Peter Jackson Arse Number or two normal movies.

[Drakeburn]

But Peter Jackson has done a good job with the Lord of the Rings trilogy, so who knows how well The Hobbit turns out.

I've read the entire book, and I've actually seen another Hobbit movie that was made in 1977 (I accidentally stumbled onto the movie while listening to "Misty Mountains Cold" on youtube).

What I hate about that movie was that they left out Beorn (if I spelled it right), the skin - changer.

So students, your homework today is to watch The Hobbit (the old movie)

And don't forget to watch the new Hobbit movie when it comes out!

[Scowling Dragon]

What I AM worried about is that each movie only has a 1 year distance between each other.

[Aotrs Commander]

What I AM worried about is that each movie only has a 1 year distance between each other.

Why? LotR did exactly the same thing. They've done all the major filming already, bar any reshoots (that's why it's in three not two, because PJ went over all the stuff they'd done and decided there was enough to do three films).

[GloatingSwine]

But Peter Jackson has done a good job with the Lord of the Rings trilogy, so who knows how well The Hobbit turns out.

The Lord of the Rings is 1200 pages long or thereabouts and has maybe even too much content for a trilogy of films (given that much of it would break the pace of a movie), The Hobbit is barely more than 300 and could likely be made in a single film without significant loss.

Peter Jackson has caught the Epic Fantasy Disease (see also: pretty much all western fantasy), he can't cope with the idea that a story can be short and self contained, so he's shoving in all this bull**** that really doesn't belong in the story of The Hobbit.

Everything that doesn't come from the book The Hobbit should not be in the film, this should not be a trilogy of films, and making it into one is going to be bad.

[Traab]

The Lord of the Rings is 1200 pages long or thereabouts and has maybe even too much content for a trilogy of films (given that much of it would break the pace of a movie), The Hobbit is barely more than 300 and could likely be made in a single film without significant loss.

Peter Jackson has caught the Epic Fantasy Disease (see also: pretty much all western fantasy), he can't cope with the idea that a story can be short and self contained, so he's shoving in all this bull**** that really doesn't belong in the story of The Hobbit.

Everything that doesn't come from the book The Hobbit should not be in the film, this should not be a trilogy of films, and making it into one is going to be bad.

The thing is, the stuff he is putting into the hobbit? It was pretty much all at least referenced there. Thats why i can forgive its inclusion. I remember REALLY wanting to know wtf happened with the necromancer as just one example. I mean come on! That was SAURON! (I think, right?) Thats the kind of tale that shouldnt be glossed over with a quick, "Yeah, we won."

[GloatingSwine]

The thing is, the stuff he is putting into the hobbit? It was pretty much all at least referenced there. Thats why i can forgive its inclusion. I remember REALLY wanting to know wtf happened with the necromancer as just one example. I mean come on! That was SAURON! (I think, right?) Thats the kind of tale that shouldnt be glossed over with a quick, "Yeah, we won."

Yeah, but it's referenced as literally about two lines because it's not relevant to this story. It is the kind of tale that should be glossed over because it's not part of The Hobbit and it doesn't affect anything which happens in The Hobbit in any way whatsoever at all.

And trying to insert it into this story will massively extend what is actually a pretty short story into something massively long and drawn out that keeps cutting to another completely unrelated story (mostly in the last third when the climax of the story is supposed to be occurring) and therefore has an utterly terrible pace.

[Dr.Epic]

Let's give three cheers for Saved from Development Hell everybody!

[Androgeus]

Hobbit? that's like one eighth of a hobbyte right?

[Tebryn]

I'm fairly convinced it will suck, to be honest.

The extra backstory they're crowbarring in has no place in the story of The Hobbit, doesn't impact or affect it in any way other than explaining where Gandalf went in the last third, which isn't really relevant to anything, he's not there, deal with it, and is only going to slow down the pace of the story because it's not actually a very long story, and could easily be done in one Peter Jackson Arse Number or two normal movies.

Tolkien seemed to think it was important. He wrote it all after all.

[Gnome Alone]

I'm with GloatingSwine (heh), bloating up The Hobbit is ridoodoodiculous. It's not like LOTR where there's no way to adapt it all; it's self-contained. I expect to be disappointed, though not as much as I was by the exclusion of The Scouring of the Shire.

[Traab]

Yeah, but it's referenced as literally about two lines because it's not relevant to this story. It is the kind of tale that should be glossed over because it's not part of The Hobbit and it doesn't affect anything which happens in The Hobbit in any way whatsoever at all.

And trying to insert it into this story will massively extend what is actually a pretty short story into something massively long and drawn out that keeps cutting to another completely unrelated story (mostly in the last third when the climax of the story is supposed to be occurring) and therefore has an utterly terrible pace.

It is relevant, otherwise gandalf comes off as looking like some schmuck who barely gives a damn about the entire quest and keeps wandering off to go do whatever. I am also hoping, (though not holding my breath) to see if they bother to go into WHY gandalf insisted the dwarves come to the shire and pick up blibo. I mean yeah it turned out to be the right choice, but there is no way he could have forseen it. Or at least, none that was mentioned in the book. Oh sure, he kept aying cryptic comments about how useful he could be, but none of that ever explained how he knew this stuff. It seems like a bit of a stretch that he knew they would be captured by goblins, escape, drop bilbo down a cliff, have him steal the one ring, and use it to save the day on many occaisions. I mean, yeah it turned out bilbo did have what it took to kick ass and take names, but it seems a little odd to insist 13 dwarves drag along a hobbit so he can grow into a better halfling. A quest to kill a dragon seems an odd time to insist they help a hobbit proceed on the path to personal growth.

[Parra]

I find it amusing that one of the biggest gripes about the LotR trilogy was about the stuff they left out (I'm looking at you Tom Bombadil) and now that The Hobbit is becoming a trilogy so they can include a lot of the more minor parts that the main gripe people seem to have is that its putting too much 'extra' stuff in.

[Ravens_cry]

I find it amusing that one of the biggest gripes about the LotR trilogy was about the stuff they left out (I'm looking at you Tom Bombadil) and now that The Hobbit is becoming a trilogy so they can include a lot of the more minor parts that the main gripe people seem to have is that its putting too much 'extra' stuff in.

Yeah, because there is no difference between the amount of material in a novel that is easy to fit in ones pocket and a doorstopper the size of a good dictionary or large Bible.
In case you couldn't guess, the above is sarcasm.

[Avilan the Grey]

Well I for one will see all of them. And I am convinced they won't suck, since well LOTR trilogy is my favorite movies of all time. Honestly.

[GloatingSwine]

Tolkien seemed to think it was important. He wrote it all after all.

You'll note that he didn't actually publish any of it.


I mean The Hobbit wasn't, at the time it was written, even supposed to be set in Tolkien's metafiction, it was a completely standalone story that was actually even retconned to make it fit with Lord of the Rings.

The things that are being added are not part of The Hobbit, Tolkien certainly did not intend for them to be told alongside the story of The Hobbit, and probably hadn't even written most of it at the time. Gandalf did just bugger off and leave them to deal with the end of the quest on their own, he reckoned they could handle it.

[Avilan the Grey]

You'll note that he didn't actually publish any of it.


I mean The Hobbit wasn't, at the time it was written, even supposed to be set in Tolkien's metafiction, it was a completely standalone story that was actually even retconned to make it fit with Lord of the Rings.

The things that are being added are not part of The Hobbit, Tolkien certainly did not intend for them to be told alongside the story of The Hobbit, and probably hadn't even written most of it at the time. Gandalf did just bugger off and leave them to deal with the end of the quest on their own, he reckoned they could handle it.

First and second arguments are invalid, since Tolkien himself later retconned this, and the notes he wrote for himself does not mean they are less canon just because they were never published during his lifetime.

Third argument... I fail to see how this is a problem.

[Lord Tyger]

Has anyone read "Leaf, By Niggle," the short story by Tolkien? It's about an artist who begins by painting a single leaf and winds up painting an entire vast landscape, sometimes in fairly broad strokes, sometimes in extreme detail on a single part of it. It works really well as an allegory for the process of creating the whole Lord of the Rings universe. The Hobbit may or may not originally have been intended to fit with Tolkien's mythopoeia, but it certainly was included in it and incorporated into it.

[Aotrs Commander]

Well I for one will see all of them. And I am convinced they won't suck, since well LOTR trilogy is my favorite movies of all time. Honestly.

I'm with you, though I don't rate the LotR films quite that high (but only just, being in my top two or three!), and LotR is still my favourite book (and BBC Radio adpation!)

[Dienekes]

I'm cautiously optimistic. The LotR movies were really good, and while not a completely faithful adaptation remained enjoyable. I expect the same from this. Also, while I admit 3 movies is a bit of a stretch, I think that the Hobbit could have easily have been divided into two, despite it's relative shortness as a book. I'm curious how it ends up, and I am interested in seeing the confrontation with the Necromancer. Though I have a feeling it'll involve a fight with Gandalf, which will make the Necromancer loose and suddenly turn into a giant eye. But I've made my peace that Jackson's Sauron actually was a giant eye.

[GloatingSwine]

First and second arguments are invalid, since Tolkien himself later retconned this, and the notes he wrote for himself does not mean they are less canon just because they were never published during his lifetime.

Third argument... I fail to see how this is a problem.

The point isn't that it's not canon, the point is that it's not relevant. Sauron being forced out of Dol Guldur does absolutely nothing to affect the story of Bilbo and the dwarves' journey to the lonely mountain, the defeat of Smaug, or the Battle of the Five Armies.

Nothing.

At all.

And see there's this concept called pace, a story has to continue moving at a certain rate because otherwise the audience grows disinterested and stops following it. And inserting a massive chunk of completely irrelevant bull**** from some other story, which is what all the added content to The Hobbit is, breaks the pace and flow of the story. And to get three movies out of a fairly short book it will have to be a massive chunk.

The actual story of The Hobbit will be spread too thin and too frequently interrupted by things which do not affect it.

If you can't see that this is bad, you really do need to step up your involvement in decent narratives.

[Scowling Dragon]

Well maybe this can work if each movie is an hour and a half? Cause each one being 3 hours is ridiculous.

[Androgeus]

Well maybe this can work if each movie is an hour and a half? Cause each one being 3 hours is ridiculous.

The first one is apparently going to be the shortest at about 2 hours 40 minutes. (sauce)

[GloatingSwine]

Well maybe this can work if each movie is an hour and a half? Cause each one being 3 hours is ridiculous.

No, it won't work at all. If they were going to make three hour and a half movies cut out the irrelevant **** and make two movies.


But no, Peter Jackson has literally no ideas any more other than Moar Hobbitses, so he's going to drag it out as long as possible by crowbarring in things that absolutely fail to impact the actual story.

Really, I think it's the fact that here's a guy who got started making zero budget gorefests and struck lucky with a monkey film, and now he doesn't know what to do, he can't step back from the "ZOMG epic" brink, but he doesn't know how to make anything else now he's there (given that any other epic fantasy he could try is already basically Lord of the Rings in different hats anyway, and early hollywood has already been thoroughly plundered for remakes).

[SoC175]

What I AM worried about is that each movie only has a 1 year distance between each other.

Which is what #### me off. They should release them with 6 month between them.

[Scowling Dragon]

No, it won't work at all. If they were going to make three hour and a half movies cut out the irrelevant **** and make two movies.

Well yeah I know. I was just saying how to make 3 movies work.