Hobbit News Blast! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie News



Message


Empire Admin -> Hobbit News Blast! (1/9/2012 3:50:08 AM)

Post your comments on this article




badblokebob -> RE: It's all about money, obviously... (1/9/2012 6:59:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: intelandroid

If you've read The Hobbit, then you will know that there isn't enough material there for two films, let alone three

Good thing they're not just using The Hobbit then, but also LotR's appendices. Problem solved! Now you can start liking it.

As for the news itself... July? Really? Feels wrong.




My name is Legion -> RE: It's all about money, obviously... (2/9/2012 1:13:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: badblokebob

quote:

ORIGINAL: intelandroid

If you've read The Hobbit, then you will know that there isn't enough material there for two films, let alone three

Good thing they're not just using The Hobbit then, but also LotR's appendices. Problem solved! Now you can start liking it.

As for the news itself... July? Really? Feels wrong.



I love the way people keep parroting "they're using the appendices!" as a justification for the absurdity of making this into a trilogy. I wonder how many of these people have actually read them, and know how much of it pertains to this story.

The best parts of Jackson's LOTR trilogy were when he stuck as closely to Tolkien's text as possible, the more he diverted the worse the scene (Aragorn falls off a cliff!). If you actually have read the Appendices you'll realise that Jackson (and the other two) will have to make up a lot of their own stuff to fill in the gaps. Unfortunately they're not very good at that.

One day I hope we see a true adaptation of The Hobbit, as these films, however good they may be, are clearly not that.




elab49 -> RE: It's all about money, obviously... (2/9/2012 3:22:45 PM)

Unless you get two films of the Hobbit and then one of the appendices - in which case ignore the 3rd and you're fine?




My name is Legion -> RE: It's all about money, obviously... (2/9/2012 3:29:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

Unless you get two films of the Hobbit and then one of the appendices - in which case ignore the 3rd and you're fine?


Nope, The Hobbit will be stretched out through all three films, the titles are a clear indication of that.




elab49 -> RE: It's all about money, obviously... (2/9/2012 3:51:40 PM)

Odd - it came up in another discussion and that was a point made.

In which case, games abogey [:D]




sifter132 -> RE: (2/9/2012 10:55:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kalielyn

interesting choice of title for the middle film. Has anybody thought that these 3 films might not have a long running time like the LotR films? Hence 3 films.

Along with the Hobbit story line, appendices and Gandalf v Necromancer there should be enough for 3 150 minute films rather than 2 180 minute films. Can't wait either way!


Yes I think the interesting thing will be the length of the movies. Average idiot says: 3 LOTR movies for 3 books can't possibly equate to 3 Hobbit movies from 1 book. But when you consider that 3 LOTR movies is 11 hours of content (extended I'm talking here), it's really 5 or 6 movies LENGTH wise. If they make 11 hours of content from the Hobbit, I'll be surprised and definitely concerned. But I'd expect maybe 5-6 hrs Hobbit, plus 2-3 of 'invented' stuff with the untold storylines of Gandalf etc. and there's your 3 long movies.




magicwings -> RE: MEH.... (3/9/2012 8:42:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: natman_begins
He should just release the 3 films over an 18 month period starting form Christmas. I'm not sure that making 3 films out of 1 book is a good idea but if he insists it would be better to get them out the way sooner rather than later.


Errr... Good idea mate, but I think they're already doing that.

God I hope your day job doesn't involve either arithmetic or literacy.




BelfastBoy -> RE: You are all numpties... (3/9/2012 12:52:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gumptionbrash

Judging by the comments, looks like nobody's read The Hobbit.

If they had then they'd realise that while the book is short, there is an awful lot that happens in it and around it. Plus, you should at least consider the difference in mediums. But no, let's just troll the comments and compare these movies to tripe, because it's funny and it gives my life meaning.

Anyway, you have to realise that Jackson and Co will have pored over every page of that book and looked at how they could expand, not just the story of the hobbit, but middlearth and by and large the events leading upto LOTR. "Stretched?" "Dragged out?" "Cash cow?" "Just like Harry Potter?" what a joke...


Consider this - when The Hobbit was first published in the 1930s, LOTR was either floating around in Tolkien's head, or existing purely in hesitant draft form. There were no Appendices until 1955(?), when ROTK was first published. My point is that The Hobbit exists as a wonderfully self-contained story, one that can easily be read without any knowledge of Tolkien's wider universe. The story on the pages could easily be made as a single long film, or two shorter instalments if every page and detail is included.

The material that will be integrated from the Appendices and used in Jackson's new trilogy is not essential to the plot - sometimes, less really is more. So what if Gandalf disappears for a huge chunk of the book? If you've done your homework, you'll know where he is and what he's doing. To see this all on film is to step into murky territory in terms of scriptwriting, as Philippa Boyens in particular will seize the opportunity to write LOTR as she wants to. (Not necessarily a bad thing, but just more open to criticism as they'll be straying from the defined boundaries of the text. The LOTR Appendices are full of juicy possibilities but Tolkien barely developed a lot of what's in them. They're a framework for the creative stories he actually wrote, so it's like - bear with me - George Lucas coming up with an Indiana Jones story in outline form and handing it over to Lawrence Kasdan to turn into a filmable script.)




Kalielyn -> RE: Hmm... (4/9/2012 5:28:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fozola

Am I missing something or wasn't the original trilogy based on one book and no one batted an eyelid at that.
When I read it it was one book (albeit a big bastard) so what's the feckin problem???

it's 3 books normally but i have seen it sold as one large book as it's continuous (obviously)




elab49 -> RE: Hmm... (4/9/2012 11:53:33 PM)

LOTR was originally published over three volumes - hence slotting across to three films. [:)]




cerebusboy -> RE: Hmm... (7/9/2012 10:50:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

LOTR was originally published over three volumes - hence slotting across to three films. [:)]



Also, do hardcore fans of the LotR books not claim that even the movie extended editions don't include important aspects of Tolkien's books? At least that won't be a problem this time! I know three movies for the Hobbit sounds a lot, but surely Jackson has earned the benefit of the doubt (in a way perhaps not true of studio beancounters deciding to make multiple movies out of individual Harry Potter or Twilight books)





elab49 -> RE: Hmm... (7/9/2012 11:26:35 AM)

I wouldn't agree - it's mainly, I think, pointless Tom Bombadil obsessives really. The themes, however, remain and are used well.

Jackson isn't Snyder - it's not a page by page translation without applying creativity and intelligence.




rabmcewen -> Money: Chicken and Egg thing (10/9/2012 11:24:47 AM)

Yee s a lot happens in the book and hopefully we will catch some more of the nuances of the relationships between the characters that was missed in the Lof R trilogy (Eomer and Gimli; Faramir and Eowyn)

I also think that apart from the appendices a lot of the varied and clolourful history surrounding Middle Earth, The Ring, Elves et al. in the other books that make up Tolkiens world will be 'worked' into the films. I'm all for that but I hope thet the central theme, which is Bilbo's adventure, doesn't get lost in the drive to milk the project for all it is worth. And yes using the language rom the books is what the fans wnat and expect.




Mike T -> Quality, not quantity, is what we need (15/9/2012 3:18:05 AM)

Have just seen Anna Karenina and marvelled at how magnificently Joe Wright and Tom Stoppard have retained both the depth and breadth of Tolstoy's classic. Without in any way belittling "The Hobbit" as a great work of literature, I fail to understand how Peter Jackson is unable to deliver it in a single movie. In comparison to Lord of the Rings, which Tolkien saw fit to deliver in three installments, The Hobbit is relatively short and, given that Jackson has already established Middle Earth in the understanding of his audience, even with padding from other works, doesn't need anywhere near as much screentime.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.03125