The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by pj_campbell

That's what I'm assuming is to see the Young Strider, not Viggo appearing as Argorn. Just wouldn't make sense. But young Strider definitely is an option

Actually, Aragorn was of Numenorian descent and at the time of the LOTR he was 87 years old,(he lived to be 210!). In the books, The Hobbit occurred about 60 years before LOTR, so he would have been about 27.
Yeah, I don't know if Viggo could pull that off, but they might not set it 60 years before; In the LOTR books, the time between Bilbo's farewell birthday party and when Frodo left the shire was about 17 years. In the movie, it was pretty much right after the party, so they might screw with the timeline.

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by frogmort

Actually, Aragorn was of Numenorian descent and at the time of the LOTR he was 87 years old,(he lived to be 210!). In the books, The Hobbit occurred about 60 years before LOTR, so he would have been about 27.
Yeah, I don't know if Viggo could pull that off, but they might not set it 60 years before; In the LOTR books, the time between Bilbo's farewell birthday party and when Frodo left the shire was about 17 years. In the movie, it was pretty much right after the party, so they might screw with the timeline.

Even better. I'm not great with the Middle Earth timeline to be honest so I'm glad I can get so much info from you guys on here I loved the movies, but I only read The Hobbit and the 3 LOTR books, I've yet to dive into the other ones yet...

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

I have to wonder that when the Blu EEs come out for all of these movies, if it will be humanly possible to watch the WHOLE shebang in one entire sitting????

If you have a catheter installed and are wearing adult diapers.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by frogmort

Actually, Aragorn was of Numenorian descent and at the time of the LOTR he was 87 years old,(he lived to be 210!). In the books, The Hobbit occurred about 60 years before LOTR, so he would have been about 27.
Yeah, I don't know if Viggo could pull that off, but they might not set it 60 years before; In the LOTR books, the time between Bilbo's farewell birthday party and when Frodo left the shire was about 17 years. In the movie, it was pretty much right after the party, so they might screw with the timeline.

If you look at the timeline provided by Tolkien himself at the end of RoTK, Aragorn was born 10 years before the events of the Hobbit.

Originally Posted by pj_campbell

Even better. I'm not great with the Middle Earth timeline to be honest so I'm glad I can get so much info from you guys on here I loved the movies, but I only read The Hobbit and the 3 LOTR books, I've yet to dive into the other ones yet...

You don't have to go to any other books. Just look in the Appendices at the end of Return of the King. There is a timeline for the major events in all 3 ages of Middle Earth.

[drichter33]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Assuming two Hobbit EE's at about 4 hrs each would put the total for all 5 movies around 20 hours. I'm not sure if even I could handle that, would definitely require plenty of beer on hand.

I had read, and would assume, that based on the book and even with added background and historical info, that the movies would be about 2.5 hrs each, which seems reasonable. Even if they were 3 hrs each, an hour of extra footage would be alot. As it stands, and if memory serves me:

FOTR 3hrs to 3hrs 28 mins
TTT 3hrs to 3 hrs 43 mins
ROTK 3hrs 20 mins to 4hrs 10mins

The most added was 50 mins, so adding the amount of material may be doable if they clocked in at 3 hrs each.

Buit, if they were more in the 2:30 to 2:45 range, I would expect them not to be 4 hrs each. As it stands, 2 of the 3 LOTR films were 3 hrs each and didnt hit 4hrs

In this case, while I want them to be immersive and tell all sorts of background stuff that I hadnt read or remembered, sometimes too much isnt better, as is the case with ROTK.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by radagast

If you look at the timeline provided by Tolkien himself at the end of RoTK, Aragorn was born 10 years before the events of the Hobbit.

I can easley see Jackson changing the timeline around to make him a little bit older, which I do not have a problem with.

[Duffy12]

Hey guys, I have been wondering...

What is your opinions on how the first 'Hobbit' movie should open regarding the first scene?

I believe that a prologue is unnecessary because the 'Fellowship' movie pretty much took care of that. So for me, I would like to see the opening shot of the front of 'Bag End' with Gandalf narrating ONLY the opening line of the book: "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit."

So what do you guys think?

[Blu-Runner]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

Was Legolas even in the Hobbit? Think they are making it up as they go along

That's what I'm afraid of. Jackson keeps bringing all his people back for these small roles or cameos, but none of them are in the Hobbit book.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

Hey guys, I have been wondering...

What is your opinions on how the first 'Hobbit' movie should open regarding the first scene?

I believe that a prologue is unnecessary because the 'Fellowship' movie pretty much took care of that. So for me, I would like to see the opening shot of the front of 'Bag End' with Gandalf narrating ONLY the opening line of the book: "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit."

So what do you guys think?

I agree. The ring isn't even known about until later in the story. There is no need for any pre-history.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

Hey guys, I have been wondering...

What is your opinions on how the first 'Hobbit' movie should open regarding the first scene?

I believe that a prologue is unnecessary because the 'Fellowship' movie pretty much took care of that. So for me, I would like to see the opening shot of the front of 'Bag End' with Gandalf narrating ONLY the opening line of the book: "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit."

So what do you guys think?

This opening should go by the first actual scene in the book: Bilbo sitting on his front porch blowing smoke rings on a beautiful spring day - a no-brainer. When Gandalf shows up at his door, the connection will immediately be made to The Fellowship of the Ring movie. No prologue or description of Hobbits are required, since by now that is pretty much universal knowledge.

[Sarge]

I'm looking forward to Smaug... am expecting the effects there to be jaw-dropping, and am curious too as to the voice portrayal. Am imaging something deep, but hopefully not quite as garbled as the Witch King. Whatever they go with, it will be an improvement over the animated version of years ago!

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

This opening should go by the first actual scene in the book: Bilbo sitting on his front porch blowing smoke rings on a beautiful spring day - a no-brainer. When Gandalf shows up at his door, the connection will immediately be made to The Fellowship of the Ring movie. No prologue or description of Hobbits are required, since by now that is pretty much universal knowledge.

I actually wouldn't mind if the Hobbit ends with a few events from LoTR they left out, specifically FoTR, these two movies are supposed to lead into the first LoTR film anyway.

[kdo]

Originally Posted by Sarge

Whatever they go with, it will be an improvement over the animated version of years ago!

I don't know about that ...unless they can come up with someone better than Glen Yarbrough to sing the songs ...and I don't think that's possible . These new "Hobbit" movies may be good, but I don't know that they'll ever surpass the animated "Rankin-Bass" production (at least for me).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dQ5c...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5vu8...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdQ1E...eature=related

[frogmort]

" Originally Posted by frogmort
Actually, Aragorn was of Numenorian descent and at the time of the LOTR he was 87 years old,(he lived to be 210!). In the books, The Hobbit occurred about 60 years before LOTR, so he would have been about 27.
Yeah, I don't know if Viggo could pull that off, but they might not set it 60 years before; In the LOTR books, the time between Bilbo's farewell birthday party and when Frodo left the shire was about 17 years. In the movie, it was pretty much right after the party, so they might screw with the timeline. "

" Originally Posted by radagast
If you look at the timeline provided by Tolkien himself at the end of RoTK, Aragorn was born 10 years before the events of the Hobbit. "


You are exactly right! If I had looked at what I wrote better, the answer is there; I forgot to subract the 17 years between the B-day party, & Frodo leaving the Shire, that would make him 10! Yeah,I don't think Viggo could pull that off.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Assuming two Hobbit EE's at about 4 hrs each would put the total for all 5 movies around 20 hours. I'm not sure if even I could handle that, would definitely require plenty of beer on hand.

Man, if just LotR was 20 hours by itself, I would try to sit through the whole thing... I'm one of the few that thought it was too short.

Originally Posted by drichter33

I had read, and would assume, that based on the book and even with added background and historical info, that the movies would be about 2.5 hrs each, which seems reasonable. Even if they were 3 hrs each, an hour of extra footage would be alot. As it stands, and if memory serves me:

FOTR 3hrs to 3hrs 28 mins
TTT 3hrs to 3 hrs 43 mins
ROTK 3hrs 20 mins to 4hrs 10mins

The most added was 50 mins, so adding the amount of material may be doable if they clocked in at 3 hrs each.

Buit, if they were more in the 2:30 to 2:45 range, I would expect them not to be 4 hrs each. As it stands, 2 of the 3 LOTR films were 3 hrs each and didnt hit 4hrs

In this case, while I want them to be immersive and tell all sorts of background stuff that I hadnt read or remembered, sometimes too much isnt better, as is the case with ROTK.

Not to fuss too much, but about 5 minutes of added runtime in each of the EE's is in the credits.

I'm with you on your basic assumption, that the Hobbit episodes will be a bit shorter than LotR episodes. It's a lot fewer pages, with a pretty linear story. With LotR, they were trying to cram about 15 hours worth of story into 9 hours of film... with 'The Hobbit', more likely you're dealing with stretching 3 or 4 hours of story into 5 hours of film, filling out time with supplemental material like the White Council and storming of Dol Guldur. It wouldn't surprise me if there never is an "extended cut" of The Hobbit, we could very easily be getting the "director's cut" up front.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

Man, if just LotR was 20 hours by itself, I would try to sit through the whole thing... I'm one of the few that thought it was too short.

I agree, the movies were definitely too short (for my taste). When I watch the EE's, I watch half a movie a day and spread the trilogy over six days - I like to savor the experience. Ideally, there would be one movie per chapter; watching one per day would take 62 days. Depending on the auxilary material that Jackson incorporates into The Hobbit movies (and there is plenty), the EE's could run substantially longer than the theatrical release - I'm hoping for a minimum of 4 hour EE's.

[radagast]

It says in Taupo Times (small local paper Taupo middle of north island) that Peter Jackson has been seen around Taupo looking at locations. Whakapapa was used in the Lord of the Rings, and it is about 1.5 hours away from Matamata. It will be interesting to see if he is going to use an actual area close to Taupo, maybe the Taupo Lake?? Rumour has it he has been staying at the -snip- in Taupo, and a fleet of helicopters were seen arriving at the hotel. Neither the local helicopter company or the -snip- would outline any details, and Taupo Mayor Rick Cooper said Jackson’s visit had slipped under his radar. He did say he hoped the director had picked up on the locations the region had to offer, particularly the western bays with Tongariro in the background..but then, thats not for me to judge I am not directing the film! (from Taupo Times 8th December )

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2010...uted-in-taupo/

[sfmarine]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

I agree, the movies were definitely too short (for my taste). When I watch the EE's, I watch half a movie a day and spread the trilogy over six days - I like to savor the experience. Ideally, there would be one movie per chapter; watching one per day would take 62 days. Depending on the auxilary material that Jackson incorporates into The Hobbit movies (and there is plenty), the EE's could run substantially longer than the theatrical release - I'm hoping for a minimum of 4 hour EE's.

That's a great way to watch them. Spread it out by a disk/day. I'm planning on re-watching the entire trilogy next week. I always look forward to it.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

I agree, the movies were definitely too short (for my taste). When I watch the EE's, I watch half a movie a day and spread the trilogy over six days - I like to savor the experience. Ideally, there would be one movie per chapter; watching one per day would take 62 days. Depending on the auxilary material that Jackson incorporates into The Hobbit movies (and there is plenty), the EE's could run substantially longer than the theatrical release - I'm hoping for a minimum of 4 hour EE's.

How about this? Have Blu-rays with the Rob Inglis narration of LOTR with the visuals being various paintings and pictures that have been done by so many people over the years of different parts of the story, including the pictures Tolkien himself made.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

I agree, the movies were definitely too short (for my taste). When I watch the EE's, I watch half a movie a day and spread the trilogy over six days - I like to savor the experience. Ideally, there would be one movie per chapter; watching one per day would take 62 days. Depending on the auxilary material that Jackson incorporates into The Hobbit movies (and there is plenty), the EE's could run substantially longer than the theatrical release - I'm hoping for a minimum of 4 hour EE's.

I sit down once a year and do the full LOTR EE experience IN ONE SITTING! I only get up for one reason. And that is to go to the bathroom.