The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[Jezza]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

It wasn't his decision to make - the rights had been sold off by JRR Tolkein himself, years ago (who assumed they couldn't be made). It's because Christopher Tolkein is so precious about his father's work that no film rights have ever been released for anything else as he holds all the cards. And you're right, he should allow for creative freedom. He should at least accept the amount of love for Middle-Earth that has come through exposure to these films. A whole generation know and love the characters and will rediscover them through the original books because of them. And that itself is a good thing, regardless of how much he dislikes the action quota of the films.

Ah, I see. Thanks for clearing that up. I don't know much about Tolkien so I assumed Christopher sold the rights to PJ.

Even though JRR sold the rights, it's slightly ironic that Christopher dislikes them so much, despite the fact that it all started with something his father did, even with the assumption they would never get made into films. Oh well, maybe in many years time we'll see more Middle-Earth on the big screen, but for now I'll settle with The Hobbit, especially when we have three films to look forward to.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by radagast

Another article:

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/...ogy-of-movies/

Jackson is now walking on ground that even Tolkien feared to tread. From Scull and Hammond's J.R.R. Tolkien Reader's Guide:

"Apparently in 1960 Tolkien began to revise The Hobbit more substantially, recasting it in language not 'overtly addressed to children'. But before long he abandoned the text - recognizing perhaps that for better or worse, he had created The Hobbit as a children's book and fairy-tale, and to make it otherwise would be to deny its essential nature and destroy much of its charm... Tolkien emended The Hobbit for the American and British editions of 1966, the former to ensure the validity of his copyright in the work in the United States (*Ace Books controversy). On 24 August 1966 he wrote to Rayner Unwin regarding the new Unwin Books edition of The Hobbit:

I have (I hope) resisted the inclination to 'improve' The Hobbit - except for removing the 'author-to-reader' asides in some places: very irritating for intelligent children (as some have said). There are some correction[s] to actual errors and discrepansies in the tale itself; some that try to make things clearer... The Hobbit is taken as a prologue to The Lord of the Rings and though no one expects consistency between the two to be exact, it is a pity that some passages in The Hobbit should be completely impossible in The Lord of the Rings."

Thus, if Jackson uses (as apparently is the case) extensive material from LotR appendices, he will have to be very careful to ensure they are consistent with the story.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Jezza

It does beg the question though if he was so precious about his farther's work then why did he allow it to be made into films? It's an adaptation of the books, not a direct translation, so he has to allow some room for creative freedom, even if he is stubborn.

BTW:Who's the doctor?

Wish I was 15 years old,then the movies would be perfect-all of them

[lupinskitten]

Re: The Hobbit now being 3 films.

Part of me is screaming and jumping up and down with utter excitement. It’s not just about Bilbo and the dwarves anymore… it’s about Gandalf, and the Necromancer, and Galadriel, and Elrond, and so much more. And… that’s where the mild apprehension sets in. I trust PJ. I really do trust him to take The Hobbit and the Appendixes and to come up with a kick-ass movie series.

But… can he do it without losing the essence of what The Hobbit is actually about? Bilbo! It’s his story. His adventure. With three movies, I have a feeling we’re going to see a bit less of him. Don’t get me wrong — I’m all for seeing Galadriel in action, I want to see the “other” wizards in Middle-earth. And if he throws in more Elrond, I will be the first girl in line to buy a ticket (in fact, that’s going to happen anyway). I just hope this stretching out of the story doesn’t stretch Bilbo too thin, “like butter stretched over too much bread.”

Hopefully this means we'll get some Aragorn at some point!

[Blu-Benny]

1 question i have.....i haven't read the LOTR in a while. are the appendicies in all versions of the books or is it a separate pulication??

i'd like to go and take a look @ some of the material that they are wanting to put into a 3rd film.

[lupinskitten]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

1 question i have.....i haven't read the LOTR in a while. are the appendicies in all versions of the books or is it a separate pulication??

i'd like to go and take a look @ some of the material that they are wanting to put into a 3rd film.

I THINK it is included in most versions of RotK, and all the "three books in one" sets -- I checked, and it's in my huge paperback copy, along with an incredible timeline of Middle-earth with when what took place, when characters were born, etc. I'm with you -- reading the Appendixes is next up on my to-do list.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Jackson is now walking on ground that even Tolkien feared to tread. From Scull and Hammond's J.R.R. Tolkien Reader's Guide:

"Apparently in 1960 Tolkien began to revise The Hobbit more substantially, recasting it in language not 'overtly addressed to children'. But before long he abandoned the text - recognizing perhaps that for better or worse, he had created The Hobbit as a children's book and fairy-tale, and to make it otherwise would be to deny its essential nature and destroy much of its charm... Tolkien emended The Hobbit for the American and British editions of 1966, the former to ensure the validity of his copyright in the work in the United States (*Ace Books controversy). On 24 August 1966 he wrote to Rayner Unwin regarding the new Unwin Books edition of The Hobbit:

I have (I hope) resisted the inclination to 'improve' The Hobbit - except for removing the 'author-to-reader' asides in some places: very irritating for intelligent children (as some have said). There are some correction[s] to actual errors and discrepansies in the tale itself; some that try to make things clearer... The Hobbit is taken as a prologue to The Lord of the Rings and though no one expects consistency between the two to be exact, it is a pity that some passages in The Hobbit should be completely impossible in The Lord of the Rings."

Thus, if Jackson uses (as apparently is the case) extensive material from LotR appendices, he will have to be very careful to ensure they are consistent with the story.

Think that is highly unlikely.Will give this the same treatment I gave the last Indiana jones movie:lower my expectations.It's mindboggling to me that the same director which was so inspiring and fresh in his early moviemaking,suddenly went stale.Believe it or not,I looked forward to LotR when I learned PJ was at the helm.Was sort of expecting a sanitized imagination of Braindead and Frighteners brought to the middle earth.

[Jezza]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

BTW:Who's the doctor?

Wish I was 15 years old,then the movies would be perfect-all of them

I'm referring to Doctor Who, which is a British sci-fi TV series and the world's longest running and most successful. It celebrates its 50th anniversary next year and the new series starts next month.

There's a thread on the TV forum, which is a bit dead at the moment, but click on my sig and it'll take you to it. The opening post provides you with all the info you need, so check it out.

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by lupinskitten

I THINK it is included in most versions of RotK, and all the "three books in one" sets -- I checked, and it's in my huge paperback copy, along with an incredible timeline of Middle-earth with when what took place, when characters were born, etc. I'm with you -- reading the Appendixes is next up on my to-do list.

thanks man!! i'll have to check my copy when i get home.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Jezza

I'm referring to Doctor Who, which is a British sci-fi TV series and the world's longest running and most successful. It celebrates its 50th anniversary next year and the new series starts next month.

There's a thread on the TV forum, which is a bit dead at the moment, but click on my sig and it'll take you to it. The opening post provides you with all the info you need, so check it out.

Just kidding man.Loved the 60's show with that wildhaired dude Or was that the 70's...

[Jezza]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

Just kidding man.Loved the 60's show with that wildhaired dude Or was that the 70's...

Ah, cool.

Most had weird hair, so that's a bit vague, but probably Tom Baker.

Now back to The Hobbit.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Jezza

Ah, cool.

Most had weird hair, so that's a bit vague, but probably Tom Baker.

Now back to The Hobbit.

Tom Baker it is.Sorry for the interruption

[Berek]

We better see Smaug in the second film or I'm going to have a man tantrum.

[Velmeran]

2 (4 if you want to get nitpicky) possible movie titles have been registered by New Line:

• The Desolation of Smaug
• The Battle of Five Armies
• The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
• The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies

Per TORn

[Foggy]

Possible titles

desolationofsmaug.com
riddlesindark.com
thedesolationofsmaug.com
thehobbitdesolationofsmaug.com
thehobbitriddlesindark.com
thehobbitthedesolationofsmaug.com
thehobbittheriddlesinthedark.com
theriddlesinthedark.com

Which points to one of two titles. The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug, and The Hobbit: The Riddles In The Dark.

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/the-...art-3-revealed

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by Velmeran

2 (4 if you want to get nitpicky) possible movie titles have been registered by New Line:

• The Desolation of Smaug
• The Battle of Five Armies
• The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
• The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies

Per TORn

depending on how much of the actual Hobbit book is in the 3rd movie....i'd almost prefer them to leave "The Hobbit" off of the title.

i like "The Battle of Five Armies"

[Velmeran]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

depending on how much of the actual Hobbit book is in the 3rd movie....i'd almost prefer them to leave "The Hobbit" off of the title.

Part of me would agree (depending on how much of the book itself was in the movie) but I really don't see a studio dropping "The Hobbit" off of the title at that point.

And based on the 2 lists floating around (one for webpages, one for film names) I'm leaning more towards 'The Desolation of Smaug' as the other title.

Which makes me happy, as I like that one better than the others that have been proposed or floating about.

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by Velmeran

Part of me would agree (depending on how much of the book itself was in the movie) but I really don't see a studio dropping "The Hobbit" off of the title at that point.

And based on the 2 lists floating around (one for webpages, one for film names) I'm leaning more towards 'The Desolation of Smaug' as the other title.

Which makes me happy, as I like that one better than the others that have been proposed or floating about.

i could see them leaving it on as well so the general public link it w/the other 2 movies.

[KubrickFan]

Honestly, I don't think this is a good idea. Two movies already seemed a bit much for a very short novel, and three just seems overkill. Jackson's overindulgence was appropriate with the Lord of the Rings movies. The extended editions were long, yes, but since most of the things came from the books, or gave the movies some room to breathe, that was alright.
King Kong was a bit different. Even though I truly love it, it's clear that he had many ideas for the film, and no studio or producer to talk him out of it. To spend 180 minutes (or even more in the extended cut) where the original needed half is already a clear sign that someone is overdoing it, and now this with The Hobbit, it seems even worse. Unless they stick to the books letter for letter, but I doubt they'll be doing that.

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

Honestly, I don't think this is a good idea. Two movies already seemed a bit much for a very short novel, and three just seems overkill. Jackson's overindulgence was appropriate with the Lord of the Rings movies. The extended editions were long, yes, but since most of the things came from the books, or gave the movies some room to breathe, that was alright.
King Kong was a bit different. Even though I truly love it, it's clear that he had many ideas for the film, and no studio or producer to talk him out of it. To spend 180 minutes (or even more in the extended cut) where the original needed half is already a clear sign that someone is overdoing it, and now this with The Hobbit, it seems even worse. Unless they stick to the books letter for letter, but I doubt they'll be doing that.

just so i'm clear....u do know they are adding in things from the appendicies that tie together the hobbit to the lord of the rings right??

it's not going to be 3 movies of just "The Hobbit"