The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[#Darren]

What it probably comes down to is WHY they are now doing three films...

did Jackson discover he has enough material for 3 amazing films when he reviewed his footage... or did the studio see a great way to make extra bucks...

Originally Posted by Aragorn84

I haven't been thrilled by the announcement of a third Hobbit film for 2 reasons: I don't think the source material justifies that much screentime - even with the stuff from the appendices - so I'm afraid the films will be bloated; and because they've already finished a film shoot based off of a 2 movie script. Now was not the time to decide they wanted to do 3 films - that decision should have been made before principal photography began. That said, I have a great amount of faith in PJ and his team - so, for now, I will give them the benefit of the doubt.

On a separate note, here's a slightly different teaser trailer for "An Unexpected Journey" that's been making it's way to cinemas during the last month or so. It's just about the same as the one from December except for 2 or 3 shots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpdYKhv3EK0

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by irockmysocks

WTF?!Your threshold for facepalm could do with an adjustment

To turn a 250+ page book into the lenght of LotR is open for comments wether you like it or not.Personally have given up on the project-my opinion is that sometimes less is more,but I'm not turning my nose up to those who are excited about the movies.Read Barbara Ehrenreich's 'Smile or die'.You'd benefit from that.

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by #Darren

Yeah, it baffles me why people would think that, about a film called The Hobbit

from DAY 1 it had been discussed that a 2nd film would bridge the events in The Hobbit to the LOTR trilogy.

the only thing a 3rd movie is doing is adding more material to bridge the 2 trilogies to each other.

it truely amazes me how "fans" of Tolkein's work don't want to see that work translated to film.

especially after the trilogy we've already been given.

[#Darren]

Yeah I knew that it was planned as a a 2 parter. I am open minded about 3 parts but a little skeptical, just as I was skeptical about 2 parts. My response was aimed at your comment to the other poster, because it is reasonable for people to think "The Hobbit" film will be about "the Hobbit" book.

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

from DAY 1 it had been discussed that a 2nd film would bridge the events in The Hobbit to the LOTR trilogy.

the only thing a 3rd movie is doing is adding more material to bridge the 2 trilogies to each other.

it truely amazes me how "fans" of Tolkein's work don't want to see that work translated to film.

especially after the trilogy we've already been given.

[toddly6666]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

it truely amazes me how "fans" of Tolkein's work don't want to see that work translated to film.

especially after the trilogy we've already been given.

Those type of Tolkein fans can just stick to the books then and just don't watch the films if they are such dedicated fans...

Are there any Tolkein fans that did not like the theatrical AND the extended versions? Both versions are gold...with the extended being even better...so they are actually worried that The Hobbit is getting three movies?

One short 300 page book (The Hobbit) doesn't mean that it cant be adapted into three movies just as one book of three parts of over 1000 pages (Lord of the Rings books).
The Hobbit is about a quest of a dude walking to a mountain.
The Lord of the Rings is about a quest of a dude walking to a volcano.
The movie versions have every right to have the same length.

If Peter Jackson wanted, the Hobbit could be turned into 6 movies and it would probably still be a great movie adaptation.

[Foggy]

People forget that Jackson was going to do Lord of the Rings in two movies, but the head of New Line Cinema gave him the go ahead for three, look how those turned out

[Brightstar]

we might see the birth of Aragorn and the other fellowships if he takes stuff from the appendices that is

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by Foggy

People forget that Jackson was going to do Lord of the Rings in two movies, but the head of New Line Cinema gave him the go ahead for three, look how those turned out

Yes but LORD OF THE RINGS was three book and not two so he had no problem making three movies.

[#Darren]

I really don't care if it is 10 parts, but your logic is poor.

Originally Posted by toddly6666

Those type of Tolkein fans can just stick to the books then and just don't watch the films if they are such dedicated fans...

Are there any Tolkein fans that did not like the theatrical AND the extended versions? Both versions are gold...with the extended being even better...so they are actually worried that The Hobbit is getting three movies?

One short 300 page book (The Hobbit) doesn't mean that it cant be adapted into three movies just as one book of three parts of over 1000 pages (Lord of the Rings books).
The Hobbit is about a quest of a dude walking to a mountain.
The Lord of the Rings is about a quest of a dude walking to a volcano.
The movie versions have every right to have the same length.

If Peter Jackson wanted, the Hobbit could be turned into 6 movies and it would probably still be a great movie adaptation.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by joliefan

Yes but LORD OF THE RINGS was three book and not two so he had no problem making three movies.

Well Tolkien original wanted LotR to be one big ass book, but winded up being forced to separate it into three because publishers worried it would be too daunting on readers and plus it allowed them to sponge a tad more nickels

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Well Tolkien original wanted LotR to be one big ass book, but winded up being forced to separate it into three because publishers worried it would be too daunting on readers and plus it allowed them to sponge a tad more nickels

we might get a TE's and The extended version of the hobbit when the blu rays come out just like LOTR

[Josh]

Originally Posted by joliefan

Yes but LORD OF THE RINGS was three book and not two so he had no problem making three movies.

LOTR is one book. It was published in three volumes, if you will, due to the cost of paper and the general aversion to buying a book that big.

Originally Posted by Mahatma

WTF?!Your threshold for facepalm could do with an adjustment

To turn a 250+ page book into the lenght of LotR is open for comments wether you like it or not.Personally have given up on the project-my opinion is that sometimes less is more,but I'm not turning my nose up to those who are excited about the movies.Read Barbara Ehrenreich's 'Smile or die'.You'd benefit from that.

Originally Posted by #Darren

Yeah I knew that it was planned as a a 2 parter. I am open minded about 3 parts but a little skeptical, just as I was skeptical about 2 parts. My response was aimed at your comment to the other poster, because it is reasonable for people to think "The Hobbit" film will be about "the Hobbit" book.

But its not nor has it ever been sold as being just about The Hobbit. In fact, if you want to be completely correct, LOTR wasn't just about the book LOTR. It also included stuff from the Appendices. This trilogy is going to do the same thing, but rely on more of Appendices information than LOTR to help bridge the two films.

The Hobbit refers to the adventure of Bilbo, but there was a ton of stuff happening in the background that wasn't part of his journey, but had an affect on its conclusion. PJ is telling that part of the story (which is partially documented in the Appendices of LOTR) concurrently with the story of Bilbo.

This is why Tolkien is considered a literary genius - he built an entire world with an complete and complicated history. This trilogy is going to tell that story, of which much is documented in The Hobbit. The rest of the details will be taken from the Appendices (though, I'm sure some other ideas from Histories of Middle Earth will make their way in) and built out to give a complete account of this period of Middle Earth, much how LOTR did for that time.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Josh

LOTR is one book. It was published in three volumes, if you will, due to the cost of paper and the general aversion to buying a book that big.





But its not nor has it ever been sold as being just about The Hobbit. In fact, if you want to be completely correct, LOTR wasn't just about the book LOTR. It also included stuff from the Appendices. This trilogy is going to do the same thing, but rely on more of Appendices information than LOTR to help bridge the two films.

The Hobbit refers to the adventure of Bilbo, but there was a ton of stuff happening in the background that wasn't part of his journey, but had an affect on its conclusion. PJ is telling that part of the story (which is partially documented in the Appendices of LOTR) concurrently with the story of Bilbo.

This is why Tolkien is considered a literary genius - he built an entire world with an complete and complicated history. This trilogy is going to tell that story, of which much is documented in The Hobbit. The rest of the details will be taken from the Appendices (though, I'm sure some other ideas from Histories of Middle Earth will make their way in) and built out to give a complete account of this period of Middle Earth, much how LOTR did for that time.

Then you could argue any direction PJ decided to take because the appendices is to bridge gaps in story,and to describe events outside the story not fully developed by Tolkien+ semantics and linguistic parts.The Hobbit lends itself much less to epic storytelling than LotR since it being a childrens tale.I have a hard time imagining Tolkien even envisioned LotR when he wrote the Hobbit,but have no proof to substantiate that.

Let's not turn this into a fundamentalistic fan-boy thread,please.

[Josh]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

Then you could argue any direction PJ decided to take because the appendices is to bridge gaps in story,and to describe events outside the story not fully developed by Tolkien+ semantics and linguistic parts.The Hobbit lends itself much less to epic storytelling than LotR since it being a childrens tale.I have a hard time imagining Tolkien even envisioned LotR when he wrote the Hobbit,but have no proof to substantiate that.

Let's not turn this into a fundamentalistic fan-boy thread,please.

That would be a correct analysis. Tolkien's son Christopher has made a living a publishing and "finishing" partially written tales. Tolkien's only fault is that he thought too big, and created a world that he would never be able to fully detail, no mater how long he lived.

Just as Christopher interpreted his father's intent to complete stories, PJ does the same with his films. Yes, some of it is reaching and open for discussion, but it isn't a process unique to the material. There is documented proof that Tolkien considered re-writing The Hobbit to be more in line with LOTR, but he abandoned that idea. I think many fans (myself included) can justify PJ doing the transformation because the author pursued the same.

I think the frustration is the continual posts regarding how The Hobbit book is too short for three films, while completely disregarding the other available material. Is it a mistake? Only time will tell, but the folks (like Bob) in this thread are very knowledgeable of the material and are excellent resources and we watch the process unfold. If any of them said there wasn't enough material to support three films, I would probably re-evaluate my analysis. But I think they are in agreement that - whether or not they think PJ will be faithful to the written work - the material is there.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

For those making the comparison of the two-to-three film jump for both LotR & The Hobbit, keep in mind that LotR was re-conceived as three films before shooting began. That's completely different from deciding to do three films after finishing principal photography on a two film adaptation.

[juanleche]

not enough walking, we need to see more walking, I want to see every step

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by Aragorn84

For those making the comparison of the two-to-three film jump for both LotR & The Hobbit, keep in mind that LotR was re-conceived as three films before shooting began. That's completely different from deciding to do three films after finishing principal photography on a two film adaptation.

Well, they always toyed with it, so I'm sure they didn't suddenly decided it, one day in the editing room.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Josh

That would be a correct analysis. Tolkien's son Christopher has made a living a publishing and "finishing" partially written tales. Tolkien's only fault is that he thought too big, and created a world that he would never be able to fully detail, no mater how long he lived.

Just as Christopher interpreted his father's intent to complete stories, PJ does the same with his films. Yes, some of it is reaching and open for discussion, but it isn't a process unique to the material. There is documented proof that Tolkien considered re-writing The Hobbit to be more in line with LOTR, but he abandoned that idea. I think many fans (myself included) can justify PJ doing the transformation because the author pursued the same.

I think the frustration is the continual posts regarding how The Hobbit book is too short for three films, while completely disregarding the other available material. Is it a mistake? Only time will tell, but the folks (like Bob) in this thread are very knowledgeable of the material and are excellent resources and we watch the process unfold. If any of them said there wasn't enough material to support three films, I would probably re-evaluate my analysis. But I think they are in agreement that - whether or not they think PJ will be faithful to the written work - the material is there.

Fair points.Like I've said,I will see them because it is one of my fav books,and have no doubts they will look spectacular.Looking forward to their travel through mirkwood,and their envisioning of that forest

[radagast]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

Are there any Tolkien fans that did not like the theatrical AND the extended versions? Both versions are gold...with the extended being even better...

Yes. Me. There were many things to like about both versions. And there were things not to like. My biggest gripe is one I have repeated on this site ad nauseum, regarding a particularly abysmal scene in the Extended version of ROTK, when the Witch King knocks Gandalf off his horse and breaks his staff. Those of us who prefer the books over the movies are trepidatious about what changes or, as Fran put it, "improvements" in the plot are going to be made.

[toddly6666]

Originally Posted by #Darren

I really don't care if it is 10 parts, but your logic is poor.

You are just saying that because you know that I am actually poor. That's not very nice. I have to put my DVDs in Blu-ray cases to fit in here with you fancy blue ray folk.


On a serious note, what do you mean? A page in a book can equal an hour on film just as a page in a book can equal 2 seconds on film.

Usually when producers ask directors to stretch something out, it's gonna be bad, but in this case, since Peter Jackson can handle cutting it long or short, he will most likely do it well. One Hobbit movie that's an hour-and-a half long can be done by Peter Jackson. Or three Hobbit movies that's a total of 13 hours can be done by Peter Jackson. So yeah, producers want to make more money, but in this case it doesn't matter for the fans because we are just going to get more Tolkien gold on screen. The worst case scenario is that the movies will be like the Star Wars prequels (when there really should have been one Star Wars prequel), but I doubt that will happen because Jackson is a good director and George Lucas is not.