The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[Tony208]

That's the thing, it is no longer The Hobbit, it is The Hobbit and the Appendices.
And even then it's enough for 3 movies now?

More doesn't always mean better, see ROTK epilogue.

Don't kid yourself, this is a money move like any other big decision made in Hollywood. Harry Potter and Batman are over, WB needs a sure thing in the bank.

You want to put Jackson on a pedestal? Go ahead, it's not just the studio raking in more, he gets more money too. Lucas had a second trilogy that didn't turn out as well as the first. Pray that doesn't happen here.

[Josh]

Originally Posted by Tony208

You want to put Jackson on a pedestal? Go ahead, it's not just the studio raking in more, he gets more money too. Lucas had a second trilogy that didn't turn out as well as the first. Pray that doesn't happen here.

We don't have to put PJ on a pedestal. The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences did that for us.



The continuing arguement is that that an Academy Award-winning director working with familiar material is going to fail to deliver a great product, despite previous success. If you didn't like LOTR, then why even contribute to this thread - The Hobbit will likely be more of the same. If you liked LOTR, not sure how you can think PJ can't repeat his early success, or what logic you are drawing from.

[drichter33]

Originally Posted by Tony208

That's the thing, it is no longer The Hobbit, it is The Hobbit and the Appendices.
And even then it's enough for 3 movies now?

More doesn't always mean better, see ROTK epilogue.

Don't kid yourself, this is a money move like any other big decision made in Hollywood. Harry Potter and Batman are over, WB needs a sure thing in the bank.

You want to put Jackson on a pedestal? Go ahead, it's not just the studio raking in more, he gets more money too. Lucas had a second trilogy that didn't turn out as well as the first. Pray that doesn't happen here.

well, it also depends on how long each individual film is. If he cranks out 3 films at about 2 1/2 hours each, I think that is more plausible in terms of time and how much additional exposition is added then if he went with the 3 hrs each like the LOTR films.

Yes I am sure that New Lines decision to allow PJ to do a 3rd film was solely based on how financially beneficial it would be, and PJ and the actors will get some extra $$$. But to say that is his only motivation I take exception with.

And in my heart, when i watched the interview when he talked about approaching the studio about a third film, I genuinely believe for him it is more that he had more material and story he could tell coupled with his love for the sourse material, and less about money. I am sure he could retire with what he banked and will be banking from LOTR alone.

[Member-115369]

I see no issues with having 3 good films here, for the reasons others noted.

Battles will take a lot longer on screen than they do pages in the book just like they did in LOTR. The white council/necromancer stuff will likely get a lot of screen time when it's only eluded to in the book. And there's a lot of history of the war of the ring stuff in the appendices they can weave in,a long with any new things they write in themselves.

[Dead By Shaun]

These will be my most anticipated films of the next three years!

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by Dead By Shaun

These will be my most anticipated films of the next three years!

Actually, if you look at the release dates at the top of the page, all three of them should be out in less than two years, but yes, I've been reading the books almost constantly since I was about 10~12 years old(I'm 42), so these are by far my most anticipated movies.

[Photogenic]

I'm looking forward to these, especially because I enjoyed The Hobbit book more than The Lord of the Rings books. All the extra detail in Fellowship, Towers, and King certainly adds to the fleshing out of Middle Earth, but when I was wading through all that I found myself asking "do I really need all this?" In the end it's just a big fantasy, and I'm not sure I care all that much about the detailed history of all the cultures in Tolkien's world. In addition, I thought the LOTR movies had an air of sef-importance about them in and increased that way with each film. I like Fellowship the most, and I hope The Hobbit is less pretentious.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Battles will take a lot longer on screen than they do pages in the book just like they did in LOTR.

Man! I cant wait to see the first trailer with a clip of some battle scenes(5 armies) in it!

Now would that not be a riot if the whole of the second film dealt ONLY with The Battle of Five Armies?

.

[Dead By Shaun]

Originally Posted by frogmort

Actually, if you look at the release dates at the top of the page, all three of them should be out in less than two years, but yes, I've been reading the books almost constantly since I was about 10~12 years old(I'm 42), so these are by far my most anticipated movies.

This is certainly true, although I was thinking more in terms of my most anticipated films of 2012, 2013 and 2014 Like yourself, I was exposed to The Hobbit very early on (I was only 6 years old when the animated movie debuted on television). I remember seeing the commercials before it aired on TV and getting really excited about it, even though I knew nothing about The Hobbit or J.R.R. Tolkien at the time. I've been a fan of Middle Earth ever since and can't wait to experience PJ's vision for this tale unfold on the big screen!

[mayday72]

I blind bought The Lord of the Rings trilogy (TC) yesterday & just finished FOTR. I would have slapped in Two Towers instantly if I didn't have to get some sleep b4 work 2morrow. My point is I FREAKING LOVED it. I can't believe I waited so long to watch these films. Oh well, at least I don't have to wait to see the whole thing. Hobbit will now be on my must see list

[Duffy12]

.

THE HOBBIT HEDGE: The Real Reason MGM Needs 'The Hobbit' Split Into 3 Movies

Kirsten Acuna | Aug. 17, 2012

The announcement late last month that the two previously planned "Hobbit" films would become three was met equally with applause and groans from fans and critics.

Forbes asked whether Warner Bros. — MGM's co-funder on the franchise — was getting greedy with another film.

(Note "The Lord of the Rings" is a $3 billion franchise, so there's plenty of incentive to create a new franchise trilogy, considering three-quels are faring pretty well these days.)

MGM, however, has the most riding on a third Hobbit film.


$500 million in debt

The company was on the verge of filing for bankruptcy protection in November 2010, but resurfaced after raising $500 million and announcing a plan to wipe out $5 billion in debt.

In February, MGM announced it obtained a $500 million credit facility to further manage its debt and build up its film and television business.

But according to MGM's Q2 financial report, its first filing since it reorganized, the studio's revenue declined by $85.5 million in the first six months of the year, from $393.3 million to $307.8 million.

It also lost $233.7 million in cash from its balance sheet in the last 6 months, after paying off $311 million in debt and spending another $147.5 million on operations.

That's why MGM needs "The Hobbit" to do as well as possible, and why fans are being asked to buy tickets for three movies instead of two or one.


The rocky Robo-reboot

Currently, the studio is benefiting from the Bond franchise — "Quantum of Solace" made its television debut on USA in summer 2011 — and it's already promoting the "Hobbit." MGM spent $45 million, up $7.5 million from 2011, in the first six months on distribution and marketing expenses primarily to promote both films.

However, the studio has a big upcoming slate, with eight films to be released between now and 2013. Among them is "Robocop," with an estimated $80 million budget. According to the release, MGM has all its bets on Q4, with the 50th anniversary promotion for James Bond DVDs and the release of the latest Bond flick, "Skyfall," in November. There will also be further activation around "The Hobbit."

Now, it's looking likely the Robo-reboot may very well be a bust. Earlier this week, film critic and screenwriter Drew McWeeny took to Twitter ripping apart the remake after claiming to have read a version of the script.

___________________



LINK - http://www.businessinsider.com/heres...-movies-2012-8

.

[Dead By Shaun]

Originally Posted by mayday72

I blind bought The Lord of the Rings trilogy (TC) yesterday & just finished FOTR. I would have slapped in Two Towers instantly if I didn't have to get some sleep b4 work 2morrow. My point is I FREAKING LOVED it. I can't believe I waited so long to watch these films. Oh well, at least I don't have to wait to see the whole thing. Hobbit will now be on my must see list

Welcome aboard and enjoy your adventure through Middle Earth! I grew up with the books and the animated films and was absolutely thrilled when Peter Jackson finally brought his live action version of the Lord of the Rings to the big screen. These are easily my favorite films. In fact, I just recently watched all three extended editions again, back to back, only two weeks ago Yeah, crazy I know... I absolutely cannot wait for The Hobbit

[Falaskan]

I hope my theater will be able to play 48fps.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by frogmort

I would agree that there is probably some "cash grab greed" to it being a trilogy, but from what I understand it will no longer be just based on The Hobbit. It will probably have stuff from before the time frame of The Hobbit, stuff that happened during The Hobbit but wasn't directly mentioned in the book, and stuff that occured between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, plus apparently it will be told as a flashback with "old" Bilbo reading or recollecting to Frodo and maybe others about his adventures.

If you take the material mentioned in The Lord of the Rings and the included Appendices about events that occurred before, during, and after The Hobbit, combine that with the events mentioned in The Hobbit, then add on the flashback storytelling style, I think that there is a lot of potential for it to be a great "Middle-earth" trilogy more so than just strictly The Hobbit trilogy.

All that being said, I'm still a little worried that they might try to add too much of their own made up filler, but I'm hoping for the best.

That sounds good to me.

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

I completely disagree. I'm certain that the studio didn't mind Jackson requesting an extra film because of the extra money it would bring - why would they? - but I completely believe that Jackson has done this with the best intentions of telling the best story available. 100%. He's drawing from so much more than The Hobbit. And you only have to watch the production diaries or read interviews with him to see how passionate and enthusiastic he is about the films and the story.

After what he did with Lord of the Rings I have as much faith in him as it is possible to have in a filmmaker. Could it go wrong? Possibly but I for one am sure, based on everything I've seen and read about the film, that it's heading in the right direction. If Jackson feels he can tell the story in three films and he wants to give us more of his vision of Tolkien's world on the big screen then I'm all for it.

Well said.

Peter Jackson is a multi millionaire. He's been making movies because he loves it, ever since Bad Taste and Braindead/Dead Alive. Money is not his first motivation since he probably has more than he needs at the moment. Based on the results of the first trilogy being regarded as one of the best movie trilogies in film history by many (and Tolkien fans also), his heart is clearly seen in the results and dedication for his subject matter.

I'm glad there are now 3 Hobbit movies, but of course, we'll wait to see how they turn out. Hopefully just as epic as the first 3, having read the trilogy and Hobbit.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by radagast

Hey radagast, it looks like a pic of you is leaked out from the upcoming Hobbit Calander-

[Show spoiler]

.

[ocxonion]

Yup, I rather have a trilogy for The Hobbit, that is assuming it's as good as LOTR. Go PJ

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by Tony208

That's the thing, it is no longer The Hobbit, it is The Hobbit and the Appendices.
And even then it's enough for 3 movies now?

More doesn't always mean better, see ROTK epilogue.

Don't kid yourself, this is a money move like any other big decision made in Hollywood. Harry Potter and Batman are over, WB needs a sure thing in the bank.

You want to put Jackson on a pedestal? Go ahead, it's not just the studio raking in more, he gets more money too. Lucas had a second trilogy that didn't turn out as well as the first. Pray that doesn't happen here.

Maybe so. But Jackson came to the studio, not the other way around. WB may have said yes because yes, they need the franchises, but this was all Jackson's decision. For better or for worse, he sees this as three movies. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, even though I'm a bit skeptical myself. But this is his artistic choice, nothing more.

[Josh]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

.

THE HOBBIT HEDGE: The Real Reason MGM Needs 'The Hobbit' Split Into 3 Movies

Unfortunately for MGM, it wasn't their decision. They may benefit from the decision, but it definitely wasn't done to keep the studio alive. I think they are only involved because they own the rights?

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

Hey radagast, it looks like a pic of you is leaked out from the upcoming Hobbit Calander-

[Show spoiler]

.

Someone took that pic through my window right after I woke up. They could have at least waited until I brushed my hair and beard.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Tony208

You want to put Jackson on a pedestal? Go ahead...

If you read my posts here over the years, you will know I won't do that.