The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[TheWildWhelk]

Originally Posted by Lnds500

Thanks for the correction.

I found this.

So the same question still stands; after 5120x2700, what will they do if the home media format of the time requires a higher resolution than that??

In the Blog one of the camera team physically shows you by comparison the size of 1080p vs 5K resolution. He is specifically talking about 5K vertical resolution, not horizontal.

[Lnds500]

Originally Posted by SonOfTorah

In the Blog one of the camera team physically shows you by comparison the size of 1080p vs 5K resolution. He is specifically talking about 5K vertical resolution, not horizontal.

I'm watching the production video again. Thanks!

UPDATE
I've watched the whole thing and while it does show the physical comparison of 5k, 4k and 1080p, it does not say anything about horizontal or vertical lines.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Josh

Gnome was another term that appeared in the first two editions of The Hobbit, but was later replaced by "High Elf" to avoid confusion with a garden gnome.

Gnome was still used, I think, in the Sillmarillion.

[Jumpman]

I need some of you guys who are extremely excited for these films explain something to me.

What in the hell are these two films going to tell me that the awesome prologue at the beginning of the Fellowship of the Ring didn't tell me?

I mean, isn't the end result of the whole deal that Biblo gets the Ring from Gollum and that's basically how all this mess starts?

If that's the case, the prologue covered that. What the hell else is there?

I'm not trolling. I just genuinely want to know the whole point of these films when the prologue summed up beautifully the history of Middle Earth and the Ring.

I'm not against Prequels. I love the Star Wars Prequels but these two films seem wholly unnecessary.

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

I need some of you guys who are extremely excited for these films explain something to me.

What in the hell are these two films going to tell me that the awesome prologue at the beginning of the Fellowship of the Ring didn't tell me?

I mean, isn't the end result of the whole deal that Biblo gets the Ring from Gollum and that's basically how all this mess starts?

If that's the case, the prologue covered that. What the hell else is there?

I'm not trolling. I just genuinely want to know the whole point of these films when the prologue summed up beautifully the history of Middle Earth and the Ring.

I'm not against Prequels. I love the Star Wars Prequels but these two films seem wholly unnecessary.

Holy crap... there's A LOT! First off, Bilbo didn't just GET the ring from Gollum, the whole exchange is actually one of the best parts of the book.

Then we'll see the exchange with the trolls, and the encounter with the Goblins and the Goblin King, and the expulsion of Sauron from Dol Guldur (which is not technically in the hobbit) and we'll get to Bilbo's encounter with Smaug, and the wood elves (probably Legolas!) and the Battle of 5 armies!!! Sorry I'm not very in depth, I'm sure Grand Bob could do a much much more wonderful job than I can!

These are not technically "prequels" though, they are based off a book that was written before LotR... so TECHNICALLY LotR are a sequel to these films, you could look at it that way. And they may not be necessary to hash out LotR story, that's not their purpose. Their purpose is to tell a completely different story, one that isn't entirely focused on The Ring.

[Jumpman]

That doesn't change the fact that the prologue gave us a good summary of the history of the Ring...which is the absolute most important aspect to the story.

Maybe I just don't get it. I just don't see how these films are going to illuminate anything interesting that's already happened in the Rings trilogy.

And yeah, I know that Biblo actually tricks Gollum in giving him the Ring.

The only way I see these films as being necessary is if Jackson plans on going back to the trilogy and getting rid of the prologue that opens Fellowship so the five films can work as one piece....

[vladtepes]

The films might not be 'necessary', but for many including myself, it will be nice to go back to Middle Earth again. To see Gandalf lead a hobbit and 13 dwarves on a quest. To see some old friends and meet new ones. I'm looking foreward to seeing Smaug and the Battle of the Five Armies. The trolls, the spiders of mirkwood, Beorn and so many great adventures. If you love all things Tolkein i cannot see why you wouldn't be excited.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

That doesn't change the fact that the prologue gave us a good summary of the history of the Ring...which is the absolute most important aspect to the story.

Maybe I just don't get it. I just don't see how these films are going to illuminate anything interesting that's already happened in the Rings trilogy.

And yeah, I know that Biblo actually tricks Gollum in giving him the Ring.

The only way I see these films as being necessary is if Jackson plans on going back to the trilogy and getting rid of the prologue that opens Fellowship so the five films can work as one piece....

The Hobbit was written before Tolkien had any detailed plans concerning the importance of the Ring or its future. So it is basically just an adventure story of Bilbo and the Dwarves - "There and Back Again". Although the book is not very long, it does pack a lot of adventure and action into its pages, so on that basis alone I think there is enough material to fill two movies. Of course, with the development of the Middle-earth saga, enough material (not addressed in the prologue to LotR) was developed to occupy many movies. Tolkien developed a complete fictional world with an extensive history. Now, the question becomes, "What material will the film-makers use and what will they do with it?" This will make or break the deal.

[drummerboy_2002]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

That doesn't change the fact that the prologue gave us a good summary of the history of the Ring...which is the absolute most important aspect to the story.

Maybe I just don't get it. I just don't see how these films are going to illuminate anything interesting that's already happened in the Rings trilogy.

And yeah, I know that Biblo actually tricks Gollum in giving him the Ring.

The only way I see these films as being necessary is if Jackson plans on going back to the trilogy and getting rid of the prologue that opens Fellowship so the five films can work as one piece....

But the Hobbit isn't about the ring. We aren't supposed to know that it is the "One Ring". It's just a magic ring. It certainly helps him on his journey, but it isn't the main focus of the story. Yes, true, the Hobbit does tell the story of the finding of the ring, but that aspect isn't important until the LotR:FotR.

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

That doesn't change the fact that the prologue gave us a good summary of the history of the Ring...which is the absolute most important aspect to the story.

Maybe I just don't get it. I just don't see how these films are going to illuminate anything interesting that's already happened in the Rings trilogy.

And yeah, I know that Biblo actually tricks Gollum in giving him the Ring.

The only way I see these films as being necessary is if Jackson plans on going back to the trilogy and getting rid of the prologue that opens Fellowship so the five films can work as one piece....

The Ring is NOT the absolute most important part of The Hobbit though, in order to enjoy these movies you will have to let go of the idea that they are a "prequel" setting up the LotR films. It is not about the Ring, the Hobbit was NEVER about the ring. You need to look at them as two separate entities, about 2 completely different things.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

The Ring is NOT the absolute most important part of The Hobbit though, in order to enjoy these movies you will have to let go of the idea that they are a "prequel" setting up the LotR films. It is not about the Ring, the Hobbit was NEVER about the ring. You need to look at them as two separate entities, about 2 completely different things.

But in reality these movies will have to be just that, sort of prequels. For as much of us who actually read the books before the movies, we are now the minority, much more people now know this story because of the movies and will be expecting a prequel story with The Hobbit. I suspect that the "ring" will play a much bigger role in these two movies.

[Jumpman]

But in reality these movies will have to be just that, sort of prequels. For as much of us who actually read the books before the movies, we are now the minority, much more people now know this story because of the movies and will be expecting a prequel story with The Hobbit. I suspect that the "ring" will play a much bigger role in these two movies.

Exactly. Look, I read the Hobbit...but that was about 25 years ago. I haven't picked up since. I only read the Rings Trilogy before Fellowship debuted 10 years ago just to figure out what all the damn hype was about.

With this, these will be looked at as Prequels. My issue is that there were no lingering questions within the Rings Trilogy about the backstory. This isn't like the Star Wars Prequels. In the Original Trilogy, there was enough intrigue with specific characters and details that Lucas "could" go back and tell the backstory. The "how Vader actually got like that" was enough of a mystery where you could tell that story.

Not so with anything in the Rings Trilogy. So, no matter how you slice it...for a vast majority of the audience, the Hobbit films will be seen as Prequels and that's my problem with them because again, the prologue to Fellowship gives a great summation of the Ring and the history of the Ring and Middle-Earth.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

The Ring is NOT the absolute most important part of The Hobbit though, in order to enjoy these movies you will have to let go of the idea that they are a "prequel" setting up the LotR films. It is not about the Ring, the Hobbit was NEVER about the ring. You need to look at them as two separate entities, about 2 completely different things.

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

But in reality these movies will have to be just that, sort of prequels. For as much of us who actually read the books before the movies, we are now the minority, much more people now know this story because of the movies and will be expecting a prequel story with The Hobbit. I suspect that the "ring" will play a much bigger role in these two movies.

Correct. The Ring is of secondary importance and more of a "prop" in this tale. If the movies agree with the content of the book, the story will be more about Bilbo's development and his "stepping outside of himself" to view the world with a much larger perspective.

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Correct. The Ring is of secondary importance and more of a "prop" in this tale. If the movies agree with the content of the book, the story will be more about Bilbo's development and his "stepping outside of himself" to view the world with a much larger perspective.

If Jackson, Boyens, and Walsh make The Ring the focal point of this film I will be sorely disappointed. The Ring has its story, of the struggle of good versus evil ala Frodo with his struggle with the ring...

This story is NOT about Bilbo's struggle with The Ring, or The Ring's influence over mortal men, or even the transition of middle earth into the world of men. This is an adventure story, plain and simple, and as Grand Bob pointed out, a story that merely serves as a vessel so show someone that they should always look beyond themselves and keep an open mind about things that differ from your own world view. And also about discovering yourself, and finding out that there may be more than what you would realize...

[Jumpman]

But again, considering how must will see these films as prequels, they almost have no choice but to make the Ring more important than it might be in the actual text....

[drummerboy_2002]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

But again, considering how must will see these films as prequels, they almost have no choice but to make the Ring more important than it might be in the actual text....

Why do we care how ignorant people will view the film? The film is based on the book and supporting material. The Ring's story was already told from beginning to end. Why would they need to bend the story to fit with unfounded ideas. It will be a tale of Middle Earth, with several characters they are already familiar with. That should be enough of a tie-in to satisfy most peoples expectations.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

But again, considering how must will see these films as prequels, they almost have no choice but to make the Ring more important than it might be in the actual text....

That is true, and is to be expected as it has already been announced that the White Council and Dol Guldur will figure into the production. However, this should not be a problem, provided those scenes and the scenes involving the Ring as indicated in the story are taken into their proper context. At this point in time, the "wise" (Elves and Istari) are not even certain of the Ring's existence and are merely concerned about Sauron regaining his physical form and power.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

If Jackson, Boyens, and Walsh make The Ring the focal point of this film I will be sorely disappointed. The Ring has its story, of the struggle of good versus evil ala Frodo with his struggle with the ring...

I would be surprised if they didn't make a big deal about the ring in The Hobbit movie. After all, as many here believe, the book is one thing and the movie is another. And we already know that they needed to "improve" LOTR for the movies, so why should we not accept the fact that they will need to "improve" The Hobbit as well?

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by drummerboy_2002

Why do we care how ignorant people will view the film? The film is based on the book and supporting material. The Ring's story was already told from beginning to end. Why would they need to bend the story to fit with unfounded ideas. It will be a tale of Middle Earth, with several characters they are already familiar with. That should be enough of a tie-in to satisfy most peoples expectations.

Because these ignorants as you call them will be the one sending the box office over a billion dollars. Like it or not PJ and the studios really like them.

[supersix4]

So will this be like what I read on wiki which means no Elijah Wood, Sean Astin, Orlando Bloom, exc.????