The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[ysmzsm]

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.

This.

[Blu-Benny]

[Berek]

I still want to see Smaug in the second movie.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Mock-ups (from theonering.net) of the new possible(yet unconfirmed) titles:



As I said before I'd be sad to lose 'There and Back Again' as a title but it makes sense if Bilbo goes 'There' in film two and 'Back Again' in film three. I'd be happy with these two titles. It also fits with the break-up of the plot that I thought.

Hopefully this also means the rumoured 'Riddles in the Dark' title has been thrown away.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by Berek

I still want to see Smaug in the second movie.

You will. He'll be the focus of film two.

[Velmeran]

For anyone who thinks 3 films is too much, take a look at Dead By Shaun 's post and breakdown.

Pretty nice, logical places with good explanations for why -- though it could be a little too heavy on the action in the 3rd film.

[Show spoiler]Depending on just how much of a battle they want to make the White Council's assault on Dol Guldur to drive out the Necromancer. Ontop of the Battle of 5 Armies, and as DBS suggested Battle of Azanulbizar.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

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"

They're all three called The Hobbit, so yeah, they will be three movies of The Hobbit. With bits and pieces of the appendices. And tying them together? Having Bilbo, Gandalf, Thorin, Gollum and several other characters aren't enough? Honestly, I loved the LOTR movies, but changing the dwarfs' appearances (so we have the "Aragorn dwarf", the comic relief dwarf, and so on), including Legolas and Frodo, just seems unnecessary inclusions to "tie them together".

[stvn1974]

They should turn it into four films and set the fourth one in space.

[Darth Marcus]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

They should turn it into four films and set the fourth one in space.

And cast Nathan Fillion? I'm in.

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

They're all three called The Hobbit, so yeah, they will be three movies of The Hobbit. With bits and pieces of the appendices. And tying them together? Having Bilbo, Gandalf, Thorin, Gollum and several other characters aren't enough? Honestly, I loved the LOTR movies, but changing the dwarfs' appearances (so we have the "Aragorn dwarf", the comic relief dwarf, and so on), including Legolas and Frodo, just seems unnecessary inclusions to "tie them together".

what i meant was "The Hobbit" book isn't going to be stretched out into 3 films, they are going to add in other stuff that Tolkien himself wrote that tie the events of The Hobbit to Lord of the Rings.

i guess i'm confused on how getting more Middle Earth is a bad thing if it's coming from Tolkiens source material??

whatever i guess....i'm stoked and am sure Jackson is going to knock it out of the park!!! since he proved himself capable on LOTR, i'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and trust he's going to do it justice.

[Rudeboy2025]

I went to see The Dark Knight Rises for the second time tonight and I FINALLY got to see the trailer for The Hobbit in theaters for the first time (IMAX). It took long enough even after I've seen at least 15 movies this year lol

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

what i meant was "The Hobbit" book isn't going to be stretched out into 3 films, they are going to add in other stuff that Tolkien himself wrote that tie the events of The Hobbit to Lord of the Rings.

i guess i'm confused on how getting more Middle Earth is a bad thing if it's coming from Tolkiens source material??

whatever i guess....i'm stoked and am sure Jackson is going to knock it out of the park!!! since he proved himself capable on LOTR, i'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and trust he's going to do it justice.

The hobbit is a small book so the movies should not be that long even if it is split into three parts

[Barbossa]

Originally Posted by joliefan

The hobbit is a small book so the movies should not be that long even if it is split into three parts

As already mentioned here a number of times, Jackson and Co are adding narrative from The Appendices found in LotR (Jackson has also no doubt added a load of his own invented nonsense, as he did with his fanciful adaptations of LotR). That to me is 'wrong' because it dilutes the story as told in The Hobbit - it's called The Hobbit for a reason, it's about a Hobbit called Bilbo Baggins and his adventures. No more, no less.

[Josh]

I don't think some people understand how much material is in the appendices. I'm copy/pasted the timeline of Arda before, but since I'm sure some new fans are reading these posts, I'll just link to it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Arda#Third_Age

That is a direct link to the Third Age which is over 3,000 years in length. And yes, you are correct to assume that there was a First and Second Age before that (a Fourth Age too!). Both The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit occur during the Third Age. Of the 3,000 years and hundred or so of bulleted notes left by Tolkien, only (almost) one year is described in the Hobbit and three bulleted notes. There is a absolute ton of material to draw on.

Just from looking over the timeline, I see a good potential starting point being in 2460 when Sauron returns to Middle Earth. Then I think PJ can go all the way to 2968 when Frodo is born. That is 500 years, of which The Hobbit represents 1. Of course, we have no way of knowing how far back PJ will reach, but the material is there.

I also like that they removed "There and Back Again". That title is really centric on the Bilbo's story, and we know that this trilogy (that feels good to say) will expand far beyond it.

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by Josh

I don't think some people understand how much material is in the appendices. I'm copy/pasted the timeline of Arda before, but since I'm sure some new fans are reading these posts, I'll just link to it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Arda#Third_Age

That is a direct link to the Third Age which is over 3,000 years in length. And yes, you are correct to assume that there was a First and Second Age before that (a Fourth Age too!). Both The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit occur during the Third Age. Of the 3,000 years and hundred or so of bulleted notes left by Tolkien, only (almost) one year is described in the Hobbit and three bulleted notes. There is a absolute ton of material to draw on.

Just from looking over the timeline, I see a good potential starting point being in 2460 when Sauron returns to Middle Earth. Then I think PJ can go all the way to 2968 when Frodo is born. That is 500 years, of which The Hobbit represents 1. Of course, we have no way of knowing how far back PJ will reach, but the material is there.

I also like that they removed "There and Back Again". That title is really centric on the Bilbo's story, and we know that this trilogy (that feels good to say) will expand far beyond it.

That means he can make it as long as he wants right back to the second age anyway how old was Gandalf when he died ?

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by Josh

I don't think some people understand how much material is in the appendices. I'm copy/pasted the timeline of Arda before, but since I'm sure some new fans are reading these posts, I'll just link to it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Arda#Third_Age

That is a direct link to the Third Age which is over 3,000 years in length. And yes, you are correct to assume that there was a First and Second Age before that (a Fourth Age too!). Both The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit occur during the Third Age. Of the 3,000 years and hundred or so of bulleted notes left by Tolkien, only (almost) one year is described in the Hobbit and three bulleted notes. There is a absolute ton of material to draw on.

Just from looking over the timeline, I see a good potential starting point being in 2460 when Sauron returns to Middle Earth. Then I think PJ can go all the way to 2968 when Frodo is born. That is 500 years, of which The Hobbit represents 1. Of course, we have no way of knowing how far back PJ will reach, but the material is there.

I also like that they removed "There and Back Again". That title is really centric on the Bilbo's story, and we know that this trilogy (that feels good to say) will expand far beyond it.

FINALLY!!! thank you Josh for pointing this out for everyone (again!!).

it's amazing how many people still think the events in "The Hobbit" are going to be the only thing in these 3 movies.

[beadelf]

i think everyone needs to just accept the fact that there are 3 films! seriously is this pissing and moaning gona go on for the next 3 years......hmmm I expect the anser is yes to that zzzzzzzzz

[supersix4]

I want 3 movies of the ghost king riders and the dude who gets his finger chopped off in 1!!!

Lol I keep it simple and vague

[juanleche]

3rd movie will just me 2 hrs of multiple endings

[jbig31]

Originally Posted by Josh

I don't think some people understand how much material is in the appendices. I'm copy/pasted the timeline of Arda before, but since I'm sure some new fans are reading these posts, I'll just link to it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Arda#Third_Age

That is a direct link to the Third Age which is over 3,000 years in length. And yes, you are correct to assume that there was a First and Second Age before that (a Fourth Age too!). Both The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit occur during the Third Age. Of the 3,000 years and hundred or so of bulleted notes left by Tolkien, only (almost) one year is described in the Hobbit and three bulleted notes. There is a absolute ton of material to draw on.

Just from looking over the timeline, I see a good potential starting point being in 2460 when Sauron returns to Middle Earth. Then I think PJ can go all the way to 2968 when Frodo is born. That is 500 years, of which The Hobbit represents 1. Of course, we have no way of knowing how far back PJ will reach, but the material is there.

I also like that they removed "There and Back Again". That title is really centric on the Bilbo's story, and we know that this trilogy (that feels good to say) will expand far beyond it.

Great post Josh! I was going to get around to posting that timeline sooner or later--more than enough for 3 films.