The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[JamesKurtovich]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

See, I'm not confident based on Two Towers, Return of the King, King Kong, and Lovely Bones. All films that were too big for their britches.

I know Jackson is a talented filmmaker. The Fellowship of the Ring EE proves this. But, it seems after that film, he's lost his way a bit. It seems that, for him, more is more and I don't think that helped out the last two Rings films or King Kong.

I firmly believe that if he made a middle cut between the theatrical and extended cuts of Towers and King, I could easily get through the Trilogy and be up for the Hobbit movies. I mean, Evangeline Lilly is in the next two films. I don't want to miss what she may bring to the table because I'm a huge fan of hers...as well as Cate "the Great" Blanchett.

They definitely dragged on. The last half of King Kong felt like the last few minutes of ROTK. It just didn't end.

FOTR is my favorite by far. It doesn't contain any of the lame humor you find in the later movies and it feels like every scene matters with every actor putting in 110% because of their new roles.

I really hope the battles don't suck up screen time in Hobbit. The Pelennor Fields battle dragged on for a little too long in ROTK, imo. And yeah, Evangeline Lily is going to make one hot elf...

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by JamesKurtovich

it feels like every scene matters with every actor putting in 110% because of their new roles.

Fellowship is my favourite too and I love the performances (not that I thought they dropped after the first - some improved, e.g Sam, as they had more to do)but considering the films were shot out of order and all at the same time then the roles weren't 'new' to the actors during the length of the film.

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by JamesKurtovich

They definitely dragged on. The last half of King Kong felt like the last few minutes of ROTK. It just didn't end.

FOTR is my favorite by far. It doesn't contain any of the lame humor you find in the later movies and it feels like every scene matters with every actor putting in 110% because of their new roles.

I really hope the battles don't suck up screen time in Hobbit. The Pelennor Fields battle dragged on for a little too long in ROTK, imo. And yeah, Evangeline Lily is going to make one hot elf...

Fellowship of the Ring feels 100% Tolkien. It's just a more graceful, elegant film through and through. And somewhere during the production, fatigue set in and certain aspects of the last two films got less and less Tolkien and more Hollywood.

I'm no authority on Tolkien at all. I'm not a purist that the films should stick strictly to the books. But, you can feel it in Towers and King. You don't feel the fatigue or the "Hollywood" in Fellowship of the Ring.

It's just a pure film. And with the annoucement that it would be three films not two, it just felt like Jackson was doing it all over again. It wouldn't shock me one bit if the first Hobbit film is exactly like Fellowship in feel but as the trilogy progresses, they'll feel like the last two Rings films.

[blakeyamc]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

Fellowship of the Ring feels 100% Tolkien. It's just a more graceful, elegant film through and through. And somewhere during the production, fatigue set in and certain aspects of the last two films got less and less Tolkien and more Hollywood..

I think people are underestimating how difficult it would be to make the Two Towers and ROTK, into films. FOTR, seems easy comparably.

FOTR - has essentially one story line.

Two Towes - has 3 main storylines. (Frodo and Sam, Treebeard, Aragorn and company (Rohan))

ROTK - has 4 main storylines. (Frodo & Sam, Rohan, Gondor, Aragorn and Company)

Difficult to adapt. Difficult to make. Difficult beyond belief to edit.
Also, remember when this was made it was considered the biggest independent film ever made. I don't think the filmmakers were prepared for the epic scope of it.
After watching the DVD(Blu ray) Appendices, you can see that at points during the production, it was laying down the tracks as the locomotive was right behind them.

I think they did a good job concerning the circumstances. 100% perfect. No. But, pretty damn good.

*Even though I wish they just showed one scene where Denethor was looking into the Palantir. And spent more time with Frodo and Sam.

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by blakeyamc

I think people are underestimating how difficult it would be to make the Two Towers and ROTK, into films. FOTR, seems easy comparably.

FOTR - has essentially one story line.

Two Towes - has 3 main storylines. (Frodo and Sam, Treebeard, Aragorn and company (Rohan))

ROTK - has 4 main storylines. (Frodo & Sam, Rohan, Gondor, Aragorn and Company)

Difficult to adapt. Difficult to make. Difficult beyond belief to edit.
Also, remember when this was made it was considered the biggest independent film ever made. I don't think the filmmakers were prepared for the epic scope of it.
After watching the DVD(Blu ray) Appendices, you can see that at points during the production, it was laying down the tracks as the locomotive was right behind them.

I think they did a good job concerning the circumstances. 100% perfect. No. But, pretty damn good.

*Even though I wish they just showed one scene where Denethor was looking into the Palantir. And spent more time with Frodo and Sam.

That's all well and good but a lot of the problems with the last two were at the script level because they went further and further away from Tolkien.

Fellowship does this but it's more elegantly handled and still feels Tolkien.

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

That's all well and good but a lot of the problems with the last two were at the script level because they went further and further away from Tolkien.

Fellowship does this but it's more elegantly handled and still feels Tolkien.

it's easy to critisize when you're on the outside looking in. i've watched all of the extra's on the EE's and have nothing but respect for everyone involved w/the making of that 1st trilogy.

even if they get remade 1 day....Jackson and his entire crew have laid out exactly what needs to be done and followed to get a film series like this made.....even the stuff not to do.

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

Fellowship of the Ring feels 100% Tolkien. It's just a more graceful, elegant film through and through. And somewhere during the production, fatigue set in and certain aspects of the last two films got less and less Tolkien and more Hollywood.

I'm no authority on Tolkien at all. I'm not a purist that the films should stick strictly to the books. But, you can feel it in Towers and King. You don't feel the fatigue or the "Hollywood" in Fellowship of the Ring.

It's just a pure film. And with the annoucement that it would be three films not two, it just felt like Jackson was doing it all over again. It wouldn't shock me one bit if the first Hobbit film is exactly like Fellowship in feel but as the trilogy progresses, they'll feel like the last two Rings films.

I sort of understand where you're coming from, because I feel the exact same way about Nolan's 'Dark Knight' trilogy. I always felt like 'Batman Begins' was, as you said, a pure film. But as the series continued, it got less pure and comic book like and more Hollywood. I know, it isn't popular opinion, but I truly feel that way about the series.

Honestly, I look at this situation with 'The Hobbit' the same way that 'The Lord of the Rings' was done. Originally 'Lord of the Rings' was only going to be two films as well, but as it continued, they realized they had way too much footage to make two films, and decided to make it three and flesh it out. I've been very skeptical about 'The Hobbit' being three films, BUT I understand this isn't simply just 'The Hobbit' anymore. This is so much more than that, and it's part of the reason I'm so excited to see it. Jackson's Middle Earth is one of cinema's most incredible and spectacular things ever put on screen, so to visit it three more times is more than OK with me. I really think that with the love and care that has gone into this production, it's going to turn out fine. It isn't like the studio was the one that decided to make it three films, it was Jackson and his team. If they feel they need three films to tell the story, then by all means, do it. I'm just excited to return to Middle Earth.

[blakeyamc]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

That's all well and good but a lot of the problems with the last two were at the script level because they went further and further away from Tolkien.

Fellowship does this but it's more elegantly handled and still feels Tolkien.

My point is, the reason they had to deviate from Tolkien (which in some instances, turned out fantastic and others not so much), is the structure in The Two Towers and ROTK books, makes it extremely difficult to adapt to a feature film. I think some of it worked, some of it didn't.

I agree with you to a point, but I also feel Fellowship (the book), feels more like Tolkien, than ROTK (the book).

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

it's easy to critisize when you're on the outside looking in. i've watched all of the extra's on the EE's and have nothing but respect for everyone involved w/the making of that 1st trilogy.

even if they get remade 1 day....Jackson and his entire crew have laid out exactly what needs to be done and followed to get a film series like this made.....even the stuff not to do.

I've watched the extras on the EE as well. I'm not saying what they did wasn't a massive undertaking. But, that doesn't change the fact that, at the script level, Towers and King despite their many threads, are not up to the standards of the Fellowship script.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

Originally 'Lord of the Rings' was only going to be two films as well, but as it continued, they realized they had way too much footage to make two films, and decided to make it three and flesh it out.

Not quite true. The filmmakers pitched and wrote it as two films because they couldn't imagine a studio agreeing to two films. When the Weinsteins were involved they agreed to the two film structure. When they ditched it - after deciding it should only be one film - Jackson and co. continued shopping around their two-film treatment until they went to New Line. It was the studio who announced it should be three films, as per the books. Jackson and co. immediately agreed and wrote three new scripts. It wasn't the filmmakers realisation that there was too much material that swung the decision (as it was with The Hobbit), it was the studio suggestion that a film adaptation should match the trilogy structure of the original book.

And people have this view that studio interferring is always a bad thing

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

I sort of understand where you're coming from, because I feel the exact same way about Nolan's 'Dark Knight' trilogy. I always felt like 'Batman Begins' was, as you said, a pure film. But as the series continued, it got less pure and comic book like and more Hollywood. I know, it isn't popular opinion, but I truly feel that way about the series.

Honestly, I look at this situation with 'The Hobbit' the same way that 'The Lord of the Rings' was done. Originally 'Lord of the Rings' was only going to be two films as well, but as it continued, they realized they had way too much footage to make two films, and decided to make it three and flesh it out. I've been very skeptical about 'The Hobbit' being three films, BUT I understand this isn't simply just 'The Hobbit' anymore. This is so much more than that, and it's part of the reason I'm so excited to see it. Jackson's Middle Earth is one of cinema's most incredible and spectacular things ever put on screen, so to visit it three more times is more than OK with me. I really think that with the love and care that has gone into this production, it's going to turn out fine. It isn't like the studio was the one that decided to make it three films, it was Jackson and his team. If they feel they need three films to tell the story, then by all means, do it. I'm just excited to return to Middle Earth.

Well, the fact that they thought that Lord of the Rings should've been two films from the start was incredibly stupid. While it was written as one book, it's split significantly into three acts, so I don't even understand how they could've thought that was ever going to work. I know a lot of that has to do with the structure of the Two Towers. But still, that would've been a bone headed move had that happened.

[Buddy Ackerman]

An interesting summary of some of the changes in the two-film version:

The first film would have dealt with what would become The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, and the beginning of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, ending with the death of Saruman, and Gandalf and Pippin going to Minas Tirith. In this treatment, Gwaihir and Gandalf visit Edoras after escaping Saruman, Gollum attacks Frodo when the Fellowship is still united, and Farmer Maggot, Glorfindel, Radagast, Elladan and Elrohir are present. Bilbo attends the Council of Elrond, Sam looks into Galadriel's mirror, Saruman is redeemed before he dies and the Nazgûl just make it into Mount Doom before they fall.

(Later revisions)

Sam is caught eavesdropping and forced to go along with Frodo, instead of Sam, Merry, and Pippin figuring out about the One Ring themselves and voluntarily going along after confronting Frodo about it, as occurs in the original novel. Gandalf's account of his time at Orthanc was pulled out of flashback and Lothlórien was cut, with Galadriel doing what she does in the story at Rivendell. Denethor attends the Council with his son. Other changes included having Arwen rescue Frodo, and the action sequence involving the cave troll. Arwen was even going to kill the Witch-king.

And how a one film version of Lord of the Rings may have looked:

Bob Weinstein presented a treatment of a single two-hour film version of the book. He suggested cutting Bree and the Battle of Helm's Deep, "losing or using" Saruman, merging Rohan and Gondor with Éowyn as Boromir's sister, shortening Rivendell and Moria as well as having Ents prevent the Uruk-hai kidnapping Merry and Pippin.

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

I've watched the extras on the EE as well. I'm not saying what they did wasn't a massive undertaking. But, that doesn't change the fact that, at the script level, Towers and King despite their many threads, are not up to the standards of the Fellowship script.

i guess i'm just a little more forgiving then.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

Well, the fact that they thought that Lord of the Rings should've been two films from the start was incredibly stupid. While it was written as one book, it's split significantly into three acts, so I don't even understand how they could've thought that was ever going to work. I know a lot of that has to do with the structure of the Two Towers. But still, that would've been a bone headed move had that happened.

I know we posted at the same time but, just to clarify their "incredibly stupid" decision - it was done so due to Hollywood politics rather than Jackson and co. thinking the story only warranted two films.

They just never thought a studio would stump up for three whole films in one go. It wasn't a decision based in creativity. It was the only way they thought it would get made at all.

[joeydrunk]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

I guess you're right but I just can't see how you turn a book that's nearly 300 pages into a trilogy.

It seems indulgent.

Did you ever read the short story- "the shawshank Redemption" by steven King?
That was 100 pages and a 2.5 hour movie, it was probably the most true to book movie I have seen because the book was so short and the movie so long. Being the Hobbit is 300 pages a trilogy would be perfect to incapsulate every single aspect of the book.

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

i guess i'm just a little more forgiving then.

I've tried to be forgiven towards them. In '03, I was pretty high on the trilogy, after the EE of King was released.

But, as I watched the trilogy more and more, it just became readily apparent that something was off on the last two when it came to my reactions to them.

Re-reading the trilogy after having the films pretty much memorized didn't help matters...

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

I know we posted at the same time but, just to clarify their "incredibly stupid" decision - it was done so due to Hollywood politics rather than Jackson and co. thinking the story only warranted two films.

They just never thought a studio would stump up for three whole films in one go. It wasn't a decision based in creativity. It was the only way they thought it would get made at all.

Oh, I know. I knew Jackson wanted three to begin with but had to have at least a two film outline to present to the studios just to get it funded...

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

Not quite true. The filmmakers pitched and wrote it as two films because they couldn't imagine a studio agreeing to two films. When the Weinsteins were involved they agreed to the two film structure. When they ditched it - after deciding it should only be one film - Jackson and co. continued shopping around their two-film treatment until they went to New Line. It was the studio who announced it should be three films, as per the books. Jackson and co. immediately agreed and wrote three new scripts. It wasn't the filmmakers realisation that there was too much material that swung the decision (as it was with The Hobbit), it was the studio suggestion that a film adaptation should match the trilogy structure of the original book.

And people have this view that studio interferring is always a bad thing

Thanks for the clarification, Buddy.

Originally Posted by Jumpman

Well, the fact that they thought that Lord of the Rings should've been two films from the start was incredibly stupid. While it was written as one book, it's split significantly into three acts, so I don't even understand how they could've thought that was ever going to work. I know a lot of that has to do with the structure of the Two Towers. But still, that would've been a bone headed move had that happened.

Well, I understand why. You have to remember, this was a huge undertaking, and they didn't think the studio, as Buddy said, would buy into a three picture deal. It wasn't until they got to New Line and they told them they could do it as three that it became a trilogy. I really think this being a trilogy isn't going to turn out badly. I'm actually thinking that the third film, 'There and Back Again', is going to be a bridge film between the two trilogies. Remember, the rumors when 'The Hobbit' was first rumored was that it was going to be two films, with a third film that bridged the gap between 'The Hobbit' and 'Fellowship'. I think that this basically went back to that plan, while expanding on the events happening during 'The Hobbit'. So part of me thinks this was always sort of an idea, and Jackson decided he wanted to expand on it. It'll definitely be interesting to see how it turns out.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

Oh, I know. I knew Jackson wanted three to begin with but had to have at least a two film outline to present to the studios just to get it funded...

Cool. It's just your comment of "the fact that they thought that Lord of the Rings should've been two films from the start was incredibly stupid" makes it sound like they thought it was a great idea and that's all it needed in a creative sense, which wasn't the case.

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

Cool. It's just your comment of "the fact that they thought that Lord of the Rings should've been two films from the start was incredibly stupid" makes it sound like they thought it was a great idea and that's all it needed in a creative sense, which wasn't the case.

Yeah.