The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[radagast]

Good reading.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A816P20101109

[kdo]

Apologies in advance if this question has already been asked/answered on this thread, but I don't have time to read through the hundreds of previous posts...Does anyone know if "the Hobbit" is still going to be released in two parts?

[MyBlu-rayBrotherEd]

Originally Posted by kdo

Apologies in advance if this question has already been asked/answered on this thread, but I don't have time to read through the hundreds of previous posts...Does anyone know if "the Hobbit" is still going to be released in two parts?

Yep, one in Dec 2012 and the next in Dec 2013 I believe.

[kdo]

Originally Posted by MyBlu-rayBrotherEd

Yep, one in Dec 2012 and the next in Dec 2013 I believe.

Thanks for the info. Yeah, my concern is whether or not the first part is going to have enough action to keep viewers entertained. I think they could easily do the whole book in a single 3+ hour production. I might end up waiting to see the entire thing when it's all on home video, because I'm not going to pay two premium admission costs to see it at the theater. I only saw the "Fellowship of the Ring" in the theater, and then waited for the other two to come to video.

[kjacobs03]

Middle Earth is the place I would gladly throw my money at. I also hope for a 3 part Silmarillion in the future (not likely).

[kdo]

Originally Posted by kjacobs03

I also hope for a 3 part Silmarillion in the future (not likely).

I can't imagine that'll ever happen either...

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by kdo

Yeah, my concern is whether or not the first part is going to have enough action to keep viewers entertained. I think they could easily do the whole book in a single 3+ hour production.

There is more than enough material in the book to occupy two movies. Also, because Tolkien developed an extensive history for Middle-earth, there are events that occur during the same time frame of the Hobbit that allow the story to be linked to Lord of the Rings and the rest of the saga. There will be no problem finding material for the films.

[kdo]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

There is more than enough material in the book to occupy two movies. Also, because Tolkien developed an extensive history for Middle-earth, there are events that occur during the same time frame of the Hobbit that allow the story to be linked to Lord of the Rings and the rest of the saga. There will be no problem finding material for the films.

I guess I can see there being enough material as long as they mix some of that extensive history in. Also, perhaps there's a chance the two parts will also not run quite as long as the previous LOTR films did...

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by kdo

I guess I can see there being enough material as long as they mix some of that extensive history in. Also, perhaps there's a chance the two parts will also not run quite as long as the previous LOTR films did...

I almost guarantee they still run three hours Peter Jackson doesn't make very short movies

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

There is more than enough material in the book to occupy two movies. Also, because Tolkien developed an extensive history for Middle-earth, there are events that occur during the same time frame of the Hobbit that allow the story to be linked to Lord of the Rings and the rest of the saga. There will be no problem finding material for the films.

Indeed. Considering the amount of material available, they need to "find enough film for the material".

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by kdo

I guess I can see there being enough material as long as they mix some of that extensive history in. Also, perhaps there's a chance the two parts will also not run quite as long as the previous LOTR films did...

I thought I read that they were only supposed to be two and a half hour long movies, but Jackson may well change his mind about that, as he did with King Kong.

[kdo]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

I thought I read that they were only supposed to be two and a half hour long movies, but Jackson may well change his mind about that, as he did with King Kong.

That would sound about right...even then, that's still about an hour longer than the longest EE of LOTR ("ROTK"), and "The Hobbit" was a shorter book, with not as much action. Hope they have some good ideas as to how to effectively fill up that amount of screen time.

[Walts Ghost]

I could definitely see the films being 3 hours each since they're using so stuff from a lot of other Middle Earth books to put together other events that happened at the same time as The Hobbit and that lead into Lord of the Rings. Because originally they were going to make a bridging movie between The Hobbit and LOTR. So they probably scrapped that and figured they could do most of that during the two movies

[kdo]

Originally Posted by pj_campbell

I almost guarantee they still run three hours Peter Jackson doesn't make very short movies

Good point.

Originally Posted by radagast

Indeed. Considering the amount of material available, they need to "find enough film for the material".

Originally Posted by pj_campbell

I could definitely see the films being 3 hours each since they're using so stuff from a lot of other Middle Earth books to put together other events that happened at the same time as The Hobbit and that lead into Lord of the Rings. Because originally they were going to make a bridging movie between The Hobbit and LOTR. So they probably scrapped that and figured they could do most of that during the two movies

It does seem that we'll most likely be getting a combination of Tolkien's "Hobbit" along with some of his other writings regarding the history of Middle Earth as well...In that case, I now better understand the need for two parts (and possibly "long" running times).

[Duffy12]

A minor update from theonering.net.

Sorry, but no pics.


Latest Hobbiton Construction News

November 21st, 2010 by xoanon

"TORN Spy T writes: I was just at Matamata today. All hobbit-hole construction is completed, now the “greenery” is just being finalised. The bridge/Green Dragon is ostensibly finished with just a few external touches to be completed. I took heaps of pictures, but I had to sign a confidentiality agreement saying I wouldn’t post them on the internet. I wish you could see Bag End. It looks almost 100% perfect. The head gardener was on the premises for the entirety of our visit and was watching us to make sure we didn’t touch anything. The most dramatic part for me was the Bridge/Green Dragon. When I was there in March, it was just a grass-covered hillside. To see it almost as it was in the film was breath-taking. Oh, there are five BRAND NEW hobbit-holes that look very flash. One in particular which has to be a main character’s abode (as it is much more detailed and intricate than many of the others). Sam’s hole is back to how you see it at the end of RotK and the greenery around Bag End apparently was just finished within the last week or so."

_______________



link

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by kdo

That would sound about right...even then, that's still about an hour longer than the longest EE of LOTR ("ROTK"), and "The Hobbit" was a shorter book, with not as much action. Hope they have some good ideas as to how to effectively fill up that amount of screen time.

You can expect them to make The Hobbit more like the Lord of the Rings movies. So, more epic, and characters that weren't in the Hobbit, but were in LOTR. Since Jackson and Co. seem to take inspiration from additional stories written by Tolkien, that's actually not such a bad idea.

[kdo]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

You can expect them to make The Hobbit more like the Lord of the Rings movies. So, more epic, and characters that weren't in the Hobbit, but were in LOTR. Since Jackson and Co. seem to take inspiration from additional stories written by Tolkien, that's actually not such a bad idea.

I agree.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

You can expect them to make The Hobbit more like the Lord of the Rings movies. So, more epic, and characters that weren't in the Hobbit, but were in LOTR. Since Jackson and Co. seem to take inspiration from additional stories written by Tolkien, that's actually not such a bad idea.

It's not a bad idea as long they don't start writing their own stories (like they did in LOTR) and actually use Tolkien story lines.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by radagast

It's not a bad idea as long they don't start writing their own stories (like they did in LOTR) and actually use Tolkien story lines.

Frankly, I didn't think it was a big deal. The writers explained why they made the changes, and they didn't just do it for the sake of it. No adaptation would come close to the novels. They're too richly detailed for that, and a lot of things simply wouldn't work on screen. Jackson did an admirable job making the books into the big budget fantasy movies they are. I'll take Jackson's way of adapting over the Harry Potter Cliff notes movie adaptations any day.

[kdo]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

Frankly, I didn't think it was a big deal. The writers explained why they made the changes, and they didn't just do it for the sake of it. No adaptation would come close to the novels. They're too richly detailed for that, and a lot of things simply wouldn't work on screen. Jackson did an admirable job making the books into the big budget fantasy movies they are.

I agree.