The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Extended Edition 2D 3D Statues 11/5/13

[Lindele]

Originally Posted by 42041

Don't confuse differing opinions with ignorance. I think adapting a book and trying to cram in every detail is a fool's errand. Movies and novels are very different beasts as far as what their dramatic structure can support. You can capture the novel's overall dramatic thrust and omit a lot of details. You can exhaustively film every detail including those not in the book, and create a film that tells a half-story. I don't think option B is the better choice.

The idea that one novel can ONLY be one film, is an ignorant one; of course they are different mediums and require different creative approaches....but to say that The Hobbit should be one film because it is one book, if not an ignorant statement, is an idiotic one.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Lindele

The idea that one novel can ONLY be one film, is an ignorant one; of course they are different mediums and require different creative approaches....but to say that The Hobbit should be one film because it is one book, if not an ignorant statement, is an idiotic one.

Who said it needs to be one film? The point is that to me, the goal of an adaptation should be creating a compelling cinematic telling of the tale, rather than filming every detail of it (of course, this was a business decision, not an artistic one). For me, The Hobbit, at least on its own, fails to make a good case for this kind of adaptation.

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by Lindele

Any educated person who walks into the theater expecting to see the book, is a moron. The book is told from a much different perspective than the film. The book was meant to be for children, and it was told in a specific style. What Jackson has done is brilliant...he is taking that story, mixed with the outside perspective and the events as they relate to the entirety of Middle-earth in that time, and telling it from a much broader perspective...because the story of Bilbo and the dragon and the Necromancer DOES fit in with the story of the ring, and it is a beautiful build up to the events in LOTR.
As far as the book being 'stretched' into three movies...this is an incredibly ignorant argument that I am very tired of hearing. The one book=one film ratio that people have STUCK in their minds is ridiculous. I don't understand why people can't comprehend that a novel takes way longer to tell than one film can offer. Just because most book adaptations in the past have been crammed into one film doesn't mean that letting a book be properly told over several films is immediately a bad idea. Are people really too dense to understand this?

Its true that one book doesnt need to be one film. but the LOTR series covered pretty much all aspects of each book within a 3 hour film (sure - these could have been split into six 1.5hr films) without sacrificing the story or betraying the original book. When you look at page count alone, the hobbit is half the thickness of one book in the LOTR trilogy. It could be 1 or 2 standard 2 hour movie lengths long, but to stretch it into 9 hours is obscene, and purely a profit grab from a hollywood that is more concerned about the $ than the art. Any educated person would know this

[MovieKing101]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

Its true that one book doesnt need to be one film. but the LOTR series covered pretty much all aspects of each book within a 3 hour film (sure - these could have been split into six 1.5hr films) without sacrificing the story or betraying the original book. When you look at page count alone, the hobbit is half the thickness of one book in the LOTR trilogy. It could be 1 or 2 standard 2 hour movie lengths long, but to stretch it into 9 hours is obscene, and purely a profit grab from a hollywood that is more concerned about the $ than the art. Any educated person would know this

Agreed

[Jarvid]

The way I understand it is that Peter Jackson didn't really want to stretch it all out into three films. He wanted only two. That's why so much of the film's time was taken up by the Necromancer, the Brown Wizard, the council with Saruman and Galadriel, and Azog. None of these things happened in the book.

Warner Bros., however, wanted money, and seeing as this is the last chance they'll have at making money off of Tolkien's work, they wanted to pan it out into three years worth of revenue instead of only two.

Also, people seem to be under the misconception that the LotR films were spot-on exact duplicates of the trilogy. Wrong! The films don't even end at the same places as in the books! The title of The Two Towers film doesn't even refer to the same Two Towers as in the book!

The Hobbit films will be fine, even if spread to three films. They've got a ton of extra story stuff to work with. I'm guessing the second film will feature the Necromancer snafu slightly more than the dwarves.

[El_Jay]

A year for it to come out on Blu? Psh these guys are so high on themselves. I'll be watching a much better movie called Django Unchained for months and months before this one hits the shelves, as if it's such a prized commodity they have to maximize it's bloody theater $$$ before allowing us peasants to view it in our own home.

With LOTR that kind of shit would fly, but the Hobbit, while excellent, was no LOTR. I won't be losing sleep waiting for it to drop. In fact if I'm smart at all I'll wait for the inevitable double dip that stretches each of these movies into the 4+ hour mark and makes a 200-page book into a 14-hour movie.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by JimDiGriz

The Battle of the Five Armies for instance is hardly described in the book - not even 3 pages as far as I recall!

If the Battle of Helm's Deep from Jackson's version of The Two Towers is any indicator, that battle WILL BE film three.

Its not just LOTR appendices added to these three films, theres bits from Unfinished Tales too.

This is what I was expecting, since it was the justification for making three films instead of one. The first film disappointed here, as there is little to do with this material. The 20 minutes (?) invested into the divergent Azog thread might have been better spent here.

Yes, I imagine there will be a fair bit of artistic licence taken (as was the case with LOTR)

Done!

I cant wait to see them myself!

I'm also looking forward to the remaining two.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by Lindele

Well luckily AUJ was not an over indulgent mess of a film. It was surprisingly good actually.

To each their own. It could have been 20-30 minutes tighter and entirely removed Radagast and the plot wouldn't have suffered in the slightest. Most of Rivendale could have been removed. The first 40 minutes are the very definition of indulgent. I know fans like that stuff, but the point of an adaption is to make the best film possible. AUJ was far from the best film possible.

[seregloth]

The peasant edition comes out in a month. The other edition (extended) comes out this fall.

Originally Posted by El_Jay

A year for it to come out on Blu? Psh these guys are so high on themselves. I'll be watching a much better movie called Django Unchained for months and months before this one hits the shelves, as if it's such a prized commodity they have to maximize it's bloody theater $$$ before allowing us peasants to view it in our own home.

With LOTR that kind of shit would fly, but the Hobbit, while excellent, was no LOTR. I won't be losing sleep waiting for it to drop. In fact if I'm smart at all I'll wait for the inevitable double dip that stretches each of these movies into the 4+ hour mark and makes a 200-page book into a 14-hour movie.

[brian9229]

Originally Posted by Cook

To each their own. It could have been 20-30 minutes tighter and entirely removed Radagast and the plot wouldn't have suffered in the slightest. Most of Rivendale could have been removed. The first 40 minutes are the very definition of indulgent. I know fans like that stuff, but the point of an adaption is to make the best film possible. AUJ was far from the best film possible.

That would be Rivendell

[Cook]

Originally Posted by brian9229

That would be Rivendell

Typing on a phone screen can be a *****. Between the screen and those pesky elves and their wonky spelling I'm batting a thousand.

[Lindele]

Originally Posted by Cook

To each their own. It could have been 20-30 minutes tighter and entirely removed Radagast and the plot wouldn't have suffered in the slightest. Most of Rivendale could have been removed. The first 40 minutes are the very definition of indulgent. I know fans like that stuff, but the point of an adaption is to make the best film possible. AUJ was far from the best film possible.

Are you unable to comprehend that the story is not over? You say that Radagast could have been completely removed, but what about the rest of the story? Did it ever occur to you that he was being setup for a later plot? I can imagine what you would have said if in the second or third film he had just came up out of nowhere....
And it is unfortunate that character development is seen as over indulgence in today's society.

[Lindele]

Originally Posted by Jarvid

The way I understand it is that Peter Jackson didn't really want to stretch it all out into three films. He wanted only two. That's why so much of the film's time was taken up by the Necromancer, the Brown Wizard, the council with Saruman and Galadriel, and Azog. None of these things happened in the book.

Warner Bros., however, wanted money, and seeing as this is the last chance they'll have at making money off of Tolkien's work, they wanted to pan it out into three years worth of revenue instead of only two.

Also, people seem to be under the misconception that the LotR films were spot-on exact duplicates of the trilogy. Wrong! The films don't even end at the same places as in the books! The title of The Two Towers film doesn't even refer to the same Two Towers as in the book!

The Hobbit films will be fine, even if spread to three films. They've got a ton of extra story stuff to work with. I'm guessing the second film will feature the Necromancer snafu slightly more than the dwarves.

The way you understand it is wrong. The Hobbit was split into three entirely for creative reasons. It was Peter Jackson's idea and decision to do so.

[Lindele]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

Its true that one book doesnt need to be one film. but the LOTR series covered pretty much all aspects of each book within a 3 hour film (sure - these could have been split into six 1.5hr films) without sacrificing the story or betraying the original book. When you look at page count alone, the hobbit is half the thickness of one book in the LOTR trilogy. It could be 1 or 2 standard 2 hour movie lengths long, but to stretch it into 9 hours is obscene, and purely a profit grab from a hollywood that is more concerned about the $ than the art. Any educated person would know this

Good point. However, if you look at The Hobbit book, it is clear that it would not work well in one film. It's episodic structure works great for a book, but not for a film. I'm not saying that the book itself could not have been put into two films successfully, but with the adding in of all the backstory and side story, it easily warrants three films.
It is unfortunate that you are unable to comprehend that some filmmakers do make films because it is what they love to do, and not all about money. If you think for one second that Peter Jackson is doing these for the money...you are very sadly wrong. If he wanted money over art, he would not have taken this project on.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by Lindele

Good point. However, if you look at The Hobbit book, it is clear that it would not work well in one film. It's episodic structure works great for a book, but not for a film. I'm not saying that the book itself could not have been put into two films successfully, but with the adding in of all the backstory and side story, it easily warrants three films.
It is unfortunate that you are unable to comprehend that some filmmakers do make films because it is what they love to do, and not all about money. If you think for one second that Peter Jackson is doing these for the money...you are very sadly wrong. If he wanted money over art, he would not have taken this project on.

Oh please, it's not like PJ is working Pro Bono.
This book could've, easily, been one film just like LotR, but there is more money to be made on a trilogy. If you don't understand than that's a you problem.
As a fan I'm thrilled to have 3 more Tolkien films done by PJ, the studio know this, and are only too happy to accomodate. Money makes the world go around, that's just a fact.

[KingRad]

I'm really torn between buying the individual releases of The Hobbit films, or waiting for a box set. I'd really like to wait for a box set, but I'll have to wait at least three years to own The Hobbit. Which is unfortunate because I thought The Hobbit was a phenomenal film.

[Lindele]

Originally Posted by rickah88

Oh please, it's not like PJ is working Pro Bono.
This book could've, easily, been one film just like LotR, but there is more money to be made on a trilogy. If you don't understand than that's a you problem.
As a fan I'm thrilled to have 3 more Tolkien films done by PJ, the studio know this, and are only too happy to accomodate. Money makes the world go around, that's just a fact.

Of course there is money to be made, and PJ will probably make hundreds of millions on it. But if you think he is doing it FOR the money, you are wrong. He could do anything he wants, anything. He IS NOT doing The Hobbit strictly for the money. If you don't understand this, then you don't know the director at all.

[MacEachaidh]

Originally Posted by Cook

It could have been 20-30 minutes tighter and entirely removed Radagast and the plot wouldn't have suffered in the slightest. Most of Rivendale could have been removed.

I don't think that's so. Since Jackson chose to include the rise of the Necromancer, then it had to be established and developed, and that's what Radogast and Rivendell were for.

The first 40 minutes are the very definition of indulgent. I know fans like that stuff, but the point of an adaption is to make the best film possible. AUJ was far from the best film possible.

I don't see how you can say that. How was it indulgent to set up the story of the dwarves and the coming of Smaug? Tolkien told the story as an adventure of a single Hobbit, and everything else around him was incidental and comparatively undeveloped; again, the inclusion of the Necromancer story shifts the focus, and means it's not just from Bilbo's p.o.v., so again it requires a wider canvas. You might want to have seen things handled differently, but I don't think you can make a case for it being mere indulgence, when you look at it from the perspective of the larger story.

Originally Posted by Lindele

If you think for one second that Peter Jackson is doing these for the money...you are very sadly wrong. If he wanted money over art, he would not have taken this project on.

I generally agree with you, but Jackson was contracted for $20 million just as producer for these films, which he retained while now also picking up a director's fee as well. And renegotiated both of them upwards when the series was expanded to three films. Sure, he's working bloody hard — he reportedly always does — but he's not doing it only for the love of it, or even for mere self-expression.

[MacEachaidh]

Originally Posted by Hoth

I'm really torn between buying the individual releases of The Hobbit films, or waiting for a box set. I'd really like to wait for a box set, but I'll have to wait at least three years to own The Hobbit. Which is unfortunate because I thought The Hobbit was a phenomenal film.

I'm in the same boat, Hoth.

I'd love to see them release the first film in an amaray case (maybe maroon this time?) inside a box designed to be a companion to the LotR Extended set, but with space for the 2nd and 3rd films to be slotted in when they arrive on Blu. That way we could buy the 1st one now, and build the set as they're released. Think they'd ever do such a thing?

[Lindele]

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

I generally agree with you, but Jackson was contracted for $20 million just as producer for these films, which he retained while now also picking up a director's fee as well. And renegotiated both of them upwards when the series was expanded to three films. Sure, he's working bloody hard — he reportedly always does — but he's not doing it only for the love of it, or even for mere self-expression.

Well he supposedly made around $250 million for LOTR...but who knows.
He is doing these films because he enjoys making movies, and because he thought that it was the right thing to do. These films were a pre-roduction nightmare that any filmmaker in their right mind would have dropped years ago. But he is passionate about delivering for the fans, and he is passionate about Tolkien's stories. For that he deserves respect and admiration...instead of claims that he made these films for the money. He isn't greedy, and anyone that pays any attention to his role in the community would know that.