Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 4

[redhawk23]

So there won't be a new trailer with TDKR? Well, ****...

That seems like a poor choice on WB's part.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

Io9 for some reason found it necessary to take a troll upskirt shot and comment on its package.

LOL what did they say?

 

[DarkKnight88]

That seems like a poor choice on WB's part.

They'll probably play the teaser. They just finished shooting so I doubt he wants to rush a new trailer when the old one can work just as well for now.

 

[lime]

That seems like a poor choice on WB's part.

Both franchises are popular enough to not need to help each other. WB will probably release the trailer with some smaller film so they can help it in the box office,

 

[Kane52630]

Both franchises are popular enough to not need to help each other. WB will probably release the trailer with some smaller film so they can help it in the box office,

If it's in September then it's gonna be with Gangster Squad.

 

[Marvolo]

Putting a new trailer in front of TDKR seemed like a given, but the Hobbit doesn't need any marketing help from the dark knight so it makes sense to throw a smaller movie a bone and draw in the Hobbit fans to see it. That being said, I want a new trailer NOW!

 

[John Locke]

You mean TDKR doesn't need any help from the Hobbit.

 

[matrix_ghost]

You mean TDKR doesn't need any help from the Hobbit.

It works both ways. Attaching trailers to a mobie with a guaremteed large audience helps it it's exposure. On the other hand having a trailer to a hugely anticipated attached to a small movie can boost boxoffice a little bit. Though isn't word on the street that gangster squad is actually quite good .

 

[lime]

Did the CC panel pass? Or is it yet to happen?

 

[BestGirl]

It works both ways. Attaching trailers to a mobie with a guaremteed large audience helps it it's exposure. On the other hand having a trailer to a hugely anticipated attached to a small movie can boost boxoffice a little bit. Though isn't word on the street that gangster squad is actually quite good .

Wonderful! Last I heard the script wasn't good, which depressed the hell out of me because I'm so looking forward to GS, but perhaps they pulled it together.

 

[Boom]

Did the CC panel pass? Or is it yet to happen?

It's 12:51 PM PST right now. The panel is sometime between 2:30 and 5:30.

 

[Marvolo]

Jackson at comicon said he wants to shoot more footage and it could result in a third film.

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/the...-mean-peter-jackson-is-done-with-middle-earth

 

[Boom]

Jackson at comicon said he wants to shoot more footage and it could result in a third film.

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/the...-mean-peter-jackson-is-done-with-middle-earth

Overindulgence strikes again .

 

[Armored Avenger]

Overindulgence strikes again .

His quote “There’s much more material from the Appendices of Lord of the Rings that we didn’t fit in.” really strikes me, as you said, as overindulgence.

You are making 'The Hobbit' not 'Lord of the Rings Appendices: The Movie'. If he is contemplating that bridging film between the stories of 'The Hobbit' and LOTR that was considered long ago then I might be able to get on board with it, but extending the story of 'The Hobbit' into 3 movies by stuffing it with material from the Appendices is too much, especially when the tale as it is in the book could be told within 1 film. I'm curious to see how they will fill out 'There and Back Again' as it is, with 'Unexpected Journey' ending pretty late into the story with the barrel escape from Mirkwood.

 

[Boom]

His quote “There’s much more material from the Appendices of Lord of the Rings that we didn’t fit in.” really strikes me, as you said, as overindulgence.

You are making 'The Hobbit' not 'Lord of the Rings Appendices: The Movie'. If he is contemplating that bridging film between the stories of 'The Hobbit' and LOTR that was considered long ago then I might be able to get on board with it, but extending the story of 'The Hobbit' into 3 movies by stuffing it with material from the Appendices is too much, especially when the tale as it is in the book could be told within 1 film. I'm curious to see how they will fill out 'There and Back Again' as it is, with 'Unexpected Journey' ending pretty late into the story with the barrel escape from Mirkwood.

This is just ridiculous to me. There are two sections in the LoTR Appendices that pertains to The Hobbit - the history of Durin's people (Thror/Thrain/Thorin), and the White Council (which is only covered briefly). I was under the impression that both would be fleshed out in these two Hobbit films. There is nothing else there in the Appendices that has any business being in a movie adaptation of The Hobbit.

Peter Jackson's joke about needing to learn how to make shorter films isn't actually that far from the truth. He needs to show discipline and self-restraint. They killed that "bridge film" for a reason.

 

[Marvolo]

The original plan was to make the Hobbit into one film and have a film bridging the Hobbit with FOTR. If Jackson wants to make a bridge film im all for it. I like the books and faithfulness is a good thing but these are adaptions. If Peter wants to draw from the Apendices and other sources and make a bridge film i say go for it. After all if it is good and doesnt ruin anything why is it a bad thing?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

This is just ridiculous to me. There are two sections in the LoTR Appendices that pertains to The Hobbit - the history of Durin's people (Thror/Thrain/Thorin), and the White Council (which is only covered briefly). I was under the impression that both would be fleshed out in these two Hobbit films. There is nothing else there in the Appendices that has any business being in a movie adaptation of The Hobbit.

Peter Jackson's joke about needing to learn how to make shorter films isn't actually that far from the truth. He needs to show discipline and self-restraint. They killed that "bridge film" for a reason.

They are making the bridge film still. Just sprinkling it over both films. There is no reason this couldn't have been one film outside of that.

 

[Victarion]

This is just ridiculous to me. There are two sections in the LoTR Appendices that pertains to The Hobbit - the history of Durin's people (Thror/Thrain/Thorin), and the White Council (which is only covered briefly). I was under the impression that both would be fleshed out in these two Hobbit films. There is nothing else there in the Appendices that has any business being in a movie adaptation of The Hobbit.

Peter Jackson's joke about needing to learn how to make shorter films isn't actually that far from the truth. He needs to show discipline and self-restraint. They killed that "bridge film" for a reason.

They'll need to add stuff to the primary storyline of the Hobbit for this sort of adaption. The novel was pretty cut and dry, and I liked it for that very reason. Without those additions, jumping into the appendices after Smaugh might feel weird.

 

[DJ Kornphlake]

I think Pete needs to learn to accept the fact that there is simply far too much source material to ever fit into the movies and do it justice.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I think Pete needs to learn to accept the fact that there is simply far too much source material to ever fit into the movies and do it justice.

With a lot of it, I'm not interested in seeing it as a film. The Simarilion was an interesting read, but I wouldn't want to watch a film about it. It was basically a fictional history book, and it read like one. Some things are better left in their respective media forms.

 

[lime]

Any word on the footage that was shown?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I think Pete needs to learn to accept the fact that there is simply far too much source material to ever fit into the movies and do it justice.

That just isn't true. You can do the material justice by making a great film. I give you the theatrical cut of FOTR. It is by far the best film he has made and it was also the tightest. It was before Peter Jackson lost his mind and started heading toward what we got with ROTK and King Kong. He has become so self-indulgent it is ridiculous.

 

[jacobed]

I agree

 

[Tacit Ronin]

The difference between ROTK and King Kong was that ROTK actually needed and used most of the time well. There was literally no reason for Kong to be that long. Jackson points to the character arcs of the supporting cast. I say, who cares? Who gives a crap about the progression of Jack Black's character? The caricatures from the original served the narrative much better.

 

[Abudefduf]

A third film? He's got two damn movies to adapt a 300 pages long children's book... now he's just overdoing it.