Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 4

[Abudefduf]

As Peter Jackson said he wanted to shoot more footage to tie The Hobbit to The Lord of the Rings, this would be the stuff. Maybe they will add scenes of The White Council discussing all of this. There's already hints that they discuss some of this; from the panorama picture with the Nazgûl Sword on a table in front of Elrond. We were told by Jackson that we'll find out what Gandalf was doing while he was away from Bilbo and the dwarves, which is expanded from the book.

These are the additions that I'm fine with, because they are quite necessary if you want the audience to understand what exactly is going on. (Except the part about the Nazgûl tomb... wtf is that?)

But do they really need 3 movies in order to tell this story? I just doubt it.

 

[DarknessOfDeath]

Thats how I feel...I just don't think there is enough material from the appendix for a third movie. Two is fine but 3?? 3 is kinda pushing it.

unless Jackson does a prequel prequel of the Hobbit and LOTR lol which I doubt but it would be kinda cool.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Well the prequel prequel is The Silmarillion. Which could have parts made into a film. But it's only distantly related to the others.

 

[Thedudehimself]

Well the prequel prequel is The Silmarillion. Which could have parts made into a film. But it's only distantly related to the others.

The Silmarillion is pretty much the "Bible" of Middle earth. Not really a coherent story. More like gathered tales and myths over the ages. They dont really involve characters with personalities, they are told in a very distant, cold and unpersonal narrative. You cant adapt The Silmarillion into a Film. You can use elements from it, but it wouldnt really be an adaption. The screenwriters would have to make much things up here.

 

[CGHulk]

Peter said the Tolkien estate doesn't like any of the movies, they own the rights to the Silmarillion. They won't be giving them up any time soon; well at least not in his life time.

 

[Angel_Faerie]

I really don't like The Silmarillion.....I tried to read it in 6th grade (I had read The Hobbit and LOTR) and was bored out of my skull.

 

[CGHulk]

I tried to read it too.

 

[Abudefduf]

It's one of those books that you get to enjoy only if you're a Tolkien-obsessed geek. And I am, lol.

 

[marcvader]

Thoroughly enjoyed reading LotR and The Hobbit but Silmarillion was like pulling teeth and never finished it nor had interest doing so.

 

[Marvolo]

Silmarillion is heavy stuff. Full on mythology and history. Its not a story with a conventional narrative and its hard to read if you arent really interested in the universe. It also doesnt help that Tolkien never finished it and what we do have is what Chris Tolkien put together from his notes.

Its the type of story that works better when its read to you. The audiobook is really good and makes you feel like you are setting around a fire long ago listening to the wise man recount old legends and myths of creation.

 

[DarknessOfDeath]

I should get the audio books except I don't have a cassette player. Unless these audio books are available on CD. Or if they're available for downloading.


As far as the Sil is concerned, I agree with what your all saying...I did read a few chapters in the sil not too long ago. the only chapter that I read was the one with Beren and Luthien whose story is mirrored to that of Aragorn and Arwen, which I feel is interesting. But yeah, the Sil itself is hard to read through I find.

I am watching the Appendix part 1 of the FOTR EE. It'll be my first time watching it.

 

[Marvolo]

I should get the audio books except I don't have a cassette player. Unless these audio books are available on CD. Or if they're available for downloading.


As far as the Sil is concerned, I agree with what your all saying...I did read a few chapters in the sil not too long ago. the only chapter that I read was the one with Beren and Luthien whose story is mirrored to that of Aragorn and Arwen, which I feel is interesting. But yeah, the Sil itself is hard to read through I find.

I am watching the Appendix part 1 of the FOTR EE. It'll be my first time watching it.

You can get it and any audiobook on CD and probably itunes. Casettes havent been used in years.

 

[Kane52630]

"Your love of the Halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind."

Spoiler

 

[Ponyboy]

S'all love, Kane, it's all love

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I don't see how this is untrue. Look how he has decided to tell the tale of The Hobbit. In a way that seems to have no relation to it. Turning a small, intimate, self-contained adventure tale into some overlong, bombastic epic. The Hobbit film should end where it begins. Do people really believe you can't tell all of the Hobbit and then some in 3 hours?

Is it any real wonder that the problem that plagued his last two major films seems to be happening again? ROTK and King Kong had much better films in them then what ended up in theaters.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I think we should wait to see the films first...

Anyway I would disagree with ROTK and King Kong.

 

[Victarion]

You think he'll pad the journey out with flashbacks to the dwarves' pasts as they pertain to the quest? A bit of background on the Black Arrow might be given, like they did for Aragorn's sword--the one that was shattered when it struck Sauron.

 

[Marvolo]

Really I don't see why getting more of Middle Earth's history and world on screen is such a bad thing. I mean I get that some wanted only the Hobbit story told, but this material they have rights to has a finite time on it. It will eventually return to the estate. If you wanna see this material on screen including it with the Hobbit was the only real way to go.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I think we should wait to see the films first...

Anyway I would disagree with ROTK and King Kong.

ROTK is overstuffed, and yet leaves so much of what needed to be on screen on the cutting room floor. In favor of multiple endings and Oscar bait scenes.

King Kong is kind of self-apparent imo. Love the big guy and his female companion. The rest just... no.

Really I don't see why getting more of Middle Earth's history and world on screen is such a bad thing. I mean I get that some wanted only the Hobbit story told, but this material they have rights to has a finite time on it. It will eventually return to the estate. If you wanna see this material on screen including it with the Hobbit was the only real way to go.

For me, it isn't about getting as much on screen as possible. It is about telling the story of the Hobbit on screen as well as possible.

If they want to make other films about Middle Earth, whatever. I probably wouldn't care that much, but ok. But now they are doing this at the expense of The Hobbit imo. Adding bits that happen during the Hobbit is one thing. But turning this in LOTR 2.0 just misses the entire point of the best book in the canon imo.

More importantly from a film perspective, it shows signs of padding. Something that ROTK and King Kong suffered from big time.

 

[Boom]

For me, it isn't about getting as much on screen as possible. It is about telling the story of the Hobbit on screen as well as possible.

If they want to make other films about Middle Earth, whatever. I probably wouldn't care that much, but ok. But now they are doing this at the expense of The Hobbit imo. Adding bits that happen during the Hobbit is one thing. But turning this in LOTR 2.0 just misses the entire point of the best book in the canon imo.

More importantly it shows signs of padding. Something that ROTK and King Kong suffered from big time.

This.

I appreciate that people want to see as much Middle-earth on screen as possible, but it shouldn't come at the expense of the story being told.

 

[Marvolo]

ROTK is overstuffed, and yet leaves so much of what needed to be on screen on the cutting room floor. In favor of multiple endings and Oscar bait scenes.

King Kong is kind of self-apparent imo. Love the big guy and his femal companion. The rest just... no.



For me, it isn't about getting as much on screen as possible. It is about telling the story of the Hobbit on screen as well as possible.

If they want to make other films about Middle Earth, whatever. I probably wouldn't care that much, but ok. But now they are doing this at the expense of The Hobbit imo. Adding bits that happen during the Hobbit is one thing. But turning this in LOTR 2.0 just misses the entire point of the best book in the canon imo.

More importantly from a film perspective, it shows signs of padding. Something that ROTK and King Kong suffered from big time.

And why do you assume they can't tell the Hobbit story adequately? Because they are mixing the Hobbit story in with the apendices material? I don't see how that equals a bad Hobbit story. Basically it seems like Peter is doing two adaptions (Hobbit and Appendices) at once combined into one large film and splitting it in two or three pieces. That doesn't necessarily mean the Hobbit is getting short changed. The Hobbit narrative is still there. It is just surrounded by other material. That doesn't necesarrily equal a bad film, tho.

 

[Victarion]

They can tell the Hobbit story just fine; I think the concern is that it'll be lost in the midst of these other events.

 

[Marvolo]

They can tell the Hobbit story just fine; I think the concern is that it'll be lost in the midst of these other events.

That would be like worrying about any movie's main plot being lost amongst the subplots. Its a legitimate worry, but one that you can't know for sure unless you have watched the film so its useless to worry or judge the film on this matter prior to seeing it. Its especially useless to judge the filmaker on this matter and call the adaption utter garbage or various other slites that have been leveled towards it without having any substantial data that the main story will be lost in the midst of the sub story. Until we have seen the film or at the least have more substantial data and proof why not remain positive? I mean its alot easier and less stressful to be a glass is half full kind of person.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

And why do you assume they can't tell the Hobbit story adequately? Because they are mixing the Hobbit story in with the apendices material? I don't see how that equals a bad Hobbit story. Basically it seems like Peter is doing two adaptions (Hobbit and Appendices) at once combined into one large film and splitting it in two or three pieces. That doesn't necessarily mean the Hobbit is getting short changed. The Hobbit narrative is still there. It is just surrounded by other material. That doesn't necesarrily equal a bad film, tho.

He is taking the story of the Hobbit, and stretching it over multiple films, while adding stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with it. Stuff that theoretically belittles Bilbo's journey. How can the story not be short changed? When Gandalf is off considering some massive war.

Especially when you consider the idea of The Hobbit. Bilbo's story, his journey and lessons are suppose to be the center of the tale. Nothing bigger, no all encompassing foreshadowing of some great war should be involved.

That would be like worrying about any movie's main plot being lost amongst the subplots. Its a legitimate worry, but one that you can't know for sure unless you have watched the film so its useless to worry or judge the film on this matter prior to seeing it. Its especially useless to judge the filmaker on this matter and call the adaption utter garbage or various other slites that have been leveled towards it without having any substantial data that the main story will be lost in the midst of the sub story. Until we have seen the film or at the least have more substantial data and proof why not remain positive? I mean its alot easier and less stressful to be a glass is half full kind of person.

Because the more that comes out about these films, the more flashbacks to King Kong and ROTK I get.

 

[vinsanity]

it is confirmed a 3rd film on PJ facebook

It is only at the end of a shoot that you finally get the chance to sit down and have a look at the film you have made. Recently Fran, Phil and I did just this when we watched for the first time an early cut of the first movie - and a large chunk of the second. We were really pleased with the way the story was coming together, in particular, the strength of the characters and the cast who have brought them to life. All of which gave rise to a simple question: do we take this chance to tell more of the tale? And the answer from our perspective as the filmmakers, and as fans, was an unreserved ‘yes.'

We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance. The richness of the story of The Hobbit, as well as some of the related material in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, allows us to tell the full story of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and the part he played in the sometimes dangerous, but at all times exciting, history of Middle-earth.

So, without further ado and on behalf of New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Wingnut Films, and the entire cast and crew of “The Hobbit” films, I’d like to announce that two films will become three.

It has been an unexpected journey indeed, and in the words of Professor Tolkien himself, "a tale that grew in the telling."

Cheers,

Peter J