Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 4

[Iceman]

I'm quite cool with this, so long as the films are good and I see no reason why they won't be. If Pete and co. feel this extra material belongs then so be it. I'm certainly not going to cry until I have something to cry about.

No then you might be too late. What happens if it turns out great and you missed the opportunity to cry when you could? Sieze the moment mate!

 

[Jackasscoley15]

I had no idea how many Tom Bombadil fans there were until Fellowship came out in theaters. You would have thought PJ had cut Frodo out of the movie, some people were so pissed.

 

[Boom]

Perfectly understandable though. Bombadil is a boss.

 

[Kane52630]

It does. It tells me they're using more of JRRT's material in a sensible way and as such I'm getting three movies instead of two and I'm happy about it.

Sorry this news has turned your life into such a cesspool of misery and regret but oh well, in the end I guess you'll have to learn to live with it like any other fanboy who thinks he knows better than the people in charge.

 

[Homer J. Fong]

I do not feel good about this. I thought splitting The Hobbit into two parts was too much - splitting Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows, Breaking Dawn, and Mockingjay in two each reeked of studio greed more than anything (yes, I do realize they exist to make money), and so did expanding The Hobbit. I could believe there was some creative motivation behind that, though, but this? Three parts? For The Hobbit? This just seems ridiculous to me. I'll see them, there's no point pretending I won't, but still...I have a bad taste in my mouth.

Maybe I'm wrong - I often am - and this is a creative decision almost as much as a business one. Maybe there is enough there. I doubt it, but maybe it can work. I'm open to being surprised. I'll be spending the money anyway, so it'd be stupid to go in determined not to enjoy it.

I will need the subtitle for the third part to be The Search for More Money, though.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I must have missed the earlier posts, I thought you were saying it could work & I was agreeing. t:

From memory the appendices cover everything, they're more like a mini-encyclopaedia than anything (although I haven't looked at them in at least 10 years). Surely they just give extra opportunities rather than anything negative. Continual references to it are part of what makes LOTR seem so rich.
King Kong has significant weaknesses (for one it looks like an unedited film complete with every bit of crap that should have been cut) but that doesn't make it terrible. ROTK also has a lame end to its biggest battle and way too much time after the credits should have rolled. Aside from that it's about as far from terrible as you can get. I can name a thousand or so films that nearly everyone would agree are worse off the top of my head.

But I do agree that a 3 film Hobbit is weird, especially when announced this late. I want to see further LOTR universe films but I guess they don't know what to call them or what umbrella to put it under & like you say are looking for a bankable name.

There is a clear difference between referencing material and cutting away from the main tale to watch a completely different story.

Also I could probably find 100,000 worse films. Bollywood is producing them every day. That doesn't improve a mediocre film.

It does. It tells me they're using more of JRRT's material in a sensible way and as such I'm getting three movies instead of two and I'm happy about it.

Sorry this news has turned your life into such a cesspool of misery and regret but oh well, in the end I guess you'll have to learn to live with it like any other fanboy who thinks he knows better than the people in charge.

In a way that Tolkien himself did not find it fit to use. Interesting.

Not a fanboy, just logical and able to see past just like something because it is material I am suppose to like just cause.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You have no idea. Before the release of The Two Towers, it was revelead that Arwen was going to fight at Helm's Deep along with the Elf army.

Massive fan outrage ensued. So massive in fact, that Jackson & Co. had to cut the scene.

And it looked like the fans were right on that one.

I am always find with adaptations being adaptations. I love FOTR. I never understood the Tommy B situation. He was clearly not necessary. But this is clearly different.

This feels like getting ride of the Burning of the Shire in favor of a bunch of other endings. I understood getting rid of the burning, but then did not understand why they decided to end the film the way they did.

Perfectly understandable though. Bombadil is a boss.

Truth is what Boom speaks.

 

[terry78]

Even if the flick in its entirety is good, you know the media is gonna have a field day with it. Most people have had to read or have an inkling about how long the Hobbit is, and they will not pull punches in regarding how it's being set up for three full 2 and half hour flicks each.

 

[danoyse]

I should try and start a drinking game whenever DarthSkywalker mentions how "terrible" King Kong and Return of the King is.

Evidence is evidence. Also, let me help you out with getting a bit drunk right now. King Kong and ROTK are terrible. They are terrible, terrible, terrible.

I can hear your liver shriveling up already.

Let's settle down with the sniping at each other, please.

And I happen to love ROTK.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Let's settle down with the sniping at each other, please.

And I happen to love ROTK.

If ROTK was the only LOTR movie around, it probably wouldn't rank as a above average film for me, but I probably would like it more. But with FOTR and TTT existing, it just feels like a huge disappointment. This coming from someone who initially liked it.

 

[Iceman]

There is a clear difference between referencing material and cutting away from the main tale to watch a completely different story.

Also I could probably find 100,000 worse films. Bollywood is producing them every day. That doesn't improve a mediocre film.

Yeah, that's why we need to see exactly what he is doing. There's obviously a good reason for it being announced so late as it will be a massive further commitment & a lot more risk for the studio (if the 1st disappoints). That it's been approved means there is more to it than we know at the moment.

The point was that most films are worse than ROTK, all things considered. Maybe you don't analyse every other film in as much depth.

 

[Boom]

I have this sinking feeling that this trilogy is going to make The Lord of the Rings look small in comparison.

I mean, they had to cut so much out of those books in order to adapt them to three films, and now we're getting all of this excessive and unnecessary material stuffed into The Hobbit.

This news actually makes me angry again that Bombadil and Glorfindel were cut from the LoTR.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Yeah, that's why we need to see exactly what he is doing. There's obviously a good reason for it being announced so late as it will be a massive further commitment & a lot more risk for the studio (if the 1st disappoints). That it's been approved means there is more to it than we know at the moment.

The point was that most films are worse than ROTK, all things considered. Maybe you don't analyse every other film in as much depth.

Oh I do.

And considering the release, I think we kind of know what we are getting. The full scale return of Sauron and another second very large battle. As to it being approved. Of course the studio said yes. That is one more tent-pole covered for 2014.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I have this sinking feeling that this trilogy is going to make The Lord of the Rings look small in comparison.

I mean, they had to cut so much out of those books in order to adapt them to three films, and now we're getting all of this excessive and unnecessary material in The Hobbit.

This news actually makes me angry again that Bombadil and Glorfindel were cut from the LoTR.

That one did hit the soul a bit.

It is kind of crazy that such a small, most intimate of tales is going to be more epic then the epic.

 

[Iceman]

I have this sinking feeling that this trilogy is going to make The Lord of the Rings look small in comparison.

I mean, they had to cut so much out of those books in order to adapt them to three films, and now we're getting all of this excessive and unnecessary material stuffed into The Hobbit.

This news actually makes me angry again that Bombadil and Glorfindel were cut from the LoTR.

Bombadil is great but I think he's probably one of the hardest characters in the LOTR universe to get right. Also the pacing of the FOTR book is not great to me and part of that is due to the distractions in the 1st half. It might have slowed the film down too much. Glorfindel is a glaring miss though I'll agree. That said Arwen was great at the end of the wraith chase scene.

Given how much they did put in it's a shame that we didn't really see (at least cameos) of the sons of Elrond & Prince of Imrahil. But for high/dark fantasy I don't see any other films coming close to LOTR.

Fair comment though, the scale perspective of the respective trilogies could get out of skew with the way they are doing it. Or maybe they can do a 6 film (1 for each part) LOTR remake afterward to address that problem. t:

 

[Iceman]

Oh I do.

And considering the release, I think we kind of know what we are getting. The full scale return of Sauron and another second very large battle. As to it being approved. Of course the studio said yes. That is one more tent-pole covered for 2014.

Are you sure that you're not analysing it against your own opinion of the book rather than as a film. Out of interest what are your views on the other LOTR films? Also how terrible do you really think it is ...like how much out of 10 & what would be a comparable quality film?

It's not 'of course' at all. If it was that easy why not approve further Hobbit films or anything 'big' for that matter and sort out tentpoles for 2015 & 2016. I'll bet a lot of those involved had similar concerns to yourself. Look at His Dark Materials (intended) & Narnia as fantasy trilogy examples & Matrix Revolutions for an eg of an unnecessarily extended film that didn't work. There's no guarantee that Hobbit III will be a success & if you know different for sure maybe you should be working in Hollywood.

That one did hit the soul a bit.

It is kind of crazy that such a small, most intimate of tales is going to be more epic then the epic.

Agree.

 

[smashmode]

Confirmed:

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

http://io9.com/5930200/confirmed-th...utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

 

[smashmode]

I guess I am okay with it, Just don't mess it up Peter

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Are you sure that you're not analysing it against your own opinion of the book rather than as a film. Out of interest what are your views on the other LOTR films? Also how terrible do you really think it is ...like how much out of 10 & what would be a comparable quality film?

It's not 'of course' at all. If it was that easy why not approve further Hobbit films or anything 'big' for that matter and sort out tentpoles for 2015 & 2016. I'll bet a lot of those involved had similar concerns to yourself. Look at His Dark Materials (intended) & Narnia as fantasy trilogy examples & Matrix Revolutions for an eg of an unnecessarily extended film that didn't work. There's no guarantee that Hobbit III will be a success & if you know different for sure maybe you should be working in Hollywood.


Agree.

I separate the films from the books. I mentioned this earlier. I love FOTR. Love it. One of my favorite films. It is great and TTT is also very good imo, though clearly inferior. I don't do number scores. A number can't articulate my feelings for a film. There are plenty of bits I like in ROTK, but as a whole it isn't more then mediocre at best. It is incredibly bloated and clearly got away from Jackson.

And don't give them any idea. I am sure they would love the idea of more of these films. LOTR is an established franchise that is going to come out in 3D. Even if it doesn't smash the world, it will still clear good money, just like the SW prequels.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I have this sinking feeling that this trilogy is going to make The Lord of the Rings look small in comparison.

I mean, they had to cut so much out of those books in order to adapt them to three films, and now we're getting all of this excessive and unnecessary material stuffed into The Hobbit.

This news actually makes me angry again that Bombadil and Glorfindel were cut from the LoTR.

You have to understand that at the time, they really don't have the resources that they would have now. But still... from a screenwriting perspective, Tom just brings the entire plot to one big halt. It's all about momentum and Tom showing up would just have slowed the plot down to this standstill. It did not need to be there at all. It always still applies. Just because they're making a whole other film where they can have more material doesn't mean certain things that normally wouldn't work in adaptations now automatically would work. I don't think any of us will know better until we see the film. The point is we're not there with Jackson and them making these decisions.

I'm gonna wait to see how these turn out before I cast condemning judgement. Maybe three films will work out for the best, I don't know. None of us know, but I think we have the right to our views in the approach they're taking. I don't blame people for being apprehensive at all about this. Me, I'd rather look at this in a positive way instead of pessimistic though, because Jackson and co did adapt LOTR into something truly successful, and hell, better. Yes I said it. But really, look at what they did. If they can adapt something like LOTR, they really have a good chance of making this worthwhile. There's nothing wrong with having concerns. Because really, this has never been done before. We just don't know.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You have to understand that at the time, they really don't have the resources that they would have now. But still... from a screenwriting perspective, Tom just brings the entire plot to one big halt. It's all about momentum and Tom showing up would just have slowed the plot down to this standstill. It did not need to be there at all. It always still applies. Just because they're making a whole other film where they can have more material doesn't mean certain things that normally wouldn't work in adaptations now automatically would work.

I'm gonna wait to see how these turn out before I cast condemning judgement. Maybe three films will work out for the best, I don't know. None of us know, but I think we have the right to our views in the approach they're taking. I don't blame people for being apprehensive at all about this. Me, I'd rather look at this in a positive way instead of pessimistic though, because Jackson and co did adapt LOTR into something truly successful, and hell, better. Yes I said it.

I would agree if not for ROTK. The book is much better, if just for the Witch King/Gandalf confrontation. Also didn't have the really inappropriate melodramatic stuff in abundance. Every last moment cannot be life and death, with tears. At the end of the tale I liked the hobbits. by the end of the film, I actually kind of disliked Wood and really disliked Astin. The only one I missed after the Mt. Doom trip was Gollum. Thank God for Wilfred.

But still, I'd probably take the first two films over their books.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I think the movie ending is much, much better than the book. The Scourging of the Shire was just too much after all that. Much more emotional and satisfying.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I think the movie ending is much, much better than the book. The Scourging of the Shire was just too much after all that. Much more emotional and satisfying.

I can't stand the ending of the film. The movie suddenly becomes surreal, with weird lighting and a lot of random slow motion. From creepy uncle Gimli to whatever that is suppose to be with the Eagles, it couldn't be any less organic. They stretch every last moment out and it is cringe-worthy. This all comes after everyone has basically been crying for a couple of hours, multiple times. Sam cries, Frodo cries, Aragorn cries, Gandalf cries, Eownn breaks down (the only one deserving, even if they have her go emo for the first half of the film), Faramir gets teary-eyed, Pippin and Merry rarely stop crying. It is ridiculous. There is just so many times you can go for that emotional impact before you just blunt your weapon. Not to mention Astin just got progressively worse in the films and he is just an annoyance by the end. That so much surrounds him just kills it stone dead.

Just compare it to the finale of FOTR. It is no contest. FOTR, from the moment they leave Lothlorien is almost on ESB level.

 

[Doctor Jones]

You made me want to watch ROTK now.

 

[jacobed]

I can't stand the ending of the film. The movie suddenly becomes surreal, with weird lighting and a lot of random slow motion. From creepy uncle Gimli to whatever that is suppose to be with the Eagles, it couldn't be any less organic. They stretch every last moment out and it is cringe-worthy. This all comes after everyone has basically been crying for a couple of hours, multiple times. Sam cries, Frodo cries, Aragorn cries, Gandalf cries, Eownn breaks down (the only one deserving, even if they have her go emo for the first half of the film), Faramir gets teary-eyed, Pippin and Merry rarely stop crying. It is ridiculous. There is just so many times you can go for that emotional impact before you just blunt your weapon. Not to mention Astin just got progressively worse in the films and he is just an annoyance by the end. That so much surrounds him just kills it stone dead.

Just compare it to the finale of FOTR. It is no contest. FOTR, from the moment they leave Lothlorien is almost on ESB level.

I know you're gettin a lot of hate but I agree with you.