Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
I say the hell with it. I am all for it. Gives me something to look forward to at the box office for the next few Decembers. I just hope it is of the same quality as the OT. No reason why it can't be.

The trilogy is the new standard in Hollywood. Don't blow your load in one film. Franchise movies have to be planned as a trilogy from the getgo. There is no reason whatsoever why studios shouldn't be allowed to secure themselves for multiple years with proven or hot box office commodities.
 
This hasnt been confirmed but


487841_10150998681074821_2127618685_n.jpg


And a great post by Dead By Shaun over at Bluray.com detailing how the book could be broken into three parts.

First off, I don't think a bridge film is likely, as there isn't a strong enough narrative and it would require Jackson and his team to invent too much material. It would make much more sense to grab various plot details from the Appendices and weave them into The Hobbit, rather then try to conceive an entirely new film based on the Appendices alone.Secondly, Jackson recently admitted that he shot way more footage than he initially expected, which indicates to me that it's entirely possible that he could shift the break points in each of the films and create a third, simply by filming a couple more months next year and combining it with the footage he already has. Remember, he only just wrapped principal photography a couple weeks ago and is just now entering the post-production stage, so a complete edit of the first film likely does not exist yet, is only in a rough format, or is too long. The reason that talks with the studio right now regarding a third film are so critical is that a decision would need to be made sooner, rather than later, in order for Jackson to know how to properly edit and place the break point in the first film, should a third film be approved. I think it's highly likely that a decision about this will be reached in the next couple weeks.Anyhow, with that out of the way here's what I came up with based on chapters from The Hobbit. I hope you enjoy...The Hobbit - Part One: An Unexpected Journey- An Unexpected Party (Bilbo meets Thorin & company)- Roast Mutton (Trolls)- A Short Rest (Elrond and Rivendell)- Over Hill And Under Hill (The goblins and the Goblin King)- Riddles In The Dark (Bilbo discovers the ring of power and meets Gollum)- Out Of The Frying Pan Into The Fire (Wargs, Goblins, burning trees, and Eagles' rescue)- Queer Lodgings (Beorn)- Flies And Spiders (Mirkwood and Spider Attack)The first film would be quite linear, similar to Fellowship of the Ring (which also began in the Shire). An Unexpected Journey would follow Bilbo, Gandalf and the Dwarves as they begin their journey. Gandalf leaves just as they're about to enter Mirkwood Forest where Bilbo must do battle with the spiders. It's likely that we would get our first glimpse of Radagast the Brown around this time, as he would probably be Gandalf's first point of destination since Radagast lives on the western eaves of Mirkwood and is friends with Beorn. The film ends shortly after the spider battle when the dwarves are captured by the Wood Elves and Bilbo is left alone to fend for himself.The Hobbit - Part Two: The Desolation of Smaug- Barrels Out of Bond (The Elven King, escape from the Wood Elves)- A Warm Welcome (arrival at Laketown)- On The Doorstep (the ascent up Lonely Mountain, search for the secret door)- Inside Information (Bilbo confronts Smaug)- Fire And Water (destruction of Laketown and death of Smaug)The second film would follow two story lines: one of course being Bilbo and the dwarves, while the other would explain where Gandalf went. The film would start out with Bilbo rescuing and reuniting with the dwarves by escaping from the Wood Elves and into barrels on the river, then continuing on their journey all the way to Lonely Mountain. Gandalf's story would obviously utilize the LOTR Appendices for extra material and contain a plot concerning the White Council, Dol Guldur and the Necromancer (Sauron). I would surmise that we may see more back history on the town of Dale (especially since Jackson has commented in his VLOGs that its set construction rivals those built for LOTR), probably told by the Bard once the dwarves and Bilbo arrive in Laketown, and we would also be introduced to the controversial new character Tauriel, which would obviously be introduced in the hall of the Elven King. The film would end following the destruction of Laketown and the death of Smaug.The Hobbit - Part Three: There And Back Again- Not At Home (Thorin reclaims his treasure, Bilbo finds the Arkenstone)- The Gathering Of The Clouds (Armies of Men and Elves appear and lay claim to Thorin's gold)- A Thief In The Night (Bilbo sneaks away from Thorin to negotiate with the Bard and Elven King)- The Clouds Burst (The Battle of Five Armies)- The Return Journey (The aftermath and Thorin's death)- The Last Stage (Back in Hobbiton)The third film would focus on Thorin Oakenshield and the growing strain on his relationship with Bilbo as he prepares for battle to defend his reclaimed treasure. This could allow for flashback sequences derived from the LOTR Appendices concerning Durin's Folk (which includes the Battle of Azanulbizar) as Thorin may try to explain to Bilbo the nature of dwarves and why they would fight to protect what they consider rightfully theirs. We would also see the resolution of the White Council story line in which the Necromancer (Sauron) flees Dol Guldur. The film would climax with the Battle of Five Armies, mirroring the epic nature and scale of The Return of the King's battle sequences, and wind down with Bilbo's journey back home.Breaking the trilogy down in this manner would give each of the three films an epic climax:- Film One: Bilbo battling the spiders- Film Two: The death of Smaug- Film Three: The Battle of Five ArmiesI swapped chapter 13 "Not At Home" with chapter 14 "Fire And Water," as technically the events in these chapters don't happen in chronological order and it obviously makes for a better climax at the end of film two. Chapter 13 deals with the dwarves and Bilbo hiding inside Lonely Mountain and wondering if Smaug will return, all the while not realizing that Smaug is already dead. Chapter 14 explains what happens to Smaug while the dwarves were hiding and waiting inside the mountain.Oh, and if you haven't already guessed... I'm one of the crazies that thinks a trilogy could actually work... oh yeah, and one more thing... I'm also looking forward to the day when I can view back-to-back Middle-Earth trilogies as well!*
 
Last edited:
I'd name whatever the last film is as "There and Back Again"
 
I wonder if they will change the name of the first one to Riddles in the Dark since they have at site.
 
I think the first films title fits perfectly. Bilbo still goes on an unexpected journey. Plus the marketing for that film has already begun and a title change on it would cause confusion for the average person.
 
I think the first films title fits perfectly. Bilbo still goes on an unexpected journey. Plus the marketing for that film has already begun and a title change on it would cause confusion for the average person.

i dont think so. It's still called The Hobbit. And I havent seen the marketing so underway that it'll really matter.

But I do agree that an unexpected journey is a fitting title
 
The third film title

There and Back Again and There Some Time Later
 
I say the hell with it. I am all for it. Gives me something to look forward to at the box office for the next few Decembers. I just hope it is of the same quality as the OT. No reason why it can't be.

The trilogy is the new standard in Hollywood. Don't blow your load in one film. Franchise movies have to be planned as a trilogy from the getgo. There is no reason whatsoever why studios shouldn't be allowed to secure themselves for multiple years with proven or hot box office commodities.

That is what a cash grab is defined as.
 
Those potential new names are horrible. 'Unexpected Journey' and 'There and Back Again' had a whimsical charm that suited the book and were focused on Bilbo's journey. These new names seem to be trying to be epic fantasy titles in the vein of the Lord of the Rings, at the expense of focusing on the Hobbit himself. As a result they don't partner with 'Unexpected Journey' as well as 'There and Back Again' would. The story is not about the area of land desolated by Smaug or the final battle, but about the journey of Bilbo and the Dwarves. The titles should reflect that. And having an entire film named after one battle scene is worrying. The Battle of Five Armies was small scale when compared to the battles fought in the War of the Ring, yet naming the entire final movie after it suggests that its going to attempt to out do Pelennor Fields in scope. I hope it doesn't get dragged out to a needlessly long length just to fill out the run time of the last film.
'There and Back Again' was the best title out of all of them and I would hate to see it not used at all.
 
Last edited:
That is what a cash grab is defined as.

Business: that which Hollywood is defined as.

I honestly dont think Peter is doing this for money. The studio may have apprpved it because of the money but Peter pitched it because he wanted to do it.
 
I say the hell with it. I am all for it. Gives me something to look forward to at the box office for the next few Decembers. I just hope it is of the same quality as the OT. No reason why it can't be.

The trilogy is the new standard in Hollywood. Don't blow your load in one film. Franchise movies have to be planned as a trilogy from the getgo. There is no reason whatsoever why studios shouldn't be allowed to secure themselves for multiple years with proven or hot box office commodities.


But this is not an adaptation of a huge tapestry of different works like superhero films.

If you look at the EE's of Lord of the Rings the runtime comes to about 11 hours. The Hobbit as a book is around three times smaller, and even with appendices it shouldn't come to a runtime of 9 hours, which it is likely too.
 
Complain, dislike it, or like it we are getting three films either way. All we can do is wait for the films to come out and watch them.
 
Complain, dislike it, or like it we are getting three films either way. All we can do is wait for the films to come out and watch them.

But in the meantime our ANGRY little fingers can FLY across our keyboards expressing our OUTRAGE! RRARGH!
 
Business: that which Hollywood is defined as.

I honestly dont think Peter is doing this for money. The studio may have apprpved it because of the money but Peter pitched it because he wanted to do it.

I agree.
 
Yeah I believe Jackson did it because he believes he can make a good film the studio did it so they have a tent pole for the next three Christmases.
 
You'd think a studio like WB would be up to their necks in tentpoles for summer and winter.

You'd think that. :o
 
Yeah I believe Jackson did it because he believes he can make a good film the studio did it so they have a tent pole for the next three Christmases.

This. Nolans batman franchise being finished has them wanting to pick up guaranteed successes. They see an opportunity to make a sure fire profit for the next three christmas. Theyd have been foolish not to.
 
Wow. Just read that WB is planning the third film for summer 2014. Now that is something that turns me off. Guess they were so desperate to stay competitive that year with Marvel properties locking up all the good summer release dates. Please keep it December for the love of God. Hopefully production get delayed to give Jackson more time. That is a pure "we need to get our dick in the door that summer" move by WB.
 
Wow. Just read that WB is planning the third film for summer 2014. Now that is something that turns me off. Guess they were so desperate to stay competitive that year with Marvel properties locking up all the good summer release dates. Please keep it December for the love of God. Hopefully production get delayed to give Jackson more time. That is a pure "we need to get our dick in the door that summer" move by WB.

Last i heard it was still December.
 
I'm just afraid that this is a growing trend. In five years I don't want all my movies being split into two or three parts. I understand that the story demands it sometimes (Deathly Hallows benefitted from two movies, Breaking Dawn not so much) but the vast majority of the time I don't think it's necessary.

And I don't think it's needed for the Hobbit. I enjoy sitting down for a movie and seeing it in it's entirety. Dragging out the story for money just frustrates me.
 
Last edited:
I'm just afraid that this is a growing trend. In five years I don't want all my movies being split into two or three parts. I understand that the story demands it sometimes (Deathly Hallows benefitted from two movies, Breaking Dawn not so much) but the vast majority of the time I don't think it's necessary.

And I don't think it's needed for the Hobbit. I enjoy sitting down for a movie and seeing it in it's entirety. Dragging out the story for money just frustrates me.

You can thank our ADHD culture and the increased competition for this. Used to films were released regardless of length. If they go too long there was an intermission. Today however if it isnt over in at least 2:30 hours people are complaining. People either have to learn to set for 3-4 hours, bring back the intermission, or release it in two parts 6 months to a year apart.

I would much rather have a 4 hour films with intermissions, but its not really feasable in todays culture and it isnt very feasable financially given the amount of showings movies need to make their insame budgets back and compete with the handful of other films released.
 
Last edited:
People don't have the time to watch a film for 4 hours, unless they plan an entire day around it. Also film studios would never do it because that would mean less showings, less showings mean longer in the cinema as well as less repeat viewings and they all equal less money.

I'm fine with films running at 140-180 mins.
 
Hell, an hour and forty minutes is pushing it for some.

"Isn't this movie over yet?" I heard this at a showing for a flick that was like 80 minutes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
201,738
Messages
22,018,662
Members
45,810
Latest member
MylesBDyson618
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"