Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 4

[regwec]

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.

I totally agree. A lot of the charm of The Hobbit comes from its rather immersive simplicity. The lead character gets together with some companions, and they go on a fairytale adventure. They grow on you, they all develop, and our unlikely hero learns a lot and returns home a better (and richer) person. The End. The story is in the telling.

I don't see how this (evidently) winning formula can be improved by procrastination of its key plot points, the invasive exploration of its simple characters, or the infiltration of a lot of new material.

Bad idea, PJ. Tell the story as it is, then do an independent spin-off if you must.

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.

On the other hand, I think that the Silmarillion is ripe for adaptation by someone like PJ. It reads, to me, like a graveyard of stories, with only the skeletons remaining in a loose sequence. You could make any number of highly successful fantasy films by adding narrative texture and flesh-and-blood characters to these compelling ideas. I would love to see Beren and Luthien storm Melkor's dungeons.

Neither played by Taylor Lautner of K-Stew, please?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

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.

ROTK actually needed the time, but it was not used correctly at all. That film is a mess of the highest order.

 

[Marvolo]

ROTK is a hard film for me to love. Its got so much right in it, but so much wrong as well. The pace is the biggest problem I have with both TTT and ROTK, and it has nothing to do with the length. I prefer the EE's. The problem is the way Peter inter-weaved Frodo and Sam's story in with the rest of the narrative. I think it was the right decision to do so, but the way Peter executed it was close to awful. Everytime it cuts back to Frodo and Sam the film's pace almost comes to a complete stop. I'm not sure this was entirely avoidable, but Peter could have come up with a way to make Frodo and Sam's journey more involving and less "along for the walk" that it is in its current state. I want to care about Frodo's journey and I do, but cutting away from the rest of the cast's adventures to Frodo's walking and talking just doesn't quite cut it. It is my biggest gripe with these films.

For this reason FOTR is and always will be my favorite and IMO the most well made of the three. The pace was conistent, and the movie was focused much better than the other two.

 

[regwec]

You have to remember that LOTR was originally intended to be six books, with the sections concerning Frodo and Sam being published at significant intervals from the more kinetic episodes involving Strider, Legolas, Gimli etc.

Frodo, Sam and Gollum's thread is a slower one than the others. It is best left to be experienced alone. Not sure that could have been done in a film, though.

 

[Marvolo]

You have to remember that LOTR was originally intended to be six books, with the sections concerning Frodo and Sam being published at significant intervals from the more kinetic episodes involving Strider, Legolas, Gimli etc.

Frodo, Sam and Gollum's thread is a slower one than the others. It is best left to be experienced alone. Not sure that could have been done in a film, though.

Actually, Tolkien wanted all 6 books published in one binding, but it was cost prohibitive at the time what with ink and paper still being expensive comodities. It was only due to that that it was split into 3 volumes consisting of 2 books each. Tolkien never liked that, but it was that or no publishment. Least this is what those who knew him, and write about the books publication say.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Fellowship of the Ring is probably the greatest blockbuster film of the young century. The Empire Strikes Back or Raiders of our time. The Avengers comes in at a distant second.

 

[Kane52630]

Actually, Tolkien wanted all 6 books published in one binding, but it was cost prohibitive at the time what with ink and paper still being expensive comodities. It was only due to that that it was split into 3 volumes consisting of 2 books each. Tolkien never liked that, but it was that or no publishment. Least this is what those who knew him, and write about the books publication say.

Yeah that's why I consider the LOTR films as one sole epic.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You have to remember that LOTR was originally intended to be six books, with the sections concerning Frodo and Sam being published at significant intervals from the more kinetic episodes involving Strider, Legolas, Gimli etc.

Frodo, Sam and Gollum's thread is a slower one than the others. It is best left to be experienced alone. Not sure that could have been done in a film, though.

But that doesn't mean it couldn't have been adapted better. Probably should of found more fitting, less annoying actors who are no joy to be around without the rest of the crew.

Yeah that's why I consider the LOTR films as one sole epic.

That maybe, but they are separate films. As you said, films.

Fellowship of the Ring is probably the greatest blockbuster film of the young century. The Empire Strikes Back or Raiders of our time. The Avengers comes in at a distant second.

TDK is far ahead of The Avengers. On par with FOTR, if not better, with Begins not far behind. I'd probably take a few of the Potters (the first three and OoTP) ahead of the Avengers, though not above the other three. Then there is CR.

 

[Kane52630]

Eh, for me it's no different than the two parters for the last Harry Potter film. It should be viewed as one film, otherwise it's a incomplete film.

 

[John Locke]

Yeah I view them all as one film also and as the Extended versions. It takes the whole day so I only do it once a year.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Eh, for me it's no different than the two parters for the last Harry Potter film. It should be viewed as one film, otherwise it's a incomplete film.

Except there are three films. You even acknowledged that.

Watch FOTR, TTT and HP7. They are complete films all by themselves. The problem with the last Harry Potter and ROTK is they are not. It is why they can't really compare quality wise to the films that came earlier in the series.

The idea that it is only one film is broken when you look at the films themselves. Yes they are one over arching story, but they each have their own stories, just like any film series. Each film has it own unique characters, look, locations, tone, themes and ideas. More importantly they are each cut as such. Just watch all three films. They are different and structured as their own adventure.

Does it really make sense that it is all one film when you watch TTT start with a recap of something that happened in FOTR? Or how random the beginning of ROTK is if it follows on directly from the end of TTT? Or how the TTT clearly ends with sequel baiting?

 

[Gianakin_]

Well, well. I'm not surprised at all by the news. Classic post-FotR PJ.

 

[CGHulk]

Here's a quote from Peter at Comic Con.

I think the chances of me living to about 110 are very remote. No, the Silmarillion is totally owned by the Tolkien Estate, it's not owned by Warners or MGM like The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings, and I don't think the Tolkien Estate likes these movies at all, so I wouldn't imagine that the Silmarillion's going to go anywhere for quite a long time.

 

[Jackasscoley15]

This quote from PJ slightly worries me, as I thought the bigatures from LOTR looked spectacular:

The technology that advanced the most, in the last 10 or 12 years, is really the fact that we did a lot of miniature shooting on The Lord of the Rings. All the big architectural structures of Middle Earth were really miniatures, some of them quite large. But, you’re limited to what you can do with a miniature because you literally have to have a big camera that has to sweep past it, so you can’t get too close to it and the detail doesn’t hold up too well, if you do.

This time around, there are no miniatures. It’s all done with CGI. Everything that we need to build, from a miniature point of view, we build as a CG miniature. I can now swoop in, over rooftops and through doorways. I can do things that I never could have dreamt of doing with the miniatures. For me, that’s actually one of the most profound differences.

Via Collider

 

[Kane52630]

Well he's talking about the miniatures not the bigatures, at least that's what I hope he meant.

 

[Jackasscoley15]

I think he's including the bigatures in that statement, as he says "some of them quite large". He also mentions that "it's all being done with CGI".

 

[Kane52630]

Well that kinda sucks but hey, Peter Jackson knows best.

 

[redhawk23]

Yeah I'm not pleased with that quote at all.

He talks about how hard it was to have the details stand up to scrutiny with the miniatures but that's exactly what drove them to be so specific with all the detail that they included and a major part of why they still ended up looking so good.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Well that kinda sucks but hey, Peter Jackson knows best.

He has proven since FOTR that probably isn't the case.

 

[Kane52630]

For you.

 

[Boom]

Interview with Peter Jackson. He confirms that we'll see glimpses of Smaug in the first film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgc_Lqhk7oA

 

[DarthSkywalker]

For you.

At least a few here seemingly agree. He hasn't made a good film since TTT. ROTK was a mess, King Kong was worse and The Lovely Bones was just there.

I am hoping this will be good. I want him to return to his FOTR form. But the more they talk about this film, the more I don't see it happening. It reeks of excess in the worse way. Two films to tell The Hobbit. Really? The FOTR took less then 3 hours and it was a far denser story.

 

[regwec]

PJ seems to be trying to make the transition that took George Lucas and Stephen Spielberg decades in a few years.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

PJ seems to be trying to make the transition that took George Lucas and Stephen Spielberg decades in a few years.

What do you mean?

 

[Kane52630]

At least a few here seemingly agree.

Good for them, It still doesn't change my opinion as much as you want it to. Every film that i've seen by this guy has been excellent.