Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 4

[Sentinel X]

He's not just splitting the hobbit into 3 films. There is a massive amount of additional events chronicled in the Appendecies that Jackson would be pulling from. I for one am cool with it so long as its done respectably. I love Tolkien and Middle-Earth, so any opportunities to see more is fine with me.

If he is going to be using sub-plots from other Tolkein stories then that is fine by me (I don't know why it would be called The Hobbit trilogy though? ) I just hope they don't stretch an already simple story to make it bigger than it really is. That can end up making the adaptation a mess. A great thing that worked for LOTR is the intensity, it always kept you at the edge of your seat and there was hardly a dull moment. Given that the hobbit is a lot less epic than LOTR by nature, its a bit concerning that they'd want to stretch it out so much. I rather get 1 quality film than 3 watered down films. But if they're using other stories, as you say, then I'm open to it.

 

[CGHulk]

Third 'Hobbit' movie may be coming from Peter Jackson
http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...-third-movie-jackson-20120724,0,2208206.story

 

[Bruce Malone]

It's sad to see the day when movies like this are getting so influenced by decisions made in the twillight and hunger games franchises.

 

[Thedudehimself]

As I said before, this sucks.

Also, I dont want Peter Jackson to stay in middle-earth for too long. I want him to do the TinTIn sequel.

 

[Silvermoth]

Ha! This reminds me of that Academy Award skit PJ did a few years ago.

Two Hollywood producers keep saying "What IF...the Ring WASN'T destroyed?!??!?"

And PJ just keeps saying "But it was".

 

[Donut]

I say more is welcome. In fact do a Hobbit Trilogy & then an Appendices Trilogy

 

[Bruce Malone]

^^^

Pssh why stop there? i want to see a legolas gimli buddy film spin off, a sitcom starring merry and pippin and a paranormal activity style horror film starring those ghost warriors.

 

[Thedudehimself]

Its not even funny

 

[AvengeME]

This is just the reality of the situation. The ideas have run dry. Best to make major motion pictures a part of larger five-six part mini-series with built in fan bases. Once the books/novels dry up Hollywood will go on to something else, like video game franchises. Trilogies should be viewed as one film from now on, with two more trilogies essentially completing the "trilogy". Hollywood has to adapt and this is the only way to have prolonged success.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Books and Novels won't dry up. They are not natural resources. Hollywood has been adapting books forever.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Books will and always should be adapted. It's when you stray so far as to expand something beyond it's means that it becomes ridiculous. Hobbit doesn't have enough for three films to be made. It's the shortest book there is. PLUS where did it say for sure the third film would be the apendices? I just see "third HOBBIT" film not another film in the LOTR franchise.

 

[John Locke]

I love these films to death and there was a time where I wanted to see a Hobbit trilogy but it's too late in the game to turn this duo into a trilogy.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

If it is the appendices being adapted, I'd be cool with that, but the only one worth doing would be the one that describes the Second and Third Age, and was sort of done in Fellowship. But it shouldn't be a part of The Hobbit.

 

[Abudefduf]

Using some of what is in the Appendices to fill in the gaps is fine (White Council, Dol Guldur etc.) but this is getting ridiculous.

And I see people keep talking about "adapting the Appendices", and I'm really wondering what particular part of those Appendices they think could be successfully adapted in a (at least) 2 hours long movie.

 

[superkong 500]

Three movies? if they they divide the hobbit into three films we'll be getting 3 2hr watered down movies.Then they'll probably have to change the title of the second film, it doesn't make sense, what more can they put in to justify a third film? Unless the hobbit ends in part 2 and the third film is a bridge film and then it couldn't be called the hobbit but something else. I hope they don't stretch themselves thin with this otherwise the movies will suffer. If its a bridge film they could maybe focus on aragorn's journeys helping rohan and gondor under the disguise of thorongil(that's if the timeline supports it, unless they change the timeline) ending in him capturing gollum and setting up the events of FotR.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Three movies? if they they divide the hobbit into three films we'll be getting 3 2hr watered down movies.Then they'll probably have to change the title of the second film, it doesn't make sense, what more can they put in to justify a third film? Unless the hobbit ends in part 2 and the third film is a bridge film and then it couldn't be called the hobbit but something else. I hope they don't stretch themselves thin with this otherwise the movies will suffer. If its a bridge film they could maybe focus on aragorn's journeys helping rohan and gondor under the disguise of thorongil(that's if the timeline supports it, unless they change the timeline) ending in him capturing gollum and setting up the events of FotR.

That's something I definitely want to see.

it's certainly a big risk and from an outsider's perspective, seems crazy that Jackson would even consider this. But the thing is, we haven't been a part of the filming process, we haven't been writing the scripts with him and we have no clue how they've been planning on connecting dots. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that I believe that he knows what he's doing and hope for the best.

 

[Marvolo]

Books will and always should be adapted. It's when you stray so far as to expand something beyond it's means that it becomes ridiculous. Hobbit doesn't have enough for three films to be made. It's the shortest book there is. PLUS where did it say for sure the third film would be the apendices? I just see "third HOBBIT" film not another film in the LOTR franchise.

Jackson has made three or four statements about this since before comicon. He discussed that here. He used the apendices in the LOTR trilogy as well.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=92560

“It’s very premature. I mean we have an incredible source material with the appendices because ‘The Hobbit’ is obviously a novel but we also have the rights to use this 125 pages of additional notes where Tolkien expanded the world of ‘The Hobbit’ published at the end of ‘Return of the King’ and we’ve used some of it so far and just in the last few weeks as we’ve been wrapping up the shooting and thinking about the shape of the story, Fran and I have been talking to the studio about other things we haven’t been able to shoot and seeing if we persuade them to do a few more weeks of shooting, probably more than a few weeks actually, next year. And what form that would actually end up taking, well the discussions are pretty early. So there isn’t really anything to report but there’s other parts of the story that we’d like to tell that we haven’t been able to tell yet.“We’ve used more source material than ‘The Hobbit.’ For instance in ‘The Hobbit’ when Gandalf mysteriously disappears for chapters, it was never really explained where he’s gone. Much later Tolkien filled in those details. In these appendices he did talk about what happened. And it was all together a lot darker and more serious than what is written in ‘The Hobbit’. And also to be honest I want to make a series of movies that run together so if any crazy lunatic wants to watch them all in a row there will be a consistency to it, a consistency of tone.“So I don’t want to make a children’s story to go into ‘The Lord of the Rings’ so we are providing a balance. I mean a lot of the comedy and the charm comes from the characters. You’re dealing with Bilbo Baggins who is a bit more reluctant to go on an adventure than Frodo was and with Dwarves who have a personality and camaraderie all of their own, so there’s a lot of humor but there are still some serious themes involved.”

 

[Boom]

Spoiler

 

[Abudefduf]

Spoiler

Is that Gollum... or Peter Lorre?

 

[Sawyer]

Is that the face Gollum makes anytime he takes a ****?

 

[CGHulk]

Is that Gollum... or Peter Lorre?

Or is it Steve Buscemi?

 

[Marvolo]

The detail in gollums skin has been improved quite a bit.

 

[CGHulk]

The detail in gollums skin has been improved quite a bit.

Because of Quantized Diffusion, WETA's rendering of subsurface scattering allowing more topographical detail than previous subsurface scattering.
http://www.eugenedeon.com/qd.html

As was already implemented in the films Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Tintin, and Prometheus.
http://www.fxguide.com/featured/prometheus-rebuilding-hallowed-vfx-space/

 

[<(o_o)>]

Still no Evangeline Lilly promo photos? I'm sure she will look beautiful either way but I still want to see the precious.

 

[Armored Avenger]

If a third Hobbit film, or a bridge movie (which has no book to be adapted from, so will essentially be Jackson trying to tie together disparate threads from the Appendixes) is announced, then my anticipation for these movies and my respect for Jackson will plummet. It just stinks of a lack of self control on the part of the filmmakers and overexploitation of the source material. What started life as an adaptation of a short children's book will become a trilogy of movies fuelled by overindulgence. This is Tolkien - there will always be too much source material to adapt! If Jackson cannot except that and learn where to draw the line (which should be at telling the story of The Hobbit) then he has chosen the wrong material to put onto film.