Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 4

[DarthSkywalker]

Didn't Tolkien come up with some of that stuff after the initial publication of his books?

It was background info, world building, fill in the blank material. Tolkien was big on crafting a world with its own language, culture and history. It wasn't so he could change the story. His only ever attempt to do that was the changes made to Riddles in the Dark.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Would make sense. The Hobbit over 3 films is a bit of a stretch but if it's going to be a general film in the LOTR universe using all the lore from the appendices in addition to the Hobbit story it might work.

Why would it work? The story told in The Hobbit has nothing to do with that stuff. It is completely superfluous to what is happening.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Do the characters in The Hobbit even tie in someway into these other tales? In LOTR, you had multiple stories going on at once but at the same time ALL CHARACTERS were connected even in a "six degrees to Kevin Bacon" sort of way - do these appendices have this? If so, then yes it can flow together. Is there also a cause and effect between these events and Bilbo's journey even in the slightest? If no, then yeah it is going to seem like way too much is tossed in and disconnected which would hurt it.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Gandalf is involved. Elrond is slightly involved. There are characters from LOTR that are involved. But it has nothing at all to do with Bilbo's journey, and doesn't effect in the slightest.

 

[terry78]

So basically Jackson is expanding to three flicks in order to expand upon the stuff that was alluded to going on during Bilbo's adventure. I won't lie, if it was anyone else we'd say they were going for a cash grab, so I don't know just yet.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Do the characters in The Hobbit even tie in someway into these other tales? In LOTR, you had multiple stories going on at once but at the same time ALL CHARACTERS were connected even in a "six degrees to Kevin Bacon" sort of way - do these appendices have this? If so, then yes it can flow together. Is there also a cause and effect between these events and Bilbo's journey even in the slightest? If no, then yeah it is going to seem like way too much is tossed in and disconnected which would hurt it.

There's back story on characters like Gimli; Denethor and his sons Faramir and Boromir; the story of Aragorn being tasked by Gandalf to hunt down Gollum prior to FotR (as well as stuff Aragorn did before that); history of Rohan and Gondor; Gandalf and the White Council and their battle with the Necromancer (which is what Gandalf is doing when he abandons Bilbo in The Hobbit)...there's a lot that could be molded into additional stories, and considering how Tolkien writes, the Appendices are not lacking for detail.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

There is a big difference between additional stories and integrating the stuff at the back of the books into a story that already exist.

The Aragorn stuff makes slight sense, though I thought Viggo wasn't coming back?

 

[Spider-Who?]

So basically Jackson is expanding to three flicks in order to expand upon the stuff that was alluded to going on during Bilbo's adventure. I won't lie, if it was anyone else we'd say they were going for a cash grab, so I don't know just yet.

Jackson and his team love Middle-Earth. There is no question there. I think that his desire to do a third movie is very much about his passion and desire to continue to live in Tolkien's world. And personally, I'm totally cool with seeing more of Peter Jackson's interpretation of Tolkien's words. Sure, I don't want it to turn out bad, but I've got faith in Jackson and his team to do the best job they can. I say bring it on.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Jackson and his team love Middle-Earth. There is no question there. I think that his desire to do a third movie is very much about his passion and desire to continue to live in Tolkien's world. And personally, I'm totally cool with seeing more of Peter Jackson's interpretation of Tolkien's words. Sure, I don't want it to turn out bad, but I've got faith in Jackson and his team to do the best job they can. I say bring it on.

They blew that when they decided not to simply tell the story of the Hobbit. And he loved King Kong as well. That didn't really go all that well.

If they really wanted to do that, why not just make them all separate films? Why slice up the Hobbit?

 

[BobbyCorwin88]

Was the fanboy rage this bad throughout the LOTR trilogy? Holy over-exaggeration Batman.

Yes a third movie is a stretch, but it honestly doesn't surprise me coming from Pete Jackson's crew. Has anyone ever sat down and watched the appendices to the LOTR trilogy? You know, the giant 10+ hour documentaries on how the films were made? You've got some of the most committed and well-rounded people in the history of film making on this crew and they've literally lived in this world for over a decade of their lives. It's no wonder to me that many of them would jump at the chance to keep making movies about middle-earth, seeing as how they've done it so well. From that standpoint, this third film makes perfect sense to me.

Now from a story-telling standpoint; as long as it all somehow ties into Bilbo's tale, it has a chance of working. Note how I say it has a chance. It's very possible that Bilbo will be put on the back burner when compared to the rest of the stuff going on in middle-earth, but I really am willing to give Pete the benefit of the doubt here. The LOTR trilogy really didn't leave any room for me to doubt his story-telling abilities. I think he knows and understands this material well enough to form something cohesive and engaging onto film, and I'm not just saying that because I adore LOTR. He really does understand middle-earth, enough to where he can add in stuff that wasn't necessarily in the books and still have it make sense and not take you out of the moment.

The only reason this move is skeptical is because the Hobbit itself isn't as long a tale as LOTR, so the very reasonable question of how can we stretch all that over 3 films is very valid. I get the concern that Jackson is favoring an appendices movie over a movie solely about Bilbo Baggins. The thing I remind myself of here is that middle-earth is quite a big place and Jackson was able to showcase that very well in his trilogy. The world felt alive and lived in because he took the time to explore the different cultures and people that resided there. They had character and weren't just lifeless shells that stood around our protagonists never daring to rob them of their spotlight. I see no reason to abandon that philosophy with these films as well. The culture of middle-earth is important and shouldn't be glossed over just so we can focus on Bilbo. If you actually read the book, we don't actually get to spend a whole lot of time with the other characters outside of Bilbo and co. I would have liked to explore the wood elves more and Lake Town was almost like a side trip for the company until Smaug shows up and blows the place up. There's a lot of fleshing out over those two events alone that I'd really appreciate it. I imagine we'll be spending more time in the goblin caves with Gollum as well, since that event happened rather quickly too.

So even though I find this a weird move, I do understand it and I'm willing to give one of my favorite film makers the benefit of the doubt and see what he has to show me. The only move I still won't agree with is his decision to shoot in 3D and the whole 48fps thing. 48fps might have the potential to be something, but I don't think I can ever be convinced on 3D.

 

[Kane52630]

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

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It is skeptical from a simple film-making standpoint. They took a single story, divided it into two films, now less then half a year before the first film is released, they have decided to add a film. Think about that. They just added a film. How is this going to effect the editing of the film do out in less then 5 months? Heck the second film. Are they simply going to "end" The Hobbit portion in the second film, or are they going to stretch it out into the third. If that is the case, come on. That will clearly have a massive effect, and the likelihood of each of these films have their own identity like FOTR and TTT is doubtful.

Also why the Hobbit is Bilbo's story, it already has plenty of vibrant characters to use. No need to others.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

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.

 

[Lucien]

Do the characters in The Hobbit even tie in someway into these other tales? In LOTR, you had multiple stories going on at once but at the same time ALL CHARACTERS were connected even in a "six degrees to Kevin Bacon" sort of way - do these appendices have this? If so, then yes it can flow together. Is there also a cause and effect between these events and Bilbo's journey even in the slightest? If no, then yeah it is going to seem like way too much is tossed in and disconnected which would hurt it.

Gandalf had ulterior motives for the quest to Erebor. With Sauron returning to power he didn't want to see an extremely powerful dragon under his sway so he saw Thorin's plight as an opporunity to get rid of Smaug. Just imagine how screwed Middle-Earth would have been if Sauron regained the One Ring and commanded both Smaug and Durin's Bane.

 

[Spider-Who?]

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 get the hate with King Kong (I felt it was too bloated in the middle), but I don't get the hate with RotK. What did you find so terrible about it?

 

[Abudefduf]

It is skeptical from a simple film-making standpoint. They took a single story, divided it into two films, now less then half a year before the first film is released, they have decided to add a film. Think about that. They just added a film. How is this going to effect the editing of the film do out in less then 5 months? Heck the second film. Are they simply going to "end" The Hobbit portion in the second film, or are they going to stretch it out into the third. If that is the case, come on. That will clearly have a massive effect, and the likelihood of each of these films have their own identity like FOTR and TTT is doubtful.

Also why the Hobbit is Bilbo's story, it already has plenty of vibrant characters to use. No need to others.

Not really a problem, considering that Jackson writes the script as he shoots. He himself said it.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I get the hate with King Kong (I felt it was too bloated in the middle), but I don't get the hate with RotK. What did you find so terrible about it?

ROTK is not terrible, just a huge mess. It is one of those films that tries to do too many things, and thus does way less with more because of it. It becomes a bloated and slow. The film should have belonged to Gandalf the general, the very end of Frodo and Sam's journey, and Aragorn's quest. Instead it is stretched thin, not really telling any of the stories with any real satisfaction. The EE reaffirm this. There are so many bits in the theatrical cut that could be cut in favor of stuff that was left for the EE.

It didn't help that he didn't seem to know how to finish The Frodo/Sam story. It is edited weirdly into the film and just doesn't work.

Also from just a fan perspective, he completely "missed" Gandalf in the film, shown most obviously in the EE confrontation between him and The Witch King. ROTK Gandalf would never cower, he would never be defeated or seemingly afraid.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Not really a problem, considering that Jackson writes the script as he shoots. He himself said it.

He also edits while he films. So he has been editing the first film for a long while now, with the idea that it was going to be two films. Now he is either going to simply edit/stretch the material into three films, film a third separate film, or splice new and old material together to make three different films.

Think about it. You are completely changing the pacing and individual films. What was once a climax is now possibly the beginning of a film.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

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.

Was the fanboy rage this bad throughout the LOTR trilogy? Holy over-exaggeration Batman.

I wasn't online much at the time but I'm sure it was. It always is.

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

I can hear your liver shriveling up already.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

That you can call it "extra" material should tell you something.

 

[mclay18]

I'm actually shocked Jackson and New Line/WB actually decided to make it a trilogy. Financially it makes sense, but is there more than enough footage and story to justify it? I know Jackson and his writers incorporated a lot of Tolkien's appendices into The Hobbit narrative to make the bridge film viable. But... enough for three films? I can't see it.

And I'm sure WB appreciates the move, as the as-determined summer 2014 date guarantees them a blockbuster for that year while their DC Comics films are up in the air.

 

[Abudefduf]

I wasn't online much at the time but I'm sure it was. It always is.

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.

 

[Iceman]

Why would it work? The story told in The Hobbit has nothing to do with that stuff. It is completely superfluous to what is happening.

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.

They blew that when they decided not to simply tell the story of the Hobbit. And he loved King Kong as well. That didn't really go all that well.

If they really wanted to do that, why not just make them all separate films? Why slice up the Hobbit?

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.

 

[Marvolo]

My only concern is that they only have 5 months to change film one.That is a small window. Also im curious where film one will end and whether it will fill like a proper story with a somewhat proper end similar to FOTR or be a sudden cliffhanger like Matrix Reloaded.

Im not worried about parts 2 & 3, but to completely rework part one with only 5 months may be a tall order.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

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.

hehe I can imagine. I bet peeps were angry about Tom Bombadil no-showing too eh?