Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have read DH and I followed its production. Heyman is bluffing with the "no hallows" stuff. There was a lot of trepidation when they made the decision to make it two films and they wanted to make sure that everyone knew it "had to be done".

OoTP is a perfect example of what I am talking about. It is the densest story in the series in terms of the characters and actual plot (DH is a lot of exposition like HBP) and yet was able to be trimmed down even further then it probably should have been. They really wanted it under 2:20, which is why Yates had to edit it down from the near 3 hour version.

The didn't want another Potter film coming in near 3 hours or over, so they made the decision to cut DH in half, but not really in half. Part 2 is barely 2 hours and yet look at all the stuff they left out from the book. Why? Because they trimmed the first film down to a certain length and what was left would not fit into the second film in terms of the narrative. They also still found a way to rush the epilogue.

Don't know if you know this, but OOTP screenplay was done by Michael Goldenberg. Steve Kloves did the rest. It is interesting that Goldenberg was originally courted to write the screenplay for PS and he is a friend of Heyman's, but Goldenberg declined. Kloves stepped down for OOTP, and Heyman once again went to Goldenberg who this time accepted the gig. Now what I find interesting is OOTP is argurably one of if not the best adapted screenplays in the series when you consider the 3 hour cut. From what is known about it it was a hell of an adaption that had loads of important relevant info, and really nailed the story. When you consider the size of the book and to get it to what he did was really good work. Even in its truncated form that was released the screenplay holds up. Also, it lacks any of Kloves little "Kloveisms" that riddle the rest of the screenplays. Kloves wasted time on his Hermione obsession and took the story place it didn't necesarrily need to go. Had Goldenbverg been the one to write the DH screenplay he may have been able to fit it into one film, but Kloves never had a chance. He was too indulgent and enslaved by his own needs rather than what the story ultimately needed. I absolutely agree that the DH was adapted poorly. They front loaded Part 1 and left hardly any story at all for part 2. Even when I watch them back to back it is severely lopsided. So I don't think splitting it intoi 2 partrs is what did the damagew. It was a poorly written and poorly structured screenplay that did the damage.
 
Leonard Nimoy - The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins [FULL VERSION] - best quality

[YT]AGF5ROpjRAU[/YT]

Peter Jackson should have used this for inspiration.:o
 
Don't know if you know this, but OOTP screenplay was done by Michael Goldenberg. Steve Kloves did the rest. It is interesting that Goldenberg was originally courted to write the screenplay for PS and he is a friend of Heyman's, but Goldenberg declined. Kloves stepped down for OOTP, and Heyman once again went to Goldenberg who this time accepted the gig. Now what I find interesting is OOTP is argurably one of if not the best adapted screenplays in the series when you consider the 3 hour cut. From what is known about it it was a hell of an adaption that had loads of important relevant info, and really nailed the story. When you consider the size of the book and to get it to what he did was really good work. Even in its truncated form that was released the screenplay holds up. Also, it lacks any of Kloves little "Kloveisms" that riddle the rest of the screenplays. Kloves wasted time on his Hermione obsession and took the story place it didn't necesarrily need to go. Had Goldenbverg been the one to write the DH screenplay he may have been able to fit it into one film, but Kloves never had a chance. He was too indulgent and enslaved by his own needs rather than what the story ultimately needed. I absolutely agree that the DH was adapted poorly. They front loaded Part 1 and left hardly any story at all for part 2. Even when I watch them back to back it is severely lopsided. So I don't think splitting it intoi 2 partrs is what did the damagew. It was a poorly written and poorly structured screenplay that did the damage.

Thanks for the info on the OoTP. I have heard of the epic screenplay and the original nearly 3 hour cut of the film, but it must have slipped my mind Kloves didn't write it. Explains a lot really adn I agree with your assessment on the whole. Part 1 is a film, and Part 2 feels like the leftovers. Exciting leftovers with emotion punch do to what has come before, but not a full fledged film like Part 1. Still think they could have made it one film if the were willing to go the 3+ hours route, but as you said probably impossible with Kloves.

How you view Kloves (I share these sentiments) is in a way I similarly feel about Jackson and his writing team. I don't necessary trust them to do what is right for the story, especially since they have gained more and more power in these productions. Fellowship showed near perfect restraint. It had to come in under three hours and what is there feels like it needs to be there. I love every frame of that film. I have watched it from start to finish probably more then any movie other then TESB, P&P, TDK, and Seven Samurai. The Two Towers was almost as successful.

But since TTT came out, Jackson and his crew just feel like they care more about their pet ideas and subjects. With ROTK, it isn't that I think it is the worst film ever made. In fact I'd say it is pretty good and has parts that I love. The frustration with it comes with how wasted it feels. Every time I sit and try and watch it, I get bored with what is on screen. Instead of a tight narrative focused on Gandalf, Aragorn, and Frodo/Sam, sprinkled with the rest of the crew, the film is all over the place. We barely witness the Return of the King. Gandalf isn't holding the gates like a great general, he is running around fighting like a foot solider while all hell breaks loose on the screen. It makes so little sense considering just how long the film is. Frodo and Sam works until Frodo loses the ring and then nothing. The film for me almost ends with Aragorn's arrival, because I just have no desire to watch what comes after. It is beyond self-indulgent.

King Kong is even worse. And this is coming from someone who loves what I call lazy Sat. films. Films you can just enjoy wasting the middle of a Sat. with.

Every time news comes out for this about how it is going to be released, it just makes the fears more real and it is just a downer. It feels like we came from Del Toro doing the Hobbit, to Jackson making three more LOTR films. The Hobbit may very well be in there and all the White Council stuff could turn out terrific, but I honestly can't say I trust it. This went from my dream film to something completely different.
 
Maybe the theatrical versions will be shorter than three hours and the extended versions will clock in at three hours per film? How much material can they possibly have?

I'm almost certain that what you just described will be the case.
 
The evolution of this project:

One Hobbit film, one bridge film
Two Hobbit films (GDT)
Two Hobbit films (PJ)
Three Hobbit films
Three Hobbit films with extended editions
 
As long as all of the hobbit narrative ends up on screen what does it matter if its mixed with other stuff that tolkien wrote? Is the hobbit material so weak that it cant play alongside other stories?

It just seems unnecessary and counter to good story telling. I mean is this an adaptation of the Hobbit or a Tolkien Anthology?
 
7F2Mf.jpg


5B9Z2.jpg


1kQwB.jpg


cwf58.jpg
 
Why do some people come to this thread purely and simply to tell people to stop criticising these movies? I could understand if these posters were otherwise interested in discussing all the positive things they perceive in them, but they never do. It's just "stopcomplainingstopwhiningstopitstopitstupidfanboysstopcryingjustdon'tgotoseeitthenstopitSTOPITSTOPITSTOPIT!"

I freely admit that I take the piss out of BoyBand the Dwarf quite a lot, and that I think PJ's view of a good movie is exactly proportional to its length. But at least it amuses me to be irreverent.

Is it fun to act as the self-appointed policeman for The Hobbit's buzz?

 
Why do some people come to this thread purely and simply to tell people to stop criticising these movies? I could understand if these posters were otherwise interested in discussing all the positive things they perceive in them, but they never do. It's just "stopcomplainingstopwhiningstopitstopitstupidfanboysstopcryingjustdon'tgotoseeitthenstopitSTOPITSTOPITSTOPIT!"

I freely admit that I take the piss out of BoyBand the Dwarf quite a lot, and that I think PJ's view of a good movie is exactly proportional to its length. But at least it amuses me to be irreverent.

Is it fun to act as the self-appointed policeman for The Hobbit's buzz?


So you are complaining about complainers that complain about complainers?

*spins top*
 
No, I'm asking a question. They are absolutely free to carry on wagging their fingers and puffing their cheeks. I just hope that some gratification results.
 
No, I'm asking a question. They are absolutely free to carry on wagging their fingers and puffing their cheeks. I just hope that some gratification results.

Oh I know what you meant, I was pulling a Inception/Xzibit line. :o

I honestly only come up here and see any new updates on the films with trailers, images, ect. I don't really care for speculations, it's something people get too carried away with around these forums.
 
Am i the only one whos more excited by 3 movies? The more middle earth the better. Once there and back again is released we aren't getting any more any time soon.

The more the merrier for me.
 
Here's how I think the movies will go basically (and this is why the 3 movies thing isn't a big deal to me... yet):

AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY:
Judging from the trailer and whatnot, this film will go from Hobbiton to the rescue of the Dwarves by the Eagles. So, major story sequences: 1) Gandalf and Thorin's father in the Necromancer's Dungeon (the Necromancer being Sauron), 2) Unexpected Party, 3) Trolls, 4) Rivendell, 5) The White Council (Elrond, Galadriel, Gandalf, Radagast, Saruman), 6) Stone Giants Attack in the Mountains, 7) Captured by Goblins, 8) Escape from the Goblins, 9) Gollum and Riddles in the Dark, 10) Escape Continued + Wargs, 11) Eagles and End. The film ends with the Dwarves having a new respect for Bilbo due to his legendary ring (they think he went unseen because he is a Master Burglar).

THE DESOLATION OF SMAUG:
1) Beorn. 2) Enter Mirkwood, Get Lost. 3) Spider Attack. 4) Bilbo saves Dwarves from Spiders. 5) Elves Capture Dwarves. 6) Imprisonment. 7) Escape in Barrels. 8) Arrival at Dale. 9) Climb / Enter Lonely Mountain. 10) Smaug and Bilbo. 11) Smaug attacks Laketown, Bard kills him. 12) Dwarves Enter Mountain / End of Film.

THERE AND BACK AGAIN:
1) The whole Arkenstone arc (don't remember all of it but it isn't a short thing). 2) Set up for Battle. 3) Nice long battle of Five Armies. Several beats to battle, like arrival of Dwarven Army and arrival of Eagles and Goblins. 4) Aftermath, some LOTR set up material.

As you can see, the movies have quite a few story beats / sequences to work with without feeling too padded out. If each film is around 2.5 hours, with an extended edition of 3-3.25 hrs or so, they will still be fine without being bloated I think. Add to that a lot of scenes depicting what Gandalf is up to while he is away, plus the prologue / epilogue stuff with Frodo and the Red Book, etc. and you've got lots of material.
 
Really, to be honest, I'm kinda glad Smaug's Attack on Laketown and the Battle of Five Armies aren't in the same film together. It works in the book but in a movie I think it would be like having two climaxes. Just too much.

If my theory is right, that is.
 
I had planned to read the thing again but I'm obsessed with A Song of Ice and Fire right now. Won't be finishing those monsters anytime soon!
 
Here's how I think the movies will go basically (and this is why the 3 movies thing isn't a big deal to me... yet):

AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY:
Judging from the trailer and whatnot, this film will go from Hobbiton to the rescue of the Dwarves by the Eagles. So, major story sequences: 1) Gandalf and Thorin's father in the Necromancer's Dungeon (the Necromancer being Sauron), 2) Unexpected Party, 3) Trolls, 4) Rivendell, 5) The White Council (Elrond, Galadriel, Gandalf, Radagast, Saruman), 6) Stone Giants Attack in the Mountains, 7) Captured by Goblins, 8) Escape from the Goblins, 9) Gollum and Riddles in the Dark, 10) Escape Continued + Wargs, 11) Eagles and End. The film ends with the Dwarves having a new respect for Bilbo due to his legendary ring (they think he went unseen because he is a Master Burglar).

THE DESOLATION OF SMAUG:
1) Beorn. 2) Enter Mirkwood, Get Lost. 3) Spider Attack. 4) Bilbo saves Dwarves from Spiders. 5) Elves Capture Dwarves. 6) Imprisonment. 7) Escape in Barrels. 8) Arrival at Dale. 9) Climb / Enter Lonely Mountain. 10) Smaug and Bilbo. 11) Smaug attacks Laketown, Bard kills him. 12) Dwarves Enter Mountain / End of Film.

THERE AND BACK AGAIN:
1) The whole Arkenstone arc (don't remember all of it but it isn't a short thing). 2) Set up for Battle. 3) Nice long battle of Five Armies. Several beats to battle, like arrival of Dwarven Army and arrival of Eagles and Goblins. 4) Aftermath, some LOTR set up material.

As you can see, the movies have quite a few story beats / sequences to work with without feeling too padded out. If each film is around 2.5 hours, with an extended edition of 3-3.25 hrs or so, they will still be fine without being bloated I think. Add to that a lot of scenes depicting what Gandalf is up to while he is away, plus the prologue / epilogue stuff with Frodo and the Red Book, etc. and you've got lots of material.

See all that sounds great!
 
I reckon people can post what they like, thanks. You done complaining about the complaining?
I didn't dispute that, neither was I complaining. Did you read anything that you are responding to? I was merely expressing curiosity as to whether there was much joy to be found in acting as the self appointed hall monitor at the school of Hobbit Hype.

I'm not judging.
 
I didn't dispute that, neither was I complaining. Did you read anything that you are responding to? I was merely expressing curiosity as to whether there was much joy to be found in acting as the self appointed hall monitor at the school of Hobbit Hype.

I'm not judging.

Why keep bringing it up? Stop living in the past.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,537
Messages
21,755,785
Members
45,592
Latest member
kathielee
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"