The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
3 Hobbit Films Confirmed



Lily Brambleburr
The Shire


Jul 30 2012, 3:33pm


Views: 17498
3 Hobbit Films Confirmed

Peter Jackson just confirmed on Facebook that there will be 3 Hobbit films.

"So, without further ado and on behalf of New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Wingnut Films, and the entire cast and crew of “The Hobbit” films, I’d like to announce that two films will become three."

"Courage is found in unlikely places." - J.R.R Tolkien




(This post was edited by dernwyn on Jul 30 2012, 4:04pm)


ElendurTheFaithful
Rivendell

Jul 30 2012, 3:35pm


Views: 10797
I believe in them and their decision completely

At least after I see the movies and how they've split them. Good Luck Peter and company.


DanielLB
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 3:36pm


Views: 10543
OH MY!


Quote
It is only at the end of a shoot that you finally get the chance to sit down and have a look at the film you have made. Recently Fran, Phil and I did just this when we watched for the first time an early cut of the first movie - and a large chunk of the second. We were really pleased with the way the story was coming together, in particular, the strength of the characters and the cast who have brought them to life. All of which gave rise to a simple question: do we take this chance to tell more of the tale? And the answer from our perspective as the filmmakers, and as fans, was an unreserved ‘yes.'

We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance. The richness of the story of The Hobbit, as well as some of the related material in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, allows us to tell the full story of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and the part he played in the sometimes dangerous, but at all times exciting, history of Middle-earth.

So, without further ado and on behalf of New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Wingnut Films, and the entire cast and crew of “The Hobbit” films, I’d like to announce that two films will become three.

It has been an unexpected journey indeed, and in the words of Professor Tolkien himself, "a tale that grew in the telling."

Cheers,

Peter J



https://www.facebook.com/...ey/10151114596546558

Do we need to prepare for TORn melt-down?!


(This post was edited by DanielLB on Jul 30 2012, 3:39pm)


QuackingTroll
Valinor


Jul 30 2012, 3:40pm


Views: 10073
Link to the announcement:

http://www.facebook.com/...ey/10151114596546558


Xanaseb
Tol Eressea


Jul 30 2012, 3:42pm


Views: 10116
O M E ...... (oh my Eru!) this is mental O.O O.o PJ's actually managed to sort it out O.o lordy. //

Crazy

what can we expct guys! Crazy

Rumours --> Possibilities --> Reality

Pirate or Heart? ? ?

what should we think!! ??

Join us over at Barliman's chat all day, any day!
________________________________________________

-I am a victim of Bifurcation- (credit to Elpidha)
________________________________________________

Dwarves: 'Erebor!', 'Erebor!!', '..Erebor!'
Bilbo: .. It's only a CGI model
Dwarves: 'Shhhhh!'


architecthis
Lorien


Jul 30 2012, 3:44pm


Views: 10062
Incredibly good news

This has made my day


Ardamírë
Valinor


Jul 30 2012, 3:44pm


Views: 10024
At least it's official.

I'm not sure how this is going to turn out, and it's what I'd prefer, but I guess we'll just have to see. It could be amazing; it could be terrible. Only time will tell.

I do wonder who the overwhelming "yes" was from??


QuackingTroll
Valinor


Jul 30 2012, 3:44pm


Views: 10291
Can I recommend a title change?

There are a lot of threads on the 3 movies. Perhaps change it to "3 Hobbit Films confirmed" or something similar? Smile

Cool news IMO. All that worries me is what will the new movie be called?


DanielLB
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 3:44pm


Views: 10056
I was expecting news in a couple of weeks or months...

I just said to dormouse I hoped for news soon!

Not this soon! Shocked

I've always been dubious about a 3rd film. But PJ knows what he's doing. I'm excited, but still want to hear how it will be split. Most of all, I want to know what the titles now are!


Ardamírë
Valinor


Jul 30 2012, 3:48pm


Views: 10580
I wonder why they didn't just plan this from the beginning.

Wouldn't it have been easier to script three films from the get-go? And surely during the filming scripting stage they knew how much material they had to work with and how much they wanted to show.

I must say I'm very hesitant about this.


DanielLB
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 3:48pm


Views: 10066
Can we expect an official anouncement from WB etc as well?

Perhaps on release date etc?


imin
Valinor


Jul 30 2012, 3:49pm


Views: 10134
Wow that's very interesting

I was hoping so much for two films with the extra filming to be for EE but not to be.

I have my doubts that it will be faithful to Tolkien anymore but i think its more a sequel to PJ's LOTR rather than The Hobbit adapted now so if i think of it as seperate to Tolkien's work then i dont mind.

Lets see if he pulls it off - for me i think the will certainly make 3 good movies at least.


Ardamírë
Valinor


Jul 30 2012, 3:49pm


Views: 10022
I would imagine so.

This is a pretty major movie news story.


Magpie
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 3:50pm


Views: 10056
thanks for the link QT //

 


LOTR soundtrack website ~ magpie avatar gallery
TORn History Mathom-house ~ Torn Image Posting Guide


DanielLB
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 3:50pm


Views: 10054
He did it once, he can do it again ;-)


In Reply To
Lets see if he pulls it off - for me i think the will certainly make 3 good movies at least.



Hexology here we come! Shocked


Arandir
Gondor


Jul 30 2012, 3:51pm


Views: 10248
Next Question is: Is it a bridge film or Film 2 split in half? //

 


ElendurTheFaithful
Rivendell

Jul 30 2012, 3:52pm


Views: 10258
Well

Well my dream was to have 9 LOTR movies 3 hours long each and 3 HOBBIT movies 3 hours long each. We have 8 Harry Potter movies that a story wise and character wise inferior to Tolkien, and we'll get god knows how many Avatar movies that are story wise and character wise inferior to anything ever filmed. So those would be my dream numbers for my favorite books adaptations.


QuackingTroll
Valinor


Jul 30 2012, 3:53pm


Views: 10102
I think both...

They said there wasn't enough material to make a bridge movie. They probably noticed how much material they had for The Hobbit and have realised they can do the bridge movie now, if they include Hobbit material too. I'm just worried about how much this is beginning to resemble Star Wars...


imin
Valinor


Jul 30 2012, 3:54pm


Views: 9912
Yeah

I am doubtful they will be faithful adaptations but i am pretty sure they will be good movies regardless of faithfulness if that makes sense? Kinda like how Nolan's batman films are great but not exactly faithful to the comics.

Infact if they could be as good as the batman trilogy i would be over the moon!

Would love a Nolan adaptation of the hobbit! lol.


Danielos
Rohan

Jul 30 2012, 3:54pm


Views: 9990
Questions...Questions that need answers!

Does this mean they will recut the first movie to end much earlier? Does it mean the names will be changed??


Captain Salt
Tol Eressea


Jul 30 2012, 3:54pm


Views: 10094
Has PJ been striken with dragon-sickness?

Have no idea how to feel about this...

On the one hand, more ME on the big screen is exciting.

However, I just can't get interested or hopeful about 3 TH movies. It's vaguely ludicrous, and I can't help but feel it's motivated purely by PJ, WB and Co. wanting to hoard all of the gold of the audience for themselves and sleep on it for a bed.

I mean, come on! The same number of the films to adapt LotR as TH?

I was anticipating two fairly fast-moving, expertly-made adventures. Now we're getting what will likely be three cumbersome, overly-long and listless "epics" constituting a needless trilogy.

Not happy about this...I don't think? Oh, whatever. ;)

Of course, will wait for more to be unveiled before making any actual judgement.

My Top 5 Wish List for "The Hobbit"
5. Legolas will surf down Smaug's neck
4. Bilbo will be revealed to a Robot
3. Naked PJ cameo as Ghan-Buri-Ghan
2. Use of not only 3D, but smell-o-vision, plus the inclusion of axes coming out of the seats and poking the audience when appropriate
1. Not only keep the claim that Thorin & Co. ran amok in Mirkwood "molesting people", but depict said incident in vivid detail!!!!!

(This post was edited by Captain Salt on Jul 30 2012, 4:03pm)


Ardamírë
Valinor


Jul 30 2012, 3:55pm


Views: 10050
Surely Film 1 will be affected too.

It might still end after barrels out of bond, but I expect to see lots less of the White Council than was originally intended.


Mooseboy018
Grey Havens


Jul 30 2012, 3:56pm


Views: 9961
Probably not a bridge film...

It's the "The Hobbit," and he mentioned Bilbo's story. I don't think Bilbo sitting at home counting his money would make a very interesting story that would excite them enough to suddenly make a third film.

I'm still not sure how I feel about this... I never thought I'd be afraid of getting MORE of Middle-earth from PJ, but this still seems like just another way to cash in on the franchise to be honest. Could they REALLY not fit such a short and relatively straightforward story into two movies? How much more of the story is there to tell that they suddenly desperately needed a whole other film?

I guess we'll know if it was about money if we end up with three movies that are roughly two hours long rather than two that would have been about three hours long (and then the extended editions).


Foromir
Rivendell


Jul 30 2012, 3:56pm


Views: 10088
I'm sad either way.

I still cannot believe why they have to make another epic trilogy out of such a charmingly simple story about our poor little Hobbit. Other than financial reasons, that is.

As a longtime admirer of PJ's LotR, I have to say it's a sad day for me.


DanielLB
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 3:56pm


Views: 9873
I know what you mean imin. Well I'd expect ...

With 3 films for 1 book, I'd fully expect every single piece of detail in the book to make it in. They can pad with Dol Guldur as much as they like, just as long as The Hobbit is fully in there.

If that isn't the case, then there's not much point.


Arandir
Gondor


Jul 30 2012, 3:57pm


Views: 4516
Agree with both of you ...

on another Star Wars and significant changes to film 1 ...Crazy


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Jul 30 2012, 3:57pm


Views: 4845
well

For the first time after reading a pj announcement...i feel a little concerned...I just dont see how an inflated, super sized hobbit narrative would be satisfying to watch with a trilogy....I dont think theres enough story and character growth and development to make three different, unique movies with clear begginings, stories and endings...

Were going to have to wait two years to see smaug? Or the battle? ...Hmmm

I have a bad feeling about this....

Unsure


Istaris'staffs
Rivendell

Jul 30 2012, 3:57pm


Views: 4802
Extremely happy!!

As the above post said, many inferior works have been divided with less story to work with and inferior characters--I'm very happy about this and can't wait to discover the titles, how the story will be broken up, what they include from the appendices, etc. I also think it will be closer to Tolkien canon them some might think.


dormouse
Half-elven


Jul 30 2012, 3:59pm


Views: 4569
I doubt if anyone will announce that....

... but there might be a clue in the titles.

Colour me happy. This shows confidence in the material, which is encouraging, and with more time to play with I hope they can develop the characters more and allow themselves some reflective moments. And songs - 'Tra la la lalley' anyone? Tongue


tinnie
Registered User

Jul 30 2012, 3:59pm


Views: 4572
I'm really not sure what I think about this yet.

Excited for more Middle Earth, but interested to see how they are going to manage it. I think once we know a bit more about how they are splitting the story I'll feel a bit more comfortable with the whole thing.


QuackingTroll
Valinor


Jul 30 2012, 3:59pm


Views: 4478
I think we need to see the first movie at least...

...before we can discuss whether this is good or bad. These are PJ's movies, and if he wants to make 3, then that's what should happen.


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 30 2012, 3:59pm


Views: 4516
I am pleased

And will re-post my reasons for being pleased from another thread:


Quote
As you and many others here know, I have been a consistent critic of Peter Jackson's LOTR films, and continue to be one.

However, having accepted the reality of a Hobbit adaptation that goes well beyond the book, I find the possibility of three films more appealing than two. For me, there are roughly 5 main reasons for this:

1. Time: Despite the fact that two films would almost certainly mean at least 5 hours worth of story, I am worried that extended action and battle sequences will still crowd out a lot of material that's in the books. This comes from previous experience with PJ's films. He likes to linger for long periods of time on invented action scenes (see the stair in Moria), while painting quickly and with broad strokes over nuanced bits of characterization, dialogue, and cultural context. Three films might be enough for PJ to both include nuance in the narrative, and include his cherished action sequences.

2. History: I am intrigued by both the dwarven history (which IMO is very relevant, as I find the Hobbit to not be primarily about Bilbo, but primarily about the inherent conflict between Bilbo and Thorin), and the history of Dale (simply because I like the sets). Three films could give us a lot more of that history in flashback.

3. Satisfying film-making: IMO, PJ is at his best when he looks back. What I mean by this is that I love PJ's use of flashbacks, and wish he had done more of it in LOTR. In fact, I think they are his most evocative filmic device. The prologue, the conversation between Elrond and Isildur, the incredibly affecting vision of Aragorn's eventual expiration, and Arwen's grief, etc. As such, the more he utilizes this device - giving us dwarven and mannish history, the better. And three films means we will likely get more of it (though that's not guaranteed).

4. Meat on the bones: If you accept that this Hobbit adaptation is far more than a Hobbit adaptation, and a prequel for LOTR (and you must accept this, as it is certainly the case) then there is actually a whole lot to tell in this story. An interesting exercise for a writer would be to take all the Hobbit chapters, and add the level of cultural and character detail that exists in LOTR to that story, and see what you come up with. I have done this in my mind, and I end up with almost three books, that are only about a few chapters shorter than LOTR/

5. Pace and dialogue: Three films will likely mean a less hectic pace, and more coherent dialogue. One of the things that bothered me about PJ's films was the breakneck pace, which I imagine necessarily glossed over some of the more wonderful and thoughtful aspects of Tolkien's work, and neutered some of the great quieter scenes of dialogue. The Shire scenes in FOTR achieved a great sense of verisimilitude because PJ took his time with dialogue. People (such as Gandalf and Bilbo) had conversations that were real back and forths, as opposed to the "talking at each other, and not really responding to each other" that I detect in many a scene of dialogue in the rest of the films. I imagine that three films will give PJ more room to better flesh out such scenes of dialogue, and make it feel more like they are actual people having conversations, rather than video game characters spouting off their necessary scripted lines.



Captain Salt
Tol Eressea


Jul 30 2012, 3:59pm


Views: 4472
Doubt it's a bridge film...

PJ has mentioned limited filming, a week or more. However, he hasn't mentioned shooting for another six months, which is about what they'd need for a totally new film...apparently, it'll be comprised of footage which has already been shot.

Unless they move ALL of the White Council stuff to a third film, and pad out the first two films with more details about the history of the Dwarves and additional Bilbo shenanigans.

My Top 5 Wish List for "The Hobbit"
5. Legolas will surf down Smaug's neck
4. Bilbo will be revealed to a Robot
3. Naked PJ cameo as Ghan-Buri-Ghan
2. Use of not only 3D, but smell-o-vision, plus the inclusion of axes coming out of the seats and poking the audience when appropriate
1. Not only keep the claim that Thorin & Co. ran amok in Mirkwood "molesting people", but depict said incident in vivid detail!!!!!


Ardamírë
Valinor


Jul 30 2012, 3:59pm


Views: 4501
I completely agree with you.

Two films seemed perfect for the Hobbit plus a little sprinkling of the White Council.

Now we have three movies to tell what story? What does all the appendix material add to the actual story?

And I still don't understand why they're acting like the appendices just suddenly appeared. Did they just discover them hidden at the back of LOTR last week?


grammaboodawg
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 4:00pm


Views: 4499
HOW EXCITING !!! WOW!!!!

*spins in chair* OMG!! I'm shaking with awe and excitement! WOW! How brave and generous... Peter, Philippa and Fran are truly amazing!!

Oh cripes... my heart's racing like crazy! AND MORE PRODUCTION DIARIES!!!

WOW!! *runs down hall screaming news*


sample

I really need these new films to take me back to, and not re-introduce me to, that magical world.




TORn's Observations Lists
Unused Scenes



DanielLB
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 4:00pm


Views: 4532
I'd think that

the Dol Guldur plot would still be the climax of film 1, the death of Smaug film 2, and the BO5A film 3.


grammaboodawg
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 4:00pm


Views: 4416
*high five* RIGHT ON!!! :D //

 


sample

I really need these new films to take me back to, and not re-introduce me to, that magical world.




TORn's Observations Lists
Unused Scenes



Captain Salt
Tol Eressea


Jul 30 2012, 4:01pm


Views: 4435
Well put...

Can't believe they're being this obviously greedy.

There's no narrative reason for this decision. None.

I've often defended PJ and his style in the past, but now...Oy.

My Top 5 Wish List for "The Hobbit"
5. Legolas will surf down Smaug's neck
4. Bilbo will be revealed to a Robot
3. Naked PJ cameo as Ghan-Buri-Ghan
2. Use of not only 3D, but smell-o-vision, plus the inclusion of axes coming out of the seats and poking the audience when appropriate
1. Not only keep the claim that Thorin & Co. ran amok in Mirkwood "molesting people", but depict said incident in vivid detail!!!!!


QuackingTroll
Valinor


Jul 30 2012, 4:01pm


Views: 4460
If the appendices are not important to the story, then why did Tolkien write them? //

 


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 30 2012, 4:03pm


Views: 4410
Seems most likely

That film 2 will be split into two, based on PJ and company having so much footage that three films became almost a necessity. I am sure they will do more filming to fill out the second two films, but I douby they will be writing new scripts, recruiting new actors, and doing an entirely new production process, for a bridge film.

WB was likely attracted to this because they could get a third film for a very, very marginal costs, and make double the money out of it. While PJ just wants to tell more of the story he wants to tell.

For the studio and PJ, it was a win-win.

For the fans, it's a wait-and-see. I, for one, am on board.


dormouse
Half-elven


Jul 30 2012, 4:03pm


Views: 4478
How about artistic reasons?

The studio will be focusing on the money but I really believe Peter Jackson and his fellow writers are looking for the best way to tell the story.


ElendurTheFaithful
Rivendell

Jul 30 2012, 4:03pm


Views: 4426
Why

Why do you guys keep mentioning Star Wars? I don't see George Lucas who's writing the script out of his ass and casting Hayden Christiansen creating Jar Jar Binks. Hobbit, regardless of everything, has amazing story and amazing cast to portray amazing characters. Some thing we must be careful and hopeful about, but come on, saying that this looks like Star Wars prequels is an insult of highest order. What next, Avatar comparison?


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 30 2012, 4:04pm


Views: 4434
The way I see it

Is that LOTR deserved at least six films of a three-hour length to be told well.

So in my view, the Hobbit will be told better if it's longer.


Morok Cloudkeeper
Rohan


Jul 30 2012, 4:04pm


Views: 4454
I've never felt more indifferent as I do now

I know I should be excited. But I just ain't. Maybe I'm one of those people who only are excited when they get to see the films and then feel happy about them.

Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle.



pasi
The Shire

Jul 30 2012, 4:06pm


Views: 4446
About the third movie

The third movie will became a bridge between the Hobbit and the LOTR?


Magpie
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 4:06pm


Views: 4449
I'm still sitting but...

:-P

...I won't take this news and turn it dire by any stretch of the imagination. For me, it's another opportunity for joy.

I liked how PJ phrased his announcement. It indicated a respect for how to expand the project and what focus and direction it should take.

It surely can't please everyone because nothing pleases everyone and some people can't be pleased. But I won't taint any opportunity for pleasure and joy by predicting failure before the event. And there are so many reasons to think I will be very happy indeed.

That much more music from Shore. Boy, they had to talk to a few people before making this decision, didn't they? Shore's commitment just increased by a chunk.

:-)


LOTR soundtrack website ~ magpie avatar gallery
TORn History Mathom-house ~ Torn Image Posting Guide

(This post was edited by Magpie on Jul 30 2012, 4:09pm)


dormouse
Half-elven


Jul 30 2012, 4:07pm


Views: 4376
Gramma - it's a joy to see your joy in this!

I think it's brilliant news!


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 30 2012, 4:08pm


Views: 4494
The Appendices

Add depth and history.

As Tolkien once said, and I paraphrase, a fundamental human desire is to "survey the depths of space and time."

For me, three films are more likely to survey those depths, whether it be Azanulbizar, Dain at the gates of Moria, the history of Erebor, Dale and the Iron Hills, etc.

Color me excited.

My original desire was for one film that matches the tone of the books. A simple story with a swift beginning and conclusion. But once that went out the window, and PJ made this a LOTR prequel, I decided that I wanted that story to be told as fully, and with as much Tolkien in it, as possible.

Three films makes that more likely, from my point of view.


Ardamírë
Valinor


Jul 30 2012, 4:09pm


Views: 4393
I'm talking about the story of Bilbo as told in The Hobbit.

I've never need to read the appendices to understand the story. I enjoy reading them of course, and there's tons of beautiful passages in them, but they are not vital.


Sunflower
Valinor

Jul 30 2012, 4:09pm


Views: 4387
In a hurry...

Have to run out the door (and I mean RUN, like Bilbo to meeting the Dwarves at noon!) for work, but something, my spidey-sense, told me to go online right now..and boy I am glad I did!

My intial reaction (in spite of artistic reservations) is WHOOOOO-HOOOOOO!!!!!

I sincerely think that this was a decsion organically arrivd at, driven genunely by artistic inspiration...I always suspected that Peter had "fallen back in love with ME" and now hre is the proof. If he has managed to extract from the Appendices films 2 and 3 of outstanding quality, plot, charactrs and above all SCRIPT....if the tale did indeed "grow in the telling", and become, like LOTR, an "unweildy masterpeice, that someow fits together"...I am excited to go along for the ride, and see if a miracle has indeed been accomplished.

50-50 that this may come to pass (I STILL hold him to a VERY HIGh standard and will NOTgive him a carte blance pass...BUT I have faith that, he and his team may be able to pul it off. I am happy for Howard SHore as well...the more the merrier...Howard can wallow in ME to his heartsand souls content!

My other initial thought is...now that TDKR Oscar value has probsbly been compromised due to Colorado (alas)...what film will fill the Oscars "blockbuster slot"? How will AMPAS react to this?? IF Peter Can pull ff a miracle..will we see BP noms???

All you who are ableto go to Oscar parties...all I can say is....YOU LUCKY SODS!!!! (paraphrasing Mr Rhys-Davies!)TongueSly

BRING IT ON!!!! Let the global ecomoycrash, but ad lomg as we got TH, we cn look forward to that!

Excise typos...in a RUSH...*grabs pocket kerchief and vaults over my gate*...

back this evening!!!


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 30 2012, 4:09pm


Views: 4191
I would guess

That there is likely to be more filming next year - at least three months worth - added to what has already been shot. There will also now be two years open for pick-ups, if needed.

Honestly, I think this will result in markedly better films.


Apexman13
Bree


Jul 30 2012, 4:10pm


Views: 4338
agreed

I was really looking forward to the end. This whole thing is just a reason for Warner Bros to cash in big time. So are we going to have to wait till 2014 to see the end? Or will it be some type of bridge film involving various plot elements from the appendices? Can we trust Peter to stretch this fairy tale? will the ending be worth it? This is going to be an interesting turn of events for sure.


Mooseboy018
Grey Havens


Jul 30 2012, 4:11pm


Views: 4240
I think Xzibit says it best...

Yo dawg, I heard you like splitting up movies, so we split up an already split up movie so you could have a split up movie that's split up.


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 30 2012, 4:11pm


Views: 4446
I'm betting

Film two arrives in December 2013, and film three in the summer of 2014. Sort of the Harry Potter solution.

I doubt they'll take three years to tell the story. Would dissipate momentum, I think.


DanielLB
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 4:12pm


Views: 4131
I'm glad you are pleased SA!

Have your ears been burning yet?


Ardamírë
Valinor


Jul 30 2012, 4:12pm


Views: 4216
I understand that. And I love the appendices.

But I don't think that everything in them is needed to tell this story. And I don't think that they couldn't have given us two beautiful films using some of the material.

Right now, I'm just nervous about how this will turn out. I'm sure I'll love the films, but what's the point of speculation if you can't freak out a little? Wink


nobofthepony
Lorien


Jul 30 2012, 4:12pm


Views: 4436
I guarantee you, the death of Smaug made this necessary

People were complaining about multiple endings in LOTR. Imagine if Smaug gets killed and there's another hour and a half of movie left.

So my prediction is that Dol Guldor will be the climax of film 2. We will see Bilbo enter Lonely Mountain and rouse Smaug. Smaug will leave Lonely Mountain and fly down to Laketown, and Film 2 will end there.

THAT way Smaug dies at the beginning of the 3rd movie and there is no chance of anyone mistaking that for the end of the movie. Then the third film is all BO5A.


Lily Brambleburr
The Shire


Jul 30 2012, 4:13pm


Views: 4226
Reply

Sorry, I'm quite unimaginative when it comes to titles, oh and a bit too excited to think.

Anyway, let's just hope that Peter Jackson has more talent than me when he's naming the 3rd movie. Blush

"Courage is found in unlikely places." - J.R.R Tolkien




DanielLB
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 4:13pm


Views: 4217
I think they were filming for 3 months next year regardless

I expect this to go up!


Curious
Half-elven


Jul 30 2012, 4:13pm


Views: 4237
Some day they will have to reshoot LotR as nine films!//

 


Erufaildon
Bree


Jul 30 2012, 4:14pm


Views: 4269
3rd movie out summer 2014

http://collider.com/the-hobbit-3-trilogy-2014/184894/


dernwyn
Forum Admin / Moderator


Jul 30 2012, 4:14pm


Views: 4117
Done...

Although I can't do anything about movie titles, I can change thread titles! Good idea, and you can thank your friends over on Feedback for pointing this out! Smile


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"I desired dragons with a profound desire"

"It struck me last night that you might write a fearfully good romantic drama, with as much of the 'supernatural' as you cared to introduce. Have you ever thought of it?"
-Geoffrey B. Smith, letter to JRR Tolkien, 1915




DanielLB
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 4:14pm


Views: 4479
Depending on the split

It could be Xmas 2012, Summer 2013, Xmas 2014?


dormouse
Half-elven


Jul 30 2012, 4:15pm


Views: 4170
Cheers, SA...

It isn't often we're in this much agreement! Wink


imin
Valinor


Jul 30 2012, 4:15pm


Views: 4193
I think this is true

they must either just be out to get as much cash as they can - i am positive that's the studios involvement. I would like to think PJ is doing it for reasons other than money. At this point he has millions, got oscars and directed the films he wants to, so i doubt for him at least its because of money.

Like you said it does show the team have great confidence in what they have filmed so far that they think they can change it from 2 films to 3. Maybe they just realised they have filmed way too much for 2 films and the running times would be too long, so they figure split it into 3 films and then we only need to add a little more and they are up to a decent length?

These for me will either come out as really very good movies - with the story being given time to have slower, quieter moments which i think all films need to a certain extent, which i felt LOTR, especially TTT and ROTK were lacking at times. This would be great.

However it could go the other way and feel like its too padded out - i am not really bothered if joe public likes it - i am more concerned if we on TORn (as in big fans) like it. I know they arent making it for us as we are a tiny proportion of the people who will watch it but i think if it feels padded out to us then it may feel that way to joe public.

For me it could go either way - I am really really hoping it goes the way of allowing slower character moments, with less reliance on fan fic that would be great :)


DanielLB
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 4:16pm


Views: 4129
Where did they get 2014 from? That seems like guesswork /

 


Foromir
Rivendell


Jul 30 2012, 4:16pm


Views: 4225
"Then the third film is all BO5A." Shudder to think of it....//


In Reply To
Then the third film is all BO5A.



Curious
Half-elven


Jul 30 2012, 4:16pm


Views: 4097
That makes sense.

Where do you think the first film will end?


BeornBerserker
Lorien

Jul 30 2012, 4:17pm


Views: 4166
I knew WB would have nixed this if totally rumor

 


Compa_Mighty
Tol Eressea


Jul 30 2012, 4:18pm


Views: 4150
I know what you mean...

I'll say it here and now... I'm becoming more and more convinced that new footage is being shot for the new version of Lord of the Rings.

I fully expect three things in particular:
  1. Martin Freeman in the prologue
  2. Balin scenes with the Balrog
  3. The War in the North in Return of the King


Visit Mexico from A to Z! Index to the whole series here.
Essay winner of the Show us your Hobbit Pride Giveway!



nobofthepony
Lorien


Jul 30 2012, 4:19pm


Views: 4142
Film 1 - I'm thinking will end after Mirkwood and the dwarves getting captured//

 


Vangalad
Lorien


Jul 30 2012, 4:19pm


Views: 4465
Oi! Oi!

Concerned as well... And never took it seriously all this time, but here we go again!
My query is about PJ's words about the filmed material, that after a viewing it seemed incomplete?so more filming ahead?


Quote
We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance


Really, how much of Bilbo's story needs further telling than in two movies, or the Guldur plot and the dwarves in Erebor (at the bo5a or after it )?
So many questions and contradictions out there that can't win, for me at least, the title of a tremendous announcement.
We'll see...


All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost,
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 30 2012, 4:19pm


Views: 4332
I knew it!

I knew they would go that route.

Excellent news. That will be an exciting winter and summer!


Flagg
Tol Eressea


Jul 30 2012, 4:20pm


Views: 4415
I'm on board with this

I'm more interested in seeing as much of this universe as possible than I am in getting to see a tight and refined adaptation. The more footage they shoot, the happier I'll be. A few years down the line, there's always the possibility that they could remove the additional material, and present us with a shorter, more faithful version – but that doesn't work in reverse. It's now or never.

Filming as many scenes as possible just seems to be the route while leaves the most doors open for the future. We'll never have to look back and say, 'I wonder how that third film would have worked out?', and for that I'm grateful.


Curious
Half-elven


Jul 30 2012, 4:20pm


Views: 4280
Will this cause any contract problems, I wonder?

Presumably the actors signed up for two films, and were paid accordingly. I wonder if any of them will demand more money if it becomes three films?


nobofthepony
Lorien


Jul 30 2012, 4:22pm


Views: 4142
Well, TTT and ROTK each stretched out a couple of chapters to be the main film...

Helm's Deep and Pelennor Fields....

After Smaug dies, there will be a build up to tBO5A and an exploration of characters...Thorin and Bard especially... I could see it being pulled off artfully.


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 30 2012, 4:24pm


Views: 4043
Likely from a studio source

I doubt they would have posted that as fact otherwise.


DanielLB
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 4:24pm


Views: 4113
Yes, isn't M.Freeman supposed to start filming Sherlock series 3 soon(ish)?

  
And what's going to happen with TinTin 2?


(This post was edited by DanielLB on Jul 30 2012, 4:30pm)


DanielLB
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 4:25pm


Views: 4133
I'm totally up for this!

If it means we get to see Galadriel destroy Dol Guldur, then I'll be chucking my own money at PJ!


Danielos
Rohan

Jul 30 2012, 4:25pm


Views: 4082
Hmm...

It is just so sad that PJ doesn´t have the rights to Unfinished Tales. I would love to see The Hobbit expanded with the relevant stuff in there.

It is still pretty strange. How can they plan so badly that they at the end of the shooting realises that they need another movie? Didn´t they have two scripts to work with? I fear that the only effect this will have is shorter movies and no extended editions.


nobofthepony
Lorien


Jul 30 2012, 4:26pm


Views: 4245
Dawg, I heard you like Middle Earth in your Middle Earth...so here's some more Middle Earth in you Middle Earth so you can Middle Earth while you Middle Earth//

 


DanielLB
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 4:26pm


Views: 4289
Is collider a reputable website?

They would have put "insider" wouldn't they?


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 30 2012, 4:27pm


Views: 4203
Indeed!

Look outside your window. Do you see any avian swine fluttering past? Wink


Estel78
Tol Eressea

Jul 30 2012, 4:27pm


Views: 4154
Variety says Summer 2014.

https://twitter.com/...s/229963837456121857


In Reply To
Perhaps on release date etc?



Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Jul 30 2012, 4:28pm


Views: 4252
well

Yes....my problem is that i dont see how you can split the second movie into a third in a cohesive and fulfilling manner, so that the characters and story feel like they werent cut out of a bigger story....

But, if you do that , you have to end it with Smaug 's death so that the rest if for film three...but that leaves what?

A dol guldur battle, laketown, a passage through Dale, trek to Lonely M., smaug and bilbo 's chat, smaug attacks and dies...even with added dwarven history, Dale history, campfire conversations, a few comedic moments...i cant see it as a full, stand alone, piece of filmmaking...

Evidently i hope i am wrong and i beseech other members who like this 3rd movie idea to try to explain how such a move would work...because right now...im not that excited...and i wish i was! Evil


MasterOrc
Rivendell

Jul 30 2012, 4:28pm


Views: 4162
Money..money...money...money!

Might as well....tons of material that I'm quite sure if done right will make most of us happy......will be curious to see what else will be included in the movies??


TFP
Rivendell


Jul 30 2012, 4:29pm


Views: 4097
3 films

I'm certainly pleased.

IIRC the unabridged [audiocassette] copy of the Hobbit runs at about 11 hours.

Given past form it seems sensible to assume that PJ is aiming in the 8-10 hours range for his films.

Given the fairly hefty amount of descriptive text in the book, & that verbal descrption is relatively slow, 3 films is consistenw with, as others have said, some hefty exposition. Which is quite exciting really.


Mooseboy018
Grey Havens


Jul 30 2012, 4:29pm


Views: 4096
Hmmm

I'm sure once I actually see the movies, that's exactly how I'll feel about it.Laugh


(This post was edited by Mooseboy018 on Jul 30 2012, 4:29pm)


Lucky Luke
Bree


Jul 30 2012, 4:29pm


Views: 4187
Film 3 : death of (spoiler) + Bo5A

Bridge film is out of the question at this point.

I think it would be an HUGE mistake to kill Smaug in film 2 and I do not think it will happen!

IMO, the barrel scene will be pushed back to film 2, film 1 thus ending with the spider sequence and the capture of the dwarves by the elves.
The climax of Film 2 could be the Battle of Dol Guldur AND the fury of Smaug after his encounter with Bilbo. Film 2 could end with the suspens of seing Bilbo and company trapped in the tunnel. I really like that ideaSmile !
With the death of Smaug AND the BOFA (+ the return of Bilbo), film 3 could then be the great conclusion of it all!!!



Maiarmike
Grey Havens


Jul 30 2012, 4:31pm


Views: 4207
Peter Jackson has always struck me as an honest, dedicated fellow...

...so for that reason, I believe him for the time being that this was done for artistic reasons, and not pushed by the studio.

"I warn you, if you bore me, I shall take my revenge"
--J.R.R. Tolkien


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 30 2012, 4:33pm


Views: 4265
What you outline

Seems like plenty of story to tell in three hours, particularly if you take your time to do it well.

I think three films will help PJ, rather than hurt him. It will give him time to not have to compromise between action and dialogue, thrill and backstory. He can include both.


(This post was edited by Shelob'sAppetite on Jul 30 2012, 4:33pm)


hutch
Rohan


Jul 30 2012, 4:33pm


Views: 4090
MWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!

Bring on Viggo!!!!!!! Sly

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


Compa_Mighty
Tol Eressea


Jul 30 2012, 4:34pm


Views: 4030
It's not that I'm against it, don't get me wrong...

I am not particularly thrilled, though. It seems like a huge, non-artistic risk to take. It makes sense financially-speaking, but the potential for the tarnishment of Middle-earth legacy is rather large.

Visit Mexico from A to Z! Index to the whole series here.
Essay winner of the Show us your Hobbit Pride Giveway!



There&ThereAgain
Rohan


Jul 30 2012, 4:34pm


Views: 4533
the way peter makes movies

is he films lots of coverage, rewrites the scripts constantly, gets ideas from actors, builds full sets to live in.

I'm not surprised at all considering most of the three lord of the rings movies changed tremendously during their pickup stages AND in post-production.

"The world is indeed full of peril, and in it there are many dark places; but still there is much that is fair; and though in all lands love is now mingled with grief, it grows perhaps the greater."-J.R.R. Tolkien

"Thanks for the money!" -George Lucas


Maiarmike
Grey Havens


Jul 30 2012, 4:35pm


Views: 4252
According to Slashfilm.com, domain registrations for the titles include...

...The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, and The Hobbit: Riddles in the Dark.

I wonder if they are renaming a 2nd film, and keeping the third film as There and Back Again?...

"I warn you, if you bore me, I shall take my revenge"
--J.R.R. Tolkien


hutch
Rohan


Jul 30 2012, 4:35pm


Views: 4326
Viggo! Viggo! Viggo!

Viggo! Smile

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


The Party Tree
Lorien


Jul 30 2012, 4:35pm


Views: 4055
Disappointed, but not surprised.

I don't really trust PJ to handle the extra material, especially in light of the fact that I wasn't always happy with the way PJ & Co. adapted dialogue and narrative in LotR that had already been fully fleshed out by Tolkien.

But most importantly, I hope all three films succeed in focusing on Bilbo's story and telling all of it. If it veers too far from actually being about the hobbit, I'll be really disappointed.


peleowyn
Rivendell


Jul 30 2012, 4:37pm


Views: 4055
Woo hoo! That means...

...more of Howard Shore's incredible music!!

"Look! There is light, and beauty up there, that no Shadow can touch!"


DanielLB
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 4:38pm


Views: 4010
Why wouldn't they keep "An Unexpected Journey"?

It makes more sense than "Riddles in the Dark"? No?

And what of all the merchandise locked down with the title AUJ? Too late to change film 1 surely?


hutch
Rohan


Jul 30 2012, 4:38pm


Views: 3991
Whoa, Really?

You? Ha ha. This is awesome. If Flagg has no beef with this then either the world is ending or it's a good idea.

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


stoutfiles
Rohan

Jul 30 2012, 4:40pm


Views: 4226
Trust in Peter

He made three great LOTR films. Academy award winning films. Now you'll all want to lynch the guy for giving us more material on the big screen?

We could have had one Hobbit film that rushed Bilbo and Co. to the mountain and back. We could have two films that fit all of the Hobbit but have little time for anything else. Or, we can have three films that flesh out all the characters and extra scenes such as the White Council destroying Dol Guldur and the Battle of Azanulbizar. I don't care if it's about money, because we're being given more material to enjoy.

Bring on the third film!



RosieLass
Valinor


Jul 30 2012, 4:43pm


Views: 4209
BOO! :( //

 



It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Jul 30 2012, 4:43pm


Views: 4429
hmm

Are you sure? Im not...
Dol Guldur: 15-20 minus
Laketown: 20-30 minus
Trek to LM: 15 minus
LM : 7 minus
Smaug Bilbo chat: 10-15 minus
Smaugs attack: 15 minus
Added chats, flashbacks, history: 15 -20 minus

Maybe i am being a bit conservative with the time...but i dont think theres enough story for a full film...

I like that idea of not compromising and pj taking his time to do it...but i fear even if it reaches the 230 hours or 3 hours , that the character archs and plots wont have the definitive end and conclusion feeling that we get from the trilogy...


There&ThereAgain
Rohan


Jul 30 2012, 4:43pm


Views: 4256
I whole-heartedly agree

Also: you folks all knew that regardless of a third film or not The Hobbit was not going to be like the book AT ALL. Once PJ and Co (along with some of the original actors) signed up to make it they had an obligation to keep The Hobbit in the same world as the Lord of the Rings. The arrival of a third film shows their commitment to this vision and I'm excited they are taking it all the way instead of trying to land halfway in-between.

"The world is indeed full of peril, and in it there are many dark places; but still there is much that is fair; and though in all lands love is now mingled with grief, it grows perhaps the greater."-J.R.R. Tolkien

"Thanks for the money!" -George Lucas


Ardamírë
Valinor


Jul 30 2012, 4:46pm


Views: 4241
Are they certain about this?

Where are they getting a summer '14 date?


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Jul 30 2012, 4:46pm


Views: 4291
A Few Observations

The studio must like what they've seen. The general audience probably will too. Studios are usually quick to cut their losses when it's not worthwhile.

The theaters might like how, if each movie will now be shorter, they could fit more shows per day than they could otherwise with three-hour films.

Peter Jackson must not be tired of making this movie. He wants more. That suggests there should be a good energy and quality in these films. I appreciate that he is willing to put more of his life into this for us. The commitment means a little less time for his other projects. That gives me faith it is a priority and will be treated well.

The theaters and studios increase their revenues by 33%, more or less, in the theater and the home video market.

The chance for Oscars also just increased by 33%.

I wish Jackson would comment on The Green Tint (FOTR EE Blu-ray) too.


Altaira
Superuser / Moderator


Jul 30 2012, 4:47pm


Views: 4203
TORn has confirmed -- Summer 2014! //

Smile


Koru: Maori symbol representing a fern frond as it opens. The koru reaches towards the light, striving for perfection, encouraging new, positive beginnings.



"Life can't be all work and no TORn" -- jflower

"I take a moment to fervently hope that the camaradarie and just plain old fun I found at TORn will never end" -- LOTR_nutcase





BeornBerserker
Lorien

Jul 30 2012, 4:48pm


Views: 4226
whatever else

It is an impressive cast that seems to embraced their roles and middle earth and there was probably a desire to strike while the anvil was hot and they were in place.


RosieLass
Valinor


Jul 30 2012, 4:50pm


Views: 4259
People keep saying "Trust Peter."

But the fact is that I found the LOTR films only good, not great.

So I don't have the supreme confidence in him that other people do.

He had plenty of original Tolkien material in LOTR to make three films, and he still managed to disappoint me on several occasions.

And now he wants to make three films out of of a book barely needs one?

What part of that am I supposed to trust?

And as for having a negative opinion before I have facts, the people raving about what a fabulous idea this is have no more facts than I do. If their opinions are valid and acceptable, then so are mine.



It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)


DanielLB
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 4:50pm


Views: 4141
Thanks TORn

This is all too exciting!


DanielLB
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 4:50pm


Views: 4164
As others have said in previous threads, I imagine we will get 3 2 hour films, rather than 2 3 hour films! /

 


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Jul 30 2012, 4:51pm


Views: 4149
hm

Summer???

Hunf, i dont watch lotr during the summer time, only in winter, autumn and early spring....hot summer doesnt match with lotr as far as i am concerned...

Oh well, i guess ill go watch it in the Netherlands or Germany Laugh


Flagg
Tol Eressea


Jul 30 2012, 4:51pm


Views: 4188
Intriguing

Surely 'Riddles in the Dark' could only refer to the first film? There's no way they'd end it before the encounter with Gollum. Perhaps they're considering ditching 'An Unexpected Journey' as a title?

As for 'The Desolation of Smaug' – I quite like the sound of that, and it could equally refer to either the second or third film, depending on where they choose to make the second split.


Ardamírë
Valinor


Jul 30 2012, 4:52pm


Views: 4149
Any idea why they didn't do 3 Christmas releases like before?//

 


Hanzkaz
Rohan

Jul 30 2012, 4:52pm


Views: 4244
'the Battle of Dol Guldur' ? -

- so it looks there is going to be a big fight at the Necromancer's fortress.

But I'm a little confused. Are they referring to the White Council's original attack or the battle that took place during the War of the Ring?



Quote
tell the full story of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and the part he played in the sometimes dangerous, but at all times exciting, history of Middle-earth.



Could they possibly be referring to the later history of Middle-Earth?


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Jul 30 2012, 4:52pm


Views: 4107
I think three two hour & fifty min. movies.//

 

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
Photobucket



Morok Cloudkeeper
Rohan


Jul 30 2012, 4:53pm


Views: 4111
What about 3 3 hour films?

Wink

Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle.



DanielLB
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 4:53pm


Views: 4150
As others have suggested, it would be dragging 1 story out over 3 years.

It keeps the momentum going (like Harry Potter) if they are released closer together.


Ardamírë
Valinor


Jul 30 2012, 4:54pm


Views: 4164
How does that help fit in the extra material Peter wants to show?//

 


DanielLB
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 4:54pm


Views: 4144
Or that! ;-) /

 


DanielLB
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 4:55pm


Views: 4122
That's very specific Kangi Ska.

Any reasoning? Smile


Ardamírë
Valinor


Jul 30 2012, 4:56pm


Views: 4094
It wasn't a problem with LOTR

and I don't see how it would be with the Hobbit.


DanielLB
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 4:56pm


Views: 4051
Mathmatically, it is the same yes.

But cinematically it makes a very large difference.


Ardamírë
Valinor


Jul 30 2012, 4:57pm


Views: 4039
I don't think I agree//

 


Danielos
Rohan

Jul 30 2012, 4:57pm


Views: 4085
I want 3 hour Hobbit-movies, dammit!

Is it possible that WB wants shorter movies (more profit?) and does not allow PJ to make 3 hour-movies and that this was the alternative not to lose any material? It would seem extremely sad, silly and cynical if that is the real reason.


DanielLB
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 4:58pm


Views: 3970
The Lord of the Ring was 3 distinctive books

The Hobbit is one book, which they've added a sub-plot too. And both stories are a lot different.

It's a risk turning 2 films into 3, when they're is just 5 months to go. Perhaps that was a reason as well?


Flagg
Tol Eressea


Jul 30 2012, 4:59pm


Views: 3982
I'm not sure where you're going with that one... //

 


Estel78
Tol Eressea

Jul 30 2012, 4:59pm


Views: 4135
Well, it's your word against PJ's.

PJ saw the rough cut, did you? He's of the opinion he has enough material for three movies. I trust he knows what he's doing, he's a successful filmmaker after all. I'm sure a 2 movie or even 1 movie Hobbit could have worked but it would be a different film (not necessarily better). I for one like spending more time in Middle Earth, so i'm all for it.


In Reply To
Maybe i am being a bit conservative with the time...but i dont think theres enough story for a full film...



Flagg
Tol Eressea


Jul 30 2012, 5:01pm


Views: 3954
Tolkien wrote 'Lord of the Rings' as a single book

IIRC, it was only split into three volumes because it would have been prohibitively expensive to print all in one.


DanielLB
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 5:02pm


Views: 3953
Sorry Ardamírë

I'm too shocked to come up with a coherent and sensible argument. I'll have to pass Tongue


Ardamírë
Valinor


Jul 30 2012, 5:06pm


Views: 3925
Exactly.

And movie release dates really have nothing to do with wether there was one book or seventeen. It just depends on getting people to see the next movie.

Releasing them a year apart is the pattern established by LOTR and I was just wondering why that changed.


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Jul 30 2012, 5:07pm


Views: 4037
well

I dont think it is required of a onering fan of tolkien who knows the book on which these movies are based, to see a rough cut of the movie before puting forward reservations about this...

Forgive me for questioning the unquestionable...i shall crawl back to my little hobbit hole now...tap tap tap...


Ardamírë
Valinor


Jul 30 2012, 5:07pm


Views: 3910
No problem!

I fear most of my posts are too scatter-brained to follow, too. Blush


Danielos
Rohan

Jul 30 2012, 5:08pm


Views: 4138
Let´s be a little constructive.

When everyone here have stopped geeking around and wiped the drool of the chin, we might start to actually think about what this means.

How much do they have to shoot? Will they have to build additional sets? Will they have to bring back Christopher Lee that is so frail that I fear he might not live to see the trilogy? And how will the first movie be affected?

I think a perfect way to end film one is when the company is about to enter Mirkwood and Gandalf abandons them. Zoom up to see endless forest and end credits...


Altaira
Superuser / Moderator


Jul 30 2012, 5:08pm


Views: 4160
That's undoubtedly part of what they were working out

When PJ first floated the idea, he said they were in talks with the actors - presumably about both their schedules and their salaries! Laugh


Koru: Maori symbol representing a fern frond as it opens. The koru reaches towards the light, striving for perfection, encouraging new, positive beginnings.



"Life can't be all work and no TORn" -- jflower

"I take a moment to fervently hope that the camaradarie and just plain old fun I found at TORn will never end" -- LOTR_nutcase





Erufaildon
Bree


Jul 30 2012, 5:08pm


Views: 3971
I do not like this

They wrote a script for two movies, the shot for two movies, they planned post production for two movies and scheduled/hired actors for two movies. How they plan to shoot enough footage for an additional movie in 2-4 months, that fits with everyones schedule I don't know.

Even if all the above ain't a problem, I still prefer quality over quantity. Great, they've shot a lot of material. Still, they have two 180 minute films to fill, and much of what they've shot probably deserves to be left on the cutting room floor. I love the EEs, because they show more scenes from the book but they are considerably worse movies than the TE (maybe not FOTR, but TTT and ROTK). Give me two well-paced, high quality movies, and leave the best of the rest for the Extended Editions, IMO Smile


TheWhiteRider
Bree


Jul 30 2012, 5:10pm


Views: 3946
I believe...

that shooting three Hobbit films was always their plan. I mean, approximately the same number of days were utilized in shooting these films compared to LOTR. Moreover negotiating with the actors for new contracts for another film now will be quite troublesome. PJ has kept it secret to create a buzz about the films Evil


DanielLB
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 5:11pm


Views: 4081
Save that for another thread, or later on!

The news only came 1.5 hours ago! There's a lot more geeking to come I'm afraid (and twice as much drool).


Balderdash Baggins
The Shire

Jul 30 2012, 5:11pm


Views: 4109
Aragorn and Arwen??

Does anyone think it's possible this third movie could include some of the Aragorn and Arwen back story from the appendices?


Arandir
Gondor


Jul 30 2012, 5:12pm


Views: 4118
Link to Announcement From Warner and MGM

not sure if someone else has posted this before but here goes

http://www.facebook.com/...logy/413954741973470


(This post was edited by Arandir on Jul 30 2012, 5:14pm)


Flagg
Tol Eressea


Jul 30 2012, 5:13pm


Views: 4016
They filmed Aragorn and Arwen's first meeting a decade ago

I wouldn't be surprised if they found a way to work the footage into one of the new films.


Ardamírë
Valinor


Jul 30 2012, 5:14pm


Views: 3877
Not necessary.

But it's really one of the things from the appendices I'd like to see somewhere. Heart


duats
Grey Havens

Jul 30 2012, 5:14pm


Views: 3989
i guess I'll be one of the few voices of discontent

I'm not okay with this, and I'd be lying if I said that this news didn't cause a serious blow to my enthusiasm. Needing three 2.5-3 hour movies to faithfully adapt The Hobbit?

Yeah. No.


Rostron2
Gondor


Jul 30 2012, 5:15pm


Views: 3961
Fascinating

All those dwarves each deserve their own film!!! I lobby for a TV series of minimum 72 episodes, and then the Silmarillion: First Age


Erufaildon
Bree


Jul 30 2012, 5:16pm


Views: 4080
What makes you believe that?

PJ was reluctant at the start of the project, arguably looking to make TH a "simpler" or less exhausting project than LOTR. When he changed his mind no one knows, but I think it's clear two movies was the plan from the beginning and sometime into production/shooting.


Altaira
Superuser / Moderator


Jul 30 2012, 5:16pm


Views: 4027
That, plus actors' schedules might have been a factor

They're may also be comfortably ahead of the game as far as what's already been filmed, and the amount of work that would have to be done to produce a third movie.


Koru: Maori symbol representing a fern frond as it opens. The koru reaches towards the light, striving for perfection, encouraging new, positive beginnings.



"Life can't be all work and no TORn" -- jflower

"I take a moment to fervently hope that the camaradarie and just plain old fun I found at TORn will never end" -- LOTR_nutcase





DanielLB
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 5:18pm


Views: 4022
That hasn't been posted yet. Thank you :-)

Seems like film 1 will still be called AUJ:


Quote

The first film in the trilogy, “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey,” will be released December 14, 2012, with the second film releasing on December 13, 2013, and the third film slated for summer 2014. All three films will be released in 3D and 2D in select theatres and IMAX.



Balderdash Baggins
The Shire

Jul 30 2012, 5:19pm


Views: 4012
not necessary for "The Hobbit", I agree...

However, if Peter really wants to make The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings trilogies flow together, then adding some of the Aragorn/Arwen story, and bringing Viggo and Liv Tyler back, would certainly contribute to that.


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Jul 30 2012, 5:20pm


Views: 4123
A little comparative maths for anyone what's interested.

Obviously slightly overtaken by the confirmation but nonetheless...

There has been a lot of discussion about whether there is sufficient material to equate to three films. My position was that I didn't think the relationship was a proportional one but I thought I really also ought to go and check.

With a bit of digging you can turn up word counts for similar books and the running times of their film adaptations. Just for fun we can then calculate how many words per film-hour the adaptations run at and how long we might expect The Hobbit material to reasonably translate to.

So firstly there is huge variance with some adaptations running through circa 50k source words per film hour (LOTR and the last HP's up at this top end) whilst at the opposite extreme Where the Wild Things Are equates to only just over 200 words per film hour.

If we assume 3 x 2.5 hour films then The Hobbit adaptations would be covering only around 12,000 per hour (which is a little on the low side compared to similar fiction)

If however we allow an additional 20% of appendices based material (which doesn't seem too outrageous) then this would bring the run rate up to just over 15,000 wpfh which would place it completely in line with The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and just under Coraline and Prince Caspian.

Certainly there are many film adaptations (which I would think are reasonably decent adaptations) which have a higher conversion of source material volume to screen time. This is particularly noticeable where the source material is short fiction to begin with (e.g. Brokeback Mountain, Benjamin Button, It's a Wonderful Life, Minority Report (OK I know, I know)). All of these are running at rates lower than 5,000 wpfh, so substantially more stretched, for want of a better term, than the proposed Hobbit films.

So what does that tell us. Well not much conclusively but it does show that material volume (imperfectly measured by word count) doesn't relate straightforwardly to the amount of screen time generated.

Secondly it does suggest that the material to screen time ratio for the prospective Hobbit films would only need a relatively small amount of appendix based material to make it very comparable to other similar films, and good deal higher than many other adaptations.

LR


Estel78
Tol Eressea

Jul 30 2012, 5:22pm


Views: 4000
I kinda doubt they'll be 3 hours long now. More like 2 and a half. //

 


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Jul 30 2012, 5:22pm


Views: 4364
I am betting the rough cut was 10 hours plus.

That means the three movies are allready in memory. What did the guy say in Vlog 8? The equivalant of 23 million feet of film. All they need is pick up shots and CG work.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
Photobucket



(This post was edited by Kangi Ska on Jul 30 2012, 5:22pm)


Rostron2
Gondor


Jul 30 2012, 5:25pm


Views: 4148
Well, that keep the people employed longer

And gives us more to talk about for sure.


bookgirl13
Lorien


Jul 30 2012, 5:26pm


Views: 4180
Meant to only be two films

IIRC the first studio wanted LotR to be one film, conflating Rohan and Gondor, Battle of Helm's Deep and Pelennor Fields etc. Then it went up to three films, perhaps he found it difficult to incorporate all that stuff he'd cut out from the first two-film script.

I hope it works without too many scenes of cheesy dialogue and 'bridge' elements.


Eowyn of Penns Woods
Valinor


Jul 30 2012, 5:26pm


Views: 4127
You speak for me as well! //

 

**********************************


NABOUF
Not a TORns*b!
Certified Curmudgeon
Knitting Knerd
NARF: NWtS Chapter Member since June 17,2011


MouthofSauron
Tol Eressea


Jul 30 2012, 5:27pm


Views: 4145
I TOLD YOU...

So.... Wink




Maiarmike
Grey Havens


Jul 30 2012, 5:28pm


Views: 4134
No offense, but if one is not a filmmaker, how would one know how many films it takes to thoroughly tell a story?

I only ask because two brilliant filmmakers, Guillermo del Toro, and Peter Jackson have deemed it impossible on different occasions. I only trust them, because they both said it couldn't be done.

Let's say for example they did make a single Hobbit film from just what is in the book. You'd have a solid story for Bilbo Baggins and Thorin, and then a bunch of dwarves the audience wouldn't care for, because they never speak, and have zero development. That would go over well. That's only one of the problems you'd have.

"I warn you, if you bore me, I shall take my revenge"
--J.R.R. Tolkien


Flagg
Tol Eressea


Jul 30 2012, 5:28pm


Views: 4091
I wouldn't take that post as a confirmation

It doesn't seem to have been proof-read properly – it says that Zane Weiner is one of the producers of the film, which isn't strictly true.


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Jul 30 2012, 5:32pm


Views: 4076
It would make sence to develop the new film in the middle

rather than on the end. They would be keeping "An Unexpected Journey" and "There & Back Again.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
Photobucket



(This post was edited by Kangi Ska on Jul 30 2012, 5:33pm)


SirDennisC
Half-elven


Jul 30 2012, 5:33pm


Views: 4132
Yes "Desolation of Smaug" for film 2

"Riddles in the Dark" for film one and simply "The Battle of Five Armies" or "A Gathering Storm" for film 3.

"There and Back Again" is secondary title for the entire trilogy (oi that is going to take some getting used to!), certainly it is the alternate title of The Hobbit book.

So here's what it could look like

The Hobbit Trilogy, or There and Back Again:

Episode I: Riddles in the Dark
Episode II: The Desolation of Smaug
Episode III: A Gathering Storm (or The Battle of Five Armies)

(just kidding about the "Episode" bits)

Though looking at those titles, the story in total would appear to have quite a different complexion than the book.

They would be similar in tone and structure to the LOTR movies:

FOTR: light and optimistic
TTT: dark and brooding
ROTK: epic and triumphant

Whatever it is, this news changes everything.


duats
Grey Havens

Jul 30 2012, 5:35pm


Views: 4056
simple

The Lord of the Rings was, for all intents and purposes, successfully adapted into three films, when there was enough canon material in there to allow for six films.

The Hobbit is one book, and shorter than any single volume in LoTR. You're right. I'm no filmmaker, but I am familiar enough with this story to be 100% certain that this simpler, linear narrative does not need the same amount of screentime as the entire LoTR trilogy in order to be adapted faithfully.


(This post was edited by duats on Jul 30 2012, 5:37pm)


Bran
Lorien


Jul 30 2012, 5:36pm


Views: 4053
A cautious welcome

If we're getting more Tolkien, more from the original backstory as written by the man himself, I'm all in favour.

If we're getting more padding, more 'female elves because there aren't enough female parts' and so on, I'll be very much against.

I was so looking forward to watching two thetrical versions, and then enjoying greater depth in the EEs. Hope that doesn't go out the window.

Mawr yw ein braint i berthyn i'r gwm Llynfi


DanielLB
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 5:37pm


Views: 4059
An Unexpected Journery should remain the title of film 1

Whether there are 2 films, 3 films or 79 films, film 1 begins with an unexpected journey. No need to change it at all to "Riddles in the Dark".


One Ringer
Tol Eressea


Jul 30 2012, 5:37pm


Views: 4121
By this logic...

The Lord of the Rings should be atleast 12 movies. Honestly, this makes me hate the fact that they're including the Necromancer even more. The Hobbit is a standalone story that shouldn't touch base with LotR, and it should be a lone film.

FOTR 10th Anniversary Music Video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33xJU3AIwsg

"You do not let your eyes see nor your ears hear, and that which is outside your daily life is not of account to you. Ah, it is the fault of our science that it wants to explain all; and if it explain not, then it says there is nothing to explain."


TheRealBeren
Rivendell

Jul 30 2012, 5:38pm


Views: 4100
To the big house!

Somebody needs to put PJ in a nursing home along with all of his bandwagon fans and take away those films from him.Kiddin' admins.How about a poll?


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 5:41pm


Views: 4177
That breakdown doesn't seem to leave much for the third film...


In Reply To
the Dol Guldur plot would still be the climax of film 1, the death of Smaug film 2, and the BO5A film 3.



I would reorder An Unexpected Journey so that it ends at either Beorn's house or at the edge of Mirkwood. The second movie would end at Lake-town, but would contain most of the Dol Guldur subplot as well as the company's adventures with spiders and Wood-elves. The third film would be There and Back Again.

Although I still don't see an overwhelming need to break the book into three films.

"Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house." - Aragorn

(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Jul 30 2012, 5:44pm)


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Jul 30 2012, 5:42pm


Views: 4097
I think Peter wil cut each movie to just under 3 hours (Think Dark Knight Rises).

Extended cuts will be three hours plus. As I said elswhere, I would bet the rough cut was ten hours plus given the amount of equivalant footage they shot.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
Photobucket



(This post was edited by Kangi Ska on Jul 30 2012, 5:43pm)


DanielLB
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 5:43pm


Views: 4137
Does that not leave too much for film 3?

Why have the death of Smaug and the BO5A in the same film, when you can spread it over two?


Stupid Fat Hobbitses
The Shire


Jul 30 2012, 5:45pm


Views: 4103
Domain registrations...


In Reply To
According to Slashfilm.com, domain registrations for the titles include...The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, and The Hobbit: Riddles in the Dark.

I wonder if they are renaming a 2nd film, and keeping the third film as There and Back Again?...


Hmm...maybe it's time to start considering a quadrilogy:

Part One: An Unexpected Journey
Part Two: Riddles In The Dark
Part Three: The Desolation Of Smaug
Part Four: There And Back Again

I guess I better get to work on my new proposal! I kid...I kid...Wink

Wow! How much changes after a night's sleep? I'm not surprised by this sudden announcement though...I knew that time was of the essence if rumors of a third film were to materialize. Pete needed a decision quickly, in order to properly edit and assemble the first film to support a trilogy. After submitting my three film sketch on The Hobbit on this forum a few days ago, I must admit that I'm quite pleased with this announcement, as I felt confident that this possibility existed and could be pulled off to great effect.

With regards to titles, obviously they'll keep An Unexpected Journey as the title of the first film, as the marketing campaign is already in full swing with the release of the first trailer and all. As I surmised in my musings for a possible Hobbit trilogy, a logical title for the second film would be The Desolation Of Smaug, as my breakdown for the end of the second film consisted of Smaug's death. I believe the title of There And Back Again will remain and be utilized as the name of the third film.


(This post was edited by Stupid Fat Hobbitses on Jul 30 2012, 5:52pm)


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 5:49pm


Views: 4010
I don't think so...

Well, I've already proposed that most of the Dol Guldur story would be finished by this point (perhaps the Council is still mopping up after the assault and securing the fortress). Even adding some background history, I don't think that the Bot5A has enough material, by itself, to sustain an entire feature film. I think that we need to include the events leading immediately to the death of Smaug to justify a third film.

"Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house." - Aragorn


DanielLB
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 5:56pm


Views: 4014
I think they're is plenty

If both Smaug and the Necromancer are defeated in film 2, then the cliffhanger can be "what happens to all the gold?"

That leaves film 3 for the dwarves securing Erebor, the marching of all the armies and the subsequent build-up of tension, the Arkenstone, the return of Gandalf, the battle, funeral scenes, the return journey (White Council wrap-up), and any other loose ends PJ wants to clean up.

That can justify another film.


Mooseboy018
Grey Havens


Jul 30 2012, 5:56pm


Views: 3942
I agree.

Changing the name this late wouldn't make sense, and especially because the title itself wouldn't really make sense...

It would be like changing the name of the Fellowship of the Ring to The Bridge of Khazad Dum.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 5:56pm


Views: 3938
I'm presuming that this is only the conflict referred to in 'The Hobbit'


In Reply To
- so it looks there is going to be a big fight at the Necromancer's fortress.

But I'm a little confused. Are they referring to the White Council's original attack or the battle that took place during the War of the Ring?



Jackson could have the fortress destroyed during the timeline of The Hobbit, but I don't think that the story is going to be expanded through the War of the Ring (unless the third film is a 'bridge' film after all).

"Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house." - Aragorn


Flagg
Tol Eressea


Jul 30 2012, 5:57pm


Views: 3971
Look at it this way

Regardless of how the filmmakers' additions turn out, we'll still get to see each scene from Tolkien's book given the rendition it deserves. I'd rather they shoot an overabundance of footage than leave good material unfilmed.


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Jul 30 2012, 5:58pm


Views: 4147
Here is how they will split the story

#1. Ends at Beorn's Lodge. Includes White Council at Rivendell.

#2. Mirkwood and the "battle" of Dol Guldur. Ends with The escape of The Dwarves from The Woodland Realm and a cliff hanger at Dol Gulder.

#3. The Rest of the story. Lake Town, The Smaug stuff & The Battle of Five Armies. This will end with the return to Hobbiton and perhaps a final visit from Balin.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
Photobucket



(This post was edited by Kangi Ska on Jul 30 2012, 6:02pm)


Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea


Jul 30 2012, 5:58pm


Views: 4014
Ridiculous. Simply ridiculous.

PJ's 'Lord of the Rings' Trilogy stands as my favorite film(s) of all time, no question. My faith in him has never faltered. I wholeheartedly supported his turning 'The Hobbit' into two films based on the fact that he was going to draw on additional material to expand the story.

But this is insane. THREE films? Three films to tell the story of The Hobbit? That's the same number of films that he made to tell the grand epic tale of 'The Lord of the Rings', which itself usually comprises 3 individual books. He excelled in his filmmaking craft 10 years ago by making 3 lean, exhilarating epic films for a massive book of over 1,000 pages. Now, he's going to make 3 bloated, overindulgent movies stretching out the material of a small children's story, and I honestly don't see how material from the appendices could demand such stretching.

I'm extremely disappointed. Unsure

Come to think of it, I've been more disappointed with the development of these films than I ever thought I'd be. Shot digitally? Shot in 3D? Used as a guinea pig for 48fps? Dwarves that look like humans? Three films to tell this extremely lean tale?

As much as I hate to say it, I don't think I can fall back on the 'ole "Trust PJ". I'm afraid my expectations have been severely lowered. Frown




"All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds awake to find that it was vanity; But the dreamers of day are dangerous men. That they may act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible."
- T.E. Lawrence


Mooseboy018
Grey Havens


Jul 30 2012, 6:00pm


Views: 4031
The Arkenstone

I think we can all rested assured that we'll definitely be seeing the Arkenstone now. Whether those old rumors about it being taken out were true or not, it would be silly not to include it now that they're stretching the story over three films.


Arandir
Gondor


Jul 30 2012, 6:02pm


Views: 3923
You're welcome! Yes I'm guessing they'll keep Film 1's title the same

give Film 2 a new title and shift 'There and Back Again' to Film 3


SirDennisC
Half-elven


Jul 30 2012, 6:03pm


Views: 3952
Ack! What was I thinking? Yes of course, I agree with you 8) //

 


Mooseboy018
Grey Havens


Jul 30 2012, 6:03pm


Views: 4031
I don't think that would work.

Now matter how much additional material they shoot for the Dol Guldur subplot, I just don't see how everything going on in Mirkwood could suddenly be changed into a standalone movie.

But the again... I'm having a hard time seeing how they could do this at all.


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Jul 30 2012, 6:04pm


Views: 4011
No. //

 

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
Photobucket



Stupid Fat Hobbitses
The Shire


Jul 30 2012, 6:05pm


Views: 4129
Dol Guldur...


In Reply To
Well, I've already proposed that most of the Dol Guldur story would be finished by this point (perhaps the Council is still mopping up after the assault and securing the fortress). Even adding some background history, I don't think that the Bot5A has enough material, by itself, to sustain an entire feature film. I think that we need to include the events leading immediately to the death of Smaug to justify a third film.


The reason I would disagree with this scenario is that if Dol Guldur wraps up in the second film, then there is no story left to tell on explaining where Gandalf disappears to until he turns up at the Battle Of Five Armies. I think it's unlikely that PJ would want Gandalf dropping out of the picture for most of the third film, therefore it would only make logical sense that the Dol Guldur storyline conclude early on in the third film.


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 30 2012, 6:05pm


Views: 4067
As someone who didn't much like PJ's LOTR

I see this is a very positive development.

For me, the LOTR films suffered because when PJ had a choice between upping the action ante, and including the nuance that exists in the novels, he chose the former. When he did not have this stark choice, as in the Shire scenes, the films progressed wonderfully. Has PJ been given six films to tell LOTR, I am almost 100% sure they would have been better.

In that sense, I think more time means that PJ will not have to choose between action and quiet, bombast and subtlety. He can include all of it.

If we're getting a LOTR prequel, and not the Hobbit book we know, I would rather he take his time in telling it, than rush from action scene A to action scene B.


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Jul 30 2012, 6:06pm


Views: 4049
yes

Have to say you have summed it up perfectly...

Unfortunately i sort of feel like you and not even Magpie's assertions about more gorgeous music cheers me up....i still think this is a bit ridiculous...i was so looking forward to th duology...


Sam20
Lorien

Jul 30 2012, 6:07pm


Views: 4087
Oh no...

I think that 3 movie is too much for a book like The Hobbit. It seems to me that two was good enough to explore the story without neglecting and 'shortcutting' lots of elements as has been done with the LOTR trilogy. They give the argument that a third will allow them to explore even more of the storie and his background but my guess is that they're gonna add lots of 'invented' stuff, fan-fiction style based on their interpretation and perhaps even stray at times from the the main story which is Bilbo's adventure. I mean that's what The Hobbit is about. I may be wrong but one might thing that there is money question behind this, that they will stretch this as much that it can possibly be done because there ain't gonna be anything else of Tolken's work on screen. Thrid film for The hobbit when FOTR got one, not so consistent to me...


(This post was edited by sam90 on Jul 30 2012, 6:13pm)


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 6:07pm


Views: 4065
Yes, maybe something like that...


In Reply To
#1. Ends at Beorn's Lodge. Includes White Council at Rivendell.

#2. Mirkwood and the "battle" of Dol Guldur. Ends with The escape of The Dwarves from The Woodland Realm and a cliff hanger at Dol Gulder.

#3. The Rest of the story. Lake Town, The Smaug stuff & The Battle of Five Armies. This will end with the return to Hobbiton and perhaps a final visit from Balin.



Film #1: The full White Council probably does not meet at Rivendell. This seems to be a more informal gathering only including Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel. I would expect the actual debate with the full council to occur in Film #2.

Film #2: I would conclude the assault on Dol Guldur, but we might not see all of the consequences of the attack until Film #3.

Film #3: As you say.

"Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house." - Aragorn


ByThorinsBeard
Rohan


Jul 30 2012, 6:07pm


Views: 3933
wait and see

 I'll go see the first, if I love it, I'll see the 2nd theatrically and if I'm still interested I'll see the third theatrically but they'll have to thrown in a lot of Durin's Folk from the appendices to get my goat and my $.

I was just fine not seeing the latter two LoTR films in the theatres and felt I missed nothing by doing so.

I am a Hobbit fan first (the dwarves) and an LoTR last. Hopefully, I'll just eat my words love the bloody blue blazes out of this trilogy. If not, that's fine too. Thus far, I am very underwhelmed and this doesn't help - but these are not being made for me so...

"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you anywhere." - Albert Einstein.



Danielos
Rohan

Jul 30 2012, 6:11pm


Views: 3923
Some more romance, perhaps?

The second film will feature a prominent subplot where lovesick dwarves Kili and Fili both fight for the affection of gorgeous elf Tauriel. Heart


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 6:13pm


Views: 3939
Gandalf can be kept in front of the audience...


In Reply To
The reason I would disagree with this scenario is that if Dol Guldur wraps up in the second film, then there is no story left to tell on explaining where Gandalf disappears to until he turns up at the Battle Of Five Armies. I think it's unlikely that PJ would want Gandalf dropping out of the picture for most of the third film, therefore it would only make logical sense that the Dol Guldur storyline conclude early on in the third film.



Gandalf does not have to drop out of the film. We can still be shown the aftermath of the assault as the Council secures the fortress and deals with any suprises (traps) that the Necromancer has left for them. Wights or lesser Wraiths might be waiting for them in the dungeons, for example. Or, Gandalf might try to track the Necromancer's retreat, perhaps with the aid of Elladan and Elrohir and some of the Dunedain (assuming any of these were present).

"Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house." - Aragorn


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 30 2012, 6:14pm


Views: 3950
The three films in broad strokes as it relates to the villains

This is my guess:

  • Hobbit Film 1: Conflict with monsters (Trolls, Goblins, Wargs, Giants, Spiders and Bears, Oh my!) With a shadowy Sauron lurking in the background.
  • Hobbit film 2: Conflict with humanoids (Thranduil's Elves, Master of Laketown and cronies, Thorin starts getting crazy). With Sauron exposed, and preparations made to remove him.
  • Hobbit film 3: Conflict with humanoids AND monsters (Elves, Men, Dwarves, Thorin goes off the deep end, Smaug, Goblins, Wargs, Bats, Bears, Oh my!). With Sauron attacked and driven from Mirkwood.



(This post was edited by Shelob'sAppetite on Jul 30 2012, 6:17pm)


Gollum the Great
Rohan


Jul 30 2012, 6:23pm


Views: 3824
SQUUUUUUUUUUUUUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE O_o

that is all I have to say at this time

Lord Sméagol? Gollum the Great? The Gollum! Eat fish every day, three times a day; fresh from the sea. Most Precious Gollum!


Mythopoeia
Bree


Jul 30 2012, 6:24pm


Views: 3839
So, trilogy film titles?

Does that mean the titles are now "An Unexpected Journey", "There", and "Back Again"? ;)

I'm not sure what to think about this. I thought the idea of two films was perfect. I'm sad to lose the prospective duology. IF however PJ speaks the truth when he says the decision was made purely to make sure more of the story stays in the movies, then huzzah, I couldn't be happier. I just can't help but doubt that that's the case. If we have a trilogy I want the extra film's worth of footage to be Hobbit footage and not White Council or Dol Guldur footage.

I love The Hobbit. It's been one of my favorite books since I was five years old. And I can, I suppose, see how it could potentially be expanded to fit three films--it is a very, very eventful story, more a series of episodes than LotR's series of setpieces, so although that might be slim on the page it could take up a lot of time on screen, particularly when considering that characters like Bard and all the dwarves are also going to be developed a lot more fully. I just hope that is in fact what's going to happen. This has to stay BILBO's story. The footage at Comic-Con looked pretty much perfect, so if we really get three films of that quality with that sort of spirit then I'm ecstatic; I'm just really hoping now that is the case.


Flagg
Tol Eressea


Jul 30 2012, 6:24pm


Views: 3819
These films were always going to include made-up stuff

That's just the style of adaptation favoured by Jackson, Walsh and Boyens. They weave new storylines to deal with perceived problems in the original text. It's the reason Aragorn was retrofitted into a reluctant king, and it's the reason we're getting a female warrior Elf.

Now that we know we're getting three films, at least we can be reasonably confident that Tolkien's story and the screenwriters' additions won't be competing for screentime – both will have plenty of room to breathe.


One Ringer
Tol Eressea


Jul 30 2012, 6:26pm


Views: 3797
It's not a guarantee. //

 

FOTR 10th Anniversary Music Video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33xJU3AIwsg

"You do not let your eyes see nor your ears hear, and that which is outside your daily life is not of account to you. Ah, it is the fault of our science that it wants to explain all; and if it explain not, then it says there is nothing to explain."


Lissuin
Tol Eressea


Jul 30 2012, 6:29pm


Views: 3755
Just woke up to this, and I am very quietly and perfectly happy. Wow.

Am off to wander around the streets of Wellington today for breakfast, second breakfast, luncheon and afternoon tea with friends, just being happy for all of us here who are happy now and for all who, I do sincerely hope, will be happy later.
Peace and love!Heart


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Jul 30 2012, 6:31pm


Views: 3771
titles

The Hobbit A Fat Lazy Guy ‘s Journey Out of His Hole
The Hobbit Elvish Parties and Nautical Raves
The Hobbit Dont Mess with the Dragon and Steal Other people’s Property


RosieLass
Valinor


Jul 30 2012, 6:36pm


Views: 3840
I don't have to be a filmmaker. I just need to be able to read and count.

The Lord of the Rings is 1,000-plus pages of densely written story (and it's NOT all descriptions of walking and flowers) with multiple plot lines.

The Hobbit is 300 pages of still excellently crafted but much lighter material that basically follows one plot line.

It should be self-evident that, without a lot of extraneous padding, there is not three films-worth of material in the Hobbit.

I don't know anything about GDT, so I have no opinion of his opinion. However, as I said, I have seen Jackson's LOTR and I don't hold him in quite as high esteem as other people do. His LOTR was adequate, and no more.



It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)


namarie
Rohan


Jul 30 2012, 6:40pm


Views: 3760
I don't like it :(

but I guess I have no choice but to accept it. Unimpressed

And I guess the first movie will not end up with "Barrels Out Of Bond" anymore.


There is always hope


dalecooper
Rivendell

Jul 30 2012, 6:41pm


Views: 3847
I am also nervous verging on pessimistic

However, I think your initial reaction may be a little too negative given how much we DON'T know about the planned movies. One thing we do know, from which we can extrapolate and speculate - PJ said "An Unexpected Journey" (prior to the 3-film announcement) was going to run "at least two and a half hours." That is a solid indication that 1. it probably stood little chance of being longer than 3 hours, and 2. both films together were likely not going to be more than six. A third movie is being added, but we already know that not much more shooting will be done to realize this movie - whatever footage they have is already in the can, except for some light pick-ups and a little extra shooting planned for next summer. By no means will they be filming enough extra footage for an entire separate movie; it will largely be drawn from what they have.

So what can we realistically expect? I'd suggest probably three movies about 2.5 hours long apiece. I'd be surprised if they go much more than that, or if the whole thing ends up being more than 8-9 hours. That does seem long for "The Hobbit," but maybe not that long for "The Hobbit + The Appendices" and still substantially less than the extended Lord of the Rings (which was over 11.5 hours).


(This post was edited by dalecooper on Jul 30 2012, 6:44pm)


Arathorn
The Shire

Jul 30 2012, 6:46pm


Views: 3764
Well, let's do the math

The Hobbit is a 500.000 signs novel. The Lord of the Rings is a 2.450.000 signs monster, nearly 5 times bigger.

I was dubious of the need of making 2 movies, but assuming there were plenty of non-Hobbit scenes of the White Council, Dol Guldur and the like, it was loosely realistic.

Even with a mere 6 hours for the Hobbit, it would still mean that the movie treatment would bring a book-length to movie-length ratio that would be 2.5 times lower than LOTR Extended Edition. If we end up with a 7.5 h trilogy, this becomes quite ludicrous, unless most of the last 2 hours are bridge stories - which apparently they wouldn't be able to do.


So, why shorten the movies into 3 parts instead of 2? Is it because they think it'll be easier for little kids (assuming they consider the Hobbit to have children as their core demographics, not just young adults and adults like with LOTR) to sit through a 2-h movie rather than a 2h45 one? Do they want to milk the spectators a bit more? Do they have other better reasons that, hopefully, will be made clearer in the future, allowing me to change my current opinion?


I could copy/paste most of Aragorn the Elfstone''s reaction to this news - except that "ridiculous" is the most charitable word I could use to describe my opinion of this move. And I'm definitely not one who thought that the LOTR movies were "just ok"; I'm clearly of the opinion that, despite some problems, they were a real success.

"Gods don't like people not doing much work. People who aren't busy all the time may start to think."
- Terry Pratchett, Small Gods



Elskar
Bree


Jul 30 2012, 6:51pm


Views: 3684
Tired of the roller coaster

Everything about this process has been such a roller coaster ride of good news bad news. GDT's involvement and departure, 3D or not 3D, 1 film or 2, New Zealand or elsewhere. Production blogs got me excited again and now it takes yet another plunge. Imagine reading the Hobbit and every time it starts getting really good put the book down and start reading the appendices or some other bit of material. I wonder if they are that confident about the non Tolkien fans. Are there enough true fans to fill seats for 3 watered down, drawn out sections of a fairly short story? Will movie goers who are not big fans in the first place even bother? I guess time will tell. My vote is still for one really great film. 2 I could live with depending on how they are handled. 3? I'm worried.

Plant Trees


wondering
Registered User

Jul 30 2012, 6:52pm


Views: 4000
The Silmarillion: how to do it

The Silmarillion: 10 movies, $100 billion profit, give $10 billion to the Tolkien estate, $10 billion to their favorite charities, everybody's happy and it gets done. How to link 10 movies together cohesively on a common, compelling thread consistent with the LOTR and Hobbit trilogies in a way that keeps film goers coming back for more and a mind-blowing final movie that occurs AFTER events of ROTK with everything remaining true to the Histories of Middle Earth and Lost Tales? I have a plan and it could make people feverishly excited for years to come. Anyone else have a strategy?


LoremIpsum
Lorien


Jul 30 2012, 6:55pm


Views: 4017
Extremely dissapointed

Oh well, this IS probably going to be a an over bloated mess that hardly resembles the book, but hey at least I get an extra soundtrack from Howard Shore (that is if PJ doesn't sack him when recording starts).

I'm sort of still looking forward to the movies but it's more nervous curiosity than excitement.


DanielLB
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 6:57pm


Views: 3967
I'd rather they spent $100 billion on solving the world economic crises and world poverty before spending that kind of money on the Silmarillion ;-P /

 


Bombadil
Half-elven


Jul 30 2012, 6:59pm


Views: 3919
My&Your Goldberry..And

Karen Wyann Fonstad
Our Professor &wife Edith along Luhtien
IN Valinor...they

Send a Special Beam of Elfin..
Enlightenment
as they DANCE!
to PJ's Song..

Bomby is especially Proud to know TORn..


Eowyn of Penns Woods
Valinor


Jul 30 2012, 7:01pm


Views: 3918
The Master of Filthy Lucre-town?//

 

**********************************


NABOUF
Not a TORns*b!
Certified Curmudgeon
Knitting Knerd
NARF: NWtS Chapter Member since June 17,2011


namarie
Rohan


Jul 30 2012, 7:01pm


Views: 3843
Same here //

 


There is always hope


Vangalad
Lorien


Jul 30 2012, 7:02pm


Views: 3861
I second that !


In Reply To
I'd rather they spent $100 billion on solving the world economic crises and world poverty before spending that kind of money on the Silmarillion ;-P



All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost,
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.


Istaris'staffs
Rivendell

Jul 30 2012, 7:05pm


Views: 3853
Ya'll have become spoiled

Don't all of you remember the era between 2006-2008? We thought we'd never see even one hobbit movie. Now we get three, and ya'll are complaining. Geez. Peter Jackson did great with LOTR. Don't be so quick in giving judgment against these movies. I'm very excited.


namarie
Rohan


Jul 30 2012, 7:05pm


Views: 3831
Thanks Bomby

your post made me smile Smile


There is always hope


irodino
Bree


Jul 30 2012, 7:11pm


Views: 3856
I'm getting a SW prequels vibe

My confidence level in this project has fallen to about 23% now. It's not that I don't believe it is impossible to find and film enough material for 3 movies here, but rather I find it doubtful a coherent fabric can be created from an already existing footage that was designed for two but is now split in three. I feel history will repeat itself, as it always does and PJ will pull a GL, and the Hobbit will feel like the Star Wars prequels compared to LOTR. It's not that hard to imagine, PJ's movies after LOTR were lukewarm at best, and he nearly ruined the LOTR movies too with some really horrible deas like having Aragorn fight Sauron physically, and only by some miracle changed his mind in the last moment - I fear such blunders will not be avoided this time around.

I don't think there is enough justification now to call this movie The Hobbit anymore. With 3 movies, the amount of content added should exceed and possibly overshadow the story of Bilbo and as such it may be more suitable to call this The LOTR Prequel.. or something like

The Lord Of The Rings: Sixty Years Earlier: Episode 1, 2 and 3 ;)

"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, and the future frightens us. And our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that terrible in-between."


Escapist
Gondor

Jul 30 2012, 7:12pm


Views: 3828
Yay! More movies to watch about my favorite story and character!

To the nay-sayers:
How many extra movies would it have taken to film a version of LOTR that included all the parts that got cut?
How many extra movies would it have taken to film a version of LOTR that included both the parts that were cut and relevant appendix material?

Think about it ...


Hanzkaz
Rohan

Jul 30 2012, 7:20pm


Views: 3845
Blame the Dwarves

If there weren't so many of them, they could probably have done the Hobbit as one movie.


During the LOTR movies, all of the Companions were given a chance to shine. One can assume all the members of Thorin's gang need a certain amount of time for character development too.


---------------------------------------------------------

So, when will we get that War in the North movie? I'm hoping that in the next few years they find a way to make it happen. The Hobbit was the first Middle-Earth book I read, so I was a bit disappointed find that only a few of Bilbo's companions were in the Lord of the Rings. Then I read the LOTR appendices.....


[Note to Peter Jackson - Please start filming War of the North-related scenes with the actors and sets you have now. You may have a problem getting hold of some of them later.]


Bombadil
Half-elven


Jul 30 2012, 7:24pm


Views: 3840
Embarrement of Richs?

.others have posted before.
Each Chapter is designed to be
The Bedtime Story...
you need to hear
before dreaming.

Bomby


Welsh hero
Gondor


Jul 30 2012, 7:28pm


Views: 3966
I bet each film to be shorter than 3 hours

and perhaps no EE

-Irfon

Twitter: @IrfonPennant
middle earth timeline FB: https://www.facebook.com/MiddleEarth1


triptrap
Lorien

Jul 30 2012, 7:33pm


Views: 3853
my head exlodes right now

this piece of news just kicked me right of the chair - in a negative way! like cptn. salt i have always been pretty positive about pj's style and his adapting of tolkien, especially after the latest blog and the picture scroll!

damn, pj, you just gave me a total knock-out! i really had to gather myself up and ( i'm just asking myself: how and why? all the time) find it extremely hard to see that a three-movies hobbit is a wise decision that works story-wise etc.

right now the only way i feel i could be pleased with a three part extended hobbit, is if they really concentrate on the hobbit, concentrate on their story, on the history and legacy of the dwarves. every other thing would stop it from being "the Hobbit" to me.


There&ThereAgain
Rohan


Jul 30 2012, 7:36pm


Views: 3859
Aren't we forgetting something?

When doing the math in regards to The Hobbit shouldn't we at least include the relevant amount of pages of the appendices?

"The world is indeed full of peril, and in it there are many dark places; but still there is much that is fair; and though in all lands love is now mingled with grief, it grows perhaps the greater."-J.R.R. Tolkien

"Thanks for the money!" -George Lucas


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Jul 30 2012, 7:49pm


Views: 3739
I don't think the maths works like that.

As it assumes two things, one of which isn't true and one of which is questionable.

Firstly it assumes a direct relationship between the size of the source material and the length of the adaptation. Whilst this seems intuitively true a bit of digging shows that no such simple relationship exists. Adaptations of very similar length have been created from source material as short as 5,000 words and as long as 250,000 words. I have looked at quite a number of these length relationships and would argue there is no such direct correlation.

Secondly it assumes that if there is a "correct" ratio then LOTR has it. This is questionable since, firstly we all know that the LOTR ratio led to several omissions and secondly LOTR's ratio is not a standard in any sense when compared to other films.

LR


hutch
Rohan


Jul 30 2012, 8:03pm


Views: 3822
Who didn't see this coming?

a shooting schedule for 2 films that was days shy of the same schedule for 3 films. Ha ha. I called this a while back...or at least was hoping for it.

Now I can only hope for more of Ian & Viggo. Laugh

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


Welsh hero
Gondor


Jul 30 2012, 8:07pm


Views: 3752
So, I've had a quick tought where each film ends and begins

Film 1: Prologe + Shire to Goblin village? Seems like a good cliff hanger, when Bilbo and the dwarves are separated.

Film 2. Riddles in the dark to Barrels out of Bond? Necromancer as film final battle?

Film 3. Lonely mountain, battle of 5 armies and then back again.

-Irfon

Twitter: @IrfonPennant
middle earth timeline FB: https://www.facebook.com/MiddleEarth1


Tim
Tol Eressea


Jul 30 2012, 8:11pm


Views: 3638
Thoughts about money and The Hobbit

I can understand the cynicism I've read from some. In my humble opinion it's a little more complicated than simple greed.

First, if it were simply all about money, PJ would have made The Hobbit a long time ago. My impression is that he does the work for the enjoyment. He found himself falling back in love with the idea of delving into Middle Earth and he's had so much fun he doesn't want to stop. He's looking forward to more filming next year. This is his baby, and he's taking care of it. It's obvious to me he also likes to take care of his people, and more film means more employment for his team.

Yes, for the studio's it's probably mostly about a return on their investment. But that's not such a bad thing. If these films, coupled with LOTR, are all successful, this opens the door for more Tolkien on screen. Perhaps the rights to more of the materials will be pursued with greater vigor. It also opens the door for more employment by the studio for other various projects, both in New Zealand and wherever else the studio's make money.

For many fans, like myself, this is a grand opportunity to see an adaptation that can quite possibly thoroughly explore the material of The Hobbit and the LOTR Appendices in an extensively enjoyable fashion. I don't know about you, but *this* world is dreary enough. I can always use more fun.

King Arthur: You know much that is hidden oh Tim.

Tim: Quite.

(This post was edited by Tim on Jul 30 2012, 8:19pm)


hutch
Rohan


Jul 30 2012, 8:12pm


Views: 3665
Ha ha. This totally sucks for...

any studio that was sitting on a film waiting for TH hysteria to pass so they could release their movie and hopefully makes some money (GI JOE).

anyway, what's with all the sour grapes you guys? What happens if the films are actually good? Will you jumpg on the bandwagon of supporters? Griping won't help at this point. Sit back, relax and enjoy the ride!!!!
Cool
Besides, it's another reason for us Ringers to stay together longer and have more parties!

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


dave_lf
Gondor

Jul 30 2012, 8:12pm


Views: 3600
Where angels fear to tread

It's worth noting that Tolkien himself attempted this feat once (rewriting The Hobbit by incorporating what he'd subsequently "learned" about Middle Earth and changing its tone to match Rings), but gave up the endeavor because he felt it changed a well-known and beloved story into something very different. I guess that very different something is what we'll be getting, for better or worse.


hutch
Rohan


Jul 30 2012, 8:16pm


Views: 3684
I'm sure they've thought this all through

before making announcements. That's what studios do. Usually.

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


hutch
Rohan


Jul 30 2012, 8:17pm


Views: 3613
That would be awesome.

 

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


Tim
Tol Eressea


Jul 30 2012, 8:17pm


Views: 3598
While I'm not as negative about PJ's LOTR adaptation as you are

(and of course you're entitled to your opinion) ...

I think you make a good point here.

King Arthur: You know much that is hidden oh Tim.

Tim: Quite.


Oscarilbo
Lorien


Jul 30 2012, 8:21pm


Views: 3534
the "What If" is killing me!

What if the same had happened to the LOTR trilogy.

I mean, the same chances, thanks to a previous succes, of being truly expanded.

I of course love the idea of 3 Hobbit films, but I can't help but think is pretty unfair for our loved trilogy :(

It would be great if PJ takes the opportunity to add the little bits of moments he missed ten years ago, and wanted to be in the LOTR trilogy (like showing other realms from middle earth also in battle in ROTK for example)

"The World is Changed, I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air"


hutch
Rohan


Jul 30 2012, 8:23pm


Views: 3485
yeah. That's a money factor.

With shorter films they can fit more showings in a day. I really wouldn't be surprised if the 3 films was really just the two cut into shorter films. Esp. if we get one during the summer.

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 30 2012, 8:23pm


Views: 3467
But this is only relevant if you thought the LOTR films were well-done as they were

I, personally, don't. There were innumerable unsatisfying compressions, etc. that made the films feel less immersive than they otherwise could have been. The conversations were clipped, the narrative plotlines were painted with broad brush-strokes, the story felt rushed, and the peoples of Middle Earth got short shrift (for example, did anyone care at all about the plight of the people of Gondor?)

PJ, I imagine, sees the Hobbit as his opportunity to really flesh out a story set in Midd;e Earth, and not be forced to a compromise between nuanced narrative and action.

In that context, I am delighted that PJ will likely have at least an extra 1.5 hours to tell the story (if, indeed, we end up with three 2.5 hour films, rather than 2 three-hour films). If we can eliminate the choice between action scene and great scene of dialogue, a choice which usually favors the former, then we may all be the happier.

We shall see. There are lots of unknowns. But in general, I think more time gives PJ room to include more stuff that at least feels like Tolkien.


hutch
Rohan


Jul 30 2012, 8:25pm


Views: 3491
Yeah. I feel a little bad for LOTR

It's younger brother is getting as much screen time as the mammoth novel.
Ah well. I do wonder if this will make LOTR seem less epic though.

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


Empedocles
Rivendell


Jul 30 2012, 8:25pm


Views: 3479
It's a matter of not judging things before seeing them

The way I see it, PJ has won at least the benefit of the doubt. So if he says that the story will work better if he can make 3 movies instead of 2, then he is right until proven otherwise (unless one of the complainers here is Jonathan/Chris Nolan, Joss Whedon or Aaron Sorkin or any other first class screenwriter posting under an alias).

I don't understand how people are saying now that it should be only 1 book, that's ridiculous, it shows a total lack of understanding of how a movie works.

A book can have 300 pages, it might be "lean", but it can still contain a lot of events than when put into the screen take a lot more time than an 800 pages book with multiple secondary insignificant stories and entire pages full of descriptions.

I'm not saying that 3 movies is the right way to go, I actually thought 2 was a perfect number of movies for The Hobbit. But I really don't know, I've been so wrong with movies before that if there's a director I like at the helm, I'm willing to shut my mouth and wait for the movie to be released before starting to complain about it.

And if this actually opens the door for the Hunt of Gollum, Thorongil (Viggo!!!), or even the Battle of Azanulbizar, the Death of Balin or some other significant event, it will be the best idea ever, and everybody here will agree come the summer of 2014

Please, give us back Glorfindel!!!


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 30 2012, 8:29pm


Views: 3484
All I care about is the Hobbit being better than LOTR

And if PJ feels that three films will allow him to tell a better, and perhaps more epic, story, than all power to him.


Snaga
Lorien


Jul 30 2012, 8:31pm


Views: 3440
Agreed

PJ has made tons and tons of money on his past projects and while there's something to be said for the rich wanting to get richer, I can't help but think he knows these films, along with the LOTR films, are going to be his legacy. I have faith that Peter believes he's making the right move here to tell the story(s) he wants to tell, and that the timing is right.

That having been said, I have little doubt that WB's motives revolve entirely around the almighty dollar. They have shareholders to answer to after all.

"Alas for Boromir! It was too sore a trial!"

-Faramir


Arathorn
The Shire

Jul 30 2012, 8:34pm


Views: 3406
Of course

First of all, if LOTR had plenty of poems and descriptions, the Hobbit has plenty of filler as well, but they're more the kind of humoristic dialogue or Tolkien's direct comments on what's going on.

Then, LOTR had a very consistent and complex story - though many side-stories as well. 2/3 of The Hobbit is, basically, a bunch of episodes put one after the other, without much rationale and grand plan that would sustain their sequence. You could change the order of some without losing much, you could even cut half of them when sending the Company to Laketown and the story wouldn't lose any cohesion. At the end of the day, cutting any Hobbit chapter would cut a larger share of the whole book but would be less harmful to the whole than cutting most of LOTR chapters.
I don't mean that stuff should be cut of course, just that any omission would be far less damaging.

So, all in all, I really don't think one could think the Hobbit deserves a ratio of screentime per word 3 times higher than LOTR. Unless we really want to have the trolls chatting for 30 minutes with PJ inventing plenty of bad puns and fart jokes :D (oh dear, and then he reads this comment and thinks to himself "That's it!" Angelic ) When we consider books that have a low words-signs / screentime ratio, we mostly deal with kids books like Dr Seuss's or Where the wild Things are - and we should keep in mind that these are vastly complemented by pictures, while we're speaking about the Hobbit, not about Father Christmas' Letters, here :)

Basically, the trick and one of issues here is that when you want to stretch things with the Hobbit, notably by giving more things to do and say to the numerous characters, it means that you have to invent it. And, frankly, the more you have to make stuff up to fill a Tolkien story, the less I expect the end result to be great.

"Gods don't like people not doing much work. People who aren't busy all the time may start to think."
- Terry Pratchett, Small Gods



Son_of_Gondor74
Registered User

Jul 30 2012, 8:37pm


Views: 3413
Precisely!

First, just read what PJ wants to intertwine with the narrative of The Hobbit, and you'll see there's plenty of stuff for 3 movies. I'd agree with all the negative nancy's if only The Hobbit novel storyline was diluted, but IT IS NOT SO!!!

Now what is in the appendices of LotR? Backgound and character development, such as Durin's Folk (Thrain and Azanulbizar), Gandalf and Thorin's encounter in Bree, Gandalf prevailing over Saruman in the White Council about Dol Guldur, Balin visiting Bilbo, and going to Moria, Saruman searching for the Ring near the Gladden Field, Sauron escaping in Mordor.

As for the Hobbit movies, they are adaptations; they never are exactly like the books, and I think we should all keep that in mind. Also that we know next to nothing about the scripts, and how they planned everything in the first place, so everyone should calm down a bit...


tiamy
Rivendell


Jul 30 2012, 8:37pm


Views: 3453
Or...

...it could be that PJ decided to use a lot of "slow motion" in the first two movies that it stretched the running time enough to fill in 3 movies. LOL
Remember the excessive use of slow mo in King Kong?


Estel78
Tol Eressea

Jul 30 2012, 8:38pm


Views: 4931
Defintely not.

You're selling the filmmakers short. I'm just doubting there's enough material for a 9 hour movie essentially. But had PJ been able to pack all that he wants into 6 hours (2 x 3) he would have.


In Reply To
With shorter films they can fit more showings in a day. I really wouldn't be surprised if the 3 films was really just the two cut into shorter films. Esp. if we get one during the summer.



Empedocles
Rivendell


Jul 30 2012, 8:38pm


Views: 3394
Let's play this game

If Peter Jackson says next year, "you know what, I managed to convince Christopher Tolkien and he wants me to do the Fall of Gondolin and he has licensed the rights to me".

Would you say that that's a terrible idea just because the making of the movie will necessary involve a lot of invented material?

Please, give us back Glorfindel!!!


Mooseboy018
Grey Havens


Jul 30 2012, 8:42pm


Views: 3404
How would that work?

Even with expanded material, I really don't think the first four chapters of the Hobbit would make a good standalone film.

If they're going to do that with any portion of the story it would make more sense to do it towards the end where they can do what they did with Rohan and Helm's Deep, and have a lot of buildup to the battle while giving the characters more of a chance to develop than they did in the book in some cases. Expanding on a few misadventures and a trip to Rivendell just wouldn't have the same impact.

the first movie would be:

-possible prologue/bookend stuff with Frodo
-dwarves arriving at Bag End
-the trolls
-Rivendell (and any White Council/Dol Guldur stuff)
-the mountain pass/Goblin Town

...it just doesn't seem like a cohesive movie. Especially considering that the first movie up until now was going to end with Barrels out of Bond. If they're going to change where the first movie ends (which sounds likely) then I think ending somewhere in Mirkwood (maybe after the spider battle or at the forest's entrance) would be the only thing that would make sense.


(This post was edited by Mooseboy018 on Jul 30 2012, 8:44pm)


Elessar
Valinor


Jul 30 2012, 8:51pm


Views: 3352
Color me excited

With what they can add in its going to make the hobbit better and make for one heck of a ride from the hobbit to the lord of the rings. This is going to be the ride of rides through middle-earth as far as movies go.


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Jul 30 2012, 8:51pm


Views: 3588
If The Hobbit is becoming Three full length films, then there will be significant pulling from Peter

, Fran and Phillipa's collective asses, appendicies or no. You think we are going to get Three Hobbit movies and not get more Tauriel than you ever imagined? And this Business of The Dunedain trapping The Nazgul? And God knows how much other fan fic, and I would bet we STILL don't get a damned glimpse of Bombadil or Glorfindel or any other "left out" or "mostly left out" from LOTR.

At least Lucas was playing around with his own story. Love it or hate it, it was entirely his to do with as he pleased. But The Hobbit predates Jackson's birth by several decades. . . he might have legal rights to alter it, but the moral legitimacy is another matter altogether.

In Reply To
Why do you guys keep mentioning Star Wars? I don't see George Lucas who's writing the script out of his ass and casting Hayden Christiansen creating Jar Jar Binks. Hobbit, regardless of everything, has amazing story and amazing cast to portray amazing characters. Some thing we must be careful and hopeful about, but come on, saying that this looks like Star Wars prequels is an insult of highest order. What next, Avatar comparison?


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea


Jul 30 2012, 8:51pm


Views: 3357
Then they'd be very great indeed...

Wink



"All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds awake to find that it was vanity; But the dreamers of day are dangerous men. That they may act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible."
- T.E. Lawrence


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Jul 30 2012, 8:51pm


Views: 3342
Hmm i think you are still linking

source material volume to film length and comparing it to LOTR.

What I am saying is that, looking at a reasonably large number of examples, that link simply isn't in evidence.

For a very simple example take a look at the HP series. Despite the longest book being around 3.5 times the length of the shortest the length of the films bear absolutely no relationship to the length of the adapted texts.

The Order of the Phoenix is 260,000 words and has a run time of 134 minutes, yet Brokeback Mountain is 138 minutes and adapted from a story with only 5,000 words it it.

LOTR's ratio of words to screen-time meanwhile is more than three times that of The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe.

I fully understand that it is intuitive to assume the to two factors should have a direct relationship but as far as I can see they don't.

A page of text, a paragraph or a sentence do not have any associated quantum of screen time which can be defined in and of itself outside how it happens to be portrayed in anything but the most extremely broad sense, it seems to me.

LR


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Jul 30 2012, 8:53pm


Views: 3398
No Viggo. This is still the Hobbit. //

 

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
Photobucket



Welsh hero
Gondor


Jul 30 2012, 8:53pm


Views: 3348
See the thread about titles

sort of why I think that film 2 may contain riddles in the dark

-Irfon

Twitter: @IrfonPennant
middle earth timeline FB: https://www.facebook.com/MiddleEarth1


DesiringDragons
Lorien


Jul 30 2012, 8:55pm


Views: 4626
I can't believe I was offline when this news hit!

Actually I was in the doctor's waiting room for an ear problem with ONE BAR of internet reception on my cell and going nuts trying to get stuff to load. Crazy

So far, I don't like the idea but now it's a done deal and I'm glad they are releasing the third in summer instead of December 2014. At least that's a little bit less of a wait.

...now off to catch up on all the threads I've missed.


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 30 2012, 8:55pm


Views: 3391
Haha!

That's hilarious.

And you say excessive use of slo-mo in King Kong? What about it's excessive use in the LOTR films?

PJ has loved slo-mo, for some odd and indecipherable reason, for much of his career. I hope he has come around to the reality that it is a device best used sparingly!


Empedocles
Rivendell


Jul 30 2012, 8:57pm


Views: 3393
Are you saying

that there wasn't any of that in LOTR?

Please, give us back Glorfindel!!!


Son_of_Gondor74
Registered User

Jul 30 2012, 8:58pm


Views: 3329
Word!

Precisely! The books are the books, and the movies are the movies, period. It's the same source of stories, on different medias. If some people think that the hobbit movies will fail, or are not very good, why watching, or following everything about the movies?

Very cliche, but also true...


Phibbus
Rohan


Jul 30 2012, 9:01pm


Views: 3402
How many licks would it take to get to the center of...


In Reply To
To the nay-sayers:
How many extra movies would it have taken to film a version of LOTR that included all the parts that got cut?


Zero, assuming that the 33% bloat of poorly-contrived, introduced material was removed. Each theatrical release should have been roughly thirty minutes shorter to include everything essential to the story.


In Reply To
How many extra movies would it have taken to film a version of LOTR that included both the parts that were cut and relevant appendix material?


Zero. There is nothing essential to the narrative in the Appendices... That's why they're appendices.


In Reply To

Think about it ...


Done

Man is but an ass if he go about to expound this dream.


Morok Cloudkeeper
Rohan


Jul 30 2012, 9:08pm


Views: 3371
Why would you want it to be better in the first place?

PJ's filmmaking philosophy never changes.

Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle.



MrCere
Sr. Staff


Jul 30 2012, 9:13pm


Views: 3594
Funny thing

I had a story ALMOST finished, got too sleepy last night, refuting my "bridge" theory I presented last week. I thought I had another week or so before news broke. -sigh- Silly me.

Here is a part:



Quote

Enough preamble. Let’s get right to it. Here is the news nugget:

There will be no “bridge” film and Jackson and company will tell the story of J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Hobbit,” in a three-part movie trilogy.

Not only that, this is a sure thing, a done deal, case closed, bet-the-farm situation . . . I suspect we will get an announcement that will make it official sooner or later.



That story will evolve dramatically. I do think I know when the three films break though. 8)

I have no choice but to believe in free will.

The cake is a lie
The cake is a lie
The cake is a lie

My blog




Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 30 2012, 9:17pm


Views: 3549
I want the Hobbit films to be better than the LOTR films

For three reasons.

1. I didn't like the LOTR films very much, and am still waiting for an enjoyable experience in a filmic Middle Earth.

2. I like good movies!

3. And what's more, I like movies that are better than other movies!

Wink


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 30 2012, 9:18pm


Views: 3523
Oh, do tell!

Privately, if you must. Wink


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Jul 30 2012, 9:19pm


Views: 3615
Amen Sister.

Music of The Ainur pours forth from you Valinorean mouth. I hope the films are great, but I think that some of the enthusiasts need a bit of a reality check.

I understand, however, that there are multiple types of enthusiasts present, and that clouds the waters. Some are mainly concerned that Peter stay true to his prior movies. These will no doubt be pleased.

One of the reasons I didn't quite leap for joy when I heard Del Toro was leaving to hand the reigns back to Peter was that sometimes, if a secondary artist in the form of an adaptor becomes too close to another artist's work (and is very successful with it) he or she may begin to take greater liberties with the work, deeming their own vision to be coeval or even superior to the original.

That the original film trilogy couldn't make time for Bombadil nor for Gildor, nor any hint of The Barrow Wights (because they were superflous), nor even for a spoken line or two from Glorfindel who lived in Rivendell, was close to Gandalf and Elrond, and had already been cheated out of his proper place, yet somehow justification is being made for two entire extra films worth of material for the much simpler tale of The Hobbit is rather mind boggling.

In Reply To
But the fact is that I found the LOTR films only good, not great.

So I don't have the supreme confidence in him that other people do.

He had plenty of original Tolkien material in LOTR to make three films, and he still managed to disappoint me on several occasions.

And now he wants to make three films out of of a book barely needs one?

What part of that am I supposed to trust?

And as for having a negative opinion before I have facts, the people raving about what a fabulous idea this is have no more facts than I do. If their opinions are valid and acceptable, then so are mine.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


DanielLB
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 9:21pm


Views: 3540
Oooooh ... do you have any ideas what the titles will be? ;-) /

 


QuackingTroll
Valinor


Jul 30 2012, 9:23pm


Views: 3509
I know how you feel...

It's usually me who misses all the news. I'm online 95% of the time, and news almost always hits within that 5% somehow.


tiamy
Rivendell


Jul 30 2012, 9:28pm


Views: 3535
For some reasons...

I don't find PJ's use of slow mo in LOTR excessive. Yes - even the much-dreaded 'bed-jumping' scene at the end of ROTK. I don't find it odd at all. I thought it's very dream-like and appropriate. Maybe I was too young to understand film language when I saw it. But I find it ok.
When I saw King Kong, it came to the point where I almost cringe everytime there's a slow mo (particularly when Ann is about to cross the bridge and Kong was eventually captured in Skull Island.)

As for The Hobbit, I just fear that PJ will still over use slow mo everytime something significant happen. Just look at the trailer: the singing dwarves, Bilbo approaching Narsil, Bilbo unsheating Sting... I mean, maybe it was only for trailer use, but if he used those slow mo's sparingly, he might have reverted to a two-Hobbit film adaptation.


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 30 2012, 9:29pm


Views: 3599
But this is strange logic

My guess is that if PJ had the option of a six-film LOTR at the time (which it seems he really didn't) he would have gladly included all the wonderful details you mentioned. But because the first series was a bit of a gamble, it was three and out. Therefore, not much room for such scenes...

Now that PJ has more leeway, and his investors are generally far more comfortable with their investment, he finally has the chance to not be forced to make painful cuts and compressions. He has a chance to avoid the mistakes (or realities) of his LOTR adventure.

In that context, shouldn't we be happy to know that virtually nothing at all is likely to be cut? Barring, perhaps, the talking purse?


DanielLB
Immortal


Jul 30 2012, 9:31pm


Views: 3487
Yes, I agree


In Reply To
In that context, shouldn't we be happy to know that virtually nothing at all is likely to be cut? Barring, perhaps, the talking purse?



The Hobbit parts of the films should be almost perfect book-to-film adaptations. With 3 films, there should be nothing removed.


dwarf_girl
The Shire


Jul 30 2012, 9:42pm


Views: 3465
I'd wish not, but I feel like you

I am really concerned.
I get that the current situation, and the Studio, call for this. I understand it would be more profitable (and of course, if this supposes more jobs for PJ staff, the better), and it would be foolish to let the opportunity to sell a full new Tolkien movie trilogy pass.
But, I'm worried about the quality of the product. And the story, oh Eru, the story.
LOTR worked as a film trilogy because the main conflict was powerful and clear: the greatest evil must be destroyed by the smallest of things. That was Frodo's journey.
But, what would become of Bilbo's journey? I don't see how his story would be stretched for three 3 hours movies.
I read on other post that this is no longer The Hobbit but the LOTR prequel. Really? And now I'm more concerned. *sigh*


tolkiennerd
Lorien


Jul 30 2012, 9:46pm


Views: 3467
hmmm.........

3 films for the Hobbit sounds like it will be too drawn out if you ask me. Hopefully it will be 2 "the Hobbit" and a bridge, "White Council", or something else from the Appendix.


RosieLass
Valinor


Jul 30 2012, 9:51pm


Views: 3532
I can't speak for AinurOlorin.

But for myself, the flaws in LOTR were not due to time constraints but simply bad execution.

Three (LOOOOONG) films were plenty for the LOTR material without a bunch of pointless character alterations and silly plot departures.

Three (longish?) films are way too much for the Hobbit material, without adding a lot of extranous distractions.

IMO, of course,



It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)

(This post was edited by RosieLass on Jul 30 2012, 9:54pm)


Morok Cloudkeeper
Rohan


Jul 30 2012, 9:59pm


Views: 3449
Fair enough

But if you didn't like LOTR that much, don't hold your breath on The Hobbit movies. PJ's style basically hasn't changed.

Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle.



Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 30 2012, 10:01pm


Views: 3535
I agree

Though I think it was both bad execution, and not enough time to accommodate both PJ's love of extended action sequences, and Tolkien's rich tale. I also think that a large part of the bad execution was in the script, and that the script was severely constrained by the simple fact that they had only three films to tell the story. So length may have impacted execution.

My perspective is somewhat realistic. I understand that PJ has certain indulgences, and understand that I will have to accept that. In this context, I think a longer film keeps the door open for him to indulge (the stuff I generlly dislike) as well as tell a compelling story.

In other words, instead of choosing extended action over the nuances in the books, he will simply included both.

That is the root of my optimism.


(This post was edited by Shelob'sAppetite on Jul 30 2012, 10:06pm)


Maylily
The Shire

Jul 30 2012, 10:05pm


Views: 3407
Bring on the trilogy!

As a fan of both the book and the movies, I really don't mind visiting Middle Earth every year until 2014. Someone else already mentioned this, but as wonderful as the LOTR movie trilogy was, we know Peter had to cut out and edit alot of the story to fit it into 3 films. To me some of ROTK suffered because of this. If Peter had the resources back then to make 6 movies, I'm sure it would've been great as well. Now that Peter has proven himself (with 11 Oscars), I don't mind that he wants to take the time to flesh out the rich stories and characters that we all know and love. Besides I will not judge until I see the finished product, but I have faith that Peter will make it work.


RosieLass
Valinor


Jul 30 2012, 10:15pm


Views: 3349
Well, I hope you're right.

And I will gladly eat crow with relish, if I am proved wrong.



It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)


Arathorn
The Shire

Jul 30 2012, 10:17pm


Views: 3339
I would

If the Hobbit wasn't a clearly inferior story and book, which hadn't even a hint of a link to Tolkien's vast universe when it was first written.
Now, if we were speaking of things out of the Silmarillion, or of remaking LOTR with 5 more hours of movies after the Hobbit is released, it would be fine. But seeing the better story staying as it is - really great, but not mind-blowingly perfect - while the Hobbit gets all the love and attention is quite frustrating, to say the less.

"Gods don't like people not doing much work. People who aren't busy all the time may start to think."
- Terry Pratchett, Small Gods



Elessar
Valinor


Jul 30 2012, 10:18pm


Views: 3443
I agree

I love the books (the hobbit & lotr) with all my heart. PJ made some changes I didn't love but as a whole they were great translations of the lotr, and I don't expect anything different in the hobbit. If anything adding this new material will only take what I figure to be great films and make them better. I believe Jackson loves middle-earth as much as most of us do and he will do what's right by the material to give us the best experience once again in middle-earth.


Arathorn
The Shire

Jul 30 2012, 10:24pm


Views: 3447
I'm using word count

Because I think relying on mere impressions and gut feelings might not seem solid enough.
Yet, really, anyone who has read both books can clearly see that you would be able to do a 20-h monster with LOTR, while a mere 3-hours movie is probably enough to do the Hobbit justice; now, if you add ancient stories and what was going on at the time of the Hobbit events, of course, you might well need more time and 2 shorter movies. But the story itself, as such, is far shorter and has far less development, notably character development, than LOTR. Though I can see it being an issue with a movie adaptation and with the sizable amount of different dwarves to deal with - with scriptwriters wanting to flesh them out a bit.

"Gods don't like people not doing much work. People who aren't busy all the time may start to think."
- Terry Pratchett, Small Gods



Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Jul 30 2012, 10:40pm


Views: 4457
*Scratches head*

Well you can do either in any amount of time really - it just depends what one does with it.

LOTR for example has been done in 13 hours, 11.5 hours, 9.5 hours, 6 hours, and a half in 2 hours, (amongst others).

Of course the length of the text hasn't changed.

Similarly The Hobbit text doesn't have an intrinsic duration when translated to another medium. You can do it in three hours, or an hour and a bit or four hours or seven and half hours or in 12 minutes.

LR


(This post was edited by Lacrimae Rerum on Jul 30 2012, 10:41pm)


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Jul 30 2012, 10:42pm


Views: 3456
You remember the Goldilocks story, don't you?

The opposite of Too Cold may be Too Hot, but Too Hot is NOT an acceptable alternative. There is a such thing as a happy medium. It isn't so much that we are spoiled, as that we do not want this beloved tale spoiled by the excesses of a film team becoming too comfortable in taking liberties with the work.

I have encountered plenty of people in my unpaid promotion of The Hobbit, who have griped about how they might not see it, because they couldn't really get into LOTR. Even as I debated that they had not properly understood and appreciated LOTR, I assured them, "The Hobbit is far less dense, and is lighter in tone. . . a wonderful adventure, but not near so ponderous and heavy. . . probably only one three plus hour film, etc. etc. etc., you'll love it."

Well. I will now officially eat those words. A lot of casual moviegoers who would have happily sat through at least one and possibly two Hobbit films, are going to turn away from these films. They will not become classic Holiday programming for the networks like Wizard of Oz and, ironically, the animated Rankin&Bass Hobbit, because they will be too long. In the end, they will largely be mirrors of LOTR, reaching no broader an audience because the structure is too similar, though inappropriately so.

In Reply To
Don't all of you remember the era between 2006-2008? We thought we'd never see even one hobbit movie. Now we get three, and ya'll are complaining. Geez. Peter Jackson did great with LOTR. Don't be so quick in giving judgment against these movies. I'm very excited.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Jul 30 2012, 10:50pm


Views: 3387
I suspect that if

these films reach an audience as broad as LOTR did no one will be too unhappy.

LR

PS If I start a G word swear box, will you pay in?


(This post was edited by Lacrimae Rerum on Jul 30 2012, 10:57pm)


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Jul 30 2012, 10:55pm


Views: 3443
Oh there was certainly some of that in LOTR. And sadly, some things that should have been

in the films (like our dear Glorfindel) were apparently stowed away in their bums for safe keeping, whilst tripe was pulled out in their stead.

I still love the LOTR films. I will love The Hobbit Movies, I think. But not in the way that I might have. I will never watch with complete satisfaction, but always with nagging thoughts of "they really should have done. . .. and they really should NOT have done. . . "

In Reply To
that there wasn't any of that in LOTR?


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Phibbus
Rohan


Jul 30 2012, 10:57pm


Views: 3361
Don't agree


In Reply To
If the Hobbit wasn't a clearly inferior story and book, which hadn't even a hint of a link to Tolkien's vast universe when it was first written.
Now, if we were speaking of things out of the Silmarillion, or of remaking LOTR with 5 more hours of movies after the Hobbit is released, it would be fine. But seeing the better story staying as it is - really great, but not mind-blowingly perfect - while the Hobbit gets all the love and attention is quite frustrating, to say the less.


For all its being a "children's book," TH is in many ways the more advanced and successful work of art, mainly because it manages to operate on so many different levels at once. The stuff going on under the surface, with complex commentary on at least sixty motifs of traditional literature through the eyes of an early twentieth-century replacement anti-hero, is carried out with such effortlessness of art and simplicity of prose style that it usually goes unnoticed—which is why it usually doesn't get the credit it deserves. By contrast, LotR, while obviously much more epic, was only finally and barely squeezed out through almost two decades of constant struggle, stops and restarts, self-doubt, and re-re-revision. And all that strain of the seams certainly does show in the finished product. It hangs together far less cohesively as a whole than its predecessor (although it's a testament to its ultimate greatness that the multitude of imperfections fail to matter all that much by the end.)

Of course, I don't expect any of what makes TH truly great to make it into any screen adaptation, let alone Jackson's, so in the final analysis you're probably right.

Man is but an ass if he go about to expound this dream.


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Jul 30 2012, 11:07pm


Views: 3269
Traditions Change


In Reply To
...They will not become classic Holiday programming for the networks like Wizard of Oz...

I use The Wizard of Oz a lot in what I write and I feel your affection for it and holiday family time. But the television era has passed. It's gone. We are no longer at the mercy of the networks or their schedule, nor do we want to go back to those old days. NBC is receiving a backlash (#NBCfail) because they are trying to force people to watch the Olympics during prime time to preserve their old advertising model instead of understanding what people want in a more modern age. We don't sit around the radio at night any more and we won't sit around the TV during holidays either. Everything is on media, online and on demand. It is an antiquated argument.


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Jul 30 2012, 11:08pm


Views: 3305
I hope it's not off topic but what are the sixty motifs?

I've not seen that referenced in quite that way before and am curious.

LR


Arathorn
The Shire

Jul 30 2012, 11:09pm


Views: 3299
Must be frustrating

But don't be too hard on you :)


Now, I've no official hint where they would cut the movies, but I can guess - specially with LOTR exprience. It was easier with 2 movies; I've come to the conclusion the escape from Thranduil, in the barrels, was the less problematic moment to cut the Hobbit - they were safe from some serious trouble and were merrily going towards bigger adventures and the last epic part of their journey.

With 3 movies, they have to end movie 1 or 2 with quite a bang. So, even if it's very counter-intuitive, I have the feeling they might cut Movie 2 right after Smaug's death. Granted, there isn't much left in the book, but we have to take into consideration the fact that the assault on Dol Guldur happened right before the Battle of Five Armies. And the fact that said battle better be a 50-min action feast if they're going to take their time to stretch the book into 3 movies (ok, that's wishful thinking here Cool ).
One of my main reasoning in thinking they would kill Smaug at the end of a 2nd movie is that there's basically no good way to stop a movie between the departure from Laketown and his death.
With Gandalf coming with the Eagles during the battle, we have to assume he came as soon as things were settled in Mirkwood, so the battle with the Necromancer has to happen between Smaug's rampage and the Battle of Five Armies. In fact, they might even consider overlapping the end of the assault on Dol Guldur and the battle at Erebor, to make things more intense.
And the big battle at the Lonely Mountain should be accompanied by a lot of foreshadowing - with the Necromancer giving orders to attack them while the White Council decides to attack Dol Guldur or is already on the move, and with the various "good guys" nearly coming to butcher each other for some jewels. So, especially with shorter movies, the whole aftermath after Smaug is shot down at the very end of film 2 can well fill into a third one.
The tricky bit would be to incite people to come see this third one, because when Smaug dies, people could falsely think this is over and everything will be fine afterwards. The main way of doing this would be, I think, to emphasise Sauron's power still growing there, and even gathering troops for some counter-attack.


I'm not entirely sure where exactly the first movie would end, but I'd say it would end roughly with Beorn - though I've no idea at which part of this long chapter. Company would just have survived a quite long ordeal, under the Mountain and then with the frying pan, and having them delivered by the Eagles to Beorn's safety is the best bet - some important action has ended and they're now ready to take some rest before going on. Plus, ending it here would mean that Gandalf would leave them early in 2nd movie - I don't see them having Gandalf going his own way while there's still part of a first movie to go through.

"Gods don't like people not doing much work. People who aren't busy all the time may start to think."
- Terry Pratchett, Small Gods



Phibbus
Rohan


Jul 30 2012, 11:25pm


Views: 3262
Hmmm...

I'm not sure how you would start listing without going on for pages. I should get over to the Reading Room, I guess. Did you read Rateliff's History of the Hobbit, LR? He elaborates pretty much all of them, but I'm sure there are a few to add, still. Troll scene alone contains at least nine.

Man is but an ass if he go about to expound this dream.


sueb1863
Rivendell


Jul 30 2012, 11:28pm


Views: 3315
Man, this is going to be tricky

The only way I can see this working is if it's three two-hour movies, not three three-hour movies like the LotR films.

Nine hours of film would simply drown the core story of Bilbo's journey under a lot of needless blood and thunder.

So what happens to the stuff they've already shot? They just finished the whole movie, almost. They're going to have to repace everything to spread it out now. Are they going to have to call everyone back and shoot new footage? Or will they just shoot new material and stitch it all together and hope it works?

We'll see how this goes, but I wonder if the studio didn't smell a major payday and basically told PJ, "You're making three movies."


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Jul 30 2012, 11:29pm


Views: 3262
Ah no problem.

I've pottered through Rateliff in the past - it was just the specific number which caught my attention. I thought there might be some list floating about somewhere I hadn't come across.

No worries

LR


Spaldron
Rivendell


Jul 30 2012, 11:44pm


Views: 3274
Has the internet exshploded yet?

Because I reckon opinions on this will be mixed, even amongst hardcore ringers.

The release date of the new film 3 is scheduled for summer 2014, not December like the others. Which suggests that instead of a third chapter we're just going to be getting a 'There And Back Again Part 2', which reeks of a Warner Bros cash-in aka, HP7.


_V_
Lorien


Jul 30 2012, 11:47pm


Views: 3317
And the internet explodes....

Its *not* an Appendix/Bridge film?

ReVolution of Evangelion


Formerly known on TORN as "Draug the Unspeakably Violent"



Pipe Dream
Gondor


Jul 30 2012, 11:55pm


Views: 3304
The Hobbit Part 3:

"Milk em' for all they've got!" I'd bet the two three hour films will now be three two hour films. Whatever. The thing that makes me mad the most about it, is having to wait "X" amount more for the final film.

"There is a long road yet," said Gandalf. "But it is the last road," said Bilbo.


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Jul 30 2012, 11:57pm


Views: 3273
Pick another Bird. //

 

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
Photobucket



Pipe Dream
Gondor


Jul 30 2012, 11:59pm


Views: 3313
White Crow?

Laugh

"There is a long road yet," said Gandalf. "But it is the last road," said Bilbo.


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Jul 31 2012, 12:04am


Views: 3257
I pick bones on the battlefield.//

 

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
Photobucket



Dlanor da Great
Rivendell

Jul 31 2012, 12:09am


Views: 3254
All I have to say...

...is that for at least the past couple of years, it has been well established that the movie named after the Hobbit book would actually be based on "the Hobbit" as well as "the Appendices",which is practically a short book on its own.
I understand that some would want a pure Hobbit movie. But on the other hand ,The edition of the Appendices are actually stories relevant to the lotr world.
It actually fleshes out the stories of the Hobbit, which Tolkien wanted to do.
I would think Tolkien enthusiests would love the idea of more of the Tolkien world being brought to life. Rather than many being wary of the idea.
I for one always thought of it as a bit annoying that Gandalf keeps conveniently disappearing during the Hobbit story for no apparent reason. And I'm sure most of the audience who aren't hardcore Tolkien geeks, would wonder the same thing.
The Appendices answers this question. And the movie will display this additional Tolkien info.
I think its best we get past the idea that this is a Hobbit movie and finally accept that this is a "Hobbit/Appendices" movie. Both are works of Tolkien just like the LOTR trilogy are all works of Tolkien.
PJ didn't write his own book based on Tolkiens world. He is simply adapting the books for the movies.
For example, Turiel may be a creation of PJ, BUT the Idea is to 1: Condense the randomness of nameless Elves into one recognizable character and 2: Give the females a character to identify with in a 2-3 hour film they are sitting through.
I FULLY appreciate that hardcore fans want something they love done pure and as faithful as possible. But be open minded enough to understand that your love isn't the only variable to be considered. Though I personally admire the loyalty Smile
So three movies is fine with me. Because they legitimatly feel there is a good reason for it. Based on the books.
I dont think its a Money grabbing scheme. Though i'm sure they will make more money from this anyway Tongue
Dont let the failure of the Star Wars preqeuls slant your views on the potential of prequels.
Just because one thing was done badly, it doesn't make it a rule that things like this can only end badly.


Halfred
Registered User


Jul 31 2012, 12:10am


Views: 3185
PJ's Way

Once one adjusts to PJ's attitude to 'reinvisioning' Tolkien, then one can adjust to the idea of three Hobbit Movies. He'll do a good job. Purists just need to adjust to PJ's Way, or abort (i.e. not watch the movies if it'll only cause too much pain).


rings7
Rohan


Jul 31 2012, 12:17am


Views: 3162
Nothing but speculations in this already humomgus thread

all over so much exctiement and naysayers, not only here of course. I'll be honest and say that i did NOT want the 3 films, but not because they can't do it, but because we'll now have to wait till 2014 to see it all. Plain and simple.

Other than that, i trust PJ and crew on this one. Those whinning about this being done for the money, well, tell me of someone working only for love. So many people are employed making these films and a third film means more job for them.

Besides the money, i'm sure the other very important reason they're doing this is because they can. And by that i mean they HAVE the material for it. Those of you claiming theyt don't have it, you don't know that for sure. You don't know what their plan is or how they're gonna do it. We'll have to wait till 2014 to actually make the statement for sure.

I'm not a complete happy camper on this one, just like so many things done on this film already, but as i've said many times before, i trust PJ and his gang.


Captain Salt
Tol Eressea


Jul 31 2012, 12:22am


Views: 3204
Thanks, and yes...all of sudden they're intent of filming every page of the appendices...?

Here comes the 20-minute "Fall of Arnor" scene...TongueBlush

My Top 5 Wish List for "The Hobbit"
5. Legolas will surf down Smaug's neck
4. Bilbo will be revealed to a Robot
3. Naked PJ cameo as Ghan-Buri-Ghan
2. Use of not only 3D, but smell-o-vision, plus the inclusion of axes coming out of the seats and poking the audience when appropriate
1. Not only keep the claim that Thorin & Co. ran amok in Mirkwood "molesting people", but depict said incident in vivid detail!!!!!


Halfred
Registered User


Jul 31 2012, 12:32am


Views: 3147
The Hobbit without the Angst

I guess I'm a kind of recent convert. Being a Purist, I have been a big critic of LotR, but always appreciated the Movies where they captured the Tolkien essence. The Tolkien parts were done well, the changing of characters and addings (like hyenas in a totally un-Tolkien scene made me grind my teeth!) were matters for angst. The thing is, if one can't watch the movies without grinding ones teeth, why bother? So now I watch them and see them as a 'revisioning' and not so much an 'adaptation'. It keeps me sane. I imagine The Hobbit will be more of the same - so why not three movies? If one can enjoy them for what they will be, a lightweight adventure tale loosely based on Tolkien, then so be it. Special effects and two dimensional heroic characters work in other movies, so why be preciouss about it? I do, after all, want to see a good rollicking movie (or three) now and then.


hutch
Rohan


Jul 31 2012, 12:35am


Views: 3160
Then....

there should be no Galadriel, Legolas, Tauriel, Saruman, etc...but there is. It's not fair!

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


(This post was edited by hutch on Jul 31 2012, 12:37am)


Halfred
Registered User


Jul 31 2012, 12:37am


Views: 3129
Angstfree

I'm trying to get over all that, you know! Frown


sarahb1863
Rivendell


Jul 31 2012, 12:44am


Views: 3154
So...

...what this means is that the same guy who cut almost all of Faramir's story out of Return of the King because he just didn't have time to tell it, is now going to take a book that's about 1/5 as long as RoTK and make it THREE MOVIES?!!

If that's the case, I demand he re-edit RoTK as two movies and put Faramir's story back in. Starry mantle and all. Justice for Faramir!


Ziggy Stardust
Gondor


Jul 31 2012, 12:47am


Views: 3200
You have a point

I'm nervous about there being three Hobbit movies, but you have a point. I like Harry Potter, but I place Tolkien at number 1. And there have been other movies based on books that were longer when there was little or unnecessary material. At least there are the appendices for The Hobbit, I just don't know if it'll be enough.

"It's okay, I feel like getting up and screaming every time you walk into a room." -Lestrade, Sherlock S2,ep3.


Jeremy
Rivendell


Jul 31 2012, 12:50am


Views: 3137
I literally jumped out of my seat in happiness after reading this earlier

The more Middle-earth the better.


Halfred
Registered User


Jul 31 2012, 12:51am


Views: 3086
Agreed!

PJ found time for hyenas but not enough for Faramir. I know... I know! Unsure ...

But nonetheless, I think he'll have plenty of things to fill up three movies with. There's The Hobbit, there's the Appendixes, and there's PJ and his two Girlfriends to imagine-up all sorts of character development, re-developments, and improved-character-arcing --- improving on Tolkien's grasp of characterization and character-arcing. I mean, Tolkien was a bit light on in the Storytelling department apparently, Sarah. We all know that. Haven't PJ and the Girls made that clear! Evil


(I have to say, I like te emoticons you guys have here!)


Jeremy
Rivendell


Jul 31 2012, 12:52am


Views: 3094
I don't think LotR should have been more than 3 films, lol

 


Halfred
Registered User


Jul 31 2012, 12:55am


Views: 3095
I do, Jeremy

Imagine more LotR movies! Maybe more Tolkien things could have been fitted in. Sly

Hey... what about The Black Riders (done Hitchcock-like), Crickhollow, the Old Forest, Old Man Willow, Tom and Goldberry, The Barrow-wights, and The Prancing Pony (done properly!) Almost a movie just there!
How exciting and dreadful - just like in the book - and sooo filmable! Smile


(This post was edited by Halfred on Jul 31 2012, 12:59am)


hutch
Rohan


Jul 31 2012, 12:59am


Views: 3120
We'll see...

I'm expecting shorter run times for the films now. And no Viggo. A very sad day for hutch. Frown

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


Halfred
Registered User


Jul 31 2012, 1:02am


Views: 3226
No Viggo?

Good. Viggo has too much integrity for that!

(Hope there's not a painful surprise coming! Unsure)


hutch
Rohan


Jul 31 2012, 1:02am


Views: 3153
The only reason my reaction is mixed

is because there will be no Hunt for Gollum. That's so lame. To me that's one of the storylines that would make the movies connect and flow like one big piece as PJ says he wants it to be.

What gives?!?!?

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Jul 31 2012, 1:03am


Views: 3146
Life is not fair.

Viggo is not 10 years old.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
Photobucket



hutch
Rohan


Jul 31 2012, 1:04am


Views: 3191
No Viggo = bad.

No Viggo is not good. The Hunt for Gollum with Aragorn and Gandalf chasing down Gollum would be great. I can't believe this storyline out of all will not see the light of day via PJ & co. Oh well. I'll edit in the indie version into PJ's trilogy when I watch.

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


Jeremy
Rivendell


Jul 31 2012, 1:04am


Views: 3150
No Viggo? Did I miss something?

source?


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Jul 31 2012, 1:07am


Views: 3202
Yah, Viggo left.

Bye-bye!

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
Photobucket



Morthoron
Gondor


Jul 31 2012, 1:07am


Views: 3147
The Hobbit III: Milking the Franchise...

I despise this fan-fic-a-thon the more I hear of it.

More drivel from Jackson, less story from Tolkien.

Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.



Halfred
Registered User


Jul 31 2012, 1:09am


Views: 3146
Gollum

The Hunt for Gollum just occurred to me too, Hutch!

So:

(1) Bilbo escapes Gollum.
(2) Gollum goes looking for him, is caught in Mirkwood by Aragorn.
(3) Gollum escapes and gets abducted by the Necromancer
(4) The Necromancer gets defeated in an awesome battle at Do Guldur, flees with Gollum in his custody
(4) Frodo receives the ring from Bilbo
(5) Necromancer gets the truth from Gollum
(6) The Black Riders are sent out....(get washed away)
(7) Necromancer - we know who it is now! - allows Gollum to escape, hopefully to find Frodo and draw the Necromancer to him

Ah ha!!! It all fits now!


(This post was edited by Halfred on Jul 31 2012, 1:12am)


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Jul 31 2012, 1:11am


Views: 3120
It has been done,//

 

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
Photobucket



HiddenSpring
Lorien

Jul 31 2012, 1:11am


Views: 3148
A question of structure and theme

I really liked the idea of The Hobbit in two parts. The first film - from the Shire to the barrels - would have been the fairy tale, the great adventure. The second film, from Laketown to the end of the book, would have been the modern tale, the one where greed and politics take over the myth. It would have resembled the different stages of the book and would have meant both films would have a unique essence.

Now with three films it seems an entire film must be made out of Smaug (plus added WC scenes) and an entire film must be made out of the Battle of Five Armies: this last film in particular sounds like the most tedious and potentially video-gamish thing conceivable. You also lose the whole flow of the novel, which replaces the element of mythological greed (the dragon) with recognisably human (dwarvish/elvish) greed in a completely effortless way.

Tone aside, this is worrying news. A whole film in Laketown and another in the Lonely Mountain just don't sound very interesting, even with the added material (which if excessive can work against the film anyway.) And the first film simply must end in Mirkwood unless it wants to be completely pointless - meeting a trio of trolls and some goblins before credits roll simply won't do.


Jeremy
Rivendell


Jul 31 2012, 1:12am


Views: 3074
left what? source?

 


hutch
Rohan


Jul 31 2012, 1:16am


Views: 4456
The only source I'm using is

TORN's homepage saying a revised bit of news came saying the 3rd film was not the bridge but more Hobbit, and I suppose that means non Hunt for Gollum. Which frankly, I think sucks. How can they leave that storyline alone when they want one long piece?

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


hutch
Rohan


Jul 31 2012, 1:19am


Views: 3096
Yeah it fits.

But apparently they aren't using it.
So they want to expand Bard and the Master of Laketown and invent a female elf...but they don't want to expand on Aragorn's role. BAH! EPIC FAIL!
I'm pouting! Mad

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


ElendilTheShort
Gondor


Jul 31 2012, 1:21am


Views: 3035
I do not see the point

of another movie of made up filler retaining Tolkiens name in the title or credits anywhere. Hopefully this does not happen but as the LOTR movies had very solid source material and were moderately loose on story adaptation and very loose on character adaptation, I cannot imagine that a filler or bridge movie that has relatively little source material will be much more than predominantly the invention of Sir PJ, Walsh and Boyens. The comments from Sir PJ about the Battle of Dol Guldur of which we have very little source tells me that they are going to invent much. There was not much of a battle according to JRRT, Sauron had laid his plans and feigned to give way before the council. He did not retreat out of neccessity but design so why would he expend too much effort into a battle.


(This post was edited by ElendilTheShort on Jul 31 2012, 1:22am)


painjoiker
Grey Havens


Jul 31 2012, 1:24am


Views: 3139
Chillaxe...

A whole movie of Aragorn looking for Gollum?
Nah...

Vocalist in the semi-progressive metal band Arctic Eclipse


hutch
Rohan


Jul 31 2012, 1:24am


Views: 3127
Tell me why the Hunt for Gollum won't work

...when they're expanding every one else' s role to the point of inventing characters. Totally lame.

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


hutch
Rohan


Jul 31 2012, 1:25am


Views: 3140
45 mins will do

as the indie flick showed us. Besides what anyway? An entire film of Bo5A? I don't think I'm wrong in saying the Hunt for Gollum should be one of the first threads in line to see the light of day if they want this to be one interconnected piece as they claim.
I'm still just gonna wait and watch but I was really only on board with the 3 film idea if it was fleshing the other threads-not making TH into 3 films. That's just weird that a simple quest (TH) and the grand finale (LOTR) get the same amount of screen time.
Intriguing though.

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


(This post was edited by hutch on Jul 31 2012, 1:29am)


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Jul 31 2012, 1:26am


Views: 3154
In order to ensure

that the ruse was convincing one supposes. I rather doubt Sauron had any compunction about sacrificing a few minions to create a realistic defeat.

Certainly there is reasonable evidence that there was a battle. The precise extent is undefined.

LR


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Jul 31 2012, 1:31am


Views: 3117
The hunt for Gollum is not inside the time frame of The Hobbit.

I believe that the Hobbit(s will not deal with events (other than earlier events) later than Balin's return to Moria.
Beside The Hunt for Gollum has already been done.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
Photobucket



(This post was edited by Kangi Ska on Jul 31 2012, 1:32am)


jtarkey
Rohan

Jul 31 2012, 1:33am


Views: 3057
Such a disappointing descision

This is such disappointing news. Everyone should ask themselves how they would have reacted to the notion of 3 Hobbit movies before production got rolling. I know I would have thought it was ridiculous, and I still think it's ridiculous. That is all.


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Jul 31 2012, 1:39am


Views: 3007
yes

You seem to have nailed it....siiighFrown


hutch
Rohan


Jul 31 2012, 1:40am


Views: 3002
I'd only be disappointed

if I found out they're charging us for 3 two hour films instead of 2 three hour films. What a scam that would be. More movie tickets, more showtimes and more dvds to buy!

Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.


ElendilTheShort
Gondor


Jul 31 2012, 1:41am


Views: 3012
You bet me to it.

I was having a re-think as you do and for him to take off with minimum contest is quite unconvincing. The wording is he feigned to give way before them so there had to be a pretense of him needing to do so, so the White Council would not pursue him further. This allowed him the additional 10 years or whatever to build up and declare himself in Mordor. Whether the feigning involved a battle or not who knows, but there is comment of Sarumans devices (whether this means machines or stratagems who knows) driving him out so we do know some effort was expended by the White Council.


(This post was edited by ElendilTheShort on Jul 31 2012, 1:42am)


shadowdog
Rohan

Jul 31 2012, 1:44am


Views: 3037
Repeat of I Suspect

I posted something on another thread that has been overrun by this thread. I wish to repeat it here, as I feel it is important and appropriate in the context of the arguments being waged here:

"I am not the only one who went to see all three of the LoTR movies because of a love of Tolkien's stories. I expect to go to the two Hobbit films to see Tolkien's story come to life. I love Tolkiens version of Middle Earth and the goings on there. When the first movie came out, I had never heard of Peter Jackson. I went in with fear in my heart as to what he would do with the story. I fell as much in love with his portrayal of Middle Earth and the goings on there as in Tolkien's version. They are both valid. Books such as the trilogy can't be transferred to the screen exactly as written. I didn't agree with all the changes made by Jackson; but those were minor in the scope of the film trilogy. I get upset by those in here who seem to think if you love Tolkien, you must hate Jackson and if you love Jackson who are no true Tolkienite. There are many of us in this universe who think both are worthy of enjoyment and love. They can both exist in my universe and I can love and enjoy both for what each is. There is no either/or in my universe.

Can't wait to see The Hobbit on the big screen and expect to enjoy it as much as I enjoy the books."


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Jul 31 2012, 1:47am


Views: 3024
Yes - well a battle

seems to be indicated by the various verbs Tolkien uses - "attack", "assault" and "put forth strength" combined with "driving out" Sauron.

I think given the consistency of language it would be an odd set of vocabulary for Tolkien to use if he did not intend to give the impression of a battle of some sort (whether physical or otherwise)

LR


Slayer_Of_Orcs
The Shire


Jul 31 2012, 2:23am


Views: 3230
Wow ... I didn't see THAT coming

Sure, there has been chatter. But, there you have it. Two have become three.

I wouldn't want it to happen this way unless Jackson and crew were doing it.

_______________________________________



We are waiting ...


ElendilTheShort
Gondor


Jul 31 2012, 2:24am


Views: 3169
My only questioning

has to do with the possible one sidedness or brevity of the battle. They could do all those things as noted and the battle could be (not neccessarily is) over in minutes as opposed to the long drawn out spectacle we are gauranteed.


Captain Salt
Tol Eressea


Jul 31 2012, 2:30am


Views: 3149
Agreed 1000% HiddenSpring and well said //

 

My Top 5 Wish List for "The Hobbit"
5. Legolas will surf down Smaug's neck
4. Bilbo will be revealed to a Robot
3. Naked PJ cameo as Ghan-Buri-Ghan
2. Use of not only 3D, but smell-o-vision, plus the inclusion of axes coming out of the seats and poking the audience when appropriate
1. Not only keep the claim that Thorin & Co. ran amok in Mirkwood "molesting people", but depict said incident in vivid detail!!!!!


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 31 2012, 2:39am


Views: 3182
Whoch would be AWESOME

Wink


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Jul 31 2012, 2:46am


Views: 3207
What?

 Better stop smokin that stuff.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
Photobucket



(This post was edited by Kangi Ska on Jul 31 2012, 2:47am)


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 31 2012, 2:51am


Views: 3128
Which!

Though I do wish there were a word "woch."


Morthoron
Gondor


Jul 31 2012, 3:00am


Views: 3196
Sorry, not buying it.

The further afield Jackson floated from the original story, the more convoluted and inane the plot became. Now he's going to drag The Hobbit out over three full length movies?

We'll see Bilbo and the Dwarves once every 15 minutes while PJ throws in his absurd fan-fiction subplots, and he'll lose the charm of the original. And it is fan-fiction. I don't have to pay to read fan-fiction, I shouldn't have to pay to watch it.

Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.



duats
Grey Havens

Jul 31 2012, 3:09am


Views: 3159
Don't even say that

If I have to wait until 2013 to see Beorn because of this decision, I am going to hit the roof.


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 31 2012, 3:16am


Views: 3178
The thing is

Novels are generally too long for films. If the Hobbit is done full justice, with no details omitted and Gandalf's whereabouts explained, it would likely take around 9 or 10 hours to tell...

The way I see it: LOTR was far too short, and far too much was omitted. The Hobbit in three films may be just right.


duats
Grey Havens

Jul 31 2012, 3:32am


Views: 3122
I can read The Hobbit in less time than that

You do not need nine hours to tell this story faithfully on screen.

And honestly, it doesn't have to be a slavish, literal "word-by-word" translation so long as they capture the spirit and tone of the narrative, and never lose sight of what the story is all about.


(This post was edited by duats on Jul 31 2012, 3:39am)


Samuel Walters
Bree


Jul 31 2012, 3:37am


Views: 3056
Love it!

If for no other reason than another Hobbit film means another Middle Earth score from Maestro Shore!

Dauntlessmedia.net: Reviews and analysis of modern media (Star Trek, BSG, Lost, LOTR, etc.)


SirDennisC
Half-elven


Jul 31 2012, 3:40am


Views: 3095
What was the original context of your comment?

Nvm, I remember it now (I was even in on that subthread Crazy)... here's a link in case anyone else is wondering.

It is a point worth repeating, that Tolkien's The Hobbit and PJ's The Hobbit are two entirely different animals.

I just wish Morthoron would tell us what they really think. Wink

No really, I can sympathize with both points of view. The agreement gave PJ a blank slate but that doesn't mean it is wise (or right even) to do whatever he wants to with the source material -- why mess with a good thing and all that? However, people trust him to make a good film set in Middle-earth because he's done it three times already. But the spirit of The Hobbit is worth preserving, as much as possible.

I'm not sure how a third film is going to alter the essence of The Hobbit any more than two films were going to already. A touch of sadness attends the realization that this is likely more about increasing gross revenue than it is about doing the original stories justice.

But that's been lingering behind the scenes with this production all along. I'm not sure that was the case while they were making LOTR. It seems that they were just trying to make some great movies... whether they would see a good return was more of a gamble that time around. (Still, counting on a big box office this time around is looking risky the longer they drag things out.)


(This post was edited by SirDennisC on Jul 31 2012, 3:43am)


Bombatones
The Shire

Jul 31 2012, 4:01am


Views: 3117
Actually, I think you're close...

I think that half of Dol Guldur and The Desolation of Smaug will be film 2. Then the conclusion of Dol Guldur, TBo5A and the "back again " for film 3.

That leaves plenty of space for other appendices material and fanfic. If we're lucky maybe we'll get an extended Däin vs Azog flashback.

Either way, I'm glad there's three films. having The Desolation and TBo5A in one movie couldn't have done either justice imho.


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 31 2012, 4:11am


Views: 3067
But here's the thing

With the two-film version, PJ already decided that he wasn't just making the Hobbit. He as making a set of films that would tie into the larger story of LOTR, and that would include Ganda;f's whereabouts, and a bit on dwarven history.

Now, a two-film version of this kind of Hobbit might end up feeling flabby and overstuffed.

On the other hand, slightly shorter three-film versions of this kind of Hobbit might end up feeling much tighter and more contained.

I really think that PJ and company were worrying that the two films materializing in their editing rooms were feeling so overstuffed (though with great stuff) that it would a tragedy not to turn it into three films.

In my perfect world, we would have gotten an adaptation of the Hobbit book, from the perspective of Bilbo Baggins. Nothing more, nothing less. But having accepted the reality of a LOTR prequel, I want them to make three epic films, full of dwarven, mannish and wightish history. An alternative epic to the LOTR films, which I may just enjoy more.


rings7
Rohan


Jul 31 2012, 4:17am


Views: 3008
Most likely

I really hope the first movie at least stays the way it is. Shire-Barrels. If they're making the third one, i wanted that to be a bridge to the trilogy. But, i guess that'll continue to be my wish.Unsure


Altaira
Superuser / Moderator


Jul 31 2012, 4:18am


Views: 3120
Re-posted for Grizzly: The Hobbit - The Phantom Menace

Please don't get me wrong, I am not some pre-teen hater. I have been an avid reader of all thing Tolkien for over 40 years now and have some understanding of the film industry.

That said, I'm feeling a bit of dread over the upcoming films and a bit more dread at the thought of three of them? Why?

I have more than a little bit of tolerance with artistic license, with the need to alter bits of the material to allow for the film to flow. Hence, I'm okay with Tom Bombadil being dropped, Glorfindel, adding more of a role for Arwen etc. I was a titch less than okay though with what I saw as Mr. Jackson's alterations of the underlying ethos of the LOTR films, the fact that he emphasized the frailty and even veniality of the human race to the point where he made unnecessary alterations to the basic story (Faramir, Denethor etc.)

You also can't ignore the bizarre alterations that were considered and discarded, like having Sauron fight Aragorn at the gates.

What does all this have to do with The Hobbit? Well I was a bit squeamish at the sight of the axe in Bifur's head, particularly since it seemed to be a bad joke ("Bifurcate"?), but I am getting alarmed at reports of Bunny sleds and battle pigs. I guess the straw that is breaking my back is the rumour that Sauron (the Necromancer) will be making an appearance at the Battle of the Five Armies.

Just don't have Jar-Jar Binks show up.



Koru: Maori symbol representing a fern frond as it opens. The koru reaches towards the light, striving for perfection, encouraging new, positive beginnings.



"Life can't be all work and no TORn" -- jflower

"I take a moment to fervently hope that the camaradarie and just plain old fun I found at TORn will never end" -- LOTR_nutcase





duats
Grey Havens

Jul 31 2012, 4:23am


Views: 3060
I even hesitate to call it "this Hobbit" at this point

This is becoming more and more like a collection of tales with the Quest for Erebor thrown in. Especially now that we have people actively advocating for the inclusions of Arwen and Aragorn's relationship, the Witchking's war in the north, Aragorn's hunt for Gollum (nevermind the continuity error), the Battle of Azanulbizar, and all of these other events that have absolutely nothing to do with Bilbo's story. Heck, I've even seen people suggest throwing in Tom Bombadil "just cuz."

I'm sorry, but this isn't what I wanted. Up until now, I was led to believe that this was going to be The Hobbit with Gandalf's subplot fleshed out - and that this was easily doable in two 2.5-3 hour movies. Okay. Fine. It's not ideal, but how much time could it possibly take away from Bilbo's adventure? It took me months, but I finally got to a point of cautious acceptance.

But then they decide at the very last minute (literally, days after they ended principal photography) that they have even more they want to add in? It truly puts me at a loss for words.

I love Tolkien's mythology as a collective whole, but I love the individual chapters as well. For a movie touted to be an adaptation of The Hobbit, that's what I want. An adaptation of THIS story, and THIS story alone. I do not want to see material from the appendices shoe-horned in at the expense of this story. As a fan of The Hobbit, it truly drives me crazy. These attempts to work in various tie-ins to LoTR are both superfluous and unnecessary. Because no matter how many battles they throw in, no matter how many flashbacks they incorporate, no matter how many subplots they expand upon - there is no connection PJ can come up with that will match the effective simplicity of that one climactic scene deep below the Misty Mountains.


(This post was edited by duats on Jul 31 2012, 4:32am)


galadriel
The Shire


Jul 31 2012, 4:31am


Views: 3040
Thank you, PJ and crew!!

So happy about this news. Can't have enough Tolkien and Middle Earth. Something so happy to look forward to in this sad world. Deep gratitude to P.J. for loving us so much to give us more and ditto to Howard Shore !

galadriel


galadriel
The Shire


Jul 31 2012, 4:33am


Views: 3041
Wholeheartedly ...

... agree with you, Gramma!! :)

galadriel


Altaira
Superuser / Moderator


Jul 31 2012, 4:34am


Views: 3058
Therein lies the beauty of it


Quote
I don't have to pay to read fan-fiction, I shouldn't have to pay to watch it.


You don't have to.



Koru: Maori symbol representing a fern frond as it opens. The koru reaches towards the light, striving for perfection, encouraging new, positive beginnings.



"Life can't be all work and no TORn" -- jflower

"I take a moment to fervently hope that the camaradarie and just plain old fun I found at TORn will never end" -- LOTR_nutcase





Istaris'staffs
Rivendell

Jul 31 2012, 4:52am


Views: 3120
I don't understand

I just don't understand when people say on here that they want a pure "hobbit" story, when we are all fans of middle earth and the fact that we're being shown MORE of it in an epic fashion makes people upset. Wouldn't you rather have an epic compared to a character analysis of a hobbit?


duats
Grey Havens

Jul 31 2012, 5:01am


Views: 3127
No

Because that's what The Hobbit is: an unsuspecting hobbit's journey - both physical and emotional. It offers such wonderful contrast to the trilogy. It's not an epic, and it's never pretended to be. Why else did Tolkien abandon the revisions he had planned for the novel (ones that would have better connected it to LoTR)? He realized what he'd be losing. PJ is simply continuing something that the author, the creator of this mythology, ultimately said "no" to.

Even with all of this additional material being added to a story that doesn't call for it, PJ is barely scratching the surface of Tolkien's work. We're never going to see everything Tolkien wrote committed on screen. I'm perfectly fine with that, because what I lack in actual physical substance, I can make up for in my imagination - with the help of Tolkien's text to provide the outlines.

Adapting The Hobbit in the style of The Lord of the Rings is about as appealing to me as adapting The Lord of the Rings in the style of The Hobbit. How would that have worked out for everyone?


(This post was edited by duats on Jul 31 2012, 5:08am)


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Jul 31 2012, 5:21am


Views: 3151
Hmpf. And watch it be a total damned deviation from the final battles of Arnor and Angmar

as described in the book. I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't involve The Elves in it at all. I hope I am wrong about him making the revisions so obnoxious as to not even accurately play the appendicies addednda that he inserts. We shall see.

In Reply To
Here comes the 20-minute "Fall of Arnor" scene...TongueBlush


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Lissuin
Tol Eressea


Jul 31 2012, 6:01am


Views: 3119
You are welcome to come to winter in Wellington, in that case.

I'm just thrilled to hear that you plan to see Film 3, Lusitano. You could even participate in a red carpet parade here in celebration!.EvilLaugh


Lissuin
Tol Eressea


Jul 31 2012, 6:19am


Views: 3036
I like this division of films and reasoning, SirDennisC.


Quote
Episode I: Riddles in the Dark
Episode II: The Desolation of Smaug
Episode III: A Gathering Storm (or The Battle of Five Armies)

They would be similar in tone and structure to the LOTR movies:

FOTR: light and optimistic
TTT: dark and brooding
ROTK: epic and triumphant



Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 31 2012, 6:23am


Views: 3083
The Battle of Azanulbizar does have a lot to do with Thorin's story, however

And IMO, the Hobbit is about how Bilbo and Thorin view the world differently, and how a blend of their two modes is the best sort of way to be...

So, in my view, a Hobbit film with lots of dwarven history stuff in it is still the Hobbit.

And lastly, it's a bit strange to say that this is becoming just a collection of tales with the Quest of Erebor among them, just because some people here are calling for the addition of Aragorn and Arwen, and the fall of Arnor. As far as I am aware, these people are not part of the production, and have no say in what gets included. My sense is that PJ and company will be sticking to the timeframe of the Hobbit, and the general narrative of the Hobbit, and will simply indulge a bit more of the dwarven history, and the goings on at Laketown and Thranduil's Halls.

I don't think we're getting any bridge material per se. This will all be Hobbit, with Hobbit-related stuff from the Appendices.


(This post was edited by Shelob'sAppetite on Jul 31 2012, 6:27am)


Lissuin
Tol Eressea


Jul 31 2012, 6:28am


Views: 3041
No.//

 


Milknut
Rohan


Jul 31 2012, 6:29am


Views: 3014
Sigh. Hope they know what they're doing.//

 

The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie___


Eowyn of Penns Woods
Valinor


Jul 31 2012, 6:45am


Views: 3060
I can haz parshull tikit refund? Ossim! =) //

 

**********************************


NABOUF
Not a TORns*b!
Certified Curmudgeon
Knitting Knerd
NARF: NWtS Chapter Member since June 17,2011

(This post was edited by Eowyn of Penns Woods on Jul 31 2012, 6:47am)


Milknut
Rohan


Jul 31 2012, 6:58am


Views: 3134
I actually think the multiple endings think could have easily been avoided.

All they would have had to do is not black out so long in between each "ending." It only felt weird because the audience kept expecting each shot to be the last and when it wasn't it was jarring. If they'd cut more smoothly it would have felt a lot better.

The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie___


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 31 2012, 6:59am


Views: 3083
Agreed 100%

It wasn't the content of LOTR's film ending that was the problem. It was the execution.

That is the overriding problem with PJ's films, IMO. Poor execution, all around.


Milknut
Rohan


Jul 31 2012, 8:08am


Views: 3054
I wouldn't go nearly that far.//

 

The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie___


redgiant
Bree

Jul 31 2012, 8:20am


Views: 3118
The telling of Arnor, Azanulbizar, Fornost/Witch-king, Aragorn/Elros/Ring of Barahir, Durin's Bane will be woven into the trilogy

Both as great depth of history, and as connector threads to LOTR later.

They will have many AHA! moments for the audience to realize "Oh, THAT's where that started".


dormouse
Half-elven


Jul 31 2012, 8:47am


Views: 2967
I think they do...

And I wish I had some happy dust to sprinkle around here.

So far as I can see, the only reason Peter Jackson would have gone to the studio with a request to add more filming and split this into three films is because he thinks it will work better. Better. He wants to make the best possible film.

Is he right? No idea. I don't know but - get this - nor does anyone else here. None of us have seen the scripts. No one knows what material he is adding or - even more crucially - HOW he is adding it. Seems to me that people are upsetting themselves with their own theories, which might bear no relation whatever to the actual film.

There is no fixed length for an adaptation. I could outline the story of the Hobbit in a couple of minutes while Rob Inglis takes 11 hours to read it unabridged - and that's without explaining where Gandalf went. I'm completely baffled by the way posters here who liked the latest production video and were positively ecstatic about the panoramic poster and the details coming out from Comic-con are now rushing round in circles shouting 'Doom!' and 'Tell the King the sky is falling' because a film they were looking forward to in two parts is now to be divided into three.

It's the same film. Anyone who had reservations before, or who simply doesn't like Peter Jackson's films, I can understand, but the rest? It seems very sad to me if people who were quite prepared to enjoy this a few weeks ago are going to talk themselves into rejecting now it even before they've seen it, just because it's divided differently.

Me? I go back to the trailer, which I enjoyed, the production videos, which I enjoyed, the panoramic poster, which is brilliant. Everything (almost everything) I've seen so far looks extremely good and I'm looking forward to seeing the film. Then I'll decide if I like it or not.


Nightingale
Rohan


Jul 31 2012, 12:11pm


Views: 2964
Oh blast. Not too pleased about this one//

 




"You can never get a cup of tea large enough or a book long enough to suit me" - C. S. Lewis

"That line between the earth and sky came beckoning to me..." - Laurie's Song


Noria
Gondor

Jul 31 2012, 1:01pm


Views: 3041
Well said dormouse...

... but too sensible when people are enjoying themselves so much freaking out. But I agree with every word. Then, I'm almost always on the side of "wait and see how it turns out in the finished movie" concerning spoilers and leaks.

I too believe that when PJ, Fran and Philippa looked at the rough cut of The Hobbit, they likely saw that they had way more great footage than they could comfortably fit into two films. With some additional filming, some of which was already planned, they could make three better movies. This upsizing of The Hobbit to epic proportions is fine with me.

I love the LotR EEs but that is because they include additional material. If the equivalent material makes it into The Hobbit theatrical versions, I'll be happy. But probably there will be Hobbit EEs anyway; too much money to be made.


Arathorn
The Shire

Jul 31 2012, 1:04pm


Views: 2973
Three times?


Quote
However, people trust him to make a good film set in Middle-earth because he's done it three times already.

Sorry, but just like LOTR is one very big book sometimes split into 3 volumes, LOTR is one very long 11+ hours movie, usually split into 3 extended editions - and into many more DVDs.
Though I can assure you it makes for a very good (but very long) viewing session Wink

"Gods don't like people not doing much work. People who aren't busy all the time may start to think."
- Terry Pratchett, Small Gods



Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Jul 31 2012, 1:29pm


Views: 2934
well

Im not sure if you re making fun of me....but if youre not, then indeed i forgot that summer time here in Europe means Winter time down under!
Something to consider....

Proudfeet suit ...or Radagast's bird pooped costume?Wink


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Jul 31 2012, 3:47pm


Views: 2887
Encore - Light Your Flame


Quote
Milknut: I actually think the multiple endings think could have easily been avoided. All they would have had to do is not black out so long in between each "ending." It only felt weird because the audience kept expecting each shot to be the last and when it wasn't it was jarring. If they'd cut more smoothly it would have felt a lot better.


Or you could be more positive about it and treat each ending like encores at a concert. Quite the opposite of jarring, it makes me happy and appreciative to see that it is NOT yet the end of the night when the performers come out to play a little more after a fantastic show.

Also, I think the fades in this context are much more appropriate than cuts. The fades connote a passage of time and separate events. Cuts imply a faster, concurrent pace. After the climax, it's time to relax.


(This post was edited by JWPlatt on Jul 31 2012, 3:53pm)


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Jul 31 2012, 4:24pm


Views: 2792
Isn't great art about violating the audience's expectations? //

 

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
Photobucket



JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Jul 31 2012, 4:34pm


Views: 2800
Great Art

You mean like Prometheus?

Wink


Lissuin
Tol Eressea


Jul 31 2012, 6:35pm


Views: 2767
Please be assured, Lusitano,

that I was, indeed, making fun of you.Sly

Whatever costume you wear should be wind- and waterproof. I fear we will have a soggy, cold red carpet event for The Hobbit: There!... and There!...and There! and Back Again.

But we will meet here with bells on nonetheless! Lusitano, my friend, that will be a night to remember!Wink


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Jul 31 2012, 6:37pm


Views: 2803
Narratively, that film was a mess

But I admit that visually, it was very affecting. In fact, I can't get it out of my head...


Lissuin
Tol Eressea


Jul 31 2012, 6:49pm


Views: 2740
Happy dust is certainly needed, Dormouse.

I can just imagine all the tossing and turning last night. I for one slept like a baby. The wait is over. The other shoe has dropped. It's out of our hands, Tornfolk - and it has always been so; fortunately, because how would we ever decide how to do it? The Hobbit: By Consensus. It would never happen. Laugh

Now we can get on here with some productive speculation about what will be in each film.
Angelic


Lissuin
Tol Eressea


Jul 31 2012, 6:51pm


Views: 2760
*groan*//

 


Oscarilbo
Lorien


Jul 31 2012, 7:11pm


Views: 2789
"...but my own adventure turned out to be quite different"

I hope PJ do not forget the importance of that line, and I'm confident he wont.

"The World is Changed, I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air"


Lissuin
Tol Eressea


Jul 31 2012, 7:41pm


Views: 2717
Good point, Oscarilbo.

Bilbo will not be as personally damaged as Frodo. Even though he will go through dark times and be tested by dangerous events, he'll come out of it a stronger hobbit than when he began. Bilbo is still life-loving and joyful, if not completely unaffected by the Ring, when we see him at 111 in Fellowship.


Quote
"...but my own adventure turned out to be quite different"


By the time Frodo meets Bilbo in Rivendell and says those words, however, he has already received a wound that will never leave him. He'll continue with his mission because of his strength of character, but due to the effect of the Ring and the Morgul blade, he will never again be the same happy hobbit he was when he left the Shire.

There is a difference in tone between TH and LOTR, and I agree that the writers will not forget that. Bilbo is going to have a rollicking good time with those dwarves - at least that's how he'll come to look back on it when it's all over.Wink


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Jul 31 2012, 7:46pm


Views: 2722
yes

I had a feeling....(slowly removes dagger from pocket....)Evil

Indeed you seem to have that wonderfully dry and warm british weather Wink

Indeed it shall! I shall have the best costume! I shall go as Playboy Smeagol Laugh


Lissuin
Tol Eressea


Jul 31 2012, 8:00pm


Views: 2740
There have been pigs flying by my window all day,

but now I don't know who is responsible for them - Milknut or Shelob's Appetite!

SA and I found a lot of common ground days ago (Yay! Woo woo!), but what is this?!


Quote
It wasn't the content of LOTR's film ending that was the problem. It was the execution.

That is the overriding problem with PJ's films, IMO. Poor execution, all around.


(Wha!!!!!Tongue I'll meet you over on the LOTR forum, boy-o!Pirate)

And then Milknut weighs in with


Quote
I wouldn't go nearly that far.


It has been a topsy turvy kind of 24 hours.LaughWink
At least we're having fun again.
Cheers, everyone!


Lissuin
Tol Eressea


Jul 31 2012, 8:12pm


Views: 2770
But I do agree with you and JW about Prometheus.

At least if I understand you both to mean that it was just a bit disappointing for whatever reason.

But that's for Off Topic, right?Angelic
And a road to finding new allies and enemies.Evil


Lissuin
Tol Eressea


Jul 31 2012, 8:16pm


Views: 3239
Now that I gotta see!


Quote
I shall go as Playboy Smeagol



xy
Rohan

Aug 1 2012, 5:42pm


Views: 4932
Dissapointed

Instead of going the route of putting the Hobbit in one 3 hour movie, they're going to bloat the thing into three movies.


Zubeneschamali
The Shire

Aug 15 2012, 10:08am


Views: 3251
LotR theatrical editions

Has anyone actually watched the theatrical editions of the LoTR movies since the EEs came out? I haven't. The theatrical releases really missed those cut scenes.

I would much rather have 3 movies with everything necessary in them at the cinema than 2 action movies with every slow scene cut out, and added back into extended edition Blu-Rays.