|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
terrymerry
Ossiriand
Jun 17 2009, 6:46pm
Post #26 of 81
(5864 views)
Shortcut
|
Two movies, each one two and half hours long, with one hour break between ...that would suit me ...haha!
|
|
|
fairelvenlady
Ossiriand
Jun 18 2009, 12:25am
Post #27 of 81
(5870 views)
Shortcut
|
When it comes to captured Frodo the reader doesn't know what happens to him until after he's read about the seige of Gondor and the rest of book 5. If that isn't a cliff hanger I don't know what is . If you think about it Tolkien originally spilt the tale into 6 parts so even if the tale was in one volume he still was able to pull plenty of cliff hangers in his tale.
What happened when Legolas and Aragorn road with Eomer in the van.
Aragorn: Eomer, Legolas has his bow on my side of the seat!
Legolas: Well Aragorn keeps slapping me while practicing his "heroic" poses.
Eomer: Don't make me turn this van around.
|
|
|
GaladrielTX
Dor-Lomin
Jun 18 2009, 12:27am
Post #28 of 81
(5993 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I’m strongly apathetic about that. :o)
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Welcome to TORN where we love newbies who make sense! :o)
If the actors, crew, and the management that enabled this opportunity make more money from two films than from one it doesn’t hurt me at all beyond the price of an extra ticket. The bad news for me was the selection of director whose grotesque and fatalistic vision I feel is completely incompatible with this story. Tolkien presented the danger and violence of The Hobbit at an emotional distance, and I just can’t see del Toro summoning the whimsy that makes the story so wonderful.
I have no personal experience with writing movie scripts, but I do know some fine full-length films have been made from short literary works; the short stories from which movie-makers created Field of Dreams and Bladerunner, for example (also A Christmas Story which I personally dislike, but not because its origin was a short story). I would rather they tell the story of The Hobbit in a leisurely fashion, over two movies (shorter than LOTR, though) than that they cram it all in one and then make a second film that is basically fan fiction based on the appendices.
I’m also tired of three-hour death-march movies that strain the bladder. If they can make a couple of two-hour films that would be just fine with me.
~~~~~~~~
The TORNsib formerly known as Galadriel.
|
|
|
Guillermo
Ossiriand
Jun 18 2009, 5:52am
Post #29 of 81
(6966 views)
Shortcut
|
Hola from NZ!
Please forgive the posting placement- as it responds to a few ideas expressed earlier in the thread, rather than GaladrielTX only.
As stated in many posts before, I am bound to please and displease fans no matter which way we ultimately go- My first inkling of the need for two movies came from the 3x5 card layout months and months ago.
Allow me to explain: Adapting an existing book is quite a task (iv e done it with WIND IN THE WILLOWS, THE WITCHES, HELLBOY, etc) and an artistic, instinctive endeavour. The only guide you have is your creative "gut feeling" and that of your closest associates. The carding of an adaptation, however, is quite exact... Normally I card a feature film in about 100-130 3x5 cards that detail "events" that take place in the book. THE HOBBIT (plus the Dol Guldur episodes) carded at over 300 card at its smallest. That means a 4-5 hour movie...
Now and then, allusions are vaguely made at ulterior motives for this or that action- rest assured, everyone on this side of the equation is doing this work first and foremost as a labour of passion and love. That doesnt make us right- but makes our aims true...
Condensing the book to a single film, in our opinion, makes it too much of a travelogue- an itinerary of adventures rather than an adventure itself.
Take a look at the animated Hobbit film and how much textural and dramatic material gets condensed or thrown out (Beorn for one) and you'll understand that "fitting it all" into a single film is quite impossible.
As for the concussive and concise summary of my grotesque and fatalistic vision as such, well, I can safely say that to summarize PJ's previous filmography to LOTR would probably be conducive to a similar overstatement.
I can only repeat what I've mentioned in the past: Nothing in my previous work indicates what I plan to do or what I will do with these films.
This is no warranty that you or anyone else will / must like the films and I will not even attempt at defend my command of whimsy elements -or lack of it- since its your opinion and its perfectly valid as such... But the split comes from a genuine place and from the desire to film every filmable set piece offered by the book. There are many "unfilmable" passages that belong solely to the experience of reading the book but many others are "just" difficult to crack... We are doing many symposia about all these and more...
Now, the one point where we do disagree is in liking A CHRISTMAS STORY;)
Sincerely
G
(This post was edited by Guillermo on Jun 18 2009, 5:53am)
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Jun 18 2009, 6:05am
Post #30 of 81
(5838 views)
Shortcut
|
|
So, should we expect a genuine Black Arrow 1-Shot, Gut-Action Bow with
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...a moon-lettered map and this thing which reckons Durin's Day built right into the quiver?
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Hobbit in the Reading Room, Mar. 23 - Aug. 9. Everyone is welcome!
Join us June 15-21 for "Not at Home".
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
Ainu Laire
Dor-Lomin
Jun 18 2009, 6:49am
Post #31 of 81
(5864 views)
Shortcut
|
It's neat that both you and PJ have a similar horror background. IIRC, Sam Raimi also had a horror background, and he did a terrific job with the Spiderman franchise (well, at least the first two...). And I have to say that I am one of those who eagerly looks forward to the horrific parts of the Hobbit- the status of a children's book should not make them less horrible onscreen. Bring on the goblins, Wargs, spiders, and dragon!
I for one am still fascinated by the concept of index cards- I have used them for school projects in constructing essays and absolutely hated them- I kept on losing them! I can only imagine the stack and the process of keeping track of all the index cards for these two films (Has anyone seen Card #257?!)
Cheers.
My LiveJournal ~ My artwork and photography ~ My LOTR fan fiction
NARF since age 8, when I refused to read the Hobbit because the cover looked boring and icky.
|
|
|
sticklebat
Menegroth
Jun 18 2009, 8:01am
Post #32 of 81
(5836 views)
Shortcut
|
Tolkien most definitely had just that strategy design in mind while writing it...hence the format of The Two Towers, for example...he required the reader to read on, in order to find out what happens to the two central characters...instead of doing what Peter & crew did with he film, inter-cutting the various story lines.
It's been said of Tolkien that he was a very stalwart individual, and wrote primarily how he wanted to...and to criticize or correct him on how he did so, simply was not done...one of the main reasons I love & respect him and his work.
Tri duath telich na estel lin...a si gerich naid bain anirach.
|
|
|
sticklebat
Menegroth
Jun 18 2009, 8:14am
Post #33 of 81
(5826 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm so very excited to see BOTH of these films...I just watched Pan's for the second time, after learning it would in fact be you directing them...and the one resounding thought left in my mind was..."It's going to be beautiful..."
cheers...
Tri duath telich na estel lin...a si gerich naid bain anirach.
(This post was edited by Altaira on Jun 23 2009, 2:10am)
|
|
|
Elven
Doriath
Jun 18 2009, 9:19am
Post #34 of 81
(5831 views)
Shortcut
|
Hi TheNumenorean - welcome to torn! 
Im in favour of two films - I have no problem with it at all, as I cant see the story and its complexities condensed into one single film, without it either being too short or too long. The book is too long to be one film to do it justice and to tell the story with the integrity to honour the work of the writer - and somewhere in the mix of all this there is that consideration, which the scriptwriters will not overlook. Two films at 3 hrs long enables enough time to tell the Hobbit and include what ever other storythreads are persmissble that are tied in with The Hobbit - such as the Dol Guldor/Necromancer/Gandalf story, and whatever else the writers deem fit to include for the adaption. For all we know, for a seamless transition into LOTR, we maybe back in Hobbiton before the end of the second film - Bilbo's journey has done the complete circle and encompassed and tied all threads to the story. I would be more concerned if it were 3 films.
Cheers
Elven x
Swishtail.
Tolkien was a Capricorn!!
Russell Crowe for Beorn!!
Avatar: Liberace - The other Lord of the Rings.
Quote of The Week: The thing is I always write in the morning, and I know that if I go to the Net I won’t write ... you can start in the most scholarly website and end up at Paris Hilton dot com .. GdT
|
|
|
Annael
Elvenhome
Jun 18 2009, 1:38pm
Post #35 of 81
(5837 views)
Shortcut
|
Condensing the book to a single film, in our opinion, makes it too much of a travelogue- an itinerary of adventures rather than an adventure itself.
either that or some of the adventures would have to be cut?
I do think that the few flaws in PJ's adaptation of LOTR came when he indulged his personal love of horror a bit too much and added elements that weren't in the book - the pile of skulls in the third film for instance, or the episode with the Wargs. I hope that doesn't happen here. Sounds like time constraints will work against it. I hope so.
I have a thousand brilliant lies
For the question:
How are you? ...
I have a thousand brilliant lies
For the question:
What is God?
If you think that the Truth can be known
From words,
If you think that the Sun and the Ocean
Can pass through that tiny opening
Called the mouth,
O someone should start laughing!
Someone should start wildly
Laughing – Now!
- Hafiz
* * * * * * * * * *
NARF and member of Deplorable Cultus since 1967
|
|
|
Annael
Elvenhome
Jun 18 2009, 1:39pm
Post #36 of 81
(5830 views)
Shortcut
|
|
oh and mae govannen, TheNumenorean
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
we do like thoughtful, well-spoken newbies!
I have a thousand brilliant lies
For the question:
How are you? ...
I have a thousand brilliant lies
For the question:
What is God?
If you think that the Truth can be known
From words,
If you think that the Sun and the Ocean
Can pass through that tiny opening
Called the mouth,
O someone should start laughing!
Someone should start wildly
Laughing – Now!
- Hafiz
* * * * * * * * * *
NARF and member of Deplorable Cultus since 1967
|
|
|
GaladrielTX
Dor-Lomin
Jun 18 2009, 5:34pm
Post #37 of 81
(6015 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Apologies for the "concussive" nature of my statement,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
and thank you for your gentle response. I learned a new word today. :o) Anyway, I need to remember that I’m discussing someone’s livelihood here. Bad GalTX!
It was interesting to learn of the technique you use to gauge the length of a film. It’s been probably three decades since I saw the animated Hobbit, but what you write about its lack of texture and drama rings true. I thought I remembered they had omitted Beorn, and he’s such a wonderful, fantastic character. I’m even more comfortable with the two-movie concept than I was before.
Well, I will hope that my use of the words “grotesque and fatalistic” are indeed overstatement. I do think, though, that after a certain age (say, twenty) people’s world view tends to crystallize and inform what they do and create. I do see certain fundamental elements in PJ’s work (some good, some less good), and I think it’s normal for viewers/readers/listeners to find common elements and a viewpoint in an artist’s work. We build abstractions about the concept we have of an artist in our own minds, to get a handle on them. (All we have are words to convey the abstraction, and I didn’t want to go into an in-depth analysis of your work so I chose a couple of adjectives.) I do have certain expectations, but I’ll go see the film and try to keep an open mind. Now you’ve made me curious.
But you can’t get me to watch A Christmas Story again. ;o)
~~~~~~~~
The TORNsib formerly known as Galadriel.
(This post was edited by GaladrielTX on Jun 18 2009, 5:35pm)
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Jun 18 2009, 6:03pm
Post #38 of 81
(5818 views)
Shortcut
|
|
How long is the 1977 animated "Hobbit"?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It was interesting to learn of the technique you use to gauge the length of a film... what you write about its lack of texture and drama rings true... they had omitted Beorn, and he’s such a wonderful, fantastic character. I’m even more comfortable with the two-movie concept than I was before.
Both wikipedia and IMDb give two running times for the Rankin/Bass film, 77 (or 78 minutes) and 90 minutes. Either way, the new film could be twice as long and still shorter than any one of the three LOTR films. And The Hobbit, as a book, is shorter than each of the LOTR volumes.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Hobbit in the Reading Room, Mar. 23 - Aug. 9. Everyone is welcome!
Join us June 15-21 for "Not at Home".
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
Ettelewen
Nargothrond
Jun 18 2009, 11:53pm
Post #40 of 81
(5790 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm very much looking forward to seeing what he envisions. I'm actually not as much a fan of The Hobbit story as of The Lord of the Rings but I'm excited to see it filmed. It sounds like Guillermo has a good grasp of what he wants to do.
|
|
|
AinurOlorin
Gondolin
Jun 19 2009, 4:55am
Post #41 of 81
(5829 views)
Shortcut
|
I have it, its 79. Lacks a lot, but I know it drew in a great many kids who became fans for life. And it actually does a pretty good job of getting most of the elements in, considering the horridly short running length. It was interesting to learn of the technique you use to gauge the length of a film... what you write about its lack of texture and drama rings true... they had omitted Beorn, and he’s such a wonderful, fantastic character. I’m even more comfortable with the two-movie concept than I was before. Both wikipedia and IMDb give two running times for the Rankin/Bass film, 77 (or 78 minutes) and 90 minutes. Either way, the new film could be twice as long and still shorter than any one of the three LOTR films. And The Hobbit, as a book, is shorter than each of the LOTR volumes.
"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."
|
|
|
Morthoron
Hithlum
Jun 20 2009, 2:47am
Post #43 of 81
(5721 views)
Shortcut
|
I can't speak for everybody, but a major complaint regarding the LotR trilogy was not necessarily what was taken out (most agree, for instance, that Tom Bombadil was not necessary in the telling of the tale), rather, it was what was put in (another poster mentioned the pile 'o' skulls, the warg attack, and I would add the scrubbing green bubbles that swept Minas Tirith clean of Orcs). It is the superfluous and extraneous material that has no bearing on the original story, and which often belabors the storyline rather than enhancing it, that we're concerned about.
That being said, I understand the reasoning behind having two films to tell The Hobbit; however, I would prefer that the plot maintain coherence to the original story and not take the flights of fancy that diminished the LotR trilogy. If it is necessary to edit a part of the original story due to time constraints, please consider not adding extraneous material in its place.
Two novel-length stories nominated for 2009 MEFAs--
MONTY PYTHON'S 'The HOBBIT':
http://www.fanfiction.net/...y_Pythons_The_Hobbit
-And-
'TALES OF A DARK CONTINENT':
http://www.fanfiction.net/..._of_a_Dark_Continent
|
|
|
debo
Nargothrond
Jun 21 2009, 10:02am
Post #44 of 81
(5716 views)
Shortcut
|
May the grace of God be with you as you make these movies!!
Frodo; "What I chiefly need now is courage . . ."
|
|
|
AinurOlorin
Gondolin
Jun 22 2009, 12:17pm
Post #45 of 81
(5678 views)
Shortcut
|
I've been so caught up in the great argument, that I failed to notice on my last run that our much appreciated GDT had made a comment. Thank you, Sir. I am rather certain I will love the films, however you arrange them (so long as you don't let Peter take all of Gandalf's most explosive {literally} moments of Wizardry away from him    ). And I never really had an issue with two films, and am a HUGE supporter of Dol Guldur content. My primary concern has just been the reception of the first film. Will it have the weight of a great film on its own, or feel like an utter cliffhanger. . . my query is how the latter will strike a more general audience. There is just something about going through the whole of film one, and at its end still having had no encounter of substance with the dragon. But, I leave it in your amply capable hands, and I thank you again, very sincerely as others here already have, for putting so much energy into both the films and the fans.
"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."
(This post was edited by AinurOlorin on Jun 22 2009, 12:18pm)
|
|
|
RosieLass
Doriath
Jun 22 2009, 11:44pm
Post #46 of 81
(5633 views)
Shortcut
|
I (and my bladder) would gladly sit through a ten-film Hobbit...if it was Tolkien's Hobbit with Tolkien's story and characters and flavor. But I agree completely with Annael that the flaws in PJ's LOTR were where he strayed from Tolkien and added his own personal indulgences. Especially when there were things from the story that were eliminated because there wasn't time to include them.
I do understand that the creative process means the director has the freedom to make the story fit his vision of what he wants to portray, and I respect that. I just feel that, in the case of an adaptation of someone else's material, it also needs to stay within the limits of what the original author intended to portray. And I feel that Jackson didn't quite succeed with that at times, especially in the case of some of the characters.
(This is where I usually get shot down.)
For example, Aragorn. He's the King of the blinking Numenoreans, fer crying out loud! He's supposed to be remote and aloof and heroic. I don't need to understand him or relate to him. I just need to know that he has a high ancestry and a mighty destiny and that his life's purpose has been to fulfill that.
Why did Merry and Pippin need to become juvenile delinquents? And Gimli a wisecracking buffoon?
And Denethor. Why take the one character in the book who really was marvellously complex and conflicted, and turn him into a drooling monomaniac?
Sorry. The characters and the changes made to them are the main thing that really gets me fired up about the LOTR films. The rest I was either extremely happy with or could see why they needed to be changed. (Or at least could shrug and move on, if I didn't understand it.)
"Rabbit's clever," said Pooh thoughtfully.
"Yes," said Piglet, "Rabbit's clever."
"And he has Brains."
"Yes," said Piglet, "Rabbit has Brains."
There was a long silence.
"I suppose," said Pooh, "that that's why he never understands anything."
- A. A. Milne
|
|
|
Guillermo
Ossiriand
Jun 23 2009, 3:16am
Post #47 of 81
(7143 views)
Shortcut
|
I take no offense. truly- but this is perhaps a good time to clarify two things that pop up now and then:
1) Some people post as if my involvement is big news (good or bad) and some even hope (others fear) that perhaps my involvement will be palliated and limited by the fact that WETA is involved or Howard Shore or Alan and John, etc as if I fall under "damage control" by using the same team of this or that team...
Some, more gentle in their critique, just use the word vision with quotation marks and pray for PJ to restrain me...
So, look, let me clarify these choices (Alan, John, Howard) are already my choices- Not only I never fought them- I personally urged these artists and to come back as part of the realization of the vision I have for these films. They were not brought on board as an insurance policy against my personality...
The more you are familiar with my work, the more you'll ease or increase your anxieties- but if you go from an incomplete view (only PANS LABYRINTH or only BLADE II, say) the more you will remain in an uneasy twilight-
IF you are familiar with all my work and you still have anxieties, chances are that you may have some ground to be wary of those tendencies to pop up somehow, somewhere....
B) The part that may bring the palette and tone one shade darker than the book is the Geo-political / Dol-Guldur portions, which add considerable gravity to Gandalf's quest and the origins of the map and key, but i truly believe that they will make for a much more satisfying film narrative at the end of the day.
Once again, if you seek my posting in other topics you will find that I have often, and unprompted, used that exact word: WHIMSY to describe one of the many things that will differentiate LOTR and TH.
Peter and I have said it, time and again, this will not be an exercise in mimicry of style and I will NOT be trying to emulate PJ's style or achievements but I do intend to respectfully build up on them-
In my mind, the mistake would be to approach THE HOBBIT as if it needs the exact same tools and look as LOTR, they are quite different in tone and in look and deserve to feel like tales that can be viewed together and exist in the same universe and Mithology but that can also stand on their own.
The challenges of the book and the added material is enormous since it includes many passages and moments that are iconic but difficult to translate to film- others just require of intelligence and hard work. It is my hope that in the not so distant future images, teasers etc will slowly unveil the personality and majesty of our enterprise to you all and then you can decide if you like what we are doing or not.
In the meantime I remain,
Sincerely Yours
Guillermo
|
|
|
batik
Dor-Lomin
Jun 23 2009, 3:37am
Post #48 of 81
(5685 views)
Shortcut
|
well, I certainly hope some other folks hearts raced a bit when simply reading the word *teasers*...how goofy is that?!? I am too far past my...20's... to rush time but, dang, I am ready to get back to Middle-earth on the big screen. Was reading earlier for RR discussion and the words "the roar of Smaug's terrible approach grew loud, and the lake rippled red as fire beneath the awful beating of his wings." just jumped out at me...that's gonna be something to experience.
(This post was edited by batik on Jun 23 2009, 3:37am)
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
Jun 23 2009, 4:11am
Post #49 of 81
(5664 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You, Sir, are a remarkable individual
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I would add that I hope that doesn't embarrass you, but in truth, I kinda hope it does, a bit.
Who know, I may even some day forgive you for the crack you made some months back about attorneys. 
Cheers!
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
www.arda-reconstructed.com
|
|
|
farmer maggot
Ossiriand
Jun 23 2009, 10:46am
Post #50 of 81
(5792 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Thank you, and a geo-political comment!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
This is only my second contribution to a thread on TORN but I have lurked on the site for almost ten years since seeing the first teaser trailer for FOTR.
Firstly I must completely echo VtF's comments and thanks. It is remarkable for you to be so open and informative so early in a project that inevitably will be the media focus for the next four years. It seems the love of JRRT's mythology inspires this approach for very many people across the world. Having first absorbed LOTR three decades previously, then put it to one side, PJ's films returned it to me and my young children at a time of real difficulty for our family, inspiring me and helping us all (because of just the trailers my seven year old daughter and I read all through the trilogy, an alternate page each) before seeing the film's which she/we adored.
Interestingly she could never truly relate to The Hobbit as it seemed too simplistic and 'childlike' for her after the trilogy.
Your comment on the 'Geo-political' aspect of the film are key for me and I hope they relate to comments made by PJ and yourself in the very original online Q&A sessions about The Hobbit. I believe you said that the final suite of five films (or more if another bridging film materializes) must all fit together coherently within the one overall and wider story within the Middle Earth mythology, linking to and bringing out the constant themes that run through both the works. Obviously they must still keep true to the unique character, indiviudality and purpose of both stories - so that The Hobbit remains as accessible as ever.
Am I right in this? I think it may be a controversial view for some on TORN who feel this will bring The Hobbit too close to the atmosphere of LOTR (I do not agree personally).
I have always seen those 'bigger' themes as being about the inevitable return of an evil thought to be destroyed, how it uses the suspicion between races and the other aspects of 'human' weakness to almost win ultimate victory, and how the comradeship, trust, courage, loyalty and sacrifice of individuals can roll back the tide. It is a huge challenge to encompass that in any film and you may see different aspects to this. For me, and I think my daughter, that continuity would make the realization of The Hobbit truly an amazing achievement, but again some may think this a step too far.
I cannot think of a better team than yourself, PJ, Fran and Phillipa to try to reach that goal. Of one thing I am sure - it is going to be a hell of a ride!
Farmer Maggot (the generous version! - see Duncan's thread)
|
|
|
|
|
