|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pulpfiction16
Rivendell
Jul 25 2012, 12:40am
Post #1 of 224
(7628 views)
Shortcut
|
|
More '3rd Hobbit Film' Rumblings
|
Can't Post
|
|
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/...paign=heatvisionblog
Looks like it might be legit. So long as it's Peter's own idea, and not the studios, then I'm cool with it. . And also so long as they're all good (i.e., nobody wants a parallel of the Star Wars prequels .. shudder)
|
|
|
Jim
Rivendell
Jul 25 2012, 12:47am
Post #2 of 224
(5239 views)
Shortcut
|
If the first two movies are focusing on The Hobbit and Dol Guldur storyline what could possibly go into a third film? Is it the bridge film they abandoned some time ago? Where on earth would they get enough material to make another 2.5-3hr movie?
|
|
|
Patty
Immortal
Jul 25 2012, 12:47am
Post #3 of 224
(5004 views)
Shortcut
|
|
As long as it's more of stuff from the book I'm all for it. He does an excellent job of...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
bringing Tolkien's vision to the screen. Not sure I want more of Tauriel or the like. But giving visual substance to Middle-earth is something I am happy for PJ to do. An example--I could never properly visualize Helm's Deep before the film.
Wonder if a third film could shoehorn in a glimpse of Tom Bombadill?
Permanent address: Into the West
|
|
|
Sinister71
Tol Eressea
Jul 25 2012, 12:48am
Post #4 of 224
(5200 views)
Shortcut
|
but I really hope not... the story of the Hobbit being stretched into 2 films is plenty. stretching it even further is just needless. if they want to make another film make it a separate film and title it something else. I'm fine with that. I think its a waste of time and money to film something that the only common thread is the backdrop of Middle Earth when there really is no full story to tell. Theres is plenty of material but it is all short sequences that it would be a stretch to tie together. and Jumping from one place to another throughout middle earth just to add filler material isn't something I want to see happen to the Hobbit film either. I hope they just leave the Hobbit alone as 2 films and if they want to work on a 3rd film unrelated to the hobbit in the same time frame more power to them... But diluting the Hobbit even further is not the way to do it.
|
|
|
JWPlatt
Grey Havens
Jul 25 2012, 1:00am
Post #5 of 224
(5069 views)
Shortcut
|
I hope it happens. Better if it is sourced directly from the Tolkien materials. Even better if the rights are expanded for this, despite Peter Jackson's comment that he'd have to live to be 110 years old. For all we know, that's what that comment meant - wild speculation - they'e negotiating rights.
I wish, I wish, I wish.
Clap your hands if you believe!
|
|
|
Escapist
Gondor
Jul 25 2012, 1:03am
Post #6 of 224
(4846 views)
Shortcut
|
it could be pulled off. But by no means would it be easy!!!
There is enough material, but t it is spread across distance, time, and cultures in a very different and at times coincident yet disjointed way.
But the right framing would need to be:
*inclusive of time, culture, and distance
*able to have a plot within the framing itself that was compelling enough to move a story forward
This is assuming that they are using material in the appendices in all its complex and sparse glory rather than picking one of the stories in the appendices and adapting it with great inventive effort.
I can see why the thought would cross their minds what with a great cast and set in place for it (and the sad, sad ending of filming Middle Earth frowning on them).
|
|
|
JWPlatt
Grey Havens
Jul 25 2012, 1:05am
Post #7 of 224
(5000 views)
Shortcut
|
Jackson's comments were more about Extended Edition filming than a third film. Despite the article - if there is a third film, which seems difficult unless WB acquires expanded rights and WB sees a whole lot of green (money, money, money), I doubt it would be part of The Hobbit, so fear not.
"Sources close to the production of The Hobbit..." Is that like "people in the know?"
(This post was edited by JWPlatt on Jul 25 2012, 1:09am)
|
|
|
Sinister71
Tol Eressea
Jul 25 2012, 1:13am
Post #8 of 224
(4925 views)
Shortcut
|
if its just material for EE  ... but to make a whole entire 3rd film to me anyways just seems forced and unnatural. I know people love the material and want to see it on the Big screen but like I said to stretch the Hobbit into 3 films would dilute it to a point it would no longer be the Hobbit. When the non source material percentage of the film is greater than the title of the source material your naming your film its time to rethink what your doing. Or think about renaming your film something else so that people do not expect to see something resembling the source material and the source material makes up less than 50 percent of the films. Thats where I have a problem with them wanting to tell more story when we already have a whole made up subplot and backstory stuff, and now there is more he wants to tell? I say leave it alone unless its just for additional EE material that they forgot during principal shooting 
|
|
|
Bladerunner
Gondor
Jul 25 2012, 1:30am
Post #9 of 224
(5079 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Third film doesn't have to be an epic 2.5 to 3 hr film...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I wouldn't mind just a 2 hr, or slightly under 2 hr film, for a change.
I also prefer that Bilbo's story be concluded by the end of the second film, and that it not be stretched into the third film.
I don't want to wait two more years to experience the Battle of Five Armies.
If it is a stand-alone concept, the movie could span and overlap the periods from the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings.
I'm not sure how well received a third film would be by the general public (i.e. - box office).
A lot depends on how the studio "spins" it, - such as from who's point of view the story is told.
It would definitely be a collector's item though. The closer it hews to the book, the more meaningful it would be.
.
.
|
|
|
Jim
Rivendell
Jul 25 2012, 1:37am
Post #10 of 224
(5125 views)
Shortcut
|
he can never make short movies. If he makes a third "bridge" film it's going to be long! I also don't like the idea of stretching The Hobbit storyline into a third movie, two is more than enough.
|
|
|
HiddenSpring
Lorien
Jul 25 2012, 1:38am
Post #11 of 224
(4874 views)
Shortcut
|
A bridge film wouldn't work, so if this third film comes to pass it will likely mean There And Back Again will be divided into two (with the new material sprinkled throughout.) So, if An Unexpected Journey ends with the barrels, what's left for the other two films? Laketown, Smaug and Dol Guldur for the second film? An entire third film devoted to the Battle of Five Armies? Personally, I think it's downright insulting.
The Hobbit only needed one movie. The Hobbit AND the White Council stuff may have merited two. At best, three just reeks of lack of self-control on the filmmakers' behalf, and exploitation at worst.
|
|
|
ByThorinsBeard
Rohan
Jul 25 2012, 1:38am
Post #12 of 224
(4825 views)
Shortcut
|
I completely agree, if it's for extended editions that's one thing, but to force a third film especially if it's the LoTR bridge that doesn't sit well with me.
Wait and see.
"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you anywhere." - Albert Einstein.
|
|
|
Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea
Jul 25 2012, 1:38am
Post #13 of 224
(4898 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I just don't see how it could possibly happen...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Considering what we know about where the first film is going to end, there's just no possible way that there's enough material left in the story to stretch out over 2 films instead of 1.
"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
|
|
|
hutch
Rohan
Jul 25 2012, 1:55am
Post #14 of 224
(4808 views)
Shortcut
|
Bring back Viggo!!!!
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.
|
|
|
Bladerunner
Gondor
Jul 25 2012, 1:59am
Post #15 of 224
(5171 views)
Shortcut
|
|
From the Richard Armitage Interview...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
that Quaking Troll posted eon's ago in TORN message board time (five pages ago on July 15), Richard stated "we haven't even begun to film some of the fight sequences that need to be made" and that they have to go through training to make them look realistic(?).
I really have no idea what to make of all this...
but I do know if it means Bilbo's story is stretched to a third film, then I don't like it.
I suspect some scenes that we assume would be presented in flashback haven't been filmed yet.
|
|
|
Jim
Rivendell
Jul 25 2012, 2:04am
Post #16 of 224
(4922 views)
Shortcut
|
he is used to track down Gollum with Gandalf
|
|
|
Kristin Thompson
Rohan
Jul 25 2012, 2:04am
Post #17 of 224
(4902 views)
Shortcut
|
|
They already have the rights to all the material in the appendices
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Plus the original contract Tolkien signed gave unlimited rights for sequels, prequels, etc. using the same characters, locations, and situations. I don't think they could use the specific dialogue from "The Quest of Erebor," more's the pity, but they could stretch out the sketchy info in the appendices if they wanted to. My suspicion is the dealing is between PJ's people and New Line (which reportedly wants a third film) on the one hand and Warner Bros. (and MGM, presumably) on the other.
|
|
|
hutch
Rohan
Jul 25 2012, 2:10am
Post #18 of 224
(4815 views)
Shortcut
|
|
That's EXACTLY what i've wanted all along!!!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Altaira
Superuser
Jul 25 2012, 2:13am
Post #19 of 224
(4897 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Also from the LA Times (and Home Page): Third ‘Hobbit’ movie may be coming from Peter Jackson
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The LA Times writes more on the speculation that Warner Bros. and Peter Jackson are looking to convert the planned two Hobbit films into a trilogy: (New info bolded below)
The Burbank film studio originally planned to release two “Hobbit” movies based on J.R.R. Tolkien’s literary prelude to “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy, and principal photography on those two pictures finished in New Zealand this month. The first is set to come out in December, followed by the second in December 2013. The two films combined cost about $500 million.
But Jackson has concluded that there is enough material from the book, as well as the extensive appendixes to “The Lord of the Rings,” to make a third film, according to three people who were not authorized to speak publicly. New Line Cinema, the Warner Bros. unit overseeing production of the movies, is eager to see it happen, and talks are underway with actors and others who would need to sign off on the plan.
We focus on this story because it is brand new and seems to imply that the LA Times has acquired additional information from what was previously reported during Comic-Con. What say you? [Read Article]
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
|
|
|
The Grey Wanderer
Lorien
Jul 25 2012, 2:19am
Post #21 of 224
(4744 views)
Shortcut
|
|
They might choose to stop the first film earlier...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
and pad it out with new material. Many of the TORN folk talked about an earlier break point, anywhere from the beginning of the forest to where they are taken by the elves. Or they could break it at the 1/3 point at the book and end in the Eagle's eyrie and the 2/3 point and put them on the door step. Three three hour movies.
Not saying I would like it to be three movies - I am not that patient. Give me 4-1/2 hour EEs or a third movie parallel to the hobbit and perhaps running beyond.
|
|
|
Mybear
Bree
Jul 25 2012, 2:27am
Post #22 of 224
(4925 views)
Shortcut
|
|
New Source: (Just "telling more of the story")
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
“If we’re going to do it, we have to make a decision soon. It’s strongly driven by the filmmakers’ desire to tell more of the story. It’s about taking the chance to tell more of the incredible tale with the cast we have assembled."
http://www.dailyblam.com/...roperty-into-trilogy
It seems as if they are not going to break up the second film, only film more of the appendices.
|
|
|
Patty
Immortal
Jul 25 2012, 2:34am
Post #23 of 224
(4744 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I kind of doubt Warner's would give permission for just EE material...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
we fans LOVE the EEs, but I don't think the average movie-goer would double dip for an EE, such that it would be profitable enough to do deliberate extra filming, with all that entails. Since I tend to think of movies only in terms of home video any more, I can't see the benefit. I, of course, would buy both versions, but most average movie-goers wouldn't.
Permanent address: Into the West
|
|
|
Captain Salt
Tol Eressea
Jul 25 2012, 2:36am
Post #24 of 224
(4730 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Young Aragorn, Gondor & Rohan?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Those are pretty much what springs to mind when material from the appendices (not pertaining to the Quest for Erebor or the Necromancer/White Council storyline) is mentioned.
Am very dubious about this...It seems like PJ and Co. had found a fine line between TH novel and expanding the scope of the story...well have to wait and see.
Though, three new Tolkien films would be better than two...just hope the story isn't too diluted.
For example: when Galadriel gives her monologue about the Morgul blade in Rivendell, would a ten-minute flashback to the fall of Arnor (and Aranarth subsequently hiding in the Dwarf mines) really be of service to the plot?
EDIT: Just occurred to me...LotR was fairly non-linear, with flashbacks and an occasional flash-foward. As has been speculated in another recent thread, could see the War of the Ring from the perspective of Dale/Erebor/Mirkwood...but in flash-foward form? Does that even make sense...and how would that fit with the framing device they already have in place?
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 25 2012, 2:40am)
|
|
|
Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea
Jul 25 2012, 2:37am
Post #25 of 224
(4766 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I will supremely disappointed if they do this...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I've been very supportive of the idea of two Hobbit films, because I have faith in PJ based on his superb work on the Trilogy. But there is no way 'The Hobbit' should be 3 films. I don't care how much additional material you have (and I do not think the stuff in the appendices would give them that much additional material to work with) - the narrative does not call for the same amount films it took to tell 'The Lord of the Rings'. That's just ridiculous and unacceptable. It smacks of overindulgence - which PJ has been accused of by others in the past, though I've never thought so myself. Well, I my opinion on that matter will change if this happens.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
1
