|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pulpfiction16
Rivendell
Jul 25 2012, 5:13am
Post #51 of 224
(2121 views)
Shortcut
|
It was a long squabble about rights, namely MGM nearly going bankrupt and restructuring over a few years. That's why we're only seeing a new Bond film coming out now even though it's more a 2 year cycle.
MGM holds distribution, Warner Brothers holds production. Either way MGM's troubles were essentially *the* reason for the delay in production, which is the reason why we're seeing Peter Jackson's The Hobbit rather than Del Toros. So, yes, it is a completely appropriate statement since you can trace it all the way back to whenever MGM received those rights.
|
|
|
pulpfiction16
Rivendell
Jul 25 2012, 5:19am
Post #52 of 224
(2113 views)
Shortcut
|
I'll assume you mean on the artistic merit side, which I'll play the waiting game for .. I like that watching LOTR is a multi day experience, almost like a mini-series. I find with the length of these films as is, pacing isn't a real issue when you rewatch them. It's more for the settings, mood, characters rather than waiting for a set piece. So, I'm perfectly okay with this. But, I understand why the people who doubted even a two-parter are shaking their heads.
Regardless, the business side alone .. One more film means one more year of tie-in toys being released, branded video games which receive a huge boost when having a film (and it's multi-million dollar marketing) boosting it. If Warner Brothers passes on this they'll give up literally a couple billion in revenue.
I figure since the rights for everything else are gone, this is all we're getting for Tolkien adapted works, so, might as well release another one.
|
|
|
Elskar
Bree
Jul 25 2012, 5:20am
Post #53 of 224
(2015 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The more Middle Earth the better. But
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I agree with not diluting the Hobbit any more than it has already been. I personally can't get enough of being in Middle Earth via the films and would be one of the fans who would gladly have paid to sit through versions of the trilogy twice as long as the final product ended up being. If Tolkien wrote it, I wanna see it. Even the little mentions of events such as the time the wolves came out of the north and gave the Shire some excitement. If Peter and CO. are finding it hard to leave the daily life of creating their version of Middle Earth I can hardly blame them. I just pray they are not doing it merely to soak up more dollars and be in danger of diluting this wonderful story. Give us another film or films sure. Silmarillion, lost tales, Hurin, what have you but leave the already slightly diluted Hobbit at 2 films thanks.
Plant Trees
|
|
|
Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor
Jul 25 2012, 5:25am
Post #54 of 224
(2124 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It is becoming increasingly clear
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
That PJ is talking about a bridge film (or a pre-Hobbit prequel), and not dragging out the Hobbit. This seems likely for a few reasons:
1. He mentions that the idea of a 3rd film has been around since very early on, and we know that a bridge film was initially under serious consideration.
2. There simply isn't very much Hobbit-related material in the LOTR Appendices to stretch the Hobbit to three films, IMO. There are merely some rather small bits in Appendix A and B.
3. On the other hand, there is loads and loads of material in the Appendices that could be formed into a bridge film, or a pre-Hobbit prequel. Have you read them lately? They are chock full of Ringlore, Numenorean backstory for Aragorn, the history of Arnor, Gondor and Rohan, etc. etc. The trick will be to find a narrative somewhere in there. My guess would be a focus on Gandalf and Aragorn's dangerous travels in the wilderness, which slowly reveal the initial rumblings of a Sauron returned to Mordor, with extended flashbacks to the historical context of the struggle between the Heirs of Numenor, the remaining elves, and Sauron (and the Witch-King). Alternatively, they could squeeze an entire narrative out of the struggle between Arnor and Angmar, though that is unlikely given the absence of familiar characters...
Who knows? Despite my serious reservations about PJ, and my general dislike of his style, I can't help but want to see more Middle Earth on the big screen. Also, the more films that are made, the more likely it is that I will enjoy one of them more than LOTR...
(This post was edited by Shelob'sAppetite on Jul 25 2012, 5:33am)
|
|
|
SirDennisC
Half-elven
Jul 25 2012, 5:38am
Post #55 of 224
(2105 views)
Shortcut
|
|
But are they talking about splitting the second film
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
or coming up with an entirely different title, say a bridge film or some such thing?
Glancing up the thread, thank you Kristin and Voronwe for weighing in here. I see now that the line refers to the rights since the beginning of time.
Oh, and just a note on MGM... yes that was a bit of slipperiness in '09-'10. It is even more complicated when you factor in Sony's fortunes which had a direct negative impact on MGM at the time. If I recall correctly, we talked about that a bit back then .
(This post was edited by SirDennisC on Jul 25 2012, 5:38am)
|
|
|
Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor
Jul 25 2012, 5:43am
Post #56 of 224
(2014 views)
Shortcut
|
Particularly as a rough cut of film 1 is already completed, and it would also seem very late in the game to do a script overhaul in order to accomodate a 3-film series that happens within the timeframe of the Hobbit.
I think this means that film 2 will still end with Bilbo back in the Shire, and the hypothetical film 3 will begin with...who the heck knows...Estel in Rivendell? The story of a boy in exile, complete with flashbacks to his family history: Numenor, Sauron, Elendil and Isildur?
|
|
|
Maiarmike
Grey Havens
Jul 25 2012, 5:47am
Post #57 of 224
(2015 views)
Shortcut
|
|
If there is one person who deserves my trust with Tolkien...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...it's Peter Jackson. And after seeing the last production blog, I couldn't be any more reassured about that.
We should be so lucky that a director with talent is so interested in actually bringing Tolkien's writings to life for the fans. I highly doubt this is a cash grab.
I assume if it does happen, and it sounds like even some of the actors don't know about it yet, PJ will probably post a loooong explanation on his Facebook page about why he felt the need to have 3 films. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt at the moment.
"I warn you, if you bore me, I shall take my revenge"
--J.R.R. Tolkien
|
|
|
Maiarmike
Grey Havens
Jul 25 2012, 5:50am
Post #58 of 224
(2027 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm inclined to agree with this.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
When he talks about the 120-some-odd pages of the Appendices, most of it is the history and important events of the cultures centered around LotR. I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being a bridge type of film as well. The only thing is, if that ends up being the case, he should tell the world right away that he is making a bridge film.
"I warn you, if you bore me, I shall take my revenge"
--J.R.R. Tolkien
|
|
|
Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor
Jul 25 2012, 5:52am
Post #59 of 224
(1965 views)
Shortcut
|
That he's talking about extending the 2nd film, or creating a new film out of non-Hobbit material in the Appendices?
If it's the latter, I don't mind. A bridge film will not in any way conflict with my own vision of an existing Tolkien story, and so I might even be a lot more open-minded about it.
But the idea of stretching the Hobbit itself to three films makes me queasy. I have visions of extended story-lines involving Tauriel and Legolas and Bard and whatnot. Judging from the quality of some of PJ and company's past invented material, these visions are not very positive...
Plus, waiting three years to see the BoFA and Smaug seems a tad absurd...
|
|
|
Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor
Jul 25 2012, 5:55am
Post #60 of 224
(2017 views)
Shortcut
|
As it stands, it's very unclear. On one occasion, he talked about extending the story of the Hobbit, while on a few other occasions he talked about all this other great material that they haven't been able to use...
Then we hear discussions about extending actor contracts, and you have to wonder: Are they talking about just Ian McKellen? If so, could just be a bridge film. But if they are talking about Freeman, Armitage, etc, then it's likely the Hobbit in three parts.
The latter possibility is almost head-exploding in its excessiveness. The former, I am perfectly okay with.
|
|
|
Maiarmike
Grey Havens
Jul 25 2012, 5:57am
Post #61 of 224
(2050 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I have a feeling it's going to be a bridge film of sorts.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
If he's talking about the rich material from the Appendices that I think he's talking about, then it would be best served by making a bridge film that is more historical in a way. Of course, how that is done (and done well...) is anybody's guess.
As you said, I don't think there is enough material in Appendix A or B to fill out three Hobbit films.
"I warn you, if you bore me, I shall take my revenge"
--J.R.R. Tolkien
|
|
|
SirDennisC
Half-elven
Jul 25 2012, 6:01am
Post #62 of 224
(1979 views)
Shortcut
|
2 months of additional shooting, a year to rejigger film 2 and over 2 years to assemble film 3.
It's a little hazy but I seem to remember they shot additional footage and pickups for a month or so beginning in March of the year ROTK was released. So the time frames they are working with, assuming a lot of extra footage exists already, are quite reasonable.
Plus splitting the final film into two is all the rage right now.
|
|
|
pulpfiction16
Rivendell
Jul 25 2012, 6:04am
Post #63 of 224
(1982 views)
Shortcut
|
Besides, most of the writing is done in editing anyway in a sense. You can change a film in a hundred different ways. Splitting it? Not impossible at all, it's just a matter of finding a way to construct a climax.
On an unrelated-ish note, I'm reminded Spider-man 3, which was originally intended to be two films. They decided there wasn't enough story, and so we ended up with the crammed bloated mess that was a single film. Where is all the good judgement in Hollywood?
|
|
|
Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor
Jul 25 2012, 6:08am
Post #64 of 224
(2002 views)
Shortcut
|
|
But would it be as simple as re-jiggering film 2?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
My sense is that they would also need to re-jigger film 1.
Otherwise, are we really talking about two films that occur between the arrival of the dwarves at Laketown, to Bilbo returning to the Shire?
That is a loooooong time for a story that consists of bunch of dwarves and a hobbit walking a short distance, upsetting a dragon, getting in a fight with elves, men and goblins, and going home.
(This post was edited by Shelob'sAppetite on Jul 25 2012, 6:08am)
|
|
|
Welsh hero
Gondor
Jul 25 2012, 6:16am
Post #65 of 224
(1921 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I still doubt there will be a third film
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
as a Doctor Who fans, I have heard the sources close to production thing so many times, and they've been wrong many times.
-Irfon
Twitter: @IrfonPennant
middle earth timeline FB: https://www.facebook.com/MiddleEarth1
|
|
|
SirDennisC
Half-elven
Jul 25 2012, 6:29am
Post #66 of 224
(1989 views)
Shortcut
|
there was another film like that in recent memory, one that seemed like it should have been two films... instead we got one film that was too long and seemed to be missing chunks... crud it was just on the tip of my fingers... a huge disappointment it was... ah, I can't remember the name of it because I've blocked it from memory it was so bad.
|
|
|
SirDennisC
Half-elven
Jul 25 2012, 6:40am
Post #67 of 224
(1950 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Well there's the Dol Guldur stuff and
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
a potentially long Bo5A (think of how long Helm's Deep was). Add a little bit more and you've got enough for two films from A Warm Welcome to the end. But maybe they will chop film one at the spiders after an expanded Short Rest or Queer Lodgings?
Between you and me though I've always liked the bridge film idea. Any chance to see Aragorn in action again is fine with me. However the statement about extending the existing cast's contracts (see Magpie's EW post) seems to point to an expanded and split part 2.
(This post was edited by SirDennisC on Jul 25 2012, 6:41am)
|
|
|
Ceres_the_Dwarf_(planet)
The Shire
Jul 25 2012, 7:14am
Post #68 of 224
(1972 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The bridge concept is indeed preferable to...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...the ridiculousness of a padded, three-part 'Hobbit', but it seems unlikely to me that they could shoot an entire bridge film in just a few months next summer (this is the time frame Jackson's been talking about, correct?). Wouldn't there have to be another extensive round of scripting, location-scouting, set-building, actor-casting, etc. for an original bridge film? Can they really fit all that in with everything they still have to do in the post-production phase? Seems a tall order.
What does seem feasible in the span of a summer 2013 shoot is padding the existing Hobbit narratve, creating enough additional story to make a three-part Hobbit doable. More Gandalf/White Council stuff, plus additional Dwarven history, plus whatever else they can mine/outright invent.
I don't like it, but it just seems more plausible given the time they have to work with.
(This post was edited by Ceres_the_Dwarf_(planet) on Jul 25 2012, 7:20am)
|
|
|
painjoiker
Grey Havens
Jul 25 2012, 7:17am
Post #69 of 224
(1848 views)
Shortcut
|
|
If the two planned films are going to be released as they are,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
with maybe some minor additions, I'm ok with a third film set AFTER the Hobbit :)
Because if I don't like it I can still enjoy the Hobbit films and ignore the third one ;)
Vocalist in the semi-progressive metal band Arctic Eclipse
|
|
|
lurtz2010
Rohan
Jul 25 2012, 7:18am
Post #70 of 224
(1893 views)
Shortcut
|
|
it's too late to turn the hobbit into 3 films now
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
so of course if there are 3 movies then the 3rd will be a bridge movie, I think it will most likely be a story about Aragorn the Ranger with alot of history... maybe they could set up the paths the of the dead in some ways since it was abit random in LOTR..
|
|
|
RosieLass
Valinor
Jul 25 2012, 7:19am
Post #71 of 224
(1879 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I should stop reading threads like this one.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I had begun to overcome my reservations over things like Tauriel and Dol Guldur and other unnecessary intrusions, and all this talk about a third (possibly bridge? *shudder*) film is making me lose enthusiasm again. 
It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)
|
|
|
irodino
Bree
Jul 25 2012, 7:21am
Post #72 of 224
(1888 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The movies will feel thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread..
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I fear this will be the result if a third movie is going to be forced merely for more profits sake.
"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."
|
|
|
TheCoon
Lorien
Jul 25 2012, 7:22am
Post #73 of 224
(1840 views)
Shortcut
|
this to cause me to have to wait any longer for the 2 guaranteed films b/c of this ill only be pissed if it causes those 2 dates to be bumped back
|
|
|
lurtz2010
Rohan
Jul 25 2012, 7:28am
Post #74 of 224
(1810 views)
Shortcut
|
|
are you not curious at all too see some lotr appendices on film?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
how could a 3rd bridge film be a bad thing?
|
|
|
ElendurTheFaithful
Rivendell
Jul 25 2012, 7:32am
Post #75 of 224
(1851 views)
Shortcut
|
It's kinda weird. Back in 1999 Pete had to fought like hell to film 3 LOTR films because money people pulled for only 2. Now he has a chance to do what he wants and I hope it will be what I want to - 3 movies (more the merrier).
On the other hand, I bet they would let Pete film LOTR in 6 (hell, maybe even 9) movies if he was filming it today.
|
|
|
|
|
