|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DanielLB
Immortal
Jul 30 2012, 4:58pm
Post #126 of 378
(21369 views)
Shortcut
|
The Lord of the Ring was 3 distinctive books
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
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
Post #127 of 378
(21382 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm not sure where you're going with that one... //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
Estel78
Tol Eressea
Jul 30 2012, 4:59pm
Post #128 of 378
(21536 views)
Shortcut
|
Well, it's your word against PJ's.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
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.
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
Post #129 of 378
(21366 views)
Shortcut
|
Tolkien wrote 'Lord of the Rings' as a single book
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
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
Post #130 of 378
(21360 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm too shocked to come up with a coherent and sensible argument. I'll have to pass
|
|
|
Ardamírë
Valinor
Jul 30 2012, 5:06pm
Post #131 of 378
(21328 views)
Shortcut
|
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
Post #132 of 378
(21444 views)
Shortcut
|
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
Post #133 of 378
(21313 views)
Shortcut
|
I fear most of my posts are too scatter-brained to follow, too.
|
|
|
Danielos
Rohan
Jul 30 2012, 5:08pm
Post #134 of 378
(21541 views)
Shortcut
|
Let´s be a little constructive.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
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
Jul 30 2012, 5:08pm
Post #135 of 378
(21566 views)
Shortcut
|
That's undoubtedly part of what they were working out
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
When PJ first floated the idea, he said they were in talks with the actors - presumably about both their schedules and their salaries!
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
Post #136 of 378
(21374 views)
Shortcut
|
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
|
|
|
TheWhiteRider
Bree
Jul 30 2012, 5:10pm
Post #137 of 378
(21350 views)
Shortcut
|
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
|
|
|
DanielLB
Immortal
Jul 30 2012, 5:11pm
Post #138 of 378
(21483 views)
Shortcut
|
Save that for another thread, or later on!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
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
Post #139 of 378
(21519 views)
Shortcut
|
Does anyone think it's possible this third movie could include some of the Aragorn and Arwen back story from the appendices?
|
|
|
Flagg
Tol Eressea
Jul 30 2012, 5:13pm
Post #141 of 378
(21419 views)
Shortcut
|
They filmed Aragorn and Arwen's first meeting a decade ago
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
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
Post #142 of 378
(21276 views)
Shortcut
|
But it's really one of the things from the appendices I'd like to see somewhere.
|
|
|
duats
Grey Havens
Jul 30 2012, 5:14pm
Post #143 of 378
(21397 views)
Shortcut
|
i guess I'll be one of the few voices of discontent
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
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
Post #144 of 378
(21361 views)
Shortcut
|
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
Post #145 of 378
(21481 views)
Shortcut
|
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
Jul 30 2012, 5:16pm
Post #146 of 378
(21430 views)
Shortcut
|
That, plus actors' schedules might have been a factor
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
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
Post #147 of 378
(21426 views)
Shortcut
|
That hasn't been posted yet. Thank you :-)
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Seems like film 1 will still be called AUJ: 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
Post #148 of 378
(21416 views)
Shortcut
|
not necessary for "The Hobbit", I agree...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
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
Post #149 of 378
(21526 views)
Shortcut
|
A little comparative maths for anyone what's interested.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
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
Post #150 of 378
(21401 views)
Shortcut
|
I kinda doubt they'll be 3 hours long now. More like 2 and a half. //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
|
|