|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TheImaginator
Rivendell
Apr 17 2014, 11:33am
Post #1 of 41
(1313 views)
Shortcut
|
|
If in the unlikely case that
|
Can't Post
|
|
3 films become 4, how would you react and where would you expect them to split it?
With all this "Into The Fire" news I thought this would be interesting. Personally, I think TABA is shaping up to the best of all 3 films. If it was split IMO that would be ridiculous and would officially overstep the line from doing PJ's vision and the source material justice and being a way to make more money. I'm pretty sure this isn't actually going to happen but it's always fun to speculate.
If this DID happen and we get "The Hobbit: Into The Fire" this year and then "The Hobbit: There and Back Again" next year, I suppose I would want them to split somewhere before Gandalf arrives at Erebor.
How would you react and where would you split it?
|
|
|
Escapist
Gondor
Apr 17 2014, 11:41am
Post #2 of 41
(829 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I wonder what would be more favorable to people in general:
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
keeping it to 3 films but dropping the return home to Bag End to keep it to IMAX time guidelines
or making a fourth film out of things they have to cut out to keep to 3 hours (the fourth could become that bridge film people were missing before)
I'm not totally certain about how pressing it is to cut the end out but I did see another thread about that. If they are playing up Laketown politics with the Master and elven politics with their elf-trio and Dol Guldur with the White Council and flashbacks and perhaps a council of sorts ... I don't find it that hard to believe that they could be struggling to decide what stays and what to get rid of.
At the very least, the dragon should be taken down in the third movie
If all the world's a stage then who's writing the script?
|
|
|
malickfan
Gondor
Apr 17 2014, 12:00pm
Post #3 of 41
(761 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't know where I'd split it
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But I'm pretty sure I wouldn't care, I am only going to see TABA out of sense of obligation (and curiosity-really intrigued to see Connoly and Dol Guldor), the thought of another overlong film plodding along under the weight of fan fiction and 'cool' action scenes frankly makes my blood boil.
On the other hand I guess it would give us alot to talk about.
|
|
|
Lieutenant of Dol Guldur
Gondor
Apr 17 2014, 12:05pm
Post #4 of 41
(851 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Although I'm a huge Tolkien and Peter Jackson fan...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I would say: It's enough! And as a big Jackson/Tolkien fan I'm a little surprised by this answer...
I did enjoy AUJ, I did enjoy DOS and I'm going to enjoy TABA for sure but three films is enough.
I liked the idea of PJ and his team to add a few more things from Tolkiens LOTR appendices and also I felt that the idea of a three film split was a good choice and gave the team more space for new ideas, more story and character development…
BUT DOS showed us (or at least showed me) that obviously sometimes people need borders. Although I agree with the "Azog still lives and hunts down the company" change I absolutely dislike the again-and-again-changes of PJ on this topic. Azog was the main villain in AUJ and in DOS he only was… well a henchman who got 2,5 scenes and nothing more. Actually I was disappointed that they don't stay with their first ideas. In the end there's no appendices material that wasn't changed by PJ, Fran and Philippa. Radagast, Azanulbizar, Thrain, Dol Guldur… And the main problem is… I don't get it. I don't understand why they made the changes...
I don't understand the need for the Orc vs Elves fight in Laketown. I don't understand why PJ introduced Smaug as a cunning, evil and intelligent villain and later reduced him to become a stupid animal.
I don't understand why there must have been a love triangle and why Bilbos role was reduced to a supporting character.
I don't understand why PJ and his team destroyed the opportunity of a suspenseful build up for the promising Dol Guldur subplot. One quick scene of Radagast in AUJ, little talking of the White Council, a totally out of place High Fells scene and a too hasty confrontation (and revelation) of the Necromancer.
So to answer your question… IF there will be a "Into the Fire" movie… hopefully there's none…I only can imagine a bridge film set after TH and before LOTR and not a "There and Back again Part 1" and "Part 2". I fear that another Hobbit movie would give Peter, Fran and Philippa too much room for more unnecessary changes.
I'm really looking forward to TABA as a great, fun and epic conclusion of the many unfinished plot elements of this prequel trilogy. I don't see a fourth movie coming. Let go Peter… just let go!
"There is only one Lord of the Ring, only one who can bend it to his will. And he does not share power."
(This post was edited by Lieutenant of Dol Guldur on Apr 17 2014, 12:13pm)
|
|
|
Eleniel
Tol Eressea
Apr 17 2014, 12:14pm
Post #5 of 41
(766 views)
Shortcut
|
(...although you will not convince me that three movies was needed anyway, and indeed, the points you raise show why many think it was a mistake! )
I would be horrified if the team deems they need another movie in order to "tell the story we want to tell" as was the excuse last time. It is verging already on no longer being Tolkien's story, and tbh, all sense of credibility that it is not yet another cash grab would be lost in the eyes of the public and critics.
"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
¯ Victoria Monfort
|
|
|
Lieutenant of Dol Guldur
Gondor
Apr 17 2014, 12:45pm
Post #6 of 41
(735 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I agree and disagree with them
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
When it was announced that there will be three films Peter was very proud to tell us that they now have the opportunity the tell more about the rise of the Necromancer… I was so looking forward to this… actually even more than to the usual Hobbit story. For now I can't tell you how disappointed I am.
In my opinion the High Fells scene should have been (as original intended) in AUJ. Gandalf leaves Rivendell for the High Fells and later rescues the Company in Goblin Town.
Now it makes no sense at all.
Why did they cut Thrain two times out of the movie? "Because we don't have time to add another new character"… What?? He was already introduced to us in AUJs prologue. Perhaps when they showed him fighting during the Battle of Azanulbizar more prominently everything would have been clear. Thrain is mentioned multiple times through-tough the whole trilogy… why changing that? Thrain is (or was in Tolkiens intentions) the connecting element between Dol Guldur and the Erebor quest… but unfortunately Peter and Co didn't see that.
Sorry… I could go on with this but it's not the topic here.
My last hope is TABA… perhaps the EE of DOS also. Hopefully Dol Guldur/Necromancer get's more screen time. More than just the White Council attacking the fortress and rescuing Gandalf… but I fear that's it.
No there won't be a "Into the Fire" movie… the only fire we'll see is burning Lake-town and that's it.
"There is only one Lord of the Ring, only one who can bend it to his will. And he does not share power."
|
|
|
DaughterofLaketown
Gondor
Apr 17 2014, 12:57pm
Post #7 of 41
(737 views)
Shortcut
|
|
This is the better alternative
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
keeping it to 3 films but dropping the return home to Bag End to keep it to IMAX time guidelines or making a fourth film out of things they have to cut out to keep to 3 hours (the fourth could become that bridge film people were missing before)
I agree with all this. If there ever is to be a fourth hobbit movie it should be a bridge film. Which sadly I was hoping would happen in the past and now looks like it never will.
|
|
|
RandomSilvanElf
The Shire
Apr 17 2014, 1:28pm
Post #8 of 41
(697 views)
Shortcut
|
On one hand the more Middle Earth the better, but adding the third movie already weakened the script I think. They didn't have time to think it through and it got a bit messy.
I would say: It's enough! And as a big Jackson/Tolkien fan I'm a little surprised by this answer...
I did enjoy AUJ, I did enjoy DOS and I'm going to enjoy TABA for sure but three films is enough.
I liked the idea of PJ and his team to add a few more things from Tolkiens LOTR appendices and also I felt that the idea of a three film split was a good choice and gave the team more space for new ideas, more story and character development…
BUT DOS showed us (or at least showed me) that obviously sometimes people need borders. Although I agree with the "Azog still lives and hunts down the company" change I absolutely dislike the again-and-again-changes of PJ on this topic. Azog was the main villain in AUJ and in DOS he only was… well a henchman who got 2,5 scenes and nothing more. Actually I was disappointed that they don't stay with their first ideas. In the end there's no appendices material that wasn't changed by PJ, Fran and Philippa. Radagast, Azanulbizar, Thrain, Dol Guldur… And the main problem is… I don't get it. I don't understand why they made the changes...
I don't understand the need for the Orc vs Elves fight in Laketown. I don't understand why PJ introduced Smaug as a cunning, evil and intelligent villain and later reduced him to become a stupid animal.
I don't understand why there must have been a love triangle and why Bilbos role was reduced to a supporting character.
I don't understand why PJ and his team destroyed the opportunity of a suspenseful build up for the promising Dol Guldur subplot. One quick scene of Radagast in AUJ, little talking of the White Council, a totally out of place High Fells scene and a too hasty confrontation (and revelation) of the Necromancer.
So to answer your question… IF there will be a "Into the Fire" movie… hopefully there's none…I only can imagine a bridge film set after TH and before LOTR and not a "There and Back again Part 1" and "Part 2". I fear that another Hobbit movie would give Peter, Fran and Philippa too much room for more unnecessary changes.
I'm really looking forward to TABA as a great, fun and epic conclusion of the many unfinished plot elements of this prequel trilogy. I don't see a fourth movie coming. Let go Peter… just let go!
"Caras Galadhon… the heart of Elvendom on earth. Realm of Lord Celeborn and Galadriel, Lady of Light"
http://betweenfictionandreality.wordpress.com/
|
|
|
Imladris18
Lorien
Apr 17 2014, 1:38pm
Post #9 of 41
(719 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't quite understand how everyone is up in arms about there being a minute possibility of another 2.5 hour movie (and calls it a cash grab, etc), yet if the Extended Edition of any of the movies are any less than 45 minutes, everyone complains about how they wanted more.
(Disclaimer: I know it's not literally "everyone," but there is still a large number)
|
|
|
emre43
Rohan
Apr 17 2014, 1:51pm
Post #10 of 41
(692 views)
Shortcut
|
it's post TABA and refers to Balin's expedition, i.e. 'Into the Fire'/Durin's Bane.
|
|
|
Lurker in the Mirk
Valinor
Apr 17 2014, 1:52pm
Post #11 of 41
(688 views)
Shortcut
|
But I guess the point is that divving up part 3 into another 2 parts when it was itself a divving up from the original part 2... which had people wondering about expanding a 300 page children's book from what is probably a one-movie project is really stretching it too far, especially when it seems to repeat a pattern here.
But with EEs, its putting back stuff that was taken out to fit the butt-pain threshold of movie-goers.
I'm a fan of both films and books, but if part 4 happens, I hope it's not extending the original 2 movie any further, but some sort of new bridge story. In short, I'm with the Lieutenant of Dol Guldur.
Elvenking enthrallment
--------------------------
Thranduil Appreciation thread III
Thranduil Appreciation thread II
Thranduil Appreciation thread
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Apr 17 2014, 2:10pm
Post #12 of 41
(691 views)
Shortcut
|
There is no way in Mordor that there is enough material left for a fourth film. No what. No way. No how! The series feels padded already and I've been hopeful that the third and final film will be more focused.
'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring
|
|
|
Imladris18
Lorien
Apr 17 2014, 2:24pm
Post #13 of 41
(669 views)
Shortcut
|
Who's to say that the stuff we would get in a new theatrical movie wouldn't have been in an EE if we had a smaller number of releases? AUJ EE was only like 12 min extra, so I think this might be a possibility. PJ could simply just be pushing more "EE" content out for theatrical releases for everyone to see as opposed to withholding all that extra footage to sneak out directly to home release for the "real" fans a month before the next theatrical release.
I'm not saying this is actually the case, or even that I would like it to be the case, but if you step back and look at things objectively, something like this may not be a cause for being upset.
That being said: I would rather TaBA be brimming with A+ content than trying to stretch it, and if they do indeed decide they can pull of a bridge - go for it. In short, I'm mostly with Lt. DG :) (There's some things I disagree with - like Bilbo being a supporting character - but I agree with his general sentiment).
(This post was edited by Imladris18 on Apr 17 2014, 2:29pm)
|
|
|
tsmith675
Gondor
Apr 17 2014, 2:30pm
Post #14 of 41
(681 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Anyone that says the Hobbit could have been one 3 hour movie...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Is high and I'd like to try whatever they're smoking. Because there's no way everything that happens in the Hobbit could have fit one movie, even without adding the Dol Guldur subplot. So much happens in the Hobbit. More so than happens in The Fellowship, for example. FotR is just more fleshed out and Tolkien took more chances to describe things than he did in the Hobbit.
There's just no way Bilbo's house, the trolls, Rivendell, Goblin Town, Gollum, eagle rescue, Beorn, Mirkwood, Woodland Realm, Barrels, Laketown, Smaug and Bilbo, Smaug destroying Laketown, gathering of the clouds, the Battle of Five Armies, and the return home for Bilbo. And adding in Dol Guldur, which definitely needs to be in, in my opinion. There's just no one you could fit that all into one 3 hour movie. It would be ridiculously fast paced and no one would appreciate that.
It's hard to cut any of this out, too. Unlike Fellowship, the majority of things that happen in the Hobbit (book) actually move the story forward. There are points in FotR where things could definitely be cut out.
I think two movies would have been fine for a lot of peoples' visions, but I'm not one to complain about it. So far, Peter Jackson has given me two Hobbit films that I love. So, as long as TaBA pays off, I've definitely been on board with the change to a trilogy.
But if they cut TaBA into two parts, I'll be pretty pissed.
Our destiny lies above us.
(This post was edited by tsmith675 on Apr 17 2014, 2:31pm)
|
|
|
DanielLB
Immortal
Apr 17 2014, 3:05pm
Post #16 of 41
(632 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It depends what story they have (or want) to tell ...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The Hobbit story is pretty simple, and I'm sure they can't stretch the butter over 4 slices of bread. Given people's mindset, a 3 hour film for the destruction of Lake-town and another 3 hour film for the Battle of Five Armies, would automatically cause criticism. Everyone jumps on the "money-grab" bandwagon, regardless of how good (or bad ...) the final product might be. It's not worth the effort - they can just reward fans with a very long extended edition.
But I would be interested in a bridge film (or set of bridge films), depending on what they wanted to do. This recent Tauriel/Gollum idea is quite fascinating - they've got all the costumes, actors, sets and CGI, I say run with it. There's no need for Aragorn either - just cast someone as a random Ranger, or replace Tauriel/Legolas in his place. There have been worse changes in the 5 films.
If there will be another film, I think the prospect is quite exciting. I've enjoyed all of PJ's adaptations, so I'd rather a set on non-Tolkien canon films, than nothing at all. (Anything that helps promote Tolkien and Middle-earth seems good to me.)
(This post was edited by DanielLB on Apr 17 2014, 3:12pm)
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Apr 17 2014, 3:11pm
Post #17 of 41
(618 views)
Shortcut
|
|
A one-film 'The Hobbit' would almost certainly feel rushed.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The Hobbit could be (and has been) adapted as a single movie. Rankin/Bass got the story down to a little over 70 minutes. Yes, it was rushed, and it skipped over several elements from the book (most notably the character Beorn and the subplot involving the Arkenstone). However, the animated movie demonstrates that it is doable.
'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring
|
|
|
tsmith675
Gondor
Apr 17 2014, 3:22pm
Post #18 of 41
(599 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It most certainly would not have worked in a live action film now...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Especially after the major success of the LotR films. The Riddles scene with Gollum had to be lengthy, because of the success of the Gollum character in the LotR films, everyone wanted to see as much of him as possible.
Also, the scene with Bilbo's conversation with Smaug would also have to be given a good chunk of time because of the tremendous effects on him, he needs to be shown off for as long as possible.
Today, there's no way it could have been done in just one good live action film. No one can convince me that it could have been done.
Our destiny lies above us.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Apr 17 2014, 3:39pm
Post #19 of 41
(589 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Obviously, a single-movie 'Hobbit' would not please everyone.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Many also find the three-part adaptation to feel padded. No one is going to satisfy everybody.
'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring
|
|
|
tsmith675
Gondor
Apr 17 2014, 4:19pm
Post #20 of 41
(558 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I just don't think it could be done now.//
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Our destiny lies above us.
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Apr 17 2014, 5:36pm
Post #21 of 41
(572 views)
Shortcut
|
...Wing Commander Guy "Bard" Gibson and his dog Politically Incorrect use the bombing coordinates Tintin Baggins and his dog Snowy stole from the Necromancer's Halo to fire the Black Arrow and destroy the dam of Erebor, catching Smaug in a huge wave of water, and then as the waters recede Tauriel's twin sister Cortana fishes the dead (?) body of Master Chief out of the Long Lake.
(Hey, I'd watch it!)
******************************************
https://www.facebook.com/slatesforsarah
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Apr 17 2014, 7:04pm
Post #22 of 41
(511 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think we'd all watch that! Where's the popcorn..... //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
NecromancerRising
Gondor
Apr 17 2014, 7:15pm
Post #23 of 41
(522 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I completely disagree as always with whatever you write.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The movies so far,contain Tolkien's story.An embellished version of course of an utterly non detailed and uneven book which lacks many basic things(proper structure,proper characterisation,abrupt change of tone etc.)The only thing i can wholeheartedly agree with you is that a fourth movie feels unnecessary at this point.
"Obsession is the trend of the 2000's"
|
|
|
NecromancerRising
Gondor
Apr 17 2014, 7:24pm
Post #24 of 41
(506 views)
Shortcut
|
We are exactly on the same wavelength Smith
"Obsession and narrow-mindness is the trend of the 2000's"
|
|
|
TheSexyBeard
Lorien
Apr 17 2014, 11:25pm
Post #25 of 41
(447 views)
Shortcut
|
If 3 became 4 I would be pretty disapointed. I'm ready for TABA to be the last movie, I'm ready to say goodbye to Middle-Earth movies for what I imagine will probably be a long time, if not forever (for me at least). I was ready to say goodbye for Return of the King back when I was TheSexyBeard jnr and I'm glad I've had the chance to experience Tolkien's world on the big screen again, brought to life by some very talented people, but I feel over extending the franchise with another film will just feel like The Hobbit has overstayed it's welcome and should have been gone by now.
I was skeptical when 2 became 3 but at the moment I'm happy with how things have turned out, and I do believe to make The Hobbit on a scale that would not only be similar to the scale Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies, but to also include most if not all relevant material would take more than one movie.
Not to mention the amount of backlash a fourth movie would bring.
Yes, my username is terrible.
|
|
|
|
|
That's fans for ya
[
1
