|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DaoinSidhe
The Shire
Aug 7 2014, 12:18pm
Post #1 of 33
(1273 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Hobbit as single 2,5 hour film?
|
Can't Post
|
|
I was just reading comments on another site and someone said, the Hobbit should have been one single 2,5 hour flm.
Now, I believe two roughly 2-hour long film would easily have been possible, but I don't think boiling it all down to 2,5 hours and ending up with a watchable film that isn't terribly rushed or skips large parts of the book is doable.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
macfalk
Valinor
Aug 7 2014, 12:24pm
Post #2 of 33
(785 views)
Shortcut
|
A 2,5 single Hobbit movie would not have worked. People who bring up the fact that the book only has around 300 pages, but that's not a valid argument. Pages can decieve - there is a lot stuff going on in The Hobbit book and really no "filler" that you can trim. Also, remember that the journey itself is just as long as Frodo's journey, so that would be far too time jumpy.
Another reverse example of pages that can decieve: A Dance With Dragons, the fifth George RR Martin book in the ASOIAF series, is very, very long. Like 1500 pages long (in the copy I got). And yet, everyone who's read that book knows that it could easily be adapted into a single movie - it doesn't have nearly the material of warranting a full season for it (on Game of Thrones). Simply because despite the huge length, not much is going on. The book is mostly about world building and the characters who are in it doesn't do much. The difference here of course is that when adapting ADWD, you can trim huge chunks, entire chapters and the story will benefit from it. In comparison: name me any cuttable Hobbit chapter!
The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.
(This post was edited by macfalk on Aug 7 2014, 12:26pm)
|
|
|
DaoinSidhe
The Shire
Aug 7 2014, 12:28pm
Post #3 of 33
(732 views)
Shortcut
|
That's what I always say - in comparison to LOTR the Hobbit is incredibly dense, and the only way to really trim it at all is to leave out whole sequences.
That aside, I have never really seen this pages to film time complaint anywhere else than with the Hobbit. No one complains when short stories are adapted to feature lenghth films, it's actually kind of odd.
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Aug 7 2014, 12:51pm
Post #4 of 33
(748 views)
Shortcut
|
|
There is a nice 2.5 hours children's movie in that book.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It very much depends on what one expects and wants.
For the Jackson approach (link to LotR plus Dol Guldur) both a trilogy and two movies would have worked, imho.
Two movies would have forced him to be less indulgence, which usually helps him as a director and editor, imho. However, I enjoy three movies as they allow episodes such as Bag-end or Laketopwn to really come to life. It would have helped though if the decision had been made much, much earlier.
"I am afraid it is only too likely to be true what you say about the critics and the public. I am dreading the publication for it will be impossible not to mind what is said. I have exposed my heart to be shot at." J.R.R. Tolkien
We all have our hearts and minds one way or another invested in these books and movies. So we all mind and should show the necessary respect.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Aug 7 2014, 12:51pm
Post #5 of 33
(701 views)
Shortcut
|
|
They would have had to lose too much...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Take the simple fact of having fifteen main characters. They had to have time flesh out the thirteen dwarves and make individuals of them. Wasn't necessary in the book but it's essential on screen. I reckon they've done it pretty well, but if you read lower down you'll see other people saying they don't think enough was done even in three films. Well, cut the film time by more than two-thirds and it would have been impossible. They would have had to cut out several of the dwarves or have an amophous block of main characters no one could tell apart.
The book isn't that short and it's full of characters and incidents which need some development - Bard is another example.
So no, I don't think it was ever a practical possibility as a single film, not in the way they wanted to do it.
And I agree with your second post; the constant reiteration of this charge is odd.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 7 2014, 1:03pm
Post #6 of 33
(696 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You could do it in any duration - even 12 minutes.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
There is a cartoon version from the 60's that does it in slightly under 12 minutes, by Gene Deitch.
It's simply a question of what you include and what you leave out (on which there is no agreement) and how you make it a sensible narrative to consume in a 2.5 hour format.
If I saw a Hobbit film that was 2.5 hours I might like it. But I have no idea as it doesn't exist and comparing a real film to an imaginary idea of one is pointless.
Comparatively, of all the Hobbit films that do exist and I have seen I like the current ones the most. That's as much as anyone can say really.
|
|
|
DaoinSidhe
The Shire
Aug 7 2014, 1:41pm
Post #7 of 33
(637 views)
Shortcut
|
|
But surely the 12 minutes are just a really simplified summary?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Of course I can tell you the general plot of tha Hobbit in a few sentences.
But a film that includes most, if not all scenes from the book and at the same time doesn't feel rushed in just 2,5 hours? I still don't believe it can be done.
|
|
|
xxxyyy
Rohan
Aug 7 2014, 1:41pm
Post #8 of 33
(664 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yes. Also those people usually compare it to LOTR.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
They say that LOTR was done in 3 movies and it's a huge book.
Well, they are just reversing the whole thing.
It's not the Hobbit adaptation too long campare to LOTR, it's LOTR's one too short.
|
|
|
KeenObserver
Lorien
Aug 7 2014, 1:43pm
Post #9 of 33
(676 views)
Shortcut
|
It definitely would have been possible for Jackson to have adapted The Hobbit into one two-and-a-half hour film if he were less enthusiastic about the characters, events, culminating third act, and connecting it to his LOTR's trilogy.
You can turn The Hobbit into a 77-minute animated movie or two feature-length films; it all depends on how you choose to transfer and display the story via the medium of motion picture.
I personally believe that an appropriately unadulterated adaptation of The Hobbit contains a good 7 hours of footage (2 hours and 20 minutes for each film; credits excluded or included). There would be no omitted footage for an extended edition. Of course, the source material only yields that particular running time if one approaches it wholeheartedly (i.e., attempts to lovingly flesh out and develop nearly all the characters and events) and treats it with careful consideration (i.e., respectfully plays with and accurately translates nearly every passage)
”The thirst for adventure is the vent which Destiny offers; a war, a crusade, a gold mine, a new country, speak to the imagination and offer…” - Jose Bergamin
(This post was edited by KeenObserver on Aug 7 2014, 1:53pm)
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 7 2014, 2:20pm
Post #10 of 33
(612 views)
Shortcut
|
http://youtu.be/UBnVL1Y2src
It's certainly interesting! The one thing I would say is that I don't think you can question that this is an adaptation (rather than as a summary as you suggest).
Now, as to whether anyone feels it has the right episodes included or the right feel, or is good, well that's a set of different questions.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Aug 7 2014, 2:32pm
Post #11 of 33
(598 views)
Shortcut
|
Interesting and definitely an adaptation!
I think the key to this is the way Peter Jackson wanted to do it. No doubt they could have made a single 2-and-a-half hour adaptation of The Hobbit and, done well, it could have been a perfectly nice film, but to make it work they would have had to pare the story down to its essentials and lose a lot of characters and incidents in the process. That isn't what he wanted to do - and it wouldn't have satisfied everyone if he had. It might have satisfied a different audience, it couldn't have satisfied the whole audience.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 7 2014, 3:04pm
Post #12 of 33
(565 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It seems to me the duration question is essentially a pointless one.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Could you do an adaptation in 2.5 hours, in 2 hours, in 1 hour 17 and half minutes,in 10 hours, in 24 hours? Yes, is the answer to all. But so what?
The real question is the one implicit in these red herrings: If it was done in this time or that, would it be better?
And that's where the proposer has all their work ahead of them. Show me the adaptation that's whatever duration and I'll tell you if I like it. The length of a film is no indication of whether it's any good or not.
|
|
|
Nolane
Bree
Aug 7 2014, 4:16pm
Post #14 of 33
(576 views)
Shortcut
|
|
My thought is I am sick of hearing this
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The reality is there are THREE films, not one or two. Who cares if it could have been one or two films, cut down to 2 hours or 2.5 hours? Whether you like the fact that it is three films or not, reality is reality.
|
|
|
Kendalf
Rohan
Aug 7 2014, 4:43pm
Post #15 of 33
(511 views)
Shortcut
|
Two movies would have forced him to be less indulgent, which usually helps him as a director and editor
Absolutely.
No, a live-action The Hobbit could not have been filmed effectively in one film. Yes, it's only 300 pages long but, event for event, there is a phenomenal amount that actually happens in those 300 pages. It's just that it's written with a far lighter touch than Rings and therefore a far, far slighter tome.
However, in many people's view, the decision to trilogise the tale has resulted in too leisurely a pace, too indulgent an approach to set pieces, too many fabrications etc.
Two films would have been perfectly sufficient and would, indeed, have resulted in a leaner, meaner adaptation that was all the better for it.
"I have walked there sometimes, beyond the forest and up into the night. I have seen the world fall away and the white light of forever fill the air."
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Aug 7 2014, 5:25pm
Post #16 of 33
(517 views)
Shortcut
|
Generally, one page equals one minute of screen time.
The Hobbit editions are around 300 pages, which would (again a very rough estimate) translate to around 5 hours worth of screen time.
So no, a 2.5 hour film would probably not do it justice. Need to be around twice as long.
******************************************
“The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holders lack of rational conviction. Opinions in politics and religion are almost always held passionately.”
-Bertrand Russell, Sceptical Essays
|
|
|
frodolives
Lorien
Aug 7 2014, 5:52pm
Post #17 of 33
(499 views)
Shortcut
|
I have re-edited the first two films on Blu Ray to include only the "book" scenes, and they total out to just over 3 hours. They move at a brisk, satisfying pace. There is no way a decent telling of The Hobbit could be done in one film (IMHO of course).
(This post was edited by frodolives on Aug 7 2014, 5:54pm)
|
|
|
Macfeast
Rohan
Aug 7 2014, 6:37pm
Post #18 of 33
(485 views)
Shortcut
|
There is plenty of merit in discussing what a different adaptation of the Hobbit could have looked like (in this scenario, a hypothetical one-film adaptation); Almost a storytelling exercise, if you will, and an invitation to debate. What constructive discussion is there in "there are three films, deal with it"?
(This post was edited by Macfeast on Aug 7 2014, 6:39pm)
|
|
|
Bombadil
Half-elven
Aug 7 2014, 7:43pm
Post #19 of 33
(442 views)
Shortcut
|
He knows of,
WHAT? .he
WRITES
here...
Newbies maybe..
need to
Relax, & Read
WHAT "TheOLDsters"
THATPOST.here...write?
MAY it BE?
they know
Sumthin'...
Bada BING
Bada Bong?
Bom
|
|
|
cats16
Half-elven
Aug 8 2014, 12:48am
Post #20 of 33
(366 views)
Shortcut
|
Of course, it could be done, if someone in making that statement took the initiative to make the logistical organized chaos that is a film happen. PJ didn't, so we will never see his Hobbit in such a form (without fan editing).
Would I want a version of The Hobbit with such a time constraint? No, not at all.
|
|
|
CaptainObvious
Rivendell
Aug 8 2014, 12:49am
Post #21 of 33
(363 views)
Shortcut
|
There's no way to have a satisfactory Hobbit experience in that short amount of time. Major sequences would have to be excised completely, and bereft of their merit. I know that for a fact because I tried a fan edit. I believe the Hobbit saga could have been two three hour films, but I don't mind having three "Hobbit" movies.
|
|
|
Kendalf
Rohan
Aug 8 2014, 8:02am
Post #22 of 33
(328 views)
Shortcut
|
Generally, one page equals one minute of screen time.
If I'm not mistaken, that (very general) rule applies to the script not the original source.
Still, I agree: two films would have been plenty.
"I have walked there sometimes, beyond the forest and up into the night. I have seen the world fall away and the white light of forever fill the air."
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Aug 8 2014, 2:24pm
Post #23 of 33
(296 views)
Shortcut
|
The rule, though still very rough, is indeed more accurate with movie scripts. Even then, a director will usually hire a script reader to time the script. It’s best the reader is familiar with the director’s style, so they know about how fast to read out a page of dialogue, or, when they come to the simple words “They fight”, how long to hop around their apartment doing spin kicks in the air, or how long to run around with their arms out making whooshing sounds. (Their neighbors must think they're crazy.)
An even more accurate way to time a script is with a storyboard session, with sketches from the script hung on the wall as the director and anyone he can flag down act out the scenes and read the dialogue. Jackson actually filmed three complete storyboard sessions of the LOTR films with himself (he played Frodo), Cameron Rhodes (later Farmer Maggot in the final film), Craig Parker (later cast as Haldir), and others in the various roles. I’d especially love to see the film of the first session, which was based on the two-film Miramax script.
But yes, applying the one page/one minute rule to books is even more imprecise, but it doesn’t stop some starry-eyed writers from deliberately counting pages as they write with an eye for the ease of conversion to a standard two-hour film, or ambitious book editors from adjusting the page count of a manuscript with hopes for an easier road to a Hollywood contract.
TL;DR: Agreed, two films would have done. Still kinda wish they'd stuffed all the extra in a bridge film.
******************************************
“The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holders lack of rational conviction. Opinions in politics and religion are almost always held passionately.”
-Bertrand Russell, Sceptical Essays
(This post was edited by Darkstone on Aug 8 2014, 2:33pm)
|
|
|
|
|
TRUST in DARKSTONE..?
[
1
