Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Off Topic: The Pollantir:
How many Hobbit movies should have been made?
Poll: How many Hobbit movies should have been made?
None!
1- It's one book!
2- Like it was planned!
3 - PJ did the right choice!
More than 3 - I cannot get enough!
View Results (61 votes)
 

Silmaril
Rohan


Dec 3 2016, 8:04am

Post #1 of 24 (2162 views)
Shortcut
How many Hobbit movies should have been made? Can't Post

 


dormouse
Half-elven


Dec 3 2016, 9:09am

Post #2 of 24 (2074 views)
Shortcut
Three was just fine! // [In reply to] Can't Post

 


Ingwion
Lorien


Dec 3 2016, 11:11am

Post #3 of 24 (2072 views)
Shortcut
It would feel far too rushed [In reply to] Can't Post

If there were only 2 movies


malickfan
Gondor


Dec 3 2016, 11:15am

Post #4 of 24 (2073 views)
Shortcut
Two 150 minute films, or one four hour film i.m.o [In reply to] Can't Post

I personally find the Jackson trilogy to be overlong, and bloated, full of needless subplots and padding that sideline Bilbo in his own story and screw up the pacing and tonal balance of the narrative, few of the additions and changes worked for me and it often felt like the writers were making things up as they went along, by the time TBOTFA came around I was largely indifferent or annoyed with the trilogy, watching the third film only out of sense of obligation.

I enjoyed AUJ and liked parts of DOS, but honestly found TBOTFA...boring for the most part, obviously this is bias on my part, but I think two shorter, tighter films would have been the best approach.

I have no desire to ever rewatch the Jackson films for the foreseeable future, but I might have felt differently if there were two films, oh well there's always the Graphic novel...


(This post was edited by malickfan on Dec 3 2016, 11:19am)


OldestDaughter
Rohan


Dec 3 2016, 3:13pm

Post #5 of 24 (2047 views)
Shortcut
I am good with three. [In reply to] Can't Post

The AUJ was done just right. DOS(my favorite) might of have had a lot of fan fiction added to it, but I enjoyed it. BOFA(Could of had more added to it.) was a nice finale that lead into the LOTR's series.

So I am good with PJ's choice.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Dec 3 2016, 3:42pm

Post #6 of 24 (2047 views)
Shortcut
2 -with a caveat. [In reply to] Can't Post

Not necessarily as originally planned. And remember, there were two different two-film plans: One with a straightforward adaptation to be followed by a second film that would fill in the gaps; or, break the book into two films. Of course by the time that Peter Jackson took up the reins as director the notion of a 'bridge film' had been long abandoned.

As it stands, I would have loved a two-part adaptation, but without some of the additions that we actually got. I loved the idea of including what Gandalf was up to with the White Council, including the reveal of Sauron's return. I didn't mind adding Legolas (a completely logical move in-and-of itself) or giving Radagast a physical presence. I liked the notion of including some new, supporting characters (something of a necessity when adapting the story to a more visual medium).

The more controversial additions: Bring Azog forward into the main narrative with his Hunter-orcs (though there is some merit to having an active threat); the invention of tombs in Rhudaur for the Ringwraiths; the manner in which Radagast was portrayed; the over-the-top portrayal of the Stone-giants, the catwalk chase in Goblin Town and the barrel-ride sequence; the Tauriel/Kili subplot (did ir really need to turn to romance?); the Were-worms (though they did solve a plot-problem created by Jackson himself by sending an army from Dol Guldur); and I'll stop there.

It just seems that something isn't quite right when a relatively short children's book is given three films and events still feel rushed.

Ingwion posted:


In Reply To
It would feel far too rushed [if] there were only 2 movies.


Not if we didn't have all those additions that came directly from Jackson, Walsh and Boyens. A less inventive adaptation, even including the additions from LotR and the Appendices, could easily been made as two films. As it stands, we have three films that still feel rushed in places.


(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Dec 3 2016, 3:51pm)


Silmaril
Rohan


Dec 3 2016, 4:02pm

Post #7 of 24 (2031 views)
Shortcut
It would be very interesting to watch all different versions! [In reply to] Can't Post

*1 Hobbit Movie...just the book, not much else? Or less?
*Bridge Film...a lot of fan fiction needed?
*2 movie adaption...less action scenes or less character scenes?

And
*GDTs version...different designs..no 3d?


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Dec 3 2016, 4:09pm

Post #8 of 24 (2027 views)
Shortcut
Well... [In reply to] Can't Post

We did get a one-film adaptation, but an animated television special of only 70+ minutes was really too short. It's a shame it couldn't have been made to run in a 2-hour block (for around 90 to 100 minutes or so).


Altaira
Superuser / Moderator


Dec 3 2016, 7:21pm

Post #9 of 24 (2019 views)
Shortcut
I have to go with 3 [In reply to] Can't Post

To quote part of Otaku's reply:


Quote
I loved the idea of including what Gandalf was up to with the White Council, including the reveal of Sauron's return. I didn't mind adding Legolas (a completely logical move in-and-of itself) or giving Radagast a physical presence. I liked the notion of including some new, supporting characters (something of a necessity when adapting the story to a more visual medium).


I also agree with Otaku about leaving out some of the invented additions, but mine differ. In general, I would have liked some of the above things to have had more time devoted to them. For example, cutting the funeral at the end of the theatrical edition was a disappointment. I would have liked to have seen Fili and Kili get actual death scenes. But, overall, I think even spending more time on things I personally liked would have been rushed with just two movies.



Elarie
Grey Havens

Dec 3 2016, 9:38pm

Post #10 of 24 (2011 views)
Shortcut
I said three was just right [In reply to] Can't Post

but let's face it - if they had made four I would have said, "Yay, four hobbit movies", if they had made five, I would have said, "Yay, five hobbit movies" etc. etc. Laugh I just love being in Middle-earth.

But hey! only 13 days till the new Star Wars movie!


Annael
Immortal


Dec 4 2016, 6:01pm

Post #11 of 24 (1984 views)
Shortcut
ONE [In reply to] Can't Post

that followed the book, with no added characters or scenes.


Silmaril
Rohan


Dec 4 2016, 8:59pm

Post #12 of 24 (1968 views)
Shortcut
I agree! [In reply to] Can't Post

One book - one (good) movie!


Elizabeth
Half-elven


Dec 5 2016, 8:06am

Post #13 of 24 (1935 views)
Shortcut
Absolutely. [In reply to] Can't Post

It was not only just one book, it was a very simple story. There and back again, with adventures along the way.

I do understand the motivation to enhancing it to a LotR Prequel (mostly a financial motivation), but it was too slender a foundation to support such a structure. A simple, honest Hobbit would not have made $B, but would have been entertaining enough to become a classic, and lead generations of new fans into this marvelous legendarium, with longer-term financial results.


Annael
Immortal


Dec 5 2016, 2:41pm

Post #14 of 24 (1924 views)
Shortcut
it's a pity [In reply to] Can't Post

it wasn't made first, with the knowledge that there would be LOTR films.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Dec 5 2016, 3:01pm

Post #15 of 24 (1912 views)
Shortcut
The Hobbit by itself [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
it's a pity it wasn't made first, with the knowledge that there would be LOTR films.


Even then, a two-part adaptation might have been preferable. Most of the characters in The Hobbit are little more than sketches as presented in the book. And Tolkien did not spend much time on describing the lands and places that the company traveled through and visited. I still tend to think that one movie would have felt cramped or would have had to compress or streamline some aspects of the book so as to expand on others (such as characterization; Bard, for example, is in bad need of a better introducition--which Jackson did address). And, cinematically, I still think it would have been necessary (or at least advisable) to follow through on Gandalf's business with the Council and the Necromancer. And I would have still liked to see some Easter eggs involving Aragorn as a child in Rivendell and Legolas in Mirkwood.


(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Dec 5 2016, 3:03pm)


Darkstone
Immortal


Dec 5 2016, 4:17pm

Post #16 of 24 (1906 views)
Shortcut
Two [In reply to] Can't Post

Jackson is a really good storyteller when he has constraints, but when given free rein he tends to the excessive. Producers Mark Ordesky and Barrie Osborne kept him tightly focused on LOTR. Similar guiding hands were sorely missed with The Hobbit.


Silmaril
Rohan


Dec 5 2016, 4:28pm

Post #17 of 24 (1900 views)
Shortcut
Hobbit first... [In reply to] Can't Post

maybe the LOTR movies would not have turned out that great years later? Or let's say different.


weathertop
Rohan


Dec 5 2016, 5:45pm

Post #18 of 24 (1889 views)
Shortcut
however many were needed to: [In reply to] Can't Post

cover all the details necessary to bring the whole story to life.

I'm refraining from commenting specifics as it's been a while since i've watched them.

I will state that there's NO way to do this in one single movie without leaving out parts of the story already there - and forget trying to include the Dol GUldur subplot(s), which I think was necessary to bring this whole enterprise together. Was three too many though? Two long ones?

I plan on a rewatch over the holidays so i'll try to keep notes then and recomment if this hasn't slipped past by then.


Omnigeek
Lorien


Dec 8 2016, 7:31am

Post #19 of 24 (1819 views)
Shortcut
I'd go with two [In reply to] Can't Post

Personally, I would have preferred two movies that followed the book more closely with a LITTLE supplement from the LOTR Appendix for background.

I would have preferred starting with something like Romeo Muller's script for the Rankin-Bass animation but add back in Beorn and the other missing parts, show the passage of time more clearly, and adding in the supplementary material from the LOTR Appendices to tie it in and fill out some of the backstory. I think something like that would have taken about 240-270 minutes maximum.


swordwhale
Tol Eressea


Dec 9 2016, 12:08am

Post #20 of 24 (1757 views)
Shortcut
I always liked [In reply to] Can't Post

the epic density of LOTR... the Hobbit is a totally different style, more of an oral storytelling bedtime read.

I prefer the epic density and detail, and like that the Hobbit got this treatment.

Perhaps some of the details would have been different, had some of us done the film.

I liked that each Dwarf (I always related more to the Elves) had a distinct character.

While I loved Taruiel as a character (that's basically who I "played" in all my years of living history and D&D, red hair and all), the romance was utterly unnecessary. Come on! Disney finally got that message!


Elizabeth
Half-elven


Dec 13 2016, 10:23pm

Post #21 of 24 (1519 views)
Shortcut
Yes, up to a point. [In reply to] Can't Post

The problem is, that much too often the added material wasn't so much "epic density" (which I agree is a Good Thing), but just more and more mindless, repetitive action sequences.


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Dec 14 2016, 8:39pm

Post #22 of 24 (1482 views)
Shortcut
Would have liked 3 complete movies [In reply to] Can't Post

This answer is going to be a little weird, so let me explain. First, unlike others (who are entirely justified in their opinion), I really liked ALL of the additional material, and having seen the movies I can't really say "oh yeah, let's cut that scene, let's cut that plot," (not even Alfrid!) because then the whole experience would unravel on me. I get that some don't like Dol Goldur (an absolute necessity, IMO, as it fixed a major problem I had with the book), the style of the Dwarves, the "romance," etc. but for the most part I think the writing team made good initial decisions, and you can't please everyone anyway.

BUT that's not to say I didn't have issues with some things in the movies. Some of the CGI was very uneven, agreed. Some of the late re-writes, and certainly the decision to make 3 movies at the last minute, caused some problems with the narrative, making some things not fit together so well. Best example was probably the romance, it's like "well we started this, we gotta finish it somehow." Same with having the Dwarves fight Smaug - the way they were written, they HAD to try and fight the Dragon, but the story dictated that they fail. And then we ended up with that crazy wheelbarrow scene, oh well. I've maintained that there was about 2 1/2 movies filmed, and so the second movie was padded toward the end, and the third wasn't quite a complete story. But you still had all the events from the book: Thorin getting "dragon-sick"; Bilbo stealing the Arkenstone, Elves & men vs Dwarves, Dain, Orcs (by the 10 thousands!), eagles, Beorn, tragic death scene and the auction at Bag-End. Yes, it's a thin story, and one that before these movies I really didn't care for: Dain showing up at the last minute & getting everything, Gandalf disappearing & reappearing for no particular reason, and both nephews dying (totally SUCKS!!!). Believe it or not, these movies have helped me appreciate the book more. I see now that it was Bilbo's story all along - and yes I roll my eyes at all the people who claim he was sidelined in his own movie, nope! They began and ended with Bilbo. Would I have liked to see Balin & Gandalf visit him like they did in the book? Sure, but I think the ending we got was pretty close to perfect, bringing us back to the events in FoTR the way they did. So, I voted for 3 movies, although I would have liked a more complete 3rd movie.


(This post was edited by Kilidoescartwheels on Dec 14 2016, 8:39pm)


Yngwulff
Gondor


Dec 15 2016, 2:36am

Post #23 of 24 (1471 views)
Shortcut
2 [In reply to] Can't Post

Leave out all the made up add ons, but keep the stuff from the appendices especially the Dol Guldur subplot


DainPig
Gondor


Dec 15 2016, 10:01pm

Post #24 of 24 (1440 views)
Shortcut
One! [In reply to] Can't Post

Just like the 1977 version, but 4 hours long.

 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.