The Hobbit RevisitedFollow

yeah. 2 movies was stretching things to the point of absurdity. 3 is just not a good idea at all. The book just isn't that long unless they are planning to include all the mundane stuff like setting up tents and digging latrines and stuff i suppose. but still. not a good idea.

I was a bit surprised when I heard they were doing it in three parts as well. 2 made sense. The story is big enough that one wont work at all without cutting out huge sections. I suspect that it was about breakpoints. As you mentioned, you'd want the first part to conclude with Bilbo finding the ring and escaping Gollum's cave (perhaps with a bit of fade away of Bilbo protectively covering the ring after lying to Gandalf about how he escaped). But if you break there, there's a lot of story to tell in the second part. I guess I can kinda see it because of that.

I agree that they're probably going to fill in a whole lot more stuff that wasn't in the original story, but might leave viewers not familiar with the book wondering. For example, Gandalf repeatedly leaves the group to their own devices, periodically showing up again to provide them direction or advice. In the book, it's never explained where he goes or why. He's just a busy wizard doing busy wizard stuff and can't spend his whole time with this one group apparently. But in the film, they'll have to explain this. I suspect they'll create some sequences of Gandalf helping them from behind the scenes. I think they'll also spend a lot more time developing the back story of the battle of the five armies. In the book, they just kinda all show up claiming a share of the treasure. So some of the extra stuff in the second film could be used to set that up (folks find out that Gandalf is helping a group to take down Smaug and start jockeying for position in case they succeed). They'd also want put in a lot more detail about the Lake Town people. In the book, it's almost an afterthought. Tolkien wrote the book the way he told the stories originally (to children, and kinda making stuff up as he went along). In the films, they'll have to significantly expand several parts to fill in the gaps that were in the original.


So yeah. I do see how they could spend 3 films telling the story. I also suspect that the studio is wanting to stretch it out as much as possible. It's a huge potential money maker. Also this is the last feature film you can really do based on Tolkien's world, so from an artistic point of view, you'll want to fill it with as much material as possible. You can also fill in detail that will lead more smoothly into the existing Lord of the Rings trilogy. Ultimately, you want folks to watch the Hobbit films and then the Rings films and get a full complete story. Filming them out of order is actually an advantage in that you know exactly what stuff you need to add in order to do that. Of course, that's also how you end out with a story that could potentially be told briefly in one film, or well in two, take up three full length films.

The three movies are going to titled, "An Unexpected Journey", "The Desolation of Smaug", and "There and Back Again". Just based off of the names, they would almost have to reach the Lonely Mountain in movie two.

When Gandalf left the group he went to Dol Guldur with other bits of the White Council to drive Sauron from that place. I imagine stuff like that will be included.

As near as I can tell, they are digging into the Tolkien "Back Story" for a lot of the material. There certainly isn't enough stuff for 3 movies in just the hobbit, so I think they are fleshing it out with stuff from the apendix of LOTR, and also the Sillmarillion. If you have ever tried the Sillmarillion, it reads like a history book, more than I could handle to be honest.

So for me, knowing that it's not just "The Hobbitt" going in will make the movie a little more palatable.

The pages get so soggy.

Most "director's cut" versions of movies are worse than the original imo. Often the added scenes in themselves are really good/meaningful/illustrate character development. BUT their inclusion makes the movie's pace drag horribly, and even worse, send the pacing all over the place, losing the momentum of the original cinema release.

The Director's cuts of the LOTR trilogies do NOT do this. Despite having about 50 extra minutes on the last two films, the Extended versions are completely riveting, and are an utter delight to watch. There seems to be no loss in the pacing of the films. Therefore, I am entirely confident that The Hobbit will be a great trilogy in Peter Jackson's hands. I suspect quite some of the screen time will come with the musical numbers ^-^

I found Silmarillion extremely difficult to get into. The first forty pages or so remind me of why I never finished the Bible. Way too much "Thisguy, son of Thatguy, father of Theguy."

Yeah the beginning is off-putting. But as a whole The Silmarillion is my favourite book of Tolkien by far.

I didn't think of it myself but now that I read it here I really hope they include the Dol Guldur thingy.

I read The Hobbit when I was about 7, and it was my favourite book for a really long time. I tried reading The Silmarillion when I was about 17 but it hit me like a brick wall and I gave up, pretty quickly, maybe only 150 pages in or so.

Lol! The Silmarillian is basically a history text. Anyone expecting any adventure story like The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings will be sorely disappointed. If, however, you were really interested in the world Tolkien created and wanted to learn more about Elves, Dwarves, Men, Wizards, etc in Middle Earth, it was (is) a great resource. I would not recommend reading it all at once though (and frankly, there's no need to). Basically, read the Appendixes in LOTR, and imagine a whole book like that, only with less story and more boring information.

So much this. I hate it when I have to backtrack in a book. It ruins the flow.

Wife bought the family tickets for a Friday after noon show. Time to get my Hobbit on!

I might even log back into LoTRO for old times sake!

Just got back from watching it with the family, and it was AWESOME!


But when watching with kids, don't let them drink any pop, otherwise you will be (or in my case the wife) making many bathroom trips over the 2:45 duration.

This new 48 fps mode had no noticable difference to me, and the 3D was there for a sort of constant visual experience, nothing really "in your face" all the time.

Had a friend go to it and say it was absolutely terrible.

Buuuuuuuut he said it was terrible because they changed so many things. Strikes me as odd, as he loved LOTR, especially the third movie, which is completely different.

Seeing it in IMAX on Wednesday (my birfday!)

Posting from the movie theater. T-30 minutes and counting for start.

I agree Turin. Radigast being there was cool, but how he was portrayed was really not needed. they made him the jar jar binks of the wizard world. Yes, there were orcs in the hobbit, but it wasn't this one pissed off orc the entire time, and the constant attack attack attack pace was a bit out of character for that particular section of the book. Definitly should have been 2 movies. This should have been the "extended cut" not the final production movie.

It kind of felt like they were trying to get back into the swing of things but didn't really have it figured out yet. Also, they showed the $%^&*( spiders one whole movie early and I wasn't expecting it, forcing me to burn the entire theater down. Other than that though I liked it, but it could have been better than it was somewhat.

Saw it tonight, really enjoyed it. I also haven't read the book since I was like 12 so I recall nothing that happens. The two friends I went with both had read the book more recently and didn't like it nearly as much; one actually said he probably wouldn't go see the others in theater.

The main fault with it was that it dragged on a bit too long, especially some of the huge, roaming vistas. They were nice... but too common and too lengthy. Only other complaint was it felt like some of the humor tried a little too hard; the Goblin King's death, for example. It felt like the humor broke the entire pace of the scenes.

I finally got to see it. It was a good movie. Very exciting, visually stunning (of course), but it wasn't The Hobbit. It was an epic story from the start. Not a story of a little man questioning his discontent, daring to step outside his familiar boundaries, testing his mettle, showing the courage of a 'big man' without sacrificing his values...type thing. SpoilerI can't believe they threw Galadriel and Saruman into the mix - big names wanting their screen time??

I can't wait to meet Peter Jackson's Smaug in full form.

I loved the trolls and the eagles and the goblin king. I didn't like the goblin kings voice though. Should have been more goblinish. Gollum was wonderful as always and I enjoyed the bit of funning they did with the character in the riddle scene...and also happy it's one scene they didn't mess much with.

one more edit: My son agreed with you Koa, he didn't Radagast should have been such a no-mind. I like the character for what all that he didn't really need to be there. While he was portrayed as a whacko, I thought they let enough of his wizardly wisdom sneak out and certainly his 'goodness' was there. His speedy rabbit sled was cool and the hedgehogs adorable.

Edited, Dec 24th 2012 5:37am by Elinda

The whole White Council and checking into the Necromancer (and yes, he is Sauron, but they don't know it yet) is cannon, and is actually quite important if they want to use the opportunity given them with the Hobbit to set up the events which occur in LotR. It also sets up Saruman and explains why he betrays his order and their purpose (seriously, the entire reason they literally exist) later. They could easily tell just the direct story in the Hobbit in two films. The decision to make it 3 clearly was made so they could include back story stuff from other sources (which they could never include in a film on their own). So expect extra stuff to be in there.

Hell. I wouldn't be shocked to see a cameo by Aragorn in one of the films. He's supposedly fighting with the northern tribes against said evil necromancer's forces right about the time of the events in the Hobbit. It all depends how much of the extra materials they really want to throw in. In any case, based on what they've put in so far, it does look like the intent is to introduce elements designed to lead directly into LotR. Which I personally prefer. The Hobbit is a fun story by itself, but it becomes so much more when you tie all the other threads together instead of just the ring itself. I'm looking forward to seeing the rest of the films.

Like Kao, I really disliked the spiders, but that my arachnophobia speaking.

I thought Radagast was hilarious, but then again, I didn't really mind Jar Jar in The Phantom Menace either. I disagree that The Hobbit was supposed to be a Lord of the Rings 4. The Hobbit was a children's book while The Lord of the Rings was intended for adults. I think Radagast's character reflects that difference nicely. Compare the first Harry Potter movie to the last, except this was done the other way around.

Whether there were boring parts in it or not, I don't know. I tend to be completely absorbed into movies when I watch them for the first time. I was sweating and breathing hard an hour into the movie. The boring bits don't really stand out to me until the second or third viewing.

Considering the movie is about a party of fifteen guys running around a fantasy land, that could get weird really quickly.

"Oh, Bilbo... you're feet are so... hairy!"

Edited, Jan 3rd 2013 11:29am by IDrownFish

What could have been explained better (imo) is how the Dwarfen kingdom Ereborn fits into the world LotR (the movies) set us up for and how it's connected with other events we might be familiar with. Just from watching the Hobbit it didn't really feel connected to the other places aside from existing somewhere in the same realm.

And why did the elven king bow his head before Thrór? I can't remember reading anything like that in any of the books. Seemed a bit strange.

Also, the Nazgûl existed for a long time when the Hobbit takes place. Why doesn't Radagast recognice their presences and shrieks in Dol Guldur? I get that he may not have faced Sauron ever before so it's okay if he didn't recognice him. But the Wraiths?

Don't get me wrong. I liked the movie. It was fun. But from time to time a question mark popped up inside my head while watching.

Wikipedia says:
So apparently he does live longer. The math still doesn't seem to line up, but he does live longer.

Ah, okay. Thanks for that guys. I am not as well versed in Tolkien lore as I should be.