Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

The Hobbit RevisitedFollow

#1 Oct 19 2012 at 7:44 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
The first of the three movies is opening on Dec.14th. I'm sure Ill be waiting in line opening day to see the show. I'll probably take the afternoon off and go watch it by myself at the matinee.

I'm a bit baffled that this story is being stretched into three movies. Though after rewatching some of the trailers it seems that Jackson and Co are attempting to make this story much more epic in proportion than Tolkien had ever intended it, or at least how I had ever read it. That saddens me a bit.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#2 Oct 19 2012 at 1:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,911 posts
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.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#3 Oct 19 2012 at 1:32 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Yeah, it really confuses me. The Hobbit is shorter than all of the books in the LotR trilogy, and they each fit into one movie just fine. Sure, some stuff was cut out, but it worked overall.

I really can't figure out what the end points would be. Especially because I can't help but feel like Bilbo REALLY needs to find the ring in the first movie, for the overall health of the series.

Then again, they've signed on Orlando Bloom to be Legolas. So I have a sneaking suspicion they're going to be spending quite a bit more time in Mirkwood than before...

I'm going to just guess:
1. From the Shire through finding the Ring.
2. Out of the mountains through Mirkwood.
3. Lake Town through the end.

I'm not super thrilled about that, because the environments for the second two movies wouldn't really vary much.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#4 Oct 19 2012 at 2:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,860 posts
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.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#5 Oct 19 2012 at 5:02 PM Rating: Good
But will it be better than the animated 80s era original?!!!

Loved that movie, back when I was 6.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#6 Oct 19 2012 at 7:02 PM Rating: Decent
Keeper of the Shroud
*****
13,543 posts
Quote:
I'm going to just guess:
1. From the Shire through finding the Ring.
2. Out of the mountains through Mirkwood.
3. Lake Town through the end.


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.
#7 Oct 19 2012 at 7:12 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
So I bet they're REALLY going to play up the Battle of Five Armies and it's associated plotline.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#8 Oct 20 2012 at 1:36 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,278 posts
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.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#9 Oct 21 2012 at 8:15 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
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.

This, basically. And the battle of five armies.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#10 Nov 20 2012 at 12:35 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
4 posts
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.
____________________________
G.L.Jones
www.buysomeadspaceyoucheapjerk.com
#11 Nov 25 2012 at 7:09 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
I can honestly say the Silmarillion is one of the most difficult books I've river read...
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#12 Nov 25 2012 at 10:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Nilatai wrote:
I can honestly say the Silmarillion is one of the most difficult books I've river read...


The pages get so soggy.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#13 Nov 25 2012 at 3:14 PM Rating: Good
Keeper of the Shroud
*****
13,543 posts
Nilatai wrote:
I can honestly say the Silmarillion is one of the most difficult books I've river read...


I've read it several times, and rather enjoy it. I bet if you tried reading it on land it might make it easier for you.
#14 Nov 27 2012 at 9:21 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
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 ^-^
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#15 Nov 27 2012 at 10:08 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
F*cking typos.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#16 Dec 05 2012 at 8:21 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,439 posts
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."
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#17 Dec 05 2012 at 9:09 AM Rating: Good
Apparently your brain needs 20mins or so to get used to 40fps, but after that it's delightful.

Also, ignore that Gandalf is wearing contacts & anything that looks like it really is a set, for immersion purposes.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#18 Dec 05 2012 at 5:05 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
1,148 posts
Mazra wrote:
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.
____________________________
Osseric
#19 Dec 06 2012 at 9:43 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
I couldn't read The Silmarillion.

I bought an enhanced ebook version of the Hobbit a month or so ago. I was hoping for a map with magnification potential. But the 'enhanced' version was a bit of a joke - it just provided a couple links and a couple pictures. It was good to reread the story though.

Viewers of movie-one are reporting that the high frame rate (48 fps) is causing headaches, tummy aches and dizziness. Smiley: tongue STORY
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#20 Dec 10 2012 at 12:44 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
584 posts
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.
____________________________
Kalivha wrote:
We can put on top hats and monocles and make fun of the English.
#21 Dec 10 2012 at 4:32 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
1,148 posts
Sgriob wrote:
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.


That's about when it starts getting good. Smiley: lol
____________________________
Osseric
#22 Dec 10 2012 at 6:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,860 posts
TherealLogros wrote:
Sgriob wrote:
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.


That's about when it starts getting good. Smiley: lol


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.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#23 Dec 10 2012 at 10:36 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,847 posts
The worst part for me was the names. Not being able to pronounce them made them hard to remember. Then 50 or so pages later it mentions someone and I'm sitting there thinking "Who?" and spend 5 minutes flipping back a couple dozen pages to figure out who it was.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#25 Dec 13 2012 at 6:19 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,439 posts
TirithRR wrote:
The worst part for me was the names. Not being able to pronounce them made them hard to remember. Then 50 or so pages later it mentions someone and I'm sitting there thinking "Who?" and spend 5 minutes flipping back a couple dozen pages to figure out who it was.


So much this. I hate it when I have to backtrack in a book. It ruins the flow.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#26 Dec 13 2012 at 8:41 PM Rating: Good
Seeing this in three hours. Will report back with findings.
____________________________
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I have a racist ****.

Steam: TuxedoFish
battle.net: Fishy #1649
GW2: Fishy.4129
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 38 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (38)