| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
arb
Noobville17922 Posts
On November 29 2012 07:03 CruelZeratul wrote: Would have watched if it was one movie. The way it is now I'm not interested anymore. Eh, id say 2 is probably the max. that being said i hope they dont fuck the hobbit up, been forever since i read it so i guess 3films might not be a stretch either.. | ||
|
FromShouri
United States862 Posts
On November 29 2012 07:08 arb wrote: Eh, id say 2 is probably the max. that being said i hope they dont fuck the hobbit up, been forever since i read it so i guess 3films might not be a stretch either.. The hobbit is shorter then the twin towers and thats the shortest LOTR book. No way in hell it should be more then 1 movie. | ||
|
Dfgj
Singapore5922 Posts
On November 29 2012 07:11 FromShouri wrote: The hobbit is shorter then the twin towers and thats the shortest LOTR book. No way in hell it should be more then 1 movie. It's been made clear they're adding in additional content mentioned in the LOTR appendices. | ||
|
OKMarius
Norway469 Posts
On November 29 2012 07:11 FromShouri wrote: The hobbit is shorter then the twin towers and thats the shortest LOTR book. No way in hell it should be more then 1 movie. Have you even read it? There are a lot of events in the book that's only mentioned in passing. The big battle in the end takes like 1-2 pages ffs! :D Most of the dwarves have very few lines in the book as well. If it was written in the same style as Tolkien later used to write Lotr, I'm sure it would've been at least three times as long. | ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
Anyway, I'm not complaining, I'm a huge Tolkien fan and I can't wait to see the movies. | ||
|
OKMarius
Norway469 Posts
 | ||
|
Steveling
Greece10806 Posts
Here it will be live on december 13th, I'll get to see it a couple of times before the world goes boom right? xD | ||
|
TheRealArtemis
687 Posts
On November 29 2012 07:28 OKMarius wrote: ¨Have you even read it? There are a lot of events in the book that's only mentioned in passing. The big battle in the end takes like 1-2 pages ffs! :D Most of the dwarves have very few lines in the book as well. If it was written in the same style as Tolkien later used to write Lotr, I'm sure it would've been at least three times as long. Many times this! People need to stop thinking about how many books there are, and think about how many events there are in the books instead. (1 book =/= 1 movie) Some event may be only be a few pages in the book(s), but can be explaining alot more in the movies. Have a more central role etc. | ||
|
starfries
Canada3508 Posts
I'm not surprised they managed to get 3 movies' worth of content. I think just as much happens in the Hobbit as does in Lord of the Rings, it's just written out longer in LOTR. | ||
|
Frieder
Italy231 Posts
On November 29 2012 02:47 OKMarius wrote: To be fair, there isn't a single female character in the Hobbit books. Quite understandable that they're adding one, and a rather small role at that. No, it's not. Not at all. It shows that they are clearly not getting it. | ||
|
Telcontar
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On November 29 2012 13:40 starfries wrote: I can't wait for this! I'm not surprised they managed to get 3 movies' worth of content. I think just as much happens in the Hobbit as does in Lord of the Rings, it's just written out longer in LOTR. No, just no. Yes, a lot of things are unseen in The Hobbit, but it pales in comparison to what's happening in the LOTR. Not only did Jackson trim a lot of content from the books to adapt it into 3 films, but there are far more peripheral events going on during the original trilogy. Either you haven't actually read the books or it's been a while. Just the fact that Jackson has to use materials from the appendix of the ROTK to fill up his Hobbit films should tell you enough. | ||
|
D u o
Canada381 Posts
On December 02 2012 00:18 Telcontar wrote: No, just no. Yes, a lot of things are unseen in The Hobbit, but it pales in comparison to what's happening in the LOTR. Not only did Jackson trim a lot of content from the books to adapt it into 3 films, but there are far more peripheral events going on during the original trilogy. Either you haven't actually read the books or it's been a while. Just the fact that Jackson has to use materials from the appendix of the ROTK to fill up his Hobbit films should tell you enough. Even if it doesn't stand up to the book, it's still going to be better than 90% of the other movies that come out. Tolkien wrote un-filmable books, so of course things need to be adapted and changed to make it more interesting and I am happy with the way that the LOTR films came out, regardless of if there was a lot missing, I think it still got the proper message across and told the story of the ring very well. I have faith in Pete and weta.  Also I'm glad they're pulling more material, eventhough I enjoyed the hobbit as a book, I dont think it can be adapted word for word into a movie, I'd be awfully boring so adding extra content even if they adapt the characters to whatever roll they need like they did in LOTR. Its not like I'd recommend people watch LOTR instead of read the trilogy but it does the job and I believe that the hobbit will do the same. | ||
|
OKMarius
Norway469 Posts
On December 01 2012 23:56 Frieder wrote: No, it's not. Not at all. It shows that they are clearly not getting it. Yes, yes it is. They're trying to reach the mainstream audience, not the hardcore Tolkien-following. I'm not saying it's good, I'm saying it's understandable. | ||
|
Boundz(DarKo)
5311 Posts
-_________- Also, as everyone already said... this "trilogy" is all about the money, as the Bilbo book is tiny compared to Lotr. | ||
|
Dfgj
Singapore5922 Posts
On December 02 2012 00:27 Boundz(DarKo) wrote: No Mikael Persbrandt in the first movie -_________- Also, as everyone already said... this "trilogy" is all about the money, as the Bilbo book is tiny compared to Lotr. The lotr movies cut out a tremendous amount of events, details, songs, etc that took up a massive amount of pages due to Tolkein's writing style. The Hobbit, if anything, is more concise and fits more into its pages. Then, add addition mentioned but unexplained content + appendix notes (Dol Guldur) and you've got a fair amount of stuff to show. I'm not entirely sure about 3 movies, though. | ||
|
Animzor
Sweden2154 Posts
On November 29 2012 07:03 CruelZeratul wrote: Would have watched if it was one movie. The way it is now I'm not interested anymore. I'm sure everyone is very sad that you're not going to watch the films. No wait, nobody gives a fuck. I can't believe people are actually complaining about three more films about Tolkien's world. | ||
|
StarVe
Germany13591 Posts
| ||
|
WightyCity
Canada887 Posts
| ||
Falling
Canada11504 Posts
TV Spot 1 TV Spot 2 TV Spot 3 TV Spot 4 TV Spot 5 TV Spot 6 TV Spot 7 TV Spot 8 TV Spot 9 www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA8WzZq8_d0 | ||
|
Sumahi
Guam5609 Posts
| ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
CranKy Ducklings
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Afreeca Starleague
Soma vs hero
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
Leta vs YSC
Replay Cast
The PondCast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
