EPT[Movie] The Hobbit Trilogy - Page 4
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
Brainsurgeon
Sweden359 Posts
| ||
|
Telcontar
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On August 01 2012 06:56 Undrass wrote: Which is exactly what is happening. The movies will contain stuff from the appendixes of LotR, which is a lot of information. The appendix part is about 100 pages (in the Norwegian version, and a lot of it is probably not relevant to the hobbit), and about as dense as the Encyclopedia Britannica. If Peter Jackson wants to, he can make a lot more than a measly three movies out of the hobbit + LotR appendix. But have you read the appendices? Most of it is background stories and general histories of the people of Middle-Earth. No one is saying there isn't enough material, anyone with an inkling of the breadth of Tolkien's works knows better. The concern is that it will severely dilute Bilbo's story, and what it's about. | ||
|
SpiffD
Denmark1264 Posts
| ||
|
Undrass
Norway381 Posts
On August 01 2012 07:02 Telcontar wrote: But have you read the appendices? Most of it is background stories and general histories of the people of Middle-Earth. No one is saying there isn't enough material, anyone with an inkling of the breadth of Tolkien's works knows better. The concern is that it will severely dilute Bilbo's story, and what it's about. Well, I can see Appendix A-III Durins people (especially the near the end). Having a scene from the battle of Nanduhirion, Thorin oakenshield battled Azog would be awesome. And there is the story on how gandalf paid Dol Guldur a visit and met Thráin. There is a lot of stuff that is just begging to be part of the movie  | ||
|
danl9rm
United States3111 Posts
On August 01 2012 07:11 SpiffD wrote: I thought 2 films was always a bit of a stretch. I want to see them but I won't be paying for three cinema tickets. To each his own, and I raaaaarely go to the theater, but for this one, take my money! | ||
|
Eishi_Ki
Korea (South)1667 Posts
On August 01 2012 07:11 SpiffD wrote: I thought 2 films was always a bit of a stretch. I want to see them but I won't be paying for three cinema tickets. Your loss bro. Paying for 3 cinema tickets in a probable 3 years is expensive... | ||
|
XenOmega
Canada2822 Posts
| ||
|
Technique
Netherlands1542 Posts
If it's half as good as lotr i'm happy already . | ||
|
Louis8k8
Canada285 Posts
The bad tone from 'sequel' movies comes from adding a new story after an already well ended story. This doesn't apply because the film is stretching over 3 films. It's not adding on a new story to the end. | ||
|
Atlas247
Canada318 Posts
On August 01 2012 23:03 XenOmega wrote: As much as I love LOTR, as much as I love Tolkien work... making this a 3 movies, when considering how much more epic each book of LOTR was is a joke... You gotta milk the cow... If you know Peter Jackson at all you would know he's not doing 3 movies for that reason. | ||
|
Naphal
Germany2099 Posts
also 3d looks amazing if you have such a tv and can check the 3d trailer, way better than other 3dfilms imo. | ||
|
Warlock40
601 Posts
But I do agree with this: As much as I love LOTR, as much as I love Tolkien work... making this a 3 movies, when considering how much more epic each book of LOTR was is a joke And as for this comment: The bad tone from 'sequel' movies comes from adding a new story after an already well ended story. This doesn't apply because the film is stretching over 3 films. It's not adding on a new story to the end. We don't know how the storyline will work across the three films. What if all of The Hobbit storyline ended after the second movie, and the third one was just random Middle-Earth stuff? | ||
|
EpiK
Korea (South)5757 Posts
| ||
|
Mataza
Germany5364 Posts
Then I guess this is going to be a Tolkien Sidestory compilation, which sounds honestly pretty good. | ||
|
Eufouria
United Kingdom4425 Posts
On August 01 2012 06:55 Telcontar wrote: It's not whether there's enough Tolkien material to use, but whether expanding so much from The Hobbit itself will sideline and overshadow Bilbo's story. A lot of people just wanted the focus to be on Bilbo, and his journey as it is in the book. Jackson can always prove those people wrong by pacing & editing it well, but no matter how he does it, there can be no argument that Bilbo's adventure will be very thinly spread across 3 films. That's one of Bilbo's qualities throughout the book. As long as Freeman can pull of the cunning/confident(cocky) aspect as well, there should be no problems. Yeah, he'll be good at the start, but I hope he can shed the patheticness later in the story as Bilbo's character develops. On August 01 2012 23:21 EpiK wrote: 3 films? The hobbit was shorter than each of the three lotr books. And knowing his slow, scenery-obsessed pacing, this doesn't make much sense. Hope this doens't flop like star wars episodes 1-3. A huge amount was cut from the LoTR films, characters like Tom Bombadil don't even appear. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On August 02 2012 02:13 Eufouria wrote: Yeah, he'll be good at the start, but I hope he can shed the patheticness later in the story as Bilbo's character develops. A huge amount was cut from the LoTR films, characters like Tom Bombadil don't even appear. I miss the Knights of Dol Amroth >_<, the men of middle earth just seem so much less badass when you leave out the most awesome of them. | ||
Falling
Canada11426 Posts
On August 01 2012 06:45 NuttyFudgesicle wrote: Yes I have. Like I said, one page of a book equates to about one minute of film. This is the major reason when books are used to create movies there is almost always material that gets cut, including the extended version of LotR. There simply is not enough time. However, The Hobbit is about three hundred pages depending on the edition so that is really about two movies. No matter how you edit the film, there is going to have to be at least some new material which gets added in that was not in the original book or expect to see many stretched scenes of traveling, etc. Don't get your hopes up if you expect a 2.5/3 hour film with an extended version for all three of them, it simply can't happen without major additions or reaching back into the other books. I am not saying it is impossible, as in the other LotR movies they had many long scenes and still did not use all of the material, the same may be true for The Hobbit. 100 pages per movie, with drawn out scenes and a couple additions could work fine, but I cannot see it being nearly as long as the other movies. I don't think 1 min per page necessarily holds up. For one thing descriptions always take much shorter in a movie as you just see it rather than describe if for half a page or multiple pages. On that alone, LotR's get's much shorter and The Hobbit stays pretty much the same. Furthermore, battle scenes always take longer. And Tolkien's battle descriptions were usually a pretty eagle eye view or not very long. I can pretty much guarantee they're NOT going to skip the entire Battle of Five Armies just because Bilbo gets knocked out in the beginning. But The Hobbit is replete with battle scenes that will take much longer on film then on the page. It looks like the 3 Trolls is going to have a semi battle, the Great Goblin cave, the 5 Fir Trees, the spiders, Smaug's attack, the siege, and the 5 Battle of 5 Armies. Those will all take considerable more time. Then you have all the White Council stuff, which I presume they'll show some big battle at the end of all that. @Whitewing Totally agree about Dol Amroth. Imrahil was the first time I actually liked a prince as most other stories they're some pansy stuck-up do nothing running around in tights. Imrahil and his knights were badass. And Beregond  Without him, you don't quite get the loyalty that Faramir inspired of his men. Of all the scenes they missed Return of the King, I think one that stands out is when the companies are maching into Minas Tirith from the outlands. It's such an iconic scene, sets the mood and is great for rising tension before the major battle.Excerpt "Forlong!" men shouted. "True heart, true friend! Forlong!" But when the men of Lossarnach had passed they muttered: "So few! Two hundreds, what are they? We hoped for ten times the number. That will be the new tidings of the black fleet. They are sparing only a tithe of their strength. Still every little is a gain." There's so much hope and despair mixed up in that chapter as they are reinforced and yet never enough. | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
Movie 1 and 2 will be really good and exciting. But Movie 3 will be just one long ass outro involving Bilbo and an elven boat. | ||
|
Ansinjunger
United States2451 Posts
Simply put, there are a lot of different adventures in The Hobbit, and there is ample ground to expand upon them, plus there is stuff they left out of LotR. They took liberties in LotR, and I imagine they'll do the same again, but they did a good enough job before, in spite of my several minor gripes after the fact (Scouring and the distance from the Tower of Cirith Ungol to Mount Doom are the major gripes, but I guess they had to keep people awake). It seems easier to capture the "essence" of dwarves than of elves, since they are more knowable to those who haven't read the book. Drunk, bearded, Scottish roadies was how one reviewer rather carelessly described them years ago, but take away the insult of it, and he was pretty close, whereas I remember Orlando Bloom talking about how he had to act "far away" and mystical and what not. That's not so easy to connect to an audience, which, now that I think about it, probably made it a good decision to give his character those stunts (Edit: that stunt where he mounts the horse by swinging up under its neck is so sexy and elegant--definitely my favorite). On a less positive note, it feels like they are taking more liberty with fleshing things out, which LotR deserved more than The Hobbit. They can't just insert Scouring of the Shire and probably not Tom Bombadil either. They can't unbreak Gandalf's staff in the Extended Cut RotK when he faces the Witch King (my last, silly or important? gripe). As one who read the book, I feel almost at a peculiar disadvantage, having certain expectations. I realize I generally have more advantages than the non-reader, but not in that case. If something is slightly dumbed down, I will know about it. I'm still hyped, and this is good news. I'm just a bit more prepared to be disappointed than last time. | ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
I just hope he gets the tone of the hobbit down, and doesn't pander towards over sentimentalism. The 3 movie thing I really couldn't care for or against, there is plenty of stuff in those series - plus with all those talented crew behind the scenes I give them the benefit of the doubt. It might even be better than the Lotr, but the third movie is gonna be tough to beat, ans I think ppl will compare the two. | ||
| ||
