|
On July 31 2012 01:57 MrHoon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 01:49 r00ty wrote:
I just hope, it's an artist decision and not a business one... this is pretty much my biggest concern too But I still have faith in peter jackson! Unlike another certain trilogy maker
If, if (a big one) they flesh it out well, then I'd honestly love to see an adaptation of the Children of Hurin or the story of Tuor and Gondolin. I think those two are the most easily adaptable/film-friendly stories out of The Silmarillion (plus who wouldn't want to see well rendered version of Gondolin). I'd cry myself to sleep though if they went for Beren and Luthien. That... Would just not work well IMO.
But I think the Tolkien Estate still holds the rights to The Silmarillion so that's a long way off.
|
Canada11379 Posts
I just don't understand the pacing for 3 movies. I'm quite familiar with all the behind the scene stuff that's in the appendices, but how do you get three mini-story arcs?
1) Up to Elven King and escape
2) Kill Smaug
3) Battle of 5 Armies?
But then you run into issues like breaking up Harry Potter where you have all the build up in one movie and all the pay-off (aka one big battle) in the other.
One thing I really hope they do is the complete surprise of Gandalf showing up on the 'wrong side.' One of the best twists ever.
|
On July 31 2012 01:57 MrHoon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 01:49 r00ty wrote:
I just hope, it's an artist decision and not a business one... this is pretty much my biggest concern too But I still have faith in peter jackson! Unlike another certain trilogy maker
Pretty much this. I just hope this doesn't suffer from Episode 1-itis.
|
So they're turning a book that's barely 300 pages long into a trilogy? What are they smoking at New Line cinema?
|
It's going to have more than just the hobbit.
|
Canada11379 Posts
On July 31 2012 02:11 maartendq wrote:
So they're turning a book that's barely 300 pages long into a trilogy? What are they smoking at New Line cinema?
They're pulling a ton a stuff from the appendices as well, plus expanding all the White Council stuff. Appendices are something like 150 pages long, but are as dense as Encyclopedia entries with information.
I wonder if we're going to get an extended Battle of Azanulbizar. They do have Azog cast, but I rather thought it would be a short flash back scene/ story told. If it's three movies...
|
I'm all about LOTR but some of Tolkien writing is so bad, I loved the edits in the movie that removed content: D his story of good and evil was great, but his random characters (tom anyone? in the woods? dancing and shit?) were perfect to remove. I have total trust in Peter Jackson's story handling, that and Gandalf's not pulling a harry potter and changing, so it'll be fuckinggggg awesome
|
On July 31 2012 02:06 elt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 01:57 MrHoon wrote:On July 31 2012 01:49 r00ty wrote:
I just hope, it's an artist decision and not a business one... this is pretty much my biggest concern too But I still have faith in peter jackson! Unlike another certain trilogy maker If, if (a big one) they flesh it out well, then I'd honestly love to see an adaptation of the Children of Hurin or the story of Tuor and Gondolin. I think those two are the most easily adaptable/film-friendly stories out of The Silmarillion (plus who wouldn't want to see well rendered version of Gondolin). I'd cry myself to sleep though if they went for Beren and Luthien. That... Would just not work well IMO. But I think the Tolkien Estate still holds the rights to The Silmarillion so that's a long way off.
I think that if they were going to do any of the stories from the Silmarillion that it would be focused on Baren and Luthien. For a few reasons, it would feature characters and places were already familiar with through the LOTR movies, Sauron and Angbad. They could easily, like the first LOTR covering the battle of the Last Alliance, have a small portion of the beginning of the movie as to what the Silmarillion's are and who Morgoth is. Beren and Luthien are also mentioned in the Trilogy as well in Rivendale. With a smaller group of characters to focus on in the movie I feel that the story could be fully told and stay true for the fans of the books.
I hope your right in any case, the Silmarillion is probably one of my all time favorite books. And there are some truely amazing story lines in it.
On July 31 2012 02:18 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
(tom anyone? in the woods? dancing and shit?)
Tom Bombadil, and I disagree he was a badass and should have been in the movie. For all intensive purposed he was a god inside his forest and nothing could defeat him. If you can find a copy, The Tales of Tom Bombadil is really really great.
|
Why didn't they make an one or two more films in the previous trilogy? The Lord of the rings, the Two towers and the Return of the king felt so fast paced and edited out in comparison to the books. Those books were more dense than the Bilbo book.
|
To be honest, i feel that a trilogy suits the hobbit..the book itself has so much content. I havent read it in a while because i lost my years old copy but just to name a few things that i feel can be heavily fleshed out.
-Meeting (duh)
-Trolls (maybe not soo much)
-Elven village
-Orcs / Mountain
-Gollum (gotta be done.)
-The bear dude. (i love that guy.) bjorn? was it?
-Dark forest (spiders, travelling)
-Getting lost / elven castle
-Riverside town / travelling to smaugs mountain
-Dealings with smaug (riddles, exploring chamber and such)
-Death of smaug (Bard, attack on riverside town)
-Standoff on the mountain
-Negotiations
-Battle of 5 armies
-End
(and im sure im missing shit out, like the eagles / wolves after the mountain.)
So, all of this in one film ? say each is only ~20 minutes long, thats stretching it a bit i feel (some alot longer, or should be and some shorter.)
Thats 5 hours of film. For just my bullet points and NOTHING imbetween. Take into account that some of those "arcs" should be alot longer, i feel a trilogy is a good thing for the hobbit.
People are saying that they are taking things from appendices? ive never seen or heard from them but that only makes it more awesome.
For them to rush through pivotal parts of the book that are just plain awesome, and should be fleshed out so they remain equally as awesome is important to me. The fact that its a trilogy allows for them to explore more also, i mean, we never really get into what happened to the others while bilbo was having his gollum time and so on, for example. Theres so much action and interest in the book its almost impossible to create long boring periods.
Cant wait!
|
Canada11379 Posts
People are saying that they are taking things from appendices? ive never seen or heard from them but that only makes it more awesome.
They have access to the appendices in Return of the King. Anything Silmarillion related they can't use as Christopher is sitting on the copyright. Mind you I think only section III Durin's Folk is relevant to The Hobbit, but it recontextualizes The Hobbit as a part in the large scheme of combatting Sauron (though they weren't sure if he had returned yet.) Interestingly, I believe Tolkien actually wanted to rewrite The Hobbit in the style of LotR's and using LotR's lore in mind, but his publishers stopped him.
|
I honestly think that you could have made 10 movies out of LotR easily, so I don't see why three would be too much for the Hobbit. So much incredible stuff was still missing from LotR. Not sure about the storylines and arcs I'm not too concerned with those. If the arc is missing I will just treat it like a series in the cinema, but honestly these people are too good to have arcs missing so I'll just take it as it comes.
If you look at Game of Thrones as a comparison even a full season of broadcasting is not enough to accurately describe the books, storylines, and scenery. Basically, if done well, I think you can almost created unlimited TV/movie content out of books this good. I have no issue with three movies at all, it's just a matter of being good enough to do it. They have proven their skills so I will give them the benefit of the doubt until I see them.
|
Do you know why his publishers stopped him? Because that would be pretty cool to do...
|
On July 31 2012 02:38 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +People are saying that they are taking things from appendices? ive never seen or heard from them but that only makes it more awesome. They have access to the appendices in Return of the King. Anything Silmarillion related they can't use as Christopher is sitting on the copyright. Mind you I think only section III Durin's Folk is relevant to The Hobbit, but it recontextualizes The Hobbit as a part in the large scheme of combatting Sauron (though they weren't sure if he had returned yet.) Interestingly, I believe Tolkien actually wanted to rewrite The Hobbit in the style of LotR's and using LotR's lore in mind, but his publishers stopped him.
He did update it, making Gollum more evil. In the first edition, Gollum freely gave the ring to Bilbo after losing the betting game and they parted as friends. This had to be changed when the true nature of the ring was decided upon. This was incorporated into the second edition, which was released after LotR. He also made further changes to the third edition.
You are right that he made one revision attempt between the second and third edtions that he gave up because of negative feedback.
|
On July 31 2012 02:18 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
I'm all about LOTR but some of Tolkien writing is so bad, I loved the edits in the movie that removed content: D his story of good and evil was great, but his random characters (tom anyone? in the woods? dancing and shit?) were perfect to remove. I have total trust in Peter Jackson's story handling, that and Gandalf's not pulling a harry potter and changing, so it'll be fuckinggggg awesome
Tom Bombadill is the most awesome character in LOTR imo. I actually really dislike how Jackson removed Tom and totally ruined Gimli as he was awesome in the books and a comic sidekick in the movies.
|
On July 31 2012 02:46 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 02:18 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
I'm all about LOTR but some of Tolkien writing is so bad, I loved the edits in the movie that removed content: D his story of good and evil was great, but his random characters (tom anyone? in the woods? dancing and shit?) were perfect to remove. I have total trust in Peter Jackson's story handling, that and Gandalf's not pulling a harry potter and changing, so it'll be fuckinggggg awesome Tom Bombadill is the most awesome character in LOTR imo. I actually really dislike how Jackson removed Tom and totally ruined Gimli as he was awesome in the books and a comic sidekick in the movies.
I love Tom Bombadil and it sucks that we didn't get to see him on screen. I don't dislike that he was removed and don't understand why you blame anyone for that. The books have too much content and Tom Bombadil actually plays an extremely small role of relevance to the story and could be removed without hurting the story line. Doesn't it make perfect sense that he was removed if you at all are open to the fact that a movie can't be a copy of a book?
|
On July 31 2012 02:54 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 02:46 karpo wrote:On July 31 2012 02:18 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
I'm all about LOTR but some of Tolkien writing is so bad, I loved the edits in the movie that removed content: D his story of good and evil was great, but his random characters (tom anyone? in the woods? dancing and shit?) were perfect to remove. I have total trust in Peter Jackson's story handling, that and Gandalf's not pulling a harry potter and changing, so it'll be fuckinggggg awesome Tom Bombadill is the most awesome character in LOTR imo. I actually really dislike how Jackson removed Tom and totally ruined Gimli as he was awesome in the books and a comic sidekick in the movies. I love Tom Bombadil and it sucks that we didn't get to see him on screen. I don't dislike that he was removed and don't understand why you blame anyone for that. The books have too much content and Tom Bombadil actually plays an extremely small role of relevance to the story and could be removed without hurting the story line. Doesn't it make perfect sense that he was removed if you at all are open to the fact that a movie can't be a copy of a book?
Maybe i should have changed that to "im dissapointed they removed Tom, and i dislike how they change Gimli from the mighty hero dwarf to a lame comic sidekick."
|
Canada11379 Posts
On July 31 2012 02:43 Maginor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 02:38 Falling wrote:People are saying that they are taking things from appendices? ive never seen or heard from them but that only makes it more awesome. They have access to the appendices in Return of the King. Anything Silmarillion related they can't use as Christopher is sitting on the copyright. Mind you I think only section III Durin's Folk is relevant to The Hobbit, but it recontextualizes The Hobbit as a part in the large scheme of combatting Sauron (though they weren't sure if he had returned yet.) Interestingly, I believe Tolkien actually wanted to rewrite The Hobbit in the style of LotR's and using LotR's lore in mind, but his publishers stopped him. He did update it, making Gollum more evil. In the first edition, Gollum freely gave the ring to Bilbo after losing the betting game and they parted as friends. This had to be changed when the true nature of the ring was decided upon. This was incorporated into the second edition, which was released after LotR. He also made further changes to the third edition. You are right that he made one revision attempt between the second and third edtions that he gave up because of negative feedback.
Yeah, I meant that one revision attempt. It would be very difficult to even find the first edition with the unchanged Riddle scene.
I'm sure they could make 10 films of LotR's, but maybe 30-40 years from now someone will reboot the films and do 2 films per book. I'm pretty sure you could reasonably cover a good portion of of the books including the Scouring of Shire. I also think you could easily get 6 mini story arcs for each film. I understand why the Scouring was cut, but it was such a shock and made for such a different tone to the ending of LotR's.
|
On July 31 2012 02:54 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 02:46 karpo wrote:On July 31 2012 02:18 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
I'm all about LOTR but some of Tolkien writing is so bad, I loved the edits in the movie that removed content: D his story of good and evil was great, but his random characters (tom anyone? in the woods? dancing and shit?) were perfect to remove. I have total trust in Peter Jackson's story handling, that and Gandalf's not pulling a harry potter and changing, so it'll be fuckinggggg awesome Tom Bombadill is the most awesome character in LOTR imo. I actually really dislike how Jackson removed Tom and totally ruined Gimli as he was awesome in the books and a comic sidekick in the movies. I love Tom Bombadil and it sucks that we didn't get to see him on screen. I don't dislike that he was removed and don't understand why you blame anyone for that. The books have too much content and Tom Bombadil actually plays an extremely small role of relevance to the story and could be removed without hurting the story line. Doesn't it make perfect sense that he was removed if you at all are open to the fact that a movie can't be a copy of a book?
The problem with Tom Bombadil is that he would be very hard to capture the feel of his character on film. Even in the books, it's a rather odd section and one that few readers understand, since you'd require some fairly deep knowledge of Middle-Earth history to really get what is going on.
Didn't mind that they skipped him to be honest.
|
Canada11379 Posts
Sorry, OP but I love Tolkien too much and this low content OP with little updates has been bothering me for awhile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
