Seriously?
They fit 3 books into 3 movies, and now they're taking 1 book and making 3 movies?
I really hate sounding like a buzzkill, but, between this kind of garbage and the ever-rising costs of movies (including theater industry types talking about raising the cost of 2D movies to subsidize their poor investments in 3D), it seems like this is going to be a "RedBox" view.
:(
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm... yeah, those 3 LotR movies they made did suck pretty hard. Oh wait, no they didn't. They were AWESOME! So, we're being offered more LotR content and this is a problem how?
If you read the article, he's not proposing making the novel "The Hobbit" into three movies. In fact, they were never even making the novel into TWO movies. The plan has always been to include all of that "off-screen" stuff from the Hobbit and the LotR appendices into the movie, since it happens in and around the time frame of when Bilbo & Co are heading to Erebor. Instead of Gandalf just disappearing to wherever and then coming back later, we are going to be seeing all of the bits and pieces of what else is going on in the world at the same time. If you've read things like Unfinished Tales and the Tolkien errata books, you know there is puh-lenty of material there.
My suggestion: Don't get hung up on "3 movies of the Hobbit." Think of it as "3 movies of Tolkien history and prequel and inbetweenquel that includes the Hobbit but also links it across the span of 60 years to the beginning of LotR."
Maybe Thorin and Company end up meeting a colorful little fellow that likes to sing and dance and slap old willow trees around.
Meh... I'm really getting tired of trilogies. I'd like to be able to enjoy a self-contained story in one sitting for a change.
I also have concerns about the material that they'll be including - I don't think it really fits the general tone of the Hobbit, which is much lighter and more whimsical than LotR.
Hopefully, they will offer an edited version without all the backstuff for those that just want to see "the hobbit". Though it is sacriledge to say outloud for a D&D fantasy fan; I did not care for most of Tolkien's works. The Hobbit was the one book I did like. But probably in the minority. So I will wait for the collection and watch it by skipping the "boring bits".
Greg
Don't worry, the "boring bits" won't be Tolkien. They'll be Peter Jackson creations.
We'll probably get another exciting wizard battle.
I see what you did there. Nicely done. :P
|
I see what you did there. Nicely done. :PDon't worry, the "boring bits" won't be Tolkien. They'll be Peter Jackson creations.
We'll probably get another exciting wizard battle.
I don't know what you guys are talking about. Saruman totally got served.
Gandalf's moves are ever fresh.
In all seriousness, some of that extra time could be put to good use on fleshing out the dwarves.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no doubt that Peter Jackson will do a FANTASTIC job with all three movies - I'm THRILLED that he's doing them! Heck, I only wish he was doing more.
Seriously, I'm not sure where the negativity is coming from. The Lord of the Rings movies were amazing and there is little chance that these will be any less amazing as well.
|
|
Seriously, I'm not sure where the negativity is coming from. The Lord of the Rings movies were amazing and there is little chance that these will be any less amazing as well.
You're never going to fully satisfy purists and there's always going to be little things that people will snark at("Nobody tosses a dwarf", breakdancing Gandalf), but as adaptations of 130189564461 page epics* go LotR really does exceed optimistic expectations.
I mean, it stays true to the spirit of the books, which is more than can be said for a lot of other anything-to-film adaptations. Like the theatrical cut of I Am Legend for exam-...
Damn, I just madfaced when I remembered how they butchered that ending. Freaking focus groups.
*To be fair, current bloated epics make LotR seem like a brisk read at times. LotR really just seems longer than it really is until you compare it to what's on the shelves nowadays.
Hmmm... yeah, those 3 LotR movies they made did suck pretty hard.
Hmmm... yeah, I totally said that! I see it right up there, under my name!
Further, if you read the article, it really doesn't say what you claim it says.
The closest it comes to it is
as well as some of the related material in the appendices
Further, statements like
Jackson says in a statement that a lot of J.R.R. Tolkien's tale of Bilbo Baggins would remain untold if a third film wasn't made.
pretty much reinforce that the novel "The Hobbit" is being made into 3 movies, since "The Hobbit" is J.R.R. Tolkien's tale of Bilbo Baggins.
Please, rational sir! Please forgive me for my blasphemy of your holy works, and excuse me for daring to respond to this news in anything short of glowing praise!
I'm sure the movies will be great. I'm not badmouthing the content, I'm simply expressing displeasure with yet another trilogy, and how I really don't think I'm going to play the theater game for this stuff because of that.
Yeah, I'm one of those off people who thought the LotR movies were pretty boring, because the books were exceptionally boring. However, I did enjoy the Hobbit. I thought the story was a bit more well done and was actually pleasant to read. I don't think I'd drop the money on seeing the trilogy on the big screen, but I'll likely buy them for at home viewing later.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm... yeah, those 3 LotR movies they made did suck pretty hard. Oh wait, no they didn't. They were AWESOME! So, we're being offered more LotR content and this is a problem how?
If you read the article, he's not proposing making the novel "The Hobbit" into three movies. In fact, they were never even making the novel into TWO movies. The plan has always been to include all of that "off-screen" stuff from the Hobbit and the LotR appendices into the movie, since it happens in and around the time frame of when Bilbo & Co are heading to Erebor. Instead of Gandalf just disappearing to wherever and then coming back later, we are going to be seeing all of the bits and pieces of what else is going on in the world at the same time. If you've read things like Unfinished Tales and the Tolkien errata books, you know there is puh-lenty of material there.
My suggestion: Don't get hung up on "3 movies of the Hobbit." Think of it as "3 movies of Tolkien history and prequel and inbetweenquel that includes the Hobbit but also links it across the span of 60 years to the beginning of LotR."
Yeah, I get that, but the problem is that the canonical material that happens concurrently to and after The Hobbit doesn't form an effective storyline.
Lots of *stuff* is going on right about then, but nothing that really constitutes a proper extended narrative like you need for a movie. And almost none of it meshes into the main storyline of The Hobbit.
Plus, there's a huge difference in tone between The Hobbit and most of that other stuff.
So I'm afraid we're going to see something like:
"Here's The Hobbit. Now a creepy scene about what Gandalf is doing. Now back to The Hobbit. Now here's a boring scene of the White Council talking some things over. We now return to The Hobbit. And now here's some violent stuff with Aragorn. Meanwhile, here's The Hobbit. We interrupt your Hobbit to bring you breaking news on Legolas's backstory. That's all the time we have for this movie; tune in next year for more of The Hobbit and a bunch of other stuff.
The Hobbit by itself makes a fantastic single movie. But there just isn't the right kind of material to pad it out into a trilogy.
|
Hmmm... yeah, those 3 LotR movies they made did suck pretty hard. Oh wait, no they didn't. They were AWESOME! So, we're being offered more LotR content and this is a problem how?
If you read the article, he's not proposing making the novel "The Hobbit" into three movies. In fact, they were never even making the novel into TWO movies. The plan has always been to include all of that "off-screen" stuff from the Hobbit and the LotR appendices into the movie, since it happens in and around the time frame of when Bilbo & Co are heading to Erebor. Instead of Gandalf just disappearing to wherever and then coming back later, we are going to be seeing all of the bits and pieces of what else is going on in the world at the same time. If you've read things like Unfinished Tales and the Tolkien errata books, you know there is puh-lenty of material there.
My suggestion: Don't get hung up on "3 movies of the Hobbit." Think of it as "3 movies of Tolkien history and prequel and inbetweenquel that includes the Hobbit but also links it across the span of 60 years to the beginning of LotR."
Yeah well see, Jackson managed to do the entire Lord of the Rings story in three movies, and it's not as if they were breakneck hops from plotpoint to plotpoint or something - im my memory the majority of the films is filled with slow world and character building, with tension rising more and more towards the final scenes.
Peter Jackon is very good at his job, and I do not doubt any film he makes has the potential to be great. But those films don't have to be about Tolkin's work and there are plenty of other sources for inspiration. One just can't help but feel that Jackson is just biding his time with the Lord of the Rings success, milking the cash money that the middle earth has become until it's dry.
The feeling that someone is doing a movie you want to see, but *only* because of greed and a cold, calculating marketing desicion ("the hobbit would be easy to sell!") is a really bad one. I don't know if that's why most people are annoyed, but it sure as hack my reason to be.
*edited some embarrasing spelling mistakes
Yes, and of course most people are going to go see all three of the Hobbit trilogy, in the penultimate support of The Silmarillion ten-part miniseries. (a la Band of Brothers)
The Silmarillion ten-part miniseries.
This must happen.
|
I thought the LotR should have been longer... it just didn't seem right to miss out the barrow downs, tom bombadil, the Rohirrim being guided by those weird forest tribes, Arwen's romance etc. etc.
Most of all, totally removing the scouring of the shire was a huge disappointment. Tolkein's downbeat message about war is totally washed away.
I can see three movies in the Hobbit and the time in-between the Battle of 5 armies and A Long-expected Party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
too much. a single, two-hour movie is sufficient.
|
|
I'm excited by the news! I would love to see stuff like White Council's assault on Dol Guldur or the coming of Smaug to Dale and Erebor. There is a lot of material to pad out the movie, most people have probably never read a lot of the supporting material that Christopher Tolkien published of all his father's notes.
The Silmarillion ten-part miniseries.This must happen.
Unfortunately, this will not happen for a long time as Tolkien never sold the movie rights for anything but the Hobbit and the trilogy. His son runs the estate and pretty much despises Hollywood and the movies. I read that his son (Tolkien's grandson) will soon take over the estate and also does not care for the movies.
What I'm curious about is since Christopher Tolkien edited and even wrote chunks of the Silmarillion then will he have some sort of copyright/IP claim on it just like his father's estate would?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've got no knock on Jackson as a filmmaker, and I can see how another trilogy could work. However, I am disappointed because I'd like to see The Hobbit done as one movie. As good as The Lord of the Rings is, it's a long slog while The Hobbit is a shorter, more enjoyable piece to me.
There's a lot going on behind the scenes in The Hobbit. The issue I have with it being on film is that I don't give a care about most of it.
Regardless, I hope these movies do very, very well. If enough epic fantasy films make hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe somebody will finally get around to giving The Chronicles of Prydain (my favorite fantasy series) the treatment it deserves on film.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
maybe somebody will finally get around to giving The Chronicles of Prydain (my favorite fantasy series) the treatment it deserves on film.
OH, PLEASE, YES!
Yeah, Gandalf goes off and does stuff and it's probably really cool stuff, but it's not relevant to Bilbo's journey. Aragorn's probably doing something cool around then too.(At least in Jackson's version. In Tolkein's he was ~10.) But it doesn't matter to Bilbo's trip.
In the books Aragorn is not quite 90 years old during Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit takes place about 60 years before. Aragorn becomes friends with Gandalf when he is about 25 after he has already became the chieftan of the rangers.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since when have diehard fans of a giant fantasy universe ever been disappointed by a bloated prequel trilogy?
*hums the imperial march...*
|
|
When Jackson made LotR, he ignored the 17 year gap after Bilbo gave the ring to Frodo. It is possible that in the movie version, since Aragorn was 85 (Two Towers extended), he would be 25 during the Hobbit and could be in Rivendale when Thorin and Company are there.
In reading Jackson article, he says it wasn't until they were doing the rough editing that he found all the extra material that was shot was too much for 2 movies, so he decided to turn it into a 3 movie saga.
I wonder if the three Hobbit movies will be 2 hours instead of the 3 to 4 of LotR?
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can't believe people are disappointed by this.
Peter Jackson can make as many Tolkien movies as he wants. The boringest hour of the Lord of the Rings trilogy is pretty much better than any other fantasy movie ever, so I don't see too much in this news to complain about, personally.
Moar, plz.
Yeah.
What Erik said.
I don't understand why people are so grumpy and picky. The choice is more big studio crap or more Hobbit I would take the hobbit every time.
Can't believe people are disappointed by this.
Peter Jackson can make as many Tolkien movies as he wants. The boringest hour of the Lord of the Rings trilogy is pretty much better than any other fantasy movie ever, so I don't see too much in this news to complain about, personally.
Moar, plz.
My thoughts, exactly.
I just worry about the sections that Jackson is filling in. The visuals of his films are amazing...
But I think he has an issue with anyone that acts in a heroic or noble manner. The choice to turn Faramir from an honorable and gentle warrior into a power hungry Boromir-ish clone. Having the scene with the Ents completely opposite from the books, for no apparent reason, as it ends the same in both!
I love the visuals, but really doubt the quality of the story elements that he will create / change.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I think you are probably being too picky.
The films were highly entertaining and well written. While it's certainly possible to pick out details here and there that differ from the books and wish that they were more faithful, they are in the top 5th percentile of faithfulness as far as adaptations go, and I generally think the stuff that was changed was changed to make the story a better movie.
I suggest trying to remain a little less beholden to the subject matter and a little more open to minor changes, and you'll probably enjoy the movies a lot more as movies. I know that's difficult to do with a series of books people hold as dear as this one, but I think it's possible you may be holding the movie to too high a standard.
I agree, I probably am being too picky.
I understand many of the changes (and agree with the reason they were made), but some completely baffle me. (The Ent scene in particular, changing it to be completely opposite...for what reason? No time saved, no change to the end result.)
I agree with books like this, it can be hard to accept changes to the area that really spoke to a particular individual. I have this tendency more than most. I'm happy that the films raised awareness if the books, if nothing else :)
I agree the films were better than any other fantasy film out there. I just need to find a way to be able to separate them in my mind!
<edit to add following>
As for holding them to too high of a standard, I think that is just because of how amazing they are! Looking back at the animated film I grew up with, no comparison. I feel it was so true in many regards, I just don't get why he made some of the choices he did.
|
|
Can't believe people are disappointed by this.
Peter Jackson can make as many Tolkien movies as he wants. The boringest hour of the Lord of the Rings trilogy is pretty much better than any other fantasy movie ever, so I don't see too much in this news to complain about, personally.
Moar, plz.
Well, remember how the seventh Harry Potter was split in two? there was a good reason for that. the book was long and packed with story. The Hobbit, however, is not only slower paced, but also much. much shorter. Having "The Hobbit" in three parts is similar to the people doing Harry Potter deciding that they are not only splitting each book into two movies, but also doing a movie about the summer between each two years in Hogworts. so instead of just getting a soild movie in "harry potter and the philosopher's stone", we get "harry potter and the philosopher's stone part 1", "harry potter and the philosopher's stone part 2", and then "Harry potter and those pesky Dursleys", about the summer vication before the second year.
So yeah, Harry potter is fun, and most of the movies are good, but that dosen't mean I want an infinite amount of them. I actualy think that some stories are better serves as stright to the point, 2-3 hour long adventures that will make you laugh a bit and be scared a bit and enjoy yourself... but then go home and forget about it.
I don't want evrey single story I encounter to become a 3 year slog of waiting for the next chapter to come out.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Well, sure. My understanding is that they are stretching the limits of their license to include material from Tolkien's appendix notes filling in gaps and tying together the continuity of the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings. I understand that they are mining that material heavily, which makes sense given some of the known cameos and the fact that said characters play little or no role in the actual main-line Hobbit story.
I have also heard that the "tone" of the movies will be similar to the original movie trilogy, so I wouldn't expect faithful adherence to the childlike elements of the Hobbit, either. Who knows if that's the case, but that's what I'm assuming from the media I've absorbed on the issue.
So given that, the story they're going to tell over three movies is larger than the A to B to C narrative of the Hobbit as a single story about Bilbo Baggins.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Also, there's precious little Middle Earth left, so I'm not sure milking it for all it's worth is a terrible idea.
Hell, I'd love it if they KEPT GOING and did stuff from the Silmarillion. A lot of that stuff is boring and doesn't work as a straight narrative, but it would be beautiful as hell to look at, and I trust that Jackson and the team behind the adaptation of the Lord of the Rings (which, truth be told, is also kind of boring in places) could weave that mythology into a cool movie experience.
Because, you know, it'd probably be better than Wrath of the Titans.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I considered splitting it into two films to be stretching the story pretty fiercely. Three films, supported by a lot of stuff that doesn't really relate to the main storyline? Not a great idea. In fact, I'd say that the main storyline of The Hobbit has a chance to get lost in a bunch of films that have just as much, if not more, time devoted to unrelated subplots as it will to Bilbo's journey.
Not that I blame Jackson...other than LotR, what does he really have? King Kong and The Lovely Bones? Yeah...I fully expect him to tackle a 20-film Silmarilion series after The Hobbit.
I enjoyed him more in the halcion days of Dead-Alive and Meet the Feebles.
I wish Del Toro had worked out. Although that would have probably meant loosing The Hobbit to developmental hell, as happens with most projects he's associated with.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Oh, I think it's the same guy as Bad Taste and all that crazy stuff from the early days. Yeah, King Kong was lame and I guess the Lovely Bones was not so great (I didn't see it), but on the whole I've found him to be a pretty enjoyable filmmaker.
I love Del Toro. It would be interesting to see if his Middle Earth would be as rustic and "genuine" (according to me, naturally) as Jackson's. I tend to think of Del Toro working within a certain aesthetic that is noticeably "his". While I'd be thrilled to see it, a part of me would be wondering if we might end up with a Tim Burton Batman sort of thing. Cool in its own way, but very much a Tim Burton production, rather than a straight, awesome Batman movie.
|
|
I don't have the books right here, but according to the Wikipedia Timeline:
2931 - Birth of Aragorn, son of Arathorn II and Gilraen
July, 2941 - Bilbo Baggins obtains the One Ring; the White Council drives Sauron out of Dol Guldur
2956 - Aragorn first meets Gandalf the Grey
2957-2980 - Aragorn as Thorongil serves in the armies of King Thengel of Rohan, and Steward Ecthelion II of Gondor3001 - Bilbo Baggins turns 111, passes the One Ring on to Frodo Baggins, and leaves the Shire.
That may be the confusion. LotR begins with the Party about 60 years after the Hobbit, but Frodo doesn't leave the Shire (and meet Aragorn) until 3018, 17 years later.
That is the books. In the movie, Frodo leaves the Shire the same night or the next morning when Gandalf tells him about the ring. I am sure they are going to adjust the timeline somewhat to fit with the other movies.
That is one big thing that bugged me about the book. Frodo finds out how dangerous this ring is and they need to get it out of the shire ASAP.
17 years later, he leaves.