Third Hobbit Movie

[SBoydW]

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/extra-story-drawn-upon-hobbit-trilogy-194114585.html

[Emperor]

So how many of you are excited about one book being a trilogy? I know I am not... at the moment. I need to understand more why they think this is a three movie experience.

[SinisterDeath]

....Hobit was shorter, indiviually, than any of the lord of the ring novels.

If this is a 3 hour movie, I really have to question how slow this movie is going to be.

 

That said... if its split into 3..

Than the first hobit is going to deal with gandalf, and hobo? I can't even recall the guys name its been so long... go off, I think they pick up an ally along the way? But I know they sneak through a mountain, where he gets lost, and finds the ring.

 

That will probably cover the majority of the first movie.

This may or maynot feature the shapeshifter character where they all get bombed on booze.

 

Third is obviously with all the dwarves, and the finding of the treasure/fighting the dragon.

 

Not sure whats all inbetween besides lots of descriptions of big trees, and traveling..

[ironcross]

( facepalm ) why pj? i could see maby makeing it into two movies if you added a LOT of stuff from simarillion, but three? rely?? i dont see it

[reyler]

Well it's been known for years that he would be incorporating all the business with the White Council and Dol Goldur that was going on offscreen in the book and which was only expanded on in the appendices. Maybe we're getting more of that. Other things that he may be throwing in that happen around the same time frame (because PJ has very little self-restraint if someone gives him the keys; re: King Kong) are Aragorn's youth; his meeting Arwen and going off to serve under Thengel and Denethor.

 

One other thing to consider is that, while The Hobbit is a shorter book than any of the LotR books is individually, it's much more "broad strokes" in construction; there's actually quite nearly as much that happens onscreen in that one book as happens in any two of the later books. Add in the "offscreen" stuff that's now going to be onscreen, and you've got a lot of stuff happening, if each "episode" is given time to breathe. Apparently PJ had already filmed essentially two and a half films worth of content. That said, given his penchant for overindulgence, I think I'd rather he had just stuck with the plan to edit down to two movies and throw the additional crap into the inevitable extended editions.

[Red2111]

i'd prefer honeslty to have it as one movie and leave out all the off the screen stuff.

 

 

but i did finally see a preview for this last night (went and saw Batman finally) and i have to say it looks good from what i saw though i woudl have liked a glimpse of the dragon tbh

[reyler]

The 1977 animated film was one film and they cut out half of the book and severely truncated what was left. Two sounded pretty good for covering everything without it being a series of "and then" like The Last Airbender was.

 

Also you're not going to see Smaug at all until maybe the trailers for the final film, and even then it'll just be a tease if you get anything at all. PJ didn't give away anything beforehand of his cgi creatures in the LotR films, I doubt he'll do it here.

[Red2111]

well they showed the dwarves int eh treasure caveren in the preview i saw, which was why i was hopeful for a glimpse. the Dragon scene in that books was my 2nd fav, with the scene between Bilbo and Smeagle being my 1st.

 

 

thsi is also comming from someoen who literally didn't find the book enjoyable until they got to Elronds house after being rescued by the Eagles. another thing i was hopeing to get a glimpse of!!

 

 

i also haven't watched the LotR's. i've tried reading the series but coudlnt' get into it. Frodo got to Elronds house in the 1st book and i just put it down and lost interest.

[reyler]

Might want to read it again; the Eagles don't factor in until a ways past the stop at Rivendell. Unless you're confusing Elrond with Beorn. Also I'd have to see the preview again but the bit with the treasure might've been the troll cave where they find the elven swords. Anyway given that Smaug doesn't show until near the end of the book, I doubt his scenes are top priority at Weta right now. They're probably focusing on making sure all of Gollum's animation is done in time for the premiere in December.

[SinisterDeath]

You think we can hope that he'll release these movies, 3-6 months apart instead of 1-3 years between each other?

[SBoydW]

Well he may do this series like he did the last and do them 1 year apart. I can't imagine the gap being any smaller than that. But that all depends on how much is finished, which I don't know.

[SBoydW]

IMDB says that the first two hobbit movies are in post production and 2013 beside the title... so I imagine that we'll see it next December.

[SinisterDeath]

Well he may do this series like he did the last and do them 1 year apart. I can't imagine the gap being any smaller than that. But that all depends on how much is finished, which I don't know.

 

Its possible to have a movie in the theatres, and out on dvd in 3 months. So 6 months apart is totally do-able imo.

Waiting till every years december is quite.. annoying tbh.

 

That said.

6 months apart?

December

June

December

 

or

June

December

June

 

Why's that relevant?

December = winter vactation

June = Summer vacation.

either way, your going to have possibly larger audiances during those two seasons.

 

And the thing about summer is... A lack of any quality movies that come out. Aside from the obvious action yarn.

Put up a quality film like the hobit, and everyones going to see it that summer.

 

And even though depending on the state, more people workin the summer months than inthe winter months. That also means, people have more money to spend in the summer months, than in the winter. And aside from the 4th of july, and Memorial Weekend, there aren't any major holidays like (christmas/Thanksgiving) to take up all your money.

 

So yea.. 6 months should be technically do-able. SPecially if the first 3 are escentially done.

[SBoydW]

You could do that, but they're in the business of maximum profits, so this movie will probably be in the theaters for at least 2 months, on dvd with in 4-6 months of it's release; that gives it time to sell for people to watch it who didn't go see it in theaters, then they release the next in the series.

[ironcross]

in the book you get introduced to the dragon near the beginning, when thorin is telling how they lost the mountain in the firstplace. in the cartoon movie they have the dwarves singging thier song while on screan is a flashback showing him destroying dale and the mountain. i dont know if pj will do somthing similar, he probly wont, but there is the possibility out there.

[Crowl Rife]

I completely trust Peter Jackson to get this right, so the expansion doesn't bother me. This is his last chance to film in Middle-Earth... if he thinks they can make an additional movie with appendix and off-screen material, and make it worth watching, then I trust him. I don't feel that this decision is about the money with him (although maybe for the studios, it is). It wasn't about that the first time for him, and now that he already has all the money I don't see it being a factor this time. He wants to tell the story right and the fact that he finally said "screw it" and took over Director duties show how serious he is... want to do something right, do it yourself.

[ironisles]

Well he could always do the Silmarillion...that would make 10 movies.

[ironcross]

or at least children oh hurin

[Garen]

I can't imagine what Jackson is going to use to fill in another trilogy. Well, actually, I can imagine...and sadly, the answer is more of his fanfic.

[ironcross]

lots of news here, there is a pretty nice (long) artical with carecter bios and some hints at what will be going where. supposedly we will see at some point the battle for moria where the orcs drive the dwarves out in the first place, possibly some of aragorn as a child, flashbacks of the lonly mountain befor the dragon, stuff like that. anyway this site is the best place to go for everything LOTR. www.theonering.net

[Nolder]

Really?

That's a lot of random stuff that has little to nothing to do with the main plot of The Hobbit :/

[elric]

the animated movie was practicly a cover for the song they kept singing and if i recall correctly was about 45/60 min long

 

it seem to me the PJ try to use the Hobbit as a sale pitch to his vision of LoTR prelog with LOT of staff who didnt exit or even contradict the orginal book

 

and to be honest after LoTr part 2 and 3 wich i HATE !!!! (part 1 was good) i have litttle trust in PJ, with all due respect there are rason why the hobbit is a clasic and why Tolkien is considared a legend, when PJ will create a true classic of his own THEN he MAY have the right to adept /mutate/RUIN the classic of proven legends

[Nolder]

On the subject of none middle earth PJ works, I really enjoyed King Kong

Granted that isn't original or anything but I still liked the movie

[elric]

i dont say PJ aint talented, he is a talented film maker.

but i'm sick to the bones with ppl taking books/comics and disregard the original work while imposeing their own vision.

 

u want to tell YOUR story go ahead nothing wrong in that , but be honest and call it YOUR story and dont try to sneak as another story.

 

if someone want to adept a classic he should at the minimum hold to the classic spirit

 

example a of a good adaptation -> "Sin City", "Watchmen"

example for a good adaptation to the story spirit -> the movie "Sleepers" who is a modern day adaptation the "The Count of Monte Cristo"

example to a bad adaptaton -> EVERY movie Brian Singer done (X-man, superman..)

[Nolder]

The thing is when you adapt something you're usually trying to read a wider audience

So...you have to make changes that will appeal to them

While trying to appeal to a wider audience you're also trying to reel in the original audience and the best way to do that is to promise something NEW

If you're adapting something big like a book into a film you have to make cuts because usually a book is too long and incomprehensible when taken at face value (unless you want to do cheap monologues you're not going to be privy to what people are thinking so you have to rewrite a lot of the story into dialogue between characters)

Then there are budget concerns and things edited out for being too racy and maybe a pop culture reference or two

 

What you're left with is something that will almost always be far from the original

That doesn't HAVE to be a bad thing

 

I think the biggest problem with adaptions, in particular film adaptions, is that fans of the original go in expecting a retelling of what they already read or played

I'm not sure why people want this

Like if you went to see a film about a book you read and you wanted it to "faithfully" follow the book...why don't you just read the book?

Adaptions are supposed to bring something new to the table and if that's not what you want then you should just stick with your book or game or whatever

 

Anyway that rant wasn't directed at you elric

Just people in general

I always see so many people saying, for example, that the harry potter movies are bad because they didn't "get X right" while ignoring what I see as more legitimate concerns like plot loopholes and gaffes and whatnot