Peter Jackson directs "The Hobbit"

ianunderhill wrote:

What? All that and not one mention of when Galadriel goes all Reboot on our assess? That's more incongruous a moment than shield surfing, for crying out loud.

I imagine everyone is tired of hearing about shield surfing, so that wasn't mentioned.

I'm also having issue discerning which part you mean when you say "goes all Reboot". You mean when she turns into a screaming Drow?

ccesarano wrote:
ianunderhill wrote:

What? All that and not one mention of when Galadriel goes all Reboot on our assess? That's more incongruous a moment than shield surfing, for crying out loud.

I imagine everyone is tired of hearing about shield surfing, so that wasn't mentioned.

I'm also having issue discerning which part you mean when you say "goes all Reboot". You mean when she turns into a screaming Drow?

And the animation goes into this over-saturated, doesn't-look-a-f*cking-thing-like-anything-else-in-any-of-the-movies, just completely crappy and unfinished style, yes.

Third film apparently confirmed: http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/07/30/t... Quoting their quote from Jackson:

“The richness of the story, as well as some of the related material in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, allows us to tell the full story of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and the part he played in the sometimes dangerous, but at all times exciting, history of Middle-earth… So, without further ado and on behalf of New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Wingnut Films, and the entire cast and crew of The Hobbit films, I’d like to announce that two films will become three.”

I loved the Lord of the Rings so I will see these no doubt but it is rather annoying that he is turning one book into 3 movies. They must be pouring over every appendix and vague reference to come up with more stuff.

I don't find it annoying, but I am concerned. The impression I've gotten is that, beyond the LotR appendices, there's going to be stuff drawn from things like "The Quest of Erebor" from Unfinished Tales. I loved reading that years after I'd read The Hobbit and LotR, but in combining all these things into a single narrative, there's a huge risk of losing something. Implication and historical depth are easy to achieve in film - you can intercut visual flashbacks with dialog over the top. If we get, say, Thorin's father or whoever it was lying there dying in the dungeon, and Gandalf finds him and gets the map, and it's explicitly happening...eh, unless the editing is astoundingly good, there could be serious pacing issues.

This tweet made me laugh:

Peter Jackson's Official Statement on why he's making The Hobbit into 3 Films: "I like it better when your money is my money"

Source: https://twitter.com/sohmer/status/23...

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/eyC6f.png)

Tanglebones wrote:

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/eyC6f.png)

Pretty much. Like I said above, I have my reservations, but until we see a botched product, I'm also pretty excited, and see no need to be...well, pissed off about it.

Cool, maybe they'll film the Battle of Azanulbizar now too.

Norfair wrote:

Cool, maybe they'll film the Battle of Azanulbizar now too.

That would be freaking amazing.

I'm actually more excited about these than I was about LotR (the earlier concerns about Jackson's comedic horror predilections when he goes off-script notwithstanding.)

I'm confused. Are they taking what has been filmed so far and turning it into 3 movies instead of 2 movies with lots on the cutting room floor? Or are they going to film more now?

McChuck wrote:

I'm confused. Are they taking what has been filmed so far and turning it into 3 movies instead of 2 movies with lots on the cutting room floor? Or are they going to film more now?

That's a good question. I was wondering it myself.

edit: Now that I have read more, it definitely sounds like there will be more filming since they mention that he is going to go after other content.

They will film more now. According to Jackson attribution I saw somewhere, they were looking at who will need to go back to NZ and for how long and how much it will cost.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

They will film more now. According to Jackson attribution I saw somewhere, they were looking at who will need to go back to NZ and for how long and how much it will cost.

To Kickstarter!

Saw the trailer before Batman. Looks ok. But I still get a Star Wars prequel feeling... I already know where Bilbo ends up, Gollum's story and so on. Is this really necessary? And especially 3 film necessary?

Granted I haven't read the book for mostly the same reasons. Read the trilogy, really enjoyed it, don't need the backstory.

IMO The Hobbit can be hard to go back to after fully exploring the LOTR trilogy. It comes off almost as a children's tale (although one in the same literary world) by comparison. You may get a bit a of a different view of the various Tolkien factions...elves, dwarves, goblins, and such..than what LOTR tends to give people. Still fun to read though

I'm curious what Jackson intends to do with it, because I don't think there's enough plot in the actual book to make 2, much less 3, movies.

ChipRMonk wrote:

I'm curious what Jackson intends to do with it, because I don't think there's enough plot in the actual book to make 2, much less 3, movies.

Jackson is drawing on the material from the LOTR appendices and The Quest of Erebor, in Unfinished Tales (Gandalf's side of the story, related to Frodo), which is more lore-heavy, plus whatever other JRRT material his agreements with the Tolkien Estate haven't put off-limits (which I think is only The Silmarillion).

Day 17: Taking a slight detour to visit someone named Tom Bombadil. Gandalf said something about "Making it up to the fans*" so I went along, although I'm still quite cross with these dwarves and their infernal snoring.

Day 27: Tom recommended a great island holiday spot to the West so we're headed to Atlantis for a month or so to rest up after all this singing and flower picking. The dwarves say the island sank in a cataclysmic event, but Gandalf assures me that dwarves just don't like boat rides.

Day 379: After our run-in with Orlando Bloom (who taught me how to surf the river rapids) we're now floating in barrels toward Lake Town, but I keep seeing great red fireworks to the south in Mirkwood. Whatever is Gandalf up to? Maybe I should send Orlando to investigate and tell me all about it the next time I see him at the battle of 5 armies whenever that may be.

*Gandalf's note: I distinctly said "Making it through the fens."

ranalin wrote:

If i took each scene as a standalone item i'd get worked up but for each scene he mishandled he made up for by being on the money for the rest with the right tone and spot on detail that i give them a pass and enjoy as a whole.

Yeah, there's a lot to complain about for the purist, but as someone who reads the books just about every year I think Jackson did a great job with a text that was considered impossible to make into a movie.

If they stuck to the timings of the book it would have been tough to show the 17 years between Bilbo leaving the Shire and Frodo leaving, the time between Pippin dropping something down the well and the orcs coming, all the time spent in Rivendell and Lothlorien etc etc. The book is full of waiting around that wouldn't necessarily work on film, and would definitely pad the already epics movies beyond watchability.

I was also not a huge fan of the comedy stuff, but a movie the size of these needs a bit of lightness.

I'm looking forward to The Hobbit, but I am pensive about the trilogy part.

And people not reading The Hobbit because they know what's coming: Just read it, it's a charming little story even if you know that *spoiler* Bilbo gets home and he finds some ring.

ChipRMonk wrote:

IMO The Hobbit can be hard to go back to after fully exploring the LOTR trilogy. It comes off almost as a children's tale (although one in the same literary world) by comparison. You may get a bit a of a different view of the various Tolkien factions...elves, dwarves, goblins, and such..than what LOTR tends to give people. Still fun to read though

I'm curious what Jackson intends to do with it, because I don't think there's enough plot in the actual book to make 2, much less 3, movies.

Technically it is a children's tale. I believe JRR wrote it for younger readers, and actually a prospective publisher had his 10 year old son read it and review it for him before he decided to pick it up and publish it.

The troll's wallet talks. The wallet up and says "Oi! Why you stealin' me eh?" That's how Biblo is caught.

So, yes, The Hobbit was originally a children's tale. Just a fun enough read for grown-ups, too.

ccesarano wrote:

The troll's wallet talks. The wallet up and says "Oi! Why you stealin' me eh?" That's how Biblo is caught.

So, yes, The Hobbit was originally a children's tale. Just a fun enough read for grown-ups, too.

Now I'm wondering if the trolls in that scene are going to talk as they did in the book.

nel e nel wrote:
ChipRMonk wrote:

IMO The Hobbit can be hard to go back to after fully exploring the LOTR trilogy. It comes off almost as a children's tale (although one in the same literary world) by comparison. You may get a bit a of a different view of the various Tolkien factions...elves, dwarves, goblins, and such..than what LOTR tends to give people. Still fun to read though

I'm curious what Jackson intends to do with it, because I don't think there's enough plot in the actual book to make 2, much less 3, movies.

Technically it is a children's tale. I believe JRR wrote it for younger readers, and actually a prospective publisher had his 10 year old son read it and review it for him before he decided to pick it up and publish it.

Yep, he made it up as bedtime stories for his kids.

ianunderhill wrote:
ccesarano wrote:

The troll's wallet talks. The wallet up and says "Oi! Why you stealin' me eh?" That's how Biblo is caught.

So, yes, The Hobbit was originally a children's tale. Just a fun enough read for grown-ups, too.

Now I'm wondering if the trolls in that scene are going to talk as they did in the book.

I hope so. I want the whimsy of the book to come through in the movie.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

Yep, he made it up as bedtime stories for his kids.

ianunderhill wrote:
ccesarano wrote:

The troll's wallet talks. The wallet up and says "Oi! Why you stealin' me eh?" That's how Biblo is caught.

So, yes, The Hobbit was originally a children's tale. Just a fun enough read for grown-ups, too.

Now I'm wondering if the trolls in that scene are going to talk as they did in the book.

I hope so. I want the whimsy of the book to come through in the movie.

When he was writing LOTR, JRRT actually went back and re-wrote The Hobbit in the grown-up style so it would match. But his publisher rejected it, basically saying, "It's better as a children's book, stop doing that, we're not going to publish it." (He only got away with re-writing Riddles in the Dark, to emphasize the Ring and change Gollum into an evil character.)

So JRRT did what ret-conning he could in the LOTR itself. For example, there's a passage in FOTR where someone (can't remember who or where—Council of Elrond maybe?) is explaining that since Sauron declared himself, the trolls are much smarter than they used to be. Problem solved, basically, and JRRT can move on.

I've always been curious of the differences between the old and new Riddles in the Dark was.

ccesarano wrote:

I've always been curious of the differences between the old and new Riddles in the Dark was.

Some side by side comparisons for you: http://www.ringgame.net/riddles.html

I always liked The Hobbit, different tone or not. The differences are very interesting though. The only one that ever actually bothered me a little was the part about the wood elves. Maybe I just got a different impression there than most people. (The animated movie might have figured into that...) The trolls were just pure fun.

I approve of Evangeline Lilly as an elf lady

mooosicle wrote:

I approve of Evangeline Lilly as a female in general regardless of any other qualifiers and think she should be in everything.

Me too!

Thin_J wrote:
mooosicle wrote:

I approve of Evangeline Lilly as a female in general regardless of any other qualifiers and think she should be in everything.

Me too!

Agreed.