I'm thinking/hoping that the three Hobbit films are just dealing with the events of the Hobbit -and- the bridge between Hobbit and LotR. Keep in mind that the events of the Lord of the Rings is just dealing with a very, very small chunk of Sauron's actual war against Middle-Earth. The dwarves at the Lonely Mountain, for example, had quite a war of their own against Sauron. If that's where Jackson is going with this, I'm totally on board.
That said, if he decides in a few years to go back and do the Silmarillion as a 3rd trilogy, my god. That would be glorious. I don't really know why he wouldn't, either. Although it's taken from books as opposed to his own creative impulses, why wouldn't he one-up the hell out of George Lucas? Lucas is never going to finish his trilogy of trilogies. If Jackson could pull off three trilogies of the Silmarillion, the Hobbit, and the Lord of the Rings, that would probably never be topped.
Obviously the Silmarillion has a lot of problems for a film-maker, but I think it could theoretically be done. That said, assuming he doesn't screw up the Hobbit trilogy, I'm perfectly fine with just that. A comprehensive history of Middle-Earth in film would be amazing, but probably unnecessary.
That's kinda greedy of them, honestly. I could see a Part 1 & 2 because cramming it all into one movie wouldn't give them enough time truly do it right. But three movies? Come on.
Battle of Five armies will be RIDICULOUS. In the book, it's over way too quickly..they'll do it proper justice.
I bet they'll also devote a lot more time to Gandalf's side-mission to unmask the Necromancer at Dol Guldur, etc. Lots of stuff they could flesh out.
I would commit several felonies to see Silmarillion made into a trilogy. The way they keep mining the same veins over and over and over in today's Hollywood, I could actually almost see it.
Guys, The Silmarillion is a collection of loosely-connected stories. Doing a movie of it would be like doing a movie of "the Bible". You'd have to select a specific story and do that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I don't know how I feel about this - are there enough compelling villains to justify this?
I mean, part 1 will probably end around Gollum and getting the ring, or at the Necromancer. Is part 2 just going to be a heist film with Smaug? And then part three one long battle?
I enjoyed Peter Jackson's King Kong personally, It may be a bit bloated but I wasn't sitting their tapping my foot impatiently throughout the movie when I first saw it.
By the return to New York I was pretty bored - although I enjoy the movie a great deal, when rewatching I tend to skip forward around then.
My only problem with Jackson is that his endings stretch out entirely too long. The film should end no more than 15 minutes after the climax, not an hour or longer.
Guys, The Silmarillion is a collection of loosely-connected stories. Doing a movie of it would be like doing a movie of "the Bible". You'd have to select a specific story and do that.
You have a point.
Well, just give me six-nine hours worth of the Host of the Valar and I'm good.
I don't know how I feel about this - are there enough compelling villains to justify this?
I mean, part 1 will probably end around Gollum and getting the ring, or at the Necromancer. Is part 2 just going to be a heist film with Smaug? And then part three one long battle?
I would think the obvious place to end part 1 would be after getting through the Misty Mountains. However, there is a brief shot in the trailer of what appear to be dwarves trapped in spiderwebs, which naturally suggests Jackson has other ideas. Beyond that, the breaking points and the potential added material get even murkier.
EDIT: I also wonder how much Jackson is going to try to differentiate this from The Lord of the Rings. The first leg of the journey in The Hobbit, from the Shire through the Misty Mountains, is very similar to The Fellowship of the Rings - consciously so, on Tolkien's part, of course. So is Jackson going to edit his story to emphasize the differences, or is he just going to roll with it and risk criticism that he's "making the same film again"?
EDIT: I also wonder how much Jackson is going to try to differentiate this from The Lord of the Rings. The first leg of the journey in The Hobbit, from the Shire through the Misty Mountains, is very similar to The Fellowship of the Rings - consciously so, on Tolkien's part, of course. So is Jackson going to edit his story to emphasize the differences, or is he just going to roll with it and risk criticism that he's "making the same film again"?
I imagine the Journey to Elendel (The Elf City, I don't know the actual name) will be abbreviated. Or at least I really, really hope so.
I'm actually fine with Jackson doing 3 films. Unlike other movies, Jackson is filming the entirety of The Hobbit in one "sitting". Unlike other trilogies, where each film is filmed one at a time and a sequel is dependent on the success of the original. Jackson's LOTR was one of those few cases where the sequels were actually just as good or better than the film before it!
If Jackson, needs more film time to fully tell The Hobbit's story, I'm all for it. I'd rather see three films at about 2.5 hours each, rather than two movies at 3+ hours each.
I'm not comfortable with so casually labeling any film (or series whatever) as a cash grab when the director is still taking the time and effort to create live sets for everything possible. That reeks of not cash-grabbing.
It might suffer the duke nukem problem, but it's far too early to tell and that's not exactly something that happens often.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Virtue, Jacques, is an excellent thing. Both good people and wicked people speak highly of it..."
Guys, The Silmarillion is a collection of loosely-connected stories. Doing a movie of it would be like doing a movie of "the Bible". You'd have to select a specific story and do that.
I'm not comfortable with so casually labeling any film (or series whatever) as a cash grab when the director is still taking the time and effort to create live sets for everything possible. That reeks of not cash-grabbing.
Extending a story that can (and has) been done as one movie into three movies doesn't sound like a cash grab? Because that does indeed sound like a cash-grab maneuver, and people are justified for being worried with regards to that.
That being said, The Hobbit and Wreck-It-Ralph remain the two films I'm actually excited about this year. I am continuing to keep my hopes up that the Hobbit will not disappoint.
I don't think this is a cash grab on Peter Jackson's part. He obvious loves the Lord of the Rings, and wants to make the best Hobbit movies he possibly can. He's probably thinking of ways to split it into three movies for a while. The extra money from three movies is just an easy way to sell it to the business people in charge that have no imagination past the bottom line.
I'm actually fine with Jackson doing 3 films. Unlike other movies, Jackson is filming the entirety of The Hobbit in one "sitting". Unlike other trilogies, where each film is filmed one at a time and a sequel is dependent on the success of the original. Jackson's LOTR was one of those few cases where the sequels were actually just as good or better than the film before it!
If Jackson, needs more film time to fully tell The Hobbit's story, I'm all for it. I'd rather see three films at about 2.5 hours each, rather than two movies at 3+ hours each.
The entirety of the LoTR trilogy was shot in one "sitting." They did this to cut down on production cost because the studio feared that the film would bomb. So they tried everything to cut down on cost.
Then the first one did phenomenally and they did reshoots and extended things a bit.
So Jackson doing the same thing isn't anything special.
The entirety of the LoTR trilogy was shot in one "sitting." They did this to cut down on production cost because the studio feared that the film would bomb. So they tried everything to cut down on cost.
Then the first one did phenomenally and they did reshoots and extended things a bit.
So Jackson doing the same thing isn't anything special.
Yes, I know that. I am glad he is doing that because when movies in a series are made one at a time, they tend to be worse than the ones before it.
Come on, Peter Jackson. Stuff would've been lost if you made one single film. Two sounded ok.
Yes.
Three?
I know.
[...]
What do you guys think?
I think this is terrible and daft.
Does it bother you that what was supposed to be two films is now three?
Was it to be two now?
Do you buy PJ's explanation that "we looked at it and realized we could tell much more of the story," or will he just be bloating it (see: King Kong)?
Puffery and nonsense! Too many films, too much dilution of the source material (who really cares about comparisons with TLotR or the Harry Potter franchises; as always, go back to the source!).
If The Hobbit were two films, I might watch them both; but, if it's three, I'm not going to be stuffed enough to watch one when I have to watch another two.
Extending a story that can (and has) been done as one movie into three movies doesn't sound like a cash grab? Because that does indeed sound like a cash-grab maneuver, and people are justified for being worried with regards to that.
That being said, The Hobbit and Wreck-It-Ralph remain the two films I'm actually excited about this year. I am continuing to keep my hopes up that the Hobbit will not disappoint.
You misread my post. I meant that he's doing other things that are more convincing that the movies aren't just cash grabs. Namely, using so many real sets.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Virtue, Jacques, is an excellent thing. Both good people and wicked people speak highly of it..."
FYI - for everyone who is curious, this is apparently how they are expanding the story: they are following Gandalf during the times he is gone from the group, and adding in back story originally only show in the appendices.
It just seems odd to think that the hobbit will have the same numbers of movies as Lord of the Rings. One is a long, epic journey in which the characters separate and create different plotlines. The other is a fairly focused, narrow story of a hobbit's adventure.
How do you guys feel about one of the dwarves having an axe blade permanently sticking out of his head?
It's not quite Jar Jar levels of "come on, it's cute!" but they're acquaintances. It's not quite Shia LaBoeuf swinging from vines levels of "what do you mean it's not charming?" but it got invited to the party.
How do you guys feel about one of the dwarves having an axe blade permanently sticking out of his head?
It's not quite Jar Jar levels of "come on, it's cute!" but they're acquaintances. It's not quite Shia LaBoeuf swinging from vines levels of "what do you mean it's not charming?" but it got invited to the party.
It did seem like you were saying that, I just, it sounded so stupid. And now it looks so stupid.
Hmm. I'll hold up hope that he just goes bonkers, fights like that for a while, and then gets patched up.
they're saying that will be a character quirk they add to Bifur... he will have a piece of axe stuck in his head permanently from some former battle I presume, and be disabled (having lost the ability to talk in common tongue or whatever its called, and only speak Dwarvish.
It seems like they're mining it for comedy frankly, which is... offensive.
I'm not saying its going to ruin the movie, but its irritating that they're trying to give Bifur more character by essentially making him sound "dumb" and giving him an obvious physical disfigurement.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That said, if he decides in a few years to go back and do the Silmarillion as a 3rd trilogy, my god. That would be glorious. I don't really know why he wouldn't, either. Although it's taken from books as opposed to his own creative impulses, why wouldn't he one-up the hell out of George Lucas? Lucas is never going to finish his trilogy of trilogies. If Jackson could pull off three trilogies of the Silmarillion, the Hobbit, and the Lord of the Rings, that would probably never be topped.
Obviously the Silmarillion has a lot of problems for a film-maker, but I think it could theoretically be done. That said, assuming he doesn't screw up the Hobbit trilogy, I'm perfectly fine with just that. A comprehensive history of Middle-Earth in film would be amazing, but probably unnecessary.
Battle of Five armies will be RIDICULOUS. In the book, it's over way too quickly..they'll do it proper justice.
I bet they'll also devote a lot more time to Gandalf's side-mission to unmask the Necromancer at Dol Guldur, etc. Lots of stuff they could flesh out.
I would commit several felonies to see Silmarillion made into a trilogy. The way they keep mining the same veins over and over and over in today's Hollywood, I could actually almost see it.
Fully-powered 600-Card "Dream Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/dreamcube
450-Card "Artificer's Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/artificer
Cubing in Indianapolis...send me a PM!!
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I mean, part 1 will probably end around Gollum and getting the ring, or at the Necromancer. Is part 2 just going to be a heist film with Smaug? And then part three one long battle?
By the return to New York I was pretty bored - although I enjoy the movie a great deal, when rewatching I tend to skip forward around then.
My only problem with Jackson is that his endings stretch out entirely too long. The film should end no more than 15 minutes after the climax, not an hour or longer.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
You have a point.
Well, just give me six-nine hours worth of the Host of the Valar and I'm good.
Fully-powered 600-Card "Dream Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/dreamcube
450-Card "Artificer's Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/artificer
Cubing in Indianapolis...send me a PM!!
EDIT: I also wonder how much Jackson is going to try to differentiate this from The Lord of the Rings. The first leg of the journey in The Hobbit, from the Shire through the Misty Mountains, is very similar to The Fellowship of the Rings - consciously so, on Tolkien's part, of course. So is Jackson going to edit his story to emphasize the differences, or is he just going to roll with it and risk criticism that he's "making the same film again"?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I imagine the Journey to Elendel (The Elf City, I don't know the actual name) will be abbreviated. Or at least I really, really hope so.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
If Jackson, needs more film time to fully tell The Hobbit's story, I'm all for it. I'd rather see three films at about 2.5 hours each, rather than two movies at 3+ hours each.
It might suffer the duke nukem problem, but it's far too early to tell and that's not exactly something that happens often.
Well, since you mentioned The Bible.....
I guess The Silmarillion could be done.
I'm on board with two Hobbit films, though. I mean, if Harry Potter 7 got two parts, then Bilbo Baggins can. But three.....
Thanks to GR @ Yavin IV Studios for the signature!
Extending a story that can (and has) been done as one movie into three movies doesn't sound like a cash grab? Because that does indeed sound like a cash-grab maneuver, and people are justified for being worried with regards to that.
That being said, The Hobbit and Wreck-It-Ralph remain the two films I'm actually excited about this year. I am continuing to keep my hopes up that the Hobbit will not disappoint.
The entirety of the LoTR trilogy was shot in one "sitting." They did this to cut down on production cost because the studio feared that the film would bomb. So they tried everything to cut down on cost.
Then the first one did phenomenally and they did reshoots and extended things a bit.
So Jackson doing the same thing isn't anything special.
Yes, I know that. I am glad he is doing that because when movies in a series are made one at a time, they tend to be worse than the ones before it.
I know.
I think this is terrible and daft.
Was it to be two now?
Puffery and nonsense! Too many films, too much dilution of the source material (who really cares about comparisons with TLotR or the Harry Potter franchises; as always, go back to the source!).
If The Hobbit were two films, I might watch them both; but, if it's three, I'm not going to be stuffed enough to watch one when I have to watch another two.
That's damned heinous.
— jean-baptiste alphonse karr, les guêpes (1849)
wiki subforum @ mtgs forums * mtgs wiki * site rules
http://io9.com/5931001/everything-peter-jackson-added-to-the-hobbit-++-with-proof
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
But hey, I'm willing to give them a go.
It's not quite Jar Jar levels of "come on, it's cute!" but they're acquaintances. It's not quite Shia LaBoeuf swinging from vines levels of "what do you mean it's not charming?" but it got invited to the party.
Moderator Help Desk
Sales Thread
He literally has an axe stuck in his head.
It did seem like you were saying that, I just, it sounded so stupid. And now it looks so stupid.
Hmm. I'll hold up hope that he just goes bonkers, fights like that for a while, and then gets patched up.
Moderator Help Desk
Sales Thread
http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Bifur
It seems like they're mining it for comedy frankly, which is... offensive.
I'm not saying its going to ruin the movie, but its irritating that they're trying to give Bifur more character by essentially making him sound "dumb" and giving him an obvious physical disfigurement.