The Sword and Laser discussion
This topic is about
The Hobbit, or There and Back Again
2012 Reads
>
TH: How does everyone think they will change The Hobbit to make 3 movies?
date
newest »
newest »
A fourteenth dwarf named Dwarfette will be added to the company. An extended comic sub-plot involves every dwarf vying for her attentions.Jackson will film five alternate endings in each of which a different random assortment of dwarves is slain. After viewing each, audiences will be provided the chance to vote for their favorite.
Every battle scene is now preceded by a Bollywood dance number.
Hmmmm, I think I would prefer to see dwarves doing tribal dance numbers like they did in Eddie Murphy's Coming to America.Or, maybe they oould have the goblins of the Misty Mountains doing tribal dances reminiscent of natives in adventure movies from the 20's to 40's.
With all the extra material they have to draw from, I think three movies is actually not that unreasonable. And a few minor additions and changes, like those in LOTR aren't anything to go to war over, as long as they make sense within the story. I just hope they didn't go crazy with it. In the end, I'm willing to trust Jackson. I think he's earned it. I'm interested to find out what the deal is with Evangeline Lilly's character though.
There won't be much about Dol Guldur, as they don't have rights to The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales. According to Jackson, the third film would make extensive use of the appendices that Tolkien wrote to expand the story of Middle-Earth. Jackson was also interested in showing Gollum's journey to Mordor and Aragorn setting a watch on the Shire.
I agree the break point for the first will be around the finding of the ring or escaping the Misty Mountains, but I believe the second will include the slaying of Smaug (he's in the title!). The third then, would be kind of a bridge between the 60 years after Bilbo's first adventure and his eleventy-first birthday.
I imagine the third film will switch back and forth between the battle of five armies and the attack on Dol Guldor. I'm sure they will expand both battles quite a bit, even without The Silmarillion. I expect the end to bridge the gap and focus mainly on the rise of Sauron.
Mapleson wrote: "There won't be much about Dol Guldur, as they don't have rights to The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales. According to Jackson, the third film would make extensive use of the appendices that Tol..."
However, they do own the rights to LOTR and I would assume that would include the material in the appendices. The attack on Dol Guldor is mentioned there.
I would argue that the rights would include this attack, as long as they don't directly draw upon the Silmarillion and the Unfinished Tales. Or such an agreement wouldn't be all that hard to license from the current rights holder.
Its 3 now? I thought it was only two.
I think it could be some of the events in Appendix B of The Return of the King.
Rik wrote: "Its 3 now? I thought it was only two."I heard 3 from my nephew. I thought it was two myself. But, if you could find the content to make 3, wouldn't you? With Jackson making them, and solid financing, how can they lose?
I feel like what we are going to get is going to be more like "A history of Middle Earth including The Hobbit" (Well you know, that short section of middle earth history) which I really don't mind if it's done well. I just feel we're not going to get a film that fells like The Hobbit does as a book to me. Again, I can accept that, but it's like it's being falsely advertised in a way.
In all thankfulness I do have for the fact that The Hobbit is being made. In light of constant sequels and remaking of classic films, it will be nice to have such a beloved story that has deserved a respectable opportunity for screen time.
Rik wrote: "Its 3 now? I thought it was only two."Yes, three. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobb...
We preordered our tickets for the 15th today. I'm going to surprise my husband with second breakfast once we're seated. I have no idea how this willbe three movies, but it should be interesting!
Hopefully not by trading a male character for a female one and then adding a bunch of dream sequences and a romance to make the movies "more appealing to women"
I think that making thee movies out of "The Hobbit," and the Appendices seems fairly easy. Since point of view is more fluid in films than in literature, you cab switch up and follow Gandalf, or check up on Saruman (view spoiler). Personally, I'd love a flashback to when Smaug took the Lonely Mountain.There's also a lot of information in the Chapters Many Meetings, and the Council of Elrond that didn't make it into Jackson's original trilogy.
Peter Jackson could certainly make the action scenes and battle far longer than they appear in the book. The five armies battle is probably going to be the majority of the last film.
Ahem...(NOTE: This is not my work, I just wanted to point you to a very thorough examination of the question. Oh, and also - SPOILER WARNING).
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3.
I believe they will make Bellakatniss, princess of the Mirkwood elves, the new protagonist and introduce a love triangle between Bilbo, Thorin, and Bellakatniss.Which short-but-lovable lead male will finally win the forbidden love of the elven princess? Does dwarven skin sparkle in sunlight?
Daran wrote: "I think that making thee movies out of "The Hobbit," and the Appendices seems fairly easy. Since point of view is more fluid in films than in literature, you cab switch up and follow Gandalf, or c..."There's a 13 minute "making of" TV short on YouTube that shows a few scenes that haven't been in the trailers, including what look very much like battle scenes of the dwarves fleeing Erebor as Smaug attacks them.
There is great article in the latest ScifiNow that explicates why three movies. They quote Tolkiens take on a Hobbit movie saying that a movie would have to include much more material in the original novel. The idea being to give us a broader picture of the Necromancer and Smaug. The material is available in LoTR's Appendices and, except for interpolating some female interest, it's all Tolkien. I'm pretty sure, after reading that article, my own misgiving will be laid to rest.
Mitch wrote: "There is great article in the latest ScifiNow that explicates why three movies. They quote Tolkiens take on a Hobbit movie saying that a movie would have to include much more material in the origin..."Actually, this makes my misgivings increase. Tolkien needed many things in life, but above all, an editor.
In this case, Tolkien's editor is Peter Jackson and his writing staff.
Warning: This doesn't really contain spoilers, but you may want to refrain from exposing yourself to other people's opinions before going to see the movie yourself for the first time! :-)Having seen the movie in a midnight pre-premiere last night, and had the day to mull it over, I'm still a little conflicted. Basically, my expectations were met, which is a mixed blessing, and I wonder if I didn't spoil part of the fun by re-reading The Hobbit. My criticisms would be similar to what I had to say about The Fellowship of the Ring when it came out, and I'm guessing my enjoyment of this movie will go through the same evolution. I knew there'd be changes, and my expectations of what they'd be were pretty damn close, if I may permit myself that pat on the back. But there were also a number of scenes, mostly dialogues, that were changed for little reason, and much as I was ready to be suckered into Middleearth once more, I was jarred a few too many times, barely keeping myself from muttering "that's not one of your lines, Gandalf!", "that's not what Bilbo thinks of this at all!" Some of those made sense within the adapted script, but in other scenes, moments that I hold dear were shortened, lines swapped around, bits left out, all to simplify those scenes in order to shorten them slightly, and what little screen time was saved that way was then wasted on sequences that felt stretched and overblown, and some of the homely charms and lovely character moments that defined 'The Hobbit' were sacrificed for special effects magic and action to make it LotR prequel. But if continuity with the LotR movie trilogy was the rationale behind it, why then turn around and redo the scenes that we already saw in the LotR movies as flashbacks in a way that contradicts them? In Fellowship, we saw Bilbo finding the ring when groping around in the dirt after falling down in the dark, which was quite close to the scene in the book. The way that scene alone was changed again here has implications that I don't see as justified and thus don't think I approve of.
I can see the necessity to pick and choose in an adaptation, and am perfectly happy with enjoying someone else's vision of a work dear to me. I'm generally very tolerant of changing something to make it work in a different context, but those changes have to be either alterations that respect the source and are compatible with it, or alterations that deviate from and (somewhat) contradict the source material but are justified within the context of that adapted story you're telling. And for a number of small changes here, I am wondering and haven't made up my mind if they qualify for forbearance under those terms.
But since I very much enjoyed the experience of the movie as it appeared on screen yesterday, I will doubtlessly watch it again, when the next one comes out at the latest, and enjoy it again too.
Now to wait for all of you guys to see it so we can spend our evenings debating double standards when it comes to the comparative values of human(/dwarfish) life and animal cruelty taboos, the depiction of or discussion of consuming narcotic substances, ... In that light, I found the disclaimers in the credits rather amusing, I wonder who else did and why. :)
I don't know who it was, but remember back when we all realized Episode I sucked, some guy re-edited it and put it online as something like "Episode I 2.0"? And it was better? Less Jar-Jar and more clearly defined story. The biggest problem was the original source material wasn't long enough because the guy could re-cut Lucas but not add.Well I hope he or someone like him does the same thing with these Hobbit movies. I was excited to buy the extended cuts of the LotR movies, but I want an EDITED version of the Hobbit. Kinda like what Rothfuss was talking about. Just give me The Hobbit and put out all the bridge stuff separately.
So after all the true HOBBIT stuff is out, someone that knows their editing, have at it and give us ONE 1 1/2 to 2 hour just THE HOBBIT movie. Please.
Thank you.
I saw the movie last night (in the 3D version) and having come to terms with the big screen and the book (2 different artforms) I came away deciding the whole thing was a magnificent display of what 3D always should have been and a satisfying fun ride. The basic plot essentials were still there. The movie stopped at 1/3 of the way through the book. There was a great deal of background material that was added which, I felt, enhanced the overall production. Walking out of the theater I overheard a number of comments, all complimentary. The general assessment was that it did not feel like a three hour movie.
Matt,I just agree with Patrick R. and would like to see a one movie version of The Hobbit at some point.
Thanks,
Jim
I read a review last night that said the minus was all the padding necessary to make six chapters into a three hour movie, and the plus we're the special effects. I will probably see it tomorrow, but I sincerely believe Jackson made a mistake in going from two movies to three. Sigh.
Read Diane Duane's spoiler free review this morning, she's an author and screenwriter, and has an interesting view http://dianeduane.com/outofambit/2012...
I was pretty down on there being three movies until I started re-reading the book and went to see the movie. I have noticed in the book there is a lot of references to stuff happening that isn't really talked about in The Hobbit. I think this combined with some material from other books is where the extra length is going to come from.
My guess is they'll break it up at 1) Bilbo getting the ring and escaping the Misty Mountains, 2) escaping from Murkwood 3) slaying the dragon and return
I suspect they will also pick up a lot about Dol Guldur and the "White Council" which only appears in the appendices and subsequent publications about Tolkien's lost writings. I bet they cram it into the 2nd movie to puff up the short trip between Beorn, Mirkwood to the Elf Caverns