Thread: The hobbit

Originally Posted by mitchrock

This is one time I solely blame Peter Jackson. There is no reason it should take more than one movie for The Hobbit.

I agree, but they are trying to do more than just a screen adaption of The Hobbit. They're trying to do basically a full-blown LOTR prequel with all the back story from the sources they have rights to.

Originally Posted by Goallum

I agree, but they are trying to do more than just a screen adaption of The Hobbit. They're trying to do basically a full-blown LOTR prequel with all the back story from the sources they have rights to.

Still sounds like a stretch over 3 films. I hope not. Really enjoyed the Lord of the Rings films and have high hopes for The Hobbit.

I think it will work just fine as long as the movies stay around 2 hours each. If they are as long as ROTK, I think it could be a huge failure for WB.

Even if they are adding a bunch of the back story, they'll likely be putting in stuff that isn't interesting enough to fill a trilogy. Again, we're gonna get Treebeard-like scenes all over again. Hopefully this time they won't leave out the stuff that's actually interesting like the Boromir/Faromir/Denethor scene in favor of Treebeard in TTT.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

God, I hate 3D.

Originally Posted by NastiMarvasti

Even if they are adding a bunch of the back story, they'll likely be putting in stuff that isn't interesting enough to fill a trilogy. Again, we're gonna get Treebeard-like scenes all over again. Hopefully this time they won't leave out the stuff that's actually interesting like the Boromir/Faromir/Denethor scene in favor of Treebeard in TTT.

Oh sure, how dare they keep in the movie something straight from the book in the form of 3 or 4 very short cut-in scenes, when they could use that time for a scene pulled right out of Philippa Boyens' sizable posterior.

I kinda wish now they kept Tom Bombadill in LOTR just to see how much THAT would piss you off.

Originally Posted by orpheus

Have you read these books, Adgy?

Maybe silly question to ask, but I don't know.

Yep. The Hobbit was pretty much my favorite book as a kid. My dad read it to my sister and I multiple times. And he had the book that was huge and had full page images from the animated movie, which is also something I love immensely. As a kid, I couldn't get through LOTR. Thought it was boring and too long. I did read the trilogy before the first film came out, though, and enjoyed it immensely. Have only read it that one time, though.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

While they did wind up with a LOT of excess footage, the reason the decision to go 2 or 3 had a timeline on it is so that they can schedule more shooting. While I don't think it will be as substantial as filming a whole 'nuther movie it won't be a simple reshoot schedule either.

Ah. Ok, that makes sense.

I do worry that this could end up like King Kong, but I've still got faith in Peter Jackson at this point and I trust him to do what's right.

And seriously, I want tons of Smaug ****.

Ive read all the books except The Silmarillion, I just can't break down The Hobbit into 3 full feature films.

How would some of you break it up? I'll keep it vague for those who are interested but haven't read the books

Part 1: Introduction->Eagles

Part 2: eagles->Elvenking/barrels

Parts 3: Esgaroth->Smaug (this would leave maximum "Smaug ****" a possibility for Adgy)

??

Quite the stretch. Maybe if they stop the first part where bilbo finds Sting?

Originally Posted by Goallum

Oh sure, how dare they keep in the movie something straight from the book in the form of 3 or 4 very short cut-in scenes, when they could use that time for a scene pulled right out of Philippa Boyens' sizable posterior.

I kinda wish now they kept Tom Bombadill in LOTR just to see how much THAT would piss you off.

I'm not speaking as someone who's read the books, because I haven't (except The Hobbit years ago). I'm speaking as a moviegoer and that Tree **** was f****** boring and certainly not short. The scene I mentioned was far more important to the story in terms of character development. You have no idea who Faramir is in the theatrical cut and it's pretty much up to you to decide what his relationship with Boromir is like. In fact, Boromir's character becomes far more tragic in the director's cut and adds much more weight to his death scene.