I didn't really care for the book so I'm not excited. I may see it and I may not, no big deal either way.
How excited for you are for the Hobbit?
- Thread starter Sean Hollyman
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'd say very, in my opinion the greatest trilogy of movies was LotR, and Hobbit is being directed by the same director, and is based on the book by the same writer, so i'm not really expecting it to suck, only thing that worries me is that it's going to be a trilogy too, that's strange because hobbit is just one book where as LotR was three books.
Daystar Clarion said:What the hell is that supposed to mean?CpT_x_Killsteal said:
[img=http://i.chzbgr.com/imagestore/2011/7/22/8873c1e9-5238-4c99-8cbd-a3b8aa59a677.jpeg]
I plan on seeing it. I find I enjoy things more if I don't get excited though. I have to agree that the decision to make it into three movies is unwise. Two movies would have been a good fit to this book. The Hobbit only has a single narrative compared to LOTR which sometimes swells to four. It would have been a good opprotunity for a sharper more focused story. I loved LOTR but we don't need the same thing all over again. I plan on enjoying it for what it is though and not pissed that it isn't what I thought it should be.
While I agree that he removed many lore references from LOTR, (and that most of the changes he made to events were unecessary and detracted from the movies) I have to agree with his reasoning. It would have taken far, far too long to explain the people/events to which the characters were referring without most of the movie being exposition. He was considering the people who hadn't read the books, and he didn't want much of his audience spending all their time going, "wtf are they even talking about?" as that makes for a crappy moviegoing experience. If you saw the extras included in the extended editions he said several times that the exposition heavy scenes in the books are very hard to film with 'The Council of Elrond' in particular being a nightmare to figure out because that whole chapter is just people talking to each other.madwarper said:
As to your point about the Hobbit being in a separate universe, that's actually quite wrong. While Tolkien kind of ret-conned key bits of the Hobbit so that it tied in with LOTR, it was always supposed to be the same universe. It just wasn't originally intended to have a sequel and would have functioned as a stand alone story that happened in a larger world (Middle Earth) for which he had already written (or partially written) a larger work - the Silmarillion (which I think is his greatest achievement, even if it still feels a bit unpolished in places and is absolutely not commercial at all) as well as a number of smaller stories that were posthumously put into print in their unfinished forms.
To sum up, the foreshadowing you are complaining about is already in the book because Tolkien put it in all but the first few editions and the other events PJ is adding come directly from the Appendices of LOTR and references made in the Hobbit itself.
Not that excited, I remember reading The Hobbit yeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaars ago and not being super impressed. Although after skimming through this thread I have pretty much no idea what people are talking about regarding some aspects of the book. Maybe me idiotic 13-year-old self skipped half the book, the half that had all the good bits.
If I could go back 10 years I'd punch that fool.
Captcha: Oh, wait. Erm ok captcha.
If I could go back 10 years I'd punch that fool.
Captcha: Oh, wait. Erm ok captcha.
To me Martin always be Ricky from Ali G!Aylaine said:Very. I loved the previous movies, and I can't wait to see Bilbo's grand adventure on the big screen. It also helps that I really dig Martin Freeman. The freeeemannnnnnnnnnnn!
Not excitet, well I try to. Because if my standard for the movie is something like "I guess it'll be good" I'll come out completely mind blown and hyped from the theather just like happened with the avengers.
If I go there all hyped and thinking this will blow my mind it most likely won't.
If I go there all hyped and thinking this will blow my mind it most likely won't.
I am looking forward to it mainly because it was the first book I ever read that wasn't aimed at children. Its also why I read a lot of fantasy and magic and things.
I'm more looking forward to the jokes I'll have with my friends about it than the film itself.
I'll certainly watch it when it comes out, but I'm not exactly jumping up and down in anticipation for it.
I'll certainly watch it when it comes out, but I'm not exactly jumping up and down in anticipation for it.
That's exactly the bit that got my skin tingling. I absolutely can't wait for it. Peter's care for atmosphere and detail is one of the reasons why I love the LotR movies. The Hobbit trailers showed that same level of care. Combined with my love for the novel... I just have to see this movie.piinyouri said:
I'm legitimately curious. Can you elaborate on this a bit? I'll list the changes I can remember off the top of my head.mojopin87 said:
1. Merry and Pippin joining Frodo and Sam by accident.
2. Arwen confronting Ringwraiths and rescuing Frodo, as opposed to Frodo going it alone.
3. Removing the Saruman subplot from the end.
4. Making the Army of the Dead have an integral part in the Pelenor Fields battle.
For all "it can't be three movies! The book's the size of Fellowship!" people:
1. Fellowship, the movie, was cut down significantly from Fellowship, the book.
2. The Hobbit tends to focus on a lot of short scenes with little extra characterization and lore. This makes it much faster-paced than Fellowship and its kin - many more little side-scenes take place, and each scene, in movie form, can take up about as much screen time as its more verbose LotR cousins.
3. The movies don't have to be 3:40:00 epics - they can be 2-hour (EG "normal"-length) movies. This keeps the film from getting too long for younger children (remember, the Hobbit itself is aimed at youth as well as teen/adult audiences), and allows more narrative flexibility with where the films can end. The middle of Mirkwood isn't the best spot for a cut-off.
4. Obviously they're adding a lot more flesh to the Necromancer subplot (where Gandalf goes during Mirkwood). This on its own should add 15-30 minutes to Film 1.
My personal prediction for film cutting:
Film 1: The Shire to the arrival at Beorn's lodge.
Film 2: Mirkwood, wood elves, Dale. Possibly Bilbo's first trip into the mountain. Necromancer plotline resolution for the second half of the film.
Film 3: The infiltration and invasion of Smaug's hideout. The Battle for Dale. Dol Guldur (and associated easily-forgotten detailed diplomatic/martial buildup). 5 endings.
My guess for total running time: 6:40:00 or thereabouts. Just about as long as two LotR movies.
1. Fellowship, the movie, was cut down significantly from Fellowship, the book.
2. The Hobbit tends to focus on a lot of short scenes with little extra characterization and lore. This makes it much faster-paced than Fellowship and its kin - many more little side-scenes take place, and each scene, in movie form, can take up about as much screen time as its more verbose LotR cousins.
3. The movies don't have to be 3:40:00 epics - they can be 2-hour (EG "normal"-length) movies. This keeps the film from getting too long for younger children (remember, the Hobbit itself is aimed at youth as well as teen/adult audiences), and allows more narrative flexibility with where the films can end. The middle of Mirkwood isn't the best spot for a cut-off.
4. Obviously they're adding a lot more flesh to the Necromancer subplot (where Gandalf goes during Mirkwood). This on its own should add 15-30 minutes to Film 1.
My personal prediction for film cutting:
Film 1: The Shire to the arrival at Beorn's lodge.
Film 2: Mirkwood, wood elves, Dale. Possibly Bilbo's first trip into the mountain. Necromancer plotline resolution for the second half of the film.
Film 3: The infiltration and invasion of Smaug's hideout. The Battle for Dale. Dol Guldur (and associated easily-forgotten detailed diplomatic/martial buildup). 5 endings.
My guess for total running time: 6:40:00 or thereabouts. Just about as long as two LotR movies.