I must admit im a bit sceptical about whether theres really enough stuff in The Hobbit to make three decent films out of. In the end it all comes down to the final cut though. Im damn sure that three good films COULD be made out of story - whether they'll deliver or not only time will tell.
Peter Jackson Makes The Hobbit a Trilogy
- Thread starter Jeremy Wilkinson
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You just do what ever you want Peter you've earnt my trust especially with anything to do with the Lord of the Rings series
I wouldn't say hes completely pointless, I always saw him as representing an easy exit to tempt Frodo but also highlight why he had to carry on. There was the element of "You could just stay here, hide away from it all and try forget about the outside world but that'd be pretty selfish.".Agow95 said:
I agree that it still doesn't make him important enough to get screen time in a film that already features a wide range of actors. Just dont think hes entirely pointless in the book itself.
He cares even less about you. Just be sure to give him your money and he'll sing your tune sure enough. Thus, your heroic defense falls solidly on deaf ears, friend.SpiderJerusalem said:
This is a terrible idea.
The Hobbit has two distinct narrative arcs. Shire to Mirkwood entry, then Mirkwood to Lonely Mountain. it's the distinction of Bilbo being carried by the dwarves, and then Bilbo carrying the dwarves. No ring, ring. Incompitant, compitant.
How the fuck do you get 3 movies? Are they going to have an entire movie about the necromancer, a character mentioned literally ONCE as a throw away to explain why the GM-PC (Gandalf) wasn't there to carry the adventurers?
The Hobbit has two distinct narrative arcs. Shire to Mirkwood entry, then Mirkwood to Lonely Mountain. it's the distinction of Bilbo being carried by the dwarves, and then Bilbo carrying the dwarves. No ring, ring. Incompitant, compitant.
How the fuck do you get 3 movies? Are they going to have an entire movie about the necromancer, a character mentioned literally ONCE as a throw away to explain why the GM-PC (Gandalf) wasn't there to carry the adventurers?
Clearing the Eye said:
I think you're confused. You say "Peter" when you really mean "George". XD
PETER (when he looked like a Hobbit):
GEORGE:
I think Peter's take on LotR was - for its time - brilliant. I'll admit I have trouble watching Return of the King without ranting to all within hearing about a few things I don't like, but this man has earned the benefit of the doubt.
If he says Hobbit in 3, then by golly, I will support him until he proves me wrong.
Extended cuts of LotR ring in at... 11.5 hrs, I think?Fleischer said:
Let's say each Hobbit "Extended Cut" is 4 hrs. That gives you 11.5 + 12, for a sum total of 23.5 hrs. Factor in 30 minutes for bathroom breaks, and BAM! A single day.
You'd need to put takeout orders in the day before and prepay so you can get your food without pausing. AND have a few pots of coffee on the kettle. AND backup caffeine pills.
Other than that, EASY PEASY! =)
Seen much 4 or 5k at 48p footage have you then? Looks anything but cheap.Spitfire said:
Cheap soap operas and tv movies look cheap for a myriad of different reasons the least of which is the frame rate. And the irony of saying anything but 24p looks cheap when that's the whole reason that 24p was chosen when they fixed the frame rate, it was the slowest and therefore cheapest they could get away with.
It's not for everything, but 3D and even to a lesser extent 2D cinema footage can induce headaches due to the flicker inherent in 24, Theres a reason computer refresh rates should be set high even on word processing, when it shouldn't really matter you know.
The lord of the rings had many faults, and in general I agree with the fairly common sentiment that the Tom cut was needed, Glorfindel and the scourging were cruely missed though.
My personal feelings on this is that I dont frankly care, mostly cause im not a LoTR fan, and I havent seen any of the LoTR movies he made (and I dont care to so dont make the recommendation it will only fall on deaf ears/blind eyes).
But the cynic in my is saying "yeah, just keep stretching this to make even MORE money, cause this will probably be your last great thing". which may or may not be true, but it will be hard for him to top LoTR andThe Hobbit (assuming this doesnt suck since hes [from what I understand from my friends who actually care about this stuff] needlessly lengthening the film when he should be able to do it well enough in two).
But the cynic in my is saying "yeah, just keep stretching this to make even MORE money, cause this will probably be your last great thing". which may or may not be true, but it will be hard for him to top LoTR andThe Hobbit (assuming this doesnt suck since hes [from what I understand from my friends who actually care about this stuff] needlessly lengthening the film when he should be able to do it well enough in two).
I guess I'm more of this opinion.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
On one hand, it's Peter Jackson, and by all counts he did a splendid job of the LoTR trilogy. I have no reason to expect this to be any less.
On the other, the Hobbit was 1 book, and it was clearly a precursor to the 'epic' nature of the LoTR trilogy. Unwitting hero goes off with some chaps to battle a dragon - it doesn't get more cliche than that. Spreading it over 3 movies is, as Denzel once said, 'all that jelly and no toast'.
LOTR was unmakeable as a film, heck in todays market you couldnt write LOTR as book even its pacing , method, structure all completely untenable. but PJ and his team pulled it off vast swathes are missing , massive plot points are omitted and changed (destruction of the ring being imo the biggest) But it worked, they pulled together a good version an amazing feat really.
If they want to make 3 films out of the hobbit and its surrounding lore i have nothing but anticiaption for it. great news for me i have faith in this teams love of the material to do it justice.
If its not fast paced enough with big enough car chases for todays audience fuck em i say do the material proud PJ!
If they want to make 3 films out of the hobbit and its surrounding lore i have nothing but anticiaption for it. great news for me i have faith in this teams love of the material to do it justice.
If its not fast paced enough with big enough car chases for todays audience fuck em i say do the material proud PJ!
Since translating a book directly to the big screen (with no changes whatsoever), is next to impossible. Especially with a book as complicated as LoTR, artistic changes are unavoidable. Peter Jackson's LoTR is just one man's vision of the books, but it's nicely done and the source material survived very well.Suki_ said: