Peter Jackson Makes The Hobbit a Trilogy

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

This had better be longer, and more personal, than the first three movies.

No sing-a-long parts, no decrepit dwarves,. no old dwarves singing sad songs or waltzes, no shriveled up figments of the imagination, we are all solid yo.

It's time for Bilbo Baggins to:

Dear God, I gotz some colored glasses on yo!

:)

If this was ANYONE else, I'd probably be going 'o, COME ON YOU TWIT!'.

But, this is PETER JACKSON.
The guy who 'got' King Kong better then even the 'original' movie, and various knockoffs.
The guy who managed to make "Lord of the Rings" movie that WASN'T crap.

I'm going to give him a benefit of a doubt for now.

Dammit, just make two movies Jackson!!! You could be spending the time on the third film by helping make a sequel to District 9!

At first I was like noooooooo.
But once I stopped to think about it I realised that Peter Jackson might actually pull off a movie that sticks to the book.
That'd be absolutely lovely.

GIVE ME MOAR!

The more wonderous work of Peter Jackson interpreting the holy grail of all-things fantastic and mythic the better.

Can't wait!

I'm okay with this. Gives him more room to make it as beautiful as the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I just hope the last two don't feel like they were rushed, or one part cut into two merely for profit.

YES!!!

Thank you based Jackson!

God knows there's more than enough material to make this work without padding.

Hell even without all the Necromancer stuff there's enough material for a 3 parter

evilthecat:
I feel that this bodes pretty badly.

See, I loved the Hobbit growing up and yet I was (and still am, for that matter) bored out of my skull by the Lord of the Rings, so naturally I was way more excited for these films than I was for the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

And the great thing about the Hobbit is that it is so small in scale, it's immediately accessible. It's not trying to be this huge mythic melodrama, it's more like a 19th century fairy tale. Sure, there's the odd link back to the overall mythology of middle earth, but ultimately it's really just background for what is quite a sweet and intimate story.

While I get that a lot of the charm lies in the slightly whimsical bits which don't really mesh with the main narrative, and including all those is going to take some time, but all this talk of trying to flesh out the surrounding universe translates to me as a studio-mandated "this film needs more action and epic battles with music and melodramatic dialogue, because it's not like anyone has actually read the Hobbit, and they're all going to be expecting that shit because it was in Lord of the Rings."

And that would be very sad.

You are talking like Peter Jackson wrote 2 more books to make the Hobbits a trilogy and THEN made them into movies.

Even with the Hobbit being the smallest size of all the LoTR books, it's still a ton of information to get on a screen, 3 movies seem more than reasonable to me. Heck, the Lord of the Rings could have been 9 movies, instead of 3.

sounds like a big cash in. they could have splitted it in 2.

Peter, you should retire. Go be rich and leave film alone. Your grubby hands are getting all over my art. Let's see how much of this book he misses and/or fucks up.

Clearing the Eye:
Peter, you should retire. Go be rich and leave film alone. Your grubby hands are getting all over my art. Let's see how much of this book he misses and/or fucks up.

I don't think that one of the most loved and successful directors working today, who delivered the best book to film adaptation in years, captured Tolkien on screen like no other and is revered almost universally really needs to worry that you do not approve of him delivering more of what the fans want.

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.

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

Agow95:
Well, On one hand I liked that they cut out Tom Bombadil, he annoyed me like anything, and had no real purpose in the plot

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.".

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. :p

Let me guess, he's gonna add even more shit that wasn't in the book in the first place.
Gotta milk it as much as possible, seeing how they don't have the rights to make a movie about any of Tolkien's other works.

SpiderJerusalem:

Clearing the Eye:
Peter, you should retire. Go be rich and leave film alone. Your grubby hands are getting all over my art. Let's see how much of this book he misses and/or fucks up.

I don't think that one of the most loved and successful directors working today, who delivered the best book to film adaptation in years, captured Tolkien on screen like no other and is revered almost universally really needs to worry that you do not approve of him delivering more of what the fans want.

Is expressing opinions illegal now because it touches your precious movie director?

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Holy shit, they really said that? That's like three quarters of the damn book. Is he planning on dragging the nonexisting visit of Radagast and Gladriel for 2 hours?

SpiderJerusalem:

Clearing the Eye:
Peter, you should retire. Go be rich and leave film alone. Your grubby hands are getting all over my art. Let's see how much of this book he misses and/or fucks up.

I don't think that one of the most loved and successful directors working today, who delivered the best book to film adaptation in years, captured Tolkien on screen like no other and is revered almost universally really needs to worry that you do not approve of him delivering more of what the fans want.

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.

I'm pretty much with j-e-f-f-e-r-s, if you've actually read the Book you were probably already thinking that it being a 2 parter is already a bit of a stretch (ok, if they don't cut anything, but some things probably should be cut). What exactly does he plan on doing with a trilogy? I mean, even if you count it to the LotR (as a sort of prequel), it's still the shortest of those books. That means that Jackson should also think that LotR should have been atleast 12 Movies.

...theres really not that much going on in The Hobbit.

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?

excellent i'll never have to read the book :P

them book learnin' be for the devil! XD

There goes my plan of trying to watch The Hobbit and LotR series in a single day. Looks like I will have to adapt my plans to a full weekend of movie watching!

I don't think this is a bad thing, unless the first two films have dull endings...

Clearing the Eye:
Peter, you should retire. Go be rich and leave film alone. Your grubby hands are getting all over my art. Let's see how much of this book he misses and/or fucks up.

I think you're confused. You say "Peter" when you really mean "George". XD

PETER (when he looked like a Hobbit):
image

GEORGE:
image


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.

Fleischer:
There goes my plan of trying to watch The Hobbit and LotR series in a single day. Looks like I will have to adapt my plans to a full weekend of movie watching!

Extended cuts of LotR ring in at... 11.5 hrs, I think?

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! =)

Spitfire:
I'm increasingly skeptical about The Hobbit movies. First, Jackson said that not only will they be in 3D (which I've yet to see done successfully in a movie), but also that he'd film them at 40fps, which, unless you really want to see a big budget movie look like a cheap soap-opera, then you're guaranteed to hate it with the fiery passion of a thousand fucking suns. And now, there's this.
I wasn't convinced that making two Hobbit movies wasn't pushing it, but making three? Why? I understand that you want to include every detail from the book in the movies, Mr Jackson, but do you remember what made, say, Fellowship of The Ring, such a great film? The fact that it wasn't bloated with every minute and meaningless fucking detail from the book. In fact, it took some pretty big liberties with the source material, and it was all the better for it, because the narrative of a book does not translate well on screen.

Seen much 4 or 5k at 48p footage have you then? Looks anything but cheap.

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.

Hey guys, what if we cut the two films into 3?!?!
That would mean we'd get 1,5 times the amount of money! We all love money, right? MONEY, HAHA!

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).

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
snip

I guess I'm more of this opinion.

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!

The Human Torch:
You are talking like Peter Jackson wrote 2 more books to make the Hobbits a trilogy and THEN made them into movies.

Even with the Hobbit being the smallest size of all the LoTR books, it's still a ton of information to get on a screen, 3 movies seem more than reasonable to me. Heck, the Lord of the Rings could have been 9 movies, instead of 3.

Well it is a pretty safe assumption given his history. I mean he cut out 3/4 of the LoTR books to add in the stuff he made up.

Suki_:

The Human Torch:
You are talking like Peter Jackson wrote 2 more books to make the Hobbits a trilogy and THEN made them into movies.

Even with the Hobbit being the smallest size of all the LoTR books, it's still a ton of information to get on a screen, 3 movies seem more than reasonable to me. Heck, the Lord of the Rings could have been 9 movies, instead of 3.

Well it is a pretty safe assumption given his history. I mean he cut out 3/4 of the LoTR books to add in the stuff he made up.

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.

The Human Torch:
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.

The problem is that he cut a lot of stuff to add in uncecessary content. The movies did not need a hollywood romance stuffed into them and they were worse off for it. Some of the other changes also left a lot of things unexplained.

With the Hobbit its going to be even worse. This is not a long book, not by a longshot. It has also already been done as a movie. A single movie that didnt really leave anything out and was still only two hours.

Usually I'd probably be annoyed, I always thought the Hobbit made up 2 decent movies, there, and back again almost. But then I have to remember, this is The Hobbit, the story will never be told again in my lifetime, and it's my favorite story/book. Same goes for LOTR really - it might be 3 long movies, it might bang on a bit, but it's LOTR. Personally, I feel privileged that I'll get to watch these movies, because even just 1/3rd of the trilogy is more important than any other film released in the last... well since the LOTR trilogy. I'm not a die-hard Tolkien fan, but even I can see that.

I mean, is anyone sitting saying - damn, 3 movies - that's just too much, I will give them a miss, and watch Twilight instead?
No, not unless your a teenage girl. We know that the movies won't be perfect, we know they're being dragged out to increase the turnover - but I really don't care, as long as I get to see an awesome Hobbit movie trilogy... and I'm what most people would call hyper-negative about these things. In my old age, I appreciate things like this and I can forgive a lot where such high quality is being addressed.

For example, I really liked the last series of LOST - the final episode was cool, frankly I don't see what a lot of the complaints were about - as far as I could see, there was no more effective way of wrapping things up. This viewpoint is tainted, although tainted might be the wrong word - this viewpoint is influenced by the knowledge that it's unlikely that I'll ever see another series like LOST, ever. That's the future for us... not bigger and better and any of that crap that we just don't see - it's about nobody ever making movies or TV series as ambitious as LOTR, or LOST, or anything. Modern broadcasting won't allow anything to mature these days, it has to be a guarantee'd hit, and The Hobbit is really one of the last guaranteed hits there is.
I like the Riddick movies, where is Riddick3? - stuck in studio funding limbo. Now, people like us, people who don't expect the earth, we just expect that our favorite things are somewhat protected - well we've shut ourselves up into a corner. People who decide the fate of TV shows can't hear us, they can only hear advertising revenue coins dropping.
Isn't this a big problem?, is anyone else worried that everything cool in this world is continually temporary, because we don't do enough of a song and dance. That's why Firefly got shut down, yet it was amazing, and had a big following - unfortunately our generation doesn't spend enough money on energy drinks and mobile phones, so they tear down our shit every time. I'd consider starting a revolution - if only I could decide to revolt against the government or the media or facebook or the corporations or banks or what.

Anyway, sorry to ramble, hope nobody was daft enough to read that... The Hobbit, is a testimony to good taste and I'm greatly looking forward to it, I'm looking forward to sharing it with members of my family and friends who just won't read the book, it'll be awesome - they can milk me for all I'm worth if it somehow encourages people to make stuff like that. What other option do we have! - Hell, does uncle Peter want me to pay admission for the other 2 movies when watching part 1 - that is no problem! - they should sell trilogy tickets for these things, it's a non-optional movie trilogy after all.

The.Bard:

Fleischer:
There goes my plan of trying to watch The Hobbit and LotR series in a single day. Looks like I will have to adapt my plans to a full weekend of movie watching!

Extended cuts of LotR ring in at... 11.5 hrs, I think?

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! =)

I own the extended edition LotR DVD's, and I tried to watch them in a single day. I chugged soda, and had a friend to watch it with and also to keep each other awake. I actually started dozing off just before the Battle for Helms Deep - just too much content to soak during one sitting. I would get walloped if I tried a ~23 hour session.

Peter Jackson needs to learn how to edit, all of his films have run way too long. I agree that in theory it's great that we have someone with a determination to keep the films as close to the books as possible, but the fact is films and books are different mediums and need to be treated differently to ensure proper pacing.

For some people a 3 hour plus romp is just what they're looking for in their book to film adaptations, personally I think that someone brave needs to go into his films with a pair of waders and shears.

The fewer details are left out, the better for me. So yes, I welcome this very much.

Can I have a 20-parter of the Silmarillion now? Actually, forget what I said. 30-parter it is.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here