Peter Jackson Makes The Hobbit a Trilogy

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

You can have my money, Peter.

Petromir:

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.

Sorry, but you've missed the point entirely.

24 fps has pretty much been the default framerate in cinema for almost a century now; there has been plenty of time for that to change. The advent of high framerates in television didn't influence it. The switch from film to digital capture didn't influence it. Also, to the best of my knowledge, there has never been, throughout cinema history, any incentive from movie-going audiences for films to use higher framerates. Nobody asked for this.

Yes, it used to be that 24 fps was simply a convenient framerate to use, but that has no longer been the case for quite some time now. The reason why it is still the most popular framerate used in cinema today, isn't because filmmakers are lazy, or afraid of change, but because the great majority of people interpret it as being a fundamental cinematic quality; it's the way that a movie should look. By contrast, most people interpret high framerates as looking cheap, or very life-like, depending on the context, and the reactions of the people who have seen how this looks in The Hobbit, are most telling.
Framerate has become a stylistic device in media, and that's not going to change with cinema, just because Peter Jackson, or James Cameron, want to sell their 3D gimmick, it being the only thing that benefits from the use of higher framerates.

Peter Jackson has pretty much consistently made good movies. I trust he knows what he's doing. There's also the fact that he's adding stuff that wasn't in the Hobbit but it is part of the lore to try and tie it to Lord of The Rings. So there's that.

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

Well, from the statement it's very clear that he's taking a lot of the background material which was only barely mentioned in the book - generally parts which have absolutely no bearing on the story but which are more action oriented, or which foreshadow the Lord of the Rings narrative - and adding them to the story.

The rise of the Necromancer and the Battle of Dol Guldur, for example, don't appear in the Hobbit at all. The former is part of the "origin story" for Sauron's return in the Lord of the Rings, and the latter is meant to take place right at the end of the Lord of the Rings, in timeline perspective. The only reason to insert them is to work more "epic" stuff and action into what is otherwise a fairly low-key story.

I have full faith in Peter Jackson. I especially have faith that he isnt just going to extend them into lame cash cows to rip off the fans like they did with Potter and Twilight. So, until i watch the hobbit movies, all i have is praise and knowing that they will be awesome.

evilthecat:

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

Well, from the statement it's very clear that he's taking a lot of the background material which was only barely mentioned in the book - generally parts which have absolutely no bearing on the story but which are more action oriented, or which foreshadow the Lord of the Rings narrative - and adding them to the story.

The rise of the Necromancer and the Battle of Dol Guldur, for example, don't appear in the Hobbit at all. The former is part of the "origin story" for Sauron's return in the Lord of the Rings, and the latter is meant to take place right at the end of the Lord of the Rings, in timeline perspective. The only reason to insert them is to work more "epic" stuff and action into what is otherwise a fairly low-key story.

seems like you quoted the wrong guy...

Toasty Virus:
So long as it doesn't just end up looking like he chopped the second one in two, I have no problem with this.

You just know that is what it is going to feel like. There will be a weak transition and then bam tbc just like an old episode of Star Trek TNG

Lord Beautiful:
Good for bastards like me in a way, I guess.

Never could really dig in to Tolkien's books. The writing style just puts me off too much.

Not sure if you've dipped into The Hobbit, but it's far, far more accessible and pleasantly written than LOTR -- which I found a drag.

I'm not surprised by the the negative assumptions people are making, this is the internet and that is the movie industry, after all. But I am surprised that there aren't more people pleased that this has been turned into 3 films. The more films the better as far as I'm concerned. I read The Hobbit again recently and I hope Peter Jackson does pad it and expand on some things, because the book really wouldn't translate to film very well otherwise. I for one, can't wait.

If you're still in doubt, I spoke to Tolkien (I just call him Jororuto) yesterday and he told me "I have faith that PJ will improve on my lackluster material which is why I demanded he make 3 movies rather than 2... and all the whiny bitches can lick a @$*%."

True story :)

If this is to mean vivisecting the disgusting furry footed abominations into three sections a piece, all for that. Only good halfling is a dead and defiled halfling.

Otherwise, a great big lard filled vat of... meh.

Accidental DP...Halflings. Fry em, boil em.. cook em in a stew... if they didnt taste worse than the rotting lice infested flesh they already smell like.

First it was one film, and I thought "Well, it'd have to be heavily abridged even at 2 hours. The Hobbit, though one book, is still very solid reading".

Then they considered doing a two-parter. "That seems much better. Cut out some of the bloat, but keep the important scenes and plots better developed. Two movies at two hours apiece. Filling, but not fatiguing."

Now it's a trilogy?
It's been an awful long time since I read The Hobbit but now I'm concerned.
Three films? Now they may have to include padding.

As brutally long as the theatrical cut of Lord of the Rings was, it was still fairly abridged.
(the Director's Cut is an argument for life-extension)
But the length of the three novels positively dwarfs (pun not intended) The Hobbit.

Okay, why does it need to be a trilogy? Yes, the Lord of the Rings was one, but that's because there are 3 books! *sigh*

Dang. Three feature-length films to cover The Hobbit? As I recall, it's not nearly as lengthy or complex as the LOTR books. In fact, when I read it, I got the impression that it was like a nicely-packaged standard fantasy tale (though in reality it was the precursor to such fare), a straightforward story that held up well under self-containment. I guess Jackson wishes to connect it thoroughly with his existing trilogy and put Tolkien's extended universe stuff to good use... :\

The problem I have with this is that everything Peter Jackson added into LOTR... sucked. All the content from page to screen was awesome, but anything else lacked. For example; putting Liv Tyler's horrible over-acting into the part where Elrond and Gandalf cause the river to rise up and wash away the Nazgul ruined that entire scene. It was just awful when it should have been awesome.

Now with The Hobbit, he has enough material to make one excellent movie. If he add material to pad it out to three movies, we'll get one incredible movie mixed in with two utter crap movies, for the price of three movies. Not to mention that throwing in a bunch of stuff will probably make the narative a complete mess.

It's such a complete and shameless money grab that I think i'll boycott it on principle alone.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

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