New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Hobbit

post #1 of 942
3/31/09 at 9:16pm
Thread Starter 
http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2009...hobbittrilogy/
Quote:


For a few months now, we've all been wondering why there's been such a cloud of secrecy from Guillermo and PJ regarding progress on The Hobbit. Well, today we got wind of what could be the biggest story so far about this much anticipated film: a report that negotiations are under way for a third film!

Interesting....Hobbit was never meant to be as deep as LOTR. Do we really need 3 movies for what essentially is a children's novel?
Reply
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #2 of 942
3/31/09 at 9:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveFi View Post

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2009...hobbittrilogy/
Interesting....Hobbit was never meant to be as deep as LOTR. Do we really need 3 movies for what essentially is a children's novel?

I haven't read or know the length of the Hobbit book, but surely 3 films would be too much (as long as LOTR?).
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 942
3/31/09 at 10:08pm
Thread Starter 
You haven't read The Hobbit? I thought that was pretty much required reading for every grade school kid everywhere? You might want to read it when you get the chance. Great book.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 942
4/1/09 at 5:11am
I can see 2 book just to make sure every little thing is covered. 3? Unless they expand on past lore or the movies are very short in length I can't see it. Then again im not the director
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 942
4/1/09 at 5:26am
Well, if you include the time space between The Hobbit and LOTR, plus The Silmarillion, and all of the 'Unfinished Tales', there's more than enough material for 3 more movies in the 'prequel' stage of this series. If they start with The Hobbit, then I would imaging that much of the 2nd and 3rd movies would be 'Flashback' stories, as well as the story bridging the gap up to the beginning of the LOTR.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 942
4/1/09 at 6:04am
This now sounds like a pure money grab. Not liking the sound of this.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 942
4/1/09 at 6:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

This now sounds like a pure money grab. Not liking the sound of this.

???

Not sure why you think that? It's my understanding that it's the amount of material they're dealing with that's dictating the request for a third film. With a series like this, I think the more they can put on the screen, the better. Tolkien's books are vast with details and additional stories that tie into the main theme.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 942
4/1/09 at 7:09am
I cannot believe I am hearing complaints about Jackson trying to film another triology!

He did such a powerful job on the first one, and you guys are complaining??
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 942
4/1/09 at 7:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR_IN_LA View Post

I cannot believe I am hearing complaints about Jackson trying to film another triology!

He did such a powerful job on the first one, and you guys are complaining??

Exactly. If anything, another Trilogy is right up Jackson's Alley.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 942
4/1/09 at 7:25am
The Hobbit was written as a childrens book...shorter and at a much lower grade reading level than the LOTR. I read it immediately after watching Return of the King. It is a quick read. I cannot definitively state that 3 movies is too many but it sure seems like it could be.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 942
4/1/09 at 7:34am
actually the three movies will be directed by the director of Hell Boy, Jackson is only there for help.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 942
4/1/09 at 8:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by swifty7 View Post

actually the three movies will be directed by the director of Hell Boy, Jackson is only there for help.

And frankly, I prefer calling him the director of Pan's Labyrinth... I'm actually rather thrilled that DelToro is directing, with Jackson behind... I like DelToro's universe (even if Hellboy is clearly not my favorite! I guess it's just the character...) and Jackson, well, he made LOTR...
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 942
4/1/09 at 10:27am
good grief, three films from the Hobbit? It's a relatively concise and straightforward fantasy quest, three would be far too longwinded, imo.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 942
4/1/09 at 10:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sutter Cane View Post

good grief, three films from the Hobbit? It's a relatively concise and straightforward fantasy quest, three would be far too longwinded, imo.

Man... did any of you even READ the article? The Hobbit would only be ONE movie. The other 2 films will bridge the gap between The Hobbit and LOTR, and would also tell much of the other back stories related to the 2 tales.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 942
4/1/09 at 11:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutgar View Post

Man... did any of you even READ the article? The Hobbit would only be ONE movie. The other 2 films will bridge the gap between The Hobbit and LOTR, and would also tell much of the other back stories related to the 2 tales.

Unless I'm missing something, the article doesn't say that 2 films would bridge the gap between the Hobbit and LOTR, it only says that the possible 3rd film would provide some wizards backstory. Besides, it's nothing concrete, just rumours from an anonymous "source", more like who's-gonna-be-the-next-villain-in-Batman3 kind of news for now...

Our insider also mentioned some legal wrangling with the Tolkien Estate to acquire additional rights to materials not currently under license which would provide the bulk of the plot for the third movie. What specifically this could be is a guess, but our source seems to imply delving into the back-story of the Istari (Wizards) including Gandalf and Saruman’s youth in Valinor. The inclusion of other young wizards at the academy would provide an opportunity for cameos from LOTR actors who’s story arc doesn’t fit into The Hobbit. The latter would go a long way toward explaining recent cryptic quotes from LOTR actors about possible appearances in The Hobbit.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 942
4/1/09 at 11:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

Unless I'm missing something, the article doesn't say that 2 films would bridge the gap between the Hobbit and LOTR, it only says that the possible 3rd film would provide some wizards backstory. Besides, it's nothing concrete, just rumours from an anonymous "source", more like who's-gonna-be-the-next-villain-in-Batman3 kind of news for now...

Our insider also mentioned some legal wrangling with the Tolkien Estate to acquire additional rights to materials not currently under license which would provide the bulk of the plot for the third movie. What specifically this could be is a guess, but our source seems to imply delving into the back-story of the Istari (Wizards) including Gandalf and Saruman's youth in Valinor. The inclusion of other young wizards at the academy would provide an opportunity for cameos from LOTR actors who's story arc doesn't fit into The Hobbit. The latter would go a long way toward explaining recent cryptic quotes from LOTR actors about possible appearances in The Hobbit.

True. But it's also common knowledge the there were 2 films planned originally, and that even then, the first film was the one that going to focus mostly on The Hobbit.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 942
4/1/09 at 12:33pm
Love The Hobbit. Read it more times than I can count. But it is a book that can easily be made into one single film of under three hours. What they are doing are taking other pieces of Silmarillion, etc. and piecing together three films. Lightning rarely strikes twice, so I would rather they just do The Hobbit, make a great great single film and be done with this.

Just my opinion. I hope they prove me wrong wrong wrong.

Jackson will have little involvement in this. He is only a head figure. It's Deltoro's baby.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 942
4/1/09 at 12:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveFi View Post

You haven't read The Hobbit? I thought that was pretty much required reading for every grade school kid everywhere? You might want to read it when you get the chance. Great book.

Sorry, but I haven't.
Is it useful as a prequel to LOTR?
Or better as a standalone?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

What they are doing are taking other pieces of Silmarillion, etc. and piecing together three films.

I wonder if this other material is of sufficient quality?
I say this because PJ's LOTR is a helluva high bar to reach and the Hobbit will have to come close...
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 942
4/1/09 at 1:01pm
Thread Starter 
oink, As others have already stated, The Hobbit was originally written by JRR Tolkien as a children's book, but it is also a prequel to LoTR, so essentially it is both. So it can be read and enjoyed as a child and then be reread and enjoyed as an adult. Either way it is a classic, and well worth reading, especially if you've seen the movies, you'll get a good idea of some of the backstory they allude to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutgar View Post

Man... did any of you even READ the article? The Hobbit would only be ONE movie. The other 2 films will bridge the gap between The Hobbit and LOTR, and would also tell much of the other back stories related to the 2 tales.

They don't say that. Actually The Hobbit was always meant to be the two movies, and I suppose they can interweave the 3rd "lost tales" stuff into the whole content of all 3 to fill up the extra space.

The problem is that Ian McKellen (who's already been cast to return as Gandalph) and especially Christopher Lee are getting pretty old, so if they're going to make these movies they better move fast- or at least shoot their shots because as I hear it, both are not well.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 942
4/1/09 at 1:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveFi View Post

They don't say that.

They imply it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveFi View Post

Actually The Hobbit was always meant to be the two movies, and I suppose they can interweave the 3rd "lost tales" stuff into the whole content of all 3 to fill up the extra space.

No. The bulk of the Hobbit was going to be in the first movie. The orignal plan was to pick up with the Battle of Five Armies on the second film, and then use the rest as a 'bridge' to the already existing LOTR films.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 942
4/1/09 at 1:34pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutgar View Post

They imply it.



No. The bulk of the Hobbit was going to be in the first movie. The orignal plan was to pick up with the Battle of Five Armies on the second film, and then use the rest as a 'bridge' to the already existing LOTR films.

I must be reading it differently than you because I see no such thing.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 942
4/1/09 at 1:44pm
As someone who isn't a fan of long movies a lot of the time, I could see how three two hour movies could be more enjoyable than two three hour movies.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 942
4/1/09 at 2:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveFi View Post

I must be reading it differently than you because I see no such thing.

My main point was to the people that kept asking how can the Hobbit be a 3 film epic? I'm saying that the article DOES NOT indicate that. And taking from other articles, only ONE film will mainly be the Hobbit (with the second film picking up at Battle of Five Armies). Other than that, what the other two films will be, is up for conjecture (other than the 'bridging'... But they won't all be 'The Hobbit'.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 942
4/1/09 at 2:23pm
Thread Starter 
Ah, well more doesn't necessarily mean better. While I like DeTorro it looks like we could be waiting quite a while for this movie/series. Right now release is set at 2012, and I suspect if they release as a trilogy they'll do it on a 'one a year schedule' like LoTR.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 942
4/1/09 at 3:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveFi View Post

Ah, well more doesn't necessarily mean better. While I like DeTorro it looks like we could be waiting quite a while for this movie/series. Right now release is set at 2012, and I suspect if they release as a trilogy they'll do it on a 'one a year schedule' like LoTR.

Yeah, that blew chunks while going throught it. But once it was all complete and we had the full extended editions, then it was all worth it. So with that in mind, I guess we can look for the Extended Editions of The Hobbit Trilogy on Blu-ray in about 6 years?
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 942
4/1/09 at 3:41pm
Thread Starter 
As I said earlier, since Ian McKellen state of health is in question, I'd assume they'll probably shoot his shots for the whole movie up front and work around it (in case he dies during production). Same goes for Chrisopher Lee who's close to 90 (if he's in the movie, which is uncertain at this stage).
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 942
4/1/09 at 4:54pm
What I've read over the last few months agrees with what Rutgar is saying. The original plan was 2 movies, the first being the Hobbit and the second bridging the gap between the Hobbit and LotR.

Tolkien's universe is rich with content but IIRC 90% of the Silmarillion occurs before the Hobbit. Plus, doesn't Christopher Tolkien still own the rights to the Silmarillion? He's sworn he'd never let it be filmed.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 942
4/1/09 at 5:26pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RolandOG View Post

Plus, doesn't Christopher Tolkien still own the rights to the Silmarillion? He's sworn he'd never let it be filmed.

It's such a huge mess it's pretty much unfilmable anyways. Regardless, money solves everything, and I'm sure they can come to some sort of an agreement. There are so many of those "Lost Tales" books to plum there's practically an infinite amount of material to work with anyways.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 942
4/2/09 at 5:48am
April Fools!
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 942
4/2/09 at 6:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoThru22 View Post

April Fools!

Um... you're a day late.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Gear mentioned in this thread: