• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

    Vote now in wave 1 of the FEOTM Reboot!

The Hobbit

I think that the decision is a bad one overall. Previously, three books (or six books, depending on how you count it) = three movies. Now, it's one book = another three movies. That's more than a bit ridiculous. The Hobbit itself could easily be told in one movie. The Hobbit is not the same length as LotR; it doesn't deserve another full trilogy. I was against the idea of two movies for one short story; now three? It sounds to me like a cash grab more than anything else.

However, there is one aspect that hasn't been mentioned yet (and I realize that this goes against the point I just made). People are saying that either the book is going to be stretched out or that Jackson and co. are going to make stuff up, but neither is the case. Don't forget that Jackson has said in the past that there will be a lot of material from other sources, like the appendices and (I think) The Silmarillion and possibly some other stuff. So he wouldn't just be inventing things; he would still be pulling from Tolkien. To that degree, I can see why it might take more films.

So, while my ideal world would involve one Hobbit movie to serve as a prelude to the other, larger adventure, I can live with a world where there's another trilogy just to show us Tolkien's massive universe.

And at any rate, I can't do anything about it, anyway. :)
 
^^ A bridge movie would be cool, but knowing that they're going to shoot more footage with the same cast and settings means (IMO) that they think that with a little more shooting, they can "convert" possible 2 extended editions into a full third movie. That also means that Jackson and co are using a lots of (in between lines) back stories and appendices (+ surely inventing some things to fill the gaps) to tell a bigger scale version of The Hobbit.
IMO this will not be just an adaptation of the book. It will be the story of the book mixed with all sort of things Tolkien wrote that happens during the same period of time (and also via flash back, etc..).
Honestly, thinking twice, I don't know what would be the best. A bridge movie or an extended Hobbit.
(that would also means that a fanedit of "The Hobbit: truer to the book" would be a given!)
 
Well, the journey that takes place in the Hobbit is as long as the one in LOTR. The thing is, if my memory serves me correct, the Hobbit is told completely from Bilbo's perspective. So I guess the idea is if you add in the backstory that wasn't covered in the Hobbit, you have a story that's of comparable length to LOTR.

Another note, they do not have the rights to anything but the Hobbit and LOTR, so they will be only using those appendices. I'm not a Tolkien buff, by any means, but apparently these appendices will do just fine.

Also, when I first heard rumors about a trilogy, I was hoping that they would make the third film a bridge movie. But, from what I've heard, it sounds almost as if they're spreading the bridge elements across the trilogy. I don't know how this could be done (I don't know what the bridge elements are!) but if done well, I think it might go a long way to making the three films tie together as one. Which would be nice, since it's a trilogy.
 
Here's the real good news. Gives more footage for kerr.
 
I really hope they get more creative and reinterpret stories. seriously there is enough backstory in the appendizes that could be used as motivation for supporting characters in the hobbit.

del toro - when writing the script - repeatedly said that it was not intended as a bridging movie but as the start of one big journey that would logically continue in lord of the rings.

something I wrote somewhere else about the story of how saruman and gandalf attacked a strange evil force in the mirkwood forrest:

When I first watched The Fellowship of the Ring I immediately thought Saruman was an evil guy within the first seconds – and there was precious little to convince me that Gandalf wasn’t riding into a trap.Thematically I think it would be interesting to use this attack as a means to show Saruman’s corruption.

Now according to Tolkien’s notes Saruman had been power hungry for the ring before – but this is due to the fact that the Battle of Dol Guldur was just one tiny event in Tolkien’s incredibly detailed backstory.If the Hobbit movies really tie in with the Rings trilogy I hope to see the effect of the ring and the quest for power in Saruman’s character.

Imagine watching Hobbit with a blank slate, having not seen the original movies (unlikely but still those Hobbit movies are said to work to enrichen the series).There would be this very powerful and wise wizard Saruman. There might even be a situation or two which make it clear that Saruman is much more powerful than Gandalf. He might have a few flaws but nothing clearly evil.

What if at the end of the battle Saruman would find the Palantir at Dol Guldur?And when Fellowship of the Rings starts we would meet again with this wise wizard. We would understand why Gandalf wanted to council him. But there would be more. Imagine the shock when the wise (and much more powerful) wizard turns into this corrupt maniac. This would mean a real sense of loss due to Saruman’s turn.I really hope that the Hobbit prequels add layers to this characters to really make us feel like this is one big story.
Click to expand...
 
The Hobbit: Just The Hobbit, Damn It Edition

Most inevitable fan edit ever? :)
 
Gaith said:
The Hobbit: Just The Hobbit, Damn It Edition

Most inevitable fan edit ever? :)
Click to expand...

I thought the same thing as soon as this news was announced... But here's hoping the story feels grand enough to extend over three films! I wonder now that they're making three films if there will still be extended editions of each, of if we'll just get theatrical length releases now...

I'm pretty pumped for the third, if nothing else for the symmetry of having two trilogies. Good luck to them I say! Peter Jackson: Best job in the world?
 
"It is only at the end of a shoot that you finally get the chance to sit down and have a look at the film you have made. Recently Fran, Phil and I did just this when we watched for the first time an early cut of the first movie - and a large chunk of the second. We were really pleased with the way the story was coming together, in particular, the strength of the characters and the cast who have brought them to life. All of which gave rise to a simple question: do we take this chance to tell more of the tale? And the answer from our perspective as the filmmakers, and as fans, was an unreserved ‘yes.'

We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance. The richness of the story of The Hobbit, as well as some of the related material in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, allows us to tell the full story of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and the part he played in the sometimes dangerous, but at all times exciting, history of Middle-earth.

So, without further ado and on behalf of New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Wingnut Films, and the entire cast and crew of The Hobbit films, I’d like to announce that two films will become three.

It has been an unexpected journey indeed, and in the words of Professor Tolkien himself, "a tale that grew in the telling."

Cheers,

Peter J"
Click to expand...
Sounds good to me.
 
Hopefully the new trilogy won't be chock full of filler. It seems by the third LotR film, the writers started making up drama for the sake of drama. Frodo vs. Sam, anyone? The writers admitted as much. They wanted more dramatic tension, not a faithful servant who maintained his honor.

After watching the disappointing RotK (and I thought FotR was cinematic magic), I went back to bakshi's LotR animated movie and realized that Jackson and co. got a lot of their ideas (even some of their camera angles) directly from bakshi. It seems that where the bakshi movie ended for lack of financing, about halfway thru the story, is where Jackson's writers started having to find their own way and Jackson's storytelling became considerably weaker.
 
ssj said:
Hopefully the new trilogy won't be chock full of filler. It seems by the third LotR film, the writers started making up drama for the sake of drama. Frodo vs. Sam, anyone? The writers admitted as much. They wanted more dramatic tension, not a faithful servant who maintained his honor.

After watching the disappointing RotK (and I thought FotR was cinematic magic), I went back to bakshi's LotR animated movie and realized that Jackson and co. got a lot of their ideas (even some of their camera angles) directly from bakshi. It seems that where the bakshi movie ended for lack of financing, about halfway thru the story, is where Jackson's writers started having to find their own way and Jackson's storytelling became considerably weaker.
Click to expand...

Interesting! I thought the scope of the third film got away from them abit - the first film felt like amazing cinematography, but a fairly intimate storyline staying close to the lead characters. Return of the King was complicated by so many characters and enormous battles. Very hard to make those elements gel together easily.

Also, what's with those Ghosts? Seriously, doesn't it take some of the dramatic tension out of a battle in which half an army is wiped out, just for a crew of Ghosts to show up and win the whole thing in 5 minutes? Some better planning was required me thinks with regards to their battle tactics. And Aragorn clearly needed help from a lawyer in drawing up the contract as to when the debt would be fulfilled... Perhaps after Sauron was defeated might have been a better deal? Seems that wiping out armies doesn't take too long, so send them to Mordor, and hey presto, battle over. Oh well.

Back to the Hobbit... I am pleased to be travelling in the US in December, as the first movie comes out two weeks earlier there than here in the land of Aus. sweet deal.
 
And many of the cast, imo, couldn't hit red on the script BS meter b/c they hadn't read or finished reading the books.

They could at least have perused some of the LotR message boards and the criticisms therein, then had the balls to say to Jackson and the coven, "this caca don't smell right."

Alas, some of them had no clue. But the ones who did, couldn't they have Yo, Excuse me but, Ahem?

But, yup, navajovulcan, I'm experiencing waves of geekgasms on the occasions I think about The Hobbit movie. What a fucking treat I hope this to be.
 
ssj said:
Hopefully the new trilogy won't be chock full of filler. It seems by the third LotR film, the writers started making up drama for the sake of drama. Frodo vs. Sam, anyone? The writers admitted as much. They wanted more dramatic tension, not a faithful servant who maintained his honor.

After watching the disappointing RotK (and I thought FotR was cinematic magic), I went back to bakshi's LotR animated movie and realized that Jackson and co. got a lot of their ideas (even some of their camera angles) directly from bakshi. It seems that where the bakshi movie ended for lack of financing, about halfway thru the story, is where Jackson's writers started having to find their own way and Jackson's storytelling became considerably weaker.
Click to expand...

The writers admitted as much? When? Doubtful since much of Return of the King is straight from the book. They take some liberties with it, but the Frodo Sam conflict that you reference is very much present in the books.

You need to re-read Two Towers and Return of the King my friend. Two of my favorite books of all time.
 
Also, what's with those Ghosts? Seriously, doesn't it take some of the dramatic tension out of a battle in which half an army is wiped out, just for a crew of Ghosts to show up and win the whole thing in 5 minutes? Some better planning was required me thinks with regards to their battle tactics. And Aragorn clearly needed help from a lawyer in drawing up the contract as to when the debt would be fulfilled... Perhaps after Sauron was defeated might have been a better deal? Seems that wiping out armies doesn't take too long, so send them to Mordor, and hey presto, battle over. Oh well.
Click to expand...

Well, as much as I love the books, it's better than Aragorn arriving with a host of reinforcements from Southern Gondor (as he did in the books), because it would make the Battle of Pelennor Fields even longer than it is now. Also it's better visually, since Army of the Dead would be much more distinctive than more Gondorians. (And in the book, Aragorn lifted the curse when they reached Pelargir, i.e. even BEFORE they reach Minas Tirith)

And I don't see the problem with the Army of the Dead in the movie. The thing is, in the movie version, Gondorians/Rohirrim were losing. BADLY. Even worse than in the books. Half of Minas-Tirith was overrun (in the books the orcs never entered the city), Haradrim and Southrons were owning the Rohirrim, and IIRC the host of orcs was much bigger in the movies than it was in the books. As a matter of fact, in the movies there's absolutely no way the battle could've been won without something as strong and powerful as Army of the Dead. And it's actually a really awesome moment when you see Aragorn and co. arriving to turn the tide. Although I think that it's better in the theatrical version, where you don't know what happens with Aragorn and the Dead after he proposes them the deal to lift the oath.

And while I understand your point about keeping the army in the movie for a while longer (it's also lampshaded by Gimli in the movie), I understand the reasoning behind lifting the curse. I mean, they came to Gondor's aid when need was dire and saved everybody from a shitstorm, their oath was pretty much fulfilled. Not releasing them would bring more harm than good - I mean, they could just turn on everybody and kill all humans in Minas-Tirith. They broke an oath once already, after all. And, IIRC, in the books it's mentioned that they worshipped Sauron, so it wouldn't make sense to try to send them against him directly. Maybe a line in the movie about that would've helped, but... Eh.

But my biggest problem with RotK (and I don't have many problems with RotK... in fact, at the moment I can't think of any besides this one) is the talk with Saruman in Orthanc. I mean, in the book, Gandalf just wanted to talk to Saruman and give him a last chance to redeem himself. In the movie, Gandalf wants to learn the Enemy's plans... wait, what? Sauron wants to take control of Middle-Earth starting with Gondor, and Osgiliath and Minas-Tirith are on the way because they're right next to Mordor. Is that so hard to deduce? And this may seem like a very tiny little detail, but it annoys me a lot, because, regardless of how many changes there are in the movie, they all make sense in the context of the movie (even the Frodo parting ways with Sam one), and this one doesn't.
 
Farlander said:
Well, as much as I love the books, it's better than Aragorn arriving with a host of reinforcements from Southern Gondor (as he did in the books)
Click to expand...

What are you people smoking? In the book Aragorn goes through the same plot progression as in the movie and arrives at the battle with a host of dead who fight for him to break their curse and fulfill their debt to Aaragorn's ancestors.
 
What are you people smoking? In the book Aragorn goes through the same plot progression as in the movie and arrives at the battle with a host of dead who fight for him to break their curse and fulfill their debt to Aaragorn's ancestors.
Click to expand...

Nope, the host of the dead NEVER visits Minas Tirith in the books. The curse of the Dead was lifted at Pelargir, when they captured the Corsairs' ships. And there was NO army of the dead at Pelennor Fields in the book.

Return of the King book said:
East rode the knights of Dol Amroth driving the enemy before them: troll-men and Variags and orcs that hated the sunlight. South strode Éomer and men fled before his face, and they were caught between the hammer and the anvil. For now men leaped from the ships to the quays of the Harlond and swept north like a storm. There came Legolas, and Gimli wielding his axe, and Halbarad with the standard, and Elladan and Elrohir with stars on their brow, and the dour-handed Dúnedain, Rangers of the North, leading a great valour of folk of Lebennin and Lamedon and the fiefs of the South. But before all went Aragorn with the Flame of the West, Andúril like a new fire kindled, Narsil re-forged as deadly as of old; and upon his brow was the Star of Elendil”
Click to expand...

That was all the reinforcements that arrived to Minas Tirith. No dead among them.
 
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/returnking/summary.html

"The forces of Mordor regroup, but Aragorn arrives via the Anduin River on the black ships of the Enemy, which he has conquered with the help of the Dead."

I stand corrected (recurring theme this week). Guess the dead just helped take the black ships. Damn, I need to smoke. Fucking movie has twisted my ten year old memory of the book.
 
One of them said it, either in the extended version supps or on the interwebz.

Well, the lighting of the beacons was a-okay. And the equestrian competition was neat, too. But what a let-down otherwise.
 
geminigod said:
They take some liberties with it, but the Frodo Sam conflict that you reference is very much present in the books.
Click to expand...

I just rereaded the book and there aren't that Frodo Sam conflict. The only time Frodo speak harshly to Sam is at the tower of Cirith Ungol, when Sam shows the ring to Frodo. There aren't more conflict between them through the book (until the very end).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom