Three Times The Hobbit?
I just saw this article today, which states that there is apparently a desire to have The Hobbit be released as a trilogy, rather than the expected two films.
The idea is said to be to add in data from the appendices in ROTK to "bridge the narrative gap" between TH and LOTR. As the article also states, though: Quote:
|
Quote:
But three? :eek: I've read the Appendices, and am not sure what's got Jackson all excited. What? The Battle of Nanduhirion? How 'bout just sticking to the story at hand? |
/facepalm
I too saw this story.
I reacted to it with the only two means I have at my disposal...increasing the level of despair I feel for the human race and increasing the level of hatred I feel toward Peter Jackson to levels of seething venom even I didn't know were possible. The only way he can get three films (or for that matter two) out of The Hobbit is to make it up in his silly head...and from our experience in the LOTR trilogy it is firmly established that is what he prefers to do anyway. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
And I thought we've had it when PJ made that little book into two films... :rolleyes:
|
He's moreMoreMORE PJ!
"Make the Witch-King's mace preposterous sized!" :rolleyes: |
Relax. This tale was doing the rounds at Comic-Con. Jackson has already filmed more material than he needs and he has said it is really good material. He was asked about whether they would stretch it into three shorter films but he said it would be used on the DVD release to create extended editions.
To go back and film whole new chunks from the Appendices would require re-hiring people, not least actors with other commitments, all over again and getting the filming infrastructure set up again. It's possible that some media outlets are keeping the story alive in order to see what the reception for such a film might be, but hopefully, it's just that some of them haven't properly caught up with the geek news from Comic-Con. I'm a bit tired with this stretching of material which might already be weak. The final Harry Potter novel could take it as they are books generally packed with incident and detail. In fact I wish some of the other books had been divided between two films. However The Hunger Games novels cannot handle it, and as for Breaking Dawn, the only splitting that should have happened to that book was to rip it into little pieces and bury it (I thought the Twilight books were enjoyable teen escapism until that one, which was like really bad fan fiction). |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Drat! And I had the perfect title...
THE HOBBIT III: MILKING THE FRANCHISE |
Quote:
|
Any word on when he's going to use Tom Bombadil and Goldberry?
|
Who? ;)
|
Quote:
Oh I'm a cynic. But it's true. Quote:
|
Quote:
And speaking of Olympics, do you folks know that the Return of the Ring conference is having a dwarf tossing competition? Yes, with knitted dwarves. :D |
He wants money. I'm able to understand two movies, though I don't like it, and I don't like having to wait for two-part movies, but I get it. A trilogy for the Hobbit, though?
Jackson's being a money-grubbing greedy @$$hole. |
Quote:
Just hoping the BBC actually show this unlike the unwatchable fiasco that was the Jubilee river pageant that was just a parade of rubbish presenters and celebrities. Speaking of money grabbing celebrity..... P.S. That was epic. Don't miss it. |
Quote:
|
I'm glad to hear that the three films rumour is fake. Three films for The Hobbit would be over the top, much as I like The Hobbit.
|
Unfortunately, Coppermirror, it is no longer fake. Jackson's announced on his facebook page, confirming a 3rd Hobbit film:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/peter...51114596546558 |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
It looks like I am wrong about the third film. However, I am quite pleased. :p |
http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=746962
The line in this that really gets me is: "there was more story to tell than could be contained in the originally planned two films" I assume this must translate to, "I threw out almost all of the original material (because let's face it, Tolkien was a horrible writer and he wasn't PJ) and made up as much junk as I possibly could to service and worship my own ego (PJ be praised!) because...I mean gosh, who else but me could deserve this much mone...I mean adoration!!!! Next week, I shall announce that for no other reason than to service and worship my own ego (PJ be praised!) the trilogy will be doubled! Huzzah!!!!!" |
My first worry is this though: they have wrapped filming and realised they had moore footage they could fit in two films... then one night after too much wine and in frenzy after looking at required cutting-choices they thought, goddammit, let's make three films with this material! All is required is a speedy re-cut for film one, and then they have time to make tricks to make the two latter films to work... maybe a few additional shoots then next year?
But OMG what will the quality of that sudden remodelling of a two-part movie turned into a trilogy be? I'm not too optimistic... (especailly when it is a PJ movie :rolleyes:) |
Quote:
|
It's simple math:
|
Oh well, it'll at least be interesting to see the extra footage without having to get special extended edition DVDs. I am a bit concerned that The Hobbit won't suit the three long films format, but I suppose we'll have to wait and see how it turns out. It ought to have quite a different feel to it from the Lord of the Rings.
|
I'm going to wait till it comes on cable. That way, I have a bathroom nearby to vomit in. The wife would be upset if I threw up on the Persian rug.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Three movies isn't necessary. Too bad they're going to milk it like this. Two movies made sense, three is overkill. I'm still excited about The Hobbit movies, though. I won't go into them expecting to see a true, accurate adaptation of the book. I will be going in expecting to see a well-done, visually appealing movie with some of the best music a movie has ever been blessed with.
|
Basically, I think Jackson has lost all sense of restraint, which was originally one thing I admired in the making of the 3 films. By restraint I mean the "We can't shoot LOTR line by line attitude." What happened to this attitude for The Hobbit films? Oh right, Hollywood sees big-time cash.
I mean if the Deathly Hallows can be split into 2-films, then surely we can take such a large and expansive story as The Hobbit and make it 3! Take that Potter! |
I will reserve judgment about whether it's overkill until I see the movies.
I don't really understand the attitude most are expressing, though. Personally, I enjoyed the LOTR movies a lot, though they of course had their flaws. I fully expect that I will enjoy these, but disagree with some of the choices and additions. Three movies give me 33% more to enjoy. Will they replace the book? Of course not. But I will look forward to them more than I will look forward to another movie featuring an intimate portrayal of the unfortunate choices of homosexual Muslim beekeepers. |
Quote:
|
Greedy is the word that springs to mind
Self indulgent to the point of incontinenceis the phrase. It is a short children's book. It should have been a sunday afternoon tv serial or a romp of a single film. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
For that matter, there are obviously those who have known and loved the books far longer than I, and yet enjoy the movies. I don't disparage them. A fundamental aspect of my criticism though, is that I'm just not much of a movie fan to begin with. People are always discussing the hot film of the day in front of me, asking my opinion, then acting astounded when I say I haven't seen it. I can take movies or leave them, and the latter is usually the course of action. Quote:
I really don't mean I won't ever see it, but it's going to have to be from a borrowed copy or something. I will not pay for it. |
Quote:
And from the statements released, The Hobbit story will comprise all 3 films, there won't be a "bridge" film. There can't be a bridge film, because all the additional info PJ wants to use from the Appendices, there is no plot, no singular story; just scattered bits of extra background information. |
Quote:
|
The only reason I'd like to watch these movies are because of the following:
-Best special effects -Great music -Ian mckellen -Mikael Persbrandt -Budget I doubt they will be deep great interesting beautiful movies. They will be shallow holywood summer blockbusters. If you would like to have faithful adaptions of the lord of the rings and hobbit book you'd have to create the movies outside holywood. I think someone like Ingmar Bergman or Akira Kurosawa would be able to that. Akira would handle all the action scenes and character dynamics/personalities. Bergman would concentrate on the camera angles and story/cutting the story together. Writing the script etc...with Allan Lee doing the designs for the movie. Sadly two of the three are dead... Peter Jackson is quite a crappy director I have to say...what made the lord of the rings so great were: Weta digital Howard shore EDIT: You watch the movies maybe two times in your life...one time in the cinemas and one time by downloading it and check it out when you're bored...or you watch some shorts on youtube. They're not that great...just like Avatar wasn't that great. Soo much hype around these movies... |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.