If you could change ONE thing in The Hobbit triology

[Marwhini]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

So just to recap, here's where I'm coming from:

1.) Why do you think "The Hobbit" requires a (much) lengthier treatment?

Because that is about what it would take to get the ENTIRE BOOK done as a movie without cutting anything.

A 2-hour production would leave 5 - 6 minutes, on average, to cover each Chapter of the movie.

Can you really cover all 19 chapters with just 6 minutes to each chapter?

2.) How would you go about this without either invention or padding?

Again....

Each chapter is roughly 20 pages long.

Simply create a script that gives each chapter an average of 20 minutes each.

That isn't hard to do without invention, or padding. Some chapters have individual scenes that would almost stretch to almost 20 minutes.

MB

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Marwhini

Because that is about what it would take to get the ENTIRE BOOK done as a movie without cutting anything.

A 2-hour production would leave 5 - 6 minutes, on average, to cover each Chapter of the movie.

Can you really cover all 19 chapters with just 6 minutes to each chapter?




Again....

Each chapter is roughly 20 pages long.

Simply create a script that gives each chapter an average of 20 minutes each.

That isn't hard to do without invention, or padding. Some chapters have individual scenes that would almost stretch to almost 20 minutes.

MB

Ummm...no. There are many chapters with many paragraphs of descriptive exposition that can be handled visually in a matter of seconds: a panorama, a quick pan, a fleeting shot.

It's a short book. Three films is and never was necessary. As I mentioned before, two films tops and you capture every major event and character, and no one would feel at all shortchanged.

What you want is a CGI figure of Tolkien reading the book. Even I would not care for that.

[Marwhini]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Ummm...no. There are many chapters with many paragraphs of descriptive exposition that can be handled visually in a matter of seconds: a panorama, a quick pan, a fleeting shot.

It's a short book. Three films is and never was necessary. As I mentioned before, two films tops and you capture every major event and character, and no one would feel at all shortchanged.

What you want is a CGI figure of Tolkien reading the book. Even I would not care for that.

Does the word "average" mean nothing to people here?

That one chapter contains more visual exposition does not negate the rather lengthier narratives and dialog exposition that exists in other chapters within the book.

Riddles in the Dark being just one scene that would require nearly 30 - 40 minutes for the entire chapter (and about 15 - 20 minutes for JUST the Scene involving purely the Riddle-game.

I can do a scene-by-scene breakdown of a few chapters to give examples.


MB

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Marwhini

Does the word "average" mean nothing to people here?

That one chapter contains more visual exposition does not negate the rather lengthier narratives and dialog exposition that exists in other chapters within the book.

Riddles in the Dark being just one scene that would require nearly 30 - 40 minutes for the entire chapter (and about 15 - 20 minutes for JUST the Scene involving purely the Riddle-game.

I can do a scene-by-scene breakdown of a few chapters to give examples.


MB

Please see my last post re: 20 minute scenes. Your concept would require many.

[Marwhini]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Please see my last post re: 20 minute scenes. Your concept would require many.

I do recognize that most "Scenes" are around 3-minutes long.

But The Hobbit has a collection of scenes that would be very long.

The Scene involving the Dwarves showing up at Bilbo's home would be longer than three minutes.

The Scene involving the discussion of his job would be more than three minutes.

The Riddle-game Scene with Gollum would be very long. It is already about 20-minutes in the existing movie.

And each chapter of the book contains a great many "Scenes."

With a 20-minutes:chapter limit, that would limit each chapter to no more than 6-⅔ scenes.

Looking at JUST the first chapter of the book, we have:

• Intro establishing shot of Hobbits, Hobbiton and a Hobbit-Hole
–*The Book has details of Bilbo's life and history, which would need to eventually be dealt with in some way via dialog of some sort. meaning what could be a 30-second establishing shot would need the addition of 2 - 5 minutes of dialog. Of course this exposition needn't be included in this spot in a script. It could be included later in the film.
•*Gandalf showing up at Bilbo's Door, and the "Good Morning" exchange, and invitation to Tea.
•*(Bag End, Tea Time) Dwalin's Arrival, and introduction, Bilbo invites him in, pours Tea, and offers him a cake.
•*Balin's arrival (more dialog about Tea, Cakes, and Beer)
•*Kili and Fili's arrival. Conversation about the "throng" expected, and when the others might arrive (Bilbo begins to show exasperation)
•*Dori, Nori, Ori, Oin, & Gloin's arrival.
•*Bilbo rushing about preparing coffee, and serving the dwarves as they talk among themselves.
•*Bifur, Bofur, Bombur, and Thorin's arrival; including Gandalf (lengthy dialog concerning Bilbo's pantry, the "getting down to Business, Bilbo muttering aloud to himself, setting the table.
•*Eating together.
•*Clearing up with the Song "That's what Bilbo Baggins Hates."
•*Playing of Music (A couple of more lively tunes, followed by the lengthy "Far over the Misty Mountains Cold"
•*THE Business: Lengthy dialog about Erebor, The plans for the Dwarves, and a bit of Hobbit History. Here we have the "Main" Scene of the chapter, including 9 pages of Dialog in the Book, translating to about 12 pages of dialog in a script - that would not include the Direction and Set Instructions).

If you give the main Scene 12 minutes, that only leaves 8 minutes for the remaining 11 Scenes, including two songs that would each take up roughly 2 - 3 minutes each (leaving 2 - 4 minutes for the remaining 9 scenes).

I'm not seeing how 20 minutes is either "stretching" the book, nor "rushing" the book.

MB

[Nerwen]

Marhwini, thus is a reply to your last post, with which I crossed.

You clearly don't grasp my point.

Yes, it is possible to write scenes 20 minutes in length. It is possible to write scenes 300 minutes in length.

The point is that you shouldn't.

Now rules can be broken, and "Three minutes" is a guideline, not an absolute, but I assure you that if you were to submit a script anywhere packed with 12, 15 and 20 minute scenes, it would almost certainly be summarily tossed in the bin.

[Nerwen]

Now can we please just stop this?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Change one thing?

Easy: reverse the decision to make it in the first place.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Change one thing?

Easy: reverse the decision to make it in the first place.

Unfortunately, that would require Superman to reverse the orbit of the earth, thus changing the whole time/space continuum. Which would be messy, particularly for people with vertigo.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Marwhini

I can do a scene-by-scene breakdown of a few chapters to give examples.

Please don't. For the love of Eru, don't bother.

Word-for-word transcription from novel to movie is daft. I already gave examples of highly regarded movies like Gone With the Wind (which you would like to drag out to 21 hours of film time) that did not require such treatment.

The run time of Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy was a bloated 474 minutes for the theater version (7.9 hours). Cut out all the asininity, superfluity and douchery and you have two films that fairly approximate the book. In the hands of a serious director who doesn't dwell on crotch, fart and snot jokes, you could probably even gain more canonicity.

Sorry, you can produce flip and pie charts, 3D diagrams, citations, footnotes and a pair of Tom Shippey's used underwear, but you're just not going to convince me that the 19 chapters of The Hobbit needs any more than two films to be a reverent and wonderful adaptation.

[Marwhini]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Please don't. For the love of Eru, don't bother.

Word-for-word transcription from novel to movie is daft.

At no point did I say "word-for-word."

I said that the movie would need to be longer than 2 hours to include THE ENTIRE book.

And that is due to the Heuristic Used in Screenwriting of an approximately 1-Page:1-Minute for Script:Screentime.

You don't seem to care about the actual evidence here, and seem instead to be relying upon what Jackson produced as the only possible means of depicting The Hobbit in three films, when he cut out vast swaths of the book, and included much that was utterly superfluous in its place.

Unless these is some real evidence for why 20 minutes per chapter (and, to include ON AVERAGE, since that seems to be a tricky concept for some) is too long, then that remains a fair standard for length of a production.

You might claim that some Chapters can be Significantly shortened (and I have no doubt that it would absolutely be possible to shorten some chapters), but unless you can show that this is the case AND that ALL CHAPTERS would then fit into a roughly 6 - 10 minute, on average, running-time, then the Movie simply would not fit into a 2 - 4 hour production without citing substantial amounts of material.

And the only way to do that is to detail the specific scenes that can result in an average 6 - 10 minute per chapter production.


MB

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Marwhini

At no point did I say "word-for-word."

I said that the movie would need to be longer than 2 hours to include THE ENTIRE book.

And that is due to the Heuristic Used in Screenwriting of an approximately 1-Page:1-Minute for Script:Screentime.

You don't seem to care about the actual evidence here, and seem instead to be relying upon what Jackson produced as the only possible means of depicting The Hobbit in three films, when he cut out vast swaths of the book, and included much that was utterly superfluous in its place.

Unless these is some real evidence for why 20 minutes per chapter (and, to include ON AVERAGE, since that seems to be a tricky concept for some) is too long, then that remains a fair standard for length of a production.

You might claim that some Chapters can be Significantly shortened (and I have no doubt that it would absolutely be possible to shorten some chapters), but unless you can show that this is the case AND that ALL CHAPTERS would then fit into a roughly 6 - 10 minute, on average, running-time, then the Movie simply would not fit into a 2 - 4 hour production without citing substantial amounts of material.

And the only way to do that is to detail the specific scenes that can result in an average 6 - 10 minute per chapter production.

You simply ignore what anyone else says just so you can rabbit on with your own theories. I would like it if you's please go back and read what I said, rather than continually talking over everyone.

No where, and at no time, did I mention a 2-4 hour production. No where did I refer to a single film. Ever. That is a figment of your own imagination.

[Marwhini]

I did read what you said.

And maybe if you have read works like Gone with the Wind you would realize that the movie contains far less than half the book (maybe even less than ¼ of it, but it has been almost 30 years since I read it - so I would need to find a coy of it to detail what all was left out). The film left out a gigantic Plot-arc concerning the KKK, among other things:

https://gwenonichi.wordpress.com/201...and-the-movie/

So citing it isn't exactly supporting that a long book can be translated to the screen in a single movie without cutting anything out.

These aren't "Theories" I am talking about.

Even Nerwen recognized that there is a recognized Script:Screen relationship that the movie and TV industry uses.

As far as claiming you never mentioned a 2-4 hour production. Here is what you said:

It's a short book. Three films is and never was necessary. As I mentioned before, two films tops and you capture every major event and character, and no one would feel at all shortchanged.

Pardon me if I have been speaking in terms of total hours of screen time, instead of how many films.

It is an industry standard that we talk about a typical film having a run-time of about 2 hours.

Thus a run-time of 4 hours would be considered to EITHER be a very long single film.... Or, more likely, it would be broken into two halves and released in two parts, as two separate films.

So that sounds a little disingenuous to claim you never said anything about a 2 - 4 hour production, when you are claiming "two films tops" (which would be roughly 4 hours).

You could expand that to 5 hours with 2 films of 2.5 hours each, and then you would be reducing each chapter to an average of 15 minutes each.

But it is likely that you would still have to cut things from the book in doing so, given that [I[The Hobbit[/I] tends to be pretty dialog heavy (and Dialog takes up more room in a script than it does in a novel, thus taking up more screen-time than pure visualization, or direction).

And if you want to play the equivocation game.... I am talking about a 20 minute per chapter translation.

That comes out to 6 hours and 20 minutes.

You can cut that into however many films you wish, from one six-hour movie, since there isn't a shortage of long movies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_films

To twenty twenty-minute episodes (which doesn't mean one per chapter).

MB

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Marwhini

At no point did I say "word-for-word."

I said that the movie would need to be longer than 2 hours to include THE ENTIRE book.

And that is due to the Heuristic Used in Screenwriting of an approximately 1-Page:1-Minute for Script:Screentime.

Excuse me. You have *not* merely said the movie "would need to be longer than 2 hours". You have been advocating a 9-12 hour version, and claiming it to be mandated by the "rules of Screenwriting"(!)

Edit: And once again, that "heuristic" does not apply to the task of adapting a novel, and thus remains irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Marwhini

You don't seem to care about the actual evidence here, and seem instead to be relying upon what Jackson produced as the only possible means of depicting The Hobbit in three films, when he cut out vast swaths of the book, and included much that was utterly superfluous in its place. Unless these is some real evidence for why 20 minutes per chapter (and, to include ON AVERAGE, since that seems to be a tricky concept for some) is too long, then that remains a fair standard for length of a production.

Yes, well, I'm starting to think reading comprehension might be tricky for some...

You might claim that some Chapters can be Significantly shortened (and I have no doubt that it would absolutely be possible to shorten some chapters), but unless you can show that this is the case AND that ALL CHAPTERS would then fit into a roughly 6 - 10 minute, on average, running-time, then the Movie simply would not fit into a 2 - 4 hour production without citing substantial amounts of material.

And the only way to do that is to detail the specific scenes that can result in an average 6 - 10 minute per chapter production.

I have explained to you that your approach would result in numerous scenes of enormous length. The burden of proof is on you to show it wouldn't. But, then, you won't even acknowledge that 20 minutes *is* an abnormal length. So I don't know where we go from here.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

You simply ignore what anyone else says just so you can rabbit on with your own theories. I would like it if you's please go back and read what I said, rather than continually talking over everyone.

No where, and at no time, did I mention a 2-4 hour production. No where did I refer to a single film. Ever. That is a figment of your own imagination.

Morth, he may be confusing you with me, in that I have mentioned a single film as being *typical* for a book of "The Hobbit's" length- i.e. an average novel. Which it is. I didn't say a film of "The Hobbit" in particular couldn't or shouldn't be longer, I was just countering Marhwini's repeated assertion that the "rules" of adaptation required this- specifically that they required a 9-12 hour treatment. (Or sometimes 6 hours. Seems to vary.)

Now, Marhwini, I think I have been very patient with you so far. However, your circular reasoning, appeals to imaginary authority, misrepresentation of others' statements, misrepresentation of your own, refusal to consider counter-arguments (or, often, acknowledge their existance), apparent belief in the automatic correctness of your every pronouncement, and above all, your general tone of high-handed superiority... these things do begin to grate.

Enough. You obviously feel passionate about your concepts, but unfortunately you haven't come within a hundred leagues of demonstrating convincingly how or why they could work, nor does it seem you ever will.

Now how about we just drop the subject and let Aaron have his thread back?

Edit: x'd with the man himself.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Marwhini

Because that is about what it would take to get the ENTIRE BOOK done as a movie without cutting anything.

A 2-hour production would leave 5 - 6 minutes, on average, to cover each Chapter of the movie.

Can you really cover all 19 chapters with just 6 minutes to each chapter?




Again....

Each chapter is roughly 20 pages long.

Simply create a script that gives each chapter an average of 20 minutes each.

That isn't hard to do without invention, or padding. Some chapters have individual scenes that would almost stretch to almost 20 minutes.

MB

But 20 minutes is an extraordinarily long scene. Heck, 3 minutes is a long scene. (That's the maximum recommended scene length according to an actual rule-of-thumb that actually exists.).

I know you think I harp on about pacing and the difference between "novel time" and "screen time", and I guess I do, but, well, what can I say? You can't just decide, "ah, this scene is 20 pages long in the book so it can be 20 minutes in the movie. Simple!" It really isn't simple. (Besides, much of the time you've been arguing for a vast increase over even *that*.)

I understand you've worked as "Talent" on many productions, including major ones, and I certainly don't wish to belittle that, nor the film course you mentioned taking. However, it's looking to me now if despite all this there are certain areas you haven't yet grasped sufficiently, and that your enthusiasm for a "9-12 hour" "Hobbit" is unfortunately just a result of that.

TL;DR- Nope. Wouldn't work. Sorry!