The Hobbit Film Trilogy Thread

[Brónach 1,302]

I think you might be misunderstanding me a little.

For this book to be adapted you have to necesarily add tons of character interaction and stuff, otherwise some parts would be just long montages.

But one thing is that, and other thing invent so much new stuff that you need three films to tell such a story. If you can't represent the characters properly in two two and half hour films, then what can we expect from three films?

[SF1_freeze 131]

More added bridge stuff which has nothing to do with the Hobbit book for example (and i always hoped to see things like Aragorns hunt for Gollum, ...)

[Brónach 1,302]

I'd much prefer if The Hobbit was more self contained and could be considered by a new viewer to end by the second film. It'll annoy me if it goes back to LOTR to "finish the story".

They're better avoiding the "SW prequel effect" were you know where everything is going and it becomes boring. If the LOTR and Hobbit are more tangential to each other that is more unlikely to happen and the world seems more varied and diverse because not everything revolves around the same for six films.

And what is the title of this third film they want to do?

As for The Hobbit being a kiddie film, I would like it to be something both kids and adults can enjoy, some old fashioned fantasy adventure yarn done with modern technology and full of fun, colourful characters, but honest about the drama and death that can happen, and with some healthy scary moments. I think kids enjoy all these elements put together, it does good for their imagination and it does not treat them as idiots.

[Matt C 454]

The two films also might feel too fast. What you said is pessimistic speculation with no merit cause it could be the exact opposite. An example would be the longer and SLOWER extended editions of the LOTR trilogy. Every one of those was much better than the rushed cinema versions.

I very much disagree. ROTK in its extended form is absolutely butt-numbing, and the added Saruman sequence draws the film to a standstill. There's a few scenes that should've been in the theatrical cut (such as the Eowyn scenes), but overall I prefer the theatrical cut over the EE version. As for FOTR and TTT, that's a different story.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Idiot!

[gkgyver 1,645]

So, what is this thing going to be, for Christ's sake?

Why not expand it to six movies, extend the shooting for two more years straight and add the Silmarillion for good measure?

I feel like this movie will have almost zero to do with the actual Hobbit book. The tone will be different, characters are added, and the stuff they put in seems to be way more than the actualy storyline of the Hobbit. Like I said, the search for the Lonely Mountain will, in all likeliness, feel like a side story.

I would not trust that Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens are that much of a safe bet in this regard. Just look at ROTK.

Jackson more or less saved the whole production of this thing by taking the director's chair, he's gonna make the films the way he wants them to be.

It will be utterly brilliant to have three more scores by Howard Shore, for sure. But I feel that a third movie was not really on his mind, and could possibly "stretch" the music.

So, I guess the first movie will end when the company reaches Rivendell, and the second after the escape from Mirkwood. Possibly.

[KK 3,307]

This sucks! The structure of the story over two films could be PERFECT. Three films might feel too slow and dilute the tension and make it a bit boring. Sort of like ROTK.

The two films also might feel too fast. What you said is pessimistic speculation with no merit cause it could be the exact opposite. An example would be the longer and SLOWER extended editions of the LOTR trilogy. Every one of those was much better than the rushed cinema versions!

Both the theatrical and extended cuts are great with merits of their own.

More added bridge stuff which has nothing to do with the Hobbit book for example (and i always hoped to see things like Aragorns hunt for Gollum, ...)

I seriously doubt we'll see anything like Aragorn's hunt for Gollum. I mean seriously. Imagine how anti-climactic the third film will be if we saw all this epilogue material AFTER the death of Smaug. It'd go on and on with all sorts of "forced" attempts to bring the franchise together as a whole. I believe a different path must be in mind....well I hope so, for their sake.

I would not trust that Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens are that much of a safe bet in this regard. Just look at ROTK.

Jackson more or less saved the whole production of this thing by taking the director's chair, he's gonna make the films the way he wants them to be.

Why do people keep bashing ROTK? It's a brilliant epic and a fantastic finale to the trilogy. Its a very well made film. And Boyens and Walsh are arguably the greatest assets to this franchise. Hopefully, they will keep this "trilogy" grounded while keeping it true to the spirit of Tolkien's work. I'm counting on you Boyens!!

So, I guess the first movie will end when the company reaches Rivendell, and the second after the escape from Mirkwood. Possibly.

I doubt they'll change much of what they have ready for the first film. The first film will be packed with all sorts of things that probably end with the barrel scene. But the other 2 films will likely drag quite a bit. And I'm curious as to what they'll place as the climax of the 2nd film. And where will Smaug's end come in all this?! There are some serious pacing problems this "trilogy" presents.

[Brónach 1,302]

When the company reaches Rivendell? The only problem they have had at that point is the encounter with the trolls! Of course you can fill it with random stuff and flashbacks and what not, until the actual Hobbit is reduced to a part of the whole and you wonder what the hell the film is supposed to be about.

About making money, maybe.

[crocodile 8,017]

I've never read the book, to be honest. So, to maximise me enjoyment of the films, I probably won't do it ever.

Karol

[Matt C 454]

Why not expand it to six movies, extend the shooting for two more years straight and add the Silmarillion for good measure?

I feel like this movie will have almost zero to do with the actual Hobbit book. The tone will be different, characters are added, and the stuff they put in seems to be way more than the actualy storyline of the Hobbit. Like I said, the search for the Lonely Mountain will, in all likeliness, feel like a side story.

The Simarillion was published posthumously -- which means his son and his estate own the rights (Tolkien sold the film rights to The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings while he was alive). And considering his son's dismissal of the film adaptations, it won't be optioned anytime soon.

Now, had Christopher Tolkien let WB/New Line option The Simarillion, then a third Hobbit movie would make a LOT more sense.

[gkgyver 1,645]

Return Of The King is a brilliant film in its way, but you can tell that Jackson's mind comes through a lot more than in the first two films. Gothmog, the ghost city, the fire ball from Saruman's staff (even though PJ said on the FOTR audio commentary that he hates wizard fights with rays coming out of their staffs), to name some.

Fellowship and Two Towers have wonderful lyrical qualities, a quality that ROTK in some ways lacks, there is a lot more of Jackson's love for monsters and gore coming through.

I do think they will change the first film a lot. They can't end the first one with the barrel scene, that would leave the other two films with almost nothing. Then they may as well rename them to "The History of Middle-Earth" parts 1, 2 and 3.

It is one thing to add background story and appendices to The Hobbit in order to bring it in touch with the LOTR trilogy, but it's something entirely different to focus on them.

If the third film does not end with Smaug's and Thorin's death and Bilbo's return to the Shire, PJ is in a lot of trouble.

[SF1_freeze 131]

Return Of The King is a brilliant film in its way, but you can tell that Jackson's mind comes through a lot more than in the first two films. Gothmog, the ghost city, the fire ball from Saruman's staff (even though PJ said on the FOTR audio commentary that he hates wizard fights with rays coming out of their staffs), to name some.

Fellowship and Two Towers have wonderful lyrical qualities, a quality that ROTK in some ways lacks, there is a lot more of Jackson's love for monsters and gore coming through.

I do think they will change the first film a lot. They can't end the first one with the barrel scene, that would leave the other two films with almost nothing. Then they may as well rename them to "The History of Middle-Earth" parts 1, 2 and 3.

It is one thing to add background story and appendices to The Hobbit in order to bring it in touch with the LOTR trilogy, but it's something entirely different to focus on them.

If the third film does not end with Smaug's and Thorin's death and Bilbo's return to the Shire, PJ is in a lot of trouble.

When the company reaches Rivendell? The only problem they have had at that point is the encounter with the trolls! Of course you can fill it with random stuff and flashbacks and what not, until the actual Hobbit is reduced to a part of the whole and you wonder what the hell the film is supposed to be about.

About making money, maybe.

I have to repeat myself here to reply to these worries:

The scripts were written mainly by PJ, his wife and Philippa Boyens. All the women had to do while shooting were script revisions. It seems obvious that they (while PJ was shooting) came to the conclusion that they could do a third movie and they probably worked it all out over the last half year.

Now they still have time till next year to figure out a script / finish an already progressed script for the third film. So two extremely experienced and capable writers and Peter Jackson have almost ONE year to draft the third film and change the second one accordingly. This is more than enough time! They worked on these Hobbit films and scripts for more than three years now.

They know what they are doing!

The two films also might feel too fast. What you said is pessimistic speculation with no merit cause it could be the exact opposite. An example would be the longer and SLOWER extended editions of the LOTR trilogy. Every one of those was much better than the rushed cinema versions.

I very much disagree. ROTK in its extended form is absolutely butt-numbing, and the added Saruman sequence draws the film to a standstill. There's a few scenes that should've been in the theatrical cut (such as the Eowyn scenes), but overall I prefer the theatrical cut over the EE version. As for FOTR and TTT, that's a different story.

In my opinion the theatrical version was rushed and lacked absolutely pivotal scenes. It was a 3h20min long trailer for the Extended Edition. The often criticized endings sequences were meant to end the whole 10+ hour trilogy and not only RotK. If you want the end of RotK alone switch off your TV after the coronation scene.

Both the theatrical and extended cuts are great with merits of their own.

I don't see these merits for the theatrical cuts. The theatrical versions pale in comparison to their extended counterparts. I know no one who would watch the theatrical cut if he owns the EE.

[KK 3,307]

They know what they are doing!

I certainly hope so.

Both the theatrical and extended cuts are great with merits of their own.

I don't see these merits for the theatrical cuts. The theatrical versions pale in comparison to their extended counterparts. I know no one who would watch the theatrical cut if he owns the EE.

For more mainstream/casual viewers, the theatrical cuts are certainly preferred. And while I certainly prefer the EEs, there are times where I'd like to see the films in theatrical form.

[Brónach 1,302]

When I saw the extended cut of ROTK, I felt a few scenes should hav been left out: some from the short cut, and some from the extended cut.

If I take a list of all the scenes in the extended cut of ROTK I'll explain myself. Although there are some script decisions and material that is nowhere to be found in any version that make it a bit hard.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Wasn't everyone clamoring for Jackson to return when Del Toro was attached to direct, now they all want him burned at the stake?

If you don't trust him as a filmmaker at this point, I don't know what to say. Deal with it? You're all gonna see them anyway.

[Romão 2,274]

As I'm not a particular fan of PJ's adaptation of LOTR, I was very dissapointed when I learned he, not Del Toro, would direct this thing

[ST-321 4]

So will there be EE versions as well?

The last PJ film I saw was King Kong and that way way too long for my tastes. I am hoping that he doesn't drag The Hobbit on and on. On the up side, there will be much more music from Howard Shore. I am happy about that.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

As I'm not a particular fan of PJ's adaptation of LOTR, I was very dissapointed when I learned he, not Del Toro, would direct this thing

Yeah I understand your overall distate for the films. Honestly the only Del Toro film I really loved was Pan's Labyrinth. He obviously adores production and costume design, but I find him lacking as a director.

[KK 3,307]

I loved Pan's Labyrinth to bits, but I'm not much of a fan of his other films. I wonder what the Hobbit would have been under Del Toro's reigns.

But I'm really glad that it ended up in Jackson's hands. As fishy as this trilogy sounds, I still believe only Jackson and company can pull it off.

[Romão 2,274]

As I'm not a particular fan of PJ's adaptation of LOTR, I was very dissapointed when I learned he, not Del Toro, would direct this thing

Yeah I understand your overall distate for the films. Honestly the only Del Toro film I really loved was Pan's Labyrinth. He obviously adores production and costume design, but I find him lacking as a director.

I agree with you on Del Toro, but at this point I'd really welcome a new hand on this universe

[Matt C 454]

Wasn't everyone clamoring for Jackson to return when Del Toro was attached to direct, now they all want him burned at the stake?

It's typical fanboy hypocrisy. The same thing happened with Sam Raimi after Spider-Man 3 -- they thought he could do no wrong with the first two Spidey films and then when the third film came out, they were screaming for his head. It's similar thinking that have Tolkien fanboys rebelling against Jackson's decision to make a third Hobbit film.

I have to admit that a del Toro-directed Hobbit would be interesting to see (especially with Guillermo Nevarro handling the cinematography). I would've paid to see that too, but having Jackson return was a nice surprise.

[Incanus 5,715]

Overall while PJ may have had his excesses he succeeded with the help of his marvellous team pulling off a fantastic trilogy of films that does capture and honor the spirit of Tolkien to a large extent. They are not perfect films but I can't really say that about any movie.

Oh we can criticize the design and characters and PJs already known excesses with the story and whimsy like some of the Dwarf designs, non-canon characters, odd storylines with non-canon creations like the bunnies and Ringwraith tombs but we can't say anything certain yet about the Hobbit films as far as their storylines or pacing are concerned as we do not have enough information. And I feel strongly that we can indeed question the need for the third film, especially when the novel itself doesn't warrant such stretching of the story and there is a serious question, can they succesfully adapt portions of the Appendices from LotR into enough material to warrant the creation of a third film. We should also keep in mind that we do not know yet the running times of these films and how this restructuring might have changed them.

I am expectant but with trepidation of how PJ and his team will pull this off now.

[publicist 4,643]

They might even have some fun developing stories out of little Tolkien notes. I somehow don't think all the hard (and largely successful) work on condensing LOTR was a fluke, they seem to know what they're doing.

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

Am I the only one who hates the Extended Edition of ROTK?

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Please this was thought up years ago

[publicist 4,643]

I know I’m an adult.

That comes as a surprise.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Indeed!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Sandor 797]

They make three films out of the book PLUS the appendices of RotK

Exactly. Some people seem to be so illiterate constantly claiming that Jackson is smudging out The Hobbit novel only over three films. Sometimes I wonder if they really want to know all the facts.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

No it's all connected!

I hope we will get to see Helm Hammerhand!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[gkgyver 1,645]

Film two ending with Smaug's death? How much is left then for film three? 20 pages?

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Brónach 1,302]

I think they'll mke the battle overlong and overstupid.

[Wojo 2,453]

I think they'll mke the battle overlong and overstupid.

What, you mean make the battle sequences in a prequel movie longer and more obnoxious than any battle in the original film series?

Well there's certainly a first time for everything...

[SF1_freeze 131]

The added stuff by the way is necessary for more dramatic and more grown up versions of the tale. The Hobbit alone is a child book and no one wants to see a child movie.

That’s a stupid statement. Firstly, there are lots of people who’d like to see a child movie. Not everything as to be dark and moody, and serious… I know you feel it has to be that way so when you watch the film, you feel like a real adult, because, you know… It’s dark and moody and serious! But I personally don’t need that. I have no problem watching a child movie. I know I’m an adult. Watching a child movie doesn’t change who I am.

And secondly, it seem that, to you, child movie = bad movie, which is utterly stupid, if I may add. Yeah, sure, lots of them are bad, but not all of them, so no need to take shortcuts like that.

The Hobbit had a lighthearted tone. There is a reason for that. Why should they change the tone dramatically when creating a movie? Because, nowadays, everything needs to be dark (because dark is cool, you know!)? Personally, I see no particular reason. I’m not saying they should do a silly movie with every character being all “tralalala” and stuff like that. I’m just saying there’s absolutely no need for it be “dark” and “epic” and all those things you seems to believe are an absolute necessity.

I don't consider child movies to be bad movies. I still love TPM, The Lion King and a lot more. Still, in my opinion a movie has to include serious, more grown up themes to appeal to children and adults. While you watch it as a child you don't understand them but they are there and make the film better and when you watch it as an adult later on it all adds up.

And remember most of the Starwars films or Indiana Jones. They were in bigger parts movies for children but people still love them as adults. That are the kind of movies that i want the Hobbit movies to be and PJ agrees. Not some huffy puffy fairytale where you roll your eyes while watching.

[Quintus 5,399]

I think they'll mke the battle overlong and overstupid.

Such an idle whiner. Why so cheer less?

[Brónach 1,302]

And remember most of the Starwars films or Indiana Jones. They were in bigger parts movies for children but people still love them as adults. That are the kind of movies that i want the Hobbit movies to be and PJ agrees. Not some huffy puffy fairytale where you roll your eyes while watching.

But that was already in the book... it can have a lighthearted tone and serious bussiness. In fact that would be most loyal to the book.

Btw, I like The Lion King less and less and less as time passes.

[Jay 37,368]

I think they'll mke the battle overlong and overstupid.

What, you mean make the battle sequences in a prequel movie longer and more obnoxious than any battle in the original film series?

Well there's certainly a first time for everything...

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

I've been years saying PJ is the next GL... but everyone takes me for a madman...

eh i'm lost since i didnt read some pages,

are they doing 3 films now or not?

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Quintus 5,399]

In another four years you will still be that mad man

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

why dont they make the two hobbit films and make other book's stories without having to attach them to the hobbit...

[KK 3,307]

PJ's not the next Lucas and this Hobbit trilogy is not going to be the prequels.

why dont they make the two hobbit films and make other book's stories without having to attach them to the hobbit...

They don't have the rights to any of the other books.

And I'd prefer it if Jackson refrains from going on a rampage to every bring piece of Tolkien writing on to the big screen.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Great!

[Brónach 1,302]

why dont they make the two hobbit films and make other book's stories without having to attach them to the hobbit...

Yes. If they want to make a film out of unrelated events from the Appendix, (I mean, Dwarven backstory and culture for example would be related and I would put that in The Hobbit, but other stuff...), they can create a story for another film that is neither The Hobbit or THe Lord of the Rings.

But they did say that they had abandoned that concept.

[Incanus 5,715]

They should have developed the Appendices into a TV series so they could revel in the history of Middle Earth in full 10 episodes per season.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,534]

Sorry, guys, but 3 films is reeeeeeeeeeeeealy pussssssssssssssssshing iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.