The Hobbit Film Trilogy Thread

[Faleel 5,345]

Yeah. The Hobbit is Frodo's Special Edition of Bilbo's memoirs, CGI Dwarves and all.

No, The Hobbit is Samwise Peter Jackson, Pippin Boyens, and Merry Walsh's Special Edition, CGI Dwarves and all.

[Luke Skywalker 1,794]

gkgyver you must treat the novels and the films as sepparate entities.

the hobbit films are made and marketed to be LOTR prequels.

the hobbit novel was not.

Period.

[Incanus 5,714]

gkgyver you must treat the novels and the films as sepparate entities.

the hobbit films are made and marketed to be LOTR prequels.

the hobbit novel was not.

Period.

It is impossible to advertise something as a prequel when it comes first and the sequel second. Speaking of the books of course.

[alicebrallice 134]

http://www.nowlive.com/thehobbitUSA

Tune in at 9:50pm EST / 6:50pm PST on Tuesday, November 27 for the highly anticipated World Premiere of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. Watch LIVE interviews with your favorite cast members as they walk the carpet in Wellington, New Zealand!

that is... 03:50am CET

[Incanus 5,714]

Awwww! There goes my chance as well.

[Wojo 2,453]

It is impossible to advertise something as a prequel when it comes first and the sequel second. Speaking of the books of course.

No it isn't.

[Incanus 5,714]

Perhaps I should have stated it more clearly that I meant the Hobbit in relation to Lord of the Rings, not novels in general. Of course you can write books and advertise them as happening before the events of the first novel but in Hobbit's case there is no reason to call it a prequel. It was there first and it had a sequel. Simple as that.

The situation with the LotR films in relation to the Hobbit films is another matter just because of the way they came out, the magnum opus first and the opening act second.

[Wojo 2,453]

Right. The book called The Lord of the Rings is the sequel to the book called The Hobbit. Period.

The movie called The Hobbit is the prequel to the movie called The Lord of the Rings, for two basic reasons. First, it was written and filmed with the full awareness that The Lord of the Rings movies were made and hugely successful, and so must pull continuity -- actors, sets, music, costumes, style, etc. -- from the earlier movies, which take place later, so the franchise of six movies is stitched together, not be made in a vacuum. Secondly, these aren't straight-up Hobbit movies: they're new beasts that pull from the Appendices of TLOTR and, for all we know, The Silmarillion, Lost Tales, and other JRRT sources -- in addition to PJ's wildly inventive imagination -- that indicate we won't know what we're getting until we've had it.

But if after all that, it's still "the anti-prequel to a film based on a sequel book," you can keep rolling with that.

[Incanus 5,714]

Right. The book called The Lord of the Rings is the sequel to the book called The Hobbit. Period.

Secondly, these aren't straight-up Hobbit movies: they're new beasts that pull from the Appendices of TLOTR and, for all we know, The Silmarillion, Lost Tales, and other JRRT sources -- in addition to PJ's wildly inventive imagination -- that indicate we won't know what we're getting until we've had it.

Unfortunately The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales or anything outside The Hobbit and LotR cannot be included in the films as the rights cover only those two. The Appendices of LotR provide a sort of loop hole as they contain much history and background for Tolkien's mythology but alas the First and Second Age are largely unavailable to the movie makers to mine more material.

[Wojo 2,453]

Ah, good to know. That means we'll only get three new movies instead of five or six.

[Incanus 5,714]

Until Royd Tolkien sells the movie rights to all of his great-grandfather's works sometime in the future.

[Brónach 1,302]

I wonder for how many centuries are people who aren't J.R.R. Tolkien supposed to retain the rights to his work.

[Jay 37,343]

150 years from date of first publication I think?

[Brónach 1,302]

If that's the case I think it's ridiculous.

[Incanus 5,714]

British copyright law: For literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works

70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the last remaining author of the work dies.

If the author is unknown, copyright will last for 70 years from end of the calendar year in which the work was created, although if it is made available to the public during that time, (by publication, authorised performance, broadcast, exhibition, etc.), then the duration will be 70 years from the end of the year that the work was first made available.

I do not know how this works if the rights are sold though.

And Tolkien Estate are the hereditary owners of the copyrights to Tolkien's works. So I would not hold my breath of selling any rights to anyone while Christopher Tolkien is around.

[Jay 37,343]

Well JRR Tolkien died in 1973, so 70 years after that is 2043.

[Brónach 1,302]

I still find this speculation with rights to be utter nonsense.

[Marian Schedenig 8,191]

If that's the case I think it's ridiculous.

That's Disney, actually.

[mrbellamy 6,278]

First clip!!! Bilbo gets Sting (includes a bit of score)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgGL0F9r4XM

[alicebrallice 134]

whoa!

not gonna watch though.

[Brónach 1,302]

I clicked on it without thinking. I saw like half of it.

[Alan 689]

I really hope that isn't the actual score from the finished film. All they've done is track in music from the Council of Elrond and then from when Gandalf is talking to Frodo about choosing what to do with the time given in Moria. Worrying but I'm sure it's just what the people putting clips together have put in there. I hope!

[Faleel 5,345]

I really hope that isn't the actual score from the finished film. All they've done is track in music from the Council of Elrond and then from when Gandalf is talking to Frodo about choosing what to do with the time given in Moria. Worrying...

Uhhh....

Or perhaps Shore chose to allude to those moments with those motifs?

[Alan 689]

Aside from it sounding exactly the same it also sounded edited.

[Faleel 5,345]

The prologue music in FOTR sounded like an edit as well, but it was a new composition.

(I believe this music was on the stream..)

[gkgyver 1,645]

Right. The book called The Lord of the Rings is the sequel to the book called The Hobbit. Period.

The movie called The Hobbit is the prequel to the movie called The Lord of the Rings, for two basic reasons. First, it was written and filmed with the full awareness that The Lord of the Rings movies were made and hugely successful, and so must pull continuity -- actors, sets, music, costumes, style, etc. -- from the earlier movies, which take place later, so the franchise of six movies is stitched together, not be made in a vacuum. Secondly, these aren't straight-up Hobbit movies: they're new beasts that pull from the Appendices of TLOTR and, for all we know, The Silmarillion, Lost Tales, and other JRRT sources -- in addition to PJ's wildly inventive imagination -- that indicate we won't know what we're getting until we've had it.

So, you are saying it is a prequel that is designed to be an extended LotR because cast, costumes, sets and music are the same? Would you prefer other actors? Other sets? Why would you can actors that worked? To avoid the brand "prequel"?

When people say it is a prequel, there is also an underlying tone that it's a rehash of old stuff, designed to cater in to the LotR audience, when in reality it's a way to make the six movies work more together. There would really be no point in doing the film in the first place when you don't use the same cast and places.

It's filmed after LotR, but that doesn't necessarily make it a prequel.

I really hope that isn't the actual score from the finished film. All they've done is track in music from the Council of Elrond and then from when Gandalf is talking to Frodo about choosing what to do with the time given in Moria. Worrying...

Uhhh....

Or perhaps Shore chose to allude to those moments with those motifs?

Jesus I hope so.

That is indeed a shade of George Lucas.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[gkgyver 1,645]

No, honestly, I was wondering which part of the score plays over that scene, and I'm hearing tracked music from Fellowship?

Did recording sessions wrap too soon or what's happening there?

[Alan 689]

I've seen a lot of clips for different films that have had music tracked in. I'm sure it won't be the same in the film.

[Jay 37,343]

We have the music for this scene on the OST, its "A Troll-hoard".

Syfy probably was sent this clip before the post production was finished and it still had the temp track on it would be my guess

Same thing happened in an early TV special for The Two Towers, it featured the warg attack scene with no score at all

[gkgyver 1,645]

I was really wondering if the events surrounding King Kong somehow changed the connection between PJ and HS. I hope this isn't a result of that.

[Jay 37,343]

LOL. No.

[gkgyver 1,645]

LOL. No.

I wouldn't put it below Jackson to track that music.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Luke Skywalker 1,794]

Right. The book called The Lord of the Rings is the sequel to the book called The Hobbit. Period.

The movie called The Hobbit is the prequel to the movie called The Lord of the Rings, for two basic reasons. First, it was written and filmed with the full awareness that The Lord of the Rings movies were made and hugely successful, and so must pull continuity -- actors, sets, music, costumes, style, etc. -- from the earlier movies, which take place later, so the franchise of six movies is stitched together, not be made in a vacuum. Secondly, these aren't straight-up Hobbit movies: they're new beasts that pull from the Appendices of TLOTR and, for all we know, The Silmarillion, Lost Tales, and other JRRT sources -- in addition to PJ's wildly inventive imagination -- that indicate we won't know what we're getting until we've had it.

So, you are saying it is a prequel that is designed to be an extended LotR because cast, costumes, sets and music are the same? Would you prefer other actors? Other sets? Why would you can actors that worked? To avoid the brand "prequel"?

When people say it is a prequel, there is also an underlying tone that it's a rehash of old stuff, designed to cater in to the LotR audience, when in reality it's a way to make the six movies work more together. There would really be no point in doing the film in the first place when you don't use the same cast and places.

It's filmed after LotR, but that doesn't necessarily make it a prequel.

The moment they included characters not in the novel, like legolas...it became a prequel.

[Brónach 1,302]

Hum, had they filmed The Hobbit first, they could have also thought of putting Legolas and some of the others there just as well.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Brónach 1,302]

No, you don't understand. If back in the mid-90's the rights to The Hobbit had been available at the time, when LOTR rights were also available, and they had to name some of the unnamed elves, and with the nerdy nods that PJ takes sometimes, it's easy that we could have had a Legolas in the film as well as minor character. Or the other member of the White Council. Played by who knows. The Bloom fandom factor is irrelevant. That would be like saying Legolas wouldn't have been LOTR because there wasn't a Bloom fandom factor then. Duh, the character had yet to be introduced.

[Jay 37,343]

If they had been able to film The Hobbit first, so we're talking like in 1999-2001 they filmed The Hobbit, it likely would have been either a single 3 hour movie or two 2-hour movies, and would have just been a fairly straight-up adaptation of the book, I doubt anyone would have been pushing to add in side-stories from the LOR appendixes at that point. Had it been the same smashing success that LOTR was, who knows if PJ would still have gone on to make King Kong and The Lovely Bones or would have gone right into making LOTR (remember The Hobbit was only delayed so much because of the rights dispute between MGM and WB). But clearly there would have been several cast differences (remember Orlando Bloom was only picked for Pirates because of LOTR, so without him being in that there likely would be a totally different Legolas for a 2005-2007ish LOTR trilogy, etc)

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Brónach 1,302]

Duh, he would have been a background character! I'm pretty sure the studio would have sequels in mind!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Brónach 1,302]

Jackson did say he was unsure about the amount dwarves at the time.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Jay 37,343]

I'm watching the live coverage of the premiere right now

https://www.facebook.com/TheHobbitMovie/app_173795602763999

The lady asking questions to the cast is annoying

Impressive how MANY people are there!

[KK 3,307]

I'm debating whether I should stop visiting this thread. I don't want to know whether people walked out of this disappointed or not. I want to see this film with a clean slate walking in.

[Jay 37,343]

Hey cool John Rhys Davies is at the premiere, and I *think* Liv Tyler too, not sure (wasn't paying total attention, but it was a female signing autographs and it wasn't Cate Blanchett)

KK I'll be starting a separate spoilers-allowed thread to discuss the film now that it's premiered while this one can remain the spoiler-free anticipation thread for anything who hasn't seen it yet.

But honestly if you don't want to know if people are generally disappointed or not with the film between now and when you see it you will basically need to stay away from the entire internet lol

~~~~

Well that was cool, after all the red carpet stuff the mayor of Wellington, the PM of New Zealand, and others like that got on a stage that looked like the outside of Bag End and gave some speeches, then introduced Peter Jackson, who came out from the Bag End main door! He ended up introducing Philippa and all the actors onto the stage, was great to see them all together up there, but not in character. There was a pre-filmed message from Ian McKellen to end it, which was nice. He's a genuiely cool guy.

[Incanus 5,714]

The actual Hobbit madness is about to strike the world so I don't think you can avoid it in one form or another but I'd wager these threads will become even more active than they were before. I am on the fence about following all the hoobla or not. We have seen a lot of footage and images from the film in the past few months so perhaps retaining something new to the eye and ear for the movie theater is a good idea.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Incanus 5,714]

Look who it is, my favourite new character, Mr. Ball of Lard himself! Warts and all look at his face I see.