THE HOBBIT (2012/2013): News, Rumors, Pics Till Release

Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Skywalker, Mar 21, 2011.

  1. davejames

    davejames Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2001
    Location:
    Sac, Ca
    Ugh. Two hours and forty minutes, and that's just for the first movie. I imagine the second and third will be at least three hours each.

    Which to me is just way too freakin long. I enjoyed LOTR, but I'm not exactly dying to sit through another 9 hours of it.
     
  2. Set Harth

    Set Harth Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Location:
    Angmar
    And dwarf bodily functions. I'm looking at you, ROTK EE. :klingon:
     
  3. Wereghost

    Wereghost Part-time poltergeist Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Location:
    Ireland
    I thought they'd earned it, as with the ridiculously cool moment where Leggy swings onto his horse as the Warg attack begins.

    I kind of draw the line at ROTK's "game over" line, though. :)
     
  4. mswood

    mswood Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Location:
    9th level of Hell
    Frankly thats a bunch of crap. Now I do agree that a lot of material that is cut from film is cut for three primary reasons and one of them is the reason you listed.

    1, Being material that just isn't up to the quality of the bulk of the film

    But here are two very common reasons for cutting.

    2. Length, most film studios will try and keep films under 2 and a half hours. Could be a thousand page book, its going to be under 2 and a half hours. usually films that have a huge name director, or films that are considered money in the bank already can exceed this.

    3. Cutting material to give a movie a certain focus. If you have a large cast for example you might film material for thats balanced out, but when you decide to market it you might want to have one primary story as the driving force, so you edit the material to focus on that one character and lessen the role of others.

    As for Jackson you realize he cut a ton of material out of the three lord of the rings films, even the extended editions aren't even close to all the material he shot for those three films. Its estimated he could put back in over 30 min on each film, and thats not even counting material that was filmed and then rewritten afterwards and redone in pickups. Like Arwen at Helms' Deep as an easy example.

    For example with the exceptions of 4 scenes in the extended editions, I think they are the far superior cut, they even get better critical reviews then the theatrical cuts, so its not just my meaningless opinion.

    There are 4 though, that I think hurt the films. There isn't enough for example in Fellowship that was added that didn't help improve the film.

    Kingdom in Heaven is an example of a film that the extended cut is far superior to the theatrical release.

    It all depends on the material. Long doesn't equal crap. Period.

    Doesn't equal good either. But pretty much any literary classic book thats been done in long form verses standard theatrical length that I have seen I found superior.
     
  5. Lonemagpie

    Lonemagpie Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    I'm thinking of him boarding down stairs in TTT, and the oliphaunt's trunk in ROTK...
     
  6. Deckerd

    Deckerd Fleet Arse Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Location:
    the Frozen Wastes
    And then you went on at length to mostly agree with me. Strange.
     
  7. Ancient Mariner

    Ancient Mariner Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    Location:
    A deserted gin joint on the Lower East Side
    Worth the price of admission for me. :lol:
     
  8. Candlelight

    Candlelight Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2000
    Location:
    New Zealand
  9. Klaus

    Klaus Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    Location:
    Beach condo, Bay of Eldamar
    That's awesome! :eek:
     
  10. JD

    JD Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Location:
    Arizona, USA
    Yeah, that is pretty impressive.
     
  11. Ancient Mariner

    Ancient Mariner Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    Location:
    A deserted gin joint on the Lower East Side
    It's precious.
     
  12. Emh

    Emh The Doctor Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Location:
    Brussels, Belgium
    Holy shit, that's amazing! :eek:
     
  13. DarthPipes

    DarthPipes Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2006
    You could tell the entire Hobbit novel in two hours and forty minutes. Seriously, he's going to do three movies on The Hobbit that are going to clock in at at least eight hours? Oh, but of course, Peter Jackson is a genius. The same genius who decided to take a ninety-minute movie in King Kong and turn into into a bloated, three-hour-plus "epic."

    Here's hoping it works out but the decision to turn The Hobbit into a trilogy is strictly a money grab by the studio and Peter Jackson's continued love affair with himself. Seriously, it's pretty much him masterbating on-screen for eight hours.
     
  14. Alidar Jarok

    Alidar Jarok Everything in moderation but moderation Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    We've had this discussion on every page of this thread. The only way to do so would be to have sparse dialog of cut scenes. There are probably as many events as in the LOTR trilogy, especially if you add the White Counsel and Gandalf's travel to Dol Guldor.

    Unexpected Party and Bilbo's Decision
    Trolls
    Rivendell
    Misty Mountains
    Riddles in the Dark
    Warg Attack
    House of Beorn
    Spiders of Mirkwood
    Stealing from and Killing Smaug
    Elves of Mirkwood
    Battle of the Five Armies

    The Battle of the Five Armies is, what, a page or two in the book? I don't think it's unreasonable to make it an epic battle. The Unexpected Party alone will probably be the first act in the movie based on traditional movie structure. Given this, those two scenes would take up around 2/5 of a movie.

    ETA: For what it's worth, my friend informs me that the Hobbit audiobook (or audio drama, not sure which) is six hours long.
    ETA2: Nevermind, it's Eleven Hours and Eight Minutes - Damn, Peter Jackson looks like he's going to cut everything out if he wants to squeeze it in only nine hours.
     
  15. Deckerd

    Deckerd Fleet Arse Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Location:
    the Frozen Wastes
    Well I applaud your unconditional enthusiasm but if my broad generalisations turn out to be wrong I'll eat my 3d glasses.
     
  16. Alidar Jarok

    Alidar Jarok Everything in moderation but moderation Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    So you're seeing the 3D version? :p

    If it ends up feeling long, unfocused, and padded compared to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I'll agree you were right. However, I do think the Hobbit does more in less space.
     
  17. Kegg

    Kegg Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Location:
    Ireland.
    Nail on the head.

    However one parses it Jackson had more individual material for each one of his LOTR movies - including The Two Towers, which shifted a chunk of the novel's actual story to the next film - than he does for the entire Hobbit Trilogy. While incorporating the appendices played an important role in the LOTR films (Arwen's story is drawn entirely from it), it'll play a much more significant and larger role in these films.

    That the decision to make it a trilogy rather than a duology also came very late in the game raises eyebrows. So I think they're fair concerns.
     
  18. Scout101

    Scout101 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Location:
    Rhode Island, USA
    And other than 'kewl' action, what does that buy you? it was only a couple pages in the book because it was something that our characters weren't really all that involved with. The motivations were kinda spotty, Bilbo stayed in the cave for the most part, and when it was over, he came out and pretty much all were dead.

    Do we need 45 minutes of epic sweeping battle shots, establishing characters to have fight, etc? They don't have much to do with the story, before during or after the battle. Just kinda happens, and then Bilbo gets on with his life.
     
  19. Alidar Jarok

    Alidar Jarok Everything in moderation but moderation Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    I strongly suspect a general audience will be disappointed if we don't. Even if not 45, certainly 15. In the book, it's about five minutes.
     
  20. Flying Spaghetti Monster

    Flying Spaghetti Monster Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Location:
    Flying Spaghetti Western
    Regardless of what the best thing to do was in terms of the story and pacing it and all of that, Jackson made the mistake of making it into three films because the concept of doing so still hasn't connected with the potential audience yet. Those people who know that he did it, like us here on this board, are all scratching our heads as to what aspects about the story merit a longer length (The battle of the 5 armies, etc) but the main concern is that so many people - even Hobbit fans, don't know that he even made into three films.

    This week I went to two gaming meet-ups and no one that attended (yes we're all geeks) even knew that he had done this. Some people knew by happenstance that he was making two films. Like I mentioned before, people like my mother who like the story were flabbergasted by this: 3 films? WTF?

    I think Jackson has caused a lot of confusion among the devotees and the casual film-goers with his decision, regardless of how he justified doing this with the studio. That is the point I think this thread hasn't quite gotten to.
     

Share This Page