LOL, yes, they turn one film into 3 films because everything is in slow motion.
THE HOBBIT (2012/2013): News, Rumors, Pics Till Release
- Thread starter Skywalker
- Start date
LOL, yes, they turn one film into 3 films because everything is in slow motion.
That was in the books.
Yeah but if Jackson had that kind of self-control and restraint, he probably wouldn't be pushing to make these into 3 movies in the FIRST place.
Methinks the internet could use some of that, I see too much panic & doom predictions going around. Especially since Jackson has all the inside info on these films, which we don't.
The man has more than proved himself when it comes to adapting Tolkien material. Maybe he actually knows what he's doing.
Do you mean to suggest that a professional film-maker who's made himself a millionaire producing, directing and co-writing his own projects and founded some of the most sought after FX companies in the business might know more about his job than a bunch of over opinionated nerds on the internet? Preposterous!!
Yes, but those pick-up scenes need to be written.
What it sounds like to me is a re-edit with reshoots to fill the places where the narrative is thin. This suggests to me that Jackson isn't repeating the mistake he made in the Lord of the Rings trilogy where he didn't edit all three films at once so he didn't realize that Saruman's fall at the beginning of ROTK didn't fit anywhere until it was too late to do anything about it. This appears to be a case where Jackson has seen in the editing room that An Unexpected Journey is unbalanced and he can't fully fix it unless he has more room to work with.
The battle that killed Boromir was offscreen, so to speak, in the books.
The Lord of the Rings: 1157 pages and 3 movies.
The Hobbit: 300 pages...and 3 movies?
"I feel... thin. Sort of stretched, like... butter scraped over too much bread." - Bilbo Baggins
I just watched the first couple of production diaries, and after seeing how much everybody seemed to be really enjoying themselves, and how much they seemed to care about what they were making, I have no doubt all three movies will be great.
Jackson hasn't disappointed me yet. The LOTR movies are three of my favorite movies, and while I didn't enjoy them as much as LOTR I did like The Frighteners and King Kong.
Jackson hasn't disappointed me yet. The LOTR movies are three of my favorite movies, and while I didn't enjoy them as much as LOTR I did like The Frighteners and King Kong.
But the battle itself wasn't depicted is what I think is the point here. Obviously it happened, but it wasn't depicted. Just like in The Hobbit, Gandalf going off to fight The Necromancer wasn't depicted, but it was still said to have happened. By that logic Jackson isn't making anything out of thin air, he's elaborating on the details.
I love LOTR and just finished watching King Kong again last night. I really like that movie a great deal.
I think one has to understand why Peter Jackson does what he does. I watched the production diaries and I watched all the bonus material from LOTR and King Kong and they help me to appreciate what he has done even more.
I have no worries about a Hobbit trilogy.
The Lord of the Rings: 1157 pages and 3 movies.
The Hobbit: 300 pages...and 3 movies?
Talk about a meaningless statement.
1st. Is the writing style the same between the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings? The answer is no.
2nd. Did Jackson and Co have the option of expanding the material beyond a film release at the time? TEh answer is no.
3rd Was there a lot of material that wasn't included in Jackson's version of those LOTR films? Yes.
Could Jackson and Company included more material from the book's and maintain the same basic level of quality? I think you can make a very strong argument that he could has he did in fact do that to the tune of 35 to nearly an hour on each of the films from theatrical to DVD release.
Why then didn't he release longer versions of those films at the theatre? Because the studio said no.
And her is a very, very important question to ask yourself before complaining about three films. Do you know of any adaptions of small books that have been adapted successfully in a long release form?
I like two examples:
1. Jane Austin's Pride & Prejudice been adapted many times, yet the 8 part miniseries is considered the strongest adaption.
It does have some striking differences from the Hobbit. Its got a lot more dialogue and its far more descriptive, its also al little bit longer.
2. C.S. Forrester's Mr. Midshipman Hornblower made By A&E as 4 two hour miniseries. That book is actually shorter then the Hobbit, the production was an award winner, and like the Hobbit has little dialogue. In my opinion those tv productions are the finest examples of any adaption of those two writers, and both are in long form from similar length books. In the Hornblower case the latter works by A&E I found inferior, but they also were shorter having to cut the material basically in half.
Just because the public is used to having films so heavily edited to get them into a standard 2 to 2 and a half hour length doesn't mean that artist can't actually film the material and let it breathe, and actually be successful in the process.
So we know short stories can be filmed as two hour films (we have lots of examples), we also know that books can be long miniseries, and we know that separate books can be filmed and released a year apart and be successful.
So why is it so hard to understand that a book can be done in long form on film, like a miniseries (always designed with a stronger ended act) work on the big screen?
Is it really so hard to believe?
Of course it can be done. Whether it's any good is another matter. I enjoyed the spectacle of the Ring trilogy very much and some of the acting was very good indeed. However there were editing decisions which ended up making it much more turgid than it should have been, especially in the last film.
I think "whether it will be any good" is a valid question, but it's one that can't simply be answered by the length of the Hobbit book.* Once we move beyond that point can there actually be a meaningful discussion rather than a superficial one.
The question I've brought up before is the split. The two movie split:
made a lot of sense.
But I'm unsure where to split it in three. That's the biggest concern I have.
* I believe this is where you would add a "One does not simply judge the quality of a Hobbit movie by the length of the book" joke.
The question I've brought up before is the split. The two movie split:
Stopping at the escape from Mirkwood
But I'm unsure where to split it in three. That's the biggest concern I have.
* I believe this is where you would add a "One does not simply judge the quality of a Hobbit movie by the length of the book" joke.
So many long scenes in the LotR films are only one-liners in the book.
Just wait and see.
I personally made the choice not to re-read The Hobbit before watching any of the films. Has been a long time since I've read it anyway, and forgot about most of the details, so I probably can appreciate the film for what it is.
Just wait and see.
I personally made the choice not to re-read The Hobbit before watching any of the films. Has been a long time since I've read it anyway, and forgot about most of the details, so I probably can appreciate the film for what it is.
Yeah, it's been awhile since I read the books - even when I saw LOTR it had been three or four years. That certainly helps make changed details smoother. My brother had just finished The Two Towers before watching the movie. He seemed surprised that Faramir came off as kind of a dick compared to the book.
That was my biggest gripe about the whole trilogy: changing Faramir. The whole point about Faramir was that he didn't give a flying fuck about the Ring. The complete opposite to Boromir.
Similar threads
