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

[Reverend]

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.

I think Jackson's stated logic behind that decision that it rather undermines the ring's supposed power over the minds of men if Faramir can just shrug it off. It also makes Boromir look especially weak for almost instantly being seduced in Rivendale. Indeed, I felt that in the book, Boromir comes of as a complete oaf.

Still, it's worth noting that in the film Faramir did eventually let Frodo and the ring go. I'm sure part of that had to do with padding out the Frodo/Sam/Gollum story to make the inter-cutting work better. After all, any good adaptation much be true to it's own medium and the book as written just wouldn't work if they filmed it verbatim.

Plus, as much as I enjoy his works, Tolkien wasn't terribly adept at human drama, characterization or natural dialogue. Nor, to be fair, did he pretend to be.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

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.

I think Jackson's stated logic behind that decision that it rather undermines the ring's supposed power over the minds of men if Faramir can just shrug it off. It also makes Boromir look especially weak for almost instantly being seduced in Rivendale. Indeed, I felt that in the book, Boromir comes of as a complete oaf.

Still, it's worth noting that in the film Faramir did eventually let Frodo and the ring go. I'm sure part of that had to do with padding out the Frodo/Sam/Gollum story to make the inter-cutting work better. After all, any good adaptation much be true to it's own medium and the book as written just wouldn't work if they filmed it verbatim.

Plus, as much as I enjoy his works, Tolkien wasn't terribly adept at human drama, characterization or natural dialogue. Nor, to be fair, did he pretend to be.

Yes, you are correct!

The great thing that Jackson did from the onset was to give himself permission to make changes, even significant ones, if those changes suited the screen story.

 

[The Doctor]

I'm even less excited for three Hobbit movies than I was for one, let alone two. I recently tried to re-watch LotR and stopped about halfway through Fellowship. They just seem so stilted and dry, I can't imagine how thin a Hobbit trilogy will be.

 

[Mike Farley]

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!!

What does George Lucas have to do with this?

 

[Alidar Jarok]

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.

Yeah, I agree. I thought it would play well for people to expect the worst and he turns out to be ok. But I also agree that even Gandalf could be tempted so it was a bit unrealistic.

But it bugged me the most - more than the army of the dead (which I remembered having a role, but I guess most have felt their role was too large in the movie).

 

[RoJoHen]

I honestly didn't remember the Army of the Dead from the book at all. Granted, it was a long time that I read the book, but when they popped up in the movie, I remember not having a clue who they were.

 

[InklingStar]

In the book, the army of the dead scared away the corsairs of Umbar and Aragorn used their ships to sail an army upriver that he had gathered from the south. Not like the scrubbing bubble deus ex machina that was the movie version.

 

[Skywalker]

In the book, the army of the dead scared away the corsairs of Umbar and Aragorn used their ships to sail an army upriver that he had gathered from the south. Not like the scrubbing bubble deus ex machina that was the movie version.

Yeah, though I can understand why they changed it in the movie. Faster and also "cooler."

 

[Reverend]

Yeah, I think if that if after all that build up, all they used the ghost army for was to scare a few pirates away then it wouldn't have played very well on film. Again, this is the difference between print and film. In print, big action scenes can be oh so boring, even if well written. So most authors worth their salt tend to skirt around such things to instead focus on the characters.

I like to think 'Dune' has a good example of this is. The two big conflicts that take place in the book--the fall of house Atreides & the climatic battle of Arrakeen--take place almost entierly off screen...page...whatever. Indeed, the most gripping "action" scene in the whole book was just a one-on-one knife fight between Paul and that Fremen the first night after they escaped.

Actually, the Hobbit has a good example too: battle of the five armies. Bilbo get knocked out about 10 seconds in and Galdalf describes it to him later...and I'm pretty sure if they did *that* on screen and not actually show the battle, then I think even Tolkien purists would be pissed.

 

[Evil Twin]

Looks like the 48 fps version of the film will only be getting a limited release. Hooray!

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/08/08/the-hobbit-will-get-limited-release-in-48-frames

 

[Reverend]

^I imagine that has to do with most theatres not being equipped for it yet. In the long run I'm sure it'll pay off. Indeed, I'm sure when it comes out, Avatar 2 will encourage more exhibitors to get the new equipment and then they can do a general re-release...not that it matters to me as I'll be waiting for the bluray. My local cinema is shite.

 

[JarodRussell]

Hooray!http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/08/08/the-hobbit-will-get-limited-release-in-48-frames

Just... why?

 

[Evil Twin]

Hooray!

Just... why?

Because I don't want my epic fantasy film looking like a soap opera, thankyouverymuch.

 

[kirk55555]

I love the LOTR books and movies, but I have to say I agree with some of the people that posted here. Three movies is way too much. Two movies was pushing it, but three is ridiculous. I don't care wether it was for money reasons (which I think is likely, reguardless of what other people in this topic have said) or because the people making them really wanted to make 3 movies, it makes no sense to make a book that was probably half the size of the other books into 3 seperate movies. I blame Harry Potter. They got away with splitting #7 (which I actually thought worked) so now everyone is cashing in on what they did. That doesn't mean the Hobbit movies won't be good, I'm sure they'll be great, and i'm sure I'll see them if at all possible.

Still, I think its stupid to make three movies, and probably very hard unless they just make up half the stuff. I'm prepared to have the first 50 minutes of movie one just deal with bilbo's history from age 0-whatever age he was when he went on the adventure, or maybe they'll tell the untold story of Gandalf's childhood and how he became the Wizard he was during the LOTR's books (my guess is that Radagast teased him mercilessly ).

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Hooray!

Just... why?

Because I don't want my epic fantasy film looking like a soap opera, thankyouverymuch.

LOL I spilled my drink laughing!

I agree!

 

[Greylock Crescent]

I blame Harry Potter. They got away with splitting #7 (which I actually thought worked) so now everyone is cashing in on what they did.

FWIW, the decision to split The Deathly Hallows was announced three months after the announcement that The Hobbit would be two films:

• Hobbit announcement link (2007-12-18)
• Potter announcement link (2008-03-13)

As for the decision itself, I completely understand why people would be concerned, but the outright condemnation of the idea seems premature to me. I do think the issue of where the films split will be important, as will the overall pacing. But until I see how the first film handles these issues, I'll give Jackson the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Gojira]

I love the LOTR books and movies, but I have to say I agree with some of the people that posted here. Three movies is way too much. Two movies was pushing it, but three is ridiculous. I don't care wether it was for money reasons (which I think is likely, reguardless of what other people in this topic have said) or because the people making them really wanted to make 3 movies, it makes no sense to make a book that was probably half the size of the other books into 3 seperate movies. I blame Harry Potter. They got away with splitting #7 (which I actually thought worked) so now everyone is cashing in on what they did. That doesn't mean the Hobbit movies won't be good, I'm sure they'll be great, and i'm sure I'll see them if at all possible.

Still, I think its stupid to make three movies, and probably very hard unless they just make up half the stuff. I'm prepared to have the first 50 minutes of movie one just deal with bilbo's history from age 0-whatever age he was when he went on the adventure, or maybe they'll tell the untold story of Gandalf's childhood and how he became the Wizard he was during the LOTR's books (my guess is that Radagast teased him mercilessly ).

You may be right, but I am waiting to see all three movies before I make that assessment.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Do you think they are going ton have the actual ending of the book's narrative, like the confrontation with Smaug, be in the second or the third film?

 

[Set Harth]

or maybe they'll tell the untold story of Gandalf's childhood and how he became the Wizard he was during the LOTR's books (my guess is that Radagast teased him mercilessly

I doubt it...

"Olórin I was in my youth in the West that is forgotten"

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Looks like the 48 fps version of the film will only be getting a limited release. Hooray!

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/08/08/the-hobbit-will-get-limited-release-in-48-frames

Well, I hope it'll be available in my area. There will always be theaters that don't have 48 fps because they can't upgrade. But a limited release means it'll be difficult to track it down. Since the intent was to film it this way, I'd like to see it the way it was intended.

Hopefully, the limited release will be a success and they'll expand it to other markets.