I'm not surprised and I look forward to it. However, I'll be royally pissed if the DVD set gets shafted on extras in favor for Blu-Ray.
THE HOBBIT (2012/2013): News, Rumors, Pics Till Release
- Thread starter Skywalker
- Start date
Have they announced approx. how long the theatrical cut of An Unexpected Journey is going to be?
Yes ... because, clearly, on the DVD and Blu-ray ... you HAVE to keep watching until the last note of the credits score has been played.
Damned Orwellian technology...
Damned Orwellian technology...
That's totally gonna happen.
Wasn't it the FotR SEE that finally enabled DVDs to surpass videotapes in market sales?
Stephen Colbert to cameo in one of the movies. 
Not in An Unexpected Journey, though.
Apparently he's a big Tolkein fan.
Not in An Unexpected Journey, though.Apparently he's a big Tolkein fan.
As we get closer to the Hobbit I find my enthusiasm at an all-time low. I loved the first trilogy and I should be psyched to see this. But--
Well it just feels like it's more of the same. I remember when the studio released the first official still from Fellowship.. even simple shots of Gandalf and that would be it, they filled me with a kind of awe, that it was going to be a serious, gritty, and epic approach to a fantasy film. I wasn't disappointed (at least as far as the first film went) but now I know what to expect, and, as far as capturing the feeling of an epic fantasy, I can get that now by popping in my FOTR Blue-ray. In particular, the beginning of that film leaves some hints and warm feelings about the events of the Hobbit. Sure the Hobbit is a tgreat story, but I'm not sure why I can't get worked up over the adaptaiton. It might be because it's three films.. taking away the simplistic, whimsical and cildlike nature of the story. Also, it makes me sad that despite the increased frame rate and the 3-D I feel sad because this is still all been-there done-that territory for Jackson and that he's not challenging himself. With LOTR he was amkign an exquisite film where but the train never stopped and he was barely able to set the track in front of him as he left. But he really wanted it, the same way Lucas worked over time on Episode 4. Now they gave him a blank check and he's off!
Plus you know the Hobbit may be a good story but as far as it goes the film is still a prequel. Prequels, sequels and reboots are all that's out there. It's starting to become annoying that they'd spend - what over $300 million on a prequel trilogy...?
Well it just feels like it's more of the same. I remember when the studio released the first official still from Fellowship.. even simple shots of Gandalf and that would be it, they filled me with a kind of awe, that it was going to be a serious, gritty, and epic approach to a fantasy film. I wasn't disappointed (at least as far as the first film went) but now I know what to expect, and, as far as capturing the feeling of an epic fantasy, I can get that now by popping in my FOTR Blue-ray. In particular, the beginning of that film leaves some hints and warm feelings about the events of the Hobbit. Sure the Hobbit is a tgreat story, but I'm not sure why I can't get worked up over the adaptaiton. It might be because it's three films.. taking away the simplistic, whimsical and cildlike nature of the story. Also, it makes me sad that despite the increased frame rate and the 3-D I feel sad because this is still all been-there done-that territory for Jackson and that he's not challenging himself. With LOTR he was amkign an exquisite film where but the train never stopped and he was barely able to set the track in front of him as he left. But he really wanted it, the same way Lucas worked over time on Episode 4. Now they gave him a blank check and he's off!
Plus you know the Hobbit may be a good story but as far as it goes the film is still a prequel. Prequels, sequels and reboots are all that's out there. It's starting to become annoying that they'd spend - what over $300 million on a prequel trilogy...?
Stephen Colbert to cameo in one of the movies.
Apparently he's a big Tolkien fan.
He is... back when he was still on the Daily Show, Elijah was doing the promo tour and came on the show. At one point Jon Stewart asked him a question about whether the Elvish he spoke in the clip was Sindarin or Quenya... Elijah started to answer and Jon said "Wait - that really meant something? I have no idea what that is, Colbert wrote that question."
Awesome that Colbert will be showing up in one of the films. Hopefully he'll get a few lines but won't stand out too much. Maybe bury him in a lot of make-up.
I'm at a loss for words.
I love the LOTR trilogy too. At the minute I think a 2.5 hour Hobbit would have been the best thing. This whole 3 movie Hobbit seems a bit excessive.
Maybe I'll be sold in the next couple of months though.
First tv spot released, it's up on youtube, at deadline, and at theonering.net
AS to the running time anyone who thinks you can tell a good version of the Hobbit in two and a half hours in really not paying that much attention to the book.
The book is short because there is almost no dialogue and the writing flies through the narrative.
If you look at the time it takes Tolkien to write passages that are similar between the two works, LOTR basically takes three to four times the length to describe similar events.
Though Bilbo and Frodo's quest are different, I believe they take the same amount of actual time once they start. And thats without ever addressing whats up with Gandalf and the larger events in the world.
Now they could have filmed a version without much real dialogue, they could really compress the time, or they could spend up the motion of events like animated films often do, but that would certainly be a different type of movie. From the get go Jackson said he wanted the Hobbit to be set his take of the Tolkien universe. Ie be done in a style similar to LoTR.
AS to the running time anyone who thinks you can tell a good version of the Hobbit in two and a half hours in really not paying that much attention to the book.
The book is short because there is almost no dialogue and the writing flies through the narrative.
If you look at the time it takes Tolkien to write passages that are similar between the two works, LOTR basically takes three to four times the length to describe similar events.
Though Bilbo and Frodo's quest are different, I believe they take the same amount of actual time once they start. And thats without ever addressing whats up with Gandalf and the larger events in the world.
Now they could have filmed a version without much real dialogue, they could really compress the time, or they could spend up the motion of events like animated films often do, but that would certainly be a different type of movie. From the get go Jackson said he wanted the Hobbit to be set his take of the Tolkien universe. Ie be done in a style similar to LoTR.
I honestly understand what you are getting at. That said, three films still seems bloated.
Let me tell you this:
My mother read the Hobbit when us kids were younger. She enjoyed the break from reality and would find herself lost in the book - during the short times us kids were napping. A few years ago when this project was being bandied about in the Hollywood news bits, she was eager to see it, and eager to know that the people behind the Lord of the Rings films were making it.
When I told her it was three films, she was actually upset and didn't want to see it anymmore. She thought it was ridiculous. Honestly, I think her view might be shared by the "non-nerd, non fanboy" type who just wants to go and see the Hobbit put on screen, something where thse people can pay their ticket and get a complete story.
The point is that, while you are correct in what you are saying, you are also missing the point. I don't know if the whole three-film thing has even sunk in for the casual Hobbit fans, but it will eventually, and, when it does, this group of people (these casual fans generally familiar with the Hobbit story but uninterested in the actual production-aspects of Hollywood films) will, at best, be scratching their heads - not bubbling with enthusiasm, and, at worst, they'll see it for what it may be, a safe money-grab on the part of Jackson.
Let me tell you this:
My mother read the Hobbit when us kids were younger. She enjoyed the break from reality and would find herself lost in the book - during the short times us kids were napping. A few years ago when this project was being bandied about in the Hollywood news bits, she was eager to see it, and eager to know that the people behind the Lord of the Rings films were making it.
When I told her it was three films, she was actually upset and didn't want to see it anymmore. She thought it was ridiculous. Honestly, I think her view might be shared by the "non-nerd, non fanboy" type who just wants to go and see the Hobbit put on screen, something where thse people can pay their ticket and get a complete story.
The point is that, while you are correct in what you are saying, you are also missing the point. I don't know if the whole three-film thing has even sunk in for the casual Hobbit fans, but it will eventually, and, when it does, this group of people (these casual fans generally familiar with the Hobbit story but uninterested in the actual production-aspects of Hollywood films) will, at best, be scratching their heads - not bubbling with enthusiasm, and, at worst, they'll see it for what it may be, a safe money-grab on the part of Jackson.
Oh I completely agree that there are going to be a huge number of people who think a book should be done in one film. That's what cinema history has conditioned us to believe.
But the truth of the matter is we don't ever get complete or even somewhat complete versions of most films in the standard movie release, we get an abridged versions of those books.
You want close to full versions of books and you are going to have to go for long form. Normally that been the realm of TV miniseries or tv series.
But which telling of Pride & Prejudice is closest to the book? Any of the film versions or the 8 hour miniseries?
Which version of Horatio Hornblower is the best, any of the films, or the initial 8 hour A&E miniseries of Mr. Midshipmen Hornblower?
Those two book by the way are nearly page for page the length of the Hobbit, and are routinely considered the best telling so far in a visual medium of those two stores.
Look at the book Game of Thrones, thats a ten hour season on HBO, and it still leaves out a ton of stuff from the book. And each book in that universe is getting a ten hour treatment, and in each book they are still having to cut and combine elements to fit into an 10 hour story.
Band of Brothers, a great HO miniseries, based on one book, considered one of the finest miniseries ever made. How many hours does that book translate into?
Heck look at the LoTR movies, all three are exceptionally long by film standards, and each had huge amounts of additional scenes filmed, which I would guess abut 80% was released in the Extended cuts. And even with those 3 and a half hour to 4 hour cuts how much of each book was still excised out? Huge amounts. Easily enough to consume another hour of film, easily.
I don't mind people saying they don't want to see a long version of a film (or a film cut into multiple parts). After all that is there choice. But to deride the idea of a book taking up 8 hours of screen time or so, is utterly ridiculous. And shows a huge lack of understanding about what is all in pretty much any non short story. Generally for a full length book you are just getting the cliff notes version made into a films, and frankly I get sick and tired of that.
Heck, the unabridged recording of the Hobbit is 11 hours long.
Oh just to add. I am not saying the Hobbit is even going to be good. It could be the worst film ever made.
But its length, in line with the book, isn't a reason to assume its going to be bloated.
Footage we see, now thats a different story as we can clearly see huge changes in the book, as we see characters talk who never spoke dialogue in the books. Clearly designed to make the Dwarves 3 dimension characters (of which most of them are absolutely not in the book), but do to that you are going to see I would imagine a lot of dialogue and screen time to establish these characters. And they aren't going to be from the book. Inspired perhaps, but definitely not from the book.
But its length, in line with the book, isn't a reason to assume its going to be bloated.
Footage we see, now thats a different story as we can clearly see huge changes in the book, as we see characters talk who never spoke dialogue in the books. Clearly designed to make the Dwarves 3 dimension characters (of which most of them are absolutely not in the book), but do to that you are going to see I would imagine a lot of dialogue and screen time to establish these characters. And they aren't going to be from the book. Inspired perhaps, but definitely not from the book.
The reason extended cuts are put in DVDs is to make people believe they are getting added value. In almost all cases* edits end up on the cutting room floor for a good reason. Jackson has simply taken this to its logical conclusion, dispensed with editing anything out and charging people for the privilege. We've already had 3 over-long, over-sentimental but visually stunning sword-fests, which were saved by the acting of a couple of the leads. I expect these three will be more of the same but because there is less material to start with, the padding will be of galactic proportions. Prepare for sweeping vistas, long close-ups with sobbing music, panoramic battle scenes, lots and lots of riding, running, walking wearily and creeping stealthily across lovely landscapes.
*Alien 3 is the exception; the theatrical release made no sense.
*Alien 3 is the exception; the theatrical release made no sense.
Just so long as there's no fucking Elven snowboarding down things in this trilogy...
Similar threads
