Slight update on The Hobbit movies

[Ar-Pharazon]

Story here.

It boils down to possibly not seeing these till after than 2011 & 2012.

Still not sure why they feel they need to split this into 2 movies (other than greed of course ).

 

[TheSeeker]

Honestly, if its done right I welcome two movies. 2 hours just isn't enough for some movies and I think the Hobbit is one of them.

 

[Aragorn]

Still not sure why they feel they need to split this into 2 movies (other than greed of course ).

For the same reason that the final chapter in the Harry Potter movie saga is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows Part I and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows Part II.

 

[The Evil Dead]

Or possibly The Twilight Sage - Breaking Dawn Vol. 1 and Breaking Dawn Vol. 2.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Or possibly The Twilight Sage - Breaking Dawn Vol. 1 and Breaking Dawn Vol. 2.

Given the content of Breaking Dawn, I'm not sure that Summit Entertainment wants to touch that book with a ten foot pole.

 

[Harvey]

^^
They can just re-write the hell out of it to suit their marketing needs. Unless the author has some kind of final say on the script. I'm not sure what the deal was that she signed.

 

[TheSeeker]

I haven't read any of the books. What's so bad about breaking dawn that it can't be filmed?

 

[DigificWriter]

It's a very graphic book as compared to the others, and there's a few things in it that might squick some people.

Re DH being split in half, it actually makes sense in that case because of the amount of material that is in the novel and that is absolutely crucial to wrapping up the story. Also, it wasn't entirely the studio's decision to split DH in half; screenwriter Steve Kloves and director David Yates also had a hand in making the decision (Kloves was actually the one who suggested it to the studio, I believe, because he came to the realization that it wouldn't be possible to do the novel justice in one movie).

 

[Daneel]

Still not sure why they feel they need to split this into 2 movies (other than greed of course ).

For the same reason that the final chapter in the Harry Potter movie saga is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows Part I and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows Part II.

Or possibly The Twilight Sage - Breaking Dawn Vol. 1 and Breaking Dawn Vol. 2.

Yes, it might appear that the studios are thinking, "Uh-oh, we're running out of books to adapt in this lucrative franchise -- so let's split the last movie in two!" I will give The Hobbit the benefit of the doubt for the time being, however, largely because I have faith in Jackson and del Toro.

As for the Harry Potter films, I actually think splitting The Deathly Hallows into two films might be a good idea -- it felt like there was a fair amount of stuff missing from the last two movies in the series, and making two films out of each of them perhaps would've been beneficial.

 

[Aragorn]

If it works, then they'll just make even more Harry Potter movies!!!

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Parts II and III!!!! The untold stories.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Considering the epic quality of the LOTR films, and considering the amount of reverence for The Hobbit, I'm very pleased that they've split the story into two films. When you factor in the extraneous story elements (those not told in the novel, yet still relevant to the overall story of LOTR), it makes sense to take the time to get the overall tale right. Considering how respectful Jackson was of the source material for the LOTR films, I'm pretty sure his choice to split The Hobbit into two films is more artistic than greedy.

Plus, I see nothing in this report to raise any alarm bells ... aside from, perhaps, the fact that the writing team took a bit longer to complete the script than they originally planned. Last I heard, they were hoping to have it done by the end of summer, so having it done by the end of autumn isn't exactly a big difference, especially if they're in a position to begin filming by summer '10. Plus, from what I've read, preliminary work has already begun, including work to restore the "Hobbiton" set.

 

[Daneel]

If it works, then they'll just make even more Harry Potter movies!!!

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Parts II and III!!!! The untold stories.

Nah, they'll reboot the series in a decade or so: they'll bring back Rupert Grint to play adult Ron, who, while battling a Death-Eater, has an accident with his Time-Turner and goes back to when Harry was born. Voldemort is prevented from killing James and Lily Potter, and Harry grows up happy and well-adjusted, experiencing no tragedy or adventures whatsoever.

Hmm... that story may have to be tweaked a little.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

There's so much story that has been building up in the Harry Potter series, I do believe that splitting the final part into 2 movies is the only way to do it justice.

I'm not sure why that would be necessary for The Hobbit, especially considering 1 film each was enough for the 3 Lord of the Rings books. Isn't The Hobbit the shortest of those 4 books anyway?

As for Twilight, that franchise is such a flash-in-the-pan, I suspect splitting Breaking Dawn into 2 films would just be pushing their luck.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

^ It's the shortest book, and seemed to be written much "simpler" to me. A much quicker read than any 1 of the LOTR novels.

I'm not saying the movies won't be good because of there being 2, just seems like they could've done it in a single 3 hour (or so) movie.

Originally there were some rumors about the second movie being filler material, falling between The Hobbit and LOTR.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Rats, I was hoping for some casting news. Alas.

As for the two-film issue, count me amongst the concerned. I was all for the original intention of the first film about The Hobbit and the second film bridging the first and the trilogy. However, that no longer appears to be Jackson's intention and I have to say it worries me. Yes, there's a lot of interesting things going on at the same time, but how does one weave it into the overall narrative? Where's the split going to be? There's no natural break in The Hobbit.

 

[Klaus]

One of the things they might do is show us some things happening "off-screen" or briefly described in the book, such as the meeting of the White Council, Gandalf's spy mission to find out that the Necromancer was really Sauron or Smaug's taking of the Mountain.

I can't wait for the end... Bard the Bowman's work will be glorious to watch in Weta-vision.

Here's a thought: They should put Orlando Bloom in the scene where the party meets Thranduil, hanging out by the throne with his dad, maybe even with a line or two!

And another: where will Andy Serkis find dragons to study for his inevitable motion-capture work as Smaug?

 

[Reverend]

Getting Bloom back for a cameo would seam to be an obvious thing to do (I'd actually have him be the one to capture the Dwarves) but I doubt GDT & PJ are banking on that falling into place. There are simply too many unknowns at this point to make an informed prediction.

 

[Christopher]

And another: where will Andy Serkis find dragons to study for his inevitable motion-capture work as Smaug?

Actually, since Del Toro's directing, it'll probably be Doug Jones instead...

 

[Kegg]

Considering the epic quality of the LOTR films, and considering the amount of reverence for The Hobbit, I'm very pleased that they've split the story into two films.

I'm more cautious. Jackson an his screenwriters triumphed with LOTR because even at their impressive running time, and even when you factor in the extended versions... the films are vastly truncated compared to the novel. There are whole chapters which get covered in short scenes, the whole thing moves very rapidly by comparison.

King Kong was precisely the reverse, with scenes from the original almost invariably being dragged out to much greater length, and it noticeaably suffered.

A two-film Hobbit isn't going to be as epically condensed as the LOTR films... though it's not as preposterously dragged out as King Kong either. Well, we'll see.

 

[FordSVT]

Considering the epic quality of the LOTR films, and considering the amount of reverence for The Hobbit, I'm very pleased that they've split the story into two films.

I'm more cautious. Jackson an his screenwriters triumphed with LOTR because even at their impressive running time, and even when you factor in the extended versions... the films are vastly truncated compared to the novel. There are whole chapters which get covered in short scenes, the whole thing moves very rapidly by comparison.

King Kong was precisely the reverse, with scenes from the original almost invariably being dragged out to much greater length, and it noticeaably suffered.

A two-film Hobbit isn't going to be as epically condensed as the LOTR films... though it's not as preposterously dragged out as King Kong either. Well, we'll see.

The elements found in The Hobbit don't have to be dragged out though, not if he's taking stories and inspiration from Tolkien's greater works and weaving them into the story. I would be more worried if splitting the book in half was his only intention but that's clearly not the case.