Thank GOD. No Hobbit "bridge" film
- Thread starter Norrin Radd
- Start date
Meh. I had no particular interest in a bridge film myself, but I find that idea thoroughly preferable to breaking the narrative structure of The Hobbit by "including the White Council and the comings and goings of Gandalf to Dol Guldur," which in terms of The Hobbit's actual story are just plot devices to get Gandalf out of the narrative. The Hobbit is a novel with a style and charm all its own, and I hope the films will do as much as possible to respect that while inevitably catering to an audience that wants more Lord of the Rings-style films.
^^^ Which seems to be their new line. (No studio pun intended.)
This does sound sorta dubious. I was sorta thinking that the "bridge" movie could end up being cooler than The Hobbit itself, which I don't recall as being all that interesting a story, but the notion of mixing that and a "bridge"? Weird.
If this is the case, it sounds as though the overall tone will definitely be more serious than the Hobbit novel.
This does sound sorta dubious. I was sorta thinking that the "bridge" movie could end up being cooler than The Hobbit itself, which I don't recall as being all that interesting a story, but the notion of mixing that and a "bridge"? Weird.
If this is the case, it sounds as though the overall tone will definitely be more serious than the Hobbit novel.
Norrin Radd
Vice Admiral
They could easily connect Gandalf's encounter with the Necromancer, to the uprising of the Goblins, to the Battle of Five Armies. It is fitting that Sauron would be the one pulling the strings.
Frankly, I still don't see why you need to break The Hobbit into two films. If you could do Fellowship Of The Ring in one movie, for example, you could certainly fit The Hobbit into the same length. I fear they'll end up padding out the story with a lot of LOTR-style sequences and lose the underlying charm and nature of the original novel.
I'm probably in the minority on that one, though.
I'm probably in the minority on that one, though.
Norrin Radd
Vice Admiral
Well, there's no evidence thus far that either Hobbit film will be as long as any of the LOTR flicks. Personally, I think two 1.5 to 2 hr films would fit perfectly and most likely that's the route they're going.
In fact, two 1.75 hr films would be almost exactly the length of the extended version of Fellowship and that movie goes pretty quick, imo.
I'd rather a bridge film than splitting The Hobbit up in two. What the hell is Jackson thinking on this one?
"So we don't cram everything into one film."
What's there to cram? The book is less than three hundred pages long. There are only two major scenes you could expand. Smaug and The Battle of the Five Armies. It could be done in one 2 1/2 to 3 hour film.
He's going to King Kong The Hobbit. He turned a 90-minute film from the thirties into a bloated, three-hour "epic." I think PJ has fallen too much in love with himself. This is a stupid idea.
"So we don't cram everything into one film."
What's there to cram? The book is less than three hundred pages long. There are only two major scenes you could expand. Smaug and The Battle of the Five Armies. It could be done in one 2 1/2 to 3 hour film.
He's going to King Kong The Hobbit. He turned a 90-minute film from the thirties into a bloated, three-hour "epic." I think PJ has fallen too much in love with himself. This is a stupid idea.
Norrin Radd
Vice Admiral
But talking about bloated...that's what a bridge film would be. I mean, it wouldn't even be based on a genuine novel!
Or just possibly... he's stuck with this set-up of two-films that New Line committed to while he wasn't talking to them, and this is his way of honouring that without having to invent an entire new story?
Cue the fan editors!
I rally can't say either way which I prefer - bridge film or split. Or for that matter if I'd rather have just one film. I've loved the LOTR films one and all, though I can see and understand the opposition to each format. Whatever they create, the odds are good I tihknn, that I will enjoy it. That's not to say I give them carte blanche, because I do have high expectations. And they know they have a great legacy to live up to.
so let me get this straight: there's no "bridge film", which really, would have little narrative ("The Rise of Aragon" fighting Corsairs, etc?)
but at the same time, they're going to try to work more backstory stuff in by padding "The Hobbit" out into two movies using the other stuff? Like White Council scenes?
I still wish they'd TRY to work in like, Aragorn's backstory meeting Arwen and stuff, just to set it in motion.
****Maybe, the simple answer is they storyboarded it out (rough draft) and realized that the entire "The Hobbit" story is a little condensed if 3 hours long.
Nonetheless...the ENTIRE selling point of "the Hobbit" is that you can read it as one "unit"!
of course...hehe..."selling point"....by this point its already a guaranteed mega-hit to a "movie series" which completely broke with "movie and DVD format".....TTT had no beginning and no end, and ROTK was just 3 hours of "climax" not even bothering to do any intro, it was as if you took a bathroom break at the end of TTT, and it was *four hours long*....we're living in the age where I'm really going to enjoy it forever as an Extended Edition DVD with a combined running time, of both parts, in the 7 hour range....would I realistically watch this in one sitting?
The real problem thought is.....WHERE THE HECK DO THEY BREAK THE STORY?!
Being captured by the Elven king? Yeah right.
****Rather, I think that what they're going to do may be END the first movie with Smaug's death, THEN cover all of the political manueverings in the second film in about 2 hours, then leave an extra hour or so for showing "and this was happening at Dol Guldur"
but at the same time, they're going to try to work more backstory stuff in by padding "The Hobbit" out into two movies using the other stuff? Like White Council scenes?
I still wish they'd TRY to work in like, Aragorn's backstory meeting Arwen and stuff, just to set it in motion.
****Maybe, the simple answer is they storyboarded it out (rough draft) and realized that the entire "The Hobbit" story is a little condensed if 3 hours long.
Nonetheless...the ENTIRE selling point of "the Hobbit" is that you can read it as one "unit"!
of course...hehe..."selling point"....by this point its already a guaranteed mega-hit to a "movie series" which completely broke with "movie and DVD format".....TTT had no beginning and no end, and ROTK was just 3 hours of "climax" not even bothering to do any intro, it was as if you took a bathroom break at the end of TTT, and it was *four hours long*....we're living in the age where I'm really going to enjoy it forever as an Extended Edition DVD with a combined running time, of both parts, in the 7 hour range....would I realistically watch this in one sitting?
The real problem thought is.....WHERE THE HECK DO THEY BREAK THE STORY?!
Being captured by the Elven king? Yeah right.
****Rather, I think that what they're going to do may be END the first movie with Smaug's death, THEN cover all of the political manueverings in the second film in about 2 hours, then leave an extra hour or so for showing "and this was happening at Dol Guldur"
I've been thinking about how Watchmen had the "Black Freighter" vignettes and I think....
stories like "The Rise of Aragon" (the biggest of the Appendix plots), the history of the War of the Dwarves and Orcs with Thrain and Thorin, etc. etc....wouldn't really work on the big screen.
I mean I always personally envisioned the "bridge film" as " a series of Pulp Fiction-like vignettes, ranging from 40 minutes for the Aragorn stuff to barely 10 minutes for others"....but that just doesn't work as a "film" people go to see as a narrative
I mean you're talking to a guy who pops in the TTT EE disc and skips ahead to a particular scene and watches only 30 minutes of a particular stretch I like
of course, I know I'm not alone.....many people enjoy the LOTR EE's that way (they redefined what we thought a "DVD release" was supposed to be like)
My point is:.....should they FILM stuff from the Appendixes...like an hour's worth, as "special bonus DVD only material"?
I mean if the ROTK Extended Edition was "40 minutes of extra footage"...that's ALOT.
What if they DID make "the Appendix" as sort of an extra DVD that comes with "The Hobbit" box set, and you pay more for it, but its' actual "new material"?
I'd seriously pay real money for that. Make 40 minutes of "extended scenes" which aren't edited into "the Hobbit" but are a DVD-only special feature of vignettes from the backstory.
Well hopefully the two Hobbit movies will only be 90-120 minutes each and not feel so bloated. I have no idea where to make the cliffhanger. Isn't the midpoint of the novel being captured by Beorn or something like that? Or maybe it could be the Gandalf / Necromancer battle as the first film's climax.
I agree.
Quoted for truth.
Seconded.
I've been getting into the appendices and the Lost Tales books here of late, and there's a lot really good stuff in them. I wouldn't have minded seeing a "bridge" film at all. As it is, there's still a lot of good stuff that could be expanded into The Hobbit, esp all the dealings with Gandalf and such.
Similar threads
