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

[mswood]

Lord

People need to calm the hell down.

First if you wanted the Hobbit as its written, well no matter the length you are going to be seriously disappointed. Jackson from the get go was making this film fit into the universe he created with his filmed version of LoTR (just as Tolkien later was working on bringing the Hobbit more in line with the universe he created after he originally published the Hobbit).

Seriously go read the Hobbit again. There is very little actual dialogue, whole sequences are exceptionally brief in the book.

I mean how many pages is the Battle of the Five Armies? How about Smaug attacking Laketown and his eventual death? 6 pages for the Battle of the Five Armies. 5 pages for Smaug's attack on Laketown and his death.

Just those two parts in a theatre are probably going to be significant passages. I wouldn't be surprised if together they wouldn't equal 40 plus minutes. Yet they are in total 11 out of 320 pages.

I am sure that all the Dwarves will actually have speaking roles, is that the case in the book? How many of the Dwarves even speak 100 words? Is it one?

LoTR was much more fleshed out material, written much fuller Jackson took 3 books and cut out masive sections of Fellowship and massive sections of Return of the King and he still released 11 hours of footage (he shot enough material to still add another hour without even getting into footage that was no longer valid after rewrites, like Arwen at Helm's Deep).

The Hobbit is written in a far more basic style, with little dialogue and far less background detail yet is still 320 pages. If Tolkien would have written that same tale as an adult piece it would easily be long as 500 pages. With Jackson bringing forth the events that occur at this same period. The White Council the Necromancer, and the battle of Dol Goldur. It would be extremely easy to feel three standard length films. Easy indeed.

The only real issue is where to break each film off. And I think that is the biggest issue they will have.

 

[Dream]

This man will be laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

If for no other reason, another Hobbit film gives us yet one more fantastic Middle Earth score from Maestro Shore.

 

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

The Quest for more money. Meh.

I agree with those who are pointing to King Kong. Man that is a hard lumbering molasses movie to sit through on rewatch.

I dunno, every single time I've become a fan of a director in modern times, their next work always seems to be massively self-indulgent. Happened to me with Bryan Singer after X-Men 2 (bleh Superman Returns), Peter Jackson after LOTR (King Kong), Sam raimi after Spider-Man 2 (Spider-Man 3), even Nolan isn't immune (Dark Knight Rises, which I do actually like more than any other of these follow-up movies I've mentioned, but event hat feels bloated and self indulgent).

Three movies out of The Hobbit *shakes head*

You know they always talk about respecting Tolkien's work, but how about respecting the story structure he chose? There's a reason those stories are in the Appendices and not in the main plotlines of the books. The Hobbit should imo be one truly great 3 hour movie.

 

[mswood]

Darth Pipes

Lets look at your points and actually try and stay calm and rational. Shall we.

Damn it. Between the studios greed and Peter Jackson's massive, narccissitic ego they are absolutely determined to ruin The Hobbit. Expanding The Hobbit to two movies was bad enough but three is complete overkill. Three movies for a 300-page book? Really? The appendix only adds another 125. Are the actors even under contract for a possible third movie? Because if they're not, it's clear this is a spur of the moment cash grab/egofest. I hope it doesn't effect shooting for the third season of Sherlock, something I'm even more interested in seeing than The Hobbit, especially after this nonsense.

First The studio didn't request this, Jackson did. While once presented the studio probably kissed his feet, I think its safe to say it wasn't brought up from a monetary stand point).

The production of the Hobbit was specifically delayed (one of the times at least) specifically to allow Martin Freeman to work both on Sherlock and to be available for the Hobbit. Since he already is scheduled to do pickups for film two next year, I am sure the extra work on top of that will still allow him to film a season 4 (he will already be able to do season three) if both actors agree to a season four (I don't know if that is signed on paper yet).

Now to the big one. You think the Hobbit should be done in one film. Sorry just not going to happen, nor was it ever going to happen if Jackson was writing or producing it, let alone directing it. That's just a Jackson thing, he likes long films, period. Now thinks to the rights issues between MGM and Warners, the studios were only going to be able to get deals made that would basically make them profits by green lighting two films. Sorry but thats the reality of having a property that we have one rights holder getting paid tens of millions who has no involvement in the films, and two studios who are working together, let alone on a project that is coming off the earlier property earning a billion of just the home market in the US, nearly three billion in world wide ticket sales, and billions more in WW home market, TV rights, and merchandising.

But avoid the business side of things. The book is 320 pages long, its dialogue light, as Tolkien rarely writes the dialogue that is going around Bilbo. Its also much less detailed then his later work on LoTR.

From the get go back in the days before Jackson was directing (it was still a two picture film), that we would actually be getting a lot of dialogue that Bilbo heard, but just described. That the Dwarves would each get unique voices (hell in the book do all of them even get lines?). That would greatly expand the scope of the film. We also know that brief passages were going to be shown in detail on the film. From traveling shots, to fighting scenes, to singing scenes. All take little time on paper but consume much more when filmed.

Take two examples, the book takes 11 pages to showcase Smaug versus Laketown and the Battle of the five armies (the book actually spends more time with the trolls). They are less then 1/30th of the written pages. Yet on film are certainly going to consume tens of minutes, probably over half an hour. Even if both those passages only took ten minutes of screen time, that would translate (if the rest of the book consumes the same ratio) a film the length of 300 minutes. Thats 5 hours. Now of course that isn't going to happen, some passages will get edited out, some will go quickly and some will take much, much longer.

That's without using any material from the appendix. As for its 128 pages, you do understand that there can be a passage about the Rising of the Necromancer thats one paragraph, that could consume twenty minutes of screen time when fleshed out and filmed (could be much less could be much more). As sparse as the writing of the Hobbit is, the appendix is even worse.

Jackson's statement is completely ridiculous. That part about the story of Bilbo Baggins story remaning untold is false./

Actually first you would have to know if anything was cut from the Hobbit. Again Novels are usually cut, and cut dramatically to fit within a standard two hour film.

Look at Fellowship of the Ring Jackson released a 3 and half hour cut of that film, and there are huge sections of that book that aren't any part of the film. And thats again a 3 and a half hour cut of one book. If Jackson filmed everything in that book he would have easily added two hours. Easily.

So since you don't know what wasn't filmed from the Hobbit, you can't rationally make that point. Also since you think a version of the Hobbit that is shorter, which would also be an edited version, your point would also be in error.

The events going on in Middle-Earth during the book were important but weren't meant to be like the War of the Ring.

Actually agree. But here, in the Hobbit we don't get some of those events at all. Now if Jackson wants to devote the majority of the three films to the appendix material, then I would have serious issues, but we don't have any idea. None at all, about how much material in relationship to the material from the Hobbit is going to be in the movie.

Why is it that people think novels must be so heavily edited down to be good? We freely accept Short stories taking 2 plus hours in films, why is it so hard to accept novels taking several films to fully explore them?

Now I am not saying a film that is longer is going to be better. Not at all, nor am I saying a shorter film is going to be better. I think you can have bad short films, and bad long films (or multi films), just like you can have a great short film or a great long film.

Here are two examples.

Jane Austin's Pride & Prejudice a 400 page novel has been done in many forms. Yet the most critically (and I would say publicly as well) successful of these was an 8 part mini series (it took 5 full hours).

Look at the Lord of the Rings, its was intended as one novel, Jackson made three films, and also released director versions that were considerably longer. Yet critical reactions (from reviewers who reviewed both) seem to favor the extended cuts. Which basically equalled 2 full films for each volume. And all three still have major sections that have been edited out (Fellowship and Return of the King have lost the most).

I mean you compare the Hobbit to Kong, yet not LoTR (which I find odd to say the least). One is based on printed works the other isn't. One has extended notes to expand a story the other doesn't. You already mention your dislike for King Kong, how did you feel about the three LoTR films and the extended versions of those films (I assume you have seen them)?

 

[DigificWriter]

There seems to be some confusion as to the nature of this third film, which means that an update is in order. According to The One Ring.Net, Jackson and Co. are, in effect, doing what they did back when New Line Cinema agreed to finance the LotR films: they will be expanding the story that they were originally planning to tell in 2 films and instead telling it in 3. The only difference here is that they have already filmed their originally planned 2 films and will therefore be crafting a third film from scratch, reworking what they have already shot so that it can work in conjunction with the new third film.

BTW, said third film will be the only one of Jackson and Co.'s Tolkien-based films not to be released in December, as it is scheduled to premiere in the summer of 2014.

 

[Vassa]

I agree filming it in its entirety is too much, but there are definitely some interesting stories to be told, particularly Feanor.

I would very much like to see the Fall of Gondolin on screen.

The Battle of Angmar would also be sweet.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

There seems to be some confusion as to the nature of this third film, which means that an update is in order. According to The One Ring.Net, Jackson and Co. are, in effect, doing what they did back when New Line Cinema agreed to finance the LotR films: they will be expanding the story that they were originally planning to tell in 2 films and instead telling it in 3. The only difference here is that they have already filmed their originally planned 2 films and will therefore be crafting a third film from scratch, reworking what they have already shot so that it can work in conjunction with the new third film.

BTW, said third film will be the only one of Jackson and Co.'s Tolkien-based films not to be released in December, as it is scheduled to premiere in the summer of 2014.

That's an intersting development. Sounds like they're going more towards a bridging film (like the second film was originally envisioned as) and that's a good thing. I'm surprised by the summer 2014 release date but it's good that we don't have to wait as long

I agree filming it in its entirety is too much, but there are definitely some interesting stories to be told, particularly Feanor.

I would very much like to see the Fall of Gondolin on screen.

The Battle of Angmar would also be sweet.

I definitely would love to see both of those as well.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ There is no 'bridging film'. The new film will be a direct continuation of and expansion from what has already been written and shot. IOW, what was originally a single story that was set to be told across two films will now be told across three instead.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Though this isn't the thread for it I wanted to comment on this:

(Dark Knight Rises, which I do actually like more than any other of these follow-up movies I've mentioned, but event hat feels bloated and self indulgent)

I agree with it. Nolan "Nolanized" what in essence was the simplest story of three films, he had to make it seem as complex as he could just so it fit.

 

[Lonemagpie]

OK, LOTR I could understand - it's huge, split into three volumes, etc. But, the Hobbit? Fuck off - it's not that long or deep that it would take three long movies to do. 90 minutes should have covered it nicely. Really, this is just taking the piss to stretch out the lifespan of the cash-cow, isn't it?

What's next, turning The Dambusters (which PJ is/was supposedly remaking) into a six-movie epic that lasts longer than the actual war...?

 

[USS Fardell]

What's next, turning The Dambusters (which PJ is/was supposedly remaking) into a six-movie epic that lasts longer than the actual war...?

Possibly a Dickens novel (like, David Copperfield, or Bleak House) into a trilogy. (No proof, just speculation, and with Dickens' plots it would work better)

 

[DigificWriter]

OK, LOTR I could understand - it's huge, split into three volumes, etc. But, the Hobbit? Fuck off - it's not that long or deep that it would take three long movies to do. 90 minutes should have covered it nicely. Really, this is just taking the piss to stretch out the lifespan of the cash-cow, isn't it?

The idea that this is being done for monetary reasons doesn't hold water because Peter, Fran, and Philippa came up with the idea of doing a third movie, not the studios.

 

[propita]

Putting PJ through the geek translation matrix:

"Time to show Lucas how to make a frakking prequel trilogy!"

That may be possible!

At the same time, LotR had the nine of the Fellowship, plus MANY other characters, yet each was visually fairly distinctive. Here, there's 13 fairly visually-similar characters. I mean, if they're all (or mostly) short, male, with beards, time (film time) is going to be needed to have 13 fully established and distinguishable characters.

And many non-Tolkien fans won't get references to "past history" without some help. Some history of the dwarves and the King Under the Mountain--why they're all going there in the first place--why there's five armies fighting at the end, who Dale is, etc. Explanations to the casual viewer so things make sense to them. And this is going to take screen time. Sometimes a chapter can take two minutes on film; sometimes a half hour. It adds up.

 

[Lonemagpie]

OK, LOTR I could understand - it's huge, split into three volumes, etc. But, the Hobbit? Fuck off - it's not that long or deep that it would take three long movies to do. 90 minutes should have covered it nicely. Really, this is just taking the piss to stretch out the lifespan of the cash-cow, isn't it?

The idea that this is being done for monetary reasons doesn't hold water because Peter, Fran, and Philippa came up with the idea of doing a third movie, not the studios.

Yeah, cos writers and directors do it all for free?

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I was initially skeptical of a two-part split, but the proposed dividing line made a lot of sense. The book is actually packed full of many scenes, so I understood that those take a longer time to play out on the screen. Some appendix material explaining Gandalf's absence makes a lot of sense too and would be fun to see (once they got Christopher Lee, I figured it could be exciting).

Three concerns me because the split might be less logical and because the appendix material might start to overshadow Bilbo. I'm cautiously optimistic, but you have to recognize that the side story never overlaps with the main story. As much as he wants to tie it in with the Lord of the Rings, it also needs to stand as its own story. So my position right now is to wait and see what direction this takes.

 

[Gojira]

OK, LOTR I could understand - it's huge, split into three volumes, etc. But, the Hobbit? Fuck off - it's not that long or deep that it would take three long movies to do. 90 minutes should have covered it nicely. Really, this is just taking the piss to stretch out the lifespan of the cash-cow, isn't it?

The idea that this is being done for monetary reasons doesn't hold water because Peter, Fran, and Philippa came up with the idea of doing a third movie, not the studios.

Yeah, cos writers and directors do it all for free?

I really don't see PJ being motivated by cash. He really does have a passion for these stories and wants to tell them. His financial successes have given him the opportunity to do these movie but I don't think he is motivated by greed.

 

[Set Harth]

who Dale is

Yes, I can see that some fans are going to need help.

 

[davejames]

I'm no Tolkien fanatic, but I really enjoyed LOTR and was looking forward to revisiting that world for one extra, fun little adventure.

But I can't say I really want to sit through another LOTR. And that's basically what this is starting to sound like. To justify three movies they're probably going to make things much more serious and important, with FAR more characters and storylines than we really need to see, and MUCH more ominous forshadowing of later events than we really need.

I realize Jackson is in love with this world, but come on. Not every story that happens in it needs to be a humongous epic.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

My fear is that The Hobbit is going to turn into a B-plot its own movie.

I think this move -- to move to a trilogy -- could prevent that.

If you think about the chronology of events in The Hobbit and where the "split" that ended the first film was rumored to take place (at the barrels sequence), then the second film would have been top-heavy with battle sequences -- in addition to the Battle of Five Armies, there also would have been the Dol Guldur business. The story of the Dwarves would have been crowded in its own movie.

Splitting all the LOTR background material into a third film would prevent that. Material leading to the White Council's attack on Dol Guldur can be seeded in the first two films (which would adapt The Hobbit), and then, in the third film, Bilbo asks Gandalf on the way home from Lonely Mountain, "So where were you during all that time?" and Gandalf tells the tale of what's basically the opening move in the War of the Ring. This way the latter half of The Hobbit gets the room it needs to breathe, as does the White Council material, without it all stepping on each other.

If that's what Jackson does, then they've basically gone back to the original plan -- a Hobbit adaptation and a Lord of the Rings prequel/bridge film. And I'd suggest that the best possible names for this bridge movie would be either The Return of the Shadow or The White Council, though I like the former better. And I don't think this would require a lot of filming. It would really amount to re-editing the films and doing pick-ups where the narrative goes a little thin because they were trying to compress so much into the second film.