Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by sidewinder572, Dec 20, 2011.
Didn't see this anywhere else
Better quality here:
I have to say, the movie looks very interesting. (I'd expect nothing less, given Peter Jackson, his talented crew, and the $500,000,000 budget!)
Oh man !
Thanks - what a wonderful surprise for the evening.
Is the book being split into two movies? Or is this the whole shebang in one movie?
thanks! that was great!
“THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY”
“THE HOBBIT: THERE AND BACK AGAIN” (release scheduled 1 year after the release of the 1st one)
BTW, for $500,000,000, you'd think they could get some better facial hair makeup on some of those actors...
Oh, MAN, it's December 2012! And probably another 2 years for There and Back Again!
How do they split the mammoth three volumes of The Lord Of The Rings books into only three movies, but the tiny Hobbit book is split into two films?
Because they decided not to leave anything out, IIRC, and there is a lot that happens in The Hobbit. Tolkien wrote it for children, so there is a lot more "action" and less description than in LOTR. My son showed us the trailer tonight, and I can't wait to see the films. IMO, Jackson did a brilliant job on LOTR: he maintained the tone and feel of the books even though a lot was left out.
Nope! The LOTR films all came out pretty much one year apart, and the Hobbit films are scheduled for a similar time frame. Jackson is shooting these two films somewhat at the same time, just as he did for LOTR.
Also they are using material from the appendices to Lord Of The Rings. There was a LOT of additional information/background in the appendices.
Correct, and the entire movie is a flashback, with Bilbo telling the story to Frodo. So they managed to work in several of the characters from the first films.
I dunno... five hours to tell this story?
I've been ready for this one for a long time. Very exciting.
I have this nagging feeling that people are going to be disappointed with these movies compared to the LOTR movies. The LOTR films were groundbreaking. This sort of feels like they're just going back to the well but this time it will be less epic and more tame (I predict that somewhere in the movie; one of the Dwarves will fart for comic relief).
I really think they could have filmed The Hobbit as a single, 2 hour long movie. Sometimes less is more.
I want to be really excited about these movies, but I don't know...
No, actually, the big fat dwarf falls off the table in this one.
PJ did the same thing to Gimli in LOTR; Gimli passes out drunk, Gimli falls over while running, Gimli blows the ghostly hands away, Gimli gets tossed...but I suspect the fact that the opening is SUPPOSED to be humorous will help, and when it gets serious (moreso in the second film), it'll be more, well, serious.
The big problem is definitely trying to balance the two; The Hobbit is a much lighter story than LOTR, but the film will need to bring in the epic to keep the LOTR film fans happy, yet keep it balanced to the original story's lightness. The serious Tolkien fans will, of course, be split in equal parts tearing the film apart and heaping praise on it, like most fandoms.
Nah. I don't think they'll blow it. If you catch my drift. So to speak.
I wonder if there'll be extended editions this time too...4 and a half hours of ROTK is an awesome evening.
Whilst the book itself was written as a children's book and so might seem a bit slight to stretch over 2 films the story wasn't slight. As mentioned earlier the appendices to LOTR added much more detail, plus there are references in the book to the wizards dealing with the Necromancer for instance. That's barely mentioned in the book but could easily be expanded upon in the film.
Not forgetting a forest filled with giant spiders, man eating trolls and a dragon capable of burning whole towns. Depending on if Peter Jackson sticks to the tone of the book or if he adapts the story to the more serious tone of LOTR, there's plenty there for 2 movies.
It's kind of weird seeing Richard Armitage with long hair after seeing him in Spooks and Strike Back.
I agree, two movies should fit the bill nicely. In a Hollywood today where you can't rely on too many name directors/actors, etc Jackson is someone I totally trust with this material.
Well put Sir, I am looking forward to almost zero story omissions this time around. I still regret that Tom Bombadill and the Barrow Downs chapters had to be cut from the Fellowship of the Ring Movie.
Personally, I miss the Scouring of the Shire, though I certainly see how it could be deemed "anti-climatic" from a cinematic standpoint.
In the Hobbit I wish they'd include the story where Gandalf convinved a reluctant Saruman to join him in Driving Sauron's shade out of Mirkwood. (I think he agreed because he was afraid Sauron would find the ring before he did.)
I expect King Kong to have a cameo in Mirkwood.
Separate names with a comma.