|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 30, 2012 15:37:18 GMT -6
An interesting story found here: movies.yahoo.com/news/peter-jackson-confirms-hobbit-split-3-movies-160553318.html"The Hobbit" will become a trilogy, director Peter Jackson announced Monday on Facebook.
The move had been rumored last week, but the "Lord of the Rings" auteur confirmed the decision by saying that there was more story to tell than could be contained in the originally planned two films. He said the three movies will draw on related material in the appendices of "The Lord of the Rings," in addition to using J.R.R. Tolkien's original story, as a way to better explain the history of Middle Earth.
"We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance," Jackson wrote.
"So, without further ado and on behalf of New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Wingnut Films, and the entire cast and crew of 'The Hobbit' films, I'd like to announce that two films will become three," he added.
That means that what Tolkien was able to complete in one book, will now take three films. There's an awful lot of plot in the classic book -- a treasure hunt story involving goblins, Wargs and a very menacing dragon -- but there's also an economic incentive to extend the scope of Jackson's return to Middle Earth.
For Warner Bros., which is backing the fantasy film through New Line in partnership with MGM, creating an extra "Hobbit" sequel will bolster a film slate that recently saw two of the studio's biggest franchises, Christopher Nolan's Batman films and the Harry Potter series, wrap up after nearly a decade of blockbuster grosses.
The first film in what is now a trilogy, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" will hit theaters on Dec. 13, 2012, with the second picture, "There and Back Again," premiering on Dec. 13, 2013. Jackson did not say when the third film will be released.
The films, which are prequels to "The Lord of the Rings," star Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins and bring back Ian McKellen as the wizard Gandalf.
"It has been an unexpected journey indeed, and in the words of Professor Tolkien himself, 'a tale that grew in the telling,'" Jackson wrote.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2012 16:19:18 GMT -6
I'm looking forward to this trilogy of films. I am interested to see what makes it into the film from the complex tapestry Tolkien wove.
|
|
|
Post by Sean Michael Kelly on Jul 30, 2012 17:04:41 GMT -6
Somebody on Twitter said today that Peter Jackson must be using 4e for the battle scenes and thus needed to expand to a 3rd movie...
|
|
|
Post by warrioroffrobozz on Jul 30, 2012 18:27:41 GMT -6
They managed to fit the entire LOTR trilogy into three films while being surprisingly faithful to the original books (which IMO I thought were a little too long). But three movies for The Hobbit? I just hope they don't pad these like crazy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2012 18:42:35 GMT -6
There is a lot of material to use. The big question is, can Jackson make it relevant to the story at hand?
I felt he did a good job with LotR so I am hopeful about the new films. Fantasy films are going through the same trial that science-fiction and superhero films did: they have decades of silly or poorly made films to overcome. If Jackson can knock another trilogy out of the park perhaps we'll see less "Dungeon Siege" and "Dungeons & Dragons: The Movie" and something a bit more along the lines of LotR or "Captain America" or "The Avengers" in quality.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jul 30, 2012 19:14:38 GMT -6
Speaking of Tolkien trilogies, for the last year, cable on demand has had "The Two Towers" on one premium channel or another, but never Fellowship or Return. I have no clue why.
|
|
rleduc
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 75
|
Post by rleduc on Jul 30, 2012 19:48:50 GMT -6
Sometimes you get too famous to think you need an editor. No good can come of that.
|
|
|
Post by garham on Jul 30, 2012 20:42:42 GMT -6
They managed to fit the entire LOTR trilogy into three films while being surprisingly faithful to the original books (which IMO I thought were a little too long). But three movies for The Hobbit? I just hope they don't pad these like crazy. This is my worry also. I don't need to see hours of wide shots of travelling dwarves with dramatic music or a million close ups sans-dialogue to show "emotional" facial expressions.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 30, 2012 21:28:39 GMT -6
Remember that part of the plan is to bring in (1) scenes suggested but not done in the Hobbit, and (2) material from the appendix of the LotR.
The suggested scenes would include times when Gandalf leaves the dwarves. JRRT sort of leaves us hanging but PJ is supposed to bring some of these scenes to life, which is why he is bringing back characters such as Galadriel and Elrond.
As to the Appendix material, there are some complex timelines. Who knows where he'll take it.
|
|
|
Post by machfront on Jul 31, 2012 1:13:23 GMT -6
Fantasy films are going through the same trial that science-fiction and superhero films did: they have decades of silly or poorly made films to overcome. If Jackson can knock another trilogy out of the park perhaps we'll see less "Dungeon Siege" and "Dungeons & Dragons: The Movie" and something a bit more along the lines of LotR or "Captain America" or "The Avengers" in quality. What's funny is that when the LotR flicks were released, I thought of how there had been a huge influx of sci-fi material in the wake of Star Wars. I actually hoped there'd be an enormous amount of fantasy flicks, but that didn't seem to materialize to the extent that things like Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rodgers, Battle Beyond The Stars, StarCrash, and tons of others did in the late 70s to the early 80s. Likewise all the great Conan rip-offs in the early to mid 80s. I don't really want to see 'serious' fantasy films with enormous budgets. I want fun stuff with lots of heart and energy (The Sword & The Sorcerer comes to mind, as an example of what I mean). I love all that stuff. I wanted a contemporary replay of that. I didn't really get it. Maybe this time.
|
|
|
Post by crusssdaddy on Jul 31, 2012 9:41:21 GMT -6
It's more than a little cynical to smilingly say "I'm doing it because I don't want to deprive you fans of any story!" when in fact this is simply a concession to studio distribution and marketing executives who incessantly demand more product for the pipeline, largely regardless of quality.
This is a money grab aimed at rewarding shareholders, not moviegoers. But I disliked the LotR films (so loud, so stupid), so my view arrives with bias.
|
|
|
Post by blackbarn on Jul 31, 2012 11:10:29 GMT -6
The Hobbit 3: The Search for More Money! All kidding aside, I am worried that we will see some plot and pacing problems since this was planned to be two films and became three after they were already shooting. A similar thing happened on Lord of the Rings, where they had plotted it all out (three films), then began tinkering and changing story points as they shot each film, resulting in some serious awkwardness in places, especially later on. Kind of like painting oneself into a corner. For example, originally they were going to intercut Frodo at Mount Doom with Aragorn battling Sauron (yeah, I know...), but then changed their minds. However, now we have Frodo at Mount Doom intercut with Aragorn fighting... a troll. Very anti-climactic and distracting, sapping the drama of the actual climax with the Ring every time they cut away. The Aragorn bit ideally should have been removed entirely after the plot change was made, but the on-the-fly tinkering blinded them to that. I worry we will see this type of thing again and the movies will suffer for it. Still, I suppose it is cool to see we will get three more films. I'm happy for the movie fans if nothing else. The first set of films was flawed but still mostly better than I expected we would see (I expected a total disaster, if they ever got made at all!) EDIT: Only after I posted did I realize the irony of this. The story ends up showing the negative effects of lust for riches, and yet that is probably the main reason they are making three movies instead of two (or one, let's be honest!)
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 31, 2012 17:58:18 GMT -6
I look at it this way: 1. It's possible that these movies represent the last trip into movie-version Middle-earth ever. 2. I'd rather have it be too long than too short. I figure he was working on the project and was finding that there were too many minutes of footage to chop into two movies. Rumor is that there will be stuff from the Appendicies in addition to those "what does Gandalf do while he is away" scenes. When you film something I assume there is no easy way to tell how many minutes of film correspond to pages of text. Some things write fast but film slow, others write slow and film fast. For example, spending 5 pages of text on describing the landscape can be accomplished in a 5-second pan-around. So as long as Peter Jackson has a story to tell, let him tell it. Anyway. I have high hopes and 3x the Hobbit sounds better than 2x the Hobbit.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jul 31, 2012 20:15:57 GMT -6
It's possible that these movies represent the last trip into movie-version Middle-earth ever. Why? I’m hoping someone (other than PJ) gets to do a faithful version of H+LR in my lifetime.
|
|
|
Post by crusssdaddy on Jul 31, 2012 21:38:53 GMT -6
When you film something I assume there is no easy way to tell how many minutes of film correspond to pages of text. Some things write fast but film slow, others write slow and film fast. For example, spending 5 pages of text on describing the landscape can be accomplished in a 5-second pan-around. These films are storyboarded from beginning to end long before production begins, with comprehensive notes regarding shot length. That's how they schedule shooting, prep a budget, etc. The only left to chance is the weather. The key consideration here is that, compared to LotR, there are two extra mouths to feed: Warner Bros. and MGM. I think New Line is a shell of what it once was and no longer handles distribution, which necessitated bringing in Warners to handle domestic (they handled extensive foreign distribution for LotR). MGM gets to ride along because I believe they are Hobbit rights holders dating back to the Zaentz animated feature. That's a lot of extra hands clamoring for a payout. Don't be surprised if Gandalf's robes look like a NASCAR sponsorship, or if there's a scene of Bilbo shopping at Walmart to stock his pantry.
|
|
|
Post by crusssdaddy on Jul 31, 2012 21:41:41 GMT -6
It's possible that these movies represent the last trip into movie-version Middle-earth ever. Why? I’m hoping someone (other than PJ) gets to do a faithful version of H+LR in my lifetime. Hopefully there will be no further expansion of copyright periods. In, what, 20 or 30 more years when the copyright expires, anyone could adapt the stories.
|
|
rleduc
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 75
|
Post by rleduc on Jul 31, 2012 21:54:29 GMT -6
The beauty of The Hobbit is the simplicity and naïveté of the story. The book is minuscule in comparison to LOTR.
It sounds like all of that will be crushed under a preponderance of material.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 1, 2012 8:21:41 GMT -6
It's possible that these movies represent the last trip into movie-version Middle-earth ever. Why? I’m hoping someone (other than PJ) gets to do a faithful version of H+LR in my lifetime. I don't think it will happen. Folks who think about doing this will probably say (1) it's been done, and (2) I can't come up with a bigger budget than the first one. I would be really surprised to see a Middle-earth reboot in my lifetime. On the other hand, who would have expected a reboot of TOTAL RECALL, so I probably don't know what I'm talking about.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Aug 1, 2012 8:48:45 GMT -6
The beauty of The Hobbit is the simplicity and naivete of the story. The book is minuscule in comparison to LOTR. It sounds like all of that will be crushed under a preponderance of material. That is my worry as well. I would rather have a single 3-hour movie telling only the story of Bilbo and the 13 dwarves (plus a brief cut to Bard slaying Smaug). But PJ's current plan seems like it will necessitate cutting back-and-forth throughout much of the story.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Darke on Aug 7, 2012 14:29:31 GMT -6
I have this love/hate thing with LOTR. I loved the films but found the books boring beyond belief and to this date have yet to finish them after years of trying to read them. Oddly enough, I found The Hobbit, The Silmarillion and The Children of Hurin great reads.
The thought of The Hobbit becoming a trilogy doesn't bother me at all and I am looking forward to the films. I hope they are as amazing as the LOTR films were and I think they are in good hands.
|
|
|
Post by trebormills on Aug 9, 2012 7:54:10 GMT -6
I loved the films and hated them at the same time. The look, feel and general story was great. The dialogue at times was wrong and some bits added without need. I find it odd that some bits dont bother me that much- eg Arwen vs Glorfindel,
Major issues- No fatty, Im a shear not a farmer, prancing pony not 100% right, "give us the halfling elf" whatever speech, Witch king speech deleted, Leoglas ninja, weak passive Frodo, Ents dont fight till Pippin tricks em, Aragorn "death", Arwen "dying", Faramir and Frodo at Osigilith, Sam and Frodo bromance fail...grrrrr
The extended cuts better IMO, on the whole a very good job 98% there for me. Non fans of books dont care so I guess Im just a bit to fanatical.
I fear Hobbit will be same...both good and bad...hopefully mostly good as its obvious he does like the originals
|
|