The Hobbit

[SilkRoad]

Stretch it? No. They are going to include every tiny detail in the book.

Nah, movies don't work that way. They'll stretch it. I don't know many of the details about this film currently and am not really seeking to but I knew they were going to change loads of stuff just from the fact that Galadriel and Legolas are supposed to be in it. I don't recall them appearing in the book!

 

[kyuuei]

I read it in the Stars and Stripes they were moving it to three movies.. I was like "Wtf?! LotR was three times the length and only had a movie per.. @_@ Greedy fucks."

The idea of having every detail in a book come to life is awesome--the realization that that won't be why they're making three movies and the fact that every detail will infact not be in the movies and things will be changed around is not awesome at all.

 

[SilkRoad]

Well hopefully at least each of the three movies will be a reasonable length, not three or four hours each!

Honestly, I don't see why they couldn't have done it in one three-hour movie or two two-hour movies or something like that. This just seems like overkill.

 

[Totenkindly]

Nah, movies don't work that way. They'll stretch it. I don't know many of the details about this film currently and am not really seeking to but I knew they were going to change loads of stuff just from the fact that Galadriel and Legolas are supposed to be in it. I don't recall them appearing in the book!

Exactly. They've been mentioning that + the attack on Dol Guldor for months.

This is Peter Jackson. I'd be surprised if each runtime came in under two hours.

 

[SilkRoad]

In principle I don't totally object to making changes, even big changes, to a book when it's made into a film - but they have to have a point or even improve things, not just to stretch things out or whatever. So I guess we'll see.

I don't actually have a huge amount invested in the Hobbit, emotionally. I did with LOTR, as it was life-changing for me in a way the Hobbit was not. And I loved the LOTR movies, with reservations. So I'm not all that worried about these films, though obviously I'd like them to be good.

All that said - the one thing I like more about the Hobbit, over LOTR, is that it has a dragon. And the dragon is being voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch, who I am in luuuurrrrrrve with (especially his gorgeous voice!!)

 

[Randomnity]

Awww, and I wanted to see it originally, don't know if I will now. The very best thing about the LOTR movies was that they took out so much of the useless detail. I liked the hobbit much more than the LOTR books because there weren't so many pages of useless information added. Maybe it'll be easier to swallow in movie form, though.

 

[Lexicon]

Dunno if anyone posted it, but you should check out the old '77 animated adaptation.

[YOUTUBE="X_HbDM6kOJY"]<3[/YOUTUBE]

 

[gromit]

Dunno if anyone posted it, but you should check out the old '77 animated adaptation.

I love that one. I think it's cool how they put all the songs from the book to music. Used to watch that all the time as a kid

 

[Totenkindly]

I love that one. I think it's cool how they put all the songs from the book to music. Used to watch that all the time as a kid

I was a freak about that one, by Rankin-Bass (with Orson Bean doing Bilbo and Theodore doing Gollum and John Huston as Gandalf). It was missing the Arkenstone and Beorn sequences, but otherwise caught all the major elements. Bard and his black arrow was pretty rockin' too.

My parents bought me the record set with accompanying picture book (Yes, I said records -- a 33) and we copied it to cassette (yes, I said cassette) and I would listen to it everynight with the lights out, through my headphones. At one point I could quote much of the entire cartoon, inflection and all.

It was beautiful, and everything was right in the world.

... their version of The Return of the King wasn't nearly as good.

 

[Mal12345]

I read it in the Stars and Stripes they were moving it to three movies.. I was like "Wtf?! LotR was three times the length and only had a movie per.. @_@ Greedy fucks."

The idea of having every detail in a book come to life is awesome--the realization that that won't be why they're making three movies and the fact that every detail will infact not be in the movies and things will be changed around is not awesome at all.

It would have been awesome when I was a teenager.

 

[Totenkindly]

December 2012: Ten Days Out

Not a great sign in some ways, although the fanboys seem to still be excited.
http://movies.yahoo.com/news/hobbit-unexpected-journey-review-bored-rings-202833473.html

Also, apparently the hyper-realism from shooting at 48fps is leaving some reviewers jaded, due to the unrealistic appearance especially on the set pieces.
http://www.thewrap.com/movies/column-post/hobbit-48fps-hey-what-happened-middle-earth-67706

RottenTomatoes does have it at 75% right now, with 15/20 reviewers giving it a positive.

One of the larger problems is that we've already sat through three middle-earth movies and this is becoming old hat. Still not sure trying to squeeze three 3-hour movies out of a book that is smaller than the shortest LotR book was a wise idea.

 

[Totenkindly]

Too bad he didn't do a Batman title knock-off in middle earth called "The Dark Lord Rises" instead.

That sounds like it could be pretty cool.

 

[gromit]

Still not sure trying to squeeze three 3-hour movies out of a book that is smaller than the shortest LotR book was a wise idea.

Do you know why they decided that? Besides making $$.

 

[Totenkindly]

Do you know why they decided that? Besides making $$.

I think splitting the original book into two could be reasonably justified, depending on their pacing.

As far as three?

Either Jackson wanted to incorporate more story into it from other sources, which demanded more time; or the studios decided that three paydays were better than two; or a combination. That is my best knowledge.

Apparently there's a rather long prologue cribbed from LotR, and I think they're doing the "storming of Dol Guldor" in blow-by-blow detail -- basically Sauron was rising under the name of the Necromancer over on the edge of Mirkwood, and Gandalf and Elrond and a few other people (maybe Galadriel) went to overthrow him in that interlude where Gandalf dumps the dwarves and Bilbo at the edge of Mirkwood.

 

[cafe]

I go out of my way not to read or reread books movies I want to see are based on if I know they are being made. If the book is too fresh in my mind, I don't enjoy the movie. I'm hoping The Hobbit is faded enough in my mind that I can enjoy the movies.

I'm probably a casual LOTR fan but I liked the movies okay. I like that they cast a lot of the folks from LOTR for The Hobbit. I think Martin Freeman is adorable and look forward to seeing him play Bilbo. I hope they keep the lighter tone the book has instead of going all epic, though.

Regardless, I am very excited and can't wait to see the movie.

I'm easily amused.

 

[Totenkindly]

I think Martin Freeman is adorable and look forward to seeing him play Bilbo.

I think so too, at least...

 

[Cellmold]

I think splitting the original book into two could be reasonably justified, depending on their pacing.

As far as three?

Either Jackson wanted to incorporate more story into it from other sources, which demanded more time; or the studios decided that three paydays were better than two; or a combination. That is my best knowledge.

Apparently there's a rather long prologue cribbed from LotR, and I think they're doing the "storming of Dol Guldor" in blow-by-blow detail -- basically Sauron was rising under the name of the Necromancer over on the edge of Mirkwood, and Gandalf and Elrond and a few other people (maybe Galadriel) went to overthrow him in that interlude where Gandalf dumps the dwarves and Bilbo at the edge of Mirkwood.

I was wondering about this myself, are they incorporating elements of the Silmarillion into these films as well?

Someone mentioned to me that they were, but this is only idle hear-say with no facts or sources to back it up. Besides the Silmarillion is more like...a historical document mixed with a series of different stories. It's quite unusual to read, almost the entire thing is like a narration of events with little dialogue or individual perspective.

 

[Totenkindly]

I was wondering about this myself, are they incorporating elements of the Silmarillion into these films as well?

I only know what I read in the mags/online over the last year, plus the stuff in the last few days. I don't yet have a clear idea of what material is being pulled in, although I think Dol Guldor thing is pretty certain, and it's covered in the Appendix histories either in LotR or Sil.

Someone mentioned to me that they were, but this is only idle hear-say with no facts or sources to back it up. Besides the Silmarillion is more like...a historical document mixed with a series of different stories. It's quite unusual to read, almost the entire thing is like a narration of events with little dialogue or individual perspective.

It really is a historical document, with some of the narratives fleshed out (like Beren and Luthien, or Turin Turumbar, or the whole Huor/Hurin mess, or the death of Fingon (?). Or was it Fingolfin? I always get the names mixed up after I haven't read it for awhile).

I still have my Simarillion hardback my parents bought me in fifth grade, with the cloth hardcover and dustjacket...

 

[Cellmold]

I only know what I read in the mags/online over the last year, plus the stuff in the last few days. I don't yet have a clear idea of what material is being pulled in, although I think Dol Guldor thing is pretty certain, and it's covered in the Appendix histories either in LotR or Sil.

Ah that's interesting to hear. I actually think the Dol Guldor element could be quite interesting.

I still have my Simarillion hardback my parents bought me in fifth grade, with the cloth hardcover and dustjacket...

That's fantastic. I had to buy the mouldy paperback cover .

 

[Totenkindly]

That's fantastic. I had to buy the mouldy paperback cover .

Aww...

Yes, I think I read The Silmarillion before I read LotR.

[I saw The Hobbit cartoon, loved it, and read the book. Then my parents got me the LP of the cartoon -- the entire soundtrack with dialogue and effects -- for Christmas, along with the Silmarillion. And when I finally borrowed LotR from the library, they didn't have book 1 so I ended up reading them in order of 2, 3, and then 1. Ugggh.]

I'm kind of a geek about it because I also own #1-10 or something of the edited notes put out by Christopher Tolkien (where you can track the development of Middle-Earth as Tolkien created it, with all the false starts and edited out pieecs), + Tolkien's letters to fans.

The covers were kind of cool... his own designs looked like this:

But I always liked these:

This Hobbit cover is also cool and looks like it's Tolkien's style (or done in the same style):