214 replies to this topic

[Bob De Quatre]

Clone O, on 31 July 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

But my question is - so what? The amount of the public that actually knows about that stuff, I should think, is quite minimal. He's making a Hobbit movie, so make a Hobbit movie, and not a Hobbit plus all the other stuff I can't do in a different movie movie. For the big-time Lord of the Rings fans out there, yes, I can see how they might be very excited. But from a storytelling viewpoint, it just seems like an indulgent idea fueled more by Jackson's desire to make as much LotR stuff as he can than by a desire to make a good movie or two with a succinct story

But Jackson is a Tolkien fanboy... so he has put as many thing as possible in LOTR, and he will do the same with The hobbit...

I tend to think "wait and see"... We won't change their decisions, even with the bests arguments...

Tolkien books, including the hobbit, are a part of a huge and unique story.

[purpleparadox]

Quote

3) The third movie finishes up The Hobbit with all the Smaug business, the Battle of Five Armies, and the return journey. Padded with plenty of inner angst for Bard, a love triangle between Legolas, Kili, and Tauriel, etc.

Wait a second...I thought

Spoiler

Kili died

in the Battle of Five Armies!

Edited by purpleparadox, 31 July 2012 - 10:11 PM.

[Falconer]

Yes, in Tauriel’s (and/or Legolas’s) arms, no doubt!

Spoiler warnings? Sheesh, it’s only been out for 75 years.

[djmangunz]

What this little debate boils down to is this: that there are those who think Peter Jackson is selling out by making three movies, and then there are those of us who are big Peter Jackson and Tolkien fans who are just thrilled that we will get another movie full of elves, wizards, and man-eating dragons to enjoy.

As for me, I would rather spend my time looking forward to 33% more Hobbity goodness than argue with the naysayers.

[Clone O'Patra]

I said nothing about selling out. Selling out would imply that the studio wants him to do it in order to capitalize and make more money, which isn't at all the case. What I think he's doing is very self-centered to his own creative whims, and might not very well serve the material, but that's not selling out.

[djmangunz]

I never said you did. My, my, aren't we egocentric. I am sure you are a lovely fellow, but I couldn't care less what your reasons are for disliking the idea of a third Hobbit movie. Anyways, more movies equals more chances for Lego sets based on Tolkien's world. And in my mind, that is a great thing.

[purpleparadox]

Falconer, on 01 August 2012 - 02:11 AM, said:

Spoiler warnings? Sheesh, it’s only been out for 75 years.

I just thought, the movie might spark people's interest in reading the actual book, and I didn't want to spoil it for 'em.

Edited by purpleparadox, 01 August 2012 - 03:36 AM.

[Clone O'Patra]

I'm not egocentric, and I wasn't taking your post to be directly addressing me. I just don't agree with your use of the term 'selling out' because, as I said, that's not what's going on.

Maybe that's petty, but it's not egocentric.

[djmangunz]

http://theweek.com/a...blatant-sellout



You may not be using the term, but a few people are tossing it around. I have heard both arguments from folks who don't like the idea of a third film; either that Peter Jackson is doing it for the money (ie. selling out), or fans like you who feel this compromises the artistic integrity of the project.

While there may be some valid points to both arguments; everything is about money and sure Jackson is taking some artistic liberties with the film, but I am telling you I just don't care. The only thing that matters to me is that we are getting one more Hobbit film, and that is just freaking awesome.

[Bilbo Baggins]

I believe that the fact thet it has been turned into a three movies will enrich each character and give him some protagonism.

Edited by Bilbo Baggins, 02 August 2012 - 07:46 PM.

[Leo Crimson]

I have no serious problems with the idea of a Hobbit trilogy, I'm just afraid Jackson's gonna burn out the climax or something in the 2nd movie or in the middle of the 3rd and have the rest be stagnant and boring.




But yes, moar Lego sets for the win.

[Ardelon]

For myself, I'm pretty optimistic to have three Hobbit movies. Too often, movie adaptations leave out too much from the plot of the books, in favor of making a simple and striaghtforward (read: dumbed down) story, with characters being rather flat and issues simpler and more black-and-white. So here we have a chance to see a movie that will hopefully avoid that. I'm pretty sure The Hobbit itself can be made into a three-part movie comfortably, though we all know there will be original ideas included as well (Legolas, Tauriel, ... ).

I admit I'm pretty split on whether The Hobbit should be only the book itself, or include the other bits unmentioned in the book. But the way I see it now, the Hobbit story includes not just the book (which only tells Bilbo's POV of the story), but all the related elements from the appendices and Unfinished Tales (which I undestand PJ can't use...), and I'm looking forward to see the whole story put toghether.

[djmangunz]

Read.

http://www.theonerin...-to-expect-now/

[SheepEater]

That was a long read, but interesting.  thanks!

[Mr Man]

Ardelon, on 02 August 2012 - 11:11 PM, said:

But all the related elements from the appendices and Unfinished Tales (which I undestand PJ can't use...), and I'm looking forward to see the whole story put toghether.

He can use them, he has the rights to all the Tolkien written books. He did use content from the Appendices and Unfinished Tales in LOTR.

[Falconer]

He does NOT have the rights to UT.

[Mr Man]

Falconer, on 03 August 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

He does NOT have the rights to UT.

Yup he does, he uses bits of it in LOTR.

[Falconer]

Why Isn’t The Silmarillion Being Made Into a Movie or Radio Show?

[Masked Builder]

Falconer, on 03 August 2012 - 09:55 PM, said:

Why Isn’t The Silmarillion Being Made Into a Movie or Radio Show?

I don't think most normal people have heard of that one, and you have to be pretty dedicated to read it.

[SheepEater]

Back in the 90s you weren't even considered a true Tolkien geek unless you've read the Silmarillion (I never did).

Once the movies came out, the requirements for being a LOTR geek lowered to having just read the LOTR books.

Edited by SheepEater, 08 August 2012 - 03:38 PM.

[Bilbo Baggins]

I have never read the Silmalarillion, is it in the same universe as LOTR?

Edited by Bilbo Baggins, 11 August 2012 - 01:49 AM.

[SheepEater]

Yeah. I've never read it myself, but from what I know, it's actually the LOTR story that's set in the Silmarillion universe; Tolkien wrote LOTR when Silmarillion was already well underway.

The main baddie is Melkor/Morgoth, some chap who happened to anger the gods by not singing in tune, and became evil. I'm not kidding.

[Leo Crimson]

Silmarillion is sort of like a prequel to LOTR that most people know, in that Sauron was a Maiar who served Morgoth.

[SheepEater]

From the reviews & descriptions I read, it's much more than just a prequel. It's a collection of events from that world (of which Middle-Earth is only a part) spanning millenias, involving gods and people who couldn't possibly care less what happens with a certain hobbit down the line. The LOTR story is just a tiny little part of that humongous world.

[Bilbo Baggins]

So is the Silmarillion located between the Hobbit and LOTR?