The Hobbit movies discussion

[Leo604]

What I think is a good idea for a possible new wave of movies would be a short summary of the Second Age. You'll have the banishment of Morgoth, Arnor and Gondor, Sauron convincing the Elves of Eregion to make the Rings of Power, and so on and so forth. It'd probably have to be a bit more specific, but still.

Lego would be able to make some good sets based of off that.

[jimmycarry]

Guy's Recently i have seen this movie. And i can say that this is really nice movie to watch. I enjoyed it lots. I suggest to watch at least once....

[Leo604]

...What are you talking about?

[SheepEater]

Guy's Recently i have seen this movie. And i can say that this is really nice movie to watch. I enjoyed it lots. I suggest to watch at least once....

And where have you seen it? Are you part of Peter Jackson's close group of friends and associates?

[General Magma]

And where have you seen it? Are you part of Peter Jackson's close group of friends and associates?

He did not. I doubt even the movie editing started until just recently...

[Siegfried]

Guy's Recently i have seen this movie. And i can say that this is really nice movie to watch. I enjoyed it lots. I suggest to watch at least once....

I suggest that we ignore this person who joined just to post this nonsense...

[General Magma]

The Hobbit will become a trilogy!

Third film has been confirmed.

Do you know what else this means?

This means that the LEGO license will have a higher chance of lasting even longer, as it will at least run until winter 2014/early 2015 this way.

Hooray!

Edited July 30, 2012 by General Magma

[Masked Builder]

Dang. Now I have to wait even longer to see the end! GAH!

[CMP]

:excited: Awesome! Edited July 30, 2012 by CallMePie

[Bilbo Baggins]

I wonder in which part Smaug will be shown

[SheepEater]

The Hobbit will become a trilogy!

Third film has been confirmed.

Do you know what else this means?

This means that the LEGO license will have a higher chance of lasting even longer, as it will at least run until winter 2014/early 2015 this way.

Hooray!

Yeah, that's positive news (as far as Lego is concerned).

But only as long as the toys sell well enough, though!

from theonering.net

In a note posted to Facebook this morning (in the U.S.) Peter Jackson confirmed there will be a third film in the “Hobbit” series:

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.

TheOneRing.net has confirmed with two independent sources that the third “Hobbit,” film will not follow the schedule of traditional December releases for Middle-earth movies and will hit audiences in Summer of 2014. TORn has also learned that this newly announced film will not serve as a bridge film but continue to tell the story of “The Hobbit,” in three parts. It is believed that the breaking points of the first film has changed. That film, “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey,” will be released in theaters this December 14. The next film, announced as “The Hobbit: There and Back Again,” is expected to keep its December 13, 2013 schedule. Its name may change however. The newly announced film, as yet untitled, will follow months later in the summer months of 2014.

Edited July 30, 2012 by SheepEater

[just2good]

Yippee! Three films! Lets see which is a better Trilogy... LOTR or The Hobbit?

Edited July 31, 2012 by just2good

[Leo604]

Aw, now we have to wait a whole 'nother year (at least) to see the Battle of Five Armies. :(

[______]

I'm guessing Bilbo will go into Smaug's lair in the second film and in the third film Smaug will attack Laketown/battle of five armies.

I really can't wait for these films! :wub:

[Remus_Lupin]

Am I alone in being disappointed at the announcement? (aside from the possible longevity effects on the LEGO license)

The Hobbit really doesn't need three films. Jackson is just being severely over-indulgent, and I'm worried that he's going to turn it into a bloated mess. I'm not crazy about the inclusion of too much original plot elements/material from the Tolkien indeces because I don't want it to dilute the story I know and love.

[Clone OPatra]

I agree with you 100% Remus_Lupin, I just didn't feel like posting about it myself. I sometimes have trouble writing such thoughts in a concise, eloquent way.

[SheepEater]

This is a cut-n-paste from Falconer's post from the LOTR topic on the 'Historical' (*chuckle*) forum...

Here are my guesses:

1) The first movie will be a pretty straightforward retelling of Chapters 1-9 (“Barrels Out of Bond”) of The Hobbit proper, mostly if not completely told from Bilbo’s point of view, with very little White Council business. Plenty of dwarvish buffoonery, of course.

2) The second movie will be a Gandalf-centric movie that advances the story of The Hobbit proper very little (we probably get our first glimpse of Smaug), and is based mainly on “The Quest of Erebor.” It goes back in time to show Gandalf snooping around Dol Guldur and getting the map and the key from Thrain; meeting with Thorin to convince him to take Bilbo; then back to the present for some Lorien business, and climax with a big “Battle of Dol Guldur.”

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.

Note how this parallels the LOTR movies. Dol Guldur is analogous to Helm’s Deep, etc.

Makes sense. I only disagree about the possibility of a romance involving Tauriel.

Edited July 31, 2012 by SheepEater

[Bob De Quatre]

This is a cut-n-paste from Falconer's post from the LOTR topic on the 'Historical' (*chuckle* forum...)

Makes sense. I only disagree about the possibility of a romance involving Tauriel.

So you basically agree about the possibility of a romance involving only legolas and kili??

I'm disappointed too... I know there is enough material to make three film, maybe four, but it will wander far away of the hobbit main story... I hope Jackson know what he is doing.

[Falconer]

Back in June of 2009, I predicted that the changes from book to film will include:

1) Taking out the good humor of the original in order to make it “darker”.

2) Nevertheless being fine with inserting plenty of lame Jar-Jar/Gimli-the-Robot “comic relief”.

3) Gandalf, Bilbo, and the dwarves will all rely on their awesome kewl powers instead of wit, speed, secrecy, morality, and more wit. Expect lots of battles.

4) In the book, Fili and Kili are the only Dwarves who aren’t white-beards (old). In the movie, I expect they will all be young. Some will be female, and all different skin colors will be represented. (Sexual orientation, too, but that will be “left open to interpretation”.)

5) A few obligatory love-interests will be added.

6) Bilbo will be a skinny teen heartthrob type instead of a fat hobbit in his fifties who is fond of tea and handkerchiefs.

7) The Trolls, the Eagles, and the Spiders won’t talk but the Wargs will.

8) Not only the Gandalf-in-Dol Guldur subplot, but also many other made-up Lord of the Rings tie-in plot elements will make it into the movies and take up 25-50% of the screentime.

So far, mad-scary-accurate. Except for the lack of female dwarves. That we know of.

[CMP]

Well, a good portion of The Two Towers movie was Jackson, since it was an extremely short part of the books. From the point of evacuating Edoras up to where the Elves showed up in Helm's Deep, from the Three Hunters perspective, from what I understand, was mostly just filling up a good slot of time. And, well, honestly, I didn't mind. If they took the stuff straight out of the book, the movie would've been 60% Frodo and Sam, 15% Merry and Pippin, 20% Three Hunters. I'm not at all criticizing the book, and even I felt the skewing of distribution of screentime was a bit overt.

Still, what he did add fit fairly well into the plot, specifically further explaining the Aragorn/Arwen thing that we'd have to just assume otherwise because it was mostly explained in the books through Aragorn's mind, which obviously they had to make into scenes to convey it to the audience. That's why I'm gonna agree with Falcon and say that there's going to be a lot of storytelling from Gandalf's point of view, and yes, probably enough to make one of the movies entirely about him. I trust Jackson will do a good job with it.

And before I get hate for saying the non-Tolkien bits were fine, remember - they can't assume everybody seeing the movie has read the books. What we see as throwing the Aragorn/Arwen relationship into a cliche mess, the casual moviegoer will have a clue as to what the hell is going on. What if that Two Tower portion was completely omitted? Those who haven't read the book would be thinking at the end of Return of the King 'Whoa, who's that elf chick with Aragorn? Wait, wasn't she in the first movie or something?' There's a lot of stuff in the books you just can't pull off completely accurately in a movie, Lord of the Rings in particular, because of the stuff Tolkien writes in context rather than having the characters discuss it. It's what makes his writing so popular, to me, at least, but it's impossible to pull off in a movie unless you explain a bit more through character. Thus the flashbacks in Two Towers, and why I suspect they'll have to show what Gandalf was going in his own journeys during the course of the Hobbit.

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

That's the sort of stuff completely unnecessary and detracts from the movie, to me. If anything could ruin the movies, to me, it's out-of-place sideplots like this that I sincerely hope won't show up.

Edited July 31, 2012 by CallMePie

[Clone OPatra]

Yes, so they adapted the books and added things to explain what was going on, but that's not the same as what he's doing here. What he's doing here is taking one pretty simple story, and injecting it with a whole bunch of other stuff that Tolkien wrote. The trilogy (the original trilogy, I guess) does cut back and forth between different stories going on concurrently, but the Hobbit, the book, didn't do that. It seems like self-indulgence on the part of Peter Jackson to stretch the Hobbit's story over three films, cutting between that story and that other stuff going on both of his own design and found in Tolkien's extra writings.

[CMP]

Well, as long as it's stuff that have something to do with what's going on in the Hobbit itself, in some form or another, I'll be content. Even if it's one of Tolkien's writings, if it's a clunky sideplot that doesn't fit into the story, it's a clunky sideplot that doesn't fit into the story. You're right, as long as it's not a needless extension that's really stretching itself to do 3 movies on, it'll be fine by me.

[Falconer]

Tolkien only sold the rights to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, so any Middle-earth movies (or LEGO or any other merchandise, etc.) have to be under one of those two titles. They can’t, for example, do a movie based on The Children of Hurin, or The Disaster of the Gladden Fields. Because the Tolkien Estate will never sell the rights (at least, not as long as Christopher Tolkien is alive).

[Clone OPatra]

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

[Falconer]

Hey, don’t look at me. I wish he wouldn’t do ANY “Hobbit” movie, because he’s going to make a mess of it no matter what. I was just explaining why they are milking the title for as many movies as possible. Because once it’s over, it’s over.