The Hobbit officially being made into three films

Guess this means more filler than all LOTR movies put together.

TheFallenDemon

I've also wondered if Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli were already alive during The Hobbit. Perhaps they might appear in the background. :lol:

jun_aka_pekto

All three are certainly alive during the events of 'the Hobbit'. Aragorn was around 10-11 years of age during Bilbo's quest. Legolas was probably already a couple of thousand years old (considering the lifespan of elves). And Gimli was born 60 years or so before 'the Hobbit'.

I've heard no word of Viggo Mortensen being in these movies (or of anyone playing a younger Aragorn, but I guess it's possible). Orlando Bloom is confirmed to be reappearing as Legolas, and John Rhys-Davis declined to return as Gimli, but simply because he had such trouble with allergic reactions to the facial prosthetics in the 'LotR' films.

"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."
Yet he had no qualms about leaving huge bits of 'the Lord of the Rings' untold. Even small sh*t that could have been told in a minute that would have helped explain monumental sh*t later on.worlock77

[QUOTE="The_Gaming_Baby"]

http://www.totalfilm.com/news/peter-jackson-confirms-that-the-hobbit-will-become-three-films

As long as there is no filler used to strentch the story into three films then I'm more than happy with this decision

whipassmt

"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. The richness of the story of The Hobbit, as well as some of the related material in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, allows us to tell the full story of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and the part he played in the sometimes dangerous, but at all times exciting, history of Middle-earth. "

So basically the reason PJ is making one book into three films is because he isn't just using material from the Hobbit but is also using material from the appendix of the Lord of The Rings and possibly some of Tolkien's other writings (such as the "of the rings of power and the third age" section of the Silmarillion). For instance the Battle of Dol Guldur (where the White Council attack the fortress of the Necromancer (Sauron) in Dol Guldur and "force" him to flee, though in fact Sauron really just pertends to flee into the East and then relocates into Mordor and a few years later sends two nazgul to re-occupy Dol Guldur) is not mentioned in the Hobbit but does take place during the time of the Hobbit (basically in the Hobbit books Gandalf leaves Bilbo and the Dwarves and doesn't reappear until a few chapters later. Gandalf's absence is because him and the White Council are planning an attack on Dol Guldur - Gandalf had actually wanted to attack Dol Guldur for a while, ever since he found out who "the Necromancer" really was, but Saruman kept stopping the Council from attacking). Also one of the Hobbit movies (probably the third one) is supposed to show events that happened in the decades between the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings (most notably Saruman's going over to Sauron's side, and probably also Sauron's return to Mordor).

They won't be using anything from 'the Silmarillion' or any of Tolkien's writings that don't appear in 'The Lord of the Rings' or 'the Hobbit'. Tolkien himself optioned the flim rights to 'the Hobbit' and 'LotR' when he was still alive, but none of his other Middle-Earth writings had been published at that time (despite Tolkien's desire to get 'the Silmarillion' into what he felt to be publishable form during his life). And, unless I missed some news somewhere, the Tolkien family has never sold the film rights to his other books.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]"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."
Yet he had no qualms about leaving huge bits of 'the Lord of the Rings' untold. Even small sh*t that could have been told in a minute that would have helped explain monumental sh*t later on.Zeviander

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="The_Gaming_Baby"]

http://www.totalfilm.com/news/peter-jackson-confirms-that-the-hobbit-will-become-three-films

As long as there is no filler used to strentch the story into three films then I'm more than happy with this decision

worlock77

"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. The richness of the story of The Hobbit, as well as some of the related material in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, allows us to tell the full story of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and the part he played in the sometimes dangerous, but at all times exciting, history of Middle-earth. "

So basically the reason PJ is making one book into three films is because he isn't just using material from the Hobbit but is also using material from the appendix of the Lord of The Rings and possibly some of Tolkien's other writings (such as the "of the rings of power and the third age" section of the Silmarillion). For instance the Battle of Dol Guldur (where the White Council attack the fortress of the Necromancer (Sauron) in Dol Guldur and "force" him to flee, though in fact Sauron really just pertends to flee into the East and then relocates into Mordor and a few years later sends two nazgul to re-occupy Dol Guldur) is not mentioned in the Hobbit but does take place during the time of the Hobbit (basically in the Hobbit books Gandalf leaves Bilbo and the Dwarves and doesn't reappear until a few chapters later. Gandalf's absence is because him and the White Council are planning an attack on Dol Guldur - Gandalf had actually wanted to attack Dol Guldur for a while, ever since he found out who "the Necromancer" really was, but Saruman kept stopping the Council from attacking). Also one of the Hobbit movies (probably the third one) is supposed to show events that happened in the decades between the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings (most notably Saruman's going over to Sauron's side, and probably also Sauron's return to Mordor).

They won't be using anything from 'the Silmarillion' or any of Tolkien's writings that don't appear in 'The Lord of the Rings' or 'the Hobbit'. Tolkien himself optioned the flim rights to 'the Hobbit' and 'LotR' when he was still alive, but none of his other Middle-Earth writings had been published at that time (despite Tolkien's desire to get 'the Silmarillion' into what he felt to be publishable form during his life). And, unless I missed some news somewhere, the Tolkien family has never sold the film rights to his other books.

its not about making quality movies anymore, its about dat money

Chris_Williams

[QUOTE="Zeviander"][QUOTE="worlock77"]"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."
Yet he had no qualms about leaving huge bits of 'the Lord of the Rings' untold. Even small sh*t that could have been told in a minute that would have helped explain monumental sh*t later on.whipassmt

F*ck, I'm just glad they had sense enough to leave out the scenes they filmed with Arwen fighting at the Hornburg. Although I'm sure that'll probably be inserted into some "super-ultra-delux" edition some time in the future.

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]I've also wondered if Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli were already alive during The Hobbit. Perhaps they might appear in the background. :lol:

worlock77

All three are certainly alive during the events of 'the Hobbit'. Aragorn was around 10-11 years of age during Bilbo's quest. Legolas was probably already a couple of thousand years old (considering the lifespan of elves). And Gimli was born 60 years or so before 'the Hobbit'.

I've heard no word of Viggo Mortensen being in these movies (or of anyone playing a younger Aragorn, but I guess it's possible). Orlando Bloom is confirmed to be reappearing as Legolas, and John Rhys-Davis declined to return as Gimli, but simply because he had such trouble with allergic reactions to the facial prosthetics in the 'LotR' films.

I'm not happy about this. Seems like a waste of time, I mean I saw how two films could work but three?

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]I've also wondered if Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli were already alive during The Hobbit. Perhaps they might appear in the background. :lol:

worlock77

All three are certainly alive during the events of 'the Hobbit'. Aragorn was around 10-11 years of age during Bilbo's quest. Legolas was probably already a couple of thousand years old (considering the lifespan of elves). And Gimli was born 60 years or so before 'the Hobbit'.

I've heard no word of Viggo Mortensen being in these movies (or of anyone playing a younger Aragorn, but I guess it's possible). Orlando Bloom is confirmed to be reappearing as Legolas, and John Rhys-Davis declined to return as Gimli, but simply because he had such trouble with allergic reactions to the facial prosthetics in the 'LotR' films.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]I've also wondered if Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli were already alive during The Hobbit. Perhaps they might appear in the background. :lol:

whipassmt

All three are certainly alive during the events of 'the Hobbit'. Aragorn was around 10-11 years of age during Bilbo's quest. Legolas was probably already a couple of thousand years old (considering the lifespan of elves). And Gimli was born 60 years or so before 'the Hobbit'.

I've heard no word of Viggo Mortensen being in these movies (or of anyone playing a younger Aragorn, but I guess it's possible). Orlando Bloom is confirmed to be reappearing as Legolas, and John Rhys-Davis declined to return as Gimli, but simply because he had such trouble with allergic reactions to the facial prosthetics in the 'LotR' films.

I thought this was some sort of joke when the rumors started, sad to hear it isn't.

The Hobbit cartoon covered the story well enough at 78 minutes and even though it did cut things out it didn't cut out enough that it couldn't be told more completely in one three hour movie. However, because Jackson stated he was adding more stuff from Tolkien's lore in the films, I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he'd be able to tell the story in two movies without stretching things too thin.

Now? I just don't know.

I thought this was some sort of joke when the rumors started, sad to hear it isn't.

The Hobbit cartoon covered the story well enough at 78 minutes and even though it did cut things out it didn't cut out enough that it couldn't be told more completely in one three hour movie. However, because Jackson stated he was adding more stuff from Tolkien's lore in the films, I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he'd be able to tell the story in two movies without stretching things too thin.

Now? I just don't know.

TreyoftheDead

Hope its not like Return of the King. After awhile I was ready to yell out END ALREADY! Push godamn Bildo onto the fkn boat and leave already I don't care. Not the least of which they left the best part out how Saruman sacks the shire while they're gone and enslaves all the hobbits lol. Best part of the entire series.

Hope its not like Return of the King. After awhile I was ready to yell out END ALREADY! Push godamn Bildo onto the fkn boat and leave already I don't care. Not the least of which they left the best part out how Saruman sacks the shire while they're gone and enslaves all the hobbits lol. Best part of the entire series.

Skarwolf

lol, dat milkage.

Does that mean 3 Three hour movies or does the addition of a third film, cut the running time of the second and third to 2hrs(and a half) each?

[QUOTE="Skarwolf"]

Hope its not like Return of the King. After awhile I was ready to yell out END ALREADY! Push godamn Bildo onto the fkn boat and leave already I don't care. Not the least of which they left the best part out how Saruman sacks the shire while they're gone and enslaves all the hobbits lol. Best part of the entire series.

BossPerson

Actually its far from anti-climatic. It shows the true cost of war that it leaves nobody untouched. In the books it shows how much the hobbits have changed. Originally they fled the shire like scared cowering children. They return and single handedly kick out all of Sharky aka Sarumans thugs and save the hobbits.

Hope its not like Return of the King. After awhile I was ready to yell out END ALREADY! Push godamn Bildo onto the fkn boat and leave already I don't care. Not the least of which they left the best part out how Saruman sacks the shire while they're gone and enslaves all the hobbits lol. Best part of the entire series.

Skarwolf

It would have been cool to have seen the Scouring of the Shire, but it just would have added more to a movie that was already demanding a lot from it's audience's patience. And it wasn't really, to be honest, essential to the particular narrative PJ and company were making.

Could be good, provided that some of the "background lore" is added in a coherent manner. As always, the morons will count "their" chickens before they hatch, and complain about things that they know the equivalent of nothing about... Par for the course, I guess.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="Skarwolf"]

Hope its not like Return of the King. After awhile I was ready to yell out END ALREADY! Push godamn Bildo onto the fkn boat and leave already I don't care. Not the least of which they left the best part out how Saruman sacks the shire while they're gone and enslaves all the hobbits lol. Best part of the entire series.

Skarwolf

Actually its far from anti-climatic. It shows the true cost of war that it leaves nobody untouched. In the books it shows how much the hobbits have changed. Originally they fled the shire like scared cowering children. They return and single handedly kick out all of Sharky aka Sarumans thugs and save the hobbits.

[QUOTE="Skarwolf"]

Hope its not like Return of the King. After awhile I was ready to yell out END ALREADY! Push godamn Bildo onto the fkn boat and leave already I don't care. Not the least of which they left the best part out how Saruman sacks the shire while they're gone and enslaves all the hobbits lol. Best part of the entire series.

worlock77

It would have been cool to have seen the Scouring of the Shire, but it just would have added more to a movie that was already demanding a lot from it's audience's patience. And it wasn't really, to be honest, essential to the particular narrative PJ and company were making.

I suspected they would include that part of the book since Frodo has a vision of orcs enslaving hobbits with the shire all burning. I think when he looks into Galadriels pool or whatever. If I recall the thugs they kick out of the shire are described as orcish or half orcs.

[QUOTE="TreyoftheDead"]

I thought this was some sort of joke when the rumors started, sad to hear it isn't.

The Hobbit cartoon covered the story well enough at 78 minutes and even though it did cut things out it didn't cut out enough that it couldn't be told more completely in one three hour movie. However, because Jackson stated he was adding more stuff from Tolkien's lore in the films, I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he'd be able to tell the story in two movies without stretching things too thin.

Now? I just don't know.

KiIIyou

Lol, no sh*t.

I really don't understand why people keep saying they don't understand why Jackson is doing this. As has already been explained numerous times in this thread, Jackson is drawing on the appendices of The Lord of the Rings in addition to The Hobbit for source material. I think I also read somewhere that he has access to extensive notes that Tolkien wrote about expanding The Hobbit (even though he never got around to rewriting it).

It's worth mentioning that one reason The Hobbit isn't nearly as long as The Lord of the Rings is because the latter devotes massive amounts of pages to describing the scenery, something Tolkien did not do in the The Hobbit. When measuring the two books in terms of quantity of actual plot, the disparity isn't as large as many might assume. Also, Jackson's LOTR films were far too short. Many characters from the book were merged together (e.g. Glorfindel and Arwen), or cut completely (e.g. Prince Imrahil, Beregond, Tom Bombadil), and many chapters were removed entirely (e.g. Old Forest, Scourging of the Shire).

As far as I can tell Jackson isn't "milking" his source material, he just isn't gutting it to make it all fit into one nice little 90 minute movie.

[QUOTE="KiIIyou"]

[QUOTE="TreyoftheDead"]

I thought this was some sort of joke when the rumors started, sad to hear it isn't.

The Hobbit cartoon covered the story well enough at 78 minutes and even though it did cut things out it didn't cut out enough that it couldn't be told more completely in one three hour movie. However, because Jackson stated he was adding more stuff from Tolkien's lore in the films, I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he'd be able to tell the story in two movies without stretching things too thin.

Now? I just don't know.

TreyoftheDead

Lol, no sh*t.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Skarwolf"]

Hope its not like Return of the King. After awhile I was ready to yell out END ALREADY! Push godamn Bildo onto the fkn boat and leave already I don't care. Not the least of which they left the best part out how Saruman sacks the shire while they're gone and enslaves all the hobbits lol. Best part of the entire series.

Skarwolf

It would have been cool to have seen the Scouring of the Shire, but it just would have added more to a movie that was already demanding a lot from it's audience's patience. And it wasn't really, to be honest, essential to the particular narrative PJ and company were making.

I suspected they would include that part of the book since Frodo has a vision of orcs enslaving hobbits with the shire all burning. I think when he looks into Galadriels pool or whatever. If I recall the thugs they kick out of the shire are described as orcish or half orcs.

They allude to it in that scene, but I believe hat even by that point they had decided they weren't going to be able to work it is. So they allude to it as a possibility, but not certainty, in Frodo's future.

I'm just happy they left out Tom Bombadil.

I'm just happy they left out Tom Bombadil.

Skarwolf

I'm just happy they left out Tom Bombadil.

Skarwolf

I wish they included him and the adventure at the Barrow Downs. There's also Goldberry, another addition to the LOTR babes.

Seems to be the new trend to stretch books out over several movies if possible.....I blame Harry Potter.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

All three are certainly alive during the events of 'the Hobbit'. Aragorn was around 10-11 years of age during Bilbo's quest. Legolas was probably already a couple of thousand years old (considering the lifespan of elves). And Gimli was born 60 years or so before 'the Hobbit'.

I've heard no word of Viggo Mortensen being in these movies (or of anyone playing a younger Aragorn, but I guess it's possible). Orlando Bloom is confirmed to be reappearing as Legolas, and John Rhys-Davis declined to return as Gimli, but simply because he had such trouble with allergic reactions to the facial prosthetics in the 'LotR' films.

tryagainlater

Just watched http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCVxDbqgu6o - it's the new Hobbit production vlog. My god, I take back whatever I said. These movies look absolutely amazing. I'm not sure I've ever seen such an extensive production on a movie before.

I'm just happy they left out Tom Bombadil.

Skarwolf

F*ck yes.

You do know it will be covering some of the appendices and stuff right? Not just the Hobbit.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Seems to be the new trend to stretch books out over several movies if possible.....I blame Harry Potter.Laihendi

Not happy about this at all. The Hobbit as a book is shorter than any of the Lord of the Rings books and MUCH shorter than the entire trilogy, yet now it's being made into a trilogy itself? There is going to be way to much "filler", aka stuff from The Silmarillion that is never mentioned in The Hobbit nor does it need to be. Two movies would have been perfect, but now three is stretching things out way too long. Unless these are going to be each around an hour and a half or so, which I don't see Jackson doing.

Again, these movies aren't just about Bilbo's journey as depicted in the book, they're also about other events happening at around the same time that are relevant to Lord of the Rings (basically anything having to do with Sauron). This has been explained again and again even in just this one thread. I'll repost this for anyone who wants to understand what Jackson is doing:

Jackson is drawing on the appendices of The Lord of the Rings in addition to The Hobbit for source material. I think I also read somewhere that he has access to extensive notes that Tolkien wrote about expanding The Hobbit (even though he never got around to rewriting it).

It's worth mentioning that one reason The Hobbit isn't nearly as long as The Lord of the Rings is because the latter devotes massive amounts of pages to describing the scenery, something Tolkien did not do in the The Hobbit. When measuring the two books in terms of quantity of actual plot, the disparity isn't as large as many might assume. Also, Jackson's LOTR films were far too short. Many characters from the book were merged together (e.g. Glorfindel and Arwen), or cut completely (e.g. Prince Imrahil, Beregond, Tom Bombadil), and many chapters were removed entirely (e.g. Old Forest, Scourging of the Shire).

As far as I can tell Jackson isn't "milking" his source material, he just isn't gutting it to make it all fit into one nice little 90 minute movie.Laihendi

What are you thinking, Pete ?

The Scourging of the Shire was bullsh*t anyway.

Jackson is drawing on the appendices of The Lord of the Rings in addition to The Hobbit for source material. I think I also read somewhere that he has access to extensive notes that Tolkien wrote about expanding The Hobbit (even though he never got around to rewriting it).

It's worth mentioning that one reason The Hobbit isn't nearly as long as The Lord of the Rings is because the latter devotes massive amounts of pages to describing the scenery, something Tolkien did not do in the The Hobbit. When measuring the two books in terms of quantity of actual plot, the disparity isn't as large as many might assume. Also, Jackson's LOTR films were far too short. Many characters from the book were merged together (e.g. Glorfindel and Arwen), or cut completely (e.g. Prince Imrahil, Beregond, Tom Bombadil), and many chapters were removed entirely (e.g. Old Forest, Scourging of the Shire).

As far as I can tell Jackson isn't "milking" his source material, he just isn't gutting it to make it all fit into one nice little 90 minute movie.Laihendi

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Jackson is drawing on the appendices of The Lord of the Rings in addition to The Hobbit for source material. I think I also read somewhere that he has access to extensive notes that Tolkien wrote about expanding The Hobbit (even though he never got around to rewriting it).

It's worth mentioning that one reason The Hobbit isn't nearly as long as The Lord of the Rings is because the latter devotes massive amounts of pages to describing the scenery, something Tolkien did not do in the The Hobbit. When measuring the two books in terms of quantity of actual plot, the disparity isn't as large as many might assume. Also, Jackson's LOTR films were far too short. Many characters from the book were merged together (e.g. Glorfindel and Arwen), or cut completely (e.g. Prince Imrahil, Beregond, Tom Bombadil), and many chapters were removed entirely (e.g. Old Forest, Scourging of the Shire).

As far as I can tell Jackson isn't "milking" his source material, he just isn't gutting it to make it all fit into one nice little 90 minute movie.harashawn

You seem more concerned with the movies being a commercial success, whereas I am more concerned with the movies representing Tolkien's world. I expect these movies will be profitable no matter what Jackson ends up doing, and I hope he uses that financial security to be as uncompromising as possible when it comes to representing Tolkien's world.

[QUOTE="harashawn"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]Jackson is drawing on the appendices of The Lord of the Rings in addition to The Hobbit for source material. I think I also read somewhere that he has access to extensive notes that Tolkien wrote about expanding The Hobbit (even though he never got around to rewriting it).

It's worth mentioning that one reason The Hobbit isn't nearly as long as The Lord of the Rings is because the latter devotes massive amounts of pages to describing the scenery, something Tolkien did not do in the The Hobbit. When measuring the two books in terms of quantity of actual plot, the disparity isn't as large as many might assume. Also, Jackson's LOTR films were far too short. Many characters from the book were merged together (e.g. Glorfindel and Arwen), or cut completely (e.g. Prince Imrahil, Beregond, Tom Bombadil), and many chapters were removed entirely (e.g. Old Forest, Scourging of the Shire).

As far as I can tell Jackson isn't "milking" his source material, he just isn't gutting it to make it all fit into one nice little 90 minute movie.Laihendi

You seem more concerned with the movies being a commercial success, whereas I am more concerned with the movies representing Tolkien's world. I expect these movies will be profitable no matter what Jackson ends up doing, I hope he uses that financial security to be as uncompromising as possible when it comes to representing the Tolkien's world.

That isn't at all relevant to what I've been saying.Laihendi

All about the $$$SteverXIII