The Hobbit officially being made into three films

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]That isn't at all relevant to what I've been saying.LJS9502_basic

I'm not saying that watching a LOTR movie should take as long as reading the book, but even so, if Jackson had been true to his source material when he made the films, they would be far longer than they are.

I wonder if someone will ever try to make the Silmarillion into a film (or a bunch of films), now that would be a challenge (probably quite a bit more challenging than LOTR or Hobbit).

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]That isn't at all relevant to what I've been saying.Laihendi

I'm not saying that watching a LOTR movie should take as long as reading the book, but even so, if Jackson had been true to his source material when he made the films, they would be far longer than they are.

I'm sure there's no doubt that Peter Jackson was going for a mainstream film that appeals to broad audiences. You cant achieve that at all if you try to cram as much material as possible into the film. In fact I dont know if even a non-mainstream film could achieve that and still be bareable to watch.

The narrative of a film cannot be the same or as extensive as the narrative of the book. And that is not a shortcoming. Its expectable and "normal" considering the book we're talking about. The narrative, pace, level of detail etc of a book is not a goal a movie has to strive for. At all. Things that make sense and give some artistic feeling in a book would look silly in a movie. If some of the details from the books were kept in the movie, then it would be like a documentary in stead of a fantasy/action film.

Three films now? They better not make these movies short.

Pirate700

I can't think of anything in LOTR (book) that would look silly or like a documentary if shown in a movie. Would you list examples? And as I said before, I don't much care about the mainstream appeal of the Hobbit films. I truly hope that Jackson doesn't try to cater to an audience that cares so little about Tolkien's world that they will never even bother to read his books (and that is what the mainstream audience is).Laihendi

I just dont think it only has to do with making it mainstream. Its not "either its mainstream or it will have the potential to be a good film". I mean I assume we actually want a good film and not just a film that "stays true" to Tolkien's vision or whatever.

Sure, its not a dichotomy, and it would be nice if the film included as much material as possible, but I dont think that should be the first goal.

I thought two was already a stretch for a book like The Hobbit, but I was happy about it because it meant another five hours or so of the LOTR universe on screen. Three has me worrying, though.

I think those who read the book and were fascinated by it would also be fascinated by a film adaptation that closely and literally follows the book. I certainly would. I think what you're saying is true for the typical movie viewer: someone who doesn't have much of an attention span, who consequently doesn't read much, and would never even consider reading something like LOTR.

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.

Laihendi

I thought two was already a stretch for a book like The Hobbit, but I was happy about it because it meant another five hours or so of the LOTR universe on screen. Three has me worrying, though.

Pierst179

I agree, three is just stretching it way too much. Lot's of filler

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]I think those who read the book and were fascinated by it would also be fascinated by a film adaptation that closely and literally follows the book. I certainly would. I think what you're saying is true for the typical movie viewer: someone who doesn't have much of an attention span, who consequently doesn't read much, and would never even consider reading something like LOTR.

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.

harashawn

Another scene which might not have worked well on film.

Oh this also reminds me of the moment in the books where Aragorn shows to the Hobbits the shards of Narsil that he carries around with him.

Another scene which might not have worked well on film.

Teenaged

Actually Aragorn had the broken sword Narsil (broken a foot from the hilt of the sword) and not the shards. He probably left the shards back at Rivendell lest they get lost during his travels.

If Peter Jackson wanted to save time, He could've skipped the whole part about a detachment of Lorien elves arriving at Helm's Deep. It's bad enough Peter named the head elf in the detachment Halbarad. But, in the book, there were no elves at Helm's Deep. Halbarad was a Ranger in the book.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Oh this also reminds me of the moment in the books where Aragorn shows to the Hobbits the shards of Narsil that he carries around with him.

Another scene which might not have worked well on film.

jun_aka_pekto

Actually Aragorn had the broken sword Narsil (broken a foot from the hilt of the sword) and not the shards. He probably left the shards back at Rivendell lest they get lost during his travels.

If Peter Jackson wanted to save time, He could've skipped the whole part about a detachment of Lorien elves arriving at Helm's Deep. It's bad enough Peter named the head elf in the detachment Halbarad. But, in the book, there were no elves at Helm's Deep. Halbarad was a Ranger in the book.

I wonder if someone will ever try to make the Silmarillion into a film (or a bunch of films), now that would be a challenge (probably quite a bit more challenging than LOTR or Hobbit).

whipassmt

It may happen once Christopher Tolkien is dead (or incapacated). I could see the Tolkien estate optioning the film rights to that once he's no longer around, but I can't imagine him ever allowing that while he's still around. And since JRR Tolkien had made Christopher his literary executor pretty much nothing gets done with Tolkien's works without his say.

I can't think of anything in LOTR (book) that would look silly or like a documentary if shown in a movie. Would you list examples? Laihendi

Tom Bombidil singing and prancing everywhere he went. That was silly in the books and it would be even sillier in the films.

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Oh this also reminds me of the moment in the books where Aragorn shows to the Hobbits the shards of Narsil that he carries around with him.

Another scene which might not have worked well on film.

harashawn

Actually Aragorn had the broken sword Narsil (broken a foot from the hilt of the sword) and not the shards. He probably left the shards back at Rivendell lest they get lost during his travels.

If Peter Jackson wanted to save time, He could've skipped the whole part about a detachment of Lorien elves arriving at Helm's Deep. It's bad enough Peter named the head elf in the detachment Halbarad. But, in the book, there were no elves at Helm's Deep. Halbarad was a Ranger in the book.

It is.

The third film will be comprised exclusively of endings that aren't really endings.

Well at least now we can be sure it will be more accurate to the book.

The Hobbit was one of the most boring books I've ever read. I can only imagine how these movies are going to turn out.

hmmm thats good news i guess. cant wait.

That is very unfortunate, I can get a sequel for sure but trilogy? That is just way too Hollywood and I'm sure all three of the movies will suffer from being too thin. The Hobbit is incredible short both in content and in story, even more when compared to Ring books.

I guess only time will tell.

I am usually a big fan of his work but this seems like a lot to ask, specially as the characters from the books are just not as interesting, their is less action, the action is over quicker and it will be like watching 3 "fellowship of the rings"... imagine trying to string that out over 3 films.

I am usually a big fan of his work but this seems like a lot to ask, specially as the characters from the books are just not as interesting, their is less action, the action is over quicker and it will be like watching 3 "fellowship of the rings"... imagine trying to string that out over 3 films.

o0squishy0o

Really bad move imo.

Well I'm apart from the cool crowd, I don't like to watch things end that I really enjoy.

I read the hobbit when I was young because I was a nerd and loved sword and sorcery things.

If they're actually going to do it on the big screen, then I'm going to watch the first one and walk out saying "Man what are they going to pull off next?"

I know teasers and trailers are nice and all, but I haven't ran into a trailer that gave any of the good stuff away. (Maybe 300 LOL)

But I guess since they claim that they want to stay as true to the book as possible I suppose I can deal with it... But I wanted Smaug :C

But I guess since they claim that they want to stay as true to the book as possible I suppose I can deal with it... But I wanted Smaug :C

Synthia

I'm pretty sure you'll get Smaug.

Fvck the hobbit. Give me Silmarillion

Greatest news ever. All the haters (majority of people here) will witness the greatness of Peter Jackson and eat their cool crowd attitudes or still play the "this is stupid" card.