CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › The Great Hobbit Two Movie Debate
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Great Hobbit Two Movie Debate - Page 3

post #101 of 116
10/30/10 at 12:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Augustine View Post
"What? THE TWO TOWERS was the best movie! I can't really think of anything I'd take out, even in the Extended edition. Maybe the stuff with the elven rope but that's only a few minutes."

TT had plenty of bloat.
- Warg riders attack with Aragorn's dramatic cliffhanger "death"
- The ENTIRE Faramir plot

So no, not everything Jackson added to the movie worked.
Yes, this. The entire sidetrack of Aragorn being separated from the group accomplishes absolutely nothing in narrative or character development terms. It just wastes screen time. The movie is full of that sort of thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samurai Mike View Post
Whether we agree that was the right thing to do, it DID work - TT made more money than the first film, and cemented the trilogy in the minds of mainstream audiences.
And as we all know, making more money makes it good.
Reply
post #102 of 116
11/4/10 at 9:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickP View Post
also, if they are going to do stuff with the other wizards and elfs... isn't the casting of Blanchet and Lee in order?
Assuming that they do include the White Council stuff in there, yup. Galadriel and Saruman are both part of the White Council that pushes Sauron out of Dol Guldur.
Reply
post #103 of 116
11/4/10 at 6:57pm
Just recently you said you were “not under contract” for The Hobbit. Is there anything to add to that?

Ian McKellen: Nope!

Is it safe to say that you’re in talks to reprise the role?

Ian McKellen: I suppose you could say that, yes. I think that was implied, yes.

Are we being cagey here? Or would you rather I get off the subject?

Ian McKellen: Well, there’s nothing more to tell you. I’m not under contract.

Would you like to do it again?

Ian McKellen: That, I’m not going to say. I think that would … when you’re negotiating, you don’t talk about things.
Reply
post #104 of 116
11/4/10 at 7:04pm
These last two posts demonstrate yet another reason that I wish this were a production unrelated to Jackson's Lord of the Rings. The potential for casting hangups is pretty high. McKellen, Lee, Blanchett; any or all of them could justifiably negotiate themselves out of the project.

Personally, I think that once they recast Bilbo, it should have signaled a clean slate. If audiences worldwide could accept a new Dumbledore without being confused, I think we can assume that they could have handled this.

edit:
I felt the same way about James Bond. Once they cast Craig, Dench should have been out as well. That was just weird.
Reply
post #105 of 116
11/5/10 at 1:17pm
I dunno. Mckellan is Ganfalf. They recast Bilbo out of neccesity. No such problem with Gandalf.

But then again I suppose 99% of moviegoers would get over it after seeing trailers etc.
Reply
post #106 of 116
11/5/10 at 1:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David View Post
edit:
I felt the same way about James Bond. Once they cast Craig, Dench should have been out as well. That was just weird.

the Dench thing is wierd, but it still works. This is why i'm hoping Routh, and JK Simmons are brought back to their respected franchises. Wasn't their fault the last films were shit.
Reply
post #107 of 116
11/5/10 at 1:46pm
They should stick it to McKellan and really confuse audiences by casting Christopher Lee as Gandalf if he won't do it.
Reply
post #108 of 116
11/5/10 at 2:08pm
Thread Starter 
They should see if Patrick Stewart is available. There were times in LOTR where it sure sounded like he was doing the role.
Reply
post #109 of 116
11/5/10 at 2:34pm
Flipping through the channels this morning, I stopped at HLN reporting these two movies are going to be budgeted at $500 million. There's no way they're gonna cost that much.
Reply
post #110 of 116
11/5/10 at 2:36pm
I'm not sure why you're so ready to doubt that.
Reply
post #111 of 116
11/5/10 at 2:43pm
Films of one act theatrical monologues are starting to approach 100 mil. in budget. 550 for two fantasy epics is downright sensible.
Reply
post #112 of 116
11/5/10 at 2:44pm
Why not? $200 million is par for the course for a major blockbuster these days. so $250 each isn't that much of a stretch. Especially if you consider all the development and legal work already paid for. Not to mention all the effects work still to be done.
Reply
post #113 of 116
11/5/10 at 2:44pm
Two movies at $250 million each sounds about right, cause hey, why make one film when you can make two at twice the price?
Reply
post #114 of 116
11/5/10 at 2:45pm
Just like the army does!
Reply
post #115 of 116
11/5/10 at 4:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Augustine View Post
"What? THE TWO TOWERS was the best movie! I can't really think of anything I'd take out, even in the Extended edition. Maybe the stuff with the elven rope but that's only a few minutes."

TT had plenty of bloat.
- Warg riders attack with Aragorn's dramatic cliffhanger "death"
- The ENTIRE Faramir plot

So no, not everything Jackson added to the movie worked.
Eh, unnecessary cliffhanger with Aragorn aside, that Warg attack was fucking worth it solely for that shot of Legolas getting on the horse.
Reply
post #116 of 116
11/5/10 at 4:41pm
I hated that shot. I also hated the Shield Surfing And Archery Biathlon Event.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › The Great Hobbit Two Movie Debate