The Great Hobbit Two Movie Debate - Page 2

Can someone help me out with this? I could swear someone was talking three films early on. Maybe I imagined it, but I don't think so.

You didn't imagine it but it was just a rumor.

http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2009/0...izon-plus.html

Del Toro denied it.

http://www.latinoreview.com/news/tha...happening-7764

And a pre-Del Toro rumor if I remember correctly.

Jumping back to thematic cohesion for a second, even if you argue that The Hobbit needs to be thematically similar to LOTR, I'd say it just needs to dovetail into the tone set by the opening of Fellowship. And that tone was one of charming innocence. It's only after the arrival of the Nazgul that the tone starts to shift -- moving into high gear once the Fellowship enters the Mines of Moria.

I think keeping The Hobbit light and adventurous works just fine with the rest of the films. Moreover, it helps paint the picture that the Middle Earth in LOTR is a different place than it was during Bilbo's adventures.

Slightly off-topic, but I can't find the LOTR thread anywhere:


I may be thick, explain something to me. In FOTR (or TTT, can’t rember which) Arwen tells Aragon she chooses a mortal life. But then in TTT Hugo Weaving (Elrond) tells her, in that amazing scene in Rivendale, that Aragon will die, either in battle or the slow decay of time, but she will live on. So which is it? Is she still immortal, or just going to live a long time, or is Elrond unaware that she gave up her immortality?

I think even if she lives a mortal life she's still going to live a lot longer than Aragorn, Blue, and if she's with mortals they are all going to die around her and she'll be alone anyway. Apparently she wouldn't find any joy in her grandchildren or anything. Hmmph.

Ok, it's just I'm sure I remember on the commentary either Fran Walsh or Jackson talking about the tragedy of tha scene in TTT - with Arwen standing by Aragon's tomb - because she's immortal and Aragon isn't.

......


I completely disagree. I found Faramir to be a much more interesting, dimensional character than in the books. I thought this was a drastic improvement. Given what was established in the films, it made sense and made Faramir his own character, rather than Aragorn-lite.

/grumble

On topic, I do admit some trepidation at splitting the book, because when compared to LotR, it's a much tighter story. Are there any details on the split? Will the latter film be more of a bridge than a two-parter?

But doesn't Aragorn age incredibly slow as well?

I think she would always be immortal. The "Living a mortal life" means to me, that she would no longer live with the elves, but with mortals. The flashforwards they showed, showed her living on middle earth after the race of men died off, right?

But then, I was also under the assumption that the elves would only be immortal if they stayed together... sort of a collective power thing.

I can't disagree, but that seems problematic to me. It means that the first film will only have two real set pieces: the troll encounter and the journey through the Misty Mountains. And, of those two, one is weakened because we had the flight through Moria in Fellowship.

Meanwhile, the second film will have: Mirkwood spiders, Elvish imprisonment, the burning of Lake Town and dragon battle, and the Battle of the Five armies.

...unless, of course, the first film is where the supplemental story comes in? Which doesn't make sense if the added stuff is going to be about the White Counsel dealing with the Necromancer.

Ehh.

Thing is everyone who says this is looking at it from a purist perspective. For better or worse the movies aren't going to be blow by blow recreations of the books with nothing added. That in itself is going to piss a lot of fans off regardless of how well it works, but for normal people whether the movies are good on their own terms will depend on what they add and how they add it, and fact is we just don't have enough info about what they're planning to have an informed opinion on that right now. Boring answer, but true.

Exactly. I'm the furthest thing from a Tolkien purist. I just foresee an awful lot of padding going on. We already had a lot of padding in The Two Towers, and there was a lot more source material to go on there.

There are valid points for and against the 2 movie thing. On the one hand, making one movie would indicate greater fealty to the tone of the book (which, as has been said, was a short children's tale) and would remove any feeling of cashing in by extending the story needlessly. On the other hand, there is plenty of background material (written by Tolkien) that would be great on screen.

But as of yet we don't really know whether the two movies will be The Hobbit expanded to include stuff not written by Tolkien; or The Hobbit spliced with stuff from other Tolkien writings on Middle Earth. So the argument at the moment is a bit academic.

My thoughts at the moment are: yes, of course they will link these films to the LOTR films - those movies were a huge success amongst the general public (most of whom had not read the books). To think otherwise would be to ignore studio thinking - why would they want these films to be deliberately small? Therefore, it is in the hands of the writers to make the films as well as they can, just like LOTR, with thought given to fealty as well as changes for the sake of the narrative. Whether we're okay with this will depend greatly on what we thought of the LOTR films (which I thought got progressively less focused in attempts to provide thrills, but which were certainly better quality than most other blockbuster films).

Hmm, but have they explicitly stated yet as to what the nature of the added stuff will be? Is it just going to be 'stuff that goes on while Gandalf is away', or maybe something else?

You know what I'd like to see? A film that uses The Hobbit to frame flashbacks to important moments from The Silmarallion and Tolkien's other stories (I'm a bit rusty on all that though), kind of like The Godfather II. So you have the framing narrative of Bilbo's adventures, occasionally interrupted with tales told by Gandalf, Elrond and the dwarves about things connected to them in the past (such as the fall of Numenor, the First Dark Lord and that giant spider, the story of Beren and whatshername, etc).

The Hobbit doesn't have to be a straightforward telling of the book, nor does it have to be needlessly padded. It could function like a 'Tales of Middle Earth' type thing. Purists may be a bit put out at first but I bet the general movie-going public would lap it up.

I always kind of thought Elrond was exaggerating her fate to scare her into reconsidering - because he doesn't know what it is to die, so he (as a worried father) imagines the worst death for her, alone after a long drawn-out life without her family. But of course that is not really made clear in the film.

In the Silmariilion, Beren and Luthien (I looked it up!) were the first human and elf to fall in love. When she gave up her immortality they lived a normal human lifespan together, I think.

Yep, except that the "normal" lifespan for humans during the events of The Silmarillion is hundreds of years.

But as I said earlier, there is no need to tell just the story of The Hobbit, and I believe the studio and audiences who watched the LOTR trilogy are expecting a bigger, more epic tale in keeping with the trilogy. And I believe that if done well it could be really great. As long as the flashback sequences are relevant to the characters telling them, and are well integrated (and not too drawn out), I think it could be BETTER than just a telling of The Hobbit.

And when it comes to pacing, well I believe that considering the length of the books the LOTR films were very well paced, so I have faith in Jackson and his writers in this regard.

Also, your example of Huck Finn doesn't hold water. I am not saying add history to the story, I am saying add more story to the story. Story written by the same brilliant author.

As I said above, it wouldn't be disregarding the The Hobbit narrative, just embellishing it with other tales from Middle Earth. Enough to up the 'epic' quotient which the studio and audiences would be after, while still having that underlying quest. After all, events of The Hobbit are not needed to understand LOTR, so why be so concerned about telling just that story?

Of course but there is always a temptation with these sorts of movies to go bigger if you can. And Jackson has proven his ability to go big. He has the facilities, so why not?

To clarify what I mean here, much of the 'history' as presented in works like the Silmarillion takes the form of tales rather than dry historical language. It's this aspect that I would like to see added, as tales told by characters like Gandalf, rather than as a history lesson. They could be abbreviated, or combined, so they don't bog down the plot.

Of course, this would mean more characters and plots to follow, but I think people who enjoyed the LOTR films would have little problem with that.

I agree with Dickson and I don't understand why people are treating The Hobbit as though it isn't epic in its own right. It features all of the following: an encounter with three dwarf-eating trolls; boulder-hurling giants in the passes of the Misty Mountains; flight through the goblin-infested catacombs beneath the Mountains; Gollum's riddle battle; the giant eagle rescue from burning trees; dinner with a giant werebear; monster spider attacks in the forests of Mirkwood; elvish imprisonment and escape; dragon taunting and subsequent attack; the burning of Lake Town; and the Battle of the Five Armies.

I've heard of epic films that feature far less spectacle, drama and action.

But still written by the same author, in the same setting, and in many cases including the same characters.

I understand your concern but I really don't see what's to worry about. It's not like these films will be the Main Event - that happened 10 years ago, and it was pretty good as I recall. Lord knows there have been plenty of shitty franchises farted out in the last decade: some that shouldn't have existed (the Matrix sequels); some that started well but lost it by the end (Spiderman, X-Men, Pirates of the goddamn Caribbean); and some that seem to be never-ending (Batman - I'm sorry but it's true). I really don't have a problem with this one taking a few chances/liberties. No-one's childhood is going to be raped, we've all pretty much had that by now.

If it sounds like I'm being infuriatingly positive about this, I am - I'm just stoked the guys in NZ who make chainmail and hobbit ears are going to get more work!

Well I wouldn't classify dinner as "epic" ;-) . But you are right that The Hobbit has spectacle. Enough for two movies, in fact. If they can split a Harry Potter film in two, or something like Kill Bill, then they can do it for this.

Um, yes? That's normally the way commercial film-making works. And "to the detriment of the story" seems to be jumping to an awfully big conclusion. As I said in the post above, there is plenty of material to work with, and plenty of precedents in this area. Jackson has shown himself to be pretty faithful to the source material, if not word-for-word then certainly in tone.

Yes we all know Kong sucked, it's certainly endlessly repeated on CHUD. It was a vanity project, and Lord forbid a film director have one of those.

Look I'm well aware of Jackson's shortcomings but his work on LOTR was stellar, and he struck me during this union issue in NZ to still be incredibly passionate about The Hobbit. My only regret from all of this is that I won't get to see Guillermo del Toro's vision of Tolkien.

If it wasn't for the one about Princess Kate this would have to be the most repetitive thread on the forum. You want a single, straight adaptation of the novel with no elaboration - fine. But they're not doing that, they're doing something else. Will what they're attempting work? Who knows. But until we have more info all you're doing is arguing against films that only exist in your imagination.

I get what you're saying, and yes The Hobbit works perfectly as an enclosed story. But like it or not, the studio and Jackson think there is something in adding more to the story, and Tolkien did write a wealth of material that is connected to The Hobbit and its characters in some ways. In fact, many critics have commented throughout the years that Tolkien's books work better when you read the supplementary material he wrote separately. Tolkien didn't just write stories, he created a whole world for them to take place in, and I guess the prospect of including some of that appeals to Jackson (and Warners), and as long as its actiony, will be lapped up by audiences.

He IS making another movie, and neither you nor I know the specifics of what will be in that movie yet, so this is all just speculation.

Look, whether we like it or not, LOTR has become a phenomenon due to the success of the films. These are not just 'our' books anymore, everyone knows of them and their characters. That is the price we paid for three great films. As soon as the LOTR films became the success they did, the fate of The Hobbit was sealed. It was always going to be made bigger, because that is what studios and audiences demand.

Well if this whole thing turns out really badly, we may have to go back to our imaginary films for comfort.

I think invoking King Kong (which, by the way, wasn't two and a half hours, it was over three!) is the operative warning here. Jackson has a strong urge to create epics, but doesn't always know how to fill the time required.

Personally (brace yourselves for heresy), I think the LOTR films would have been better off with the original plan of two movies. I think there's plenty of bloat in the trilogy as it stands, and I'm not even talking about the Extended Editions. And most of it is in The Two Towers. That did not need to be its own movie. There's a lot of wasted screen time there.

So that doesn't fill me with confidence about this either.

I'm loathe to get into this discussion because it's completely circular. I will just say this.

I'm with Greg and Rich on this one, The Hobbit is a brilliant wonderful self contained story in its own right, it needs no embellishments and no extra stuff shoe-horned into it...

...it also doesn't need to be two films. It would make one perfect 3 hour epic all on it's own.

Now that said, regardless of my view, Gregs view or Richards view - two films are being made whether we like it or not, so I have to say that lamenting that fact seems quixotic at best. There are larger financial concerns at play here that are unfortunate but understandable.

I'm just going to cross my fingers and make the best of it frankly. I have faith in the Jackson that made LOTR, but not as much faith in the Jackson that made King Kong an hour too long. Two films is not personally what I'd like to see, but I'm trying really hard to reserve judgement until I at least here more details about them.

This is why I wish he was still doing the bridge film(which I initially thought was a bad idea as well).
At least that way if the new stuff doesn't work for whatever reason, we still have the Hobbit standing on it's own.

Any word on Ian McKellen?

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.

No word from Mckellan. And wasn't there speculation that Aragon would be shoehorned in? I'm clueless. I haven't read THE HOBBIT in over 20 years and I've never read the supplemental stuff.

Just read an interview by McKellen... sent it to Renn for a newsbit... McKellen hasn't signed shit so far.. and he doesn't want to talk about it. If he's not in it, then don't even make the film.

WHHAAAAAAAAAA?!?

Seriously, that's quite surprising considering the multiple times McKellen has given start-dates on The Hobbit.

McKellan's just trying to up his price, I have no doubt that a dumptruck full of cash is on its way. Otherwise, send in the replacement wizard!

Mr. Gambon, you have a call from Mr. Jackson on line one.

also, if they are going to do stuff with the other wizards and elfs... isn't the casting of Blanchet and Lee in order?

"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.

Arwen did in fact die. It's unknown how long she could have lived, but Aragorn's death, and her feeling of isolation in a world not her own shattered her. Elves are capable of dying of a broken heart, and I'm pretty sure that's what happened to her. It's very, very sad, because her last years on other were sad and ignominious and possibly crying "Why did I do this, I didn't think it would be so bad", and just yearning to be with her husband again in the afterlife.

I would have preferred a bridge film too, but I wonder if one of the main reasons the White Council stuff is making it was into the Hobbit proper: No chicks. The Hobbit is a total sausage party. And spends a great deal of its time with the Middle Earth race with perhaps the least amount of popularity amongst movie fans.

TT was consciously edited to be more welcoming to non-book fans than the first film. Hence we have scenes that emphasise what is happening where (the Elrond/Galadriel sum-up, the map scene with faramir's men), and the battle of Helm's Deep is extended. 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.

Also, the warg scene IS pretty cool. Aragorn's death was done to draw the audience more to him as the central figure rather than Frodo. And Faramir's stuff was done as a way to show Gondor before ROTK, rather than just have it described by Faramir (which works in a book, not so much in a film).

I don't agree with all of the changes to TT, but I see why they were done. The only unneeded bloat I see in that film was the drawing out of the Helm's Deep siege.