PETER JACKSON CONFIRMS THERE WILL BE 63 HOBBIT FILMS - Page 4

"The Hobbit is a simple adventure tale. By blowing it up into a trilogy, Jackson is clearly demonstrating a lack of understanding and respect for the source material."

 

Christopher Tolkien: "The Lord of the Rings is a serious work of fantasy scholarship that draws upon the myths, legends, and Epic Poesy style of ancient Europe, and by reducing them to an action-adventure yarn Jackson has clearly demonstrated a lack of understanding and respect for the source material."

 

"Christopher Tolkien is such a dick."

 

Look, there need be no "versus" among Tolkien and Jackson fans; I'm both, in one person, and feel no internal conflict in eagerly (nay, giddily!) anticipating whatever Jackson feels he has in store for us that he feels merits three complete films. I can't remember which director it was who said something to the effect of "You write movie A, and then while shooting you realize it's movie B. Then in the editing bay you discover it's been movie C all along." These Chewer-invented behind-the-decision narratives are entertaining to read (it's his unchecked ego! he's desperate for a hit! he's creatively bankrupt! studio cash grab! one from column A and two from column B! that inkblot is a butterfly escaping a mushroom cloud!) -- and yes he put too much into his lifelong wish fulfillment Kong and fumbled The Lovely Bones in execution (remember Beaks claiming the script was brilliant, just not captured?).

 

I still don't see how those two projects alone can have so soured anyone who loved his LOTR success -- and his LOTR is far from flawless, love it as I do -- to the point where a The Hobbit Extended Edition being the theatrical release is a horrible idea from the jump. I love the book, have read it many times (not to mention most of those posthumous "scraps" C. Tolkien's published), and there is plenty of incident to depict onscreen without even having to go to the LOTR appendices. Not to mention action to flesh out cinematically, more than "They fought" or "They ran." Hell, Bilbo was knocked unconscious right when the Battle of the Five Armies really kicks off. Do we really expect -- or want!? -- a Game of Thrones fade-out or cut there, to him waking up in the aftermath? Or would that be "padding"?

 

I also get the feeling people are assuming these are each going to be as long as the LOTR entries, and that the third will be as long again as the first two were planned; for all we know, he discovered in editing that instead of two 160-min movies, the story was breaking down better as three 120-minute movies. We don't know. Perhaps also because the normal rule of an adaptation is excision and then smoothing, folks are auto-reducing the book to a 90-minute (or 77! with songs!) version and then assuming the rest of the films' length will be invention. This could very well be a case instead of Jackson having the chance to include as much of the text as possible. The Hobbit is light adventure, but it's not a 6-hour read. (Hold on, I'll do it for you: "Cause of all that Tolkien description!")

 

Anyway, I just can't help but be delighted and excited that these are happening period, and am baffled by anyone who'd go into the theater with arms crossed and a scowl rather than a big grin and the warm fuzzies. And I may very well be disappointed come December. I'm not telling anyone to stop complaining, go right ahead on with it. I just wish it were a different, happier conversation, so I'll leave y'all to this one. It made me grumpy. Sorry for the harangue.

 

Shit. Top of the page? Second apologies.

Speaking in anecdote, but I can't think of a 300 page children's book that takes longer than six hours to read. I mean actual reading time, not picking up a few pages here and there on the bus. You can knock The Hobbit out in a Sunday afternoon, easy, from the time you're 12.

 

And the reason for pointing to the 77 minute animated version is that it hits 90% of the story beats directly from the book, showing that it's possible to do the whole story without piling on extra subplots and side missions over the course of six or more hours of film time. 

 

As for the argument that everything's coming from Tolkien's notes, and it's all in the spirit of making it match up with Lord of the Rings, so what are we fretting about: Tolkien himself re-edited the Hobbit three times to make the story fit logically with Lord of the Rings. In the early 60s, he set out to re-write the book entirely to match the tone of Lord of the Rings, and abandoned it after three chapters. Why? Because, he said, it just wasn't The Hobbit anymore.

 

 

Eh, maybe you've got me there. It's been at least 5 years since a read (next one's coming in Fall, natch). I still remember plenty of incident, and remember thinking a well-budgeted TV series could easily devote an episode to a chapter, one-for-one. In fact, my only real concern for a film adaptation is that it may feel too episodic.

Yeah there's plenty of incident -- for a two hour film.

 

And again, my real concern is that shoving the White Council/Necromancer stuff in there is going to make the story of The Hobbit look like small potatoes.  It's going to at the very least change the pacing of Bilbo's story, it's going to contain no less than four well-liked characters from the Rings films (Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond and Saruman), and it threatens to swallow up the enchanting, fairy tale quality of The Hobbit that's made it so enduring even with the much weightier and epic LOTR sitting there next to it.

 

If Tolkien thought it a good idea to let the two tales be separate, maybe it's a good idea.

Yeah, you guys put it that way, this is all going to be utter crap, and nothing to look forward to. Thanks for getting my mind ri--

 

Nope, wait, still got the warm fuzzies! Yay!

I'm not making a proclamation, merely expressing a concern.  Besides, the trailer and the production diaries had been winning me over.  It's only this trilogy business that's got me having doubts again.

Well, as I said we can't really judge until at least watching the first film.

And maybe we will get three medium length movies instead of two very long ones.

I can see where that concern is coming from, but if the third film does indeed continue Bilbo's story and that of the dwarves (even with its look at their expanded histories), I think there's a very real chance that the White Council/Necromancer and other material will enhance the story rather than take away from it.

 

Then again, I'm also coming at this with the idea that fitting The Hobbit into PJ's larger Middle-earth universe makes more sense than a stand-alone.

I've still yet to see a convincing argument on how events that have no bearing on Bilbo's quest or his growth as a character--which he's not even privy to--are supposed to enhance his story.

 

If I remember correctly, it isn't that Tolkien thought it was a good idea to keep Bilbo's story separate from the White Council's doings. Until he started writing The Lord of the Rings, he hadn't considered The Hobbit part of the larger, grander legendarium he'd already been working on for 20 years. It was purely stand-alone, not even really existing in the same literary universe as the Quenta Silmarillion. (Sure, there was creative overlap in terms of the races (Elves and Dwarves exist in both; Goblins are equivalent to Orcs, etc.), and he borrowed names from his older, unpublished works (e.g., Elrond's mention of Gondolin), but he didn't see any need to reconcile the world or events of The Hobbit with the Quenta Silmarillion until later, when he decided the former would take place in the Third Age and the latter in the First Age of the same world.) Again as far as I remember, in The Hobbit all Gandalf says is that he has to go deal with the Necromancer in the south; everything about the Necromancer being Sauron, the existence of a White Council of wizards and Elves, etc., was a retcon on Tolkien's part while he was writing The Lord of the Rings. And Tolkien certainly wasn't adverse to retconning his "small, sweet fairie tale" into his millennia-spanning legendarium of dark lords and cataclysmic wars; he altered the original version of "Riddles in the Dark" to make it coincide better with Bilbo's magic ring being Sauron's Ring of Power, and "The Quest of Erebor" (Unfinished Tales) makes Thorin's quest part of a much larger geopolitical strategy on Gandalf's part.

 

My point is, Tolkien himself consciously brought Bilbo's little adventure into the larger, grander events he later decided would surround them. So it's far from a betrayal of his vision for Jackson to do the same.

That depends on how much you think The Hobbit needs to be seen strictly from Bilbo's perspective.  I don't think seeing other events in the same timeline are a betrayal of that story; as I said, I think they enhance it, especially Thorin's role (if they do the dwarven histories well, and depending on what they choose to show on-screen from those histories).  I think Bilbo's growth and larger world-building efforts can co-exist in the same story without one coming at the expense of the other.

 

I think the story will be enhanced in ways that go beyond Bilbo (though a third film which focuses on more of his story, as Jackson seems to suggest will be the focus even now that there is another film, will certainly give more time for his arc), but not everyone will think that should be the case.  I differ in opinion there...I think there can be a strong focus on the main quest and additional material to flesh out the world in which the quest takes place, which may very well add something to the tale of Bilbo and the dwarves instead of, well, dwarving it in importance to its detriment.  There's the potential for that to be the case, of course, and I would be there to criticize the creative choices of Jackson in expanding the material if I am wrong in supporting him...but, as of now, I think there's a lot of potential here for a compelling realization of Bilbo's story and a logical, interesting expansion of the Middle-earth established in the trilogy.

Nope.

Okay.

Didn't mean you, meant the person above. The site doesn't live update while I'm reading. 

 

But still, this is all wrong for the material. I really don't like LOTR at all, but love the The Hobbit, almost exclusively because it's simple. 

 

Dwarves and a anxious man attempt to burgle a dragon that hordes gold, acts like a smug prick and is called Smaug. Along the way they have some adventures and grow to become friends. 

Right there, we're playing for different ends. It's called THE HOBBIT for christ's sake.

I have one question that has been haunting me since Peter Jackson's The Hobbit was first announced: Does Bard give his arrow a pep talk before killing Smaug?



That one brief bit of dialogue, the man talking to his arrow, amazed me when I was a child for reasons that I'm unable to articulate. It was just badass. Or, depending on when you were a child, totally radical.

 

C.S. Lewis came up with that title.

 

That's me you're referring to then? Care to elaborate? My post is almost entire factual statements (as far as memory serves) about Tolkien's creative process as he was writing his various works and the degree to which The Hobbit did or did not relate to the rest, so are there any particular facts that you're disputing?

Edited by Curiosity Cosby - 7/31/12 at 8:31pm

I don't dispute the facts, but as Tolkien fiddled with stuff, he knew he had to stop somewhere, and did. This is all a very silly idea, transforming one thing into another. Was this two films when Del Toro was involved? I'd like to know hiw views of expanding the story, because I remain unconvinced this should be anything other than one 2hr and change film.

 

I think when Guillermo was involved the project was one movie covering most or all of The Hobbit and one bridge movie (possibly containing Hobbit material as well).

All we can really do is speculate as to del Toro's version.

Pretty sure the decision to ditch the bridge movie and make it a two parter was made before Del Toro left?

 

Either way I already get the feeling that, when it comes to fanboy perceptions of the Hobbit, Del Toro is poised to become the Gary Kurtz figure to Jackson's latter day Lucas; the Cliff Burton to Jackson's Lars Ulrich. That magic, untouchable fairy godfather figure who wasn't there, but who no doubt would've catered things to every bitter fan's specific personal tastes if only he had been.

As the man gets thinner, his movies just gain more and more bloat.

There is only one solution. Tie Jackson down and FEED HIM until he's nice and portly again! FAT MEN, THINNER MOVIES!

Speaking personally, I just think he's a better film maker. I would rather have seem something totally different, but that retained some visual elements than another boring tour across middle earth.

 

You jest, but I've been thinking this for a while!

 

We need Jolly Jackson back!!!

 

 

If Pacific Rim ends up being great and The Hobbit not... you are going to be SO RIGHT.

The Hobbit trailer looks like "Lord of the Rings: Greatest Hits." My biggest surprise about this news is that it seemed like Jackson was getting dragged into directing this world again kicking and screaming. I thought he'd want it to be a one and done type of deal. The fact that he's stretching it out to three movies suggests that he can't leave well enough alone, but I also get the feeling this is a financial decision (possibly coming from him, possibly the studio, more than likely both).

 

If these three movies make mints (and they will) he can make as many Lovely Bones as he wants and simply not give a fuck. And when people bug him to shoot the Similarion, he'll probably tell them to fuck right off or threaten to turn it into a never ending movie that will make their eyeballs bleed. 

I'm sick of the Pacific Rimjob you Hobbitches are giving Benicio, I mean Guillermo del Moron.

 

PJ is the man... 3 billion dollar franchise BITCHES.

 

 

edit: Oh wait... this isn't AICN?

 

 

It's CTM!  Unleash the banhammer!!!

CTM would have 13 "Fucks" in that post.

It would also be a much longer pile of a post. 

DON'T NITPICK ME!

 Only Gary Kurtz/Lucas, Cliff Burton/Metallica were long-standing relationships that involved many years and a significant chunk of their respective works. Jackson and Del Toro only collaborated on this one project. For a long fucking time, but one project nonetheless. Jackson was making his first stumbles before GDT was even on the scene.

 

All true.  But the specifics don't matter when it comes to the internet hive mind!

 

Yeah, it's not like he's the title character or anything.

We're clearly coming at this from two different places - I think the changes in including other events from the story's timeline don't have to come at the expense of Bilbo, even if the film strays from his perspective every now and again - so agree to disagree.  We'll see what there is to discuss when we know exactly how PJ structures this.

Isn't the Lord of the Rings Sauron? The big eye?

But if the added parts are GOOD - well shot, acted, exciting and whatnot - then what's the problem?

Who knows? There seems to be a problem though.

The gulf is between the people who want THE HOBBIT to be exactly as they think it should be and the people who accept that maybe there are different demands on an adaptation of the book given its relationship to one of the most successful epic franchises of all time.
 

I definitely don't think it would have really worked to make The Hobbit mostly insular story-wise and tonally separate from the trilogy.

It definitely wouldn't have worked. At all.

 

Studio: "Hey, remember these three monstrously successful, epic and serious as fuck movies that came out a few years back? There's a new one coming out. Only this one is a 100 minute collection of merry adventures."

Audience: "What the fuck?"

Agreed, and that's why I was basically on board with the two film idea. Following up LOTR you really can't have Gandalf disappear for extended periods saying "Okay, just heading off to spend most of the movie doing cool stuff you don't need to know about. See you when you need a deux ex machina or two!", and rattle through the story beats as fast as possible, leaving most of the Dwarfs as glorified extras. At LOTR pacing they probably won't leave Hobbiton until 40 or so minutes in, the battle at the end will surely get at least a Helm's Deep amount of screentime, then there's the inevitably leisurely return journey, and so on and so on. Being willing to spend decent amounts of time on everything is part of what made the trilogy good. Just because the Hobbit *can* be done in 77 minutes doesn't mean that doing an indepth, long version wouldn't work as well or better.

 

But. Stretching it across movies really does run the risk of breaking the story's back by lumbering it with subplots and epic scope it was never designed to support.

Heres what Im thinking - if this means instead of two 3-4 hour epics we get three films of say aroynd two and a half hours each, thats not the worst stretching of the story imaginable. Hell we'll probably get an eaxtra ninety minutes of overall story tops.

 

If however we're talking three sprawling epics to tell this tale, then no Peter, that's a bad Peter

 

There's a third camp of people who care less about the Hobbit and more about Jackson. That's where I fall in. I've noticed a trend that his movies have gotten filled with unneeded bloat. Maybe you thought King Kong needed to be three hours. I didn't. You guys can argue the necessity of turning this into three movies all you want, but to say that the only reason those of us have concern is because we're people who want The Hobbit exactly the way we imagine it is terribly condescending, especially while you simultaneously argue that everyone else understands the "demands of an adaptation." To me, those comments about the "demands to the most successful epic franchise of all time" make you sound more like a studio stooge than a movie lover. 

 

Thing is, there are already plenty of relationships between The Hobbit and LOTR without shoving in a bunch of extraneous material that stretches the damn thing out to three movies.  Bilbo.  Gandalf.  The Shire.  Elrond.  Gollum.  Gimli's dad.  Legolas' dad.  The Misty Mountains.  Goblins. The Ring.  Not to mention the same cast and crew.  Do we really need to have Sauron show up and take over half the story to underline the fact that the films are connected?

 

I'm pretty sure no one's arguing the necessity of three movies. Personally, I'm well aware that King Kong was an hour too long, and that hour took it from a great movie to a kind of OK one. So we've got trepidation about this being three movies.

 

BUT I can't imagine watching the theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings again, because the Extended cuts are quite a bit better, for me. And considering that there is a whole fucking ton we Do. Not. Know. about how Hobbit is cutting together and how this would play as three movies instead of two, I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. At least until we see one! It's not like expecting it to be shitty now is going to have a positive effect on my life.

 

Very few films need to be 3 hours.  Certainly a very simple genre film doesn't need to be. 

 

21 fucking minutes and 26 shitting god damn seconds.

You could totally expand The Hobbit and make it an epic like Lord of the Rings.

 

Why you NEED another epic in this universe is something I can't grasp.