PETER JACKSON CONFIRMS THERE WILL BE 63 HOBBIT FILMS - Page 6

Bloated, almost certainly. But vanilla flavoured? What reason is there to assume they'd be that?

Oh yeah spending more time in Middle Earth is the height of interesting here.

I hope Jackson throws some slow-motion shots of weeping Hobbits scored to Howard Shore!* OTHERWISE I WILL BE SO PISSED!!

*With a wailing Elf choir.

There's a whole lot of "one Hobbit movie good, three Hobbit movies better" going on, and it's just baffling.

And we'd just forget a single-film Hobbit and move on?  Seriously?  So your DVD shelf is filled with nothing but trilogies and franchises?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey 


Because if they're coming at this distended, three film structure in the name of commerce rather than (the by comparison admirable) over-reaching ambition, then the greater likelihood is bloated and boring, not bloated and interesting.
(personally I am not approaching these films that cynically, but I could see somebody looking at it that way. Hubris is much more interesting than greed.)

If the reports of there not being a complete script or budget in place for the third film are true, I imagine there's somewhat of a financial gamble being taken, despite the success of the original trilogy.  I can't see these decisions as being entirely financially motivated.  I am taking a bit on faith, I suppose, but I trust what I've seen of PJ enough to believe that he genuinely wants to make another film to creatively interpret all of the material that he now has this chance to put his stamp on.

Of course Peter Jackson also thought King Kong needed to be an epic. And had NO idea what he was doing with The Lovely Bones.

But hey! There's a couple of lines and some information added to The Hobbit! WE CAN BUILD SOMETHING GIANT FROM THIS!

"Obviously if there is more of something, it's more interesting!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

There's a whole lot of "one Hobbit movie good, three Hobbit movies better" going on, and it's just baffling.

 

And we'd just forget a single-film Hobbit and move on?  Seriously?  So your DVD shelf is filled with nothing but trilogies and franchises?

No one is saying that or anything like it. They're saying "one Hobbit movie good, more than one not automatically worse". Just about everyone is cautious about the three movie idea.

And the reason I'd say they'd move on is because, with all due respect to it, it's just The Hobbit. It's a known quantity. It's a perfectly good tale but frankly I don't think it would ever be likely to match the impact of something like LOTR. This thing, however it turns out, is likely to be hugely controversial whether it's for better or for worse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey 
Because if they're coming at this distended, three film structure in the name of commerce rather than (the by comparison admirable) over-reaching ambition, then the greater likelihood is bloated and boring, not bloated and interesting.

 

But it being done exclusively because of commerce rather than over-reaching ambition is something you just decided must be the case, sight unseen and without even knowing what's being attempted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaurenOrtega 

Of course Peter Jackson also thought King Kong needed to be an epic. And had NO idea what he was doing with The Lovely Bones.

 

But hey! There's a couple of lines and some information added to The Hobbit! WE CAN BUILD SOMETHING GIANT FROM THIS!

I'll defend ninety-five percent of Kong to the death.  It doesn't work as a whole, but even Lovely Bones isn't without moments of some creative vision.

As for the additional material, Prof. Tolkien didn't create it needlessly.  You can absolutely build from what is there.

I don't think a single person is going to insist the movies are going to be bad automatically and we're all be giving them a chance. If we all live to see all three of them, then I guarantee in nine years when they're finally finished rolling them out, I'll find this thread from my post-apocalyptic computer and say, "mea culpa."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draco Senior 

 Prof. Tolkien 

Please stop doing this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parker 

 

Please stop doing this.

Bit silly to focus on a perfectly valid way of addressing a noted professor who was referred to as such throughout his academic and literary careers, and in fact continues to be spoken of with the title by many fans and scholars.  If it bothers you so much, you have no obligation to be reading. 

Well it would be more interesting. That's not to say better or more successful, just that I'm not sure there's that much in a faithful Hobbit for people to get hot and bothered about. You can read the books and pretty much imagine what a Jackson version would look like. People are going to go crazy deconstructing these movies and whether they work or were good ideas or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parker 

 

Please stop doing this.

Haha if there's one thing the LOTR bonus features did, it's make me sick to death of people calling him 'Professor' with that almost religious reverence.

How much is actually there in the books though? Because aside from some background information like "This is where Gandalf was at the time" there's not exactly a lot of hugely fleshed out moments here.

And even barring that I'll never get why people WANT to see all that side stuff. 

It's been said before but I'll say it again. The Hobbit is a stand alone fairy tale, with some of the same characters as LOTR. It does not need to be tied into the larger more epic story.

To summarize - Hobbit - Fairy Tale 

                       LOTR  - Epic Fantasy 

Two very different things.

From The Hollywood Reporter:

Definitely looks like some risks are being taken, financially speaking.  A third film was very much a last-minute decision, so there must have been a bit more considered than the financial incentives of making two films three.  At the least, it's not clear whether the dominating thought in discussions was financial, or part financial and part creative.

This should make for a fascinating behind-the-scenes documentary.

I said please. It was just a polite request.

Speaking of requests, I'm also a Professor (really!). I'd like to be known as "Professor Parker" from here on out. I'm not as noteworthy as the big T-dawg, for sure, so I don't doubt you'll ignore me, but several of my students called my Professor today, so why not all of you?

Can't we join camps and just refer to him as Prof. T-dawg from here on out?

I love Prof. T-Dawg!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draco Senior 

 

If the reports of there not being a complete script or budget in place for the third film are true...

... then shouldn't that kind of strain the benefit of the doubt so many want to give Jackson here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draco Senior 

 

As for the additional material, Prof. Tolkien didn't create it needlessly.  You can absolutely build from what is there.

Here's the entirety of what Tolkien says about the White Council driving Sauron out of Dol Guldur:

I hope they have something in mind for the other seven hours and twenty-eight minutes.

Seeing as how Jackson came to this decision while editing, it seems there is simply stuff he doesn't want to get rid of and wants to shoot additional material to support that stuff.  It's like those 4 or 5 hour director's cuts of movies with every single scene and line reading that was shot put in...and then the delicate process of paring it down to something interesting (and watchable) begins.  It's as if Jackson just wants to rejigger the bloat into another film.  If he'd made the decision at the script stage, I might give him a little more leeway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draco Senior 

 

Definitely looks like some risks are being taken, financially speaking.  

There's some risks being taken, but certainly not financially. The first movie will recoup the costs.

An epic internet war over whether or not the Hobbit trilogy is good would probably make me spend less time online, so that's a positive I suppose.

He obviously can't bare to see the Elves singing Tra-la-la-lally! on the cutting room floor and wants to add more.

One movie would have been great, two was grudgingly accepted, three is taking the piss... in my humble yet uninformed plebeian view.

But at least it might delay Avatar 2 from existence by a few months.

Personally, I blame JK Rowling.

So I guess (not being willing to read the rest of this thread) that Part I ends right before Bilbo finds the Ring, Part II ends before the major battle betwixt the Orcs, the Freemen and the Dragon, and part III has said battle?

Part I, from the banner shown at Comic-Con, ends with the dwarves in barrels, floating toward Lake Town. It's so close to release that I doubt much will change there. Part II, I imagine, will be Smaug and then a whole metric shit ton of White Council/Dol Gudar stuff. Part III will be the Battle of the Five Armies and whatever other superfluous information they decided to cram in there.

Yeah, I imagine they're sort of locked in on the first film at this point.  I can't imagine them withholding Smaug until the third film,  because that would simultaneously gut the second film and overstuff the third one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 

Personally, I blame JK Rowling.

Honestly, I think this is mostly it. Rowling took a middling start (both first couple of books and first two films) and created a mega monster. With only the Hobbit and LOTR being licensed, all of the rest of Tolkien's fantasy is locked off. The amount of story just lying around in the Appendices begs to be exploited. Like a Tolkien ANWR, drill baby Drill!  The sheer amount of money the Jackson films have brought to New Zealand alone is staggering, in both film and tourism. It is movie mithril. If they stop with the two films they currently have, they are never going back in for the rest of it. Perhaps they can mine it safely, making both profit and creative happiness. Maybe they dig too deeply, unleashing a Jackson's Bane of angry fans and internet frothing.  The decision is clearly made for financial reasons, but I also think the creative side just threw it over the top for Jackson.

Plus, this will give enough money for Weta to make their true masterpiece, Watership Down, with hundreds of CGI rabbits motioned captured and thrown across three films. I cannot wait for Andy Serkis to recreate the rabbit  rape scene. 

I still can't get over how lousy the Dwarves look.  Those prosthetics are not working for me.

Has been been announced that each film is going to be three hours?  Or could it be that Jackson learned his lesson about making films too long?  What if it turns out, he was going to have 2 films at 3 hours, but he decided that there is another half hour of story to be told, and instead he is going to release 3 - 2+ hour films?  

But hey, love how cynical everyone is.  I mean, he fucked up on Lord of the Rings, so he will do it again 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

Yeah, I imagine they're sort of locked in on the first film at this point.  I can't imagine them withholding Smaug until the third film,  because that would simultaneously gut the second film and overstuff the third one.

Coming December 2013: The Hobbit, Part 2: A Whole Lotta Lake-town

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Harford 


Speaking only for myself, but I never really warmed to Return of the King as a film. It's an alright final chapter for LOTR, and I didn't complain when I left the theater. There are some good scenes with our various characters, but I've come to find the movie interminable and somehow over indulgent. The super slow motion trek up the Volcano and all that. Jackson also copped out on the ending, leaving the Shire intact, gutting Tolkien's message about the costs of war and loss of innocence. I have the Extended Edition up there on my bookshelf, but I don't really think its half the film Fellowship or even Two Towers was. I never really feel a burning desire to rewatch it like I do the first two, and only see it to "complete the journey" whenever I revisit the trilogy. When I recall Fellowship I think of dread and adventure. Two Towers, building tension and climactic release. When I think of Return of the King, I feel a deep sense of boredom.
My feelings about how Jackson handled the final chapter in LOTR has been a big factor in my reaction to his returning to Hobbit.

So you thought The Return of the King was interminable and boring, but you also think Jackson should've included "The Scouring of the Shire" (another 20-30 minutes at least) on top of that? Does not compute.

And I disagree that Jackson ignored the "you can't go home again" theme the novel ends with. The four Hobbits may not return to a polluted, industrialized, Men-dominated Shire, but Jackson's Frodo is clearly damaged by his experiences, both physically and emotionally. Despite watching his friends start new lives, his wounds just won't heal. He isn't the same cheerful, wide-eyed Frodo who welcomed Gandalf at the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring, and he knows it's never going to be like that again. Which is why he has to leave it all behind and sail into the West, even though it means rupturing the heart of the story, his relationship with Sam, in the process. For me there's still plenty of lost innocence at the end of The Return of the King, with or without "The Scouring of the Shire." I can't tell you how to feel about the movie, of course, but I think you're giving Jackson short shrift in this particular regard.

This scene says everything that the Scouring of the Shire does.

PJ not doing the Scouring of the Shire or anything to do with Tom Bambadil was fine by me.  

The Scouring of the Shire works perfectly in book form but would have been absolutely the wrong decision to make with the the movie.

Considering the smiling, bright-eyed Frodo who looks back at his friends before boarding the boat at the end of ROTK is the first time we've seen him look like that since FOTR, I'd say Jackson definitely got the "can't go home again" aspect.

I too am quite glad that Jackson left Bombadil out of the Trilogy.  I've always skipped over his scenes whenever reading the books myself.  In regards to this idea of a hobbit trilogy, my wish is a simple one.  I just want to see a scene of Bandobras Took "inventing" the game of golf in Middle Earth.  No matter how ridiculous and silly it might possibly look on screen, that was always one of my favorite parts when reading The Hobbit.

I think Bombadil was Tolkien's attempt to create something unique.  He'd pulled from so many Germanic and Scandanavian sources, I think he wanted something original and more British, since part of his stated aim with LOTR was to create a  mythology for England.  I also think it's remnant from when LOTR was going to be much closer in tone to The Hobbit; pretty much the entirety of Fellowship up until Frodo gets stabbed by the Nazgul is much lighter and simpler, even if it hints at something darker.  The gossip about Bilbo and his party, the party itself, the fox thinking to himself when he sees Frodo and company camping in the wild, Bombadil -- all of that is very Hobbit-esque.

Like the Scouring, I think Bombadil works just fine in the books, but would have killed the momentum and urgency of Frodo's flight in the film.

I figured the changes in tone in LOTR were due to Tolkien juggling different ambitions.  The stuff with the Hobbits felt like a commentary on provincial Brits of his day, but then he also wanted to do a grand sort of mythology.  So what you have is one story that in some ways seems like it takes place in at least two different eras.

The shift in tone came when Tolkien got halfway through what would eventually be Fellowship and realized that Bilbo's ring was The One Ring, and took it from there (including re-editing Riddles in the Dark from The Hobbit so that Gollum is distraught at the prospect of losing "his precious"). When he set out initially, it really was just a sequel to The Hobbit that his publisher pressured him into writing, and in the writing morphed into the epic tale that took him 11 years to write. His correspondence with Christopher while the latter was off fighting WWII also colored his writing.