The Hobbit (2012/2013)

[Ironwood]

Palantir.

[HaemishM]

Yeah, that thing.

[WayAbvPar]

This is now a trilogy! Can't wait.

[Lakov_Sanite]

This is now a trilogy! Can't wait.

How?

[Ingmar]

They're adding all kinds of extra material from the Appendices I believe.

That said I don't like the choice to go to 3 movies.

[Khaldun]

The second film will now have an extensive treatment of the conflict between a youthful Gaffer and the Sackville-Baggins over the gardens of Bag End.

[Nebu]

Two movies wasn't enough to destroy my favorite childhood book... they had to make it three. 

I hate Hollywood.

[Teleku]

Two movies wasn't enough to destroy my favorite childhood book... they had to make it three. 

I hate Hollywood New Zealand.

There.   

Going to blame Jackson on this, as the fucker doesn't know when to stop filming.  This worked great for LoTR, because it was a large amount of material ton condense into 3 movies, so I was happy to watch the 4.5 mega director cuts.  Then I watched what he did with King Kong, where it just kept fucking going and going with endless action scenes, and even then he was forced to cut a ton that he filmed.  And now he's decided that after finishing the filming of the two movies, he's really got enough to do some more and extend it out to 3 films.  Based off a book that was half the length of any of the 3 books from the LoTR.

I'm sure the money suits in Hollywood were happy to sign off on it, but this seems like all of Jackson's doing.

[Trippy]

And now he's decided that after finishing the filming of the two movies, he's really got enough to do some more and extend it out to 3 films.  Based off a book that was half the length of any of the 3 books from the LoTR.

The Hobbit would've been a lot longer, though, if he wrote it in the same style as he did The Lord of the Rings.

[Evildrider]

I wonder if he's just trying to cram as much in as possible since he got a lot of grief for leaving stuff out like Tom Bombadil.

[Cyrrex]

And now he's decided that after finishing the filming of the two movies, he's really got enough to do some more and extend it out to 3 films.  Based off a book that was half the length of any of the 3 books from the LoTR.

The Hobbit would've been a lot longer, though, if he wrote it in the same style as he did The Lord of the Rings.

Good point.  I always thought many of the scenes in Hobbit were done a bit too abruptly.  Not that I think that means this should be played out over 3 films, as even two seems a bit silly.

[lamaros]

If by 'abrupt' you mean 'less boring crap' then yes...

[Cyrrex]

Nah, like with Smaug.  It was all cool up until the point that Smaug leaves the lair.  Instead of an epic scene of dragony goodness, he dies like 10 seconds later.  And the battle of the five armies, which seems to take two pages max.

I don't know if this is how either of the two actually played out, but I remember them both (and other scenes as well) as overly abrupt.  It was fine within the context of the book, because I always felt it was more intended for a much younger audience. 

[lamaros]

That's just a different book then - it wouldn't make sense to prefigure such events with the inane efforts of a little hobbit, if that's what the end focus was going to be. The Hobbit is about Bilbo, not the world in which he resided, and is in my view a wonderfully crafted novel.

[MahrinSkel]

What is going to be interesting is seeing how quickly the Blu-ray release is followed by a fan-edit that cuts the three movies down to just what was in the book.

--Dave

[Cyrrex]

That's just a different book then - it wouldn't make sense to prefigure such events with the inane efforts of a little hobbit, if that's what the end focus was going to be. The Hobbit is about Bilbo, not the world in which he resided, and is in my view a wonderfully crafted novel.

I agree, I was merely expanding on Trippy's point that it wasn't written in the same style as the trilogy.  Not advocating that it should have been, only that it could have been.  At the end of the day, I find it farily ridiculous that this one ends up as more than a single 3 hour (or so) movie.  I imagine Jackson's version will be grittier too, but then, that might make for a better theater experience.

[Khaldun]

Apparently what he's said in several instances is that all of the expanded story will be either:

more fully fleshed-out treatments of events actually in the book
the LOTR appendices that are relevant to events happening in this rough time frame (e.g., before the formal beginning of LOTR)


In the first category, here's what occurred to me as things that could have long-ish action or narrative sequences that are relatively briefly treated in the book:

Giants throwing rocks at the group in the Misty Mountains (something that I think Tolkien almost meant as metaphor, since they totally do not fit into everything else he ever said about Middle-Earth)
Beorn going off and killing a fuckton of goblins while the hobbits are sleeping in his house
Whatever the elves are up to in Mirkwood when the dwarves burst in on them
Smaug vs. Laketown/Bard
Gathering Bard and the Elf-King's armies; Gandalf's journey to the Lonely Mountain after whatever he's being doing off-stage; mustering Dain's army
Battle of the Five Armies
Bilbo's journey home
Bilbo's life in the Shire after settling back into Bag End

In the second category:

Gandalf infiltrates Dol Guldur on the orders of the White Council and sneaks around to see what's going on inside; finds Thrain. (This actually has to happen before the start of The Hobbit--but if the movie begins with this, that's a super-dumb idea. My guess is a flashback when he hands the map to the group, perhaps later in the story than the map-handing actually happens). I think this is likely to be the segment where Radagast plays an important role.
The entire White Council attacks Dol Guldur. Like to be a huge, lengthy set-piece.

Ok, so that's two movies, I can actually see a story structure that works pretty well. But three? There's really only two ways to get to three: BLOAT of all these pieces or "yet more story".  And "yet more story" may feel like bloat by another route. The only major narratives I can see him pinning into this from the appendices would be, somewhere fairly early in the story, a flashback to the War of Dwarves and Orcs over Moria--which might be called back in the War of Five Armies to give the orcs and goblins some more personality or narrative particularity; and Aragorn tracking down Gollum after he leaves the Misty Mountains. But if Jackson really tries to give a blow-by-blow flashback to the War of Dwarves and Orcs it's going to destroy the film's narrative coherence, cause that's a long story of dudes with beards murdering goblins and getting murdered in turn. And Aragorn tracking Gollum can't really be anything but a travelogue and side-story. I suppose if you ended that with Gollum being taken inside the Black Gate, Aragorn realizing Sauron escaped his seeming destruction at Dol Guldur, and have that ominously happen before we go back to Bibo ironically saying, "I suppose now I just live happily ever after with my magic ring in the Shire" and close with Gandalf puffing on his pipe and looking worried, then it serves some kind of narrative function.

[Numtini]

If he wants another movie, can't he make a stand alone of the scouring of the shire?

[Mrbloodworth]

Nah, like with Smaug.  It was all cool up until the point that Smaug leaves the lair.  Instead of an epic scene of dragony goodness, he dies like 10 seconds later.  And the battle of the five armies, which seems to take two pages max.

I don't know if this is how either of the two actually played out, but I remember them both (and other scenes as well) as overly abrupt.  It was fine within the context of the book, because I always felt it was more intended for a much younger audience. 

Lies! The song played for at least 8 minutes!

[KallDrexx]

Am I the only one who didn't even know Hobbit was supposed to be 2 movies?

I thought it was only going to be one O.o

[sickrubik]

Am I the only one who didn't even know Hobbit was supposed to be 2 movies?

I thought it was only going to be one O.o

It's been planned to be two movies for as long as the current project has been alive.

[WayAbvPar]

As long as Smaug gets a couple of hours of screen time, I am ok with it. Providing they don't totally fuck it up.

[Ironwood]

Yeah, we need to see Sherlock with scales.

[HaemishM]

Three movies really is too much. I can't imagine the stuff they add will be worth a third movie.

[Soln]

It's fine.  Just no romance, plz.

[Khaldun]

Good news, everyone: Jackson's latest quote is "much of the new content involves a feminine character". So I'm thinking romance is indeed in the offing unless he means Galadriel and nothing else.

[Lakov_Sanite]

"feminine" is not necessarily female.

[Ratman_tf]

"feminine" is not necessarily female.

Smaug will be a crossdresser! :D

[Evildrider]

"feminine" is not necessarily female.

Smaug will be a crossdresser! :D

Larry Wachowski can play Smaug!

[sickrubik]

Lana Wachowski is not a crossdresser.

[Trippy]

It's fine.  Just no romance, plz.

I don't know the latest trailer I've seen implies some hot Gandalf on Galadriel action*

* not really, but she does brush away a lock of hair from his face

[Lantyssa]

...

... I'd actually be okay with that.

[Tannhauser]

I swore not to ever doubt Jackson with Middle Earth again, but here I am. 

[Soln]

Good news, everyone: Jackson's latest quote is "much of the new content involves a feminine character". So I'm thinking romance is indeed in the offing unless he means Galadriel and nothing else.

Yer kidding, right?   There is no feminine character in the Hobbit, except via LotR, Galadriel.  Yea, I'm hoping there's no Aragorn/Arwen style thing.   

[lamaros]

rofl.