By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies & TV - Just saw The Hobbit, should you?

binary solo on 14 December 2012
cloud1161 said:
binary solo said:
cloud1161 said:
binary solo said:
SnakeDrake said:
Still think the hobbit should of been one whole movie, but I cant wait to see it. Just needs to fix my phone and call some friends :P

No, there's definitely enough material for 2 movies. But whether 3 will prove to be folly (even with extra material included from the LOTR appendices) remains to be seen. The book is about the same length as FOTR (part 1 of LOTR) and there was a lot left out of the movie adaptation.


The story of "The Hobbit" will actually end with the second movie from what I've read.  The third movie will actually delve into the History of Middle Earth.

Not sure about that. The first movie ends at page 140 of the book, the book (the one I have on my shelf) is 364 pages. So that leave 224 pages left, plus intermingling stuff from the appendices and embellishments. Perhaps with less exposition needed now the last 224 pages can be covered in the same timeframe as  the first 140. But I think PJ is going to weave the extra stuff into the main story and Bilbo will be back in the Shire at the end of the 3rd movie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit:_There_and_Back_Again#Third_film I know it's Wikipedia but it's still something: 

"Although The Hobbit was originally made as a two-part film, on 30 July 2012, Jackson confirmed plans for a third film, turning his adaptation of The Hobbit into a trilogy.[138][139] According to Jackson, the third film would make extensive use of the appendices that Tolkien wrote to expand the story of Middle-Earth (published in the back of The Return of the King). While the third film will largely make use of footage originally shot for the first and second films, it will require additional filming as well.[140] The second film was retitled The Desolation of Smaug and the third film was titled There and Back Again in August 2012."  

It's the last paragraph of the Third Film section.

See bold underline: pretty much confirms my assertion. Movie 3 will primarily be from the book with substantial amounts from other sources, as well as stuff PJ makes up.

@Radagst in the movie. AFAIK Radagast is mentiuoned in the book and he sends the eagles, but I don't think he ever makes an appearance.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

Around the Network
leatherhat on 14 December 2012

Saw it at midnight and it was fantastic,



ǝןdɯıs ʇı dǝǝʞ oʇ ǝʞıן ı ʍouʞ noʎ 

Ask me about being an elitist jerk

Time for hype

Mr Khan on 14 December 2012

I enjoyed it as a film, but find myself enraged about what Jackson thinks he's doing to Middle Earth history

400 year watchful peace? The watchful peace was well over at that point. Total rewrite of the Dwarf-Goblin Wars, undercutting Dain's role in the fight or what really happened to Thrain afterwards. Delaying the rise of Mirkwood by 2000 years (!) and their claim that the Witch King was killed at the end of the Northern War, and then buried, neither of which were true. The whole point was that the Witch King escaped, under the prophecy of "Not by the hand of Man shall he fall," the entire *point* of his confrontation with Eowyn at the end of "Return."

Other modifications i liked better, like making the Stone Giants more of a thing (mentioned only in passing in the actual book) and increasing the role of Radagast (and even mentioning the Blue Wizards!)



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Barozi on 14 December 2012
pezus said:
man-bear-pig said:
I saw it in 48 FPS 3D yesterday and it was great! I don't know why people are complaining about the frame-rate.

Also, the critics don't know shit

Do you think 48 FPS improves the experience?

a tiny bit maybe.

Quite a few people I've talked to said that they needed a few minutes to accustom to the higher framerate, though it didn't have such an effect on me. I could still tell the difference, but a few seconds into the movie it felt like I was watching a regular movie (haven't seen any movie after The Hobbit, so I might change my mind on that).
I read that James Cameron was looking into 60FPS so that might be saved for Avatar 2.

Personally though I felt the 3D was unnecessary. Lots of CGI effects but nothing that popped out or any astonishing depth effects (those were still decent though).



cloud1161 on 14 December 2012
binary solo said:
cloud1161 said:
binary solo said:
cloud1161 said:
binary solo said:
SnakeDrake said:
Still think the hobbit should of been one whole movie, but I cant wait to see it. Just needs to fix my phone and call some friends :P

No, there's definitely enough material for 2 movies. But whether 3 will prove to be folly (even with extra material included from the LOTR appendices) remains to be seen. The book is about the same length as FOTR (part 1 of LOTR) and there was a lot left out of the movie adaptation.


The story of "The Hobbit" will actually end with the second movie from what I've read.  The third movie will actually delve into the History of Middle Earth.

Not sure about that. The first movie ends at page 140 of the book, the book (the one I have on my shelf) is 364 pages. So that leave 224 pages left, plus intermingling stuff from the appendices and embellishments. Perhaps with less exposition needed now the last 224 pages can be covered in the same timeframe as  the first 140. But I think PJ is going to weave the extra stuff into the main story and Bilbo will be back in the Shire at the end of the 3rd movie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit:_There_and_Back_Again#Third_film I know it's Wikipedia but it's still something: 

"Although The Hobbit was originally made as a two-part film, on 30 July 2012, Jackson confirmed plans for a third film, turning his adaptation of The Hobbit into a trilogy.[138][139] According to Jackson, the third film would make extensive use of the appendices that Tolkien wrote to expand the story of Middle-Earth (published in the back of The Return of the King). While the third film will largely make use of footage originally shot for the first and second films, it will require additional filming as well.[140] The second film was retitled The Desolation of Smaug and the third film was titled There and Back Again in August 2012."  

It's the last paragraph of the Third Film section.

See bold underline: pretty much confirms my assertion. Movie 3 will primarily be from the book with substantial amounts from other sources, as well as stuff PJ makes up.

@Radagst in the movie. AFAIK Radagast is mentiuoned in the book and he sends the eagles, but I don't think he ever makes an appearance.

Yea, but I don't think they are going to stretch the story proper out between the three movies.  Since the third movie is called "There and Back Again" (I know that's the actual name Bilbo gives the book), I think they are going to revisit the story and fill in gaps and what not.   The book ends with the defeat of Smaug so I don't think they are going to make the entire third movie about the resolution of the conflict (assuming "The Desolation of Smaug" means they actually defeat Smaug but you never know).  



Check out my video game music blog:

http://games-and-guitars.synergize.co/

 

 PROUD MEMBER OF THE PLAYSTATION 3 : RPG FAN CLUB

 

He who hesitates is lost

Around the Network
rosejasmin56 on 15 December 2012

I'm going to this sunday for watching the hobbit an unexpected journey....Have booked ticket...



mai on 15 December 2012
amp316 said:
I can't wait to see how the shortest book in the series is going to be stretched into a trilogy. There'll have to be a lot of made up crap thrown in there.

Easy, throw in few side stories like Gandalf minding his own business in Dol Guldur and such, these aren't entirely made up. For better or worse I do not know, but they're absolutely going to milk that cow. Anyway if I'm not mistaken we're getting the best part of the book in the first movie, right? Just before the company encountered Smaug.



HoloDust on 15 December 2012

As someone who grew up with that book, and after PJ did what he did with LotR (that animated film from 1978 was way better in translating feel of the book to movie), and then of course there's this:





I'm REALLY, REALLY hesitant to go and ruin my childhood memories of something so dear.



SvennoJ on 16 December 2012

Ugh it's a to be continued. Hmm watch now, or until the trilogy is complete, or at least the 2nd part if that's where the book ends.
Oh well plenty of time to read the book again before then. I was 14 when I read it, several decades ago.



El_Machete on 22 December 2012

I have never read the book and never will. The movie however, it was awesome. I really enjoy it, way more than the fellowship. I am a sucker for this type of movies, so put that in perspective.