Peter Jackson Makes The Hobbit a Trilogy

Recommended Videos

The.Bard

New member
Jan 7, 2011
402
0
0
Fleischer said:
There goes my plan of trying to watch The Hobbit and LotR series in a single day. Looks like I will have to adapt my plans to a full weekend of movie watching!
Extended cuts of LotR ring in at... 11.5 hrs, I think?

Let's say each Hobbit "Extended Cut" is 4 hrs. That gives you 11.5 + 12, for a sum total of 23.5 hrs. Factor in 30 minutes for bathroom breaks, and BAM! A single day.

You'd need to put takeout orders in the day before and prepay so you can get your food without pausing. AND have a few pots of coffee on the kettle. AND backup caffeine pills.

Other than that, EASY PEASY! =)
 

Petromir

New member
Apr 10, 2010
592
0
0
Spitfire said:
I'm increasingly skeptical about The Hobbit movies. First, Jackson said that not only will they be in 3D (which I've yet to see done successfully in a movie), but also that he'd film them at 40fps, which, unless you really want to see a big budget movie look like a cheap soap-opera, then you're guaranteed to hate it with the fiery passion of a thousand fucking suns. And now, there's this.
I wasn't convinced that making two Hobbit movies wasn't pushing it, but making three? Why? I understand that you want to include every detail from the book in the movies, Mr Jackson, but do you remember what made, say, Fellowship of The Ring, such a great film? The fact that it wasn't bloated with every minute and meaningless fucking detail from the book. In fact, it took some pretty big liberties with the source material, and it was all the better for it, because the narrative of a book does not translate well on screen.
Seen much 4 or 5k at 48p footage have you then? Looks anything but cheap.

Cheap soap operas and tv movies look cheap for a myriad of different reasons the least of which is the frame rate. And the irony of saying anything but 24p looks cheap when that's the whole reason that 24p was chosen when they fixed the frame rate, it was the slowest and therefore cheapest they could get away with.

It's not for everything, but 3D and even to a lesser extent 2D cinema footage can induce headaches due to the flicker inherent in 24, Theres a reason computer refresh rates should be set high even on word processing, when it shouldn't really matter you know.

The lord of the rings had many faults, and in general I agree with the fairly common sentiment that the Tom cut was needed, Glorfindel and the scourging were cruely missed though.
 

Piorn

New member
Dec 26, 2007
1,097
0
0
Hey guys, what if we cut the two films into 3?!?!
That would mean we'd get 1,5 times the amount of money! We all love money, right? MONEY, HAHA!
 

emeraldrafael

New member
Jul 17, 2010
8,585
0
0
My personal feelings on this is that I dont frankly care, mostly cause im not a LoTR fan, and I havent seen any of the LoTR movies he made (and I dont care to so dont make the recommendation it will only fall on deaf ears/blind eyes).

But the cynic in my is saying "yeah, just keep stretching this to make even MORE money, cause this will probably be your last great thing". which may or may not be true, but it will be hard for him to top LoTR andThe Hobbit (assuming this doesnt suck since hes [from what I understand from my friends who actually care about this stuff] needlessly lengthening the film when he should be able to do it well enough in two).
 

RobfromtheGulag

New member
May 18, 2010
930
0
0
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
I guess I'm more of this opinion.

On one hand, it's Peter Jackson, and by all counts he did a splendid job of the LoTR trilogy. I have no reason to expect this to be any less.

On the other, the Hobbit was 1 book, and it was clearly a precursor to the 'epic' nature of the LoTR trilogy. Unwitting hero goes off with some chaps to battle a dragon - it doesn't get more cliche than that. Spreading it over 3 movies is, as Denzel once said, 'all that jelly and no toast'.
 

zumbledum

New member
Nov 13, 2011
672
0
0
LOTR was unmakeable as a film, heck in todays market you couldnt write LOTR as book even its pacing , method, structure all completely untenable. but PJ and his team pulled it off vast swathes are missing , massive plot points are omitted and changed (destruction of the ring being imo the biggest) But it worked, they pulled together a good version an amazing feat really.

If they want to make 3 films out of the hobbit and its surrounding lore i have nothing but anticiaption for it. great news for me i have faith in this teams love of the material to do it justice.

If its not fast paced enough with big enough car chases for todays audience fuck em i say do the material proud PJ!
 

The Human Torch

New member
Sep 12, 2010
750
0
0
Suki_ said:
The Human Torch said:
You are talking like Peter Jackson wrote 2 more books to make the Hobbits a trilogy and THEN made them into movies.

Even with the Hobbit being the smallest size of all the LoTR books, it's still a ton of information to get on a screen, 3 movies seem more than reasonable to me. Heck, the Lord of the Rings could have been 9 movies, instead of 3.
Well it is a pretty safe assumption given his history. I mean he cut out 3/4 of the LoTR books to add in the stuff he made up.
Since translating a book directly to the big screen (with no changes whatsoever), is next to impossible. Especially with a book as complicated as LoTR, artistic changes are unavoidable. Peter Jackson's LoTR is just one man's vision of the books, but it's nicely done and the source material survived very well.
 

surg3n

New member
May 16, 2011
709
0
0
Usually I'd probably be annoyed, I always thought the Hobbit made up 2 decent movies, there, and back again almost. But then I have to remember, this is The Hobbit, the story will never be told again in my lifetime, and it's my favorite story/book. Same goes for LOTR really - it might be 3 long movies, it might bang on a bit, but it's LOTR. Personally, I feel privileged that I'll get to watch these movies, because even just 1/3rd of the trilogy is more important than any other film released in the last... well since the LOTR trilogy. I'm not a die-hard Tolkien fan, but even I can see that.

I mean, is anyone sitting saying - damn, 3 movies - that's just too much, I will give them a miss, and watch Twilight instead?
No, not unless your a teenage girl. We know that the movies won't be perfect, we know they're being dragged out to increase the turnover - but I really don't care, as long as I get to see an awesome Hobbit movie trilogy... and I'm what most people would call hyper-negative about these things. In my old age, I appreciate things like this and I can forgive a lot where such high quality is being addressed.

For example, I really liked the last series of LOST - the final episode was cool, frankly I don't see what a lot of the complaints were about - as far as I could see, there was no more effective way of wrapping things up. This viewpoint is tainted, although tainted might be the wrong word - this viewpoint is influenced by the knowledge that it's unlikely that I'll ever see another series like LOST, ever. That's the future for us... not bigger and better and any of that crap that we just don't see - it's about nobody ever making movies or TV series as ambitious as LOTR, or LOST, or anything. Modern broadcasting won't allow anything to mature these days, it has to be a guarantee'd hit, and The Hobbit is really one of the last guaranteed hits there is.
I like the Riddick movies, where is Riddick3? - stuck in studio funding limbo. Now, people like us, people who don't expect the earth, we just expect that our favorite things are somewhat protected - well we've shut ourselves up into a corner. People who decide the fate of TV shows can't hear us, they can only hear advertising revenue coins dropping.
Isn't this a big problem?, is anyone else worried that everything cool in this world is continually temporary, because we don't do enough of a song and dance. That's why Firefly got shut down, yet it was amazing, and had a big following - unfortunately our generation doesn't spend enough money on energy drinks and mobile phones, so they tear down our shit every time. I'd consider starting a revolution - if only I could decide to revolt against the government or the media or facebook or the corporations or banks or what.

Anyway, sorry to ramble, hope nobody was daft enough to read that... The Hobbit, is a testimony to good taste and I'm greatly looking forward to it, I'm looking forward to sharing it with members of my family and friends who just won't read the book, it'll be awesome - they can milk me for all I'm worth if it somehow encourages people to make stuff like that. What other option do we have! - Hell, does uncle Peter want me to pay admission for the other 2 movies when watching part 1 - that is no problem! - they should sell trilogy tickets for these things, it's a non-optional movie trilogy after all.
 

Fleischer

New member
Jan 8, 2011
218
0
0
The.Bard said:
Fleischer said:
There goes my plan of trying to watch The Hobbit and LotR series in a single day. Looks like I will have to adapt my plans to a full weekend of movie watching!
Extended cuts of LotR ring in at... 11.5 hrs, I think?

Let's say each Hobbit "Extended Cut" is 4 hrs. That gives you 11.5 + 12, for a sum total of 23.5 hrs. Factor in 30 minutes for bathroom breaks, and BAM! A single day.

You'd need to put takeout orders in the day before and prepay so you can get your food without pausing. AND have a few pots of coffee on the kettle. AND backup caffeine pills.

Other than that, EASY PEASY! =)
I own the extended edition LotR DVD's, and I tried to watch them in a single day. I chugged soda, and had a friend to watch it with and also to keep each other awake. I actually started dozing off just before the Battle for Helms Deep - just too much content to soak during one sitting. I would get walloped if I tried a ~23 hour session.
 

edudewired

Regular Member
Nov 21, 2009
61
0
11
Peter Jackson needs to learn how to edit, all of his films have run way too long. I agree that in theory it's great that we have someone with a determination to keep the films as close to the books as possible, but the fact is films and books are different mediums and need to be treated differently to ensure proper pacing.

For some people a 3 hour plus romp is just what they're looking for in their book to film adaptations, personally I think that someone brave needs to go into his films with a pair of waders and shears.
 

Bloodstain

New member
Jun 20, 2009
1,624
0
0
The fewer details are left out, the better for me. So yes, I welcome this very much.

Can I have a 20-parter of the Silmarillion now? Actually, forget what I said. 30-parter it is.
 

Spitfire

New member
Dec 27, 2008
471
0
0
Petromir said:
Spitfire said:
I'm increasingly skeptical about The Hobbit movies. First, Jackson said that not only will they be in 3D (which I've yet to see done successfully in a movie), but also that he'd film them at 40fps, which, unless you really want to see a big budget movie look like a cheap soap-opera, then you're guaranteed to hate it with the fiery passion of a thousand fucking suns. And now, there's this.
I wasn't convinced that making two Hobbit movies wasn't pushing it, but making three? Why? I understand that you want to include every detail from the book in the movies, Mr Jackson, but do you remember what made, say, Fellowship of The Ring, such a great film? The fact that it wasn't bloated with every minute and meaningless fucking detail from the book. In fact, it took some pretty big liberties with the source material, and it was all the better for it, because the narrative of a book does not translate well on screen.
Seen much 4 or 5k at 48p footage have you then? Looks anything but cheap.

Cheap soap operas and tv movies look cheap for a myriad of different reasons the least of which is the frame rate. And the irony of saying anything but 24p looks cheap when that's the whole reason that 24p was chosen when they fixed the frame rate, it was the slowest and therefore cheapest they could get away with.

It's not for everything, but 3D and even to a lesser extent 2D cinema footage can induce headaches due to the flicker inherent in 24, Theres a reason computer refresh rates should be set high even on word processing, when it shouldn't really matter you know.
Sorry, but you've missed the point entirely.

24 fps has pretty much been the default framerate in cinema for almost a century now; there has been plenty of time for that to change. The advent of high framerates in television didn't influence it. The switch from film to digital capture didn't influence it. Also, to the best of my knowledge, there has never been, throughout cinema history, any incentive from movie-going audiences for films to use higher framerates. Nobody asked for this.

Yes, it used to be that 24 fps was simply a convenient framerate to use, but that has no longer been the case for quite some time now. The reason why it is still the most popular framerate used in cinema today, isn't because filmmakers are lazy, or afraid of change, but because the great majority of people interpret it as being a fundamental cinematic quality; it's the way that a movie should look. By contrast, most people interpret high framerates as looking cheap, or very life-like, depending on the context, and the reactions of the people who have seen how this looks in The Hobbit, are [http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/04/24/cinemacon-2012-dim-reaction-to-high-def-look-of-peter-jacksons-the-hobbit/] most [http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118053075] telling [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/9225905/The-Hobbit-previews-to-mixed-reactions.html].
Framerate has become a stylistic device in media, and that's not going to change with cinema, just because Peter Jackson, or James Cameron, want to sell their 3D gimmick, it being the only thing that benefits from the use of higher framerates.
 

ServebotFrank

New member
Jul 1, 2010
627
0
0
Peter Jackson has pretty much consistently made good movies. I trust he knows what he's doing. There's also the fact that he's adding stuff that wasn't in the Hobbit but it is part of the lore to try and tie it to Lord of The Rings. So there's that.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,933
1,804
118
Country
United Kingdom
rhizhim said:
You are talking like Peter Jackson wrote 2 more books to make the Hobbits a trilogy and THEN made them into movies.
Well, from the statement it's very clear that he's taking a lot of the background material which was only barely mentioned in the book - generally parts which have absolutely no bearing on the story but which are more action oriented, or which foreshadow the Lord of the Rings narrative - and adding them to the story.

The rise of the Necromancer and the Battle of Dol Guldur, for example, don't appear in the Hobbit at all. The former is part of the "origin story" for Sauron's return in the Lord of the Rings, and the latter is meant to take place right at the end of the Lord of the Rings, in timeline perspective. The only reason to insert them is to work more "epic" stuff and action into what is otherwise a fairly low-key story.
 

SonOfVoorhees

New member
Aug 3, 2011
3,509
0
0
I have full faith in Peter Jackson. I especially have faith that he isnt just going to extend them into lame cash cows to rip off the fans like they did with Potter and Twilight. So, until i watch the hobbit movies, all i have is praise and knowing that they will be awesome.
 

carpathic

New member
Oct 5, 2009
1,287
0
0
Toasty Virus said:
So long as it doesn't just end up looking like he chopped the second one in two, I have no problem with this.
You just know that is what it is going to feel like. There will be a weak transition and then bam tbc just like an old episode of Star Trek TNG
 
Feb 28, 2008
689
0
0
Lord Beautiful said:
Good for bastards like me in a way, I guess.

Never could really dig in to Tolkien's books. The writing style just puts me off too much.
Not sure if you've dipped into The Hobbit, but it's far, far more accessible and pleasantly written than LOTR -- which I found a drag.
 

Schtoobs

New member
Feb 8, 2012
73
0
0
I'm not surprised by the the negative assumptions people are making, this is the internet and that is the movie industry, after all. But I am surprised that there aren't more people pleased that this has been turned into 3 films. The more films the better as far as I'm concerned. I read The Hobbit again recently and I hope Peter Jackson does pad it and expand on some things, because the book really wouldn't translate to film very well otherwise. I for one, can't wait.

If you're still in doubt, I spoke to Tolkien (I just call him Jororuto) yesterday and he told me "I have faith that PJ will improve on my lackluster material which is why I demanded he make 3 movies rather than 2... and all the whiny bitches can lick a @$*%."

True story :)
 

viranimus

Thread killer
Nov 20, 2009
4,951
0
0
If this is to mean vivisecting the disgusting furry footed abominations into three sections a piece, all for that. Only good halfling is a dead and defiled halfling.


Otherwise, a great big lard filled vat of... meh.