The Hobbit Page 39

  • Page

    of 52 First / Last

  • disusedgenius 3 Jan 2013 10:04:02 5,283 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    What bits would you have cut down though? It seemed to drag a bit for me around the Warg/Rivendell bit but it's not like there was that much extraneous stuff in there - there's just a lot to get though.
  • mrpon 3 Jan 2013 10:04:26 28,756 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    If you dont I can totally see why you would just want it to get a fucking move on.
    Don't watch it then?

    Give yourself 5 or gig, you're worth it.

  • nickthegun 3 Jan 2013 10:07:42 59,454 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Well, i can see why you would. It does the exact opposite to lord of the rings.

    LoTR took long winded, glacial prose, cut the fat, gave it a kick up the arse and streamlined it into a fairly fast paced (to a point) action film.

    The Hobbit took a fairly short, punchy book and filled it with glacial prose and fat.

    I can see why you would watch the hobbit if you enjoyed what was done with LoTR.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • kalel 3 Jan 2013 10:08:37 86,962 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    CharlieStCloud wrote:

    Tell me, why is this 'too long' when The Dark Knight Rises is just as long? They are both a shy over 160 minutes.

    TDKR was also ridiculously long.

    To paraphrase Mark Kermode, Kubrick's 2001 manages to cover around a million years in 140 minutes. That's the benchmark for other films to aspire to.
  • nickthegun 3 Jan 2013 10:10:29 59,454 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    What bits would you have cut down though? It seemed to drag a bit for me around the Warg/Rivendell bit but it's not like there was that much extraneous stuff in there - there's just a lot to get though.
    Ottomh, the things that will probably get a phantom edit are:

    - the intro
    - anything with frodo and old bilbo
    - a lot of the dwarf party
    - the radagast stuff
    - a lot of the rivendell stuff

    you could knock an hour out of it without losing any of the main story.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • Deckard1 3 Jan 2013 10:10:32 27,703 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    Kubrick's 2001 manages to cover around a million years in 140 minutes.
    And it still manages to be boring!

    Edited by Deckard1 at 10:11:14 03-01-2013

    Hush you ponce

  • Mola_Ram 3 Jan 2013 10:11:14 7,233 posts
    Seen 16 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Movies can be long and nevertheless not "feel" long. I recently saw a four-hour pervert ninja religious cult movie from Japan, and the time just flew by. But TDKR, for example, dragged for me in places and felt really long.

    A movie should be as long as it needs to be. There's no set ideal running time. But for, say, action films, it's a rare one that can keep me interested for more than 2 hours. Depends on what it's about, though.
  • disusedgenius 3 Jan 2013 10:13:57 5,283 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    LoTR took long winded, glacial prose, cut the fat, gave it a kick up the arse and streamlined it into a fairly fast paced (to a point) action film.

    The Hobbit took a fairly short, punchy book and filled it with glacial prose and fat.
    Both of those are just side-effects of translating two different writing styles into a film, really. Long winded stuff with a lot of internal drama and always loses a lot, shorter stories always end up taking longer than people expect (or are rushed though badly, like the vast majority of kids' books adaptations). It's not like there's much down time in the film.
  • nickthegun 3 Jan 2013 10:14:21 59,454 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    For me, a movie really needs something to say if it stretches much over 90 minutes.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • nickthegun 3 Jan 2013 10:16:09 59,454 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    nickthegun wrote:
    LoTR took long winded, glacial prose, cut the fat, gave it a kick up the arse and streamlined it into a fairly fast paced (to a point) action film.

    The Hobbit took a fairly short, punchy book and filled it with glacial prose and fat.
    Both of those are just side-effects of translating two different writing styles into a film, really. Long winded stuff with a lot of internal drama and always loses a lot, shorter stories always end up taking longer than people expect (or are rushed though badly, like the vast majority of kids' books adaptations). It's not like there's much down time in the film.
    The point that im making was, in reply to mrpon, that people who are complaining about the hobbits length may well have expected something more along the lines of LoTR but they got the opposite.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • disusedgenius 3 Jan 2013 10:18:03 5,283 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    Ottomh, the things that will probably get a phantom edit are:

    - a lot of the dwarf party
    That's the only thing I'd disagree with there, really. Was an enjoyable intro and seemed pretty essential to me. Not to mention pretty outstanding as a piece of directing. The rest of it should have been reserved for an EE cut, for the most part.
  • Armoured_Bear 3 Jan 2013 10:18:09 10,582 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    I'd really love to see a 2D version at 48fps to see the benefit of the higher framerate without the annoying 3D.

    XBL : ecosse011172
    PSN : ecosse_011172
    NNID : armoured_bear

  • kalel 3 Jan 2013 10:20:31 86,962 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Mola_Ram wrote:
    A movie should be as long as it needs to be.
    Yes, but also probably as short as it can be. Anyone who has ever done any kind of writing course or the like will be taught to cut, cut, cut, and then cut some more. "Drown your puppies" and "murder your darling" - or in other words, don't indulge yourself at the expense of your audience's enjoyment. Getting the most engaging final product is always about stripping away as much as possible to leave the purest and most meaningful product at the end.

    That's not to say there's no place for epic filming, and the likes of David Lean or more recently P.T. Anderson know how to do it, but Jackson for my money is trying too hard to make epic films out of sources that absolutely aren't suitable.

    I mean, King Kong clocking in at 190 minutes!! Seriously??? And now The Hobbit is going to end up in total at around 9 hours.... That is a joke. Dr Zhivago yes. Laurence of Arabia yes. War and Peace yes. The Hobbit and King Kong, really really no.
  • disusedgenius 3 Jan 2013 10:20:36 5,283 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    The point that im making was, in reply to mrpon, that people who are complaining about the hobbits length may well have expected something more along the lines of LoTR but they got the opposite.
    Yeah, that's what I don't see. There was far less drag in here than there was in TT or ROTK.
  • nickthegun 3 Jan 2013 10:20:50 59,454 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    nickthegun wrote:
    Ottomh, the things that will probably get a phantom edit are:

    - a lot of the dwarf party
    That's the only thing I'd disagree with there, really. Was an enjoyable intro and seemed pretty essential to me. Not to mention pretty outstanding as a piece of directing. The rest of it should have been reserved for an EE cut, for the most part.
    I thought it was fine but there are plenty of nips and tucks you could make. Flashbacks, stories, songs could all be trimmed or cut entirely.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • nickthegun 3 Jan 2013 10:25:34 59,454 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    The thing that worries me slightly is the fact that this movie ended at just over half way through the book.

    That means the final battle scene is going to be about two hours long and fuck knows what they are going to put into the next chapter.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • kalel 3 Jan 2013 10:29:53 86,962 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    ...fuck knows what they are going to put into the next chapter.
    We didn't even really see Cumberbatch in this one, so my bet is the second film will be all about him and almost entirely made up (by someone other than Tolkien that is).
  • disusedgenius 3 Jan 2013 10:31:12 5,283 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    The thing that worries me slightly is the fact that this movie ended at just over half way through the book.

    That means the final battle scene is going to be about two hours long and fuck knows what they are going to put into the next chapter.
    Really? They've got loads to get through:

    - Beorn intro
    - Mirkwood travelling
    - Spider sequence
    - Captured by Elves
    - Escape in the beer barrels
    - Dale intro
    - Smaug stuff
    - Kill Smaug
    - Seige of the caves
    - Battle of 5 armies
    - another hour long ending, probably


    Then add in a bit from the appendices and it should to fit fine.
  • nickthegun 3 Jan 2013 10:32:51 59,454 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Yeah but thats got to stretch over six more hours. Thats like 40 minutes for each point you mention.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • LeoliansBro 3 Jan 2013 10:35:08 43,816 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Tolkien didn't see fit to give the dwarves individual personalities beyond the very broadest of brushstrokes. Why Jackson thinks he knows better is beyond me.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • kalel 3 Jan 2013 10:37:52 86,962 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    HANG ON!

    When I mentioned Benedict Cumberbatch then I meant him playing The Necromancer (i.e. Sauron), but he's also Smaug. That's a bit confusing innit, assuming The Necromancer has a significant role in the other films (which perhaps he won't).
  • nickthegun 3 Jan 2013 10:39:44 59,454 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Sallah played Gimli and Treebeard, so im sure it will be fine.

    But, yeah, it was initially jarring because its clearly sallah voicing the tree.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • disusedgenius 3 Jan 2013 10:40:37 5,283 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I suspect it won't be as big as people think (The Necromancer, I mean), but apparently there was another battle at Dol Gudwhatever so maybe it'll take a chunk. I mean, they can't have Sauron being a person, really, considering what they did in LotR.
  • kalel 3 Jan 2013 10:41:45 86,962 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    It's even more confusing if it's just a voice isn't it?
  • LeoliansBro 3 Jan 2013 10:41:57 43,816 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Was the Necromancer explicitly Sauron in the Silmarillion? Or whatever he called himself back then?

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • disusedgenius 3 Jan 2013 10:43:40 5,283 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    He does a lot of VO work I think, so I expect he has a decent range on him.
  • disusedgenius 3 Jan 2013 10:44:53 5,283 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Was the Necromancer explicitly Sauron in the Silmarillion?
    Yep, I'm 90% sure that the LOTR appendices stated it outright.
  • nickthegun 3 Jan 2013 10:47:31 59,454 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Yeah, he is the necromancer. Sauron appears as half a dozen people in the entirety of the canon. hes worse than roger in american dad.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • LeoliansBro 3 Jan 2013 10:49:38 43,816 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Was the Necromancer explicitly Sauron in the Silmarillion?
    Yep, I'm 90% sure that the LOTR appendices stated it outright.
    Ah fair enough - I thought it was Sauron's master (I want to say Gorgotha?).

    Books don't come drier than the Silmarillion though so I'm not going to read through all that business again.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • kalel 3 Jan 2013 10:50:08 86,962 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Yeah, Necromancer is 100% Sauron. I'm surprised they didn't hint at this more explicitly in the film tbh. Perhaps that would be naughty from an IP perspective.
  • Page

    of 52 First / Last

Log in or register to reply