The Hobbit Page 26

  • Page

    of 52 First / Last

  • disusedgenius 4 Dec 2012 09:41:24 5,329 posts
    Seen 6 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Youthist wrote:
    The Hobbit is a childs throw-away magazine in comparison.
    That's the issue - it has no attention span and a whole ton of different locations and characters which all need to be introduced, setup and developed etc. Add in all the stuff from the appendices and you've easily got 3 films there, it was never going to fit into just 2.
  • L_Franko Moderator 4 Dec 2012 09:47:03 9,694 posts
    Seen 20 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Blotto wrote:
    GuiltySpark wrote:
    Anyone else doing an LOTR marathon beforehand?

    /dirty student
    Yep.

    /also student, pretty clean though
    I did all three special editions in one sitting about 2 months ago with some friends. Good fun but I think it might still be a little soon to do it again.
  • Gambit1977 4 Dec 2012 09:52:06 9,671 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    So full of filler as expected then.
  • disusedgenius 4 Dec 2012 10:07:50 5,329 posts
    Seen 6 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Not necessarily - there's enough there to be getting on with. The big issue is that the stuff from the appendices would be pretty much be a new script rather than an adaptation. The parts where LOTR fell down were really the scenes which came from the script writers rather than the book, so that's a much bigger worry for me.
  • Deleted user 4 December 2012 10:13:04
    disusedgenius wrote:
    Not necessarily - there's enough there to be getting on with. The big issue is that the stuff from the appendices would be pretty much be a new script rather than an adaptation. The parts where LOTR fell down were really the scenes which came from the script writers rather than the book, so that's a much bigger worry for me.
    What bothered me most about Two Towers was the amount of time wasted on Aragorn's fall into the river which could have quite easily been allocated to showing the two towers of the title in contention for the ring. Saruman wanted it for himself and Sauran knew this. All that is far more interesting than the silly bollocks the screen writers put in.
  • disusedgenius 4 Dec 2012 10:27:10 5,329 posts
    Seen 6 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    AdamAsunder wrote:
    What bothered me most about Two Towers was the amount of time wasted on Aragorn's fall into the river which could have quite easily been allocated to showing the two towers of the title in contention for the ring. Saruman wanted it for himself and Sauran knew this. All that is far more interesting than the silly bollocks the screen writers put in.
    That and Osgiliath where somehow a Ringwraith managed to miss the ring sitting literally a few metres away from him...

    I do kinda see why they made the changes they did - the pacing of them work a lot better as part of a 13 hour film and the Two Towers had serious issues with that from the source material anyway. Some of the changes were leftover from the old 2 parter scripts as well, apparently.
  • Lukus 4 Dec 2012 10:36:24 19,111 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I think The Hobbit is going to live and die by its characters rather than their activities and encounters. Which means they're all going to have to be fleshed out a hell of a lot.

    The trailers don't bode well in this respect given that the dwarves all look like annoying cocks. Tim from The Office appears to be reprising his Arthur Dent role as the reluctant tourist, which I suppose is basically fine.

    Paintings & Photographs

  • mrpon 4 Dec 2012 11:03:24 28,914 posts
    Seen 43 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    GuiltySpark wrote:
    Anyone else doing an LOTR marathon beforehand?

    /dirty student
    Why before?

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

  • kalel 4 Dec 2012 12:24:01 87,687 posts
    Seen 56 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    Youthist wrote:
    The Hobbit is a childs throw-away magazine in comparison.
    That's the issue - it has no attention span and a whole ton of different locations and characters which all need to be introduced, setup and developed etc. Add in all the stuff from the appendices and you've easily got 3 films there, it was never going to fit into just 2.
    I don't buy this. Again, by this token shouldn't LotR been 12 films?

    You don't need everyone and everything to be introduced, set-up and developed. Star Wars IV would have been several films if they'd have followed that principle. You can efficiently set up a character in seconds with the right words and images. Cinema is not the same as the novel in its narrative form. I think the Hobbit could easily have been one film, nevermind two or three.
  • Gambit1977 4 Dec 2012 12:25:21 9,671 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Reviews are coming thick and fast
  • Daryoon 4 Dec 2012 12:28:49 4,629 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I just hope they pronounce SMOWG right.
  • disusedgenius 4 Dec 2012 12:31:57 5,329 posts
    Seen 6 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    I don't buy this. Again, by this token shouldn't LotR been 12 films?
    Not really, the way everything was introduced was much more gradual and incremental. The Hobbit is much different and lurches all over the place. Which would be fine if they were doing it as a separate 'universe', but to tie it into the LOTR feel and narrative makes it trickier.

    And I disagree that it's easier to set up characters in a film - it's just different and more time-intensive as a result, unless you want quick, throw-away ones.

    Edit: disregard that last paragraph, I just thought of a bunch of examples which contradict myself with. Still, it's harder to do with fantasy films where you're meant to have some kind of attachment to the character imo. But yeah, I'm pretty much wrong there.

    Edited by disusedgenius at 12:39:31 04-12-2012
  • SClaw 4 Dec 2012 12:33:23 826 posts
    Seen 7 months ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    FINALLY!

    Cineworld HFR:

    Aberdeen Union Square, Ashford, Ashton Under Lyne, Birmingham, Boldon, Bolton, Brighton, Bury St Edmunds, Cardiff, Castleford, Cheltenham, Chichester, Crawley, Didsbury, Dublin, Dundee, Edinburgh, Enfield, Feltham, Glasgow Renfrew Street, Greenwich 02, Huntingdon, Ipswich, Middlesbrough, Milton Keynes, Newport, Northampton, Nottingham, Sheffield, Solihull, Stevenage, Wandsworth, West India Quays and Yeovil

    Times coming soon, apparently, but I'm impressed they're showing it in so many places.

    Already booked by tickets though, so whatever. I might luck out and be going to an HFR already... or if it's a good film I'll see it twice.
  • nickthegun 4 Dec 2012 12:42:46 59,934 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    The problem is that by doing the incredibly lore heavy LoTR first, the Hobbit feels really lightweight in comparison, so to keep the feel and tone of the franchise (which it now is) they needed to flesh it out.

    Its almost like the star wars prequels in that respect. Youve told the last part of the story, so now the audience expects certain things from, essentially, its prequels.

    They, presumably, had the choice of making a kids film with not a huge amount of characterisation or giving it the full, balls out treatment, which they appear to have done, for better or worse.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    someone say something funny

  • kalel 4 Dec 2012 12:44:56 87,687 posts
    Seen 56 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    And I disagree that it's easier to set up characters in a film - it's just different and more time-intensive as a result, unless you want quick, throw-away ones.
    Didn't say it was easier, I said it was more-efficient. It's not easy, there's a real art to it, but the greatest filmakers achieve it in seconds.

    Often the best characters in cinema are set-up in single shots. Sometimes without a single word of dialogue. Have you seen Once Upon a Time in the West? Or any Chaplin film? Or Raiders of the Lost Ark? Or Jaws? Or 2001? Or...actually, this could go on all day.

    Are you saying these are quick throw away characters?

    Turning a long book into a short film is a challenge, but it can and usually should be done, as most of the stuff that is meaningful in novel form won't work in cinema. Turning a short book into several long films is utterly retarded imo, you certainly won't persuade me it's necessary, unless perhaps the need is to make lots of money out of multiple films which is almost certainly the only real motivation here as opposed to all this nonsense about how you need an age to represent a character properly on film.
  • Blotto 4 Dec 2012 12:45:57 2,776 posts
    Seen 15 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    From the reviews it seems like its basically a slightly worse version of Lord of the Rings that fans will like and those just coming to it will find slightly shit.

    I'm pretty sure my love of Lord of the Rings will mean I'll enjoy this, all I needed was for the film to not be total shit and they seem to have managed that so I'm happy.

    Question: I'm assuming that most places won't be showing in 48fps? Was it filmed some different way so it will still look weird in 24fps or will I avoid the issue entirely if I see it in 24fps?
  • disusedgenius 4 Dec 2012 12:47:42 5,329 posts
    Seen 6 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    Turning a long book into a short film is a challenge, but it can and usually should be done, as most of the stuff that is meaningful in novel form won't work in cinema.

    If you to rewrite The Hobbit in the style of Lord of the Rings (which is what they're essentially doing with the films) it'd be massive. I mean, you can disagree and everything, but you'd be wrong.
  • kalel 4 Dec 2012 12:52:48 87,687 posts
    Seen 56 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    Turning a long book into a short film is a challenge, but it can and usually should be done, as most of the stuff that is meaningful in novel form won't work in cinema.

    If you to rewrite The Hobbit in the style of Lord of the Rings (which is what they're essentially doing with the films) it'd be massive. I mean, you can disagree and everything, but you'd be wrong.
    I don't believe that is what they're doing. I think they're looking at the amount of money they made from making three films from what was one (very long admittedly) shoot, and going "isn't it a shame we can't do that with The Hobbit...wait one minute...WE CAN!!"

    The next question is "but how do we justify turning a tiny book into three massive films", and the answer is the above kind of guff you're buying into.

    I mean you can disagree and everything, but you'd be wrong.
  • disusedgenius 4 Dec 2012 12:55:31 5,329 posts
    Seen 6 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I'm sure the guys who rubber-stamped it had the dollars rolling in their eyes, sure. But if they're creatively entitled to do it then fuck it, everyone wins.
  • kalel 4 Dec 2012 12:58:31 87,687 posts
    Seen 56 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Post-rationalising a creative reason to do it is not the same as being "creatively entitled". We'll see if it pays off from a executional point of view, but you can't deem it justified it based on their hyperbole.
  • Fake_Blood 4 Dec 2012 13:00:39 4,209 posts
    Seen 37 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    The tech nerd inside me is really curious about this 48FPS thing.
    I hope they have v-sync on.
  • disusedgenius 4 Dec 2012 13:16:42 5,329 posts
    Seen 6 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    Post-rationalising a creative reason to do it is not the same as being "creatively entitled". We'll see if it pays off from a executional point of view, but you can't deem it justified it based on their hyperbole.
    Oh, I'm not. I've been saying this for pretty much the entire thread.
  • GuiltySpark 4 Dec 2012 13:26:06 6,387 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Lots of negativity in here! LOTR are some of the best films ever made, this doesn't seem like a Matrix Reloaded affair.

    Stretching the book into three films may work, and it may not. It's pure speculation at the moment, but I trust PJ after LOTR, so there's no reason to doubt him for this.

    Get bent.

  • disusedgenius 4 Dec 2012 13:28:33 5,329 posts
    Seen 6 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I think there's enough reason in the LOTR films to suggest he might fluff it up a bit. But fuck it, we'll probably get 3 more Lego games out of this at the very least so I'm calling it a net win whatever happens.

    Edited by disusedgenius at 13:31:52 04-12-2012
  • LeoliansBro 4 Dec 2012 13:29:24 44,236 posts
    Seen 37 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    Often the best characters in cinema are set-up in single shots. Sometimes without a single word of dialogue. Have you seen Once Upon a Time in the West? Or any Chaplin film? Or Raiders of the Lost Ark? Or Jaws? Or 2001? Or...actually, this could go on all day.

    Are you saying these are quick throw away characters?
    LOTR managed it pretty well too: Legolas and Gimli.

    Edit: In fact for Aragorn that's pretty essential to the plot. Regarding the Hobbit: if Tolkien doesn't give a shit where these dwarves, Bard, Beorn etc come from within the main narrative, why should we find it essential?

    Edited by LeoliansBro at 13:32:56 04-12-2012

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • disusedgenius 4 Dec 2012 14:09:53 5,329 posts
    Seen 6 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    LOTR managed it pretty well too: Legolas and Gimli.

    Edit: In fact for Aragorn that's pretty essential to the plot.
    Well, I did admit that I was wrong on that point, if you see my edit to the original.

    Still, to adjust it slightly: you couldn't do the Gimli/Legolas intros, not see them for ages and then have Legolas kill an elephant and make a quip later down the line. Sure, the intros were easy but the character development (as little as there was) had to be built up across the films. With 15 characters in the core group alone there's a very good chance that's what's going to happen without enough time - most of them would have room for a quick intro and a short pay-off somewhere else in the script.

    Regarding the Hobbit: if Tolkien doesn't give a shit where these dwarves, Bard, Beorn etc come from within the main narrative, why should we find it essential?
    I think that's the difference in tone between the two books, really. If those characters had been in LOTR you'd probably have known their entire family linage, favourite colour and mother's maiden name. If they're trying to adjust the content to match the other films it'll just be jarring (imo).
  • Widge Moderator 4 Dec 2012 14:26:01 13,591 posts
    Seen 16 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    Often the best characters in cinema are set-up in single shots. Sometimes without a single word of dialogue. Have you seen Once Upon a Time in the West? Or any Chaplin film? Or Raiders of the Lost Ark? Or Jaws? Or 2001? Or...actually, this could go on all day.

    Are you saying these are quick throw away characters?
    if Tolkien doesn't give a shit where these dwarves, Bard, Beorn etc come from within the main narrative, why should we find it essential?
    He did though, that's why he went to great pains to document their entire histories, family trees, even stretching back to the very foundation of the entire world from its conception and eventual population by the elves onwards. The Fellowship comes to its proper end way after the events in the books, finally finishing with Legolas & Gimli sailing across the sea to Valinor with the body of Aragorn, the last living members of the fellowship in Middle Earth.

    His aim was to make an entire mythology, and out of all his works came a two stories and a bit of a biblical history book. So much wealth of information to work from in the history of Middle Earth.

    _ _ _

    www.inverted-audio.com

  • disusedgenius 4 Dec 2012 14:39:36 5,329 posts
    Seen 6 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Post deleted
  • kalel 4 Dec 2012 14:41:01 87,687 posts
    Seen 56 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Also, Tolkien's whole thing after LotR was creating a genuine history - chronicling the fantasy world he'd created. These things were meant to be read as history books, not "novels". He certainly would never have dreamed they'd make a good basis for a film.
  • Page

    of 52 First / Last

Log in or register to reply