The Hobbit Page 28

  • Page

    of 52 First / Last

  • Lotos8ter 7 Dec 2012 15:04:09 2,366 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Gambit1977 wrote:
    Why am I not 'feeling' this?
    When each of the LOTR movies came out I was mega hyped. But this...
    I feel the same way. I just found myself gritting my teeth a bit at the dwarves in the trailer and I'm not sure why. I'll probably go and see it but I'm nowhere near as enthusiastic as I thought I'd be.

    Fiat Lux

  • Steve_Perry 7 Dec 2012 15:06:13 5,200 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Prequels innit.
  • Deleted user 7 December 2012 16:02:07
    There seems to be a general lethargy about it, especially after they split it into three movies randomly. My wife, who isn't a Tolkien fan but does like the movies, says she doesn't want to see it specifically for that reason. It's basically too much investment.

    I think it's pretty undeniable that the split to three films has virtually nothing to do with content and everything to do with stretching shit out to maximise revenue. For years, decades even, people have been compressing books into perfectly good one-shot adaptations. The change now is a very cynical, money-driven one. Can anyone justify a single narrative reason why the last Twilight book was split into two?
  • binky Moderator 7 Dec 2012 16:07:09 9,950 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Agree with the above.
    I asked a friend of mine who loved the last movies whether she was going to see this. "No, I can't be assed to invest the time into another 3 movies at the cinema". Seemed a strange thing to say. No ones forcing you to go see them at the flicks, but I do appreciate the sentiment.
  • Deleted user 7 December 2012 16:12:00
    Well, the time investment as I see it is basically not wanting to stretch what should ostensibly be a single movie (The Hobbit is not a long book no matter how you spin it) over the course of four years or so, or whatever the release schedule is.
  • ecu 7 Dec 2012 16:14:17 77,315 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I'm not particularly hyped but I still think it'll be really good.
  • RedSparrows 7 Dec 2012 16:14:54 24,243 posts
    Seen 26 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I agree with meme.

    But at the same time, I'm happy for there to be another 9 hour trot in Middle Earth, as it looks and sounds so good. USE ME, JACKSON.
  • Deleted user 7 December 2012 16:16:37
    Oh yeah, I'm not suggesting it'll be "bad" at all, I'm sure they'll be fantastic films. Just that there's an overall apathy towards them instead of the major hype and excitement there was for LotR.

    And that the multiple films route is done primarily for financial reasons.

    Edited by meme at 16:17:09 07-12-2012
  • Inertia 7 Dec 2012 16:17:37 677 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Les Miserable is out soon and the book is well over 1000 pages. Anna Karenina, the movie, out recently is nearly 900 pages long.

    Not that these are good films but you could split almost every book up into several movies. Hitchcock said short stories were better suited for movies as they were both absorbed in one sitting usually and were designed to be understood in "one piece".

    They can film three films at once and so make much more money and no doubt this was how they got a bigger investment for the movie. But it's not good for the audience. Films are an experience best captured in one sitting.

    Edited by Inertia at 16:18:26 07-12-2012
  • Deleted user 7 December 2012 16:22:13
    Yeah, exactly. That "Wool" book that everyone seems to rave about despite not actually being all that great is rumoured to be split into five films. FIVE FILMS. One film for each part of the book (which was originally a series of short stories, each one being about 10-14k in length). Even when they're all combined you could quite happily shove it into a single 2 hour film and still have breathing room for extra shit.

    Edited by meme at 16:22:42 07-12-2012
  • RedSparrows 7 Dec 2012 16:24:29 24,243 posts
    Seen 26 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Five films for one book (one volume?!)?!

    I've not read it, but that sounds absolutely ridiculous.
  • Deleted user 7 December 2012 16:26:49
    Five films for a book that took me about a day to read. I've literally no idea how they'd do it.

    Still just rumours at the moment though, there's nothing official taking place as of yet, just "interest".
  • Deleted user 7 December 2012 16:30:09
    The first LoTRs trilogy could have fit into one two hour film without much of a problem. There would have been significant parts of the story cut out but I'm not convinced that it wouldn't have been better that way.
  • RedSparrows 7 Dec 2012 16:31:23 24,243 posts
    Seen 26 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    It could have been cut, yes, but I don't think that would have done anything justice as so many people would have wanted.

    You could condense many stories into barebones/reduced forms, but if people expect certain things, it's mad to do unless done absolutely brilliantly.
  • Deleted user 7 December 2012 16:33:04
    To be honest, I thought the original LotR films did genuinely work as a trilogy and that it was done for narrative, rather than financial, reasons. Though I prefer the pacing of the theatrical cuts rather than the extended editions. But yeah, it could have fitted into a single movie when all's said and done, but I feel lots and lots of sideplots would have been stripped entirely. You probably wouldn't have seen Sean Bean or mad doctor from Fringe, for instance.
  • Gambit1977 7 Dec 2012 16:35:04 10,384 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    The dwarves look like cunts.

    The ones in that snow white and the huntsman were better
  • Inertia 7 Dec 2012 16:38:57 677 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Let's hope that they don't got hold of the rights to the Mr Men, I'm a big fan, but I'd struggle to watch a trilogy of 3 hour films of the slight adventuress of Mr Tickle.
  • Deleted user 7 December 2012 16:41:39
    It's actually depressing that I worked out I could read The Hobbit from cover to cover in less time than watching the films back to back.

    Yeah, yeah, extra stuff added in, blah blah, but still. That's just a bit mental when you think about it. The three films will nearly match the length of the unabridged audiobook. Probably exceed it when the inevitable extended editions come out.

    Edited by meme at 16:42:07 07-12-2012
  • ecu 7 Dec 2012 16:43:32 77,315 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I personally don't think it's all about the money. I'm sure it helps, but the LOTR films were three hours each and just look at how much they had left for the extended editions. If you watch the behind the scenes stuff, there's obviously huge passion for the material from everybody involved in the production.
  • Deleted user 7 December 2012 16:47:26
    Yeah, but the LotR books were immense. Fellowship of the Ring alone is nearly twice the length of The Hobbit. Having to drop stuff from the book because it's too long is one thing. Having to write new shit and pull in stuff from the Silmarillion to turn it into three films is something else.
  • Deleted user 7 December 2012 16:49:44
    meme wrote:
    reasons. Though I prefer the pacing of the theatrical cuts rather than the extended editions.
    Me too, which is just as well given the fricken price difference between the two boxsets on bluray.
  • Lukus 7 Dec 2012 16:56:22 19,475 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I prefer the original cuts too. I watched the extended versions a few months ago and whilst they're good, they're not half as good as they were when they first came out, for a number of reasons I can't be bothered going into. Not least of all however, they're horrifically long and drawn out.
    They each contain moments of excellence in-between long drawn out dreariness. A lot like the books actually.
    If they were a sandwich, they'd be an incredibly tasty sandwich, just with far too much bread.

    Paintings & Photographs

  • Bremenacht 7 Dec 2012 16:59:18 19,663 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    meme wrote:
    Can anyone justify a single narrative reason why the last Twilight book was split into two?
    Haha - that'd require one to read the wretched book in the first place! ;o)

    There's a counter-argument there, in that a film dragged out like Twilight or the final Potter film provides great fan-service. All all three of the 'new' Star Wars films. Cannot get enough of Twilight? Don't really care how bad it is, you just want more? Great - you're sorted.

    I guess the same applies to the LotR films, although for me they get worse with every viewing. Only the first one stands up to repeat viewing, probably because it's the only one with any worthwhile character development. I'm not sure if anyone will even notice character development in the Hobbit films, unless they've chosen to bulk them up with their own development.

    Wool? Is it this?
  • Widge Moderator 7 Dec 2012 17:02:14 13,743 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Aargh. wrote:
    The first LoTRs trilogy could have fit into one two hour film without much of a problem. There would have been significant parts of the story cut out but I'm not convinced that it wouldn't have been better that way.
    They initially pitched it to be 2 films, the studios said "uh, this is clearly 3". Random knowledge!

    _ _ _

    www.inverted-audio.com

  • Widge Moderator 7 Dec 2012 17:04:45 13,743 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Lukus wrote:
    I prefer the original cuts too.
    Tell you one bit I liked changing. The crazy dismissive "oh he's no problem" of Sauraman in Return Of The King from the theatrical version was cack.

    _ _ _

    www.inverted-audio.com

  • nickthegun 7 Dec 2012 17:04:57 61,312 posts
    Seen 27 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    meme wrote:
    Can anyone justify a single narrative reason why the last Twilight book was split into two?
    A girl i know is a *big* twilight fan and even she said that she wishes they hadnt split it as there is barely enough plot for one film, let alone two.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    My man gives real loving that's why I call him Killer
    He's not a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am, he's a thriller

  • Deleted user 7 December 2012 17:05:21
    The 2.5 hours of walking in the first one should've been replaced with a 5 minute montage with Benny Hill music playing over the top.
  • Deleted user 7 December 2012 17:14:08
    Bremenacht wrote:
    Wool? Is it this?
    Yeah, that's the one. It's entertaining enough, but I genuinely can't tell what all the fuss is about nor why it's sold a billion copies.

    Then again I thought the same about Da Vinci Code and that's made more money than the Vatican, so clearly I know not what I speak of.
  • Feanor 7 Dec 2012 18:19:29 14,185 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    meme wrote:
    Yeah, but the LotR books were immense. Fellowship of the Ring alone is nearly twice the length of The Hobbit. Having to drop stuff from the book because it's too long is one thing. Having to write new shit and pull in stuff from the Silmarillion to turn it into three films is something else.
    What things from the Silmarillion are in the Hobbit movies?
  • Page

    of 52 First / Last

Log in or register to reply