The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Mickeroo

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

We have to remember that Lord of the Rings actually justified three films due to its basic form - three lengthy, dense books full of characters and subplots yet still forming a coherent whole. It needed three long films. The Hobbit is a short, sweet and self-contained story that's a mere fraction of the length of one of those books. The appendices are even more probelmatic: a series of loosely described incidences taking place over the course of decades. How that is going to make three coherent, compelling films I do not know, and I don't envy Jackson's task in trying to achieve it. Especially when - the endless endings of LotR considered - he's often unable to decide when enough is enough.

This is the crux of the issue. LOTR not only deserved three films, it needed them.

One 3 hour film was more than enough to adequately do the hobbit, stretching it out to 2 was annoying but with the few extra things thrown in it could have worked out nicely. I just don't see where three films worth of story is going to come from for this.

The Radiator

3 films?!? Ah, FFS

Josey Wales

Does anyone know if the footage for this third film has already been shot? Or is it just that they had two huge movies and have now split it again.

Gbear

Given how much was missing from LOTR, even with all 12 hours of extended editions, I figured 2 films for the hobbit would make sense. Not as much happens but it's still spread out over a fair bit of time.

3? I don't really see it.

I suppose they could pad out the travelogue parts with bits of history, from the silmarillion maybe? In the LOTR extended edition, they mentioned stuff about the silmarils here and there so there'd be some precedent. They had the little bits with Smeagol and the battle at the foot of Mt. Doom and that was an amazingly delivered bit of back story so I guess it could work.

It was always a kids book - a bit harder to read now that I'm longer in the tooth. Within that, there might be a bit of leeway to "adult" it up a little - there's far more detail and far less mystery and frivolity in LOTR (Bombadil aside).

Mickeroo

Josey Wales wrote: »

Does anyone know if the footage for this third film has already been shot? Or is it just that they had two huge movies and have now split it again.

They had shot enough footage for the 2 films and PJ was disussing shooting more footage at comic con, but he wasn't sure whether it would be for extended editions or what. thats where the talk of the third film stemmed from so they'll definitely be going back to shoot more now.

I'm not sure whether they'll leave the first film as it is and beef up the second one into 2 parts or if they'll just go back to the drawing board completely though.

I'm pretty sure LOTR had all three films filmed before the first one came out if I'm not mistaken but they still went back and filmed more stuff after the first and second films were released I think.

Goldstein

Having read the books many times (Even struggled through the godawful Silmarillion, the problem there being structure rather than content) I don't see anywhere near enough content to warrant three movies.

So much happens in The Lord of The Rings, and so little by comparison in The Hobbit. I thought two movies was pushing it. Setting themselves up for a massive fall if people are expecting anything remotely as epic as the Lord of the Rings.

Edit: Just read now that he's including the appendices from LOTR - there's some of your extra interesting content. Battle of Dol Guldur & Necromancer! Still though, I dunno.

stevenmu

There was a rumour recently enough that they might film the Silmarillion. I wonder have they decided to do that, but name it as a part of the Hobbit?

Mickeroo

I've never read anything by tolkien apart from LOTR & the Hobbit. Was always told the other stuff wasn't really worth it.

What happens in the Silmarillion?

Does it go through the forging of the rings and all that?

I thought it was set hundreds of years before the Hobbit?

Obviously spoiler any replies for those who don't want to know what happened

Gbear

stevenmu wrote: »

There was a rumour recently enough that they might film the Silmarillion. I wonder have they decided to do that, but name it as a part of the Hobbit?

I'm not sure it would work as a film as a whole.

There's individual stories - ****ed if I can remember all the names, but the one where the Human and his Elven wife (who spawned Elrond and all the other half-elves)

broke into Morgoth's fortress and stole a silmaril.

The fall of Gondolin.
The fall of Numenor.

Each of them could be a few parts of a TV series or a film - I don't think there'd be the market for a film and I don't think there'd be the budget to do them justice on TV. All the stuff about "instruments" and how the world was created probably wouldn't transfer to film/TV - it barely could be said to work as a book.

johnny_ultimate

Jackson and Newline / MGM don't have the rights to the Silmarillion. The Tolkien estate hate the movies for some reason, I forget precisely why (something to do with money :pac:). All the extra stuff will have to be exclusively from LotR Appendices or just made up.

Tayleur

Personally Ill keep my faith in Jackson and Hopefully he will deliver like he did with LOTR.

I had 3 big movies to look forward to this year. two have let me down surely not the third, I hope:o

Corholio

Tayleur wrote: »

Personally Ill keep my faith in Jackson and Hopefully he will deliver like he did with LOTR.

I had 3 big movies to look forward to this year. two have let me down surely not the third, I hope:o

That's your own fault for expecting too much of Magic Mike and Project X :pac:

Mellor

Josey Wales wrote: »

Does anyone know if the footage for this third film has already been shot? Or is it just that they had two huge movies and have now split it again.

Existing.
Instead of having two 3hour films we'll get three 2 and a bit hour films. They'll basically lose less to the cutting room and cut it in 3 instead of two.

I dont thing this us as big a change as people think.

Simian!

I don't think this film will be The Hobbit as we all know it from the book - the first indicator of that was the announcement that Bloom/Legolas would be in the film (having no part at all in the book).

It seems like Jackson is using the title of the well known, and familiar, book to explore a huge chunk of the middle earth literature. This approach makes sense from a profiteering perspective but it's not going to please people who expected a faithful adaptation of the original book.

I'd also imagine that this is the only opportunity Jackson will have to explore some of the lesser-known stories in Tolkien's world. Films based solely on books like The Silmarillion and The Children of Hurin wouldn't have the same box office appeal as The Hobbit. It's both a blatant attempt to make more money and a valid excuse to explore the stories that might never have been filmed.

snausages

**** it. Losing interest now.

Necronomicon

Mellor wrote: »

Existing.
Instead of having two 3hour films we'll get three 2 and a bit hour films. They'll basically lose less to the cutting room and cut it in 3 instead of two.

I dont thing this us as big a change as people think.

Not correct, going on previous comments from Jackson. He's indicated that several more weeks of shooting have been ordered for next summer.

FlashD

I'm looking forward to 'the Hobbit', but not nearly as much as I should be and this is based on Jackson's recent films, I don't trust him so much anymore so i'm hoping its a return to the form he showed on LOTR as its familiar ground.

Only the first film will really tell whether there will be three, it its a crock that gets slated affecting ticket sales then everything could change.

I guess they are confident of what they have to already announce a trilogy though.

Johnny Bitte

FlashD wrote: »

I'm looking forward to 'the Hobbit', but not nearly as much as I should be and this is based on Jackson's recent films, I don't trust him so much anymore so i'm hoping its a return to the form he showed on LOTR as its familiar ground.

Only the first film will really tell whether there will be three, it its a crock that gets slated affecting ticket sales then everything could change.

I guess they are confident of what they have to already announce a trilogy though.

It will make money, no matter what!!!

Lucutus

Johnny Bitte wrote: »

It will make money, no matter what!!!

snausages

One of those rare moments when a CAD comic hits the mark.

FlashD

For sure, they're all chasing the bucks

Goldstein

Interesting article on the extra content. A big epic Galadriel going ape$hit Dol Guldur would be pretty cool:

http://io9.com/5931001/everything-peter-jackson-added-to-the-hobbit-++-with-proof?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_twitter&utm_source=io9_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow


Not sure if this qualifies as a spoiler but erring on side of caution.

io9 wrote:

Everything Peter Jackson added to The Hobbit — with PROOF!
Meredith Woerner

Now that it has been officially confirmed that Peter Jackson will be making a trilogy out of The Hobbit, everyone is asking one basic question. How is that possible? The Hobbit just isn't as big as Lord of the Rings. But Jackson has sworn up and down that there's plenty of material in the book's appendices that allowed him to expand Middle Earth. So what material is Jackson talking about specifically, and where does that fit in with The Hobbit? We picked through the appendices, Jackson's interviews, and the recent trailer to show you exactly what we think will end up on the big screen.

More Gandalf and friends (The White Council)

Gandalf the Grey is not in The Hobbit very much. In fact sometimes the wizard just vanishes only show up later yelling orders for no discernable reason. But in this trilogy, Jackson has promised that Gandalf isn't going anywhere. In an interview with IGN Jackson reveals the first big addition to the original material from Tolkien's appendices, "In The Hobbit novel Gandalf disappears for long periods of time, you never know where. But in the appendices Tolkien explains exactly what he was doing and where he was going. So we're able to incorporate all of that together." Boom! So where is he? Meeting up with the most powerful people in Middle Earth (the White Council) and helping to reveal the true face of the nefarious necromancer character, AKA Sauron. After beating up Thorin Oakenshield's dad and then telling the awesome elf Elrond (you remember him from LOTR — Agent Smith with a crown) about his experiences at Rivendell, Gandalf calls on the White Council to get to the bottom of these recent dark deeds.

This White Council is made up of Elrond, Galadriel, Saruman and a ton of other excellent Tolkien characters. We've already seen Galadriel in the trailer, so we know she's coming back. And Christopher Lee has already been confirmed to be returning to his role as Saruman. So buckle up for some excellent bickering between Lee and Sir Ian McKellen. Of course eventually Gandalf convinces the council to invade the Necromancer's fortress at Dol Guldur. Which leads to...

The Battle of Dol Guldur

In his statement on Facebook confirming the trilogy Jackson singles out The Battle of Dol Guldur as something he couldn't capture without breaking the book into three parts. This is the battle where Galadriel kicks a lot of ass. They fight orcs who ride werewolves and giant spiders, so yeah, awesome. But Galadriel just rips down the walls. It's impressive, and helps explain why everyone is so petrified of her awesome power in LOTR.


Legolas' Backstory

We've SEEN Legolas shooting arrows in the behind-the-scenes video diaries, and it's rumored that The Hobbit will be fleshing out a bit of this character's backstory. How so? By bringing in his dad! King Thranduil appears in The Hobbit and the Mirkwood elves are a big part of the journey to Lonely Mountain (they kidnap the dwarves and combine forces in the Battle of Five Armies). It's a fairly safe bet that whatever happens to Legolas during the final battle will only motivate his character's allegiance to the Fellowship of the Ring in the future. Don't forget Gimli's father, Glóin, is also on this expedition, and there better be a joke there at some point.

Gandalf Vs. Thrain

It's no secret Jackson loves a flashback-centric prologue (the birth of Gollum continues to haunt us). So why not use a flashback from an appendix to pad out the story and strengthen the relationship between the journey to Lonely Mountain and the epic battle of Dol Guldur? The keen eye of Dizastrus revealed this image from The Hobbit of what could be Thrain (father to Thorin Oakenshield) and Gandalf fighting. One is clearly Gandalf, and the other is too short to be a human, and has the mark of a prosthetic forehead. This could be the scene where Gandalf discovers King Tharin, driven mad by Sauron and forced to hand over the dwarf ring of power (something the audience learned in LOTR). This is also how Gandalf gets the map and key to the Lonely Mountain where Bilbo and the Dwarves of Erebor eventually end their journey. It ties the two stories of Dol Guldur and the Battle of Five Armies together. Also it demonstrates the dark matters at work and excuses Gandalf from the primary mission of Lonely Mountain, because Sauron's back... bitches. Even if Gandalf wasn't aware that the Necromancer and Sauron are connected, the outlandish actions of the Dwarf King and a dark stranger's interest in the rings should lead to the eventual alert of the White Council.

The Story of Smaug and his Gold Belly

We have no proof that this will happen (sorry), but wouldn't it be rad if it did? We can't imagine Jackson will show the dragon face of Smaug until (at the latest) a cliff hanger ending of the second film. And once he's been introduced, doesn't this greedy dragon deserve a bit of backstory? Hell yes he does.

New Characters

On top of all the actual Tolkien appendices and notes, Jackson added new characters into the mix. Evangeline Lily (Lost) is playing Tauriel, a Mirkwood elf, who has some sort of romantic ties to Kili (played by Aidan Turner, the vampire from BBC's Being Human). As we stated before, Mirkwood elves appear twice in this story, even though Tauriel doesn't appear in the original Tolkien. It's already confirmed that Kili will be pursuing Tauriel... but on the battle field, in the woods, inside a barrel? That's another large Mirkwood plotline that doesn't appear in the books.

General Dwarf Fleshing Out

Did you spy the remnants of a spider attack in The Hobbit trailer? If that reveal means the giant spiders will be in the first movie, the majority of the first flick will be an on the road epic with a gaggle of dwarves and Bilbo. We need more personal dialogue and action to flesh out each character, so you care if Bofur is almost sliced open by a Goblin. Oakenshield's ego can't hog the spotlight the whole time, so you can bet that there will be plenty of silly little drunk dwarf moments that will flesh out the gang. Richard Armitage even promised a bunch more dwarf drinking songs!

Big Beautiful Battles

The Battle of Five Armies is not fleshed out in the books — in fact, Bilbo spends most of it unconscious. That won't stand for Jackson. He's got to top Helm's Deep. But then again, this is a battle with five armies. Plus this is the unification of the races: it's the first time that the humans, dwarves and elves stop squabbling over money and join together to fight evil. It's a massive moment both for the characters and just with the sheer size of it. There's no way this doesn't last for at least an hour. That's a lot of fleshing out and additional writing Jackson is going to have to dream up.

titan18

Sticky Romance wrote: »

I don't think this film will be The Hobbit as we all know it from the book - the first indicator of that was the announcement that Bloom/Legolas would be in the film (having no part at all in the book).

It seems like Jackson is using the title of the well known, and familiar, book to explore a huge chunk of the middle earth literature. This approach makes sense from a profiteering perspective but it's not going to please people who expected a faithful adaptation of the original book.

I'd also imagine that this is the only opportunity Jackson will have to explore some of the lesser-known stories in Tolkien's world. Films based solely on books like The Silmarillion and The Children of Hurin wouldn't have the same box office appeal as The Hobbit. It's both a blatant attempt to make more money and a valid excuse to explore the stories that might never have been filmed.

I don't think he can use Silmarillion or Children of Hurin content for it. It's just The Hobbit and LOTR appendices. I think two films was fine with the extra stuff like Dol Goldur, but 3 seems too much imo.

Gbear

The above makes a pretty telling point.

In the book,

the battle of five armies lasts, if I recall, a few paragraphs, and certainly no more than a couple of pages.

There's the bones of a film in that all by itself.

jpm4

Gbear wrote: »

The above makes a pretty telling point.

In the book,

the battle of five armies lasts, if I recall, a few paragraphs, and certainly no more than a couple of pages.

There's the bones of a film in that all by itself.

Yup. I think the battle of Helm's Deep was only a few pages in that book also.

I was very sceptical about talk of 3 films, but from reading the spoiler tagged "likely extra material" post above, I have to admit it sounds like it could be great. Will give the benefit of the doubt for now.

snausages

The big 'epic' battles of LOTR were never the high point of the movies for me. I was hoping that The Hobbit's compactness would act as a counterpoint to LOTR's epic scale. But now it's just looking like LOTR: The prequel trilogy.

Gbear

snausages wrote: »

The big 'epic' battles of LOTR were never the high point of the movies for me. I was hoping that The Hobbit's compactness would act as a counterpoint to LOTR's epic scale. But now it's just looking like LOTR: The prequel trilogy.

Aside from the odd bit of bollocks like legolas surfing a shield or that sort of thing, I thought the battles were brilliantly done.

I don't know how you can write "just looking like LOTR".:)

I've more faith in Jackson than i'd have with the likes of Lucas or Cameron to pull something of this scale off.

nix

Gbear wrote: »

Aside from the odd bit of bollocks like legolas surfing a shield or that sort of thing, I thought the battles were brilliantly done.

I don't know how you can write "just looking like LOTR".:)

I've more faith in Jackson than i'd have with the likes of Lucas or Cameron to pull something of this scale off.

Auh why the Cameron hate?

snausages

Gbear wrote: »

I don't know how you can write "just looking like LOTR".:)

I wanted something new and different. The Hobbit isn't LOTR. I don't want another LOTR movie.

Of course, we'll have to wait until December to see what happens.

al28283

nix wrote: »

Auh why the Cameron hate?

+1

Cameron's given us some amazing films over the years.
Apart from LotR and Heavenly Creatures, Jackson has had some pretty lame movies