The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Reekwind

snausages wrote: »

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.

That pretty much sums my feelings up. I've always enjoyed The Hobbit because it's a simple self-contained tale of adventure. It is after all intended for children. While LOTR totters under the weight of its own lore, The Hobbit just gets on with an entertaining story. As a single film that should work perfectly. Instead we're going to get approx nine hours of Middle Earth lore with the kernel of a decent story lost within

jpm4 wrote:

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

That's because The Hobbit was never about battles or wizards or epic doings. It's a simple adventure story. Blowing battles into hour long marathons will probably look fantastic but will add nothing to the story and, I would argue, run directly contrary to the spirit of the book

Gbear

al28283 wrote: »

+1

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

Cameron has 3 by my count and none since 1991 (T:2).

It was more specifically a reference to how he works with special effects.

Jackson seems to have the correct mix of site shooting, make up and CGI nailed. He seems to be able to make a special effects-heavy high budget film without completely sacrificing other aspects of film making.

jpm4

Reekwind wrote: »

That pretty much sums my feelings up. I've always enjoyed The Hobbit because it's a simple self-contained tale of adventure. It is after all intended for children. While LOTR totters under the weight of its own lore, The Hobbit just gets on with an entertaining story. As a single film that should work perfectly. Instead we're going to get approx nine hours of Middle Earth lore with the kernel of a decent story lost within

That's because The Hobbit was never about battles or wizards or epic doings. It's a simple adventure story. Blowing battles into hour long marathons will probably look fantastic but will add nothing to the story and, I would argue, run directly contrary to the spirit of the book

I would argue that neither the books of The Hobbit and the LOTRs were about epic battle scenes - certainly Tolkien didn't seem that interested in them. That attitude doesn't really work for blockbuster films such as these and I have no problem with that personally. Having the battle for Helm's Deep as long as it was didn't add much to the story either but it was pretty damn cool to watch.

Sad Professor

On the subject of special effects, I was disappointed to learn that Jackson isn't using any miniatures on this film. It's all CGI. He was talking about how this frees him up to whatever crazy swooping and zooming camera movements he can imagine... 'cause there really wasn't enough of that in LOTR.

Gbear

Sad Professor wrote: »

On the subject of special effects, I was disappointed to learn that Jackson isn't using any miniatures on this film. It's all CGI. He was talking about how this frees him up to whatever crazy swooping and zooming camera movements he can imagine... 'cause there really wasn't enough of that in LOTR.

Miniatures for what? I think they built Helms Deep to 1/3 scale or something alright. What else? Was it miniature + CGI people? Maybe claymation? :pac:

They might've just decided to abandon miniatures and go for full size. They built Laketown or at least a good chunk of it.

Sad Professor

They built over 70 miniatures for LOTR. There's no way they are building them full-scale. That would be insane. I assume they aren't using matte paintings, either. All of this is disappointing because one of the things I loved about LOTR was Jackson's old-school approach to special effects. But I guess since they are shooting in digital and 3D it's easier to do all the effects digitally as well.

al28283

Sad Professor wrote: »

They built over 70 miniatures for LOTR. There's no way they are building them full-scale. That would be insane. I assume they aren't using matte paintings, either. All of this is disappointing because one of the things I loved about LOTR was Jackson's old-school approach to special effects. But I guess since they are shooting in digital and 3D it's easier to do all the effects digitally as well.

they'll definately use matte paintings. I'd guess not 3 minutes of LoTR goes by without matte paintings

Reekwind

jpm4 wrote: »

I would argue that neither the books of The Hobbit and the LOTRs were about epic battle scenes - certainly Tolkien didn't seem that interested in them. That attitude doesn't really work for blockbuster films such as these and I have no problem with that personally. Having the battle for Helm's Deep as long as it was didn't add much to the story either but it was pretty damn cool to watch.

LOTR was epic enough, and featured enough war, that you could justify a few big set piece battles (if if taking 2hrs for Helm's Deep may be considered excessive). I don't think you can say the same about The Hobbit

Gbear

Reekwind wrote: »

LOTR was epic enough, and featured enough war, that you could justify a few big set piece battles (if if taking 2hrs for Helm's Deep may be considered excessive). I don't think you can say the same about The Hobbit

I don't see how glossing over the battle of five armies because Bilbo is unconscious would work though.

Going into the appendices and doing the Dol Guldur stuff mightn't be necessary but I'm glad they're doing it.

Of course, when they say "3 films" that doesn't mean the 12 hours that LOTR was. They might in fact be 3 normal sized films and not be stretching it at all.

With the extended editions and the stuff they didn't do at all, like the Scouring of the Shire, there could've easily been 6 normal sized films for LOTR.

Reekwind

Gbear wrote: »

I don't see how glossing over the battle of five armies because Bilbo is unconscious would work though

I'm not saying "gloss over" anything. I'm saying don't stretch it to 30+ minutes, never mind build an entire movie around it. A film can feature a battle without it being this massive set-piece

Going into the appendices and doing the Dol Guldur stuff mightn't be necessary but I'm glad they're doing it

I didn't mind them doing that in the case of two films. You'd have 'The Hobbit' and 'Everything Else'. Now I worry that these will be bleeding over and that what should be a very straightforward and standalone story will become bloated

Basically it's a case of an inverse LOTR: instead of stripping out most of the boring bits, Jackson is adding new ones to a story that didn't have them

Gbear

Reekwind wrote: »

I'm not saying "gloss over" anything. I'm saying don't stretch it to 30+ minutes, never mind build an entire movie around it. A film can feature a battle without it being this massive set-piece

Yeah, but Tolkien kinda did. If I remember correctly, we get a kind of synopsis of the battle - who died, who performed what deeds.
I just think it'd be too good an opportunity to pass up.

A film can feature a non-epic battle scene but we're given the chance to see a really good one and I don't see why Jackson wouldn't include it.

Reekwind wrote: »

I didn't mind them doing that in the case of two films. You'd have 'The Hobbit' and 'Everything Else'. Now I worry that these will be bleeding over and that what should be a very straightforward and standalone story will become bloated

Basically it's a case of an inverse LOTR: instead of stripping out most of the boring bits, Jackson is adding new ones to a story that didn't have them

I don't think it'll be a case of adding "boring bits" though. It's not like it'll be 20 minutes of Bilbo cooking breakfast or describing different Dwarven mining techniques in great detail.

We're going to have

the most powerful people on middle earth, including the elves, who's ass-kicking you don't see much of outside the Silmarillion, doing battle in an enchanted forest with giant spiders and Sauron.

Reekwind

Gbear wrote: »

Yeah, but Tolkien kinda did. If I remember correctly, we get a kind of synopsis of the battle - who died, who performed what deeds.
I just think it'd be too good an opportunity to pass up.

A film can feature a non-epic battle scene but we're given the chance to see a really good one and I don't see why Jackson wouldn't include it

Usually I like those big battle scenes, Helm's Deep was particularly good, but the battle in The Hobbit is pretty incidental to the story. It's a page or two of the book. To me, turning this into a massively epic LOTR battle just doesn't feel right; it'd be like putting a turbo engine on a Morris Minor. Sure, it probably could be done but that doesn't mean that it should

I guess that what I'm getting at is that I see The Hobbit as a much simpler, almost twee, and focused story than that of LOTR. It's not sweeping, it's not epic, it's not about the march or armies or the end of the world. It's a pretty straightforward tale of this short guy and a group of dwarves that go off to steal something. Throwing in great people "ass-kicking", and earth-shattering clashes and mighty heroes storming dark citadels or whatever... well, that's Middle Earth but it's not The Hobbit. The latter isn't an epic and shouldn't be drowned in those elements

Gbear

Reekwind wrote: »

Usually I like those big battle scenes, Helm's Deep was particularly good, but the battle in The Hobbit is pretty incidental to the story. It's a page or two of the book. To me, turning this into a massively epic LOTR battle just doesn't feel right; it'd be like putting a turbo engine on a Morris Minor. Sure, it probably could be done but that doesn't mean that it should

I guess that what I'm getting at is that I see The Hobbit as a much simpler, almost twee, and focused story than that of LOTR. It's not sweeping, it's not epic, it's not about the march or armies or the end of the world. It's a pretty straightforward tale of this short guy and a group of dwarves that go off to steal something. Throwing in great people "ass-kicking", and earth-shattering clashes and mighty heroes storming dark citadels or whatever... well, that's Middle Earth but it's not The Hobbit. The latter isn't an epic and shouldn't be drowned in those elements

Fair enough and I might agree if it was a case of really inventing new bits to make it more exciting, just for the sake of it, but the events did at least actually occur in the book or elsewhere in the canon so it doesn't bother me. I want to see a film with those bits in it. If that's in the Hobbit, even if it means straying from the tone of the book a little I'm all for it.
Ultimately, it's a children's book and for a wider audience I'm not sure sticking rigidly would do it any favours.

I suppose it's essentially another chapter from the history of Middle Earth, including the story told in "The Hobbit", rather than just being "The Hobbit".

SmokeyEyes

Sad Professor wrote: »

They built over 70 miniatures for LOTR. There's no way they are building them full-scale. That would be insane. I assume they aren't using matte paintings, either. All of this is disappointing because one of the things I loved about LOTR was Jackson's old-school approach to special effects. But I guess since they are shooting in digital and 3D it's easier to do all the effects digitally as well.

Totally agree, that's a real shame!

Feel excited but apprehensive about the three movies now, I have no problem if he genuinely adds in some great narratives from the appendices but the only parts of LOTR that bothered me were the bits Jackson made up, they stuck out like a sore thumb and made me cringe!

aidan_walsh

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/22204/the-hobbit-just-what%E2%80%99s-in-the-appendices

Back in the days when Guillermo Del Toro was attached to direct, the two filmmakers announced that The Hobbit would be two films, with the first movie finishing at chapter 14 (the death of Smaug and the gathering of the five armies), leaving the final five chapters and yep, material from the appendices, to fill out the second movie.

Well, now it’s three, and there’s still the same amount of material to play with. So I’ve had a look through the thousand or so pages of the appendices found at the back of The Lord Of The Rings to see just what’s in there for Jackson to use.

I'm still not convinced, but the arguments made aren't all bad.

aidan_walsh

Alright, now I know they just f**king with us.

Yeah ... we're guessing the idea here was to drum up a design somehow inspired by dwarvish architecture, all geometric and stony and stuff. But even if you like the shape, these look just plain uncomfortable to wear. Look at the nosepiece. How many times have you worn regular 3D glasses that fit right, let alone ones that look ready to carve cartilage off your face? And look at those big diamonds where the ears go. Ouch.

Shryke

I'm sorry I haven't followed the thread guys but as a Tolkien fan in my teenage years and someone who enjoyed tLotR adaptations (with some reservations aside) I have to say, 3 films? Terrible bloody idea. I'm not happy with Jackson at the helm either. A different flavor is required imo.
King Kong was an overlong mess and The Lovely Bones was terrible, so he's returning to Tolkien and milking the hell out of it. I've got no love for this project. It's farcical to be making a trilogy.

Fishooks12

Shryke wrote: »

I'm sorry I haven't followed the thread guys but as a Tolkien fan in my teenage years and someone who enjoyed tLotR adaptations (with some reservations aside) I have to say, 3 films? Terrible bloody idea. I'm not happy with Jackson at the helm either. A different flavor is required imo.
King Kong was an overlong mess and The Lovely Bones was terrible, so he's returning to Tolkien and milking the hell out of it. I've got no love for this project. It's farcical to be making a trilogy.

Infairness, that's very presumptuous, could be a great trilogy for all we know

johnny_ultimate

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Infairness, that's very presumptuous, could be a great trilogy for all we know

It could well be, and I look forward to finding out. But a lean, simple book being expanded into three separate films (probably rather long films), from a director who has frequently proven himself to not know when 'enough is enough'... From various angles this whole development reeks of cynicism and I think alarm bells are entirely justified. We can't damn it yet, that would be foolish. But we can and will verbalise concerns, as there is certainly a chance that a third film is just an opportunity to take the audience for another financial ride.

ricero

Three movies I love it peter. The lord of the rings triology was amazing (2nd greatest after the dark knight triology imo) and I'm sure the hobbit triology will top it. For the moaners all I can say is haters gonna hate

FlashD

Sad Professor wrote: »

They built over 70 miniatures for LOTR. There's no way they are building them full-scale. That would be insane. I assume they aren't using matte paintings, either. All of this is disappointing because one of the things I loved about LOTR was Jackson's old-school approach to special effects. But I guess since they are shooting in digital and 3D it's easier to do all the effects digitally as well.

LOTR was filmed 10 years ago, that quite a bit of time considering the huge advances in technology.

Necronomicon

ricero wrote: »

For the moaners all I can say is haters gonna hate

You have addressed peoples' concerns so articulately there, fair play.

sticker

For me Jackson nailed Lotr - particularly with the lengthy extended editions. With the added material from the Lotr notes and the writer trios ability to add material to tie story ends together, I honestly believe he will absolutely deliver the goods in a Hobbit trilogy.

If it was the case that Lotr was a total mess, there there might be a case for concern. I, for one applaud the decision to shoot more material and pad out the hobbit experience.

Grasshopper89

Ah if your giving out about it nobody is forcing you to go see it, so don't .

I for one am looking forward to it. The first time I ever heard somebody slag off the LOTR films was last year and it shocked me!! I thought they were amazing. And it doesn't mean just because I liked them means I know less about films than anyone else.

I think when you put a film down and say it sucked it somehow makes your opinion seem stronger. It doesn't.

The LOTR trilogy was great. Anyone who says it wasn't is just one of those "The Book was Better" Nose up, talk down type of person. Im smarter than you type morons. God I hate them so much, I read the books too and yes your imagination is the limit and you slowly put your own faces to the characters and its Great!! Such great story books, But the film is a film not a book, and by comparing them (most) people are just trying to seem more incite-full or intelligent. Or at least the people I talk to are! You can see through them!! Self

Well there's my rant

Ape X

Grasshopper89 wrote: »

Ah if your giving out about it nobody is forcing you to go see it, so don't .

I for one am looking forward to it. The first time I ever heard somebody slag off the LOTR films was last year and it shocked me!! I thought they were amazing. And it doesn't mean just because I liked them means I know less about films than anyone else.

I think when you put a film down and say it sucked it somehow makes your opinion seem stronger. It doesn't.

The LOTR trilogy was great. Anyone who says it wasn't is just one of those "The Book was Better" Nose up, talk down type of person. Im smarter than you type morons. God I hate them so much, I read the books too and yes your imagination is the limit and you slowly put your own faces to the characters and its Great!! Such great story books, But the film is a film not a book, and by comparing them (most) people are just trying to seem more incite-full or intelligent. Or at least the people I talk to are! You can see through them!! Self

Well there's my rant

Absolute drivel of a post, containing plenty of insults to boot. Well played.

snausages

Grasshopper89 wrote: »

Ah if your giving out about it nobody is forcing you to go see it, so don't .

I for one am looking forward to it. The first time I ever heard somebody slag off the LOTR films was last year and it shocked me!! I thought they were amazing. And it doesn't mean just because I liked them means I know less about films than anyone else.

I think when you put a film down and say it sucked it somehow makes your opinion seem stronger. It doesn't.

The LOTR trilogy was great. Anyone who says it wasn't is just one of those "The Book was Better" Nose up, talk down type of person. Im smarter than you type morons. God I hate them so much, I read the books too and yes your imagination is the limit and you slowly put your own faces to the characters and its Great!! Such great story books, But the film is a film not a book, and by comparing them (most) people are just trying to seem more incite-full or intelligent. Or at least the people I talk to are! You can see through them!! Self

Well there's my rant

Please, enough with the sweeping generalisations. I love the books and the movies but there are plenty of legitimate reasons to be concerned with how this movie will turn out. I want it to be good, I really do. But The Hobbit is a very simple story and with all the extra material going into this series there's a very real chance that it could end up overwrought and clunky.

Grasshopper89

Ape X wrote: »

Absolute drivel of a post, containing plenty of insults to boot. Well played.

So your not talking about the topic at hand at all? Just about my Post?? Thanks for coming on... Moron

Well now that I think about it... maybe you're right. Maybe we should all agree, on everything and have no difference of opinions from now on.

Plus, by saying what I think, I give Morons like you purpose to come on and just talk about my comment and miss the topic, spa head.

Grasshopper89

snausages wrote: »

Please, enough with the sweeping generalisations. I love the books and the movies but there are plenty of legitimate reasons to be concerned with how this movie will turn out. I want it to be good, I really do. But The Hobbit is a very simple story and with all the extra material going into this series there's a very real chance that it could end up overwrought and clunky.

Yeah fair enough, But it was only supposed to be two films and now the trilogy, I did not know that, It was a great story It was read to me in school.

But even if it is bad, you'll have to go see it to find out.. and then it's too late cause you've already voted for the film when you pay to see it, so what we supposed to do? ha

snausages

Yeah, it's a Catch-22 situation. But if I'm disappointed with the first movie then I can always vote with my wallet the second time around.

johnny_ultimate

Grasshopper89 banned for a week for abundantly obvious reasons.