Mabye some good news for Hobbits!! (1 Viewer)

[Sean Bryan]

Hmm..... Part of me kinda likes the idea of two installments, and part of me isn't sure it is the right way to go.

As I said above, part of the fun of a "The Hobbit" film is that it plays out in one sitting (though it should be nice and long).

If they did two installments, they could do 2.5 to 3 hours a pop with a total of 5-6 hours for the pair. Is that too much or not enough? I suppose they could wind up trying to get both closer to 2 hours and we'd only get 4 hours in total. But then if the total for two films is only going to be 4 hours, why not just do a theatrical at a bit over 3 with an extended edition that adds another 45 minutes or so?

I think I'd prefer a theatrical version that pushes 3 hours and an extended edition that adds another 40 minutes or so. It is a fairly straightforward adventure story, but there is LOTS of material that would benefit from a longer running time.

I haven't sat down to look at all the material that would have to be adapted, so I'm just taking blind guesses at what an appropriate running time should/could be. Anyone care to give their take on appropriate running time for a satisfying adaptation and successful film(s)?

 

[Adam_S]

three hours would be plenty for the Hobbit, me thinks, they got Goblet of Fire in at under 3 hours and it has just as much plot.

Isn't Jackson working on the Lovely Bones though?

 

[PattyFraser]

For some reason my preference would be for the Fall of Gondolin to be shown. Or the uber sad story of Turin Turambar. But my point is that all of these stories are connected by the main theme of the making of/theft of/ attempts to reclaim the Silmarils and if that main theme is concentrated on and stuff not necessary to move the story along gets weeded out (read here as in leaving out "Tom Bombadil") then I think a good adaptation could be possible. The ideal form, of course, would be mini- series, but there'll never be enough funding on TV for that.

As for this latest rumor--I believe it. If they leave in stuff that's only hinted at in the book, i.e. the White Council, to explain where Gandalf has been during Mirkwood, Laketown scenes it could run considerably longer than 3 hours, with cameos by Cate Blanchett and Chris Lee.
TheOneRing.net is discussing this on their main discussion forum.

 

[Andy Sheets]

Yeah. It's not like they'd be starting on The Hobbit tomorrow, though. He'll finish the smaller film he's working on and then maybe start pre-production on The Hobbit.

 

[JediFonger]

patty,

that's why i mentioned film serials during the 30's/40's. that's what lucas was trying to achieve with his star wars series.

re: hobbit, if you convert the entire book to a screenplay, it would last roughly 3-4 hours page by page max. if you take liberties to cut many things out, you can get it down to 2 hours.

re: silmarillion, it's still VERY hard to show. have you read the Histories of Middle Earth vol1&2? how does one "show" the fall of gondolin? it's a great concept in book... but what would make the viewer of these films go... "oh, Gondolin fell". there aren't many scenes to dramatize like the way PJ did with LOTR to represent faramir falling back towards minas tirith.

 

[Sam Favate]

According to a report on Cinescape.com today, The Hobbitt may end up as two movies (or, a movie in two parts, like Kill Bill) from MGM. The report says the studio wants Peter Jackson to direct, and New Line would co-produce.

http://cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp...8&obj_id=52221

 

[JediFonger]

read about that as well =). at this rate/pace, it'll be 2009 before we see the film. 2007 to draw up the deal+preproduction, 2008 to film+edit, 2009 to show. or if they rush it, 2008 december, since that was a good release date for LOTR.

 

[Ricardo C]

I'm not sure I wanna see PJ's interpretation of the "between the pages" moments of The Hobbit. His made-up scenes in LOTR felt like lesser-quality additions to the story. Sure, cameos from Lee and Blanchett sound great on the surface, but then I think of the lines Jackson, Walsh (and Boyens, no doubt) would make up for them, and the cringing starts.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I don't want LOTR cameos. One of the worst things about the SW PT was the desire to shrink the universe and please the fans. I expect to see Elrond, but there is no need to shoehorn a Gimli or Legolas or 10 year old Aragorn into the story to wink at the LOTR fans. GL was considerate enough to actually work the characters (such as they are) into the story...but it still felt show-y. Any attempt at that would be lame in The Hobbit. It's NOT a prequel to LOTR. It's a simple adventure tale (built for ONE story...not two).

I am seeing the hand of commerce far too obviously in these reports.

 

[JediFonger]

as long as it's in The Hobbit, i'd like to see it =). my fav scene is probably the confrontation with the dragon. that'd rock on the big screen. just imagine the a/v implications... and then imagine that on HD-DVD or BluRay =^).

 

[Ben Osborne]

The thing about the Hobbit is that Tolkien himself regretted the lighter tone and worked to add seriousness to it by filling in background details in the Lord of the Rings and in the Unfinished Tales. I believe that Tolkien would prefer a more serious Hobbit, even at the expense of being less faithful to the book. If that bothers people, then the moviemakers should call it "The Quest for Erebor" rather than the Hobbit.

Tolkien supplies enough background details to the Hobbit in his other works that it wouldn't require Jackson to invent things. I would personally love to see Gandalf meeting Thrain in the dungeons of Dol Guldur, Gandalf meeting Thorin in Bree prior, the meeting of the White Council, and the Council's attack of Dol Guldur. Those events are interesting and help connect the events in the Hobbit with those in Lord of the Rings. And yes, they would give the filmmakers opportunities to bring back Saruman and Galadriel (and Elrond, as others have pointed out). Wouldn't it be cool to see Saruman when he was still regarded as a good guy? I also don't see what's wrong with throwing in a Legolas cameo. Since the wood elves (and Legolas' father) play a major part in the story, it would make sense that he'd be around.

 

[Adam_S]

So if they do the split, what's the best place? I think there are two places that lend themselves to it.


Out of the frying pan, just after escaping the orc tunnel and having told Gandalf about the ring, the group turns to see the orcs and wolves coming down upon their hideout in grove of pines. I don't think you end after the attack but before the eagles as that's too abrupt a cut off, but before the battle and dreading it would be good.

The other point would be after the dwarves are taken captive by the spiders. I'm not sure on the best point but I think after Bilbo kills the spiders and trots off to find the wood elves home and infiltrate it.

The second would leave an entire film for breaking out the dwarves, the trip down the river and then Laketown, the journey up the mountain, smaug, the fight with smaug, and then the events leading into the battle of five armies, and the return home

If so that'd mean crunching into the first film the unexpected party, the trolls, elrond, the orcs and Gollum, the escape from the orcs, the attack, the eagles, Beorn and the trip through the forest up til the spiders.



Both provide plenty of material for a full film by itself, so I think a two parter might work very well for the hobbit. I don't know that we need diversions not included in the book like mentioned above, but some additional set up for the battle of five armies would be interesting.

Adam

 

[Sean Bryan]

Well, if they were going to call it anything other than The Hobbit, it should be called There and Back Again.

 

[Sean Bryan]

If they were to do two films I would hope that they don't end on a cliffhanger. It is just not satisfying even if you know the next movie is 6 months away.

The Lord of the Rings even managed to end the first two installments with some sense of resolution even though you knew the story clearly wasn't over. If they split The Hobbit I hope they'd manage something like that instead of a harsh cliffhanger ending.

The more that I think about it, I feel that one nice long film (with an intended EE) would be best. But I definitely see the appeal to the studio(s) of having two theatrical events to cash in.

 

[Ricardo C]

"The Hobbit" doesn't reach the dramatic heights LOTR does. Expecting Jackson and Co. to turn out another epic isn't being realistic, I think. It has to be treated as what it is: A lighthearted adventure story, which, as Tolkien said "intrudes into the larger world" that eventually became The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings. There is no need to "LOTR-fy" it.

 

[BrettGallman]

"The Hobbit" is the only Middle-Earth tale I've read in its entirety. I tried to read LOTR, but I only made it so far before I had to resume school.

I could see "The Hobbit" being released as two films, but I'd rather keep it as one long film instead. It is tonally different from LOTR in that it doesn't seem as epic, so I think one film could get it done.

Peter Jackson should be directing this, of course. Even though it is a different animal from the LOTR Trilogy, it'd be downright crazy not to do this as a prequel set in the same universe as Jackson's trilogy. Doesn't mean there has to be a ton of cameos popping up and stuff being added for the sake of adding it (although I would like to see Saruman and it wouldn't really be a stretch, as others have pointed out). I say bring it on.

 

[Travis_S]

Looks like PJ is going to be occupied for a while...

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr..._id=1003120743

Interview about it:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/30014

 

[PattyFraser]

Oh no!
I'm sure this new fantasy series will be great (it looks like it.) But I was so hoping that he'd be doing The Hobbit after "The Lovely Bones." I have to say, this is a disappointment.

 

[Sam Favate]

I agree. One great film would serve the story best. Two films would be blatantly commercial and would not serve the story, since there would by necessity be a lot of filler.

 

[todd s]

A couple of things....

-If PJ is too busy directing this other movie series. Could he produce the Hobbit to make sure it has the same look as te LOTR?

-Just curious. How can Aragorn be 87? Isn't he a normal human?