The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) (1 Viewer)

[Edwin-S]

Can one say the word "bloated" when it comes to the film(s) of this story. Wow, three films to tell a complex tale like LOTR and two films to tell the much simpler story of "The Hobbit". Talk about stretching things to the max. That is what you get when there is more concern about making this series films last as long as financially possible than actually producing a well told, tightly scripted, film of the story.

 

[Jim_C]

I tend to agree with you, Edwin. That said, I'll be there opening day no matter what. I won't be able to help myself.

 

[David Forbes]

Can one say the word "bloated" when it comes to the film(s) of this story. Wow, three films to tell a complex tale like LOTR and two films to tell the much simpler story of "The Hobbit". Talk about stretching things to the max. That is what you get when there is more concern about making this series films last as long as financially possible than actually producing a well told, tightly scripted, film of the story.

There's just no pleasing you, is there?

 

[Brian Borst]

I think two movies for The Hobbit can work better than a bridge film between TH and LOTR. Of course a lot of stuff concerning Gandalf and the Council, and Aragorn can (and probably will) be added into the film, creating a much more epic story than the fairly linear story the book is. Hopefully.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Can one say the word "bloated" when it comes to the film(s) of this story. Wow, three films to tell a complex tale like LOTR and two films to tell the much simpler story of "The Hobbit". Talk about stretching things to the max. That is what you get when there is more concern about making this series films last as long as financially possible than actually producing a well told, tightly scripted, film of the story.

I agree. Lord of the Rings needed three movies to tell. The Hobbit only needs one. Stretching it out and making it more like the Lord of the Rings movies risks losing the tone of the source material: a relatively carefree, family-friendly adventure story.

 

[Brian D H]

I agree. Lord of the Rings needed three movies to tell. The Hobbit only needs one. Stretching it out and making it more like the Lord of the Rings movies risks losing the tone of the source material: a relatively carefree, family-friendly adventure story.

Absolutely.
I never minded the idea of a bridge film since that keeps "The Hobbit" as a fairly accurate adaptation. I could then watch the bridge film (or not) as I chose. But adding in all these parts of Gandalf/White Council/Necromancer/etc. into the Hobbit is a terrible idea. Frankly, it sounds like they're still doing their bridge film but simply editing it into the Hobbit. This new film may be good (or not) but it is not the Hobbit. If the focus is pulled off of Bilbo for half the film(s) the title doesn't even make any sense anymore.
While I get it from an economic standpoint - If movie #2 is not a direct sequel people might just skip it. I think this could ruin the whole thing.

 

[Sam Favate]

I hope the movies aren't three hours each. Much as I love the LOTR films, with the extended editions clocking in at well over 9 hours total, finding the time to watch them again is very difficult.

 

[Brett_M]

I think it's safe to say that the films will be closer to 2 hours each. It makes sense financially -- more butts in seats each day.

I'd bet that as DelToro and Co. at down to write, they realized two things:

1. The Hobbit couldn't be done in 3 hours (say what you will but if they film everything, there's no way it can be done.

(Rankin/Bass left out Beorn and the Arkenstone (and a lot more) and did it in about 80 minutes. That's not a film I want to see.)

2. A bridge film wouldn't work.

Why not shoot The Hobbit + history of the Dwarves/White Council/Dol Gulder/Necromancer's explusion as a long movie in 2 parts?

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Why not shoot The Hobbit + history of the Dwarves/White Council/Dol Gulder/Necromancer's explusion as a long movie in 2 parts?

Because pacing matters. If you pad out the story with extra material to "prequelize" The Hobbit, you lose the lighthearted tone and fast pace. Sometimes less is more.

 

[Pete-D]

I think they should make it separate.

Have the Hobbit as more of its own stand-alone film and then they can do the "LOTR prequel" flick as its own thing.

What they could do is shoot a couple of scenes or moments and insert those into the Hobbit to foreshadow/lead directly into the "LOTR prequel".

A minute or two of that wouldn't slow down the Hobbit too much. But I think shooting it as one big film mixing elements from both into one could be a recipe for disaster.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Quote:

Again correct, but for me the question is "should everything be included?" Movies from books don't typically (or rarely if ever) include everything. I've seen some adaptations of short stories that passed the test, but I'm hard pressed to think of any movie that included everything in a book.

 

[DavidPla]

Look, people aren't expecting a lighthearted romp here. I understand what the book is but you have to look at this now as a followup to a huge Academy Award Winning Epic Trilogy of films. People are expecting Lord of the Rings 4. So they have to be faithful to the book while trying to be as epic as the trilogy. Is it possible? For sure. It just needs a balance. Focus on Bilbo as in the book but there are many things that could and SHOULD be expanded. The entire end battle for one. Dwarves vs. Elves vs. Eagles vs. Wargs vs. Humans vs. Goblins. We've never seen a dwarf army on film before.

 

[TravisR]

I'm assuming that most people here enjoyed what Jackson did with the LOTR adaptations so I'm kinda stumped why they don't have some faith in what he'll do with The Hobbit. Maybe they're right and it'll be one movie needlessly stretched into two but I think he's earned the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Jim_C]

I'm assuming that most people here enjoyed what Jackson did with the LOTR adaptations so I'm kinda stumped why they don't have some faith in what he'll do with The Hobbit. Maybe they're right and it'll be one movie needlessly stretched into two but I think he's earned the benefit of the doubt.

He does have the benefit of the doubt from me as I'll see these movies no matter what. That said, it doesn't mean I don't have concerns about what they're doing. IMO, those times when Jackson strayed from the books ended up being the weakest parts of the trilogy. I'd rather see Jackson produce the Hobbit as opposed to the Hobbit Plus.

 

[Ben Osborne]

I think that The Hobbit can be seen to begin in what might be called a more 'whimsy' mode, and in places even more facetious, and move steadily to a more serious or significant, and more consistent and historical. .... But I regret much of it all the same.

I think that above quotes, from Tolkien's letters, are relevant to this discussion. I think it's clear that Tolkien himself, if he were to have re-written The Hobbit, would have made it more like The Lord of the Rings in weight and style. When he wrote the The Hobbit, it was not even connected to the world of The Silmarillion. It was through writing the LOTR that he added depth to the story and connected it with his larger mythology.
That the LOTR movies have already been made puts the producers in the difficult situation of having to reverse the progression from The Hobbit to the latter stories, if they want to be completely faithful to the book. If they would have started out with the Hobbit it would have been easier. But I think that at this point, to try to go from the vast world of LOTR to the simpler style and simpler universe of the Hobbit would seem like regression to viewers.

 

[Brett_M]

more.

It's not padding and no matter what you say, it's not light-hearted. I may be in the minoroty but I have never considered it to be anything less than a harrowing adventure. If anything, it establishes how special the hobbits are at getting into and out of trouble. True, there is a lot of singing and the quest is not one that will save Middle-earth, but it serves to set the whole thing up. It's the calm before the storm.
Why is Mirkwood dark? The Shadow in the East. That has to be dealt with. It's not the focus of the film and I doubt Del Toro and Co. will add material that doesn't serve that story and the series as a whole.
I'm surprised at the lack of enthusiam about this shift. I'm more excited now than before. No bridge film. That's good news.

 

[David Forbes]

Why is Mirkwood dark? The Shadow in the East. That has to be dealt with. It's not the focus of the film and I doubt Del Toro and Co. will add material that doesn't serve that story and the series as a whole.
I'm surprised at the lack of enthusiasm about this shift. I'm more excited now than before. No bridge film. That's good news.

I feel the same. The amount of second-guessing and outright antipathy toward what Jackson and Del Toro are doing is head-scratching.

 

[Brian D H]

I'm assuming that most people here enjoyed what Jackson did with the LOTR adaptations so I'm kinda stumped why they don't have some faith in what he'll do with The Hobbit. Maybe they're right and it'll be one movie needlessly stretched into two but I think he's earned the benefit of the doubt.

Maybe I can explain why some of us are concerned.
Did I enjoy LOTR? Absolutely - I even preferred his extended editions. Jackson did a great job adapting epic material and his few additions made up a small percentage of the finished film.
However, "The Hobbit" is not LOTR. It is a simpler story about a more innocent time that should focus on it's title character. Normally, after something as wonderful as LOTR, I would have no doubts that Jackson and company could handle anything. However, I cannot ignore "King Kong".
While parts of Kong were successful, this movie was bloated. With LOTR I loved the extended editions. With Kong I kept hoping for a special-edition that was 45 minutes shorter. Jackson took a good, simple 100 minute story and dragged it out to nearly twice the length of the original without adding anything to the actual story except more action scenes. (His extended edition of Kong WAS twice as long at 201 minutes!) With "The Hobbit" he's talking about not only expanding the action but now also of doubling the plot. I do not want a Hobbit even more bloated than King Kong was.

 

[Brett_M]

Maybe I can explain why some of us are concerned.
Did I enjoy LOTR? Absolutely - I even preferred his extended editions. Jackson did a great job adapting epic material and his few additions made up a small percentage of the finished film.
However, "The Hobbit" is not LOTR. It is a simpler story about a more innocent time that should focus on it's title character. Normally, after something as wonderful as LOTR, I would have no doubts that Jackson and company could handle anything. However, I cannot ignore "King Kong".
While parts of Kong were successful, this movie was bloated. With LOTR I loved the extended editions. With Kong I kept hoping for a special-edition that was 45 minutes shorter. Jackson took a good, simple 100 minute story and dragged it out to nearly twice the length of the original without adding anything to the actual story except more action scenes. (His extended edition of Kong WAS twice as long at 201 minutes!) With "The Hobbit" he's talking about not only expanding the action but now also of doubling the plot. I do not want a Hobbit even more bloated than King Kong was.

I am concerned, as well. I agree with the above. Keep in mind -- Del Toro is directing, not Peter Jackson.

 

[Jim_C]

I feel the same. The amount of second-guessing and outright antipathy toward what Jackson and Del Toro are doing is head-scratching.

Antipathy? Good lord. Isn't that a little over-the-top? We are only expressing concerns. They may pull it off but there is legit concern based on his past experience with expanding beyond the text. King Kong is also another legit thing to point to.
BTW, I absolutely adore Jackson and plan on seeing any movie he puts out, just because of what he gave us with LotR. They surpassed my childhood love of Star Wars, which was no small feat. That doesn't mean I blindly follow.