FARK.com: (7241725) Peter Jackson's The Hobbit to be spread across three films, hairy feet to be in style for years to come

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Peter Jackson's The Hobbit to be spread across three films, hairy feet to be in style for years to come (kryptonradio.com)		267
		More: Misc, Philippa Boyens, Ian Holm, Fran Walsh, The Hobbit, Jackson State, Bilbo Baggins, Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett

• • •

6441 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 31 Jul 2012 at 1:48 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/7241725

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

267 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

MadSkillz		2012-07-31 02:41:14 AM

This is one of those things where they're going to film an additional 360 minutes of actual movie, and then for the footage they have, let each scene linger on just a little too long, aren't they? (i.e. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1)

The hobbit is a simple tale in which these things happen:

Bilbo meets dwarves.
They go out on some gay-ass adventure for no definable reason.
Trolls try to each them; outwitted by sun.
They meet people who are also bears or some shiat.
Bilbo meets Gollum and steals his ring.
They escape scary forest with asshole elves.
Epic fight with dragon.
The end.

That's like a nice, tight two hour movie. Or a three hour movie if you add in all the 'songs' that have no meter or rhyming.

Then it was 2 movies. Now 3, because god-forbid should the money train end.

/despite complaints, will still see it.

monty666		2012-07-31 04:01:39 AM

That's good to know. I was worried you weren't to go see it.

strangeluck		2012-07-31 04:04:50 AM

This the Hobbit is the prequel, and they're going to stretch it into 3 films... I wonder if it'll suffer the same nightmare as the Star Wars films, like what would the LoTR version of JarJar Binks be?

BunkoSquad		2012-07-31 09:30:04 AM

Good, that means I'm saving $36 instead of $12

Weaver95		2012-07-31 10:54:11 AM

I don't care - shut up and take my money! GIMME GIMMIE GIMMIE!

strangeluck: This the Hobbit is the prequel, and they're going to stretch it into 3 films... I wonder if it'll suffer the same nightmare as the Star Wars films, like what would the LoTR version of JarJar Binks be?

Tom Bombadil.

Lando Lincoln		2012-07-31 11:19:26 AM

They're going to add a whole bunch of girl-friendly bullshiat that was not in the original book, while still leaving out considerable parts of the original book.

Ennuipoet		2012-07-31 11:24:17 AM

Weaver95: strangeluck: This the Hobbit is the prequel, and they're going to stretch it into 3 films... I wonder if it'll suffer the same nightmare as the Star Wars films, like what would the LoTR version of JarJar Binks be?

Tom Bombadil.

That's just wrong! (But you are correct,)

tlchwi02		2012-07-31 11:25:56 AM

I really don't understand this. The appeal of the Hobbit as compared to LOTR was that it was a relatively tight narrative that focused on a very simple hero's journey. I think that some of the stuff they are talking about (fighting the necromancer, showing the larger world as it links into LOTR) would be cool to see, but with 3 movies i can't imagine they will be able to effectively maintain the necessary focus on the hobbits journey. And having seen jackson's love of the "nope, thats not the end either!" style of filming, it has me a bit worried

Lando Lincoln		2012-07-31 11:27:47 AM

MadSkillz: They go out on some gay-ass adventure for no definable reason.

"There's this dragon and he's sleeping on this gigantic pile of gold and jewels and he's also in the great hall of our ancestor's home that he stole from us and killed many of our brethren" not good enough of a reason for you? You have some high goddamn standards for bothering to get off of your ass.

Weaver95		2012-07-31 11:31:28 AM

tlchwi02: I really don't understand this. The appeal of the Hobbit as compared to LOTR was that it was a relatively tight narrative that focused on a very simple hero's journey. I think that some of the stuff they are talking about (fighting the necromancer, showing the larger world as it links into LOTR) would be cool to see, but with 3 movies i can't imagine they will be able to effectively maintain the necessary focus on the hobbits journey. And having seen jackson's love of the "nope, thats not the end either!" style of filming, it has me a bit worried

don't care, still wanna see it.

Lando Lincoln		2012-07-31 11:34:31 AM

Ennuipoet: Weaver95: strangeluck: This the Hobbit is the prequel, and they're going to stretch it into 3 films... I wonder if it'll suffer the same nightmare as the Star Wars films, like what would the LoTR version of JarJar Binks be?

Tom Bombadil.

That's just wrong! (But you are correct,)

I don't know if I want to admit this on Fark, but...I really am hoping that they put Tom Bombadil and his wife Goldberry into the film. I thought that they were some pretty interesting characters and while they didn't do anything to advance the plot of the story, they still add a lot to the world of Middle Earth.

The wiki for Goldberry states:

"Filmmakers Ralph Bakshi and Peter Jackson stated that the reason the characters were omitted from their films was because, in their view, he (Bombadil) does little to advance the story, and would make their films unnecessarily long."

Now THAT'S funny.

Mugato		2012-07-31 11:48:10 AM

No one can pad a film like Jackson.

tlchwi02		2012-07-31 11:57:13 AM

Weaver95: don't care, still wanna see it.

oh so do i, but i have to admit that this announcement took me from "oh boy, i can't wait for this to come out! when can i order some tickets?!" to "uh-oh, this is starting to sound like the end of ROTK/King Kong..."

alwaysjaded		2012-07-31 12:42:59 PM

Oh no! You mean we'll get to see a whole lot more of the story that ties everything together better? Possibly the corruption of Saruman, Sauron and the necromancer, the white council and a whole bunch of other stuff I'm forgetting? Someone fetch me my outrage gloves, PJ is trying to fleece me FOR 8 MORE DOLLARS!!!?!!?!!?! HOW WILL I SURVIVE?!!!!

Lando Lincoln		2012-07-31 12:54:46 PM

alwaysjaded: Oh no! You mean we'll get to see a whole lot more of the story that ties everything together better?

THERE IS NOTHING TO TIE TOGETHER BETTER. The Hobbit has little to do with the Lord of the Rings. In The Hobbit, The One Ring is nothing more than a magical ring that makes the user invisible. The corruption of Saruman has nothing at all to do with The Hobbit. Nothing.

tlchwi02		2012-07-31 01:04:23 PM

Lando Lincoln: THERE IS NOTHING TO TIE TOGETHER BETTER. The Hobbit has little to do with the Lord of the Rings. In The Hobbit, The One Ring is nothing more than a magical ring that makes the user invisible. The corruption of Saruman has nothing at all to do with The Hobbit. Nothing.

exactly, what ties the hobbit together is the hero's journey Bilbo undertakes. He starts as a timid everyman who just wants to stay home and has to be more or less tricked into joining the quest, and as he faces the perils he becomes a confident hero. Taking 30-40 minutes per movie away from the hero to add battles/politics that aren't connected to that fundamental narrative could just as easily end up making it muddled and confused and detract from the central role of Bilbo's growth.

ShawnDoc		2012-07-31 01:14:57 PM

Lord of The Rings Trilogy - 3 Dense Books where lots of shiat happens = 3 movies
The Hobbit - Short book written for children where little happens = 3 movies

Gotcha

alwaysjaded		2012-07-31 01:17:13 PM

Lando Lincoln: alwaysjaded: Oh no! You mean we'll get to see a whole lot more of the story that ties everything together better?

THERE IS NOTHING TO TIE TOGETHER BETTER. The Hobbit has little to do with the Lord of the Rings. In The Hobbit, The One Ring is nothing more than a magical ring that makes the user invisible. The corruption of Saruman has nothing at all to do with The Hobbit. Nothing.

Yea, you're right. I guess all that stuff Tolkien wrote in the appendix's was just a little filler and not important at all.

Nadie_AZ		2012-07-31 01:40:33 PM

I mean, I get the whole 'Gandalf fights the Necromancer' storyline that would stretch it to 2 movies. I mean, Gandalf is cool and everybody likes seeing him on screen. But what else are they going to do to add a 3rd movie?

It does make me worry about these 'prequels'.

... prequels ... *twitch*_{farkyougeorgelucas}*twitch*

darkmayo		2012-07-31 01:51:19 PM

Oh No, please save us from another movie that will likely be full of awesome.

Jodeo		2012-07-31 01:52:56 PM

I submitted this with a better headline. Actually, three headlines.

washington		2012-07-31 01:52:59 PM

It's a pretty short book, wtf?

JackieRabbit		2012-07-31 01:53:14 PM

How the hell is he going to make this short book into three movies? The only thing I can see is that there's going to be a lot of historical things pertaining to Gandalf and scenes off what he does when he leaves Bilbo's and Thorin's comany. That will all have to be made up, of course. Though he may be able to borrow some from The Silmarillion.

Durinia		2012-07-31 01:53:40 PM

At this point, I have stopped resisting his will.

Wolf892		2012-07-31 01:54:22 PM

I don't get it...from the trailers this looks like the most boring movie ever...how are they going to stretch that into three movies??? LOTR was also boring...I wasn't even able to make it through a whole movie without having to turn it off and go get actual, real life exercise....

CruJones		2012-07-31 01:54:50 PM

alwaysjaded: Lando Lincoln: alwaysjaded: Oh no! You mean we'll get to see a whole lot more of the story that ties everything together better?

THERE IS NOTHING TO TIE TOGETHER BETTER. The Hobbit has little to do with the Lord of the Rings. In The Hobbit, The One Ring is nothing more than a magical ring that makes the user invisible. The corruption of Saruman has nothing at all to do with The Hobbit. Nothing.

Yea, you're right. I guess all that stuff Tolkien wrote in the appendix's was just a little filler and not important at all.

The appendix's WHAT????

/NERDS

Kiwimann		2012-07-31 01:54:59 PM

While I can't imagine what they're going to cram into 3 movies (not counting the additional footage they'll stick into the DVD boxed sets), I found enough enjoyment in the LoTR movies that I'll withold judgement until I see the 1st installment in the theater.

doczoidberg		2012-07-31 01:55:24 PM

If this will reduce the running time of ANY of these Hobbit films, then I'm OK with it.
My girlfriend is a big LOTR nerd, and I dread having to sit through another dumbass four hour film with her.

Let there be three Hobbit flicks, each only about 90 minutes.

I can tolerate 90 minutes of this inane crap in three doses.

Having to sit in a theater for SIX HOURS for another midnight screening of LOTR??? -- I'd rather be waterboarded.

Jocundry		2012-07-31 01:56:30 PM

ShawnDoc: Lord of The Rings Trilogy - 3 Dense Books where lots of shiat happens = 3 movies
The Hobbit - Short book written for children where little happens = 3 movies

Gotcha

Pretty much this.

You can read the Hobbit over a weekend. The Trilogy takes a good month at least (and that's with some hard core reading).

Why on (middle) earth would you stretch the Hobbit into three movies?

ha-ha-guy		2012-07-31 01:56:38 PM

Nadie_AZ: I mean, I get the whole 'Gandalf fights the Necromancer' storyline that would stretch it to 2 movies. I mean, Gandalf is cool and everybody likes seeing him on screen. But what else are they going to do to add a 3rd movie?

It does make me worry about these 'prequels'.

... prequels ... *twitch*farkyougeorgelucas*twitch*

Movie 1: Gandalf vs Necromancer, start of the journey (analog: Sauron vs Isolder, start of the Fellowship)
Movie 2: Goblin caves, wood elves, Smaug trashes Lake Town (analog: Moria, the elven realm, Helms Deep)
Movie 3: Dwarves hold the mountain, goblin army attacks, Iron Hills Dwarves arrive, long ass closing scene (analog: Strider leads the humans in battle, oddly homoerotic Hobbit ending that never does quite end)

That's a rough guess. I honestly see 2.5 movies out of the Hobbit if you toss in the Necromancer and all the stuff from the appendixes and Tolkien's notes.

LineNoise		2012-07-31 01:56:42 PM

namegoeshere		2012-07-31 01:57:08 PM

Thi$ i$ a good idea, really. Thi$ tale is far too big to be limited to two movie$. The third film will really be the difference between telling the complete $tory a$ it wa$ written and a Hollywood ver$ion which cut$ out too much back$tory and can only be fully under$tood by reading the whole book. The trilogy $hould be a $tand alone work.

Technoir		2012-07-31 01:57:50 PM

When I first heard PJ was doing "The Hobbit", I was excited to see one of my favorite books being given a nice 2.5-3hr feature treatment. Then when they announced it would be 2 films, to encompass an expanded telling of the Battle of Five Armies, I was like "ok, not in the book, but still sorta reasonable". 3 films is a bit much, I think, but I'll be interested to see what all PJ thinks he can squeeze into it and still justify calling it "The Hobbit".

Xlr8urfark		2012-07-31 01:58:13 PM

The only annoying thing, to me, will be having to wait that much longer for it to conclude. Excited, all the same.

I Said		2012-07-31 01:58:18 PM

First movie: standard fare, prob ends with Bilbo finding the ring.

Second movie: ring starts doing its "ring thing" (even though that really wasn't the case in the book) and the story focuses on the battle with Smaug

Third: Battle of the 5 armies.

That's my guess

Cyclometh		2012-07-31 01:58:35 PM

There's a lot of stuff going on around the time of "The Hobbit" that isn't in the book The Hobbit. The rise of the Necromancer and his fortress of Dol Guldur in Mirkwood, being revealed as the returned Sauron, Sauron's search for the Ring... there's quite a lot in the story that's not in the book.

mjjt		2012-07-31 02:00:35 PM

Who knew there was that much scenery in NZ

ha-ha-guy		2012-07-31 02:00:43 PM

Cyclometh: There's a lot of stuff going on around the time of "The Hobbit" that isn't in the book The Hobbit. The rise of the Necromancer and his fortress of Dol Guldur in Mirkwood, being revealed as the returned Sauron, Sauron's search for the Ring... there's quite a lot in the story that's not in the book.

Yeah, if the Hobbit/Lonely Mountain thing is merely the main thread in the trilogy, but this is really a trilogy about the years leading up to the Fellowship you can do a legit multimovie run and it will be good. If this is lots of running and padding the hell out of the Hobbit as the dwarves run around New Zealand for hours and make comic remarks, it will be ass.

spentmiles		2012-07-31 02:01:16 PM

Do the hobbits fark in this one? The answer will dictate my level of interest.

zvoidx		2012-07-31 02:01:21 PM

BunkoSquad: Good, that means I'm saving $36 instead of $12

OhYou.jpg

Amos Quito		2012-07-31 02:01:28 PM

"Peter Jackson's The Hobbit"???

So J.R.R. Tolkien was a plagiarist???

upload.wikimedia.org

Shifty bastard.

/He does kind of resemble Hitler

Snargi		2012-07-31 02:01:30 PM

What's next? Peter Jackson's 50 film adaptation of JRR Tolkin's Silmarillion?

While searching Silmarillion to make sure I spelled it right, I came across this gem. Silmarillion movie coming.

Amos Quito		2012-07-31 02:02:23 PM

spentmiles: Do the hobbits fark in this one? The answer will dictate my level of interest.

Fuzzy toe fetish?

loonatic112358		2012-07-31 02:02:43 PM

alwaysjaded: Oh no! You mean we'll get to see a whole lot more of the story that ties everything together better? Possibly the corruption of Saruman, Sauron and the necromancer, the white council and a whole bunch of other stuff I'm forgetting? Someone fetch me my outrage gloves, PJ is trying to fleece me FOR 8 MORE DOLLARS!!!?!!?!!?! HOW WILL I SURVIVE?!!!!

that's in the silmarillion isn't it?

the movies of that will keep mr jackson employed for the rest of his unnatural life

czei		2012-07-31 02:02:47 PM

Not only will I see each of the three films in the theatre, but I'll buy the DVDs when they come out, and them buy them again when the extended director's cut is released.

Hell, I just bought all three of the LOTR movies for a 3rd time when they came out in HD. It beats paying to watch the same damn comic book-based movie remade every few years with different actors.

Grapple		2012-07-31 02:03:35 PM

Does this mean I get more Balrogs? Then I'm okay with that, even though they were never in the actual book.

MilesTeg		2012-07-31 02:04:34 PM

Maybe he just feels it will take three movies to fully flesh out his vision of a hobbit on dwarf on human gay love triangle.

HailRobonia		2012-07-31 02:04:48 PM

Lando Lincoln: MadSkillz: They go out on some gay-ass adventure for no definable reason.

"There's this dragon and he's sleeping on this gigantic pile of gold and jewels and he's also in the great hall of our ancestor's home that he stole from us and killed many of our brethren" not good enough of a reason for you? You have some high goddamn standards for bothering to get off of your ass.

It's a metaphor for Israel/Palestine.