JackieRabbit: 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.

From what I've heard (which may just be conjecture), the 3rd film will primarily be a bridge between The Hobbit and LOTR. It's doubtful that he'll use anything from the Simarillion since he doesn't have the film rights to it but there's other stuff in the LOTR appendices that's vague but compelling enough to be expanded into an entertaining film.

(shakes fist at PJ and company) you a******s!

Lando Lincoln: 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.

Bombadil wasn't in The Hobbit, Beorn (bear guy) was.

FTA: the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur would remain untold if we did not fully realize this complex and wonderful adventure.

Interesting though they may be (haven't read the Similarion), they're not told in The Hobbit, they get passing mentions.
Make a different series, don't milk this thing into 3 damn movies.

/you may get my money, but I'll be pulling it from a dark, stinky place before I hand it to you.

My reactions over time:

The Hobbit is being made by Peter Jackson: "Awesome! Makes sense. It'll be done well, like the other three. Fans will appreciate the 'completeness'. And yeah, it'll make tons of money. I'll be there opening weekend."

The Hobbit is being made in two movies: "Uh, ok. Seems a bit excessive for a fairly short story. I'm sure he'll pad it up a bit, but it's Jackson. He's the right guy for this. I'm a little nervous, but I'll be there."

The Hobbit is being made in three movies: "WTF is up with this money grab? This is sounding like 3 hours of 'Hobbit', six hours of 'The Silmarillion'. Either that, or he's making up shiat out of whole cloth. I'm not sure I'm down with this anymore."

I hope one of the movies is 90 minutes of Tom Bombadil skipping.

I just hope we get to see Sauron as a cute little blonde-haired kid, who gets called "Saurie" by his caretaker. Give him a pet fairie or something.

Actually...Tolkien himself revised 'The Hobbit' between the first and second editions so that the story would be more closely aligned to what would become 'Lord of the Rings'. He planned to go even further in the third edition, but received enough criticism of the initial work that he abandoned the project.

You thought that George Lucas was the original "constant tinkerer" when it came to potentially spoiling a good tale. You are mistaken.

/Han still shot first.

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.

Well yeah, that's why it was in the appendix. It fills out the world but isn't important to the plot.

JackieRabbit: 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.

Somehow, somewhere, Jackson has to find himself a heroic female character who can both serve as a love interest and have empowering scenes to make the film seem less male-dominated. In LOTR he was able to expand the Arwen character to do this, but in the Hobbit he's going to have to add a lot more.

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

TONS!

[images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 800x1170]
[images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 800x1170]
[images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 800x1170]
[images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 800x1170]

So... Balrogs DON'T have wings!

*ducks*

If he releases these 2 or 3 apart I might die before he can get my money. So this is obviously not a money grab.

/C'mon PJ think of us old duffers.

kevinatilusa: JackieRabbit: 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.

Somehow, somewhere, Jackson has to find himself a heroic female character who can both serve as a love interest and have empowering scenes to make the film seem less male-dominated. In LOTR he was able to expand the Arwen character to do this, but in the Hobbit he's going to have to add a lot more.

Oh jesus. A hot wizard love interest for Gandalf, maybe?

ha-ha-guy: 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.

I thought along similar lines.
Movie 1 - Bilbo meets Gandalf and dwarves, off they go, avoids trolls, gets Sting, meets Elrond at Rivendell
Movie 2 - Bilbo meets gollum and gets ring, the group battles way through Mirkwood, arrive at Lake Town and see Smaug attacking, Bilbo sneaks into layer and talks to smaug.
Movie 3 - Smaug defeated, battle of five armies, Bilbo goes home

Seriously, WTF? There really isn't enough plot to sustain two decent length movies, much less three. The non-fanbois are going to see the first film and be pissed that nothing farking happened!

I hope Jackson isn't counting on the intricacies of dwarven armour construction and social hierarchy to be a major part of the film. Details like that MIGHT fill up 50 pages in the book, but it doesn't translate well to a non-geek film.

ugh.... layer = lair... damn autocorrect

Snargi: 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.

I've always thought the Silmarillion should be done as a cable TV series (HBO, Showtime, Skinemax). Just 1 10 episode season.

Lando Lincoln: 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.

No one in their right mind would ever to that to Tolkien's beloved work. Oh, wait.

Rankin & Bass told the tale in 70 mins, PJ should be able to do a good version in 120 minutes and restore everything RB omitted.

Sigh.

I would kill to see a Sauron biographical over the different ages. Has anyone ever broached this?

Great. From the guy who made a King Kong movie drawn-out & boring!
Would someone buy this jerk-off a stopwatch?

kevinatilusa: Somehow, somewhere, Jackson has to find himself a heroic female character who can both serve as a love interest and have empowering scenes to make the film seem less male-dominated. In LOTR he was able to expand the Arwen character to do this, but in the Hobbit he's going to have to add a lot more.

Easy: Thorin, Fili, Kili, Oin, Gloin, Dwalin, Balin, Bifur, Bofur, Bombur, Dori, Nori, Ori, and Dwarfette.

I was going to complain but who am I kidding? I will watch all three.

DAMMIT MARTIN FREEMAN.

doczoidberg: 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.

Get a flask - fill it with whiskey - thank me after your nice nap.

Lando Lincoln: 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.

While expanding the crappier parts, changing entire character arcs and adding an avalanche of skulls somewhere.

MythDragon: Every time you purchase a ticket, a hobbit will hop out of a little door, and fark you in the ass, whilst giving you a reach around.

Sorry, my ass isn't that close to the ground.

I Said: I hope one of the movies is 90 minutes of Tom Bombadil skipping.

skipping Tom Bombadil is a well established practice when reading LOTR.

Ugh. Now I have to wait longer for him to start the Mortal Engines Quartet, which I hope he is still planning to do.

Asterix: I would kill to see a Sauron biographical over the different ages. Has anyone ever broached this?

I might add... "As a proper adult epic" devoid unnecessary fluffyness of the Hobbit. There is enough material in the Silmarillion to cover political intruigues, his human aspects... frustration with herp derps and his subsequent turn to darkness etc. a-la Game of Thrones.

JackieRabbit: 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.

Maybe he'll include Gandolf finding Thrain in the dungeons of Dol Guldor.

Christ I hate this idea, but I know I'll pay to see all three, and buy them on blu-ray.

madgonad: ha-ha-guy: 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.

I thought along similar lines.
Movie 1 - Bilbo meets Gandalf and dwarves, off they go, avoids trolls, gets Sting, meets Elrond at Rivendell
Movie 2 - Bilbo meets gollum and gets ring, the group battles way through Mirkwood, arrive at Lake Town and see Smaug attacking, Bilbo sneaks into layer and talks to smaug.
Movie 3 - Smaug defeated, battle of five armies, Bilbo goes home

Seriously, WTF? There really isn't enough plot to sustain two decent length movies, much less three. The non-fanbois are going to see the first film and be pissed that nothing farking happened!

I hope Jackson isn't counting on the intricacies of dwarven armour construction and social hierarchy to be a major part of the film. Details like that MIGHT fill up 50 pages in the book, but it doesn't translate well to a non-geek film.

As others have surely pointed out by now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quest_of_Erebor

There's all sorts of additional stuff to draw upon. It's also possible *gasp* that the movies will be fixed at a length that you don't need a relief tube in the theater to sit through each of them.

alwaysjaded: 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.

Yes, exactly.

Wait, were you being sarcastic?

I don't care about the 3 movie bit, what I want to know is why they are coming out over 1.5 years. Does post production really take that long, or are they just trying to hit the money seasons? Still, they could cut it to 1 year of that was the goal.(christmas, summer, christmas instead of christmas christmas, summer).

Because it is all one story, I'd rather see them all at once. This means waiting 2 years until a video release so I don't have to suffer a theater( I have my own at home-best investment ever).

How is this even possible? I thought Dumbledore was dead?!?

They're gonna be walking very very slowly then.

snowybunting: Pay to see 3 films again? No Way!

"The international ensemble cast also includes (in alphabetical order) John Bell, Jed Brophy, Adam Brown, John Callen, Billy Connolly, Luke Evans, Stephen Fry, Ryan Gage, Mark Hadlow, Peter Hambleton, Barry Humphries, Stephen Hunter, William Kircher, Evangeline Lilly,..... "


Oh. Here's my money.

Mine too.

For those unfamiliar with this particular hottie:

Khellendros: My reactions over time:

The Hobbit is being made by Peter Jackson: "Awesome! Makes sense. It'll be done well, like the other three. Fans will appreciate the 'completeness'. And yeah, it'll make tons of money. I'll be there opening weekend."

The Hobbit is being made in two movies: "Uh, ok. Seems a bit excessive for a fairly short story. I'm sure he'll pad it up a bit, but it's Jackson. He's the right guy for this. I'm a little nervous, but I'll be there."

The Hobbit is being made in three movies: "WTF is up with this money grab? This is sounding like 3 hours of 'Hobbit', six hours of 'The Silmarillion'. Either that, or he's making up shiat out of whole cloth. I'm not sure I'm down with this anymore."

I am right there with you.

I'd prefer the main story of The Hobbit is finished by the end of movie 2, and the third movie is all bridge material. But they'll probably pad it out so that The Hobbit takes all three. My guess:
Movie 1: Ends with Bilbo finding the ring and the group escaping the orcs.
Movie 2: Ends with the defeat of Smaug
Movie 3: Battle of the Five Armies and the return home.

Even with that, it seems like the amount of padding involved to make this three movies will mean the actual narrative of The Hobbit will probably be pretty sparse in each movie. It could probably be done best in 3-4 hours of film.

Peter Jackson's The Hobbit to be spread across three films, hairy feet to be in style for years to come

My time has come!

Jackson knows his audience of OCD nerds will pay, again and again and again. You guys cannot possibly stop yourselves. He will get the movie exactly right, only he will pace it in nearly real time. Thus dragging it out but leaving you with the only complaint to make relating to his pacing, which is why you will pay for all three, and then get the blueray box set.

muahahahahahahaaaaa

You feebs complaining that there's not enough material for 3 movies are really showing your ignorance of the book. The Hobbit itself fits perfectly into a three-act format:

Act 1: Bilbo's House to Escape from the Misty Mountains, possibly even up to being trapped in the trees by the wargs as a good cliffhanger (Phase One of the journey)

Act 2: The eagle rescue from the trees to escaping the Wood Elf's realm and arriving in Dale (Phase Two of the journey) - this phase will also include the necromancer-expulsion story.

Act 3: Dale to the Battle of the Five Armies, and the inevitable 45 minute closing portion of the trilogy (Final phase)

There is enough material (EASILY) in each act listed above to make a complete movie when you factor in material like the Necromancer's expulsion from Mirkwood and the corruption of Saruman.

Jackson is not adding fluff to the story, he is using Tolkiens own material to make the Hobbit even better as a film. Who didn't wonder, as a child, about the ONE PARAGRAPH mention of the "Necromancer" in Mirkwood? Jackson is hitting a HOME RUN with this. He's been given carte blanche by the studio and he's running with it. In my mind this can be GREATER than LOTR, potentially!

The_Fuzz: are they just trying to hit the money seasons? ... christmas christmas, summer

Yes. And you should be glad the last one is summer instead of winter -- I'm guessing that's just the studio calling their shot with enough lead time to discourage direct competition.

CheekyMonkey: How is this even possible? I thought Dumbledore was dead?!?

What? You don't remember him at the end of the Episode VI shimmering with Anakin?