Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Krypton Radio)   Peter Jackson's The Hobbit to be spread across three films, hairy feet to be in style for years to come   (kryptonradio.com) divider line 71
    More: Misc, Philippa Boyens, Ian Holm, Fran Walsh, The Hobbit, Jackson State, Bilbo Baggins, Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett  
•       •       •

6459 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 31 Jul 2012 at 1:48 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-07-31 11:27:47 AM  
10 votes:

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.
2012-07-31 02:41:14 AM  
6 votes:
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.
2012-07-31 01:14:57 PM  
5 votes:
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
2012-07-31 09:30:04 AM  
4 votes:
Good, that means I'm saving $36 instead of $12
2012-07-31 07:13:16 PM  
3 votes:

Cyno01: Were you under the impression that there was a Middle Earth Postal Service or something?


politicalstrife.files.wordpress.com
2012-07-31 02:00:35 PM  
3 votes:
Who knew there was that much scenery in NZ
2012-07-31 01:53:40 PM  
3 votes:
media.tumblr.com

At this point, I have stopped resisting his will.
2012-07-31 11:24:17 AM  
3 votes:

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,)
2012-07-31 11:19:26 AM  
3 votes:
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.
2012-07-31 03:03:33 PM  
2 votes:
i13.photobucket.com
2012-07-31 03:02:09 PM  
2 votes:

Tax Boy: ringersol: MuonNeutrino: " How do you get through the ~300 page hobbit in a weekend but still take a month to finish the ~1500 page trilogy?"

Because THE HOBBIT is fun and moves along well and THE TWO TOWERS is where people learn to hate reading?

THIS

The Hobbit is fun and is a breezy well-written chatty British children's book, like the Harry Potter of the 1930s.

Reading the Lord of the Rings is like reading the bible.


The Silmarillion is like reading the bible. Actually its go a much more convincing creation myth, if you ask me.
2012-07-31 02:38:42 PM  
2 votes:
Someone should mention that The Hobbit is a relatively short book and may not be worthy of three films.
2012-07-31 02:32:04 PM  
2 votes:
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!
2012-07-31 02:15:12 PM  
2 votes:
I was going to complain but who am I kidding? I will watch all three.

DAMMIT MARTIN FREEMAN.
2012-07-31 02:02:47 PM  
2 votes:
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.
2012-07-31 01:58:35 PM  
2 votes:
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.
2012-07-31 01:51:19 PM  
2 votes:
Oh No, please save us from another movie that will likely be full of awesome.
2012-07-31 01:04:23 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2012-07-31 12:54:46 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2012-07-31 12:42:59 PM  
2 votes:
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?!!!!
2012-07-31 11:34:31 AM  
2 votes:

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.
2012-07-31 11:31:28 AM  
2 votes:

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.
2012-07-31 10:54:11 AM  
2 votes:
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.
2012-08-01 11:53:13 AM  
1 votes:

HalEmmerich: This. People look at me funny when I say I didn't like Return of the King. I still feel Fellowship was pretty good, but by RotK all of the little changes and tweaks finally came to a head with nonsense like Arwen dying because Sauron and the ridiculously expanded role of the Army of the Dead. Legolas surfing down Oliphant trunks, Gimli the comic relief dwarf, the witch king breaking Gandalf's staff(he was supposed to remain untested against Sauron's greatest servant), the list goes on. It's a fine movie, I suppose, but it's a crap adaptation.



I'll back you up on this. I completely understand having to cut content, side stories and such, out when adapting a novel to a movie. But ffs, so many directors now seem to feel as though it's their job to use artistic license for the sake of "audience entertainment."
2012-08-01 11:45:02 AM  
1 votes:
So when are the Children of Hurin films coming out?
2012-08-01 10:16:06 AM  
1 votes:

Mugato: Are they just going to drop a main villain like they did Sauroman? "Well the Darth Vader of the series, we don't need to know what happened to him because we're running long but we need more walking!"


Leaving his fate to the extended edition was stupid, and Christopher Lee, being a huge Tolkien fan, apparently agreed as he had a falling out with Jackson for a while about it, if I'm not mistaken.
2012-08-01 09:58:33 AM  
1 votes:
the-hobbitmovie.com

"I kick ass for the lord Aule"
2012-07-31 08:19:02 PM  
1 votes:
Everything I was going to say has been covered, so I'll just say I'll throw my money at the Hobbit movies, be first in line to see it on opening day, may even go for the midnight show if that happens. Will buy the Blu-rays and maybe even a calendar or two.

The Hobbit as a standalone could probably be done in one 3 hour movie, but for all the back story that was omitted from the LoTR movies I think making 3 movies and covering the Hobbit is a better choice. Personally I'm just glad to see it finally being done.

/also read the Silmarillion thrice
2012-07-31 07:05:37 PM  
1 votes:
images2.wikia.nocookie.net

Can't believe Jackson did 3 extra-length movies, and yet NO Tom Bombadil!

Come on, if there were ever a reason for DVD "extras", it would be Tom Bombadil!
2012-07-31 05:04:51 PM  
1 votes:

Oznog:
There really aren't many historical American animations of technical worth.


I wouldn't say that, there were certainly a number of Max Fleischer productions that were remarkably sophisticated, especially for their time. And his studio certainly pioneered a lot of ground breaking technique. Disney has done a lot of great work too. The early Warner Bros. stuff was often outstanding. It was only with the advent of television where animation was ghettoized to Saturday morning cartoons that American animation really started to become poorly produced, mostly a result of the need for speed in what is a very time consuming art form.
2012-07-31 04:44:17 PM  
1 votes:
"We recognized that the richness of the story of The Hobbit, as well as some of the related material in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings..."

media.tumblr.com

/saw the trailer before TDKR this weekend
//realized bilbo is watson and smaug is holmes
2012-07-31 04:22:00 PM  
1 votes:

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


So we can expect future Jackson projects such as:
Jabberwocky = 3 movies
Hop On Pop = 3 movies
Good Night, Moon = 3 movies
See Dick Run = 2 movies *

* This would be 3 movies, but Jane gets killed in the first one.
2012-07-31 04:21:16 PM  
1 votes:
Just what we need, another 9 hours worth of movie to tell a 2 hour story...
2012-07-31 04:17:25 PM  
1 votes:

Clash City Farker: What have I got in my pocket?


Dildo obliged by emptying his revolver in Goddam's direction. He would've finished the wretched creature off then and there, but pity stayed his hand.

"It's a pity I've run out of bullets" Dildo thought, as he ran up the tunnel.
2012-07-31 04:14:47 PM  
1 votes:
I always love when tolkien fans show their ignorance of the book BY FORGETTING THE HALF THAT THEY DIDNT INCLUDE IN THAT RANKIN & BASS TRIPE.
2012-07-31 03:53:00 PM  
1 votes:
I don't think that it even took me six hours to read the Hobbit and now PJ wants me to go to the theater for six+ hours to watch Hobbit movies. After the snore fest that was much of Fellowship and Return of the King, I'm thinking he's really going to screw this up. It's too bad too. I was really looking forward to the Hobbit. Never heard the news it was split into two films. I still hope this is all a joke.
2012-07-31 03:44:07 PM  
1 votes:
I am truly amazed that people who went to the trouble to post in a thread about this are so clueless as to think these three movies are about The Hobbit. Jackson has said over and over that he is including things OUTSIDE THE BOOK form other Tolkien sources...yet I still see idiots with their "LOTR, 3 large books = 3 movies, and Hobbit, one small book = 3 movies, derp, derp, derp"

Sometimes I'm scared that people are so stupid.
2012-07-31 03:36:46 PM  
1 votes:
1.bp.blogspot.com

Come on- the Rankin- Bass animated Hobbit was definitive! The animation style was uniquely fantastic. Good god I HATE the cover they put on its re-release, it's a shiat-tastic imitation of Disney's animation style and has nothing to do with the contents.

I used to think this was a good point of comparison between American and Japanese animation, that the US COULD produce quality animation. Then I looked it up and Rankin/Bass directed, but used the Japanese studio Topcraft, which later became Studio Ghibli (many of the same staff), for actually doing all the animation. LOLwut? I'm comparing an American-contracted Ghibli work to a Japanese Ghibli work.

There really aren't many historical American animations of technical worth. Well, Disney's Fantasia I suppose, although I never really cared for their style of keeping everything wildly "cartoonish", even though it was of great technical value. Warner Brothers, certainly not "bad", but also solidly cartoonish. Hanna-Barbara was just shiat all the way around, that's not to say it's not enjoyable particularly in the nostalgic view, but it's technically awful.

I guess that leaves Ralph Bakshi as the true innovator. And I wouldn't go as far as to say "great".... but at least he didn't keep the same molds Disney and WB kept using.
2012-07-31 03:28:19 PM  
1 votes:
When I saw that this was going to be three movies, I threw my two liter of Mountain Dew across the cubical farm. This work requires at least six movies, if not eight, to truly capture the spirit of the book. Three movies will barely get you to the Misty Mountains.

I'm sure I'll watch each movie at the theater for 48 hours a piece until I can say every line in unison, but I still won't be satisfied.
2012-07-31 03:25:50 PM  
1 votes:
I hope there's some breath taking scenery. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for some long, panning shots.
2012-07-31 03:24:51 PM  
1 votes:
i282.photobucket.com
2012-07-31 03:12:52 PM  
1 votes:
My take on this:

The Lord of the Rings trilogy was pretty good. Jackson had to pare each movie down to ~ three hours, and there was a lot left out of each for continuity and available time. If you hadn't read the books, you would not know it, but any LOTR geek can easily list a number of things from each book that didn't make it into the movies. Face it, each movie could have easily been 5 hours without paring down the story line.

The Hobbit is obviously a much shorter read, however a lot goes on. If Jacksom goes into detail in the right places, such as the escape from the elves and breaking into Smaugs cave, as well as the battle, I can see how it could be done in three movies instead of one long one.

Instead of leaving things out for time sake, he has the luxury of going into detail and giving us a movie that was not as condensed.

That is my hope anyway. My fear is that it's just an f'd up way to make more money, seeing how well the LOTR trilogy did
2012-07-31 03:02:00 PM  
1 votes:
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.


You did pretty well up until that point...

Bilbo gets caught by the dragon and unwittingly reveals who help him
Epic fight with dragon because Bilbo screwed up.
Epic Battle of the 5 armies.
The end.


You're leaving out that Gandolf simply appeared out of no where and pretty much tricked Bilbo into going on the adventure. And, actually, there was a point. They were going to reclaim the lead dwarf's treasure from the dragon.



In any case, there is only one reason to make this into 3 movies. Money.

Like was mentioned before, there was no reason to make Deathly Hallows into two movies. There was no reason to make the last Twilight into 2 movies.

Hollywood is getting ridiculous with this crap.
2012-07-31 02:49:12 PM  
1 votes:

Khellendros: 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."


Just following the current trend in movies. If you have a story that doesn't completely suck (a rarity in movies) you best divide it into as many movies as possible. Dividing one movie into just two is so yesterday, I fully expect the next Hunger Games/Glitter Vampire movie installments to be divided into... 4 parts... until someone ups the ante again.
2012-07-31 02:43:42 PM  
1 votes:

alwaysjaded: Manny Calavera: 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 even know anymore.


My view on this is probably nothing short of heretical: The Hobbit, which I loved growing up and still think very fondly of, is simply just not that momentous a novel that it requires this kind of attention. It's a minor piece of literature, a charming simple story with few significant or complex characters (but lots of interchangeable dwarves) that requires a minimum amount of exposition to get across to film.

In other words, if Jackson resorts to dredging up the dull and amorphous plot pieces from the Appendices and various LOTR driftwood, is this still a screen adaption of the Hobbit or just Jackson throwing material at the screen and hoping to impress us by sheer volume? We recognise the merit of economy of storytelling in all other kinds of films and genres, so why do so many people act as if this one should be exempt--as if the fact we theoretically could show everything that might have happened in the story is enough to justify doing so?

Case in point:

Optimus Primate: 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:

2012-07-31 02:36:20 PM  
1 votes:

Lipo: 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.

I read where they're taking a lot of info from the Appendices, although how much of that pertains to the Hobbit I don't recall as it's been a really long time since I read through them. It would be pretty cool if they showed the origin of the elves, the grey havens, and all of that, however, perhaps get into the history of the Kings of Numenor, the Dunedain, and so on, but I doubt they do, as much of it isn't directly relevant to the book.


all that stuff is in the Silmarillion. An awesome read, but be prepared to reference the index ALOT.
2012-07-31 02:35:28 PM  
1 votes:
This is gonna be awesome.
2012-07-31 02:33:46 PM  
1 votes:

Jocundry:
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?


? How do you get through the ~300 page hobbit in a weekend but still take a month to finish the ~1500 page trilogy? Especially if you're reading it intensely as someone who hasn't read it and is eager to find out what happens. I could (and have) read through the *trilogy* in a weekend. And while I read faster than almost everyone I know, it's not 15 times faster.
2012-07-31 02:31:54 PM  
1 votes:
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
2012-07-31 02:22:22 PM  
1 votes:

loonatic112358: 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


Maybe. It's been forever since I read the books. Those are the plot points that are always mentioned though.

And I shudder to think of The Silmarillion. I really struggled reading that one.
2012-07-31 02:22:03 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-07-31 02:20:42 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-07-31 02:16:40 PM  
1 votes:
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.
2012-07-31 02:16:06 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-07-31 02:11:07 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-07-31 02:09:46 PM  
1 votes:
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.
2012-07-31 02:08:14 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-07-31 02:07:40 PM  
1 votes:
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.
2012-07-31 02:07:38 PM  
1 votes:

CruJones: 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


Heh. Yea, me grammar gooder.

I just don't see what the downside is. PJ did a fantastic job with LOTR and if he wants to take this chance to tell more of the story not everyone knows about, then let him.

But I know Farkers need at least 250g of well done outrage daily for proper nutrition so I'll just step back and let the feast commence.
2012-07-31 02:06:48 PM  
1 votes:
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."
2012-07-31 02:06:35 PM  
1 votes:
(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.
2012-07-31 02:04:34 PM  
1 votes:
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.
2012-07-31 02:02:43 PM  
1 votes:

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
2012-07-31 02:00:43 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-07-31 01:57:08 PM  
1 votes:
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.
2012-07-31 01:56:38 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-07-31 01:56:30 PM  
1 votes:

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?
2012-07-31 01:55:24 PM  
1 votes:
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.
2012-07-31 01:54:50 PM  
1 votes:

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
2012-07-31 01:54:22 PM  
1 votes:
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....
2012-07-31 01:52:59 PM  
1 votes:
It's a pretty short book, wtf?
 
Displayed 71 of 71 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report