I just assumed that part 2 would be the entire cast getting real-time full-body waxes. 48fps of each clump of hair being tore from their simpering flesh. Part 3 will probably be root canals.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that he'll pad the films. Just a hunch.

I heard from a co-worker who watched the movie last night that they included scenes that never happened in any of the four books.  I haven't read any of his books regarding the history of Middle Earth, so those scenes may have been pulled from that, but I'm pretty sure they were all pulled from Peter Jackson's ass.

Just wait till the directors cut DVD are released with 40 more minutes of never before read or seen scenes.

/it is a good movie.

There were definitely some things invented (Azog), but the vast majority of the "padding" came from the Appendices of LOTR. And I am perfectly fine with that. I could watch days' worth of Middle Earth adventures and never tire of it.

I really don't care if they are 9 hours EACH. I'll sit there and enjoy every second.

Filler. Lots and lots of filler. Have faith in Peter Jackson. If anyone can make a young adult novel last ten hours, he can.

'The Hobbit' To Feature 53-Minute-Long Scene Of Bilbo Baggins Trying To Figure Out What To Pack

/I bet you can figure out where that's from

Azog was mentioned in the Appendices and he did kill Thror. His survival, however, was invented by Jackson. But I was fine with it.

cryinoutloud: 'The Hobbit' To Feature 53-Minute-Long Scene Of Bilbo Baggins Trying To Figure Out What To Pack

/I bet you can figure out where that's from

TMZ?

Moar car chases and explosions!

zobear: Moar car chases and explosions!

Ah yes, the old "if you don't enjoy these movies you must solely enjoy car-chase movies" strawman.

propasaurus: Nine hours of walking across New Zealand?

I'm reasonably sure you could walk the entire perimeter of NZ in the time it takes to watch all of the films.

ElusiveWookiee: There were definitely some things invented (Azog), but the vast majority of the "padding" came from the Appendices of LOTR. And I am perfectly fine with that. I could watch days' worth of Middle Earth adventures and never tire of it.

Same here. Hell, I knew they were going to put in Dol Guldur years before the movie was announced. And why wouldn't they? It's a badass story that I've always wanted to see. If the movie was like The Hobbit as it's written, yeah it'll be shorter, but Gandalf will disappear halfway through, doing god knows what, and then reappear in the epilogue, with not a word to say about what he was doing, maybe a mumble or two about the Necromancer. People would flip out about one of its stars being absent for much of the movie(s) for no good reason. They would also wonder who this necromancer was, and what made him so important that the book/movie(s) had to drag its most powerful character away from the plot.(and yeah, Gandalf was absent for much of the 2nd half of FotR and TTT too, but they were for reasons important to the main plot, as we know it. He died and got better in FotR and in TTT he was gathering the Rohirrim. In The Hobbit book, he just simply runs off mumbling about the Necromancer, and we don't know how important that was until the LotR appendices) And that's why Tolkien wrote about Dol Guldur. The Hobbit is not in a vacuum away from the rest of the mythos, despite what is written in it. I think Tolkien has said that The Hobbit as a book was heavily skewed towards Bilbo's perspective and that in "reality" the journey was quite different in tone.

And yeah, I could watch a day's worth of Middle Earth too. Hell, I could watch a first-person view of someone walking through the Shire or Rivendell for hours on end and I'd be in bliss.

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: I'm going to take a wild guess and say that he'll pad the films. Just a hunch.

Actually I think if he just films somebody reading it out loud, it might run around 9 hours. If there is extra time he can just fade to black over and over while the reader names the descendants of the line of Durin in its totality.

I saw the hobbit for the first time last night. It was farking awesome, though not perfect.

Darth_Lukecash: The My Little Pony Killer: I heard from a co-worker who watched the movie last night that they included scenes that never happened in any of the four books.  I haven't read any of his books regarding the history of Middle Earth, so those scenes may have been pulled from that, but I'm pretty sure they were all pulled from Peter Jackson's ass.

First of all, there are more than four books.

There are several books put together by Tolkien or his son via the unfinished stories and notations. (Tolkien was a geek, and wrote GM notes for everything)

But off the top of my head:
1) Radagast the Brown had no role in The Hobbit.  He only appeared in a brief scene in LOTR
2) Galadriel  does not appear in the Hobbit. Nor do  anything about Rabbit sleds.
3)The White Council did meet, but in Unfinished Tales/Lost Tales.
4) It was Gandalf who discovered the Necromancer in  Dol Guldur (And that's where he found Thorin's father.
5) Azog was long dead by Thorin's hands. His son appears in the Battle of the Five Armies.

Here's a good list

http://www.theonering.com/complete-list-of-film-changes

Gandalf does mention about Radagast to Beorn and Beorn is familiar with him, and its assumed that's who Gandalf met up with when he left the company, since Radgast lives relatively close-by in Mirkwood, so I can understand his inclusion in the Dol Guldur arc, even if he wasn't in the book proper.

Jackson could make a thirty hour film of the LOTR appendices and I would love every minute of it, but I recognize that I am in the minority. I'm still holding out some small hope that once the last billion is wrung from the Hobbit, they will start filming parts of the Silmarillion. The Akallabeth would also make a fantastic movie.

A man can dream.

Darth_Lukecash: Here's a good list

http://www.theonering.com/complete-list-of-film-changes

Skimming that list was painful. Every single "con" comment was basically the equivalent of "Tolkien didn't write it, so therefore bad".

I just wish they wouldn't have made Radagast into a bumbling squeaky voiced idiot. He's a freaking Maia.

Here's the long and short of it: when a literary source is adapted to the big screen, there are typically a few changes that need to be made, both for pacing and for dramatization.
 
The Hobbit book was good. The Hobbit film was good. The differences are there, but fairly minimal in the grand scheme. Peter Jackson has made four great Middle-Earth films thus far, all close to the three-hour mark, and I suspect the two left will be entertaining as well.
 
Stop behaving like Tolkien fundamentalists (you know who you are) and learn to enjoy an adaptation.

Midget Hobbit Porn

Wayne 985: Here's the long and short of it: when a literary source is adapted to the big screen, there are typically a few changes that need to be made, both for pacing and for dramatization.

The Hobbit book was good. The Hobbit film was good. The differences are there, but fairly minimal in the grand scheme. Peter Jackson has made four great Middle-Earth films thus far, all close to the three-hour mark, and I suspect the two left will be entertaining as well.

Stop behaving like Tolkien fundamentalists (you know who you are) and learn to enjoy an adaptation.

Here here!

The Hobbit was a very preliminary work when it was written, and by the end of his life Tolkien had added several books worth of material and notes about how the events in The Hobbit really happened and what went on in it.

Before the release of the movie I went back and re-read the book (its been about ten years since I read it last), and I was shocked at how much it resembled a screenplay for an animated movie, lots of dialogue with a note in the middle that just says "Insert a really awesome battle scene here, lots of explosions and guts being ripped out" and leaves the actual battle to the mind of the animator/reader. Hell, the most important part of the story, the rise of Sauron as a necromancer, is barely mentioned; Gandalf just tells Bilbo "Yeah, we drove that guy out", no description, nothing.

As much as I LOVE Tolkien, and The Hobbit, the straight up original text was very much the skeleton of the idea he had for the whole Middle Earth universe. To make a 1:1 adaptation of the text he wrote at the beginning, rather than fleshing it out to what it became at the end of Tolkien's writing would be the real insult to his genius.

taurusowner: I just wish they wouldn't have made Radagast into a bumbling squeaky voiced idiot. He's a freaking Maia.

It's the mushrooms. He'd be much better off with some leaf.

/that scene made me giggle

Dalek Caan's doomed mistress: taurusowner: I just wish they wouldn't have made Radagast into a bumbling squeaky voiced idiot. He's a freaking Maia.

It's the mushrooms. He'd be much better off with some leaf.

/that scene made me giggle

Saruman is such a narc. Yet, turns out he has a stash of Old Toby. So that makes him both a hypocrite and a narc. Figures he'd turn evil.

hetheeme: Wayne 985: Here's the long and short of it: when a literary source is adapted to the big screen, there are typically a few changes that need to be made, both for pacing and for dramatization.

The Hobbit book was good. The Hobbit film was good. The differences are there, but fairly minimal in the grand scheme. Peter Jackson has made four great Middle-Earth films thus far, all close to the three-hour mark, and I suspect the two left will be entertaining as well.

Stop behaving like Tolkien fundamentalists (you know who you are) and learn to enjoy an adaptation.

Here here!

The Hobbit was a very preliminary work when it was written, and by the end of his life Tolkien had added several books worth of material and notes about how the events in The Hobbit really happened and what went on in it.

Before the release of the movie I went back and re-read the book (its been about ten years since I read it last), and I was shocked at how much it resembled a screenplay for an animated movie, lots of dialogue with a note in the middle that just says "Insert a really awesome battle scene here, lots of explosions and guts being ripped out" and leaves the actual battle to the mind of the animator/reader. Hell, the most important part of the story, the rise of Sauron as a necromancer, is barely mentioned; Gandalf just tells Bilbo "Yeah, we drove that guy out", no description, nothing.

As much as I LOVE Tolkien, and The Hobbit, the straight up original text was very much the skeleton of the idea he had for the whole Middle Earth universe. To make a 1:1 adaptation of the text he wrote at the beginning, rather than fleshing it out to what it became at the end of Tolkien's writing would be the real insult to his genius.

Yeah, much of what was in the book was pretty much summarized. The movie actually follows the pacing of the book pretty damn well, if you take into account the events summarized as happening in real time. Look at the Battle of the Five Armies. As its described, its an epic battle, not on scale with Pellenor Fields, but still a worthy bookend to the story. It'll make for a good 30-45 minute setpiece. And yet it takes all of 10 pages in the book. And there's the extra time beforehand when Thorin is under siege by the elves, and much politicing is done and it takes up 10 pages but lasts at least several weeks in "real time". Anyhoo, the movie is pretty damn brisk for being 3 hours long. I was hungry for more when it ended.

Ishkur: . He's a freaking Maia.

Radagast was perfect -- here is a guy that is so in touch with nature and in love with the forest and its animals that he lets birds crap on his head. The fact that he shuns the intelligent races and lives alone in a tree, complete with his mannerisms and odd behavior, foretells his special fate: That he is destined to be completely subsumed by Middle Earth itself. By the time the events in LOTR rolled around he was nowhere to be found and wouldn't be of much help even if he was.

I'm expecting him to be a literal force of nature at the Siege of Dol Guldur. We got a taste at what he could do at Rhosgobel (that last part of his chant with the ultra-low throat overtone...incredibly eerie) and when he put the smackdown on the Witch King. I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up being the one who kicks Sauron out of Dol Guldur.

Ishkur: ClintonKun: I'm expecting him to be a literal force of nature at the Siege of Dol Guldur

We're going to see this:

[www.tolkiengateway.net image 400x385]

It's going to be an epic showdown. I can't wait.

When the film was originally two movies I was sure that was going to be in the first movie. Now I'm kinda pissed that it wasn't. The Necromancer, Smaug, and the Battle of Five Armies crushed into two movies are going to make them a little over the top awesome.

/it's a good time to be a nerd

Milo Minderbinder: Instead of watching 9 hours of a children's story, I will have a life.

We're all so impressed at how rich and fulfilling your "life" must be.

Milo Minderbinder: Instead of watching 9 hours of a children's story, I will have a life.

you sound fun

ClintonKun: ElusiveWookiee: There were definitely some things invented (Azog), but the vast majority of the "padding" came from the Appendices of LOTR. And I am perfectly fine with that. I could watch days' worth of Middle Earth adventures and never tire of it.

Same here. Hell, I knew they were going to put in Dol Guldur years before the movie was announced. And why wouldn't they? It's a badass story that I've always wanted to see. If the movie was like The Hobbit as it's written, yeah it'll be shorter, but Gandalf will disappear halfway through, doing god knows what, and then reappear in the epilogue, with not a word to say about what he was doing, maybe a mumble or two about the Necromancer. People would flip out about one of its stars being absent for much of the movie(s) for no good reason. They would also wonder who this necromancer was, and what made him so important that the book/movie(s) had to drag its most powerful character away from the plot.(and yeah, Gandalf was absent for much of the 2nd half of FotR and TTT too, but they were for reasons important to the main plot, as we know it. He died and got better in FotR and in TTT he was gathering the Rohirrim. In The Hobbit book, he just simply runs off mumbling about the Necromancer, and we don't know how important that was until the LotR appendices) And that's why Tolkien wrote about Dol Guldur. The Hobbit is not in a vacuum away from the rest of the mythos, despite what is written in it. I think Tolkien has said that The Hobbit as a book was heavily skewed towards Bilbo's perspective and that in "reality" the journey was quite different in tone.

And yeah, I could watch a day's worth of Middle Earth too. Hell, I could watch a first-person view of someone walking through the Shire or Rivendell for hours on end and I'd be in bliss.

Yeah, in one of the Unfinished Tales there's a scene in Minas Tirith with Gandalf and the Walkers, where Gandalf explains his version of that. Basically by that point he knew there was going to be a showdown in the next century or two between Mordor and Gondor, and that Smaug would naturally side with Sauron. At this point neither side had the Ring or knew where it could be found, so it might still be possible to at least fight Sauron to a draw, but not with the Dragon out there. Gandalf basically cared about Thorin only in that he would be a good shield for his left flank, if Erebor could be retaken. Bilbo needed to get involved because Gandalf foresaw that Hobbits would be part of the war, and he needed a place to get started.

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that he'll pad the films. Just a hunch.


Maybe they'll perform "Only Love Can Pad the Film".

Milo Minderbinder: zackthebass: Milo Minderbinder: Instead of watching 9 hours of a children's story, I will have a life.

We're all so impressed at how rich and fulfilling your "life" must be.

You would be, and that is the saddest part of all.

/Seriously, 9 hours? Go play outside. Or read the book 18 times.

Go play outside? Seriously? That's your reason for demeaning people that are enjoying a very well done, classic fantasy series brought to life?
Is outside where real people play? Nothing done inside counts? Watching a movie in a theater with 100 other people isn't "real" or "outside"?
Do tell me, what do you do that is so amazing, so compelling, that people enjoying some books and movies is positively saddening to you? Unless it's base jumping the fjords of Norway every weekend, or curing cancer in your spare time, then you're just an idiot.