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.

(Geeks Are Sexy)   How could the remaining Hobbit films run three hours apiece? Nine theories from an expert   (geeksaresexy.net) divider line 64
    More: Amusing, Hobbit Films, camera pans, Star Tours, hobbits, The Hobbit, good looks, Dragon Age, glance  
•       •       •

3264 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 19 Dec 2012 at 11:28 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



64 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-19 08:28:53 PM  
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.
 
2012-12-19 08:31:50 PM  
I'm going to take a wild guess and say that he'll pad the films. Just a hunch.
 
2012-12-19 08:34:46 PM  
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.
 
2012-12-19 09:07:09 PM  
$$$$$$$$$
 
2012-12-19 09:57:09 PM  
Nine hours of walking across New Zealand?
 
2012-12-19 10:02:30 PM  

propasaurus: Nine hours of walking across New Zealand?

 
 
See the løveli lakes
The wonderful telephøne system
And mani interesting furry animals...
 
/wait... wrong trolls
 
2012-12-19 11:31:18 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-19 11:32:11 PM  
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.
 
2012-12-19 11:39:55 PM  
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.
 
2012-12-19 11:41:19 PM  
I really don't care if they are 9 hours EACH. I'll sit there and enjoy every second.
 
2012-12-19 11:43:05 PM  
Shoot in 48 FPS, play back in 24.
 
2012-12-19 11:46:17 PM  
Filler. Lots and lots of filler. Have faith in Peter Jackson. If anyone can make a young adult novel last ten hours, he can.
 
2012-12-19 11:55:45 PM  
 
2012-12-19 11:58:04 PM  
Azog was mentioned in the Appendices and he did kill Thror. His survival, however, was invented by Jackson. But I was fine with it.
 
2012-12-19 11:59:31 PM  

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?
 
2012-12-20 12:05:44 AM  

propasaurus: Nine hours of walking across New Zealand?


Lord of the Rings was the walking trilogy.

In The Hobbit, they continually RUN!
 
2012-12-20 12:12:59 AM  
Moar car chases and explosions!
 
2012-12-20 12:21:52 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-20 12:30:38 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-20 01:07:04 AM  

I Like Bread: 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.


North or South island?
 
2012-12-20 01:50:45 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-20 02:01:04 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-20 02:01:39 AM  
I saw the hobbit for the first time last night. It was farking awesome, though not perfect.
 
2012-12-20 02:21:34 AM  

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
 
2012-12-20 02:29:49 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-20 02:38:47 AM  
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.
 
2012-12-20 02:45:24 AM  

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".
 
2012-12-20 02:48:01 AM  
I just wish they wouldn't have made Radagast into a bumbling squeaky voiced idiot. He's a freaking Maia.
 
2012-12-20 03:17:25 AM  
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.
 
2012-12-20 03:41:54 AM  
Midget Hobbit Porn
 
2012-12-20 03:45:02 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-20 04:04:56 AM  

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
 
2012-12-20 04:18:30 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-20 04:33:01 AM  

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.


There's one minor plot point that got changed, but other than that the movies are being padded out with Tolkien's legendarium and by all means should be.

This might not make them good movies. But fark you -- we don't care. The Hobbit was almost unadulterated fan service, and it was gloriously awesome.

Tolkien fans love the additional material but because they know it so well it doesn't feel like a departure in narrative nor does it bog things down in unnecessary distractions or detours -- everything is essential to them.

For people unfamiliar with Tolkien, however, the dense amount of backstory and motive is proving to be a little daunting and is affecting their ability to enjoy the story properly.

So if you want some advice, I recommend going to see it with a Tolkien geek so he can answer any questions you might have, but be warned: He probably won't be able to shut up for several hours afterward once you get him going.
 
2012-12-20 04:43:37 AM  

taurusowner: I just wish they wouldn't have made Radagast into a bumbling squeaky voiced idiot. 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.
 
2012-12-20 04:44:29 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-20 04:50:37 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-20 05:39:15 AM  

ClintonKun: 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.


It seems to me that he only gets involved when nature itself is threatened. He's rightly pissed off that Greenwood has become Mirkwood, spiders have infested it (I love their cameo -- a good foreshadow there...the first movie set up a lot of things that will pay off in the latter movies), and he rightfully points to Sauron's presence in Dol Guldur as the culprit. So that's something that directly affects him.

The War of the Ring is a conflict between the races of Middle Earth, and although it has ramifications that could affect the land itself, it's not something that he specifically has any sort of stake in. Either that or he was busy defending the forest from the axes of the orcs or something.
 
2012-12-20 05:40:39 AM  

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

It's going to be an epic showdown. I can't wait.
 
2012-12-20 05:50:54 AM  

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
 
2012-12-20 06:36:39 AM  
Instead of watching 9 hours of a children's story, I will have a life.
 
2012-12-20 07:36:41 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-20 07:37:46 AM  

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


you sound fun
 
2012-12-20 07:41:09 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-20 07:49:44 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-20 08:34:52 AM  
A fan base that has low standards?
 
2012-12-20 08:40:17 AM  

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".
 
2012-12-20 08:46:09 AM  

ClintonKun: 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.


The Necromancer is Gary Mitchell.
 
2012-12-20 08:55:50 AM  

Englebert Slaptyback: 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".


I hear Leonard Nemoy performs his "Legend of Bilbo Baggins." At some point, doesn't the length turn the whole thing into a hobbit reality show? Watch them smoke and have fruity pillow fights on the Shire-cam!
 
2012-12-20 09:20:45 AM  

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.
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report