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.

(International Business Times)   Annoyed that The Hobbit is split into three films? So are the Weinstein Brothers   (ibtimes.co.uk) divider line 215
    More: Fail, The Hobbit, Tolkien, The Weinstein Company, Harvey Weinstein, New York Supreme Court, Miramax, New Line, Warner Brothers  
•       •       •

6314 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 12 Dec 2013 at 8:35 AM (32 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-12 08:35:21 AM
Seriously. WTF is up with that?

It's a 300-odd page book.  My almost 10 year old son is currently reading it.

Each of the Lord of the Rings books was twice as big, and 3 films were adequate to cover the entire story arc.  So why split the story that is 1/6th that size into the *SAME*FARKING*SPACE*, except as an excuse to make more money?
 
2013-12-12 08:37:27 AM
Annoyed that The Hobbit is split into three films?
No.


So are the Weinstein Brothers
Who?
 
2013-12-12 08:40:04 AM
I understood two movies. Four hours out of a book the Hobbit's size didn't seen unreasonable. It let the studios get two releases and gave them plenty of room to flesh out the story.

It's adding all the extra stuff and milking it as trilogy-worthy. It really isn't. If the Hobbit should be a trilogy then the LotR movies should still be ongoing.

I'll still go see them. They always release these around the weekend of my birthday so it's sort of a tradition. But gall durnit imma gonna be curmudgeonly.
 
2013-12-12 08:41:37 AM
I just want to say the first Hobbit movie was boring, but I loved the scenary and visuals in IMAX 3D.
 
2013-12-12 08:42:42 AM
I don't know why Jackson needs 3 movies. Rankin/Bass did it in 90 minutes.
 
2013-12-12 08:43:17 AM

timswar: I understood two movies. Four hours out of a book the Hobbit's size didn't seen unreasonable. It let the studios get two releases and gave them plenty of room to flesh out the story.

It's adding all the extra stuff and milking it as trilogy-worthy. It really isn't. If the Hobbit should be a trilogy then the LotR movies should still be ongoing.

I'll still go see them. They always release these around the weekend of my birthday so it's sort of a tradition. But gall durnit imma gonna be curmudgeonly.


Personally I'm waiting for the fan-edit that only includes things that are in the actual book.
 
2013-12-12 08:44:11 AM

SilentStrider: Annoyed that The Hobbit is split into three films?
No.


So are the Weinstein Brothers
Who?


Raldolph and Mortimer.
 
2013-12-12 08:46:44 AM
but I thought Peter Jackson chose to split it up because he had so much great material? I don't know who to believe anymore
 
2013-12-12 08:46:46 AM
I am looking forward to it/them.  A different take on a fun story.
 
2013-12-12 08:47:24 AM
The royalties they are getting are pretty much the same as if only a single film was made. People aren't going to go and buy three copies of the same DVD or see a film three times as often as they normally would. I'm having a hard time seeing how they would have made more money if the whole thing was released in a single production.

but....

The second and third installments are obviously not 'remakes'
 
2013-12-12 08:50:29 AM

Tyrone Slothrop: Personally I'm waiting for the fan-edit that only includes things that are in the actual book.


Why not just read the book?
 
2013-12-12 08:51:20 AM
Oh look, it's this thread again.
 
2013-12-12 08:52:04 AM
THe Weinsteins screwed up, and they are just going to have to suck it up.
If they had decided to to make the "Lord of the Rings" and the "Hobbit" instead of sellingthe rights, then they would (probably) be rolling aroung in a Scrooge McDuck-style vault instead of Peter Jackson and New Line.
 
2013-12-12 08:54:22 AM

Target Builder: The royalties they are getting are pretty much the same as if only a single film was made. People aren't going to go and buy three copies of the same DVD or see a film three times as often as they normally would. I'm having a hard time seeing how they would have made more money if the whole thing was released in a single production.

but....

The second and third installments are obviously not 'remakes'


Is it about royalties - or was it an outright sale on the part of the film rights? TFA makes it sound like the Weinstein Brothers are just butthurt because it didn't occur to them that someone might make more than one Hobbit film, so they didn't charge the same amount for rights to The Hobbit as they did for Lord Of The Rings.

Because, you know, the Weinsteins apparently don't have enough money.
 
2013-12-12 08:55:17 AM

dittybopper: Seriously. WTF is up with that?


It's Tolkien, so it's alright. Half of the content in the movies is from The Hobbit, the other half is from Unfinished Tales and The History of Middle Earth (and LOTR appendices). There's no such thing as running out of material when it comes to Tolkien, because there's always more.

After this, I want a Silmarillion trilogy of trilogies.
 
2013-12-12 08:56:45 AM

Tyrone Slothrop: Personally I'm waiting for the fan-edit that only includes things that are in the actual book.


i240.photobucket.com

And at least a full minute cut from the "escape from Goblin town" chase.  That was embarrassing.
 
2013-12-12 08:58:27 AM
I'm sure it's an impotent gesture, but when I heard that the hobbit was going to be split into multiple movies I immediately decided I would never ever watch it.  Greedy farks.

This is starting to be a thing, in any series where they know they have an enthusiastic audience they are now splitting it into as many movies as possible whether the material warrants it or not.

Hobbit.  Harry Potter.  The Hunger Games.  I'm sure there are others.
 
2013-12-12 08:59:12 AM
When can I get all three movies cut down to one two and a half hour movie? I think it could be done without really losing anything.

/Obviously, this comment is being made without seeing the entire content.
 
2013-12-12 08:59:13 AM

timswar: If the Hobbit should be a trilogy then the LotR movies should still be ongoing.


This.

The Hobbit is TWO movies tops.
 
2013-12-12 09:00:50 AM
Rich Hollywood assholes screwing over other rich Hollywood assholes?

It's always nice to read some uplifting news on a dreary morning.
 
2013-12-12 09:04:33 AM

manimal2878: I'm sure it's an impotent gesture, but when I heard that the hobbit was going to be split into multiple movies I immediately decided I would never ever watch it.  Greedy farks.

This is starting to be a thing, in any series where they know they have an enthusiastic audience they are now splitting it into as many movies as possible whether the material warrants it or not.

Hobbit.  Harry Potter.  The Hunger Games.  I'm sure there are others.


Meh. The Hobbit is the only one that really belongs there.

Harry Potter's two part ending made sense. The first part was finding the horcruxes (and having a three hour camping trip) and hte second was about repelling the assault on Hogwarts.

The Hunger Games two parter is also a bit different. Won't spoil why for those that haven't read it, but it makes sense. The two parts of the book are vastly different in theme and content.
 
2013-12-12 09:05:04 AM
clkeagle:

Is it about royalties - or was it an outright sale on the part of the film rights? TFA makes it sound like the Weinstein Brothers are just butthurt because it didn't occur to them that someone might make more than one Hobbit film, so they didn't charge the same amount for rights to The Hobbit as they did for Lord Of The Rings.

Based on TFA they sold the rights in for a deal that included 5% of the Gross Receipts of the "First motion picture" but not "remakes".

Because, you know, the Weinsteins apparently don't have enough money.

Yeah... It's hard to care who wins, it just seems like an odd case.
 
2013-12-12 09:05:11 AM

Target Builder: I'm having a hard time seeing how they would have made more money if the whole thing was released in a single production.


That's not their argument.  Their argument is they should be getting a cut of the profits from movie 2 and 3 because they are  divisions of the original source material they sold the rights to.
 
2013-12-12 09:07:02 AM

Target Builder: The royalties they are getting are pretty much the same as if only a single film was made. People aren't going to go and buy three copies of the same DVD or see a film three times as often as they normally would. I'm having a hard time seeing how they would have made more money if the whole thing was released in a single production.

but....

The second and third installments are obviously not 'remakes'


They are obviously not the "first movie", either.
 
2013-12-12 09:07:24 AM

manimal2878: This is starting to be a thing, in any series where they know they have an enthusiastic audience they are now splitting it into as many movies as possible whether the material warrants it or not.

Hobbit. Harry Potter. The Hunger Games. I'm sure there are others.



I'm ok with this having happened with the last Hunger Games story. While I enjoyed every minute of it, the second movie felt long, but there were still some things I was disappointed they'd left out. Splitting Mockingjay in two makes sense - part one: District 13 and the build up of the revolution. Part two: Raid on the Capitol and aftermath.

Also, I think anyone that hasn't already read the books is going to be uber pissed with how it ends

/Team PeeNiss ftw
 
2013-12-12 09:09:30 AM
This is what we have become?  biatching about how many movies a book gets? First world problems at it's finest.
 
2013-12-12 09:10:35 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: manimal2878: I'm sure it's an impotent gesture, but when I heard that the hobbit was going to be split into multiple movies I immediately decided I would never ever watch it.  Greedy farks.

This is starting to be a thing, in any series where they know they have an enthusiastic audience they are now splitting it into as many movies as possible whether the material warrants it or not.

Hobbit.  Harry Potter.  The Hunger Games.  I'm sure there are others.

Meh. The Hobbit is the only one that really belongs there.

Harry Potter's two part ending made sense. The first part was finding the horcruxes (and having a three hour camping trip) and hte second was about repelling the assault on Hogwarts.

The Hunger Games two parter is also a bit different. Won't spoil why for those that haven't read it, but it makes sense. The two parts of the book are vastly different in theme and content.


I disagree.  First, the authors saw fit that the story fit in one unit of story telling.

Second,   Harry whining and crying in his traveling tent for an hour do not justify a two part movie.

Not sure what the deal with Hunger Games is, as I haven't read it, but I'm sure it's an equally silly justification to break it into two.
 
2013-12-12 09:10:44 AM
dittybopper [TotalFark]

Seriously. WTF is up with that?


-snip

So why split the story that is 1/6th that size into the *SAME*FARKING*SPACE*, except as an excuse to make more money?
Asked and answered.
 
2013-12-12 09:11:19 AM

manimal2878: Target Builder: I'm having a hard time seeing how they would have made more money if the whole thing was released in a single production.

That's not their argument.  Their argument is they should be getting a cut of the profits from movie 2 and 3 because they are  divisions of the original source material they sold the rights to.


Oh, I understand - it's just interesting that although they're in the same position they would be in if the book was released as a single film (which seemed to be the assumption in their initial contract that neglected to mention installments) they are also getting cut out of royalties that they have claim to, but that they would not have existed under their assumptions at the time of sale.

IMO the people who lose out here are the fans and viewers - as others have mentioned there is no good justification for splitting out a relatively short book into three movies.
 
2013-12-12 09:11:27 AM

doglover: timswar: If the Hobbit should be a trilogy then the LotR movies should still be ongoing.

This.

The Hobbit is TWO movies tops.


If that.

Rankin and Bass managed to cover it adequately with a 77 minute animated film.  Flesh it out to a 2 to 2.5 hour film, and you'd be able to get every single nuance of the book on celluloid without adding anything extraneous.

Every. Single. Nuance.

I mean, I'm half expecting in this film to hear Smaug voice "Bilbo, I am your father".
 
2013-12-12 09:13:33 AM
Everything I've heard about the Weinsteins indicated that they're major assholes. But I guess you have to be in that business.
 
2013-12-12 09:14:34 AM

DonkeyDixon: manimal2878: This is starting to be a thing, in any series where they know they have an enthusiastic audience they are now splitting it into as many movies as possible whether the material warrants it or not.

Hobbit. Harry Potter. The Hunger Games. I'm sure there are others.


I'm ok with this having happened with the last Hunger Games story. While I enjoyed every minute of it, the second movie felt long, but there were still some things I was disappointed they'd left out. Splitting Mockingjay in two makes sense - part one: District 13 and the build up of the revolution. Part two: Raid on the Capitol and aftermath.

Also, I think anyone that hasn't already read the books is going to be uber pissed with how it ends

/Team PeeNiss ftw


I'm OK with it also for the Hunger Games also.

Mockingjay really is a two-phase book that readily supports being split into two separate films.

/Read all three books in a week after watching "Catching Fire" at the theater.
 
2013-12-12 09:15:35 AM

Mugato: Everything I've heard about the Weinsteins indicated that they're major assholes. But I guess you have to be in that business.


It's true, but look on the bright side:  They don't have enough box-tops yet to be promoted to lieutenant colonel asshole.
 
2013-12-12 09:16:38 AM

manimal2878: This is starting to be a thing, in any series where they know they have an enthusiastic audience they are now splitting it into as many movies as possible whether the material warrants it or not.


Yeah. I guess it started with Harry Potter. Then Twilight (from what I hear that last book didn't have enough material for one movie let alone 2) and Hunger Games. Lucas is probably kicking himself.
 
2013-12-12 09:16:59 AM

Ishkur: dittybopper: Seriously. WTF is up with that?

It's Tolkien, so it's alright. Half of the content in the movies is from The Hobbit, the other half is from Unfinished Tales and The History of Middle Earth (and LOTR appendices). There's no such thing as running out of material when it comes to Tolkien, because there's always more.

After this, I want a Silmarillion trilogy of trilogies.


The Children of Húrin ftw.
 
2013-12-12 09:18:57 AM

dittybopper: I mean, I'm half expecting in this film to hear Smaug voice "Bilbo, I am your father".


Why are you going to see the movie at all?
 
2013-12-12 09:19:59 AM

manimal2878: I disagree.  First, the authors saw fit that the story fit in one unit of story telling.


I know that this may come as a shock to you, but pulp and celluloid are different mediums of telling a story. This is why some fans want books 4&5 of A Song of Ice and Fire to be condensed to one season instead of two. Sometimes there is nothing to capture and justify a second part, sometimes there is.

Rowling actually vetoed the idea of combining any books into one movie. Given that the Deathly Hallows book is larger than the others, they decided to break it up. I think it works quite well, actually.
 
2013-12-12 09:21:17 AM

Mugato: Lucas is probably kicking himself.


Lucas dragged out a story that should have been over in two movies into 6 and made billions in the process by not signing his merch rights away. Then he made more billions by selling to The Mouse. He's not kicking himself over anything.
 
2013-12-12 09:21:27 AM
I have seen the new one.. I liked it.. but yes he has added some filler in there.
Its still a heck of a movie and the new one has a lot more action.
 
2013-12-12 09:24:31 AM

meanmutton: Target Builder: The royalties they are getting are pretty much the same as if only a single film was made. People aren't going to go and buy three copies of the same DVD or see a film three times as often as they normally would. I'm having a hard time seeing how they would have made more money if the whole thing was released in a single production.

but....

The second and third installments are obviously not 'remakes'

They are obviously not the "first movie", either.


They all are the first movie for each bit of the story they sold.

It's like giving your car to a friend to sell on eBay on the condition you get 50% of the sale, and he breaks it for parts and only gives you 50% of the first part he sold and kept all of the rest of all the other parts.

I'm surprised the studio didn't do a Fantastic Four and make a cheap movie that they never released, then made the "remake" films they really wanted to do to make billions.
 
2013-12-12 09:29:14 AM
I'm sure they'll end up settling for a lot of money. A contract stating they wouldn't be paid for "remakes" would reasonably indicate a ACTUAL remake....you know, one with different actors, directors, production, etc. The 2nd and 3rd films in this series aren't a remake. It's just a legal loophole. I don't feel like they have much of a leg to stand on.

"The first motion picture" is also shoddy...because this whole film was filmed at once, same actors, same period of time, no breaks, it's just being split into 3. That, to me, is still 1 motion picture, just 3 parts. So I'm sure they'll still end up paying.
 
2013-12-12 09:30:00 AM
There are a lot of world class screenwriters in this thread.
 
2013-12-12 09:31:10 AM

Gunny Highway: dittybopper: I mean, I'm half expecting in this film to hear Smaug voice "Bilbo, I am your father".

Why are you going to see the movie at all?


Because I hear that Legolas shot first.
 
2013-12-12 09:31:17 AM

Ishkur: dittybopper: Seriously. WTF is up with that?

It's Tolkien, so it's alright. Half of the content in the movies is from The Hobbit, the other half is from Unfinished Tales and The History of Middle Earth (and LOTR appendices). There's no such thing as running out of material when it comes to Tolkien, because there's always more.

After this, I want a Silmarillion trilogy of trilogies.


except for the character they made up to give Legolas (who shouldn't even be in the Hobbit) a love interest
 
2013-12-12 09:32:09 AM
I'm pretty sure that the second movie completes the story of "The Hobbit".  The 3rd movie is a depiction of the events after "the Hobbit" and leading up to Fellowship of the Ring.
 
2013-12-12 09:33:48 AM

dittybopper: Gunny Highway: dittybopper: I mean, I'm half expecting in this film to hear Smaug voice "Bilbo, I am your father".

Why are you going to see the movie at all?

Because I hear that Legolas shot first.


Serious answer:  I probably won't go see it.  I'll wait until I can rent it.  I went to see the first film in the theater, but after that experience, with a story that would have been adequately told in its entirety being dragged out like that, I'm not likely to see this film or the subsequent one until I can rent them for a pittance.
 
2013-12-12 09:35:29 AM
The first film was released in 2012 and grossed more than $1bn worldwide. The second film The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug was released on 13 December in the US and UK.

Looks at date - 12/12/13.

That is some mighty fine calendar skills there for us US people.
 
2013-12-12 09:36:19 AM

dittybopper: Mugato: Everything I've heard about the Weinsteins indicated that they're major assholes. But I guess you have to be in that business.

It's true, but look on the bright side:  They don't have enough box-tops yet to be promoted to lieutenant colonel asshole.


Tom Lehrer FTW!
 
2013-12-12 09:39:17 AM

dittybopper: Gunny Highway: dittybopper: I mean, I'm half expecting in this film to hear Smaug voice "Bilbo, I am your father".

Why are you going to see the movie at all?

Because I hear that Legolas shot first.


Nice dodge.

How long do you have to wait to use world, characters, or plot points to tell your own story?  Tolkien's work seems to bother people more than others.
 
2013-12-12 09:39:49 AM
I hope they do Silmarion movie.
 
Displayed 50 of 215 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report