alphseeker Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Wow - Peter Jackson is apparently loving his return to middle earth - I guess they figure why not it will make a billion dollars http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/07/30...rms-third-film/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VampireBiscuits Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I'm really interested to see where Peter Jackson is going with this. The Hobbit is one of my favorite books and I watched the crap out of the animated version as a kid. I've really been looking forward to this movie for years now. I wonder if the material for The Hobbit will be split into two movies with the third one being based off of some of Tolkien's additional books or just one movie for The Hobbit material and two movies with their plot inspired by Tolkien's other work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lerxster Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Son-of-a-bitch. You know what this means. The LOTR trilogy should have been a sixalgy. They needed two movies for each book. But of course, we already knew that. There should now be not a one scene of the book missing from this movie. But, this is the treament LOTRs needed, but I suppose it just wasn't possible at the time. Probably was hard enough to just make 3. At any rate... Hazzah Peter Jackson, hobbit director Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Owl Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Im cool with this, and pretty sure alot of the third film will bridge the gap between the Hobbit and LOTR... things like the Ousting of Sauron from Mirkwood and the rebuilding of his fortress in Mordor.. the meeting of Aagorn and Gandalf, their tracking of Gollum... (technically happens in the 14 years between Bilbo's party and the beginning of Frodo's journey in FOTR, but could be reworked in the third film) ... there is a plethora of material to be used.... just check the appendices of LOTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowtothesky Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 QUOTE (Lerxster @ Jul 30 2012, 05:34 PM) Son-of-a-bitch. You know what this means. The LOTR trilogy should have been a sixalgy. They needed two movies for each book. But of course, we already knew that. There should now be not a one scene of the book missing from this movie. But, this is the treament LOTRs needed, but I suppose it just wasn't possible at the time. Probably was hard enough to just make 3. At any rate... Hazzah Peter Jackson, hobbit director Yep. It's all about funding. LOTR could have been a bust. Since it wasn't, the investors are more eager to put their money into it. That should be a safe bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Presto-digitation Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Presto-digitation Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) It also mines from the Appendicies too. It's not just three films of The Hobbit story from page 1 til last. Edited July 31, 2012 by Presto-digitation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGr8imL84AD8inF8sBlackSedan Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Without reading the article...is it going to cover the events between The Hobbit and TLOTR? If so...I love this...it's the work of a real Tolkien fan and the third movie should include material from the appendices and The Return of The King and The unfinished Tales...Can't wait!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Presto-digitation Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 QUOTE (OGr8imL84AD8inF8sBlackSedan @ Jul 30 2012, 10:01 PM) Without reading the article...is it going to cover the events between The Hobbit and TLOTR? If so...I love this...it's the work of a real Tolkien fan and the third movie should include material from the appendices and The Return of The King and The unfinished Tales...Can't wait!!!! (Psssst....see post above yours) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Not Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 QUOTE (Lerxster @ Jul 30 2012, 03:34 PM) Son-of-a-bitch. You know what this means. The LOTR trilogy should have been a sixalgy. They needed two movies for each book. But of course, we already knew that. There should now be not a one scene of the book missing from this movie. But, this is the treament LOTRs needed, but I suppose it just wasn't possible at the time. Probably was hard enough to just make 3. At any rate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H. P. L. Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 The battle of Dale will take half a movie. Will they go down to Sauron's origin? The fall of Numenor? Naaaahhh, impossible... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShlappinDahBass Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I actually thought this was going to be a terrible idea at first. Just a quick money grab until Jackson actually explained himself. Presto-digitation is correct. The book itself can really only make two movies maximum. But, Jacksons also adding ties between LOTR trilogy and this story to help fans better understand their connection in the world. I think it'd be interesting to see what he does with this. Maybe it could be Bilbo AFTER Return of the King reading "A Hobbit's Tale". IMO, it'd be a terrible idea to add things from his other books, like the Silmillarian. Those would not last being put on screen. The origins of how things became to be are interesting, but put on screen would be dreadfully boring. I mean, it takes Tolkien around 2-3 pages just to describe a leaf. Including its' race, color, size, language it uses, and so on so forth...Any who, I have faith in this trilogy. Peter Jackson knows what he is doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del_Duio Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Great, so now we'll get to see Smaug for the last hour of the third movie instead of the first one I watched the animated Hobbit a lot before finally reading the book. Question is: IS there even enough material to span three "Peter Jackson 3+ hour" movies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del_Duio Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Jul 30 2012, 08:06 PM) It also mines from the Appendicies too. It's not just three films of The Hobbit story from page 1 til last. See, THIS is why I should completely read a thread before posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphseeker Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 On top of "The Unexpected Party" and "There and Back Again" New Line has registered the following film titles: The Desolation of Smaug The Battle of Five Armies The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGr8imL84AD8inF8sBlackSedan Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 QUOTE (The Owl @ Jul 30 2012, 08:00 PM) .. the meeting of Aagorn and Gandalf, their tracking of Gollum... I found this a few years ago and thought it was good. It's a short movie called The Hunt For Gollum. Check it out. http://www.thehuntforgollum.com/watchfilm.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Principled Man Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Milking a film franchise......to make more money?? I sense the Dark Side in all of this......a terrible presence.......which has corrupted Peter Jackson's mind.... ....could it be.......NO, it can't be........no way it can be...... ....I can't bring myself to utter his name!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Owl Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Is it a money grab? Sure... and So the f**k what! Alot of adaptations of novels seem to be split up now... Harry Potter, and ugh....Twilight....shudder, and people always bitch that they do this for more money... WHO CARES... it's a Win/Win the studio and filmmakers make more money for the extra movie and we get a more faithful adaptation... I don't get the hate when this happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Not Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 QUOTE (Mr. IsNot @ Jul 31 2012, 06:03 AM) QUOTE (Lerxster @ Jul 30 2012, 03:34 PM) Son-of-a-bitch. You know what this means. The LOTR trilogy should have been a sixalgy. They needed two movies for each book. But of course, we already knew that. There should now be not a one scene of the book missing from this movie. But, this is the treament LOTRs needed, but I suppose it just wasn't possible at the time. Probably was hard enough to just make 3. At any rate... (or one movie for each book, rather) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goose Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (H. P. L. @ Jul 31 2012, 08:23 AM) The battle of Dale will take half a movie. This part of the book is way too short...just a blur. Edited August 2, 2012 by goose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goose Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 QUOTE (Del_Duio @ Aug 1 2012, 07:58 AM) Great, so now we'll get to see Smaug for the last hour of the third movie instead of the first one I can see Smaug appearing early in the film to set the background. There could be 45 minutes or so (at least) of back story prior to getting to the Hobbit proper. There are many events in the written version of Hobbit that move a bit too quickly, IMO, and I can see the film version doing them more justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CygnusGal Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 (edited) One of the first books I remember reading, The Hobbit deserves 3 films. LOTR deserved 4 (No Sharky? Scouring of the Shire?, Bombadil) The more detail the better. On a totally different note, just wait until the Silmarillion...27 movies, 2.5 hours each - will top even Dune....the movie.... (shudder). <almost forgot Tom Bombadil-o> Edited August 6, 2012 by CygnusGal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Union 5-3992 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CygnusGal Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 QUOTE (Union 5-3992 @ Aug 6 2012, 07:31 PM)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zgb8N-5py0 My favorite! Good to see I'm not alone. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now