|
Man if you thought Christopher Tolkien was pissed before, just wait till he sees the fan fiction film.
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 15:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:31 |
|
|
SatansBestBuddy posted:I think it's a little early to call out having a third film as a bad idea, if only because we haven't even gotten the first film yet. For all we know, the first movie will only be an hour and a half and end just as Bilbo gets the ring. Leaves plenty of stuff for another two movies, and honestly I wouldn't mind slightly shorter movies at all. They can totally make three films, just like the original trilogy had enough material to make six or seven on their own. It all comes down to how much there's going to be in the first film, and how they handle the expanded material. But Jackson said at Comicon that the first film we be "at least" 2.5 hours.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 15:58
|
|
|
Is this film going to be presented in IMAX 1.44:1 ratio? And if so, how much of it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 16:15
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Rumors that swirled during Comic-Con are picking up even more steam: Hollywood Reporter's headline is 'The Hobbit' Filmmakers in Deep Talks With Warner Bros. to Make Third Movie. Making every single sci-fi and fantasy movie into a trilogy seems to be the big thing right now. It does make a crap load of money though and it's very safe to do. I called it months ago that the Hobbit was going to eventually be turned into a trilogy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
Vigilance posted:I just hate how stupid Denethor seems in the movies. That scene with him eating the grapes and looking disgusting, his death scene, etc. Yeah. They made a deliberate callback that Denethor is technically more 'kingly' than say Theoden (Gandalf calls him a "kind old man"), but that it doesn't mean he isn't also some "terrible" dour stone-cold king who scares the poo poo out of Pippin at first. Also, while it may be a cheat, why not simply translate some of the sillier songs into Elvish or NeoKhuzul or whatever where appropriate?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 18:15
|
|
|
Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:But Jackson said at Comicon that the first film we be "at least" 2.5 hours. He also said there was gonna be two films. If it's now gonna be three, then I don't see why they'd give the first film more content than the next two. It's all gonna be one story, anyway, they can cut it however they like.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 09:56
|
|
|
Well because the first film is probably done storywise and they know how they'll end it and now it's just editing and VFX work. A third movie? Obviously PJ is going to finally film The Scouring of the Shire before Christopher Lee passes and will re-release ROTK with the proper ending.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 13:08
|
|
|
What *I* want to see as a "third movie" is a version of the Hobbit that is really kid friendly, ignores all the LotR stuff, and just makes "THE HOBBIT" as the kid's book Tolkien wrote it as. That would be cool as hell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 13:36
|
|
|
Just watch the cartoon version that came out in the 80s.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 13:45
|
|
|
Effingham posted:What *I* want to see as a "third movie" is a version of the Hobbit that is really kid friendly, ignores all the LotR stuff, and just makes "THE HOBBIT" as the kid's book Tolkien wrote it as. In what sort of degenerate bizarro universe would that get the green light? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 14:05
|
|
|
Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:In what sort of degenerate bizarro universe would that get the green light? He is clearly a deviant, just continue silently judging his every move.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 17:20
|
|
|
drunkill posted:Well because the first film is probably done storywise and they know how they'll end it and now it's just editing and VFX work. Scripts are far from the only thing determining how long a movie is. I can easily think of several spots between Rivendell and their escape from Mrikwood via barrels that would work pretty easily as the ending of the first movie. And if they do edit down the first movie they'll be saving some VFX money, if only to spend it and more later. Seriously, if we get three movies then the first one is gonna be cut down to make room for them all, otherwise they won't have enough material from The Hobbit itself to cover all three movies and they'd have a hell of a time convincing people to see "the Hobbit trilogy" when 1/3 of that trilogy has nothing to do with The Hobbit. It's gonna happen, I would place money on it if it weren't for the fact that I'm still not sure we're actually gonna get three movies. (it's looking likely, but it's still rumours)
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 17:48
|
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted:Is this film going to be presented in IMAX 1.44:1 ratio? And if so, how much of it? None of the film is shot in IMAX (That would require film, and Hobbit is all digital). Not sure what the actual ratio is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 18:01
|
|
|
Nilbop posted:He is clearly a deviant, just continue silently judging his every move. If you're going to judge someone, you have to speak up or nobody will know how clever you are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 20:22
|
|
|
Just have the third one be a 'documentary' about the world, Planet Earth style. Long sweeping shots of New Zealand and interesting narration from Gandalf about the different races and species in Middle Earth and some of their back stories 
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 00:04
|
|
|
This week on Big Game Middle Earth we're hunting the elusive spotted cave troll. A wily, ferocious beast who has the distinction of being a nocturnal hunter all day. Nearly blind, this particularly temperamental creature is one of the more fearsome predators of its fragile ecosystem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 00:15
|
|
|
Democratic Pirate posted:Just have the third one be a 'documentary' about the world, Planet Earth style. Long sweeping shots of New Zealand and interesting narration from Gandalf about the different races and species in Middle Earth and some of their back stories I would buy the Bluray box set of Planet Middle Earth
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 01:20
|
|
|
If a 305 page story can be turned into 3 films I'm curious what 100 page stories out there might make good films.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 01:44
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:None of the film is shot in IMAX (That would require film, and Hobbit is all digital). Not sure what the actual ratio is. It was shot on Red Epic cameras at 5K res - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Digital_Cinema_Camera_Company#Epic-M_and_Epic-X So I guess either 1.9:1 or 2.4:1.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 01:59
|
|
|
The third film is going to be nothing but Tom Bombadil singing and hopping around, and he'll be played by Nicolas Cage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 02:08
|
|
|
Sorceror's Apprentice burned me out of Nic Cage as a magical being. You make it Nick Nolte, though, and I'm game. (Rip Torn is an acceptable alternative)
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 02:21
|
|
|
extra stout posted:If a 305 page story can be turned into 3 films I'm curious what 100 page stories out there might make good films. Brokeback Mountain is 27 pages in book form.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 03:19
|
|
|
The Unnamed One posted:Sorceror's Apprentice burned me out of Nic Cage as a magical being. Rip Torn as the young Aragorn.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 03:29
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:Brokeback Mountain is 27 pages in book form. Curious Case of Benjamin Button: 21 pages. And three hours.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 03:32
|
|
|
extra stout posted:If a 305 page story can be turned into 3 films I'm curious what 100 page stories out there might make good films. This comes up a lot, but with respect I must clear up this misconception. The films are adapting not only The Hobbit, but a potential extra 125 pages of highly compressed material called The Appendices, found at the end of The Return of the King. These not only add important extra detail to the plot of The Hobbit, but they also sketch an outline of Middle-earth history that spans an enormous timeframe. When Peter Jackson said at comic-con "There's so much good stuff in the Appendices that we couldn't fit into our shooting schedule", that should give an idea of the potential of this stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 10:10
|
|
|
Well I'm wondering about that because I'm pretty sure all the things in the Appendices that take place around the time of or relevant to The Hobbit are already being covered in the movies we're getting. So I don't know what he could be referring to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 10:17
|
|
|
Yeah, i'm kind of apprehensive about this. I think this may be a case of "worldbuilding" taking over and ruining a film (or films). Others have talked about this in other threads about other movies, and I think (but I hope i'm wrong) that this may be happening here. I mean, The Hobbit is basically just about Bilbo Baggins helping some dwarves get their mountain back from a mean ol' dragon. Yes its a prequel to TLotR, but only retroactively. Its still its own thing and has a completely different tone. There's no need to bring in stuff from the appendices that don't have anything to do with the main story. Once Smaug is dead and the Battle of Five Armies is won, what's left? But because of the "worldbuilding" mentality, Jackson has to cram in extraneous stuff that has nothing to do with The Hobbit, but a lot to do with the greater world of Middle-earth, all so that we "get the whole story" and it ties into the LotR trilogy. To explain some more because this is probably incoherent: why can't The Hobbit just be The Hobbit? Why does it have to be just one piece of a bigger "universe"? By adding in appendices material, they risk losing the coherency of the main Hobbit story. But they're going to add it because they're not treating The Hobbit as a book that they're turning into a film, but as a piece of a larger world. They're worldbuilding. Quality_Guaranteed fucked around with this message at 10:53 on Jul 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 10:45
|
|
|
The first half of The Fellowship of the Ring read as a continuation of The Hobbit, yet in the movie this was toned down a lot to make it consistent with the rest of the story and because that is how Tolkien intended for the story to be in the end. So i don't understand why The Hobbit should stand on its own when it is a part of this greater world, of coruse the tone and feel of the movie needs to be different, but it can be that way and still be expanded upon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 11:10
|
|
|
I should say that I would be completely okay with this if it was a standalone film meant to bridge the gap between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. But because it appears that it will be included as part of The Hobbit films, I worry that it will tarnish the film for people, that this extra info will be viewed as too extraneous. Kind of like how people thought the end of Return of the King dragged on too long. I hope I'm wrong though! I have faith that PJ will be able to prove me wrong, I'm just worried at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 11:11
|
|
|
There's a ton of stuff in the Appendices that would make amazing stories if fleshed out--Arvedui's voyage into the frozen North, the last days of Earnur and the ending of Gondor's royal line, the Kinstrife--but as I said, it all sort of requires casting a whole new set of actors and building new sets and costumes and pretty much committing to a brand-new project from scratch. Plus it would have little to no overlap with the stories and characters that audiences already know, except maybe like Gandalf and Elrond and a couple others. Data Graham fucked around with this message at 11:45 on Jul 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 11:42
|
|
|
At this point I've just accepted that we're getting an alternative take on The Hobbit where the narrative is massively beefed up to make it an epic closer to the scale of LotR. The more I think about it, the more I realise that Bilbo and his jolly Dwarven friends will be framed across all 3 films, because that is the real "human" thread of the story that audiences will connect with. I doubt film 3 will be a "bridge film" in the traditional sense, but perhaps some of the bridge material can be tinkered with so that it occurs in the time-frame of TH.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 13:42
|
|
|
Vigilance posted:The third film is going to be nothing but Tom Bombadil singing and hopping around, and he'll be played by Nicolas Cage. Make it Brian Blessed and I'm in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 22:12
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:There's a ton of stuff in the Appendices that would make amazing stories if fleshed out--Arvedui's voyage into the frozen North, the last days of Earnur and the ending of Gondor's royal line, the Kinstrife--but as I said, it all sort of requires casting a whole new set of actors and building new sets and costumes and pretty much committing to a brand-new project from scratch. I think that's why Jackson wants to cram so much of it into the Hobbit films. He probably wants to do those stories more than anybody, but starting a whole new project for each would be an impossible feat. First you have to get the rights, which is always a battle. Then you have to get it greenlit, which would be even more difficult since it's not one of the "popular" stories. And remember all the trouble he had trying to get filming started. Problems with unions and directors. I think it's smart of him to pad out The Hobbit story as much as possible with Middle Earth Lore so that he doesn't have to go through all the headache of starting up future seperate films based around that lore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 22:15
|
|
|
Nicolas Cage as Bombadil and January Jones as Goldberry, shoot the entire thing in 48 FPS and have it directed by George Lucas and you'll have it! The perfect movie for me to commit suicide in. edit: no wait, a Bombadil prequel directed by Brett Ratner about the origins and courtship of Tom and Goldberry, played by Zac Efron and Kristen Stewart with a very special appearance by Artie Lange as Gandalf. kiimo fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Jul 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 22:30
|
|
|
kiimo posted:Nicolas Cage as Bombadil and January Jones as Goldberry, shoot the entire thing in 48 FPS and have it directed by George Lucas and you'll have it! The perfect movie for me to commit suicide in. I thought Goldberry was Tom's daughter? EDIT - Just looked her up on wiki. My bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 10:20
|
|
|
It would make some kind of sense if it concerned the origins of the White Council and the history of Arnor, because that ties in the Istari, the Witchking, Sauron's return and the WC's attack, and the Numenorean story. How you can put all that together coherently is a bigger problem: If Tolkien had to cut it out and stick it in Appendices, how can a film do a better job?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 12:19
|
|
|
eh4 posted:It would make some kind of sense if it concerned the origins of the White Council and the history of Arnor, because that ties in the Istari, the Witchking, Sauron's return and the WC's attack, and the Numenorean story. How you can put all that together coherently is a bigger problem: If Tolkien had to cut it out and stick it in Appendices, how can a film do a better job? What will tie it all together is the ring. Remember that the white council was formed to find one ring, and the history of sauron and the witch king are all extremely relevant to the ring. Exploring the history of the rings of power, why they were made and what they were capable of would, of course, take the narrative onto major tangents. It would mean exploring Sauron's backstory. Going into Sauron's backstory would be an epic undertaking, since he essentially started off as Morgoth's second in command, and at one point was considered a good maiar. Exploring what made him turn evil would be an interesting study, one that Tolkien only hinted at but never delved into. Jackson and company would certainly embellish his story and add a lot more emotion to it. Of course it would definitely take a lot of screen time since it would also have to involve much of the events in the Silmarillion, not just the appendices. I have no idea how Jackson's going to do it, but every time I hear they're expanding the story and adding more to it I get more excited. I love the history of Middle Earth and it's been a dream of mine to see them try and present some of that lesser known lore in film. Gianthogweed fucked around with this message at 13:47 on Jul 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 13:40
|
|
|
So I'm going to this today http://www.sydneyoperahouse.com/whatson/two_towers.aspx I went for The Fellowship of the Ring last year and it was absolutely amazing. The Two Towers isn't my favourite part of the trilogy but I think it'll be well worth the $90 or whatever I spent to get tickets about a mile from the stage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2012 00:00
|
|
|
Octy posted:So I'm going to this today http://www.sydneyoperahouse.com/whatson/two_towers.aspx This is really really cool and I'm super jealous
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2012 03:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:31 |
|
|
I was sort of let down by the trailer for this that ran before the latest Batman film. I know that the reliance on the established movie characters was one of the major things that rubbed me the wrong way. I love Jackson and haven't been following the production, so I trust that this will be a Good Movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2012 06:05
|
|
