The Hobbit

[greg]

Any other LOTR fans here? I had to wait an excruciating three months for the first LOTR movie to be released in Japan, which finally was released in time for my birthday in March, 2002. I had to wait just as long for the Avengers movie to be released this year. Fortunately, the Hobbit will be released in Japan the same time it's released in the USA.

Some people may scoff at Peter Jackson "milking it out" into two movies, but the scope of the book is large enough to fill up to movies. The extended versions of the LOTR trilogy movies are the only ones I will watch (I didn't even care for the 2nd movie until I saw the extended version (they removed too much from the book in the theatrical version), so it makes sense that if they split it into two movies, they can supply us with two great movies and make fans happy by not having to make the hard choices to cut stuff out.

I still say that The Hobbit was the best-written book of Tolkein's. It flows much better than the LOTR books and has a consistent tone. Fellowship of the Ring dragged a lot in the first part and it was as if Tolkein was reluctant to get the true story started. Moreover, it seemed that he couldn't decide to make it a whimsical tale or a dark, serious one (I'm very glad that Tom Bombadil's part was removed from the movie, however the Barrow Wights were cool, even though they were a bit similar to the Ring Wraiths).

So, I am avoiding spoilers about this movie as much as I can, and hope to be well-pleased with the movie since I thought Jackson did a great job making the LOTR movies. But looking at the cast of characters on the IMDB site raises some questions. It makes perfect sense to have Legolas in the movie, since he is a Wood Elf and was retconned in the LOTR books. But Galadriel? Did Cate Blanchett's manager insist on forcing her role into the movie? They don't travel south near Lothlorien Forest at all in the book. The same goes for Saruman. And the Radagast character? His part was cut from the Fellowship movie. OK, so I just checked out Wikipedia, and apparently he is mentioned by Gandalf in the Hobbit, and that Radagast is a friend of Beorn. I do not remember that at all. Perhaps this movie will show him being killed by Saruman?

I'm sure that as with the original LOTR movies, people will complain about stuff added, only because people did not bother to read the appendices for the retconned content.

Just a little more than a month away!

[Heero]

Some people may scoff at Peter Jackson "milking it out" into two movies, but the scope of the book is large enough to fill up to movies.

So... what do you think if it's actually a trilogy?
"Peter Jackson formally announced this afternoon that his take on “The Hobbit” — originally envisioned as a two-part adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s tale — will be a trilogy." (that was back in July)

Honestly, I'm not sure how you make "The Hobbit" (which was a 77min ANIMATED movie decades ago) into a trilogy of feature films, but *shrug*

(my wife is a huge fan and will certainly be there opening night)

[_D_]

So say we all....

[greg]

Whaaaaaat? A trilogy? I can see it maybe being two movies (or one 4 hour long movie for sure), but three is a bit strange---unless Jackson is going to be incorporating a lot of other supplemental stuff. The Hobbit + the 3 LOTR books aren't the only material that Tolkein wrote about Middle Earth. Still... three movies? I need to look this up for myself. I saw the Bakshi Hobbit movie sometime over the summer. It was decent, but left out a lot. (In fact, Bakshi reduced the three LOTR books into only two movies.)

[davemerrill]

I spent seven-plus hours on my ass in a theater watching the three Lord Of The Rings movies, and I liked them fine, but I have no interest whatsoever in spending another seven-plus hours on my ass in a theater watching yet another New Zealand travelogue conducted by men in cloaks. There will have to be some cash involved to get me to see "The Hobbit". Let's call it an even hundred bucks.

[greg]

Heh, yeah, maybe the New Zealand tourism industry has been on the decline, so they want to milk this for all it's worth. Peter Jackson has already made this video to be seen on all of the Air New Zealand flights. I thought making it into two movies is acceptable and has merit, but three movies is a bit absurd.

[Daishikaze]

frankly I can read the book in the time it would take to watch this, so thats what I'll end up doing

[Ender424]

I'll definitely be watching day one but I'm kind of disappointed they are making it more than one movie; I'm assuming the climax will be in the sequel.

[_D_]

I think I have read just about all the published supplemental stuff that Christopher Tolkien published of his father's works and there just isn't that much stuff available for The Hobbit. The Silmarrilion, Children of Hurin, even LOTR has many revisions, notes, etc. but there is little other than a bit of supplemental material as backround in LOTR as it pertains to The Hobbit. Should be interesting to see what he has come up with...

[llj]

Yes, there will be a lot of additional material to "tie" this in with LOTR. Lots of "fanservice" appearances from characters in LOTR who weren't even in the original Hobbit novel.

I think extending this to not just two but THREE movies is a disaster in the making. And they're already advertising Smaug. Now it's been decades since I last read the book, but doesn't he only appear in the second half of the book? At the way this trilogy is going to be paced, people won't see him until the 2nd movie at earliest.

This all smacks of studios trying to milk every last drop out of a profitable franchise. That's what I hate about Hollywood today, a movie can't just be a movie, it has to be a "franchise".