The Hobbit - starts filming March 21

Re: The Hobbit made viewers sick?!!!

Lol. I didn't like it but it wasn't THAT bad!

Im usually pretty openminded to films, and can enjoy if a director has a vision I might not think is the best (PT for example). But this one I really disliked, and I barely saw it to the end (and the ending didnt make it any better...).
 
Re: The Hobbit made viewers sick?!!!

I heard a disturbing rumor (off-line) that the Hobbit is being done in 2 or 3 parts, any truth to this? I'm not technically film savy, is the 48fps the IMAX version? I want to see this in the best way possible, FOTR was the 1st movie I saw in theaters since Highlander(original) opened, so it takes something big to get me to plunk down cash for a movie.
 
Re: The Hobbit made viewers sick?!!!

It has been confirmed to be 3 parts since SDCC this year. 48fps is not necessarily the IMAX version. It is just the higher frame rate. You get the HFR and 3D as well as some theatres with HFR 3D & Imax together. There are a number of formats, depending what you cinema shows.

IMAX is larger screen. Nothing to do specifically to HFR
 
To be clear, I loathe the Rankin Bass stuff. Hate it worse than I hate the Bakshi stuff. Those things are deformed little homunculi. :lol

Aww, you mean you don't like Grinch!Thranduil??? :p
Thranduil.jpg


I love how they completely disregarded the part where Tolkien explained elves to be beautiful, ethereal beings. -_-
 
Re: The Hobbit made viewers sick?!!!

So this is actually the Hobbit part 1? seems like too much, the Hobbit is the shortest of the books but they are dragging out that much? I guess PJ spent his LOTR $ :lol
 
Re: The Hobbit made viewers sick?!!!

There has been a lot of debate going on about this for ages now. The team has stated that they are including the material from the LOTR appendices that coincide with the time of the events of the Hobbit.
It is part 1 this year yes, I've seen the film already, and I can honestly tell you that there is sufficient material to go round for the 3 films the way things look
 
Re: The Hobbit made viewers sick?!!!

Nope, more like New Line did. They blew through a ton of cash on some very expensive bombs after LOTR, so they needed this. PJ had a dozen different projects in the works which went on hold for this.

For Tolkien adaptations this is the last bite at the cherry; the film rights exist only for Hobbit and LOTR - the rights for Silmarillion and the other stuff won't likely come on the market in the foreseeable future, if ever. There's almost a hundred pages of backstory in the appendices at the end of Return of the King, much of it set around the time of Hobbit. The film rights allow them to use that material, and what's in The Hobbit, and nothing else, ever.

So, if it was your call, and you who was responsible for keeping hundreds or thousands of people in your business employed, would you choose to make one movie or three?
 
Re: The Hobbit made viewers sick?!!!

In all honesty?

They're just milking it. Like is the trend nowadays we force viewers into multiple tickets before we even deliver anything. For LOTR it was understandable, there are three books. However you could definitely do the Hobbit in one film.

They want three blockbusters instead of one. I just hope they'll have more substance than the LOTR trilogy which although visually stunning really fell flat on script and character depth.
 
Re: The Hobbit made viewers sick?!!!

In all honesty?

They're just milking it. Like is the trend nowadays we force viewers into multiple tickets before we even deliver anything. For LOTR it was understandable, there are three books. However you could definitely do the Hobbit in one film.

They want three blockbusters instead of one. I just hope they'll have more substance than the LOTR trilogy which although visually stunning really fell flat on script and character depth.
I have to agree, although I thought the extended cuts of the films are about the best adaptation of book to film that I have seen, especially when you consider the complexity of the material being adapted. That being said I'm not a HUGE fan of middle-earth. I never read any of it until the day after I saw FOTR, the next day I started reading the Hobbit, then the LOTR. So I don't come from a position of "everything" has to be included. I can see why as a business decision it was broken up, but it certainly looks like dairy farming to me! :lol
 
Re: The Hobbit made viewers sick?!!!

Tolkien never wanted three books for LOTR, that was his publisher's decision. Originally it was serialised, and he preferred a single book the size of a modern Steven King novel, or two books. Personally, I'm glad he didn't get his way on that one.

Sure, it's milking, but it's milking that I'm fairly happy about. :)
 
Re: The Hobbit made viewers sick?!!!

What other movies are you comparing it to?

(the following is not meant to enrage LOTR fans, it is merely my opinion)

Don't worry, I'm not comparing it to Star Wars or anything like that. :lol

I'm a sucker for a good script. The production quality could be terrible but if the script and the characters are interesting and have depth I'll love it. It's the same reason I'm not a big fan of The Avengers.

The characters in PJ's LOTR are one dimensional. Part of that may be the actors but I think the script is more responsible and any evolution is superficial at best. (Keep in mind this is FILM evaluation only):

Aragorn - Starts off as the rogue who doesn't want to be King. Ends up as the rogue who still doesn't want to be King but does it anyway.

Frodo - Brave but utterly incompetent. Never changes.

Galdalf - The wise old sage. Never changes.

Gimli - Angry Dwarf who hates Elves. Ends up as an angry Dwarf who tolerates Elves.

Legolas - Stuck up Elf. Never changes.

Pip & Meri - Interchangeable random Hobbits.

Sam - The person responsible for Frodo. A daunting task for sure! Doesn't change though.

Sarumon - Generic evil bad guy.

Sauron - Generic evil eye.


As I said: Beautifully shot, loads of content, but light on substance. It's "D&D Plus" which is a damn shame. It seems PJ put more emphasis on getting as much from the books as he possibly could into the film than good story and character growth.


Now, you asked what to compare it to? Well again, only from a script aspect:

The Shawshank Redemption
The Godfather
The Godfather: Part II
Schindler's List
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Goodfellas
Forrest Gump
etc...
 
Re: The Hobbit made viewers sick?!!!

Forrest Gump? :confused

I see your points, but I dont agree with them. The characters have deph and evolves, but they are characters in a fantasy story, a saga.
 
Last edited:
This thread is more than 11 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top