Bring4th

Mod note: the following 13 posts were split from thread "giving up on 2012 (you guys win)."

---

Well here is the proof that the world will not stop on December 21, 2012.

http://www.studiobriefing.net/2012/07/ja...ree-films/

I hadn't realized that Lord of the Rings was just one part of the Hobbit.

(07-31-2012, 07:07 PM)Gemini Wolf Wrote: [ -> ]I hadn't realized that Lord of the Rings was just one part of the Hobbit.

The hobbit is a single book set before the lord of the rings trilogy in middle earth's history. It tells the story of Bilbo, Frodo's uncle.

The lord of the rings is 3 books set a long time after the hobbit.

Jackson is making the hobbit in 3 films so he can fully do it justice. A very good choice imo. Will be an epic trilogy. The hobbit was probably the first book that sparked my imagination I was 9 when I read it, I believe I read it about 3 times to hehe.

I hope this increase in length means he's going to be putting all the songs in this time

(07-31-2012, 08:25 PM)Spaced Wrote: [ -> ]I hope this increase in length means he's going to be putting all the songs in this time

3 2hour films realistically should be able to include nearly everything word for word scene for for scene. Maybe not exactly word to word but at least every scene in the book.

The battle scenes are going to be epic. Can't wait to see Beorn (the were-bear) he is my favourite character in middle earth by far.

Quote:Some fans of the story were skeptical about Jackson’s plan to milk three films out of a book that is only about 300 pages long.

Yup, that's me.

But film rarely does justice to any book. Jame's Clavell's "Shogun" was turned into a 10 part mini-series that barely scratched the surface of such a great book.

A total of 6 or 7 hours to bring Bilbo's entire journey to life?

Maybe he should have gone for 4 movies.

Richard

(08-01-2012, 10:01 AM)Richard Wrote: [ -> ]But film rarely does justice to any book. Jame's Clavell's "Shogun" was turned into a 10 part mini-series that barely scratched the surface of such a great book.

A total of 6 or 7 hours to bring Bilbo's entire journey to life?

Maybe he should have gone for 4 movies.

Richard

Anything less than 12 HBO 45 minute episodes ala Game of Thrones is not going to do justice to Bilbo, speaking of which, would have been awesome if the movies were first made as episodic base HBO like productions and then put together as a "movie cut" that is the present movie. Would allow so much pointless (funny word to put here) dialogue in the movie and cut back on the ADHD hack and slash.

Cyan,

I've missed most of the HBO GoT Mini-Series. Have read all the books so far and can't see how they are ever going to give that series a satisfying end. Do you think its been a good show so far?

Even the books aren't finished yet and they've grown so complicated and taken so long (first published in 1996) that its hard to even remember the plot so far.

Title US release
1 A Game of Thrones August 1996
2 A Clash of Kings February 1999
3 A Storm of Swords November 2000
4 A Feast for Crows November 2005
5 A Dance with Dragons July 2011
6 The Winds of Winter ("Forthcoming")
7 A Dream of Spring ("Forthcoming")

I sometimes think George R.R. Martin is losing the storyline himself.

Richard

(08-01-2012, 10:01 AM)Richard Wrote: [ -> ]But film rarely does justice to any book...

A total of 6 or 7 hours to bring Bilbo's entire journey to life?

Maybe he should have gone for 4 movies.

When I read the books at age 14, I was enthralled by the sheer vastness of the world Tolkien had created. For years, I listed TLOTR as my favorite books.

Many years later, I was surprised that my son didn't share my enthusiasm for the books. He thought they were boring! What? Sacrilege!!

But then I reread parts of them, with a beginner's mind, and I understood what he meant. Actually, there was very little character development, almost no emotional suspense, and pages and pages of reading about Orcs' gray blood kinda got old. I then remembered, to my chagrin, that I had skipped over many of the battle scenes the first time around, but had conveniently forgotten that.

My son had by that time already read so many of the knockoffs - those epic fantasies that copied Tolkien's style, but in some cases with better character development. The works of Ursula LeGuin and TA Barron come to mind...these were the masterpieces of my son's pre-adolescent reading. (Harry Potter came later and, although great fun, I wouldn't quite put them in the same league...though they are in a league all their own.)

Anyway, point is, that I normally agree that the movie is never as good as the book. But, surprisingly, in this case I actually thought the movies far surpassed the books, mainly in terms of character development. Jackson did a fabulous job of fleshing out the characters, whereas the books, if we are honest we'd have to admit, are mainly action with very little emotional depth. Jackson also brought the female characters to life, who were merely names, with almost no personality, in the books.

Needless to say, I was very very pleased with the movies! I don't care for gore so I had to do what I always do during the violent scenes: close my eyes. (Not wimpy...just don't like those images polluting my mind.) But that couldn't be helped. In particular, the scene with Gandalf fighting the Balrog was stunning! it really conveyed magick. The scene with Arwen and the magickal river horses was also truly beautiful...Ah, the movies were so well done! He really brought the characters to life.

The Hobbit just doesn't have nearly as much depth, though, but I'm sure it'll be great anyway.

(ducking for cover!)

(08-01-2012, 06:27 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]...but I'm sure it'll be great anyway.

(ducking for cover!)

No need to duck with that last comment.

Quote: My son had by that time already read so many of the knockoffs

I remember that being Sword of Shannarah or something.

The part i liked in the ring trilogy is their ability to run all day long.

(08-01-2012, 07:15 PM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote: My son had by that time already read so many of the knockoffs

I remember that being Sword of Shannarah or something.

The part i liked in the ring trilogy is their ability to run all day long.

For years at a time hehe.

EDIT: oops, meant to quote Bring4th_Monica's before last post

Same here.
It's been more than a decade since i read the book but i feel 3 movies will involve making up scenes, I don't know how else they can split it into 3.
Anyway, we'll see, and I'm sure it will be great.

HBO game of thrones quality/style series can work for so many books.
The Dark Elf Trilogy please

The three films might not be as simple as The Hobbit book being split into three parts. The announcement from Jackson's facebook read: "...I'd like to announce that two films will become three."

The two films were not originally going to be meant to both be The Hobbit. Along with a single Hobbit movie, Jackson wanted to create a film adaptation based upon part of the Silmarillion, but the film rights for those stories are not up for grabs. So the plan was to create an entirely new LOTR mythos drawing from the Hobbit and the trilogy that acted sort of as a sequel to the Hobbit. Note that any information from the Silmarillion and all other works of Tolkein's is stricly off-limits for these films. Jackson would have to draw very heavily upon already established mythos as well as newly created stories and characters.

I see a few possibilities for the direction Jackson might decide to go, but I don't think that the Hobbit movie itself will be bastardized for the sake of these other two movies. Perhaps they will dive deeper into the book or extend it in some way while leaving the original intact.

(08-02-2012, 12:14 AM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: [ -> ]The three films might not be as simple as The Hobbit book being split into three parts. The announcement from Jackson's facebook read: "...I'd like to announce that two films will become three."

The two films were not originally going to be meant to both be The Hobbit. Along with a single Hobbit movie, Jackson wanted to create a film adaptation based upon part of the Silmarillion, but the film rights for those stories are not up for grabs. So the plan was to create an entirely new LOTR mythos drawing from the Hobbit and the trilogy that acted sort of as a sequel to the Hobbit. Note that any information from the Silmarillion and all other works of Tolkein's is stricly off-limits for these films. Jackson would have to draw very heavily upon already established mythos as well as newly created stories and characters.

I see a few possibilities for the direction Jackson might decide to go, but I don't think that the Hobbit movie itself will be bastardized for the sake of these other two movies. Perhaps they will dive deeper into the book or extend it in some way while leaving the original intact.

Wow I never knew that, I loved the Silmarillion as well. Even though it wasn't a single story per say.

Shame they couldn't get the rights. Christopher Tolkien shame on you. Hopefully Jackson just changes the names around slightly Morgoth could become Korgoth or something of the like hehe.

I think it's time for JR to write an addition to the LOTR.

I wonder who he is now? or What?

Christopher Tolkien may be protecting sacred secrets hidden within the texts that should not be left to the unscrupulous manipulations of capitalism. Who knows?

Having been a massive nerd during my teens I've read just about every Tolkein story. I love some of the stories in the Silmarillion, especially the Lay of Luthien and the Children of Hurin, which both got made into their own stories.

That said I've always found the Hobbit to be my favourite of his works due to it's accessibility and the fluidity of the story.

My main gripe in the LOTR movie was the treatment of Sam & Frodo. By the end of the books, they were a force to be reckoned with. Not the sappy duo they turned out to be moviewise. I also think the movies trivialized Feremir's (sp?) part in the story.

Thats hair splitting though...cause they were great movies.

Richard

I also was a little disappointed with the movies' treatment of Faramir, and even more-so Denethor.

In the books, Denethor was (initially) much more noble and kingly than his cowardly and negative movie counterpart. The scene where Pippin pledges his life to Denethor's service because Borimir died protecting him was one of my favorite parts of the books, but the magic from the scene is take right out from under it with Denethor's spite and uncaring nature in the movies. The books portrayed a more gradual and deep transition into madness, whereas the movies started out with a mad and bitter character.

But I also agree that they were great movies. I liked them basically as much as I liked the books.