'The Hobbit' will now be THREE MOVIES LONG
By
Arcanaville,
Posted on: 2012-07-30 18:30 in Comic and Hero-Villain Culture
Yes, this is something that people tend not to realise: one movie < one novel. Or, to put it another way, how many hours worth of content was in a single novel: Game of Thrones? Most movies based on novels cut out a huge amount of content. Novelizations of movies add a lot of extra detail.
Putting that aside, The Hobbit is not really an adaptation of the novel. Peter Jackson doesn't like the novel, which is why he didn't want to do it in the first place. He is only doing because he gets to adapt lot of other bits of Tolkien that he does like (including a more "grown up" account of events of "The quest for Erebor"). He is more interested in following Gandalf than Bilbo.
In this case, the main bit he is doing could be called "The war against the Necromancer". To fit this into two movies you would end up with two full scale battles in the second movie (three if you count the battle against Smaug). This really wouldn't work. Far to much going on. If I'm right, the "extra content" he will be filming is a full scale version of the Battle of Dol Guldur, and it will go in the second movie, which will have the most non-novel content.
I really should do something about this signature.
Quote:
Hate the Hobbit? |
Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU
Yes, this is something that people tend not to realise: one movie < one novel. Or, to put it another way, how many hours worth of content was in a single novel: Game of Thrones? Most movies based on novels cut out a huge amount of content. Novelizations of movies add a lot of extra detail.
Putting that aside, The Hobbit is not really an adaptation of the novel. Peter Jackson doesn't like the novel, which is why he didn't want to do it in the first place. He is only doing because he gets to adapt lot of other bits of Tolkien that he does like (including a more "grown up" account of events of "The quest for Erebor"). He is more interested in following Gandalf than Bilbo. In this case, the main bit he is doing could be called "The war against the Necromancer". To fit this into two movies you would end up with two full scale battles in the second movie (three if you count the battle against Smaug). This really wouldn't work. Far to much going on. If I'm right, the "extra content" he will be filming is a full scale version of the Battle of Dol Guldur, and it will go in the second movie, which will have the most non-novel content. |
I found the Hobbit to be a much more enjoyable read than the LotR.
BrandX Future Staff Fighter
The BrandX Collection
Quote:
*Smooths skirts*
|
Originally Posted by Scythus
*Tugs braid.*
|
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
What I understood he is filling parts of the story with info on the Necromancer etc. That is work out of 'the Silmarillion'. Meaning he is adding parts from another now-sale book to be able to enhance the small pocket which is 'the Hobbit'.
*edit* and I saw someone also noted this too... it is geting late here
All things said..
+ It is Middle Earth and it is still great eye-candy
- Lord of the Rings was 3 big books for 3 movies where they cut an aweful lot, where The Hobbit will be 3 movies from a small thin book elongating parts with another book that was sold badly.
- The Italian Job: The Godfather Returns #1151
Beginner - Encounter a renewed age for the Mook and the Family when Emile Marcone escapes from the Zig!
- Along Came a... Bug!? #528482
Average - A new race of aliens arrives on Earth. And Vanguard has you investigate them!
- The Court of the Blood Countess: The Rise of the Blood Countess #3805
Advanced - Go back in time and witness the birth of a vampire. Follow her to key moments in her life in order to stop her! A story of intrigue, drama and horror! Blood & Violence... not recommend to solo!
Quote:
Oh cool.. I got to improve on Arcanaville for once... |
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
How ironic. The Lord of the Rings was actually written to be a single novel. The publisher split it up into three books, but that was not the author's original intent. The Lord of the Rings is only a trilogy, instead of a single volume or six volumes, because a publisher decided they could make more money selling it as a three volume set.
I say six because The Lord of the Rings is divided into six "books" by the author: The Ring Sets Out, The Ring Goes South, The Treason of Isengard, The Ring Goes East, The War of the Ring, The Return of the King. So its either one giant novel, or six books of a series. Its only a trilogy because of money. Tolkien always intended all of his Middle Earth stories to be pieces of one grand story. He even went so far as to change the Hobbit after it had been originally published to synchronize it with the Lord of the Rings as he wrote that. Tolkien constantly made changes to both The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings due to his work on the Silmarillion. Its reasonable to suggest that there are lots of non-linear connections between the works that could be explored in a movie based on The Hobbit, particularly appendix content, and including that content actually more closely follows Tolkien's story-telling intent. So much of his work is in appendices or originally unpublished addendums specifically because of perceived practical limitations of publishing page count. And irony stacked upon irony: we only have a Lord of the Rings because Tolkien's publishers thought his originally intended next work, the Silmarillion, was unmarketable. The Lord of the Rings is actually an attempt by Tolkien's publishers to milk more money from Tolkien's readership's interest in Hobbits. |
Tolkien wrote it as one big story yes. Based on his imagining of a world with myths and legends. Notes he had lying around. The whole Lord of the Rings was almost pushed as idea because the Hobbit sold so well.
He came with the whole book at the publisher who almsot screamed at the size of it. The books at that time couldn't hold that much pages. It was just impossable to print. So they said... cut it on three! Tolkien was a man with a very direct and hard to handle personality. He simply cut the book into 3 parts... didn't rewrite anything... just three parts. Ofcourse selling three nooks didn't hurt the income either... but it was not the main reason.
That is why there cliffhangers in the book doesn't fit the ends of the books. They where not written that way. Peter Jackson his writers repaired that part of the movies making them easier to follow.
- The Italian Job: The Godfather Returns #1151
Beginner - Encounter a renewed age for the Mook and the Family when Emile Marcone escapes from the Zig!
- Along Came a... Bug!? #528482
Average - A new race of aliens arrives on Earth. And Vanguard has you investigate them!
- The Court of the Blood Countess: The Rise of the Blood Countess #3805
Advanced - Go back in time and witness the birth of a vampire. Follow her to key moments in her life in order to stop her! A story of intrigue, drama and horror! Blood & Violence... not recommend to solo!
Quote:
Did you?|
Originally Posted by BrandX
Hate the Hobbit?
I found the Hobbit to be a much more enjoyable read than the LotR. |
Have to say I'm more inclined to PJ's viewpoint. Whilst the Hobbit has some interesting ideas (which are difficult for younger children to grasp), it is self-consciously childish and twee, awkwardly plotted, repetitive, and has the weak characterisation of someone who isn't, and has no ambition to be, a professional novelist. The best bits are the Gollum parts, and they are the bits that where rewritten later, when Tolkien had matured into a significantly better writer.
LOTOR is much less self-consciously written, and lets the author's strengths in linguistics, mythology, and deep imagination shine through.
Both books are burdened with too much lousy poetry though...
I really should do something about this signature.
Quote:
Real fans still know that Bilbo shot first.
|
Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU
The best bits are the Gollum parts, and they are the bits that where rewritten later
|
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
The alternative could be what we got with the Bourne Trilogy (before this new one comes out). They took what happened in the first book (mostly, since they changed a major character completely) and strung it out over three movies, using the titles of the other two books as titles of the sequels. Ultimatum and Supremacy had totally different stories than what we got in film. I'm assuming this new movie is taken from the newer material, written by a different author (only read the first one, which would be #4 in the Bourne timeline).
I trust Peter Jackson to get it right.
Loose --> not tight.
Lose --> Did not win, misplace, cannot find, subtract.
One extra 'o' makes a big difference.
It's also easier to do now than try to get the gang back together. How long did it take to get the reoccurring cast members from the LotR movies together to do the Hobbit?
Father Xmas - Level 50 Ice/Ice Tanker - Victory
$725 and $1350 parts lists --- My guide to computer components
Tempus unum hominem manet
Quote:
Peter Jackson is revisiting the original LotR trilogy to update the special fx by replacing the digital creatures with puppets.
|
Originally Posted by Golden Girl
Real fans still know that Bilbo shot first.
|
Speeding Through New DA Repeatables || Spreadsheet o' Enhancements || Zombie Skins: better skins for these forums || Guide to Guides
Quote:
I enjoyed The Hobbit, but I've reread The Lord of the Rings far more often. I read the entire series when I was 9 or 10, and I reread The Lord of the Rings at least once per year after that up until I was about 20. The only other book I've read nearly that much is Watership Down.|
Originally Posted by BrandX
Hate the Hobbit?
I found the Hobbit to be a much more enjoyable read than the LotR. |
I can see why someone might enjoy The Hobbit more. It has a somewhat more expedient pace while being a bit lighter on the details. I find it to be a bit too light to *completely* satisfy me. It left me wanting more details about dragons in the setting, as well as the details on what went on with 'the Necromancer'. The Lord of the Rings struck just the right balance for me. Silmarillion, though, was too much and too dryly put - I tried and failed to read it several times over the years before finally finding the patience and diligence to finish it in my 30s.
Goodbye may seem forever
Farewell is like the end
But in my heart's the memory
And there you'll always be
-- The Fox and the Hound
Well, this just means I won't be going to see any of them in the theater. I'll wait till they come out on cable. Then if I really really like them I'll buy the complete box set when it goes on sale. But if they take such a small book as the Hobbit and stretch it out into 3 Peter Jackson movies I definitely will need to have a fast forward button available.
Don't count your weasels before they pop dink!