The Hobbit Movie

[Unrighteous]

Peter Jackson is a hack? Holy Moly!

I sense many a negging for you for that outlandish comment Unrighteous.

Have you even seen Braindead?

 

I don't need to see anything after how he 'did' the LOTR trilogy... and what he plans to do to the Hobbit.

 

His style of film making is visually stunning, but he drags every fucking thing out. Every scene. Every sequence. Every goddamn shot.

 

He could turn a 20 minute TV Episode into a 2 hour epic.

 

That's not brilliance... It's a waste of fucking time.

 

Kong? Put me to sleep. LOTRs? I can't actually sit through a second viewing of any of them... I've tried, and tried, but I haven't been able to do it. It's painful.

 

Hobbit? I can only gnash my teeth at how frustrated I am at this fucking guy. He's literally turning a 2 hour film into ... this two film nightmare.

 

The Tolkien family should have fucking severed their ties with him after LOTRs.

[Unrighteous]

Anyway, where do you reckon the end of the first film would be?

After escaping from the goblins and Bilbo’s riddles with Gollum?

 

Knowing him, I'm surprised it won't be after Gandalf saves them from the Trolls... You know three hours into his six-film epic!

[Jose Jones]

I don't need to see anything after how he 'did' the LOTR trilogy... and what he plans to do to the Hobbit.

 

His style of film making is visually stunning, but he drags every fucking thing out. Every scene. Every sequence. Every goddamn shot.

 

He could turn a 20 minute TV Episode into a 2 hour epic.

 

That's not brilliance... It's a waste of fucking time.

 

Kong? Put me to sleep. LOTRs? I can't actually sit through a second viewing of any of them... I've tried, and tried, but I haven't been able to do it. It's painful.

 

Hobbit? I can only gnash my teeth at how frustrated I am at this fucking guy. He's literally turning a 2 hour film into ... this two film nightmare.

 

The Tolkien family should have fucking severed their ties with him after LOTRs.

 

Ha, I’d say the Lord of the Rings films were slightly long, but have you read the books?

They rattle on for ages, Tom Bombadil, the barrow wights, etc. etc. I think he did a fairly decent job of cutting some stuff out.

Agreed on King Kong though.

 

The hobbit has a lot of stuff going on. I reckon a couple of two hour films is ok.

[Lee909]

I have all the unabridged audio books.

After 3/4 days of going to work and back I got as far as them leaving Tons house.

I'm not composing as I love the books and the films.

For me they are not too long,I can understand why some people think they though.

[Unrighteous]

Ha, I’d say the Lord of the Rings films were slightly long, but have you read the books?

They rattle on for ages, Tom Bombadil, the barrow wights, etc. etc. I think he did a fairly decent job of cutting some stuff out.

Agreed on King Kong though.

 

The hobbit has a lot of stuff going on. I reckon a couple of two hour films is ok.

 

 

I've read the books several times... I know exactly how they're done. The Hobbit does NOT have a lot of stuff going on. It's a ONE two hour film, if you drag it out.

 

The Animated Version loses ONE small part... and is a bit rushed. It's 80 minutes.

[Karl_b]

You're completely missing the point that it's not just The Hobbit that's being made in to these films, it's that plus the additional material. You're so wrong on this and you're verdict of LOTR Lance, it's painful.

[Redder Lurtz]

Lance throwing negs around and spouting hysterical drivel like a demented cave troll on speed.

 

Check the awards lists for LOTR. Just because you find them "boring" doesn't make them shit films. I'd suggest you give the Hobbit a wide berth, you might implode with the boredom of it all.

[silverlining]

I've read the books several times... I know exactly how they're done. The Hobbit does NOT have a lot of stuff going on. It's a ONE two hour film, if you drag it out.

 

The Animated Version loses ONE small part... and is a bit rushed. It's 80 minutes.

 

I'm a huge fan of the books and films. Jackson's LOTR trilogy was as good a depiction as any fanm of Tolkien could expect. Wonderful.

 

I do agree that the source material for The Hobbit is very meagre in comparison, especially for a reported trilogy. It does feel like it's about one film's worth.

 

Can't wait though. Jackson and Tolkien is a recipe for great cinema.

[Unrighteous]

You're completely missing the point that it's not just The Hobbit that's being made in to these films, it's that plus the additional material. You're so wrong on this and you're verdict of LOTR Lance, it's painful.

 

Yes, and it SHOULD NOT be + ADDITIONAL MATERIAL. Period.

[Unrighteous]

I do agree that the source material for The Hobbit is very meagre in comparison, especially for a reported trilogy. It does feel like it's about one film's worth.

 

Exactly. This is a total money-grab. It's frustrating as hell.

[Pidge]

The Hobbit would never make a two hour film.

 

Assume this additional material is the Dol Gulder stuff, in which I'm looking forward to seeing it.

[Unrighteous]

The Hobbit would never make a two hour film.

 

Assume this additional material is the Dol Gulder stuff, in which I'm looking forward to seeing it.

 

With Jackson's manner of dragging everything out... two hours is about right. It's a small book, unlike the LOTR books.

 

However, only Jackson could turn it into TWO freaking TWO hour films.

[Pidge]

No two hours isn't enough regardless. The book is a success of brevity and pacing in getting so much and so many settings and characters into such a small book (still around 300 pages I think), even considering LOTR set most of these out it's a lot of information to deal with. Think three films is too much definitely but it would be pushing four hours at least in my opinion. Especially considering the way the battle of seven armies and escape from the elves are truncated in the book.

 

Personally I love them, beyond King Kong and the last act of Return (or at least the part AFTER the last act... which was the problem, the stpry was over, you can get away with the extra stuff on TV or in print, but not in the cinema) I can't agree with you.

[Anubis]

Lance, if you read The Hobbit you'll note that there are instances where Gandalf leaves and then rejoins the company, and what happened, which affects the story behind the scenes, is told elsewhere in Tolkien's literature. Hell, there is even room to put Beorn's 'investigation' (told after the event in the book) up on screen.

 

At first I was unsure, but I think they could flesh out the story nicely. I'm really looking forward to it. I'd rather it was three films spanning December/June/December as opposed to three years like the LotR though.

[Unrighteous]

Lance, if you read The Hobbit you'll note that there are instances where Gandalf leaves and then rejoins the company, and what happened, which affects the story behind the scenes, is told elsewhere in Tolkien's literature. Hell, there is even room to put Beorn's 'investigation' (told after the event in the book) up on screen.

 

At first I was unsure, but I think they could flesh out the story nicely. I'm really looking forward to it. I'd rather it was three films spanning December/June/December as opposed to three years like the LotR though.

 

The question is... why the decision to flesh out the story? Why stray away from the book? Why include the crossover characters that aren't in the original book?

 

Why why why?

 

No one really is answering why... Sure, they're doing the Sorcerer storyline as well... but why not just make that a separate film?

 

The storyline doesn't overlap to the Hobbit Storyline, so essentially, they've taken an independent story and worked it into a storyline that is PERFECT for a full-length feature film

[Unrighteous]

No two hours isn't enough regardless. The book is a success of brevity and pacing in getting so much and so many settings and characters into such a small book (still around 300 pages I think), even considering LOTR set most of these out it's a lot of information to deal with. Think three films is too much definitely but it would be pushing four hours at least in my opinion. Especially considering the way the battle of seven armies and escape from the elves are truncated in the book.

 

Personally I love them, beyond King Kong and the last act of Return (or at least the part AFTER the last act... which was the problem, the stpry was over, you can get away with the extra stuff on TV or in print, but not in the cinema) I can't agree with you.

 

Four hours for the Hobbit would be an absolute crime... which Jackson KNOWS which is why the Sorcerer/Necromancer storyline is being used.

 

Both would be perfect for full feature films: ie -- The Hobbit(or There and back again), and "The Siege of Dol Guldur".

[s(k)aturation]

All that shite in the Jackson LOTR trilogy. And yet Tom Bombadil, possibly the most enigmatic and mystical Tolkien character of them all, nary even gets a mention.

 

On that basis, expect Smaug to miss the cut in The Hobbit.

[Pidge]

Four hours for the Hobbit would be an absolute crime... which Jackson KNOWS which is why the Sorcerer/Necromancer storyline is being used.

 

Both would be perfect for full feature films: ie -- The Hobbit(or There and back again), and "The Siege of Dol Guldur".

 

Nonsense, the story (just the Hobbit, not the rest) is not going to work in a two hour film. It's a book of several substantial sections that all need to be shown in good detail and feel established in the film. A two hour film would be like "ah we're so lost/oh look there's the exit"... "ah we can't get around the dragon/oh there he goes". The story is about an odyssey across the world, he has to face actual trials on the way, not just breeze through set-pieces while the actors try to convince the audience that it's impressive.

 

Raising the party, captured by trolls, rivendell, misty mountains, gollum, escape from the wargs, beorn, mirkwood, spiders, elves in the woods, the elvish dungeons (glossed over in the book), barrels, laketown, the mountain, the door, Smaug, stealing the cup, Smaug's rage and death, the Arkenstone, a fucking siege, battle of five armies, eagles!, Thorin's death, the return.

 

That's more than a two hour film, could be done in one film with some liberties and a long runtime. Or it could be a shit, insubstantial wander through with terrible pacing and zero weight behind any of it. I think three films is too much and it certainly does add exterreaneous threads to the story - which is never good. But it's being made to tie into the LOTR films.

 

I'm much more concerned about what kind of corny shit they'll have the dwarves doing than the Dol Guldur scenes.

[Funkasy]

It really did not work. One good viewing, but they are horribly boring fucking films... Jackson is a fucking hack. He cold easily do ONE for the Hobbit but since he's milking it for all it's worth... He's taking the fucking piss. The shitcunt.

 

[Funkasy]

I didnt really mean that Unrighteous but thought it was a fitting .gif

 

I didn't read the LOTR books, but i have read TheHobbit, can anyone tell me what books they are putting extra into this movie? because i didn't know there were more books. Some of my friends have told me that there is shit load of material missing in the LOTR movies that were in the books, so they could actually be even longer ?

[Unrighteous]

Nonsense, the story (just the Hobbit, not the rest) is not going to work in a two hour film. It's a book of several substantial sections that all need to be shown in good detail and feel established in the film. A two hour film would be like "ah we're so lost/oh look there's the exit"... "ah we can't get around the dragon/oh there he goes". The story is about an odyssey across the world, he has to face actual trials on the way, not just breeze through set-pieces while the actors try to convince the audience that it's impressive.

 

Raising the party, captured by trolls, rivendell, misty mountains, gollum, escape from the wargs, beorn, mirkwood, spiders, elves in the woods, the elvish dungeons (glossed over in the book), barrels, laketown, the mountain, the door, Smaug, stealing the cup, Smaug's rage and death, the Arkenstone, a fucking siege, battle of five armies, eagles!, Thorin's death, the return.

 

That's more than a two hour film, could be done in one film with some liberties and a long runtime. Or it could be a shit, insubstantial wander through with terrible pacing and zero weight behind any of it. I think three films is too much and it certainly does add exterreaneous threads to the story - which is never good. But it's being made to tie into the LOTR films.

 

I'm much more concerned about what kind of corny shit they'll have the dwarves doing than the Dol Guldur scenes.

 

The Animated "Hobbit" film was 80 minutes. 80 Minutes. 80 MINUTES! (and it was awesome, IMO)

 

That film only omits a feast, and Beorn's house. That's it. That's what is missing.

 

Granted, the film feels a bit rushed. Are you saying that a two hour film or even 150 minute film(fellowship of the ring was 178 minutes... so people will sit through the length) couldn't cover the entire content... whilst not feeling rushed?

 

OF COURSE IT FREAKING CAN!! Except Peter "One page lasts 7 minutes" Jackson is incapable of making this film with 'pace' that will actually excite the viewer.

 

 

However, I'll agree about your dwarves concerns. They don't even look like freaking dwarves.

[Jose Jones]

The Animated "Hobbit" film was 80 minutes. 80 Minutes. 80 MINUTES! (and it was awesome, IMO)

 

That film only omits a feast, and Beorn's house. That's it. That's what is missing.

 

Granted, the film feels a bit rushed. Are you saying that a two hour film or even 150 minute film(fellowship of the ring was 178 minutes... so people will sit through the length) couldn't cover the entire content... whilst not feeling rushed?

 

OF COURSE IT FREAKING CAN!! Except Peter "One page lasts 7 minutes" Jackson is incapable of making this film with 'pace' that will actually excite the viewer.

 

 

However, I'll agree about your dwarves concerns. They don't even look like freaking dwarves.

 

I've never seen the animated Hobbit, was it as good as the Ralph Bakshi animated Lord of the Rings?

That was boss, only got to cover the first two books though (in just over 2 hours!)

Jackson borrowed a fair bit of the imagery from it for his films.

[Unrighteous]

I've never seen the animated Hobbit, was it as good as the Ralph Bakshi animated Lord of the Rings?

That was boss, only got to cover the first two books though (in just over 2 hours!)

Jackson borrowed a fair bit of the imagery from it for his films.

 

Yeah, I watched both, often, growing up... They were well cool.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

I've read the books several times... I know exactly how they're done. The Hobbit does NOT have a lot of stuff going on. It's a ONE two hour film, if you drag it out.

 

The Animated Version loses ONE small part... and is a bit rushed. It's 80 minutes.

What your saying is totally right.

 

This is what surprised me when it was announced it was going to be done in two parts.

 

When it was first mentioned about making the film,Jackson said it would be extremely hard to make as there is not a awful lot to use in the book.

 

This is why I am dreading this when it comes out.

 

It s imo going to be totally spoiled by added parts to the story.

[Lee909]

The Fellowship unabridged audio book is 18+hrs long the Hobbit nearly 11hrs.