DVD Talk Forum
Page 70 of 96
« First
20
60
68
69
70
71
72
80
Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Movie Talk (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk-17/)
-   -   The Hobbit (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk/508885-hobbit.html)

Groucho 07-30-12 09:44 PM
Re: The Hobbit
 
Hell, if all they filmed was The Hobbit, and all they cut was the songs, it could easily fit in 90 minutes (including credits).

B.A. 07-30-12 10:46 PM
Re: The Hobbit
 
Originally Posted by Jay G. (Post 11328385)
The Silmarillion will never, ever, be adapted as long as Christopher Tolkien is in charge of the estate.
It was a joke.

GoldenJCJ 07-31-12 09:50 AM
Re: The Hobbit
 
Originally Posted by Groucho (Post 11329062)
Hell, if all they filmed was The Hobbit, and all they cut was the songs, it could easily fit in 90 minutes (including credits).
Not if they milk the fans again and dangle that "pay for your name in the credits" nonsense. They could easily push that run time to over two hours.

Groucho 07-31-12 09:54 AM
Re: The Hobbit
 
Maybe that should be the whole third movie. Rolling credits with the names of fans. Maybe figure out a way to scroll the latest "tweets" on the bottom.

wishbone 07-31-12 10:06 AM
Re: The Hobbit
 
#thirteen dwarves and a hobbit

RoboDad 07-31-12 10:20 AM
Re: The Hobbit
 
Gandalf Grey and the Thirteen Dwarves


(OK, that one might take a minute to sink in... :))

Shannon Nutt 07-31-12 10:40 AM
Re: The Hobbit
 
Originally Posted by troystiffler (Post 11328923)
And you guys can bitch all you want. But everyone wanted more Lord of the Rings. EVERYONE. I could have sat through a 30 hours Lord of the Rings film.
...and STAR WARS and INDIANA JONES. Sometimes you just can't go home again.

Pizza 07-31-12 10:48 AM
Re: The Hobbit
 
Originally Posted by Groucho (Post 11329062)
Hell, if all they filmed was The Hobbit, and all they cut was the songs, it could easily fit in 90 minutes (including credits).
But the songs are the best part, especially the one during the fertility dance.

superdeluxe 07-31-12 10:57 AM
Re: The Hobbit
 
Originally Posted by Cellar Door (Post 11329050)
Do you watch LOTR or The Hobbit first? Let the debates begin!
The Hobbit, it is the prequel to LOTR after all (at least the appendixes will be)

superdeluxe 07-31-12 10:58 AM
Re: The Hobbit
 
Originally Posted by Shannon Nutt (Post 11329542)
...and STAR WARS and INDIANA JONES. Sometimes you just can't go home again.
And sometimes you can

Hokeyboy 07-31-12 11:49 AM
Re: The Hobbit
 
I worry that splitting up the movie into a trilogy is going to cater to Jackson's self-indulgent tendencies even moreso than those in The Two Towers and Return of the King. Fellowship was, in comparison to the later movies (and my favorite of the three), lean, taut, gripping, and exciting. Once Jackson had free reign over parts 2 and 3, he indulged himself entirely too much, resulting in so much bloat and needless moments that they -- while still really good movies -- brought the trilogy down a notch or two.

The Hobbit should be one *great* three-hour movie. Two movies? OK, pad it out with some appendices what-not, but we're starting to lose the focus of what is, let's face it, a REAL simple (but incredibly enjoyable) children's story. Three movies? Don't get the large soda and beware a deep vein thrombosis. I hope to be pleasantly surprised, but for now I'm cynical and more than a little soured. SOUR Jerry! :mad:

RoboDad 07-31-12 12:00 PM
Re: The Hobbit
 
Originally Posted by Hokeyboy (Post 11329659)
I worry that splitting up the movie into a trilogy is going to cater to Jackson's self-indulgent tendencies even moreso than those in The Two Towers and Return of the King. Fellowship was, in comparison to the later movies (and my favorite of the three), lean, taut, gripping, and exciting. Once Jackson had free reign over parts 2 and 3, he indulged himself entirely too much, resulting in so much bloat and needless moments that they -- while still really good movies -- brought the trilogy down a notch or two.

The Hobbit should be one *great* three-hour movie. Two movies? OK, pad it out with some appendices what-not, but we're starting to lose the focus of what is, let's face it, a REAL simple (but incredibly enjoyable) children's story. Three movies? Don't get the large soda and beware a deep vein thrombosis. I hope to be pleasantly surprised, but for now I'm cynical and more than a little soured. SOUR Jerry! :mad:
I don't know if I could possibly have summed up my concerns better than this, so I'll just say...


This. :D

GreenVulture 07-31-12 12:22 PM
Re: The Hobbit
 
Originally Posted by Hokeyboy (Post 11329659)
I worry that splitting up the movie into a trilogy is going to cater to Jackson's self-indulgent tendencies
WHAT?! Are you talking about the same Peter Jackson who made King Kong and The Lovely Bones? Those films are shining examples of economic storytelling augmented with effects that enhance the story, rather than drown it in a garish CGI mess.

Show some respect.

RoboDad 07-31-12 12:40 PM
Re: The Hobbit
 
Originally Posted by GreenVulture (Post 11329708)
WHAT?! Are you talking about the same Peter Jackson who made King Kong and The Lovely Bones? Those films are shining examples of economic storytelling augmented with effects that enhance the story, rather than drown it in a garish CGI mess.

Show some respect.
OK, I'll be the first to admit that I just had to do a double-take, just to be sure that you weren't Groucho.

Well played.

MoviePage 07-31-12 03:26 PM
Re: The Hobbit
 
Unconfirmed word is that the second and third movies will be subtitled "The Desolation of Smaug" and "The Battle of Five Armies," dropping "There and Back Again."

Which makes sense, I suppose, since we no longer have a single movie where anyone goes there and back again.

Fist of Doom 07-31-12 03:47 PM
Re: The Hobbit
 
Originally Posted by Hokeyboy (Post 11329659)
I hope to be pleasantly surprised, but for now I'm cynical and more than a little soured. SOUR Jerry! :mad:
Not only do you have to de-sour, you have to sweeten, too! :mad:

I'm OK with this news. When they announced it was two movies, I knew they weren't giving us the comfy children's story of the book, but more of a LOTR-style epic. Might as well go whole hog.

Hokeyboy 07-31-12 03:53 PM
Re: The Hobbit
 
Originally Posted by RoboDad (Post 11329676)
I don't know if I could possibly have summed up my concerns better than this, so I'll just say...


This. :D
Anti-Jackson Fanboy!!!!1 ;)

RoboDad 07-31-12 07:32 PM
Re: The Hobbit
 
Originally Posted by Hokeyboy (Post 11330076)
Anti-Jackson Fanboy!!!!1 ;)
Guilty as charged! :D

OK, not really. :p

Artman 07-31-12 09:17 PM
Re: The Hobbit
 
Originally Posted by Hokeyboy (Post 11329659)
I worry that splitting up the movie into a trilogy is going to cater to Jackson's self-indulgent tendencies even moreso than those in The Two Towers and Return of the King. Fellowship was, in comparison to the later movies (and my favorite of the three), lean, taut, gripping, and exciting. Once Jackson had free reign over parts 2 and 3, he indulged himself entirely too much, resulting in so much bloat and needless moments that they -- while still really good movies -- brought the trilogy down a notch or two.

The Hobbit should be one *great* three-hour movie. Two movies? OK, pad it out with some appendices what-not, but we're starting to lose the focus of what is, let's face it, a REAL simple (but incredibly enjoyable) children's story.
We don't agree on much....but this was a nice summary. I've always loved Fellowship the best for the reasons you described (and I just like the way the story unfolds in the beginning).

But having just read The Hobbit, it would have to be one fast-paced movie to come in at three hours imo. Compared to say, the pace of the EE LOTR films...I'd say five would've been about right. But, if PJ's including things in addition to the novel....that could equal a few more hours. The three Hobbit films certainly will be shorter than LOTR. So, I'm hesitant.... but cautiously optimistic.

Josh-da-man 08-01-12 01:48 AM
Re: The Hobbit
 
Originally Posted by Hokeyboy (Post 11329659)
I worry that splitting up the movie into a trilogy is going to cater to Jackson's self-indulgent tendencies even moreso than those in The Two Towers and Return of the King. Fellowship was, in comparison to the later movies (and my favorite of the three), lean, taut, gripping, and exciting. Once Jackson had free reign over parts 2 and 3, he indulged himself entirely too much, resulting in so much bloat and needless moments that they -- while still really good movies -- brought the trilogy down a notch or two.
I don't know if this is an entirely fair criticism. The Fellowship of the Ring had a straightforward narrative thrust, in that the main thrust of it was Frodo's journey. In the other two books/films, the Fellowship is broken and the viewer finds himself now following three different narrative lines. There's not really a lot that happens in the books that would translate well to film for a lot of these sequences, so Jackson had to pad them out and add new scenes and dilemmas for the characters to face. The Two Towers, in particular, is a tricky one to translate to film because it's broken into two halves. Doesn't help that Jackson chose to shift the begging of that book (Boromir's death) and the end of that book (Frodo's "death" and Sam taking the Ring) to the two movies the bookended it. I think Boromir's death was a good note to end the FOTR movie on, but I really would have liked to have seen TTT end with Sam taking the Ring after Shelob "killed" Frodo. But I understand why Jackson did it the way he did.

Now, King Kong, on the other hand, was self-indulgent tripe.

Pizza 08-01-12 07:38 AM
Re: The Hobbit
 
Originally Posted by Josh-da-man (Post 11330693)

Now, King Kong, on the other hand, was self-indulgent tripe.
I'll gladly take King Kong and Jackson's "self-indulgent tripe" over the many heartless, commercial remakes made by directors that could care less about the original films and TV shows they're remaking.

kd5 08-01-12 08:19 AM
Re: The Hobbit
 
I sincerely hope that the rumors regarding the splitting of The Hobbit into 3 parts is unfounded. I think it would be a travesty to the extreme. It's bad enough for the impatient that it's going to be in two parts (2 years), making us wait 3 years to see the whole movie would royally piss me off. While taking the additional time to flesh out the extravaganza over 2 movies would give Jackson a chance to do the movie as much justice as he did with LOTR (and ultimately be more satisfying to people like me), doing so over 3 seems more like abuse to me. -kd5-

Jay G. 08-01-12 08:41 AM
Re: The Hobbit
 
Originally Posted by kd5 (Post 11330894)
I sincerely hope that the rumors regarding the splitting of The Hobbit into 3 parts is unfounded.
It's not a rumor. Peter Jackson posted the news on his Facebook account. The announcement has been quoted twice on this thread already.

Originally Posted by pinata242 (Post 11328239)
Originally Posted by superdeluxe (Post 11328451)
Here it is again:
Spoiler:
It is only at the end of a shoot that you finally get the chance to sit down and have a look at the film you have made. Recently Fran, Phil and I did just this when we watched for the first time an early cut of the first movie - and a large chunk of the second. We were really pleased with the way the story was coming together, in particular, the strength of the characters and the cast who have brought them to life. All of which gave rise to a simple question: do we take this chance to tell more of the tale? And the answer from our perspective as the filmmakers, and as fans, was an unreserved ‘yes.'

We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance. The richness of the story of The Hobbit, as well as some of the related material in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, allows us to tell the full story of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and the part he played in the sometimes dangerous, but at all times exciting, history of Middle-earth.

So, without further ado and on behalf of New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Wingnut Films, and the entire cast and crew of “The Hobbit” films, I’d like to announce that two films will become three.

It has been an unexpected journey indeed, and in the words of Professor Tolkien himself, "a tale that grew in the telling."

Cheers,

Peter J

Groucho 08-01-12 08:48 AM
Re: The Hobbit
 
What about the rumor that Martin Freeman will be playing the title role? Any truth to that?

JumpCutz 08-01-12 08:59 AM
Re: The Hobbit
 
There is also a late breaking rumor that Jackson will be directing all three films and they are going to be filmed in 3D. I'm trying to get confirmation.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:39 PM.
Page 70 of 96
« First
20
60
68
69
70
71
72
80
Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.