The Hobbit
07-30-12 | 10:46 PM
#1727
DVD Talk Hero
07-31-12 | 09:50 AM
#1728
DVD Talk Hero
Re: The Hobbit
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.
07-31-12 | 09:54 AM
#1729
Moderator
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.
)
07-31-12 | 10:40 AM
#1732
DVD Talk Legend
07-31-12 | 10:48 AM
#1733
07-31-12 | 10:57 AM
#1734
DVD Talk Legend
07-31-12 | 11:49 AM
#1736
DVD Talk Legend
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!
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!
07-31-12 | 12:00 PM
#1737
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 5,960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: A far green country
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!
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!
This.
07-31-12 | 12:22 PM
#1738
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: The Hobbit
Show some respect.
07-31-12 | 12:40 PM
#1739
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 5,960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: A far green country
Re: The Hobbit
Well played.
07-31-12 | 03:26 PM
#1740
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 8,487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Which makes sense, I suppose, since we no longer have a single movie where anyone goes there and back again.
07-31-12 | 03:47 PM
#1741
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Re: The Hobbit
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.
07-31-12 | 09:17 PM
#1744
DVD Talk Legend
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.
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.
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.
08-01-12 | 01:48 AM
#1745
DVD Talk Hero
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.
Now, King Kong, on the other hand, was self-indulgent tripe.
08-01-12 | 07:38 AM
#1746
Re: The Hobbit
08-01-12 | 08:19 AM
#1747
DVD Talk Legend
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-
08-01-12 | 08:41 AM
#1748
DVD Talk Legend
Re: The Hobbit
Spoiler:
08-01-12 | 08:59 AM
#1750
DVD Talk Legend
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.