# The Hobbit to be a trilogy



## Spotted_Tiger (Jul 30, 2012)

http://g4.tv/MW9Z40

How do you guys feel about this? I'm not too happy...


----------



## zachhart12 (Jul 30, 2012)

Great...just like fucking star wars...and yeah it's dumb.


----------



## Zenia (Jul 30, 2012)

*shrugs* More movie. I liked LotR, it was pretty. I am sure I will like this too.


----------



## Furryjones (Jul 30, 2012)

I`d actually rather have it spread over a few films, that way they can be more accurate to the book


----------



## Smelge (Jul 30, 2012)

I don't see what the fuss is about. They shot 2 huge films, discovered they had almost enough to do 3 full films, so add on an extra bit of shooting and avoid cutting large segments out of any of the films, creating huge Directors Cut dvds or just deleting a load of footage when they could expand the story.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jul 30, 2012)

The Hobbit was a shorter book by far than any of the 3 LOTR books, but each one of them only got one movie. Why are they doing this?


----------



## Zenia (Jul 30, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Why are they doing this?


Money.


----------



## ArielMT (Jul 30, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> The Hobbit was a shorter book by far than any of the 3 LOTR books, but each one of them only got one movie. Why are they doing this?



My sentiments exactly.

How much plot reworking is going to be done to stretch the Hobbit out to three movies?  Hopefully, none.  But why couldn't they have done the same with LOTR, or at least minimized the extreme of compression that caused at least one important story arc to be rendered impossible?



Spoiler: the story arc in question



Saruman's conquest of the Shire while the protagonists were busy fighting the War of the Ring.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jul 30, 2012)

Great...So my next like 5 years of eBay shopping is going to be very hairy and filled with friggin Hobbit toys because he's going to be doing a bunch of movies on a short book and extending it out for half a decade or more.


----------



## Spotted_Tiger (Jul 30, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> The Hobbit was a shorter book by far than any of the 3 LOTR books, but each one of them only got one movie. Why are they doing this?



[video=youtube;JkhX5W7JoWI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkhX5W7JoWI[/video]


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jul 30, 2012)

Hell, I thought they were just gonna make two movies, but now 3? I thought one would've done the trick. What in God's green earth could be said in 3 movies? Here's the important parts SPOILERS PPL:

Bilbo gets called to a quest by that quirky Gandalf.
Smaug is an asshole dragon gotta go kick his ass.
Oh, Gollum shows up and Bilbo gets that accursed ring leading up to the trilogy.
Three factions bitch after Smaug's defeat. 

Seems like a simple enough story to tell in one movie to me. One of the benefits of the LOTR trilogy movies was that they could cut out some of the bullshit (Tolkien wasn't a screen writer after all) and still get the perfect balance of what each book conveyed. This Hobbit thing is just embrassingly greedy imo.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 31, 2012)

I dunno if that's necessarily a bad thing. I think Dark Knight Rises suffers a bit from not being 2 split movies and one long rushed one.

If they pace it right it's fine. While LOTR was pretty, I gotta agree with Clerks, it was about walking, even the fucking trees walked.

I actually liked the Hobbit more than LOTR as blasphemous as that is  So I don't mind it being 3 movies since he did well with the first 3.


----------



## zachhart12 (Jul 31, 2012)

Everytime I see the word Bilbo...well, you know >>


----------



## Spotted_Tiger (Jul 31, 2012)

Arshes Nei said:


> I dunno if that's necessarily a bad thing. I think Dark Knight Rises from not being 2 split movies and one long rushed one.
> 
> If they pace it right it's fine. While LOTR was pretty, I gotta agree with Clerks, it was about walking, even the fucking trees walked.
> 
> I actually liked the Hobbit more than LOTR as blasphemous as that is  So I don't mind it being 3 movies since he did well with the first 3.



But it's one book that's shorter than all of the books, and it doesn't have enough to justify 3 movies. Dark Knight Rises wasn't based off one specific piece of source material, so for it to be 2 parts is silly


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jul 31, 2012)

ArielMT said:


> Spoiler: the story arc in question
> 
> 
> 
> Saruman's conquest of the Shire while the protagonists were busy fighting the War of the Ring.



Well, to be fair, while that did make Saruman a vengeful badass, it really did seem outta place even in the book. I just wish they would've shown the breaking of his staff. He's the secondary antagonist for goodness sake; let him go out with a bang!


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 31, 2012)

Spotted_Tiger said:


> But it's one book that's shorter than all of the books, and it doesn't have enough to justify 3 movies. Dark Knight Rises wasn't based off one specific piece of source material, so for it to be 2 parts is silly



I don't see how a book's length = what should be a length for a movie. As long as it's done well and paced out well that's really what matters.

Dark Knight Rises was using multiple source materials and smooshed it into a nearly 3 hour movie. They should have just added an extra hour and split the movie into 2 to develop the impact and plots instead of cutting things that leave you a few "huh" moments


----------



## Spotted_Tiger (Jul 31, 2012)

Arshes Nei said:


> I don't see how a book's length = what should be a length for a movie. As long as it's done well and paced out well that's really what matters.
> 
> Dark Knight Rises was using multiple source materials and smooshed it into a nearly 3 hour movie. They should have just added an extra hour and split the movie into 2 to develop the impact and plots instead of cutting things that leave you a few "huh" moments



A book's length is important. Honestly, how much can they do with three 2-3 hour movies? There isn't enough material to do that.

DKR got the necessities of the plot in it's time frame. Again, there was no source material to be bound by so they could take a few liberties, but everything was wrapped up and well done. 2 parts would've unnecessarily dragged it out, just like 3 parts will do so to The Hobbit


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jul 31, 2012)

I'm . . . interested. I just re-read the Hobbit recently. It's not as long-winded as LOTR, but a lot of stuff happens. I think people tend to forgot just how many battles and major events there are in the Hobbit just because, while they're exciting on their own, they don't have the scale that LOTR events do. I know I'd forgotten about a number of them, anyway. I can easily see how they would make three movies without stretching the content of the book. I can even make some educated guesses as to where they'll split the films. 

I'm not going to dance for joy and say that it'll be the best thing ever, though. It'll depend on how they handle it. I'm not going to jump the gun and say they'll suck and it's all just a capitalist ploy either, however. Y'all are pretty hasty.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 31, 2012)

Spotted_Tiger said:


> A book's length is important. Honestly, how much can they do with three 2-3 hour movies? There isn't enough material to do that.



1 book from a Song of Fire and Ice series is about 10 hours, considering it's 10 episodes that are about an hour each. A lot of the book is quite easy to breeze through.

Where the Wild Things are was made into a movie. Many of the fairy tales which were rather short on their own were made into movies. 

You can't determine how long something is just by going by a book's length. You go by how well someone tells the story when going to big screen. That's why I 'm not quick to explain it as a money grab and have a wait and see approach. Not that cynical. 

DKR fails a bit as a single movie because instead of taking the time to explain things it cops out by allowing "he's the motherfucking Batman" Fuck that shit, I want to see the Batman BEING Batman


----------



## Onnes (Jul 31, 2012)

Just how long is each movie going to be? And how long does it take a reasonably literate person to read _The Hobbit_?


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jul 31, 2012)

Arshes Nei said:


> Where the Wild Things are was made into a movie. Many of the fairy tales which were rather short on their own were made into movies.



Yes, but Where the Wild Things are was in my opinion a failure and one of the most depressingly boring films I have ever had the displeasure of sitting through. But you make a good point about the fairytale thing: Think of the Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Sleeping Beauty, etc. But all of these where very short and the film makers had to add more characters and spins to the original material to make it into a feature length film. I doubt many fans (I'm rather indifferent myself) would be on board with adding additions to Tolkien since he's a god to some people. 

Oh, and spot on about DKR. I found myself rolling my eyes at the first hour from how rushed and full of exposition it was. It really would have stood taller if spilt in two. But this Hobbit business makes as much sense to me as making Twilight: Breaking Dawn into a 2 parter.


----------



## Spotted_Tiger (Jul 31, 2012)

Arshes Nei said:


> 1 book from a Song of Fire and Ice trilogy is about 10 hours, considering it's 10 episodes that are about an hour each. A lot of the book is quite easy to breeze through.
> 
> Where the Wild Things are was made into a movie. Many of the fairy tales which were rather short on their own were made into movies.
> 
> ...



Song of Fire and Ice books are also 1k pages long. It's allowed to have that length to its adaptation. 

Wild Things wasn't a good movie, and fairy takes aren't something that have a set outline that can't be messed with. Fairy tale adaptations have leg room while something as beloved and detailed as Hobbit that you can't really add things to it. 

I won't dismiss it as a cash grab but I'm not happy about this


----------



## TheDiesel (Jul 31, 2012)

This reminds me of the final Twilight and Harry Potter movies: movies that could have been easily done in one film, but the money was so good they needed two.  Just a very poorly disguised cash-grab so they can try and make profit on what they can when they can.  Sorry, you lost my ticket.


----------



## Smelge (Jul 31, 2012)

Think back to Lord of the Rings. The Battle of Helms Deep. Minas Tirith. Those major fights got a few pages in the books, but for film were expanded out over at least an hour each. Big battles are not very interesting when written, but gives a film far more material to work with. The whole thing with Smaug is over and done with in no time at all, when he's meant to be the main bad guy.

Despite the fact that everyone is intent that it's a money-grab exercise, there are actually people out there who make films to tell the story as it deserves to be. If to get it out properly, it needs 3 films, then why not? Why rush it and confuse it when you have the chance to do it right.

Also, remember that usually the distrubuting studio controls a large portion of how the film is released. It's possible they pushed jackson into doing it. Though given the length of the shoot, and how he works, it's a pretty easy step to see him left with enough material for several more films.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 31, 2012)

Spotted_Tiger said:


> Song of Fire and Ice books are also 1k pages long. It's allowed to have that length to its adaptation.



Oh ok. So now you've determined that 1k pages is allowed to have 10 hours. What about Hunchback of Notre Dame? That book is half the size of Fire and Ice. So that means we need 5 hours of storytelling?

Great! I can't wait for them to spend hours like they did nearly FULL CHAPTERS explaining how a table looks! They got five hours!

The point is, there is no edict in Hollywood that "Book length determines how long a story needs to be told" 

Then you have the point where if you're gonna have battles, you may as well spend time on it. It makes no sense to have battles that will cost money in hiring actors, getting CG done (which can take days/weeks or longer) and film it and not spend time on it. Then if you also breeze through the audience may go "Wait wut?" They came for the fantasy, not to watch the Cliff Notes version of "Battles" So if they want to take a bit of time, it's fine.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jul 31, 2012)

Smelge said:


> Think back to Lord of the Rings. The Battle of Helms Deep. Minas Tirith. Those major fights got a few pages in the books, but for film were expanded out over at least an hour each. Big battles are not very interesting when written, but gives a film far more material to work with. The whole thing with Smaug is over and done with in no time at all, when he's meant to be the main bad guy.


This is particularly significant when you consider that the Hobbit puts readers up to their eyeballs in skirmishes and battles. The battle with Smaug isn't even the last or largest of them. I can think of six off the top of my head, plus a number of significant non-combat conflicts like the Gollum chapter and the stuff with the elves; the latter of which is very drawn-out. That's a lot to cram in to even two movies without minimizing the stuff in between.


----------



## Ramses (Jul 31, 2012)

ALL of the dwarves get their own sidequest.

Plus, Peter Jackson got high one weekend and filmed an entire hour of Orlando Bloom's Legolas walking around Mirkwood with Radagast the Brown. The duo pick mushrooms, fight spiders, and talk about existentialism.

Both of those things led to the following conversation:
Peter Jackson: "Hell, I know it's not in the book, but this is genius!"
Studio executive: "Genius! I'm going to buy _another_ house in Italy filled with cars and hookers!"
**

I trust Jackson, but I love everything Tolkien, so, I'm somewhat nervous.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 31, 2012)

Ramses said:


> ALL of the dwarves get their own sidequest.



Dwarves or Hobbits, because they are 2 different groups


----------



## Spotted_Tiger (Jul 31, 2012)

Apparently the movies will be released in like 6 month intervals. I'm more ok with this now


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jul 31, 2012)

A ~2 year release time for 3 movies is a little better I suppose, though the economy of it all outside of the movie theaters is still going to be a tad flooded, because they have to make a lot of money _outside_ of the theater to justify it all (books, dvds, magazines, toys of all shapes and sizes, for children and adults, colouring books, clothing for all ages and accessories, plus phone/tablet accessories most likely as well, probably a game too). Though that's if they go full-scale...Which I could see them doing, because being a "nerd" is a lot cooler now than it was in the early 00's. 

Movie-wise, I don't feel there's enough content. Three books turned into three (long) movies is one thing, but one book turned into three movies is totally different. The book has great content for one long movie, or two moderately long movies.

It'll go more smoothly if that is truly the release schedule, but I think people will still be mad that they're paying three times to watch one books-worth of movie. 

They've already been doing it with other movies (Having a Part 1 & 2, for example) so this will probably be pushing to see how far they can stretch the concept, and movie-making prowess. They shouldn't cheap out and make 3 movies that run 80-100 minutes, they very well could though, rather than 2-3 hour movies.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 31, 2012)

zachhart12 said:


> Great...just like fucking star wars...and yeah it's dumb.



...Star Wars HAD to be a trilogy with all the stuff that was going on.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Jul 31, 2012)

Remember people this is Hollywood were talking about.  They will do anything and everything to squeeze every last penny out of a movie.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 31, 2012)

Aleu said:


> ...Star Wars HAD to be a trilogy with all the stuff that was going on.



Star Wars was pretty much parts of a play split into 3 movies.
I didn't have a problem with that tbh.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jul 31, 2012)

Arshes Nei said:


> Dwarves or Hobbits, because they are 2 different groups



As Queen of the Dwarf people, I thank you for pointing out that despicable stereotype...I think most people's love for the Halflings' leaf has clouded their judgement...


----------



## Kahoku (Jul 31, 2012)

WHY


----------



## zachhart12 (Jul 31, 2012)

Aleu said:


> ...Star Wars HAD to be a trilogy with all the stuff that was going on.



>> I guess yah.


----------

