Could the powers in charge modify the title of this thread to something less dramatic. Every time I see an update, I'm afraid something bad has happened to the production of the Hobbit movies. :(
All I can say is, the next year is going to be very long. ;)
Yea, saw that news. I'm in favor of the move, impossible to translate all of this to film, especially pulling in some of the additional scenes.
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
Ohh, interesting news! Probably very good news!
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
If he's planning on adding a bunch of material from the appendices to explain the story properly, he's going to need that third movie. He had to drop too much from LotR as it is.
I can see a lot of purists complaining that events not in the actual novel should not appear, though.
[QUOTE]Jackson stated, “Upon recently viewing a cut of the first film, and a chunk of the second, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens and I were very pleased with the way the story was coming together. We recognized that 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, gave rise to a simple question: do we tell more of the tale? And the answer from our perspective as filmmakers and fans was an unreserved ‘yes.’ We know the strength of our cast and of the characters they have brought to life. We know creatively how compelling and engaging the story can be and—lastly, and most importantly—we know how much of the tale of Bilbo Baggins, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur would remain untold if we did not fully realize this complex and wonderful adventure. I’m delighted that New Line, MGM and Warner Bros. are equally enthusiastic about bringing fans this expansive tale across three films.”[/QUOTE]
Man, should have done this with LOTR, maybe splitting it up into the actual 6 books -> films.
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
Maybe he will do Silmarillion - that's what, a movie every half chapter or so?
ShadowDancerWhen I say, "Why aye, gadgie," in my heart I say, "Och aye, laddie."London, UK
I've no problem at all with this, and actually like the sound of it far better than just the two movies. Why? Because its Peter Jackson doing it! Anyone else and I'd be convinced it was just a money making ploy from the studios, and I'd say Peter Jackson has proved himself to be more interested in the story than the money!
My only complaints from the Traliers so far is #1, No SMAUG!, #2, They do seem to be taking the silliness of gimli from the LOTR movies and applying it to all the dwarves, It almost seems like they are trying to make Bilbo and the 13 Dwarves rather than The Hobbit. I'm hoping thats just a trick of the trailer, Since these are NOT disney dwarves! they are ment to be gruff and serious dammit!
Oh yeah, and, I dunno if i've mentioned it yet or not but.. Uhhh, SMAUG NOW! and he better not look silly!
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
Stingray, might I suggest you review [URL="http://www.amazon.com/The-Hobbit-J-R-R-Tolkien/dp/0618968636/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1344202519&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Hobbit"]this[/URL] to understand the importance of the 13 dwarves.
[QUOTE=Random Chaos;195601]Stingray, might I suggest you review [URL="http://www.amazon.com/The-Hobbit-J-R-R-Tolkien/dp/0618968636/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1344202519&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Hobbit"]this[/URL] to understand the importance of the 13 dwarves.
:)[/QUOTE]
Believe me, I tried, but I just couldn't get past the long-winded descriptions of the landscape... I love travel logs, but this was too much information about things that aren't all that compelling. :D
I'd rather wait for the movies. I can always get the book later on, which I did for the LOTR series and I haven't read it either, I'm too young to spend so much time reading fiction.
Really, I agree with Stingray about the long-winded descriptions of the landscape or describing every little thing that some Elf is wearing. I've read all four books (before the movies came out too), and really, it was hard sometimes. There were times I would be reading, and I'd realize that I'd zoned out three paragraphs ago. I'm not saying it's bad writing, just not my style. I prefer my fantasy more like Robert E. Howard's, much quicker, but still poetic. He does a wonderful job of creating an image in your mind, with some wonderful imagery from the descriptions, but still leaving enough to your imagination. I'd much sooner read all the Conan stories again than read a single Tolkien book again. I also really liked the style used in Glenn Cook's Black Company books. Those books were awesome, especially the first three.
It's kind of hard to compare the two though. The Lady in Black Company was a much more compelling antagonist than Sauran to me, but then, Sauran was more of a faceless evil force than an actual character. Similar to The Dominator in a way I suppose, but even he was more fleshed out than Sauran I felt. Though maybe I should compare The Lady to Saruman? No one knows what I'm talking about I take it?
Oh yeah, and like I said, Howard is the boss of fantasy to me. Absolutely amazing. Conan was one of the most memorable characters I've ever seen. And what creepy stories he could write. Similar to his friend Lovecraft. The horror of insignifigance... kind of hard to describe.
[QUOTE=DarthCaligula;195629]Really, I agree with Stingray about the long-winded descriptions of the landscape or describing every little thing that some Elf is wearing. I've read all four books (before the movies came out too), and really, it was hard sometimes. There were times I would be reading, and I'd realize that I'd zoned out three paragraphs ago.[/QUOTE]
Finally someone who knows what I'm talking about. :D You are reading and all of a sudden you notice that your mind has wandered off and you don't remember what is going on a few sentences ago because you are thinking about those pork chops you had for lunch and not the lush vegetation the hobbit was walking by. :D
I don't disagree with you Stingray, I felt the same way with Les Miserables, and also with the Dune books, I love those books, but Herbert and Hugo are both quite long winded, much like Tolkien can be, But i slogged through.
ShadowDancerWhen I say, "Why aye, gadgie," in my heart I say, "Och aye, laddie."London, UK
I'll just have to agree to disagree I'm afraid! I didnt find any of them to be especially longwinded, and I enjoyed the descriptions which really brought the worlds alive for me.
Comments
All I can say is, the next year is going to be very long. ;)
I can see a lot of purists complaining that events not in the actual novel should not appear, though.
He better include the Battle of Dol Gulder and other appendice crap like that.
[QUOTE]Jackson stated, “Upon recently viewing a cut of the first film, and a chunk of the second, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens and I were very pleased with the way the story was coming together. We recognized that 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, gave rise to a simple question: do we tell more of the tale? And the answer from our perspective as filmmakers and fans was an unreserved ‘yes.’ We know the strength of our cast and of the characters they have brought to life. We know creatively how compelling and engaging the story can be and—lastly, and most importantly—we know how much of the tale of Bilbo Baggins, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur would remain untold if we did not fully realize this complex and wonderful adventure. I’m delighted that New Line, MGM and Warner Bros. are equally enthusiastic about bringing fans this expansive tale across three films.”[/QUOTE]
...tho I'm sure the money helps! ;)
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Trilogy
Oh yeah, and, I dunno if i've mentioned it yet or not but.. Uhhh, SMAUG NOW! and he better not look silly!
:)
:)[/QUOTE]
Believe me, I tried, but I just couldn't get past the long-winded descriptions of the landscape... I love travel logs, but this was too much information about things that aren't all that compelling. :D
I'd rather wait for the movies. I can always get the book later on, which I did for the LOTR series and I haven't read it either, I'm too young to spend so much time reading fiction.
It's kind of hard to compare the two though. The Lady in Black Company was a much more compelling antagonist than Sauran to me, but then, Sauran was more of a faceless evil force than an actual character. Similar to The Dominator in a way I suppose, but even he was more fleshed out than Sauran I felt. Though maybe I should compare The Lady to Saruman? No one knows what I'm talking about I take it?
Oh yeah, and like I said, Howard is the boss of fantasy to me. Absolutely amazing. Conan was one of the most memorable characters I've ever seen. And what creepy stories he could write. Similar to his friend Lovecraft. The horror of insignifigance... kind of hard to describe.
Finally someone who knows what I'm talking about. :D You are reading and all of a sudden you notice that your mind has wandered off and you don't remember what is going on a few sentences ago because you are thinking about those pork chops you had for lunch and not the lush vegetation the hobbit was walking by. :D