The Hobbit new trailer up
This one's better, you can avoid the youtube popups:
Thanks for the link. The main thing I noticed (not that one couldn't have told this before based on Freeman's previous performances) is that Martin Freeman is perfect for the role.
Agreed. He handles the comic aspects of his character quite well. And he does look like a younger Ian Holm.
"If Baggins loses we eats it whole."
I'll probably go and see it but I'm not big enough on Middle Earth to be really excited. Especially with this dubious move to build another trilogy.
I'm looking forward to this, have read the books and really enjoyed the first trilogy. I too though find it a bit cheeky that they're making 3 films out of it, certainly aiming to milk if for all it's worth, why not simply but all this extra material into extra footage?
I had a feeling they were going to try and make multiple movies out of this.
I mean, wasn't "The Hobbit" a singular story to begin with?
Execs: OMG, fans are not just going to settle waiting so many years for just "one more movie". No, we've got to find a way to stretch this out.
I'll probably just wait for the Blu-Ray.
Well the plans have changed over time. First it was going to be an adaptation movie and a 'bridge' movie, for a total of two films.
Then it was decided that there was enough material in the book itself (as a strait adaptation) to already fill two films (a-la Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows). So the plan was still two movies, but no 'bridge' film.
What's happened now is they've decided to make that 'bridge' film after all. Only the decision comes downstream of having already decided to split the main story into two movies.
The 'bridge' film deals with what Gandalf was doing during the second half of The Hobbit when he left Bilbo's party. The White Council, the Necromancer, and various tie-in details that exist in the appendices to The Lord of the Rings.
I have a couple reactions here.
I am skeptical as to whether Jackson can really fill three movies with this stuff. It seems like 'everybody' is trying to adapt novels into multiple films now. In addition to the last Harry Potter, the final Twilight and Hunger Games books are each being split into two movies.
It does seem like studios are starting to say "Wait a minute, if we're selling worms for five cents each, maybe we can make ten cents if we cut each worm in two... why didn't anybody think of that before? Small worms are sweater."
But on the other hand, it also gets aggravating to hear that be the common reaction whenever something like this is announced. Maybe because of the repetition factor.
And I don't want the scoffers to be right anyway, because I also happen to want a good Hunger Games: Mocking Jay movie. And I really want a good Hobbit movie.
(The Twilight: Breaking Dawn movies have my permission to go ahead and suck. I have nothing invested in them.)
I do think Peter Jackson and his team did an amazing job or researching/realizing The Lord of the Rings for the screen. I don't see how he's going to fill three movies out of The Hobbit, but maybe he's seeing something the rest of us are not.
I don't see it yet, but after all he did with the Rings trilogy I don't think he would do something like this just for the sake of doing it. I would think he has too much reverence for the material to simply make 'more movies' if he didn't firmly believe that he saw three movies.
I should think we'll get a total of 6 hours of Hobbit over the 3 films which will suffer fro pacing issues.
Those are good points you bring up, Samwiseb. :)
I have never read Hunger Games, but the movie itself felt like a completed story. It didn't seem open ended enough to warrant a second movie, so I guess I don't know exactly where the book goes from the movie version's conclusion.
As for The Hobbit and LOTR....well, from everything I know, all Peter Jackson did was basically pull a Stanley Kubrick and just "followed the books" (a la Kubrick's take on A Clockwork Orange), so it wasn't a matter of "interpretation" or "reverence" it was just, "let's keep it simple and follow the books". So I think Jackson is a bit overrated in his field. I will say that yes, the stories themselves as told in movie form are very compelling, and the King's coronation scene near the end of RotK is damn near a tear jerker....I think I owe that more to the performers of the scene rather than Jackson's directing.
If Jackson is going for some expansion on the Hobbit book, that is going to be interesting to see. In truth, again, he's only the director...it's the screen-writers who are the underrated souls who have to adapt the story for expansion into a trilogy, unless, as Roysten pointed out, the three films are going for 90 minutes run time a piece, as opposed to three hours per with the LotR trilogy.
In any case, I do think it is fitting that The Hobbit somehow does get expanded or adapted into a trilogy. As I said before, I don't think fans of the films would be happy if they waited some ten years for just "one more movie." :)
I would have been happy with just one movie. :) And if anything, I suspect a lot of people couldn't help responding with the usual "pfft"s, and "meh"s, and snarky comments about Hollywood and money, when they heard we we're getting more than one (though it's not like they won't happily pay to see all three films... in IMAX, in 3-D, and at 48fps if they're well enough informed).
For both Rings and The Hobbit, Jackson shared screenwriting credits with Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens. So he did have his hands deep in adapting the material. There were a lot of changes made, and besides the practice of writing for the screen is very different from prose even with the most conservative adaptation (ask any author who thinks he can adapt his own work into a movie script). Left to their original narrative structure, the books would be almost unfilmable (maybe you could do it as a six-part TV miniseries). Not to mention the books themselves are so thick in detail that even reading them thoroughly most people are unlikely to digest everything that's in there. There are a wealth of illustrations out there that are considered 'canon' to the world of Tolkien, and readers would know right away if those weren't reflected in the film's designs and locations. Apparently not just anybody can illustrate Tolkien after having read the books. And the TV/DVD documentaries on what went into building Middle Earth for the films are frankly overwhelming.
Return of the King is the longest Jackson/Tolkien film to date, clocking in at three hours and twenty minutes (I'm not counting the special editions). However long the script was (or whatever passes for a single linear script when you're shooting three films at once and changing your decisions all the way up through post-production), I would imagine Jackson has enough material -on paper or in his head as well as of film- that part 2 of The Hobbit would have been at least as long prior to Jackson's decision to siphon it off into a third film. I'm not clear on whether the stopping point of part 1 has also moved or will move. Probably the films will average around 90-105 minutes each, not including bonus material re-inserted into the longer home video versions (if applicable).
I do think the extended versions of Rings suffer from pacing issues, which is why they're not the official versions of those films (and the decision to break each one up between two DVDs/BluRays, so they can be enjoyed in manageable chunks, was a wise move). I believe Jackson has -at least- enough sense to not try to pad out three films if he didn't think enough material was there.
|All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:20 PM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.