The Hobbit trilogy - News, rumours and discussion
- Thread starter Edmond Dantès
- Start date
- Status
Yes, the ending is extremely clever.
All 6 movies will flow together chronologically very smoothly.
Franchuzas87
Member
I always saw it as the theme for the whole story, and since it's so good I'd assumed they'd treat it as suchBut I suppose its omission from DOS was a sign that they'd moved on from it. Such a bummer.
Yes, me too. But after DOS I already assumed the House of Durin (I think it's called that way) would be the main theme of the trilogy. It's a bit of a shame MM doesn't return in any form, but doesn't surprise me now.
Edmond Dantès;142889689 said:
Definitely. When I think of AUJ, two things immediately come to mind - the shot of Bilbo running out of Bag End yelling "I'm going on an adventure!" and that theme.
I won't lie, I think part of the reason I enjoy AUJ is because of that theme. Gets me pumped for some Tolkien man.
I gotta be honest, I was thoroughly sick of the Misty Mountains theme by the end of AUJ, so I'm glad it hasn't returned. Sure, it's good (though Beyond the Forest is better), but it was so overused. Part of the reason I didn't listen to the Hobbit soundtracks on their own like I did with LOTR is because all I could remember about the music after seeing AUJ in theatres was all the reused stuff from Fellowship and that one damn theme. I agree that it became a generic heroic theme, but I don't remember any single piece of music dominating one of the other Middle-earth films so thoroughly. That's probably partially because I was semi-consciously sorting the themes by which I did and did not recognize even when watching the film though.
It was definitely over-used. Just from memory:
- When the dwarves sing it in Bag End
- When Bilbo and the dwarves set out from Bag End
- When the dwarves try to rescue Bilbo from the trolls
- When the company sets out from Rivendell
- When Gandalf rescues the dwarves from the Goblins
- When the dwarves save Bilbo while he's trying to defend Thorin
If I could narrow it down, I would keep the dwarves singing (obviously), the brief instrumental version in The World is Ahead, and the full orchestral version that plays when the company leaves Rivendell (maybe have a brief reprise of this at the end when the Eagles save the company instead of when the dwarves start to fight).
In hindsight, seeing as it's only used in AUJ - a part of me is glad is was thrown everywhere, since they just dropped it completely afterward
Solidsoul
Banned
I realize there is a good chance this is a dumb question.
The director at Monolith said Shadow of Mordor picks up right as The Hobbit's third film ends. I can't remember how he worded it but I got the vibe maybe the ending of TBOTFA would transition well in SoM. Obviously the latter isn't canon but did anyone feel compelled to play SoM following the ending of the film?
The director at Monolith said Shadow of Mordor picks up right as The Hobbit's third film ends. I can't remember how he worded it but I got the vibe maybe the ending of TBOTFA would transition well in SoM. Obviously the latter isn't canon but did anyone feel compelled to play SoM following the ending of the film?
Solidsoul
Banned
Well, that's exactly how I would prefer it. SoM the game doesn't hold a candle to the movies. Was just curious and I would have asked that question first but it was already answered in this thread.
Thanks for the reply.
He's in there, in a different way.
Edmond Dantès
Dantès the White
After reading a few essays from some new members of the Tolkien Society UK. I certainly think The Hobbit could have been done in one three hour film. Of course it would be The Hobbit without any of the links to the Lord of the Rings and the elements inherent in the novel itself would act as the main linking mechanisms; Gollum and Elrond etc.
The first half would essentially be a road-trip movie with backstory told via dialogue and the latter half bringing it all together to its conclusion with the maturation and individuation of our friend Bilbo.
The first half would essentially be a road-trip movie with backstory told via dialogue and the latter half bringing it all together to its conclusion with the maturation and individuation of our friend Bilbo.
Edmond Dantès;142982143 said:
The practical consideration would be whether you could tell the story effectively in 54 events of roughly 3 minutes/event - pieced together from about 162 scenes. Mirkwood and The Woodelves would require a lot of screen time in the first half of the second act - about 45 minutes (i think DOS EE did well by that), then getting to the mountain and Smaug decimating Laketown would have to be the next 40ish minutes. The third act would begin once the armies arrive and Bilbo and Thorin have a falling out. Then you could have Peter Jackson's 45 minute final battle.
But somehow you have to squeeze in hobbiton, the trolls, the goblins, Gollum/riddles, out of the frying pan/into the fire and maybe queer lodgings into the first 45 minutes.. about 8 minutes per chapter.
You know what. That could work.
The trolls would be the first thing cut.
My wife read the book so long ago she remembers almost nothing so I'm worried how she's going to react to
My wife read the book so long ago she remembers almost nothing so I'm worried how she's going to react to
the deaths of Thorin, Fili and Kili. Assuming that happens just like the book. She really likes Thorin, and is already kind of miffed that he appears to be a "bad guy" in the trailers..
Edmond Dantès
Dantès the White
This will be fun. It's been a long time coming. The end of 7 plus years of following this project and fours years of providing counsel to this Tolkien community (which will continue).
I'm sure the alterations to Thorin's character in general will be the subject of a lot of debate once this trilogy has time to gestate in minds of fans over the next few years. Similar to Aragorn and the LOTR films.
I'm seeing this tonight and I was very hyped, but now I'm sad, wtf.
What did you expect, it wasn't in DOS either.
This sounds like a film that I would have wanted to watch. It's really too bad that the Hobbit is so firmly conceived as a follow up to the Lord of the Rings films.Edmond Dantès;142982143 said:
Or they could simply chop any sequences that don't fit. There's no need to replicate the novel.
Skellig Gra
Member
Edmond Dantès;142993561 said:
Glad to be with you Edmond (and all of Tolkien GAF), here at the end of all things.
My impressions of the third one. No spoilers, but if you want a clean entry into the movie, steer clear.
I defended the previous two movies a lot (allthough AUJ is just too darn long and takes ages to take off), but I'm just back from TBOTFA and I really didn't like it. Which is a first for any of these movies. I had high hopes after Desolation, which I think is almost on par with The Two Towers (which is the lesser of the originals), but this one lost all magic. Apart from some well done Thorin madness scènes, there is just no story anymore whatsoever. No emotions, nada. It's just so hard to care for these characters in this film. (Especially as Bilbo is just an extra in essence now).
Even the overlong battle just gets boring because you couldn't care less, and when Peter Jackson starts to jump some sharks with Legolas it nears the ranges of terrible.
Also, the way some scènes are filmed at the beginning with a sloppy handheld camera (which I hold no grudges against if done right and with reason) make it look like PJ just didn't care.
Damn, I wanted the last one to be so good as I love these movies. But they should have kept it as two films, then these events would've been a nice third act of the second one.
I defended the previous two movies a lot (allthough AUJ is just too darn long and takes ages to take off), but I'm just back from TBOTFA and I really didn't like it. Which is a first for any of these movies. I had high hopes after Desolation, which I think is almost on par with The Two Towers (which is the lesser of the originals), but this one lost all magic. Apart from some well done Thorin madness scènes, there is just no story anymore whatsoever. No emotions, nada. It's just so hard to care for these characters in this film. (Especially as Bilbo is just an extra in essence now).
Even the overlong battle just gets boring because you couldn't care less, and when Peter Jackson starts to jump some sharks with Legolas it nears the ranges of terrible.
Also, the way some scènes are filmed at the beginning with a sloppy handheld camera (which I hold no grudges against if done right and with reason) make it look like PJ just didn't care.
Damn, I wanted the last one to be so good as I love these movies. But they should have kept it as two films, then these events would've been a nice third act of the second one.
youtube comments are the worst
Why would you willingly subject yourself to cancer?
C00kie M0nster
Member
Edmond Dantès
Dantès the White
Just seen it and thus 15 years of Middle-earth films comes to an end for me. I'm not as emotional as I was post-Return of the King, but then I'm 15 years older and wiser.
Edmond Dantès
Dantès the White
A detailed analysis will be posted in time, but for now, just like the preceding films there are aspects I really like and others that I'm not too fond of. Omissions too that are slightly disappointing, but probably will show up in the extended edition.
The ending was indeed very touching. The
"my friend"
One major thing that did bother me was Dol Guldur and
uber
Little Old Man
Member
Definitely looking forward to your thoughts in the coming day Edmond!
As for myself, I'm going to see the last piece of the trilogy this evening. Made the mistake of listening to Journey to the Grey Havens on the way home, even now it still places a lump in my throat!
As for myself, I'm going to see the last piece of the trilogy this evening. Made the mistake of listening to Journey to the Grey Havens on the way home, even now it still places a lump in my throat!
bengraven
Member
I really didn't like the poorly CGI map/credit cuts but other than that, I adored that first trailer.
"Can you promise I will come back?"
"No..."
and of course the Dwarf's song. Balin, my favorite book dwarf, and his slowly standing up to join them, a sad smile for a long lost day on his face. I loved the cut to Bofur for some reason - he looks a lot like my mother's side of the family, only with a mustache and I immediately took him on as my favorite movie dwarf.
Edmond Dantès;142993561 said:
I hope so. I have questions I'm debating on waiting for TolkienGAF2015 for.
Edmond Dantès
Dantès the White
Seeing Saruman
. Just shows how far he fell to lose such inherent might on his path to ruin, although still a lesser spirit than Olorin.
Melkor been mentioned is always nice, although I'd prefer his actual name to be used, not silly, vituperative Elvish slander, nonetheless.
Although mention of the
by Galadriel was inaccurate to an extent. The berserker motif attributed to Beorn in the novel is an interesting omission, but then Beorn has been stripped down in general.
in action was quite amusing
Melkor been mentioned is always nice, although I'd prefer his actual name to be used, not silly, vituperative Elvish slander, nonetheless.
Although mention of the
void
Edmond Dantès
Dantès the White
His mid-air shape-shifting was certainly something.
the Legolas/Bolg duel.
Edmond Dantès;142982143 said:
I'm glad someone did the work to put it into words but this is painfully obvious to anyone who read The Hobbit. Heck the Rankin Bass animated version, altered and abridged as it was, had a runtime of 77 minutes and did a fair job of telling the complete story. 150 or the full 180 minutes? No problem at all.
It's clear that making it three movies was a shameless cash grab and hurt the basic story they were trying to tell.
Edmond Dantès;143064865 said:
It's been confirmed that there will be more of him in the EE.
I will admit it's sad that an actual major character from the novel has been shafted so much in terms of screentime. He has a tiny presence if you've only been watching the Theatrical versions of these films.
Edmond Dantès
Dantès the White
The allusion to
resulted in a few reactions from audience members.
Of course the film timeline is an alternate one, so
Aragorn
Of course the film timeline is an alternate one, so
Legolas seeking out a 27 year old (or thereabouts) Strider at the behest of his father makes sense.
Edmond Dantès
Dantès the White
There hasn't been much in the way of criticism for this trilogy's eucatastrophe.
Of course, the battle itself is overshadowed by the concurrent duels taking place so the arrival of the eagles is almost seen as an ordinary occurrence, rather than the divine intervention by Grace in the novel.
Yes it's quite shocking to me, this theme is great and should have been brought back.
I mean even Tolkien makes the song come back in the book (with new lyrics), and Jackson/Shore have failed to seize the opportunity in BOFTA.
Bare in mind that way back when it was first announced to be two films - the plan was to make film 1 the story of The Hobbit and film 2 would be a made-up "bridge" film to The Lord of the Rings. But del Toro said they ultimately couldn't come up with a satisfactory story for said bridging film. Since they had already planned and agreed with New Line to make two movies, they figured it would just be a safer bet to split The Hobbit in two. In fact I remember when that announcement was made, most people were perfectly fine with the idea. That way no stone would be left unturned and they would have plenty of time to do justice to every event in the book.
But then the production delays began to happen thanks to MGM's financial/legal issues. In that time both the final Harry Potter and Twilight films were split in two and people became really sour on the idea (and those absolutely did feel like cashing-in). The Hobbit becoming two films happened fairly naturally, they didn't set out from the beginning to split the book up. But then Jackson made the decision to create a trilogy based on the shear amount of extra footage he had while cutting the first film.
In hindsight, it wasn't the best decision. But again, disliking the films just because there are three of them (which I'm not saying you are, for the record) isn't good criticism. CS Lewis himself said criticizing the artist and guessing their motivations behind their work isn't criticizing the art itself - and as such shouldn't be taken into consideration.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Making Thorin into Aragorn was a lazy move in the first place. Doesn't really mesh that well with his end.
I was fine with two, though grumbled that the Hobbit is basically the perfect length for one good there and back movie. It's the part three that doomed this telling of the story, stretching out all three movies, giving too much leeway to get away from the core story, and they did it entirely to make more money.
Gabriel_Logan
Member
Did anyone post this yet? Here's Colbert interviewing Smaug, where he talks about Stand your Ground laws and Rand Paul.
tryagainlater
Member
I think Peter Jackson just likes big epic stuff which is why he wanted a trilogy. I don't think he was necessarily obsessed with making more money although obviously, New Line were delighted with the decision for monetary reasons. The cash grab complaints have gotten old these past 2 years.
Yeah. It's not like New Line wanted to adapt The Hobbit out of charity - the name of the game was always making money, even if it were just one film. Hell, we ended up with three Lord of the Rings movies (instead of Jackson's initial proposal of two) solely because the CEO of New Line at the time figured 3 books = 3 movies = more $$$.
Ixion
Member
Yeah, Peter has said a bunch of times that this was the only way he knew how to make The Hobbit. He said he didn't understand how to make The Hobbit in and of itself, but as an arc leading into LOTR, he felt he could do that.
So I don't think the trilogy idea was a cash grab, but rather it's just a flawed approach from Peter. Simply put, he wasn't the best person to direct The Hobbit (even though the movies are still pretty good for the most part).
So I don't think the trilogy idea was a cash grab, but rather it's just a flawed approach from Peter. Simply put, he wasn't the best person to direct The Hobbit (even though the movies are still pretty good for the most part).
I think he knew that going in, which is why he brought in Del Toro to take it on the project. Plus he probably wasn't too jazzed about giving up another 3-5 years of his life for another series of movies again. They clearly take a tole on him (as they would any director).
That said, he definitely fell back into a comfort zone once things got rolling - in a sort of "getting the band back together" kind of way.
- Status