News Update On The Hobbit

[rohandove]

"The Hobbit Reloaded! "

LOL!

 

[goliath]

Thanks for the news - be it true or false or just rumours! At least it gives us something to get excited over... Not much else happening on the LotR front these days.

Well as much as I love being able to see ME in the theaters. This book has no good stopping place for a ending to make it a two parter. The LOTR trilogy did because each movie was based on one book.

There is always a place to stop for a cliffhanger in any story if your goal is a two parter.

For example, end the "travel story" when the barrels are dropping into the waters at the king's cave and then pick the line up for the "battle stories" in part two. (The king's cave might be too late in the story, but you get the idea.)


And even Lord of the Rings was not "each movie base on one book" as you say, but they also cut out chunks of "Two Towers" and moved them to "Retun of the King" (Cirith Ungol, Shelob's Lair).

 

[The Josh]

For example, end the "travel story" when the barrels are dropping into the waters at the king's cave and then pick the line up for the "battle stories" in part two. (The king's cave might be too late in the story, but you get the idea.)

Well, they could always find a place but the story isnt set up for something like that IMO.

And even Lord of the Rings was not "each movie base on one book" as you say, but they also cut out chunks of "Two Towers" and moved them to "Retun of the King" (Cirith Ungol, Shelob's Lair).

They did do that but they kept each movie to "virtually" that book.

 

[pixletwin]

I can't imagine any way they could split the Hobbit in two unless they added a bunch of crap that is not there.

I guess conceivably you could end the first movie when the party is taken by the spiders but I just can't imagine a whole movies worth to shoot after that... It would be lame.

One Bilbo and one movie is all that is needed.

ps AICN =

 

[goliath]

Well, they could always find a place but the story isnt set up for something like that IMO.

I didn't mean I would like it and never even though about the idea of two parts when thinking of a Hobbit movie. I was just trying to say: they could always find a way - but I hope they are not going to do it.

They did do that but they kept each movie to "virtually" that book.

You mean, they kept to the "essence" of the books?

 

[MisterToyNYC]

It has already announced a "Pink Panther" sequel

Why, oh why?! Did the last one make that much money? Did anyone even see it?

Eric

 

[The Josh]

You mean, they kept to the "essence" of the books?

Something like that yeah.

 

[Viking28]

This is such good news but I really can't see how they would stretch this book out to a 2.5 hour movie and then another one! Plus both of them having Extended versions released on dvd.

The only way I can see them doing that is if they place a lot of history into the 1st movie about the ring.

 

[elwood49]

This book has no good stopping place for a ending to make it a two parter. The LOTR trilogy did because each movie was based on one book.

The only reason that LOTR exists in 3 parts is due to paper shortages following World War II, and a desire by the publisher to keep the cost of the book more manageable by splitting it up.

The publishers forced Tolkien to name the 3 volumes, and Tolkien hated the title "Return of the King", instead preferring "The War of the Ring." I really don't see why the Hobbit can't be split up into parts 1 and 2. LOTR isn't supposed to be in 3 volumes anyway.

 

[The Josh]

The only reason that LOTR exists in 3 parts is due to paper shortages following World War II, and a desire by the publisher to keep the cost of the book more manageable by splitting it up.

Yes, Elwood I know this. THanks for helping point out the facts. :rollseyes

The publishers forced Tolkien to name the 3 volumes, and Tolkien hated the title "Return of the King", instead preferring "The War of the Ring." I really don't see why the Hobbit can't be split up into parts 1 and 2. LOTR isn't supposed to be in 3 volumes anyway.

Again, I know. I love my all in one because that's how I look at it and how Tolkien looked at it. The Hobbit is ONE book and only ONE book making it two would be STUPID. The LOTR while yes should be one volume and I look at it as one volume is seperated into three parts. It makes more sense to do it that way as far as movies go.

 

[CAhobbit]

Well technically LOTR is split up in 6 books/parts.

 

[KAOSINLA]

I wouldn't mind it being split into 2 movies just on the basis that the excitement of waiting would be a wonderful experience again!!!

 

[Killbeggar]

Why, oh why?! Did the last one make that much money? Did anyone even see it?

Eric

I saw it. I try to see the good in every movie but the Steve Martin Pink Panther sucked @$$. I laughed maybe twice during the whole film. It had several of my favorite actors in it, but the movie was simply not funny or original. If you are a Peter Sellers fan avoid it all costs.
As always this is naught buy MHO and YMMV.

 

[jigsaw.96]

I would feel alot better of New Line made it and PJ was the director and Weta did all the work etc. I want The Hobbit to be created THE SAME EXACT way as LOTR in every detail. Also the whole idea of it being split in 2 movies doesn't make much sense to me other than more money...they can do it in 1 film.

 

[goliath]

Also the whole idea of it being split in 2 movies doesn't make much sense to me other than more money...they can do it in 1 film.

Well, you gotta look at it from a movie studio's point of view: making more money is pretty much their only reason to release movies...

 

[FlyAndFight]

...The only way I can see them doing that is if they place a lot of history into the 1st movie about the ring.

That would actually be a very cool idea. It would help to explain how "...history became myth and myth became legend".

They would even be able to add additional scenes from the Last Alliance and Elrond's involvement as well. Hmmm.....

 

[The Josh]

That would actually be a very cool idea. It would help to explain how "...history became myth and myth became legend".

They would even be able to add additional scenes from the Last Alliance and Elrond's involvement as well. Hmmm.....

The only thing is then you know there will be lots of folks complaining that PJ changed too much.

 

[The Godfather]

This is starting to sound like we are talking about a Silmarien/Hobbit movie. I don't know if they can split the book successfully in two films or not but I remember when they started production on LOTR people were saying there is no way you can capture that book successfully on film. Well they were wrong.

I for one am happy to hear any news about the Hobbit because I miss looking forward to the next LOTR film and frankly I haven't seen a trailer for any movie I want to see in quite awhile aside from the Fountain that is. Where is the greedy sequel spewing Hollywood of my youth come on there are millions and millions to be made here what is the problem.

 

[pixletwin]

The movie can't be about a broader view of the history of middle earth without killing the simplicity of the book. Making the ring a central focus would totally destroy the movie IMO.

 

[Fritz]

I wouldn't mind it being in two parts. There are a lot of Tolkien fans out there who will go see the Hobbit regardless. But the studio may be able to suck more viewers in by making it a sequel as well as satisfy fans of the Hobbit by adding more detail that may be left out in one film. Although, I'll be happy either way just as long as they do it well.

However, I don't agree that it would be stupid to separate it into two films. It may not be necessary but I don't think it's stupid.