It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Drakhyrr: Many people also found the first part of Fellowship of The Ring to be long
it was too short, they cut bombadil
Attachments:
Post edited December 05, 2012 by pseudonarne
avatar
ovoon: Let me look in my bookshelf here...
The Hobbit - 250 pages
The Fellowship of The Ring - 455 pages, (smaller font, larger pages.)


The Fellowship movie left out some details (details that wouldn't have fitin Peter Jacksons view of Middle Earth), but summed up just about everything in 3 hours quite well.

I'm a really slow reader, I savor. I can read the Hobbit in 5 hours. Supposedly each film is going to be 2 hours and 45 minutes. That is almost 8 hours dedicated to a small simplistic adventure story. NOT a grand scale epic like The Lord of The Rings.
The movies will feature more content than just the story of The Hobbit, though. Gandalf's side of the story will be an important part of the films. And who knows? Originally, the third movie was supposed to be a "bridge movie" between The Hobbit and LOTR.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Battle of the Five Armies happened halfway through the third movie, followed by scenes showing what happens in the 60 years in between.
avatar
Leroux: Which story? I haven't seen a The Hobbit movie before, so I couldn't judge if it was possible to do one in 1h15. But there are certainly short movies that leave nothing to be desired and long movies which are boring. Not every story is made to be told in a 3h+ movie.
I was just talking in general sense, not for The Hobbit in particular. I must suck at choosing movies, but the short ones that I choose always end up sucking so much. :(
avatar
ovoon: Let me look in my bookshelf here...
The Hobbit - 250 pages
The Fellowship of The Ring - 455 pages, (smaller font, larger pages.)


The Fellowship movie left out some details (details that wouldn't have fitin Peter Jacksons view of Middle Earth), but summed up just about everything in 3 hours quite well.

I'm a really slow reader, I savor. I can read the Hobbit in 5 hours. Supposedly each film is going to be 2 hours and 45 minutes. That is almost 8 hours dedicated to a small simplistic adventure story. NOT a grand scale epic like The Lord of The Rings.
avatar
Nergal01: The movies will feature more content than just the story of The Hobbit, though. Gandalf's side of the story will be an important part of the films. And who knows? Originally, the third movie was supposed to be a "bridge movie" between The Hobbit and LOTR.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Battle of the Five Armies happened halfway through the third movie, followed by scenes showing what happens in the 60 years in between.
You have described precisely what the critics have been complaining about, and what I am worried about. The movies are going to be bloated. Filled with needless details and scenes that accomplish very little.

One critic I believe said the movie felt like he was watching the extended edition already. It's far too long, far too slow. Most of the stuff is being added in as a sort of "because the fans will think it's cool" mentality, rather than a "this makes for good storytelling and film making" mentality.

There needs to be no bridge between The Hobbit and The Lord of The Rings, at least nothing beyond 10 minutes. And cameos? From the whole cast of the last films? How would that serve any purpose other than "because the fans will like that enjoy cameos"?

How is the battle of Dol Guldor and the Necromancer going to fit with the tone that the Hobbit carries? It's not an epic, far from it. So it sounds like they're just shoehorning as much crap in as possible for an extra buck. And that hurts, as this should've been one standalone film, and it should've been made more carefully. Give me one 3 and a half hour long film and that should tell the whole story. Two parts is understandable I suppose, but it's dragging out then. Three? What a joke.
The Colbert Report has been interviewing actors from the film every day this week.
Monday was Gandalf and yesterday was the main character.

You'll have to get past the political satire (which I find humurous anwyays) if thats not your thing.
avatar
ovoon: You have described precisely what the critics have been complaining about, and what I am worried about. The movies are going to be bloated. Filled with needless details and scenes that accomplish very little.

One critic I believe said the movie felt like he was watching the extended edition already. It's far too long, far too slow. Most of the stuff is being added in as a sort of "because the fans will think it's cool" mentality, rather than a "this makes for good storytelling and film making" mentality.

There needs to be no bridge between The Hobbit and The Lord of The Rings, at least nothing beyond 10 minutes. And cameos? From the whole cast of the last films? How would that serve any purpose other than "because the fans will like that enjoy cameos"?

How is the battle of Dol Guldor and the Necromancer going to fit with the tone that the Hobbit carries? It's not an epic, far from it. So it sounds like they're just shoehorning as much crap in as possible for an extra buck. And that hurts, as this should've been one standalone film, and it should've been made more carefully. Give me one 3 and a half hour long film and that should tell the whole story. Two parts is understandable I suppose, but it's dragging out then. Three? What a joke.
To each his own, I guess. I understand where you're coming from, but personally, I haven't had any problems with the lenghts in PJ's films so far (not even King Kong), so I remain optimistic.

As for the Hobbit not being an epic...weeeell, that's debatable, IMHO. It doesn't start like that, to be sure. However, with the Battle of the Five Armies and the slaying of Smaug, things definitely take a turn for the epic and the heroic, and those are things that are gonna be big in the movies. Besides, I'm not really opposed to seeing the events of Bilbo's journey put in the larger context of the wr against Sauron, even if it is somewhat gimmicky, what with all the cameos.

What can I say? I'm more of a fan of the Jackson flicks than of the novels. >_>
avatar
Nergal01: As for the Hobbit not being an epic...weeeell, that's debatable, IMHO. It doesn't start like that, to be sure. However, with the Battle of the Five Armies and the slaying of Smaug, things definitely take a turn for the epic and the heroic, and those are things that are gonna be big in the movies.
Well, Bilbo got knocked unconscious very early in the Battle of Five Armies, so accordingly I think it would be tremendously epic if they showed several hours of total darkness and silence in the theater, to simulate that. It is HIS story, after all.
avatar
Drakhyrr: Many people also found the first part of Fellowship of The Ring to be long
avatar
pseudonarne: it was too short, they cut bombadil
lol right you are, one just doesnt make lord of the ring long, it is long,
yee was expecting tom bombadil in the first film. dissapointed
avatar
djranis: lol right you are, one just doesnt make lord of the ring long, it is long,
yee was expecting tom bombadil in the first film. dissapointed
I missed the wights from the Barrow-downs. One of my favorite passages in the LOTR. :(

Tom Bombadil's character would fit perfectly into The Hobbit though, who knows if PJ will try to redeem himself by writing him into the new trilogy ... :D
avatar
spindown: I'm very curious about the high-framerate projection. Some of those who have seen it seem to dislike it strongly, claiming that it looks "too realistic", that it breaks the suspension of disbelief and that it makes the visuals look more like television than film. This sounds really interesting to me, so I will make sure to see the movie at a theater that shows it at 48 fps.
My reaction to it is that it is "hyper-real"; almost like I'm watching someone in higher fidelity than I see the rest of the world (which is absurd). I suppose I could get used to it, but it is distracting.
Ironically, I play games at 60fps and consider a game almost unplayable at 24fps. Maybe I would feel differently if games were photo-realistic. Likewise, animated films at 48fps are easier to adjust to than actors in a room.
avatar
Nergal01: As for the Hobbit not being an epic...weeeell, that's debatable, IMHO. It doesn't start like that, to be sure. However, with the Battle of the Five Armies and the slaying of Smaug, things definitely take a turn for the epic and the heroic, and those are things that are gonna be big in the movies.
that part of the hobbit isn't "epic" its more "epic adjacent". The main characters don't really do those things and we don't get to see 90% of it, Bilbo gets filled in later when they wake him up.
avatar
djranis: lol right you are, one just doesnt make lord of the ring long, it is long,
yee was expecting tom bombadil in the first film. dissapointed
avatar
Leroux: I missed the wights from the Barrow-downs. One of my favorite passages in the LOTR. :(

Tom Bombadil's character would fit perfectly into The Hobbit though, who knows if PJ will try to redeem himself by writing him into the new trilogy ... :D
yeah, and it was even important later on. thats where they get the leaf shaped westernesse daggers forged and enchanted to fight sauron's evil and used to help kill the witch king(and it was even specified that it was able to hamstring him specifically because of what it was)
Post edited December 05, 2012 by pseudonarne
I DEMAND DOWN DOWN TO GOBLIN TOWN AND WHAT FUNNY LITTLE BIRDS, THEY HAVE NO WINGS!

Ah, the animated movies bring back soooooo many good memories. :D
Hobbits, trickling, movie?

Somehow this conjunction of words already tells me what I need to know.
avatar
mondo84: ...
I wanted to take the day off work and go see this with my daughter, but it looks like I already have to pull her out of school that week for some less fun reasons. Sadly, I'll have to figure out some other way to go see it and avoid the hordes.
avatar
mondo84: ...
avatar
orcishgamer: I wanted to take the day off work and go see this with my daughter, but it looks like I already have to pull her out of school that week for some less fun reasons. Sadly, I'll have to figure out some other way to go see it and avoid the hordes.
I also don't like seeing movies in packed theaters. I'm sure it'll clear up a bit after a week or so, but it depends on how badly you want to see the movie.