http://blog.movies.yahoo.com/blog/1638-first-photos-from-the-hobbit-show...
Now where's WoodElf to demand PJ's head on a stick!?!?
http://blog.movies.yahoo.com/blog/1638-first-photos-from-the-hobbit-show...
Now where's WoodElf to demand PJ's head on a stick!?!?
It's a list of fans' demands.
They have scheduled 254 days of shooting, nearly as many as for LOTR. I have been worrying a little bit that they are pushing too much stuff into the story, and that seems to confirm my worries. I don't mind if they stick close to the book or not - I just worry that what was essentially a road movie fairy tale that follows Bilbo in a kind of looking-over-the-shoulder fashion (which is to me a large part of the story's appeal) will become an overblown difficult and complex mess with a lot of pointless side stories.
Moop, were you not aware that they are turning that relatively small book (compared to LOTR) into two blockbuster movies? I think somebody at Time Warner realized that there is gold to be mined here.
I've kind of gradually developed a deep refusal to see any book adaptation that's been split into 2 movies for the sake of Hollywood's pockets. (started with Harry Potter, wasn't going to see Twilight anyway, I'm sure there's another). I hadn't really thought about how that would affect me re: The Hobbit, but obviously it will.
Jack S. Pharaoh wrote:
Moop, were you not aware that they are turning that relatively small book (compared to LOTR) into two blockbuster movies? I think somebody at Time Warner realized that there is gold to be mined here.
Quay, I don't know if you've heard, but based on what's been said by GRRM and the exec producers, it sounds like 'A Storm of Swords' may be split into two seasons. Fuck you, HBO, you corporate whores! I WANT THEIR HEADS ON STIX!
By the way, if they want a goldmine, they should get the film rights for the Silmarillion.
I can already see it: "The Silmarillion by J.R.R. Tolkien - Three Epic Trilogies - Coming to a theatre near you from 2013-2021"
Now that's what I call a "franchise". Of course, if the first movie bombs, then you have eight more 150 million Dollar failures on your hand. ;-)
MPG wrote:
Yes, I knew about the two movies. And it does make some sense. There IS a lot of story in that book. But on top of that, they are also sticking a lot of other stuff into the movie. There probably would be enough story for two 130 minute movies, but I expect them to make two 200 minute movies (and two 240 minute extended editions).
I guess it's been a while since I've read it, but it doesn't seem to me that there's that much story in there. I thought the 90 minute cartoon covered it fairly well. I'm sure if you were to try to film it word-for-word, it would be five or six hours, or maybe longer, but only insane book fans would want to watch that. It does seem kind of ludicrous that the filming of that one book would be nearly as long as filming all three of the LOTR books, but that shoot also had as many as six different units going simultaneously at times. It was much more of a seat-of-their-pants thing, and probably a model in efficiency compared to this current shoot, which probably has all of the earmarks of the ridiculously over-expensive modern blockbuster. They've really come a long way. Think back to when New Line was considered nearly insane to film all three of those movies at once (not even in order, but to mix them up like shooting one giant movie), and how some thought it could be the end of the studio. Instead, it was one of the smartest moves ever, and the studio was eventually dissolved anyway (wow, their other decisions must've sucked; then again, they were always going to be redundant, because of Warner Bros.).
It's pretty weird when you look at New Line's products that they would be the studio to make LOTR, because it's all just the most forgettable shit that couldn't last more than a week at the box office. But if you think about it logicially, it makes sense. New Line doesn't say no to any movie pitch. So naturally they'd say yes to LOTR, which had been passed on by every other movie studio. What in hindsight looked like a risky, bold decision was just them making their usual bad decision, but happened to be a winning lottery ticket.
I hear Jackson is going to spend a lot of time flashforwarding to Lord of the Rings. In fact, I hear he's integrated the entirety of the Extended Editions into the first Hobbit movie, plus he finally shot the Tom Bombadil stuff. Plus some flashes way back to the time of Húrin.
Rumor has it he's looking for some way to integrate the entirety of the Extended Editions in the second Hobbit movie. Plus the Tom Bombadil stuff. Plus the Húrin. Also, a scene or two from The Father Christmas Letters. I think we may even get to see the birth of Kong, which Jackson assures us occurred some time during the Second Age.
When asked how old Kong is supposed to be in King Kong, Jackson winked and said, "Pretty old, Mate."
I love it when writers tie stuff together. A little brid told me there's a chance the whole thing ends up being dreamed up by the murdered girl from Lovely Bones.
The announced running time for the first movie is 528 days, plus or minus a week.
That's not the point, and you know it. Stop being Ipsy, Thursty, and start becoming the man you were meant to be.
The Swollen Goi... wrote:
I hear Jackson is going to spend a lot of time flashforwarding to Lord of the Rings. In fact, I hear he's integrated the entirety of the Extended Editions into the first Hobbitmovie, plus he finally shot the Tom Bombadil stuff. Plus some flashes way back to the time of Húrin.
The Swollen Goi... wrote:
(You didn't say anything about not being Dalty.)
That's almost splitting hairs.
The Swollen Goi... wrote:
A little brid told me...
If you're going to trust brids, you should probably just go ahead and give up on life altogether.
Jack S. Pharaoh wrote:
That's almost splitting hairs.
I'm pretty sure you are being hairest.
*ahem*
Anyway, as much as I like the Hobbit cartoon, that thing is super-rushed and cuts out a lot of the actual story as well. It doesn't feel like much of a journey, but at least the freaking spiders are creepy as hell and Smaug has awesome headlamp eyeballs.
I do think it is kind of weird that the shooting schedule for the movies will be almost as long as LOTR, but I'm not worried about it. It's going to take a lot more than that benign fact to make me not excited for The Hobbit. I can't wait!
I was more excited when Del Toro was on board as the director. Because, you know, PJ, and, well, Gimli x 12.
Lord of the Rings word count: c. 455,125. Number of movies: 3. Approximate word count per movie: c. 151,708. (Note: the books are each of different lengths, so this is clearly an inexact representation.)
The Hobbit word count: c. 95,022. Number of movies: 2. Approximate word count per movie: 47,511.
These word counts are according to the Internet, and are probably false.
Strider
Location:
Posts: 1430
Posted: 12 years 40 weeks ago
I think Martin Freeman looks great as Bilbo. I wonder if that is a shopping list he's staring at.