Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

MovieWes wrote:It seems as if There and Back Again has been scrapped as one of the titles of the trilogy. It is being reported that WB has registered the titles Riddles in the Dark and The Desolation of Smaug, which will now be the likely titles of the second and third films.

It has also been confirmed that the third film will be released in Summer 2014.

I know what those two titles refer to, but they seem like pretty bad choices for the films. At least it gives me an idea of how the movies will be split up.

Greg wrote:I have never read The Hobbit or any of the Lord Of The Rings trilogy; but, when I was in high school, I read Watership Down. I have heard that all of these books are similar in genre and style.

Now THAT is a movie due for a remake. I've loved everything about that since sixth grade. My only problem if that the director would most likely turn it inot a Transformers film.

I have never read The Hobbit or any of the Lord Of The Rings trilogy; but, when I was in high school, I read Watership Down. I have heard that all of these books are similar in genre and style.

It seems as if There and Back Again has been scrapped as one of the titles of the trilogy. It is being reported that WB has registered the titles Riddles in the Dark and The Desolation of Smaug, which will now be the likely titles of the second and third films.

It has also been confirmed that the third film will be released in Summer 2014.

OscarGuy wrote:(there may be spoilers in this paragraph, so proceed with caution) As to the Appendices, the reason they are as such is that Tokien never put the pen to paper for the story itself. There's plenty of expository information contained therein and much of it fascinating. It also ties heavily into the events of The Hobbit. There's a vast portion of the novel The Hobbit where Gandalf abandons the company to deal with a "necromancer" in the south of Mirkwood (the forest realm, the northern portion of which is dominated by the Elven kingdom that captures Bilbo resides). It is there, in the tower of Dol Guldur where a great battle takes place that features like the likes of Elrond, Galadriel, Aragorn and others (likely including Legolas since he's appearing in the film). Along with Gandalf, the rest of the White Council participates in taking down the necromancer (this includes a pre-palatir-corrupted Saruman). (this next part is an absolute spoiler, so don't finish the paragraph if you don't want to know) The necromancer escapes and is later revealed to be Sauron as he's returning to power.

With absolute sincerity, I say this with nothing but love OscarGuy: that has to be the nerdiest paragraph I have ever read from you on this board.

I read The Hobbit long ago, but none of the Trilogy. What I remember about the book and Tolkein's style was the humor, and how he wrote like he was telling you the story. I seem to recall sentences that went something like this, "I am sure you are wondering what happened next. Well, let me tell you..."
I am not sure what three films from this one book will look like, but Jackson is the only one I trust to do it. I do not think he is a great director (KING KONG and particularly THE LOVELY BONES disabused me of that notion), but this story is his baby. He will do it correctly. Hopefully he has learned his lesson about being self-indulgent from the criticism he received about his last two films and the ending of THE RETURN OF THE KING.
I too am annoyed at this new trend of extending a single book into two or more films, first started with THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, and then copied by BREAKING DAWN and MOCKING JAY. Now THE HOBBIT is taking it to possibly the breaking point.
As for how they are coming up with a third film, I had read they were negotiating with the cast to secure them for more shooting. I am not sure if this is just minor stuff, or a whole new movie.

This article about directors sticking with franchises too long is interesting.
http://www.vulture.com/2012/07/peter-ja ... quels.html

As an aside to my reference to the lengthy description of Rivendell, think what Victor Hugo did with The Hunchback of Notre Dame. He spent much of the first half of the book going into agonizing detail about Paris and environs. While Tokien doesn't get that deep, it's a similar style of writing. Then there's the first half of the third book where half the length is just descriptions of Frodo and Sam walking and walking and walking and walking, etc.

It's easier to condense material that's got so much excessive detail that is easily captured by visual representation in a film.

Yes, The Hobbit is a "simpler" book, but unlike the extremely bloated LOTR trilogy books, much of what occurs in The Hobbit is intricately woven into the plot of the entire book. There were whole wastes of reams of pages in the LOTR books that were more simply condensed into a series of three films for three books. For example, there are nearly 40 pages alone describing Rivendell in The Fellowship of the Ring. There's an unnecessary series of events featuring Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs among other things.

For those who complain about the length of the end of ROTK, it's very much in keeping with the novel's approach. It's all about goodbyes, so I didn't think the ending was entirely ill-fitting at all, but that's a topic for a different debate.

(there may be spoilers in this paragraph, so proceed with caution) As to the Appendices, the reason they are as such is that Tokien never put the pen to paper for the story itself. There's plenty of expository information contained therein and much of it fascinating. It also ties heavily into the events of The Hobbit. There's a vast portion of the novel The Hobbit where Gandalf abandons the company to deal with a "necromancer" in the south of Mirkwood (the forest realm, the northern portion of which is dominated by the Elven kingdom that captures Bilbo resides). It is there, in the tower of Dol Guldur where a great battle takes place that features like the likes of Elrond, Galadriel, Aragorn and others (likely including Legolas since he's appearing in the film). Along with Gandalf, the rest of the White Council participates in taking down the necromancer (this includes a pre-palatir-corrupted Saruman). (this next part is an absolute spoiler, so don't finish the paragraph if you don't want to know) The necromancer escapes and is later revealed to be Sauron as he's returning to power.

Anyway, the appendix material is bountiful enough to be used as a good portion of a third film whereas the Hobbit novel has so much great material in it, that I'm not surprised Jackson wants to do it justice with two films. Anyway, I'm curious how he's going to end/begin each film considering his original plans were only for two films.

The Hobbit is a much more concise book (and adventure). I didn't know the novel was shorter than any individual book in the trilogy, but needless to say it's much, much shorter than the trilogy itself. I'm actually very fond of The Hobbit, far more so than the trilogy, but have no appetite for two installments, let alone three. A single film would work perfectly fine.

(Points of disclosure: a). I only read 1.5 books of the trilogy before giving up, and b). Truth be told, I'm not interested in seeing one Hobbit film, let alone two, but that's another topic...)

Ah, appendices! Sometimes appendices are appendices for a reason. It's very nice that Jackson wants to pay Tolkein the proper respect he deserves. I hope there are enough fans so that the series pays for itself, but I'm all LOTR'd out.

rolotomasi99 wrote:Hobbit Trilogy Is Confirmed
Two films will become three.
Jackson said "So, without further ado and on behalf of ... Wingnut Films, and the entire cast and crew of The Hobbit films, I’d like to announce that two films will become three."

Jackson's production company is rather aptly named, is it not?

Apparently much of the third film comes from the appendices of something or another that Tolkien wrote. It's worth noting that The Hobbit was already going to be two films, and that novel is a good bit shorter than any of the three novels in the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

I can't quite tell if the material has all been shot and it's just going to be re-edited into three films from two, or if they're going to actually go out and mostly shoot a third movie.

I'm asking from ignorance, since I've never read a word of Tolkien, but...

Didn't three films for Lord of the Rings make sense because it was an adaptation of three books? How does it make sense to craft three films out of one (from what I understand simpler) book?

Given that I thought Jackson was starting to show signs of terminal bloat -- first with the way-over-extended last portion of Return of the King, then with the too-long-by-an-hour King Kong -- I'm deepky wary of this.

And I say this as one who thought the Rings trilogy was, on the whole, a major screen achivement.

OG, I own all three movies and I enjoy them very much, but I think Peter Jackson may be the most overrated director out there.

King Kong felt as long as three movies.

I think it's a solid idea. I couldn't imagine LOTR working as two films. A two-parter just feels different from a trilogy, and I'd imagine Jackson's style just innately works better at a leisurely build. Even though I see a few little red flags with it, I think it's not a bad idea. I think The Hobbit has one thing in its favor that nobody is talking about and that is the presence of Martin Freeman as Bilbo who is a wonderfully ironic figure, something I can't see the actor entirely tamping down for the incredibly earnest Jackson.

I take it you aren't a fan of the LOTR movies. If there's one director in Hollywood that I would trust to make a 3-film adaptation of a single book worth it, it's Peter Jackson. There is a lot of great material not just in The Hobbit, but in the additional material he's pulled from the ROTK appendices. I'm leary of a third film being made, but I'm positive Jackson just wants to do the material justice. While the studios approved it because of a money grab, I don't think that's Jackson's intention.

I'm really sick of all this Hollywood greed. Not everything needs to be in three parts. And why make two terrible last movies instead of one decent one?