Welcome to Gaia! ::

How many movies should the Hobbit be

1 there is no reason to have more, it's one book 0.11764705882353 11.8% [ 10 ]
2 made sense, but three seems to be excessive 0.31764705882353 31.8% [ 27 ]
3 Movies! It's percfect and well detailed adding more to the original story! 0.42352941176471 42.4% [ 36 ]
What iissss a Hobbitses 0.14117647058824 14.1% [ 12 ]
Total Votes:[ 85 ]
1 2 3 >
Dance in Your Bones's avatar

Friendly Phantom

Three movies Vs One movie for the book the hobbit. Pros and cons. Go!
I admit I was a bit surprised at first when I found out they were splitting it into three instead of just into two films. But, I have faith in Peter Jackson's directing abilities. I loved the LOTR trilogy and I really enjoyed myself watching the first part of The Hobbit so I honestly feel like i'll probably be fine with whatever PJ and the rest of the crew do with the next two films.
I'm going to repost what I wrote in another thread.

luchanchan
One of the biggest criticisms I've heard was the decision to split The Hobbit into three movies. The story might seem like a simple children's story but it's much more than that. You might have noticed that the movie was rated PG-13 so it obviously wasn't aimed at little children. On the surface The Hobbit is a whimsical little story about a little man going off on an adventure to slay a dragon and reap 1/14th of the hoard but the events of The Hobbit have drastic consequences, namely the finding of the One Ring. The Hobbit is a prequel to LOTR and yes, it's much more light hearted and humorous than LOTR but it's still part of a dark and gritty storyline. There's so much of the world of Middle Earth contained in one 200 page novel. If you just read The Hobbit things might not seem significant but hidden in each little sentence are references to all the works of Tolkien that followed after. PJ already had the rights to the Appendixes in LOTR so why not include it? The Hobbit movies are probably the only adaptations we'll get of works related to Middle Earth in a while or probably forever, from the looks of the current state of the Tolkien Estate.

Anyways, let's talk about why The Hobbit cannot fit into one movie even without PJ's additions.
Here's how the movie will go: Shire -> Troll Cave -> Imladris -> Goblins/Gollum -> Eagles/Beorn -> Mirkwood/Spiders/The Elvenking -> Esgaroth -> The Lonely Mountain -> Smaug/Smaug's Death -> The Battle of Five Armies -> Aftermath plus all the traveling in between places. I've probably missed some things too. I seriously doubt you can fit all of that into an approximately 3 hour long movie. Even if it can fit into one movie it won't be a good one. With so many locations and traveling there won't be any time for character development. We won't see Thorin slowly warming up to Bilbo. We won't see Bilbo gain courage. We won't see anything that will endear us to each and every one of the other twelve dwarves.

tl;dr: Logistically, you can't fit that many scenes into one movie and still have it be good.
Dance in Your Bones's avatar

Friendly Phantom

I'm personally in the camp that's for "What it takes", because I figure while there might be a lot of padding it's going to be a richer story for it. The only thing that makes me leery of it is the fact it took Bilbo over an hour to leave his house, though it was a fun hour to watch.
~Lady Kanna~'s avatar

Invisible General

17,950 Points
  • Battle Hardened 150
  • Grunny Harvester 150
  • Elocutionist 200
I'm for one movie and one movie alone. And yes, I've read the book and seen the movie. It was rather lovely if you like going 'ooh shiny' but terrible if you're a die hard fan of the original books.

There's a lot of content that Jackson is using that was never meant to be released or used. One wizard mentioned in only one line of the book in passing? According to Jackson that means he should a) draw from the appendixes b) make s**t up to make more money. Not good in my opinion. I fear Tolkien is rolling in his grave.

Two movies, maybe. Three, definitely no.
There's some releases of the book in other languages with the Hobbit being split in two, but I still think that three movies pushing it for a 300 page book.
~Lady Kanna~
I'm for one movie and one movie alone. And yes, I've read the book and seen the movie. It was rather lovely if you like going 'ooh shiny' but terrible if you're a die hard fan of the original books.

There's a lot of content that Jackson is using that was never meant to be released or used. One wizard mentioned in only one line of the book in passing? According to Jackson that means he should a) draw from the appendixes b) make s**t up to make more money. Not good in my opinion. I fear Tolkien is rolling in his grave.

Two movies, maybe. Three, definitely no.
There's some releases of the book in other languages with the Hobbit being split in two, but I still think that three movies pushing it for a 300 page book.

Pray tell, how would you split the book into two movies. I'm not sure how the next two movies are going to pan out but I'm guessing DoS will end with Smaug ravaging Esgaroth. That leaves Beorn, Mirkwood, Esgaroth, Bilbo/Smaug confrontation and perhaps Dol Guldur for DoS. I think these scenes can sufficiently fill out three hours.

Can you explain why the movie is "terrible if you're a die hard fan of the original books"? I don't consider myself a die hard fan but I'm adequately well-versed in Tolkien lore and I enjoyed the movie immensely. What do you mean by content "that was never meant to be released or used"? Most of the information, PJ drew from Tolkien's other works. I don't see how that is bad. The more the merrier, right?

As for Radagast's characterization, I did not like it either at first but after mulling it over I found it made sense. Forgive me but I don't have my Tolkien collection with me so I'm going to shamelessly pull stuff off the Lord of the Rings Wiki. Radagast became too obsessed with plants and animals meaning likely that he didn't interact with people/elves/whatever often or at all and he's described as a "fool" and "simple" by Saruman in Unfinished Tales. With these facts in mind, I don't think that PJ's characterization is too off. Now, you may think that why add him in at all but he serves several purposes. First, comic-relief. One of the things that separates LotR and The Hobbit is the tone. The Hobbit is lighter and fluffier and what better way to convey this than comic relief. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, Radagast is a foil to Gandalf and Saruman. Because, I'm assuming, most viewers already know Saruman is on the dark side at this point, his words on Radagast at the White Council meeting really highlight his questionable advice on dealing with Sauron, foreshadowing his fate in LotR. While Saruman is proud and dignified, Radagast with his nest-like hair and lichen covered face is still a more likable character. Although he's a kooky character who loves nature, he's also a BAMF. (Being able to fend off the Witch King of Angmar, anyone?) Finally, if we are going to discuss the actual role he plays in the events in the movie-verse, he is pretty important to bringing information to Gandalf about the evil in Dol Guldur and leading away the orcs/goblins and sending the Eagles to save the company. Plus he's played by Sylvester McCoy so it's a win in my eyes. (:

Once again, I would like to point out that the films are an adaptation of the book. It's not going to follow everything to the tee and if it was, then it wouldn't be a very enjoyable. Way back when, when the Hobbit was first announced to be split into two movies there were a lot of detractors. They made up their mind that they didn't want it to be two, and later three, films so when they went to see it they already had a negative perspective toward it. I went to see the Hobbit expecting myself to enjoy it no matter what and I did. There's always going to be purists who view any change as an insult to Tolkien's memory and they're entitled to their opinion. For me, I am simply content that there is an opportunity to delve into the rich world of Middle Earth once more, or in this case three more times. I'm not going to deny that PJ, WB and others are trying to make money but I don't mind because I find that it's worth it.
Born Backwards's avatar

Dapper Lunatic

10,550 Points
  • Ultimate Player 200
  • Clambake 200
  • Sausage Fest 200
Personally, I think two movies was just fine. However, I won't criticise the choice of having 3 movies till I watch it.
~Lady Kanna~'s avatar

Invisible General

17,950 Points
  • Battle Hardened 150
  • Grunny Harvester 150
  • Elocutionist 200
I'll gladly edit this more in the morning, since my laptop is dying and it's rather late. Frankly I would leave the split as it is, and from rumors on the Internet (which could be wrong for all we know, it'll be another year until DoS anyway) DoS finishes up the Hobbit entirely, leaving the third movie to focus more as a prequel to LotR, with Bilbo's journey home. Of course, still rumors, but knowing Peter Jackson...

As for the die hard fans, I have heard from a majority of those who live in my area say that, and seen commentary that isn't so praising on various websites. It seems to be a majority of the older fans who are more upset, expecting more of the book than the book and various other works. Also did you know Tolkien's son hates the movies too? I feel bad for the man, especially after he pieced together so many of his father's works. This does, however, include The History of Middle Earth, which Tolkien was said to not quite approve of as he didn't see it as good enough to be published. There's the whole "unwanted to be published" thing.

I'll be the first to admit it's good to see an ex-doctor on screen and still being a wonderful actor, but I'm still wary of the necromancer subplot being brung in. I do adore Radagast's characterization, and Sylvester did a fantastic job, but I'm not quite sure about just one line in the book about him deserving such a period of time in the movie. But I do agree with you on if this whole subplot was meant to be, Radagast's certainly the wizard to bring it into motion. If there's one thing I wish Peter Jackson had done, that would be making it more clear that Radagast sent the eagles. But he does fit in rather well. I'm also curious if Sylvester will be in the 50th Doctor Who special. Love the man for sure.

One thing I have to admit might be a mistake on PJ's part is the HFR filming. I made sure not to go see it in such, since motion sickness can be my worst enemy, but still saw it in 3D and IMAX. It seemed sometimes like it was just a little bit jerky and badly focused, which persisted most noticeably for me in the pan down in Erebor and in the goblin layer. My first thought was it was just me, but after it kept persisting, maybe the conversion of the film did it. I'm still not sure about why it had such issues, but it could just be the theatre. I've heard there's been some issues going on with sound synching.
I'd also like to say I love the soundtrack. Beautifully done and definitely on my to buy list. Also the costume book that's out. I can't get enough of Sylvester and Aiden. Two of my favorite BBC actors ever. I must say I'm sad Being Human and Sherlock were pretty much decimated by the filming for the movie, but I think they'll all fit in fine. We have yet to see much of Bennedict though. That's the next movie, possibly the 3rd too.

It's so good to see someone with good grammar on these forums. heart I hope I didn't make too many mistakes myself.
Lady Djin's avatar

Enduring Pitcher

8,200 Points
  • Battle: Mage 100
  • Snowball Hero 200
  • Caroling Champ 100
Luchanchan
I'm going to repost what I wrote in another thread.

luchanchan
One of the biggest criticisms I've heard was the decision to split The Hobbit into three movies. The story might seem like a simple children's story but it's much more than that. You might have noticed that the movie was rated PG-13 so it obviously wasn't aimed at little children. On the surface The Hobbit is a whimsical little story about a little man going off on an adventure to slay a dragon and reap 1/14th of the hoard but the events of The Hobbit have drastic consequences, namely the finding of the One Ring. The Hobbit is a prequel to LOTR and yes, it's much more light hearted and humorous than LOTR but it's still part of a dark and gritty storyline. There's so much of the world of Middle Earth contained in one 200 page novel. If you just read The Hobbit things might not seem significant but hidden in each little sentence are references to all the works of Tolkien that followed after. PJ already had the rights to the Appendixes in LOTR so why not include it? The Hobbit movies are probably the only adaptations we'll get of works related to Middle Earth in a while or probably forever, from the looks of the current state of the Tolkien Estate.

Anyways, let's talk about why The Hobbit cannot fit into one movie even without PJ's additions.
Here's how the movie will go: Shire -> Troll Cave -> Imladris -> Goblins/Gollum -> Eagles/Beorn -> Mirkwood/Spiders/The Elvenking -> Esgaroth -> The Lonely Mountain -> Smaug/Smaug's Death -> The Battle of Five Armies -> Aftermath plus all the traveling in between places. I've probably missed some things too. I seriously doubt you can fit all of that into an approximately 3 hour long movie. Even if it can fit into one movie it won't be a good one. With so many locations and traveling there won't be any time for character development. We won't see Thorin slowly warming up to Bilbo. We won't see Bilbo gain courage. We won't see anything that will endear us to each and every one of the other twelve dwarves.

tl;dr: Logistically, you can't fit that many scenes into one movie and still have it be good.


I haven't been to see it yet, but I've heard tell that they're including the time when Gandalf was away. The council of the white wizards and all that, and the Necromancer. Either way I'm sure Jackson knows what he is doing in putting this into three movies...then again, I may be putting too much faith in his skill.
Hey-its-Just-Pixels-dude's avatar

Greedy Millionaire

5,950 Points
  • Gaian 50
  • Beta Critic 0
  • Member 100
Dance in Your Bones
Three movies Vs One movie for the book the hobbit. Pros and cons. Go!

cool
MoonlightShadow_XD's avatar

Invisible Phantom

7,050 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
Luchanchan

Pray tell, how would you split the book into two movies. I'm not sure how the next two movies are going to pan out but I'm guessing DoS will end with Smaug ravaging Esgaroth. That leaves Beorn, Mirkwood, Esgaroth, Bilbo/Smaug confrontation and perhaps Dol Guldur for DoS. I think these scenes can sufficiently fill out three hours.

Can you explain why the movie is "terrible if you're a die hard fan of the original books"? I don't consider myself a die hard fan but I'm adequately well-versed in Tolkien lore and I enjoyed the movie immensely. What do you mean by content "that was never meant to be released or used"? Most of the information, PJ drew from Tolkien's other works. I don't see how that is bad. The more the merrier, right?

As for Radagast's characterization, I did not like it either at first but after mulling it over I found it made sense. Forgive me but I don't have my Tolkien collection with me so I'm going to shamelessly pull stuff off the Lord of the Rings Wiki. Radagast became too obsessed with plants and animals meaning likely that he didn't interact with people/elves/whatever often or at all and he's described as a "fool" and "simple" by Saruman in Unfinished Tales. With these facts in mind, I don't think that PJ's characterization is too off. Now, you may think that why add him in at all but he serves several purposes. First, comic-relief. One of the things that separates LotR and The Hobbit is the tone. The Hobbit is lighter and fluffier and what better way to convey this than comic relief. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, Radagast is a foil to Gandalf and Saruman. Because, I'm assuming, most viewers already know Saruman is on the dark side at this point, his words on Radagast at the White Council meeting really highlight his questionable advice on dealing with Sauron, foreshadowing his fate in LotR. While Saruman is proud and dignified, Radagast with his nest-like hair and lichen covered face is still a more likable character. Although he's a kooky character who loves nature, he's also a BAMF. (Being able to fend off the Witch King of Angmar, anyone?) Finally, if we are going to discuss the actual role he plays in the events in the movie-verse, he is pretty important to bringing information to Gandalf about the evil in Dol Guldur and leading away the orcs/goblins and sending the Eagles to save the company. Plus he's played by Sylvester McCoy so it's a win in my eyes. (:

Once again, I would like to point out that the films are an adaptation of the book. It's not going to follow everything to the tee and if it was, then it wouldn't be a very enjoyable. Way back when, when the Hobbit was first announced to be split into two movies there were a lot of detractors. They made up their mind that they didn't want it to be two, and later three, films so when they went to see it they already had a negative perspective toward it. I went to see the Hobbit expecting myself to enjoy it no matter what and I did. There's always going to be purists who view any change as an insult to Tolkien's memory and they're entitled to their opinion. For me, I am simply content that there is an opportunity to delve into the rich world of Middle Earth once more, or in this case three more times. I'm not going to deny that PJ, WB and others are trying to make money but I don't mind because I find that it's worth it.
I'm going to agree with you 3nodding
Hunaja-Mesi's avatar

Bunny

18,800 Points
  • Battle Hardened 150
  • Angelic Alliance 100
  • Vicious Spirit 250
Luchanchan
Once again, I would like to point out that the films are an adaptation of the book. It's not going to follow everything to the tee and if it was, then it wouldn't be a very enjoyable. Way back when, when the Hobbit was first announced to be split into two movies there were a lot of detractors. They made up their mind that they didn't want it to be two, and later three, films so when they went to see it they already had a negative perspective toward it. I went to see the Hobbit expecting myself to enjoy it no matter what and I did. There's always going to be purists who view any change as an insult to Tolkien's memory and they're entitled to their opinion. For me, I am simply content that there is an opportunity to delve into the rich world of Middle Earth once more, or in this case three more times. I'm not going to deny that PJ, WB and others are trying to make money but I don't mind because I find that it's worth it.


I will have to agree with both of your comments on this thread, wholeheartedly. heart
Although, remembering what PJ did with LotR, I actually went to the theater expecting to be disappointed.
I wanted to see it for the music, actor-performances, and views of New Zealand.
I had no idea they would've made this so much better than the previous trilogy.
And thus, it ended up being my favorite movie of all time. emotion_kirakira
Hunaja-Mesi's avatar

Bunny

18,800 Points
  • Battle Hardened 150
  • Angelic Alliance 100
  • Vicious Spirit 250
~Lady Kanna~
Also did you know Tolkien's son hates the movies too? I feel bad for the man, especially after he pieced together so many of his father's works. This does, however, include The History of Middle Earth, which Tolkien was said to not quite approve of as he didn't see it as good enough to be published. There's the whole "unwanted to be published" thing.


I hated LotR as well.. anyone that knows their Tolkien will agree with me that those movies took some huge liberties in telling the story.
This one went nowhere near that far..
It's way too criticized.

And Tolkien wanted to publish the Silmarillion, but he died in the middle of the process, so it was up to his son to finish constructing the book.

Also, I don't think Radagast sent the eagles, at least according to the book, if my memory serves correct.. They owed Gandalf, so they helped him. Maybe they intended it to be so in the movie, but I'll agree with you, they should've been more clear about that if it was the case.
Hunaja-Mesi's avatar

Bunny

18,800 Points
  • Battle Hardened 150
  • Angelic Alliance 100
  • Vicious Spirit 250
~Lady Kanna~
Frankly I would leave the split as it is, and from rumors on the Internet (which could be wrong for all we know, it'll be another year until DoS anyway) DoS finishes up the Hobbit entirely, leaving the third movie to focus more as a prequel to LotR, with Bilbo's journey home. Of course, still rumors, but knowing Peter Jackson...

If the Battle of the 5 Armies was included in the next movie, one of the blokes would be bound to mention it..



I think it sounds like it's gonna be a good movie. heart
They've probably left vanquishing Sauron from Dol Guldur for the last movie, and possibly the end of Smaug as well. I do think they've left too much huge stuff in the last, I expected they'd only have gotten up to the Lake Town in the next (or maybe up until Bilbo sees Smaug the first time), and gotten rid of the Necromancer, but it doesn't sound like that, does it? (Sauron gets too much attention here, if the conclusion is left for the last movie..) Then again, if this is going to be the case, the next movie will probably end up being my favorite.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games