Two Hobbit movies

Remove all ads!

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1850603620071218?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2007/12/mgm-ceo-on-the.html

Last I checked there was only one book called The Hobbit (a reasonably short one at that), and Lord of the Rings was its sequel. Nothing of note (certainly nothing involving any hobbits) happens in the 80 years between The Hobbit and LotR.

Sooooo ... this smells like rape to me. Sure - Peter Jackson - yay. But I'm not interested in watching him ruin this.

And the way that the guy in the interview keeps talking about what a great 'property' and 'franchise' it is - those words are creepy. They say to me 'hahaha - we don't give a **** about the story or anything else - it's for making money!' Which, y'know, is the expected way of thinking from a CEO and no doubt the reason why there are two movies. Certainly it isn't because it's needed...

 

When you think about it, most book>film adaptations have half the stuff cut out so that the film isn't 5 hours long. Perhaps the idea of 2 parts is that Jackson wants to make sure he can fit everything in?

 

At least someone is making fantasy films. the more the better, and after every succes a few more people try fantasy.

 

I think Barmy's reasoning is sound. Two movies would make it so that they can adapt the book to film as well as they are able without having to sacrifice content for the sake of time.

I don't see the reason to be so pessimistic and jump to the conclusion that everybody associated with the project has dollar signs in their eyes. For Peter Jackson especially, making the LOTR trilogy was a labor of love that stemmed from his love for the books. They just happened to be a HUGE financial success. And rape? Not to be crass, but it's only rape if they say no-- and you can say no by not seeing the movies. So stay home and don't go see how Peter Jackson, whose first run at this (to quote Tal's referenced article) "...The Oscar-winning, critically-acclaimed LOTR Trilogy grossed nearly $3 billion worldwide at the box-office. In 2003, “Return of the King” swept the Academy Awards, winning all of the eleven categories in which it was nominated, including Best Picture – the first ever Best Picture win for a fantasy film. The Trilogy’s production was also unprecedented at the time...." RUINS it.

 

Oh, I'm fine with Peter Jackson, generally. I mean, sure, there are some dodgy bits in the LotR movies (skateboarding Legolas anyone?) but overall they were well done. I'm happy that he has creative oversight, and am happy that a movie of The Hobbit is being made.

But speaking as a bit of an anal Tolkien snot (and definately not from the point of view that the way the movie industry is set up is a good way of producing good movies), the idea of two of them is bleh, because I don't see it working. the impression I have is that there's going to be a movie of The Hobbit and then a sequel set some time in between The Hobbit and LotR but that doesn't have a direct relation with either story.

So from this perspective I'm sure it can't be too hard, even for those who don't share it, to see how I can think that it could be ruined. 'It' being Tolkien's world/setting/story/whatever (no real word for the all encompassing whole of it). I'm sure it'll be a competently made movie, but it smells of 'cash in' rather than 'great work' to me. I imagine that most people can see how that could be considered a bad thing - even while fully appreciating that that's how Hollywood works.

But hey, I'm passionate about the 'franchises' (god I hate that word - so cold and corporate, and yet I can't think of a closer one) that I enjoy, and hate seeing them tampered with. I realise that other people don't necessarily feel that way, but to me it's important that things aren't messed up.

Besides - all that effort being put into a sequel that's unnecessary (to the overall story) when there are so many of Tolkien's other stories that could be told instead. The story of Turin being made into a movie would be pretty great, as would Beren and Luthien, the fall of Gondolin, etc.

While I'm here I think I might voice the distaste I have for the 'if you don't like it, don't see it' arguement. Talk about a way to shut down all discussion beyond the extremely positive...

Edit: Oh, and if Barmy's right (contradicting the news thing I linked), then sure, I don't mind. Still, The Hobbit doesn't lend itself to being cut up like LotR does - there isn't any natural break where you could cut it in order to get two movies both with satisfying climaxes that I can remember.

 

It doesn't make the arguement any less true, however. Nor does it refute the logic behind it. The average movie-goer sees a film for enjoyment. If you have decided ahead of time that you will not enjoy a certain film, there is no reason to go. For expample: I found Pirates of the Carribean 2 to be so stupid that I have not seen the third installment. Now THERE's two movies that were made to cash in on a franchise.

Now if you want to talk about movie arguements that suck, let us discuss the irrefutable logic behind "if you think this movie sucked, I'd like to see you make a better one!"

 

I look forward to these movies because they are bound to be entertaining. And if they are rubbish, then so be it. Most of the films around are rubbish so the odds of catching a stinker are pretty high most of the time.

I am also a bit of a Tolkien purist. His books are still my favourites of all time.

But I don't share Aikanaro's concerns this time, because the outcome of these films will do nothing to diminish what I love about the books.

 

I'm willing to see it/them because it/they can't be worse than this.

 

How did that get rated 6.4 out of 10?

 

If the 2 movies are definitely one for The Hobbit and one for the gap between that and LoTR, then WTF??

IF, however, the 2 movies are just for The Hobbit, then forgive my possible ignorance (it's been a long time since I last read the book) but how on middle-earth could that book be made into 2 films? From what I remember it's not that long?

 

My apologies, I failed to check the link before posting but just have, after reading it on IMDB.com, should be interesting to see Sam Raimi's take on it

 

Could be interesting, he did a good job with Pan's Labyrinth (though I couldn't believe that face smashing scene, holy mother of god!)