Posted on 07/30/2012 10:29:08 PM PDT by Altariel
Yee Haa
If it’s a trilogy, he probably will draw from more source material than the Hobbit. I can see him drawing from Tolkien’s other books of events that were happening at the same time as filler material.
The Appendices are full of material. A third movie could easily have Aragorn and Arwen share a romance and still have time for he and Gandalf to share an adventure in the years after The Hobbit but before LOTR.
The book is less than three hundred pages.
I am a true LOR fan and think he did a tremendous job with the trilogy, yet even in the extended versions he left out some major players particularly in the early stages of the films. Including Tom Bombadil who aided the adventurers in the Old Forrest prior to their stay at the Inn at Brie. He was a relatively important character and was mentioned at the Council of Elrond as a possible keeper of the Ring of Power. He was also in the ending chapters. The Rape of the Shire and the reclamation of Frodo's Home from the Sackville baggins's was left out of the LOR trilogy and it's extended version even with almost thirteen hours of film.
I only hope that he doesn't do to the Hobbit what he did to King Kong. The Movie was very good in some parts but was in desperate need of an editor. He could have lopped off a good 30 minutes or more of the film and made the picture much better by having LESS film.
Hopefully he will be far more faithful to the source material than he was for Lord of the Rings.
I’m not referring to omissions. I’m referring to deliberate alterations in the movies.
FR Hobbit Hole Pingie Thingie
Jackson also announced that after The Hobbit trilogy is done, he’s planning to film a thirty part Silmarillion series that will baffle and mystify even hardcore Tolkien fans and sort of just end suddenly.
I agree with you. I hope this time they can keep from inserting things that never happened in the book and attempt to be more true to the characters. (No Elves at Helm’s Deep and forget the excuses — you don’t have to show character growth in every single character in the story.) I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings movie, but the other two movies in the trilogy were nowhere near as enjoyable for me.
I just really hope these extra Hobbit movies don’t ruin the story with padding and bloat the way Peter Jackson’s King Kong was bloated.
Yes!!!!!!
I’ve read the LOTR books three times and seen the movies twice and don’t really know anything major is missing.
I know Jackson excluded Bombadil. I would have liked to see that scene, except for the nude hobbits running across the fields.
Jackson said that it was an act that wouldn’t have worked well in the film version. It would have left most movie goers puzzled as to why it was in the film and would have been a distraction to the overall movie itself.
I do know that sometimes what works well in a book doesn’t work well in a film and adjustments have to be made to account for that. That’s just the reality of film-making.
I think they should have had the cleansing of the Shire. I would have liked to have seen that.
I can appreciate why Bombadil wasn’t in the movie, because it didn’t fit the overall movie. To most movie goers, it would have been a strange scene to have the Hobbits running for their lives to go into this earthly paradise and strip naked and run across the field and talk to this elflike man, with a green hat, who could hold the ring with no harm done.
How could the ring really be that dangerous when this man is holding it like it was nothing? It would have undercut the danger of the ring, imo.
Peter Jackson's King Kong, to my mind, was exactly just right all around.
Glad you enjoyed it.
Apart from being able to really follow the book (a major criticism of the LOTR trilogy, as major plot points were completely eliminated or drastically altered; see: cleansing of the Shire, the Siege of Minas Tirith being reduced to a several-hour battle, the erasure of the Field of Cormallen scene and Aragorn’s coronation, the erasure of the Black Breath subplot, Denethor’s Palantir, etc), doing the movie as a trilogy allows him to explore the White Council and the expulsion of the Necromancer from Dol Guldur. It also permits a longer flashback for Gandalf when he found Thrain in the Necromancer’s dungeon and received the map of the Lonely Mountain. Finally, it allows a bit of fill-in for the space between The Hobbit and the LOTR series, with Gollum’s journey to Mordor, an introduction to the Rangers, and so on.
If you thought it was that bad, why did you finish watching it? Are you a masochist?
I think he could have been aided by a strong editor. That being said, a man that has a multi-billion dollar franchise under his belt does whatever he wants to do film wise. He could get a three hour documentary on watching grass grow green lighted. Sadly, I would probably pay to see it just because he would probably make it interesting. It would certainly be beautiful to look at.
The LOTR books aren’t much longer, and Jackson had to heavily rewrite them to get a comprehensible and filmable movie. Scenes that take a few paragraphs can require tens of minutes of footage to accomplish. The announcement did say (and the trailers apparently hint that) Gandalf would be seen going to Dol Guldur, at least.
This way, we’re more likely to get a good version of the battle in the caves, the arrival at Beorn’s, the battle with the spiders, and the party’s imprisonment in the wood-elves’ palace. Hopefully, we’ll also get a good build-up to the opening of the secret door, as well as the battle on the lake and the Battle of Five Armies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.