Comments on: The disturbing trend of one novel, many films

By: Ryan

Ryan — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 15:47:33 +0000

Wow, the commenters in the Film section seem a bit more… dogmatic… than I’m used to seeing in the TV section.

The Hobbit could easily fit into one of Jackson’s usual 3-4 hour movies. The rest of the running time will be filled with contemporaneous events, it’s true, but Tolkien basically wrote those as historical texts in his appendices and apocrypha, not narratives in any true sense. Most of that story needs must be invented out of whole cloth by the screenwriters if it’s more than Ian McKellen’s booming voiceover. Personally, I’d rather spend that time with Beorn, Bard, and Dain II than with Radagast the Brown, but we’ll see how it turns out.

My main problem is that I just saw the second trailer in 3D last night, and it looked terrible to my eyes. There was very little depth of field, so that each layer of the image appeared as sharp and in focus as those in front of and behind it, ViewMaster 3D-style. And I assume the trailer was running at 24 fps, not that awful 48 fps which as far as I’ve read the actual film will still be. Watching the same trailer in 2D online later was a much better experience. Perhaps I should just wait for the Blu-rays of these films?

By: Mic

Mic — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 09:04:18 +0000

I don’t see how they can possibly drag that story over three movies without making up a hell of a lot of material to fill in the gaps and make each one exciting.

By: Antonio del Drago

Antonio del Drago — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 19:43:44 +0000

While I appreciate your perspective, there are two points that should be considered:

1. The unabridged audio version of the Hobbit is 12 hours long. We’re so used to novels being drastically condensed that when a filmmaker decides to tell the entire story, it seems strange.

2. The Hobbit trilogy will contain a great deal more than what took place in the book. That’s because Tolkien wrote an epic backstory that chronicles what took place off-stage in the children’s book. Remember how Gandalf vanished for half the novel, and then reappeared at the end of The Hobbit? During that period he and the White Council embarked on an epic endeavor of their own, which sets the stage for Fellowship of the Ring.

Because The Hobbit is being divided into 3 films, as opposed to just one, Jackson has the chance to tell the full story, and show how the events of the Hobbit fit into the greater history of Middle Earth. I, for one, am thrilled.

By: Winter

Winter — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 14:28:02 +0000

Dan I agree with you. Thank you for writing that. I just want to add that I love the Harry Potter books and the films actually did them justice. I loved that the movies were so long and I loved that they split the last book up so that they could add as much from the book as possible.

But to each his own.

Be well everyone and happy movie going!

By: Dan Hafelfinger

Dan Hafelfinger — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 03:15:21 +0000

It doesn’t bother me a bit, Pard. I look forward VERY MUCH to these films coming out. The three Hobbit movies will make perfect companion pieces to the three Lord of the Rings films in my home library. They will be an enjoyable experience for young and old alike. Get a grip, Dude! Jeeez!
And QUIT your juvenile whining, bitching and moaning. The fans aren’t being “exploited”, they’re being rewarded and entertained. Peter Jackson does superlative work. You either like this stuff or you don’t. If you DO, then you’re a fan and will be GLAD to see they’ve made three films rather than only one. Anybody who feels be’s being victimized or exploited can simply stay home and watch “Wheel of Fortune” on TV.

By: Keith McDuffee

Keith McDuffee — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 01:25:58 +0000

I completely see where you’re coming from, while at the same time I’m still holding out to at least hear what we can expect each of those three movies to have. I’ve heard conflicting things about where the movie splits, if it even does “split,” for example.

Still, it is a bunch of bullshit that this is not about money.