Movie The Hobbit!

I was excited until I heard it was a part 1. I'll wait for the Hyper Extended Bluray 1+2 Combo Pack w/Hobbit Feet pack in (Sam's Club exclusive)
 
The Hobbit will be in 3 parts.
 
Jackson apparently decided to pad it out... extensively. A good chunk of that padding is canon, mind you, using material from the Unfinished Tales to flesh out what was going on in Middle Earth during the events of The Hobbit, but in all honesty there's a fair amount of extended and/or expanded battle scenes and whatnot.

If he'd decided to go down the same route with LOTR, we'd probably have had a six movie set lol. At least.
 
Raesvelg said:
Jackson apparently decided to pad it out... extensively. A good chunk of that padding is canon, mind you, using material from the Unfinished Tales to flesh out what was going on in Middle Earth during the events of The Hobbit, but in all honesty there's a fair amount of extended and/or expanded battle scenes and whatnot.

If he'd decided to go down the same route with LOTR, we'd probably have had a six movie set lol. At least.
Click to expand...

I would have loved a 6 part set in LOTR they skipped so much from those books, and the last movie really really let me down.

On a side note, I did enjoy the Hobbit last night, even though I did get worried not knowing it was being split up, that they were just now in sight of the mountain and it had been 2.5 hours already lol.
 
Blazeoffury said:
I would have loved a 6 part set in LOTR they skipped so much from those books, and the last movie really really let me down.
Click to expand...

I felt that Jackson took the right approach, to be honest. So much of LOTR was fundamentally extraneous to the plot (Tom Bombadil), and including it all would have made the series... almost unsellable, for lack of a better word. It might have pleased the purists, but splitting each book (not particularly long books, at that) into two films would probably not have been successful at the time the movie was made.

These days, of course, what with Harry Potter and Twilight forging the way, it seems to have almost become the norm to split any overly large story into two parts.

Even if the story in question is total garbage. -.-
Blazeoffury said:
On a side note, I did enjoy the Hobbit last night, even though I did get worried not knowing it was being split up, that they were just now in sight of the mountain and it had been 2.5 hours already lol.
Click to expand...

In theory I'm gonna catch it later today, lol.

Though you did remind me of a few of the people in the theater when I went to see Fellowship the first time.

"What the fuck?! That's it?!"

People who had no idea that the Fellowship was the first book in a trilogy, lol. They were pissed.
 
Raesvelg said:
I felt that Jackson took the right approach, to be honest. So much of LOTR was fundamentally extraneous to the plot (Tom Bombadil), and including it all would have made the series... almost unsellable, for lack of a better word. It might have pleased the purists, but splitting each book (not particularly long books, at that) into two films would probably not have been successful at the time the movie was made.

These days, of course, what with Harry Potter and Twilight forging the way, it seems to have almost become the norm to split any overly large story into two parts.

Even if the story in question is total garbage. -.-


In theory I'm gonna catch it later today, lol.

Though you did remind me of a few of the people in the theater when I went to see Fellowship the first time.

"What the fuck?! That's it?!"

People who had no idea that the Fellowship was the first book in a trilogy, lol. They were pissed.
Click to expand...

I didn't really follow the making of this movie actually, I was almost figuring it was going to pretty much be a realistic remake of the old cartoon, covering the same basis as that film did. I was wrong ha.
 
Raesvelg said:
I felt that Jackson took the right approach, to be honest. So much of LOTR was fundamentally extraneous to the plot (Tom Bombadil), and including it all would have made the series... almost unsellable, for lack of a better word. It might have pleased the purists, but splitting each book (not particularly long books, at that) into two films would probably not have been successful at the time the movie was made.

These days, of course, what with Harry Potter and Twilight forging the way, it seems to have almost become the norm to split any overly large story into two parts.

Even if the story in question is total garbage. -.-


In theory I'm gonna catch it later today, lol.

Though you did remind me of a few of the people in the theater when I went to see Fellowship the first time.

"What the fuck?! That's it?!"

People who had no idea that the Fellowship was the first book in a trilogy, lol. They were pissed.
Click to expand...
I remember thinking the same thing when I was reading the books before the movies came out. I couldn't believe that they ended a book that way. Although I finished Fellowship about a week before the movie came out, so I was at least prepared for that.
 
Well, it's not like Tolkien intended for the book to be split up originally; it was written as a single tome, then forcibly split by his publisher because they thought nobody would read a book that long, lol. In a way, we can think of LOTR as the first in the line of movies that split a book into parts, lol. Just a fairly lengthy book for the time it was written.

And then we got writers like Jordan, and Martin, and TAD MOTHERFUCKING WILLIAMS and his third book in the Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn trilogy that was so damned long that when it came to paperback it was split into two 800 page books.

I, of course, have it in the 1100 page hardback version. With very fine paper and small print.
 
I love longer books, I especially love Terry Goodkind's series, The Sword of Truth
 
I read the hobbit. I really didn't like the book that much. Not sure why. I did like the movie though. I haven't read a book in a while, anyone of some ideas for another book for me to read?
 
I heard it was good, gonna see it this weekend. But I heard the 3D was pointless.

Also, BOO YOU RAESVELG! Tom Bombadil is ftw :D And he did have some minor importance to the plot and such.
 
Last edited:
Yea, the 3d was pretty pointless

Shaggy said:
I read the hobbit. I really didn't like the book that much. Not sure why. I did like the movie though. I haven't read a book in a while, anyone of some ideas for another book for me to read?
Click to expand...

Terry Goodkind - Wizards First Rule, then follow it up with the whole series
 
Last edited:
Elemmire said:
Also, BOO YOU RAESVELG! Tom Bombadil is ftw :D And he did have some minor importance to the plot and such.
Click to expand...
No, he didn't. The only impact he had on the plot was he gave them their weapons(Minus sting, which Frodo got later from Bilbo); which was just as easily accomplished by Strider handing them to the hobbits. They got attacked by something else, which also wasn't important for the plot of the book, escaped, and then went on as they did in the movie. It would have taken another 20-30 minutes to do that scene and wouldn't have accomplished anything plot-wise other than to make the fanbase slightly happier.
 
I can barely remember reading The Hobbit. Strange, I usually remember great detail of books I read, and love, years after the fact. It's been 7, nearly 8 years since I last read it though, so perhaps I should give it another go. I remember the night I was to finish the last chapter, by candlelight.. I ended up in the hospital after nearly cutting my knuckle off. 13 stitches later, a week off work (which cost me my job) I got to finish the book. lol

I prefer my books uber long. I have a few that are well over 900+ pages. The longer the better, hardback and small print. Never read the LOTR series.. I should have though.

I saw somewhere, I think Tristengreen put it up on FB actually, that they messed with The Hobbit and the 3D 48FR is distracting. Apparently it's better in the regular FR. I've heard some mixed reviews. Quality looks all channel 10 low budget.

I'm sure I'd enjoy it either way, I'm easy =P
 
Tom Bombadil's sole real point, in my opinion, was to show that there were powers in Middle Earth beyond the Ring.
 
Bajaratt said:
No, he didn't. The only impact he had on the plot was he gave them their weapons(Minus sting, which Frodo got later from Bilbo); which was just as easily accomplished by Strider handing them to the hobbits. They got attacked by something else, which also wasn't important for the plot of the book, escaped, and then went on as they did in the movie. It would have taken another 20-30 minutes to do that scene and wouldn't have accomplished anything plot-wise other than to make the fanbase slightly happier.
Click to expand...

I said minor importance :P giving them weapons is a minor importance as without it they couldn't play parts later. But, true, just as easily acquired elsewhere. I still like him :(

And it would do one other thing, it expands their universe just a little bit more. Hell, they mention Tom in the council meeting too and there's a lot of hints at Tom's true possible identity and ya. It's fun stuff for the fans and could potentially be fun for new fans who never read the books, but saw the movies.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top