The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey ::: Dec. 14th, 2012

Hallelujah! :D

People seemed to think that, if you loved the books, you automatically loved the films. Nope!

They were a bloody disgrace to Tolkein's legacy. I remember feeling physically ill when I saw the first two in the cinema.

*happy sigh*

Thank God. I've left Stepford.

Sharky wrote:

They were a bloody disgrace to Tolkein's legacy. I remember feeling physically ill when I saw the first two in the cinema.

Bourne 2 & 3 did that to me and then QoS actually attempted it as well. :cheers:


I find the LOTR very well filmed, there will never be another attempt I wager. ANd while it isn't perfect, I love the books to death, it does seem to capture the mood and visuals. They filmed parts I really found awesome and some parts I really missed especially from the first book. They took some shortcuts and some freedoms with the novels but overall it was a brilliantly done set of movies. I actually have the ext. versions which I find work much better than the cinematic releases.

But indeed as often the case the books are better.

Still will go and see The Hobbit two years in row.

What about the people who don't like Tolkein, period? No representation here?

^ I'm here. I could never make it through the books. They're like The Iliad on crack and perhaps less readable.

The films... I respect the effort and craftsmanship behind them (the production design was phenomenal) and they're enjoyable enough but they're not something I insist on watching or go out of my way to watch. They were a spectacle when they came out in the cinema though, and I certainly rate it higher than similar stuff/action flicks. I also like Horner's score.

I think this looks rather putrid though. McKellan seems to be in fine form but the rest... the dwarves look like they walked out of a fan film and - as Loomis pointed out - look incredibly fake (a crime when compared to the work on the original films).

And I can't stand Martin Freeman. Perhaps it's residual confusion between character and actor from The Office but I really feel compelled to punch the moany t*** square in the nose whenever I see him on a screen. He's hardly a Great Talent.

That's Howard Shore Vesp, not James Horner.

Brain freeze. I know who I meant haha.

Horner it would've had the Enemy At The Gates motif recycled for the 10,000th time.

If nothing else, Jackson's LOTR films had very fine production design.

Vesper wrote:

Horner it would've had the Enemy At The Gates motif recycled for the 10,000th time.

I think it's been around since Wrath of Khan, actually.

Perhaps earlier.

This is its first appearance.



I've gotta say, this is probably my favourite incarnation in Horner's oeuvre.

Harmsway wrote:

If nothing else, Jackson's LOTR films had very fine production design.

Yep.

Other than that, they're boring, overrated films that are littered with poor performances.

I'd only sit through another if I was offered a few Baker Street gift certificates.

Mr. Brown wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

If nothing else, Jackson's LOTR films had very fine production design.

Yep.

Other than that, they're boring, overrated films that are littered with poor performances.

I'd only sit through another if I was offered a few Baker Street gift certificates.

The production design is amazing. Costumes too, I guess. I like the music. Love this bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UuyeYdQnI4#t=2m54s

I also really liked Brad Dourif's Wormtongue. But the movies bored the crap out of me and I hated the Hobbits.

Haven't seen them in a few years. I recall that if you aren't hooked into the story, the films themselves have really nothing else to offer aside from the design. They didn't feel epic to me, just long.

Quote :

I hated the Hobbits

Yeah, I suspect I'm more partial to the films than you are but I 100% agree with this. Elijah Wood is the most tolerable of the four, but when he has his big emotional moments I'm left wanting to smack him in the face.

Quote :

Haven't seen them in a few years. I recall that if you aren't hooked into the story, the films themselves have really nothing else to offer aside from the design. They didn't feel epic to me, just long.

I think there are some epic moments, most involve Bernard Hill or the unveiling of some of the fantastic miniature work (the sequence where Ian McKellan approaches/rides through Minas Tirith towards the beginning of the third film comes to mind). The climax was extremely underwelming and the writing choice with the undead army left me pretty cold.

Quote :

I like the music. Love this bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UuyeYdQnI4#t=2m54s

I really like that leitmotif, too.

I dig Bernard Hill, and I liked Sean Bean.

McKellen and Holm are good.

Can't say much for rest of the cast, though.

I also thought Lee, Douriff, John Noble and John Rhys Davies were a cut above the rest. After them and the above four you list though it's a lot of bland in my book.

TBH, I couldn't stand John Noble's hammery. He was a bore to watch, and I cheered when he caught fire and ran off the tip of the citadel.

Sharky wrote:

TBH, I couldn't stand John Noble's hammery. He was a bore to watch, and I cheered when he caught fire and ran off the tip of the citadel.

He should've made himself useful by landing on one of those wooden siege towers.

I will not tolerate any hate on John Noble.

I doubt I'll see this, unless it's nominated for Best Picture. Then I'll have to get around to seeing it. But I'd rather have sex with Kathy Bates in 110 degree heat.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/f5ec0ff21f/peeder-jigson-s-video-diary-making-music-with-howard-shore

Howard Shore interviewed on the music for THE HOBBIT.

Quote :

"The Hobbit" Will Be A Trilogy After All?''

By Garth Franklin Tuesday July 24th 2012 08:04PM
"The Hobbit" Will Be A Trilogy After All?

A few days before Comic Con came word that Peter Jackson was seriously looking into turning his two "The Hobbit" films into a trilogy. The studio quickly denied it, even now the official plan remains to continue with the two film release this Christmas and next.

Yet Jackson continued mentioning the possibility in San Diego and this week Warner Brothers, Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens have all reportedly been exploring the logistics of what it would take to make another movie reports Heat Vision.

Talks are said to "have accelerated" to the point that the studio is fine with the idea so long as the financial and legal arrangements can be achieved. A source says “If we’re going to do it, we have to make a decision. It’s strongly driven by the filmmakers’ desire to tell more of the story.”

The move isn't a big surprise. By incorporating not just "The Hobbit" but Tolkien's various extensive appendices published post-Rings, the filmmakers have been able to expand the story in considerable ways that even fitting everything into two films is a stretch.

Additional shooting next year for the second film was always going to be the case, but should they go ahead with a third film then key cast and crew could reassemble for a longer 2-3 month stint next Summer in New Zealand which would allow Jackson to shoot the additional sequences he wants to add in.

In some ways it's a no brainer - for fairly minimal additional cost the studio gets an entire extra film which is already partly shot anyway, while audiences will get three movies of reasonable length instead of two potential bladder busting epics. There will be some re-writing and re-editing on Jackson's part of the first two films but it'd be a shock if he, Walsh and Boyens haven't already got a good idea of how to reshape the project already.

The only real obstacle is logistics. While Warners has the money to spend, will they want to? More importantly there's the contractual issues - all the actors and crew signed on for two films which means all new deals will have to be struck.

I get the idea there whant make it in a triologie with shooting more then needed material. If there whant make 3 movies from let we say 160 minutes from the already shoot material i think it should not be a problem. A total time of 8hr. My problem with it is that iam afraid number 3 going to be 200 minutes and needed detais been cut for extented version like happend with LOTR 3. LOTR trilogie be 9hr20minutes. The source of my problem be is thatiam afraid we wil not see some chacters die on screen there die but only in a extented version. In LOTR 3 >

Spoiler:

chacter not die in the 201 minute version because the last time we see the chacter be in The Towers where we see the chacter escape, and i have understand those 9 minutes also at more of a boat trip from the ghost captains.

Largo's Shark wrote:

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/f5ec0ff21f/peeder-jigson-s-video-diary-making-music-with-howard-shore

Howard Shore interviewed on the music for THE HOBBIT.

I chuckled when that dude says "change the trumpets to cornets!"

You may be interested in this Sharky, that it also looks like Doug Adams, the guy who wrote "The Music of the Lord of the Rings Films", is also writing a book to chronicle THE HOBBIT music, as well.

http://www.musicoflotr.com/

Believe it or not, that guy was my band director when I was in middle school. His wife in that wedding photo was a good friend of mine from high school.