I was ok with it when it was two movies, but when they moved it to three I'm no longer sure I want to see any of them. Especially after The Two Towers.
The writing length parallel to a shooting script is a medium-sized short story, not a novel. Any longer on the page and you have to excise a lot of what made the book a book. Most well-written novels need 2 or 3 90 minute (remember those) films to comprehensively cover the actual material.
I am under the impression that there may be quite a bit that was not in the book (Gandalf and Thrain and the Necromancer) but was contemporary to happenings with the dwarves and Bilbo will be in the films, and also maybe some stuff that technically happened in between Hobbit and LOTR. I'm still hopeful that they find a way to surprise us and show what Aragorn and Gandalf were up to in that time frame.
It is an absolute travesty, and I am going to have to watch each movie, in their entirely, plus the director's cuts, plus making-of and outtakes, several times, in order to comprehend the full depth of depravity that Peter Jackson has wrought.
And then when my kids are older, I'll have them watch it, too, probably in the new super-high-def 3D format on UV-ray which I will use to justify the expense of re-vamping my entire entertainment system just so this wickedness may not be forgotten in the ages.
11 comments:
I was ok with it when it was two movies, but when they moved it to three I'm no longer sure I want to see any of them. Especially after The Two Towers.
Not going to waste my time...
it's not just the hobbit. they stretched it to 3 movies by adding what gandalf was doing when he left them.
so, more saruman (before he turned evil), more other great wizards.
There's five or six hours of content in there, especially with what Allen said.
(Which while not in The Hobbit, was mentioned in other Tolkein sources, so it's fair to add.)
I'm in...
The writing length parallel to a shooting script is a medium-sized short story, not a novel. Any longer on the page and you have to excise a lot of what made the book a book. Most well-written novels need 2 or 3 90 minute (remember those) films to comprehensively cover the actual material.
i'm guessing that whole Battle of Five Armies thing made the project run a wee bit longer.
I am under the impression that there may be quite a bit that was not in the book (Gandalf and Thrain and the Necromancer) but was contemporary to happenings with the dwarves and Bilbo will be in the films, and also maybe some stuff that technically happened in between Hobbit and LOTR. I'm still hopeful that they find a way to surprise us and show what Aragorn and Gandalf were up to in that time frame.
I'm too much of an LOTR geek not to watch them no matter what, but that said ...
This trailer makes it seem like the movie is totally removed from the style of "The Hobbit."
"The Hobbit" was a kids book and written as such, and this has more of a dark and ponderous LOTR feel.
In some ways I may appreciate that they put it more in line with LOTR, but it's not true to the source.
Is it just me, or do those Dwarfs remind you of Klingons?
It is an absolute travesty, and I am going to have to watch each movie, in their entirely, plus the director's cuts, plus making-of and outtakes, several times, in order to comprehend the full depth of depravity that Peter Jackson has wrought.
And then when my kids are older, I'll have them watch it, too, probably in the new super-high-def 3D format on UV-ray which I will use to justify the expense of re-vamping my entire entertainment system just so this wickedness may not be forgotten in the ages.
Post a Comment