The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Small Screen. Bigger Screen.
User avatar
Rook
 
Posts: 2695
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:02 am
Location: Lost in the Supermarket

Postby Rook » Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:38 am

I thought the LotR trilogy was cut incredibly well - I didn't feel wanting for anything and it felt concise yet epic.

Two films for The Hobbit does sound a bit over the top though.

User avatar
RCHD
 
Posts: 9228
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 12:13 pm
Location: Newcastle

Postby RCHD » Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:58 am

I reread it recently, and I felt a bit let down. I remember it very fondly, and it just didn't quite live up to my expectations. Plus, there isn't a good way to split it in two and have two exciting and climactic films.

User avatar
NightShade
 
Posts: 4724
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 8:26 pm

Postby NightShade » Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:02 am

I guess they'd stop the first one when
they get spidered.

User avatar
The Snot Goblin
 
Posts: 2068
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:37 pm
Location: The Dreadfort

Postby The Snot Goblin » Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:21 am

They're not making two films from the Hobbit; just the one. The second movie is apparently going to be one that fills the gap between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Not sure if that bodes well. :?


The seventies cartoon of the Hobbit is pretty good by the way, if seriously dated.
I am going to eat Spaceman paninis with black Hitler and there is nothing you can do about it!

User avatar
Wrathbone
 
Posts: 4036
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 11:41 pm
Location: Back in Lancaster, NOT THE HOME OF HARIBO!

Postby Wrathbone » Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:34 pm

The Snot Goblin wrote:They're not making two films from the Hobbit; just the one. The second movie is apparently going to be one that fills the gap between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Not sure if that bodes well. :?


Yeah, surely it's all just exposition? Gandalf and Aragorn go rough up Gollum a bit, Bilbo gets older and older... not really anything worth making a full film about.
"This boy is depriving a village of an idiot."

Photos!

User avatar
Crowley
 
Posts: 18131
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2003 4:07 pm
Location: Sauntering vaguely downwards

Postby Crowley » Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:13 pm

Jay wrote:Lord of the Rings has 9 books, not including the appendices iirc. If you check some of the older copies of the Lord of the Rings (pre-film ones) and leaf through them, you can see it was originally 9 books, not 3

Again, what?

Lord Of The Rings has always been six books, spread across three parts. It was originally published that way, and apart from single volumes and the occasional special edition that splits the books out into six (sometimes plus appendices for seven), it has always been published as three volumes, with each split into two books.

I think you're confusing nine ringwraiths for nine books. There has never been nine books.

User avatar
Wrathbone
 
Posts: 4036
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 11:41 pm
Location: Back in Lancaster, NOT THE HOME OF HARIBO!

Postby Wrathbone » Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:49 pm

Nobody cares.
"This boy is depriving a village of an idiot."

Photos!

User avatar
Mantis
Admin
 
Posts: 26990
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 5:53 pm
Location: Nobody's Here

Postby Mantis » Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:26 pm

Crowley wrote:
Jay wrote:Lord of the Rings has 9 books, not including the appendices iirc. If you check some of the older copies of the Lord of the Rings (pre-film ones) and leaf through them, you can see it was originally 9 books, not 3

Again, what?

Lord Of The Rings has always been six books, spread across three parts. It was originally published that way, and apart from single volumes and the occasional special edition that splits the books out into six (sometimes plus appendices for seven), it has always been published as three volumes, with each split into two books.

I think you're confusing nine ringwraiths for nine books. There has never been nine books.


Ah right. It's been so long since I last read my big copy that's got them all split up into their original forms that I assumed each volume consisted of 3. Yeah my bad.

User avatar
Crowley
 
Posts: 18131
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2003 4:07 pm
Location: Sauntering vaguely downwards

Postby Crowley » Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:09 am

VICTOLLY!


Anyway, yeah. Shit news. Someone needs to take the money away from Peter Jackson, he's infinitely better without it.

User avatar
Adam
 
Posts: 27658
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 7:27 pm
Location: Tottenham

Postby Adam » Fri Dec 21, 2007 6:51 pm

Why has no-one commented on the fact that he's only attatched to produce, not direct? While it's good news to have him on board in any capacity, I think it's a little early to start celebrating until we know who's going to direct the thing.

User avatar
Nelmsy
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 5:58 pm

Postby Nelmsy » Fri Dec 21, 2007 7:16 pm

Yeah, for all we know this could be directed by Brett Ratner, McG or Paul W. S. Anderson. Unlikely, but still....

User avatar
Wrathbone
 
Posts: 4036
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 11:41 pm
Location: Back in Lancaster, NOT THE HOME OF HARIBO!

Postby Wrathbone » Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:09 pm

I've got my fingers crossed for Jerry Bruckheimer. 8)
"This boy is depriving a village of an idiot."

Photos!

Cheye
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:32 pm

Postby Cheye » Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:15 pm

Bruckheimer's strictly a producer though, like. :-k

User avatar
banapaulo
 
Posts: 11138
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 10:38 pm
Location: The Great Gig in the Sky

Postby banapaulo » Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:18 pm

I'd like to see Chris Nolan do a big fantasy film of this sort.
katarn wrote:Oh yeah! I agree with Banapaulo. 8)

User avatar
Crowley
 
Posts: 18131
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2003 4:07 pm
Location: Sauntering vaguely downwards

Postby Crowley » Sat Dec 22, 2007 12:32 am

Fuck no. Nolan is way too intense a director to handle high fantasy.

PreviousNext

Return to TV & Film

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 7 guests