Page 1 of 23

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:03 pm
by Wrathbone

PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:05 pm
by RCHD
I'm pleased, but I don't see how they're going to make two films from The Hobbit. It'll surely be a step down after Return of the King.

Who knows though.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:15 pm
by Mantis
MOAR GANDALF!

PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:16 pm
by Douglas Stormbringer
YES!


But two films? WTF, mate?



The Hobbit 2: Smaug's Revenge? ¬_¬

PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:25 pm
by XYZIA
It's called the pointless doubling of content to make more money method.

Still. Hurray!

PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:31 pm
by Liam
Good, it would have been a mess otherwise.

He should have done golden compass as well. :(

PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:44 pm
by Douglas Stormbringer
He should do ALL films from now on. ¬_¬

PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:47 pm
by Crowley
The Hobbit: There

The Hobbit: And Back Again

PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:48 pm
by Gibby
Maybe there's too much of the book that they don't want to cut. It's a good thing in my opinion. LotR trilogy should've been 6 films. ¬_¬

PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:58 pm
by XYZIA
I bet it's got a lot to do with money anyway.

And I agree with you Doug, he really is the finest out there.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:03 pm
by Mantis
Gibby wrote:Maybe there's too much of the book that they don't want to cut. It's a good thing in my opinion. LotR trilogy should've been 6 films. ¬_¬


Or 9 films, like the actual books.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:11 pm
by Crowley
What?

PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:00 am
by Jay
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

PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:40 am
by Plant
^__^

PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:52 am
by Wrathbone
Gibby wrote:Maybe there's too much of the book that they don't want to cut. It's a good thing in my opinion. LotR trilogy should've been 6 films. ¬_¬


Nah, the vast majority of cuts were sensible. Certain things which worked in the books didn't (or wouldn't have) worked in the films - the Mouth of Sauron is a good case in point. When they put it back in the extended edition of Return of the King, it was a bit redundant since we already knew Frodo was alive and that the Mouth was bluffing. In the book, you don't meet Frodo in the tower until after that scene, so you wonder if he actually HAS failed and everyone's boned.

Also the scouring of the Shire would never have worked at the end of the film. And Tom Bombadil is a fruity 'tard.