248 replies to this topic

[Werthead]

Reviews are banned until the American release date, but initial Twitter reaction is favourable. One negative comment was that the first half is a bit slow, but then it picks up a lot.

[Sci-2]

Quote

Then it turned out that the film-makers weren't really going to pull out at all, so not only were they bullies, they were lying bullies.

Is there more info on this, I'm a bit confused by what happened with the unions. I try to be informed on workers' rights...I do want to see this in the theaters but I'd like to get a better picture as to what happened.

[Cuellar]

sciborg2, on 28 November 2012 - 01:19 PM, said:

Is there more info on this, I'm a bit confused by what happened with the unions. I try to be informed on workers' rights...I do want to see this in the theaters but I'd like to get a better picture as to what happened.

Seems like a basic negotiation tactic.  Unions probably tried to force the filmmakers to only use unionized workers instead of going for an open bidding process.  The filmmakers threatened to leave the country to do the shooting if they didn't get some government support to avoid the unions.  Seems like the typical union vs anti-union game that gets played.   I figure if they really wanted to use union labor, they'd have done all of the shooting in LA.

[The Anti-Targ]

sciborg2, on 28 November 2012 - 01:19 PM, said:

Is there more info on this, I'm a bit confused by what happened with the unions. I try to be informed on workers' rights...I do want to see this in the theaters but I'd like to get a better picture as to what happened.

Here is an excellent overview of the whole sorry saga. I just listened to it on the radio, so it's hot off the press, so to speak. Very enlightening, esp. around the union busting bullshit.

http://www.radionz.c...0-november-2012

I should probably say that while I'm pretty disgusted at the government and Warner Bros. role in this, it must be noted that the unions really really wanted to movies to be made here in NZ. And I think the unions would want people to go and see the movie not to give mopney to the studio but to support the hard work put in by all the cast and crew.

Edited by The Anti-Targ, 30 November 2012 - 02:05 AM.

[wolverine]

I was talking to my friend, who actually kind of looks like a hobbit, and he was really disappointed that the book will be 3 movies.  He is way more of a Tolkien buff than me, especially since he almost never reads anything now.  He thought it was pretty ridiculous that they will stretch this to 3 movies.

[Crazydog7]

wolverine, on 30 November 2012 - 11:39 PM, said:

I was talking to my friend, who actually kind of looks like a hobbit, and he was really disappointed that the book will be 3 movies.  He is way more of a Tolkien buff than me, especially since he almost never reads anything now.  He thought it was pretty ridiculous that they will stretch this to 3 movies.

Just speaking for myself I would rather watch another Peter Jackson movie then give George Lucas one more cent.

[Revan Baratheon]

Crazydog7, on 01 December 2012 - 01:53 AM, said:

Just speaking for myself I would rather watch another Peter Jackson movie then give George Lucas one more cent.

To be fair ,Lucas Did as good job on his OT as Jackson did with LOTR.i mean ESB beats TTT any day, same goes for the other two. Hopefully Jackson will do his PT better than Lucas...

[polishgenius]

Revan Baratheon, on 01 December 2012 - 01:58 AM, said:

To be fair ,Lucas Did as good job on his OT as Jackson did with LOTR.i mean ESB beats TTT any day, same goes for the other two. Hopefully Jackson will do his PT better than Lucas...

Lucas only directed the very first one, and for ESB the screenplay was so heavily rewritten that he doesn't get a credit on that either, only a 'story by', and a co-writing credit on ANH. It's no coincidence that the best one is the one where Lucas had least involvement.

That said I can agree with the comparison, I get the distinct impression that there's less storytelling discipline over the whole Hobbit project.

[The Anti-Targ]

Just want to reiterate that the Hobbit trilogy isn't limited to the the Hobbit the book. It takes in canonical Tolkein material from other works. You may still fairly criticise it for being 3 movies, and playing mix and match with Tolkein's material, but don't criticise it on the false assertion that he's merely turning the book alone into 3 movies.

And as an adult seeing Star Wars IV-VI cf. LOTR I must disagree that the OT is an over all better product than LOTR, and that's ignoring the qualitative differences in SFX. As a kid Star Wars was pure awesomeness, but seeing it through more mature eyes it's not as great.

I think Jackson has a somwehat easier time of it with his NT, given the NT was already a much beloved book. So even though I think the NT sucks balls, and I don't think the Hobbit will suck balls, I don't think it's a fair comparison given we are comparing adaptation of a quality work vs. original screenplays.

[polishgenius]

The Anti-Targ, on 02 December 2012 - 05:22 PM, said:

Just want to reiterate that the Hobbit trilogy isn't limited to the the Hobbit the book. It takes in canonical Tolkein material from other works.

Only from the LotR appendices and what's alluded to as being background to both books. Which is to say, he won't be making too much up out of the whole cloth, but he'll be winging it an awful lot.

[Werthead]

Quote

Just want to reiterate that the Hobbit trilogy isn't limited to the the Hobbit the book. It takes in canonical Tolkein material from other works.

Pretty much every single other piece of material relevant to The Hobbit is in Unfinished Tales, including a 'cut scene' from Lord of the Rings in which Frodo asks Gandalf in Minas Tirith how he came to send Bilbo and the dwarves to Erebor on what seemed like a very chancy mission and Gandalf outlines his visit to Dol Guldur, encountering Thrain, meeting Thorin near the Blue Mountains etc. All great stuff that would help flesh out a Hobbit movie trilogy. So is the worldbuilding stuff on the dwarves, Dale and Erebor from the same book and also The History of the Hobbit, where the writing process of the book was revealed.

The problem is that Jackson does not have the film rights at all to those books. All he has are The Hobbit and LotR. Furthermore, if he was to try to use any of that material in his films, he would be instantly sued by the Tolkien Estate for copyright infringement. In fact, he has to deliberately make sure where any part of the new trilogy that overlaps with the UT material, he goes in a completely different direction. This happened in LotR, when Jackson had to film the Battle of the Gladden Fields in a completely different way to the very clear description of the battle by JRR Tolkien in Unfinished Tales, to avoid legal action from the Estate.

So when Jackson keeps babbling on about having 'material from the appendices', he is talking about a few paragraphs from Appendix A talking about 'Durin's Folk' and that's about it. Most of the rest of the appendices focuses on material irrelevant to The Hobbit, such as elves, the Numenoreans, stuff about the First Age, Aragorn and Arwen's romance, some historical stuff about Rohan and Gondor and several long sections on languages.

Most of this new material will be pulled out of thin air, at best.

[The Anti-Targ]

I didn't say there's no basis for criticism. I just said there's no basis for criticism that Jackson is turning The Hobbit the book into 3 movies, he's not.

You've confirmed he is using other Tolkein material, albeit turning paragraphs into multiple scenes. By all means criticise him in advance for taking liberties with the material he's allowed to use, and even more so for going completely off the reservation for going into areas where he doesn't have the adaptation rights.

Oh, and I am completely cringing when our Prime Minister, who claims to have been the knight in shining armour in keeping the filming of the movies here, calls the movie 'The Hobbits'. He's not far away from saying "Hobbitses".

[polishgenius]

The Anti-Targ, on 02 December 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

I just said there's no basis for criticism that Jackson is turning The Hobbit the book into 3 movies, he's not.

Well he kind of is.

[Roose Bolton's Pet Leech]

The Anti-Targ, on 02 December 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

Oh, and I am completely cringing when our Prime Minister, who claims to have been the knight in shining armour in keeping the filming of the movies here, calls the movie 'The Hobbits'. He's not far away from saying "Hobbitses".

He's apparently never read the book, and only ever saw the first of the LOTR films.

[A Bear covered in Fluff]

I just finished re-reading the hobbit... and now im really anxious about the pretty young dwarves(meaning fili/kili). D:
also i find it going to be very dissapointing in the final installment just from character development alone.

I guess i cant get as emotionally attached to any character for fear of grrm-esque twists D:

Edited by A Bear covered in Fluff, 02 December 2012 - 11:42 PM.

[wolverine]

Werthead, on 02 December 2012 - 05:41 PM, said:

Pretty much every single other piece of material relevant to The Hobbit is in Unfinished Tales, including a 'cut scene' from Lord of the Rings in which Frodo asks Gandalf in Minas Tirith how he came to send Bilbo and the dwarves to Erebor on what seemed like a very chancy mission and Gandalf outlines his visit to Dol Guldur, encountering Thrain, meeting Thorin near the Blue Mountains etc. All great stuff that would help flesh out a Hobbit movie trilogy. So is the worldbuilding stuff on the dwarves, Dale and Erebor from the same book and also The History of the Hobbit, where the writing process of the book was revealed.

The problem is that Jackson does not have the film rights at all to those books. All he has are The Hobbit and LotR. Furthermore, if he was to try to use any of that material in his films, he would be instantly sued by the Tolkien Estate for copyright infringement. In fact, he has to deliberately make sure where any part of the new trilogy that overlaps with the UT material, he goes in a completely different direction. This happened in LotR, when Jackson had to film the Battle of the Gladden Fields in a completely different way to the very clear description of the battle by JRR Tolkien in Unfinished Tales, to avoid legal action from the Estate.

So when Jackson keeps babbling on about having 'material from the appendices', he is talking about a few paragraphs from Appendix A talking about 'Durin's Folk' and that's about it. Most of the rest of the appendices focuses on material irrelevant to The Hobbit, such as elves, the Numenoreans, stuff about the First Age, Aragorn and Arwen's romance, some historical stuff about Rohan and Gondor and several long sections on languages.

Most of this new material will be pulled out of thin air, at best.

That sucks.  You think "the estate" would want things to be faithful to his writing.

[Howdyphillip]

wolverine, on 03 December 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

That sucks.  You think "the estate" would want things to be faithful to his writing.

They actually might have if Jackson and company didn't try and royally screw over the estate with the first movies. It took a lawsuit to get the estate paid anything, and there have still been rumblings of unfair practices. I am looking forward to a day in the future where these properties are put in the hands of people that will treat them with more respect.

[wolverine]

Howdyphillip, on 03 December 2012 - 09:40 PM, said:

They actually might have if Jackson and company didn't try and royally screw over the estate with the first movies. It took a lawsuit to get the estate paid anything, and there have still been rumblings of unfair practices. I am looking forward to a day in the future where these properties are put in the hands of people that will treat them with more respect.

Ahhh...so there is more to the story.

[Keep Shelly in Athens]

I'm pissed Jackson is likely ignoring my favorite quality about the book - how lean and tight the story is and how fast it moves! Reviews are trickling in, and so far they are complaining about how the story is stretched like taffy, that Bilbo doesn't even leave Bag End until 40 minutes into the film (?!) and that unnecessary and confusing subplots/diversions are added. Just, ugh.

A question I have is...why is Jackson such a corny and schmaltzy director? What is the source of that horrible quality in him. He excels so fantastically at visuals, but everything else is *action movie turned up to 11*. Wishing for exactly the opposite kind of person to handle Tolkien, like an understated, subtle director with a sense of dry wit or something.

Edited by Keep Shelly in Athens, 04 December 2012 - 02:00 AM.

[Switchback]

Just read a cnet review saying the first film is 160 minutes long????  Jesus.  And 2 more to come?  I have a sad feeling these movies will be drags, literally and figuratively.  I will no doubt watch and enjoy all three for what they are, but would much rather have just enjoyed one epic flick telling the story of the Hobbit proper.  Oh well.