The Hobbit - Now a Trilogy

[wjlaslo]

Originally Posted by Flash525

Apparently too, there are a few scenes to be included that aren't in the books at all. Heck, Evangeline Lilly (Kate from LOST) is set to play the part of an Elven women who isn't in any of the books, so I figure they're going to be adding a few scenes of their own to make these three films worthwhile.

It wouldn't surprise me either if the third film doesn't focus so much on the hobbit tale, but more a bridge between the hobbit story and that of the LotR's trilogy. There is (I believe) a significant gap between the two tales, one that they could easily fill in if they're going freelance with the script.

A lot of the material is supposed to be stuff that is mentioned in the Appendices and story of LotR, or in Unfinished Tales, but is never seen (or really pointed out) in Hobbit. I can definitely see there being enough material. You can start the story in a wider context -

Smaug is too dangerous if he decides to ally with Sauron, Gandalf needs a way to get rid of him, meets Thorin, meets Bilbo, sets up the company. Then the part you see in the book begins. Gandalf leaves, he goes and visits the White Council about Sauron's growing power. Switch back to book material; Gandalf disappears again, we see his investigation of Dol Guldur and some questions about the Ring. More book stuff, then we see the final destruction of Dol Guldur (tied in with the Mirkwood elves) and the beginning of Saruman's corruption. (very vague I know, I haven't even read Unfinished Tales yet).

Obviously the actual "Hobbit story" takes center stage but there's a lot of context to fit in if you want a good connection with the other three movies.

And we also know that Jackson was trying to characterize the Dwarves more than they were in the book. You can watch some of the production videos and see how they put some personality in each one. So instead of covering days or weeks in a matter of a few sentences like in the books, we can use it to learn about each character and their nuances.

EDIT: Yay! Just noticed my signature is relevant again

[Granyaski]

Not too keen on the 3 films idea, 2 was long enough 3 just seems a cash grab in my eyes. They were able to do 3 LOTR books in 3 films, long films. Why not just make 2 long films? Because they want another box office cash flow.

Don't get me wrong it could work out amazing, keep very much to the book but maybe add in their own ideas as well. Similar to the previous films but with more scenes from the book.

Originally Posted by wjlaslo

And we also know that Jackson was trying to characterize the Dwarves more than they were in the book. You can watch some of the production videos and see how they put some personality in each one. So instead of covering days or weeks in a matter of a few sentences like in the books, we can use it to learn about each character and their nuances.

This is one thing I am really looking forward to. For some reason Dwarves always have been my favourite 'mythical race' in terms of Elves, Orcs etc. I think it has something to do with how industrial efficient they are; I almost relate to it. Plus they are bad ass and Scottish people always make me laugh, especially how they make them proper hard nuts too.

[Goody.]

There are Gandalfs tales that were only toched upon during the book. Gandalf went to deal with the Necromancer

Spoiler:

only to discover that the Necromancer was Sauron

and there is the battle of Dol Guldur that also was supposed to happen around that time.
There is a ton of things that could be expanded on that is mentioned in passing in the book that I would love to see.
I am pretty excited about this news tbh as I was expecting to see all that is in the book with a lot some minor additions but now it looks like they are going all out and that will be fantastic.

[Granyaski]

When it comes down to it, whatever their intentions and however they decide to make the film and who to cast etc.

As long as it's a good watch who the hell cares?

[Flash525]

Originally Posted by Granyaski

As long as it's a good watch who the hell cares?

Whilst this is true, you have potentially just killed a perfectly good conversation.

[Mizel]

I was wondering how they were going to make into 3 movies as well. I mean, 2 movies is definitely easy. The Hobbit is nothing from action to action basically through the entire book. But I read that they're also adding in stuff from the Appendices, which explains using 3 movies. I'm actually thrilled about this. I don't want to have to wait for all 3, but turning it into a trilogy and using the appendices means that nothing will be left out and I will get to see/learn things about characters that I wouldn't have gotten to otherwise ^_^

[Flash525]

Originally Posted by Mizel

The Hobbit is nothing from action to action basically through the entire book.

You do realize that there is a lot of non-action in this film too, don't you? Unless I'm mistaken, there is only one truly large-scale battle in the entire book. Hardly action-fuelled.

[Mizel]

Originally Posted by Flash525

You do realize that there is a lot of non-action in this film too, don't you? Unless I'm mistaken, there is only one truly large-scale battle in the entire book. Hardly action-fuelled.

By "action" I didn't necessarily mean "battle". They are not one in the same. I simply meant that from the beginning of the book, to the end of the book, there is always something interesting going on. Never really a dull moment may have been a better way to phrase it, perhaps.

[Flash525]

I stand corrected.

[Mizel]

Originally Posted by Flash525

I stand corrected.

Haha :P It's actually one of the things I love about The Hobbit. Especially in comparison to LotR, which I feel tends to start dragging at some points.