Extended Movies

[kvnchrist]

I just saw the second part of The Hobbit and they again added more into the movie than was in the book, Theses plot lines, in my opinion add nothing to the story and are there just to extend the viewing time long enough to make three movies out of one book.

 

I understand the idea behind making the lord of the Rings into three movies because there are three books and each movie is dedicated to that particular book. The Hobbit, on the other hand is one book and was artificially expanded due to corporate greed in exploiting the public's love for a very well made story.

 

I think these don't add to the enjoyment of the movie, but fills the pockets of the film studio and the viewer gets nothing but filler nonsense for his dollar.

 

I don't think I'm going to see the 3rd part of the Hobbit not to send any message, since I'm one person and won't effect this in the slightest, but to save myself from seeing spam injected irrelevant nonsence in between that which is actually a part of the story.

 

[Tidus44]

Well, it’s a movie, not a book, and it’s easy for me to understand why the current interpretation of the book is different and added to.

 

I doubt the Hobbit would make a very good movie as written. I could not imagine many people would find much entertainment in watching what would be long and rather boring sessions setting out details and history, such as the initial meeting of Bilbo and the dwarves and subsequent party, his conversation with Gandalf, or worse, the travel to visit Elrond.

The book also has great gaps that one wonders about, but that are never explained. At least the movie offers some idea of possible explanations and information about them, and since only Tolkien knew for sure, what the movie shows isn't wrong, its just a possibility that fits with the story.

 

One of the reasons I liked the movie so far is because of the way Thorin is portrayed. In the book he isn’t exactly likeable and the movie opens up his character in a much different way, which I thought was quite unique.

 

The movie has stayed true to the plot of the book without becoming tedious or overwhelming in the great depth of detail and for me anyway has given a new look at a great story. I for one have enjoyed the movie and look forward to the third.

[Lisnpuppy]

I think for example the Legolas thing and that bit of story is completely unneeded and not anywhere in the book...and the barrel scene which plays out completely different but is funny in the book and could have been left, as is.

 

And did it need to be this many movies? I think two would have been more than sufficient. One thing is expanding a character to make them more understandable. Or some scenes do not translate well into a movie as you don't have that window into the character. So the scene must be made to show the same result but in a way people watching can get.

 

Putting characters in and some little whatever with Leogas that was never in the book is unnecessary and just there to grab interest and money.

[Tidus44]

The Hobbit is just over 95000 words, as written by Tolkien. A below average reader could finish the book in a day. It should also be understood that when the Hobbit was written, LOTR didn’t exist. Tolkien wrote The Hobbit as a stand-alone bedtime story for his children and was encouraged to publish it. It became so popular he was asked to write a sequel and it was almost 20 years before LOTR was published.

The thing is, The Hobbit is an epic story and a prequel to the Lord of the Rings that in order to enjoy the richness of the world Tolkien created in both books, information from the appendices needs to be included in the story. That’s why Tolkien wrote the appendices.

The appendices have a wealth of information in them and are rarely included with the books.

 

The point on Legolas is true, he is not specifically mentioned in the Hobbit. However, I found that the introduction of Legolas makes a lot of sense and fills in a timeline and connects to LOTR. People assume from the LOTR movie that Legolas just volunteered, but did he and why and what motivation did he have and what of Elrond?

Legolas is the son of Thranduil, the Elven King of the Woodland Realm (Mirkwood) and in the Hobbit the dwarves are captured by the elves in Mirkwood. So why would the prince not be present and a central figure in that realm?

 

Again, I see the movie as an interpretation (not “the” interpretation) and an attempt to make the Hobbit a prequel to LOTR that answers some of the questions that exist between the two stories. Do I like everything that was done in the interpretation? Nothing that upsets me sufficiently that I refuse to see the third movie.

 

I also think the three movies are the better solution to doing justice to Tolkien’s world than two movies that would have rushed the timeline of a story that should be much longer and much more adventurous. The book has a natural 3 parts to it, the dwarves and their reason for Bilbo and Gandalfs concerns; the locating of the lost city and getting it back from Smaug and then the 5 armies fighting.

[JimboUK]

I think for example the Legolas thing and that bit of story is completely unneeded and not anywhere in the book...and the barrel scene which plays out completely different but is funny in the book and could have been left, as is.

 

And did it need to be this many movies? I think two would have been more than sufficient. One thing is expanding a character to make them more understandable. Or some scenes do not translate well into a movie as you don't have that window into the character. So the scene must be made to show the same result but in a way people watching can get.

 

Putting characters in and some little whatever with Leogas that was never in the book is unnecessary and just there to grab interest and money.

 

I think it would have made one exceptional three to four hour film, as is it dragged on way too long, I watched all three in a row and near the end I'd lost the will to live.

[kvnchrist]

The Hobbit had what

 

The Hobbit is just over 95000 words, as written by Tolkien. A below average reader could finish the book in a day. It should also be understood that when the Hobbit was written, LOTR didn’t exist. Tolkien wrote The Hobbit as a stand-alone bedtime story for his children and was encouraged to publish it. It became so popular he was asked to write a sequel and it was almost 20 years before LOTR was published.

The thing is, The Hobbit is an epic story and a prequel to the Lord of the Rings that in order to enjoy the richness of the world Tolkien created in both books, information from the appendices needs to be included in the story. That’s why Tolkien wrote the appendices.

The appendices have a wealth of information in them and are rarely included with the books.

 

The point on Legolas is true, he is not specifically mentioned in the Hobbit. However, I found that the introduction of Legolas makes a lot of sense and fills in a timeline and connects to LOTR. People assume from the LOTR movie that Legolas just volunteered, but did he and why and what motivation did he have and what of Elrond?

Legolas is the son of Thranduil, the Elven King of the Woodland Realm (Mirkwood) and in the Hobbit the dwarves are captured by the elves in Mirkwood. So why would the prince not be present and a central figure in that realm?

 

Again, I see the movie as an interpretation (not “the” interpretation) and an attempt to make the Hobbit a prequel to LOTR that answers some of the questions that exist between the two stories. Do I like everything that was done in the interpretation? Nothing that upsets me sufficiently that I refuse to see the third movie.

 

I also think the three movies are the better solution to doing justice to Tolkien’s world than two movies that would have rushed the timeline of a story that should be much longer and much more adventurous. The book has a natural 3 parts to it, the dwarves and their reason for Bilbo and Gandalfs concerns; the locating of the lost city and getting it back from Smaug and then the 5 armies fighting.

 

 

The Hobbit was the reason the Lord of the Rings was written and there were several appendix that try to connect the two stories together, but where were these appendix published? In the LOTR not The Hobbit.

 

The finding of the ring was the connection between the two and the history around the central stories are unnecessary to the average movie watcher.

 

As for the book having a quote natural three parts all adventure books have these and very few of the movies that were created from the books have three separate movies made of them.

 

Books have always introduced the main characters, taken them through minor adventures before the major event. If any of these essential elements are left out the book would not keep the readers attention and would fade away into nothing.

 

The Hobbit would not have been around as long as it had and the LOTR or The Silmarillion would not have been written, since they all were requested because of the popularity of the one written previously, if The Hobbit had a rushed timeline.

 

These movies were artificially extended for the profit in making three movie and if this takes off we will surly see trilogies made out of many of the books, with content that drowns the original story in subterfuge.

[Lisnpuppy]

 

The point on Legolas is true, he is not specifically mentioned in the Hobbit. However, I found that the introduction of Legolas makes a lot of sense and fills in a timeline and connects to LOTR. People assume from the LOTR movie that Legolas just volunteered, but did he and why and what motivation did he have and what of Elrond?

Legolas is the son of Thranduil, the Elven King of the Woodland Realm (Mirkwood) and in the Hobbit the dwarves are captured by the elves in Mirkwood. So why would the prince not be present and a central figure in that realm?

 

 

If his inclusion had added anything to the movie then I would have agreed with you. However the only thing I see he adds is some eye candy more than anything. They go even further with the addition of the 'romantic interest" of his.

 

As I said sometimes additions to movies are made to show perhaps points and narrative that can not otherwise be shown. I don't see it as the case here. You ask why he would not have been present? He wasn't in the book because he wasn't needed to tell the story of Bilbo getting the ring and then the battle with Smaug. The fact that they were in a place did not necessitate someone from that area being present. Maybe he was off battling elsewhere? maybe he had a cold? A bad haircut? Regardless Tolkien felt his presents unnecessary, he doesn't move the story along with his addition to the movie and as much as I like seeing him running around with blond hair and black eyebrows I just don't see it.

 

And you are right about the Hobbit and how it was developed. It is much more light-hearted and really a completely different tale that the other books. I could have even been okay with two movies based on this book but three stretches it in my opinion.

[billyro]

When I first heard about the Hobbit, I thought it would be one movie. When I found out it was going to be a trilogy, I was a little bit disappointed because I thought it would be very stretched and boring.

 

This isn't the case, though. So far, I think it has had excellent pacing and there haven't been any boring parts (IMO) to spoil the story. I never knew Legolas wasn't supposed to be in it though (I haven't read the book) and that seems a little bit unnecessary, but he's cool so I'm not complaining.

 

The cliff-hanger at the end of the second movie was annoying, though. :sleep:

[HeyYou]

Yeah, but, you KNOW what is going to happen in any event, and without having read the book. :D

[kvnchrist]

My friends all I know is eye candy is not content. It's filler!

 

I can view over-dramatization in just about any forum I frequent. There are usually one or two attention seeking adult infants who become disappointed that their glorified presence hasn't attracted the worship they require and proclaim to God, King and country that their benevolent butts are removing themselves from our presence and we should struggle ahead as best we can.

 

(sarcasm alert) OH WHATEVER SHALL WE DO? (alert over)

 

Why should I pay to see that in a movie?