The Spill Movie Community
If it's crap ... We'll tell you
Follow Spill!
Latest Activity
Chio posted a photo
The Loading Bar: Red Dead Ridiculous
nkWhiteStar posted a status
Photos
Music
The Hobbit, now in 3 parts
Peter Jackson announced today that The Hobbit will be spilt into 3 parts instead of the originally intended 2 parts.
Lord of the Rings is an appropriate usage of the term "Epic" and ended up getting split into 3 books when Tolkiens publisher informed him there were no printing presses that could bind his book as is. 3 Books, 3 movies distilled to the essence of what was needed, and it worked well, but Hobbit is a single book, even shorter than Fellowship was (although a lot less Elvan poetry filler).
You think Hobbit actually warrants 3 movies, or you think this is more cash grabbing?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/story/2012/07/30/hobbit-trilogy.html
Views: 338
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by HudsonsirhesHicks on -
I think they might be trying the general audiences patience by doing this. Surely its because of the awesome success of LOTR's trilogy that this is happening - a cash grab because its gonna be the last of these films, and has little to do with the reason of 'extended appendices'.
-
Permalink Reply by Proto on -
Funny story, Hubbards publisher also told him that there were no book binders that could bind Battlefield Earth, he told them to make a new one, so they did.
-
Permalink Reply by Proto on
-
Oxford English dictionary: Book
Noun
1a written or printed work consisting of pages glued or sewn together along one side and bound in covers:
Considering Tolkien helped write the OED...
-
Permalink Reply by Proto on
-
I suppose when your the author of the definition you can do as I say, not as I do.
-
Permalink Reply by Proto on
-
The semantics were amusing.
That reminds me, the poem on the ring is written in Elivish, why does it rhyme in english?
-
Permalink Reply by X. Just X. on -
actually i like his prose. it makes you work for it, but there's something to be said for that, in my opinion.
i'm no literary scholar, but that's a very subjective and elitist criticism that libre-linguists and "mainstream" authors have been leveling at the fantasy/ sci-fi crowd for years. or at least that's my gut reaction whenever i read something like that.
-
Permalink Reply by X. Just X. on
-
haha. yeah, i know, i haven't read these books in awhile either!
i liked the shire scouring okay. it did feel like a bit of a long post-climax, but i think that was what he was going for: showing that evil still exists, and giving the hobbits their time to shine as brave warriors. i dug the idea that they could say "beeyatch, we stood up to the Dark Lord, you think we're just gonna let you take OUR LAND!" that was kinda cool.
now i won't deny there was a fair share of 1950s style racism and British nationalism in the books. but i saw it as well written racism and British nationalism... which probably doesn't make it any better...
-
Permalink Reply by Rockgodicus on -
I'm not to sure about this at all. Do I think that three movies is stretching it? YES!!!!! Do I trust that Peter Jackson will somehow make this work? Yeah I actually do. So overall I'm stuck in the middle. If he pulls it off, he will pull it off.
-
Permalink Reply by Thomas Unitt on -
Not being a fan of the LOTR films at all... but loving The Hobbit book I thought 2 films was a cash grab... but 3 films has made it apparent to me that it is. There isnt enough content, and the book isnt really all that epic to warrant 3 films..
-
Permalink Reply by X. Just X. on
-
i'll be honest, and i feel really strongly about this. i know the Hobbit films are going to be good, but they seem to be missing something of the point and atmosphere of the story for sake of continuity with the "Rings" trilogy. the Hobbit is not LoTR, it isn't the same style, the themes aren't even similar. the entire point of the Hobbit is that it is a very small and charming story set in this incredible world with only hints of what that world would be, particularly because it is a version of a story written by the main character himself. making it like LoTR, and adding story from other volumes that took place around the same time kind of defeats the purpose.
i am stoked about these movies coming out, but it isn't really an "epic" story. it is supposed to be more like "Wardrobe," and i wish they could have done it in one movie, or two, let alone three. then again, is more Peter Jackson and WETA a bad thing?
btw: you are thinking of Robert Jordan with the book binding anecdote. Tolkien intended for LoTR to be 6 books (now known as volumes), and the publishers strongly suggested he make it three instead. which is a good thing too, because the modern day adventure trilogy was born out of that format!
-
Permalink Reply by Stephen Quentin Easton on -
This pretty well sums up my feelings. The book isn't an epic so don't make the movies into one. The periferal plot elements are going to have to be pretty amazing for me not to be waiting for them to get back to the book's plot. I hope the primary adjective for these movies isn't going to be overblown.
© 2013 Created by The Spill Crew.
