Omg omg omg!
I actually prefer reading The Hobbit over the LOTR Trilogy (I couldn’t finish the Silmarillion), so I’m suuuper excited.
I’ve read it too and LOTR twice but I must say this movie had better not be 3 hours! This is only part one of two so it should be 100 minutes maximum.
It’s a major conceit of most people who have read a book to think it needs a 50 hour mini-series to do it justice. NO! The Hobbit could be a 2 hour and maybe 15 minute movie and be perfect!
Come on, no, I want three hours for both!
But people say that for every book they love. As I exaggerated in my post they want a 50 hour miniseries for their favorite book.
Well, the idea is to be able to add as much content as possible, that’s why people ask for more and more.
I watched some Sherlock Holmes mini-series and I was amazed how it had everything exactly like in the novels.
Well, maybe they can make a minute-for-minute adaptation…if it takes Frodo and the dwarves 10 days to walk to the Lonely Mountain the movie can be 240 hours or more long!
Did anyone else just travel back in time the moment they heard the opening Shire music. It was like I was 10 going to see Fellowship for the first time again 
[quote]Bambi wrote:
Did anyone else just travel back in time the moment they heard the opening Shire music. It was like I was 10 going to see Fellowship for the first time again :D[/quote]
Well I’m 38 now so I’m only looking back at 28 but I understand how cool it must feel.
It would be akin to me and my generation getting Star Wars prequels that didn’t fucking suck!
[quote]Edevus wrote:
I actually prefer reading The Hobbit over the LOTR Trilogy (I couldn’t finish the Silmarillion), so I’m suuuper excited.[/quote]
x2…only got 1/2 way thru the sil
next year? awww
Awesome.
I will definitely be going to see this at the cinema.
I think one 3 hour film would be better than two shorter films. I want to see the whole story from beginning to end. Not wait 18 months to see the second part.
Where would the 1st film end? Mirkwood?
[quote]Nards wrote:
[quote]Bambi wrote:
Did anyone else just travel back in time the moment they heard the opening Shire music. It was like I was 10 going to see Fellowship for the first time again :D[/quote]
Well I’m 38 now so I’m only looking back at 28 but I understand how cool it must feel.
It would be akin to me and my generation getting Star Wars prequels that didn’t fucking suck!
[/quote]
Wait there where Star Wars Prequels??? The hell you say I don’t beleive you next thing you’ll say is Metallica put out an album after 1988, everyone knows the last album they did was …And Justice For All
This looks great!
As good (and as long) as the LOTR movies were, there is only so much detail from that could be squeezed into the films, but the Hobbit was a much shorter and more light-hearted tale that they might damn well be able to put everything into these movies.
It’s been a long time since I’ve read the Hobbit, but the trailer made it look darker than I remember the actual book being (with the Hobbit being more of a fun kids book and the LOTR trilogy being dark and mature). Either way, I have high expectations for this.
2012 looks like a great year for movies, what with Batman, James Bond, and now this!
[quote]Think tank fish wrote:
Awesome.
I will definitely be going to see this at the cinema.
I think one 3 hour film would be better than two shorter films. I want to see the whole story from beginning to end. Not wait 18 months to see the second part.
Where would the 1st film end? Mirkwood?[/quote]
I’m with you on the three hour movie.
This looks incredible, as most things by Peter Jackson are.
I doubt it will eclipse the Lord of the Rings, but then, it doesn’t have to… it’s just got to be a worthy addition to the series and I believe it will be.
Looking forward to seeing more of these dwarfs. Gimli was a badass.
eh - sure wasn’t ‘The Expendables’, but I’ll probably see it so I can get some popcorn.
I hope they have a Ninja in this one. the other ones would’ve been so much better if they only had a ninja in it.
Vikings would kick ninjas ass, but it’s hard to have Vikings transcend time.
whatevah~
2 parts is about right for this, with each part coming in a shade under 3 hours. The Hobbit was a very straightforward story, while LOTR really dragged shit out. There was about as much plot advancement in 2 books of LOTR as there was in The Hobbit.
meh
[quote]Nards wrote:
I’ve read it too and LOTR twice but I must say this movie had better not be 3 hours! This is only part one of two so it should be 100 minutes maximum.
It’s a major conceit of most people who have read a book to think it needs a 50 hour mini-series to do it justice. NO! The Hobbit could be a 2 hour and maybe 15 minute movie and be perfect![/quote]
Conceit? No, math.
You can sell one ticket to a 3 hour movie or two tickets to 2 two hour movies.
Plus you get to do product-tie in, not once, but twice.
And, if part 1, flops, you cut your losses and don’t finish the second part, or cut its budget dramatically.
$$$$$
I think I may change my screen name to Ari Gold.