The Hobbit

[Hurricane]

Figured I would make a thread for this movie. Realise it is a long time to go before it is released but I just re-read the book. Has anyone else re-read it recently or have any comments about the planning for the film.

[BMJ]

Yes i know about this movie it is releted to lord of the rings battle for middle earth na.

[sledger]

Am re-reading it (amongst other things) at the moment actually. Enjoying it more than I thought I would.

[Agent Nationaux]

Love the Dwarf song in the trailer.

[Hurricane]

Originally Posted by sledger

Am re-reading it (amongst other things) at the moment actually. Enjoying it more than I thought I would.

Cool. When you have read a decent part of it - please give your views on whether it should be two movies or better as one...

[Agent Nationaux]

I would prefer two films, since there are too many good parts in the book to miss out on or shorten.

[Hurricane]

Originally Posted by Agent Nationaux

I would prefer two films, since there are too many good parts in the book to miss out on or shorten.

I think I would just have the one movie. Otherwise the march through the forest is going to take forever. I mean each LOTR book was just as long as the hobbit.

When did you read the book - how fresh is it in your memory?

[Son Of Coco]

I'm backing the movie to be at least 12 hours long and require 8 piss breaks.

[Howe_zat]

Should've been just one film, really. Yeah there's plenty of detail in the book that they can include, but if you want all of it, you just want the book. Stick with that.

There's no point I can see in the middle of the book working as a ending, it'll just be a year-long interval. And yes, I felt the same way about the last Harry Potter film(s). Just a cash cow decision.

It seems to be a modern (and cash motivated) trend in the cream of TV at the minute not to really bother with beginning or ending episodes, and that now seems to be leaking into films. One thing I notice about Breaking Bad, good as it is, is that it never really bothers to end its episodes, and the even the end to the first season was just midway through a scene. The other day I tried to get back to where I was after not watching for a few days, and honestly couldn't remember how many episodes of season 2 I'd watched. Arcs last between half an episode and half a dozen episodes, but very rarely one.

It's just continuous. The Wire, Mad Men, Lost, etc all do this too. It seems to be that the episode as the length of a story arc is now confined to sitcoms.

Meanwhile, in film, we're getting adaptations split up seemingly arbitrarily - the other biggest cash cow franchise, Twilight, got the treatment as well - and Marvel is producing half a dozen films at once with characters that all leak into each other. I wonder if it's not long before every mainstream blockbuster gets made in two or three parts.

[Agent Nationaux]

Originally Posted by Howe_zat

Should've been just one film, really. Yeah there's plenty of detail in the book that they can include, but if you want all of it, you just want the book. Stick with that.

There's no point I can see in the middle of the book working as a ending, it'll just be a year-long interval. And yes, I felt the same way about the last Harry Potter film(s). Just a cash cow decision.

It seems to be a modern (and cash motivated) trend in the cream of TV at the minute not to really bother with beginning or ending episodes, and that now seems to be leaking into films. One thing I notice about Breaking Bad, good as it is, is that it never really bothers to end its episodes, and the even the end to the first season was just midway through a scene. The other day I tried to get back to where I was after not watching for a few days, and honestly couldn't remember how many episodes of season 2 I'd watched. Arcs last between half an episode and half a dozen episodes, but very rarely one.

It's just continuous. The Wire, Mad Men, Lost, etc all do this too. It seems to be that the episode as the length of a story arc is now confined to sitcoms.

Meanwhile, in film, we're getting adaptations split up seemingly arbitrarily - the other biggest cash cow franchise, Twilight, got the treatment as well - and Marvel is producing half a dozen films at once with characters that all leak into each other. I wonder if it's not long before every mainstream blockbuster gets made in two or three parts.

You watched Twilight!!!!


@Hurricane, It's been a few years since I last read the Hobbit.

[fredfertang]

Should be boycotted until the bastards stop picking on that pub in Southampton

[sledger]

Nothing wrong with Twilight from what I've seen (which granted, is not much). Doesn't appeal to me whatsoever, but as far as I can tell it's well made and makes no secret about what it is. Just one of those things that has become fashionable to hate on as far as I can tell.

RE: The Hobbit, worst thing about reading it is the bloody songs. Happen far too often and go on for ages. Tend to skip over them whenever they arise.

[Agent Nationaux]

Saw a little bit of Twilight and couldn't watch any more. Terrible

[Burgey]

Won't be as good as the animated movie done years ago.

Found the Hobbitt a lot better read than LOTR tbh. Just not a fan of the latter at all.

But I think the whole fantasy genre is really the train spotting of literature. It's fans are similarly wonky and lacking in any semblance of interest in the real world, for the most part.

"Oooh err, a ****ing Orc".

Wake up to yourselves, ****s.

[Ausage]

Originally Posted by Burgey

But I think the whole fantasy genre is really the train spotting of literature. It's fans are similarly wonky and lacking in any semblance of interest in the real world, for the most part.

"Oooh err, a ****ing Orc".

Wake up to yourselves, ****s.

Not sure how I could defend my love of fantasy without proving Burgeys point. Why would you want to consume entertainment based on the real world? Don't we get enough of this ****ing place day to day?

Middle earth/Westeros/Malazan/The Land/etc ftw.