The Hobbit

[Talavar]

I agree that the tonal shift is inevitable; I also think it can work.  After all, a lot of serious, important things happen during the Hobbit's time frame, some of which Bilbo was simply unaware of (The expulsion of the 'Necromancer' from Dol Guldur; Gandalf's motivation in helping the dwarves in the first place - dealing with Smaug). 

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

Also the retaking of the Dale and Erebor was vitally important in the LoTR as well, since those two kingdoms manage to hold off an assault from Sauron's forces, while the Wood Elves and the Beornings hold Mirkwood, preventing several of Sauran's allies from joining the battle against Gondor and elsewhere.  None of this is shown in LoTR, of course, but it nonetheless is important.

Whether Gandalf had any idea that this would be so vital later on, I do not know.

[BentonGrey]

Whether Gandalf had any idea that this would be so vital later on, I do not know.

From comments in the LotR and other places, I think it's safe to say that Gandalf strongly suspected who the Necromancer was and was trying to prepare as well as possible for the next rising of the Shadow.  So, I think it's likely that he looked to the establishment of as many "good" kingdoms as possible as being a good way to help oppose Sauron's next rise.

[Tomato]

So... anyone else think it's odd that Martin Freeman's Bilbo will be standing up against a Smaug played by Benedict Cumberbatch(who, BTW, is also playing the Necromancer)?

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

Yes
(For those who don't know, those are the same actors who play Watson and Holmes respectively in Sherlock)

[Tomato]

Randomly rechecked the release date on the first film... am I the only one who completely missed that they're making 3 movies now?

[Talavar]

Randomly rechecked the release date on the first film... am I the only one who completely missed that they're making 3 movies now?

I heard about it and have to shake my head a little - with filling in the blanks for certain characters like Gandalf, I could see 2 movies.  I just don't see how 3 can be anything but a stretch.  Hopefully I'm wrong.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

From what I understand, the decision to make it 3 movies came about while Jackson was trying to cut the footage not used for part one into part 2 and found he had so much that he just decided to make another two movies out of it.

At least this means they aren't likely to be leaving anything out.

[BentonGrey]

Urg.

[hoss20]

Randomly rechecked the release date on the first film... am I the only one who completely missed that they're making 3 movies now?

My cousin mentioned this and I didn't believe it, as I had heard it was to be two movies. I was looking up Benedict Cumberbatch on IMDB and noticed the three Hobbit movies listed for him (2012, 2013, and 2014). I believe "ugh" was my response. The only way this will work is if Jackson makes the duration of each of these movies last in the two hour range. Then, we're still looking at six total hours of film. I know that one of the criticisms of the LoTR movies (at least, for those who hadn't read the books) was the barely endurable three and half hour run times. I am concerned that there is going to be a whole bunch of filler.

[BlueBard]

That's incredible... two (or three) movies out of one book?

To be honest, that really makes me far less enthusiastic about 'The Hobbit'. 

Tolkien fans are going to go in expecting the whole thing, not just a poor excuse to capitalize on a sequel or two.  Somebody's forgetting the subtitle of that book:  "There and Back Again".  Sounds like the first movie should be titled: "The Hobbit: Are We There Yet?".

Just for fun, though, what would you consider cutting if you were directing 'The Hobbit' and had to make it one movie?

If it were me, I think I'd try to condense the plot like so:

Spoiler

Bilbo joins the dwarves, despite himself; Gandalf reveals the secrets of Lonely Mountain (which removes the need to visit Rivendell)

Sadly, we drop the encounter with the trolls (unless of course this story was retold in the movie trilogy, which I haven't seen).

While passing through the Misty Mountains, the party is attacked by goblins and driven underground into the goblin tunnels.  Bilbo is separated from them, finds the Ring, and outwits Gollum.  The party escapes with the help of the eagles, who are summoned by Gandalf.  (We cut the ents)  Gandolf takes them as far as Mirkwood and then departs on his mysterious errand.  (We cut Beorn and above all we do not make any side-trip to explain why Gandalf is leaving.)

The party is attacked by giant spiders while passing through Mirkwood but are rescued by the wood elves.  The elves decide to imprison the dwarves for ransom.  Bilbo escapes the elves by turning invisible, and helps the dwarves escape the elves' dungeon by hiding in casks and floating down the river.

The river carries them to Lake-town.  From there, they go to the Lonely Mountain and quickly find the secret entrance.  Bilbo encounters Smaug.  Smaug tries to get at Bilbo and the dwarves, but frustrated in the attempt he attacks Lake-town instead.  Bilbo tells a thrush about Smaug's weakness and sends it to warn the town.  Bard kills Smaug.

Set up the conflict between the Men, the Dwarves, and the Elves over Smaug's treasure.  Goblins and wargs attack.  With the help of Gandalf and the eagles, the goblins and wargs are defeated.  Thorin dies.  Bilbo gives most of his share of the treasure to the Men to rebuild after Smaug's attack and then goes home.

I'm not sure that condensed plot does the book justice, but it might've been enough to keep it down to one (long) movie. 

I'll grant that if the director tried to be faithful to the book, he couldn't help but turn it into two shorter movies.  Finding a good logical break would be difficult, but if I had to I'd say that the first movie would end with the party making it to Beorn's and then picking the story back up at Mirkwood in the next.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

You haven't seen the LoTR trilogy?  Honestly, you should watch it before making any judgement about this, because frankly it shows such love and respect for the books that it really would radically alter your perspective on this.  Sure it seems odd to make 3 movies out of this, but Peter Jackson's already proven himself on this, so I'm willing to trust him on this.

Also the movie going audience is going to expect to films to be primarily a prequel to the LoTR trilogy rather than something mostly separate like it is, so they are adding in the appendices which took place during the time of the Hobbit to tie everything together.

What this means is we won't be skipping much of anything, so I still have high hopes for it.  Also I suspect the films will be much shorter than the LoTR films.

[BentonGrey]

You haven't seen the LoTR trilogy?  Honestly, you should watch it before making any judgement about this, because frankly it shows such love and respect for the books that it really would radically alter your perspective on this.  Sure it seems odd to make 3 movies out of this, but Peter Jackson's already proven himself on this, so I'm willing to trust him on this.

Also the movie going audience is going to expect to films to be primarily a prequel to the LoTR trilogy rather than something mostly separate like it is, so they are adding in the appendices which took place during the time of the Hobbit to tie everything together.

What this means is we won't be skipping much of anything, so I still have high hopes for it.  Also I suspect the films will be much shorter than the LoTR films.

I think that is highly debatable Cat.  If you're talking about the first movie, yeah, that's very true.  When you talk about the second one it becomes less true, but by the third one Jackson and crew display open contempt for their source material.  You can hear the progression in the commentaries.  At first he's talking about "Tolkien's story," "Tolkien's vision," "Tolkien's world," but it gradually becomes "my vision," "my world."

I'll never forgive the guy for Return of the King.  I have zero confidence in him making a faithful adaptation, or even three good movies.

[Tomato]

Everyone, take a breath here. Movie comes out tomorrow, go see it, THEN whine like a two year old girl about the changes they've made.

[BentonGrey]

Everyone, take a breath here. Movie comes out tomorrow, go see it, THEN whine like a two year old girl about the changes they've made.

No thanks, I prefer to stay embittered against Peter Jackson and skip the movie altogether.  That's much more like a crotchety old man than a two year old girl.  Don't be silly.

It seems funny to me that the 'you can't complain about/judge it until you see it' argument is used for this type of thing.  Yeah, that's a legitimate argument if you haven't seen a director's previous efforts, but if you've seen enough to form an opinion, I think you're pretty wise not to spend your money on something you don't expect to like.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

Even Return of the King is pretty good.  Compare it to pretty much ever other adaptation ever made and it's pretty faithful.  Sorry, Benton, but I quite strongly dissagree with you here.

[Tomato]

It's entirely possible that you, not having enjoyed his previous work, will hate these films too. Personally though, I have good reason to be excited for these films. Martin Freeman as Bilbo? Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug AND Necromancer/Sauron? Full renditions of songs like "Misty Mountains Cold"? Yes please.

I could not care less that Peter Jackson is directing it.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

I absolutely love their version of "Misty Mountains Cold" and hope at least some of the other songs make it too.

[BlueBard]

An author and webcartoonist I respect (Howard Taylor, of Schlock Mercenary) seemed to like the first installment of 'The Hobbit'.  (No real spoilers there, in case you're wondering.)

So maybe I'll give it a chance when it comes out on DVD.  Totally not going to spend theater money to decide whether I can deal with a three-part Hobbit.

And I'm sticking with my personal re-title: "The Hobbit: Are We There Yet?".  That will probably be the title I give the second one, too.  The third one I will tentatively call: "The Hobbit: There and Back, Finally."

[BentonGrey]

Even Return of the King is pretty good.  Compare it to pretty much ever other adaptation ever made and it's pretty faithful.  Sorry, Benton, but I quite strongly dissagree with you here.

Well Cat, we'll have to agree to disagree.  It boggles my mind how folks (and you are, obviously, far from alone) can really enjoy RoTK, even just as a movie.  As an adaptation, what Jackson did to Denethor, Faramir, and the entirety of the Battle of Pelennor Fields was unforgivable.  I just don't see it.  Ahh well, I hope that Jackson does better with the Hobbit, if only because the material deserves it.  Bon chance!

[Randomdays]

Went it saw it yesterday. It's been many years since I read the book, but it seems pretty intact. The movie ends right after the rescue by the eagles. The music from LotR returns. A little over  two and a half hours. Did NOT see the 3D version. Not that big on it in the 1st place, plus I heard that some is the action was so quick that people were getting nauseous from it. Probably the escape from the orcs scene since there's a lot camera flying around there.
Since it was early show, the tickets were only $6.5 each and the theatre was about half full.
All in all, I enjoyed it, but for the next 2 I'll probably wait till the dvd comes out instead.

Changed from the book (from what I remember)

Spoiler

Bilbo wakes up the morning after and decides to join on his own, running after the dwarves. From what I recall, Gandalf was the one who rushed him out the door.
The hankerchief scene is there but changed.
Thorin is much more dismissive of Bilbo.
With the trolls, instead of Gandalf delaying the trolls till morning by arguing, it was Bilbo
In the Misty Mountains, Gandalf is not there during the night or when the dwarves are captured. He shows up and rescues the dwarves and they escape. Bilbo is seperated from the dwarves right after the capture, not when they are escaping.
Gollum doesn't go out to his island to get the ring and find it missing then.
The "15 birds" song is missing.

Added to the story

Spoiler

There's a whole new subplot about an ongoing vendetta between Thorin and a large white orc.
Part of the backstory tells how Thorin got the the name "Oakenshield"
The story actually starts right before the great party and is told in flashback. Frodo makes a cameo.
Radagast the brown has a greatly expanded presense. I had pictured more as a ranger type, but instead they went for a comedy relief version.
The necromancer backstory is fleshed out including a council of the wise with Gandalf, Elrond, Saruman and Galadrial.