Interesting Links for 31-07-2012

[andrewducker]

• Tesco's web security is, frankly, unforgivable.
  (tags: tesco security EpicFail )
• Parenting has less of an effect on children's character than you might think.
  (tags: parenting children behaviour )
• Characterizing people as non-linear, first-order components in software development
  (tags: software people development efficiency

Comments

Bilbo Baggins and the Never Ending Trilogy to Wring Them All

[snarlish]

I wasn't too happy when it was announced the Hobbit film was in two parts.

It isn't too difficult to put all the elements of the book onscreen in under 2 hours. possibly three hours if you are setting up the big war a bit more and showing more of the battle than what's described in the book.

Adding a third part just takes the cake. Sure, it'll be visually pleasing, but this really smacks of squeezing every last penny out of the fans rather than giving us a good film.

Re: Bilbo Baggins and the Never Ending Trilogy to Wring Them All

[alitheapipkin]

This.

Re: Bilbo Baggins and the Never Ending Trilogy to Wring Them All

[andrewducker]

IF we were getting just the contents of the original book, I'd definitely agree with you. But it looks like we're also getting the bits around Dol Guldur when Gandalf abandons them halfway through the book, and a load of stuff set between The Hobbit and LOTR.

Re: Bilbo Baggins and the Never Ending Trilogy to Wring Them All

[alitheapipkin]

I remain unconvinced but no-one is going to force me to see them* so if other people are enthused, fair enough.

*Which is not to say that I won't, I loved the LOTR trilogy films

Re: Bilbo Baggins and the Never Ending Trilogy to Wring Them All

[andrewducker]

Oh, I'm not convinced either. I just don't _definitely_ think it will be a stretched mess. Just possibly one.

Re: Bilbo Baggins and the Never Ending Trilogy to Wring Them All

[snarlish]

Then this isn't The Hobbit. It's The Hobbit and the Terrible, Horrible, No-Good, Very Bad Days Before During and After The Hobbit That Detract From The Hobbit Which Is Fine Entertainment On Its Own.

It's bad enough that they revised the Hobbiton Pillage in LOTR, when they could have ended part 3 at Rivendell and then had the opportunity to do What Happened Next. Adding extra material that does not enhance or add tension to the quest feels like Jackson is worried he'll never work again in Hollywood.

Re: Bilbo Baggins and the Never Ending Trilogy to Wring Them All

[soon_lee]

I'm worried: some things are better left as sub-text. Generally the bits of the LotR movies I liked least were when they departed from the original text, so I am not sure they can bring the behind the scenes bits front & centre and make them work. Also, PJ shows signs of getting too big to be edited (see how bloated "King Kong" was).

But, if they can manage it...

Re: Bilbo Baggins and the Never Ending Trilogy to Wring Them All

[octopoid_horror]

If he's filling the third part with a bunch of stuff that isn't in the Hobbit, he's not really making a film of the Hobbit. Making a film to bridge that gap isn't necessarily a bad thing, but since the parts of the LotR films that I saw were relatively true to the book, it'd seem strange to suddenly deviate.

Unless, of course, the intra-book stuff is essential in order to justify the ultra-mega-extended box set with both film trilogies. It mostly sounds money-grabbing though.

Re: Bilbo Baggins and the Never Ending Trilogy to Wring Them All

[andrewducker]

It's not a sudden deviation though. Making two films, and filling in lots of extra detail, has been part of the plan since the first announcement in 2006.

_Which_ extra detail has varied at several points, but that's still not clear now, so I'm happy to waive that one.

Re: Bilbo Baggins and the Never Ending Trilogy to Wring Them All

[snarlish]

well, from what i understand it was originally: The Hobbit + another film to bridge, then the possibility of just Hobbit, which then became The Hobbit 1 & 2 w/interesting links to LOTR. The original plan could have worked: a cracking film which just about everyone who's read the hobbit would see, and become hyped by What Happened Next.

Instead we'll get Hoibbit insterspersed with plugging in of stuff most people familiar with The Hobbit story will just be confused/bored by.

Grr, I want: Hobbit dragged into Quest, Trolls! Pocketsesses & Riddles! Wolves! Eagles! SPiders! Elves! Dragon! Battle! Home Again! The End!

Re: Bilbo Baggins and the Never Ending Trilogy to Wring Them All

[andrewducker]

I'm sure that once it's out on DVD someone will put together a Phantom Edit.

Re: Bilbo Baggins and the Never Ending Trilogy to Wring Them All

[andrewducker]

IF we were getting just the contents of the original book, I'd definitely agree with you. But it looks like we're also getting the bits around Dol Guldur when Gandalf abandons them halfway through the book, and a load of stuff set between The Hobbit and LOTR.

Re: Bilbo Baggins and the Never Ending Trilogy to Wring Them All

[octopoid_horror]

A film that links the two books isn't much of an adaptation of the Hobbit, especially given that much acclaim I saw for the first three LotR films was related to how true to the books they were (and a selling point of the extended versions too)

If it's a trilogy of films about Bilbo Baggins, that's fair enough. But the first two parts would be The Hobbit, and the last one would be something else set in Middle-Earth, much as how the Silmarillion isn't part of The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings.

Re: Bilbo Baggins and the Never Ending Trilogy to Wring Them All

[andrewducker]

Most of the slagging of LOTR was about how much it deviated from the books. The acclaim was mostly about how pretty elves are, wasn't it?

The two films were originally Hobbit + linking movie. Then Hobbit with Necromancer/Dol Guldur bits in it (rather than alluded to, as they are in the book). I wonder if it will now be both.