Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think they should take as much liberty with the story as they want. An extra scene here, an interlude about Tom Bombadill there, maybe a rastafarian fish character named jar jar binks somewhere aswell. What's the harm?

I'm wondering if the Silmarillion is now being looked at as a series of movies, or if some parts of it will show up as an earlier story in the Hobbit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dajobe wrote:if it is 300, maybe, but that is some pretty fast reading and i a college history major that reads alot, but all the power to ya if you can do it.

Perhaps if you were a college English major...

Just kidding

Relapse wrote:I'm wondering if the Silmarillion is now being looked at as a series of movies, or if some parts of it will show up as an earlier story in the Hobbit.

Would be kool!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:If its good. The problem is they are sliding way out of the storyline to make it three movies. As noted a lot of this relies on the appendixes and such which are not fleshed out like the main material.

And remember, he did LOTR but he also did the fiasco that was King Kong when left to his own devices.

Whats a matter...you didn't like the rubbery dinosaurs? or the swinging T-Rex walendas?


GG

generalgrog wrote:

Relapse wrote:I'm wondering if the Silmarillion is now being looked at as a series of movies, or if some parts of it will show up as an earlier story in the Hobbit.

Would be kool!!

What was the siege of Melkor's palace? the siege of Angband or something?

dajobe wrote:if it is 300, maybe, but that is some pretty fast reading and i a college history major that reads alot, but all the power to ya if you can do it.

I don't think it really has anything to do with how much you read. I read an average of two books a month and read between app. 125-225 pages an hour depending on how invested I am in the book and the style of writing and print.

I read a ton, went to college for English, and I STILL don't read 2 pages a minute. I read about 1, 1 and 1/2. Something like that. 2 pages is nuts-do you even see the words??

timetowaste85 wrote:I read a ton, went to college for English, and I STILL don't read 2 pages a minute. I read about 1, 1 and 1/2. Something like that. 2 pages is nuts-do you even see the words??

Heh, sort of. It's kind of like how you can recognize a group of friends in a crowd as you scan it. You might not pick up their individual facial features but you recognize the combination of their hair, clothes, height, stance, etc. I do run into trouble with things like forgien names and will often have to slow down and re-read a sentance for it to register. Sometimes if I start to lose interest or my mind wanders, I'l get two or three pages in and realize I don't remember half of what I just read. That's usually my queue to go do something else for awhile.

I'm excited, really. I mean yeah, it seems to divert a lot from the tale of The Hobbit, but all of those parts just provide for more epic visuals on screen, which is fine by my part.

Frazzled wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Relapse wrote:I'm wondering if the Silmarillion is now being looked at as a series of movies, or if some parts of it will show up as an earlier story in the Hobbit.

Would be kool!!

What was the siege of Melkor's palace? the siege of Angband or something?

I think it was the culmination of the siege of Angband, and Melkor found himself chained up and hucked into the void.

Part of me is glad for more Middle Earth but part of me is sad, realising GW's embargo of information coming out on new products will continue until the third film of the Hobbit Trilogy is released.

Oh well.

Easy E wrote:WHY!?!

Moar money.

timetowaste85 wrote:I read a ton, went to college for English, and I STILL don't read 2 pages a minute. I read about 1, 1 and 1/2. Something like that. 2 pages is nuts-do you even see the words??

Reading the hobbit at two pages a minute is about 650 words per minute. That's not nuts. That's an achievable reading rate for anyone. People who can read 800-1000 words with above average comprehension (and they do exist), that's nuts.

Anyhow, the original point I was getting at with that comment was that the Hobbit is a short book, it's a fifth as long as LOTR in fact.

Relapse wrote:I'm wondering if the Silmarillion is now being looked at as a series of movies, or if some parts of it will show up as an earlier story in the Hobbit.

I don't think so, IIRC the rights to the Silmarillion are owned exclusively by the current Tolkein estate trustees and they've been somewhat dismissive towards Jackson's work and pretty much told him to "do one" with regards to filming anything else.

A shame really.

Goliath wrote:lets us not forget that quite a lot of the Hobbit was vague descriptions of events which took up a few lines, but which in real time could take a lot longer.

Yep, in the book there's only a few lines on the entire stay in Rivendal but in the trailer you see Bilbo approaching a broken Narsil and i'm sure there will be much more Rivendall then is mentioned in the book. Mirkwood and the Beorn parts of the story both take weeks but are relatively short. Apparently Legolas will make a cameo apearence as the elf that captures the dwarfs in Mirkwood, i'm just hoping there's no ten year Aragon in Rivendal, that'd be .

I think Silmarillion as a movie would not work. Too many varying stories, the likes of which most non-tolkien knowledgeable movie go-ers would be like "MIND FETH!"


But back on track, I think its stupid to make it 3 movies. However we shall see.

JohnnoM wrote:I think Silmarillion as a movie would not work. Too many varying stories, the likes of which most non-tolkien knowledgeable movie go-ers would be like "MIND FETH!"

I was like that just trying to read them...let alone a movie where i couldnt go back and check what i had just read....

But back on track, I think its stupid to make it 3 movies. However we shall see.

Agreed.

This is fantastic news in my opinion.
Peter Jackson and his two writers loved LOTR, as did the cast, you only have to watch the extras to see how dedicated they were and how much they enjoyed it. I am almost 100% certain Jackson only wants a third film to allow him to tell more of the story, not to 'milk it' as was suggested earlier on in this thread. Its not spreading one book over 3 films, its taking one book and all the extra bits that won't make films of there own and putting it together into something special.

Within The Hobbit (book) there are a few parts where its just talking about Bilbo and you know Gandalf or the Dwarfs are doing something interesting, thats the kind of thing that can be shown in the films that wouldn't really have worked as well in the book.

Zathras wrote:Part of me is glad for more Middle Earth but part of me is sad, realising GW's embargo of information coming out on new products will continue until the third film of the Hobbit Trilogy is released.

Oh well.

Wait, you think thats why there's an embargo of information?

Phototoxin wrote:

Easy E wrote:WHY!?!

Moar money.

reds8n wrote:

Relapse wrote:I'm wondering if the Silmarillion is now being looked at as a series of movies, or if some parts of it will show up as an earlier story in the Hobbit.

I don't think so, IIRC the rights to the Silmarillion are owned exclusively by the current Tolkein estate trustees and they've been somewhat dismissive towards Jackson's work and pretty much told him to "do one" with regards to filming anything else.

A shame really.

Do you think it's actually filmable, though? And yeah, didn't Christopher Tolkien's son say positive things about the Jackson films and get more or less disowned because of it? They're a weird bunch for sure.

reds8n wrote:

Relapse wrote:I'm wondering if the Silmarillion is now being looked at as a series of movies, or if some parts of it will show up as an earlier story in the Hobbit.

I don't think so, IIRC the rights to the Silmarillion are owned exclusively by the current Tolkein estate trustees and they've been somewhat dismissive towards Jackson's work and pretty much told him to "do one" with regards to filming anything else.

A shame really.

Yes I've heard that they are remarkably tight fisted when it comes to granting the license.. contrast with the likes of Harry Potter, where there is everything from theme parks to sex aids (probably).

Regarding the OP, once again the two-headed sword of massive studio production rears its both attractive and ugly head. The constant battle between the artist to achieve the vision as they see fit, and the 'murder by committee' involvement of the studio execs even as they pump in the money that makes such amazing production standards possible. Those Orange adverts that run at the start of films at the cinema are amusing, but I also think that they are probably closer to reality than we might like to think.

This is all very interesting but we are ignoring the most important detail; What part is Will.i.am playing?

He pops up in fething everything these days so he might as well be in this: my guess smaug or the new Jarjar binks (jamjam bling?) character that will trip Smaug up in the new explosion filled finale?

While I agree with will.i.am being in everything.

What has Peter Jackson done with the LotR triology that makes you think he will turn it into an explosive filled finale?

Meh. the only bummer about the movie being split into three is that it will take longer to get to the theaters. And I am astoundingly impatient when it comes to good fantasy. Other than that, more power to them- I don't have a single problem with hearing about the Necromancer and the council.

AegisGrimm wrote:Meh. the only bummer about the movie being split into three is that it will take longer to get to the theaters.

It actually hasn't delayed the launch; the first is still scheduled for Dec 19th.

Ahtman wrote:

AegisGrimm wrote:Meh. the only bummer about the movie being split into three is that it will take longer to get to the theaters.

It actually hasn't delayed the launch; the first is still scheduled for Dec 19th.

But is the release of the proposed last film now the same as what it was? or (as i think) will it take longer to get the whole book (3 films) released?

Revenent Reiko wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

AegisGrimm wrote:Meh. the only bummer about the movie being split into three is that it will take longer to get to the theaters.

It actually hasn't delayed the launch; the first is still scheduled for Dec 19th.

But is the release of the proposed last film now the same as what it was?

Well, they just announced it will be three films, so there was no date for a third film before the announcement, so I suppose it isn't the same as it was, since it was "Not Applicable" before. I haven't seen anything to say that the release schedule is changed for the first film or the second. Most of it has already been filmed, though I'm sure they will shoot a few more scenes, so there is no reason for it to really slow the release dates down. They have 2 years to add reshoots and do post-production on the film.

Ahtman wrote:Well, they just announced it will be three films, so there was no date for a third film before the announcement, so I suppose it isn't the same as it was, since it was "Not Applicable" before. I haven't seen anything to say that the release schedule is changed for the first film or the second. Most of it has already been filmed, though I'm sure they will shoot a few more scenes, so there is no reason for it to really slow the release dates down. They have 2 years to add reshoots and do post-production on the film.

*grumble grumble, not explaining myself very well today grumble grumble* Sorry.

i meant, if the second film was due to be released Dec 2013 (same as now), then the final instalment is going to be pushed back by 6 months by having the end (last film) released in Summer 2014. So it will take longer for all of them to be released.

I dont mean that they are going to shoot more stuff or anything like that (God i hope there arent any delays after all this), just that having another film means another release...

Revenent Reiko wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Well, they just announced it will be three films, so there was no date for a third film before the announcement, so I suppose it isn't the same as it was, since it was "Not Applicable" before. I haven't seen anything to say that the release schedule is changed for the first film or the second. Most of it has already been filmed, though I'm sure they will shoot a few more scenes, so there is no reason for it to really slow the release dates down. They have 2 years to add reshoots and do post-production on the film.

*grumble grumble, not explaining myself very well today grumble grumble* Sorry.

i meant, if the second film was due to be released Dec 2013 (same as now), then the final instalment is going to be pushed back by 6 months by having the end (last film) released in Summer 2014. So it will take longer for all of them to be released.

I dont mean that they are going to shoot more stuff or anything like that (God i hope there arent any delays after all this), just that having another film means another release...

They will almost certainly have to shoot some more stuff, I can't imagine they shot enough to split it into three films. And reading Jackson's comments, he wants to add bits from what I can understand. But it won't be anything too over the top I shouldn't imagine, and I would have thought most of it will be for the second and third film anyway, as from memory what should be in the first film from the book probably doesn't require much adding from elsewhere?

And even if by some miracle there isn't anything else being shot, I doubt they'll move the second instalment forward, even though it could be finished sooner than next Christmas. LOTR didn't need to be released over three years did it?

I can't wait for this to happen. I'm really looking forward to it being a trilogy.