New production diary. Good stuff and funny too.

 

There is a new, eighth production diary and the last from the film set. It's a little sad to see them finish filming of The Hobbit and say their goodbyes, even if I can't wait to finally see the movie.

All videos in one place.

 

I kinda want an Andy's Flying Serkis t-shirt...

 

Do you remember how people wondered if there is enough material to make two movies from it? Well, how about three.

 

I just don't see how they could reasonably make a third film from what is already there and (presumably) used up, unless its to branch off and focus on getting us nearly up to fifty years later when LotR picks up; how the dwarves died inMoria, so on and so forth.

 

So, it's official - there will be three parts. This also means that Jackson said his goodbyes to actors too soon, because he plans to do more filming now.

His statement from Facebook:

 

I find that I have no problem with this. I trust Peter Jackson to not fuck The Hobbit up.

 

Yeah, I'm the same. I just hope they don't shorten the initial two movies to much in order to have enough material for a third.

 

I'll say this: If Bombadil isn't in one of these fucking moves somehow I will shit on all of New Line's graves. I don't give a fuck if it makes sense. If they can make a 300 page book into three goddamn movies then good ole Tom can make an appearance.

Also if Peter Jackson fucks this up, his success with Lord of the Rings will have meant nothing to me. Because using his clout gained from the same author's work to rape said author's work will do nothing for me except piss me off. The Necromancer? Sauron was a fucking footnote to The Hobbit and should be explored maybe 10 minutes more than occurred in the book. Not the hour or so it sounds as if he'll dominate.

I'll leave you with this, directly from the only authority on everything Tolkien (albeit translated) that you should respect:

http://sedulia.blogs.com/sedulias_translations/2012/07/was-first-felt.html


P.S. I loved the Lord of the Rings movies. Even though they changed things, they were from a fan honoring a great storyteller, world-maker and overall genius. Adding a 3rd movie to The Hobbit feels so much like cashing in that I can only pray that same fan exists.

Fuck you New Line.

 

...Wasn't Tom Bombadil the one thing even Tolkien himself admitted could be done without? When the overall message of your work is "Nature rocks, Artifice sucks," having a walking Spirit of Nature with a weird name is kind of overkill...

Even though I loved the movies, you have to admit there are a few things in the books that just come completely out of left field and have little bearing on the remainder of the story - Tom being the prime example.

On the other hand, I think one of the possibilities of stretching things out is that they can put in a few more of the songs and little touches that seemed to be excised from the LotR films.

 

Also, most of the extension isn't about the Hobbit at all. It's incorrect to think about these as "The Hobbit", I think. More of this trilogyisgoing to come from the appendicies than the pages of The Hobbit. The idea is to set up Lord of the Rings.

 

I fully support using the appendices and Silmarillion info to make a third film, especially if they're going to incorporate some backstory from the 'first and second age'. Even though Tolkien's posthumous works are a bitch and a half to read, the Morgoth/Melkor/Sauron-Annatar storyline is incredibly detailed and interesting, and would definitely make for some pretty memorable movie scenes should Jackson choose to include them.

 

The third Hobbit movie is neither an extension linking to Lord of the Rings nor a focus on the appendices linking it to Lord of the Rings or the Silmarillion. Jackson has flat out said he is taking three movies to tell the story in The Hobbit alone. Don't count on seeing a single bit of the First or Second age in any of the three movies unless it involves a completely false back story for Gandalf.

I reference Tom Bombadil because he offered something sorely lacking through the movies except maybe in Fellowship: a certain whimsy in fantasy that the movies veered away from in order to make it more serious. That in itself is fine but The Hobbit isn't mean to be a wide-scale action movie such as Lord of the Rings could. Making it three movies means Jackson will inevitably expand upon things in the book Tolkien purposely did not write about.

The Battle of Five Armies may be the best example. You only read of Bilbo's reaction. When he is knocked unconscious the battle is done for the reader. It is later explained to Bilbo but only the general "this is what happened" stuff and not specific details. While I can see changing this a bit because you have to in a movie I have a feeling with the expansion it will be drastically different. The whole tone of The Hobbit was already at risk. Adding a third movie just increases Jackson's chances of losing Tolkien's vision.

Also Bombadil was Tolkien's favorite character except maybe Beren and Lúthien (characters he admitted at times reflected his own personal struggle fighting to win his wife). And the one pure link to the Silmarillion and his other works who persisted throughout Middle Earth in the Third and Fourth Ages. There is a reason he is featured in his own book Christopher Tolkien released.

 

Even though Jackson deserves credibility for directing the original trilogy, the Hobbit is clearly not a story that needs three movies to tell.

 

I thought two movies was fine. Three movies is a bit odd, but I guess we'll see how it turns out.

Tom Bombadil actually made me stop reading Fellowship for a while. His exclusion was more than welcome.

 

Relavant Necro. The new title of the 2nd movie and the release dates of the 2nd and 3rd movies are out. Title gives a pretty clear idea of how the story is broken down.

 

So the third movie is a recap of movie #1 and movie #2? I guess Jackson needed for money for his money fort after all. I'll still go see all 3 movies though. Unless the first movie is so massively disappointing I spit in theater, walk out, and never think about the movies again until a decade later when I see them in a bargain bin for $15. Hope that doesn't happen though.

 

It seems pretty clear to me that, while the story of the Hobbit itself is going to be stretched out to three movies, that's not the only thing they're going to be doing. We're going to see a lot of material from other sources to pad it out and to make it link with LotR. A lot more focus on Sauron, and Smaug put in the context of Sauron (Unfinished Tales reveals Gandalf's explicit desire at the beginning of the quest that Smaug might be killed, robbing Sauron of a powerful ally).

 

I just saw a trailer for this movie and, quite honestly, the dwarves singing in it has given me complete faith in what's being done with it. The feel of it captures something fundamentally Tolkein.

The way I'm choosing to look at it is that the original novel was entirely from Bilbo's perspective, and the movie(s) will take a step back to see the wider picture. Remember that the Hobbit was supposed to be a standalone tale, and so it skimmed over the peripheral details like Sauron-as-necromancer, no matter how important they were to the story of Middle Earth.

Maybe bigger fans of Tolkein will devoutly oppose my view on this, but I'm pretty sure I'm going to enjoy these movies all the more for the ways they stray from the source material. Not something I can often say about movie adapations.

 

Coming to Broadway in 2015, 'The Hobbit:The Musical'! Composed by Stephen Sondheim! Pre-order tickets now!

Kidding aside, the trailer is awesome (19million+ views at the time of this posting) and I'm truly excited about this movie.