Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To wonder how The Hobbit is going to be stretched over three films?

187 replies

SpanielFace · 12/12/2012 18:31

Lord of the Rings, yes. But I can't see how The Hobbit warrants 9 hours of film time. I'm still looking forward to seeing it though!

OP posts:
MrsReiver · 14/12/2012 08:40

Oh I can see the logic for having Legolas there, and there are certainly no complaints from me at all! Xmas Grin

AdesteFiderer · 14/12/2012 09:06

I wonder if there's also a compensatory thingy going on for Peter Jackson. The LOTR was a lot more successful than expected - and was v expensive to make so no chance of making more than one film per book.
Now with that success behind him, he can afford to push the Hobbit out as 3 films. I bet he'd have loved to do that to LOTR, 3 per book, 9 films Grin

TrillsCarolsOutOfTune · 14/12/2012 09:07

Just because elves are immortal doesn't mean that Legolas wasn't 25 in LoTR (you do have to look it up, can't just guess). Although if he was he probably wouldn't be allowed out on "an adventure" because he wouldn't be considered a grownup yet.

ItsIcyOutsideIThinkINeedThorin · 14/12/2012 09:10
Justforlaughs · 14/12/2012 09:18

LOTR cut so much out that I was really disappointed with the films. I believe that they actually scrapped about 7 hours of filmed material because they thought it made it too long. Nothing about when the Hobbits returned to the Shire film in itself or Tom Bombadil. Hopefully they will do a better job with The Hobbit, I've been waiting for this film for years and although I hadn't realised they had decided to make 3 thought it was 2 and I don;t want to wait another 2 years to watch the end of it, I'm SO excited about this!

BelfastBloke · 14/12/2012 09:36

I did look it up, Trills. Quite a few of the Fellowship were alive during the events of the Hobbit, yet he refers to them all (not just the hobbits) as 'children.' Aragorn was 90 years old at the time, and Gimli even older, I believe, so...

Tolkien said Elves typically had children when they were between 50 and 100 years old. And Legolas's father goes back to the First Age, 6000 or 7000 years before the events of the Hobbit.

hattymattie · 14/12/2012 09:41

Have to confess a passionate hatred of Tom Bombadil - I mean what was he about. The Chapters - The Old Forest and Fog on Barrow Downs were excellent creepy chapters though. I remember snuggling down reading these when I was about 13 and feeling really scared. They would have been good to include in LOTR or could even have been worked into The Hobbit.

TrillsCarolsOutOfTune · 14/12/2012 10:40

BB - I meant someone said "well duh, elves are immortal" in response to "PJ looked it up" and I was clarifying that they are the sort of immortal that is born at some point and then lives forever, not the sort of immortal who has always been and will always be.

Elves having children at 50 or 100 (I'd read that as the time when they would normal start, not that they wouldn't keep going) would agree with my idea that if he was 25 he wouldn't be allowed to go off and be involved in important councils :)

ItsIcyOutsideIThinkINeedThorin · 14/12/2012 10:44

What happens to elves when they pass into the west? I thought that was a euphemism for dying but I've never been sure... do they just go somewhere on the boats and live there forever instead?

BelfastBloke · 14/12/2012 10:52

Yeah I believe they live in the west, in Valinor, forever (it's called the Undying Lands).

Basically Valinor was a continent on a flat planet forbidden to Mortal Men in the First Age.

In the Second Age, prompted by Sauron, the Mortal men invaded Valinor. Tolkien's god figure reshaped the world into our round planet, causing the Numenorean city-state to fall into the sea, and separated Valinor physically from the world. After that, only Elves could sail through a watery path from the Middle-Earth planet to Valinor.

In the Third Age, the survivors of Numenor (basically Aragorn's ancestors - including Isildur who lost the Ring) created civilisations in Middle Earth like Gondor and Rohan.

TrillsCarolsOutOfTune · 14/12/2012 11:51

Called the Third Age by some. An age long past, an age yet to come...

Why is the "third age" the favourite age of fantasy writers?

AdesteFiderer · 14/12/2012 11:56

The First is where everything was golden.

The Second was where everyone started fighting and things got nasty.

The Third was where 'twas all resolved and some noble folk retreated from it all. Galadriel "I shall diminish and go into the West and remain Galadriel"

Pan · 14/12/2012 12:10

Am re-reading The Hobbit in prep. for the films.

If they are great films, then I don't have a prob. with stretching it out. It's the quality of the films that is important not what is considered to be the acceptable scale. imho.

Pan · 14/12/2012 12:11
BelfastBloke · 14/12/2012 12:45

I'm interested in this notion that the story is 'stretched'.

The title of this thread assumes it, and so did Pan just now. And most people who haven't seen the film (and some reviewers who have) grumble that the filmmakers are putting in things which aren't in the novel, and are stretching the material.

It seems to me that it's a misconception based on the differences between novel and film.

When Tolkien writes, 'The Goblins chased the Dwarves and captured them', how much screen time should that chase take? Should it take the two seconds it takes to read that sentence? Or is it legitimately developed into a massive chase sequence - because we're watching an action film?

When Tolkien writes, "All the Dwarves grumbled and groaned, but eventually congratulated Bilbo", what does that mean? What do they actually say? And if the screenwriters are going to come up with things for them to say, isn't it better if each dwarf has his own character, so that what he says has some emotional heft (funny, sincere, etc)? Complaining that Tolkien never wrote Ori as a hippy, or whatever, is meaningless because he only sketched the personalities of a couple of the 13 dwarves, other than Thorin. But they have to have things to actually say.

When Tolkien doesn't really describe the Battle of the Five Armies, because Bilbo is knocked out, does that mean the filmmakers should not film the Battle? And if they do, how long should that battle take?

Pan · 14/12/2012 12:53

Take your point there BB totally. I shouldn't have said 'stretched', for all the reasons you say. The film is it's own medium, and shouldn't be restricted by direct comparison with what is written in the novel.
We are just about to leave Beorn's house, and I could see how all of the adventure so far could be illustrated by any number of films.

Alibabaandthe40nappies · 14/12/2012 13:07

I am going to see this tonight, very excited.

Xmas Grin
ItsIcyOutsideIThinkINeedThorin · 14/12/2012 13:36

Thanks for the explanation about Valinor, BB!

Pan · 14/12/2012 13:39

Is anyone interested in the story of when my friend met Tolkien? I may have mentioned this before, can't remember.

MrsReiver · 14/12/2012 13:44

I've not heard it! Spill.

Pan · 14/12/2012 13:46

got to go get car from MOT - back in a mo.

PatTheHammer · 14/12/2012 14:07

Another one glad they left out Tom bloody Bombadil from the LOTR films, it takes all my willpower to keep going in those chapters and they add precisely NOTHING to the plotline (except the bit where Tom makes the ring disappear/seems uninterested in it and then later on when Gandalf explains why it wasn't an option to hide it in the Old Forest).

I feel like this is a Tolkein Geeks Anonymous group meeting and I confess to being a massive geek. Am very Xmas Envy of those of you that seeing it/seen it as DH is still recovering from spinal surgery and wants me to wait until the new year so he can sit in a cinema seat for a few hours and see it with me. Probably gives me time to reread my special edition of The Silmarillion with all the appendices and then The Hobbit before I watch it in January.

Don't think I've ever been more selfless Xmas Wink

MrsReiver · 14/12/2012 14:23

Pan you swine! Don't you realise you're distracting me from thinking about my poor puss cat who's having an op as we speak! How dare you prioritise your car!! Xmas Grin

GrrrArghZzzzYaayforall8nights · 14/12/2012 15:03

It's all about the money fort of course Grin.

I was really excited to see it, as was my DH and my DS1 - who is now reading The Hobbit for the first time, still is, but after Martin Freeman's very unfunny, vile comments about Lucy Liu and the reports of over 20 animals dying on set, my interest has pretty much dwindled to 'wait to see it on TV in a few years'. I'm not sure I can stomach to pay for it now Sad.

TeeElfOnTeeShelf · 14/12/2012 15:33

Just saw it. It's awesome.

They added some things, yes. But it all fits.

I can tell you how far it goes, if you want to know...