forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Surely it should be:


The Hobbit: Full of useless crap we've made up to pad out a children's classic into a really boring money spinning trilogy even though it was half the length of the first of the sequel books that we made in just one film


Or the theatrical release title:

The Hobbit: Kerching!

Now, now. Jackson and del Toro found themselves with a budget that allowed for an adaptation of The Hobbit that did not require them to condense the work, but actually allowed them to include all the bits that originally took place "off-stage" and were added or implied by LotR and its Appendices. And, if that had been basically all that they did, there would be few complaints.

pgholland wrote:Surely it should be:


The Hobbit: Full of useless crap we've made up to pad out a children's classic into a really boring money spinning trilogy even though it was half the length of the first of the sequel books that we made in just one film


Or the theatrical release title:

The Hobbit: Kerching!

Ok now there's no reason to get heavy-handed.

pgholland wrote:Surely it should be:


The Hobbit: Full of useless crap we've made up to pad out a children's classic into a really boring money spinning trilogy even though it was half the length of the first of the sequel books that we made in just one film


Or the theatrical release title:

The Hobbit: Kerching!

Think I covered that one with:

The Hobbit: Milking the Cash Cow

Otaku-sempai wrote:Now, now. Jackson and del Toro found themselves with a budget that allowed for an adaptation of The Hobbit that did not require them to condense the work, but actually allowed them to include all the bits that originally took place "off-stage" and were added or implied by LotR and its Appendices. And, if that had been basically all that they did, there would be few complaints.

True.
To me, the big problem was that PJ choose to lengthen the story in the wrong way, cutting parts that might have been longer (e.g. Beorn's house) while strentching others out of shape (the opening of the secret door was particulary painful for me). Other elements were kind of okay as a concept, but ruined the final product because of how they were handled (e.g. I wouldn't mind a Legolas cameo in Mirkwood - it makes sense given that his father is the king - but I don't want to see half a movie about him slashing throuhg orcs).
I don't mind the inclusion of other parallel stories, in fact I praise it. My problem is the rythm of the story, which is widely off not just in respect to the source material.

I'm still laughing over some of these alternative titles , which helps me to cope with my revulsion of the film adaptations of the book.

Best I've read on the intarweb so far is...

The Hobbit: Game of Thorin's

Not much point making up any others after that one.

Rich H wrote:Best I've read on the intarweb so far is...

The Hobbit: Game of Thorin's

Not much point making up any others after that one.

My soon-to-be-rolled Dunedain Warden will be tracking you.