If you could change ONE thing in The Hobbit triology

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Marwhini

You're not familiar with the 1 Page = 1 Minute rule?

That is for Screenplay/Script -> Screen-time.

http://johnaugust.com/2006/how-accur...er-minute-rule

And the heuristic can be googled, where you will see that there is a LOT of discussion on the issue, but that it remains a Heuristic (general rule-of-thumb).

Marwhini, I clearly indicated that I am *quite* familiar with this, and that it's a separate issue.

And for working from Novel -> Screenplay/Script, usually you translate roughly 3 - 5 pages to 1 page of Screenplay/Script.

This is because most Novels run between 300 - 500 pages, and you want to wind up with a Screenplay that is roughly 100 - 120 Pages, to get a roughly two hour movie.

"Usually". There's no very strict rule about this, for reasons which I have already explained. More importantly, this is not the process you're applying to "The Hobbit"- you are, as you indicate, advocating 1:1. Note that initially you were- apparently- considering *that* as the standard.

Here's the post I was quibbling about:

Originally Posted by Marwhini #17

By the rules of Screenplay writing, and alteration to a script, The Hobbit should technically be a 9 to 12-hour set of movies (That is: Using the usual formulae for turning a Novel into a Screenplay, and then a Screenplay to a Script, and then the translation of the Script -> Movie, and how much time is generally given per-page of script).

At least, that's how it appears to me... Maybe I'm misinterpreting you, but then where do "technically" and "usual formulae" come into it?

But some Novels, or especially Comic, are shorter, and you can go on a 1:1 basis. One of my friends wrote the Screenplay for the movie The Crow, and that is the formula is basically described in creating the Screenplay, and the alterations he made from the basic Comic, since they had to provide an additional 60 pages of material.

A graphic novel/comic is a very different beast from a regular novel, however. It's less about length than it is about the fact they're already a visual medium.

I have other friends who work in Production and Direction (most in video games - I went to High School with the owner and Founders of Ensemble Studios). And I've worked on the Talent side of Movie making for some time - I am in every Robocop movie, usually doing Stunt or Firearms work, but in two normal scenes as either extra (my first appearance in the first movie) or as Bit-Part work... And I've been in more TV than I can keep track of.

Uh... I can list my own credentials if you really think it's relevant. Do you?

One of these friends and I have a project planned for his Graduate School work on a documentary on the depiction of Tolkien's work in Popular Media (the various movies, influence in comics and games, etc.), as well as how these seem to relate to Tolkien's own conceptions of his work.

In the course of doing that... We looked at what it would take to get The Hobbit Produced, and what a Screenplay would likely look like.*

As a Single movie, cutting down about ⅓ of the content of the book (which is roughly 300 pages - the annotated version is 305 pages for the body of the story. The Non-Annotated version is significantly longer being on smaller page sizes than the A4 on which the annotated version is printed), you can get a normal 2 hour movie, but it is going to greatly abridge a lot of stuff.

But... Looking at it as a Trilogy, you can go with a 1:1 transcription of the Book -> Screenplay to get a product that gives you 5 - 6 hours of Screen-time.

Which breaks down into 20 minutes a chapter, on average.

Which is really all that needs to be addressed, regardless of any heuristics used in the Film Industry regarding page count.

But why is it "all that needs to be addressed"? I've already pointed out some obvious issues.

20 minutes a chapter isn't a lot of time to cover the events of a chapter, which tends to run between 15 and 40 pages each in The Hobbit.

Depends entirely on what happens in the chapter. All they do in the first one is have dinner- and in fact that *was* treated at length in AUJ and is perhaps the single thing in that film to have drawn the most criticism.

That's the basic point I'm trying to get across. *Pacing* is very important in a film. Why do you think "The Hobbit"- a fairly typical novel- is suitable for a 1:1 adaptation?

Edit: I've been echoing "1:1" throughout, but actually you're really advocating something more like 1:2 or 1:3- at least you are some of the time, with your assertion that the "usual formula" would yield 9-12 screen hours. Seriously, where are you getting that from?

[Marwhini]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Marwhini
At least, that's how it appears to me... Maybe I'm misinterpreting you, but then where do "technically" and "usual formulae" come into it?

Technically, as in according the rules they teach at UCLA on Screenwriting.

But that would be applying a roughly 30 minute per chapter formula (using the 9 - 12 hour estimate), given more attention to some details, and visuals. It isn't that hard to squeeze 10 more minutes into each chapter (on average) by simply adding a few seconds into each shot/scene.

That would add up quickly, and would not slow things down significantly.

But why is it "all that needs to be addressed"? I've already pointed out some obvious issues.

The 20 minutes, average, per chapter is all that needs to be considered in getting a six-hour long production (technically six-hours and twenty-minutes).

You don't need to worry about breaking down the page-count, because you can just work to try to make it so that the length each Chapter covers averages out to 20-minutes per chapter.

So you might have some chapters that are dealt with in 15 minutes (or maybe even 10-minutes or less), and some chapters that are dealt with in 25-minutes to 30-minutes (or longer).

As you keep pointing out, pacing for the chapters will be different, allowing some things to be dealt with rather quickly, and other things that might need greater exposition, visualization, or narrative.

With 19 chapters, times 20-minutes per chapter, that is 380-minutes, or 6.33 Hours.

Leaving each "Episode" at roughly 2.11 hours, on average (or roughly 127 minutes each, minus credits, and any Intro).

Depends entirely on what happens in the chapter. All they do in the first one is have dinner- and in fact that *was* treated at length in AUJ and is perhaps the single thing in that film to have drawn the most criticism.

That's the basic point I'm trying to get across. *Pacing* is very important in a film. Why do you think "The Hobbit"- a fairly typical novel- is suitable for a 1:1 adaptation?

The 1:1 is an AVERAGE, meaning that not every page is going to result in a full-minute.

But that is averages out for such.

That is why it is called a "heuristic" (meaning "Rule of Thumb" or "best guess" or "approximation" - technically it is Greek for "That which is found by accident/unusual").

Some pages of the Novel might not warrant more than a few seconds of screen-time.

While others might warrant five minutes of screen-time.

The point being that when all is said-and-done, they average out to about 1-minute per page.

That is pretty much the rule (Heuristic) that they work toward, or use when dealing with estimating how much screen-time is going to be created for a given script.

The estimation might not work out to be 100% accurate, but when you take a long at all movies produced, and compare their length to the script that produced them, you get that relative 1:1 rule (page of script per minute of scene/screen-time).

When estimating a budget for a production, that is how Film is bought, and how to estimate production budgets. I have only taken a few Film Classes, mostly dealing with VFX and Writing. But it is a subject that I have had to go over when looking at how much it is going to cost us to shoot the documentary we hope to do in the next couple of years.

The budget might go over, or under that estimate, but that is what they use to get a "bust guess" when looking at financing a production. And it seems to be pretty reliable, assuming that you have records of the average number of takes for a scene that your director usually uses; with a new director, you have to just make a best guess there, but they have a heuristic for that too (never having wanted to Direct, I never looked into it).

MB

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Marwhini

Technically, as in according the rules they teach at UCLA on Screenwriting.

The "rules" as applied to script-to-film or novel-to-script? Can we have a reality check here? According to you, it would seem the "rules" state that an average-length novel must be adapted as a trilogy, or even a quadrology. Ever notice how that generally fails to happen?

The 20 minutes, average, per chapter is all that needs to be considered in getting a six-hour long production (technically six-hours and twenty-minutes).

You don't need to worry about breaking down the page-count, because you can just work to try to make it so that the length each Chapter covers averages out to 20-minutes per chapter.

So you might have some chapters that are dealt with in 15 minutes (or maybe even 10-minutes or less), and some chapters that are dealt with in 25-minutes to 30-minutes (or longer).

As you keep pointing out, pacing for the chapters will be different, allowing some things to be dealt with rather quickly, and other things that might need greater exposition, visualization, or narrative.

With 19 chapters, times 20-minutes per chapter, that is 380-minutes, or 6.33 Hours.

Leaving each "Episode" at roughly 2.11 hours, on average (or roughly 127 minutes each, minus credits, and any Intro).

The 1:1 is an AVERAGE, meaning that not every page is going to result in a full-minute.

But that is averages out for such.

That is why it is called a "heuristic" (meaning "Rule of Thumb" or "best guess" or "approximation" - technically it is Greek for "That which is found by accident/unusual").

Some pages of the Novel might not warrant more than a few seconds of screen-time.

While others might warrant five minutes of screen-time.

The point being that when all is said-and-done, they average out to about 1-minute per page.

That is pretty much the rule (Heuristic) that they work toward, or use when dealing with estimating how much screen-time is going to be created for a given script.

The estimation might not work out to be 100% accurate, but when you take a long at all movies produced, and compare their length to the script that produced them, you get that relative 1:1 rule (page of script per minute of scene/screen-time).

When estimating a budget for a production, that is how Film is bought, and how to estimate production budgets. I have only taken a few Film Classes, mostly dealing with VFX and Writing. But it is a subject that I have had to go over when looking at how much it is going to cost us to shoot the documentary we hope to do in the next couple of years.

The budget might go over, or under that estimate, but that is what they use to get a "bust guess" when looking at financing a production. And it seems to be pretty reliable, assuming that you have records of the average number of takes for a scene that your director usually uses; with a new director, you have to just make a best guess there, but they have a heuristic for that too (never having wanted to Direct, I never looked into it).

MB

Yes, but the question is why you would want to do this? Why adapt a fairly short novel into six hours when two or three would be more usual? Why- and this is where you came in, remember?- increase those six hours to nine or twelve? How is this "technically" mandated "by the rules of screenplay writing, and alteration to a script"?

(And look, while it is certainly very kind and helpful of you to repeatedly explain the basic script-to-film rule-of-thumb to me, I'd really appreciate it if you'd note the parts where I point out that a.) I know that and b.)it's not actually a rule for adapting a novel into a screenplay in the first place. I'm getting the impression that you think the two are the same, else why bring it up?)

Again, I am genuinely interested in this topic- what I'm looking for is more in the nature of actual ideas of how it could be done without resulting in an extremely turgid and padded film.

Now, you *have* made a concrete suggestion here:

But that would be applying a roughly 30 minute per chapter formula (using the 9 - 12 hour estimate), given more attention to some details, and visuals. It isn't that hard to squeeze 10 more minutes into each chapter (on average) by simply adding a few seconds into each shot/scene.

That would add up quickly, and would not slow things down significantly.

All right. The problem I have with this is, why wouldn't it? Remember, you're talking about increasing the length and number of shots enough to turn a book of circa 300 pages into nine to twelve hours of cinema. That's, you know, quite a lot...

Now Marhwini, I'm really trying not to sound testy, but sorry if I come across that way regardless. It's just I feel you're tending to deliver lectures rather than actually replying, and I'm finding it a bit frustrating.

EDIT: Looking back through this thread, I realise I may have been seeming to miss the point at times, but that's because you've been switching between your "9-12 hour rule" and your "6-hour rule" such that I've honestly found it hard to keep track of which one you're talking about. I asked why the "usual formulae" demanded a 9-12 hour film and you replied by telling me why they demanded a 6 hour one. I think. And again, I apologise for the probable hectoring tone. I'm not suggesting you're doing this on purpose or anything like that.

[Nerwen]

So just to recap, here's where I'm coming from:

It is more usual to adapt a novel of "The Hobbit's" length into a single feature. (Please can we just accept this and move on?)

1.) Why do you think "The Hobbit" requires a (much) lengthier treatment?

2.) How would you go about this without either invention or padding?

Again, I am not trying to prove you wrong, I'd really like to hear what ideas you may have. Apart from everything else, I've always considered the "Hobbit" trilogy's central problem to be the fact that it was a trilogy in the first place, so I'm interested in this new perspective.

[Marwhini]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

So just to recap, here's where I'm coming from:

1.) Why do you think "The Hobbit" requires a (much) lengthier treatment?

Because that is about what it would take to get the ENTIRE BOOK done as a movie without cutting anything.

A 2-hour production would leave 5 - 6 minutes, on average, to cover each Chapter of the movie.

Can you really cover all 19 chapters with just 6 minutes to each chapter?

2.) How would you go about this without either invention or padding?

Again....

Each chapter is roughly 20 pages long.

Simply create a script that gives each chapter an average of 20 minutes each.

That isn't hard to do without invention, or padding. Some chapters have individual scenes that would almost stretch to almost 20 minutes.

MB

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Marwhini

Because that is about what it would take to get the ENTIRE BOOK done as a movie without cutting anything.

A 2-hour production would leave 5 - 6 minutes, on average, to cover each Chapter of the movie.

Can you really cover all 19 chapters with just 6 minutes to each chapter?




Again....

Each chapter is roughly 20 pages long.

Simply create a script that gives each chapter an average of 20 minutes each.

That isn't hard to do without invention, or padding. Some chapters have individual scenes that would almost stretch to almost 20 minutes.

MB

Ummm...no. There are many chapters with many paragraphs of descriptive exposition that can be handled visually in a matter of seconds: a panorama, a quick pan, a fleeting shot.

It's a short book. Three films is and never was necessary. As I mentioned before, two films tops and you capture every major event and character, and no one would feel at all shortchanged.

What you want is a CGI figure of Tolkien reading the book. Even I would not care for that.

[Marwhini]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Ummm...no. There are many chapters with many paragraphs of descriptive exposition that can be handled visually in a matter of seconds: a panorama, a quick pan, a fleeting shot.

It's a short book. Three films is and never was necessary. As I mentioned before, two films tops and you capture every major event and character, and no one would feel at all shortchanged.

What you want is a CGI figure of Tolkien reading the book. Even I would not care for that.

Does the word "average" mean nothing to people here?

That one chapter contains more visual exposition does not negate the rather lengthier narratives and dialog exposition that exists in other chapters within the book.

Riddles in the Dark being just one scene that would require nearly 30 - 40 minutes for the entire chapter (and about 15 - 20 minutes for JUST the Scene involving purely the Riddle-game.

I can do a scene-by-scene breakdown of a few chapters to give examples.


MB

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Marwhini

Because that is about what it would take to get the ENTIRE BOOK done as a movie without cutting anything.

A 2-hour production would leave 5 - 6 minutes, on average, to cover each Chapter of the movie.

Can you really cover all 19 chapters with just 6 minutes to each chapter?




Again....

Each chapter is roughly 20 pages long.

Simply create a script that gives each chapter an average of 20 minutes each.

That isn't hard to do without invention, or padding. Some chapters have individual scenes that would almost stretch to almost 20 minutes.

MB

But 20 minutes is an extraordinarily long scene. Heck, 3 minutes is a long scene. (That's the maximum recommended scene length according to an actual rule-of-thumb that actually exists.).

I know you think I harp on about pacing and the difference between "novel time" and "screen time", and I guess I do, but, well, what can I say? You can't just decide, "ah, this scene is 20 pages long in the book so it can be 20 minutes in the movie. Simple!" It really isn't simple. (Besides, much of the time you've been arguing for a vast increase over even *that*.)

I understand you've worked as "Talent" on many productions, including major ones, and I certainly don't wish to belittle that, nor the film course you mentioned taking. However, it's looking to me now if despite all this there are certain areas you haven't yet grasped sufficiently, and that your enthusiasm for a "9-12 hour" "Hobbit" is unfortunately just a result of that.

TL;DR- Nope. Wouldn't work. Sorry!