If you could change ONE thing in The Hobbit triology

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Marwhini

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

Please don't. For the love of Eru, don't bother.

Word-for-word transcription from novel to movie is daft. I already gave examples of highly regarded movies like Gone With the Wind (which you would like to drag out to 21 hours of film time) that did not require such treatment.

The run time of Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy was a bloated 474 minutes for the theater version (7.9 hours). Cut out all the asininity, superfluity and douchery and you have two films that fairly approximate the book. In the hands of a serious director who doesn't dwell on crotch, fart and snot jokes, you could probably even gain more canonicity.

Sorry, you can produce flip and pie charts, 3D diagrams, citations, footnotes and a pair of Tom Shippey's used underwear, but you're just not going to convince me that the 19 chapters of The Hobbit needs any more than two films to be a reverent and wonderful adaptation.

[Marwhini]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Please don't. For the love of Eru, don't bother.

Word-for-word transcription from novel to movie is daft.

At no point did I say "word-for-word."

I said that the movie would need to be longer than 2 hours to include THE ENTIRE book.

And that is due to the Heuristic Used in Screenwriting of an approximately 1-Page:1-Minute for Script:Screentime.

You don't seem to care about the actual evidence here, and seem instead to be relying upon what Jackson produced as the only possible means of depicting The Hobbit in three films, when he cut out vast swaths of the book, and included much that was utterly superfluous in its place.

Unless these is some real evidence for why 20 minutes per chapter (and, to include ON AVERAGE, since that seems to be a tricky concept for some) is too long, then that remains a fair standard for length of a production.

You might claim that some Chapters can be Significantly shortened (and I have no doubt that it would absolutely be possible to shorten some chapters), but unless you can show that this is the case AND that ALL CHAPTERS would then fit into a roughly 6 - 10 minute, on average, running-time, then the Movie simply would not fit into a 2 - 4 hour production without citing substantial amounts of material.

And the only way to do that is to detail the specific scenes that can result in an average 6 - 10 minute per chapter production.


MB

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Marwhini

At no point did I say "word-for-word."

I said that the movie would need to be longer than 2 hours to include THE ENTIRE book.

And that is due to the Heuristic Used in Screenwriting of an approximately 1-Page:1-Minute for Script:Screentime.

You don't seem to care about the actual evidence here, and seem instead to be relying upon what Jackson produced as the only possible means of depicting The Hobbit in three films, when he cut out vast swaths of the book, and included much that was utterly superfluous in its place.

Unless these is some real evidence for why 20 minutes per chapter (and, to include ON AVERAGE, since that seems to be a tricky concept for some) is too long, then that remains a fair standard for length of a production.

You might claim that some Chapters can be Significantly shortened (and I have no doubt that it would absolutely be possible to shorten some chapters), but unless you can show that this is the case AND that ALL CHAPTERS would then fit into a roughly 6 - 10 minute, on average, running-time, then the Movie simply would not fit into a 2 - 4 hour production without citing substantial amounts of material.

And the only way to do that is to detail the specific scenes that can result in an average 6 - 10 minute per chapter production.

You simply ignore what anyone else says just so you can rabbit on with your own theories. I would like it if you's please go back and read what I said, rather than continually talking over everyone.

No where, and at no time, did I mention a 2-4 hour production. No where did I refer to a single film. Ever. That is a figment of your own imagination.

[Marwhini]

I did read what you said.

And maybe if you have read works like Gone with the Wind you would realize that the movie contains far less than half the book (maybe even less than ¼ of it, but it has been almost 30 years since I read it - so I would need to find a coy of it to detail what all was left out). The film left out a gigantic Plot-arc concerning the KKK, among other things:

https://gwenonichi.wordpress.com/201...and-the-movie/

So citing it isn't exactly supporting that a long book can be translated to the screen in a single movie without cutting anything out.

These aren't "Theories" I am talking about.

Even Nerwen recognized that there is a recognized Script:Screen relationship that the movie and TV industry uses.

As far as claiming you never mentioned a 2-4 hour production. Here is what you said:

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.

Pardon me if I have been speaking in terms of total hours of screen time, instead of how many films.

It is an industry standard that we talk about a typical film having a run-time of about 2 hours.

Thus a run-time of 4 hours would be considered to EITHER be a very long single film.... Or, more likely, it would be broken into two halves and released in two parts, as two separate films.

So that sounds a little disingenuous to claim you never said anything about a 2 - 4 hour production, when you are claiming "two films tops" (which would be roughly 4 hours).

You could expand that to 5 hours with 2 films of 2.5 hours each, and then you would be reducing each chapter to an average of 15 minutes each.

But it is likely that you would still have to cut things from the book in doing so, given that [I[The Hobbit[/I] tends to be pretty dialog heavy (and Dialog takes up more room in a script than it does in a novel, thus taking up more screen-time than pure visualization, or direction).

And if you want to play the equivocation game.... I am talking about a 20 minute per chapter translation.

That comes out to 6 hours and 20 minutes.

You can cut that into however many films you wish, from one six-hour movie, since there isn't a shortage of long movies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_films

To twenty twenty-minute episodes (which doesn't mean one per chapter).

MB

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Marwhini

I did read what you said.

And maybe if you have read works like Gone with the Wind you would realize that the movie contains far less than half the book (maybe even less than ¼ of it, but it has been almost 30 years since I read it - so I would need to find a coy of it to detail what all was left out). The film left out a gigantic Plot-arc concerning the KKK, among other things:

https://gwenonichi.wordpress.com/201...and-the-movie/

So citing it isn't exactly supporting that a long book can be translated to the screen in a single movie without cutting anything out.

I have read the book. It is in my collection. It is rather presumptuous, but not at all surprising, that you should consider otherwise. I am well aware they edited it. But again, they made a movie out of 63 chapters and even so it was a mammoth 3 hours, 41 minutes long. It is considered one of the greatest movies ever made. Gone With the Wind won 10 Academy Awards, including an Oscar for Hattie McDaniel, the first black actress to ever win.

I would suggest it would not be any better if you dragged out every subplot and nuance, drained every bit of dialogue and plopped it wholesale into 21 mind-numbing hours worth of film as you suggest. To even argue the point is inane. By your muddled logic that makes seven 3 hour movies. Or perhaps you would prefer ten 2 hour movies. Anyway one divides it, the math is just plain dumb.

Originally Posted by Marwhini

These aren't "Theories" I am talking about.

Even Nerwen recognized that there is a recognized Script:Screen relationship that the movie and TV industry uses.

I realize you like to make grand pronouncements, but your theory is not a law, even though your every utterance demands that it be so. Let it be written, so let it be done!

Here is a list of novels made into superb movies that in no way practiced your theory:

The Godfather: 32 chapters, film run-time 2 hours, 58 minutes.
Marwhini's Law - The Godfather should be 10 1/2 hours long.

Schindler's List: 40 chapters, film run-time 3 hours, 15 minutes.
Marwhini's Law - Schindler's List should be over 13 hours long.

The Silence of the Lambs: 61 chapters, film run-time 2 hours 18 minutes.
Marwhini's Law - Silence of the Lambs should be over 20 hours long.

To Kill a Mockingbird: 31 chapters, film run-time 2 hours 10 minutes
Marwhini's Law - To Kill a Mockingbird should be over 10 hours long.

Dr. Zhivago: 16 Chapters (yes, only 16 chapters, but 592 pages), film run-time 3 hours 20 minutes.
Marwhini's Law - Dr. Zhivago should be 5 hours and 15 minutes long and Sir David Lean should have been fired for making the movie too short.

I could make an unending list of great movies from books that do not fit your crabbed criteria. But I have to reply to one final point:

Originally Posted by Marwhini

Pardon me if I have been speaking in terms of total hours of screen time, instead of how many films.

It is an industry standard that we talk about a typical film having a run-time of about 2 hours.

Thus a run-time of 4 hours would be considered to EITHER be a very long single film.... Or, more likely, it would be broken into two halves and released in two parts, as two separate films.

So that sounds a little disingenuous to claim you never said anything about a 2 - 4 hour production, when you are claiming "two films tops" (which would be roughly 4 hours).

No, I have no interest in pardoning you. Confess your sins to a priest. Start with Pride.

I've just offered several films that don't meet your 2 hour matinee movie standard; in fact, the average film time has been increasing yearly, particularly for more serious, award-worthy films. The Hobbit was originally considered to be a two film venture, until greed got in the way and they threw everything and the kitchen sink in to make three films. With pacing and judicious editing, there is no need for 3 films.

The Chapter "Flies and Spiders" is mostly descriptive. The majority of "Barrels out of Bound" has Invisi-Bilbo(TM) rummaging around Thranduil's manse. "The Return Journey" is literally only 8 pages long, and "A Thief in the Night" is only 6 pages.

Stop, just stop.

[Boromir88]

Even Tolkien, himself, when responding about the Zimmerman script knows when adapting novels to the big screen you are inevitably going to have to cut out parts of the novel.

As it is, Jackson actually filmed every chapter in The Hobbit, it's just he either drastically altered the story when adapting novel to screen, or he threw in a bunch of garbage to bloat the story into 3 films. But every chapter from The Hobbit gets covered in the Jackson movies.

The Lord of the Rings was a story big enough to contain Jackson where he had no choice but to make cuts that ended up focusing his movies. I was re-watching the FOTR Appendices recently and Jackson repeatedly said, FOTR had to be about Frodo and the Ring. Any scenes that took the audience away from Frodo and the Ring was getting cut out of the theatrical and only placed if it added new and necessary information (like Gandalf's imprisonment in Isengard and learning of Saruman's treachery). In my opinion, FOTR turned out to be Jackson's best work and there's a lot that had to get cut out, which is just necessity when adapting novel to screen.

The Hobbit films should have been about...well The Hobbit. But The Hobbit story was too small to contain the greed for more money. The care, passion, and attention to details in making FOTR was clearly noticeable and translated to the quality of the film. It's a shame that if the same care and passion was given to making The Hobbit films (instead everyone just looks rushed and tired) then they could have been highly enjoyable. The Hobbit should have been a much easier story to film, and as Morth said, should only take 2-films at most.

[Marwhini]

This does seem to be pointless as the point I am making seems to be completely ignored.

MB

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Marwhini

At no point did I say "word-for-word."

I said that the movie would need to be longer than 2 hours to include THE ENTIRE book.

And that is due to the Heuristic Used in Screenwriting of an approximately 1-Page:1-Minute for Script:Screentime.

Excuse me. You have *not* merely said the movie "would need to be longer than 2 hours". You have been advocating a 9-12 hour version, and claiming it to be mandated by the "rules of Screenwriting"(!)

Edit: And once again, that "heuristic" does not apply to the task of adapting a novel, and thus remains irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Marwhini

You don't seem to care about the actual evidence here, and seem instead to be relying upon what Jackson produced as the only possible means of depicting The Hobbit in three films, when he cut out vast swaths of the book, and included much that was utterly superfluous in its place. Unless these is some real evidence for why 20 minutes per chapter (and, to include ON AVERAGE, since that seems to be a tricky concept for some) is too long, then that remains a fair standard for length of a production.

Yes, well, I'm starting to think reading comprehension might be tricky for some...

You might claim that some Chapters can be Significantly shortened (and I have no doubt that it would absolutely be possible to shorten some chapters), but unless you can show that this is the case AND that ALL CHAPTERS would then fit into a roughly 6 - 10 minute, on average, running-time, then the Movie simply would not fit into a 2 - 4 hour production without citing substantial amounts of material.

And the only way to do that is to detail the specific scenes that can result in an average 6 - 10 minute per chapter production.

I have explained to you that your approach would result in numerous scenes of enormous length. The burden of proof is on you to show it wouldn't. But, then, you won't even acknowledge that 20 minutes *is* an abnormal length. So I don't know where we go from here.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

You simply ignore what anyone else says just so you can rabbit on with your own theories. I would like it if you's please go back and read what I said, rather than continually talking over everyone.

No where, and at no time, did I mention a 2-4 hour production. No where did I refer to a single film. Ever. That is a figment of your own imagination.

Morth, he may be confusing you with me, in that I have mentioned a single film as being *typical* for a book of "The Hobbit's" length- i.e. an average novel. Which it is. I didn't say a film of "The Hobbit" in particular couldn't or shouldn't be longer, I was just countering Marhwini's repeated assertion that the "rules" of adaptation required this- specifically that they required a 9-12 hour treatment. (Or sometimes 6 hours. Seems to vary.)

Now, Marhwini, I think I have been very patient with you so far. However, your circular reasoning, appeals to imaginary authority, misrepresentation of others' statements, misrepresentation of your own, refusal to consider counter-arguments (or, often, acknowledge their existance), apparent belief in the automatic correctness of your every pronouncement, and above all, your general tone of high-handed superiority... these things do begin to grate.

Enough. You obviously feel passionate about your concepts, but unfortunately you haven't come within a hundred leagues of demonstrating convincingly how or why they could work, nor does it seem you ever will.

Now how about we just drop the subject and let Aaron have his thread back?

Edit: x'd with the man himself.