Monday, June 6, 2011

Now with More Parts!

BREAKING BROKEN NEWS: Along came The Hobbit ... and The Hobbit — release dates and titles announced

FRESHNESS RATING: Come on, who hasn't read The Hobbit? Not to worry, P.J.'s not using the book anyway, just its title (and fan base)

Yes, I know, Peter Jackson is just as big a fan of Middle-earth as the rest of us. I kid because I care, Pete, and also because, come on, didn't you feel a little bit bad about the whole warg attack/Aragorn goes over the cliff thing in The Two Towers? About Arwen rescuing Frodo at the Ford of Bruinen? About Faramir becoming some sort of dad-pleasing wimptoast who tries to march Frodo and Sam to Minas Tirith? (The most unintentionally funny line in all three films is still Sam's wailing in Osgiliath during the made-up pretend minions of Sauron attack that never really happened, "By rights we shouldn't even be here!" Boy, you said it, Samwise.) About Treebeard, Gimli and probably half a dozen other characters I'm not recalling at the moment being turned into comic relief caricatures? I could keep this up for at least an entire blog post, but the point is that several days ago, probably back before the newest version of the iPhone (fine, fine it was on May 30), P.J. and Warner Bros. announced that The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey will be released Dec. 14, 2012.

In other news — wait, wait, what do you mean? The Hobbit doesn't have a part two. I promise. I've read it. Say what? Huh? Oh. Well then, I guess the whole "subtitle" thing makes a bit more sense. Also, The Hobbit: There and Back Again will be released Dec. 13, 2013. OK, fine, yeah, I knew months and months ago that Wacko Jacko, like Guillermo del Toro before him, had this thing slated for two movies. It's the new math in Hollywood. If you know a movie is going to make a billion dollars, or at least several hundred million dollars, then why back the money truck up to theaters just once? Cut your screenplay in half, make two movies, and back that sucker up again! The Harry Potter guys are doing it with the Deathly Hallows, and probably kicking themselves that they didn't think of this years ago. The Twilight people are doing it with Breaking Dawn, and definitely kicking themselves that they didn't think of this years ago. Wait, there are only four books?! She didn't write any others? There wasn't any more story to tell? No more pages and pages (and pages) of tortured longing or impassioned pleading? Don't vampires live (and love) forever? CUUUURSE YOOOOOU, STEPHENIE MEYER!!!

So, anyway, it's the hip new thing. I'm waiting for the inevitable next step, when, say, it's announced that Breaking Dawn Part II will be broken into Parts I and II. I'm picturing a Valentine's Day 2014 release for Breaking Dawn Part II, Part I — Bella and Edward's Honeymoon: Yes We Need a Whole Movie For That. Hey, Hollywood, did you know that if draw a line, and then travel only half the remaining distance between yourself and the line each time you move toward it, you never. cross. the. line? It's true. Kristen Stewart could work on Breaking Dawn movies until she's literally as old Edward is when Bella meets him in the first book. (Hint: He's freaking old.) At any rate, the point is that this whole Part I / Part II thing is lame, but not nearly as lame as 3-D. So if you can only get rid of one crass gimmick to grab more dollars from long-suffering moviegoers, then keep the two-part heist rolling and stop making movies in pointless 3-D.

Incidentally, both parts of The Hobbit are being released in 3-D. Some days, I don't know why I even try.

2 comments:

  1. Hey, don't forget the re-release! Was you're movie not in 3D the first time around? Well, don't fret, because you can re-release it in 3D! First James Cameron is hitting us with Titanic, and then Lucas plans on dropping the Star Wars movies, starting with the Phantom Two By Four to the Head Followed By a Few Solid Rib Kicks and Maybe a Poke in the Eye all the way to Return of the Jedi. And PJ wants in on the action, and is planning to re-release the Lord of the Rings Trilogy in 3D, though there's talk that those plans have been put on hold until after the 3D Hobbits hit the screen.

    Even better, if you do a directors cut, you can re-release the film in two parts, in 3D! PJ, if you're listening, you can release the Lord of the Rings Extended editions as six 3D movies! Huzzah!

    Sheesh. It's time's like this that I wish more filmmakers would adapt the Guy Gavriel Kay aesthetic. Create a compelling world, fill it with compelling characters, and tell a compelling story that has a compelling ending, emphasis on the 'ending' part. And then move on, emphasis on the MOVE ON, to someting new and original. Dude's been doing it for a while now, and it WORKS! Have you read Under Heaven? (No really, have you? If not, get on it. Good stuff.) Forward motion, my friends. Momentum. Creative momentum. There's no need for volume after volume after volume. No need for scads of sequels, prequels or spin offs. And no need for re-releasing, re-thinking, or re-messing with your old stuff. Just move it along.

    You know, on a similar note, where's that Lions of Al-Rassan adaptation, Ed Zwick? C'mon! George RR Martin is getting the HBO treatment (an expected 7 books, which will mean 7 seasons, for that series). Where's the love for Kay? Let's get these movies rolling! Chop chop!

    Wait, wait, these are single volume fantasies? You mean, the best we can do is a part one, and part 2 in 3D? Hmm. Maybe we ought to bleed out all the trilogies, quadridrilogies, pentilogies, and so on first.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm sorry to see this piling on to poor old Peter, son of Jack. Here he is, just trying to preserve the integrity of his artistic vision, and you have the nerve to suggest that he's into making this movie just for the money.
    Anyone who's read Tolkien knows what drives Pete to do these things: farce of Hobbit.

    Shirley Eugest

    ReplyDelete