Peter Jackson Makes The Hobbit a Trilogy

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Oh great, as if I needed any more reasons to not want to see this...

Seriously? Three films? For this? Come on!

This is the movie equivolent of a game having content cut out and sold as DLC. Lets not make this a trend. its bad enough we have to put up with everything being released in 3D...

Absolutely no problem with this. The Hobbit was my favorite book of all time, so the more delicious Jackson-baked goodness that I get from it the better. Seeing what he did with LotR is enough for me to fully trust his work with this.

This is my favorite book, despite my age. I hope they go all out!

Well, how convenient. Why let people pay for two tickets when you can get them to pay for three? First Harry Potter 7 gets doubled up, then Twilight, and now this. They'll be squeezing a quadrillogy out of The Hungry Caterpillar next.

Actually, I'm not that bothered. More Tolkien should really be a good thing, even if this is quite clearly a shameless attempt to grab more cash. I'm sure there is enough in The Hobbit to allow for a trilogy, but how can we forget that it is only the fraction of a size of LOTR?

Hmmm, two books was fine. I myself was excited for the Dol guldur and white council bits, but what could they possibly use to pump out three movies? They already said that they're ending with barrels out of bond, and that's right before laketown, and consequently, erebor. How could they stretch only a handful of chapters out into two movies?

Oh well, i'll be willing to give peter Jackson the benefit of a doubt

The silmarillion, 5 movies.

About The Hobbit: I don't mind watching 6 hours + of the Hobbit 4 years from now (or whatever the release timetable is). The more screen time, the better. The book takes its sweet time getting interesting, but all in all, I loved it much more than I did LotR. Why? Because of the whole "a tale that grew in the telling" thing. You literally have no idea how it will end, you have no idea what the next step will be. Even the initial plot becomes almost a parody of the whole epic-saga thing. I loved it for how unusual and psychedelic it was.

About Peter Jackson: I will get a lot of flame about this, but I really don't like his movies. Yes, I'm talking about the LotR trilogy. I haven't seen the extended version yet, but I doubt it will change my view on the movie. I loved the first movie, it made me buy the books, but I made the mistake of reading them before seeing the other 2 movies. And... bleah. Helm's Deep was fine, the Rohirrim charge was awesome. But the rest was never how I imagined from the books. And remember, my image of the books was based on the first movie. Tolkien had a special old man charm, the story was a slow and beautiful contemplation from the comfort of an armchair. The movies were anything but. Art direction is a personal matter and I wouldn't blame Jackson for costumes or actors or whatever. But missing the whole atmosphere of the books is a different matter. So you can imagine how much I dread what he is capable of doing to the Hobbit, particularly after so many fans loved his Hollywood blockbuster take on the Tolkien magic. To be honest, in making it a trilogy, my hopes grew back that he'd have enough screen time to take it slow and concentrate more on the charm, not on the action.

I'm fine with this, because in all honesty, I enjoyed reading The Hobbit far more than did LotR, probably because it was a comedy. lol...There was even a point in LotR where I was like "f**k Frodo, I want to follow Tom Bombadil around."

So the shortest and least interesting book of them all is to become it's own trilogy?

What the fuck has he been smoking?

I just hope he isn't simply stretching the story. Films are supposed to be short and sweet.

I'll give it the benefit of the doubt though because we are talking about a tale from Tolkien lore.

Abandon4093:
So the shortest and least interesting book of them all is to become it's own trilogy?

What the fuck has he been smoking?

Probably what Bilbo has in that long pipe.

Yeah there is no need for three movies on the Hobbit, hell even two movies are stretching this out to much. I think that I will stick with my 1hr 17 minute cartoon movie from the 70's

SnakeoilSage:
And next... the Silmarillion Reloaded!

I'm down with that. If for no other reason than I get to see the fall of Numenor onscreen.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
I said this already in the other thread:

I agree, pretty much competely.

No matter what jackson says, Tom Bombadill being left out of LOTR was the best thing that could have happened to the trilogy. That, and that "Sharky" horseshit with Saruman and Wyrmtongue at the end of Return.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
I said this already in the other thread:

If I assume correctly, he's also adding things from Unfinished Tales, The Silmarilion, and the History of Middle Earth.

If we don't get to see SMAUG in the first film I will be pissed!

Ok i like the idea of showing us more of the world in these films and drawing on some of Tolkien's other materials, however im not convinced that a book which was shorter than any of the LotR books i itself can make three good movies. I hope Im wrong, because i very much enjoyed PJ's envisioning of Middle Earth but i fear for the overall tone of these films.

bazaalmon:
Potentially the greatest cinematic achievement in history, a series of movies with absolutely NOTHING cut out from the book for time! *flameshield up!*
I'm looking forward to it.

Every single world has to be spoken.

Talvrae:
I feel therre will be lot of padding and walking

and feasting

This is a money making machine and they sure as hell not going to pass on the opportunity to make a third film. I'm disappointed, but as I sadly know I am the person among many that drives that money machine with throwing more cash into the dark pit that is Tartarus Hollywood.

I don't really know what to think. Unless they add a lot , a hell of a lot, it is going to be very slow. For comparison, they did three films for the whole of the LOTR trilogy, which is much, much longer. I also worry about structural problems: I can't think where they will end the first and second parts, so the endings may be unfulfilling.

I think this stands a much better chance of sticking to the book because it will allow Jackson to spend time on each part (I hope).
I really like this idea.

I don't think this is going to work. I sincerely hope I am wrong, I just see the second two films being padded out too much with useless filler. I guess if it remains interesting than I'll be happy, after all I love Middle Earth and if a third film allows more time to be spent there, I'm all for it. I just don't want it to end up bad, that'd be so upsetting, I also hope length isn't sacrificed, Middle Earth movies deserve 3 hours dammit!!!

I suppose if it just ends up being like the LOTR extended cuts, only with all the extended scenes left in for the theater, that'd be great. After seeing them I feel the extended versions are the only way to watch the movies now.

If you guys can't afford $15 a year The Hobbit being a trilogy is the least of your worries.

There is so much lore and appendices that can be added in, and people keep saying that it has to be completely linear, when it doesn't. I remember Jackson saying something about explaining where Gandalf is the whole time- as in, 1st and 2nd and not singularly in the 3rd.

Abandon4093:
So the shortest and least interesting book of them all is to become it's own trilogy?

What the fuck has he been smoking?

Crisp $100 bills stuffed straight into a giant hookah, of course.

Talvrae:
I feel therre will be lot of padding and walking

Perhaps.


But I'll reserve judgment for when they come out. Yeah, and I'll probably pay to see them all anyway. I can't really see it living up to the LotR trilogy, but I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.

I am completely and totally, 100% in favor of this idea. Getting a fuller adaptation of The Hobbit as it was originally written sounds fantastic, especially when you consider that there's so much content in The Hobbit alone.

Even watching the original trilogy as a kid (and having read the books as well), I always felt that the films, long and excellent though they are, had to cut out a very decent amount of storytelling from the actual books (perhaps more than was necessary *cough* ArwenAragornloveinterestcompletelyuncalledfor*cough*). The one scene in particular to which I really looked forward was the Tom Bombadil scene. Alas, it never came to be.

But who knows? The extended editions of the films helped flesh out more of the story, so maybe one film in several parts will accomplish the same thing, and not make us buy several different versions of it later on to get more content.

I'm all for it! ^_^

God, I hope he knows what he's doing. So much of Tolkien's work is boring fluff. If they include every song and every meal described in the book, this is going to have so much pointless footage. Sometimes edits are good, man!

How about this...if one of them is pure filler, then it was a bulls*** move to make money out of nothing, and if they're all entertaining, it was making the most of the source material. Eh?

Extended reason to live, hell yea!

Macgyvercas:

If I assume correctly, he's also adding things from Unfinished Tales, The Silmarilion, and the History of Middle Earth.

I don't believe they have the rights for any of those. The extra material is coming from the appendices to Lord of the Rings.

I am getting more and more concerned that this will become one of the biggest disasters/ mockerys of nerdom, this news isn't helping.

Two was pushing it. Three is insane.

I hope I am wrong.

here's my take:
So while i realize that it is fucking AWESOME that they are going to make more of it and include more from book exc, i am infuriated. because, let's face it, there's something about fuckin having a good story like that split up into three parts and put out with one year (or whatever) intervals... well it breaks it the fuck up! It's then more of a show... with a seriously spread out season. IT'S ANNOYING. Make it into three parts and then release them all on the same night so that people can choose to pay 3 times as much and go see one after the other... or one every week. or whatever. Yah i know money wise this makes less scene (cuz they wanna milk every one of them separately of course), but it would be way more nice for the consumer.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
I said this already in the other thread:

You do realize that if you had read even a single thing about the production you would have had answers to all of these things? Instead you're just willingly rambling ignorant tirades at the production (which isn't housed just at New Line, but MGM and Warner Bros as well these days) that hold no water.

I'm increasingly skeptical about The Hobbit movies. First, Jackson said that not only will they be in 3D (which I've yet to see done successfully in a movie), but also that he'd film them at 40fps, which, unless you really want to see a big budget movie look like a cheap soap-opera, then you're guaranteed to hate it with the fiery passion of a thousand fucking suns. And now, there's this.
I wasn't convinced that making two Hobbit movies wasn't pushing it, but making three? Why? I understand that you want to include every detail from the book in the movies, Mr Jackson, but do you remember what made, say, Fellowship of The Ring, such a great film? The fact that it wasn't bloated with every minute and meaningless fucking detail from the book. In fact, it took some pretty big liberties with the source material, and it was all the better for it, because the narrative of a book does not translate well on screen.

Jackson cut Bombadil from Rings because it was a stupid side-story that went nowhere, offered nothing to the story, and read like an out-of-place acid flashback. Not everything Tolkien wrote was genius.

Not entirely behind this idea to extend Hobbit to a trilogy. Hobbit is not the epic Rings was, extending it to three films, (and knowing Jackson they will be long films,) just seems like dragging it out longer than it needs to be and adding unnecessary details. Seems to me it will either make the films too slow or add confusing details that messes with the narrative. I have a lot of respect for Jackson - Hell I live in his home town and I can see how he's boosted the local film industry - but that doesn't mean he's immune from bad decisions. I hope he has a good reason for wanting to extend it all rather than just thinking "I have all this footage that I would rather put in the films than in a later DVD package."

This bodes ill to me. One of my favourite aspects of The Hobbit was how big the world seemed without actually showing it all to you. Unlike with the main trilogy, Tolkien didn't feel the need to explain every little aspect of the world in long, out of place expositions; he just set Bilbo loose and let him wander through other people's stories. When you take that away-when, for example, you fully stage the rise of the Necromancer and the actions of the White Council to defeat him, rather than simply mentioning it in passing- you take away that sense of bigness, and make the world collapse around your main characters.

Similarly, if you show the Battle of Five Armies in it's entirety (which will fill up a lot of the third movie by my reckoning), rather than having the main character get knocked out (if I remember correctly) and receive only the reaction of an innocent young traveler to the scene of horror and bloodshed after the fact, you completely change the tone from "sober reflection on the sacrifices made, sometimes needlessly, to fight evil" to "Did you see the part where that guy's head got chopped clean off?!?"

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it will look marvellous and be very entertaining. I just think he's missing the a big part of the feel of the book in order to make money/movies.

MeChaNiZ3D:
How about this...if one of them is pure filler, then it was a bulls*** move to make money out of nothing, and if they're all entertaining, it was making the most of the source material. Eh?

This is the internet, not Canada! Stop being reasonable!

Its pretty obvious why he's doing this. It's the same reason Deathly Hallows was in two parts. Moneymoneymoney.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here