Peter Jackson Makes The Hobbit a Trilogy

[esperandote]

The silmarillion, 5 movies.

 

[karamazovnew]

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.

 

[likalaruku]

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."

 

[CardinalPiggles]

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.

 

[Cecilthedarkknight_234]

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

 

[McMullen]

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.

 

[Frost27]

I said this already in the other thread:

Spoiler

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Look, I know there's a lot of backstory in the appendices. That still doesn't change the fact that you're making three films out of one children's book. This isn't like LOTR where the books are so dense that lots of stuff had to be cut out to make the films. The Hobbit is by and large a pretty breezy book. A good director would be able to get one film out of it. How the fuck are they going to get three films out of it when they've already said that Part 1 will end with the Barrel sequence? Are they going to have two whole films of the Dwarves mooching round the mountain?

I can guess why this is being done: New Line figured they'd make more money if they spun this into a new trilogy, rather than a simply two parter. And I can already guess how they're going to pad it out. The Battle Of Five Armies, instead of being a brief, tragic finale to the story, is going to be dragged out into an 'epic' battle that dominates all of Part 3, with PJ adding his trademark ludicrous stunts and action sequences that undermine the tragedy of the source material. Which means most of Part 2 is just going to be bumming around Laketown and not much else.

Seriously, if the source material were larger, I'd be less hesitant. But it's not, it's a novel shorter than the Fellowship of the Ring. Not only that, but this is a massive change in production considering that Part 1 is only a few months away. Changing the game this late almost never works, and results in bloated, unfocused stories that lose direction and amble around for too long.

And to think Guillermo Del Toro was once on board to direct this. Jesus wept...

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.

 

[Macgyvercas]

I said this already in the other thread:

Spoiler

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Look, I know there's a lot of backstory in the appendices. That still doesn't change the fact that you're making three films out of one children's book. This isn't like LOTR where the books are so dense that lots of stuff had to be cut out to make the films. The Hobbit is by and large a pretty breezy book. A good director would be able to get one film out of it. How the fuck are they going to get three films out of it when they've already said that Part 1 will end with the Barrel sequence? Are they going to have two whole films of the Dwarves mooching round the mountain?

I can guess why this is being done: New Line figured they'd make more money if they spun this into a new trilogy, rather than a simply two parter. And I can already guess how they're going to pad it out. The Battle Of Five Armies, instead of being a brief, tragic finale to the story, is going to be dragged out into an 'epic' battle that dominates all of Part 3, with PJ adding his trademark ludicrous stunts and action sequences that undermine the tragedy of the source material. Which means most of Part 2 is just going to be bumming around Laketown and not much else.

Seriously, if the source material were larger, I'd be less hesitant. But it's not, it's a novel shorter than the Fellowship of the Ring. Not only that, but this is a massive change in production considering that Part 1 is only a few months away. Changing the game this late almost never works, and results in bloated, unfocused stories that lose direction and amble around for too long.

And to think Guillermo Del Toro was once on board to direct this. Jesus wept...

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

 

[DalekJaas]

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

 

[TallanKhan]

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.

 

[Evil Smurf]

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.

I feel therre will be lot of padding and walking

and feasting

 

[TheIronRuler]

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.

 

[Hosker]

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.

 

[JWAN]

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.

 

[Right Hook]

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.

 

[HigherTomorrow]

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.

 

[TheMann]

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.

I feel therre will be lot of padding and walking

Perhaps.

Spoiler: I'd say the Randall Graves synopsis of Lords of the Rings is applicable here.

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.

 

[GodofTheForge]

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! ^_^

 

[Twilight_guy]

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!