Peter Jackson Makes The Hobbit a Trilogy

[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?

 

[unacomn]

Extended reason to live, hell yea!

 

[Narcogen]

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.

 

[jFr[e]ak93]

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.

 

[Katya Topolkaraeva]

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.

 

[Spitfire]

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.

 

[Superior Mind]

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."

 

[Thunderous Cacophony]

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.

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!

 

[Zhougdog]

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

 

[Tanis]

If this was ANYONE else, I'd probably be going 'o, COME ON YOU TWIT!'.

But, this is PETER JACKSON.
The guy who 'got' King Kong better then even the 'original' movie, and various knockoffs.
The guy who managed to make "Lord of the Rings" movie that WASN'T crap.

I'm going to give him a benefit of a doubt for now.

 

[Vanitas likes Bubbles]

Dammit, just make two movies Jackson!!! You could be spending the time on the third film by helping make a sequel to District 9!

 

[Arakasi]

At first I was like noooooooo.
But once I stopped to think about it I realised that Peter Jackson might actually pull off a movie that sticks to the book.
That'd be absolutely lovely.

 

[Jaeke]

GIVE ME MOAR!

The more wonderous work of Peter Jackson interpreting the holy grail of all-things fantastic and mythic the better.

Can't wait!

 

[Mr Binary]

I'm okay with this. Gives him more room to make it as beautiful as the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I just hope the last two don't feel like they were rushed, or one part cut into two merely for profit.

 

[The Human Torch]

I feel that this bodes pretty badly.

See, I loved the Hobbit growing up and yet I was (and still am, for that matter) bored out of my skull by the Lord of the Rings, so naturally I was way more excited for these films than I was for the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

And the great thing about the Hobbit is that it is so small in scale, it's immediately accessible. It's not trying to be this huge mythic melodrama, it's more like a 19th century fairy tale. Sure, there's the odd link back to the overall mythology of middle earth, but ultimately it's really just background for what is quite a sweet and intimate story.

While I get that a lot of the charm lies in the slightly whimsical bits which don't really mesh with the main narrative, and including all those is going to take some time, but all this talk of trying to flesh out the surrounding universe translates to me as a studio-mandated "this film needs more action and epic battles with music and melodramatic dialogue, because it's not like anyone has actually read the Hobbit, and they're all going to be expecting that shit because it was in Lord of the Rings."

And that would be very sad.

You are talking like Peter Jackson wrote 2 more books to make the Hobbits a trilogy and THEN made them into movies.

Even with the Hobbit being the smallest size of all the LoTR books, it's still a ton of information to get on a screen, 3 movies seem more than reasonable to me. Heck, the Lord of the Rings could have been 9 movies, instead of 3.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

Peter, you should retire. Go be rich and leave film alone. Your grubby hands are getting all over my art. Let's see how much of this book he misses and/or fucks up.