The Hobbit will now be 3 movies.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2012 2:17 AM GMT
    Seems a little relentless... or maybe like butter scraped across too much bread, to borrow a phase.

    http://www.imdb.com/news/ni33075544/
  • Cuchullain

    Posts: 64

    Jul 31, 2012 3:01 AM GMT
    On the plus side, I guess this means the studio like what they're seeing so far.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2012 3:01 AM GMT
    The Rankin Bass animated version was a fixture at my elementary school.

    There's so few good fantasy movies out now, so I'm actually looking forward to these. The book has so many fab details -- the driving out of Sauron/The Necromancer from Mirkwood -- that I didn't even know about until I read the proper unabridged version.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2012 3:02 AM GMT
    Cuchullain saidOn the plus side, I guess this means the studio like what they're seeing so far.


    Not really. He just shot enough film for 3 movies, so all they see is $$$.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2012 3:05 AM GMT
    This is the first time I've seen a book short enough to be covered in one film stretched out like this. "Order of the Phoenix" was close to 1000 pages and only got 1 film, and a short one at that! Oh well, I will see them anyway!
  • swall1963

    Posts: 161

    Jul 31, 2012 3:10 AM GMT
    Wow, can you say over the top. Now it will officially take longer to watch the "movie" than it does to read the book.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2012 3:19 AM GMT
    This bodes very, very well for movie take on The Stand.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2012 3:21 AM GMT
    Geeez, this sounds like a studio that's trying to milk a franchise for all it's worth.

    The Hobbit in no way merits three films. There's little enough story there as it is. The pace of the book was painfully slow.

    I can just see it now... a whole movie on the Mirkwood. Ugggghhh... icon_mad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2012 3:22 AM GMT
    philibt saidThis is the first time I've seen a book short enough to be covered in one film stretched out like this. "Order of the Phoenix" was close to 1000 pages and only got 1 film, and a short one at that! Oh well, I will see them anyway!


    Well he's using 100 pages of Appendices that Tolkien released. But still.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2012 3:22 AM GMT
    It's sounds like too much. They're basing it off of the success of the LOTR trilogy, but that was three different books. They should save the extra footage for the disc release.
  • Parker817

    Posts: 359

    Jul 31, 2012 3:24 AM GMT
    I find this to be obnoxious. There is no reason to make this into 3 movies, except for profits.

    And nothing, not all the special effects in the world, will EVER top the Rankin Bass animation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2012 3:26 AM GMT
    Wow... wonder what will go first, the quality of script, acting, or directing?icon_question.gif?icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2012 3:31 AM GMT
    Great I'm sure the first two will be good and the last one will be a whole bunch of useless filler about this that and zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
  • LJay

    Posts: 11612

    Jul 31, 2012 4:23 AM GMT
    Hasn't it already been about 16?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2012 4:30 AM GMT
    So everyone in internetland is all "the studio is doing this because they just want the dollars." And while the studio certain wants the dollars, the real reason--according to Peter Jackson himself--is because while he and the other two writers sat down to watch a very early edit of the first film and a lot of the second film they realized that they could use even more of the information in the appendices from LotR to tell more of the story. Those who think this is a remake of the Rankin Bass version are woefully ill informed: he's telling a much more adult version of the story that Tolkien revealed after the book was written. Things that help tie it in better with the version of events that happen at the same time that are made known in LotR and its appendices.

    TL;DR version: it's gonna be awesome, chillax
  • doomafidget

    Posts: 12

    Jul 31, 2012 5:03 AM GMT
    lol, I guess I'm one of the few that actually liked reading the news that they were going to make The Hobbit a trilogy. Oh well. I will enjoy all three of them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2012 5:08 AM GMT
    Not interested in the least.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2012 5:43 AM GMT
    It might work if the length of each movie doesn't exceed two hours? May be they did it out of consideration for their potential audiences, many of whom I'm sure have the attention spam of a 5 year old pretty typical for last decade.
  • drypin

    Posts: 1798

    Jul 31, 2012 6:03 AM GMT
    I think I'll wait until I've seen them to decide. Looking forward to the first one, though!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2012 6:05 AM GMT
    YAYYYYYYYYYYYY! I've been reading that they've added quite a bit from the appendices in LOTR, so the Hobbit won't be exactly like the book...but considering the brilliance of the Lord of the Rings, I'm sure it will be great! icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2012 6:08 AM GMT
    Kinda surprised at all the negative response. I would have thought that Jackson and his team would have earned everyone's trust after the LOTR trilogy. Sure, there were actually three books, but Jackson has made it clear he wants to fill in the gaps Tolkein left in the Hobbit but elaborated on in the appendices.

    And of course the studio wants more money, but if I'm not mistaken, Jackson and his team were the ones who came up with the idea as they were working on it.

    Also, if you've done research, you'd know that the LOTR was originally supposed to be 2 movies instead of 3 and Jackson had to fight for those as well. I'm sure they're not going to add "filler" just to make another movie...
  • blueandgold

    Posts: 396

    Jul 31, 2012 8:23 AM GMT
    Elusium saidThis bodes very, very well for movie take on The Stand.


    Surely you've seen the disappointing TV movie? It had Molly ringwald!
  • bad_wolf

    Posts: 1002

    Jul 31, 2012 8:29 AM GMT
    There's barely enough material for one film.

    They're already planning to split Mockingjay in to two films. This shit is getting ridiculous.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2012 8:46 AM GMT
    S34n05 said
    Cuchullain saidOn the plus side, I guess this means the studio like what they're seeing so far.


    Not really. He just shot enough film for 3 movies, so all they see is $$$.


    +1

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2012 8:50 AM GMT
    Can't wait!