Peter Jackson Makes The Hobbit a Trilogy
- Thread starter Jeremy Wilkinson
- Start date
Recommended Videos
First it was one film, and I thought "Well, it'd have to be heavily abridged even at 2 hours. The Hobbit, though one book, is still very solid reading".
Then they considered doing a two-parter. "That seems much better. Cut out some of the bloat, but keep the important scenes and plots better developed. Two movies at two hours apiece. Filling, but not fatiguing."
Now it's a trilogy?
It's been an awful long time since I read The Hobbit but now I'm concerned.
Three films? Now they may have to include padding.
As brutally long as the theatrical cut of Lord of the Rings was, it was still fairly abridged.
(the Director's Cut is an argument for life-extension)
But the length of the three novels positively dwarfs (pun not intended) The Hobbit.
Then they considered doing a two-parter. "That seems much better. Cut out some of the bloat, but keep the important scenes and plots better developed. Two movies at two hours apiece. Filling, but not fatiguing."
Now it's a trilogy?
It's been an awful long time since I read The Hobbit but now I'm concerned.
Three films? Now they may have to include padding.
As brutally long as the theatrical cut of Lord of the Rings was, it was still fairly abridged.
(the Director's Cut is an argument for life-extension)
But the length of the three novels positively dwarfs (pun not intended) The Hobbit.
Okay, why does it need to be a trilogy? Yes, the Lord of the Rings was one, but that's because there are 3 books! *sigh*
Dang. Three feature-length films to cover The Hobbit? As I recall, it's not nearly as lengthy or complex as the LOTR books. In fact, when I read it, I got the impression that it was like a nicely-packaged standard fantasy tale (though in reality it was the precursor to such fare), a straightforward story that held up well under self-containment. I guess Jackson wishes to connect it thoroughly with his existing trilogy and put Tolkien's extended universe stuff to good use... :\
The problem I have with this is that everything Peter Jackson added into LOTR... sucked. All the content from page to screen was awesome, but anything else lacked. For example; putting Liv Tyler's horrible over-acting into the part where Elrond and Gandalf cause the river to rise up and wash away the Nazgul ruined that entire scene. It was just awful when it should have been awesome.
Now with The Hobbit, he has enough material to make one excellent movie. If he add material to pad it out to three movies, we'll get one incredible movie mixed in with two utter crap movies, for the price of three movies. Not to mention that throwing in a bunch of stuff will probably make the narative a complete mess.
It's such a complete and shameless money grab that I think i'll boycott it on principle alone.
Now with The Hobbit, he has enough material to make one excellent movie. If he add material to pad it out to three movies, we'll get one incredible movie mixed in with two utter crap movies, for the price of three movies. Not to mention that throwing in a bunch of stuff will probably make the narative a complete mess.
It's such a complete and shameless money grab that I think i'll boycott it on principle alone.