Peter Jackson Makes The Hobbit a Trilogy

[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.

 

[Mr_Spanky]

I must admit im a bit sceptical about whether theres really enough stuff in The Hobbit to make three decent films out of. In the end it all comes down to the final cut though. Im damn sure that three good films COULD be made out of story - whether they'll deliver or not only time will tell.

 

[johnnnny guitar]

You just do what ever you want Peter you've earnt my trust especially with anything to do with the Lord of the Rings series

 

[Fasckira]

Well, On one hand I liked that they cut out Tom Bombadil, he annoyed me like anything, and had no real purpose in the plot

I wouldn't say hes completely pointless, I always saw him as representing an easy exit to tempt Frodo but also highlight why he had to carry on. There was the element of "You could just stay here, hide away from it all and try forget about the outside world but that'd be pretty selfish.".

I agree that it still doesn't make him important enough to get screen time in a film that already features a wide range of actors. Just dont think hes entirely pointless in the book itself.

 

[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.

I don't think that one of the most loved and successful directors working today, who delivered the best book to film adaptation in years, captured Tolkien on screen like no other and is revered almost universally really needs to worry that you do not approve of him delivering more of what the fans want.

He cares even less about you. Just be sure to give him your money and he'll sing your tune sure enough. Thus, your heroic defense falls solidly on deaf ears, friend.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

This is a terrible idea.

The Hobbit has two distinct narrative arcs. Shire to Mirkwood entry, then Mirkwood to Lonely Mountain. it's the distinction of Bilbo being carried by the dwarves, and then Bilbo carrying the dwarves. No ring, ring. Incompitant, compitant.

How the fuck do you get 3 movies? Are they going to have an entire movie about the necromancer, a character mentioned literally ONCE as a throw away to explain why the GM-PC (Gandalf) wasn't there to carry the adventurers?

 

[DTWolfwood]

excellent i'll never have to read the book

them book learnin' be for the devil! XD

 

[Fleischer]

There goes my plan of trying to watch The Hobbit and LotR series in a single day. Looks like I will have to adapt my plans to a full weekend of movie watching!

 

[Soxafloppin]

I don't think this is a bad thing, unless the first two films have dull endings...

 

[The.Bard]

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.

I think you're confused. You say "Peter" when you really mean "George". XD

PETER (when he looked like a Hobbit):


GEORGE:



I think Peter's take on LotR was - for its time - brilliant. I'll admit I have trouble watching Return of the King without ranting to all within hearing about a few things I don't like, but this man has earned the benefit of the doubt.

If he says Hobbit in 3, then by golly, I will support him until he proves me wrong.