Lord of the Rings Director Peter Jackson has revealed that his next work, a film adaptation of The Hobbit, will span three films. The adaptation had previously been pencilled in as two flicks. Jackson took to Facebook to announce the extension, arguing that editing of the first film has yielded the insight that: “We were …
Re: of course it has to be three films.
or perhaps they said..."peter baby.. three films... means three different chances at more oscars"
There, a load of extra stuff to make Hollywood more money, and back again!
You beat me to it. I was about to comment "Nearly There, There, and Back Again".
There is a fourth one -- Are We Nearly There Yet?
As someone who read all the Tolkien books repeatedly as a young teenager I have just one thing to say - Fuck Off Peter Jackson!
Not a big surprise
He's realised he needs the extra 2/3 hours to fit in enough false endings :(
Radagast's bunny-pulled sled (no, I'm not joking) should be burned, the ashes ground into a fine powder, and the whole lot chucked over Rauros.
Peter Jackson generally got the LotR visuals right, but he sure knows how to mess up a story for no good reason.
Re: Spoiler alert
Oh, I hope you're not kidding about a bunny-pulled sled. Next you'll be telling me he cast Billy Connolly as the Lake Master!
Re: Spoiler alert
Gilbert Godfrey as Gandalf
Adam Sandler as Bilbo Baggins
Jesse Ventura as Thorin Oakenshield
Arnold Schwarzenegger as Dain of the Iron Hills
Carl Weathers as Elrond
Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid, King of the Wood Elves
Fran Drescher as the voice of Smaug!
It's not the Dwarves.....
.....it's the Mithril. That's stuff's seriously expensive.
I hear that they'll be saving money by shooting all the scenes set in the Desolation of Smaug on location in Slough.
Re: It's not the Dwarves.....
".....it's the Mithril. That's stuff's seriously expensive."
They need to head over to Azeroth. Loads of Mithril nodes to mine.
The Hobbit would have made a nice 3 hour film (King Kong was overstretched at 3 hours 7 minutes), with a beginning, middle and (proper) end - like the book... that he wanted to film... Splitter!
DISCLAIMER: I actually bought the Extended King Kong DVD because it contained 13 more minutes of glorious dino action which I felt should have been in the cinema version (but they could easily have edited out about 30 minutes from the boat scenes and maybe shortened the tyrannosaurus fight).
Bernard Matthews R.I.P
Is it only me that thinks these have "TURKEYS" written all over them?
Mines is the one with squashed tomato in the pocket.
Correction to my inital post "it's the dog's bloody name!"
@ AC : 08:17 - No, I don't believe any word is a 'bad' word. Words become bad based on the context in which they are used...
@ Mr Lion - I'm not sure what you are attempting to say here. I didn't mention anything about colour. Please elaborate.
Ballad of Bilbo Baggins
Three films gives plenty of space for some musical elements. Leonard Nimoy I'm sure can be persueded.
Re: Ballad of Bilbo Baggins
Don't let's forget that it could also feature Shatner shouting shitty shanties about Shagrat shyly shagging shifty sheep.
I'll give him the benifit of the doubt
I enjoyed LOTR trilogy, and thought the extended versions were even better. So lets hope he turns the Kids book of the series into a spectacular trilogy. However if after paying for three films to watch one story I find any part of it un-necesary, un-cinematic or just dull then Mr Jackson will never get any of my money ever again. Ever.
It'd be quicker to read the book than watch the films
I know that happens with films based on short stories, but when it happens with a novel things are getting silly.
Then again I'd get most of the travelling over with in 5 minutes with an Indiana Jones style red line on a map then spend most of the budget on CGI for the 2 pages with the dragon, which was the only bit of the book I liked.
The original two films were always going to be drawing material from outside the book.
Now, whether there's three films worth of material out there? Who knows.
I'll watch but only if...
they get someone else to do the music. maybe Hans Zimmer. I'll buy the blu-ray version of LOTR when I can watch it without the music.
Re: I'll watch but only if...
but the music was the good bit. The films bored me, but I own the soundtrack albums.
Re: I'll watch but only if...
As someone who read all the Tolkien books repeatedly as a young teenager I have this to say: this is very nice news. The book Hobbit alone is poorly connected to LOTR, which made Tolkien to create a lot of additional characters and story outlines later, part of which seem to be within Jackson's reach now (part still not, I assume). The book Hobbit is also confusingly different in tone and scope than LOTR.
For me, only major worry is that since Tolkien's complementing stories are often brief and anecdotal, the screenwriters need to flesh them out a lot. All of Jackson's detours with LOTR material were not totally successful.
All in all, Jackson has the right opinion to take all the available material and create a double trilogy that makes sense in its entirety and feels whole. If he and his team earn more money while doing this, I allow that pleasure to him gladly.
Fingers crossed for him doing The Last Ringbearer afterwards
Although its a ridiculous long shot due to legal complications.
Re: Fingers crossed for him doing The Last Ringbearer afterwards
I rather think he'll be doing Farmer Giles of Ham next, provided he doesn't get involved in that twelve-film visualization of "A Comet in Moominland".
It's Star Wars all over - instead of "The Hobbit", we're going to get "Lord of the Rings - Episode 1 (The Hobbit)", so "Fellowship of the Ring" becomes "Episode 4", just like the original SW.
I mean, it worked out so
lucratively well for George Lucas, didn't it?
He has a long uphill road to travel to make this good
Every previous Hobbit movie had that gawd-awful singing in it, trying to keep faithful to the book. Don't get me wrong -- I love all the books, but 'The Hobbit' was pure kiddie lit, while the 2nd and 3rd volume of the LOTR were serious fiction.
Tolkien's genius took a long time to evolve, but it turned into a masterpiece. Watching/reading 'The Hobbit' after those is like looking at the stick figures Van Gogh drew and stuck on whatever passed his mum's refrigerator.
[ducking from the inevitable hailstorm of fanboy abuse]
Best viewed second-hand
It's a series I would have liked to see in the cinema, but after the way SZC treated Southampton's Hobbit Pub, I'll wait until I can get it on second-hand DVDs, and not contribute to SZC's profits!
A trilogy of movies for one book?
Actually that sounds about right if you're going to do the book justice. I've always figured that one good novel was about three movies worth of material. That, I think, is why Hollywood can't seem to adapt a book into a movie without ripping it to shreds. Just look at what they did to John Carter (to name a recent offense).
Hope it flops
I really hope it flops so they have to cut it into only 2 movies.
Not the Battle of Dol Guldur! Why that consumed (riffleriffleriffle)...half of one sentence in the book!
It's the Scouring of the Shire all over again!
I give up
An Unexpected Journey was the one film I was really looking forward to this year, and I was willing to live with having to wait 'til next year for the second half, but if it's going to take THREE consecutive years to get the whole story out, then just let me know when I can watch the whole thing from start to finish.
There's nothing inherently wrong with making a miniseries adaptation of a book... just make it an honest miniseries and release the whole thing as one season.
It's kind of silly, isn't it?
The Hobbit was, if I'm not mistaken, a shorter book than each of the three LotR books. How can it be that one fairly short book needs the same number of movies to tell the story as three longer books? Now I realize film adaptations typically cut out quite a bit of the source material but maybe there's a good reason for that. I have my doubts that there's really enough content in The Hobbit to make three interesting movies.
Loved the LOTR trilogy but can't imagine Bilbo having enough material for 3 movies.
I fear it will be completely padded out in a let's make lots of money scheme.