Jackson’s Hobbit becomes a trilogy

There, a load of extra stuff to make Hollywood more money, and back again!

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

Good

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.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/a75r7u

Just realized...

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?

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).

Gasp!

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!

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.