The film (the first of a two-part prequel to The Lord of the Rings film series) is scheduled to hit theaters on Friday, 12/14/12. The first recently-released trailer can be viewed here. -G
Well, I'm outta here. I was ticked off at the thought of two movies, but to make it three.... I'll be watching all three on DVD.
Why? More is better in my opinion. That is a long, detailed book. There is no way to do it in a single movie and with three movies they might actually capture the entire book.
The Hobbit isn't that long, and notenough to warrant three movies. I'll end up seeing all three, but to create a movie as long as TLOTR trilogy for one (shorter than the others) book, it seems ridiculous. That will be my opinion at least until I see the movies
It's actually a pretty simple book. This is a case of Peter Jackson reading his own press clippings and being driven to make more money.
I think he is taking some additional ridings of Tolkien's and using for material. I have full faith that Peter Jackson knows what he is doing until he proves otherwise.
I don't. He lost me when he refused to include the scouring of the shire in the third movie, proving that he didn't understand the work as much as he thought he did.
Not really. The LotR is three books, it makes sense to have three movies. Like any producer/director, Jackson had to make choices about what to show. I just feel that he failed in the tone of the second two, given his pitch perfect Fellowship....
That is a very fair assessment. The Hobbit (310 pages) is very short compared to the Fellowship of the Ring (531 pages), the Two Towers (416 pages) and the return of the King (624) pages. Moreover, the story arc of the Hobbit is not as complex as that of the Lord of the Rings. There are significantly more characters and stories taking place in the LOTR than in the Hobbit. Safer to say on my first impression that Jackson is greedy. There is no reason for this project to be dragged over three films. If the LOTG's were given this treatment, it would be at minimum nine films. That's crazy given that at three films Jackson got the story adapted well from the books. The Return of the King in particular was a great film.
For me the Two Towers is the least successful adaptation. I agree the Fellowship was a great adaptation, but for me Return of the King was the best.
If someone told me that Peter Jackson was doing a 6-8 hour mini-series of The Hobbit for HBO, I would've been pretty excited about it.
Perhaps it's silly and naive, but something tells me that these movies will be failures at the box office, at least compared to the original trilogy. I'm not sure if the same excitement for another Jackson Tolkien adaptation is still as strong as it was a little under a decade ago.
The Hobbit is definitely written in much simpler language. It's more accessible to kids. In fact, my nine-year-old son just finished it on Friday and loved it. That said, this is just something I'm pondering, but is it possible that he was going to have two long movies and was convinced to do three shorter films to make it more plausible for younger viewers to sit through? I haven't really followed this story at all, but is that possible?
My understanding.....and I'm sure someone here will correct me if I'm wrong....is that Jackson has extended the story of The Hobbit by telling the story of what else is happening while Bilbo and the dwarves are headed to the Lonely Mountain. If you remember from the story, there are several occasions when Gandalf leaves the traveling party to tend to other business but this is never explained until the Fellowship when Gandalf tells Frodo about the history of the ring. Now, I have no idea if this will work or not, but I'm curious enough that I'll see it in the theatre instead of waiting for the DVD.
Since I am at work I can only assume that there was a porn spoof of Lord of the Rings. I assume this was covered in that movie.
I always thought there was a natural break in the book to make two movies. I don't know how they will separate into three. Spoilers: I guess? My guess is that the first will end somewhere between the trolls and Misty Mountains. Then the second might end when Beorne saves them from wolves and the third ending the book. It's been years since I've read it so my memory might be fuzzy.
I'm taking a wait and see approach. I loved all three of the LOTR movies, but I had reservations with the Hobbit being two movies, let alone three. Even with adding additional material to expand the story, it may be difficult to keep the Hobbit compeling, especially since it will longer be new and shiny. Still, I will see the movies just to conform there is such a thing as dwarf women!
Yes. Even the trailer makes it look like it's an attempt to make another TLOTR trilogy, when The Hobbit is actually completely different. I fear they are going to take a wonderful little adventure fairytale and turn it into a massive epic with huge CGI battles that are totally unnecessary to the storytelling. Nah, totally disagree. It was an awful and unnecessary section of the plot and would have translated poorly to the big screen. Making a good film was more important than faithfulness to the source material. Close second for best omission from the series after Tom Bombadil.