The Hobbit

[ChrisMC]

Well, I think that this is not just the Hobbit story now, but alot of it is being culled with what can be gleaned from the Appendices. Yeah, The Hobbit is a simpler story than LOTR, and really could be 2 movies of a reasonable length. BUT I'm a Tolkien geek and can't wait to see what comes of this.

[Bryancd]

Well, I think that this is not just the Hobbit story now, but alot of it is being culled with what can be gleaned from the Appendices. Yeah, The Hobbit is a simpler story than LOTR, and really could be 2 movies of a reasonable length. BUT I'm a Tolkien geek and can't wait to see what comes of this.

And I wouldn't want anyone else even touching this material then the current team. Selling a Middle Earth film based on the more obscure sourrse material or all brand new material is a different "sell" then doing an extended story using the Hobbit as it's core. And when ytou havesuch a massive production together, you are likely better served doing as much as you can at the time. This makes perfect financial and narrative sense.

[Rico]

Here's the simple thing that seems weird to me.  Each LOTR book  in the trilogy is a lot bigger than "The Hobbit" and those were each one film.  So, now they are taking a short book and making it into three films?  Yes, they are obviously adding a lot but is it really still going to be "The Hobbit" in the end?  Maybe they should have just called it "Middle Earth."

[Bryancd]

Here's the simple thing that seems weird to me.  Each LOTR book  in the trilogy is a lot bigger than "The Hobbit" and those were each one film.  So, now they are taking a short book and making it into three films?  Yes, they are obviously adding a lot but is it really still going to be "The Hobbit" in the end?  Maybe they should have just called it "Middle Earth."

They are using the Appendicies, as Chris mentioned. Also, keep in mind they had no idea how popular those films were going to be when they were mkaing them. So they made three more traditional legnth films which were so well received they went back and added all the additional footage to make extended versions and even did a theatrical release of those. That's almost unprecedented. So know they know they have the audience to support this production. Reading PJ's announcement it's pretty clear that after shooting they feel they have sufficient Hobbit specific as well as additional story content to either due a smaller theatrical release of two films or put it all in now and extended it over 3 films. It seems pretty clear.

[Ktrek]

Three plus hour movies are in no way "traditional". The average film is 90 to 120 minutes in length. What seems obvious to me is that Jackson does not always make good decisions. The first 45 minutes of King Kong has to be some of the most boring footage ever shot and I fear we may have a good deal of that in this series now.

Kevin

[Bryancd]

And yet they took 3 films with a total running time of 560min and stretched that out to a whopping 683min for the Extended Editions, that almost 4 hours per film, and they were amazing. If given the option of having an extended version of this film released initially in theaters or waiting a few years, I would prefer to see it in it's entirety now. I don't find the comparison to King Kong very telling, I don't think you can draw that conclusion simply based on the fact the PJ has never mad a single misstep, IMO, with the Tolkien material. I'm not a fan of his other films, per se.

[Jobydrone]

I actually am a fan of pretty much everything he has done.  I absolutely loved the Frighteners back in the day, if you haven't seen that you definitely should seek it out, one of Michael J Fox's last great performances before he got sick and really a cute fun move.  Now that I think of that movie, I bet my kids would love it, especially my youngest who is strangely enough a HUGE Ghostbusters fan.  I thought King Kong was great fun, and didn't find any of it boring at all.  Heavenly Creatures is a wonderful story...and there's even some good qualities in the highly controversial Lovely Bones, even though the story itself is extremely disturbing.  I've watched the theatrical versions of the LOTR movies twice each, and each of the Extended versions twice with commentary and without.  That's alot of hours in Middle Earth.  I have no qualms about three movies, the only problem is no pause button for bathroom breaks!

[Meds]

JOby your avatar looks very familiar ;)

[Jobydrone]

ack oops

[KingIsaacLinksr]

JOby your avatar looks very familiar ;)

I was beginning to wonder if Meds had replicated himself to double his post numbers...

[Meds]

Tim, how could you say such a thing lol.

[KingIsaacLinksr]

Tim, how could you say such a thing lol.

:D, nah, if I suspect anyone, its Rico. So shifty he is. ;)

[Jobydrone]

Well great minds think alike and all.  I knew there was a reason I liked that picture :)

[Meds]

;)

Back on topic.

I have every faith that of Jackson thinks this is a three tier film then it is for a reason.

[Ktrek]

I'm sure that I will enjoy the films, but I would have preferred only two. And I'm not naive enough to think this isn't about money but I'll see them anyway.

Kevin