So it's now The Hobbit Trilogy....

Post » Tue Jul 31, 2012 1:18 am

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1690766/hobbit-trilogy-announced.jhtml

What do you think? I think this is a bad idea. There is not enough content. It seems to me they are just stretching it out to make more money. Instead of doing it in 4 years its going to be a year ordeal, assuming it takes 2 years to make each movie.
User avatar
Suzy Santana
 
Posts: 3572
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 12:02 am

Post » Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:41 am

It wasn't a bad book IMO. I don't see how they couldn't expand on it.
I wonder if the retail disc version will ship 48 fps as well.
User avatar
Helen Quill
 
Posts: 3334
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:12 pm

Post » Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:27 pm

I personally love The Hobbit, It is my favorite Tolkien novel. I don't see how they can stretch this out so much.
User avatar
Tanya
 
Posts: 3358
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 6:01 am

Post » Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:32 pm

I love the original Lord of the Rings movies, and have no doubt that Peter Jackson will do a fantastic job with this trilogy as well. It was already going to be a two part film, and this third addition is going to be based on the appendices from the books, so I see reason why they wouldn't be able to extend it to a third movie.
User avatar
Julie Ann
 
Posts: 3383
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:17 am

Post » Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:23 pm

There's only one reason I don't like it:

Because I'll have to wait a year or longer for each part.
User avatar
Hope Greenhaw
 
Posts: 3368
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:44 pm

Post » Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:44 pm

I've never seen a book compressed into a single 2-hour movie, so... this makes sense, actually. Let the story be told in full, why not? It's not like this chance will ever come again.
User avatar
Cheryl Rice
 
Posts: 3412
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 7:44 am

Post » Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:43 am

I love the original Lord of the Rings movies, and have no doubt that Peter Jackson will do a fantastic job with this trilogy as well. It was already going to be a two part film, and this third addition is going to be based on the appendices from the books, so I see reason why they wouldn't be able to extend it to a third movie.

Of course they can but should they?
The Hobbit is a fairly straightforward story. Much of the background stuff won't add to the narrative and the main story will lose drive if padded too much.
User avatar
Anna Beattie
 
Posts: 3512
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:59 am

Post » Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:16 pm

So excited, There adding alot of stuff that was only mentioned in the books, like the war of dwarves and goblins, the fall of the necromancer, ragrast the brown!!!
User avatar
Sami Blackburn
 
Posts: 3306
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 7:56 am

Post » Tue Jul 31, 2012 5:05 am

The Hobbit would make a good two-part film, since that would give them just enough room to include all of the book's story without cutting a bunch of stuff out, but a trilogy is really stretching it.

This sounds like a decision that was made by a bunch of detached executives who want to milk the franchise for all its worth, not someone who just wants to make a good movie.
User avatar
Natalie J Webster
 
Posts: 3488
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:35 pm

Post » Mon Jul 30, 2012 8:14 pm

Not enough content? What book is ever translated word for word into a movie? Remember how much was cut from The Fellowship of the Ring? There is plenty to The Hobbit, so I wasn't surprised by the two movie approach and I'm not much more surprised by this. I just know waiting for all the movies is going to svck.
User avatar
Siidney
 
Posts: 3378
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 11:54 pm


Return to Othor Games