Hobbit Trilogy now confirmed.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
~Theoden~
"They will break upon this fortress like water on rock. Saruman’s hoards will pillage and burn, we’ve seen it before. Crops can be resown. Homes rebuilt."
UserOnline
Users Online: 115 Guests
Messages
Login to view your messagesRegister
Would you like to become a site member? You can register or login here.
21 Comments
What?? I like how he’s putting a bunch of stuff in from the Hobbit and stuff, but he made The Lord Of The Rings into 3. Making the Hobbit into 3 seems like giving LOTR the short end of the stick. :/
I think this is a bit ridiculous to be honest. If it takes three movies to do three books (The Lord of the Rings) why is it taking three movies to make one movie (The Hobbit)? Going by this logic they should have made nine movies for LotR.
*book
I meant three movies to do one book.
My thinking exactly, star. Now I’m worried about what stuff they are going to have to put in that isn’t cannon in order to make 3 movies’ worth.
You are too quick to go on the attack !! I can think of a lot of scenes from the LOTR appendices that I’d like to see on the big screen; for example; Gandalf finding Thrain, The White Council, the expulsion of the Necromancer from Dol Guldur, etc.
Yes, LOTR was three books made into three films but I also seem to recall that a lot of LOTR had to be dropped in order to make only three movies. Examples; Aragorn had to simply hand swords to the Hobbits, as they never encountered Bomabdil and never entered the Old Forest and were never captured by Old Man Wilow of the Barrow-wight, Saruman’s death was changed as we never saw the Scouring of the Shire. Another film or two could have easily been added to that trilogy.
I have the same feeling about this three-film focus on one (relatively short) book giving the LotR trilogy short shrift. But! at the time when PJ did the trilogy, he didn’t have as much influence and as many resources as he does now. I’m guessing that, if he had, he would have loved to do more than three films to cover the LotR book trilogy.
“The Hobbit” is a great book but it is not bug enough for 3 movies. As we say here in Dixie, Mr Jackson is “trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill”.
“The Hobbit” is a great book but it is not big enough for 3 movies. As we say here in Dixie, Mr Jackson is “trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill”.
It’s a real shame they didn’t make The Lord of the Rings movies longer… there were so many things they cut. I also think that three movies for one book is too much… Let’s hope PJ adds some things from the appendices.
I agree with adrienne1510; I think two movies would be enough, but hey, either way, it’s gonna be awesome. 😀
I 100% agree with PotbellyHairyfoot. And I mean, give ole PJ a break! He did such an AWESOME job on the LOTR trilogy that I think he has garnered enough respect to make 3 movies if he wants to.
Ten movies on “The Hobbit” still wouldn’t be enough for me.
What I want to know is, is this something they plannned all along and are springing on us as a surprise, or is it a last minute sort of thing?
I’m excited for it. My only complaint about the new movies so far is Tauriel.
I’m nervous about the Tauriel angle as well and the possibility of a romance with Kili. Otherwise, I look forward to seeing The Hobbit fleshed out with material from the appendices and geeking out for the next three years or so.
…A romance with Kili? Man, I need to catch up on things…XD
and what are they going to call the third movie? the first is “an unexpected journey” next “there and back again” then what?
The studio has registered several domain names suggesting that the third hobbit film could be called:
•The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
•The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies
But nothing is set in stone yet.
Well it’s pretty common sense that once a third movie is announced the second one’s title will be changed – and shifted – thus ‘There and Back Again’ applies to the third film.
I’m guessing we might have:
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
The Hobbit: There and Back Again
ach, you’re so right llandir – that would be a much more sensible title change. I’m not fond of long film titles, myself. I think I’d prefer the spare, minimalist suggestion someone has made of having them thus:
The HobbIt
The HobbIIt
The HobbIIIt
🙂
I agree Linwe, that those title suggestions are a good choice! 😀