Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Lord of the Rings Movies Entertainment

Peter Jackson Announces Third Hobbit Movie 303

Posted by samzenpus
from the gollum-approved dept.
eldavojohn writes "Unless his Facebook account has been hacked, Peter Jackson has announced a third movie for The Hobbit series: 'So, without further ado and on behalf of New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Wingnut Films, and the entire cast and crew of The Hobbit films, I'd like to announce that two films will become three.' Other sites are confirming this while Variety notes that filming has been wrapped on the first two so doing a third film will require a restart to all of that effort including re-negotiations with rights holders and acting schedules. **potential spoiler alert** From Peter Jackson's announcement: 'We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance.' How much of Middle Earth would you like to see on film?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Peter Jackson Announces Third Hobbit Movie

Comments Filter:
  • by Frosty Piss (770223) * on Monday July 30, 2012 @05:44PM (#40822659)

    This is pretty much going the same direction as Star Wars⦠Eventually we will see the âoeSuper Duper Directorâ(TM)s Cut Boxed Set With Special Commentary And New CGI Effects!â

    • Re:Here we go! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by alvinrod (889928) on Monday July 30, 2012 @05:57PM (#40822817)
      That's just standard studio bullshit to capitalize as much as possible on the franchise. You're going to see that with any property.

      I'd be much more worried if Peter Jackson goes batshit insane and gives us an uninspired story with shallow and boring characters. Then it would be going in the same direction as Star Wars.

      Honestly there's a whole lot of the Tolkien universe left to go and I honestly don't mind them making movies out of it; however, I do wish that they wouldn't drag the Hobbit out so much, especially when there're stories such as the Silmarillion that would be incredibly amazing to see done.
      • Re:Here we go! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Pepebuho (167300) on Monday July 30, 2012 @06:22PM (#40823069) Homepage

        I want to see the Silmarillion but in Series format (like Game of Thrones or similar). It is long enough for at lest 4 or 5 seasons of 8-10 episodes each. I would really look forward to watch that!

        • by Evtim (1022085)

          Yep! I was thinking the same.

          Make it a cult movie, give different seasons to different directors. Don't be afraid to go to 16+ or even 18+ rating. Some ideas:

          Season 1 - the creation of Arda. Spielberg. 14+
          Season ?? - the story of Turin. Man, that's one of the most desperate fates in fiction. Fincher. 18+
          Season ?? - get the female audience on board with the most beautiful love story of Middle Earth - Beren and Lutien. Minghella. 14+ (could be 16+)
          Season ?? - Feanor, the curse of the Silmarils. Jackson. 16+

      • Re:Here we go! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by hierophanta (1345511) on Monday July 30, 2012 @06:23PM (#40823079)
        come on, the Silmarillion is hardly a story. its much more like an appendix or as wikipedia puts it a legendarium. you couldnt make that a coherent movie any more than you could make the entire bible a single movie. Maybe they could do it like the Animatrix, which would be FREAKING SWEET!

        i'm not sure i agree that there is that much more of the Tolkien universe to get through. in that, there is depth, but we are about out of breadth.
        • Re:Here we go! (Score:4, Interesting)

          The Silmarillion was designed by Tolkien to mimic the Bible, as a collection of prose, verse, homilies, letters, etc.

          However, as a jumping off point for a whack of mini-series/TV series/made-for-streaming/etc. it's great material -- after all, it's what JRR used to build up his universe on which to build LoTR (I believe the Hobbit was already done by that point).

        • Re:Here we go! (Score:4, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 30, 2012 @08:48PM (#40824355)

          come on, the Silmarillion is hardly a story. its much more like an appendix or as wikipedia puts it a legendarium. you couldnt make that a coherent movie any more than you could make the entire bible a single movie.

          What are you talking about? Have you ever read it?

          The rise of the races and the fall of the trees; the stories of Finwe, Feanor, etc; Beren and Luthie; Gondolin; Numenor; the wars of the first and second ages; and so on...

          The Silmarillion is probably my favorite book of them all simply because of the epic scale of the stories that it tells, and it's the only one I've reread multiple times. The first time through it a lot of people get turned off by the very beginning, but honestly you can't stop there.

          It transitions into very conventional storytelling pretty quickly and has a LOT to tell. I think it got much better the second time through because I wasn't having so much trouble keeping the names straight, and everything was much clearer.

          It would make for some seriously epic movies imo. There's war, betrayal, and even romance on a MUCH larger scale than either the Hobbit or LotR.

      • Re:Here we go! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by roc97007 (608802) on Monday July 30, 2012 @06:26PM (#40823105) Journal

        Honestly there's a whole lot of the Tolkien universe left to go and I honestly don't mind them making movies out of it; however, I do wish that they wouldn't drag the Hobbit out so much, especially when there're stories such as the Silmarillion that would be incredibly amazing to see done.

        Agreed, there's a lot of the Tolkien universe than most people know about. But I don't think the idea is to drag the novel The Hobbit out to three movies. I've read elsewhere that the intent is to dip into the LOTR appendices and cover the larger history leading up to Fellowship of the Ring. The Hobbit was a child's story told from Bilbo's point of view. I think Jackson has something larger in mind. Tolkien reportedly had something larger in mind, and had started to re-write the story partially contained in The Hobbit, but never finished it.

        Unfortunately Jackson doesn't have rights to the Quest of Erebor -- that's owned by Tolkien's son Christopher, and he appears to be completely opposed to any film based on his father's work. So all they have is the rights that Tolkien sold when he was alive -- The Hobbit and LOTR. Fortunately, a lot of the earlier story is contained in the part at the end of LOTR that almost nobody read.

        I think the main difference between this and Star Wars is that Jackson is not pulling the story out of his ass. At least, not all of it.

        As to The Silmarillion.... I'm sorry, it put me to sleep. And I'm saying this from the standpoint of having read every word of LOTR several times, including the appendices. From a storytelling standpoint, it was more interesting to have a story set in the last days of that age, where heroic and villainous acts are overshadowed by the monstrous acts of an earlier time, and characters struggle amid the tired ruins of a world that contained characters so much larger than they.

    • by Lumpy (12016) on Monday July 30, 2012 @06:05PM (#40822915) Homepage

      Will we get a version where Frodo shoots first?

    • This is pretty much going the same direction as Star Wars

      Yeah! Except, no, it's not, is it? This is a pre-release change to production, not a money-grubbing revisionist scourging of a sci-fi classic.

      • by Hal_Porter (817932) on Monday July 30, 2012 @10:32PM (#40824857)

        Hey that gives me an idea.

        You could turn the Scouring of the Shire into an action movie. Nicolas Cage could play Frodo, Amber Heard could play his love interest.

    • by gmuslera (3436)
      At least you know in which direction all should be coming from. The LOTR trilogy (ok, won't be called episodes 4, 5 and 6), the original hobbit tale (that they plan to put as a trilogy) and, well, movies all around in the general Silmarillion direction that would be the hobbit prequels, with not a lot of characters reuse so probably will go to the animation road (i.e. like in Animatrix, but extended). No iterative extensions, no reboots, but in some years could come a new version based on the same books
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      As long as the style doesn't change they can go on making as many movies as they want.

      The problem with 99% of sequels/prequels is that they screw around with the original style and end up making a completely different type of movie than the original. That only works works if the original movie sucked.

    • This is pretty much going the same direction as Star Wars⦠Eventually we will see the âoeSuper Duper Directorâ(TM)s Cut Boxed Set With Special Commentary And New CGI Effects!â

      You mean the version where Bilbo stabs first?

  • by PeanutButterBreath (1224570) on Monday July 30, 2012 @05:47PM (#40822691)

    . . .for the 9 feature-length part film adaptation of the epic tale of Peter Jackson's Tolkien film projects.

  • Money grab (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jjcushen (1637385) on Monday July 30, 2012 @05:47PM (#40822697)

    I was wary about stretching it into 2 movies. Its not that long of a book, not much actually happens. 3 movies is just a money grab by the studio.

    • If you take in some of the material found in the Appendices of LotR and the Book of Lost Tales, you probably have enough for three movies.

    • Re:Money grab (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Znork (31774) on Monday July 30, 2012 @05:58PM (#40822829)

      Yep, this is starting to reek of yes-men and greed, not necessarily a good foundation for great movies. Jackson has performed well this far so I'm hoping, but this is where I start tuning down my expectations.

    • Re:Money grab (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ninjagin (631183) on Monday July 30, 2012 @06:02PM (#40822873)
      Agreed. Two would have been enough. Tolkein wrote it as a standalone story in one volume. It doesn't need anything else. I think PJ is starting to like the smell of his own flatus so much that he doesn't want to stop eating beans, so to speak.
      • I would say that if Peter Jackson had exhibited a history of trying to wring cash out of a franchise with new, but inferior material and unnecessary revisions (*cough*Lucas*cough*), and to my knowledge, that hasn't happened, has it?

      • by chispito (1870390)
        One 2-3 hour film would have been enough. It's a children's book, it's not an epic.
    • by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Monday July 30, 2012 @06:04PM (#40822895)

      I was wary about stretching it into 2 movies. Its not that long of a book, not much actually happens. 3 movies is just a money grab by the studio.

      I wasn't worried about that until I heard the titles for the three movies:

      1. The Hobbit
      2. The Hobbit Reloaded
      3. The Hobbit Revolutions
    • Re:Money grab (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TopSpin (753) on Monday July 30, 2012 @06:13PM (#40822995) Journal

      I understood the rational behind two movies; the Hobbit is pretty condensed and there is no lack of fans that will appreciate the depths explored with sufficient screen time. Three movies seems excessive but Peter did right by LOTR so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

      It could be good if the net result is three reasonably sized movies instead of a pair of 235 minute blood clotting epics. We humans are really not meant to stare at screens that long.

    • Re:Money grab (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Dave Cole (9740) on Monday July 30, 2012 @07:22PM (#40823757) Homepage

      I disagree. I read The Hobbit about 30 years ago and remembered it as a small book that did not take long to read.

      Recently I picked the book up to read it again before the movie and was surprised at how much actually happens in the book. I have no problem believing that there are three movies worth of material in the book.

    • Re:Money grab (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Charliemopps (1157495) on Monday July 30, 2012 @08:59PM (#40824423)
      Any book that doesn't involve a Bearenstine bear is hard to contain in a 2hr movie. The fact that we're so used to directors making shrunken heads out of some of the best literary works and think that's acceptable is a sad thing. The Hobbit has 19 chapters, and I could easily see a movie taking an average of 30min each getting through them in detail. So that's 10hrs of material, easily.

      If anything, the Lord of the Rings movies cut HUGE gaping swaths out of that story. Remember Tom Bombadil? He was one of the most identifiable characters in those books and was replaced in the movie with about a 20second sequence where strider just hands the hobbits a bunch of magic swords. It's a sad thing. Would people have tolerated it being broken up into 10 or more movies? No... but it's success is what's allowing Jackson to expand on the Hobbit. Which is a good thing, because, in my not so humble opinion, The Hobbit is one of the best printed works in human history. I'm glad they are doing this. The only thing that would make me more happy would be a big budget "Band of Brothers" style series. If we're lucky, maybe that's what they'll do with the Silmarillion.
      • Re:Money grab (Score:5, Insightful)

        by nabsltd (1313397) on Monday July 30, 2012 @10:43PM (#40824899)

        If anything, the Lord of the Rings movies cut HUGE gaping swaths out of that story. Remember Tom Bombadil?

        Tom Bombadil never made much sense in the book and would have been a huge plot hole to movie audiences.

        Much like how Dobby had to die before the final battle in the final Harry Potter book, Tom Bombadil needed to be gone in such a way that he couldn't help (and the "not wanting to" from the book doesn't really hold up). This way, we avoid having a being of essentially limitless power alive and doing nothing while our much less powerful heroes struggle with their quest. The easiest way to do this in the LotR movies was to just not introduce him in the first place.

        • Re:Money grab (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Areyoukiddingme (1289470) on Tuesday July 31, 2012 @01:16AM (#40825581)

          Obviously you're right that it would have been a plot hole for the movie audience, since you demonstrated exactly how Bombadil would have been understood by that audience.

          Those of us who would have liked to see Bombadil have a different understanding of him. He's there for a three reasons.

          One, and I think most importantly, he's there as a semi-disposable character to bail the hobbits out when they get into trouble. This is their rite of passage. The world is a dangerous place, the hobbits are fleeing from danger into danger, and they need help, and in the absence of Gandalf, Bombadil is the first helper after they've left the Shire. He's foreshadowing Aragorn's help, and later the Nine Walkers. Your complaint is that he's overpowered to do that job, and that may be, but that's not all he's good for, and I don't think he's quite the disturbing McGuffin you think he is. More on that later.

          Second, he's there for a sense of age and history. If you've read the Silmarillion, you have that sense of history, but most people haven't and don't. Bombadil is the first of several things sprinkled through LoTR to give that sense, and he's the only one still present in the world. He's there to give a sense that even though the elves are ancient compared to men, there is something in the world yet more ancient. He's there to lend a glimpse of eternity, to hint that this too shall pass.

          Third, he's there for a sense of the alien, the different. He's there to provide the perspective that, while the conflict over the Ring feels epic to everyone involved, there are those who are not involved, who are so different that they don't even understand the fuss. The discussion about Bombadil at the council especially made it clear that, while Bombadil is humanoid, he is in no way human. The Council worries out loud that if given custody of the Ring, he'd lose it through sheer carelessness.

          This is where your concerns about the plot hole are a little out of place. Bombadil is alien in the same way that Caradras is alien, and can be considered the benevolent foil to the malevolence of Caradras. He and Caradras both possess tremendous power, but it is a non-mobile elemental sort of power, enormous in terms of sheer strength (Gandalf doesn't even consider challenging Caradras when it resists the Fellowship), but indifferent to the Ring itself, and it is a power that does not move around in the world or participate in it. Each helps or hinders the progress of the Ring when the Ring comes near for reasons of their own that are more about their fundamental natures than anything to do with the Ring.

          This is also one of the additional points about the movie that irritate the crap out of aficionados. Not only did Peter Jackson think that movie audiences couldn't understand Bombadil (apparently correctly), he also decided they couldn't understand Caradras, so he introduced the lame sequence where the trouble in the mountains was brought on by Saruman. The cure is worse than the disease. Not only did Saruman not know for sure what the Fellowship was up to, he was vague about where they were and what their numbers were. That's how the whole mistaken identity bit with Pippin and Merry happens.

          More to the point, Saruman isn't powerful enough to cause that sort of trouble for a party escorted by Gandalf. In the books, Gandalf and Saruman always carefully step around each other once Saruman fails to convert Gandalf to his cause, and Gandalf isn't involved in either Saruman's downfall or his death. Following directly on from that point, Saruman simply isn't that powerful period. Everything about the Tolkien mythos is about the the decline and fall of basically everything. Everything is downhill, and Saruman (and indeed, Gandalf), are both very much at the low end of that long decline. Bombadil and Caradras are both ancient and therefore at the high end of the power curve. Gandalf and Saruman are both much younger, therefore much less powerful.

          So the loss of Bombadil is, I think, directly related to the loss of Caradras, and both losses are unfortunate for many reasons.

  • by gameboyhippo (827141) on Monday July 30, 2012 @05:48PM (#40822703) Journal

    Each one of the first three films should have been a trilogy if a book shorter than any of the three Lord of the Rings novels gets three films.

    • by Shadow99_1 (86250)

      Um... maybe it's just me... but my copy of the hobbit is just shy of 600 pages... my copies of the different lotr books are about 350 each... how exactly does that make Hobbit 'shorter'...?

      • I recalled the hobbit being far shorter than any of the volumes of lotr.....but it has been forever since I saw all of them from the same set. I have that gaudy gold hobbit and red leather lotr now (and I have no idea where either of them are now that I think about it).

        I went back and found a set of them that I remember seeing a while after initially reading them (I can't find one of the ones I read)

        http://www.amazon.com/Lords-Rings-Hobbit-Box-Voumes/dp/B004QVP338/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_7

        Look at the pic that s
      • Because my old Ballantine Books paper back version is 287 pages...

  • by Anachragnome (1008495) on Monday July 30, 2012 @05:49PM (#40822729)

    Based on previous works, "Lord of the Rings" in particular, I'd say "as much as you can give us!". And by that I mean that they could cut The Hobbit into 10 pieces and I'd still be thrilled. Even with 3 movies, "Lord of the Rings" was missing too much.

    • by mmcxii (1707574) on Monday July 30, 2012 @06:36PM (#40823233)
      Agreed. There were great parts of the LotRs that were left out. It didn't really bother until I realized how far off the path Jackson went with the ents. Cutting something out for time and pacing is one thing but to add something that didn't exist for comic relief? Come on now. LotRs could have been 4-5 films without any of Jackson's added crap.
    • by gl4ss (559668)

      judging from his past works 2/3rds of the movies will be grand music and panning shots while cutting out smaug and adding a scene to the end where bilbo goes to shire to rescue townsfolk from pirates.

      friggin 3 movies? what's that, 9 hours and 2 years to release?

  • by Danzigism (881294) on Monday July 30, 2012 @05:51PM (#40822745)
    that they were even going to span it across 2 movies until now. Jesus christ! I'll watch them all though and cry all the way to the bank. I'm sure it'll be worth it though. Besides that funky FPS that looks like it's an old BBC theatrical performance.
  • a bit silly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Trepidity (597) <delirium-slashdo ... g ['kis' in gap]> on Monday July 30, 2012 @05:51PM (#40822749)

    I like The Hobbit, but it's not an epic like The Lord of the Rings is. It's not supposed to be an epic. It's a self-contained, medium-sized story, with a fairly classic narrative arc. It makes no sense to tell the story in installments. The first 1/3 of the Hobbit isn't a film! There is one fairly straightforward journey, a climax, a denouement. The book is circa 300 pages, not circa 1000 like LoTR is.

    • Re:a bit silly (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Coryoth (254751) on Monday July 30, 2012 @06:02PM (#40822871) Homepage Journal

      I like The Hobbit, but it's not an epic like The Lord of the Rings is. It's not supposed to be an epic. It's a self-contained, medium-sized story, with a fairly classic narrative arc. It makes no sense to tell the story in installments. The first 1/3 of the Hobbit isn't a film! There is one fairly straightforward journey, a climax, a denouement. The book is circa 300 pages, not circa 1000 like LoTR is.

      I think the key is that they are going outside the pages of the Hobbit to get a third film. Which is not to say they're going outside Tolkien's writings, it's just that they're mining the appendices of The Lord of the Rings and the last chapter of the Silmarillion on the War of the Rings which covers Sauron's early rise as the Necromancer of Dol Guldur and the battles fought by Gandlaf, Saruman, Elrond and Galadriel against him at that time. This is very tangentially touched upon in the Hobbit -- but it is a narrow story told from Bilbo's point of view -- but there's plenty of story there if they wish to fill it in as a separate part that helps fill the gap between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.

      • by Trepidity (597)

        Good point; that could be interesting. Tolkien has this whole world with backstories, but really only LoTR succeeds in being a compelling narrative that fully uses that world. The Hobbit as written is more of an early story that vaguely hints at a larger world, more in that sense like a lot of other fantasy novels (which typically have less of a deeply fleshed out cosmology than Tolkien's world). There is definitely enough material to produce something of a prequel to LoTR, which The Silmarillion and the Lo

      • If Peter Jackson wanted to challenge himself he could of attempted to create a movie that would appeal to both children and adults as the original story did.

        Instead it's multiple episodes, 40 frames per second, etc etc.....

      • by Darinbob (1142669)

        They're going outside of The Hobbit in order to get even 2 films! Some images and hints released so far are clearly stuff from Lord of the Rings appendices and not a part of The Hobbit. Dol Guldur is barely hinted at in the book in just a couple of lines I think. Given the shortness of the book in terms of actual time that passes, the council to deal with Dol Guldur would have taken place after Bilbo was safely back home, the most Gandalf could have done in the short time he was away from the party would

        • Re:a bit silly (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Coryoth (254751) on Monday July 30, 2012 @06:56PM (#40823455) Homepage Journal

          Dol Guldur is barely hinted at in the book in just a couple of lines I think. Given the shortness of the book in terms of actual time that passes, the council to deal with Dol Guldur would have taken place after Bilbo was safely back home, the most Gandalf could have done in the short time he was away from the party would be to investigate the necromancer and discover who he might be.

          Yes, but if you were to expand the point of view of the Hobbit a little bit, and include a little more material such as Gandalf going to Dol Guldur etc. then you leave yourself well setup for a third film with Bilbo at home and the council waging war on the necromancer. Of course that's not to say that's what they've done, but for now I'm willing to give them the benfit of the doubt and wait and see what they've actually done. As it stands The Hobbit is a very narrow story that leads into LoTR but doesn't really sit well with it; by having a LoTR prequel that expands upon the Hobbit with further material from the Appendices of LoTR I could imagine a much better lead in to the LoTR trilogy being made. Let's hope that's what they're aiming for.

    • by ninjagin (631183)
      Agree 100%. Most of the background in the book was there simply to let the reader know that there was a background -- to put the story in a larger context that you didn't need to know everything about.
    • It makes no sense to tell the story in installments.

      It makes business sense. Just like rebooting Spiderman was all about the business - in Spiderman's case the studio had to (re)make the movie if they wanted to keep the options on two more spiderman movies, else it would have reverted back to the studio that made the avengers. A similar thing is almost certainly going on here - the studio has the options to make at least three movies out of the hobbit, so that's what they are going to do.

    • by osu-neko (2604)

      ... The book is circa 300 pages, not circa 1000 like LoTR is.

      A 300 page novel requires substantial cutting to fit into a movie. A short story makes a good two hour movie. Most novels can't fit in under 10 hours of screen time without leaving out large parts...

    • Money money money.

      I certainly don't want to wait three years to see the whole movie. With Peter Jackson's LOTR I could understand it, it was three distinct books.

      Now we have Peter Jackson's The Hobbit... with how many DVD/BluRay releases to follow?

      He is desperately trying to give George Lucas a good name

  • by CheeseTroll (696413) on Monday July 30, 2012 @05:51PM (#40822751)

    Just wait 'till he gets his hands on the Silmarillion. It would open the door to a decade+ soap opera television for geeks!

  • Based on Jackson's previous work in which all the good parts of the books removed and replaced by senseless battle, I'm guessing the first movie will be the battle with the goblins and wargs, the second movie will be the battle with the dragon, and the third movie will be the battle of five armies.

    The only positive I can see is that since the Hobbit was intended as a children's book it doesn't have the intellectual depth and character definition of the trilogy, so I hopefully won't be as upset about all
  • ...three is absurd. There's a reason why the Tolkien family HATES Hollywood, and this is an embodiment of those reasons. Peter Jackson is rapidly becoming the next George Lucas. Put down the ultra insane frame-rates and concentrate on not butchering the books in the name of moneys.
  • by Anubis IV (1279820) on Monday July 30, 2012 @06:10PM (#40822953)

    Just The Silmarillion [wikipedia.org]. Is that really too much to ask?

    In an unrelated note, if anyone has a mop, I accidentally dripped sarcasm all over the floor and need to clean it up.

  • by readin (838620) on Monday July 30, 2012 @06:17PM (#40823031)
    The Hobbit was written as a children's book - a pleasant read and not too scary, with plenty of humor especially at the beginning. Jackson seemed to have a really difficult time with the lighthearted parts of LOTR. The reunion with Frodo at Rivendell is cringe-inducing. I wish they had asked someone else to do this - perhaps whoever directed the first Harry Potter movie. Jackson did a great job with bringing Middle-Earth to life in sets and costumes, but that hurdle has largely been crossed. The Hobbit needs someone who can take the sets and costumes and tell a story.
    • by Brian_Ellenberger (308720) on Monday July 30, 2012 @07:51PM (#40823959)

      Jackson did a great job with bringing Middle-Earth to life in sets and costumes, but that hurdle has largely been crossed. The Hobbit needs someone who can take the sets and costumes and tell a story.

      Peter Jackson managed to take the LOTR trilogy and make it a critical and popular success, winning both box office awards AND the OSCAR for BEST PICTURE. Let me repeat that--he took a trilogy of orcs, elves, dwarves, and hobbits and managed to win an academy award for best picture. That isn't just great film making--that is a freaking miracle

  • He should turn it into 9 movies and make three times the amount of money.

  • Should I skip seeing the three movies, and wait for the condensed fan-edit of the three movies after the BluRays have been released?
    Seeing how strong the community of fan-editors already is, and what good edits it produces, I think that we can count on there being someone out there who will cut them down into one movie that is telling the tale from Bilbo's perspective, as in the book.
    There have already been numerous edits of the Star Wars movies, Superman, Dune, etc. and some have been really good.

    I am also

  • ....but can't come up with 35 - 45 minutes to do a decent version of the scouring of the Shire. Grumble.

    Hoping against hope the bulk of the additions don't involve a previously-unknown love interest for Thorin.

  • Upon hearing of the third movie Bessie the script milking cow fainted.
  • by gman003 (1693318) on Monday July 30, 2012 @10:48PM (#40824929)

    At this point, it's pretty obvious that they aren't sticking to things that were in the books. They're making up new material, new stories. It was a stretch to make The Hobbit into two movies (they were already going to add at least half a movie of new material, probably closer to a full movie). But three? They're making shit up. Totally new material.

    Tolkien would probably be happy about that. I'd ask him myself, but... you know...

    Tolkien was a student of myths and legends, and of languages. He was obsessed with the interplay between languages and stories, and held a theory that the original primary purpose of language was to tell stories and legends. He thought any language without legends was a dead language. He didn't invent Elvish to help tell the LotR stories - he invented the Lord of the Rings to complete his languages. It was a bit of a linguistic experiment to him, actually.

    Tolkien believed in the old way of stories, of men telling tales around a campfire, like the poets and bards of old. He tried to replicate that in his classroom (reading Beowulf et al. in the original languages). And possibly the most important difference between modern stories and ancient tales is that, in the old way, you can change it. You can change words, change stories, add verses, remove characters. You aren't supposed to do that with modern stories. Even in the fanfic culture, you generally don't take the original story and throw in a new subplot, new people, new places.

    Tolkien would be happy to know that his story has become legend in that aspect, that his story lives not just as words on paper, but as a living, changing story.

    Doesn't mean I myself agree with this - I'm "cautiously reserving judgement until the actual work is shown", neither immediately loving it nor already hating it. But I think Tolkien would be happy.

Real Users hate Real Programmers.

Working...