Will The Hobbit Be A Trilogy?

Will The Hobbit Be A Trilogy? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie News

Message

Empire Admin -> Will The Hobbit Be A Trilogy? (19/8/2009 7:52:29 AM)
Post your comments on this article

crazymoviesdude -> (19/8/2009 7:52:29 AM)
If they dish it out there is no doubt that I, and all other tolkien nuts will see it, but at the moment, I'd rather like just the 2 Hobbit films. Though if the 3rd film were the Silmarillion (which it won't be), then I'd be very excited.

Hoylus -> Greedy little hobbitses... (19/8/2009 7:53:25 AM)
Think they might be pushing it for three movies...

haffy73 -> (19/8/2009 8:34:29 AM)
They could do a really really long ending to the film and drag it out in a third movie after all they managed half a movie of endings in ROTK....

xarkaltos -> Nooooo! (19/8/2009 9:17:22 AM)
I can think of nothing I'd less like to watch than The Silmarillion, if the Lord of the Rings was once thought of as unfilmable, then The Silmarillion has the mantle. Dull and drawn out, hard as hell to fathom. And three films for The Hobbit? Much as I love the book, please don't.....

The_Hat -> Why not four? Ten? One hundred and eleventy? (19/8/2009 9:48:40 AM)
The Hobbit's great, but I think two films is pushing it, let alone three. If the article is true, it's sad - LOTR always seemed like a labour of love for Mr. Jackson, whereas these projects seem to be more and more in control of the money men, and all they do is hide in their mountains seeking riches, caring nothing for the wishes of others.

losthighway -> NO to 3D!!! (19/8/2009 9:52:14 AM)
What is this fascination with all things 3D at the minute!? It's f**k all use to those who get sick attempting to watch through such filters, costs extra for the glasses... and before you say it, the supposed 2D versions which are meant to be released at the same time as an alternative have all disappeared from my local screens - hence why I never saw Ice Age 3 at the cinema! As for it being used in The Hobbit - I really hope not! Plus, spreading this over three films would really wer the story too thin. Over two films is more than enough!

CORLEONE -> RE: NO to 3D!!! (19/8/2009 9:54:06 AM)
Milking the cow by the sounds of it. Udderly ridiculous.

Iroh414 -> Three's a crowd. (19/8/2009 10:01:16 AM)
Considering that these films will undoubtedly push the 3hour mark each, I cant really think of how they could engineer another whole 3 hours of captivating filler material before the climactic finale. A 9hour tale doesn't make much sense surely? There make be a shedload of content to the book but I, like most Tolkien nuts out there would much rather see just 2 films.... 2 glorious, concise and riveting films - not 3 slow and needlessly messy ones.

grucl -> RE: Three's a crowd. (19/8/2009 10:07:44 AM)
Turning a 1000+ pages book into 3 films = FTW!!! Turning a 400 page book into 3 films = WTF???

Nicky C -> I don't reckon it will, ... (19/8/2009 10:41:34 AM)
but they could always do a separate movie with motion capture 3D. That would be cool.

stewart4 -> (19/8/2009 11:44:25 AM)
I don't want The Hobbit whether it's 1,2 or 3 films to be in 3D. Let's have The Hobbit as the last epic films to not be in 3D. Plus, it will be in keeping with Rings.

MaxRenn -> Here's the place where we're going to!!! (19/8/2009 1:05:28 PM)
They could cut huge chunks out of all LOTR films by cutting out the scenes of major characters stopping outside of where ever it is they were going, to announce where it is they are, even though they knew they were going there in the first place. Bloody anoying!!!

dob69 -> cant be done (19/8/2009 1:38:58 PM)
no way can they squeeze 3 movies out of that tiny book

kinobick -> NO TO 3D!!!!!!!! (19/8/2009 1:40:12 PM)
I saw coraline and bolt in 3D and it really ruined them for me. You lose so much detail and I found the slight colour shift off putting. Its strange that more and more people are striving to get crisp, bright, perfect images at home on their plasma TV's and the film inudstry is backing a dated, annoying gimmick that had it's time ten years ago. It's all about piracy, it's not the future. Their just too far invested now to admit it.

bleugh07 -> RE: NO TO 3D!!!!!!!! (19/8/2009 2:25:27 PM)
i think i'd wait until we've all seen avatar to judge so soon

bleugh07 -> RE: Three's a crowd. (19/8/2009 2:29:11 PM)
but, if only you'd been listening, you'd realise that films 2 and three are set between rings and hobbit. it does seem a bit like cynical money-grabbing, though. they're milking it as much as spiderman now. i think that jackson should be concentrating on halo before somenone decides to give it to michael bay

Web Head -> Mmmmmmm (19/8/2009 3:56:45 PM)
Ok 3 films is probably pushing it without deliving into Tolkien's other works, which are really intense, heavy duty, heavy reading epics and not very movie script friendly. The idea of bringing in the Necromancer is pretty cool to beef it up to two movies but theres no way of squeezing 3 good movies out of this. And 3D? no way! its a gimmick that should stick to theme parks!

kinobick -> RE: RE: NO TO 3D!!!!!!!! (19/8/2009 5:31:55 PM)
I appreciate your comment but i'm quite skeptical when it comes to Avatar. If the film itself is as good as it is being hyped about then fine but I won't be going just for the 3D. A year down the line when you are watching it at home it still has to come up with the goods.

kinobick -> RE: RE: NO TO 3D!!!!!!!! (19/8/2009 5:33:06 PM)
I appreciate your comment but i'm quite skeptical when it comes to Avatar. If the film itself is as good as it is being hyped about then fine but I won't be going just for the 3D. A year down the line when you are watching it at home it still has to come up with the goods.

DeadCell79 -> Happily Never After (19/8/2009 7:27:03 PM)
well first of all forget that 3d shite!!!i dont want it.. but if PJ & DT is able to bring the hobbit in 3 movies and make it as thrilling as LOTR, then im all for it.. but i wonder how they could spin 3 movies out of that book. other then really making sertain parts that was in the book miles longer and more deeper in the movie by adding parts that wasnt in the book its self. they did it with RINGS so surly they will do it with the hobbit. im also asuming they add parts from the appendices in all what ever jackson goes with i trust him either way after LOTR. 2 or 3 movies. all aprt from the 3D stuff ofcourse lol

steveg66 -> (19/8/2009 7:34:15 PM)
2 films is the limit on this one even if they did include Gandalfs unwritten detour. The Silmarillion as a trilogy? That would be a definite prospect.

DeadCell79 -> Happily Never After (19/8/2009 7:40:01 PM)
well first of all forget that 3d shite!!!i dont want it.. but if PJ & DT is able to bring the hobbit in 3 movies and make it as thrilling as LOTR, then im all for it.. but i wonder how they could spin 3 movies out of that book. other then really making sertain parts that was in the book miles longer and more deeper in the movie by adding parts that wasnt in the book its self. they did it with RINGS so surly they will do it with the hobbit. im also asuming they add parts from the appendices in all what ever jackson goes with i trust him either way after LOTR. 2 or 3 movies. all aprt from the 3D stuff ofcourse lol

DeadCell79 -> Happily Never After (19/8/2009 7:40:11 PM)
well first of all forget that 3d shite!!!i dont want it.. but if PJ & DT is able to bring the hobbit in 3 movies and make it as thrilling as LOTR, then im all for it.. but i wonder how they could spin 3 movies out of that book. other then really making sertain parts that was in the book miles longer and more deeper in the movie by adding parts that wasnt in the book its self. they did it with RINGS so surly they will do it with the hobbit. im also asuming they add parts from the appendices in all what ever jackson goes with i trust him either way after LOTR. 2 or 3 movies. all aprt from the 3D stuff ofcourse lol

danbo1138 -> Do this (19/8/2009 7:52:39 PM)
Del toro does a 4/5 hour Hobbit film split into two parts with no devation from the book.PJ give us 4/6 Hour film split of The Sillmarilion/unfinished tales history of Middle earth?The whole Morgoth saga ending with Sauron's accent to power and undoing?

bigdave3000 -> tom bombadil (19/8/2009 10:10:46 PM)
the third film should be set after the hobbits leave the shire and before they reach bree and it should recount their time spent with tom bombadil-bombadillo.

bbbbeeeennnn -> "Trusted source" unnamed as usual (20/8/2009 4:37:50 AM)
Give me a fucking break. I hate how any cock with a blog can make up any bullshit story and double his website's traffic just by saying the news is from a trusted or unnamed sorce.

IncrediballisticDude -> SILMARILLION (20/8/2009 11:01:23 AM)
First, I think the rumour is dead false. And to film the Silmarillion, you're looking at a book which covers events ten times the scope of Lord of the Rings in just about every chapter. You'd need to do more films than James Bond to cover the Silmarillion... Create the world. Create middle earth. fight morgoth. make the people of middle earth. fight morgoth. elves fight morgoth. they lose. gods fight morgoth. they win. meanwhile, it's been at least 2,000 years at war. then, bloody sauron pops up. fight sauron. win. then lose. sauron becomes a big floating eye, tries to get his rings together, another few hundred years, and THEN LOTR starts..... not a happening thing. Keep the hobbit at two films.

Omega Leader -> There is a Link Story between Hobbit and LOTR (20/8/2009 11:33:33 AM)
A third story is possible, but a bit limited on Characters. In the books there is mention of Aragorn (at the request of Gandalf) tracking Gollum from the Misty Mountains to Morder, captureing Gollum and bringing him to the Elves (Legolas' dad [The real reason Legolas visits Elrond, to say Gollum has escaped]). In the Films Gollum knows about Shelob, how if he has never been to Morder (which he has and Frodo knows [how does Frodo know - because Gandalf told him {because Aragorn told him.}]) So a third film is possible, finishing with Gandalf going to Hobbiton to see Bilbo/Frodo about the ring. As for 3D, some are made in both (Dark Knight, G-Force etc) so lets see what happens.

laime ithil -> What about the Tolkien estate? (20/8/2009 1:35:53 PM)
Will Christopher Tolkien let this happen? Generaly he is quite hard to let go the rights to make something shitty with the inheritence from his father (which is to keep the rights and clean the mess in his work and preserve it from being misused) By the way, already a 2 film for the hobbit seems useless, the amount of events in the hobbit is a lot smaller than in LOTR, I don't see where the hell they could make 2 movies about it. In the other hand, make a movie about the time between Bilbo's back again et his Birthday party seems quite odd. Tolkien didn't wrote it, and if there are some events that happens in between they are not as much detailed and explained as the reste because they are less important. Since even in a book these events are considered by Tolkien himself not enough important to allow a chapter, and taking thought about the fact that in the movies they just couldn't put all the details from the book (wich from a scenaristic point of view would be the suicide of a career) Why the hell would they make something out of 80 years where quite nothing happens... A movie about the Istari? That means get back at the end of second age and start to deal with Numenor to explain the situation. A movie about Aragorn would be more easy to do (since his history is quite developped in the appendix of LOTR but Yet, it's dealing with the downfall of Numenor, Sauron, the black years and stuff. But more realisable I think... But please, not 3 film. Just the Hobbit in one film would be great...

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.046875