The Hobbit

This is ridiculous. LOTR was a 1,500-page book, so it was understandable to make it into three movies (and they still left stuff out).

The Hobbit is barely 300 pages. I foresee a lot of masturbatory CGI action sequences, a la King Kong fighting the T-Rex for a half-hour.

 

Jackson can't get out of his own way.

 

Haha! I love that song. Nice pull.

 

The guy made three LOTR movies and couldn't find time for Tom Bombadil.

 

This. Right on.

 

I don't give a shit. Bring on three movies. I'll watch them all. I am looking forward to this.

 

Surely you Jest.

 

George Lucas thinks Peter Jackson is going back to the well a bit too much with a three-part Hobbit. I guess you could kind of do it if you include EVERYTHING from the book, since it does kind of have acts. However, it's not a good sign that the Wikipedia description for the plot is about five paragraphs long. To me, The Hobbit is the anti-LotR, so it makes no sense to make a three-part saga. The Hobbit is a breezy and fun fantasy read.

 

The real question is, how much of this was a creative decision by director Peter Jackson, who is in dire need of an editor who will tell him 'no,' and how much of this was a money-driven decision by producer Peter Jackson, who realized he might be have enough footage to squeeze out a sixth ATM from the cash cow that is JRR Tolkien? Eh, I guess we all know the answer.

 

I'm fine with it in the sense that we'll get a ton of material to watch but I wonder how they're going to really do this in an effective way without completely killing off what made the Hobbit a fun read in the first place.

I could see if he was releasing the Hobbit first and THEN releasing LOTR as he could use the third film to bridge the two but this seems a bit excessive. Still, I'll be there with bells on.

 

What are the chances he keeps each film to 130 minutes or less?

 

0%
The total running time of these movies will probably be a combined 10 1/2 hours.