The Hobbit

Sports Journalists Forum – Media, Newsroom & Reporting Talk

Help Support Sports Journalists Forum:

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

Maybe Tom Bombadil will make a cameo!
 
I feel like this is Peter Jackson's way of doing an extended edition of The Hobbit to a theatrical release, instead of having it contained to just special-edition DVDs.

I'm excited for the movies but I'm also in the boat of thinking three movies for a 300-page book is a bit much.
 
Two movies are excessive. Three movies are almost an attempt to punish Tolkien fans.
 
http://www.grantland.com/blog/hollywood-prospectus/post/_/id/58017/the-new-trailer-for-the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-features-less-singing-more-fighting-and-roughly-the-same-amount-of-martin-freeman

Doesn't merit three flicks. Two was pushing. Three will **** away most goodwill, both from hardcore fans and from the viewing public.

What are they gonna do, embellish it to unrecognizability? Does Jackson want to put the Simarrillion on screen?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top