Peter Jackson must be stopped

[Sibboleth]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/jul/30/peter-jackson-hobbit-three-films

...

...

...

My poor, poor, poor childhood. What did it do to deserve this repeated mugging?

[asexual trans victimologist]

How can there conceivably be enough material in even The Hobbit plus all relevant portions of The History of Middle-Earth with Roverandom or something thrown in for good measure for a trilogy?

[Senator Napoleon]

What's the big deal here? All the great trilogies have three parts.

[Assistant to the Regional Manager Cathcon]

What's the big deal here? All the great trilogies have three parts.

Hobbit wasn't a trilogy. It was one book. And of course all great trilogies have three parts. That's the definition.

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

I'm beginning to feel a little bit excited about how awful this is going to be.

[Lіef]

Meh, the Lord of the Rings trilogy is about as close to an epic masterpiece as you can get. Gonna give him the benefit of the doubt on this.

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

I'm beginning to feel a little bit excited about how awful this is going to be.

Just wait until you see it in 48 fps!

[realisticidealist]

How can there conceivably be enough material in even The Hobbit plus all relevant portions of The History of Middle-Earth with Roverandom or something thrown in for good measure for a trilogy?

Jackson also has access to Tolkein's original notes which I understand are very extensive. He's bringing in a lot of side material.

[asexual trans victimologist]

I wasn't aware there were notes that Christopher hadn't already published in History.

[afleitch]

At this rate we'll never get another series of Sherlock

[bore]

At this rate we'll never get another series of Sherlock

I wouldn't have thought so, because they've already finished the filming, so Freeman should be free for a new series regardless of whether there are two or three films.

[The Mikado]

Apparently the new stuff in the movies is Gandalf's campaign against the Necromancer, which was only an excuse to have the all-powerful wizard ditch Bilbo etc. in the book so they could be put in real danger.  Basically they're going to expand Gandalf's lengthy monologue in Fellowship of the Ring into actual action.

[Redalgo]

I have to agree with Lief on this. For better or worse, I trust Jackson not to ruin The Hobbit for me. xD

[Sibboleth]

How can there conceivably be enough material in even The Hobbit plus all relevant portions of The History of Middle-Earth with Roverandom or something thrown in for good measure for a trilogy?

There isn't even material for two films, let alone three. A three part TV adaptation... possibly. But that's quite different. It's just not that sort of book, and what's so utterly alarming is that... urgh.

[Sibboleth]

Meh, the Lord of the Rings trilogy is about as close to an epic masterpiece as you can get. Gonna give him the benefit of the doubt on this.

Even if that is so, the Hobbit is a children's book, not an epic anything. This is not actually a bad thing either, of course, but means that in order to be adapted successfully it requires a different approach.

[Sibboleth]

I wasn't aware there were notes that Christopher hadn't already published in History.

I suppose what it might mean is that Jackson has been plundering Unfinished Tales.

[opebo]

...the Hobbit is a children's book, not an epic anything. This is not actually a bad thing either, of course, but means that in order to be adapted successfully it requires a different approach.

I couldn't agree more.  It would have been better to make the LOR trilogy into something more like 4-6 films (though obviously that would be awkward in various ways as well) than to blow up the charming The Hobbit this way.

[King]

Hollywood has assumed the world's attention spans have completely died.   Epics like Lawrence of Arabia would have been cut as a trilogy today and even the original LOTR would probably have been 6 movies in the 2010s.

[Vasall des Midas]

How can there conceivably be enough material in even The Hobbit plus all relevant portions of The History of Middle-Earth  for a trilogy?

You'd need one (normal length movies) to do it justice, not that I assume Jackson could achieve that if he tried, just as LOTR would have needed to be twice the length it actually was (and all the invented crap cut out - and that's more than half of Jackson's second part).

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

The Silmarillion could potentially be excellent as a many-part TV thing, but that'll never happen in such a way as to do it justice.

I wasn't aware there were notes that Christopher hadn't already published in History.

I suppose what it might mean is that Jackson has been plundering Unfinished Tales.

I did like that part of that book, but it doesn't have anything at all in common with The Hobbit.

[asexual trans victimologist]

I wasn't aware there were notes that Christopher hadn't already published in History.

I suppose what it might mean is that Jackson has been plundering Unfinished Tales.

See, that's good in that I like a lot of what's in Unfinished Tales a whole lot--I think some of it ranks in the best of Tolkien--but bad in that very little of it has anything to do with The Hobbit.

[True Federalist]

What I hope is going on is that the Necromancer backstory will be largely pared away from the first two films and used to make a separate third film.

[Leftbehind]

Hollywood has assumed the world's attention spans have completely died.   Epics like Lawrence of Arabia would have been cut as a trilogy today and even the original LOTR would probably have been 6 movies in the 2010s.

If we have to wait yet another year for a third part simply because they'd rather two-hour films than three, I'll be furious.

[True Federalist]

Hollywood has assumed the world's attention spans have completely died.   Epics like Lawrence of Arabia would have been cut as a trilogy today and even the original LOTR would probably have been 6 movies in the 2010s.

If we have to wait yet another year for a third part simply because they'd rather two-hour films than three, I'll be furious.

Why get paid twice when you can get paid thrice?

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I could see 2 movies, but not 3.