Peter Jackson must be stopped

[Stranger in a strange land]

I was under the impression that Christopher Tolkein had only given Jackson the rights to The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, but I could be mistaken. Of course, if he was willing to sign over additional rights, there's enough material to make dozens of films, and of course even with just the leftover information in the LOTR appendices, there's probably enough for one. Anyway, I would gladly see three Jackson films set in the LOTRverse.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

He never owned the rights to The Lord of the Rings; Tolkien sold them in the late 1950s (I think it was the late 50s anyway. Around then if not) to solve a tax problem.

[Mr. Morden]

I was under the impression that Christopher Tolkein had only given Jackson the rights to The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, but I could be mistaken.

IIRC, the filmmakers do indeed only have the rights to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings (including its appendices).  So they can't take any material from Silmarillion or anything else.

[minionofmidas]

There is material for several full length movies from the leftout chapters of the main body of LOTR. Some of those might even be doable without explicitly contradicting the original Jackson version.

[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.

Why get paid twice when you can get paid thrice?

Hurrah, me matey.

http://io9.com/5931001/everything-peter-jackson-added-to-the-hobbit-++-with-proof

Excited if true.

[minionofmidas]

Woah, neither the guy who wrote that nor anybody in his target audience has read The Hobbit, has read The Lord of the Rings, or could imagine an IQ even higer than Peter Jackson's gigantic, overpowering, 70.

[Politico]

It does seem like a bit much, if you ask me. I don't particularly like Lord of the Rings, but I do recall enjoying The Hobbit as a kid. I do not remember it being the lengthiest novel.

Oh well. At least he isn't butchering  more classics with crappy remakes like he did with King Kong.

[minionofmidas]

It does seem like a bit much, if you ask me. I don't particularly like Lord of the Rings, but I do recall enjoying The Hobbit as a kid. I do not remember it being the lengthiest novel.

It is not.

But then, movie versions of novels rarely excite people familiar with the book even without stooping to Jacksonite levels.
Just compare Trainspotting the movie to Trainspotting the novel... so glad I knew the movie first.