Like my comic and I’ll toss some lembas bread your way.
The chucklehead in the first panel has appeared before, though at the time, I didn’t image that the situation would become even more dire. There’s been some talk since ComicCon that Peter Jackson had some additional content filmed for the two “Hobbit” movies, though it was initially indicated that it would likely be used as extra material for a Blu-Ray release. Now, it’s starting to look like steps are being taken towards turning “The Hobbit” into a trilogy.
I was against splitting the book up initially (or splitting it up and adding material from other sources, however you want to describe it) so I’m obviously against splitting it up further. As I’ve mentioned before, I believe that books such as the final “Harry Potter” installment suffered from unnecessary division. It just reeks of a cash grab, so I’m a bit disappointed that Jackson seems to be on board. I like his version of Middle Earth, but I don’t think that you need three entire flicks to tell the story of “The Hobbit”.
Google Led You Here: “hulk watch” Presumably, such a watch would require an elastic band.
Kind of turns you off of wanting to watch even one hobbit in the theatres. I might be spiteful and just wait for it to come out on netflix lol.
Sorry, meant to say: I agree. Unless he’s planning to add extensive material from the Silmarillion, there’s no need to break up the story into 2 movies, let alone 3.
But they are showing more of the events that Gandalf and the others were involved in that wasnt even mentioned in the hobbit books? I say bring them on!
Funny how so many people get miffed at the very idea that movie makers make movies to make money… As if movies were public service announcements, produced at a loss to inform the public. For all the cheer leading for capitalism these days, there sure seems to be a lot of people who like the concept but don’t like to actually see it action.
There’s no harm in making money from a film, clearly. But I’m miffed about the decision to cut the project up further because it seems as though the financial goals are being met at the expense of the artistic ones.
Man all of you are completely ignorant about what The Hobbit films mean.
PJ has given clues about what we can get…
Dwarves from Erebor and the Battle of Dol Guldur.
The Hobbit is just the title of the Bilbo adventure, but around it and after it there are more stories about middle earth and the War of the Ring where the LOTR is just the conclusion.
Is it confusing? yes, but if you get more information about The Hobbit and the events happening in that moment you can find out everything is connected to LOTR.
The Dragon Smaug, the Balrog in Moria and the Necromancer (Sauron? in that moment) would be a real nightmare to middle earth….
All the 3 films wont be about The Hobbit.
Possible the first and second would be presented like LOTR (Frodo/Sam and the rest of the fellowship) showing the Bilbo and dwarves adventure and the White Council and the events involving the Necromancer.
The 3rd film could be focused in the attack to Dol Guldur for Celeborn and Galadriel and the meeting with Thranduil. Also we could see a little bit about the Kingdom of Agmar and the raises of the Wish King and how Sauron finally get Mordor from Dol Guldur and to start the final of the War of the Ring with LOTR. Also we could see battle scenes with Khamul one of the Nazgul that was sent back to Dol Guldur for Sauron to keep this area. Sala Baker is the actor who will make Khamur in The Hobbit.
This is not a 3 films of The Hobbit, it is a 3 films about The War of the Ring.
It isn’t clear what events will be featured in each film, but if they’re going to broaden the scope as extensively as you suggest, then “The Hobbit” isn’t the best title for the trilogy.
LoTR was 3 movies, so what?
Each one is a superb full-length movie.
If the Hobbit is likewise superb, then it’s fine with me that we get another movie out of it.
LoTR was three superb movies based on three superb books. This appears to be three movies based on one superb, much shorter book, as well as some supplementary material of varying quality.
Maybe.
But many of us were wrong when we thought no LoTR movies could ever do justice to the books.
So (until I see proof otherwise) I’ll give Peter Jackson the benefit of the doubt this time around.
Yeah, let’s face it folks, it’s a cash-grab.
LOTR was 1500 pages, so it warranted 3 films.
The Hobbit is 300 pages, so even if you pad it out, it still won’t come out to 3 (good) films. Even 2 was already stretching it quite a bit.
I think the pacing is going to suffer quite a lot. And Peter Jackson’s bum must be awfully sore from having the studio’s hand tucked in there, since he’s sock-puppeting so hard for them on this decision. =[