For Lord of the Rings/Hobbit Fans, shocking news. They are turning The Hobbit into a trilogy! Un-fracking believable. I don't care how good it is, that's BS.
Wired.com article
Wired.com article
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The Hobbit 2012,2013,2014
- Thread starter Huntn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I will end up going to see all three, and I like the idea of a longer + more true to the book story. But I don't like the idea of 3 cinema tickets and a long wait in-between.
Just like the final HP film, they want but really don't need the extra cash.
Just like the final HP film, they want but really don't need the extra cash.
Word has it that they had to use background info not included in the book to create enough content for 3 movies. For fans who have read the book think about this, where will they split the story? I feel very confident this story could have been told in 2 movies.
The following might be considered spoiler material. Proceed with caution.
1. Up to where Bilbo finds the ring.
2. Beorn's Farm and Spiders
3. Wood Elves and the Dragon.
I have to say that I agree with you. Completely. Whatever about The Lord of the Rings - which was a massive tome, with an epic and exceptionally detailed world depicted in the books - which, as such, merited a movie adaptation which took the form of a trilogy, I cannot for the life of me see what is in The Hobbit (an utterly charming book) to fill two long movies, let alone three.
I'm guessing they don't have it all filmed, but they should just do it all and then release it on a Green Day Uno/Dos/Tre schedule (September/November/January).
Every two months (or a movie maybe three max) is more than enough to have people to see it - those that rush right away and those that slack and wait for the theaters to be less crowded or whatever.
Every two months (or a movie maybe three max) is more than enough to have people to see it - those that rush right away and those that slack and wait for the theaters to be less crowded or whatever.
Seriously? Why would they do that?! I understand two movies. Yes, two movies for the book is ok, but three????
Trying to milk the cow for all its worth....
Trying to milk the cow for all its worth....
Should Sir Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh have dipped into the trove of Hobbit lore that was contained in The Silmarillion then I can see more than just a three episode Hobbit The Sillmarillion was compiled by Christopher Tolkien from the mountain of annotated pre history of the fables.
When the movies are released, then it will be up to each whether to see them or not.
KGB
When the movies are released, then it will be up to each whether to see them or not.
KGB
Should Sir Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh have dipped into the trove of Hobbit lore that was contained in The Silmarillion then I can see more than just a three episode Hobbit The Sillmarillion was compiled by Christopher Tolkien from the mountain of annotated pre history of the fables.
When the movies are released, then it will be up to each whether to see them or not.
KGB
You are saying it could be possible that the story does not start with an "unexpected party?" Or maybe it starts there and then flashes all over the place.
Last edited:
It's fine as long as the total release schedule doesn't exceed 18 months. Any attempts to make it longer will bring out the Balrog in me.
Just wait til they realise that they can make even more money if they split it into 4
Seriously though, If they squeezed LOTR into 3, I'm sure 2 is more than enough for The Hobbit. There's only so far you can split up a single story before you break the flow of it. I'm sure I'll watch all 3, but it is a little ridiculous.
Seriously though, If they squeezed LOTR into 3, I'm sure 2 is more than enough for The Hobbit. There's only so far you can split up a single story before you break the flow of it. I'm sure I'll watch all 3, but it is a little ridiculous.
Should have seen this coming. It's a trend they started with the last Harry Potter. Milk an adaptation of a popular franchise for all it's worth.
Saw this last night.
The story stops with the birds dropping them off on the mountain top and them looking onto the "loan mountain where the dragon is sleeping"...... The final scene is the dragon opening his eye due to the banging of a nut by a bird at the walls of the dwarf city.
There is actually quite a lot of action in the movie, I was surprised!
The story stops with the birds dropping them off on the mountain top and them looking onto the "loan mountain where the dragon is sleeping"...... The final scene is the dragon opening his eye due to the banging of a nut by a bird at the walls of the dwarf city.
There is actually quite a lot of action in the movie, I was surprised!
Thanks! I'm leaning towards renting it or just buying it. For anyone foggy on the sequence of events, see this SparkNotes link. Keep in mind they have added bunches to the original book story, in many cases based on references made in the story.
I'm gonna see it on theaters just because I want to see how 3D looks in 48FPS, besides not wanting to wait for BR release.
Well to be fair usually things are cut for time in a movie adaptation. In theory stretching it out allows for a more faithful adaptation.
I have not read the hobbit, but I did read "Lord of The Rings" a long time ago, but was pleasantly surprised at how fast the 2 hours and 50 minutes went by. I thought it was paced fairly well, with one or two spots they could of cut 10 minutes or so, but I liked it.
Can't wait to see the rest of the series either way, two or three I am down for it all!
Can't wait to see the rest of the series either way, two or three I am down for it all!