The Hobbit to be 3 parts

Click here and disable ads!

http://screenrant.com/hobbit-3-movie-trilogy/

I wonder what they will do to add to it, I hope it isn't just stretched battle scenes. I always liked the idea of it showing in detail some of the Gandalf vs. Dol Guldur stuff, but I thought that was the reason for 2 movies. It's been awhile since I read LOTR or the The Hobbit, but I do not really recall Bilbo doing much in between his return from the journey with the dwarves and the party in Fellowship, is there something to show there?

A movie with no female lead? What faggotry!

That's pretty cool. Finally we get an ultimate fantasy rpg adventure movie and it even comes as a trilogy!

So, we're getting the exact same amount of movies as LOTR, but based on a book that is around 1/5 the size of it?

I can see it now - Bilbo's riddle contest with Gollum will take 1 hour and the whole third film will be only the Battle of Five Armies. MAJESTIC!

Well the LotR movies were three hours each, so they can make every Hobbit movie 90 minutes long.

That was just the ultimate drug movie.

No way, it is good old fashioned heroic fantasy with an awesome visual style. I would take it any time over the modern nonsense we're getting nowadays.

Cool, but I'm sure The Hobbit will have better quality. I'm waiting for a high production fantasy movie that is based around questing (and looting) since forever. Legend and Willow were nice in production values, too but lacked the rpg-party spirit.

Krull and there was another similar one (with an Elf and a giant and such) who were like this but they were cheaply made (still enjoyble). D&D 2 wasn't that bad either (compared to the first one surprisingly good).

The Hobbit is cool because it isn'T about saving the world but about getting very rich. The basic promise for every rpg party.

They did a great job with fleshing out the characters in LotR. I think we will see even more of that in The Hobbit. The LotR books were that big becase there was a lot of lore and descriptions of the land, not necessarily much story going on. Still enough to make three overlong movies out of it though.

Krull cheaply made? It was one of the most expensive movies of its time with a budget of over $45–50 million. (Wikipedia)

Sure, it was 1983 (!), but the movie still looks good because of the stylishly designed sets. I dunno, modern computer effects look much cheaper to me.

Going to be crap.There's nothing in the Hobbit novel to show for 6+ hours (assuming each movie is not shorter than 2 hours), which means they'll start adding generic Hollywood fantasy show-downs and exaggerating minor scenes to add to the screen time. I assume the tongue-in-cheek confrontation with the trolls will be turned into a sitcom slapstick comedy scene eventually turning into an epic battle with heroic screams, wild faces, drops of blood, and fanfares in the background. Bleh. I preemptively dislike this movie.

Should have just made one movie, if that.

Waisted amount of money. Maybe it was back in the day very impressive but today (or even in late 80's) I think less / more subtle special effects would have been better for the movie. Excalibur looks way better to me.

If you develop everything and add the events in the background of the novel, there's probably enough content for three two-hours movies. But then, LotR technically had enough content for six 200-minutes movies. I think dividing "The Hobbit" into three movies may dilute the story and weaken its pace. With two movies, dividing the story was simple : the time when the party reached the mountain was a perfect cut. Dividing a fairly straightforward story into three seems much more hazardous.

One of these days I really must read the Hobbit. By the sounds of it it'll take less time than going to the films.

I don't understand. Will this third movie be all events post-novel? I'm still trying to figure out where they'll split it for the first two.

What a fucking joke. I'd be seriously ashamed to be in Jackson's pants, cash flowing in or not.

I read the book several times and liked it way more than LotR but still find it hard to find enough content to fill three movies. Even one action packed movie would be a stretch...

PJ, just make Bad Taste 2. With Dereks what do not run, aliens, chainsaws and flying buildings.

I think there was never a problem to have to less content for a movie from a book. It's usually the other way around.

Hey, they managed to stretch Remains of the Day to three hours (?), from a hundred and twenty page novel.

They can do it . . . but just because they can doesn't mean they should.

I wouldn't say so. There are quite a few action scenes in the book, what with the trolls, the elves, the giant spiders, the goblins, Gollum, Smaug and the final battle. If you add to that the actions of Gandalf and the White Council against the Necromancer, there's clearly too much for a single movie.

6-8 hours is not excessively long to translate a book to film, movies have to cull very heavily to fit a novel story into a single film.