Out Of My Vulcan Mind wrote:
Mike Fleming of Deadline Hollywood writing on the possibility of an expansion to a trilogy.
Wow, really? I've never read any Tolkien, just seen the Peter Jackson Movies and the Animated movies, but, I know many were concerned about The Hobbit being even a two parter, is there enough for a Trilogy? Is there enough unwritten stuff going on that can be added into the movies to justify a Trilogy without it feeling really padded or agravating the Book fans?
It's the shortest book, so I was initially skeptic. On the other hand, it's also the least padded book. It has many different scenes, while the Lord of the Rings has many more pages of description that isn't going to translate onto the screen.
I go back and forth on a bridge movie. I like the Hobbit being told as the Hobbit. At least the extra movie is indeed extra, rather than dragging out the others (although they have some of Gandalf's scenes, which is fine). While there are fans of the original who would be annoyed by an entirely new story, it's also undeniable that these scenes are made by fans for fans. They have to have the story right and can't just film it haphazzardly as they see something they like. That makes me think we're a little too late for it.