Still utter bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.
Fellowship of the Ring: 177,227 words.
The Two Towers: 143,436 words.
Return of the King: 134,462 words.
The Hobbit: 95,022 words.
Now this length of material does not quite reflect how Jackson handled the films. The Two Towers as a film (which I am just back from seeing with a live orchestral performance here in Dublin, part of the trilogy sequence that began last year and concludes next year and is pretty awesome) is the most stretched thin of these, in that a brief part of it is consigned to FOTR and a bigger chunk of it is shifted over to ROTK.
But every single individual film in the LOTR trilogy had more material to work with than the Hobbit trilogy as a whole. That's less of a controversial opinion than it is quite literally demonstratable.
And I consider one of the strengths
of the film trilogy was its ability to condense Tolkein's tomes. That really was driven home to me watching the Two Towers today - juggling three strands of story arc, a dozen principal characters and a major theatre of war, it's relentlessly kept moving by the scope and the variety of its action. And as observed, it draws the least amount of text - these strengths are more obvious to me in the other two films.
But the people who seem to just blindly say that there is no way you can film the Hobbit and make it multiple films (which they even said with two) are utterly wrong. Period.
No one has said it's factually impossible. This is perhaps the most basic straw man imaginable. Obviously it's factually possible that someone can make three Hobbit movies because that is what is happening
Just as, for example, it is possible to make a three hour King Kong movie. And I know this because it happened. I also consider that film a bloated, misguided mess of a picture. And the concern that the Hobbit films will feel bloated and that it will drag out its material (and/or otherwise pad it with a lot of new material of variable quality, which we know
is happening) is not the same thing as saying these films cannot be made.
This is a gamble. Whether Jackson can pull it off is a good question - I hope he can, and does - but it's definitely a gamble.
If you reread the thread you will find apply evidence of people saying its just not possible to tell the Hobbit in multiple form without a huge amount of padding.
Each of the Lord of the rings films are heavily abridged (any film version I have watched is going to be somewhat abridged),
And there is no one that I can recall who states you can't tell a shorter heavily abridged version of the Hobbit.
All I have repeatedly stated is it is absolutely possible to film a long form version of the Hobbit that is longer then one film, thats longer then two films, and that could be three.
And that we have a large number of long firm versions of literary tales that have been made in long form, to show that absolutely it is possible.
But on the other side we have people making statements about being done because Jackson is creatively dead, that he is only doing it for the money.
Which considering he was hired to produced three LoTR films and to pretty much keep them 2 and a half hours, and with that limitation he filmed enough material for three more 2 and a half hour films (even though it didn't impact his paycheck in the slightest), and would have keep shooting even longer, but had to stop has New Line only funded them for so many days.
As for the length of the books, ie the word count there hasn't been a single person who has stated that the Hobbit has more words then any of the LoTR films, none.
And just because his final cut of Fellowship was 3 hours and what 30 minutes or so, doesn't mean he couldn't have made a 10 hour adaption thats is as faithful to the book as his 3 hour 30 minute version. Clearly he wanted longer then the studio did initially, but he had almost no power as a filmmaker back then, now he does.
The only discussion that's been over that is that page for page, word for word, more actually events happen in the Hobbit and that is due to the change in writing style that Tolkien did between those two different stories.
What in my post is factually inaccurate.
I make no claim about the quality of the work, or that it's even going to be even slightly faithful to the book.
As for King Kong thats a completely different beast. Besides a couple of cut scenes and concepts the original film is all of the source material. LoTR and the Hobbit have a lot of material (so much so that even with most of his extended cuts close to the length of two films, you can still see a lot that was cut out from the books).