THE HOBBIT (2012/2013): News, Rumors, Pics Till Release

[JD]

I still haven't made up my mind what to think of the idea of three Hobbit movies. I haven't read the appendixes so I don't know what kind of stuff is in them, or how well that stuff can be tied into the story of The Hobbit, so that makes me kinda nervous. On the other hand, I do trust Peter Jackson to be able to give us three good movies if they do decide to go in that direction.

[Set Harth]

By the middle of the fourth Silmarillion film, I think I'll be ready for this ride to be over.

[DarthPipes]

A third Hobbit movie? Will the studio please reign in this egomaniac? Peter Jackson is way too in love with himself as a filmmaker. The Hobbit should be one three-hour movie. That's it. Making it into two films is a stretch but three is fucking joke. Jackson is the same "genius" who decided to take King Kong, a ninety-minute film, and make it a bloated three-hour plus "epic." It was a colassel pile of SHIT. The trip to Skull Island took 45 minutes. I can only imagine the contrived sequences Jackson made up for The Hobbit to turn it into two...no, THREE movies.

Hell, wasn't Bag of Bones done on a $100 million budget? That seems like overkill too.

I hope I'm wrong but I think Peter Jackson's massive, out-of-control ego will destroy The Hobbit. And quite frankly, when you take away Lord of the Rings, PJ is a nothing director.

[mswood]

DarthPipes

You think the studio will want to reign Jackson in.

As a business (which surprise it is), The Hobbit is costing $500.00 to make, and will be split over 2 films. If a third is made and if like its been mentioned they are only wanting a few weeks of filming (ie not half a years worth, roughly what each of the two parts have taken), then its probably doable for another 100 maybe 150 more million, but the studio would get 3 films to spread those expenses to, three films to market for home sales, and various tv broadcast.

Trust me, if they have the rights, can gets the actors to sign off of it, the studio will absolutely agree to it, hell they'll want to marry him.

[Mage]

DarthPipes wrote:

---

A third Hobbit movie? Will the studio please reign in this egomaniac? Peter Jackson is way too in love with himself as a filmmaker. The Hobbit should be one three-hour movie. That's it. Making it into two films is a stretch but three is fucking joke. Jackson is the same "genius" who decided to take King Kong, a ninety-minute film, and make it a bloated three-hour plus "epic." It was a colassel pile of SHIT. The trip to Skull Island took 45 minutes. I can only imagine the contrived sequences Jackson made up for The Hobbit to turn it into two...no, THREE movies.

Hell, wasn't Bag of Bones done on a $100 million budget? That seems like overkill too.

I hope I'm wrong but I think Peter Jackson's massive, out-of-control ego will destroy The Hobbit. And quite frankly, when you take away Lord of the Rings, PJ is a nothing director.

We think as movies as a form of art. Studios think of movies as a form of money. The Hobbit equels loads of money. A third Hobbit movie will probably make even more money. So I doubt the studios will reign in PJ when he can make them so much cash.

As for a third Hobbit movie.... I'll reserve judgement on that when I see it. People are already rating this movie as good or bad even though it's not even released yet. Give it time people.

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

DarthPipes wrote:

---

Hell, wasn't Bag of Bones done on a $100 million budget? That seems like overkill too.

The Lovely Bones had a $65 million budget.

[Set Harth]

Will the studio please reign in this egomaniac?

You think the studio will want to reign Jackson in.

So I doubt the studios will reign in PJ when he can make them so much cash.

It's rein, not reign.

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

The studios can't rein Jackson in because he reigns.

[Set Harth]

Exactly.

[superdeluxe]

Is there enough in appendix to do 3 movies?

[Mage]

superdeluxe wrote:

---

Is there enough in appendix to do 3 movies?

Well, yes and no. Take it very literal, and it's only a few pages compared to the books. But the amount of story in there, can lead to long dialogue and visuals. So you could certainly find enough material to make a third movie.

And I'll admit, it would be cool to see some of it on the big screen. The story of Aragorn past, and the story of Aragorn and Arwin can make for a very entertaining film I suppose.

But I'm kinda Middle Earthed out here. We wanted to do a marathon with a few people a few days ago, all three Extended Editions. After The Two Towers, we were all kinda done really. And yes, the movies are still great, they haven't aged at all. But still, in total we're going to have a lot of Middle Earth after the two Hobbit movies. I'd like to see Peter Jackson do something else for a change.
He's a very visual-minded director, and likes to tell stories and convey emotions with beautifull images. Sometimes that work, sometimes it doesn't. Look at George Lucas and Star Wars (mostly the prequels). Some thing, George tells stories through pretty images. Thing is, his stories are very basic really, so pretty images can only take you so far. With the right story (in this case LOTR) PJ did some great work. The charge of the Rohirrim in ROTK still get's me every time.
So I'd love to see something else by PJ, perhaps something completely by his own hands, or perhaps another remake, this time with a studio behind him that knows how to reel him in every now and then when it comes to how long the movie's going to be.

[Rulius]

Well if they can get 3 movies out of the Hobbit, how many can they get out of the Silmarillion?

[Skywalker]

None, since the Tolkien Estate isn't budging on the film rights.

[Set Harth]

Capitalism will prevail.

Once upon a time there wasn't gonna be a Hobbit film.

[Emh]

That was only because of smaller issues. New Line always had the rights to film The Hobbit but they won't be able to film The Silmarillion as long as Christopher Tolkien is alive.