http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/film/2400755/Hobbit-One-tale-in-two-parts
I still think it should be one film.
I still think it should be one film.
Jackson confirms Hobbit to be "One film in Two parts"
- Thread starter Candlelight
- Start date
I agree! They did each of the three LOTR books in one movie each why does the Hobbit need two movies? Seems to me they are just trying to squeeze more money out of the fans.
Stupid, stupid decision by Jackson.
What's there to cram? The book is less than 300 pages long. Even doing what they did with LOTR, there's not enough for two films. I think Jackson is too in love with himself. This is the same guy who turned a ninety-minute film from the 1930s into a bloated, overlong, three-hour-plus "epic."
The Hobbit should be one movie. Period.
What's there to cram? The book is less than 300 pages long. Even doing what they did with LOTR, there's not enough for two films. I think Jackson is too in love with himself. This is the same guy who turned a ninety-minute film from the 1930s into a bloated, overlong, three-hour-plus "epic."
The Hobbit should be one movie. Period.
I'm still not really sure it was Jackson and del Toro who decided to split The Hobbit into two movies, when it could easily be adapted into one film (and probably still be at least twenty minutes shorter than FOTR or TTT). It seems more like a studio decision that Jackson and del Toro have to try and justify to us.
I have too disagree with you guys. Unlike LOTR, in which Tolkien spent pages at a time describing the scenery or presenting the lyrics of ancient poems, The Hobbit's prose was densely packed with adventures and plot developments. There is plenty there to fill up two movies without it feeling padded.
I have no problem with this decision.
I have always found "The Hobbit" to be more entertaining than LOTR. Perhaps that is a bias stemming from the fact that The Hobbit was my first book, but the feeling has held up through repeated readings of all four books.
Although I wasn't thrilled w/ certain improvisations in ROTK, I am quite comfortable w/ Jackson's decisions so far. I can trust him on this.
Besides, who the hell is worried about watching TOO MUCH of "The Hobbit"?
BTW, I see Jackson's work outside of the Tolkien universe as separate. His King Kong was fine,etc. I think he is much more faithful and dogmatic when it comes to Tolkien.
I have always found "The Hobbit" to be more entertaining than LOTR. Perhaps that is a bias stemming from the fact that The Hobbit was my first book, but the feeling has held up through repeated readings of all four books.
Although I wasn't thrilled w/ certain improvisations in ROTK, I am quite comfortable w/ Jackson's decisions so far. I can trust him on this.
Besides, who the hell is worried about watching TOO MUCH of "The Hobbit"?
BTW, I see Jackson's work outside of the Tolkien universe as separate. His King Kong was fine,etc. I think he is much more faithful and dogmatic when it comes to Tolkien.
Is this really that surprising? Jackson would adapt a one page poem into a 6 hour movie.
I seem to remember from the LoTR films that he missed out chunks and took liberties with major parts of the storyline. I'm not a purist but if you're making 3 feature length movies, a lot less of men staring at each other mistily with big orchestral music and a lot more of the likes of Tom Bombadil would have impressed me more.
If they crunched the numbers and realized that the only way they could do The Hobbit with the same style and quality as LOTR was to make profit on two films instead of one, would that be okay?
I guess that is a possibility that it could be so expensive to create some of the sets the only way they could justify doing it was to make the book into two films. Still wish it was one movie though as I am afraid they will try to pad the story with filler to stretch it out to two films.
Umm... no shit.
That is the point of movies, I'm shocked they aren't doing three movies. Two for the Hobbit and one for whatever.
I agree, a lot of action in the Hobbit is glossed over in one or two sentences, whereas LOTR is written in pretty much the opposite way, with long rambling descriptions of everything and long chapters of what are essentially 'side quests'.
Umm... no shit.
That is the point of movies, I'm shocked they aren't doing three movies. Two for the Hobbit and one for whatever.
I had the same thought! Here's a bag of money.
Umm... no shit.
That is the point of movies, I'm shocked they aren't doing three movies. Two for the Hobbit and one for whatever.
Oh dont get me wrong its fine if they want to make three movies based on some of Tolkiens other stories about the LOTR universe. I just dont think that the Hobbit needs two movies for the story to be told. But its obviously not up to me and I am sure I will go see them both. It will just stink waiting for that year or so for the two-part movie to finish after seeing the first part.
2 is fine with me. Maybe I just prefer a 5 movie collection to a 4.
My favorite thing about The Hobbit was that it contained an epic story within the span of one novel.
They decided not to do that and instead stretch the Hobbit into two films.
Similar threads
