Slashdot Mirror
Peter Jackson Announces Third Hobbit Movie
eldavojohn writes "Unless his Facebook account has been hacked, Peter Jackson has announced a third movie for The Hobbit series: 'So, without further ado and on behalf of New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Wingnut Films, and the entire cast and crew of The Hobbit films, I'd like to announce that two films will become three.' Other sites are confirming this while Variety notes that filming has been wrapped on the first two so doing a third film will require a restart to all of that effort including re-negotiations with rights holders and acting schedules. **potential spoiler alert** From Peter Jackson's announcement: 'We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance.' How much of Middle Earth would you like to see on film?"
Based on previous works, "Lord of the Rings" in particular, I'd say "as much as you can give us!". And by that I mean that they could cut The Hobbit into 10 pieces and I'd still be thrilled. Even with 3 movies, "Lord of the Rings" was missing too much.
I like The Hobbit, but it's not an epic like The Lord of the Rings is. It's not supposed to be an epic. It's a self-contained, medium-sized story, with a fairly classic narrative arc. It makes no sense to tell the story in installments. The first 1/3 of the Hobbit isn't a film! There is one fairly straightforward journey, a climax, a denouement. The book is circa 300 pages, not circa 1000 like LoTR is.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
That's just standard studio bullshit to capitalize as much as possible on the franchise. You're going to see that with any property.
I'd be much more worried if Peter Jackson goes batshit insane and gives us an uninspired story with shallow and boring characters. Then it would be going in the same direction as Star Wars.
Honestly there's a whole lot of the Tolkien universe left to go and I honestly don't mind them making movies out of it; however, I do wish that they wouldn't drag the Hobbit out so much, especially when there're stories such as the Silmarillion that would be incredibly amazing to see done.
Yep, this is starting to reek of yes-men and greed, not necessarily a good foundation for great movies. Jackson has performed well this far so I'm hoping, but this is where I start tuning down my expectations.
Agreed. Two would have been enough. Tolkein wrote it as a standalone story in one volume. It doesn't need anything else. I think PJ is starting to like the smell of his own flatus so much that he doesn't want to stop eating beans, so to speak.
.. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
Given how Peter Jackson treated LOTR, taking only the outlines and filling them in with his own imagination, the Silmarillion seems like the perfect source for him. It would save him the trouble of having to throw out all the good stuff.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
I understood the rational behind two movies; the Hobbit is pretty condensed and there is no lack of fans that will appreciate the depths explored with sufficient screen time. Three movies seems excessive but Peter did right by LOTR so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
It could be good if the net result is three reasonably sized movies instead of a pair of 235 minute blood clotting epics. We humans are really not meant to stare at screens that long.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
Completely agree, give as many intellectual arguments and mention how it did not include some specific scene important for the plot as much as you like but the movies were good and did not really change anything. The Orcs were not turned into mutants from Mars or aliens, so personally I thought a good job was done. Until given direct evidence that these movies are bad I am very much looking forward to them.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
As long as the style doesn't change they can go on making as many movies as they want.
The problem with 99% of sequels/prequels is that they screw around with the original style and end up making a completely different type of movie than the original. That only works works if the original movie sucked.
I disagree. I read The Hobbit about 30 years ago and remembered it as a small book that did not take long to read.
Recently I picked the book up to read it again before the movie and was surprised at how much actually happens in the book. I have no problem believing that there are three movies worth of material in the book.
1. The LOTR movies were overall great. Especially the first one.
2. The movies also had some flaws.
3. Those flaws were when the original story was messed with, for example the disasters of messing with Faramir's character, and the timeline of the reforging of the sword and the casting of Gimli as Jar Jar Binks.
4. Jackson is going to take far more liberties with the story this time. After all he now has 3 films to fill with material and THIRTEEN dwarves to call on for comic relief. Just imagine - Jar Jar Binks times 13.
5. This could be as bad as Star Wars I-III.
6. Profit!!!
Jackson did a great job with bringing Middle-Earth to life in sets and costumes, but that hurdle has largely been crossed. The Hobbit needs someone who can take the sets and costumes and tell a story.
Peter Jackson managed to take the LOTR trilogy and make it a critical and popular success, winning both box office awards AND the OSCAR for BEST PICTURE. Let me repeat that--he took a trilogy of orcs, elves, dwarves, and hobbits and managed to win an academy award for best picture. That isn't just great film making--that is a freaking miracle
Any book that doesn't involve a Bearenstine bear is hard to contain in a 2hr movie. The fact that we're so used to directors making shrunken heads out of some of the best literary works and think that's acceptable is a sad thing. The Hobbit has 19 chapters, and I could easily see a movie taking an average of 30min each getting through them in detail. So that's 10hrs of material, easily.
If anything, the Lord of the Rings movies cut HUGE gaping swaths out of that story. Remember Tom Bombadil? He was one of the most identifiable characters in those books and was replaced in the movie with about a 20second sequence where strider just hands the hobbits a bunch of magic swords. It's a sad thing. Would people have tolerated it being broken up into 10 or more movies? No... but it's success is what's allowing Jackson to expand on the Hobbit. Which is a good thing, because, in my not so humble opinion, The Hobbit is one of the best printed works in human history. I'm glad they are doing this. The only thing that would make me more happy would be a big budget "Band of Brothers" style series. If we're lucky, maybe that's what they'll do with the Silmarillion.
You're modded as funny, but we already have a version where Frodo pushes Gollum (instead of Gollum dancing happily to the edge).
If anything, the Lord of the Rings movies cut HUGE gaping swaths out of that story. Remember Tom Bombadil?
Tom Bombadil never made much sense in the book and would have been a huge plot hole to movie audiences.
Much like how Dobby had to die before the final battle in the final Harry Potter book, Tom Bombadil needed to be gone in such a way that he couldn't help (and the "not wanting to" from the book doesn't really hold up). This way, we avoid having a being of essentially limitless power alive and doing nothing while our much less powerful heroes struggle with their quest. The easiest way to do this in the LotR movies was to just not introduce him in the first place.