Comments

1
That's a clip worth watching.
2
I'm not sure it really bothers me. I know how the story ends, so I'm not really in a hurry to see its conclusion, and if it means leaving more content from the book in rather than making it more efficient (by way of cutting or compressing content), then it's worth- to me, at least- the extra year's wait an additional movie ticket.

Also, it will certainly result in more dwarves, and more dwarves is always a good thing.
3
wow! Six Hobbit movies..I'm going to tell all my friends and win!

Hopefully Jar Jar Binks will make an appearance *fingers crossed* (Gollum's imaginary friend? it's part of the expanded tale of his life that I'm sure will FINALLY be told..."Why doesn't it shuts it's mouth precious? Why must it bothers us?!! *gollum* *gollum*...")
4
I look forward to waiting until all six Hobbit movies hit Netflix then.
5
I would totally buy the director's cut of "The Lord of the Rec Room" with Jackson and Herzog.
6
Jesus. No wonder Del Toro flew the coop.

The Hobbit is the shortest and least complicated book of the whole series, and they want to make three movies out of it? I'm not usually one to bitch about movies being too long provided the director uses the time wisely, but this confirms that The Hobbit is going to achieve something I never thought possible: making Jackson's King Kong seem interesting and *short* by comparison.
7
I'm thinking I'd like to see Herzog play Gandalf.
8
Don't forget the 679 hours of extra footage of bonus features once the DVD's come out!
9
What Keshmeshi @6 said.
10
@9 but what you and keshmeshi are overlooking is that the trilogy isn't just the Hobbit, from Gandalf arriving at Bilbo's door to back again. It sounds like they're using that as a book end for all this stuff:

* The White Council
* The Necromancer
* Sauron declaring himself
* Other stuff to bridge the gap from Hobbit to LOTR

I'm sure the timelines will obviously be squished somewhat, or left vague, but that's OK. It seems like the device will be Bilbo telling Frodo the stories, at some point in the lead up to his 111th birthday. Hell, bring it on. The more the merrier, and bring back Viggo in good makeup and CGI as a younger Aragorn while you're at it!
11
@10,

If that's the case, I'd much rather they do one Hobbit movie and then create a separate movie as some sort of bridge between The Hobbit and the trilogy. The Hobbit has a pretty satisfying conclusion, having that dragged out to explain the events between the books would be dull for audience members who aren't die-hard LOTR fans.

Jackson had the good sense to end LOTR with the hobbits returning home to a non-pillaged Shire. It wasn't true to the books, but it worked for film. The confrontation with Saruman would have bored most of the audience.
12
Better than what they did with Harry Potter.

http://www.theonion.com/video/final-minu…
13
@11: This.

Why not wear this shirt instead?
14
Even with three movies they had to drop the Scouring of the Shire from the Lord of the Rings--which was a pretty big omission given how it put the cap on the story arc for a bunch of characters.

There are good break points too:
part 1 ends with the escape from the goblins in the mountains

part 2 ends with the escape from the wood elves

part 3 the final showdown with motherfucking SMAUG!

I know, my nerd is showing.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.