The Hobbit to be made a trilogy - opinions?

[BetterCallSaul]

In my opinion, the more middle-earth the better.

A lot of people seem to be criticising Jackson's decision to turn The Hobbit into a trilogy, often arguing that there isn't enough material in the book to fill 8 hours worth of screen time. However, these are the same people who argue that LOTR's missed many of the better narratives in the books. Therefore, I think the criticism is unfounded.

An extra film will allow Jackson to really flesh out The Hobbit's story and the appendices of LOTR's. Personally, I cannot wait to see Gandalf's assault on the Necromancer, and Smaug's history in The Lonely Mountain. If the film was only in two parts, Jackson would have to cut these scenes down, now he has the freedom to really explore the books leaving nothing untouched or ignored, for example Tom Bombadil (fellowship of the ring didn't even mention him).



Can't wait to see Gandalf encountering Thrain in Dol Guldur. Going to be epic!

[Terrel]

A trilogy is perfect.

This is going to be epic and I cannot wait.

[Xyei]

I'm psyched for this. I'm not really one to go to the movie theater but I will go for this one. I loved the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I haven't read the book so I can't really comment on whether I think a trio is a bad idea.

[talip bin osman]

if it is solely based on the hobbit book, then i must assume that jackson somehow gave in to the producers need to milk the tolkien estate more dollar$...

but if jackson and company are going to incorporate some subplots from silmarillion then i think its ok...

ultimately, it all depends on the final product IMO... im not really a purist as far as translating text to film... its a totally different medium and i believe in peter jackson's talents...

[Marcov]

You make alot more with three movies than you do with one. I won't see any til the third comes out so I can watch them together.

[squealpiggy]

I was disconcerted and concerned the were going to have to stretch out the story. Until I remembered that the LOTR films were three hours each! If the Hobbit is three films of a more reasonable two hours apiece then they should be able to do it justice. This has the potential to be considerably better than LOTR.

[Terrel]

[John Barron]

some of them just look like short humans. the one on the far right looks like an elf. what a disappointment already.

[BetterCallSaul]

if it is solely based on the hobbit book, then i must assume that jackson somehow gave in to the producers need to milk the tolkien estate more dollar$...

but if jackson and company are going to incorporate some subplots from silmarillion then i think its ok...

ultimately, it all depends on the final product IMO... im not really a purist as far as translating text to film... its a totally different medium and i believe in peter jackson's talents...

They don't have the rights to the Silmarillion, but as I said, there is quite a lot of material they can use in the appendices to LOTR's.

People forget that while the Hobbit isn't especially dialogue heavy, there are considerable action sequences in there.

I think the length will be fine and will allow for a far more embellished experience of an all time great piece of literature.

[_original_]

I personally thought that two films was more than enough, but who am I to question Jackson after the wonders he did with LOTR with the budget he had.