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!
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!
Comment