You make a good point, but it isn't as big a deal as you make it sound. Yes the Hobbit book is a lot shorter than all three LotR books. But the "event concentration" (the amount of events going on) is much greater in Hobbit. In LotR, you have very, very long landscape descriptions, details about the history of Middle-Earth, and sometimes you also have very long dialogues (like in the council of Elrond).

The Hobbit is almost always straight to the point: minimal dialogues, a lot of events, barely any landscape descriptions. To turn it into a movie, it would be very easy to flesh it out.

Still, 3 movies does seem exagerated. But not terribly exagerated. I think it might work well.

From what I heard it is still going to be 2 movies but the third movie is just an extension. The main story will finish by Part 2.

I told you this is not true.

You did....I am not sure of that. Cause I recently read about that and they are still saying that the main movie is still 2 parts where as the third movie is like a bridge (Don't have a link now though).

Well, they are wrong.

Out.

It will make $250 by the end of the first weekend in January.

Out. It makes $320m in my opinion.

So this club is essentially Shack and Bradley vs ROW.....mighty crew if you ask me

Bump

Your signature is perfect with your post in this thread Magnus

Yeah this is not gonna happen.

I agree with you. I can see it disappointing and getting, say, $295m, for example, but $250 just seems far too low. As it is, my prediction stays at $320m. It's not cum-tastic, but it's respectable for this series, which I think may have some work to do after this movie to get people back for another installment.

They've used the LOTR appendices, which contains a lot about The Hobbit and things that have happened in the past. It's effectively another book, so they have enough material to fill 3 movies easily. They've padded it out and added in their own stuff (based on these appendices), but they're trying to give the audience more knowledge regarding Middle Earth and its history.

I feel like your signature is perfect for almost any post!

Jackson wholesale made up the character of Tauriel to increase ticket sales to women viewers.

It would have been more accurate to name this movie Peter Jackson's Action Fantasy Trilogy and skip the ruining of Tolkien's classic tale altogether.

I agree with Tolkien's son Christopher:

What a pompus wanker.

His father will have a greater legacy and be in the memory of everybody longer due to Jackson's work.

He is trying to make out like his father's work was something more than it is. Tolkien wrote a couple of fantasy books for kids, not the fucking Bible. What a complete prick that Christopher Tolkien is. He'd be lucky to share the same room as someone as brave and advantageous as Peter Jackson.

As I've pointed out before:

Kids like you are simply ignorant of the role Christopher Tolkien played in organizing and publishing his father's work.

Even though you won't have heard of The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, and the twelve volume History of Middle-earth, they are a veritable Smaug's treasure of foundation material that Christopher Tolkien rescued from disorganized boxes of his father's hand scrawled notes and made his life's work to decode, edit, and get published.

While I didn't know that, it doesn't mean I'm a kid. I just don't care about that at all.

So Christopher had nothing to do with writing, editing and publishing The Hobbit? Therefore Jackson's understanding of it is just as worthy a his son's. Being linked by blood doesn't make him the authority on all things Middle Earth.

Christopher Tolkien is, in a word, an asshole.

QFT before it can be deleted.

Christopher Tolkein is just mad that he won't see any of the money from the movies.

And that was not financially advantageous to him?

And that was not financially advantageous to him?[/quote]



Anyway, JRR himself once said that if LotR was made in a film, it would be ok to take some things out.

Peter Jackson has allowed the books LotR/Hobbit's popularity to grow tremendously (by 50%?). And let's be honest here: the MAIN goal that Tolkien had when writing these books was to get as many people as possible to read them.

So what if, say, we've actually read The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales?

But not the History of Middle Earth. Therefore, Bradley wins.