Hey wait a second....
This article says they are planning to film "The Hobbit" and a sequel. Which is very different from filming the Hobbit in two parts.

Well, a sequel based on original writing (I'm assuming, there isn't a Tolkein sequel is there? Sylmarillion is tangential pre-Hobbit history, isn't it?) sounds like an even worse idea that a bloated two-movie version of The Hobbit.

Then let me be the first person on LoT to propose:

"Hobbit 2: Electric Boogaloo."

Thank you.

It was easier for me to read The Hobbit than it was any of the LotR books.

To make more money - pure and simple.

The Silmarillion would take about 17 feature films to cover.

It cannot be filmed.


End.

If we can get a decent version of The Hobbit then I say it's a fair deal. I just won't see the sequel.

Of course it would be hard to beat the classic Rankin and Bass version of The Hobbit.

Yeah, I'd rather it be a single film of the book The Hobbit followed by some sequel based on other material than have the book split into 2 films. I can always ignore the sequel.

Good point.

Of course, I'd rather they get someone other than Peter Jackson to try. The possibility of Sam Raimi is very intriguing but he whiffed so badly on Spider-Man 3 that I fear another big piece from him and would prefer he spend a few years going back to smaller films.

Ditto with Peter Jackson. Smaller film penitence, please.