Peter Jackson to film The Hobbit - Page 2

Moonliner · 12-18-2007, 01:11 PM

The Fellowship Of The Ring - 480 pages - one movie
The Two Towers - 448 pages - one movie
The Return of the King - 512 pages - one movie

The Hobbit - 320 pages - TWO MOVIES????

The only reason I can see for that is ticket and dvd sales.

I've got a bad feeling about this...

Alex · 12-18-2007, 05:10 PM

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.

Moonliner · 12-18-2007, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

sounds like an even worse idea that a bloated two-movie version of The Hobbit.

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.

mousepod · 12-18-2007, 05:24 PM

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

"Hobbit 2: Electric Boogaloo."

Thank you.

Kevy Baby · 12-18-2007, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowflake

Since I was never able to get past Chapter 3 of the book all through my childhood, it will be nice to see what actually happens to Bilbao Baggins

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Why split it into two movies? I don't get it.

To make more money - pure and simple.

innerSpaceman · 12-18-2007, 06:26 PM

The Silmarillion would take about 17 feature films to cover.

It cannot be filmed.

End.

Ghoulish Delight · 12-18-2007, 07:32 PM

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.

Alex · 12-18-2007, 07:39 PM

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.

innerSpaceman · 12-19-2007, 08:19 AM

Ditto with Peter Jackson. Smaller film penitence, please.

12-18-2007, 01:11 PM	#1
Moonliner 8/30/14 - Disneyland -10k or Bust. Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 9,022	The Fellowship Of The Ring - 480 pages - one movie The Two Towers - 448 pages - one movie The Return of the King - 512 pages - one movie The Hobbit - 320 pages - TWO MOVIES???? The only reason I can see for that is ticket and dvd sales. I've got a bad feeling about this... __________________ - Taking it one step at a time.
	Submit to Quotes

12-18-2007, 05:10 PM	#2
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	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.
	Submit to Quotes

12-18-2007, 05:24 PM	#4
mousepod You broke your Ramadar! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,635	Then let me be the first person on LoT to propose: "Hobbit 2: Electric Boogaloo." Thank you. __________________ "Give the public everything you can give them, keep the place as clean as you can keep it, keep it friendly" - Walt Disney
	Submit to Quotes

12-18-2007, 06:26 PM	#6
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	The Silmarillion would take about 17 feature films to cover. It cannot be filmed. End.
	Submit to Quotes

12-18-2007, 07:32 PM	#7
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	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. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

12-18-2007, 07:39 PM	#8
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	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.
	Submit to Quotes

12-19-2007, 08:19 AM	#9
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Ditto with Peter Jackson. Smaller film penitence, please.
	Submit to Quotes