Peter Jackson wants to make The Hobbit into a trilogy because making two long movies of one short bo - Polidicks

[quote][B]Peter Jackson Definitely Wants To Make ‘The Hobbit’ A Trilogy And Talks Have Accelerated To Do So[/B] It looks like Peter Jackson will be making a third Hobbit film after all. At least, that’s what he’s decided he wants to do, according to The Hollywood Reporter. In the past few days, logistical talks have “accelerated” between the director, his producing partners and Warner Bros., who would be open to the idea if the finances worked out. Jackson suggested he’d be interested in a third film a couple weeks ago and has since been figuring out when the production would have to come back to do reshoots, how many of the actors would need to come back, when they’d need to come back, and how much all of that would cost. All of that is almost in order. Read more after the jump. A source told The Hollywood Reporter that if a third film is to be made out of The Hobbit, a decision would have to be made soon but that talks “have accelerated in recent days, with the studio on board if the right financial arrangements can be achieved:” [quote]If we’re going to do it, we have to make a decision soon. It’s strongly driven by the filmmakers’ desire to tell more of the story.[/quote] Jackson has already told a lot of story. Besides three award-winning Lord of the Rings films set in J.R.R. Tolkien’s universe, he released extended versions of each, and always aimed at turning the simpler prequel to those, The Hobbit, into two films (The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is scheduled for release December 14 and The Hobbit: There and Back Again, will be out December 13, 2014. These plans would not change that time table). If Warner Bros. decides everything looks good, additional filming would take place during the Summer of 2013 in New Zealand for about two months. There are apparently even some more rights issues that would have to be settled if this was to happen. In a recent article on this over at Deadline, Jackson explained how he can take a book that’s so short and make it not only two books, but three: [quote]…we haven’t just adapted The Hobbit; we’ve adapted that book plus great chunks of his appendices and woven it all together. The movie explains where Gandalf goes; the book never does. We’ve explained it using Tolkien’s own notes. That helped inform the tone of the movie, because it allowed us to pull in material he wrote in The Lord of the Rings era and incorporate it with The Hobbit. So we kept the charm and the whimsy of the fairy tale quality through the characters. Through the dwarves and Bilbo, who is more of a humorous character. He doesn’t try to be funny but we find him funny and find his predicament more amusing than that of Frodo in The Lord of the Rings. That was more serious. So the whimsy is there, but tonally I wanted to make it as similar to The Lord of the Rings, because I wanted it to be possible for the people, the crazy people in the world who want to watch these films back to back one day…[/quote] It seems likely that if not by the end of this week, next week at the latest, we’ll get official word if The Hobbit will two films or three. The latter is looking more and more likely, however.[/quote] [url]http://www.slashfilm.com/peter-jackson-the-hobbit-trilogy-talks-accelerated/[/url]

Don't be hating that it's in two parts, OP. After reading The Hobbit many times I want to know what Gandalf does when he scurries off mysteriously. A single film would just make things rushed. I doubt that three films are more likely. I though they were just filming a bit more scenes like Jackson's cameo for example. [QUOTE=Furioso;36935444]hey lets turn three books into three long, good movie = decent idea hey lets turn one book into three pointlessly long probably not so good movies = what[/QUOTE] Probably not so good? My inner fanboy demands an apology or the chance to taste your blood I wouldn't mind three films because after this we won't get another chance to see middle earth on the big screen for God knows how long, so if they can explore events not covered in detail by Tolkein then I say God speed Mr. Jackson

hey lets turn three books into three long, good movie = decent idea hey lets turn one book into three pointlessly long probably not so good movies = what

I wish lord of the rings was made about half a decade later. Since by then, the multi part movie format was proven successful and I'd kinda like to see the two towers beyond the first half of the book :v:. Movie literally ended in the middle of it.

Think about it this way; They'll be able to include every single detail of the book in the movie, without cutting anything out. This is good.

Oh man On the one hand this means I'll have to wait even longer On the other it means more of a chance at getting the full dwarven chant aaaaaa

You could probably read the book faster than the amount of time it would take to watch all three movies.

Source?

A lot of assumptions being made here. Movies tend to have to cut a massive amount of details down and change things in the interest of time. Making a book into a movie with 3 parts could potentially lead to a very honest reproduction of the original content.

[QUOTE=Furioso;36935444]hey lets turn three books into three long, good movie = decent idea hey lets turn one book into three pointlessly long probably not so good movies = what[/QUOTE] What makes you think the movies will be bad? This is peter fucking jackson were talking about here.

[QUOTE=Fish Muffin;36935590]What makes you think the movies will be bad? This is peter fucking jackson were talking about here.[/QUOTE] And The Hobbit is a more exciting read than the Lord of the Rings

[QUOTE=Chicken_Chaser;36935434]Don't be hating that it's in two parts, OP. After reading The Hobbit many times I want to know what Gandalf does when he scurries off mysteriously. A single film would just make things rushed. I doubt that three films are more likely. I though they were just filming a bit more scenes like Jackson's cameo for example.[/QUOTE] But you don't need to know. It's mysterious. I liked that. You don't have to be given everything on a plate. Wizards go off doing weird shit and if you're a hobbit you don't understand it and can't do anything about it. Part of the magic of the book is the mystery of it, and if you explain every little thing you lose that. The Hobbit is about a hobbit. It's in the title. Really, it's quite a personal story about Bilbo and what's important is his development as a character from a sheltered, almost ignorant and lazy thing with a hidden desire for something more from life to a well-rounded individual. It's a personal journey, that's what gives me a reason to care about the adventure, and if they add loads of superfluous crap I'm worried they're going to miss that. In a best case scenario these movies might be good, but even then there's no way they'll be The Hobbit. [editline]26th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=supersnail11;36935563]Source?[/QUOTE] Oh, sorry. [url]http://www.slashfilm.com/peter-jackson-the-hobbit-trilogy-talks-accelerated/[/url] Adding to op.

[QUOTE=Chicken_Chaser;36935619]And The Hobbit is a more exciting read than the Lord of the Rings[/QUOTE] yes but it is short and peter jackson likes to make 3 hour long movies there really isn't that amount of material in it

[QUOTE=thrawn2787;36935813]yes but it is short and peter jackson likes to make 3 hour long movies there really isn't that amount of material in it[/QUOTE] They're covering a lot more than the book covered. That's why they're able to make more than one film in the first place. Originally the second would cover events after the book before the Fellowship now it's the book plus things that Tolkein didn't cover like Gandalf going off to the White Council and doing crazy wizard shit. [QUOTE=Negrul1;36935649]But you don't need to know. It's mysterious. I liked that. You don't have to be given everything on a plate. Wizards go off doing weird shit and if you're a hobbit you don't understand it and can't do anything about it. Part of the magic of the book is the mystery of it, and if you explain every little thing you lose that. The Hobbit is about a hobbit. It's in the title. Really, it's quite a personal story about Bilbo and what's important is his development as a character from a sheltered, almost ignorant and lazy thing with a hidden desire for something more from life to a well-rounded individual. It's a personal journey, that's what gives me a reason to care about the adventure, and if they add loads of superfluous crap I'm worried they're going to miss that. In a best case scenario these movies might be good, but even then there's no way they'll be The Hobbit. [/QUOTE] Lots of us do want to see what the book didn't cover because Jackson plus Middle Earth is simply orgasmic. Might as well since this will be a goodbye to Tolkein films. I couldn't finish the Simarillion because it was like reading the holy bible so I'm not even sure if someone got the rights to it if it would even be filmable.

count me excited

They did finish filming for the first two movies of the Hobbit. Why is there a year gap between them. Does post production really take that much time?

[QUOTE=Clavus;36936002]They did finish filming for the first two movies of the Hobbit. Why is there a year gap between them.[/QUOTE] money reasons

[QUOTE=Negrul1;36936013]money reasons[/QUOTE] "After a 3-week hiatus, Mr. Jackson remembered the $30 million he left in his beard and was able to restart production."

[QUOTE=Clavus;36936002]They did finish filming for the first two movies of the Hobbit. Why is there a year gap between them. Does post production really take that much time?[/QUOTE] CGI/after effects/color correction/all the post-production shit takes a LOAD of time.

[QUOTE=Chicken_Chaser;36935619]And The Hobbit is a more exciting read than the Lord of the Rings[/QUOTE] I couldn't sit through all of the LotR books but The Hobbit was so much fun.

I can't wait for Smaug.

But..but that means i gotta wait even LONGER! I dont know i think 3 movies is a bit much.

They make more money, I get to see more of Middle Earth. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Meh, I like Peter Jackson. He has made quite a few good movies, I personally trust his judgement here. We shall see what happens.

But the book is really small, there is simply not enough content in it for three movies

I wanna see Gandalf being badass at Dol Guldur.

You guys do realise that they're actually going past the hobbit into parts of the lore that are covered in unfinished stuff by Tolkien, like the history between LOTR and the Hobbit. There's some incredibly interesting stuff in this, he's not just covering the one book. That was announced ages ago that the second movie wasn't just going to be the hobbit.

I don't know why anyone is complaining. Peter Jackson knows his shit. The movies will probably be good whatever he decides to do with them, and even if they aren't you're more than likely going to go see them anyway.

Fucking go for it, Peter!

Only if we get to see Tom Bombadil and have him reclaim his lines from Treebeard. >:(