Peter Jackson to Split ‘The Hobbit’ Into a Trilogy: Brilliant or a Blatant Sellout?
SodaHead Film
2012/08/06 03:01:41
|
|
|||||
|
170 votes
|
|
43% | |||
|
227 votes
|
|
57% | |||
Last week, director Peter Jackson announced that the forthcoming prequel to his massively successful Lord of the Rings series would be split into three films instead of the planned two. The first movie, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, will hit theaters on December 14, 2012. The second film, There and Back Again, will be released in December 2013. The third and final installment will come in summer 2014.
Jackson wrote on his Facebook page, “It is only at the end of a shoot that you finally get the chance to sit down and have a look at the film you have made. Recently Fran, Phil and I did just this when we watched for the first time an early cut of the first movie - and a large chunk of the second. We were really pleased with the way the story was coming together, in particular, the strength of the characters and the cast who have brought them to life. All of which gave rise to a simple question: do we take this chance to tell more of the tale? And the answer from our perspective as the filmmakers, and as fans, was an unreserved ‘yes.'“
But does The Hobbit really warrant three full-length movies? Or is this just another Hollywood attempt to squeeze as much money as possible out of a franchise? We believe it’s the latter.
To begin with, J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit is only 304 pages. In comparison, each of the three Lord of the Rings books was longer (together they totaled 1,241 pages) and none of them received the multiple film treatment. Jackson argues that he’ll also be drawing from related materials that appeared in the appendices of LOTR, but we’re still skeptical.
What do you think SodaHeads? Is Peter Jackson’s decision to split The Hobbit into three parts brilliant or a blatant sellout?
Jackson wrote on his Facebook page, “It is only at the end of a shoot that you finally get the chance to sit down and have a look at the film you have made. Recently Fran, Phil and I did just this when we watched for the first time an early cut of the first movie - and a large chunk of the second. We were really pleased with the way the story was coming together, in particular, the strength of the characters and the cast who have brought them to life. All of which gave rise to a simple question: do we take this chance to tell more of the tale? And the answer from our perspective as the filmmakers, and as fans, was an unreserved ‘yes.'“
But does The Hobbit really warrant three full-length movies? Or is this just another Hollywood attempt to squeeze as much money as possible out of a franchise? We believe it’s the latter.
To begin with, J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit is only 304 pages. In comparison, each of the three Lord of the Rings books was longer (together they totaled 1,241 pages) and none of them received the multiple film treatment. Jackson argues that he’ll also be drawing from related materials that appeared in the appendices of LOTR, but we’re still skeptical.
What do you think SodaHeads? Is Peter Jackson’s decision to split The Hobbit into three parts brilliant or a blatant sellout?
Read More: http://theweek.com/article/index/231307/the-hobbit...
Top Opinion
-
cddjmikey 2012/08/06 03:06:10Blatant sellout
+13Stretching it into two movies I could handle because they would be able to cover more of the story. Stretching it even further to THREE movies is just being greedy !! All I can say is since they ARE doing this then they better not leave out a SINGLE sentence from the book !!
Of course they want to make money. But this will also benefit fans who want more of the book on the big screen and less on the cuttig room floor.
Now if Jackson announced that, oh I don't know, that he was rereleasing the first three movies with "enhancements" or in 3D, then THAT would be a blatant sellout.
Heck he ought to go for four
Then again, I'm not making it so I don't know what they're working with.
PS...This is actually a dumb question. I'm sure there are a lot of fans, that would still watch Iron Man 4, where Tony Stark flies his Iron Man costume (robot thing), up the devils ass to destroy hell, from the colon out.... So, whats an extra Hobbit movie?
Besides given the budget and attention to detail that was put forth in the Lord of the Rings series and assuming they'll apply the same standards and financing to this series. They'll need the money that making it a trilogy would generate to make the enterprise profitable.