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 !!
Now, we're seeing that in movies. Why does The Hobbit need to be a trilogy. Yes, money, but also the feeling that anything "epic" should at least be split into three parts.
If I ever become a published author, I hope to avoid this because it's just not necessary. Heck, "The Hobbit" was a children's book! It doesn't need to be a bloated project. As much as I liked Jackson's LOTR movies, I suspect Tolkien himself would be a bit upset now.