Just found out that the guy doing the Hobbit posters is doing the poster for the film I'm writing as a "donation" to our project, thus he doesn't even want any money. We're going to fly him to the set though so that he can see some filming and get some ideas.
He's also did the posters for the entire Matrix, LOTR, Pirates series as well as the Order of the Phoenix poster.
NO FREAKIN TRAILER TILL SEPTEMBER WTF? IS THIS OFFICIAL? is he just trying to mislead us so we will be surprised when we go see DKR on july 20th? im confused.
OKay, I'm a bit of noob about LOTR, I picked up the Hobbit from my town library not knowing it was LOTR till I read the intro. Whats the Hobbit got to do with LOTR and how does the ring come into it? BTW The Hobbit is pretty mad and I'm now planing to read LOTR
I think that it's just getting incredibly indulgent, pushing quality aside for quantity. I was never hugely fond of the split, and I do fear that these films are going to be over long and filled to the brim with bloat to the point where we'll lose the original story. Mmm.
OKay, I'm a bit of noob about LOTR, I picked up the Hobbit from my town library not knowing it was LOTR till I read the intro. Whats the Hobbit got to do with LOTR and how does the ring come into it? BTW The Hobbit is pretty mad and I'm now planing to read LOTR
The Hobbit is the prequel to LOTR (it takes place before).
It details how Bilbo goes on a quest with Gandalf and thirteen dwarves and in the process finds the ring.
I certainly wouldn't mind more of The Hobbit. You could condense the length. Say these two will be 3 hours long, that's make it 6 hours overall. If they were to be around 2 hours long, that would still make it 6 hours. Though, I would like at the very least 2 and a half hours for each, even if it does stay at 2 films. We all know how well Jackson does with battles; he could spend alot of time on the Battle of the Five Armies. It's already been said that he'll be filming that alone, for 3 months.
I'm gonna really need to reread the appendices to make a better judgement about this.
I think that it's just getting incredibly indulgent, pushing quality aside for quantity. I was never hugely fond of the split, and I do fear that these films are going to be over long and filled to the brim with bloat to the point where we'll lose the original story. Mmm.
Bold mine. I agree with mainly that part. I totally get the split in the context of adding a bunch of extra "behind the scenes" in the book material, and 2 movies sounds like enough to include that stuff but still keep the focus on the actual story (Bilbo and the Dwarves). 3 films would be taking this overboard. The Hobbit is not LotR and does not call for an "epic trilogy".
But hey, I could be eating my words if it turns out there are 3 films and they're all amazing and tell the story brilliantly. Just my thoughts on it right now.
I know Peter could make three brilliant films (and I don't even know the book's storyline as I've never read it)...but the book is so thin. I think they're already stretching it with two films, though I'm grateful. A trilogy could be pulled off, but it's nowhere near necessary.
i dont like this idea...there going to have to invent stuff in order to stretch this into a 3rd movie.
They wouldn't have to invent stuff. There's already a massive wealth of material available in the appendices. But I agree, I just can't see how anyone could restructure two movies into three, not after they've been filmed.
Well the thing I keep thinking about is, someone on a fan site mentioned that LOTR was originally supposed to be two movies but Peter did the same thing, had a script rewrite and filmed 2 instead of one. Idk how reliable it was but im sure you guys know
He was pretty desperate to get the films made at all. He went back and forth between 3, 2, and 1 film, because studios weren't willing to accept 1/2 films, let alone 3. However, when he presented it to New Line, they said "well shouldn't there be 3?" so he very gladly took the offer and made the films.
So he always wanted to make 3, but may have had to settle for 1 or 2 if that was all he could get.
I know Peter could make three brilliant films (and I don't even know the book's storyline as I've never read it)...but the book is so thin. I think they're already stretching it with two films, though I'm grateful. A trilogy could be pulled off, but it's nowhere near necessary.
Well, Mockingjay is a small book, and that's being split into two movies.
BOTTOM LINE HERE IS MONEY PLAIN AND SIMPLE. SAME WITH MOCKINJAY.
Its true with Mockingjay. They are seeing dollar signs. However I firmly believe that with Peter he is being truthful. There is a lot of stuff going on in the background of these movies, same with LOTR and if it provides more depth that extends the story and makes it even better then I say go for it Mr. Jackson
Comments
He's also did the posters for the entire Matrix, LOTR, Pirates series as well as the Order of the Phoenix poster.
Lord Stafford.
Maybe they think it'll sell on it's and Jackson's name alone.
We all complain, but it works like gold.
I think I'm most excited for Riddles in the Dark for Part 1.
Oh no.
It details how Bilbo goes on a quest with Gandalf and thirteen dwarves and in the process finds the ring.
http://screenrant.com/peter-jackson-hobbit-trilogy-benk-188086/
Lord Stafford.
But hey, I could be eating my words if it turns out there are 3 films and they're all amazing and tell the story brilliantly. Just my thoughts on it right now.
So he always wanted to make 3, but may have had to settle for 1 or 2 if that was all he could get.
thats the link that ry posted but it doesnt work ry^
Lord Stafford.