One Hobbit Good, Two Hobbits Bad

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Actually, (Hobbit II?) could be rather good if they
made the theme Strider's Bio. You could fudge his
age by 10 years to make the first Arwen/Aragorn
meeting take place during Bilbo's trek, and then feature
Strider at Dol Guldur with the White Council and
his early adventures in Rohan and Gondor and below
Gondor (an exciting raid on the Harbor of Umbar
could be a feature). And hints of animosity between
that young lad Denethor and disguised Aragorn,
(with Gandalf around)?

[Sauron the White]

Tuor - that would be an excellent idea.

[Lalwendë]

The point is that none of this would add anything to the story, even to the story as Peter Jackson sees it. Despite the flaws he introduced to the plot line and characterisation in the Rings films, he had at the end of it, a sound product with some integrity. Not Art, but very enjoyable nonetheless. He managed to pull off a Big Film because he already had the Big Story to use. That may work again with The Hobbit, but not with mere notes and scribblings to work with. And Jackson has more or less told us everything already anyway. So there is no point to this unless it's just to make more money as it will spoil what has already been done and what will be done in The Hobbit.

[Sauron the White]

Perhaps I am just a bit slower than others here or just do not have the experience that some others do with film since I have only been following it for five decades..... however, common sense seems to say that nobody can really know if a second film will be the greatest film in the history of the cinema or the worst thing since FREDDIE GOT FINGERED or GIGLI. Great movies have been made from holiday greeting cards. Anything is possible.

Some of this here is really spooky in fanatic sort of way. Some will concede that HOBBIT may be a good film since they have the book to go on. But there is no other book (for the second film) other than some shorthand version of events as jotted down by JRRT. So the conclusion is drawn that it is the book itself which will make or break the film.

An existing book written by JRRT = good movie.
Some ideas far short of a whole book from JRRT = bad movie.

First of all, somebody already made a TV film from HOBBIT and it certainly did not even come close to writing a new chapter in cinematic excellence. Second, really crappy books have been turned into good movies. FOREST GUMP comes to mind.
So why don't we wait and see before we start making announcements as if they came from the hieghts of Mt. Olympus?

[Quempel]

I would like to add that POC was taken from a Disney ride. So if a Disney ride can inspire three movies, whats to say Tolkiens work in the appendicies couldn't make a good movie?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

That Disney ride inspired one so-so movie and two really bad ones....

[MatthewM]

To this whole bridge thing --- bad idea, in my opinion. Leave some things for the imagination!

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Quempel

I would like to add that POC was taken from a Disney ride. So if a Disney ride can inspire three movies, whats to say Tolkiens work in the appendicies couldn't make a good movie?

There's no Jack Sparrow that I can recall from the Disney ride. It's a fun ride but there's nooo . . . . Johnny.

What is the artistic/aesthetic rationale for a two-flick Hobbit? It is merely to make more money? How can it be justified/explained in terms of story need?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

What is the artistic/aesthetic rationale for a two-flick Hobbit? It is merely to make more money? How can it be justified/explained in terms of story need?

That's just what I'm getting at! The story in itself is perfect with just The Hobbit and Rings - it's worked for millions of people so far so why does it need any extra padding?

Not that this will likely be an issue anyway now...