One Hobbit Good, Two Hobbits Bad

[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!

[McCaber]

MatthewM, I heartily agree with you. I believe that anything the people at New Line could write would remain only footnotes between the two major events.

[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...

[Boromir88]

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?~Lal

To continue with the Star Wars analogy if I may...

It would be like if _________ (insert name of director) decided to make a movie in between The Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope, filming the 20 (or however long it is) year gap between the two movies.

Let's forget about copyrights and all that legal stuff, why wouldn't some one attempt to insert another Star Wars movie between Episodes III and IV? Because there is no story, and one is not needed, to do so would being trying to suck every penny out of the successful franchise. Episode III told the story it wanted to tell, it shows Anakins fall to becoming Darth Vader and how Padme, the Jedi...etc were all caught up in it. Episode IV had another story to tell, who cares if it was ___ (insert number of years) later? To try to "force" a story showing those years of Luke and Leia growing up and Obi-Wan wandering a desert is pointless. It doesn't add to, nor does it matter, in the "big picture."

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?~Quempel

Yes, but they had free reign to make up whatever story they wanted. Someone can come in and do a little potpourri of scenes from all the various events between The Hobbit and LOTR, but they will still have to put it together and make a story out of it. I think the point is that since there is no story, one is going to have to be "invented." However, just because they would use the same names and have it set in Middle-earth and call it The Lord of the Rings, doesn't make it The Lord of the Rings.

In an effort to bridge the two stories (TH and LOTR) I can imagine the wild inconsistancies that would arise. We saw what some of Jackson's tweakings did and how it caused inconsistancies within the movies themselves. Just give Hollywood reign to force a story, where there is none, and then you'll see inconsistant.