Three Times The Hobbit?

[alatar]

It's simple math:

• LotR is three books (or one very long one), and yet with three long films, PJ found the need to insert PJisms to...what? Increase everyone's love of the author's work, make the story more understandable, scare the audience, tick off the fan base, prolong the agony? Go rewatch the scenes like Aragorn falling off the cliff, Gollum falling off the cliff, Denethor diving off a cliff, the need to have the sewers of Osgiliath, the bad bouncing scene...
• 3 Tolkien books = 3 PJ movies + filler
• The Hobbit is one smaller book, was written more with children in mind, and yet from this material we're going to have three even average length films? How many Dwarves will need to fall off cliffs in this trilogy?
• 1 Tolkien book = 3 PJ movies + ?

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by alatar

How many Dwarves will need to fall off cliffs in this trilogy?

Stop it, alatar! You are going to give me nightmares!

Yes– it's awfully, awfully late in the day for them to be making such a radical change, isn't it? Not that it's the first time P.J. & Co have given the impression they're not quite sure what they're actually trying to do with "The Hobbit". *sigh*

Sadly, I suspect they know exactly what they are trying to do, milk as much money out of this as possible. What I think they are unclear about is the best means to get the milk out of the cow, because obviously something faithful to the text and spirit of Tolkien's original writing is not up to the task.

[Kitanna]

Three movies isn't necessary. Too bad they're going to milk it like this. Two movies made sense, three is overkill. I'm still excited about The Hobbit movies, though. I won't go into them expecting to see a true, accurate adaptation of the book. I will be going in expecting to see a well-done, visually appealing movie with some of the best music a movie has ever been blessed with.