Peter Jackson.....C'mon man, you're killing me here!

[Solaria Goldshark]

So I'm watching The Hobbit and realize there is 20 minutes left in the movie and there is no way they can wrap this thing up in 20 minutes....and then it hits me,  Peter, Peter, Peter, you sneaky devil.

Lord of The Rings:  Three books, three movies.

The Hobbit:  One book, three movies.

.....Peter Jackson!  you money grubbing whor...um..Genius I mean.

[Griffin Ceawlin]

I thought everyone knew it was going to be a trilogy... 0.o

 

[Hoshi Kenin]

No, you were quite correct the first time.   Sheer Hollywood greed.   Tolkien will be rolling in his grave.    Not only is the Hobbit merely a single volume, but it is a slender one at that.

To pad out the story into flabby, sheer indulgence on the part of Jackson - and the sound of cash registers ringing in Hollywood - is risible.

 

[mikka Luik]

"Risible"? Gosh, padding out a book you can read on a wet wednesday afternoon before teatime into 3 films that people will grumble but still see...and get paid for...wow. Any idea where i can get a wholesale deal on this "Risible"? =^^=

[Ceka Cianci]

myself i like when they spread things out and go into more detail..

i can understand if a movie drags on and on and feels like they are trying to stretch it out..

but i didn't feel that in the Hobbit at all..

in fact 3 hours went by pretty fast actually..

the thing i love most about prequals is the build up to the later versions..

we get to be brought into more detail on those that are not the main characters..

 

for me ..nothing makes the later version or versions more interesting than the detailed build up to the main event..

getting to know where someone came from how they came to be where they are now  or how this guy turned evil and this guy turned good..

all the butterfly effect stuff..

The hobbit may have been a short read..but there is a lot of story there that can still be told..

if we based things off of how many pages are in a story..then a lot of great movies would have been only 30 minutes long leaving us asking for more or feeling shorted..

 

 

i don't look at it as the artist seeing dollar signs to drag out the hobbit for everything it's worth..

i see them getting the chance to go back to the hobbit and expand on the things they may have wished they could have expanded on more..

it's kind of like life experience..omg if i knew then what i know now..i would have done things a little differently..

 

i look forward to seeing more detail and maybe even another series that goes into another direction..

some life that the hobbit touched along the way or some  butterfly effect that we won't know about until maybe another series of movies matches it up to it..

 

the great thing about creation is the possibilities..

not the predictability's..

 

 

 

 

[Solaria Goldshark]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

 

i don't look at it as the artist seeing dollar signs to drag out the hobbit for everything it's worth..

 

 

---

 

.....and then I came back to Middle Earth and noticed this pop up.  Most curious indeed.

Keep it secret, keep it safe Frodo.....we're being watched.

 

[Dillon Levenque]

I haven't read 'The Hobbit' nor any of the Ring trilogy books (although I did see the third 'Ring' movie) but if you really enjoyed the book, the fact it's been stretched to three films might be a benefit.

It is very difficult to make a movie that faithfully follows a novel; we've all seen examples of failures in that regard. I've read that the most common reason is that there just isn't time in a movie to inform the viewer about the feelings and thoughts and remembrances and attitudes of the characters. A reader gets all that background information, a movie-goer does not. In a movie the director often has to make a character become sort of a stock character, one the audience can identify via previous exposure, because the movie does not have time to tell the whole story.

That's why some of the best written word to film examples are movies based on short stories or novellas. Two of my favorites fall into that category: "The Shawshank Redemption" and "The Man Who Would Be King". It may be that you'll enjoy the movie version of "The Hobbit" more because it takes the time to be a truer rendition of the written story. Or maybe not. Could just be greed. On the other hand, it does give you two more excuses to eat a box of Bon-Bons. Do they still make those?

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Solaria Goldshark wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

 

i don't look at it as the artist seeing dollar signs to drag out the hobbit for everything it's worth..

 

 

---

 

.....and then I came back to Middle Earth and noticed this pop up.  Most curious indeed.

Keep it secret, keep it safe Frodo.....we're being watched.

 

---

you are seriously gonna pick a part of a part in my post to twist my meaning to suit your theory?

seriously?

you are about 3 movies too late for calling the artist a sell out..they had video games and the works with the first three as well..

that's what movie companies do..they PR their products..

it doesn't mean the  next two movies won't be geat movies..or that the artist is gonna wreck the hobbit for the sake of the dollar..

there is a really good chance the other two movies will be really good movies as well..

 

here let me get the rest of what i wrote ..just so others don't misunderstand my meaning for yours..

"i don't look at it as the artist seeing dollar signs to drag out the hobbit for everything it's worth..

 i see them getting the chance to go back to the hobbit and expand on the things they may have wished they could have expanded on more..

it's kind of like life experience..omg if i knew then what i know now..i would have done things a little differently.."