Now, I'm much less excited to see them. Should have just made one movie. The Hobbit doesn't have the gravity to carry three movies. The LoTR is about much heavier stuff.
Yeah, but I think the content of the appendices (which I haven't read... or, at least, don't remember reading) sound interesting: “We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance.”
After reading the book, one of my questions was, "wait, what's up with that necromancer who is barely mentioned, but Gandalf goes off and defeats? That probably has some significance."
I'd like to know more about that story. And the other stories! Without reading!
Also, they should throw in a little Roverandom mini-story.
Damnit, I was already uneasy after I learned it was going to be two films. The 70's animated version of The Hobbit is just barely over an hour, and from what I remember pretty true to the book (...minus the wood elves looking kinda weeeeird). Anyway, he did not need three hours to tell this story, let alone nine.
Fuck. I'm not going to like this, am I? So unsure. :(
http://movies.yahoo.com/news/comic-con-hat…
After reading the book, one of my questions was, "wait, what's up with that necromancer who is barely mentioned, but Gandalf goes off and defeats? That probably has some significance."
I'd like to know more about that story. And the other stories! Without reading!
Also, they should throw in a little Roverandom mini-story.
Fuck. I'm not going to like this, am I? So unsure. :(
the most overrated books of all time (just one rung higher than the Bible).....
and, in LoTR's case (and probably The Hobbit's), the most overrated film of all time, second only to Avatar.