Because money, that’s why.
Erik posted last week that Peter Jackson was thinking of turning The Hobbit into a trilogy of films. Today, Jackson made it official. His reasoning for taking a kids’ book that runs a little over 300 pages, and stretching it out to fill three films (at two-and-a-half hours apiece) is thus:
It is only at the end of a shoot that you finally get the chance to sit down and have a look at the film you have made,” Jackson wrote. “Recently Fran [Walsh], Phil[lippa Boyens] and I did just this when we watched for the first time an early cut of the first movie — and a large chunk of the second. We were really pleased with the way the story was coming together, in particular, the strength of the characters and the cast who have brought them to life. All of which gave rise to a simple question: do we take this chance to tell more of the tale? And the answer from our perspective as the filmmakers, and as fans, was an unreserved ‘yes.’
That sounds nice-ish. But c’mon. Warners & Jackson are taking the appendices from Return of the King, and shoving them into The Hobbit like John Madden pounds birds into other birds at Thanksgiving, and they’re doing it for one reason: the one stated at the top of this post.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the films will be bad. They might be great. But I’ve noticed that when Peter Jackson is forced to be economical with his storytelling, he can make miracles (Heavenly Creatures, The Fellowship of the Ring) and when allowed to indulge, he splashes around in emotionally sloppy puddles of cinema like King Kong, and The Lovely Bones.
Maybe he’ll reverse that trend with these three films. Or maybe it’ll be a 9 hour long feast of overcooked Middle Earth Turducken.
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.
Christ, it would be faster to just read the book.
Might as well cram The Silmarillion in there, Jackson.
@ cat & beard: I don’t doubt that he’d try. But it sounds like the Tolkien estate isn’t going to let him:
http://movies.yahoo.com/news/comic-con-hat…
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.
And the final scene should just be Jackson literally beating a dead horse for 20 minutes.
I hope the first scene is Michael Fassbender riding a bicycle around an empty spaceship.
I’m hoping the middle scene is 30-minute flashback, wherein Bilbo recalls a relaxing fishing trip he once took in Tuckborough.
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. 🙁
The gang’s gonna stop in at Bombadil’s for a rave on the way east. Vicks and kandi, it’ll be awesome.
LoTR &, to a slightly lesser extent, The Hobbit =
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.
Makes sense to me… Anyone who’d pay to see it in one theater viewing will pay to see it in three.
I don’t get all the bitching about three Hobbit movies. I liked all three movies before immensely, I’ll like the next three.