Festive, you are quite correct. it is a trilogy.

Quote:The Hobbit is an upcoming film series consisting of three epic fantasy-adventure films directed, co-written and produced by Peter Jackson and based on J. R. R. Tolkien's fantasy novel of the same name. The films are, by subtitle, An Unexpected Journey (2012), The Desolation of Smaug (2013) and There and Back Again (2014).

Quote:Although originally made as a two-part film, Jackson and MGM have confirmed plans for a third film as well.[145][146][147]

On 30 July 2012, Jackson confirmed plans to make a third film, turning his adaptation of The Hobbit into a trilogy.[145][146] According to Jackson, the third film would make extensive use of the appendices that Tolkien wrote to expand the story of Middle-Earth (published in the back of The Return of the King).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit_..._series%29

Ah, I didn't think it was confirmed, but oh well. Shall still be epic!

(September 20, 2012 at 1:11 pm)frankiej Wrote: Ah, I didn't think it was confirmed, but oh well. Shall still be epic!

Yes, I had a bit of a rant when I first heard that it was going to be 3 movies. But it's a Pro v Con win, really. To summarise: The Hobbit is much shorter than The Lord of the Rings and doesn't justify the same movie time. Buuuut, Jackson is including elements from The Silmarilion in order to give the story the same degree of depth as TLOTR... so that it doesn't feel like a children's story when compared to the (more adult) 1st trilogy.

So, yeah.

Plus 3 movies is always better than 1, when it comes to Tolkein.

(September 20, 2012 at 1:21 pm)Red Celt Wrote:

(September 20, 2012 at 1:11 pm)frankiej Wrote: Ah, I didn't think it was confirmed, but oh well. Shall still be epic!

Yes, I had a bit of a rant when I first heard that it was going to be 3 movies. But it's a Pro v Con win, really. To summarise: The Hobbit is much shorter than The Lord of the Rings and doesn't justify the same movie time. Buuuut, Jackson is including elements from The Silmarilion in order to give the story the same degree of depth as TLOTR... so that it doesn't feel like a children's story when compared to the (more adult) 1st trilogy.

So, yeah.

Plus 3 movies is always better than 1, when it comes to Tolkein.

When it comes to epics, it's better to have moooooore films and more hours to watch, too little misses too much.

How awful would LOTR have been if it was only 1 movies.

(September 20, 2012 at 1:31 pm)5thHorseman Wrote:

(September 20, 2012 at 1:21 pm)Red Celt Wrote: The Hobbit is much shorter than The Lord of the Rings and doesn't justify the same movie time. Buuuut, Jackson is including elements from The Silmarilion in order to give the story the same degree of depth as TLOTR... so that it doesn't feel like a children's story when compared to the (more adult) 1st trilogy.
Plus 3 movies is always better than 1, when it comes to Tolkein.

When it comes to epics, it's better to have moooooore films and more hours to watch, too little misses too much.
How awful would LOTR have been if it was only 1 movies.

Haven't read Silmarillion... I'll have to check it out... I'm a weirdo, if I'm seeing a movie based on a book, I like to have read the book first...

LOTR simply could not have been done in a single film... It would have bastardized it too much.

(September 20, 2012 at 1:35 pm)festive1 Wrote: LOTR simply could not have been done in a single film... It would have bastardized it too much.

Indeed. Much was left out even in the extended versions. Twenty hours of film would not have fully captured the story.

More is better, as long as it's done well and faithfully.

By the way..... I notice there is something very wrong with the dwarves in the trailer. They appear to have bathed recently.

(September 20, 2012 at 1:31 pm)5thHorseman Wrote: When it comes to epics, it's better to have moooooore films and more hours to watch, too little misses too much.

How awful would LOTR have been if it was only 1 movies.

Some movies can be some 4 hours long... I think it'd have been fine.

(September 20, 2012 at 1:50 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(September 20, 2012 at 1:35 pm)festive1 Wrote: LOTR simply could not have been done in a single film... It would have bastardized it too much.

Indeed. Much was left out even in the extended versions. Twenty hours of film would not have fully captured the story.

More is better, as long as it's done well and faithfully.

By the way..... I notice there is something very wrong with the dwarves in the trailer. They appear to have bathed recently.

Very funny! love it.

(September 20, 2012 at 2:59 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote:

(September 20, 2012 at 1:31 pm)5thHorseman Wrote: When it comes to epics, it's better to have moooooore films and more hours to watch, too little misses too much.

How awful would LOTR have been if it was only 1 movies.

Some movies can be some 4 hours long... I think it'd have been fine.

The extended version of Return of the King is over 4 hours long and I still would have gladly had it made longer.

(September 20, 2012 at 12:08 pm)festive1 Wrote: But why does it have to be broken up into three movies?!??! I understand, more movies=mor profit, but really?

3...really ? By that reasoning the Lord of the Rings should of been 10 movies.