Okay lets end this debate

How many movies should the Hobbit be

1 there is no reason to have more, it's one book	12.5%	[ 10 ]
2 made sense, but three seems to be excessive	31.2%	[ 25 ]
3 Movies! It's percfect and well detailed adding more to the original story!	43.8%	[ 35 ]
What iissss a Hobbitses	12.5%	[ 10 ]
Total Votes:			[ 80 ]

[HaniBani87]

With three movies we get to see more character development than in the book, and they actually manage to make us like some characters more than in the book (Thorin! Possibly Bilbo, although I loved him in the book a lot. But he'll have a bigger role in the second movie.). I don't see how that could be a bad thing..

They had too little time in LotR, and thus they made me hate some of the characters with the choices they made in changing the story (Frodo, Faramir).. for example it would've been so incredibly important for Frodo to have the scene from FotR where he saved the day at the Barrow-Downs. He seemed like such a useless weakling in the movies, it was annoying. cat_emo

[Luchanchan]

~Lady Kanna~

I'll gladly edit this more in the morning, since my laptop is dying and it's rather late. Frankly I would leave the split as it is, and from rumors on the Internet (which could be wrong for all we know, it'll be another year until DoS anyway) DoS finishes up the Hobbit entirely, leaving the third movie to focus more as a prequel to LotR, with Bilbo's journey home. Of course, still rumors, but knowing Peter Jackson...

This might be WMG on my part but I get the feeling that the Battle of Five Armies will be left to the last movie. Since PJ is directing, the battle should go on for at least an hour, unless he is actually going to skip over it which is highly unlikely. I do not think there will be enough time to include the Battle of Five Armies in DoS. The ending of DoS will be so anticlimatic if they end with the death of Smaug. The dwarves quest is to vanquish the evil dragon and reclaim their lost kingdom. What would be the point for non-Tolkien fans to watch TaBA if they seemingly accomplished their goal? I'm not sure what they're exactly including in the LotR prequel bit since the movie-verse timeline is a bit wonky.

~Lady Kanna~

As for the die hard fans, I have heard from a majority of those who live in my area say that, and seen commentary that isn't so praising on various websites. It seems to be a majority of the older fans who are more upset, expecting more of the book than the book and various other works. Also did you know Tolkien's son hates the movies too? I feel bad for the man, especially after he pieced together so many of his father's works. This does, however, include The History of Middle Earth, which Tolkien was said to not quite approve of as he didn't see it as good enough to be published. There's the whole "unwanted to be published" thing.

Sometimes I do feel like they - WB, advertisers, etc. - are exploiting Professor Tolkien's work but they are also bringing attention to a wonderful world to newer generations. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies, (along with the Harry Potter series, but that's not important), was what introduced me to fantasy fiction and the joy of reading. Although the text in each book is the same we all imagine the story differently. When adapting such a beloved story into a visual format of course people are going to find things that they do not agree with, whether it is the casting or the sets or the order of events. The movies is the version of Peter Jackson, Phillipa Boyens, and all those other wonderful people. I'm not trying to offend anyone here but I'm guessing that the older fans and purists think that the version they have is the true one and won't accept anyone elses' perspective. With all due respect to Christopher Tolkien, I feel like he also feels this way. He shared this world with his father and its the thing that they bonded over. I can understand why he would not want to share with others. Now this is all conjecture, but that is what I think is going on.

~Lady Kanna~

One thing I have to admit might be a mistake on PJ's part is the HFR filming. I made sure not to go see it in such, since motion sickness can be my worst enemy, but still saw it in 3D and IMAX. It seemed sometimes like it was just a little bit jerky and badly focused, which persisted most noticeably for me in the pan down in Erebor and in the goblin layer. My first thought was it was just me, but after it kept persisting, maybe the conversion of the film did it. I'm still not sure about why it had such issues, but it could just be the theatre. I've heard there's been some issues going on with sound synching.

I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the format. For me the HFR was absolutely stunning. I too have motion sickness whenever I watch a 3D movie but I was perfectly fine watching the Hobbit in 3D HFR. Of course I watched it in a theater optimized for HFR viewing so I can't speak for others. I found an article on why some people might have problems with HFR but for those that are wary of links I'll post what's pertinent. I think PJ is really taking a big step forward in filming the Hobbit in 48 fps. Although it might not be appreciated now in the future we won't be able to live without it.

Quote:

I predict that on each step towards increased realism new media take, there will be those who find the step physically painful. It will hurt their eyes, ears, nose, touch,and peace of mind. It will seem unnecessarily raw, ruining the art behind the work. This disturbance is not entirely in our heads, because we train our bodies to react to media, and when it changes, it FEELS different. There may be moments of uncomfort.

But in the end we tend to crave the realism -- when it has been mastered -- and will make our home in it.

~Lady Kanna~

I must say I'm sad Being Human and Sherlock were pretty much decimated by the filming for the movie, but I think they'll all fit in fine.

Oh god, this. I'm dying waiting for season three to come out. Ugh. Both the conclusion of The Hobbit and Sherlock coming out in 2014. I can't wait. I just can't.

~Lady Kanna`

It's so good to see someone with good grammar on these forums. I hope I didn't make too many mistakes myself.

Thank you. (: I have also enjoyed discussing the Hobbit with you. I hope you didn't mind the blocks of text though. Most people don't usually reply to my lengthy posts. Sigh. Thank you once again. <3

[Kestrel the Companion]

OKAY, there were three huge LOTR books, and there were only three movies- but there's only one Hobbit book, and they're making it three movies?! DOES NOT MAKE SENSE

[TKDPantherChic]

The more movies the better! as long as they're kinda accurate to the books, lol. I hate when movies destroy the books.

[Horrorsaurus]

I think it would have paced better as one or possibly two films - it felt a bit directionless at times.

But, in terms of money making, three was always the way to go. I like the hype and the range of merchandise (and the fandom!) so it doesn't bother me too much. :3

[Pixrosie]

1

[S H E R L O C K E D]

Kestrel the Companion

OKAY, there were three huge LOTR books, and there were only three movies- but there's only one Hobbit book, and they're making it three movies?! DOES NOT MAKE SENSE

That is terrible logic. Under that reasoning, there should only be one Hobbit movie... in which case the entire storyline would be terribly paced, with several important scenes completely cut out.

[Kestrel the Companion]

S H E R L O C K E D

Kestrel the Companion

OKAY, there were three huge LOTR books, and there were only three movies- but there's only one Hobbit book, and they're making it three movies?! DOES NOT MAKE SENSE

That is terrible logic. Under that reasoning, there should only be one Hobbit movie... in which case the entire storyline would be terribly paced, with several important scenes completely cut out.

No, I just think that with the Hobbit being 3, the LOTR should have been...IDK.. at least 6.

[HaniBani87]

Kestrel the Companion

S H E R L O C K E D

Kestrel the Companion

OKAY, there were three huge LOTR books, and there were only three movies- but there's only one Hobbit book, and they're making it three movies?! DOES NOT MAKE SENSE

That is terrible logic. Under that reasoning, there should only be one Hobbit movie... in which case the entire storyline would be terribly paced, with several important scenes completely cut out.

No, I just think that with the Hobbit being 3, the LOTR should have been...IDK.. at least 6.

LotR should've probably been at least 12 ;3
i'm saddened there weren't.. they left out soooooooooo much cat_crying and changed even more ~v~ cat_stressed

[Laili]

I think two would of done the job. My crush was pretty upset they expanded it to five and the fact we'll both be 25 when they'll be done.

But, from the interviews with Peter Jackson, the third movie will explain lots of other things Tolkien writes about in Middle Earth with a tie in with The Hobbit to link it all up.

[ErinTringa]

At first, I was annoyed that they were going to drag this out into three movies probably for the sake of getting more money. But then I remembered how much I love the Hobbit and how the more movies they make, the more enjoyment I'll get out of it [hopefully]. So I guess my opinion is summed up by... Pro: More movies means more fun for me! Con: More movies means more money lining the pockets of Hollywood... which makes me roll my eyes a bit.

[Lithai_Dimir]

Love them all books and movies!!

[S H E R L O C K E D]

ErinTringa

Con: More movies means more money lining the pockets of Hollywood... which makes me roll my eyes a bit.

That's the point of 99% of all Hollywood movies...to make money.

[ErinTringa]

S H E R L O C K E D

ErinTringa

Con: More movies means more money lining the pockets of Hollywood... which makes me roll my eyes a bit.

That's the point of 99% of all Hollywood movies...to make money.

I know, unless it's an artsy film or an indie film. But Hollywood just makes me roll my eyes in general with how they'll do anything for our money.

[S H E R L O C K E D]

ErinTringa

S H E R L O C K E D

ErinTringa

Con: More movies means more money lining the pockets of Hollywood... which makes me roll my eyes a bit.

That's the point of 99% of all Hollywood movies...to make money.

I know, unless it's an artsy film or an indie film. But Hollywood just makes me roll my eyes in general with how they'll do anything for our money.

You basically just described every industry ever. razz Either way, I really don't mind the cash grab issue. For me, the pros massively outweigh the cons, and I really don't see it as a con anyway. Money could not have been the sole reason for stretching the Hobbit into 3 films. Besides, I want every minute of Middle-Earth that I can get! All I can hope for is that they do a good job with the three movies they plan on making.