The third film will be released in Summer 2014 (the 1st and the 2nd will be released on 14 December 2012 and 13 December 2013, respectively). Your thoughts?
Three movies to rule them all. It's kind of surprising how they make three movies out of 1 book but eh, it's in the hands of Peter Jackson meaning it's in good hands. Looking forward to it.
I'm not surprised. Shit, each of the books in Lord of the Rings should've been 2 books each. With as much content as The Hobbit contains, 3 movies seems to be about right.
Really? He's got so much source material to work with. I've always said there should've been three movies as it is. I always expected one of the movies to follow Gandalf almost exclusively.
Idk man, it just seems like it would get old. But I know theirs a massive amount of dedicated fans. But just personally, I don't think I can handle 3
As a kid I had a copy of the Hobbit and never could get through it. Just a couple weeks ago I dug it out again and found out why. There is so much going on in this book that the storytelling just turns into "Bilbo did this and then Bilbo did that and then this happened and then that happened." Zzzzzzzz. This turn of events actually makes me more interested seeing it separated into three movies. Maybe then there will be some actual damned dialog and characters in the story. Or this could totally blow up into smithereens as movies tend to do. In any case, I was so disappointed with the book that I am not really sure I want to try reading LotR. Tolkien is lined up to be #1 on my list of most overrated authors.
I used to think the same. You've got to give him a chance; he's a terrific writer. I don't like The Hobbit very much. I think the overall story's pretty sweet, but the book itself was too long for me; it was as if nothing was happening half the time. He left out all the good stuff, like all the times when Gandalf was gone (which was the White Council and their driving Sauron out of Mirkwood), among other things. Those are the things Jackson's adding to the films, to flesh them out, because otherwise, he'd've only made one movie and it would've been pretty boring. I think that's also why he included other characters like Galadriel (she's a member of the White Council) and Legolas (he's the son of the Elven-king of Mirkwood), to add a little depth to the stories he's going to tell from The Silmarillion. As for The Lord of the Rings... Well, they're long. I've been reading them since March, and I'm only halfway through The Two Towers. All the parts with Frodo and Sam are extremely boring, though well-written. All the parts with the rest of the Fellowship (i.e. Aragorn, notably) are amazing, because there's always something going on with them. My biggest problem with Tolkien is that he thought it was a good idea to describe everything in ridiculous detail. Instead of "they woke up," he writes "they were roused from their slumber suddenly, like two small children who were awoken by their parents in the middle of a good dream, and now they can't remember the dream to tell all their friends; such a dream it was!" etc, etc, etc. I mean, it makes for very vivid pictures in your head, but... it does get old after a while, especially when you read a whole chapter and realize, "Holy fuck, all of that happened in one fucking hour and it took me six to read it!" Basically, give them a shot. He's certainly not overrated by any means; you've just got to like that style of writing, which I do, to an extent.
I don't think he's overrated at all. Read this and you'll know why. The guy created an entire world. He created languages, mythologies etc. It's insane. This man worked his entire life on the mythos of Middle-Earth.
Me: YES! One more. So, I'm just happy having one more film I can watch, because (hopefully) it will be closer to the book and more detailed. But I must admit I never read any of these books, since I watched the films before (and I have bad experience with reading the book afterwards...), well, maybe someday I'll read them. [Please correct me if something is wrong. >,<]
I was 12 when I read The Hobbit. I didn't find it boring at all. Then I started reading The Fellowship of the Ring and damn, just reading the foreword took ages. But I don't think Tolkien is overrated; I agree with Decay.
This. His son, Christopher, edited all of his notes into a compendium of volumes known as The History of Middle-earth. I think there are 12, perhaps 13, volumes. What other book series can you say that about? Granted, he only wrote two actual novels set in Middle-earth (The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, which was one book, originally published in three volumes), but the legendarium is so vast and imaginative that authors today pale in comparison to Tolkien.
I know this. His setting is fantastic and became the backbone for high fantasy and the creation of RPG's. My expectations were high because I already knew this. Setting, Plot, Characters. He's got setting but you need all 3 for a story.
Ha! No shit, but it wasn't exactly planned out to be three. He set the two, but didn't feel as though he could get it all into the two films without skipping out on some scenes which may or may not be important.
This. There are a lot of non-scenes in The Hobbit in which Gandalf disappears for chapters at a time. Jackson's going to be showing us what Gandalf was doing while he was gone, based on the stories in The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales. I wouldn't be surprised if the middle film's title is changed to The White Council or something, because that was one of the major events: Gandalf and the White Council driving Sauron out of Mirkwood.
True, when I first heard about it, I immediately thought "money grab". But then I realised that even if it is, there's just so much content that could be poured into these movies that there wouldn't even be any need for filler material to drag it out over three movies. Also, The Silmarillion and I have a love-hate relationship. I enjoy reading it, but it has to be in small doses, otherwise I tend to get a bit overwhelmed RACIST