Why IS the Hobbit going to be three films? Your input:

[Zak33]

right...so in essence everyone thinks the 3 part strategy is JUST money.

We don't leave any room for any other theory? Like.... graphics will improve over the next 2 years and Jackson is hoping for something not available yet? or....... he's not happy with the current 3d effects and wants better... and has it in devlopment.

I pray it's NOT just money.... seriously.

[HalloweenJack]

[Terbinator]

after seeing GOTs dragons I am expecting big things from Smaug .

Please less of Jar Jar Bli.. erm I mean Gollum.

m

But GoT's dragons look awful SFX wise.

I thought Gollum was really well done in the LoTR films.

[melon]

But GoT's dragons look awful SFX wi.

I thought Gollum was really well done in the LoTR films.

Well they looked more realistic to me , Gollum did not - he had those large cartoon eyes like Jar Jar , spoke like Jar Jar ( almost ) and moved like a monkey.

Perhaps its 3 parts to put their spin on events only touched on in the books i.e. more of the backstory of events leading up to it like how Smaug claimed the smokey mountains ? What Sauraman and all these other characters from LOR where up to ?

m

[explosion93]

Hopefully he make up make up for it with EPIC CGI and massive warfare

[DoMo]

More money!

[scaryjim]

I hate to say it, but it's probably more money. One would hope its to do proper justice to the story (which is actually quite detailed and complex - more so than LOTR in many ways*) but I'm too cynical to believe that.

If he'd wanted to do LOTR in more parts he could easily have broken it down into six - the original book is actually divided into 6, with each of the well-known trilogy being divided into two. But the thing is LOTR is actually quite sparse*. I'd have to re-read The Hobbit to give a definite breakdown, but I can see it quite easily dividing into 3 parts - there's so much story that trying to cram it all into 2 - or even 3 - hours means you'd have to gloss over or drop important sections of the story.

*Hobbit more complex than LOTR? LOTR sparse? Well, yes, kind of. LOTR has a *lot* of padding, epic poetry, and just plain boring stuff. There are long-winded descriptions of journeys and landscapes, there's a lot of backstory and flavour (there's virtually an entire chapter dedicated to the funeral of Rohan's fallen warriors after Helm's Deep, which makes.. what, 20 seconds of good film?), and massive battles with minute description, but if you count out key story it's actually pretty thinly spread through the book. The Hobbit is far more helter-skelter - there's always something going on - and a lot of the key story is very cinematic. I'm of the opinion that it will probably make a better film overall - be interesting to see what's done with it though

[laptop1967]

Yeah it's money, i read the book once years ago, it was a kind of childrens book, and i preferred Lord of the Rings, which i read numerous times, so if they are going to flesh it out, i'm all for it

[Larkspeed]

I think it is probably to prevent something like the farce that Eragon was.

Eragon was a great book but they cut so much of the story out to fit it into a normal length movie that the story really did not gel together anymore.

The style of writing in the LOTR and The Hobbit make for very long movies unless you want to cut them up and totaly ruin them, as someone already pointed out they cut a lot out of the LOTR trilogy to shorten them but the extended editions still total nearly 12 hours of video.

Figure if they don't cut it down The Hobbit could potentially be a 4 to 4½ hour movie, take into account that the majority of movie goers now start to get bored after about 90 to 120 minutes that makes for 3 movies to keep audience attention.

At least that's my take on it.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The Hobit is hobbled it seems.

[Barakka]

Money, but not just to make more, to spend more...

Editing costs money, post production VFX and audio costs money, and takes a long time, post for a normal feature takes 6 months minimum, and Jackson is someone who goes the extra 2000 miles with post to get everything perfect (watch the extra disc of King Kong to see what he does). If The Hobbit is worth splitting into 3 movies, why didn't the Rings films get split further ? Because at the time Jackson wasn't successful enough and powerful enough to be able to convince the Executive Producers and bond company that it was worth it financially, so it all had to go on extended editions instead - they're what the films would had been if he'd been allowed to spend more at the time.

Normally with a feature of this scale the Director will be under constant pressure from the Production company, and more specifically the associated completion bond company to produce the agreed product in the agreed time frame, to the agreed budget. Basically Jackson is at a point where he will have been able to convince the Producers that it is worth spending the extra to edit it to 3 movies and still make the return they are after.

Zak - the tech he's waiting for is what he's hoping to trigger wider adoption of after releasing the first one, visually 48fps - not been done before, and audio wise Dolby Atmos* - been done but only a handful of theatres globally so far (increasing to 1000 in 2013). These are both technologies the theatres will need to re-configure to support, especially Atmos.

*128 discreet audio channels with 64 speaker locations - now THAT is surround sound.

[Zak33]

@Larkspeed and Barakka.... you guys give me hope.

Ya see, I kinds trust Jackson with my heart on this film.... it's a knife edge. If I fall utterly in love with it, as I did with all 3 LOTR then I will forgive him.. and your input is kinda what I pray for.

Cinema is SO expensive now... it needs to be delivilshly good to justify the 3 sittings over 2 years,

[melon]

I think this has got something to do with why its 3 films..



m

[Zak33]

I think this has got something to do with why its 3 films..



m

you've lost me melon.

What has Star Wars (6 films currently, likely to expand now Disney owns the brand) gotta do with the Hobbit being three parts, and Bilbo meeting Frodo in Rivendell?

[melon]

you've lost me melon.

What has Star Wars (6 films currently, likely to expand now Disney owns the brand) gotta do with the Hobbit being three parts, and Bilbo meeting Frodo in Rivendell?

George is going to edit the " special edition " hobbit films to include the part where Bilbo actually ends up on Dagobah with Yoda for a while .

It will all be in the blu ray special edition ( with the same blue light saber Bilbo hands Frodo as a bonus ka-ching ) after the completion of the Hobbit films just before the 1st new SW film - so instead of Frodo getting just the ring from Bilbohe gets the saber too.

The new star wars film then is going pick up where" caravan of courage " left off and be centered round those kids, the Hobbits and Gandalfs terrible war with Ewoks and Jar Jar.

Heres a preview of what u can expect the new DISNEY STAR WARS to be like !!!!

m

[melon]

You all probably thought I was joking about lOR / STAR WARS , but do you know what REALLY happened to the ring ?

THATS RIGHT

A Witch stole it !!

m