I thought we were going to see more Hobbit trailers and got excited.

Anyways what about the possibility of them being a trilogy? I seriously hope not

it's possibly a trilogy but I'm thinking they'll just release extended versions of the movies on DVD and blu-ray.

I don't think i'd mind a trilogy but they would certainly need to rebrand it as something other than just a hobbit movie... since it's going to be so much more appendices stuff from LOTR.

http://cheezburger.com/6469139456

Trilogy

:|

The Hobbit is like half the length of ONE of the Lord of the Rings books. Each of those were ~3 hours and The Hobbit's gonna take like 8-9 hours to tell? wut.

I know they're gonna include some stuff from Tolkien's appendices/Silmarillion but still. I have a feeling these movies are gonna feel BLOATED

I was just about to post that link.

... I dunno. It's too soon to say but my goodness that will be a long trilogy for a 300 page book and some Tolkien footnotes.

I still have faith in Jackson, but jeeeeeez.

at least the 3rd movie will be Summer '14 and not December '14

I just thought of something, this has got to be the most frames for a single film project ever.
48 frames per second, twice as many as usual, for about 9 hours.

That's 1,555,200 frames of film! In 3D no less. I do not envy the special effects department.

I agree it is probably a little too much. But with Frodo telling the story, maybe they will have some present day stuff mixed in? That could be the extra time.

It's clear they have more story to tell than what's in the book, just like they did with LOTR. I'm very fine with a trilogy. FULL FAITH IN PJ

Curtis @ 30/7/2012 16:22

It's clear they have more story to tell than what's in the book, just like they did with LOTR.

lol wut? They cut out waaay more in LOTR than they added

TECHNICALLY each book in the LOTR trilogy is a combination of two books, so there's really SIX books in the LOTR trilogy that are about as long as The Hobbit. So if The Hobbit needs 3 movies to tell, then if LOTR was told at the same pace it would've taken... 18 movies. Which would've been ridiculous.

well yeah it will have tonnes of extra stuff.

I dunno, because I really felt King Kong was too long, and that was a long adaptation of a much shorter movie. But at the same time, Lovely Bones was way too short in my opinion and could have had it's plot breathe a bit.

So I really hope there is a lot of extra info tying Hobbit to the LOTR trilogy, but I also hope that it doesn't bury the plot of the original book.

Boc @ 30/7/2012 17:27

Curtis @ 30/7/2012 16:22 It's clear they have more story to tell than what's in the book, just like they did with LOTR. lol wut? They cut out waaay more in LOTR than they added

What I meant was they mixed the story around in LOTR for the movie. Things were shifted, some stuff was given more time in the movie, etc.

Obviously they feel that with the story they're telling with the Hobbit MOVIE will take three movies to tell. I don't think we can really judge based on how many pages the source material is

Wasnt PJ talking about having stuff between the Hobbit book and the LOTR books? I assume those will take some screen time

I wouldn't mind if they showed Silmarillion stuff. Is he going to edit the first two films then or just add new stuff in the third film.