Two Hobbit Films???
The only thing I can think of that the second movie might mean, aside perhaps from a biopic showing Bilbo's comfortable Shire life in the years between the books (which IMO would be boring and not really worth making a movie over), would be showing just where Gandalf went after the Beorning stay and why he was gone until after Smaug.
Will we be seeing the Necromancer on-screen, and all the Istari gathered to face the threat? If so- glee!!!
Will we be seeing the Necromancer on-screen, and all the Istari gathered to face the threat? If so- glee!!!
Prince Atom
Explorer
Yeah, just like the rumors I heard about George Lucas doing a TV show spanning the time between the two groups of Star Wars movies. I thought Luke's life on Tatooine was supposed to be really, really boring.
I really don't think that watching Bilbo grow fatter and argue with the Sackville-Bagginses over his silver collection is going to be all that interesting. Maybe some of the other characters will make cameos?
[Ponders]
TWK
I really don't think that watching Bilbo grow fatter and argue with the Sackville-Bagginses over his silver collection is going to be all that interesting. Maybe some of the other characters will make cameos?
[Ponders]
TWK
Eridanis
Bard 7/Mod (ret) 10/Mgr 3
O. M. G.
You know the LotR trilogy made a heap o' cash when they're seriously thinking about making a movie of the Silmarillion to keep the cash flowing. Never in my wildest dreams. Or Tolkien's, for that matter.
(Assuming that's what they mean by "source material.")
If Jackson is at the helm, then consider my money spent already...
You know the LotR trilogy made a heap o' cash when they're seriously thinking about making a movie of the Silmarillion to keep the cash flowing. Never in my wildest dreams. Or Tolkien's, for that matter.
(Assuming that's what they mean by "source material.")
If Jackson is at the helm, then consider my money spent already...
Kid Charlemagne
I am the Very Model of a Modern Moderator
Eridanis said:
They're probably referring to the info on the White Council from Silmarillion. Its not a lot - basically info about Gandalf going to the Necromancer's lair. Personally I think they should avoid that and stick to the book, and make it one movie. But thats just me. As the LoTR movies progressed they deviated more and more from the novels, and to diminished effect, IMO.
It is also possible the "second" is a sort of extended version for DVD release. Not that you can't fill two movies with The Hobbit, but I don't know if the book has a good dramatic breakpoint in the middle like there was between the various LotR books.
A Silmarillion movie? Interesting concept, but all the F-named elves (Feanor, Finwe, Fingolfin, Forgotwhoelse) would certainly confuse the audience. I had to keep a bloody family tree on hand to keep them all straight. But, perhaps cut down to dealing only with Morgoth/Melkor and Sauron might be a small enough chunk to swallow as a movie.
A Silmarillion movie? Interesting concept, but all the F-named elves (Feanor, Finwe, Fingolfin, Forgotwhoelse) would certainly confuse the audience. I had to keep a bloody family tree on hand to keep them all straight. But, perhaps cut down to dealing only with Morgoth/Melkor and Sauron might be a small enough chunk to swallow as a movie.
qstor
Adventurer
Kid Charlemagne said:
I agree. I think the book can be made into one movie without a second film. The footnotes and stuff would be too esoteric for the ordinary movie go-er to create much interest. It makes it seems like Peter Jackson is a super duper Tolkien fan like some of us
But I'm happy with one movie.
Mike
Similar Threads
