That's an interesting approach. Myself, I'd rather see the book in two parts. Less cut out that way.Traycor said:And they won't be breaking the one book into two. They will do the Hobbit, then they will cover the gap in time between Hobbit and LotR
Kaodi said:I think it is possible perhaps to lengthen it out they might feature the side trek of Gandalf at some point. Been too long, had something to do with Aragorn and the Necromancer a.k.a. Sauron, right?
I remember reading a blurb months ago (back before PJ released his "they don't want me anymore" letter about Newline). The blurb basically indicated that the 2nd movie would be about what you just described above.qstor said:maybe the 2nd part is on: "In 3009, Gandalf grew suspicious of the ring belonging to the Hobbit Bilbo Baggins, which later turned out to be the One Ring, the source of the Dark Lord Sauron's evil power. Aragorn went at his request into Rhovanion in search of Gollum, who had once possessed the Ring. He caught the creature in the Dead Marshes near Mordor, and brought him as a captive to Thranduil's halls in Mirkwood, where Gandalf questioned him."
I could be wrong. This old interview with PJ on Aint It Cool News indicates otherwise. You'll have to skip down to the Hobbit bits of the interview, but PJ liked the idea of fleshing out and splitting The Hobbit to give it more of an adult feel like LotRTraycor said:And they won't be breaking the one book into two. They will do the Hobbit, then they will cover the gap in time between Hobbit and LotR
That would be good. That way when the extended edition dvds come out it'll only take a quarter of a day to watch both. Plus, assuming you didn nothing but watch the entire Middle Earth saga, you could do it in a period of one day.messy said:allo
i hope he makes "the hobbit" a solid, 2-hour movie, rather than another 3-hour epic. :\
messy