Replies

He would have to. I was shocked that he was going to extend the Hobbit into two feature length films. It is a relatively short book that is easily read. I read the book to my son at bed time in only a matter of two weeks. That was around one chapter a night.

The book is less than three hundred pages.

I am a true LOR fan and think he did a tremendous job with the trilogy, yet even in the extended versions he left out some major players particularly in the early stages of the films. Including Tom Bombadil who aided the adventurers in the Old Forrest prior to their stay at the Inn at Brie. He was a relatively important character and was mentioned at the Council of Elrond as a possible keeper of the Ring of Power. He was also in the ending chapters. The Rape of the Shire and the reclamation of Frodo's Home from the Sackville baggins's was left out of the LOR trilogy and it's extended version even with almost thirteen hours of film.

I only hope that he doesn't do to the Hobbit what he did to King Kong. The Movie was very good in some parts but was in desperate need of an editor. He could have lopped off a good 30 minutes or more of the film and made the picture much better by having LESS film.

I think they should have had the cleansing of the Shire. I would have liked to have seen that.

I can appreciate why Bombadil wasn’t in the movie, because it didn’t fit the overall movie. To most movie goers, it would have been a strange scene to have the Hobbits running for their lives to go into this earthly paradise and strip naked and run across the field and talk to this elflike man, with a green hat, who could hold the ring with no harm done.

How could the ring really be that dangerous when this man is holding it like it was nothing? It would have undercut the danger of the ring, imo.

Oh, gosh, I disagree with you about King Kong! I loved every minute, and have watched it many times now. I see something new to like in it each time, and I almost never re-watch movies that have sad endings. But King Kong was so masterfully well done and well-cast that I watch it anyway. I can't think of any superfluous or wasted moments on film in that movie. Now, The Abyss, another favorite movie I've watched many times, would have been great if they'd left off the last half hour! Plenty of times I just end it at the point where Michael Biehn's character goes into the Abyss. That way I've caught all the good stuff!

Peter Jackson's King Kong, to my mind, was exactly just right all around.

Apart from being able to really follow the book (a major criticism of the LOTR trilogy, as major plot points were completely eliminated or drastically altered; see: cleansing of the Shire, the Siege of Minas Tirith being reduced to a several-hour battle, the erasure of the Field of Cormallen scene and Aragorn’s coronation, the erasure of the Black Breath subplot, Denethor’s Palantir, etc), doing the movie as a trilogy allows him to explore the White Council and the expulsion of the Necromancer from Dol Guldur. It also permits a longer flashback for Gandalf when he found Thrain in the Necromancer’s dungeon and received the map of the Lonely Mountain. Finally, it allows a bit of fill-in for the space between The Hobbit and the LOTR series, with Gollum’s journey to Mordor, an introduction to the Rangers, and so on.

“The Return of the King” should have ended, on a high note, with the wedding of Aragorn and Arwen and his coronation as King.

Then they could have had a fourth movie about the return home and the cleansing of the Shire.

They finally figured out that with a franchise like this, another movie is ‘like printing money’.

Don't know as how three “the Hobbit” movies are going to work - but I was definitely for there being FOUR ‘Lord of the Rings’ movies.