All three released dates for The Hobbit movies

[YosemiteSam]

Whoopes, wrong forum.

Part 1: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - December 14th, 2012.
Part 2: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug - December 13th, 2013.
Part 3: The Hobbit: There and Back Again - July 18th, 2014.

Complete Story

 

[Risen Star]

I'm sure we can turn this into a Cole Beasley thread and keep it in this forum.

 

[Flinger]

Whoopes, wrong forum.

Part 1: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - December 14th, 2012.
Part 2: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug - December 13th, 2013.
Part 3: The Hobbit: There and Back Again - July 18th, 2014.

Complete Story

Somehow, this whole thing with the Hobbit is cheapened and commercialized. The Lord of the Rings movie trilogy was really excellent in its adherence to the spirit and intent of the books.

But the Hobbit is not a Trilogy. This is simply an opportunity to make more money. The book is an incredible piece of literature (as is the Lord of the Rings trilogy).

There was something honorable about the Lord of the Rings. Now...

It's sort of like the Landry era vs the Jones era...

 

[YosemiteSam]

Somehow, this whole thing with the Hobbit is cheapened and commercialized. The Lord of the Rings movie trilogy was really excellent in its adherence to the spirit and intent of the books.

But the Hobbit is not a Trilogy. This is simply an opportunity to make more money. The book is an incredible piece of literature (as is the Lord of the Rings trilogy).

There was something honorable about the Lord of the Rings. Now...

It's sort of like the Landry era vs the Jones era...

I prefer the Hobbit store to the LotRs story. Not that LotRs is bad in any way. It's great. I just think the Hobbit was better. Hopefully the movies are too. If it is, these movies should be awesome.

 

[Arch Stanton]

I'm sure we can turn this into a Cole Beasley thread and keep it in this forum.

I'm just hoping they'll be as good as Danny Coale.

 

[Risen Star]

I'm just hoping they'll be as good as Danny Coale.

That's what I like about you, Arch. You're a dreamer.

 

[TheCount]

I prefer the Hobbit store to the LotRs story. Not that LotRs is bad in any way. It's great. I just think the Hobbit was better. Hopefully the movies are too. If it is, these movies should be awesome.

The Hobbit is certainly more straightforward. I though LOTR was more grown up while The Hobbit is a quicker read. The type of book you'd use to introduce a kid to fantasy, as it requires far less research and less connecting of the dots than LOTR.

All that being said, it's not a trilogy and they are certainly splitting it up for the sake of money. I'm still going to watch them, but it really shouldn't take 6 hours to tell the story.

 

[Flinger]

The Hobbit is certainly more straightforward. I though LOTR was more grown up while The Hobbit is a quicker read. The type of book you'd use to introduce a kid to fantasy, as it requires far less research and less connecting of the dots than LOTR.

All that being said, it's not a trilogy and they are certainly splitting it up for the sake of money. I'm still going to watch them, but it really shouldn't take 6 hours to tell the story.

Hey - I'm with you. Really looking forward to it.

I really enjoy Tolkien. Great moral stories. Did you know that Tolkien was part of an academic literary club called the Inklings at Oxford University in England with C.S. Lewis? At that point, they were both Christians. They both recognized a gap in modern literature for great morale stories that are based in adventure and imagination. Each decided to write an adventure series - one would be based on earth set in modern times (WWII) and one would be based on earth in another time. They flipped a coin.

Tolkien then wrote the Hobbit and then Lord of the Rings - other time . C.S. Lewis wrote the Adventures of Narnia - modern times (The Lion and the Wardrobe).

... I probably just butchered the precise truth, but I think my memory serves me correctly...

Simply brilliant writing... by both...

 

[wittenacious]

The Hobbit is certainly more straightforward. I though LOTR was more grown up while The Hobbit is a quicker read. The type of book you'd use to introduce a kid to fantasy, as it requires far less research and less connecting of the dots than LOTR.

All that being said, it's not a trilogy and they are certainly splitting it up for the sake of money. I'm still going to watch them, but it really shouldn't take 6 hours to tell the story.

This is what I've been thinking, too, ever since "The Hobbit" Trilogy was first reported to be happening.

But, like so many millions of others, I loved the J.R.R. Tolkien books I've read, including The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, published in the three: 1. The Fellowship of the Ring; 2. The Two Towers; 3. The Return of the King.

And, I loved each of Peter Jackson's "LOTR" Trilogy movies.

So, I will dutifully and anticipatedly look forward to Jackson's "The Hobbit" Trilogy, even if stretched out a bit in order for the movie makers to accommodate three full-length movies. Happily.

 

[Lodeus]

Does the article explain why first two parts are so far apart?

 

[MapleLeaf]

Hey - I'm with you. Really looking forward to it.

I really enjoy Tolkien. Great moral stories. Did you know that Tolkien was part of an academic literary club called the Inklings at Oxford University in England with C.S. Lewis? At that point, they were both Christians. They both recognized a gap in modern literature for great morale stories that are based in adventure and imagination. Each decided to write an adventure series - one would be based on earth set in modern times (WWII) and one would be based on earth in another time. They flipped a coin.

Tolkien then wrote the Hobbit and then Lord of the Rings - other time . C.S. Lewis wrote the Adventures of Narnia - modern times (The Lion and the Wardrobe).

... I probably just butchered the precise truth, but I think my memory serves me correctly...

Simply brilliant writing... by both...

...to what I have heard. They met regularily in a college setting at first and then it was transferred by CS Lewis to another college where they took the habit of meeting at various pubs.

The one fact I do know is they had a tradition of reading a particular author's writing out loud (notorious for bad prose) and seeing how long they could hold out before breaking out in s******s or laughter.

Odd...literary bullying of sorts.

 

[Kevinicus]

I find the comments about the hobbit being cheapened because it's being commercialized to make it a trilogy funny since LOTR wasn't meant to be a trilogy as a book, and for economic reasons the publisher split it up into 3 parts.

However many movies it takes to tell the story the best possible way is how many movies they should use. And, if they want to expand on the source material using notes or unpublished manuscripts or whatever, as long as it's good, I'm all for it.

 

[wittenacious]

I find the comments about the hobbit being cheapened because it's being commercialized to make it a trilogy funny since LOTR wasn't meant to be a trilogy as a book, and for economic reasons the publisher split it up into 3 parts.

However many movies it takes to tell the story the best possible way is how many movies they should use. And, if they want to expand on the source material using notes or unpublished manuscripts or whatever, as long as it's good, I'm all for it.

Big difference in book lengths — The Lord of the Rings is more than 3x longer than The Hobbit in book form — is what so many of us are talking about and, fwiw, I never came close to saying "cheapened":

Q. How many pages does the book The Hobbit have?

A. The Hobbit, written by J.R. Tolkien has 320 pages in the paperback edition and 297 pages
in the hard cover edition.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_pages_does_the_book_The_Hobbit_have#ixzz25ESEDZ00
​

Q. How many pages in Lord of the Rings?

A. In the complete trilogy, there are about 1011 pages

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_pages_in_Lord_of_the_Rings#ixzz25ESeNF6q
​

 

[JonJon]

I am so looking forward to this. The LOTR series is my favorite all time.

 

[Meat-O-Rama]

I think they could have done it in two, but from what I understand the third movie involves unpublished material that deals with the time span between the End of the Hobbit and beginning of LoTR. The books are dense, and by splitting it up it allows them to keep from cutting so much material. But yeah, it doesn't hurt that they will make a metric **** ton of money by splitting them up as well.

 

[YosemiteSam]

If you've read the Lord of the Rings, you know there are huge parts of the books missing. Like escaping the shire was half the Fellowship of the Ring's book.

I'm sure those movies could have been split into many more movies than they were if so much hadn't been left out. That said, I think they did a great job.

I'm sure The Hobbit content could easily make three movies without issue. I can honestly say I don't want to sit for six straight hours in a theater. At home? Maybe, but definitely not a theater.

So my opinion is this. If these movies end up being as awesome as LotRs, then by all means. Make it three movies.