Comments (7) (Please sign in to comment)

1. 

   larygene said, 6 months ago

   Keith you are right on. I’ve been bitching about the same thing since I first saw some darn trailer talking about the Hobbit trilogy. I don’t even care to know how he’s planning to puff up the story.
2. 

   Gee Man said, 6 months ago

   Yup, hard to see how a book of maybe 200 pages that I read easily in grade 5 has material enough for a trilogy.
3. 

   Trebuchet said, 6 months ago

   The Hobbit films are going to pull a lot more material than just the original book: “The Hobbit”. A lot was hinted at if you read between the lines (like where was Gandalf running off to all the time, or why did Gandalf pick Bilbo to go with the Dwarves in the first place) much of which was fillled out in Tolkien’s history of Middle Earth series, which is a collection of his unfinished and unpublished works.
4. 

   runar said, 6 months ago

   I’m not going to condemn the Hobbit films unseen, but I agree with Trebuchet that there was a lot going on unseen that becomes vital to the events in Lord of the Rings. What does annoy me about these films is the marketing and merchandising that’s going on – the worst so far being a tie-in with Denny’s.
5. 

   Night-Gaunt49 said, 6 months ago

   I must disagree today. King Kong the remake was fantastic. In 1933 they didn’t like longer movies, even when made. Even with all that time it still isn’t enough to cover the stories sufficiently. So I liked the movies.
6. 

   Steve M said, 6 months ago

   Hey, lay off King Kong, I liked Jackson’s treatment.
   I’m taking a wait-and-see stance on the Hobbit, but if I like the land he’s brought us to, then the more the better.
7. 

   rkozakand said, 5 months ago

   Middle-Earth is not a different land,
   THIS is middle Earth,
   Tolkien’s stories are supposed to be the mythic past of this planet.
8. Refresh Comments.