Though, it would still be interesting to see what a 1 film adaptation of The Hobbit would be like.

Though, it would still be interesting to see what a 1 film adaptation of The Hobbit would be like.

It's not its length that makes it three movies, it's its structure.

I'm not sure I agree this will be a total bust: I generally like my blockbusters slow and introspective, so this change may work for me as a viewer.

I'm not sure I agree this will be a total bust: I generally like my blockbusters slow and introspective, so this change may work for me as a viewer.

The critique is pretty simple – Jackson and his team are stretching a simple story beyond reasonable limits to make more money from ticket sales. Harry Potter was the first franchise to split books, turning the Deathly Hallows into two separate movies. Although there was some creative rationale for the split – Deathly Hallows was a long book, and it meant we got two tonally distinct movies – it's also true Warner Bros probably increased its grosses by many hundreds of millions in the process. Other franchises, including Twilight and The Hunger Games, have since followed suit. Jackson, though, seems to be taking this idea to extremes, and many fans are up in arms at what they see as a blatant cash grab.

The critique is pretty simple – Jackson and his team are stretching a simple story beyond reasonable limits to make more money from ticket sales. Harry Potter was the first franchise to split books, turning the Deathly Hallows into two separate movies. Although there was some creative rationale for the split – Deathly Hallows was a long book, and it meant we got two tonally distinct movies – it's also true Warner Bros probably increased its grosses by many hundreds of millions in the process. Other franchises, including Twilight and The Hunger Games, have since followed suit. Jackson, though, seems to be taking this idea to extremes, and many fans are up in arms at what they see as a blatant cash grab.

Sure, it's not morally acceptable, but I'm just glad it's being made into a film. 1 film is great, 3 is a bonus.

In Reply To

The animated Hobbit manages to tell most of the story in 77 minuites with three major deletions: 1) the character of Beorn; 2) the Wood-elves' feast in Mirkwood; and 3) the subplot with the Arkenstone. As long as you are willing to similarly compress the events of the book, there is no reason why the entire story couldn't be adapted in 2 hours or so.

Dumas wrote a whole series of musketeer novels.

But this isn't really comparable. People like Middle Earth. They want to see more movies about Middle Earth. The problem is, Tolkien only published one more novel (in his lifetime) about Middle Earth. However, he did write lots of plot outlines and story fragments. What is being made is a prequel trilogy to LotOR, not a straight adaptation of one novel.

I hope Dol Guldur is longish; more than a simpler subplot, but not equal to The Hobbit - 1/3 seems a perfect ratio for the film count. I would wish them well to use the Appendices to enter the area of the Silmarillion as far as the Appendices can possibly carry them. I wish this because I dislike the reluctance, nay obstinance, of the Tolkien Estate about allowing film rights for all the materials to legitimate productions. If they want it really done right instead of weighted toward fan, or "speculative," fiction, that's what they'd do. "What can we do to help you do it right" is a much more progressive attitude than their perceived obstinance.

But about cramming "material that has very little to do with The Hobbit," I would posit that the Dol Guldur thread can or might be used to clear obstacles or threats from Bilbo and the Dwarves' path that, were there not interventions by The Council, would otherwise have been there. The company would not have to know these things happened and the story from Bilbo's point of view does not have to be altered, leaving The Hobbit as-is while more tightly integrating the story of The White Council.