Well, here's a bit of blatant money grubbing. Peter Jackson's announced that The Hobbit will be extended into a trilogy. That's just one book, spread into three separate films. By that maths, surely the Lord of the Rings should have been nine films?
Jackson's reasoning is that two films just aren't enough to cover all the exquisite detail and character development that Tolkien managed to pack in. I can kind of understand that there are bits that would have to be left out, but The Hobbit is just one book, and it's not the biggest of the bunch either. The idea is that the rest of the story will be taken from the appendices attached to the Lord of the Rings books.
Films aren't books. If you want every little minute detail, go read the book. Film adaptations from books are meant to be fleeting, almost overviews of the book -- the naked story, almost. If you put everything in from a book, the film would both be incredibly long, and tedious at that. This smacks to me of truly milking the cash cow. I already thought two films was a bit excessive for one book, but now three -- that's just bloody greedy in my eyes.
I'm sure they'll be wonderful, but unless they get absolutely stellar, out-of-this-world reviews, I'm not even going to start this journey to Middle-Earth. The Lord of the Rings movies were long enough, thank you, there's only so much New Zealand scenery I can take. [Facebook via TotalFilm]
Image credit: Hobbit blog