The initial plan to make "The Hobbit" movie into two films has been revised into a three part epic. It's hard for me to say how I honestly feel about this. It's been about two years since I last read the novel and I can't convince myself that enough happened to totally justify three films--purely speaking from the hypothetical 2.5 hour runtime of this story's sequels.
And yet, I have full faith in Peter Jackson to pull this off amicably. In my case, I am a fanatic for fantasy, so I will gobble up every minute with pleasure spoon, but for others, three parts may be too much."The Hobbit" is rife with somber and riveting dwarf songs, so with three films to work with, I expect nearly every single one to be incorporated into the trilogy, which will most likely put a few people off; however, for those who love the Tolkien Universe, are film nerds, or have an interest in fantastical anthropology, this series will have it all. If the trailer is any indication, then we'll all have new material to sing at our local pubs:
The wind was on the withered heath,
but in the forest stirred no leaf:
there shadows lay by night and day,
and dark things silent crept beneath.
The wind came down from mountain cold,
and like a tide it roared and rolled;
the branches groaned, the forest moaned,
and leaves were laid upon the mould.
The wind went on from West to East;
all movements in the forest ceased,
but shrill and harsh across the marsh
its whistling voices were released.
(excerpt from "The Hobbit" by J.R.R. Tolkien)
Other issues I suspect general audience goers will have with "The Hobbit," is that it won't appear nearly as "epic" as the original "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy (LOTR). There's no Mount Doom, Mordor, giant orc armies, balrogs, castle sieges, or most of the other world-hanging-by-a-thread elements that made that series seem so large. This story is character driven, and the main focus is Bilbo. It's a micro-look at the adventures of Middle earth denizens, rather than the macro LOTR.
However it's received, there's little doubt that it won't be a success. Marketing for the film wrapped up before it even began production, so many people will see it. The things that pump me up most about this film are the following succinct bullets:
- three films equals quite possibly the most faithful film adaptation of a novel
- Martin Freeman (of "Sherlock" fame) will be a phenomenal Bilbo Baggins
- the dwarf songs will set a visceral tone for the whole film
- it's a pure, uninhibited adventure story
- the project is in the hands of Peter Jackson, so the audience will get a "Skyrimesque"-like look into Middle Earth.
All that's left to say is: I hope Jackson doesn't decide to release these films in yearly intervals. Every six months would be ideal .
I thought that Whedon would perhaps hang up the cape and tights, so to speak, after his riveting box office and critic success with "The Avengers" for something more up his alley in the world of television, but it's been revealed by Disney's Chairman, Bog Iger, that the Buffy and Firefly progenitor will be back to write and direct "The Avengers 2." This is fantastic news because that may mean this decade's slew of comic book superhero movies may become successful and respected trilogies (if not more) like "The Dark Knight" series of movies by Christopher Nolan. (I, for one, have complete faith in "The Amazing Spider-man" if Marc Webb continues to direct them.)
