If Peter Jackson would've done the Hobbit first, then maybe you'd all be saying this about the six LOTR movies. Just enjoy it, Jackson stretches out his movies, always has and always will.

Yeah the Hobbit probably would have been better if it was made ten or so years ago. Damn you technology!

Actually no. His early movies were not bloated at all


Dead alive, heavenly creatures , frighteners, etc...,

6?

Must be thinking of Star Wars...

Disagree. If he had done the Hobbit first, he probably would not have stretched it ridiculously into a 3 movie epic...you'd have had one really good movie, and then 3 good movies for the LOTR series. He just went apeshit on the Hobbit because of the technology and the fact that nowadays, you have to have a 3 movie epic thing rather than just tell a good story.

Bleh.

Originally, Jackson wanted to do a 2-part film but WB wanted a trilogy to milk that cash cow.

At Comic Con, Jackson revealed the original pitch was a stand alone Hobbit, and if it did well, a two movie Lord of the Rings. It was actually the producers that told Jackson he has a three part movie in LotR, he originally was going with the two movies.

I could care less. I love the movies. I prefer the extended editions on disc. I can understand why some don't, but I love seeing the interpretation of the works come to life and I'm glad they decided to open up the appendices. Did the first movie drag in parts? Yes. But, not so much that it really irks me.

So yesterday was a movie day for me and the wife, and we watched the Hobbit (1 and 2). I've decided that it's fine that that they go so far afly from the book. The purpose of these movies is to give background to the LOTR as well as tell the Hobbit story. So, I guess I can get on board. It's not as fun as LOTR, but these types of things rarely are. See Star Wars Prequels.

Ironic since it's 3 books, so a trilogy makes more sense anyway...

He was referring to the hobbit, not lotr.

Oh, gotcha. Carry on...:huh: