First official photo from SECOND Hobbit movie, The Desolation of Smaug, released
In this exclusive first image from the second film, The Desolation of Smaug, in theaters Dec. 13, 2013, we see Bilbo Baggins going for the gold. To be more exact, we see Martin Freeman’s reluctant hobbit hero splayed out on a massive pile of treasure, looking up in hobbit-y alarm at what we can probably safely assume is an enormous and not very happy fire-breathing dragon named Smaug.
In fact, as anyone who’s read the book knows, the tale of The Hobbit — which Jackson is expanding considerably by drawing on some 120 pages of appendices Tolkien wrote to The Lord of the Rings that elaborate on the story — actually continues well past the face-off with Smaug at the Lonely Mountain, culminating eventually in the epic battle Battle of Five Armies, involving Laketown men, orcs, dwarves, goblins, elves, wargs, and giant eagles.
“The dragon is a huge, wonderful, amazing part of the story, but it doesn’t end there,” says screenwriter and producer Philippa Boyens. “Everyone can suspect there’s a rather large battle in film three.”
Source
it's not like the narrator blacks out for a battle that could basically take up an entire movie in and of itself. Bilbos such a lil flop.
I just don't get this. Did people not read the Hobbit and realize how basic it is in description and detail to LoTr? It can very naturally be split into three parts especially if you focus on your cast of characters in their different places like they did in LotR. I'd rather have more Middle Earth than less.
it's just a movie lol damn
i don't see why the purpose for 3 films can't be both money and an a bit of affection for the fan base. you gotta think that peter was in those studio meetings talking more about the books than the net profit. studio wants money, peter loves the story and the process... it's a win-win. idc if i'm deluded, to me insulting peter is akin to insulting my first born lol
and why are detractors so angry about this issue anyways?
Edited at 2012-12-07 05:11 pm (UTC)
Plus if they "followed" the book Gandalf would be in like 25 minutes of film. IDK about you but I am NHF the lack of Gandalf. YOU GET SIR IAN YOU USE SIR IAN.
The book is basically, they went, they saw, they went home. The End. Bilbo gets hit in the head and sleeps through the whole battle. Gandalf disappears for most of the book - while obviously attending the White Council and fighting the Necromancer. But hey, why put it there, right? Let's just see Gandalf go bye-bye for most movie with a tiny footnote at the end, saying, oh, you know, I did this and that while you were poking a sleeping dragon in the eye but, hey, it's not interesting. What the effing ef are people complaining about!
All this - the White Council, Necromancer, Legolas - is happening during The Hobbit times. Why NOT put it in there? This is the last chance to do it. After this, there will never be anything more since the Tolkien estate is playing a pissy child, refusing to sell stuff like Silmarilion to Jackson. So, the so called "book fans" would rather go without it than see it in The Hobbit? And we are deluded/ridiculous? Ooooooookay.
I am so excited for the White Council SLKDFjlJLSDGUHG GIMME DAT NECROMANCER PLEASE.