Really three?Last I saw it was two,which was understandable,lot to cram in there,but three?:eyebrow:
I heard it was going to be a trilogy. Which seems weird since it is the shortest book of the four. The others only got a movie a piece.
Provided the movie are as good as the previous ones were, I'm more than happy for there to be three of them. The amount of complaining I've heard on this subject is ... confusing. If you aren't interested in the movies, then why should you care? If you ARE interested, shouldn't you be giving Jackson and team the benefit of the doubt for now?
....the third one involves a Middle Earth Game Show called..."Fork The Orc"...
I'm curious where they will split the book,maybe the first at the time they leave Beorn's house and enter the forest,the second as the approach the Lonely Mountain,and finish with the dragon and the last battle..any thoughts?
Or, maybe, didn't. We shall see!
I will go ahead and say that if fur or meat = murder then PeTA's 97% kill rate in their "animal shelter" should = murder too.
Of course, I tend not to trust, follow, or believe anything the big three (Humane Society of the US, ASPCA, and PeTA) spew, because while they certainly talk a big talk, their actions are significantly louder. Any 'animal rights' organization that believes that animals are better off dead than alive is an animal rights organization that doesn't need my money or my support. That being said, I really wish that they hadn't strayed so far from their roots, because I really want to believe they care about animals. It is obvious they don't, but they certainly do care about donations and money.
Back onto the topic, I can see The Hobbit as two movies. I think three movies is really stretching the source material (which apparently they thought so too, since they are including stuff from other sources.)