Film fans were delighted and befuddled by the recent announcement that THE HOBBIT, J.R.R. Tolkien’s classic fantasy book about the adventures of Bilbo Baggins, would be made into a trilogy by filmmaker Peter Jackson instead of being released as a pair of films as originally planned.
Shortly after Peter Jackson posted the news on his Facebook page, the Internet responded with mixed reactions. After all, THE HOBBIT is a much shorter tale than Tolkien’s three book epic, LORD OF THE RINGS. Is there really enough material to warrant a trilogy from a book less than a third the size of the tomes that inspired Jackson’s first trilogy? Or is this about squeezing as much money as possible from audiences?
We at rbb had our own heated discussions on this topic, some of us siding with Jackson’s decision, others taking a more suspicious perspective. As the debate rages, we created an infographic to put the numbers in perspective, illustrating just how valuable THE HOBBIT might be in this “page by page” comparison against its predecessors.
Embed this image on your website
Posted in: Infographic, Media
Tags: Infographic, lord of the rings, Media, peter jackson, the hobbit
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
- ‘The Hobbit’ Infographic: How Much Is The Trilogy Worth Per Page Of The Book? (PIC) | ThinkHero.com – Sci-Fi Comic Books Movies and TV Online Video Blog Show
- The Real Reason ‘The Hobbit’ Is Being Turned Into A Trilogy » Blog Archive » Movie Citizens
- How much is The Hobbit movie trilogy worth per page? | Infographic Directory
Loading ...
Sorry to criticize what you are doing there, but clearly no one on the internet who is saying “the hobbit is shorter and splitting it into 3 films is just money making greed and stretching a 300 page book out as much as they can”, has read ANYTHING that Peter Jackson or his team have been saying all along! Its not just the Hobbit that the film is focusing on, but the appendices from the Lord of the Rings books, which in the printing i have is another 80 pages. Speaking of page count, it seems that you are drawing on a printing that has a higher number of pages than the one i have….was that done on purpose to make this look like a bad move? FOTR has 398 pages, TTT has 322 pages and ROTK has 273 pages in the printing that i have, so clearly your 600 page count for ROTK includes the Appendices which ISNT included in the LOTR film trilogy for the most part, and will be included in the Hobbit movies….might be an idea to re-tally those figures youve done on that chart in my opinion. At the end of the day PJ isnt a money grabbing a-hole like George Lucas, and i and many other LOTR/Hobbit fans are really excited about this new trilogy, and are getting fed up of the “nay-sayers” putting PJ and the idea down without good reasons.
Meh
Really good post!