Just saw The Hobbit, should you?

[cloud1161]

binary solo said:

cloud1161 said:

binary solo said:

SnakeDrake said:
Still think the hobbit should of been one whole movie, but I cant wait to see it. Just needs to fix my phone and call some friends :P

No, there's definitely enough material for 2 movies. But whether 3 will prove to be folly (even with extra material included from the LOTR appendices) remains to be seen. The book is about the same length as FOTR (part 1 of LOTR) and there was a lot left out of the movie adaptation.

The story of "The Hobbit" will actually end with the second movie from what I've read.  The third movie will actually delve into the History of Middle Earth.

Not sure about that. The first movie ends at page 140 of the book, the book (the one I have on my shelf) is 364 pages. So that leave 224 pages left, plus intermingling stuff from the appendices and embellishments. Perhaps with less exposition needed now the last 224 pages can be covered in the same timeframe as  the first 140. But I think PJ is going to weave the extra stuff into the main story and Bilbo will be back in the Shire at the end of the 3rd movie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit:_There_and_Back_Again#Third_film I know it's Wikipedia but it's still something: 

"Although The Hobbit was originally made as a two-part film, on 30 July 2012, Jackson confirmed plans for a third film, turning his adaptation of The Hobbit into a trilogy.^[138][139] According to Jackson, the third film would make extensive use of the appendices that Tolkien wrote to expand the story of Middle-Earth (published in the back of The Return of the King). While the third film will largely make use of footage originally shot for the first and second films, it will require additional filming as well.^[140] The second film was retitled The Desolation of Smaug and the third film was titled There and Back Again in August 2012."  

It's the last paragraph of the Third Film section.