Yeah, the Star Trek comparison is based solely off being the 4th movie in a set, or family, of scifi/fantasy films.
It's a little wacky. Like Mech said, considering the source material (both sets of films based on existing works from the same author) and the timing (it hasn't been as long as the hiatus between the SW or Indy movies) or the way that they've all been directed by the same dude with the same vision, it's pretty different.
I think Jackson is getting a little carried away with how much he thinks the general public cares about Tolkien or fantasy shit. He actually left the songs in this time! It'd be hilarious if they can't get the third film out to theaters.
I still can't believe this shit is three movies. So ridiculous.
Last edited by Mzo; 30 Dec 2012 at 02:47 PM.
Yeah, the Star Trek comparison is based solely off being the 4th movie in a set, or family, of scifi/fantasy films.
Okay? The time differential is primarily important because it's about people writing sequels in a different frame of mind from the originals, and Jackson didn't write The Hobbit and LOTR.
NINE YEARS WAT
Dolemite, the Bad-Ass King of all Pimps and Hustlers
Gymkata: I mean look at da lil playah woblin his way into our hearts in the sig awwwwwww
Different frame of mind? What? How are you uniquely qualified to determine Lucas' "frame of mind" after 12 years and then writing a new Indy and Jackson's (who, btw, did indeed write all of the LOTR and Hobbit movies - granted, having Tolkien's novels) after 9?
Whatever, it still really wasn't the point, which is The Hobbit > any 4th sequel in any scifi/fantasy series. Ever. Still not as good as the original LOTR, however.
Conquest of the Planet of the Apes>The Hobbit.
more like the Faggit
Bookmarks