HEY GUYS! BIG NEWS: THE HOBBIT'S GOING TO BE EXPENSIVE!

Jesus. Wasn't the entire budget of the LOTR trilogy somewhere around $300 million? I know that was seen as much more of a risk at the time, and they're probably going all out for the sequel/prequel/cash-in, but 5mill? These are two movies which should be one compared to three...and a lot more shit happens in the trilogy (meaning, more FX work).

Who the hell does Ridley Scott think he is, asking for that kind of mon.........Oh. Oh well THESE movies are worth it....

The stress of making LotR didn't turn PJ into the skinny bastard he is today, switching to a vegan diet did. It was part of his deal with Fran to start eating healthier once filming had wrapped.

I still don't see how this film couldn't be just one big film. Two films, especially with it now being JUST The Hobbit with no bridge film, is the epitome of milking it. Although the budget isn't too surprising, especially if you buy the rumors that the cost of the reshoots and added effects budget on Return of the King added up to $300 million on its own.

The more I hear about THE HOBBIT the more I worry. These movies aren't supposed to be bigger in scale than THE LORD OF THE RINGS. The way they're throwing money at this, the Battle of Five Armies will make Pelennor Fields look like one of those old vibrating football games where the players "run" down the field, and that's not right.

Yeah, this is starting to have King Kong '05 written all over it. I hold out hope, hate to be a doomsayer, but everyone's best intentions seem to be slowly slipping away.

News like this doesn't help matters much. Though it's obviously not hundreds of millions lost, I wonder how much time (equals money) restoring the miniatures studio is going to take/help pump the budget.

What I really hate is the statement "He said that items of "commercial sensitivity" were also stored there." The thought of some of those LOTR miniatures up in flames literally makes my heart hurt in my chest.

If they stick to the book, we shouldn't even SEE most of the Battle of the Five Armies, as Bilbo was unconcious for most of it.

You know that ain't happening. If there's a battle in the book we're gonna see it times ten in the movie(s).

Oh Greg, you silly man!

I forget where, but they pretty much already stated this wasn't going to be the case.


I understand the worry, but I think it's a little early for that. Personally, I'm not opposed to actually seeing the battle. The Hobbit is definitely not a book I need them to be an utter slave to fidelity on.

And since the liberties taken with LOTR worked out quite well, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now.

We weren't meant to see the ents attack on Isengard either remember.

I won't pretend I'm not getting an awfully unpleasant feeling about this whole affair, but I also think that if they start things moving now - and I mean no later than the next 6 months, they're coming right up to the very edge of the window this was going to be doable (in that Sir Ian is just about past the point where his actual age will look older now than his make up made him look ten years ago).

It still may be an overbloated mess I freely concede and there are so many vested interests involved now that it's certainly not going to be made in the same free almost indie spirit that the original Rings trilogy was - but that doesn't automatically mean it will be awful.

If we get Jackson directing, McKellen back, a Martin Freeman or equally well cast Bilbo and some great casting throughout (Ray Winston for Thorin! Ron Perlman for Beorn! Bill Baily for Gloin!) and the Jackson-Walsh-Boyens writing trifecta are able to capture some of their old Tolkien adaptation magic, this film is still going to have to try pretty hard to be anywhere near a disaster.