*shudders* Yeah, I'm getting similar vibes from the people making Prince Caspian. It would seem that fantasy fans lose either way when their beloved texts go to the movies. If the films don't make enough money, they won't make anymore, and if they make lots of money, they get "the treatment."

See below:

Fans of the books will be interested to hear the direction the producers are taking on Prince Caspian. Lewis's second book with the Pevensie children was one of the shortest and simplest of the series, making it a challenge for director Adamson and his crew to match the energy and impact of the first film. Johnson stated he and Adamson didn't even want to make Caspian unless they could make it bigger and better than LWW. As a solution, they came up with quite a lot of extra material to add to the story in a way they think will enhance Caspian — without being unfaithful to the original. Can Caspian top Wardrobe in 2008? Johnson thinks so.

"Andrew [Adamson] (director of LWW) just actually signed on to do Prince Caspian just about two weeks ago. I did read the book and more of the creatures that you saw - and there's new ones - are back. There's new hero creatures... There's huge battle sequences. I know from talking to Andrew . . . he wants to make this bigger and better than The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, so I can only imagine what's in store."

Current plans for Prince Caspian require as many as 2,200 effects shots, 600 more than LWW. What additions could require that much cinematic wizardry?

Bother.

See, I hated LWW for exactly that reason. I cannot imagine what sort of narrative-blindness could occasion the notion that more Lucasfilmism would make the next Narnia movie better than the last.

I can't agree, at least not in full. I'd be extremely disappointed if the Hobbit movie did not place the story in its context as Tolkien explored it in his later writings. That's part of the story Tolkien put together, even if it's not in the novel specifically, and I prefer to have more of the whole story. In the book, it's just Bilbo's perspective on things, but I don't see why a film version needs to portray only that perspective. It would be an interesting twist to contrast his naive perspective with the grander narrative from the perspective of Gandalf, for instance. Given that it would be a companion to the existing LOTR movies rather than a separate story (one later expanded on), I don't see why the film needs to be restricted to what restricted Tolkien at the time.

If he did do some of the things, I would hope that he wouldn't have more than cameos for Legolas, Arwen, and Aragorn, but I would very much want a Hobbit movie to explore the actions of the Council of the Wise, Thorin and Gandalf's meetings before the start of the book, the events at the Battle of Five Armies while Bilbo is unconscious, things in Laketown that we hear about only secondhand, and other events that couldn't be told from Bilbo's perspective. They are part of the overall story as Tolkien ended up conceiving of it, after all.

My suspicion is that they have no idea that he's already committed to other projects for a few years, and I'm not sure they want to do this with someone else, but I don't see any serious objection to having Peter Jackson do this. I'm not sure I'd trust anyone else to do it with the same kind of quality that would match up to what he did with the LOTR films.

Someone else might avoid some of the potential problems, but there's something he brought to that project that I think needed to be there for the first major film version of Tolkien's works, and I'd like to see if in the Hobbit too. I suspect someone will do a better job (at least on some matters) with another version within our lifetime anyway.

You may be right, I suppose. The problem is that when Peter Jackson says "there's actually a role for Legolas in The Hobbit," my mind jumps without warning to a vision of a surfboard.

The key for me would be the extent to which Bilbo's original perspective is preserved. I rather like the naivety of The Hobbit, just as I rather like the naivety of the Shire at the opening of FOTR. It may indeed be wise to acknowledge what we know about the greater significance of Bilbo's quest, but I really hope Jackson (or whoever) will avoid letting that obscure Bilbo's original experience.

Plus, I hate Liv Tyler's Arwen.

His talk of only wanting to do it if he could bring back old friends speaks of rather significant roles for the people he named . . . Splitting "The Hobbit" into 2 LOTR-length movies indicates a huge expansion, I think. I am extremely wary, therefore, of what he said.

That said, I think that what Jackson did best with the LOTR movies was in showing us events that took place off-screen in the actual books. He added some material that actually transpired in the books and is part of the story, but which was never really shown. A good example of this would be the Storming of Isengard. This is excellent.

HOWEVER, he also tried to spice up the story a bit by throwing things in from who knows where. One of the most egregious examples I can think of is the "death" of Aragorn in TTT. Did nothing for the story, was boring and distracting, and didn't make any sense besides. I still can't believe Jackson tossed in 5 and 10 minute sequences like this and then complained he didn't have enough time for the Shelob sequence.

So, in short, if the additions to "The Hobbit" we're talking about are faithful to Tolkien and make sense to the story (such as some of those named above) then great . . . but after watching the progression in faithfulness of adaptation from the excellent FotR to the slightly lackluster RotK, I think I might rather Jackson keep his hands off it.

I thought the third movie was mostly fine, except for the unconscionable lack of the Shire sequence. He really needed more than three films to do everything, but he did add a lot of unnecessary stuff, especially in the second film. The Aragorn stuff is part of it. The Arwen leaving Middle Earth stuff was just as hokey and completely at odds with some of Tolkien's accounts of her. He got it right with elves leaving, but the timing was off, and it didn't allow for him to show elves defending Lorien, which means they hadn't left yet, and the elves showing up at Helm's Deep was completely contrary to Tolkien's main theme for the elves, that they were becoming no longer part of the world of man. Add in the anti-Faramir he had pretending to be Faramir, and the second movie left me impressed at the visuals but simply upset at the story. The third movie was much, much better in comparison.

Legolas could lead the party who captures them, carry out most of Thranduil's orders, speak for Thranduil much of the time, and perhaps even take part in the drinking scene when they escape. I don't think that would be all that bad. He'd also certainly appear at the Battle of the Five Armies to help lead Thranduil's troops into combat. There would plenty for him to do that wouldn't need to be terrible, though I suppose it could be.

It's Aragorn I'd be a little worried about. If they spend about half an hour on the Council of the Wise's tracking of Sauron's movements, Aragorn's tracking of Gollum, and the storming of Dol Guldur, it might satisfy Jackson's reuninon desires. He could have Galadriel, Elrond, Saruman, and Gandalf involved directly in most of that, with Aragorn's mission being a side story there and in protecting the Shire somehow, and Arwen could appear at Rivendell and maybe even have a moment with Aragorn. It doesn't need to be the kind of contrary addition at odds with Tolkien's actual work that it could possibly be (and that we saw in TTT).