The previous 3 were based on 3 great books. Would the previous three have still been great if PJ decided to make it 9 movies long? I sincerely doubt it.
Previous 3 were great. Why wouldn't these ones be? And if I don't want to watch it then the whole thing is moot. If it's 2 or 3, doesn't matter if they suck. I'll just move on with my life.
flight: japan - europe. I think you can cram all 3 movies into that schedule ;) Dozed off when trying to watch all 3 pirates of the caribbean movies in a row though...
They cut so much footage from the first 3 movies, I'm sure you could edit it into 4 working movies. I'm sure they had a list of scenes they wanted, but there is too much they want to keep, they decided to make 3 movies work. I'm all for it.
I think the 3 movie approach is fine. I mean last time around they cut sooo much from the books it was sort of depressing. Like tom bombadil was an amazing character only to be cut. So perhaps this time around they are sitting on a lot of gold footage that needs the 3 movie treatment.
Lotr was a single book cut into 3 parts because of publisher... Also he is including the tie-in material between Lotr and Hobbit in the Hobbit trilogy.
Apparently, the Hobbit will now be stretched over 3 movies: http://www.facebook.com/notes/the-hobbit/peter-jacksons-long-awaited-filmed-adaptation-of-the-hobbit-to-be-a-trilogy/413954741973470
That's fine. When all is said and done I'd rather have those than not. It would suck waiting 3 years to see it all. But after that... man... I'll never be short on LOTR stuff to watch.