The Pros and Cons of Making ‘The Hobbit’ Into a Trilogy

Could the story of this project get any more complex? The Hollywood Reporter found out yesterday that “talks are accelerating” between director Peter Jackson and Warner Bros. to expand his upcoming two Hobbit films into a trilogy. Jackson believes that there’s enough material in J.R.R. Tolkien’s additional writings to support an additional film, and wants to secure funding from the studio to start two more months of shooting in New Zealand.

At first, I thought this was a bad idea. I’m generally opposed to lengthening movie and television series, because history has shown that it doesn’t end well. But for once, I’m of two minds in the case of The Hobbit. I’d like to see a strong, succinct adaptation of Tolkien’s novel, and I’m unsure of what might happen if a third film is greenlit. At the same time, I know there are advantages to Jackson’s plan.

Of course, Peter Jackson is no stranger to longer versions of his work. Die-hard Lord of the Rings fans agree that you’re not getting the complete experience unless you watch the special Extended Edition Blu-rays and DVDs. So are we really surprised that Jackson couldn’t part with some of the footage he’s shot for the two confirmed films?

Peter Jackson hinted at the possibility of a third film at Comic-Con

On the “pros” side, with a third Hobbit film, we’d get more of what we love from adaptations of Tolkien’s work, more Middle Earth: jolly hobbits, brave warriors, epic battles and beautiful landscapes. And there’s certainly enough written material to back it all up. J.R.R. Tolkien wrote exhaustive appendices for his novels that include enough notes, family trees and side narratives and to make several movies. A third film would feel just as “Tolkienian” as any of the others.

What I’m worried about, however, is a split focus. We’ve known for years that the two-film concept would already draw heavily from the appendices and follow side-stories that don’t appear in the Hobbit novel. Most notably, we’d find out what happens to Gandalf after he parts ways with the Company of Dwarves outside Mirkwood. With a third film, there will be even more screen time devoted to other characters, and Bilbo Baggins could end up having a smaller role, like that of Frodo in The Lord of the Rings.

The focus of the story could drift away from Bilbo if a third film is made

As spectacular as it would be to get another epic trilogy from the minds of Jackson & co., by moving things to a grander scale, the story could lose the “bedtime story” quality of the original novel. The Hobbit is a different read than The Lord of the Rings – the narrator often addresses the reader directly as if Bilbo’s story is being recited from memory. By including more side-stories that don’t focus on Bilbo, the films could lose some of the simple charm that sets The Hobbit apart.

On the positive angle again, there’s potential here for the series to be even more lucrative for Warner Bros. I’m not praising this because I want to see Hollywood executives get richer, but because the cash injection will mean more jobs in the film industry for New Zealanders and more money for the studio to spend on future projects. Who knows – it could convince a studio to tackle one of Tolkien’s more esoteric works, like The Silmarillion.

More films means more money, which could mean future adaptations of other Tolkien works

Then again, Warner Bros. may still say no, and project will move ahead in its current form. With this development just unfolding in the days since Comic-Con, greenlighting a third film would involve more than just financing. Actor contracts and licensing rights would also have to be secured – and a lot of the Hobbit cast is getting very busy with other projects, thanks to the advance buzz. Like it or not, by next week The Hobbit might start a new chapter of its development saga. Here’s hoping the journey is worth it.

-

What do you think about Jackson’s pitch for a Hobbit trilogy? Will it do justice to Tolkien’s work? Or are the risks too great? Are there any other pros or cons with the idea? Let me know in the comments section below! If you liked this post, share it with your friends and followers, and browse through my other movie-related articles:

-

5 Flaws in The Dark Knight Rises That Couldn’t Be Avoided

4D Movies: The Latest, Greatest Gimmick Comes to North America

How Do You Sell a 48 fps Movie?

-

About these ads

86 responses to “The Pros and Cons of Making ‘The Hobbit’ Into a Trilogy

  1. Good thoughts. I’m on the fence about this one. I doubt, however, there will be any projects on Middle-earth after this one is finished — from what I hear, Christopher Tolkien HATES these adaptations and would refuse to sell them the rights to anything beyond The Hobbit/LotR. =(

    • Thanks for the comment! It’s true, but I get the sense that Christopher Tolkien is getting a little too old to be managing his father’s estate. And if a movie is off the table, maybe they could move into television. Maybe a serial could allow a creative team all the running time they need to be ultra-faithful to the source material.

      • Maybe! It would have to be a different creative team, though — PJ and Philippa can be, um, rather creative when it comes to intepreting Tolkien’s work. (Not that I mind most of their changes, but they aren’t always faithful to the source material!)

      • Yup! I imagine it would also have to be someone who knows how to keep budgets small. You wouldn’t get away with PJ-sized expenditures on TV.

  2. I think one movie might have been too short and that two movies is ideal. The way that the films are drawing from the appendices in The Lord of the Rings is a cool idea and can give casual Tolkien fans a deeper glimpse into the world of Middle Earth. But three movies? I also fear this might take away from the charming, light nature of the Hobbit. That said, would I see all three? Yes. So perhaps it makes sense for the movie studio.

  3. The question is whether they are going to be good movies with tight plotting. I was told directly by Phillipa Boyens, the script-writer for The Lord of The Rings, that they’d had to make adjustments to the story of the book because it didn’t translate into a good movie structure. They’ve likely had to do the same on The Hobbit, but I get the impression what they’re actually doing is pushing a story out of the entire post-fact back story that Tolkien constructed around The Hobbit, once The Lord Of The Rings had added so much more to his mythos. It was an evolutionary process.

    My concern is that it’s going to turn into something ponderously self-indulgent like King Kong, rather than a good movie.

    But hey – what do I care? I live where they’re filming it, in Wellington New Zealand. It’s great for the local economy. Great that a local guy has done so well. And great that he’s turning my favourite books of all time into movies.

    • Thanks for the inside track on their scriptwriting process! It can be a pretty intense balancing act for any movie adaptation. It’s interesting that you would mention King Kong – I’ll agree that it was a bit self-indulgent, because of Jackson’s love for the original, but I still found it incredibly entertaining. I think The Hobbit stands a better chance, though, because of the literary source.

    • I’m concerned over the same thing: The King Kong Effect. Three movies has good potential, but it also has the risk of being bloated and empty.

  4. I really don’t know if giving my opinion is worth it. I’ve been wrong about movie adaptations enough times (thinking they’ll be awesome or awful) that I have learned to play “wait and see”. What I can express is that my hopes are similar to yours, as are my fears. The Hobbit was, in my opinion, the best of Middle Earth’s adventures.

    • The ultimate test is always the movie theatre, you’re right. I still find it fun to try and guess at the result even years ahead of time. It keeps me sharp for when I write my eventual review.

  5. I hope that the studio will not agree to a third film. I agree with your thoughts on why a third movie would not be good. I’m of the mindset that taking too many sidetrips would possibly detract from the essence of the book. But then, who am I?

    My other thought is that there is no way in hell a studio would ever green light a Silmarillion project. IMHO it’s way too niche. Even amoung LOTR fans, only the hardest core have read it.

    • You’re right about the likelihood of a Silmarillion adaptation. I only threw it out there to stimulate commentary, because along with The Children of Hurin, it just won’t connect with most audiences. And something tells me we won’t be seeing an “Adventures of Tom Bombadil” either.

  6. I don’t know what I feel about this. Creating another film means the need for the third story arc after developing the project for two! Trying to pull a third one this late into the production just doesn’t sound very assuring to me (although I would watch them anyway).

    If anybody wants to adapt the Silmarillion, TV series is probably the best way to go given how unfocused the book is (as in other collections of myths and folklores). I’m not too worried about the budget issue though, since Game of Throne, the Tudors, and The Borgias have started a trend of high-quality TV production. Whoever takes the project might be able to justify his spending!

    • Yup, last-minute turnarounds can pose problems for any production, even a blockbuster one like The Hobbit. I was thinking of Game of Thrones when the idea of a Silmarillion adaptation came to mind. But as a commenter pointed out, it’s still a bit “niche” for a lot of audiences, and even GoT fans might find it heavy.

      • That is true. A niche product is a big gamble. I don’t think GoT fans will find it too heavy though. I kind of find GoT pretty heavy already. They just have different focuses and I can see Silmarillion being a tougher nut to crack being the more of mythology. I’m pretty fine with no one touching it, really.

  7. I say go with two, it will be hard enough for fans to wait for the second one :-). Keep the two episode Hobbit focused on Bilbo and the Hobbits, but add a few glimpses into the other races of the Tolkein World. Then, if there is still enough interest, make another movie that further explores these other groups and provides a link to the Lord of the Rings movies.

    • Some insiders are actually referring to the proposed third film as a ‘bridge’ film, like what you’re describing, that will try to link up The Hobbit and LOTR. One of the topics they might cover in the bridge would be Aragorn’s earlier adventures as a Ranger, which could make for some awesome cinema.

  8. I think that they should stick to two films if they feel they have to make a third film they could use a different story like “The Silmarillion” Although I reckon if they were to do that one it would probably have to be over a series of films anyway. If they make people wait too long they’re probably going to have less and less people going to see them you’d think. well… I’d probs still go and see them just to say that I had haha

    • Yup, you’re one of many viewers who will support PJ through thick and thin. I am as well, but I figured I’d air out my worries just the same.

  9. I like the idea of a trilogy; part of the reason why I tend to dislike movies based on books is that they always cut too much. Two movies might also work; it mostly depends on how long it takes to tell the story at it’s own pace.

    • I was already pretty confident that two films would give them the runtime they needed for The Hobbit, so I’d say three films will be even better on that front. The question is, will the material in the Appendices be so tempting to adapt, that parts of The Hobbit get cut anyways?

  10. I hear what you’re saying. I’m torn as well. I don’t want the story to end either. Too bad we can’t have another series that deals with all the extra work Tolkien so painstakingly wrote.

    • Yeah, a couple of commenters have pointed out, though, that looks like the Silmarillion might not work out in movie form. So many characters and huge concepts. (Just think of trying to explain all the gods and demi-gods to non-Tolkien fans!) I brought up the possibility of a film in my article, but the more I think about it, the less likely it seems that it could make it to the big screen. There might be potential as a TV series, though.

      • I understand. I read the Silmarillion too and at times it did get a little confusing. However I think if they put it into a film they would have to consentrate on only a few characters whose lives interlap. Doing TV might work better if they did it as a mini series. Of course they’d have to put it on DVD or Blu-Ray.

      • The Silmarillion also has a different set of rights than The Lord Of The Rings and The Hobbit. It is still owned by the Tolkien family, and, from what I’ve researched, Christopher Tolkien isn’t keen on any of the adaptations. That would be a bigger legal battle than the ones leading to The Hobbit going into production.

  11. I personally don’t like the trend of splitting stories into multiple movies; I can see where it’s worked well (see: Harry Potter), but most stories, simply don’t warrant a second (or…third?) movie. Usually, there’s not enough real material to work with (see: Twilight); stringing the story out can take the punch out of a story. Television is there for longer adaptations; it’s worked well for GoT, and for longer fantasy series, I can see TV as being a stronger media of adaptation than movies.

    • I see your point; more than few critics pointed out that the Lord of the Rings films didn’t have great story arcs for each individual movie. The same could happen with The Hobbit, as well. Personally, I really appreciate the depth that GoT gets from being produced as a TV show. But if the theme of the comments on this post is any indication, a LOT of people will still see The Hobbit, regardless of the shape of the narrative!

      • I’ll see it, for sure, but I’d prefer to buy 2 tickets instead of 3. I just don’t see where they’re going to get the second climax from, either; Jackson & co. struggled with finding a suitable climactic arc for Two Towers; at least that was a separate book with enough major action to play with.

  12. I don’t like the idea of a trilogy! I can see splitting the story into two, in order to get everything in, but adding more to get three? No, that’d take too much from the original for my taste. But I am one of those people who watches a movie, loves it, and yet tells everyone, “that’s not how the book goes”. ;)

  13. I think it depends on how it’s done. Deviation for the sake of, will be a disaster. The purists will hate it that’s for sure.

  14. Great blog! I recently started one (and when I say recent, I mean yesterday) and it will be all about film-making, photography, and travel. I’ll be working as a freelance editor in Germany next year (moving from Atlanta, Georgia to Berlin for a year). Feel free to comment and follow mine! I, too, have been wondering about how this movie will come to be. I guess we’ll just have to wait and find out!

    • Thanks for letting me know about your upcoming site! Your new position sounds very exciting. I’ll be sure to check it out when I get the chance!

  15. Congratulations on being FP’ed.

    This sounds a lot like the debates Chronicles of Narnia fans have about reading the books in order of release versus reading them in the chronological order of the plot, which is serious business for fans of the books and much ado about nothing for everyone else.

    Mr. Wright raises an interesting point- there is a feeling of world-ending consequence behind The Lord of the Rings that doesn’t exist in the story of The Hobbit. People who are familiar with the story and people who simply saw The Lord of the Rings movies have the same problem; they already know where the story will end. Unless you do a lot of great things in interpretation, there is no reason to watch. For reference, revisit the Star Wars prequels, which, for me, are a negative example.

    Mr. Jackson knows that, though, I expect.

    • Thanks! It might not sound like it from this particular post, but I’d relatively open-minded when it comes to adaptations. I’ve long since realized that films and books are very different media. We can’t expect adaptations to ever fully capture everything we feel from the novel. It’s better to chill out and try to appreciate the varying interpretations of a story.

  16. This is the first I’ve heard of the possibility of Jackson making The Hobbit into three movies. I don’t know how I feel about that at all. I must confess, I had misgivings when I heard that The Hobbit would be made into a movie, period. First off, while I did enjoy the LOTR movies, and when the deluxe extended editions were released, I bought them, still, they don’t hold a candle to the books. I’m a die-hard Tolkien fan, and I detested the manner in which some characters were changed (Faramir for one), some were deleted (Tom Bombadil, Glorfindel, Beregond, etc.), and some characters both changed and used to replace other characters (Arwen for one example). It bugged me that much of the humor that continually sprang up in the books (especially many of the scenes involving Samwise) was not present in the movies.

    Still, for all that, I did enjoy the movies in their own right, and I have to give kudos to Jackson for an admirable attempt. LOTR is a difficult story to make into a live action movie.

    The Hobbit, on the other hand, works so well because of all the charm and humor in addition to the adventure. The mood is not one that would be easy at all to capture in a live action movie, and I have fears that it may well turn out to be a darker story, perhaps greatly so, than the written tale.

    I agree with some of the other comments above, that by extending it to three movies, Bilbo may move from center stage to the wings, or at least be forced to share the spotlight with others, and that would change the story just enough that I don’t think any serious Tolkien fan would be happy at all, at all.

  17. An example of one of my fears of how the Hobbit movie will turn out:

    In the LOTR movies, the trolls were presented as fierce and terrible beasts, scary to face in battle, but not intelligent at all, really. That was understandable, as the only scenes in the books involving trolls don’t involve any of them speaking or doing anything other than simply attacking in battle. No real attention is given to them.

    In The Hobbit, however, the trolls have definite personalities, mannerisms, and ways of speaking that add humor to the story. Presenting the scene in the movie in a manner equal to that in the books might not work. Many fans of the LOTR movies might find it ridiculous, especially if they are ones that only saw the movies and haven’t yet read the original tale. On the other hand, portray the trolls as non-intelligent, vicious beasts as they were in the LOTR movies, and Jackson will have destroyed one of the most entertaining scenes in the story.

    The Hobbit and Lord Of The Rings aside, I have thought that a well-scripted television series titled something along the lines of “Tales of Middle-Earth” might be a good idea, if a decent creative team was chosen. There is a wealth of material out there. Many stories, some of which could undoubtedly last an entire season, are there for the adapting. There’s also enough background material to use making new stories and characters, if the right team were chosen that would keep the stories well-grounded in Tolkien’s mythos.

  18. One and only one pro: Peter Jackson et al. make more money.
    Most important Con: Makes me feel manipulated and when that happens, I don’t open my wallet.

    • I’m glad you can exercise such self-discipline! I’d have to point out, though, that filmmakers have always been in the business of making money, only they do it telling stories with moving pictures. You’re only as manipulated as you allow yourself to be.

  19. First of all, I think if anyone could pull it off, Peter Jackson could. I would also love to see more of Tolkien’s works adapted for film. At the same time, I’m afraid that the story of The Hobbit would get lost in all of the other material. The story doesn’t quite have the scope of The Lord of the Rings and if they are already taking a lot from the appendices, it seems like they might be spreading the material from The Hobbit a little bit too thin. I think two films would be enough to cover the original story. Ultimately, I’ll end up going to see them, though.

    Also, as someone else already mentioned, I think the Silmarillion would work better as a TV series since it doesn’t really have one continuous story line. I would love to see something done with it, but it would also appeal to only a very specific audience.

    • Well said. Sounds like you’re a lot like me: torn between the advantages and the pitfalls. I’m glad to read in the comments here that lots of people are still excited to see the series – even after all the complications with licensing rights, acting unions and that business with Guillermo del Toro.

  20. I tend to agree with most other people to keep this one at 2 films. Hollywood has gone way overboard dragging movies out just to make an extra buck. I am excited for the Christmas release, hope it’s good. Nice post Sir;)

    • Thanks! Glad to hear your take. I get the sense that we Tolkien/PJ fans are a pretty forgiving bunch. We’re all going to see ‘em, probably many, many times.

  21. If The Hobbit is cast into a trilogy and it does, in fact, secure future works of Tolkien’s to be adapted into film, I would love to see Farmer Giles of Ham and Roverandom turned into movies. The former would have a great amount more humor than these more serious works, without sacrificing any epic qualities; while the latter, extremely bright and cunning in its written form, would be a great family adventure that could inaugurate a new generation into Tolkien’s world–hopefully encouraging them to keep reading his works, which I consider to be among the best literature of all time.

    • When it comes to the lesser-known Tolkien works, I wonder if the studio would consider releasing them as a series of shorts, that play in front of the Hobbit films. I’m reminded of the “Animatrix” shorts that accompanied the Matrix series. A variety of directors could offer their take on Tolkien and get a chance to explore a number of creative styles.

      • A brilliant idea, except I hardly see much potential for making anything Tolkien-inspired “short.” Farmer Giles of Ham, perhaps, because it was quite short on its own, but “Roverandom” seems unlikely. “Leaf by Niggle” was another delightful and delightfully short tale that also has potential to become a short, I would imagine. Thank you for your response–I appreciate it.

  22. I believe in Peter Jackson. A third film may be a drag but I thought he’d not be able to finish LotR in 3 movies and he did it. I would believe it if we find out he’s the master of both the abridged and the extended versions of film making.

  23. I trust Peter. I mean I was a bit sceptical about the Hobbit before (though I love LOTR with all my heart), but after watching the Hobbit trailer, my faith was restored. I’m sure whatever Peter does, he will take great pains to make sure it’s done right. He knows the world has huge expectations from the Hobbit. Actually a three-part series could make sense. The book itself could be divided into two parts easily, with Smaug appearing in the second part. The third part could act as a ‘bridge’ between the Hobbit and the LOTR trilogy. Whatever Peter does, I’m sure he knows what he’s doing.
    Well-balanced post! Loved reading it. Congrats on being Freshly Pressed!

  24. Gah, I lost my reply to an unfortunate backpage. I will just put down some names now:
    The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy (print, movie), Dirk Gently, The Salmon of Doubt.
    Also, Firefly and Serenity.

    On the other side of the divide, Star Wars, and the Prequels.

    I think audiences want to see more of the most endearing characters and multi-layered, interesting stories. However, they hate to be taken for suckers.

    If Peter Jackson can deliver a well-massaged, engaging trilogy of the Hobbit, I think we will welcome him eagerly. Just don’t make us wait too long.

    Make the Silmarillion into an excellent TV series, maybe? But will Liv Tyler, Viggo Mortensen and Orlando Bloom be interested?

  25. Hi Robert,
    This is brilliantly written and I absolutely love the way you write. The Lord of The Rings series is my all -time favorite movie series along-with Harry Potter. Having read, The Hobbit which is again something that I loved like all of other Tolkien novels, I do not know how much to expect from its movie adaptation. Nevertheless, I’m waiting to watch it when it comes out (if it does that is).

    Looking forward to closely following your writing!
    -Asha

  26. I agree with Rapster, he did an amazing job of LOTR, so who can say things will not be the same? I love the deeper stories and details of Middle Earth and transferring this to film would be ace.

  27. I think if you’re correct in assumption that a third movie would mean taking us further away from the novel, then I’ll have to say no. The film is supposed to be an adaptation of the novel, not the novel and Tolkien notes. The book is a ‘complete’ story. No need to mess with it; although I’m speaking as someone who loves the book. I imagine if you were to go into the cinema without any knowledge of the original work, then it would perhaps only add to your experience.

    Looking forward to tasting Jackson’s icing sugar regardless! Great post!

    • Thanks! Since the appendices are quite vague, so it’ll be interesting to see what it takes for Jackson to bring them to life. That’s a good way to describe it, too – “Jackson’s icing sugar”. I’ll have to remember that..

  28. Pingback: The Pros and Cons of Making ‘The Hobbit’ Into a Trilogy « My Favorite Spaces·

    • Thanks for your reply! A lot of commenters have said they’ll still see the film, regardless of the additions. Are you going to swear off the films entirely, or will you check out at least one?

  29. The Hobbit is a simple, linear story. I do not want to pay $15 to have to wait a year or two for my next $15 tease. I am going to watch it in one sitting. If I have to wait five years, so be it.

    • Wow! I wish I had your discipline! I’m probably going to drop a lot of money seeing it in theatres, especially since I’ll likely watch each installment several times.

  30. What, we have to wait to see the whole film — in two parts!!! I didin’t know that. Thanks for writing this post.

    Well, at least we are warned. I hope it stays two films. Seeing the first one and waiting several months to a year to see the second will be enough let alone waiting another few months to a year to see the third.

    You know, we do not live forever.

    Before the Lord of the Rings film, I read the Hobbit and the Rings three times, saw the three films as they came out, bought the extended set and have watched that three times and our daughter has read and seen the Lord of the Rings multiple times too. I had a collectors edition hardcover that included all three books of the Rings and she read it so many times, she broke the binding.

    Once, while in high school, she had a pajama party with several of her girlfriends and they watched all three in one marathon sitting.

    • Glad to know you’ve gotten so much enjoyment out of the books and films! It’s that kind of appreciation that makes me worry about this plan. But as a lot of commenters have pointed out here, I think we can trust Peter Jackson to pull it off.

  31. I’m a bit skeptical about the idea of turning “The Hobbit” into a trilogy. I know Tolkien wrote tons and tons of material on Middle Earth, but I’m not certain how well it would all translate into a third movie.

    That being said, I’d probably watch the third movie anyway. :)

  32. Sounds to me like its going to be some of The Hobbit, with alot of probably unnecessary extra stuff thrown in, and also a bridge movie at the end. Doesn’t sound like a children’s story any more at all. I can distinctly hear the sound of ‘chi-ching!’ instead, but that’s just me. I hope it all works out. The Hobbit is a great book though :D

  33. Saw this on Freshly Pressed just after the third film was officially announced on facebook.
    Wrote a post on it before coming to read this one. Here it is:
    http://goodwholesomefun.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/the-third-hobbit

    Still not sure how I feel about the decision. Could be exciting to see more of Middle-Earth. Could be dangerous to stretch out the story-line that long. Let’s all have faith in Peter Jackson, and hope he doesn’t fall into the pitfalls of sequels.

    If you think about it, The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy was made as one single film, therefore The Hobbit is actually the first sequel.

    And, in their defense, as a writer, I tend to be so absorbed in the world, character, and stories I’m developing that I don’t realize something is much longer than I intended until I’m done.

  34. Pingback: The Third Hobbit | Good. Wholesome. Fun.·

  35. This is a hard question to anyone who truly loves The Hobbit and the Trilogy books … .

    By nature, I’m not a serious “sci-fi” fan because too many of the things I’ve read/films I’ve seen seem totally implausable. However, because the Hobbit World so accurately reflects the World of us Big People I cannot help but wonder what Tolkien’s story(ies) would be like illuminated in the visuals of a gifted director.

    So I propose we crowdsource this decision: Give us the first Bilbo film … and if we think Peter sufficiently presents Bilbo’s story–I’m thinking here of the well-known subway graffitto mentioned in my paperbacks that “Bilbo lives!”–while presenting the other notable things Tolkien discussed and described (I’m thinking about what Gandalf did after he left the Dwarves as referenced above) in other works then let us vote on it! In other words, if Peter does justice to Bilbo while also illuminating the other events happening in Middle Earth then I’m willing to vote “yea” for a third film; however, if Peter does Bilbo wrong–and Bilbo is a heroic character underlying the triump of good over evil–then Peter should only give us two films.

    I hope someone (preferably a lot of someones) will comment accordingly.

  36. Pingback: ‘Vertigo’ and the Search for the Greatest Film of All Time « Professionally Incoherent·

  37. Pingback: Why Disney’s Money is the Only Thing That Can Fix ‘Star Wars’ « Professionally Incoherent·

  38. Pingback: What Your Ticket Choice For ‘The Hobbit’ Says About You « Professionally Incoherent·

  39. Pingback: Power to the People: The Pros and Cons of Crowdfunding Movies | Professionally Incoherent·

  40. Pingback: The Pros and Cons of Casting Ben Affleck as Batman | Professionally Incoherent·

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s