How did Peter Jackson catch lightning in a bottle 3 times? Why

>>82056558
he didn't even try with the hobbit

>>82056558
he just did it once, and the edited into three movies.

>>82056603
Yes

>>82056605
Yes

>>82056558
Because he had years of prep-time and a finished script to do LotR, and he had like 2 months and a book covered in Guillermo del Toro's cum for the Hobbit.

The Hobbit is relevantly unknown with viewers, even before LOTR came out it was known as "Those books which made elfs and orks and shit." The hobbit was kinda of a niche even compared to pre-movie LOTR only known to British kids

1. the source material for the Hobbit movies was "meh" compared to LOTR

2. Also, if you recall, there was that controversy about how there were no non-white actors cast in the new movies, which may have derailed things a bit

I still don't understand why the need to add Elfvangeline Lilly.

>>82056882
Idk mang. Before the mobies the books were just known as those things that DnD nerds read. Even my mom remembers only college sci fi nerds had the books

>>82056558
I've got extended edition on Bluray arriving tomorrow.
What snacks should I eat while I watch the first film?

>>82057108

Lembas bread faggot

>>82056558
the early 2000's were the peak of our society that's all

>>82056882

Before the movies were announced, way more people had read the Hobbit than LOTR, it's a more approachable book by whole orders of magnitude.

>>82056558
they filmed it all in one go

>>82057160
>the early 2000's were the peak of our society that's all

For YOU!

But seriously, the peak of our society was in the years immediately before the start of WWI.

>>82056558
Watch the appendices on the special extended editions and find out for yourself. Its honestly just as entertaining as the movie and one of the best making of/documentaries ever made

>>82056704
/thread

>>82056882
The hobbit is classic childrens literature. You have a good chance of being exposed to it as part of grade school curriculum.

You have to have been a deep nerd to encounter LOTR before the movies

>>82057299
Don't tell a Serb that

>>82057299
>boiling ethno-religious tensions in Ireland
>boiling ethno-religious tensions in the Balkans, leading to the Two Balkans Wars just before WWI
>the Ottoman empire in a state of anarchy
>the Mexican Revolution
>the Qing empire is overthrown to be ruled by a dictator
>unrest by the Indian population in South Africa
>the King of Greece is assassinated
>French Indochina in revolt
>Industrial strikes in England
>Classical Music Fans riot in Paris
>Moro Rebellions in the Philippines
>Romania and Bulgaria at war
>Germany and France are at each other's throats over Alsace-Lorraine

Truly it was a paradise.

>>82056603
Pretty much. Obviously stretching The Hobbit into three movies was a bad idea but you could sense there wasn't a feeling of passion or camaraderie behind it like there was with LotR.

Fellowship was edited so badly it's impossible to watch.
Two Towers is good; nice pacing all throughout.
Return was action schlock, but the bad kind.

>>82056882
None of that is true.

>>82056882
Tolkien's work had a huge influence on 60's culture.

https://youtu.be/AGF5ROpjRAU

Led Zeppelin (and others) wrote a song influenced by the books.

Movies were planned but never panned out because of the scope involved (pre-production for one attempt turned into that Excalibur movie).

As for OP's question, Jackson only got Fellowship right and the other movies are kind of shitty in comparison. And if he made the movies in 2017 they would have probably been just as bad as the Hobbit movies judging some of the stupid SJW changes he made (white orc villain, womyn power elf, token black diversity extras, etc).

>>82059968
>Jackson only got Fellowship right

He got a lot more right than wrong with TTT and RotK. Those had way more characters and plot threads to follow than Fellowship. All in all I doubt we'll see a better live action adaptation of LotR anytime soon.