The Hobbit Film... trilogy.

[Zea mays]

First the obligatory link to the Comic-con + end of production video on Peter Jackson's facebook page


So yeah, apparently instead of two films they're making three.
That's, er, good, I guess (why make two movies when you can make three).
Or rather, I hope. Some of the casting choices are truly inspired (Sylvester McCoy for Radagast and Barry Humphries for the goblin king) and the glimpses of dale are quite tantalizing.

I wonder where all the extra story will be coming from (and if it will be worth while), and how they'll break the films up. Will the round journey between Bag-End and Erebor really take 9 hours?

[Lord Seth]

Is three films really necessary for a book that's shorter than any of the three Lord of the Rings books?

[Reverent-One]

While three films kinda surprises me too, there's a lot that goes on in the book that we don't really see or just gets summarized. And that's not even counting material that's entirely from the appendices. Book length isn't exactly the best indicator for how long it should be in visual form, for example:

Lord of the Rings: 1,349 pages, including prologue but not appendices, 557 minutes total for all three movies
A Game of Thrones: 835 pages, first season is 565 minutes.

[Tiki Snakes]

Welcome to Peter Jackson's new trilogy; LOTR: The Appendices (Also Hobbit).

Eh, it just feels increasingly like the project is being blown out of all proportion and that The Hobbit story itself will suffer in favour of all of the other LOTR material that has nothing really to do with it, all in the name of trying to recreate his big success.

Though it'll likely be worth watching either way.

[snoopy13a]

Is three films really necessary for a book that's shorter than any of the three Lord of the Rings books?

It is if you expect each movie to gross $300 million in box office sales.

[Cespenar]

Looking at how they did Helm's Deep, I believe the Battle of Five Armies can take one film on its own, at least. Two films for the rest of the book is not that much, I'd guess.

[SaintRidley]

I can't be honest if I don't say that this sounds entirely like a cash-grab.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Well, Jackson's first trilogy is my favorite movie of all time (the Extended Version of course), so I suppose I'll just have to make do with a sixth masterpiece on my movie shelf. My life is soooooo difficult...

[Karoht]

To sum up most of the opinions I have encountered, not necessarily on this forum or in this thread:

We, "the fans" are being given more of what we want.

AAAAAANNNNNGGGGGEERRRRR!
(clear and obvious exaggeration, but only to a point)

*deep breath*
Seriously, after all the hate from LoTR for skipping material (the outrage over Tom Bombadil was insane), now "the fans" are being given more material and they are angry.

Okay.
I officially don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Peter Jackson is a very fortunate artist who has been given something special, the ability to take his work and really make it shine, really tell a great story, fully and completely. Moreover, one hopes that this will allow them to skip the 4-5 hour long Extended cuts, by simply making the film/s of the correct length and covering off all the content they want.

The self-entitled "fans" who feel that hollywood owes them anything, have officially ruined this for me. I was happy when I read the news. Now I'm just pissed off that so many people could turn and spit in the face of something giving them more of what they ask for.


Seriously internets? Fail.

[ArlEammon]

To sum up most of the opinions I have encountered, not necessarily on this forum or in this thread:

We, "the fans" are being given more of what we want.

AAAAAANNNNNGGGGGEERRRRR!


*deep breath*
Seriously, after all the hate from LoTR for skipping material (the outrage over Tom Bombadil was insane), now "the fans" are being given more material and they are angry.

Okay.
I officially don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Eh I agree with you.

In my day, we had animated Bilbo Baggins and a fishman Gollum, 70's singers AND WE LIKED IT!!!

[MLai]

Tell them movie 3 is about Saruman going back in time to scour the Shire and they'll love it again.

[TheSummoner]

I don't seem to recall the fans demanding three movies instead of two...

The Hobbit isn't that long of a book. Two movies already seemed like a lot to cover it and now it's being extended to three. If they can pull it off without it seeming padded, great. Wonderful! I loved The Hobbit. I prefer it to LotR. But wondering whether or not there is enough source material to fill three films is a valid concern.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Okay.
I officially don't want to live on this planet anymore.

You'll need this, good sir.

Spoiler

Show

And for Eru's sake take me with you!

[shadow_archmagi]

I don't seem to recall the fans demanding three movies instead of two...

The Hobbit isn't that long of a book. Two movies already seemed like a lot to cover it and now it's being extended to three. If they can pull it off without it seeming padded, great. Wonderful! I loved The Hobbit. I prefer it to LotR. But wondering whether or not there is enough source material to fill three films is a valid concern.

Well, there's enough LOTR universe stuff that could be explored that doesn't get fully delved into in the books that you could easily make three movies. Particularly if they draw off the Silmarillion, which is basically 90% sentences like "And then Eyrindrel and Grlyalmor went on an adventure for six years in which they killed like, eighty dragons, before bringing back the Stone of the Sacred Tree" where a director could easily cram in a dozen film's worth of content.

Of course, that means it's up to the writing team to fill in the huge, huge blanks, which some fans may feel they can't or shouldn't do.

[Zevox]

This does seem odd to me. I can see The Hobbit ending up a two-movie story, given all the events that are covered only briefly in the book, but three does seem more than is necessary. Maybe the third will end up as that movie covering the time in between The Hobbit and LotR that was initially rumored to be the second Hobbit movie? That would make more sense to me than three movies to cover just the events of the book.

Zevox

[Joran]

*deep breath*
Seriously, after all the hate from LoTR for skipping material (the outrage over Tom Bombadil was insane), now "the fans" are being given more material and they are angry.

Neil Gaiman doesn't like Tom Bombadil. If it's good enough for Neil, it's good enough for me!

Seriously though, my largest complaint about LotR was that Peter Jackson ruined my favorite character: Faramir.

P.S. It feels like a cash grab and they're diverging from the Hobbit and adding some pieces from other source material. I'm concerned that this decision was based on monetary concerns, rather than a need for a third movie for story purposes. We'll see how it affects pacing and plot and whether the movies feel like they're dragging or some pieces feel tacked on (I'm looking at you 2nd and 3rd movie Arwen).

[ThePhantasm]

I have a feeling the third film will be more along the lines of Unfinished Tales, covering material that happens between the Hobbit and LOTR. I don't think they plan to stretch out the Hobbit material itself (which, despite being a shorter book in comparison to LOTR, has quite a lot of story beats / events in it... thus I've always been on board with the two film plan).

I do wish, however, that Jackson was instead filming some Silmarillion material as a third film, instead of the in-between material. We'll see how it goes. The LOTR film trilogy was wonderful, aside from ROTK, so I'm optimistic that these 3 movies will be superb as well.

[Traab]

I realize that there is probably enough middle earth material to cram a dozen movies worth of content into it, but that isnt the point. This is supposed to be The Hobbit. Not The Hobbit and Everything Else. That being said, I COULD see this being stretched out into a third film. Working backwards, I wouldnt be surprised if the death of smaug would be the end of film 2, and film 3 is the 13 dwarves and bilbo dealing with the siege, the battle of five armies, and bilbos trip home. That is rather a lot of stuff. Film 2 could start either at the entrance of mirkwood, or shortly after the eagles drop them all off on the other side of the river. Include the necromancer events, and you have a LOT of adventure going on. And of course the first one is the fellowship. We get to see all the main characters introduced, the plot of the story explained, and some solid bits of adventure. We get to see elrond, trolls, gollum, goblins, and yeah, thats one heck of a solid amount of events. You could even include dealing with Smaug in the third film if you want to shift it around a bit. Thats the good thing about The Hobbit. there are a LOT of potential transition points in the story.

[Prime32]

Well how long are the films going to be? 3+ hours like LotR, or 1.5?

[ThePhantasm]

The first film is 2.5 hours.

[Weezer]

I have mixed feelings about this, on one hand overall I liked Jackson's LotR so I have a level of confidencebin him. However, it seems that everything major that Jackson changed or added (rather than left out) was awful. This includes gimli as comic relief, butchering Faramir and making the army of the dead show up at Minas Tirith. So I don't know how to feel about this. Still excited though.

[shadow_archmagi]

This is supposed to be The Hobbit. Not The Hobbit and Everything Else.

I'm not sure where you're getting this concept of predestination. It's a film project, not someone's dying wish.

[Traab]

I'm not sure where you're getting this concept of predestination. It's a film project, not someone's dying wish.

Well.... its The Hobbit. Its a movie based on the book. Thats what it has always been about. Thats how it has been marketed. "Hey guys! We are going to turn The Hobbit into a film! Come and see it!" Im just not sure if I would enjoy it if all of a sudden peter jackson starts cramming in even more than the necromancer into this film set in the interests of making an extra film. If the hobbit will honestly fit into three movies without being stretched or padded by unconnected stuff, then great, I will be fine with watching 7 and a half hours of the hobbit. If not, I wont be happy because it will no longer be The Hobbit. It will be, The Hobbit, Plus Other Stuff.

[ThePhantasm]

It will be, The Hobbit, Plus Other Stuff.

This is what it has been planned to be from Day 1. Jackson has been very up front about the fact that they'd be following Gandalf during his absences from the party and showing various events leading up to LOTR. I personally don't mind it so long as it is well done, as most of the "Other Stuff" material still comes from Tolkien's writings / drafts / plans / appendices etc.

[Dr.Epic]

Is three films really necessary for a book that's shorter than any of the three Lord of the Rings books?

Yes! Of course!

[The Succubus]

Well, if anyone is capable of doing the Hobbit well, I'd trust it in the hands of the guy that did Lord of the Rings. *shrug*

[Fragenstein]

Actually, I always thought it was "There and Back Again, a Hobbit's Tale". I'm sure there's plenty of material that Bilbo left out which can be well depicted in the new films. Like when they all stop off at a Tim Horton's for the first time. That's always worthy of noting in any journey.

[Karoht]

You'll need this, good sir.

Spoiler

Show

And for Eru's sake take me with you!

Agreed.
I also need "Shut up and take my money" but I feel posting that would be unnecessary, and be seen as over the top fanboyism.


The argument that 3 books took up 3 films so one book should take one film is silly. LoTR has many events that get swept over rather quickly. Helms Deep for instance, the actual lead up and battle is only a handful of pages, yet it made up the bulk of an entire film (if you factor in lead up) on its own.
LoTR was also PLANNED to take up 3 films, and if Peter Jackson had his way, it would have taken 5 because it would have told a more complete story.

[Emmerask]

hmmm I´m not entirely sure about 3 films, 2 I could very well see but a third?

Either I misremember some of the stuff going on or the third film (with the splitting I imagine now) will be quite boring ^^

Anyway Peter Jackson has done a wonderful job with lotr (except for the ghost army ^^) so I trust him to do another good work with the hobit now

[The Succubus]

Actually, I always thought it was "There and Back Again, a Hobbit's Tale". I'm sure there's plenty of material that Bilbo left out which can be well depicted in the new films. Like when they all stop off at a Tim Horton's for the first time. That's always worthy of noting in any journey.

I now have the urge to a Mount Doom made out chocolate ice cream.