Peter Jackson Makes The Hobbit a Trilogy

[Lord Draenor]

Because money, that's why.

 

[Ukomba]

Actually makes sense, there are 3 different sections to the book. 1. Start up to meeting the elves of Mirkwood. 2. Up to the slaying of Smaug. 3 The battle of the five armies.

 

[Karma168]

Actually, the Dwarves will already be out of Mirkwood by the end of Film 1. They've said that they're ending the film with the Barrel chapter.
Which means that they are going to try and make two subsequent films using less material than everything that goes into the first film. Literally, after Mirkwood, there's the Lonely Mountain and that's it.

If I'm right that was announced before they moved to a trilogy, correct? If that's so they might simply move the end of the 1st film back a bit (Beorn's cabin would seem like a good rest stop, both plot-wise and film-wise)

That way you can have the mirkwood chapters, a flashback to Smaugs destruction of the dwarves' keep (maybe) and the start of the lonely mountain chapters in #2 - ending while they're stuck at the door - while Bilbo entering the mountain, the attack on Laketown, the battle of 5 armies and bilbo's return home in #3. I think too much for one film, maybe a bit thin for two but i'd rather sit through 2 short films than one over-long one.

 

[SpAc3man]

Surely there is enough source material from the LOTR appendices and other works, both published and non-published. The lore of Middle Earth is rich and vast enough that PJ can extract the story behind all the goings on around the time of the Hobbit story line.

I'm looking forward to it.

 

[Ukomba]

Surely there is enough source material from the LOTR appendices and other works, both published and non-published. The lore of Middle Earth is rich and vast enough that PJ can extract the story behind all the goings on around the time of the Hobbit story line.

I'm looking forward to it.

Me too, as long as he can make it interesting. I love Tolken, but the silmarillion was REEEEEEALY dry.

 

[RJ Dalton]

But the rise of the Necromancer was only tangentially related to the story of The Hobbit and the battle of Dol Guldur didn't take place until several decades later (and wasn't even important enough to be contained in the original story). Why, Peter Jackson? Why?

 

[Erttheking]

If he can delver a massive gripping story in a rich world then I have no problem with this. Wonder where he's going to put the dividers in though.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I feel that this bodes pretty badly.

See, I loved the Hobbit growing up and yet I was (and still am, for that matter) bored out of my skull by the Lord of the Rings, so naturally I was way more excited for these films than I was for the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

And the great thing about the Hobbit is that it is so small in scale, it's immediately accessible. It's not trying to be this huge mythic melodrama, it's more like a 19th century fairy tale. Sure, there's the odd link back to the overall mythology of middle earth, but ultimately it's really just background for what is quite a sweet and intimate story.

While I get that a lot of the charm lies in the slightly whimsical bits which don't really mesh with the main narrative, and including all those is going to take some time, but all this talk of trying to flesh out the surrounding universe translates to me as a studio-mandated "this film needs more action and epic battles with music and melodramatic dialogue, because it's not like anyone has actually read the Hobbit, and they're all going to be expecting that shit because it was in Lord of the Rings."

And that would be very sad.

 

[tmande2nd]

I dont know what to think.

 

[Gizmo1990]

I'm actually glad: Being an owner of the extended cuts of the LOTR trilogy, I can appreciate just how much he would have had to cut out otherwise. The original could have been a miniseries like Game of Thrones, except the director actually knows how to shot a battle sequence and Daenerys' story line doesn't get fucked-up to fit in with the season finale.

I said this already in the other thread:

Spoiler

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Look, I know there's a lot of backstory in the appendices. That still doesn't change the fact that you're making three films out of one children's book. This isn't like LOTR where the books are so dense that lots of stuff had to be cut out to make the films. The Hobbit is by and large a pretty breezy book. A good director would be able to get one film out of it. How the fuck are they going to get three films out of it when they've already said that Part 1 will end with the Barrel sequence? Are they going to have two whole films of the Dwarves mooching round the mountain?

I can guess why this is being done: New Line figured they'd make more money if they spun this into a new trilogy, rather than a simply two parter. And I can already guess how they're going to pad it out. The Battle Of Five Armies, instead of being a brief, tragic finale to the story, is going to be dragged out into an 'epic' battle that dominates all of Part 3, with PJ adding his trademark ludicrous stunts and action sequences that undermine the tragedy of the source material. Which means most of Part 2 is just going to be bumming around Laketown and not much else.

Seriously, if the source material were larger, I'd be less hesitant. But it's not, it's a novel shorter than the Fellowship of the Ring. Not only that, but this is a massive change in production considering that Part 1 is only a few months away. Changing the game this late almost never works, and results in bloated, unfocused stories that lose direction and amble around for too long.

And to think Guillermo Del Toro was once on board to direct this. Jesus wept...

After the Battle at King's Landing, Peter can take all the time he wants on the Battle of Five Armies. I'm pretty sure he'll keep Smaug's rampage waiting until the third movie so there'll be that to. I'm more worried about the middle part: There's not a lot going on while Bilbo and the Dwarves travel through Mirkwood. Unless he's going to include Istari taking down Dol Guldur.

I admit I would have liked Del Toro's take on Smaug, but only if Ron Perlman played Beorn. Though I admit it would be much of a transformation then.

Well PJ has already said that we will get to see Gandalf in Dol Guldur so I would imagin that we will also get to see The White Council driving out The Necromancer as well.

OT: I am cool with it but if the movies were filmed as 1 why do we have to wait a whole year for each part? That's just mean!

 

[Shinsei-J]

Tom Bombadil is my nic name due to always beening left out.

 

[The_Waspman]

Oh great, as if I needed any more reasons to not want to see this...

Seriously? Three films? For this? Come on!

This is the movie equivolent of a game having content cut out and sold as DLC. Lets not make this a trend. its bad enough we have to put up with everything being released in 3D...

 

[thirion1850]

Absolutely no problem with this. The Hobbit was my favorite book of all time, so the more delicious Jackson-baked goodness that I get from it the better. Seeing what he did with LotR is enough for me to fully trust his work with this.

 

[Lyvric]

This is my favorite book, despite my age. I hope they go all out!

 

[maninahat]

Well, how convenient. Why let people pay for two tickets when you can get them to pay for three? First Harry Potter 7 gets doubled up, then Twilight, and now this. They'll be squeezing a quadrillogy out of The Hungry Caterpillar next.

Actually, I'm not that bothered. More Tolkien should really be a good thing, even if this is quite clearly a shameless attempt to grab more cash. I'm sure there is enough in The Hobbit to allow for a trilogy, but how can we forget that it is only the fraction of a size of LOTR?

 

[Berithil]

Hmmm, two books was fine. I myself was excited for the Dol guldur and white council bits, but what could they possibly use to pump out three movies? They already said that they're ending with barrels out of bond, and that's right before laketown, and consequently, erebor. How could they stretch only a handful of chapters out into two movies?

Oh well, i'll be willing to give peter Jackson the benefit of a doubt

 

[esperandote]

The silmarillion, 5 movies.

 

[karamazovnew]

About The Hobbit: I don't mind watching 6 hours + of the Hobbit 4 years from now (or whatever the release timetable is). The more screen time, the better. The book takes its sweet time getting interesting, but all in all, I loved it much more than I did LotR. Why? Because of the whole "a tale that grew in the telling" thing. You literally have no idea how it will end, you have no idea what the next step will be. Even the initial plot becomes almost a parody of the whole epic-saga thing. I loved it for how unusual and psychedelic it was.

About Peter Jackson: I will get a lot of flame about this, but I really don't like his movies. Yes, I'm talking about the LotR trilogy. I haven't seen the extended version yet, but I doubt it will change my view on the movie. I loved the first movie, it made me buy the books, but I made the mistake of reading them before seeing the other 2 movies. And... bleah. Helm's Deep was fine, the Rohirrim charge was awesome. But the rest was never how I imagined from the books. And remember, my image of the books was based on the first movie. Tolkien had a special old man charm, the story was a slow and beautiful contemplation from the comfort of an armchair. The movies were anything but. Art direction is a personal matter and I wouldn't blame Jackson for costumes or actors or whatever. But missing the whole atmosphere of the books is a different matter. So you can imagine how much I dread what he is capable of doing to the Hobbit, particularly after so many fans loved his Hollywood blockbuster take on the Tolkien magic. To be honest, in making it a trilogy, my hopes grew back that he'd have enough screen time to take it slow and concentrate more on the charm, not on the action.

 

[likalaruku]

I'm fine with this, because in all honesty, I enjoyed reading The Hobbit far more than did LotR, probably because it was a comedy. lol...There was even a point in LotR where I was like "f**k Frodo, I want to follow Tom Bombadil around."

 

[CardinalPiggles]

I just hope he isn't simply stretching the story. Films are supposed to be short and sweet.

I'll give it the benefit of the doubt though because we are talking about a tale from Tolkien lore.