The Hobbit: A tale in three parts

[Unintentionally Blank]

Just announced by Peter Jackson, the Hobbit will now be a trilogy, based on all the footage they've filmed.

I'm sure it'll be another $300 expense for our family, once the movie tickets, Happy Meals, and Über boxed set Special Edition BluRay (with Sting!) have all been purchased.

[Cheesesteak]

I suppose I can kick in another $25 to bring the wife to the third installment.

She better not want popcorn, what am I... made of money?

[Alka Seltzer]

This reeks of cashing in to me I'm afraid. I don't think there is enough story in The Hobbit to merit three films in any artistic sense. I'll wait to see how favourable the reviews are, but I'm unlikely to watch it in the cinema now.

[Unintentionally Blank]

l take a wait-n-see attitude, there was a time where I thought The Lord of The Rings couldn't _possibly_ work as a film, either.

[Dewey Finn]

Originally Posted by Unintentionally Blank

Just announced by Peter Jackson, the Hobbit will now be a trilogy, based on all the footage they've filmed.

What the LA Times says is that if the third film is made, it will still need to be filmed, so it's not based on existing footage. Also, the storyline will be based on the appendices of the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings novels. The two Hobbit films are already costing about $500 million, so I think they'll wait to see how the first one does before they make a decision.

[Baron Greenback]

Originally Posted by Dewey Finn

What the LA Times says is that if the third film is made, it will still need to be filmed, so it's not based on existing footage. Also, the storyline will be based on the appendices of the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings novels. The two Hobbit films are already costing about $500 million, so I think they'll wait to see how the first one does before they make a decision.

According to Peter Jackson's Facebook page, the decision has been made.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/peter...51114596546558

It is only at the end of a shoot that you finally get the chance to sit down and have a look at the film you have made. Recently Fran, Phil and I did just this when we watched for the first time an early cut of the first movie - and a large chunk of the second. We were really pleased with the way the story was coming together, in particular, the strength of the characters and the cast who have brought them to life. All of which gave rise to a simple question: do we take this chance to tell more of the tale? And the answer from our perspective as the filmmakers, and as fans, was an unreserved ‘yes.'



We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance. The richness of the story of The Hobbit, as well as some of the related material in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, allows us to tell the full story of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and the part he played in the sometimes dangerous, but at all times exciting, history of Middle-earth.



So, without further ado and on behalf of New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Wingnut Films, and the entire cast and crew of “The Hobbit” films, I’d like to announce that two films will become three.



It has been an unexpected journey indeed, and in the words of Professor Tolkien himself, "a tale that grew in the telling."



Cheers,



Peter J

I wonder where they will end the second film? The first looks like it's the escape in the barrels.

[Dewey Finn]

That LA Times article says that all kinds of permission need to be obtained. Plus there is the question of money. The $500 million that the Hobbit films cost is a really huge amount. Perhaps this third movie will be cheaper ($100 million? $200 million?). I think the studio will hedge its bets by waiting to see how the first one does before committing too much money.

[Baron Greenback]

Originally Posted by Dewey Finn

That LA Times article says that all kinds of permission need to be obtained. Plus there is the question of money. The $500 million that the Hobbit films cost is a really huge amount. Perhaps this third movie will be cheaper ($100 million? $200 million?). I think the studio will hedge its bets by waiting to see how the first one does before committing too much money.

So why did Jackson post what he did, just over an hour ago?

[storyguide3]

Originally Posted by Baron Greenback

So why did Jackson post what he did, just over an hour ago?

Yeah, I'm thinking a posting today by Peter Jackson trumps an LA Times article from 6 days ago.

[N9IWP]

As I said in the massive Hobbit movie thread, even though I like most of what PJ has done to filming Middle-Earth, I'm dubious that the Hobbit (even with LOTR appendices) can fill 3 films well.

Brian

[Telperion]

There and back again, and there again....

[squeegee]

My SO and I were joking that if the hobbit were a trilogy then part 1 would consist of the dwarves showing up at Bilbo's place for 2 hours, and end with Bilbo leaving Hobbiton.

ETA: apparently I'm not that far off the mark. According to one account:

this newly announced film will not serve as a bridge film but continue to tell the story of “The Hobbit,” in three parts. It is believed that the breaking points of the first film has changed

So it's not a story only about appendices. They're adding appendix/other filler to the main story.

[Alka Seltzer]

Originally Posted by squeegee

My SO and I were joking that if the hobbit were a trilogy then part 1 would consist of the dwarves showing up at Bilbo's place for 2 hours, and end with Bilbo leaving Hobbiton.

Maybe they could sing a medley of songs about gold.

[Alessan]

Because if there's something a Peter Jackson film needs, it's more bloat.

[Lasciel]

I think this will actually lead to better breaking points.

I'm hopeful now for the following breaks:

1 ends with Smeagol, or the reunion at the campfire afterwards (with Bilbo telling only part of the story).

2 focuses on Mirkwood happenings, and ends with the battle with the Necromancer.

3 Starts with Dale and Smaug and ends with the Battle of 5 Armies.

I think it could work well, I really do. I just pray now for the continued absence of skull avalanches.

[well he's back]

I think this is very bad news, for reasons some others have
mentioned here. Sad to me as a great fan of LOTR book & movies. Hobbit should only be one film. Hate to see greed beat artistry.

[YogSosoth]

Hell yeah! More Hobbit!

WTF is New Line thinking, waiting to see if the first films will do well? This is Peter Jackson and The Hobbit. It'll make $300 million in the US guaranteed. Commit to the money now, New Line! Do it! DOOOOO IIIIITTTTTT!!!

[Grey]

There's just not enough material to fill 3 films. I can now see 2 films given the addition of the White Council and some not entirely ridiculous freeing of the nazgul but 3 films? No bloody way.

[Ashley Pomeroy]

I maintain they should have got Bela Tarr to do this. Peter Jackson's already had a bash at the material, he should have a rest. Bela Tarr would have bought so much; instead of three films there would be just two, albeit that they would be twelve hours long (each).

With no dialogue, just the sound of distant children laughing in an stone room. Imagine as Bilbo explores the caves... and continues to explore them, on and on, for half an hour. Silently. Except for the sound of distant children etc. In the end he would look at the ring for twenty minutes and then toss it to the ground, and then walk home as the camera follows him, for twenty minutes (fade).

[Maserschmidt]

Even Terrence Malick was able to edit 8 hours of material into one film.

[gonzoron]

Well, they had to fit in that famous scene where Bilbo falls off a cliff and is presumed dead until he shows up again after 20 minutes of flashbacks.



(I kid, I kid... Love ya, PJ).

[squeegee]

Maybe they'll make 3 2-hour films, not 3 3-hour films? That might be tolerable. 9 hours total would be insane.

[Simplicio]

Nice to see the Tolkien estate ripping an idea off Robert Jordan for once.

[TBG]

This is bullshit. The Hobbit doesn't really warrant two movies, let alone three. Don't take this as a slur on the book, the book it great, but it's just not 3 movies worth of material. For fucks sake, it's shorter (and less dense) than any of the three LOTR volumes that only took a single movie each.

The Rankin Bass version might not have been perfect, but it wasn't bad at all, and they somehow managed to fit all the really important bits into 77mins. Doubling that should've been plenty to fit in all the stuff that they skipped and some overly long panoramic views and slow motion scenes to boot, yet still fit into a single movie.

I don't understand what the fuck these people are doing to make it stretch out so long that it takes 3 movies. Clearly they're just after 3x the box office and 3x the DVD/Bluray sales, but I still think they need to go fuck themselves with a cactus for doing this.

[Greg Charles]

Originally Posted by Telperion

There and back again, and there again....

Oh, dang it. I left my keys in Esgaroth!

[smiling bandit]

Originally Posted by TBG

This is bullshit. The Hobbit doesn't really warrant two movies, let alone three. Don't take this as a slur on the book, the book it great, but it's just not 3 movies worth of material. For fucks sake, it's shorter (and less dense) than any of the three LOTR volumes that only took a single movie each.

I agree with this - and that makes me worry. This will require a great deal of additions, and some of the parts talked about didn't exist as anything more than notes or little bits mentioned by a character. gandalf never realy explained what happened at Dol Goldur, for example. And that implies that Jackson will basically make a bunch of it up.

The problem? He sucks as it. Think of all the crap he inserted into LotR. Most of it ended up being cheesy and obnoxious. Aragorn falling off a cliff. Legolas surfing. Great green army O' the dead. Very long and tedious sequence with the army of the dead... none of which made sense. It does not inspire confidence.

[simster]

Here's the thing - I think it works as three movies because much of the audience will not have enough familiarity with the works of tolkien to go see "Necromancer 2, Sauron Returns", but they will go see all 3 parts of 'The Hobbit' - so, easier to sell one story cut in thirds than 3 different parts.

In any event - I will be there for all three parts, Armageddon notwithsstanding.

[The Great Sun Jester]

I have to trust PJ on this one. His treatment of LOTR was quite good--not only in my opinion, they all 3 did well in the box office.

The Hobbit could be treated as written, in which case it could probably be done in 1 big film, maybe 2 small ones. But PJ & crew are right: this is the last real chance to capture the rest of the Middle Earth backstory. Leave that all out and you get, "Yippee, Bilbo went there and back again." Oh, and by the way, he managed to pick up the Most Evil Thing In The World and it was really of no consequence so don't ya fret too much about that mm'kay. But what of The Silmarillion as history? LOTR never really tells you who and what Sauron is, or who Morgoth was, or why the elves so loathed/feared them, or what was the big deal with Galadriel's apparent relief with her ability to just say no to the ring...? Give yourself 3 films and you can make, essentially, the entire backstory to LOTR using Bilbo's journey as a framework. I have to wonder if Tolkien wouldn't have done it that way if he'd even known about LOTR when he was writing The Hobbit. I think PJ has something in mind quite a bit different from just telling The Hobbit.

[Baron Greenback]

It strikes me that this is very late in the process of making the original two movies to be doing this. The first movie is out in less than 5 months. To expand it to three must mean some changes to the first, and a bit more than pick-ups to expand the second film, surely?

[SCSimmons]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

Nice to see the Tolkien estate ripping an idea off Robert Jordan for once.

You are a very bad person. But extremely amusing, nonetheless.

[Lasciel]

Originally Posted by Baron Greenback

It strikes me that this is very late in the process of making the original two movies to be doing this. The first movie is out in less than 5 months. To expand it to three must mean some changes to the first, and a bit more than pick-ups to expand the second film, surely?

This is my worry also - I think to do it best, they would need to adjust the first film as well, instead of just the second. I don't know if they can do that in five months, especially because PJ is supposed to be working on Tintin right about now.

As much as it hurts me to say it, I would almost be ok with them delaying the first Hobbit so that they had enough time to do the cuts and changes properly so that the third film doesn't feel all bloaty and tacked-on. I'm really worried that's what's going to happen, though.

That said - still super excited to see the Appendices material and maybe parts of the Sil get the film treatment. This means that Aragorn will likely be back also.

[Grey]

Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya

I have to trust PJ on this one. His treatment of LOTR was quite good--not only in my opinion, they all 3 did well in the box office.

The Hobbit could be treated as written, in which case it could probably be done in 1 big film, maybe 2 small ones. But PJ & crew are right: this is the last real chance to capture the rest of the Middle Earth backstory. Leave that all out and you get, "Yippee, Bilbo went there and back again." Oh, and by the way, he managed to pick up the Most Evil Thing In The World and it was really of no consequence so don't ya fret too much about that mm'kay. But what of The Silmarillion as history? LOTR never really tells you who and what Sauron is, or who Morgoth was, or why the elves so loathed/feared them, or what was the big deal with Galadriel's apparent relief with her ability to just say no to the ring...? Give yourself 3 films and you can make, essentially, the entire backstory to LOTR using Bilbo's journey as a framework. I have to wonder if Tolkien wouldn't have done it that way if he'd even known about LOTR when he was writing The Hobbit. I think PJ has something in mind quite a bit different from just telling The Hobbit.

There is no way in hell people will put up with 3 movies worth of exposition just to flesh out the 1st and 2nd Ages so we can hear the story of a homebody hobbit that gets whisked of on an adventures and wishes, not the for last time, that he was back home in his comfortable hole.

Tell the story of Bilbo and then go get a contract with HBO to make the Quenta Silmarillion, Akallabêth and Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age.

[John DiFool]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

Nice to see the Tolkien estate ripping an idea off Robert Jordan for once.

Originally Posted by Grey

Tell the story of Bilbo and then go get a contract with HBO to make the Quenta Silmarillion, Akallabêth and Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age.

[At the risk of being whooshed] The Tolkien estate has nothing to do with these films. And (alas) the Silmarillion's rights are owned by them, and no they have no interest in selling them. BTW they'll expire 70 years after Christopher Tolkien's death, so we can probably see the Sil movies sometime in the 2090's...

[Battle Pope]

The Hobbit Part 3: Tom Bombadil's greatest hits!

[The Great Sun Jester]

Originally Posted by Grey

There is no way in hell people will put up with 3 movies worth of exposition just to flesh out the 1st and 2nd Ages so we can hear the story of a homebody hobbit that gets whisked of on an adventures and wishes, not the for last time, that he was back home in his comfortable hole.

Only time will tell, my friend. But the geeks are out there, and they are many. Rankin Bass is available to those who want the children's story, PJ is doing the epic version. I plan on giving it a chance. If it flops, well, how many times has Batman been done? Maybe Quentin Tarantino can do better.

[Peremensoe]

Originally Posted by Lasciel

3 Starts with Dale and Smaug and ends with the Battle of 5 Armies.

There's a bunch that happens after the battle that ought to be included. Even without getting into off-page events, I can think of two indispensable scenes. Then you'd need a "back again" travel sequence between them.

Originally Posted by TBG

...it's just not 3 movies worth of material. For fucks sake, it's shorter (and less dense) than any of the three LOTR volumes that only took a single movie each.

But the LotR was rather viciously cut down to do that. (I mean, I like it too, but it leaves a lot out.)

A real full treatment of The Hobbit, plus some backstory and parallel and linking events... I guess I can see it.

The tragedy is just that PJ didn't make a basic The Hobbit first, and then get to do a full treatment of The Lord of the Rings based on that success, rather than the other way round.

[Siam Sam]

I'm grateful that our favorite first-run movie theater in Bangkok still charges only 100 baht (US$3.17) for tickets. That'll cut the expense.

[Elendil's Heir]

Previous thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=582714

This isn't what I would have done, but I have confidence in PJ and his team. If anyone can make this work, they can.

[GuanoLad]

Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya

Give yourself 3 films and you can make, essentially, the entire backstory to LOTR using Bilbo's journey as a framework.

I totally agree with Inigo Montoya's assessment. Ignore the fact that it's The Hobbit with extra stuff tacked on to pad it out, as so many have referred to it. Think of it as all that was missed out in the prologue. We were dropped in the middle of an epic history to tell the stories of LOTR, now let's drop in to the same epic history, just a bit earlier.

[DrDeth]

Ohplease, ohplease, ohplease... I'd be happy if it was 10 parts. The more PJ hobitteses the better.

[cmyk]

You think 3 movies will be too long, just wait until the 3D extended addition boxset comes out.

But hell, I'll take eleventy-one more PJ Middle Earth films; it's just a place I like to soak in for as long as I can.

[Tim R. Mortiss]

I'm delighted by this news. Given an unembellished filming of the book, and leaving out a LOT of the action, it could possibly have been done in one movie. Unembellished and leaving everything IN, it could probably be done in two. But adding in a lot of the behind the scenes stuff (the Necromancer, the White Council, etc.), it can easily be expanded to three films. This would make it more of an "equal" to the LOTR trilogy, rather than a charming but rather simplistic and childish prequel.

My SWAG: Movie 1, everything before Smaug. Movie 2, Smaug. Movie 3: Battle of Five Armies. There's three solid movies right there, each with a B-story of the behind-the-scenes machinations of the White Council that are happening at the same time. Also, remember that Frodo and Legolas are involved in some sort of framing structure, not to mention Galadriel; that's going to add some footage right there.

Also remember: A movie is not a novel; a movie is a short story. By definition, a short story can be read in one sitting. If you want to film an ENTIRE novel, and not leave out any of the action/themes/nuances, you can't do it in two hours of screen time.

Bring it on, PJ! You've earned my trust.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya

Maybe Quentin Tarantino can do better.

Frodo, this ring was on your Uncle's finger when he was captured in Mirkwood. He knew if the wood elves ever saw the ring that it'd be confiscated; taken away. The way your Uncle looked at it, this ring was your birthright. He'd be damned if any slant ears was gonna put their greasy hands on his nephew's birthright. So he hid it in the one place he knew he could hide something. His ass. Five long years, Bilbo wore this ring up his ass. And then he died of dysentery, he gave me the ring. I hid this uncomfortable hunk of metal up my ass for two years. And now, little man, I give the ring to you.



Elvish, motherfucker. Do you speak it?

[Tim R. Mortiss]

Originally Posted by A Monkey With a Gun

Frodo, this ring was on your Uncle's finger when he was captured in Mirkwood. He knew if the wood elves ever saw the ring that it'd be confiscated; taken away. The way your Uncle looked at it, this ring was your birthright. He'd be damned if any slant ears was gonna put their greasy hands on his nephew's birthright. So he hid it in the one place he knew he could hide something. His ass. Five long years, Bilbo wore this ring up his ass. And then he died of dysentery, he gave me the ring. I hid this uncomfortable hunk of metal up my ass for two years. And now, little man, I give the ring to you.



Elvish, motherfucker. Do you speak it?

Bravo!!!

[GIGObuster]

Man, National Lampoon must now make the Bored of the Rings movie!

No. I'm not upset with the 3 movie deal, I think it is a good idea, but I want to see a big parody to make fun of the producer's, and I would like to see Mel Brooks as Goodgulf.

[The Great Sun Jester]

Originally Posted by GuanoLad

We were dropped in the middle of an epic history to tell the stories of LOTR, now let's drop in to the same epic history, just a bit earlier.

It's a totally unique approach: you take a massive epic tale, break it in half, tell the second half first in 3 parts and then ... oh.

Nice job, Monkey. I'll be giggling at "Elvish, motherfucker. Do you speak it?" all day.

[Elendil's Heir]

If there are three movies, all the more likely we'll see a young Estel and his mother Gilraen at Rivendell. Woohoo!

[Eonwe]

I liked but did not love the LoTR movies, and am not that excited about The Hobbit movie(s), but Inigo is right; there are no more money-making titles in the "franchise." If they want to keep making big-budget Tolkien-based movies, it makes sense to extend The Hobbit, whether or not the movies bearing the name adhere to the subject matter of the book by the same name.

[Grey]

Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir

If there are three movies, all the more likely we'll see a young Estel and his mother Gilraen at Rivendell. Woohoo!

But it isn't The Hobbit - it's Peter Jackson's Middle Earth extravaganza.

Look I love Tolkien's world but this suddenly has "feature creep" all over it. A simple cherished book brought to life on film has become an exploration of 2 and 3rd age Middle Earth with a hobbit somewhere in the middle of it all. I was coming around to the idea of the White Council's move against Sauron being filmed but this expansion...this expansion worries me.

[The Great Sun Jester]

Originally Posted by Grey

But it isn't The Hobbit - it's Peter Jackson's Middle Earth extravaganza.

I agree with this. I would love something good that could replace that horrible musical cartoon. But given the obsessive approach PJ took with LOTR, he was not the guy for that job. The trouble now will be: after PJ unleashes his hobbit, nobody will even want to try to do just The Hobbit. And as much as I would love The Hobbit in context, which it sounds like is the plan, after watching that I will someday want to just see "There and Back Again" and it won't be there.