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]

@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]

@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.

Log in or sign up to view

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]

@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]

@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]

@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.

[YogSothoth]

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.