Three Hobbit Films Confirmed by Peter Jackson

Post by **Griffon64** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 1:19 am

It'll be better than a certain other trilogy's three prequel films, I'm sure ... or, I sure hope ...

Post by **Frelga** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 2:19 am

This thread needs a poll.

Post by **halplm** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 2:56 am

Peter Jackson has ruined LOTR for me, and thus, unlike some of you, The Hobbit IS dear to me, because it's all that's left.

For a little while anyway.

Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:13 am

Ruined LOTR for you, hal? You can no longer read the book with any appreciation or enjoyment?

Post by **halplm** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:17 am

Nope, haven't been able to since FOTR came out.

Post by **SirDennis** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:25 am

halplm wrote:Nope, haven't been able to since FOTR came out.

There is a persistence of vision from PJ's films -- we were so over saturated with them there for awhile -- that can intrude upon or overwrite the pictures in your mind while reading The Lord of the Rings.

Now to the thread in general:

Similar to calling The Hobbit a prequel, the thing that will take some getting used to is The Hobbit being called a "trilogy."

Post by **River** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 4:00 am

Griffon64 wrote:It'll be better than a certain other trilogy's three prequel films, I'm sure ... or, I sure hope ...

Oh gawd. You just had to bring that up, didn't you?

Post by **halplm** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 4:06 am

River wrote:
Griffon64 wrote:It'll be better than a certain other trilogy's three prequel films, I'm sure ... or, I sure hope ...

Oh gawd. You just had to bring that up, didn't you?

It's actually a pretty eerily similar situation... Popular directer gets unlimited funds and no one to edit or criticize them with little to no respect for the source material... not a good recipe.

Tue Jul 31, 2012 4:31 am

halplm wrote:Nope, haven't been able to since FOTR came out.

That's sad.

Post by **halplm** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 4:47 am

It is sad. For a long time I tried to deny it, and did not want to let PJ and co. do that to me, but after this long it's become obvious.

I tried reading LOTR earlier this year and just as every other time, somewhere between Lórien and Fangorn I end up putting it aside and don't pick it up again. It's a far cry from the sleepless nights I spent reading by flashlight pretending to be asleep to get to Frodo and Sam capturing Gollum.

I used to think it was as SirDennis says, the idea of a persistent vision of the films interfering, but I don't think that's the case. It may be true, but for me personally I think it's more to do with the sick feeling I got sitting in a theater watching The Two Towers and realizing just how bad it was getting. I don't know if that feeling has ever gone away.

Tue Jul 31, 2012 4:55 am

I hope it does some day and you can regain your appreciation of the great work.

Post by **Griffon64** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 5:14 am

Right now, I am reading LOTR while on jury duty, while waiting to actually enter the courtroom. Théoden is about to talk to Saruman. I am as immersed as ever, thankfully.

Before LOTR, I was reading A Suitable Boy. I finished it weeks ago, and it is even longer than LOTR.

Yes, this is an unexpectedly long case, thanks for asking

River, my apologies.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 6:55 am

Griffy, still glad about that whole citizenship thing?

I am, but then it's you, not me, on that jury. OTOH, there are worse things than a jury with a Griffon on it.

Post by **Hurin** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:30 am

Like many of you, I am a bit apprehensive about a third movie. The more stuff PJ and company have to invent, the greater the chance they will have stuff I won't like. I'm hoping for the best though.

I am guessing that the first film will concentrate on the journey of Bilbo and the dwarves, as shown in the montage, although now it may end prior to the barrel episode. The second film will likely have a lot about Dol Guldur and the Necromancer, climaxing with a big battle there. Then the third installment will center about events at the Lonely Mountain. This way there will not be two big battles in one movie, as might have been the case if there had been only two films.

Post by **eborr** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:52 am

what Wampus said pretty much, at one level the more middle earth the better, but will it be middle earth or just another journey to Osgiliath.

Why cant they be really bold and introduce something into film one like
after the tea party at Bag End Gandalf rides off.

Drawves trust Biblo to guide them through the shire, Bilbo gets lost in old wood, willow tree traps dwarves, rescued by old hippy who speaks in an odd metre.

Post by **Griffon64** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 2:35 pm

Primula Baggins wrote:Griffy, still glad about that whole citizenship thing?

I am, but then it's you, not me, on that jury. OTOH, there are worse things than a jury with a Griffon on it.

A little strained, perhaps!

Jury selection by itself took 2 weeks. The case is somewhat complex, with multiple charges and 4 defendants. I was the 3rd person called into the jury box when selection began, and after they sorted out that just because I speak with an accent doesn't mean I don't understand English

they learned that I was a computer programmer, and both prosecutor and defense council glommed onto that: "Ah, so that means you are capable of analyzing complex things and understanding that facts may pertain to one portion of a thing and not to another, and that you can keep multiple things neatly in your head all at once?" "Yes, sir." "No further questions."

And just like that, I was cemented into seat Nr 3, sticking there through about 100 combined challenges by defense and prosecutor. There's only one other elderly gentlemen who is an "original" selection.

And we had to sit through five alternates being seated, too, before the case could begin.

Húrin - I find the idea of the films as laid out by you interesting. I expect there'd be some Lonely Mountain approach stuff in the second film, to not make that storyline disappear entirely for a whole film, but the overall concept is not displeasing.

The devil, as they say, is in the details.

Post by **kzer_za** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:12 pm

Not very happy with this. Sure there's probably technically enough material in the appendices and Quest for Erebor (if they're allowed to use it) to fill three movies, but it means basically speculating a lot of fanfiction based on fleeting references to various events. Azanulbizar is really the only sidestory we have much detail on. Even though I actually like the Osgiliath scene, the prospect of PJ making so much stuff up makes me very nervous.

There are a lot of great unused lines from LotR. Hopefully they'll be smart enough to use some of them for the speculative scenes and not just write all their own dialogue.

Post by **vison** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:17 pm

I agree with halplm that PJ didn't make LOTR just the way I would have,

but I can still enjoy reading the book. On the other hand, I haven't read The Hobbit more than maybe 10 times and it is not fixed in my memory the way LOTR is - I've read LOTR at least 100 times, so it's worn grooves in my brain.

My main beef with PJ is that he seems to think that if one of a thing is good, then 1,000 of that thing is automatically 1,000 times better. He seldom manages subtlety (sp?). His visuals are generally splendid.

I have never watched the movies all the way through at home. The kids watch them now and again and I pop in and out and whine about how awful they are.

Post by **yovargas** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:34 pm

Griffon64 wrote:"Ah, so that means you are capable of analyzing complex things and understanding that facts may pertain to one portion of a thing and not to another, and that you can keep multiple things neatly in your head all at once?" "Yes, sir." "No further questions."

They didn't literally ask you that, did they?

Post by **halplm** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 4:26 pm

Of course, I could talk about this for a very long time, as you all know, but I really don't want to

. So briefly, here's the problem.

The Hobbit is about Bilbo Baggins. The climax is the Battle of Five Armies, which Bilbo does not even participate in. You want to make two four hour movies, fine, I can see several ways to break up the narrative and tell the story in two parts, although I have no doubt PJ will find a way that baffles me.

But Bilbo has nothing to do with anything outside of his journey and his attempts at preventing the battle. ALL of the other stuff is not part of that narrative. It happens, sure, but is NOT part of The Hobbit, no matter how much detail we have from Tolkien's notes and appendices.

If you were strictly doing a prequel to LOTR, that is where you would put any of that stuff, but it would be entirely uninteresting to all but the geekiest of Tolkien fans. There is no story. Sauron was rebuilding strength, then he ran away to keep rebuilding. Sauron is not even a character in LOTR, how can you make him a character in The Hobbit??? It does not in any way fit the narrative structure of The Hobbit, which is about Bilbo!

What a third movie in this travesty means is that The Hobbit films are not about Bilbo. They are about Peter Jackson.

In the end, that's what all the films were about.