Three Hobbit Films Confirmed by Peter Jackson

[yovargas]

The Hobbit is about Bilbo Baggins.

Correction: The Hobbit was about Bilbo Baggins.

[Griffon64]

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

They did! The wording was more formal ( "neatly" didn't feature, for example ), but that was what it boiled down to. It was the defense council asking that question, and now that the case has developed more, I can see why.

[Lalaith]

Well, I'm still a little skeptical, but, like some others, The Hobbit isn't a beloved book to me. (LotR wasn't either till after I watched FotR. Then I was plenty upset when I saw TTT; however, I've been able to separate the two in my mind. I still read the books with absolute delight and watch the movies with great enjoyment.)

Anyway, how he's going to make this into three movies is beyond me, but I won't lie and say I'm not excited about 3 years of Middle-earth on the big screens.


Griffy, that does not sound like fun. So far, I've gotten out of jury duty. Apparently being married to a cop isn't all that desirable to the courts. (It's no guarantee of not having to serve, though. And, honestly, now that my girls are older, I might not mind so much.)

[sauronsfinger]

Great news. Glad to see it happen. I think Ax was right on page one - PJ had probably two 3 hour films. By shooting an addition one hour he now has three films of good length. Like it or not - the first rule of commercial film making is MAKE A PROFIT.

I can see the discussion right now - we front you an extra 100 to 150 million to shoot sixty to eight new minutes of footage and we get ten times or more than back. Its an offer you cannot refuse.


This puts an extra billion in the till from box office and who knows how much more from all the extra rights.

I will love to see all the extra stuff thrown in to make it a complete story leaving nothing out.

[Frelga]

My guess is, PJ had three cameos filmed, and wanted a film to go with each.

[Dave_LF]

sauronsfinger! Good to see you back.

This news brought a bunch of people back to TORC too.

[Alatar]

From TORN:

We have exclusive and reliable news from Ringer Spy Thrush that New Line has registered the following film titles:

The Desolation of Smaug
The Battle of Five Armies
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies

Apparently this doesn’t mean New Line is definitely going to use one, or both, or either of them! Our spy tells us that because they must register their eventual title, studios often register multiple titles. One could suggest, based on these titles, that maybe we’ll have a change to the first film title? That ‘An Unexpected Journey’ memorabilia would sure increase in value!

[axordil]

I would guess that "There and Back Again" is the one that's getting the boot, and those two titles are the second and third installments.

[vison]

sf! How have you been?

[Elentári]

I would guess that "There and Back Again" is the one that's getting the boot, and those two titles are the second and third installments.

Yeah, that makes sense, though I'd like to have seen TABA used somewhere (apart from in the scene where Bilbo starts the Red Book!)


Good to see you here, sf! Enjoying the summer recess? Or perhaps you are busy campaigning again...

[sauronsfinger]

sauronsfinger! Good to see you back.

This news brought a bunch of people back to TORC too.

Thanks my friend. Hopefully I will be here to see this through the end.

[sauronsfinger]

sf! How have you been?

Very good. And I did make it out to your neck of the woods having been so inspired by the Winter Olympics. Last year we spent ten days going from Seattle to Vancouver to Victoria up to Whistler.

The term GODS COUNTRY does not begin to describe it.

And how is everybody else?

[sauronsfinger]

I would guess that "There and Back Again" is the one that's getting the boot, and those two titles are the second and third installments.

Yeah, that makes sense, though I'd like to have seen TABA used somewhere (apart from in the scene where Bilbo starts the Red Book!)


Good to see you here, sf! Enjoying the summer recess? Or perhaps you are busy campaigning again...

Yes - campaigning all summer and spring - but it comes to an end next week.

And how are you and the family? I thought of you and yours with all those beautiful children singing at the Olympics opening.

[Elentári]

Hoping for a second term, eh? You’re certainly a sucker for punishment!

Not wanting to derail this thread, (you can read the most recent news here and here in Bag End) but my kids continue to be an endless source of joy…as I’m sure your own kids and grandchildren are!

Unfortunately my husband's unemployment continues...

[Elentári]

Just read a great post over on TORn by dalecooper which helped me make sense of why, somewhere at the back of my mind, I'm not entirely comfortable with the 3 movies scenario, when I do want to embrace PJ's vision with enthusiasm:

I know that money is a big motivating factor and that regardless of Jackson's motives (probably mixed - he does seem to love Tolkien and making long movies!), the primary goal for the studio is shorter movies and more of them. I strongly suspect that what is being done now is restructuring two movies into three while adding more of what they planned to leave out, and shooting a few additional, probably-minor bits. But... my main fear when I first heard "three Hobbit films!" was that they'd be overlong, bloated messes with a lot of made-up stuff not in the book, and too little focus on Bilbo. The one nice thing about the obvious cash grab is that this won't be the case. Turning two 3-hour movies into three 2-hour-plus movies, with a little extra content, means I get basically the same thing filled out in the manner of the extended LOTR movies - which is fine with me! What I actively fear is three 3.5-hour movies that are only 50% about the titular hobbit. Everything we've heard so far, especially that summer 2014 release date and two more months of shooting (during post-production on movie #2 no less), suggests to me that it simply won't be possible to expand them that much.

So I'll be taken advantage of. Bring on the cash grab. Just don't cram three more hours into a story that really shouldn't take more than six or seven to tell; I'll pay PJ ten more dollars willingly to prevent that.

Also, regarding what they'll be adding back in, I'm enough of a Tolkien nerd to favor it, whatever it is. I only watch the extended LOTR movies and haven't seen the theatricals since they were in theaters. I believe in tight pacing and lean plots for most movies, but not epic, episodic stories about hobbits. Tolkien didn't write the way conventional dramas are structured; the stories are packed with incident and filigree, and I'm happy to see most (not all) of it onscreen.

[kzer_za]

Having thought about it a little more, there really is a whole lot going on in the second half of The Hobbit. It's a dense little book! And setting aside the Necromancer stuff, there are some minor expansions of the plot that are only natural to take, such as giving Bard a fuller introduction, developing the dwarves individually, showing Dain's troops on the march. And I'm sure they want to give Smaug plenty of screen time before he dies.

It could still just fit into one long movie, but the Necromancer storyline might push it to the breaking point even if it's just a B-plot (as I really hope it will be). And then if they're going to split it, they might as well film additional scenes to flesh out the story since they've slowed down the pacing and have some extra screen time. The individual movies should stay under 3 hours though.

It's also been pointed out that RotK could easily have been two movies, and then we would have gotten the Scouring, a proper ending to Pelennor, etc.

But if this results in a really big and obtrusive Necromancer story that overshadows Bilbo and the dwarves, it's a bad thing.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Nice to see you, sf!

hal, I hope you you continue to expound upon your thoughts. I enjoy reading what you have to say, even when I don't entirely agree.

[Frelga]

You know, this reminds me of the days of Soviet cinema, when the studios would give directors twice as much money for a two-part movie than for a single one. It doesn't, of course, take twice as much money to make, especially when the crew is inventive about working on a shoestring. Sometimes, there was a one-part version for the theaters and a two-part for TV.

There was some fantastic stuff, two and three part, filmed for TV in those days, btw. Because the actors pay was set from "above", a director could afford to stuff a movie full of stars, even in little parts and cameos, if he was friends with enough of them.

Anyway, yes, my bet is on the money.

Would anyone be thrilled with a fourth LOTR movie?

[Elentári]

Would anyone be thrilled with a fourth LOTR movie?

Sure! Because TTT had too much unnecessary padding and left RotK with too much to stuff into 3.5 hours....and as I said in reply to Ax earlier, the combined extra footage on the EEs would have made a 4th film in itself.

I keep seeing claims on other forums that "WB don't do EEs," citing HP an a prime example. If this is true, and WB are refusing to allow Jackson the freedom for that, then likely as not, PJ sees a 3rd film as the best alternative for footage he desperately does not want to end up on the cutting room floor!

[yovargas]

Would anyone be thrilled with a fourth LOTR movie?

I assume you mean back then, now a new 4th one now. If so, yeah, in hindsight, a 4th movie would've been a good idea. But there's such a huge difference between compressing LOTR into 3 movies vs streeeetching Hobbit into 3!