Three Times The Hobbit?
 

I just saw this article today, which states that there is apparently a desire to have The Hobbit be released as a trilogy, rather than the expected two films.

The idea is said to be to add in data from the appendices in ROTK to "bridge the narrative gap" between TH and LOTR.

As the article also states, though:

there may be another motive to it, if it happens. Cynic that I am toward the film industry, I suspect the second quote is right as to the driving force behind the notion of a trilogy. :rolleyes:

I could see having The Hobbit as two films, as it'd have to be one long film to get a decent story across (and shorter films make more money).

But three? :eek:

I've read the Appendices, and am not sure what's got Jackson all excited. What? The Battle of Nanduhirion? How 'bout just sticking to the story at hand?

/facepalm
 

I too saw this story.

I reacted to it with the only two means I have at my disposal...increasing the level of despair I feel for the human race and increasing the level of hatred I feel toward Peter Jackson to levels of seething venom even I didn't know were possible.

The only way he can get three films (or for that matter two) out of The Hobbit is to make it up in his silly head...and from our experience in the LOTR trilogy it is firmly established that is what he prefers to do anyway.

You know, I've got a radical solution for those who want to "fill in the gaps": read the books and get straight from the original author, not spoon-fed, watered down and / or unnecessarily changed.

If PJ really was concerned with simply telling the story and enlightening moviegoers as to the great experience that is Tolkien's work, I have to seriously question why he'd allow an extra film that seems so obviously tacked on for profit.

And I thought we've had it when PJ made that little book into two films... :rolleyes:

He's moreMoreMORE PJ!

"Make the Witch-King's mace preposterous sized!" :rolleyes:

Relax. This tale was doing the rounds at Comic-Con. Jackson has already filmed more material than he needs and he has said it is really good material. He was asked about whether they would stretch it into three shorter films but he said it would be used on the DVD release to create extended editions.

To go back and film whole new chunks from the Appendices would require re-hiring people, not least actors with other commitments, all over again and getting the filming infrastructure set up again.

It's possible that some media outlets are keeping the story alive in order to see what the reception for such a film might be, but hopefully, it's just that some of them haven't properly caught up with the geek news from Comic-Con. I'm a bit tired with this stretching of material which might already be weak. The final Harry Potter novel could take it as they are books generally packed with incident and detail. In fact I wish some of the other books had been divided between two films. However The Hunger Games novels cannot handle it, and as for Breaking Dawn, the only splitting that should have happened to that book was to rip it into little pieces and bury it (I thought the Twilight books were enjoyable teen escapism until that one, which was like really bad fan fiction).

If that's the case, and it is all just hot air, I only hope this forum ends up being one of the places checked for "reception". ;)

Ah come on...I need something to keep the criticism fire burning until I actually see the movie(s). ;)

Drat! And I had the perfect title...

THE HOBBIT III: MILKING THE FRANCHISE

Try rewatching the original film trilogy...

Any word on when he's going to use Tom Bombadil and Goldberry?

Who? ;)

It's likely. Almost all Government policy is 'leaked' or issued in advance ramped up so that they can gauge public perception and/or then actually do something slightly milder (but still rubbish and nasty) - it's called Managing Expectation.

Oh I'm a cynic. But it's true.

I know. The moaning and the criticism and worry is part of the fun. We'll all still go and see it, no matter what. It reminds me of us Brits moaning about the Olympics. We enjoy the moaning and if we grudgingly say about the ceremonies and games "Yeah, was alright I s'pose" then that's generous heaps of praise ;)

yes, I noticed that a certain visiting American stoked this British reserve. ;)

And speaking of Olympics, do you folks know that the Return of the Ring conference is having a dwarf tossing competition? Yes, with knitted dwarves. :D

He wants money. I'm able to understand two movies, though I don't like it, and I don't like having to wait for two-part movies, but I get it. A trilogy for the Hobbit, though?

Jackson's being a money-grubbing greedy @$$hole.

I am expecting something similar in an hour on BBC1. Danny Boyle has built Hobbiton as London's newest urban farm in the middle of the stadium, complete with sheep, cows, geese, bees and a shire horse. There are even some wee Samwises wandering about.

Just hoping the BBC actually show this unlike the unwatchable fiasco that was the Jubilee river pageant that was just a parade of rubbish presenters and celebrities. Speaking of money grabbing celebrity.....



P.S. That was epic. Don't miss it.

Caught a glimpse of the opening ceremonies. Though this 'Merican doesn't understand the British obsession with the stovepipe-hatted Abraham Lincoln (vampire hunter though he may have been), I did like that, in the end of that one sequence, the One Ring is forged...at least that's what I saw. ;)

I'm glad to hear that the three films rumour is fake. Three films for The Hobbit would be over the top, much as I like The Hobbit.

Unfortunately, Coppermirror, it is no longer fake. Jackson's announced on his facebook page, confirming a 3rd Hobbit film:

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

In that case, I reiterate everything I said before.

Or if "the full story" is insufficient to pad three full films, you'll just make it up as you go, no doubt. Thanks anyway. I'll stick with the books.

Tch. That was Isambard Kingdom Brunel :D

It looks like I am wrong about the third film. However, I am quite pleased. :p

http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=746962

The line in this that really gets me is:

"there was more story to tell than could be contained in the originally planned two films"

I assume this must translate to, "I threw out almost all of the original material (because let's face it, Tolkien was a horrible writer and he wasn't PJ) and made up as much junk as I possibly could to service and worship my own ego (PJ be praised!) because...I mean gosh, who else but me could deserve this much mone...I mean adoration!!!! Next week, I shall announce that for no other reason than to service and worship my own ego (PJ be praised!) the trilogy will be doubled! Huzzah!!!!!"

My first worry is this though: they have wrapped filming and realised they had moore footage they could fit in two films... then one night after too much wine and in frenzy after looking at required cutting-choices they thought, goddammit, let's make three films with this material! All is required is a speedy re-cut for film one, and then they have time to make tricks to make the two latter films to work... maybe a few additional shoots then next year?

But OMG what will the quality of that sudden remodelling of a two-part movie turned into a trilogy be? I'm not too optimistic... (especailly when it is a PJ movie :rolleyes:)

I find it quite funny that most fans immediately read a Tolkien context into much of the ceremonies, but I've also read non-Tolkien fans ask why there wasn't any recognition of Tolkien. :D

It's simple math:

• LotR is three books (or one very long one), and yet with three long films, PJ found the need to insert PJisms to...what? Increase everyone's love of the author's work, make the story more understandable, scare the audience, tick off the fan base, prolong the agony? Go rewatch the scenes like Aragorn falling off the cliff, Gollum falling off the cliff, Denethor diving off a cliff, the need to have the sewers of Osgiliath, the bad bouncing scene...:rolleyes:
• 3 Tolkien books = 3 PJ movies + filler
• The Hobbit is one smaller book, was written more with children in mind, and yet from this material we're going to have three even average length films? :eek: How many Dwarves will need to fall off cliffs in this trilogy?
• 1 Tolkien book = 3 PJ movies + ?

Oh well, it'll at least be interesting to see the extra footage without having to get special extended edition DVDs. I am a bit concerned that The Hobbit won't suit the three long films format, but I suppose we'll have to wait and see how it turns out. It ought to have quite a different feel to it from the Lord of the Rings.

I'm going to wait till it comes on cable. That way, I have a bathroom nearby to vomit in. The wife would be upset if I threw up on the Persian rug.

Yes– it's awfully, awfully late in the day for them to be making such a radical change, isn't it? Not that it's the first time P.J. & Co have given the impression they're not quite sure what they're actually trying to do with "The Hobbit". *sigh*

Stop it, alatar! You are going to give me nightmares! ;)

Sadly, I suspect they know exactly what they are trying to do, milk as much money out of this as possible. What I think they are unclear about is the best means to get the milk out of the cow, because obviously something faithful to the text and spirit of Tolkien's original writing is not up to the task.

Three movies isn't necessary. Too bad they're going to milk it like this. Two movies made sense, three is overkill. I'm still excited about The Hobbit movies, though. I won't go into them expecting to see a true, accurate adaptation of the book. I will be going in expecting to see a well-done, visually appealing movie with some of the best music a movie has ever been blessed with.

Basically, I think Jackson has lost all sense of restraint, which was originally one thing I admired in the making of the 3 films. By restraint I mean the "We can't shoot LOTR line by line attitude." What happened to this attitude for The Hobbit films? Oh right, Hollywood sees big-time cash.

I mean if the Deathly Hallows can be split into 2-films, then surely we can take such a large and expansive story as The Hobbit and make it 3! Take that Potter!

I will reserve judgment about whether it's overkill until I see the movies.

I don't really understand the attitude most are expressing, though. Personally, I enjoyed the LOTR movies a lot, though they of course had their flaws. I fully expect that I will enjoy these, but disagree with some of the choices and additions. Three movies give me 33% more to enjoy.

Will they replace the book? Of course not. But I will look forward to them more than I will look forward to another movie featuring an intimate portrayal of the unfortunate choices of homosexual Muslim beekeepers.

Here's my issue with PJ and his movies in a nutshell. Tolkien's works mean more to be than any other fiction books I've read, and that's saying a lot. Since I put the books on a pedestal, I don't like seeing them treated like the standard printed dross when it comes to movie adaptations. I expect a superior, faithful live-action adaptation, if one is to be made. Now, I don't think it's possible to fully capture the spirit and other chimerical qualities on film that make the book so special, so PJ had nothing to offer me to start with. Now he's proving that he cares nothing for pleasing the irascible, vocal, book-centered folks like me, and that's fine. I don't need him or his movies.

Greedy is the word that springs to mind

Self indulgent to the point of incontinenceis the phrase. It is a short children's book. It should have been a sunday afternoon tv serial or a romp of a single film.

I'd have shelved my love of Tolkien and put aliens into Middle-Earth if it kept me from my crushing debt. PJ made FOTR accessible to me when I was 14. I fell in love with Middle-earth thanks to him. Either see the movie or don't. At least reserve some judgement for when it actually comes out. /rant

I can certainly see how one in your situation would view the matter quite differently.
For that matter, there are obviously those who have known and loved the books far longer than I, and yet enjoy the movies. I don't disparage them. A fundamental aspect of my criticism though, is that I'm just not much of a movie fan to begin with. People are always discussing the hot film of the day in front of me, asking my opinion, then acting astounded when I say I haven't seen it. I can take movies or leave them, and the latter is usually the course of action.

Where's the fun in that? ;)
I really don't mean I won't ever see it, but it's going to have to be from a borrowed copy or something. I will not pay for it.

Well, really, what's the reason to not call this 3rd film what it is? It's to milk a cash cow for all it's work, or at least, it's hard not to see it as such. PJ stretching The Hobbit out like this, "for the story" or "for art" really starts going out the window when there actually isn't enough for 2 movies (until you include the White Council and Dol Guldur)...now they want to take it further?

And from the statements released, The Hobbit story will comprise all 3 films, there won't be a "bridge" film. There can't be a bridge film, because all the additional info PJ wants to use from the Appendices, there is no plot, no singular story; just scattered bits of extra background information.

This is all subjective, of course, but I just don't view one as supplanting the other. If PJ made god-awful terrible movies out of the books, I would view them as terrible movies, but that would relate only slightly to what I think about the books. I'm glad I can have both. And if someone would make a Game of Thrones style series out of the books, I'd gladly watch that as well.

The only reason I'd like to watch these movies are because of the following:

-Best special effects
-Great music
-Ian mckellen
-Mikael Persbrandt
-Budget

I doubt they will be deep great interesting beautiful movies. They will be shallow holywood summer blockbusters. If you would like to have faithful adaptions of the lord of the rings and hobbit book you'd have to create the movies outside holywood.

I think someone like Ingmar Bergman or Akira Kurosawa would be able to that. Akira would handle all the action scenes and character dynamics/personalities. Bergman would concentrate on the camera angles and story/cutting the story together. Writing the script etc...with Allan Lee doing the designs for the movie. Sadly two of the three are dead...

Peter Jackson is quite a crappy director I have to say...what made the lord of the rings so great were:

Weta digital
Howard shore

EDIT: You watch the movies maybe two times in your life...one time in the cinemas and one time by downloading it and check it out when you're bored...or you watch some shorts on youtube. They're not that great...just like Avatar wasn't that great. Soo much hype around these movies...