Two films for The Hobbit? Invented materials to "fill in the gaps"?

[Boromir88]

But this COULD make a very good movie if done well. Imagine Gandalf in Dol Guldur for example, and the smoke ring scene as I mentioned above or the White Council meetings etc.

And as I said, I think this could also be very good for the movies. For the dealings with Dol Guldur and the White Council are implied in The Hobbit, and it wouldn't be necessarily a bad thing to expand more on what The Hobbit doesn't tell us.

Though (and perhaps I guess I should wait for the movies to come out, if they ever do in my life time to hold criticism - or even praise), I am growing a fear that Jackson's 'Hobbit' won't be about Bilbo and the Dwarves, it will be about progressing into Lord of the Rings. And 'featuring' characters that should not be featured in the story.

I have no qualms if a movie wants to be made about 'the rise of Sauron,' 'Aragorn protecting The Shire,' 'throwing in Arwen and Legolas,' no problems at all, but if a movie is made off of such, don't call it The Hobbit, and don't use Tolkien's book The Hobbit as a means to further the movie. For that movie is not about The Hobbit, it is events that take place during the time frame of The Hobbit, and leading up to LOTR, which is completely different from the storyline and plot in The Hobbit.

Basically if a movie is to be made off of The Hobbit, I want a movie that is about Bilbo, the dwarves, and their journey retaking Erebor, and that's what I want to see. I think expanding upon some concepts that are broader in LOTR (like Dol Guldur, the White Council, The Ring, Gollum...etc) that is perfectly fine too. But, I would not want to see a movie with Aragorn, and Legolas, and Arwen, and Galadriel, might as well make Gimli go with his father on the journey, as that has nothing to do with the storyline in The Hobbit, but something totally different.

[The Saucepan Man]

You know, it seems to me that Jackson's ideas might be along the very lines that many here have been suggesting for some time with regard to any Hobbit film - its expansion into two films and the inclusion of the White Counsel's assault on Dol Guldur. I always had some reservations about that suggestion for the very reason that it would take the focus off Bilbo, the Dwarves and Smaug.

Nevertheless, perhaps we should refrain from getting too worked up about it until it's a little clearer exactly how it's going to turn out (or, indeed, if it is ever going to "turn out" at all).

[Mithalwen]

I cannot but help in finding some irony in the director who chopped up LOTR assuming an average audience IQ comparable to that of a houseplant thinks that the Hobbit is too simplistic...

While I wish JRRT had written a "grown up version" with the tone of "The Quest of erebor", I cannot see any excuse for stretching The Hobbit over 2 films other than greed. It is a slender volume and I think that even if you started with Gandalf meeting Thorin rather than his arrival at Hobbiton, it could be managed. If PJ does it as a prequesl to LOTR (rather than someone else doing it on its own terms) then it is perhaps logical to include the White COuncil and cameos for familiar faces. So much of the Hobbit is description that I am sure one film could manage, and there are elements that could be cut ...Beorn springs to mind.

However I think there is a danger that a PJ Hobbit might be formulaic... he seems to have moved on and maybe a new director would be more interesting.