Monday, July 30, 2012

"The Hobbit" Will Be Three Movies

Peter Jackson has confirmed that "The Hobbit" will go from being two films to a trilogy; with the originally-announced first two debuting over the next two Xmas seasons and the third hitting Summer 2014.

Details are vague, but supposedly this has been spurred by the material added (mostly "what was going on elsewhere in Middle Earth" from the LOTR appendices) to "flesh out" the events of the existing two films and tie things more directly to the events/characters that Tolkien later placed before and after Bilbo's main adventure.

Whether or not that means "Hobbit 2" gets longer with the "traditional" ending still happening in Part 3 or if the third film will be the often-discussed "bridge film" to LOTR remains to be seen.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

And you have no thoughts on this? I'm a little surprised at the lack of commentary.

Taylor said...

Dumb. Dumb dumb dumb.

I know, Peter Jackson is great, this must be good... but... all the stuff I see from the Hobbit seems like they're entirely missing the point.

Three films kills the extremely good pacing that the Hobbit already had. You can make a case for two movies because of the Battle of Five Armies, but 3 movies just reeks of overwriting, the current trend of breaking blockbusters up for extra ticket sales, and, of course, hacking up the Hobbit so that you can turn it from a self-contained story to a LOTR Continuity wank.

I've given up on this movie. I think we're looking at Peter Jackson's Phantom Menace.

Paul said...

Depends how long each film is. 3x3.5 hours like LOTR will be IMO too long, but 3 90minute films would work ok.

Anonymous said...

Well, there goes the last whit of interest I had in seeing these movies. By FAR the worst aspects of the LotR movies (so bad they single-handedly ruined the movies as an enjoyable experience for me) was the crap that was added for no good reason: the see-saw, dwarf-tossing, cliff diving, X-treme Legolas, Arwen. If they're cramming in so much filler into this relatively short story that it's gonna fill a new 2 1/2 hour movie, it's gonna be damn unwatchable.

I'm now officially planning to celebrate opening day of The Hobbit by sitting down and reading the book again for the first time in many years. I bet I'll enjoy it a lot more.

Sam Robards, Comic Fan said...

This is beyond absurd.

Peter Jackson needs to be reigned in. It was bad enough that he crammed King Kong with 90 minutes worth of crap no one cared about (read: anything on the F-ING BOAT), but now stretching one book into three films? Ugh.

It was bad news when Guillermo del Toro had to leave, as he was the breath of fresh air this franchise desperately needed, but this? This might have killed any and all interest I had in this project.

Anonymous said...

The Hobbit was a lovely, modest adventure. Bloating it into a giant Middle Earth epic might work, but even if it turns out great I won't love it for the same reasons I love the book.

Anonymous said...

T-t-t-oday's see-see-secret word is 'bloated'! Y-you all know what to d-d-do! Fo-for the rest of the dayday, when someone says the secret word, scream real loud!

lemonvampire said...

The breath of fresh air this franchise desperately needed?

I wasn't aware that having a single installment in a franchise constituted stagnation. I was always under the impression that a franchise needed a "breath of fresh air" after it had been completely run into the ground by increasingly less successful sequels/prequels. But apparently a series desperately needs a breath of fresh air after just the first installment.

Omorka said...

You know, I really like worldbuilding, and there might (might, just barely) be 3 good 90-minute movies in the text of The Hobbit plus the appendices, but - this does seem like either overindulgence or an attempt by the studio to milk a good thing. And it's been a while since Jackson held himself to 90 minutes.

Bets on them taking on the Silmarillion next? They could get four or five out of that sucker.

cdstephens said...

The problem is that the Hobbit is an adventure story while LotR is Tolkien world building. I hope that the third Hobbit film is more of a bridge between the Hobbit and LotR, otherwise the pacing might be off.

Josh said...

I agree that this SCREAMS of bloat, and unless the pace of these movies is different (not better, but different) than LOTR it could potentially ruin these movies for me. But I'm still excited. Even if it is too long(not paced well) at least I know a good fanedit will be made out of it.

PLUS, I would LOVE for them to make a Silmarillion movie... just so they could bring JRRT's creation story to life. It was one of my favorite parts of the book, and could be mind-blowing.

Anonymous said...

I'm game. Jackson doesn't have a spotless track record, but he's more than earned my trust. I'll reserve judgement until I've actually, you know, seen the fuckin' things.

Sam Robards, Comic Fan said...

lemonvampire said, "I wasn't aware that having a single installment in a franchise constituted stagnation."

As far as I'm concerned, three three-hour-plus films isn't a single installment: it's three.

And yeah, I grew a little tired of Jackson's sensibilities by the end of Return of the King. So yeah, I think the franchise needed a different spin.

Scott_Lochmoeller said...

I think basically what happened is that they were going to do "theatrical cuts" and "DVD extended cuts" on these like LOTR, but then Warners said "know what? another full trilogy would be nice, so we're just going to put the extended cuts in the the theaters this time."

Chris said...

I'm up for three movies. Jackson has earned my initial trust when it comes to LotR. What I haven't figured out yet is whether the third movie has already been shot (when they were filming the first two) and it's just turning two really big films into three medium films. Or if they are going to extend filming to get more footage. Their last video blog said that they had finished principal photography and were in post production.

Sanunes said...

This seems to be a cash grab to me, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt at least for the first movie.

Merrick_HLC said...

The Hobbit 3: The Search For More Money!

BJames said...

really? 3 Films to tell the story of the Hobbit?

Seems unnecessary. I get that they want to tell more then just the Hobbit extending to the appendices, white council ect, but I have a feeling the story of "The Hobbit" will get lost in all this excess content. Can't they just...like adapt "The Hobbit"?

Anonymous said...

Will this turn into a bloated disaster as it flits between 'srs bsns' appendix referencing and a charming tale of a frumpy man's adventure creating an atonal nightmare of a franchise?

Yerp.

Will I always have the extremely underrated Rankin/Bass animated version.

Yerp.

My jimmies shall remain unrustled.

Lord Slithor said...

I'm glad I'm not the only one here who's thinking, "Why???" Especially when Jackson could just as easily save whatever extra material he had for an extended Blu-Ray/DVD release like he did with the LOTR trilogy and King Kong.

I agree, three movies is just too much. Especially when you consider The Hobbit was just ONE book! Seriously, how much material do you need to wring out of it to justify the existence of three movies?

It's even more ludicrous if you recall that Rankin-Bass made a perfectly serviceable adaptation of The Hobbit in the 1970's, and they managed to tell it in about 90 minutes.

ashiq ali said...

nice
http://hindivideos4.blogspot.com/