Peter Jackson's two films of adaptation of The Hobbit are done filming. The first movie in the two part series is set to be released on December 13th, 2012 and the second part entitled "There and Back Again" is set to be released on December 13. 2013. The film is in the can, production has stopped and as far as we knew, that was going to be the end of the story…until now.
Peter Jackson teased at Comic-Con that he liked the idea and would be interested in shooting more footage and making another film. There are no reports as to whether he would change the films as they stand now in order to accommodate another entire film. The report is that Jackson has a desire to add another movie because he would like to explore more of the story. Warner Bros. is now crunching the numbers and figuring out the logistics and determining if this would be possible. They will have to strike new deals with all of the actors, which could prove to be tough, and figure out if they need to secure the rights to the story again, which has also be wrought with problems; but if they can figure out a way to do it, I can only imagine a third Hobbit movie would prove beneficial for them.
After the way he handled the Lord of The Rings trilogy, I implicitly trust Peter Jackson, so I say if he wants to do it…let him do it! However, the though of waiting three more years for the conclusion of The Hobbit sounds pretty painful.
Thoughts? Do you guys like this idea?
That is really gross. How do you stretch out The Hobbit to 3 movies that will almost certainly be more then 2 hours long?
I'm pretty ok with this. If the decision was coming from the studio, then I would burn their fucking building down. But if Jackson has something more to say, I'm on board.
I've sat down and read The Hobbit cover to cover in around 3 hours. How would it be stretched into 3 movies? Oh, I know there will be three 1 hour montages of walking across the country.
I don't really think The Hobbit can support 2 movies, let alone 3.
From what I've read, Jackson wants to expand more into the appendices, creating a bridge between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Honestly, I think two films is plenty. I trust Jackson, but I'm not sure I want one more film in the universe. If they have to secure more of the story rights from the Tolkien estate, then it'll never happen, because last time I checked, the estate despises Jackson.
No just no. Breaking the Hobbit into two parts while not the worse example of breaking a singular work in to two pieces it certainly didn't scream necessary. What other story is there to tell? Are we going to do some sort of unwritten prequel to the Hobbit?
I wouldn't mind more exploration of Middle Earth Jackson has created a great aesthetic for it and it seems to make him money by all means get that paper.
I have never read the books, I tried once but couldn't really get into it, but through the movies i love the world and the fiction, so for me to see more films set in the universe I'm on board.. The one thing i've always loved/hated about books is that when they end thats when your imagination picks up the story, but I have on more occasion then one wanted more, so this sounds like that and I can dig it
Fuck this splitting movies up shit. Just release a 7 hour movie and charge double. I would sit in a theater for that long if there was a half an hour intermission
I've always felt that The Hobbit didn't need two films and that decision was made only for money reasons. I don't want a third film created from bits taken from the appendices. I would rather have a one film Hobbit personally.
@MrMazz said:
The second film was justified by exploring Gandalf's very large absences in the book. We are talking about Tolkien here, here is ALWAYS more room to explore, because the world is so fleshed out that there are usually things going on on like 4 different layers at any given time. It was a part of what made LotR so enjoyable to read: it kept going between different characters, so you never got tired of reading about any one group of characters.
This would lead to a necessary delay in the first book...right?
@Ghost_of_GhostDad said:
I would agree if they were making stuff up to pad out the story but theres a ton of existing fiction to work with. There's a lot going on in Middle Earth during the time period that The Hobbit takes place in that's covered in the Appendices. I love this idea.
A very strange development. I guess Jackson is really in love with Middle Earth; not that I can blame him. But does he actually have more compelling material for a movie, or is this just his personal desire to spend more time in that world?
easy, just introduce a 2-hour long ending like in LOTR and you're good for three movies
@Ghost_of_GhostDad said:
You aren't familiar with Middle Earth. There is A LOT of text before and after The Hobbit, Silmarillion and LOTR.
Edit:
This is everything Tolkien wrote: http://www.amazon.com/Histories-Middle-Earth-Volumes-1-5/dp/0345466454/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1343295971&sr=1-3&keywords=middle+earth
@GiveUpNed: I'll be honest I am not the biggest Tolkien fan. I loved The Hobbit, struggled to get through the Lord of the Rings and haven't bothered with any of his other works.
Everybody can agree that regardless of how many movies long The Hobbit is, this song has to be included on the soundtrack:
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the Hobbit Part 1 the actual book the Hobbit, and Part 2 is the in-between movies for the Hobbit and LOTR, and the story is drawn from the appendices?
@giyanks22 said:
No, Smaug isn't even in 'Part one', apart from a few seconds near the end.
This news just makes me mourn the loss of GDT from the film even more.
I'm afraid Peter Jackson may be losing his touch (if the Lovely Bones is any indication).
If there is anyone in Hollywood who can make this stupid split-a-book-into-two-or-three-films-for-more-$$$ fad work, it's Jackson. He really loves the source material and wants to do it justice. I would feel alright if he does decide to do this.