Will 'The Hobbit' Become A Trilogy?
Certain industry prognosticators believe so
By Corwin Neuse Jul 25, 2012 7:49AM
Ever since the Warner Brothers (wisely) decided to split the seventh and final "Harry Potter" film into two, stretching out the final installment of similar adaptations has become de rigueur in Hollywood. The "Twilight" gang was the first to jump on the bandwagon, eagerly splitting up "Breaking Dawn" into two films. Did the story warrant such a treatment? Hardly. But the film made $700 million worldwide, so they're not complaining. Lionsgate was next, preemptively deciding to make "The Hunger Games" trilogy a tetralogy before the first film even came out. Only time will tell how that decision pans out. Now, however, industry prognosticators—namely Deadline, but also Entertainment Weekly and others—are predicting Peter Jackson will do the same with his upcoming "The Hobbit."Casual observers will note that "The Hobbit"—which is still only one book, and not a particularly dense one at that—has already been split into two films, "An Unexpected Journey" and "There And Back Again." The idea all along was to ostensibly tell the complete story of "The Hobbit" in the first film, and then use the second film to fill in the gaps between that book and "The Fellowship of the Ring," tying up all the loose ends in the franchise. Has that plan changed? Will the story of "The Hobbit" be (unnecessarily) split into two, leaving this potential third film to bridge the narrative gap between trilogies?
The prevailing sentiment on these here interwebs appears to be "yes." Peter Jackson himself laid the groundwork for such a discussion weeks ago at Comic-Con, telling audiences "There’s other parts of the story that we’d like to tell that we haven’t been able to tell yet." But what, exactly, is he alluding to? Apparently an 125-page Appendix from "The Return of the King," in which J.R.R. Tolkien went back and expounded upon plot holes from "The Hobbit," fleshing out its story in the context of his later work. Because—interesting fact—when he originally wrote "The Hobbit," he had no idea that he would later go on to write "The Lord of the Rings." So... There's that.
What do you think, Hitlisters? Yay or nay on a third "Hobbit" movie? Excited by the prospects of more adventures with Bilbo, Gandalf, Legolas et al. from Middle Earth? Or angered that the studio is needlessly padding/stretching out their films, possibly diluting their pleasures/compromising their quality in the almighty quest for more of our hard-earned money? (And all at 48 frames-per-second.) As always, leave your thoughts in the comments...
54Comments
Jul 25, 2012 4:37PM
Tolkien was a master storyteller who wrote with extreme details about a world which he painstakingly created from his gifted imagination. As it stands today, Peter Jackson is an equally genius storyteller who has transformed Tolkien's written works into a visually stunning tribute to what is now part of historical literature. Who among us does not sit in awe when a spellbinding story is told, whether through words or film? The ability to conjure up wondrous worlds, in which everyday people perform heroic deeds while remaining humble and true to their ideals, is truly a gift which Peter Jackson possesses. I am inspired by his capacity to tell a great story and trust implicitly in his ability to transport me to another dimension even if it's for a few short moments of my life. Go ahead, Peter Jackson, tell the story in as many films as you deem necessary to do justice to J.R.R.Tolkien's labors of love.
Jul 25, 2012 5:29PM
The Hobbit is quite easy to split into two parts. They had to drop an obscene amount of the story in the Lord of the Rings trilogy to keep them each under 4 hours long.
In The Hobbit, just getting to Mirkwood Forest is good for a 3 hour movie. You have the party at Bilbo's, the encounter with the trolls, Rivendale, the journey into the Misty Mountains, the capture by Goblins, Bilbo's finding the One Ring and interaction with Gollum, the escape from the Misty Mountains, the fire in the trees, escape with the Eagles and the encounter with Beorn.
For the second movie, you have the journey through Mirkwood, capture and escape from the spiders, capture and escape from the Wood Elves, resupply in Lake-town, journey to the Lonely Mountain, finding the hidden door, spying on Smaug, battle with Smaug, battle with the Five Armies, death of Thorin and journey home again.
Depending on how they want to split it, they could even use the capture by either the spiders or the Wood Elves as the stopping point as sort of a cliff hanger.
In The Hobbit, just getting to Mirkwood Forest is good for a 3 hour movie. You have the party at Bilbo's, the encounter with the trolls, Rivendale, the journey into the Misty Mountains, the capture by Goblins, Bilbo's finding the One Ring and interaction with Gollum, the escape from the Misty Mountains, the fire in the trees, escape with the Eagles and the encounter with Beorn.
For the second movie, you have the journey through Mirkwood, capture and escape from the spiders, capture and escape from the Wood Elves, resupply in Lake-town, journey to the Lonely Mountain, finding the hidden door, spying on Smaug, battle with Smaug, battle with the Five Armies, death of Thorin and journey home again.
Depending on how they want to split it, they could even use the capture by either the spiders or the Wood Elves as the stopping point as sort of a cliff hanger.
Jul 25, 2012 8:44PM
Rather than trying to expand the Hobbit further I'd really like to see them draw from one of Tolkien's other stories. Two in particular are fairly complete and would work very well as movies:
The story of Beren and Lúthien is very important to the overall mythology of the Lord of the Rings, due to its MAJOR significance to the back story (for those unfamiliar with it, Beren and Lúthien were the great-great grandparents of Arwen, distant ancestors of Aragorn and therefore the progenitors of all the Kings of Númenor, Gondor and Arnor). Aragorn mentions them in the Extended Edition of Fellowship, which may raise a few questions about their story. Of all the stories set in the First Age, it's also about the only one that can be said to actually have a happy ending. Lastly, it exists in a fairly complete form, and between various versions (including the partially completed 6000-line verse form) a substantial amount of material exists to adapt it. As a romantic story I see this as being the "safest" bet, and the one that would most easily find an audience.
The other is the Children of Húrin, which is probably the most complete of Tolkien's peripheral stories, and exists in the most mature state. Complete enough an entire novel was able to be released of it. This is a movie that SCREAMS "Oscar Bait." It's dark, moody, and a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions. Although the fact that it's downright depressing may work against its ability to draw at the box office.
The story of Beren and Lúthien is very important to the overall mythology of the Lord of the Rings, due to its MAJOR significance to the back story (for those unfamiliar with it, Beren and Lúthien were the great-great grandparents of Arwen, distant ancestors of Aragorn and therefore the progenitors of all the Kings of Númenor, Gondor and Arnor). Aragorn mentions them in the Extended Edition of Fellowship, which may raise a few questions about their story. Of all the stories set in the First Age, it's also about the only one that can be said to actually have a happy ending. Lastly, it exists in a fairly complete form, and between various versions (including the partially completed 6000-line verse form) a substantial amount of material exists to adapt it. As a romantic story I see this as being the "safest" bet, and the one that would most easily find an audience.
The other is the Children of Húrin, which is probably the most complete of Tolkien's peripheral stories, and exists in the most mature state. Complete enough an entire novel was able to be released of it. This is a movie that SCREAMS "Oscar Bait." It's dark, moody, and a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions. Although the fact that it's downright depressing may work against its ability to draw at the box office.
Jul 26, 2012 1:01AM
After the bang-up job Jackson did with the LOTR trilogy I am thrilled with whatever he decides to do with the filming of The Hobbit .
There is no such thing as too much with the Tolkien books and I only wish he could have done the same with the LOTR's 3 movies as they probably could have gotten at least 2 more movies made from the trilogy, what with all the material they left out of the movies they did make........
Go get 'em Pete...can't wait to see the finished product !!!!!!!!!!!
Jul 26, 2012 7:43AM
What sets Tolkien's stories apart from most others is the notable lack of fluff in his details. Many writers today add meaningless information for the sake of looking like it's a more involved story. Rarely is that the case. With Tolkien, nearly every single detail has meaning and is tied in some way to another plot element either before or after. Jackson and company did an admirable job in TRYING to sort out any fluff in the LOTR books, but there wasn't much there to remove. I was just as perturbed by some of the omissions and changes, especially Tom Bombadil and the Treebeard/Forest sequence, but I can't say much since I didn't put any of my fortunes (pennies) toward production. My point being, The Hobbit easily has enough vital stock to make 2 4-hour films and still use some plus LOTR appendices to create a "fill-in-the-time" movie between the 2 series. The more true they stay to the stories, the happier the Tolkien fans will be. And let's face it, at this point, that really is the target audience. Jackson has nothing left to prove to any studio exec or critic. Fight the good fight Peter. And any argument about a viewer not wanting to spend the money on 3 movies...were talking $10-15. It's well worth it.
Jul 26, 2012 8:11AM
I have been a movie buff for many years, but was unable to decide ( if asked) what my favorite movie was, until the LOTR trilogy. It is, hands down, my absolute fav. I loved the extended versions even more. If anyone else was doing this project, I would be sceptical, but knowing the blood, sweat, and tears Peter Jackson put into LOTR, I say "Take us there and back again." Peter will fight the good fight with whoever he needs to, to produce a film(s) worthy of Tolkien. Those of you who are a bit miffed with how some of the LOTR characters recieved little or no film time, the appendices (on the extended four disc versions) really spell out the angst with which those decisions were made. Perhaps some of those characters will be more fully fleshed out on film in "The Hobbit". I, for one, will be waiting, impatiently, on the edge of my seat (that would be car seat) for the first installment.
Jul 26, 2012 6:42AM
Regardless of what director Peter Jackson chooses to do, I'm sure the finished product will be outstanding to say the least.
That being said, I have to say that this is quite possibly one of the worst articles I've ever read. Corwin Neuse needs to demand a refund from whichever community college handed him his journalism degree.
Jul 25, 2012 7:40PM
Jul 26, 2012 7:06AM
Jul 26, 2012 8:53AM
I would not mind at all. From an early age, I have loved everything hobbit. Those who complain are the ones who have never read the books or discovered the beautiful words of JRR Tolkien as a child before the movie mania. If I only know the movies, like a lot of people too lazy to read, I would probably have my doubts.
As I child, after reading the Hobbit and then the triology, I researched and read everything written by Toilken and anyone else to field the gap between the two.
True Tolkien fans will be overjoyed with the prospect because we will have three years to experience our loves and heros. Peter Jackson's, who is a diehard Tolkien lover, interpretation of Tolkien's work is brilliant.
Jul 26, 2012 5:36AM
" The idea all along was to ostensibly tell the complete story of "The Hobbit" in the first film, and then use the second film to fill in the gaps between that book and "The Fellowship of the Ring," tying up all the loose ends in the franchise"
so when was this decided,as it's the first i have heard,i heard the Story of The Hobbit was to be split in to the two movies but Appendix stuff added(like The White Council Battle with Sauron in Mirkwood that happened in the middle of the story but was not covered in the book..when Gandalf buggered off for awhile and left the Dwarves and Hobbit to themselves)
Jul 25, 2012 8:30PM
Jul 26, 2012 6:41AM
It's all about the money now!! They could care less if it messes up the story or doesnt fit. The producers look at The Lord of the Rings Franchise and sees the dollar signs then looks at what Harry Potter Deathly Hallows and Twilight Saga has done and decides to strech The Hobbit for as much profit as they can. They know that the few of us dorks out there that really understand the books are going to disagree but the millions of people that dont know the story or just want to see an amazing movie on their date night dont care about all that. The Hobbit will make millions and we might get a little butt hurt over the story but in the end, years from now, you will be sitting on your couch watching the TNT Hobbit marathon every damn weekend just like me. Much love
Jul 26, 2012 8:08AM
If you split the Hobbit into two movies, and then use a 3rd to bridge the Hobbit and LOTR that is fine by me... as long as you release both Hobbit Movies simultaneously. There is no reason to wait 6 months or 12 months to release the second Hobbit.
Obviously that would never happen, but if they really want to mix things up and screw with hollywood they would do that and make Billions $$
Jul 26, 2012 8:07AM
Jul 26, 2012 9:19AM
I'm getting the feeling that The Hobbit is going to be very much like LOTR. They books had two very different tones, and I hope Jackson stays true to Tolkein's vision. Also, Middle-Earth is rich in tales and stories, so I'm not sure why all the need to look at the period between The Hobbit and LOTR. The stories about the First Age like the Fall of Gondolin, Hurin and Huor, Turin Turambar, and Beren the One-Handed would make awesome movies. Imagine the special effects of King Fingolfin's battle with Morgoth before the gates of Angbad. Instead, I'm afraid we'll get Jackson's vision of Middle-Earth instead of Tolkein's much more complete and beautiful vision. Oh well, the golden rule is still in force, and Jackson and the studio have the gold.
Jul 25, 2012 2:56PM
Jul 25, 2012 4:18PM
Jul 26, 2012 1:53AM
Jul 26, 2012 8:25AM
If Peter Jackson's other films (besides LOTR) are any indication, the Hobbit will not be good. As I have been forced longer and longer to see this movie, I get the feeling that Peter Jackson is going more George Toy Boy by the minute. The Hobbit was a great book and should translate to a great movie, but the second Jackson starts to stray and make Frodo like Anikan and Jesus Christ as an immaculate son to explain why he could handle the Ring, I will be done with the franchise. Keep it to two movies, and stay true to the book and don't try to fill in the gap. I want more Burning of the Shire, you know, the chapter that should have been left in ROTK.
Report
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?
movie news
- Universal rescues 'Dumb and Dumber To' with Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels
- Edward Furlong charged with assault in LA
- Angelina Jolie stunt double says News Corp. tampered with her phone
- George Jones biopic in the works
- Brad Pitt's son plays a zombie in 'World War Z'
- James Franco launches $500,000 Indiegogo campaign
- Bruce Lee statue unveiled in Los Angeles
- Terence Stamp has mixed feelings about Superman reboot
- Helen Mirren in 'The Audience' sets NT Live record
- Jean Dujardin convicted of DUI
