The Hobbit Film... trilogy.

[Cheesegear]

I suspect it may also have something to do with length.

If there's two films each 2.5-3 hours long, in the wake of several critics saying that Dark Knight Rises was too long, it might be possible that the producers and/or director are unwilling to submit the audience to a movie of that length again in the immediate future and are breaking it into three, smaller chunks.

[Tiki Snakes]

This is what it has been planned to be from Day 1. Jackson has been very up front about the fact that they'd be following Gandalf during his absences from the party and showing various events leading up to LOTR. I personally don't mind it so long as it is well done, as most of the "Other Stuff" material still comes from Tolkien's writings / drafts / plans / appendices etc.

Day 1 of Peter Jackson's involvement, perhaps, but not Day 1 of the project.

[Zea mays]

I suspect it may also have something to do with length.

If there's two films each 2.5-3 hours long, in the wake of several critics saying that Dark Knight Rises was too long, it might be possible that the producers and/or director are unwilling to submit the audience to a movie of that length again in the immediate future and are breaking it into three, smaller chunks.

That actually makes a lot of sense. Movie theaters like shorter movies because they charge per showing, not per minute of film, and a shorter film can have more showings per day. I seem to recall, they struggled to get Return of the King under three hours for it's theatrical release.

[ThePhantasm]

Day 1 of Peter Jackson's involvement, perhaps, but not Day 1 of the project.

According to what information? Even when Del Toro was involved it was going to be 2 parts, and Jackson was working extensively with Del Toro on the script. Jackson has always been involved as the producer, from day 1. Check the wikipedia article on the film. There's a number of sources citing Del Toro discussing how they would explore Gandalf's departures from the party, material leading up to LOTR, etc.

[Rallicus]

*deep breath*
Seriously, after all the hate from LoTR for skipping material (the outrage over Tom Bombadil was insane), now "the fans" are being given more material and they are angry.

Let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment. In my entire life I've only read one book by Tolkien, and it just so happened to be Lord of the Rings. It's been over a decade since I read the book, but I remember when I watched the movie in theaters, I expected two things:

- Gandalf being dragged down by the Balrog.
- Tom Bombadil.

Keep in mind that this is coming from a casual fan who read the book as a kid. Tom plays a pretty memorable role in the story, and cutting him out made an impression.

That said, I don't think people are angry at Jackson for giving them more material. They're mad that this is obviously nothing more than an attempt at getting more money. They're mad and unsure of if Jackson will be able to stay faithful to the original, which is much shorter than the LoTR trilogy novels, when he stretches one shorter book over the course of three movies (whereas lotr was 3 books over the course of, hey - three movies).

[Traab]

I admit that I havent been following this movie rabidly, but as far as I know, the only "extra" stuff included in the film was gandalf and the wizards council kicking necromancer butt, which got skipped over in the book, but at least got a mention there.I dont mind if that is the kind of extra stuff that will be included, things mentioned briefly in the book, but not gone into any detail. Another example might be beorn and his bear-venture into the mountains to determine if the dwarves were lying about what happened.

[Mutant Sheep]

According to what information? Even when Del Toro was involved it was going to be 2 parts, and Jackson was working extensively with Del Toro on the script. Jackson has always been involved as the producer, from day 1. Check the wikipedia article on the film. There's a number of sources citing Del Toro discussing how they would explore Gandalf's departures from the party, material leading up to LOTR, etc.

I am sorry Phantasm, but saying "go look at wikipedia" invalidates your argument. Especially if its true.

I can myself just... NOT GOING to see the third one in theatres and getting it in the DVD boxset instead. Definitely seeing the first two, if the second one feels like it closes at a good time, I can just wait to see The Hunt For Gollum-as actually produced by Peter Jackson.

[Chromascope3D]

I heard it would cover a lot of Necromancer stuff. I assume it'll draw some stuff from the Silmarillion, and I also heard that Tom Bombadil would be in these movies (Not that I'm overjoyed, personally I found him a bit out-of-place in the Fellowship). The only thing I'm not looking forward to is that I'll have to wait so long for each part. :P

For my part, I'm looking forward to solo-Gandalf adventures.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

Remeber that PJ always plays his actions scenes really long and with pleny of slow motion!
In terms of the number of actions scenes, the Hobbit is longer than / as long as LotR.

We've got to get in trolls, the Misty Mountains, goblins, Gollum, escape (including more goblins and wargs), eagles, Beorn, Mirkwood, spiders, Wood Elves, escape (including barrels), Laketown, under the mountain, conversations with Smaug, theft of treasure, attack by Smaug, Smaug's defeat, theft of more treasure, Battle of Five Armies.

Whereas LotR only has leaving the Shire, Bree, Weathertop, Rivendell, Misty Mountains, Moria (including orcs and balrog), Amon Sul (breaking the Fellowship), then hunting the orcs / taming Gollum, ousting Saruman's influence over Theoden, Helms Deep, Shelob, crossing Mordor / the Battle of Pelennor Fields, the Black Gate / destruction of the Ring.

LotR's got way more filler and exposition compared with the Hobbit, which is a very fluffy, fast-paced and fun-filled book, lacking in the stodge of LotR.

In-universe, it's the difference between Bilbo's and Frodo's writing styles. If Bilbo had written LotR, it'd be much shorter!

[Cikomyr]

Don't be silly people. This is clearly the Star Wars model of film making.

First you make the concluding trilogy.

Then you make the prequel trilogy that most peoplefind awkward.

[Dr.Epic]

Well, if anyone is capable of doing the Hobbit well, I'd trust it in the hands of the guy that did Lord of the Rings. *shrug*

Even the best directors can make flops.

[ThePhantasm]

I am sorry Phantasm, but saying "go look at wikipedia" invalidates your argument. Especially if its true.

Yeah, I know... I've been feeling lazy today. Didn't want to bother finding all the articles and citing them myself...

I think most of you guys are judging this too harshly too far in advance. It might be a cash grab, but it might also be the best thing for the film adaption (film being, after all, a different medium than books). Or it could be both. But it seems rather early in the game to get annoyed by this move, given that we don't even know which parts of the story will be included in each movie.

[Winter_Wolf]

The basic problem with taking 3 movies to tell the story of The Hobbit is that there's the very real risk of people losing interest after the first 1/3 of the story is told. Or at least, losing interest in paying that money to movie theaters. Definitely cable pay-per-view for my house.

I sat through the LotR trilogy in the theaters, and it was good, but then they did this whole special director's cut edition thing and that was way too much LotR to sit through even in the comfort of my own home with the ability to pause the movie. I'm probably in the minority, but I'm perfectly okay with taking just the "best parts" of the book for movie adaptation. The boat travel scene in the first LotR movie, the one that took 10 minutes in the director's cut, I took my fast forward button to it. I mean, I get it, they're on a big epic quest, New Zealand is beautiful, but I really do have other things that demand my attention in life.

Also, general backlash against movies that are so long that they need to bring back intermissions for potty breaks and leg stretching.

[snoopy13a]

I sat through the LotR trilogy in the theaters, and it was good, but then they did this whole special director's cut edition thing and that was way too much LotR to sit through even in the comfort of my own home with the ability to pause the movie. I'm probably in the minority, but I'm perfectly okay with taking just the "best parts" of the book for movie adaptation. The boat travel scene in the first LotR movie, the one that took 10 minutes in the director's cut, I took my fast forward button to it. I mean, I get it, they're on a big epic quest, New Zealand is beautiful, but I really do have other things that demand my attention in life.

I thought the director's cut, like most director's cuts, was dull also. There's a reason why producers hire editors to cut out scenes

[Ninjadeadbeard]

I thought the director's cut, like most director's cuts, was dull also. There's a reason why producers hire editors to cut out scenes

It wasn't a director's cut. Jackson made a cut of the film that went to theaters, but always intended to go back and add in the extra bits. The producers weren't involved.

Also, I refuse to watch the theatrical cuts because they're so inferior to the Extended. My family watches the whole trilogy on New Years as our tradition. Not tired of it yet.

[mangosta71]

Let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment. In my entire life I've only read one book by Tolkien, and it just so happened to be Lord of the Rings. It's been over a decade since I read the book, but I remember when I watched the movie in theaters, I expected two things:

- Gandalf being dragged down by the Balrog.
- Tom Bombadil.

Keep in mind that this is coming from a casual fan who read the book as a kid. Tom plays a pretty memorable role in the story, and cutting him out made an impression.

That said, I don't think people are angry at Jackson for giving them more material. They're mad that this is obviously nothing more than an attempt at getting more money. They're mad and unsure of if Jackson will be able to stay faithful to the original, which is much shorter than the LoTR trilogy novels, when he stretches one shorter book over the course of three movies (whereas lotr was 3 books over the course of, hey - three movies).

One book? Lord of the Rings is a trilogy. Based on the bits you've mentioned, I assume you mean The Fellowship of the Ring.

My impression, after reading the entire trilogy, was that Tom Bombadil was completely unnecessary. Those chapters were a bunch of talking about what had already been shown in the book up to that point, singing, and me wishing that the bloody story would just continue already. He didn't really do anything aside from giving the hobbits a place to rest for a bit before they continued their journey. It was almost as slow as the Council of Elrond, but at least the Council actually served some purpose in furthering the plot. The encounter with the barrow wights was more significant, as that's where the hobbits actually acquired their weapons.

[Axinian]

In my day, we had animated Bilbo Baggins and a fishman Gollum, 70's singers AND WE LIKED IT!!!

Somehow, this new trilogy will always be a bit disappointing to me (though I think it will be good).

Why?

No musicals. I'll especially miss the goblin song.

[Karoht]

Somehow, this new trilogy will always be a bit disappointing to me (though I think it will be good).

Why?

No musicals. I'll especially miss the goblin song.

But they do plan on including several of the songs from the book. Just saying.

[Devonix]

From the moment this was announced they said it was going to be The Hobbit + things the things between the Hobbit and the beginning of Fellowship. I had at first assumed way back when that the first movie would be Hobbit and the second movie would be the other stuff. When they started talking about the Hobbit part being the two movie I thought it odd as how would they now have time to do that other stuff.

Now I see it as
First movie: First half of Hobbit
Second movie: Second half of Hobbit
Third movie: Appendecies and lead in to LotR

[shadow_archmagi]

I now have the urge to a Mount Doom made out chocolate ice cream.

Welp, time to write Close Encounters of the Third Kind/LOTR fanfic.

[Traab]

Somehow, this new trilogy will always be a bit disappointing to me (though I think it will be good).

Why?

No musicals. I'll especially miss the goblin song.

You go my lads! Ho ho, my lads! Seriously, that was the awesomest badass song in the entire crappy film. Honestly, there were a number of good parts, Smaug freaking ruled. FEAR SMAUG!

[Karoht]

From the moment this was announced they said it was going to be The Hobbit + things the things between the Hobbit and the beginning of Fellowship. I had at first assumed way back when that the first movie would be Hobbit and the second movie would be the other stuff. When they started talking about the Hobbit part being the two movie I thought it odd as how would they now have time to do that other stuff.

Now I see it as
First movie: First half of Hobbit
Second movie: Second half of Hobbit
Third movie: Appendecies and lead in to LotR

Interesting viewpoint.

It was announced/leaked fairly early on that the first film would end with (if I have to spoiler tag this I swear...) one of the following:
-Bilbo encountering Gollum and the Ring.
-Bilbo making a mad dash with the Ring in his possession

I guess the big question I have now is, what endpoint will the first film have, or will it remain with that endpoint on release day.


My prediction:
First Film: Setup and establishment of some relevant and likely recent Middle Earth History, and some life in Hobbiton, Gandalf showing up, some hyjinx, Bilbo leaving, with the first film ending at the Misty Mountains.
Second Film: Everything from the Misty Mountains up to Smaug. Includes Gandalf taking a side quest somewhere along the lines.
Third Film: Defeat Smaug, Battle of the Five Armies, Ending and Epilogue, with the obvious connections being made to LoTR.

Peter Jackson really seems like a fan of the big buildup before a big battle, and he also seems like a fan of big battles. I fully expect the Third Film to be War and More War, and an ending.

Just some thoughts.

[WalkingTarget]

One book? Lord of the Rings is a trilogy. Based on the bits you've mentioned, I assume you mean The Fellowship of the Ring.

It was split into three volumes due to publication limitations of the time, but was written as a single novel (in 6 "books"). Tolkien had originally intended to publish the Silmarillion and LotR together. In his published letters (#126 specifically) Tolkien noted that "(I had in my letter made a strong point that the Silmarillion etc. and The Lord of the Rings went together, as one long Saga of the Jewels and the Rings, and that I was resolved to treat them as one thing, however they might formally be issued.) I noted that the mass naturally divides only between The Silmarillion and The Lord (each about 600,000 words), but that the latter is not divisible except into artificial fragments."

My emphasis in bold. It's one story, just published serially. Depending on what your definition of "trilogy" is, either view has traction.

My impression, after reading the entire trilogy, was that Tom Bombadil was completely unnecessary. Those chapters were a bunch of talking about what had already been shown in the book up to that point, singing, and me wishing that the bloody story would just continue already. He didn't really do anything aside from giving the hobbits a place to rest for a bit before they continued their journey. It was almost as slow as the Council of Elrond, but at least the Council actually served some purpose in furthering the plot. The encounter with the barrow wights was more significant, as that's where the hobbits actually acquired their weapons.

He's not important to the narrative and Tolkien is on record saying as much (in another letter). He's important in that he represents a philosophical point - the limit on the Ring's influence: it has none over somebody who has renounced the idea of Control. The point is also made that while this may be a laudable state of being, in the real world there must be others who will fight on their behalf (Bombadil could not hold the Ring in trust - Sauron would win at the end).

Most (all?) adaptations I've seen of the story strip out most of the philosophical underpinnings. Tom has no place in the narrative without those points, and so I don't really miss him in, say, the film trilogy as it exists.

[Dr.Epic]

The first film is 2.5 hours.

That's not so bad. That's what? 7.5 hours for the whole thing. It's still a lot short than the LotR trilogy.

[Traab]

To sum up most of the opinions I have encountered, not necessarily on this forum or in this thread:

We, "the fans" are being given more of what we want.

AAAAAANNNNNGGGGGEERRRRR!
(clear and obvious exaggeration, but only to a point)

*deep breath*
Seriously, after all the hate from LoTR for skipping material (the outrage over Tom Bombadil was insane), now "the fans" are being given more material and they are angry.

Okay.
I officially don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Peter Jackson is a very fortunate artist who has been given something special, the ability to take his work and really make it shine, really tell a great story, fully and completely. Moreover, one hopes that this will allow them to skip the 4-5 hour long Extended cuts, by simply making the film/s of the correct length and covering off all the content they want.

The self-entitled "fans" who feel that hollywood owes them anything, have officially ruined this for me. I was happy when I read the news. Now I'm just pissed off that so many people could turn and spit in the face of something giving them more of what they ask for.


Seriously internets? Fail.

There is a gap between "skipping material" and "adding new material to the existing story" Ill be honest with you, yeah, I was upset the the scouring of the shire got completely cut out and never happened, and I was curious to see a movie version of bombadil, but my main problem with the lotr series was him changing the freaking canon. I understand some things dont translate between mediums well, but thats no excuse to straight up change the way the story goes.

In this movie trilogy thats going to come out, it isnt going to take three movies to tell The Hobbit. Its going to take three movies to tell The Hobbit, and tons of other bits and pieces that are only peripherally a part of the story. Like gandalf going off to chase off the necromancer, or whatever beorn did to check out the dwarves story, or what bilbo spent his time doing in the wood elf kings castle before he got the chance to break the dwarves out, or whatever else he wants to add in.

And thats assuming this is all he is doing, adding in extra scenes to cover these mentioned but not detailed events from the book. If the reason for a third movie is because he has gone off on a tangent talking about things that have little or nothing to do with the story, like a flashback showing us what lead the three oddly intelligent trolls to be in that clearing at that time, or ancient history of middle earth about the ancient kings of numenor or whatever, then I think we have a right to be annoyed. Because we want to see The Hobbit, and we are going to have to watch three films stuffed with what amounts to filler, just to be able to see the story we wanted.

If you watch anime at all its the same thing as cramming in a half dozen filler arcs before the main plot continues. You dont care about these little side quests that have no bearing on the main story and never get mentioned again, you want the story to keep moving!

[Reverent-One]

On the other hand, I'd say those mentioned but not detailed scenes are worth seeing. The Hobbit is a book with a lot of things going on, but a number of them we don't see in any real detail. And some of those things (like the Council of Wizards dealing with the Necromancer) sounds really freaking cool.

[Killer Angel]

The basic problem with taking 3 movies to tell the story of The Hobbit is that there's the very real risk of people losing interest after the first 1/3 of the story is told. Or at least, losing interest in paying that money to movie theaters. Definitely cable pay-per-view for my house.

I sat through the LotR trilogy in the theaters, and it was good, but then they did this whole special director's cut edition thing and that was way too much LotR to sit through even in the comfort of my own home with the ability to pause the movie. I'm probably in the minority, but I'm perfectly okay with taking just the "best parts" of the book for movie adaptation. The boat travel scene in the first LotR movie, the one that took 10 minutes in the director's cut, I took my fast forward button to it. I mean, I get it, they're on a big epic quest, New Zealand is beautiful, but I really do have other things that demand my attention in life.

That's true and I subscribe it. There's also the consideration that not all the viewers are fan of the original book, and cannot care less about what was written, and so on.
My wife enjoyed the first film of LOTR, but she found it a little longer. The third one? She threatened to divorce if I dared to suggest it once again... and it was the theatrical version.

I can sympatize with this PoV... 3 films for a single story are many. As a fan, i can be pleased, but as a generic customer? not so much.

[MLai]

My single most fav character in the LOTR entire movie trilogy is Gandalf the Grey. Not the White. The Grey.

So if The Hobbit is getting padded so that we get more Gandalf the Grey, then no complaints from me at all.

[Hopeless]

Sorry for the slight interruption but when the LOTR movies came out at the cinema I went to each, when they were released on dvd I went for the extended versions mostly because of the extras.
(And I still haven't managed to watch all of them, and find the start of the fellowship the most boring but thats more due to what I know lies ahead!)

As for the Hobbit, well thats my xmas present covered for the next four years!

Only real question is imax 3d or regular?

I agree I'd love to know what else is going to be put into thits trilogy since from what I remember it sounds like part 1 might end with them meeting croaching in someones cave followed by Bilbo waking up a cranky wyrm with the third being the big battle of this series!

I think thats been mentioned earlier in this thread, but I am wondering what else to expect, since you've been mentioning the LOTR I was wondering if there was any bits in the Hobbit that might be ignored for the sake of the story?

[VanBuren]

Here's my question: How would Tolkien have preferred it to be done? On the one hand, The Hobbit doesn't contain any of that extra material. On the other hand, he didn't have the greater story in mind when he wrote it. Sure, he made changes here and there after the fact but that's not the same thing as adding all that extra material into the story (though he did later provide it in another context)

But given that this is being adapted for a new medium, and gives a sort of ability to start fresh, there's no particular reason, pragmatically, why the story can't be told without all that background lore creeping in. The only question I have, is whether or not Tolkien would have wanted it that way.