Movie News

Peter Jackson May Return To Middle-earth For One Additional HOBBIT!!

Published at: July 15, 2012, 3:42 a.m. CST by The Kidd

The Kidd here...

Is Peter Jackson considering extending his two-part venture back to Middle-earth into a trilogy of sorts?

That's the word from the director's mouth as he walked the press line at this year's Comic-Con. When asked by Hitfix if he was considering splitting the second film, THE HOBBIT: THERE AND BACK AGAIN into two movies, Jackson answered, "We have certainly been talking to the studio about some of the material we can't film, and we've been asking them so we can do a bit more filming next year. Which, I don't know what would come of that, whether it'd be extended editions or whatnot. But those discussions are ongoing... I'd like to shoot a bunch more material that we [couldn't] shoot. There's so much good stuff in the appendices that we haven't been able to squeeze into these movies, so that's a discussion we're having, yeah."

So what does this mean? You've got to believe Warner Bros. would be willing to make the investment for more shooting if that means getting another film out of the deal. THE LORD OF THE RINGS Trilogy was big business, raking in nearly $3 billion worldwide, and the money the studio would have to put in would easily be recouped by stretching the series out for another year, as opposed to just turning the two films they have into extended editions for a later home release, which would net them a little less in the bank. 

But is Jackson's vision for a two-part HOBBIT conducive to making this longer? Is there enough material to seamlessly be added for a third movie to make sense as part of the story telling? Plus, might the fans strike back at this idea of all series' finales now being divided into two films? These are questions Jackson is going to have to answer carefully before he proceeds, because, while it seems like one cannot get enough of these Tolkien adaptations in his hands, forcing a third film if it's not really there could damage this pre-LOTR tales. 

Don't just do it, because you can... only do it if it works. 

 

-Billy Donnelly

"The Infamous Billy The Kidd"

BillyTheKidd@aintitcool.com

Follow me on Twitter.

Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • July 15, 2012, 3:45 a.m. CST

    I'd rather see a 2nd MacGruber than an extra hobbit movies.

    by DutchRudder

    I know they're not related, and it's a bit random, but fuck you for judging me.

  • July 15, 2012, 3:45 a.m. CST

    Alsos, my english isn'ts as good as I'd likes.

    by DutchRudder

  • July 15, 2012, 3:46 a.m. CST

    Just do extended edition DVDs

    by BloodiedFox

    Two films for The Hobbit is seriously pushing it as is.

  • July 15, 2012, 3:52 a.m. CST

    I. Don't. Know...

    by Finn

    ...How I feel about this yet. More Middle Earth is always a plus, but at the expense of story pacing, and what has already been planned-- it scares me. UNLESS, Hobbit wraps up in the second film and Peter Jackson uses the 3rd to tell some of the Appendices stuff. I can totally get behind that.

  • July 15, 2012, 3:53 a.m. CST

    Also...

    by Finn

    Isn't Jackson supposed to direct the next Tintin film next year? IMDB has it listed, but haven't heard much more on it.

  • That play was awesome, and got me into reading J.R.R. Tolkien's books one after the other. Even though I was too young to understand half of it. However my imagination loved the scenes of Bilbo fighting the dragon. When you are a kid, everything seems so fantastical and real that your imagination makes it out to be something grander than reality. Even though I'll never get to experience that feeling again, I hope Peter Jackson does a good enoughn job with The Hobbit in the bigscreen. I honestly hope he makes it a three parter as the book can easily be seperated into three acts. I'll gladly pay three times, however please don't triple dip with the Blu-ray's, just release the Extended editions one time..

  • I don't know. It doesn't seem to me that there's enough material IN the Hobbit to stretch it into 3 2.5 hour movies...I mean you COULD - there TECHNICALLY is enough material - but would that material be relevant or even translate well into the context of the film adaptation that Jackson has created thus far? I'm sure it'd be INTERESTING - the question is if it is necessary to tell the best story they can.

  • July 15, 2012, 4:25 a.m. CST

    Morgalf?

    by KGersen

    Morgoth I assume you mean, a.k.a. Melkor. I don't think the Silmarrillion can really be filmed, not the whole of it, too many so-and-so begat so-and-so. Maybe a part of it, a linear story of how Morgoth brought darkness and evil into creation and how he was eventually defeated.

  • July 15, 2012, 4:26 a.m. CST

    Just don't do a Lucas and screw it up...pleeease!

    by Rachew

  • ...but extra shooting for Extended Editions might be in the cards.

  • July 15, 2012, 4:32 a.m. CST

    Nothing about that quote says "another film"

    by starlesswinter7

    He just mentions extra footage, which would likely be for an extended edition.

  • July 15, 2012, 4:33 a.m. CST

    Is there enough material?

    by bill

    Have you ever Read Tolkien? There's enough material for a dozen f#ng movies. And that's not even touching the Silmarilion.

  • July 15, 2012, 4:36 a.m. CST

    Silmarillion

    by Industrious Angel

    The fim rights were never sold and will not be in the forseeable future, so no, a Silmarillion film is not happening. However, PJ is right: There is quite a bit in the appendices and Unfinished Tales concerning "The Hobbit" which could make an extended cut a good idea. Or maybe an additional film about the background of the story (NOT a 3rd Hobbit film). As to 1 or 2 or 3 films: The Hobbit is a "short" book but even that contains enough material for a 10h-trilogy. It always depends on what you consider for your script and what you throw away. Likewise, "The Great Gatsby" or the Jane Austen novels, books of similar length, can be adapted to 2 or 4 or 6 hours, depending on taste and budget - there really is no "perfect" or "right" runtime with literary adaptions.

  • July 15, 2012, 4:41 a.m. CST

    I'm pretty sure...

    by VinnyMac666

    I just read that he said, at SDCC, that this was a bullshit rumor. Yesterday.

  • July 15, 2012, 4:47 a.m. CST

    It all depends on how the FIRST movie ends...

    by D.Vader

    I could certainly see The Hobbit being split into three movies, but with lots of addendum's, side stories, and extended adventures within the main storytelling frame... But THREE movies? How would that work? Unless PJ played the Long Con of playing the studio and writing/creating three damn screenplays. But I can't see it happening...

  • July 15, 2012, 4:48 a.m. CST

    Or a spin-off TV series.

    by Rtobert

    They'll have all the costumes and props from 5 movies. Just take some secondary character and give him his own adventure story e.g. Eomer or something (NZ actor). Hercules and Xena were filmed in NZ, but give it better than Game of Thrones production values. Plenty of material to mine in the appendices.

  • July 15, 2012, 4:52 a.m. CST

    If PJ wants to do it

    by Hamish

    It's coming from him, not the studios, so not like a Twilight style cash grab.

  • July 15, 2012, 5:12 a.m. CST

    Peter Jackson's The Silmarillion

    by Gorgomel

    just do it!!!!

  • July 15, 2012, 5:29 a.m. CST

    Silmarillion??

    by Christian

    This whole "make the Silmarillion"-discussion is starting to get ridiculous. To me it is in the same vein as "mini-Bane" and "Dredd's helmet is to big". Someone somewhere started to say these things and then all the braindead AICN-talkbackers started to repeat these quotes like parrots in a cage because they think it'll make them sound funny, cool and smart. It's not working. At all. Have any of you shouting about "film the Silmarillion!!!" actually read the Silmarillion (assuming you can read anything else than Marvel comics)? Do you know what the Silmarillion is? If you did you would know - like the few sane talkbackers have mentioned - that it is un-filmable. It would be the most boring and confusing movie ever made. Stop and think for a sec before you write stupid shit on this site. Also, shave of that neckbeard and lose some weight.

  • July 15, 2012, 5:33 a.m. CST

    Extended does not exist in this dojo

    by Cobra--Kai

    This is fantastic news... I will be a first day purchase of whatever extended edition Jackson can release. I enjoyed all the extra runtime of the LOTR trilogy, the more detail, the more character moments, the more a film can simply breathe, the better imho. The extended cuts for LOTR added I believe around 3 hours in total across the trilogy. That's a fourth movie in effect - and a long movie at that. If Jackson can convince the studio to shoot extra material for THE HOBBIT then that's great - whether its included in an extended cut or a whole extra theatrical release - more cheddar for us fans!

  • July 15, 2012, 5:34 a.m. CST

    I owe Peter Jackson, much gratitude.....

    by DANGER_DIABOLIK_

    ....if ever i'm suffering from a bout of insomnia, I'll put on one of his Ring/Hobbit films.......

  • July 15, 2012, 5:38 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    cathorsis, I have read the Silmarillion and personally dont think its anywhere close to being as engaging or entertaining as The Hobbit or The Lord Of The Rings. Its written in an Old Testament style of prose and it also contains Old Testament style stories, self contained tales, with little sense of a through line. It does however offer certain filmic possibilities. I loved those scenes in LOTR where we saw back into the past. The Last Alliance battle fo example and Isildur keeping the ring - so they could film a tale from the Silmarillion as a flashback sequence if it ties in with the story?

  • July 15, 2012, 5:49 a.m. CST

    Talk about misleading headlines...

    by PaulSC

    *Nothing* in his quote so much as implies that he's considering a third movie.

  • July 15, 2012, 5:56 a.m. CST

    When people say Film the Silmarillion

    by HornOrSilk

    They are thinking that several of the stories in it should be filmed. Turin would kick ass. Beren and Luthien? Honor Tolkien!

  • July 15, 2012, 6:07 a.m. CST

    They are already finger banging Tolkien corpse so why not.

    by cock smoker

    How long until they announce the prequel to the Hobbitt that shows the story of Bilbo's mother having a train run on her from seven well hung hobbits while she lay drunk on a table at one of those crazy parties at the shire. The rest of the movie is who-done-it crime story as the SVU investigates who had the magic goo to impregnate her. They find out it was Dildo Boggins, the brother of Bilbo's mother who is the father. The SVU crack team of a dwarf, elf and human must then track down Dildo and enforce court ordered child support payments. Currently the story lags in its 3rd leg doesn't have Gandalf in it. Rumor has Lindelof is coming in to fix it.

  • July 15, 2012, 6:15 a.m. CST

    Unfinished material

    by Bunnie

    Didn't Tolkien start work on a story set after Lord of the Rings, that his son/grandson tried to finish? The Silmarillion has great stories that might work as mini-series, but not as feature lengths.

  • July 15, 2012, 6:17 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    *Don't just do it, because you can... only do it if it works. * Says the man whose pic looks like hes fucking his childhood rocking horse.

  • July 15, 2012, 6:19 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Giddy up boy! Keep rocking! Giddy up - oh it works!

  • July 15, 2012, 6:19 a.m. CST

    It won't be from The Hobbit, you numbnuts

    by Scrunchie-Scroochie

    Here is what a 3rd film could entail (all this is straight from Tolkien's writing): - Balin's motherfucking epic (doomed) quest to retake Moria, leading to the discovery of the Balrog and all the Dwarves getting killed in the process. This could be fleshed out to be an entire feature-length story. But why not also include... - Sauron gathering his power; The reconstruction of Barad-Dur; Nazgul are sent to reclaim Dol Guldur. - Aragorn and Arwen meet (yuk!! not sure about this, Viggo is looking old now) - Gollum stuff; Gollum emerges to look for the ring; The capture and torture of Gollum (by Sauron); Gollum escapes (or is released); Gandalf and Aragorn hunt for him. - Saruman moves into Isengard, uses the Orthanc-stone, and becomes corrupted by Sauron. - Sauron's forces attack Thranduil's kindom (the Elves of Mirkwood), this officially marks the first battle of the War of the Ring - Death of Frodo's parents and adoption by Bilbo. - Mount Doom erupts (for the first time in an age)

  • July 15, 2012, 6:35 a.m. CST

    Tolkein wrote one chapter of a LOTR sequel

    by donkey_lasher

    Then abandoned it. He didn't think there was any new stories to tell and went back to revising the Silmarillion. And he sold the movie rights to LOTR and The Hobbit. Any new films based on other books would have to be approved by the Tolkein estate. Not going to happen.

  • July 15, 2012, 6:42 a.m. CST

    On the one hand, hell yes, do it. But on the other

    by Steve Lamarre

    There very well could be a weak link somewhere in this potential trilogy. Sometimes less is more, might be best to stick w/two.

  • July 15, 2012, 6:46 a.m. CST

    Let it fucking die PJ, you milker.

    by Cameron1

    I get that because you haven't made a good film since ROTK you might want to stay in Middle Earth forever but it's getting boring now and you haven't even released your fourth Tolkien film yet.

  • July 15, 2012, 7:10 a.m. CST

    The Tolkien estate will never allow the Silmarillion to be filmed.

    by SminkyPinky

    As PJ said on the panel, they own the rights and Christopher Tolkien hates the films. Some things he's said ahve indicated that he dislikes any attempt to film them and that the source material is sacred to him and that no one may make decisions on it but him, which is a bit much when you consider how loved these books are and how badly wrong it could have gomne in other filmmakers' hands (PJ's films as by no means perfect, but they are genuinely great adaptations). However, it would not make for a good film. It is far too in depth and would risk alienating huge portions of the audience. If it's ever made, a long form tv show would be the best bet, but I can't see that ever happening during Christopher Tolkien's lifetime.

  • July 15, 2012, 7:17 a.m. CST

    Really?

    by Battybrain

    Has no one hear learned nothing from the prequels of the past? The footage looks great, but the idea of a 5 hr movie from a 300 page book should give everyone the heebie jeebies. The CARTOON managed the whole story in under an hour and a half. Now they're talking about even more story? Jackson must have fired his entire editing staff, because since ROTK, his films have zero sense of pacing. I love the LOTR movies, but I don't need to see more of them just because. The beauty of The Hobbit is that one scene which is almost a throwaway in the book leads into the massive epic of the next three. We don't need Galadriel, Aragorn, and all the other nonsense that Tolkien was smart enough to leave out. Where does Gandalf wander off to in the middle of the book? He's a wizard! He goes where he wants! Here's hoping they all come to their senses and just let it be. Or that I'm totally wrong and all this is one hundred percent worth it.

  • July 15, 2012, 7:24 a.m. CST

    Scrunchie's Appendecies Stuff

    by Battybrain

    This is not a personal attack, so please don't consider it one. I never made it through the Silmarillion, or read any of the non-Hobbitt/LOTR stuff, so I thank you for the info. But: It serves the point I made in my last post; not one of those ideas helps the stories of the other films even in the slightest. Every one of them robs something in LOTR of its power and surprise. If we see Moria devastated by the Balrog, there is zero suspense when its coming up from the depths in Fellowship. We know what it will be. Same thing with the Nazgul, Gollum, etc. We saw all we needed of those things in the LOTR films. (Gollum's cave scene in the Hobbit excepted). Sometimes, the backstory is better in your imagination. Strike that. Its ALWAYS better in your imagination. Leave it alone, PJ.

  • July 15, 2012, 7:49 a.m. CST

    Christopher Tolkein won't live forever

    by King Sweyn Forkbeard

    Seriously though, the best way to do the Silmarillion is as a HBO type deal, preferably with a bigger budget than Game of Thrones gets. It doesn't really have the narrative to work as a film.

  • July 15, 2012, 7:52 a.m. CST

    battybrain

    by donkey_lasher

    They should have left out Galadriel as well. I'm glad Aragorn isn't in it. The whole mystery of his character in the Inn would be ruined.

  • July 15, 2012, 7:59 a.m. CST

    Only make it three films...

    by leroyspoboys

    ...if they go back and fix all the needless fuck-ups in the LOTR films and re-release them. eg: the King of Rohan's niece rides all the way to Minas Tirith after being forbidden to by the King himself, and the only woman in the fight, and she takes her helmet of to have a chin wag during a lunch break with a Hobbit who was also forbidden to go. And word doesn't get back to Theoden or even Eomer at any stage? Please. How hard would it have been for her to keep her helmet on and at least act like they're hiding for the exact same length shot? And how hard would it have been to give us some up and coming actor as Glorfindel for 10 minutes instead of that crappy intro to Liv Tyler as Arwen. "What's this...a Ranger caught off his guard?" Good lord that was awful dialogue. Great to see LOTR on film, but they're so full of needless holes that weren't in the original text (and added nothing to the quality of the films), they might as well be pissing on Tolkiens grave. No wonder Chris Tolkien doesn't like them. So lets fix those first, then do the money grabbing third Hobbit film.

  • July 15, 2012, 8:14 a.m. CST

    But they've already screwed up the Hobbit for no reason already.

    by leroyspoboys

    The dialogue that's leaked from 'Riddles in the Dark' is off as hell, and for the life of me I can't think of a single reason why, as it's one of the shortest chapters in the book. And adding Evangeline Lilly as a completely made up new character just because they need to satisfy the hot female demographic and sell action figures is a sign we're in for more of the same. So fat chance they'll go back and fix the first three.

  • July 15, 2012, 8:19 a.m. CST

    There isn't enough material in the Hobbit to do three movies

    by Rob0729

    The Hobbit is not as epic or as long as The Lord of the Rings. It focuses on one major storyline while LOTR focused on many. Doing three films will just water down the product. In fact, I think you could do a solid one film of the Hobbit without losing much (although you could easily spread it out to two movies without having to throw in a lot of filler). Now if Jackson is going to make another film that is related to the Hobbit, but not the Hobbit itself and make it a stand alone, I would be excited to see even if it isn't actually based on a Tolken book.

  • Can you blame them? I would and so would you, so lets not judge. As long as the movies are quality I can stand a third, but don't piss down my back & tell me it's raining, we all know why movies get made: money.

  • July 15, 2012, 8:31 a.m. CST

    As for filming The Silmarillion

    by Rob0729

    If Jackson ever wanted to film The Silmarillion, he could just focus on the Quenta Silmarillion section of the book and make a coherent movie. I agree that filming the whole book would make a mess since it is a collection of stories and not a coherent tale. But there is enough meat and cohesion to that section to get a movie. The only other possibility would be to take "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age" and flesh it out a lot and make a story off of that. Jackson would have to take a lot of creative licensing though since that story isn't more than a dozen or two dozen pages. But it would be the story that most fits with all the other films and attract most of the non-Tolken fanatic audience.

  • July 15, 2012, 8:34 a.m. CST

    Very Bad Idea

    by JadedCynic

  • I mean seriously I loved the TLOTR trilogy, but come on now, who thought the mutliple endings of Return of The King was a bit ridiculous. Everytime I thought it was over I was oh wait there's more, oh wait there's more. LOL I loved the movie, but that knocked down a few notches. Which is why The Two Towers remains my favorite of the 3. Just do the 2 with extended cuts, no need for a third.

  • July 15, 2012, 8:57 a.m. CST

    why talkbacks are frustrating

    by where_are_quints_hobbit_set_reports

    Everyone shouts their knee-jerk reaction and no-one reads what anyone else has written. Several people have pointed out that Silmarillion movies are not happening. anyway, I trust PJ to do what's best. I would love 3 good Hobbit movies. But, I also don't see any mention of a third movie in what PJ actually said.

  • July 15, 2012, 9:05 a.m. CST

    Because The Hobbit was always meant to be a trilogy, right?

    by Knuckleduster

    Selfish fucking retards. I hope this bombs.

  • July 15, 2012, 9:23 a.m. CST

    Make a movie out of "Cat"

    by Bedknobs and Boomsticks

    Cat The fat cat on the mat may seem to dream of nice mice that suffice for him, or cream; but he free, maybe, walks in thought unbowed, proud, where loud roared and fought his kin, lean and slim, or deep in den in the East feasted on beasts and tender men. The giant lion with iron claw in paw, and huge ruthless tooth in gory jaw; the pard dark-starred, fleet upon feet, that oft soft from aloft leaps upon his meat where woods loom in gloom -- far now they be, fierce and free, and tamed is he; but fat cat on the mat kept as a pet he does not forget. -- J R R Tolkien

  • July 15, 2012, 9:31 a.m. CST

    daddylonghead - so true

    by Scrunchie-Scroochie

    Everyone seems to be jumping to the assumption that film 2 will be split into films 2 and 3, and then moaning that The Hobbit as a story is too light to be stretched into 3 films. They are all missing the obvious point that only the first 2 films will be The Hobbit, and this (vaguely possible) 3rd film will be a new story based off the RotK Appendices (which is what PJ actually said). The "bridge film", as it were. It raises an interesting point though - what the hell could the film be called? I sure as hell wouldn't call it "The Hobbit:(something)". Maybe: "The Lord of the Rings: The Shadow of the Past" perhaps. (this is a chapter name from FotR so it's not just pulled from my arse).

  • July 15, 2012, 9:41 a.m. CST

    There's no fraking reason other than $$$...

    by jimmy_009

    That the Hobbit should be as long as the Lord of the Rings adaptation. It makes no logical sense.

  • July 15, 2012, 9:52 a.m. CST

    jimmy_009

    by Scrunchie-Scroochie

    I'm saying it's effectively a fourth entry in the LotR series. If all the material is coming from the appendices to RotK, then it's not really another Hobbit film, is it...

  • July 15, 2012, 9:54 a.m. CST

    I don't know about this...

    by richievanderlow

    The LOTR = 3 books made into 3 movies. Now, they're saying the Hobbit = 1 book (plus some appendicies) made into 3 movies ... it just sounds like a simple money making ploy. One approach is condensing the material down to fit the medium, the other is expanding the material to make more money. I don't think it's a good idea, but maybe PJ sees something I don't.

  • July 15, 2012, 10:17 a.m. CST

    Chill out people

    by Horned One

    It's amazing that this is so hard to understand... The first movie -- the one being released this December -- will depict all of the events that took place in the book The Hobbit. The second movie was always going to be NEW material (utilizing Tolkien writings) to bridge the gap between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Presumably at least some of it would involve the White Council taking on the Necormancer (i.e. Sauron) in southern Mirkwood, which is mentioned in The Hobbit. I see no reason to have two movies after The Hobbit, as long as they have put together enough material to create two complete story arcs. I'm okay with all that as long as I get The Hobbit done right, because all the rest is just gravy.

  • July 15, 2012, 10:18 a.m. CST

    Oops..

    by Horned One

    It should have read: "I see no reason NOT to have two movies after The Hobbit..."

  • July 15, 2012, 10:20 a.m. CST

    hmm.

    by Dr Eric Vornoff

    Seeing how the end of RotK descended into soft-focus sentimentality, with endless shots of Hobbits jumping up and down on a bed whilst Gandalf watched on like a leery old paedo, I'm not sure PJ should stretch this out any longer than necessary.

  • be that as it may.....The Silmarillion could be filmed in an arc that traces the creation mythos in movie probably the the Feanorian Oath and the sunderring of the kindred at the crossing of the Helcraxe ending somewhere with the elves establishing colonies in Middle Earth. Film 2 could detail the rise of Morgoth and the diminishing of the firstborn coupled with the rise of men and all of the political inticacies of the dwarves. Film 3 could be the story of Hurin and Turin concluding with Elendil's journey leading to the last war.<p> I agree with you that this would be a prohibitavely enormous undertaking, but in theory, and with enough excised (meaning cut) material, I believe it could be streamlined into 10 hours.<p> Making it cinematically exciting and financially relevent, on the other hand, would represent an infinately enormous miracle, but hey, who knows.<p> I personally feel (for whatever that's worth) that they could focus heavilly on the War of the Simarils exclusively (obviously utilizing the Beren and Luthien and Turin plots) asthe primary story thread and let some of the historical political intrigue remain unsaid or assumed.<p> I think it can be done.....

  • July 15, 2012, 10:26 a.m. CST

    Trust in Sir Peter Jackson

    by Jordan Goode

    .....he has more than earned it.

  • July 15, 2012, 10:37 a.m. CST

    I would totally support a Beren-Luthien movie

    by Jbud

    Based on both the Silmarillion material and the Lays of Beleriand material. There's just no need to try to make an entire Silmarillion film. But I would have liked to see someone tackle that much more than The Hobbit, or The Hobbit 3: Appendices Gone Wild

  • July 15, 2012, 11:04 a.m. CST

    horned one - you are totally wrong

    by Scrunchie-Scroochie

    way, way, way back in the beginning that was the plan, yes. ...BUT it has been known for a long time now that the book of The Hobbit will indeed be stretched out and padded to fill two whole movies. The first movie will end at roughly the barrel escape sequence. Extra material from the RotK appendices (such as the Necromancer/Dol Guldur stuff) has been filmed and will be integrated in to the story. I'm not sure how you could have missed this information unless you have actively avoided all hobbit news in the last two years.

  • July 15, 2012, 11:45 a.m. CST

    3hrs 40min of Elvish vs Dwarven alphabets

    by Fred

  • July 15, 2012, 11:46 a.m. CST

    Well obviousyl....

    by Chuck

    ...they'll try to milk as much money as they can out of it. Hell, they'd split it into five or six movie if they could.

  • July 15, 2012, 11:46 a.m. CST

    Fuck my shitty typing skills.

    by Chuck

  • July 15, 2012, 12:02 p.m. CST

    I'd rather Jackson overhauled King Kong.

    by LORDOFLIGHT

    An otherwise good take on the original film ruined by silly over the top scenes. Guns being fired directly at people and they don't get hurt, Dinosaurs running right next to people and hardly anyone gets hurt, people being tossed about violently and they don't get hurt. I'd rather Jackson fixed that up than trying to stretch the Hobbit into 3 films.

  • July 15, 2012, 12:09 p.m. CST

    So three epic books = three epic movies and...

    by phifty2

    ...one simple(but good) adventure book = 3 epic movies?

  • July 15, 2012, 12:13 p.m. CST

    Oh FFS not MORE of this Hobbit shit

    by John

    I fucking hate LOTR and the Hobbit and Peter Jackson and all the nerds who like this childish fairytale shit. Thanks. Feel much better now.

  • July 15, 2012, 12:17 p.m. CST

    The Hobbit was written for kids and LOTR wasn't written for kids

    by LORDOFLIGHT

    So it's not supposed to be on such an epic scale. 2 parts work well for it.

  • July 15, 2012, 12:19 p.m. CST

    The Hobbit shouldn't upstage LOTR either.

    by LORDOFLIGHT

    It should be epic to a certain extent but not at LOTR's expense.

  • July 15, 2012, 12:45 p.m. CST

    Re: Oh, For Fuck's Sake, Nerds ...!

    by ArmageddonProductions

    TWO movies is too goddamn much. Rankin/Bass -- a.k.a. "The Frosty The Snowman" dudes -- managed to eke out a perfectly fine adaptation of "The Hobbit" back in the Seventies, and that included all the fucking songs and the epic ending battle. Hell, we probably would have gotten a pretty decent "Lord Of The Rings" from Bakshi if he wasn't batshit insane and had gotten enough money to see it all the way through instead of just halfway and some badly-rotoscoped D.W. Griffith footage at the end, and there again, Rankin/Bass picked up the ball and finished things out with a confusing-after-Bakshi's-movie-but-still-serviceable "Return Of The King" adaptation. I get that Warner Bros./New Line enjoys their money and wants to drag this out long past the point of being rational, but c'mon, folks, you could do the whole business in one two-hour shot (maybe less) and not skimp on any of your precious goddamn appendices and the like. A bunch of midgets go on a quest for gold, one of them finds a magic ring, they fight a dragon, everybody wins, the end. There's your goddamn movie. I didn't need connective tissue to "Lord Of The Rings" back when I read the book in '76 and you don't, either. The people who actually NEED it are preparing to count your ticket money in December. They'll be counting mine, too ... but if they stretch that shit any thinner than they already are, I'll just wait until they play it nonstop on TNT every Sunday afternoon.

  • July 15, 2012, 1:05 p.m. CST

    The Hobbit Trilogy: Back for More Cash

    by Atreides001

  • July 15, 2012, 1:16 p.m. CST

    Tom Bombadil spin off

    by nametaken

    make it happen

  • Mordor Rising. The Rise of Sauron. It'd definitely have some variation of "rise" in there somewhere.

  • July 15, 2012, 1:32 p.m. CST

    Salkind clause will prevent using added material for third movie

    by Dieter Rogiers

    Ever since Alexander Salkind made two movies out of The Three Musketeers in the mid-seventies, while only paying the actors for one movie, there's a special clause that prevents producers from doing this kind of thing (unless they renegotiate contracts with all actors, but I can't see that happening with The Hobbit)

  • Good times.

  • July 15, 2012, 2:06 p.m. CST

    The Hobbit Three- Because we just want to milk this shit some more

    by donxavier

    All hail Peter Jackson, the Jerry Springer of directors and the greedy ass studio that is backing him.

  • They are going to have to add a lot to make the second Hobbit film good. I hope the Hobbit is good but I got a feeling Peter Jackson has lost his touch, and that's part of the reason he shooting the Hobbit as two movies. After the LOTR trilogy I was hoping we would see Peter Jackson direct some more great movies, but instead we got a really unnecessary remake in King Kong and a cliched supernatural suspense movie. Maybe fat Peter Jackson is just better than skinny Peter Jackson. But I really hope the Hobbit works.

  • July 15, 2012, 2:27 p.m. CST

    The Silmarillion is not a filmable piece of literature...

    by maxcherry

    it's just a bunch of short stories and family origin tales. That don't even interconnect.

  • July 15, 2012, 2:28 p.m. CST

    Making the last film of a series into 2 parts

    by Brock

    Doesn't bother me because it worked well for Potter and the Deathly Hallows. That as one film would have been terrible. I just wish these split finales would be integrated into one film later on blu ray. Mostly because as stand alone films they are lacking. Put them together and they are great.

  • July 15, 2012, 2:28 p.m. CST

    Milk the cow until it's dry, eh??

    by ATARI

  • July 15, 2012, 2:56 p.m. CST

    Christopher Tolkien sounds a bit of a miserable git.

    by LORDOFLIGHT

    I can understand him being protective of his fathers work but Jackson did a fairly decent job of LOTR. He should be grateful some other talentless Hollywood twat didn't get his hands on it.

  • July 15, 2012, 2:59 p.m. CST

    Haven't seen LB but Jackson made a balls up (in parts) of Kong.

    by LORDOFLIGHT

    Some of the action was just so far fetched. If he'd done those bits better Kong itself would have been much better.

  • July 15, 2012, 3:03 p.m. CST

    Let's have a Kong Special Edition Jackson!

    by LORDOFLIGHT

    With all the worst, far fetched action elements fixed. And some of the CGI tarted up. It should be much more watchable then.

  • July 15, 2012, 3:21 p.m. CST

    There's a very simple explanation for ROTK's 12 endings

    by WWBD

    Peter Jackson didn't know how he was ultimately going to end the movie when editing was finished. So he shot about 12 different scenes as "endings." That's all the actors are directed emotionally in those scenes, that's why they all have crane shots fading away, etc. etc. And that's why the end of that movie seems interminable to an audience - because they keep feeling it already ended 10 times already! And this is not a reflection on the quality of all those individual scenes - they're mostly great - it's just that they are shot in a very specific style.

  • July 15, 2012, 3:24 p.m. CST

    Oh, I know...he's just gonna remake Fellowship as the 3rd movie

    by cromulent

    of course!

  • July 15, 2012, 3:41 p.m. CST

    OMG YES! DO THE REAL LOTR ENDING! Hobbit Revolution

    by Saen

  • July 15, 2012, 3:54 p.m. CST

    @ wwbd...

    by Chris Moody

    Good points. Many people felt the same way about THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO. They expected a typical formula ending...and not the one that is depicted in the book. Now, if someone could just make THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO with the story and ending actually contained within the book! For some reason, the films always are faithful to the point where Edmund Dantes escapes from the prison...and then it somehow turns into THE MASK OF ZORRO. In the book, Dantes doesn't get the girl (well, THAT girl)...the son is not his...he doesn't take out the revenge that he planned for years...and he doesn't keep all of his money (he gives it away). It would be great with a film that contains the REAL ending of the book.

  • July 15, 2012, 3:56 p.m. CST

    The Hobbit Revolution would be fun to see...

    by Chris Moody

    ...but it didn't quite "fit" with the long arc of THE RETURN OF THE KING. It was like a separate story in itself. I heard that Jackson did film some of the story during LOTR filming, but it was discarded and abandoned arly on. Can anyone confirm that?

  • July 15, 2012, 3:57 p.m. CST

    Children of Hurin

    by Brigon

    I could see a Children of Hurin movie. It would be dark as hell though. From what I recall Morgoth conquers the whole realm, and the whole story is in the backdrop of a land that has been ravaged and is completely controlled by Morgoth and his forces. It features elves, a dwarf and an army led by a dragon, and follows Turin's cursed life.

  • So i can see why purists not happy at times with those films, they are a curious mix of being very authentic to the books and very different apart from the first film, Fellowship, which was more a straight counterpart to the film and despite a few quibbles here and there, not really a film that could be outdone in making an adaption bringing that particular book to life. But that was a foreplay film, making it easier to not go of the rails while promising heaps! Tehehe.

  • July 15, 2012, 5:13 p.m. CST

    The Hobbit episode I- The Phantom Hobbit.

    by Aiden Blackwell

  • July 15, 2012, 5:13 p.m. CST

    The Hobbit Episode II - Attack of the Wargs.

    by Aiden Blackwell

  • July 15, 2012, 5:14 p.m. CST

    The Hobbit Episode III - Revenge of the Man-Bear... (Sob...)

    by Aiden Blackwell

  • It sounds like he is just thinking "Look, we've got all these great production assets in place, and all this material in the appendices that would be great to capture on film, so we'd love to do that if we can before we tear down the production." i.e. have some "Movie Appendices" just like the book appendices. That is, not appendices that consist of deleted/unfinished scenes or behind the scenes/making off, but actual shot for real and as intended stand-alone vignettes or mini-reels. That would be awesome. Stretching out a bilogy to a trilogy tho... not so much.

  • July 15, 2012, 5:59 p.m. CST

    He's going to King Kongify The Hobbit - For shame

    by FrodoFraggins

    The guy is a master at padding material, as seen in King Kong. It's really a shame.

  • July 15, 2012, 6:17 p.m. CST

    I want to see the War of Dwarves and Orcs

    by Smartacus

    Find a way to tell that one and I'd pay to see it. Most likely we'd get Beren and Luthien in some form. Probably with a rushed Silmarillion setup to get their story going and then followed by some sort of tie-in tacked on the end. I don't know if this is such a good idea.

  • July 15, 2012, 6:34 p.m. CST

    cotton_mcknight

    by Scrunchie-Scroochie

    Rubbish. Khamûl the Black Easterling will be pushing all sorts of people's shit in during the Dol Guldur battle (in the Hobbit films), you mark my words. Sounds like someone needs to brush up on his Tolkien!

  • I hope Jackson has matured as a filmmaker and recognizes and avoids these previous niggles (and they've plagued his other films, too) this time out. To wit: dodgy pace and structure in parts, scenes of narrative padding, inconsistent tone with silly humor at times, occasional cheap looking sets, staggeringly drawn out scenes and endings, over-use of slow motion, and some indecipherable editing in busy action scenes. Actually, those are quite a lot of faults, come to think of it.

  • July 15, 2012, 7:06 p.m. CST

    Plenty of black people in the Tolkien universe...

    by Turd_Is_Floating_Underneath_The_Gravy

    They are called Orcs.

  • July 15, 2012, 8:08 p.m. CST

    Silmarillion & Jackson's Tolkien work generally...

    by Imrahil

    P.J. wouldn't be my first choice for filming the Silmarillion and I can COMPLETELY understand Christopher Tolkien's reluctance to hand over rights and his aversion to Jackson's movies. The simple fact is: the more you know Tolkien's work, the less you generally like the movies. True, the very fact that the movies were made is a huge achievement, but, if we're honest, as P.J. went on he let the studio, the box office, and his own ego affect the quality and fidelity of his work. Fellowship was pretty much spot on. Towers was vexing. There was no reason for some of the choices that he, as the guy in charge, made. The only reason the Elves showed up at Helm's Deep is that the studio said " Wow, those pointy eared guys are trending great - stick more in ". Regardless of what it did to the story. The Osgiliath diversion was simply nonsense. As for Return of the King, I'm glad it did so well at the Oscars, but as someone who is fairly conversant with the books and the mythology, it was disappointing. Too much CGI ( particularly for the Pelennor Fields), the oath breakers were very sloppily handled, and the Black Gate section was dreadful. Bad speech, poor effects, little emotional resonance. Probably the trilogy's greatest crime though is how they made the Dwarves ( in the form of Gimli ) into comic relief characters - dreadful. I'm most troubled by the Hobbit as I see this weird World of Warcraft aesthetic drifting into the movies that simply doesn't exist in either Tolkien's own art or that of Howe/Lee - the artists that Jackson is always claiming to follow. Silly shaped swords, spikey armour - yep, it's perfectly valid, but it doesn't belong in Tolkien's world - even for the Naugrim. No. A Silmarillion story - if authorised and presumably dealing with the theft of the Silmarils and the Noldor's hopeless war to recover them *could* be done. But Jackson is not the man to do it. Christopher Tolkien hold those rights tightly...

  • July 15, 2012, 8:28 p.m. CST

    floating_underneath_the_gravy

    by Rupee88

    lol

  • July 15, 2012, 8:37 p.m. CST

    I teach The Silmarillion...

    by kells

    ...in my college course on fantasy, horror, and SF. It's usually the most frustrating text in the course for the students, but they routinely say I should keep teaching it in evaluations...because it's fucking awesome. Bring on the films.

  • July 15, 2012, 8:38 p.m. CST

    PJ and LOTR are SO overrated

    by Rupee88

    I mean I usually hate when people complain something is overrated because it can still be great overrated as something beyond great. But the LOTR films were ambitious in scope (and budget) but really didn't work that well as narrative cinematic fiction. They are mostly entertaining but nothing that amazing. So I'm not saying they suck..they are pretty good films but that's it. I'm not excited about the Hobbit at all but will see it at the theater just to check out 48fps.

  • July 15, 2012, 9:28 p.m. CST

    Jackson can't be trusted with Silmarillion...

    by cozy

    He didn't get the important little stuff right in LOTR. eg. Saruman and Sauron are from the same "clan". Instead we got Gimli's farts and belches.

  • July 15, 2012, 9:59 p.m. CST

    cozycozy

    by KGersen

    Sauron and Sauruman are from the same clan? What are you on about?

  • Either way, I am all for it! The more Tolkien movies, the better. As long as they are high quality. I would love to see several movies based on Silmarillion stories. Fall of Gondolin, Children of Hurin, Beren and Luthien, all could work with some fleshing out. Actually, Children of Hurin is already a pretty complete story thanks to the book that came out a few years ago.

  • July 15, 2012, 10:30 p.m. CST

    SDCC Recap

    by DC

    "What We Learned" - My recap, summary, and lessons learned from Comic-Con 2012. http://bit.ly/OHZEpj

  • July 15, 2012, 10:30 p.m. CST

    Yep, if they can, should go for as much as poss.

    by even9

    The LoTR's production was an amazing fantasy film production at the absolute least. And all the extended editions were better than the theatrical versions, even if all of the films not as you'd hoped & lots of people liked these versions heaps all the same, the extendeds were always better for LoTRs i thought. I don't know any films i like where i don't like the longer versions though. In some ways, if the extended versions had been the theatrical releases, then would have pleased more people maybe as the more story audience would of had more to enjoy also. I was just totally thrown by the twin towers to what i thought it would be from fellowship, and found it harder to be more accepting of the film interpretations after that in my experience. But i'm a particular type of fantasy film buff & there are always different sub-genres within Genres so..

  • July 16, 2012, 12:10 a.m. CST

    FIRST DARK KNIGHT RISES OFFICIAL REVIEW from Time Out London:

    by Paul Hanlin Jr

    http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/90477/the-dark-knight-rises.html

  • July 16, 2012, 12:23 a.m. CST

    He HAS to do 3 more movies.

    by fat_rancor_keeper

    In the future people can't have 5 LOTR movies in their super deluxe box-sets....it HAS to be an even 6. It HAS to be!!!!!

  • July 16, 2012, 1:11 a.m. CST

    The Scouring Of The Shire?

    by eveelcapitalist

    You don't *need* Saruman to do it. Some Orc character would do nicely. And you could still fit it in nicely between the 15,000 endings of Return Of The King. Just sayin'.

  • Don't sell out and stretch the commercial revenues to their limit by not making the movie(s) you want to make and instead split it, cut it, hold back, just to release countless versions, director's cuts, extended editions, etc.. Both you and the studios have, and will make so much money on Tolkien's material, thanks to the audience, who so far trusts you not do do just that. Look at how (a bit) tainted Lucas reputation is, no matter how you look at it.

  • July 16, 2012, 1:49 a.m. CST

    Book purists are the the most annoying people

    by starlesswinter7

    They for some reason agree with 100% of what an author writes and cannot tolerate any change. Doesn't matter if stuff in the book is nonsensical (Glorfindel shows up for 5 minutes to save the day and then disappears - the definition of deus ex machina) - just matters that the author wrote it. So stupid.

  • July 16, 2012, 2:57 a.m. CST

    I love love love the books...

    by Scrunchie-Scroochie

    ...but I completely agree that book purists are largely insufferable pillocks. They lack the common sense to evaluate whether a piece from the book would work (or not) in the cinematic medium, and always display a brain-dead "BEEP BOOP NOT IN BOOK THEREFORE BAD" robot response to deviations without being able to critically analyse whether they're actually good for the film or not. I suspect that most (all) of these gentlemen/ladies can probably be diagnosed somewhere on the autism spectrum.

  • July 16, 2012, 3:08 a.m. CST

    Oh and, The Silmarillion is an insane, challenging masterpiece

    by Scrunchie-Scroochie

    ...that we will never see on a screen as long as Christopher Tolkien controls the Tolkien Estate (and even when he croaks, there will probably be a clause in his will that prevents his successor from being able to sell the rights too). So stop going on about it.

  • July 16, 2012, 3:13 a.m. CST

    two different species of haters

    by DocPazuzu

    Back in the day, when the LOTR movies were coming out, there was basically one type -- the Tolkienite Purists, the ones who couldn't stand the omission of things like Tom Bombadil. Since then, however, a new (but equally annoying) species of hater has arisen -- the Editor Kings. These are the flatulent blowhards who haven't actually read the books but hate PJ's movies reflexively because they know untold millions of people worldwide love them to death. What better way to (finally!) be noticed than to pile on a beloved property? Their arguments? An endless, diarrhetic shit-train of how a this or that scene shouldn't have been in the movies, how "flabby" and "disjointed" the movies are, and how all the "padding" could have been solved with (insert faux expert editing expertise). Often (and tellingly) enough, their arguments are combined with professed boredom with all the endlessly walking, slo-mo "gay hobbits". Please. If anything, PJ's extended editions work better and feel both smoother and quicker than the theatrical cuts because they are less disjointed. What so many tools claim to consider to be "padding" actually makes the narrative flow at a more brisk pace. As for the "multiple" endings of ROTK, yes, I can see how it lends itself to internet jokery, but the jokes at this point make Henny Youngman seem edgy and hip. Personally, I don't have a problem with "all" those endings after the epic, three-film journey preceeding them. LOTR takes its time in saying farewell. So fucking what?

  • July 16, 2012, 3:40 a.m. CST

    Never understood the hate for Faramir's changes

    by starlesswinter7

    The guy ends up the same character he was in the books anyway and ultimately proves that he is the better-hearted of the two brothers - the writers just gave him obstacles on the road to becoming that man. I've just never understood why book fans want him to remain the 100% good guy from beginning to end. How is that a compelling character in any way?

  • July 16, 2012, 3:45 a.m. CST

    They`re Twilighting the heck out of this baby. Split City.

    by higgledyhiggles

    Still can`t be bad. At least it`s PJ. I wonder if he`ll ever do any original property again ?

  • July 16, 2012, 6:17 a.m. CST

    addendum:

    by DocPazuzu

    Two more sub-catagories: 1) the "go back and fix the old movies before you make new ones!" crowd 2) the "PJ only loves money!" horde

  • Never mind ANOTHER film!

  • Here's why: JACKSON IS A HACK. Have you seen KING LONG? It's one of the worst movies ever made. How about THE LOVELY BONES? EMBARRASSINGLY BAD. He's got nothing else but the well flogged horse corpse of Tolkien to keep him going.

  • July 16, 2012, 7:26 a.m. CST

    Well said docpazuzu!

    by Rtobert

    Love your style. You should post more often. Love the multiple endings. There should have been more of them - one scene for each of the fellowship showing their life in the 4th Age

  • July 16, 2012, 7:28 a.m. CST

    I was all for making 2 Hobbits, but this?

    by ATARI

    Even I can see this would be milking it for the $$.<br> <br>

  • So it was a monumental deviation as an book adaption, as Faramir was a really important pivot in structural themes & narrative balance with the story. But in some ways the films were very different from the books, & this is a sub Genre thing as much as anything else & is why the films are different languages from the books, well particularly the second two - which is fair enough, whether one personally likes this or not.

  • July 16, 2012, 8:18 a.m. CST

    Well, hello there cotton_mcknight

    by Christian

    This guy is one sad piece of work. EVERY time AICN post something centered around PJ or LOTR - LOOK OUT, here comes cotton_mcknight to tell everybody that PJ is a racist because he doesn't have black actors in his LOTR-movies. It's pretty obvious that the guy hasn't read a single line from Tolkien (or Tolkein as cotton_mcknight prefers to call him) and that he's just spouting unfounded hate. At first his dumbness was marginally offensive, then it became quite fun and now it's just sad.

  • July 16, 2012, 8:51 a.m. CST

    PJ didn’t say anything about making a third Hobbit movie.

    by frank

    He said he wanted to shoot some additional footage, which would presumably be for something like an extended edition BluRay. Why don’t you people read the actual words that were spoken instead of just posting your knee-jerk reactions to the article headline?

  • July 16, 2012, 9:25 a.m. CST

    Sillmarillion = MEH

    by RG

    really that book was the driest thing ever - it read like a poor history textbook. Plus as stated above it is much to episodic / all over the place to really lend itself to film.

  • July 16, 2012, 9:53 a.m. CST

    It’s not being broken into three films.

    by frank

    Also, more events happen in The Hobbit than in any of the three individual Lord of the Rings books, but because of the much simpler, straightforward writing style of The Hobbit (this happened, then this happened etc.) it ends up being a shorter book. If the plot were fleshed out to contain the level of detail found in LotR, then The Hobbit would be considerably longer than either of the three LotR volumes. Two movies makes perfect sense, especially since they are also adding in awesome stuff from appendices and Unfinished Tales that any true Tolkien fan should want to see filmed.

  • July 16, 2012, 10:54 a.m. CST

    They should just do a Drowning of Numenor movie

    by kidicarus

  • July 16, 2012, 11:14 a.m. CST

    This worries me...

    by 120chester

    THE HOBBIT is a fabulous story, but it is also the shortest and most straight-forward story in Tolkein's Middle-Earth. Now, given the wonderful experience of the LOTR Extended Editions, I trust in Jackson's decision-making on this subject. However, I am worried that adding third movie would simply mean filming more "stuff" and not sequences that would add to the narrative.

  • July 16, 2012, 11:29 a.m. CST

    Give me a break, you can tell The Hobitt in 90 minutes

    by CuervoJones

  • July 16, 2012, 11:30 a.m. CST

    Hobbit

    by CuervoJones

    Shit

  • July 16, 2012, 11:31 a.m. CST

    So THIS will be the bridge movie ?

    by Michael Tyree

    Hmmm, not sure how I feel about this. I mean, if the reason is material in the appendices then one must consider The Simarillion IS mentioned. In fact, it starts out (forget which one...A, I think) with , "Feanor, the greatest of the Elvensmiths fashined the Silmaril..." or something like that. Just appears to be a cash grab to me. Ah well, set the course for Bloat City once again...mumble and grumble.

  • July 16, 2012, 11:45 a.m. CST

    Remake LOTR

    by donkey_lasher

    And make it into 6 films, seeing as the books were intended that way.

  • July 16, 2012, 11:47 a.m. CST

    I'm kidding

    by donkey_lasher

    How can you hate these films, when they were box office gold? And the multiple endings worked. Fuck you haters.

  • July 16, 2012, 12:51 p.m. CST

    I AGREE WITH KIDICARUS

    by J-Dizzle

    Do a Numenorean-centric movie or movies to showcase the Second Age War of the Elves and Sauron, the liberation of Middle Earth and Sauron's capture by the Numenoreans, and ending the movies with the drowning of Numenor, the recolonization of Middle Earth by Numenoreans, and the War of the Last Alliance. POW! I just made PJ another zillion dollars.

  • Two and half hours is enough time to encapsulate the hobbits story. Stretching the thing into 3 separate movies is just excessive.

  • July 16, 2012, 3:31 p.m. CST

    studioremark

    by DrMorbius

    Thanks for the concise yet informative re-cap of SDCC 2012 Daniel. I live in SD and that was the first I'd heard that someone had died there. Last year all we had was someone getting stabbed in the eye with a pen!

  • July 16, 2012, 4:01 p.m. CST

    - BREAKING NEWS -

    by Jonathan

    Peter Jackson May Return To Middle-earth to make More Money for Everyone Involved!!

  • July 16, 2012, 4:02 p.m. CST

    testing

    by Jonathan

    >_<

  • July 16, 2012, 4:06 p.m. CST

    LOTR

    by Deathsticks

    LOTR films were great---after around 10 awesome hours, all those endings were necessary and enjoyable. He hit it out of the park in my opinion. I seriously doubt that PJ is in the Hobbit "only for the money." The guy absolutely loves and respects Tolkien's world. If he has more to delve into from the appendices/lost tales, I couldn't be more excited. If he wants to do 3 movies, then we REALLY have something to look forward to.

  • July 16, 2012, 6:46 p.m. CST

    Hackson will milk Tolkien, it's a no brainer.

    by Carl

    He had 2/3 of a good film with Fellowship and the rest sucked, but the built in audience was box office gold. He didn't do something amazing from scratch like the Pirates films. <p> He re-wrote Tolkien and got a pass from a bunch of fucking retards who apparently love major character changes and SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO .<p> His versions of the characters were a piss on the grave of Tolkien, and his re-telling of the story was just plain arrogant and wrong. Cocksucker.<p> And now because it has so many adoring fanboys/girls, we'll likely never get a proper version .<p> The only film this guy ever made that was worth watching is the one all his other fans hate: Lovely Bones. <p> Whatever.......people are allowed to like what they like. It amazes me people treat this shit as movie royalty and piss all over a much better film series of the time. <p> What's ...I dunno....ironic is he cast that moron Jack Black as FUCKING CARL DENHAM, and he also has only one worthwhile movie: Shallow Hal. <p> Last time I bitched about Hackson's shitfest , I got blacklisted. On a website that has some of the rudest, mean sprited people on the internets, I got banned because I don't like Harry's pals movies. Fuckwad.<p> *formerly RedWhiteNegro*

  • I mean that was just a horribly written and acted. Zimmer seems like he just went on repeat , cuz most scenes have the main theme. All the fucking time. His scores for the first three were the most memorable since Williams' and Jerry's classic runs. Yeah I know about the first film, but he wrote much of it.<p> Gore must have run a tighter ship. Still surprised the actors---who said the'd only do it with a good script---said yes. Unfuckinabtoflutely unreal.

  • EVERYTHING ABOUT HACKSON'S LotR FEELS FORCED!! <p>

  • July 16, 2012, 9:02 p.m. CST

    Thoroughly Debunked

    by The Llama

    IGN is reporting this as complete and utter nonsense born out of a Variety story that illiterate people like "the Kidd" can't read properly.

  • July 16, 2012, 10:58 p.m. CST

    re: even9

    by starlesswinter7

    I get that in the books Faramir was more of a thematic representation, just as Gollum's death was, but with Peter Jackson's favoring of the historical and the emotional over literary symbolism, I don't think it would make very compelling cinema. It could be done, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't make him a very interesting character. Seeing his inner struggle to please his father against his better judgement (and David Wenham DOES play him with doubt in his mind when he kidnaps the hobbits) is far more interesting to me than what he symbolizes in the greater picture. This is just one of those instances where the literary doesn't translate as well visually. It would also be slightly redundant in the film version since the writers had Aragorn reject the Ring's power at the end of FOTR.

  • The audience gets the world at this point, so stop treating them like they're stupid. Finish the Hobbit off as two films and do a third film (or more) telling the other stories you want to tell. I'm pretty sure people would fill theaters to see short story collections set in this world, so there's not even a need to tie them all together. <p> PJ is going to be known as "this guy", the director responsible for the LOTR trilogy and the Hobbit movies no matter what else he does. And truthfully, that's something he should be proud of. I love his earlier films as much as the next guy (particularly Heavenly Creatures), but I don't say, "Ya know, Peter Jackson, the guy who made Heavenly Creatures" in conversation. But if you say, "the guy who made the LOTR movies" pretty much everybody on EARTH is at least aware of the fact that there is a guy who made those movies. So for me, I think it's cool that he came back to do the Hobbit(s). For me it would be cool if he did more movies in this world. If he finds a way to tie them all together, great. If not, no worries. So long as somebody is willing to give him enough money to make them right I hope he stays on board.

  • July 17, 2012, 2:16 a.m. CST

    I'd pay to see Jackson milk a cow as long as there is Hobbit milk spraying from udders.

    by illegal alien vs sexual predator

    Sweet creamy Hobbit milk!

  • July 17, 2012, 2:18 a.m. CST

    Squirt some sweet creamy Hobbit milk into my eye holes!

    by illegal alien vs sexual predator

    I'll sit there and take it like a man

  • July 17, 2012, 9:53 a.m. CST

    Beren and Lúthien. Melian the Maia.

    by MrShootist

    DO IT.

  • July 17, 2012, 12:08 p.m. CST

    Chris Tolkien is 88

    by hector

    Its really a question of if he creates a provision in his will forbidding a film, and if not if whoever inherits it is game. I agree an HBO series would be a good possible vehicle.

  • July 17, 2012, 1:15 p.m. CST

    There's so much good stuff in the appendices

    by supertoyslast

    He wants to film appendices? What next - a film based on the index?

Top Talkbacks