Movie News

And The Verdict On Whether Or Not We'll Get A Third HOBBIT Movie Is...

Published at: July 30, 2012, 10:50 a.m. CST

 

...revealed on Peter Jackson's Facebook page:

It is only at the end of a shoot that you finally get the chance to sit down and have a look at the film you have made. Recently Fran, Phil and I did just this when we watched for the first time an early cut of the first movie - and a large chunk of the second. We were really pleased with the way the story was coming together, in particular, the strength of the characters and the cast who have brought them to life. All of which gave rise to a simple question: do we take this chance to tell more of the tale? And the answer from our perspective as the filmmakers, and as fans, was an unreserved ‘yes.'
We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance. The richness of the story of The Hobbit, as well as some of the related material in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, allows us to tell the full story of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and the part he played in the sometimes dangerous, but at all times exciting, history of Middle-earth.
So, without further ado and on behalf of New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Wingnut Films, and the entire cast and crew of “The Hobbit” films, I’d like to announce that two films will become three.
It has been an unexpected journey indeed, and in the words of Professor Tolkien himself, "a tale that grew in the telling."
Cheers, Peter J

 


__________

Glen Oliver

"Merrick" 

e-mail 

Twitter 

Google +

Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • July 30, 2012, 10:51 a.m. CST

    I just don't know about this...

    by tomandshell

  • July 30, 2012, 10:51 a.m. CST

    I do! I approve :)

    by LordAcoustic

  • July 30, 2012, 10:52 a.m. CST

    After talking it over with the staff...

    by diseptikon

    We decided we would like more money. Thanks everyone.

  • July 30, 2012, 10:52 a.m. CST

    Bad idea

    by deathvalley69

    Very bad idea

  • July 30, 2012, 10:53 a.m. CST

    Cool!

    by bat725

  • July 30, 2012, 10:53 a.m. CST

    One Hobbit Book = Three LOTR Books?

    by tomandshell

    OK, LOTR is actually one long book in three parts. But the two are not deserving of equal screen time.

  • July 30, 2012, 10:53 a.m. CST

    Maybe good, maybe not so good.

    by frank

    I’m optimistic. I’d like to know more about what the new content will be and how the three films will be split up.

  • July 30, 2012, 10:54 a.m. CST

    So 1 book needs 3 movies

    by eric haislar

    But 3 books longer then the one book just needed a movie a book. Makes sound sense to me. This is retarded.

  • July 30, 2012, 10:54 a.m. CST

    HOBBIT³

    by TheUmpireStrokesBach

  • July 30, 2012, 10:55 a.m. CST

    BOOYAH!

    by D.Vader

  • July 30, 2012, 10:55 a.m. CST

    The Hobbit Part 3: 3 Hours of Just Endings

    by mottleyfoo

    I love the Hobbit story as much as the next guy, but three movies for one book?

  • It looked like they were going up until the barrel escape sequence. Will they shift that part to the second movie? I think a better stopping place for part one would be after the dwarves are captured by the elves in Mirkwood, with only Bilbo to save them. Would be a nice cliffhanger. Then the next movie could start out with an extended rescue sequence, a la Return of the Jedi.

  • July 30, 2012, 10:56 a.m. CST

    it's all about the....

    by matchesmalone2380

    $$$$$.

  • July 30, 2012, 10:57 a.m. CST

    @ tomandshell

    by Industrious Angel

    we don't know about running time. The Hobbit being a children's tale (even PJ's adaption seems to incorporate much of the child-friendly stuff) I always thought the 2 films would clock at nearer to 2 than 3 hours.

  • July 30, 2012, 10:57 a.m. CST

    We must away ere break of day/To seek the pale enchanted gold

    by tomandshell

    Ironic that a relatively thin story about a search for gold is being bloated into a trilogy as a cash grab.

  • July 30, 2012, 10:57 a.m. CST

    FUCK THAT

    by Scottie Richardson

  • July 30, 2012, 10:59 a.m. CST

    Will Tyler Perry be handing second unit director duties?

    by Domi'sInnerChild

  • July 30, 2012, 10:59 a.m. CST

    The Hobbit III: The Legend of Curly's Gold

    by tomandshell

  • July 30, 2012, 11 a.m. CST

    So excited to travel back to Middle Earth...

    by David Giuffre

    This is great news. I am so excited to see how the third movie helps connect the two story arcs. I love this world so much, and now have three new journeys to look forward to!

  • July 30, 2012, 11 a.m. CST

    You gotta wonder about the people who decry this idea

    by D.Vader

    This isn't like Twilight or Hunger Games... there actually IS a wealth of material to cover here, to bring to life for the audience. Tolkien wrote so much about Middle-Earth, why slam the idea to show more of it? Sure its to make more money for the studio. But its also to tell more of this wonderful mythology.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:01 a.m. CST

    Idiots! Its not just one book becoming 3 films

    by Logan_1973

    There are many happenings going on during the time of The Hobbit, which are expanded upon in the LOTR Appendices. With the amount of material they are dealing with its more like 10 books being adapted.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:01 a.m. CST

    Peter Jackson doesn'

    by D.Vader

  • July 30, 2012, 11:01 a.m. CST

    my suggestion

    by frank

    Part 1: Bag End to Elf Capture in Mirkwood (climax: spider fight) Part 2: Mirkwood Rescue to Smaug Death (climax: Smaug Death, of course) Part 3: Aftermath of Smaug to Bag End again (climax: Battle of 5 Armies)

  • July 30, 2012, 11:01 a.m. CST

    Idiots! Its not just one book becoming 3 films

    by Logan_1973

    There are many happenings going on during the time of The Hobbit, which are expanded upon in the LOTR Appendices. With the amount of material they are dealing with its more like 10 books being adapted.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:01 a.m. CST

    Are you people retarded?

    by elsewhere

    More Tolkien is always good. Especially when it's brought to you by the same person who did the very successful LotR Trilogy. Bring it the fuck on!

  • July 30, 2012, 11:02 a.m. CST

    Peter Jackson doesn't need more $$. He wants to tell more story.

    by D.Vader

    We should celebrate that, not have some bizarre and childish knee-jerk reaction declaring "I DONT WANT MORE MIDDLE-EARTH bc it means you get more money!"

  • July 30, 2012, 11:03 a.m. CST

    Do we take the chance to make another few hundred million bucks?

    by MattDomville

    And the answer is "duh". A comic on the subject: http://www.cinemabums.com/?p=412

  • July 30, 2012, 11:03 a.m. CST

    I think this is the wrong approach

    by chuckmoose

    From everything I have gathered it seems the plan is to make the Hobbit more closely match the tone of LOTR and become a true prequel. The book isn't that at all, it's a much lighter tale. I am about to start reading The Hobbit with my little girl and I think this will rob her of seeing the Hobbit that she will come to know on the screen. She won't have read LOTR and won't be ready for 12 hours of a darker story. While I, as a life long Tolkien fan, will likely enjoy seeing more of the backstory come to like I think this will greatly diminish the spirit of the story of The Hobbit.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:04 a.m. CST

    You have to admit

    by LarkStew

    PJ is a master at making a simple story twice as long as it needs to be. The original King Kong is barely 90 minutes, PJs deluxe extended edition King Kong remake is well over 3 hours. They've probably filmed so much stuff that they can't bear to throw out that they've said, fuck it, three movies it is. It worked for Kong, right?

  • July 30, 2012, 11:04 a.m. CST

    I'll put my faith in Jackson that he knows what he's doing.

    by notcher

    I'm not subscribing to the mathematical argument "LOTR is 3 parts and gets 3 movies and The Hobbit is 1 book and also gets 3 movies, THAT'S BULLSHIT!" I couldn't care less, if they are using excerpts from LOTR and Simarillion then why the fuck not? I do believe I'm ready for another adventure, or 3! BRING IT!!!

  • based on the fact that they are only wanting to do a couple of more months of shooting with the same cast. I would think a bridge film would require more production time and the introduction of new cast members (like young Aragorn or what have you).

  • July 30, 2012, 11:04 a.m. CST

    Will the third movie add more Channing Tatum?

    by Joe

  • July 30, 2012, 11:05 a.m. CST

    There is stuff enough to show us, so i am pleased

    by Roderich

    I always looked forward to a Dol Guldur storyline and at least JRR Tolkien himself thought about it and fleshed many details out. Why not many more movies playing in middle-earth, as this was and is the definite fantasy-realm? And with the love to detail and dedication by Jackson and his crew we will at least get some first class fantasy-movies, even if some of the spirit of Tolkien is lost (i do not like to remember the changes in the scenes of Theoden als old man f.e.. But they were still above almost every other scene in any fantasy movie elsewhere! With the exception of the almighty Conan the Barbarian that is).

  • July 30, 2012, 11:05 a.m. CST

    Anyone calling out 'bad idea' or 'cash grab'...

    by Bald Evil

    ...is not a fan of movies. That's all there is to it. What more does Jackson have to do to prove he is the right man for this job? We may never get another Tolkien adaptation in our lives, I'd rather see all there is to see while the seeing is good!

  • July 30, 2012, 11:06 a.m. CST

    Ooookkaayyy. Not completely sure about this but I trust PJ.

    by Gabba-UK

    So bring it I say.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:07 a.m. CST

    My preciou$$$$$.....

    by martinprince

    What'$ tater$, preciou$?

  • Great attitude!

  • July 30, 2012, 11:07 a.m. CST

    Make The Silmarillion! That'll keep Jackson going til he's 271 years old

    by unclemonty666

  • July 30, 2012, 11:08 a.m. CST

    THE HO33IT: Money Never $LEEP$

    by martinprince

  • July 30, 2012, 11:09 a.m. CST

    Trilogy does not exist in this dojo

    by Cobra--Kai

    AWESOME news! When people ask me what my fave film is - if im allowed to cheat slightly and call a trilogy one film - then it has to be LOTR! My only concern is has this come about as a result of Jackson having lots of left over footage originally earmarked for the Extended Editions? In other words have we simply gone from two 3 hour extended editions to three 2 hour theatrical versions? If you have 6 hours of footage it probably pays to make them into 3 movies rather than 2. (if of course, we get three movies AND three extended editions for home release then wow! i'll be happy as a pig in shit.)

  • July 30, 2012, 11:10 a.m. CST

    Silmarillion's Not Gonna Happen

    by Bald Evil

    PJ said at SDCC that all rights to the Silmarillion are wholly owned by the Tolkien estate, and they don't like the movies, so there will never be a Silmarillion movie or movies. At least not during this generation.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:11 a.m. CST

    We just have to trust PJ on this guys....

    by IPRAYTOCROM

    If he didn't think it would produce an overall better product I don't think he would do it. I'm a big fan of the book but totally in the dark with all the other stories going on so pretty excited to see all that onscreen.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:11 a.m. CST

    The shot 2 films back to back

    by eric haislar

    Now they have to go in and somehow add scenes to these 2 films to make it 3 films. So they need to go in and add another 2 1/2 hours worth of material. More middle earth is cool. I just hope this is a good idea.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:11 a.m. CST

    PS. As long as Tom fucking Bombadil doesn't show up!!

    by Gabba-UK

    I know the arguments for his inclusion but damn, its hard work ploughing through that shit in the book. The literary equivalent of water boarding.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:11 a.m. CST

    Yeah a bridge film would need MORE script

    by D.Vader

    And there wouldn't be much driving plot behind the bridge film either. So I'm guessing they're gonna have to go with just shooting more "extended" stuff and inserting it into the films where need be.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:12 a.m. CST

    Unsure of what to think

    by FrodoFraggins

  • July 30, 2012, 11:12 a.m. CST

    Does Jackson have access to Unfinished Tales

    by frank

    or is it just the LotR appendices? I think it is just the appendices, which sucks since there is some great Hobbit-related material in Unfinished Tales. I think that is where the more detailed description of Gandalf finding Thrain in Dol Guldur and organizing the expedition with Thorin is, correct? Maybe there is a way they can still include that stuff that toes the copyright infringement line.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:13 a.m. CST

    Think of the LOTR Extended Editions!

    by rsdrum

    PJ and crew filmed enough footage four FOUR LotR films if they had wanted to make them that way. There is plenty of material to mine for three full films, when you consider 'The Quest of Erebor', all the material in the LotR appendices, and 'Unfinished Tales'. As he said in his FB post, we'll get to see more cool stuff, like extensions of the Battle of Dol Guldur, the rise of the Necromancer, and more. THAT IS ALL THE STUFF I *WANT* TO SEE! That's all the stuff that is more or less 'between the lines' in the books that was just barely spelled out enough to give food for thought. Really the biggest question I have is: will this mean more Saruman, and how will they handle Christopher Lee's advanced age and limited mobility (I know they already filmed with him for The Hobbit, but more Dol Guldur, etc. would surely mean more White Council and Saruman)? I don't doubt that studio execs (and sure, why not PJ and crew) see the opportunity to milk the cash cow a little longer, but when it comes to this franchise, PJ and crew have earned my trust. I don't believe they'd risk marring the quality of the body of work they've built since LotR unless they really believed they could make a third film that stood up to the standards they previously set with LotR. I, for one, am thrilled.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:13 a.m. CST

    Conference Call with New Line and Warner Bros execs

    by tomdolan04

    'Absolutely Peter. The story. It's all about the story. It's getting that right and telling what needs to be told. To do any less would be a disservice to the fans. One hundred percent. It's what Tolkien would have wanted, even though his estate hates it and us. OK speak soon, love you'. <p> *Phone clicks off* <p> "FUCKKKKING YES BITCHES!!! THOSE DUMBLEDORE HOBBIT THINGS ARE THE FUCKING SHIT, WE'RE IN THE MOTHER FUDGING MONEY - COKE ALL ROUND!!!" <p>

  • This wonderful and wonderfully large sandbox. Why do people hate on that and attribute financial greed? Sure, New Line and WB have more dollar signs in their eyes. But for PJ, a storyteller, its about being able to extend that tale.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:16 a.m. CST

    C.R.E.A.M. Get the Money Dolla dolla Bills Y'AAAALLLLL

    by Wcwlkr

    LOL Wu-Tang's Words have never rang so true. Cash Rules Everything Around Me C.R.E.A.M. get the money! This is the most obvious cash grab I just hope it's more entertaining than Return of The King. And before I get attacked I thought RoTK was great just could didn't with 6 different endings.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:16 a.m. CST

    3rd Hobbit Movie will beget

    by jeffrey mckeage

    4th Bridge Movie (maybe 5th too) and eventually an animated series

  • July 30, 2012, 11:18 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    I doubt theyll have to shoot too much extra... I strongly suspect this decision has been made in the editing suite where Jackson has realized how much good footage he has. Like I said if you have 6 hours of movie then do you want to make two extended editions or 3 theatrical ones.

  • With enough pop culture references, they could have a live action Shrek goldmine on their hands.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:20 a.m. CST

    Hobbit 3: Bilbo Takes Manhattan

    by Drew

  • July 30, 2012, 11:21 a.m. CST

    Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. I don't trust PJ

    by HornOrSilk

    I'm a big Tolkien fan. His Fellowship was the best of his work, the rest fell short, with the Two Towers (and all the added crap) being his worst. He didn't get The Lord of the Rings when he has Frodo go on a trip not in the film, making Sauron know where the ring really was. Adding stuff, even if from Tolkien's outline of events, is poor storytelling. That's why they are not in the Hobbit.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:22 a.m. CST

    franks_television good question

    by rsdrum

    Can they actually use canon presented in Unfinished Tales....? Hmmm. I dunno.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:22 a.m. CST

    Agreed, cobra--kai

    by frank

    Ultimately, this means we get more Tolkien from PJ than we would have otherwise, even if it means we get three shorter theatrical films rather than two longer theatrical releases plus extended editions. I would be a little disappointed if it meant no extended editions, though, since those were such a nice bonus to look forward to at the end of each year after the LotR films came out. I am hoping for three movie PLUS three extended editions, damn it!

  • July 30, 2012, 11:24 a.m. CST

    I have no issue with this. After all LOTR was one long book in three parts

    by Castor Grayson

    The DVD extended editions would warrant 4 released films. So why wait for extended of the Hobbit? We'll see it all on the big screen. No problem with this I say!

  • July 30, 2012, 11:24 a.m. CST

    I think its more interesting than the actual Hobbit films

    by Dranem

    I could never really appreciate the books and am mostly wanting to see the movies just to return to that world. The third movie is a neat idea because I want to see how they can bridge everything.

  • Durrrrr.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:24 a.m. CST

    The Return Of Tom Bombadil!

    by Lord Elric

    Heh heh... Or, to quote Prof. Tolkien: "The tale grew in the telling". Really, more is better, here. But..could we PLEASE have 6 month wait instead of one year. At least between parts 2 and 3, if not all of them? We're not getting any younger you know ;)

  • July 30, 2012, 11:24 a.m. CST

    Meh

    by Johnathan newport

    I really want to be stoked for this, but after seeing the new trailer (with the drawrves singing) I have yet to see anything new. I'm hoping this is more due to lazy marketing - ie if He films it they will come - than a real indication of the finished product...but just havn;t seen anything that draws a "Holy Sh&t that's amazing!" response

  • July 30, 2012, 11:25 a.m. CST

    @ tomandshell

    by Skankardly

    fucking. awesome. too bad we couldn't bring Jack Palance as Sauron.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:25 a.m. CST

    Much less warrants

    by Johnathan newport

    A third movie, other than the obvious cash grab

  • July 30, 2012, 11:26 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    rsdrum, exactly - in fact if Jackson had wanted to he could have comfortably made five or six theatrical length movies out of the LORD OF THE RINGS using only the footage he had. The Extended Edition of ROTK alone was four hours and ten minutes long. Now it seems likely that Jackson has at least 6 hours of footage from THE HOBBIT - it's all in how you choose to cut it together...

  • July 30, 2012, 11:27 a.m. CST

    WTF is this? Occupy Middle-Earth?

    by cockdiesel

    What do you give a shit if PJ and crew make a ton of money and we get more LOTR movies? I can understand poking fun at them acting like it was such a tough decision but the people who take it a step further than that need to get a life. Well let's face it, we all do, but ESPECIALLY them.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:27 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    franks - yeah me too! The bigger the better!

  • July 30, 2012, 11:27 a.m. CST

    More Hobbity goodness! Suck it, bitches.

    by DocPazuzu

    That's right, suuuuuuuck it, you predictable, pull-string puppet asshats.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:28 a.m. CST

    I have a bad feeling about this

    by Brigon

    This reeks of a cash grab by the studio, in the same manner that the final Harry Potter and the final Twilight books got split. I was happy when the Hobbit got split into two films because I was sure there would be enough content for two two hours film, but three films.. Particularly seeing as they have just finished shooting two films. I can imagine re-editing the scenes which would have been structured based on it being two films into three films will cause the films to be disjointed.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:28 a.m. CST

    To those people saying PJ doesnt need more money...

    by diseptikon

    Right, because all rich folks just quit making money when they've "made" it...

  • July 30, 2012, 11:32 a.m. CST

    The final Harry Potter book *needed* to be split

    by D.Vader

    I'm surprised people still haven't grasped that concept yet. Twilight, I suspect however, did not.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:33 a.m. CST

    cue the braytards:

    by DocPazuzu

    1) "Cash grab! Yes, PJ has untold millions of dollars and his family will never have to work a day in their lives for the next 200 years, but the only reason he's sacrificing years of his life and taking the effort and care to make this incredibly lived in world a cinematic reality is MONEY!!!!" 2) "There's not enough material for two/three movies! He's going to pad it out, that no good paddy-pad-padder! Padding! PADDING!!" 3) "The dwarves look funny! I'm sure they'll be tossed!!!! Fart jokes!!!!!!" 4) "Make the SILMARILLION!"

  • July 30, 2012, 11:33 a.m. CST

    Samwise loved (Timothy) Olyphant!!!

    by kindofabigdeal

  • July 30, 2012, 11:34 a.m. CST

    Not convinced

    by richievanderlow

    I'm open to this working, but I can't say I'm stoked about it. I keep hearing they have enough to pull from.. but not that they have more story to tell. I guess there's just 'room for a little more'.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:37 a.m. CST

    To all the fucking SHITWITS who just don't get it....

    by Splinter

    .....Allow me to shout at you. IT'S NOT JUST THE HOBBIT, YOU BUNCH OF TROGLODYTE CLOWNHATS. IT IS A STORY MINED FROM A HUGE AMOUNT OF ANCILLARY CONTENT WHICH TOLKIEN ALSO WROTE. STOP WHINNYING LIKE A BUNCH OF FUCKING PRINCESSES AND USE YOUR FUCKING EYE ORBS TO READ THE ENGLISH WORDS, YOU WITLESS MUPPETS.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:38 a.m. CST

    Just look at how PJ ads material in LOTR

    by HornOrSilk

    Really lame stuff which almost ruined it entirely. Now he wants to add stuff -- based upon things which were happening at the same time as the Hobbit but which are not a part of THAT story. That is the problem. The Hobbit is Bilbo's story. Adding from The Lord of the Rings is making it no longer Bilbo's story.

  • It would have either been extremely rushed or they would have had to cut out huge swaths of storyline. It was absolutely the right decision to divide it. Hopefully that will prove to be the case with The Hobbit as well.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:39 a.m. CST

    what world am I in that people are bitching?

    by mr teaspoon

    I mean, I guess if you didn't like the LotR movies this doesn't excite you from the start. But for people like me who loved those films, Peter Jackson has yet to do anything that would make me distrust him. If he says he can tell an awesome story in a third movie, I'm all for it.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:40 a.m. CST

    The Appendices are not a single unified plot/story.

    by tomandshell

    Give it an anthology/miniseries treatment, but don't cobble together a bunch of footnotes into a bloated Frankenstein's monster of anecdotal lore. Tolkien put these brief snippets in the miscellaneous afterthought section for a reason.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:40 a.m. CST

    the real stakes were in lotr

    by gaygoonie

    i'm over this.

  • Give me a break with this idea that showing how Bilbo's story ties into the rest of the world is bad storytelling. Get over it.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:41 a.m. CST

    wow

    by Dreamfasting

    I have to admit I would probably spend money just to watch two hours of dwarves singing with all the detail that Peter Jackson puts into framing shots but my main concern is whether each individual movie really stands on its own as a story with its own thesis. However, if the new cut allows Smaug to have the second movie all to himself, I'll be happy.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:41 a.m. CST

    Are they shooting more film for the third?

    by MrWug

    Or are they taking what was supposed to be 2 movies and stretching it into 3?

  • July 30, 2012, 11:42 a.m. CST

    Third film to be in 120 frames per second!

    by Simpsonian

  • there are 2 warring alien presences on earth. Crazy world I know! That's all there is to it though. There is no other explanation that can explain the shit we've seen leading up to this. Nobody talks about it of course. The math all adds up to 2 alien agendas at odds -with us in the middle. No I don't live in Kansas and do not have an active imagination. I am saying this because I have noticed the commies invading lately even in my own circles. It's astounding really. Like somehow I didn't receive the mind beam. It's like they live. Am I the only capitalist business owner busting my ass my whole life for every piece of scratch? I don't get it. Everyone seems to want a hand out now. I'm supposed to scrap my whole life and take a handout? I mean I dunno. How does this whole fuckin complete change of our very existence supposed to work? Where is the utopian plan of operation that I'm supposed to read and follow? Oh yeah it doesn't exist you fucking commie nut jobs. I think I'm saner believing in alien invasion than believing somebody has come up with a system better than capitalism and just not bothered to share how it works with anyone. Now then. Eat shit and die commies.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:45 a.m. CST

    Movies are too damn long anyway (3 x 2hr > 2 x 3hr)

    by Simpsonian

    although they will probably all be 3+ hours....

  • July 30, 2012, 11:46 a.m. CST

    Money, Money, Money, Monay, MONAY!!! $$$

    by A. Garcia

  • July 30, 2012, 11:46 a.m. CST

    yay. more EXXXTREME HOBBITZ!!!!

    by Ironhelix

    The LotR movies lacked ANY of the feel of the stories, and were a complete failure as an adaptation. This will be more of the same. No one who is a fan of the original works can seriously defend these movies. Complete and utter disregard for the spirit of those books.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:46 a.m. CST

    RE:Are they shooting more film for the third? Answer:Yes!

    by Dreamwriter

    When they finished filming The Hobbit, Peter Jackson said there was a lot of stuff he had wanted to film but never got the chance to. And that's what started all this - it's not building a third movie out of cut footage, but filming new things, and then most likely spreading those things out throughout the whole story and choosing different points to split it into three.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:46 a.m. CST

    Tolkien drastically rethought The Hobbit after writing LotR.

    by frank

    It was originally just a stand-alone children’s book. It’s evident from the LotR appendices and parts of Unfinished Tales and The Silmarillion that Tolkien looked at the story quite differently later on. It seems like PJ wants to film the rethought, more adult version that ties in with LotR and the larger Tolkien mythology, which is awesome.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:48 a.m. CST

    Why?

    by KevinMuller

    Splitting it into two movies was understandable. This seems like either a decision forced upon by the executives or a cash grab by Jackson

  • July 30, 2012, 11:48 a.m. CST

    @Dreamwriter: Muchas Gracias!

    by MrWug

  • July 30, 2012, 11:49 a.m. CST

    "The LotR movies... were a complete failure as an adaptation."

    by D.Vader

    Come on, I know its fun to be a total contrarian, but that is an absolutely ridiculous stance to have.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:49 a.m. CST

    Baggineses gotta EAT, precious...

    by Dogmatic

  • July 30, 2012, 11:50 a.m. CST

    "Complete and utter disregard for the spirit of those books."

    by D.Vader

    Bullshit. You actually mean the *complete* opposite.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:50 a.m. CST

    If only they'd done the same for Eat, Pray Love.

    by MikeTheSpike

    That material needed room to breathe.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:50 a.m. CST

    ultratron - remember your meds.

    by frank

    It’s twice a day.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:50 a.m. CST

    So what do we have here that can be extra?

    by donkey_lasher

    Dol Guldur, and the Necromancer obviously. The Council, and their decisions, including maybe Saruman going behind their backs? Perhaps a backstory related to the Witch King of Angmar and his war? And a flashback to the Dwarves being ousted from the Iron Hills and discovering The Lonely Mountain?

  • After PJ mentioning all the additional footage that was shot in the last production blog, I had a sort of epiphany as to what he might in store and this update fully supports what I was thinking. The battle of Dol Guldur has the potential to be not only a highlight of The Hobbit but also match anything we have seen in the realm of fantasy fiction brought to the big screen. Why I think this: 1) We'll get to see 3 of the Istari in battle together... Granted that Radagast's powers seemed subtle in nature but within the context of a dark and perverted Mirkwood, I would say that an ability to control animals and creatures has potential for some pretty amazing stuff. There's also a lot of potential Christopher Lee to really nail Saruman's story arc, we'll get to see him at the height of his power and the beginning of his descent. 2) Elves being bad-ass. PJ will have an opportunity to show a fairly large host of elves in battle which in LOTR was not possible beyond of the prologue. I would also go out on a limb here and say that the Elves decision to leave middle earth was due in large part from the conclusion of this battle. 3) We're going to see the might of 3 ring bearers wielding them in a battle. Again these powers were fairly understated some years later during the war if the ring but that could very well be in part that the bearers would not risk using them in such a fashion with the knowledge that Sauron had returned. If memory serves me correctly, its Galadriel that levels the walls at the climax of the battle and I just don't see how that would be possible without tapping into the power of the ring(s). This back story in itself is worthy of it's own film and I think it's a no-brainer for PJ to take advantage of the opportunity to bring it to life. If this is set in the middle of the trilogy, it will works nicely in allowing each film to have a satisfying climax... Goblin Town, Dol Goldur, and the Battle of Five Armies. Not only do I think it's a smart decision based upon the amount of story but i also think PJ has more than earned the right to tackle with support from the studio and the fans.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:53 a.m. CST

    The Hobbit 3: The Search for More Money

    by CITIZENKANE

  • July 30, 2012, 11:54 a.m. CST

    "The LotR movies...

    by DocPazuzu

    ...were a complete failure as an adaptation." Ah, AICN talkback. Nowhere will you find a more wretched hive of attention-whoring and idiocy.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:54 a.m. CST

    Yes, the Battle of Azanilbizar!

    by D.Vader

    That would be fucking awesome.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:55 a.m. CST

    Hobbit Part 3: The Quest for more money...

    by Andrew Coleman

    Who gives a shit though really. Whatever they make will be better than anything else that comes out in theaters so I'm all in. Fuck it make 5 parts to the Hobbit I'll take it.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:55 a.m. CST

    You beat me to it, d.vader!

    by DocPazuzu

  • The LotR trilogy, and the Hobbit, are about the journey. Jackson uses them to build action set-pieces that simply did not exist in the books. It's typical Hollywood bullshit in place of an actual story. Helms Deep took up a few pages in the book. Jackson makes it into a whole movie, and throws in "dwarf tossing" as comic relief. Tolkien is SPINNING in his fucking grave.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:56 a.m. CST

    The cynicism is too thick in here.

    by MrWug

    I gotta go get some air.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:57 a.m. CST

    As Long As The Extended Scenes Aren't of Walking...

    by Grimjack99

    I'm good.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:57 a.m. CST

    Too much

    by MuadDibuhhh

    Okay. I'm going to join the Cash-Grab Chorus here. Unless I'm missing something really damn big, The Hobbit has no business being 3 movies, apart from getting more money. If PJ wants to make "Everything Else Tolkien Ever Wrote," then make a fucking movie called "Everything Else Tolkien Ever Wrote." The Hobbit is The Story of the Hobbit, not The Entire Universe. I'll see all 3 movies, yes. But I'm going to wait a good long while before getting the DVD's. I know there'll be 3 "regular" DVD's, 3 DVD's with "extras, (mostly the Production Diaries,) 3 "Extended Edition" DVD's, 3 "EE with extras" DVD's," and maybe, just MAYbe, a few years down the road, there will be a "Book Version" DVD, which actually has this what, 8-hour "movie" edited down to What Was In The Book.<p> I can understand that PJ wants to tell us what else happened between the time when The Dwarves show up at Bag End, and when Bilbo gets home, but don't try to shoehorn it into a single story. The Rest of the Story could be 2 more movies by themselves. It doesn't need to be piggybacked onto Bilbo's Story. <p> Imagine if Saving Private Ryan, The Longest Day, and Band of Brothers were all mashed together into one "story," so that we could know "everything that happened on the week of June 6, 1944." It wouldn't be necessary or even worth doing, because it would just get confusing, and disjointed. Tell one story at a time, man.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:58 a.m. CST

    Gotta shoot fast, Doc

    by D.Vader

    When you're facing down hordes of trolls =).

  • July 30, 2012, 11:58 a.m. CST

    You must go where no one else can look.

    by UltraTron

  • July 30, 2012, 11:59 a.m. CST

    That’s the question donkey_lasher

    by frank

    I wonder if they will follow Gollum after he leaves his cave? Or maybe we will get some backstory on the Istari, since they are introducing Radagast? Maybe we can see Pallando and Alatar too in a flashback. Perhaps the battle where Thorin Oakenshield got his name. I am thinking an extended segment on the relevant dwarf history is a good possibility.

  • I was expecting a more breezy adventure this time. I loved the extended Rings but this doesn`t seem to warrant it. All the appendices in the world won`t help since that`s why they were appendices etc and not part of the book. It`s just fan service, that`ll make a bajillion dollars sure but it`s still scraping every last bit of marrow out of Tolkien`s bones. That`s not quite respect. Next they`ll be doing a 3rd Ghostbusters because of the need to respect the source material they wrote oignally on a slightly longer napkin.

  • July 30, 2012, 12:01 p.m. CST

    If you Fanboys didn't think they would Milk this...

    by Redfive!

    for every drop then I guess you haven't been paying attention to what is now "and has always been" Hollywood 101...Milk any and everything for all its worth.

  • I don't care how the Tolkien family feels. They feel the stories are completely impossible to adapt in the first place.

  • July 30, 2012, 12:02 p.m. CST

    only 3?

    by chainsaw autotune

    thats going to srsly starve us of flyovers ffs.

  • July 30, 2012, 12:02 p.m. CST

    ironhelix

    by DocPazuzu

    Are you that guy who used to post back in the LOTR talkbacks? The guy who HATED the movies and talked about how fantastic the fan made movies he and his buddies had made of Tolkien's work? The guy who then posted a link to one of those "epics" starring a sebaceous throng of pudgy, goateed midwesterners uttering Tolkien's dialogue verbatim? If so, could you please post that link again? I'm dying to see some more "real" Tolkien.

  • July 30, 2012, 12:02 p.m. CST

    I'm not surprised...

    by Mike

    ...it takes a lot of work to take a book that has zero character development besides Bilbo and Thorin, and make it a workable movie. Otherwise, you'd have a bunch of dwarves wandering around aimlessly with Bilbo that nobody cares about.

  • July 30, 2012, 12:02 p.m. CST

    I was apprehensive for like 5 minutes...

    by IEatHippies

    Frodo casting aside, LOTR was flawless. The cast might actually be better this time around. That Frodo casting really does bother me more and more as the years go on. I jut pictured the guy (age 33!) with a voice a little lower than my little sister's. Give me a break. A good example of what a "high" Hobbit should have been was Pippen. Still a man voice, just sorta sing-songy. Frodo sounds like a little girl and it drives me nuts. especially when he "wants to hear the story about Sam the Brave, that sounds like a good one" - grown.

  • July 30, 2012, 12:04 p.m. CST

    yes, typos, yada yada

    by IEatHippies

    Oh and my point was.... there's PLENTY of ways this could work

  • July 30, 2012, 12:05 p.m. CST

    THE BATTLES

    by IEatHippies

    I just want to see some more battles. The Battle of the Five Armies as directed by Peter Jackson i gonna be SICK. And we are actually going to get that.

  • July 30, 2012, 12:08 p.m. CST

    I'm not surprised.

    by Andrew

    Someone over at Filmdrunk wrote that this is the first time a movie series will take longer to watch than the book does to read. Seriously, Hollywood, just make the damn movies and quit drawing it out for extra cash. I sat through Lord of the Rings, but at least that was one movie per book. This is a journey I most likely won't be taking.

  • July 30, 2012, 12:08 p.m. CST

    Unless they shot 9+hrs of material..how are they going to do this?

    by conspiracy

    If this just an editing decision...carving up two completed almost 3hr films into three 2 hours films and adding come cg scenes...then I will definitely cry (to quote Harold) BULLSHIT...and decry this as a simple cash grab to pad peoples participation points and the studios bottom line. People have shown this year they DO want lengthy film experiences..not just 120 minute snacks. Now if they actually shot all this on the outside chance that indeed they could get the studio to agree to a third film...and indeed have three almost 3hr films worth of usable, quality material that adds to the story...then why not. Since none of us, I'd imagine, has seen any cut of this..or has any inside knowledge...I don't suppose we'll know the answer till eyeballs hit screens whether this is indeed an artistic, albeit lucrative, decision...or just a way to line peoples already well lined pockets.

  • July 30, 2012, 12:09 p.m. CST

    When did Ultratron go crazy?

    by D.Vader

    I don't think I've ever seen him act like this before...

  • July 30, 2012, 12:10 p.m. CST

    So what's the plan?

    by Bass Ackwards

    Are they still filming? Is the script set and locked, and they can just keep rolling? Or are they going to wrap the two films, break, an call everyone back?

  • July 30, 2012, 12:11 p.m. CST

    you said it, d.vader.

    by DocPazuzu

    As much as I love PJ's Tolkien stuff, I'd much rather watch the space commie movie currently rolling in ultratron's pointy noggin.

  • July 30, 2012, 12:14 p.m. CST

    WOW...a whole movie based on an author's notes

    by Drew

    to self....sounds dreamy pinch me!

  • July 30, 2012, 12:14 p.m. CST

    In Peter Jackson we trust.

    by Nautilus_nrm1

    While I think New Line was whispering into Jackson's ear, I believe Peter wants to use a third film, rather than have two huge and long films - which they would be. As for whether the 3rd film is a bridge film or the finale to The Hobbit, or both as I suspect, I wouldn't expect for the epic, final right against Smaug to not be seen in the third film. There is so much mythology to explore in the Appendixes, even if the studio and Jackson can't use The Silmarillion because they don't (yet) have the rights. The great thing about this - and another 10 or more years down the road - we're going to place judgement who makes a better set of prequels, George Lucas or Peter Jackson. But in our hearts we already know.

  • July 30, 2012, 12:14 p.m. CST

    WOW...a whole movie based on an author's notes

    by Drew

    to self....sounds dreamy pinch me!

  • July 30, 2012, 12:14 p.m. CST

    YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!

    by iluvsyfy

    Awesome knews, and PJ is correct concerning all the material in the appendices. The Hobbit of course by itself might be a 3 hour film. When you add all the extra material from LOTR and Tolkiens notes, there is enough for 6 hours. Though we more than likely won't see an extended cut, which is good, because the LOTR EC versions were better than the theatricla cuts, and I would have preferred to see those onscreen.

  • July 30, 2012, 12:15 p.m. CST

    Re: THE BATTLES by ieathippies

    by Simpsonian

    damn I got chills thinking of that--fuck they could give us two hours of the battle of 5 armies and I would be happy. MAKE IT FOUR FILMS PJ!

  • King Kong was a bloated mess.

  • July 30, 2012, 12:15 p.m. CST

    JUST A REMINDER: PETER JACKSON IS NOT A GOOR DIRECTOR. More info below.

    by Wacky Packages

    His movies are not epic. They're bloated. They say "Look how much visual junk we we're able to afford". He ruined the Kong remake in a hundred ways. The LOTR trilogy is overblown and boring. Trim away the fat and you're not left with much. He should stick with the low budget horror comedies.

  • July 30, 2012, 12:17 p.m. CST

    Oh please don't dream for a second this wasn't planned all along

    by corplhicks

    Jackson no doubt shot tons of extra footage and already shot most of the human containing shots for all 3 movies. Put down the cup of Koolaid-- this "sudden decision" is being put out there to get the geeks all excited. And you will know that is the case when Hobbit part 2 ends without full resolution, but needing a third movie. What? do you think they will make a full conclusion in Hobbit 2, then in Hobbit 3 give you bits and pieces of the sporadic stuff they chopped out of the first two movies from the book, just for fun? This is Hobbit 3-- the quest for more moneyses precious !

  • July 30, 2012, 12:17 p.m. CST

    Oh please don't dream for a second this wasn't planned all along

    by corplhicks

    Jackson no doubt shot tons of extra footage and already shot most of the human containing shots for all 3 movies. Put down the cup of Koolaid-- this "sudden decision" is being put out there to get the geeks all excited. And you will know that is the case when Hobbit part 2 ends without full resolution, but needing a third movie. What? do you think they will make a full conclusion in Hobbit 2, then in Hobbit 3 give you bits and pieces of the sporadic stuff they chopped out of the first two movies from the book, just for fun? This is Hobbit 3-- the quest for more moneyses precious !

  • July 30, 2012, 12:20 p.m. CST

    But, corplhicks

    by MattDomville

    ...instead of getting this geek excited, it's made him dismiss the entire project.

  • July 30, 2012, 12:20 p.m. CST

    Cash grab

    by Rupee88

    That's all this is. I don't blame them, but I don't blame them for not going to see them at the theater too...probably will just download them from bittorrent. They've turned me off to these films now.

  • July 30, 2012, 12:20 p.m. CST

    Oh please don't dream for a second this wasn't planned all along

    by corplhicks

    Jackson no doubt shot tons of extra footage and already shot most of the human containing shots for all 3 movies. Put down the cup of Koolaid-- this "sudden decision" is being put out there to get the geeks all excited. And you will know that is the case when Hobbit part 2 ends without full resolution, but needing a third movie. What? do you think they will make a full conclusion in Hobbit 2, then in Hobbit 3 give you bits and pieces of the sporadic stuff they chopped out of the first two movies from the book, just for fun? This is Hobbit 3-- the quest for more moneyses precious !

  • July 30, 2012, 12:21 p.m. CST

    Here's how I think three films should play...

    by jmdaulton

    Movie 1: Gandalf leaves Bilbo and co. at the Mirkwood to go speak to the White Council about the Necromancer; the film ends with Bilbo and co.'s escape from the Wood-elves. Movie 2: Biblo and co. arrive in Laketown and infiltrate Smaug's lair. That story's interwoven with Gandalf relating to the White Council how he found the map, in the Necromancer's dungeons, and revealing that the Necromancer's Sauron, and that plot climaxes with the White Council's massive attack Dol Guldur. The Necomancer's defeated in this film, but Smaug's getting ready to destroy Laketown as the film ends. Movie 3: The battle with Smaug; the dwarves take back their home and defiantly set up there; and then the Battle of Five Armies. After that, Bilbo goes home a wealthy Hobbit. The End

  • (I used that in another Hobbit thread, but no one acknowledged the cleverness)

  • July 30, 2012, 12:26 p.m. CST

    MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY. bullshit liars.

    by Ld

    There was no grand moment of realization that what they've made was so beautiful that they just HAD to make it into 3 movies. They said to themeselves, "do we rob these dumb ass fan boys of 8 more bucks each?" and well here we are. Sorry bitch LOTR lovers, you've just been swindled.

  • July 30, 2012, 12:27 p.m. CST

    I won't buy a ticket.

    by Dapper Swindler

    We have to make a stand somewhere. I'll see the movies someday on DVD/Netflix but I won't pay for this obvious cash grab with a movie ticket. Anyone else bitching about this should put their money where their mouth is.

  • July 30, 2012, 12:28 p.m. CST

    My 2 cents

    by Rob0729

    If they are filming stuff from LOTR that happened during the time of the Hobbit, then they might be able to do a third film. If it is mostly stretching out the Hobbit into three movies, then it is stupid. The LOTR had several main adventures while The Hobbit had one. You can't stretch the Hobbit itself out into three movies and make it entertaining. In fact, The Hobbit could easily be filmed in one film and not lose too much.

  • Ok maybe not.

  • I agree. I think its a ridiculous stand to take ("I refuse to see this movie bc its a cash grab! Unlike every other movie studios make!"), but I agree, if you're going to complain, just don't buy a ticket. Your loss, I'm going to think.

  • Why not go full Lucas on these?

  • July 30, 2012, 12:38 p.m. CST

    OH GO FUCK YOURSELVES, HOLLYWOOD STUDIOS

    by Ricardo

    I won't see it.

  • July 30, 2012, 12:40 p.m. CST

    bah: cleverness acknowledged

    by VoiceOfSaruman

  • July 30, 2012, 12:42 p.m. CST

    Thank you, Saruman. I needed that.

    by bah

  • July 30, 2012, 12:43 p.m. CST

    Excellent news, can't wait. Love PJ's middle earth.

    by Pigdog

  • July 30, 2012, 12:44 p.m. CST

    do we rob these dumb ass fan boys of 8 more bucks each?

    by martinprince

    8 bucks? Where do you live that an IMAX 3-D ticket is only 8 dollars???

  • July 30, 2012, 12:44 p.m. CST

    bass ackwards ..Good Luck calling people back!

    by conspiracy

    Usually there are contract clauses that cover a couple of weeks worth of pickups...but I've never heard of a contract that has an open ended shooting schedule. These folks are booked out years in advance...they might have another film they are contractually required to be shooting once their contract with Hobbit is fulfilled. So I doubt Jackson just decided after the first Rough to renegotiate everyones contracts, pray they were available, book locations, etc...and do a 3rd film. MY GUESS at this point is that this was planned, by Jackson at least, and he has been in reality shooting 3 films worth of material on what was proposed at a schedule and budget for 2 films (which makes me worry about the quality..rushed). OR...they are simply going to re-edit and make 3 shorter films out of 2 longer films (cash Grab).

  • July 30, 2012, 12:46 p.m. CST

    I approve.

    by SUPERJIM

    I love the original trilogy and I hope this trilogy will be awesome. I won't be double or triple dipping this time around though. I'll probably watch them in the cinema but I'll wait for the difinitive extended edition blu ray before buying any release. To everyone complaining about the extra movie, surely it can only be a good thing in the eyes of so called movie fans? You don't have to watch it and even if you can't stay away you don't have to pay for it. Wait for it to be on TV, borrow it from a friend or torrent it. This news is all good in my opinion.

  • July 30, 2012, 12:48 p.m. CST

    Re: Sorry, It's A Cash Grab

    by ArmageddonProductions

    Especially seeing as how Rankin/Bass somehow managed to make an 80-90 minute animated version back in the Seventies that somehow managed to put THE ENTIRE FUCKING BOOK ONSCREEN WITHOUT ANY OMISSIONS, including all the songs. What's that, you say? What about all of the appendices in "Lord Of the Rings" that detail "ten movies' worth of Bilbo Baggins's adventures"? I wasn't aware the actual title of this (ugh!) "trilogy" was "THE HOBBIT, PLUS SOME ASSORTED SHIT WE DUG OUT OF THE BACK OF SOME OTHER BOOKS BY TOLKIEN". Maybe it should be. That would clarify things. And before you fan-boys start ejaculating Mountain Dew Xtreme all over yourselves, I'll remind you of what happened the last time Jackson was allowed to pad out something to suit his and his bank account's whimsy: KING KONG.

  • That's my only concern.

  • One where is half of the lines in the book are silly kids songs?!

  • July 30, 2012, 12:49 p.m. CST

    The Hobbit will be more interesting to me than even LOTR.

    by notcher

    I'm really excited about this, and I can't believe... no I believe there are a lot of bitches on here complaining. 3 hour plus movies have been doing very well, and as long as 3 hour long movies continue to make a collective 2 billion dollars then that says "We are the world and we don't mind focusing our attention on a really well made story." Fucking whiners, WHINERS on this site. But hey, aintitcool talkback is an artform and there are those who just have to hate on EVERYTHING. Fuck the haters, bring on the next trilogy, BRING IT!!!

  • July 30, 2012, 12:49 p.m. CST

    I think

    by VoiceOfSaruman

    that the question isn't "is there or isn't there enough source material to film to make three movies", the question is "is there enough material to make the three movies good?" Tolkien wrote quite a lot, I think his source material takes precedence over any arbitrary drama cooked up by PJ and company. But I'm just not sure it's interesting enough. The Hobbit has always felt to pretty much everyone like LOTR-lite - the story points are very similar (just smaller in scale and import) too, making it like a weak retread if mishandled. The problem with the Dol Guldor stuff is that we already saw (ostensibly abbreviated) Gandalf's journeys and research which revealed that Sauron had returned. So that doesn't happen in the time frame of The Hobbit. The whole Necromancer thing has to turn out like: Gandalf: Something's up in Mirkwood, I better check it out. Sauron: Everybody hide! Gandalf: [arriving, finding no real evidence] Dammit. I'm a fan of the LOTR films but I too am skeptical on this.

  • July 30, 2012, 12:49 p.m. CST

    D. Vader - That's cool with me

    by Dapper Swindler

    I'm not trying to shout from a soapbox here. It's fine if people want to see it. I just think it's an obvious cash grab and I don't care to see it at a theatre for $15-$20 a ticket. It's just not for me. And Hollywood needs to know that these kinds of decisions affect at least one person so they can use that information to make future decisions. Capitalism.

  • July 30, 2012, 12:50 p.m. CST

    AWESOME AWESOME AWESOME AWESOME

    by where_are_quints_hobbit_set_reports

    Guess what haters? Register your stupid feelings that no-one cares about by not buying tickets and not seeing the movies!!! Guess y'all will be staying home. I couldn't be more thrilled.

  • July 30, 2012, 12:51 p.m. CST

    They should add JAR JAR BINKS as comic relief

    by Ainnem

    As if 3 movies full of dumb dwarves weren't enough...

  • It's pretty clear most haven't read the LOTR, and despite being a childrens novel, most probably haven't read the Hobbit either. Which is fine. They're not for everyone. But anyone who has will tell you the wealth of content those books have. Even at it's length, stuff was still omitted from the LOTR films. Tolkien had already updated the Hibbit somewhat after LOTR success (yup, you've been reading a special edition all this time) and he was planning on completely retelling the story with a more adult tone and expanding the universe. As most have noted, he had a wealth of notes about this. There's a lot of story that can be told here. And as long as the films don't suffer, by all means film more. As much as I'm looking forward to the movies, I'm looking forward to the extended cuts even more.

  • July 30, 2012, 12:53 p.m. CST

    We should be registering our complaints

    by Dapper Swindler

    I'm giving Hollywood free customer data here. Marketing research companies would pay good money for it. This shouldn't be three movies and I'm not interested in paying for that.

  • July 30, 2012, 12:53 p.m. CST

    May I fucking REMIND you that a movie as a 3 act structure

    by Ricardo

    How the FUCK is he editing these 2 films into 3? Will it end midsentence? Also, will it still be at 48fps 3D? Go FUCK yourself PJ. You were a genius in the 90s. You're a fucking hack now.

  • July 30, 2012, 12:55 p.m. CST

    That's cool with me too, Dapper

    by D.Vader

    I appreciate your stance and your level-head about it too! And I like the idea of trying to send a message to those in charge. I don't think this one will quite work out in your favor, though (I'm hoping ticket sales for the next Twilight will PLUNGE, and I'm sure it will partially have to do with Kristen Stewart cheating on GlamVamp), but I'm glad to see someone stick to their convictions.

  • If that translated to a live-action film, it would be considered a HORRIBLE adaptation. Characters come into the story and disappear rather quickly. No one has an arc other than Bilbo and Thorin. There's no character building, things happen rather fast. The entire Battle of Five Armies is glossed over. Come on, I love the animated movie too, but as a live-action film? It'd be god-awful.

  • July 30, 2012, 12:57 p.m. CST

    Don't know if it's a good thing or not.

    by LORDOFLIGHT

    Might be cool in some respects though to expand on and explore other bits Tolkien wrote.

  • July 30, 2012, 12:58 p.m. CST

    Yep...

    by harp121

    They're drawing from the appendices. There's a lot of material there. I'm just curious to see how well it translates to film; sure, it'll look great... but it's not horribly action-packed...

  • July 30, 2012, 12:58 p.m. CST

    It would be different if this decision wasn't so late in the production

    by Dapper Swindler

    Like if they knew they would NEED 3 films all along and planned for that. Feels more like they just want more money for a reason that's artificial.

  • July 30, 2012, 1 p.m. CST

    Sounds fine to me

    by RG

    I will be interested to see how he combines the hobbit with the appendices info.

  • July 30, 2012, 1:03 p.m. CST

    What the fuck...You can't delight in good news, either?

    by micturatingbenjamin

    A director respectful to the essence of the book, and wanting to put as much LOTR out there as possible wants to create the definitive Hobbit/Appendices and people are bitching? Thinking it's a money grab? If they have three flicks worth of story to tell, what the fuck -- why not let them? In a world where this was going to happen with or without Peter Jackson, why the fuck would you be pissed they round it out with another trilogy? It's not splitting the second half of the book in two, it's lengthening the first half of the book with appendix material to last into the first half of the second film, and extending the second half of the book with appendix shit to be the second half of the second flick and third flick. Why the fuck not? Good on 'em, they're getting my money in the theater and BluRay.

  • July 30, 2012, 1:03 p.m. CST

    Three shall be the number thou shalt count

    by Engelhast

    and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then stoppest thou making Lord Of the Rings movies.

  • July 30, 2012, 1:04 p.m. CST

    Peter Jackson: An unexepected journey

    by Darkness

    Peter - you should stick with the material within the context of the book, as you did with the 'Lord Of The Rings Trilogy". We all know that Warner Bros are jumping onto the current craze of applying additional sequels at the end of a proposed series of films: "Harry Potter", "Twilight", "The Hunger Games" This is not for creative purposes, but for obvious financial reasons. If you go ahead with your plans Pete - good luck. But if you fail in your attempts, then the parrish of Tolkienites will come down on you quicker than you can say,"Sauron's giving me the eye!". I'm sure the Tolkien estate are unleashing an army of Orcs on this announcement as we speak.

  • July 30, 2012, 1:04 p.m. CST

    ONE! TWO! FIVE!

    by art123guy

  • July 30, 2012, 1:06 p.m. CST

    This is King Kong all over again on a whole new level

    by WINONA_RYDERS_PUSSY_JUICE

    Imagine if the director's cut of King Kong was 9 hours long. King Kong could have been much better with 45 minutes edited out. Sounds like Jackson didn't learn from that mistake.

  • July 30, 2012, 1:06 p.m. CST

    Bad idea

    by Cruizer Dave

    The Hobbit was the shortest of the four Lord of the Rings books. Expanding it to two films is a cash grab move that could be done well. Expanding to three films is just ridiculous.

  • July 30, 2012, 1:06 p.m. CST

    I approve

    by johndalf greymane

    If youre at all familiar with the further work Tolkien wrote to dovetail the Hobbit more in line with LotR, you know there is a lot more story to tell, and it is congruous. If he is going off Tolkien's script, per se, then itll be fine and a nice expansion of the story. There were a lot of things going on that Bilbo and company were not privy to, and Gandalf was absent on errands for most of The Hobbit. There are those that will complain that it will take away from the childrens story aspect of it, but Id welcome it and wont think it takes anything away from the tale. MY trust is without reservation for PJ.

  • July 30, 2012, 1:06 p.m. CST

    Sure, there are concerns, but I'm just going to say HOORAY!

    by kevred

    If he can tell the full tale of The Hobbit and get enough good extra material - and some of those hinted-at extras could be exciting highlights of the whole deal - then why wouldn't I want to have one more film I'm really looking forward to seeing in a few years? Talented people collaborating to make good films about great genre works seems like a win to me. More of that, please.

  • July 30, 2012, 1:08 p.m. CST

    Agree that the animated Hobbit was crap

    by johndalf greymane

    as a matter of fact... I would go so far as to say that it does not exist in this dojo. :)

  • July 30, 2012, 1:08 p.m. CST

    This is a horrible idea

    by Volllllume3

    But whatever. In Jackson we trust.

  • July 30, 2012, 1:09 p.m. CST

    Peter Jackson....

    by Dead_Geek

    ....is a whore.

  • July 30, 2012, 1:12 p.m. CST

    Part of why the LOTR films worked so well ...

    by Cruizer Dave

    was that they did cut a lot of stuff out of them. Jackson's pacing made for a stronger narrative story than the books. Yeah, purists were pissed off that we didn't get things like Tom Bombadil and songs and poems and whatnot, but those things would have killed the pace of the story. The expanded editions are very close to killing the pace and walk a ponderous line. Expanding one book into three movies will be a pace killer, and could result in unpardonable act of making the Hobbit boring.

  • July 30, 2012, 1:15 p.m. CST

    I don't care as long as they're all good.

    by SlickyVonBoner

    Though if each is 3+ hours then there is a problem.

  • July 30, 2012, 1:15 p.m. CST

    wait... the Tolkien estate DOESN'T LIKE the trilogy?

    by johndalf greymane

    They are out of their minds! I was sad to see some of the changes that were made early in the story, but could understand the expediency for a film adaptation and on the whole, the trilogy was awesome and faithful.

  • July 30, 2012, 1:17 p.m. CST

    Oh PJ...

    by allouttabubblegum

    ...Please fuck off. The hobbit should be 100mins max.

  • July 30, 2012, 1:18 p.m. CST

    Lucas didnt need the money either FANBOYS. FACT.

    by Emerald Snoggingbottom

    Prepare for Phantom Menace two, and you all will be crying and calling for PJs head.

  • July 30, 2012, 1:19 p.m. CST

    What happened to Jackson and Spielberg's Tintin trilogy???

    by Emerald Snoggingbottom

    LOLOLOLOL

  • July 30, 2012, 1:19 p.m. CST

    Hobbitsilmarillion?

    by Steve Lamarre

  • That being said, I'm glad to be getting more Middle Earth!<p> And Tintin sucked btw.

  • July 30, 2012, 1:21 p.m. CST

    This is the guy who made a 3 HOUR King Kong movie. 3 HOURS!

    by Emerald Snoggingbottom

    You think adding more to a solid story will make this better? Delusional fanboys.

  • July 30, 2012, 1:22 p.m. CST

    So after blackmailing everyone on my staff with nude pictures of them...

    by Kyle DeMattio

    I've decided to make a third Hobbit. Now I know what you're thinking, "Peter, it's totally unnecessary for you to make a third Hobbit movie. The first two movies are bad enough, but why a third?" My response to that question is "WHO THE FUCK CARES ABOUT WHAT YOU GUYS THINK? I'M RICH. I CAN DO WHATEVER THE HELL I WANT AND YOU CAN'T STOP ME." It has been a frivolous deal indeed, and in the words of Daniel Tosh himself, "Na na na na boo-boo, stick your head in doo-doo." Cheers, Peter Jackass

  • July 30, 2012, 1:23 p.m. CST

    They better not spread 'The Hobbit' story over 3 movies

    by atlatl

    Tell 'The Hobbit' over the 2 parts as originally planned. Movie 2 better finish as the book finishes. If you want to make a 3rd movie out of appendices, fine give people that option to watch if they want, maybe I'll catch it on DVD but don't hijack my wallet into having to pay for 3 movies, waiting an extra fucking year for the conclusion to a book I read and loved for the first time as a child in a weekend. I have no doubt the extra movie will amaze and delve further into the world, but Tolkien told a neat, tight and satisfying fantasy tale in 300 pages and change. In the future, when I have the Blurays, will I have to endure 7-8 hours just to experience the Hobbit story as it occurs in the novels? Will the 'Hobbit' movie actually be longer than it takes to read the novel?

  • July 30, 2012, 1:23 p.m. CST

    Maybe the Tolkien estate would have preferred a Beatles-made Rings

    by Steve Lamarre

    Fools.

  • July 30, 2012, 1:24 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    conspiracy, well know the answer to that when we see the running time of the first movie. But it certainly sounds like Jackson intends to shoot extra stuff - so that in itself is encouraging. As far as extra material being required it may simply be dialog for the dwarves! In the book its pretty much only Thorin that says anything the rest of the dwarves are pretty much a mob. Be nice if Jackson can make us care about and distinguish each and every dwarf.

  • July 30, 2012, 1:24 p.m. CST

    Hopefully this will not affect the release date of Part One.

    by frank

    If they are planning to add any not-yet-shot footage into the first part, it would seem that there would not be enough time to reconvene everyone, film the additional scenes and then edit and score them before December of this year. But it also seems like there is room for some really cool stuff near the beginning of the story (thinking mainly of dwarf backstory). I wouldn’t want that stuff to be left out, but I also don’t think I can possibly wait an extra year to see the movie. Damn it Peter! We need more information here!

  • Give him a little credit - the man wants to do Tolkien JUSTICE, and always has - I truly believe that - so if he is behind this and sure it's the right thing, I am going to support that 100%. I'd give anything to be a part of making it, even a lowly extra, but being in the states, supporting as a fan may will have to suffice.

  • July 30, 2012, 1:31 p.m. CST

    Hobbit 3: The Search for More Money

    by Kytas

  • In theory, anyway.

  • July 30, 2012, 1:33 p.m. CST

    WB, Jackson are regretting they missed an opportunity to make ROTK into two films.

    by Emerald Snoggingbottom

    Could have cashed in on that big time.

  • Smaug deserves to be the focus of an entire movie unto himself. Then the next movie deals with different factions warring over the Lonely Mountain and Smaug’s horde.

  • July 30, 2012, 1:41 p.m. CST

    What's Kiwi for George Lucas?

    by Emerald Snoggingbottom

    Peter Jackson

  • July 30, 2012, 1:42 p.m. CST

    I don't get why LOTR fans are bitching about this

    by Michael Miller

    Coming from someone that's fairly impartial, because I'm not that huge a fan, not even a casual fan of the series, but I'd be pleased as punch to hear this news if I was. Is it really that bad if Jackson takes a few liberties to add and expand to the film series?

  • July 30, 2012, 1:44 p.m. CST

    I love Warner Bros...

    by Knuckleduster

    ... but I hope that these three Hobbit movies cost them dearly.

  • LOTR (theatrically anyway) was about 9 hours and 45 minutes. I seriously doubt we'll get three 3+ hour Hobbit movies. Probably just three 2-hour movies instead of the original two epic-length movies. Hopefully I'm wrong.

  • July 30, 2012, 1:46 p.m. CST

    Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in.

    by Bradly Durant

  • It's really pathetic. Look at your sorry asses, flailing your tubby arms in front of your keyboard in a mad dash to let everyone know that you think anyone who likes Jackson's work is a 'delusional fanboy'....you sad, unoriginal cunt wipes. We get it. You're unattractive, mentally ill-equipped to socialize properly (why else would you spend all the livelong day glued to a site you claim you hate, flinging your shit at directors you claim you cant stand?)... it's entirely evident that you desperately seek affirmation from anyone, anywhere, to give you some semblance of hope that someone in the world will listen to you flap your fat, cheetoh-stained lips ....that you matter at all....clearly nobody gives you this in daily life. Clearly you are sad, lonely little rejects who fancy themselves king of the interwebs. Get some friends. Get a life. Good god, get a girlfriend who you've actually met in person and slept with. You'll soon see yourself much less frustrated with life and spend less time maniacally ranting about directors you hate. In case you didnt notice...this is a place to celebrate cinema and hold civil discussions on their merits, not angrily fap your man spooge all over the net. So...once again...I write this for your own good - get. a. life. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have an interview at the medical center to get to. Hope this opens at least one eye.

  • July 30, 2012, 1:47 p.m. CST

    If Peter Jackson can pull this off, then kudos to him.......

    by david starling

    .......but I really feel that this is making a potential classic extremely unwieldy. Why can't I just have Peter Jackson take a risk on the Hobbit, and give us a bloody good ride? Why do I need a mini-series? He gave us Lord of the Rings over three movies, and achieved the nigh-on impossible!! I really don't want to know of Bilbo's highschool crush - I just want the genesis, or seed if you will, of a damned good movie!!

  • July 30, 2012, 1:47 p.m. CST

    Does this also mean that we'll get even more endings as well?

    by Bradly Durant

  • July 30, 2012, 1:49 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    franks, Jackson specifically mentions the Dwarves of Erebor in his statement so we might get to see a bit more Smaug in flashback, showing the massacre of the Dwarves in the Lonely Mountain.

  • July 30, 2012, 1:52 p.m. CST

    Cobra Kai and Franks

    by D.Vader

    That would certainly kickstart the audience into believing what a danger Smaug is, and therefore what danger a small hobbit like Bilbo is getting into. I think its a smart move.

  • July 30, 2012, 1:52 p.m. CST

    What's really funny

    by Turd_Is_Floating_Underneath_The_Gravy

    is that the Hobbit trilogy will end up being longer and more epic than LOTR. I'm certain that all of these movies will be well over three hours theatrically, and will have subsequent extended editions that add about thirty minutes to an hour each. Jackson has epic-itis. It's not the worst of afflictions to have, though; as Roger Ebert once said: "No good movie is too long (and no bad movie short enough)".

  • July 30, 2012, 1:53 p.m. CST

    Not simply a cash-grab.

    by antmanx68

    There are throwaway references in the book to humongous LOTR epic level stuff which involves the central characters and the fate of Middle Earth. Because the Hobbit is a children's book they'll boil it down to say: "So while the Dwarves were walking into Mirkwood Gandalf went off on a fucking awesome adventure to fight fucking Sauron in a battle that is worthy of its own movie... but let's get back to these Dwarves." Seriously, that's a direct quote. The writing style is completely different then the LOTR trilogy and it allows for them to fill in HUGE gaps. This is a good thing.

  • But do we really need a slim children's novel stretched out to six plus hours, spread over three years? Next thing you know, WB will be making three hour Batman movies

  • July 30, 2012, 1:56 p.m. CST

    I have no problem with this decision. Hobbit : Episode 3 , The Return of the Jedi

    by Stereotypical Evil Archer

  • July 30, 2012, 1:56 p.m. CST

    Coming soon to cinemas near you: NINE MORE HOURS OF HAIRY MIDGETS WALKING

    by Emerald Snoggingbottom

  • July 30, 2012, 2:05 p.m. CST

    First movie will be closest to the book

    by Turd_Is_Floating_Underneath_The_Gravy

    I predict it will be a straightforward version of everything that happens up until the dwarves get captured in Mirkwood, following only that one narrative line. Probably no extra stuff with Gandalf and the rest. The second movie will be Lake Town, The Lonely Mountain and Smaug, intercut with the White Council assaulting Dol Goldur and driving out the Necromancer (Sauron). Third movie will be the dispute over the treasure horde, the Battle of Five Armies and Bilbo's journey home, intercut with the search for Gollum and Gandalf trying to find out the whereabouts of the Ring.

  • July 30, 2012, 2:07 p.m. CST

    I doubt they will show Smaug in the first movie, though.

    by frank

    It would be cool to have an artfully done flashback scene showing Smaug wreaking havoc on Erebor and the dwarves without really showing him clearly. Like we might see his shadow, his flame, maybe some shots of his tail or claws etc. That could be really cool and would accomplish what vader described in showing the threat Bilbo will have to face as well as increasing the audience fervor to see the dragon in its full glory in the next movie. That sounds like a really good idea, actually.

  • July 30, 2012, 2:08 p.m. CST

    Jackson loves to add fat - now we'll have two movies too many full of it.

    by Mephisto the Great

    Can we say Samwise's speech in The Two Towers? Sigh.

  • July 30, 2012, 2:09 p.m. CST

    antman68x is right.

    by frank

    Also, that is one of my favorite Tolkien quotes.

  • July 30, 2012, 2:09 p.m. CST

    Pause and think chilluns:

    by Anthony Torchia

    The Hobbit was originally conceived as 2, 2.5 hour movies, five hours total. Now it's 3, 2 hour movies, six hours total It may suck but it is not inevitable, he won't be padding as much as you think

  • July 30, 2012, 2:12 p.m. CST

    awesome.

    by SpikedBuffy

    really interested to see how much of the appendices make it into this trilogy. cool they're talking about the battle of dol guldur, wonder if they'll gonna show the rangers protecting the shire etc.

  • July 30, 2012, 2:12 p.m. CST

    Not interested in this cash grab

    by dxchase

    Let's face it, the LOTR movies have not aged well. At best, I can say that FOTR is passable. The other two are just awful. From an aesthetics point of view, they look like something from the Syfy channel. And I haven't even started with the corny dwarf tossing, constant use of slow-mo, Legolas skateboarding like he is a cool dude, etc. My feeling is that PJ spent the most time and care on FOTR and rushed the the other two movies. So with this in mind, I think it would've been best if the Hobbit was just a single movie. But unfortunately we will probably see one good movie and then two forgettable movies.

  • July 30, 2012, 2:13 p.m. CST

    Re: I think

    by semiote

    VoiceofSaruman, you've got some details wrong. When Gandalf travels far and wide in Fellowship, he's not discovering that Sauron has returned, but that Bilbo's ring is The One Ring. He and the white council discover that Sauron has returned to Middle Earth during the events recounted in The Hobbit, something revealed in "The Quest of Erebor" from The Unfinished Tales.

  • July 30, 2012, 2:18 p.m. CST

    I think TiFUtG is right about the breakdown of the 3 movies.

    by frank

    At least, I hope so as I think that would be the smartest way to divide them and would allow each entry to have its own semi-self-contained plot. Journey movie, Dragon movie, War movie. They could have the climax of the second movie be a combined intercutting of Smaug’s assault on Laketown with the casting out of the Necromancer, maybe.

  • July 30, 2012, 2:19 p.m. CST

    Exactly Franks Tv

    by D.Vader

    I didn't articulate it, but that's how I thought of it: keeping Smaug out of the picture but showing him as maybe a shadow through the smoke of burning wreckage, or just a tail here, a claw there as you say. Something to demonstrate his power and the danger the Company faces without spoiling his voice or look for the second movie.

  • July 30, 2012, 2:19 p.m. CST

    Similar to how they did Gollum in FOTR of course

    by D.Vader

  • July 30, 2012, 2:24 p.m. CST

    Can we get an ENT WARS movie!?

    by Autodidact

    I love the ents... saw TTT 3X because they were so awesome.

  • July 30, 2012, 2:24 p.m. CST

    You gotta be fuckin kidding me

    by Christian Sylvain

    Hollywood is just getting less and less discrete about their undying greediness. The Hobbit is where I draw the line. A 300 page children's book is not the material needed to adapt into 3, 2+ hour movies. The Fucking cartoon movie was only 77 minutes and even that felt too long.

  • July 30, 2012, 2:24 p.m. CST

    Very Happy. Could be a Gandalf epic.

    by pixellandscape

  • July 30, 2012, 2:28 p.m. CST

    This talkback has given me clarity on the aicn haters...

    by xcornealiousx

    Who hated on The Dark Knight Rises, the 'supposed downfall' of Pixar, anything Jj Abrams related etc etc etc... If you dudes are going to hate on the idea of the enjoyment of watching 3 movies set in middle earth, by a director who created 3 previous movies that earned Oscars, and box office success, NOTHING will please you poor bastards! I for one LOVE the idea of an additional Christmas season with my butt parked in a seat at my local cinema!

  • July 30, 2012, 2:35 p.m. CST

    more dinosaur stampedes!!

    by vulturess

    in 3d woohoo!!

  • July 30, 2012, 2:39 p.m. CST

    This message was a attempt to sound sincere

    by shane peterson

    when PJ and New Line are doing this as another excuse to have a whole movie of saying goodbye, slow motion shots of tears being shed, and interminable numbers of aerial flyovers shots shot from a high speed jet.

  • All about the money.

  • July 30, 2012, 2:43 p.m. CST

    @ xcornealiousx

    by SpikedBuffy

    pretty much agree with you 100% altho i feel alot of hate is coming from ppl who think this is 3 movies about just what's in the book and have no idea how much was actually written that happens congruently with the events of the book.

  • July 30, 2012, 2:43 p.m. CST

    Why is this a bad idea?

    by Eli_Cash

    Two words. King Kong. Jackson has become a purveyor of needless bloat. The Hobbit itself doesn't need to be more than three hours, even if you add the White Council stuff. If they want to make another movie, Aragorn's pre-LOTR appendix material would be good.

  • July 30, 2012, 2:44 p.m. CST

    Here's how I think it might go...

    by Joe Magilton

    Movie 1 ends with Bilbo finding the One Ring. Movie 2 ends with the Battle of the 5 Armies/Bilbo returning to the Bag End Yard Sale Movie 3 opens with Samwise reading the Red Book of Westmarch to one of his kids. I think he will tell the story, from the Appendicies, of Aragorn growing up. In this you will see the simultaneous rise of the Nazgul, Aragorns capture of Gollum, Aragorn in Rohan and Gondor fighting under assumed names, the Nazgul hunting for the Rings of Power, maybe ending with the watch being set upon the Shire. That really seems, to me, like the storyline that has the most length to it. As a huge fan, I would love to see everything from the Appendicies, but it just doesnt make sense, filmwise, since there is so much time jumping going on. Aragorn prologue, if you want to call it that, allows for many characters to make an appearance. Gandalf, Arwen (ugh, but you know she will be there), Legolas, Gimli, Bilbo, Theoden, Denethor, as well as various other Elves and Dwarves could show up. Hell, if there is anything about Glorfindel in there that can be linked to Aragorn's time in Rivendell throw that in there to appease some of the hardcore fans. Throw in Elladan and Elrohir as well. They're simple, just have them heading out on an Orc hunt (since what happened to their mom) as Aragorn is showing up with Gollum.

  • July 30, 2012, 2:46 p.m. CST

    WB registered two domains with possible titles

    by martinprince

    RIDDLES IN THE DARK and THE DESOLATION OF SMAUG

  • July 30, 2012, 2:48 p.m. CST

    Three films make sense...(spoilers)

    by JAGUART

    The first film will set up Bilbo and the dwarves, establishing the characters and running The Party through Rivendell, Mirkwood, Beorn, Burt, Tom & Bill, Goblin Town, etc. The second film will deal with the town of Dale, The Lonely Mountain with Smaug a la Gollum in the Two Towers. The third film will feature Bard the Bowman, and The Battle of Five Armies a la Battle of Pelennor Fields in the Return of the King.

  • So there's that.

  • July 30, 2012, 2:54 p.m. CST

    I agree with @franks_television (and others?) that with

    by Brian Hopper

    three movies there are now three natural ending points for each... Movie 1: Mirkwood (spider fight). Movie 2: Smaug (climaxing with Smaug's demise) Movie 3: back to Bag End with climactic Battle of Five Armies. Now there's little doubt they will amp up the Battle of Five Armies in a major way. This additional material doesn't have to come at the end in the last movie... I could see them weaving stuff in throughout all 3 movies. Is there greed here in making this 3 movies? Sure. These people aren't idiots. Each of these is a billion dollar+ movie, so they'd be leaving a huge amount of money on the table if they didn't make it three movies. But I'm sold... the footage thus far looks cool. It's like with LOTR: they are making these movies ONE TIME, so they might as well go all out. I'm happy this will be 3 movies and I can totally see it.

  • July 30, 2012, 2:59 p.m. CST

    interesting, senor_spielbergo

    by frank

    The Desolation of Smaug Makes sense for the second movie, I think, even though I am not sure I particularly like it. But surely the Riddles in the Dark stuff will be in the first movie, which I imagine would still be called An Unexpected Journey.

  • July 30, 2012, 3:05 p.m. CST

    Riddles in the Dark has to be a decoy

    by D.Vader

    It makes no sense.

  • July 30, 2012, 3:06 p.m. CST

    calm down, they already did this with the extended LOTR movies...

    by yodasteve

    what pj has done is what he did with the lotr movies. think about how long the extended cuts of the movies were. In reality those three extended movies could have been cut up into 4 or maybe 5 feature lenght movies. Same thing here: They always knew they were adding in a lot beyond the hobbit book, so two films was a given. With the amount of detail in the screen play, it is easy to see there is 3 films worth of material. We are just getting to see the extended edition as the theatrical realease instead of two bloated extended cuts of the movies. the challenge is where and how to end each movie. The material was all there. it was just a question of do we see it all in the theatres or have to wait for special edition blu rays.

  • July 30, 2012, 3:07 p.m. CST

    I don't understand the crying....

    by Magic01273

    it would be naiive to think that the commercial side of this wasn't a factor BUT 1) This material is worth expanding. Tolkiens books are beautiful and overall Pete Jackson and the team did a wonderful job on LOTR. The LOTR trilogy stands as one of the best literary adaptations of modern film (despite what the cool kids around here would have you believe) and there is NO reason to believe these will not be the high quality films we hope they'll be. 2) The Hobbit is not a thin story. At times, even the book arguably feels like an abridged version of itself story-wise, with several major story elements referenced in the briefest of terms and barely expanded on at all. These movies are a fantastic opportunity to expand greatly on some of the plot points the book brushes over in just a few words/paragraphs. There is a wealth of material here, a ton of story that is hardly told in The Hobbit, that will be wonderful to see fully depicted in the movies. 3) In addition to expanding the story to fully realise plot elements from the book, you then have content pulled in from the appendices, again representing a lot of threads and stories taking place around the same time, that myself and many fans are clambering to see. There is plently here for 3 good movies. Looking at this project as just a straightforward page-to-screen adaptation of a single book is ridiculous and ignores everything we've been told about what they are doing with the source material - AND all the additional material that exists.

  • July 30, 2012, 3:11 p.m. CST

    titles

    by frank

    Yeah, I don’t see how Riddles in the Dark works as a title for any of the movies. For the second one I like 'On The Dragon’s Doorstep,’ maybe, since it is also a play on a chapter title. 'Desolation of Smaug' sounds too dark and menacing to fit in with 'An Unexpected Journey' and 'There and Back Again.'

  • July 30, 2012, 3:30 p.m. CST

    HOBBIT 3 : HOBBIT HARDER

    by Kai_Mah'gra

  • July 30, 2012, 3:31 p.m. CST

    H3 : HOBBITS UNITED

    by Kai_Mah'gra

  • July 30, 2012, 3:31 p.m. CST

    Could work

    by Nearside

    Three tightly edited 90 minute movies? It'd be a pleasure to watch those back-to-back.

  • July 30, 2012, 3:32 p.m. CST

    HOBBIT 3 : HOBB(IT) WITH A SHOTGUN!!!!

    by Kai_Mah'gra

  • July 30, 2012, 3:33 p.m. CST

    HOBBIT 3 : REVENGE OF THE SITH, THE FALLEN AND THE NERDS

    by Kai_Mah'gra

  • July 30, 2012, 3:34 p.m. CST

    HOBBIT 3 : I AM NUMBER 3

    by Kai_Mah'gra

  • July 30, 2012, 3:35 p.m. CST

    HOBBIT 3 : THE HOBBIT RISES

    by Kai_Mah'gra

  • July 30, 2012, 3:36 p.m. CST

    HOBBIT 3 : HOBBITS ASSEMBLE!!!!

    by Kai_Mah'gra

  • July 30, 2012, 3:36 p.m. CST

    Milking a Hobbit?

    by earlfist

    Seriously think they are missing the point. The Hobbit is a pretty basic tale and that is its charm... Although Jackson has never made a bad film.

  • July 30, 2012, 3:37 p.m. CST

    HOBBIT 3 : BILBO BAGGINS OF THE SHIRE

    by Kai_Mah'gra

  • July 30, 2012, 3:37 p.m. CST

    HOBBIT 3 : THE AMAZING HOBBIT - THE UNTOLD STORY

    by Kai_Mah'gra

  • July 30, 2012, 3:39 p.m. CST

    HOBBIT 3 : HOBBIT FOREVER

    by Kai_Mah'gra

  • July 30, 2012, 3:40 p.m. CST

    300 pages

    by glenn_the_frog

    1 page a minute equals 300 minutes equals 5 hours. The unabridged audiobook takes 11 hours. Even condensing scenery descriptions into visuals, its a dense book. Even before you get to the expanded appendicies material, there's a TON there to make a full blown adaptation of 6 hours. Movies usually trim lengthy books down to 2 hours because... they have to. Cut scenes, trim dialogue, condense with visuals taking less time to show than to describe... but there's usually cuts. Hobbit as a series of short mini-adventures lends itself better to breaking apart and expanding. And anyone that says the Rankin Bass version did everything, either hasn't watched it recently, or has never actually read the books. It covered a large chunk of the material, but it left out things like Beorn, the Arkenstone, and The Elvenking's feast. not to mention the battle of the five armies is a view of dots on a map that takes about 10 seconds.

  • July 30, 2012, 3:41 p.m. CST

    HOBBIT 3 : ELECTRIC BILBOLOO

    by Kai_Mah'gra

  • July 30, 2012, 3:41 p.m. CST

    HOBBIT 3 : ANOTHER 48 ENDINGS

    by Kai_Mah'gra

  • July 30, 2012, 3:42 p.m. CST

    Political Assassination should be SAFE and LEGAL

    by goatherdingclownhunter

  • July 30, 2012, 3:42 p.m. CST

    Drunk driving should be SAFE AND LEGAL

    by goatherdingclownhunter

  • July 30, 2012, 3:42 p.m. CST

    WE CAN'T HUG OUR CHILDREN WITH NUCLEAR ARMS

    by goatherdingclownhunter

  • July 30, 2012, 3:44 p.m. CST

    I need a new pair of pants!!!!

    by BilboRing

    OOOOOOHHHHHHHH!!!!!! Shit. Did it again. Need to clean off my screen now. Great news!!! Hasn't been a good movie worth a shit since Return of the King!!!!

  • his politics are anyone's guess. In the future I'll be changing my password often to avoid further incidents.

  • July 30, 2012, 3:55 p.m. CST

    Hobbit $$$

    by awavey

    its motivated by money PJ gets 3 opening weekend bites instead of 2, thats 180million on TDKR box office type take, I dont doubt that 2 films would be bloated, but that doesnt mean it requires 3 films, it means PJ is falling into bad habits again RotK was bloated and paced badly, King Kong was a total snooze fest, film 101 says cut. less is more the hobbit is a simple story, you chuck in all this other stuff thats happening that may well be about the richness of Middle Earth (hint thats why Tolkiens books appeal) it doesnt mean the Hobbit story which is actually simple and straightforward needs it

  • July 30, 2012, 3:56 p.m. CST

    This is great

    by Rick

    There is so much more to the story. They'll be able to into the nearly forgotten storyline where Bilbo got cancer on his quest and turned to making crystal meth to support his family.

  • July 30, 2012, 3:56 p.m. CST

    Lots more movies

    by jeffrey mckeage

    The summer 14 date indicates to me that there will not be much more shooting for this. I now expect a couple movies from the Appendixes. Maybe Guilermo doing Balin/Moria and Andy doing Arwen/Aragorn with extra attention to Hunt for Gollum. If the franchise is still making money Then PJ can do some 'After the Ring' xmas special. By which point, Christopher Tolkien will be hanging with Mandos, and the remaining scions will be unable to resist the Billion-Dollar allure of selling the rest of the legendarium. After 4-5 Silmarillion films .... reboots

  • July 30, 2012, 3:57 p.m. CST

    Riddles will be 2nd Film

    by iluvsyfy

    I am willing to say, "Riddles in the Dark" will become the title of the second film and "There and Back Again" will now be the third film title.

  • July 30, 2012, 4 p.m. CST

    More than enough for 3 and PJ's LOTR Problems

    by scott_650

    I've been pondering for months how PJ was going to do The Hobbit in 2 movies - the spider battle and capture of the Company by the Wood Elves is an obvious end for the first installment, then you have the destruction of Smaug AND the Battle of 5 Armies in the second movies while including the attack on Dol Guldur AND Bilbo arriving home? Adding additional material from the LOTR's appendix - like the Dwarves v. Orcs in Moria for instance, or a flashback to Smaug's attack on the Lonely Mountain - will easily round out three movies. As far as the idea of being a "cash grab" - gee, what a shock, a money making enterprise wants to - oh the horror! - make money by spreading the risk over three separate films. Now, the problems with Jackson's LOTR are many and some are much worse than others. The injection of "coarse" humor didn't bother me much - though the hobbits being surprised that beer comes in pints always struck me as a bit silly. Not including Bombadil is a no-brainer - as much as I enjoy reading that part of LOTR there's no way that was going to work inside a movie narrative. It would've brought the whole first movie to a screeching halt. No, the bigger problems were the changes in characters - Aragorn being transformed into a reluctant post-modern pseudo anti-hero, Faramir dragging Frodo and Sam back to Gondor (yeah, I know, the EC shows his motivation - still dreadful), infantilizing the Ents - they're the oldest, wisest living creatures in Middle Earth for heaven's sake, not comic relief!, t

  • July 30, 2012, 4 p.m. CST

    Lucas you cocksucker, these prequels already shit on yours!!!

    by BilboRing

    Just like the LOTR Trilogy kicks the shit out of your "SPECIAL EDITION" original trilogy!!!

  • July 30, 2012, 4:04 p.m. CST

    Cynics go find something constructive to do

    by stvnhthr

    This is awesome news. How come cynics can learn to type but not think? Go Peter go!

  • July 30, 2012, 4:05 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Conspiracy already made the point that the principal actors have already moved on to other movies. I guarantee that the amount of extra footage required for this is minimal. Read what Jackson says. He mentions the dwarves of erebor. This wouldn't require any of the cast to return, but as Vader and franks have suggested it could be a very powerful and effective flashback. Jackson is certainly known to use flashbacks, rotk opens with one. He also mentions the rise of the necromancer. Again this wouldn't require the cast and perhaps might be similar to those scenes of Uruk hai being born and barad dur being built. The third thing he mentions is the battle of dol guldur, and again this could just be beefing up what he already has filmed, using cg. I wouldn't be surprised if the new footage he plans to shoot amounts to more than 20 mins. The rest of the footage for the third film being stuff once intended for the extended editions.

  • July 30, 2012, 4:07 p.m. CST

    Weird that the third movie is going to be a summer release.

    by frank

    Looks like the first two are still on schedule for Decembers 2012 and 2013, but the 4th is summer 2014. I’d prefer to wait for December on that one too, as these feel very much like holiday/winter movies to me. Oh well. At least the first one is still on schedule.

  • July 30, 2012, 4:11 p.m. CST

    scott_650, you have been pondering for months?

    by BilboRing

    Get a fucking life, faggot! PJ will own the cinema world! How can there even be any fucking haters out there? Star Wars prequel faggots HOPING that something else will suck as huge as their Lucas abortions? ROTFLMFAOAPOAOYSA!!!!

  • "Hobbit 3: the search for more money." Now with the narrative drama wrapping up at 2 hrs in and the movie actually ending at 3 hrs and 15 minutes!

  • I predict a slow motion shot of Gladirel writing on a scroll "ONE. RING. TO. RULE. THEM. ALL." which will take about 3 minutes.

  • July 30, 2012, 4:17 p.m. CST

    ^ Extended edition, extra 5 minutes

    by Al

    Oy.

  • Sure worked for Dark Knight Rises where Batman lies about the fucking autopilot to nobody. Trust! in epic stories. Great idea.

  • July 30, 2012, 4:19 p.m. CST

    Seriously, why did Batman lie about the autopilot?

    by Al

    Maybe Jackson will throw that answer into the 40 minute fucking ending of Hobbit 3.

  • July 30, 2012, 4:23 p.m. CST

    The Ho33it: There and Back Again One More Time

    by hank henshaw

  • July 30, 2012, 4:23 p.m. CST

    I WISH THEY HAD DECIDED THIS DURING PRE-PRODUCTION

    by Mullah Omar

    But this seems like a monumental change to make at this point. This is a big gamble and I am afraid they are risking putting out 3 weak films rather than 2 strong films. Good luck PJ, I hope this is easier than it seems.

  • July 30, 2012, 4:24 p.m. CST

    The Hobbit III: The Hobbit II Part 2

    by hank henshaw

  • July 30, 2012, 4:26 p.m. CST

    Gangster Squad already costed them dearly knuckleduster

    by Kyle DeMattio

    Thanks to that asshole who shot up that theater in Colorado, The Dark Knight Rises dropped 60-70 percent in the Box Office, along with the Olympics of course. Not to mention Ruben Fleischer got forced to redo the end of Gangster Squad because of what happened.

  • July 30, 2012, 4:26 p.m. CST

    kildeer1 is a retard.

    by DocPazuzu

    In the last Hobbit talkback he was going on and on about how World of Warcraft is a deep and profound fantasy world and not at all derivative. I shit you not. Look it up.

  • July 30, 2012, 4:29 p.m. CST

    Hobbit 3 Title

    by theFUZZ008

    http://afterthecut.com/2012/07/30/and-the-third-hobbit-film-could-be-called/

  • July 30, 2012, 4:36 p.m. CST

    Slightly premature...

    by hotairballoons

    Maybe we can all have an opinion about the trilogy once we've seen it. Until then, continue to speculate about a set of films you've yet to watch.

  • July 30, 2012, 4:40 p.m. CST

    I like WarCraft and all, but "not at all derivative"? LOL.

    by hank henshaw

    I bet even Chris Metzen and Samwise Didier would laugh their asses off from such a statement. Btw, a Warcraft movie is a bad idea. From what I've heard they don't want any of the "main characters" to be showcased in the movie, just some random adventurers doing a quest in Azeroth... so, like the Dungeons and Dragons movie with Marlon Wayans? Eww.

  • Hobbit 3, Part II?

  • ...but having to sit through a year between each one will be shit.

  • July 30, 2012, 4:51 p.m. CST

    Batman autopilot? He lies because

    by Emerald Snoggingbottom

    HE WANTS EVERYONE TO THINK HE'S DEAD.

  • July 30, 2012, 4:53 p.m. CST

    6 months after Hobbit Part I, Part 2, that is.

    by Emerald Snoggingbottom

  • July 30, 2012, 4:56 p.m. CST

    by Keith

    I assume that a lot of the middle movie is going to be appendix stuff, with a major chunk focusing on the istari booting Sauron out of Mirkwood. In other words, when Gandalf disappears from the fellowship at the edge of Mirkwood in the book, we're actually going to see the whole of his fight against the 'necromancer', with Saruman, Radagast etc. Plus no doubt a whole load of other bolted-on shit. These movies are going to be 'The Hobbit plus other Tolkien Stuff', rather than merely being The Hobbit.

  • July 30, 2012, 5:01 p.m. CST

    excellent!

    by taff

    My only concern; The Two Towers was, for me, not a very good movie. My remark after seeing it twice, "Never have I been so disappointed by such a high quality movie." BUT, at the urging of a friend, I watched the extended DVD and found it a much better movie. So...since I love The Hobbit, the book, more than I love LOTR, the books, perhaps, perhaps, I'll love all three of these, even in their original theatrical releases! Looking forward to it, and yes, I will be there opening day like I was for all three LOTR's. Cannot attend midnight showings anymore. At 60, they wreck the next day!

  • July 30, 2012, 5:01 p.m. CST

    Ugh, terrible news

    by rev_skarekroe

    Jackson has no ability to be subtle whatsoever. One three hour movie would be fine to do The Hobbit. Now it's going to be three bloated monstrosities consisting of 66% shit he and his girlfriends made up because just adapting Tolkien isn't good enough for them.

  • July 30, 2012, 5:03 p.m. CST

    No more ideas PJ?

    by Kevin

    I thought so,....ho hum.

  • July 30, 2012, 5:04 p.m. CST

    Ultratron are you serious?

    by D.Vader

    That's hilarious, if true.

  • July 30, 2012, 5:05 p.m. CST

    2 solid movies

    by gonkdroid

  • July 30, 2012, 5:06 p.m. CST

    are far better

    by gonkdroid

  • July 30, 2012, 5:07 p.m. CST

    than three drawn out.

    by gonkdroid

    you know it's true.

  • July 30, 2012, 5:08 p.m. CST

    kildeer1

    by DocPazuzu

    Now why would I do that?

  • July 30, 2012, 5:08 p.m. CST

    This is just like the argument from two years ago

    by D.Vader

    "The Hobbit as two movies? WHAT THE FUCK?!?!"

  • July 30, 2012, 5:09 p.m. CST

    I don’t really like those rumored titles.

    by frank

    Riddles doesn’t make sense and Desolation is too... desolate.

  • July 30, 2012, 5:11 p.m. CST

    That would make sense about Ultratron.

    by frank

    I was surprised when he said before that he was fifteen. You never know with Ultratron, though.

  • July 30, 2012, 5:22 p.m. CST

    what a bunch of whiny bitches!

    by gringostar

    Nothing is ever good enough for you lot. I for one am looking forward to this.

  • July 30, 2012, 5:26 p.m. CST

    SHIT YES!

    by Cideous

    whooohooooooo!

  • July 30, 2012, 5:27 p.m. CST

    I bet New Line is kicking themselves...

    by GeorgieBoy

    Damn, why didn't we make the trilogy of Lord of the Rings into *NINE* movies?!?!?!?!!

  • July 30, 2012, 5:35 p.m. CST

    Re: I don’t really like those rumored titles.

    by Nautilus_nrm1

    I couldn't agree more. There needs to be a Tolkienesque title, not something that George Lucas called in to Weta. The phrase "Middle Earth" should be in there somewhere... I don't know... someone more versed in Tolkien than I could come up with a better title for a third film. I'm not opposed to "There and back again... parts one, two, and three" being the titles.

  • You guys can waste your time with the other two. I'll be home happily masturbating.

  • July 30, 2012, 5:37 p.m. CST

    Cool, cool. Ok, I'll go with this, just DON'T FUCK IT UP guys.

    by Aiden Blackwell

  • July 30, 2012, 5:38 p.m. CST

    Once Peter Jackson is done in middle earth

    by mooli_mooli

    ... He should take on Thomas Covenant.

  • July 30, 2012, 5:43 p.m. CST

    kildeer1

    by DocPazuzu

    The sad thing is that Sam Raimi officially announced that he is not going to direct the World of Warcraft movie because Blizzard replaced him after he went to make the OZ movie. so instead of a NEW,ORIGINAL,high fantasy masterpiece,we are left with Peter Jackson's,made to get more coke and whores,movies.

  • July 30, 2012, 5:45 p.m. CST

    addendum:

    by DocPazuzu

    My previous post was in quotes, kildeer1's quotes to be precise. Unfortunately, AICN's fucked up website erased the quotation marks and my comment.

  • July 30, 2012, 5:46 p.m. CST

    The Hobbit will be stretched over 3, no bridge movie

    by Cade

  • Besides the appendices, I think they'll expound upon their own ideas and newly-created characters. There's just not quite enough, even with sprinkling in all that other stuff that took place simultaneously, to make 3 (I'm sure) long films. But I completely trust PJ and crew. They've yet to disappoint with Tolkien's work and I do not think it's a greed thing at all.

  • July 30, 2012, 6:03 p.m. CST

    And you fuckers thought Lucas was a money grubbing whore?

    by Nerdgasm

    Looks like he just got toppled off his throne by the upstart Jackson!

  • July 30, 2012, 6:09 p.m. CST

    Just a shame my 5 year old wont be able to see it...

    by voxmortis

    I'll probably love it though! Darker is not always better. You've got to have a screw loose to take a kid to TDKR, even Spidey wasn't a kiddie film.

  • July 30, 2012, 6:10 p.m. CST

    Peter Jackson comes through for the fans ONCE AGAIN!!!

    by peter

  • July 30, 2012, 6:11 p.m. CST

    Maybe some french cries with your Wammburger!!

    by peter

  • July 30, 2012, 6:11 p.m. CST

    YOU ROCK PJ!!!!!! Best news today.

    by peter

  • THE HOBBIT - All day and all night. New Zealand is bringing the Tolkien fix. And MNG gotta have some.

  • July 30, 2012, 6:26 p.m. CST

    You're late, Cotton.

    by DocPazuzu

    It's way past Troll o'clock.

  • July 30, 2012, 6:42 p.m. CST

    Minorities

    by Fineus Fog

    Hey Cotton, having worked on the crew, youll be pleased to know there are Maori, Pacific Islanders, Asians and many other "minorities" who worked on this film . New Zealand is a multicultural country you dipshit So go jump on a pole

  • July 30, 2012, 6:44 p.m. CST

    Jackson is more Lucas now than man...

    by DougMcKenzie

    Wicked and corrupt, twisted and evil.

  • July 30, 2012, 6:46 p.m. CST

    They're going to spread these out by packing in more...

    by DougMcKenzie

    of Phillipa Boyens' female empowerment characters. Won't that be charming?

  • July 30, 2012, 6:59 p.m. CST

    Mixed feelings

    by SnukesofHazzard

    Or course I would like to see as much Tolkien universe as possible on the big screen but sometimes stuff needs to be condensed for the sake of making great movies. I don't think Deathly Hallows needed 2 movies, part 1 was extremely boring, it felt so drawn out, sure it meant more of the book made it to the big screen but was it really needed? I think Hallows could of been done justice with one 3 hour movie to be honest. If PJ is mining other materials which he is a he can take it all and make 3 awesome movies I'm all for it. If we get 3 kinda of boring Hobbit movies with unneeded filler instead of 2 awesome tightly constructed Hobbit movies I'm gonna be pissed.

  • July 30, 2012, 7:04 p.m. CST

    Cotten_McKnight is a racist and should be ashamed of himself.

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    His Troll-Fu is weak and is operating well below the optimum self-sufficiency required for such sustained campaigns of infantile blowhardiness and phony racial indignation. His chosen brand of slander is merely a man-child's attempt to achieve a chubby worth looking at as he types away, furiously trying to legitimize his self-worth via an overplayed racist trope. Shame on you, Cotton. Shame, I say! SHAME ON YOU! SHAME ON YOU! SHAME ON YOU!!!

  • July 30, 2012, 7:06 p.m. CST

    Think about it.

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

  • July 30, 2012, 7:13 p.m. CST

    This actually makes me less excited about seeing it.

    by XJDavid

    "King Kong" was a great hour-and-a-half, dragged out over 3 hours. I'm afraid "The Hobbit" is becoming the same kind of bloated mess. More is not always better.

  • July 30, 2012, 7:19 p.m. CST

    I'm thinking about it

    by WINONA_RYDERS_PUSSY_JUICE

    Why isn't there a black midget actor portraying a black dwarf? Some dwarf with epic ornament-decorated corn-rows and bling in his grill. Who drinks mead out of a jewel encrusted chalice. Who's all like yo Gandalf let's hop to the shire on your ride and smoke some of 'dat Hobbit chronic, yo! Black midgets gotta eat!

  • July 30, 2012, 7:22 p.m. CST

    The verdict...Death by exile.

    by adeceasedfan

    Oh The Hobbit? Sure. The more Hobbitses, the Meriadoc...umm, merrier.

  • My gut reaction is no.

  • July 30, 2012, 7:43 p.m. CST

    I'd guess three 2.5 hour movies

    by iamdavebowers

    So only a bonus of 1.5 extra hours and an additional ticket. Sadly, I've not heard a single word from PJ stating The Hobbit had 3 films of story in it. PJ was always about the world, never the story.

  • July 30, 2012, 7:44 p.m. CST

    SUV owners are dicks.

    by Uncle Stan

    http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/07/the-science-of-roadkill-.html

  • July 30, 2012, 7:45 p.m. CST

    Never satisfied!

    by Rickie

    The more Hobbit the better! Some of you nerd turds will find anything to complain about.

  • July 30, 2012, 7:46 p.m. CST

    RE:"the questions remains is this necessary" - of course not

    by Dreamwriter

    If it was necessary the content would have been in the movie to start. It's just that when Peter Jackson finished filming, he thought the film would be a lot better with some extra scenes that he couldn't film, but really wanted to. And when he discussed what to do about that with the studio, if he could do that as an extended edition or special features or what, they of course said "DO IT! WE'LL MAKE A THIRD MOVIE, $$$$$!!!!!"

  • July 30, 2012, 8:07 p.m. CST

    It's never too late to digitally insert an African-American hobbit....

    by Darth_Inedible

    J-Bag could be the first fully CG motion captured hobbit and Ahmed Best could do the voice... "Yo' is this shit fer-real Gandalf?"

  • July 30, 2012, 8:15 p.m. CST

    bring em on

    by IndianaPeach

    three reasons to drink heavily you haters

  • July 30, 2012, 8:16 p.m. CST

    Cotton Troll...No Dark Dwarves=Fucking Evolution.

    by conspiracy

    You put any ethnicity in a subterranean environment, over the course of a few hundred generations, and you'll get an ethnicity that will be uniformly lighter in pigment due to adaptation. In fact the Dwarves are probably not white enough given their lack of exposure to natural sunlight. Those fucks should look like Cave Salamanders. Since there are no "hot" or tropical environments in Tolkiens Middle Earth (Mostly European like woodlands and mountains)...there can't be any dark skinned Populations in those areas that are in the stories. Just as there ain't no dark skinned ethnic Swedes...there can't be any dark skinned Dwarves or Elves in the populations represented in these stories. It ain't racism...it's just fucking science.

  • July 30, 2012, 8:24 p.m. CST

    Umm darth. A black Hobbit would be neither African or American.

    by death metal batman

  • Aragorn is a young man during The Hobbit, and the bridge movie could go anywhere with that story. He is descended from Elendil, who in turn descended from Elros first king of Numenor. Elrond is Elros' twin brother. When Aragorn was 20, Elrond told him of his lineage and gave Aragorn the Ring of Barahir, handed down from the First Age and Elros' time. This is the ring on Aragorn's finger in the movies, and is how Saruman identifies him. I doubt they can show the origin of the Ring of Barahir - all Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales stuff. Finrod gave it to Barahir for saving his life at the Dagor Graollach. It was forged in Valinor by Finrod, and was the oldest artifact in M.E. The Star of Elendil (not the phial in the movie), and Scepter of Annuminas also weren't mentioned in the LOTR movies so I imagine they won't be here either. Also can't show the downfall of Numenor itself I bet. There is White Council/Saruman drama, Necromancer migrating to from Dol Goldur to Mordor, flashback to Arnor, flashback to Battle of Fornost (where Gorfindel prophesied the Witch-king would not fall "by the hand of man"). Explaining the back stories that are allowed to be told to jive with the LOTR movie intros of people, places and things we see would itself be a movie. Now, how much of this they can allude to, show, or mention names of is up is the big question, depending on the Tolkien Estate nosing in to ensure nothing beyond the Hobbit, LOTR and Appendices is used. Clearly P.J. already knows what he would include in a third movie, and it must be significant to confirm a 3rd movie this quickly.

  • July 30, 2012, 8:37 p.m. CST

    Wrong Death-Metal, a black hobbit can be whatever PJ wants him to be

    by Darth_Inedible

    I mean he's just making stuff up at that point so why not create J-Bag the CG comedy relief hobbit? Other than skin color he'd look just like the other hobbits except he'd have cornrows, his pants would ride a little lower and he'd have an unquenchable penchant for stepping in goblin poop.

  • July 30, 2012, 8:39 p.m. CST

    How many movies would you justify?

    by iamdavebowers

    Honest question. All those justifying the third movie - At what point would you honestly start saying 'doing it for the money'. It's not like there's a lack of material that he couldn't do 10. So at what point do you say, "this isn't right?"

  • July 30, 2012, 8:47 p.m. CST

    not gonna touch that one. sorry mate.

    by death metal batman

  • July 30, 2012, 8:55 p.m. CST

    The Fast and The Hobbit: Middle Earth Drift

    by Kakii

  • Yeah the movies weren't about that either.

  • Weird, I thought that's what the movies were about too.

  • July 30, 2012, 9:10 p.m. CST

    You guys who want just one 90 minute Hobbit movie

    by frank

    can always make your own fan edits and cut out all of the awesome, i mean superfluous, stuff like Gandalf and the White Council casting Sauron out of Dol Guldur. Or someone else will probably do it for you, and you can bittorrent it and stick it to Peter Jackson, who will doubtless spiral into a deep depression over the loss of his beloved money, which is of course the only reason he ever got into filmmaking in the first place. As for myself, being feeble minded I fear that I will be suckered into seeing all three of these multiple times in the theaters and not even realizing what a terrible time I am having.

  • July 30, 2012, 9:13 p.m. CST

    Sure, the dwarf tossing and whatnot was stupid,

    by frank

    but that kind of stuff probably made up about 0.02% of the running time of those movies. Just do like I do and hum quietly to yourself while looking at the ceiling while Legolas slides down the elephant. By the time you look back at the screen, something awesome will be there again.

  • July 30, 2012, 9:15 p.m. CST

    So what might be added? (Spoilers)

    by The_Red_Avenger

    Been thinking about this and this is what I've come up with: Definitely 1, The White Council (Saruman, Galadriel and Radagast all in the films) 2,Dol Guldur (definitely appears where Gandalf finds Thrain - couple with the White Council then the battle should be on screen) 3, The sacking of Dale by Smaug (Mentioned only briefly in the books but the Last production diary shows they built a set for the City) Probable 1, The battle of Ananulzibar - (Thror goes to Mora and is killed, before he goes he gives Thrain the map and Key, The dwarves try to take back Moria. Azog the Orc leads the orcs. Dain Ironfoot won the battle by killing Azog£ Azog has been cast - Conan Stevens is playing him. 2, Dain Ironfoot rallies the dwarves to come to Thorin's aid. I can totally see this. Wishful thinking 1, If it's a bridge film then follow Gollum from his coming out of the misty mountains - all the way to Mordor, his release, his meeting with Shelob, his subsequent capture by Aragorn, his imprisonment with the Elves of Mirkwood, his escape and his coming across the Company in Moria. 2, Balin's I'll-fated attempt to take back Moria. 3, Sauron's forces taking Minas Ithil and destroying Osgiliath. Thus the renaming of Minid Anor to Tirith and Ithil to Morgul. Looking at this lot there is definitely enough for another movie. There's loads more too.

  • If we are talking about making movies of other Tolkien stories, the more the merrier. Always assuming the movies are good, of course.

  • July 30, 2012, 9:18 p.m. CST

    Hobbit 3: Padding This Thing Out As Far As It Will Go: 3D

    by Gary Makin

  • Or maybe David Fincher. They are both good with tragedy, although they might think they are above doing fantasy.

  • But thank you for being some of the few informed posters as to what can be included. I'm tired of reading posts by the ridiculously ignorant. They have no idea how big and encompassing these films could be.

  • I need to read the book again to get the details back in my mind, but just glossing over the simplified plot synopses from Wiki, the Hobbit is practically perfect for 3 movies. As another poster perfectly put it: The journey. Smaug. The battle of Five Armies. It almost seems silly that they didn't do this in the first place. Add to the fact that they're using Tolkiens appendices (Can't wait for the extra Gandolf storyline) and you definitely have enough for 3 movies. I loved the books and Jacksons LOTR movies, and while I've tried to keep my excitement at bay towards the Hobbit, now I'm simply dying to see what he does.

  • July 30, 2012, 9:57 p.m. CST

    by The_Red_Avenger

    Maybe not a bridge movie but some of it could be bridged. Especially Gollum. I think the Gondor stuff happened before the events of the Hobbit. As did the sacking of Dale and Battle of Ananulzibar - the Dol Guldur stuff happens at the same time as the Dwarves travelling through Mirkwood upto the dispute over the Gold. Balin's journey to Moria is after tho. I'm sure it could be fitted in somehow. I don't think there is enough material to split the events from Laketown to the return of Bilbo to last two movies and that includes White Council and Dol Guldur. Other stuff will have to be in there. But thanks for the kind words.

  • I would imagine the first movie ends with Dol Guldur, the second with Smaug, and the third with the battle of the 5 armies in the middle/end with a bridge to round it off.

  • July 30, 2012, 10:19 p.m. CST

    Give us a Galadriel erotic film.

    by Dennis_Moore

  • Will the third movie be thoroughly enjoyable? Abso-floggin-lutley!!!

  • I wouldn’t be surprised if they gave him small bits in the second and third movies in addition to his big scene in the first.

  • They did a really good job with Moria, but then screwed up Shelob’s cave. Gollum’s cave looked too bright in the preview, but I will wait to see the finished product before passing judgement there.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:02 p.m. CST

    I've already decided to skip these films

    by brobdingnag

    There being sketchy details about events that happened during the time period of the events in the Hobbit do not a film make. There isn't a "wealth" of material. There are a few paragraphs and a timeline. That's pretty much it. I might be willing if this had been the plan all along but it wasn't. This has nothing to do with the story and everything to do with doing whatever it takes to milk as much money out of Tolkien's corpse as possible. These films will be Jackson's Star Wars prequels.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:03 p.m. CST

    I'm a quality over quantity kinda guy

    by Winston Smith

    I think this is a bad idea, since it WASN'T PLANNED FROM THE START. Did you guys not see King Kong??? More isn't always better. I'd rather two great films than three uneven films. I sure hope their original construction of the film was well thought out, or the pacing's gonna be as fucked as Kong (a movie that I really did like, it just needed about an hour trimmed and 20 minutes added on).

  • July 30, 2012, 11:14 p.m. CST

    I'm worried

    by Seth_Isurus

    It looks like Jackson and co are going to play very fast and loose with the original story. This can only be a bad thing. They've already admitted to adding a female elf who accompanies them on the quest. Hell, even LotR refrained from adding Eowyn or Arwen to the fellowship, even though it would have been more easily justified. As it stands, they're creating a completely new character to 'improve' one of the best novels of all time. Hmm. I'm also wary of how the inclusion of the old cast will affect the story -- I highly doubt Gollum will be kept to just a 'riddles in the dark' cameo, for instance. Things don't bode well.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:18 p.m. CST

    Cash grab - not impressed.

    by BiggusDickus

    There is nowhere near enough material in 'The Hobbit' for a trilogy. Hell, even two films is pushing it! There's two and a half hours in this tale, tops. It's a kids book - albeit a very good one - and if Jackson is thinking of stretching it out for another successful nine hour saga, he is grossly deluded.

  • July 30, 2012, 11:33 p.m. CST

    Unnecessary Money Grab

    by Hive Mind

    If Jackson took out all of the extra shit he added to this story, I'm sure he could 'tell all of Bilbo's tales' in 2 movies.

  • She is the head of the Thranduil’s guard. She would likely appear as one of the dwarves’ captors in the first movie and then would probably show up again in the third for the run up to the Battle of 5 Armies. She’ll probably have something to do in the second film as well, but presumably she will be the dwarves’ enemy for most of her screen time. There are elven characters in the book. It makes sense and is in fact pretty much a necessity for them to flesh some of those characters out. They just gave one of them a name and cast Evangeline Lilly to play her. I don’t see the problem there. Maybe the character will suck but we have no evidence for that as of yet.

  • July 31, 2012, 12:10 a.m. CST

    Have Faith in Peter Jackson

    by Sirius_crack

    He has deserved it!!!!!

  • July 31, 2012, 12:36 a.m. CST

    These are interesting developments...

    by WeylandYutani

    It looks like the adaptation of the Hobbit was once a single film based on a moderately sized young/adult novel... then a two film series due to Tolkien's characteristically dense writing style... then a trilogy that is loosely based on the Hobbit and other works by Tolkien. I can't see this trilogy being based on just the Hobbit. It has been many years since I read it in high school, but I can't believe that the novel can sustain three films on its own. I am an armchair fan of Tolkien's. I have read the Hobbit, the Rings and the Silmarillion and I have a few art books but that is about it. From my limited knowledge of Middle Earth, I'd say that PJ did an excellent job with the material and translating it visually. It is a testament to Tolkien's superior story telling skills as well... Some great novels do not make good films and some terrible novels make classic cinema. I was glad to see that PJ et al let Tolkien's genius shine through. However, I do think that Jackson has a habit of over stuffing his films. I think King Kong is an example of this issue. So, in the end, my hope is that we get three more well crafted, and well balanced, Middle Earth films. But my fear is that PJ will offer us an bloated mess. I am pleased that he eventually decided to helm the Hobbit series and not just produce, I just hope that Jackson is using his best editorial eye and not his self indulgent one.

  • July 31, 2012, 12:36 a.m. CST

    If these films are critically successful...

    by Chris Moody

    ...I suspect that, in three years, a large number of TBers will act like they always knew these films would be great. I remember the TBs back when THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING spoilers were being posted. While there were as many loud mouths back then on AICN, there were a few who whined about the films even before they watched them. Thankfully, we can ignore the naysayers who think that they are right, everyone else is wrong so no discussion is necessary. It is a shame that they can't even wait for the rationale from Peter Jackson to pass a judgment.

  • July 31, 2012, 12:37 a.m. CST

    Six films from the LOTR universe...?

    by Fett8802

    ...Peter Jackson didn't film that.

  • July 31, 2012, 12:42 a.m. CST

    Aren't most big money productions...

    by Chris Moody

    ..."cash grabs?" Obviously, Hollywood is big business. They are in it for the money. Any producer that says that he is in it for the art is lying...even if there are a few ideologues who prefer "preachy" films. There just isn't much of a career for ideologues. However, good directors and producers are aware that a film of this investment needs to be good enough to attract a sizable audience, sell tickets/merchandise and attract repeat business. Otherwise, even a big-budget blockbuster/sequel can be a disaster. Does anyone remember THE MATRIX REVOLUTIONS? The film became "artistic" and "preachy." As a result, the film was a near-disaster. If these films are good and somewhat faithful adaptations of THE HOBBIT and other Middle Earth stories, they will attract a crowd and make people happy. Otherwise, they will fail. Since none of us have seen the films or scripts, it is too early to whine about them.

  • July 31, 2012, 12:57 a.m. CST

    In reflection, after many viewings, the LOTR Films were rubbish.

    by leroyspoboys

    I too was taken in by finally seeing a live action LOTR, bought all the extended editions,etc,etc. I gushed like every other geek. But those films really are badly done. And there was no excuse to screw them up so badly. Might as well have given Jack Torrance an axe instead of a roque mallet, and give us a hedge maze instead of hedge animals....oh wait,wrong talkback. If it takes three films for PJ and Fran to finally show Tolkien some respect and not screw with the source material like he has in the LOTR films, then so be it. But we already know they've screwed up the Hobbit for the benefit of the mass market by adding a female elf as a main character. So fat chance at a properly done Hobbit film in our lifetime.

  • July 31, 2012, 1:09 a.m. CST

    The Hobbit 3 : The Elven Orgy Chronicles

    by maxcherry

  • Its not just about whether they have enough footage, its about pacing. They didn't film this thing with the intention of making 3 films, and stretching it out like that is going to cause big script problems. Its also pretty late in the day to rewrite this thing. The first picture is almost in the can. So this means either they rush a re-edit or the second film is getting hacked to bits. Unless I hear that they are going back to shoot hours of new footage, I think this is a bad idea.

  • Yes the stuff in the appendices in The LOTR is at the time of The Hobbit, but it doesn't relate to the story told in The Hobbit. The Hobbit is a simple adventure tale that only fits into one movie. By the way books and movies are different formats of story telling. In books you can give much more background and go off on more tangents. In movies you stick to the story at hand, you don't go off on tangents about which hobbits were taking shits in the shire and how many gay hobbits Gandalf raped.

  • July 31, 2012, 2:22 a.m. CST

    How do we know this wasn't always the plan?

    by Charlie

    Seriously, how do we know this wasn't always the plan. They just wanted to wait and see how the material was going to be. Before deciding to pull the trigger on it. Also there's apparently a bunch more filming that now needs to be done. So it's simply not stretching.

  • July 31, 2012, 2:46 a.m. CST

    DOOM Commands You To Trust PJ!

    by V. von Doom

    Leap of faith. DOOM knows Peter Jackson is not trying to screw us over -- he's a geek and loves what he's doing. Trust the geek. DOOM only hopes Mr. J. hasn't bit off more than he can chew. Start adding obscure bits of Middle-earth mythology and the multiple storylines will take Smaug-sized chunks of time to explain. DOOM crosses his armored fingers and hopes for gold ... And to those of you accusing Jackson and Co. of being money-grubbing vampires: DOOM calls you cretinous peasants and commands you to be silent! Back to your hovels! Such is the will of -- DOOM!

  • July 31, 2012, 2:51 a.m. CST

    MORE IS BETTER

    by LT Weezie

    I totally agree with many of the Talk-Backers on this. It will be wonderful to have a more complete story telling. If only he would have considered this on the other LOTR films, or at least more extended material (the complete deletion of Tom of the Forest and the Scouring of the Shire for example), that could have been utilized in an UBER-extended edition. The Harry Potter films should have been two movies for each tome. Even my hubby, who has not read the books, noticed that a lot was missing, with the exception on the last two. I certainly would have been willing to wait.

  • July 31, 2012, 2:55 a.m. CST

    I Hope This Will be Ok.

    by Todd1700

    This could be good news or bad at this point. No way to know. As for the story, yes it's a waaaaay shorter book than the LOTR's but it is a much more direct and tighter narrative than LOTR's. The book really moves at a fast pace but it is packed with events, characters and moments that, if all filmed, could certainly add up to a lot of hours. 1. The set up and meeting of the Dwarves with Bilbo at Bag End, 2. the early part of the journey with the troll encounter, finding of the troll treasure and swords, 3. Passing through Rivendell, Finding out about the swords and the map. 4.Traveling into the Misty Mountains, capture and escape from trolls, 5. Meeting with Gollum and finding of the ring. 6. Pursuied by goblins and wargs, nearly burned alive. 7. Eagle aided escape into the meeting and stay with Beorn. 8. Mirkwood forrest and the encounter with spiders. 9. Captured by wood elves and the eventual escape. 10. Barrel riding into laketown and preparations in Laketown for journing to Lonely Mountain. 11. All the events of dealing with Smaug at Lonely Mountain and his attack of Laketown. 12. The build up to and battle of 5 armies. 13. Post battle issues and the return to Hobbiton. And all of that is not even including any flashbacks and the sub plot of the White Counsel dealing with the necromancer at Dol Guldur. For a short book it would not take a lot of stretching to have two very full movies and possibly 3. Still hopeful they get this right.

  • July 31, 2012, 3:31 a.m. CST

    My Point Being...

    by Todd1700

    ...you can't take a book and say OK this book is X number of pages so that should equate to a movie X minutes long. A good example would be The Silmarillion. That book is only 365 pages long while the LOTR's is about 1160 to 1200 pages. But while 3 long movies pretty well covered the LOTR's you couldn't film the events in the Silmarillion with 10 movies and a two Billion dollar budget. It's not the number of pages. It's what's on the pages.

  • July 31, 2012, 3:32 a.m. CST

    Hobbit 3: Mo Money, Mo Hobbits.

    by hallmitchell

    This news sucks!

  • July 31, 2012, 4:30 a.m. CST

    I bet Jamie Kennedy -- I mean, Bilbo Baggins...

    by Fa Fa Fooey

    ...really likes the idea of cashing in on three movies.

  • July 31, 2012, 4:31 a.m. CST

    Bravo!

    by KGersen

    Bravo I say to all your talkbackers, this talkback is a classic - a classic of lunacy, cynicism, hating and general bullshit. Good work.

  • July 31, 2012, 5:12 a.m. CST

    you stupid basterds

    by IndianaPeach

    how can you hate on profligate hobbit action and still be a tenant of this website? what brings you here in the first place you worthless troll dorks. how can three new lotr movies be bad. how on earth do you calculate that as a negative? this wonderful website is festering with plants, negative humans, and other undesirables. make the hobbit 10 movies and i'll be as happy as a jay-bird. and i've never even been to butt-numb-a-thon you horrible bunch of of hack dweebs. peter jackson is the shit...christopher nolan shit the bed...and sam raimi's car got fucked in...i hate you all....god bless harry

  • July 31, 2012, 6:07 a.m. CST

    can we have another pillow fight?

    by fireclown

  • July 31, 2012, 6:23 a.m. CST

    I'd rather have three Tin-Tin movies, any day....

    by workshed

    ...and my two kids love (and frequently revisit) 'Secret of the Unicorn' (definitely one of the most played blu-ray titles on our 3D telly, it looks fabulous). I said it the other day and I'll say it again - where the feckin PJ we once knew and loved..? The greed has turned you into from a lovably plump, irascible rogue into a skinny, greedy Gollum man. LOSE THE WIFE! She's no good for you. And your script-writer too while you're at it.

  • We've got to wait until Dec 2014 to see the end of this thing !!! Wah !!!!

  • July 31, 2012, 11:14 a.m. CST

    The Hobbit isn't as light and fluffy as you think.

    by The_Red_Avenger

    The book itself had two styles - the whimsical childlike narrative that encompasses the first more linear storytelling. But when we reach Laketown it has far more in common with LOTR's more adult prose. I'm pretty sure most kids who read it are confused by the Arkenstone and why the Dwarves turn into absolute fools once Smaug is dead. Then you have the battle of five armies which reaches the dizzy heights of Pelennor. Of course you have Gandalf missing for a huge chunk of the story and Tolkien himself saw fit to fill in these gaps through his notes and appendices. He rewrote parts of The Hobbit to tie in with his much bigger work and to bridge that gap between The Silmarrillion and LOTR. Well the notes on The Sil, anyway. The book wasn't comprised until after his death. In a way PJ is just doing the same, he is creating a story that fits in the same universe as LOTR and also fills in the gaps

  • July 31, 2012, 11:20 a.m. CST

    Lovely Bones was bad.

    by knowthyself

    But it wasn't THAT bad. C'mon Peter this is just ridiculous.

  • July 31, 2012, 11:33 a.m. CST

    test

    by knowthyself

  • July 31, 2012, 11:54 a.m. CST

    Battle of Azanulbizar...

    by Michael Tyree

    ...of course it's going to be included. Haven't they cast Azog ('member, Bolg, son of Azog?)? It's going to be really cool (spoiler) to see how got his Thorin got his nick-name. I want to see one of the Dwarves say, "He was a Burned Dwarf!" and watch the other twelve bow their heads i respect. Bilbo, meanwhile, looks at 'em all as if they had lobsters crawling from under thier beards. As much as I want all the Tolkieny Goodness I can get, I have to say this makes me a bit apprehensive as I fear King Kong style bloat may set in. Prove me wrong PJ...trust PJ...trust PJ. As a result, parents, please read the book to your kids before they see the movie. Otherwise, the tone of the book will completley tunr them off. Much like it did me since I had read LotR first. doc pazzuzu, you left out: 5.) Oh great, four hours of walking!

  • July 31, 2012, 12:22 p.m. CST

    Hobbit 3: Back in Training

    by Drew

  • July 31, 2012, 12:40 p.m. CST

    And to think...

    by principalblackman

    I was worried that they would have trouble filling up 90 minutes of screen time.

  • July 31, 2012, 1:02 p.m. CST

    What a twat.

    by Jordan

  • July 31, 2012, 1:21 p.m. CST

    kildeer1

    by DocPazuzu

    You're welcome.

  • July 31, 2012, 2:57 p.m. CST

    On one hand...

    by Lord_Byron_Farthammer

    ...this is awesome. On the other, I now feel like the LoTR series got shafted. Though I guess when you watch the extended editions you do end up with nearly 6 movies worth, timewise...

  • What good does all the complaining do in a case like this? Do you think the world wants fewer fantasy films? Do you want fewer fantasy films? What's the end game? It's not like there's one set amount of money at the studios used for making all fantasy films, and now Jackson is taking up more than his share of it. There are three Hobbit films now because people love it and it makes a lot of money. I'd like to have a more intimate Del Toro Hobbit, but it's in the hands of a guy who likes his Tolkien epic, so we're getting more of the big-picture story mixed in with this. So be it. Maybe a good start would be for each person who's complained here to post what fantasy story/world/series they'd like to see adapted. Then send that same comment to a studio. (And who knows, maybe I'll try to follow my own advice on other talkbacks...)

  • July 31, 2012, 3:20 p.m. CST

    kevred

    by WeylandYutani

    I don't think people want fewer fantasy films, I think people are expressing doubts because they don't want to see what is a very good, and much loved trilogy, get a series of weak entries. The obvious example of this is Star Wars of course. I am no hater, I just don't think that the prequels are as well made, or as loved, as the original three. This was partly due to the studios figuring out the blockbuster/tent pole formula making for more summer comptition – when SW was released in 77, there were no Harry Potters, Transformers or Batmans and even Superman was a couple of years away. Also, it is partly due to Lucas knowing he wanted to tell Anakin's turn to the dark side... Which is basically one third of one film. The rest was a lot of padding and set up with little to no payoff, unlike the original SW films, where there was a tight narrative and some classic set ups and payoffs. With luck, the same problems won't befall the Hobbit films. I hope that they have a tight narrative and enough dramatic force to cover three new Middle Earth films. If so... awesome! But I also have doubts when a director gets so big that they can do anything they want... They tend to through in everything and the kitchen sink and what you end up with is a muddled mess. PJ is at that point in his career, however, have faith that he will pull this off.

  • July 31, 2012, 4:38 p.m. CST

    kildeer1

    by DocPazuzu

    You're welcome. You know, in response to "thank you." As in the "thank you for pwning me in public" post I just know you posted here after I accepted your double dare. Never mind, I'm sure your letter of contrition simply got lost in the shuffle here at AICN.

  • July 31, 2012, 5:05 p.m. CST

    Are you dim, kildeer1?

    by DocPazuzu

    Clearly sarcasm and irony aren't your forte. I'll spell it out for you then, at the expense of my own I.Q. which will drop substantially merely from the effort of trying to communicate with you. 1) you double-dared me to do something yesterday in this talkback. 2) I did so. 3) you have either not seen this or are ignoring the butthurt you must surely feel from it. Simple enough for you, chief?

  • July 31, 2012, 5:59 p.m. CST

    kildeer1

    by shran

    The above facts lead to the inevitable conclusion taht this trilogy or rather the movie adaptation of the Hobbit story,wont be as great as it should have been.

  • July 31, 2012, 6:02 p.m. CST

    cash-grab or not

    by WINONA_RYDERS_PUSSY_JUICE

    if these movies are nearly as good as the LOTR trilogy, I'm there. Big time. Is that a big if?

  • July 31, 2012, 6:03 p.m. CST

    @weylandyutani

    by kevred

    I hear you, and I share the concerns. (And I am a SW prequel hater - I think they're atrocious.) But most people dissenting here are not offering anywhere near the thoughtful analysis you're providing. They're sort of frothing at the mouth, kind of like...

  • July 31, 2012, 6:08 p.m. CST

    @kildeer1

    by kevred

    I understand your sentiments and especially rally behind your statement of "fuck this era of materialism and consumerism,where everything is made for consumption and not for the bettering of our being and our world." Right on, I completely agree with you. But there's no substantiation for this comment: "this decision to turn Hobbit into a trilogy,is motivated by pure greed for more money and vanity.It has nothing to do with an artistic vision... Despite Peter Jackson's lies and pure excuses,it has nothing to do with that.It's all about money,to sell more tickets,to sell more blu-rays,to sell better the marketing of a trilogy than of a duology and to rescue the career of a director whose last critical success happened 10 years ago." It may be true, but there's no evidence of any of it being true. If the goal was pure avarice, I think they would have started out with a plan for 3 films. Changing plans like this, at this stage in the game, is unprecedented behavior. It will be complicated, expensive, and difficult for everyone involved, especially all the actors who have to be drawn back in for major additional shooting. A Tolkien film is a very complex, slow, and expensive way to make money. You might be right about motives, you might not, but I think there are better targets for commercial ridicule than Jackson & co. I really hope the final product justifies my faith. I have my doubts, too.

  • July 31, 2012, 6:52 p.m. CST

    I love Jackson and Tolkien, but...

    by PorkChopXpress

    ...this smells distinctly of "cash grab" to me.

  • July 31, 2012, 7:08 p.m. CST

    Larry Wachowski

    by evildeadgeorge

    Is this the talkback to discuss Larry Wachowski getting a sex change and becoming "Lana" Wachowski? As mind-blowing as the first Matrix...

  • July 31, 2012, 7:44 p.m. CST

    @ weylandyutani:

    by Chris Moody

    Good points! I also feel that a third film might make the first two less bloated. He doesn't have to insert the ENTIRE book...including those things that are left to the imagination in the book...into a single, three and a half hour film...or two 2.5 hours films. Now, Peter Jackson can take his time in the storytelling and create three 2.15 hour films that leave the audience wanting more. So, the divisions can be more relaxed and intricate. Part I - An Unexpected Journey: The setup. We learn about hobbits...Gandalf and his fascination with the hobbits...the underlying problem with a dragon...the character of Bilbo...and an introduction to the other characters and lack of respect for Bilbo and hobbits. The fellowship fight goblins and flee. Gandalf rescues the fellowship, other than Bilbo. The film ends with Bilbo in the cave...discovering the Ring. Part II - The One Ring (?): Escape from Gollum/the cave. Bilbo rejoins the others...earns respect in the process. They flee from the Goblins and Wargs on their way to Beorn. Bilbo saves the dwarves from the spiders and wood elves. Bilbo still lacks the respect of Thorin. Band arrives at Lonely Mountain and Smaug. Bilbo proves himself (via the ring) and discovers the weakness of Smaug. Smaug is killed in battle by Bard. Bilbo finds the Arkenstone...and steals it (unaware of its importance to Thorin). Part III - There and Back Again: Following the death of Smaug, the dwarves and Bilbo search the mountain. The wood elves and goblins prepare to take the mountain, but Thorin gathers the armies and defends the position. He is angered that Bilbo, a useless hobbit, has stolen such an important heirloom and was willing to trade it away for temporary (and false) peace. Bilbo is banished. The armies prepare for battle. Gandalf returns and warns of the impending battle. The battle takes place. During the battle, Thorin is killed. Before he dies, he makes peace with Bilbo. Bilbo gives his treasure to the elves, dwarves and humans...and takes just a couple of chests of gold, chainmail armor and returns to the Shire. Thus, this story can be told in parts...and they can be thorough but not bloated in doing so. The bulk of the Tolken's "notes" can be added to the first and last film and prevent "overtelling" the story.

  • July 31, 2012, 10:37 p.m. CST

    Cool

    by Jeff

    I personally take this as damn good news. Like I wrote a few days ago, if Peter Jackson and company think a third film needs to be made, then it needs to be made. It's not a cash grab. Lots of people here have written they think it's a cash grab, but if you watch PJ's "making of" blog entries, it's pretty damn obvious he just wants to tell the whole badass story. The Battle of Dol Guldur will apparently appear in the third film, a multi-wizard spectacle I damn well want to see. Go for it, Peter. Fuck yeah.

  • .. in order to get the rights for the rest of Tolkien's combined works. If not, the new expanded movies will not have access to the original material in the Silmarillion and other works. Instead it will be filled with more nonsensical fluff from Boyens such as Aragorn almost drowning and falling off, non-existent Warg battle, elves at Helms deep, bad Faramir, etc. Newline and NZ shouldn't keep all the millions made to themselves. LOTR and the Hobbit are not Jackson's original work. He and Fran are very good screenplay adapters. Maybe there's already a deal in the works hopefully.

  • Aug. 1, 2012, 1:59 a.m. CST

    @the_red_avenger

    by krylite

    Right, The Hobbit was not totally written in kid perspective. You had Thorin trying to shoot down some deer for food. The mayor of laketown is shown to get envious of Bard and did some shady shenanigan involving the gold. Obviously some experiences from Tolkien's WWI experiences where he also had duties as a horse trainer.

  • Aug. 1, 2012, 2:21 a.m. CST

    WHY NOT MAKE IT THREE MOVIES?

    by TheUmpireStrokesBach

    FUCK IT. YOU'VE GOT ALL THE SETS AND ACTORS AND COSTUMES AND WEAPONRY AND ARTISTS AND EQUIPMENT AND CREW AND LOCATIONS AND FUNDING AND FANS AND FUN AND MEMORIES AND CAMARADERIE AND MILLIONS IN PROFITS AND A BILLION OSCARS AND WHATEVER ELSE YOU CAN THINK OF OR IMAGINE AND A LIFETIME SPENT DEVOTED TO THE PROCESS THAT GOT YOU TO WHERE YOU ARE. THE IMMINENT COMPLETION OF A LIFE'S MASTER WORK IS UPON YOU. WHY THE FUCK NOT? YOLO. THESE WERE PETER FUCKING JACKSON'S VERY LOUD THOUGHTS WHILE BRUSHING HIS FUCKING TEETH A COUPLE DAYS AGO. I CAN READ MINDZ. IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED BY NOW, PETER JACKSON IS LITERALLY A FUCKING HOBBIT AND HE'S ABOUT TO COMPLETE HIS EPIC FUCKING JOURNEY TO THERE AND FUCKING BACK AGAIN. HE BOWS TO NO ONE.

  • Aug. 1, 2012, 6:15 a.m. CST

    NEWS: The Movie titles have changed....

    by Scrunchie-Scroochie

    The Desolation of Smaug

  • Aug. 1, 2012, 6:17 a.m. CST

    ^ Oh for fuck's sake, real post here...

    by Scrunchie-Scroochie

    Why did that last post get eaten??? Anyway, according to: http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/07/31/60231-exclusive-new-line-registers-hobbit-movie-titles/ Two new movie titles have been registered: The Desolation of Smaug The Battle of Five Armies. This likely means that the title There and Back Again is being dropped, which makes sense given that they have already been There for most of film 2.

  • Aug. 1, 2012, 8:12 a.m. CST

    movie titles

    by ghost_matt

    I think "The Return of the Shadow" would be a good title for whichever movie ends up being about the Necromancer. That was the title of one of the History of Middle Earth books.

  • Aug. 1, 2012, 9:15 a.m. CST

    kildeer1: The Desolation is a place in Middle-earth...

    by Scrunchie-Scroochie

    The Desolation of Smaug is the name given to the lifeless fire-blackened wasteland that surrounds the Lonely Mountain and is the domain of the eponymous Wyrm.

  • Your level of projection and self-righteous indignation is fast approaching the level of uber-conservative Jay2517's brand of douche-baggery.

  • ...(artwork, character/creature designs, etc.) were to have remained intact. Both he and PJ said as much upon his departure; they were only waiting for the greenlight to begin filming.

  • Aug. 1, 2012, 11:06 a.m. CST

    kildeer1

    by DocPazuzu

    So. Concede defeat, then?

  • Aug. 1, 2012, 11:11 a.m. CST

    kildeer1

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Kevred's previous post pretty much nails what irks me about several of your statements. The level of projection and self-importance is nauseating. That and your fascination with WoW puts you on my shite list...

  • Aug. 1, 2012, 11:27 a.m. CST

    MNG

    by DocPazuzu

    He reminds me of coughlinslaw. They both challenge (or double-dare) people to disprove something, and when someone does, they completely ignore it in order to harp on endlessly with their bullshit.

  • And if he wants to then bitch and moan about minorities getting only 'Extra's' work he needs to know that character 'Lurtz' was a minority as well as the Witch King and Gothmog in the 3rd film. All of whom were lead roles. So Cotton on behalf of all of us. Get a clue? numbnuts. :)

  • Aug. 1, 2012, 12:47 p.m. CST

    kildeer1

    by DocPazuzu

    Wow, you really ARE retarded.

  • Aug. 1, 2012, 1:29 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    *sorry,i sincerely cant understand what's wrong with your.there is something wrong with you,that's for sure but i cant do anything about it.and i am not asking for an apology from you because it is obvious that you are incapable of such civilized gestures. but i will ask you,very politely, not to insult me ever again,especially when i have done nothing to you to cause such an repulsive behavior from you.ok,are we clear? thank you.* kildeer, this isnt a polite ladies tea party at the savoy you fucking fruitcake - this is aicn. You need thicker skin noob boy or your gonna get a rash! I say.. I say moderator. That man said something vulgar to me.... His name was Mr Nice Gaius but he didnt seem very nice did he... Scandalous!

  • Aug. 1, 2012, 1:31 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    And that DocPazuzu, ive been calling up all my friends in Harley Street and theyve never heard of him. I'm not sue that he's even a REAL doctor... Scandalous!

  • Aug. 1, 2012, 2:10 p.m. CST

    DocPazuzu

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Exactly! I was kind of thinking the same thing.

  • If you didn't understand my backing of Kevred's post regarding your over-the-top projection, then you clearly didn't understand its original contents. That much seems clear. As for my jab at WoW, that was pure sarcasm...which appears to have been lost on you. And I see that you're not asking for an apology but you're asking that I not insult you ever again. Apparently, your brand of bullish cluelessness is superior to any so-called repulsive address. To which, I say... ...this is AICN Talkback. You need to grow a thicker skin because it's not going to get any easier for you around here. OK? Are we clear? THANK YOU!

  • Aug. 1, 2012, 2:12 p.m. CST

    Damn you, cobra--kai!!!

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    You beat me to it. Spot on, sir.

  • Aug. 1, 2012, 2:55 p.m. CST

    kildeer1

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Would you like a magazine while you wait?

  • Aug. 1, 2012, 4:30 p.m. CST

    kildeer1, you moron.

    by DocPazuzu

    and i dare you,i double dare you right now to copy-paste my post where i state that Warcraft has never been influenced by or was based on other sources.i dare you.

  • Aug. 1, 2012, 4:31 p.m. CST

    kildeer1

    by DocPazuzu

    The above is an exact quote of yours from this very talkback.

  • Aug. 1, 2012, 4:32 p.m. CST

    kildeer1

    by DocPazuzu

    After your double-dare to copy-paste, I did precisely that. Seriously, how fucking dense are you?

  • Aug. 1, 2012, 4:32 p.m. CST

    newly registered film titles...

    by thomasjarvis

    Don't care for Desolation of Smaug at all. Even though they registered these names, hopefully they won't be used at the end of the day. I agree with many of the good folks over at theonering, I think the three films should be titled as follows: 1) The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, 2) The Hobbit: The Road Goes Ever On, and 3) The Hobbit: There and Back Again

  • Aug. 1, 2012, 5:09 p.m. CST

    kildeer1

    by DocPazuzu

    All hail the fail king.

  • Aug. 1, 2012, 5:57 p.m. CST

    Yeah, that's pretty pathetic, kildeer1.

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    If getting bitchslapped on a Talkback is what it takes to make you "laugh", then more power to you. Good luck with your continued dimwittedness. You may find AICN to be rather small place...

  • Aug. 1, 2012, 6:36 p.m. CST

    Three Films make sense

    by Allen

    If you're going to do more than one, you have to do three. Stories have three acts, three major turns, two films never felt right to me. I don't understand the complaints, there is plenty of material, and three films may barely be enough to do all the cool parts of the book, and the story overrall, justice.

  • Aug. 1, 2012, 6:50 p.m. CST

    Re: kildeer

    by Jeff

    You did get pretty badly bitch-slapped by docpaz and mr. nice gaius, I must say. So calling them "trolling" "assholes" when all they're doing is calling you out on your seriously questionable opinions is pretty dim on your part. Also, docpaz and mr. nice gaius have been on these talkbacks, off and on, for years. Neither of them are known as "assholes" or "trolls." They've got strong opinions, sure, as they should, but you should pay them a little respect. I'm not sure if you will, but it might be a better tactic than pouting or lashing out, as you've been doing. Because you're seriously close to becoming a dismissably unpleasant voice on these talkbacks. I'd urge you to go a bit easier.

  • Aug. 2, 2012, 5:02 a.m. CST

    thomasjarvis

    by Scrunchie-Scroochie

    the problem with titles like The Road Goes Ever On, and There and Back Again, is that they sound...boring. It makes the films sound like they're just about walking, which is a LotR cliche that WB will want to shake off. I mean, yeah those titles have a certain Tolkien nerd-cred, but it does them no favours really when instead they could use more exciting-sounding titles.

  • Aug. 2, 2012, 6:20 p.m. CST

    I agree scrunchie

    by Allen

    If you're not a Hobbit fan, those titles won't help to persuade you to watch a three hour epic. People forget that even LOTR had titles Tolkien himself didn't really come up with, nor was it necessarily to be three books. I like the new titles, they are making me anticipate what the focus of each film is. I think these guys know what they're doing.