"Does The Hobbit need to be a trilogy?" Topic

Do you appreciate a bunch of additions such as Radagast the Brown, or does this sound like an attempt to soak money?

It would be nice if it was to add to the story but I'm thinking it is to milk the Middle Earth Cash Cow.

At worst Jackson could go "Matrix" on it and really pad it.

Just remember, if you don't like it then don't go see it. Me, I will see all three and LOVE them to death, I'm sure. I'd rather see a third Hobbit film then *shudder* have to sit through Avengers again.

I don't doubt they're milking it considering the number of pages The Hobbit is compared to The Lord of the Rings, but that's fine with me as long as it's good and it's consistant with the Middle Earth world.

I liked avengers. Matrix got REALLY fluffed, but then again i thought it was overhyped to begin with.

As for adding what the starwars people like to call "expanded universe" stuff into the movie? I'm cautiously optimistic.. Peter Jackson managed to keep me entertained through 6+ hours of walking to a volcano to return some jewelry, I think i can do the same for 6+ hours of "Spoiler alert: Giant Eagles SAVE them!"

Lets be real here, anything is better than the new ROBOCOP…

Milking it.
He initially announced two movies, the extra one being the fight between Gandalf, etc. against the Necromancer.
Then out of nowhere claimed he needed a third movie to do this.

That works out to roughly one three hour movie per 100 pages. So it would seem to be a bit dragged out.

There's plenty of material for a trilogy. If you haven't read "The Quest of Erebor" from UNFINISHED TALES, it gives the background of THE HOBBIT from Gandalf's viewpoint:

"I was very troubled at that time," he said, "for Saruman was hindering all my plans. I knew that Sauron had arisen again and would soon declare himself, and I knew that he was preparing for a great war. How would he begin? Would he try first to re-occupy Mordor, or would he first attack the chief strongholds of his enemies? I thought then, and I am sure now, that to attack Lorien and Rivendell, as soon as he was strong enough was his original plan. It would have been a much better plan for him, and much worse for us. >>>

"You may think that Rivendell was out of his reach, but I did not think so. The state of things in the North was very bad. The Kingdom under the Mountain and the strong Men of Dale were no more. To resist any force that Sauron might send to regain the northern passes in the mountains and the old lands of Angmar there were only the Dwarves of the Iron Hills, and behind them lay a desolation and a Dragon. The Dragon Sauron might use with terrible effect. Often I said to myself: "I must find some means of dealing with Smaug. But a direct stroke against Dol Guldur is needed still more. We must disturb Sauron's plans. I must make the Council see that.'

and so forth. Radagast seems a minor character -- but Tolkien made clear that Radagast had FALLEN, because he had been sent to Middle Earth to oppose Sauron etc and had instead become enamored of the beauty of creation. Not that there's anything intrinsically wrong with loving the earth. But opposing the great enemy was a higher obligation. And to turn from a higher obligation to a LESS HIGH one -- even though it be intrinsically good -- is to Fall; it is the DIRECTION that matters. Don't know if Jackson will bring out such themes as that -- but I will be disappointed if he does not, if he has three films.

Maybe he will be throwing in Tom Bombadil.
And elf songs. You can never have too many elf songs.

Avengers needed to be about an hour or 45 minutes shorter IMO. It's just too long for me to sit through again. I have never said that about one of the LotR movies, including the extended cuts. Always sad when they actually ended.

When I finish seeing the last Hobbit movie, it will be a sad moment because there will be no more new Middle Earth movies to watch. :-(

Lets be real here, anything is better than the new ROBOCOP…

"So it was that the Quest of Erebor set out. I do not suppose that when it started Thorin had any real hope of destroying Smaug. There was no hope. Yet it happened. But alas! Thorin did not live to enjoy his triumph or his treasure. Pride and greed overcame him in spite of my warning."

"But surely," I said, "he might have fallen in battle anyway? There would have been an attack of Orcs, however generous Thorin had been with his treasure."

"That is true," said Gandalf. "Poor Thorin! He was a great Dwarf of a great House, whatever his faults; and though he fell at the end of the journey, it was largely due to him that the Kingdom under the Mountain was restored, as I desired. But Dain Ironfoot was a worthy successor. And now we hear that he fell fighting before Erebor again, even while we fought here. I should call it a heavy loss, if it was not a wonder rather that in his great age5 he could still wield his axe as mightily as they say he did, standing over the body of King Brand before the Gate of Erebor until the darkness fell.

"It might all have gone very differently indeed. 'The main attack was diverted southwards, it is true; and yet even so with his farstretched right hand Sauron could have done terrible harm in the North, while he defended Condor, if King Brand and King Dain had not stood in his path. When you think of the great Battle of Pelennor, do not forget the Battle of Dale. Think of what might have been. Dragon-fire and savage swords in Eriador! There might be no Queen in Condor. We might now only hope to return from the victory here to ruin and ash. But that has been averted – because I met Thorin Oakenshield one evening on the edge of spring not far from Bree. A chance-meeting, as we say in Middle-earth."

I am anxious to finally see the missing Istari- Boyd the Mauve and Marvik the Chartreuse.

One, two, three… makes no difference to me. I'll give Peter my money, and buy the extended DVD/Blurays, too. Just say "The Hobbit" or "Lord of the Rings" or "Middle-Earth" and you've got me. Sad, but essentially true.
(Okay, I draw the line at the endless series of working notes that CT keeps publishing…)

it will be a sad moment because there will be no more new Middle Earth movies to watch. :-(

Oh, don't be so sure. There's always "Notes that fell behind Dad's Desk".

I've seen this comment/question a lot and the fact is if you go through the book and just list out the various scenes and adventures, you either cut stuff short or it stretches to 4-5 hours. Which is two movies.

Then Jackson decides he wants to add material that bridges The Hobbit with the following trilogy. Somehow people miss the fact that he's not adding extra stuff to the Hobbit story, he's filling in a gap with stuff that was already known, just not in the original book.

If you like, think of The Hobbit as a two part movie and then PJ is doing another movie about what Gandalf was doing in the meantime.

I think that Jackson should be able to make it work. And after the the Hobbit Pts 1 & 2, we'll probably all be looking for one last dose of Middle Earth.

Now, once the BluRay discs come out imagine the Tolkien marathon you could have.

I worry though. If lukas had stopped after the first movie or the first three and then never change a scene. He would be remembered as a great director. Now because of the changes he made and the other three movies, he is a hack. Will this happen to Jackson?

Keep in mind that they only have the rights to material in the Hobbit and LOTR (and its appendicies), so I woldn't expect anything from the Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales etc.

I'm glad that it will be 3. Better to have bits that don't work as well in the movie as movie bits than to have to cut too much stuff out.

This was clearly an executive decision. They went from one film, to two and then knowing that they didn't have a hot 5-6 film property in the near future they extended it to three.

Guess Children of Hurin and Silmarillion will be next …

I'll be the dissenting opinion.

The Hobbit was meant as a fun kids story. One movie should be more than enough to tell that story to the kids of today's visual media generation.

Make as many Middle Earth Notes From Behind the Desk movies as you want, but don't spread chunks of The Hobbit out through them. Let folks take their kids to see The Hobbit in one shot rather than spread it out over a couple of years in an attempt to sell more toys and make more money spread over more tax years..

Gotta pay for that mansion, new Ferrari, and European vacation somehow…….

There is a global recession on, you know.

Like OFM said, Part II is 8 hours of Tom Bombadill.

> Like OFM said, Part II is 8 hours of Tom Bombadill.

Is that 8 real hours or 5 minutes that SEEMS like 8?

Ol' Tom is fun; I'm sorry they had to leave that out of LOTR.

Bearing in mind the general quality of Hollywood releases I'd say let him make as many movies out of it as he can, he won't be pulling down the average.

Tom B. is the part I have skipped in every re-read of LoTR that I have done.
I just wish I had skipped it in the first reading.

I found the reason …

No one seems to have commented on one of Peter Jackson's major challenges, which is that he finds it incredibly difficult to edit any of his films. Return of the King, despite omitting the Scouring of the Shire, dragged through about a dozen endings before the credits finally rolled (he could have ended the whole thing with the coronation of King Elessar, and cut out the whole happy play time of hobbits jumping on Frodo's bed, and left the Grey Havens for the DVD). His remake of an 80-minute film (King Kong) dragged through more than three hours (even longer on the DVD), much of which was detail that didn't advance the plot, but was just too precious to be cut. How much of the Hobbit's runtime will consist of scenes that PJ just can't bear to cut?

And for what it's worth, Rankin Bass managed to present The Hobbit in 77 minutes.

Of course it is milking it. Having said this, just try and do The Silmarillion with anything less than a trilogy :-) Lord, I hope someone does this book into several movies at some point and does it right!

As long as PJ is using Tolkien's other material, and not making up Hobbit love stories or such, I would gladly go and see 6 more movies. As a fan, I want as much Tolkien on the screen as possible. If these three make money, you will likely see other material used for further films, and I hope we do--again, don't make up stuff, but there is plenty of material to work from.

I don't care about some cinematography student's view of "The Hobbit should be a two-hour piece with a nouveau-blah blah blah ending." Go smoke cigarettes and critique the next Nicholas Sparks movie, but let me enjoy my fantasy novels brought to life on the big screen. I play with toy soldiers and make models. Save the art criticism for something important.

For what Rankin-Bass is worth? that would be very little.

No one seems to have commented on one of Peter Jackson's major challenges, which is that he finds it incredibly difficult to edit any of his films.

Stephen King Syndrome.
aka Tom clancy syndrome.
aka Harry Turtledove Syndrome
We are seeing the same thing with the HBO productiobn of Game of Thrones.

Some real movie stinkers have been made because the "auteur" could not bear to leave anything out of the movie, that was in the book. Lynch's "Dune"? ("Hi! I'm the Shadout Mapes. Here, stick your hand in the box. OK, nice meeting you, your Messiah-ship. Gotta go!")

I think that RicharDISNEY has illustrated this obscure reality for us…. I mean, NO WAY!

I believe that Mr Jackson is a gamer, and so subject to Mr the OFM's frequent comments about what happens when gamers make movies. The details in the films are fantastic, even when they come at the expense of storytelling. Fortunately, Mr Jackson is a decent storyteller, certainly better than I am, so even when the stories drag on a bit, they are still bearable. Still, taking 9h (assuming 3 films at 3h each) to tell a story that could fit into an hour and a half means that I'll treat this epic more like Game of Thrones, or HBO's Rome, or his LotR series for that matter, and watch them on DVD in the comfort of my living room, where I can pause or stop the show, back it up, listen to the commentaries, check the IMDB or Wikipedia pages or Google items (or even look them up in a book!) as needed. Of course I WILL watch the Hobbit, and analyse every one of PJ's choices, be overawed by his visual presentation of Middle earth, and then be frustrated by every minor deviation he makes from Professor Tolkein's original book!

Oh, they're only films…

I like Bombadil – harmeless hippies are harmless.

Doug

I found the reason …

Of course that's the reason. PJ would be stupid not to do it if he has the material to work with. And he does have the material. The Hobbit is a nice sized novel and the appendices in LOTR is chalked full of even more stuff that fills in the backstory for The Hobbit.

My only grip is that I have to wait some years to see the whole thing. I don't begrudge Jackson, Hollywood, or the Tolkien family their chance to earn some $$ off the good professor's writing. They get the cash, we get some great movies, so everyone wins!

Would you make the movies if you didn't have the chance to make money off them? Wouldn't you try to get as much out of them as you could?

Hopefully he's prefilmed all of McKellen's scenes in the trilogy.

He is getting up there after all…

I'm sure it will be another 32,000 hour "epic" tale of whining and walking.
But you don't care, it's the iphone of movies.
It's junk, but hey, it's a brand name.

My own feeling is this. I always wished that Tolkien had written a book about Gandalf sneaking into Dol Guldur, meeting with Thrain, escaping, coming back later with the White Council's army to drive out Sauron, etc.

However, the key is, I always wished that TOLKIEN would do it. Can Peter Jackson do it justice? I'm not sure. Every time he strays from the path, he seems to wander into comedy, like the Hobbits getting high on pipeweed. One shudders to think what could end up happening in southern Mirkwood…

A 6 movie marathon ?

DS6151 – you couldn't be more wrong.

People who take on things like LOTR (that have a long standing and committed fan base) have to do a MUCH better job than the typical "brand name" movie as the existing fans are MUCH harder on anything new that doesn't meet with their high expectations. That so many discerning fans thought PJ did a good job with it overall says a lot.

TMP – land of cynics and grumpy old men.

TMP – land of cynics and grumpy old men.

You're carrying on like that's a BAD thing!
Does this mean that you do not wish us to express ANY opinions, unless you agree with them?

It has nothing to do with whether I agree with the opinion or not. It's about the amount of effort made to think through the opinion. Some people are so full of cynicism that they can't ever attribute good work, effort, quality to anyone or anything. They see only the worst in everything and everyone even when there's no "worst" to see.

It's like being at the reunion and finding yourself sitting next to Uncle Bob who hasn't seen anything or anybody that was worth a damn since 1965. EVERYONE is either incompetent, lazy, or just after your money. Uncle Bob hasn't has a reasonable, thought out opinion in decades. So no, I really don't wish to hear Uncle Bob's opinion on anything.

Pretty sure in that movie, Uncle Bob gets punched in the face…or dies alone. I need to watch it again…