The Hobbit will be a trilogy...

P

Pete

And Peter Jackson just became George Lucas!

In all seriousness though, what are people's thoughts on this? The immediate comparison I drew in my mind was Nolan's Batman trilogy. The Dark Knight had enough content, Heath Ledger died far enough ahead of the release of the movie, and the ending was a suitable closing, that they could have cut it into two parts and called that a trilogy.

This doesn't seem to be the case with The Hobbit. They filmed for two movies at the outset, and unless they are so jam-packed full of content (as was The Dark Knight), I fear they may be pretty thin compared to the original LOTR series.

Other thoughts?
 
Not terribly keen on milking a trilogy out of it. Didn't they already add a bunch of brand-new material to fluff The Hobbit up enough to contentify two films?
 
It was always meant to be two - One for the Hobbit, and one to tell the bridging story between the Hobbit and LOTR

Obviously they realised that the Hobbit needed to be two movies, and then have now made the decision to bring back a 'bridging' movie.

I think it's an interesting idea, though my only concern would be the fact that assumedly the second movie would be the end of The Hobbit and therefore end nicely, whilst we'd then have a third film which would not really have a proper start, nor a proper end, essentially a 'bridging' film, that perhaps viewed in the context of the entire series may make sense, but as an add-on to the Hobbit 'trilogy', I'm not sure how it will work..
 
I'm happy for the fact that I will have quality stuff to put under my teeth.

I'm scared because the whole LOTR three volume made three movies. Making three movies out a little book seems far stretched. Unless they plan on making it a documentary on Middle Earth.
 
Zensteve said:
Not terribly keen on milking a trilogy out of it. Didn't they already add a bunch of brand-new material to fluff The Hobbit up enough to contentify two films?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I thought stretching the book out into two films was already a pushing it.
IDK 'bout this, either.


dlevanchuk said:
Its a trilogy because it will generate some serious $$$.
Click to expand...
Normally I'm all for any business doing whatever it can to separate a fool from his money, but this is being somewhat abusive to the consumer.

I don't wanna be p!ssed at Jackson/del Toro and New Line + MGM but... I'm flinching.
I'm scared they're going to think this is the last the collection has to offer so they're gonna milk us while having little regard for the source property.
I've seen enough potentially nice concepts get just shredded that the initial parties involved (often the actors and investors, in this case the Tolkien family, as well) have little idea of how the outcome will be.


Moaaaannnn...
 
There must be 3 hours of riddles in it :lol:

Only for those who've already read the book:
the riddlesmatch between Bilbo and Smeagol :P
 
Zensteve said:
Not terribly keen on milking a trilogy out of it. Didn't they already add a bunch of brand-new material to fluff The Hobbit up enough to contentify two films?
Click to expand...



No, in fact, this allows them to keep everything in. LOTR was SEVERELY modified to allow for three movies. In actuality, LOTR should have been six movies
 
mussonman said:
No, in fact, this allows them to keep everything in. LOTR was SEVERELY modified to allow for three movies. In actuality, LOTR should have been six movies
Click to expand...

LOTR had a lot of crap and diarrhea of the typewriter to sift through, so keeping it down to 3 movies was a good thing. The Hobbit though? Man, I really don't see how it needs a trilogy at all.
 
Ugh, really?

It seems a bit desperate to stretch out one book, however long it may be, into three films. It's ridiculous and shallow. But I'm not surprised by this typical Hollywood decision, considering that they're remaking The Godfather trilogy and continuing Raging Bull and The Shining :roll:
 
I don't think it needs to be a trilogy, but it doesn't hurt. I think it's just as good, if not better, than the LOTR, simply because it feels more like a high fantasy story, whereas most aspects of LOTR feel like a medieval war film (with seemingly no magic, or fantastic creatures in sight.)

Not to say LOTR is bad, but I just think the Hobbit will be better, unless they pull a phantom menace on us... in which case, Peter Jackson will probably be assassinated.
 
I have a feeling Jackson will include something of a Jar-Jar Binks in the film, and follow it up with corny kids fare. The original trilogy is an unmatched collection of epic works, this will be a money-machine joke. And I don't even think it will fare well past the first movie.
 
he's going for the same serious tone as he did in LOTR, and George Lucas thought Jar Jar would be great to make the kids laugh (I am happy to learn that he didn't even invent the character, the voice actor had it long before star wars)

I don't see any possible way he could get children to like this, unless one of the dwarves is a goofy, screw-up... but i hope he's learned from watching Lucas's errors
 
On one hand, it sort of seems like stretching it. On the other hand, more Middle Earth!

But that said, most of what they're adding to the story (and they are adding a LOT) comes from Tolkien himself. He is the posterchild for taking things too far...retconning his children's book (the Hobbit) into his growing mythology (LOTR). Not to mention the appendix of LOTR, the Unfinished Tales, the History of Middle Earth, etc, etc Also bear in mind that a LOT happens offscreen in the Hobbit, and there's a good 60 years before LOTR picks up.

So by the film growing out of control, it's sort of a pretty good tribute to Tolkien's work!

Oh, and more Middle Earth! Yeah, I'm fine with this.
 
I hope the third film is just three hours of Tom Bombadil...

On a side note: from the latest Hobbit production diary - if they were shooting 35mm, they'd have nearly 23 million feet of film. Let's say you got cheap short ends for $0.30/foot, and got cheap processing for $0.09/ft, the film cost alone would be nearly $10mil.
 
Last edited:
fernando97echeverria said:
I have a feeling Jackson will include something of a Jar-Jar Binks in the film, and follow it up with corny kids fare. The original trilogy is an unmatched collection of epic works, this will be a money-machine joke. And I don't even think it will fare well past the first movie.
Click to expand...

I think The Hobbit looks quite good, from what I've seen. I think it's designed towards a much broader audience, family, even. Mostly because that's what the Hobbit was designed for. LOTR is much darker and evil. The Hobbit is fairly light hearted.

I do agree, though, I think there will surely be aspects that are Jar Jar-esk in the fact that they will be added to appease families and younger fans.
 
There was a huge amount of stuff in the books that they didn't include in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the extended editions added about 2 hours a film and even they didn't begin to cover what was missed out.

I hope that maybe they bring some of that into the Hobbit.
 
I haven't read all the comments , but no , I think Peter Jackson is not making The Hobbit trilogy , because it will gain serious amount of money.

The reason for this is because he loves the whole LOTR thing way too much . He loves the set,he loves the people he is working with , he is loving everything about it and he is just refusing to let it go , as for the mr. Lucas , he just wants more and more money .
 
I just read the sadest truth about the heir of JRR Tolkien, Christopher and the hard time he's having preserving the integrity of his father's work.

I feel sad for him to have to face monsters like Hollywood and I feel guilty for being part of a society that's disfiguring Tolkien's work by endorsing Jackson's movies.

The article I read is in French so I see no use in linking it but I think you must know about this if you don't already.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top