Get your tickets to Tolkien today!
Join us in our 24 Hour Chatroom!
Check out on Twitter!
Join us on Instagram

Latest Tweets

  1. Collecting The Precious – Star Ace Toys Defo-Real Balrog Review

  2. Courtesy reminder that they really don’t “got this covered”

  3. Collecting The Precious – Weta Workshop’s Witch-king & Frodo at Weathertop

News Alerts

Get emailed with every new post!

Third ‘Hobbit’ movie: How? What? When? Why?

July 26, 2012 at 12:49 am by MrCere  - 

I admit, when I first heard talk of “a third ‘Hobbit’ movie” from the floor of Comic-Con, I was skeptical. Reporters Quickbeam and Justin brought back footage from a press conference (that you can watch right here) breaking the story that additional shooting was a possibility, directly from Peter Jackson’s mouth. I downplayed it because from a five-week set visit I knew the team was going to return to shooting right after Comic-Con. I thought the media was being its usual bombastic self by calling a little more shooting “a third “Hobbit” movie. They absolutely had it posted first, breaking the story so kudos to them, but I dismissed it. How quickly things change.

Now it seems inevitable that this will happen. Jackson clearly has the will or he wouldn’t have spoken about it so fully. The studio clearly has the will because they are talking about it instead of dismissing it. So what would this mean besides another year of happy blood sweat and tears at Lets look at all the facts and see if we can’t come to some conclusions educated guesses.


Jackson spoke about this, very likely not by accident, from the television press line meet-and-greet at Comic-Con that took place before the famous Hall H event for fans. (Watch the first two or three minutes of Jackson’s own production diary #8 for the best account of Hall H.) He did it in front of a lot of websites with video and cameras. He knew it would get out to fans and he responded to a question will a full answer instead of a dismissal or a quick comment. The reaction on Twitter has been very interesting, as detailed in the story below.

So if you didn’t follow the link above, to get up to speed, watch it below:

Then he did the Hall H thing and it didn’t hurt matters than he delivered 12 minutes of “Hobbit” footage that viewers went bananas for. But, rumors kept on churning and a Warner Bros. spokesperson said there were “. . . no planned or surprise announcements involving a third film. The plan was always for two.” Venturing a guess, the conversation about extra footage had started, the studio wasn’t ready to deliver an announcement but the rumor was out there and Jackson seized the chance to energize the influential fans. It worked.

No matter what happens in the conversations and the logistics, I gathered from my stint on “The Hobbit” set that there will be significant filming next year anyway. The production seemed to be working at a fast, efficient clip but there was always going to be significant shooting in 2013, or so I thought. To me, this sounded like more stuff for extended editions of the films, which is why I scoffed at reports of “three ‘Hobbit’ films.” I think I rolled my eyes at headlines.

By the afternoon press conference, it was a red hot topic. This is what Jackson had to say:

It’s all very premature. We have got incredible source material with the appendices. The Hobbit is obviously the novel, but we also have the rights to use this 125 pages of additional notes that Tolkien expanded the world of “The Hobbit” that’s published at the end of “Return of the King.” We’ve used some of that so far, just in the last few weeks as we’ve been prepping out the shooting and thinking about the shape of the story. Eventually Philippa [Boyens] and Fran [Walsh] and I have been talking to the studio about other things that we haven’t been able to shoot and seeing if we could possibly persuade them to do a few more weeks of shooting. It’ll be more than a few weeks actually, a bit of shooting, additional shooting next year. What form that will end up taking, the discussions are pretty early so there isn’t anything to report. But certainly there’s other parts of the story that we’d like to tell that we haven’t had a chance to tell yet. So we’re just trying to have those conversations with the studio at the moment.


Jackson wasn’t backing away from the possibility, but he did say that it was early, that there “isn’t anything to report,” perhaps relieving the studio from pressure if things didn’t work out. An actual third “Hobbit” film seemed pretty far fetched to me. Not everybody noticed, but we all received a very clear indication of where the first film was going to end when Entertainment Weekly released a montage of “Hobbit” images. The whole thing laid out “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey,” film rather nicely. Look just below for the whole, split sequentially in two parts.

So a quick glance provides audiences with many of the events of the films including the final scene, a Dwarven escape out of bonds into floating barrels. We know where “Unexpected Journey,” film ends.

So is this third film talk actually valid? Can two more films be pieced together out of what is left in the story plus what is contained in the appendicies after we already know the content of film one? Or could that actually change as well? Recent stories by the Los Angeles Times and Hollywood Reporter indicate that a third film definitely is a strong possibility.

This, from the HR piece, was particularly telling:

. . .the filmmaker has concluded that he wants to turn his upcoming two-film adaptation of the J.R.R. Tolkien epic into a trilogy.

That, to me, came from people in the know, meshes better than any story out there with what TheOneRing knows. It says shooting would be for about two months next summer (North America’s summer presumably). It seems Jackson thought about it, mentioned it to the studio, floated the idea at Comic-Con and is energized and now wants to do it, or at least that is how I read it.

I trust that Hollywood Reporter story for the best accuracy and fans who want to read it carefully might find further clues.

Reports in New Zealand are that he was at the top of his game during “The Hobbit,” shoot. It seemingly went well and actors seem happy despite the length of the shoot. The team seems creative and energized and ready to keep telling the story of Middle-earth. But, shooting movies, especially big ones with a big crew and big logistical needs costs big money. So WB is into two films for something like $500 million. For another, say $100 million or less, they now have three films to collect box office from, three different home video sales items to ring up. Instead of grossing $2 billion for a $500 million investment, they get to dream of $3 billion for $600 million. Seems like smart finances. It also fills a hole in the 2014 schedule, which will please stock holders and best of all, the desire to make the film didn’t come from marketing or merchandising, it came from the creative team involved. It also seems the only time to do this is now and not try to start the whole thing up from scratch in two years. The right people, the big movie-making machine that helps Jackson realize his vision, is in place.


One big challenge, probably the biggest after somebody says “yes” for the money is convincing, paying and scheduling on-screen talent. It will be a logistical challenge to align all the planets stars to make this happen. And, smart actors with smart agents will get a pay raise. Still, the return on investment will probably be big enough for the studio that they are willing to over pay a little.


So what material is this that Jackson is talking about? Most book readers are aware that at the end of the “Lord of the Rings,” author J.R.R. Tolkien included about 100 pages (in my copy) of extra material in the Appendix. Film-only fans need to know that Tolkien had a much larger vision of Middle-earth than LOTR or the films could showcase and he used these pages to flesh out some history culture, languages and legends. So what is in them? Glad you asked.

A complete list of the content is down the page but there seems to be a few obvious possibilities of what might be incorporated into Middle-earth cinema. This isn’t a guess of what Jackson’s team is doing or thinking about, just what is available to them.


Besides some overlap of “The Silmarillion,” here is a history of kings and rulers and that includes familiar characters like Denathor, Boromir and Faramir. There is also a rough and tough guy called Aragorn who has some wild adventures including the very specific “Tale of Aragorn and Arwen.” Think cinema audiences would like that?

It could be that Jackson’s writing team wants to fill in the blanks and tie the two “Hobbit” films right into the “Lord of the Rings,” films. Once upon a time this was called the bridge movie which was abandoned so “The Hobbit” could get the royal, two-movie treatment but we know at least the thought was there at one time.

There is a section on Durin’s Folk, or Dwarves, who we alredy know will be making a big showing in the already filmed “Hobbit” movies. The writings include exciting details about a great battle with goblins and we already have clues that some of this history will be in the two planned films because of the presence of bad guys named Azog and Bolg (Conan Stevens). These characters come directly from Appendix A. Called The Battle of Azanulbizar, there is some great dramatic and hate-filled motivating material here, that I suspect and fervently hope is already in “The Hobbit” films.

In the same section we also learn more about Dain Ironfoot, played by Billy Connolly and this drips with potential but might be somewhat confusing in the complicated Dwarven shuffle. Fingers crossed that this is in already or will be with added shooting time.

Also here, the rise of the Witch King of Angmar and his decimation of the kings of men and his showdown against Glorfindel and the famous prophecy “and not by the hand of man will he fall.” This reference to Eowyn would also be a nice tie to the LOTR trilogy, although it seems unlikely. (But really, really cool!) Weathertop could also figure in here and then have more meaning in the LOTR films because it was a featured great tower that housed a palantir and was the center of a real estate dispute (war) that obviously left a memorable ruin in the LOTR films.


Taking place at the same time as some of the oldest flashbacks in LOTR, we have Thranduil and the establishing of the Silvan Elves. More Lee Pace? Yes please. Would PJ want to tackle the glory of Numenor? Seems a bit complex.

If Jackson wanted, he could depict the whole battle that was happening in the north while the siege of Minas Tirith was happening in “The Lord of the Rings,” in the south. The events are very related and it would be a strong, powerful tie to link the sets of films together. There is powerful heroism and friendship that would play great on the big screen. Related events happening at the same time that is also thick with drama is pretty good stuff.

Here too are mentions of post-LOTR events, especially with Hobbits and the final entry explains the final fates of Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli but that seems unlikely.


If Jackson can make a good film from family trees, explanations of calendars, languages and spelling will George Lucas promise to never make another film again?

Annals of the Kings and Rulers
I The Númenórean Kings
II The House of Eorl
III Durin’s Folk
Shire Calendar for use in all years
The Calendars
I Pronunciation of Words and Names
II Writing
I The Languages and Peoples of the Third Age
II On Translation


Jackson specifically mentioned the appendicies, which is why we thumb through them above, but what if he only wants to add some background (like a fleshed out Battle of Azanulbizar please!) and put off the end of “The Hobbit,” until the third film. Is it possible? Could it be done effectively?

Could film two, “The Hobbit: There and Back Again,” end and still leave plenty of story for a third film that genuinely is “The Hobbit,” and not a bridge film? Maybe. It would probably need a new title though as there wouldn’t be a “going back again” happening just yet. Smaug The Golden, Smaug the Magnificent and his battle with Bard and Laketown could be the climax of the film. In the previously scheduled second film, Jackson has the challenge of making that magnificent event happen and then giving viewers another climactic action with the massive Battle of Five Armies that must seem even more grand. These events distinctly do not happen at the same time, so they can’t be tied together in a film’s structure as happening concurrently without major, fundamental changes to plot and character of the base story. Jackson did manage an epic battle with a balrog and still managed an emotional ending in FOTR, so it may not be as tricky as suspected at first blush.

So, could the political enmity between Dwarves and Elves and Men and Orcs provide enough plot, complete with thick history, to be its own movie? Is the White Council busy in the same time frame giving Gandalf urgent business too? Is Radagast and his legion of bunnies, birds and rodents to make the world safe at the same time? Perhaps the conflict against the Necromancer will also be moved to this time frame.

Is there any chance that Jackson would change film 1, make it shorter, leave film 2 with more stuff? An educated guess only but no.

So far we don’t have the clues needed to figure it all out, or at least I don’t.


Three options seem most viable:
1) Shorten 1 and 2 to give content to 3
2) Flesh out 2 and 3 with history to give depth to armed conflict
3) End “The Hobbit” with 2 films and create the once imagined bridge film

So fans, what should it be and what will it be? I have a hunch it will be option three but Jackson, already in 3D-48fps-uncharted-territory, having just sprung a third film on the world in an unprecedented move and way, all stemming from a 75-year-old children’s book, well, that guy just might do anything.

Some aren’t pleased or are skeptical that this can or will work and many instantly think of people trying to make another pile of money. For me, if I get more Middle-earth and more appendicies on screen (especially Glorfindel or *GASP* Tom Bombadil on a Jackson whim) I am happy for it. I don’t look forward to seeing extensions of new-to-the-film content. If Jackson and WB take this risk and I don’t like the end result, I can already read a book but I believe this is coming from the right (creative) place. It may be a long, long while before we see another Middle-earth film and there are some rich nuggets in the appendicies for Jackson and company to mine.

Posted in Characters, ComicCon, Conventions, Director Rumors, Headlines, Hobbit Book, Hobbit Cast News, Hobbit Movie, Hobbit Movie FAQ, Lord of the Rings, MGM, Studios, The Hobbit on July 26, 2012 by
Order the Gollum Enraged - Click Here

89 responses to “Third ‘Hobbit’ movie: How? What? When? Why?”

  1. thesithempire says:

    While I wasn’t happy with the end-results of TTT and ROTK, I still say “Go for it!” More Middle-Earth on the big-screen sounds great to me! And I just have a good feeling about this whole enterprise. I think these films (whether two or three) are going to be really special!

  2. Aragornfan says:

    Consistent with my moniker, I would certainly appreciate a film focused on the raising, adventures, and kingship of Aragorn. I also believe that the romance of Aragorn and Arwen could be a well appreciated story that did not get sufficient viewing time in the LOTR trilogy. In truth, there should have been 4 films instead of 3. As it turned out, too much was stuffed into the last film so that important elements had to be omitted, i.e., the initial actions of Aragorn as king, and the biblical scene where Gandalf takes Aragorn up mount Mindolin and shows him the greater area over which he will rule. Then there is the continuing story of Sam, Merry, Pippin, Legolas, and Gimli after Frodo sails off to the ‘far west’.
    I have a problem with what I have seen thus far of the Hobbit trailers. The Dwarves don’t look real – except for Thorin. Why was there such masklike makeup? If Dwarves aren’t supposed to look human, why is Thorin more realistic? It seems to me that Gimli in LOTR usually looked more realistic. Will these artificial facial features be made more humanlike by computer graphics?

  3. Lecrazy says:

    If they did split it like that, it would be a very boring second movie.

  4. dsto says:

    I’m really hoping for option #1, but sadly, I’m afraid the film 3 idea is going to get dropped. I can still hope!

  5. Mithril says:

    ‘Tolkienism’ makes some very good points, and I agree that keeping the first two movies more-or-less true to The Hobbit is best. What I would like to see in a third film is Aragorn’s story. Not just about Aragorn and Arwen, but about his heritage, the story of Annúminas, his parents, and the tales of all his travels. This would cover a lot of ground and could include the White Council, his younger days as Thorongil when he travelled across Middle-earth and took up service in Rohan and Gondor, how Aragorn and Gandalf originally met, his growing up in Rivendell. With Aragorn and the central focus, lots of tales could be woven in. But Peter has not failed us yet, and I trust that he will make the right decision.

  6. Alatar says:

    You know, I may be alone in this theory, but I always saw Gandalf’s part in the story of the Hobbit more in the guise of subtly if crafty influence on Thorin to take on Smaug and reclaim his treasure in an attempt to avoid him seeking revenge for his father (who had gone awol with the last dwarven ring of power) and inadvertently finding himself and his companions in the clutches of the awakening Necromancer in Dol Guldur. Gandalf is basically playing chess by pulling the strings of fate to protect pieces better used in rousing Smaug than facing down a foe that only the combined strength of the White Council can face and defeat. Sneaky sneaky Mithrandir 😛

  7. thirdeblue says:

    Those two almost certainly heard of Peter’s ideas before even the studio. His conversations with them and the fun he had filming The Hobbit was probably what motivated him to do this. Middle Earth is Peter Jackson’s life work and I think he’s finally fully accepted that.

  8. Pemberley says:

    Um, more Viggo? Yes, please. I would love to see film 3 be appendices only, leading into LOTR.

  9. predictivescript says:

    But the basic point being that the three film proposal can work, as, much like Saruman in LOTR, Smaug is the principal villain in films 1 and especially 2, but throughout both films the broader set up has been a confrontation with the ultimate villain – Sauron – and his armies etc, which is the focus of film 3. Much as In FOTR and TTT it was Saruman doing much of the evil, beyond random beasties like the Balrog, but throughout – and totally in the third film – the ultimate villain was Sauron. The trilogy idea works when we realise this film IS NOT ABOUT SMAUG! Smaug is the secondary villain, but the one who the protagonists interact with, much as the case with Saruman in LOTR. The main villain in this trilogy is SAURON: this is about his reemergence, and begins the arc of the One Ring. LOTR is about his search for the ring, and the Fellowship’s attempts to destroy it before he finds it. Smaug is a secondary villain here with his own schemes who nevertheless can scupper the hopes of middle earth; Saruman in LOTR was the secondary villain with his own schemes who nevertheless could scupper the hopes of middle earth. In other words, the story structures of LOTR and this likely Hobbit trilogy are almost identical. The difference is that, arguably, the Hobbit trilogy will be funnier, more adventurous, less ponderous (no treebeard), and with a little more time to develop characters. In short, and before you even look at the better effects, bigger budget, more freedom for the director, 48fps and 3D, this trilogy looks like being siginficantly more entertaining and faithful than LOTR. And how many oscars did that win again? We should all be salivating at the prospect of a trilogy.

  10. thirdeblue says:

    I suspect this is pretty close to the truth. I believe having Andy Serkis be the second unit director has allowed him to film an absolutely ghastly amount of footage, much, much more than was ever in any “shooting script” handed to MGM or Warner Bros. What I want to know is, how long has Peter been filming with three films in mind, not two? As long as Peter kept to the schedule, he could do whatever he wanted. The only way he could keep to the schedule, though is by having a trusty #2 that Peter wouldn’t have to hold their hand. Has there ever been a director that was so trusting and willing to let others film scenes?

    On an unrelated note, I believe Guillermo Del Toro’s insistence to have no second unit to be the #1 reason he left the project. I bet Peter wanted to direct all the fights and cool second unit stuff that he never got to do the first time around and it’s kind of absurd, given the shear size of these projects that Del Toro could have directed ever last second of footage himself, which he supposedly did on Pacific Rim. The films would have been noticeably shorter and less epic had that happened. I love Del Toro’s work and am excited for Pacific Rim, but I’m glad he left The Hobbit. Who knows what kind of awesomeness would never have been filmed?

  11. Hurin says:

    Yes like the best Extended Version ever!

  12. thirdeblue says:

    Peter’s whole answer was prompted by the question, “Are you thinking of splitting the second film into 2?” His answer wasn’t crouched in doublespeak or a flat denial, but rather was basically saying, “I want to film more footage. Does that mean a third film? Maybe. Does that mean a super long Extended Edition? Maybe. But I want to film MORE. If they’ll let me.”

    They being Warner Bros., MGM, the actors, and the Tolkien Estate. MGM will do whatever Warner Bros. tells them to do, Warner Bros. would sacrifice their firstborn for another Peter Jackson directed Middle Earth film, the actors could be difficult lining up because some of them probably already have commitments (Warner Bros. deep pockets could help with that.), and finally the Tolkien estate. This is probably the biggest hurdle, (although Warner Bros. deep pockets could probably help with that too, though.)

    Peter’s statement is actually kind of strange insofar as he has let this out in the open. If he’s saying this in public, there has got to be a full court press going on behind the scenes.

  13. Rendal says:

    Additional filming would more than likely be for extended editions. Personally I don’t think a bridge movie is feasible, and at this stage I would very highly doubt a splitting up of the second movie, that is something that would have had to have been decided a year or more ago.

  14. Greg says:

    Akallabeth. The downfall of Numenor. It has Sauron, plenty of opportunities to look back at the 1st. age, moral conflict and a solid plot, a wicked chance to do new things with special effects , and a bright ending- Elendil could even sing the same song as Aragorn.

  15. Brian Boru says:

    What an interesting idea. I wonder if it could incorporate the following ideas. The first movie could extend a paragraph from the book describing Bilbo and the Dwarves travelling through the Shire and Bree land and the former lands of the ancient kingdom of Arnor, incorporating the movie casting someone to play Drogo Baggins, how in one of the interviews an actor playing one of the Dwarves sings the song that Frodo sings in the Prancing Pony Inn in LOTR book and Bilbo in the trailer picking up the shards of Narsil. Could one of the wayfarers Bilbo and the Dwarves meet be Drogo on his way back from courting Primula Brandybuck who Bilbo instructs to make sure that the Sackville-Baggins won’t take over Bag End, while he is away thus eliminating while acknowledging the scene from the book where he comes home to find that they have taken over Bag End? Could there be a scene in the Prancing Pony Inn where the song is sung? And could there be references to the decline of the Northern Kingdom as Bilbo and the Dwarves come into the Lone lands followed by Gandalf meeting up with Rangers and Elves from Rivendell who tell him of the influx of Trolls in the Lone lands? Thus there could be some more background on Hobbits, how Frodo came to be adopted by Bilbo and more on Aragorn who Bilbo befriended in Rivendell in the books including something on Aragorn’s hunt for Gollum if these arcs are extended on. Also, the movies could reference the relationship of the Beornings and Bardings to the Rohirrim with the story of their ancestors refusing to give the Dwarves back their hoard after slaying Scatha the Worm being incorporated to explain Thorin’s motives. Also, the alerting of Beorn by Gandalf and the Dwarves to the Goblins and Wargs plans to attack the peoples of the Vales of Anduin could be extended to explain how Beorn becomes the chieftain of these people, while his coming to the Battle of the Five Armies could be an act of gratitude for the Dwarves warning him of this when he previously hadn’t been fond of Dwarves for them stirring up the Goblins in their bid to get revenge for Azog’s slaying of Thror. Also, the Master of Esgaroth and his people’s relationship with the Gondorians could be played up as creating a dynamic between the Master and Bard similar to the one between Denethor and Aragorn and Tauriel could also be a love interest for Bard and thus she could be the foremother of the Bardings.

  16. chetdawg says:

    I say option 3. Make the 2 hobbits films…….and make what i think would be a truly amazing bridge film. The trials of young aragorn in Rohan and Gondor piques my interest the most.

  17. JR Tschopp says:

    That’s exactly what I think. Since Jackson was hesitant to confirm a third movie, but more than happy to confirm talks about additional footage and has in previous interviews mentioned a desire to add more footage to LOTR (Google “20 More Questions with Peter Jackson”) or change things in the current version (he mentions the Gollum model from FOTR in the EE commentary and Fran Walsh or Phillippa Boyens mention a “chronological cut” in the TTT:EE commentary), I think this additional shooting is for extending both LOTR and “The Hobbit” and not necessarily for a third movie. It’s possible sources are putting their own spin on “two months of additional shooting” (which hardly seems like enough for a full movie) and believing it’s for another movie when it isn’t.

    But, it’s hard to say until there’s some sort of official announcement, or until more and more details are leaked.

  18. JR Tschopp says:

    If he’s going to follow-through with the idea from “20 More…” the next year or so would be the time to do it, which is why I think this might be what’s actually happening…

  19. JR Tschopp says:

    I’m right there with you about everyone drawing conclusions of a third film. Jackson seemed okay mentioning his desire to shoot more material and talking to the studio about that, but backed away from saying it was for a third film, giving alternate reasons to shoot it. Also, his use of the term “these movies” certainly makes me think of the series as a whole, not just “The Hobbit,” and since he’s mentioned in the past changing LOTR (“20 More Questions with Peter Jackson” from Ain’t It Cool News and the FOTR:EE commentary when talking about the Gollum model, and then either Fran Walsh or Phillipa Boyens saying something about a “chronological cut” of the series in the TTT:EE commentary), I can’t help but wonder if this additional footage isn’t for both “The Hobbit” and LOTR for a final, massive version.

  20. Bouke says:

    Option 3 would be epic as hell. Always loved the appendixes, the glory of Angmar and the wars in the north.

  21. JRR says:

    “I also believe that the romance of Aragorn and Arwen could be a well appreciated story that did not get sufficient viewing time in the LOTR trilogy”

    are you serious?! the lord of the rings, as originally written, barely mentions arwen a few times… i wish we would have had tom bombadil instead of a more developed storyline about the romance between aragon and arwen. skipping out on such an important character in the dramatic main story of lotr and putting in romantic details from the appendix? why, peter, why? 🙁

  22. I vote for option 3: 2 “Hobbit” films and a bridge film.

  23. KaitlinNoel says:

    I’m with you.

  24. Moraiwë Taurfaron says:

    “Tauriel could also be a love interest for Bard and thus she could be the foremother of the Bardings.” NOOOO! Why do people always want to put more half-Elves into canon? There were five. Five recorded cases in all of Middle-earth history. They were such oddities that the Valar made Elrond and Elros choose which kindred to belong to. Can’t the Bardings just be descendants of a legendary mortal hero without adding admixture of two kindreds with wildly different lifespans — the whole reason the Aragorn/Arwen marriage was almost doomed (as shown in tear-streaked flash-forward in the movies)?

  25. scrap the third film and start a new set Beren and Luthien

  26. Alatar says:

    Their two characters would also point towards a potential ‘and what happened after’ plot in a third film as Gandalf accompanies Bilbo back to the Shire via Beorn’s house and then on to Imladris.

  27. MJ says:

    Love PJ, but can’t get past the thought here that he is overeaching, and letting hubris take the lead instead of the story here.

  28. Chad says:

    Extended edditions. followed by the filming of Narn i Chîn Húrin.
    Yes please!

  29. Glamdring says:

    That’s deep ‘3d narrative’ , i like it! I hope your at least close to being right. Would love a third film. Stories require 3 acts anyway right?

  30. Brian Boru says:

    I’d prefer there not to be Tauriel at all but since she’s there surely she can do something else besides act out the warrior elf-woman part that Arwen was originally going to play in the LOTR movies especially given that Bard is an early conception of Aragorn. I don’t know if the Half-elvens you refer to include those Boromir and Faramir would have descended from and those Lothloriel the wife of Eomer would have descended from. The people of Dol Amroth descended from Elves of Lothlorien who were related to the Elves of Mirkwood and the Rohirrim from whom Eomer and Eowyn descend from were related to the Beornings and the Bardings

  31. Joe Buffington says:

    The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of three films: the non-core audience will want to see a reunion of the Fellowship (even if we don’t want to admit that we do, too), and a three-film structure could make that less clumsy. Many more insightful people than I have already adequately explained why the narrative of The Hobbit itself calls for a three-act dramatization rather than a two-act fable, and we all saw how (forgive the blasphemy) HP7.1 fell flat as a stand-alone film: a good book rarely lends itself to cinematic halves. The fact is, as we know, the text of The Hobbit was altered (ok, “retconned”) by the author after the publication of The Lord of the Rings, so Tolkien himself surely wouldn’t be too offended at the notion of amending a work in order to make it consistent with a related work. Indeed, this sort alteration suggests what I think could be a great storytelling device: Bilbo admits to a select few to having lied about the finding of the ring, etc. – so in a way, we’re dealing with a potentially unreliable narrator … for the entire saga. Galadriel’s may be an infallible voice (as in the Fellowship prologue), but think of all the exciting ways in which PJ could use the unreliable narrator trope as a way of retelling certain scenes from (or behind) the LOTR! It seems to me that this could be done without the third film being the unique “bridge” film: we just need to see the larger story unfold from the limited perspective of lesser eyes throughout the telling of the tale. It can be done. And if anyone can do it well, PJ & Co. can.

  32. flexiwrists222 says:

    Tauriel shouldn’t be that crazy of a change as her character is simply the head of the elven guard introduced in the barrels out of bond chapter. She now has a name and gender, and would logically be involved in halting dwarven wayfarers in Mirkwood and fighting against goblins at the Battle of Five Armies. I see her inclusion in the film to be a positive (barring any romance which would not be good)

  33. Joe Buffington says:

    The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of three films: the non-core audience will want to see a reunion of the Fellowship (even if we don’t want to admit that we do, too), and a three-film structure could make that less clumsy. Many more insightful people than I have already adequately explained why the narrative of The Hobbit itself calls for a three-act dramatization rather than a two-act fable, and we all saw how (forgive the blasphemy) HP7.1 fell flat as a stand-alone film: a good book just doesn’t lend itself to cinematic halves. The fact is, as we know, the text of the Hobbit was altered (ok, “retconned”) by the author after the publication of the Lord of the Rings, so Tolkien himself surely wouldn’t be too offended at the notion of amending a text in order to make it consistent with a related work. Indeed, this very alteration suggests what I think could be a great storytelling device: Bilbo admits to a select few to having lied about the finding of the ring, etc. – so in a way, we’re dealing with a potentially unreliable narrator … for the entire saga. Galadriel’s may be an infallible voice (as in the Fellowship prologue), but think of all the exciting ways in which PJ could use the unreliable narrator trope as a way of retelling certain scenes from the LOTR! It seems to me that this could be done without the third film being the unique “bridge” film: we just need to see the larger story unfold from the limited perspective of lesser eyes throughout the telling of the tale. It can be done. And if anyone can do it well, PJ & Co. can.

  34. Brian Boru says:

    That wouldn’t be too bad except that I think that Evangeline Lilly could be a more high profile actor than those who played similar roles in the Lord of the Rings movies and so I wonder if her role will be more than that. Also, when I was thinking ‘love interest’ I was thinking more in a Tolkien context than the Hollywood version of Aragorn and Arwen’s story but since it is Hollywood calling the shots it would probably mess that up. I have also had this thought about Bard and Tauriel since discovering that the etymology on Lothíriel is ‘daughter of the flower’ while the etymology onTauriel is ‘daughter of the forest’, which perhaps links Celeborn’s realm with Thranduil’s. I have thought that a ‘love interest’ could be alternatively played out between Beorn and Tauriel but wonder what that would do to the DNA of Grimbeorn who consequently will be a Half-Elven who can transform into a bear.

  35. Brian Boru says:

    Based on the quote below by Peter Jackson when he made his announcement about The Hobbit movies being a trilogy it looks like it will be Option 2. And I think that he is right when he says:

    “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.”

    It has been often said that the structure of The Hobbit is a microcosm of the structure of The Lord of the Rings. Hence based on how The Lord of the Rings trilogy was structured it wouldn’t surprise me if the trilogy is split at when Bilbo and the Dwarves arrive at Esgaroth and at the death of Smaug. I think the first movie will be linear with the journey of Bilbo and the Dwarves being told in the context of the White Council dealing with the delaying tactics of Saruman, which will only be understood at the end of the movie when Saruman is seen communicating with Sauron through the palantir after Saruman has relented to the Council attacking Dol Guldur because Sauron is planning to feign to flee. I think the second movie will intercut between three plot strands: the action around Bilbo and the Dwarves at the Mountain which leads to Smaug sacking Esgaroth, the strategies around the White Council attacking Dol Guldur and Beorn and the Beornings’ defence of the Men of the Vales of Anduin from the Orcs and Wargs that attack their viillages to explain how Beorn becomes the chief of that area. Meanwhile, the third movie will bring these strands together to first tell of the besieging of the Lonely Mountain by the Elves and Men and then their helping the Dwarves with their defence of the Mountain from the Orcs and Wargs.

    In order to help develop the different plot strands the appendices information on the Rohirrim will be referred to so to help develop the Beornings and Bardings because of their relationship with the Rohirrim. Also, the appendices information on the Gondorians will be referred to so to help develop the Esgarothians because of their relationship with the Gondorians. Meanwhile, the appendices information on the Orc and Dwarves war will be referred to so to help explain their relationship with each other. Also, the appendices information on the Dwarves’ relationship with the Rohirrim will be referred to so to help explain their relationship with the Beornings and the Bardings. And information in the Lord of the Rings that didn’t make it into the Lord of the Rings movies on the Dwarves relationship with the Elves will make it into the Hobbit movies as well as information in the Lord of the Rings book on Hobbits and maybe even on Aragorn’s people in the north that didn’t make it into the Lord of the Rings movies to help develop these things as well. That should give a lot of information to help flesh out the movies.

  36. Mandolinguitar says:

    What about making three exciting hobbit movies without to much details and more action with maybe action from the appendices and use the details and deeper information for extended editions. Then non-Tolkien fans and Tolkien fans will be satisfied.
    PS: I loved the comment of someone who suggested naming the third movie:
    The Hobbit:”The Road Goes Ever On”

  37. Jaspisstone3 says:

    Since a few weeks I’ve been saving my money and I’ve been trying to comment as much as I can!!!
    here’s why:

    I think we can expect another great triology… wikipedia says (I read at 12 o’clock, but now I see they changed the article again and it isn’t mentioned anymore) that The Hobbit: “An Unexpected Journey” will be 2 hours, 45 minutes and 47 seconds… Thus being significantly shorter than any movie of the LotR-triology. I think that Peter Jackson wanted a triology have shorter movies for the cinema. But I know he won’t let us fans down, I think he’s going to make super extended editions for the ones that liked the movies. maybe he’ll make 4 hourslasting extended versions.
    The last years, PJ has been known being excited to also make super extended editions because he still has alot of good footage (try Youtube)!

    § Well i’m saving money because I have stong suspicions that
    ps:( my calculations tell that a super extended blablabla would have 24 hours of movie material only!
    🙂 And than there is all the behind the scenes material)

    § Why I’ve been commending so much the last weeks is because there’s on thing I’m worrying about…
    The considerated titles for the second movie are not worth to serve as a movie title for the Hobbit!
    “The Desolation of Smaug”, the one that is will probably make it is stupid and it doesn’t match with the story or the other movie titles. The other 2 (“the Battle Of Five Armies” and “Riddles in the Dark” even more lame, emotionless, to specific or just unrelated. These are great chapter titles, or geographic spots, but unappopiate movie titles

    So please comment and react, to let PJ and New Line know the second movie deserves a much better title or let our own imagination work…

    What about “The Hobbit Triologie”…
    The Hobbit: “An Unexpected Journey”
    The Hobbit: “The Road Goes Ever On” or “No Grace for the North”
    The Hobbit: “There and Back Again”

  38. Jaspisstone3 says:

    What about The Hobbit: “The Road Goes Ever On” for 2nd or 3rd movie

  39. Mark Lew says:

    Interesting, perhaps in a weird way that this is actually Gandalf’s story being told through the eyes of Bilbo and Frodo. This could allow for the “bridge” movie and continue the overall story line of the series. Gandalf could then become the narrator of “bridge” movie to connect the two series.

Leave a Reply