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

Latest Tweets

  1. TheOneRing.net
    TheOneRing.net: JRR Tolkien is like “I know a place” and it’s the same corner of the same pub every time https://t.co/hBaXoR81m2

  2. TheOneRing.net
    TheOneRing.net: You could have chosen a different screenshot in a story about COVID https://t.co/OoSrtdXunl

  3. TheOneRing.net
    TheOneRing.net: Now is the time to start reading Lord of the Rings. Grab a book, sit outside amongst nature and escape to Middle-ea… https://t.co/ucfhCVfy62

News Alerts

Get emailed with every new post!

TORn staff mull over the Hobbit Three announcement

July 31, 2012 at 8:34 am by newsfrombree  - 

Well, wasn’t that a surprise?! Now we’re going to have three Hobbit films to watch, ponder and dissect, not just two.

But what do TORn’s staffers make of the announcement that The Hobbit will be transformed from two films into a trilogy of its own?

Read on below the cut out and see what a few of us are thinking and feeling!

Altaira

The news of a third Hobbit movie puts one question to rest, and creates a hundred more! For one, it makes me wonder at what point it became clear that there was enough material for a third movie? After the box office and DVD success of the LOTR movies, they could have justified three Hobbit movies from the outset. But they didn’t; or did they? How much ‘extra’ footage has already been shot with a third movie in mind? I suspect it must be a fair amount if they’re releasing the third movie within six months of the second.

We think we already know the plot points drawn from the Lord of the Rings appendices, so this either means those will be expanded upon, or they’ll use things we’re not even aware of yet. Oh, the possibilities! PJ, please include a hefty DVD extra to fill us in on how this evolved!

Calisuri

Fifteen years ago, if you said to me that The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit were being made into six movies, after I was woken up from my excitement-induced coma, I would have said the first film and maybe a bit of the second would be the events of The Hobbit. The remainder would cover the depth of The Lord of the Rings, complete with Tom Bombadil. (Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo!)

My reaction today to the announcement that a third film is going to be released really came down to ‘Oh hell yea! We get to have another Oscar Party!!!!’ I could not be more excited to be transported to PJ’s adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s world. In 2001 I was blown away by PJ’s ability to adapt this ‘unfilmable’ series, and in 2012 I’m still steadfastly ready to be treated to more.

So he’s going to add a few things here and there -– cut out some favorite scene -– enhance the role of some quiet dwarf. But the fact of the matter is, we will always have the masterpieces from J.R.R. Tolkien himself. (unlike the revisionist Lucas…but we won’t go there…) And however you choose to partake in the world Tolkien created (books, films, games) we share that common bond of passion for Tolkien’s world and works. So three cheers for another film! Pass me the popcorn! PS: Things are always better in threes.

Celedor

Since I find it difficult to conceive of Jackson making a bad film about Middle-earth, I’m excited about the announcement of the third film. The key to making the three work will be proper structuring, but that’s something that Jackson excels at. Take a look at The Two Towers movie, where the writers completely restructured the story and created (by my estimate) a good 30 or 35 percent of original material to expand upon the elements of the book that were included.

And throughout all three Lord of the Rings films, elements were shifted around to appear in places you might not have expected: Gandalf’s pity speech from Bag End was moved to Moria, the reforging of Narsil was moved from Fellowship of the Ring to Return of the King. The lesson to learn is that just because the book does it a certain way doesn’t mean the movie has to follow suit!

Deej

I think I must be the only staffer that’s leery about this third film. I want to believe this is a good thing and not being done out of self-indulgence. Time will tell, I suppose. As much as I don’t want any of this to end, I’d rather it ended sooner than wear out its welcome. Just my two cents.

Demosthenes

I thought Warner Bros would wait to see the success of An Unexpected Journey before committing to the gamble of a third film. They must be very sure that there’s a bucket of money hidden under Smaug and Bilbo will burgle even more of it for them with a third film.

But that brings up a key point: Bilbo’s story could be in danger of getting thin and stretched, “like butter scraped over too much bread”. In this sense, you could say that The Hobbit “stands upon the edge of a knife. One false step and it could fall, to the ruin of all”. Avoiding bloat that could turn Bilbo’s fairytale adventure into a lead affair will be the key task for the writers. We already have Star Wars as an example of what happens when discipline goes out the window. More than ever, they need to find the discipline to reject threads that are truly extraneous.

Elessar

Today’s news that The Hobbit will become a trilogy brought me a huge smile. I was already pleased to be getting two films with some material added in that explained some behind the scenes stuff going on during the story. Now, getting three films that will flesh more out and flesh out more of the history of Middle-earth is pure win.

As a fan of Middle-earth the thought of seeing depth added to the cinematic version of it is music to my ears. I think in the end fans will thank PJ for this move and the normal fan will appreciate/understand the world we love so much more.

Garfeimao

I hope this means we get to see the Goblin-Dwarf war, at least as it pertains to Thror, Dain and Azog, and I want to “SEE” Smaug destroy Dale and Erebor, not “HEAR” about it.

grammaboodawg

I’m delighted that there are three films! After I picked myself up off the floor, I was shaking with happy overload! I think Peter, Fran and Philippa know this is probably the last jaunt around Tolkien’s works, so why not finish the job and the story of Hobbits in Middle-earth right?

They’re so spot-on in their expansion of Tolkien’s tales. I trust their version of telling the story. I say, “bring it on” and “bring on some more… PLEASE!” I’m so grateful Peter and company are such worthy stewards of Tolkien’s work. It’s like having MORE Tolkien!

Greendragon

People may hear the sound of cash registers chiming, but I don’t believe this is about cashing in. I just think PJ finds it VERY hard to edit!! So I’m actually not that surprised to find it has ended up being three films. I just hope they are not too flabby — hope PJ isn’t being self indulgent. On a personal level, as far as I’m concerned, the more the better! I’m delighted to have as many times as possible to sit in the theatre and thrill to the opening of another visit to Middle-earth, grace of PJ and the team.

Kelvarhin

Three films?! One part of me is jumping up and down screaming “Yes! Yes! Yes!”, the other is worrying about what they’re adding in, remembering reactions to certain parts of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I think it would be really cool if they included more of the backstory, the coming of Smaug to the mountain, the battle of Azanulbizar, the capture of Thrain by the Necromancer and the meeting of Gandalf and Thorin. I do know, whatever they do, I’ll be there, munching my popcorn, and enjoying the return to Middle-earth.

Kristin

What will three films mean? The only hint, as far as I know, is that PJ mainly mentioned the appendices when he talked about all the material they couldn’t take advantage of if they stopped at two films. His mention of Bilbo seemed to hint that the new material would put Bilbo’s adventures into context. If I had to guess at this point, I suspect that even more expanded White Council/Dol Guldur attack material would be cut in at intervals during the existing tale of the Hobbit plot.

If that’s the case, it’s an expansion of the approach the filmmakers were taking already, adding appendices material to The Hobbit. There’s no hint of revertion to the ‘bridge film’ concept. I’m cautiously hopeful. I don’t hold with the notion the Hobbit could be fully told in one three-hour film or two two-hour ones. (The unabridged audio book is about 11 hours.)

Linuxelf

Mixed feelings about a third film: is there enough material to make three movies of similar lengths? Also the second movie is called “There and Back Again”, so the end might be a given? But assuming the first movie is pretty much in the can, there is room to move/add martial from film two into a third film. Film three ending with Battle of Five Armies and maybe a prologue about Aragorn and Arwen in it to tie it to Lord of the Rings.

Magpie

For me, a third Hobbit movie is another opportunity for joy. Lord of the Rings brought me tremendous joy, even if occasionally mixed with frustration or annoyances at certain Jackson stamps on the material. I liked how PJ phrased his announcement of the third Hobbit movie. It indicated a respect for how to expand the project and what focus and direction it should take.

I am never one to dig too deeply into movies before I go. I like to give the filmmakers a fairly clean canvas upon which to paint their magic. If nothing else, we will have three(?) more hours of score by Howard Shore. That surely can’t be a bad thing. And my heart tells me that joy will be found in many likely and unlikely places — on screen and off — as we journey there… and back again. I look forward to our journey.

Quickbeam

It’s easy to be cynical. We may indeed be witnessing Warner Bros. machinations to gain maximum profit from their risky investment (obviously that’s the movie business). However, I’m inclined to believe the true impetus from Jackson and his co-writers is to expand the story beyond the original Hobbit book with the rich tapestry of other events described in The Appendices of Lord of the Rings.

Personally I am thrilled with having more instead of less. Now, if PJ hadn’t licensed all that extra material — that Tolkien himself struggled to complete and cram into the earliest editions and over which he fussed with his publishers — then the Hobbit would’ve stopped at two flicks.

Posted in Director news, Hobbit Movie, Peter Jackson, Studios, Warner Bros. on July 31, 2012 by
Thranduil Statue

37 responses to “TORn staff mull over the Hobbit Three announcement”

  1. RAUL ROJAS says:

    greeeeeeeaaaaaat!!!!!!! yuhuuuuu!!!!!!

  2. GreyFoxSolid says:

    I do hope that the third film is at least a bit of a bridge type story. I always thought that idea would be amazing.

  3. David says:

    Whoever doesn’t think this is about money is fooling themselves. Had New Line realized how popular the LOTR Extended Edition DVDs would have become there would have been more than three films released in the theaters. With this news of a third film we won’t be seeing Extended Editions of The Hobbit on DVD.

  4. Dylan says:

    When I first heard of a third Hobbit film I was in shock. :O And then I was thinking “this’s not going to be that great.” Two days later, I realized, “you know, maybe it won’t be that bad. Most likely it’s not going to be one 3 hour long battle, so it’s going to be more peaceful middle earth.” Now after reading the reviews here, I’m still not as psyched, but I’m still going to try and be the first of my friends to get tickets.

  5. Clemen says:

    not that I’m not excited … but I fear that the standard of the film will decrease … One must rely on Peter Jackson’s judgment and that it is not just a way of milking more money out of The Hobbit …

  6. MauriceHuguenin says:

    The big question here for me is: How long will each individual movie be? The “standard” 180 minutes as we know from previous movies of Peter Jackson?

  7. Kay says:

    Thank you all for sharing your opinions with us. It gave me some new things to think about. I’m half-excited, and half-apprehensive, but I look forward to watching the three films anyway!

  8. Lattetown says:

    Two words: John Carter. I’ll wait for the DVDs so I can fast forward through the fluff not in the original story.

  9. Lori Havert says:

    I’m thrilled that there is going to be a 3rd film. I completely trust Peter Jackson to take Tolkien’s masterpieces and present them in all the cinematic middle-earth beauty he is capable of. He loves these stories, and he respects the fans to the point that he knows if he doesn’t do the Hobbit justice he will be letting millions of people down. I don’t believe this decision to be financially motivated, but art motivated. He is looking to give us a more perfect story. We’ve all watched the DVD extras, we know how he agonized over the edits, and effects and sound and music, up until the very last moment that the films were premiered. I am glad he decided with a third film, it gives him more room to play and with his love of this story I know that Jackson is going to bring middle-earth back to us. 12 years, I’m homesick for middle-earth and ready to go back again. and again, and again.

  10. Alex says:

    I would include that we could see about the rise of the Witch-King in Agmar and the Dunedain, the Battle of Dol-Guldur, the meeting between Celeborn and Thranduil after the battle, also about the return of Khamul to Dol Guldur (Sala Baker is the actor in The Hobbit). We could see Celeborn and Aragorn again…
    In my opinion the 3rd film would finish in the return of Sauron to Dol Guldur.

  11. Dear TORNistas: your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to ascertain what about Aragorn will be in the film(s) and whether Viggo might be back (less hirsute?) to play his younger self. Please?

  12. Charity says:

    Part of me is screaming and jumping up and down with utter
    excitement. I trust PJ to take The Hobbit and the Appendixes and to come up with a truly kick-ass prequel series, but can he do it and manage not to forget that this really is supposed to be Bilbo’s adventure? PLEASE tell me we don’t have to wait until the final
    film to see Smaug! And DO tell me that we might get to see a bit of
    Arwen after all…

  13. Dubiousity says:

    Oooh… Mixed feelings. On the one hand I’m happy that we’ll have more tim to spend in Middle Earth, but I’m also concerned that the films will are going to bear very little relation to story of the book. I would have been far happier if the story of The Hobbit had been told in the first film, or, if they’re insisting on making three films, the first two, and the extra material from the appendices could have been turned into a separate film. It also seems to me that any story from the appendices that does not take place within the same time-frame as The Hobbit would seem out of place and stuck on as an afterthought.

  14. Derek Whaley says:

    I think people forget that The Hobbit occurs over almost an identical period of time as The Lord of the Rings. The difference in scale is partially because The Hobbit follows the story of a single character while The Lord of the Rings follows the nine Fellowship members. When Gandalf leaves in LotR, we continue to see his story while in Hobbit, we do not. But where LotR (the novel) is definitely overlong due to extremely detailed histories, dialogues, and scene descriptions, Hobbit (the novel) is brief on all accounts and, indeed, is much more apt to being directly converted to film. But the direct conversion to film would only be around 6 hours when all the descriptions and superfluous information are removed.

    When 2-3 more hours of information are pulled directly from Lord of the Rings (novel again), its appendices, and the little background information implied from throughout Hobbit, largely through what Gandalf says, a third movie can be easily created. The plots of Sauron in Mirkwood, the dwarves of the Iron Mountains, the Silvan elves of Mirkwood, and the men of Dale all are nearly as important in the War of the Ring as the tales of the men in the south and the war with Sauron in Mordor. The Ring is certainly more important in the latter, but primarily as a plot device—things are much more dire—but the War of the Ring truly starts with Bilbo Baggins on the Lonely Mountain.

    My only fear is that Jackson won’t know where to stop. Lord of the Rings has an obvious ending, but Hobbit will not with the addition of the White Council, Balin’s venture into Moria, the Goblin-Dwarf wars, the rebuilding of Dale, etc. If it follows Bilbo’s story, most of this happens after it. The Necromancer plot can be resolved, but everything else will not be. Balin doesn’t even leave for Moria until after Bilbo’s back. The wars only begin while he is returning home. And only Balin is resolved in the LotR film. Anything else with dwarves and Dale are left to the appendices of LotR during the War of the Ring but never mentioned in the LotR films. Wrapping that up is something I fear may never happen unless a new extended Return of the King releases with a few extra wrap-up scenes.

  15. SLW says:

    Aragorn was 11 years old when The Hobbit happened; it would take some doing to make Viggo look that young.

  16. White Lighter says:

    Having enjoyed the LOTR trilogy and regularly re-reading all the books by Tolkien, I can only rejoice. But my first reaction : money. Just imagine all the merchandising, DVD’s and maybe an ultimate (never ultimate) packs of LOTR + Hobbit trilogies with bonus stuff. It’s very trendy these days. Look what they do with the Harry Potter series as well. As long as sheep will follow…

  17. SLW: true; Aragorn was born in 2931 TA, Battle of Five Armies was in 2941, Bilbo returned to the Shire in 2942. But the issue hinges on how much of the material in the appendices PJ will use. Aragorn was told who he was by Elrond, and the went off “into the Wild,” in 2951; the last meeting of the White Council was 2953; A met Gandalf in 2956, and he was engaged to Arwen in Lorien in 2980. So PJ and PB could plausibly work in some of that and only go another decade forward in time, since e are not sure yet that the third movie ends with the Battle of Five Armies in 2941.

  18. Boboo says:

    If Peter manger to fit the lord of the rings into 3 films and do it brilliantly then imagine what he can do with 3 films for just the hobbit.

  19. Laine Brown says:

    Has no one watched the production blogs? I have watched them all several times and you can clearly see the love and attention PJ is giving these Hobbit films, have faith my good people!

  20. StriderIsMyDog'sName says:

    I am both really thrilled and really mad. Thrilled because Peter Jackson is amazing, and I have complete faith in him to do a wonderful job on a third film. Mad because I have to wait another full year for this new film! THREE YEARS! I just don’t think I can last that long…….. My dream is to meet Peter Jackson and the cast of the movie. Like that will ever happen. 🙁 I am also a huge soundtrack fan, so having three Howard Shore soundtracks to listen to plus my Lord of the Rings ones will be epic! I hope he will have a 2d version of the movies though, cause one of my friends (and many others I’m sure) gets sick in 3d. My goal is to read The Hobbit ten more times before December!

  21. fred says:

    Whose to say that the movie studios didn’t insist on 3-two hour movies as opposed to 2-three hour movies? Clearly their motivation is all about money. I just hope that’s not the case…

  22. Mr. Whaley: it’s not “almost an identical” time period–it’s some decades earlier (please see my brief but detailed chronology, below, drawn from Appendix B, “The Third Age,” RotK.

  23. Toad says:

    Back in the 70s (or thereabouts) when The Three Musketeers (with Raquel Welch and Michael York) was made, the actors thought that’s all they were making. Then it turned out there was lot’s of extra footage, enough to release the Four Musketeers too. The only thing is, the actors were only paid for one film!
    I have a lot of respect for Peter, but there is more here than just accidentally (magically) discovering you have shot enough extra to make a whole film from.
    My question is how much additional filming will they do? For sure there will be pickups, and there will certainly be extended dvd versions, but did they really have enough script to create three films from? If so, I guarantee Peter, and lot of other people new that while they were filming.
    This is an interesting development, and I’ll be interested to see how someone like Kristin Thompson will ferret out the real story and report it.
    And it will be interesting to see if the people who worked their a..s of making these films get fairly compensated for the extra film.

  24. dolguldur says:

    Could someone help me understand something? Peter Jackson says he’s going to film the Battle of Dol Guldur for The Hobbit, but the BODG is part of the War of the Ring… So is the final movie going to flash forward many decades to the LOTR timeline? What am I missing?

  25. Eric M. Van says:

    All of our prior speculation about where the two movies might split is, of course, now rendered obsolete! One guess at the motivation to go to three: the second movie now climaxes with a Battle of Dol Guldur, thus solving an obvious structural problem if that battle had to be in the same film as the Battle of Five Armies. That does mean, however, that the third film would then be entirely the Bilbo story line rather than the White Council, which means it more or less constitutes that part of The Hobbit proper that we thought would be in the second film. So what might be happening here, essentially, is that all of the White Council stuff from the original second film is being expanded and moved to a new middle film, along with some of both story lines from the original first movie.

    A guess to the way the Hobbit splits: 1 ends with Bilbo’s escape from Gollum and reunion with the dwarves, 2 ends at the arrival in Laketown. That means that the Bilbo storyline in 2 is mostly Mirkwood, which would work well if a good chunk of the movie is about the White Council versus the Necromancer.

    I am intrigued by the idea that they might also work in flashbacks to the Dwarf / Goblin wars (essentially giving us a huge chunk of the history of Durin’s folk), which would provide a tremendous tie-in to LOTR:FOTR and the Balrog. But I would hate to be the screenwriters assigned to the task of working that in without the audience going, hey, what’s happening with Bilbo? And with Gandalf? The solution might be to make Dain a fairly major character, so that the flashback is also about his relationship to Thorin. And of course I expect much more about how Dain gets summoned to the Battle of Five Armies; that is likely to become a major plot point (ditto for Legolas and the other Wood-Elves, of course).

    I am now suspecting that in the original two-movie structure there was a lot less White Council than many of us had been imagining, because there was so much expansion needed in terms of Bard’s back story and the summoning of the Wood-Elves and Dain. (And I suspect something added on the way to the Trolls, as well: I’ve been hoping that they lift Fog on the Barrow-Downs and insert it, with Thorin as the hero.)

  26. Eric M. Van says:

    Thinking further… Thorin got his “Oakenshield” name at the Battle of Azanulbizar. The first movie lacks a major battle scene of any kind; all we have is the skirmish with the goblins. And what if Thror’s companion when he was killed by Azog in Moria was not Nar, but his grandson Thorin (age 44)? In which case the Dwarf / Goblin war (reduced to this single battle) fits in easily as the second major Thorin flashback (the first being, of course, Smaug’s attack on Erebor). And it introduces Dain as a character, and it sets up the appearance of Azog’s son Bolg. I think it’s so irresistible that it was probably already in the first movie (and the latest cast credits at IMDB indeed include Azog, Thror, Thrain, and Dain). I can even imagine it being parceled out in pieces as a parallel narrative.

  27. fjos says:

    They are making movies for money, and not for charity? And they are telling me this now? 😉

  28. Dawsman says:

    I am wondering about where the cut off point for each film would be. I think perhaps for the first one it will end when they emerge from the Misty Mountains and the eagles set them down. 2nd maybe after the shenanigans in Mirkwood and arriving at Laketown it will end with them setting of for the lonely Mountain. But the additional material casts much uncertainty on any predictions. Looking forward to finding out.

  29. Mr. Whaley: that’s not really true, as per my brief list of important events and their dates below (drawn from Appendix B, “The Third Age,” in “RotK.” Bilbo was born 2980 TA (Third Age), Aragorn 2931 TA, Battle of Five Armies was 2941, Aragorn went off “into the Wild” (and to Rohan, Gondor, etc.) in 2951, Frodo was born in 2968 and LOTR events commence in 3018.

  30. Kevin Black says:

    There are some obvious clues here that are being ignored.

    First, look at the Appendices themselves, as TORn helpfully did last week, and you see that a) there isn’t THAT MUCH extra material; and b) most or all of it (Azog, Thrain, etc.) was already going to be incorporated in the films.

    Second, what we DON’T have is the announcement of a new shooting schedule, other than the always-planned pickups, OR a bunch of new contracts being negotiated and signed with the current principals to extend their commitment, or with new actors (Viggo, Liv, the Blue Wizards?) to shoot newly-conceived of scenes which would still need to be scripted, prepped, shot, and finished for a summer 2014 release.

    What I see here is a story of PJ, Fran, and Philippa looking at a rough cut of the footage they have shot ALREADY–taking a hard look at stucture, and counting up the minutes that need to be cut in order to satisfy New Line Cinema’s tolerance for theatrical running times.
    Sure, they could follow the LOTR approach, cut what they have to the bone, and then release definitive extended edition DVDs later with hours of additional material (complete with expensive post-production work never-to-be-screened theatrically). OR….. why not cut A LOT LESS by just restructuring into three films! Especially if, now that you look at it, there is a natural stopping point here and a climax there–and then we can justify the budget and time to really finish THIS key sequence properly which might otherwise land on the cutting room floor, because of the need to turn over theaters and sell maximum tickets during opening weekend.

    So–I see this as no radical change of plan, just a consequence of PJ being an undisciplined flimmaker–in a good way!–and the team discovering that it already has too much of an embarrassment of riches for two movies and a more natural trilogy in the can already.

  31. Brian Boru says:

    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 movie 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 who only relents to the attack on DolGuldur at the end of the movie, which will only be understood at the end of the second movie when Saruman is seen communicating with Sauron through the palantir after Sauron has gone from DolGuldur at which point the audience discovers that that he was feigning being driven out of DolGuldur. 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 DolGuldur 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 them helping the Dwarves with their defence of the Mountain from the Orcs and Wargs. And the movie may end with a 20 min denouement where old Bilbo is heard narrating as young Bilbo travels home which is interspersed with scenes showing how the Lonely Mountain, Dale, Esgaroth and the Desolation of the Dragon changes over the years and how this prompts Balin to set off to Moria to create a colony there. Then old Bilbo could be seen with Frodo who says: ‘So the old prophecies have come true in a sense?’, At which Bilbo says that of course they did and his adventures and escapes were not for his benefit, after all he was just a Hobbit and they aren’t big people in the world, to which Frodo replies; ‘Thank goodness’. Then perhaps the subtitles could roll on Gollum leaving the Misty Mountains and on him travelling in the lands around eventually coming to Mordor and then on Aragorn hunting for him and then capturing him in the Dead Marshes leaving the audience with the impression that there are other tales to tell.

    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.

    I also think that the first movie may begin with a prologue spoken by Galadriel that shows things that didn’t occur in the prologue of the Lord of the Rings such as Anatar helping the Elven-smiths with creation of the Rings, becoming Sauron when he makes his own Ring, the Three Rings actually being given to Gil-galad, Cirdan and Galadriel by the Elven-smiths, Gil-galad being thrown to his death at the battle where the Ring was taken by Sauron’s mace and him giving his ring to Elrond as he lays dying, an off-screen Isildur taking the Ring off an on-screen Sauron, the Ring then seen falling to the bottom of the river, Greenwood becoming Mirkwood, Sauron being seen in DolGuldur, the Istariarriving at the Grey Havens and Cirdan giving his ring to Gandalf, Deagol’s hand picking up the Ring from the bottom of the river, the White council meeting for the first time, an off-screen attack by Smaug on an onscreen Lonely Mountain, Thror, Thrain and Thorin leading the Dwarves away from the Mountain, an old Bilbo with Frodo at Bag End. Meanwhile, the second movie could open with a more detailed attack on Dale and the Lonely Mountain by an onscreen Smaug in all his might and more detail of the escape of the Dale Men and the Dwarves. And the third movie could open with a detailed history of the Dwarves in exile from leaving the Lonely Mountain to Gandalf meeting Thorin at Bree, which could introduce Dain killing Azog in the battle outside Moria in the Dwarf-Orc war.

  32. Milkor says:

    Enough with the Lucas bashing already. Do you really have to try to tear down one thing in order to elevate another? I thought you guys were better than that.

  33. BobSF says:

    The ‘last-minute announcement’ of the thrid movie has people yelling about a money grab, but the Hobbit story itself does have three perfect plot crescendos for the big screen – (1) Escape from Mirkwood (2) Smaug! (3) Five Armies + ‘Back Again’. Backfill on Dwarves vs Orcs, White Council, Necromancer at Dol Guldur, etc etc and you have three action packed flicks, each about 3 hours on the extended Blu-rays.

  34. Scott Hueter says:

    Bilbos adventures happen in his 50’s. The Lord of the Rings begins with Bilbos 111th birthday. so material for the Hobbit movies can cover much of that time.

  35. Scott Hueter says:

    Sheep with 3d glasses and owners of DVD extended editions! 🙂

  36. Scott Hueter says:

    There is plenty of material to draw on in the Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales and other works by Tolkien to cover the fading years of middle-earth (3rd age).

  37. No rights to the other works; the LotR Extended Editions are not PJ’s “definitive” versions, the theatricals are.

Leave a Reply