Hobbit to be a trilogy.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**reds8n**

It is only at the end of a shoot that you finally get the chance to sit down and have a look at the film you have made. Recently Fran, Phil and I did just this when we watched for the first time an early cut of the first movie – and a large chunk of the second. We were really pleased with the way the story was coming together, in particular, the strength of the characters and the cast who have brought them to life. All of which gave rise to a simple question: do we take this chance to tell more of the tale? And the answer from our perspective as the filmmakers, and as fans, was an unreserved ‘yes.’

We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance. The richness of the story of The Hobbit, as well as some of the related material in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, allows us to tell the full story of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and the part he played in the sometimes dangerous, but at all times exciting, history of Middle-earth.

So, without further ado and on behalf of New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Wingnut Films, and the entire cast and crew of “The Hobbit” films, I’d like to announce that two films will become three.

It has been an unexpected journey indeed, and in the words of Professor Tolkien himself, “a tale that grew in the telling.”

Then via Bleeding Cool

It seems that Jackson, Warner Bros. and the full furry-feet team have registered a couple of possible titles for their third Hobbit picture while they make up their mind which of them will be best.

Both of the possible options has been claimed in a few URL variants by Mark Monitor, the company who registered the other Hobbit domains for the producers. Fusible spotted the registrations just before the weekend.

The two options are Riddles in the Dark and The Desolation of Smaug.

I feel that the latter would make most sense as the title of a third film, as it refers to the area around Smaug’s lair in the Lonely Mountain, somewhere that the Dragon has destroyed and left, well, desolate. This would likely have to be the second of the three films, relative to where the location appears in the overall narrative.

Less literally appropriate to a third film would be Riddles in the Dark, the name of the fifth chapter in the book. These scenes take place during the narrative span of The Unexpected Journey, at least as it stands, and a sequence from this chapter was played, in at least nearly-finished form at Comic-Con this month.

So, given this, it’s possible that these aren’t potential names for the third film. Perhaps they’ll be part of a marketing viral; perhaps they’ll be the names of some kind of ancillary product – video games maybe; or perhaps the tiny expenditure needed to claim these URLs was spent pre-emptively to scare off cyber squatters.

They are going to need a title for the third film at some point. For now, I’m going to gamble on The Desolation of Smaug. Fits well, sounds dramatic, and leaves The Battle of Five Armies to take centre stage in the third picture.

**generalgrog**

AWESOME!!!!!

Fantastic news.

GG

**Frazzled**

reds8n wrote:

It is only at the end of a shoot that you finally get the chance to sit down and have a look at the film you have made. Recently Fran, Phil and I did just this when we watched for the first time an early cut of the first movie – and a large chunk of the second. We were really pleased with the way the story was coming together, in particular, the strength of the characters and the cast who have brought them to life. All of which gave rise to a simple question: do we take this chance to tell more of the tale? And the answer from our perspective as the filmmakers, and as fans, was an unreserved ‘yes.’

We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance. The richness of the story of The Hobbit, as well as some of the related material in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, allows us to tell the full story of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and the part he played in the sometimes dangerous, but at all times exciting, history of Middle-earth.

So, without further ado and on behalf of New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Wingnut Films, and the entire cast and crew of “The Hobbit” films, I’d like to announce that two films will become three.

It has been an unexpected journey indeed, and in the words of Professor Tolkien himself, “a tale that grew in the telling.”

Then via Bleeding Cool

It seems that Jackson, Warner Bros. and the full furry-feet team have registered a couple of possible titles for their third Hobbit picture while they make up their mind which of them will be best.

Both of the possible options has been claimed in a few URL variants by Mark Monitor, the company who registered the other Hobbit domains for the producers. Fusible spotted the registrations just before the weekend.

The two options are Riddles in the Dark and The Desolation of Smaug.

I feel that the latter would make most sense as the title of a third film, as it refers to the area around Smaug’s lair in the Lonely Mountain, somewhere that the Dragon has destroyed and left, well, desolate. This would likely have to be the second of the three films, relative to where the location appears in the overall narrative.

Less literally appropriate to a third film would be Riddles in the Dark, the name of the fifth chapter in the book. These scenes take place during the narrative span of The Unexpected Journey, at least as it stands, and a sequence from this chapter was played, in at least nearly-finished form at Comic-Con this month.

So, given this, it’s possible that these aren’t potential names for the third film. Perhaps they’ll be part of a marketing viral; perhaps they’ll be the names of some kind of ancillary product – video games maybe; or perhaps the tiny expenditure needed to claim these URLs was spent pre-emptively to scare off cyber squatters.

They are going to need a title for the third film at some point. For now, I’m going to gamble on The Desolation of Smaug. Fits well, sounds dramatic, and leaves The Battle of Five Armies to take centre stage in the third picture.

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! Dude really? Talks about milking the cow until its dry...

**notprop**

No milking it will be Hobbit 4: What goes on trek across Middle Earth stays on trek across Middle Earth.

Hilarity ensues as our beloved Fellowship help Bilbo recover the One Ring that he accidentally gave to a loose troll after a night at the Prancing Pony.....but dont tell Gandalf!

**Easy E**

WHY!?!

**dajobe**

part of me is excited that it will be 3 movies as i love lotr and that means more movies for me to watch, but on the other hand it means more wait time and they will probably have to stretch out the story a fair amount as 3 movies for 1 book is alot

**Lord-Loss**

Alot of stuff goes on around the same time as the Hobbit that we get a few references to but are told completely in stories elsewhere. The white council where Gandalf disapeares to half way through the book is all in the film, I can see why it might takes three films.

**dajobe**

Lord-Loss wrote:Alot of stuff goes on around the same time as the Hobbit that we get a few references to but are told completely in stories elsewhere. The white council where Gandalf disapeares to half way through the book is all in the film, I can see why it might takes three films.

i didnt know that they will be including that, that is pretty sweet

**Frazzled**

Lord-Loss wrote:Alot of stuff goes on around the same time as the Hobbit that we get a few references to but are told completely in stories elsewhere. The white council where Gandalf disapeares to half way through the book is all in the film, I can see why it might takes three films.

Thats really meh though. Its side stuff not strong enough to make its own book. As importantly the Hobbit was a fun light hearteded book, not the desperate slog that is LOTR. Layering in all that stuff deadens the light hearted tone of the Hobbit, and is in fact pretty schizoid.

Scene one. Bilbo plays ventriloquist and ticks off trolls.
Scene Two: Gandalf and the White wizard do battle with the necromancer for the future of world.

er...ok.

**Revenent Reiko**

Frazzled wrote:
Lord-Loss wrote:Alot of stuff goes on around the same time as the Hobbit that we get a few references to but are told completely in stories elsewhere. The white council where Gandalf disapeares to half way through the book is all in the film, I can see why it might takes three films.

Thats really meh though. Its side stuff not strong enough to make its own book. As importantly the Hobbit was a fun light hearteded book, not the desperate slog that is LOTR. Layering in all that stuff deadens the light hearted tone of the Hobbit, and is in fact pretty schizoid.

Scene one. Bilbo plays ventriloquist and ticks off trolls.
Scene Two: Gandalf and the White wizard do battle with the necromancer for the future of world.

er...ok.

Agreed. It is meant to be more lighthearted, but with poignant moments in it, not the epic trek that is the other 3 books.

Im personally thinking its 'lets grab as much money as we can'.

The Necromancer, the Council, all that extra stuff that they are throwing in to bulk it out istn supposed to be told in the Hobbit. The whole point is that you arent aware of the 'bigger' picture, and it only becomes apparent that more terrible things are afoot in the world than just a treasure hunt (which is what it is, really) later on.

not happy about this at all. making it onto 2 films was pushing it, putting in elven dwarves was getting worse, making it into 3 films....getting ridiculous now.

**Frazzled**

Does this mean there's no Smaug until Film 3 ?

**gorgon**

Peter Jackson has become increasingly averse to cutting the darn film.

**sourclams**

There was a tremendous amount of yawn-worthy cinematic downtime in the 3 LOTR movies.

It will be worse trying to turn 1 book into 3 movies.

If each film was a 1.5 hour installment, with the ultimate battle being 40 minutes of the final installment, then I could see it. But if each Hobbit mini-saga attempts to be a 2.5 hour epic in its own right, then we're going to be staring at an unbearable amount of pipe-smoking and dwarf-snoring.

**SilverMK2**

The Hobbit barely has enough in it to make one film, let alone 3...

**xole**

This is assuming he sticks to the source material. I imagine he might throw a few things in. I wouldn't be surprised if it doubled as a prequel to LOTR.

**MeanGreenStompa**

The Hobbit is a lightweight book that was comfortably condensed into a graphic novel for children.

The movies 'The Hobbit Trilogy' will be far better to watch than most gak we encounter (someone put Adam Sandler down...) and, whilst they may well grossly alter from the tiny book, I really don't give much of a feth about that as long as they a) tell a good story and b) look great, both of which, given the first trilogy, I have every faith in Jackson to manage well.

I loved reading Lord of the Rings, I've read it multiple times, I was disappointed that certain things were missed out from it, like Tom Bomb or the obtaining of the swords from the Barrows, but it made for an excellent trilogy of films and certain things had to be changed to make it entertaining to a wider audience (the greatly increased female roles and romance for example).

And this should give GW a massive financial boost, so perhaps they'll lower the price of their other miniatures!

**Frazzled**

Which makes it very unHobbit. Kiss fun movies goodbye.

**notprop**

I have to say I have watched the extended versions of LotRs many times and the prospect of having three similarly told and looking films is an exiting one.

So long as it all comes out relatively closely to one another not drawn out for 3 Christmases or 6!

**kronk**

I'm looking forward to it.

3 seems excessive for a single children's book, but I like middle earth on the big screen!

**timetowaste85**

It all depends on how it ends looking finalized. If Jackson uses the extra movie to show more awesome stuff, great. If he uses the 3rd movie to justify throwing in a lot of boring stuff, it'll suck. Jackson isn't a disappointment though, so I think he won't let us down.

And Sandler does have to stop making movies...his old stuff was awesome (Water Boy, Little Nicki, Billy Madison, etc), but the new stuff is awful. Only new ones worth seeing were the family-films: Grown Ups and Bedtime Story type stuff.

**GalacticDefender**

Heck, I think there is more than enough material to make 3 films, as long as they put in Every. little. detail. This has the potential to either drag on forever, or be one of th emost awesome things ever. Or both, then that would be awesome.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And yes the book was light hearted, but I can see a few awesome foreshadowing scenes. Imagine this: Bilbo is running through the cave, finds the ring, and you hear the gullum/ring music in the background as he slips it into his pocket.

**BolingbrokeIV**

I could read The Hobbit within the length of one of these films. They're milking it alright, that's certain.

**Goliath**

I'm going to reserve judgement until I've actually seen the films. At the moment no-one here knows how much extra stuff Jackson has put into the story, and lets us not forget that quite a lot of the Hobbit was vague descriptions of events which took up a few lines, but which in real time could take a lot longer. There's also the possibility that he might include some of the bits he "left out" of LOTR, Tom Bombadil for example, which could quite easily be altered to use the new group of characters rather than the 4 hobbits.

timetowaste85 wrote:And Sandler does have to stop making movies...his old stuff was awesome (Water Boy, Little Nicki, Billy Madison, etc), but the new stuff is awful. Only new ones worth seeing were the family-films: Grown Ups and Bedtime Story type stuff.

Don't forget Happy Gilmore! That there is one of my favourite films

**Frazzled**

He was excellent in Punch Drunk Love.

**dajobe**

Goliath wrote:I'm going to reserve judgement until I've actually seen the films. At the moment no-one here knows how much extra stuff Jackson has put into the story, and lets us not forget that quite a lot of the Hobbit was vague descriptions of events which took up a few lines, but which in real time could take a lot longer. There's also the possibility that he might include some of the bits he "left out" of LOTR, Tom Bombadil for example, which could quite easily be altered to use the new group of characters rather than the 4 hobbits.

timetowaste85 wrote:And Sandler does have to stop making movies...his old stuff was awesome (Water Boy, Little Nicki, Billy Madison, etc), but the new stuff is awful. Only new ones worth seeing were the family-films: Grown Ups and Bedtime Story type stuff.

Don't forget Happy Gilmore! That there is one of my favourite films

happy gilmore is a classic. everytime i golf and make a good putt i do the gun thing that shooter mcgavin does. or if i out drive my dad i say "somebody's clooooser" lol

@glorioski: reading the hobbit in 2.5 hours? iirc it is like 350-400 pages. i read fast but that seems kind of crazy, now if it is less than that, then maybe but i would be quite impressed if you could read the hobbit in 2.5 hours

**BolingbrokeIV**

dajobe wrote:
Goliath wrote:I'm going to reserve judgement until I've actually seen the films. At the moment no-one here knows how much extra stuff Jackson has put into the story, and lets us not forget that quite a lot of the Hobbit was vague descriptions of events which took up a few lines, but which in real time could take a lot longer. There's also the possibility that he might include some of the bits he "left out" of LOTR, Tom Bombadil for example, which could quite easily be altered to use the new group of characters rather than the 4 hobbits.

timetowaste85 wrote:And Sandler does have to stop making movies...his old stuff was awesome (Water Boy, Little Nicki, Billy Madison, etc), but the new stuff is awful. Only new ones worth seeing were the family-films: Grown Ups and Bedtime Story type stuff.

Don't forget Happy Gilmore! That there is one of my favourite films

happy gilmore is a classic. everytime i golf and make a good putt i do the gun thing that shooter mcgavin does. or if i out drive my dad i say "somebody's clooooser" lol

@glorioski: reading the hobbit in 2.5 hours? iirc it is like 350-400 pages. i read fast but that seems kind of crazy, now if it is less than that, then maybe but i would be quite impressed if you could read the hobbit in 2.5 hours

It's about 300 pages. 2 pages a minute is hardly crazy.

**dajobe**

if it is 300, maybe, but that is some pretty fast reading and i a college history major that reads alot, but all the power to ya if you can do it.

**BolingbrokeIV**

Some people can read 1k words per minute and answer comprehension questions to 80 percent correctness. That's impressive. Reading two pages of the hobbit per minute is above average.

A quick search told me the hobbit word count is 96219. For a three hour read that's just over 500 words per minute. That's above average. Not outstanding.

**generalgrog**

notprop wrote:I have to say I have watched the extended versions of LotRs many times and the prospect of having three similarly told and looking films is an exiting one.

This...

I have watched and rewatched all 3 LOTR extended version to include commentaries.

Any chance to see more of Tolkiens vision on screen is a win.

GG

**Frazzled**

If its good. The problem is they are sliding way out of the storyline to make it three movies. As noted a lot of this relies on the appendixes and such which are not fleshed out like the main material.

And remember, he did LOTR but he also did the fiasco that was King Kong when left to his own devices.