Hobbit in THREE movies not TWO??!

Is this guy related to G Lucas in any way??



Peter Jackson was pretty vocal at SDCC 2012 about his desire to turn The Hobbit into three films and the director has reportedly had his wish granted by Warner Bros. Jackson was on record stating that there was just too much story to be condensed into two films and that he was worried about what would be lost in the editing process.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey hits theaters on December 14, 2012 while he Hobbit: There and Back Again is scheduled to be released December 13, 2013. The third film has been tentatively scheduled for a Summer 2014 release.

No word yet on how this additional film will be negotiated with the cast and talent.

Here's an official statement from Peter which he posted on his facebook page.

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.”

Cheers,

Peter J.

Hmm...dunno about this; THREE films?!?

The Hobbit: Part 3 may be titled The Hobbit: Riddles In The Dark or The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug.


I would go for THE HOBBIT - Part 3: There And Back Again Part 2: Blinded By Their Greed".........seems rather fitting.

Hopefully he has lots of unedited stuff that can pan out the 2nd & 3rd movie with?

Just Scott wrote:

Hopefully he has lots of unedited stuff that can pan out the 2nd & 3rd movie with?

I guess...we'll just have to wait and see. Three (?!?) movies??

I've liked the LOTR films so I can't see much complaint about having a third film. I think I'd prefer it to all be well thought out and fully polished then to just have 55 minutes of deleted scenes on the second movie DVD.

If we have the chance for three 150 minute films rather than two 150 minute films then they're not too greedy, are they? If we get three 100 minute films instead of two 150 minute films, then I'll be crying foul. Although there could be important reasons in the narrative to break things up just a certain way.

Jackson could still go back and add another hour for the battle of the Shire, but that would make Return of the King longer than the other two LOTR films.

Will need to hunt out my "Middle Earth" cushion to take to the cinema - Great movies but, LONG ones!!

Moves like this have become really popular lately. Can't say I really see a point in decisions to do this other than to make more money (I guess there isn't need for another point).

Guess I just have a hard time with one book equaling 3 movies whereas the LOTR trilogy was one movie a piece.

However, Jackson did a great job with the LOTR flicks IMHO, so I guess I should believe in what he is doing in regards to The Hobbit...don't disappoint me Peter!!

I remember not wanting to be disappointed with the 3 Star Wars prequels - That story is for another day!!

Hope he wont disappoint?!

Hmm...all this Peter Jackson talk...think I'll watch The Frighteners tonight...

Great film!

Maybe the 3rd movie will be that LOTR prequel that happens between the Hobbit and LOTR.

I remember reading the book a Looooooooooooong time ago, so it doesn't surprise me to split it into 3. Any book adaptation has to be cut up to fit into a movie (look how much stuff they cut out of the Harry Potter movie series), and I've always heard that Jackson was a devout book fan, and didn't want to cut anything out.

bret_owen99 wrote:

I remember reading the book a Looooooooooooong time ago, so it doesn't surprise me to split it into 3. Any book adaptation has to be cut up to fit into a movie (look how much stuff they cut out of the Harry Potter movie series), and I've always heard that Jackson was a devout book fan, and didn't want to cut anything out.

He wants to bring in a lot of material from the appendicies and such. I agree... he cares about the material... Lucas just wants to make bank.

I'm hoping he gets a really big budget for these 3 films. What people tend to forget is that the Lord of the Rings trilogy was actually done on a fairly low budget (by Hollywood standards, for 3 films). I remember before those films came out people claiming that the Producer's had thrown away their money on something that would never make anything. I found that very funny at the time.

When I am in a Peter Jackson mood, I watch Dead Alive.

mattmanw54301 wrote:

When I am in a Peter Jackson mood, I watch Dead Alive.

I love that flick!

Well, Bilbo's journey lasted from April of 2941-June 2942 and Frodo's Sept 3013-March 3014, so Bilbo's journey was rather condensed in the book. And, yes, I looked it up.

Considering I have moved away from many movies and into TV series that develop over the course of numerous seasons, this is welcome news to me.

For example, our family just picked up "No Ordinary Family" on DVD and we love the way the characters develop over the course of the one and only season (this is a superhero TV series, very good, IMO).

TV series have really grown over the past couple of decades where they are no longer "same cast, different adventures, little continuity." Now you have character development, storylines unfolding over the course of seasons, and rich multi-layered plots that do not get resolved in one 45 minute episode. I would rather invest myself in a series that has rich plot and character development than 1.5 hours of non-stop action, explosions, and effects.

So, if we end up with 6 hours of the Hobbit and about 11 hours of the Lord of the Rings, that gives us a 17-hour long epic, full of rich character development, deep storylines, and fantastic locations.

In comparison, a full season of a good TV show may contain 20x45 minute episodes, resulting in 15 hours of character development and plot progression. All in all, the Hobbit + The Lord of the Rings (Extended Edition) will equate to one entire season of television. I am quite excited by this news!

-Keith

This is why I love Sons of Anarchy so much.

http://io9.com/5931001/everything-peter-jackson-added-to-the-hobbit-++-with-proof
In addition to my concerns about how this will work out, I'm concerned that it'll delay Jackson's Tintin 2.

I just hope they make it all its own story and not make it so it makes sense only if you've seen LOTR.