The Hobbit officially being made into three films

  • 142 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by The_Gaming_Baby (6335 posts) -
#2 Posted by Pirate700 (46465 posts) -

Three films now? They better not make these movies short.

#3 Posted by Allicrombie (25122 posts) -
Geez, we're not gonna see Smaug til 2015 then. =P
#4 Posted by destinhpark (4700 posts) -

BOOO

#5 Posted by Nuck81 (5820 posts) -

http://www.totalfilm.com/news/peter-jackson-confirms-that-the-hobbit-will-become-three-films

As long as there is no filler used to strentch the story into three films then I'm more than happy with this decision

The_Gaming_Baby
Three movies out of a book originally made for children and smaller than any of the three sections of the Lord Of The Rings, and you hope there is no filler? If you thought a 15 minute scene of Goku powering up in Dragonball was bad....... Confirmed Milkage. Why have two movies that will gross over 500 million worldwide, when you can have three?
#6 Posted by Skittles_McGee (9136 posts) -
As long as there is no filler The_Gaming_Baby
This is The Hobbit. Half the book is filler. You can bet most of the movies will be too.
#7 Posted by xTheExploited (12094 posts) -
i thought 2 would be great but i suppose 3 could be good as well. oh well 3 hobbit movies im not complaining.
#8 Posted by sammyjenkis898 (28012 posts) -
Ugh.
#9 Posted by sune_Gem (12463 posts) -

I kind of hoped for just one.

#10 Posted by TheFallenDemon (13932 posts) -

Guess this means more filler than all LOTR movies put together.

#11 Posted by raven_squad (78438 posts) -
Good god. I was already dreading the idea of sitting through 2 of them...
#12 Posted by SaintLeonidas (25920 posts) -
Incredibly skeptical about this. Bad enough that the footage for the first film shown so far hasn't been too well received, but to now know that they are putting together a last minute third film, for what reason I do not know, is a bit worrisome.
#13 Posted by mrmusicman247 (17572 posts) -
might as well re read the book then
#14 Posted by nintendofreak_2 (25896 posts) -

Great, more ways I can waste my money on what should be awesome movies.

#15 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
Now I wonder if this was a creator decision, or a producer decision... because I read half the Hobbit (got bored halfway through) and each movie will have like three scenes. What in the blue f*ck are they going to be adding?
#16 Posted by Bloodseeker23 (8338 posts) -
Why another trilogy? .___.
#17 Posted by lx_theo (6211 posts) -

I'll wait to hear how the first one gies to hear if they are pulling out massive filler and such.

#18 Posted by Celldrax (14551 posts) -

Eh....can't say I'm 100% thrilled with them stretching it out to 3 movies. I would've been more than happy with just the two. I just hope they know what they're doing.

#19 Posted by Cyanide4Suicid3 (783 posts) -
Thats stupid...
#20 Posted by SteverXIII (3827 posts) -
All about the $$$
#21 Posted by Guybrush_3 (8308 posts) -

... I will be able to read the book in less time then I will be able to watch the movies, and I'm not a fast reader.

#22 Posted by Wanderer5 (25670 posts) -

Jeez how big is the Hobbit? I hope these movies don't drag on a lot.

#23 Posted by Guybrush_3 (8308 posts) -

Jeez how big is the Hobbit? I hope these movies don't drag on a lot.

Wanderer5

It's shorter than any of the individual lord or the ring books. It will be like 100 pages of book per movie?

#24 Posted by TheFallenDemon (13932 posts) -

Jeez how big is the Hobbit? I hope these movies don't drag on a lot.

Wanderer5


The first edition was 310 pages.

filler filler filler filler filler fun time

#25 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
Jeez how big is the Hobbit? I hope these movies don't drag on a lot.Wanderer5
310 pages. About one sixth the total length of the LOTR.
#26 Posted by ExoticAnimal (39796 posts) -
I'm all for it. PJ did say that he had tons of extra footage to use so all they will need is just a few extra months of filming for the next two movies so its not like it would be a ton of extra work. If anyone can make it work, its PJ.
#27 Posted by Wanderer5 (25670 posts) -

So they're making three movies of a book that is shorter than any of the books in trilogy? Well I just hope these movies aren't going to be long.

#28 Posted by SaintLeonidas (25920 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wanderer5"]

Jeez how big is the Hobbit? I hope these movies don't drag on a lot.

Guybrush_3

It's shorter than any of the individual lord or the ring books. It will be like 100 pages of book per movie?

The second film was already set as a lot of new material, it isn't the one book stretched out, Peter Jackson took bits and pieces of other Tolkien works and was going to use the second film as a bridge into the 'Lord of the Ring' trilogy.

#29 Posted by NEWMAHAY (3760 posts) -
I am disappointed
#30 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

"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."


Yet he had no qualms about leaving huge bits of 'the Lord of the Rings' untold. Even small sh*t that could have been told in a minute that would have helped explain monumental sh*t later on.

#31 Posted by PonchoTaco (1945 posts) -
Not sure how I feel about this. I didn't like the original move of two movies. I dislike when producers do that.
#32 Posted by Brav3yod4 (38 posts) -
I would be dissapointed but it is after all Lord of the Rings, so more is good.
#33 Posted by Teenaged (31743 posts) -

On one hand I am wondering if there is enough material for three movies without them being boring, but on the other hand if the movies have the same feel as LOTR with an equally great soundtrack, I'm ok with it.

#34 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (15887 posts) -

The book was kind of hurried along especially with regards to Elrond and Rivendell. The book also states Gandalf and Bilbo had other adventures on the way home. What I don't want to see is a bunch of singing. The book had too many and I'm not a fan of musicals.

Edit:

I've also wondered if Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli were already alive during The Hobbit. Perhaps they might appear in the background. :lol:

#35 Posted by Sajo7 (14049 posts) -
Oh god, they are going to ruin the hobbit for more money.
#36 Posted by Wasdie (49561 posts) -

Wow that's stupid. The book is shorter than any of the LotR books.

#37 Posted by SaintLeonidas (25920 posts) -
I've also wondered if Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli were already alive during The Hobbit. Perhaps they might appear in the background. :lol:jun_aka_pekto
Legolas is already confirmed, there is footage of his work in the production blogs.
#38 Posted by Hallenbeck77 (14361 posts) -

Jeez. Isn't filming for the first two already done?

#39 Posted by DeadMan1290 (15499 posts) -

Three films now? They better not make these movies short.

Pirate700
It's Peter Jackson right? Doubt they'll be short.....
#40 Posted by MlauTheDaft (3272 posts) -

LOTR had plenty of filler. I respect that you can't translate books directly into movies, but even the non-extended versions had lengthy filler scenes, despite the books containing much unexplored material.

I understand why film makers want love stories in their work, but that does'nt change that the Arwen/Aragorn thing was litterally in the addendum, rather than the actual story ;)

LOTR is also three times as long as The Hobbit.

My two cents.

#41 Posted by tryagainlater (7445 posts) -

Don't like it but oh well.

#42 Posted by Chris_Williams (14868 posts) -

its not about making quality movies anymore, its about dat money

#43 Posted by sonicare (53448 posts) -

Have they ever heard of an editor?

#44 Posted by BossPerson (9432 posts) -

For those wondering of how they can stretch out the book into 3 movies, the company has the rights to most of Tolkiens works iirc. So they can go into Tolkiens appendicies and tell the back story.

#45 Posted by KiIIyou (27135 posts) -
Okaydin
#46 Posted by Skittles_McGee (9136 posts) -
the rise of the Necromancerworlock77
The funny thing is, this has almost no significance in the book. They kinda just say "Oh yeah this happened" and move on
#47 Posted by BossPerson (9432 posts) -
[QUOTE="worlock77"]the rise of the NecromancerSkittles_McGee
The funny thing is, this has almost no significance in the book. They kinda just say "Oh yeah this happened" and move on

But i believe its talked about in Tolkiens other writings
#48 Posted by EasyStreet (11672 posts) -

Hobbit will be a contender for t_94.jpg

#49 Posted by MlauTheDaft (3272 posts) -

[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"][QUOTE="worlock77"]the rise of the NecromancerBossPerson
The funny thing is, this has almost no significance in the book. They kinda just say "Oh yeah this happened" and move on

But i believe its talked about in Tolkiens other writings

Remember when Faramir caputures Frodo and Gollum?

In the books, he pretty much lets them go after questioning them.That particular plot point, took up a fifth of the entire second movie.

After choices like that, I don't really have any confidence in their choice of expanding The Hobbit to the same length of LOTR.

With 1/3 the amount of source material, I fear there's going to be somereally pointless bloat in there.

It's not like you can just fluently integrate Silmarillion into it and they certainly did'nt do that with LOTR.

#50 Posted by whipassmt (13960 posts) -

http://www.totalfilm.com/news/peter-jackson-confirms-that-the-hobbit-will-become-three-films

As long as there is no filler used to strentch the story into three films then I'm more than happy with this decision

The_Gaming_Baby

well according to Peter Jackson:

"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 basically the reason PJ is making one book into three films is because he isn't just using material from the Hobbit but is also using material from the appendix of the Lord of The Rings and possibly some of Tolkien's other writings (such as the "of the rings of power and the third age" section of the Silmarillion). For instance the Battle of Dol Guldur (where the White Council attack the fortress of the Necromancer (Sauron) in Dol Guldur and "force" him to flee, though in fact Sauron really just pertends to flee into the East and then relocates into Mordor and a few years later sends two nazgul to re-occupy Dol Guldur) is not mentioned in the Hobbit but does take place during the time of the Hobbit (basically in the Hobbit books Gandalf leaves Bilbo and the Dwarves and doesn't reappear until a few chapters later. Gandalf's absence is because him and the White Council are planning an attack on Dol Guldur - Gandalf had actually wanted to attack Dol Guldur for a while, ever since he found out who "the Necromancer" really was, but Saruman kept stopping the Council from attacking). Also one of the Hobbit movies (probably the third one) is supposed to show events that happened in the decades between the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings (most notably Saruman's going over to Sauron's side, and probably also Sauron's return to Mordor).