
Peter Jackson first mentioned at Comic-Con two weeks ago that he was toying with what to do with all the extra footage he has shot for a two film adaptation of The Hobbit. Now, reports are hot and heavy that he’s actually going to turn his two films into a trilogy. When I spoke with Peter Jackson about The Hobbit in San Diego, he was very excited about the 125 pages of notes in an appendices that JRR Tolkien wrote and included in the final The Lord of the Rings novel Return of the King. I’m told now that the possibility is perhaps better than it was then that this might happen, but that it is by no means a certainty. There are internal discussions, and I have to say, they make me wince. There wasn’t a wasted second in LOTR, with the films building to a satisfying, nearly $1.2 billion worldwide gross and Oscar-winning conclusion. I read The Hobbit numerous times and I don’t think that Bilbo Baggins has three films in him.
Jackson told me that the notes written by Tolkien presaged his intention to update The Hobbit and give it more of the weight of Lord Of The Rings. Here’s what he said:
“That goes back to JRR Tolkien writing The Hobbit first, for children, and only after did he develop his mythology much more over the 16 or 17 years later when The Lord of the Rings came out, which is way more epic and mythic and serious. What people have to realize is we’ve adapted The Hobbit, plus taken this additional 125 pages of notes, that’s what you’d call them. Because Tolkien himself was planning the rewrite The Hobbit after The Lord of the Rings, to make it speak to the story of The Lord of the Rings much more. In the novel, Gandalf disappears for various patches of time. In 1936, when Tolkien was writing that book, he didn’t have a clue what Gandalf was doing. But later on, when he did The Lord of the Rings and he’d hit on this whole epic story, he was going to go back and revise The Hobbit and he wrote all these notes about how Gandalf disappears and was really investigating the possible return of Sauron, the villain from The Lord of the Rings. Sauron doesn’t appear at all in The Hobbit. Tolkien was retrospectively fitting The Hobbit to embrace that mythology. He never wrote that book, but there are 125 pages of notes published at the back of Return of the King in one of the later editions. It was called The Appendices, and they are essentially his expanded Hobbit notes. So we had the rights to those as well and were allowed to use them.” Said Jackson: “We haven’t just adapted The Hobbit; we’ve adapted that book plus great chunks of his appendices and woven it all together. The movie explains where Gandalf goes; the book never does. We’ve explained it using Tolkien’s own notes. That helped inform the tone of the movie, because it allowed us to pull in material he wrote in The Lord of the Rings era and incorporate it with The Hobbit.”
The prospect of The Hobbit being turned into a trilogy would be welcome to New Line and financier Warner Bros and MGM. The actors would get an extra payday, and have a lot of leverage. And after Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn split into two films and The Hunger Games announced its intention to do the same and tell a three-book tale in four films, it seems logical. But the fact is, Jackson has already turned a single book into two films here; can he squeeze out a third without boring his fans?
I don’t think anybody would say that the last Twilight Saga benefited creatively by splitting one absorbing tale into two films. Watching Bella give birth to her vampire child was excruciating, it went on and on and on. Werewolves fought vampires, none of them got hurt. Bella grew emaciated, turned skeleton skinny, then died and came back to life. Edward and Jacob stood around, brooding. All of this happened halfway through the last book by Stephenie Meyer, and readers got to see a cool ending with those creepy vampire characters played by Michael Sheen and Dakota Fanning. That doesn’t come until the finale. But the movie grossed over $700 million worldwide!
I’d like to think that Jackson would be immune to a blatant cash grab. But let’s face it: in Hollywood, at the end of the day, it’s always about squeezing out the most money possible, knowing fans will endure whatever slop gets served to them if they are addicted to the earlier films. You can see evidence of that in the last three Star Wars movies, which are now being served up again in glorious 3D. Let’s hope Jackson doesn’t spoil the return to Middle Earth. Lord of the Rings was a groundbreaking trilogy because it was fueled by three fully realized books by Tolkien. Jackson has already cut one book and a set of Tolkien notes into a double feature. As a fan of LOTR, I’m concerned.


BRING IT! I trust Jackson with whatever he wants to do when it comes to Tolkien.
This is clearly a filmmaker being manhandled by a studio that wants to make as much coin as it possibly can. He (Jackson) could have easily put this footage into extended DVD’s, like he did with LOTR. Why, suddenly is he toying with the idea of a third movie. He could’ve made four or five LOTR films out of all the extra footage, but he didn’t. This is simply a money making trend of stretching what could be one movie into two or three just to make an easy buck.
Audiences are smarter than that, (I hope) but when you force our hand and force us to watch, (and pay) for another completely redundant installment of something that could’ve been completeled in one or two ( in this case ) films. This is simply a cash grab and I feel sorry for the filmmakers involved and the integrity lost by stretching this one 200ish page novel into THREE films.
thank you for being the voice of millions..i hope PJ listen to you!!
Jackson did not turn the Lord of the Rings Trilogy into more than 3 films because it was a gamble. Originally studios were only willing to do one film. He tried to meet them half way by asking for two films to cover the three books. Only in the end did New Line give them the chance to do three. Those three were a major gamble. The books were supposed to be impossible to film. There was no proof that it could be done. Could they have been done well as 6 films or more instead of three? You bet your ass… and given the time and budget to do it, he very well may have.
Peter Jackson is the only director that has not let me down(yes I love “The Frighteners”). Tim Burton has been letting me down lately.
Lovely Bones?
I have great faith in Jackson as a storyteller. But Fleming bashing the Star Wars prequels lost me. I loved them.
At least the third one, that film was sick
Mind numbing gobbletygook
Are they doing this for artistic reasons…….or just for the money grab?…(include sarcasm)….
Well for Warner Bros, the decision would clearly be a money grab. For Peter Jackson and his creative team? Who knows. Jackson clearing has a passion for this world, so I don’t think it’s a pure money decision on his part.
I really don’t think Jackson would be doing it for money. If making money was his concern, then he would have always made much more commercial. He obviously loves the story and has been inspired creatively. The studio, on the other hand, would obviously like a trilogy for financial reasons. But I highly doubt Jackson would do it if he didn’t feel the story warranted it.
The production work for Peter Jackson’s production empire in New Zealand is certainly a factor as the revenue keeps these various companies and their employees active.
It is doubtful that Jackson needs the money personally, but he has a large production group to keep working and to remain in New Zealand. The Hobbit films will produce many years of work for all, and generate much revenue for these operations.
Wasn’t Kill Bill movie the first films to be split into two films
I have gotten the feeling that the entire exercise is a bit of a cash grab. Since the last film ended, Jackson has gone through a lot: the commercial disappointment of ‘King Kong’, problems on ‘The Lovely Bones’, its poor reception, lawsuits, the MGM crisis, the loss of director, union strong-arm tactics, health problems. And he didn’t even want to direct ‘The Hobbit’ in the first place. I like Jackson, and believe that he is a focused and driven artist, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he’s looking for more money from such a tortured undertaking.
Commercial failure of King Kong? What failure? It may not have done Titanic or Avatar money, but failure? Go get a showed and cool down those hallucinations
Yes, it would have been inappropriate to have called ‘King Kong’ a “failure”, hence I referred to it as a “disappointment”. It made a lot of money, but it also cost a lot, as well. You were saying something about “hallucinations”, Ulf Claesson?
There is a lot of material in the appendices that could make for great film making…it all depends on how it is woven into the films. Done right, it could be amazing.
Judging by what we’ve already seen, there was going to be a lot of material from the Appendices in the two-film version such as the meeting of the Council, Gandalf’s foray into Dol Guldor and the attempt to drive the Necromancer out of his stronghold there.
By the time the third film comes out Jackson will be shooting at 96 frames per second.
There is a big difference between stretching out thin material like Stephanie Meyer and adding 125 pages from JRRT by Jackson. Bring it on, trust Peter Jackson to make the right decision.
I was about to say the same thing. He’s not seriously comparing Tolkien and Peter Jackson’s work on this trilogy to the Twilight saga is he? He lost me in his use of that example.
Tolkien is far, FAR more rich in it’s detail and explanations. You could have made 6 Lord of the Rings films if you were being completely faithful to the book and including everything.
We also don’t know what Jackson is planning on doing yet with this extra filming. Is it a bridge film, or is he padding out the second half of The Hobbit and splitting the final film in two? I also have my doubts because the actors, particularly Armitage seemed genuinely confused when asked about a 3rd film. Getting all those actors together again to film for a few more months isn’t going to be simple.
I’d never count out Jackson or Tolkein. I’d love to see 3 – 2 hour movies rather than 2 – 3 hour movies. Probably doesn’t have to do much shooting to have enough for 3 movies. He could have easily made LOTR into 5 or 6 films with just the added scenes that were on the DVD’s.
I also agree, comparing Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight to LOTR and the Hobbit from Tolkein is like comparing a rice cake to a cheese cake.
Can’t wait to see what the master does with the Hobbit!
Flemming interviewed Jackson, I didn’t, so maybe the buzz I’ve been reading elsewhere is wrong…
But from everything I’ve come to understand, the two HOBBIT movies will stand on their own as an adaptation of the book, and the third movie will be a kind of “bridge” movie that fills in the narrative between Bilbo’s return at the end of the second HOBBIT movie and the beginning of Frodo’s journey in FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING.
Thus, there’s no splitting of THE HOBBIT across three movies.
Now, again, I might be wrong about this. But that’s what I’ve gleaned from other sources.
Exactly. Comparing Tolkien material to Stephenie Meyer material is blasphemy.
I wasn’t a huge Rings fan, but The Hobbit actually seems like it might be a fun time. Trilogy or not, I might see it. Howabout that Batman Trilogy? That’s the way to do it! And a perfect ending!!!!!!
Scott
@Barbariancomic
PJ has earned some respect here, folks. And there’s TONS of material for another very compelling film. Tolkien has created one of the richest mythologies ever created. Why such cynicism? PJ has gone out of his way to respect the literary material at every stage of the process.
In all fairness, Jackson’s LOTR trilogy had three films with a minimum 3 hour run time. He later released accordion sized DVD director’s cuts of each of the films which had a great amount more footage and story, with some of the cuts bordering if not passing the 4-hour mark.
If this is the same case with The Hobbit, then it would make sense to expand the film into three separate films rather than waste glorious set pieces, storylines, and possibly hours worth of footage on DVD/Blu-Ray cuts of the film.
I say go for it, because if Jackson not only adapted The Hobbit AND the appendices of LOTR, than this is a much bigger and epic story than once thought.
It’s not the LOTR prequel anymore, but it also The Hobbit and LOTR bridge story as well.
Do it! Three films! Yeah! *fist pump*
Hahahahahahahaha!
Actually, by that time, he’ll be shooting in 4D with virtual reality visors replacing 3D glasses.
What a joke. He’s turned the Hobbit into a bloated trilogy — an obvious cash grab. If he was doing it for “artistic” purposes, he could’ve easily made just 1 film in a workable 3-hour running time.
Guillermo del Toro already stated when he was director that it was simply impossible to do it in a single film, unless it was a movie that was super long. You have to be faithful to the characters, the settings, and the plots, and when you make a film, you have to flesh everything out much further with the characters, because some of them don’t even have lines in the book.
It just makes it all the more impressive that Rankin & Bass squeezed The Hobbit into one 77 minute animated movie. (Before you pounce… THAT was a joke)
I would like a more robust treatment from the source material, but I have to ask:
Should it take longer to watch the movies than it did to read the book?
The Lord of the Rings trilogy spans over 1,800 pages. The Hobbit is the shortest of the four books at around 320 pages. It is almost 100 pages shorter than any of the The Lord of the Rings books. So, even if Peter Jackson adds another 125 pages of notes, how on Middle Earth does he legitimately stretch it into 3 films?
I trust Peter Jackson to get it right. I just had a hard time figuring out how to stretch it into 2 films (Perhaps, Gollum & the riddles in the first film and the battle against Smaug in the second? Who knows?), let alone 3 films. But that is why I am not considered a visionary film maker.
Actually, it’s not supposed to be a lot of the original book in the second movie at all so what gives?
One movie would be enough, I bet, and we’ll confirm it once the movie is out.
When I was writing the fantasy epic Bloodspiller I was on such a roll toward the end that I had to stop it at a certain point for the next two in the series. I can understand the need to stretch the Hobbit into two books and while it might be a money thing with regard for a third, it’s a better than 70-30 shot it will still be good. It’s obvious that in tone and adult level there is a need for it so it fits in with LOTR. And we all know Hollywood love the number three.
First of all: It’s just a rumor. Relax.
Second: If it is true, i gather that there is a lot of back story to tell with ALL those Dwarf characters. The teaser gave me the impression that they are all the same, so their stories could fill some minutes.
Not sure I can picture how the first film would end. There isn’t really any large-scale epic anything to conclude on.
And the story doesn’t really have the overarching goal the Lord of the Rings had. It was basically just a bunch of adventures strung together that ended in a big battle with a dragon.
I dug the book. Just curious how they picture it as 3 films.
Agree. TH is definitely a children’s book, LOTR is for grown-ups and about 5 times as long. I have been already sceptical regarding PJ’s habit for huge fighting and FX scenes because in TH the big fight at the end happens while Bilbo is unconscious and doesn’t really “happen” in the reader’s eyes – PJ will most certainly change things here.
Regarding the LOTR appendices, they should’ve been used for the last LOTR movie, explaining a bit more what happened to Aragorn, Arwen etc. after the ring war. Some material could also be used as an introduction to Middle Earth History, but this would mean it were to be put at the beginning of TH part 1.
Cash cow move…
What is next, The Silmarillion? That book consists of 5 distinct parts. If he applies Hobbit-like math, He ought to be able to make 15 movies from it.
Silmarillion is imho impossible to bring to cinema: way too much happens, way too many characters appear. A long tv series might be able to tackle the stuff (but I hope ‘they’ never try). – Especially the Akallabêth is imho wonderful and dramatic and yet plausible in its middle-earth context.
Of course Sauron appears in the Hobbit, at least off-screen! He is the dread Necromancer of Dol Guldur, about whom the Hobbits are warned; it is later revealed (and was perhaps later devised by the author) that Gandalf had his suspicions that the Necromancer was in fact Sauron, which he confirms in the time between the events of the Hobbit and those of the later books.
I would love the hobbit to be 3-part movie.Peter Jackson ensures class and is probably one of the best directors of modern english cinema.
Best director of modern English cinema? Are you serious? Maybe your cinematic diet is too narrow. Besides the Lod of the Rings trilogy, which was wonderful, what has he done that ranks him the best modern director? He said 48fps will get the kids back in the cinema. He’s lost the focus. Original, heartfelt and honest movies are what will do that.
here here!
Original, heartfelt and honest movies…. like Twilight and Hunger Games? Is that you mean? lol! Its bad films based on bad material that is drawing crowds moreso than art.
Seriously…look what they did with LOTR…if anything we shouted completely trust their work. I don’t think anyone has a reason to second guess them or Jackson. He hasn’t disapointed us…so why expect it…like you won’t still like it. Lol yeah right.
There is no way that a director like Peter Jackson will ruin any movie they put him on. If they make this movie a trilogy, I’m 100% sure that they will be great, I say the mire the merrier. There is so much information in those books that they could add two more movies and they would still be pretty good. I’m not saying that they will be Oscar material, but I do believe that Peter Jackson will make these movies to the best of his ability.
Really? The Lonely Bones says otherwise.
I hope you were joking when you said “the mire the merrier” otherwise that was a perfect freudian slip. Turning such a short simple book into 3 movies is going to create a real mire of a story. Even with all the additional material I can’t see how stretching it so thin would be a good idea. I’d much rather have 1 compressed 4-hour movie or 2 slower paced 3-hour movies than 3 90-minute movies saturated with filler.
i hope jackson doesn’t go full lucas. don’t go full lucas. tolkien didn’t and the world is better for it.
Actually, Tolkien is the original revisionist. He wrote, rewrote, and made changes to his worth… both the published and unpublished material, constantly for the entire half a century he worked on Middle-earth.
Well, comparing Stephanie Meyer and George Lucas to Tolkien is probably the funniest thing I’ve heard in weeks. The original source material of the Tolkien books are richer than anything in Twilight or anything in the Star Wars saga past Empire Strikes Back. And if you’re searching around for a ‘money grab’, Twilight and Star Wars are virtually the very definition of it.
Besides, Jackson has proved that he can take material that has a lot of negative perception going against it with LOTR and not only molified the die hard fans, but presented it in a way that gave it world wide mass appeal. That’s nearly impossible to do and doesn’t happen every day.
If Jackson thinks that there’s enough material for three movies, why the carping? Be grateful that someone cares enough about literature and the fantasy genre to dive into it as hard as Peter Jackson has.
“The original source material of the Tolkien books are richer than anything in Twilight or anything in the Star Wars saga past Empire Strikes Back.”
Twilight? Yes. Star Wars? No. Lucas more or less did the same thing as Tolkien — creating an entire thematically strong mythology from the ground up — only he did it cinematically, with music and visuals.
“And if you’re searching around for a ‘money grab’, Twilight and Star Wars are virtually the very definition of it.”
Considering the fact that all of the Star Wars films past the original, including the prequels, were INDEPENDENT films, I find such a claim rather dubious. Nice job buying into the anti-Lucas caricature rhetoric.
ahahahahahaha. You must be joking. Star Wars I-III independent movies? Are you paying attention? No protagonist, no character development, distracting background nonsense. George Lucas, is that you?
“ahahahahahaha. You must be joking. Star Wars I-III independent movies? Are you paying attention?”
Paying attention to what, logic? Yes. I am. And clearly you’re not. This has nothing to do with one’s subjective opinion. Learn the meaning of the term INDEPENDENT FILM …which is precisely what the Prequels are — simple fact of their production. Deal with it.
I trust him.
All those notes and extras that Tolkien wrote, including the set of what..10 novels of history and extras?. Its called “Bonus Disc” on the Blu-ray release!!! That is how you get all the ‘extra dollars’ you offer a higher priced Special Extended Edition and put a little figure in it. I spent hundreds on those box sets from the original trilogy and again in Blu-ray.
If PJ can make 9 1/2 oscar-winning hours out of LOTR, then I believe he can make 6+ hours (three films) out of The Hobbit (the published book plus all the extra back story retrofitting LOTR). Commercially speaking, why waste the extra footage on a dvd release when fans are going to buy it regardless?
Sorry, but this is a clear money grab. I like Jackson as a director, but his recent films haven’t been that successful, and he knows no matter what he throws up on screen that millions of ‘fans’ will go see it no matter how good (or bad) it is. If he thought this material was truly worthy of 3 films, he would have said so up front, and had 3 scripts written, etc. T do it on the back end just doesn’t smell right.
At the end of the day the studio cares about nothing but $$, and the director cares about his ego.
Yes, but everything changes during the filming and editing stage. What looks like 2 films in the beginning, ends up looking like two ridiculously long films during the editing process. They must have enough important material to want to flesh out the characters better. This is Peter Jackson we’re talking about here, and he’s adapting Tolkien. It wouldn’t surprise me if that was the case.
When they add their own dialog to Tolkien’s work it stands out as abysmal. I shudder to think of the cartoony nonsense they will add as filler. Did anyone not see his last film? It was embarrassing.
The last LotR movie? Or The Lovely Bones?