
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.


—WHO asked for it? –and WHO needs it?
Meanwhile, Hollywood itself standing
‘M–bare—ASS’-ingly ‘X–posed’ for
predictive programming, subliminals
and Stanford research-Tavistock emotive
sequencing. ALLLL at the service, over
the past 4 decades, of cultural degradation
—-authoritarian Globalism —-and capstone EUGENICS.
NOT GOOD!
Pete know’s how to make a fantasy film! I dont mind if there’s more!
A lot of the untold story of Gandalf’s whereabouts during The Hobbit are brought up in Tolkien’s “The Silmarillion”. Ever since hearing about the hobbit going into production I have been really hoping they would tie in some of those stories about Sauron/The Necromancer, as well as, some of the more elvish related stuff, i.e. the rings of power. It would give more understanding as to the relationship between LOTR and the Hibbit. Just sayin’…
To compare LOTR to those pieces-of-crap Twilight films is mind-bottling.
If there is enough story, I say go for it.
Jimmy: Did you just say mind-bottling?
Chazz: Yeah, mind-bottling. You know, when things are so crazy it gets your thoughts all trapped, like in a bottle?
Nice article until you started to compare “Lord of the Rings” with “Twilight” and the “Star Wars” prequels. I’d say that’s the cinematic equivalent of racial profiling
There wasn’t a wasted second in the LOTR trilogy?
May I suggest re-watching the final HALF HOUR of Return of the King? The final movie was great, but the ending was a mess. It could have ended three or four times before it actually did, which means it should have.
Jackson is a visionary director, but if he has any flaw, it’s that he doesn’t know when to end the story.
Have you read the book?? Do you know how many endings there actually are in the book? There was this whole subplot about the Hobbits freeing the shire which was (very regrettably) completely dropped. For my taste an almost 9 hour movie deserves a long ending. How shallow would if had been, had the movie ended right after they destroyed the ring.The only fault with Jackson’s ending is that it wasn’t as long as it should have been.
PJ and team amazed us with the LOTR trilogy..and I. .for one am going to put my trust in him…hope they do a decent job on it though…
Your response begs the question of what it was you were amazed at.
I have not seen the extended versions of Jackson’s LotR movies, so I cannot comment on them, but the theatrical versions, while enjoyable (and had great CGI effects), had serious defects as well, both as adaptations of Tolkien’s books and in their own right. I have been re-reading the 12(!) pages of notes I made on the first movie which I posted to a Tolkien UseNet group back in December 2001 and I was startled at how many issues I was able to find, some of them arising out of a lack of attention to detail in adapting Tolkien’s material to the screen, others arising out of Jackson’s attempt to turn “The Fellowship of the Ring” into an action movie (what I called in my notes the “D&D Effect: less talk, more battles”) by concentrating on action at the expense of everything else. Or as I went on to say in my notes: “From the moment Frodo & Sam (on their way out of the Shire) blunder into Merry & Pippin there’s a tendency for the movie to go from one action set-piece to the next and to skip over the ‘boring’ bits in between”.
I suspect his Hobbit movies will be in a similar vein. I guess only time will tell.
People look at LOTR and say that is Peter Jackson’s canon. And if it were, wow! But he has made more than that to varying degrees of success. So this could be LOTR good. Could be King Kong bad. Good: Deep, rich mythology, with appealing characters in epic high stakes, with stunning action set pieces. Bad: Maudlin, easy laugh crap (the tap-dancing and mugging sequence), with irritating characters (what was up with Jack Black?)and action set pieces which did not work.
Oh my god, I would love to see the appendices turned into a movie. There is a lot of history there that would go far to explain the different races of middle earth. Just think of it, history of the men of Nummennor, Dwarves, Hobbits, et al. My only regret is that PJ left out “The Scouring of the Shire”. But I guess you really can’t always get what you want. However, what PJ has given us so far has been nothing short of incredible and I have no doubt that with PJ’s passion for LOTR, the movie version of the appendices will be most welcome as far as I’m concerned. And yes.., I am the just the kind of fan most loved by the studios because we do plunk down endless dollars to watch these movies, but what can i say: It’s the greatest story ever told (no disrespect to that “other” greatest story ever told).
Sounds to me as if that is Jackson’s idea and not Warners, so I trust him that this is an artistic decision, not one meant to bring in more cash.
)
“I don’t think anybody would say that the last Twilight Saga benefited creatively by splitting one absorbing tale into two films.”
Well, not a single one of those Twilight movies had enough story even for one movie. Each one of the books could have been told in 60 minutes, so maybe three movies were absolutely enough for the entire Twilight saga
When it was going to be two films I figured that the 1st film would end with bilbo and the dwarves getting trapped in the elvish fort in Mirkwood and the 2nd film would cover the events at Long lake: dealing with Smaug and the battle of the five armies.
Its difficult to see how they can make 3 movies within this material, unless they add stuff like Gandalf going off to deal with the Necromancer.
I think most of the interviews and columnists have mixed some of the facts up. I don’t think Peter Jackson’s intention is to exapnd THE HOBBIT into three films. I think what he wants to do is keep THE HOBBIT as two films and make a third film completely separate from THE HOBBIT and based on Tolkien’s Appendices.
Hey, what’s your problem? Let it be 3 films – the more, the better! I would be happy if there were 10! To be more in Middle Earth – what can be more exciting? And by the way, as a Twilight as well as Lord of the Rings fan, I must tell you that we the fans are very happy it’s 2 films! So just don’t talk b-it here.
I say don’t bring it on,I trust Peter Jackson to certain extent,but turning a 270 page book into a 2 hour plus trilogy I feel is a bit much.the 125 pages of notes are simply that,notes.does anybody really know how much of that material he would’ve used for a revised version of The Hobbit and how much of it would’ve been thrown away?I was a little concearned when I heard it was a two part movie,but then I thought if he could use a partial amount of those notes that would actually enrich the story and do Tolkien justice in a way that he may have himself done had he put out a revised version.at the end of the day it is all about money,and if Jackson is given the opportunity to over indulge himself and get paid for it in order to align his name to the legend of Tolkien,then I’d say that’s an opportunity no Tolkien fan would want to pass up.
go for it Jackson! I have complete faith in you
NO!!! Peter Jackson is going to ruin it if he does this! He figured out how to keep LOTR in one movie each, he can do the same here (or at most 2 movies)! This is just going to make the movies slow. The book isn’t that long! I LOVE Peter Jackson, but he has fallen into a false sense of security. He has gotten away with LOTR being long movies and so he feels he can make everything long (like King Kong–good movie, but too long). He is going to make The Hobbit only appeal to die hard fans and miss everyone else. I think he needs to keep the extra footage to extended editions (which are ultimately going to come out and are amazing), or do like EVERY OTHER film maker and cut it out!
Please tell me you are not comparing lord of the rings and the hobbit with twilight!
I don’t mind any good story taking up two, three, or even six pictures. But there’s the rub, you see. If you’re going to do multiple pictures, you have to have a good story thru the entire arc of the thing, or it falls (as most squeals so often do) to a flat out money grab.
So, I suppose my question is really twofold:
-Do you have the story?
-Can you keep the passion?
If the passion (and the art) are there, money will come. Lose the passion, and bales of money won’t save anything worthwhile.
Actually, Tolkien wrote a novel called The Lord of The Rings. A single novel. It was the publisher that divided that novel into three books. Easier for public consumption; better for sales. Just thought that could provide some perspective, and irony, to this discussion.
HA!! Are you SERIOUSLY comparing Twilight to Tolkien!??! Of course Jackson can do it!! I’m happy with most of the comments here
“Can he do 3 films without boring his fans?” THAT literally made me laugh out loud.. some “fans” those people would be. Pete & the crew did a beyond exceptional job with LOTR. They know what they’re doing, and the folks working on it know Tolkien’s works probably better than the back of their own hands. 3 films? The way I (and I’m sure other hardcore fans) see it: All the more to love, and another year happy-anxiousness of awaiting the next film
I’m a huge fan of The Lord of the Rings. Make three movies!! I want to see all of that extra footage!
I don’t think any real fan would be annoyed if it was turned into 3 films, who could get bored? The more content, the better.
Make a FRIGHTENERS sequel already!!
Okay, I can’t see this as anything but the studio compromising the movie to make more money. The reason the Lord of the Rings was turned into 3 movies was because there were THREE BOOKS. The Hobbit is only ONE book, and it’s even shorter than ONE of the books in the Lord Of the Rings trilogy (fellowship of the ring: 531 pages; the hobbit: 310 pages).. At first when I heard they were gonna make TWO hobbit was, I thought was it sort of unnecessary but I could sort of understand that… But this? Ughhh!
I notice that nobody has mentioned Jackson’s version of “King Kong” which was seriously overstuffed with unnecessary padding.
Try noticing a little harder.