Peter Jackson Makes The Hobbit a Trilogy

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Peter Jackson Makes The Hobbit a Trilogy

image

The Lord of the Rings director's got something in his pocketses for the tale of Bilbo Baggins.

Peter Jackson, the director of the upcoming film adaptation of The Hobbit, has announced that the originally-planned pair of films are to become a trilogy in his take on the saga.

"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," Jackson said in a Facebook note. "Recently [screenwriters] Fran, Phil and I did this when we watched for the first time an early cut of the first movie - and a large chunk of the second." The team was happy with the way the story was coming together, and believed that the best way forward was to extend the film and include as many of the tale's extended details as possible.

Tom Bombadil had to be cut from the Lord of the Rings trilogy due to time constraints, and this is a situation Jackson apparently does not want to repeat with The Hobbit. He asserts that "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 films could contain a fuller description of the rise and fall of Sauron prior to the events of The Hobbit, extending on the prologue from The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring.

Jackson is planning on drawing even more from the wealth of Professor Tolkien's extended writings, too. "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," he said. The post ends with a simple quote from J.R.R. Tolkien, saying that as with the author's original saga surrounding the Ring, this will continue to be "a tale that grew in the telling."

The first part of the Hobbit trilogy will appear in cinemas on December 14.

Source: Peter Jackson's Facebook page

Permalink

So long as it doesn't just end up looking like he chopped the second one in two, I have no problem with this.

Sounds like they will be showing abit of the war in the iron mountians as well, should be interesting

I said this already in the other thread:

So I guess this is one of the few films adaption from the book/ novel that will be 100% straight from the book? Well as long no one complain about the whole not 100% accurate than fine by me.

I'm actually glad: Being an owner of the extended cuts of the LOTR trilogy, I can appreciate just how much he would have had to cut out otherwise. The original could have been a miniseries like Game of Thrones, except the director actually knows how to shot a battle sequence and Daenerys' story line doesn't get fucked-up to fit in with the season finale.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
I said this already in the other thread:

After the Battle at King's Landing, Peter can take all the time he wants on the Battle of Five Armies. I'm pretty sure he'll keep Smaug's rampage waiting until the third movie so there'll be that to. I'm more worried about the middle part: There's not a lot going on while Bilbo and the Dwarves travel through Mirkwood. Unless he's going to include Istari taking down Dol Guldur.

I admit I would have liked Del Toro's take on Smaug, but only if Ron Perlman played Beorn. Though I admit it would be much of a transformation then.

Two movies I could understand, but three? Really Jackson?

Potentially the greatest cinematic achievement in history, a series of movies with absolutely NOTHING cut out from the book for time! *flameshield up!*
I'm looking forward to it.

Of course, the fact a third movie would exist, and make several millions more dollars, probably had a hand in it.

I feel therre will be lot of padding and walking

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
I said this already in the other thread:

Peter Jackson is one of those directors on par with Spielberg and Cameron. He can decide what he wants to do with a movie and just straight up ignore the studios advice, I imagine that he's doing this not because they told him to but because he saw his own footage and though "Shit I can't get this into 2 films"

Well, on the other hand, it means you won't have to sit through 2 movies at 4,5 hours each after they release the extended cut. With all 3 movies they won't have to make extended cuts of all 3 movies, and even if they do, they will be watchable instead of how ridiculously long the LOTR extended cuts were.

Sooo... there will be a lot of dwarves singing and camping out in the forest, I presume?

I already commented on this in an other thread but it's a bit much in my opinion. The Battle of Dol Guldur was relatively untold in the book, anyway. The purpose and outcome were mentioned but we never saw the battle... and it's being added to this trilogy unnecessarily? Come on, Peter.

My interest in the movie sticking close to the source material outweighs my desire for added and expanded content, even of the fighting and battle variety.

And then PJ will go back and make the LOTR into the 12 movie epic you need to tell that book?

Cool. The constant warfare from Northern Middle Earth always fascinated me. So much was focused on the south that the threats against the Iron Hills and Erebor seemed like an afterthought.

Eeeesh. I'm really conflicted on this. On the one hand, I like the hobbit and loved his LOTR movies, so more of both should always be a good thing. On the other hand, and I have to admit that I have not read the actual Lord of the Rings trilogy, from what I understand, things like the hobbits seeing Tom Bombodil and staying with Farmer Maggot really dragged in the book itself and would have felt out of place given the tone of the movies. As long as the movies remain faithful to the books, I'm alright with them cutting little bits of fluff like Bombodil.

I could imagine Beorn being removed, for example, he didn't really do much beyond give them shelter for a chapter at the beginning and then again at the end. Neat, but not necessary.

Still, I have faith that Peter Jackson will make it work.

DVS BSTrD:
After the Battle at King's Landing, Peter can take all the time he wants on the Battle of Five Armies. I'm pretty sure he'll keep Smaug's rampage waiting until the third movie so there'll be that to. I'm more worried about the middle part: There's not a lot going on while Bilbo and the Dwarves travel through Mirkwood. Unless he's going to include Istari taking down Dol Guldur.

Actually, the Dwarves will already be out of Mirkwood by the end of Film 1. They've said that they're ending the film with the Barrel chapter.
Which means that they are going to try and make two subsequent films using less material than everything that goes into the first film. Literally, after Mirkwood, there's the Lonely Mountain and that's it.

The Hobbit simply does not work as a three-part story. From what they've already told us about Film 1, they are going to have to seriously skew the narrative in order to stretch out three films.

IRBaboon:

Peter Jackson is one of those directors on par with Spielberg and Cameron. He can decide what he wants to do with a movie and just straight up ignore the studios advice, I imagine that he's doing this not because they told him to but because he saw his own footage and though "Shit I can't get this into 2 films"

Erm... no. Jackson may have some influence, but he still relies on the studio to give him money. That means he is still ultimately their employee, and subject to whatever decisions they may wish to make.

And how in the fuck do you shoot that much footage for the Hobbit? It's shorter than any of the books in LOTR. You can practically breeze through the whole thing in an afternoon. It is not a long story, even with the stuff in the appendices factored in. What on earth have they been doing that they've got hours and hours and hours of footage for a story shorter than any of the LOTR instalments? He managed to excise stuff pretty efficiently for Fellowship, Two Towers and Return.

Normally I would suspect this to be a ploy to make more money off of divided instances of movie ticket purchases and merchandizing periods, but I'm going to give Peter Jackson the benefit of the doubt. Now of course this does not mean that the people paying Mr. Jackson didn't have less-than-desirable motives, but I trust that Mr. Jackson is truly taking this opportunity to really put a novel on the silver screen. I wish him good luck.

Pallindromemordnillap:
Two movies I could understand, but three? Really Jackson?

The third movie is just going to be one long ending.

And next... the Silmarillion Reloaded!

Scarim Coral:
So I guess this is one of the few films adaption from the book/ novel that will be 100% straight from the book? Well as long no one complain about the whole not 100% accurate than fine by me.

Unfortunately it won't be 100% accurate. Characters that don't appear in the hobbit have been added, for instance Legolas appears in the film and from what I have read there have been some that have been invented. I have a feeling that it is going to be a bit of a dogs breakfast.

If Jackson wanted to do something big and epic, why not do the The Silmarillion, rather than muck about with the hobbit.

Good for bastards like me in a way, I guess.

Never could really dig in to Tolkien's books. The writing style just puts me off too much.

Well, On one hand I liked that they cut out Tom Bombadil, he annoyed me like anything, and had no real purpose in the plot, on the other hand, I disliked how they cut out the end of "The return of the king" with the battle in the shire, because that told us what happened to Saruman and Wormtongue.

Because money, that's why.

Actually makes sense, there are 3 different sections to the book. 1. Start up to meeting the elves of Mirkwood. 2. Up to the slaying of Smaug. 3 The battle of the five armies.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Actually, the Dwarves will already be out of Mirkwood by the end of Film 1. They've said that they're ending the film with the Barrel chapter.
Which means that they are going to try and make two subsequent films using less material than everything that goes into the first film. Literally, after Mirkwood, there's the Lonely Mountain and that's it.

If I'm right that was announced before they moved to a trilogy, correct? If that's so they might simply move the end of the 1st film back a bit (Beorn's cabin would seem like a good rest stop, both plot-wise and film-wise)

That way you can have the mirkwood chapters, a flashback to Smaugs destruction of the dwarves' keep (maybe) and the start of the lonely mountain chapters in #2 - ending while they're stuck at the door - while Bilbo entering the mountain, the attack on Laketown, the battle of 5 armies and bilbo's return home in #3. I think too much for one film, maybe a bit thin for two but i'd rather sit through 2 short films than one over-long one.

Surely there is enough source material from the LOTR appendices and other works, both published and non-published. The lore of Middle Earth is rich and vast enough that PJ can extract the story behind all the goings on around the time of the Hobbit story line.

I'm looking forward to it.

SpAc3man:
Surely there is enough source material from the LOTR appendices and other works, both published and non-published. The lore of Middle Earth is rich and vast enough that PJ can extract the story behind all the goings on around the time of the Hobbit story line.

I'm looking forward to it.

Me too, as long as he can make it interesting. I love Tolken, but the silmarillion was REEEEEEALY dry.

But the rise of the Necromancer was only tangentially related to the story of The Hobbit and the battle of Dol Guldur didn't take place until several decades later (and wasn't even important enough to be contained in the original story). Why, Peter Jackson? Why?

If he can delver a massive gripping story in a rich world then I have no problem with this. Wonder where he's going to put the dividers in though.

I feel that this bodes pretty badly.

See, I loved the Hobbit growing up and yet I was (and still am, for that matter) bored out of my skull by the Lord of the Rings, so naturally I was way more excited for these films than I was for the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

And the great thing about the Hobbit is that it is so small in scale, it's immediately accessible. It's not trying to be this huge mythic melodrama, it's more like a 19th century fairy tale. Sure, there's the odd link back to the overall mythology of middle earth, but ultimately it's really just background for what is quite a sweet and intimate story.

While I get that a lot of the charm lies in the slightly whimsical bits which don't really mesh with the main narrative, and including all those is going to take some time, but all this talk of trying to flesh out the surrounding universe translates to me as a studio-mandated "this film needs more action and epic battles with music and melodramatic dialogue, because it's not like anyone has actually read the Hobbit, and they're all going to be expecting that shit because it was in Lord of the Rings."

And that would be very sad.

I dont know what to think.

DVS BSTrD:
I'm actually glad: Being an owner of the extended cuts of the LOTR trilogy, I can appreciate just how much he would have had to cut out otherwise. The original could have been a miniseries like Game of Thrones, except the director actually knows how to shot a battle sequence and Daenerys' story line doesn't get fucked-up to fit in with the season finale.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
I said this already in the other thread:

After the Battle at King's Landing, Peter can take all the time he wants on the Battle of Five Armies. I'm pretty sure he'll keep Smaug's rampage waiting until the third movie so there'll be that to. I'm more worried about the middle part: There's not a lot going on while Bilbo and the Dwarves travel through Mirkwood. Unless he's going to include Istari taking down Dol Guldur.

I admit I would have liked Del Toro's take on Smaug, but only if Ron Perlman played Beorn. Though I admit it would be much of a transformation then.

Well PJ has already said that we will get to see Gandalf in Dol Guldur so I would imagin that we will also get to see The White Council driving out The Necromancer as well.

OT: I am cool with it but if the movies were filmed as 1 why do we have to wait a whole year for each part? That's just mean!

Tom Bombadil is my nic name due to always beening left out. :D

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here