*UPDATE* Peter Jackson just confirmed on Facebook that there will be three Hobbit movies. Well…let’s just hope this works out well. Read the note on Facebook here.
I think it’s fairly clear that I love Tolkien and Lord of the Rings, both books and movies. I’m super excited about The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey coming out in December and that There and Back again will be coming out in December 2013. Or at least I was.
If you’ve been paying attention to the rumors/news about The Hobbit, you’ll have heard about Peter Jackson’s desire to film a third movie. And if you haven’t, here’s the video:
Soooo. A third Hobbit movie. What’s the point?
Sure, Jackson has proven that he knows and loves Middle Earth. His choices in the movies weren’t always the best (like Faramir taking Frodo and the Ring to Osgiliath or Frodo telling Sam to leave and Sam ACTUALLY LEAVING HIM when they were climbing the stairs into Mordor. That part still gripes me) but the end result was a beautiful film trilogy that stayed true to the books.
I’m not worried that the two Hobbit movies will be anything less than spectacular because of this. But how in the world will he stretch out a short book, that is decidedly more juvenile than the Lord of the Rings, into three good movies?
We all know Jackson is adding in material from the White Council (hence the appearance of Galadriel in the trailer). He also has the rights to other material in the appendices from the Lord of the Rings. So it seems that Jackson has two options to make three films. He could either shorten 1 and 2 to make a 3rd. Or he can pad out (a lot) all three movies, primarily through the battle scenes. (Ideas here taken from this great OneRing article.)
If this is what Jackson is planning on doing than I think it’s a horrible idea. It seems unnecessary and greedy to stretch out such a short and simple book into what would become an overblown trilogy. The Hobbit (book) just does not have the heft and depth to fill out three movies.
But that OneRing.net article mentioned above also suggested a third option: that The Hobbit will stay as two movies and that a third yet separate movie will be made as a sort of bridge movie. This is an idea I could get behind. Theoretically, this bridge movie would have a lot of the background and history that’s given in the appendices and provide a connective link between the story of The Hobbit and the events in The Lord of the Rings. This technically wouldn’t be a third Hobbit movie but a separate thing entirely.
Honestly though, two Hobbit movies is enough in my opinion. How many people actually read the appendices…and enjoy them? I’m not saying some people don’t; I, for one, am a huge history and genealogy fan, both real and imagined. But not even I would think that the appendices would fill out an interesting and (key word here) coherent movie.
Again from theonering.net, this interesting collection of tweets about the possible Hobbit trilogy.