HOME TRAILERS 2013 SCHEDULE PODCASTS REVIEWS POSTERS INTERVIEWS SHORT FILMS NEWS FEEDS ABOUT APPS

THE HOBBIT NEWS

Peter Jackson Actively Talking to WB About a Third 'Hobbit' Movie

by Alex Billington
July 24, 2012
Source: THR

Well, here we go. Over the Comic-Con weekend, rumors started kicking up that Peter Jackson was already considering going back and shooting more footage for The Hobbit in hopes of potentially making either a third movie, or long extended editions. You can see why everyone would want to return for more in the latest video blog. We weren't sure what to make at first, honestly hoping that it wasn't going to happen, but now it's apparently an actuality, and talks "have accelerated in recent days, with the studio on board if the right financial arrangements can be achieved." The Hobbit trilogy here we go. Do you think it's a good idea?

Originally, reports directly from Jackson only hinted at the possibility, since he dropped mention of it during Comic-Con. "We have certainly been talking to the studio about some of the material we can't film, and we've been asking them so we can do a bit more filming next year. Which, I don't know what would come of that, whether it'd be Extended Editions or whatnot." Now the studio definitely seems interested, of course, in turning this into a trilogy. Three means more money - why not? I think we expected this day to come even years before when The Hobbit was struggling to get made. A source for THR confirms the news:

"If we're going to do it, we have to make a decision soon," says a source close to the production. "It's strongly driven by the filmmakers' desire to tell more of the story."

"It's about taking the chance to tell more of the incredible tale with the cast we have assembled," says a source.

Now it's not confirmed by the studio yet, as they have a lot of other things on their mind at the moment, but it sounds like they're definitely interested, and probably trying to see if they can make it happen. Deadline's Mike Fleming follows up on the news, confirming it as well: "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." Interesting response. Wince, I think, in the sense of do they really need to stretch this into three films? It may be long enough between two nearly 3 hour movies.

For now, we'll have to wait to hear official updates from Warner Bros or Peter Jackson himself, who seems to keep his Facebook regularly updated. THR says that "sources close to the production of The Hobbit say the filmmaker has concluded that he wants to turn his upcoming two-film adaptation of the J.R.R. Tolkien epic into a trilogy" and they would start shooting "next summer for about two months in New Zealand." Makes sense, the production looked fun. But look, I love visiting Middle Earth, especially this world that Jackson has created, but do we really need to stretch this story into more? How exactly is he going to make it this much more epic? Will Smaug be held until the third one? What do you think of a Hobbit trilogy?

Filed under Hobbit, Movie News, Rumors

From around the web:

http://www.facebook.com/people/Brian-Sleider/1847907840 Brian Sleider

idea!!! Lets take a Book trilogy that spans 900+ pages and make 3 movies. THEN lets take a single book that spanned like 250 pages and make THAT a trilogy That way was can cash in 3 times!!!!
David Banner

2 movies on the book The Hobbit(without inventing new characters or adding fiction not from Tolkien) and 1 book based on the appendices of Lord of the Rings would have been perfect-but you should really go read or at least have a look at the appendices of Lord of the Rings; they cover A LOT of history. And not really anything between The Hobbit and Fellowship. So, they could have made this film, but it doesn't really have anything to do with either book, it shouldn't be called The Hobbit, Part 3. Just call it Middle-Earth or something?
Anthony

I'm confused. Would that mean that the second Hobbit movie would become the third? I'm assuming that one has a definitive ending. So, would they make a movie in the middle, and then the one that's right now supposed to be the second would become the third? Or will the second movie stay the second movie, and the new one would be the third. Sorry if that's confusing to read, but I don't get it haha.
- John
  
  Anthony, my guess is that the extra stuff would likely be spread across all three films. Much like LOTR, its better to think of The Hobbit as one big film. Whether told in two parts or three, it's still one story. The difference is that LOTR was originally three books, therefore lending itself to three films. With the Hobbit, you only have one book. That creates new challenges, such as where to start/end each part so that the audience understands the story and feels satisfied with the film. And that's my big problem with this: Jackson planned for two films, there were two scripts written, etc. The move to three films upsets the balance and structure that was planned. It just feels like a cash grab to me. I say keep it two films, and then if they have more footage they can release extended editions on blu-ray.
  - LosZombies
    
    Thats a very fine and detailed explanation. My guess is that they wont necessarily make a 3rd movie, but fill both films with extended footage that covers most of the stories in the appendices. For example: -Gandalf meeting Thorin in Bree. -Galadriel restoring Mirkwood after the fall of Dol-Goldur. -Dain Ironfoot in The Battle of Azanulbizar. -Balin's failed attempt to reclaim Moria. (Im hoping for this one) etc. etc But then again, perhaps they COULD end up making a full blown 3rd movie after all. Which I am not against lol ;D
    - beevis
      
      hells, yea!
  - Jared
    
    Lord of the rings is actually all one book. Because of the paper shortage due to the war it had had to be split into three parts during the time of its release. Tolkien wrote that as one book, one story. The publishing company made him split it and THEY, not he, created the titles for all three parts (Fellowship, Towers and King). Its all one story. It was intended to be all one story. I would love to see one of the great filmmakers of the past decade adapt more wonderful stories from one of the greatest fantasy worlds ever created. In fact as many as he wants. If they can make a GI Joe sequel...then they should make 5 more LOTR films to offset the shame those kind of films bring to the world of cinema. Theres your balance.
mrsmicole

Don't get selfish, Mr. Jackson... I LOVE Middle Earth and all things encompassing it, but keep it simple- keep it safe. The Hobbit just offer to be two films.
http://www.quanahblogs.com/ Quanah

I hope the additional footage means a bridge film. With all the stuff rolling out in the theaters now-a-days, what's the harm in more Middle Earth? What say you? I say do it.
http://www.facebook.com/cpurdy111 Chris Purdy

why not? they already have the sets, the cast, the costumes, the crew, and something like 30 red epics. that's millions of dollars of stuff that's already been bought and paid for. if peter jackson has a story he wants to tell, it would seem a bigger waste not to do it.
Chris Batty

The dude is totally trying to milk it. Reminds me of when he milked the LotR trilogy with his special edition and director's cut. F' that.
- steven
  
  He learnt it all in the Lucas School of Shame...
- beevis
  
  chris, are you even a little familiar with how hollywood works?
Chris_G

Hmm...I'm up for it. I mean, having it be a Hobbit 'trilogy' just seems more neat than it being two films...but still. I think it could work. I would expect film 1 would be mostly unchanged...while what would have been film 2 would be expanded upon heavily. For example...instead of having film 2 be a single fully loaded 3-3.5 hour film, it could be turned into 2 separate 2-2.5 hour films. Once you get north of 3 hours, you are basically as long as two films anyway. So instead of trying to fit it all in with an obscene running time...it's best to make two 'normal' length films instead of one overly long film. I think I would prefer that to getting an extended edition with an hour of additional footage later.
xtheory

uh, why? creatively, it's time to move on PJ. enough already. trying to squeeze every last dime...
- LosZombies
  
  Or perhaps just a desire to tell a story. Either way he'd still be making bank off of it, so it makes no difference :p
- beevis
  
  why not tell that to the people making endless transformer, spiderman, iron man, GI joe and xmen movies?
  - Jeff Metzger
    
    You are talking about one story line stretched over 3 movies vs. 3 story lines in 3 different movies. It's a terrible hollywood trend. I loved the LOTRs but I'm a bit over it. Time to move on.
LosZombies

Not opposed to extra footage at all, just wish Tolkien would let up the rights to The Silmarillion, THAT would be AWESOME
- beevis
  
  i'd like to see that too; but, i'd much rather a studio get started on terry brooks shannara books.
beevis

funny, alex - i don't hear you complaining about too many superhero movies? how many spider man, iron man, batman, superman, avengers, xmen...etc... do we need?..... and yet, not a peep out of you about that - hell, the other day, you put out an article hoping to see a catwoman movie - is that REALLY needed?. i know it's your site and you're certainly entitiled to your opinion - but, come on....just because there isn't a superhero, or woman dressed up in a skin tight, black leather suit in it; there can still be a third hobbit movie. hey, i don't remember you questioning 3 more avatar sequels either. if a third hobbit movie can be done......and done well - i don't see the problem.
- Philip J. Fry
  
  The comment from Brian points to the problem, while I am not a fan of most super hero movies, and definitely not avatar. Super hero movies have enough source material to keep going. The same is the case with avatar, it has enough source material as Cameron can come up with. The Hobbit has 250 pages of material that they are drawing from, that's it. Which makes the idea of having it be 3 movies ridiculous.
THEBATMAN

no just no.....
just kiddin

I think it's about time to reboot the LOTR trilogy. This time make it more grounded in reality..or place it in space..make it a hard SCI FI,not a fairy tale like Prometheus...
Vitorkis

Extended editions please, just like LOTR except becuase the book is smaller means more of the story. Peter don't push it for a third, LOTR almost needed 4 movies with the amount of story and extra footage it could have got.
- beevis
  
  agree on LotR possibly being 4 movies - there was a lot of info left out and return of the king ran a little long.....it could easily have been 4.