LATEST NEWS
Reply: Are You Excited About a Third 'Hobbit' Movie? Fans Chime In
by Alex Billington
July 31, 2012
It has been decided. There will be a third Hobbit. We will see Peter Jackson's The Hobbit trilogy, and all that it contains, because we know it has to be more than just the story told in J.R.R. Tolkein's The Hobbit. But of course it will have a lot more, and Peter Jackson has plenty of wonderful Tolkien material to draw from anyway. We already know Elijah Wood's Frodo is in it, plus Orlando Bloom is back as Legolas, and there's Evangeline Lilly as Tauriel. But how many are excited for a third movie? Are they stretching it thin? In our latest Reply question series, we're asking the fans if they're really into this third movie, or not.
Rumors of a third movie first kicked up at Comic-Con, where he said, "I'd like to shoot a bunch more material that we [couldn't] shoot. There's so much good stuff in the appendices that we haven't been able to squeeze into these movies," But earlier this week, PJ took to Facebook to confirm. "So, without further ado and on behalf of New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Wingnut Films, and the entire cast and crew of The Hobbit films, I'd like to announce that two films will become three." While it seems like due to rights issues they can't pull from Silmarillion, they've got plenty of other material and can likely come up with another epic Middle Earth ensemble adventure that involves more than just a Hobbit.
What was the general reaction to the news? Before we even asked our question, tons of tweets started flying in about it, but a few of the better ones made fun of the decision — and potentially what could come next.
I followed up by asking a more open-ended question: "Are you excited about the third Hobbit movie and why (not)? Will they have enough good material?" Hoping to spark a discussion on both the good and bad, we got a good variety of replies that range from the positive and negative completely. However, it seems like most people are actually just waiting to see how the first one is and how the rest turn out anyway. It's a little too early to tell with only one trailer released, and shooting just finished, if the adventure will be worth it, but maybe we should trust in Peter Jackson. Let him take us on his complete journey. The best replies:
The Most Excited/Positive Tweets:
There were a couple of tweets I thought were worth pointing out in the discussion for The Hobbit movies, and here's a few of them, one from Damon Lindelof and honest opinion from our own Brandon Tenney.
I had to toss in that Lindelof one, it's almost a personal jab at himself and Prometheus, but fun altogether. Personally, I'm excited to see where Peter Jackson will take us on these adventures, I love Lord of the Rings, I have faith in Jackson, and am excited to return to Middle Earth. I'm slightly concerned the central story of Bilbo going off and fighting the dragon Smaug is going to be stretched a little too thin across too many films, but that's what they did with Frodo and LOTR. And if it worked then, it should again. But honestly, I agree with those who said they'd rather wait to see this first one, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, in theaters December this year, before making any calls on whether or not the other films are going to be good/exciting. It might be like falling head over heels for LOTR all over again—in 48FPS and 3D this time.
Thanks for checking out our new series Reply, where we open up a discussion based on a quick question. You can always follow @firstshowing to participate and reply the next time, or follow-up with your own thoughts on this Hobbit trilogy discussion below. Our first Reply was about Man of Steel, the second about favorite Dark Knight Rises moments. We hope to continue the Reply series with more riveting, engaging, fascinating questions in the near future. See you on twitter! Are you excited for this Hobbit trilogy?
28 Comments
1
Hells to the yeah!!!
DAVIDPD on Jul 31, 2012
2
Milk that story as much as you can guys, huh? But I don't mind - the more the merrier in my opinion!
HobbitFan on Jul 31, 2012
4
I'm looking forward to all 3 for a couple of reasons 1-It's Peter Jackson and Middle-earth is his muse 2-From what I've read it the idea for a 3rd appears to be PJ's idea. If the studio forced it on him I would've worried but it's PJ's initiative
rocky728 on Jul 31, 2012
5
Not at all there's no way there is enough material there, these aren't going to be 1h30 movies there going to be 2 hours at at least which means like 6 hours total at minimum, you can't stretch the hobbit out that long, dosen't matter how much of a visionary you are
HazedMind on Jul 31, 2012
6
I still don't get it. Are they stretching out the two movies into three, while shooting a little bit more footage, or are they making a completely new full length third movie that takes place after the first two?
Eric on Jul 31, 2012
7
While I think it is thoroughly unnecessary to have three films, I'll still enjoy every single one. Still, though, I don't like that they're making three films. One, it just is overkill. Two, I have to wait longer to finish his version of the story that he's creating. It was already annoying that he was splitting it into two, and three is just ridiculous.
Charles Oosterhouse on Jul 31, 2012
8
Mentioning the appendices to me is encouraging, simply because the third film may in fact be more of a bridge between The Hobbit and LOTR: Fellowship. I'd give anything to see Aragorn/Strider hunting Gollum.
Quanah on Jul 31, 2012
9
"I'd like to shoot a bunch more material that we [couldn't] shoot. There's so much good stuff in the appendices that we haven't been able to squeeze into these movies," I'm wondering the same. Is this more Hobbit or is Peter Jackson trying to make Tolkien's masterworks into Pirates of the Carribean?
Dangerous Don Danger on Jul 31, 2012
10
I say the more details included, the better. Also, I like the symmetry three films makes with LOTR
Zeus on Jul 31, 2012
11
I'm just wondering which character Dwayne "The Rock Johnson" will be playing...
Akirakorn on Jul 31, 2012
12
EPIPHANY! ....... What if it was like an "AU fanfic" version of The Hobbit that Jackson wrote? Does that make any sense? WOULD that make any sense? Probably not, because they'd have to put a title card that says "This is a completely new movie that Jackson came up with, please get the first two out of your head." I'm just trying to figure out why The Hobbit needs to be 3 movies 😐 If he put LITERALLY LIIIITTERRRAAALLLLYY EVERY SINGLE SENTENCE in the book, then it'd be sort of justifiable (albeit painful to watch). I just... I don't understand? I guess this decision was out of the blue, right? Because that last vlog showed them wrapping up Hobbit Part 2.
fem!anon on Jul 31, 2012
13
All these people complaining are still going to see the movie. And those saying they just did it for money, so what if they did. Is all the money the movie makes come out of your pocket? All it costs you is what you spend on tickets...quit complaining. Tolkien provided plenty of information on his other writings that happened in the same time frame. Its not all coming from just The Hobbit.
Chris Skalicky on Jul 31, 2012
14
There will always be naysayers. No matter what. Look at how many people hate the Star Wars prequels, yet they still eat that stuff up! People will watch The Hobbit regardless of what they say, and they will either hate it or love it. Now, in my opinion, I feel that this is a great move, because theres SOOOO much that goes on in the books that will finally make it on screen. There will be much more badassery than people anticipate, I guarantee it ;D
LosZombies on Aug 1, 2012
15
Agreed...still catch myself on Wookpedia from time to time.
Xerxexx on Aug 1, 2012
16
Same here. Its insane how much time I spend on there, and Tolkiengateway too
LosZombies on Aug 2, 2012
17
I would've preferred extended editions.
christox on Aug 1, 2012
18
Does that mean waiting an extra year for part 3? 🙁 But I'm okay with this, not going to bash on anything I haven't seen 🙂
Neuromancer on Aug 1, 2012
19
i can't wait for december!
beevis on Aug 1, 2012
20
Why stop at 3? They should milk this one book into 8 movies. That way they could dedicate an entire movie to hobbit pillow fights rather then just a mere 15 minutes.
Jeff Metzger on Aug 1, 2012
21
LOL!
me2 on Aug 1, 2012
22
I'm not looking forward to it! It should have been left at 2 movies.
Jackmooney9 on Aug 1, 2012
24
How come people aren't much into an uproar with Ridley Scott doing a sequel to Blade Runner? The author of the Blade Runner book never wrote a sequel to his story so how is this any different with Peter Jackson throwing in his interpretation in it's purist form in a 3rd story? In my opinion I don't see the point in making a 3rd story since Tolkien wrote many books that led to the events of LOTR. The smart thing to do is go back to book one then you'll have a franchise that the studio can milk off of just like the Harry Potter books. I don't need to see a 3rd story that will possibly turn into 2 parts that references everything Tolkien wrote about Middle Earth.
BinaryChaos on Aug 1, 2012
25
OK. Confused again. Is it: Spreading the children's book over 3 movies titled The Hobbit: Something-Something Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3, with dashes of the appendices in each film, or: is it the book devided into 2 movies based on The Hobbit, with the third movie being based on the appendices + whatever else they can come up with? It seems there is "mass-confusion" on this part, across Europe at least, as I can read several languages, and no two press reports are the same. It's a bit hard to see the book as 3 movies, spread over 2.5 years, if not 3 years, but I am sure it will be....grand.
David Banner on Aug 1, 2012
26
I was happy to have two movies and extended Blu-rays.
rennmaxbeta on Aug 1, 2012
27
I think Lindelof was referring to "Lost", but it's kind of hilarious that you implied he fucked up "Prometheus" as well.
Boiler Bro Joe on Aug 18, 2012
28
Peter Jackson does Middle Earth well, we know this. However give him TOO much time and he's proven to go sour. Take "King Kong" a great movie albeit beaten to death a bit with the most self-serving wallow-in-the-cinematography-for-an-hour-before-anything-of-any-import-or-interest-happens beginning. (Which was at least equally as irritating as the previous wagon train of hyphens.) You cut out the first hour, make it 20 min or so, and you have a blockbuster. Instead, half the audience was asleep before the real fun even started to surface. The same can now happen with Hobbit.
Kingkong on Sep 18, 2012
New comments are no longer allowed on this post.
FEATURED POSTS
FOLLOW FS HERE
Follow Alex's main account on Twitter:
Add our posts to your Feedly › click here
Get all the news sent on Telegram 
LATEST TO WATCH