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'm excited for THE HOBBIT: PART 3 because General Grevious was my favorite character.
— Peter Labuza (@labuzamovies) July 30, 2012
The Hobbit or There and Back Again. Again and Once More. The End. Epilogue. Coda. Surprise and Finally Home. Probably. Maybe Not.
— sizemore (@sizemore) July 30, 2012
EXCLUSIVE: Peter Jackson adds a fourth Hobbit film, THE HOBBIT LEGACY.
— Matt Singer (@mattsinger) July 30, 2012
— Domenico Salvaggio (@DomSalvaggio) July 30, 2012
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:
@firstshowing No. Why? LOTR: 3 books, 3 movies. The Hobbit: 1 book, 3 movies…
— Merrill Barr (@sonic43) July 30, 2012
@firstshowing I was… am… excited for pt1. But more talk about 48 frames/second and other tidbits coming from Jackson have me worried.
— Ignatius (@THEIG) July 30, 2012
— Roebot Films (@RoebotFilms) July 30, 2012
@firstshowing just because a story can be told in 11 hours doesn't mean it should.
— \m/ (@SteveWhoVain) July 30, 2012
— Da7e Gonzales (@Da7e) July 30, 2012
@firstshowing I'm not really that excited. Seriously, Pete needs to find a new project. Doesn't anybody feel like 3 LotR films were enough?
— Jay Runham (@jayrunham) July 30, 2012
@firstshowing trilogy? No. Why? It's not necessary. Tolkien's The Hobbit is not a long book.. :/
— macopah(@masova) July 30, 2012
— Sean Sakimae (@SnapTheJap) July 30, 2012
— Alex Moore (@alxmoore) July 30, 2012
@firstshowing I'm excited but I would've prefered extended editions, I think.
— Flrsi (@Flrsi) July 30, 2012
@firstshowing I figure giving Pete Jackson more time in middle earth is a good thing…
— Front Row Geek (@frontrowgeek) July 30, 2012
@firstshowing No idea, but I trust Jackson. So until I have something to complain about, I won't
— Mark Cassidy (@RorMachine) July 30, 2012
@firstshowing Reserving judgement till I see pt1.
— Ignatius (@THEIG) July 30, 2012
@firstshowing not sure they have enough material. We'll have to wait and see.
— Jackson (@JJGSoldier) July 30, 2012
The Most Excited/Positive Tweets:
@firstshowing I'm just thrilled to have another chance to escape into Middle Earth. How could anyone be upset/not ecstatic about this?
— guts (@peoplesjackson) July 30, 2012
@firstshowing I am sooo excited about that third movie. They won't have to cut too much scenes !
— Lucie Brissonnet (@lucies_choice) July 30, 2012
@firstshowing hell yea Im excited about another trilogy.Why?Peter fucking Jackson.His Lord of the Rings films were amazing!These will be too
— Kenny (@IKennyR) July 30, 2012
— djchristensen (@djchristensen) July 30, 2012
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.
@firstshowing Honestly I'm just upset there still hasn't been a "Meet the Feebles" sequel. I mean Tolkien's great and all, but the feebles..
— Steven McCaig (@StevenMcCaig) July 30, 2012
Wow, three Hobbit films sounds like an amazing idea!
— Brandon Lee Tenney (@Brotodeau) July 30, 2012
But seriously. I just want more Tolkien-via-Jackson in theaters. Glad to have as much as he thinks he has to give.
— Brandon Lee Tenney (@Brotodeau) July 30, 2012
Okay…It looks like I STILL have a chance to fuck up the ending to THE HOBBIT.
— Damon Lindelof (@DamonLindelof) July 30, 2012
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?
Hells to the yeah!!!
DAVIDPD on Jul 31, 2012
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
Nope should of been 1 big 4 hour movie.
BoxOfficeFuture on Jul 31, 2012
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
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
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
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
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
"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
I say the more details included, the better. Also, I like the symmetry three films makes with LOTR
Zeus on Jul 31, 2012
I'm just wondering which character Dwayne "The Rock Johnson" will be playing...
Akirakorn on Jul 31, 2012
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
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
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
Agreed...still catch myself on Wookpedia from time to time.
Xerxexx on Aug 1, 2012
Same here. Its insane how much time I spend on there, and Tolkiengateway too
LosZombies on Aug 2, 2012
I would've preferred extended editions.
christox on Aug 1, 2012
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
i can't wait for december!
beevis on Aug 1, 2012
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
me2 on Aug 1, 2012
I'm not looking forward to it! It should have been left at 2 movies.
Jackmooney9 on Aug 1, 2012
Fidel Reyes on Aug 1, 2012
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
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
I was happy to have two movies and extended Blu-rays.
rennmaxbeta on Aug 1, 2012
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
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
Sorry, new comments are no longer allowed.