There will be a third movie of the Hobbit

[Logkhya]

That's really great news. Can't wait!!!:heart:

http://www.theonering.com/news/the-hobbit-movies/a-third-hobbit-movie-peter-jackson-drops-a-few-hints

[Varnafindë]

That's certainly exciting news! It seems nothing is certain yet, but Peter Jackson definitely wants to make a third movie, so let's us hope he will be allowed to!

[Valandil]

Moved to Hobbit Movie Forum. :)

[hectorberlioz]

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/will-peter-jackson-turn-the-hobbit-into-a-trilogy-director-pushing-wb-to-let-him-shoot-more-footage-in-2013-20120715#.UAYVzLRWq8A

It's more than a rumor, from PJ's own self. He wants to film three months more worth of footage, possibly just for the extended version, but there's always the possibility of it being an entire other film. Read the article!:eek:

[Valandil]

Merged hector's thread with earlier thread.

* whew I'm exhausted! haven't merged threads in ages! and in this heat! *

[Varnafindë]

I thought it was splitting threads that was hard work :p

[Earniel]

Dude, what could they possibly want to shoot so desperately that they're thinking of needing three movies for it all?

I'm all for more Hobbit. But the more movies there will be, the less Hobbit will be in it, I can't help but think.

[Varnafindë]

I hope they mean it as a chance to shoot more LotR Appendices stuff. Which could be good. If they shoot Tolkien stuff, I mean ...

[Earniel]

That last caveat is what I worry about the most. The Appendices don't really have a narrative, which means a lot will have to be made up to connect the parts.

And I do wonder whether three movies won't be overkill. Sure, the parallel with the loTR-trilogy is alluring. But two trilogies didn't work all that well for Lucas either.

[hectorberlioz]

That last caveat is what I worry about the most. The Appendices don't really have a narrative, which means a lot will have to be made up to connect the parts.

And I do wonder whether three movies won't be overkill. Sure, the parallel with the loTR-trilogy is alluring. But two trilogies didn't work all that well for Lucas either.

Exactly. The appendices are pretty great, but there's a lot of gaps there that PJ and Boyens are going to fill in with their imaginations. Not so comfortable with that.

And what Earn says is exactly right: the more movie, the less Hobbit. *shakes head* I couldn't have imagined this happening, even after learning there would be two films.

[Jonathan]

Any ideas as to the what the third movie will be called?
According to hearsay, two possible names are The Hobbit: Riddles in the Dark and The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug.

[Earniel]

There and Back Again seems like an obvious choice, if you ask me.

[Jonathan]

... which is already the name of the second part of the trilogy, so it seems taken already.

[Earniel]

Well... maybe. But it'd be daft of them not to think about shuffling movie titles about if they go from two to three movies. If I go with the assumption that the new third movie will be the last one narratively, then There and Back Again is a better title for the last movie, since both the riddles- and the dragon-scenes ought to have been dealth with by then.

[Varnafindë]

Any ideas as to the what the third movie will be called?
According to hearsay, two possible names are The Hobbit: Riddles in the Dark and The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug.

Those must have been names of one of the two original movies. They couldn't have had just two movies without either of those "incidents". :eek:

I agree that they must have been shuffling the names around.

[hectorberlioz]

Well, Father Roderick of SQPN.Com came up with the best title I've heard yet: "Butter Scraped Over Too Much Bread."

[Varnafindë]

:thumb:

[Midge]

I'm excited about the prospect of an interim movie - it might be nice if they included some of the pre-Hobbit stuff too, like Gandalf meeting up with Thorin, etc.

However, if they are going to break the book up even further (which will also open up the possibility for MORE straying from canon), I would rather just have the current setup.

[Rían]

They probably just like the idea of another trilogy. I mean, what do you call two movies? A duo-gy?

[inked]

A Trilogy now with incorporation and expansion of the stories in the Appendices as backdrop to the Hobbit. It could be done well. We shall see.

AND NEVER EVER FORGET that they make more MONEY that way! Three times as much! Cleverly dragonish of them!

[GrayMouser]

No objections if one entry in the trilogy is "The Hobbit' by JRR Tolkien; not "Parts of the Hobbit and a Bunch of Other Stuff Thrown In (to be continued)"

[hectorberlioz]

No objections if one entry in the trilogy is "The Hobbit' by JRR Tolkien; not "Parts of the Hobbit and a Bunch of Other Stuff Thrown In (to be continued)"

I'm pretty sure it's the case that the other stuff will be mixed in. Witness: the Gandalf/Galadriel scene in the trailer :/

[Lotesse]

well, I think it'll be bloody fantastic. I invite Peter Jackson to flex his fanfic muscles as crazily as ever, with a seemingly unlimited budget and a giant cast of mostly great actors, young & old. I'm all for it. The longer I can stay cinematically in Middle Earth, the better.Three Hobbit films? AWESOME. This is gonna be so much fun.

That's what HE said (Peter Jackson, I mean) and I gotta say, I tend to agree. Bring it.

And, sorry for being scarce this week, my new 700$ phone got stolen and the very next day, the operating system on my computer got nullified. It'ss been a tough week. I'm only in touch with you now cuz of browbeating my man into letting me use his fancy macbook air to just, get online.

I have read about 15 classic novels since last Sunday night (when my cellphone got snatched.) a lot of Faulkner, some Hemingway, Solzhenitsen, Willa Cather, Joan Didion, James Baldwin, and Julia Child, and OH!! Gabriel Garcia Marquez' great piece of literature One Hundred Years of Solitude, which I read, finished, then picked up the next morning and read again, cover to cover, the following morning.

[Earniel]

No objections if one entry in the trilogy is "The Hobbit' by JRR Tolkien; not "Parts of the Hobbit and a Bunch of Other Stuff Thrown In (to be continued)"
I bet if you wait long enough after all three movies have been released, someone somewhere will upload on Youtube a The Hobbit-cut that will only have all the scenes that were in the book. Kind of like someone uploaded the second Star Wars trilogy with all the Jar Jar Binks-scenes cut. And I'd wager that'd be a pretty good movie.

[GrayMouser]

I'm pretty sure it's the case that the other stuff will be mixed in. Witness: the Gandalf/Galadriel scene in the trailer :/

I don't mind if they throw in a little filler, but I wanna see 'The Hobbit'- from the unexpected party to the return home- in one movie, not stacked in like slices of salami in the middle of a Peter Jackson Dagwood sandwich.

Otherwise, I'll have to wait for Earniel's solution to come around.

[hectorberlioz]

I don't mind if they throw in a little filler, but I wanna see 'The Hobbit'- from the unexpected party to the return home- in one movie, not stacked in like slices of salami in the middle of a Peter Jackson Dagwood sandwich.

Otherwise, I'll have to wait for Earniel's solution to come around.

A Dagwood sandwich:p. That works excellently as a metaphor for PJ's style:thumb:

[Matheada]

I think three movies is a brilliant idea. I think they will be able to capture more detail of The Hobbit that way. It makes me very excited just thinking about it, actuallly.

[Mark of Cenla]

Me like. To each his/her own. The more movie Middle Earth the better, just one unimportant guy's opinion. [Man just one verb in all of that.]