My one hope is that with nearly every film you make on this scale, you have hours and hours of footage that end up on the floor of the cutting room. So I am PRAYING that the extra movie will be made up of this footage and will not detract from The Hobbit. I mean I would think it'd have to be because they're done filming. But whether this is the best choice for the theatrical releases of these movies, I still don't know.
My big fear is that these three movies are going to be "The Lord of the Rings Prequel: The Hobbit and other Middle Earth History."

So a third movie has been confirmed. I am not so sure I like the idea, and I am curious because I didn't know there was enough going on in Middle-earth around the time of the Hobbit to fill up 3 movies. Well, come to think of it, knowing Tolkien's complexity, I wouldn't be surprised, but how much of the extra plot lines will actually be related to The Hobbit?

It doesn't make much sense to me. But there is only one way of finding out how well it works...to wait, I guess...

TORN posted this on Facebook, too good to not share it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FPxYDGfniM&feature=player_embedded

There are some spoilers, so if you haven't seen the movies or read the books I would suggest not watching it.

Nice! Thanks for posting it! I was expecting it to look more like those "Lord of the Rings in 5/10 seconds" clips.

My vote is that after they make a 3-movie Hobbit, they go back and make a 9-movie (at least) adaptation of Lord of the Rings.

Let there be lots and lots of walking!!! (And book!Faramir )

Some official possibilities for the title of the third Hobbit film (I'm wondering if they'll rename one film...? We'll see.)

-The Desolation of Smaug
-The Battle of Five Armies
-The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
-The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/07 ... ie-titles/

I like the Battle of Five Armies myself.

My vote is that after they make a 3-movie Hobbit, they go back and make a 9-movie (at least) adaptation of Lord of the Rings.

Indeed! And book everyone!

When I read this yesterday on TORn, the quote immediately popped to mind about feeling thin, stretched, like butter spread over too much bread. Going to copy and paste what I wrote elsewhere, with some edits: I have mixed feelings, but most of them are skeptical. As others have asked, what is the real purpose of this? Is PJ finally succumbing to Hollywood greed or does he still truly have a solid interest in Tolkien's work? And will the actual Hobbit tale be lost with all the other stuff interspersed? I would rather see two movies of excellence telling The Hobbit story than three of dubious value and/or motivation with too much supplementary material.

Two Hobbit movies, then one "bridge" film like they were talking about way back when, would have been okay, but my initial reaction with three Hobbit movies is that I am not thrilled, no preciousssss.

As shastastwin posted on the previous page, a rather significant fear is that Jackson will insert too much of his own take on Middle-earth, rather than tell JRR's tale, and PJ's character changes in The LotR make me rather ill to this day. I, too, hope these three films will be very nice surprises, rather than let-downs.

On another note, has anyone seen this before? A friend saw it in a Toronto newspaper first in December/03 with the release of The RotK film, and immediately passed it on to me. Such fun!

EDITED to add a bit above, and to say that as of last night my dad was with Frodo and Samwise at the Black Gate in The Two Towers, and he's calling Gollum a "weirdo" quite consistently.

As many of others have said, I have mixed feelings about 3 movies. If it means that they will get more of the Hobbit into the movies (things they would likely have cut to add in the other stuff), then I'm all for it. I don't want the Hobbit to be overshadowed but it might be less likely in 3 movies than in 2. With the Lord of the Rings movies a lot of canon material was cut (Some filmed (the giving of the gifts and the trees coming to Helms Deep) some not (plenty of examples for that. )) I have a feeling the filmmakers might have cut a lot of Hobbit material to allow for the side plot with Gandalf and whatever romance they are going to add. Maybe now we will get more Hobbit. However, if they add a lot of non canon material and/or two much serious material and the feeling of the Hobbit is lost, I am not going to be amused. I think there would be enough material to make two movies of the Hobbit without the back story. So maybe they are just adding the equivalent of one movie of back story.

I have to admit, I was swayed. I was very upset when it was announced about the three films, mainly due to my lack of patience and desire to see it. I can't imagine having to wait three years to see all three parts of a film/book/story. BUT, it was done in LOTR, so I'll live.

But today, I read this: http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/08 ... xpect-now/ Very nice post, actually. And I have to agree with them. We should have seen this coming, he hinted at it enough times. And if anyone could pull off such a stunt only a few months away from the premiere of the first film...it would be Sir PJ. And, while my patience will be stretched, it will just mean more film to watch! So, it will pay off in the end. It'll be so very worth it.

In the spirit of the Olympics: "Let the the films commence!"

I really don't like the idea of three movies. I didn't even like the idea of two movies. The Hobbit isn't that long, it could work perfectly well as one movie. I don't think shoehorning a bunch of stuff in from the appendixes is enough to make three movies. It just doesn't make sense. I'm kind of tired of this whole 'split the book into multiple movies to make more money,' nonsense. It started with Harry Potter, but given that Deathly Hallows is about 750 pages long, they had more of a point. But even there, they left out some important points, and the last movie had to stretch things out too much. I also think three movies will take the focus off Bilbo and put it more on Gandalf, Galadriel, and the Obligatory Romance. And honestly, I'd rather see the whole story at once than wait three or four years. I probably won't see this one.
Also, apparently Jackson does not have the rights to any Silmarillion material, which is just as well because the Silmarillion would never work as a movie anyway.
I have mixed feelings about the movies. They're great as far as costumes, setting, music, and things like that go (the Shire looked just how I imagined it). Some of the characters (Sam, Gollum and Gandalf) are also good, but when it comes to their faithfulness as adaptations, I'm not really satisfied. This isn't about the things they took out (like Tom Bombadil), but rather the things they put in and the characters who weren't in character (Aragorn, Frodo, and Faramir especially.)

^^ That's exactly why I don't like the idea of three movies. Two movies made sense to me if they added Dol-Guldor. But with three movies, what is he adding? Or, what might be a better question, what is he changing?

It's sounding less and less like The Hobbit and more and more like Peter Jackson's Prequel to the Lord of the Rings.

On another note, has anyone seen this before?

Oh yes. Gotta love Foxtrot.

Well, the Hobbit 1.1 Trailer is online!

Was a bit disappointed, but now I know why it was called "1.1"...there's hardly any difference at all from the first trailer, except for about 3, 2 second each clips.

Uh, why would they release a trailer that's so much like the first? Perhaps they're taking the clips that they replaced from the first trailer and they're going to use them in the other films?

Trailer # 1

Trailer # 1.1

The only things that are different?

(Taken from: http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/08 ... n-youtube/)

____________________________________________________________________

Another thought:

If you look at the video, at 1:34, when it says :"The Director Of The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy" it shows the map/book that says

Could it be that this films ends with

Or would that be too soon for three films?

A 9-movie LotR? If each one ended on a cliffhanger, I would find that pretty torturous!

My guess for Trailer 1.1 is that they wanted to introduce The Hobbit to an audience that prefers milder ratings (like G). Then they felt like they had one very nicely done introductory trailer completed already, and if there were only a few shots to be changed to make it G, why not just use the same one?
If this was their thought process, though, it does make me wonder what the movie will be rated. I was expecting PG-13, but maybe they are planning on PG since they released a G trailer. We'll see.

daughter of the King wrote:

It's sounding less and less like The Hobbit and more and more like Peter Jackson's Prequel to the Lord of the Rings.

Exactly. Its like they're trying to make it too much like The Lord of the Rings, while forgetting that its actually a very different story. Its much more comic, the hero doesn't suffer as much, and the fate of the world isn't at stake.

A 9-movie LotR? If each one ended on a cliffhanger, I would find that pretty torturous!

True! The ideal would be close enough to the books that you could be confident enough of what to expect that it wouldn't be excruciating. (And if it was filmed mostly at once, you could release two films a year or something.) On the other hand, if nine is excessive for LotR, I stand by the thought that 3 for The Hobbit is far too much.

AslansChild, if they end the first movie with

I got caught up on all of the Production blogs/diaries when I house sat last week. Very interesting sets and locations and the big emphasis on 3D. (Looks like a certain friend of mine will be seeing his first 3D movie this December.)

Good to see Peter Jackson giving the Middle Earth tour and I also liked what I saw of the cast on and off the set. I'll have to wait until more comes out about the third film in order to have an opinion. I definitely believe there was enough in the book for 2 movies.

Looking forward to the first Hobbit movie and it will be interesting to see how it performs compared to the big blockbusters that have come out so far this year.

AslansChild, if they end the first movie with

Spoiler

the death of Smaug

I have no idea what they'd put in two and three.

Spoiler

Too much battle for my taste, most likely! (Marshwiggle/Eeyore voice: Probably get that anyway.)

Oh, okay. I thought there would be a big battle in one of the films, kind of like The Two Towers. But as Lady Galadriel said

...they wanted to introduce The Hobbit to an audience that prefers milder ratings (like G). Then they felt like they had one very nicely done introductory trailer completed already, and if there were only a few shots to be changed to make it G, why not just use the same one?
If this was their thought process, though, it does make me wonder what the movie will be rated. I was expecting PG-13, but maybe they are planning on PG since they released a G trailer*. We'll see.

*Bold emphasis mine.

It defiantly seems much lighter than LOTR, almost like a child's film.

Dare I say it.