THE HOBBIT (2012/2013): News, Rumors, Pics Till Release

[DigificWriter]

There seems to be some confusion as to the nature of this third film, which means that an update is in order. According to The One Ring.Net, Jackson and Co. are, in effect, doing what they did back when New Line Cinema agreed to finance the LotR films: they will be expanding the story that they were originally planning to tell in 2 films and instead telling it in 3. The only difference here is that they have already filmed their originally planned 2 films and will therefore be crafting a third film from scratch, reworking what they have already shot so that it can work in conjunction with the new third film.

BTW, said third film will be the only one of Jackson and Co.'s Tolkien-based films not to be released in December, as it is scheduled to premiere in the summer of 2014.

[Vassa]

Emh wrote:

---

I agree filming it in its entirety is too much, but there are definitely some interesting stories to be told, particularly Feanor.

I would very much like to see the Fall of Gondolin on screen.

The Battle of Angmar would also be sweet.

[Emh]

DigificWriter wrote:

---

There seems to be some confusion as to the nature of this third film, which means that an update is in order. According to The One Ring.Net, Jackson and Co. are, in effect, doing what they did back when New Line Cinema agreed to finance the LotR films: they will be expanding the story that they were originally planning to tell in 2 films and instead telling it in 3. The only difference here is that they have already filmed their originally planned 2 films and will therefore be crafting a third film from scratch, reworking what they have already shot so that it can work in conjunction with the new third film.

BTW, said third film will be the only one of Jackson and Co.'s Tolkien-based films not to be released in December, as it is scheduled to premiere in the summer of 2014.

That's an intersting development. Sounds like they're going more towards a bridging film (like the second film was originally envisioned as) and that's a good thing. I'm surprised by the summer 2014 release date but it's good that we don't have to wait as long

Vassa wrote:

---

I would very much like to see the Fall of Gondolin on screen.

The Battle of Angmar would also be sweet.

I definitely would love to see both of those as well.

[DigificWriter]

^ There is no 'bridging film'. The new film will be a direct continuation of and expansion from what has already been written and shot. IOW, what was originally a single story that was set to be told across two films will now be told across three instead.

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Though this isn't the thread for it I wanted to comment on this:

(Dark Knight Rises, which I do actually like more than any other of these follow-up movies I've mentioned, but event hat feels bloated and self indulgent)

I agree with it. Nolan "Nolanized" what in essence was the simplest story of three films, he had to make it seem as complex as he could just so it fit.

[Lonemagpie]

OK, LOTR I could understand - it's huge, split into three volumes, etc. But, the Hobbit? Fuck off - it's not that long or deep that it would take three long movies to do. 90 minutes should have covered it nicely. Really, this is just taking the piss to stretch out the lifespan of the cash-cow, isn't it?

What's next, turning The Dambusters (which PJ is/was supposedly remaking) into a six-movie epic that lasts longer than the actual war...?

[USS Fardell]

Lonemagpie wrote:

---

What's next, turning The Dambusters (which PJ is/was supposedly remaking) into a six-movie epic that lasts longer than the actual war...?

Possibly a Dickens novel (like, David Copperfield, or Bleak House) into a trilogy. (No proof, just speculation, and with Dickens' plots it would work better)

[DigificWriter]

Lonemagpie wrote:

---

OK, LOTR I could understand - it's huge, split into three volumes, etc. But, the Hobbit? Fuck off - it's not that long or deep that it would take three long movies to do. 90 minutes should have covered it nicely. Really, this is just taking the piss to stretch out the lifespan of the cash-cow, isn't it?

The idea that this is being done for monetary reasons doesn't hold water because Peter, Fran, and Philippa came up with the idea of doing a third movie, not the studios.

[propita]

Klaus wrote:

---

Putting PJ through the geek translation matrix:

"Time to show Lucas how to make a frakking prequel trilogy!"

That may be possible!

At the same time, LotR had the nine of the Fellowship, plus MANY other characters, yet each was visually fairly distinctive. Here, there's 13 fairly visually-similar characters. I mean, if they're all (or mostly) short, male, with beards, time (film time) is going to be needed to have 13 fully established and distinguishable characters.

And many non-Tolkien fans won't get references to "past history" without some help. Some history of the dwarves and the King Under the Mountain--why they're all going there in the first place--why there's five armies fighting at the end, who Dale is, etc. Explanations to the casual viewer so things make sense to them. And this is going to take screen time. Sometimes a chapter can take two minutes on film; sometimes a half hour. It adds up.

[Lonemagpie]

DigificWriter wrote:

---

The idea that this is being done for monetary reasons doesn't hold water because Peter, Fran, and Philippa came up with the idea of doing a third movie, not the studios.

Yeah, cos writers and directors do it all for free?

[Alidar Jarok]

I was initially skeptical of a two-part split, but the proposed dividing line made a lot of sense. The book is actually packed full of many scenes, so I understood that those take a longer time to play out on the screen. Some appendix material explaining Gandalf's absence makes a lot of sense too and would be fun to see (once they got Christopher Lee, I figured it could be exciting).

Three concerns me because the split might be less logical and because the appendix material might start to overshadow Bilbo. I'm cautiously optimistic, but you have to recognize that the side story never overlaps with the main story. As much as he wants to tie it in with the Lord of the Rings, it also needs to stand as its own story. So my position right now is to wait and see what direction this takes.

[Gojira]

Lonemagpie wrote:

---

Yeah, cos writers and directors do it all for free?

I really don't see PJ being motivated by cash. He really does have a passion for these stories and wants to tell them. His financial successes have given him the opportunity to do these movie but I don't think he is motivated by greed.

[Set Harth]

propita wrote:

---

who Dale is

Yes, I can see that some fans are going to need help.

[davejames]

I'm no Tolkien fanatic, but I really enjoyed LOTR and was looking forward to revisiting that world for one extra, fun little adventure.

But I can't say I really want to sit through another LOTR. And that's basically what this is starting to sound like. To justify three movies they're probably going to make things much more serious and important, with FAR more characters and storylines than we really need to see, and MUCH more ominous forshadowing of later events than we really need.

I realize Jackson is in love with this world, but come on. Not every story that happens in it needs to be a humongous epic.

[Allyn Gibson]

RoJoHen wrote:

---

My fear is that The Hobbit is going to turn into a B-plot its own movie.

I think this move -- to move to a trilogy -- could prevent that.

If you think about the chronology of events in The Hobbit and where the "split" that ended the first film was rumored to take place (at the barrels sequence), then the second film would have been top-heavy with battle sequences -- in addition to the Battle of Five Armies, there also would have been the Dol Guldur business. The story of the Dwarves would have been crowded in its own movie.

Splitting all the LOTR background material into a third film would prevent that. Material leading to the White Council's attack on Dol Guldur can be seeded in the first two films (which would adapt The Hobbit), and then, in the third film, Bilbo asks Gandalf on the way home from Lonely Mountain, "So where were you during all that time?" and Gandalf tells the tale of what's basically the opening move in the War of the Ring. This way the latter half of The Hobbit gets the room it needs to breathe, as does the White Council material, without it all stepping on each other.

If that's what Jackson does, then they've basically gone back to the original plan -- a Hobbit adaptation and a Lord of the Rings prequel/bridge film. And I'd suggest that the best possible names for this bridge movie would be either The Return of the Shadow or The White Council, though I like the former better. And I don't think this would require a lot of filming. It would really amount to re-editing the films and doing pick-ups where the narrative goes a little thin because they were trying to compress so much into the second film.