×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Peter Jackson Announces Third Hobbit Movie

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the gollum-approved dept.

Lord of the Rings 303

eldavojohn writes "Unless his Facebook account has been hacked, Peter Jackson has announced a third movie for The Hobbit series: '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.' Other sites are confirming this while Variety notes that filming has been wrapped on the first two so doing a third film will require a restart to all of that effort including re-negotiations with rights holders and acting schedules. **potential spoiler alert** From Peter Jackson's announcement: 'We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance.' How much of Middle Earth would you like to see on film?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

303 comments

Here we go! (2)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year and a half ago | (#40822659)

This is pretty much going the same direction as Star Wars⦠Eventually we will see the âoeSuper Duper Directorâ(TM)s Cut Boxed Set With Special Commentary And New CGI Effects!â

Second breakfast my preecccciouuuussss! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40822711)

What do you expect from a hobit!?

finally getting around to my favorite volume: (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40822795)

"Tim, Tim Benzedrine!
Hash! Boo! Valvoline!
Clean! Clean! Clean for Gene!
First, second, neutral, park,
Hie thee hence, you leafy narc!

Re:Here we go! (4, Insightful)

alvinrod (889928) | about a year and a half ago | (#40822817)

That's just standard studio bullshit to capitalize as much as possible on the franchise. You're going to see that with any property.

I'd be much more worried if Peter Jackson goes batshit insane and gives us an uninspired story with shallow and boring characters. Then it would be going in the same direction as Star Wars.

Honestly there's a whole lot of the Tolkien universe left to go and I honestly don't mind them making movies out of it; however, I do wish that they wouldn't drag the Hobbit out so much, especially when there're stories such as the Silmarillion that would be incredibly amazing to see done.

Re:Here we go! (4, Interesting)

Pepebuho (167300) | about a year and a half ago | (#40823069)

I want to see the Silmarillion but in Series format (like Game of Thrones or similar). It is long enough for at lest 4 or 5 seasons of 8-10 episodes each. I would really look forward to watch that!

Re:Here we go! (4, Interesting)

hierophanta (1345511) | about a year and a half ago | (#40823079)

come on, the Silmarillion is hardly a story. its much more like an appendix or as wikipedia puts it a legendarium. you couldnt make that a coherent movie any more than you could make the entire bible a single movie. Maybe they could do it like the Animatrix, which would be FREAKING SWEET!

i'm not sure i agree that there is that much more of the Tolkien universe to get through. in that, there is depth, but we are about out of breadth.

Re:Here we go! (5, Interesting)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year and a half ago | (#40823105)

Honestly there's a whole lot of the Tolkien universe left to go and I honestly don't mind them making movies out of it; however, I do wish that they wouldn't drag the Hobbit out so much, especially when there're stories such as the Silmarillion that would be incredibly amazing to see done.

Agreed, there's a lot of the Tolkien universe than most people know about. But I don't think the idea is to drag the novel The Hobbit out to three movies. I've read elsewhere that the intent is to dip into the LOTR appendices and cover the larger history leading up to Fellowship of the Ring. The Hobbit was a child's story told from Bilbo's point of view. I think Jackson has something larger in mind. Tolkien reportedly had something larger in mind, and had started to re-write the story partially contained in The Hobbit, but never finished it.

Unfortunately Jackson doesn't have rights to the Quest of Erebor -- that's owned by Tolkien's son Christopher, and he appears to be completely opposed to any film based on his father's work. So all they have is the rights that Tolkien sold when he was alive -- The Hobbit and LOTR. Fortunately, a lot of the earlier story is contained in the part at the end of LOTR that almost nobody read.

I think the main difference between this and Star Wars is that Jackson is not pulling the story out of his ass. At least, not all of it.

As to The Silmarillion.... I'm sorry, it put me to sleep. And I'm saying this from the standpoint of having read every word of LOTR several times, including the appendices. From a storytelling standpoint, it was more interesting to have a story set in the last days of that age, where heroic and villainous acts are overshadowed by the monstrous acts of an earlier time, and characters struggle amid the tired ruins of a world that contained characters so much larger than they.

Re:Here we go! (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#40822921)

This is pretty much going the same direction as Star Wars

Yeah! Except, no, it's not, is it? This is a pre-release change to production, not a money-grubbing revisionist scourging of a sci-fi classic.

Re:Here we go! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40823021)

Yes, because making a single book that is shorter than any of the individual Lord of the Rings books into 3 movies is clearly not being done for money-grubbing reasons. You're joking, right?

Re:Here we go! (1)

hahn (101816) | about a year and a half ago | (#40823563)

I'll take a wait and see approach. It's possible that Peter Jackson has found a way to weave in a lot of background story into The Hobbit that ties both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings trilogies. I recall seeing Galadriel in the preview and she wasn't in The Hobbit so perhaps we'll see a bit more of the history of Middle Earth such as the formation of the White Council. Don't dismiss it just yet.

Re:Here we go! (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year and a half ago | (#40823019)

At least you know in which direction all should be coming from. The LOTR trilogy (ok, won't be called episodes 4, 5 and 6), the original hobbit tale (that they plan to put as a trilogy) and, well, movies all around in the general Silmarillion direction that would be the hobbit prequels, with not a lot of characters reuse so probably will go to the animation road (i.e. like in Animatrix, but extended). No iterative extensions, no reboots, but in some years could come a new version based on the same books

Re:Here we go! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40823187)

As long as the style doesn't change they can go on making as many movies as they want.

The problem with 99% of sequels/prequels is that they screw around with the original style and end up making a completely different type of movie than the original. That only works works if the original movie sucked.

Re:Here we go! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40823331)

except in these there is decent acting, and a real story. Star wars, while classic to some simply sucked

Money grab (3, Interesting)

jjcushen (1637385) | about a year and a half ago | (#40822697)

I was wary about stretching it into 2 movies. Its not that long of a book, not much actually happens. 3 movies is just a money grab by the studio.

Re:Money grab (1)

thomasw_lrd (1203850) | about a year and a half ago | (#40822719)

I could see splitting the movies at the point where the Battle of Five Armies occurs, but a third movie? I agree that will probably suck.

Re:Money grab (4, Informative)

thomasw_lrd (1203850) | about a year and a half ago | (#40822769)

Edit: So after RTFA it looks like the third movie will be stuff gleaned from Tolkien's other works, not anything that actually occurs in the novel The Hobbit.

Re:Money grab (2)

arth1 (260657) | about a year and a half ago | (#40822909)

Edit: So after RTFA it looks like the third movie will be stuff gleaned from Tolkien's other works, not anything that actually occurs in the novel The Hobbit.

The only interesting thing is whether it'll feature Derek.

Re:Money grab (0)

slick7 (1703596) | about a year and a half ago | (#40822759)

I was wary about stretching it into 2 movies. Its not that long of a book, not much actually happens. 3 movies is just a money grab by the studio.

Jackson aught to make "Bored of the Rings". That film could be made into a six reel extravaganza.

Re:Money grab (-1, Troll)

Bodhammer (559311) | about a year and a half ago | (#40822807)

Let's see - Obama as the dreaded "BallHog", Michael Moore as "Frito", and Bill Maher as "Dildo".
Should be EPIC!

Re:Money grab (-1, Flamebait)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year and a half ago | (#40822927)

and of course Romney as the out of touch lunatic obsessed with the shiny ring....

Re:Money grab (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40823299)

and of course Romney as the out of touch lunatic obsessed with the shiny ring....

Methinks you got the "out of touch" casting wrong:

"You didn't build that."

"We tried our plan. It worked."

Re:Money grab (0)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about a year and a half ago | (#40822931)

Let's see - Obama as the dreaded "BallHog", Michael Moore as "Frito", and Bill Maher as "Dildo". Should be EPIC!

Romney as the Tree...

Re:Money grab (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#40822779)

If you take in some of the material found in the Appendices of LotR and the Book of Lost Tales, you probably have enough for three movies.

Re:Money grab (4, Funny)

Red Flayer (890720) | about a year and a half ago | (#40822971)

If you take the stuff from the Silmarillion, you probably have enough for a couple hundred movies.

Re:Money grab (3, Insightful)

Znork (31774) | about a year and a half ago | (#40822829)

Yep, this is starting to reek of yes-men and greed, not necessarily a good foundation for great movies. Jackson has performed well this far so I'm hoping, but this is where I start tuning down my expectations.

Re:Money grab (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40822835)

Pretty sure I recall reading that the first film is the book, and second is stuff set after the book?

Re:Money grab (3, Insightful)

ninjagin (631183) | about a year and a half ago | (#40822873)

Agreed. Two would have been enough. Tolkein wrote it as a standalone story in one volume. It doesn't need anything else. I think PJ is starting to like the smell of his own flatus so much that he doesn't want to stop eating beans, so to speak.

Re:Money grab (5, Funny)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about a year and a half ago | (#40822895)

I was wary about stretching it into 2 movies. Its not that long of a book, not much actually happens. 3 movies is just a money grab by the studio.

I wasn't worried about that until I heard the titles for the three movies:

  1. The Hobbit
  2. The Hobbit Reloaded
  3. The Hobbit Revolutions

Re:Money grab (5, Funny)

arth1 (260657) | about a year and a half ago | (#40822935)

I wasn't worried about that until I heard the titles for the three movies:

        The Hobbit
        The Hobbit Reloaded
        The Hobbit Revolutions

It could be worse. Imagine:

        Hobbit: The Quickening

Re:Money grab (4, Insightful)

TopSpin (753) | about a year and a half ago | (#40822995)

I understood the rational behind two movies; the Hobbit is pretty condensed and there is no lack of fans that will appreciate the depths explored with sufficient screen time. Three movies seems excessive but Peter did right by LOTR so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

It could be good if the net result is three reasonably sized movies instead of a pair of 235 minute blood clotting epics. We humans are really not meant to stare at screens that long.

I'm feeling gypped (2)

gameboyhippo (827141) | about a year and a half ago | (#40822703)

Each one of the first three films should have been a trilogy if a book shorter than any of the three Lord of the Rings novels gets three films.

Re:I'm feeling gypped (1)

Shadow99_1 (86250) | about a year and a half ago | (#40823383)

Um... maybe it's just me... but my copy of the hobbit is just shy of 600 pages... my copies of the different lotr books are about 350 each... how exactly does that make Hobbit 'shorter'...?

Based on previous works... (5, Insightful)

Anachragnome (1008495) | about a year and a half ago | (#40822729)

Based on previous works, "Lord of the Rings" in particular, I'd say "as much as you can give us!". And by that I mean that they could cut The Hobbit into 10 pieces and I'd still be thrilled. Even with 3 movies, "Lord of the Rings" was missing too much.

Re:Based on previous works... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40822777)

Get the fuck out of your mom's basement before it's too late!

Re:Based on previous works... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40823007)

No, Movies make books better by leaving out the bad parts. Like all of the back history of every character, and the stupid impromptu songs they sing for no freaking reason, other than Tolkien needed to do something to get his insomniac kids to sleep.

Re:Based on previous works... (4, Insightful)

mmcxii (1707574) | about a year and a half ago | (#40823233)

Agreed. There were great parts of the LotRs that were left out. It didn't really bother until I realized how far off the path Jackson went with the ents. Cutting something out for time and pacing is one thing but to add something that didn't exist for comic relief? Come on now. LotRs could have been 4-5 films without any of Jackson's added crap.

Re:Based on previous works... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40823631)

The book was originally 6 separate works (Each book in the trilogy has two books in it) so he could have just gone with 6 movies.

I am not impressed with how he butchered the story in LotR and now suddenly feels it's so important to tell barely tangentially related tales as part of the Hobbit. Bombadil in LotR was more relevant than anything he's listed as "oh no what if this is forgotten?".

So Many Dwarves (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40822731)

This was bound to happen. There was no way he could fit the tossing of all those dwarves in a mere two movies.

Plenty of authentic material left.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40822735)

..before they have to embarrass themselves by attempting something 'original' to keep the franchise rolling. The events from the Silmarillion are long and epic enough for at least 3 films.

Re:Plenty of authentic material left.. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40822757)

The events from the Silmarillion are long and epic enough for at least 3 films.

But interesting enough for zero.

Re:Plenty of authentic material left.. (4, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#40822803)

Bullshit. The story of Turin would make a damned good movie, though some might not like the ending quite so much. The Fall of Gondolin is pretty good too.

Re:Plenty of authentic material left.. (1)

Coryoth (254751) | about a year and a half ago | (#40822929)

Beren and Luthien would do well if adapted properly -- it would take a deft touch to really do it right. Also Akallabeth would work out quite nicely althought you'd have to compress the time frame a little bit and essentially have it run from Sauron's arrival on Numenor.

Re:Plenty of authentic material left.. (1)

bhsurfer (539137) | about a year and a half ago | (#40823205)

Given the right treatment I think the Fall of Gondolin would be a great movie. Bring on the Balrogs! Actually there's plenty of stuff in the Silmarillion that could be made into film. I'd like to see Ungoliant killing trees in the theater.

Re:Plenty of authentic material left.. (1)

Sloppy (14984) | about a year and a half ago | (#40823363)

And get Blind Guardian to do the soundtrack, this time!

Re:Plenty of authentic material left.. (4, Insightful)

readin (838620) | about a year and a half ago | (#40822975)

Given how Peter Jackson treated LOTR, taking only the outlines and filling them in with his own imagination, the Silmarillion seems like the perfect source for him. It would save him the trouble of having to throw out all the good stuff.

Re:Plenty of authentic material left.. (3, Informative)

hughJ (1343331) | about a year and a half ago | (#40822899)

They only have the film rights to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings by way of Saul Zaentz who purchased the rights back in the 70s. I'm pretty sure that the rights to everything outside of those specific books still rests in the hands of the Tolkien estate, and if Christopher Tolkien were going to sell the film rights to the rest of the material, he probably would have done it already (he's gone on record as not being happy with the films, and had to sue New Line in order to get their royalties from the films.)

If they're going to make 3 Tolkien films, New Line/Jackson's hands are pretty much tied to events in and those surrounding The Hobbit.

Non-canonical fanfic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40822739)

So, in other words, a lot of the Hobbit trilogy will be loosely based on brief passages from the book describing "off-screen" events, and random notes left behind by Tolkien. That's all fine and good, but there should be a disclaimer stating that much of content of the films will be fanfic and should be considered non-canonical.

Re:Non-canonical fanfic (1)

Mabhatter (126906) | about a year and a half ago | (#40823009)

At some point Peter Jackson will have enough money to dig up Tolkien, reanimate his corpse, and get the rest of the right signed over.

Seriously, most of what Tolkien wrote WAS his own personal fanfic. The story was written more like a DnD backstory for the language professors' hobby group. There wasn't a lot of intention to make it all canonical and publish it.

That is why in the DVD extras for Game of Thrones, Martin was half-joking about chucking the giant pile of notes in the burn barrel when he's finished with the last book... Just to keep the whole "it's not cannon enough" crap from getting out of hand.

Re:Non-canonical fanfic (1)

EricTheGreen (223110) | about a year and a half ago | (#40823541)

At some point Peter Jackson will have enough money to dig up Tolkien, reanimate his corpse, and get the rest of the right signed over.

Well, at least Jackson will know where to find a good Necromancer to do the re-animating....

There wasn't a lot of intention to make it all canonical and publish it.

Given the volume of drafts/notes/whatnot left behind, and the timeline on them (some of the stuff going back into the 1920's), I seriously doubt this was just a "hobby" shared amongst the language faculty.

Had no idea.. (2)

Danzigism (881294) | about a year and a half ago | (#40822745)

that they were even going to span it across 2 movies until now. Jesus christ! I'll watch them all though and cry all the way to the bank. I'm sure it'll be worth it though. Besides that funky FPS that looks like it's an old BBC theatrical performance.

a bit silly (4, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | about a year and a half ago | (#40822749)

I like The Hobbit, but it's not an epic like The Lord of the Rings is. It's not supposed to be an epic. It's a self-contained, medium-sized story, with a fairly classic narrative arc. It makes no sense to tell the story in installments. The first 1/3 of the Hobbit isn't a film! There is one fairly straightforward journey, a climax, a denouement. The book is circa 300 pages, not circa 1000 like LoTR is.

Re:a bit silly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40822799)

-"Surely you don't disbelieve the prophecies because you helped bring them about? You don't really suppose, do you, that all your adventures and escapes were managed by mere luck, just for your sole benefit? You're a very fine person, Mr. Baggins, and I'm very fond of you, but you're only quite a little fellow in a wide world, after all."

Re:a bit silly (5, Insightful)

Coryoth (254751) | about a year and a half ago | (#40822871)

I like The Hobbit, but it's not an epic like The Lord of the Rings is. It's not supposed to be an epic. It's a self-contained, medium-sized story, with a fairly classic narrative arc. It makes no sense to tell the story in installments. The first 1/3 of the Hobbit isn't a film! There is one fairly straightforward journey, a climax, a denouement. The book is circa 300 pages, not circa 1000 like LoTR is.

I think the key is that they are going outside the pages of the Hobbit to get a third film. Which is not to say they're going outside Tolkien's writings, it's just that they're mining the appendices of The Lord of the Rings and the last chapter of the Silmarillion on the War of the Rings which covers Sauron's early rise as the Necromancer of Dol Guldur and the battles fought by Gandlaf, Saruman, Elrond and Galadriel against him at that time. This is very tangentially touched upon in the Hobbit -- but it is a narrow story told from Bilbo's point of view -- but there's plenty of story there if they wish to fill it in as a separate part that helps fill the gap between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.

Re:a bit silly (1)

Trepidity (597) | about a year and a half ago | (#40822941)

Good point; that could be interesting. Tolkien has this whole world with backstories, but really only LoTR succeeds in being a compelling narrative that fully uses that world. The Hobbit as written is more of an early story that vaguely hints at a larger world, more in that sense like a lot of other fantasy novels (which typically have less of a deeply fleshed out cosmology than Tolkien's world). There is definitely enough material to produce something of a prequel to LoTR, which The Silmarillion and the LoTR appendices hint at but don't really pull together into a compelling story.

I suppose I'm a bit skeptical that it'll actually happen, because it's nontrivial storytelling work to pull that off. But there is enough material that theoretically a great filmmaker (or novelist, for that matter) could produce the prequel to LoTR that Tolkien himself didn't.

Re:a bit silly (2)

avandesande (143899) | about a year and a half ago | (#40823085)

If Peter Jackson wanted to challenge himself he could of attempted to create a movie that would appeal to both children and adults as the original story did.

Instead it's multiple episodes, 40 frames per second, etc etc.....

Re:a bit silly (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a year and a half ago | (#40823373)

They're going outside of The Hobbit in order to get even 2 films! Some images and hints released so far are clearly stuff from Lord of the Rings appendices and not a part of The Hobbit. Dol Guldur is barely hinted at in the book in just a couple of lines I think. Given the shortness of the book in terms of actual time that passes, the council to deal with Dol Guldur would have taken place after Bilbo was safely back home, the most Gandalf could have done in the short time he was away from the party would be to investigate the necromancer and discover who he might be. So maybe one movie should have been called "The Hobbit" and the others called "Interstitial Stuff We Like and We Hope You Do Too".

Some stuff out there is either just clearly wrong. Ie, an image labeled "Bilbo Lost in Moria"; I really hope someone just made a mistake and that it's really Goblin Town.

Re:a bit silly (3, Interesting)

Coryoth (254751) | about a year and a half ago | (#40823455)

Dol Guldur is barely hinted at in the book in just a couple of lines I think. Given the shortness of the book in terms of actual time that passes, the council to deal with Dol Guldur would have taken place after Bilbo was safely back home, the most Gandalf could have done in the short time he was away from the party would be to investigate the necromancer and discover who he might be.

Yes, but if you were to expand the point of view of the Hobbit a little bit, and include a little more material such as Gandalf going to Dol Guldur etc. then you leave yourself well setup for a third film with Bilbo at home and the council waging war on the necromancer. Of course that's not to say that's what they've done, but for now I'm willing to give them the benfit of the doubt and wait and see what they've actually done. As it stands The Hobbit is a very narrow story that leads into LoTR but doesn't really sit well with it; by having a LoTR prequel that expands upon the Hobbit with further material from the Appendices of LoTR I could imagine a much better lead in to the LoTR trilogy being made. Let's hope that's what they're aiming for.

Re:a bit silly (1)

ninjagin (631183) | about a year and a half ago | (#40822911)

Agree 100%. Most of the background in the book was there simply to let the reader know that there was a background -- to put the story in a larger context that you didn't need to know everything about.

Re:a bit silly (2)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year and a half ago | (#40822933)

It makes no sense to tell the story in installments.

It makes business sense. Just like rebooting Spiderman was all about the business - in Spiderman's case the studio had to (re)make the movie if they wanted to keep the options on two more spiderman movies, else it would have reverted back to the studio that made the avengers. A similar thing is almost certainly going on here - the studio has the options to make at least three movies out of the hobbit, so that's what they are going to do.

Re:a bit silly (3)

osu-neko (2604) | about a year and a half ago | (#40823103)

... The book is circa 300 pages, not circa 1000 like LoTR is.

A 300 page novel requires substantial cutting to fit into a movie. A short story makes a good two hour movie. Most novels can't fit in under 10 hours of screen time without leaving out large parts...

Re:a bit silly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40823215)

It was as i understand a childrens book, it might even make sense to have made a movie for children out of it... but ofcourse that would not make it a blockbuster hit but probably more of a direct-to-video type deal (which would have been just fine for most of us, but not for the moneymakers)

Its not even two films. (1)

Shivetya (243324) | about a year and a half ago | (#40823637)

Money money money.

I certainly don't want to wait three years to see the whole movie. With Peter Jackson's LOTR I could understand it, it was three distinct books.

Now we have Peter Jackson's The Hobbit... with how many DVD/BluRay releases to follow?

He is desperately trying to give George Lucas a good name

Just wait... (4, Funny)

CheeseTroll (696413) | about a year and a half ago | (#40822751)

Just wait 'till he gets his hands on the Silmarillion. It would open the door to a decade+ soap opera television for geeks!

Re:Just wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40822949)

There's worse. He could get his hands on The History of Middle-earth. Imagine how many movies Jackson could make out of 12 books.

Re:Just wait... (4, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#40823167)

Except HoME is largely made up of the various versions of The Silmarillion that Tolkien worked on from 1917 until the 1960s, except for a few volumes that are works associated with the writing of LotR and associated materials.

Years ago when I was posting on Tolkien newsgroups, when the LotR movies first came out, there was sizable debate about this. I think it would be all but impossible to film the entire Silmarillion, it's too big for a movie. Some parts of it, like the Ainulindale, would be rather hard to bring to the screen.

Some of the stories would work very well, in particular the Turin saga, Beren and Luthien, the Fall of Gondolin (the first story of Middle Earth Tolkien ever wrote) and some of the other works. The expanded Narn I Hin Hurin, which is about Hurin and Turin, would make a pretty awesome epic in its own right.

If you go past the Silmarillion proper, I think the Atalante (Fall of Numenor) would make a very impressive prequel to LotR.

Hobbit, meet shark. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40822761)

Does ANYBODY here not think this will be an utter travesty?

The complete, unabridged (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40822763)

adventures of Tom Bombadil.

Well, it could be worse. (1)

readin (838620) | about a year and a half ago | (#40822767)

Based on Jackson's previous work in which all the good parts of the books removed and replaced by senseless battle, I'm guessing the first movie will be the battle with the goblins and wargs, the second movie will be the battle with the dragon, and the third movie will be the battle of five armies.

The only positive I can see is that since the Hobbit was intended as a children's book it doesn't have the intellectual depth and character definition of the trilogy, so I hopefully won't be as upset about all that gets left out or all the characters who are changed completely.

It does seem unfair that three books that each could have easily been two movies were made into one movie each, and now a book that could be one movie is being made into three.

Scouring? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40822805)

Can we get The Scouring of the Shire and call it a day? (I mean, really, that was the whole point of The Lord of the Rings.)

Tolkein according to Warner Bros... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40822827)

I'm sure that American money can 'improve' The Hobbit.

After all, they managed to 'improve' a lot of the WW2 movies by showing how it was really the US that won the Battle of Britain, captured the Enigma and beat the Japs in Burma. Now I suppose we will find that Middle Earth is just outside Boise, Idaho....

Two movies was already stretching it but... (1)

milbournosphere (1273186) | about a year and a half ago | (#40822855)

...three is absurd. There's a reason why the Tolkien family HATES Hollywood, and this is an embodiment of those reasons. Peter Jackson is rapidly becoming the next George Lucas. Put down the ultra insane frame-rates and concentrate on not butchering the books in the name of moneys.

Re:Two movies was already stretching it but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40823681)

Completely agree, unfortunately the likes of you and I will be dismissed by the kind of people who have so little appreciation for truly epic world-building and such a small measure of imagination, that they can dismiss the Silmarillion as "boring". The kind of people who need brightly coloured movies with lots of fight scenes and Dwarf-tossing jokes, to make up for the fact that when they read the books, they're busy spelling out words in their heads rather than imagining the scenes.

They're missing the big money... a MUSICAL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40822857)

Do you realize how much singing there is in the books? I mean Tom Bombadil alone could carry half the movie. Haven't they seen how popular Glee is? This would get you regular geeks and Gleeks!

Hobbit 1&2 + Bridge Material (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40822869)

I know no one one RTFL, but what's happening is They are going to make a third film out of material that bridges The Hobbit and LOTR, based on notes/side stories left by Tolkien. And some of the material is pretty cool and worthy of a movie separate from "The Hobbit".

So, more walking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40822883)

I wouldn't want to miss every single step.

How much of Middle Earth would I like to see? (3, Funny)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year and a half ago | (#40822953)

Just The Silmarillion [wikipedia.org] . Is that really too much to ask?

In an unrelated note, if anyone has a mop, I accidentally dripped sarcasm all over the floor and need to clean it up.

Harry Potter director? (4, Interesting)

readin (838620) | about a year and a half ago | (#40823031)

The Hobbit was written as a children's book - a pleasant read and not too scary, with plenty of humor especially at the beginning. Jackson seemed to have a really difficult time with the lighthearted parts of LOTR. The reunion with Frodo at Rivendell is cringe-inducing. I wish they had asked someone else to do this - perhaps whoever directed the first Harry Potter movie. Jackson did a great job with bringing Middle-Earth to life in sets and costumes, but that hurdle has largely been crossed. The Hobbit needs someone who can take the sets and costumes and tell a story.

Re:Harry Potter director? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40823627)

You are F*ing with us. A lot of people's favorite of the three is still The Fellowship. If you'll remember, the first 20 minutes of which is nothing but lighthearted with only hints of the darkness to come. The "Harry Potter Director" to which you refer, I'll assume its David Yates (director of the last 4) made The Half Blood Prince such a cut rate, confusing clusterf*k that many people who saw it without reading the book couldn't even understand the plot, not too mention the boring Deathly Hollows pt. 1.

Jackson will do fine, great probably. His real weakness is he has no idea how to just say enough is enough. The Two Towers (Extended Edition) is filled with unnecessary and incredibly slow exposition additions, the end of the Return of the King is twenty five minutes too long and ruins what is otherwise the best of the three, and King Kong could have been an absolutely brilliant film if it had a different editor. And now he's just at it again, never knowing when enough is enough, never knowing that sometimes less is, if not more, then can certainly be better.

Last I checked, the LOTR movies were amazing... (1)

Yosho-sama (800703) | about a year and a half ago | (#40823033)

So stop yer bitchin.

Re:Last I checked, the LOTR movies were amazing... (3, Insightful)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year and a half ago | (#40823165)

Completely agree, give as many intellectual arguments and mention how it did not include some specific scene important for the plot as much as you like but the movies were good and did not really change anything. The Orcs were not turned into mutants from Mars or aliens, so personally I thought a good job was done. Until given direct evidence that these movies are bad I am very much looking forward to them.

There and Back Again... (1)

redizhot (2692045) | about a year and a half ago | (#40823045)

If he wants to make more, I'm down to him try and see what he comes up with! I think there's plenty in the books to cover.

Scumbag Peter Jackson (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40823081)

Only Peter Jackson could take so long to end a movie that it takes an entire other movie to do so.

One maybe, but not three (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40823109)

When it was first announced there would be a Hobbit movie I was sort of sitting on the fence about seeing it. I like the story, but I'd already seen three LOTR movies and wasn't sure I wanted to see another in the same vein. When it was announced the story would be split into two films that pretty much turned me off. Now that there will be three I can say I won't be going to see these. Peter Jackson is a really good director and I'm sure he'll do a good job, I'm just not interested in another nine hours of Middle Earth. Two hours, maybe three, but three movies' worth is overkill in my opinion.

Yes but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40823355)

WIll the Jawas have 3d blinking eyes?

Tor Discussion Forums! Ballz deep in the deep web! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40823391)

mature adults should visit and post at one or both of these unofficial tor discussion forums, these tinyurl's will take you to:

** HackBB:
http://www.tinyurl.com/hackbbonion [tinyurl.com]

** Onion Forum 2.0
http://www.tinyurl.com/onionforum2 [tinyurl.com]

Each tinyurl link will take you to a hidden service discussion forum. Tor is required to visit these links, even though they appear to be on the open web, they will lead you to .onion sites.

I know the Tor developers can do better, but how many years are we to wait?

Caution: some topics may be disturbing. You should be eighteen years or older. I recommend you disable images in your browser when viewing these two forums[1] and only enabling them if you are posting a message, but still be careful! Disable javascript and cookies, too.

If you prefer to visit the hidden services directly, bypassing the tinyurl service:

HackBB: (directly)
http://clsvtzwzdgzkjda7.onion/ [clsvtzwzdgzkjda7.onion]

Onion Forum 2.0: (directly)
http://65bgvta7yos3sce5.onion/ [65bgvta7yos3sce5.onion]

The tinyurl links are provided as a simple means of memorizing the hidden services via a link shortening service (tinyurl.com).

[1]: Because any content can be posted! Think 4chan, for example. onionforum2 doesn't appear to be heavily moderated so be aware and take precautions.

Lost me, I'll wait three years (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40823441)

I'm so very tired of this. It's one story. I don't want to either read or watch 1/3 of a story and then wait a year for the next snippet. Jackson did a good job with LoTR, so I was excited about The Hobbit, but I'm not going to bother going to see it until the trilogy is complete.

What I *would* be very happy to do is pay $40 to watch a 7-hour movie with a couple intermissions, or just watch three movies released at the same time, perhaps over the course of a weekend if real life got in the way of a binge. That would make me happy and I'd buy lots of crappy overpriced movie-theater food during intermission. I'd wind up paying something like $200 for my family at the theater and be happy about it. But watch 1/3 of a movie, blah, not worth it.

Should I wait for the condensed fan-edit? (1)

Misagon (1135) | about a year and a half ago | (#40823539)

Should I skip seeing the three movies, and wait for the condensed fan-edit of the three movies after the BluRays have been released?
Seeing how strong the community of fan-editors already is, and what good edits it produces, I think that we can count on there being someone out there who will cut them down into one movie that is telling the tale from Bilbo's perspective, as in the book.
There have already been numerous edits of the Star Wars movies, Superman, Dune, etc. and some have been really good.

I am also afraid that seeing my own digital copy would also be the only way to see The Hobbit "trilogy" in a good theatre (my own) and avoid crappy, blurry, "3D".
Too bad. I had been looking forward to seeing The Hobbit this December.

Jackson can get three movies out of The Hobbit... (1)

EricTheGreen (223110) | about a year and a half ago | (#40823645)

....but can't come up with 35 - 45 minutes to do a decent version of the scouring of the Shire. Grumble.

Hoping against hope the bulk of the additions don't involve a previously-unknown love interest for Thorin.

chance for jackson to redeem himself (1)

CheesyMoo (655560) | about a year and a half ago | (#40823647)

Well since they're taking three films to do this one book which is much shorter than any of the others, maybe Peter Jackson will be kind enough to include the dozens of songs that Tolkein wrote in the original text. I WANTED TO SEE TOM BOMBADIL SINGING DRINKING SONGS WITH A BUNCH OF DWARVES AND HE DIDN'T DO IT! HE BETTER DELIVER ON THE DAMN SONGS THIS TIME! Seriously though who needs another generic epic score when you can use genuine content from JRR himself to enhance the film?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...