Poll: Should The Hobbit Have Three Movies?


poster-hobbitThe 2012 Comic Con has come and gone.

And with it, a lot more questions than we have answers.

Peter Jackson, the man responsible for bringing The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien to Hollywood and the silver screen, is also adapting The Hobbit. It was originally announced as a duology of movies, to be released a year apart. The first movie, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey will be released this December 2012; The Hobbit: There And Back Again is coming December 2013.

But what if Peter Jackson wants to do three movies? The internet(s) has been buzzing since Comic Con, when Jackson did not rule out the possibility of a third Hobbit movie.

Which brings me to one question:

Three movies, I ask?! Why?!

In my opinion, a third movie makes no sense. Jackson has already stated that The Hobbit would be constructed as two movies in order to include additional material found in The Lord of the Rings appendices and the like. The meeting of the White Council. The orphaning of Aragorn. Etc. The Hobbit is actually shorter in word count than Fellowship of the Ring, the latter only requiring one movie to adapt. Why then does The Hobbit require three movies?

I can forgive two movies. I understand that some of those additional scenes from extra source material would expand The Hobbit beyond one movie.

But three? No chance. I don’t want this becoming King Kong: overly long, unnecessary scenes for the overall narrative, and poor pacing.

My question for you is: Should The Hobbit Have Three Movies?

If you think three movies is a good idea, why do you think so? Do you think there is that much material in the children’s book and elsewhere to warrant such a move? Or is this just a money grab, given that once The Hobbit: There And Back Again is released that Tolkien’s universe is essentially dead to Hollywood?

What do you think? Would love to hear from you guys about this!

  • ShadowFax

    I’m really hoping there was a fundamental misunderstanding and Jackson just meant another “Middle Earth” movie.

    We could still totally get Turin or Beran and Luthien movies. I’d love to watch those!

  • jacob reding

    I would agree with two hobbit movies, but if he made a third movie it shoul not be on hobbits but the beging of middle earth(if he did that he might put in tom bombadil).

  • Sadly, Peter Jackson is not doing what you both want. The third movie will be the end of THE HOBBIT. Apparently, Jackson thinks he has filmed so much additional material that he needs three movies to tell a short little book like THE HOBBIT. I call poppycock on that. If that’s the case, under that rationale, then FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING should have been three movies too. And TWO TOWERS should have been three movies. And RETURN OF THE KING should have been three movies.

    My gut is telling me that AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY will be incredible. But the next two movies will be as poorly paced and edited as RETURN OF THE KING, KING KONG, and LOVELY BONES.

  • sarah

    wow, well, i love the lord of the rings movies so it sounds ok to me, but i watched my kids cartoon version of the hobbit by warner brothers and it did it for me all in a hour long movie. all in all it sounds good to me!

  • Scooter

    Um…no. I was slightly annoyed by the second movie and all the additional characters from the later trilogy being shoehorned in, but I could get over it… But no way should there be a third. Is he re-editing the first one now, and hence the second, so that this thing still has something necessary to say? Or is he really just using material originally meant only for the second? Just no…

Get the best stories in your inbox, weekly. Any sufficiently advanced newsletter technology is indistinguishable from magic.