The author of that article is an idiot. It was already known that they were using parts of the LOTR appendices to help expand The Hobbit to two films. There's nothing in the PJ quote provided that indicates they're expanding it to three films.

At the Comic Con panel, Jackson stated that any extra footage that they filmed would be used for extended versions of the film on video.

I've always been fine with it being in two parts from the extra appendices material, but three would be pushing.

But I absolutely want to see that footage in some form, so I'd love to see mega editions on Bluray (and I still want to see more of the footage from the LOTR footage that hasn't seen the light of day).

Ah, the fallacy that GL always had it all planned out.

The Prequel Trilogy was never more than a rough outline prior to the mid to late nineties.

Alright. I know the estate doesn't like the Jackson films being made from the works but....why? They do just not honestly like them or cuz they're not getting paid? Or what?

That's true, but it was pretty much known since the subtitle "Episode IV" was added to Star Wars that if the prequels were ever made, it would be made as a trilogy.

It appears to be specifically Christopher Tolkien who opposes the adaptations mostly on principle.

http://web.archive.org/web/201003171..._0000/472.html
The estate did sue over unpaid royalties for LOTR, which was settled before filming began on The Hobbit:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8245300.stm

J.R.R. Tolkien seemed open to the idea of an adaptation of LOTR and the Hobbit, although he was critical of certain specific attempts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R...en#Adaptations

Ah. What an ass but in the case of royalties...that's fine. I've never read the books, it's on that long as fuck list of books I'll read at some point, but...could one say that if Tolkien could see them he'd be fine and dandy w/ it? Cuz...not to speak for the dead or anything but these films are very imaginative and well done to the point where I think he could be pretty happy w/ it.

I just hope they finish the actual Hobbit story in two movies and call the third movie something else entirely.

Yeah. I'm not actually seeing where they're getting 3 movies from that article. He probably has enough footage for 3 but...there's no damn way he can change production like that all of a sudden and now make 3. This is what extended cuts are for.

If he makes each movie a little over two hours, it's possible. However, given his penchant for making movies 3 hour+, it's not as likely.

Yes, when the original film was rereleased before Empire came out. The original was just "Star Wars" and Lucas had no grand plan for continuing the story -- remember that Splinter of the Mind's Eye was written as a possible low-budget sequel if the original tanked and contained aspects that are impossible to reconcile with anything else in the Star Wars canon.

Tolkien was open minded to people giving him money, period. He would've been delighted by the financial success of Jackson's films, but he probably would not have liked them as films.

LOL three movies for one 270-page book versus three movies for a 1000-page trilogy.

I know they're adding other stuff into The Hobbit, but this is purely business. My rough calculations estimate that two movies + two blu-rays + two extended cuts would not make as much money as three movies + three blu-rays + three extended cuts.

To do this right Jackson needs to break down this material into four films. Let it breathe, don't give short shrift to this incredible work. If he wants to include the appendices, and the studio is willing, this should really be six films. Two new trilogies released over the next ten years. Then Jackson can reboot the original LOTR trilogy or hand if off to another director. After that The Hobbit would be ready for a remake and Jackson could just wear his producer's hat and relinquish control to some hungry new directorial talent.

I'm being facetious.

I hope the third movie has the long-rumored three-way battle royale between Smaug, the Balrog, and King Kong!

So ... George Lucas actually ripped off JRR Tolkien? Raping the source material wasn't an original idea by GL?

Wow ... JRR Tolkien almost raped my parents' childhood.

I'd say Lucas took more from Frank Herbert's Dune, than LOTR. Also a hefty helping of Flash Gordon.



I'm really torn on this issue. I'm one that always complains about movies from books cutting too much (like the Harry Potter films should have been two parters starting with Goblet of Fire), but with The Hobbit I'm just worried about fan fatigue if they spread it over three films.

Is there enough material with the HObbit/Appendixes to have 3 movies?

More like 4-6 movies if they do the material justice.

You can get that much from the appendixes and the Hobbit?

My appendices in my paperback copy of ROTK cover 132 pages. Some of that is family trees, basic timelines and various alphabets and discussions of race-name etymology. For some perspective, basically all the discussion of Arwen was in the appendices, Jackson put it in the main part of the LOTR movies to lighten the testosterone load of the story.

Groucho may just be doing his Groucho thing, but there was a lot cut from the books.

Remember in Fellowship when Frodo comes into possession of the ring, then Gandalf leaves to do research, then comes back in a rush? The movie makes it look like a few weeks at most, in the books it's 17 years. And then Frodo still doesn't leave the Shire for a few months or something like that.

You know, in the original version of the Hobbit published in 1937, Gollum was actually a nice guy who happily showed Bilbo the way out of the mountain after losing the riddle game?

They're going to do an entire movie about Tom Bombadil.