Shared publicly  - 
1369
577
Ignatius Sands's profile photoBrendon Shannon's profile photozack brown's profile photoAlasdair Cole's profile photo
455 comments
 
laaaaame... 2 is plenty to explain the story.  Peter should stop throwing his own nonsensical opinions into the story arc.
 
It's due to the family problems that the Jacksons are having I think is the reason into dragging out the Movie :(
 
Oh yes, we must make three -3 hour long movies out of this one little 330 page book...

$$$$$$$CHA-CHING$$$$$$$
 
With 6-12 months between each so that it takes 2 years to see the whole story?  SO lame.
 
Original LotR content... Legolas rides to the aide of the hobbits and Aragorn when Frodo first gets stabbed.  In order to get him to Rivendell - he puts Frodo on the horse solo and slaps it to send it home.

Peter LotR content... Arwen shows up to appease idiots who love romances and tries to carry the hobbit away from the enemies - because two people don't weigh down a horse too much and as the main character he simply can't die anyways so the extended trip to get his wound tended to obviously doesn't factor.


The most unfortunate thing - I could go on.  I can't wait to see which Goblin bilbo falls in love with in this trilogy! </sarcasm>
 
I think its awesome but another year of anticipation sucks.
 
So 3 books =3 movies....but now 1 book = 3 movies? Cmon Mr. Jackson, this one isn't that complicated a story.
 
People, why do you complain? When has Peter Jackson released a let down movie? I think he knows how to make good quality movies.
 
And I will watch all three! :)
 
Because three trips to the movie theater costs more than two.
Ben Oram
+
1
3
4
3
 
The Hobbit could have been a well paced 2.5hr movie but nooooooo. Self indulgent bollocks geared at making dollars.
Really need a minus 1 button.
 
lord of the rings is a Masterpiece film ...
i hope Hobbit Also Be Unmatched film
 
+Luis F. Correa For the record, I complained about his spin on the LotR films when they came out as well.  Will admit they weren't horrible - was just so eager for a great Hobbit film and seems I can just 'expect more of the same'
 
because i want to make 3 trips to see it ... just because it costs more doesn't mean i, as a consumer, don't want to see 3 movies ... i think its great
 
i wonder how badly the hollywood scriptwriters will screw this up. i may still purchase the movies to support the franchise, but i really hope they dont screw it up too badly.
 
I say: Yay! More Hobbit and less Harry Potter, and those gay vampires saga I don't remember the name.
 
We hope Gandalf stop him: "You shall not pass"
 
Peter Jackson sure is trying to milk this one. I hope they have extended it for no good reason otherwise I wouldn't bother watching this.
 
Why not?  The Silmarillion would make an awesome set of movies.  Probably around 20.
 
well whats a good movie if it isnt well more than one?!
 
April Fool's Day was four months ago. What's the deal?
 
Kaching! Decisions like these are what's fuelling the anti-hollywood fire.
Translate
 
With 3 movies, they better not skip any scenes from the book is all I have to say.
 
+Daniel Baker is so mad at Jackson he apparently doesn't get facts straight.  Glorfindel is the one who gets Frodo to Rivendell in the book.

Before they even started filming, Jackson said he was going to inject some extra Tolkien lore and add some other things to make two movies, so it should have been expected up front that this was never going to be just "The Hobbit". Secondly, I'd like to point out that, while he did add a lot of things and alter the story for the film versions, Peter Jackson kept the heart and soul of the books at heart and created one of the most enjoyable fantasy book-to-film translations ever.

I'd much rather see a director do something brave and take a chance by putting up new material and making the story fit with the medium they are using (film), than go the Harry Potter route and gut all of the sub-plot out.  Jackson hasn't disappointed yet, so I'm reserving judgement.  Plus, 3 films means more to watch, which makes me happy since Hollywood doesn't make good fantasy...it's like the abandoned it back in the 80s with "Legend" and "Willow" etc.
 
Then they had better have all of the parts from the book in there...
 
+Gregory Bokenfohr the problem is that he can make scenes that in the book do not exist
 
Aw.. Bad news.. It sounds like "we want to make more money"..
 
+Jesús Esteban Leo I already mentioned in a comment above that I support him adding things, because it makes for a better cinematic experience.  People forget that.  Literature and Film are two separate genres, and after taking things out that would be ridiculous on film, or would not fit tonally (Tom Bombadil in "Fellowship"), it seems only right to add things in to make it a better watching experience.

I like that they are two separate things. I can read the books and get Tolkien's fantastic version, and I can watch the movies and get Jackson's great film version.  The other way to go in making these movies, which is what everyone seems to want, is that Jackson fuck them up like they did the Harry Potter movies by making them short and cutting all of the subplot and minor characters out to save you money at the box office...that just seems stupid to me.
 
1 book...3 movies= 1 Silmarillion dollars!
 
While it IS my favorite Tolkien, 3 movies??  Uhmmm...Yipes!
 
Yes let's take the shortest and least entertaining of the books and make three movies
 
Filmmaking 101 How to hide shitty scripting
Filmmaking 201 How to hide shitty directing
Filmmaking 301 How to hide shitty editing
Filmmaking 500 (Masters track) How to do all of the above while increasing profits by 50%
 
+Gregory Bokenfohr Read the books, then?  I mean, a film in no way diminishes or deletes the existence of the original source material.

Name a single book that's been done 100% precisely correct without adding or removing anything when it has been converted to a film (note that I'm not counting mini-series, since they have way less time constraints). They are two separate genres...enjoy both sets of work or stick to the one you like and let others enjoy both.
 
+Chris Thomas You're right I got the character wrong...

And I'd love to see more of the Lore incorporated, but it doesn't fit with Jackson's MO which is why I'm not impressed.  I'm not going to stop being upset till Jackson does a good job.
 
Love Lord of the Rings, Hobbit, and all the movies to date. But 3 movies for the Hobbit? Come on! Overkill. Make a movie about the scouring of the shire and the end of Return of the King before this.
 
+Jeff Shapiro I think the Oscar nods the last set of movies Jackson made from Tolkien would disagree.
 
I think that might be a mistake.  One film would have been enough.  I read The Hobbit on a weekend.  How can you make 3 films with a 300 page book?
 
+Doug Neps From what I've been told you should check out the Directors cut which has that in it.
 
Why would you do that?.....why? it makes no sense.
 
And, as I mentioned above, the film version of The Hobbit is adding things from other Tolkien source material (i.e. "The Silmarillion", notes, etc.) and Jackson's additions, so I don't think they'd make film versions of "The Silmarillion".
 
Who's saying that Peter Jackson is creating new story? Anyone have proof of that?
Novels always have way more story than can be fit into a screen adaptation. He has plenty of material to work with. Come with a quote that says he's making up new stuff before getting butt hurt about it.
 
"I'd like to announce that I want another $500mil in box office revenue."  Peter Jackson.
 
Someone send Mr. Jackson to editing school 101. Or is he the next George Lucas, and will just keep working on the same movies over and over.
 
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey(2012)
The Hobbit: There and Back Again(2013)
The Hobbit: The Quest for More Money(2014)
 
he should have made dead alive or bad taste a trilogy
 
+Peter Jackson and the rest of the team did a great job with the LoTR storyline and making the movies great.  I have faith that they will do this story justice as well.
 
My, so many experts online, I had no idea...
 
+Ken Pfarr I did. At last the gorilla looked realistic. That movie is too long but I like it.
 
I'm not sure why this has happened, but I'm excited and I want to see where it goes :)
 
Hey lets all complain about something we haven't read about...Im sure youve all read the books and know where Jackson diverged but what you may not be aware of is where Jackson is getting the extra content for these new movies.

Ill give you a hint and let you do the research yourselves butheres a quote

“There are 125 pages of notes published at the back of ‘Return of the King’ in one of the later editions. It was called The Appendices, and they are essentially [Tolkien's] expanded Hobbit notes. So we had the rights to those as well and were allowed to use them,” Jackson said. “We haven’t just adapted ‘The Hobbit’; we’ve adapted that book plus great chunks of his appendices and woven it all together.”

He continued, “The movie explains where Gandalf goes; the book never does. We’ve explained it using Tolkien’s own notes. That helped inform the tone of the movie, because it allowed us to pull in material he wrote in ‘The Lord of the Rings’ era and incorporate it with ‘The Hobbit.’”

“The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” is due out on December 14, with “The Hobbit: There And Back Again” hitting theaters on December 13, 2013. A third movie would likely come out on December 2014.
 
More bastardizing of great literature to make it palatable for the barely literate masses.       
 
Trilogies  are remakes of films that made money and make less per film until they are a loss to film makers 
 
Hobbit was the shortest book of the 4...  But you wont see me complaining.  I may have read the book a 100 times but ill still see the movies and love them.
 
What we need is one film to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
 
+Alvin Bauer Chris summed that up earlier in the comments, but tis nice to see his words quoted.

Now when he fails to deliver on that specifically I can feel free to hate without reservation.  In the meantime I'ma stay disappointed and since we're talking circles going to mute this stream.
 
As if Peter Jackson needed to make a single bad movie to make money. Specially when he can make exellent movies. People, these new trilogy will be great, trust him.
 
Can't wait for the Silmarillion. All 36 parts! Maybe I can watch them all before I die.
 
Most novels don't fit into a two-hour format and it would be a good precedent to set, doing novel adaptations in series.  


A not too recent adaptation, Terry Pratchett's "The Hogfather" was done in a two-part mini-series.  It was very well done.  It's on netflix right now if you haven't seen it. 
 
Egads! I love Peter Jackson's telling of LOTR, but 3 parts to The Hobbit. That will certainly challenge the non-LOTR among us (e.g., my wife) to go to any particular part. 
 
What is this new devilry?
 
Shire through misty mountains, one. Rescue by eagles through escaping from wood elves lair, two. Return to lake town through the battle of five armies and the return home to the shire, three. If you honor all the content of the book, and add notes from the appendices, you have three movies with great story arcs and totally reasonable runtimes. Hell, LOTR should have been six movies. 
 
This makes me really nerves. I hope Peter Jackson doesn't end up like George Lucas. If episodes 1-3 taught us anything, it is that older movie makers who refuse to edit the crappy parts out of their movies end up ruining both their legacies and the fictional universes that they created. 
 
I just want the original Hobbitt story told in the first one. I don't want to have to wait three years to see Smaug or the battle of the five armies!
 
That sucks, because NOW they will take 5 years to tell the story. Whatever, BS.
 
Id like to announce that I will be using the bathroom!
 
Uhh... I'm going to hope for the best, but I really thought TWO movies out of one book was pushing it.  Maybe this'll have a lot of world-building and foreshadowing that will lead smoothly and enjoyably into TLOTR, but I still think the Rankin-Bass Hobbit was fantastic, and people are filled with King Kong-induced fears.
 
Oh man I was looking forward for this, now three years for it all to be completed.
 
I think this is awesome. After reading the books my opinion was that The Hobbit was more action packed and had more content than any one of the three LOTR books. The LOTR always seemed more detailed and elaborate, but with less content. So I think they can do three movies just fine. You also can't forget that they filmed the extended editions for the Lord of the Rings movies and they covered pretty much everything in the books. That's because he is dedicated to the source material and wants to make the fans happy. The LOTR really is the best book to movie adaption.

So to use a line from the Batman movies: I believe in Peter Jackson.
 
Then Hobbit Voyager, Hobbit Enterprise, Hobbit SG-1.....
 
+Chris Thomas I think that he did what he wanted... but not taking care of the book followers.

He maked the films... only with the focus to get money... 100% commercial.

Tom Bombardil is essencial in the story for example.

Entertainment you have... but unnecessary invented things you have too.
 
Can't wait to see all three. The trailer gives me chills
 
I find that interesting that they will make three movies from one book. The Hobbit was not as completed as LOTR was and it was written for kids too
 
I think this is awesome! I wish there could be even more!
 
lame. wake me when it hits Redbox. 
 
well, I thought my life was complete...but now I know it really is.
 
FYI - Movie 3 isn't even cleared yet. They want it, but it's not one hundred percent a given occurrence.

How about we wait and see what the first movie contains? Why rage and rant about pointless hysteria and rumor-mongering? If you don't like it, don't give them your money. It's not like they can ruin the book for you - the book is STILL there. You can STILL read it. A movie of a book does not take away from the book.

Just sayin'.
 
Bunch of whiners and complainers....every last one of you will see all 3 films!!!
 
+Chris Thomas I think you can show the same things in books, films or series... Different format, same story. On the books you can detail the story... in movies or series you may reveal more easily but without inventing.  Invent, to me, is one thing clear: trade. 
 
Will be Hobbit Begins, The Short Dwarf, and The Short Dwarf Grows Up.
 
I would rather wait another year and get to see more of the Hobbit.  I for one am glad they are making it into three movies.  
 
+Sam Williams so, how many pages per minute according to you?
 
And the Hollywood money machine rolls ever onward...
 
Mr. Baker is absolutely correct. Classics should be treated as such, and not "improved" or "polished" inorder to stroke a filmmakers ego.
 
I'll catch them on Netflix or something.  I never really was the interest in the LoTR material.
 
Part of me thinks this is lame. Of course, that's not the part that's getting cold chills at the thought...
 
Well, you can't be a LotR fan and a Harry Potter fan in the same life.
 
dolla dolla bill. At least with 3 movies there will be more screen time.
 
How is he making The Hobbit into 3 movies?! By that rational LotR should be 6 films minimum. 
 
I agree that a filmmaker shouldn't change an original story to stroke their ego, but I don't for one second think Jackson is doing that.

Lets not forget that Jackson tried for years to get a different director for this project, also I dont think Peter Jackson the maker of the Frighteners and Meet the Feebles has an ego to stroke...
 
What??? He is adapting one tiny novel to three movies? This is awsome! Now i can pay three times for the movie not once, or twice! I cannot wait till he adapt Silmarilion, maybe he will make six movies from it.
 
Sounds awesome. :) Can't wait to make not one, not even two, but three evenings out of this. What a ploy for some extra cash.
Bacco E
 
I can't wait...should be great.
 
Should re-make LotR and make it a 9 movie epic following his new logic...
 
I expect trilogy about Gandalf and Sauron
 
MOAR PANNING WALKING SHOTS!
 
So in other words I should wait till there all done before I see them. 
Translate
 
my gramma wants me to see the hobbit with her.
 
That's not a movie... that's a mini series... 
 
Whilst I don't agree it's the least entertaining, I can't see that it needs three movies. This is overblown commercialism!
Matt V
+
1
2
1
 
The previews look like shit. Is the scene where all the dopes are chanting some coma inducing song supposed to attract us?
 
+John Campbell The problem is that The Hobbit doesn't have a lot of source material. It is a very simplistic little tale about a hobbit who gets roped into an adventure by an asshole wizard. I think that Bilbo termed his adventure extremely aptly in the following book by terming it There and Back Again. Because that's really what it is.

There is no way in hell that The Hobbit can occupy three movies worth of content.
 
Imagine Peter Jackson making George Martin's massively lengthy books 'a song of ice and fire' into films.. scary.
 
Looks like Magneto is getting the Brotherhood back together!
 
Slow down and i sail to the river
Slow down and i walk to the hill
 
Unless, to everyone who asks how The Hobbit is going to be three movies, they're adding in what Gandalf was doing in the times he was not with the hobbits(which they are, in addition to more lore stuff, book breaking and non) and making the new movies more akin to the prequel to The Lord of the Rings.
 
Three movies is cool, what's everyone crying about. I just can't wait to see Smaug!!! With this extended movie can we expect to see Tom Bombadil and the barrow wights?
 
What is with money, that directors like Peter Jackson loves them so much?
 
It became three because it will be rated against the money brought in by LOTR trilogy. If it comes in just dollar under that haul then it will be seen as an complete failure. Look for the days when just to see one movie you will have to sign a contract to purchase tickets for the sequels. 
 
Excellent. I can not wait to see what Peter and Fran have done. There have been plenty of nay Sayers here. But I for one have read all the books not just the obvious 4. Peter is right there is an awful lite more to the story than just those 4.
For the. Nay Sayers, yes the story was changed for the sake of a romantic thread. Yes, some of material was dropped, some was changed or re-arranged. And , yes while being pleased with the movies, I was very disappointed with the cut to the story. Then the extended versions arrived , those pleased me very much. Yes some of the story remained missing, which in any movie it will. However, the ext. edition made up by a lot for that.
Yes there will be cut and changes in the story once it's presented. But those cuts and changes are sanctified by the family and estate. The story in Jackson's hand is much safer than say Harry Potter's fourth and fifth stories that brutalized by the screen writers. Peter and Fran tried with LOTR to stay as faithful to the books as possible. I am sure that they will do the same with the Hobbit and including the back history, which with the Hobbit, is needed
In the long run I am sure that there will be 3 excellent films that will do the story beautifully.




 
Ohhhhhhhhh noooooooo I have to wait longer to watch all three..
 
+Macaela Reeves ironically, we were just saying the other day that the original trilogy should have been six films, one for each Book. I'm uncertain how the one third the length prequel supports three films. #sigh
 
The book is only 300 pages!!!!!!!! How in the hell do you make three movies with such a short book?????
 
Whaaaaat? That is both very exciting and super lame. But hey, he must have a good reason for it...
 
There better be a lot of The Silmarillion stories in there.
 
Because clearly, making you go to a theatre MULTIPLE TIMES to see basically a SINGLE MOVIE that expands over the course of an entire DAY of screen time hasn't quite died out after The Godfather.
 
Why complain. I'd rather see  8more hobbit movies than one more Step Up or Fast & Furious...
 
Saw this coming 14 billion light years away.
 
Really can't see how a relatively short book becomes three films, unless they're each 90 mins long and this is just a blatant attempt at maximising revenue.
 
WHO THE F---- CARES IF IT'S ANOTHER MOVIE!!!!!!!!,,,,truth be told im over joyed it 3 movies,MORE DATES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
well duh +Nick Efford ...  thats what Twilight did, Harry Potter, and plenty of others recently.  It works.  Also, there is nothign wrong with it IMHO if its a good story.  Id rather watch three 90 minute movies following the same good story line than one 4 hour movie, or worse one 90-120 minute movie that doesnt explain things very well.  The more details the better.  The only reason to complain is if you insist on owning each movie or seeing them in theaters.  If you are just goign to rent/borrow/Netflix/Red Box/download them, IMHO is better and costs only dollars more, if any.
 
1000+ pages "Lord" - 3 movies. 300 pages "Hobbit" again 3.
 
Really!? Is that milking it just a little bit?
 
and one of my favorite, concise stories in fantasy now gets stretched way out of proportion. what ever happened to "keep it simple, stupid"?
 
+Daniel Baker books sometimes don't translate to movies that well. If Jackson had left his opinions out of LotR and done it verbatim it would have been 3 movies per book. Maybe splitting the Hobbit up will address your complaints about the LotR Trilogy: maybe it will be more faithful to the book. Also, I would argue that the changes Jackson made in LotR made it better than if had just done page for page.
 
MR.luis F, has a good point,peter jackson has not let us down with lotr yet ,dont loos faith lotr will rise again!!! ( yes im a nerd,got a problom?!?!?!) :D
 
 sorry but i think two movies would be okay but three just makes it drag on too much
A. Bea
 
???????????
 
Cool when can I get the missing six Lord of the rings movies.
 
I concur with +Lance Garcia and as a fan & owner of LotR Books, Lifetime account Player of Lord of the Rings Online and owner of the extended versions of all the movies, I feel that Jackson's work did make the video better than a "page by page" attempt of the books. I'm completely jazzed about the Hobbit upcoming cinematic debut
 
If you really want to make an informed comment instead of just repeating the same 4 comments over and over read all the comments in this thread.  You'll find answers to some of your questions, comments, complaints and even some of the nonsensical comments have answers
 
Three?  Oh come on...I had a hard time with it being two...
 
Nobody is forcing you to Watch it if it Bothers you

How many other garbage movies did you watch recently? ... How many pairs of shoes do ya have? ... Do you know how many BATMAN films have been made over the years?

I'm going to enjoy having 3 Guaranteed Quality movies over the next ~2 years = D
Haters/doubters hated then too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings_film_trilogy
/Cheers
 
+Sean Carey ...but it won't be 3 nicely paced 90min movies. It will be 3 bloated 3hr efforts padded out with scenery footage designed to add to the NZ tourist board.
 
I have read "the hobbit" like 5 or 6 times, it´s one of my favorite books.

But I doubt if the book have enough material for 3 movies. 2 movies I think it´s okay but three???

Well maybe if Peter Jackson gets very meticulous with the story :P
 
Well, it at least sounds like this may include more details than the lord of the rings did.  For those that haven't, please read the books.
 
Enough already! Move on Lucas!!!
 
The Hobbit is less than 100,000 words. The Lord of the Rings is over 560K words.
<S.L.Jackson voice>MATH - LEARN IT #MOTHERF$CKER!!!</>
 
There is TONS of material for 3 movies if you include all of the stuff that is in the other books and not just The Hobbit. Not all of it is interesting...
 
No!!! I've waited so long for this movie! I was 6 when the first Lord of the Rings movie came out... I'll be 26 by the time they release the last part of The Hobbit.
 
This is really stupid.  Just an attempt to soak people for more money.  The story is easily well told in a single movie, two is overkill, three is just finding crap to gouge fans.
 
Peter Jackson and his writers must be pulling more from the appendices of the tolkien books.  I for one would like to see what sort of material they come up with. 
 
I'm fine with this, but they had BETTER include everything from the Original story!  Still irritated that Tom Bombadil was left out but they put in a scene of Aragorn riding a horse off a cliff.. Really?
 
At best, a movie is capable of only a portion of the book.  Our minds produce the atmosphere using imagionation - the movie has to compete with the human mind at what it is perfectly suited for...
 
He's just doing it for the money and everybody knows it
 
I like the way Peter Jack$on thinks! He's come a long way since "Braindead/Dead Alive".

I might be more enticed to go see all three in the theater if each movie was made into a different genre. So perhaps Romcom + Slasher + SciFi ??? Or maybe Documentary + Horror + Family Animation???

Re-watching 9 hours of hiking could get daunting. 
 
I truly believe it should be a 10 part BBC production. With Jackson it will be Lots Lots Lots of fun but the more films he makes the more I wonder what book he is actually taking the story from?
 
I really have no problem with this.  Given how good LOTR was, the more material Jackson includes, the better.  I can understand that it seems like an imbalance to have as many movies for one book as there were for three, but that's a result of knowing that there is an audience now (which was uncertain at the time LOTR was made), not a reflection of overdoing it.
 
+Ben Oram  so?  Why is that bad?  If you have issue with the scenery parts just FF thru them....  the LOTR movies were praised for their cinematics and scenery.  Why wouldnt he do that for this new trilogy?  People liked it before, theyll like it again.  In fact, if he were doing three movies JUST for the money, they would waste their time to make three super long movies, theyd just make three shitty 80-minute movies
 
+Sean Carey No arguments that's the cinematography and scenery were gorgeous to look at. It was meant as a sarcastic comment more than anything.
However my point was that like King Kong it will, no doubt, be overlong and padded out with superfluous material rather than trying to tell a good story.
 
I for one would like if they hired better battle designer / costume designer... though in "The Hobbit" there is only one battle, and Bilbo misses most of it.

I also hope that they do not add some idiotic story like elves contignent helping in the Rohan war, which was in movies but not in book... which must have teleported, because otherwise it is no way they would made it in time.
 
I think it was Glorfindle that rescued frodo. I understand that the movie is expanding on Gandalf's battle with the necromancer, and dwalin's foray into Moria.
 
I dont know how I feel about this....
 
If I had to put all my money in a movie project, I wouldn't hesitate to do so in a Peter Jackson's movie. So I'm sure this new trilogy will be great.
 
I'm glad it's a trilogy... keeps it alive. I'm just curious to see how they split it up. 
 
You can be guaranteed that me and my son are both anticipating this! 
 
If it's only half as good as LOTR, I'll be just fine with that.
 
+Jakub Narębski Hahaha, you made remember the ewoks in RotJ. So the elves didn't help in Rohan? Mmmh, I had them in high steem.
 
The Hobbit was just one book... and this seems it's gonna be longer than LOTR extended
 
3 years to see all parts of one film? Ill wait for the DVD set
 
One does not simply make only one film about a deranged midget with hairy foot syndrome! 
 
The things that loyalty put us through.
 
The trailer just looks like deleted scenes from LOTR, cant imagine watching this stretched to a 12 hour marathon.
 
Three only?! I hope each movie lasts at least 2h and half... -_-'
 
...and I hope the Editor's Cut version would be double that :)
 
The hobbit is shorter than any of the lord of the rings books so not sure how they worked that out???
 
I have no problem with a 6 or 7 hour movie. Hell, I'd even pay double to see that... but splitting it into 1/3 movie per year means I will wait until all 3 are out and then get it from PB.
 
Maybe it's partly a ploy for more money-- I'm too much of a cynic not to believe that to some extent. But in defense of the story itself, the plot is already subdivided into 3 story arcs that could very well be their own movies: #1. Bilbo and company journey to reach Smaug, encountering trolls and elves and Gollum; #2. The Smaug plot involving Bilbo breaking into his den and Smaug's attack on the village/death; #3. The 5-way war that breaks out afterward.
 
I have no problem with seeing more Middle Earth.
 
Good grief, just give it to me in 5 minutes after all three movies come out.
 
I'm not ready for another trilogy. Batman just ended too lol
 
I agree I believe this awesome
 
wow, if P. Jackson will ever do the remake of The Ten Commandments ... it will be released in 12 movies :^D
 
Amazing! The Hobbit as 3 movies and the Lord of the Rings trilogy as 1 movie. Who'd a thunk it.
 
I like the books but have never seen the movies, YET...
 
I love middle earth stories!!!!! Hell yeah!!!!
 
They should have made The Hobbit" first.. 
 
Too many fanatics. With good commercials this is going to fill many bank accounts. Or you think this is about Lord of the Rings?
 
Let's be fair, the hobbit book is terrible. And that's coming from someone who rates LOTR as his favourite fiction piece. If he can get 3 watchable films out of it I'll be impressed.
 
well, when two movies love each other very very much they do a special dance...
 
The world is ending in dec. We will never finish it. Just give us the whole thing in one sitting.
 
The Hobbit is one of my favorite books!              "the one ring to find them all and in the darkness bind them" is found by Bilbo Baggins in the Hobbit
 
I love the Hobbit! I SO want to see it when it comes out. the more the merrier I say!
 
Been waiting for this movie since the last Lord of the Rings.
 
" I'd like to announce I bought a bigger wallet for all the money you people will be giving me. You're too kind. "
 
Gotta see.  Became a Hobbit/LotR fanatic in college when I finally read it.  Loved the LotR films in the theater.
 
I think I will withhold judgement if they are pulling in source material from the other books they two movies may not have been enough and we would be screaming our heads off if he tried to put to much into one or two movies.  
 
Peter Jackson says: "It's three because we can make more money that way! Yipee!"

P.S. "Fuck you, you'll pay to see it."
 
A great way to ruin an epic story so the douche bags making it can get some more money.
 
I've read the book, I've seen a few movies adapted from it too, heck I've even read the Harvard Lampoon parody. One thing I didn't see having done all of this is how they're going to get 3 good movies out of that story though.
 
I dont even see how there could possibly be enough plot line in the Hobbit for this!
 
Hmm... the reasoning was explained better in a previous article. By Tolkien's own admission, he originally wrote the Hobbit for a younger crowd, and because of this, it lacked an adult theme similar to LOTR, which presented a transitional problem when both books were read back to back. Tolkien publicly announced in some notes as part of a revision to LOTR his intention to re-write / expand the Hobbit to address the issue, but he died before he was able to.

Peter Jackson has stated that he wants to incorporate those notes / vision into the movie because Tolkien obviously wanted it that way, just didn't have the time.
 
the hobbit is one movie. peter jackson is a douchetarded sell-out.
 
I always liked The Hobbit better than "The Rings Trilogy" (as books) due in large part to its relative brevity.  Way to ruin it for me Petey.
 
And extended editions for all three when they hit Blu-Ray, right?
 
More Tolkien is NEVER a bad thing! IMHO of course we don't want the Twilight brigade complaining that it's only one book!
 
The books really tell several different stories. It worked for LOTR. If there is a lot of back-story, this could work.
 
what!!! i read the damn thing when i was 9, how can he possibly extend this to three films? 
 
The Hobbit alone takes about 11 hours to read (Well the audio book is just over 11 hours long). Adding to that all the extra content that Tolkien wrote after the book and put in the appendices, it looks to me like there's plenty of subject matter to cover in three movies. 

The LOTR's movies have to be heavily cut to produce them for screen, especially the theatrical versions. The Hobbit shouldn't have that problem and might save us from needing to have nearly four hour long movies. 

The Hobbit is no LOTR, but it's still epic and covers a great deal of ground with plenty of chunks left out of the book that can be added in, such as the disappearance of Gandalf and what happens when Bilbo is knocked unconscious. 
 
Great, one more movie to try and shove down my throat with high FPS. Peter Jackson may have just hit the "legend in my own mind" status.
 
3 films, nobody said anything about....3 films
 
No +Macaela Reeves , if 1 book is 3 movies, then 3 books should have been 9 movies. Where are the 6 extra lotr movies Mr. Jackson? d-:
 
More little freaks walking through the woods..l
 
Man, I was hoping this would happen!
 
I don't care why he has done 3 movies from one book. Its going to be great entertainment!
 
No complaints here. That's just more Peter Jackson Lord of the Rings to enjoy.
 
I was excited to see 1 movie I'm not looking forward to 3
 
Im sitting here reading these complaints u yet,i know as well as others when the movies hit the theatres or whatever medium, 90% of you will be at the opening.
 
Like there anything better out lately!
 
It gives me a good reason to go to the pictures tbf.
 
Awesome! I prefer a full, fleshed out 3rd movie as opposed to deleted/extended scenes. I am excited.
 
Now I have to wait even longer to post my Hobbiton pics. :(
 
is this for real? does anybody think they're trying to milk every last penny out of it? wouldn't be wrong as long as it doesn't hurt the movie, but... if you compare the length of the books, doesn't really make sense to make the hobbit as long as the lord of the rings trilogy.. it's just 3 books vs 1 (and a fairly small one btw)...might as well include material from the silmarillion
 
This is stupid! 3 movies! 2 was fine, he could of just even made 1 really long movie (like AVATAR). I get that hes trying to be really detailed and all but seriously! 
 
The only way he can make 3 movies out of this one book. Is to do what he did in the LOTR. Add a ton of things that wasn't in the book in the first place. He already managed to put Frodo in this for some stupid reason. Expanding his screenplay rather than to be true to Tolkien's work. I'm definitely not looking forward to this latest Jackson massacre of this classic...
 
That story isn't very long or complicated. Not sure how he's going to manage to squeeze three complete films outa it.
 
yea!!! i love LOTR! I know Peter Jackson will make 3 more awesome movies!!! and he will put more scenes that the ones that appear in the book for sure
 
I DONT care how long the movie is i want it all together!!! ive waited years for this!
 
Sorry but three films out of the one relatively short book is just too far. The producers of this film are just out to make more money.
 
When has he let us down on a film???!!!
King kong was balls!!!
 
"Chip the glasses and crack the plates! Blunt the knives and bend the forks! That's what Bilbo Baggins hates." - excerpt from The Hobbit
 
The three Matrix movies should have been simply two movies. I hope the Hobbit does not suffer from the same long dragged out feeling that the matrix 2 and 3 did.
 
Great now the combined cost of my 3 tickets (including Junior Mints and a large soda) adjusted for yearly inflation should about cover the cost if production.

Seriously my guess is it will now cost $45 total for ONE person to see the Hobbit!
 
Thanks n Tell Whom Eva Finish Golden Compass Please r Do I have to go to Hollywood n Do it ????? Lmcwaoff
 
He's using Tolkein's notes and other books to explain what happens after the Hobbit.
 
+Alasdair Cole There is a great deal of back story in the Appendix , Silmarillion, etc that could be "woven in" to make the story more complete... Certainly three films worth there....
Philippa Boyens is brilliant - if anyone could do it justice, it's her...
 
It better be 3 damn great movies. 
 
Awesome! Bigger battle of 5 Armies then :)
 
I'm all for it. Books like this shouldn't have major pieces left out when made into films 
 
Hey! I'm ALL Full-Up on Hobbits! Got Reeces???
 
Well if you factor in the appendices and the additional story line of gandalf and the council driving evil from mirkwood 3 movies won't be too bad. You have to remember that the hobbit takes place over the course of a year. They same am mount of time as lord. And the hobbit has more characters.
 
3 movies or it dosen't get made. Welcome to Hollywood.
 
Just seems like a way to get more money. Don't get me wrong though, I'll pay.
Fco M
 
three is better than zero, so I'll happily go see all of them.
 
Good! I was gonna say, how could they fit all of the epicness that is The Hobbit into two movies?!?!
 
Why stop at 3 - it could be 50 movies, plus an embroidered tapestry, an opera, and a bus garage.
 
Freaking awesome!  Now I have something to look forward to over the next few years in movies!

Can't wait!
Ben F
 
Gonna see all three...it's a magic number
And I hope you agree,
Could be as deep as the roots of the tree,
:^)
 
So I'm only gonna be watching the third movie as that might be the only one with the most badass fight scenes
 
3 movies, give me a break!  The Hobbit is a shorter book than any of the Lord of the Rings trilogy.  Seems like an obvious attempt by the studio to cash in.
 
Crazy! I bet it takes 6 years for 3 movies to come out. I'm starting to lose my anticipation for this...I mean these movies.
 
There seems to be a lot of angry comments going around about The Hobbit being stretched into three films. People seemed to be focussed on the fact that the Hobbit is a much smaller book than The Lord of the Rings, (my copy being only 289 pages) and ask how such a small tale could possibly be stretched into three films - the same amount of films as Jacksons original trilogy. The actual thing to think about here is when the events of The Hobbit take place, and the period of time between it and the Lord of the Rings books.

Smaug is killed and the Battle of the Five Armies is waged against the Goblins and Wargs during the year 2941 of the Third Age. That means that there is a gap of 59 years from when Bilbo returns to The Shire with The One Ring and when he decides to leave The Shire again on his 111th birthday in TA 3001. The events of what take place in these years are well documented, and could actually be included as a third movie in the series that would very effectively bridge the gap between the two trilogies.

First we have the story of Bard rebuilding the Valle and Gollum leaving the mountains to begin his hunt for the thief Baggins in the year 2944. In the year 2951, Sauron declares his presence in Mordor and a 20 year old Estel (Aragorn) comes of age under the care of Elrond after his father was killed when he was two years old. It is at this time that he is told of his heritage and gives him the Ring of Barahir and, the well known Shard of Narsil. He also meets and falls in love with Arwen at this time before he sets of the become the Chieftain of the Dunedain and the Rangers.

In 2453 The White Council meet and Saruman (already s meet and Saruman insists that the One Ring has been swept out to sea, but actually kept a watch of Gandalf and his activities and sent spies to the Shire, searching for the ring himself). Three years later Gandalf first meets Aragorn and they become close friends and it is at this time that Aragorn and the Rangers keep watch on The Shire, and he becomes known as Strider.

For 23 years Aragorn sets off on many journeys serving the armies of Rohan and the Steward of Gondor (in disguise under the name of Thorongil) - raising morale to counter the threat of Sauron, leading an assault of the rebel province of Umbar in 2980, and then suddenly left to return East. In the same year Arwen pledges her hand in marriage to Aragorn and Frodo Baggins loses both of his parents in a boating accident, falling under the care of Bilbo sometime later.

In 2989 Balin, as we know leads a company of Dwarves to recolonise Moria and is killed five years later along with the rest of the Dwarf colony in the Chamber of Mazarbul (as we are told during the events in Lord of the Rings).

Starting in 3009, and for an interval of eight years, Gandalf and Aragorn begin their search for Gollum and he is finally captured by Aragorn in the Dead Marshes in 3017 where he is taken to Thranduil in Mirkwood to be questioned about the One Ring and his hunt for Bilbo. He is guarded day and night until eventually the Elves take pity on poor Gollum and allow him to climb a lone tree. One night in June of 3018 Gollum refuses to come down from the tree and that night the Wood-Elves are attacked by Orcs and Gollum escapes. It is at this time that Legolas Greenleaf, son of King Thranduil is sent to Rivendell to inform Elrond of Gollum's escape and arrives shortly before the events of October 25th, 3018 where he is chosen to represent the Elves in the fellowship to accompany the Ring-Bearer.

Now, try and tell me that there isn't enough material to easily cover a third movie! Peter Jackson, in my opinion, showed great respect for the original material, and I'm sure he will do the same with the Hobbit.

Thoughts?
 
im glad, i hope they make extended versions like the LoTR's also, fit everything in there.
 
I would feel better about this is Viggo Mortenson had signed on to reprise Aragorn.  Not sure how you stretch this out to 3 films without Strider, his back story, and the hunt for Gollum 

I will be very interested he pulls off the Eagles without it seeming really cheesy ala Narnia.  

excited to see Chapter 1 in December!
 
Thanks Shaun,
I was hung up on the away and back again as 2 movies. away movie 1 and back again movie 2. You have done a great job explaining all that takes place in those years and now I understand why it would 3 movies to really tell this story. Should be great! Thank you for your thorough explination!
 
So excited! This is awesome x3!
 
One would have been enough. Perhaps Jackson grew up on a dairy farm, cause he sure is adept at milking.
 
Hollywood, too much water in milk makes it taste like shit.
 
I haven't read the Hobbit in years, but I certainly don't remember it being so long or complex a story that it needs three movies to tell it.
Ii Jr
 
Yes bilbo let's go to the battle of the five armies...jlsii
 
ohh... they're planning on ruining LOTR for me. How can the hobbit be 3 movies when rest of the 3 books were 1 movie each. Only way I can think of is altering the story line, which doesn't usually end well.
 
I was pretty suspicious about Jackson would do to the Hobbit, but this is a cynical deal to increase revenue by 30%. I loved the story - I am not going to ruin my memories of it by seeing the movie. Get back to me when someone with some sensitivity for the story is going to make it one. Spending money to see this is just going to encourage the bastards. Dont do it.
 
Another thought - the good thing about Jackson is that should be guaranteed to look pretty. Maybe someone can take all 3 DVD when they arrive and extract the real Hobbit from them - in 2.5 hours.
 
That's fucking AWESOME! Like the Tree Ents always say, well we don't have time for that. Bravo.
 
This fat fuck is ruining a true legacy and Tolkien's work.
 
I can't imagine there is enough material for 2 movies let alone 3...
 
+Daniel Baker Forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but I'm pretty sure the elf that rides to Frodo and Aragorn's aid after Frodo gets stabbed in the books is Glorfindel, not Legolas.
 
Greedy monkey. I'm not gonna watch them anyway. Frodo was enough hobbit crying for me.
 
Awesome. Not going to complain about too many quality fantasy movies based on some of the best stories written.
 
Just tell it right and true to JJRT, if its 2 or 10!
 
It'll be a bit of a stretch to make this book three movies, but only if you compare this to the original trilogy. The problem isn't that this story is three movies, it's that the original trilogy should have been at least six movies. 
 
Most of you people are retards. The more the better.
 
Hobbit looks like crap. It's a bedtime story in a cheerful, living world and the trailer is full of darkness and shadows. Wrong vibe. Pass.
 
There is a lot of things going on in this book. It took Bilbo 41 out of 287 pages to set off on his adventure with the dwarves. 
 
YEAH... My most beloved book from my childhood.
 
50% more ticket revenue, more expensive toys for when he retires. Got it.
 
Really? each of the Lord of the Rings books only got one movie and they seemed a lot longer.
 
if it's true there's still hope they wont destroy the movies, dwarfes with sex appeal is strange thou
 
Competing with star wars with all these 6 movies I see... funny how the beginning series is being film second... just like star wars hmmmm...
 
Is this Peter Jackson's answer to the Star Wars prequel trilogy?  Sorry...but there is only 1 true trilogy...and that is, was, and always will be...

STAR WARS!
 
The LOTR should've been six (and not left so much out), the Hobbit should be 1 (and not add so much), and they should make movies about Turin Turambar, Beren and Luthien, and The Fall of Gondolin.
 
I dunno, I think Peter Jackson just wants to make the Lord of The Rings franchise last longer.
 
All about $$$, and not the story.
 
Ok... so... comments relating this to star wars... you're saying... I shouldn't bother going to see any of them?
 
I cant count the books that tooktoo much out to make a movie. More is better... Especially tolkien.
 
It will be awesome! Nerds will always complain to make themselfs feel less pathetic. I think Peter Jackson knows Tolkien more then some no names.
 
Seriously ! Three more Hobbit movies. I have had enough doze of middle earth to last a life time already :)
 
and we have to wait 3 years to see? that's a bit too much i guess
 
I hate people make judgement on something that's not out or haven't seen.
 
As long as it's awesome.  Hell make it 4....
Oolls o
 
lovely hobbit
 
I hope these 3 movies are as good as the novel. 
 
this is Lord Of The Rings right?
 
Oh, god. These movies better be good, Mr Jackson. Us Kiwis are relying on you on the international film stage.
Please don't let us down.
Keep your rep up!
 
My understanding was because the hobbit story was so simple they merged in events from the similarian. Hobbit is a childrens tale afterall.

Is there enough in two books for 3 movies? Time will tell. However i hope they continuously film like they did in the first 3... it helped things so much.
 
Not gonna do it this time. The hobbit wasn't three books .
 
Peter must have the ring in his possession.
 
I bet all of you guys will watch it, even if its trilogy.
 
+Justin King In the first draft no, there is not. But I read an article where they are going to use information Tolkien released after Lord of the Rings that went into to greater depth for The Hobbit and includes information on Mordor, Sauron, and a host of other deeper knowledge that Tolkien was going to rewrite The Hobbit with. There is enough information there to do three films.
 
I'm never gonna watch any of this
 
Now that's just exploiting nerds. Shame on you Peter Jackson.
 
oh god, they found a way to make more money off of "The Hobbit".
 
ching ching.great book but can read it in an hour or 2 ..make it a movie and is 6 to 8 hrs long!dont figure
 
It's not like we are going to pay for it anyway. Their whole plan is to make money from us, but the more they treat us like this, the less money they will make from us.
 
The LOTR was three books and needed three movies. The Hobbit is one small book. This sounds way overblown to me and I'm a big fan
 
What a croc I've read the book many times and two films will be a push. It's a corporate money spinner typical Hollywood cashing in on our childhood
 
+Jesús Esteban Leo I think you forget that he's one of the biggest fans of Tolkien out there. You seem to think that just because he did things you don't like, that it means all fans of the book (yes, LOTRO is just one book with three parts) didn't like it.

As for Tom Bombadil, his role wasn't that tremendous and it would have been godawful seeing him running around doing his goofy singing in a film.
 
+Jesús Esteban Leo That's not true of all books. For instance, the scenes in "Dreamcatcher" where the guy is in his own head...yeah, those were freaking awful on screen.

Some details in literature just can't be translated into palatable movie material, and that's fine. If film and the sources were identical what would be the point of watching the movie version?
 
+Nathan Cox You're assuming that the movies are only telling that story and nothing more, though. Before this announcement, Jackson had stated that he'd filmed enough for an extra movie...which also kind of dampens the commercialism crowd a bit.
 
+Michael Powell Thank you, someone who has read up on things before vomiting up stupid comments. I applaud you, sir.
 
The Hobbit is a pretty thin book, how is he going to extend it out to 9+ hours?
 
To those that poo poo Peter Jackson's adaptation of the LOTR, please watch the appendixes on DVDs.
Phillipa Boyens makes a compelling argument as to why they could not shoot the books as as they are.

As to the three hobbit movies, I have no problem with using more movies to tell the tale. I was bummed that the scouring of the shire was cut from the the Return of the King.
 
I remember when it first came out
 
You people are retarded. Big deal he changed it from 2 to 3 movies. Peter never disappoints. From the guy who brought us the awesome movies Bad Taste, DEAD ALIVE, and the LotR trilogy (as well as others). Quit complaining and crying about money. I'll be sure to bury you with some when you're dead and gone. lol
 
I am really excited now there will be three super awesome movies to watch instead of only two super awesome movies!
 
+Chris Thomas Take a look at the person I was referring to, who had specifically stated that he did not believe Jackson had new material and that novels always have more content than can fit into a screen adaptation, leaving Jackson with more than enough material for three movies.

Perhaps you should read up on things before vomiting out stupid comments, eh? Also, make sure you haven't just made an ass of yourself before insulting other people.
 
I love The Lord of the rings. I do, in this day and age, wonder though how much of the decision to make "The Hobbit" into 3 movies is due to greed.  Regardless for the motives, I will be watching all three. : )
 
I can't wait for the second part of the hobbit that comes out next year
 
so you think its just a movie...?
 
(i`m all for the sets and fx, so yeah, whenever it comes ... and, Action go Bilbo g/Cut!... R U N N N !!!
Add a comment...