Peter Jackson on The Hobbit extra material
Updated, as Warner Bros denies plans to make The Hobbit into a trilogy...
UPDATE: Warner Bros has denied that there are plans for a split.
Here’s a story that seemed to have been ruled out in the run-up to this year’s Comic-Con, yet has reappeared. Basically, the rumour had been that the second of Peter Jackson’s two movies of The Hobbit, There And Back Again, would be split into two films. That’d basically make The Hobbit a trilogy, all from one book.
Peter Jackson told Hitfix that “that’s a discussion we’re having, yeah. We have certainly been talking to the studio about some of the material we can't film, and we've been asking them so we can do a bit more filming next year. Which, I don't know what would come of that, whether it'd be extended editions or whatnot. But those discussions are ongoing”.
Jackson’s extra material would come from the appendices, he revealed, which is the stuff “we haven’t been able to squeeze into these movies”.
We’ll find out in due course whether The Hobbit becomes three films, or follows the extended edition path of the Lord Of The Rings trilogy (we'd figured extended cuts would arrive on DVD and Blu-ray anyway, though).
Appreciating that Jackson’s track record more than gives him the right to do what he thinks is correct for the material, the thought of splitting the book into three films is still a mildly troubling one. This follows the announcement last week that the final The Hunger Games book, Mockingjay, was being split into two by Lionsgate. Before that, of course, Harry Potter and Twilight had trodden the same path.
However, as we pointed out in this feature last week, The Hobbit is just one book. That’s one three-act story to split into potentially a trio of three-act stories. Just splitting it into two was already likely to be presenting big challenges. It’ll be interesting to see just how they do that, should they choose to press ahead.
We remain extremely excited by The Hobbit, though, and the first film, An Unexpected Journey, will be arriving this December.
Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here
Disqus - noscript
i hope this is just a silly rumour, or late April Fools joke, because it is utterly ridiculous. as much as people so love messing their pants over jackson and tolkein, surely this would wear thin with even the most ardent fans. The Hobbit is not an especially dense book to try and stretch out to a ponderous trilogy. two films was bad enough. if they try and suck three movie tickets out of me to see the hobbit, i think i would just skip the whole thing
Adverts at the bottom of all the pictures now...? Better than those pop ups but still really annoying! Is denof geek really so strapped for cash?
It's not true, and even reading what Jackson says it's clear he's looking at extended editions. They've created and marketed this as a two part film, there's no way they'll make another, it's just imppossible
No you wouldn't
the article seems a bit confused... 'They're trying to make three films from one book... The extra material comes from the Appendices... How dare they try to do this from just one book!' Surely the crucial point is that he's using more than just The Hobbit novel to do this?
Plus I'd say the crucial difference here (not that I think it is necessarily a good idea) is that it is the writer/director going to the studio asking to do more not the studio telling them to make an extra film out of it, like Twilight and Hunger Games. I want to believe that the Potter decision came from Yates, Kloves, Barron and Heyman but even if it was the studio the decision was justified on more than just financial grounds.
You're a couple of day's behind on this Den of Geek they've already confirmed this rumour was false. The quote's you have from Peter Jackson are taken completely out of context, he was talking about additionaly shooting for the second film at the start of next year, not shooting an entirely new film! (Nowhere in the interview did Peter Jackson mention a third film, as the entire point of making the Hobbit two films was to include additional footage...a third film would be a bit too much of a stretch given how short the Hobbit is when compared to the Lord of the Rings)
Great.More crap films in a retarded franchise.
We didn't report it first time around because we saw the denial. This seems to be from an interview since the story first broke, hence we're running it now. Regarding the quote, we included the question mark in the title because of the ambiguity, but we still got the impression here that the split was possible.
Granted. And in Jackson very much we trust. It's a slim book for so much material, hence our interest as much in just how they're going to do it. Fully confident that the films will be amazing.
It would be a bit ridiculous if the slimmest book got 3 movies when the 3 large books got one each. However, I wouldn't put it past Hollywood to try to gouge even more money from the audience
Technically the lord of the rings is 6 'books' isn't it, yet thankfully we only got 3 films.
I don't understand how you get to "1 of one thing must equal 1 of something different when it's translated".
If a book was put into comic format would you expect it all in one comic? I think you're unnecessarily getting worked up over this.
Either the films will work or they won't, as with any film it's all down to how it's received.
I'd be very surprised with Peter Jackson if he did anything to ruin his legacy with Tolkein 's work.
"Well There was good, but Back Again was a bit poor..."
... THANKFULLY? You're on very thin ice there, my friend! :P
Trollololol. Nice try.
GREED
How presumptuous.
the fact of the matter is I am not overly in love with the source material. I enjoyed the book as a child, and the Rankin/Bass film as a child. Peter Jackson's movies were visionary in the most literal sense, but they were cumbersome and when I tried rewatching them, they felt like overly long war movies. I find most contemporary fantasy films seem that way and it makes me uneasy, given contemporary geopolitics and our culture's transformation into an ever-at-war culture.
Also, I only have so much money to spend on going to the theatre, and a great many movies clamouring for my attention. A new adaption of the Hobbit isn't that high to begin with, let alone if it is stretched out to 2 or maybe even three movies and movie fares.
More is not necessarily better. That is a child's way of thinking. I understand that this material is like a religion to some people and to disagree with the fervent is tantamount to heresy. I can live with that.
Oh here we go again!
This is pretty standard for Jackson. The LotR trilogy was filmed in one go, but then during editing Jackson realised there were different approaches so called back the cast each year to do some more shooting. A surprising amount of stuff in the trilogy actually comes from the 4-6 weeks of reshoots held each year. Even Return of the King had some more footage filmed for the Extended Edition after the movie had come out (and even after it had won the Oscar). On the commentaries there is some talk about how they'd have flown to a remote corner of New Zealand to film some material during the original shoot and would then replace it with something filmed in the studio car park for the final edit.
It appears to me that Jackson wanted to avoid that with the duology, but has since decided it's necessary. Since the budget presumably didn't originally cover the cost of these reshoots, he's had to go talk to the studio about it. Nowhere does it suggest that a whole third movie will be created out of this extra material.
So long as they are both good films in the end, I don't see why it's a big deal.
This is so pathetic. The Hobbit is one book and it only needs to be made into one movie. Look at the Lord of the Rings. Three books, three movies. If Peter Jackson really wants to make his film adaptations longer he should just release an extended edition like he did with the other films.
Why not make a fourth one with just the end credits too, especially for those of us who are really up for being mugged off!
I personally think that a third movie could be made out of the years between the events of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings if there is a focus on Aragorn and his travels after he chooses exile which in the appendices grows first out of his unrequited love for Arwen upon first meeting her in Rivendell when he is 20 years old and then after it is reciprocated by her in Lothlorien when he is 49 years old on being told by Elrond that he cannot marry Arwen unless he wins back his ancestrial kingdom. The first part of the movie could concern itself with Aragorn helping the Rangers with keeping the watch on Bree and the Shire, which could reveal something of the history of the decline of the northern kingdom and how the Breemen and the Hobbits came to settle in Bree land and the Shire. Then Aragorn could be seen travelling with Gandalf through Wilderland and Mirkwood to Esgorath and the Lonely Mountain and meeting up with the Beornings and the Bardings and the Elves and Dwarves, which could introduce the things that happen to those peoples in that time such as the attempt by Balin to establish a colony in Moria. Then Aragorn could be seen serving both Thengel of Rohan and Ecthelion of Gondor as Thorongil, which could reveal something of the histories of the peoples of Rohan and Gondor. Then Aragorn could be seen travelling through Rhun and Harad. The movie could also show Gandalf and the rest of the White Council being duped by Saruman into believing that the Ring had rolled down Anduin into the sea, which may require only a short cameo from Christopher Lee and how Bilbo came to adopt Frodo and how Gandalf gets the true story out of Bilbo about how the Ring came to him and how Gandalf then enlists Aragorn to hunt for Gollum who could be seen throughout the movie leaving the Misty Mountains and wandering through Mirkwood to Esgaroth and later coming to Mordor and how he becomes acquainted with Shelob and captured by Sauron and then later captured by Aragorn. This could also give an opportunity for characters and the actors from both the Hobbit movies and the LOTR movies to appear in the movie to show up their relationship with each other through their people's histories. It also could be possible for Theoden to be seen being ensnared in Wormtongue's web created by Saruman, which may require another cameo from Christopher Lee. The events around Boromir, Gimli and Legolas setting off on their journeys to Rivendell could also be shown with Denethor seen looking into the palantir and Sauron revealing to him how the Ring had been found and how the Enemy percieves that it will be taken to to Rivendell, which is not explained in the LOTR movies. This of course all would require clever planning on Peter Jackson's part as to how it would fit in in relationship to Bilbo's farewell party given that a lot of that occurs after the party and therefore would be out of sequence with it in the context of the movies. Maybe Tom Bombadil could also make an appearance with Bombadil rescuing Aragorn from the Barrow-wights and then telling him of the decline of the northern kingdom. Maybe a story also could be made up of Drogo Baggins and Primula Brandybuck going into the Old Forest and being drowned by Old Man Willow in the Withywindle River and being sent downstream in a boat by Goldberry since there seems to be such a mystery surrounding their deaths. This might sound naff but then it is Hollywood after all.
Hey Jonathan. Go troll somewhere else, punk...and tell your mother I said thanks for last night!
LOTR movies missed out so much detail from the books and had to be adapted for movie goers. Maybe by having three movies for The Hobbit the story will be a lot closer to the book. I hope so anyway!!