comScore
Uncategorized Monday, July 30th 2012 at 7:45 pm

Butter Scraped Over Too Much Bread: The Hobbit is Now a Trilogy

By ( ) Comments

Today, Peter Jackson announced that The Hobbit would be stretched into not just two feature-length films, but three. That’s right, The Hobbit will be a trilogy. The novel that is shorter than all three volumes of the Lord of the Rings will be adapted into three films. As a fan of Tolkien’s novels and histories, and as a fan of Peter Jackson’s films, let me say: This is not a good idea. Find out why after the jump.

This morning, Peter Jackson posted the following to his facebook page:

It is only at the end of a shoot that you finally get the chance to sit down and have a look at the film you have made. Recently Fran, Phil and I did just this when we watched for the first time an early cut of the first movie – and a large chunk of the second. We were really pleased with the way the story was coming together, in particular, the strength of the characters and the cast who have brought them to life.  All of which gave rise to a simple question: do we take this chance to tell more of the tale? And the answer from our perspective as the filmmakers, and as fans, was an unreserved ‘yes.’

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.  The richness of the story of The Hobbit, as well as some of the related material in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, allows us to tell the full story of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and the part he played in the sometimes dangerous, but at all times exciting, history of Middle-earth.

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.

It has been an unexpected journey indeed, and in the words of Professor Tolkien himself, ”a tale that grew in the telling.”

Cheers,

Peter J

Based on the comments on the post, the reaction to this announcement has been positive. Fans are just excited to see more Middle-earth on the silver screen. This announcement came after a number of rumors surrounding a third film surfaced based on statements made by Peter Jackson at Comic-Con and elsewhere. There you have it. The films will not be two, but three.

The Hobbit has rubbed me the wrong way for quite some time now. I was, of course, excited when I heard that it was more than a rumor and that the film was in production. I loved the Lord of the Rings trilogy and was ecstatic that we would be seeing even more. I then heard the news that the book would be split into two films. I wasn’t quite sure what to think. Two films for the shortest book seemed a little strange. Then came the trailer set to a grim and mournful rendition of “Misty Mountain Cold” sung by Thorin Oakenshield and the band of Dwarves. Again, I was a little unsure about this whole business. The Hobbit wasn’t grim or mournful! It was easily the more lighthearted piece than any of the volumes of The Lord of the Rings! Today’s news that the films would be a trilogy was one more nail in the coffin of my hope for Peter Jackson’s Middle-earth.

First of all, Jackson provides a long-winded explanation in his Facebook post of how so much of the story would be left untold in two films. He says that because of the “richness” of The Hobbit and the material in The Lord of the Rings’ appendices could never be covered in only two films. The Hobbit is roughly 200 pages shorter than any of the books in The Lord of the Rings trilogy. While this in no way means that there isn’t enough material for three films, it does mean that the films will be forced to take one of two directions: They will include every last detail in the book in order to fill three full-length motion pictures, or they will be full to bursting with original material from Peter Jackson or other writers. I have a hunch that it will take the latter. I would also like to point out that the appendices Jackson mentioned consist of six passages, only two of which include anything other than family trees and notes on pronuncian. The two appendices that have any information that could be turned into a film read like a history textbook. How Jackson and his writers are going to tell these stories while remaining faithful to their sources is a mystery to me.

But Peter Jackson has his right to take creative liberties on Tolkien’s work, right? Sure! He can do whatever he wants with The Hobbit! But, if his post on facebook is to be believed, that is certainly not his intention. His goal is to “tell the full story of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and the part he played in the sometimes dangerous, but at all times exciting, history of Middle-earth.” He can’t possibly stretch Bilbo’s full story for three movies. He just can’t. The Hobbit’s audiobook runs for roughly four hours. The three Lord of the Rings movies together are roughly nine hours. That’s quite a bit of filler you’re looking at, Mr. Jackson, and please don’t give me that bunk about wanting to delve further into the history of Middle-earth. If that’s what Jackson wants to do, why not adapt The Silmarillion? Why not just include all of Tolkien’s work set in Middle-earth for a 48-hour extravaganza covering everything from the Ainulindalë to Dagor Dagorath?

We need to stop kidding ourselves, the third film isn’t being made to expand the universe of Middle-earth or to tell Bilbo Baggins’ complete story; the third film is being made for one reason and one reason only: Money. The Lord of the Rings trilogy grossed roughly $3 billion and is the highest grossing film trilogy to date. Warner Bros. is looking at The Hobbit with dollar signs in their eyes. All three movies will be good and all three movies will be successful, but at what cost? Ranting about a film’s faithfulness to a book is pointless but where should the line be drawn? The films we will be getting starting this December will not just be unfaithful to the book, they will be unashamedly bastardized versions of the works of J.R.R. Tolkien. Is this what we want? It certainly isn’t what I want.

Meh. I’ll still see all three.

relevant to your interests

Filed Under | • • • •
  • Anonymous

    No doubt it has to do with money to some, and perhaps to Jackson as well, but I won’t pretend to know Jackson’s reasons fully. Things can change a lot when you hit the floor and start editing. For all we know, the movie could be lacking in its current state or he could just genuinely want to include more.

    Either way, you get points for most witty title covering this.

  • Dr Coene

    Ted. Normally I find
    your writing to be questionable, but in this you and I are in agreement:
    Jackson is utterly mishandling The Hobbit.

     

    I recently got into a long
    argument with some friends about this, not long after the original trailer was released. The Hobbit was my favorite book as a
    teenager. I’ve always preferred it to meandering ramblings of The Lord of The
    Rings. The wonderment of Bilbo’s odyssey. The charm of the mystery. The
    succinctness of the narrative, and the import and myth that brevity lends to
    each and every word and moment, as that of a poem. All of this is now to be
    perverted and lost in an ocean of over-explanation and masturbatory fanfic.

     

    The Hobbit is not
    the story of some grand epic history. It is the singular journey of one unlikely
    simpleton. It is a vicarious adventure predicated wholly upon the experience of
    a single unworldly underdog. To crack this story as wide open as Jackson apparently
    seeks to would be to overshadow the character and mystery and charm of the
    story. It removes focus from the adventurer and places it on the tedious natter
    of elderly historical record. The wonderment of The Hobbit is drawn from
    wondering. Bilbo never knew the origin of The Ring. Nor did the reader. And not
    knowing was beautiful, for our obliviousness begged us to marvel. Honestly, the
    map provided in the book is a mere fraction of that which is given to us in The
    Lord of The Rings. Someone needs to tell the director: Brevity is the soul of
    wit, Peter, and you are drowning in longwindedness.

     

    Unfortunately the
    problems are not limited to the superflousness and overextension of the
    narrative. The tone and soul of the story is also being subject to perversion. The
    song sung by the dwarves in Bilbo’s hovel at the beginning of The Hobbit is a
    great clarification of the problem. I must say I’m relieved to find someone
    besides myself irritated by Jackson’s deforming of “Misty Mountains Cold” into
    some brooding, melodramatic Galadriel-style hymn. Not only does it betray the tone
    and character of the story, needlessly refashioning it into a Lord of The Rings
    clone (as if nine hours wasn’t enough), but it completely and irrevocably distorts
    the dwarves as a people. “Misty Mountains Cold” was not a grim and mournful
    hymn! It was a raucous drunken limerick about going on adventures and hoarding
    gold! Not only that, it was the entire reason Bilbo decided to go with them in
    the first place, because it sounded like a grand old fuquing time!

     

    The Hobbit is about
    Tookishness! It’s about adventure! It’s about the joy of peril, not the misery
    of it. Deliver to us The Hobbit, Peter, not nine more hours of The Lord of The
    Rings.

  • Dr Coene

    Why do my paragraphs look so funky?

    They didn’t look that weird when I was writing it, lol.

  • FederalGhoul

    The whole point of a production company is to make money, so it’s pretty smart for them in order to make more money (which will lead to more movies/better business). Also Peter Jackson did an amazing job with LOtR trilogy and he’s really only let people down with “The Lovely Bones”.

    It’s not like the third movie will be him sitting in front of the camera reading the book’s descriptive passages. I’m sure he’s doing this for a reason that everyone will be blown away by.

    This is sort of like the whole Dark Knight situation when everyone was blasting Christopher Nolan for having the Joker be played by Heath Ledger. Then after it came out everyone loved the performance.

    They’re going to be good. Hands down. The guys loves the series and has a talented cast and crew behind him to make that happen.

  • Dr Coene

    Jackson has already screwed the film up by turning the “Misty Mountains Cold” song, which is supposed to be like a rowdy drunken Irish limerick about having adventures and hoarding gold, into some weepy melancholy Lord of the Rings style hymn, so I shudder to think of what other kind of “artistic liberties” are coming our way.

  • Daniel Chapman

    I have a copy of the Hobbit right by my desk and the “Misty Mountains Cold” song is not a rowdy drunken Irish limerick. The paragraph that introduces them singing begins with, “The dark came into the room from the window.” Now this language might just be setting the scene but by the end of the song Tolkien says, “As they sang the hobbit felt the love of beautiful things made by hands and by cunning and by magic moving through him, a fierce and jealous love, the desire of the hearts of dwarves.” This is rich language and I think a melancholy but majestic hymn would fire up those feelings much better than a rowdy drunken limerick. The song is about adventuring yes, but it is also a lament for a land and way of life that is lost. I think that any attempt to make this song without that sense of longing and mourning would belittle Tolkien’s work. 

    And I think that even though the Hobbit is a children’s story and needs to have that sense of amazement and discovery, it is also an epic journey that should seem larger than life and serious. The Hobbit is the ideal children’s story, and I hope that the films don’t lose that aspect. But what makes it an ideal children’s story is that it captures the two halves of a child’s mind. The love of the comic and the amusing shown by the dwarves in their earlier song, “Chip the Glasses and Crack the Plates,” and a serious grand adventure shown well by “Misty Mountains Cold.”

    There is a part of me afraid of three films. But I think there is a complexity in the novel that lends itself to both the comic and the epic even though it is the comic that stands out in everyone’s minds.

  • Dr Coene

    I also have a copy on one of my bedroom shelves. The full introduction goes like this:
    “The dark filled all the room, and
    the fire died down, and the shadows were lost, and still they played on.
    And suddenly first one and then another began to sing as they played,
    deep-throated singing of the dwarves in the deep places of their ancient
    homes; and this is like a fragment of their song, if it can be like
    their song without their music…”Sounds more like a continuation of their rowdy drunken singing. It certainly isn’t a gentle hymn.

  • getchaos

    Guys….this is all speculation and all we’ve seen is a trailer/teaser.

    And those can be misleading. I’ve never enjoyed the trailers for any Peter J. movie but the movies were generelly great.

    I believe, he and his cast will do Tolkien right. They did it with the
    Lord of the Rings and everybody was happy and greatfull. Think about the
    personal time he invested in this project already although he initially
    didn’t want to do the direction this time. This guy spends nearly a
    decade in this world…developing, rendering and shaping it into movie
    joyfulness… and he’s a great Tolkien fan himself.

    And nobody has seen any material from the second movie just
    yet…everything that has to do with it, remains a big secret. Don’t
    spit out the water before you haven’t tasted it.

    Anyways. Let’s just wait and see.

    As i have heard over the months of rumors and rumors, the first movie
    was all about “The Hobbit” and the second one all about the stuff that
    happens between those books. Maybe they just decided to split “the
    Hobbit” in two and still have the rest only in one movie. But you can’t
    know, until you’ve seen them.

    So let’s just enjoy the ride. P.J. met our expectations the last time
    and proved he knows what he’s doing. If he fails this time…there’s
    time enough to burry him under our wrath after the movies are released.
    And you have to give him cudos for accomplishing the production of those
    movies in the first place…those were years of fighting and fighting.

  • Lance Romance

    I think you guys are drinking too much hateraide.  Getting all worked up about the concept of putting this series to 3 movies without even having more then a slight idea of what jackson is going to do seems a little bit crazy. Getting mad at the trailer is all well and good but even then, can you really comment on a book just by reading the back synopsis? Have faith, trust the Jackson

  • Anonymous

    Nope, not pleased about this one bit. We are held by the whims of the muses and the studios in these regards, but I am not paying to see a fuqing trilogy when Ralph Bakshi already adapted the material and proves that it more than comfortably fits into a single film.

  • Jillianr

    Filmmaking is a bit hard to describe. Executives will give a filmmaker the go ahead to make a project. This project must be under the same title in order to be approved. What I see here is Peter Jackson is making use of the existing project to further expand the story, while he has production cost still in his favor and existing sets at his disposal. Why not make it right the final time? It is true money is the bottom line, but I do believe that Peter is justified. Everyone knows it was a pain to get the project on screen to begin with. I think it’s is great that Peter is doing the material justice.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7LEMBBXRWV3ML67PXAWTWPCPJA Ian

    I agree that The Hobbit is much more lighthearted than LOTR. I also like that while Bilbo has encountered the One Ring, he has no idea of what it is other than invisibility. If I remember correctly in the book “Misty Mountains Cold” did take a more somber/awe-inspiring note, and not so raucous/rowdy as the Chip the Plates song from before. The book mentioned that the fire had died down before they even started to sing. It was this song that truly awoke the Tookish side in Bilbo, and I think Peter Jackson’s version trailer did it justice (even with the detail of them joining in one after the other) Just look at the faces of the dwarves as they sing, it’s as if it’s something sacred and legendary for them. 
    So while The Hobbit doesn’t tread as deep into detail as LOTR, I think there can be plenty more opportunities to be true to the book with a trilogy.

  • Get it Straight

    This is the second time I’ve seen you say this. “Misty Mountains Cold” was absolutely NOT a raucous drunken limerick! It was the tale of the dwarves losing their home & everything they had built, as well as all the fine things they had gathered. It was about becoming wandering exiles. There was nothing joyful or celebratory about that song.

  • Yoda

    Wow. Missed the point entirely, you have.

  • Stealthnugget

    Eh, I am just disliking the extra characters he’ll add (Evangeline Lily plays one), the incorrect syntax of Elvish (thank you, Jackson, for making people think “hannon le” was correct) and the general artistic license that will serve no purpose for the plot, advancement of the characters or just go against the established lore (Elves in Helm’s Deep for example). But I still think it will be worth watching… let’s just hope the blonde wig on Lee Pace will look alright.

  • Smith

    Dr Coene- if you watch the original animated version of The Hobbit, the song, Misty Mountains Cold is actually also done as a soft, melacholy hymn. The animated 1977 version actually follows the storyline quite well in general. And I believe in the book itself, the song is considered a lament to the lost treasures and way of life of the dwarves…. I believe that the song you may be thinking of as rowdy is Carefully With The Plates…
    just my thoughts on the subject. No offence intended :)

  • http://www.facebook.com/Fyrebaugh Matt Wyckoff

    I think you forgot a few points, such as in the first 3 movies how much of the story was omitted to cut down on the length of the movies. Such as the whole Barrow wights section, and Tom Bombadil, and that was just in Fellowship of the Ring. So yes I can see how even though the book may be 200 pages shorter than any of the trilogy, it can also tell more of the story in the book.

    But your point on the writers edits is well taken, such as in Return of the King where Boromir’s brother Faramir does not fall victim to the power of the ring, where his brother did, and in the movie he was also sorely tempted, but overcame it due more to other elements in the movie than Faramir’s honor and strength. So yes, I can see that we may not want them to change the story to update it to today’s honor or beliefs…

    But your final point on the third movie only being made for money… ALL movies are made to make money, and not just a 20% margin, We are talking millions upon millions in returns. If a movie doesn’t make enough profit, no sequels or prequels are made, Serenity proved that the mass support of the fans made the movie profitable, but not profitable enough for a sequel.

  • OTR

    You’re just a negative person and a downer. Peter Jackson is ten times the man you are.

  • dan

    I think you should go back and take a look at the extended cut versions of the Lord of the Rings trilogy because clearly you misunderstand Peter Jackson’s mastery of representing all things Tolkien. If Jackson has decided to do 3 movies it will only serve to benefit the end consumer. All throughout the filming of LOTR and the Hobbit, Jackson has made some unpopular and likely profit reducing decisions because he felt it would improve the movies. He is committed first and foremost to making the best movies he can make, not making the most money,

  • Proudfoot

    for me. The Misty Mountain Cold is something I imagined it to be from the book. Although, let’s say it only took the audiobook to tell the narrative in a fairly short 4 hours. But can you really put one paragraph of the novel 5 minutes in the movie? You can’t. You really can’t. You have to first show what the narrative wants to show in our minds/imaginations. Narrative ISN’T long, it only tells us what to imagine, and imagining what you are reading is longer than you think. Say, they picked him up and looked at him in awe, in surprise. Well, duh, it won’t be a 3 seconds in the movie. The character will show fear or alarm or something before that sentence in the book will finish. The Hobbit is huge, in all fashion, it is huge than what you are saying it is as a single book. You know, a single book can hold at least a hundred years of history and that what Peter is doing. Showing everything to us what’s in every pages, every lines. Misty Mountain Cold film version is sensational. Who the hell will sing a memoir song of something you lost and remember and wishing to be there in front of you in a drunken fashion? Isn’t that stupid for a prince to sing it laughing or like just drunk or whatever? No it is not that. The Hobbit should be shown fuller and “maybe you haven’t realized” the Hobbiton and the Shire is more greener in this film. a-ca-excuse me?

  • Bob

    That’s why I for one won’t see them. I don’t like this slippery slope. If they are successful believe me they will do it again and again.