How many many hobbit movies is del Toro making???

[Wilhelm]

I'm not sure where to draw the line between facts and rumours on this movie.

Is there one or two movies coming out?

I have heard that the Hobbit will be one movie and they will then have another movie to bridge that to the LOTR movies. I've also heard that they will expand the story and do the hobbit in 2 parts.

I'm not sure what to believe. What should we expect for 2011 and for 2012?

[Jonathan]

I believe the initial plan was, as you say, to let the second film bridge the gap between the Hobbit and the LotR trilogy. However now it seems settled that Del Toro will split the Hobbit into two films. So 2011 will offer only part of the story, the rest will come in 2012.

[Earniel]

Oh, they've changed it? I wonder why. Couldn't they find a decent story to bridge The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, or did they fear the wrath of the fans in they did?

[Wilhelm]

Until last week, I had no idea we were looking at 2 movies.

I would have no idea what to expect from a movie bridging The Hobbit to LOTR (and since it's off the table - it doesn't really matter).

I don't understand the need to split the Hobbit in two from a story-telling/artistic standpoint. It is shorter than any of the LOTR volumes (each of which were told in one movie). I certainly see why they want to split it up from a profit standpoint. I am a little concerned about the pace of the film being a bit slow if it's told over two, three hour movies. On a more positive note, it also might allow them to go into some detail. I will try to keep an open mind.

[Valandil]

Maybe the problem with a 'bridge' movie is... it could just evolve into a rambling storyline, or combination of storylines - and they would end up with what was clearly a middle part of the story, being thrown in last of all. From a viewer's perspective, it might be very unsatisfying to 'end' the film series on that kind of note.

I think I had heard about the 2-part possibility. Maybe the first part ends with the Dwarves in prison in the Elvenking's Halls. Maybe at just the point where Bilbo discovers Thorin in his cell.

It would be a real bummer if we had to wait like 3 years between the two parts, but if it's again just one year, it may be alright. And yes - they could go into much more detail, and hopefully include everything and everyone from the book.

[The Gaffer]

Not quite sure what to make of this. Maybe there is more risk inherent in inventing a whole new storyline; maybe this leaves the way open for a third prequel. We might yet end up with a Star Warsesque six-parter ("sexogy"?)

The guts tell me "bollocks" at the thought of the Hobbit being butchered.

My money would be on the rescue from the goblins by the eagles to be the ending of Part 1.

[GrayMouser]

Two movies to film "The Hobbit"?

"Hey, let's see how much money we can possibly squeeze out of this franchise!"

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

I'm thinking it was going to be too much of a legal hassle to do a bridge film. They have Hobbit and LotR rights but they don't have any HoME, Sil, or UT rights. Going into what happens between the Hobbit and LotR would entail legal issues that they probably just didn't want to get into.

They could take the rough outline of the interim as deduced from LotR and make up the rest, ignoring anything that comes from any of the non-rights material but then they'd have the fans to contend with.

Better to just avoid it altogether. They'll still make HUGE bank on the movies.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts

They could take the rough outline of the interim as deduced from LotR and make up the rest, ignoring anything that comes from any of the non-rights material but then they'd have the fans to contend with.

From what I've heard, this is exactly what they intend to do.

[Valandil]

I just saw that the tentative release dates for the two Hobbit movies are now - December 2012 and December 2013. It ended up that 2011 was not realistic.

Speaking of a 'bridge film' - I just had a horribly wicked, lucrative thing they could do.

What if they would make THREE movies: a two-part Hobbit Movie, plus this bridge movie between The Hobbit and LOTR. But what if they released first: The Hobbit, Part 1, second: The Bridge Movie and third: The Hobbit, Part 2! Wouldn't that be just evil?

If they do a bridge movie and release it last, will be Tolkienites be forced to call it; The Last Bridge?

[MatWill]

The movie hasn't hit the grounds yet, maybe the dates might go far. I cant wait until the movie hits the screen.


Hope the world doesn't end before the movie gets a release in 2012

[shesabrandybuck]

On theonering.net, they created a Movie FAQ if you care to look at it.

This is what I found most interesting regarding what they know are going into the films:

According to the Empire Online interview with PJ and GDT (link above), the two movies will include all of the iconic moments in the book, The Hobbit, as well as being expanded to follow other events that occur ‘offstage.’ This includes the White Council and Gandalf’s comings and goings to Dol Guldur. Pj: “We expanded out the universe a lot more so that we weren’t just staying with Bilbo and the Dwarves on their journey, as the book pretty much does. We started to expand some of what’s happening to Gandalf outside of that journey.” Things we know are included so far:

- backstory of Thrain, Thorin’s father

- Beorn

- Spiders

- The White Council

- Gandalf’s journeys to Dol Guldur

- The three trolls (Tom, Bert, William)

- Sauron ( including some of his history

It should be interesting to see what they do with it, since Bilbo and his journey is the main idea of the entire book. With the triology they basically stayed with Frodo as the central story when really there was so much more going on & it was a story on such a larger scale. Now that they are doing the Hobbit they are doing what they should have done with LotR...oh well, I have faith that these movies will be really great. I guess we shall see what happens..

edit: if you're interested, the link to the FAQ is http://www.theonering.net/torwp/hobbitfaq/#1.1

[GrayMouser]

Actually, that sounds like exactly what I was afraid of- these guys think they know better than Tolkien what the story of "The Hobbit" should have been.

[Jonathan]

Nah, they're just keen on gathering enough material to make more than one film.

Now that the LotR-trilogy was filmed prior to the Hobbit, I don't think I'd mind seeing a bit of extra LotR related material stuffed in there. And hey, maybe here's a good chance for them to finally give us some of Tom Bombadill

[Butterbeer]

A bridge too far? ... burning their bridges? ... A bridge over the river Gwai?

At any road, that seems to go forever on ..and on..and on...

at least they have decided against bolting on a cheap and tacky post-produced 3D version, for which small mercy i am at least grateful!

I'd be interested to see some samples of the art-direction though...

I suppose you cannot blame them for cashing in, on 2 parts, each re;leased at christmas, though how on earth you can have all of LOTR in 3 compressed parts, in the same release format annually at christmas ..and get 2, via the same equation out of the Hobbit beggars belief!

Had they had the balls, and any foresight on the commercial success of the LOTR trilogy, they might subsequently have made 6 movies of LOTR - and had the time to indulge themsleves, and us, and the Bank manager too!

But 20/20 hinsight is a fine thing indeed i guess!

[Jonathan]

Bridge on the river Gwai... *laughs* oh my

Almost as worthy of an Academy award as Gone with the Windgem?

[GrayMouser]

No objection to them making another movie based on extra materials, but when I go to see "The Hobbit", I wanna see The Hobbit.

[Earniel]

I'm happy at least they will include Beorn, but I'm not so sure about including Sauron as Sauron and his history too. I'm with GrayMouser on that one, I guess. I want to see The Hobbit in all its glory, not just reduced to a add-on prequel to LoTR.

[Jonathan]

It's kind of paradoxical that they want as many Hobbit movies as possible, considering it was the other way round with LotR a decade ago. As far as I remember, New Line Cinema wished to produce no more than one or two films. But Peter Jackson and company said they couldn't do LotR in less than three. And so began the most expensive movie production of its time.

[Earniel]

And probably one of the most lucrative, as well, which I assume has much to do with the now-preferred two-movie format.

Of course, splitting movies up is a bit fashionable now. LoTR was in three movies, the last Harry Potter movie was in two parts. I saw another two-parter announced somewhere too, but I forgot which.