And with it, a lot more questions than we have answers.
Peter Jackson, the man responsible for bringing The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien to Hollywood and the silver screen, is also adapting The Hobbit. It was originally announced as a duology of movies, to be released a year apart. The first movie, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey will be released this December 2012; The Hobbit: There And Back Again is coming December 2013.
But what if Peter Jackson wants to do three movies? The internet(s) has been buzzing since Comic Con, when Jackson did not rule out the possibility of a third Hobbit movie.
Which brings me to one question:
Three movies, I ask?! Why?!
In my opinion, a third movie makes no sense. Jackson has already stated that The Hobbit would be constructed as two movies in order to include additional material found in The Lord of the Rings appendices and the like. The meeting of the White Council. The orphaning of Aragorn. Etc. The Hobbit is actually shorter in word count than Fellowship of the Ring, the latter only requiring one movie to adapt. Why then does The Hobbit require three movies?
I can forgive two movies. I understand that some of those additional scenes from extra source material would expand The Hobbit beyond one movie.
But three? No chance. I don’t want this becoming King Kong: overly long, unnecessary scenes for the overall narrative, and poor pacing.
My question for you is: Should The Hobbit Have Three Movies?
If you think three movies is a good idea, why do you think so? Do you think there is that much material in the children’s book and elsewhere to warrant such a move? Or is this just a money grab, given that once The Hobbit: There And Back Again is released that Tolkien’s universe is essentially dead to Hollywood?
What do you think? Would love to hear from you guys about this!