It’s official: ‘The Hobbit’ is a three-part series, says Peter Jackson

By Andrew Sims (@Sims) at 11:33 am, July 30, 2012

Peter Jackson has just announced via his official Facebook page that The Hobbit will indeed be three films.

He wrote on his official Facebook page that the decision came after looking at the majority of the footage post-production:

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.”

Last week reports stated that Jackson and Warner Bros were in “deep talks” to decide whether or not they should proceed with a third film.

Fans have been concerned over this idea due to the fact that The Hobbit is one book, and physically smaller than any of the Lord of the Rings novels. In order for this to work, Jackson has to use a lot of material outside of the main story that’s been found in author J.R.R. Tolkien’s notes.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (Part 1) will be released December 13, 2012. There and Back Again (Part 2) will be in theaters December 14, 2013. Part 3 is set for Summer 2014.

View the latest articles in: The Hobbit

https://twitter.com/#!/HP4eva121995 Ally

I honestly can’t see how The Hobbit could be 3 complete movies but I trust Peter Jackson. Hopefully it’ll turn out amazing.
http://www.twitter.com/morganstradling Morgan Burt Stradling

More Hobbit? I’ll take it and not complain. :)
http://twitter.com/mrhorseshoe コルセット

Great news, but what idiot approved the LOUD AS **** advertisement when loading this article?
Erikd16

YES
Heatkarma

i can see if the movies are hour and half each
http://twitter.com/jpsivley Justin

I don’t know. The Hobbit isn’t a very long story, so I’m not sure if turning it into three films is the best idea. I guess I’ll wait and see what Jackson has in store though.
- Matt
  
  Yes but he is going into Tolkein’s notes, such as the fight with the Necromancer, etc
GibsonD90

So now 3 LOTR movies will become 6. Sounds like Star Wars haha. Fine by me though. Like Ally said, you have to trust Peter Jackson.
Lotte

As long as it does not interfere with Sherlock, I am more than happy.
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Connor-Frye/1326652893 Connor Frye
  
  It most likely will as Bilbo is Watson and Smaug is Sherlock
  - Lotte
    
    I know that. I was referring to the title of the series: ‘Sherlock’. Moreover Freeman still needs to be available as he is next to Cumberbatch the main actor and absolutely essential :).
- SnatcherGirl
  
  Since filming is set to wrap up soon they should be fine. Sherlock is scheduled to begin filming early 2013, and I imagine PJ and Fran will be working on post-production stuff for the second movie by then. The beauty of filming both films at once. Of course, I have no idea if they already have the footage for the third. It sounds like they have some at least. Probably later in the year they will call back the actors to do a few things.
Brelling

I’m beyond dubious about this.
http://twitter.com/NatashaPeartree Natasha Pereira

soooo, what are they gunna call the third one?
- http://twitter.com/MowTheFrontLawn Juan Pedia
  
  I’m guessing the 3rd one will become “There and Back Again” and the 2nd one will get a new title.
http://twitter.com/jthebanks Jay Banks

Ugh… I’m worried…
http://twitter.com/_psully Pat Sullivan

If anybody can do it properly, it’s Peter Jackson. I have faith in him!
http://twitter.com/Merina2 Merina

Oh nooo…I’m nervous, now…
http://clayton11ify.webs.com/ clayton10ify

Ugh I guess if he adds more content it will be fine, the book doesn’t have enough for 3 films.
Samuel

If each part is as long as each film in the LOTR trilogy is then there’s going to be more content in the film than the book. It’ll probably be quicker to read the book that watch the films of The Hobbit, actually. I was thinking that two Hobbit films was probably just about worth it but three makes me wonder…I have faith in Peter Jackson to make another three great films though.
http://www.facebook.com/heather.smith07 Heather Smith

As much as I love the Hobbit, this is kind of ridiculous. He made 3 films for Lord of the Rings, which were three books. He’s making just as many films for a book that is like 1/17th of the length of the LoTR? I barely understood the necessity for 2 films, but three is way too much. This is just silly.
http://www.twitter.com/matsemann08 Matsemann08

If Jackson think this was the best then I have no reason to doubt him.
Line

My immediate thought is that it’s a bad choice. I mean I love the book, but I’m afraid three movies will be too much. Is there even enough book for three movies? Seems doubtful. But I trust Jackson and if he believes it’s the wisest choice in regards to being faithful to the material, I support him.
http://twitter.com/LiamFloyd Liam Floyd

Wow.
Marley

More LOTR is never something I’d complain about!! YESS! I’m beyond ecstatic for this decision!!! I feel that anyone who doubts this just needs to go back and watch the first three and remember how utterly incredible they were. Jackson knows what he’s doing people! Yes, he made three movies out of three books but he had to cut so much out of them and people still complained at how long they were…this way he can take all the time he needs to tell the full story and then some. SO PUMPED!!!
- Liderc
  
  The Hobbit isn’t LOTR though, it’s 1 short book (320) pages. This is going to be a much more comedic story, according to Jackson, and it’s not going to be much like LOTR other than the quality of filming and sets/locations. It’s a totally different story.
  - http://twitter.com/StarkidSims Simone
    
    ^ It’s in the same universe as LOTR and it’s a prequel so technically you could say all four are the same series *shrugs*
    - Liderc
      
      If you know anything about the hobbit you’ll know that the first book was originally written as a stand-alone novel. It was then rewritten and much of gollum’s story changed so that Tolkein could use it as back story for LOTR – which was original 1 book as well.
      
      He was forced to split LOTR into 3 books because at the time the publishers wouldn’t allow a book that long to be published due to the printing costs.
      - Sarah
        
        Just because it’s not one of the actual “Lord of the Rings” books doesn’t mean it’s not a Lord of the Rings book. It’s in the same universe and it tells the beginnings of the story that continues in the Lord of the Rings. Who cares if the Hobbit was originally written as a stand-alone novel? It’s not now, and that’s what matters.
        
        And also, what does splitting LOTR into 3 books have to do with anything? It’s still the same story. Just more packaging.
      - Liderc
        
        The point was the author originally wrote the books differently than we know today, therefore we know his intentions were different than they ended up being portrayed. The Hobbit is MUCH different than LOTR, it’s much more comical and much more of a children’s novel than LOTR. Anyone who’s read the books will agree that they’re very different.
      - Sarah
        
        Of course they’re different stories. However, I still think it counts as part of the LOTR. Just because The Hobbit is more childish shouldn’t count against that.
        
        As for The Hobbit being less serious, I agree that it should be, although after seeing the trailer, I’m not so sure. It looks a lot darker than I remember The Hobbit being. I guess we’ll just have to wait until December to find out…
      - Liderc
        
        I didn’t say it was a negative thing that it’s more childish (I didn’t say childish either), I simply stated that The Hobbit, in comparison to LOTR is more of a children’s novel. That’s not a bad thing, it’s simply a fact about the books.
      - CliveRogan
        
        LOTR is a straight up sequel to The Hobbit.
      - Liderc
        
        Sigh…I didn’t say it wasn’t. I said The Hobbit was originally a stand-alone novel, confirmed by Tolkien himself:
        
        “Tolkien said that The Hobbit was conceived separately from his mythological stories”
        
        “When he revised The Hobbit to bring the story of the finding of the Ring in line with The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien retained the original version as the tale Bilbo told to justify his acquisition of the Ring.”
      - CliveRogan
        
        I was just saying that while LOTR and The Hobbit are different LOTR was written as a sequel, it’s set in the same world with some of the same characters. While it was originally much more light hearted than the hobbit Tolkien no longer saw it that way once he started writing LOTR.
        
        The chapter with Gollum went from a light hearted game to something much more sinister, and that wasn’t the only change Tolkien wanted to make as he wanted to overhaul the whole thing to make it fit in with LOTR. Tolkien saw it as part of the series because it is and should be treated as such.
Zack

Are you kidding me? This is so stupid, the book is like, what, 300 pages? This is so silly. Where are they gonna split them?
DJ Duncan

noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Liderc

Have to say, not digging this. I don’t doubt Peter, but this is a very short book. 3 movies seems like an awful long stretch.

Hope it doesn’t harm the overall story.
SnatcherGirl

To everyone upset that there might not be enough content in simply The Hobbit to make 3 films, you’re right. But the thing is, PJ isn’t using just The Hobbit. He’s using the 100 page appendix in the back of LotR also. Which talks a lot about events in the Hobbit that were never explained, such as when Gandalf went off on his mysterious missions. And another thing to note, the events in the appendix are not told in a ‘storyteller’ voice; they are just summarized, so there’s a lot of room for dialog and the imagination.
- Katie
  
  Peter Jackson harvesting LOTR appendix material and filling in the blanks himself, and stitching it all together how he wants does not equal The Hobbit. This is a very streamlined story with one central focus and one central character. I agree with Zack that this is overdoing it.
  - SnatcherGirl
    
    I’ve never really thought of the middle earth universe as simple. The Hobbit started it and while I agree that it’s a very straight forward story, Tolkien later dives full heartily into the world. And after reading everything he ever wrote on the subject (The Silmarillion, The Lord of the Rings + the appendix) The Hobbit is no longer so straight forward. Characters are given more depth, and while Bilbo Baggins is a central character, the others are amazingly complex. To me, these films have become larger than telling the story of The Hobbit; PJ and crew are taking us back to the first book and showing us how everything ties together.
Zack

This is so silly and it changes everything. First of all, the book is 300 pages or something like that. Secondly, this is so silly. So silly. And it changes everything. Scripts need to be changed, they have to figure how where to re-split the films. New titles. They may need to film more. Different marketing.

The book does not require that. It is simpler than the LOTR trilogy and does not need 3 films for it to be told well. It barely needs two, but two can work really well. Three is OVER DOING IT.
http://www.eigakanthemovietheater.blogspot.com Jenny Leigh

I trust Mr. Jackson and I’m so excited to have more Middle Earth!!
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=690341156 Andrew Davies-Land

talk about milking it for everything you’ve got!! Their is no way near enough material of for this many films, its like the tiniest book ever!!
- Bob
  
  Hey, it’s Peter Jackson. Even if there isn’t enough material… He’ll make enough material. And the movie will turn out to be freaking awesome!
- http://twitter.com/StarkidSims Simone
  
  Give it a chance, Peter has been prolific so far and he’ll be using extra content so I’m sure he could make it work.
- CliveRogan
  
  It’s a pretty short book, but an insane amount of stuff happens in it. I could easily see how it has enough content to make three films, even though that’s not the case as the films aren’t just based on the one book, but also huge amounts of background info from the LOTR appendices.
VideoKilledSeverusSnape

They’re making this book seem more complex than it really is. However, I’m excited. I just hope they don’t ruin it (which I doubt), but I do trust Jackson.
- Sarah
  
  It’s not necessarily just the Hobbit that they’re making. Peter Jackson is also drawing on the background information from the Silmarillion to make a more complex, realized world.
  - CliveRogan
    
    He’s not using the Silmarillon as he doesn’t have the rights to that. But he does have all the appendices which have more than enough supporting material to flesh out the story.
    - Sarah
      
      You’re right, I’m sorry, I meant the appendices.
    - Katie
      
      The appendices are mostly very dry – I worry that there’s enough material in them to realize one coherent storyline that doesn’t feel shoehorned into the story of The Hobbit. Peter Jackson’s conjecture and filling in the blanks in Tolkien’s appendices does not an adaptation of The Hobbit make, in my opinion. It’s just Peter Jackson’s Tolkienish Hodpodge of Various Interconnected Events.
      (I say this as a huge fan of Tolkien and as someone who very much enjoyed Jackson’s LOTR adaptation, mainly because he stripped the story down – which made it work on film. This is doing the opposite).
      - CliveRogan
        
        Yeah, I never actually read the appendices courtesy of them being an incoherent jumble of ideas. I don’t see how there’s much there to weave a story from, but it might be able to help fill out the existing story.
        
        It already happened in LOTR where Arwen and Aragorn don’t have any contact between Rivendell and the end, but they used the information in the appendices to create a subplot to connect them. It’s that that I assume they’re going to do. But again, I haven’t read them so I don’t know what’s there they can use.
http://twitter.com/StarkidSims Simone

Dawww he seems so excited :)
Tom

So just to round off..what will the 3rd movie be about??
Danielle

Normally when I hear things like this I groan, but if anyone can do it, this group can.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Maria-Wang/542480760 Maria Wang

wow, ok. That was fast
bob

How I wish Peter Jackson would have directed harry potter…sad
- CliveRogan
  
  Can you imagine?! There’d probably be 30 of them if Jackson was at the helm. And every one of them would be awesome.
Rtyh

I’ve got to say, I have grown very tired of all of these book adaptations being split into extra films. As a moviegoer, I kind of just feel like I’m being taken advantage of.
- Sarah
  
  As a moviegoer and a book-reader, I don’t care what their reasons are. I’m just excited to have 3 good movies in my future instead of 2.
- CliveRogan
  
  As a fan of story, I’m all for it. The problem with book to film adaptions is that they are restricted to telling the story in under three hours. Splitting stories allows for more time to tell the story and let the characters grow, leading to potentially better films.
Zack

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll3uipTO-4A
- Zack
  
  THE NEW THEME SONG FOR THE TRILOGY!!
Sarah

If there’s any director I trust for this kind of thing, it’s Peter Jackson. If he thinks the material they’ve shot would be better-suited to a trilogy, I’m so on board. The man is a movie-making genius and I will happily pay to see all three movies in the theaters. Probably multiple times.
- Meur123
  
  This.
  
  My only concern is that it’s going to take three years until I’ll have seen the whole damn film.
  - QuaffleRose34
    
    exactly my worry. if they’ve filmed it all, they should come out 6 months apart at the latest, or fans won’t be happy and others will most likely lose interest. especially since it’s only made from one book and appendices that (i’m assuming) a lot of people didn’t read.
    - http://twitter.com/HRA809 Arielle
      
      I agree, but I’d be really surprised if they released them that close together.
WillowBlood

Hm, so what about Sherlock? I mean, I’m excited for the third movie–Peter Jackson, the cast and crew will do a fantastic job, like always–but I need my Sherlock…
http://twitter.com/vonchambers Devon Chambers

They’ll just do about anything to make money nowa days, won’t they? heh Lord of the rings is one (if not the most) overrated trilogy of all time and its painfully boring, this doesn’t look like things will change. Also this seems like it’ll delay a bit the next season of Sherlock which sucks.
- belac889
  
  They are already finished with filming. It’s all in the editing now
- Guest
  
  Is there anything productive you wanted to say or just come out as arrogant, self important and bitter?
- Bob
  
  You know, your comments are ALWAYS self centered and hateful! Try being positive for once…
Manda

If it was anyone else I would be jumping on the “its all about the money” bandwagon. But PJ is one film-maker that loves and believes in every film he makes. While the film company’s would be green lighting this for the money aspect, PJ would have only pitched it because of his love of the story and his knowledge that the fans would want it.
Cassandra

Now he should go back and make 3 more LOTR movies!
ladybirds

If they are not too far apart I think it will be alright.
Me

While he sounds sincere and I’m almost positive it will be great, I can’t help but merely see the $.
http://twitter.com/HRA809 Arielle

If it was anyone but Peter Jackson I’d be concerned, but I have full trust in that genius man.
- Marly
  
  I agree… but I’m worried that most people won’t see it that way
HYP: The Owl

I’m sure alot of film 3 will bridge the gap between the Hobbit and LOTR.. I would love to see Gandalf meeting Aagorn/ Aagorn and Gandalf’s tracking of Gollum, The rise of Sauron and rebuilding of his fortress in Mordor after his ousting of Mirkwood, and some of the early conflicts in the War of the Ring in Gondor… Their is a wealth of material there to warrant a third film.
Ncnapper92

Wow, when I read the Hobbit I felt it was much more fast-paced and shorter than the other stories. I thought one movie would be more than enough and two was stretching it. They are doing it for the money. Period.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002878549971 Wil Arends

Whats it gonna be called?
i mean it has to have a name
part 1: an unexpected journey
part 2: there
part 3: back again
no. nevermind. thats stupid.
but seriously what do you think it could be called?
Marly

I think that, instead of seeing this as three parts of the same story, we should see three different movies and hope they all tell a different story- or something along those lines.
I can’t imagine that they can really stretch just the material from the Hobbit into three movies. But I trust Peter Jackson, and maybe it will even give more depth to LotR.
And honestly, they are spending a ridiculously huge amount of money making these movie(s) so I don’t think we can really see this as an attempt just to make more.
But that’s just my opinion.
bowties2

I. Am. Angry. Right. Now. Peter. Jackson. I. Will. Find. You. And. Kill. You.

I can’t even trust you anymore. I cannot believe you’re doing this to us. NO NO NO.

And that was my just my first reaction to this news. Now that I’ve had time to think it over…nope. Still the same. Betrayal might sound a little overly dramatic, but there is NO WAY to turn this into a trilogy without bringing in a bunch of stuff that was not IN the book.
Unless they want to delve into the history of the ring thoroughly…Silmarilian story pieces maybe.
But I JUST AM SO MAD.
- hobbit22
  
  Bowties2, i’m not trying to step on you’re toes. however, i don’t think Killing peter jackson is a good thing. Besides i have read the Hobbit and Simarillan. What i think he is doing is great because it gives you more info from the books and from the movie. It’s unfair of you to take it out on Peter Jackson. Feel free to respond
7Starrchasers

I have completely and utter faith in Jackson and this team!! So YES IM EXCITED!
Mrs_Badcrumble

Ok, let’s just assume that this just isn’t an adaptation of “The Hobbit” but 3 films based from Tolkien’s work. They will have to use a lot of outside material, because with just the book it wouldn’t be enough for 3 satisfactory, beginnig-middle-and end movies.

It can be pottencially great to see the backstory of the Necromancer and what’s going on with the rest of Middle Earth.
Guest

I think alot of people don’t understand that all three movies won’t just be the tale of Bilbo it will be all things going on around that time that ultimately set up lord of the rings so when you read the hobbit don’t just say ” oh this story is to small to fit into three movies” go back and read the appendices and then I think your opinion will be changed

Your getting three movies instead of two so I don’t why you would be complaining anyways
mikemo

feels like a rip off, cause when I bought the ticket it didn’t say part one, of three. It’s not like we’re talking about a first time telling of a story, we all know what happens we just want to see it . 2014 ? really!!! i’m just sayin
Legolas Greenleaf

Actually, I heard that part three was to be dubbed “The Desolation of Smaug”. Of course, I should already know, but my father only seems to lust for drink and riches.
….Maybe I should go to live in Gondor. Sounds plausible. Anything is better than coming home after a hunting trip to find your father dancing ridiculously with a wine bottle in his hand chanting “All aboard the Party Elk!” I’m scarred for life due to the other things he did.
I hope Peter Jackson finds the right actor for the skin changer, Beorn. He’s an important character and I want it to be just right.

Hypable encourages the community to use our Comments feature to hold thoughtful, polite, and critical discussions. We do NOT tolerate inappropriate, rude, or downright mean discussion towards the news story's subject matter or towards other Hypable users. We reserve the right to delete or ban comments and users who violate these guidelines.

It’s official: ‘The Hobbit’ is a three-part series, says Peter Jackson

More in The Hobbit (84 of 212 articles)