Follow G4 on Twitter
X

'The Hobbit': Do We Really Need A THIRD Part?

Baxter
18 Comments

Posted August 19, 2009 - By Joseph Baxter

'The Hobbit': Do We Really Need A THIRD Part?

You may or may not have heard a rumor going around pertaining to a possible change in the release structure of The Hobbit. The first part to the rumor, was some reinforcement to the idea that the films would be released in 3D (which is hardly a new rumor.) The other, was that it would be released in THREE parts instead of the allotted TWO that has been discussed for nearly a year, now.

It goes without saying that the rumors (and I stress "rumors") are, at this point, shaky at best. However, it's a concept that's worth discussing, even if only hypothetically. Plus, talking about The Hobbit is fun.

As far as the idea of the films being in 3D, such a concept would be spectacular and I can already feel myself being enthralled as the audience is swatted at by the hordes of giant Mirkwood Spiders, to being seemingly engulfed in the flames of Smaug the Dragon. 3D = Easy win.

However, the rumor that stands to be controversial, is obviously the idea of a third film. After the first two films that would chronicle The Hobbit novel, this one would serve as a bridge film into the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It begs a pretty obvious question: Do we really need this?

There are numerous possibilities, and here are just a few:

  • A film centered on a younger Aragorn. (Do you do know that for a time, he went under the name was "Estel?"  I guess he was a Golden Girls fan.) While it would be doubtful that Viggo Mortensen could realistically reprise his role, it would still have potential. It could document his first quest to discover his lineage in Gondor and how he initially fell in love with Elf-Princess/ Ex-Aerosmith music video jailbait, Arwen (which would nicely be reprised by Liv Tyler.)

  • A film in a "pulp" format which travels back and forth to different regions of Middle Earth and updates us on the events in the aftermath of The Hobbit, and possibly sets the stage for important things such as Balin's ill-fated reign in the underground Kingdom of Moria, Theoden's ascension to the throne of Rohan, or Denethor's tenure as Steward in Gondor. 

  • A really unconventional turn, with a film centered on the Witch King of Angmar and his efforts to revive Sauron and rebuild his empire. It would be pretty dark, and I can't imagine such a project ever coming to life, but it certainly would be awesome.

What do you think about the possibility of a "third" Hobbit film? Is there potential? Or should they just leave well enough alone?

Source

Tags: Movies
'The Hobbit': Do We Really Need A THIRD Part?
http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/698471/the-hobbit-do-we-really-need-a-third-part/
http://files.g4tv.com/ImageDb3/173151_S/The-Hobbit-Do-We-Really-Need-A-THIRD-Part.jpg
BlogThread_698471
  • xyfire

    Lets see 2 hour Part 1, 2 Hour Part 2, and a 2 hour Part 3. Plus Extended scenes on DVD. Lets assume 8 hours with extended scenes. LOTR Trilogy 9-10 hours with extended scenes. Sounds like an afternoon to me! :D

    Posted: August 24, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Report
    xyfire
  • teac77

    If the have quality content, make it two movies, or three. There is still a lot of "The Silmarillion" content (creation of the world, Melkor, origin of Sauron) at their disposal.

    Posted: August 20, 2009 6:36 AM | Reply | Report
    teac77
  • achillez77

    I'm all for prolonging the pleasure. As long as they maintain the standard set in "Fellowship" and don't totally rape it in the end like Peter Jackson ended up doing to "
    Return of the King". It probably will take three movies simply to do the book anywhere near justice anyways. Also, I love the idea of the adventures of the witch king resurrecting Sauron, good idea, hope they do it.

    Posted: August 20, 2009 2:49 AM | Reply | Report
    achillez77
  • Smartguy81

    Breaking the Hobbit into two movies is fine. As long as they come out in consecutive years. If they try to stretch the Hobbit story into the 3rd movie, then it will just be too much.

    As far as 3D goes...I'm not into it. I hate putting on those stupid glasses (over my own). I'd much rather the movie not be focused on 3D since it won't matter once it is released on dvd or bluray.

    Posted: August 19, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Report
    Smartguy81
  • 66jzmstr

    I heard the third film was to be a Merry & Pippin-led exercise video made for 'little people.'

    Posted: August 19, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Report
    66jzmstr
  • WhiteWolfAssassin

    I think it's obvious that New Line is trying to repeat the success of the Lord of the Rings trilogy and that's all that really matters to them. I honestly believe they could care lees about how faithful a third film could be to the canon that J.R.R Tolkien established. For right now it, just seems they want recreate the hype that surrounded the Lord of the Rings. A third film bridging the gap between the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings just sounds like a desperate attempt to make more money off the franchise. So until Peter Jackson and Guillarmo Del Toro write a script that remains faithful to Lord of the Rings universe, I remain cautious on the thought of a third film.

    Posted: August 19, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Report
    WhiteWolfAssassin
  • TKEmysterio

    Anything that gives me more LOTR is OK in my book!! I'm going with a.... "Don't knock it till you see it" mentality.

    Posted: August 19, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Report
    TKEmysterio
  • Jurriel

    Ok seriously if they make it into one movie, fans will start fighting about how they left out some scenes they liked or some scenes where shorter than in the book. So making it into more than one movie is great it give them more room for story telling. But knowing the fans it would never be as good as the books.

    Posted: August 19, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Report
    Jurriel
  • derek_com

    Yes, the Hobbit is the shortest of the books, but it was also a childrens book. The amount of bang for your buck that occurs is far greater then that of the other books. If it was made into one film, too much would be sacrificed. This is the reason that the producers ditched the original one film for hobbit, one film to bridge idea.

    There is a lot of good content that takes place between hobbit and lotr. I would be very pumped for a well done bridge film.

    Posted: August 19, 2009 12:48 PM | Reply | Report
    derek_com
  • Drop_Six

    Its the shortest book out of the Lord of the Rings series and they want to make 2 movies out of it? Thats retarded. If they made each one of the movies in the trilogy 5 mind numbing hours long apiece then they can make this one 2 and a half hour movie.

    Posted: August 19, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Report
    Drop_Six
  • Snicker60515

    If they release like the LOTR trilogy in 3 consecutive years then who really cares because the movies are going to be amazing anyway and I know I can't wait to see them. And 3D is just another incentive to see this one as a first run. Only problem is that they can't come out soon enough!

    Posted: August 19, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Report
    Snicker60515
  • OneEyedMonsta

    @bigboi21
    What the ...???

    Posted: August 19, 2009 11:34 AM | Reply | Report
    OneEyedMonsta
  • BigDogW

    i could care less about a third film i want to see what del Toro could do with the film if it is made in 3-D

    Posted: August 19, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Report
    BigDogW
  • Arguello

    G4 is like Video game TMZ, Which one of you guys digs through trash??

    Posted: August 19, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Report
    Arguello
  • bigboi21

    I didn't even know people still played this. I guess the gaming industry has to release something for those guys locked up in their mother's basement with 5 different computer screens and the castles made of cardboard

    Posted: August 19, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Report
    bigboi21
  • cmdluke

    @BONERJAM

    first part, agree. second part, you are so sadly mistaken.

    Posted: August 19, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Report
    cmdluke
  • BONERJAM

    I dont think it should even be two parts, same goes for the last Harry Potter book/movies.

    Posted: August 19, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Report
    BONERJAM
  • MrPickering

    I've heard this rumor before... They've talked about wanting to use some of the original Triliogy cast in the 'bridge' movie... like pippin and merry...

    Posted: August 19, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Report
    MrPickering

Add a Comment

Limit 5,000 characters | 5,000 characters remaining
Log in to Comment
Post to Facebook
Post to Facebook

ADVERTISEMENT

Blog Tags

g4tv.com

AdChoices