I'm sure you guys already know that Peter Jackson has announced that "The Hobbit" is going to become a trilogy. In the articles I've read, people have pointed out that Jackson apparently has found source material that he wants to inject into the story to justify the third movie.
Sitting here and thinking about it, I'm wondering if he is going to pull from the Silmarillion. As a disclaimer, I didn't look any of this stuff up to verify it. I'm pulling from memory here, and it's been a few years. Here's what I want to see:
1) The origin of the Balrog that we saw in The Fellowship of the Ring explained. This little story is in the Silmarillion. Morgoth (who was Sauron's master) made a deal with this huge demon that took the shape of a spider named Ungoliante (quite a character). Together, and hidden by Ungoliante's webs which spun darkness and essentially made them "invisible" these two smote two magical trees that basically brought warmth to the world (they grew in a sacred vale in Valinor). Morgoth decided to betray Ungoliante who was busy drinking up the sap. But the thing is, Ungoliante had grown huge from sucking up all the magical tree stuff that flowed from the trunks. Morgoth summoned nine Balrogs and there was this huge battle. Ungoliante killed them all and chased the last Balrog to Middle Earth where it hid from the spider under the Misty Mountains. Ungoliante never found "Durin's Bane" and continued south, pooping out all the spiders that call Mirkwood home and finally gave birth to Shelob before disappearing. This would make a great story.
2) The origin of Smaug by showing Glaurung, the most magical and powerful dragon. He was bred by Morgoth (the baddie in point number 1) and was the first dragon to appear outside of the fortress of Angband. It would also explain why dragons like treasure and show us a really cool battle scene.
3) The origin of Grond (the huge battering ram that the forces of Sauron used on Minas Tirith in The Return of the King). Remember in the third movie the people just kept chanting "Grond Grond Grond"? Well Grond was Morgoth's hammer that he used when he fought the High King of the Noldor. Morgoth was a giant guy and he strode up from this underground "icky" place called Utumno hefting this huge thing and faced off against his challenger. The poor High King of the Noldor was slain in that battle. But it too would make a great story.
Anyway, these three highlights from the Silmarillion would absolutely add to the telling of the Hobbit and add to the "Lord of the Rings" in incalculable ways. It would feel complete as a series to me, giving a robust flavor to the film adaptation of Tolkien.
Are there scenes that you envision which could add to "The Hobbit"? How do you feel about a third movie?
Sitting here and thinking about it, I'm wondering if he is going to pull from the Silmarillion. As a disclaimer, I didn't look any of this stuff up to verify it. I'm pulling from memory here, and it's been a few years. Here's what I want to see:
1) The origin of the Balrog that we saw in The Fellowship of the Ring explained. This little story is in the Silmarillion. Morgoth (who was Sauron's master) made a deal with this huge demon that took the shape of a spider named Ungoliante (quite a character). Together, and hidden by Ungoliante's webs which spun darkness and essentially made them "invisible" these two smote two magical trees that basically brought warmth to the world (they grew in a sacred vale in Valinor). Morgoth decided to betray Ungoliante who was busy drinking up the sap. But the thing is, Ungoliante had grown huge from sucking up all the magical tree stuff that flowed from the trunks. Morgoth summoned nine Balrogs and there was this huge battle. Ungoliante killed them all and chased the last Balrog to Middle Earth where it hid from the spider under the Misty Mountains. Ungoliante never found "Durin's Bane" and continued south, pooping out all the spiders that call Mirkwood home and finally gave birth to Shelob before disappearing. This would make a great story.
 |
| Ungoliante lapping up the sap from the dying trees. |
3) The origin of Grond (the huge battering ram that the forces of Sauron used on Minas Tirith in The Return of the King). Remember in the third movie the people just kept chanting "Grond Grond Grond"? Well Grond was Morgoth's hammer that he used when he fought the High King of the Noldor. Morgoth was a giant guy and he strode up from this underground "icky" place called Utumno hefting this huge thing and faced off against his challenger. The poor High King of the Noldor was slain in that battle. But it too would make a great story.
 |
| Morgoth and the High King of the Noldor. Brave king dies. Art by Ted Nasmith. |
Are there scenes that you envision which could add to "The Hobbit"? How do you feel about a third movie?
It would be nice to see some of this stuff, but an article I read stated flat-out that Christopher Tolkien had forbidden use of any material outside of The Hobbit and LOTR, which meant that Jackson was specifically unable to use any such background material. Very sad, if you ask me.
ReplyDeleteWhy not make Silmarillion as it is. it's a book I enjoyed reading as I wasn't satisfied with the explanations that J.R.R gave in the LOTR series...I have the Hobbit but haven't read it yet, caught up in indie and blogger books. :(
ReplyDeleteIf what Ted said is true, then all I can think is Jackson is going all out with the details for the Hobbit. Considering LOTR is eleven hours long when you count the extended editions, I can envision eight-nine hours for the Hobbit.
ReplyDeleteThree movies? Nooooooo...
ReplyDeleteIt was hard enough wrapping my head around the fact that we'd have to wait two years to see The Hobbit in its entirety. Now, with a third movie, the last one might not be out till December 2014. Curses. Sounds like the hollywood execs are trying too hard to milk this prequel dry.
That said, I really need to read The Silmarillion, now that you've highlighted these origin stories.
Fascinating! Considering I have NO idea what you guys are talking about. I'm just a 'not well read' humor writer, what can I say?
ReplyDeleteThese are great ideas. Me, I just love Peter Jackson's interpretations of Tolkien so I'm all on board for a third film. Great Post!
ReplyDeleteI'm very excited for these three new Middle Earth films, but sadly, I have to agree with Ted. I doubt any of the legends from the Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales are going to make it in.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that Jackson will lengthen the story by showing us what Gandalf was off doing when he left Bilbo and the Dwarves to themselves in Mirkwood (off driving "The Necromancer" (really Sauron) out of Dol Guldur in the south of Mirkwood).
Now, all that being said, I really really hope we get a third trilogy of films, all based on the stories from the Silmarillion. All the ones you mentioned would be awesome to see, but I'd also love to include some stuff like the Fall of Gondolin, Beren and Luthien, The Music of the Ainur, and the adventures of Turin Turambar.
Anyway, I could talk about this all day.
I have nothing against the third part, it will give us more epic movies to watch :)
ReplyDeleteI did hear, however, from most of the experts, that SILMARILLION is a bad material for movie adaptation. Jackson said he will use all the side material and writer's notes from LOTR for the last movie.
It seems like adding all this back story would just weigh the main story down. I haven't read The Hobbit since 4th Grade but I remember it wasn't that long to necessitate two movies let alone three. As I recall wasn't the basic story that Bilbo gets recruited by Gandalf to join some dwarfs to go fight a dragon in the mountains? And along the way he finds the ring. That hardly seems like it needs to be a trilogy.
ReplyDeleteBut hey this is the trend now, needlessly breaking up movies. I blame Quentin Tarantino for breaking up "Kill Bill" into two parts. Kind of surprises me they didn't split "The Dark Knight Rises" into two parts. Think of all the money it could have made then!
Ugh, I didn't even think it should be two movies! And I know this is lame and crotchety of me, but I was kinda bummed they were making it a movie at all! I'm kinda over LOTR movies. [In order to not take over your comments, if you want to see my exhaustion on the movies, I wrote about it here.]
ReplyDeleteBut I'm sure I'll see it eventually, and I'm feeling better about it since I found out that they've cast Benedict Cumberbatch as the voice of Smaug. And it's Peter Jackson - I'm sure all 2-3 films will be fantastic, and I'll feel like an idiot for being a stick-in-the-mud about it.
I have mixed feelings about this. I love LOTR and the idea of three more movies in that world is exciting . But, part of what I love about the hobbit is its simplicity. I'm not sure I like the use of bogging it down with a bunch of backstory.
ReplyDeleteI hope they add some stuff. A hobbit tale strecthed to three movies seems a little unneeded
ReplyDeleteGranted, it's been decades since I read these books, but it's hard to imagine The Hobbit as a trilogy. Wasn't it good enough the way it was?
ReplyDeleteIt's all about making money. I just hope the 3 movies turn out great.
ReplyDeleteThe Hobbit was always my favorite of the books. I read it first and then couldn't get into the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I just wanted more Bilbo Baggins.
ReplyDeleteSince I love your blog so much, I have some awards for you.
ReplyDeletehttp://lgkeltner.blogspot.com/2012/08/be-fabulously-inspired.html
Your summary made me sort of regret never having read "The Silmarillion," but not really; it seemed to start off slow and I couldn't get into it.
ReplyDeleteAs for whether there should be 2 or 3 or 13 movies, if they're GOOD, then make as many as possible. We need more good movies and I wouldn't even mind if Jackson simply took the characters and made all-new adventures with them.
I really wish he'd make the Hobbit one long movie but if he's going to split it up I guess I'm ok with another trilogy. It's been a while since I read the book but I'm not sure it has good stopping points that tell a complete story like Lord of the Rings.
ReplyDeleteI'm really looking forward to taking my nephew to this as he's a nerd like his uncle only my brother hasn't figured it out yet. My nephew is stuck on Star Wars right now and I plan to change that. Reading the Hobbit opened up the world of fantasy to me and I'm betting Peter Jackson's movie will do the same to a new generation. A shorter film would certainly be more accessible to younger viewers.
I haven't had a chance to read the Silmarillion yet (it sits lonely on my shelf at home), but they'll have to find something to add to make three movies out of The Hobbit.
ReplyDeleteI think it is just money grubbing to turn the hobbit into two movies let alone three!
ReplyDeleteThe hobbit is not so dense that it could not just have been made into one long movie.
You need to send your wish list to Peter Jackson. Maybe he'll take your wishes into account.
ReplyDeleteDon't know much about the possibility of a Hobbit trilogy, but am I the only one that thought Batman's costume in the DKR was lame?
ReplyDeleteThe first line of your post made me smile. 'You're sure your blog audience already heard..."
ReplyDeleteYes you know us. Our house had discussed it and what we all agree on is the more the better.
My hubby has read the Silmillarion like six times. I can't get through it. :)
ReplyDeleteThere is an Anna Karenina adaptation coming out this year. A Tolstoy novel of 850+ pages with a gigantic cast of characters must surely be 5 movies each of 3 hours each right? Nope, it clocks in at 130 minutes.
ReplyDeleteI don't want three movies. I don't want two movies I want one movie that is longer than average, maybe four hours. I like the Hobbit because it is a nice compact story; not everything needs to be War and Peace. Treating this like it is an epic risks messing up the pacing of the story.
I hate to be a downer but multiple movies is less about pleasing the fans or putting in more crunchy bits and more about Warner and MGM wanting more money. I'm surprised they stopped at 3!
Part of making a good film is knowing what should and should not be there. The Silence of the Lambs was much improved by cutting things from the book. To Kill a Mockingbird omits many subplots in the film but its an amazing movie. If those aren't your speed tell me how you like the idea of Deckard being married in Blade Runner because he was married in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.
Make cuts. If the right ones are made it shows you have talent.
I didn't read LoTR growing up, but I did read the Hobbit, a couple of times. (And occasionally, straight through to the end. Okay, maybe once.) I'd be delighted if he made 12 films. Yes, I would. My permission is granted to make as many films as the director wants!! I will see them!
ReplyDeleteComment moderation has been enabled? Wow! Have I been out of it that long???
ReplyDeleteI can't see the point at all of making three movies of this story- and is they were to include (which it sounds like they aren't) Silmarillion background isn't even really very helpful with The Hobbit. In fact some of the stuff changes between the time he wrote The Hobbit and LOTR- and I thought that getting the backstory after I met Bilbo made the story that much more interesting. Cheers Michael!
My understanding is that all of the new material in The Hobbit is original to Jackson. He's expanding parts of it that are only hinted at in the book, like the meeting of the White Council that is the reason for Gandalf going off. He's not adding another movie, he just shot too much footage to cut down to two movies.
ReplyDelete