The Hobbits Come Marching Three By Three

I think you must have heard the ridiculous news by now.

It wasn't enough for The Hobbit to be split into two movies; no, there was enough footage that there are now going to be three movies. From one book, one children's book (after all, The Lord of the Rings isn't a children's book, and Tolkien saw it as an epic in six parts--but it only got three movies--albeit before the studio knew how successful those movies would be).

But, you know, I probably find that it makes more sense to make three movies out of The Hobbit than two out of Breaking Dawn (in case anyone has forgotten, I do like those books--I'm not just carelessly bashing them). And everything gets made into two movies these days, so much so that I wonder if it's becoming greater than studios wanting to make more money: it's shifting the way writers and directors are able to work with a book to movie transition and what audiences are coming to expect from such a transition. If The Fellowship of the Ring had had two movies, we wouldn't have lightly forgiven the absence of Tom Bombadil, as we can with just one movie.

And we do know that Peter Jackson is including things in this, sigh, trilogy that aren't just from the one book--he's also pulling things out of the Appendices. I have no idea how much, but even a small amount could have a big effect.

What does worry me, though, is that The Hobbit is like a miniature epic to The Lord of the Rings; if, however, it gets much more screen time (and budget) than TLOTR, that'll mess with its simpler nature (it certainly still has things to study and things beneath the surface, but still).

Kaleb Nation (YouTuber and author of the Bran Hambric series) put together a nicely-stated reaction to the situation for his 60SR show, which you can view here.