Peter Jackson Confirms ‘The Hobbit’ Will Be Three Films

Hobbit Trilogy Peter JacksonBREAKING: Peter Jackson has just confirmed he will split The Hobbit into three films, the third of which will be released sometime in summer 2014. Jackson dropped hints about this at Comic-Con, explaining he had a wealth of storytelling that came from 125 pages of appendices that JRR Tolkien included in a later publication of The Return Of The King, the final installment of The Lord Of The Rings. I wrote a piece skeptical of milking three movies out of a single book, and 125 pages of notes, and I hope that Jackson delivers the goods. I don’t believe there have been any renegotiation with talent that should be paid an extra check for another film, even if they didn’t know they were making three. Those details are still being worked out.

Related: Comic-Con Q&A: Peter Jackson On His Return To Middle Earth With ‘The Hobbit’ And How 48 Frames Can Save Moviegoing

Comments (183)

  • Do the powers-that-be not realise this is the kind of ridiculous decision that foments piracy. Not only do punters have to shell out for three cinema tickets, they have to wait three Christmases for the privilege of seeing the ending (which they’ve known since they were 12)!

    PJ nailed Lord of the Rings, and he’s a genuinely ground-breaking director, but this smacks of the cynicism around the Grindhouse decision by the Weinsteins.

    Hollywood is eating itself.

    Comment by simon — Monday July 30, 2012 @ 8:49am PDT  
    • That’s the most idiotic comment I’ve ever read. Don’t make 3 films because we’ll pirate them? And we have to wait 3 Christmases to see the end? Are you kidding me? It’s a movie. It’s entertainment. If there are 3 good films here, you get MORE to love. What’s the matter with you?

      Comment by Huh? — Monday July 30, 2012 @ 10:36am PDT  
      • I agree with what you said. So many horrible movies are being made and put in theaters. There are not enough of the good movies being made. I’m glad that Peter Jackson has enough talent to give us another Triology.

        Comment by Anonymous — Monday April 8, 2013 @ 1:28pm PDT  
    • Well said…

      Comment by pennlake — Monday July 30, 2012 @ 10:58am PDT  
    • Just a note, the article does say the third movie will be out in the summer of 2014, not Christmas :)

      Comment by Jerry — Monday July 30, 2012 @ 11:04am PDT  
    • I only got one thing to say to the whining about three tickets. Star Wars Franchise. How many people stood in line for the orginal three that had allready seen it. Here’s film that none of us has seen. Be a man pay for the three films!

      Comment by M.C. Hopps — Monday August 6, 2012 @ 11:11pm PDT  
    • When the eagles came to rescue the two leads in the 9th hour of the last film, we turned to each other and said why couldn’t they just bring them to Mordor because they retrieve Frodo and Samwise so easily from Mordor.

      THREE HOBBIT FILMS TO MILK THE PUBLIC WILL FAIL. IT WILL NO LONGER BE BASED ON TOLKEIN’s WORKS BUT PETER JACKSON’s IMAGINATION. YAWNING….

      Comment by Mattie — Wednesday August 8, 2012 @ 4:39am PDT  
      • Actually, the 125 pages of the appendices will be going into more details about the characters and how they relate to the Lord of the Rings. So it will still be more of Tolkein’s work than anything else. And just think about how many people were upset with the three lord of the rings movies because of how much was taken out of them from the books.
        Plus if you were wondering why they didn’t fly Frodo into Mordor then you obviously didn’t pay attention to the movies, let alone read the books with any bit of a critical thinking process.

        Comment by Josh — Tuesday December 11, 2012 @ 10:11pm PST  
      • I just saw the Hobbit and asked the same question about the hawks picking up everyone and dropping them off ontop of a cliff with Lonely Mountain in site but two movies away!

        Comment by Chris Flum — Saturday December 15, 2012 @ 7:15pm PST  
        • Due to the fact that the ring was still in existence when they were set off. If They tried it before the ring was destroyed it would have been suicide.

          Comment by Anon — Saturday October 19, 2013 @ 2:22pm PDT  
    • Why don’t you just wait till 2014 then, watch the first two on DVD, go to cinema watch the final one and stop moaning?

      Comment by James — Sunday October 28, 2012 @ 1:35am PDT  
  • Oh, wow — once more the Buck triumphs over Art. Well, millions of poor little sucker fans will show up for this unnecessary film.

    THE HOBBIT could have worked as ONE well-made three hour film. They could hardly justify two. This is simply…typical…

    Comment by Martin A. — Monday July 30, 2012 @ 9:01am PDT  
    • How does buck triumf over art when it was the director’s own creative decision, not the studio’s? This is his last chance to tell everything that he bought the rights for. There will be no other Middle-Earth movie because everything else is owned by th Tolkien estate and they won’t sell to Jackson because they hate his movies. What about watching it first before judging? Sheesh.

      Comment by timotey — Monday July 30, 2012 @ 11:14am PDT  
      • What about not, and pretending I did? Also, at this point the director IS the studio. Sure, making a movie requires creativity (sometimes) — however, this was a business decision, not a creative one. But don’t worry, the fanboys will show up and it’s going to be the BEST. THING. EVER. Until the next “relevant” franchise, and the next, and the one after that, and then the one after that…

        Comment by Martin A. — Monday July 30, 2012 @ 6:18pm PDT  
        • Aha, so you’re one of THOSE! Criticizing something without having seen. Okay. Good to know your opinion isn’t relevant then.

          Comment by timotey — Tuesday July 31, 2012 @ 12:13am PDT  
      • I think Jackson is stalling because he has not other ideas. His last good movie was Return of the King, followed by the bloated (and unnecessary) King Kong and uneven Lovely Bones. He knows people will flock to The Hobbit. Personally I’m not excited about this project and I don’t feel like watching three more 2-3hour long movies….snooooze

        Comment by Logan — Saturday September 22, 2012 @ 2:37pm PDT  
    • Don’t be a hater. Just go and watch your reruns of Hannah Montana.

      Comment by RUKIDDINGME — Monday July 30, 2012 @ 3:18pm PDT  
    • I completely agree with the statement. J.R Tolkiens work is great and there is plenty of things that happened in the hobbit. About 3 huge events and 2 normal size events. But to make a 3 part movie just seems like such a scandel. The other books were way bigger than the hobbit and they made 1 long movie from all them. They just want to make the money off J.R’s work before they completely run out of his work to do movies off from. I do not think this is right at all. As someone stated above, they should have at least just turned it into a two movie saga. :(

      Comment by Travis P. — Monday December 3, 2012 @ 8:44am PST  
  • Suddenly I’ve come over all unenthusiastic like for The Hobbit.

    Comment by Sheldon W. — Monday July 30, 2012 @ 9:02am PDT  
    • Same, 2 was pushing it but 3 is just silly. I love Peter but he has a bad habit of giving people too much.

      Comment by Brian — Monday July 30, 2012 @ 9:25am PDT  
  • What will the third film be called?

    “An Unexpected Film”

    “Milking the Shire”

    “There and back again again”

    “The Lord of the Hobbit”

    Comment by Wicked — Monday July 30, 2012 @ 9:09am PDT  
    • Epic titles!

      Comment by ckry — Monday July 30, 2012 @ 10:08am PDT  
    • Milking the shire! Hahahahaha!

      Comment by Anonymous — Monday July 30, 2012 @ 5:26pm PDT  
  • An obvious, pathetic money grab.

    Comment by Jason — Monday July 30, 2012 @ 9:09am PDT  
    • Do you really think Peter Jackson (who has more money than God at this point) really gives a shit about more money? He laid out his reasons in a clear explanation on his Facebook page.

      Comment by JohnDoe — Monday July 30, 2012 @ 10:20am PDT  
      • Wouldn’t it be great if Peter Jackson wrote or got someone to write another story line about Middle Earth and made another Trilogy out of it? The more the merrier!

        Comment by Lorenzo — Friday December 14, 2012 @ 2:19pm PST  
      • Peter Jackson is a great director. He explained the reason for the Triology on Facebook as the other person stated. Even without the explanation, I would want to watch any and all of these movies. It’s pure entertainment. If it’s not your type of entertainment, then don’t watch, but don’t complain either. There are a lot of tacky or horrible films being made (that our children can not view, and put in theaters nowadays, so I am thankful for directors like Peter Jackson.

        Comment by acaligirl — Monday April 8, 2013 @ 1:43pm PDT  
  • First!!!

    Will the third be a prequel to Fellowship of the Ring?

    Comment by Justin121 — Monday July 30, 2012 @ 9:17am PDT  
    • The entire Hobbit is a “prequel” to FotR

      Comment by LOTR FAN — Monday July 30, 2012 @ 9:28am PDT  
  • A 310 page book being turned into 3 movies.

    THANKS HOLLYWOOD IM SO EXCITED THAT YOU’RE STAYING TRUE TO THE BOOK INSTEAD OF MILKING THE FRANCHISE UNTIL THE LAST DROP

    Comment by Vance — Monday July 30, 2012 @ 9:19am PDT  
    • Have you actually read the book? Gandalf disappears halfway through to meet the other wizards and then to battle the Necromancer which we never see. The Battle of Five armies is like 15 pages long… If they stayed true to the book, you would be disappointed.

      Comment by timotey — Monday July 30, 2012 @ 11:10am PDT  
      • There was a reason that Gandalf just disappears in the book. There is no interlude – no cutaway chapters that show what he is doing – because that does not fit in with the tone of the film. It is a fun book that just touches upon the surface of the dark storylines of the Ring saga. To include everything with the excuse that “there is a wealth of material available” is just ridiculous. There is also the Silmarillion with tonnes of backstory. Why didn’t they include it in the LOTR and made it a 100 hour marathon?

        Comment by jawsnnn — Monday July 30, 2012 @ 11:02pm PDT  
        • What about finding out facts first before going all abluster? Silmarillion is owned by the Tolkien estate and they refuse to sell the rights to Jackson.

          And why should Jackson NOT include the White Council and the battle against the Necromancer in The Hobbit. If Gandalf just disappeared and then appeared again without explanation or just saying, you know, I just battled the Necromancer but you don’t need to know that, that would be ridiculous. The Hobbit won’t be a kids a movie, it’ll fit the tone of the LotR movies as it should. And it should include ALL the relevant storylines.

          Comment by timotey — Tuesday July 31, 2012 @ 12:17am PDT  
    • HOLLYWOOD DID NOT DECIDE TO DO THIS! PETER JACKSON DID! Get over yourself people, he loves the lore and the masterpieces Tolkien has created and is excited to bring it to the big screen. Read his comments or press releases before just deciding “HOLLYWOOD WANTS MORE MONEY< SO WE GET A CRAPPY MOVIE! DER DE DER DUH DER!" Have a little faith people, Peter Jackson cut some of the best things of LotR out of the movies and STILL managed to make 3 great movies! Why can't the opposite be true??

      Comment by Zack G — Monday July 30, 2012 @ 5:29pm PDT  
    • I’d just like to point out that, eventho I disagree with making the hobbit into 3 films, because it is ONLY one book. Those of us who understand adaptation and screenwriting know that 100 pages is approximately 100 screen minutes, so over 300 pages, assuming he intends to put everything in it, would make it over 300 screen minutes which warrants two films. the third film from what he has described has more to do with the notes he has on the hobbit which he feels the world should see. That being said, if he could make one film out of every lord of the rings book then surely he could have made one 3h30min film from ONE book?

      Comment by rvr.fnx — Tuesday July 31, 2012 @ 4:35am PDT  
      • I agree. 1 book, 1 movie. 3 is just getting a little ridiculous.

        Comment by blackblade68 — Tuesday December 4, 2012 @ 6:58am PST  
  • This is worse than Twilight splitting Breaking Dawn.

    1) That was done in a reasonable amount of time, not as last-minute.

    2) LORT trilogy set a high standard for the splitting/releasing process of film series, so this looks even worse.

    Comment by Justin121 — Monday July 30, 2012 @ 9:23am PDT  
    • No. Breaking Dawn includes no history, backstory, or lore that would deem it necessary to expand the universe any further. You’re attempt at comparing Tolkien with Meyer is insulting.

      This is not last-minute. They just finished principal photography. The 3rd film wouldn’t come out for another two years. Movies are made in post-production and editing for the most part.

      Comment by JohnDoe — Monday July 30, 2012 @ 10:18am PDT  
      • I’m not comparing the books. I’m comparing the timing of the decision of an extra film in each franchise.

        Twilight made that decision early enough (before they started working on the the third film, I believe — certainly BEFORE they started working on the two-parter).

        We’re now in August. The Hobbit is a one book that is supposedly all set for its Dec. 2012 and Dec. 2013 release dates.

        It’s like Summit just NOW decided to split Breaking Dawn.

        Get my point?

        Comment by Justin121 — Monday July 30, 2012 @ 5:26pm PDT  
  • I heard they’re doing the same for the remake of “Carrie”.

    Comment by CynicalCritic — Monday July 30, 2012 @ 9:25am PDT  
  • he won’t even need to hire anyone else to pad the movies out. He can just make up the time difference with more long sweeping shots of New Zealand geography. That should easily eat up a half hour for each film.

    Comment by Taeolas — Monday July 30, 2012 @ 9:27am PDT  
  |  More Comments

Sorry, comments are closed for this article.