The Pros and Cons of a Hobbit Trilogy

The Pros and Cons of a Hobbit Trilogy

Note: This article contains some minor spoilers for The Hobbit.

Fans of The Lord of the Rings have a lot to be excited about this year. Not only is The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey set for release in December, but director Peter Jackson confirmed the rumours this week that The Hobbit will in fact become a trilogy rather than a two-film saga. Jackson has also stated that shooting will re-commence following this decision, which will provide ample opportunity for extra content and characters in all their 3D 48 frames per second goodness.

So, the big question is now: is this a good idea? Does one 300-page novel really need three feature length films to adequately tell its story? Given that each instalment will be roughly 3 hours long, is there enough content to cover the running time without throwing a spanner in the works?

Before we begin, here's a little summary of the plot. Set in the land of Middle Earth (the same universe as The Lord of the Rings movies), The Hobbit tells the story of Bilbo Baggins, a quiet hobbit who enjoys nothing more than a peaceful life. The wizard Gandalf appears on his doorstep one day, however, and tricks him into taking part in a quest to recover stolen dwarven gold. Accompanied by thirteen dwarves, Bilbo will travel across all of Middle Earth battling trolls, giant spiders and Smaug the dragon. During his unexpected journey, he may find more than he bargained for and, as Gandalf says, "If you do come back...you may never be the same."

Here are a couple of pros and cons of making The Hobbit a trilogy.

  

 Tying the entire franchise together.

 

Bilbo discovers The One Ring in Gollum's cave.

Just incase it has somehow slipped your mind (doubtful), The Hobbit is infact the prequel story to The Lord of the Rings. When J.R.R Tolkein wrote The Hobbit as a children's story in 1937, the plot was intended to be wrapped up and completed. However, after its mammoth success, the publishers requested that Tolkein write a sequel. Thus, The Lord of the Rings was born and became a bigger success than its predecessor, both in acclaim and the scale of the story. 

With Peter Jackson having created one of the most successful movie trilogies of all time with The Lord of the Rings and returning to direct The Hobbit, many of the original cast from LOTR have returned too. Ian Mckellen, Orlando Bloom, Ian Holm, Elijah Wood, Cate Blanchett, Christopher Lee and Andy Serkis have all journeyed back to Middle Earth to reprise their roles even though some of their characters did not appear in the novel.

Ian Mckellen returns as Gandalf the Grey

The pro: More Hobbit movies of course means more room for these particular cameos and nods to the LOTR movies. Plus with the need to legitimately add content to extend the story and cover three films, these additions may actually be required. Rather than invent new obstacles and enemies for Bilbo and the dwarves to combat, perhaps fleshing out the elven queen Galadriel's backstory, or showing us how Saruman became so corrupted from the good, wizened wizard he used to be, is the right path to take. The continuity nerd inside me enjoys the idea of watching this, especially when all of these elements are so closely related to the story of The Lord of the Rings. 

The con: This is supposed to be the story of Bilbo Baggins, not just the prequel to The Lord of the Rings. Had LOTR not even been filmed yet, I would still be excited to watch The Hobbit purely for its own story. It is a deserving novel in its own right, and should not have to be carried by LOTR's fame. The worst case scenario would be that the climax of the novel is wrapped up at the start of the third Hobbit movie, and we are faced with a long segment that builds the bridge between the end of The Hobbit and the start of The Lord of the Rings. Plus, there's always room for missteps when one veers too far from the source material (see: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince), and I can imagine the uproar from hardcore Tolkien fans when the major character of, say, Bard the Bowman is given less screen time than Frodo, who is obviously a major player in the LOTR trilogy.

Breaking up the trilogy.

Given that The Hobbit is much shorter than The Lord of the Rings, which had one movie per book, a cut-off point for each film could potentially be difficult. A duology is stuck in a position not unlike that of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Part 1 would have to include little action and all plot, setting up the battles to come in the climaxes of Part 2. Yet in Part 2, we would have little emotional scenes and some characters would find themselves shortchanged in terms of dialogue and screentime.

Gollum as he appears in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

The pro: However, a three-part story puts The Hobbit in a better position. The first movie could hit its climax shortly after Bilbo finds the fateful ring and escapes Gollum's cave, with the dwarves retreating from the Misty Mountains and fighting off hordes of goblins. The second movie could then explore their treks through the wilderness and in particular their meetings with the elves and their escape from Mirkwood. Simultaneously, we could watch the battle between Gandalf and the Necromancer, something which was hinted at in Tolkien's scribbled timeline of Middle Earth's events and which Peter Jackson has confirmed they are including. Then of course the third and final film would detail Bilbo's encounters with Smaug the dragon, and the Battle of Five Armies in which elves, men, dwarves, goblins and eagles take part.

The con: The titles for the films were already brilliant. It seems a shame to have to stick another bang in the middle. Part 1 was to be titled The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, where Part 2 was to be The Hobbit: There And Back Again. Today, Warner Bros. revealed that there are two titles prepared for the third and final movie: either The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug or The Hobbit: The Battle Of Five Armies. This leaves the fantastic title of The Hobbit: There And Back Again completely up in the air, assuming that the Battle of Five Armies will be the climax of the trilogy.

So what will the second film be called now? Old Hobbits Die Hard? The Hobbit Rises? 50 Shades of Gandalf the Grey? Urgh.

If it means more exciting, fun storytelling and more (but not necessarily hundreds of) nods to the Lord of the Rings trilogy then, sure, a three-part story for The Hobbit should be an exciting yearly event indeed. However, with the opportunity for extra content, one can only hope that Peter Jackson doesn't forget that this is the well loved story of Bilbo Baggins - not just The Lord of the Rings: Chapter Zero.

By Dean Johnstone