My bold emphasis.

I'm wondering what everyone thinks about this. Personally I think that they should just focus on making The Hobbit, but it seems that they want to make it a general prequel to The Lord of the Rings instead.

I think that they want to include the things that were happening during the Hobbit that make LOTR make more sense. Namely, the White Council and the overthrow of the Necromancer. The big question is: how much will they expand? And how much will this extra stuff take away from the Hobbit story? That's a very delicate balance that they need to get right.

I'm not sure what you mean by "make more sense", though adding the White Council and Dol Guldur would certainly flesh out the backstory more. Could you elaborate?



I certainly hope that they include the story of The Hobbit too. With two movies to cover a relatively short book they certainly could, though I don't know if they will.

I just had another thought about this: I think the story of The Hobbit goes beyond just the plot to include also it's feel, that is, the children's book/fairly tail sort of feel. I think it's possible though that by expanding the scope of the films to be more like LOTR (which del Toro seems to want here) that the original tone of The Hobbit will be lost.

That's one of the reasons I felt the first Hobbit movie should end with the death of Smaug Eldorion. With Backtracking to show what Gandalf and the White Council were doing meanwhile in the second film, leading up to the Battle of 5 Armies. That way the first one could focus on Bilbo and the Dwarves adventure and the humour. And the second could segue into the more serious and adult tone of LotR. But I seem to be in the minority on that one . And others seem to be talking me round, but I still dither about it .

GB

Now that is an intriguing idea GB. I have assumed that the first film will end with the death of Smaug, but I also assumed that there would be inter-cutting with the White Council storyline in the first movie as well. I like your idea though, it would give us at least one movie in the spirit of The Hobbit.

That said, I think there are two potential problems with doing that.

1. Having to introduce all the members of the White Council plus whatever supporting heroes (and villains) are present in that storyline and wrap it up in less than a single movie in time for the Battle of the Five Armies.
2. Having two climaxes - the taking of Dol Guldur and the Battle - in one movie.

Fascinating as it would/will be to see the visual side of Sourthern Mirkwood and Dol Guldur, I rather wish that the filmmakers would leave the story more or less as it is. However, this is definitely food for thought given the parameters already established for the film.... I do really like your idea because of the feel and tone aspect.

I had suggested, on another thread regarding this topic, that a set-up scene or two would be necessary in the first film. Then it could be picked up shortly after the beginning of the second film. Bilbo and the Dwarves after the death of Smaug would be in laketown, someone says "I wonder what Gandalf's doing???". Cut back to where we left off the White Council. White Council storms Dol Goldur, and the two timelines converge with Gandalf arriving just in time for the Battle of 5 Armies. Anyway, food for thought.

GB

I don't mean that LOTR doesn't make sense. I just mean that a lot of the backstory that happens during The Hobbit is really a set-up for LOTR. Sauron is the Necromancer, and he is driven out of his Northern stronghold merely to crawl back to Mordor and begin strengthening himself for the last war in LOTR.

I see now, thanks Beren. I agree that it would do that, and it appeals to the backstory hog within me. I still think that it should be treated as it is (if at all): separate from the main story. That's part of the reason I rather like GB's idea, since it splits up the two story threads. I think that would be best for the movies, although it will certainly make the second one rather battle-filled.

This almost seems like it could be a trilogy with the added storyline. It wouldn't be The Hobbit we know though....

I've been thinking a bit more about GB's idea, and I was struck by this that I found in another thread:



I know I was concerned about overloading the second film earlier, but I hadn't really thought about this before. Only five of the 19 chapters of the book occur after the death of Smaug, so if anything it should be the first movie that might be overloaded. I think that making the first part of the second movie be primarily the White Council is far more workable than I gave it credit for initially. We'd have one Hobbit quest movie and another LOTR-esque battle movie.

I think it could work. Thanks for the idea, GB!

One of the things I've always been amazed by in the LOTR movie trilogy is how well Peter Jackson portrayed the innocence of the hobbits in the Shire, both at the very beginning and the very end. In fact, that very innocence is definitely the highlight of the movies for me; I can't imagine them without it.

Anyway my point is that I think, going along with GB's idea (which I think is awesome, by the way) that it would be cool if perhaps the Hobbit starts with Bilbo, the dwarves, and their quest, moves on to the more darker content later (either near the end of the first movie or the beginning of the second) and then the second movie ends back with the more fairy-tale-ish sort of theme.

Of course, none of this would apply if they didn't make 2 movies, and, besides the fact of my idea being based off a random thought, it probably doesn't make much sense. Tell me what you think!