And The Second Hobbit Film Shall Be Called...

9 comments
The Hobbit Desolation of Smaug

via io9:

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

There it is. The title of Peter Jackson's second Hobbit film. There's been some speculation about the titling of the films ever since Jackson announced he'd be stretching the adaptation of JRR Tolkien's The Hobbit from two to three movies. 

Warner Bros. and MGM have also announced the release dates, so here's everything, in a neat and tidy list:

  • The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, December 14, 2012
  • The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, December 13, 2013
  • The Hobbit: There And Back Again, July 18, 2014

I haven't read this book in a very long time. Has anyone read it recently, and want to speculate on the pacing of the story based on the title of the second film? 

Also, a lot of people seem very nervous about Jackson making three films. Is it because the source material doesn't support that much movie, or is it Jackson's post-Rings record, which has been less than stellar? What are your concerns? Is anyone else cautiously optimistic (my stance, thus far)?

Image of The Hobbit
Author: J.R.R. Tolkien
Price: $10.99
Publisher: HMH Books for Young Readers (2012)
Binding: Hardcover, 384 pages
Rob Hart

News by Rob Hart

Rob Hart is the class director at LitReactor, as well as the associate publisher for MysteriousPress.com. He's the author of The Last Safe Place: A Zombie Novella, and his short stories have appeared in publications like Shotgun Honey, ThuglitCrime Factory, and Needle: A Magazine of Noir. His debut novel, New Yorked, will be published by Polis Books in June 2015. He lives in New York City, and you can find his website at www.robwhart.com.

To leave a comment Login with Facebook or create a free account.

Comments

JYH's picture
JYH from the place is reading the thing September 4, 2012 - 4:32pm

I doubt it will be horrible.

Any word on how long they'll each be? Is this 4.5 hours or more like 6.5-7?

Kevin Koperski's picture
Kevin Koperski September 4, 2012 - 4:44pm

I always thought the end of the Hobbit was rushed.  After Smaug is killed, dwarves and men and elves and everyone descend on the Lonely Mountain to fight for the treasure. It wasn't an enormous part of the book, but accurately depicting the nations and the politics for that war (and the death of Thorin), as well as how it introduces Bilbo to a global forces, could be a movie in itself if done correctly.  Technically, from a story standpoint, the journeys in the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings are each 1 year long.  And if Jackson added the Lord of the Rings appendix info, which he says he did, there is plenty of content for three movies.  The question is simply: did they film enough to make three movies?  I'm guessing they did.  The second movie was probably getting into 4 hour territory like Return of the King, so they could easily split it into 2 two-hour-movies.  I'm hopeful.

Marc de Faoite's picture
Marc de Faoite September 4, 2012 - 4:45pm

The 2nd and third movies in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy could easily have been edited down to one movie - it takes them hours and hours to get up that bloody mountain and the long goodbyes took forever. I fear more of  the same from Jackson's Hobbit trilogy. Yawn.

Bret Gammons's picture
Bret Gammons from [I'd prefer it if you didn't know. So would you, only you don't know it.] is reading Whatever he has time for this week. September 4, 2012 - 5:00pm

The 2nd and third movies in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy could easily have been edited down to one movie - it takes them hours and hours to get up that bloody mountain and the long goodbyes took forever. I fear more of  the same from Jackson's Hobbit trilogy. Yawn. 

I think The Two Towers and Return of the King are far superior to The Fellowship of the Ring (if we're talking about movies, that is), but that's just my opinion.

And the consensus of Rotten Tomatoes.

I like the extended version of The Two Towers even better.

I'm cautiously optimistic. Jackson's post-trilogy track record is, well, not good. It's like he's been trying to replicate the epic scope of Lord of the Rings. And failing. If actually replicating that scope is what it takes for him to make another good film, so be it. But that the director of movies like Dead Alive and The Frighteners, which are so much fun, has dedicated the past decade to making such aesthetically beautiful but artistically ugly borefests as King Kong and The Lovely Bones just bums me out.

I was never blown away by the novel The Hobbit like I was by, say, Fellowship, so I'm interested to see how my expectations play into my reception of this new trilogy.

Naomi Mesbur's picture
Naomi Mesbur from Toronto, Ontario, Canada is reading Ratlines by Stuart Neville September 4, 2012 - 5:50pm

I just finished reading The Hobbit over the summer as a serial bedtime story to my son, so we'd be ready for December. My son is 6, and he was okay with the story, even the "scary" bits with the dragon and the goblins and orcs. I first read The Hobbit when I was 9, and it led me to pretty well every decent piece of literature I've read in my life since, so it has a special place in my life.

I grew up with the Rankin/Bass version of the movie, which stayed quite true to the book, I suppose. But I always felt as if something were missing. 

We all know that PJ is going to stray from the book as much as he did for the LOTR trilogy (mind you, if I were Arwen, I'd've given up my immortality for Aragorn if he looked like Viggo, too), so I think it will be interesting to see what he does for Smaug - probably more of the dragon's back story, and possibly an invented back story since he has not (as yet) acquired the rights to The Silmarillion

I am looking forward to seeing PJ's adaptation. I think PJ got caught up in the whole "all films must involve WETA" thing, and so he sacrificed story for special effects (see: King Kong). But I did love The Lovely Bones as a film. And PJ holds Tolkein dear, and he knows who he has to answer to if he f's it up (I was at the LOTR Oscar Party in 2003 when he declared he'd made the films for "all of us"). This is his forte, and I think the films will be fantastic! (pardon the pun) 

sean of the dead's picture
sean of the dead from Madisonville, KY is reading Peckerwood, by Jed Ayres September 4, 2012 - 9:55pm

I was really hoping this would say "And the second Hobbit film shall be called...The Hobbit 2: Electric Boogaloo.

edsikov's picture
edsikov from New York by way of Natrona Hts PA is reading Tom Spanbauer's I LOVED YOU MORE September 11, 2012 - 9:50am

Come on. When a director sets his own bar as high as Jackson did with the three LORD OF THE RINGS films, it's unfair to assess his subsequent two features as "less than stellar," though they may in fact be so. Of course they look inferior next to three epic masterpieces. It's like demanding, "Herman, you slouch! Write something that tops MOBY DICK!"

Nobody ever said to Van Gogh, "Hey, paint 'A STARRY NIGHT' again, man!" He painted it once, that was it.

--Ed

Garaham's picture
Garaham September 19, 2012 - 6:33am

These shows offer the musicians an experience to perform well in front announcing the blown away tour of public and so the attendee will perhaps see the musicians to execute again and again if the concert was worthwhile and the demand of that instrumentalist will increase quickly.

barbra streisand tour tour in philadelphia

Bret Gammons's picture
Bret Gammons from [I'd prefer it if you didn't know. So would you, only you don't know it.] is reading Whatever he has time for this week. September 22, 2012 - 12:21am

Ed, 'The Lovely Bones' and 'King Kong' are pretty much inferior to the rest of Jackson's filmography, not just the trilogy.

Also, no one told Van Gogh much of anything about his art during his lifetime, and I'm pretty sure that 'Moby Dick' got most of its recognition posthumously.