Are Three Hobbits Better Than Two?

It’s been rumored but apparently the talks have really kicked off about expanding ‘The Hobbit’ into three films. Jackson wants to tell as much story as he can with the cast together and under contract. This idea, while lucrative, is not a great one.

I’ve read ‘The Hobbit’ five times. I love it. If you didn’t read it when you were younger you probably had no imagination and found the wallpaper in your room really interesting. Though I may love it and could pick it up at any time there’s not a ton of story in it.

Unlike ‘Lord of the Rings’ which has many things that could be expanded the tale of Bilbo is simple.

*Spoilers for people who didn’t learn to read until high school*

Dwarves arrive.
The Trolls capture them, and Bilbo finds Sting.
Captured by the Goblins, flee on eagles to Beorn’s home.
Captured by the Mirkwood Elves, barrel escape.
Arrival in Lake town.
Up the Lonely Mountain and Smaug’s lair.
Death of Smaug and the tension at the foot of the mountain.
Battle of the Five Armies.

The last three things in that list are really the only ones that can be stretched out, but it’s the end. The end should be fast and exciting. The problem with ‘Two Towers’ and ‘Return of the King’ is that they are so incredibly slow in terms of story points. It takes almost 2 hours into ROTK to get to the actual beginning of that book.

Granted Jackson has said he is adding in a lot of extra material of the White Council dealing Necromancer in Mirkwood, this can not slow down the story of Bilbo. Frodo is the worst part of the other trilogy and it’s because it is so slow. Stretching all this into a third film would only create another 10 ending style half hour to the third film like ROTK.