Why three Hobbit movies? Here's my guess.

[steuard]

In thinking about The Hobbit today, I've hit a guess as to the proximate reason that Jackson decided he wanted three films. (The studio's reason is clearly "more money".) I think it may be significant that nobody has ever said a word about where Jackson planned to split the story into two films. My guess is that after watching a rough cut of most

Comments

[robbbbbb]

Having recently read The Hobbit aloud to my boys, I'm entirely convinced that there's two feature films worth of material there to be had. You lose track of how much stuff gets left out of book-to-movie conversions. Just look at the recent adaptation of Voyage of the Dawn Treader to the big screen. They left a ton out of that movie, and it's a much smaller book in the first place. The Hobbit is a long book for a children's book.

And I see your point about breaking up the story into three points rather than two. The logical spots to break are then at the Eagles' nest (or Beorn's home) and then just after the escape from the Elvenking's lair.

All that said, if Jackson chooses three two-hour movies over two three-hour movies, I think we'll all be well-pleased with the results. (Well, except for the extra $10/head that we'll have to lay out in the summer of '14.)