The debate still rages on whether or not it was a good decision for Peter Jackson to have made two Hobbit films into three. After seeing The Desolation of Smaug some of the added material appears to be just that, added material to pad out an extra, middle film. Then again, not until we see next year’s There and Back Again will we know for sure if Smaug‘s extra scenes pay off. But had the plan for two films stuck, where would the split have come?
The split was going to occur where Bard appears on the riverbank as a silhouetted figure with a bow. So the whole barrel sequence (from The Desolation of Smaug) was going to be the climax (of the first film). But it just felt like–it didn’t feel right. I know a lot of people had issues with the first movie in the sense of it being a meandering kind of a road film but…we actually rethought it all. And actually what felt more satisfying–there was certainly no shortage of material. I think people are always coming from the direction of ‘well how do you take a three hundred page book and turn it into three movies,’ but we were almost coming at it from the exact polar opposite which was once we had done our adaptation–and that had been long since done.
Honestly, he loses me with the explanation, but I believe the jist of it is people always complain there wasn’t enough material in The Hobbit for three movies and he’s arguing there’s actually more material, especially once Tolkien’s appendices are taken into consideration.
You can give a listen to the entire interview where Jackson goes into more detail on how they came to the decision to make a trilogy and when they presented it to the studio.
Have you seen Desolation of Smaug? Did the film come off as bloated or did you enjoy the extra time spent in Middle Earth?
Source: EW via Cinema Blend