On examiner.com an author published a two part article regarding the two upcoming Hobbit movies. It discusses where the break may be and provides a interesting article for those itching for anything related to the movie.You can read part one and part two on examiner and they are also embedded below.  After reading, feel free to post your thoughts on where thee big break will occur.

Part 1

With Peter Jackson appearing at the San Diego Comic Convention last week, Lord of the Rings fans were hoping that some details about the upcoming Hobbit movies would be forthcoming. Virtually nothing new was reported (See Peter Jackson on the Hobbit: no green light, no budget.), but Jackson did confirm what fans had long known–that two movies are planned. Fan forums around the Internet have been abuzz over the past months about where the break would be–where would the first movie end and the second begin?

Back in June, Cliff Broadway interviewed Guillermo del Toro for SlaveBoyFilms.com. The director of the upcoming Hobbit films indicated that discussions with Peter Jackson and the other writers had led to an agreement on the “break point” between the two films. He described the discussion as “like the Church meeting in the Council of Trent… arguing about the divinity of Jesus.” His point seems to be that there was much discussion, but that there was only one obvious answer. He also asserts that “everyone” (implying the fan base) knows what the break point has to be.

Well, Guillermo, it appears that “everyone” is not in agreement on what that obvious break point is, or should be. For example, there has been quite a bit of disagreement on TheOneRing.net’s Forum about this.

Guillermo did say in October (MTV blog) that the break would come after the death of Smaug, but at that point they were apparently planning to script details about the 60-year gap between the books (The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings) into the second movie. However, in an interview in March (Empire magazine), Guillermo seemed to indicate the second movie would end where the book ends.

It does not seem reasonable to end the first movie after the death of Smaug, since this event is so close to the end of the book. A better place might be just after the Dwarves are captured by the Wood Elves. However, if the details of “the White Council and the comings and goings of Gandalf to Dol Guldur” (which Guillermo promised would still be in the movies) are reserved for the second movie, the later break might theoretically work.

The biggest problem with ending the first movie after Smaug’s death could be how to keep the audience interested in seeing a second movie. It would almost be like ending the second Lord of the Rings movie after the Ring is destroyed. Something, besides a few loose ends, needs to be left unresolved.

Could it be that what is left unresolved is the removal of the Necromancer from Dol Guldur? (See Dol Guldur on the Tokien Gateway website.) Will Peter Jackson and crew somehow tie the Necromancer with the Battle of the Five Armies? Will this be enough for its own movie? Would audiences still be interested in a second movie if Smaug dies in the first? It should prove interesting to see how this pans out.

Part 2

It is not without significance that Tolkien has Bilbo sleep though most of the Battle of the Five Armies. (He gets knocked out early on.) The Battle is an important turn in the story, but the details are apparently not significant to the message Tolkien was trying to convey. Will Peter Jackson and crew turn this on its head? It may just be that the bulk of the second movie will revolve around the Battle of the Five Armies and the more “magical” battle with the Necromancer at Dol Guldur.

Gandalf’s dealings with the Necromancer are mentioned only in passing in The Hobbit, but are expanded upon in Tolkien’s other works on Middle-earth. Director Guillermo del Toro and Peter Jackson have both indicated that the happenings at Dol Guldur will be included in the films. While this may be desirable for many in the fan base, it will also inevitably change the tone of the story.

Tolkien wrote The Hobbit from the vantage point of the average Joe being drawn into something much bigger than himself. The emphasis is on the decisions of that one small person in the face of danger, not on what was happening in Middle-earth at large. That is one reason why Tolkien is so successful. People are able to relate to a Hobbit muddling through the best he can. We have more trouble relating to ancient super-human creatures battling for the universe. Which is one reason why The Silmarillion was never as successful as The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.

Could it be that the first Hobbit movie will retain the whimsical tone of the book, but the second will be much darker like the movie trilogy? We shall see.