If you can't get enough of hobbits, elves, dwarves, and trolls, we have good news for you. A fan site has heard "a report that negotiations are under way for a third film," meaning that The Hobbit, already slated to be released as two separate pictures, may be extended to become a trilogy.

An anonymous source told TheOneRing.net that the main sticking points are the contracts for Peter Jackson and Guillermo del Toro to allow for three more months of principal photography and "temporarily suspending some of their other projects." The same source speculates that the third film would delve "into the back-story of the Istari (Wizards) including Gandalf and Saruman's youth in Valinor." Our own Elisabeth Rappe previously wrote about the desire of seemingly every Lord of the Rings actor to appear in The Hobbit, and this rumor might allow for that.

Del Toro has spoken about The Hobbit as "two episodes, or two parts, as if they were a single piece of narrative," so maybe the story has become so rich and complicated that he and Jackson don't want it to ever end (kind of like the concluding hour of The Return of the King). The original announcement of del Toro as director mentioned that he would be moving to New Zealand for four years to complete The Hobbit and its sequel, so what's another few months? Though I'm not a huge fan of the original LOTR trilogy, I am a huge fan of del Toro, so the more, the better. As it now stands, The Hobbit is due for release in December 2010, with its sequel to follow in December 2011.

If Walt Disney ever got around to churning out his own version of Lord of the Rings, perhaps it would've been close to this fan-made version featuring some of Disney's iconic characters in the roles of Frodo, Legolas, Gimli and Gandalf. (But where's Aragorn?) Funnily enough, there's all sorts of stories and urban legends online that tell of Walt Disney's attempts or non-attempts to adapt Lord of the Rings. Some indicate that Disney held the film rights to J.R.R. Tolkien's masterpiece for 10 years before giving up and selling them over to United Artists. Others argue that Disney wanted to animate The Hobbit at one time, but couldn't get past the fact that the story didn't contain the ideal, humorous family-friendly vibe that Disney wanted for all his films.

None of these tall tales ever came with any hard proof, though, and the funny thing about it all is that Tolkien apparently despised Disney. In a letter discussing illustrations inside the American publication of The Hobbit, Tolkien noted that he would " . . .veto anything from or influenced by the Disney Studios (for all whose works I have a heartfelt loathing)." For much more on the Disney-Tolkien love (hate?) affair, check out this pretty detailed resource. View a larger version of the image above in the gallery below.



[via Superpunch]

Cartoonist Dan Meth has created what he calls The Trilogy Meter, which, as you can see above, is a chart that lists several different movie trilogies and then rates them on a high-low scale. The image above is smaller than the actual completed version (view that by clicking the image below), which goes on to include other trilogies like Die Hard, Godfather, Alien, Terminator, Rocky, Batman, Rambo, etc ... As Dan explains over on his blog: "I know other movie geeks are going to have disagreements and that's fine. And yes, I know some of these movies went more than 3 sequels, but none were ever meant to. These are rated purely on my enjoyment level on each film and nothing else. Frankly I'm surprised by how many sequels were better than the original. And I'm not surprised that the 3rd movie is never the best."

Honestly, I'm not surprised so many sequels (or the second film in a franchise) are better than the original since it's easier to just jump right into the action, what with the characters and backstory already introduced in the first film. This doesn't necessarily pertain to straight up action flicks like Die Hard or Rambo, but definitely movies that feature a grand universe (Star Wars) or a comic book character (Spider-Man, X-Men).

What do you think of this chart? Where did Dan go wrong? And will we ever find a third film that's better than the two that came before it?

December films can mean a lot of things. For critics, it's a marathon of award contenders, many of which seem important at the time and quickly disappear into the cinematic mists, but many of which catch on and last forever. It can also mean trips to the movies with family, breaks from shopping, ways to get out of the cold, holiday-themed movies, kids' movies, etc. Like the holidays themselves, December movies can conjure up many memories. It's also the last oasis before the January dump comes along (featuring the latest horror remakes, and Martin Lawrence and Larry the Cable Guy films).

1a. The Lord of the Rings (December 17-19, 2001-2003)
This just goes without saying, doesn't it?

1b. The Exorcist (December 26, 1973)
The Exorcist is a perfect Halloween movie, with its colored leaves and chilly autumn winds. But here's a secret: it opened the day after Christmas, 1973. I can only imagine: you and the family are slightly hung over from turkey dinners and an overabundance of gifts. You yawn, put down your empty egg nog mug, step over the discarded wrapping paper, move past the Christmas tree, past Grandpa Fred asleep on the couch, wrap up in scarves and hats, pile in the car, drive down to the movie theater, and buy tickets for... this? For spinning heads and pea-soup vomit? Yet it worked, and it was a huge hit. This was what people wanted to see that winter. Perhaps it was a reflection of those dark times. Just last year, during our own dark times, AVPR: Aliens vs Predator - Requiem opened on Christmas Day. I have an AVPR ornament on my tree to prove it.

If the current financial crisis is getting you down, how about a post-apocalyptic vision of poverty and murder to cheer you right up? Or, then again, maybe not. The Hollywood Reporter announced that Dominic Monaghan (LOTR) and Freddy Rodriguez (Planet Terror) have signed to star in the horror-thriller, Fortuna.

The flick is set in a future of extreme wealth and poverty. The world's elites have devised a way to reduce poverty by offering citizens the chance to compete in a mysterious game known as Fortuna, in which one person will be whisked away to life of riches and luxury -- what could go wrong? Well, if you have ever seen a movie before you can probably guess that maybe the prize isn't all it is cracked up to be.

Writer-director Barthélémy Grossmann will appear alongside Rodriguez and Monaghan as one of the contestants, and the film is expected to start shooting on location in Bulgaria. According to THR the production is already underway, and, "ghetto like sets are being built for a film Zilber compares to 1973's post apocalyptic thriller "Soylent Green."

Grossmann is a relative unknown to most of us in North America, and this appears to his first foray into English film making (but the recognizable faces of Monaghan and Rodriguez should help the project earn a little attention). Even though it might not be the most original idea for a film (I like to think of it as Running Man meets Regannomics) but I guess everyone has financial collapse on the brain anyway, why not turn it into big-screen entertainment?

Christopher Lee attended the Karlovy Vary International Film Festival this week, and our friends from RushBlogg, Karsten and Eirik, were on hand to talk to him. Of all the attendees, Meinich was the only one who asked Lee about his involvement in The Hobbit. Lee's answer came as quite a surprise -- first, he's adamant that he won't be appearing in The Hobbit, because as we all know, Saruman isn't in the book. This comes as no surprise -- Lee is a Tolkien purist (thank goodness!) and he won't allow himself to be shoehorned in, even if Peter Jackson and Guillermo del Toro were interested in doing so.

But what about the much discussed second film, which would likely deal with the Council of Wizards? That's a location problem. Lee isn't interested in filming in New Zealand again because it is simply too far away, for too long of a time. You can hear the tiredness in his voice -- and perhaps a bit of regret too.

That doesn't mean Lee isn't interested in being in The Hobbit at all, however! He'll appear in the film as long as he can stay in London, and there's a character he's quite keen to play. Or rather, voice. Someone very large, with a penchant for gold...

Head on over to RushBlogg and watch their video of Lee. It's a fantastic clip, and listening to him talk about Saruman, Return of the King, the Council of Wizards, and much more. It's like story-time. I could listen to him talk about Middle Earth for hours.

[Thanks Karsten!]

With all the excitement this week over the news of Guillermo del Toro's confirmed role in the director's chair for the two Hobbit movies, it's a little refreshing to find a dissenting opinion, if only to keep the excitement from getting to exaggerated. Salon's Andrew O'Heir doesn't take kindly to the news in his Beyond the Multiplex blog, structuring his argument against the latest report in a calculated manner. First, O'Heir quotes from an interview he did with del Toro at Cannes in 2006, where the director stated his disdain for "heroic fantasy." It's quite possible that he has changed his stance on this, and not just because of The Hobbit: As recently as a few days ago, he was spotted at a protest staged by HETFET (Humans for the Ethical Treatment of Faeries, Elves and Trolls), which may or may not have been a publicity stunt on his part.

The rest of O'Heir's piece holds water. He thinks the franchise has been ensnared by greed and too many people are in charge. Reflecting on Peter Jackson's expansive power, O'Heir questions the director's comfort with handing the story over to another filmmaker ("It smells of George Lucas") and predicts an incoming conflict. He likes del Toro's work, but worries that the director might be working in somebody else's back yard. "We've got one of the true cinematic visionaries of our age, spending four years of his life in a universe created by another one," he writes. "It's just too many cooks in the kitchen."

What do you think? Is del Toro getting in over his head?

By now it has become so customary to see the words "New Line" and "Lord of the Rings" and "lawsuit" together that I almost didn't even bother looking into this story. But then I noticed that it could affect the making of those two Hobbit movies we're all so excited about. Yes, that's right, there's a chance those movies are in jeopardy again, thanks to the folks running the estate of author J.R.R. Tolkien. According to the Associated Press, this latest suit was filed Monday by The Tolkien Trust, a British charity that manages Tolkien's estate, and HarperCollins, the publishing company that originally put out the Lord of the Rings books.

The main claim is that New Line has failed to pay The Tolkien Trust and other plaintiffs a promised 7.5% of the Lord of the Rings trilogy's gross receipts. The amount asked for in the case, however, is only $150 million, which (correct me if I'm wrong) seems to me to be a mere 2.5% of the reported $6 billion the films have earned worldwide. The plaintiffs also seek unspecified punitive charges and the right to terminate New Line's rights to make those Hobbit movies being executive produced by LOTR director Peter Jackson. An attorney for the Tolkien estate mentioned that The Tolkien Trust does not "file lawsuits lightly" and has tried its hardest to settle the matter out of court. So, it looks like this will be a serious, long-going battle. And just when we thought everyone involved in these films was happy and ready to move on. We'll have to wait and see if we get those "prequels", at the helm of Guillermo Del Toro or anyone else, in 2010 and 2011 after all.

Once again this past week gave us another movie that broke another record (biggest opening during a non-holiday week). Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix took in $140 million since Wednesday ($77.4 million over the weekend alone), adding a whopping $190 million in 44 other countries around the world. Obviously, this kid is popular. I don't know many people who haven't at least read one of the six Potter books or watched one of the five films; my best friend (who happens to be one of those people) recently told me that he was staying away from the series until it's completed. "If I read one, I'm going to want to know that the entire series is available in both formats," he said. So, until Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows hits theaters, my friend wants nothing to do with the kid.

But he's not alone. Now it's time for my confession: I also happen to be one of those people -- except, I have no urge to read and/or see anything that has to do with Harry Potter. I haven't picked up a book, nor have I watched any of the films. Somehow I've managed to write a number of Potter-related posts over the years, but usually I spend about a half hour on Wikipedia, while also running questions past those Potter freaks on the Cinematical staff. Like with comic-related stuff, you get one fact wrong -- one misspelled name -- and the fanatics will attack. And they will attack hard. Here's the thing though -- no one has ever convinced me to read or watch. The people that love Harry simply tell me "I have to read!" or "It's so awesome!" -- but that's about as far as they go. I mean, what's so great about this kid? I don't see it. When it came time to decide whether I would watch Lord of the Rings, my friend sat down and explained the world, the backstory and the characters; essentially, he sold me on the series. I subsequently watched all three films and loved them. No one has done that for me with Potter. At least, not yet.

So, I ask you: Here's a chance for you fans to sell us non-fans -- What's so great about Harry Potter?

Despite all the rumors and confirmed reports last year that Warner Bros. was making a new Conan movie, the studio failed to get the project going by its spring 2007 deadline. So, the rights to Robert E. Howard's character were put up for auction. Fortunately for Time Warner, the parent company of Warner Bros., the goods were picked up by its other subsidiary, New Line Cinema. Now, New Line has an 18 month option and one extension, so unless it wants to throw away the money it just spent, the studio will hopefully have something to deliver to theaters in the next few years. Considering Warners couldn't get something off the ground with big-deal talent like the Wachowski Brothers, Robert Rodriguez or Conan the Barbarian director John Milius, it is hard to imagine who, if anybody, could make this happen. Of course, now, thanks to the success of 300, it may be possible that any script featuring swords and loincloths will get a greenlight. Plus, New Line only needs to put the words 'the studio that brought you Lord of the Rings' to get people in seats. The studio could hire the worst filmmakers out there and probably still do alright.

But then the fans might put up a fuss. Still, the fans will likely be disappointed enough if Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't return to the role. And since he's just begun his second term as Governor of California, I don't think he'll be available before New Line's deadline. If you grew up in the '80s, though, your first idea of Conan was probably Schwarzenegger's portrayal, and it may be difficult to imagine another actor taking on the part. Despite the fact that Conan was in novels and comics and elsewhere for decades before Milius' film, accepting a substitute in the next movie would be like accepting another actor as The Terminator, or as Danny DeVito's twin brother. Personally, I think that without Mako, who died last year, there's already no point in trying to associate the new Conan film with the old ones, so I welcome all new faces.