I would have made into a trilogy, but the two first movies would not dwelve into the Dol Goldur stuff. The third movie will deal with Dol Goldur, and also adding Thorongil(Aragon's cover name) story with Thengel and Echtelion. There are some great mini battles that could even rival Battle of The Five Armies, which was a little lackluster for me.
shareHm, but it wouldn't be a trilogy the way you have described it, especially in relation to anything added about Aragorn since the events are in no way related or even occurring at a parallel time in history. Your third movie would have nothing to do with the first two...
Your only option would be to have a Hobbit movie with sequel (as should have been anyway) and then have a third stand-alone movie. I've always contended that an Aragorn stand-alone movie would not do well (or even that there would be deemed too little broad interest for the movie to even get green-lit) but someone could always give it a-go and see if it would work.
I have to agree with broc that you are not describing a Hobbit trilogy. What you seem to propose is a two-part adaptation of The Hobbit and a separate bridge film similar to what was originally planned under Guillermo del Toro. The Dol Guldur subplot was one of the stronger and most appropriate additions to the story as it has a basis in the actual text and involves Gandalf's absence from the company from the eaves of Mirkwood until his re-appearance at Erebor.
Even within the compressed timeline of Peter Jackson's films, Aragorn's journeys and errantries take place in the years following the Battle of Five Armies, though he has probably already started his wanderings as much as five years before that. Where I differ from broc is that I think there is an arc for young Aragorn that could make for a compelling coming-of-age story as he develops into the Ranger who Frodo will come to know.
"Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved." - T. Isabella
As a fan I'd definitely like to see an Aragorn movie and would think it compelling as well (if done right, of course)...my argument is that I don't think it would have a broad enough appeal to bring in the audiences who aren't Tolkien fans. I don't think the artistic side of things would fail, rather the business side of things. It's unfortunate and I could be wrong, but I just have trouble seeing it making money, which means Hollywood execs might also have trouble seeing it make money....which means no movie.
shareWhat about short scenes that hints about these additions of young Aragorn and Dol Goldur in the two Hobbit movies, and the ending could be a sort of cliffhanger that connects it all together? Evetually lead to a third movie.
shareIdeally I would have had Bilbo encounter Aragorn in Rivendell as the young boy Estel, but that would entail ignoring Peter Jackson's changes in the LotR movies. Otherwise, Aragorn's story does not easily connect to The Hobbit. If Jackson had approached it differently though, we might have seen the first meeting of the young adult Aragorn and Gandalf the Gray. According to Tolkien, this took place in the Ranger's twenty-fifth year.
The White Council at Dol Guldur is interesting. The incident was supposed to take place in late summer, at the time when the company was imprisoned in Thranduil's realm. Gandalf was said to have been finishing up his business when Thorin and the others reached Lake-town. Obviously Jackson altered this a bit. What's not clear is if the wizard traveled directly south (to Rhosgobel or Lórien? Maybe even Isengard?) or if he headed back to Rivendell first. However, I have a hard time seeing him crossing the Misty Mountains again with the goblins stirred up.
All this could have been briefly touched on in the main story if it was going to be explored in more detail in a bridge film. Tolkien implied in The Hobbit[i] that Elrond was not present at Dol Guldur, though he hadn't fully developed the White Council until he wrote [i]The Lord of the Rings, so Elrond had not been conceived as a member of Gandalf's "great council of white wizards".
"Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved." - T. Isabella
If I'd made "The Hobbit", I would have made one or two fast-paced films, and concentrated on getting the most charming possible performance out of the actor who played Bilbo. It should be entirely his film, about his adventure and his growth as a person, and calculated to get the audience to identify with him and feel like they're taking a journey through Middle Earth themselves (or with an old pal).
I wouldn't use any of the "Bridge" material, since none of that is suitable for a feature film. None of the stuff that happens between the end of TH and the beginning of FOTR is fully resolved until the events of LOTR.
And I would keep the stuff at Dol Guldur to a minimum, like if Bilbo asks Thorin what Gandalf is doing now, I'd show a brief glimpse of Gandalf fighting some CGI spectres, and cut back to Thorin & Co. Tolkien kept the doings of Gandalf and the White Council rather mysterious, that could work on film as well as it did in the book. And certainly doing things that way would quicken the pace...
“Seventy-seven courses and a regicide, never a wedding like it!
+1
For within each death there is always a new life, a new beginning - Dillon, Alien 3
nd I would keep the stuff at Dol Guldur to a minimum, like if Bilbo asks Thorin what Gandalf is doing now, I'd show a brief glimpse of Gandalf fighting some CGI spectres