Final ‘Hobbit’ Movie Gets New Name

The Hobbit the desolation of smug

Peter Jackson, director of the “Hobbit” movie franchise, announced on his Facebook page Thursday morning that the third and final “Hobbit” movie has a new name.

Originally titled “There and Back Again,” Jackson wrote that the new name will be “The Battle of the Five Armies.” Rumors of a name change have been circulating for the past week, sparked when fan site reported that New Line had registered the name “The Hobbit: Into the Fire.”

The franchise’s studio Warner Bros. confirmed the change.

In the “Hobbit” franchise, the now titular battle refers to epic showdown in which many previously introduced characters and creatures, including goblins, dwarves, elves and men, emerge to go up against each other.

While only two “Hobbit” films were originally planned, a third was added after Jackson borrowed characters from the “Lord of the Rings” franchise and added some original story. “An Unexpected Journey,” the first “Hobbit” movie, grossed a whopping $1 billion worldwide. While the sequel “Desolation of Smaug” made less, it still had a huge take with $953 million worldwide.

Jackson also revealed in the post that editing on the final movie is almost complete, and that there will be an extended cut of “Desolation of Smaug” with 25 minutes of new scenes. Read the full Facebook post below, in which Jackson explains the rationale for the new name:

“The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies” will be released this year with MGM handling distribution.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 37

Leave a Reply


Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. benkimball1 says:

    I’d lose the first “The” too. It seems nitpicky, but the title really does read better without it. That said, I liked the broadness and lyrical feel of “There and Back Again” and do hope it gets used to describe the whole trilogy. The new title seems a bit specific to one part of the story and suggestive that the film as a whole is going to be focused on a giant, “Return of the King”-style CGI armyfight, which, while neat to watch for ten minutes, doesn’t interest me as much as the characters and their journey.

  2. The Hobbit doesn't suck as much as the naysayers think it does says:

    I love the way the author of this article refer to Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit as two separate ‘franchises’ as if they are unrelated. The intellectual property is one thing and contains all that is Middle Earth and not all things he has added are made up for his imagination but from other books such as the Silmarillion and appendices etc. It’s almost as if the author doesn’t realise Lord of the Rings follows on for The Hobbit.

    Before writing an article at least know what you are writing about and leave your fetish for using the overused term ‘franchise’ in the dictionary.

    • Danny says:

      Nothing from the Silmarillion has been used. Warner Bros. does not have rights to the book. Everything extra came only from LOTR appendices

  3. Aileen Ellington says:

    I am a huge fan of the hobbit movies I can’t wait to see the 3rd movie I’ve watched the other 2 about 12 times and still will watch them over and over as I have done with The Lord of the rings trilogies all I can say is bravo Peter Jackson and the actors too

    • Elian Gonzalez says:

      And it’s almost as if the previous commenter doesn’t know “The Hobbit” is basically a reshoot of “LOTR”!

  4. Mirco Gigliotti says:

    And the trilogy will be “there and back again”. I suppose :-)

  5. afishinthehat says:

    Reblogged this on afishinthehat.

  6. Legolas says:

    Im not even supost to be in this movie :P

  7. I agree with the title change, not only does it fit better but it also sets the mood and event of the third film . Anyway I know that the last one is going to be awesome so go Peter Jackson !!!

  8. Korban Dallas says:

    It should be called, ‘The Hobbit, Love Stories That Never Happened in the Books.’

  9. Jonathan Buss says:

    For the record I also prefer “The Hobbit: There and Back Again” as it fits with the original Tolkien story and the very book that Bilbo writes which has been shown in previous films Peter Jackson has made. However I support and agree with whatever Jackson decides to do because it The Hobbit according to Peter Jackson. This is a Hollywood film, the scale has been upped, the Dragon is much bigger and Jackson has done a better job than any other film maker. He’s work is genuine, and high caliber. Don’t judge his work, appreciate what he gas done to bring the whole world of middle earth to us and enjoy. Besides, his theatrical films are great and his extended editions bring more life to middle earth. He is a master filmmaker! Thank Peter Jackson, I hope one day I can be as good as you sat making films.

  10. Joshua Wilkes says:

    The title makes no difference in my opinion. Look at most movie titles out there, they seem to stray from what the movie is about anyhow. As long as Jackson does his magic, this epic triliogy will end as the LOTRs begins :) Cant wait!!

  11. Z. Leon says:

    The film will be great either way, but I don’t think anybody wanted this. From my experience, the Hobbit films have attracted escapists and nerds rather than an imagined shallow blockbustery crowd. This favouring of bland accuracy over reverent symbolism won’t be lost on anyone with an investment in the material, which, considering this is the third instalment of a three-part saga prequel adaptation, should be a lot of people. Bad move from PJ. Should have stuck to his hunches.

  12. Man all the critics..negative..unappreciative,most cant mow there lawn or balance the house hold budget, but they are now movie making experts?…I read the “Red Book”(Hobbit) & LOTR series over 37 years ago…waited for ever for a movie to come out,was even slightly happy to see the old cartoon movie…but lonely highly awaited for LOTR. Thought it would been someone like Lucas…Never heard of JMr. Jackson till LOTR! Speaking of which ..I loved LOTR…Really Like the Hobbit…look at all the Asshat productions and stuff they call movies out there theses days…Mr. Peter Jackson and Crew have done outstanding work …even if some artistic and genuine creativity added…Id really really like to see him do trilogy of movies on The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant! If any one could …it would be his crew!

  13. The other guy says:

    So by the sounds of it, its gonna be yet another 3 hour movie where all they do is fight. Thats what completely ruined Return of the King. All fighting, no story and after all that the battle ended in five seconds when a bunch of ghosts ran through town. Haven’t seen Smaug yet but the Hobbit was dull. A bunch of guys walking then fighting then walking then fighting etc, etc. His worst mistake was stretching this thing out to 3 movies when 1 would have been just fine.

  14. Tim says:

    To clarify, Jackson said the 25-minute extended cut is for Desolation of Smaug, the second movie, not the third.

  15. loco73 says:

    I did think that the first title “There And Back Again” made more sense, even in terms of continuity, as at the end of “The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King”, when Frodo starts writing the story from the original trilogy, you can see when he continues in the same book where Bilbo started the story…it is written on the page “There And Back Again” and then Frodo adds “The Lord Of The Rings”…but whatever, no biggie.

    I guess “Battle Of The Five Armies” makes sense in a certain way, since that is kind of the high-end point of the whole novel. However, that title refers to a singular, specific point in the novel as well as the movie. I hardly doubt that the whole movie, which will probably last 2 hour + (theatrical cut) will solely be dedicated to the actual battle…So what about the rest of the movie, which doesn’t deal with the War Of The Five Armies?

    In the large scheme of things, I guess its not that important and it won’t stop me from seeing the movie. Overall “The Hobbit” trilogy was less enjoyable than the original “The Lord Of The Rings” one, which remains perhaps the trifecta of all time favourite movies of mine . Strangely enough it was having watched the high-speed 48 fps 3D version which launched me wrong in to viewing “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey”…and that kind of took away some of the excitement I initially felt, out of the equation. The 3D 48fps version was horrendous to sit through and watch, I will never, ever, ever again waste money on anything similar…it was pure garbage. I went to watch the good old fashioned 2D version and it was as if I had seen an entirely different movie. Saw the regular 3D version (though frankly I have long since gotten tired of 3D too) and it was ok.

    As a movie I enjoyed “The Desolation Of Smaug” considerably more, but I also avoided the 48fps version like the plague…

    Anyways, I am looking forward to December to end this journey and have the story completed and be able to watch “The Hobbit” and “The Lord Of The Rings” back to back!

    Then onwards to “Star WarsVII”…

    • tlsnyder42 says:

      The first movie was great in 48 fps. Saw the second movie in 48 fps, and it wasn’t as good. They muddied it up because of stupid complaints from stupid people about the first 48 fps. What a shame!

  16. Well, why not… He’s changed the story so much that it no longer more than resembles “The Hobbit” anyway…

  17. DREDD 2 says:

    Love this new title! Much better than what they were going with before. This title sounds like some shits gonna go down! And The Hobbit films so far have been lacking a good Battle! I’d lose the first “The” however.

  18. I don’t understand why people are making it sound like Peter Jackson and Co. have gathered up all copies of The Hobbit and had them burned. NEWSFLASH, books of The Hobbit are still around (I should know I have two)! The Lord of the Rings movies were different from the book, so why should The Hobbit movies be any different? I don’t understand why people just can’t seem to enjoy good movies for what they are. Yeah, I know I’ll probably get the people who’ll come out of the woodwork to say that they aren’t good movies, but that’s your opinion. I and many others happen to think that the LOTR and The Hobbit movies are awesome and enjoyable. Great escapism (which PJ is quite good at)! It’s, quite frankly, your loss if you are so negative and hateful that you can’t enjoy them for what they are.

    • I totally agree! I know many people who have read both LOTR and Hobbit, loved them, and, loved the movies. I myself have not read either, but I can tell all of you that I think they are amazing in every respect, right along with those friends of mine that read the novels! I’m no expert, but I watched them on Blue-Ray after having seen LOTR on normal HD DVD, which I enjoyed immensely. However, I do have to say that my experience with the Blue-Ray was awesome. Having said that, I really don’t care if I see it on 3D!
      Getting back to those who have nothing but complaints about the movies, I agree and add that I wonder why they even go to see them! I guess they’re looking for something to complain about, and I think PJ could care less!

  19. Niilan says:

    It doesn’t sound nearly as good. For the most part, I choose the enjoy the movies, but Peter Jackson needs to stop making pointless changes. It was a good title that paid respects to the original.

  20. Rebel Rider says:

    How dare PJ quote “Professor Tolkien” when the guy remakes and invents and slashes and hacks his way through the great writer’s work to make yet another billion dollars. PJ, you made up character and story, turned a minor mention into a major villain, etc and shot it all on video. Crass and anti-art. The good professor contorts in his grave ….

    • DREDD 2 says:

      Have to disagree there bud, the films are different yes. But the book, is pretty damn awful by todays standards. Though I let it pass as its a great yarn (Even though LOTR is just a rehash of the story from (Ring of the Nibelungs) by Wagner. And also because Hobbit was written for his kids bedtime story. But its faar from perfect.

      PJs films are meant for the big screen. They simply HAVE to entertain an audience or they flop. The ending to the book was rushed, the battle was only about 5 or 6 pages and the Dragon fight was about 2 pages long! I was so dissapointed after all the jeorney getting there. Underwhelming is an understatement.

      However, the charm and atmosphere conjured up by Tolkien especially in the Shire was fantastic. But possibly better suited to an Animated version of the book. (not like the 70s one) I would like to see a good animated Hobbit film, especially if done like Legend of the Guardians for example. room for both!

    • Brandon says:

      What part of ADAPTATION do you not understand?

    • owadesign says:

      Horsecrap. These films are a brilliant and necessary expansion from the original novels. If you want the original Hobbit, go back and read it. PJ understands what you fail to; the original Hobbit would be a TERRIBLE movie. Several changes needed to be made to adapt Rings into a film trilogy (I can only assume you were horrified at the lack of Tom Bombadil); even more drastic changes needed to be made to turn the Hobbit into film, especially as a prequel to the already-made Rings films.

      If you don’t like change, maybe you should crawl back into your hole and stop watching films based on books, because I’ve got news for you: they ALWAYS change. They HAVE to. If they DIDN’T, they would be TERRIBLE movies, and not a single change PJ has made has been anything but necessary.

      • Darren says:

        For the most part, I have enjoyed all that PJ has done with LOTR and The Hobbit, but I cannot agree with your last statement that all of his changes have been necessary.
        In LOTR, I cannot fathom why he felt he had to place such a great emphasis on the Hobbits contributions – he made it seem like it was all their doing that the quest was won! Treebeard made the decision to go to war on his own, not by Merry or Pippen’s urging. Faramir came to his own conclusion that the ring was evil, and would not help them, so he let the hobbits go – he didn’t need Frodo or Sam to give their two cents to see it.
        As for the Hobbit, when I heard that he was ‘stretching’ it to three movies, I knew he would have to add a ton of extra material to justify it – I’m not sure it’s all necessary. I’ve enjoyed what’s come out so far, but have the slight feeling that there’s more ‘filler’ with this trilogy than with LOTR – which is not a good thing.
        Regardless, I’m glad we have an action epic of this timeless tale to enjoy!

      • Guest says:

        I”M speaking for the people that has an opinion! Don’t like our opinions then simply don’t read their comments or better yet don’t comment at all and/or get the you-know-what up out of here and don’t come back! Get a life and lighten up a little bit because you’re acting like a snitch right now snitching about people snitching about the movies “changes”! AND DO NOT REPLY BACK TO ME because I WILL WIN this argument!

    • Ennustus says:

      In all fairness, nobody knows what J.R.R Tolkien would think of these movies so stop speculating on how a dead man would feel.
      At the end of the day, nobody is forced to watch these movies,

    • Oxy Moron says:

      Agreed. I haven’t understood any of the supposed ‘fanboys’ who’ve defended this with the caveat that Jackson has paid some great fidelity to the book by bloating the running time, when most of that so called fidelity is third-rate restagings and glorified fan fiction. They’ve sacrificed the tone of the book, made Bilbo a marginal character in his own narrative, and shoed-in hours of sword and sandals mellerdrammer to what end? It certainly wasn’t to sell toys, no sir.

      • tlsnyder42 says:

        Jackson has actually made the story, for the most part, better than the Hobbit book. He actually cut out a couple of the best moments from LOTR, and changed the meaning of a couple things a little bit, but his movie version is still great.

More Film News from Variety