The famous story goes that, when Peter Jackson brought Lord of the Rings to the execs at New Line, he proposed two movies. The execs listened and responded with a question: why would you do two movies when there are clearly three here? The rest, as they say, is history, with Jackson bringing one of the best fantasy movies and book adaptations to film.

It sounds like a similar question is being asked about the Lord of the Rings prequel, The Hobbit. We already knew the deal behind the movie called for two movies, one that would be an adaptation of The Hobbit and another that would help bridge the gap between the prequel and the trilogy. Now The One Ring.net is suggesting a third picture may be in the works as well, with Jackson and Guillermo del Toro currently in negotiations for a third film that would add shooting time to the schedule and demand the two suspend some of their other projects temporarily (more delay for another Hellboy?).

I can’t say I’m as excited about this news as I was when we heard the story about Lord of the Rings. The bottom line is Tolkien’s trilogy of books was one story, broken into three parts, making a trilogy of films a logical adaptation. The Hobbit, however, is one book, and doesn’t really have a story deep enough to flesh out into another movie. That means more of the other movies are going to be made up of assumed, derived, or completely original material, which may not spell the same level of success as films based on books readers wanted to see on film for years.

Is one Hobbit movie enough, or is there actually enough content of interest left in Tolkien’s world to justify a second or third movie? I don’t want to see it if it’s just a cheap attempt to cash in on the success of the previous trilogy, but I have to admit a limited range of knowledge of Tolkien’s world beyond the four books.

UPDATE: It's possible that TORN may be cheating with their April Fool's day prank. Their post is time stamped March 31st but folks on their forum seem convinced they decided April 1st starts on New Zealand time, even though the date stamp on the post says otherwise.