‘The Hobbit’ getting the trilogy treatment?

From the files of "not surprising at all" comes news that director Peter Jackson ("The Lord of the Rings" trilogy) may have a dragon-sized surprise up his sleeve.

After making a few comments at Comic Con that indicated he had shot enough extra material to make a third "Hobbit" movie, both Deadline and THR are now reporting that another "Rings" prequel is looking extremely likely. Citing sources close to the production, both outlets suggest that Jackson is currently deep in discussions with studio Warner Bros. to make a third "Hobbit" film a reality.

See more: 'The Hobbit' production diary revealed

The two confirmed "Lord of the Rings" prequels, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" and "The Hobbit: There and Back Again," recently wrapped up principal photography in New Zealand, but will likely require additional filming anyway. It would seem that Jackson's plan would be to shoot extra material for a third film sometime next summer.

But is there even enough source material on the page to fill another three-hour plus movie? J. R. R. Tolkien's fantasy novel "The Hobbit" is just a hair over 300 pages, whereas each "Lord of the Rings" book was nearly double that, justifying over nine hours of feature film action. To flesh out the two existing "Hobbit" movies Jackson and company had to draw from the British author's extensive notes and official appendices. As a result, many characters that did not appear in Tolkien's original novel, but who did appear in "The Lord of the Rings" films, have been given expanded roles in the prequels. Both the fans and the filmmakers know that Tolkien wrote many other stories about Middle Earth, many of which happened during the events of "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings." There are plenty of tales to be told.

See more: Elijah Wood talks to Yahoo! Movies about returning to Middle Earth

Many might see the addition of another "Hobbit" movie as a blatant cash grab by the studio, but as long as the quality of the movies remain high and faithful to the source material, there's no reason to be upset. Very few "Rings" fans are likely to complain about the prospect of having to spend more time in Middle Earth. Besides, it would be stupid for a movie studio sitting on top of "The Lord of the Rings" franchise — one of the most lucrative and critically-acclaimed film properties in modern history — to not maximize their investment. It's a win-win scenario.

Would you be opposed to a third "Hobbit" movie?