Peter Jackson och Philippa Boyens diskuterade detta i någon betydande längd i filmskaparens kommentar till Smaugs ödemarkering. Kort sagt, det var studietryck för att lämna filmen på en väsentlig klipphäst och genom att lösa drakplotten, du skulle förlora möjligheten att involvera Laketown-karaktärerna i den tredje filmen , utan att tillgripa flashbacks för att förklara vem de är och varför de flyr staden:
Jackson : There was debate about the ending, whether we should have a cliffhanger or not, I mean at the end of the day, there wasn't [chuckling] a hell of a lot of choice about it, really I mean, y'know, there was never any talk about destroying Laketown in this film, I mean I think, y'know there was a sense maybe that maybe it's a sort of, this, that Laketown, the destruction of Laketown was going to be the end of the film but in a way it's not, it just didn't feel right to us because it's not, I don't know, it just didn't feel like it belonged in this film for some strange...well we, this was never a decision that we even seriously considered, it was like, well you actually can't end this, with this by....
Phillippa Boyens: ...Resolving everything...
Jackson : Because as it is, you see, with the Dragon attack at the start of the third movie it also gives us the chance to push through some of the other storylines so even though something may happen to the dragon (spoiler alert) the, there was still a lot of other narrative that's motoring on at the same time.