Slashdot Mirror
Peter Jackson Hints At The Hobbit
Hellboy0101 writes "News.com.au is reporting that New Line Cinema is currently in talks to purchase the rights to the film adaptation of The Hobbit. There are apparently some difficulties with getting the go ahead from Tolkien's son Christopher, who is executor of the estate. When asked if New Line has approached him about the project, Jackson said he has not ruled it out, but not until after King Kong is done. 'New Line, which spent $US300million ($415 million) making the films, is already planning to continue its Rings success with an adaptation of Tolkien's novel The Hobbit.
More difficulties with the Tolkien estate were looming, said Jackson, who added that he would be keen to get involved after he finishes remaking King Kong in 2006. "New Line haven't actually talked to me about The Hobbit. I know there's difficulty about the rights, certainly if they want to talk to me about it I'd be keen," he said.'"
Learn from the mistakes of others and leave while you're on top! Besides, the animated version of The Hobbit is already a gem.
(Although if you must... you have my sword)
Like beating the Bishop?
there's going to be a King Kong remake? cool.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I've read everything Tolkien many times over. While I didn't feel the Jackson movies were completely honest to the books, I can understand his explanation regarding pacing and whatnot as it applies to the visual medium.
I really enjoyed the first two of the Trilogy, and am very much looking forward to the third.
If Jackson wants to take on The Hobbit, I'd be very interested in seeing the resulting work.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
It seems really strange that The Hobbit, a story about a 3 foot tall theif, is considered a bigger event than the story of a 50 foot tall gorrilla.
I Guess size doesnt matter.
When life gives you crap, Make Crapade.
Sluggy Freelance.
The 50's called. They want their lingo back.
If he does this, he'll ruin a children's classic. LOTR was okay because they were for a wider audience. However, The Hobbit is more about imagination and every child will get a different interpretation. A film puts out one interpretation thus squashing imagination.
As long as LOTR doesn't EVER become a crappy tv series (probably a cartoon or anime at that)...
I won't have to kill myself.
Esoteric reference.
But I look forward to finally having a movie made about it. If for no other reason than to turn Tolkein's long-winded (and frankly annoying) prose into a 2 hour digestible chunk.
I have been pwned because my
If they plan to do it, they better do it quick. The only (I believe) common character of the trilogy and the Hobbit is Gandalf. Ian McKellen isn't getting any younger.
I wonder if they can all get Ian Holme, Ian McKellen, Hugo Weaving and Andy Serkis to reprise their roles as Bilbo, Gandalf, Agent Elrond and Gollum. It would be cool if it were kept consistant with LOTR.
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
Do not let that guy with the prehensile uvula mangle the song The Road Goes Ever On like he did in the Rankin/Bass cartoon.
Now I wasn't clear from the summary, but are you saying there's some sort of difficulty with getting the rights from the estate? Or that he'll wait until after King Kong? I think you need to repeat it maybe 6-7 more times, just to be sure.
the jury is still out, but jackson's loosely-based movie saga has gotten progressively worse. i could stand fellowship because of the newness of it all, but two towers, besides being hardly related to the source, was pretty boring. i'll see ROTK but i'm going in with super low expectations.
smd4985
You forgot Ian Holme as Bilbo Baggins! And Gandalf was always *old*, so it doesn't matter. And theres Elrond and Gollum too (we can forget the Gloin cameo, but Bilbo has to be the same).
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
Ok, for those of us who read the books, saw the flicks, bought the DVDs, but don't obsess over the political minutae of the Tolkien family and estate's feelings about the movies, what exactly is Christopher Tolkien's problem?
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
How many of those do we need? We alread have 2 and now a third. I don't even remember that last time a new movies instead of a sequel of remake has been made.
Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
Other reports also show that there was an attempt to create a museum as a thank you to New Zealand, but that the estate holder is refusing to allow it.
Also, there is talk of putting a statue somewhere in the country to say thanks for the tax break the film-makers got.
All in all, while I understand the need to protect the name and heritage of Tolkien, this to my mind is absurd.
Anyway, I don't know the estate holder, nor do I know what their objection specifically is, so perhaps I'll get back in my box now...
|>>?
The only way it would work would be if it was deliberately filmed and marketed as a movie for young children.
Someone should tell Jackson that there's a whole lot you can do for a community besides put up a museum or a monument to what you did with their tax break, and it need not even be an eyesore like that statue he wants. How about building parks and playgrounds? Contributing to local health programs? Financial aid for economically depressed areas? Charities? Libraries? Help for schools?
These and a whole lot of others are ways to give back to the community in ways that really help. And they don't require the permission of the Tolkien estate either.
And the brethren went away edified.
Please dont pollute this conversation with that crap.
The Ro Factor - Jeep/Linux Weblog
I think the Hobbit, in a screenplay more true to the original book, will work better on film than LoTR, because it's a far shorter and more self-contained story that will translate to the big screeen more effectively. It's not as deep as LoTR, and will appeal to children. Because it has the potential to be more true to the books, the diehards will be happy, and new fans will also enjoy the simpler storyline.
Remember the animated version? It was really goood! I'd imagine that a live action version, using WETA's technology, could potentially be even better.
NO CARRIER
Prequel talks? Where have I heard this before... But in this case, what stories would fill the gap between the end of The Hobbit and the beginning of The Lord of the Rings to fill two more movies?
As much as I like his fantastic work in the Lords of the Rings, I hope if he does the Hobbit, that afterwards he returns to his roots as a director of unusual yet funny and sometimes original horror movies. Dead Alive will always be among my top ten favorite films.
Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
Weta seems to be spreading themselves pretty thin... it makes me worry about the effects for Live Action Evangelion even more so...
*please don't look like power rangers, please don't look like power rangers...*
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_545271.html?m enu=news.latestheadlines
The fabled new character from Return of the King would be an ideal inclusion on this new Hobbit movie. 8)
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
and the $NZ300 million ($265 million) tax break they gave the producers
Is this a real number? The movies cost next to nothing after tax if it's true.
Maybe they could get Leonard Nimoy to pen the songs for the Hobbit movie.
a ter6.html
He could use this as his resume for the job:
http://homepage.mac.com/evanbaumgardner/iMovieThe
While LoTR basically is a good versus evil story wrapped in adventure, The Hobbit is an out and out adventure story. It would look wonderful on the big screen.
And it would give a chance for Peter Jackson to prove that prequels (though Hobbit isn't exactly a prequel to LoTR) to hugely popular trilogies can work!! *Star Wars... hint hint*
And ohh, I'd much rather see The Hobbit than King Kong.
How about Dragonslayer ?
.
That movie is one of the best mythical/wizardry movies
Doesn't it deserve a remake ?
I think we are all a bit hobbited out.
I'd take a safe guess at the moment and say that they'd have a hard time cramming it into 3 hours...
If he does get to make the Hobbit I wonder who'll play the young Bilbo Baggins. Elijiah Woods would be a nice contender and the guy who played Bilbo in LOTR should have at least one part. :)
My English teacher is doing backflips as we speak.
And all of you who haven't had a class where you have to dissect a poem, reading all kinds of meanings into it and identifying figures of speech that the author probably never even intended, can buzz off.
Mmmm.. Donuts
FOTR SE
FOTR extended edition
FOTR deluxe setwith staturettes
TTT SE
TTT extended edition
TTT deluxe set with statues
ROTK SE
ROTK collectors edition
ROTK extended set with staturettes
The Complete LOTR SE
The Complete LOTR extended edition
The Complete LOTR deluxe set with statue
The Hobbit SE
The Hobbit extended edition
The Hobbit deluxe set with statue
Tolkien Super Duper, Special, Deluxe, Ultra Collectors, Type R edition
How many years should I add before I can get the complete works?
My son could not stand waiting for two years to see the end of the tale after seeing the Two Towers that he started reading the books.
Even though we have the DVDs.
Maybe my answering his numerous pleas to tell him what happens next with "You'll have to read the book." and sticking to it after The Fellowship of the Ring had something to do with that.
When we got the DVD of TT, he proudly pointed out all the spots where the movie deviated from the book. I may have to bring duct tape with me to the Return of the King to keep him quiet.
"Gandalf is not a man -- he is istari, an immortal Maya"
I didn't realize that wizards were from Mexico.
(...It's Maia.)
GL
Bring on Leonard Nimoy to do the theme song; or better yet, we could get Wil Wheaton to do a hip modern cover of the ballad of Bilbo Baggins. CleverNickName, are you up to the challenge?
- Cath
I don't know if other Christian religions do this, but on Christmas Eve at the Catholic church I went to when I was a kid, they used read this llooonnnnggggggg passage that is one solid, multipage sentence describing Christ's lineage. Without a doubt, that homily is what's waiting for me if there's a hell. When I read the 1st page of Silarmillion, it reminded me of this. I threw the book down and ran out of the room shrieking like a little girl.
After the first two LOTR movies, I've lost any hope that anything Jackson does will bear more than a vague resemblance (characters and overall plot). Seeing how the Saruman character is going to be left unresolved, I wonder if something significant from Hobbit will go, like maybe Bilbo finding the Ring.
Christopher Tolkien died last year, that information must be inaccurate about his executing the estate still.
I wonder if they would try to split the Hobbit into a movie trilogy, simply as a way to be closer to the story in question... I'm still disappointed in the lack of one particular singing being in the LotR...
The Penguin Producer
I believe Elrond is the only elf with a speaking part aside from taunts and crappy songs which were made utterly wretched in a certain animated feature. Not that they were any good to begin with.
I here quote The Hobbit and The Silmarillion. I've purchased all of these books twice, except the silmarillion, I have a fairly elderly paperback of that one :) I used to have some older paperbacks of lotr too but I read them into oblivion. These days I drive so I can have hardcovers, but back then I was rollin' with chevrolegs or in good years, a fucked over bicycle. Paperbacks only last so long in pockets.
As my previous comment indicates, Bilbo has not perceptibly aged. Gandalf has lived through many lives of men and has always looked old, fifty years is nothing. There are at least two actors who can swing right back into action. There is the subject of Elrond, which brings us back to the Silmarillion.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I won't watch it unless this great video is on there: http://www.game-revolution.com/download/goodies/bi lbo.htm
After you see it you'll understand!
I'm waiting for Jackson to do The Silmarillion.
Tolkien Estate
Cathleen Blackburn
Manches & co.,
3 Worcester Street,
OXFORD,
United Kingdom.
OX1 2PZ
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
You are in a comfortable tunnel like hall.
to the east there is the round green door.
you see:
the wooden chest.
Gandalf. Gandalf is carrying
a curious map.
Thorin.
Gandalf gives the curious map to you.
Thorin says " Hurry up "
> HIT THORIN
You attack Thorin.
But the effort is wasted. His defense is too strong.
Thorin attacks you.
With one well place blow Thorin cleaves your skull.
You are dead.
You have mastered 0.0% of this adventure.
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
Director Peter Jackson has been given $400 million US to remake the classic movie 'King Kong'. Excuse me, but this is insane...
The remake is being done on the strength of Mr. Jackson's 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy, which has sold (or will have sold in a few months time) over a billion dollars US in box office tickets after costing roughly $200 million to make and promote worldwide. Impressive, yes.
The Lord of the Rings is a dense multi-volume fully realized fantasy that has offered a rich complex story and hundreds of opportunities for using state-of-the-art computer-generated imagery to complement the plot into a strong, enveloping film fantasy.
But $400 million for King Kong?!? This is a flimsy plot about a giant ape who develops an obsession about a tiny blonde human woman pet. (Hollywood metaphor anyone?). Big monkey lives on a distant island; whites come; they capture him (somehow); they take him to New York, he flips out, smashes up some shti, climbs a building, and gets shot down. Duh, end of story.
How is this worth making into a $400 million movie? Or, rather, how is $400 million going to make a better movie than the original or the 1978 Jessica Lange remake? More computer graphic imagery? Of what? A big monkey smashing things in NYC? Didn't we see all that already in the remake of Godzilla? You remember that... The remake of Godzilla that cost $80 million and lost most of it because it was stupid and a completely unnecessary film? How are you going to cover a $400 million investment on a big monkey film?
I haven't seen the new Peter Jackson 'King Kong'. Hell, it hasn't even been made. In fact, the producers are wracking their pointed little heads trying to think of some new angle that will get 45 million people to pay $10 each just to cover the pre-production cost ($400 million film and $50 million in publicity).
But I just know it's a bomb. It's the 'Gigli' of Summer 2006. And it's going to take a studio or two down with it.
This isn't a troll, it's a tragedy...
Thank you kindly,
if you made it through catholic school and/or homilies such as you describe, the first few chapters will be a breeze. after that it becomes really, really nice compendium of stories. Don't worry about remembering all the names the first time through (there's an extensive index and glossary if you get lost). The Silmarillion will help you to appreciate the depth of Tolkien's commitment and creativity and puts a the rest of the middle-earth books in context, and contains some fabulous tales itself.
If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else.
When asked if New Line has approached him about the project, Jackson said he has not ruled it out, but not until after King Kong is done.
I certainly don't think it's going to be The Twin Towers this time around.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
[no text]
deus does not exist but if he does
As you say, it all a spectrum. However, I would submit movie->book is a superior order for enjoying them both.
I personally blame the Japanese
Ñ'
"There are apparently some difficulties with getting the go ahead from Tolkien's son Christopher, who is executor of the estate".
:-/
Gee, I wonder why... could it be because the lord of the rings' adaption to the big screen was everything Tolkien was afraid of and his son is now starting to realize the old man was right ?
nah, they prolly just didn't offer enough money
lone, dfx
Anyways, who to pick for Thorin?
Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
I haven't seen this answered yet. Why would the estate not want a museum set up in New Zealand? Does anyone know the reason for this? Why would the estate not want The Hobbit to be made into a feature or mini-series? Why do they not like the current film trilogy?
I just finished reading Slaughterhouse Five today on the train. Vonnegut was a genius in his ability to weave together Billy's madness with reality and not reveal that madness until the very end.
The anti-war message wasn't as strong as I thought it would be. From the cold view of time as a static constant that Billy is revealed by the Tralfamadorians the author seems to be saying that the belief in the inability to change the future is a type of madness. However, I didn't get the sense that the author thought war a horrendously terrible thing that ought to be avoided at all cost.
What got me to look into this book was actually a scene in Footloose where the Bible-thumpers of the town are looking to clean up the library of 'filthy' books. The leader turns to Kevin Bacon and asks him what he's reading and Bacon's response is Slaughterhouse Five. The leader gives him a glare but it's clear that he's never even heard of the book, much less any book with such a terribly un-Christian name.
I have been pwned because my
Christopher Tolkien... Common buddy. Stop it.
;) The more people that work in debt to your father, the better. He is kept alive, through us.
You said the movie trilogy would be an unsuccessful adaptation of the book. Yep. A $300 million budget with triple return profits. Nah. It'll never work...
Regardless to ones opinion on whether or not bringing LOTR to film was successful or not, it has brought hundreds of thousands of minds, young and old, to the works of your father and to his books.
I had never read The Lord of the Rings. Never planned to. I saw LOTR, ran and tripped over myself to buy and read those books. I discovered a tangible world of unsurpassed creativity and passion.
Let the dreamers dream. Should Tolkien Enterprises have to look over every painting, writing, thought, or daydream, to see if its in line with your fathers vision?
The LOTR movies are an interpretation of the book, by a handful who loved the book. As cliche as that is, its so very accurate. More lives have been touched by the books than ever before. It is the second highest selling book internationally next to the bible. With Peter Jackson's help, it looks like we might just be giving Jesus a run for his money.
The fans aren't stupid. They know who J. R. R. Tolkien is. These movies have not, and cannot touch that. Don't suppress the creativity of others because your worried it will tarnish his legacy... If anything, these movies, through exploring and digging deeper into the works of your father have only strengthened his honor.
I have a funny feeling that your pops would give Peter Jackson a nice warm smile and firm hug after viewing the movies.
So stop being silly. Lets make The Hobbit.
Sorry for the typo.
"Sufferin' succotash."
And they want their monkey back.
They saw what happened to Godzilla.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
In the audio commentary to the Fellowship of the Ring Extended Edition DVD, Peter Jackson mentioned that he asked to keep the set of Bag End completely intact and in storage rather than having it torn down like most of the rest of the Lord of the Rings sets. New Line agreed, and Peter Jackson said that he has a complete, life-sized Bag End sitting in storage, ready to reassemble on the side of some hill.
I think he cracked a joke about building it somewhere and living in it, but hey, this way they can just break it out of storage and rebuild it and it will be the same set from Fellowship... instant continuity.
Not all experience, or learning, is positive, and some things can't be unlearned.
"Polanyi admits that focusing on particulars may improve our capacity to attend to the overall meaning. For instance, when we analyze poetry we might temporarily destroy our appreciation of it but it also makes for a much richer understanding once our attention is returned to the whole. It can be expected that one's understanding will be different from one's original understanding once attention has been shifted to the particulars and then back to the whole, in keeping with the idea that the relationship between the proximal and distal terms is dynamic and an active shaping of experience. The shifting of awareness may improve on previous understanding--as in the case with the poem, but, according to Polanyi, one's perspective can never be the same."
I believe that the contrast is also true, If you see a bad movie (or even a good one) it can forever alter how you view the book. Not always a bad thing, but usually somthing is lost after watching a bad film based on a good book.
And not the other way around?
Haha. You outed yourself with the use of the word "prostitute." A Tolkien purist.
Guess who sold the movie rights to his works specifically for the purpose of more money? Guess who even offered suggestions for editing out parts of the story for movie adaptations, such as cutting out the "unecessary" Helm's Deep?
People like to attribute all this stubbornness to J.R.R Tolkien, but he was as much aware of the difficulties in adaptation as anyone. He was changing his core mythology all the way until the end and even rewrote parts of the Hobbit to make it fit. I think he wasn't any more strict about his story than any other author. But people like the image of the stubborn old English professor with the pipe who wrote about hobbits.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Oops, he's been dead for thirty years. Probably isn't going to be writing another book set in Middle Earth I guess.
The Hobbit was published in 1937. I think 66 years is plenty of time to recoop the his effort. I appreciate the intent of allowing copyright to pass on to one's heirs, but it's been 30 years since Tolkien died. Can't Christopher Tolkien create something of value himself to provide for himself? Heck, he's got to be doing well, and at 77 maybe it's time to retire and let the rest of the world enjoy a work you didn't actually create!
The Founder's Copyright still covers 99% of the potential value of copyrighted works and manages to do it without putting culture under chains.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
And you can not have me. On the behalf of the estate of the Axe, I refuse.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
Put down, pout down..
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
Don't they already have a movie for The Hobbit?
Ohh wait! My bad, I guess it isn't quite The Hobbit. But damn close!
YOU'RE WINNER !
Another lame blog
..at a screening for reviewers (my mother is a reviewer) in NYC
No spoilers:
- Well another great chapter awaits!
- The battle scenes are stupendous, quite exhausting
- It is *long* (we didn't get an intermission)
- There are a couple of Monty Python-like lines which although not intentional drew some laughs
- The end is kind of soppy (well what did you expect)
- Towards the end it felt like Spielburg was on the job, squeezing out every last ounce of emotion
- Gandalf for president!
From the article summary:
spent $US300million ($415 million) making the films,
Huh? Was one of those US dollars and the other some other kind of unlabelled dollar?
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
You're probably thinking of the first chapter of the gospel of Matthew. People in the first century A.D. placed much greater stock in genealogy than we do today; prominent Romans, for instance, went to tremendous amounts of trouble to prove their descent from various famous (and sometimes mythological) figures of the past.
Although it's a really complicated topic to summarize, the earliest Christians basically saw themselves as a Jewish sect. Consequently, it was important when setting down accounts of the Messiah to detail precisely His connection with Jewish history and tradition, to prove that Christianity really "fit" as part of the Jewish world. That is why we don't really care very much how exactly Jesus' mother's husband was descended from Nahshon or Manasseh, but it would have mattered to Matthew.
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
The Brothers Grimm COLLECTED regional folk tales. Come to think of it... aren't they partialy responsible the 3rd Reich? Humm... discuss among yourselves...
Thanks a lot buddy, for RUINING THE ENDING!
There were no terrorists. King Kong swatted down the two airliners and crushed the twin towers while fighting godzilla.
There's a big picture of boobies on the last page.
No, seriously.
I have been pwned because my
they could set up a traveling exhibit
Like this?
peter jackson could always remake "the chronicles of narnia" by C.S. Lewis.
before you criticise someone
Sam finally comes out of the closet and expresses his gay love for frodo and then they and Gandalf have a three way. Frodo warns he's tighter than Sauron's ring but Gandalf thinks he's just blowing smoke up their ass.
In 1976, the Saul Zaentz Co., doing business as Tolkien Enterprises, acquired rights to both The Hobbit and LotR. This agreement included the film rights. Tolkien Enterprises entered into an agreement with WB so that they could film the Rankin & Bass animated version of The Hobbit. Now comes the fun part: WB still has those rights, and they're sitting on them like a broody hen with only one egg.
New Line can't greenlight Peter -- they don't have the rights, and aren't likely to get them in the near future. Rumor has it that a few of the key brass over at the Frog Studio are a little cheesed off about the fact that a bunch of Hobbits, Elves, Dwarves, and other assorted mangy fairy-tale creatures have been collectively kicking the backside of a certain boy wizard at the box office for the past two Christmases running. Heh.
Now OTOH, the Tolkien Estate is being a pain in the butt about the idea of a movie museum in Wellington. And for that, Christopher Tolkien can rightly be accused of behaving like the dog in the manger.
Doing my level best to piss off the religious right wing...
In which Bilbo and the band of heroic dwarves are joined by Legol'c, a reformed Elf who wears a lot of lipstick, and travel time and space to discover other civilisations that also look suspiciously like hobbits and dwarves and mostly use the Common Speech (it all keeps the budget down).
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Planet of the Apes?
You pluralize 1960 to 1960s, not 1960es, so you aren't omitting an e. She or he is, however, omitting the 19, so the correct form of the joke would be:
"The '50s called; they want their lingo back."
Note the keen use of the semi-colon!
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Hmmm, maybe they'll just leave off all that Dragon business at the end.
...the dwarfs acting like Three Stooges (or twelve in this case) like Gimli does in LotR trilogy?
Will Gandald have a secret lover (played by Lucy Liu) who will slay Smaug with her bow and arrow?
Either Mirriam-Webster is in error, or it is referring to a highly unusual and archaic grammar usage.
Keep in mind that Mirriam-Webster may be considered authoritative (well, *I* consider it authoritative, though the really anal-retentive folks will look for the OED) for spelling -- not for grammar. I have always seen English style references state that use of the apostrophe-"s" combination is incorrect. All of the serious resources that Google digs up on short notice (aside from m-w) also back this -- take a look at the MLA style apostrophe guidelines or this linguist's lengthy analysis with an eye on "BOUNDARY MARKER (EXCLUSIVELY)".
May we never see th
... they dug too deep.
(for a *very* fun combination, try reading Do Cyborgs Dream of Electric Sheep? and watching Blade Runner)
Is that the sequel to Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
I think that Middle Earth would be an excellent setting for such a game. Even just a single player game would be wicked. I'd love to play as an Ent or an Orc or something.
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
at least it isn't a remake or a sequel.
It is not insightful, it is flat out wrong on so many things wrong.
;)
Scroll to the top and reread the story.
Wait, don't both here it is:
"New Line, which spent $US300million ($415 million) making the films, is already planning to continue its Rings success with an adaptation of Tolkien's novel The Hobbit. "
That plainly says they spent the money on the LoTR series, not on the King Kong Remake. Further hints include the little know fact that "films" is plural, whereas "the King Kong remake" is singular.
Oh, and not to pick any nits or anything, but Universal is the one paying Jackson to do the remake of King Kong, and has budgeted 100 million to the project.
The only "insight" is that Simonetta didn't seem to read the original post. The tragedy is that s/he went off on poor defenseless strawman, and got a +5 insightful.
Just goes to show that put enough monkeys at a keyboard and let them bang away, eventually they'll mod anything and everything up to +5 insightful.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
Is Jackson doing a remake of the original King Kong, or a remake of the remake of King Kong?
Why anyone would want to remake this dreadful, racist allegory is beyond me.
Hmmm
What was the name of the Book that the film was based on...ah that's right The Two Towers...so what the fuck should he have called the film?
It had _nothing_ to do with the events of sept 11th.
Maybe it's New Line that's at fault, perhaps New Line want to do something stupid with The Hobbit, like leaving out Bilbo, or Hobbiton, or Gandalf, or the Dwarves, or the map, or Rivendell, or the trolls, or the goblins (orcs), or the Ring, or Gollum, or the wolves, or the Eagles, or Beorn, or Mirkwood, or the stream, or the spiders, or the elves, or the barrels, or Laketown, or the Lonely Mountain, or the Thrush, or the secret door, or the treasure, or Smaug, or the Crow, or Bard, or the Battle of Five Armies, or the auction, or want to introduce a "love interest", or change the sex of characters, or something...
You mean, nobody knows how the movie ends?
Blimey Batman!
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
My prayers have been answered! Although the animated version of The Hobbit is an absolute classic, think about this: Smaug the Dragon. Need I say more?
-- 4 8 15 16 23 42
He's saying that's how much New Line spent on LOTR. Read it again.
[silence]
Cartman : "Clive...God dammit..."
Any sufficiently well-organized Government is indistinguishable from bullshit.
I'd love to see a good film adaptation of the Silmarillion, preferably over two to three films, so the full sweep is conveyed. Imagine wars between mighty Noldorin princes and their elven armies and the Balrog-led legions of Morgoth...
+++++++
"Look, dear, it's a crazy hairy scary man!"
The World Trade Center buildings were known as the Twin Towers...not the Two Towers.
The Lord of the Rings is a set of books typically published in three volumes:
- The Fellowship of the Ring
- The Two Towers
- The Return of the King
There was nothing in the movie or the title that referred to the WTC in New York.Not that I'm enthusiastic to report this, mind you. Never saw the thing myself. (Won't be going to see "The Cat in the Hat," either. Apparently other people have kids who didn't take one look at the ads on TV and say "That looks totally gross." I'll put the money on my kids' reaction, though.)
The two worthwhile versions of King Kong starred Fay Wray and Homer ("Maybe you should eat more vegetables and less people") Simpson. Remakes can work, honest.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
The Rings animated adaptation was doomed partly by the scope of the books, but your reaction's just colored by your having seen the live action first. My kids chose it to rent out last year too, and it had some things going for it, it genuinely did. I'd take the animated version of the hobbits' meeting with Strider over Peter Jackson's; it did a much better job of allowing him to be enigmatic, whereas the recent Fellowship telegraphed that scene badly. (I'm not so into Vigo in the role, he's way self-conscious.) In general the animated version has a lot less time for orcs screaming their lungs out to shell shock the audience, too, which ain't so bad to do without.
Not that they're perfect, but this isn't nearly as much of a train wreck as Attack of the Clones, or not in my book. The adapters did "get" the original stories, they understood the lines of each scene. If the Rings cartoon breaks down, it's mostly because of scope and their production values. And no, they didn't let the dwarves become a running short joke, either, or Legolas a rad surfer dude.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
In reading your passage (fine work, by the way), I'm brought back to the question I asked when I was younger, that nobody ever cared to answer: if Jesus is the son of God, and born to Mary, a virgin, why does Jesus' lineage through Joseph matter? Joseph is a stepfather, according to the Bible, so there's no official lineage to trace.
Virg
Now that's the kind of ROI I want on my 401k. The market spends the last few years tanking, and these guys invest 300M six years ago and the total return is projected somewhere in the 3B range. Sure there's marketing and distribution, but 900% over 7-8 years?!? If my quick math is right, that's somewhere in the mid to high 30's compounded anually.
If I'd made that kind of money from '97 to today, I'd be sitting on the beach, sipping coladas, and reading slashdot on the wireless laptop rather than wasting my companies time sitting at my desk, sipping their coffee, and reading slashdot.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
...I thought they were a band...
I'm wondering, and maybe you know - why was Joseph's line important, since technically he would only be Jesus' step-dad?
Ian McKellen's quote last time The Hobbit was rumoured. "Gandalf was a once in a lifetime role: emphasis on once"
I always thought it was "The Producers"
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Luke presents Joseph's lineage as well. Thus my 2nd suggestion is void; but the first one was/is more significant.
Arrr!
Had Bara-Dur and Isengard been torn down in the movies, I think their would be merit to protest.
;-)
;-) As long as the Big Ape stayed clear of O'Haire Airport, he'd be fine ;-)
Had Isengard and Bara-Dur been located 300m from each other, maybe that would be reason to get upset. These books were named in the 1950s. There is no reason to get upset about this stuff.
As far as King-Kong goes, he doesn't have to tear up New York. Why do all the monsters have to tear up New York. He could have King Kong tear apart Chicago instead
Of course knowing Chicago politics, Mayor Dailey would likely try to make him an Alderman rather than fighting him
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Careful with that axe, Eugene.
Peter Jackson.. gimme a break.. the only problems with the LOTR movies is the director who did a very average job compared to the novels. The amount of cheese he added to get the attention of the lame public makes me sick. Did i mention if i hear that stupid romantic score again i'm gonna go berzerk right in the cinema? No. Good, cause i'm still unsure if i'm going to pay to see the last installement of the trilogy.
.. ) impresses me. Quite frankly i dono wtf you people see in this director. He's quite a plane joe. ( A hyped plane joe even, that's worst )
In fact, if he's any as good as many people seem to think he is, let me tell you that LOTR doesn't give him any justice or whatsoever. Sure I could go on about what I hated about the 2 movies i saw, but what would be the use anyways, most of you have already modded me down to Troll.
IMHO, any other director would have done as good as him. Get some new blood, see what others can do. Nothing Jackson made ( brain dead, army of
(from yet another Tolkein animated movie)
Where there's a whip,
There's a way!
We don't wanna go to war today
But the lord of the lash says Nay Nay Naayyyyy!
Commence severe mosh pit
hi, I like pancakes -.-- -.-- --..
Walden Media already has options on all 7 Narnia books. Live action The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe is already in production, with Andrew Adamson directing. More here http://www.walden.com/lww.html
The other kind of greed refuses to part with anything it has at any price. It's reasonable to expect compensation; it's unreasonable to refuse any at all for a thing that will one day be in the public domain anyway. We're not talking about refusing to sell the Mona Lisa; we're talking about rights to restrict creation of a movie. Someone else's comparison to Smaug is apt, if indeed Mr. Tolkien is hoarding.
Arrr!
Moderators: mod this troll down!!!
Another excellent lesson in GOOD adaption is Martin Scorcesee's Dracula.
Of all the Dracula movies I've seen it is by far the most accurate adaptation. It also is VERY inaccurate as far as following the letter of Braham Stoker's novel. I thought the movie was better.
I also thought that merging Stoker's other great creation "The Mummy" with Dracula was a stroke of genius. The book never explained WHY Dracula wanted to come to London. The connection with the historical crusader Prince Vlad Tepisch is also excellent.
The journal narration of the film is accurate to it's written form. The book is told as a truncation of journal pages type-written by Mina Harker. The ultimate coup is that Scorcese explains why the love story is not included in the ultimate journal narration. Mina Harker throws her handwritten journal entries over her affair with Vlad into the sea.
The only thing I didn't like was the truncation of Harker's journey to castle Dracula. There are many creepy things that happen on the way. The duration of Harker's stay ALSO seems to be truncated.
This film more than any other shows what has to be done to make a good film from an excellent novel. Lot's of chopping and a litte sprucing up.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
You have GOT to be kidding. Don't get me wrong, I love the Silmarillion, but there is NO way I can see that being adapted as a whole to the screen.
Now, I don't see a reason they couldn't do sections of the Silmarillion as films, independent of each other, because you have to realize, it may be written as a single book, but it encompasses thousands and thousands of years of time!
On top of the fact that what you read in the book may work very well in your imagination, but there is no way it would work on film. Remember, when filming vs. writing, you have to show, not tell.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d Capitalization really works: i helped my uncle jack off a horse
And what has happened to the LotR sets and locations in NZ? Would they be available? Certainly they must have been preserved as a tourist attraction if nothing else.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I just wanted to comment that that's an excellent .sig you've got there. Does it come from anywhere in particular?
Happy people make bad consumers.
Why wouldn't he make an extended edition? Splitting the EEs across two DVDs kinda handles the intermission part. I mean, ya gotta stand up long enough to change dics, and while you're up you might as well take a bathroom break, and maybe eat a meal, and heck just watch the second half tomorrow...
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Murkwood was under seige by dark forces. Indeed the spirit of Sauron was dwelling there.
So they indeed had reason to be prickly. The fighting for Smaug's treasure is completely out of character for elves. The only explanation I would have is that Smaug had stolen many things from the elves that lay in Lonely Mountain. They may have considered some of those items their birthright.
The other explanation is that they may have known that one or more of the seven was in Lonely Mountain. The elves didn't trust the dwarves. Among the 3 elf lords, the lord of Murkwood did not hold one of the three*. That ring (fire) went to Gandalf. Retrieving one (or more) of the seven may be seen as fighting for stature.
Is it merely coincidence that the elf tribe who did NOT possess a ring of power are not masters of their own wood.
* Elrond held the ring of water. Galadriel held the ring of air.**
** That's odd that Tolkien would choose three of the 4 primary elements for the elven rings. A ring of earth is missing. Perhaps the seven of the dwarves collectively represent the earth since dwarves prefer living underground.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Or +5 informative..
(Not a flame, just a joke)
Online Starcraft RPG? At
Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
Actually, you were right the first time. Luke presents Mary's lineage. See commentaries below:
o mm entary=Luke+3&Version=WES. org/commentary.asp?ViewComm entary=Luke+3&Version=MHC
http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.asp?ViewC
http://www.christnotes
From Wesley's commentary, "The son of Heli -- That is, the son-in-law: for Heli was the father of Mary. So St. Matthew writes the genealogy of Joseph, descended from David by Solomon; St. Luke that of Mary, descended from David by Nathan. In the genealogy of Joseph (recited by St. Matthew) that of Mary is implied, the Jews being accustomed to marry into their own families."
So your second point in your first post stands.
Life's a lot like money-- you spend it, then it's gone. Spend wisely.
Every film commentator who has seen the LOTR props has raved about their detail and craftsmanship. People would go to New Zealand specifically to see these props and the 'bigatures' etc. It would have been a good idea to leave to Hobbiton sets up too, but too late now.
O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
If Jackson does manage to direct The Hobbit he should have fresh, younger faces this will add an element of age with respect to the trilogy. Instead of Ian Holm as Bilbo maybe someone half his age (remember Bilbo turned 100 in Fellowship. Instead of Ian McKellan as Gandalf maybe ...<insert actor most resembling Gandalf here>
Not quite - I've visited Mayan ruins in Mexico myself. (The Mayan people lived throughout Central America and the Yucatan Peninsula, which is in Mexico.)
GL
Why is the lead post in this thread +4 when it is clearly off-topic? The topic is Peter Jackson and filming the Hobbit - not "oh, my memory sucks and I need hand gestures to recall a long-winded geneaology every bit as dry as the Silmarillion."
"Population 1,656"
If you are lucky, improved medicine will let you stand in line in the year 2077 to see a cool little movie about a guy in a galaxy far, far away. Except, you'll smell the wookie.
Thank goodness! After all the "digitally enchanced" remakes, I thought that all Lucas wanted was for us to Smell the Glove.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
In situations like this, the parent company is perfectly happy to take a hands-off approach, because it's in their best interest in the long run. In other words; let the kids squabble. It'll mean that more money goes into AOL/TW's pocket if anything gets done. And if not, the parent company hasn't lost anything.
Chalk up another one for the Big, Evil, Faceless Corporation (TM).
Doing my level best to piss off the religious right wing...
Mind you, I don't doubt that if Christopher could throw a monkey wrench into the works, he would. He's not even talking to his own son right now, because his son (Simon Tolkien) is a fan of the films.
[sarcasm] For shame, Simon; for shame! [/sarcasm] Here sir; you can have the seat next to me for the opening of RotK. I'll even share my popcorn. And my industrial sized box of tissues.
Doing my level best to piss off the religious right wing...
Streaming
MPEG
Well... At least the trailer is done for it already.
T
Keep in mind that Peter Jackson grew up here and he does live here. He gets on well with people here and he's not just blindly suggesting this out of nowhere.
Despite the fact that you might not know it very well, New Zealand isn't a third world country. It's a well developed OECD country that's certainly not large, but it's not struggling either. NZ has its own standard of defining "poverty" which is essentially separating richer people from poorer people, but it's nothing to do with the same thing in the rest of the world, including the USA.
He's also a film-maker. He could contribute to local health programmes or libraries (and he may already be doing so for all I know), but so could a lot of people. Besides, we already have those things -- there may be ways to improve them but throwing money at them isn't necessarily the answer, and there's no reason that Jackson should make any outlandish effort for something he's not an expert on. If anything, it should be the government doing that using the large amounts of extra money that's been brought into the economy from the revamped film industry.
The museum isn't an empty gesture; it's something that many people here really want, and he knows that. Roughly 20,000 people out of 4 million had some direct involvement in making these movies --- it's unusual for anyone here not to know someone who took part. Personally I know quite a lot of people who worked on it. A much more vast proportion of the population had an indirect involvement, including everything from jogging past the film sets on a Monday morning to debating with many of the actors in the cafe's down town.
Forget about tourism benefits for a moment. Even without them, a museum is something permanent and lasting that would help everyone here remember it all.
I've got to agree. I intended that to be an offtopic post, only of interest to the person I was replying to and anyone who came after, thinking most of the moderation was already over for this thread.
I wanted it to be interesting, but I wasn't shooting for overshadowing the story.
I've got to get more judicious in the use of my karma bonus.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
While I had been smoking something pretty strong, I am 90% certain I saw a trailer for "The Hobbit" before the showing of "The Two Towers". It was basically an extension of the Ian Holm scene of finding the Ring and was followed by "The Hobbit" in the same font as LOTR titles in the Jackson films.
An adaptation can be an homage, but it is essential for readers to realize that much of what can be conveyed in well crafted words will not necessarily translate well to the screen, such as the work of Thomas Hardy (although the film of "Far from the Madding Crowd" is incredible). Often the word "homage" is applied to a film when the filmmaker utterly fails to convey the style, underlying meaning, or even the same story of the original, as is the case with Cronenburg's adaptation (if you can call it that) of Burrough's "Naked Lunch".
Luckily there are novels that can translate well to the screen and it does seem that Tolkien's writing is particularly well suited for film (when treated by a competant filmmaker), as long as a reasonable attempt to be true to the original is made. I'd particularly enjoy seeing a new treatment of "The Hobbit" as the previous animated "Hobbit" was entertaining, it was still very much a cartoon.
BTW and OT, I must comment on your assesment as related in this statement:
The Third Man and the Graham Greene story novel on which it was based.
As much as I admire the work of Orson Welles, I'd have to disagree with you on this one point. The film made from Greene's script based on Greene's novel, IMHO, falls slightly short of the mark set by the novel, and where it does succeed, it does so due to Greene's insistance on keeping those details that Welles thought insignificant. Welles openly regretted agreeing to have Greene on the set while the film was being made, even though he later acknowledged that Greene's interventions were essential to conveying much of the subtle subtext that is essential to the story.
Read, L