Slashdot Mirror
Peter Jackson Says "Hobbit" Movie In The Works
Patik writes "'Lord of the Rings' Director Peter Jackson is planning to film 'The Hobbit,' according to this Associated Press article. Jackson, who is currently filming 'King Kong', is waiting for New Line and MGM, the two studios with rights to the film, to battle it out for rights to make the prequel. Jackson also mentions wanting the movie to feel just like the LOTR trilogy, including having Ian McKellen return as Gandalf." (This is better than just hinting.)
No, that wouldn't work at all, would it. Or would it? With the motion-capture technology they've so obviously perfected with Gollum, I could see Ian playing a younger Bilbo. And if memory serves, there aren't any other hobbits in the story, right? I mean, it's The Hobbit, not The Hobbits or Meet The Hobbits (or my favorite, Honey, Look What The Wurm Coughed Up.)
Just so they dont make the Simalarion. That was freaking painful!
"Hand me the bullet-shooty-thing and a box of little hurts" -Overheard on a USMC Rifle range
Take Elijah Wood, and use makeup, prosthetics etc etc to make him look older?
The revolution will not be televised. It won't be on a friggin blog either
Since he says "I guess MGM's lawyers and New Line's lawyers are going to have a huge amount of fun over the next few years trying to work it all out", I question how long he can wait.
A "few years" may make the movie seem disjointed from the rest of them. One of the great things about the first three is that noone really aged. If he waits 5+ years to make what is supposed to be a prequel, will those look out of place?
Seriously, Jackson has set a huge standard for himself here. He has the three movies that progressively got better, ending in a movie that won 11 awards. People's expectations will be high (cough*EpisodeOne*cough) and if he doesn't deliver, it won't matter how good of a movie it is, he's going to get ripped a new one.
In related news, Peter Jackson's home just imploded due to excessive Oscar pressure.
~To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation. -Yann Martel
Casting Ian Holm in the main role wouldn't be such an effort, or would it? Ian Holm is 73 fer christs sake! .... hmm actually thats quite young for a hobbit
I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born - Ronald Reagan
When can I download it?
"Well, it took an hour to write, I thought it would take an hour to read."
Is anyone else excited to see what they do with smog? I hope they don't make him look all pupety or over cg'd.
that Ian McKellen wants to do it. Or Ian Holm if he is the desired Bilbo.
While the thought of Bilbo climbing the Empire State Building holding Fay Wray is rather entertaining, I think it might disturb the purists.
its already pretty high on the Hollywood Stock Exchange http://movies.hsx.com/servlet/SecurityDetail?symbo l=HOBIT
It may just be me, but I don't think that the feel of Lord of the Rings would really suit The Hobbit. The Hobbit is much more of a fairy tale than an epic, unlike Lord of the Rings... I don't think the same presentation, &tc. would really be best for The Hobbit.
Bít, zabít, jen proto, ze su liska!
Good job, genius. Ian Holm is the guy who played Bilbo in the trilogy. Ian McKellen played Gandalf. I know it's hard to grasp that more than one person in the world can be named "Ian," so I sympathize with your idiocy.
Ian Holm plays Bilbo. Ian McKellen plays Gandalf.
Who are you replying to? The first post? Can't figure out how to use the Reply to This link? And the Ian being referred to here is Ian Holm, who played Bilbo. Dolt indeed.
Oh, yes, I just love what L.A. is doing with smog lately. It's simply incredible. Words can't describe it. Far better than Houston or Mexico City could ever hope for.
For USian readers, Sir Ian has appeared on a number of chat shows recently promoting RoTK and other recent films of his. He was directly asked about his willingness to appear in "The Hobbit" should it be filmed and basically came across as absolutely desperate to do it and said something along the lines of "fingers crossed Peter Jackson will do it". So there you are. No word from Holm as far as I know though.
Plays violent online games as: Nerfherder76
I would love to see this made into a film, with the amount of effort that jackson put into the trilogy you know that he will make an amazing adaptation of The Hobbit. Yes large portions of the book were missed out, but overall given how long it lasted with these bits missing, could you see anyone but die hard Tokien fans going to watch it if each one was 5 hours long?
Ian as a hobbit would be different though, I don't quite see how jackson could quite get that as a prequel,
**The Hobbit that becomes a Grey Wizard**
nah, it just doesn't work for me
If at first you DON'T succeed, Skydiving is NOT for YOU!!
She's perfectly cast. Makes me actually want to see this movie.
Jackson also mentions wanting the movie to feel just like the LOTR trilogy
Blah, The Hobbit isn't supposed to feel like LotR.. LotR is an epic book about war, while The Hobbit is just a story of one small hobbit. More like a fairy tale.
The problem, as I see it, is that there will be a lot of pressure to make this movie bigger and better than then the previous three. But it shouldn't be: The Hobbit is a smaller story in every sense. Trying to "out do" LOTR with it's story would destroy it completely - it is a really just one small adventure in a very big world.
Don't get me wrong, it is a great story, and if done right it could be a great movie, but if it made along the lines of "Now we have better computers and can have ten times more people at the final battle" then that would destroy it (and the continuity).
In that sense, I think trying to make something out of the stories in The Silmarrilion would be better (those battles really were bigger) - but obviously brining that to the screen would involve basically filling a story around the history told in the book. And I doubt the movie rights were ever sold, or that Christoffer Tolkien would not.
IMHO The Hobbit was more than just a 'childrens' book. You could say that Harry Potter is a 'childrens' book, but look at the vast audience it has gained. Tolkien is one of the greates writers for his genre, theres a reason that people attempt to emulate him, and it is because he is renowned for his work.
If at first you DON'T succeed, Skydiving is NOT for YOU!!
Just give Ian Holm and Ian McKellan a few botox shots to the face, and they'll be set to go!
"There is no spoon." - The Matrix
Unless they add a talking pie character in which case it might have a chance.
You know it makes sense.
sig
The previously-made hobbit cartoon really was absolutely excellent for what it was, I think it deserves to remain the "precursor" to the LOTR film trilogy. Meanwhile, a hobbit movie would not be able to live up to the LOTR trilogy; the events that take place in The Hobbit are much smaller scale than the LOTR trilogy, and so they couldn't top themselves.
I'd like to see someone find a worthy writer, hand them one of the stories from one of the Books of Lost Tales or one of Tolkien's other nearly-finished works, say "here, clean this up and turn it into something we can use as a screenplay", and make a movie out of it.
Ian Holm (Bilbo) or Ian McKellen (Gandalf)???
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
With all due respect, I felt that Gollum, while good, was still not perfect. You could blatantly tell that it was a CG effect at times - mainly the way it moved, but in certan shots the details looked a bit artificial to me, too. Jackson, while better than (for instance) Lucas, should also learn to hide his CGI characters in the scenery a little better - sometimes a teaspoon full, artfully placed, is worth so much more than a big shovel load right in your face.
There were various other places in LOTR where you could clearly see how animated things were. A couple of scenes with Legolas, and the scene where Gandalf leads the fellowship through the giant underground hall come to mind.
Read Pynchon.
Bah the L.A. smog just doesnt live up to the original that was produced by London. Ask any "purist", they'll tell you. Unfortunately this smog is just about impossible to get anymore. There are occational rumors the BBC is going to re-release it, but it never comes to pass and so its just falling into obscurity.
And it rendered on, until the end of its days.
only in slashdot where an assertion without elaboration such as this gets modded "insightful" :P
I don't know how much there is the The Hobbit as a movie - it's not on the epic scale of any of the LOTR trilogy, and is pretty linear as a tale. How about interspersing scenes from the Hobbit with the "missing scenes" from LOTR when Frodo and co get back to the Shire and find Saruman as the new leader! Basically - make the film a prequel and sequel. I think it would work really well, (apart from in ROTK you already know the final conclusion of Frodo sailing away from the Havens).
Considering the lack of massive war scenes in "The Hobbit", maybe they'll be able to make the movie for a sum smaller than the EU's 10 year budget?
Be an elitist - read Slashdot at +4.
The Hobbit elves:
"Fa, la, la, la lolly"
LoTR elves:
"Are time is done, woes."
Las Vegas Elvis:
"Do you take the woman to be your lawfully wedded wife"
San Fransisco Elvis:
"Do you take the woman to be your lawfully wedded husband"
Elvis Costello:
"Hey man, leave me out of you dumb Elvish thing."
Abbot and Castello:
"Who's on first..."
and so on
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Once I saw the flashback scene in LoTR: FOTR, I knew Jackson should of started with the Hobbit first and I remember him saying from the start that he wouldn't do it either, even as fans asked him to. I mean it completely sets up the events in LoTR and introduced some of the main characters to us, it couldn't be been perfect as a taster of things to come. Of course, Jackson has changed his mind and done a complete U turn on this and will now do it. I hate films that do prequels second. I hope it doesn't end up like Enterprise with it destroying continuity and not feeling the same as the rest in the franchise.
Jonathanjk.com
Whats that? Chopped liver? And quite a lot of the combatants aren't nearly as convieniently human-like as those in LoTR if memory serves.
the Elvish Inquisition!
if Liv Tyler lives in Laketown and is given credit for killing Smaug I'm out of there.....
Obscure simpsons reference
On the subject of Peter Jackson, is there anyone else who feels that, in hindsight, the LOTR trilogy was maybe not quite as great as it could have been? I mean, I'm not going to say it sucked or anything ridiculous like that, it was well made, and had competent acting etc., but overall it left me feeling a bit empty. The first movie was great - no doubt about it. There were fewer characters/factions so the plot was more tightly focused on their development and personal experiences. There were fewer ridiculously huge battle scenes and correspondingly less CG work. And overall, the script felt a lot tighter than the other two movies, especially the last one.
Overall, while I enjoyed the movies, I would question some of the following:
- the character acting/development: maybe not bad, but the actors weren't given much to work with at times
- the script to the last movie: too scattered, trying to cram everything in without ever really coming together neatly in a form palatable for a movie
- the pacing: considering what was cut, there were some ridiculously ponderous bits and other parts where whole swathes of the book were glossed over in a couple of seconds
- the feeling that, by the end, Jackson is just telling someone elses story rather than presenting us with a piece of work in its own right. This combined with decisions to reduce Saruman's role and symbolism hurt the broader themes of the trilogy for me.
I wonder if, perhaps in desperation after what Lucas (*hiss* *hiss* tool of the devil!) and the Warchowskis heaved out this past few years we were all just so damn relieved that the LOTR movies didn't totally blow that we all got a bit carried away?
Thoughts? Flames?
PS
I still expect the Hobbit would rock - based on the above, I think it would be much better suited to Jackson's directing style, with more opportunity for strong character work and humour that is actually meant to be there.
Read Pynchon.
> The Hobbit was a children's book and not a very good one IMO.
IMO, The Hobbit holds up better as a story than LoTR did.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The only difference between "children's literature" and "literature" is that children's literature tends to be easier reading (however, see Oprah's Book Club for easy-reading grown-up literature), children's literature tends to feature children as protagonists (again, not unheard of in adult literature either), and it is very rare for children's literature to be horribly depressing or without hope (see Out of the Dust for an excellent exception). And length, of course, but Harry Potter is clearly pushing that limit too.
In other words, all of the things that distinguish children's literature are just tendencies to include certain characteristics more frequently that are also present in grownup literature. So really there's not much difference. Adults can read children's literature (again, enjoy Out of the Dust folks!) and children can enjoy adult literature. The distinction is somewhat arbitrary unless you're talking about picture books or "Pat the Bunny" books.
The quality of the book is certainly subjective. You're certainly entitled to believe The Hobbit is not very good. I happen to believe The Hobbit is better than The Lord of the Rings. Two Anonymous Cowards cancel each other out, so I guess everyone else just has to decide for themselves. Which they should do anyway.
All books should be adapted to the screen. If a film is exactly the same as the book, either the book, the film, or both are going to be very bad--guaranteed. I imagine filming the Hobbit will involve a big rewrite, much as the LoTR movies did. The size of the rewrite doesn't necessarily correlate to the quality of the book--it correlates to the filmability of various scenes.
This prequel is set 60 years before LotR - so no problem with hobbits, men or such. The only ones would be elves and Gandalf (an istari). But Gandalf looks "timelessly old" and would no doubt do that in 5+ years too. I guess the Elves could be the issue, they're immortals as well. But it'd only be a few characters, and not the main characters. I think it'll be just fine.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I am miffed about this passion for Tolkien's stuff among geeks and nerds. I did try to read The Lord of the Rings and couldn't go beyond 150 pages or so - and I am used to reading big, heavy-duty stuff, as far as pages and topic are concerned.
I find the Scandinavian and Celtic mythologies that inspired Tolkien far more compelling than his trilogy, and I wonder if the people so enamoured of the latter have tried to look into the former?
Finally, I got to watch the first and third installments of the trilogy. Well, the first one I started to watch, but I soon started doing something else (I was at home) and left it running in the background. The third one I did watch all right (my wife's mother wanted to watch it, and I accompanied them) and, while acknowledging its technical aspects, I remained unimpressed by the storyline. And, to be honest, during the last hour I couldn't wait for it finish, all the more so because it does seem to come to an end several times during the last hour.
I am not trying to troll here. I am just trying to understand what is it in this story that people find so utterly wonderful.
oh - sorry to have disturbed you
How many ending will this one have?
Ironic. I mean we are talkin' bout hobbits here, my precious.
It really isn't a children's book. It starts off as one, but matures quickly. By the time you reach the end, it is just as mature as LOTR.
I disagree. It's pretty well known that that's how fellowship started out. You can tell by the second half of the book it gets alot darker, but in the beginning it's very lighthearted just like the hobbit. And didn't Tolkein start writing it before he saw all the things he saw in WWI? That could explain the change...
In this case what we are seeing is not a straw man fallacy so much as an attempt to point out the absurdity of Person 1's argument. The point is, of course it wasn't perfect. No artistic work wrought by human hands can be "perfect". The word simply lacks any real meaning in this context.
In response to someone saying "this movie was not perfect", the implication behind a "could you have done better?" comment is, perfect compared to what? Perfect by what standard?
The question is reasonable. The root post says it could have been better. The response is, could it have? Could you have done it better? If not you, who? Anyone? This question is reasonable. There are no logical fallacies in the judgement of art because the judgement of art contains no logic. It is wholly subjective.
Gloin, Gimli's father, was on both books too - on LotR he appeared during Elrond's council.
He was even shown in the FotR movie, although he remained silent there.
“Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
two studios with rights to the film, to battle it out for rights to make the prequel.
In other words, waiting for eight dozen corporate executives and lawyers to agree who gets paid how much and when?
Buy the book.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
MODs replace "it" with M$ WinD0ze and mod parent up, kthnxbye
One thing I always wonder when I hear about them planning to do the hobbit is how the heck they'll deal with the ring. It's been a while since I read the Hobbit but I don't remember much of anything about the ring that would suggest it being a super evil thingamabob that is the center of the dark lords power I mean anyone who hasn't read the book but has seen LOTR is going to take one look at gollum and the ring and think of nothing else for the end of the movie, "Hrm, I wonder when gollum will pop out, hrm wonder if the ring will start being evil now".
Other than gandalf going on for about 5 minutes saying "yeah interesting ring and that gollum creature sounded neat, maybe it will be important in the future but I garuntee that absolutely nothing else will happen with respect to either until long after our adventure is done." I can't see how they'll possibly deal with the ring. Are there people here who read the Hobbit after reading LOTR and remember their reactions? Any ideas how they might deal with the ring?
I stole this Sig
Does anything in the article ever say a movie is in the works except for a presumptuous title and some anon AP writer? No.
It says two film studios have conflicting rights and are battling to see whose rights take precedence.
It says "if he were going to direct the movie" he would this... "I'd want Ian McKellen"... more *IF* statements.
Of course the studios want the movie made. Prequal to an 11 Oscars film? $$$
What the article basicly says is that there *isn't* a movie in the works. If it were in the works, and Peter Jackson was to direct it, he'd "like" this done this way or that way....
I saw absolutely no quotes where he said anything about something being "done".
This has offered no new information and just regurgitated wants and hopes and I resent being so happily drawn here by the RSS feed I saw it on.
Sleet
Given that the post you were replying to has a Subject of "McKellen Up For It" ...
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Not sure if anyone else saw this, but a few months back I found what looked like a poor-quality leeked trailer for The Hobit on Kazaa or Bittorrent. It had most of the same characters, a few borrowed scenes, and what looked like new scenes, including CG of the dragon.
Anyone else see this, or know anything about it?
Ian as a hobbit would be different though...
;). So, I guess I know which one you're talking about from context, but then again, the rest of this thread might get a little tricky.
There are two Ians. The guy who played Bilbo was Ian Holm, and the guy who played Gandalf was Ian McKellen. (Iorlas was also an Ian; Ian Hughes [there was an Ian Tapp in the sound department, an Ian Cope in special effects, and Ian Murray whose job was "headrigger" according to IMDb])
While I can't see McKellen playing a hobbit, Holm would probably do a decent job
PUBLIC SPLIT ON WHETHER BUSH IS A DIVIDER -CNN scrolling banner, 10/15/2004
People have explained this to you over and over and it's on the DVDs. I think you just like being a jackass.
I hate to say this but I think Jackson should try another theme. Sure Lord of the Rings were off the hook, but there is a time when the audience wants a different theme. The audience is always looking for new stuff -- you cant just feed some stuff and expect it to sell.
-------
FM Clan
Considering that "The Hobbit" became a prequel to "The Lord of the Rings", one could consider the possibility of which LOTR characters / actors could appear in "The Hobbit".
From The Book
- Bilbo - Ian Holm
- Gandalf - Ian McKellen
- Elrond - Hugo Weaving
- Gollum / Smeagol - Andy Serkis
Possible LOTR Characters Cameos
- Legolas - Orlando Bloom (Legolas is the son of King Thranduil of Mirkwood (the Elvenking of "The Hobbit"))
- Arwen Evenstar - Liv Tyler (daughter of Elrond, but stayed at Lothlorien at times - unlikely to appear, but it could make an appearance)
- Aragorn / Strider - Viggo Mortenson (Aragorn was raised in Rivendell, and so could make an appearance. He's known in "The Fellowship of the Ring" to be good friends with Bilbo)
- Barliman Butterbur - David Weatherley (though Bree is not mentioned, I believe, Bilbo and company could easily pass through Bree as its on the way)
- Other LOTR Elves - most any could show again if desired
Unlikely To Appear
- LOTR Hobbits - mostly all too young
- Gimli - probably too young or not born, as Gloin, Gimli's father, is described, I believe, as a young dwarf in "The Hobbit". On the other hand, dwarves are long lived (compared to humans) and so what's "young"? Hobbits came of age in their 30's or 40's (can't remember which off the top of my head).
Others?
Cadmann
I know that traditionally, the theatrical version has been the 'definitive' one, and that DVD extras have been add-ons thrown in quickly to make up the weight. However, despite PJ's comments a few months ago, IMO the definitive versions of LOTR are really the extended DVD editions. They have better pacing, a more coherent plotline, lots of telling details -- in short, the story is given more room to breathe, and works all the better for it.
So please don't judge ROTK until you've seen the EE. If the first two are anything to go by, I suspect we'll see a lot more character development (hopefully involving Denethor's corruption, and Faramir's and Eowyn's recoveries, and maybe more of Aragorn, as well as Saruman's closure), better explanation and progression of the plot, better pacing, and more balance in the grand themes and symbolism. Calling the theatrical versions 'edited highlights' would be unfair, but perhaps it wouldn't be that far from the truth. It's amazing what PJ managed to pack into each 3-hour slot; but the EEs are more amazing still.
Of course, even the EE won't be perfect. There are still flaws, awkward issues and disappointments. But despite those, I think LOTR is a magnificent achievement, wonderful to watch and better than we had any right to hope for.
BTW, I wonder if his may be the start of a deep change in the industry, where what you see in the cinema is no longer seen as the most important part of moviemaking, and where DVD &c editions may come to take on equal or greater importance overall.
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
Given: ...it's *patently obvious* that he was referring to Sir Ian McKellen.
1) the subject
2) Holm isn't a knight
3) the Ian he mentioned was talking about was playing Gandalf
4) 'Ian's been cranky in the past over questions about his sexuality (McKellen is gay, Holm is not)
5) he finished by saying there'd been no word from Ian Holm yet
> Ummm, The Battle of Five Armies???
Exactly. I have no idea why that troll of a post received a +5! You are right that he posted a bold-face lie. Come on mods, if you have no idea what a post is about, why give it mod points?
Imagine how The Hobbit would have been written if Tolkien had not pretended he wasn't writing for grownups. I think you'd find it's a lot more like an epic. I mean jeez, a guy is persuaded to leave a comfortable life for a long, dangerous journey in which he defeats multiple foes throught stealth, wit, magic, luck, and plain old-fashioned swordplay. Sounds pretty epical to me!
It's only when Gollum researches the origins of his Precious, in order to find it again, that the name 'Baggins' is brought to the attention of Sauron. Gollum is caught and then released, whereupon he found and carefully evaded Shelob... both escapes for a price.
[
(Of course, there were suspicious circumstances attached to it: Gollum's extreme possessiveness; its magical nature; Bilbo hiding it and then lying about its origin. Gandalf was suspicious of it from the first; in the film, maybe a few telling glances from him could speak volumes.)
That's often the nature of evil; it's deceptive and can appear perfectly innocent at first. (I know Tolkien didn't intend any direct allegories in his work, but occasional resonances like that do happen.)
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
back in the far distant past the BBC did a 53hr [yes 53 hours] radio dramatisation of Lord of the Rings with a young Ian Holm as Frodo Baggins. Thats probably why he got the part of Bilbo in the movie.
Yes he could carry off the part of Bilbo in the Hobbit but he would require a lot of care to stay healthy at the age he might be by the time the movie gets to be finally made.
two outside possibilities would be Bob Hoskins or Armin Shimerman [Quark in DS9}
Paul
www.opencouncil.org
Open
I can't help but think that he is risking ruining his great work with the Lord of the Rings series by pushing it too far. I haven't personally read The Hobbit, but from what I've heard it isn't nearly as exciting as the Lord of the Rings series. I just hope Peter Jackson doesn't get to full of himself and pop out a Phantom Menace.
If Jackson does the Silmarillion, it ought to be done as the Better Twentieth Century; the one where Germany Won the Great War.
.
Some you missed, sort of:
- Gloin appeared at the council of Elrond in FotR.
- Gwaihir, the eagle who rescued Gandalf in FotR also appears in the hobbit.
I was hoping that this would fall through. The Hobbit is nothing like LOTR in terms of themes and parallels with life. It's a fairy tale, with elves and goblins (or whatever rode the wargs in the Hobbit... Orcs i guess?) and dragons and the such. The ring was never hinted as being a _bad_ thing necessarily in The Hobbit, other than the fact that Gollum seemed to act a little strange in its presence. It certainly wasn't a metaphor for the corruption associated with greed and capitalism as it was in LOTR..... When I first read the Hobbit, it more or less manifested itself as a surreal CG fairy tale in my head. It started out with 12 or so dwarves who, unlike Gimli in the movie, wore colored hoods and were very quick-witted and bubbly. the Trolls after that were these enormous dopey monsters, very comical and dumb. Then the elves... nothing like the 6'+, slender, statue-esque figures of Jacksondom at all. I pictured them being more like Santa Claus's elves, with weird little hats and elongated limbs and such... strange and playful, not serious and meloncholy. IMHO, the realization of The Hobbit in the CG cutscenes of the video game I saw advertised are much more on the mark. Superdeformed FFVI characters and the like, and the cartooniness just seemed to make a lot more sense. If Jackson pursues this as he wonderfully did with the trilogy, i fear it can only end in a complete fabrication of anything resembling the original story. It just _can't_ work in live action with these overly serious, forlorn elves (they're my biggest worry, if you couldn't tell). Think Pete reads /.?
eric http://www.ericdfields.com/
But that's the point. The Ring didn't appear particularly evil when first used; that's why it's such a shock to Frodo in LOTR to find out its origin.
But that's the point, I doubt if Tolkien even intended Bilbo's ring to be the One Ring in the Hobbit, it sure didn't appear to be anything other than a toy to make Bilbo go invisible. It would be like having an German officer named Hitler in a WWI movie then giving him a part where he's around all of the time but doesn't do anything particularly Hitlary and instead just acts like a normal non-evil guy. It's going to be a very distracting role.
I stole this Sig
All of the other possible cameos are completely impossible. There was a HUGE gap in time between The Hobbit and LotR, on the order of 70 years. That would have left Aragorn a young child, Arwen living in Lothlorien with her mother's people, and Barliman, the young hobbits, and possibly Gimli not even born.
Not to say that Jackson might not do it anyway, but it just wouldn't make sense if he did.
This idea...it is awful. /Samir
If at first you DON'T succeed, Skydiving is NOT for YOU!!
This was published 4 years after J.R.R. Tolkien died
If at first you DON'T succeed, Skydiving is NOT for YOU!!
In other words, behaving like the actual Adolf Hitler behaved in WWI.
It should be used as in the book - a harmless trinkit that makes Bilbo invisible. The story is not about the ring, which wasn't really in the picture as being this huge ring of power when Tolkien wrote the book. The story is about Biblo going from some weed-smoking country boy to an adventurer.
:)
As long as we don't have to listen to Elrond going on about how man can't handle things.
Instead of starting with the unexpected party at Bag-End, I hope it opens with "The Quest of Erebor", which describes Gandalf's meeting with Thorin. This appears in "Unfinished Tales".
The connections between The Hobbit and the Scouring of the Shire, on the other hand, are tenuous at best and are definitely not appropriate for the silver screen, where a concrete arc is important.
Warning!
2 310 2 532 2 518 2 497 2 483 2 414 2 400
shfted! is a known troll. He is also associated with the trolling website "anti-slash.org". These are some of his posts that were modded down recently:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99468&cid=848
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99468&cid=848
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99468&cid=848
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99468&cid=848
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99468&cid=848
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99468&cid=848
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99468&cid=848
If they are gonna try to get the Ian's (Bilbo and Gandalf) they had best get a move on before something happens - they are neither getting any younger. The only other person who would need to return would be Hugo Weaving (Elrond), but I don't think he'd change too much over a couple years.
:)
Of course, Andy Serkis would need to reprise Gollum, but he should look about the same, even though time hasn't been good to him so far
I do wonder if they would want Ian Holm as Bilbo or not. While I think he did a great job in LotR, the filming of another movie where he is the main role may take quite a toll on him.
Also, I would think they would want to try to reuse The Shire set that they built before it gets overgrown with weeds. And there is also the Rivendell set which they should probably reuse.
WWI ended in 1918.
The Hobbit was published in 1936.
He started writing LOTR the following year.
And it's Tolkien.
LA has for times the automobiles it had in 1970 and HALF the smog.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I was thinking Arwen in Rivendell and Legolas in Mirkwood would make perfect sense as cameos.
Ian Holm might be too old to play a 50-year old Bilbo. 50 is quite young for a hobbit.
Butterbur surely would not have been born at the time of the Hobbit (T.A. 2941).
As for the others, check the appendices.
Aragorn would have been 10. Could be in the movie, but not played by Mortensen.
Gimli was born 2879, would have been 62 that year. Rhys-Davies could still play this part.
Of course, Jackson's LotR screenplay fscked with the timeline a lot, so any of the above is subject to modification.
Okay, about TTT Special Extended, just to give you an idea of what you're missing by not watching it:
Warning! the following could be considered
SPOILERS by some:
Boromir's in it. So's Denethor.
Furry cows moo and decompress.
Gandalf, Elrond, Gollum - No significant age difference, no significant age difference, CG, so they're all good
Legolas - It'd be cool to have him around, possibly being an asshole to the Dwarves. It'd bring more meaning to his eventual friendship with Gimli, and it'd disillusion the gushing preteen girlies (always a good thing).
Arwen - Yup, in Lorien. Liv's still viable, but it wouldn't really matter much, even to the fanboys, to have her in Imraldis, though.
Aragorn - Couldn't be Viggo (he would be around 20), but it'd be cool to have him make a cameo (possibly even cooler if all you saw of him was being all lovey-dovey-shit in the backgroud with Liv)
Butterbur - No one really cares that much about the character, and anyone who's only seen the movie probably wouldn't even get the reference.
Other elves - Again, no one realy cares. I guess you could have Galadriel, Teleporno (teehee!) or Haldir, the only elves named in the movies, in Rivendell or Mirkwood, but that'd be pushing it. I'm thinking they could throw Glorfindel in, somewhere, to apologize a bit to the fanboys for cutting him.
Yeah.
We know that.
What the parent was saying, I think, was: "how do they address the issue that the film's viewing audience will be expecting something significant to happen wrt to "Bilbo's funny magic ring" when nothing too significant or evil happens wrt to The Ring in The Hobbit at all?"
Furry cows moo and decompress.
The Lord of the Rings is very well written, even if it is lacking the complexity that would allow literary critics to call it "great." Tolkien said he was trying to write a really good tale, like a really good yarn in the English pub sort of way. After his practice with the Hobbit he clearly succeeded and wrote what is one of the best prochronistic yarns we have.
But "The Hobbit" is not really the work of a mature writer. Even with the compelling force of the LOTR behind him PJ produced three movies that most of my friends can not sit through -- friends who have read and like the books. I personally think that he didn't get much of the heart of Tolkeins work in there, even in the face of Tolkiens strength in LOTR.
Given that, what sort of failure can we expect from PJ's version of The Hobbit? Most of the Hobbit really is not very tense or scary. What is PJ going to do -- spend the entire movie on The Battle of the Five Armies?
Mr. Jackson, please save youselves some pain and money and stop now, before it's too late. Take care not to saddle Hollywood with another Gigli.
Or allow yourself to change a little. Maybe this is a chance for Jackson to redeem himself and produce a couple of hours of footage that have the same whimsy and beauty as the first few scenes of The Fellowship (the green scenes.) Try to produce a good, more challenging, and probably less successful (than LOTR) movie, instead of an attempted blockbuster that has the potential to bomb. No matter how you look at it, the Hobbit has to be at least as challenging as "The Old Forest" and "In The House of Tom Bombadil", which it seems like everyone is afraid of.
Well, good luck anyway...
Gimli was born before that time (see my other post below yours).
Arwen may have been living in Lothlorien but I think it's mentioned that she still spent time in Rivendell; it was on one such visit that she met Aragorn.
I think you'll see a young Aragorn (played by a child actor, of course), a glimpse of Arwen, and plenty of Legolas when Bilbo and the dwarves get to Mirkwood. I also suspect Gimli will put in an appearance near the end.
When they showed the effect of the ring the first time, I thought
"You know, you would think Bilbo would have mentioned that eery, evil and terrifing effect."
I think if they tie what there wearer experience to the power of Sauron, they could explain it.
Show the effeect in the hobbit as a world thats only a little distorted. How they would work that in, I have no idea.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I missed the trilogy that they hadin the theatre's and I'd really wish they would set up another time where that could take place. I know many people that missed out on it and want to have another chance. Even if they set up three seperate theatres to play them and walk from one theatre to the next I would do it. Anyone else feel this way?
Open Source. It's the difference between trust and antitrust.
BTW, if you've never read "The Godfather," you should. It's an excellent book in its own right.
Lousy minor setbacks! This world sucks! -- Homer Simpson
The Hobbit cartoon was wretched. It completely turned me off to ever reading the books.
Lots of great comments!
:-)
One thing I forgot to mention in my original post (and which everyone has pointed out) was that some of the actors would obviously have to change. I think Ian Holm would have to be replaced as Bilbo, just due to the age differential. Not sure about Ian McKellen (who has expressed interest in doing "The Hobbit"). My mistake was plastering every actor's name onto each character (even if they'd be fit for a reappearance in a much earlier prequel or not).
Barliman was definately a mistake to add to the list. Momentary brain-fart over timelines. Sigh.
Aragorn would be cool to see, particularly as a kid. Again, obviously, Viggo couldn't play him.
Yes, I forgot Gloin's appearance, and, of course, the eternally-present Eagle's, particularly Gwaihir.
Not sure how they would work Gimli's appearance / cameo into the story. Sorry, don't have all my books handy, but *if* Gimli's birth occurred *before* Smaug's taking the Lonely Mountain, Gimli could appear in historical flashbacks. Or, perhaps he could show up in the end with the other Dwarven kin that arrive before the battle of the Five Armies (staying with the kin while Dad goes with Thorin to reclaim the mountain). Perhaps even have a first-ever encounter between Gimli and Legolas *during* the battle (consistently keeping them disliking each other at this point in history).
"Twenty-one! Twenty-two! Twenty-three!"....
Cadmann
Industry observers have said that the Academy waited for RotK so they could effectively give the Oscars to the entire trilogy. All three movies won those awards.
The progressive quality of the series demonstrates Jackson's sense of pacing. Jackson already has it over Lucas in this department: The original Star Wars trilogy started off strong and improved in the second installment (under another director's hand, it's well worth noting), but the third movie fell back a notch on the quality scale. Lucas lost his vision; Jackson kept it tight.
(Of course, Jackson had the benefit of high-integrity source material, whereas Lucas made it up as he went along. Oh, despite any exo-cinematic stuff out there, I simply don't believe Lucas had a master plan for the trilogy -- or, if he did, he lacked the discipline to stick to that plan. Details of Ep. IV-VI just do not cohere, and in Ep. I & II Lucas shamelessly, slavishly overcompensated by tying up loose ends that are best left open. I mean, sure, I saw I and II and I'll go see III, but George Lucas has lost his cred as a storyteller in my book.)
Er, uh, so my point is: Jackson hasn't shown the warning signs that Lucas did in Ep. IV-VI. I have no worries about The Hobbit. I'm psyched.
The Hobbit & SPAM(R) -- two classics made in 1937.
I thought that was amusing when I realized it.
Any further comments?
Why didnt they make the hobbit before Lord
of the ring?
How does a project which is on hold for two or more years while the lawyers argue about rights and the director works on something else qualify as being "in the works"?
This is not news. It is well know that Jackson would like to direct the Hobbit when possible. He is not currently working on it.
But see, that's what would make it so great. I bet Peter Jackson would treat the ring whimsically, but have some sort of strange moment of hesitation on Bilbo's part at some point, some strange look, and a slight bit of the theme of the ring--you'd sit there thinking, oh, man, there it is, the cause of the whole huge story about to happen later on. And then the movie ignores it for the rest of the film. It would make Fellowship resonate all the more.
As an aside, think of how incredibly awesome the introduction of Gollum would be, him in his cave swimming up behind Bilbo's back. The audience will go nuts when Gollum appears again in theaters.
"Sufferin' succotash."
I think that will be one of the things that could be turned into something very cool about a future Hobbit movie: Everyone that sees it will KNOW that the ring is dangerous, which could give the whole thing a very chilling effect with just minor hints here and there spread out in an otherwise relatively cheerful movie.
From here
In the first edition, Gollum willingly bets his magic ring on the outcome of the riddle game. Tolkien later revised this passage to reflect the concept of the One Ring and its powerful hold on Gollum, developed while writing The Lord of the Rings.
One thing's for certain, rather than that Enya or Annie Lennox rubbish, Spo^H^H^HLeonard Nimoy's masterpiece should be used for the closing credits.
Christopher Harrison
The parent message was not FLAMEBAIT, it was a FLAME. If you can't tell the difference then you shouldn't be moderating.
And frankly you are too charitable with the acting.
I try to explain the histeria from several points of view:
-The generation that grew up with videogames and related subcultures have been itching for get formal recognition for their endeavours. THis is just part of the trend. Games to be equaled to an art form is next.
-People needed distraction. No wonder fantasy films have bee doing so well the last three years. I need not to say the reasons for this, it is normal that people look for escapism during certain periods that appear to be difficult.
-Marketing, but that is a well explored issue. Market properly a regular movie and it will be great, do not market an excellent movie and it will take 20 years to be recognized as a masterpiece.
In 5 or 6 years we will look back in amusement about how it is possible this movie was so much praised will genuinely good movies escaped the radars of people that were suppossed to know better (not really, Hollywood does not know better when it comes to cinematography, othersiwe would not be desperately making remakes of foreign movies and hiring all the non US talent they can).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
But it was a *French* song. Forget it.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
two studios with rights to the film battle it out for rights to make the prequel
This sounds like a ready plot for another cinematic sage? Like "Two kingdoms with ambitions to dominate everything battle it out for domination over all people of Middle Earth."
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
The only characters who play a part in both tales (as far as I can remember) are Gandalf, Bilbo, Gollum and Elrond. The same actors would surely have to be used...!
Why does that stupid Peter Jack-ass-son make more gay Tolkien movies? He just don't get it that Tolkien sucks.
Especially with The Hobbit, which doesn't contain even one female character.
click here for more information.
Actually, Hitler only got to the rank of corporal in the German Army during WWI.
I get your point, however. Seeing this guy act like Cpl. Klinger on M.A.S.H. with the name Hitler could be distracting... or funny.
Of course Hitler was also from Jewish ancestry, in a bit of irony. (His grandmother was a Jew.)
Oh, upps. Just scared my cow-orker in the office with my shouting :)
;), I hoped that he would be able to do The Hobbit, too. And now I see that he is!
;)
Please don't call me a Fanboy, but I love the books (first read them when I was about 12). When I first heard of the movie I was horrified, but lo and behold: it turned out great (especially the extended versions, which are actually quite a bit better than the cinema ones).
After I came out of the first film (and immediately bought another ticket for the weekend
Ah, just caught my little ray of sunshine for today
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
So, Smaug will smash the mountainside and seal in the dwarfs while Gandalf gnaws on chicken and slops food all over his robe, followed immediately by Bilbo arriving home to the auction.
It really DOES feel just like Jackson's LotR!
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
named JarJar something or other in the Hobbit? I'll have to re-read soon.
This is great news.
Let's hope though, that we do not have that SCARY song by Leonard Nimoy playing. . .
Interesting. A good point, as there is a point in book where Gandalf does somewhat suspect Bilbo and the ring. Regardless, other than some omnious music, the Ring should not play that much of a role in The Hobbit other than Bilbo using it.
I saw a list of movies in a joke trailer released before the Fellowship of the Ring was out.
I think it's this one.
I think it wasn't hosted on modernhumorist when I saw it first.
I posted this list in a previous post, but can't find it. (Not subscriber)
The Fellowship of the Ring (Christmas 2001)
The Two Towers (Cristmas 2002)
The Third One (Christmas 2003)
Lord of the Rings: Episode 1 - The Hobbit (Christmas 2005)
The Fellowship of the Ring: Special Edition (Christmas 2006)
The Book of Lost Tales (Christmas 2007)
Scribbles in Tolkien's Math Book (Hannukah 2009)
Dude, Where's My Ring? (Christmas 2010)
What Hobbits Want (Christmas 2011)
Bilbo Brockovich (Christmas 2012)
All the Pretty Hobbits (Christmas 2013)
O, Bilbo, Where Art Thou? (Christmas 2014)
Crouching Gollum, Hidden Balrog (Christmas 2015)
Orc by Orcwest (Christmas 2017)
I mean, it's no great feat to predict that Peter Jackson might make The Hobbit, but if all those pan out, I promise to eat my right sock.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
One snag is the portrayal of the ring world in the films as a shifting harrowing place which is generally not nice to be in. I can't see Bilbo enganging in riddling talk with Smaug if everyting around him is shifting and swirling.... I suppose the way out would be not to show the Ring world, just shots of Bilbo not being there.
You're right - originally Bilbo won the ring from Gollum in a game of riddles. After he worked on the LotR, Tolkein realised that didn't fit in with the ring's nature and rewrote that bit, leaving Bilbo's account to the Dwarves intact.
That made Bilbo win the ring by stealing it, but lie about it, which fit in much better with the ring's revealed nature.
I'm pretty sure the first time I read The Hobbit, back in about '77, I read a very old edition which had the original story in it. When I re-read it a few years later, I remember being very confused about how poorly I remembered how Bilbo got the ring...
There's no (good) evidence for that. Read Ian Kershaw's Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris.
Maybe not a movie, but IMHO The Silmarillion would make an excellent mock documentary series.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
While I credit PJ with fantastic visual production (apart from the hack job he did on the third LoTR film), I was immensely dissappointed with his interpretation of the story
Now, much as it annoyed me, I didn't really think it was significant, as LoTR is a tale for adults when all is said and done.
But The Hobbit is for children. Smearing it with commercial Jacksonism will change children's interpretation of it, as larger numbers of them will see the film rather than read the book. How many of you were introduced to fantasy through the Hobbit?
Now I know that the argument is, hey, it's film, it's a different medium, things have to change - and I acknowledge all of these things. But I just think that some things should remain sacred.
"By Grabthar's Hammer, what a savings."
I think The Hobbit should pretty much be given over to Disney...
I presume you mean The History of Middle-earth when you say the modern stuff from Christopher Tolkien. Not that modern in most cases! Some of it dates back to 1916/17! Not to everyone's taste, but the later volumes are very interesting, though difficult to read in places.
Sauron Defeated (vol 9) has the epilogue chapter to Lord Of The Rings that Tolkien's friends talked him out of including, Sam and Rosie in Bag End, (they tried and failed to talk him out of a lot of the appendices as well, to put it in context). There is also a half completed Time Travel story about Numenor that Tolkien wrote as a pact with C.S.Lewis called The Notion Club Papers. One was to write a time travel story (Tolkien) whilst the other (Lewis) was to do a space travel story. Lewis completed his, published as Out Of The Silent Planet. If you like Tolkien's languages, this has a lot about another one! It's Adunaic, the language of Numenor.
Morgoth's Ring and The War Of The Jewels (vols 10 and 11) have most of the stuff that Christopher used when he put The Silmarillion together, along with lots of other stuff, such as a debate between Finrod, the elvish king of Nargothrond, and Andreth, a mortal woman, that explores elvish immortality as well a showing a failed love story between an elf and a woman. This was to have been an appendix to a published Silmarillion. There is also various bits supposedly inserted into the Silmarillion by a 9th Century English sailor, who 'found' the book and met 'faded' elves! Also various bits about elves; their marriages, sexual equality, 'death', children etc etc.
These later volumes are definitely woth a look if you are interested in Tolkien's mythology. If you are interested, have a look here for what's in them all.
Given that the execs gave Peter Jackson a lot of rope with LotR, and he delivered a product that made the company, I suspect they will make Jackson manage the much smaller budget of the Hobbit as he pretty much want to.
Bilbo wrote the story after all. He could either read it for a "Frodo-child", or read it for some elven children on the other side of the pond.
I.e. not read it up all the way, but having Bilbo read it as a frame for the movie.
It would also help give the hobbit movie the fairy tale feel of the book.
Gimli was (IIRC) 70 at the time of tH.
There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
-- David D. Friedman