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.)
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.
Maybe... But having Rhys-Davies playing Gloin (Gimli's father) would be delicios and much more feasible...
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.
That fact that you noticed only a few out of many hundreds of CG enhancements show just how good a job Weta did.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Fairy tales are the centre of quite a lot of literary study, for there's often much more depth than there seems to be on the surface. Certainly, one of my favourite novels and films, The Last Unicorn, is clearly a fairy tale while also being a great piece of literature.
No, I'd say that The Hobbit is very much a fairy tale; and very much literary, as well. The two are not exclusive.
Bít, zabít, jen proto, ze su liska!
Can you ever get a perfect Gollum? He didn't exist in the first place; everybody that has read the book have their own mental picture of the creature.
:p
As for the CG effect.. Tolkien maybe meant him to be a sketchy character..
Though I have to agree that there should never be a Silmarillion movie. The information density in The Silmarillion is much, much higher compared to LotR. If The Silmarillion had been written in the same style as LotR, it would probably be many thousands of pages long. There's no way that can be transformed into a watchable movie.
Should Peter Jackson really feel the need to make more Tolkien movies even after The Hobbit, I think he should look at the tale of Beren and Luthien (one of the more independent chapters from The Silmarillion, and not as complex as the rest of the book).
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
Gollum may not have been perfect but one could guess that technology will be better when they actually start working on 'The Hobbit'. Maybe 3-4 years of perfecting and refining the process and better technology will aid the production of 'The Hobbit'.
So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
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.
My opinion is that yes, the LOTR movies really were that good. In the context of highly anticipated trilogies such as LOTR, Matrix, or the SW Prequels, much of a viewer's impression of the movie is based on the hype. How can it not be, when our entire society is oversaturated with tie-in crap? That being said, take a step back from the films and pretend that you have never heard of LOTR before seeing them, and look at them objectively as book adaptations. On that score, they succeeded.
The sheer amount of technical work that went into the movies to create a completely believable world is mind-boggling. A great deal of skill also went into turning a dense, rambling, laboring, symbolist epic into a screen adaptation without losing any of its power, grace, or richness. Jackson struck exactly the right chord with most audiences: his version was easy to follow by people who didn't know the books, yet so chock-full of information as to satisfy even the most die-hard fans of the books.
No movie will ever live up to hype. Ever. Our minds can create expectations that will never be exceeded by the director. Where a movie succeeds despite the hype is how it seems later, when the roar has died down. Rewatching the LOTR films, I get more out of them every time. I pick up on more subtle plot points. I see character relationships I didn't notice before. I see small details. The picture gains depth.
Contrast this rewatching with something like The Matrix trilogy, or the Star Wars Prequels. Every time I rewatch Episodes I and II, I cringe. They are worse with every viewing, far removed from the gee-whiz special effects hype. The original Matrix movie holds up well, but that was back when the Wachowskis were trying to prove themselves. Reloaded still seems ok, although the mythology is a little cheapened, and the pacing is plodding. I don't like rewatching Revolutions at all, because it's far too over-the-top. There's no substance.
Do the LOTR movies stand as a work on their own? Well, yes and no. On the one hand, they can't be considered their own work: they are an adaptation of another work. But on the other hand, they are well executed and digestable by people who have not read the books.
*Disclaimer: I refuse to comment on whether or not Return of the King deserved best picture, either by its own right or as a proxy for the entire trilogy. The five movies nominated were so totally and utterly diverse that comparing them to each other would be a waste of time. There was no "single winner" in that category this year.
For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
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.
As long as Wil Wheaton gets the part of Thranduil, i'll be happy.
Ok, moderately content.
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.