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.)
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.
IIRC, Frodo and Bilbo were approximately the same age when they went on their respective quests. Making Ian Holm look as young as Elijah Wood would be quite a task.
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!
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
Not one to put into film
Isolated by chapter, there are at least 3 decent movies in "The Silmarillion". The material included is as complete as it needs to be, for the most part. You don't need a thick novel to make a film out of - look at all the PK Dick movies out there, or all the movies based on Stephen King short stories.
On the whole, I think an awesome movie could be made about the War of the Silmarils, though it would require looser boundaries than the LOTR adaptation.
As for The Silmarillion being a tough read, if people aren't taking into account the nature of the book (which is detailed explicitly in the prologue, notes and appendices) then they aren't reading it to begin with...
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).
Actually, I think the tale of Turin would work equally well. You could even, perhaps, make something useful out of Tuor and the fall of Gondolin.
There's plenty of material to mine in the Silmarillion, you just have to try to find good ways to isolate out elements of it. Usefully, of course, the more of the independent stories you tell, the more background you end up providing along the way, which allows you to work on the slightly more interwoven tales (the story of Earendil, for instance, would be fantastic, assuming a little bit of established background).
Jedidiah.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
I'm very sorry that you didn't enjoy the book The Lord of the Rings, because it is a very epic, moving tale about many things. How good always triumphs against evil--but only through divine providence, when people fight as hard as they can (even against hope). About how war affects everyone, even those who would rather stick their heads in the sand and forget about it. And how even small, simple Hobbits can rise to the occasion and fight evil when it comes to their own lands. That last part was cut from the movie; never filmed.
So, LotR was not for you. I won't force Cliff Notes or an audiobook down your throat. I'm just sorry you don't appreciate the style of writing. I loved it, and I agree it was pretty slow here and there. But I'm hardly surprised you didn't enjoy the story of the movies
Let's see. First you watched The Two Towers, so that put you in the middle of the story with no beginning or ending, and without introducing any of the Fellowship, only Theoden and some of the Rohirrim. Then you put on The Fellowship of the Ring and watched the first half hour, and then left it running while you paid attention to other things, so you (again) missed the beginning of the story. Finally, you went with your family to see the end of the story, but you still hadn't seen the beginning. So you had no emotional attachment to the characters when the story ended and each of their fates was told.
Did you really expect anything else? You wouldn't read one of those Scandinavian legends by starting in the middle, reading a third, and then skimming the first 15 pages and jumping to the end where you left off, would you?
You don't have to enjoy the writing of LotR. It's certainly not for everyone. But if you're really curious about the story, I suggest watching The Fellowship of the Ring again (get the Extended Edition if you can rent or borrow it). If you enjoyed that, rewatch The Two Towers (Extended Edition if you can) and The Return of the King, in that order. Schedule a block of time where you can sit for three hours and pay attention. You know how densely the book was written. With so many pages squeezed into three hours each, you need to pay attention, or else not be surprised if you don't understand what happened afterward.
As for why I enjoyed the story so much, well, I read The Hobbit in 8th grade as an assigned book, and became fascinated by Chapter 5, where Bilbo gets the Ring. So I read The Lord of the Rings over the next year, and managed to get through The Silmarillion the next. I began reading The Hobbit to an 11yo friend, and when the movies came out, I brought him and his brothers to see them, too.Now, this is a kid who probably couldn't read through the books (I bought him copies anyhow), but the story is compelling enough that many people find it interesting. I like the struggle between good and evil, how when the Free Peoples of Middle-earth all tried their hardest, everything came together by the hand of God to allow Sauron to be defeated. I was fascinated by the Ring and by Gollum (as was my friend) and the glimpses of ancient history enchanted me. Especially, in the books, the Argonath (the two 700 foot stone statues guarding the old border of Gondor at the end of FotR, that you didn't see because you weren't watching). I note with some pride that the most triumphant music in the entire movie is at that scene.
I got the added bonus of all the cute comments my friend made throughout the movies--the questions and the excitement and the awe. But I'd say this just enhanced my viewing of the movies, since I fell in love with the story in the book.
So, to sum up, I respect your opinion, I don't think the story got a fair chance (you watched the movies out of order and didn't pay attention to the first one?!) and I hope you come to enjoy the movies or the book in the future, but since they are not for everyone, I can live with it if you don't. There was just one person I hoped to be able to enchant by the films, and I was completely successful.
Nor do I think that continuity with LOTR is a good argument here. Yes, there he's 'well-preserved' for 111, but there are still some changes, and in the flashback to the finding of the ring, he's made to look younger. I doubt that, several years since that was filmed, they'd be able to keep that up for an entire movie.
No, I think we'll have to get used to the idea of someone else playing Bilbo. If they choose well, that someone will bring a liveliness and sense of humour to the story which will probably turn out for the best.
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
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/
That's how I've described The Silmarillion to folks; it's Tolkien's Bible to his world. If you try to read it as anything other than a collection of historical tales that have been collected many generations later than the action, you'll be in for a hard slog. I guess if one was really into wearing pointed ears and such, you could figure out a weekly reading schedule and work your way through it each year, discussing it's relevance to modern life and all. I don't think I know anyone who might consider doing this but i better check, just to be safe.
I drank what? -- Socrates
My vote is the tale of Berin and Luthien. It's probably very marketable. You've got a hero (Berin), Tolkien's principal kick-ass heroine (Luthien), a villain that's much scarier than a large disembodied eye, and a Simaril. And don't forget the hot man-on-elf sex. What more could any geek ask for?
A nice tragic story about a somewhat socially inept (cursed in fact), but otherwise likeable guy, who is remarkably handy with a sword, for whom life constatly goes terribly wrong. Despite unending failures and setbacks he plods along as best he can and manages to slay the father of all dragons before being utterly carried away by the tide of failures stacked against him by his curse, and killing himself.
Hooray for dark gritty story telling that doesn't involve elf maidens dressing up as giant vampire bats.
Oh, and if you want beautiful women in the story, there's both Morwen and Nienor.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Actually, I think doing a three-part Silmarillion trilogy would be awesome
:)
Part 1 - Principal character: Feanor. It would start with the awakening of the elves and then Orome taking the three elves to Valinor, and where they become kings and then return to middle earth to convince the others to come too. But some (the Sindar) stay (story of Thingol and Melian). Aule teaches the Noldor in craft skill and Feanor creates the Silmarils. Melkor and Ungoliant destroy the two trees. Feanor leads the Noldor out of Aman, kinslaying on Tol Eressa to steal the ships of the Teleri, and then Feanor sneaking away from Fingolfin and his host, making them cross the Helcaraxe. The movie would end with the creation of the Sun and Moon and the fortification of Aman.
Part 2 - Principal Character: Various men
Starts with the awakening of men and their migration west and sometimes friendly, sometimes weary relations with the elves, continues on to Dagor Bragollach and the battle of Fingolfin and Morgorth. Next would of course be the story of Beren and Luthien, and then the battle of Unnumbered Tears. Next
Part 3 - Turin, Tuor, Earendil
Starts with Turin and the slaying of Glauring. Next the ruin of Doriath chapter. Then comes Tuor's quest for Gondolin and the fall of Gondolin, and then finally, the huge finale, Earendil's quest for Valinor and the following War of Wrath.
There could even be a Part 4 for the Akallabeth. That would also rock.
I would rather see those four movies made than the Hobbit actually, but it's not my decision
Chris
I know this is probably wrong but the Silmarillon is very much like reading The Bible.
From what I have read Tolkien was a very spirtual man that wrote his own creation story, even though its closer supposedly to Norse mythology, I find many similarities to reading the bible, chronicaling the events of the Children of the Illuvatar, much like how the Bible tells the story of God's children.
Also each story gets more detailed as time progresses, very much like the Bible as well.
I find it fascinating literature, and exhibits the imagination of Tolkien more so than either the Hobbit or LOTR. After all I think he thought it was his most important work.
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).
This would be tough for a couple reasons, there just isn't enough detail about stories like that to do a movie. You would have to make up quite a bit of dialogue in order to make the story flow. I don't see a problem with that, however the people that complained that Arwen said more than her 1 or two lines that she actually had in the book would probably have a tissy fit. I wouldn't mind seeing the story of Beren and Luthien reminds me of the Clash of the Titans...
"It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
There's no way Holm can pass for that sort of age any more!
Uh, he did already, in Fellowship of the Ring. I'd be very surprised if they used a different actor for Bilbo. What's going to happen when you finish watching the Hobbit and then go into Fellowship and see that prologue? Ian Holm's gonna be the one stumbling across the ring in Gollum's cave. He's gonna be the one greeting Gandalf at Bag-End in the beginning. And he's the one Gandalf is going to say "hasn't aged a day."
Christopher Lee is like 82 freaking years old. If he can last three 3-hour movies playing an evil wizard, I think Ian Holm can stand to be a nervous little burglar running around invisibly.
"Sufferin' succotash."
One problem with the Rivendell set: It was done in a NZ national park, and they had to take down all of the consruction within days filming (as a part of their permit). In other words, this set is no more and would have to be rebuilt from scratch. (See the Fellowship of the Ring DVD for details)
As for Hobbiton, it was built on a Sheep ranch and was built nearly a year before principle shooting. Peter Jackson wanted to give the feel of having been lived in for awhile, with gardens and trees in places where it would be logical for homes in a village. Most of the buildings are a simple facade, but were dug into actual hills. The NZ Corp of Engineering even built the main road through Hobbiton.
If this isn't already a tourist attraction, it probabally reverted back to the sheep operations. If there is any more info about this, it would be neat to find out the ultimate fate of Hobbiton.
So, the problem is that there's no way to film the War of Wrath without making it look ridiculous. Tolkein compresses it all into a few paragraphs, and you have dragons so big they blot out the sky and shatter the earth, a flying ship, the gods digging Morgoth out of Angband, the sinking of Beleriand. . . it's just unfilmable. The fall of Gondolin would make a magnificent movie scene (the Illustrated Tolekin Encyclopedia has a good painting of it), but everything that happens after that is sort of vague.
You could argue that given the structure and style of Tolkein's work, the reason the War of Wrath is given such short notice is that it's essentially beyond human comprehension.
The only reason Jackson was able to get the movie rights to LOTR is because Tolkien himself sold them back in the 60s. The Silmarillion was published posthumously by his son, Christopher who now holds the rights to the Tolkien estate and has made abundantly clear on many occasions his disdain for theatrical remakes of his father's works, and his personal wish that the movie rights had never been sold.
So, Silmarillion: The Movie will never happen.