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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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).
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
if Liv Tyler lives in Laketown and is given credit for killing Smaug I'm out of there.....
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
How many ending will this one have?
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.
Frodo was 33 at the party, but didn't leave the Shire for many years.
But at 33 a hobbit has just come of age, so he should look young. Since he was carrying the ring,
which more or less stops aging, he should continue to look young throughout the story.
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
Frodo was 51 when he began his quest, like Bilbo, but he had had the ring preventing him from aging (at least partially) since he was 33 and thusly looked younger than Bilbo did during "The Hobbit."
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
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
Except that Hobbits have a longer lifespan than we do. Frodo was barely out of his "tweens", which is equivalent to our own "teens". I think he was cast well, and the look was about perfect. If only he could have looked just a little less soulful, maybe, 25% of the time...
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?
Bilbo was 51 when he set off on his adventure. Frodo is 50 when he sets off on his. You can check the dates in the RotK appendeces.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
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.
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.
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
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/
If at first you DON'T succeed, Skydiving is NOT for YOU!!
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.
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.
Other than a dragon attacking a whole city and a battle between elves, dwarves, goblins, men, and eagles. And the giant spiders. Can't forget the giant spiders. Oh yeah, there's also trolls. And more goblins. And a giant man/bear. But other than that, it's pretty dull.
If Jackson does cut the end from the Hobbit, would the title then be The Hobbit, or There and... ?
I drank what? -- Socrates
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.
Besides, being 80 with a lifespan of over 200 years puts him, relatively speaking, in his late thirties/early forties. Mr Mortensen is 45.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!