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
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.
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
You know it makes sense.
sig
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.....
The only people to appear in both books are:
Bilbo,
Gandalf,
Elrond,
Gollum
Gandalf should probably appear older than his post-resurrected self anyway, but not much changed than from the Fellowship. Bilbo should appear roughly the same age as in the Fellowship since the ring preserved him. Elrond should appear more or less exactly the same. Gollum shouldn't be a problem age-wise. If they use the same actors they do need to do it within the next 5 or 6 years, I think.
Outside that, Legolas and Gimili's parents/relatives are in the movie. They might get the same actors to play the roles of the Elvish King of Mirkwood and one of the Dwarves in the Party.
I look forward to seeing CG Smaug.
I do have a concern about the Trolls. They are an important part of the book. Bilbo gains the respect of the Dwarves by defeating them. I hope they are handled well.
The Trolls should look nothing like the Cave Troll in the Fellowship. They are more like country bumpkins. They have clothes, sacks, ropes and know how to make jelly. They have some kind of civilization. They are stupid but are not animalistic like the trolls in LOTR the movie.
Oh well. I will wait the 5 or 6 years it takes for the movie to come out to be disappointed.
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.
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.
Um, hate to break it to you, but Bilbo doesn't "beat" the trolls (though he does find their hidden treasure, which leads to his claiming of Sting and the finding of Glamdring and Orcrist). It's Gandalf who defeats the trolls. He comes back and mimic the trolls voices, getting them to argue. They argue until the sun rises, thereby turning them to stone. Bilbo doesn't really get the respect of the dwarves until Gandalf leaves the party and leaves Bilbo in charge. That's when Bilbo saves their asses in Mirkwood, a couple of times.
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)
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
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'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.