Slashdot Mirror
Hobbit Movie in Four Years?
Antarctic Lemur writes "At the Powerhouse Museum LOTR Exhibition in Sydney, Peter Jackson has said a film version of The Hobbit is three years away at least. Reasons for the delay include the sale of MGM, which part-owns the movie rights to The Hobbit, and Jackson's recently filed suit against New Line Cinema, the other part-owner. Jackson is currently filming King Kong at his new facility in Wellington, NZ. Slashdot readers will also be interested in the high security planned for King Kong's pre-release screenings."
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Another King Kong movie.
We need it as much as another Police Academy movie.
Wait... since when is Jackson sueing New Line?
In other news, King Kong vs. the Shire, coming soon to a theatre near you, Spring 2010
My plans to kill myself have been postponed by at least 4 years.
You can have all the security in the world and you can't keep king kong down, the chains, the fences. Nature always will find a way, he just likes climbing tall buildings grasping girls in his clutches. We just need to accept that and move on.
WikiAfterDark.com It's a sex wiki, go now!
There will be a "Special Extended Director's Service Pack" on DVD.
I cannot understand why he wants so much security- those who want it for free, will get i sooner or later, and it is not like the storyline is new in any, according to TFA it is a 193* classic.
Freedom or George Bush
Apparently, he's suing them over profits. rings.reut/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/02/film
The Simpsons already made another remake of King Kong. Move on Jackson!
As far as Bilbo goes, I would wrap in as much of the Simarillion as is possible.
I'll admit I opt-out of a lot of pop culture, but I don't know ANYONE looking forward to the King Kong movie.
Is this wishful thinking on their part? Am I completely out of it? Or is this a new marketing tactic?
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
Pirate copies are already available in China.
...filled with little kids and their parents won't be any easier in three years.
I start fearing slashdot is not as reliable a source as I used to feel. /. post, of course)
I mean, I have heard WAY too many times about The Hobbit movie with no real official confirmation whatsoever, and no tvnz.co.nz is not reliable enough for me.
I would have rejoiced once but I'm a little too skeptic now to give this news more than a 50% chance. (and a
It might be good to keep the look of the other three movies, but those were bad movies in my opinion. I know it would take an active effort to make it bad to not make money, but a better director might make _more_ money and a better movie.
But you know what they say : "You wait
sits down and starts singing about Gold.
:
l
You are in a comfortable tunnel like hall to the east there is the round green door you see
the wooden chest.
Gandalf. Gandalf is carrying a curious map.
Jackson.
Gandalf gives the curious map to you.
Jackson waits.
"So there he is, risen from the dead. Like that fella, E. T." - Father Ted Crilly
Four more years!
Before you walk a mile in someone's shoes, you should insult them so you know how they are and what they're doing.
Why would he focus on the Hobbit when the Silmirilion would make a much better movie. He could make a whole group of short films out of those stories, and then film the Hobbit as takes place after the Silmirilion. So if it is in chronological order, then I don't see his reasoning. The Hobbit may be more popular, but if he is going for quality of the films, the Silmirilion would beat it easily.
1. I ,for one, welcome our new hobbit overlords.
2. In Soviet Russia the hobbits own you.
3a Make LOTR Trilogy
3b Sue New Line Cinema
3c Make Hobbit
3d ?????
3e Profit!
4. Imagine a beowulf cluster of Hobbits!
5. Hobbits? Do they run Linux?
6. Hobbits are real, Netcraft confirms it.
7. Didn't you RTFA??
8. All your hobbits are belong to us.
9. I have no hobbits, you insensitive clod!
I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born - Ronald Reagan
If I was distributing movies I wouldn't want anyone to get their little dirty hands on the copies and distribute the copies without my permission.
Technically speaking it is possible to achieve this, it is possible to require ID from everyone going to see the movie, and keep that info in the database. The movie itself could have embedded watermarks of somesort, so that it would be possible to correlate the illegal copy to a specific screening, and by using cross linking with other copyright infringement incidents it could be possible to narrow down the list of suspects to just a few. Then bring out the lawyers and just destroy the mofos who film movies in the theaters and distribute them.
Securing the DVDs sent to the Oscars judges (or whoever) is even easier, I cannot believe how many good quality copies are available.
Anyhow, it should be possible to reduce the incidents of such nature by annihilating a few of these 'pirates'.
You can't handle the truth.
I look forward to king kong about as much as I look forward to watching another romantic comedy (translation: girly flick with idiotic lines that aren't funny)
SearchIRC - Now with live chat directory!
Oliver Stone's JFK and Nixon movies?
Oliver Stone had so much conspiracy crap in the JFK movie that he needed to corroborate it with another movie a few years later with more of the same conspiracy crap.
I feel Jackson's bludgeoning of the LOTR series needs to be followed by an equally twisted version of the Hobbit stories to corroborate his misdeeds with the LOTR.
Mabye it's just me....
Anyone else find it ironic that part of plot of the Hobbitt includes multiple party "parleys" on the division of treasure? Too bad we can't send over a Goblin horde to speed up the negotiations!
The obligatory scream:
O ooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
AaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhoooOOOOO
...and every banana on Skull Island to be RFID enabled. Jackson will tolerate no monkey business this time unless he is getting a piece of the gross.
Well dùh! Why else do you think it'll be at least four more years...
:-P
home
While this is not un-expected, I really do hope that Jackson adopts a style that suits The Hobbit as the atmosphere in 'Lord of the Ringss' is much more serious than that in The Hobbit. What is enjoyable about The Hobbit as a book is that it has a much more fairy tale, easy-going quality than the epic that is LOTR; it is well suited for children, (for whom Tolkien originally wrote for anyway, his own children specifically). It's only at the end of The Hobbit that you really begin to see the type of writing that is present in LOTR, and the final battle of The Hobbit is the most action-filled scene in the book. I just hope Jackson does not merely use the same exact atmosphere from LOTR 'because it works', and instead considers that The Hobbit is not merely a prelude to LOTR, but its own seperate story & unique tone.
"What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
I'm basing my comment on one thing: the lawsuit. And I'm hoping I'm wrong. Here's my thinking: when you do something for the love of it, and you take an inordinate amount of time to do it -- money be damned -- you might just create something amazing (although the movie Dungeons & Dragons was a labor of love, and it was unwatchable); but when you get caught up in the movie receipts and the merchandising revenue (which seems to be what is going on with Jackson), you've effectively become George Lucas.
I know that's overly harsh, and Jackson hasn't let me down yet. So I'm taking even my own comment with a grain of salt. But it's worrying, you know? It makes me want to pre-emptively lower my expectations, just so I won't get my ass kicked for a third time (the other two being Star Wars and the Matrix).
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
At least he'll have a harder time screwing that up.
"But I think it's gonna be a lot of lawyers sitting in a room trying to thrash out a deal before it will ever happen."
Business as usual, right?
What?
A friend of mine really did put off suicide until she knew how Star Wars turned out (we're talking about the original three movies.)
Boy, did Jedi piss her off.
I hope he visits you without wearing shoes, otherwise I'd be wondering how she knows ...
...from chimpan'K' to chimpanzee.
Let's just hope the remake of Kong does more for Jackson than the just-as-unnecessary remake of Apes did for Burton.
Parent post may be flamebait, but there's a grain of truth in there.
The Hobbit is a very accessible story that most of us read in school. (In my case, my grade 4 teacher read it with us). It's a straightforward adventure story, it has a "main character", good guys, bad guys, a dragon, and the Battle of the 5 Armies for the finale.
The Silmarillion is much more abstract and challenging material to make a movie out of. How the hell would you write *that* script? It's inneresting stuff but hardly the stuff of a mainstream hollywood adventure movie. The only audience would be *core* Tolkien fans. It turns out that a large percentage of people who consider themselves fans of LotR, haven't read (and wouldn't WANT to read) Silmarillion.
Before each show, strip search every single visitor... every spot should be checked! In case someone has managed to get a camera into the cinema, the snipers would quickly put a stop to the suspect.
The silmarillion isn't a dense tome of value-added goodness. It has multiple stories that are better than both the hobbit and LoTR. The silmarillion is the bible of middle earth, telling of its creation and its early stories. Perhaps you are thinking of "Unfinished Tales", which is a collection of unfinished stories pieced together after he died?
HIS wife. The gnome's wife. I'd be wondering if she DIDN'T know what his feet looked like.
Hi. I'm Troy McClure. You might remember me from such ill-conceived Tolkien adaptations as "Hanna Barbara's Elf-a-Lympics" and "The Real Fellowship of the Ring Reality Show"
The Motion Picture Association's New Zealand representative, Kevin Holland, said the industry took seriously the job of keeping movies secure from pirates.
They hired an 800 lb. gorilla.
Now, this is the first time I'm posting AC, but can someone tell me why the hell the parent was modded "Flamebait" thrice?
Regardless of whether you consider the movies to be terrible like I do or regard them as the best thing ever, you can't say they have any consistency with the books.
Bad for them. They complain about not getting enough money, but here there is a product (a DVD of a movie) where there is a huge market, and they refuse to sell it: they don't even want the money. Let the pirates have free reign in situations where the studio is too lazy to release the DVD to the mass market themselves. It is not as if it results in lost revenues.
If the bootlegs appear at around the time of the first screening, many people will not go to the cinema.
The people who stay at home to watch the free low-quality bootleg wouldn't have gone to see it at the theatre anyway.
Personally, as uninterrested as I am in yet another remake of King Kong, if I wanted to see it at all it would be on a BIG screem, to enjoy the bigness.
You can't take the sky from me...
They don't have any consistency? Yes, you are perfectly correct. This is why Jackson got rid of the hobbits, and had 8 smurves instead. No ring, either: the movie was about taking a bracelet and dropping it in a pool.
Just make sure to let me know about it when Halle Berry is going to the premiere.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
40 years from now, we will have moved beyond flimsy CGI similucra. By 2045, genetic engineeering will have advanced to the point where you will have an actor fully mutated into a full-sized King Kong fighting an actor fully mutated into Godzilla. Generic modification of actors is the next frontier of Hollywood SFX technology.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
A small misunderstanding, happens all the time; The Hobbit will be 4 years long.
What keeps me going is my inertia.
Not me. I was so bad at Donkey Kong that those two hours would have cost me at least $15 in quarters.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
I'm not exactly an insider (apart from living in the same town as Peter Jackson), but I don't think that's so much the issue here. As far as I can tell, he wants what's fair and what he was contracted for. Even if you love your day-job, you should make sure that your employer isn't ripping you off. They are getting your work out of it, after all. Look how much Newline's benefiting from Jackson's work. I'd be annoyed if they weren't giving me my fair share that'd been previously arranged.
What Peter Jackson loves a lot is making movies (and various other things like restoring WW1 fighter planes). He's built up an entire industry in NZ, based around his film-making and special effects companies, which personally I think do a very good job. If Newline's shortchanged him by several tens or hundreds of millions of dollars (I forget how much it is), it automatically hinders his ability to do everything else that he really loves doing, including his own investment in other films that he thinks are worth making.
In any case, I don't think he's another George Lucas. The telling point for me is that Lucas has been irritating his fans in exchange for the money he can make from them. Jackson's simply fighting with his employer for what he thinks he's owed.
Do you mean that "The Hobbit movie real soon! " stories are to Slashdot the way "The new age of the airship is upon us!" articles are to "Popular Science" magazine? I'm still waiting for those personal helicopters to land in my driveway.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
"and the others who heard about it and wanted to buy a DVD will simply have to wait a little"
The company is not maximizing its profits if they have to "wait" for no reason at all. I have no problem at all with the pirates who come in during this period and give it away. If the studio wanted the money, they would be selling the DVD at this time.
I heard it once remarked that the Silmarillion oughtn't be made into a feature film, but rather fake documentary-type thing. You know, stock footage of elven soldiers preparing for war, home movies of Beren and Luthien, and after-the-fact interviews with the few people who survived and stayed in Middle-Earth. I can see it now: Sauron: "Well, Morgoth (or Melkor, as he liked to be called) wasn't so much of a bad chap. Sure, he wreaked havoc across Middle-Earth and caused the Two Trees to wilt, but he wasn't *evil*... just misunderstood. He only wanted to be loved and respected. *sniff* He used to call me, 'kid.' 'Take care of yourself, kid' he'd say. I still miss him sometimes. *sniff*" Tom Bombadil: "Truth be, I missed the whole Dagor Bragollach bit. Heard it was quite the battle. I got meself these new yellow boots, though. I just wished they matched my jacket..."
Here's a partial list of movies that should NEVER, EVER, EVER be remade again, having been absolutely beaten into the ground:
Please join me in ridiculing those who insist that these deserve yet another interpretation!!!
Thanks
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
I do agree that it wouldn't make a good movie. (Certainly a single movie couldn't cover more than a small fraction of the content.) Personally, I think the book is a great work of literature, but it usually doesn't appeal to casual readers (too many names to remember).
Why the fuck would Slashdot run a story about NeroLinux? Who in their right mind would want an intuitive, user-friendly graphical interface driven CD/DVD burning solution? Only retarded people, that's who! Real nerds love command-line driven applications with arcane parameters and dozens of man pages filled with about 8 lines of useful information. I'm only half-kidding.
When it was called LOTR
I've also seen King Kong before when it was called King Kong
Here's the link to the exhibit:
http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/lotr/
--Mike Perry, Seattle
Author: Untangling Tolkien
For the past years, as long as I can remember(not very long), I've been watching Lord of the Rings or Star Wars every year in the theatre, good god man what movies am I going to see now?
Hobbits n,pl: A short people who, upon seeing Natalie Portman pour hot grits down her pants, would think "What a waste of grits".
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
You must think in Russian.
We need it as much as another Police Academy movie.
I didn't know this was coming out! When? Will Steve Guttenberg be in it? I am going to post this everywhere, it will be more anticipated than that "part III of trilogy I which was filmed after trilogy II" thing that Lucas did.
If the bootlegs appear at around the time of the first screening, many people will not go to the cinema.
Why? Is it that bad?
If it's any good word of mouth would drive more people to the actual theaters - I'm not sure how you know it's going to be bad.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I heard it once remarked that the Silmarillion oughtn't be made into a feature film, but rather fake documentary-type thing.
That would make more sense to me. Disney has already raped the "short-story into 90 minute debacle" idea with Grimm's Stories.
Or maybe put the Silmarillion on the "Extended DVD" cut of The Hobbit as a documentary?
As long as they make it before Ian McKellen dies, otherwise they could have a problem - Gandalf has an even bigger part in The Hobbit than he did in LOTR.
(not that I'm suggesting he's about to keel over... but he is getting on a bit - and look what happened to Dumbledore)
(Spudley Strikes Again!)
It's excellent that Jackson is going to revisit the LOTR et al. universe it really is ... but, can anyone else see themselves four years from now sitting in the theatre, watching the treasure and the dragon and the midget but somewhere in the mist of his mind, hearing the epic music of LOTR and seeing the armies of man defending Minas Tirith and watching the Final Battle, etc....
... but lol its going to be hard to sit in the theatre and watch Bilbo climb a hill and think ... an army of 100,000 men ... the White City ... Gandalf the White
It's bound to be a good movie
Ah, I need something of epic scale again.
And how much of that is from people who see a poor quality pirate copy, and realize that the movie is even worse than the pirates copy is, and certainly isn't worth the price of admission to see it in a good theater, or the price of a good DVD with all its extras? A lot, I'm guessing.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Personally I'd rather see Terry Gilliam make it - that would make for a far more interesting film!
Remeber that within the tale, the Hobbit was written by Bilbo (in the 3rd person, but not an omniscient 3rd person), who wrote in a lighter tone than Frodo, who wrote most of the LOTR.
I hate to break this to you, but Bilbo and Frodo are in fact *shock* non-existant fictional characters. Hard as it is to believe, LOTR and The Hobbit were written by this guy named Tolkien. Now go cry into your pillow if you need to.
Does "duh" really have an accent over it? Either way, I applaud you.
"The Silmarillion is not a good movie story."
I think this could work if it were like a documentary and not a movie. I think it could be a new trend for the movie industry if it were created. Documentary's filled with actors to create the background story of the world.
Of course the money is directed at the slack-jawed masses not the foaming fan boys so why would the movie industry care about setting up a background story?
The problem with your examples is that in every case, they were examples of people decrying the fundamental content of the movie.
The only possible difference negative feedback from sketchy pre-release copies had would come the first hours of opening day, after that it's all word of mouth about the movies qualities as they stand.
But fundamentially I've never seen a case where people hated a poor quality screen because of movie content, and then decided after seeing the movie in a theater that it was in fact good. Those Hulk complaints came along well before even a sketchy version was around to critique, and the comments would have been there regardless of being downloaded on the internet or not.
Basically people can see these low-quality theater rips and decide if the movie itself is good or bad based on content, and the word will get out. That word is going to get out anyway, so why not earlier rather than alter? In the end it makes little difference.
I do agre with you about the Matrix movies, I liked all three just fine thanks.
I don't know why you would defend Gigli in any way though, when even the actors admit it was drek. Yes I saw the trailer.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
To be fair, Andy Serkis is slated to play Kong, meaning the big monster will probably be pulled off with a lot of skill and personality. If anyone can do it right, he can.
The other actors associated with the project, Jack Black (Tenatious D, and an underrated performance in The Jackal), Naomi Watts (The Ring, I Heart Huckabees), etc, are all totally underrated gems... The kinds of actors that you think would be able to come together in support of eachother and make something great.
King Kong deserves a good remake. The original story was essentially a quintessential animal human trapped and ostracised in a modern environment. But unlike certain other films which have been remade recently (Dawn of the Dead anyone?) that stop motion ape is falling apart. Having a real actor in a real modern remake that paid close attention to what made the original story so touching could be worth seeing. You and I may think the original 10 fps lump of clay and hair is cute, but the story can be told far, far better these days.
The ______ Agenda
It will be interesting to see what Jackson does with King Kong. The 1976 with Jessica Lange that had the much more high powered special effects didn't do that much for the movie. For me, part of the fun of the 1933 version was the otherworldy effect from the goofy, long extinct effects techniques from the 30's.
Fuck Peter Jackson and his abuse of the Tolkien stories. I hate hate hate hate the his movie version of LOTR. Great visuals, but apparently Tolkien's story wan't good enuf for him. Had to write his own version now, didn't he? If he never makes the Hobbit, I would rate that as a good thing. Thank you, I feel much better now.
To reduce crime, make fewer things against the law.
Peter Jackson's LOTR was pretty dull as far as I'm concerned. Should have had a nutcase like Tim Burton do them. Although if you've ever seen Dead Alive, you'd probably think Peter Jackson was a nutcase.
Of course it was written by Tolkien, but good fiction should be at least plausible to whatever extent is possible. One way to achieve this is to include some sort of explaination of how the story came to be written down within the fictional world, and hence (fictitiously) came to be in our own primary world.
Within the text of the Lord of the Rings, Bilbo's book "there and back again" (the Hobbit) is mentioned, as well as the written form of the Lord of the Rings, written in large part by Frodo.
I think Gandalf's narrative (which was intended to be part of the LOTR, but was removed to shorten its length) which I quoted before was a clever way for Tolkien to explain the difference in tone between the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings (and, in a way, to appologise to his readers for those aspects of the Hobbit that he would rather have written differently) without stepping out of the world in which it was written. Of course the Hobbit is a rather silly book, it was written by a rather silly Hobbit, who wrote things as he saw them based on his own limited understanding of the world.
Turin Turambaranta, I'm fucking GONE!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Planet of the Apes. Whyyyyy....?
Or the story of Túrin Turambar.
Maybe my wording was a bit sloppy: I wanted to say that more people will get the original product (=movie in theatre) when no alternative (=bootleg) exists. No opinion on the movie quality was intended, although I really like the 1933 version (even have an 8mm copy) and feel no need for a remake.
This though is my point - I really feel that in all measureable aspects, the bootleg and the movie are different things and one is not really an alternative that matters, in any measureable sense to the popualtion at large. So, any good movie will in fact see a boost in sales from bootlegs due to word of mouth alone. I think that's going to be true for a long, long time - until an appreciable amount of the world popualtion has the bandwidth to get movies, the ability to find them in the first place, and a way to display them with a quality even coming close to theater or DVD system. Who knows, perhaps shaky HD camcorders in theaters will offer a far superior bootleg. And I'm not even sure a measurable percentage of the population will even ever want to bother trying.
Yes the terrible movies have something to fear from bootlegs. But they already do anyway, as a bad movie can start an SMS storm in the first hour that will pretty much kill it dead anyway - it's the ability for other people to tell people what is going on so quickly that is spreading early doom for movies, not so much the bootleg preview copies. So again, I would say theere is little measureable effect from a screener leaking out for even a bad movie - because people will find out and they will tell other people very quickly.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's to emphasize the lower "uh" sound in the word. I'm not sure if it's used commonplace, maybe because it's to much of a hassle to some to type ù instead of plain u. For more info I direct you to my new book "Typing and the art of messaging" available on Amazon for 49.95 or ten easy payments of 13.95.
*takes a bow and leaves the stage*
home