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."

Comments

Unlike Windows Longhorn...

[Nova Express]

...I suspect all of the parts to The Hobbit will be there when it finally ships...

Just what we need

[Bender Unit 22]

Another King Kong movie.
We need it as much as another Police Academy movie.

Whats next...

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news, King Kong vs. the Shire, coming soon to a theatre near you, Spring 2010

In Other News...

[Anonymous Coward]

My plans to kill myself have been postponed by at least 4 years.

Re:In Other News...

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember when the internet only teaser for the LOTR series was posted on Slashdot so many years ago. It was the one where Mr. Wood was talking over some of the crude footage. After hearing of the extended editions, I realzed that I had to wait 4 years to see the complete saga. Arggg.. a long wait, but I also remember thinking that I just had to avoid any accidents so I could survive long enough to see it all. I have been satisfied.

Re:In Other News...

[iminplaya]

In more other news...
The MPAA boyccot commitee decided to not take any action against the industry for at least 4 more years. "We have a room full of lawyers deciding our next step as we speak.", a spokesman said.

All the security in the world...

[CtrlPhreak]

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.

Re:All the security in the world...

[SEWilco]

"the high security planned for King Kong's pre-release screenings."

I'll be impressed if it involves fifty-foot-tall gates.
Or fifty-foot-tall Gates.

Wrong

[Picass0]

There will be a "Special Extended Director's Service Pack" on DVD.

Re:Wrong

[Saeger]

Yeah, but it will be "pre-announced", so that you don't get the right to bitch about the profiteering.

Why so much security?

[tomjen]

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.

Re:Why so much security?

[elgatozorbas]

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.

He wants them to get it later rather than sooner. If the bootlegs appear at around the time of the first screening, many people will not go to the cinema. If the bootlegs appear _after_ the movie was shown in the theatres, the DVD sales may be a bit lower, but the damage will be less.

Re:Why so much security?

[ultranova]

It will make the movie seem special.

"Yeah, I heard they kept the raw footage on the Mountain of Despair beyond the River of Fire guarded by the Dragons of Eternity. Must be something special, no one would bother to guard a bad movie like that. Better go and see it."

It's just a marketing trick, nothing more.

since this:

[LordKronos]

Apparently, he's suing them over profits
http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/02/film. rings.reut/index.html

Re:since this:

[Ubergrendle]

This is actually fairly common in the movie industry. Its their way of getting outside negotiators involved. Messy, complicated, yes -- but not necessarily anything that would prevent them from working together again in the future.

Big money = big arguments. No matter how solid your contract is in the first place.

Homerkong

[MouseR]

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.

Re:Homerkong

[merlin_jim]

As far as Bilbo goes, I would wrap in as much of the Simarillion as is possible.

Or if they cast Ice T as the king of the wood elves he could rap in as much of the silmarillion as possible.

One of the years most inticipated movies?

[Monkelectric]

Security experts plan to keep King Kong, one of the year's most anticipated movies, out of the hands of pirates.

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?

Re:One of the years most inticipated movies?

[Scrameustache]

is this a new marketing tactic?

Telling people that other people want it? It's not a new one.

Hell, I remember some random romantic comedy in the summer of 1999 claiming in their ads to be the most anticipated movie of the year.

There's lies, and then there's outrageous lies: 1999 is the year where hundreds of fans accross the united states camped in front of movie theatres for weeks to see Phantom Menace, and millions of fans accross the world camped for a day to see it. Now THAT is anticipation.

Yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pirate copies are already available in China.

Took long enough

[Anonymous Coward]

But you know what they say : "You wait .. time passes"

Jackson...

[flumps]

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.

What about the Silmirilion?

[Bucaro]

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.

Re:What about the Silmirilion?

[Tyler Eaves]

He has the sense to make movies people will actually WANT to see.

Re:What about the Silmirilion?

[Scrameustache]

Why would he focus on the Hobbit when the Silmirilion would make a much better movie.

The Silmarillion is not a good movie story. It's a collection of background notes that were never meant by their author to be published, a dense tome that is read by fanatics of the Lords of the Rings for it's value-adding goodness. Not a product suitable for mass market appeal.

The Hobbit, however, is a light tale of dragon-slaying adventure with characters and settings already familliar to the consummers.

Re:What about the Silmirilion?

[MikTheUser]

...the Silmirilion would make a much better movie

You simply cannot make a decent movie of the Silmarillion. It covers more time than and features more characters than even the Bible does, and it is utterly impossible to depict some of the characters (The Vala? Liv Tyler was a good shot for Arwen in LOTR, but which actress would you have playing the part of Beauty Itself, i.e. Elbereth? Not to mention Morgoth - Jackson wouldn't even show Sauron in LOTR) and it is even more impossible to cover all that the Silmarillion tells.
You might make a movie of one part of the Silmarillion, like but which? They are all connected, in a myriad of ways, and the book achieves most of it's greatness by that alone. Even the history of the Noldor alone would make for a movie longer than all three parts of LOTR together.

Re:What about the Silmirilion?

[beamdriver]

You could make a movie about Beren and Luthien, putting in just enough back story to make it comprehensible.

Re:What about the Silmirilion?

[novakyu]

It's a collection of background notes that were never meant by their author to be published...

I take it that you are not a Tolkien fan? Silmarillion was actually submitted to a publisher and rejected (more details available in the endnotes of "Lays of Beleriand", by Tolkien (whichever one you want)). There, in fact, JRR Tolkien is quoted as writing that he hope to publish it some day. The end result of the publisher wanting some more "Hobbit story" but rejecting the Silmarillion was, in fact, LOTR!

Granted, the Silmarillion was never "complete", at least not to Tolkien's standards, but IMHO, it is far more complete (in plot-line and style) some of the junks I read in Sci-Fi (or any other fiction) genre.

When the publishers rejected Silmarillion, they said, not to offend Tolkien, that "rather than a story in itself, it is a mine to be mined" (quoting from memory, so not sure whether my i's are dotted right and t's are crossed right) for other books, and so it became such for Tolkien (you can see lots of elements of LOTR mirroring what happened during the First or Second Era). If the movie-makers had any brain, it should be the same for them: Silmarillion should be a mine to be mined for more movie scripts! They always "defile" the originals anyway, and if they are going to change the original text, they should be doing it on an "incomplete" text as Silmarillion, not the completely-polished product as LOTR (yes, I didn't like LOTR movie trilogy too much) or Hobbit.

Re:What about the Silmirilion?

[MikeB90]

What is to stop him? Only the fact none of the movie rights for anything except the Hobbit and LOTR were sold, and the Tolkien Estate has been pretty unhappy about movies being made for any reason, saying they cheapen the book experience (I'm paraphrasing). The snippets of pre-LOTR history such as the Last Alliance were only usable because they were directly discussed in LOTR. Similarly one could cobble together PIECES of the appendices, but they are largely insufficient for any additional full story with the possible exception of the Fall of the Kingdom of the North (there is enough outline there, though little flesh, to make a story, but I don't think it would be that successful). But the Silmarillion core story material is offlimits.

Re:What about the Silmirilion?

[CaptainAvatar]

In the Real World, brand recognition and mass market appeal make for good movie scripts. Not intricate histories and complex mythologies.

Sure, but Jackson and co have already created the brand recognition and mass market. There are a lot of people who loved the LOTR films who hadn't read the books, but would probably enjoy another foray into Middle Earth. The fact that the Silmarillion is virtually unreadable would not necessarily be an impediment to making a good film - there are some great stories in there, so the trick would be to take the book as a starting point, pick one or two of the stories and rewrite them into a coherent script, not try to film the whole thing.

The Hobbit would be much easier to write, film and market, of course. But I'd love to see Anacalagon breaking mountains as he fell ...

Re:Suit?

[EvanED]

Movie studios have a habit of buying useless stuff from themselves to increase the cost of a movie, thus decreasing the profit and the royalties they have to pay out without actually decreasing their income.

Spiderman's Stan Lee had to sue whatever studio did Spiderman after they said that movie made no profit (IIRC), I think Jackson is having to do the same thing.

Out of the way......

[darth_silliarse]

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!

Re:Out of the way......

[Bishop923]

You forgot:
10. In Korea, only the old make Hobbit movies.

Good for them

[roman_mir]

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'.

Re:I reckon trying to blend in in a movie theatre

[InfiniteWisdom]

well you have 2 years and 3 months to find a girl and get her pregnant.

Hopefully done in an appropriate style

[quantax]

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.

Re:Hopefully done in an appropriate style

[Pop69]

He'll probably cut out the last few chapters and skip the last battle.

Worked for Lord of the Rings so why the hell not ?

Re:Hopefully done in an appropriate style

[j1m 5n0w]

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.

To some degree I agree with you, the Hobbit was not as serious a book as the LOTR, and had less serious themes, so it need not be as serious in tone as the LOTR. However, I don't think it need have as light a tone as the book, either. 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. The actual events were not necessarily as light in tone as Bilbo would have recorded them. The unreliability of Bilbo as a narrator can be seen to some extent in "The Quest for Erebor" from unfinished tales:

But you know how things went, at any rate as Bilbo saw them. The story would sound rather different, if I (gandalf) had written it. For one thing he ded not realize at all how fatuous the dwarves thought him, nor how angry they were with me. Thorin was much more indignant and contemptuous than he perceived. He was indeed contemptuous from the beginning, and thought then that I had planned the whole affair simply so as to make a mock of him. It was only the map and the key that saved the situation.

Also, later in life, Tolkien did not entirely approve of the way in which he had written the Hobbit:

When I published The Hobbit - hurriedly and without due consideration - I was still influenced by the convention that 'fairy-stories' are naturally directed to children (with or without the silly added waggery 'from seven to seventy'). And I had children of my own. But the desire to address children, as such, had nothing to do with the story as such in itself or the urge to write it. But it had some unfortunate effects on the mode of expression and narrative method, which if I had not been rushed, I should have corrected. Intelligent children of good taste (of which there seem quite a number) have always, I am glad to say, singled out the points in manner where the address is to children as blemishes. (draft of a letter to Walter Allen, April 1959, from _The_Letters_of_JRR_Tolkien)

I think it would be possible to make the movie in a more serious tone than the book without ruining the atmosphere or the story. I would be more concerned with any modifications that change the nature of Tolkien's characters (like they did to Faramir) or incompatibilities introduced between the events that occurred in the book and the events that occurred in the movie. Being given two irreconcilable accounts of a particular story is a quick way to destroy the imagined world a story tries so hard to create.

They do have an opportunity to introduce additional scenes, for instance from "the quest for Erebor" from Unfinished_Tales, or a brief encounter with a young Aragorn (if he was alive and in Rivendell at the time, I haven't checked) without doing any harm to the tale.

You laugh

[jfengel]

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.

Re:You laugh

[ckaminski]

So she killed herself, then?

Re:You laugh

[zulux]

A friend of mine really did put off suicide until she knew how Star Wars turned out

You could say it gave her.. ... .. a new hope.

For great security

[CPgrower]

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.

Broken logic mister.

[Scrameustache]

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.

Just keep me in the loop, ok?

[AtariAmarok]

"Before each show, strip search every single visitor"

Just make sure to let me know about it when Halle Berry is going to the premiere.

40 years from now.

[AtariAmarok]

" mean, will there be a King Kong remake every 30-40 years? Is this a trend? Will this CGI King Kong fight the CGI Godzilla?"

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.

Re:40 years from now.

[dionwr]

Generic modification of actors is the next frontier of Hollywood SFX technology.

Gee, would it be possible to modify Renee Zellweger to make her NOT SO GODD**MED IRRITATING? Or at least reduce the cheek pockets into which she always seems to have a winter's supply of nuts hidden?

This has possibilities. We could insert talent into someone like Kevin Costner. Or a sense of humor into Sly Stallone. Or writing and story ability into George Lucas. Or add some height to Tom Cruise. Or Mel Gibson. Or Russell Crowe.

Hell, you could use it on people in the background: give some taste to folks who would otherwise be producing "Police Academy VI," or a soul to any executive from Disney. Of course, you also have to recognize the limitations: it would not be possible, for example, to give some humility to Harvey Weinstein.

Re:40 years from now.

[2old2rockNroll]

Sort of like major league baseball?

I disagree

[jesterzog]

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.

Re:What about the Silmarillion?

[menace3society]

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 Why.

[simetra]

This is what happens. Geeky little bastard becomes "inspired" by a movie as a child, goes on to make it big, then has to remake the move that inspired him.

Here's a partial list of movies that should NEVER, EVER, EVER be remade again, having been absolutely beaten into the ground:

• King Kong
  
• Dracula
  
• Frankenstein
  
• Tarzan
  
• A Christmas Carol
  

Please join me in ridiculing those who insist that these deserve yet another interpretation!!!

Thanks

Re:Why must it be Peter Jackson?

[snuf23]

"those were bad movies in my opinion"

The key phrase here is "in my opinion". Jackson had to make a lot of compromises to make this series successful. You may think that "it would take an active effort to make it bad to not make money" but the fantasy genre has always been a notably poor performer at the box office. In order to succeed financially Jackson had to create a movie which would appeal not to geeks, D&D players, fans of the LOTR books, but a movie with universal appeal.

The result is a series of movies that purists are always going to have problems with. Personally I was amazed by how people who usually were more interested in seeing the latest Vin Diesal action flick were drawn in to the story. The LOTR movies achieved a huge level of mainstream popularity.
I also think that it's worth noting that it would have been hard to find a director willing to commit to such a harsh production schedule and willing to immerse himself in the source material. Jackson's dedication was impressive and I loved being able to anticipate each movie one year after another rather than waiting two or three years between them.

I also applaud the creation of the extended versions which are really a first in the DVD business, seeing as so much additional footage was taking through full production and added in.
No he's not the best director ever, but he succeeded in a difficult task and the result however you may wish to discredit it is a hell of a lot better than those cartoons with the toad faced hobbits.

Re:Silmirilion was meant to be published

[Scrameustache]

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).

That is probably the biggest issue I had with it. After a couple of hundred pages I had no idea who I was reading about anymore.

Re:Does this remind anyone else of

[rob_squared]

I have never before seen such accuracy between a book and it's movie. And you're saying that he bludgeoned it?!

Hobbits

[uberdave]

Hobbits n,pl: A short people who, upon seeing Natalie Portman pour hot grits down her pants, would think "What a waste of grits".

Early review?

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:Does this remind anyone else of

[fr2asbury]

I can think of another example, that was at least or more accurately transferred from book to film. The first two Harry Potter movies, which left stuff out to be sure but fairly accurately portrayed everything that got put in. The LOTR movies made some serious derivations but on the whole were much more accurate than most movie to film adaptations. Just ask Stephen King! ;-)

Hobbit Movie in Four Years?

[kenchie]

Personally I'd rather see Terry Gilliam make it - that would make for a far more interesting film!

But your movies fail to make your point

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:Better make it soon!

[arkhan_jg]

Dumbledore was played by Richard Harris, who was born in 1930, and died in 2002, making him 72 when he died of hodgkins disease.

Ian McKellen is 66 in May this year, which is quite a bit older than I thought. Still, here's hoping he's got plenty of time to make more films!