Slashdot Mirror


MGM to Produce "The Hobbit"

pawnder writes, "According to two sources, MGM and New Line are partnering to produce 'The Hobbit' as part of MGM's new plans to create blockbuster movies again. From theonering.net: 'Over the next few years, MGM is planning to release half a dozen films, some in the $150 million to $200 million-plus range. Studio is ready to unveil such high-profile projects as "Terminator 4"; one or two installments of "The Hobbit," which Sloan hopes will be directed by Peter Jackson; and a sequel to "The Thomas Crown Affair" with Pierce Brosnan.'" With or without Tom singing, is what I want to know.

518 comments

  1. age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Since all the actors are older, how are they going to portray them as younger looking? I'm mostly wondering about Gandolf and Gollum.

    1. Re:age by Cromac · · Score: 0

      Since Gollum was CGI do you really think it will be hard to show them as younger looking? And how much "younger" do you think someone hundreds of years old is going to look when you've only gone back 30 or 40 years? Same for Gandalf, no reason for him to look any different in The Hobbit than LotR.

    2. Re:age by jimstapleton · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Bilbo: he's young in The Hobbit, old in LoTR: Probably a different actor, no big deal, though all things depending, Hollywood has this stuff called "make up" and "face putty"...

      Gandalf: in regards to the other posts: try thousands of years. A little make up will more than do the trick.

      Gollum: As someone said: CGI, no big deal there. He's also hundreds of years old, so they could probably use the same models.

      --
      34486853790
      Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
    3. Re:age by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's instantly obvious that YHBT. HTH, HAND.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:age by Jboost · · Score: 2, Insightful
    5. Re:age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's instantly obvious that you've got no knowledge of Middle Earth history. Gandalf is possibly hundreds of years old. A few dozen extra wouldn't have changed him a bit. Gollem is also 900ish, so he wouldn't be too different either. Only bilbo, and a dwarf who only had a cameo should really change.

      Gandalf is certainly hundreds of years old. He's older than Elrond, who is at least 6,000 years old, just based on the chronology given since the fall of Numenor, which his brother Elros founded.

      As the Maia named Olorin, Gandalf quite possibly existed before the creation of the world itself.

    6. Re:age by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 2, Funny

      I didn't know Stephen Colbert read slashdot...

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    7. Re:age by DragonWriter · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It's instantly obvious that you've got no knowledge of Middle Earth history. Gandalf is possibly hundreds of years old.
      "Gandalf is possibly hundreds of years old"? You really shouldn't be saying other people don't know Middle Earth history.
    8. Re:age by erotic+piebald · · Score: 2, Informative
      Bilbo: he's young in The Hobbit, old in LoTR:

      51, then 52 in the Hobbit, IIRC.
      111 at the beginning of LOTR (his birthday party). 129? 130? at the Grey Havens?
      Hobbits 'come of age' at 33. Assuming 21:33, 51 ~~ 32. So, early middle age, not "young", I'd say.
    9. Re:age by LDoggg_ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Holm would do fine as the Ring had caused the aging process to slow. Gandalf was suprised at the beginning of Fellowship when he told Bilbo that he hadn't aged a day, so the stage is already set.
      Also Elrond of Rivendell could still be done by Hugo Weaving.

      If you could get Ian Holm, Hugo Weaving, Ian Mckellen, and Peter Jackson all together again, The Hobbit would have to be excellent.
      The battle of the 5 armies could be done just as well as Pellenor Fields or the Black Gate, maybe better as the CGI will have progressed through a few more years of technological enhancements.

      I'm psyched.

      --

      "If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
    10. Re:age by jimstapleton · · Score: 1

      seems more young adult than anything, no older than 30 equivalent in human years.

      --
      34486853790
      Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
    11. Re:age by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

      Well, hobbits (Ian Holm) only lived to 130 max. Ian Holm is going to be 5 or 6 years older, and he has to look like 70 years younger, that's a substantial amount.

    12. Re:age by slashdotmsiriv · · Score: 1

      You my friend, obviously do not understand irony ...

    13. Re:age by Grant_Watson · · Score: 4, Informative

      Presumably, this is a joke, but what they hey.

      Gandalf (TTT): "Three hundred lives of men I have walked this earth and now I have no time. "

    14. Re:age by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 4, Informative

      Gandalf is indeed a maia (god), and his first appearance in Middle Earth was around 1,000 in the Third Age, though, making his current form about 2,019 years old.

    15. Re:age by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Andy Serkis!

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    16. Re:age by nomadic · · Score: 1

      They did it in the flashback shown in LotR. They've already done it, why would they not be able to now?

    17. Re:age by nebaz · · Score: 1

      IIRC, in either the commentary track or one of the special feature vignettes, Peter Jackson said that in order to get Ian Holm to look young enough to play Bilbo in the 5 second 'Hobbit' shot, they literally used tape to stretch his facial skin, all hidden under a wig. I would guess this would be impractical for a whole movie.

      --
      Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    18. Re:age by fredclown · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't surprise me if the just Photoshop his frames to make him look younger. There are ways of doing it.

    19. Re:age by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 2, Funny

      5,000 hours in MS Paint?

    20. Re:age by tut21 · · Score: 1

      They probably made Sir Ian McKellen look older to play tired Gandalf the Grey so I doubt he'll have many problems reprising the role in The Hobbit. Gandalf the White looked pretty spry in the second half of that trilogy.

      As for Gollum, you're right... there's no way they can make a CGI creation look younger.

    21. Re:age by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Wow, this one sure went way over some people's heads here...

      All I can think of when reading the rest of the replies to this post is that scene in Clerks II - "I made fun of "Lord of the Rings" so hard, it made some supergeek puke all over the counter!"

    22. Re:age by AuMatar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bilbo stopped aging due to the effects of the ring. So they only need to make him look as young as he did in the shire.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    23. Re:age by Eccles · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's like goldy or bronzy, only it's made out of iron.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    24. Re:age by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      As the Maia named Olorin, Gandalf quite possibly existed before the creation of the world itself.

      Olorin definitely existed before the creation of the world. His incarnation called Gandalf was probably about two thousand years old at the end of the third age (the wizards first appeared about 1,000 years after the third age began).

    25. Re:age by carnifex0 · · Score: 1

      I was thinking that - the same technique that was used in X-Men 3 to de-age Ian McKellan and Patrick Stewart. I'm not sure how practical that would be for an entire film, but I think it was planned to be used to do a Magneto film with McKellan, so I would assume it's do-able.

    26. Re:age by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

      Mention a topic that someone's passionate about and they'll completely ignore the thrust of the original question in order to show their knowledge of the subject...

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    27. Re:age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do not know the LotR mithology back and forth, but I remember Gandalf not being a god, but a lesser god, as Sauron and the other 4 (s/m)ages.

    28. Re:age by BobNET · · Score: 1
      I'm mostly wondering about Gandolf and Gollum.

      I'm more worried about Elrond. The guy's gonna be 80 years younger than he was in LoTR, that's gotta be a significant portion of his life...

    29. Re:age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>Wow, this one sure went way over some people's heads here...

      No. Most people got the joke, but it's the topmost thread and a chance to talk about the cast of an upcoming Hobbit movie.

    30. Re:age by theneb · · Score: 2, Funny

      Tom curise as the hobbit. Sure opener, who's with me?

    31. Re:age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some have speculated that the only reason that he has lived such a great age is because of his possesion of one of the rings of power (specifically the third Elfin ring of Fire).

    32. Re:age by Phoenix666 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's true, and it always put me in mind of another thing that doesn't make sense if you only saw the movies: why would Sauron be afraid of Aragorn, and how is it that Aragorn was able to resist the temptation of the ring and deny Sauron the palantirs? In the movies Sauron is a seemingly omnipotent evil.

      It's only when you read all the back story notes Tolkien wrote before writing LOTR that you find out that the Numenoreans, Aragorn's ancestors, were so powerful that they kicked Sauron's butt and kept him imprisoned and tortured in a tower for a long, long time. They were so powerful that they made war on the Valinor, nearly made it, but then were cast down for their blasphemy. That's when Sauron escaped, and the survivors fled to found Gondor and the Northern kingdom.

      So Sauron was really more like an evil Gandalf on steroids, and knew that Aragorn had the stuff to take him down.

      --
      Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
    33. Re:age by Jesterboy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Presumably in the same manner they made Elijah Wood and friends look like hobbits:

      Magic!

      Err, I mean...

      Computers!

    34. Re:age by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 2, Funny

      And not just Tom Cruise either, but a singing Tom Cruise! I can hardly contain myself.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    35. Re:age by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      Some have speculated...

      Some people aren't paying attention. Saruman and Radagast (and the other two wizards) are the same age as Gandalf, and they didn't have great rings.

    36. Re:age by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 2, Informative

      Tolkien's universe makes a big difference between immortality and invulnerability. Sauron was killed twice already -- once drowned in Numenor, once at the hand of Isildur. He apparently gets ghosted until he can power back up again (in the second case, he never did because too much of his will was bound up in the ring). Dragons were maia too, and they could apparently be outright killed. But Sauron was really afraid of Aragorn because he was challenged at the Hornburg when Aragorn revealed himself in the palantir, urging Sauron to attack immediately instead of waiting until he had built up an overwhelming army.

    37. Re:age by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      Am I the only person who half expected Elrond to say "Missster Unnnderhilll" in the Agent Smith voice the first time he came on screen? =]

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    38. Re:age by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      Nope. Elrond is at least 2,000 years old.

    39. Re:age by brianosaurus · · Score: 1

      Maybe so, but Andy Sirkis has aged, so the younger CGI Gollum will move more like a senior citizen.

      --
      blog
    40. Re:age by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

      Correct, there are 7 Valar and Valier (big gods) -- of which Morgoth/Melkor was one. The rest (the Maia like Eonwe and Sauron, the Istari like Gandalf and "other" like Dragons and Shelob) are described as lesser gods, but we're not real sure what the exact comparison is, since Ainur only fought each other once (the imprisoning of Morgoth).

    41. Re:age by merlin_jim · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Since all the actors are older, how are they going to portray them as younger looking? I'm mostly wondering about Gandolf and Gollum.

      I wouldn't worry about Gandolf or Bilbo. Gollum's a big maybe

      Gandolf is an angel / god that first showed up during the early years of the Middle Age - approx 2000 years before the events in LoTR

      Gollum found the ring some time after Sauron was defeated the first time - and he and Bilbo both were supposedly ageless while in posession of the ring. I believe Gollum supposedly aged after losing the ring but IIRC, LoTR didn't really go into that in the movies so no need to make Gollum appear any different in the prequel?

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    42. Re:age by jo42 · · Score: 1

      No.

    43. Re:age by ccmay · · Score: 1

      Wasn't the Balrog of Morgoth sort of an anti-Maia too?

      And were all the Wizards (I can only remember Saruman and Radagast, besides Gandalf) Istari or were some Maia?

      Hard to remember all that stuff.

      --
      Too much Law; not enough Order.
    44. Re:age by sharkey · · Score: 1

      I'm in love with Sauron's Ring! I'm in love with Sauron's Ring!

      I'm not gay!

      I'm in love with Sauron's Ring!

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    45. Re:age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      camera angles and visual tricks was how they made them short most of the time :D quite cool stuff.

    46. Re:age by MeltUp · · Score: 1
      If you could get Ian Holm, Hugo Weaving, Ian Mckellen, and Peter Jackson all together again, The Hobbit would have to be excellent.
      You seem to have no imagination of your own. I first read LotR and then saw the movies. The book is still in my top 10 now (and I read alot). Compared to it the movies where incredibly dull, boring and shallow.

      So I am certainly NOT looking forward to a "The Hobbit" movie with the same team...
      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso
    47. Re:age by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      Balrogs are Maia, as are the wizards. Istari is the Elvish name for the wizards. There were five wizards, but two of them where blue wizards who are never mentioned in LOTR. It is not clear why there was one white wizard, one grey wizard, one brown wizard and *two* blue wizards.

    48. Re:age by MORTAR_COMBAT! · · Score: 1

      5,000 hours at $50/hr is only $250,000 which is chump change for such a movie.

      --
      MORTAR COMBAT!
    49. Re:age by Thuktun · · Score: 1
      And were all the Wizards (I can only remember Saruman and Radagast, besides Gandalf) Istari or were some Maia?
      The Istari were apparently Maiar. The Encyclopedia of Arda and other sites have more that you probably want to know about most JRRT topics.

      http://www.glyphweb.com/Arda/i/istari.html
      http://www.glyphweb.com/Arda/a/alatar.html

      An ominous bit from the latter:
      Alatar and Pallando arrived in Middle-earth dressed in sea-blue. For this reason, they were together given the name Ithryn Luin, the Blue Wizards. With Saruman, they journeyed into the far east of Middle-earth, but while Saruman returned to the west, Alatar and Pallando did not. Of their fate, we know almost nothing.
    50. Re:age by John+Harrison · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're worried about Gollum, a CGI character? Why on earth is that? If you are trying to be funny then I'm sorry.

      If you paid much attention Gollum looks significantly different in each of the three LOTR films anyhow. He'll probably look different yet again in the Hobbit movies.

    51. Re:age by mshiltonj · · Score: 1

      Did you see the opening sequence of XMen III?

    52. Re:age by peter303 · · Score: 1

      He didnt get the ring of power until his resurection in the LOTR. Cirdan the shipwright had it before then.

    53. Re:age by pravuil · · Score: 1

      Probably add a little acne here and there, and get some pop band to teach them some new dance moves.

    54. Re:age by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 1
      If you could get Ian Holm, Hugo Weaving, Ian Mckellen, and Peter Jackson all together again

      Each of those people - and Andy Serkis - have publically committed to doing The Hobbit if Jackson directed. (Sorry, I have no link - read it in a trade mag.) So you may well get your wish.

      --
      If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
    55. Re:age by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      I had never seen anything about dragons being Maia, but after looking around a little bit it seem they might be. In the Silmarillion it says they were created by Morgoth, but later Tolkien decided that Morgoth could not create anything of his own, so the idea of dragons being Maia came about. You learn something new every day.

      Shelob was the last child of Ungoliant and in the Silmarillion it says that Ungoliant may have entered Arda from the darkness around it. Anyway, it does not make sense for Ungoliant to be a mere Maia, seeing as how she pretty much kicked Morgoth's ass. And she ate the light of the two trees without harm, while Morgoth was burned by the Silmarils.

      And didn't the Valar fight Morgoth twice, once before the Elves awoke, and once at the end of the first age?

    56. Re:age by fosterreno · · Score: 1

      Would you happen to be Sharkey from Clemson U?

    57. Re:age by Mr.+Flibble · · Score: 1

      Really? Damn, I don't remember that. I always thought he reffered to it when fighting the Balrog with the comment: "I am a servant of the secret fire, the dark flame will not avail you" was a reference to the fact that he had the ring of fire, and was thus immune to the fire of the balrog. I did know he got the ring from the shipright, but how does he end up using it then? (If at all...)

      (note, I have read the books about 10 times, but not in the last 5 years, so my memory is probably off.)

      --
      Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
    58. Re:age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sif!

      He's in love with "L. Ron's" ring!

    59. Re:age by fosterreno · · Score: 1

      PS - I'm the original Holly-Hogger

    60. Re:age by Patented · · Score: 1

      They already showed a "young" Elrond in LOTR during the battle against Sauron - he was the one trying to convince Isildur to throw the ring into Mount Doom.

      --
      cd /pub; more beer;rm -rf /tmp/stomach/*; shutdown -r now
    61. Re:age by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      There's even a Dorktower of it.

    62. Re:age by camperdave · · Score: 1

      It's CGI, so who cares? They can make him look as old or as young as they wish. I'd be more concerned with Bilbo's apparent age.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    63. Re:age by BerislavLopac · · Score: 1

      Actually, there is a detailed description, right there in the main narrative of the Lord of the Rings, of a Maia being killed. And no less than by a bunch of Hobbits!

    64. Re:age by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Andy Serkis would have been great as a live action Gollum - he looks much creepier than the CGI Gollum in that picture.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    65. Re:age by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      Cirdan gave Gandalf the ring when the Istari first arrived in Middle-Earth in the early Third Age.

      No, I don't get laid.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    66. Re:age by jhutch2000 · · Score: 1

      You call 32 "early middle age" again and I swear to God I will kick your ass.

      JHutch (yes, I'm 32)

    67. Re:age by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

      I always thought they became enchanted with life among mortals and either settled down (like Tom) or became warlords in the far east.

    68. Re:age by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

      The first time he kinda surrendered and was voluntarily imprisoned in The Void. It was a time out. They let him out after "two or three ages" or something. The second time is when the Host of the Valar attacked and he was bound.

    69. Re:age by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      It's like goldy or bronzy, only it's made out of iron.
      It's funny because it's true:

      irony /arni/
      -adjective
      consisting of, containing, or resembling iron.

    70. Re:age by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They were so powerful that they made war on [the Valar / Valinor], nearly made it, but then were cast down for their blasphemy.

      It's interesting to note in this context that it wasn't the Valar that beat them. When the Númenóreans chose to make war on Valinor and claim it for their own the Valar set aside their delegated authority and called upon Eru (Ilúvatar), the Supreme Being. The result of their appeal was that the rebelleous Númenóreans were defeated at sea, Númenor itself was cast into the sea and thus destroyed, and the shape of the world itself was changed ("bent") such that mortal beings (non-Exiles) could no longer reach Valinor. Only the exiled High Elves were granted special dispensation to travel the "straight path" from the Havens back to the Undying Lands and thus leave Middle-Earth forever.

      The full account can be found in The Silmarillion (specifically the Akallabêth) along with several other intriguing stories of the Elder Days.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    71. Re:age by Avatar8 · · Score: 1
      First off, the Hobbit is only about 30 years prior to "Fellowship."

      Gandalf is basically ageless as far as the second and third age of Middle Earth are concerned, so he'll look just like he did at the beginning of "Fellowship," that is if they get Sir McKellen quickly.

      Again because Gollum lived to be about 500 at the time he fell into the crack of doom, he'll look about the same. Since Gollum is digital, as long as Andy can do the voice, it will be seamless.

      Bilbo will need to look like he did in the prologue of "Fellowship." I think Ian Holm has looked about the same for years, so with just a bit of wrinkle cream, he'd still be fine for the part.

      Elrond, too, is ageless, so Hugo could still play the same part.

      There are no other characters that appear in "The Hobbit" that appear in the trilogy. However, I would not be surprised to see a cameo of Legolas in the hall of the Elven King or Gimli somewhere in the battle of five armies.

      The real question becomes who might they get for the voice of Smaug? Richard Boone was awesome.

    72. Re:age by erotic+piebald · · Score: 1

      Sorry... I forget what it was like to be young, or early middle aged, for that matter, and I'm not sure whether it's the distance or early onset Alzheimer's.
      KenC (yes, I'm 55)

    73. Re:age by L0rdJedi · · Score: 1

      If you're referring to Saruman (he's the only Maia I remember being killed by Hobbits) then you'll remember that he was no longer powerful at that point. He'd been stripped off all his power once Gandalf returned and destroyed his staff. And if my memory serves correctly, Saruman was stabbed by Wormtongue, who was then shot with an arrow by a Hobbit.

    74. Re:age by BerislavLopac · · Score: 1

      Gee, you're right, I mixed them up. Seems that the subject of this thread applies to me pretty well... Anyway, Saruman was still a Maia at that point, even without the ability to manifest his power. And his shadow (spirit) risind and beind dissipated by the wind reminiscents the dark cloud that appeared out of Barad-dur when the Ring was destroyed...

    75. Re:age by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      I think you mean...MAGNETS!

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    76. Re:age by LDoggg_ · · Score: 1

      What movies did you watch?
      Sure, there were some parts missing like the scouring of the shire, and some of the dialog was slighlty phantom-menace-esque("what does your heart tell you") but the extended editions of the movies were great.

      I also read the books first, but the movies were... well movies.
      The books spent a whole lot less time on the battle sequences than the movies did. Half of the Two Towers book was slow because it was solely based on Sam & Frodo's journey whereas movies went back and forth between the plotlines.

      I wouldn't want anyone other than Peter Jackson to direct it. Imagine some hack creating a live-action version of the Rankin/Bass atrocities.

      --

      "If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
    77. Re:age by TrailerTrash · · Score: 1

      Perhaps a minor point, but it was always my impression that ANY of the Eldar could travel the straight path to Aman, not just exiled Noldor - so Celeborn and Legolas would be eligible to go West, the latter being strongly hinted at in Tolkien's writings.

    78. Re:age by kcarlin · · Score: 1

      And the other major carry-over characters are Gandalf, whose "age" is very, very, very old and Gollum, who is CGI anyway.

      --
      Free Adam Smith! (Or best offer.)
    79. Re:age by jonskerr · · Score: 1

      Gandalf (as he is called in some places, Mithrandir by the elves) was Olorin of old in the West that has been forgotten. He is mentioned once in the Silmarillion and is a maia. So were all the curunir. That's also how he could be recorporated after dying in battle with the balrog.
      Anyway, as a maia, he was alive prior to the creation of Ea and took part in the music of the Ainur (see Valaquenta, a preface to the Silmarillion). He saw the light of the Two Trees, and would have taken part on the assault of the Valar on Morgoth at the end of the First Age. Older than measured time, since he was alive prior to the coming of the moon and the sun.

      --
      O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
    80. Re:age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus!

    81. Re:age by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      If you paid much attention Gollum looks significantly different in each of the three LOTR films

      If the differences were significant, you wouldn't need to pay "much attention" to spot them ;-)

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    82. Re:age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I want to know about the film is: will Thorin sit down and start singing about gold?

    83. Re:age by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      The Maia were less like gods and more like powerful spirits, who existed before the world.

      The Vala are exceptionally powerful spirits who created the world out of song and have godlike powers.

      And then there's Illuvatar, who is God and who created everything, directly or indirectly.

      Gandalf is Olorin, who I think was mentioned once in the Silmarillion and his age would be the age of the world plus a bit of timelessness beforehand.

      Argh! I'm becoming a Tolkien-nut!

    84. Re:age by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      The dragons weren't maiar (though the Balrogs were).

    85. Re:age by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Perhaps a minor point, but it was always my impression that ANY of the Eldar could travel the straight path to Aman, not just exiled Noldor - so Celeborn and Legolas would be eligible to go West, the latter being strongly hinted at in Tolkien's writings.

      Celeborn's precise ancestry is uncertain; the most plausable accounts seem to indicate that he was an exile, of sorts, but not one of the Noldor, having journeyed to Middle-Earth prior to the Kinslaying. You may be right about the priviledge being extended to more than just the Exiles, though; the Wikipedia page on the Akallabêth does indicate that the priviledge was extended to all Elves. (I don't have my copy of the Silmarrilion at the moment to verify that.)

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    86. Re:age by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      First off, the Hobbit is only about 30 years prior to "Fellowship."

      Make that 60 years plus. In The Hobbit Bilbo is 51/52; in TFotR he turns 111 in chapter one, and a good couple of decades more pass before chapter two. Sorry I don't have exact figures.

    87. Re:age by Kelson · · Score: 1
      First off, the Hobbit is only about 30 years prior to "Fellowship."

      More like 60 -- Bilbo's around 50* in The Hobbit and 111 in the birthday party in Fellowship. And it's another ~17 years from the party until Frodo and company flee the shire. He's 33 at Bilbo's 111th birthday party (Bilbo keeps making jokes about how their combined age is a gross), and is himself around 50 when they set out. So almost 80 years by the time the story really gets going.

      Bilbo will need to look like he did in the prologue of "Fellowship." I think Ian Holm has looked about the same for years, so with just a bit of wrinkle cream, he'd still be fine for the part.

      Actually, they had him seriously taped down to hide the wrinkles in that prologue. Probably not a feasible technique for a whole movie, but someone suggested they could do digital de-aging like in the prologue to X-Men 3.

      *IIRC, 50 for Hobbits is roughly equivalent to 25 for humans.

    88. Re:age by lupine_stalker · · Score: 1

      Gandalf is a ancient creature, and has likely not aged visably between the Hobbit and LOTR. Gollum was twisted by the ring and his life was unnaturally extended, and has also unlikely been changed in appearance. My question concerns Bilbo. Will he be played by Ian Holm? How are they going to make HIM appear younger.

      --
      Ninjas use italics.
    89. Re:age by Matthaeus · · Score: 1

      Sauron's had his...eye on you for some....time now, Mister Underhill.

    90. Re:age by Plutonite · · Score: 1

      You're either a troll or a joke, but leaning more towards a troll: Andy Serkis looks great!

    91. Re:age by HeadlessNotAHorseman · · Score: 1
      Gandalf (TTT): "Three hundred lives of men I have walked this earth and now I have no time. "
      That line really really annoyed me. After all the effort they went to to get the armour and the language and stuff right, how the heck did they come up with this line? I kept going over it in the theatre as I was watching, and as near as I can tell the life expectancy in Middle-Earth at the time was very very tiny - approximately six years (2000/300). If you estimate one "life of man" as about 70 years (as Tolkien did when he was working out the reigns of the kings/stewards of Gondor) you get 21,000, but I can't seem to make that fit in with the overall scheme of things either...are they saying that Olorin started wandering around 21,000 years ago? That doesn't seem to fit either.
      --
      I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
    92. Re:age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Elrond is 6,520 years old at the end of the Return of the King, having been born in the First Age year 525, shortly before the sons of Feanor destroy the community at the Firths of Sirion.

      Galadriel is approximately 8,500 years old, having been born in Valinor during the time of the Two Trees (everyone was immortal then so birthdays weren't so important).

      Cirdan the Shipwright may be the oldest character that survives the story who was born in Middle-Earth, since Eru decreed that the dwarves (and so presumably Yavanna's ents) would have to wait for the Elves to wake up. He's in a race with Treebeard but since we're not sure whether he's a first-generation elf we'll never know.

      Of course, old Tom Bombadil and the Ainur were here from the Beginning, but they weren't born into the world, since they were here before the world.

    93. Re:age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blackadder is really making the rounds these past few days on /.!

    94. Re:age by parcifal · · Score: 1

      A fellow Blackadder fan?

      That's where I have heard it being said by our own Balders...

    95. Re:age by Crunchie+Frog · · Score: 1

      I've told you a thousand times before, people sometimes exagerate when they say things.

      --
      --- Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity
    96. Re:age by K8Fan · · Score: 1
      Since all the actors are older, how are they going to portray them as younger looking?

      The same way Ian McKellen was made to look 20 years younger in X-Men III. The technique was invented for making music video divas look younger (reportedly it's been in use for 10 years - Madonna?), can be applied after shooting and doesn't even require tracking dots.

      --
      "How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
    97. Re:age by CapBlah · · Score: 1

      C'mon... You started well, but...

      Gandalf is older than a age, so he can use the same look.
      Gollum is CG, so ?!?!?!?

      Bilbo is the problem...

      But Ian McKellen will look 20-30 years old in next X-Man according to the news...

    98. Re:age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it would be far more accurate to describe him as an angel rather than a god. Tolkien's mythology was deliberately in tune with his Catholicism, and his letters reveal that he thought of his stories as a sort of account of creation and the early world from a different viewpoint than the human: namely, that of the elves.

    99. Re:age by telbij · · Score: 1
      Gotta get my Tolkien-geek on.

      It's only when you read all the back story notes Tolkien wrote before writing LOTR that you find out that the Numenoreans, Aragorn's ancestors, were so powerful that they kicked Sauron's butt and kept him imprisoned and tortured in a tower for a long, long time. They were so powerful that they made war on the Valinor, nearly made it, but then were cast down for their blasphemy. That's when Sauron escaped, and the survivors fled to found Gondor and the Northern kingdom.


      This is actually totally wrong.

      What happened is Numenor was an island where the descendants of Elendil lived, and the mainland middle earth was wild while Sauron's power grew secretly. Eventually Sauron built an army and declared himself king of Middle Earth. That's when the Numenoreans sailed across and showed their true power. Sauron saw then that he couldn't defeat them and was taken prisoner in Numenor, but over many generations of kings he poisoned the minds of the leadership and actually became a trusted advisor of the king. He played off the humans fear of death and claimed that the Valar and elves were keeping the secret of immortality on the isle of Aman. So Sauron was the one who convinced the Numenoreans to attack the Valar, knowing they would be destroyed. What he didn't expect was that Illuvatar would intervene and drown the whole island of Numenor where he was waiting for the armies to be destroyed. That's how he lost his pleasant-looking form once and for all.

      There were no survivors from the attack. They were all buried under tumbling mountains. The Numenoreans that lived were the ones that remained faithful to the elves and the Valar. When they heard of the attack they made secret plans to sail away to middle earth (and took a clipping of the white tree I believe). There were so few of them that they had to blend into the populations of middle earth, but Sauron also lost his body, so everything stayed low key for a couple thousand years.
    100. Re:age by Simon+Garlick · · Score: 1
      After this line of dialogue from TFOTR:

      Elrond: "This peril belongs to all Middle-Earth. They must decide now how to end it."

      Elrond: "The time of the Elves is over -- my people are leaving these shores. Who will you look to when we've gone? The Dwarves? They hide in their mountains seeking riches -- they care nothing for the troubles of others."

      Gandalf: "It is in Men that we must place our hope."
      ...I always get punched by my girlfriend, because as Elrond turns back to Gandalf I can never resist voicing for him "One of these races...has...a FUTURE".

      *thwap*
    101. Re:age by MeltUp · · Score: 1
      Sure, there were some parts missing like the scouring of the shire, and some of the dialog was slighlty phantom-menace-esque("what does your heart tell you") but the extended editions of the movies were great.
      The needless additions where worse than the missing parts. Like all that nonsense about Aragorn falling over the edge of a cliff during a battle with worgs, being thought dead, and then returning. What the hell did they need that for??

      I also read the books first, but the movies were... well movies.
      Perhaps that's my problem, movies just never compare to books for me.

      The books spent a whole lot less time on the battle sequences than the movies did.
      Is that bad? Besides, like I said, in my imagination, those battle sequences where so much more impressive.

      I still think something better could have been done. Sure, it could have been alot worse as well, but also a lot better.
      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso
    102. Re:age by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Get in line mate - I turned 32 yesterday, I think I have first dibs!

      32 "early middle age" indeed! I'm still perfectly capable of literally dancing the night away clubbing on a Saturday night and being a useful human being the following day, thank you very much.

    103. Re:age by LDoggg_ · · Score: 1

      The needless additions where worse than the missing parts. Like all that nonsense about Aragorn falling over the edge of a cliff during a battle with worgs, being thought dead, and then returning. What the hell did they need that for??

      Good point. I pretty impressed with the start of the warg scene, had forgotten how much I disliked that part.

      I still think something better could have been done. Sure, it could have been alot worse as well, but also a lot better.

      Absoluetly serveral parts could have been done better, but overall I still think it was very, very good.

      --

      "If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
    104. Re:age by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      THAT LIAR!

      I carded him for some Peach Schnapps at the liquor store yesterday and it only said 1,467.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    105. Re:age by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > Gandalf is certainly hundreds of years old. He's older than Elrond

      No. Elrond had been in Middle Earth since the First Age if I'm not mistaken, several thousand years longer than Gandalf, who arrived during the Third Age.

      The oldest major characters in LOTR are (in no particular order) Treebeard, Galadriel, Sauron, the Balrog, and Tom Bombadil. Of these, Treebeard is generally believed to have been continuously in Middle Earth for the longest amount of time, although Tom had also been around for quite some little while. Galadriel was born in Valinor during the years of the trees, and the other two came into Middle Earth very early but did not necessarily remain there continuously (e.g., Sauron was to Valinor as recently as the First Age).

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    106. Re:age by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

      And then people saying that religion makes no sense are a minority....

      --
      IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    107. Re:age by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I meant having a decent human actor play a character like Gollum is more convincing than having him voice the CGI animation's scowling and gurning.

      Look at the expression on his face in that picture - doesn't it show more the character's mad obsession better than the computer generated character managed? I still reckon that CGI is bit primitive when you need to do stuff like that, you spend more time admiring the technology than suspending disbelief.

      It's like someone said of the Star Wars films - Peter Cushing was a much more effective villain than Jabba the Hut for example.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    108. Re:age by John+Harrison · · Score: 1

      You've got me there! I agree that most people wouldn't notice it, which just goes to show that this entire discussion is pointless, since the actors could look quit a bit different and most people would not notice it, or at least wouldn't think about it or be distracted by it.

    109. Re:age by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      the actors could look quit a bit different and most people would not notice it

      I just hope they do it before Bilbo and Gandalf die. I'd hate to see the Hobbit done with different actors.
      Sir Ian is in great shape, but he won't last forever :(

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  2. PLEASE!!!! by Chineseyes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    NO MORE SEQUELS!!!

    --
    I think the invisible hand of the market has its middle finger extended

    --A wise old fart named SC0RN
    1. Re:PLEASE!!!! by Moofie · · Score: 1

      These are remakes, which set the bar even lower.

      Having said that, there are a number of sequels and remakes that are actually worth watching. I can't tell if the percentage of good sequels/remakes is better or worse than the percentage of good movies.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    2. Re:PLEASE!!!! by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      NO MORE SEQUELS!!!

      Well, T3, like Batman3, was a horrible piece of shit.
      Hopefully, the masses will treat T4 to as few viewings as they did "Batman 4: Nipple Suits", and the franchise will die there.

      I'll be doing my part by not showing up, and I hope you do too.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    3. Re:PLEASE!!!! by brjndr · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Hobbit would be a prequel.

    4. Re:PLEASE!!!! by JeTmAn81 · · Score: 1

      I'm of the opinion that T4 is a good idea no matter what you think of T3, since the only direction they have to go in with this is to show the future war, something most Terminator fans have always been interested in seeing. I think if they made a big war movie out of T4, and it didn't feature Arnold, it could be great. Just have it be about Nick Stahl fighting the machines.

      --
      "Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare -- a pumpkin with a gun."
    5. Re:PLEASE!!!! by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      since the only direction they have to go in with this is to show the future war, something most Terminator fans have always been interested in seeing.

      For about 5 minutes. Not a whole movie. And I can't see Arnold in this, even if he's quit being governor.

      Anyway, they've got time travel, they could go anywhere. Maybe like Back to the Future II they could go back and try to change events in the earlier movies.

    6. Re:PLEASE!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they don't need Arnie in, because they showed the wars before (flashbacks from first one) where they were just metal. They only used the 'arnie' style human robots to infiltrate human bases.

      (posting as AC because of mod points)

    7. Re:PLEASE!!!! by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Batman Returns was good, however

    8. Re:PLEASE!!!! by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Batman Returns was good, however

      Good, but not great :(
      3 villains is too much for one 2h movie, I'm affraid. It messes up the flow.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    9. Re:PLEASE!!!! by eln · · Score: 1

      I thought T3 was a fairly decent movie. T2 would have been a GREAT movie if it weren't for Edward Furlong's voice breaking every 30 seconds. That really started to grate on my nerves.

    10. Re:PLEASE!!!! by JeTmAn81 · · Score: 1

      Well, just imagine a scenario where Cameron was directing a whole future war movie with the intensity of say, Aliens. That's definitely something that could work, though it's very unlikely that James Cameron himself would actually direct. But if they could get that feel I think it could work. And definitely, Arnold should NOT come back. I think it would be the best thing for the series if they distanced themselves from their star and focused more on story.

      --
      "Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare -- a pumpkin with a gun."
    11. Re:PLEASE!!!! by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Hmm... sequel, prequel-and-book-movification, sequel. Hollywood really is running out of ideas, isn't it?

      Actually, T4 could cover some interesting ground. At this point, their only choice is to start covering the actual war against the machines. Plus, with The Governator distracted, it can't be another Schwartzenegger vehicle. So despite the tendency for a movie franchise to get worse over time, it could easily be better than T3.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    12. Re:PLEASE!!!! by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      And definitely, Arnold should NOT come back. I think it would be the best thing for the series if they distanced themselves from their star and focused more on story.

      The only way the studio will invest in a $200 million movie is with A-list stars.

    13. Re:PLEASE!!!! by Hoarke42 · · Score: 1

      The thing that always bothered me was that there were multiple terminators who looked like Arnold, when the whole reason they had human form was to disguise themselves to infiltrate and kill. If they all looked the same, you could see them coming.

  3. Hobbit is gonna blow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2 movies for the Hobbit? No. Terminator 4? Please, someone think of something new. Please.

  4. Huh?!?! by Clockwork+Apple · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    They made the 6 books of LOTR in 3 flicks, but they are going to bust up There and back again into 2 movies?

    I hate Jackson.

    C.

    --
    "Doctor, it's not the voices I hear in MY head, but the voices I hear in YOUR head that really frighten me."
    1. Re:Huh?!?! by Kuj0317 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yep.

      One for there
      One for back again

      clean division.

      I know, jokes aside i agree. However, this is hollywood, and epics=$$$.

    2. Re:Huh?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While technically your correct there are 6 books, most people only recognize them as a trilogy since that is how they have been packaged for many, many years. In fact, most people don't even know that they were originally written as separate books. So, yes, 3 books, 3 movies.

    3. Re:Huh?!?! by jimstapleton · · Score: 0

      There were only 3 LoTR books. Not 6.

      --
      34486853790
      Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
    4. Re:Huh?!?! by JeTmAn81 · · Score: 5, Informative

      First of all, technically there was only one LOTR book, which was split into three separate books for publishing purposes. The subdivision of "books" inside the novel denoted a separation that was more akin to chapters than actual whole books. Second of all, Jackson isn't doing anything on this project yet, so why are you blaming him? Lastly, Jackson made three GREAT films out of the single-book LOTR. I will applaud any effort he makes, if indeed he does make one, at making The Hobbit into a film or films.

      --
      "Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare -- a pumpkin with a gun."
    5. Re:Huh?!?! by bilbravo · · Score: 1

      Each of the 3 books was divided into 2 books. There were 6 books.

      "A Tale of Two Cities" was 2 books, similarly.

    6. Re:Huh?!?! by Ahnteis · · Score: 1

      I'd be OK with two 2-hour movies instead of one 4-hour movie. :)

    7. Re:Huh?!?! by Kirin+Fenrir · · Score: 1

      Um, no, there was one Lord of the Rings book, not six, or even three. The Fellowship of the Ring, the Two Towers, and the Return of the King "books" were all marketing stunts by the publisher; Tolkien was actually quite displeased they split his book up.

      I hope you don't call yourself a fan!

      --
      Caffeine is my anti-drug!

      Duranin - A NWN2 Roleplaying Persistent World
    8. Re:Huh?!?! by $1uck · · Score: 1

      "I hate Jackson"

      Is that completely unrelated to your first statement? I hope so. If you read the intro you would see that Jackson isn't even pegged 100% to be the director. I hope he is, b/c I think LOTR the movie turned out as well as could be hoped for and I think the hobbit being done in a different fashion would suck.

      I think Jackson has done some good stuff and some really bad stuff. *shrug*

    9. Re:Huh?!?! by phpWebber · · Score: 1

      I hope you mean Kate or Michael because Peter created 3 wonderful films.

      Unless you would prefer Hasbro/Lucas or Walkie-Talkie-of-Anduril-Spielberg, what's your beef?

    10. Re:Huh?!?! by dctoastman · · Score: 1

      Might as well hate the original publisher as well, breaking the single novel into three.
      Because LOTR was meant to be one solid work, published in full as one novel, subdivided into 6 books or sections.

      But I understand, you are more interested in spouting off your "knowledge" than contributing anything useful.

    11. Re:Huh?!?! by Volante3192 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I thought it was packaged as one book way back in the day, but the binding couldn't hold the massive tome so the publisher asked Tolkien to split it up into more manageable parts, so he went to three and that's where the part titles came from...

    12. Re:Huh?!?! by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Informative
      There were only 3 LoTR books. Not 6.

      LoTR is actually one novel of six books published in three volumes.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    13. Re:Huh?!?! by belrick · · Score: 0

      Actually *technically* it is 6 books physically published as 3.

    14. Re:Huh?!?! by Jamu · · Score: 1

      I think it's a shame the extended version of the film didn't go down the 6 DVD route. Although on second thoughts they'd probably price them as such too which wouldn't be so good.

      --
      Who ordered that?
    15. Re:Huh?!?! by Clockwork+Apple · · Score: 1

      I do call myself a fan I guess, and I suppose I will have to deal with you now oh gatekeeper of geeky lit. So given Jackson had one story to work with, how do you explain his shit ending and no finish to the Shire's plot?

      I know this was forced on Tolkien by the publishers of the time. I have no idea what if any impact it had of the final book(s), but I do know that Jackson had it all there to work with and didnt do Tolkien's story justice. Jackson did a good job of directing the movies, the visuals were all there, the movies looked pretty much like the images that I saw when I read the text, but where was the fidelity to the story?

      You might bring up the money issue, but I would have been much happier paying for twice as many theatre tickets if it meant I got the full story the way it was written. The shield surfing elves and dwarf tossing wasnt helping me look past the plot changes either.

      Yeah, Im a fan I think, Im not so sure who YOU are a fan of, Tolkien, or Jackson?

      C.

      --
      "Doctor, it's not the voices I hear in MY head, but the voices I hear in YOUR head that really frighten me."
    16. Re:Huh?!?! by OldeTimeGeek · · Score: 1
      I hate Jackson.

      So you would prefer the only filming of the Lord of the Rings to be Ralph Bakshi's masterpiece of lameness?http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077869/

      Like Jackson or not, like his version or not, you have to admire him for being able to talk a studio into putting up the money to film it.

    17. Re:Huh?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one book to rule them all!

    18. Re:Huh?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, LOTR was meant to be one book -- this was Tolkein's orignal intent. He considered references to the LOTR as a trilogy as incorrect. The publisher insisted on dividing it into three volumes, two books for each volume.

      Ref: Tolkien, J.R.R. (2000). The War of the Ring: The History of The Lord of the Rings, Part Three. Houghton Mifflin.

    19. Re:Huh?!?! by JeTmAn81 · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, technically it's still just one book published as three. Let's get our terminology straight here. The "books" used to divide The Lord of The Rings are not at all the same as the term used to describe the books of, say, the Harry Potter series, which were meant to be published separately and to stand alone. Again, they're more like chapters, and were never meant to be read separately or taken out of the context of the overall novel.

      --
      "Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare -- a pumpkin with a gun."
    20. Re:Huh?!?! by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      the binding couldn't hold the massive tome

      I had a single volume paperback, a bit over 1000 pages. War and Peace is about 1400 pages. Actually, the publisher just thought it wouldn't sell as a single fat volume. He thought he'd sell a thousand or so of the first volume, then a few nundred of the latter a year later, expecting few to persevere. Also Tolkien was fussing over the appendices, so it let him get the first part out while he was doing that.

    21. Re:Huh?!?! by Scrameustache · · Score: 0, Troll
      technically there was only one LOTR book, which was split into three separate books for publishing purposes.

      Technically? Oh it's on now!

      One of the definitions of book, and the one that applies here, is: a major division of a treatise or literary work.

      The Lord Of The Ring is a novel

      Function: noun
      Etymology: Italian novella
      1 : an invented prose narrative that is usually long and complex and deals especially with human experience through a usually connected sequence of events


      Split in three volume

      Pronunciation: 'väl-y&m, -(")yüm
      Function: noun
      Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin volumen roll, scroll, from volvere to roll
      1 a : a series of printed sheets bound typically in book form


      Consisting of six books.

      Point, set and match.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    22. Re:Huh?!?! by multisync · · Score: 1
      I hate Jackson.


      What the hell does this have to do with Jackson?
      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    23. Re:Huh?!?! by sh00z · · Score: 1
      I think it's a shame the extended version of the film didn't go down the 6 DVD route.
      I don't know about your copies of the extended editions, but mine have each film spanning two DVD's. I'm sure that the breaks aren't in exactly the same places that JRRT placed them, but still...
    24. Re:Huh?!?! by Clockwork+Apple · · Score: 1

      I guess in my idealistic hopes I wanted some producer/moneyguys to just tell Jackson to make it look right and dont deviate from the story as written. Thats it. I think his direction of the script was great, I think the adaptation of the book was piss poor. Just shoot what the books say Pete, the Tolkien story knows where it needs to go, just fuckin follow it.

      The sad thing is in one of the few situations where throwing money at a problem would have been preferable (making 6-7 movies rather than 3-4) Just shoot till the whole thing is in the can. I know it's not very realistic.

      Just tell me you prefer the Jackson ending to Tolkiens, and we are done discussing it.

      C.

      --
      "Doctor, it's not the voices I hear in MY head, but the voices I hear in YOUR head that really frighten me."
    25. Re:Huh?!?! by Clockwork+Apple · · Score: 1

      "But I understand, you are more interested in spouting off your "knowledge" than contributing anything useful."

      You have managed to avoid doing both. I salute you.

      C.

      --
      "Doctor, it's not the voices I hear in MY head, but the voices I hear in YOUR head that really frighten me."
    26. Re:Huh?!?! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      It did. There were 2 DVDs for every "movie". 6 total.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    27. Re:Huh?!?! by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      LOTR was one book, one novel. The publisher split the work into three books, not Tolkien. The book was just too big to be published commercially as one volume.

    28. Re:Huh?!?! by mozkill · · Score: 1

      me too. i would be so pissed if he did that. im already fuming because "Kill Bill" is split apart. i hate waiting for sequels!

      --

      -- Betting on the survival of the media industry is a serious risk. I advise investing elsewhere.
    29. Re:Huh?!?! by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      LOTR was one book, one novel. The publisher split the work into three books

      See my other posts for rebbuttal to all your points which you needlessly reiterated for the nth time here.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    30. Re:Huh?!?! by Zaatxe · · Score: 1

      I don't think that Jackson made "three movies out of the single-book LOTR". Jackson made one movie which was split into three the same way the book was.

      --
      So say we all
    31. Re:Huh?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all your points which you needlessly reiterated for the nth time here.

      Pot, meet kettle.

    32. Re:Huh?!?! by Malc · · Score: 1

      Pete Jackson's the man. He's redoing Dambusters. That's one film I won't complain about being updated. I hope they recreate the 1940's British accents though.

    33. Re:Huh?!?! by hyperm0g · · Score: 1

      Also don't forget that when The Lord of the Rings was pitched, no one predicted the public's apetite for fantasy. from the wiki:

      The trilogy began pre-production as a two-film deal similar to a few other projects. Then Miramax, citing budget concerns, decided to condense the project into one film, before selling it off altogether to New Line Cinema in 1998. Robert Shaye, head of New Line Cinema, immediately decided to expand the project to three films (with a budget of $270 million), famously replying to Jackson's offer, "Aren't there three books?"

      So smarting about how it wasn't six films in hindsight when it was only made to 3 films because of a daring and risky maneuver might be a tad misplaced.

    34. Re:Huh?!?! by Thuktun · · Score: 1
      Yep.

      One for there
      One for back again

      clean division.
      Crap, I can even see where they'd place the cliffhanger:

      Secret door wide, Bilbo walks alone into the darkness and into the depths of Erebor, the Lonely Mountain, to confront Smaug.
    35. Re:Huh?!?! by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Pot, meet kettle.

      Cliché, meet irrelevance.

      Since I'm factually correct, and his "points" are empty rhetoric, this is not a simple question of two parties calling each other the same name.
      This is one party (me and the other well informed Tolkien fans in this thread) telling party b) (them people who don't know that it's 6 books, often in 3 volumes, forming one novel) that they are wrong.

      One side is wrong, and uses rhetoric to argue, the other can back up their facts.
      This is not an equilibrium.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    36. Re:Huh?!?! by qcomp · · Score: 1
      Lastly, Jackson made three GREAT films out of the single-book LOTR.

      no, Jackson made one abomination which was spread over three installments for worse effect.

      however, even if he failed with the epic, he may get the children's book right. after all, the (still) pictures were ok in the movie-mutilation of LotR
    37. Re:Huh?!?! by Twisted64 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget, it's a very long story. There's gotta be some spiders... imprisonment at the hands of an elf king or someone... barrels... lots of barrels... dragon... treasure... and then, when all's well, a war!

      I was quite surprised and disappointed that they didn't include the depressing ending to the LotR story in the films. I was looking forward to it for three years. At least with two films they might be able to include everything.

      --
      Consciousness is a myth. Trust me.
    38. Re:Huh?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jackson is a lousy director. I would prefer a director who lets his actors act rather than using CGI to do the emoting for them.

      I would also prefer a director who doesn't think that making a too-long movie even longer is a good idea, although that's more of a "King Kong" complaint. The original feels long at 100 minutes; three hours of pointless fight after pointless fight in Jackson's version is just masturbation for its own sake.

  5. Who cares about the hobbit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    A sequel to the thomas crown affair! I am so excited.

    1. Re:Who cares about the hobbit? by Darth_brooks · · Score: 1

      Actually there's been a lot of buzz going around about Peter Jackson's involvement in a remake of Paul Brickhill's The Dambusters. He's been alternately lined up to produce or direct, depending on which rag sheet you read.

      Granted, it's another one of Jackson's vanity projects ("Before you try to tell me why I can't remake 'King Kong', let me remind you of how many B-B-B-B-B-Billion dollars my flicks just grossed worldwide."), but me and the other 500 warbird nerds left in the world are looking forward to it, so long as they don't do it with "Matrix:reloaded"-esqe crap CGI. That may put a kink in the shooting schedule for "The Hobbit"

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    2. Re:Who cares about the hobbit? by eggoeater · · Score: 1
      A sequel to the thomas crown affair!
      ...and a 100M+ dollar block buster??? This is what they're going to dump money into?
      The first one was OK but according to IMDB only cost 48M.
      They shouldn't spend any more than that on the sequel since I doubt people are going to flock to see it.
    3. Re:Who cares about the hobbit? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Just so long as Rene Russo isn't naked in this one. She is what 52 now? barf.

    4. Re:Who cares about the hobbit? by Knara · · Score: 1

      There was already a "sequel" to tTCA in production, or at least in pre... just not an official "in name" one... "The Topkapi Affair"

    5. Re:Who cares about the hobbit? by mlush · · Score: 1

      Actually there's been a lot of buzz going around about Peter Jackson's involvement in a remake of Paul Brickhill's The Dambusters [imdb.com].

      After the apocryphal 1954 version, I look forward to seeing the record set straight as to how the USAF blew up those bridges

    6. Re:Who cares about the hobbit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a minute, I thought we'd get to see Faye Dunaway's breasts. Damn.

    7. Re:Who cares about the hobbit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A sequel to the thomas crown affair! I am so excited.

      I concur! Maybe now that Pierce Brosnan is 53 years old we can get Golden Age nude scenes starring Angela Lansbury or Phyllis Diller instead of Rene Russo. Dang, can't wait to see it on the big screen.

  6. I'd feel better by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

    If it were definitely Jackson in charge - and not just a hope. I would be sweet if this matched up well with his LoTR films - in look and all that.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    1. Re:I'd feel better by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

      Only with someone new as the lead screenwriter--someone with a sense of a cadence and a good understanding of the books and the beauty of language. It's less important with the Hobbit than in would have been with the Lord of the Rings, but it would still be nice. Beagle or Stracynski, maybe. Come to think of it, while either of them would have been great for LOTR, given the sort of humor that runs throughout the Hobbit, I actually wonder if Whedon wouldn't be good for the project. Hmmm... fascinating thought.

    2. Re:I'd feel better by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      hot lesbian hobbit action? i think not. :)
       
      all kidding aside, the idea is intriguing (whedon that is). but i think that with the hobbit it should be (i emphasize should) harder to mess up and much easier to translate to the screen. but if it is on par with LoTR - then i'm cool with it. and if it sucks, i'll just keep watching the animated version.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    3. Re:I'd feel better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would be sweet if this matched up well with his LoTR films - in look and all that.

      Sure would. It's time to start spectulating on who will play the fair elven maid that Bilbo loves, who keeps the shards of the ancient sword Sting for him while he hides from his heroic ancestry in the larder at Bag End.

    4. Re:I'd feel better by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      Come to think of it, while either of them would have been great for LOTR, given the sort of humor that runs throughout the Hobbit, I actually wonder if Whedon wouldn't be good for the project.

      I don't think he could do it. He'd turn several of the dwarves into short-girls-that-kick-ass. And he'd kill Bilbo, but it'd be alright because Gollum would join the dwarves and save the day, shortly before the Necromancer offers Thorin the use of Dol Guldur.

  7. Er... by AltGrendel · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Gandalf and Gollum are not good examples. Actually it shouldn't make much of a difference with any of them, the only race that ages quickly in the Tollkien world is Man.

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

    1. Re:Er... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>Actually it shouldn't make much of a difference with any of them, the only race that ages quickly in the Tollkien world is Man

      Aragorn was at least 80 during the LOTR. He lived to be 400 or so(in the appendix to ROTK). He was Numenorean, but technically still a man I think.

    2. Re:Er... by AuMatar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Numenorians are specially graced by the Valar, giving them a lifespan many times normal man (among other advantages). Non-numenorians lived Earth-like lifespans.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    3. Re:Er... by abigor · · Score: 1

      Wasn't it the case that the Edain (whose remnants later settled on Numenor) were simply the first men created, and it was only after they attacked the Valar that men's lifespans decreased (that is, man "fell")? I don't recall the Edain being specially graced somehow, only that they were the first men.

    4. Re:Er... by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      "To the Fathers of Men of the three faithful houses rich reward was given. Eonwe came among them and taught them; and they were given wisdom and power and life more enduring than any others of mortal race have possessed. A land was made made for the Edain to dwell in, neither part of Middle-earth nor of Valinor..."

    5. Re:Er... by abigor · · Score: 1

      Oops, guess I was wrong. Apologies.

  8. Ian Holm by eingram · · Score: 0

    I hope Ian Holm plays Bilbo. And leave the singing in the books (where I skip them, anyway).

  9. UM.. by bigattichouse · · Score: 1

    yah! um maybe.. I think? not sure if I'm excited or not.. I want the Hobbit done by Peter Jackson.. but it just seems like "hey look how cool this *could* be" sort of hype.

    --
    meh
    1. Re:UM.. by gstoddart · · Score: 1
      yah! um maybe.. I think? not sure if I'm excited or not.. I want the Hobbit done by Peter Jackson.. but it just seems like "hey look how cool this *could* be" sort of hype.

      While having Peter Jackson is no guarantee the movie will turn out well, it's a helluva starting point.

      His WETA people will have a lot of experience with the design; and hopefully Ian McKellan, Vigo Mortensen, and a couple of the characters which span the books can be convinced to return for The Hobbit. If they give him a budget like they're talking about, it could be (yes, as you say could) potentially be a wonderfully well done movie with a lot of continuity with LoTR.

      I, for one, welcome our new Hobbit overlords. ;-)

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:UM.. by jfengel · · Score: 1

      I don't recall an appearance by Strider in The Hobbit, though a cameo could be arranged without messing up the story.

      Of more concern to me is that Ian Holm couldn't possibly do Bilbo: his brief appearance as the young Bilbo in Fellowship was accomplished only with very painful techniques to smooth out his face. Re-casting him is a bigger break to continuity than re-casting Gandalf, who makes some pivotal appearances but is absent for much of the book.

      I would like to see John Rhys-Davies play Gimli's father Gloin. And given how much fancy camera work went into nearly every shot in the LotR movies, why not have him play Oin, too?

    3. Re:UM.. by gstoddart · · Score: 1
      I don't recall an appearance by Strider in The Hobbit, though a cameo could be arranged without messing up the story.

      Doh, you are correct. Been a while since I read the Hobbit I guess. =)

      I would like to see John Rhys-Davies play Gimli's father Gloin. And given how much fancy camera work went into nearly every shot in the LotR movies, why not have him play Oin, too?

      Another actor I would like to see brought back if they actually make the film.

      Totally agree about the actor for Bilbo though; he was cast well for an older Bilbo, but a younger one could be difficult. However, the actor who did the motion capture for Gollum would definitely need to be brought back. =)

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:UM.. by srussell · · Score: 1
      not sure if I'm excited or not.. I want the Hobbit done by Peter Jackson
      I'm not sure if I want The Hobbit to be produced by Peter Jackson. He did an incredible job on TLOR, and I wouldn't have wanted anybody else to direct those... but those were more adult books. The Hobbit is a much more light-hearted children's tale.

      --- SER

  10. MGM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's It Got In Its Pocketses?

  11. The Hobbit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please DO NOT use CGI for Gollum! I'm sorry but nothing would be more realistic or even half as scary (?!) as a real life person acting the part...

    1. Re:The Hobbit by PrescriptionWarning · · Score: 1

      He looked pretty realistic and scary at the beginning of the return of the king during his transition to the current Gollum, when he had just a lil bit of hair left. It was only a moment on the screen but I thought it looked wicked.

  12. Three movies I'd like to see by boxlight · · Score: 1
    This sounds like cool news. These would be three movies I'd like to see. After seeing King Kong, I'd love to see Peter Jackson bring Bwaug to the screen in THE HOBBIT.

    TERMINATOR 3 was a kick ass very under-rated movie. TERMINATOR 4 -- awesome!

    THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR was a smart, compelling little thriller, and probably the best movie Brosnan's ever made. Beauty.

    Finally sounds like they're making good movies again.

    boxlight

    1. Re:Three movies I'd like to see by boxlight · · Score: 1
      > Bwaug

      That's *SMAUG* -- damn keyboard.

      boxlight

    2. Re:Three movies I'd like to see by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      I also liked the Tomas Crown Affair. While I've seen better movies recently trying to do what it did (smart caper) it was still a good flick.

    3. Re:Three movies I'd like to see by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      TERMINATOR 3 was a kick ass very under-rated movie.

      T3 was an HIGHLY overrated piece of shit.

      It's got explosions, but you can only appreciate them if you check your brain at the door. Characters contradict themselves (one minute Arnold knows human psychology and can manipulate Connor to perk him up, the next he knows nothing about wimminz), Connors was dumbed down and turned into a bumbling idiot in order to prop up their new female grrl-power character (I really cold have done without the "my dad taught me to fly. it of dialog when they were running to the plane, we already know Connors was raised to ride or fly anything he can find, useless dialog to justify a character now turned useless).

      The robots were called "it. until then, but the new, better terminator is called a "she" for no valid reason (she turns into men and women, just like the T1000 did in the previous movie. He was called an "it", she's a "she", no valid reason).

      The "more intelligent" robot acts so incredibly stupidly throughout the movie it's painfull to watch, etc.

      Finally sounds like they're making good movies again.

      You're from Bizarro World, aren't you?

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    4. Re:Three movies I'd like to see by Jerf · · Score: 1

      You missed my personal favorite "WTF?".

      Good: Updating "Skynet" to change itself into a virus that takes over all the computers on the planet for itself. Definitely more realistic than the "giant supercomputer" concept from the original movie's time.

      Bad: Making the new Skynet's first action the nuking of every major population center on Earth.

      Pop quiz, Hollywood: Where are most computers? By the people who use them.

      Translation: Skynet's first action was to lobotomize itself, and almost certainly effectively destroy itself.

      Skynet made a lot more sense placed far enough into the future where it might actually be able to run itself off of a relatively small handful of computers that might have the power of all modern computers combined, and for there to be purely-robotic factories sophisticated enough that if SkyNet took them over it might be able to bootstrap a Killer-Robot factory and industry. Neither of those two things are even close to plausible if you place Judgement Day in the present.

      T4, unless it somehow retcons T3 at least 20 years into the future, isn't going to be a science fiction movie anymore, just a generic 50's-esque "Humanity against the Killer Robots!" movie. (Which, granted, the first two Terminators were, but they weren't generic.)

    5. Re:Three movies I'd like to see by keithburgun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I very much agree with scrameustache. Also, the idea of a "female, SEXY terminator" is LAME right off the bat. Terminator 2 was one of the best action films of all time, and one major reason for that was Linda Hamilton. She did all the heavy weight acting. 3 had simply no business being made. And the fact that they're THINKING of making a 4 is just outrageous and I hope that moviegoers simply give up on movies all together and strangle the industry, like what's happening in the music industry. you can fool some people sometimes, but you can't fool all the people all the time. -keith

    6. Re:Three movies I'd like to see by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      I'll disagree. I think Terminator 3 should have used Edward Furlong or someone who looked like him, because the guy who played this pre-established character just didn't fit. The character was also badly written, we got a emo 90's guy wuss in place of someone who was supposed to be trained by his mom to be a leader/general, someone who lived through T2, and all around survivor.

      That about killed the movie.

      That, and the general trend in the last ten years to make any of Arnold's movies into Hollywood Schlock. Starring in a major role, he hasn't made anything decent since T2.

    7. Re:Three movies I'd like to see by boxlight · · Score: 1
      You're from Bizarro World, aren't you?

      Yes, that's right. I'm from Bizarro World. I think LOTR, THOMAS CROWN and T3 are good movies. I'm SICK!

      T3 was an HIGHLY overrated piece of shit.

      T3 was a very consistent continuance of the T movies, it was well-paced, it featured a great villain, a compelling hero, and was filled with spectacular, plausible, well choreographed action sequences. (That summer everyone was talking about the car chase in MATRIX2, but T3's chase was much better.) T3 also had a very clever plot. *SPOILER* I loved the "Skynet is the internet" ending.

      The only thing I didn't like about T3 was the casting of John Conner (where was Colin Farrel when you need him?).

      T3 was good, and didn't do so hot at the box office. Hence, it was UNDER-rated.

      boxlight

    8. Re:Three movies I'd like to see by nomadic · · Score: 1

      T3 was an HIGHLY overrated piece of shit.

      Huh? Overrated by who? It was widely predicted to be a train wreck, but what happened is it ended up being a reasonably ok scifi action film. "Underrated" doesn't mean good, it just means better than what a lot of people thought.

    9. Re:Three movies I'd like to see by rmadmin · · Score: 1

      I read about how these movies suck all the time. I watch these movies, and I enjoy them quite a bit. I guess I'm easily entertained. I'm sure glad I'm not like you, it must really suck to never find any good entertainment. :)

    10. Re:Three movies I'd like to see by AceCaseOR · · Score: 1

      How could you like Terminator 3? The film basically contradicted one of the major points from the first two films - "There is no fate but which we make for ourselves. The Future is not set." Not to mention setting up another little bit of head asplody - why would John Connor have Kyle Reese carry the aforementioned message back to his mother when he knows for a fact that it's not true, and acknowledges it as such in his closing monologue. Frankly, unless James Cameron writes and directs T4 and it completely retcons T3 then I'm going to avoid it like the plague it is (unless some friends and I get togeather to record a Podcast Commentary for the film and riff it a new duckhole).

      --
      Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
    11. Re:Three movies I'd like to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, T3 was one of the worst movies I have been suckered into seeing at a theatre in a long time. The plot itself wasn't horrible, everything else about it was though. It felt like whoever directed it just didn't know what the hell they were doing or had a lot of outside interference overriding their decisions - the movie felt uneven. It's like they needed another 6 months to re-shoot and re-edit a lot of it and just didn't have the time or something. Also, I thought some of it was kind of sexist, mainly in the treatment of the "she" Terminator. Finally - what the hell did they do to Claire Danes? She looked cracked out in the movie, they did something weird with her makeup and lighting.

    12. Re:Three movies I'd like to see by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      T3 was a very consistent continuance of the T movies

      It was not: It retconned Connor from an ubermensch to a lump of neuroses who cannot function without a woman to steer him through his life. For starters...

      it featured a great villain

      The villain was a rehash of the two previous villains, removing all the weaknesses of both (now it can shoot lasers111one!!!), and made into a =pointless= sexy pin-up.
      Why did it inflate it's boobs to distract the male cop if it's going to blantantly kill him anyway? There is no internal logic for this, this is only eye candy for teenagers who like to see inflating boobs on a big screen, nothing more.

      filled with spectacular, plausible, well choreographed action sequences

      Spectacular and well choreographed, yes.
      Plausible? Not in the least.

      Notice the shape-shifter had assumed a form that lulled it's target into a false sense of security, but instead of using that shape to get 10 feet closer and killing the target at close range like it just did (for no reason) to the cops in the car, the robot proceeds to slowly turn it's arm into a fancy ray gun in full view of the target, who goes from running towards her would-be killer to realising she's in danger and evading the attack.

      This was one of the dumbest things I've ever seen in a movie, and I've seen Plan 9 From Outer Space.

      That summer everyone was talking about the car chase in MATRIX2, but T3's chase was much better.

      I hate the Matrix sequels with a passion, but I keep my Reloaded DVD just for the scene with trinity on a bike, going against traffic on a highway. That was spectacular.
      But if "the car chase was t3h awesome" is your reason to call a movie "great", then we're not on the same wavelength.

      T3 also had a very clever plot. *SPOILER* I loved the "Skynet is the internet" ending.

      1- Overused clichés are NOT clever. See the equally horrible Lawnmoyer Man II for the exact same plot.
      2- Another poster above has pointed out how fantastically stupid that move is: It makes the entire established premise of the series completelly unbelievable (SKYNET targetting humans now becomes SKYNET stupidly targetting itself).

      The only thing I didn't like about T3 was the casting of John Conner

      Well, one of the thousands of things wrong with that movie caught your attention. There's that.

      T3 was good, and didn't do so hot at the box office. Hence, it was UNDER-rated.

      T3 was so bad I was insulted that I was conned into giving them 10 bucks to see it, and yet it did well enough that it did not ankrupt it's owners. Therefore it's OVERrated.
      q.e.d.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    13. Re:Three movies I'd like to see by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      Finally sounds like they're making good movies again.

      Well, I never watched LOTR (long story, but basically I never read the books and have no interest at all in them or the movies), but I liked the other 2 films you mentioned. The sad thing is that these are all sequels or prequels. That seems to be all that Hollywood can do - sequels, prequels, remakes of foreign films, convert old TV shows into movies, etc. There is a real dearth of original ideas in Hollywood right now.

    14. Re:Three movies I'd like to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it wasn't even consistent within itself.

      John Conner was Out of Character (OOC).

      The plot made no sense with the other two.

      Part of the reason of this was the first two movies were directed and largely overall made by James Cameron. He had no part of the third since he saw no place for a sequel.

      I saw a place for the sequel (Schwarzenegger left part of his mangled arm in the machinery in T2) where they could have introduced that as a reason to go further with the franchise, but T3 didn't even pick up on that.

    15. Re:Three movies I'd like to see by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Overrated by who?

      By whoever is investing in a sequel.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    16. Re:Three movies I'd like to see by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      I read about how these movies suck all the time. I watch these movies, and I enjoy them quite a bit. I guess I'm easily entertained.

      Yes, yes you are.

      I'm sure glad I'm not like you, it must really suck to never find any good entertainment. :)

      Nice troll.
      But you should see my DVD collection, just because I have high standards doesn't mean there aren,t great filmakers out there living up to them.

      P.S. I deem Starship Troopers (break from the book aside) to be one of these excellent movies. Its story is completely consistent internally, its message is sarcastic, and so subtle it goes right over the head of most people who talk about it.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    17. Re:Three movies I'd like to see by pthisis · · Score: 1

      That, and the general trend in the last ten years to make any of Arnold's movies into Hollywood Schlock. Starring in a major role, he hasn't made anything decent since T2.

      I'd submit that True Lies meets or exceeds the bar set by "decent". Not an all time great, but a fun film.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    18. Re:Three movies I'd like to see by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Ditto. Oh, sure there were holes you could drive a truck thorough, but hell - it was only 2 hours; you have to take shortcuts sometimes. It was a fun movie to watch. I just wish they had released a better transfer on DVD - the current one is non-anamorphic and they seemed to spend very little effert cleaning it up for the home release.

      That said, a sequel would be just wrong.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    19. Re:Three movies I'd like to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.nitpickers.com/movies/repository.cgi?pg =t&sp=i&tt=108701

      For starters, how about 6363:
      A meteor hit Buenos Aires and Rico's parents die. But they live -as seen in the movie- near mountains. And the nearest mountain to Buenos Aires is 1700 km far from there.

      So why aren't your panties in a bunch over that piss poor writing? Doesn't it completely ruin the movie knowing that the writers are so unknowledgable about earth geography/topography?

    20. Re:Three movies I'd like to see by dctoastman · · Score: 1

      What message? "Xenophobia is cool if you try to colonize an alien planet and the native inhabitants retaliate by killing your people." Or "Flashing tits and explosions at every opportunity make for good cinema."

      Unless it was trying to be an indictment of such behavior/attitudes, in which it fails completely by pandering to wrong demographic.

      Heinlen is shit for a writer. So much that I won't bother to see if I spelled his name correctly.

    21. Re:Three movies I'd like to see by dctoastman · · Score: 1

      Why? To ensure his birth.

    22. Re:Three movies I'd like to see by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      What message? "Xenophobia is cool

      lol! Like, it went ten feet over your head!

      No, the message is the exact opposite of that. But since it's clever and ironic, lots of people didn't see it, including you.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    23. Re:Three movies I'd like to see by snuf23 · · Score: 1

      "Bad: Making the new Skynet's first action the nuking of every major population center on Earth."

      I thought this was hilarious. Skynet once becoming sentient trys to commit suicide by blowing the majority of itself up. Considering that even as a virus it would have blown out all of it's major interconnections through nuking the metropolitan exchanges.
      Personally I liked T3, but in the same was I liked Alien 4 as utterly silly and stupid sci-fi action flicks.

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
    24. Re:Three movies I'd like to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy probably meant overhyped.

    25. Re:Three movies I'd like to see by dctoastman · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, you must've stopped reading. I think I remember writing after that "Unless it was trying to be an indictement of such behaviors..."

      And there is nothing clever nor ironic about that movie. It's the cinema equivilant of Godwin's Law. And that is lost in that that is the sort of behavior that is celebrated throughout the movie.

    26. Re:Three movies I'd like to see by Jerf · · Score: 1

      I actually liked it too, but not for the story.

      It was a nice change of pace to see real special effects again, especially when the cherry-picker was run through the buildings. Dust, chunks everywhere, stuff that we still couldn't do CGI. See also the damage suffered by the vehicles on their little adventures.

      Story sucked, but they had a well-above-average grasp of the advantanges and the disadvantages of CGI in special effects. It'll be a while yet before CGI can match the effects of T3.

      For that, I fished it out of the bargain bin in WalMart one day.

    27. Re:Three movies I'd like to see by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      And there is nothing clever nor ironic about that movie.

      None that you noticed.
      Your loss.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    28. Re:Three movies I'd like to see by dctoastman · · Score: 1

      Way to once again not read to the end of the post.

      It's not that it went unnoticed, it's just that it was executed for shit.

    29. Re:Three movies I'd like to see by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Way to once again not read to the end of the post.

      That Godwin nonsense? Oh yeah, Nazis would have a black woman as their sky marshall. Sure.

      It's not that it went unnoticed, it's just that it was executed for shit.

      You seem to have no specific point, only foul language props up your disdain of the movie. Obviously, you aren't going to admit that you missed the subtle parts, you'll keep putting your fingers in your ears and shout "lalala, there's nothing to see or hear, lalala!".
      So bah-bye now.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    30. Re:Three movies I'd like to see by dctoastman · · Score: 1

      "The film included visual allusions to propaganda films such as Triumph of the Will and wartime news broadcasts."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers#Fil m_and_TV_adaptations

      Maybe I'm not the one missing something. *ahem*
      So the mentioning of Godwin's Law is relevant as they used the tired cliche of "Nazis R teh ev1l" to get their point across.

      Read Matthew Woodring Stover. His love of Heinlen aside, it is much more deep and meaningful than the shlock that is Starship Troopers. (Not to mention that the gratuitous tits do nothing to either advance the plot or make the point so what are they exactly doing there.)

    31. Re:Three movies I'd like to see by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that the gratuitous tits

      Yeah, you know what, if you have a problem with that, I have a problem with you.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  13. For those that don't know the back story by with_him · · Score: 1, Informative

    While many may know the story for those that don't look here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit/

    1. Re:For those that don't know the back story by nighthawk127127 · · Score: 0

      Or perhaps, to find out the story, you should try here.

      --
      10100111001
  14. Graverobbing by linvir · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Surely Hollywood must be starting to run out of graves to rob by now? Titanic, Pearl Harbour, 9/11, King Kong, Godzilla, Lord of the Rings... even Pixar's stuff is basically the same movie every time, just anthropomorphizing a different theme.

    1. Re:Graverobbing by kalirion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Um, how is Pixar's stuff the same movie again? What exactly do Monster's Inc. and The Incredibles have in common? Or are you saying that all family friendly CGI cartoons where the good guys win are the same movie?

    2. Re:Graverobbing by hpavc · · Score: 1

      Let us all know when you can do better.

      --
      members are seeing something, your seeing an ad
    3. Re:Graverobbing by gstoddart · · Score: 1
      Surely Hollywood must be starting to run out of graves to rob by now? Titanic, Pearl Harbour, 9/11, King Kong, Godzilla, Lord of the Rings...

      Well, in the case of LoTR, it's not that much grave robbing.

      Except for one, incomplete, badly rotoscoped animated attempt, I am not aware of LoTR having been brough to the screen by anyone before Jackson.

      As far as King Kong goes, I think Jackson decided he was really interested in doing King Kong, and thought he could do a good job of it. I actually thought he succeeded in updating it's appearance, while keeping quite true to the original. Sure, he did it like an old saturday popcorn flick, but he did it exceedingly well. I thought Kong was 'acted' amazingly in that he actually emoted and the like.

      All in all, I'm rather impressed with Jackson's film-making, and his WETA folks certainly seem to have figured out how to use CG in a way that lends itsself to the story instead of being CG for the sake of having it.

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Graverobbing by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Um, how is Pixar's stuff the same movie again?

      He's just bashing $POPULAR_THING to define himself by rejecting what is popular.

      It's much easier to define yourself by rejecting things other accomplished than by accomplishing things yourself, you know.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    5. Re:Graverobbing by pdangel · · Score: 1

      How the hell is Pixar films basically the same?

      sarcasm>
      Like how boring our lives really are? I mean, you wake up every morning. Eat. Shower. 3-4 hours later eat again. stuff happens. you eat again. Sleep. And then get to repeat again for 365 days. Yeah I see what you mean, Pixar films are just ass, with you know plot, climax, and some laughing thrown in there. Repeat for 5-6 movies.
      /sarcasm>

      Dude go fucking take some prozac. Freaking emo's!!

    6. Re:Graverobbing by keithburgun · · Score: 1

      insulting pixar is really dumb, they're one of the only good movie studios out there (Granted, Cars wasn't great. But the previous 3, ESPECIALLY incredibles, were EXCELLENT films.) Plus, incredibles wasnt "anthromorphizing" anything.

    7. Re:Graverobbing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      >Except for one, incomplete, badly rotoscoped animated attempt, I am not
      >aware of LoTR having been brough to the screen by anyone before Jackson.

      You are referring, of course, to Ralph Bakshi's movie which basically covered "Fellowship," but it was kinda-sorta completed by a Rankin-Bass animated TV program. While watching the former, I wanted to like it but failed; the latter, I wept from the pain of clenching my teeth too hard.

    8. Re:Graverobbing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freak threatens to take over the world, so hero-freaks stop him?

    9. Re:Graverobbing by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Whose grave are you robbing when you make movies about King Kong and Godzilla? Did I somehow miss that those were based on true stories? HOLY CRAP!

    10. Re:Graverobbing by protohiro1 · · Score: 1

      I don't think popular thing is a global variable. Its all about scope you see. When I was a film student I had the same attitude. But because I was in film school things were all backwards, so the popular thing was usually not the same as it was in society as a whole. So I made myself feel good despite my sucktastic film making skills by bashing the popular thing...in this case Tarantino, Donnie Darko, that sort of business. Correct notation would be, php style: ${$local_scope}->popular_thing;

      Although, I like encapsulate popular things in to a popular thing singleton, so...$popularStuffObject::getInstance()->getPopula rThing('movie');

      Ok, no more studying for interviews....

      --
      Sig removed because it was obnoxious
    11. Re:Graverobbing by rifter · · Score: 1

      Whose grave are you robbing when you make movies about King Kong and Godzilla?

      Presumably that of these guys.

      The original poster is lamenting the fact that nearly all the movies these days are remakes. It's getting so bad that we have remakes of remakes of remakes. And they don't even wait 10 years between remakes anymore. After remaking all the "greatest hits" in a 30 year period, it's time to remake them again. :P It's pretty bad when you consider the movies being shown today are the same movies that were being shown 30 years ago.

      As for Pixar, et al they just make the same movie every year, which is a whole order of magnitude worse than the grave-robbery referred to in the previous post. This is more like what is happening in the video game industry. Which doesn't even hide it anymore in the case of sports games named for the year in which they are released.

    12. Re:Graverobbing by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      The original poster doesn't know what he's talking about.

      I was originally going to reply, "no, he's talking about movies that take advantage of a tragedy to sell tickets, like Titanic, Pearl Harbor, and the two 9/11 movies that came out recently. In which case, King Kong and Godzilla make no sense.

      You're saying that he's "robbing the graves" of the creators of those movies by doing remakes. But that also doesn't make any sense. The recent Pearl Harbor movie wasn't a remake (it followed in the footsteps of Tora, Tora, Tora!, but not closely enough to be considered a remake); nor was Lord of the Rings, nor were the two 9/11 movies.

      So in short: The original poster doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

  15. The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by lightyear4 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Few are those who will understand the reference to Tom singing without having read the Hobbit and Tolkien's related works. As is often the sad truth about interpretations of books, sections get omitted for brevity and plot considerations. Unfortunately, this has a tendency to remove some of the depth present in the original work. Such is the case with Tom; this is why his name is unfamiliar whereas Bilbo et al are near universal in recognition.

    Here are two rather good sources of information about Tom:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Bombadil
    http://www.cas.unt.edu/~hargrove/bombadil.html

    1. Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by AceCaseOR · · Score: 1

      I've read the books, and, frankly, removing Tom Bombadil was probably a good idea, as adding would have stopped the momentum the film was building for the entire flight from Hobbiton dead.

      --
      Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
    2. Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by lightyear4 · · Score: 1

      Indeed this is true - thus my reference to 'brevity and plot considerations.' Nevertheless, Tom is an interesting character and has a potential to add a bit to the character of a potential film.

    3. Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by AceCaseOR · · Score: 1
      adding would have stopped the momentum the film was building for the entire flight from Hobbiton dead
      There was supposed to be a "that" between "adding" and "would", with an "in its tracks." at the end.
      --
      Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
    4. Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While Tom is a relevant character, he also doesn't fit terribly well into the world Tolkien has created.

      He's kinda just 'there' and would probably require more explaining than any director is willing to put on screen.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    5. Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      That, and the average movie goer would probably completely miss who Bombadil actually was.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    6. Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Care to enlighten us, since you seem to think yourself the only one who knows?

    7. Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by TopShelf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just remember, however, Tom Bombadil doesn't appear in The Hobbit...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    8. Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by coldmist · · Score: 3, Informative

      On the contrary, It's from Tom (and the tomb where he rescues the hobbits) that they get the swords with ancient magic which can kill Sauron in the end. It is important for that point, if nothing else.

      --
      Don't steal. The government hates competition.
    9. Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by TrappedByMyself · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, if I had my way, we'd see a singing Tom AND he would be played by Shatner.

      Such a missed opportunity.

      --

      Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
    10. Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      You mean the Witch-king of Angmar, not Sauron.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    11. Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by fullmetal55 · · Score: 1

      It's been a few years since I read the Hobbit... but when did he sing in the Hobbit? I remember the long drawn out, boring part of Fellowship, (so boring the CHARACTERS fell asleep :P) But nothing in the hobbit about Tom... granted it's been a while... i'm going to listen to a book on tape i had on my 3 hour drive tonight just to make sure but i'm pretty sure he wasn't in the Hobbit... (and please don't put him in there... while I agree he should have had a part in the LOTR movies but don't go willy nilly putting characters in places they don't belong... i don't want another Arwen "you want him come and take him" incident... My concern is that they'll put Orlando Bloom in Mirkwood... or replace Bard with a more familiar face (Aragorn?) that being said I want Elrond (Hugo Weaving), Gandalf (Sir Ian McKellan), Bilbo (Ian Holm), Played by the same as the LOTR movies. Especially Elrond and Gandalf. Bilbo can be replaced because he is technically younger... and Ian Holm is no spring chicken...

    12. Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by coldmist · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sorry, Which they use to kill the captain of the ring-raiths, not Sauron.

      --
      Don't steal. The government hates competition.
    13. Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by still+cynical · · Score: 1

      No, Tom Bombadil does not appear in The Hobbit. Which makes Hemo's joke question moot as well as lame.

      If you're referring to the swords the dwarves and Bilbo get from the hoard of the trolls, it's Gandalf who rescues them. Hiding nearby, he tricks them into arguing amongst themselves until the sun rises and turns the trolls into stone.

      --
      Ignorance is the root of all evil.
    14. Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

      Duh, he was Iluvatar. Maia could be corrupted by the ring (Gandalf refused it), and though a Vala was never consulted it would likely be the same. There's only one step up from there.

    15. Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

      Actually, the barrow-sword killed the Witch King. Frodo never took one (he had Sting), and Sam lost his when they were taken captive in Mordor. Pippin never used his in the book.

    16. Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by Clockwork+Apple · · Score: 1

      Dont forget that Gandalf, while escourting the hobbits home to the shire after the doings with crowning Aragorn etc. Gandalf goes to visit Tom rather than being there when the hobbits face what has happened at home while they were away. Gandalf knew what waited for them I think. If we dont have Tom to justify Gandalf's detour, then Gandalf has to stop and tie his shores for a few weeks or something while the hobbits hurry home.

      Since the Shire plot was dropped, though I suppose it doesnt really matter at all. I suppose thats how the movies left me feeling too though, I still hate Jackson.

      I guess it's all done and overwith, I suppose I should just move on, but I keep meeting folks who want to talk about it (the movies) and havent read, and feel no desire to do so, the books. It's "Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings" from here on out.

      Remember how (before the movies) you would treasure the few conversations you might chance upon about the LOTR. Now I have lots and lots of them, hell I can talk to just about anyone because they have all seen the movies, conversations about the movie are only satisfying if the participants have read the books. And almost none of them have read the books.

      C.

      --
      "Doctor, it's not the voices I hear in MY head, but the voices I hear in YOUR head that really frighten me."
    17. Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      Why would a Valar be corrupted? The ring was the creation of Sauron. Sauron was chief of the Balrogs, lead lieutenant of Morgoth. In other words a corrupted Maia. WHy would a Valar be corrupted by something made by a mere Maia, when even Morgoth was unable to get any to his side?

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    18. Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by AuMatar · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'd prefer Nimoy. He could rerecord the Ballad of Bilbo Baggins.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    19. Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by !splut · · Score: 1

      While Tom is a relevant character, he also doesn't fit terribly well into the world Tolkien has created.

      It's sad but its definitely true. Bombadil was actually the subject of a poem by Tolkien, The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, which was written before he even started work on Lord of the Rings. I think Tolkien just liked the character so much that he gave him a cameo in Lord of the Rings, simultaneously using him to solve two problems: how to get the hobbits out of the Shire, and how to deliver the barrow-blades to the hobbits.

      --
      The angel in the oatmeal.
    20. Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      No, he was not Illuvatar. I haven't re-read the books in a couple of years, and don't have them here at the office, but at the Council of Elrond, Gandalf (when the idea of sending the Ring to Bombadil for safe-keeping comes up) says something like: "No, Bombadil doesn't have power over the Ring. The Ring has no power over him. Sending the Ring to him would only delay the inevitable: when Sauron conquers the rest of the world, then Bombadil will fall, last as he was first". (Very heavily paraphrased, sorry).

      A hopped-up Maia (Sauron) doesn't get to beat up the Creator.

      My personal opinion is that Tom Bombadil was a spirit equal to a Vala or powerful Maia, that came into the world shortly after it was created.

    21. Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by dkasak · · Score: 1

      Poppycock. Tolkien stated quite openly in his Letters that Eru never had a material avatar on Arda.

    22. Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by EGSonikku · · Score: 1

      Except Tolkien himself said this was not the case.

      INSERT COINS TO TRY AGAIN THO!

      --
      - "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
    23. Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      Pippin stabs a troll with it during the battle outside the Black Gate, and later threatens some of Sharkey's minions with it. Presumably he also killed some of them with it during the fighting.

    24. Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      There was generally a lot of singing in The Hobbit. The encounter with Beorn always reminded me of the encounter with Bombadil, maybe that's what Hemos was thinking. I don't think Beorn did any singing in the book, though.

    25. Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

      Meh, what does he know. My theory is alot cleaner than than just saying "put him in the misc category, lol"

    26. Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by Himring · · Score: 1

      As I explained to a friend who argued _for_ the removal of Tom from the movies: he is not essential to the story (i.e., LoTR). He is irreplacable to the cosmology -- Tolkien's primary, encompassing effort wherein LoTR, The Hobbit, and everything else finds itself....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    27. Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    28. Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean it's not Tom Crowne singing? He IS mentioned in the summary, after all.

    29. Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by i3iz · · Score: 0
    30. Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by BerislavLopac · · Score: 1

      Actually, Tolkien somewhere said (wrote?) something along the lines that Tom was "a glitch in creation". Basically a representation of Arda itself. In Arda, even things like individual trees or mountains had their own spirits -- not necessarily being stranded Maiar. No wonder that Arda might have a spirit of its own -- a most powerful, but slow and quite a passive one, that would fit nicely.

    31. Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Nathan Lane would be a much better Tom. No offense against Shatner.

    32. Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by Scaba · · Score: 1

      Books != films. Get over it.

    33. Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by initialE · · Score: 1

      I betcha Beorn won't appear there either. And half the dwarves will be removed.

      --
      Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    34. Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by coldmist · · Score: 1

      Fellowship of the Ring, Chapter 8
              For each of the hobbits he chose a dagger, long, leaf-shaped, and keen, of marvellous workmanship, damasked with serpent-forms in red and gold. They gleamed as he drew them from their black sheaths, wrought of some strange metal, light and strong, and set with many fiery stones. Whether by some virtue in these sheaths or because of the spell that lay on the mound, the blades seemed untouched by time, unrusted, sharp, glittering in the sun.
              'Old knives are long enough as swords for hobbit-people,' he said. 'Sharp blades are good to have, if Shire-folk go walking, east, south, or far away into dark and danger.' Then he told them that these blades were forged many long years ago by Men of Westernesse: they were foes of the Dark Lord, but they were overcome by the evil king of Carn Dùm in the Land of Angmar.
              'Few now remember them,' Tom murmured, 'yet still some go wandering, sons of forgotten kings walking in loneliness, guarding from evil things folk that are heedless.'
              The hobbits did not understand his words, but as he spoke they had a vision as it were of a great expanse of years behind them, like a vast shadowy plain over which there strode shapes of Men, tall and grim with bright swords, and last came one with a star on his brow. Then the vision faded, and they were back in the sunlit world. It was time to start again. They made ready, packing their bags and lading their ponies. Their new weapons they hung on their leather belts under their jackets, feeling them very awkward, and wondering if they would be of any use. Fighting had not before occurred to any of them as one of the adventures in which their flight would land them.
              At last they set off. They led their ponies down the hill; and then mounting they trotted quickly along the valley. They looked back and saw the top of the old mound on the hill, and from it the sunlight on the gold went up like a yellow flame. Then they turned a shoulder of the Downs and it was hidden from view.
              Though Frodo looked about him on every side he saw no sign of the great stones standing like a gate, and before long they came to the northern gap and rode swiftly through, and the land fell away before them. It was a merry journey with Tom Bombadil trotting gaily beside them, or before them, on Fatty Lumpkin, who could move much faster than his girth promised. Tom sang most of the time, but it was chiefly nonsense, or else perhaps a strange language unknown to the hobbits, an ancient language whose words were mainly those of wonder and delight.

      So, it was not in the Hobbit. I stand corrected.

      --
      Don't steal. The government hates competition.
    35. Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused by dkasak · · Score: 1

      Actually, your theory sucks. You must've forgotten that Gandalf said that Bombadil would also fall if Sauron won.

  16. Possibly the wrong Idea by AndyG314 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I really think that the movie industry is out of touch with this one. The more spent on a movie, the bigger the risk is, since there is more up-front cost to recupe. So rather than going for new unproven ideas, they rehash the same ideas, and do sequils.

    The problem is that the movie industry has grown so bloated that the idea of tightening budgest, and making movies on the cheap that don't need to grose as much to be profitable isn't even considered, instead they simply throw more money at the problem.

    --
    If it's dead, you killed it.
    1. Re:Possibly the wrong Idea by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

      The Hobbit was really was written for children whereas LOTR was for adults. It would be cool if they gave teh hobbit a complete different flavor in line with the books. Making the hobbit a mega-movie will ruin it.

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
  17. why would peter jackson direct it? by Frag-A-Muffin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... one or two installments of "The Hobbit," which Sloan hopes will be directed by Peter Jackson ...

    I thought Peter Jackson was quoted as saying he'd love to do it! (right after king kong?) And if they're saying the studio would want him to direct it. Umm, the only thing left I can see is financial terms. After the boatload of money he brought in for the LoTR trilogy*, I can't see them saying no to his terms :)

    * yes, I know it's not really a trilogy, but that's what we're calling it cuz he made 3 movies, ok!? :P

    --

    AirSpeak - http://itunes.com/apps/AirSpeak
    1. Re:why would peter jackson direct it? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      IIRC, Jackson and New Line got into a disagreement over payment after the first LOTR movie. New Line took a risk, and when it looked like LOTR was going to be successful, they wanted to keep the lion's share of the money (BTW movie studios are notorious for 'not making money' off of movies -- in order to avoid paying taxes on profits). Jackson stood up to the studio; I don't think that he was as concerned with the money, but also what the actors were getting paid was an issue. I think he even refused to finish the last two until more agreeable terms were found. Of course New Line had to cave -- the remaining two movies were almost guaranteed to be hits, too.

      But each new movie is a risk. Just because you have made hits in the past, doesn't mean that you are a hit-maker. The next movie can still flop, despite what your last movie did. I think the studios were even wary of Jackson's King Kong remake, after the smashing success of LOTR.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    2. Re:why would peter jackson direct it? by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Informative
      I thought Peter Jackson was quoted as saying he'd love to do it! (right after king kong?) And if they're saying the studio would want him to direct it. Umm, the only thing left I can see is financial terms.

      And his schedule of course. IMDB shows him as having two films in pre-production already. I think the LoTR movies gave him a lot of financial independance to do as he pleases.

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:why would peter jackson direct it? by pavon · · Score: 1

      From what I understand this happens with every successfull movie. It is just part of the game that actors and directors know that they will be paid their salary, but won't get agreed upon royalties unless they get lawyers involved. So if the movie does mediocre they don't bother, and the studio get the extra money (creatively funneled to other projects/people to avoid tax), but if it does there is an obligatory lawsuit. Since it is so common and expected the only people that get burned by it are those who are not familiar with hollywood (like novel or comic book writers). I doubt that this event hurt the relationship between Peter Jackson and the studio, and that statement about not doing the next movie was most likley just a bargaining card to negotiate a better deal, not a sign of bad blood between the two, or a real threat that he will not do the movie.

    4. Re:why would peter jackson direct it? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      So if the 'system' is that you sue only if the movie was successful, how could you be burned by the system? You can always sue, right?

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    5. Re:why would peter jackson direct it? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Well, he's only a producer on one of them (Halo), which means someone else would get to direct. Producer is a title that can mean almost anything, encompassing folks who are incredibly invested and active in a production (IE, Spielburg on Poltergeist. He was rumored to direct some of it), or people who have almost nothing to do with the production at all (IE, the Weinsteins on the Lord of the Rings films).

  18. rights by notea42 · · Score: 1

    While I'm hesitant to accept the truth of this information, if it is true, it could be an excellent sign that the movie will actually get made. Everything I heard was that all involved wanted to make "The Hobbit", but the Tolkein estate either wouldn't lease the rights to the story or had already leased them to somebody who was sitting on them. This sounds like MGM may have managed to aquire the rights, finally.

  19. Not on my watch! by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Funny

    There were only 3 LoTR books. Not 6.

    6, usually sold two by two in three volumes.

    You're on notice, buster: One more show of geekish ignorance and I'll have your nerd badge!

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

    1. Re:Not on my watch! by OverlordQ · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually you should be put on notice.

      It was written as one book, but was divided up due to wartime shortages on paper and to keep the printing price down on the first volume.

      Stop confusing individual books with volumes.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    2. Re:Not on my watch! by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Informative
      Stop confusing individual books with volumes.

      For publication, due largely to post-war paper shortages, but also to keep the price of the first volume down, the book was divided into three volumes: The Fellowship of the Ring: Books I and II, The Two Towers: Books III and IV, and The Return of the King: Books V and VI plus 6 appendices.


      That's it, hand it over. No more nerd badge for you until you complete basic training again... let's see you do the Vulcan salute, and then shine those d20s!
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    3. Re:Not on my watch! by tassii · · Score: 1

      Actually, it was 7 books, not 6.

      --
      "I drank what?" - Socrates
    4. Re:Not on my watch! by CynicalTyler · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, there was no LoTR! It was invented by Peter Jackson and the false memory of reading the books (even the idea of Tolkien himself!) was implanted in your mind by subliminal messages in the advertisements for the movies.

      Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

    5. Re:Not on my watch! by Jesterboy · · Score: 1
      The discussion of this is so ridiculous, especially when you link something that refutes your claim; apparently Tolkien wasn't sure himself:

      In a letter to W. H. Auden, Tolkien himself made use of the term "trilogy" for the work (The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, #163) though he did at other times consider this incorrect, as it was written and conceived as a single book (Letters, #149).


      Same link, just a little bit lower.
    6. Re:Not on my watch! by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      The discussion of this is so ridiculous

      Sigh. Yes, it is.

      All one has to do is to open up his handy copy of LotR, and see the words "Book One", up to "Book six" written plainly, black on white, right before their eyes.

      It's not hard to do, but people, it seem, would rather argue pointlessly than simply check the gorram source.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    7. Re:Not on my watch! by Recovering+Hater · · Score: 1
      Publication history

      The three parts were first published by Allen & Unwin in 1954-1955, several months apart. They have since been reissued many times by multiple publishers,

      • as one, three, six or seven volume sets.
      Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_The_Rings#Boo ks

      You can get off your high horse now.

      --
      My humor is probably your flamebait
    8. Re:Not on my watch! by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      Screw your nerd badge, I'm going home--to sleep with my girlfriend. She told me if I punch out another guy for screwing up the pronunciation of Celeborn, no more sex. :( I'm on nerd-probation.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    9. Re:Not on my watch! by djeca · · Score: 2, Funny

      Look, it's pretty simple. There were originally supposed to be nine books; Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and Return of the King are books 4, 5 and 6 respectively.

      Tolkein never got around to writing books 1, 2 and 3 (or 7, 8 and 9, for that matter) because he was too busy rewriting the middle 3 books to be truer to his original artistic vision. From what I've seen of the drafts, the changes principally consisted of having Saruman shoot first. Oh, and replacing swords with walkie-talkies.

    10. Re:Not on my watch! by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_The_Rings#Boo ks
      You can get off your high horse now.


      Pick up.
      A fucking.
      Hard copy.
      And read it.
      In it, you will see the words "Book one", "Book two", and so on, up to "Book six".

      Sheesh.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    11. Re:Not on my watch! by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Oh, and replacing swords with walkie-talkies. ;-)

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    12. Re:Not on my watch! by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 1

      There was never going to be any seventh, eighth or ninth book. He always intended it to just be six parts. He also always intended Saruman to shoot first and for the swords to be walkie-talkies, but printing technology wasn't developed to the point where he could truly realise his vision at the time.

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
    13. Re:Not on my watch! by Recovering+Hater · · Score: 1

      I already have. My point was that the first publication was in the form of three books. Or should I just start dogging out LOTR until you puke on a counter?

      --
      My humor is probably your flamebait
    14. Re:Not on my watch! by Recovering+Hater · · Score: 1
      You.

      Counter.

      Puke.

      Loser.

      --
      My humor is probably your flamebait
  20. Tom Singing? by dslauson · · Score: 3, Informative
    "With or without Tom singing, is what I want to know."
    Tom singing? Is he talking about Tom Bombadil? That's not in the hobbit, anyway, that was in the first book of LOTR, and was cut from the move, if I'm not mistaken. And rightly so. That was quite possibly the lamest part of the whole middle earth saga, IMHO.
    1. Re:Tom Singing? by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Funny

      Stop hatin' on Tom Bombadil, sucka.

      I think you missed out a bit on the significance of Tom's friend Old Man Willow and the Ents the hobbits later meet...
      Plus he smote a hundred orcs, he's hardcore, yo!

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    2. Re:Tom Singing? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Beorn, of course, is highly analagous to Tom Bombadil. They play similar thematic roles, but Beorn might be seen as "ordinary" magic, and Bombadil is more in keeping with LOTR's greater metaphyiscal weight.

      Bombadil also belongs to a part of the LOTR story where Tolkien was still casting around for a theme. In some ways, the early part of FOTR looks like an author trying to reproduce his earlier success, yet reconcile it with a desire to do something ambitious. Some of FOTR, including Bombadil, has a kind of forced jolliness to it, but the material only really worked when it was thoroughly dark. After the council of Elrond, Tolkien succeeds in defining the story, and proceeds there with complete assurance and I would argue economy. Huge as the work is, everything thereafter functions as a whole, and little that could be cut from the story without a significant loss to it.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:Tom Singing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tom's not needed. He was kinda out of place in the book. I think Tolkien just added him because he liked the poetry/singing thing.

    4. Re:Tom Singing? by vain+gloria · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Tom singing? Is he talking about Tom Bombadil? That's not in the hobbit, anyway, that was in the first book of LOTR, and was cut from the move, if I'm not mistaken.
      This is +5 informative? The summary is clearly making a humorous point regarding the much-discussed constant tension between book and film versions.

      Compare: Peter Jackson is apparently producing a remake of The Dambusters. "With or without Tom singing, is what I want to know."

      It's analogous to asking if King Kong falls off the Empire State Building in PJ's version or gets dragged off it by a Warg.
    5. Re:Tom Singing? by dkasak · · Score: 1

      And who are you to decide whether he was needed? The point being he *is* in the novel and the author put him there, so it's not really on you to judge if he should be there or not. He is. And frankly, I'm saddened to see so many geeks scared by a little eccentricity and oddity in a book. If anything, I find Tom magnificent precisely because of the fact that he really seems out of place. His character really left me in awe and gave me gave me a lot of thinking material to go along with.

    6. Re:Tom Singing? by Himring · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Informative? Yes, on Tom not being in the Hobbit. A resounding "No!" on Tom as lame (of course, I think I'm eating troll bait here).

      As I explained above, Tom was not necessary to the telling of LoTR & Jackson can be forgiven for not including him. He is irreplaceable to the cosmology -- that primary effort of Tolkien wherein is found LoTR, The Hobbit, et al.

      Such statements as you make reveal that you assume LoTR was Tolkien's main effort. It was not. He wanted, and indeed first did, create a cosmology wherein he placed a history and languages and then, oh yes, he decided it needed some stories and thus you have LoTR, The Hobbit, etc., ... almost as an afterthought.

      This is why Tolkien is so rich and so landmark and arguably the creator of an entire genre -- modern fantasy (yes, yes, my English prof & I argued on that point, but he was responsible, if nothing else, for publishing fantasy abroad and birthing the modern form of it).

      The main reason LoTR has such staying power is the layers underneath, and these layers are language built on history built on cosmology (and mythos). Lucky you are if you read other fantasy writer's beforehand. I messed up and made Tolkien my 2nd journey into fantasy as a teenager (I'm now near 40). I cannot enjoy any other fantasy now. It all goes back to Tolkien & so do I (ok, ok, Jordan is good stuff too)....

      As one friend told me, "I really messed up and read Tolkien first, now I can't stand those other books."

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    7. Re:Tom Singing? by woozlewuzzle · · Score: 1

      In the books I actually enjoyed Tom. I wasn't disparaging him in any way. I was merely pointing out (as did many others) that Tom didn't appear in 'The Hobbit', making the OP's comment about Tom singing actually kind of stupid. Oh, and I did not miss Tom from the movie - I don't think he would have transferred well to film.

    8. Re:Tom Singing? by smoker2 · · Score: 1
      As one friend told me, "I really messed up and read Tolkien first, now I can't stand those other books."
      I don't know about that.

      My father used to read The Hobbit to me at bedtime when I was a small child, so my dreams were often filled with visions and nightmares. He went on to read the LOTR to me after the Hobbit. I don't feel deprived in any sense by that experience.

      I think there is a wealth of material still available that could be made into screenplays. I would like to see The Many Coloured Land on the big screen, as well as The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant.

      I realise that both of those stories are massive subjects, and it would take a great deal of skill not to completely ruin them, but I refused to watch the LOTR movies initailly too. Eventually I succumbed, and was pleasantly surprised by the good job Peter Jackson had made out of them.

      Unfortunately, Not every director has his skill, and so other epic stories are in danger of being wrecked by incompetents.

      Maybe somebody could take a crack at Asimovs Foundation Trilogy too ?
      Not really fantasy, but a very good yarn all the same. It could even be done as a TV series, much like Star Trek, as there is so much there to be explored.

    9. Re:Tom Singing? by Himring · · Score: 1

      The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, The Unbeliever was actually the series I read first, as a pre-teen. I was really sucked in by those monstrous books. When I read Tolkien, I realized how horribly Steven R. Donaldson had ripped on Tolkien. I mean, it was bad. I then realized that all modern fantasy writers do pretty much the same thing. On the back of the first book of the Jordan series (Wheel of Time) they actually put a comment by a critic who states Jordan expands on Tolkien's genre. I guess they realized that it's best to just admit the unescapable influence of Tolkien instead of trying to act like they are doing something new.

      This says nothing of every RPG/MMOG that has mithril and orcs, etc. I played EQ for years. I loved it, but was always miffed by the entire lack of credit to Tolkien. Even Mickey Mouse has his law and can demand credit....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
  21. RTFS by Prien715 · · Score: 4, Informative

    C'mon folks. I know that it's really hard to click through to the article, but can we at least read the summary?

    One or two installments of "The Hobbit," which Sloan hopes will be directed by Peter Jackson

    Looks like it's the studio that wants two in installments. Since Jackson hasn't even been hired onto the project, he can't be making decisions about it. I'm not a Jackson fan, but please, give credit to the formulaic movie execs where credit is due.

    --
    -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    1. Re:RTFS by jafac · · Score: 1

      You want formula?

      How about a weekly TV series called "Young Aaragorn" - the trials and tribulations of a young Numenorean king-in-exile attending an Elven High School.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  22. T4 - what'd it be without arnie? by kwerle · · Score: 1

    I just can't imagine our fine governor taking time out to make T4. Who would be in it?

    1. Re:T4 - what'd it be without arnie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, that's easy. They'll just use his clone. You know, a leftover from The Sixth Day"?

      I can see it now:

      "T4: The Rise of the Governators"

    2. Re:T4 - what'd it be without arnie? by OldeTimeGeek · · Score: 1

      Maybe if they offer him enough money before the reelection? One can always hope.

  23. Jackson and New Line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I doubt that Jackson would direct The Hobbit if he's still involved in a lawsuit with New Line. Has there been a settlement worked out?

    1. Re:Jackson and New Line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jackson's lawsuit is against New Line (owned by Time Warner). The news report is that MGM is making the movie -- different studio.

  24. Tom Bombadil wasn't in The Hobbit... by daniel422 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm missing the Tom reference here. Tom Bombadil -- left out of Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy -- wasn't in The Hobbit. And I kinda liked the "Road Goes Ever On" music -- or maybe that's just my childish remeberences of the cartoon version.

    1. Re:Tom Bombadil wasn't in The Hobbit... by Mercano · · Score: 1

      Bilbo also sings "Road Goes Ever On" in the movie as he sets out from Bag End. I haven't seen the Hobbit cartoon in ages; I have no idea if its the same tune.

      --
      #include <signature.h>
  25. Governor by RexRhino · · Score: 1

    While I would very much like the Governator return to cinema after his brilliant political career... Terminator 4? Didn't they blow up the world at the end of the last Terminator movie?

    Why don't they make another Conan movie if they want to bring the Governator back?

    1. Re:Governor by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1
      While I would very much like the Governator return to cinema after his brilliant political career... Terminator 4? Didn't they blow up the world at the end of the last Terminator movie?
      No, they're planning on doing the The Thomas Hobbinator Affair 4. See, what happens is that Gandalf was sent back in time by the Dunedain of the future in order to save Middle Earth from the invading hosts of goblins, and then there's this bobbit, see, who will grow up to be the one who organizes a party of 14 (a Fellowship, one might say) that plans on heisting the biggest hoard EVAR, that is, the one that Smaug accumulated.

      This is the beginning of the new "Mashup" style of movies that are the obvious answer to Hollywood's lack of inventiveness.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    2. Re:Governor by Monkey · · Score: 1

      Why don't they make another Conan movie if they want to bring the Governator back?

      Damn right! Conan the King would be pretty sweet!

    3. Re:Governor by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Terminator 4? Didn't they blow up the world at the end of the last Terminator movie?

      Yes, but nothing says "easy writing" like a post-apocalyptic robot shoot 'em up.

      It goes like this: Robots go boom! Preeeety asplosioooooons... ooooh. Shiny!

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    4. Re:Governor by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

      Have you seen the governator recently?

      http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2005/arnie-is-b ack-p1.php

      Not exactly on top form at the moment.

    5. Re:Governor by dr_dank · · Score: 1

      Why don't they make another Conan movie

      He seems pretty busy with the talk show, maybe Triumph is up for the task.

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    6. Re:Governor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh great. Now you gave away the ending. How about a spoiler alert please? I guess I can remove that one from my Netflix queue. sigh.

    7. Re:Governor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was just after heart surgery. He did T3 since then and looked great.

  26. From the sequels that should never be made dept by PMuse · · Score: 1

    The story of the Thomas Crown affair is: Thomas and Catherine tear loose from their safe, mundane lives. Sure, you can write a story about the 'adventures' they had afterwards, but how is anything they do going to matter by comparison?

    --
    "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    1. Re:From the sequels that should never be made dept by LordPhantom · · Score: 1

      Uhh.... I thought -he- was already a master theif in the movie. It's not as if it's his first caper :)

      Cathrine on the other hand, well...

    2. Re:From the sequels that should never be made dept by PMuse · · Score: 1

      Admittedly, I've not read Ambler's "The Light of Day", nor seen Topkapi, but my impression was that the 1999 Thomas Crown Affair presents him as a talented first-timer.

      Brosnan, Russo, and McTiernan made that film all about trust and vulnerability. I'm sure that the action can be replicated in a sequel (elaborate crimes, chases, checkmates), but I don't see how the emotional state of the characters can be as at risk. In a sequel, they're veterans.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
  27. Silmarils by toddhisattva · · Score: 2, Funny
    Want some Silmarillion,

    Directed by Mel Brooks:

    History of the World, Part Zero

  28. It's ture Ive never seen the movies! by slashdotet · · Score: 0

    Cool another LOTR -ish movie I wont see.

    Not That I don't like Like the movies

    It just Im just trying to be the only nerd that hasn't seen the movies.

    I liked the books and I'm gonna stick to the books and trust me its not for lack of trying on my friends. Every chance I get they try and make me wacth them!

    --
    ~ Diagonally Parked in a Parallel Universe ~
  29. there's definitely.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. a role in there for Samuel L. Jackson!
    I can picture it now: "Where's the motherfucking dragon?"

    1. Re:there's definitely.. by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      I'm tired of all the mother fucking dragons in this mother fucking mountain.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  30. Depends on what you mean by "book" by Kelson · · Score: 4, Informative

    The term "book" can have two meanings:

    1. A physical book, a.k.a. a volume.
    2. A larger division of a work, which can include its own chapters.

    It's not uncommon for a single novel to be divided into anywhere from 3-5 "books."

    Les Miserables, for instance, has either five or six "books," but AFAIK it has always been packaged in one volume (often abridged -- that thing is massive). Never mind the many "books" of the Bible, which is itself one book.

    So arguing over 3 books vs. 6 is simply arguing at cross-purposes.

    1. Re:Depends on what you mean by "book" by Mattintosh · · Score: 1

      I think you have it backwards there...

      Most people understand the word "book" to mean a single codex. "Codex" is a word that specifically refers to the binding (the style of pages bound together, a very convenient form invented about 2200 years ago, rather than the ancient-style "scroll" which is one big long piece that is stored rolled-up). So "book" means "a set of pages or sheets in a single binding".

      A serialized work is presented as multiple physical books, with one or more volumes in each (a "volume" is a logical grouping of chapters). The exception to this is compilations (like the Bible or Huckleberry Finn) where originally there were multiple books, scrolls, or serialized volumes in a magazine, but later these were compiled into a single book (codex). And even this is dependent on the size of the whole work. The Bible is so massive that it has "books", "chapters" and "verses", whereas Huckleberry Finn is much smaller and only has "chapters". "Volumes" can be bound or unbound, as they are defined by characteristics other than their binding (unlike books). A "volume" frequently corresponds to a year's worth of a periodical. Each periodical is bound issue-by-issue, then grouped into a "volume" by logical constraints rather than a book binding. It's not uncommon for these issues to be collected together and put into a "bound volume", which is a single book.

      Oh, and back on topic, all of the LOTR books I've seen are a set of three books with chapter divisions in each and an appendix at the end. They are frequently grouped as a single volume in a nicely printed box to hold the three books that make up the volume.

    2. Re:Depends on what you mean by "book" by Kelson · · Score: 1

      OK, but if you pick up a random codex with two or more levels of subdivisions, I suspect you'll more likely find one of them labeled "book" than "volume."

      I'm just saying that "book" can mean two things, one of which is -- to be more precise -- a codex, often considered the primary format for a complete work and therefore often used to refer to the work as a whole, and one of which is a division within such a codex. So arguing that LOTR is 6, 3 or 1 "book" depends on whether you're treating "book" as meaning "novel" or "division."

      So if one person claims that LOTR is 6 books because there are 6 divisions labeled, "book," and another claims that LOTR is one book because it's one work that was completed and then split into three pieces for publication, they aren't arguing about the same thing.

      It's like getting into an argument over whether "nine inch nails" refers to a 90s band or a type of hardware.

    3. Re:Depends on what you mean by "book" by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, Informative

      The term "book" can have two meanings:

      A tad more than two, actually.


      So arguing over 3 books vs. 6 is simply arguing at cross-purposes.


      Nope, it's arguing about the litteral content of the literary work in question: Inside the physical "book", sections are labelled by the author and publisher as books and volumes.

      It is not arguing at cross purpose: I know for a fact that the division is 6 books, 3 volumes, one novel. This is the division that the creators of the work in question choose.
      The people who argue against this are factually wrong, they based their error on a misinterpretation of the word "book", coupled with ignorance of the content of the work in question.

      I will not pretend that they are right, when I can back up my claim with easily obtained evidence.
      I guess that makes me a nerd.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    4. Re:Depends on what you mean by "book" by Malc · · Score: 1

      Indeed, I have it as 6 books plus appendices. The note on the text in the first book states that it is often published in three volumes. The first time I read it, it was as one volume with nearly 1,100 pages.

    5. Re:Depends on what you mean by "book" by Kelson · · Score: 1
      The people who argue against this are factually wrong, they based their error on a misinterpretation of the word "book", coupled with ignorance of the content of the work in question.

      Or maybe they're using definition (c) "a long written or printed literary composition" and you're using definition (d) "a major division of a treatise or literary work." Those who claim it's one "book" are clearly using the word in the sense that it's one novel. Countering that it's 6 "books" because there are 6 units labeled as "book" is a logical non-sequitur.

      The base question is: Did Tolkien think of it as a single work (one "book") or a series (3 or 6 "books"). Because if he considered it a single work, then the labels on the six major chunks of the story aren't relevant to the question.

    6. Re:Depends on what you mean by "book" by ggy · · Score: 1
      Les Miserables, for instance, has either five or six "books," but AFAIK it has always been packaged in one volume (often abridged -- that thing is massive). Never mind the many "books" of the Bible, which is itself one book.

      Actually, it was published in 10 parts according to the foreword in my Swedish edition from 1911, although later editions were shortened due to political statements that were outdated even back then. (My copy is shortened to five parts.)
      Hrm. Sorry, just happened to have it at hand...
    7. Re:Depends on what you mean by "book" by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Indeed, I have it as 6 books plus appendices. The note on the text in the first book states that it is often published in three volumes. The first time I read it, it was as one volume with nearly 1,100 pages.

      Here we go.
      I read it as one ig chunk too, but it did have the "Book one; two; tree..." pages in it, as well has the volume pages for the Fellowship, Towers and Return.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    8. Re:Depends on what you mean by "book" by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      The base question is: Did Tolkien think of it as

      Gawd, I grow tired of this.

      Listen, go find a hard copy, and page through it. You'll see that I couldn't care less about what definition others may use to argue pointlessly about this: In the damn thig it says "Book one", then "Book two", all the way up to six.

      It's not a question of trying to infer the state of mind of a dead man, it's a very basic question of looking at the source, and seeing those words in black ink on white paper.
      Anyone can do it. Why don't you?

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    9. Re:Depends on what you mean by "book" by Kelson · · Score: 1
      In the damn thig it says "Book one", then "Book two", all the way up to six.

      Yes, it does. What's your point? If I pick up a three-volume set, are you going to insist that each of those volumes is not a book? If I pick up a one-volume set, are you going to tell me that is not a book?

      A book (volume) can contain more than one book (division) or book (literary work).

      A book (literary work) can be split across more than one book (volume) and contain more than one book (division).

      There is no question that LoTR contains 6 books (divisions). As far as books (volumes), it can be 1, 3, or 6 depending on what edition one looks at.

      The only way the question even makes sense is if you're trying to determine how many books (literary work) are involved. So why insist that the only valid answer to the question is in terms of books (divisions)?

    10. Re:Depends on what you mean by "book" by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Originally there was only one meaning, but changes in the technology of publication led to a dual meaning. It all started in Hellenistic Egypt, 3rd century BCE, when people decided to have standard "book" divisions in long poetic works like those of Homer. They divided works like the Iliad and Odyssey into "books" quite literally -- corresponding to the amount of material that would conveniently fit on a sensibly-sized papyrus scroll. Centuries later, with the advent of the codex and even more with the advent of printing, it became more common to publish such works in one or two volumes, but the "book" divisions were so ingrained that they are still preserved. Hence today we still have the 24 "books" of the Iliad published in one "book". It's a dual meaning that's pretty common.

    11. Re:Depends on what you mean by "book" by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      The only way the question even makes sense is if you're trying to determine how many books (literary work) are involved. So why insist that the only valid answer to the question is in terms of books (divisions)?

      Because intelligent people don't discuss things using one word to mean many different things.

      Hence, when discussing the Lord Of The ring, you use the vocabulary that was used since the first printing to distinguish between the six books and the three volumes of that one novel.

      When someone said "the six books", he was correct. When someone replied "there are not 6, but 3 books", he was wrong. As I, and many others, pointed out.
      We proceeded to do the intelligent, civil thing: To impart upon our poor deluded comrade the wisdom which we hold as to the number of books. ...and then the idiots showed up, spewing crap about how they can choose other definitions of the word "book" than the one that applies to this specific case in order to render the sentence unintelligible, and these people are wrong on many levels.
      They are wrong in their assumption, they are wrong in their interpretations, and they are wrong in their affirmations...
      It all comes down to a difference in motivation: I argue in order to prevent the truth from being drowned out, they argue in order to "win" a discussion, without care for facts, truth, or anything but their own narcissistic endeavour.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    12. Re:Depends on what you mean by "book" by Kelson · · Score: 1
      Actually, it was published in 10 parts according to the foreword in my Swedish edition from 1911, although later editions were shortened due to political statements that were outdated even back then. (My copy is shortened to five parts.)

      Hmm, could be. I know a lot of novels were serialized in those days.

      As for shortening, I don't think it's mainly political stuff that's usually removed (at least in English translations) so much as historical background and minor characters. Les Miserables is incredibly long and dense. I dragged myself through an unabridged version that was ~1200 pages of small type -- and that's 1200 pages in which he rambles across anything tangentially related. Not an easy read.

      Some examples: At the point that Valjean is fleeing Javert with the young Cosette and climbs over a wall, the action stops so that Hugo can spend 20 pages describing the history of convents. Not the convent they happened to have dropped into, but convents in general. When he escapes the barricades to carry the unconscious Marius through the sewers, again, everything stops and there's a 12-page history of the Paris sewer system, just to make sure that you know exactly where he is at each point. IIRC, The first book is called "Fantine" -- and it takes 100 pages before she shows up!

      Actually, there's a fantastic 50-page description of the battle of Waterloo in that first section. Unfortunately only the last 2 or 3 of those pages are remotely connected to the story: Thenardier is robbing bodies after the battle, and pulls Marius' father out of a pile. It turns out he's not quite dead yet, and he thinks Thenardier saved his life. (Well, he did, but purely by accident.) As a result, he later instills Marius with a need to find, thank, and possibly pay back the man who saved his father's life.

    13. Re:Depends on what you mean by "book" by Pollardito · · Score: 1
      The term "book" can have two meanings:

      1. A physical book, a.k.a. a volume.
      2. A larger division of a work, which can include its own chapters.
      which of those two meanings were they using when they said "Book 'em, Dano"?
    14. Re:Depends on what you mean by "book" by Kelson · · Score: 1
      Because intelligent people don't discuss things using one word to mean many different things.

      Well, aside from puns, intelligent people do, from time to time, discuss things where one person uses the word to mean one thing, and the other uses it to mean something else. The usual result of such a situation is a failure to achieve any sort of meaningful debate.

      It all comes down to a difference in motivation: I argue in order to prevent the truth from being drowned out, they argue in order to "win" a discussion, without care for facts, truth, or anything but their own narcissistic endeavour.

      Wow, you can read my mind through the Internet?

      No, wait, you can't.

      Here's how this thread of the exchange looks from my POV:

      A: X
      B: Not X, Y
      You: Not Y, X
      Me: X and Y
      You: Not Y, X
      Flame on!

      Key:
      X = There are six books.
      Y = There are three books

      I realize that once the flame stage came up I got mixed up as to the origin of the argument and pulled in stuff from other threads. But as to the question of whether it's 3 books or 6, I still see the answer as "Yes."

    15. Re:Depends on what you mean by "book" by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      I realize that once the flame stage came up I got mixed up as to the origin of the argument and pulled in stuff from other threads. But as to the question of whether it's 3 books or 6, I still see the answer as "Yes."

      Sigh.

      Yes, it's possible to confuse the issue with 3 or 6 books. I often refer to LotR as a trilogy, like everyone else, and I'll call Two Towers "the second book".
      That's not the issue here.

      The issue is that to the general public, it's 3 books. To LotR nerds, it's 6 books, because we have not simply heard of the books, we have read them, and we have read the words "Book six".
      Therefore, when person1 says "he took six books into 3 movies" and person2 'corrects' him with "there are only 3 books", person2 is wrong.
      There are 6 books, in 3 volumes.

      If you start with your lil' nonsense about using alternating definitions of book, we can fall in the "there is one book" argument, or even 7 (one edition has the appendices in it's own binded pile of dried tree pulp). I read it as one big book.
      That's not the question.

      So, stop defending the guy who's wrong. We all understand why he thought what he did, you did not need to explain it to anyone. Just because you can see the reasoning that led him to say what he said, and that from his POV it made perfect sense, does not make it factually correct in the context in which it was uttered.

      If it had been a discussion about the availability of the story, saying it is available in 3 books is right. But that wasn't the context. Here, book meant one thing, and he did not parse that right.

      He made an error.
      He was corrected.
      It should have been that simple.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  31. The biggest problem here by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

    Isn't Tom Bombadil, or barrow wrights or trolls turned to stone (which is gonna be hard to retcon); but the fact that "The Hobbit" is written (mostly) as a childrens book, and LOTR clearly isn't.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:The biggest problem here by digitalhermit · · Score: 1

      Y'know, as much as I enjoyed LOTR (all 247 hours of it), it seemed a trifle long.

      Sure, The Hobbit is a children's tale. There are dwarves in pointy hats, elves, barrels rolling along the river, a dragon with a single vulnerability, dwarves in pointy shoes, hairy feet, and dwarves curtseying... But it seems that it would be perfect for a movie. The story is self-contained, there's action, monsters, etc.. I don't expect anything deep so I won't be disappointed.

      Plus it may finally enpunge the "Frodooooo, of the ninnnneee fingers and the ring of DOOOOM" from my head when I think of the Hobbit.

    2. Re:The biggest problem here by Eccles · · Score: 1

      But that song comes from the Rankin-Bass version of "Return of the King," and not "The Hobbit."

      It might expunge "The greatest adventure is what lies ahead", but that's not nearly so needing of expunging.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
  32. At the very least set T4 in the future... by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

    sending something back to the past has been done to death.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    1. Re:At the very least set T4 in the future... by Lunar_Lamp · · Score: 1

      ...and there's not many films set in the future I guess...

    2. Re:At the very least set T4 in the future... by dargon · · Score: 1

      I'm ok with a T4 movie, so long as takes place during the war and ends with Arnie going back in time to the first movie.

    3. Re:At the very least set T4 in the future... by Kelson · · Score: 1

      ...well, not in the Terminator franchise...

  33. Terminator 4 by ThatDamnMurphyGuy · · Score: 1

    Let It Die. See New Start Trek Movie in 2008 for reference example.

    That is all.

  34. What have I got in my pocket? by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh yeah money, loads and loads of money.

    1. Re:What have I got in my pocket? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A snub-nosed .38

  35. Who really understands wimminz? by geoffrobinson · · Score: 2, Funny

    Cut a computer a little slack.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
  36. burn-out by Enrique1218 · · Score: 1

    It appears Hollywood is showing signs of burnout. Their best bet to pull out their slump is to rehash old movies and old actors? Where is the creativity to develop new ideas that resonate with the audience? Creativity isn't making Arnold look 20 years younger while allowing him to balance making another movie while doing his day job. I suggest Hollywood go on sabbatical, take a vacation, or lavishly spend their millions. Another thing to do is the exact opposite by taking themselves off the pedestal and go with live with ordinary people (their audience). The audience is usually never in a car chase, an explosion, or being chase down by a fire breathing dragon. Their lives don't seem interesting at first glance but if they pay attention long enough, they might just get that idea to make the next blockbuster.

    --
    You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
  37. I'll have YOUR badge by Programmer_In_Traini · · Score: 1

    tsk tsk.... I should revoke your geek badge right there.

    >>One more show of geekish ignorance and I'll have your nerd badge!

    its well known that geeks and nerds aren't the same. a nerd may be geekishly ignorant just as a geek may be nerdily ignorant.

    Thus, a nerd-badge wearer may comfortable display geekish ignorance.

    For clarity sake, you should have said :

    "One more show of nerdish ignorance and I'll have your nerd badge!" since thinking there was 3 books is an outrageous mistake for any LORT Nerd that respect him/herself.

    Also note there are several sub types of nerds, nerds merely referring the devotion to a specific interest such as LOTR, Matrix, Stamps, Pennies, Ponys or even Papyruses.

    Whereas Geek refers to technically savvy people such as a hacker, programmer (me), dba (me), encryptologist, lanboy, gamer (me) - and as you can see im a goddamn geek albeit a very poor nerd

    You can also check these links.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geek
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerd

    --
    If you look like your passport photo, you're too ill to travel. - Will Kommen
    1. Re:I'll have YOUR badge by rjstanford · · Score: 1
      [T]hinking there was 3 books is an outrageous mistake for any LORT Nerd that respect him/herself.


      LORT? The Lord of Ripened Tomatoes saga? That's so lame compared to Tolkein's original.
      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
  38. The Octopussy Affair? by PMuse · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sure, a man who is no longer on Her Majesty's secret service needs a new gig, but some roles you can can't live twice.

    What are they going to do? Have Russo take the spy who loved her to Russia to test his nimble fingers at lifting a golden gun or some diamonds. Yeah, that's just what the doctor ordered, no? If they keep on stealing stuff forever, soon they'll be trying to rake in the moon!

    That may be fine for your eyes, but I predict a thunderous ball of poo. Just live and let it die already.

    --
    "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
  39. singing by sammy+baby · · Score: 1
    With or without Tom singing, is what I want to know.


    Tom? Who cares about Tom?!?

    The real question: with or without Leonard Nimoy singing? (Warning: QT video embedded. But so, so worth it.)
    1. Re:singing by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 1

      Its so horrible to see, yet hard to look away from. Its like a clown car wreck.

      --
      I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
  40. Gandalf might be tough.. by CrazedWalrus · · Score: 1

    Didn't he die shortly after the filming?

    1. Re:Gandalf might be tough.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might have him confused with Richard Harris who played the old wizard in Harry Potter.
      Richard Harris died after the second harry potter film

    2. Re:Gandalf might be tough.. by Jekler · · Score: 1

      If he died shortly after filming, I am absolutely floored by how well they animated his corpse in X3.

    3. Re:Gandalf might be tough.. by Khashishi · · Score: 4, Funny
      If he died shortly after filming, I am absolutely floored by how well they animated his corpse in X3.

      That was Ian the Grey. X3 starred Ian the White.

    4. Re:Gandalf might be tough.. by BeanBunny · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you are thinking of a different actor in a different movie:

      Richard Harris (1930-2002, knighted - is that Sir Richard Harris?)

      Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
      Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)

      By the way, in the future, please make every effort not to confuse works based on the works of J.K. Rowling with works based on the works of J.R.R. Tolkien.

  41. Hobbit break point? by DrJimbo · · Score: 1

    If they do make the Hobbit and they do make it as two films, where is the best break point for splitting it in two?

    Do they leave it as a cliff hanger in "Flies and Spiders" or with the Dwarves trapped by the Elven King? I think the best break point might be right when they are leaving Lake-town and heading for the Lonely Mountain.

    --
    We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
    -- Anais Nin
    1. Re:Hobbit break point? by Verdict · · Score: 1

      I don't think they should break it, but if they do that would be where I would do it, or at the arrival to lake town, after their escape from the barrels. Transitions from travelling misadventures to the big dragon fight

    2. Re:Hobbit break point? by DrJimbo · · Score: 1

      If they break it into two films then we end up with 4 to 6 hours of material instead of 2 to 3. The Rob Inglis reading of the The Hobbit clocks in at a little over 11 hours (and I highly recommend it). Converting books to film almost always involves throwing out some material. Since The Hobbit is such a classic I would prefer they split it into two films so they can throw out less material.

      Granted, there will be that very uncomfortable one year wait for the second half but I think this is a fair trade off for ending up with the film done "right". For example, one of the most popular dvd's of all time is the mini-series of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice which is exactly 5 hours long. I would really like to see The Hobbit get the same treatment. I would even like to see more movies (especially book adaptations) done this way.

      --
      We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
      -- Anais Nin
  42. Yes and no by AaronLawrence · · Score: 1

    The look and feel would be consistent - but is that a good thing? Hobbit is a childrens' book with a rather twee feel, until the end when it develops into a serious battle. Perhaps someone with a different touch could be helpful - like Tim Burton? OK, it's sacrilege :)

    Splitting it into two parts would be astonishingly stupid. That's just obvious greed from MGM. The writers would have to thoroughly mangle the story to make it happen. On the other hand, they are welcome to make another LOTR movie from one of the other books :)

    --
    For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
    1. Re:Yes and no by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1
      Perhaps someone with a different touch could be helpful - like Tim Burton? OK, it's sacrilege :)

      Gods no. That would be a lame as Lynch's ruination of Dune.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    2. Re:Yes and no by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      you are right about splitting it. there is only one reason to do that and it would be money. sort of like what happened with kill bill.
       
      i think the LoTR stuff would work well. yeah- i think the orcs are a bit scary for young kids. but i think jackson could pull it off if he was inclined. but i have to be honest, i don't care if he forgets about kids and makes it for adults, as i am one now. it is a fabulous story for a film regardless of the intended audience.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    3. Re:Yes and no by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      I fail to see why everyone takes pot shots at the origional Dune movie. Personally speaking, I think they did one hell of a job for the technology that they had back then.

      Yes, I've read Dune (and enjoyed it a great deal). I also own the mini series (which was fantastic) as well as Children of Dune (which was also good).

      However, saying that Lynch ruined Dune because they did a great job with what they had at the time is silly. CGI was not always as advanced or cheap as it is now. Complaining about Dune is like complaining about Star Wars being primitive.

      I remember watching both (Dune and Star Wars) when I was a kid and I really liked both. I still like them. Yes, they look less flashy now compared to what comes out year after year, but they were quite good pieces of work for their time and that still shows.

      Enjoy the story for the sake of the story. Don't go complaining that they "killed" the book every time they make a movie from one. Most movies, when compared to the book, come away lacking. They aren't going to be a direct translation from page to screen. No performance is, really (movie, play, etc). Deal with it and learn to enjoy the story on its own merits and not compare it to the parent work at every turn.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    4. Re:Yes and no by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      One of the prominent themes in dune was that humans are more powerful than machines. The movie completely stood that on it's head. The wierding way became - machines. Mentats became cyborg looking. It has nothing to do with the technology (well not completely-- the way they portrayed shields was assinine and the tech of the time was completely capable of doing it right) but with abusing a great story. Dune could be my most favorite sci-fi book. I read it at least once a year. And the film would have been o.k. if it had been called something else. It wasn't just different to the book- it was antithetical to the book.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    5. Re:Yes and no by irablum · · Score: 1

      I think I'd rather someone pull a few movies out of the History of Middle-Earth. I'd love to see the story of, say, "The Flight of the Noldoli", or "The Tale of Tinúviel", or "The Tale of Eärendel" or "The Fall of Númenor", or 'The Fall of Gondolin'

      Lots of content, and whats more, room for a great director or writer to be imaginative...

      Ira

    6. Re:Yes and no by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1

      Two words: "weirding modules." The concept of a viable ranged weapon destroys one of the key concepts of the society described in the book. He could have left out characters, deleted scenes, and otherwise compressed the works and still stayed true to the spirit of the original. He chose to go for a cheesy visual instead, because the kiddies expect rayguns in their SciFi. Pathetic.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
  43. I'll take a stab by Prien715 · · Score: 1

    I haven't seen all their movies but I'll try:

    How about hero (who is known to be great) has something happen to question/forces him to reprove that greatness, meets and marries the only cute single female in the movie, and ultimately refinds his greatness while meeting a bunch of characters who are flat one-word cultural stereotypes (hick, surfer, alcoholic, bimbo, etc) and acting as an affirmation of those biases rather than acknowledging that deeper personalities exist.

    Changing the windowdressing doesn't change the story.

    (Toy Story, I think, is an exception.)

    --
    -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    1. Re:I'll take a stab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That description is not even close to neither The Incredibles nor Monsters Inc. Have you even seen them??

    2. Re:I'll take a stab by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      How about hero (who is known to be great)

      That don't fit Nemo one bit.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    3. Re:I'll take a stab by timster · · Score: 1

      I think you're describing the plot of Cars. The plotline you set out can't be considered to fit any other Pixar film.

      Also, I don't think it's realistic to consider the Cars characters to be one-word cultural stereotypes as all the characters turn out to have more to them (which was basically the plot). Though I must admit that the trailer for Ratatouille was the best part of Cars, your synopsis is a little unfair.

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    4. Re:I'll take a stab by Prien715 · · Score: 1

      I've only seen Cars, Nemo, and Toy Story (1 and 2). So you're right in that sense.

      However, the stereotypes describes all characters except the main ones (according to my original post). I can count 3 characters for whom the stereotype isn't accurate in Cars (main char, female, and his hero). While we learned more about many of the characters, is cow-tipping not best example of a hick pasttime?

      --
      -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    5. Re:I'll take a stab by arevos · · Score: 1
      I've only seen Cars, Nemo, and Toy Story (1 and 2). So you're right in that sense.

      You've already said that Toy Story is the exception to your generalisation about Pixar movies, but I can't see how you consider Nemo to fit. There is no "hero (who is known to be great)", and there is no particular event that "forces him to reprove that greatness", nor does any protagonist in the film meet and marry the "only cute single female in the movie".

      Nor does the Incredibles fit your generalisation by any stretch of the imagination, and Monsters Inc. doesn't tie in well, either. Indeed, the only movie that seems to fit is Cars; no other movie Pixar movie comes close.

      I recommend you watch the Incredibles, by the way; it's easily one of the best movies Pixar have produced.

    6. Re:I'll take a stab by Prien715 · · Score: 1

      Fair enough=) Criticism retracted.

      --
      -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
  44. HOBIT stock jumped over 7 points today! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HOBIT at the Hollywood Stock Exchange had Second Breakfast today with this announcement. Share the love and tell them user Squashua sent you.

  45. two sources? by teslar · · Score: 1

    Both sites cite Variety as their source.... so there is only one source

    One source to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

  46. "Maybe" Peter Jackson? by Verdict · · Score: 1

    I've got a feeling that they will probably go with a more influential director, like Michael Bay.

  47. Is Hollywood dry? by Beefslaya · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't pay big bucks to go see another fucking sequel of a set of movies that I really didn't enjoy enough to call "classics".

    Enough with the sequels. Enough with the comic books. The only one in that group mentioned worth making would be The Hobbit. And they better get the producers and directors that did the LOTR trilogies.

    How about something fresh and new?

    Everyone wonders why Hollywood is going broke...it's not Piracy, it's lack of talent and creativity. Special effects will only go sofar.

  48. Scouring of the Shire by AnonymousKev · · Score: 1
    I'd like to see the Hobbit done by Peter Jackson, but what I really want to see is a stand-alone Scouring of the Shire movie by Jackson. I know, I know, he killed off Sauruman in the trilogy, but you could conveniently ignore that and just make a movie about the heroism of the returning Hobbits.

    Then again, I've been waiting for somebody to make a good screen adaptation of The Prydain Chronicles, or John Christopher's Tripods trilogy (well, now it's a tetralogy, which is ironic since it's about tripods, but that's another post...) I don't understand why Hollywood recycles bad movie plots when there are so many good untapped books out there.

    --
    Anonymous Kev
    Proudly posting as AC since 1997
    (Finally got a dang account in 2004)
    1. Re:Scouring of the Shire by CatConnoisseur · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think Peter says in one of the documentaries he didn't particularly enjoy the Scouring of the Shire. There's a better chance of the Silmarillion making it to the screen. We'll have to live with Galadriel's mirror images. But yes, an adaptation of the Tripods trilogy would be very cool. I'd also like to see Asimov's Foundation series, but given the monstrosity that was I, Robot,I wouldn't have high hopes. I LOVED Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials, and I'm praying they don't screw up The Golden Compass, and they make the rest of the trilogy.

    2. Re:Scouring of the Shire by Lunar_Lamp · · Score: 1

      Whilst I agree with you partially, I submit that at least part of the reason why Hollywood doesn't tap the resource of many good books is that a good book does not necessarily beget a good film. They are after all two separate mediums and should be regarded as such.

    3. Re:Scouring of the Shire by AnonymousKev · · Score: 1
      You make an excellent point. But are good books that translate well to the screen really that rare? Both Prydain and the Tripods have fairly action-driven plots combined with main characters that are likeable and have good character growth. I think either one would make a good movie (or movies).

      I do remember reading Jackson's comment about not liking the Scouring. I'd like to hear more details on his reasoning because I just can't understand it. The Scouring is excellent material because we see our Adventuring Hobbits finally acheive their maturity. When they return home, Merry, Pipin, Sam, and Frodo must become the leaders and fight for a cause that closer to home. Sure, they "saved the world", but "They've locked my Gaffer in chains and bulldozed his house" is much more concrete cause.

      Also, I still remember hearing Gandalf say "these are the times we've been given" 3 months after 9/11. I had the feeling that Jackson was subtly tying in to current events. I think a movie (with that same subtly) about the oppressed little guy (...literally!...) fighting against Sharkey's corrupt government could be a nice reminder of the need to protect our civil liberties.

      --
      Anonymous Kev
      Proudly posting as AC since 1997
      (Finally got a dang account in 2004)
    4. Re:Scouring of the Shire by AeroIllini · · Score: 1
      Also, I still remember hearing Gandalf say "these are the times we've been given" 3 months after 9/11. I had the feeling that Jackson was subtly tying in to current events.

      What? That line is directly from the books, written in the 1940s in response to the first World War (which Tolkien fought in) and the second World War (which was going on at the time). Peter Jackson filmed the line during principal photography in 1999 and 2000. Just because a truism applies to current events doesn't mean it was designed to be *about* current events. This line has nothing to do with 9/11, even if it's applicable.

      I think a movie (with that same subtly) about the oppressed little guy (...literally!...) fighting against Sharkey's corrupt government could be a nice reminder of the need to protect our civil liberties.

      Again, this theme is a truism, and need not be manipulated to be relevant to current events. Tolkien wrote the Scouring of the Shire to explore his own feelings after returning from World War I and discovering that most of his friends were dead, that industry had crept up on the idyllic English countryside, and the world had changed irrevocably from what he remembered. If you are able to derive meaning from this story and apply it to current events, then it is merely evidence that the story is timeless and well written.

      Tolkien has said on many occasions that he despises allegory. He stated (and I'm paraphrasing) that allegory is when the author injects specific meaning into his/her works. A classic example would be the Chronicles of Narnia series, with the lion Aslan clearly representing Jesus Christ in the mythology of Narnia. Tolkien preferred instead to give his stories applicability, i.e., instead of injecting meaning, he simply wrote about timeless themes and allowed the reader to find their own meaning. Therefore, if you want to see the the Scouring of the Shire as the overthrow of a (current) corrupt government, you can. If you want to see Tom Bombadil as the embodiment of the uninvolved pacifist, you can. If you want to see the gift of Galadriel's three hairs to Gimli as a representation of the Christian Holy Trinity, you can. But Tolkien never intended these things to be allegory; that presupposes that there is a correct interpretation, and an incorrect one. He simply presented the mythology as he envisioned it, and allowed the reader to come to his/her own conclusions. I think Jackson followed that ideal faithfully, which is why those three movies will still be great in 100 years.
      --
      For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
    5. Re:Scouring of the Shire by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      A classic example would be the Chronicles of Narnia series, with the lion Aslan clearly representing Jesus Christ in the mythology of Narnia.

      Mmm, C.S. Lewis also despised allegory from what I recall. They were close aquaintances at the time and I don't think either story was written to be allegorical. But I could be confused... I think the biographical video on the FotW extended edition talks about this a bit when discussing both authors.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    6. Re:Scouring of the Shire by AnonymousKev · · Score: 1
      I didn't mean to imply the line was explicitly added for 9/11 -- I thought that Jackson had to realize the applicability of the line (but didn't realize it had been filmed a year earlier).

      That's one of the hallmarks of a well-written book or well-crafted film -- it stands outside of its own time. We're in agreement on that. Which is why I think a "Scouring of the Shire" movie could be excellent. It deals with themes that applied in WWII, apply now, and will apply in the future. I certainly wasn't suggesting Michael Moore as director!

      --
      Anonymous Kev
      Proudly posting as AC since 1997
      (Finally got a dang account in 2004)
    7. Re:Scouring of the Shire by AnonymousKev · · Score: 1

      Check the Wiki on Aslan (second paragraph). Aslan was intended to represent how Christ might have appeared in a world other than our own.

      --
      Anonymous Kev
      Proudly posting as AC since 1997
      (Finally got a dang account in 2004)
  49. Tom Bombadil is crucial to LOTR plot by Phoenix666 · · Score: 5, Informative

    In the movie, Aragorn randomly hands the four hobbits four short swords right before the Nazgul attack at Amon Sul. He doesn't explain where they come from nor how he came to have them. Later, Merry uses his to stab the Witch King in the back of the knee, which despite the admonition "no man can slay me," seems to be pretty effective at hurting him and rendering him vulnerable to Eowyn's coup de grace. But nobody knows why.

    Now, Tolkien, in true Tolkien fashion, had a back-story for everything, and the Tom Bombadil episode provided the back story for those swords. (It also did other things, but I won't go into that here). The four hobbits escape Buckland in the Shire into the adjacent woods where Bombadil rules. They have various adventures, but as they're just about to get back onto the road to Bree, they are taken by wights who drag them into ancient barrows. Bombadil comes to rescue them, and gives them swords he finds there. The barrows belonged to warrior kings of the Northern Kingdom, who forged their swords with spells to break the enchantments of the Witch King of Angmar, their mortal enemy.

    So, at the moment of truth on the plains of Gondor, Merry's sword was the only one around that could have possibly broken the Witch King's invulnerability.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
    1. Re:Tom Bombadil is crucial to LOTR plot by Himring · · Score: 5, Informative

      Interesting point on Merry's sword vs. the Witch King. I never made that connection before.

      The thing about Tom is his mysterious nature. My initial forays into the Internet, in the early 90s, was to discuss Tolkien and I specifically remember the early and best dialogues concerning Bombadil. I have often thought that he is one of the most, if not the most, discussed aspect of ME on the Internet.

      Tolkien knew the power of the unfinished tale (no pun), and indeed made a doosey in Bombadil. To read about Tom in LoTR is to not get bogged down by his appearance or nonsensical nature. It is instead to realize that these mask an incredibly powerful being, of great mystery, who is embedded in the mythos of Tolkien. Tolkien was no dummy, and knew exactly what he was doing when having Gandalf answer the question of who Bombadil was with "he is" (akin to the "Yahweh" of Judaism). I think Tolkien very cleverly added aspects from Norse & other religions into his work as George Lucas, and others, have learned to do.

      Tom carries incredible influence over everything around him, and is the only being to not only NOT be tempted by the ring, but to actually play with it and even, inversely, make the ring itself disappear (to which he laughs). If all else were to fall to Sauran, Gandalf explains, there would be only Tom, "he was the first and will be the last" (alpha/omega reference?). (I'm pulling these quotes off my head, but they should be 99% accurate.

      Others see Tom as a nature spirit or with other meaning, but the point should be that he marries the LoTR to the greater cosmology. Leaving him out of the movies has almost elevated his mystery IMO. I think it was a good move all around.

      I certainly do not remember him being in The Hobbit, and although I've not read The Hobbit in years, I have read it a half dozen times. Still, I've learned the hard way on making pronouncements about Tolkien's works -- so avid are the fans as even Ebert pointed out....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    2. Re:Tom Bombadil is crucial to LOTR plot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Merry uses his to stab the Witch King in the back of the knee, which despite the admonition "no man can slay me," seems to be pretty effective at hurting him and rendering him vulnerable to Eowyn's coup de grace. But nobody knows why.

      It's obvious. Merry's not a man, he's a hobbit. Eowyn's not a man either, she's a babe.

    3. Re:Tom Bombadil is crucial to LOTR plot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "If all else were to fall to Sauran, Gandalf explains, there would be only Tom"

      Not to be too much of a geek, but I don't think it was Galdalf (or perhaps only Gandalf) who said that. IIRC, that was when they were discussing if they should send the ring back to Bombadil for safekeeping. I think it was one of the elf lords who said something like (not exact words) "Power to defy Sauron is not in him, unless it is in the Earth itself. But we have seen that Sauron can torture and destroy the very hills. I think in the end, if all else is conquerored, Bombadil will fall, and Night will come."

    4. Re:Tom Bombadil is crucial to LOTR plot by FinchWorld · · Score: 1

      Or for those of you who have short attention spans or like RPG's more for the mechanics. Tom saves you on a quest and lets you keep some lovely swords of +1 Nazgul slaying as a reward, see, side quests do help.

      --
      "I may be full of crap about this game, and I may be wrong, and that's fine." -Jack Thompson
    5. Re:Tom Bombadil is crucial to LOTR plot by Himring · · Score: 1

      "The Last as he was the First" (Rings, 1:279)

      From Who Is Tom Bombadil

      Linked from Glyphweb. Their Arda Encyclopedia is the best source, IMO, for Tolkien:

      Note the, "Nothing would be left for him in the world of Sauron,".

      I think the point here isn't that Tom would be conquered. He simply would be done with the world and move on. Tom is, indeed, powerful. He is, most assuredly, the most powerful being in ME. Some argue that he is Eru himself....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    6. Re:Tom Bombadil is crucial to LOTR plot by adamwright · · Score: 1

      Just to clear it up, in the film version they fixed the "bug" with the lack of the wight sword by changing Galadriel's gifts to Merry & Pippin to be elven daggers (you can see this in the extended cut of TFOTR). The concept was that the magical elven steel could harm the Witch King.

    7. Re:Tom Bombadil is crucial to LOTR plot by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Tom carries incredible influence over everything around him, and is the only being to not only NOT be tempted by the ring, but to actually play with it and even, inversely, make the ring itself disappear (to which he laughs).

      Hmmm. IIRC (which I doubt), the ring did not disappear. The wonder was that Tom himself did not become invisible when he put on the ring. Yes? Regardless, you wrote a thought provoking post.

      strike

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    8. Re:Tom Bombadil is crucial to LOTR plot by Himring · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Second, Tom is able with ease to use the ring in ways that were not intended by its maker, for he is able to make the ring itself disappear.

      Checking these facts myself as I hate getting it wrong, but I swear it does say, in the book, that he makes it disappear. Further, the great page on Bombadil states the same....

      Who is Tom Bombadil?

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    9. Re:Tom Bombadil is crucial to LOTR plot by DrXym · · Score: 1
      Tom Bombadil isn't crucial to the plot. Aragorn could have simply said they were ancient Elvish weapons to remain consistent. Too bad he didn't, but the only people who were raging or even cared were Tolkien nerds who would have found something else to rage over even if he had. And they did.

      Personally I think the barrow wights would have been a great scene to add, but I can't see how it could have been done without including Tom Bombadil in the movie. And that would have sucked all the pace and urgency out of the movie - as indeed it did in the book.

    10. Re:Tom Bombadil is crucial to LOTR plot by Agripa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In the movie, Aragorn randomly hands the four hobbits four short swords right before the Nazgul attack at Amon Sul. He doesn't explain where they come from nor how he came to have them. Later, Merry uses his to stab the Witch King in the back of the knee, which despite the admonition "no man can slay me," seems to be pretty effective at hurting him and rendering him vulnerable to Eowyn's coup de grace. But nobody knows why.

      I always enjoyed this type of thing in books. Not only does the Witch King unknowingly face a woman rendering the prophecy in doubt but Merry happens to have a weapon specifically spelled to hurt him that was only gained through chance. Mysterious as he is, perhaps that was Tom's way of indirectly aiding the war.

      What really bothered me about this in the movie was that they could very well have had Aragorn give the swords to the hobbits and in passing give mention to their origin (or someone else could have noticed the odd weapons and told them later if time was an issue) replacing the similar book scene with Tom.

      Of course, I think Frodo's movie addition in Osgiliath among other unneeded additions should have been left out in favor of the Scouring of the Shire. I have never found a satisfactory explanation for that. I was rather looking forward to fierce hobbits and in the case of Merry and Pippin contrastingly tall ones. As it was, the only lasting impressions were on Frodo and Sam.

    11. Re:Tom Bombadil is crucial to LOTR plot by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

      The dialogue in that scene is done so terribly to begin with... (especially when compared to the original text.) Also, we do not necessarily know that the witch-king is invulnerable--we merely know that it is prophesied that not by the hand of man shall he fall, something Tolkien borrowed from Shakespeare. His fate is hidden from the wise, but that does not mean that a man cannot injure him; although such a man would need to have conquered his fear.

      The Movie's dialogue:

      "I will kill you if you touch him."

      "You fool. No man can kill me. Die, now."

      "I am no man. AAaaagggh!"

      comes from, limiting myself almost exclusively to dialogue:

      `Begone, fould dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion! Leave the dead in peace!'

      `Come not between the Nazgul and his prey! Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind be left naked to the Lidless eye.'

      `Do what you will; but I will hinder it, if I may.'

      `Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!'

      Then Merry heard of all sounds, in that hour the strangest. It seemed that Dernhelm laughed, and the clear voice was like the ring of steel. `But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Eowyn I am, Eomund's daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him.'

      comes from, in truth:

      Then out of the blackness in his mind he thought that he heard Dernhelm speaking; yet now the voice seemed strange, recalling some other voice that he had known.

      `Begone, fould dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion! Leave the dead in peace!'

      `Come not between the Nazgul and his prey! Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind be left naked to the Lidless eye.'

      A sword rang as it was drawn. `Do what you will; but I will hinder it, if I may.'

      `Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!'

      Then Merry heard of all sounds in that hour the strangest. It seemed that Dernhelm laughed, and the clear voice was like the ring of steel. `But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Eowyn I am, Eomund's daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For loving or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him.'

      The winged creature screamed at her, but the Ringwraith made no answer, and was silent, as if in sudden doubt. Very amazement for a moment conquered Merry's fear. He opened his eyes and the blackness was lifted from them. There some paces from him sat the great beast, and all seemed dark about it, and above it loomed the Nazgul Lord like a shadow of despair. A little to the left facing them stood she whom he had called Dernhelm. But the helm of her secrecy had fallen from her, and her bright hair, released from its bonds, gleamed with pale gold upon her shoulders. Her eyes grey as the sea were hard and fell, and yet tears were on her cheek. A sword was in her hand, and she raised her shield against the horror of her enemy's eyes.

      Eowyn it was, and Dernhelm also. For into Merry's mind flashed the memory of the face that he saw at the riding from Dunharrow: the face of one that goes seeking death, having no hope. Pity filled his heart and great wonder, and suddenly the slow-kindled courage of his race awoke. He clenched his hand. She should not die, so fair, so desperate! At least she should not die alone, unaided.

      The face of their enemy was not turned towards him, but still he hardly dared to move, dreading lest the deadly eyes should fall on him. Slowly, slowly he began to crawl aside; but the Black Captain, in doubt and malice intent upon the woman before him, heeded him no more than a worm in the mud.

      Suddenly the great beast beat its hideous wings, and the wind of them w

    12. Re:Tom Bombadil is crucial to LOTR plot by jafac · · Score: 1

      I think he was just a good-natured were-bear. But that's just me.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    13. Re:Tom Bombadil is crucial to LOTR plot by PatrickHagerty · · Score: 1

      >6-fingered humans will outnumber 5-fingered humans by 2412....

      But 10 fingered humans will remain the dominant majority.

    14. Re:Tom Bombadil is crucial to LOTR plot by Lahiru · · Score: 1

      I assumed that was because Merry wasn't a man either? I can't remember if he used the sword to stab the Witch King, or the dagger given to him by Galadriel...

    15. Re:Tom Bombadil is crucial to LOTR plot by chefren · · Score: 1

      If I remember correctly Merry slays the Witch King in the book. Eowyn is still a man (as in human) and is defeated but not killed by the Witch King, who is stabbed in the neck by Merry using his obviously magical sword. In the book the sword is from the barrow mounds. In the theatrical version of the movies Merry can't kill the Which King (and doesn't) since he doesn't have a magical sword. He does somehow manage to hurt him though and Eowyn manages to kill him which seems to mean that "man" means gender in the movie but race in the book.

      In the extended edition movies the hobbits are given elvish swords in Lothlorien, which should be capabe of hurting the Witch King. But there is an error in the extended editions: in the Two Towers, Merry (or was it Pippin?) is told to go sharpen his old sword in the Rohan war camp. Why would the elves give them old and blunt swords? This scene should have been removed or altered in the extended edition.

    16. Re:Tom Bombadil is crucial to LOTR plot by schnell · · Score: 1
      If I remember correctly Merry slays the Witch King in the book.

      Nope, in both the book and movie, Merry wounds the Witch King with the dagger (back of the knee, I believe). Eowyn stabs him in the face (or where the face should be if he had one). In both contexts, the "no man" bit (from the prophecy of Glorfindel) is designed to be flexible in usage - the Witch King is clearly meant to be interpreting it in the "human" sense and completely overlooking the possibility of it referring to gender, thus in part leading to his downfall.

      Oh God I can't believe I just responded to a Slashdot post to correct someone's Tolkien knowledge.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    17. Re:Tom Bombadil is crucial to LOTR plot by RoloDMonkey · · Score: 1
      Interesting point on Merry's sword vs. the Witch King. I never made that connection before.

      The connection is hinted at in tLotR: Aragorn's ancestors are from the north, the Witch King is mentioned, and someone says that the swords creator would have been proud. However, the rest of the clues are in The Silmarillion, and after you get through that, the connection is obvious.

      The Silmarillion explains a lot of the vague references made in the books, but not all. For instance, Tom Bombadil is not mentioned. Tom is in one of the other books, it may be Lost Tales, but it has been twenty years since I read it, so don't scream if I am wrong. I actually don't mind that they cut that part from the movie. I knew going in that some scenes would have to be cut, and I knew that would be one of them. The Old Forest is too much like Fangorn, Bombadil does not fit into the continuity, and except for the swords mentioned in the grandparent post, that whole section is not necessary for the plot.

      All in all, every screenwriter or director has to make decisions when paring down a novel into a hundred page script, and with only a few minor exceptions I think Jackson did an amazing job.

      --
      Long live the Speaker Bracelet
      Rolo D. Monkey
    18. Re:Tom Bombadil is crucial to LOTR plot by Himring · · Score: 1

      Good dialogue.

      I love The Silmarillion. It is actually my 2nd favorite book of Tolkien's after the Hobbit. I prefer LoTR 3rd. And/or, really, I would say 4th after UT.

      I really love the movies. But, when first I heard they were actually making 'em, my first thought was fear. I was afraid they would screw it up. Nice it was they did not, but exceeded expectations.

      Still, one minor thing that bothers me -- not too big a deal -- is how people tend to think the movie is the book. I think it was a quote on /. that said, "never judge a book by its movie." This is never more truer than with LoTR or Tolkien's work.

      The movies are simply that and nothing more. They are not the books. They are another person's interpretation of the books. Frankly, as I'm sure you know, Tolkien's official opinion on dramaticizing the books was a resounding "no!" They are "uniquely unfit for a drama," I think he said.

      So, when people make statements that Tom didn't fit that is a post-movie statement. I don't ever remember hearing much of that -- if at all -- before the movies. Now, it seems Tom is fighting to remain a part of the story. But, indeed, if we consider the work itself, and that Tom is there and integral, then we are done with the matter....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    19. Re:Tom Bombadil is crucial to LOTR plot by RoloDMonkey · · Score: 1

      I agree with most of what you say, and I almost always make a point of reading the book before seeing the movie. The book is almost always better. Frankly, I was astounded by the movie. I think it is a tribute to Tolkein that most of the movie looked almost exactly how I had imagined it. That means that he described a world so well that two people who had never met could see almost the exact same images, and I am not alone, many of my friends felt the same way.

      This is summed up well in the forward that is printed in many copies of tLotR. I forget the name of the author, but he says that Tolkein seems not to be making up a story so much as just showing us a place that is already real. I think this is partly because he draws from the Western cultural memes that most of us are familiar with: Norse mythology, Arthurian legend, etc. I wonder how well the movie went over in other parts of the world?

      As for Tom, I must make a distinction. Tom is a part of the story, and a great part too. However, what I was trying to say is that he is an anomaly in the continuity. According to the Silmarillion, there is a primary god, who apparently created gods of certain domains: war, water, etc., and then there are their servants; powerful beings who weren't guite gods, like Sauron. By saying that Tom was the first and would be the last it implies that he is either the primary god, which is unlikely, or that he exists beyond this universe. I came to that conclusion long before the movies came out.

      --
      Long live the Speaker Bracelet
      Rolo D. Monkey
    20. Re:Tom Bombadil is crucial to LOTR plot by Himring · · Score: 1

      Agreed, but Tolkien purposefully left loose ends. This, he knew, made the reader ... read. He knew it empowered the story. Tom, of all things, is the most loose of all ends. There just about every possible explanation for who he is including Eru, or the primary god himself. I highly recommend that massive page I linked before considered the authoritative source on TB.

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    21. Re:Tom Bombadil is crucial to LOTR plot by chefren · · Score: 1

      Time for me to read the book agan it seems :)

  50. Will the Ah-nold play in T4? by christurkel · · Score: 1

    He wants to but will be put that idea aside to run for politcal office again?

    --

    CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
    1. Re:Will the Ah-nold play in T4? by SnotBob · · Score: 0

      Ahhh...A sequel of The Running Man appears to be in order. All governors should have to run the execution gauntlet to be elected.

  51. Re: I prefer the singing of Tim Benzedrine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tim, Tim, Benzedrine!
    Hash! Boo! Valvoline!
    Clean! Clean! Clean for Gene!
    First second, neutral, park,
    Hie thee hence, you leafy narc!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bored_of_the_Rings

  52. With or Without Leonard Singing... by cranesan · · Score: 1

    With or without Leonard Singing is all I wanna know.

  53. Terminator 4 by Pray_4_Mojo · · Score: 1

    I can't believe people haven't started talking about how Terminator 4 will be a turd from future in something like 140 comments. Can anyone see this as a combination of trying to get blood from a stone while simulataneously trying to beat a dead horse?

    Please no more Terminator sequels. The last one was bad enough.

  54. Length by pjludlow · · Score: 1

    I liked the LOTR movies, even waited in line to watch them opening night and all that. Just a few things I ask though for The Hobbit. Please don't make it faster to read the book than to watch the movie. Those movies just became incredibly too long. Also, don't split it into two films.

    So how long will it be before Hollywood make the Shannara books by Terry Brooks now?

    1. Re:Length by phlamingo · · Score: 1

      Oh, please! Don't make any stinking Shannara films from the stinking derivative Shannara books!

      Okay, to be fair, I only read the first one, and I've never read another word of Terry Brooks after that. Enough said.

      --
      I had forgotten how much cooler teenagers look when they are smoking. Oh, wait ...
  55. If the hat goes to Jackson by UmmoSirius · · Score: 1

    The greatest thing about Jackson's LOTR trilogy is the amount of respect he & everyone else involved had for Tolkien's original text. When you look at other books-made-film, you see that this is indeed a rarity. Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy comes to mind here. That film would have sucked a whole lot less if those involved had given a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys about Douglas' original writings.

    1. Re:If the hat goes to Jackson by east+coast · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The greatest thing about Jackson's LOTR trilogy is the amount of respect he & everyone else involved had for Tolkien's original text.
       
      No!
       
      Not to be a stick in the mud about this but Jackson seems to have gone out of his way to take some of Tolkien's original work and warp it. Things that he could have easily have left as written were rewritten to suit his "needs" but not the needs of the story line.
       
      I can understand why some material had to be cut, i'm not complaining about that. But what was up with the reaction of the treants? Was this a lame attempt at comedy? Why didn't Jackson let Gollum die in the end dancing with the ring as Tolkien had wrote it? It seemed so much more classic and it had the taste of a good moral. Instead Gollum has to be given a shove instead of us being able to take home the original spirit of Gollum and the ring essentially destroying each other... It just seems like such a classic ending.
       
      This isn't to say that I think that Jackson did a bad job with the pictures but I don't see some of it as respectful. As I said, modifying a work because of limited resources is one thing, changing things for no obvious purpose is downright disrespectful.
       
      As for The Hobbit... It'd be great to see Ian Holm as Bilbo. He did fantastic work in the original films and I think he's a fine actor. I'm just not sure about his overall health in taking on the part of such a young role.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    2. Re:If the hat goes to Jackson by abb3w · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That film would have sucked a whole lot less if those involved had given a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys about Douglas' original writings.

      Including, perhaps, Douglas Adams himself? He was quite pleased with how no two versions of his work were ever consistent; with the radio programs, books, and TV series all having unique quirks, making the movie match any of them just wouldn't quite ring true. He was fairly heavily involved in production, up until his untimely death. I'll agree it wasn't his best work, but I think his attitude on deadlines was a liability to the end result.

      But yes, Jackson will be the best choice for the Hobbit. The fun question is, will the studios ever get daft enough to want to take the Silmarillion to the silver screen?

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    3. Re:If the hat goes to Jackson by Mr.+Flibble · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This isn't to say that I think that Jackson did a bad job with the pictures but I don't see some of it as respectful.

      I must agree that I used to feel the same way, however, now that I look back on the movies, I am impressed at how well he brought the story to life, and really, how much he left *IN* unmodified. I agree that according to the book it would have made more sense to have gollum dance and fall in, but for the drama of a non-Tolken audience it does not work as well, those who have not read the books demand more.

      Along those lines, when I saw the first movie in the theatre on opening day, the scene where Arwen takes Frodo across the river annoyed me because it was not cannon, Glorfindel was not there, and Arwen utters an incatation and it is not (apparently, I dont speak elvish) the work of the ring of water that raises the river.

      But, having said all that, when Liv Tyler cries out: "If you want him, come and claim him!" I sat up in my chair, and like almost every other geek in the theatre I shouted "YEAH!!!!"

      I was dissapointed in the first movie when I left the theatre, and I and all my other geek buddies were complaining about how it violated Cannon... Then about 2 days later we all sat around and agreed that Jackson HAD done a good job, and that we were unrealistic to believe that everything could have been like the books, because some of what Tolkien did was great from a world creation perspective, but bad from an authors narration perspective. Once we decided that, we ran back to the theatre to watch the movie again. We loved it the second time around.

      I look at the differences, and I agree with you, I would have preffered the rings destruction and gollums death to be like that in the book. However, the audience would not get it. With Jacksons ending you see the hold that the ring has on Frodo, you see him being malicious and twisted like gollum, you see the hatred of the ring bringing an end to itself.

      --
      Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
    4. Re:If the hat goes to Jackson by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1
      The fun question is, will the studios ever get daft enough to want to take the Silmarillion to the silver screen?
      Of course. They will hire Gandalf to read it aloud in six four hour pieces, while staring you down with his bushy eyebrows. Instant success! Gandalf most likely won't mind, he had more fun stuff to do in his past 2000 years of life.
      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    5. Re:If the hat goes to Jackson by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      [Douglas Admas] was fairly heavily involved in production, up until his untimely death

      At which point they did a complete rewrite and THEN went in production. I kid you not.

      Don't kid yourself, that movie was not Adams approved.
      Yes, the producers said it was faithfull. The -always- say it's faithfull, it's their contractual obligation to bullshit the hardcore fans into shelling out money, they will always maintain plausible deniability of their meddling.
      I Robo was said to be faithfull too... those bold face lying sunzof... grrrr.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    6. Re:If the hat goes to Jackson by Coryoth · · Score: 1
      The fun question is, will the studios ever get daft enough to want to take the Silmarillion to the silver screen?

      Actually this is a distinct possibility, depending on how successful The Hobbit is. The trick, of course, is to not try and film "The Silmarillion" but rather just a single tale from it at a time (potentially supplemented by Lost Tales versions etc.) There is plenty of scope there: Tolkien's own versions of some of those tales evolved and changed, so there's flexibility in the retelling. Moreover, some of them are eminently filmable, up to a certain amount of change to make it more easily told in a single film. Something like the tale of Turin, or Beren and Luthien, or the Tuor and the fall of Gondolin, would work quite successfully as individual films. Why try to make one film when you can milk it for three (testing the waters with each one in turn to be sure there is demand). Personally I'd love to see a well executed film version of the tale of Turin.
    7. Re:If the hat goes to Jackson by Aris+Katsaris · · Score: 1

      The greatest thing about Jackson's LOTR trilogy is the amount of respect he & everyone else involved had for Tolkien's original text.

      Don't make me laugh. Jackson had utter *lack* of respect for Tolkien's original text and characters. He transformed Gimli (a warrior with the soul of a poet, and the deepest appreciation of beauty in the whole fellowship) into a belching buffoon. He had Faramir (possibly the gentlest character in the book) beat up Gollum. He utterly discredited Denethor, turning him into a subject of slapstick. He removed or changed *all* the characterization from Eowyn's attraction towards Aragorn (an unhealthy attraction based on despair, and intrinsically connected to her later death-wish). He had Arwen change her mind to and fro, regarding whether she'd go to Valinor or choose mortality.

      And in the meantime he inserted meaningless diversions, like Aragorn falling off cliffs and people boo-hooing over his presumed death.

      Amount of respect? Puh-leez. That they *claimed* to have respect for Tolkien, doesn't mean that they didn't in fact urinate over his bones. The end product of the movies proves that they did.

      If you want to see a film production with actual respect for the original I suggest that you take a look at Chronicles of Narnia. Or even Harry Potter.

    8. Re:If the hat goes to Jackson by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      Not to be a stick in the mud about this but Jackson seems to have gone out of his way to take some of Tolkien's original work and warp it. Things that he could have easily have left as written were rewritten to suit his "needs" but not the needs of the story line.

      Meh, you're entitled to your opinion. Personally, I watched the extended editions and listened to the audio commentaries. PJ and crew do a good job explaining the whys and wherefores of their changes. I might not agree with all of them, but on the whole they were trying to make a good set of movies that were entertaining while simultaneously staying as true as possible to the books.

      Not an easy task. And from the box office results, they at least succeeded at making something that the majority of folks enjoyed. (Even though I disliked the dwarf jokes and the elven tricks such as shield-surfing.)

      Sure, it was warped in places, but usually because of the realities of film-making so that you don't bore or confuse your audience.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    9. Re:If the hat goes to Jackson by abb3w · · Score: 1

      There is plenty of scope there

      Are you in an understatement competition? Yes, there is. You could probably make a dozen miniseries out of it.

      Something like the tale of Turin, or Beren and Luthien, or the Tuor and the fall of Gondolin, would work quite successfully as individual films.

      Scanning my hardback copy: From the music of the Ainur to the Burning of the Ships (first 9 chapters); from the Building of Menegroth through the Ruin of Beleriand (10 chapters); Beren and Luthien (1 chapter, expanded with pieces from the Lays — the hardest to do justice to); the house of Hurin and the Ruin of Doriath; of the Fall of Gondolin and the Fate of the Silmarils; and the Akallabeth. Six movies; possibly a seventh, covering the first Ringwar after the fall of Numenor.

      The problem is, you'd need someone able to make worthy scripts for them. GRRM might be able to do it, but first he has to finish the dratted Song of Ice and Fire. Anything less than a Martin/Jackson partnership seems unlikely to equal the task, and I don't think they'll live long enough to make it through the end.

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    10. Re:If the hat goes to Jackson by east+coast · · Score: 1

      No, my point is that they didn't stay as true to the books as possible. They went out of their way to damage the original writing. Or do you mean to tell me that the movie would have lost out on a near-Lucas/JarJar Binks attempt at treants? like i said, delete stuff? ok. Do away with Sauramon in a tidy fashion... fine. There needed to be closure. Stupid jokes and making things cute for no real reason? That's just poorly done, you even admitted it yourself.

      The films would have done just as well without the comedy or the appeal to a younger crowd that can hardly have the ability to read the books let alone truly understand the entire scope of the film.

      As you say, it's just an opinion but I'm sick of the endless dumbing down of culture to get kids interested in being consumers. It's a fairly sick cycle and if you're one of those "Hollywood has no originality anymore" people this is the exact reason why.

      I'm not trying to be fanatical but Tolkein's work was indeed dumbed down and a lot of it did not add substance to the film nor was it needed to hold the interest of anyone aside from the 10 year olds who were buying the action figures but will probably never read the books.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    11. Re:If the hat goes to Jackson by Joel+from+Sydney · · Score: 1
      The fun question is, will the studios ever get daft enough to want to take the Silmarillion to the silver screen?

      As other posters have noted, the entire Silmarillion in itself isn't filmable. It's worth remembering that JRRT didn't write it as one book; it's a collection of stories posthumously edited and compiled by his son Christopher. But with that said, many of the stories in it would make excellent movies. As an example, there's a brilliant but very long film treatment of the Akallabeth available over here. As I said, it's very long but an excellent read if you have an hour or two to spare!

  56. Hobbit casting by tverbeek · · Score: 2, Funny

    Director Joel Schumacher will be recasting the role of Gandalf with a younger actor. Val Kilmer and George Clooney are on the short list.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  57. Terminator 4? by kinglink · · Score: 1

    Is arnold ready to go back to acting? I can just imagine Terminator 4 with out Arnold, Hobbit with out Peter Jackson, and the Thomas Crowne Affair with out Bronson. Three great sequal ideas that can be ruined with out their core actors.

    Btw the Hobbit doesn't need the same Bilbo, he's 60 years older in Lord of the Rings. He'll probably look radically different anyways.

    1. Re:Terminator 4? by Tim_sama · · Score: 0

      Yeah, except for the part when Gandalf remarks that Bilbo hasn't aged a day upon seeing him at the beginning of LoTR. So maybe, just maybe, he'll look exactly the same as he did at the beginning of the Fellowship movie.

    2. Re:Terminator 4? by kinglink · · Score: 1

      I was thinking of dying bilbo at the end of the movie. But your right he would look similar to Fellowship's bilbo. (before he relinquishes the ring)

  58. Stop being so precise. by pavon · · Score: 1

    You and your precise terminology.
    We all know that LotR is actually one book of six books published in three books.

  59. Tom singing? by woozlewuzzle · · Score: 1

    Do the people who post these things know anything about the topic?

    re: With or without Tom singing, is what I want to know

    Tom Bombadil never appeared in the Hobbit - so why should he be singing in the movie version? I agree that Ian Holme may not be able to be the young Bilbo for this movie, but I'm sure they can come up with someone reasonable. Heck, look at the replacement for Dumbledore - ok, bad example. A lot of people I know hate the new version - not because of the look, but because his demeanor changed so differently. WIth Bilbo, you would need someone that kept the personality everyone was expecting.

    And yes, Gandalf would still look pretty much the same as long as he ws made up as Gandalf the Gray and not the White. It's all prosthetics and makeup, anyway.
    Sheesh

  60. Surprised? Are u kidding.. by 101010_or_0x2A · · Score: 1

    Why is everyone reacting as though this is a surprise? Its pretty obvious when the 3 movies became such huge hits that it was only a matter of time before the Hobbit was gonna be made into (a) movie(s)..I mean its never been done before, has it, make a series of movies that spawn cults (and geeks) and THEN make a sequel to them explaining the roots of the original hit movies......oh wait a minute...must..hit..myself..over the head..with..Light Sabre...

    1. Re:Surprised? Are u kidding.. by zosa · · Score: 1

      exactly...the real question is when do we get the Silmarillion Epic television series?

  61. ironically enough by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    Whereas Geek refers to technically savvy people such as a hacker

    Actually, geeks are really county fair performers who bite the heads off live chikens.

    Which is probably why chicks don't like 'em ;-)

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  62. Amazing! by killmenow · · Score: 2, Funny

    Your knowledge of The Lord of the Rings is astounding. I could only have been impressed more had you responded in Klingon.

    1. Re:Amazing! by killmenow · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ah, I ruined the joke by submitting before preview. So I'll just ask: would it have been better to say "Elvish" instead of "Klingon" there? It's more on topic, but less obviously a nerd joke.

      As an aside, my first idea for a post was to just write: NEEEERRRRRDDDDDSSSSSSS!!!!!

    2. Re:Amazing! by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Your joke is funnier with the ORIGINAL KLINGON!

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    3. Re:Amazing! by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      You...you...you...SHOL'VA!

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    4. Re:Amazing! by R.D.Olivaw · · Score: 1
      my first idea for a post was to just write: NEEEERRRRRDDDDDSSSSSSS!!!!!
      It would have been funnier if you wrote "Nerdses"
  63. Another one bites the dust. by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    Actually, it was 7 books, not 6.

    6 books, one set of appendices.
    Appendix != book;

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

    1. Re:Another one bites the dust. by tassii · · Score: 1

      Looking at the books again and you are correct. I've been out-geeked.

      --
      "I drank what?" - Socrates
    2. Re:Another one bites the dust. by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      I've been out-geeked.

      I don't know if I should be proud or depressed :-)
      But hey, you can admit it, which makes you a better geek than many dorks in here still beating that dead horse.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  64. oh no by Arathrael · · Score: 2

    I was reading that, and thinking, "Yeah, it could be really good."

    And then I suddenly thought: to Peter Jackson, dwarves appear to be figures of fun.

    There's thirteen of them as central characters in the Hobbit.

    Thirteen.

    It's going to be a couple of hours of spectacular cgi and dwarves falling over isn't it? I wouldn't be surprised if extra scenes were inserted where they all have to get past some gap or other obstacle, and Gandalf tosses them over, while they all protest about dwarf tossing. And I can only imagine the scene where Bilbo helps them all into barrels and then tosses the lot of them.

    *sigh*

    1. Re:oh no by macaddict · · Score: 1

      We are talking about the same book, "The Hobbit", right?

      The one by J. R. R. Tolkien?

      The one where the dwarves all sing a cheery song about breaking Bilbo's dishes while they do the washing up?

      The same book with Bombur, the Fat Dwarf?

      The same book with dwarves bickering like schoolkids?

      Hate to break it to you, but Peter Jackson's version of Gimli was positively dour compared to the dwarves in "The Hobbit".

    2. Re:oh no by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1
      And then I suddenly thought: to Peter Jackson, dwarves appear to be figures of fun.

      But in The Hobbit, it would be appropriate.

      --
      Chip the glasses and crack the plates!
        Blunt the knives and bend the forks!
      That's what Bilbo Baggins hates--
        Smash the bottles and burn the corks!


      Bilbo found himself running round and round (as he thought) and calling: "Dori, Nori, Ori, Oin, Gloin, Fili, Kili, Bombur, Bifur, Bofur, Dwalin, Balin, Thorin Oakenshield," while people he could not see or feel were doing the same all round him (with an occasional "Bilbo!" thrown in).


      The barrel scene that you mentioned, the arguing trolls, the introduction to Beorn, the concept of the Dwarves putting up with Bilbo, the concept of the Dwarves being silly enough to think they could steal back the treasure or kill Smaug - the whole story is silly (but very good).
    3. Re:oh no by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1
      And then I suddenly thought: to Peter Jackson, dwarves appear to be figures of fun.


      Which is how they're written in The Hobbit.
      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    4. Re:oh no by Arathrael · · Score: 1
      Hate to break it to you, but Peter Jackson's version of Gimli was positively dour compared to the dwarves in "The Hobbit".

      Indeed. And Gimli wasn't depicted as anything like as child-like as the dwarves in the Hobbit, and he still became a figure of fun in Jackson's LOTR. What do you think the thirteen dwarves in the Hobbit are going to be like?

      Sadly, I think Jackson's going to do exactly the same thing as some of you and confuse 'some child-like characteristics' with 'silly'. They're not the same thing.

      I predict much slapstick and pratfalling. I do think he'll stop short of having them all chase each other around while the Benny Hill music plays in the background - but I don't think it'll be far off.

    5. Re:oh no by rifter · · Score: 1

      And then I suddenly thought: to Peter Jackson, dwarves appear to be figures of fun.

      And they weren't so in the book? Think about it. They were afraid to face the dragon, so they attempt to dragoon an agoraphobe into stealing some of its treasure. They mess up his house and sing about breaking his china. They're portrayed as drunken, lazy, cowardly, overly materialistic buffoons. And then in the end they get involved in a battle that is ultimately parody of warfare. Dwarves are silly and petty, just like humans. That's kind of the point, to make fun of certain human failings through the example of demihumans.

  65. Terminator FOREVER by fm6 · · Score: 1

    Actually, this would be T5. T4 came out in 2003. And franchises, by definition, never die.

  66. If Peter directs, it won't be for a while by CatConnoisseur · · Score: 1

    Peter Jackson won't be done with The Lovely Bones until next year, he's remaking The Dam Busters, and he's producing Halo. So if the producers aren't stupid and decide to wait out for him, I imagine we won't be seeing it until 2009 at the earliest.

  67. Precisely! by m0nstr42 · · Score: 1
    The story of the Thomas Crown affair is: Thomas and Catherine tear loose from their safe, mundane lives. Sure, you can write a story about the 'adventures' they had afterwards, but how is anything they do going to matter by comparison?
    Upon making this precise realization, both Crown and his wife become hopelessly depressed and spiral downward, committing more and more violent and sadistic crimes. This ultimately brings them closer together and makes them stronger, but not before a nation-wide manhunt is launched. As the FBI bears down on them, they fortify themselves in their desert hideout littered with human remains arranged into some sort of perverted art. They are not going down alive.

    Title: "Mr. and Mrs. Crown: Family of Cannibals"
  68. From the Article by Orrin+Bloquy · · Score: 1

    "Also in the pipe is 'Titanic II: 28 Days Later,' where the doomed crew and passengers return to New York only to eat the Big Apple's brains. Uwe Boll is set to box Michael Bay over directing rights to it."

    --
    "Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on /. and I must look smart."
    1. Re:From the Article by pklinken · · Score: 1

      Actually that sounds just right for Peter Jackson.

  69. Groan by GWBasic · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Groan. If Peter Jackson gives The Hobbit the same treatment that he gave King Kong, we'll be subject to two three-hour long pagents.

    Please keep The Hobbit to a reasonable length.

  70. That's easy. by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

    Blue pill.

    Tolkien wrote the Matrix.

    --
    "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
  71. jackson should have made the harry potter films by teh_chrizzle · · Score: 1

    i think the last two harry potter films couldn't stand alone since they left so much of the story out, the prisoner of azkhaban specifically. i have no idea how anyone who hasn't read those two books can make heads or tails of the plots on those two films. unless they make the order of the phoenix 5 hours long, i have no idea how they are going to tell that story without leaving out huge portions of the story. i think the producers for the goblet of fire and prisoner of azkabahn should have taken a page from jackson's book and released extended editions on DVD.

    --
    sarcasm:
    -noun
    1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
  72. Re:sequel to the thomas crown affair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    A sequel to the thomas crown affair! I am so excited.


    You should be!!! A sequel means we'll get to see Russo's 52+ year old boobies instead of her 45 year old boobies in the "original" (i.e. remake of the REAL original). Btw, it's a shame they edited the DVD for content. The theater release included a silhouette of Russo's labia when she dropped her panties for the steamy sex scene; however, somehow those few seconds of footage mysteriously failed to make it into the R-rated DVD (they stopped panning a few inches short of the money shot).

    p.s. My verification word is unfair. how fitting! :-)
  73. Didn't see Terminator 3-- won't see Term 4 by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    Term 2 ended the story properly.

    Terminator 3 tossed out the entire philosophical underpinning ("You make your own fate").

    There are lots of other things I can watch (such as the DELIGHTFUL "Dead like Me" currently in syndication on Sci-Fi) instead of prostituted warmed over rehashed crap.

    T1 Great.
    T2 A true successor to T1.
    T3 Uh.. sort of like "Highlander: The final dimension" and in some ways worse than "Battlefield: Earth"

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    1. Re:Didn't see Terminator 3-- won't see Term 4 by aronschatz · · Score: 1

      I guess you've never seen "Battlefield: Earth" then?

    2. Re:Didn't see Terminator 3-- won't see Term 4 by Elf-friend · · Score: 1

      You know, when I saw T3, I figured that the fatalism would be resolved in T4. If they have to do it without Arnold (I've heard conflicting reports), though, I can't see myself dropping the money on it. T3 was iffy enough with the absence of Linda Hamilton, and without James Cameron directing. Doing a Terminator movie without Schwarzenegger would be utterly pointless.

      IMO, T2 was one of those rare sequels that made the original movie better by its company (much like Empire and Jedi did). I figure T4 will determine whether istelf and T3 are categorized as passable-to-good sequels (I doubt anything could make them nearly as great as T2), or whether they are categorized with the Matrix sequels.

    3. Re:Didn't see Terminator 3-- won't see Term 4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldnt go talking about movies you havent even seen...

    4. Re:Didn't see Terminator 3-- won't see Term 4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Terminator 3 tossed out the entire philosophical underpinning ("You make your own fate").
      The "philosophical underpinning" of Terminator? Bwahahaha. That's a good one. Keep them coming.
    5. Re:Didn't see Terminator 3-- won't see Term 4 by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Yea I saw it- expecting a complete mess- plan 9 from outer space for the 1980's and what I got was a decent version of a 1950's sci-fi novel. It was "quaint" more than bad.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  74. marketing by AlgorithMan · · Score: 1

    so this book is called "the hobbit" in english? in germany it's called "der kleine hobbit" which means "the little hobbit"... I'd bet some marketing jerk came up with this additional word... "the hobbit? that sounds like nothing!... noone will buy it!... I'll put a 'little' in, so maybe people buy it for their kids, cause this sounds like a cute book for children..."

    --
    The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
  75. Bravo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Bravo! Now if they'll just give us Peter Jackson the same actors for Gandalf & Bilbo, so we don't suffer from "actorial dissonance." And make is soon!

    --Michael W. Perry, Author of Untangling Tolkien, the only book-length chronology of The Lord of the Rings

  76. WETA Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope another FX house gets the work.

  77. Anyone heard ... by tbone1 · · Score: 1
    ... if they're going to have Jackson remake "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes"? Man, that would rock!

    Or, rather, would be better than doing "The Silmarillion".

    --

    The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
    1. Re:Anyone heard ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather see Peter Jackson on the crapper for three hours with explosive diarrhea than a version of "The Simarillion".

  78. Just like the animated movies by Avatar8 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Those, too, suffered licensing rights and (probably) production issues causing them to be split oddly and made by two different companies.


    "The Hobbit" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077687/ was by Rankin-Bass, done as an animated movie geared towards children (as the book was) and compressed to fit in a two hour TV slot with built-in ad breaks.

    "The Lord of the Rings" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077869/ was done by Thorn EMI, was a cell over live action animation and was geared as a full length movie. This movie basically covered the first three "books," that being all of "Fellowship of the Ring," and the first half of "The Two Towers."

    "The Return of the King," http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079802/ was another Rankin-Bass made for TV movie. It almost picked up where the Thorn-EMI LotR left off starting with Samwise trying to rescue Frodo from Cirith Ungol.

    It looks like we're going to have something very similar with a Hobbit movie made by a different production company than the LotR movies.

    Personally, as long as they get Glen Yarbrough to sing (well, he's 76) "The Greatest Adventure" and "The Road Goes Ever, Ever on," I'd be happy.

    Any bets that they replace a couple of the 13 dwarves with women? :-)

    1. Re:Just like the animated movies by thesymbolicfrog · · Score: 2, Funny

      You wouldn't be able to tell. Didn't you pay attention to that entire speech by Gimli about dwarf women? :)

  79. Live Action or Animation by grgcombs · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm wondering if this would be live action or animation? The original was actually fairly scary when I was a child, and to some extent it still is. The newer live action Hobbit movies have nice effects but they just don't have that fright of the original. But I'm sure some Peter Jackson lovers will have plenty to argue about this.

  80. I thought Snape killed Dumbledore by WilliamSChips · · Score: 0, Troll

    I thought that Snape killed Dumbledore.

    --
    Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  81. bright blue my jacket is by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    In the books I actually enjoyed Tom. I wasn't disparaging him in any way. I was merely pointing out (as did many others) that Tom didn't appear in 'The Hobbit', making the OP's comment about Tom singing actually kind of stupid. Oh, and I did not miss Tom from the movie - I don't think he would have transferred well to film.

    Ah, then we're in complete agreement.
    Though it took me a while to warm up to Tom... I had issues with the whole "realistically conveying the time it takes to walk all the way to another country" thing Tolkien had going on, I just wanted them to get to the orc-slaying. But, he grows on you, and his boots are yellow.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  82. SPOILERS! Evil one! by jonskerr · · Score: 2, Funny

    Bad man! Both off topic and putting a spoiler in a headline. May the fleas who crawl across shit bite your ass, then bury their eggs in your nostrils.

    --
    O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
  83. Big difference here by Tarlus · · Score: 1
    First of all, The Hobbit is technically not a sequel or a prequel to LotR, but rather an older story from which LotR later grew.

    Second of all, you are tired of Hollywood sequels, which I agree with completely. Contrived sequels are rarely better than the original, and are in fact just a way to milk a name that sells for more money.

    What we're talking about in the case of The Hobbit is not a Hollywood attempt to make money. (Well, okay, maybe we are.)
    But anyway, they aren't slapping together a story to milk as much as they can from the popularity of LotR. This is a book that was written more than half a century ago, and I think as a film it would set the stage for the LotR movies nicely.

    But like I say, The Hobbit won't be the generic cash-in that you appear to be tired of.

    --
    /* No Comment */
  84. Tom Bombadil is The Doctor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's because Tom Bombadil is The Doctor, of Doctor Who, or given the chronology of the way things were published, The Doctor is Tom Bombadil.

  85. You like Jordan? by hearingaid · · Score: 1
    OK, that's strange for a Tolkien nut, but I digress.

    Read some Zelazny. He's the only other author in modern fantasy who's as influential as Tolkien & Lewis. That is, he does his own thing, and it's different from Tolkien. He has followers (some of whom I really like, especially Brust), but he's an original.

    --

    my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore

  86. Noooo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pleeeeeeeeaaaaaase, not Peter Jackson again!!!

  87. Wait... 6 books?? by Tarlus · · Score: 1
    LotR by itself is only three books, one per film.

    The fact that it was even divided into three books was against Tolkien's will. He wanted the whole thing to be one huge book but the publisher talked him into dividing it into thirds since one huge book is quite a beast to tackle.

    --
    /* No Comment */
  88. Is Gandalf a Maia? -- Yes, Maia he. by tepples · · Score: 1
    Gandalf is indeed a maia (god)

    -- Maia he.
    -- Maia who?
    -- Maia
    -- Oh. Maia.
    (both) Ha ha!

  89. Re:maiar by jonskerr · · Score: 1

    The various villains of LotR and Silmarillion are very great in power, but they do weird stuff to take over the world: they spread their power out into many minions. In the short term, this is an overall increase, but when/if those minions get the chop, the overall power level is decreased. Both Morgoth and Sauron were able to assume whatever form pleased them at first, but when they met with physical death they lost that ability and could only manifest as dark Lords, tall and terrible. Sauron lost his second body when Dol Guldur was thrown down by the White Council, led by Galadriel bearing the elven ring while Saruman still counceled waiting. His spirit fled to the Barad-Dur, which his servants had been long preparing, and made himself another body there, the one with the single eye. The film (along with many other mistakes it made) showed Sauron as a big Will O' the Wisp, but the books clearly say Sauron had a great body that burned with a terrible heat. Gollum even says he's missing a finger on one hand. ... Hey, I just discovered a continuity error in the books! Gollum says Sauron is missing a finger, but he wasn't captured by Sauron until after Dol Guldur was thrown down. I rule! Whoohoo! Nergasm!

    --
    O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
  90. Then Schwarzenegger or De Niro as Gandalf! by spineboy · · Score: 1

    Who else can we mis-cast
        Louie Anderson as Thorin Oakenshield
    And Bilbo of course played by James Gandolfini (Tony Soprano)

    Any suggestions for Chuck Norris? -He has to have a part in this movie.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
  91. Re:SPOILERS! Evil one! by Jerf · · Score: 1

    Oh come on, everybody knows by now.

  92. An excuse for Clerks III? by Elouise · · Score: 1

    I guess the next line will be "All it was, was a bunch of people walking, four or possibly five movies of people walking to a fu*king volcano."

  93. Re:Narya by jonskerr · · Score: 1

    yes, Gandalf received the ring from Cirdan when he arrived in Middle Earth. However, it doesn't make him immune to Balrog fire. He tells Aragorn and Gimli "Long time we fell, and his flames were around me, and I was burned." when talking about the long fall from the bridge of Khazad-dum.

    And yes, I get laid quite regularly in fact.

    --
    O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
  94. Re:maiar by makohund · · Score: 1

    Ya'll keep talking about the various times Sauron has had his ass handed to him, but no one is getting it right.

    Went down with Numenor... yeah.
    Knocked out by Gil-galad, Elendil, and Isildur... yeah.
    Shoved aside by the White Council... sure.

    But what about the first time?

    Luthien and Huan gave him his first ass kicking/death.

    How come nobody ever remembers that one?

  95. Re:wandering? by jonskerr · · Score: 1

    Well, if you add up the third and second ages, which have very definite dates, and then the unknown long ages of the First Age, you might get around 21,000 years. That still puts him 10,000 years older than Galadriel.

    --
    O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
  96. Re:Chuck Norris by jonskerr · · Score: 1

    Well, obviously in the Hobbit the part of Bard would have to be played by Chuck Norris, only instead of shooting the dwarven arrow into a tiny hold in Smaug's armor, he can super jump, round-house kick Smaug until there's a nice big hole, then put his fist through it, holding the arrow. Then slam dunk Smaug into Long Lake.

    Sauron tried to recruit Chuck Norris into his service, but there wasn't enough mithril in Middle Earth to make it worth it to him.

    --
    O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
  97. Re:maiar by Patoski · · Score: 1


    Luthien and Huan gave him his first ass kicking/death.

    How come nobody ever remembers that one?


    Because Morgoth was the bad ass of that story. Sauron was only a lesser bad ass at the time. :)

    Oh, and it is the Silmarillion, which gets read a lot less than LoTRs. :(

    Nice pull by the way!

    "But as she went he swiftly came
    and called he with the tender name
    of nightingales in elvish tongue,
    that all the woods now sudden rung :
    'Tinúviel ! Tinúviel !'"

    --
    G. Washington on Government "it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
  98. sequels by thinsoldier · · Score: 1

    ...more and more damned sequels...:(

    "Terminator 4"; one or two installments of "The Hobbit," and a sequel to "The Thomas Crown Affair"

  99. Not computers by wiredog · · Score: 1

    Well, not completely. They used forced perspective (a technique dating back decades) for many of the scenes.

  100. maiar != gods by Medievalist · · Score: 2, Informative

    ANGELS, and minor ones at that, not gods.

    Eru, the One, is the sole True God of Tolkien's mythos, and the Valar are "demiurges" (either minor godlings or arch-arch-angels -- presumably the name derives from the greek "demiurgos" and refers to the Valar's roles as the creators of Middle-Earth). Maia are equivalent to angels, so Gandalf is sort of like one of the brawling angels of christianity (think Micheal, for example) that get involved directly with human affairs.

    Morgoth was an evil valar; Sauron, his lieutentant, was an evil maiar... so technically Sauron's just a very powerful balrog with good PR.

    All thoroughly explained in "The Silmarillion", which JRRT thought was not ready for publication (and I have to agree, though there are some tasty bits starring Turin Turambar).

    Not so well explained is how JRRT intended this to tie in with christianity, although I believe he explicitly identified Gandalf's resurrection with Jesus's at some point.

    1. Re:maiar != gods by Hoarke42 · · Score: 1

      "Not so well explained is how JRRT intended this to tie in with christianity, although I believe he explicitly identified Gandalf's resurrection with Jesus's at some point."

      I believe it was in the intro to one of the "Lost Books of Middle Earth" (I haven't read much of them), or other such non-published by JRRT, he was said to have not like introducing modern religion when writing "older" mythology, and that was, in his opinion, one of the downsides to the tales of C.S. Lewis.

  101. Recent history by why-is-it · · Score: 1
    The Hobbit would be a prequel.

    As were the Star Wars prequels...

    Will Peter Jackson sell out like George Lucas did?

    --
    *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
  102. Horses for courses. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    I would not class shameless repeats as good movies without actually having seen them.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  103. Well, the SWORD is crucial to LOTR plot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    In the movie, Aragorn randomly hands the four hobbits four short swords right before the Nazgul attack at Amon Sul. He doesn't explain where they come from nor how he came to have them
    This, to me, is Jackson's greatest failing. I understand making Arwen a more active character, I understand dropping the Pukel-men, the Prince of Dol Amroth, the Black Corsairs, Glorfindel, Bombadil and Goldberry. Cinema is a different medium than text and adjustments had to be made for the sake of marketability if nothing else. But, C'MON, that's a KEY POINT of the story, for crying out loud! Would it have hurt to have Aragorn say "OK, guys, I just plundered the barrows of my ancestors to get you these magical daggers which you can use for swords; they were forged to slay the Witch-King of Angmar and his minions"? We can lose Bombadil, sure, but why turn a critical "arming of the warrior" scene into an unbelievable throwaway ("Gee, looks like you need some swords - well I've been invisibly and silently lugging thirty pounds of steel with me ever since we met, here ya go. I bet they'll work great on invulnerable wraiths!")
    1. Re:Well, the SWORD is crucial to LOTR plot by pjp6259 · · Score: 1

      In the extended addition, they are gifts from the elves. Just like the crystal given to Frodo, and the rope given to Sam. I don't think they gave same the box of dirt in the movie.

      --
      Computers don't make mistakes. What they do, they do on purpose.
  104. Never mind Peter Jackson.. by Belly · · Score: 1

    I'd like to see James Cameron do "The Hobbinator 2", where it turns out that just before Gollum got tossed into Mount Doom with the ring, Sauron used his power to send a Nazgul disguised as a Hobbit back in time to kill Frodo. But Gandalf finds out and also sends a lone warrior back in time to protect Frodo... um. Faramir. Yeah, thats it. Also discuised as a Hobbit. Or just crouching a lot. Or something like that..

  105. Also a steward by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1
    What really bothered me about this in the movie was that they could very well have had Aragorn give the swords to the hobbits and in passing give mention to their origin (or someone else could have noticed the odd weapons and told them later if time was an issue) replacing the similar book scene with Tom.
    Indeed. In the cultures and mythologies that Tolkien drew from to create his six books (it's not a trilogy), seven including The Hobbit, the lineage of a weapon was very important and always relayed when granting them. Cutting Bombadil from the film weakened the forshadowing quite a bit, perhaps necessary when trying to squeeze six books into three films, but at least Aragorn could have mentioned the lineage of the weapons when handing them out in the film verion.

    At the end of the story, Gandalf left the hobbits on their own to deal with the scourging of the Shire while he himself set of to talk with Bombadil who was "also a steward".

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.