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.
While many may know the story for those that don't look here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit/
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."
The Hobbit would be a prequel.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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. "
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.
Sorry, Which they use to kill the captain of the ring-raiths, not Sauron.
Don't steal. The government hates competition.
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.
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."
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?
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.
>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.
Presumably in the same manner they made Elijah Wood and friends look like hobbits:
Magic!
Err, I mean...
Computers!
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.
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.