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.

Comments

The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused

[lightyear4]

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

Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused

[TopShelf]

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

Possibly the wrong Idea

[AndyG314]

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.

Re:Graverobbing

[kalirion]

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?

Re:age

[DragonWriter]

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.

Re:Graverobbing

[Scrameustache]

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.

Re:Three movies I'd like to see

[keithburgun]

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

Re:Tom Singing?

[Himring]

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."