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.
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.
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!?
AirSpeak - http://itunes.com/apps/AirSpeak
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.
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.
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?!
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
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!
"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? :-)
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.