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.
Since all the actors are older, how are they going to portray them as younger looking? I'm mostly wondering about Gandolf and Gollum.
NO MORE SEQUELS!!!
I think the invisible hand of the market has its middle finger extended
--A wise old fart named SC0RN
A sequel to the thomas crown affair! I am so excited.
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?
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
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
Yep.
One for there
One for back again
clean division.
I know, jokes aside i agree. However, this is hollywood, and epics=$$$.
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.
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
While many may know the story for those that don't look here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit/
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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."
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...
Each of the 3 books was divided into 2 books. There were 6 books.
"A Tale of Two Cities" was 2 books, similarly.
Starmen.net
I'd be OK with two 2-hour movies instead of one 4-hour movie. :)
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.
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
"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*
I just can't imagine our fine governor taking time out to make T4. Who would be in it?
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?
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.
My twitter
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.
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
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?
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)
Directed by Mel Brooks:
History of the World, Part Zero
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.
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
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?
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.
Let It Die. See New Start Trek Movie in 2008 for reference example.
That is all.
Oh yeah money, loads and loads of money.
God spoke to me.
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."
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.
Cut a computer a little slack.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
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
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
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)
Tom? Who cares about Tom?!?
The real question: with or without Leonard Nimoy singing? (Warning: QT video embedded. But so, so worth it.)
Didn't he die shortly after the filming?
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."
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
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
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.
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.
I've got a feeling that they will probably go with a more influential director, like Michael Bay.
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.
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)
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.
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.
He wants to but will be put that idea aside to run for politcal office again?
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
What the hell does this have to do with Jackson?
I don't care why you're posting AC
With or without Leonard Singing is all I wanna know.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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/
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.
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."
"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."
You and your precise terminology.
We all know that LotR is actually one book of six books published in three books.
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
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...
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...
It did. There were 2 DVDs for every "movie". 6 total.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Your knowledge of The Lord of the Rings is astounding. I could only have been impressed more had you responded in Klingon.
Actually, it was 7 books, not 6.
6 books, one set of appendices.
Appendix != book;
You can't take the sky from me...
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.
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.
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...
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
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*
Actually, this would be T5. T4 came out in 2003. And franchises, by definition, never die.
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.
Title: "Mr. and Mrs. Crown: Family of Cannibals"
m0nstr42.blogspot.com
"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
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."
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Or, rather, would be better than doing "The Silmarillion".
The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
Secret door wide, Bilbo walks alone into the darkness and into the depths of Erebor, the Lonely Mountain, to confront Smaug.
"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.
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...
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...
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 LotRBad 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
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 */
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
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 */
-- Maia he.
-- Maia who?
-- Maia
-- Oh. Maia.
(both) Ha ha!
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
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.
Oh come on, everybody knows by now.
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."
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
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?
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
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
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."
...more and more damned sequels...:(
"Terminator 4"; one or two installments of "The Hobbit," and a sequel to "The Thomas Crown Affair"
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.
Well, not completely. They used forced perspective (a technique dating back decades) for many of the scenes.
Best Slashdot Co
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.
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?
I would not class shameless repeats as good movies without actually having seen them.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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.
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..
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.