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.
A sequel to the thomas crown affair! I am so excited.
Yep.
One for there
One for back again
clean division.
I know, jokes aside i agree. However, this is hollywood, and epics=$$$.
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
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...
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?
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.
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
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.
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...
Oh yeah money, loads and loads of money.
God spoke to me.
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
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)
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."
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.
That was Ian the Grey. X3 starred Ian the White.