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

age

[Anonymous Coward]

Since all the actors are older, how are they going to portray them as younger looking? I'm mostly wondering about Gandolf and Gollum.

Who cares about the hobbit?

[Anonymous Coward]

A sequel to the thomas crown affair! I am so excited.

Re:Huh?!?!

[Kuj0317]

Yep.

One for there
One for back again

clean division.

I know, jokes aside i agree. However, this is hollywood, and epics=$$$.

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...

Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused

[TrappedByMyself]

Well, if I had my way, we'd see a singing Tom AND he would be played by Shatner.

Such a missed opportunity.

Re:Huh?!?!

[JeTmAn81]

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.

Re:Huh?!?!

[Mr. Slippery]

There were only 3 LoTR books. Not 6.

LoTR is actually one novel of six books published in three volumes.

Tom Bombadil is crucial to LOTR plot

[Phoenix666]

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.

Re:Tom Bombadil is crucial to LOTR plot

[Himring]

Interesting point on Merry's sword vs. the Witch King. I never made that connection before.

The thing about Tom is his mysterious nature. My initial forays into the Internet, in the early 90s, was to discuss Tolkien and I specifically remember the early and best dialogues concerning Bombadil. I have often thought that he is one of the most, if not the most, discussed aspect of ME on the Internet.

Tolkien knew the power of the unfinished tale (no pun), and indeed made a doosey in Bombadil. To read about Tom in LoTR is to not get bogged down by his appearance or nonsensical nature. It is instead to realize that these mask an incredibly powerful being, of great mystery, who is embedded in the mythos of Tolkien. Tolkien was no dummy, and knew exactly what he was doing when having Gandalf answer the question of who Bombadil was with "he is" (akin to the "Yahweh" of Judaism). I think Tolkien very cleverly added aspects from Norse & other religions into his work as George Lucas, and others, have learned to do.

Tom carries incredible influence over everything around him, and is the only being to not only NOT be tempted by the ring, but to actually play with it and even, inversely, make the ring itself disappear (to which he laughs). If all else were to fall to Sauran, Gandalf explains, there would be only Tom, "he was the first and will be the last" (alpha/omega reference?). (I'm pulling these quotes off my head, but they should be 99% accurate.

Others see Tom as a nature spirit or with other meaning, but the point should be that he marries the LoTR to the greater cosmology. Leaving him out of the movies has almost elevated his mystery IMO. I think it was a good move all around.

I certainly do not remember him being in The Hobbit, and although I've not read The Hobbit in years, I have read it a half dozen times. Still, I've learned the hard way on making pronouncements about Tolkien's works -- so avid are the fans as even Ebert pointed out....