Tolkien Enterprises To Film Hobbit With Jackson?

cyclomedia writes "TheOneRing.Net has a new scoop on the ongoing Hobbit Movie saga, sourced from elbenwald.de. Apparently the rights to make the Hobbit film fall back to Saul Zaentz 'next year.' He claims that, under their stewardship, The Hobbit will 'definitely be shot by Peter Jackson.' For the whippersnappers amongst you: Mr. Zaentz is the head honcho of Tolkien Enterprises, which originally acquired exclusive rights to productions of the LOTR and Hobbit material in 1976, prior to overseeing the Bakshi animated version of LOTR."

Comments

Tolkein?

[pugdk]

Who is this Tolkein you are talking about?

Re:Tolkein?

[BeeBeard]

Don't you mean "Who are you Tolkien about?" :)

Re:Tolkein?

[yakumo.unr]

Yeah,

i before e except after c

too much 'Mortal Kombat' confusing you CmdrTaco ? ;)

Re:Tolkein?

[Marwood]

Last night I dreamt I'd written Lord of the Rings, when I woke up it turns out that I'd just been Tolkien in my sleep.

Re:Tolkein?

[__aaclcg7560]

Master of the One Hobbit to rule all Hobbits!

Re:Tolkein?

[Anonymous Coward]

Allow me to take one step lower.... Whatcha Tolkien 'bout Willis?

Re:Tolkein?

[Anonymous Coward]

The ringmaster, you fool of a took!

Re:Tolkein?

[seventhc]

You mean...What are you Tolkien :P

Re:Tolkein?

[Anonymous Coward]

I ain't goin on no elf boat, sucka!

Re:Tolkein?

[Haeleth]

i before e except after c

A wierd rule, bieng niether accurate nor sufficeint as a guide to spelling. I wish the people who came up with these rhymes would check thier facts more sceintifically.

Re:Tolkein?

[yakumo.unr]

It's a very, very old one, /. not being a site devoted to English grammar I didn't feel the need to point out that everyone knows it has plenty of exceptions.

Re:Tolkein?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or possibly - "What's you tolkien about there Willis?"

Does this explain New Line's decision?

[Xest]

I guess this is perhaps why New Line didn't want to hang around for Jackson any longer and why they sounded in such a rush to get it started in their statements?

How does film licensing work, if New Line doesn't finish the film by the time Tolkien enterprises gets the license back are they allowed to publish it still or do they lose all rights to it?

Re:Does this explain New Line's decision?

[Timesprout]

I guess this is perhaps why New Line didn't want to hang around for Jackson any longer

I think its more Jackson not being prepared to work with New Line again given he had to sue them for his royalties. Trying to stiff the person who created a cash cow for you is not exactly conducive to a harmonious working relationship.

Re:Does this explain New Line's decision?

[Lissajous]

Pretty much yeah - my guess is that even though New Line are legally entitled to make The Hobbit prior to the license revoking, given this news that PJ will film it with Tolkien Enterprises (assuming he confirms it, of course) will pretty much scupper that.
After all, it's the Jackson/WETA name that would put bums on seats rather than the New Line name. I mean, which would you go to see? A rush-job put out so NL could monopolize on the license before it expired, or a piece where Jackson *and* Tolkien Enterprises paid the proper respect to the IP? Thanks for the offer of a Big Mac, but I don't want to ruin my appetite.

Re:Does this explain New Line's decision?

[edwardpickman]

Depends on the original agreement. Generally you have to start production by a certain date. Sometimes there's extensions of rights based on filming a version. Corman was hired to make an unreleased version of Fantastic Four to extend the rights. It's intended to allow for sequels but they were able to use that provision to retain the rights as well.

Re:Does this explain New Line's decision?

[Sv-Manowar]

I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that "Tolkien Enterprises" hold the rights to the films (LOTR, Hobbit etc) and were paid by New Line in order to grant them a license to create them (evidently this would have been for a large sum of money and all of the films at once, rather than licensing each individual one at a time as it would have given either side a chance to renegotiate based on the success/failure of what was release). This deal would have been signed with a clause saying that it "ends" in X amount of years, so that Tolkien Enterprises take back the rights and can either produce it themselves or relicense it to another studio in the case of New Line not producing the film in time, putting it on the backburner or just deciding not to work on it for monetary/staff reasons (such as the dispute with Peter Jackson now).

If New Line do not get production underway pretty soon, they risk the rights being taken away from them and I have a feeling that is the primary reason why they are making noise about moving on without Peter Jackson, because evidently they do not want to stop fighting the lawsuit but that is probably the only way it could happen any time soon. What they risk is the backlash that is beginning now, with stars such as Ian Mckellen expressing "dissapointment" at the Jackson scenario, I have a feeling that New Line will run into some problems getting a number of the actors and crew back on board without the man who practically 'made' the franchise what it is.

Re:Does this explain New Line's decision?

[Woldry]

if New Line doesn't finish the film by the time Tolkien enterprises gets the license back are they allowed to publish it still or do they lose all rights to it?

Egad, I hope that's not how it works. If they haven't picked a director yet, and they're still going to try to film and release the thing within a year, it's going to be a rush job. Overall, I liked Jackson's take on LOTR, although I have some serious complaints (extraneous additions and tin-eared dialogue that would have made JRRT weep, making Gimli a comic figure instead of a formidable warrior, omitting the Scouring of the Shire, blah blah blah -- you know, the usual). But at least Jackson knew that the material couldn't be rushed into production. No matter who they get instead, if they have to get the whole thing done in under a year, it's going to be bloody awful.

Re:Does this explain New Line's decision?

[0123456]

Not to mention that many of the fans will boycott a Hobbit movie that isn't made with Jackson's blessing, even if he isn't directing it. I don't see how it makes any sense for New Line to make a movie without him.

Re:Does this explain New Line's decision?

[Cruise_WD]

It never ceases to amaze me when people are so incredibly short-sighted. Given that Peter Jackson created a trilogy that was /hugely/ successful, and that the vast majority of people associate his name with the films rather than New Line (I could not have told you the film company associated with LotR [or any film, for that matter] had you asked), what makes more sense:

1) "Let's try and screw him for his royalties, but in the process piss him off so he'll never work for us again."

or

2) "Let's be really nice to him so he'll keep making these financially successful films for us."

How far up your arse does head need to be for 1) to see like the best option?

Re:Does this explain New Line's decision?

[Dunbal]

"Let's be really nice to him so he'll keep making these financially successful films for us."

      But, but, after you account for all the 5 star hotels, first class air tickets, german cars, party girls and cocaine, the film actually lost money! "What - you mean we have to buy our OWN coke?" - A random New Line executive

Re:Does this explain New Line's decision?

[jeffasselin]

They're movie executives. The guys who got together and founded the MPAA and choose its policies and staff. Were you expecting them to be nice people? Seriously.

Re:Does this explain New Line's decision?

[ronanbear]

It's pretty standard in the film industry. New Line took huge risks by funding 3 movies at once but they also made a lot more money. It was a complicated deal that created opportunities to fiddle the books. They didn't just stiff Jackson though. Tolkien Enterprises also sued New Line http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien_Enterprises for $20m.

The details of the deal aren't too well known. In fact Jackson wasn't aware until recently that the rights would expire at all. It's hard to speculate but it appears that New Line still have time to make the Hobbit and the deal should cover some overrun so that work can still continue on an unfinished project.

After that the rights revert to Tolkien Enterprises so unless there's a clause in the contract that stops Tolkien Enterprises from reshooting the Hobbit immediately it's entirely possible that Jackson could make another version within a year or two (or within months if they were to write the script and do preproduction before they acquire the rights).

A New Line Hobbit film is likely to be profitable so there's a good chance they might try that and hope that Jackson doesn't want to take the risk to compete with a later attempt.

Re:Does this explain New Line's decision?

[bladesjester]

I'd say that a large part of the reason for not putting Gimli in a more warrior role had a lot to do with the fact that they had to shoot all of his scenes seperately, and getting the shot of Rhys-Davies lined up perfectly with the shot of the other main characters *and* the CGI monsters would be difficult. And then you have the scenes where the monsters are actors and that becomes even harder because fight scenes are not easy to duplicate.

I always found it kind of funny that the guy playing the dwarf was basically the biggest one in the movie. Besides, who says warriors can't also be something of a comic figure? After so many times of someone wanting to split your skull, it becomes something you start to have a bit of a sense of humor about - otherwise you crack =]

Re:Does this explain New Line's decision?

[1u3hr]

How does film licensing work, if New Line doesn't finish the film by the time Tolkien enterprises gets the license back are they allowed to publish it still or do they lose all rights to it?

New Line has an "option". If they want to actually make the film, they have to pay (a lot) as specified in their option contract to exercise that option. Once they do that, they have a set time, probably several years, to produce and release the film before these rights expire. Otherwise, the option expires and it seems won't be renewed.

There will be other payments specified at milestones of production: first day of principal photography, final wrap, release, and some profit sharing after that. Sometimes you see a studio rushing a movie into production on a shoestring, releasing it for a few days, then burying it; all to keep control of a property to allow them to remake it later on a big budget -- I believe there was a Spider-Man movie made long ago like that.

Re:Does this explain New Line's decision?

[ronanbear]

Rhys-Davies height put him in correct height proportion to the hobbit actors. This way any scene involving Gimli and the hobbits could be shot directly and it only took two settings for forced perspective to be used in all the scenes.

The advantages in filming were significant but yeah it was ironic.

Re:Does this explain New Line's decision?

[kimvette]

Were you expecting them to be nice people?

They tell us all the time that they are nice, and that they are striving hard to protect the starving artists who put in a ton of work to produce these films. Are you implying that this is not true and that the MPAA is not made up of nice people? OH NOES tell me it ain't so!!! I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that you would make such allegations! ;)

Re:Does this explain New Line's decision?

[geobeck]

it appears that New Line still have time to make the Hobbit...it's entirely possible that Jackson could make another version within a year or two...

Given this development, it's more likely that New Line will scrap their version unless they are really shortsighted (which is entirely possible). It's kind of like trying to sell a mediocre 1.2 release of a product when everyone is buzzing about the far superior 2.0 release just ahead.

And with the size of the official LOTR fan club, the fact that New Line has much more marketing muscle won't matter as much; word of mouth will be huge in advertising "Peter and the Ring V2.0".

Re:Does this explain New Line's decision?

[lawpoop]

"2) "Let's be really nice to him so he'll keep making these financially successful films for us.""

It's not that simple. There's no guarantee that he can continue to make successful films. If you look at the career of any "great" director (except for a few luminaries), you will find hit, flop, flop, hit, hit, flop, flop, hit, etc. Even if they made what is considered a classic film, it may have lost money or not been very successful at the box office.

So yes, continuing to work with Peter Jackson is still a big risk. Case in point: King Kong.

Re:Does this explain New Line's decision?

[somersault]

I'd probably just see both (have an unlimited cinema card for £113 a year, why not use it?), why not? Though since Newline are being such a bunch of selfish bastards by the sounds of things, I may just not watch it in protest... I don't see what's so great about the original LOTR movies that everyone adores Peter Jackson though? Was he the one that gutted the plot, removing and adding bits (bad)? Was he the one that wrote the music (pretty good)? Not that I've watched all the extended versions or read past the second book. The story itself is really dry and empty compared to books like The Hobbit, and most of the Chronicles of Narnia. I'm used to my fantasy stories being fun and interesting though (DiscWorld) :p *wonders how many people will think of him as a heathen heretic*

Re:Does this explain New Line's decision?

[rochrist]

It's not that simple. There's no guarantee that he can continue to make successful films. If you look at the career of any "great" director (except for a few luminaries), you will find hit, flop, flop, hit, hit, flop, flop, hit, etc. Even if they made what is considered a classic film, it may have lost money or not been very successful at the box office.

So yes, continuing to work with Peter Jackson is still a big risk. Case in point: King Kong. Which pulled in 550 million from the theatrical release alone, with a production budget of 207 million. Not LOTR numbers, but not a failure either.

Re:Does this explain New Line's decision?

[Name Anonymous]

How far up your arse does head need to be for 1) to seem like the best option?

The best person to answer that question would be their proctologist.

Re:Does this explain New Line's decision?

[Hawthorne01]

Congratulations to New Line, they've done what I had previously considered impossible; they've made me cheer for Sal Zaentz.

Maybe there's still hope: Maybe they both can lose.

Background here.

Re:Does this explain New Line's decision?

[ArcticCelt]

"Trying to stiff the person who created a cash cow for you is not exactly conducive to a harmonious working relationship."

It makes me think of what Sierra did with Valve (Half Life games). After Valve made the two hugely successful cash cows that are half life 1 and 2 Sierra decided to try to screw them. It went to court and in the end Valve won and then dumped Sierra for Electronics Arts. How stupid do you have to be to act like that with your successful business partners?

Re:Does this explain New Line's decision?

[ubernostrum]

A New Line Hobbit film is likely to be profitable so there's a good chance they might try that and hope that Jackson doesn't want to take the risk to compete with a later attempt.

Except, in a classic case of overly-complex intellectual property laws, New Line doesn't own distribution rights to The Hobbit. MGM does. Which means New Line could make the film, they just couldn't send it out to any theaters without MGM's permission. And MGM is saying that "the matter of Peter Jackson directing 'The Hobbit' films is far from closed."

Re:Does this explain New Line's decision?

[shiz98]

Actually, the LoTR trilogy was funded by New Zealand, not New Line. The risks New Line took were actually fairly minimal, all things considered.

Re:Does this explain New Line's decision?

[lawpoop]

Yes. Now that Peter Jackson has gotten the taste for budgets in the hundreds of millions, and the artistic vision of 3-hour epics, it's only possible that he can create hits. There's no more chance of risk there. It's money in the bank.

Re:Does this explain New Line's decision?

[electrosoccertux]

Lately I've begun to wonder...

when will these people have enough money? Particularly, is $50m more really worth having a crappy "The Hobbit" movie? If I already had $300m, I'd be more interested in securing rights for the BETTER PRODUCER than the one that can bring me more money. Serenity/Firefly is the perfect example of this IMO. If you have all that money, what do you do with it if there's nothing fun worth buying?

Re:Does this explain New Line's decision?

[K8Fan]

...have an unlimited cinema card for £113 a year, why not use it?

I wish they'd introduce those in the USA. Is it an American chain that offers this? It would save me hundreds per year.

Re:Does this explain New Line's decision?

[somersault]

Nope, I live in the UK and it's Cineworld that do this (you have to pay something like £30 extra if you want all the London Cineworld theatres included too, but I live in Aberdeen so I don't need that :) ). There must be some equivalent in some places in america, surely?

I think they expect to make money off of food, because since I don't have to pay for tickets anymore, I've been more tempted by the food even with its ridiculous pricing.. £4 for a little tub of ice-cream! :p

Re:Does this explain New Line's decision?

[voice_of_all_reason]

How stupid do you have to be to act like that with your successful business partners?

Vanity... definitely my favorite sin.

Re:Does this explain New Line's decision?

[Moofie]

But that's Dreamworks Animation's whole business model: Figure out what Pixar is going to do next, and rush out something that uses the same buzzwords (but is of drastically inferior quality). Oh yeah, and cast Eddie Murphy and/or Woody Allen.

There are exceptions, of course, but the parallels are, um, obvious.

Re:Does this explain New Line's decision?

[Anonymous Coward]

Vanity... definitely my favorite sin.Great movie.

New scoops coming soon

[Rastignac]

Peter Jackson will write a book "If I Did It". He will also sing a reggae song "I shot the Hobbit" (featuring Gollum as a CGI Bob Marley).

Re:New scoops coming soon

[BeeBeard]

"No precioussssss I did not shoot stupid, fat deputy!"

I'd buy it!

Re:New scoops coming soon

[Anonymous Coward]

The original Ballad of Bilbo Baggins. Warning, contains spoilers :-)

I just wanna know...

[cronot]

... what all these guys have against the Hobbit? I mean, this Saul guy is hiring that thug Peter to have the Hobbit shot... That Hobbit should have banged his wife or something...

Re:I just wanna know...

[Jugalator]

OK, you just used Peter Jackson, hobbits, shooting, and banging in the same post. :-(

Re:I just wanna know...

[__aaclcg7560]

So you're suggesting that Peter Jackson make hobbit porn?

Re:I just wanna know...

[Simon Garlick]

Hey, let's not forget "Meet The Feebles".

Glamdring et. al.

[Lissajous]

May I be the first to suggest that the props team make all the weaponry from Damascus steel http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/1 6/2348254. That way they can join in the rest of us with the huge collective "w00tz" at this news!

Hooray!

[Hubbell]

Another classic that is near and dear to all our nerdy hearts is about to be butchered by Jackson. To be quite honest, he ruined the Lord of the Rings trilogy in my mind, every idea I had about mordor was torn asunder and beaten like baby seals.

Re:Hooray!

[Dunbal]

Why is this a troll? It's one thing to edit and abridge a story in order to make it fit a motion picture format. It's another thing entirely to take huge liberties with the characters and create fictitious events in order to justify these "new" characters. Some of the greatest drama in Return of the King was reduced to petty bickering between the main characters - in order to leave more room for the "special effects".

      I also shudder to think to what they will do to The Hobbit.

Re:Hooray!

[1u3hr]

Why is this a troll?

No, looks more like an orc.

Re:Hooray!

[Anonymous Coward]

No one forces you to watch them, you twat! Just because you don't like something, you may be surprised that your lowly opinion is not the law like 15th century royals. Just piss off elsewhere if you don't like something, save your time and energy for further masturbation or something.

Re:Hooray!

[biscon]

I missed Tom Bombadil and the other leftout's as well, but face it he would look stupid on film :) (probably in some obscure Jar Jar Bings CG way)

Re:Hooray!

[Dunbal]

I missed Tom Bombadil and the other leftout's as well, but face it he would look stupid on film :)

    I didn't miss Tom at all - that would have been silly in a film. I just didn't like all the stuff they did to Faramir - I mean come on the ONLY reason they "went back to Osgiliath" was to allow for more special effects; and the stupid interaction with Frodo, Sam and Gollum (nyah nyah he believes ME not YOU) at the end. Faramir and Sam are extremely strong, principled characters, and PJ managed to tarnish that quite well, without actually adding anything to the film.

Re:Hooray!

[Anonymous Coward]

Heaven forbid that anyone would insert "fictitious events" into a work of... um... fiction.

Re:Hooray!

[RKThoadan]

I really thought that the Faramir part of the movie was very poorly done. I can understand wanting to make Faramir more of an obstacle than the free pass that he was, but they did it so horribly that I think it was the wrong call. Faramir's 'conversion' just didn't work. I mean Frodo almost hands the ring over to the Chief Nazgul and this somehow convinces Faramir that he's the right person to try to take the ring straight into Mordor? Now, if he had cold-cocked Frodo and handed the ring off to Sam I might have believed it.

However, on the whole I think PJ did a darn good job with the books and I want to see him do the Hobbit. It may have been written as a childrens book, but there is so much of a dark side to it that I think it could actually be a much darker and scarier movie than LOTR. It will be interesting to see how they handle the elves in that one, since they aren't exactly the good guys.

Re:Hooray!

[owlnation]

I've never understood the frequent "but the film makers changed the story wah wah wah" complaint - for any movie, not just LoTR.

Film is Film, TV is TV, Books are Books, Opera is Opera, etc etc... it is near impossible to adapt a book or a play to the big screen without changing elements - for a whole variety of reasons. For example, the drama of a play is delivered by actors who are so far away from their audience that subtle gestures HAVE to be replaced by dialogue, for a movie you can lose all that dialogue and replace it with close-ups and reaction shots. Books can allow characters to have narration or internal monologues which invariably looks cheesy on the big screen. The rhythm, cadence and pacing of a book is usually radically different from the needs of a movie.

They are NOT the same. They will NEVER be the same. Whether they are better or worse is subjective. They give out oscars for screen adaptations for a reason. It is damn hard.

Feel free to compare apples to apples - i.e. it is perfectly valid to compare a remake with the original film, but comparing film to book is not necessarily valid. The important thing to realize is that they are NOT mutually destructive. You actually can enjoy the book and also enjoy the movie. Or only one of them if you dislike the other. You lose nothing.

And...a bad film version will not mean that there can never be another film version.

Re:Hooray!

[a.d.trick]

Your point is a good one, but they had reason's for why they did it as they did. Culture has changed durastically in the past half-century. The things that the original readers would have found enjoyable in the books just go straight over most peoples heads today. I think the change is not so much because poeple have become stupider (although there probably is some of that) but that the theather targets a much less educated audience. Bookworms and couch potatoes are pretty different audinences. People like you and I are a rarety these days (actually, I think we always have been). The movie studios wanted to produce something that most poeple could understand, and they had to make compromises to accomplish that.

Re:Hooray!

[skam240]

I'll have to admit, I've never really quite gotten most of the complaints against the lord of the ring movies. It seems to me that allot of the people complaining are expecting every little bit and piece of the book to end up in the movie. given that movies and books are extremely different artistic mediums, really the only thing a person should expect from a movie version of a book is that it stays true to the spirit of the book. this, i think, the movies did a rather good job with.

With that said the one thing i do hope jackson does better in the hobbit (assuming he does make it) is represent dwarves a little better. while i certainly understand that there were silly elements associated with dwarves in the ring trilogy, i felt in the movie they got in the way of the fact that dwarves are some of the most badass warriors in the tolkien universe. glimli was just too silly to be taken seriously in this respect. I know dwarves are even sillier in tolkien's hobbit, i just hope whoever ends up making the hobbit movie doesnt play this up to the detriment of the other qualities dwarves posses.

Re:Hooray!

[ContractualObligatio]

It's a troll because a huge number of people (including those who have read and appreciated the books) think that Peter Jackson did a fantastic job. The word butchered implies a pretty obvious fuck up that no-one can deny, when that is clearly not the case. The "in my mind" comment lacks any information content - it could be applied no matter what Jackson did, good or bad. There is not a single piece of supporting evidence to support a negative, emotional-not-logical comment that many intelligent people disagree with. Can't get much more of a troll than that.

As for "huge liberties" and "creating fictious events" (often simply refered to as "interpretation" and "trying to stay true to the spirit of the book" etc), while it might indeed be entirely different to simply abridging the story, it is still entirely acceptable. It is commonly done in biographical dramas, let alone fictional works, as a valid dramatic technique. Don't demean yourself for disagreeing with what Jackson did by applying bullshit "I understand the characters and they don't" or "my rules are more righteous than yours" arguments.

Re:Hooray!

[kaffiene]

I am utterly sick to death of those Tolkien fans who expect the films to be exactly like the book. It's NOT POSSIBLE you whiny buggers! Films are not books, they work differently, things aren't explained in the same way in films, some things that are easy in a book are entirely different in film.

For Christ's sake, call it "Peter Jackson's Lord of The Rings" if you prefer and QUIT WHINING! Clearly, a huge number of people DID enjoy it (including myself, a life-long Tolkien fan (I even enjoyed the Silmarilion!))

Inevitably, ANY filming of the book will change things and you whingers would complain no matter what. If you don't like it, go film your own version, or even better, just enjoy the fucking books and get a life.

Re:Hooray!

[kaffiene]

PJ's explanation of his treatment of Faramir was simply that the character makes no sense. If he's strong, noble, a warrior and "he wouldn't pick [the ring] up if [he] found it lying in the road", then why the hell doesn't HE take it into Mordor? He's the perfect warrior, he's immune to the Ring's influence and he's not a measly Hobbit.

By having him tempted by the ring, it makes sense that he would see that Frodo is better equipped to bear the ring than he.

Now, I don't know if you agree with that reasoning or not, but it was hardly just random destruction of the book's characters, it was attempting to make a character work on screen. I think that PJ's Faramir is one hell of a lot more believable than Tolkien's.

Re:Hooray!

[RDW]

'It's another thing entirely to take huge liberties with the characters and create fictitious events in order to justify these "new" characters. Some of the greatest drama in Return of the King was reduced to petty bickering between the main characters - in order to leave more room for the "special effects".'

Tolkien said something rather similar about an earlier (unfilmed) treatment of the story (letter #210, June 1958):

"He has cut the parts of the story upon which its characteristic and peculiar tone principally depends, showing a preference for fights".

and:

"I do earnestly hope that in the assignment of actual speeches to the characters they will be represented as I have presented them: in style and sentiment. I should resent perversion of the characters (and do resent it, so far as it appears in this sketch) even more than the spoiling of the plot and scenery."

This seems rather appropriate, too:

"Part I in general respects the line of narrative in the book, and retains some of its original coherence. Part II exemplifies all the faults of Part I ; but it is far more unsatisfactory, & still more so Part III, in more serious respects."

And this really says it all:

"The canons of narrative an in any medium cannot be wholly different; and the failure of poor films is often precisely in exaggeration, and in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies."

I don't think Jackson made 'poor films', but they're a very long way away from Tolkien. The BBC Radio version got much closer to 'the core of the original' in a different medium.

Re:Hooray!

[Yojimbo-San]

If he's strong, noble, a warrior and "he wouldn't pick [the ring] up if [he] found it lying in the road", then why the hell doesn't HE take it into Mordor?

Because Denethor didn't sent him to the Council, he sent Boromir instead. Arguably one of Sauron's most powerful weapons against Gondor was the demoralisation of Denethor, and part of that would surely have been encouraging his over-reliance on the weaker son Boromir. Had Faramir attended the Council representing Gondor, his qualities would probably have been recognised and the whole story would have been different.

For "neatness" of epic storytelling, Aragorn should have been the person to destroy the Ring, atoning for the actions of his ancestor Isildur ... something tells me that if Tolkien wrote that, LoTR would not have been so interesting or successful.

Re:Hooray!

[Angostura]

Sorry no. It's really very simple - Like Gandalf, Faramir has enough insight to know that if he ever picked up the ring, it would corrupt him - no matter how noble he was or how good his intentions were - that's what makes the ring ultimately so dangerous. That is why Faramir is wiser than his brother.

It's really not that hard to understand - or make the audience understand, P.J's explanation is lame.

Re:Hooray!

[1u3hr]

For "neatness" of epic storytelling, Aragorn should have been the person to destroy the Ring, atoning for the actions of his ancestor Isildur ... something tells me that if Tolkien wrote that, LoTR would not have been so interesting or successful.

Was there any reason Gandalf couldn't have whistled up an eagle to carry Frodo to Mount Doom? Aside from ending the story after 10 minutes.

Re:Hooray!

[kaffiene]

Yes, Faramir was not at the council, so didn't get the job, but once Frodo was in the his grasp and he recognised the ring, it became posible that Faramir could carry the ring. Which is my point.

Tolkien's perfect Faramir is a neat character, PJ's human Faramir is also pretty cool IMO. They're both different and both good in the story they exist it.

Re:Hooray!

[kaffiene]

I think you vastly overestimate the inteligence of the average movie-goer.

Re:Hooray!

[GNious]

Sorry, but I fully expect a PJ The Hobbit / There and back again to be bright and colorfull and stuff... I for one am not expecting anything dark and sinister from THAT movie.

Just my DKK 0.13

/G

Re:Hooray!

[Zarhan]

Mordorian air force (Nazguls).

Re:Hooray!

[1u3hr]

Mordorian air force (Nazguls).

If they flew in on a dark stormy night I don't think they'd have been spotted. Even if Sauron had radar in Barad-dur, eagles aren't that reflective. The Nazgul seemed to be able to sense the Ring only when someone was wearing it, they walked right past Frodo several times.

Re:Hooray!

[tehcyder]

Film is Film, TV is TV, Books are Books, Opera is Opera, etc etc.

Typical geek, bringing a web browser into an artistic discussion.

Re:Hooray!

[lgw]

Was there any reason Gandalf couldn't have whistled up an eagle to carry Frodo to Mount Doom? Aside from ending the story after 10 minutes.

Yes, but the reason wasn't presented in the text of LOTR, which was a real weakness in that story. The Silmarillion makes it clear that the Ents and Eagles both are if anything antagonistic to humans, hobbits, or any intelligent biped. The Ents were created to protect the flora from wanton destruction by the peoples of middle earth, and the Eagles the fauna.

There is, of coruse, much development on the Ent side - basically, the Ents just don't care how many people die in wars between people, as less people is better in their view. Only when the Ents become hot-headed about Saruman do they act, and then only to stop Saruman.

Similarly, the Eagles aren't going to risk one feather to help one side or the other in some ring war (and trying to get past the flying Nazgul to drop the Hobbits off would have been quite risky). Gandalf has a personal friendship with Gwaihir and so can ask for personal favors, such as his own rescue from Orthanc, and rescuing the Hobbits after the danger has passed, the war is over, and the Eagles don't have to choose a side.

However, because none of that justification is actually present in the text of LOTR, it's all really just fanwank, especially given Tolkien tossed the Eagles into the Battle of Five Armies earlier.

Re:Hooray!

[GnuAge]

Similarly, the Eagles aren't going to risk one feather to help one side or the other in some ring war (and trying to get past the flying Nazgul to drop the Hobbits off would have been quite risky). Gandalf has a personal friendship with Gwaihir and so can ask for personal favors, such as his own rescue from Orthanc, and rescuing the Hobbits after the danger has passed, the war is over, and the Eagles don't have to choose a side.

The eagles did't have a relationship with Gandalf when they first rescued him, Bilbo and about a dozen dwarves from being roasted when they had been treed by goblins and wargs in the Hobbit, as I recall. They seemed to do it just to spite the goblins. The Eagles also intervened not once but twice in full scale battles between composite armies of men, elves & dwarves on one side and goblins/orcs on the other, the Battle of Five Armies and during the dust up between the Captains of the West & the hosts of Sauron at the Black Gates of Morannon. In all three cases the Eagles acted at their considerable peril for no direct benefit to themselves. The internal logic of Middle Earth suggests that Gandalf could have persuaded a single Eagle to dare a solo mission to save all of creation from falling under the Shadow of the East.

No, the Eagles are Tolkien's favorite deus ex machina, one he relied on far to often to write himself out of twists in the plot to which there was no obvious solution. But the point of dei ex machinis is to untangle a problematic story line, not to end the story itself prematurely.

Re:Hooray!

[lgw]

Well, Tolkien certainly gets bad marks for not addressing the issue at the council in Rivendell. Especially since the Eagles, much like the Ents and Bombadil, wouldn't be particularly tempted by the ring. Personally, I don't think it would have been an acceptable risk, as the Eagles are pretty darn conspicuous because of their nature - but without that argument in the text it is as I said: all just fanwank.

The events in the Hobbit aren't really that relevant: we know Tolkien didn't take that work as seriously, and as far as I'm concerned he gets a buy on throwing the Eagles into a kids book because they were cool. Of course, Tolkien threw Bombadil into LOTR just because he was cool, so who knows.

Depressing

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't we find some other crap like another King Kong movie that would be much more suited to Jackson's 'competence' and find someone who's actually read the subject mater to direct this fourth time?

I shudder to think how Jackson will butcher the story...

Re:Depressing

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I'd like for The Hobbit to be directed by Gore Verbinski, who made The Ring and The Pirates of The Carribean.

I shudder to think how Jackson will butcher the story...

Yeah well I didn't like the second and third LOTR movies either, but I don't know to what extent their state was or wasn't Jackson's fault.

Hah

[El Lobo]

Prety soon you will see a Wiki film. With vandalism and everything.

Tolkein effort.

[91degrees]

They keep getting the same guy to direct. It's like a bad hobbit. Hope his elf holds up.

Stewardship

[camperdave]

Well, if there's anything Return of the King taught us, it's the value of a good Steward.

Rights expiring don't mean much...

[payndz]

...if New Line can *start* production before the date of expiry. I can think of two examples off the top of my head of movies which were rushed into production before the film rights expired - Roger Corman's version of The Fantastic Four (which admittedly was never released), and Queen Of The Damned - made by Warner Bros, who also own New Line. I'm sure there are others.

Whether New Line would do this depends entirely on their prediction of profit vs loss. If they think enough people will go and see a Hobbit film even without Jackson for them to get a good enough return on investment, they could well rush a film into production, and let their lawyers handle Zaentz's objections.

Re:Rights expiring don't mean much...

[Dunbal]

Whether New Line would do this depends entirely on their prediction of profit vs loss.

      Obviously they won't do it then, since apparently they lost so much money with LOtR...which is why they don't want to pay PJ in the first place...

Re:Rights expiring don't mean much...

[jeffasselin]

I wouldn't go to see a Hobbit movie butchered and done by anyone else than PJ, at least not right now. There's no reason for anyone else to do this.

Re:Rights expiring don't mean much...

[owlnation]

Movie accounting is an esoteric art. All movies lose money. Which is why you should never accept net points in you contract.

Of course few movies actually lose money....

Re:Rights expiring don't mean much...

[ubernostrum]

Whether New Line would do this depends entirely on their prediction of profit vs loss. If they think enough people will go and see a Hobbit film even without Jackson for them to get a good enough return on investment, they could well rush a film into production, and let their lawyers handle Zaentz's objections.

Nope. There are more players involved in this: MGM, not New Line, owns the distribution rights, which means New Line could make the film but not distribute it. And thus far, MGM doesn't seem too happy about the prospect of The Hobbit without Peter Jackson, so New Line would basically be cutting their own throats if they tried it.

Re:Rights expiring don't mean much...

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee... could that have been the fucking point of the GP?

Re:Rights expiring don't mean much...

[jrumney]

I wonder if PJ could use Sarbanes Oxley to have criminal charges brought against the executives at New Line? The article linked is about the music industry, but the accounting (mal)practices in both industries are the same.

Well....

[Anonymous Coward]

When the broadway version of Lord Of the Rings is produced all the purists will finally have their dreams realized (provided the writers and producers of that don't change the words to any of the "songs", of course).

Re:Well....

[Woldry]

You mean this one?

Re:Well....

[sherpajohn]

Um, actually its already been done...as a musical that played in Toronto for a while. Since ticket sales were not up to expectations (and the one review I read said it was for the most part boring) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptations_of_The_Lo rd_of_the_Rings#Toronto_musical, they closed it down and put it on the road: http://www.lotr.com/home.php - its opening in London next spring. We'll see how well it does there.

I dunno....

[srhoades]

Tolkien, Hobbits, Elf's??? All of this sounds as if it has a bad ring to it.

Re:I dunno....

[Anonymous Coward]

Clever, very clever.

Should LOTR not be public domain?

[biscon]

The books were written in the 30s and 40s. I thought they would be in the public domain by now?

Re:Should LOTR not be public domain?

[alva_edison]

At least in the US Copyright is 100 years after the death of the Author, it matters not when the books were written. Not sure about the UK, could probably wiki it, but I'm lazy ;)

Re:Should LOTR not be public domain?

[xoyoyo]

70 years after the death of the author in the UK, so you'll have to wait until 2043.

Re:Should LOTR not be public domain?

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright typically extends to 50 years after the original creator's death.

Re:Should LOTR not be public domain?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Hobbit was first published September 21, 1937, nearly seventy years ago. Tolkien died on September 2, 1973. The EU/British term of copyright, updated in 1996, seems to be the author's life plus 70 years. Sometime in 2043, we should be able to enjoy Tolkien's works without restriction. This assumes that copyright law won't change in the interim, of course. . .

Re:Should LOTR not be public domain?

[biscon]

thanks for clarifying. I won't hold my breath then ;)

Re:Should LOTR not be public domain?

[multisync]

The books were written in the 30s and 40s. I thought they would be in the public domain by now?

Yeah, and - come to think of it - so should Mickey Mouse

Re:Should LOTR not be public domain?

[clacke]

The countdown doesn't start until the author dies, and Tolkien died in 1973.

And given that Disney died in 1966, this means that the Tolkien copyright will never expire.

Re:Should LOTR not be public domain?

[westlake]

Yeah, and - come to think of it - so should Mickey Mouse

The copyright on Steamboat Willie expires:

eight minutes of silent-era sight gags with synchronized sound connected by a thin narrative thread.

Make of that what you can.

You do not get the rights to the trademarked character designs. You do not get the rights to the Mouse in any of his later incarnations.

Re:Should LOTR not be public domain?

[geekoid]

if Tolkien really loved his works, then he would have died sooner!

LOTR - The Very Expurgated Version

[pvjr]

Just Me, My Elf, And Eye.

Peter Jackson needs to stop making this drivel...

[Anonymous Coward]

He needs to go back to doing what he does best: making zombie movies. Braindead/Dead Alive is the best Zombie movie EVER.

MGM may override New Line

[TheSHAD0W]

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/news/comments/?entry id=381433

Looks like Tolkien Enterprises isn't the only one who wants to let Jackson do the job.

Re:MGM may override New Line

[somersault]

Hmm.. Hobbit 'films', eh? Well I do like long movies, but it's obvious they're just doing it to cash in (yeah yeah they're a company who aim to make money, but I read the Hobbit in a day when I was 9..) :/

Re:MGM may override New Line

[smoker2]

How many hours in your day, and how many hours do you want to sit in a crappy cinema ?

FWIW, I speed-read LOTR in 3 days (after school - before bed, say 4 hours a day) when I was about 12 or 13. I had already read it five or six times previously though.

Re:MGM may override New Line

[somersault]

Yeah I'd already read the Hobbit before as well, think it was maybe 5 hours I read it in. I read the first 4 Harry Potter books in 3 or 4 days (yes, I enjoyed them ;) ) a few years ago during a holiday. I don't really do 'speed reading' but I'm not slow either :]

I don't mind going to the cinema a couple of times a week as long as there's something good on. Spiderman 3 is my next must-see film, no clue when it comes out though..

Should PJ Direct "The Hobbit" in the First Place?

[Jupiter Jones]

Now I really, really liked the LOTR movies a lot. "Braindead" was a hoot, and "Heavenly Creatures" was absolutely brilliant. But those are all films with a very different story and tone than "The Hobbit".

So is Jackson really the best person to get for what is, after all, a "lighter" work? There are, after all, other directors who would probably do a great job with "The Hobbit", and maybe a better one too. (Brad Bird might be an interesting choice, f'rinstance.)

(At this point, I had a great argument about how you wouldn't get the guy who directed "Casino Royale" to do "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" simply because both books were written by Ian Fleming. Then I discovered that they actually did do that back in the 60's. Still... you get my point.)

  - Jeff

Peter Jackson should take care

[Robotech_Master]

If Peter Jackson has anything to do with Saul Zaentz, he should take care. Zaentz treated a certain other Peter rather poorly in conjunction with the production of the Lord of the Rings animated film.

Re:Peter Jackson should take care

[Anonymous Coward]

Do a quick Google for how Zaentz screwed John Fogarty and Creedence Clearwater Revival. Fogarty even wrote a song about him afterward called "Zaentz can't dance (but he'll take your money)".

one movie or two

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope Peter Jackson is able to film the Hobbit in a two movie format. I think two great movies could be produced given the material of the book and this would be better than trying to cram the whole story into one three-hour movie (two two-hour movies).

Jackson

[scotbot]

... as in Michael Jackson.

What part is he gonna play? I didn't think Hobbits were his thing. :erm:

Re:Jackson

[gonzoxl5]

ooh, thats Bad !

Re:Jackson

[nick.ian.k]

Pht. Whaddya got against the Beer Hunter, then?

Re:Jackson

[Terminus32]

*chuckles to himself*

Re:Jackson

[thc69]

That's the first thing you thought of when you saw the title? You're a sick, sick person.

Oh wait, I did to. I'm a sick, sick person...

Re:Jackson

[sharkey]

Why? Are the hobbits too tall?

I sense a great disturbance in the force

[Anonymous Coward]

It was like a million geeks cheered in unison, then went silent.

Elves!

[antdude]

elves, not elf's. :P

Re:No!

[TheZorch]

Obviously you aren't aware of how difficult it is to translate books to movies. Some minor or even major changes are needed for the flow of the film. LOTR would not have faired well if Peter Jackson had made the movies "exactly" like the books. For one thing the books were extremely long in certain parts and its not certain how well American audiences would have handled Bob Bombadil.

Yes he changed things but did his dammedest to try and keep to the spirit of the original works. They referred back to the books on every scene they shot and though the movie isn't exactly like the novels it preserves the feeling of dread of desparation felt by the characters. I applaud Peter Jackson on the care, dedication, and attention to detail that was put into LOTR.

Every detail in the movie was scrutinized, every prop was hand made by local New Zealander craftsmen and WETA Workshop. Everything from the armor worn by the different characters, to the furniture, to the buildings, to the cups they drank from where all hand made for the movie. absolutely nothing from any previous film was used in making LOTR, everything was new. Costumes, weapons, armor, EVERYTHING. The making of the LOTR triology was the biggest film making undertaking in the history of cinema. LOTR was a testiment to the genius of Peter Jackson and the guys/gals at WETA Workshop. This increcible attention to detail was their homage to J.R.R. Tolkien who also approached writing LOTR in such detail as well.

You strike me a person who has no appreciation for art at all, and that's sad.

Re:No!

[Anonymous Coward]

The copyright law is different here in the UK - copyright expires 70 years after the author's death, so The Hobbit won't become public domain until some time in 2040 I think.

Samuel L. ?

[Raynach]

Was I the only person to think they were talking about Samuel L. Jackson?

"I'm sick of these mother fuckin' hobbits in this mother fuckin' shire!"

Re:Samuel L. ?

[StikyPad]

I was thinking more of the moonwalking variety.

"You want me to make a movie with little people? Again?"

Re:Should PJ Direct "The Hobbit" in the First Plac

[Anonymous Coward]

See "The Frighteners," an unjustly underrated film, directed by Peter Jackson.

Re:No!

[Anonymous Coward]

You strike me a person who has no appreciation for art at all, and that's sad.

You strike me as a person who favors eye-candy over a good story line, and that's sad.

BTW: The landscapes, props and costumes in my imagination when I read the books simply kicks the shit out of Jackson's "vision"

Re:No!

[srhoades]

Bob Bombadil? Wasn't he the lazy stay at home beer drinking welfare state sucking brother to Tom Bombadil? American audiences would have loved him. Its that no good non union hard working brother Tom that they can't stomache.

watch the writer/director commentary track on dvd

[chocolatetrumpet]

Pick up the DVD and watch the movies with the "Director/Writers" commentary track on. You will discover that Jackson, Walsh, & Boyens know the story to a T, and if they are ever uncertain they can reference the book in a mere minute. They justify all of their adaptations. If you can watch that commentary track and still not respect the film, well.. I guess that's you then.

monkey movie down, hobbit to go...

[lpq]

He kept talking about how he had to do his childhood fantasy monkey movie before the Hobbit. That came, and went (and was terrible, IMO), so why hasn't he moved on already? Some of the actors in the Rings could be used in the Hobbit...maybe Golum, Gandalf...not sure about others though -- Kate B. could provide a narration in her Elvin persona (as she would likely have had some knowledge of it even though, I don't remember her being in the book).
l

Quite the opposite is the fact

[Kittenman]

Down here in NZ, Jackson's announced that he will *not* be directing the Hobbit movie.

From the NZ Herald story. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid =00055C1C-29AC-1562-A69383027AF1002A

Jackson dumped from future Tolkien projects

11.30am Tuesday November 21, 2006 By Joanna Hunkin

New Zealand director Peter Jackson will not be making The Hobbit or a second Lord of the Rings prequel, according a letter posted on LOTR website Theonering.net.

The letter, from Jackson and partner Fran Walsh was posted this morning and states that New Line are actively seeking another director.

A spokesperson from Wingnut Films confirmed to nzherald.co.nz this morning that the letter was genuine.

"Last week, Mark Ordesky called Ken [Kamins, Jackson's manager] and told him that New Line would no longer be requiring our services on The Hobbit and the LOTR 'prequel'. This was a courtesy call to let us know that the studio was now actively looking to hire another filmmaker for both projects," wrote Jackson.

The announcement comes after an ongoing dispute between Jackson's Wingnut Films and New Line, regarding differing accounting practices, revealed during an audit of the income from The Fellowship of the Ring.

While New Line suggested Jackson agree to make The Hobbit in order to settle the lawsuit, the director refused.

-- Are they surprised????

Re:Quite the opposite is the fact

[jrumney]

Down here in NZ, Jackson's announced that he will *not* be directing the Hobbit movie.

11.30am Tuesday November 21, 2006 By Joanna Hunkin

Down there in New Zealand, you seem to be a bit behind the times. Over here in Europe it is Friday November 24 already, and the news has moved on. RTFA for more details.

Who owns what

[Dracos]

Apparently some people are confused as to who owns what.

• Saul Zaentz owns the film/tv (most non-print, iirc) rights to all of Tolkien's works.
• New Line has a license to produce films based on LOTR, which they have exercised.
• MGM has a license to produce film(s) based on The Hobbit, which they have not exercised.

Both Jackson and New Line tried to buy MGM's license multiple times in the last decade. MGM wouldn't sell for any reasonable price.

With the expiration of MGM's license drawing nigh, they realized that they finally had to do something in order to profit from it. What's the simplest thing to do? Go to New Line and offer a partnership that puts Jackson in the mix.

What MGM didn't count on is the accounting suit Jackson has against New Line regarding profits from FotR, a suit that New Line is stonewalling, but apparently tried to settle as a condition of Hobbit production, which Jackson didn't like. Everyone involved knows that any Hobbit film is dependent on Jackson's involvement for maximum profitability.

And now MGM's license is about to expire. MGM has to be pissed at New Line for allowing this to happen. Jackson is probably annoyed at New Line for trying to drag his lawsuit into it. New Line is probably salivating at the prospect of finally getting the Hobbit license for themselves, to do with as they wish. They just have to hope Jackson doesn't get it, if he wants it.

If Jackson does get the Hobbit license, wouldn't it just be a kick in the balls if he had MGM distribute it?

Re:Who owns what

[Anonymous Coward]

The short version of this post:

Because they were asses about paying Jackson, New Line will not be involved in the making of The Hobbit. The Hobbit will be delayed a bit, but I reckon you will see the start of filming for Peter Jackson's vision of The Hobbit almost as soon as the rights to production revert to Zaentz.

Not quite correct... per the Rotten Tomatoes you reference (linked early in the discussion):

        * Saul Zaentz owns the film/tv (most non-print, iirc) rights to all of Tolkien's works.
        * New Line has a license to produce films based on The Hobbit, which they have NOT exercised, and which is due to expire shortly, with the rights reverting to Zaentz.
        * MGM has a license to distribute film(s) based on The Hobbit.

The upshot of this is that:

        * MGM has, in essence a veto/block power over New Line. New Line can produce films based on The Hobbit, but they have to get MGM to distribute them... and MGM can refuse to distribute said films entirely.
        * Because of this, New Line needs to have MGM's approval before they produce a film or they are throwing money away - MGM can block the film from ever seeing the light of day.
        * MGM has told New Line, "we will not approve it unless you use Peter Jackson."
        * New Line attempted to use The Hobbit as a negotiating chip in the lawsuit Jackson filed against them over their accounting practices - to the effect of, "if you film The Hobbit, we will settle."
        * Jackson (smartly, IMO) refused to hear of it (why would you trust the people who just screwed you).
        * New Line has two choices: (a) continue to stonewall Jackson and watch the clock "run out" on their license as MGM refuses to let them distribute the film even if they produce it or (b) give Jackson everything he wants and hope - but not be guaranteed - that he does The Hobbit for them.

Honestly, my take on the situation is that no matter which option New Line chooses, the outcome will be:

        * Peter Jackson, settlement or no, refuses to make The Hobbit for New Line (again, the old "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" thing).
        * Because of MGM's veto power, New Line doesn't waste money making The Hobbit.
        * Because New Line doesn't produce The Hobbit, the rights revert to Zaentz.
        * Zaentz sells the rights to some combination of MGM/Peter Jackson and we get Peter Jackson's vision of The Hobbit, with New Line shut out of the loop entirely due to its own pigheaded greed.

And, by the way, one of your points was not helpful in this discussion:

        * New Line had a license to produce films based on LOTR, which they have exercised.

I don't care who films the Hobbit...

[Anonymous Coward]

as long as the hobbits aren't gay.

MGM

[darknite1979]

I read on rotten tomatoes that MGM (which has the distribution rights for the hobbit movies) will right for jackson. It'll be kind of hard for New Line to make money on a film when the company that has the rights to distribute it, won't. New line can either give jackson the money that they owe him (and i do believe they owe him money) and let him produce the film OR not make ANY money at all. Heres to hoping the New Line execs arent that short sighted but hey you never know....

Get the runes on the map right this time

[skelter]

In the hobbit animation the animators mixed up the two blocks of runes on the map. They had the normal direction runes portrayed as the moon runes and the moon runes as the normal ones. May sound small thing to complain about, but it has bugged me for years.

I remember editing altchar.sys and changing the ascii chars to runes on the Z-100 so my folks couldn't read over my shoulder. Had to make up some characters that didn't match and I had my own numbers, but I got pretty good at reading them. Had to be in order to use WordStar, PeachTree, Condor rdms, etc. in green monochrome runes.

-s

isn't that damn copyright

[geekoid]

expired yet? How long ago was this published? Is their sue everyone stance just making people afraid to use it?

As the elves say

[geekoid]

Fa la la la lolly.
Welcome bad to the valley.

Re:No!

[geekoid]

It was good, but the elves seen completly destroyed the point of the elves leaving.

Yes, I understand why Tom Bombadil was left out, and it was the right choice. I do wish they filmed it for the DVD.

Next up...

[Kuvter]

Michael Jackson will do a spoof of the movie with little kids to replace the little hobits.

Ice Skating

[cybpunks3]

Just don't let him make Smaug go ice-skating in central park.

Re:What's the BFD?

[cybpunks3]

Narnia was a children's book too and the movie made a shitload of money.