New Hope for Jackson Hobbit Film?

DrJimbo writes "Just in time for the 70th Anniversary of the Hobbit (published September 21, 1937) Entertainment Weekly has a 5-page article on a possible reconciliation between Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema that may pave the way for the director of the Lord of the Rings trilogy to return and helm the filming of The Hobbit. It was previously reported here that Jackson would not be making the Hobbit film. The EW article says that Jackson wants to make two films: first the Hobbit in its entirety and then another film that bridges the roughly 60 years between the end of the Hobbit and the start of the Lord of the Rings. Unfortunately Jackson already has a lot on his plate with filming of The Lovely Bones scheduled to start this month and a live action Tintin film in the works."

Comments

Would it really be so bad if he didn't direct it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one who felt the LOTR movies were not especially good and that Jackson's eccentric style may not have been the best fit for the book?

Do we care?

[Aladrin]

Do we honestly care if he directs them? I mean, we care that a bad director doesn't get to, but as long as it's a decent director, does it really matter who it is?

On the other hand, if he manages to get a script written for the 60 year time difference, and it's not 60 years of Gandolf riding around in grey and the hobbits having teaparties (since that's basically what happened), then I'm all for the new film and Jackson. I'm not real hopeful, though, since all the really interesting stuff happened in the books and the other years weren't covered because they simply weren't that interesting.

Or maybe someone can name some of the interesting things that supposedly happened in those 60 years? Gandolf was obviously out doing some sort of research, but I don't think anything specific was ever mentioned. And the hobbits were pretty clearly doing hobbit-like things in their little boring houses. They don't really even have politics, just a few that don't particulary care for each other from feuds that happened generations ago over silly things.

Re:Hope?

[sgant]

Or...you could just not go. You obviously didn't like the LOTR movies, and that would be apparent that you didn't like them right from the first movie...so I have to ask, did you also go and watch the second and third movie also? If so, why?

If you think that Peter Jackson ruined the movies for you, why did you watch all 3? Or did you? Or are you just a troll?

Re:Hope?

[sgant]

Oh, and the scouring of the shire also...so after a HUGE battle...then another HUGE battle, you get the destruction of Sauron and the aftermath...then ANOTHER half an hour to 45 minutes of resolving stuff in the shire...THEN the Grey Havens, THEN Sam coming back.

Yep, the general public already complained that there were 3 endeds to Return of the King, why not throw a 4th one in there also....just so those 4 people in the world that complained that the LOTR wasn't word for word like the books will be happy. Happy with really long, boringly edited movies.

Re:Hope?

[nagora]

I have to ask, did you also go and watch the second and third movie also? If so, why?

Saw the first in the cinema, said I wasn't going to pay to sit throught that sort of crap again. Fiancee talked me into going to the second shit-fest. That was that. I've never seen the third and I still want my money back for the first two. Jackson couldn't direct traffic in a ghost town.

TWW

Re:Er, what?

[vux984]

What exactly happens, of any interest, in that period?

Hmm.. I'm not 100% on the timeline but...

Gandalf and Aragorn meet. The romance of Aragorn and Arwen. Aragorn serving with the Armies of Rohan.

Gollum pursues Bilbo from the mountains. I beleive Gandalf investigates the creature and discovers its history in this period. Mordor also captures Gollum at some point.

The Dwarves (including Balin of the hobbits) try and retake Moria.

Sauruman is corrupted by Mordor through the Palantir.

Sauroman corrupts Theoden through Grima Wormtongue.

Sauron, identified as the 'Necromancer' was discovered as the source of evil in Mirkwood and was driven out by the White Council, only to resurface later rebuilding in Mordor.

I dunno... I've seen movies made on smaller premises than that :)

Re:Would it really be so bad if he didn't direct i

[bkr1_2k]

No, you weren't. I was going to ask why everyone is so excited about the possibility of Jackson filming The Hobbit. Personally I think his rendition of the stories missed an awful lot of what I thought was important, not the least of which was real character development. I slept through the second and third installments. The first was an excellent start, but he failed miserably by focusing on the battles and not the characters, in my opinion.

Re:Not public domain

[struppi]

I wanted to ask (almost) exactly the same thing, but then I decided that I don't know very much about copyright law in the US or the UK. Anyway, it seems that in the USA

In addition, works published before 1964 that did not have their copyrights renewed 28 years after first publication year also are in the public domain, except that books originally published outside the US by non-Americans are exempt from this requirement, if they are still under copyright in their home country (see How Can I Tell Whether a Copyright Was Renewed for more details).

Wikipedia on Copyright

So it should be still copyrighted in the USA if it is still copyrighted in the UK. At least that's how I anderstand it, IANAL.

Re:Not public domain

[CRCulver]

The Hobbit isn't the kind of book that makes me pissed off about length of copyright. After all, you can get a copy of it for as little as a dollar. Meanwhile, in my own field of linguistics, there are quite old works that are still useful, but they are still under copyright. In one case, the rights are owned by the academic publisher Routledge, which obscenely prices a 100-page paperback as high as $135. When students can't build up a library of important literature, and scholarship is impaired, then there's something wrong with copyright.

Dragons! Balrogs! Morgoth! Silmarils!

[PhilHibbs]

I want to see The Silmarillion made as a mini-series!

Lord of the Rings IV...

[OglinTatas]

... A New Hope

This is the one they should have made first! I can't wait to see Episodes V and VI.

Re:Oh please don't

[Anonymous Coward]

All the characters maintained their shallowness, just like it's depicted in the books.

Though I'm sure you'll get modded down for this, it is a viewpoint other authors share.

Re:Someone smack New Line with a cluestick?

[jollyreaper]

Jackson & crew actually went way over budget, and the total was closer to $500 million plus, with all the extra effects shots they had to do in the latter movies because of lack of planning in principle photography (which, understandably focused more on the first two films, which is why there's less special effects in the first films than the last one), and the need to do pick-ups, etc. That's part of what I find so amazing. When I was watching the commentaries and hearing about the turmoil they went through, I was shocked that the movies were great, let alone watchable. I mean, they recast Aragorn in the middle of filming! Pages of script were getting rewritten as the scenes were being acted. In the Babylon 5 commentaries, JMS descripted this as being the norm on network television and was one of the reasons why he felt he could do Babylon 5 for half the budget most would estimate, because the scripts would be written far in advance and the production staff could plan things out in advance. It's the surprises, last minute changes, and overtime pay in the mad dash to get things done that kills budgets along with quality. If I'd heard the production story before seeing the movie, I would have predicted utter failure.

Re:Er, what?

[Richard Steiner]

Why can't you just accept both versions as seperate works, and enjoy them. I see Jackson's LotR films as an adaptation inspired by the books. I've read the books many times over, and agree that a direct page-for-page film would be both extremely long and boring.

Yes, some additions and omissions were quite understandable (though I did miss the Scourge of the Shire scene, which I think was the whole point of the original books), but there wasn't really any reason to change some of the key scenes in the trilogy that PJ decided to change.

Why not keep the ending of the Battle of the Pelennor Fields faithful to the original, with Eomer holding his sword up in defiance to the newly arrived Corsairs only to see Aragorn's banner unfurl, and with the three HUMAN armies (Rohan, Gondor, and Corsair) conversing in the center for the victory? Why add the undead to that battle? The Siege of Gondor was broken by the strength of **MEN**, not by the undead!!

Why not keep the dialog and overall feel of the scene of Saruman's fall at Orthanc true to the original? It was a very dramatic conversation in its own right, with Galdalf and Saruman exchanging invitations for the other to join, and with Gandalf finally shatting the building doubts with the following lines: "Behold, I am not Gandalf the Grey, whom you betrayed. I am Gandalf the White, who has returned from death. You have no colour now, and I cast you from the order and from the Council." He raised his hand, and spoke slowly in a clear voice. "Saruman, your staff is broken." There was a crack, and the staff split asunder in Saruman's hand, and the head of it fell down at Gandalf's feet.

Changes to speed up the plot and/or add excitement are one things, but arbitrary changes to the climaxes of key scenes in the book which are already extremely dramatic and well-written ... and which were already burned into the minds of millions of fans ... is quite another.