Slashdot Mirror
Jackson Slated to Make Hobbit Movie, Sequel
syrinx writes "Peter Jackson, New Line Cinema, and MGM have agreed to work on two new movies: a film adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's 'The Hobbit', and a further sequel. From the article: 'The two Hobbit films ... are scheduled to be shot simultaneously, with pre-production beginning as soon as possible. Principal photography is tentatively set for a 2009 start, with the intention of 'The Hobbit' release slated for 2010 and its sequel the following year, in 2011.'" Not sure if it would be possible to nab Ian Holm as Bilbo, but here's hoping.
Didn't he already shoot the sequel to The Hobbit?
so are the splitting the hobbit into 2 films or doing somthing else from middle earth?
Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
Didn't he say he wasn't going to do a Hobbit movie earlier?
finally have a place to apply.
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
I can not wait for the movie to be produced.
Was I the only one who was worried that the title was referring to Michael Jackson?
Note to director: please don't add some pointless character to sell kids toys in this movie, just go "by the book", literally.
stuff |
He will disappoint you. Bank on it. The other 99.99% of us will, however, probably like it.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
Peter Jackson did a great job in visualizing and bringing to life a story in which the plot was already fully written. I love the fact he's producing a version of "the hobbit" to go along with the LOTR Trilogy, but I'm not so sure about the sequel to it. I realize there is a gap between the two stories (around a 70 year gap actually) but what will the plot consist of?
I suppose it could go both ways, the first way with Peter Jackson doing a great job of tying the two books together and leading straight into the LOTR trilogy, the other with Peter Jackson unzipping and urinating on JRR Tolkien's masterpieces.
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
Gold edition, 3D, directors cut? I plan on seeing it since the LOTR was soooo dang good.
I'm really quite interested to see how Smaug is done. The 3D done well might really up the bar for many action movies, and might set a new standard.
However, the movie still has to be good - putting lipstick on a pig still looks awful.
..........FULL STOP.
Martin Freeman played Bilbo in flashbacks during the LOTR. He'd be a better choice to play Bilbo in The Hobbit.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
Did he get some kind of wizard trick to summon the dead spirit of JRR Tolkein to write a new novel which to utilize as a sequel?
Why do I fear this "prequil" will suffer the same fate as the Lucas prequils, with Bilbo at the end screaming "NOOOOOOOOOOOO"
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
I'm not sure why two movies are being made other than the obvious "milking it". Rankin-Bass made (ok, a kiddified somewhat silly, but reasonably complete) adaptation that IIRC was less than 1.5 hours. Assuming Jackson makes 2.5 hour movie as per his usual :), I don't see how they will extend this. I mean I guess you can end in like the Misty Mountains or Mirkwood... and really excessively expand the Battle of 5 Armies, but...
I just hope he doesn't cut out Beorn like the cartoon did. Whereas I thoroughly enjoyed the LOTR movies, I was disappointed when Tom Bombadil was removed.
He might be a little old to play Bilbo as he was well cast to play a Bilbo who settled down for quite some time, but much older than Bilbo was when Hobbit happened.
I'm wondering if they'll be able to get Ian McKellen to play Gandalf again. I'm trying to think how many recurrent characters there were across the Hobbit and LOTR -- Bilbo, Gandalf, and maybe Elrond (it's been a long time since I read the Hobbit).
Unless Sir Ian is otherwise booked, I bet he'd love to revive his Gandalf role.
Though, I must confess, I'm a little unsure of what this other sequel is, and TFA appears to have died under the strain.
Does anyone have more info on that?
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Most would love to see Ian Holm as Bilbo for continuity. I'd love to see Ian McKellen play Gandalf for that reason. I was pleased to see Ian Holm in Jackson's LotR movies because I was a huge fan of Holm in the BBC radio version: 13 hours of goodness. Off to RTFA now...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
-- The Doctor, "Doctor
"The daily life of Tom Bombadil, Treebeard, and Radagast" Sponsored by Green Peace.
This is, of course, a matter of opinion
True, it's all opinion, but even art allows for some objectivity. "Abject disaster" sounds like the small minded bitchiness of someone whose opinion isn't worth listening to.
Not to mention he will be laughing all the way to the bank regardless of whether or not it is critically acclaimed.
Not enough 9's imo.
they are tentatively reimagining smaug:
1. eyes are going to be on stalks
2. big floppy ears
3. speaks in pidgin
sounds like a great improvement for the prequel to the smash trilogy we all know and love!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
With two films, there's space to fill in the creation story of Middle Earth, or maybe just concentrate on The Red Book of Westmarch (which contained Elvish stories translated by Bilbo).
I'm hoping for Christmas releases. Going to the movies at Christmas was fun for the three years of The Ring Trilogy. Especially when I realised there was no time left for Shelob in The Two Towers and I'd have to wait another year for the giant spider. Which made sense, considering how half of The Return Of The King (book) consists of a guide to pronouncing words in Elvish.
Shiny. Let's be bad guys...
The only question I have is if the same actor will be back to play Gandalf. He was awesome and I would only see it if he's in it.
I hope they get the the ending right this time.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
Ian Holm did an absolutely fantastic job as Bilbo. Honestly I think he gave the strongest performance of anybody in the cast in any of the three films. I would love to see him in The Hobbit, although I imagine they'd have to make him up to appear a bit younger.
I was really disappointed with the changes in the LOTR. I understand omissions (it's a long book), but just changing characters and dialogue and making up stuff? I was surprised they kept the names. Seriously, I was. Why not just make an original film if you're going to change everything? Why bother wrecking (IMHO) someone else' work?
So I'm not too excited about this. I can't wait to see what "improvements" they'll make.
If they like the book so much that they have to altered everything... well I'm beating a dead horse.
At one point I heard that Jackson said he could make a 40 hour adoption of The Hobbit. While it could be done it certainly wouldn't entertain today's audience.
Instead I think that the second film should be an "off adventure" not written by Tolkien but rather a modernized epic. It would be Bilbo looking for some obscure treasure of a distant relative where he pairs up with Billy Crystal, Daniel Stern and Eddie Murphy (Sorry, but with the passing of Bruno Kirby and Jack Palance I just can't find a suitable third). They would go to Mirkwood in search of this treasure, hilarity will ensue.
It will be called The Shire Slickers: Curley's Midget Brother's Silver Horde.
Hey, Pete, if you're reading this give me a call. I have a million ideas. Really.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
I don't think Ian Holm will be able to be cast as Bilbo... they made him look younger for a brief shot in LOTR, but from what I remember it involved stretching the skin on his face, etc, and wouldn't be workable for a full movie.
Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis I believe have both said they'd be very interested in coming back for a Hobbit movie as Gandalf and Gollum. The only other cross-over character bookwise would be Elrond; I don't know if Hugo Weaving has said anything one way or the other. (I suppose there was some guy in the FOTR movie who was ostensibly Gloin at the council scene, but I don't think anyone would notice if he came back or not...)
They could sneak in cameos from other actors I suppose; there's nothing saying Legolas wasn't hanging out with his father in the Elves' home in Mirkwood. I don't know that I want Legolas showing up at the Battle of Five Armies to surf on an eagle shooting down wargs though.
(Hey, so about 7 years in between accepted Slashdot submissions. Roland, I'm catching up!)
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
Uh, you do know it's not a prequel in the Lucas sense don't you? The Hobbit was written first. They just happened to film the sequels first (More $$ I guess).
Dear Mr. Jackson, here's a free hint: trust the story. You are no Tolkein- every time you deviated from Tolkein's books for LOTR you added stupidity and detracted from the story. Don't write- just film the book. Thank you.
we will end no whine before its time
...Arwen as the completely pointless character he wastes a good half hour of film time on?
The novel The Hobbit was written for children. I bet the film isn't.
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
Please do not rant on subjects you have no clue on. There has always been a prequel to LOTR, it is called "The Hobbit". Perhaps if you closed your mouth, breathed through your nose, and then realized there are these wonderful things called books, and in general, are better than their on screen translations, you might actually have something insightful to say.
How about:
1- Oh BTW, the Black Forest
2- Oh BTW, escape from the Goblin King
3- Oh BTW, Beorn the Bear-man
4- Oh BTW, the Battle of the Five Armies
5- Oh BTW, A FRIGGIN' HUGE, EVIL DRAGON!
No sig for the moment.
No, not Jackson + Hobbit, but the unnamed sequel bit. Once Hollywood and the content mafiaa get their claws into it, I can see "Hobbit: Vengance" starring Bruce Willis. The tag line, "More explosive action than any other Middle Earth movie EVER!!!!". Shudder.
-Charlie
For some reason, I initially thought of Samuel L Jackson. Wouldn't that be interesting? "Get away from the gemstone Mother F*cker!"
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I think Ben Stiller and Vince Vaughn came up with the best idea for a LotR sequel EVAR! Maybe this is what they mean? :)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EqMV_3JusXY
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What was Jackson thinking there? "Hey, let's make an epic movie, based on an epic novel. And why not change the complete character of one of the key players?"
I do understand that a movie is not a book, really. But this is not only unnecessary but it is annoying.
Maybe I should whip a quick script proposal together...
The death-by-pastiche potential of such a movie is off the charts. But I'd (grudgingly) take any/all of them over some "elves at Helm's Deep"-style, ego-driven plot lunacy he arrives at from whole-cloth.
The Hobbit is being split into two movies.
There are two things going for this idea.
1 - You do not water down the story as much when you have more screen time to work with.
2 - The LOTR has proven that people will clamor to watch a second part if the first was awesome. Thus more profit!
-- What's this '-r *' file doing here? -- Oh well, a simple 'rm' should do the trick.
What is it?
I have felt a disturbance in the force. As if millions of voices suddenly cried out in joy...
-=-=-=-=- osjedi uses Debian GNU/Linux. -=-=-=-=-
Wait, so no King Kong 2? C'mon, Zombie Kong! How much cooler would that be!?
"Fortunately, your opinion is only shared by a small minority who will pay to see the film anyways, as well as buy every version of the DVDS."
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
We'll get to see Frodo and Sams love bloom.
Wow, Peter jackson looks like he lost about 890572349087 pounds. Good for him. As for The Hobbit... Geeze, get a move on, I wanna see it yesterday already!
-- Josh
"Whoopie! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but that's a long one for me!" - Pete Conrad
That wouldn't make sense. He died a few months ago. What's he gonna do, play a wight or ringwraith? Those things weren't in The Hobbit!
For a moment I dared to hope that the sequel that the headline referred to was "The Scouring of the Shire", which IMNSHO was the very best part of the whole story. I can only begin to dread what sort of sequel they are going to excrete. "Ewok Adventure" comes to mind. I suppose that the wholesale replacement of the Tom Bombadil/Barrow Wight bit with Aragorn dumping a butcher's roll of surplus cutlery on the table can be excused as a film adaptation neccessity, but I thought that was pretty harsh as well.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
The biggest change Jackson made in The Fellowship of the Ring was to remove an incredibly annoying, pointless character that could only appeal to little kids.
In this way, he is the anti-Lucas.
Jackson said months ago in an article I read (I'll have to go back to find it, I think it was in an interview with IGN) saying that the story of "The Hobbit" wouldn't be able to fit within a two or so hour film, and do the original source material justice. This leads to him saying it would be a pair of films for the hobbit, not one single film. Personally, I think that would be the best move. The story can be complex in spots, and I could see where the story could be split into two films. So, in my opinion, it's either that, or we're looking at one of the other Stories from Middle Earth.
... they might as well have the soundtrack performed by Led Zeppelin.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Peter Jackson and New Line playing nice again?!? Maybe this means that we will actually see a Blu-Ray set of LOTR at some point. They must have heard me desperately clicking the reload button with the hope that one day it would be real
Good god, hasn't Peter Jackson ruined enough Tolkien for one lifetime?
Pete Jackson may have become stereotyped for that genre and may not be able to get funding for his other ventures.
King Kong to me was disapointing.
Who modded parent troll? And who pissed in moderator's cereal this morning?
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Let us hope that Mr. Jackson has the wisdom to hire himself as the director!
-- Hot Wasabi over & out --
I think I speak for a minority far smaller than .01%, however I plan to be just as disappointed as before when I go see it anyway. If I had not read the books, I think the movies would have been fine. The only one that was done right was the extended edition DVD of FOTR. Would that that were made into a theatrical print for the Art House circuit.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
Strayed from the path? More like fell off completely. He couldn't resist tarting up a story that does not need tarting up. He totally wasted Cate Blanchett, Arwen's floating dreamy head was totally pointless, the stupidass dwarf toss, Aragorn's idiotic unintelligible manly whisper, making Gollum talk like Donald Duck, Pipping finds the Palantir in a freaking stream?? WTF was that? Certainly much less exciting than steaking it from Gandalf as he slept... and on and on...
we will end no whine before its time
There is TONs of material with which to make a sequel, or prequel, or whatever. There's The Silmarillion, jammed with history and various tales. The recently published The Children of Húrin, recounting the very early history of Middle Earth. They could go into detail about the attack on Dol Guldur, which took place during the Hobbit.
The one thing Peter Jackson doesn't have to worry about is lack of stories set in Middle Earth, the biggest job is to choose which one.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Jackson fails it; it is Tolkien.
Box full of AIDS.
God, help me out here guys, there's not enough disparaging internet memes to throw at this horrible creature; this servant of Morgoth.
Maybe you clueless fools who thought his Parody of the Rings were good movies will be happy, but by Eru, I will not stand to see Thorin replaced with Arwen for no reason - Bombur turned into an anorexic - Bard turned into nothing more than comic relief - and the Wood Elf King turned into a goddamned ninja.
Don't even say a word, because you know that's exactly what he has planned.
I'm sorry, JRR, but maybe we can hook up some wires to your coffin - your spinning about in your grave should solve the world's power crisis for years to come.
I say "apparently" because TFA is actually blocked where I am right now, but the most common questions people seem to be asking in this discussion are:
1) "Sequel, WTF?"
and
2)"Will Ian McKellen return as Gandalf?"
According to this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7150644.stm
the answers are:
1) No, there will not be a sequel based on some new not-created-by-Tolkien story, The Hobbit will be two movies.
2) Yes.
I'm just sayin'.
> all of the changes I noticed were done for time.
Look at the kind of language used. For example:
"I will kill you if you touch him."
"You fool. No man can kill me. Die, now."
"I am no man. AAaaagggh!"
comes from, limiting myself almost exclusively to dialog:
`Begone, fould dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion! Leave the dead in peace!'
`Come not between the Nazgul and his prey! Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind be left naked to the Lidless eye.'
`Do what you will; but I will hinder it, if I may.'
`Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!'
Then Merry heard of all sounds, in that hour the strangest. It seemed that Dernhelm laughed, and the clear voice was like the ring of steel. `But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Eowyn I am, Eomund's daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him.'
comes from, in truth:
Then out of the blackness in his mind he thought that he heard Dernhelm speaking; yet now the voice seemed strange, recalling some other voice that he had known.
`Begone, fould dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion! Leave the dead in peace!'
`Come not between the Nazgul and his prey! Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind be left naked to the Lidless eye.'
A sword rang as it was drawn. `Do what you will; but I will hinder it, if I may.'
`Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!'
Then Merry heard of all sounds in that hour the strangest. It seemed that Dernhelm laughed, and the clear voice was like the ring of steel. `But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Eowyn I am, Eomund's daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For loving or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him.'
The winged creature screamed at her, but the Ringwraith made no answer, and was silent, as if in sudden doubt. Very amazement for a moment conquered Merry's fear. He opened his eyes and the blackness was lifted from them. There some paces from him sat the great beast, and all seemed dark about it, and above it loomed the Nazgul Lord like a shadow of despair. A little to the left facing them stood she whom he had called Dernhelm. But the helm of her secrecy had fallen from her, and her bright hair, released from its bonds, gleamed with pale gold upon her shoulders. Her eyes grey as the sea were hard and fell, and yet tears were on her cheek. A sword was in her hand, and she raised her shield against the horror of her enemy's eyes.
Eowyn it was, and Dernhelm also. For into Merry's mind flashed the memory of the face that he saw at the riding from Dunharrow: the face of one that goes seeking death, having no hope. Pity filled his heart and great wonder, and suddenly the slow-kindled courage of his race awoke. He clenched his hand. She should not die, so fair, so desperate! At least she should not die alone, unaided.
The face of their enemy was not turned towards him, but still he hardly dared to move, dreading lest the deadly eyes should fall on him. Slowly, slowly he began to crawl aside; but the Black Captain, in doubt and malice intent upon the woman before him, heeded him no more than a worm in the mud.
Suddenly the great beast beat its hideous wings, and the wind of them was foul. Again it leaped into the air, and then swiftly fell down upon Eowyn, shrieking, striking with beak and claw.
Still she did not blench: maiden of the Rohirrim, child of kings, slender but as a steel-blade, fair but terrible. A swift stroke she dealt, skilled and deadly. The outstretched neck she clove asunder, and the hewn head fell like a stone. Backward she sprang as the huge sh
I understand how the rights to LotR and the Hobbit have been passed around, but wouldn't the Tolkien estate have to grant rights for a movie to be made out of material not in the books.
Example: If they wanted to make Silmarillion (god forbid) into a movie, they would have to obtain those rights. Why is it okay to just make a story up in Middle Earth and film it?
The press release says that he will be the Executive Producer, not Director, so effectively he has only agreed to place his rubber stamper on the film and I'm sure he is contractually obligated to say that it is a magnificent film no matter what MGM/New Line have made. I can only imagine that New Line must have had him legally nailed to the wall when "settling" over the previous films). Sadly, this means there is nothing to keep these movies from being directed by committee. Unless he directs them I expect nothing to crap.
Yes, I know this has been in the works for quite some time now. But the bomb of the anti-Christian Golden Compass was the final straw to get this green lighted. Gee, the 1st movie in a trilogy about killing God from a devout anti-Christian writer, all in time for Christmas. One wonders what is the consistency of the cottage cheese sloshing around between the ears of New Line's Bob Shaye.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
Frankly, I just hope I live long enough to see the next remake. Maybe some one could just sort of adapt the books, with some minor abridgement, and not ruin the story.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
I honestly don't see the problem here.
Pipping finds the Palantir in a freaking stream?? WTF was that? Certainly much less exciting than steaking it from Gandalf as he slept.
Did we watch the same movie? Here's how it went:
*) In the book, Pippin picks up the Palantir from the waters of Isengard after Wormtongue throws it at Gandalf (or Saruman, it's hinted that he couldn't decide which wizard to chuck it at). In the movie, Saruman drops it when he is shot. In both cases it's picked up by Pippin after it falls into the water and is quickly confiscated by Gandalf.
*) In the book, Pippin steals the palantir while Gandalf is sleeping and puts a stone in its place. In the movie, Pippin steals the palantir and puts a round jug in its place.
You could make a strong case for why a few changes in the movie were unnecessary, but the palantir example isn't one of them.
First movie. The Hobbit: There And Back
Second movie. The Hobbit: Again
In book form I found The Two Towers booooring but the film version was great.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
No, sadly, the director chose not to film the dramatic conclusion to the book. If i had believed this was possible, I could have saved the price of the extended DVD. Sort of leaves the field wide-open for a proper re-make. As soon as the current "rights" expire, perhaps some one will come forward to do that. "Third time's the charm".
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
Unless Jackson is able to completely redo his visual style (and/or the way of thinking) for this project, I would not call this a good idea. "Hobbit" and "LOTR", even though separated in time by only several dozen years, evoke completely different feelings - with the former still staged inside a fairy tale, a time of wonders, while the latter is a clinical account of the fading of the Age; and since Jackson completely nailed that one, I find it hard to believe that the all-important overall tone is going to be adequate for the "Hobbit" project. He's going to film another installment of the same movie, and no mistake.
I can assure you, the best way to get rid of dragons is to have one of your own.
One billion to find them, ...
On billion to take them all,
And in the contracts bind them
In the studios, where the lawyers lie.
Could turn Tolkien's tomb into a gyroscope.
It'd be nice if he followed the looks of the Smaug in the old animated movie. He was "original" enough to be LOTRish with the cat/wolf hairy appearance, but stereotypically dragon enough to be cool and identifiable. http://www.thehobbit-movie-buzz.com/photos/44/smaug-the-dragon-from-the-hobbit-animated.php Despite loving the movies and books... i had problems with about half of the monsters in LOTR being disappointing. I'm of the mind that monsters should be more cool than ugly, and more menacing than plain disgusting. The Uruk-hai were too apelike(?) or something and were generally gross. Maybe it was just the actors that moved like apes for all the orcs... i dunno, many didn't seem orcish to me very much. Some were cooler than others (the more monstrous ones were extremely cool)... but things like 90% of gums showing instead of teeth on the Uruk-hai's snarl were just nasty/annoying. Like the following would have been good if not for the gums: http://geekspeak.org/articles/comic_con_2004_the_show/weta_uruk-hai_220x293.jpg The fell beasts were too ugly and eel-like or something instead of being more dragon-like. Gothmog (I think the name of the white orc with elephantitis, elephantitis???, in the movie) was just too disgusting despite having a slick demeanor. The oliphaunts, Gollum, etc. were very cool at least. The ringwraiths were VERY cool... they made up for all the effects that I disagreed with. Oh, and the Balrog was perfect, too! The WitchKing looking badass here, and even the winged beasty looks good at this angle. It may have been more of their movements that made them too eel-like. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/49/Fellbeast.jpg
He's a little old to play the younger Bilbo. I think it would be as awkward as the old lady acting in the flashbacks during 'Grandma Does Dallas'... "Did you just get out of the bath? Why all the wrinkles?"
dr;tl
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
See what he did? Because of him, we're scared of _ANY_ sequel. DAmn yoU Jar Jar!!!!!1
Nothing about Tolkien is special.
He just goes on and on and on and on with random names and excessive hyperbole.
If I wanted more convoluted, pointless, "epic" tales of elves, dwarfs, and various magical items, I would go back to playing World of Warcraft.
My favorite part of the entire series of books was when the hobbits came home and found the Shire taken over by evil and they lead a revolt to get their land back. LotR -- Book 6 - Chapter 8 - The Scouring of the Shire.
Would love to see one final movie to actually complete the books with the retaking of the Shire.
I'm waiting for a smeagol variety show.
I think the first film should end after Bilbo successfully saves the Dwarves in "Flies and Spiders", only to have them all fall captive to the Wood Elf King shortly thereafter. It's a good climax -> cliffhanger moment.
I agree with other assessments that the Jackson's darker visualization (remember he came from making horror flicks) was a good fit for the epic LOTR but might not succeed with the less-realistic Faerie-land style of "The Hobbit".
Right: Beorn is more friendly than frightening (perhaps until the Battle of 5 Armies).
Wrong: 30 minutes spent flashing back to the dungeons of the Necromancer (Sauron).
Two wrongs don't make a right. But three rights make a left.
Hey, you forgot something -
A FRIGGIN' HUGE, EVIL DRAGON!
-mcgrew
ps: so did I, namely slashdot's friggin lameness filter gets in the way of such good comedy gold I could scream
Oh wait, no I can't because Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted. Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Actually, he's split himself into two people, each of which will be able to devote his full creative and directorial energies to one of the Hobbit films.
Now nerds and geeks have renewed vigor for life and a reason to go on living!
Geek Of The Day, "A geeky place for geeky faces."
Your virginity is quite secure.
One of the worst things about the movies, apart from his changing the nature of some characters because he disagrees with Tolkien's beliefs, was that he can't do suspense. He has to replace it with gore. Let's find a competent director, please.
Deleted
Ah, this must be the kvetching thread...
I can fully appreciate some of the decisions made in bringing the books to the screen. For the movies, Tom Bombadil would be a distraction at best. The scouring of the Shire could have been great cinema by itself, but just wouldn't have fit well with the rest of an already long trilogy*. Arwen's larger role in the movies was necessary for obvious reasons. Many smaller changes and omissions not disturbing at all. I didn't even notice most of them at first, although it's hard to stay "in the moment" with the references to dwarf-tossing.
So, I have only two major gripes, both of them from The Two Towers: Aragorn being dragged off a cliff, and the treatment of Faramir. These bothered me enough that I skipped going to the third movie in the theater. Later, I regretted that as RoTK was closer to the book, or at least the extended edition DVD was.
On Aragorn: Why the whole lost-off-the-cliff sub-plot at all? I occasionally ruminate on this or discuss it with friends, but so far nobody has come up with a convincing justification.
On Faramir: Several problems, all related to his conversion from the quiet-yet-resolute book version to the asshole movie version. Yes, Faramir recovers from being an asshole in the movie, but one of the key points in the book is that he exemplifies the idea that some Men are actually strong enough to resist the influence of the Ring. This modification of Faramir leads to the Ring traveling to Osgiliath, which in turn leads to the nasty problem of a Nazgul coming within feet of nabbing the Ring, without the obvious consequences (all Nazgul immediately concentrate on Osgiliath to recover the Ring at all costs) when that one Nazgul's mount is injured. That one was intolerable.
OK, done bitching.
*I think Jackson & New Line missed an opportunity to milk the franchise a bit more with a (necessarily modified) version of the scouring of the Shire. They could have filmed it, but left it out of the extended & theatrical editions. Then they could have finally released it as an alternate ending on the super-double-extra-special-edition DVD set. Given a little foresight, they could have released that DVD set around the time of the Hobbit theatrical release to boost interest. I say "necessarily modified", because in the movies Grima is killed by Legolas after Grima stabs Saruman, leading to his death in a particularly nasty fall; both of these characters are key to the scouring of the Shire. Alternatives include Saruman surviving (hey, he's a wizard, and we never see a funeral or final disposition of the body) or perhaps a rogue Uruk-Hai filling that role. Grima's role is important, too, but it's hard to see a good replacement there unless they were to graft the Bill Ferny character (never made it from the book to the movie) into the Prancing Pony scenes.
- T
From a relatively trustworthy source Jackson will be producing and not directing. As far as I am aware there is quite a difference in those two jobs. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7150644.stm
I just wanted to point out that this movie doesn't need to be a super serious and reverent 6 hour Epic.
Read the book. It's a fun kids book that gets great joy out of doing horrible things to Dwarves.
Characters like Elrond have quite different, and lighter, personalities.
It doesn't need a great deal of "Poor poor Frodo/Bilbo is suffering so much! Just look into his sad puppy dog eyes!"
I hope it's a light hearted adventure and not taken too seriously.
Ps, Ian Holm? Maybe he can be sitting by a fire telling kids his story "Many years later"
While this comment is likely to get buried in the avalanche that preceeded it, I feel that it's necesary to point a few things out.
Most glaringly, the press release doesn't have any mention of Warner Bros. MGM doesn't hold the film rights to The Hobbit; Warner Bros. does, after purchasing them from the Saul Zaentz Corporation. The only thing that the press release mentions is that legal difficulties over The Lord of the Rings have been resolved, none of which involved the labyrinth of licensing issues around Tolkien's other works. Warner Bros. has been blocking the idea of letting the rights go ever since The Fellowship of the Ring turned out to be a hit. I see no indication that this has changed.
Second, although TheOneRing.net has a pretty good track record, they've been wrong before. Several years ago, they trumpeted the release of a "trailer" for The Hobbit, and later had to correct themselves when it turned out to be a fan-created work. Yes, TORn links to MGM's official media release page, but the only other link is to The Hobbit Blog. The blog seems to be officially sponsored by New Line, but the only link to it is in the sign-up page (for New Line's privacy policy), and the only link from New Line to the blog is in the press release, which is also posted on New Line's site. There aren't a lot of branches on this particular "family tree".
Next, there's Christoper Tolkien's long-standing disdain for any and all film adaptations of J.R.R.'s work. There wasn't much that he could do about The Hobbit and LotR, because his father sold the film rights to Zaentz himself. However, Christopher takes his position as his father's literary executor very seriously, and the chances that he will give the nod to use of any of his father's notes for a film that fills in the gap between The Hobbit and LotR are minute to the point of nonexistance.
I doubt that this is an elaborate hoax. I could see hacking one film studio site, but not two. However, I would be much more sanguine about the project if there were a linked article from an industry publication such as Variety, and preferably one that went into detail about how the legal wrangles with Warner Bros. and Zaentz were resolved.
Doing my level best to piss off the religious right wing...
I really don't give a flying fuck what the Oscars said. It's Hollywood's annual public masturbation scene, and is about as meaningful an indicator of film quality as budget size.
It so happens there are also countless fans who didn't enjoy the films. I went in to FotR perfectly prepared to like them -- looking forward to it, in fact. The first sure indicator they were going badly off the rails was Moria. There were signs before that, but they could be easily written off to the necessities of a film adaptation. (Which was not true in retrospect. There was no reason at all to compress the timeframe so tightly; the passage of an uneventful decade can be shown in a matter of one or two mintues. Turning Merry and Pippin, originally very dissimilar, into carbon copies of each other was absolutely unnecessary. Any two-bit film noir director would have known how to milk the scenes of last stage of the trip to the ferry for maximum tension without turning it into an idiotic chase scene. And making Saruman the one responsible for the snow on Caradhras? Rank stupidity.) Not only was the design of the city itself a disaster, but Frodo's ridiculous movie cliche "NOOOOOOOOO!" when Gandalf went down was like nails on a chalkboard. Lorien, apparently renamed "Land of the Stoners", confirmed it. The movies would be a thorough fuckjob. The next two, which I saw in the hope I was wrong, were even worse.
Were they poor quality in absolute terms? I don't know. Possibly not. The trouble is that with a few minor additional changes there would have been no need to title the films "Lord of the Rings" at all, so completely were the plot and characters twisted. They did not show me what I paid to see.
Anyway, the sequel to The Hobbit is Lord of the Rings. Unless by "sequel" Jackson means films of other extant stories from the Tolkien canon, it will be a travesty by definition. He should start working for the Disney sequel factory; they were made for each other. (The very existence of a "Cinderella II" demonstrates there are some people willing to make a sequel to anything, even a story that quintessentially has no sequel.)
And the brethren went away edified.
Well there is the whole argument that intellectual property is nothing more than a legal construct, which makes a virtual form of "property" out of nothing. (The whole "if I copy it, they still have it" point of view.)
My personal view is that copyright is a good thing, but the terms are far too long. I think it's a great thing that creators can profit from their work, and that it's useful to have a legal construct to make sure they have a chance to profit from it before other people drop in and plagiarise it, denying any profit for the person who created it and reducing the incentive to create. I also think it's beneficial for existing IP to be able to be passed on as inheritance. If Tolkien was intending to provide for his family through releasing LOTR, but dropped dead the day of publication, it'd seem unfair to leave his family in a completely unprotected state.
Having said this, the length of copyright terms and their perpetual extensions thanks to broken corporate business models are ridiculous. Copyrights shouldn't need to be longer than 7 years as an automatic term. Anything longer than that should require regular renewals, up to a specified maximum length of time, so that the only works that continue to be restricted are those which a creator has actually demonstrated an interest in.
Across the board copyright extensions are much of the reason why so many works are simply disappearing these days. Short of lots of work tracking down copyright holders and paying royalties, it's illegal to preserve them.
All this back-and-forth about things like the cast, directors, etc...is fine and dandy, but what I care about right now is the soundtrack. There is only one person I would trust with a soundtrack for the Hobbit, Howard Shore. Like the movie, I feel that the Two Towers soundtrack was a little lackluster, but FOTR and ROTK were absolutely wonderful! Oh, and while we're on the subject, can we get Annie Lennox back for a vocal take or two? Into the West is one of the most beautiful songs I have ever heard in a movie soundtrack; right up there with the main Jurassic Park theme (love the French Horn part, hauntingly beautiful) and a lot of other Williams stuff, in my book. The music is a lot of what really made the movies effective in getting across the appropriate emotions, and has moved me to tears on more than one occasion. If Howard doesn't do the scoring, I don't know if a good score is possible (I'm using a little bit of sarcasm...but not very much).
I hope he keeps it to a reasonable length. His version of King Kong was so damn drawn out, I'm tempted to skip seeing PJ's version of "The Hobbit" unless each film is under 2 and 1/2 hours.
No, I will not work for your startup
I have to say any movie adaptation of the Silmarillion would automatically be a disappointment for me. That work in particular is so much about the epic sprawl of history from creation through the first age through to the start of the third. Any tiniest part of it would make for a series of wonderful visual metaphors... but the whole would make for a very long, or a very bad movie.
By my rough count, the original dialogue weighs in at 156 syllables, which PJ compressed down to a mere 22 (if you count "AAaaagggh!" as a syllable).
Yes, something is lost in the process. But that's OK, you can still read the original book.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
I think absolute good and absolute evil are appropriate for a fantasy world and a story in the style of an ancient legend. Post-modern ideas about bias and subjectivity and moral relativism can get stuffed, they have no place in Middle Earth IMHO.
I agree with the GP about those changes to the noble character of the good guys being harmful. I'll also add that I found the Golum trying to turn Sam and Frodo against each other annoying and completely out of character with how I remember the books. Their trust for each other and friendship should have remained.
I'll also agree with earlier posters that I liked the added family tensions with Faramir in the extended version. That is one change I thought did work well.
1) Release The Hobbit
2) Release The Hobbit Part Deux
3) Profit
Snape kills Smaug.
No, thanks. Peter Jackson anywhere near the scene of Bilberry rescuing Owing, Glowing, Boing, Sproing, Doris and Donk from the spiders gives me the heebie-jeebies. He throws in a lot of greasy frisson that Tolkien never intended, and arguing that he would if he'd thought of it is churlish. Peter Jackson doing "What's up, Doc?" in the cameo outside the inn at Bree, is droll, maybe, but not half as funny as Ann jumping after the monkey would have been. Strider wearing camo? Glazzic. Boneless dinosaurs? CGI or not, I kept looking for the wires.
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
So when are the going to make a film of The Boggit?
http://www.ysrnry.co.uk/articles/theboggit.htm
Yah, the ring is just a footnote in the Hobbit really. It doesn't register as earth shatteringly important until much later :)
I seem to remember some comment saying it was difficult to make him look like a "younger" Bilbo in the introduction for a single scene. Would he be able to play the young Bilbo for the entirety of a film?
(If so, it would be cool if they managed to insert a part of the LotR ring-finding scene as it is, retroactively turning it into a flashback scene from the prequel while maintaining continuity with the other scenes in the Hobbit film itself. Movie continuity is an amusing topic.)
Can someone please update the title or summary? According to all articles about this, Jackson has ageed to produce the films, a director has still to be named.
Except that he isn't going to be directing, he'll be executive producer.
Not to say that he won't have significant artistic control, but he isn't going to be directing.
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
From 1st Kings "Now the rest of the acts of Rehoboam, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?" No, I can't quote that directly I had to look it up. But when I read that in a bible study class I thought, Hmm, kinda like Silmarrilion, a bunch of extra stories for background too long to put in the main book.
Quite why I am giving you the time of day, I don't know, but - whatever else he is - Peter Jackson is not a Hollywood Hack, even if we're prepared to put aside the small matter of six and a half thousand miles. A hack is, I'd argue, someone who cares little about the subject of their work, so long as they get paid. His dispute with New Line does make him look money-grubbing (though if someone owed me $100 million I'd probably pursue them for it). But even if his claim is totally bogus, it wouldn't change the fact that the LoTR movies, and King Kong for that matter, are obviously labours of love. The care and attention to detail - like having every sword forged by a traditional blacksmith, rather than moulded in plastic - is far above the call of duty, bordering on obsessively self-indulgent. I have no love for his early splatter movies like Eat The Rich, but - again - not hack-work by any stretch. You are, I'm afraid (but not very), completely and utterly wrong.
Why does no one seem to think they're going to turn the book into two movies? So much happens it could easily be so. Also note they're to be filmed at the same time.
Yes, that could indeed be interesting.
I agree with your post, but you gotta admit that the dwarf tossing bit was really out of place. Or was that in the book too?
That I don't know about, but I can actually see it happening, yes, even in Middle Earth. Somewhat of a tradition in New Zealand.