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.
But of course, like every such statement people make (e.g. "There's no way i'm sleeping with that donkey"), there is an unstated but very much present addendum of "unless someone gives me enough money, in which case hell yeah".
P.S. examples are not from personal experience, and you can't prove otherwise.
The enemies of Democracy are
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.
That would be awesome for the nerds of us who stayed awake through the introduction to the Valar.
But, Jackson didn't do that in LOTR did he? Except for some minor changes to the overall arc of the film, I found he did a pretty faithful job of it.
I think he's the director we have the least to worry about. At least, I hope he is. The cinemas wanted him because he has proven he can make the movies (and, of course, make the money) - at least it's not Uwe Boll.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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.
You just NAILED another reason copyright is useless, or at least useless for the current years (beyond the life of the author).
Here's a guy who just happens to be a KID of someone who created something fine. Someone else, who puts his money, time and name on the line decides to produce the movie. The movie is a success (by most), but the risk was huge. We're talking a risk of probably 9 figures? But yet the kid who has done nothing, can do nothing, and has no moral connection to the creation thinks he is due some money?
That's the problem with copyright: the actions of an individual are prevented from even being done. If the rights to the movie weren't optioned out a long time ago, its possible the movie might never have been made. I can think of quite a few movies that are prevented from being made because of the rights of the long-dead authors being held closely.
Sidenote: Just yesterday I inquired by Bozo the Clown (Chicago's version in Bob Bell) didn't wear the Bozo outfit when he accepted an award many years ago (before his death). I guess the guy who owned the rights to Bozo's look denied him the costume. Even worse, the guy who owned the rights wasn't even the guy who invented Bozo, but a guy who distributed Bozo shows. Unbelievable!
Peter Jackson helped generate several billion dollars in revenue. Believe it or no, I bet nobody in the studio system would dare to say anything but flattering things about him -- these movies will succeed because he'll be given the funding he needs from the start, and the right talent will happily come work with him on it.
I mean, really, show of hands
At this point, Jackson is the goose that laid the golden ring, err, egg.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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?"
He was thinking, "Goddamn, this Tolkien guy needed to get laid. This whole thing is one giant sausage-fest, and ol' J.R.R.'s idea of comic relief appears to have been, well, Tom Bombadil. If I'm going to bring these stories to a wider audience, which I have to do in order to justify the production costs needed to do justice to the material, I'm obviously going to have to tweak a few things. I can have turn Gimli into a goofball and have Arwen save Frodo, or everything else about the production is going to suck. Gee. What do I do here?"
I think that the opening, with the creation of the world through the orchestra of the Valar would probably be one of the most epic and impressive audiovisual entertainments ever, if done right.
Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
"The movies are for entertainment"...
So what the fuck are the books for?
The best is the enemy of the good
Don't write- just film the book. Thank you.
Yes, because there's nothing the general audience adores more than a 20 hour movie, of which 15 hours are shots of people walking, accented by the occasional 2 hour Ent song.