MGM and Warner Near On Deal For Hobbit Films

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MGM and Warner Near On Deal For Hobbit Films

Posted by CmdrTaco on Monday October 4, 2010 @03:44AM from the it's-precious-to-me dept.

Jamie found an NYT story that says "After months of negotiation and delay, Warner Brothers and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer are on the verge of an agreement that would allow the director Peter Jackson to begin shooting a two-part version of J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit early next year." The production has struggled recently with issues with unions, and a fire.

222 comments

The cartoon was better by simcop2387 · 2010-10-04 03:47 · Score: 5, Funny

Nothing can ever beat that cartoon.
1. Re:The cartoon was better by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 03:57 · Score: 0
  
  Which Cartoon?
2. Re:The cartoon was better by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 04:15 · Score: 0
  
  There was a "cartoon" version from a while back. Most of the "people" were shot live, then drawn over top of. Had a very weird look.
3. Re:The cartoon was better by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 04:18 · Score: 0
  
  Where there's a whip, *crack!*, there's a way!
4. Re:The cartoon was better by OldeTimeGeek · 2010-10-04 04:41 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  No, Ralph Bakshi used rotoscoping for his version of The Lord of the Rings in 1978. Rankin-Bass's 1977 verson of The Hobbit was plain-old animation...
5. Re:The cartoon was better by DarthVain · 2010-10-04 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  That all depends on how much pot you smoke right before you watch it.
6. Re:The cartoon was better by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 07:30 · Score: 0
  
  We don't wanna go to war today, but the lord of the lash says nay naY NAAAYYY
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdXQJS3Yv0Y
7. Re:The cartoon was better by mcgrew · 2010-10-04 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  I fucking HATE Hannah-Barbera cartoons, that one included. That said, I have a copy of it...
  OTOH, the Ralph Bakshi LOTR was very good. Too bad it only covered half the trilogy.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
8. Re:The cartoon was better by Unkyjar · 2010-10-04 08:16 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  You hate Hanna-Barbara cartoons? Well then it's a good thing that The Hobbit was a Rankin/Bass cartoon. You dodged a bullet there.
9. Re:The cartoon was better by zaivala · 2010-10-04 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  Um, considering the cartoon was Rankin-Bass, yes, it can be beaten. Rankin-Bass demolishes everything they touch, although "The Hobbit" and "The Last Unicorn" were mangled less than their usual.
10. Re:The cartoon was better by mcgrew · 2010-10-05 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  I hate Rankin-Bass even more. Although I will give Hannah Barbara credit for the Flintstones; the rendering was their typical crap, but at least they were funny (unlike the Jetsons).
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
11. Re:The cartoon was better by Unkyjar · 2010-10-05 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  But both stop motion and cell animation don't use rendering, that's typically a computer animation term.
  But I get it, your sense of humor and theirs didn't mesh. Cool. So maybe you're a Tex Avery devotee? Or a massive Disney fan?
12. Re:The cartoon was better by mcgrew · 2010-10-05 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  Actually I'm kind of partial to Ralph Bakshi, and Parker and Stone, and Matt Groening. I liked the old Betty Boop cartoons a lot (Max Fleischer; I think Bakshi was influenced by those flicks). Oh, and the Warner Bros. cartoons. "I'm ging to blow up the earth!"
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
13. Re:The cartoon was better by Unkyjar · 2010-10-05 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  That is a very unusual selection. I'm surprised you like Warner Bros. but not H-B, considering they did a lot of trading of talent, both writers and artists, as well as with MGM.
  I urge you not to discount all Hanna-Barbera, they've got a pretty deep stable of characters and classic bits, some of which you may not currently attribute to the production company. Personally, I really like Droopy Dog (originally MGM then turned into a H-B property), though I was never a Tom and Jerry fan.
  I'm shocked that you dislike Rankin-Bass so deeply though. I think the Last Unicorn and Flight of Dragons are notable animated movies, as well as the original Hobbit although you may dislike the added songs and music. I've never really seen them do a poor job with a feature length film.
  Though I have to admit that their TV series weren't really that good...Thundercats and Silverhawks were obviously not the same quality as their feature lengths.
  This of course is not even mentioning their stop-motion animation, which many people hate due to its saccharine nature and relationship to the Christian holidays.
I need glasses by killmenow · 2010-10-04 03:50 · Score: 5, Funny

I swear I read that as "The production has struggled recently with issues with Unicorns, and a fire."
1. Re:I need glasses by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 04:00 · Score: 0
  
  AAAAlways I wanna be with you....
2. Re:I need glasses by dubbreak · 2010-10-04 04:04 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I swear I read that as "The production has struggled recently with issues with Unicorns"
  I know it's the ultimate paradox. On one hand the original story didn't have unicorns on the other hand they are totally awesome.
  
  I can totally see how that would hold up production. If you're going to do unicorns you want to do them right and not just CG them in after the fact because you changed your mind and decided the movie would be that much more awesome with them.
  
  --
  "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
3. Re:I need glasses by AdamsGuitar · 2010-10-04 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  You aren't the only one that saw that. Took me three times to see "Unions"
4. Re:I need glasses by Tragedy4u · 2010-10-04 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  I think you meant "struggled with Unicorns and a flood", that would make it a struggle of old testament biblical proportions.
5. Re:I need glasses by pavon · 2010-10-04 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  Hehe. My first reaction was "That's a strange way to spell Onions, is this some reference from LOTR that I have forgotten?"
6. Re:I need glasses by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 04:29 · Score: 0
  
  Unicorns and fire.....fire? Extreme Fever? PEGGLE! :D
7. Re:I need glasses by delinear · 2010-10-04 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  And in an even weirder twist, I read your comment as Unicron.
8. Re:I need glasses by JWSmythe · 2010-10-04 04:51 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  You've never tried to choreograph a dance routine with a dozen unicorns and walking trees, have you? It might sound like fun and games, but it's not.
  The fire was purely an accident I tell you. It had nothing to do with that backtalking birch. I told her if she didn't shut her hole, she'd get what was coming to her, but nooooo. nooooo. A guy can only take so much I tell you.
  (ohhh, if we could only post the pictures inline, it would make this so much funnier)
  
  --
  Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
9. Re:I need glasses by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 05:04 · Score: 0
  
  You don't need glasses, you need different drugs...
10. Re:I need glasses by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 05:42 · Score: 0
  
  (ohhh, if we could only post the pictures inline, it would make this so much funnier)
  The trouble is not unicorns so much as goats. Or something spelled similar to goats, as it were.
11. Re:I need glasses by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 05:51 · Score: 0
  
  OMG!!!! PONIES!!!!
12. Re:I need glasses by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 06:37 · Score: 0
  
  While the unicorn was a bit scary, I totally agree. Goats' (as it were) are more disturbing. But hey, eventually even they get bored with it. It's no reason to ruin the fun for the rest of us. Some places have some things called moderators, who are in positions of trust and are allowed to remove abusive things like that.
13. Re:I need glasses by Anonymous+Freak · 2010-10-04 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  Yup, I read it the same way.
  
  --
  Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
  The purpose of that site was not known.
let's wait by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 03:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

Let's wait until there actually is an agreement made before we start celebrating. This thing has been "real close" to taking the next step too many times now.
1. Re:let's wait by Defenestrar · 2010-10-04 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah - the trouble with a movie about a bunch of dwarves and a hobbit is deciding on who gets the short straw - there's not enough to go around.
bummer by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 03:51 · Score: -1, Flamebait

The LOTR trilogy was cartoony, exaggerated stupid stuff, and didn't trust the story or the actors. (I shall not rant about the stupid 'dwarf toss' and other anachronisms; anothr time perhaps.) I suppose I can hope that Jackson won't wreck The Hobbit...nah, never mind.
1. Re:bummer by Sponge+Bath · 2010-10-04 04:01 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  ...the stupid 'dwarf toss' and other anachronisms
  I'd almost forgotten the skateboarding elf, thanks.
2. Re:bummer by Darkness404 · 2010-10-04 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  While it could be said that -any- movie wasn't as good as the book, I really thought that the LoTR trilogy was really, really well done. Now, if you want to see a good book series get murdered in film, look at the Narnia movies...
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
3. Re:bummer by ColdWetDog · 2010-10-04 04:36 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Tim, Tim Benzidrine
  Hash, Boo, Valvoline
  Clean, Clean, Clean for Gene
  First, Second, Neutral, Park
  Hie thee Hence, you leafy Narc!
  
  (always wanted to do that)
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
4. Re:bummer by Culture20 · 2010-10-04 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  Now, if you want to see a good book series get murdered in film, look at the Narnia movies...
  No joke. The nearly incorruptible King Caspian becomes a spoiled brat willing to consider ultimate evil. I bet he slays the dragon in the upcoming movie, and Eustace is never redeemed.
5. Re:bummer by nzAnon · 2010-10-04 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  This is from "Bored of the Rings", funny as hell parody.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bored_of_the_Rings
6. Re:bummer by Darkness404 · 2010-10-04 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  Not to mention that it turns an entire battle scene into a bloodless cakewalk. I mean, granted the books weren't gorefests but come on, a huge battle with really no casualties on either side? No one bleeds when shot with an arrow or attacked with a sword?
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Oh dear. by Dragooner · 2010-10-04 03:51 · Score: 1

I don't know why but I think I laughed for a few minutes when I read "The production has struggled recently with issues with Unions, and a fire." Is that so wrong?
I do look forward to the hobbit, one of the few books I ever read..

--
Fugga Wugga
1. Re:Oh dear. by mvar · 2010-10-04 03:55 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  It was a good book but i'm not sure if we should be happy that this is going to be made into a movie from the same man who literally destroyed Gimli (among others) in the lotr trilogy
2. Re:Oh dear. by KlomDark · 2010-10-04 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  Gimli died?
  Sure you're not confusing him with Trinity?
3. Re:Oh dear. by mvar · 2010-10-04 04:07 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  indeed, he would be better dead than playing the clown for the audience's comic relief
4. Re:Oh dear. by lgw · 2010-10-04 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  That was the least-concerning change for me. While the dwarf-tossing jokes were a bit 4th wall breaking (as anachronisms) and could have been done without, that was only a few seconds of film. As for the rest, Gimli always struck me as someone with unshakable self confidence, and an awareness of morale on long campaigns. It seemed fitting to his character that he'd be willing to lighten the mood at his own expense from time to time, not "destroying" his character at all.
  While the growth of his friendship with Legolas (and the resultant character growth for each) was given very little screen time, and I would have liked to see more of that instead of "suddenly they were friends", there's only room for so much on the screen.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
5. Re:Oh dear. by Defenestrar · 2010-10-04 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Dude - spoiler alert!
  I'm sure there's got to be someone interested in nerdy tech news (and how it pertains to movies) who hasn't seen...
  ...never mind, I concede the point.
6. Re:Oh dear. by RDW · 2010-10-04 22:18 · Score: 1
  
  'I don't know why but I think I laughed for a few minutes when I read "The production has struggled recently with issues with Unions, and a fire." Is that so wrong?'
  The Union should look really check where Brother Ulfang was at the time of the fire. I mean, you just can't trust that guy, they should never have let him join:
  http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Union_of_Maedhros
We already know how it ends by sideslash · 2010-10-04 03:51 · Score: 5, Funny

With the producers, director, actors, production crews, and distributors facing off in a lawsuit -- a great Battle of Five Armies over a huge pile of gold.
Don't get me wrong, I'm looking forward to throwing my $10 on the pile. I'm sure the film itself will be great.
1. Re:We already know how it ends by digitalhermit · 2010-10-04 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  I'm going to get mauled for this... but I really enjoyed reading The Hobbit and think it will make a great movie.
  The LoTR movies were good, and so were the books. The problem I had with the LoTR movie is the same problem I have with any massive chronicle. Namely, special effects -- no matter how great -- cannot even really compare with imagination. Plus, there's so much happening in LoTR movie that my small brain got a little lost. The same thing happened with Transformers, X-Men, The Mummy, etc..
  The Hobbit is a perfect book for a movie. There's a quest, the bad guys are clearly defined, the good guys are funny and personable. There are adventures along the way. There's humor. There are pretty women. There's fighting, trolls, river journeys. In short, everything that makes an enjoyable fairy tale is in The Hobbit.
  (My other pet peeve with BIG movies is that the hero/heroine must actively advance the plot. In many of the Harry Potter movies, Harry Potter doesn't do a whole lot except "fulfill a destiny". I'm left with the feeling that any idiot could be placed in the role and because there was a prophecy to fulfill, the idiot would complete it. I'm much more in favor of someone knowing there's a prophecy and doing his/her darndest to fight that prophecy.)
2. Re:We already know how it ends by Darby · 2010-10-04 08:02 · Score: -1
  
  I'm much more in favor of someone knowing there's a prophecy and doing his/her darndest to fight that prophecy.
  Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever?
3. Re:We already know how it ends by wwphx · 2010-10-05 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  There are two letters that are a problem with this: 3 and D. I DO NOT WANT TO BE FORCED TO WATCH THIS IN 3-D!
  
  I know I'll also probably sacrifice $20 for my wife and I, and probably more than once, but that doesn't mean that I won't bitch about it and be happy when the 2-D DVD comes out.
  
  --
  When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
First Dorks by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 03:53 · Score: -1, Offtopic

First
Oooooh, anonymous sources! by Rogerborg · 2010-10-04 03:54 · Score: 4, Funny

Magic Palantír Says: DON'T COUNT ON IT

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
1. Re:Oooooh, anonymous sources! by LanMan04 · 2010-10-04 03:59 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Outlook not so good. MY EYES!
  
  --
  With the first link, the chain is forged.
Two parts? by Joce640k · 2010-10-04 03:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

ie. They're going to milk this for all it's worth.

--
No sig today...
1. Re:Two parts? by Fishead · 2010-10-04 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  Yup... and I will refuse to see the first part until the second part comes out and I can watch them back to back.
2. Re:Two parts? by Ukab+the+Great · 2010-10-04 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  Why buy the cow when you can milk the bull for free?
3. Re:Two parts? by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2010-10-04 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  A large group of people throw money at a franchise and it's lame that they're 'milking' it?
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
4. Re:Two parts? by bigredradio · 2010-10-04 04:24 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  The first part is the movie. The 2nd part is the ending where everybody says goodbye to each other.
  
  --
  Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
5. Re:Two parts? by grub · 2010-10-04 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  They could have cut the LOTR trilogy into 6 parts then I could skip parts 2, 4 and 6 where the Hobbits just ran through the woods.
  
  --
  Trolling is a art,
6. Re:Two parts? by Charliemopps · 2010-10-04 04:40 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The Hobbit was 2 parts. The lord of the rings really should have been about 9 movies. but you know that'd never happen. God forbid they ever try and do the silmarillion.
7. Re:Two parts? by Kjella · 2010-10-04 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  For one Peter Jackson is not George Lucas, also I doubt he's had any deciding power in the DVD/BluRay release schedule which is an insult to all the fans. He had to fight hard enough to get his own money. If you're going to stay true to the book then I'd say one movie leading up to and ending in the climax of Smaug's defeat is a good first movie. Making that a little "middle climax" and the battle of five armies the final climax doesn't do it justice at all. Remember that the LotR movies were much, much longer than normal cinema movies so there's plenty material for two movies. I think it can be good, certainly much better than fellowship of the ring and that really did end in the middle of nowhere, and that wasn't a bad film at all.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
8. Re:Two parts? by BabyDuckHat · 2010-10-04 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  No, it's not like that at all. It's not a money grab, it's just that the story is so epic that they couldn't figure out how to put it all into just one part. Oh wait, never mind. That was Starcraft 2.
9. Re:Two parts? by UnknownSoldier · 2010-10-04 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  > Why buy the cow when you can milk the bull for free?
  Methinks you (pardon the pun), butchered that...
  "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" - FTFY
  Anyways, the answer is: To keep the other bulls away so you have a monopoly on the milk... and the heifers...
  But I digress.
  Soooo, bringing this back ON topic, when have the movie studies NOT tried to screw the public out their money with all the [crappy] sequels.
10. Re:Two parts? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 05:18 · Score: 0
  
  ie. They're going to milk this for all it's worth.
  Question(s): Is there a problem with a company wanting to get the most out of something?
  I do wonder if two films makes sense, but I do know that 2 hours (or even 3) would not give the Hobbit enough time to cover all the material in the book without pissing off legion of fans by having to re-write part of the story to make sense for all the stuff they'd have to cut out.
  I suppose this is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. If you make it into 2 films, you're a greedy money grubbing bastard and people jump on the "corporations are evil" bandwagon, that's so popular right now, mixed in the "Studios are the king of evil" group (a title that they certainly made for themselves for many reasons). You produce one film, cut a bunch of story out, rewrite the script to try and make sense for the stuff you had to cut (to avoid loosing people who don't have the book memorized), but try to keep enough to make the die-hard fans happy, and end up with an amalgamated mess that no one likes.
  *shrug*
  I'll wait for the film to be released, see it, and then decide if they deserve further support.
  God forbid they decided to make two films because they couldn't make the best films possible without it, and making the best film possible means they'll make the most money as possible, because making one crap-tastic film won't win them much revenue beyond opening week hype.
  If the films suck, then it's a rightful criticism that they just polished a turd to make money in a 'bad way'. If they're as good as the LotR's films(assuming we can agree that those films were good), I don't see any justification for shitting on their doorstep for making money for making a good product.
11. Re:Two parts? by lgw · 2010-10-04 05:23 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Actually, the Silmarillion would be fine - it's a set of short stories, many of which would make fine movies. No one needs to see Genesis on the screen, but there's great movie material past the begats.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
12. Re: Two parts? by killmenow · 2010-10-04 05:26 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  God forbid anyone ever try and read the silmarillion.
13. Re: Two parts? by lbalbalba · 2010-10-04 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  >
  > God forbid anyone ever try and read the silmarillion.
  >
  Actually, i have tried a few times - but always seemed to black out. All I can remember is some sort of historic summary, that goes like :
  18xx - King Foo does Bar
  19xx - King Foo dies
  20xx - Elf X does Y
  and so on and so on ...
14. Re:Two parts? by elrous0 · 2010-10-04 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  I hear they're doing the same thing with the next Harry Potter book. Then they'll probably go to three movies for the next book. That poor kid is going to be 40 by the time they get to the last movie in that series. Guess we'll see if his magic spells can fix thinning hair.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
15. Re:Two parts? by Joce640k · 2010-10-04 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  I still remember putting my first LOTR DVD into the player and being greeted by an advert for the extended edition - "Available next month!!"
  There's milking, and there's ripping off.
  
  --
  No sig today...
16. Re:Two parts? by UnknowingFool · 2010-10-04 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  That's the one thing I disliked about Return of the King. There were too many goodbyes and they seemed to drag on forever. The journey to the sea was in the appendix of the Return of the King as part of a timeline of what happened later. They could have done it as a voice-over epilogue which would have cut the movie by 10 minutes.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
17. Re:Two parts? by Joce640k · 2010-10-04 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  The Hobbit is a pretty slim book compared to The Lord Of The rings. Padding it out two two movies isn't a decision being made by the director, you can bet on that.
  It's a bean-counting decision, the director is being ordered to pad it out with fluff. Expect plenty of jolly japes (ie. more dwarf tossing and skateboarding elves)
  Plus there's the time lag. I'd be OK with two parts if they released them a couple of months apart but what are the chances of that...? Slim and none.
  
  --
  No sig today...
18. Re: Two parts? by im_thatoneguy · 2010-10-04 06:07 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It took me about 4 tries but it was worth it.
  Once you read it a few times you start remembering who is who and then the significance of the story emerges.
  Even the names of swords are important and it's easy to forget 100 pages earlier that you already were introduced to character.
  It also helps to understand the structure of the story: The first page is the entire story. The 1st chapter is the entire story and then it decompresses exponentially from there.
19. Re:Two parts? by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2010-10-04 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  Did you look into it at all before you made a purchase? I ask because every time I've seen a complaint about this the announcement was made before the release of the lite DVD.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
20. Re:Two parts? by halcyon1234 · 2010-10-04 06:18 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  God forbid they ever try and do the silmarillion.
  I think they should do an entire HBO vignette series out of the Silmarillion. There's lots of good fodder in there that would distill down nicely to a 3-story episode, or a multi-part story arc or two. Plus they can bring on multiple actors, directors and writers to suit the individual stories.
  And can you seriously tell me that you don't want to see an epic battle against a horde of Balrogs? Or an invasion of an armada so vast that the only way to defeat them is to crack the planet?
  
  --
  UTF-8: There and Back Again
21. Re:Two parts? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 06:45 · Score: 0
  
  >
  > battle against a horde of Balrogs
  >
  Wait, what ? There's a battle against a whole horde of Balrogs, hidden somewhere in there ? Well Tolkien's done a fine job of hiding it, then ...
22. Re: Two parts? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 07:21 · Score: 0
  
  God forbid anyone ever try and read the silmarillion.
  LOL. I love reading and all but that book gave me a headache. I felt like making a chart to refrence all of the names that we close but not quite the same.
23. Re: Two parts? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 07:36 · Score: 0
  
  Reading the Silmarillion is painful due to the lack of pronunciation guide for the names. I'd recommend the unabridged reading of the Silmarillion available on audio CD for those that find the book impenetrable.
24. Re:Two parts? by Unkyjar · 2010-10-04 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  You know...now that you mention it, you're right, the Silmarillion would make great material for a series of shorter films. Personally I think it would be great to have them animated and directed by a whole bunch of different talents like they did with the Animatrix and Halo:Legends.
25. Re: Two parts? by loufoque · 2010-10-04 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  I guess it's a matter of taste.
  I personally found it to be the only book from all of Tolkien's work that was interesting.
  The rest is highly overrated.
26. Re:Two parts? by Shining+Celebi · 2010-10-04 10:09 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  And can you seriously tell me that you don't want to see an epic battle against a horde of Balrogs? Or an invasion of an armada so vast that the only way to defeat them is to crack the planet?
  
  Or cool Elves! By the time of the Lord of the Rings, the only remaining Elves are the uncultured types (Legolas) and the aging hippies laying around and doing nothing but reminiscing about better days (Elrond and Galadriel). The Silmarillion is like, their Woodstock with fire and demons. Take Feanor, the greatest Elf ever to live. You know the Palantir? Those were like, one of his weekend projects he did when he got bored one day. When he wasn't making cool stuff, he was standing up to the Man. And by that, I mean when the most powerful god in Middle-Earth came knocking, the guy who could take on all the other gods alone in the beginning, the guy who kept Sauron around as a pet, Feanor slammed his door in the dude's face and told him to gtfo. This dude's last words were basically "DO IT BIG, GUYS. DO IT BIG."
  And you know how all the Elves in LotR are goody-two-shoes pansies? Not in The Silmarillion. Do things like "the Kinslayings", "the Curse of the Noldor", the "Oath of Feanor", and "The Grinding Ice" sound like pansy crap to you? When these Elves showed up, the Big Bad had to invent dragons because Orcs were completely and utterly outmatched. When they saw Balrogs, these Elves didn't call out for Gandalf. Feanor took on multiple Balrogs and their troll-guard at once. Glorfindel - the same dude who got cut from the LotR movies - fights and kills a Balrog. And dragons, oh man, were there dragons. Smaug in the Hobbit is like a baby dragon. Ancalagon the Black crushed mountains (plural) when he fell from the skies.
  The Silmarillion - if you take the time to get past Genesis, which is important backstory - is not a story for the faint of heart. It's full of incest, treachery, gods, treachery, and much more. You'll recognize a couple characters from the Lord of the Rings. The Silmarillion is a very, very intricate story, and it does take time to understand, but once you've got a grasp on it, it's pretty mindblowing.
  Also, you get to see Sauron put to shame by a man, his girlfriend, and their loyal dog.
27. Re:Two parts? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 10:30 · Score: 0
  
  That 'whooshing' sound you heard was the joke flying over your head at a very high altitude.
28. Re:Two parts? by halcyon1234 · 2010-10-04 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  Wait, what ? There's a battle against a whole horde of Balrogs, hidden somewhere in there ? Well Tolkien's done a fine job of hiding it, then ...
  Yup, so well hidden that only the Scouts of W'Ikipyd-hei can find them:
  
  There is a host of them stated to number a thousand in Quenta Silmarillion while at the storming of Gondolin, Balrogs in the hundreds ride on the backs of the Dragons
  
  --
  UTF-8: There and Back Again
29. Re:Two parts? by GNious · 2010-10-04 21:44 · Score: 1
  
  While I agree, I'd like to see how HBO is handling a certain other thing first, before I recommend them for the task: http://winter-is-coming.net/
30. Re:Two parts? by drinkypoo · 2010-10-05 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  That 'whooshing' sound you heard was the joke flying over your head at a very high altitude.
  I thought it was the sound of bull milk.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
31. Re:Two parts? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-05 16:24 · Score: 0
  
  I thought that the movies were up to the last Harry Potter book?
32. Re: Two parts? by Charliemopps · 2010-10-07 01:11 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, really. The Silmarillion is Tolkiens best work. It's hard to read... REALLY hard to read... as in, like trying to read the entire bible in old English kinda hard. But the story is well worth it.
Sigh by MBGMorden · 2010-10-04 03:57 · Score: 1

You know, with Duke Nukem Forever actually looking like it's going to come out, it's a shame that we're losing such a great internet meme, because I was just about to say how The Hobbit is starting to look like the Duke Nukem Forever of the film world. :(

--
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
1. Re:Sigh by Shimdaddy · 2010-10-04 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  We'll always have the Arrested Development movie :P
As I recall... by HerculesMO · 2010-10-04 03:58 · Score: 1

The Hobbit was the most boring of the Tolkien books, but hey, I'm all for a movie!

--
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
1. Re:As I recall... by corbettw · 2010-10-04 04:07 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  The Hobbit was the most boring of the Tolkien books, but hey, I'm all for a movie!
  Isn't that like saying the Pacific Ocean is the most wet of the oceans?
  
  --
  God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
2. Re:As I recall... by demonbug · 2010-10-04 04:20 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  The Hobbit was the most boring of the Tolkien books, but hey, I'm all for a movie!
  Isn't that like saying the Pacific Ocean is the most wet of the oceans?
  Sure... if you're illiterate ;p
3. Re:As I recall... by Darkness404 · 2010-10-04 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  I actually preferred The Hobbit to the LoTR trilogy by far. The Hobbit was much better written, I actually enjoyed reading through the entire book while it seemed like I had to force myself to read the LoTR trilogy. While LoTR had a better plot, when it comes to the actual book, I much preferred The Hobbit.
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
4. Re:As I recall... by Noughmad · 2010-10-04 04:29 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  So I suppose you didn't read Silmarillion?
  
  --
  PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
5. Re:As I recall... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 05:06 · Score: 0
  
  Tolkien's books have had a special place in my heart, ever since I read them as a child. But I laughed pretty hard at your post :-)
6. Re:As I recall... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 05:22 · Score: 0
  
  Check and mate!
  "There was Eru in in Arda was call Illuvitar and from him came the Annur..."
7. Re:As I recall... by fredjh · 2010-10-04 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with Darkness404 (post above yours)... The Hobbit was a fairly easy, entertaining, and fast paced read compared to LOTR.
  Reading the Silmarillion, though, was like reading a cross between a bible and the world's most boring history book.
  Sure, packed with details and interesting tidbits of Middle Earth history... but boring as sin.
  
  --
  Stupid, sexy Flanders.
8. Re:As I recall... by natehoy · 2010-10-04 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  Reading the Silmarillion, though, was like reading a cross between a bible and the world's most boring history book.
  I agree, but it also depends on what you are reading for. I tried the Simarillion as a kid, and, umm, no way in hell was I going to willingly slog through it.
  I loved the Hobbit and liked LoTR at 13, but I only got through about 20 pages of the Simarillion as a 14-year-old and would rather have removed my own intestines with a dull spoon than continue. But I had only read the Hobbit and LoTR once each, so I had little context as to why the history of that universe might be interesting. I was also 14 years old, and was dealing with too many boring history books as it was.
  Now, as an adult way too many years later, I like The Hobbit but find it a hard read (too many blasted exclamation points, for one). I've maybe read that twice as an adult. Love the story, but the writing is too "young". Which is appropriate given that it's more of a kid's book, and that's as it should be. I'd love to see a few of the "lo! Oh Joy!" lines and exclamation points taken out for an adult version as long as the story remains intact.
  LoTR is something I keep a leatherbound edition of around and give it a solid re-read every 2-3 years. I've probably read it a dozen times, and I expect I'll continue doing so until I'm dead. It's well worth re-reading repeatedly. As my own life changes, I see myself sympathizing with different characters and reading different things from it each time. It's a complex story full of nuances I missed as a young pup, and it's a slightly different read each time. I know how it ends, but I still love the journey (something a film cannot do, that's always the same journey so there's little point in re-watching it too many times).
  I have yet to develop the intestinal fortitude to try the Simarillion again. But, given many reads of LoTR and a few of the Hobbit, and the patience (if not wisdom) imparted by age, I might be able to get through it and even possibly enjoy it now. I still look back on the horror of facing it as a young pup, though, and it's kind of made it something to dread rather than look forward to. The importance of not introducing youngsters to something too "grown up" for their age is worth mentioning. I HATED Shakespeare and Greek tragedies in Junior High School and High School, and it's only by forcing myself to re-read them as an adult that I've discovered that there's some good shit there.
  
  but boring as sin.
  I have yet to find a sin that is boring. I'll keep looking. Do you have any suggestions? ;)
  
  --
  "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
9. Re:As I recall... by Elbows · 2010-10-04 07:05 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I had a similar experience, but I did eventually get through the Silmarillion. I think I read it twice, eventually.
  The first half is basically the Middle Earth version of Genesis. Most of it could probably be compressed into a genealogy chart without losing too much. The second half is a lot more interesting. But you have to slog through the first half so you know who everyone is. Otherwise you'll just get lost of in a sea of near-identical names.
  If you're a big LotR fan, it's probably worth the effort.
10. Re:As I recall... by B1oodAnge1 · 2010-10-04 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  The first time I read the Silmarillion I started at the end and worked my way back to the beginning. It helped me a lot to start with the story I already knew and then add to that.
  
  --
  RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
11. Re:As I recall... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 08:31 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  If sin is boring, you're doing it wrong.
Peter jackson... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 04:00 · Score: 0, Troll

Another one of my childhood favorite story just died by the hands of that moron.
1. Re:Peter jackson... by mark72005 · 2010-10-04 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  ok... I know the books are always better than the films, a film can't conceivably cover what you can cover in several hundred printed pages, but I thought the LOTR films were pretty well done.
  
  Why the hate?
2. Re:Peter jackson... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 04:22 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  He left out Tom Bombadil and the ending (the scourging of the Shire, or something like that?). I would consider those things potentially worthy of hate.
3. Re:Peter jackson... by FrankSchwab · 2010-10-04 04:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I'll agree with that...
  Other than about 20 seconds worth of film, I think the LOTR films were a far better adaptation of the books than I thought possible.
  When I heard that the story was coming out on film, I was expecting a treatment like "I, Robot" got - schlock only vaguely related to the book. Instead, we got a movie that captured the feel of the books almost perfectly, and told the same story. The movie was better for the visuals - it fleshed the world out much better than my puny imagination had been able to do.
  I've never quite understood the haters, either.
  
  --
  And the worms ate into his brain.
4. Re:Peter jackson... by SebaSOFT · 2010-10-04 04:32 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Neither of those chapters contribute to the story as a whole. Remember that (in the movies) Saruman died at Isengard, so the episode of the Shire wouldn't make sense. Also Tom Bombadil IMHO doesn't make sense with the darkish setting of the story.
5. Re:Peter jackson... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 04:38 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Okay, but cutting short Bill the Pony's story is unforgivable.
6. Re:Peter jackson... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  But... but... Bill the Pony!!
7. Re:Peter jackson... by delinear · 2010-10-04 04:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I always wondered if the fact that Hobbits were used to eating 'shrooms and smoking their special tobacco is what made them slightly more resilient to the promises of the ring, and therefore the ideal ring-bearers, but the movie pretty much strips out all of that without really explaining why Hobbits are better suited to carry the ring than, say, the giant eagle (who presumably could have dropped off the ring in a couple of hours and been back in time for tea).
8. Re:Peter jackson... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 04:43 · Score: 0
  
  Agree completely re: Bombadil.
  The Scourging of the Shire, however, is important, despite Tolkien's concerted efforts to discourage any allegorical or moral reading of the story. Dark satanic mills my eye.
9. Re:Peter jackson... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 04:44 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  I would have preferred he left the undead army thing from ROTK out to be honest. Kinda made the whole struggle feel pointless when there was an army with noclip and god mode fighting that comes along and defeats the bad guys with ease.
  And can you imagine ROTK with the attack on the Shire? People already complained about how long the ending dragged on. :p
10. Re:Peter jackson... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 04:52 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Agreed. Tom Bombadil doesn't even fit well with the book IMO. They seem like they were just shoved in there as if you already had a story from A to Z, but then later decided to add an E2 and E3 with a tone almost different from the whole book.
  The movies are wonderful and keep the story moving.
  The only issue with Saruman is, IIRC, he wasn't shown dying in the theatrical release but only in the extended scenes. But even in the theatrical release it made it seem that he was at least defeated and kept under guard.
11. Re:Peter jackson... by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · 2010-10-04 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  I would have at least filmed it to put in as a bonus feature on the DVD.
  Personally, I'm glad I didn't have to watch Orlando Bloom sing "Hey Diddle Diddle" stretched out to 13 verses.
  
  --
  
  Technoli
12. Re:Peter jackson... by Genrou · 2010-10-04 05:20 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I think this is well explained in the books and in the movie, though somewhat in the subcontext: hobbits have so little power and are so devoid of ambitions (other than living a very simple life) that the Ring doesn't have a strong effect on them. It would corrupt a powerful being such as a Maia (such as Gandalf) or a great Eagle. Moreover, that might explain why the Ring has absolutely no effect on Tom Bombadil. But maybe I'm seeing too much.
13. Re:Peter jackson... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 05:23 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  I would go further: the books are written in an awful style and full of ideological bullshit, while Jackson have achieved pretty epic movies from them.
  The book are for kids who can't read real ones.
14. Re:Peter jackson... by psycho12345 · 2010-10-04 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  I was always under the impression that the hobbits were not so easily corrupted by the ring, because their race had never wielded rings of power nor had any made for them, unlike the elves, dwarves and men. I guess the smoking also help, because it indicates a lifestyle that's about enjoying life, not accumulating power of some kind (power over nature, metal or other beings).
15. Re:Peter jackson... by Kjella · 2010-10-04 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  Well it's fantasy so take your pick:
  1. It was guarded by the Nazgul. Only after the destruction of the ring are the eagles able to reach the mountain.
  2. Their half-animal minds lack the strength of character and will to subdue the ring.
  3. If the eagles could not resist using the ring near Sauron then he would sense it and send his minions.
  If you look at the other members of the fellowship, they're pretty much all driven by some sort of ambition. It might be that Frodo isn't *that* special, but none of the other are really suited to the task, it would have to be another "nobody" that does not desire power. Or it might be Hobbit society, which you can see is far less war-torn than Elves or Men or Dwarfs and so instills a natural goodness in hobbits that the others don't have.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
16. Re:Peter jackson... by JAZ · 2010-10-04 05:34 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It wasn't what was cut so much as what was changed:
  Merri and Pippin weren't bumbling fools who accidentally kinna tagged along, they were dear friends who wanted to help and wouldn't let Frodo go without them.
  There were no elves at Helm's Deep.
  Faramir was a better man than his brother and didn't try to take Frodo or the ring back to Minas Tirith.
  Shelob was a fabulous ending to the Two Towers but lost drama in the middle of RotK.
  Aragon wasn't hiding from his heritage, he carried the broken blade with him as a reminder of his destiny (although he was cynical about it).
  Arwen wasn't a bad-ass who could out-class the wraiths, Glorfindal was the bad-ass warrior who afforded the hobbits some protection so they could get to Rivendell.
  Just a few examples off the top of my head, the main thing was how many character that were fundamentally "wrong" when compared to the books.
  
  --
  
  "Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." -- Homer Simpson
17. Re:Peter jackson... by bill_mcgonigle · 2010-10-04 05:35 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I was always under the impression that the hobbits were not so easily corrupted by the ring, because their race had never wielded rings of power nor had any made for them, unlike the elves, dwarves and men.
  Gollum was a Hobbit
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
18. Re:Peter jackson... by natehoy · 2010-10-04 05:36 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  What I got from both the books and the movie on that was simply that Hobbits don't really give two shits about power. Tolkien hammered on this concept until it hurt, and Jackson remained pretty true to that concept. They intentionally choose a simple life, they have little interest in controlling (or, let's be honest, even helping) anyone outside their borders, so the whole concept of a ring that gives absolute power has little meaning. The Ring can corrupt them (see Smeagol/Gollum and Frodo). Hell, even Bilbo got corrupted by it to an extent, but he managed to hold out for quite a while because he didn't know what it was.
  The only people who could bear the Ring are those who could wield it (limited to a population of one, named "Sauron") and those to whom it would not occur to try.
  Bilbo never had a clue what the Ring was, or what it represented. At least not until long after it was out of his hands, and I'm not sure he really knew anything other that it was a burden to Frodo, then forgot about that soon after. To him, it was a magical little shiny that allowed him to avoid unpleasant encounters and skulk around. He didn't have buttons the Ring could have pushed to seek absolute power. He didn't know about it, and didn't care, other than the small and insignificant uses he put it to. Even so, it took threats from Gandalf to get him to set it aside, and it still gnawed at him.
  Frodo knew what he had from fairly early on, but lacked the sort of desire for power the Ring could leverage. Even so, the Ring did work on Frodo at the end. He was unable to cast it into the fires and actually started to try and wield it, and it fell on Gollum and a bit of clumsiness and happy chance to finally destroy the Ring.
  Hobbits are also insignificant to the powerful to the point of near invisibility. Give the Ring to an Eagle, and he'd be spotted and intercepted, probably before he crossed the border into Mordor, if his own sense of power didn't turn his purposes to that of the Ring's first. No one could wield it without Sauron being aware of it (and eventually being subverted by it), and no one could openly fight past Sauron and into Mordor without wielding it. It was only through stealth that Frodo managed to get the Ring into Mordor without being immediately caught.
  Remember, all of the people who understood the ring and understood power (Gandalf, Elrond, Aragorn, Faramir, Galadriel, etc) were strong enough to reject the ring but wise enough to understand that they were not strong enough to control it or even handle it. Boromir was weak enough to be unable to reject the ring, and though he managed to reject it briefly it was really only Saruman's orcs killing him off that saved him from eventually succumbing to its appeal and attempting to wield it. Denethor was weak enough that the mere concept that it slipped through Faramir's fingers was enough to drive him batshit crazy.
  No one who was strong enough to understand what the Ring truly was would be strong enough to carry it for any length of time. Its power was too appealing.
  
  --
  "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
19. Re:Peter jackson... by Defenestrar · 2010-10-04 05:37 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Not to mention that the undead army never made it to Pelannor Fields. They defeated the Corsairs of Umbar, were released from service, and the reinforcements came from the freed slaves and the now un-besieged coastal region.
  Allowing Saruman his final chance of redemption (to wait out the war & think about why he (and other Istari) was sent to middle earth), show that even Fangorn was susceptible to Saruman's final evil skill (voice), and show the damage which can still be caused by a hollowed out "powerless" voice set loose among a good-natured group such as the Shire, cheats Gandalf and Saruman of character and Tolkien of some of his more subtle points. Not to mention cheating the Shire of it's endurance before and hard-will after the rising sparked by the returning hobbits.
20. Re:Peter jackson... by AffidavitDonda · 2010-10-04 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe if they would've hired Ivan Doroschuk for that, it would have worked. The "Safety Dance" video comes quite near to how I imagined the Tom Bombadil chapter while reading LOTR:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjPau5QYtYs
21. Re:Peter jackson... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 05:46 · Score: 0
  
  Rather than never having had any rings of power themselves, I always thought that it was a lack of desire for power. Constantly, the other characters (especially in the books), even the good ones, are talking about using about using the ring to control for good (still desiring power). The hobbits on the other hand, just care about simple, peaceful existences. Additionally, in the book, it talks about the mercy of Bilbo in not slaying Gollum as playing a factor in the rings diminished power over him.
22. Re:Peter jackson... by CatsupBoy · 2010-10-04 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  The movie was better for the visuals - it fleshed the world out much better than my puny imagination had been able to do.
  Agreed, my favorite scene was Argonath, which looked way better on screen then it ever could in my head.
  
  I think most of the appropriate criticism lies in the character depictions. I'm not sure that humanized and angry Elves or a bumbling dwarf is what Tolkien had in mind. Its hard for me to watch as Elrond gets worked up and emotional about things, or when Gimli plays a part in dick and fart jokes.
  
  However, the films remain in my library and get watched as they are still pretty amazing. Its hard to believe that Hollywood could do any better then this.
23. Re:Peter jackson... by Shining+Celebi · 2010-10-04 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  I've never quite understood the haters, either.
  I don't hate the movies - they definitely look cool and were cool to watch - but I strongly disagree that they captured the feel of the book. The book had completely different themes and characters that acted and felt much differently. There were some things changed just for cheap dramatic reasons - Treebeard was determined to march to Isenguard in the book, and he held an Entmoot to convince as many other Ents as possible to come along, which wasn't hard. As Treebeard explained, they all wanted to because of the terrible things Saruman had done, and the Ents felt like it was the last thing they could do for the world before they all fell into their tree-sleep. In the movie, the Ents say no, so Merry and Pippin have to resort to tricking Treebeard - supposedly the oldest and wisest guy alive - into going into a rage and unilaterally ordering the Ents to attack. That's the kind of thing that bothers people, I think. Elrond, Denethor, Faramir, and others get the same kind of treatment.
  The Scouring of the Shire was a crucial part of the book. There were signs that something was amiss in The Shire from the beginning of the book, and Elrond wanted to send Merry and Pippin back from Rivendell to The Shire so that the Hobbits could be roused against the threat, and he is only convinced against his better judgment. In Lothlorien, Sam sees in Galadriel's mirror the destruction of The Shire and wants very badly to go back, but Galadriel explains that it's foolish to make decisions based on the mirror. When everyone arrives in Isenguard, they find Hobbit pipe-weed that Saruman has been importing on a large scale. At one point, Saruman warns the Hobbits that they should hurry back home, and Gandalf mentions more than once that Hobbits and The Shire, previously unknown to Sauron, are taking his full attention now. So in the end, the Hobbits and Gandalf return - but Gandalf leaves before they arrive in The Shire, because his work is done, and what remains is up to them to deal with (and Gandalf evidently knows something.) The Hobbits return to The Shire, drive out all the Men, and rebuild it as best they can - a work that is greatly aided by Galadriel's gift to Sam. But when they find out Saruman is behind it at all, Frodo forgives him and tells him to go on his way.
  That's a very important part of the book. Despite everything Saruman had done, Frodo forgave him and wanted him to have another chance at redemption - and for Saruman, that was the worst fate imaginable. Of course, his chance didn't last too long since Wormtongue stabbed him in the back right afterwards. :) But The Scouring of the Shire wrapped up two big themes in the book. One, that there's a price to be paid if you go out and accomplish great things. The Hobbits as a whole saw The Shire ruined, but the fate of the whole world had rested on all the Hobbits going. If Merry had not gone, the Nazgul would have claimed many more victims. If Pippin had not looked into the Palantir, Gandalf might have been lost and Aragorn wouldn't have known he needed to lead the dead (which were harmless in the book; they could only instill great fear). If they both hadn't gone, the Ents might have been involved too late. If Sam had not gone, then Frodo would have failed. If Frodo didn't go, then, well. The Hobbits made a necessary sacrifice, even if they didn't know it at the time. This was also symbolized by Frodo's strange illnesses until he left for the West, and his inability to really enjoy life. The second one was of redemption and the growth of the Hobbits - even Saruman deserved a second chance.
  You can say just as much about the other things that were left out or changed. Even Bombadil. If you've read the background materials on Tolkien and the Lord of the Rings, you know that Tolkien wrote, rewrote, rewrote, and rewrote every story he wrote, including Lord of the Rings, which took him over ten years to finish, and was only a side-story to his
24. Re:Peter jackson... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 05:55 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  the movie stripped out just about everything that made the hobbits what they are in the books - in the film they were just little humans. ok, so they remembered the hairy feet. nice detail that.
  it's pretty obvious that the LOTR films represents a complete and utter betrayal of the books - right from the start. By the last film it was all so saccharin and just plain wrong that it was sickening to watch.
  there's no point going into how jackson fouled it up - unless you're not really the 'reading type' then it's obvious.
  suffice to say that to reduce such a great story to that fat sodomite repeating 'come on master frodo' over and over, and in slo mo, was utterly criminal.
  i seem to remember that after king kong (another pile of crap) jackson said he wasn't going to make any more movies at all. what a surprise that he turned out to be lying and wanted to share more of his vision with the world!
  at least uwe boll doesn't believe that he is any good, and stays away from decent material.
25. Re:Peter jackson... by Joce640k · 2010-10-04 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  I've never quite understood the haters, either.
  Dwarf tossing? Skateboarding elves...? Ick.
  (But yeah, it's a pretty damn good representation of the book even if it isn't true to the details)
  
  --
  No sig today...
26. Re:Peter jackson... by theArtificial · 2010-10-04 06:00 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I don't know how I stumbled across this but here is an interesting theory about Tom Bombadil being Sauron. It's from a Usenet posting circa 1996.
  
  --
  Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
27. Re:Peter jackson... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 06:01 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  And did he use it to seek power? No. He crawled into a hole in the earth and ate cave fish.
28. Re:Peter jackson... by Plekto · 2010-10-04 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  The basic premise is that lesser races (from a magic affinity perspective) have less power over the rings(ie - Elrond's ring in the hands of a human would be probably 1/5th as effective) and if you go far enough down the line, you get to Hobbits and the like, which are about as magical as a doorstop. But that's good as well, since they are less likely to be corrupted by them. It's the classic story of the everyman outwitting the elite and powerful. Just a thousand pages or so long ;)
  As for the movie's visually, I was also amazed at how close to the book they came. I'd say that 75% of it was spot-on with what I had imagined when I first read the series.
29. Re:Peter jackson... by Shining+Celebi · 2010-10-04 06:11 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I was always under the impression that the hobbits were not so easily corrupted by the ring, because their race had never wielded rings of power nor had any made for them, unlike the elves, dwarves and men.
  The lesser Rings weren't (exactly) related. It was apparently an innate property of Hobbits - even Gollum should have faded away a long time before the story began. Speculations on why the Hobbits should have such a property I think everyone else in this thread explained better than I could.
  The Rings for the other races are an interesting question, though. The Elves alone made their three rings, so it's understandable they wouldn't corrupt the Elves, and there's no reason why the Ring of Power wouldn't corrupt Elves, especially High Elves like Galadriel. Men need no explanation. But Dwarves...we learn in the Lord of the Rings that Dwarves could not be corrupted by the rings Sauron gave them, and they would not fade away. The only thing Sauron could get them to do was inflame the Dwarves' natural greed for wealth, which Sauron could then manipulate (if he was lucky) to bring about their demise. But as far as we are told, it's a perfectly natural Dwarven greed, not the evil corrupting greed we would expect. So to what degree would Dwarves be affected by the One Ring, anyway? Unlike Elves and Men, Dwarves were designed by their creator Aule to specifically have a lot of endurance and incorruptibility. So would they have the same kind of Hobbit One Ring-resistance?
30. Re:Peter jackson... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 06:11 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  I've never know why people complain about Tom Bombadil being left out. It was IDIOTIC, and complete jarring to the flow of the story. As the the scourging of the shire, after ALL that happened, it was very anticlimactic. The only good thing about it is that it should how much the four hobbits had grown in experience and confidence.
31. Re:Peter jackson... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 06:21 · Score: 0
  
  my friend, have you considered moving into the field of literary criticism? clearly you have a piercing intellect and a love of art.
  either that or you should stick to playstation (you ignorant little shit-flinging baboon you!)
32. Re:Peter jackson... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 06:24 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The Scourging of the Shire is a _major_ point of the LoTR story--it's not only that you must stand up against evil, but that once your innocence is lost in the fight, you can never go home again. The hobbits have been changed by their adventures and are no longer who they were when they left home, and their home has changed too... none of them (though most poignantly Frodo) can have the life they had in the way it was when they left.
  Hollywood is forever getting this wrong. When I was a youngster, I walked out of a movie (Labyrinth, if anyone's seen it) at the end because after all the heroine goes through to move on beyond her childish world and take responsibility, she's allowed to go right back into the imaginary world. So what was the point of her learning maturity during her quest if she's just going to shrug it off?
  I do wonder what they're teaching in the schools these days...
33. Re:Peter jackson... by migla · 2010-10-04 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  That is interesting. I always just thought Tom was JRR Tolkien.
  
  --
  Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
34. Re:Peter jackson... by tobiasly · 2010-10-04 07:11 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Not Sauron, but the Witch-king of Angmar, who is the leader of the Nazgul. Interesting link though, thanks.
35. Re:Peter jackson... by B1oodAnge1 · 2010-10-04 07:14 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Honestly, If you think Tom doesn't belong, that's fine. But you're missing a whole depth to the story by thinking that.
  
  --
  RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
36. Re:Peter jackson... by Darinbob · 2010-10-04 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  The Scouring of the Shire was the chapter Tolkien said he wrote first. Without it you don't have the ending of the books in the movie. It may not be important to the boring old action-adventure plot, but it's vital to tying up the underlying themes of the books.
  
  I can sort of see skipping past Tom, since he confuses a lot of readers too. He was mostly a tie-in to earlier stories and difficult to understand in a movie setting without a lot of background info. The Barrow Downs would have been nice to see though.
37. Re:Peter jackson... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 07:23 · Score: 0
  
  He did say "not easily corrupted", not "incorruptible".
38. Re:Peter jackson... by Opyros · 2010-10-04 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  There's a problem with explanation #1, though: the Nazgul weren't yet mounted on flying creatures when the Quest was planned (or if they were, the good guys didn't know about it yet). Remember that four months later, when Legolas shot down a Nazgul's mount, the Company still didn't know what it was.
39. Re:Peter jackson... by theArtificial · 2010-10-04 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  Correct! It would appear that in my excitement to post something relevant I didn't let the facts get in the way. I stumbled across this link about a month ago and my awesome memory did the rest.
  
  --
  Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
40. Re:Peter jackson... by B1oodAnge1 · 2010-10-04 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  The themes of the book are lost in translation.
  And in place of them we get... environmentalism as the main theme. :-\
  
  --
  RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
41. Re:Peter jackson... by DrSkwid · 2010-10-04 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  only #1 works, otherwise Frodo could just ride an eagle
  
  --
  There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
42. Re:Peter jackson... by pauls2272 · 2010-10-04 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  That is interesting. I always just thought Tom was JRR Tolkien.
  No. Tom is just a doll that his children played with when they were kids. He put Tom in to amuse them. Later he denied that Tom was Eru (God) and that not everything in the LOTR should be explainable.
43. Re:Peter jackson... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 07:31 · Score: 0
  
  Even as a hobbit, he showed more evil and corruption than the other hobbit ring-bearers (killing his brother for it, with only scant exposure to it). Bilbo was starting to turn after a number of decades with the ring. Even Frodo was being corrupted after only after a year or so of bearing it full-time. Even hobbits crack. "Gollum" had it for about 500 years.
44. Re:Peter jackson... by pauls2272 · 2010-10-04 07:38 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  So would they have the same kind of Hobbit One Ring-resistance?
  No. Even the lesser rings they had did corrupt them and brought Evil to the Dwarves. Sauron could not control them, the way he could Men so his plot "failed'. But research what happened to each of the 7 Ring Bearers of the Dwarves...
  In Letters, JRRT says there are only a few beings in Arda that can control and use the 1 ring - pretty much Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel.
  You had to have Great Power yourself to master the One Ring. No mortal could do it and dwarves are technically mortals.
  Every one else attempting to use the Ring would eventually fail and Sauron would eventually prevail. The Ring is part of Sauron after all...
45. Re:Peter jackson... by ELitwin · 2010-10-04 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting article, but how the hell did you mess up your summary? ("being Sauron.") Are you applying for a job as a /. editor?
46. Re:Peter jackson... by c++0xFF · 2010-10-04 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. It took a long time for Gollum to be corrupted, and even then the corruption wasn't absolute.
  Remember that Smeagol, for a brief while, was the dominate personality. No other creature could have possessed the ring for that long and still have a portion of them free from its will. Except Tom Bombadil, over whom the ring has no power.
  However, I don't agree with the GP that the Hobbit immunity is due to never having wielded rings. I think closer to the truth is that they have a natural resistance to evil.
47. Re:Peter jackson... by theArtificial · 2010-10-04 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  Do they have elections for these positions? I check /. when I wake up and I was on autopilot. You should be pleased the link works ;)
  
  --
  Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
48. Re:Peter jackson... by pauls2272 · 2010-10-04 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  It wasn't what was cut so much as what was changed:
  Exactly.
  Before he did it, I would have said that the Fellowship of the Ring was un-Filmable.
  I have a few nitpicks with it but it captures the flavor of the book without too many major character changes. Yes, Merry and Pippen were made comic relief along with the dwarf.
  But instead of changing things whole cloth and adding stuff to make the scene "dramatically interesting", in the FOTR, he had to just cut cut cut. There was too much material there to try to film everything and condensing things like Arwen and Glorfindel made sense.
  In the other movies, he started adding nonsense that wasn't in the books. This is where he went wrong. All he had to do was stick with the story and characters and CUT where needed...
49. Re:Peter jackson... by mahoney.d.82 · 2010-10-04 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  The post's called "Tolkien Crackpot Thories" for a reason...
  Jokes aside, i't actually pretty interesting. As a theory, that is.
  1. Meh...
  2. You never se him and Galadriel together, either, doesn't mean they're one and the same.
  3. If the Witch-King had such fear of his master, he wouldn't be playing the whole Tom cross-dressing thing at all...
  4. Maybe the glint was because he didn't like the guys, which is the same reaction of pretty much everyone else who's told of the black riders.
  5. I always found this fascinating. Remember that, once someone wore the Ring, they would exist in two distinct worlds, just as the Elves. Bombadil might've simply been able to see both worlds, who knows?
  6. If someone could wear the Ring without disappearing... Hell, if I knew of someone who refused the ring simply because he didn't want the damn thing, I'd no doubt be doing whatever he said, no questions asked.
50. Re:Peter jackson... by mcgrew · 2010-10-04 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  I always wondered if the fact that Hobbits were used to eating 'shrooms and smoking their special tobacco
  Pipeweed is not tobacco. I mean, would a wizard smoke something as bad for you as tobacco?
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
51. Re:Peter jackson... by gad_zuki! · 2010-10-04 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  >Hobbits are also insignificant to the powerful to the point of near invisibility. Give the Ring to an Eagle, and he'd be spotted and intercepted, probably before he crossed the border into Mordor
  I think the ring's effect on an animal went unanswered. The only reason in the LOTR universe I can think of rejecting an eagle dropping it is that wizards seem to have almost complete power over animals. If Gandalf sent an eagle to drop it off in the middle of the ocean then Sauron could order it to come to him. Of course we have the scenario of Frodo riding an eagle but we have the same problem.
  We can also build a powerful catapult, attach the ring to a rock, and launch it into the sea from a boat, but in a world of magic even then the bottom of the ocean isn't exactly safe. In the LOTR universe there may be creatures able to go that low and grab the ring and when they hit their maximum elevation in the ocean they hand it off to another species until there's a dolphin handing the ring off to Sauron. Actually, now that I think about it, that would make a great visual scene. Cthulu-like thing handing it to a blind octopus, octopus handing it to a lobster, lobster handing it to a catfish, etc. In other words, an excuse based on magic could dispel any obvious approaches.
52. Re:Peter jackson... by Unkyjar · 2010-10-04 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  A good article explaining why doesn't Frodo just ride an eagle to mount doom.
53. Re:Peter jackson... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 09:01 · Score: 0
  
  The ring can corrupt anyone nearby, not just the one carrying it at the moment - Boromir being the best example.
54. Re:Peter jackson... by Ucklak · 2010-10-04 09:34 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  And in The Shining [1980], Kubrick left out the explosion of the boiler. God that movie sucks.
  The books are good, the movie adaptations are good. The movie doesn't suck because a character that isn't integral to the plot is missing.
  Yeah, you liked Tom Bombadil like a favourite uncle but he didn't contribute to the story.
  What was more annoying was the Aragorn/Arwen angle that took away from the momentum of the story. Still not worth the hate.
  
  --
  if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
55. Re:Peter jackson... by way2slo · 2010-10-04 09:50 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Bad Theory. Frodo gave the ring to Bombadil to look at and Bombadil showed that he had power over the ring, something the Witch King would not have, so Bombadil is not the Witch King. If he was then he would have taken it immediately back to his master, Sauron, but he didn't, he gave it back to Frodo, something the Witch King would never have done. Elrond's refusal to let Bombadil keep the ring is more out of his understanding that Bombadil, though powerful, could not be trusted as he would just as easily misplace it as keep it safe. (An alternative no better than throwing it in the deep ocean hoping it lost forever. Elrond wanted the ring destroyed and guided the council to that purpose.)
  Bombadil is an enigma that Tolkien purposefully never wanted explained. The theory I prefer is that he and Goldberry are one of the Aniur that was appointed to do a task, probably by Manwë, in that area of Middle Earth in the Third Age.
56. Re:Peter jackson... by lymond01 · 2010-10-04 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  I think the Bombadil thing was explained in the book itself. Something about him being older than just about everything else...so he's beyond the ring's power. I think Tom was supposed to be a Maiar, which is a level below the Valar. Melian from the First Age was a Maiar. I think Sauron was as well. If this is the case, either Maiar can be of varying ages and powers, or Tolkien wasn't as careful with his historical organization.
57. Re:Peter jackson... by ch0knuti · 2010-10-04 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  IMHO the worst thing he did was cutting short the Entmoot :)
58. Re:Peter jackson... by way2slo · 2010-10-04 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  What is _NOT_ explained anywhere in tolkien literature or letters is the exact origin of the Hobbits. They just appeared out of nowhere in the Third Age. It is my belief that Hobbits were created as a counter to Sauron's, and earlier Melkor's, evil. The quiet, simple melody Ilúvatar introduced to take back control of the great song of the ainur from Melkor. They simply had a natural resistance to the power of the ring as designed by Ilúvatar.
59. Re:Peter jackson... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 10:18 · Score: 0
  
  I always thought Tom Bombadil was God- IE a supernatural utterly omnipotent being that created the world and was too large and important to be trifled by its details. Sauron, Gandalf and the like were just brief unimportant blips to him.
60. Re:Peter jackson... by vux984 · 2010-10-04 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure that humanized and angry Elves...
  After having read the silmarillion, that's precisely why I liked Tolkien's elves. They weren't protypical 'good'; they were generally good but they committed their share of atrocities...
61. Re:Peter jackson... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 11:21 · Score: 0
  
  The it was Sucide - because unlike the movie 'Behold a magic sword' om gave the sword that stapped the witch king to the pesky little boggeys err hobbits.
62. Re:Peter jackson... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 12:20 · Score: 0
  
  The ring was not evil yet for the writing of the hobbit. It is a misreading of the book to assume latter plot lines apply.
63. Re:Peter jackson... by darthdavid · 2010-10-04 12:21 · Score: 1
  
  And of course because they excised the Bombadil subplot they also cut the Barrow Blades subplot so there was no explanation for how the sword hurt the witch-king. I mean if regular swords would hurt the fucker you'd think someone would've just stabbed him in the face by then...
64. Re:Peter jackson... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 13:07 · Score: 0
  
  The original Shining was one of the great horror movies ever made ya fuckin idiot.
What happened... by Bobfrankly1 · 2010-10-04 04:00 · Score: 1

They slipped a ring around all the issues they were having, and they just disappeared, later to be stabbed to death by these horsemen in black cloaks...
resolution with union by Krau+Ming · 2010-10-04 04:00 · Score: 1, Troll

"The production has struggled recently with issues with Unions, and a fire." However, production has resumed smoothly following the ritualistic burning of the union leaders at the stake.
Oh goody... by droopus · 2010-10-04 04:08 · Score: 4, Interesting

Yet another opportunity to wear funny glasses for three hours and have pointy objects thrust at me repeatedly.
Maybe he'll buck the trend and NOT do it in 3D?

--
"The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
1. Re:Oh goody... by edmicman · 2010-10-04 04:23 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  This was the first thing I noticed. If they subscribe to the gimmick that is 3D in movies I'll have lost all respect for the crew that brought us LOTR.
2. Re:Oh goody... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 04:37 · Score: 0
  
  I hoping it's 3D stop motion animation, with the heads of actors digitally attached to their characters' plasticine bodies.
3. Re:Oh goody... by canajin56 · 2010-10-04 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  I've seen documentaries filmed in IMAX 3D. 3D isn't a gimmick, it's absolutely phenomenal. Or at least it was 20 years ago. The gimmick is their desire to look "cool". Home Improvement made fun of it when all of the other stations were doing their 3D episodes, with glasses in the newspaper, what, 10 years ago now? (Third Rock from the Sun and many other shows all did it the same night, get glasses from paper, see episode in stunning 3D). So, Tool Time had it's own 3D episode, and Tim, Al, and Heidi spent the entire time just thrusting tools at the camera over and over going "Woah! WOAH! WOAAAAAH!". 3D movies that are filmed like movies are superb. The problem is with 3D movies that are filmed like they're "WOAH 3D MAN" instead of like they are still movies.
  The same thing happened with stereophonic records. For a while, rather than just recording a normal song but in stereo, everybody became absolutely obsessed with the stereo effects. You even hear it on Beatles albums from the time, absolute ping ponging, instruments jumping from left to right just because they can.
  The difference is, it's not new. For decades now they've been filming documentaries in polarized 3D. Everybody just ignored it until James Cameron remade Fern Gully with it. If only they had learned from him to just film the movie like normal, and let the 3D handle itself. If going overboard with shit flying at the camera would have been poor cinematography for a 2D movie, for a 3D movie it will be poor cinematography...in 3D!
  
  --
  ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
4. Re:Oh goody... by elrous0 · 2010-10-04 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  And pass up on all that extra money the studios can charge you for the ticket? Are you MAD?!?!?
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
5. Re:Oh goody... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 06:40 · Score: 0
  
  Yep, it's been confirmed that it will be filmed in 3D.
  I'm so tired of all the 3D nonsense now.
6. Re:Oh goody... by migla · 2010-10-04 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  How do you see it in 3D? To me it all just looks stereoscopic...
  
  --
  Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
7. Re:Oh goody... by cgenman · 2010-10-04 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  The options (and outcomes) are:
  1a: Film it in 3D. 3D dies before the movie comes out, and it is displayed in 2D.
  1b: Film it in 3D. 3D is still alive before the movie comes out, and it is displayed in 2D and decent-looking 3D.
  2a: Film it in 2D. 3D dies before the movie comes out, and it is displayed in 2D.
  2b: Film it in 2D. 3D is still alive before the movie comes out, and some hack executive forces a godawful 3D conversion.
  Filming in 3D might take a little more time, but you do cover your bases.
  
  --
  The ______ Agenda
William Shatner! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 04:11 · Score: 0

They absolutely need to cast William Shatner as Bilbo Baggens.
That would be the Nth degree of awesomeness.
1. Re:William Shatner! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 04:44 · Score: 0
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC73PHdQX04
I used to work in that shop by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 04:11 · Score: 0

Breaks my heart hearing it burned. I was on the first film and was in NZ for 7 months before I had to get back to the states. Some amazing models came out of that place under some extreme conditions, no time and no money. Nothing went to waste. We busted up rocks for set dressings and I remember bagging up all the dried leaves shed by the branches being dried for the forest set to break up and use as miniature set dressings. You had to be inventive. Richard Taylor had a brilliant idea for the models for the tree houses. The facings were actually carved in negative out of slabs of wax then resin was drizzled in to create the spider web like faces. Gorgeous stuff and the models could be melted down and reused. Hard to believe how much must have been lost when it burned. A lot of film history.
Help save a film from corporate American. Join the fight at:
http://www.fftheuntoldstory.com/savefreakyflickermovie.html
Not a shameless promotion I don't even reveal my name I just want my film back. Check out the main link for more info and I just posted more renders. Bug the media and prove we can fight back!
http://www.fftheuntoldstory.com/
1. Re:I used to work in that shop by greyline · 2010-10-04 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  1997 called and wants their web site back.
union/fire by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 04:14 · Score: 0

Is there a mere juxtaposition between the Union problems and the fire, or is there some sort of a cause/effect relationship there?
(for the record, this AC does not live in a right to work state - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law).
(second FTR: the CAPTCHA in the initial submit attempt was 'control,' methinks the telco unions may be up to something).
the cartoon called - The hobbit from 70's by chronoss2010 · 2010-10-04 04:15 · Score: -1

haha
2 parts? by samsonov · 2010-10-04 04:18 · Score: 1

I'm in the dear god no camp... Why can't Hollywood find something original to do. I'm still waiting for the sequel to Moby Dick ;) Two parts? Really? Oh right, forgot Hollywood credo #2: Profit.

--
"You killed my yogurt!" --Fred Fredburger
1. Re:2 parts? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 06:30 · Score: 0
  
  They are splitting the book into two parts. The are not making a movie about The Hobbit, then writing a new sequel.
What really happened. by gad_zuki! · 2010-10-04 04:20 · Score: 5, Funny

It began with the forging of the Great Rings. Three were given to the artists and writers; wisest and most creative of all beings. Seven, to the union actors, great visionaries and craftsmen of the stage. And nine, nine rings were gifted to the studio execs, who above all else desire power. For within these rings was bound the strength and the will to govern over each group. But they were all of them deceived, for a new ring was made. In the land of New Zealand, in the fires of Mount Cook, the Dark Lord Peter Jackson forged in secret, a master ring, to control all others.
1. Re:What really happened. by KnownIssues · 2010-10-04 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  You know, I was going to nitpick that using gift as a verb couldn't have been in usage when the original was written, but sure enough. I guess I'm going to have to give that up as a pet peeve.
2. Re:What really happened. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 11:19 · Score: 0
  
  sorry - Mt Cook is not a volcano. Try Mount Ngauruhoe - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Ngauruhoe
Also, they tried to bilk Jackson out of LOTR $ by jbeach · 2010-10-04 04:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

The studios pulled the infamous Hollywood Accounting scam, of trying to pretend that LOTR didn't make any money, in order to keep from paying Jackson his contractual shares of profits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting#Examples

I'd suspect that they must have come to some sort of an agreement with Jackson. Either setting up payment on what they owe in LOTR, or sweetening the $ from the Hobbit in some way in order to make up for it.

What's even more interesting to me, is that the article doesn't mention this at all. The article reads so much like a press release that I wonder if it's cribbed directly from a couple of different press releases.

--
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
1. Re:Also, they tried to bilk Jackson out of LOTR $ by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 05:58 · Score: 0
  
  Are you trying to say that Jackson didn't understand "sucker points" going in?
2. Re:Also, they tried to bilk Jackson out of LOTR $ by UnknowingFool · 2010-10-04 06:53 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I don't know the specifics of the deal but I understand Jackson did not agree to percentage of profits. He agreed to percentage of gross revenue. My understanding was of the disagreement had to deal with licensing rights. Jackson was to get revenue based on the licensing. NewLine Cinema is part of Time Warner. Jackson is alleging that NewLine sold the rights to other Time Warner subsidiaries in a closed system for far less than what they should have gotten. This way on paper NewLine gets less revenue for the rights, but overall, Time-Waner wins because they don't have to pay people like Peter Jackson (and the Tolkien estate) as much money.
  For example if NewLine were to bid out the TV rights of the films, they might be worth $10 million (I made up these numbers). However, in a closed system, NewLine just sells it to TNT (a Time-Warner subsidiary) for a mere $2 million, then Peter Jackson makes less money. However TNT (and thus Time-Warner) saves money. Another aspect of the suit is that Jackson doesn't believe the numbers that the studio gave him (It was $2 million but TNT gave a $3 million kickback to NewLine). So he asked for an audit. That is what made the Jackson suit dangerous to the studios. The studios would not like others looking into their accounting at all.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
3. Re:Also, they tried to bilk Jackson out of LOTR $ by cgenman · 2010-10-04 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  I'm kind of shocked Jackson actually fell for a cut of the net. I know his clout currently stems from the LOTR movies, but Hollywood Accounting is as old and straightforward a rule as you will find in LA these days. First year acting students are told not to take a cut of the net. How did he fall for that?
  
  --
  The ______ Agenda
4. Re:Also, they tried to bilk Jackson out of LOTR $ by jbeach · 2010-10-04 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  It is amazing, isn't it? Going for a cut of the gross isn't as dumb as a cut of the net (which I thought he did, before I was corrected), but it's still quite trusting.
  
  Perhaps he really didn't think they would cut off their nose to spite their face with the further possible movies he could make?
  
  --
  The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
5. Re:Also, they tried to bilk Jackson out of LOTR $ by jbeach · 2010-10-04 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  I stand corrected. Going for a cut of the gross isn't quite as dumb as going for a cut of the net - still, it is surprising that he went for it.
  
  --
  The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
6. Re:Also, they tried to bilk Jackson out of LOTR $ by jbeach · 2010-10-04 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  Believe it or not, apparently he didn't. Maybe he trusted personal relationships. Those aren't fun lessons to learn.
  
  --
  The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
7. Re:Also, they tried to bilk Jackson out of LOTR $ by UnknowingFool · 2010-10-04 07:29 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Most people in Hollywood go for gross points instead of net points because of past experience with the studios. However the studios finds ways like the closed bidding system in order to get as much money as possible.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Ian Holm by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 04:42 · Score: 0

Maybe they are courting Ian Holm to play Bilbo again?
It would sure be nice to see the two Ians together again.
Hopefully Jackson Will Die Before by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 04:50 · Score: -1, Troll

Sickening to think what that talentless hack Jackson will do to the Hobbit after how badly he butchered the LotR story.
Hopefully the fat fuck will die of a heart attack before filming starts and we can get someone who will actually bother to READ the actual source material before working on the film version...
He started in July by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 05:04 · Score: 0

Having just moved out of Miramar and working as a freelancer I find this news a bit odd. They went into lock down in July and started production at Weta in July. Perhaps WB should get their story straight. Or someone needs to tell PJ that he's not actually got a contract yet. No doubt it'll be just as boring and lifeless as all the other tripe he does.
What I don't get by Lanteran · 2010-10-04 05:07 · Score: 1

is why they didn't do this with LOTR, each of the books were in two parts anyway (can't remember if the hobbit was or not) and they could've had a lot more detail and content. Bombadil? The elves in the shire? The scouring of the shire?

--
"People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
1. Re:What I don't get by jbeach · 2010-10-04 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  Peter Jackson actually didn't like Bombadil AND the scouring of the Shire. AND he almost cut the Shelob monster-spider scene.
  
  He did a better job than almost anyone else I can think of, except perhaps Guillermo Del Toro; but his version of LOTR still misses the mark IMHO.
  
  --
  The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
2. Re:What I don't get by natehoy · 2010-10-04 07:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Tolkien wrote LoTR as one large book. His editors made him break it into six sub-books, which were then combined and edited into the three books.
  They couldn't have done this with LoTR because there wasn't enough movie-ready material in there. LoTR is a deeply complex story with a lot of subtle subplots going on. Jackson chose the destruction of the Ring as the primary thrust of his story. Bombadil was not a part of that storyline. Bombadil would have been (to a movie-going audience) a complete non-sequitur. He's too subtle and interwoven into the ending of the Third Age. He's an example of the powerful but uninterested, which is a great narrative on why Hobbits are perfect Ringbearers, but is more of a sociological point than an add-on to the Quest to destroy the One Ring. He's a plot device to expose the dangers of some of the remaining bits of the Second Age (barrow-wights) while not killing off any important characters, but again Jackson didn't really cover the differences between the Ages. Bombadil neither contributed toward nor hindered the mission to destroy the One Ring.
  The scouring of the Shire would have been drama after the happy ending, which is hard to pull off in movies, and as a 4th (or 6th) movie it would have been largely ignored as a "tidying up loose ends" bit. In the books, it's an interesting afterthought of the lingering consequences of allowing Saruman to live, and the fact that the destruction of the Ring didn't destroy all evil, and even unleashed a little here and there. It was also sort of a final nail in the Third Age's coffin, and the ending of the implied innocence of the Shire, the descent of all other species (elves, dwarves, hobbits) and the powers they wielded, and the ascent of Men and mechanical power. Again, though, none of that has anything to do with the Ring story.
  Expressing all of that in movies would put an audience to sleep, and still come off as inadequate. Movies are stories told with a broad and unsubtle brush, and you have to make your stories less subtle as a result. Jackson chose the interesting storyline and dropped the rest.
  I mean, look at what Jackson had to do to make The Two Towers interesting to a movie audience. They should have changed the name to "Helm's Deep: A Love Story". Jackson took a largely insignificant battle and made a whole movie out of it, invented a love interest thread between Aragorn and Arwen, and completely recast the Ents in order to add some conflict between them and the other protagonists, and to give them more screen time because the effects were cool. And, let's be honest, it was probably just as well. You'd want to see more "Frodo and Sam trudging through vast empty boringness?" Coverage of Sam's rescue, floor by floor, of Frodo from the Tower of Cirith Ungol?
  Jackson took all the important but boring bits as vignettes rather than bits of information woven into a complex story.
  The whole dichotomy of Smeagol attempting and failing to assert his personality over the Ring-induced Gollum persona was done in one utterly brilliant self-argument rather than as bits of interwoven story throughout. It was oversimplified, but that's what you do in a movie, and it expressed the complexity of what Smeagol/Gollum was as a character without becoming boring.
  Frodo's sympathy with Smeagol and Sam's distrust of Gollum was handled by a few quick events, culminating in the trick Gollum played on Sam, rather than by many small-but-subtle interplays as seen in the books. As a result, Sam was rewritten as a bit thick and foolish enough to leave Frodo's side, rather than the one smart enough to wield Galadriel's Phial after Frodo was already taken out by Shelob.
  I certainly have my complaints with the movies. But, given the unsubtle form that is a movie, I think Jackson did a remarkable job of making a movie that non-LoTR geeks could still enjoy, while still telling a story that is true to at least one storyline in the books. The natural result of this, however, is that bits that don't fit the main storyline need to go, or you risk making the movie boring to anyone but a LoTR geek. And you gotta sell lots of asses in seats to pay for an epic production like Jackson's LoTR.
  
  --
  "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
at what cost? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 05:09 · Score: 0

of course they have sent 3 or 4 good projects packing to make this overblown prequel.
I for one would have rather watched Darren Aronofsky's Robocop...
What about context... by itsanx · 2010-10-04 05:29 · Score: 1

That may be the result of context priming. I also read "Unicorns" and my glasses are perfect.
Made me think of this... by mahoney.d.82 · 2010-10-04 05:30 · Score: 1, Interesting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yqVD0swvWU
I hated the Lord of the Rings movies by elrous0 · 2010-10-04 05:38 · Score: -1, Troll

I'm not a troll here, I just felt that someone should say it. At the risk of losing my geek card, I found both the books and movies boring as hell. Randall in Clerks 2 pretty much sums up my feelings--just a lot of walking. The story never even made any sense to me either. Just seemed like everyone chasing after some lame ring whose only powers were to turn people invisible and turn everyone wearing it into an obsessive addict. I think the ring's only real power was the Paris Hilton effect--making everyone THINK it was so fucking important. Why they went to so much trouble to destroy the thing when they could have just let that CGI weasel hide it away as his crack fix is beyond me. For that matter, they could have just let the bad guy have the damn thing. It would probably have turned him into a pathetic weasel too. The whole thing seemed like a quest in search of an actual purpose--with a shitload of walking and boredom.
I'm not familiar with the Hobbit, but I suspect this one will be even lamer than the Lord of the Rings. Now they're bringing in the fucking b-team to walk too.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
1. Re:I hated the Lord of the Rings movies by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 06:08 · Score: 0
  
  I think your problem with the story has more to do with your horrid reading comprehension.
2. Re:I hated the Lord of the Rings movies by elrous0 · 2010-10-04 06:14 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  I feel asleep long before the end. Did it get less boring as shit?
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
3. Re:I hated the Lord of the Rings movies by elrous0 · 2010-10-04 07:11 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  Typical Ring fans. You'd rather mod me down than admit that there are some geeks who don't fawn like giddy schoolgirls over your precious.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
4. Re:I hated the Lord of the Rings movies by UnknowingFool · 2010-10-04 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  Well in a nutshell you got the gist but not much of the details. First it is set in world of magic and fantasy. If you don't like reading or watching this genre, you'd never like it. Second, there is a longer backstory. But the basics of what you glossed over or missed: There is one major evil in this world, Sauron. Centuries ago other rings of power were made that gave their wearers some magical powers. However Sauron indirectly contributed to their making and secretly made his one ring that would control the others. The one ring contains the bulk of his magic but also is tainted by his presence. He was defeated in a great battle and lost his one ring centuries ago. He is not dead and anyone who controls the one ring controls a great deal of power. Some however realize that his taint means no one individual should ever wield that much power. Thus some characters like Boromir want to use the ring while others like the elves want to destroy the ring (and thus him).
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
5. Re:I hated the Lord of the Rings movies by elrous0 · 2010-10-04 07:25 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  anyone who controls the one ring controls a great deal of power
  Yeah, everyone kept saying that in the movies. But the weasel and Frodo sure didn't seem very powerful to me. Even the bad guy must not have been too powerful if he lost the damn thing in the first place. I kept waiting for one of the humans, fairies, or Oompa-Loompas to ask where all this supposed power WAS anyway. Seems like Mr. Powerful Ring Bearer spent most of the movies running from shit.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
6. Re:I hated the Lord of the Rings movies by UnknowingFool · 2010-10-04 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  Like all things, it's not the tool but the wielder that affects the performance. If you give me a professional $10K DSLR camera my pictures might be a little better but it's not going to be as great as a professional would have been taking the same pictures. Hobbits do not know how to use magic. This was in part why they were chosen to be ring bearers; they can't really too dangerous even if seduced by the power. The ring would have been far more dangerous in the hands of the elves or Gandalf or men. Gandalf conscientiously did not want the ring because it would have tainted him. If you have a chance to review the scenes with Gandalf and ring, he makes a conscious effort never to touch the ring. He almost picked it up when Bilbo left it on the floor but instead had Frodo pick it up later.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
7. Re:I hated the Lord of the Rings movies by Culture20 · 2010-10-04 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, everyone kept saying that in the movies. But the weasel and Frodo sure didn't seem very powerful to me. Even the bad guy must not have been too powerful if he lost the damn thing in the first place. I kept waiting for one of the humans, fairies, or Oompa-Loompas to ask where all this supposed power WAS anyway. Seems like Mr. Powerful Ring Bearer spent most of the movies running from shit.
  
  Centuries ago other rings of power were made that gave their wearers some magical powers. However Sauron indirectly contributed to their making and secretly made his one ring that would control the others.
  Ergo, the power was in the control of the kings of men, dwarves, and elves. The elves didn't start using their rings until Sauron lost the One Ring. Anyone could have exerted this control if they knew how, and Gandalf, Elrond, and Galadriel certainly knew how.
This is sewious... by mcneely.mike · 2010-10-04 05:55 · Score: 1

Wow... Hobbits little.
Gandalf big. Magic.
Ring..... ooooohhh.
Must pet my precious.... yes pet it... pet it good.
Oooohhh.... sticky.

--
soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
1. Re:This is sewious... by LanMan04 · 2010-10-05 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  What's gonna work? TEAMWORK!
  
  --
  With the first link, the chain is forged.
Enough already! by GWBasic · 2010-10-04 06:08 · Score: 1

two-part version of J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit early next year
The Hobbit was the shortest book in the series. It was a much easier read then the actual Lord of the Rings series. Why does it need to be TWO movies? I bet I could read The Hobbit in less time then it'll take to watch this movie!
I'm getting so sick of Jackson's super-extended movies that I think I'm just going to pass on this one. I don't need to watch Bilbo fly on the back of a bird for 20 minutes because Jackson just can't bear to cut any frames out.

--
No, I will not work for your startup
1. Re:Enough already! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 10:09 · Score: 0
  
  The Hobbit wasn't part of the series. When Tolkien decided to write his epic, he needed a back story. He rewrote the Hobbit, changing certain key details, to serve as a prequel.
The Cliff's Notes version is an even faster read by Infonaut · 2010-10-04 06:21 · Score: 1

Maybe that's the version you need.
Some of us like the fact that instead of trying to stuff the entirety of the Lord of the Rings into a single movie, or two movies, or even three short movies, Jackson went all the way and immersed us in Middle Earth for several hours. I dislike that Saruman's demise was altered, and the departure at the end of RotK went on too long, but I am happy that Jackson gave us a full, meaty interpretation of the books.
The Hobbit is a shorter work, but it's easy to envision it as a two-part film. An awful lot happens to Bilbo & Co. on the way to Lake Town. The time in Mirkwood alone could be fertile ground for some great visual storytelling. The second part of the book would work nicely as a second film. Lake Town gets torched, Smaug needs to be dealt with, and everyone wants in on the game.

--
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Re:+5 by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 06:23 · Score: 0

+5 Troll
Lost movies of the 21st century... by rilister · 2010-10-04 06:32 · Score: 1

ack! Too late! "The Hobbit" directed by Guillermo Del Toro is now the great lost films of our generation. I really hope there's a chance of re-attaching him to the project. His lightness of touch with fantasy would have suited this material so well.
Last time I felt like this was the canning of Darren Aronofsky's "Batman: Year One"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_Year_One#Canceled_film
which would have been pretty awesome too....

--
'This writing business. Pencils and what-not. Over-rated if you ask me. Silly stuff. Nothing in it' - Eeyore
So to keep in the setting of the story... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 06:53 · Score: 0

We're up to the point where Bilbo and company have unlocked the door and Bilbo has pilfered the cup and now we're getting ready for Smaug to fly over Lake Town and be killed by a million-to-one shot arrow.
No, not really. Not this time.
The only real way to do Tolkien by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 07:00 · Score: 0

Is a series, where 1 hour episodes(like HBO does) follow the story, if not completely to the letter, then almost completely. And no additions, no extra plot manipulations, etc;, possibly minor subtractions though. Each episode may or may not contain an entire chapter. Some chapters may take several episodes to complete. I imagine as cgi, etc; continues to evolve, it will get to the point to where the entire series could be done with just actor voiceovers. Hopefully, some time in the future someone will take up this challenge. Then we could get a proper Tolkien visual story experience.
Two parts? by Maury+Markowitz · 2010-10-04 07:16 · Score: 1

> two-part version of J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit
Huh? He fit the Ring books into a film each, yet the Hobbit, smaller than any of them, needs two parts? Uggg.
Please don't.... by ALeader71 · 2010-10-04 09:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

make it in 3D!

--
Only the dead have seen the end of War. - Plato
NERRRRRRRDS! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 10:06 · Score: 0

Oh no, an Ogre!
Unions by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 11:22 · Score: 0

LOTR was a big deal for New Zealand. After LOTR New Zealand became the site of many subsequent movies. The unions have gotten greedy of late and New Zealand's appeal as a filming location is falling. The Prime Minister of New Zealand has stepped in to protect the $3G/year movie business before the unions ruin it forever.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/8041484/New-Zealand-prime-minister-offers-to-mediate-Hobbit-dispute.html