Slashdot Mirror
Peter Jackson Announces Third Hobbit Movie
eldavojohn writes "Unless his Facebook account has been hacked, Peter Jackson has announced a third movie for The Hobbit series: 'So, without further ado and on behalf of New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Wingnut Films, and the entire cast and crew of The Hobbit films, I'd like to announce that two films will become three.' Other sites are confirming this while Variety notes that filming has been wrapped on the first two so doing a third film will require a restart to all of that effort including re-negotiations with rights holders and acting schedules. **potential spoiler alert** From Peter Jackson's announcement: 'We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance.' How much of Middle Earth would you like to see on film?"
This is pretty much going the same direction as Star Wars⦠Eventually we will see the âoeSuper Duper Directorâ(TM)s Cut Boxed Set With Special Commentary And New CGI Effects!â
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
. . .for the 9 feature-length part film adaptation of the epic tale of Peter Jackson's Tolkien film projects.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Each one of the first three films should have been a trilogy if a book shorter than any of the three Lord of the Rings novels gets three films.
What do you expect from a hobit!?
I could see splitting the movies at the point where the Battle of Five Armies occurs, but a third movie? I agree that will probably suck.
21st Century Renaissance Man
Based on previous works, "Lord of the Rings" in particular, I'd say "as much as you can give us!". And by that I mean that they could cut The Hobbit into 10 pieces and I'd still be thrilled. Even with 3 movies, "Lord of the Rings" was missing too much.
This was bound to happen. There was no way he could fit the tossing of all those dwarves in a mere two movies.
..before they have to embarrass themselves by attempting something 'original' to keep the franchise rolling. The events from the Silmarillion are long and epic enough for at least 3 films.
So, in other words, a lot of the Hobbit trilogy will be loosely based on brief passages from the book describing "off-screen" events, and random notes left behind by Tolkien. That's all fine and good, but there should be a disclaimer stating that much of content of the films will be fanfic and should be considered non-canonical.
that they were even going to span it across 2 movies until now. Jesus christ! I'll watch them all though and cry all the way to the bank. I'm sure it'll be worth it though. Besides that funky FPS that looks like it's an old BBC theatrical performance.
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
I like The Hobbit, but it's not an epic like The Lord of the Rings is. It's not supposed to be an epic. It's a self-contained, medium-sized story, with a fairly classic narrative arc. It makes no sense to tell the story in installments. The first 1/3 of the Hobbit isn't a film! There is one fairly straightforward journey, a climax, a denouement. The book is circa 300 pages, not circa 1000 like LoTR is.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Just wait 'till he gets his hands on the Silmarillion. It would open the door to a decade+ soap opera television for geeks!
A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
I was wary about stretching it into 2 movies. Its not that long of a book, not much actually happens. 3 movies is just a money grab by the studio.
Jackson aught to make "Bored of the Rings". That film could be made into a six reel extravaganza.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Does ANYBODY here not think this will be an utter travesty?
adventures of Tom Bombadil.
Based on Jackson's previous work in which all the good parts of the books removed and replaced by senseless battle, I'm guessing the first movie will be the battle with the goblins and wargs, the second movie will be the battle with the dragon, and the third movie will be the battle of five armies.
The only positive I can see is that since the Hobbit was intended as a children's book it doesn't have the intellectual depth and character definition of the trilogy, so I hopefully won't be as upset about all that gets left out or all the characters who are changed completely.
It does seem unfair that three books that each could have easily been two movies were made into one movie each, and now a book that could be one movie is being made into three.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Edit: So after RTFA it looks like the third movie will be stuff gleaned from Tolkien's other works, not anything that actually occurs in the novel The Hobbit.
21st Century Renaissance Man
If you take in some of the material found in the Appendices of LotR and the Book of Lost Tales, you probably have enough for three movies.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"Tim, Tim Benzedrine!
Hash! Boo! Valvoline!
Clean! Clean! Clean for Gene!
First, second, neutral, park,
Hie thee hence, you leafy narc!
Can we get The Scouring of the Shire and call it a day? (I mean, really, that was the whole point of The Lord of the Rings.)
I'm sure that American money can 'improve' The Hobbit.
After all, they managed to 'improve' a lot of the WW2 movies by showing how it was really the US that won the Battle of Britain, captured the Enigma and beat the Japs in Burma. Now I suppose we will find that Middle Earth is just outside Boise, Idaho....
Yep, this is starting to reek of yes-men and greed, not necessarily a good foundation for great movies. Jackson has performed well this far so I'm hoping, but this is where I start tuning down my expectations.
Pretty sure I recall reading that the first film is the book, and second is stuff set after the book?
...three is absurd. There's a reason why the Tolkien family HATES Hollywood, and this is an embodiment of those reasons. Peter Jackson is rapidly becoming the next George Lucas. Put down the ultra insane frame-rates and concentrate on not butchering the books in the name of moneys.
Do you realize how much singing there is in the books? I mean Tom Bombadil alone could carry half the movie. Haven't they seen how popular Glee is? This would get you regular geeks and Gleeks!
I know no one one RTFL, but what's happening is They are going to make a third film out of material that bridges The Hobbit and LOTR, based on notes/side stories left by Tolkien. And some of the material is pretty cool and worthy of a movie separate from "The Hobbit".
Agreed. Two would have been enough. Tolkein wrote it as a standalone story in one volume. It doesn't need anything else. I think PJ is starting to like the smell of his own flatus so much that he doesn't want to stop eating beans, so to speak.
.. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
I wouldn't want to miss every single step.
I was wary about stretching it into 2 movies. Its not that long of a book, not much actually happens. 3 movies is just a money grab by the studio.
I wasn't worried about that until I heard the titles for the three movies:
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Edit: So after RTFA it looks like the third movie will be stuff gleaned from Tolkien's other works, not anything that actually occurs in the novel The Hobbit.
The only interesting thing is whether it'll feature Derek.
Let's see - Obama as the dreaded "BallHog", Michael Moore as "Frito", and Bill Maher as "Dildo". Should be EPIC!
Romney as the Tree...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I wasn't worried about that until I heard the titles for the three movies:
The Hobbit
The Hobbit Reloaded
The Hobbit Revolutions
It could be worse. Imagine:
Hobbit: The Quickening
Just The Silmarillion. Is that really too much to ask?
In an unrelated note, if anyone has a mop, I accidentally dripped sarcasm all over the floor and need to clean it up.
If you take the stuff from the Silmarillion, you probably have enough for a couple hundred movies.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I understood the rational behind two movies; the Hobbit is pretty condensed and there is no lack of fans that will appreciate the depths explored with sufficient screen time. Three movies seems excessive but Peter did right by LOTR so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
It could be good if the net result is three reasonably sized movies instead of a pair of 235 minute blood clotting epics. We humans are really not meant to stare at screens that long.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
The Hobbit was written as a children's book - a pleasant read and not too scary, with plenty of humor especially at the beginning. Jackson seemed to have a really difficult time with the lighthearted parts of LOTR. The reunion with Frodo at Rivendell is cringe-inducing. I wish they had asked someone else to do this - perhaps whoever directed the first Harry Potter movie. Jackson did a great job with bringing Middle-Earth to life in sets and costumes, but that hurdle has largely been crossed. The Hobbit needs someone who can take the sets and costumes and tell a story.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
So stop yer bitchin.
My kingdom for a donkey!
If he wants to make more, I'm down to him try and see what he comes up with! I think there's plenty in the books to cover.
Only Peter Jackson could take so long to end a movie that it takes an entire other movie to do so.
When it was first announced there would be a Hobbit movie I was sort of sitting on the fence about seeing it. I like the story, but I'd already seen three LOTR movies and wasn't sure I wanted to see another in the same vein. When it was announced the story would be split into two films that pretty much turned me off. Now that there will be three I can say I won't be going to see these. Peter Jackson is a really good director and I'm sure he'll do a good job, I'm just not interested in another nine hours of Middle Earth. Two hours, maybe three, but three movies' worth is overkill in my opinion.
and of course Romney as the out of touch lunatic obsessed with the shiny ring....
Methinks you got the "out of touch" casting wrong:
"You didn't build that."
"We tried our plan. It worked."
WIll the Jawas have 3d blinking eyes?
Naah, more like:
The Hobbit: The Ca$hening
To put a witty saying into 120 characters, jst rmv ll th vwls.
I felt. . .as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror. . .
He should turn it into 9 movies and make three times the amount of money.
I'm so very tired of this. It's one story. I don't want to either read or watch 1/3 of a story and then wait a year for the next snippet. Jackson did a good job with LoTR, so I was excited about The Hobbit, but I'm not going to bother going to see it until the trilogy is complete.
What I *would* be very happy to do is pay $40 to watch a 7-hour movie with a couple intermissions, or just watch three movies released at the same time, perhaps over the course of a weekend if real life got in the way of a binge. That would make me happy and I'd buy lots of crappy overpriced movie-theater food during intermission. I'd wind up paying something like $200 for my family at the theater and be happy about it. But watch 1/3 of a movie, blah, not worth it.
Should I skip seeing the three movies, and wait for the condensed fan-edit of the three movies after the BluRays have been released?
Seeing how strong the community of fan-editors already is, and what good edits it produces, I think that we can count on there being someone out there who will cut them down into one movie that is telling the tale from Bilbo's perspective, as in the book.
There have already been numerous edits of the Star Wars movies, Superman, Dune, etc. and some have been really good.
I am also afraid that seeing my own digital copy would also be the only way to see The Hobbit "trilogy" in a good theatre (my own) and avoid crappy, blurry, "3D".
Too bad. I had been looking forward to seeing The Hobbit this December.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
Money money money.
I certainly don't want to wait three years to see the whole movie. With Peter Jackson's LOTR I could understand it, it was three distinct books.
Now we have Peter Jackson's The Hobbit... with how many DVD/BluRay releases to follow?
He is desperately trying to give George Lucas a good name
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Alien vs. Fredy Krueger vs. the Hobbit
....but can't come up with 35 - 45 minutes to do a decent version of the scouring of the Shire. Grumble.
Hoping against hope the bulk of the additions don't involve a previously-unknown love interest for Thorin.
Well since they're taking three films to do this one book which is much shorter than any of the others, maybe Peter Jackson will be kind enough to include the dozens of songs that Tolkein wrote in the original text. I WANTED TO SEE TOM BOMBADIL SINGING DRINKING SONGS WITH A BUNCH OF DWARVES AND HE DIDN'T DO IT! HE BETTER DELIVER ON THE DAMN SONGS THIS TIME! Seriously though who needs another generic epic score when you can use genuine content from JRR himself to enhance the film?
Indeed, and that's why one was already made.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
I disagree. I read The Hobbit about 30 years ago and remembered it as a small book that did not take long to read.
Recently I picked the book up to read it again before the movie and was surprised at how much actually happens in the book. I have no problem believing that there are three movies worth of material in the book.
Upon hearing of the third movie Bessie the script milking cow fainted.
Some options for all the knee-jerk complainers (pick the one that fits):
1. Don't watch any of them.
2. Wait until they are all out on blu-ray; then watch them (see Misagon's post)
3. Peter Jackson (and co.) can make as many movies as they want with the IP they 'own'. Get over it. See tip #1.
4. If you want a different story told, write some fan-fic. Otherwise either enjoy his vision, or go to tip #1
I guessing I'm whining now too; it's contagious.
I'll watch them when they are released - I enjoyed his interpretation of the LOTR books, and I expect to enjoy the Hobbit movies as well. If not, then that's a bummer; not psychotic nerd-rage inducement.
I would say that if Peter Jackson had exhibited a history of trying to wring cash out of a franchise with new, but inferior material and unnecessary revisions (*cough*Lucas*cough*), and to my knowledge, that hasn't happened, has it?
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
You know, I thought with the faster frame-rate they're shooting in, they'd be able to fit MORE action into LESS films...
Just bring back FIREFLY!!!! dog dammit!!!!
soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
Here we go:
The Hobbit, Episode I: The Phantom Dragon
The Hobbit, Episode II: Attack of the Spiders
The Hobbit, Episode III: Revenge of the Ring
Because my old Ballantine Books paper back version is 287 pages...
The Hobbit: The Search For Smaug.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
I don't want to see Jacksons 'interpretation' of Middle Earth. The more I see Jacksons LOTR, the more it irritates me. The parts that follow the book are great, and the casting, effects and cinematography are fantastic. I completely get that things like Tom Bombadil and the scouring of the Shire had to be left out. But it's the things he put in, completely unnecessarily, that cause growing annoyance over time. Dwarf tossing, Orcs swarming like cockroaches, men of Gondor no more than orc fodder. Bah I say.
It's like Jackson thought 'well here's a pretty good book, by a talented writer, but I am more creative, and I can improve the story.'
What a conceited idiot he is.
LOTR was polished and perfected over more than 30 years, by the mind of a shining intellect. LOTR movie is brilliant because of the strength of the story it is based on, and lots and lots of money. LOTR movie totally fails because of what some Kiwi yob with a degree in ego has added to it.
I am very sad to hear he now wants to spread his ruin to other parts of the tale. He is doing the work of Sauron if you ask me.
Crap!!! I was hoping the Hobbitt would be just one movie like the book!
My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
Errrrrrmmmmm.....http://botr.comeze.com/
Any book that doesn't involve a Bearenstine bear is hard to contain in a 2hr movie. The fact that we're so used to directors making shrunken heads out of some of the best literary works and think that's acceptable is a sad thing. The Hobbit has 19 chapters, and I could easily see a movie taking an average of 30min each getting through them in detail. So that's 10hrs of material, easily.
If anything, the Lord of the Rings movies cut HUGE gaping swaths out of that story. Remember Tom Bombadil? He was one of the most identifiable characters in those books and was replaced in the movie with about a 20second sequence where strider just hands the hobbits a bunch of magic swords. It's a sad thing. Would people have tolerated it being broken up into 10 or more movies? No... but it's success is what's allowing Jackson to expand on the Hobbit. Which is a good thing, because, in my not so humble opinion, The Hobbit is one of the best printed works in human history. I'm glad they are doing this. The only thing that would make me more happy would be a big budget "Band of Brothers" style series. If we're lucky, maybe that's what they'll do with the Silmarillion.
The Hobbit 2 :The Search for more money
I don't know about this whole thing tho. I think I will wait until they are all out and I will just buy the DVDs. I'm getting sick of seeing a movie and then having to wait another 2-3 year to get to see the end of the movie.
We already have three LOTR movies. Any love for the Dragonriders of Pern?
I'm self modding down because I know everyone is going to do that 'killing the messenger' thing, but it needs to be said. I went ahead and suggested that this post should be a score of -1, and be tagged Troll because I know that that's what happens to dissenting opinions on /., which if you're not careful you might start to think is intended to be a place for the free and reasoned exchange of ideas and opinions, but is really a place where people either suck the dicks of those with mod-points by posting things they're likely to agree with, or their opinions get modded down, because it's actually very biased and sad. That all said, I'll proceed.
The Lord of the Rings trilogy were three great movies, fairly entertaining, I own a copy of each on DVD. Then I decided to get the book, having never read it, I got the Barnes and Noble Single Volume edition of LOTR. Oh my fucking god. That bullshit about Tom Bombadil seemed to go on like a gay pride parade marching in a tight little impenetrable queer circle, and we the readers are stuck in the middle. I eventually got tired of the pointless digression, acknowledged why it was left out of the movie, and skipped ahead. I was disappointed to see that apparently they got to Rivendell without ever meeting up with Aragorn's chick. That whole "What's this? A ranger caught off his guard?" thing was made up for the film. I understand why, the book plods on for ever and ever saying nothing much for pages on end, and I can't believe the hype that surrounds this exercise in reading descriptions of just utter bullshit. Frodo and the other Hobbits did this, and the weather was like that, then they came to a ravine, and they did this. Then they climbed up, and maybe Samwise says something, whereas he's said nothing for the last 30 pages, even though he was walking right fucking there beside the others. This shit goes on for pages and ages, ages and pages. I actually felt myself getting older reading it.
I totally get why they had to yank all that pointless bullshit out to make a watchable movie, and even with all that extraneous trash ripped out, the movies were still longer than they really needed to be. In How It Should Have Ended, a series of parodies you can see on You Tube, it is pointed out that they could have just called one of Gandalf's giant eagle friends, flown there, tossed the ring into the fire, and been back in time for supper. But that wouldn't have given Tolkien an excuse to ramble on and on and on and on and on and on and...
(pauses for breath)
on and on and on and on... christ's fucking sake!
I stopped reading it around the time they were sitting on Elrond's porch, because even more fearsome than the forces of Mordor, are the forces of fucking boredom, I have to find something better to read, not 300 pages-worth of book stretched and packed with filler to make it about 1200 pages, just so they can call these (what should by rights have been a novella at best, into a full-blown, multivolume epic.
That all said, if they think they need to stretch the Hobbit out for 3 films, they're nuts. There's NOT that much story there. This is just Jackson and company deciding to see how many Oscar nominations (and awards) they can score, and how much money they can wring out of a single story. It's embarrassing, frankly. I think after all three come out on DVD, for the sake of prosperity someone will have to merge all three, cutting out all the useless filler garbage they're going to add, to make it the 97 minute long movie they should have made in the first place. What a joke...
If the pattern holds, the movies they'll make following the Hobbit(s), will trace the end of the age of magic, and the beginning of the age of reason and science, and Middle Earth will give way to the Middle Ages... and eventually you'll have a movie with Hobbits popping up in Central Park, and one will say to the other, "I don't think we're in the Shire anymore, Toto."
I'm not going to bother trying to watch any in theaters, I'll wait for them to come out on DVD or on TV, and be able to watch it from my nice, comfortable sofa, and fall asleep about 30 minutes in, in the privacy of my own home.
Debbie Does Hobbiton
I think PJ is starting to like the smell of his own flatus so much that he doesn't want to stop eating beans, so to speak.
Those are golden beans, ninjagin.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
One 2-3 hour film would have been enough. It's a children's book, it's not an epic.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
If anything, the Lord of the Rings movies cut HUGE gaping swaths out of that story. Remember Tom Bombadil?
Tom Bombadil never made much sense in the book and would have been a huge plot hole to movie audiences.
Much like how Dobby had to die before the final battle in the final Harry Potter book, Tom Bombadil needed to be gone in such a way that he couldn't help (and the "not wanting to" from the book doesn't really hold up). This way, we avoid having a being of essentially limitless power alive and doing nothing while our much less powerful heroes struggle with their quest. The easiest way to do this in the LotR movies was to just not introduce him in the first place.
At this point, it's pretty obvious that they aren't sticking to things that were in the books. They're making up new material, new stories. It was a stretch to make The Hobbit into two movies (they were already going to add at least half a movie of new material, probably closer to a full movie). But three? They're making shit up. Totally new material.
Tolkien would probably be happy about that. I'd ask him myself, but... you know...
Tolkien was a student of myths and legends, and of languages. He was obsessed with the interplay between languages and stories, and held a theory that the original primary purpose of language was to tell stories and legends. He thought any language without legends was a dead language. He didn't invent Elvish to help tell the LotR stories - he invented the Lord of the Rings to complete his languages. It was a bit of a linguistic experiment to him, actually.
Tolkien believed in the old way of stories, of men telling tales around a campfire, like the poets and bards of old. He tried to replicate that in his classroom (reading Beowulf et al. in the original languages). And possibly the most important difference between modern stories and ancient tales is that, in the old way, you can change it. You can change words, change stories, add verses, remove characters. You aren't supposed to do that with modern stories. Even in the fanfic culture, you generally don't take the original story and throw in a new subplot, new people, new places.
Tolkien would be happy to know that his story has become legend in that aspect, that his story lives not just as words on paper, but as a living, changing story.
Doesn't mean I myself agree with this - I'm "cautiously reserving judgement until the actual work is shown", neither immediately loving it nor already hating it. But I think Tolkien would be happy.
Yay, more offtopic politics... Woohoo!
Good, I'm glad you like your guy more than others like their guy. Sadly, your guy cares about as much about you, as their guy does. Not at all.
Either of them win, and nothing changes. Nothing ever changes.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Just thought you should know.
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
you wanna squeeze more money. it's disgusting but we suckers can live with it. please just let ppl watch the whole thing from start to finish in the same year.don't stretch it out over eons.
Or one pop song....
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
But Jackson doesn't have the rights to any of the material in The Book of Lost Tales, nor The Silmarillion.
Breakfast served all day!
I would say that if Peter Jackson had exhibited a history of trying to wring cash out of a franchise with new, but inferior material and unnecessary revisions (*cough*Lucas*cough*), and to my knowledge, that hasn't happened, has it?
King Kong, anyone?
Breakfast served all day!
Obviously you're right that it would have been a plot hole for the movie audience, since you demonstrated exactly how Bombadil would have been understood by that audience.
Those of us who would have liked to see Bombadil have a different understanding of him. He's there for a three reasons.
One, and I think most importantly, he's there as a semi-disposable character to bail the hobbits out when they get into trouble. This is their rite of passage. The world is a dangerous place, the hobbits are fleeing from danger into danger, and they need help, and in the absence of Gandalf, Bombadil is the first helper after they've left the Shire. He's foreshadowing Aragorn's help, and later the Nine Walkers. Your complaint is that he's overpowered to do that job, and that may be, but that's not all he's good for, and I don't think he's quite the disturbing McGuffin you think he is. More on that later.
Second, he's there for a sense of age and history. If you've read the Silmarillion, you have that sense of history, but most people haven't and don't. Bombadil is the first of several things sprinkled through LoTR to give that sense, and he's the only one still present in the world. He's there to give a sense that even though the elves are ancient compared to men, there is something in the world yet more ancient. He's there to lend a glimpse of eternity, to hint that this too shall pass.
Third, he's there for a sense of the alien, the different. He's there to provide the perspective that, while the conflict over the Ring feels epic to everyone involved, there are those who are not involved, who are so different that they don't even understand the fuss. The discussion about Bombadil at the council especially made it clear that, while Bombadil is humanoid, he is in no way human. The Council worries out loud that if given custody of the Ring, he'd lose it through sheer carelessness.
This is where your concerns about the plot hole are a little out of place. Bombadil is alien in the same way that Caradras is alien, and can be considered the benevolent foil to the malevolence of Caradras. He and Caradras both possess tremendous power, but it is a non-mobile elemental sort of power, enormous in terms of sheer strength (Gandalf doesn't even consider challenging Caradras when it resists the Fellowship), but indifferent to the Ring itself, and it is a power that does not move around in the world or participate in it. Each helps or hinders the progress of the Ring when the Ring comes near for reasons of their own that are more about their fundamental natures than anything to do with the Ring.
This is also one of the additional points about the movie that irritate the crap out of aficionados. Not only did Peter Jackson think that movie audiences couldn't understand Bombadil (apparently correctly), he also decided they couldn't understand Caradras, so he introduced the lame sequence where the trouble in the mountains was brought on by Saruman. The cure is worse than the disease. Not only did Saruman not know for sure what the Fellowship was up to, he was vague about where they were and what their numbers were. That's how the whole mistaken identity bit with Pippin and Merry happens.
More to the point, Saruman isn't powerful enough to cause that sort of trouble for a party escorted by Gandalf. In the books, Gandalf and Saruman always carefully step around each other once Saruman fails to convert Gandalf to his cause, and Gandalf isn't involved in either Saruman's downfall or his death. Following directly on from that point, Saruman simply isn't that powerful period. Everything about the Tolkien mythos is about the the decline and fall of basically everything. Everything is downhill, and Saruman (and indeed, Gandalf), are both very much at the low end of that long decline. Bombadil and Caradras are both ancient and therefore at the high end of the power curve. Gandalf and Saruman are both much younger, therefore much less powerful.
So the loss of Bombadil is, I think, directly related to the loss of Caradras, and both losses are unfortunate for many reasons.
I think what he meant to say is they're making three two-hour movies instead of two three-hour movies.
Hobbit with a vengeance?
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
If you go past the Silmarillion proper, I think the Atalante (Fall of Numenor) would make a very impressive prequel to LotR.
I think you mean Akallabeth (yeah I know, same meaning, different language, but that's what the book is called).
And I agree, it would make for an awesome prequel. The climax certainly has the greatest special effects potential of any moment in the history of Ea. I would love to see the Bending of the World on screen, watch the seas torn asunder and Numenor fall into them as Aman floats off into the distant stars along the Straight Path, and the camera slowly pulls back high over Endor to show the curvature of the newly-shaped world.
I would make the Akallabeth the centerpiece of a prequel trilogy pulling from the Silmarillion and other supplemental materials. I would tell it in reverse order, tied together by a framing story of Aragon explaining to his son Eldarion the history of Arnor (as they reestablish that kingdom in the early Fourth Era), and from there the history of Numenor, and before that the start of the line of high Men.
The first part would be predominantly about the downfall of Arnor and the battles against the Witch-King of Angmar, culminating in the line of kings becoming the Rangers of the North. That way we get to see familiar peoples and a familiar villain (the Lord of the Nazgul), and the early influence of the Rings of Power, tying it directly into the LotR. The prologue to this story would briefly tell of the history of how Arnor and Gondor were settled and how Arnor began to splinter prior to the Witch-King's attacks, much like the prologue to Fellowship tells of the Last Alliance and how the Ring was lost.
The second part would tell of the downfall of Numenor. This would get to feature Sauron as a prominent villain, in his fair form as Annatar, and so still have strong connections directly to LotR. It would of course culminate in the Bending of the World and the survival of Elendil (who would star) to found Arnor and Gondor. The prologue to this part would tell, if you'll note the pattern here, of how Numenor was given as a gift to the Edain, and how it slowly grew corrupt, before telling of its last days.
The third part would tell the tale of Earendil, culminating in the War of Wrath, and victory over Melkor, "ending" the trilogy on a high note despite it all generally being a bunch of downers. The prologue to this would of course establish how the silmarils were forged and stolen and the Sons of Feanor's quest for vengeance. Somewhere in there the story of Beren and Luthien would have to be told, to establish how Earendil gets his silmaril via his wife Elwing, Beren and Luthien's granddaughter; this could be an extended flashback recounted during Earendil and Elwing's courtship. Of course their sons Elrond and Elros will feature in here as well, establishing more familiar faces from LotR. In the epilogue Numenor is granted to the Edain for their help in the War of Wrath, with Elros as its first king, and the line of kings from Elros down through Elendil to our narrator Elessar (Aragorn) and his son Eldarion is briefly recounted, wrapping the whole story up; perhaps ending on a shot of the Evening Star as their day concludes, and Earendil continues to sail the sky with his silmaril shining bright.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
You know that's what Jackson, following in the footsteps of Mel Brooks, has in mind for retirement.
Gently reply
AKA God-mode Sue. :)
I hearby sentence you to a day on TV tropes. It will take at least that long to escape
LOTR series just turned into a "Star-wars" like saga. :D
Hobbit 2 : Electric Boogaloo
Bilbo vs. Mechabilbo II
(Has nothing to do with Bilbo vs. Mechabilbo)
Apart from the fact that, in all probability, Saraman/Curunír and Gandalf/Olórin are in fact much older than Caradhras, being as they were created by Eru Illuvatar in the beginning, before Eä came to exist. Bombadil, well, I don't know that we can be completely sure. He may have been a Maiar in which case yes, he is as old as they, or he may have been some other 'nature spirit' or somesuch that was born with Eä. Tolkien called him a nature spirit of the English countryside reflected in his work - a distinct difference from an angelic/godlike being such as a Maia or a Vala.
Gandalf and Saruman were limited by their shape and purpose, not by their age - they were expressly instructed to guide rather than to direct, as the confrontation between Valar/Maiar before (in the War of Wrath) was incredibly damaging, and the removal of Valinor from the 'circles of the world' did make many powers age and wane.
The problem with Caradhras too is perhaps a matter of perspective - it's really Gimli (and thus dwarf tradition) that names Caradhras as old and powerful, a treacherous pass. I don't know that there was much other evidence of living and malicious mountains/natural landscapes in Tolkien's work, as far as I can recall Caradhras was more of a lone encounter. In the book I believe that there was an implication that Saruman may have been involved in the difficulty the fellowship was having (Aragorn & Gandalf discussing Saruman's reach and power), as well as the potential that it was an ancient evil born of the mountain itself. Hard to say.
Both Saruman and Gandalf are immensely powerful. Gandalf the White, aided by Narya, is the second-most powerful being in Middle-Earth. However he is forbidden from using his powers directly and instead has to offer counsel and assistance to the Free Peoples rather than impose his will by force.
s/untold/unspoiled/
And that's all the time that's worth wasting on the matter.
“I’m not concerned about the very poor"
“I have some great friends who are NASCAR team owners.”
“Ann drives a couple of Cadillacs.”
“Corporations are people, my friend.”
“I’m also unemployed,”
“I like being able to fire people"
While we are posting out of context quotes here..... Seems that DJ master R-Money has more asshat quotes coming from his mouth.
It was an experimental hybrid meant to appeal to both children and adults and ending up with lukewarm results on both counts. I still liked it though the author was not satisfied with the results or at least so he claimed in his letters.
Condensed? Hardly. LoTR was way more condensed and a ton had to be left out because of that.
There were a few things that didn't quite work but I'd give the movies an overall 95%. Some of the cuts made for the theatrical version had better pacing than the extended versions.
Pretty much the only things that felt out of place were how awful the ring felt when worn since Bilbo wouldn't have handled it so casually if he was seeing the lidless eye the whole time and the portrayal as Sauron being a scary lighthouse. Oh, and I really thought Weaving was poorly cast as Agent Elrond. Great actor but not a good fit for an elf-lord.
I saw the movies before I read the books. They aren't perfect, there are flaws, but they still represent an achievement of imagination.
What someone else above said about stories being living things, yes. The movies are PJ's telling of Rings. Don't like it? The book's still there. Blind Guardian did a concept album, Nightfall in Middle-Earth. Don't like euro-metal? Then you can still enjoy the Zeppelin material inspired by Rings.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
The hobbit is a good read but is going to make 2 REALLY boring movies and one actually good one.
The Hobbit 2: Electric Boogaloo
Tom Bombadil was one of the most pointless characters in the book and thankfully he was cut from the movie
Hell even tolkien admitted tom had no point. At one time he had plans for him but it never materialized leaving a useless, extremely boring character that was 50-60 pages wasted.
I think you misunderstood what Bombadil represented. Remember the theme of LotR is about resisting the industrial revolution and keeping a more natural, agrarian lifestyle. Bombadil represents the force of Nature. Nature is impartial and cares neither way whether young species like humans kill themselves off. The world will continue with or without them. There's no reason to get involved in petty squabbles lasting a few hundred years when there are millenia of plant and stone to tend and watch.
He was more contradictory that he bothered to save the hobbits from the barrow wights. Yet that, too, was his nature - to be contradictory and do things on a whim.
I do agree general audiences would not have understood, and sadly, Jackson is catering all of these movies to the non-reading masses.
Or one pop song....
The one song?
"For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
I'm sorry, I don't get that reference at all. Can you explain?
Include Bombadil and make another movie wherein Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond etc. discuss what exactly Bombadil is, valar, maiar, god or what? At the end Elrond can discuss his brilliant theory that Bombadil is a balrog. Set it around a dinner table and you have "My Dinner with Andre" meets "LOTR", box office gold baby!
When Sauron was expelled from Mirkwood forest. There is only reference to this concurrent event in the Hobbit. But Peter could flesh it out.
Remember the theme of LotR is about resisting the industrial revolution and keeping a more natural, agrarian lifestyle.
Citation needed.
i read the lotr book, it was nothing but little imaginition combined with lots and lots and lots and endless lots of nouns and namesm u can make 90 sequels, i saw the first one for curiosity and the other 2 for special effects, that's it, the fan love for that much would just digest 1 more, let's say Hobbit, but they thought hey lets make 2, now they made the 2 into 3, who cares, only numbnuts will go watch these "sequels". Aren't there other new stories that can be produced instead?
Jackson absolutely loves the original Kong. Studio made known their intentions to do a (re)remake of Kong, with or without him. He basically said, well, better me than anyone else. Tried to stay true to the original (by his own standards, you may disagree).
I like his version.
Q: "How much of Middle Earth would you like to see on film?"
A: As much as they can. The Silmarillion would make a great TV series.
As for The Hobbit. I had thought that two films at 3 hours a piece would be just enough to tell the bulk of the story. (starting the journey and a couple of the incidents up to Mirkwood along with the white council and some Dol Guldor scenes in the first film then Mirkwood, Dale, and Erebor and wraping up Dol Guldor in the second) But I had thought they would have to skimp on the Dol Guldor action to make it fit.
With 3 films to work with, you can cut them down to 2 and a half hours each and have an extra hour and a half to tell more about the White Council and Dol Guldor. I'm OK with this.
Battle of Evermore would have been so fitting for the credits rolling at the end.
Why Jimmy Page wouldn't let Jackson use some of their LOTR-based songs fully confuses me...
What do you do for 8 hours a day at work? Plus, I guess you don't do the average ~6-7 hours a day of TV watching?
(I know, neither of those are exactly the same as watching a movie that you can't pause.. I'm just joking.)
How much of Middle Earth would you like to see on film?"
All of it, yeah yeah yea---
Peter Jackson
...never mind...
I guess I don't understand your sig then. This is a serious reply and I would sincerely like your opinion on the following quotes.
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.
-Adam Smith
"[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."
--Thomas Jefferson
"The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles."
Ayn Rand
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Thomas Jefferson
"All issues are political[; and politics] is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia."
George Orwell
"There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order."
Ed Howdershelt
"Both the oligarch and Tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms."
Aristotle
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to saintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
George Washington
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
In, I think, the first story in the Silmarilion, the head god creates the lesser gods, and they have a jam session. But secretly, it wasn't a jam session, it was the story of the world. Then they all get together and build the world and it goes according to the song. Including the one guy who sort-of hates everybody else and tried to ruin the song, but that's part of the story, too, and the head god knew it would happen that way.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
I guess I don't understand your sig then. This is a serious reply and I would sincerely like your opinion on the following quotes.
The quote, and the thoughts of Edward Abbey as a whole, are more towards an esoteric idea of country, the land and the people. I suppose it is a simpler idea, or a vastly more complex idea than expressed in those quotes. In more classic terms, Mr. Abbey wasn't very concerned with the polis or demos, but with country in the grand and literal sense.
All of those quotes are probably valid sentiments, but sadly they are often used as ammo to promote agendas, and force ideologies on others. There is some irony there. Actually, the closest to the truth (or how I see it) is Mr. Orwell's quote. It sums up American politics very well, and pretty much, in a neat capsule, attacks whatever political beliefs either of us probably hold sacred.
The comment I was replying to, was stupid, and offtopic. Taking the Obama's words, and completely twisting them to support a subjective partisan ideology is pointless, and meaningless. Obama was talking about infrastructure, and the general bits of government that allow business. This is pretty valid (though he said it pretty idiotically). Whether you agree with him on broad issues or not, the statement has a fair bit of truth. Without government, there is no freedom. Yes, we can argue about the degree of this, or where government goes to far and freedom starts to diminish again, but that doesn't invalidate the central premise. It isn't controversial, and Obama didn't think of it (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and yes, Jefferson, spoke about it first).
As for being offtopic... What does it have to do with a rumor of a third Hobbit movie... I wasn't aware that Peter Jackson, or the LoTR franchise had the desire to curtail my freedom.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
I'd actually like to see that (DIE FRODO DIE!)
Really well said!
Thank you
"but Peter did right by LOTR"
No he didn't. I include his "Two Towers" among the worst movies I have ever seen. Dwarf tossing? Really?
when I attempt to re-read the Lord of the Rings, Caradras is where I always stop. It's boring boring boring.
I also recognize that it's vital. It's a struggle. And real-life struggles are almost never exciting.
Bombadil's lack of intervention is no more puzzling than Manwe's lack of intervention. There is a strong argument that Bombadil is Aule (and I agree). http://www.cas.unt.edu/~hargrove/bombadil.html
This is done in the wrong order though.
You read the Hobbit.
You read the Lord of the Rings.
You read the Silmarillion.
Then you understand.
Explaining the Silmarillion in the Hobbit is nonsense.
The Necromancer is supposed to be enigmatic. Even Sauron in LotR is a pussy (historically). He was easily defeated by an elf-maid...
And then you understand the incredible power than Galadriel must have... and Sauron.
Why does everybody forget The Anihobbit, the part which binds them together and gives deeper purpose to the story? Not to mention Enter the Hobbit and The Path of Bilbo, which are less significant but still make valid contributions.
If you've read the Silmarillion
Nobody could read the Silmarillion until 22 years after LotR was published. I was one who read LotR in that time period, and Tom Bombadil was obviously ushered off by Tolkien for exactly the reason I stated...he was too powerful.
Everything about the Tolkien mythos is about the the decline and fall of basically everything.
Except Bombidil.
The world is a dangerous place, the hobbits are fleeing from danger into danger, and they need help, and in the absence of Gandalf, Bombadil is the first helper after they've left the Shire. He's foreshadowing Aragorn's help, and later the Nine Walkers.
And yet, all these are still there helping later in the books, while Bombidil is mentioned only once after he is offstage with the very reason he is mentioned being that Gandalf is upset that he's sitting on his backside and not using his powers to help. Bombidil was a deus ex machina as written, but could easily have been toned down to be a viable character who simply could only help in a limited enough capacity to get the hobbits past the Barrows.
The primary reason that Bombadil wasn't in the movie is that his part in the LotR story is so small that it can easily be subsumed by actors/sets/locations that were already paid for. It's only because of other books that anybody thinks Bombadil is anything more than a nut who happens to help the hobbits. BTW, you really didn't want him in the movie, because I suspect that Robin Williams would have been the casting choice of management.
Remember Tom Bombadil?
Unfortunately.
Tom never fit in. He is the largest of a list of throwbacks to a different writing style (namely: the style used in The Hobbit) that end up turning into jarring inconsistencies in the book. Yeah, I know a lot of people love the mystery and like to speculate on how he was actually God (ie: Eru) and how the chapter set up the idea of Ents and Ringwraiths. That's fine, academically, but the reality is that it simply injected confusion and nonsense into the narrative. The Hobbit fed on things like this, proving that the world was a strange and sometimes deceptively powerful place. But the rest of LoTR doesn't continue this. Yes, the world has powerful things in it... and the story is about those powerful things striving against each other.
Tossing in an omnicient, omnipresent, and omnipotent weirdo who defeats trees with prose doesn't strengthen the book. However, it seems it was left in because it introduced a larger world to readers who had not read The Hobbit.