The Hobbit movie news: An Unexpected Journey [Archive] - Page 3

MasterOfDeath

June 15th, 2010, 2:30 am

David Yates really is an up and coming directer, huh? That's what I like most about him. Before OOTP, he was a pretty much no-name TV directer who (after four other directors turned it down) was offered the chance of directing OOTP. He didn't have a lot of experience and it showed in that film in particular, but there was also definitive potential, seeds that could grow into something special. His visual style was bland and lifeless, but what we couldn't fault was his direction of the actors and his ability to evoke the emotion, complexity and subtle maturity of Rowling's series. He managed to get the best performances out of the trio in the series up to that point. He was an actor's directer and while the cinematography was banal and uncinematic and the editing quite choppy and TV-esque and the score underwhelming in places, he surprised us by delivering the most nuanced, subtle and character-driven installment of the series that helped grow the HP series up.

When I saw HBP, my hopes in Yates were proved to be founded. HBP proved to us that Yates is ever-developing and growing as a film directer and what a progress of talent. HBP was visually appealing and cinematically beautiful as well as continuing the great acting and performances. While his visual style became more cinematic and Hollywood, he didn't lose his heart and touch with the actors. It's like a combination of big movie set-pieces and visuals with independent movie acting and unconventionality.

What Yates proved with HBP was how versatile he is as a directer. I don't think anyone can deny how different OOTP and HBP feel from each other. He has come a long way. One of my first comments I made when I came back from the first showing of HBP was how excited I was to see how much further he'll come as a directer for DH1 and then DH2. (Yates' flaws tend to come out in post-production and since DH1 and DH2 will both have a different post-production period, I think he'll keep getting better). Seeing that first shot of the MTV movie awards tells me that Yates is becoming the next Peter Jackson.

It is a pleasant surprise but it shouldn't be that he is in the talks for directing The Hobbit. I think Yates is on a roll and jumping from DH2 to the Hobbit will be the best thing. He shouldn't break pace, he should keep going. Coming fresh off the hardships and experience of directing four HP films in a row, I think he will be tailor-made to direct a production like the Hobbit.

I'm rooting for Yates because he's a no-name directer who was given this freak chance to direct big Hollywood movies, sorta mirroring Peter Jackson's transition from small B-movie horror movies to directing LOTR. The different between Jackson and Yates though is that Jackson's style never really changed over the course of the LOTR trilogy. Yates doesn't have a particular style. He evolves and changes and always does something new. This is why I find it so exciting to think a Hobbit movie directed by Yates because you really don't know what to expect. With nearly every other high-profile directer you pretty much can pre-judge how they will make the film, but with Yates he always manages to pull the rug out from under us and surprise us.

I wasn't interested in seeing the Hobbit but if Yates directs it, I definitely will.

Rastaban43

June 15th, 2010, 7:41 am

I find it interesting a lot of people who I have seen wet themselves over Yates directing the Harry Potter films are hesitant to want him to direct Lord of the Rings. I'm with MoD on this one; seems like a natural choice to me.

Pearl_Took

June 15th, 2010, 9:45 am

Del Toro is a big loss to this project. He'd have delivered such an interesting Hobbit!

I know quite a few Tolkien fans who would love Alfonso Cuaron to take The Hobbit helm. :). An opinion I share. :)

Yates would be OK. His strengths are that he understands characterisation and of course he would honour the Englishness of the story (The Hobbit has other elements besides that but it's an important part of it).

Peter's LotR is an astounding cinematic experience but he often vulgarised the themes and characters. I would welcome a fresh director and a fresh approach. I will always be grateful to Peter for what he did, but he does NOT define Tolkien. :cool:

Jonny7003

June 15th, 2010, 7:37 pm

The rumour was false according to Yates' representative -

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a227600/david-yates-not-offered-the-hobbit.html

Lilleby

June 18th, 2010, 8:14 am

I really hope Cuarón will direct this! He's one of the greatest directors working! :)

katana

June 26th, 2010, 7:51 am

http://screenrant.com/the-hobbit-peter-jackson-director-robf-66135/

Peter Jackson now in negotiations to direct 'The Hobbit'.

ComicBookWorm

June 27th, 2010, 3:05 am

*Does a happy dance*

merry18

June 27th, 2010, 5:10 am

I did a fist pump at my desk when I read the Pete was in negotiations. Then I re-read the EW post five more times.

This was always meant for Peter Jackson. Let's face it, he's a hobbit himself. He just gets Tolkien and how to make it fit film.

Oh, I'm so pleased!

Wimsey

June 27th, 2010, 8:42 pm

I know quite a few Tolkien fans who would love Alfonso Cuaron to take The Hobbit helm. :). An opinion I share. :):wave: (I.e., me raising my arm in agreement....)
Peter's LotR is an astounding cinematic experience but he often vulgarised the themes and characters. I would welcome a fresh director and a fresh approach. I will always be grateful to Peter for what he did, but he does NOT define Tolkien. :cool:Well, not for you or for, say, the people who downloaded the first trailer 1 million times on its first day. However, for the millions of other people who saw the film, Jackson does do that!

I agree about Yates: he did a great job with Order, and he presented a good film for Prince, albeit one that told a different story than its source material did. That last reason is why I'd be a little skittish about him doing the Hobbit: would he tell Tolkien's story, or some related one instead?

However, if PJ is in negotiations (as so many sources indicate), then I would welcome that. Del Toro probably would have been awesome: but Jackson already was awesome.

Now, somebody pull a hostile takeover of MGM (or hack their systems and mistakenly transfer the distribution rights for The Hobbit to New Line), and let's get this show on the road!

Pearl_Took

June 28th, 2010, 3:33 pm

Hmmm, okay, whatever. ;) I'd have loved to have seen Del Toro's treatment.

But what will be will be, I guess. :)

The look of the film will be great, of course :tu: because PJ has such a great team working for him. :)

But please, please, please, Peter, no burping dwarves this time round, PLEASE. :grumble:

(And there are thirteen of them. :wow: I really hope he can restrain himself ...)

Oh, and The Hobbit should be one film. :relax:

ComicBookWorm

June 29th, 2010, 6:06 am

The Hobbit should definitely be one film. But they want to milk this franchise as much as possible. They do lay out a lot of money just to get the enterprise off the ground (sets, costumes, and graphics development, etc.) I think that PJ has worked out everything he needs to make Middle Earth believable. And he does have a great team that also knows how to make Middle Earth work.

I was never bothered by the changes in LOTR. Mostly it just smoothed out and streamlined the story in order to get it onto the screen. Frankly, he's made far fewer alterations than most adaptations, including the HP movies. Only Columbus stayed true to the books, and he is criticized for that. Yet Cuaron, a popular choice for The Hobbit, changed PoA in ways that still annoy me. He may have a good creative/artistic vision, but he sacrificed important plot points and motivations in the process. Yates, another option, also altered HP significantly. But we know that PJ can pull if off without butchering the material. And we also know that he is a true fan who loves the material and knows it inside out.

Pearl_Took

June 29th, 2010, 1:40 pm

I was never bothered by the changes in LOTR. Mostly it just smoothed out and streamlined the story in order to get it onto the screen.

Mostly, sure. :) I do think FotR is the best film in that regard: it's a linear narrative, like the book, and that film is really well crafted and flows beautifully. :tu:

When the plot lines divided up, with Frodo/Sam/Gollum going East and Aragorn and others going West to Gondor, then I think PJ sometimes lost it a bit. :yuhup: He tends to over-egg the pudding in his treatment.

Frankly, he's made far fewer alterations than most adaptations, including the HP movies.

Honestly, I find the changes in the HP films minimal. They're probably the most faithful adaptations I've ever seen.

Only Columbus stayed true to the books, and he is criticized for that.

Columbus, IMO, misses the subversive, cheeky edge of JKR's imagination. And then he covers the story over with sugar.

He may have a good creative/artistic vision, but he sacrificed important plot points and motivations in the process.

So did PJ. :cool: Faramir and Denethor's film characterisations were a bitter pill to swallow, among other stuff. :shrug: And then there was Gimli burping and farting ... :grumble: So inappropriate, for the material. :no:

Cuaron, OTOH, omitted stuff, like a portion of the Marauders backstory. Which is different from altering stuff.

Yates, another option, also altered HP significantly.

Again, it was much more a case of simply leaving stuff out, i.e. the Prophecy.

I just don't see the major altering of source material in the HP films that I do in PJ's treatment of Tolkien. But that's just me.

But we know that PJ can pull if off without butchering the material. And we also know that he is a true fan who loves the material and knows it inside out.

Well, sometimes PJ gets it gloriously spot-on and other times he does butcher the material, quite frankly. Instead of Gollum's deeply moving near-repentance scene in RotK, on the Stairs of Cirith Ungol, we got a silly quarrel about lembas. :grumble: And I hate, hate, HATE Frodo sending Sam away. So wrong, on so many levels.

Then there was that daft and wholly unnecessary thing about 'Arwen's life being tied to the Ring' ... pardon? :err:

So, a lot right :) and some things really, really wrong. :whistle:

Having said that, I doubt anybody else would have bothered, least of all make THREE films (which was awesome :tu: ) and I will always be grateful to PJ for what he did do. :)

For that amazing scene of a desolate, grief-stricken Arwen standing by Aragorn's tomb, I forgive the man much. ;)

merry18

June 30th, 2010, 3:44 am

Well, sometimes PJ gets it gloriously spot-on and other times he does butcher the material, quite frankly. Instead of Gollum's deeply moving near-repentance scene in RotK, on the Stairs of Cirith Ungol, we got a silly quarrel about lembas. :grumble: And I hate, hate, HATE Frodo sending Sam away. So wrong, on so many levels.

Then there was that daft and wholly unnecessary thing about 'Arwen's life being tied to the Ring' ... pardon? :err:

So, a lot right :) and some things really, really wrong. :whistle:

Having said that, I doubt anybody else would have bothered, least of all make THREE films (which was awesome :tu: ) and I will always be grateful to PJ for what he did do. :)

For that amazing scene of a desolate, grief-stricken Arwen standing by Aragorn's tomb, I forgive the man much. ;)

I disagreed with a lot of what you said, but I too COULD. NOT. STAND. the scene with the lembas bread fight and Frodo sending Sam away. It;s probably the only real issue I had with the film adaptions.

But the Arwen's life being tied to the ring bit always feels kind of forced. Okay, REALLY forced. They'd done enough to get us emotionally invested in the Arwen/Aragorn stuff, so I hate that they felt the need to throw that in (though the Aragorn/Elrond scene in the tent is still one of my favorites for the sheer epicness of the sword reveal).

And I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds the scene of Arwen standing by Aragorn's tomb a stand-out! So beautiful, powerful, and profoundly devastating to view. Love it. Deffo one of my favorite moments from the films.

I'm not worried about Peter having too much fun with the excessive amounts of dwarves. The Hobbit probably had more silly moments than the trilogy anyway, so the only thing that makes me even a little nervous is if Peter makes it too dark and serious. It was much more lighthearted than the trilogy, and Pete has a thing for gloom, so the mood and tone of the two films is the only thing I;m really concerned with.

Well, and Ian McKellan. Dude's not getting any younger, so they need to get this thing rolling!

Pearl_Took

June 30th, 2010, 10:43 am

But the Arwen's life being tied to the ring bit always feels kind of forced. Okay, REALLY forced. They'd done enough to get us emotionally invested in the Arwen/Aragorn stuff, so I hate that they felt the need to throw that in (though the Aragorn/Elrond scene in the tent is still one of my favorites for the sheer epicness of the sword reveal).

Honestly, throwing that line in about her life being tied to the Ring is so stupid and completely left-field. :yuhup: A fellow fan responded to this in the cinema with an expression which I could not repeat on these boards. :rotfl: Why did they feel the need to shoehorn this in? It's totally unnecessary and makes no sense whatsoever: as you rightly say, they had already established a strong Arwen/Aragorn connection in the movies.

I can very happily accept changes from the book if they make sense. :) Unfortunately, quite a lot of PJ's changes don't. :yuhup: He gets away with it because the films look and feel (and sound!) fabulous, and he had the most wonderful cast and crew. (For which, of course, he gets all credit from me. :tu: )

And I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds the scene of Arwen standing by Aragorn's tomb a stand-out! So beautiful, powerful, and profoundly devastating to view. Love it. Deffo one of my favorite moments from the films.

It's absolutely gorgeous. :love: Made me gasp out loud the first time I saw it, it was so ... RIGHT. :upset:

I'm not worried about Peter having too much fun with the excessive amounts of dwarves. The Hobbit probably had more silly moments than the trilogy anyway, so the only thing that makes me even a little nervous is if Peter makes it too dark and serious.

But the tale does get dark and serious at the end. :cool: But, yes, it's certainly a much lighter story than LotR.

Well, and Ian McKellan. Dude's not getting any younger, so they need to get this thing rolling!

McKellan is Gandalf. :love:

lcbaseball22

June 30th, 2010, 10:54 am

For that amazing scene of a desolate, grief-stricken Arwen standing by Aragorn's tomb, I forgive the man much. ;)

Did I miss something or just not remembering? I seem to recall Aragorn alive and well at the end...in both the book and movie :yuhup:

Pearl_Took

June 30th, 2010, 11:06 am

Did I miss something or just not remembering? I seem to recall Aragorn alive and well at the end...in both the book and movie :yuhup:

LOL, LC. :D

The scene occurs in TTT, about half way through. :) Elrond is telling Arwen what will happen if she stays in Middle-earth to marry Aragorn ... he will die, and she will finally taste the bitterness of the choice she made to become mortal. :sigh:

So the scene in the film is a projection into the future.

And, actually, it's what happens. You don't read about it in the main narrative of LotR. It can be found in Appendix A, The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen.

Broke my heart the first time I read it. :upset: Poor Arwen. :sigh:

But it's not all completely tragic, because the implication is that because she has become mortal, she and Aragorn will be reunited beyond 'the circles of the world', i.e. when they have both died. This is all part of Tolkien's Catholic worldview: death is not the end.

lcbaseball22

June 30th, 2010, 11:08 am

LOL, LC. :D

The scene occurs in TTT, about half way through. :) Elrond is telling Arwen what will happen if she stays in Middle-earth to marry Aragorn ... he will die, and she will finally taste the bitterness of the choice she made to become mortal. :sigh:

So the scene in the film is a projection into the future.

And, actually, it's what happens. You don't read about it in the main narrative of LotR. It can be found in Appendix A, The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen.

Broke my heart the first time I read it. :upset: Poor Arwen. :sigh:

But it's not all completely tragic, because the implication is that because she has become mortal, she and Aragorn will be reunited beyond 'the circles of the world', i.e. when they have both died. This is all part of Tolkien's Catholic worldview: death is not the end.

Well TTT is the one I've seen least so perhaps that explains it. :lol: Anyways, thanks for clearing that up :) I'll have to go back and look for that scene to refresh my memory. I vaguely recall that now you've mentioned it

So...what's the latest director news? Is Jackson going to do The Hobbit as well? I really hope so, it sounds more promising now! :D

Pearl_Took

June 30th, 2010, 11:12 am

Well TTT is the one I've seen least so perhaps that explains it. :lol:

TTT is my least favourite too. :whistle:

Anyways, thanks for clearing that up :) I'll have to go back and look for that scene to refresh my memory. I vaguely recall that now you've mentioned it

You can't miss it. Arwen in black, standing by Aragorn's tomb. It's a very powerful, beautiful scene. :)

So...what's the latest director news? Is Jackson going to do The Hobbit as well? I really hope so, it sounds more promising now! :D

Looks like.

I'd have been thoroughly intrigued to see Del Toro's vision, I must say.

lcbaseball22

June 30th, 2010, 11:20 am

TTT is my least favourite too. :whistle:

You can't miss it. Arwen in black, standing by Aragorn's tomb. It's a very powerful, beautiful scene. :)

Looks like.

I'd have been thoroughly intrigued to see Del Toro's vision, I must say.

I haven't seen any of Del Toro's work so I won't necessarily disagree but I like the idea of consistency between the two works in keeping the same director...although I suppose Jackson would have been more or less running the show behind the scenes and had quite a bit of influence even as just producer. Though perhaps not, cause I'm not sure how much the producer does with movies really. :hmm:

I dunno, it's interesting...this is somewhat off-topic but in this film class (and we're not actually watching film at all, we're doing Television series...he wanted to switch it up for the summer :lol:) I'm currently in we learned about the difference in how the show runs for movies vs. film. In film the director is the head honcho but in TV it's very different, the producer runs the show and in fact a director will typically only direct one episode and then leave, they switch directors every episode. You'd think that would wreck havoc on consistency but I suppose the producer makes sure everything stays consistent/in line with his vision...not the director's. Just some fun info :) Well, I'm off to bed...

phoenix88

June 30th, 2010, 6:02 pm

TTT is my least favourite too. :whistle:

You can't miss it. Arwen in black, standing by Aragorn's tomb. It's a very powerful, beautiful scene. :)

Looks like.

I'd have been thoroughly intrigued to see Del Toro's vision, I must say.

I didn't realize that scene with Arwen at Aragorn 's tomb actually happens in the appendix. I agree it was really a beautiful scene. I am disappointed that we will be getting a failed version of the hospital for quite some time done. Wasn't originally going to happen in December of 2010 and then pushed back in December 2011? At this rate we would be lucky to get anything by 2012. I was asked to be pretty happy to hear that Peter Jackson would possibly be directing. He did such an amazing job with the first 3 films.

Wimsey

July 2nd, 2010, 9:53 pm

I didn't realize that scene with Arwen at Aragorn 's tomb actually happens in the appendix.heh, insofar as that is "actually"... :cool: For example, Gimli's story to Eowyn about dwarfish women and the silly stories about dwarf babies coming out of the ground was from there. The "kingly named" horse meant anything only to someone who'd read the Appendices. They would have gone further: PJ & Co. had to do was cut stuff that they'd accidentally gotten from other sources (e.g., Lost Tales, History of Middle earth, The Silmarillion, etc.). Ironically, they could have been sued for plagiarizing Tolkien had they, say, retained the lines about Gandalf & Saruman being Maia, or some of the details about the Elvish Rings!

Still, the fact that Jackson had the audacity to *gasp* CHANGE THINGS demonstrates that he does not understand or appreciate Tolkien despite having read those things, at least according to a few! :yuhup:
I was asked to be pretty happy to hear that Peter Jackson would possibly be directing. He did such an amazing job with the first 3 films.My reason for preferring Cuarón over Jackson is pretty simple. Both men have shown that they do an excellent job of adapting stories. (Yes, I know that not all Tolkien fans think that Jackson told Tolkien's story, but as Tolkien fans do not agree what Tolkien's story was, this was inevitable!) The difference? Jackson has shown that he can do an epic very well. That was fine for Lord of the Rings. However, The Hobbit is a novel, not an epic. Jackson has been more hit-and-miss with this type of story: he actually did a great job with King Kong (making a non-human protagonist develop dynamically is no mean feat), but he did not do a very good job with Lovely Bones. Cuaron has done a great job telling novels cinematically. Just as Harry's dynamic growth really is the vehicle for a Harry Potter story, Bilbo's dynamic growth is the vehicle for The Hobbit.

Now, this does not mean that PJ (and Boyens and Walsh: they really are just as important) cannot do it: it is just that his track-record is spotty, whereas Cuaron is 4 for 4. I really think that Alfonso would make us "feel" Bilbo's journey from stuck-up little country squire to resourceful and curious adventurer. PJ made me feel Kong's journey, but in other cases, he's just shown it. That's fine when the source is an epic: but not when it is novel.

As for the dwarfs' antics, well, let's face it: the Three Stooges could have taken some cues from some of the things Tolkien has them do in The Hobbit! To paraphrase Gandalf from the Appendices, I'd prefer that the tale be told as if Bilbo was telling it to, say, Aragorn, not as if Bilbo was telling it to very young Merry & Pippin!

ginger1

July 2nd, 2010, 10:33 pm

That's one of the problems I have with The Hobbit. It's a story - a children's story - told by a father at bedtime to youngsters who liked bears. No epic.

And the thought of it being two movies still confuses me (how? where's the material?) - and the likelihood that all the jokes in the story will be emphasized. Groan.

For example the introduction of the dwarves to a flustered Bilbo at the beginning, and the counting game of Gandalf getting the dwarves to Beorn's house - fine for children - not so fine for us. I presume it is not being marketed as a children's movie. I only hope if Jackson is at the helm he will smother his liking for crudities where dwarves are concerned (one belching Gimli was toe-curlingly awful - add a few more - doesn't bear thinking about).

I must confess I'm half looking forward to it - as any return to Middle Earth is to a "fan" of LotR - but I'm worried ...

Rastaban43

July 2nd, 2010, 10:49 pm

And the thought of it being two movies still confuses me (how? where's the material?)I know. That's my biggest concern. I understand they want to milk this franchise for every last penny it's worth, and the set and what not will be expensive to build no doubt so they'll be trying to make the biggest possible return on that investment. I mean, it's not an epic, but they'll want Bag End and Rivendell to match the sets of LotR, then throw on the goblin hideaway, the elves thingy in Mirkwood(?), inside the lonely mountain (probably an easy set comparatively) and Laketown(?), and you've got some pretty epic sets for what is exactly as you say, a children's story.

I don't recall how expensive it was to make LotR but I imagine the price tag on The Hobbit will be pretty big. But if they're making two films just to make their money back, it seems like a pretty dumb excuse. They should have started work on the film back during LotR filming, but who ever has foresight in the movie business, lol. The dilemma is - it's too expensive a budget for a single film but there simply isn't enough source material for two quality films (not to mention, splitting the hobbit would be like splitting hairs). They might as well not bother making it lol. I personally rather enjoy the 1977 animated version. XD

Siriusandme

July 3rd, 2010, 8:11 pm

Rell

July 4th, 2010, 4:50 am

I can't imagine there's enough material in the Hobbit for two films and I don't want it to be too drawn out... It'll only make it boring. And I still have my heart set on a film solely from a tale from the Sil. And if possible, the Last Alliance. Just imagine all the wonderfull things you could do with that tale....I'm pretty sure there's a copyright problem with making a movie based off the silmarillion. I don't think those movie rights were ever sold.

Wimsey

July 4th, 2010, 8:11 am

I'm pretty sure there's a copyright problem with making a movie based off the silmarillion. I don't think those movie rights were ever sold.That is correct, and they will not be sold while Christopher Tolkien is alive. That also is why Jackson & Co. could have plagiarized Tolkien while doing Lord of the Rings!

That's one of the problems I have with The Hobbit. It's a story - a children's story - told by a father at bedtime to youngsters who liked bears. No epic. Well, stories do not have to be epics to make good films: lots of novels (including the later Harry Potter novels) have become good movies. Now, it is (in some ways) easier to make a film from an epic because epics are fundamentally plot driven rather than character driven. Thus, it is the actions of characters rather than their motivations that are important. A novel relies on what the protagonist(s) is (are) thinking and the evolution of their characters. Those manifest themselves in deeds and words, of course, but that means that the film has to show the symptoms rather than the disease. (Hmmm: not the best analogy!)
And the thought of it being two movies still confuses me (how? where's the material?) - and the likelihood that all the jokes in the story will be emphasized. Groan.Yeah, some of them are groaners, aren't they! It's the silly songs more than anything else. However, Jackson & Co. cut almost all of those out from Rings: and when there did appear, they were in very "natural" settings (individuals singing to themselves and the Elves singing from afar). It was not quite the Oompah-Loompah routines from The Hobbit. (Even within the make-believe settings of Tolkien's fiction, Tolkien indicated that that was make-believe!)
I only hope if Jackson is at the helm he will smother his liking for crudities where dwarves are concerned (one belching Gimli was toe-curlingly awful - add a few more - doesn't bear thinking about).Again, this really was not an affection for crudities so much as it was Jackson & Co. trying to humanize Tolkien's static icons. Pearl mentioned a few examples of this. Now, a lot of Tolkien fans still howl that humanizing the characters "diminished" them. In some ways, that is true: epics rely on paragons, in many ways. However, I really doubt that Fellowship would have been so popular (and drawn so many people back for Towers and then King) had Jackson, Boyens & Walsh stuck to Tolkien's icons.

(Of course, one colleague of mine did not return because he felt that watching Fellowship was like getting cudgeled with a Jungian hammer. I told him that there actually is a book on that very topic!)

I mean, it's not an epic, but they'll want Bag End and Rivendell to match the sets of LotR, then throw on the goblin hideaway, the elves thingy in Mirkwood(?), inside the lonely mountain (probably an easy set comparatively) and Laketown(?), and you've got some pretty epic sets for what is exactly as you say, a children's story.Medieval/Renaissance/Victorian <> Epic. Fundamentally what they want to do is a character piece in a hodgepodge Medieval/Renaissance/Victorian world with some fantastic elements. Of course, Smaug has to be Smaug, and the Trolls have to be Trolls: however, all have to work as people for the film (or at least their contributions to the film) to work.

However, as with any cinema, the sets/effects/etc. have to be appropriate. If you are doing an epic or a novel set in Rome, then Rome has to be Rome, with all of its grandeur. The difference is that a novel will also emphasize the filth!

They should have started work on the film back during LotR filming, but who ever has foresight in the movie business, lol.It was not a question of foresight, but copyright. Jackson & Co. could not acquire the rights to distribute The Hobbit. The whole holdup now is because MGM owns those, and their financial mess means that they will neither green light production nor sell the distribution rights to one of their biggest assets.

Indeed, Jackson & Co. were initially interested in doing The Hobbit, but moved on to Rings when it became clear that they could not unite the distribution and production rights for TH. They initially viewed Rings as tough because they knew that it would be tough selling a 2-part film. (Nobody but New Line would do more than one part!) As a result, they set a trend: Rings justified Kill Bill, Matrix II/III, Pirates II/III, and now The Hobbit, Deathly Hallows and the last Twilight film. (Kill Bill worked out OK, but I think that it will be 0 for 5 after that!)
The dilemma is - it's too expensive a budget for a single film but there simply isn't enough source material for two quality films (not to mention, splitting the hobbit would be like splitting hairs). They might as well not bother making it lol.That really is not the case. Yes, it will be expensive, but no more so than a Harry Potter film or any of the other action/adventure films that have been big hits lately. To an extent, 2+ part films are sort of like 3D: just because it worked well for one highly popular, critically acclaimed tale, people think that it might work for others. However, Rings worked despite being broken up, not because of it.

MoodysMagicEye

July 4th, 2010, 12:52 pm

Interview with Ian McKellan where he talks about the hobbit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAr1nLcmqeQ&feature=player_embedded

He says he expects an announcement imminently (and that will be that it is / isn't happening), he also states that if it doesn’t happen soon he may not do the film as he has other things planned.

Sounds ominous :scared:

Siriusandme

July 4th, 2010, 9:19 pm

I'm pretty sure there's a copyright problem with making a movie based off the silmarillion. I don't think those movie rights were ever sold.

I know but still..... :love: I would love a Sil. film more than a Hobbit film. Unfortunately the Hobbit has never been a favorite of mine even though I'm still looking forward to it. And I'm quite certain Christopher Tolkien won't live forever so there is still hope...

Wimsey

July 6th, 2010, 8:29 pm

He says he expects an announcement imminently (and that will be that it is / isn't happening), he also states that if it doesn’t happen soon he may not do the film as he has other things planned.

Sounds ominous :scared:Anything owned (or co-owned) by MGM is in total limbo right now. For example, production of the latest James Bond basically halted production in April, with everybody simply sent home.

The problem for us is that MGM wants to have its cake and eat it, too. Yes, the Hobbit is an asset that improves the value of their corporation for potential buyers. However, MGM needs cash now simply to continue existing long enough to be sold.

Should MGM completely go-under, then I think that The Hobbit as we'd like to see it will be dead. It probably will take years for the assets of MGM to be sold via courts, by which time the main players surely will have gone on to other things.

On the other hand, however, it also is somewhat fitting, given Tolkien's view of capitalists as low and greedy people who did not know their place in proper society! :cool:

MoodysMagicEye

July 6th, 2010, 11:07 pm

Anything owned (or co-owned) by MGM is in total limbo right now. For example, production of the latest James Bond basically halted production in April, with everybody simply sent home.

The problem for us is that MGM wants to have its cake and eat it, too. Yes, the Hobbit is an asset that improves the value of their corporation for potential buyers. However, MGM needs cash now simply to continue existing long enough to be sold.

Should MGM completely go-under, then I think that The Hobbit as we'd like to see it will be dead. It probably will take years for the assets of MGM to be sold via courts, by which time the main players surely will have gone on to other things.

On the other hand, however, it also is somewhat fitting, given Tolkien's view of capitalists as low and greedy people who did not know their place in proper society! :cool:

I saw that news concerning the next Bond film, it does make me anxious about the Hobbit, I loved the Lord Of The Rings films and I think if the Hobbit were aloud to fall by the wayside a lot of people will miss out (and not just in a financial sense). I Know the last two Bond films have been co-produced with Sony, but I think this one was just being produced just by MGM on its own, so I wonder what influcence Newline Cinema (or WB essentially) have as this is a co-production, not that much I guess or it would be all sorted out by now.

Wimsey

July 8th, 2010, 3:22 pm

so I wonder what influcence Newline Cinema (or WB essentially) have as this is a co-production, not that much I guess or it would be all sorted out by now.New Lines' (and thus Time-Warner's) "influence" is that they have the sole rights to make a movie based on The Hobbit. However, New Line does not have the right to distribute the film to theaters: MGM owns those rights. So, if New Line just made the movie, then it is entirely possible that it would just sit there.

The only thing that Time-Warner could do is buy the distribution rights from MGM. However, MGM has stubbornly refused to sell those rights all along: this film could have been made years ago otherwise. Given that TH will be a cash cow, those distribution rights are a huge asset for a financially highly-distressed company. In the perverse world of shareholding capitalism, those rights actually are maximum while they are "potential" rather than "kinetic": potential buyers will be convinced that they and they alone would get the maximum return on the product. Still, given MGM's recent track record, perhaps assuming that they'd get a better return than MGM is not the stupidest assumption!

EDIT: It is a week old, but here is another summary of MGM's issues. (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i0dbd1be978e01a7f02a9a16ac73d582b) Bond might be done for the foreseeable future: however, that is topic for another thread.

Once again, however, it is being reported that MGM's creditors are pressuring MGM to sell off assets, including The Hobbit, in order to achieve some degree of solvency. The problem is, as Ain't It Cool News put it:Of course, in Monopoly terms, that would sort of be like auctioning off Boardwalk so that you can build houses on Baltic.This seems to be a good analogy to me: if MGM does survive after selling the distribution rights to The Hobbit, then there will be hell to pay in 2-3 years when the $$$ from The Hobbit are being hidden from the IRS. The fact that Joe/Jane Smith had to do it in 2010 for MGM to be present in 2013 will not be considered an acceptable excuse. So, it really is a no-win situation for the people who could make the decision: their only hope is for MGM to somehow pull through with The Hobbit's distribution rights in tact. In other words, a bigger miracle than required by the most egregious plot holes of any MGM film!

EDIT II: Here is another pertinent article discussing what is happening with MGM. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-14/lions-gate-said-to-woo-mgm-studio-creditors-seeks-terms-icahn-would-back.html) The Hobbit is not mentioned, nor is James Bond. The issue is entirely about old billionaires wanting to maximize returns on their investments. That is the sole issue here: chances are pretty good that guys like Carl Icahn have no idea what The Hobbit is and would better sympathize with the absurdly rich megalomaniacs of James Bond movies than with Bond himself!

ginger1

July 16th, 2010, 10:30 pm

So, the latest rumour over at IMDB is that Sylvester McCoy may be our Bilbo Baggins.

What do you think?

IenjoyAcidPops

July 16th, 2010, 11:16 pm

Wimsey

July 17th, 2010, 2:43 am

Actually, Ian Holm (about 80) is a good 15 years older than Sylvester McCoy (about 65). It is an interesting call, however, as McCoy is only a bit younger than Holm was during Lord of the Rings, and the two do look a bit alike.

I suspect that they will go with a younger Bilbo, however.

freelantzer

July 23rd, 2010, 2:12 am

IenjoyAcidPops

July 23rd, 2010, 2:20 am

Del Toro announced at Comic-Con that he will be developing a new adaptation of Disney's The Haunted Mansion--it will be scary, not a comedy, and will not star Eddie Murphy. Still . . . he left The Hobbit for this? :hmm:

Guillermo Del Toro is attached in some way, as either a director or producer, to about 52,176 projects, so I can't put any stock in this. No one seems to know what his next movie will be.

ETA: I'm sorry, it's 52,178.

Wimsey

August 22nd, 2010, 10:22 pm

Del Toro announced at Comic-Con that he will be developing a new adaptation of Disney's The Haunted Mansion--it will be scary, not a comedy, and will not star Eddie Murphy. Still . . . he left The Hobbit for this? :hmm:Del Toro did not leave TH for Haunted Mansion. He left TH because nobody has any idea when they'll be able to start filming it, and he cannot wait around forever. Having left, he then took one of the 15+K projects to which his name has been attached!

Supposedly some progress was being made on the MGM front, but that seems to have hit some new snags: there have been no new reports in a while now.

MuggleGirl09

August 27th, 2010, 12:50 pm

This movie needs to come out already! It has been too long! Haha. :)

lcbaseball22

August 27th, 2010, 11:29 pm

This movie needs to come out already! It has been too long! Haha. :)

Heh, I don't mind...need something to look forward to after Potter movies are done. :lol: I think I'll re-read the book here one of these days.

Wimsey

August 31st, 2010, 3:12 pm

For your amusement, here is a summary of the film's history up to this point (plus a little imagination!)

http://www-images.theonering.net/torwp/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/hobbit2.jpg

Sylvester McCoy (Doctor #7) as Radagast is interesting. Just casting Radagast is interesting: I mean, why bother? Amusingly, Tom Baker (Doctor #4) was rumored to be playing Radagast for Rings. (Lots of reasonably big names were rumored to be playing such bit parts that they were not even cast, if you recall.)

Wab

August 31st, 2010, 3:27 pm

Wimsey

August 31st, 2010, 4:49 pm

There was no way a big name would have played a bit part in LotR. Not economical to send them to NZ for a day or two shooting. Same reason why all the smaller roles in the Star War prequels are played by Australians and NZers.No, of course not. However, Tolkien fans thought that everybody would be dying to play even the smallest role in the film, and that even the smallest roles would be filled because the all were so important!

After all, if PJ really understood or cared about Tolkien, then he would have spared no expense, right? :cool:

This case might be a little more realistic. They do have to pad the Hobbit to make it two parts, and they might feel that they need more build-up to Gandalf's departure. "Tally-ho, old-boys: it slipped my mind, but I'm off to help take on a hitherto unmentioned dark lord down south! Good luck with that dragon business!" just might not work on screen that well....

Wab

September 1st, 2010, 12:50 am

Wimsey

September 1st, 2010, 4:05 am

Ah, well, the best way to deal with Tolkeinistas is not at all.That would require ignoring myself, and I'm far too fond of me to do that! :cool:

Seriously, they are just like any other group of fanboys/girls. Hmmm, come to it, that sort of supports your suggestion, doesn't it...

Rastaban43

September 1st, 2010, 7:30 am

That would require ignoring myself, and I'm far too fond of me to do that! :cool:

Seriously, they are just like any other group of fanboys/girls. Hmmm, come to it, that sort of supports your suggestion, doesn't it...Hehe, ah, but there is a difference between constructive fan criticism and craze. Jackson himself is a bit of a fan boy, is he not?

Wab

September 1st, 2010, 7:45 am

Not really. The story was spread that he and Fran Walsh are fen, but it was more a case of one thing leading to another.

It wasn't how people might imagine, you know, "'Lord of the Rings' is a film I've always wanted to make and now was my opportunity," it wasn't like that at all. It was, "Think of an original idea" and we couldn't, and we kept referring to 'Lord of the Rings' as, you know, an example of what we wanted to do. "Oh, we should do something, so and so, like 'Lord of the Rings'" or "We should have creatures like that thing in 'Lord of the Rings'" or "We should have a big battle scene, like in 'The Lord of the Rings'." You know, we kept always referring to this story. And eventually, after a few weeks of this, we sort of stopped and we said to ourselves "Why don't we actually make an enquiry about 'Lord of the Rings'?"

At The Movies (http://www.abc.net.au/atthemovies/txt/s1529210.htm)

MasterOfDeath

September 1st, 2010, 10:18 am

Pearl_Took

September 1st, 2010, 11:36 am

No, of course not. However, Tolkien fans thought that everybody would be dying to play even the smallest role in the film, and that even the smallest roles would be filled because the all were so important!

I don't remember that side of fandom crazy, actually. :D

I do remember the rumour that Sean Connery would play Gandalf. :yuhup: (I like Sean but noooooooooooooooo!)

And people thinking that Robin Williams would be a good choice to play Tom Bombadil. :err: :rotfl:

Then followed the angsting and wailing and gnashing of teeth when it transpired that Bombadil had been cut. :p (Oh noes! This project will sucketh muchly! Let's have PJ's head on a platter!)

Ethan Hawke and Uma Thurman were in the running at one point to be Faramir and Eowyn. :wow: My reaction to that: :err: :no: :grumble:

Thankfully, it never came to pass. :D

And then of course the whole 'Xen-Arwen' affair. :D

This case might be a little more realistic. They do have to pad the Hobbit to make it too parts, and they might feel that they need more build-up to Gandalf's departure. "Tally-ho, old-boys: it slipped my mind, but I'm off to help take on a hitherto unmentioned dark lord down south! Good luck with that dragon business!" just might not work on screen that well....

I'm against The Hobbit in two parts, myself. :cool:

It's much more lightweight than LotR and I don't want them to 'big' the story up and 'bloat' it too much. :huh: Meh!

And no invented Elvish romances, PER-LEASE. :rolleyes:

Lunatic

September 1st, 2010, 2:16 pm

:lol: If you're gonna get Sylvester McCoy, you may as well keep Ian Holm. I mean, isn't that role being recast because of his age and the physical demands the part may require? I don't know how old McCoy is offhand, but he and Holm can't be far off. This is obviously not true, anyway, I don't expect anything to happen with this for a while..

Mccoy was the 'second' choice during LoTR. I read a while back that he is around 10 years younger, though that makes him sixty something rather than seventy something. According to this (http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2010/08/30/the-hobbit-sylvester-mccoy-casting/), there is talk of him in another role.

Oddly, I've heard recently of him possibly guest staring on Dr. Who in 2012.

All the Best,

Lunatic

Wimsey

September 1st, 2010, 3:54 pm

Not really. The story was spread that he and Fran Walsh are fen, but it was more a case of one thing leading to another.Yes and no. PJ might not have considered himself a whack-job fan, but Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens are able to quote Tolkien's letters and things from Unfinished Tales, HoMe, etc. PJ himself knew Tolkien well enough that he accidentally included things in the Lord of the Rings script that originally came from the Silm. and Unfinished Tales (e.g., reference to the Maia and the origins of the Palantir): and thus which had to be deleted from the final script as that would have been plagiarism!

However, they were the sort of fans who wanted to bring Tolkien's story to the screen: they were not hung up on minutia!

I don't remember that side of fandom crazy, actually. There was a lot of speculation about who would play Bombadil, Glorfindel, Imrahil, Beregond, even Beren & Luthien. All of these roles were "essential," after all.... :cool: It was a wonderful Grimmsian experiment where speculation rapidly became rumor. As you note with Sean Connery and Robin Williams, the names generally were "big ones" that some fans with limited understanding of how these films could work and limited knowledge of the acting pool thought would work. I seem to recall Rowan Atkinson being attached to Bombadil, too. Remember, everyone wanted John Williams to do the score, too: because he was the only composer any of them knew!

As for Ethan Hawke, he actually campaigned for the role of Faramir. Uma Thurman's name got attached because they were married at the time: Hawke himself might have suggested it, but I do not recall. Whether PJ et al. ever seriously considered him, I have no idea.

The only actor of whom I know that was seriously considered was Daniel Day Lewis for Aragorn: and he twice turned down the role! I wonder if he regrets that now?

Mccoy was the 'second' choice during LoTR.Huh, I never heard McCoy attached to Bilbo or any other roles back then (now 11 years ago!). I remember that there were a few names attached to Bilbo, but I think that they were entirely fan rumors. Many fans thought that Bilbo should have been a lot younger, and fans supporting that idea tended to be pushing "rumors" of mid-40's actors.

A former Doctor Who who would have made a great Bilbo is Pat Troughton! Of course, that would have been if they had done it in the 1960's. (The Beatles tried to do it then, and they also were Doctor Who fans!)
Oddly, I've heard recently of him possibly guest staring on Dr. Who in 2012.Holms or McCoy?

Lunatic

September 1st, 2010, 4:22 pm

Holms or McCoy?

McCoy.

Wimsey

September 1st, 2010, 5:45 pm

McCoy.Cool! They had the short David Tennant - Peter Davison "reunion" a couple of years back, but a good old-fashioned multi-doctor story could be fun. I wonder if they will play with events leading up to the Time War or something.

Oh, and David Tennant is going to play Bilbo, you know: now that he's got Tobey Maguire out of the way! :rotfl:

Lunatic

September 2nd, 2010, 6:05 am

Cool! They had the short David Tennant - Peter Davison "reunion" a couple of years back, but a good old-fashioned multi-doctor story could be fun. I wonder if they will play with events leading up to the Time War or something.

Oh, and David Tennant is going to play Bilbo, you know: now that he's got Tobey Maguire out of the way! :rotfl:

On Mccoy, he may not be playing the Doctor.
On Tennant, I have direct knowledge of his crossover potential. (http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5369583/1/Starting_Summer)

ginger1

September 7th, 2010, 10:07 am

Stories abound at the moment that MGM offered the role of Bilbo to Martin Freeman, but he had to turn it down because he is committed to the Sherlock Holmes UK TV role.

GodricHollow

September 7th, 2010, 1:25 pm

That's come from the Sun (which is, as I've repeatedly said in the Doctor Who thread, just about the most useless paper ever written in the English language), but the facts line up, so in all probability it's true. Freeman's doing 20 weeks of shooting for Sherlock, (where, incidently, he plays Watson, not Holmes) in and around London (and probably Cardiff), and has a relatively easy commute. If he did sign on to the Hobbit, it'd be a year's shooting on the other side of the world, presumably away from his family (I'm assuming he has a wife and kids), and obviously he can't commute from NZ to the UK continually - he'd die of jet lag or something, probably.

ginger1

September 7th, 2010, 3:14 pm

I was naming the programme, not the role he was playing in it ... the joke on The One Ring site is that he could finish filming the TV programme by the time they've got their act together in NZ, and still play Bilbo.

Would he be good? Thoughts?

GodricHollow

September 7th, 2010, 3:40 pm

Wouldn't know, all I know him as is Watson and Arthur Dent from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

He's pretty good in both, though.

Wimsey

September 7th, 2010, 4:10 pm

Freeman's doing 20 weeks of shooting for Sherlock, (where, incidently, he plays Watson, not Holmes) in and around London (and probably Cardiff), and has a relatively easy commute. If he did sign on to the Hobbit, it'd be a year's shooting on the other side of the world, presumably away from his family (I'm assuming he has a wife and kids), and obviously he can't commute from NZ to the UK continually - he'd die of jet lag or something, probably.From what they have reported, Freeman probably had to choose between committing to Sherlock (which was greenlit) to informally accepting an offer for a film that might not happen. That's too big a gamble for most actors to take.

He probably would have been very good for the role, given his performances in other films. Basically, he can do easily flustered yet taking command when pressed to the wall: and that is what Bilbo is all about.

Thanks again, MGM....

MuggleGirl09

September 10th, 2010, 5:36 pm

Heh, I don't mind...need something to look forward to after Potter movies are done. :lol: I think I'll re-read the book here one of these days.

Lol, this is true. :D

NumberEight

September 10th, 2010, 5:45 pm

Man, this thread was created almost three years ago and the films still haven't been put into production (as far as I know).

Wimsey

September 10th, 2010, 7:22 pm

Man, this thread was created almost three years ago and the films still haven't been put into production (as far as I know).MGM hasn't gotten any less poor or any less greedy in that time.....

NumberEight

September 10th, 2010, 7:28 pm

MGM hasn't gotten any less poor or any less greedy in that time.....

There are no other studios that will take on the project?

Wimsey

September 10th, 2010, 9:32 pm

There are no other studios that will take on the project?MGM owns the distribution rights. If they will not sell those rights, then no other studio can do that. (Words life "theft" apply here! :cool:)

Mind you, WB/New Line owns the production rights: only they have the right to actually make the movie. However, WB cannot put the movie in theaters without the distribution rights, and they would be idiots to make a film that might take years to actually get into theaters. (That would make shareholders very angry, and WB has had enough problems with their shareholders in recent years.) WB has tried to buy the distribution rights on more than one occasion, but MGM has stubbornly refused to sell those rights.

Ultimately, the people at MGM who are responsible decision cannot win by selling the rights. Suppose that Mr./Ms. MGM Exec does so. If the company survives, and even if it was the selling of the rights that pushed MGM into financial solvency, then the only thing that will be remembered is that that person sold the rights to a highly profitable film and thus denied shareholders a lot of profit (well, at least increased stock-values, if not actual dividends). Career over.

If the company collapses, then it will not matter as much: that person will be somewhat tainted by having worked for a failed studio, but the old-boys network is good at propping up such people, and if anybody remembers that this person was the one that clung to The Hobbit while the ship went down, well, it will be held in his/her favor: that is what they would want their people to do.

Erase "The Hobbit" and replace it with "James Bond," and the last two paragraphs are true, too. (MGM has production as well as distribution rights, there: that is why the closed down production of Bond 23 in April.) Welcome to the world of shareholder-driven capitalism!

NumberEight

September 10th, 2010, 9:35 pm

Thanks for the info. It's terrible that it's so political and driven by greed.

Wimsey

September 10th, 2010, 10:13 pm

Thanks for the info. It's terrible that it's so political and driven by greed.eh, there really are no politics involved: it's 100% greed! :rotfl:

Liselle

September 28th, 2010, 2:01 pm

well well well, the Shire lives

Take a look at these pictures (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315664/The-Hobbit-Lord-Rings-set-revamped-latest-Tolkien-blockbuster.html) - something's moving *fingers crossed*

merry18

September 28th, 2010, 11:53 pm

I don't know if anyone's heard yet, but there is yet ANOTHER setback for this movie. Apparently, the SAG is telling actors to boycott the film for something to do with unions or something, which could mean no Ian McKellan. The whole thing is apparently being organized by the New Zealand's Actor's equity, which is ridiculous because the LOTR movies pumped millions of dollars into the NZ economy, something the Hobbit would also undoubtedly do. Pete is justifiably furious and is even threatening to move filming to Eastern Europe.

Here's the article EW.com posted:

http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/09/27/hobbit-faces-possible-actors-strike/

I wanted to punch someone when I read this. Seriously, these groups and studios and unions need to chill and give Pete a break. Jeez. The guy just wants to expose the world to the awesomeness of a hobbit and bunch of dwarves. Is that too much to ask?

_mollywobbles_

September 29th, 2010, 4:56 am

Here is PJ's very calm retalliation to the boycott rumours: Here (http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/film/4169335/Jackson-fights-to-save-Hobbit)

And if it helps I know for a fact that they were auditioning body-doubles for Elves and Hobbits this weekend, as they were held at the National Drama School, were I was working at the time. Strict height restrictions though, for a Hobbit you have to be under 5ft and for an Elf you have to be over 6"7... There were crazy extreme heights all over the place.

IenjoyAcidPops

September 29th, 2010, 5:01 am

I heard about it this morning. Man, this movie is experiencing some seriously Terry Gilliam-level bad luck, and that is saying something. I'm sure the film will happen, there will be a Hobbit film at some point, but it's hardly around the corner, that's also for sure.

Wab

September 30th, 2010, 5:27 pm

I don't know if anyone's heard yet, but there is yet ANOTHER setback for this movie. Apparently, the SAG is telling actors to boycott the film for something to do with unions or something, which could mean no Ian McKellan. The whole thing is apparently being organized by the New Zealand's Actor's equity, which is ridiculous because the LOTR movies pumped millions of dollars into the NZ economy, something the Hobbit would also undoubtedly do. Pete is justifiably furious and is even threatening to move filming to Eastern Europe.

By the way you've phrased this ("something to do with unions or something") it seems that you haven't grasped the issue.

Actually the NZAE/MEAA claim is very reasonable. There's no logical reason why local actors shouldn't enjoy the same contract conditions as those applied to members of SAG.

Jackson should perhaps remember that it was only through the work of Equity that the NZ film industry still had a pulse when he was cutting his teeth as an independent director.

merry18

October 5th, 2010, 12:22 am

EW.com posted reports earlier that the movie was very close to a greenlight, but they just put out a new post suggesting those reports were inaccurate, followed by a rundown of the current situation.

http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/10/04/hobbit-peter-jackson-actor-boycott-new-zealand/

lcbaseball22

October 5th, 2010, 11:30 pm

Looks like it's official...Peter Jackson will be directing the Hobbit too! :cool: http://www.awardsdaily.com/2010/10/peter-jackson-to-direct-the-hobbit/

Pearl_Took

October 6th, 2010, 12:24 pm

I was looking forward to Del Toro's interpretation of The Hobbit. :shrug:

Ah, well.

I fear that the success of the LotR trilogy will mean that Peter will throw off all restraints and indulge his penchant for melodrama to the max, so that his Hobbit movie ends up irritating me as much as certain sections of King Kong did. :whistle:

I like Peter :) and will always be grateful to him for providing such an immersive cinematic experience, but my criticisms of his treatment of Tolkien only grow sharper with each passing year, now that the passion of the movie fandom is past. The Trilogy does have fabulous moments, of course, but it also has some really baaaaaaaaaaaad ones.

I don't have the emotional attachment to The Hobbit that I do to LotR though.

lcbaseball22

October 6th, 2010, 2:41 pm

Well personally I feel Jackson's LotR is superior to the book and yes fans of the books probably should be grateful to him cause if he hadn't made such a popular movie trilogy LotR would have nearly vanished from existence. You see, there were very few amongst the younger generations who'd even heard of it prior to the movies. The popularity of the films brought the story back to life...even encouraged many to read the books they were based upon. Now consequently most of these kids I knew prefer the movies but that's a different issue. :p

What's amazing about Jackson's films is that they were both huge commercial and critical successes. Even ran away with 17 Oscars in all!

Now amongst my peers The Hobbit is more liked then LotR. It'll be interesting how Jackson handles it, which I'm very much anticipating. :tu: I don't think he's the godly director some do (Lovely Bones proved he isn't) but he did wonders with LotR so I have high hopes for Hobbit.

P.S. I know they were originally intended as one but I never know whether to use the plural or not when referring to LotR so excuse that.

Wab

October 6th, 2010, 3:07 pm

lcbaseball22

October 6th, 2010, 3:20 pm

Given that the book has never been out of print as far as I know so LotR was not on its last legs.

Whether it's still in print or not doesn't matter when people aren't aware of it or aren't fond of it. They were our parents books and unless our parents passed 'em down (like my father did) younger generations had no affinity for it. Hopefully the same won't be the case with HP...

Wab

October 6th, 2010, 3:31 pm

Whether it's still in print or not doesn't matter when people aren't aware of it or aren't fond of it.

It matters a lot. Books only remain in print if they sell and they only sell when people are aware of the book. And by being constantly in print means that the reading public has always been aware of it.

ginger1

October 6th, 2010, 4:02 pm

... and some of us read the trilogy so often that we have to keep buying new books, as the old ones fall apart ... :)

and yes, we do pass our enthusiasm for them on to our children.

LyraLovegood

October 6th, 2010, 4:26 pm

Looks like it's official...Peter Jackson will be directing the Hobbit too! :cool: http://www.awardsdaily.com/2010/10/peter-jackson-to-direct-the-hobbit/

:groan:

lcbaseball22

October 6th, 2010, 5:52 pm

I was looking forward to Del Toro's interpretation of The Hobbit. :shrug:

Meh, Del Toro seems too weird for my tastes. :shrug: I'm glad we're sticking with familiar direction. Also "if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it" ;)

I just hope Jackson's heart is in this, cause I know reports were saying he preferred not to direct if he could find someone else. We'll see...

Morning_Star

October 6th, 2010, 6:16 pm

I'm crossing my fingers and hoping The Hobbit will be good. Jackson will probably do well, I was just hoping for someone else to direct it so I could be more sure we won't end up with five LotR movies.

Legalese

October 6th, 2010, 7:30 pm

As long and Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens are involved in writing the script, I will be happy.

I find it hard to believe that LOTR would have faded away without the movies, but I do have to say that the existence of the movies made it easier to interest my kids in LOTR. I even got them to dress up like Sam and Frodo one year for Halloween.

Pearl_Took

October 7th, 2010, 10:04 am

Well personally I feel Jackson's LotR is superior to the book and yes fans of the books probably should be grateful to him cause if he hadn't made such a popular movie trilogy LotR would have nearly vanished from existence.

I'll always be grateful to Jackson for bringing LotR more into the forefront of mainstream culture but that doesn't mean we can't critique his adaptation with a cool eye. :cool:

Meh, Del Toro seems too weird for my tastes. :shrug: I'm glad we're sticking with familiar direction. Also "if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it" ;)

Some things, in PJ's version, were broke. ;)

I just hope Jackson's heart is in this, cause I know reports were saying he preferred not to direct if he could find someone else. We'll see...

Actually, I'd be delighted if Peter passed the mantle onto someone else.

Rell

October 7th, 2010, 11:56 pm

Some things, in PJ's version, were broke. I'm a little concerned now about how he'll deal with the dwarves. If they are all copycats of what happened to Gimli's character, the movie won't work.

Pearl_Took

October 8th, 2010, 10:45 am

I'm a little concerned now about how he'll deal with the dwarves. If they are all copycats of what happened to Gimli's character, the movie won't work.

WORD. :tu:

No more of that. PJ. :no:

Please.

gertiekeddle

October 8th, 2010, 12:24 pm

Oh, that's true. Small + funny won't work again. I needed some time to adjust to it the first time already. By now I like film!Gimli, but I agree a repetition wouldn't help the movie.

Wimsey

October 8th, 2010, 7:25 pm

WORD. :tu:

No more of that. PJ. :no:

Please.I don't think that is a danger. However, they need at least one Gimli-like character among the dwarves: but only because they need a variety of characters to avoid having it be just Thorin and 11 clones. Indeed, this is going to be a huge challenge for the film. Rings had the advantage of fewer members of the Fellowship AND much greater physical variation in those individuals to make them cinematically distinct. So, very distinctive behavior will be much more important here than even in Rings. (Tolkien would be spinning in his grave to read this, but, then, he probably spent most of his life spinning in preparation for his grave! :p)

The closest thing to a problem that Rings had here was the 4 hobbits: but Frodo, Sam & Merry/Pippin were all very distinct. A lot of readers cannot distinguish between Merry & Pippin, but the books give us practically nothing to distinguish Gloin, Oin, Dwalin, Bofur, etc. (Bombur provides a lot of fat jokes: but I don't know if it is appropriate to go there anymore.)

I find myself hoping more and more that they make at least one of the dwarves a female. In a way, a female Gimli might work best. Of course, having Bilbo learn belatedly that Bifur or Dori is a female (It's the beard!) and making some comment that "I don't think I'll even try to explain that to anybody" would be great in-jokes for Tolkien fans.

MGM has officially filed for bankruptcy (which might or might not be a good thing), and things seem to have broken down between the New Zealand actors' representatives and PJ's people (which almost certainly is a bad thing).

ginger1

October 15th, 2010, 10:18 pm

Well, some news to have us all breathing a sigh of relief (if it's true ...)

From the LA Times:

'Following a multitude of delays, Warner Bros. and co-financing partner Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. have agreed to start production in February on the two films that serve as a prequel to the blockbuster “Lord of the Rings” trilogy, people familiar with the situation said.'

Fingers crossed.

merry18

October 16th, 2010, 3:30 am

katana

October 16th, 2010, 6:31 am

I just heard about this! Yay! Hoping hoping hoping this is the final say on this!

ginger1

October 16th, 2010, 7:43 am

... now all we need is a Hobbit ... :)

MoodysMagicEye

October 16th, 2010, 10:11 am

Yes, EW.com has also reported that the Hobbit has been greenlit to start in Fenruary.

http://news-briefs.ew.com/2010/10/15/the-hobbit-greenlit-reports/

Fingers crossed indeed! I don't think I could take another report of the film being greenlit and then an update saying it's not true again. My little hobbit heart can only take so much!

Yep, its official :clap:

Press release from Warner Bros / New Line : http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2010/10/15/39138-press-release-from-new-linewarner-bros-oscar-winner-peter-jackson-to-direct-%e2%80%9cthe-hobbit%e2%80%9d-in-two-installments/

OSCAR WINNER PETER JACKSON TO DIRECT “THE HOBBIT” IN TWO INSTALLMENTS
Peter Jackson Set to Direct J.R.R Tolkien’s “The Hobbit,” In a Two-Part 3D Production of Extraordinary Scope

I was beginning to think this day (or yesterday to be precise) would never come...

merry18

October 17th, 2010, 1:11 am

ginger1

October 17th, 2010, 8:09 am

Two little bits of information currently doing the rounds might be of interest :)

'James Nesbitt (Cold Feet, Murphy's Law) is making plans to pack up his family and move to New Zealand, having secured a "major role" in The Hobbit ...'

who? Bard? one of the dwarves? Thorin?

and

Simon Pegg in a interview mentions his friend Martin Freeman ...

“Martin’s the anti-me: a soul aficionado and a vinyl junkie – absolutely not a resident of the geek universe. Not the type of person who will relish the attention he’ll get for being Bilbo Baggins. Ha!”

only rumours of course, but the next few weeks are going to be interesting :)

Wab

October 17th, 2010, 11:55 am

Then theres the never ending rumours that Bill Bailey will be Gloin. Although he says that the petitions may work against him.

FlashMemory

October 17th, 2010, 2:13 pm

Bill Bailey would be fantastic.

Wimsey

October 17th, 2010, 6:36 pm

Oooh, so glad Peter Jackson is officially set direct! I know that's not great new for some, but I am perfectly fine with the decision...you know, as long as he doesn't make everything too serious and refrains from burping dwarves. Anyway, yay!Well, again, they need dwarves of all sorts: remember, there are 12 of them, and PJ has to do something to make them distinctive. That is going to be one huge challenge. Otherwise, they will simply be distracting, and the audience will not know which dwarf is doing something. That, in turn, distracts the audience from the plot(s) and story, and thus makes the movie worse than it otherwise would have been.

Indeed, the more I think on it, the more I think that they really need to cut a few dwarfs. (And, no, "that's the way it is in the book" is never an excuse for bad filmmaking.....) Otherwise, instead of taking in what the dwarf just said/did, the audience will be wondering who the dwarf is that said/did something.

Bard also will present a challenge. The entire plot up to this point is about getting to the Lone Mountain and then dealing with the dragon. The protagonist for the entire narrative then disappears for a bit, and Bard takes over as the narrative protagonist. Now, Bilbo does make a contribution: but it is very second hand. The film might have to find a way to make it seem more "direct" than the book had it.

Wimsey

October 20th, 2010, 9:17 pm

The Hobbit is leaving New Zealand! No, wait, it's staying! Or not!

Geez, this melodrama is tedious. So, which side would Tolkien have hated more: the capitalists making the film or the socialists demanding the money?

:cool:

Wab

October 22nd, 2010, 1:30 am

A person of Tolkein's class wouldn't hate. Such a common emotion. He'd just be disdainful of the whole grubby business.

Aiwendil

October 22nd, 2010, 7:15 am

PARTIAL CAST ANNOUNCED!

Deadline.com: Peter Jackson Sets First Names For 'The Hobbit' (http://www.deadline.com/2010/10/peter-jackson-sets-first-names-for-the-hobbit/)

TheOneRing.net: Meet Your Hobbit Cast (http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2010/10/21/39468-meet-your-hobbit-cast/)

The big ones are...

Martin Freeman – Bilbo Baggins

Richard Armitage – Thorin Oakenshield

I am still unsure about Freeman, but I'm not exactly disappointed, either. Anyway, I am so thrilled things are finally moving along! Now I'm waiting for official word on Ian McKellen, and keeping hope that they film in New Zealand.

FlashMemory

October 22nd, 2010, 11:56 am

Exciting stuff. I like the idea of Richard Armitage as Thorin :agree:. Empire (http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=29275) say Bill Nighy could be a possible for the voice of Smaug

Morning_Star

October 22nd, 2010, 12:54 pm

I'm so happy about the casting news! Something is happening, and I realise The Hobbit might be a film in a not-so-distant future! :D Martin Freeman as Bilbo sounds promising, though I haven't heard of many of the other actors before.

Empire (http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=29275) say Bill Nighy could be a possible for the voice of Smaug

I think Bill Nighy would be perfect as voice of Smaug, so I'm hoping he will have the role.

Wimsey

October 22nd, 2010, 5:16 pm

A person of Tolkein's class wouldn't hate. Such a common emotion. He'd just be disdainful of the whole grubby business.:lol: No, a person of Tolkien's class would claim that they didn't hate, and then write such cruel things that they could be used in a House script! (His letters can be most amusing from that perspective....)

Unfortunately, it does look like they are casting all of the dwarfs. I still think that this is a bad idea: it will be very, very difficult to make them distinguishable to the audience. Creating characters for any of them other than Thorin and (perhaps) Balin will be a bit of work as it is.

Still, Armitage should be a good choice for Thorin. The real trick will be in the director's hands: Thorin is easily a dislikable character (he is extremely self-important, after all), and getting that fine line between "he's carrying a lot of baggage" and "he's just a jerk" will be tough.

As I wrote before, Freeman looks like a good choice for Bilbo.

And two films is still a bad idea! :cool:

Pearl_Took

October 22nd, 2010, 5:34 pm

All this film needs now is Alan Rickman. :yuhup:

Darn you, Peter Jackson, for making me feel ENTHUSIASTIC! :p

And yes, of course it should be one film, not two.

Great news about the cast. :clap:

Thorin Oakenshield just became my New Swoon. :rotfl:

Wab

October 22nd, 2010, 5:37 pm

Trying to create 12 distinct dwarves will be a chore in a cinema world where having 12 distinct characters is a novelty. Let alone Tolkeinesque dwarves

If it is to be at all possible it would take verrry different actors who have enough notoriety to be remember as the dwarf played by...Bill Bailey, Natalie Portman, Bubba Smith.

A dwarf played by Bubba Smith would be worth the price of admission.

Wimsey

October 22nd, 2010, 5:51 pm

If it is to be at all possible it would take verrry different actors who have enough notoriety to be remember as the dwarf played by...Bill Bailey, Natalie Portman, Bubba Smith.:rotfl: Although, in all seriousness, I'd love it if there were 2-3 women dwarfs, beards and all. Now, Nat might not quite be what I have in mind (too short, me thinks!), but, let's face it: this is going to be a male-heavy cast! (I'm trying to think of a single female who even says a word in this story.... :hmm:)
A dwarf played by Bubba Smith would be worth the price of admission.Especially if we get to see him giving his mamma a tearful farewell! (Sadly, I suspect that she is no longer alive; indeed, the average age of people who would get why this is even funny probably probably is pushing ever increasing retirement lines!)

All this film needs now is Alan Rickman. :yuhup:He'd be great for the unnamed Capitalist of Laketown! ("The Master," I think was his title: geez, I need to read the book again!)

Thorin Oakenshield just became my New Swoon. :rotfl:

Darn you, Peter Jackson, for making me feel ENTHUSIASTIC!Pearl, Pearl: where were you in my youth? :p

mrfutterman

October 22nd, 2010, 9:30 pm

I am happy with this casting.

Unfortunately, it does look like they are casting all of the dwarfs. I still think that this is a bad idea: it will be very, very difficult to make them distinguishable to the audience. Creating characters for any of them other than Thorin and (perhaps) Balin will be a bit of work as it is.

Actually there is a way around this. They could get a fair bit of comedy out of making them indistinguishable, and making it a running gag, so that the audience get that they don't need to even try to identify them. I've been suggesting this for a while. Obviously single Thorin out, and Balin as Bilbo's friend. The rest of them could be quite hostile to him as a spy foisted on them by Gandalf.

There has to be a fairly good reason for the dwarves to allow themselves to be lumbered with Bilbo, and the "unlucky 13" is a reason, if PJ establishes the theme of luck from the getgo.

There also has to be enough of them to look like a formidable crew.

And two films is still a bad idea! :cool:

Yep.

Wimsey

October 22nd, 2010, 9:49 pm

Actually there is a way around this. They could get a fair bit of comedy out of making them indistinguishable, and making it a running gag, so that the audience get that they don't need to even try to identify them.That is true: and it would be even funnier if one of the "sets" was brother and sister rather than just brothers! :p
There has to be a fairly good reason for the dwarves to allow themselves to be lumbered with Bilbo, and the "unlucky 13" is a reason, if PJ establishes the theme of luck from the getgo. Also true: but, then, why not make a smaller number unlucky?
There also has to be enough of them to look like a formidable crew. That is a good point. I'm not sure how many are needed for that: what is the number at which people basically start to see a "gang" as opposed to X people?

Given that they have rights to Rings, how much should they revise in light of the material in the Rings' appendices? I'd recommend a bit: but that might just be me.

lcbaseball22

October 22nd, 2010, 10:24 pm

ginger1

October 22nd, 2010, 10:28 pm

I hope the rumours that Middle Earth will no longer be in NZ are not true. I can't believe anywhere else would fit the bill quite as well as the stunning backdrop we had to LotR.

And I hope the scriptwriters have been busy with their pens, because some of the dwarves have barely a couple of speeches in the entire book. But then, for me, the dwarves were always the problem in The Hobbit. Tolkien played on the 'amusing idea' of introducing them all two by two, once too often. I shudder to think of several Gimli-like characters, let alone a dozen of them.

In fact I still have huge problems with this movie, sorry - these movies. It's a simple tale of a character finding his innate courage through the intervention of a wizard (hmmm LotR?). It's a children's story, told as a bedtime tale to youngsters who liked bears. It is becoming an epic, and it shouldn't be.

But having said that I am, of course, looking forward to it - and I reckon the casting of Bilbo is inspired.

NumberEight

October 22nd, 2010, 10:40 pm

Are these all mostly unknown actors or what? :hmm: I don't recognize any of these names...

Martin Freeman….. Bilbo Baggins
Richard Armitage….. Thorin Oakenshield
Aidan Turner….. Kili
Rob Kazinsky….. Fili
Graham McTavish….. Dwalin
John Callen….. Oin
Stephen Hunter….. Bombur
Mark Hadlow….. Dori
Peter Hambleton….. Gloin
I've heard of the first three because I watch British programming. You should recognize Martin Freeman as he's in Love Actually doing that "video shoot."

It's interesting cause with LotR Jackson went with some pretty big stars- Orlando Bloom, Viggo Mortenson, Cate Blanchett, etc
Orlando Bloom wasn't a big star before LotR.

Noldus

October 22nd, 2010, 11:37 pm

In fact I still have huge problems with this movie, sorry - these movies. It's a simple tale of a character finding his innate courage through the intervention of a wizard (hmmm LotR?). It's a children's story, told as a bedtime tale to youngsters who liked bears. It is becoming an epic, and it shouldn't be.

That's indeed what it sounds like to a non-reader like me. Quite frankly I have no interest in the story/plot to begin with (or the universe for that matter), let alone watching it in two parts. I hope nobody justify the split just because it's LotR, which has gotten a reputation of being a mature and rich fantasy world for adults.

Personally I'd rather prefer a two-parter of one of the fairy tales in The Tales of Beedle the Bard if the choice were mine. :whistle:

lcbaseball22

October 22nd, 2010, 11:49 pm

That's indeed what it sounds like to a non-reader like me. Quite frankly I have no interest in the story/plot to begin with (or the universe for that matter), let alone watching it in two parts. I hope nobody justify the split just because it's LotR, which has gotten a reputation of being a mature and rich fantasy world for adults.

While I think the 2 parter is a really dumb idea, I found The Hobbit a much more interesting read then LotR so I'm looking forward to this.

Out of curiosity, do you like the LotR films even?

merry18

October 23rd, 2010, 2:05 am

It shouldn't be news to anyone at this point, but EW.com has posted an interview with Peter and the esteemed director is super-peeved and beyond exasperated about the location issue (as a lot of us are).

Prepare for Angry!Pete:

http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/10/22/peter-jackson-vents-his-frustration-over-the-bitter-hobbit-labor-dispute-im-out-of-my-depth/

Wimsey

October 23rd, 2010, 3:44 pm

And I hope the scriptwriters have been busy with their pens, because some of the dwarves have barely a couple of speeches in the entire book. .... I shudder to think of several Gimli-like characters, let alone a dozen of them.The issue is really, how to make them at all distinct? Thorin is "superior" in self-attitude; Balin can come across as a bit scholarly; Bombur is fat and hungry; Oin and Gloin fight a lot; Kili & Fili didn't quite have beards.....
In fact I still have huge problems with this movie, sorry - these movies. It's a simple tale of a character finding his innate courage through the intervention of a wizard (hmmm LotR?). It's a children's story, told as a bedtime tale to youngsters who liked bears. It is becoming an epic, and it shouldn't be.Tolkien disagreed! He actually regretted writing the story as a novel, both literally and figuratively: not only did Tolkien write as much in his letters, but he uses Gandalf to express Tolkien's regret. ("I would have written the story much differently" or something to that effect.)

Moreover, the story really is a good deal more sophisticated than simply finding innate courage. It really is a story about an individual discovering that he is both much more and much less than he thought he was. Bilbo disdains adventure, adventurers, and even the wider world because he believes that they are all beneath him. As he discovers that this is very much untrue, he rapidly comes to think that it is all too much for him: but comes to realize that he actually can cope with the world's nightmares. In the end, however, he learns that he still is not "big" enough to remove dragons or broker peace-agreements.

However, I do agree that it all could have been done in one tale: but, then, my signature kind of implies that, doesn't it.... :cool:

Orlando Bloom wasn't a big star before LotR.heh, no: indeed, Rings was his first movie roll. Tolkien fans were very much upset at the "no-name" cast that was selected. Viggo Mortensen was not quite an unknown, but he certainly was not well-known. (He might have been better known that Stuart Townsend, though! :cool:) Ian McKellen was not the household name that he now is: really, only movie buffs knew who he was. Remember, X-Men did not come out until after Rings, and Richard III, Apt Pupil and Gods & Monsters all were much more critical hits than popular hits. (The ticket sales for all three combined were eclipsed by Fellowship within about a week!) Indeed, that really was true for almost all of the cast: Rings made names of them, but there was a lot of "AskJeeves" searching when the casting came out 11+ years ago.

(Rings fans were very upset at the lack of name actors: all of our "fantasy casting" lists had Oscar notables, down to who was going to play Radagast and Gildor Inglorion; oh, and Sylvester McCoy apparently has confirmed that he is playing the Brown Wizard, by the way.)

Wab

October 23rd, 2010, 4:50 pm

The issue is really, how to make them at all distinct? Thorin is "superior" in self-attitude; Balin can come across as a bit scholarly; Bombur is fat and hungry; Oin and Gloin fight a lot; Kili & Fili didn't quite have beards.....
Tolkien disagreed! He actually regretted writing the story as a novel, both literally and figuratively: not only did Tolkien write as much in his letters, but he uses Gandalf to express Tolkien's regret. ("I would have written the story much differently" or something to that effect.)

Moreover, the story really is a good deal more sophisticated than simply finding innate courage. It really is a story about an individual discovering that he is both much more and much less than he thought he was. Bilbo disdains adventure, adventurers, and even the wider world because he believes that they are all beneath him. As he discovers that this is very much untrue, he rapidly comes to think that it is all too much for him: but comes to realize that he actually can cope with the world's nightmares. In the end, however, he learns that he still is not "big" enough to remove dragons or broker peace-agreements.

However, I do agree that it all could have been done in one tale: but, then, my signature kind of implies that, doesn't it.... :cool:

heh, no: indeed, Rings was his first movie roll. Tolkien fans were very much upset at the "no-name" cast that was selected. Viggo Mortensen was not quite an unknown, but he certainly was not well-known. (He might have been better known that Stuart Townsend, though! :cool:) Ian McKellen was not the household name that he now is: really, only movie buffs knew who he was. Remember, X-Men did not come out until after Rings, and Richard III, Apt Pupil and Gods & Monsters all were much more critical hits than popular hits. (The ticket sales for all three combined were eclipsed by Fellowship within about a week!) Indeed, that really was true for almost all of the cast:

But there were big names and I wouldn't dismiss Sir Ian McKellan (the knighthood alone is evidence of his stature), Cate Blanchette had already been nominated for an Oscar and won AFIs and BAFTAs, Ian Holme, Christopher Lee, Hugo Weaving, Liv Tyler and Leo McKern would have all been known by people with even a passing interest in film (or should have been).

Plus there was Sean Aston whose previous credits included the immortal Encino Man.

weasley9

October 23rd, 2010, 5:06 pm

The Hobbit definitely would've served much better as one film. I don't see why they're splitting it (money?).

Anyway, is that sort of inbetween film idea still around? The one that bridged the gap between the Hobbit and LoTR: FoTR? I always liked that idea. :shrug:

Siriusandme

October 23rd, 2010, 6:05 pm

I may have misunderstood but... Isn't the Hobbit the 1e film and some made-up story the 2e film??? They're not splitting the Hobbit...

IenjoyAcidPops

October 23rd, 2010, 6:14 pm

They're not splitting the Hobbit...

Yes, they are. Originally, the plan was to do The Hobbit and then a film that bridged the gap between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings (incorporating more material from the appendices and maybe The Silmarillion, if I recall correctly), but somewhere along the way that was changed, and The Hobbit is indeed being split into a two-part film (for the sake of 1) money, and 2) jumping on the Deathly Hallows bandwagon - even though that has not been shown to be successful, at least not yet). I don't like the idea either (I never thought Deathly Hallows had quite enough richness for that, let alone The Hobbit), but there you are.

Wimsey

October 23rd, 2010, 7:33 pm

But there were big names and I wouldn't dismiss Sir Ian McKellan (the knighthood alone is evidence of his stature), Cate Blanchette had already been nominated for an Oscar and won AFIs and BAFTAs, Ian Holme, Christopher Lee, Hugo Weaving, Liv Tyler and Leo McKern would have all been known by people with even a passing interest in film (or should have been).Again, I think that Cate Blanchett was the closest thing to a "name" owing to her role in Elisabeth. Some of the others were well-known to movie buffs, but for a lot of films that were critically acclaimed while being popularly ignored. Indeed, when you look at the box office successes of most of the players, it was basically Lord of the Rings plus the spare change from the other films!

However, PJ et al. deliberately went after people who had gotten raves in non-blockbusters. In part, it was because they wanted people who would not be "set" as another character in the minds of the audience. But in bigger part is was because there were a ton of rolls to cast: and they could not afford a lineup of stars! (Indeed, there is no way that they could afford those people now: but that is because of Rings' success, in large part.)
Plus there was Sean Aston whose previous credits included the immortal Encino Man.Goonies was the role for which everyone remembered him!

I do remember a lot of people realizing after the film: hey, wait, Agent Smith was in Lord of the Rings!!! :cool:

Yes, they are. Originally, the plan was to do The Hobbit and then a film that bridged the gap between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings (incorporating more material from the appendices and maybe The Silmarillion, if I recall correctly), but somewhere along the way that was changed, and The Hobbit is indeed being split into a two-part film (for the sake of 1) money, and 2) jumping on the Deathly Hallows bandwagon.One, they announced a 2-part Hobbit before they announced a 2-part Hallows. Two, they were jumping on their own bandwagon: Rings is what started the "let's split one story into multiple films" bit (since done by Matrix II/III and Pirates II/III).

Finally, the supposed middle-section never seems to have been confirmed by PJ et al. It seems to have grown from a misunderstanding: The Hobbit is going to include (it seems) a bit of stuff that was happening at the same time. In particular, the sack of Dol Guldur (which is why Gandalf leaves) is going to be included, and that information comes from the Lord of the Rings Appendices. I think that this evolved in a Grimmsian fashion to "segue film."

The Silmarillion was never a possible source. Christopher Tolkien has adamantly refused to sell the film rights for that (or Unfinished Tales, etc.). So, any material lifted from The Silmarillion would result in PJ et al. getting sued for plagiarism. This actually came up with Lord of the Rings: in the original script, Saruman makes mention of the fact that he and Gandalf are Maia. However, "Maiar" appears only in the Silm. and Unfinished Tales. So, had they not caught this, then the Tolkien estate could (and probably would) have sued for plagiarism.

lcbaseball22

October 23rd, 2010, 8:25 pm

Yes, they are. Originally, the plan was to do The Hobbit and then a film that bridged the gap between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings (incorporating more material from the appendices and maybe The Silmarillion, if I recall correctly), but somewhere along the way that was changed, and The Hobbit is indeed being split into a two-part film (for the sake of 1) money, and 2) jumping on the Deathly Hallows bandwagon - even though that has not been shown to be successful, at least not yet). I don't like the idea either (I never thought Deathly Hallows had quite enough richness for that, let alone The Hobbit), but there you are.

Well the same studio has both franchises now, since New Line was bought out by WB. :p At least they won't be copycating like Summit.

IenjoyAcidPops

October 23rd, 2010, 8:31 pm

Well the same studio has both franchises now, since New Line was bought out by Warner Bros.

That's true, I forgot about that - well, who's to say Warner can't jump on their own bandwagon?! :lol:

Siriusandme

October 23rd, 2010, 9:44 pm

Yes, they are. Originally, the plan was to do The Hobbit and then a film that bridged the gap between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings (incorporating more material from the appendices and maybe The Silmarillion, if I recall correctly), but somewhere along the way that was changed, and The Hobbit is indeed being split into a two-part film (for the sake of 1) money, and 2) jumping on the Deathly Hallows bandwagon - even though that has not been shown to be successful, at least not yet). I don't like the idea either (I never thought Deathly Hallows had quite enough richness for that, let alone The Hobbit), but there you are.

What??? Ow ****!!!!! :grumble: And I was sooooo hoping for a Sil. movie.. That would've been so wonderful.

Edit: I didn't know what I typed would turn into stars.. well at least now every one knows I wasn't happy... ;)

Aiwendil

October 24th, 2010, 6:22 am

Ian McKellen was not the household name that he now is: really, only movie buffs knew who he was. Remember, X-Men did not come out until after Rings, and Richard III, Apt Pupil and Gods & Monsters all were much more critical hits than popular hits.

Actually, X-Men was released in July of 2000, while Fellowship of the Ring was released almost a year and a half later in December of 2001. I enjoyed him as Magneto, and I remember being absolutely thrilled that he would be playing Gandalf. :)

Wimsey

October 24th, 2010, 2:10 pm

And I was sooooo hoping for a Sil. movie.. That would've been so wonderful.And illegal....

Actually, X-Men was released in July of 2000, while Fellowship of the Ring was released almost a year and a half later in December of 2001. I enjoyed him as Magneto, and I remember being absolutely thrilled that he would be playing Gandalf. :)Do you know, you are correct! I guess that it's all blurred together in my memory.

However, Sir Ian was far from a household name when either film came out. He as well-known to movie-buffs, yes: but, then, that is like noting that Neville Longbottom is well-known to Harry Potter fans.

Wab

October 24th, 2010, 4:25 pm

Actually, I doubt Ian McKellan is any more a household name among many who saw LotR. He's the bloke who played Gandalf. Just as Alec Guinness is, for many of my generation, just Obi Wan.

Wimsey

October 24th, 2010, 4:43 pm

Actually, I doubt Ian McKellan is any more a household name among many who saw LotR. He's the bloke who played Gandalf. Just as Alec Guinness is, for many of my generation, just Obi Wan.And me! (I was 12 when Star Wars came out.) I think that I did rapidly become aware of the fact that Sir Alec actually was a well-known, well-respected actor: but at 12, that was the first I'd heard of him. And, of course, Star Wars was that huge stepping-stone movie for Harrison Ford: he was barely known prior to Star Wars, which is sort of hard to imagine now.

Indeed, even with Sir Ian, I think that more people were thinking "Magneto is being played by the guy who played Gandalf" than anything else. Geekdom is pretty small, and Rings was in production for 2 years before Fellowship came out, after all.

We have not gotten final confirmation that McKellen is going to be in the Hobbit, but I'd be stunned if he were not. After all, he's been posting "I'll start filming in a couple of months" for a couple of years now.... :cool:

ginger1

October 27th, 2010, 9:09 am

News just out

"After days of closed door talks between New Zealand Prime Minister John Key and Warner Bros. executives, the verdict is out today:

The Hobbit will be made in New Zealand."

:)

phoenix88

October 27th, 2010, 10:42 pm

News just out

"After days of closed door talks between New Zealand Prime Minister John Key and Warner Bros. executives, the verdict is out today:

The Hobbit will be made in New Zealand."

:)

Who knew it would be so difficult for this film to get made! All I can say is, finally!!! I can't wait for them to finally start making this movie. It seems like it has taken forever.

My big question is, any chance we will see Legolas again?:agree:

merry18

October 27th, 2010, 10:43 pm

YES.

:clap::clap::clap:

God, I was so anxious about the location issues! New Zealand IS Middle Earth...anywhere else would have negatively impacted how I viewed the film. Which is strange, I know, but true. Tolkien deserves the best, as always, and when it comes to location...well, New Zealand has no competition.

Pearl_Took

October 28th, 2010, 1:26 pm

My big question is, any chance we will see Legolas again?:agree:

Probably at the Battle of the Five Armies, at the very least. :whistle:

He doesn't appear in the book (Tolkien hadn't invented him yet. :D)

But his father is the King of the Wood Elves who live in Mirkwood, so there is actually a good chance they will expand Legolas's role for TH film.

Tolkien deserves the best, as always, and when it comes to location...well, New Zealand has no competition.

Well, that's not quite true, IMO. :) NZ certainly is a gorgeous country but the landscapes in, say, Norway or Western Canada could give it a run for its money. ;) And also look very suitable for Middle-earth. :)

For continuity reasons, and for the sake of NZ industry, I'm relieved TH is staying in NZ. :)

I hope that decent and proper legislation for workers in the film industry over there are worked out, though.

Wimsey

October 28th, 2010, 6:52 pm

“Thorin Oakenshield is a tough, heroic character, and he certainly should give Leggie and Aragorn a run for their money in the heartthrob stakes — despite being four feet tall,” says Jackson, who also announced seven lesser-known English, Irish, and Kiwi actors in the roles of other dwarves. “In Middle-earth, dwarves are a noble race and have a culture and physical appearance which sets them apart from humans. It’s fun to develop these different cultures for the movie, and we are doing much more with dwarves this time around than we did with Gimli in Lord of the Rings. Our company of thirteen dwarves in The Hobbit lets us explore many different personalities — and costume and make-up designs will support the type of character each actor plays. Richard is a powerful actor with a wide range, and we’re very excited to be handing Thorn over to him. In this partnership, we need Richard to give us his depth, range, and emotion as an actor — and we’ll make him look like a dwarf!”Works for me. However, trying to establish 13 distinct characters for a film is nigh un impossible: and there are more than just dwarves here!

Wab

October 29th, 2010, 12:19 pm

News just out

"After days of closed door talks between New Zealand Prime Minister John Key and Warner Bros. executives, the verdict is out today:

The Hobbit will be made in New Zealand."

:)

And the circumstances are so vile that I might be tempted to boycott.

Under no circumstances should governments change laws at the behest of foreign corporations.

ginger1

October 29th, 2010, 10:25 pm

Wab, could you explain (because I genuinely don't understand...) - Everyone in NZ seems delighted that The Hobbit will be made there. What is so wrong with the decision? Was there an awful problem with LotR? We are a long way away, and quite probably out of touch with what is really going on, and I, for one, would love to know more of the story.

I'm still delighted that NZ will remain Middle Earth, as I loved LotR, but I am also interested in the current problems.

Wab

October 30th, 2010, 1:41 am

NewsRadio had a pretty good round-up basically when the film was announced the local unions contacted the producers to discuss contractual terms for non-SAG cast, WB/PJ refused to even discuss the issues raised by the unions until the unions threatened a boycott. Eventually everything was sorted after negotiation (as these things usually are).

Meanwhile, in the background, WB execs were pressuring the NZ government to change labour laws so that actors don't have the same legal protection as other workers. In short they are now denied the right to unionise, collective bargaining and will be regarded as "contractors", not employees, unless they enter a specific agreement.

The opposition rightly described the bill as reducing "New Zealand to a client state of a US movie studio."

The government also gave WB $US25 million in subsidies and advertising spending (bribery in any other context) as well as tens of millions of dollars already available under a tax incentive program.

One member called the payment as a "$NZ34 million shakedown of the New Zealand government by Warner Bros."

NZ passes Hobbit bill (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/10/29/3052067.htm)

mrfutterman

October 30th, 2010, 8:11 pm

A distasteful business.

Wimsey

November 2nd, 2010, 5:46 am

A distasteful business.This is an understatement to say the least. This leaves me really torn. Obviously, I really want to see The Hobbit. On the other hand, can I possibly countenance this sort of capitulation to corporate capitalism? I put WB on my "DO NOT BUY!" list (along with the other major studios, oil companies, health insurance companies, or anything remotely connected to Haliburton or Blackwater!) with my broker over the years. Now, I almost wish that I still had shares that I could sell in protest...

The additional casting news looks promising, however.

daronisgod

November 12th, 2010, 8:38 pm

Just thought I'd add a thread for the up-coming 'The Hobbit' movies.

Who do you want to see in the cast?

Theres the roles that have already been cast:

For instance... Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins and Sylvester McCoy as Radagast the Brown.

Theres the obvious (who have yet to sign contracts):
Ian Mckellen for Gandalf
Andy Serkis for Gollum
Hugo Weaving for Elrond Halfelven
Cate Blanchett for Galadriel

But theres the remianing roles:
Balin
Bifur
Nori
Bert
Tom
William
Beorn
Elvenking
Master of Lake-town
Bard
Dain
Eagles
Spiders

AngelinaWeasley

November 13th, 2010, 3:04 am

I'm not sure if this was mentioned yet, but there was an update as of October 30, 2010.

The confirmed signed up casting for the Hobbit was jointly announced in Warner Brothers/New Line press releases October/November 2010.
Martin Freeman Bilbo Baggins
Richard Armitage Thorin Oakeshield
Graham McTavish Dwalin
Robert Kazinsky Fili
Aidan Turner Kili
John Callen Oin
Peter Hambleton Gloin
Mark Hadlow Dori
Stephen Hunter Bombur
James Nesbitt Bofur
Adam Brown Ori

Source: The Hobbit Movie Cast and Hobbiton Set Finalised http://www.suite101.com/content/the-hobbit-movie-cast-and-hobbiton-set-finalised-a302445#ixzz157ysXq2X

I've seen Richard Armitage in Spooks/MI-5, Robin Hood and North and South.
Overall, I think he's a great actor. Underappreciated, too.
I have no idea how he's going to fit the role as a dwarf, but I guess that's what's worth the wait.

Wimsey

November 18th, 2010, 3:04 pm

Howard Shore is going to do the score! Boo-YAH! :tu:

SiriusBlack101

November 21st, 2010, 6:53 am

Howard Shore is going to do the score! Boo-YAH! :tu:

I hadn't heard the news, but that is excellent to hear. His score for the LOTR trilogy was outstanding, so I couldn't imagine anyone else as composer for The Hobbit.

Noldus

December 2nd, 2010, 6:40 pm

gertiekeddle

December 2nd, 2010, 6:48 pm

I don't think it's ridiculous since it depends on what film style one aims at. I know fantasy films (to keep the genre) where close to no action happens, but which are among my favourites ever. Not everyone likes the same style, but I'm actually very glad that they will likely have more time for character development, landscape background story of the ring and some suspense - next to the actual events happening in the Hobbit.

Noldus

December 2nd, 2010, 7:07 pm

^ All of which can be sufficiently done in one shot. How would it make any difference to the film style?

gertiekeddle

December 2nd, 2010, 7:09 pm

It's just a matter of taste I believe. :) I for one am happy that they'll take some time to develop things - time is mostly what's (artwise) the benefit out of doing two parts.

For sure a long movie can be horrible and a short one fantastic, but if they made that decision I believe they already have some plan in mind how the movie should appear. I just don't think it's already said that the film gets boring because it's two parts, but likely the other way round: that I like it way more because they take their time. What it will be at the end is of course still open, it's just far from being bad news to me.

merry18

December 7th, 2010, 10:54 pm

Cate Blanchett has officially signed on to reprise her role as Galadriel in the Hobbit. I find this fascinating, as her character didn't appear in the book. I'm not complaining, though, seeing as a) it's Cate Blanchett and b) a strong, powerful female character gets a place in a story that has just about no female characters. The Hobbit is my favorite book of all time and I wouldn't change it for anything, but it will be nice to see Galadriel in the film version. I imagine this means they'll be showing the White Council while Gandalf is away from Bilbo and Dwarves, which would also explain the casting of the character Radagast. I, for one, would love to see this.

Also cast: Beorn, Balin, Drogo, Nori, and Bifur.

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2010/12/07/the-hobbit-cate-blanchett-joins-the-cast-as-galadriel/

Sorafune

December 8th, 2010, 12:29 am

Swedish actor Mikael Persbrandt will play the shape-shifting bear-man Beorn

My reaction:
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/7710/noooo1.th.jpg (http://img819.imageshack.us/i/noooo1.jpg/)

Oh god please don't let him ruin this movie :grumble: :upset:

MoodysMagicEye

December 9th, 2010, 9:07 am

According to Deadline.com Orland Bloom is almost as good as confirmed to reprise the role of Legolas

http://www.deadline.com/2010/12/orlando-bloom-close-to-legolas-reprise-in-the-hobbit/

Not only would he appear in Mirkwood with the other wood-elves, he could very well lead the wood-elf contingent into the Battle of Five Armies!

Wimsey

December 11th, 2010, 9:31 pm

There is an amusing question with which Tolkien fangirls must wrestle: should dwarf males be hot?!?!? (http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2010/12/08/41237-the-“hobbit”-cast-is-looking-good-really-good-oooooooh-yeah-realllllly-good/) Personally, I think that they should have made at least a few of the dwarfs women and taken on the challenge of making a woman with a beard hot.

It's just a matter of taste I believe. :) I for one am happy that they'll take some time to develop things - time is mostly what's (artwise) the benefit out of doing two parts.It is a two-edged sword, however. Taking time can kill the pace, and slowly-paced films are big turn-offs for modern audiences. Given that this is not a story that relies on character development (save for Bilbo), and given that there is a bit of redundancy in the plots (Tolkien loves having a series of little adventures, after all!), I think that they are going to lose a lot of audience from part 1 -> part 2 this way.

According to Deadline.com Orland Bloom is almost as good as confirmed to reprise the role of LegolasThis will, of course, start a "it's not following the book!" vs. a "actually, it really is following the book!" debate. And, of course, those people from the ever important "what color was Legolas' hair?!?!?" debate (which was about as fierce as Harry Potter romance debates) will weigh in on it: there was a school that held that the golden-haired Elven king from the Hobbit was not Thranduil, but the king of another, unnamed kingdom. This is at odds with the books, of course, as Gloín notes that Legolas' kingdom was not as kind to him as they were to Gollum. But, lo! An out appears! Gloín is just an ignorant dwarf and didn't realize that there were two kingdoms, which Tolkien plainly wanted us to think.

(Just in case you thought that HP was the only goofy fandom! :yuhup: :lol:)

Siriusandme

December 21st, 2010, 12:00 pm

Think there is a chance of seeing Viggo as Aragorn again??? I would really like to see Aragorn again....

Pearl_Took

December 21st, 2010, 6:15 pm

I wouldn't. :). Not because I don't like Viggo's Aragorn but because Aragorn doesn't appear in The Hobbit and should not appear in any film made of The Hobbit. :no: In The Hobbit timeline, Aragorn is still a child. :yuhup:

The main protagonists in this story are Bilbo and Thorin. Let's keep it that way!

The only member of the Fellowship I really want to see in this film is Legolas - not because I swoon for his silky blonde locks (I never did :D) but because it is perfectly plausible that he took part in the Battle of the Five Armies.

Apparently Drogo Baggins has been cast. :whistle: That's fun. :lol: He's Frodo's dad! Not that we should see little Frodo in this film either. :whistle: Cute as that would be!

Wimsey

December 21st, 2010, 6:24 pm

Apparently Drogo Baggins has been cast. :whistle: That's fun. :lol: He's Frodo's dad! Not that we should see little Frodo in this film either. :whistle: Cute as that would be!I'm hoping that they solve the mystery of whether Drogo fell in or was pushed, myself....

:p

MoodysMagicEye

December 21st, 2010, 8:02 pm

I saw the hobbit cast list on theonering.net (http://www.theonering.net/torwp/the-hobbit/characters/), and noticed the Saruman was listed. I know that Christopher Lee said he wasn't prepare to fly out to New Zealand at his time in life. He said he'd like to do the voice of the dragon because he could do that in London.

That being the case I assumbed that they would exclude Saruman, but can they seriously be thinking of recasting the role :grumble: or is it possible they may ship the production over to the UK to film the White Council scenes they appear to be adding.

weasley9

December 22nd, 2010, 5:08 am

Apparently Drogo Baggins has been cast. :whistle: That's fun. :lol: He's Frodo's dad! Not that we should see little Frodo in this film either. :whistle: Cute as that would be!

The events of the Hobbit take place before Frodo's birth, correct? I can't remember well.

I can actually see them messing with the timeline just a bit and briefly showing young Frodo in order to tie it to the LoTR films.

Liselle

December 22nd, 2010, 8:54 am

I'm pretty sure it is before Frodo's birth - I think the start of LOTR mentions that it's after Bilbo returns that Frodo is born or maybe it says that he just developed a kinship with him maybe. I think though it's implied - although with the length of Hobbit's lives it's kind of difficult to tell :lol:

I'm really looking forward to this movie, I hope that they do it justice, I'm sure they will

Pearl_Took

December 22nd, 2010, 10:54 am

I'm hoping that they solve the mystery of whether Drogo fell in or was pushed, myself....

:p

:grumble: :D

The events of the Hobbit take place before Frodo's birth, correct? I can't remember well.

I think it's fifty years, if I recall correctly. :hmm:

I can actually see them messing with the timeline just a bit and briefly young Froo in order to tie it to the LoTR films.

I wouldn't mind that. :) I just don't want Aragorn/Arwen Redux. :yuhup:

I'm really looking forward to this movie, I hope that they do it justice, I'm sure they will

Depends what people want from this film, I think. :)

I actually really don't want a bloated LotR-wannabe. I'd much rather The Hobbit was kept as the simple adventure story it is, with some really great characters and dark undertones.

Peter will either win me over completely with this one, or make me gnash my teeth with rage. :lol: My reactions to his LotR vary from wanting to shower him with rose-petals to yelling at the DVD over his 'heresy'. :rotfl:

Wimsey

December 22nd, 2010, 3:29 pm

I can actually see them messing with the timeline just a bit and briefly young Froo in order to tie it to the LoTR films.Hmmm, if Bilbo, the Ring, Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, Legolas, Sauron, Eagles, Dwarfs, orcs, giant spiders, etc., fail to tie The Hobbit to Lord of the Rings, then I doubt that baby Frodo will be the straw on that camels back! :D

I'm pretty sure it is before Frodo's birth - I think the start of LOTR mentions that it's after Bilbo returns that Frodo is born or maybe it says that he just developed a kinship with him maybe. I think though it's implied - although with the length of Hobbit's lives it's kind of difficult to tell :lol:The events in The Hobbit are about 60 years before the beginning of events in Lord of the Rings. Frodo is 33 at that time, so he was born considerably afterwards.
I'm really looking forward to this movie, I hope that they do it justice, I'm sure they willAs Pearl notes, "justice" here is very subjective. There will be a cadre of Tolkien fans who (of course) will consider "justice" to be nothing more or less than an exact filming of the book. Even pulling in the events to which The Hobbit's narrative alludes (and fleshed out in the Lord of the Rings appendices) is highly questionable to them.

Of course, that is essentially a lunatic fringe. The more interesting, deeper and impossible to resolve schism is between two different "pragmatic purist" views. View #1 is that the film should retain the "spirit" of The Hobbit as much as possible. The narrative is very whimsical and aimed at children, with lots of silly songs, etc. After all, that is how Tolkien wrote it.

View #2 is that The Hobbit as a re-rendering of the canon as a child's story by Bilbo. To whatever extent possible, the film should instead reflect Tolkien's "reality." Notably, they can cite J.R.R. Tolkien himself to support that view! In his letters and through Gandalf in the appendices of Lord of the Rings, Tolkien expresses regret that he wrote The Hobbit the way that he did! After all, Gandalf himself points out that Bilbo's depiction of events was not entirely correct!

So, here is the "purists" paradox: the canon says that the canon isn't canon! Oh my! :p

For myself, I hold View #2: make The Hobbit as if you were making Lord of the Rings. This is a cinematic sequel to that film, after all, and although it is easier to make this a little more "kid-friendly," it will not be as successful if it is done as a kids' film. Indeed, I think that we have only to look at Harry Potter to see that: the initial "kids' film" Harry Potter films drove away audiences in droves, and the box office never really has recovered. The more "adult-friendly" HP films have done a great job of retaining audiences. If they want people who see Hobbit I to see Hobbit II, then they need to retain the audience that saw Lord of the RIngs: and those were not kids 10 years ago, and they are less kids now.

Pearl_Took

December 22nd, 2010, 4:16 pm

For myself, I hold View #2: make The Hobbit as if you were making Lord of the Rings. This is a cinematic sequel to that film, after all, and although it is easier to make this a little more "kid-friendly," it will not be as successful if it is done as a kids' film. Indeed, I think that we have only to look at Harry Potter to see that: the initial "kids' film" Harry Potter films drove away audiences in droves, and the box office never really has recovered. The more "adult-friendly" HP films have done a great job of retaining audiences. If they want people who see Hobbit I to see Hobbit II, then they need to retain the audience that saw Lord of the RIngs: and those were not kids 10 years ago, and they are less kids now.

I do really agree with this, actually. :tu:

On reflection, I think The Hobbit should be as dark as the material allows. :whistle:

(And I think the first two Potter films should have followed that route, too. Because underneath Rowling's playfulness, there is a darkness!)

I still prefer a standalone, though, not the two-parter. Same old song from me. :p

Oh, and if only Alfonso Cuaron were directing ...!!!!! Or Guillermo del Toro ... :D

Grymmditch

December 22nd, 2010, 4:24 pm

If the critics thought splitting up DH was a greedy business decision and thought the first part dragged, one can only imagine their response to this. The book is what, 300 pages long? It's ridiculous not being able to fit a comparably short book aimed at children into a one or two and a half hour film.

The Hobbit was aimed at children? I thought it was written along the same lines as Lord of the Rings, being essentially a prequel of sorts.

Or are they talking of targeting the movie to a younger age group?

Wimsey

January 7th, 2011, 2:31 pm

NEWSFLASH!!!! Frodo will be in the opening sequence! Proper Tolkien geeks that they are, Jackson & Co. are going to use Frodo's finishing of Bilbo's book in the opening sequence. No word yet on whether Sam Astin will be there, although it would be appropriate. Having Frodo and Sam start reading The Red Book to some small Hobbit children might be a nice way to introduce the film: it also would set up the fact that this is a little bit more of a kids story.

(Of course, what would be really clever is if they had Wood and Astin occasionally provide some of the "whimsical" Hobbit Prose right after some of the "darker" scenes, so as to calm the fears of the hobbit children! :D)

The Hobbit was aimed at children? I thought it was written along the same lines as Lord of the Rings, being essentially a prequel of sorts.No, the narrative style of The Hobbit is nothing like Lord of the Rings. Rings was written as a classic epic saga: yes, the opening and beginning is a bit whimsical in its prose, but that rapidly changes in the 2nd chapter.

In contrast, The Hobbit is written as a children's novel, presented as if an old-timer is reading (or reciting) it to a young audiences. There are lots of "asides" (I wouldn't want to be where Bilbo is!) and very silly songs ("Chip the cups! Break the plates! That's what Bilbo Baggins hates!") and things like that. Of course, it's a fictional story and none of it really happened: but even in Tolkien's universe, none of that stuff was actually supposed to have happened! It was just Bilbo's slightly facetious way of telling tales to entertain his youthful Took and Brandybuck (and even the occasional Baggins!) relations.

So, in a sense, The Hobbit is, within Tolkienverse, what The Three Brothers is in Potterverse: a fictionalization of real events, although The Hobbit is less "mythologized" than is The 3 Bros.

Also, The Hobbit was not a prequel, at least in the strict sense: it was published over 15 years before RIngs was. Tolkien wanted to publish The Silmarillion, but the publishers were uninterested: they wanted a sequel to The Hobbit. After blundering about aimlessly, Tolkien eventually started writing a sequel to The Hobbit that also was a sequel to The Silm. So, The Silm. (when it finally was published) was closer to a prequel, or at least a weird sort of anthology of prequels.

As for the "greed" aspect of dividing The Hobbit, in this case, I think that it actually is misguided artistic spirit. The Hobbit does not need two parts. However, Jackson et al. are intent on integrating the sacking of Dol Guldur into this tale. That was a side adventure happening at the same time and involving a couple of characters from The Hobbit (Gandalf and Elrond) as well as characters later introduced in Lord of the Rings (Galadriel, Celeborn, Saruman). Although Tolkien fans often wax delirious about how Tolkien was setting up his larger universe, it was pure serendipity: Tolkien needed an excuse to write Gandalf out of the plot for a while, and he was able to use that as a reason for initiating the main plot in the first place. (Bond, Gandalf Bond, had snuck into Dol Guldur years before, where he acquired the Map and the Key that were so important; by pure serendipity it proved a perfect setup for dealing with the Dwarven Rings later and provided a setup for Sauron and The One Ring: but Tolkien had none of that in mind when he wrote The Hobbit!)

However, I don't think that it is necessary, and I worry that it will detract from the story about the protagonist (Bilbo) learning that he is both much greater and much less than he initially fancies himself.