The Hobbit movie news

Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Aiwendil
October 12th, 2007, 3:00 am
Hello,

I know that many Lord of the Rings fans are also fans of Harry Potter, and I would assume vice versa. Hope this is of interest!

I thought I would post some of the recent news surrounding a film version of J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Hobbit”, (which set the stage for Lord of the Rings), for those who are either unaware or not up to date on the situation.

For the best article, get the latest issue (October 12th) of Entertainment Weekly, which features a nice cover story named “Return of the Rings?” with Gollum on the cover. Tolkien fans are thrilled to see this amount of coverage, in print most especially, for a project that is in such early stages. The more attention this brings to the situation, the better. The awareness of the general public, in addition to the fans, will brighten the spotlight on the legal situation and those responsible; hopefully making them want to speed things up.

Thankfully, things are already beginning to look good. Here are a few links to start with:

MTV Movies Blog
http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2007/10/10/new-l...-in-the-future/

Let the Hobbit Happen Campaign
http://www.thehobbitfilm.com/

The Frodo Franchise
http://www.kristinthompson.net/blog/

It is being said that there will be two films made, either splitting the story of The Hobbit in two, or having the second film take place in the sixty years between The Hobbit and LotR, thereby connecting the two stories. Most likely, that would include scenes based on information Tolkien later added to the appendices of LotR, like the White Council and their dealings with the Necromancer (Sauron).

The Hobbit story introduces us to a few characters featured in LotR: Gandalf, Bilbo, Elrond and Gollum. If we get to see the White Council, we would also see Saruman, Galadriel, and hopefully a character cut from LotR: Radagast the Brown.

Many of the actors from the Rings trilogy have shown support for the film, if Rings director Peter Jackson is involved. Most notably Ian McKellen (Gandalf) and Cate Blanchett (Galadriel). If Jackson is indeed involved, we could also see the return of Hugo Weaving, Andy Serkis, Christopher Lee and possibly Ian Holm, as their respective characters.

The fans are somewhat divided on what they want to see. Many want Peter Jackson as director, which would mean much continuity with the world and style he established in LotR. Others want to see someone else’s vision of Middle-earth, and a film truer to the lighter tone of the book.

What are your thoughts?

Hawkowl
October 12th, 2007, 3:10 am
I really want Peter Jackson to direct it, and I hope they get as many of the original actors as they can.
It would be awesome if they had stuff from the appendixes. I knew that the Hobbit movie was a possibility, but I didn't know any of the little details about it. Didn't Peter Jackson say he wasn't going to work for New Line again until they paid him more for the Fellowship or something? Or did that all get worked out? I really don't know much about the whole thing :lol:.
The sooner it comes out, the better.

Aiwendil
October 12th, 2007, 5:44 am
It is beginning to be worked out.

Here is a great summary of the legal situation…it’s lengthy, but well worth the read if you’re interested: http://www.kristinthompson.net/blog/?p=114

Peter Jackson was going to audit New Line for money he is owed for the LotR films, and apparently New Line failed to cough it up. As a result, a judge has fined New Line Cinema $125,000 for withholding and possibly destroying documents. They are set to go to court in January 2008. But it is very possible that they will settle out of court, which NL is well-known for doing.

A quote from the FF article: “Given that Peter’s lawyers have finally mentioned $100 million as their estimate of the sum involved just for the first film, the settlement could grow to astronomical proportions. Still, more and more it looks as if New Line may soon bite the bullet and settle the case out of court, avoiding a protracted struggle which they might lose anyway.”

A quote from New Line Cinema’s Michael Lynne in an interview by Charlie Rose earlier this year: “We have a disagreement with Peter about auditing. It happens a lot. It ought to be resolvable. What happens in going forward in terms of working together or not, the future will tell.”

Another snippet: “In August Peter and partner Fran Walsh issued a statement: ‘Peter and Fran have always wanted to do The Hobbit but whether that happens is yet to be decided.’ ... It sounds like they’re ready, and they are well aware that their fans are, to say the least, eager to hear that they will be making the film.”

Apparently, Peter Jackson is still being strongly considered to either direct or executive produce The Hobbit. He’s definitely still in the running.

Also, Jackson and co. will wrap up their work on The Lovely Bones soon, so it’s quite possible that their schedule can be shifted to fit in The Hobbit.

I'm glad that I was able to help you get up to date on this!

ComicBookWorm
October 12th, 2007, 10:05 am
I can't imagine anyone besides PJ doing the movie. Not only did his unique vision bring LOTR to life, but he already has secondary production teams that know exactly how to bring the special effects to life (and according to Peter's vision).

I'd love to see some of the original cast in the movie, but other than Gandalf and Bilbo, they didn't really feature in the story. And Bilbo will have to be played by someone other than Ian Holm.

Hawkowl
October 12th, 2007, 2:08 pm
Thanks for all of the info, Aiwendil! :)

GodricHollow
October 12th, 2007, 2:58 pm
I'd love to see some of the original cast in the movie, but other than Gandalf and Bilbo, they didn't really feature in the story. And Bilbo will have to be played by someone other than Ian Holm.

Not so. They can make him look younger via CGI these days. Cost a packet, given that he's the central character and thus is in nearly every scene, but it's plausable.

ComicBookWorm
October 12th, 2007, 4:06 pm
It wouldn't look natural, despite the advanced technology. I suspect they'll just find someone who can pass as a younger Ian Holm since that is what is usually done. With all the expense they'll have with the needed SFx, I can't see them making their jobs even more difficult. Unless they decide he doesn't look too old for the part.

gertiekeddle
October 12th, 2007, 5:25 pm
It wouldn't look natural, despite the advanced technology. I suspect they'll just find someone who can pass as a younger Ian Holm since that is what is usually done. I actually hope they do at least this and keep things close to the actual LOTR movies. Currently I can't imagine it be done in another style than Peter Jacksons. Additionally it would be just nice to get the main books that way. :D

ComicBookWorm
October 12th, 2007, 5:52 pm
It's been a roller coaster all year about whether they would use PJ. It isn't settled yet, but it does look more hopeful than it had earlier this year.

I can't imagine anyone doing a better job than him.

gertiekeddle
October 12th, 2007, 6:07 pm
Yes, I remember when back a few months ago when we already thought there's no more hope for Jackson doing it over at Eastfarthings (Tolkien forum). It really was a relief to read that we can hope again!

I guess actually I wouldn't mind the actors too much, if just the style does not change too much. Ian McKellen seems to be a must, though.

ComicBookWorm
October 12th, 2007, 6:50 pm
Yes, I remember when back a few months ago when we already thought there's no more hope for Jackson doing it over at Eastfarthings (Tolkien forum). It really was a relief to read that we can hope again!

I guess actually I wouldn't mind the actors too much, if just the style does not change too much. Ian McKellen seems to be a must, though.Agreed, we have to have McKellen. They better get moving, too. He isn't getting any younger.

Hermaryne
October 12th, 2007, 7:17 pm
Thanks Aiwendil, I'm so happy about the news! For me, it has to be PJ and team, along with McKellen and Andy Serkis. The Hobbit is my favorite book from childhood and some of the images have been seared into my brain for decades. Can't wait to see Mirkwood and spiders, Gollum's riddle, and Smaug with his jewel encrusted belly. I'm fascinated by the extra material and what Jackson might use for a second movie. Though I haven't read much beyond the Trilogy (only the Silmarillion), I'd like to see more of Galadriel, Sauron (in elf form), and the story of the other Rings of Power. Wonder who they'll cast as Bilbo, Thorin, et al? Time to speculate!!!

Anhelda
October 13th, 2007, 2:58 am
I can't imagine anyone besides PJ doing the movie. Not only did his unique vision bring LOTR to life, but he already has secondary production teams that know exactly how to bring the special effects to life (and according to Peter's vision).

I'd love to see some of the original cast in the movie, but other than Gandalf and Bilbo, they didn't really feature in the story. And Bilbo will have to be played by someone other than Ian Holm.

Well, as part of The Hobbit takes place in the Elves' home in Mirkwood, where Legolas comes from, Orlando Bloom could certainly make an appearance, both in the woodland scenes and in the final battle--not a major part, of course, but his presence would be completely reasonable in the framework of Tolkien's story. And Liv Tyler's Arwen might be able to show up in the Rivendell scenes if Arwen wasn't in Lothlorien at the time (can't remember my Arwen timeframe well enough to recall where she was during the events of Hobbit). Just because Tolkein didn't identify them as being present in The Hobbit doesn't mean that they weren't--after all, he had yet to broaden out his world to include these characters when he wrote that story. But it makes sense for them to be there in the films. If they do anything with the White Council in the films, they'll need to get Christopher Lee back, too--who else could play Saruman?

And of course, there's always Andy Serkis' character--he'll have to return as well, dontcha think? ;)

ComicBookWorm
October 13th, 2007, 11:21 am
I think quite a few of the LOTR actors could slip in, either as their LOTR characters or their prior generation relatives, but they would be cameos since they couldn't take up much screen time from the main story.

Andy Serkis and Ian McKellan are definitely part of the plot. And it all depends on Ian Holm being considered an appropriate age. Bilbo didn't age much once he got the ring, so maybe the Bilbo we saw vanish at his party in FOTR can be considered the right age and Ian Holm could be Bilbo.

Hermaryne
October 14th, 2007, 3:54 am
Bilbo didn't age much once he got the ring, so maybe the Bilbo we saw vanish at his party in FOTR can be considered the right age and Ian Holm could be Bilbo.

True, though it's already been almost 10 years since Ian Holm filmed Bilbo (time flies!). I can't remember Bilbo's specified age in the book, but I always pictured him around 30s/40s. Of course Ian Holm is a wonderful actor, though I'd be happy if they went with someone younger.

ComicBookWorm
October 15th, 2007, 8:49 am
I had thought about the fact that maybe 10 years had elapsed and Ian Holm, who was no spring chicken then, might look too old. He didn't have a lot of screen time in all three movies, and I think that they could slip in someone appropriate and it would still work. I can't seen anyone else as Gollum or Gandalf, however.

Wimsey
October 20th, 2007, 2:32 am
True, though it's already been almost 10 years since Ian Holm filmed Bilbo (time flies!). I can't remember Bilbo's specified age in the book, but I always pictured him around 30s/40s. Of course Ian Holm is a wonderful actor, though I'd be happy if they went with someone younger.He is 50 in the book, but hobbits age more slowly than do "big folk": 33 for a hobbit is supposed to be about the same as 21 for us. So, Bilbo would have been about the same as big person in his/her mid 30's: or right where you put him!

It is a little unfortunate that the Hobbit was not done first. I read quite a few comments from non-readers asking if there was something important about Bilbo going West with Frodo. They basically had forgotten all about him, as he had not been in the film prior to that, and Bilbo had not been seen 2 years at that time! Of course, I've known Bilbo since I first read the books nearly 30 years before, so of course it meant something to me: but when I took of my Lord-of-the-Rings-fan hat, I realized that he basically just popped out of nowhere in the end!


That being said, Ian Holm, Peter Jackson, and Ian Ian McLellan all commented then that Holm was too old to play Bilbo in the Hobbit. He really was too old to play it in Lord of the Rings, but it would have just looked wrong to have a man in his mid-30's being an avuncular figure to a man in his early 20's.


It does read as if New Line is pulling its head out of its collective nether orifice and getting back on page with Peter Jackson. I know that many Tolkien absolutely hated Jackson et al.'s films, but the general public (who outnumber Tolkien fans in a way that makes Helm's Deep look like a fair fight!) disagreed. So did the Illuminati, for that matter!

Rhys Davies most certainly will not be returning: the prosthetics nearly killed him! That is too bad, as he could have done Thorin very well, and he clearly loved the project: when his face did not feel like it was on fire!

Potterwatch07
October 21st, 2007, 4:52 am
It would be wonderful for PJ to direct the Hobbit, as he was so very true to the LOTR trilogy books, and his vision for LOTR was brilliant. It is great to see that there is a hope again that he will direct the Hobbit. It just would not be the same if he did not direct it, and I really think he should be the only director to ever be considered for it.

osuginny
October 27th, 2007, 12:13 am
I really hope PJ gets to do this movie. Even though there were about a million details in his LOTR movies that I wished would have been included or left out, I thought he did an amazing job of portraying the overall story, and especially the feel of Middle Earth.

Anyone else wouldn't be able to duplicate it... and I'd be afraid that they would know that, and try to make their vision as different from Jackson's as possible. Which would end up being horrible.

It would also be awesome if Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis reprise their roles. I'm kind of indifferent on Ian Holm as Bilbo... it would be nice for continuity, but he probably would be too old. Although when I read The Hobbit I think I incorrectly pictured Bilbo as older anyway, so the age really wouldn't bother me.

jhonen32629
October 27th, 2007, 4:09 am
Peter Jackson directing the hobbit? Of course! He brought the story to life on screen, very good movies. Can watch them in one sitting though lol. don't know how I saw The Return of the King in theatres without going for a bathroom break lol.

I would definately see the Hobbit if it came out as a movie for I loved the book, very differant from any of the books out today, amazing.

Half_Blood26
November 4th, 2007, 4:55 pm
I never heard or thought of The Hobbit being a movie, but it fits I guess and I would love to see it.
This is what it said on IMDBStatus:Announced
Comments:New Line and Jackson are rumored to be in talks, but no agreements have been announced
So I don't know what to think, again I would love to see it, so I hope it is bgoing to be filmed.

cybobbie
November 9th, 2007, 12:07 am
Oh, that would be great and with Peter jackson directing it a dream come true!! The Hobbit was the first book of the gender that I read when I was only 10 (quite a bit ago) and was the one that got me in the reading LotR, Silmarilion, Harry Potter and so many others!
I'm already writing some emails to the people involved in the film that I've got from the link!!!

Uriel
November 16th, 2007, 11:29 pm
I've seen the animated version and I don't care for it. If someone is going to do "The Hobbit" I would love for Jackson to take it. I trust him as he really did an excellent job on the LOTR's films. I have read the book and ,unlike the animated film, it didn't mesh "The Hobbit" and "The Fellowship of the Ring" together, so I don't know if a two parter is necessary. Unless, Jackson would like to add some early history on Frodo then he may need to do another film, but otherwise I think one will do. It's past time for it to be done if you ask me.

Wizard_Pupil
November 19th, 2007, 3:16 pm
Oh gosh no.
As I love The Hobbit, so much, definitely I will NOT like PJ adding more Frodo in The Hobbit as well, where those characters should NOT be. Gosh Arwen , Legolas, Aragorn noo XDD

He did enough ripping characters of LOTR.

the Hobbit is a perfect book to made a total faithful movie without any change.

But Peter Jackson doing The Hobbit, as he did with some characters of LOTR::: that sounds more like an horror movie.
yeap, an horror movie XDDDDDDDDDD

cybobbie
November 19th, 2007, 4:35 pm
^I agree with you regarding the content of the movie being just Hobbit related, withou including any other characters, since the book is awesome and have great characters without the need of any changes or inclusion. However I desagree with you when you say that Peter Jackson didn't do great with LotR. For me the movies are brilliant nd he did a amazing job!! And I trust that he would do the same with The Hobbit, at least this is my opinion.

PhoenixLuna
December 20th, 2007, 12:12 am
It's cool that Jackson's back even if he is the producer instead of director. I can’t wait to see this in 2010!

cybobbie
December 20th, 2007, 2:55 am
^Yes it is! As I said before I would love to see him directing it but I think that to have him as producer is good enough. I didn't know that they already set a date for the release of the movie - 2010, that's quite a long wait!

Aiwendil
December 20th, 2007, 6:38 am
December 19, 2007 A Long-Expected Party!

It has finally happened!

Here are some additional news articles:

Courtesy imdb.com (http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/#film1):

Providing few details, Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema have settled their differences over Jackson's share of profits fro the Lord of the Rings trilogy and will proceed to make The Hobbit, a planned prequel to the trilogy. "I'm very pleased that we've been able to put our differences behind us, so that we may begin a new chapter with our old friends at New Line," Jackson said in a statement. He indicated that The Hobbit will be produced as two separate films beginning in 2009 but will be shot simultaneously, with the first film due to be released in 2010 and the second the following year (provided that the writers' strike does not extend long into 2008). The two films could breathe new life into New Line, which has experienced a raft of flops over the past year, with only Hairspray a bona fide hit. It could also boost the fortunes of MGM, which will co-finance the films with New Line. It, too, has experienced a low batting average, although its films have generally had a much lower production cost than New Line's, whose latest release, The Golden Compass, reportedly cost more than $200 million to make but has generated only $41 million in domestic ticket sales and $90 million in overseas sales after two weeks. Although Rings fans expressed delight at the announcement, their response was muted by trade reports that it was unlikely that Jackson would direct the Hobbit films. MGM Chairman Harry Sloan told Reuters that Jackson was committed to other film projects, making it impossible for him to direct the Hobbit films and simultaneously fulfill other obligations, which include directing the film version of The Lovely Bones and co-directing, with Steven Spielberg, Tintin.

More information can be found here (http://news.google.com/news?q=the+hobbit&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GFRC&um=1&hl=en&sa=X&oi=news_result&resnum=1&ct=title).

~

"Sounds like a ploy to double the money by doubling the number of movies. Not good and I'm disappointed in PJ."

I do not know the facts, but I really think the two-part decision was made by New Line and/or MGM, not Jackson. If someone knows for sure, please let us know.

"The second for sure it´s an invention of Peter Jackson, a whole story about Aragorn, Frodo, Arwen, Legolas childhood"....

"maybe someone can tell me where they can cut it into two films"

First of all, if you go by the book, Frodo was not yet born, Aragorn was a child, and Arwen was in Lórien. :)

But seriously, Tolkien fans have discussed in depth where The Hobbit could be split, and the majority believe that the dwarves' arrival at the boarder of Mirkwood would be the best place to end the first part. With Jackson on board, scenes involving Gandalf's simultaneous business with the White Council and the Necromancer (Sauron in disguise), as revealed in the appendices of LotR, are virtually guaranteed. Once again, most, but not all, Rings fans approve of this. That would add a decent amount of time to the film.

However, it is also rumored that the first film will wrap up the story of The Hobbit, and the second film will consist entirely of things that happen between LotR and The Hobbit; therefore bridging the two stories.

With Jackson involved, that hopefully means the return of Ian McKellen, Hugo Weaving and Andy Serkis as Gandalf, Elrond, and Gollum!

If scenes of the White Council are indeed included, Jackson would most likely be able to get Rings cast members Cate Blanchett and Christopher Lee to reprise their roles as Galadriel and Saruman as well.

Hooray! Finally, after many tears and years of waiting, “The Hobbit” will happen! We went there, and now we can go back again. This is so exciting!
:clap:

dobbylikesme
December 20th, 2007, 10:12 am
I love that rumor about making one movie about "The Hobbit" and one movie about things happened between TH and LotR, because I just cannot see turning TH into two movies. It's been a while since I read that book, but I do remember I found it rather dull, and 2 movies would just be overkill in my opinion. But then Tolkien wrote so much more about Middle Earth, so if they make one TH and one based on Sillmarilion (sp?), I'd be down with that.

Aiwendil
December 21st, 2007, 3:56 am
Unfortunately, J.R.R. Tolkien's son, Christopher Tolkien, has a tight hold on the rights to The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, and other works, and does not like the idea of a film adaptation.

However, there is plenty of information in the appendices of LotR that could be made into a "bridge" film. There was also a mention of using certain notes made by Tolkien, but I do not know the facts on that one.

ginger1
December 21st, 2007, 9:28 am
Do you think Peter Jackson will be able to have input on where the film is made? It would be great if his native New Zealand was used again, as the awesome scenery fitted Middle Earth so well. And Weta Digital, and all the guys who took such care about the detailing of the sets, costumes - all of it! - in LOTR - it was the attention to detail that swept us up in the totally believable world. - And not forgetting the score - if only they could persuade Howard Shore to come on board - and Ian McKellan to reprise his role as Gandalf - it could be good if it all came together.

The trouble is that it has to be the equal of LOTR in feeling, and that's why we wanted Peter Jackson to take the helm - anything else may fall short in comparison.

Aiwendil
December 22nd, 2007, 9:44 pm
Being executive producer gives Peter Jackson complete creative control, so most likely it will be done in NZ (the Shire set they built into a hill on a farm is still intact), and with Weta. Hopefully, if someone other than Peter or Fran Walsh directs, Peter will still make sure that the "feeling" and continuity of his Middle-earth remains the same. Jackson also kept many props, sets and costumes from LotR, so that's good.

Ian McKellen and Howard Shore have both expressed, more than once I believe, that they would love to return to Middle-earth if Jackson is involved. I don't think there will be much need for persuasion!

Headless_Nick
December 31st, 2007, 9:13 pm
I love that rumor about making one movie about "The Hobbit" and one movie about things happened between TH and LotR, because I just cannot see turning TH into two movies. It's been a while since I read that book, but I do remember I found it rather dull, and 2 movies would just be overkill in my opinion. But then Tolkien wrote so much more about Middle Earth, so if they make one TH and one based on Sillmarilion (sp?), I'd be down with that.In the book The Hobbit a lot of detail concerning the different places in the book and the histories of various different peoples is given. Part of the magic of movies is the ability to show rather than just tell. However, that being said, the tale of The Hobbit alone does not seem to make for a good two movies. The Lord of the Rings movies could have easily been elongated and split into two movies each (heck, that's what happened with the books - there's a "book one" and "book two" for each section of the trilogy). Admittedly, that would probably be overkill sequel-wise for the movies.

Pearl_Took
December 31st, 2007, 10:23 pm
Well, the idea is that the two movies will be:

1) The Hobbit
Which is good news. :)

and:

2) A bridge movie that covers the period between The Hobbit and the events leading up to LotR.
And it's this idea that makes me feel rather :err:

I suppose they will include stuff like The White Council and Aragorn's years in exile and ... well, who knows what, but honestly, this really makes me feel rather nervous.

I think the title for the second film should be: Milking the Tolkien Cash Cow For All It's Worth. :rolleyes:

I speak as a fan who greatly enjoyed the LotR film trilogy, btw.

Raven_Girly
January 4th, 2008, 9:37 am
I was glad to hear that Peter Jackson will be involved in The Hobbit. It would have been great to see him directing again but oh well. I find it interesting that there will be two films. I like the idea of the second being the "bridging" film. I just don't see how you'd split The Hobbit into two. I'm hoping that the two films will be filmed in New Zealand as well. :)

GrangerHermione
January 4th, 2008, 10:15 pm
Oh, wow! I didn't know that they were making a Hobbit film! I've only seen the cartoon one. I like it, but a REAL film will be so much better! The Hobbit was my favorite LotR book, and I'm excited to see it now that I know!
Thanks!
-GH

imacheeto
January 7th, 2008, 7:16 pm
excelent, glad it's comin out. I hope Jackson directs.

ParanoidAndroid
January 7th, 2008, 10:11 pm
I don't know how to feel about this right now. I was a huge LOTR fan and still think they are rather good, but I'm not all that interested in this right now. I'm sure it will be fantastic, though.

Raven_Girly
January 9th, 2008, 7:56 am
I hope Jackson directs.
Unfortunately, he will not be directing. He definitely has a large role in the making of the films though - he will be an executive producer. :)

HouseStark
January 13th, 2008, 10:22 pm
According to Elijah Wood, theres going to be another LOTR movie between the Hobbit and Fellowship of the Ring.

GrangerHermione
January 16th, 2008, 8:44 pm
According to Elijah Wood, theres going to be another LOTR movie between the Hobbit and Fellowship of the Ring.

Yeah, I heard about that, too. I wonder what it will be about?

RemusLupinFan
January 16th, 2008, 11:09 pm
I can't wait to see the Hobbit, especially if Peter Jackson is going to be involved in the making of it! I'd not heard that there was going to be another movie though - that's interesting. I'm sure it'll be great though.

AcidPop
January 17th, 2008, 5:34 am
I'll certainly see The Hobbit movie (LOVE Smaug), but it's this second LOTR film that has me really interested. What exactly is it going to be about?!

Pearl_Took
January 17th, 2008, 12:56 pm
I'll certainly see The Hobbit movie (LOVE Smaug), but it's this second LOTR film that has me really interested. What exactly is it going to be about?!

Merlin only knows! :rolleyes: :lol:

The thing is: if they're planning to do a 'bridge' kind of story between The Hobbit and LotR, then what kind of source material will they use for it? :whistle: What is the copyright situation with Tolkien's publishers? What's Christopher Tolkien's take on all this? It's just really ... odd.

Anyhow, my initial reaction to the 'second LotR film' ain't positive. :p

I'm looking forward to The Hobbit :) but the prospect of a 'second LotR' film just makes me feel like a curmudgeon, or an über-purist. :no: :D

GrangerHermione
January 17th, 2008, 8:05 pm
Merlin only knows! :rolleyes: :lol:

The thing is: if they're planning to do a 'bridge' kind of story between The Hobbit and LotR, then what kind of source material will they use for it? :whistle: What is the copyright situation with Tolkien's publishers? What's Christopher Tolkien's take on all this? It's just really ... odd.

Anyhow, my initial reaction to the 'second LotR film' ain't positive. :p

I'm looking forward to The Hobbit :) but the prospect of a 'second LotR' film just makes me feel like a curmudgeon, or an über-purist. :no: :D

I'm really excited about The Hobbit, too. It was my favorite LotR book.

I agree with you on the point that there is no source material for this "bridge" movie. I'm interested to see it, just because I like LotR, but it kind of seems like they're just going to make up the second movie. That doesn't sound too smart to me.

Pearl_Took
January 17th, 2008, 8:23 pm
I agree with you on the point that there is no source material for this "bridge" movie. I'm interested to see it, just because I like LotR, but it kind of seems like they're just going to make up the second movie. That doesn't sound too smart to me.

My feelings exactly, hon. :agree:

I mean, I will watch anything about Middle-earth if it's well done :) but ... I dunno ... they've gotta base this thing on something the good Professor actually wrote.

Otherwise ... :err:

Aiwendil
January 28th, 2008, 7:27 am
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrangerHermione
I agree with you on the point that there is no source material for this "bridge" movie. I'm interested to see it, just because I like LotR, but it kind of seems like they're just going to make up the second movie. That doesn't sound too smart to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearl_Took
My feelings exactly, hon.

I mean, I will watch anything about Middle-earth if it's well done but ... I dunno ... they've gotta base this thing on something the good Professor actually wrote.


Professor Tolkien included in the appendices to The Lord of the Rings a timeline, The Tale of Years, that chronicles events in Middle-earth. There is enough information there, in my opinion, to support a film, or at least to provide a basis for the story. Here are some highlights that could be used. Words in parenthesis are mine:

-Bard (a human character from The Hobbit) rebuilds, and becomes King of, the township of Dale, which was destroyed by Smaug the dragon.

-Gandalf and Balin visit Bilbo in the Shire.

-Gollum leaves his cave in search of The Ring and "Baggins". Later he enters Mordor, and becomes acquainted with Shelob. (Further events involving Gollum, his capture by Sauron and his subsequent escape, Gandalf and Aragorn's search for him, Aragorn's capture of him, his imprisonment by the Elvenking [Thranduil], and another escape, all happen after Bilbo's farewell party, but possibly could be worked into this new film.)

-Théoden is born, and later becomes King of Rohan.

-Sauron declares himself openly, rebuilds his tower Barad-dûr in Mordor. Sends three Nazgûl to reoccupy Dol Guldur.

-Elrond reveals Aragorn's ancestry and true identity to him. He meets Arwen, daughter of Elrond.

-The last meeting of the White Council. They debate the Rings. Saruman lies that he has discovered that the One Ring washed downriver and into the sea. Saruman withdraws to Isengard, takes it as his own, and fortifies it. Being jealous and afraid of Gandalf, he sets spies to watch all his movements, and notes Gandalf's interest in the Shire.

-Aragorn meets Gandalf, and their friendship begins. Aragorn undertakes his journeys, and in disguise, serves Denethor's father in Gondor and Théoden's father in Rohan.

-Births of Frodo, Boromir, Faramir and Samwise. (In that order. Faramir and Sam in the same year.)

-Aragorn enters Lórien, and there meets again Arwen Undómiel. They pledge to marry (as mentioned in their scene in Rivendell on the bridge, in FotR).

-Denethor's father dies, and he becomes Steward of Gondor.

-Balin (whose tomb we see in FotR), enters Moria. He later dies, and the dwarf-colony is destroyed.

-Saruman dares to use the palantír he knew was in the tower of Orthanc, but becomes ensnared by Sauron, who has another palantír (Denethor has another, though we don't see it in the film). Saruman becomes a traitor to the White Council. His spies report that the Shire is being closely guarded by the Rangers, allies of Aragorn.

~

Christopher Tolkien has a tight hold on the rights to his father's other works, including The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales, and apparently he does not intend to release them for a film.

Hysteria
January 28th, 2008, 10:31 am
-Elrond reveals Aragorn's ancestry and true identity to him. He meets Arwen, daughter of Elrond.
I really like that part of the story. Hopefully it is included in whatever movie this is that is going to be made.

Pearl_Took
January 28th, 2008, 11:16 am
-Bard (a human character from The Hobbit) rebuilds, and becomes King of, the township of Dale, which was destroyed by Smaug the dragon.

-Gandalf and Balin visit Bilbo in the Shire.

-Gollum leaves his cave in search of The Ring and "Baggins". Later he enters Mordor, and becomes acquainted with Shelob. (Further events involving Gollum, his capture by Sauron and his subsequent escape, Gandalf and Aragorn's search for him, Aragorn's capture of him, his imprisonment by the Elvenking [Thranduil], and another escape, all happen after Bilbo's farewell party, but possibly could be worked into this new film.)

-Théoden is born, and later becomes King of Rohan.

-Sauron declares himself openly, rebuilds his tower Barad-dûr in Mordor. Sends three Nazgûl to reoccupy Dol Guldur.

-Elrond reveals Aragorn's ancestry and true identity to him. He meets Arwen, daughter of Elrond.

-The last meeting of the White Council. They debate the Rings. Saruman lies that he has discovered that the One Ring washed downriver and into the sea. Saruman withdraws to Isengard, takes it as his own, and fortifies it. Being jealous and afraid of Gandalf, he sets spies to watch all his movements, and notes Gandalf's interest in the Shire.

-Aragorn meets Gandalf, and their friendship begins. Aragorn undertakes his journeys, and in disguise, serves Denethor's father in Gondor and Théoden's father in Rohan.

-Births of Frodo, Boromir, Faramir and Samwise. (In that order. Faramir and Sam in the same year.)

-Aragorn enters Lórien, and there meets again Arwen Undómiel. They pledge to marry (as mentioned in their scene in Rivendell on the bridge, in FotR).

-Denethor's father dies, and he becomes Steward of Gondor.

-Balin (whose tomb we see in FotR), enters Moria. He later dies, and the dwarf-colony is destroyed.

-Saruman dares to use the palantír he knew was in the tower of Orthanc, but becomes ensnared by Sauron, who has another palantír (Denethor has another, though we don't see it in the film). Saruman becomes a traitor to the White Council. His spies report that the Shire is being closely guarded by the Rangers, allies of Aragorn.

Aiwendil, I agree that this is all fabulous material. :cool:

But all this stuff contained in the Appendices does not actually contain dialogue. So you would need an exceptionally good screenwriter to invent the dialogue.

PJ's LotR trilogy always hit the high notes when the films stuck to Tolkien's original prose. Even if they put a book character's lines in the mouth of someone else, when they stuck to Tolkien, they did OK. :) But some of the invented dialogue was, frankly, dreadful; e.g. Gimli talking about "squirrel droppings" and such-like. :rolleyes:

Christopher Tolkien has a tight hold on the rights to his father's other works, including The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales, and apparently he does not intend to release them for a film.

Yes, quite. Hell would freeze over before C.T. would ever sell the film rights. ;)

Aiwendil
February 2nd, 2008, 3:58 am
Aiwendil, I agree that this is all fabulous material.

But all this stuff contained in the Appendices does not actually contain dialogue. So you would need an exceptionally good screenwriter to invent the dialogue.

PJ's LotR trilogy always hit the high notes when the films stuck to Tolkien's original prose. Even if they put a book character's lines in the mouth of someone else, when they stuck to Tolkien, they did OK. But some of the invented dialogue was, frankly, dreadful; e.g. Gimli talking about "squirrel droppings" and such-like.

People were wondering where they would get source material, someone said it seemed as if they were going to make up the second film, and you said they should base it on something Tolkien actually wrote.

There it is. Yes, they would need to create dialogue, and figure out how to link everything together properly, but they do have source material to go by.

And I think Jackson's team, if they all return, would handle the writing pretty well. Yeah, you'll have an occasional, pardon the pun, "stinker" such as the example you provide, (and you just had to give one of the worst lines as an example:p), but I'm afraid that is nearly unavoidable considering the general audience these days.

ComicBookWorm
February 2nd, 2008, 4:10 am
It'll be interesting to see how they bring that source material to life. I know that the Silmarillion is constructed from that same kind of material and it's deadly dull (although JRR Tolkien didn't write it).

Aiwendil
February 2nd, 2008, 7:57 am
It'll be interesting to see how they bring that source material to life. I know that the Silmarillion is constructed from that same kind of material and it's deadly dull (although JRR Tolkien didn't write it).

Actually, J.R.R. Tolkien did write The Silmarillion. He began work on it in the early teens, before he wrote The Hobbit, which was published in 1937. His son, Christopher Tolkien, edited and published The Sil in 1977.

Wizard_Pupil
February 2nd, 2008, 4:57 pm
Actually, J.R.R. Tolkien did write The Silmarillion. He began work on it in the early teens, before he wrote The Hobbit, which was published in 1937. His son, Christopher Tolkien, edited and published The Sil in 1977.


Indeed. The Silmarillion was JRR Tolkien biggest writting.

Actually, to publish The Silmarillion was the most impossible dream for JRR Tolkien. He tryed to publish The Silmarillion many times while he was alive... but any editor accepted it ...

The Silmarillion was never finished anyways.

But great that Christopher Tolkien finally publishing Tolkien´s master piece in 1977!!!

BTW: I am a kind of happy... ehh... Guillermo del Toro will direct The Hobbit :tu:
At least I love his spanish movies!!!!!!!

Pearl_Took
February 3rd, 2008, 12:46 am
It'll be interesting to see how they bring that source material to life. I know that the Silmarillion is constructed from that same kind of material and it's deadly dull (although JRR Tolkien didn't write it).

:lol: Dull? I avoided Sil for years because it didn't have hobbits. :lol:

It's an AMAZING book. :cool:

The events of the First Age make the events of the Third look like a Sunday school picnic. :wow:

And, yep, Tolkien most certainly wrote it. He just didn't finish it. Christopher did all the editing work.

Personally I would love a Downfall of Numenor movie. That would rock my world.

Or Beren and Luthien. That would be cool. Sauron as a werewolf!

BTW: I am a kind of happy... ehh... Guillermo del Toro will direct The Hobbit :tu:
At least I love his spanish movies!!!!!!!

Is it actually confirmed that del Toro is doing it? I was thoroughly spoiled for LotR but I'm not keeping abreast of the Hobbit movie news at all. :)

That's kind of wild. :D If nothing else, the visuals will be wonderful!

(I thought that Pan's Labyrinth was incredible. One of the most intense films I've ever seen.)

Aiwendil
February 3rd, 2008, 5:53 am
Is it actually confirmed that del Toro is doing it? I was thoroughly spoiled for LotR but I'm not keeping abreast of the Hobbit movie news at all. :)

That's kind of wild. :D If nothing else, the visuals will be wonderful!

(I thought that Pan's Labyrinth was incredible. One of the most intense films I've ever seen.)

Yes, it was publicized a few days ago that it is 99% certain that Guillermo del Toro will direct The Hobbit. Everything is done except the actual signing of papers, which will take place after the writer's strike has ended.

I'm cautiosly excited about this, I'd rather see Jackson or Fran Walsh direct. However, I've been comforted by several other major Tolkien fans that del Toro is the next best choice in their opinion.

Here is a decent article: Del Toro doubles up for 'Hobbit' (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i331d7d05b8008476b2fae087024a2b8e)

Pearl_Took
February 4th, 2008, 2:18 pm
Yes, I'm cautiously excited and cautiously optimistic too. :D :)

Oddly enough, I'm not clamouring for PJ to do it. Although I love his LotR, I do have a few nitpicks about it as well. His big operatic approach towards the book did work well though. :)

But I've always thought that The Hobbit might benefit from a slightly different touch.

GrangerHermione
February 4th, 2008, 6:41 pm
:lol: Dull? I avoided Sil for years because it didn't have hobbits. :lol:
No Hobbits? :( I don't know if I can read a LotR books with no Hobbits in it. :grumble:

Yes, I'm cautiously excited and cautiously optimistic too. :D :)

:lol: Me too. But it has Hobbits! :clap: So it will be fine. :p

Pearl_Took
February 4th, 2008, 10:15 pm
No Hobbits? :( I don't know if I can read a LotR books with no Hobbits in it. :grumble:

That was exactly my reaction for many years, GH. :lol:

What on earth is a book by Tolkien without hobbits? :grumble:

But, honestly, Silmarillion is wonderful. :) The Elves in it are very, very cool. Very, very deadly and incredibly feisty. They're also very tragic.

But it has Hobbits! :clap: So it will be fine. :p

That's the spirit! :rockon:

Aiwendil
February 8th, 2008, 8:50 am
Popmatters has an article on the career of Christopher Lee, in which he expresses interest in reprising his role as Saruman.

Link: Christopher Lee remains busy after 60 years of acting (http://www.popmatters.com/pm/news/article/52945/christopher-lee-remains-busy-after-60-years-of-acting/)

Relevant excerpt:
Lee not only has impressive knowledge of golf and film, he also in something of an expert on the work of J.R.R. Tolkien.

“I remember first reading `The Lord of the Rings’ back in the 1950s,” Lee said. “I thought they would make great movies, but technically it couldn’t be done back then. I envisioned myself playing Gandolf (eventually played by Ian McKellen) but I did end up getting the part of Saruman.”

Noting that it was recently announced that Peter Jackson had agreed to film a couple of prequels about “The Hobbit,” Lee said he hoped that “Mr. Jackson” might found a place for him in those movies.

“I don’t know if that will happen but I would certainly be interested in doing it,” Lee said.

It would be surprising if Jackson couldn’t find a part for Christopher Lee, a man who has been a movie icon for more than 50 years and is still going strong.

I certainly hope it will happen! Awesome! :tu:

Pearl_Took
February 8th, 2008, 1:40 pm
Yes, seeing Saruman at The White Council would certainly be pretty cool. :)

Aiwendil
February 12th, 2008, 9:34 pm
Oh, dear. Here we go again.

What a roller coaster ride for The Hobbit. Jackson and New Line finally settle....Jackson named executive producer....Del Toro named director, to be made official after writer's strike....recently announced that the writer's strike is very close an end.

It's all looking good...now this.

Monday February 11, 2008

Tolkien Estate Sues New Line Cinema

The plaintiffs seek more than $150 million in compensatory damages, unspecified punitive damages and a court order giving the Tolkien estate the right to terminate any rights New Line may have to make films based on other works by the author, including "The Hobbit."

Such an order would scuttle plans by New Line to make a two-film prequel based on "The Hobbit." "Rings" trilogy director Peter Jackson has already signed on to serve as executive producer on the project, which is tentatively slated to begin production next year, with releases planned for 2010 and 2011.

"The Tolkien trustees do not file lawsuits lightly, and have tried unsuccessfully to resolve their claims out of court," Steven Maier, an attorney for the Tolkien estate based in Britain, said in a statement. "New Line has not paid the plaintiffs even one penny of its contractual share of gross receipts despite the billions of dollars of gross revenue generated by these wildly successful motion pictures."



Read the entire article here (http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/ap/20080211/120278562000.html).

Please settle very soon, people. We want our Tolkien movie!

ComicBookWorm
February 12th, 2008, 9:49 pm
Oh please. This is just too much. I don't think we will see a Hobbit movie soon.

Pearl_Took
February 13th, 2008, 12:54 pm
Seems like the Valar smiled on Peter Jackson's project when he made LotR into a film trilogy. :) Everything just came together for that. :cool:

Whereas the Hobbit project currently seems to be under a doom of Morgoth. ;)

Aiwendil
February 16th, 2008, 1:42 am
These are the latest tidbits regarding The Hobbit. Click the links to view the entire articles.

Feb. 14th, 2008
Empire Exclusive: Del Toro Gives Hobbit Update (http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=22002) On the original cast and that law suit.

We caught up with Guillermo Del Toro but a few minutes ago and asked him for an update on the current situation with The Hobbit. Many sites have been reporting that his deal to direct is signed and sealed and just waiting for an end to the writers' strike before it's announced. But that’s not so, he says.

“I wish it was definite, but it isn’t,” he told us. “It’s still in talks, there are still a lot of 'T's to cross and 'I's to dot. It’s certainly not certain yet…But, as far as I’m concerned, [if it was definite] I would be packed in ten seconds”.

Many will know that earlier this week the Tolkien estate announced that they are suing New Line for money they say is owed them from the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which could potentially mean the studio loses the rights to make The Hobbit.

“I heard that, but I’m quite zen about those things,” Del Toro continued. “Since that news broke, I have not exchanged a single phone call with my lawyer or my manager or anyone. They talk about it and I have received some emails, but, as far as I’m concerned, until I’m on board I should not worry about it. I read about it, but there’s nothing I can do about it. This week seems to be the lawsuit week in Hollywood”.

Finally, if, fingers crossed, he does put pen to paper to direct The Hobbit and its sequel, we asked him if he’d bring back any of the Lord of the Rings cast whose characters appear in The Hobbit, like Andy Serkis and Ian McKellen.

“Yeah, absolutely. I’ve been pretty much incredibly open about the things that I love and don’t love in the past. I’ve turned down huge franchises in the past because there are parts of that world I don’t gel with. The reason I took Blade 2 is because I love the characters that Stephen Norrington created and the actors he used. That times ten is the reason why I’m interested in The Hobbit”

There may be lots of bizarre typos and randomly inserted symbols in stories in the near future, as we'll be typing with fingers crossed that this will finally happen.

~~

Feb. 15th, 2008:
Den of Geek Andy Serkis interview: Robert Rankin, The Hobbit, Tintin & more! (http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/10046/andy_serkis_interview_robert_rankin_the_hobbit_tin tin_more.html)

And the question of the moment, really, which we’re surely nobody has ever asked. But would you be looking to get involved in The Hobbit?

"Yeah, well if The Hobbit happens, and there’s reason to believe that it will, then I think I’m in with a chance! Gollum is very much part of The Hobbit, after all."

Well, that's original actors for Gandalf, Saruman, Gollum and Galadriel all willing to return, with Peter Jackson on board, and a soon-to-be-director who wants them.

Now, let's get this lawsuit out of the way and get to work!

Dandinigirl13
March 1st, 2008, 3:38 pm
OMG! The hobbit is being made into a film? Can't wait, Lotr was like, one of my fave trilogies of all time! If Peter Jackson's doin it, then, great! But it confuses me a bit as to why he didn't do the hobbit first...:lol:

The books are amazing too! :lol:

JJFinch
March 1st, 2008, 5:59 pm
Well, that's original actors for Gandalf, Saruman, Gollum and Galadriel all willing to return, with Peter Jackson on board, and a soon-to-be-director who wants them.


Wait, am I understanding right - they're going to keep the same cast for the characters listed above?? I really hope so. YAY!!!:love:

EDIT: I've just read the posts about the lawsuit. Bloody suing!!! Who invented the idea of suing? Who? Because I'd like to sue them for ruining everyone's fun...:grumble:

Wizard_Pupil
March 1st, 2008, 8:16 pm
The suing is totally OK, things has to be legal and correct.
If they didnt pay the right sot Tolkien they dont deserve to make movies about Tolkien´s works.

But anyway
Now the New Line is over... why people still insist in that Peter Jackson as a director of The Hobbit?? XDD As far as I know, now anyone knows anything about the future of The Hobbit.

Whatever, I hope Peter Jackson will be out of it anyway. It should have other director and other screenwriters...

speedy
March 24th, 2008, 7:29 pm
"Whatever, I hope Peter Jackson will be out of it anyway. It should have other director and other screenwriters... "

What Peter jackson did a good job with LOTR why shouldn't he be involved in the hobbit, And I'm pretty sure it's been announced that Jackson is involved in the movie.

And if peter jackson isn't involved in it then they'll ruin the film.


The reason the hobbit wasn't made into a film first was becaue new line didn't have the contract for it another company had it .

Aiwendil
April 20th, 2008, 8:50 am
Guillermo Del Toro says in an interview with ign.com, that news on his involvement with The Hobbit should come in the next four to five days.

April 19, 2008 - Lord of the Rings fans waiting for a definite answer on Guillermo Del Toro's involvement in The Hobbit prequel films will soon have their answer. In an interview with IGN today, Del Toro revealed that a definitive answer would be coming in the next four or five days.

The Hellboy and Pan's Labyrinth director further elaborated that meetings about music, casting and visual style had already taken place. Del Toro mentioned that if he was hired, he would be doing both prequels and that he would be using his own style rather than adhering to anything set in the Lord of the Rings films.

For more detailed comments, make sure to watch the excerpts from our interview at Comic Con. Click the embed below or watch it in our video player here.

The helmer joked that when the news comes it will be like watching the finale to American Idol with a really excited "fat guy."

Be sure to check back soon for more on this developing project.

Original article can be found by clicking here:
NYCC 08: Del Toro Circles The Hobbit
How close is the helmer to signing a deal? (http://movies.ign.com/articles/868/868003p1.html)

Sounds like it's going to happen. I had been satisfied with his involvment if Jackson does not direct....but this statement worries me: "Del Toro mentioned that if he was hired, he would be doing both prequels and that he would be using his own style rather than adhering to anything set in the Lord of the Rings films."

I had thought he once said that he would stay close to the world and tone set in the Rings trilogy....

Guess all we can do is wait and see.

And I'm pretty sure it's been announced that Jackson is involved in the movie.

Yes, Peter Jackson will be Executive Producer.

Aiwendil
April 25th, 2008, 6:54 am
It's official! Del Toro will direct The Hobbit! Ian McKellen will return as Gandalf!

Courtesy Variety.com (http://www.variety.com/VR1117984595.html):

Guillermo del Toro to direct 'Hobbit'
Filmmaker signs on helm feature and sequel

In a major step forward on “The Hobbit,” Guillermo del Toro has signed on to direct the New Line-MGM tentpole and its sequel.
The widely expected announcement -- which had been rumored for several weeks -- came Thursday afternoon jointly from exec producers Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh, New Line president Toby Emmerich, and Mary Parent, newly named chief of MGM’s Worldwide Motion Picture Group.

Del Toro’s moving to New Zealand for the next four years to work with Jackson and his Wingnut and Weta production teams. He’ll direct the two films back to back, with the sequel dealing with the 60-year period between “The Hobbit” and “The Fellowship of the Ring,” the first of the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy.

New Line is overseeing development and will manage production. Both pics are being co-produced and co-financed by New Line Cinema and MGM, with Warner Bros. distributing domestically and MGM handling international.

Del Toro won’t leave for New Zealand immediately as he’s still in post-production on U’s “Hellboy 2,” due out in July. His previous pic, “Pan’s Labyrinth,” was released through New Line’s Picturehouse and set a record as the highest grossing Spanish language film in U.S. box office history.

The official signing of Del Toro comes four months after New Line settled a lawsuit with Jackson over “The Lord of the Rings” and announced that it had agreed with MGM to turn J.R.R. Tolkien’s “Hobbit” into two live-action films. Sam Raimi had been perceived as the initial front-runner as director but Del Toro had emerged in recent months as the likely candidate.

The studios didn’t give a start date on production and don’t yet have a script. Though no screenplay deal’s been set, it’s expected that the “LOTR” scripting team of Jackson, Walsh and Philippa Boyens will collaborate with Del Toro.

With Del Toro blocking out four years for the project, it’s likely that the studios are aiming at starting shooting next year and releasing the films in late 2011 and 2012.

Jackson’s WETA stages, post-production and visual effects facilities -- built for “The Lord of the Rings” -- will be used for both films. And New Zealand will again be the site of Middle-earth, with the story centering on Bilbo Baggins taking the Ring of Power from Gollum.

Courtesy Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4496833a1870.html):

Director will call Middle-Earth home
The Dominion Post | Friday, 25 April 2008

PRECIOUS PAIR: Peter Jackson with director Guillermo del Toro, who is to move to New Zealand for four years to make two Lord of the Rings prequels.

BREAKING NEWS: Hellboy and Pan's Labyrinth director Guillermo del Toro will spend four years in New Zealand making two films based on The Lord of the Rings prequel The Hobbit, it was confirmed today.


The official announcement was made in Hollywood by Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson - who will co-produce The Hobbit - fellow producer Fran Walsh, and executives from New Line Cinema and MGM.

Jackson and Walsh said del Toro was "a genuine storyteller" of outstanding ability.

"A true original, Guillermo is a cinematic magician who has never lost his child-like sense of wonder. He understands that the fantastic must be grounded in the real and that all stories are only ever a reflection of ourselves," say Jackson and Walsh.

"We have long admired Guillermo's work and cannot think of a more inspired filmmaker to take the journey back to Middle-earth. We are delighted ‘The Hobbit' is in such trustworthy hands."

Del Toro said he considered himself "blessed" to become part of the filmmaking community in New Zealand.

The Mexican-born filmmaker will base himself in New Zealand for four years to work with Wingnut Films and Weta production teams.

The two films will be shot back to back.

Del Toro's films include The Devil's Backbone, Blade II, and the Oscar-winning Pan's Labyrinth. His latest movie, Hellboy II: The Golden Army is due for release in July.

In addition, Sir Ian McKellen has added this to his filmography page on his official website, mckellen.com (http://www.mckellen.com/cinema/index0.htm):

2010 THE HOBBIT
Director: Guillermo del Toro
Role: Gandalf

Wow! I am speechless. I’m beside myself with excitement!

ComicBookWorm
April 25th, 2008, 10:45 am
I'm excited too.

Klio
April 25th, 2008, 11:05 am
Yesss!! Isn't it great....

Interesting to see that snippet from Ian Mckellen's website.


But as far as I can see, 2010 is off the table. It'll have to be 2011 and 2012 now - there simply isn't enough time!


Think about it - they need a year's post production between filming and release date (that's how it worked for FotR and the time was tight). Therefore filming would have to be done around Christmas 2009. And it would presumably take a year, perhaps a little less.

So, count all of 2009 for filming.... that would leave Del Toro all of half a year for script writing and pre-production once he is finally done with Hellboy 2.

I'd say filming in 2010, films released 2011 and 2012.

I suppose that'll mean that Hobbit1 goes head to head with at least one of the DH films? Or are those scheduled for 2010?


I'd rather not have them in the same year - winter 2001 and 2002 were stressful. Instead of spreading out the joy for everyone HP and LotR went head-to-head both Christmas seasons, and I could have done without that. I want to have time to enjoy BOTH hypes to the full!

Pearl_Took
April 25th, 2008, 11:06 am
Yay. :)

I am pleased about Del Toro. :agree: And glad he'll be working so closely with Peter and the gang. :D

My jury is out on the prospect of the second film though ... He’ll direct the two films back to back, with the sequel dealing with the 60-year period between “The Hobbit” and “The Fellowship of the Ring,” the first of the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy.

Hmmm.

Klio
April 25th, 2008, 11:11 am
Well, Pearl - at least this will give us all something to speculate ovr the next three years. I am really hopeing for more traffic over at the old Blue Place, to be honest!



My question above has been answered, I suppose.


I just found this over at Muggle Studies, in the DH thread:


EVERYONE:

http://www.snitchseeker.com/harry-potter-news/deathly-hallows-part-i-theatrical-release-november-19-2010-a-55683/

The official theatrical release date for the first of two parts of the seventh and final chapter of the Harry Potter series, Deathly Hallows: Part I, has been announced: November 19, 2010.

The date for the second part of the seventh film, Deathly Hallows: Part II, has not been revealed yet, though Warner Bros. already stated that it will make its way into theatres summer 2011.


That's a Friday



Well - this would mean that we'd have a big release in winter 2010, summer 2011, winter 2011 and winter 2012.

That would be lovely pacing. :D

Pearl_Took
April 25th, 2008, 11:30 am
Well, Pearl - at least this will give us all something to speculate ovr the next three years. I am really hoping for more traffic over at the old Blue Place, to be honest!

Klio, I doubt I have the energy for it anymore. :D I'll take it as it comes. :tu:

It's absolutely great that McKellan returns as Gandalf, of course. McKellan just is Movie Gandalf. :love: One can't possibly envisage any kind of Hobbit movie without him!

Well - this would mean that we'd have a big release in winter 2010, summer 2011, winter 2011 and winter 2012.

*is briefly confused* *does the maths*

Ah. :) DH Part 1 in winter 2010, DH Part 2 in summer 2011.

Then the Hobbit movie in winter 2011 and the Bridge Film in winter 2012. :tu:

I'm a little bummed we have to wait so long for DH though. :sigh:

And still a little :err: about this jolly 'bridge' film, spanning the time period between The Hobbit and the beginning of LotR. :whistle: Fanfiction, anyone???? :whistle: :p

However, on the bright side: I am really pleased they aren't splitting The Hobbit in two. Really, really pleased about that. :agree:

Now, if only Warner Brothers would listen to my pearls of wisdom about not splitting DH in half. :rolleyes:

:D

GodricHollow
April 25th, 2008, 3:04 pm
Is Guillermo planning a LOTR shoot for the Hobbit and the Bridge though? It could well be that they shoot them seperately, in which case 2010 is perfectly viable.

Klio
April 25th, 2008, 3:27 pm
Klio, I doubt I have the energy for it anymore. :D I'll take it as it comes. :tu:

Hmmm... what I have seen hereabouts makes me doubt that you lack the energy - interest and/or enthusiasm is another matter. I was, in fact, speaking generally, without any intentions to nudge you over there.



It's absolutely great that McKellan returns as Gandalf, of course. McKellan just is Movie Gandalf. :love: One can't possibly envisage any kind of Hobbit movie without him!


That's nit yet officially confirmed. his site could be campaigning or leaking almost finished realities - we can't tell as yet (I would think it's the second, but that's a guess).

Is Guillermo planning a LOTR shoot for the Hobbit and the Bridge though? It could well be that they shoot them seperately, in which case 2010 is perfectly viable.

That's been confirmed. Back-to-back shooting for both films. In NZ.

GodricHollow
April 25th, 2008, 3:31 pm
Ah. Right. Yes, 2010 is going to be a problem then.

Klio
April 25th, 2008, 9:09 pm
I should have given you an authoritative source for this - sorry that I forgot to do that.

here is the Variety article that was published less than 24 hours ago. This news is still very recent, so it hasn't become part of oublic knowledge just yet, I suppose....

http://www.variety.com/VR1117984595.html



EDIT:

more CRUCIAL information - really worth reading, from GDT himself.
http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2008/04/25/28747-guillermo-del-toro-chats-with-torn-about-the-hobbit-films/

This clears up quite a lot, actually.

Wimsey
April 25th, 2008, 11:25 pm
However, on the bright side: I am really pleased they aren't splitting The Hobbit in two. Really, really pleased about that. :agree: Interesting: several of the reports had "corrected" this to saying that it will be The Hobbit in two parts. This makes sense: I cannot see Christopher Tolkien selling the rights for a "fanfiction" movie.

I am wondering how they got the rights to create a film that is "between the lines." Perhaps the fact that there is general information in the Rings appendices (to which Jackson holds the rights) is enough?
Now, if only Warner Brothers would listen to my pearls of wisdom about not splitting DH in half. :rolleyes:Take everything I wrote about the lessons Rings offers Hallows, and replace "Hallows" with "Hobbit." There is no reason to do the Hobbit in two films. Beorn can chill with Bombadil as far as I'm concerned! ("Hi diddly Ho diddly, oh ursine friend! Honey and mead are as good for bear as man with Tom and his lady!")

Still, Del Toro will be a great director for this. He's good, folks. It makes up for Cuarón not doing it!

(How they can find a story for a second "fill the gap" film is a bit beyond me, though: I'm fearing all plot and no story a la Attack of the Clones!)

Klio
April 25th, 2008, 11:28 pm
Several of the reports have corrected this: it will be The Hobbit in two parts. This makes sense: I cannot see Christopher Tolkien selling the rights for a "fanfiction" movie.


Actually, the corrections were inaccurate. TORN has an authentic interview with Guillermo del Toro, which is later than those reports and surely supercedes them, not least because of his authority. He says that the Hobbit is one story for one movie, and the other film will fill the gap.... See the link I edited into my post above while you were posting yourself. It's worth reading.

ginger1
April 26th, 2008, 12:00 am
OK, easy question - if (fingers crossed) we have our original and best Gandalf in place, and the possibility of Andy Serkis re-creating Gollum - which should be easier now with the advancement in "capture" techniques - who else? Who will play Bilbo? How will they "do" the dwarves (hopefully not with such excruciating make-up as poor John Rhys-Davies had to suffer as Gimli).

The fact that we seem to have Jackson / New Zealand / Weta Digital / Fran and all the gang set up and ready makes me just want to smile - and breathe a sigh of relief. We trust them to bring us the story. We trust them to put as much effort into The Hobbit as they did with the trilogy. :)

It's going to be great! - But ... the actors - who will they cast?

Ideas?

Klio
April 26th, 2008, 12:56 am
This has been discussed on LotR forums for AGES. I am not going to bore you with all the theories.

Bilbo will be a new actor. Ian Holm can't come back. Opinions of fans are divided whether they should go for someone who looks Bilbo's age (50), or someone who looks young (to match up with the LotR Hobbit looks.

There have been various suggestions - Coli Firth for the 'old' look and James McAvoy for the 'young' look seem to be faviurites. But that's pure fan ideas with no relations to information from the film people.

I am with you in hoping that they won't do dwarves with heavy prothetic make-up again. I still don't see why Rhys Davies with that wig and beard and pretty much his own face couldn't have made just as splendid a Gimpli - and perhaps a better one, because he could have controlled his facial expressions better!

One would assume that some smaller roles could be reprised - Elrond comes to mind, perhaps Galadriel in the 'bridge' movie. Saruman would also be good, but whether Christopher Lee at his age, and after what happened to him in TTT/RotK will come back is a question....

GodricHollow
April 26th, 2008, 1:28 am
I'm thinking that the Bridge film will be the rise of Sauron, the making of the Council and that kind of thing - fairly story-ish really, if done right.

permafrost
April 26th, 2008, 3:01 am
I found this online : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7366375.stm . I think Del Toro will be AMAZING! I'm excited that Gandalf will be the same, too. It'd just feel too weird if he wasn't.

Aiwendil
April 26th, 2008, 5:02 am
Saruman would also be good, but whether Christopher Lee at his age, and after what happened to him in TTT/RotK will come back is a question....

Christopher Lee is interested in returning, and is in good health. I posted this earlier this year:

Lee not only has impressive knowledge of golf and film, he also in something of an expert on the work of J.R.R. Tolkien.

“I remember first reading `The Lord of the Rings’ back in the 1950s,” Lee said. “I thought they would make great movies, but technically it couldn’t be done back then. I envisioned myself playing Gandolf (eventually played by Ian McKellen) but I did end up getting the part of Saruman.”

Noting that it was recently announced that Peter Jackson had agreed to film a couple of prequels about “The Hobbit,” Lee said he hoped that “Mr. Jackson” might found a place for him in those movies.

“I don’t know if that will happen but I would certainly be interested in doing it,” Lee said.

It would be surprising if Jackson couldn’t find a part for Christopher Lee, a man who has been a movie icon for more than 50 years and is still going strong.

And:
Lee, who will turn 85 in May, shows no signs of slowing down. He appeared in “The Golden Compass” (2007) and has already completed work on “The Heavy” and “Boogie Woogie,” two films scheduled to be released this year.

“I still enjoy it and am in pretty good health,” Lee said. “I have a back problem but I’ve had that for years. As long as I’m able to get on the golf course, I’m happy.”

Read the full article here: Christopher Lee remains busy after 60 years of acting (http://www.popmatters.com/pm/news/article/52945/christopher-lee-remains-busy-after-60-years-of-acting/)

Cate Blanchett is also on record as having expressed interest in returning. I don't have a link at this time, however.

Klio
April 26th, 2008, 9:35 am
Aiwendil, thanks for these! I am really pleased to hear that Christopher lee would still be interested. :)

And really, who, apart from Cate Blanchett, could do Galadriel? It's great to hear that she has expressed an interest, too...

Of course, their work in NZ would be a few days, rather than weeks, one would assume, so they could fit it round Blanchett's busy schedule - and, now that she has had another child, her family life, too!

Pearl_Took
April 26th, 2008, 7:08 pm
Well, I've seen the James McAvoy suggestion for Bilbo, and I like it. :tu:

And he was Mr Tumnus too. :lol: Cool!

I've not seen the Colin Firth suggestion before, though, Klio. That's GREAT. :lol:

Klio
April 26th, 2008, 8:26 pm
Pearl, apparently the Colin Firth idea has been around for years (among fans anyway) - but it took me completely by surprise when I saw this:

www.council-of-elrond.com][/url]

and here's a side by side comparison. a young Ian Holm is the one to the left, stock photo of Colin Firth on the right.

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/5573/sword2eb323gx4.jpghttp://img444.imageshack.us/img444/9907/view87439eegu7.jpg


I would never have thought of this.

But I have to say, I can't see Colin Firth agreeing to this.

anduril
April 26th, 2008, 8:56 pm
We trust them to bring us the story. my inner purist (Run to the hills! ;) ) cannot let this pass, without a :huh:

Well, yay for a single Hobbit film. :) The "LOTR prequel" film - eh. I guess the studios can never have too much (pale enchanted) gold.

http://www.folklore.org/projects/Macintosh/images/scrooge.jpg

On the bright side, more people will pick up the books, as always. Next: Túrin? :cool:

Re: Cast suggestions:

Brian Blessed (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000306/) as Beorn! (Too old for Thorin?)

http://www.donkey-village.org.uk/images/gallery/brian_blessed_kojak.gif

Pearl_Took
April 26th, 2008, 10:24 pm
On the bright side, more people will pick up the books, as always. Next: Túrin? :cool:

Awesome, but depressing. :p

If the rights ever became free (haha), there are three big stories from The Silmarillion that could make good films: 1) Beren and Luthien; 2) Turin; and 3) personally I'd rather fancy a big Downfall of Numenor movie. :eyebrows:

Brian Blessed as Beorn? - perfect. :D

I vote Richard Armitage - :drool: - for Bard.

http://www.thearmitagearmy.co.uk/main/

Wimsey
April 26th, 2008, 10:38 pm
I'm thinking that the Bridge film will be the rise of Sauron, the making of the Council and that kind of thing - fairly story-ish really, if done right.
I guess that I do not see what the story would be. Sure, there could be plenty of plot: but look at Attack of the Clones; all plot and no story makes for a pointless movie.


Well, I've seen the James McAvoy suggestion for Bilbo, and I like it. :tu:I agree. However, I remember just how wildly wrong we were when we were guessing about who would play what for Rings! I think that Jackson & Co. will pursue the same strategy of going for relative unknowns. Still, McAvoy fits that: he's had small parts that he has played well, but he's not a big "name."

I hope that they add Mumakil to the Battle of the Five Armies so that we can see how Leggy learned to kill them. Did anybody else feel that the the Rings movies failed to adequately explain that? (Ducks and runs.....)

I agree with you about Firth: this is not the sort of thing that he'd do. Also, isn't he on the tall side? The forced perspective stuff will demand a fairly short actor. All of the hobbits in Rings were pretty short dudes.


my inner purist (Run to the hills! ;) ) cannot let this pass, without a :huh:

Well, yay for a single Hobbit film. :) The "LOTR prequel" film - eh. I guess the studios can never have too much (pale enchanted) gold. Heh, there are are purists and there are purists. A lot of purists would want a two-part Hobbit for the same reason that they wanted a six-part Rings or a two-part Hallows!

However, there is not enough story in the Hobbit for two-parts.

What I cannot figure out is how they have rights to do a second film. I guess that if they stick only to material in Rings, then they are OK. If they try to use anything from Unfinished Tales or the Silm., then the Tolkien Estate can (and certainly will) sue their rear-ends off.
On the bright side, more people will pick up the books, as always. Next: Túrin? :cool:Rings sold more copies from 2002-2004 than did any of the Harry Potter books. (They usually give the Potter sales in a lump for the whole series, but that is 5 titles to 1 at that point.) So, this is quite a real possibility. However, The Hobbit had outsold Rings by a wide margin prior to the films. It's the classic "sequel" pattern: people who bought and did not like the Hobbit never bought Rings.
Brian Blessed (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000306/) as Beorn! (Too old for Thorin?)Ah, when to Arwenize, Faramirate or Bombadilerate? Bombs away here! I just cannot see keeping Beorn in the film. I would have the Eagles take the troop to the borders of Mirkwood: that sets up the Eagles for "THE EAGLES ARE COMING!" (a great moment, at least the first time.) It also sets up the Elfs for the Five Armies. The Orcs and Wargs already are set up. I just do not see what the Werebear adds to the story or plot.

That being said, I could see Blessed as a good Thorin. Thorin was dour, yes, but he was bombastic, and Blessed does bombastic for breakfast. Also, he is a big and broad man, so he would be proportioned properly next to a smaller slighter man playing Bilbo.

It's a shame that no money in the world could get Rhys Davies to play one of the dwarfs again! Of course, the Dwarfs will present a bit of a problem: there are just too many of them, and making them distinct to the audience will be tough. The book (sort of) develops a friendship between Balin & Bilbo beyond that of the others, but I cannot see that really helping the film. I think that it will be much more important to develop a tetchy relationship between Thorin & Bilbo, because that adds so much gravity to Thorin's death: the death-with-issues can be a lot more poignant than death-of-a-friend.

So, what should stay? What should be cut? I vote "out" for Béorn. I'd keep the Trolls. I do not think that I would bother with Rivendell: Gandalf should have known the things that Elrond tells them. Gandalf was not "Gandalf" when Tolkien wrote The Hobbit any more than Trotter was Aragorn; however, Rings!Gandalf has become such an iconic character that they cannot back away from that at this point.


I have no cast suggestions. Jackson & Co. did great last time. I would counsel against cameos from the old cast: that really bogged down the Star Wars prequels. Unlike Harry Potter, I think that the films clicked enough with audiences so that they would recognize (say) Elrond, etc.: but unless they have a real part to play, then it will come across the same way that C3P0 & R2D2 did in PM, AotC & RotS.

GodricHollow
April 26th, 2008, 10:45 pm
Hmm...

I must be getting my times mixed up, I was thinking that the rise of Sauron was basically everything up to and including the Siege of the Tower. Kind of got that a bit wrong.

You may have a point.

Hermaryne
April 26th, 2008, 10:54 pm
Just heard the news- am so ecstatic!!! As much as I'm a fan of Jackson's work on Rings, I think del Toro's a better pick for Hobbit. And after all the worry about lawsuits, thank god it's actually going to happen. I'll have to read up on the news before posting more, but Sir Ian is back I hope.

This more than makes up for my disappointment about the Deathly Hallows movie(s).

ginger1
April 26th, 2008, 11:46 pm
In the "second hobbit movie" do you think they would include some of Aragorn's back story? For example where he was disguised (as Thorongil - the Eagle of the star) - and was advisor to Ecthelion. There are only a few paragraphs in the appendix concerning Aragorn (apart from the Aragorn / Arwen story) but I feel sure it would make good cinema. Not least his relationship with Gandalf over those long years.

Heroic deeds by someone in disguise ... :) Yes? No?

Klio
April 27th, 2008, 12:51 am
Yes, Aragorn's story would make a good movie - but one that would mainly have to be completely invented. At least the little bits we know of the story are in the appendices of LotR, and therefore accessible.

I am still wondering whether (as part of an out-of-court settlement with the Tolkien estate) they somehow managed to clear some rights for a few bits of UT..... I can't see how on earth they'd otherwise manage to make this bridge movie and remain within the bounds of their legal rights...



I hope that they add Mumakil to the Battle of the Five Armies so that we can see how Leggy learned to kill them. Did anybody else feel that the the Rings movies failed to adequately explain that? (Ducks and runs.....)

:rotfl: hehe. I am in two minds about a Legolas cameo. But the mind that's against it mostly wins.



I agree with you about Firth: this is not the sort of thing that he'd do. Also, isn't he on the tall side? The forced perspective stuff will demand a fairly short actor. All of the hobbits in Rings were pretty short dudes.
True. No, it would be weird if he really did take that role (or even be asked). Although he has been in really awful films lately - 'The last Legion', anyone?
The size issue is obviously a prohibitive factor in any case.

Ah, when to Arwenize, Faramirate or Bombadilerate? Bombs away here! I just cannot see keeping Beorn in the film. I would have the Eagles take the troop to the borders of Mirkwood: that sets up the Eagles for "THE EAGLES ARE COMING!" (a great moment, at least the first time.) It also sets up the Elfs for the Five Armies. The Orcs and Wargs already are set up. I just do not see what the Werebear adds to the story or plot.

Nice new verbs there - I love it. I am with you. Beorn will probably go the way of old Tom.


But ARGH!!! SIN!!!! You wrote elfs!!!!!!! It's most definitely elves .... and now run before the purists get you! ;) ;) ;)


It's a shame that no money in the world could get Rhys Davies to play one of the dwarfs again! Of course, the Dwarfs will present a bit of a problem: there are just too many of them, and making them distinct to the audience will be tough.

dwarves, surely? ;)

Anyway - I really hope that they backtrack on the silly prosthetic make-up. I'd rather have dwarves look more human but be able to move their faces. And I am not sad to see the back of Rhys-Davies. I wasn't very fond of his interpretation of Gimli (or rather, what PJ and Rhys-Davies cooked up together)..... other actors resisted PJ's sense of slapstick and silly humour - Rhys-Davies went along with it all too willingly. ARGH.





So, what should stay? What should be cut? I vote "out" for Béorn. I'd keep the Trolls. I do not think that I would bother with Rivendell: Gandalf should have known the things that Elrond tells them. Gandalf was not "Gandalf" when Tolkien wrote The Hobbit any more than Trotter was Aragorn; however, Rings!Gandalf has become such an iconic character that they cannot back away from that at this point.

True. But still, Rivendell would be nice to have anyway. They can use it for some exposition, I suppose. if it isn't in the first film we'll definitely need it in the second, for various things like White Council business, and probably some Arwen & Aragorn backstory. So, having it in the first one, too, would help with making the connections (if it is done right).

The trolls have to be in! We have already seen them in the FotR SEE, and it would be neat to have the scene blend into that set. One of the few definite visual links between the story of the Hobbit and LotR (apart from generic landscapes, but that's different, of course).


I have no cast suggestions. Jackson & Co. did great last time. I would counsel against cameos from the old cast: that really bogged down the Star Wars prequels.

True, their casting was great! And it would be better to have lots of unknowns, at least in the main roles.... Concerning cameos: I don't think they should shoehorn anyone in, but some are obvious - Elrond, Galadriel and Saruman for the White council, which will definitely feature somehow.

As already mentioned, I am not sure about Legolas, but I guess his return will be inevitable if they can get Bloom again (likelihood is that they can, seeing that things have been quiet about him for some time). At least there is a reasonable excuse for him to be there....

GodricHollow
April 27th, 2008, 12:56 am
The only reasons behind Leggy's single handed takedown of the Mumak in RotK was due to him not really having a lot to do in RotK and also because the fans loved his slide-down-the-stairs-on-a-shield moment in TTT.

I quite like it, if only for Gimli's "That still only counts as one!" line.

Kevin
April 27th, 2008, 2:36 am
I guess that I do not see what the story would be. Sure, there could be plenty of plot: but look at Attack of the Clones; all plot and no story makes for a pointless movie.


Attack of the Clones was a classic example of Lucas having a great idea for a story but being unable to execute his vision properly. Which has happened before in some of his movies.

As for the second Hobbit film, i guess they can raid Tolkien's notes about middle earth to piece together a story that bridges the gap between The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings. They could have Aragorn's backstory revealed with the backdrop of Gandalf and co preparing for the war to come which would then, lead into the Lord of the Rings.

Wimsey
April 27th, 2008, 6:53 am
Yes, Aragorn's story would make a good movie - but one that would mainly have to be completely invented. At least the little bits we know of the story are in the appendices of LotR, and therefore accessible.The problem is that someone was trying to do this movie a few years ago. Much of it was made, and some short trailers were released. However, in the end, they were unable to secure the rights. They tried changing all of the names or something, but the project sort of disappeared. (I am blanking on what it was called in the end.)
I am still wondering whether (as part of an out-of-court settlement with the Tolkien estate) they somehow managed to clear some rights for a few bits of UT..... I can't see how on earth they'd otherwise manage to make this bridge movie and remain within the bounds of their legal rights... Christopher Tolkien has expressed great reluctance to sell any of the rights to works published after his father died. He's quite the purist at heart, and he even has expressed concerns about whether he should have published HoMe!

So, they must have found a way to make do with Rings material alone.
Nice new verbs there - I love it. I am with you. Beorn will probably go the way of old Tom. Ah, I "coined" them for that silly essay I wrote. (The link's below in the part of my signature about Hallows: you might get a kick out of it.) However, I cannot be the first inventor of these things!
But ARGH!!! SIN!!!! You wrote elfs!!!!!!! It's most definitely elves .... and now run before the purists get you! ;) ;) ;) heh, but who's purity? There is that great letter in which Tolkien tells the editor that he disagrees! However, I remember having students tell me that they disagreed with how I graded: oddly, that did not help them much!
Anyway - I really hope that they backtrack on the silly prosthetic make-up. I'd rather have dwarves look more human but be able to move their faces.Well, they should not look too human: part of the reason why they looked ugly to Elves and Men was that Aüle did not have a clear idea in his head what the Children of Illuvator actually looked like: so, his model was a bit "deformed."

As for Gimli, the movies would have been a bit less popular if he had been played more "straight." Gimli gets most of the funny lines in the book, and they played that up: and those films badly needed the humor. Gimli and Legolas made the film part "buddy flick" and part of what made the Rings so enormously popular. Now, I know that many Tolkien fans would have been just as happy if the movies had not appealed to that crowd: but what makes the great tales great is that they appeal to multiple audiences. At any rate, Gimli was basically someone that the audiences would either laugh with or laugh at: and Jackson & Co. wisely chose to roll with the punch and go with the "with." (Man, I hate ending sentences in prepositions, even if Tolkien said it was OK.....)
True. But still, Rivendell would be nice to have anyway. They can use it for some exposition, I suppose. if it isn't in the first film we'll definitely need it in the second, for various things like White Council business, and probably some Arwen & Aragorn backstory. So, having it in the first one, too, would help with making the connections (if it is done right).Ah, but why do we need White Council business or Arwen & Aragorn backstory in The Hobbit? The book does just fine without either! Just as in Harry Potter movies, my thought is that if it does not advance the story being told, then it should not be in this film: the audiences simply have no way to think: "Oh, that seemingly irrelevant scene will be relevant in the next movie!" Instead, they will think: "Gack, what bad film making: who did this, Christopher Columbus?!?!?"
The trolls have to be in! We have already seen them in the FotR SEE, and it would be neat to have the scene blend into that set. One of the few definite visual links between the story of the Hobbit and LotR (apart from generic landscapes, but that's different, of course).Oh, I agree. Joe and Jane Public obviously will not remember it from the Rings films: but the Troll scene is too important for the dynamic development of Bilbo. It will have tension, drama, perhaps even a touch of humor.

One thing that I would keep in mind, however, is that Tolkien himself did say (in multiple ways, including through Gandalf) that he would have written the Hobbit very differently. Some of the more childish humor could be eliminated: and if purists needed justification, well, we should keep in mind that this was the way that Uncle Bilbo told it to the lads and lasses!

Attack of the Clones was a classic example of Lucas having a great idea for a story but being unable to execute his vision properly. Which has happened before in some of his movies.Do you know what was the story supposed to be? I just could not see one at all. There was plot, plot and more plot: and although the plots were not bad in terms of the intricacies and how they came together, there simply was no larger "point." (The best review of Clones that I read stated at the outset that if you didn't remember the difference between story and plot from your high school literature classes, then see Clones: it's all plot with no story!)
As for the second Hobbit film, i guess they can raid Tolkien's notes about middle earth to piece together a story that bridges the gap between The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings. They could have Aragorn's backstory revealed with the backdrop of Gandalf and co preparing for the war to come which would then, lead into the Lord of the Rings.The Tolkien estate holds all the rights to those, and Christopher is reluctant to sell them. So, if they use any of those, then you can almost guarantee that there will be a lawsuit!

An example of this is "Maia": that word is not in Rings or Hobbit, but Jackson & Co. initially did include it in the dialog between Saruman & Gandalf; they had to cut that, of course, as that name comes from Tolkien's other works. They could use "Valar" as those are mentioned in Rings, even if they are not exactly defined! They were called "Guardians" so having Arwen bestow their blessings was not going to go too far.

ComicBookWorm
April 27th, 2008, 8:09 am
I agree with you about Firth: this is not the sort of thing that he'd do. Also, isn't he on the tall side? The forced perspective stuff will demand a fairly short actor. All of the hobbits in Rings were pretty short dudes.
I thought he was too tall as well. And he's not right for the role.

anduril
April 27th, 2008, 11:34 am
Nice new verbs there - I love it. ("Arwenize, Faramirate or Bombadilerate")

Not sure, but those may have come from (or at least reminds me of) "The Osgiliate* Dictionary, Vols I and II (http://forums.theonering.com/search.php?cx=000214231027054455256%3Alfqx0ofl_oa&q=osgiliate&sa=Search&cof=FORID%3A10&showresults=posts#1042) - a collection of Tolkien puns/definitions by forums.theonering.com posters. The main site published these in sequence, in the "Reading Room" section, but it's easier this way. Forum thread. (http://forums.theonering.com/viewtopic.php?t=66530) Contributed a few for Vol II. including these two:

orlando furioso (n.) Being annoyed with Orlando Bloom for varied reasons. (Ex. "Your character's cheapening this classic story and turning it into a mere fangirl swooning and kewl moves event, rahh rahhh raahh!" )

orlando gloom (n.) The feeling an infatuated fangirl gets when she realizes that she is never, ever going to have Orli's babieeees.

Some of it may be too "in-jokey", though:

balrog wings (colloq.): An issue that shows no sign of disappearing. Or, an issue that's been discussed to death.

Illbereth (n.) Elvish halitosis.

* "to depart from the expected path, whether in real life or in literature." :)

***

Smaug: Irons or Rickman?

Klio
April 27th, 2008, 11:53 am
Ah, but why do we need White Council business or Arwen & Aragorn backstory in The Hobbit? The book does just fine without either!

I don't understand this objection. We don't need those things in The Hobbit - I agree. But I was talking about the second movie. And I am not sure how they could make that without including the White Council and the defeat of the Necromancer - which is among the few things they HAVE the rights to.

The Arwen/Aragorn story is more questionable, and I hope they only use that if it REALLY makes sense with the other things the 'bridge movie' is doing. It really depends on what themes they are going for.



Oh, and concerning elves: Tolkien made it very clear that he didn't like elfs, because that plural denoted the 'later' interpretation (to his mind) that we see in Shakespeare and so forth - elfs as silly, ridiculous creatures. He deliberatley used the plural elves (still not in the OED, I think!) to denote that he was thinking of a people much more like the Irish Sidhe.

The same is true for his emphatic arguments for 'dwarves' instead of 'dwarfs' (which has made it into the OED, IIRC).





....The Osgiliate* Dictionary, Vols I and II....

LOL! I hadn't seen those!

Smaug: Irons or Rickman?

Neither.

Irons has been hamming it up in too many fantasy movies.
Rickman IS Snape.

I hope they find someone else, although I am not sure who I'd want.

[facetious thought]
I am thinking that the Archbishop of Canterbury would be an excellent choice for Smaug or the Voice of Saruman (seriously! think about it if you ever get a chance to listen to his voice - absolutely marvellous!) - but I don't think he'd take the job, since he already has one, thank you very much ;)
[/facetious thought]

anduril
April 27th, 2008, 12:01 pm
Neither.

Irons has been hamming it up in too many fantasy movies.

Just two... wouldn't you want to hear Scar with scales?

Rickman IS Snape.

Oh, forgot about scheduling. How about Blessed (again)?

ginger1
April 27th, 2008, 4:03 pm
I reckon Snape as Smaug is a brilliant idea - just listen in your minds to him saying "Oh you're back are you" or words to that effect ( sorry, don't have the book with me at the moment - son has borrowed it, permanently it seems) - sarcastically, with Rickman's superb slow drawl. :) It would be priceless. And make quite a few thousand people smile ...

Pearl_Took
April 27th, 2008, 4:52 pm
Heh, there are are purists and there are purists. A lot of purists would want a two-part Hobbit for the same reason that they wanted a six-part Rings or a two-part Hallows!

Oh, the two-part Deathly Hallows. We says meh to that, precious! :grumble:

However, there is not enough story in the Hobbit for two-parts.

Quite. And the same is true of Deathly Hallows. :grumble: :( But try saying that in the movies threads and you cause no small amount of consternation ... :p

I would just luuuuuurve Rickman to voice Smaug. He'd be awesome sauce! :D

But ... his schedule is Snape's, so there you go. :)

Klio
April 27th, 2008, 7:07 pm
Well, voice work can always be fitted in, because it isn't likely to be more than a few days. It isn't as if Snape has all THAT much to do for DH. There are a few intense scenes - but it's weeks rather than months of filming, if that!


Still - I don't like the idea of too much franchise-overlap of casting choices.

Actually, LotR and HP have been keeping very clearly apart, haven't they? Is there any overlap at all?

Wimsey
April 27th, 2008, 7:11 pm
Not sure, but those may have come from (or at least reminds me of) ....
It is possible that I first read them there! However, they were just convenient terms: one obvious reason for using Rings in my essay on what Hallows should and should not do was the target audience: I would wager that Lord of the Rings probably is the most popular non-Rowling work among the rank and file of Harry Potter fans. In truth, any good adaptation of a book to film Arwenizes, Glorfindelizes, etc.: I just figured that more readers would understand "Arwenize" than "Époninize" even if they mean the same thing!

(Obviously, not all Harry Potter fans know or like Tolkien's work: and the biggest criticisms of the essay came from people who either did not know much about Tolkien or were not big fans of Tolkien.)
Smaug: Irons or Rickman?Too obvious, I think. At any rate, hasn't Irons done a dragon before? (I forget which movie it was.) Rickman's voice can be sibilant and serpentine, but it would not do to have people being reminded of Snape while listening to Smaug! That would distract them, and might strike people as an in-joke. To that end, I think that they would do best using an imposing voice that we do not all clearly recognize.

Still, the voice almost certainly will be heavily augmented, as Treebeard's was: they will be trying to make a voice sound like it came from dragon-sized lungs, and thus with capacities that are quite inhuman.

EDIT: Pearl and others note that Rickman is scheduled to do Snape, which is true. However, that would not be a huge hinderance: he has been in several other films while doing the Harry Potter series. Snape's role in Hallows obviously needs to be both Arwenizes and Faramirated: but that still will not be more than a couple of months works, tops.
I don't understand this objection. We don't need those things in The Hobbit - I agree. But I was talking about the second movie.Gotcha! OK, things (are at least I) got confused: but, then fundamentally we are talking about two completely different movies at the same time! Old brains like mine cannot do that.

So, from here on out, let's stick to the following: specify either "The Hobbit" (TH) or "Greedy Fan-Fic Prequel" (GFFP) for the two films! :cool:
And I am not sure how they could make that without including the White Council and the defeat of the Necromancer - which is among the few things they HAVE the rights to. For GFFP, certainly. For TH, it's a little trickier: the story needs some reason to make Gandalf go away. Otherwise, Bilbo (probably) is not forced into the position of leadership that he assumes. Tolkien just made up the Necromancer on the fly: the Necromancer was not "Sauron the Great, Lord of the Rings" until long after The Hobbit was written.

However, I think that this is doable. Gandalf can present Thorin with the Map and the Key early. How did he get it? Spying out the stronghold of Sauron (just use the name): there are "associates" of his who are very concerned with Sauron's reappearance. (Yes, this is sort of like having Pettigrew call Voldemort "Voldemort" at the opening of Goblet: but it cuts to the chase!) Thorin can mention striking against Sauron: but Gandalf can state that other peoples are working on that, and that the best thing Thorin can do for this cause is remove Smaug. They can crib the lines from Rings about what Sauron could do with Smaug as an ally.
The Arwen/Aragorn story is more questionable, and I hope they only use that if it REALLY makes sense with the other things the 'bridge movie' is doing. It really depends on what themes they are going for.Well, the usual Tolkien themes are that we step back 2-3 paces for every one we go forward: the "Long Defeat" permeates his works, even in TH. And, of course, dollop in a healthy amount of Augustinian Catholic theology, too....

My bigger question is the story. Rings is supposed to be about Death and Immortality: as I've blathered elsewhere, I don't think that Tolkien told that story, but he did tell a story. (I would say about preserving/restoring natural order; others, such as Mr_Futterman would say about temptation; others here might say something else!)

TH is a much more modern story than is Rings, in that is fundamentally about someone working out his/her place in the world. (It is amusing that Tolkien would consider that a children's story!) In particular, it seems to be about how Bilbo comes to realize both that the world is too great to ignore, and that he himself has enough greatness to affect the world at large.

So, those are the stories for TH and Rings: what story does GFFP tell?

Ultimately, I see this as a huge problem for prequels in general: the stories are constrained by pre-existing plots, whereas proper story telling creates plots for the purpose of a story.

Quite. And the same is true of Deathly Hallows. :grumble: :( But try saying that in the movies threads and you cause no small amount of consternation ... :p Ah, you will note that I've quite given up: I think that the assertion that Rings is much less popular than Harry Potter made me (re)realize that I'm just the forehead of reality banging my head on the brickwall of fandom there!

Tolkien fans are, on the other hand.... um, well, if I recall, there was a vocal contingent at TORC that firmly thought that Harry Potter would pass from public interest long before the last book came out. Let's face it, the hardcore fans are hardcore fans: when it comes to books, they want their book put on screen as it was. Sure, other stories require a lot of adaptation to work on film: but their original source has so much more to it than do those others! (Fans of "Master and Commander" said this, never mind Tolkien/Rowling/SpiderMan/whatever fans.) Still, the Tolkien fans here are much more forehead than brickwall! :tu:

Regardless, I will make this bold prediction in advance. Given that Return sold 33% more tickets than Goblet (the last HP film to be released at the same general time of year), I am going to bet now that TH sells nearly twice as many tickets as DHII does.

And now to call Christopher Tolkien in the dead of night to ask if his father intended Simbelmynë to be a member of the family Malvae.....

GodricHollow
April 27th, 2008, 7:18 pm
Irons was in a dragon movie (Eragon) but he wasn't a dragon. He was a Dragon Rider. Rachel Weitz was the dragon.

It won't even be that. Voice work takes a fortnight, a month tops.

Wimsey
April 27th, 2008, 9:32 pm
It won't even be that. Voice work takes a fortnight, a month tops.
It could take a little more time if they have The Voice onset for those scenes: some directors like to do that even though the voice will be completely re-recorded later. However, then you are talking at most six weeks or so, and probably in two 3-week sessions. The travel back & forth to Kiwi Land might be more grueling!

Hallows almost must expand Snape's role: the Faramir model really is more apt than the Arwen one here. However, Snape is still a tertiary character, and he probably will not have much more than 4-6 weeks of filming there. So, Rickman could easily do both projects in one year.

Of course, Ralph Fiennes also could do a good job as the voice of Smaug: he does a great sotto voce voice, and that could be a good foundation for a dragon's voice.


So, what would be a good general outline for the Hobbit? I would do something like:
Intro: Gandalf fleeing a dungeon with an addled old dwarf: dwarf cannot make it, and hands something to Gandalf saying "Give this to my son....."

I. The Unexpected PartyA. Gandalf "recruits" Bilbo (introducing Bilbo and clarifying who Gandalf is);
B. Dwarves arrive:1. Thorin recounts the fall of Erebor, with a "prequel" scene a la the Last Alliance;a. show Erebor & the Dwarves;
b. Also show Dale & Bard's folk.
2. Gandalf recounts rest of Dol Guldor: sets up that he'll have to leave to fight Sauron later.
3. No silly songs! We don't care what Bilbo Baggins hates.....
4. Show Bilbo's resistance melt.
II. The morning after: Bilbo nearly misses the fun, but Gandalf gets him moving;

III. On the road: the Trolls!

IV. RivendellA. Introduce tension between Dwarves & Elves;
B. Make it clear that Sauron is another issue for Gandalf and that it might be soon.
V. The Misty Mountain Hop.A. Orcs attack;
B. Bilbo separated from Dwarves;
C. The encounter with Gollum: Riddles in the Dark;
D. Flight!
VI. Reunion with Dwarves: they actually are impressed;A. Flight from the Orcs;
B. The Eagles are coming part I!
C. Eagles were looking for Gandalf: time to take out Sauron!
D. Eagles drop off dwarves at Misty Mountains: take Gandalf away, but he'll be back.
VII. MirkwoodA. Dwarves get lost & tempers flare;
B. Spiders!1. Bilbo uses the Ring again;
2. Slays spiders & saves dwarves but for Thorin....
C. Dwarves are captured by the Elves;1. Bilbo escapes;
2. Bilbo uses Ring to sneak around the palace: show his escape plan visually, with Bilbo slipping off the Ring occasionally so that we see him;
3. Bilbo finds Thorin, too.
4. Water-rafting!
VIII. Lake-Town:A. Make people's desire to leave well-enough alone abundantly clear: introduce the Master as the "face" of these people;
B. Other's long for "good old days: introduce Bard as the "face" of these people;
C. To the Lonely Mountain!
IX. The Desolation of SmaugA. Find the Door;
B. Smaug becomes aware of the Dwarves;
C. Bilbo meets with Smaug;
D. Smaug goaded into attacking Lake Town.
X. Dwarves explore Smaug's Swag:A. Hunt for the Arkenstone;
B. Thorin sends messages to Dain: prepare to attack Smaug.
XI. The Battle of Lake Town (should be interspersed with X.)

XII. March on Erebor: Mirkwood is coming, too! (Oh no, PJ! Men and elves would never fight together!!!!)A. Gandalf rides with the Elves;
B. Reports that a Dwarvish army marches from the East.
XIII. Parley between Thorin and Elves & Men:A. Bilbo sneaks Arkenstone to Thranduil as bargaining chip;
B. Whole thing goes badly anyway.
XIV. The Battle of the Five Armies.

XV. Bilbo awakens, learns of final outcome.A. Truce between Elves, Men & Dwarves made clear;
B. Bilbo & Thorin forgive each other;
C. Gandalf says that Sauron defeated, too!
XVI. Bilbo breaks up the Yard Sale;

Epilogue: Gandalf visiting Bilbo.A. Gandalf must leave because of more possible trouble with Sauron that he must investigate;
B. Bilbo is glad that Sauron will never be Bilbo Baggin's trouble!
C. Close on the Ring.

GodricHollow
April 27th, 2008, 9:43 pm
18 bases, take a base for five minutes each scene, multiply by four for the Battle...

I make that 110 minutes, give or take. Lovely.

ginger1
April 27th, 2008, 11:14 pm
Brilliant, Wimsey! but that was the easy one - now give us the breakdown of GFFP :)

Wimsey
April 27th, 2008, 11:41 pm
Brilliant, Wimsey! but that was the easy one - now give us the breakdown of GFFP :)
Ummm.... OK

I. Cue Aerosmith Music;

II. Liv Tyler starts singing Daddy's songs with lyrics re-written to be about Middle-earth;

III. Elijah Wood, Sean Astin, Dom Monaghan and Billy Boyd provide interpretive dances;

IV. Hugo Weaving lowers his sunglasses and smirks to Ian McKellan: "Men are weak if they are buying tickets for this thing: the blood of common sense has grown thin."

V. Film makes $400M in North America before as people who liked Rings & TH do not realize that the reviews and bad-word-of-mouth are not jokes!

GodricHollow
April 27th, 2008, 11:57 pm
Am I going to sound stupid if I ask what's GFFP?

Wimsey
April 28th, 2008, 12:11 am
Am I going to sound stupid if I ask what's GFFP?

"Greedy Fan-Fic Prequel": We were miscommunicating by not specifying whether we were writing about movie #1 or movie #2, and movie #2 needs a label!

Er, you do not think that it is pejorative or anything, do you? :cool:

GodricHollow
April 28th, 2008, 12:45 am
I'm a student. It's late, and I need to get up early tommorow for the first time in 4 days. Stop using fancy terms like perjorative and whatnot. :p

jammi567
April 28th, 2008, 1:19 am
IV. Hugo Weaving lowers his sunglasses and smirks to Ian McKellan: "Men are weak if they are buying tickets for this thing: the blood of common sense has grown thin."

V. Film makes $400M in North America before as people who liked Rings & TH do not realize that the reviews and bad-word-of-mouth are not jokes!

Ohh, come on mate, at least see the film before you critasize it! I'm sure it won't be that bad. Right...:err:

ginger1
April 28th, 2008, 11:20 am
Sorry, everyone, my fault for needling Wimsey on an obviously sore point! - but surely there is material within LOTR book - all the appendix stuff etc - to make a good movie for those of us who cannot get enough of middle earth.

Ok, so I don't know what the story would be (!) but in between Bilbo shutting his front door in bag end and the long expected party there's ...

Gollum leaving his cave and searching for his precious, Sauron openly becoming the bad guy, all of Arwen / Aragorn, and their history, the White Council and Saruman taking over Isengard - all of the conflict between Gandalf and Saruman, Aragorn's time with Thengel and Ecthelion.

And all the back story of the elves, men, dwarves - (Numenor would be visually quite entertaining :) )

OK, there's no story. I seem to have dug myself a hole here ... but the rise of the two sides, the good and bad, and the history of how they came to that one point at the beginning of LOTR when Gandalf and Sauron both realise where the ring is - would make a movie.

And I'm sure "they" the (IMO) wonderful set up in New Zealand, will put their all in to it. My twenty-something son was/is a great fan of the movies, and has just started reading the books - and he keeps saying how flawlessly the Arwen/Aragorn story was placed within the films - made up some/most of it - but it was seamless. "And that bit wasn't in the book either ..." - but we go along with it.

I, for one, will go with eager anticipation to The Hobbit - and if, in the intervening time, we get more info on the content of the second movie - (though I like GFFP - I still think of it as the "bridge" movie) - I will go and become as absorbed in middle earth as ever.

Am I a "sucker"? Yup. :)

ComicBookWorm
April 28th, 2008, 12:34 pm
Despite all the changes made to LOTR it remained true to the general vision of the story. I have confidence that can be done again.

Pearl_Took
April 28th, 2008, 12:59 pm
Anduril, that glossary of LotR movie-speak is hilarious. :D

Snape's role in Hallows obviously needs to be both Arwenizes and Faramirated: but that still will not be more than a couple of months works, tops.

Arwenized and Faramirated Snape. :lol::lol::lol: So, so true! (The film can do what Rowling failed to. :evil: )

Ah, you will note that I've quite given up: I think that the assertion that Rings is much less popular than Harry Potter made me (re)realize that I'm just the forehead of reality banging my head on the brickwall of fandom there!

LOL.

Regardless, I will make this bold prediction in advance. Given that Return sold 33% more tickets than Goblet (the last HP film to be released at the same general time of year), I am going to bet now that TH sells nearly twice as many tickets as DHII does.

If you made that claim on the movies thread, you'd be pelted with rotten tomatoes. :eyebrows: I'm not an expert on box office figures like you are, but I think DH will perform respectably enough. :) As to whether Joe and Jane Public will return for Part Two ... well, who knows. :( But Guillermo Del Toro's Hobbit is very keenly anticipated and I will not be surprised if it does better.

Of course some people are wailing about Jackson not directing.

Because, you know, Jackson was such a purist. :p :lol:

I feel pretty happy about Jackson's involvement in this. As for Del Toro, I think he's a great choice for director.

And now to call Christopher Tolkien in the dead of night to ask if his father intended Simbelmynë to be a member of the family Malvae.....

Nice try, Wims, but no cigar. :D

Despite all the changes made to LOTR it remained true to the general vision of LOTR. I have confidence that can be done again.

I could not agree more. :tu: I'm still not that jazzed about the second 'bridge' film, to be honest ... or what Wimsey calls the "Greedy Fan-Fic Prequel" ( :rotfl: ) but at least I feel happy about Del Toro at the helm of The Hobbit, with Jackson and WETA behind him. Yay. :)

And I am so, so glad they are not splitting The Hobbit in two.

Wimsey
April 28th, 2008, 2:19 pm
Despite all the changes made to LOTR it remained true to the general vision of the story. I have confidence that can be done again.And this is why I am being a snarky jerk with regard to GFFP! :cool: Prior to Rings, we could (and did at places like TORC) discuss what the story of Rings was and how to transpose that to film. I remember quite a bit of discussion about what Tolkien meant by "Death and Immortality": it was not as if Frodo sits around actively discussing this with Sam or Gandalf! We can do the same thing with The Hobbit (TH): there we have a story about one Hobbit realizing both that the world is to great to shut out but that he's "big" enough to have some effect.

For the GFFP, what can the story really be? ginger1 lists some notable events that happen in between, but history (real or fictional) is not story. It's all sort of background plot: it would be like making a "Harry Potter" film that showed us how James Potter and friends learned to make the Marauder's Map. Tolkien's stories have a common theme of "The Long Defeat": even when the good guys do beat Smaug or Sauron, it comes at tremendous cost, and once things are lost, they are lost forever. However, nothing quite like that happens in the 60 years between TH and the start of Rings.


Ultimately, there needs to be a "point." Rings had one (and feel free to dispute that it was "Death and Immortality": I do!). The Hobbit had one. Can the Bridge be more than eye-candy? Attack of the Clones was eye-candy, after all: but that is not the way I would like to see Tolkien's franchise remembered by Joe & Jane Public. Oh, I'll give it a chance (never fear, jammi!), and I am certain that it will sell a lot of tickets (unless TH is a dud): but if GFFP is just a bunch of events in Tolkienverse with no real story, then I'll be just as critical of it as I was of the first two Harry Potter films! :grumble:

Pearl_Took
April 28th, 2008, 2:44 pm
...if GFFP is just a bunch of events in Tolkienverse with no real story, then I'll be just as critical of it as I was of the first two Harry Potter films! :grumble:

And I'll join you happily in the snarkery. :cool:

Oh, Lord. I just read a post on some blog somewhere in reaction to the happy pronouncement about The Hobbit and some guy's going on about what a travesty the LotR films were and how PJ should have been burned at the stake.

I'm sorry, but ... :rotfl:

ComicBookWorm
April 28th, 2008, 2:47 pm
I could not agree more. I'm still not that jazzed about the second 'bridge' film, to be honest ... or what Wimsey calls the "Greedy Fan-Fic Prequel" ( ) but at least I feel happy about Del Toro at the helm of The Hobbit, with Jackson and WETA behind him. Yay. And I am so, so glad they are not splitting The Hobbit in two.I have my doubts too since it has such weak underpinnings.

Pearl_Took
April 28th, 2008, 3:46 pm
I have my doubts too since it has such weak underpinnings.

Exactly! :tu:

As Wimsey says, this would be akin to someone coming up with a Marauders-era film not based on anything that Rowling actually wrote. :whistle: OK, so it would be a cool concept but it would also be pure fanfiction. :shrug:

I mean, what would be the point of the LotR bridge film? That's what I don't understand.

Legalese
April 28th, 2008, 5:57 pm
I actually (sorry Pearl) would have been happier with a fleshed-out Hobbit split into two parts, rather than an amorphous, undefined "so-easy-to-get-out-of-hand" GFFP.

But I do have faith in PJ, GDT and especially Fran and Phillipa (I would join the Phillipa Boyens fan club if there were one!) I am thrilled to see John Howe, Alan Lee, Howard Shore, Ian McKellan, etc., coming back.

Klio
April 28th, 2008, 8:00 pm
Despite all the changes made to LOTR it remained true to the general vision of the story. I have confidence that can be done again.

Yes, indeed.... but which story will it be?



Concerning box office figures: I am absolutely convinced that both Hobbit films will beat HBP, DH1 and DH2 at the box office individually, pobabloy both in the states and overseas - but definitely overseas.

It will be fun to see whether TH1 and TH2 will beat the THREE remaining HP films ... it isn't entirely impossible...


But I'd better shut up... can't commit HP heresy on these boards! ;)

Pearl_Took
April 28th, 2008, 8:43 pm
I actually (sorry Pearl) would have been happier with a fleshed-out Hobbit split into two parts, rather than an amorphous, undefined "so-easy-to-get-out-of-hand" GFFP.

You do have a point there. :D

And I agree with you about Philippa. :tu: (Who spells her name the same way as me. :) )

I am convinced that she and Fran curbed Peter's excesses. :D I'm so glad those two women were involved in the screenplays!

But I'd better shut up... can't commit HP heresy on these boards! ;)

:lol:

Klio ... as much as I love my Harry, and wish the DH movie all the luck in the world, I do think you're probably right about the probable box office predictions. Bilbo will probably beat Harry out, as Frodo did. :whistle:

And there speaks the voice of hardened experience. :)

Oh, well. At least I can enjoy being a part of two such passionate fandoms. :)

Philippa (not Boyens :p )

Klio
April 28th, 2008, 8:59 pm
Well...... yes....

I better turn back into the star maiden and discuss this all in white on blue background. I guess it's more polite.... ;)

Pearl_Took
April 28th, 2008, 9:26 pm
Heh. I might join you there. ;)

Klio
April 29th, 2008, 4:14 pm
hehe. I hope I set a record. I think every self-respecting movie fan board has to have a box office thread about 3 1/2 yuears before a film is going to open. Absolutely essential, wouldn't you think? :D

Pearl_Took
April 29th, 2008, 5:18 pm
hehe. I hope I set a record. I think every self-respecting movie fan board has to have a box office thread about 3 1/2 years before a film is going to open. Absolutely essential, wouldn't you think? :D

:rotfl:

I think you've started a fine tradition, myself! :lol:

Wimsey
April 30th, 2008, 7:06 pm
As Wimsey says, this would be akin to someone coming up with a Marauders-era film not based on anything that Rowling actually wrote. :whistle: OK, so it would be a cool concept but it would also be pure fanfiction. :shrug: I think that it is possible that they are vastly overestimating the hardcore Tolkien fans. We are no more common than the hardcore Harry Potter fans or the hardcore Star Wars fans, etc. What made the Rings movie work was that they did not cater just to the fans. (Of course, that would not have "solved" everything from the Blogging Ranter's point of view as Tolkien fans have been arguing amongst themselves for decades anyway!)
I mean, what would be the point of the LotR bridge film? That's what I don't understand.$$$$. (My pound sign gets fudged over the Internet.)

Oh, wait: you mean the artistic point!

$$$$.

I actually (sorry Pearl) would have been happier with a fleshed-out Hobbit split into two parts, rather than an amorphous, undefined "so-easy-to-get-out-of-hand" GFFP.I just do not think that there is enough in TH for more than two-hours. Remember, "fleshed out" is not always a good thing. PJ fleshed out King Kong: and in doing so he lost the audience by developing tertiary characters and providing a "richer" backdrop for why/how Denham was making the film, Ann Darrow's plight, etc.: but this richness was just too much for the audience. Yes, it told the "love story" better than did the original version (but the original version was done before Jane Goodall and Diane Fossey, and that was NOT something that could be ignored), but it did not do so well enough to justify the extra 90 minutes in length!

It is the same thing as with Hallows: there are just parts of the Hobbit (e.g., Beorn) that do not really facilitate the story, and that make singular plot contributions that can be made elsewhere.

But I do have faith in PJ, GDT and especially Fran and Phillipa (I would join the Phillipa Boyens fan club if there were one!) I am thrilled to see John Howe, Alan Lee, Howard Shore, Ian McKellan, etc., coming back.Fan boy that I am, I'll probably see it at midnight! (Of course, I'll be so old by then, that I might have to catch a matinee :p) However, I'll be grumbling a lot, too.... (:grumble:)


Concerning box office figures: I am absolutely convinced that both Hobbit films will beat HBP, DH1 and DH2 at the box office individually, pobabloy both in the states and overseas - but definitely overseas.The HP movies have fared worse in N. America than overseas, although there was a huge drop in both after the first film. Chamber caused another drop, but Prisoner regained that audience, and Goblet & Order have held steady.
It will be fun to see whether TH1 and TH2 will beat the THREE remaining HP films ... it isn't entirely impossible...Given that King sold 4 tickets (worldwide) for every 3 tickets that Goblet sold, and given that the audience for a sequel is determined largely by the proportion of people that liked the prior film, I would say that it will do so without question. DH2 will be hard pressed to do better than Goblet because the films have been unable to win back many of the Columbus Casualties. Couple this with the less favorable season (summer box offices are awful "overseas"), and do not be surprised if DH2 gets Matrix3 numbers!

Now, GFFP might stink. However, that has little bearing on how well a sequel will do. Phantom Menace stunk, too: and that probably is putting it kindly. However, everybody ignored the bad reviews and bad word-of-mouth because they "knew" that they liked Star Wars: and, let's face it, given the media and Internet hype, we went to the midnight showings having read that the film was just bad.

So, let's suppose that The Hobbit is as well liked critically and (especially) commercially as Rings. GFFP might get bad reviews and bad word-of-mouth, but everybody will ignore those because they "know" that they like Tolkien movies. The audience for The Silmarillion might be a bit tapped, though... :cool:
But I'd better shut up... can't commit HP heresy on these boards! ;)*smells a stake warming up*


I am convinced that she and Fran curbed Peter's excesses. :D I'm so glad those two women were involved in the screenplays!I would phrase it differently. PJ is very representative of one aspect of Tolkien fandom. Fran & Phillipa are very representative of another aspect of Tolkien fandom. Having geeks from both aspects helped balance the films greatly: without PJ, I doubt that we would have gotten the spectacular cinema or humor; without Walsh or Boyens, we would not have gotten the more philosophical (perhaps even "spiritual") aspects of the story.

jammi567
April 30th, 2008, 7:40 pm
I think that it is possible that they are vastly overestimating the hardcore Tolkien fans. We are no more common than the hardcore Harry Potter fans or the hardcore Star Wars fans, etc. What made the Rings movie work was that they did not cater just to the fans. (Of course, that would not have "solved" everything from the Blogging Ranter's point of view as Tolkien fans have been arguing amongst themselves for decades anyway!)
Meh, i don't know what to think about this (although i definatly know that it's true). Next thing you know, WB'll be securing rights to make a movie from Jo's encyclopedia "to please the fans"


$$$$. (My pound sign gets fudged over the Internet.)

Oh, wait: you mean the artistic point!

$$$$.

:lol::lol::lol::lol: Now i remember why i like your posts so much, Wimsey (apart from the fact that you have more common sense then some members i know on this board).

I just do not think that there is enough in TH for more than two-hours. Remember, "fleshed out" is not always a good thing.
I definatly agree with this point, which is why i'm skeptical of movies over 2 1/2 hours long (and that's not counting movies that are split :rolleyes:).

Fan boy that I am, I'll probably see it at midnight! (Of course, I'll be so old by then, that I might have to catch a matinee :p) However, I'll be grumbling a lot, too.... (:grumble:)
No-one else in my family is a LotR's fanatic (or Hobbit fanatic), so i'll definatly be able to see it at midnight when it comes out, as i'll have no old people to deal with (my parents, btw!)


Now, GFFP might stink. However, that has little bearing on how well a sequel will do. Phantom Menace stunk, too: and that probably is putting it kindly. However, everybody ignored the bad reviews and bad word-of-mouth because they "knew" that they liked Star Wars: and, let's face it, given the media and Internet hype, we went to the midnight showings having read that the film was just bad.

So, let's suppose that The Hobbit is as well liked critically and (especially) commercially as Rings. GFFP might get bad reviews and bad word-of-mouth, but everybody will ignore those because they "know" that they like Tolkien movies. The audience for The Silmarillion might be a bit tapped, though... :cool:

Now, you know that that last sentence will never happen, as long as Chris is alive at least (i don't know about what his children and grandkids think about selling the rights to make a film).

And i really do think that it could be a good film. And before i go any further on this, i personally think that it would be a good idea to know what the different between "plot" and "story" is.

I would phrase it differently. PJ is very representative of one aspect of Tolkien fandom. Fran & Phillipa are very representative of another aspect of Tolkien fandom. Having geeks from both aspects helped balance the films greatly: without PJ, I doubt that we would have gotten the spectacular cinema or humor; without Walsh or Boyens, we would not have gotten the more philosophical (perhaps even "spiritual") aspects of the story.
Wow, that's a cool thing that i didn't know about.

Pearl_Took
May 1st, 2008, 12:08 pm
I think that it is possible that they are vastly overestimating the hardcore Tolkien fans. We are no more common than the hardcore Harry Potter fans or the hardcore Star Wars fans, etc. What made the Rings movie work was that they did not cater just to the fans. (Of course, that would not have "solved" everything from the Blogging Ranter's point of view as Tolkien fans have been arguing amongst themselves for decades anyway!)

Word. :tu: Oh, and :D for the Blogging Ranters. :lol: (What, Tolkien fans blog and rant? :D )

DH2 gets Matrix3 numbers!

:( I will not be at all surprised if you are proved right. :sigh:

I would phrase it differently. PJ is very representative of one aspect of Tolkien fandom. Fran & Phillipa are very representative of another aspect of Tolkien fandom. Having geeks from both aspects helped balance the films greatly: without PJ, I doubt that we would have gotten the spectacular cinema or humor; without Walsh or Boyens, we would not have gotten the more philosophical (perhaps even "spiritual") aspects of the story.

That's a really good point. :) I guess PJ is more like the war-gaming type of Tolkien fan then, in a way. :) And yes of course those films needed to be spectacular and bring Middle-earth to life in glorious CGI. :love:

Legalese
May 1st, 2008, 5:49 pm
I would phrase it differently. PJ is very representative of one aspect of Tolkien fandom. Fran & Phillipa are very representative of another aspect of Tolkien fandom. Having geeks from both aspects helped balance the films greatly: without PJ, I doubt that we would have gotten the spectacular cinema or humor; without Walsh or Boyens, we would not have gotten the more philosophical (perhaps even "spiritual") aspects of the story.


This is very true and very well-said. I am definitely in the Fran and Philippa camp, but I can definitely understand the PJ camp contingent who are very excited about the battles, screaming, chasing, fighting, hacking and decapitations. The movies had to include both aspects to become as successful as they were.

Klio
May 1st, 2008, 7:41 pm
Funny how the HP fandom splits in a similar way, just (I suppose) more outspokenly (is that a word?) so.

You know, those who say 'why wasn't there a final duel with bangs and flashes and action?' and those who say 'isn't it fantastic that harry didn't have to use a killing curse on V, because that is really meaningful., characterwise?'



I like that interpretation of PJ's style of fandom. I guess it is right. And having that side of it was clearly important... although i could still have done with fewer dwarf jokes :rolleyes:

Pearl_Took
May 1st, 2008, 8:24 pm
Funny how the HP fandom splits in a similar way, just (I suppose) more outspokenly (is that a word?) so.

You know, those who say 'why wasn't there a final duel with bangs and flashes and action?' and those who say 'isn't it fantastic that harry didn't have to use a killing curse on V, because that is really meaningful., characterwise?'

Yes, that's quite true, actually.

I loved Harry's final duel with Voldy. It was clever, and it was gripping. And it showed Harry's character in a good light.

... although i could still have done with fewer dwarf jokes :rolleyes:

Me too!

I am thankful that Del Toro is in charge of the thirteen dwarves. ;) Can you imagine PJ let loose on Thorin and company. :p

Klio
May 1st, 2008, 8:39 pm
Can you imagine PJ let loose on Thorin and company. :p



[makes vaguely apotropaeic gestures]

Eru beware! :eeep:

Wimsey
May 2nd, 2008, 2:32 am
Funny how the HP fandom splits in a similar way, just (I suppose) more outspokenly (is that a word?) so. Well, Rowling, too, has her "deplorable cult"! Just as with Tolkien, there are a lot of HP fans who are more interested in the world than in the story. We know how tetchy Tolkien was about this (and Rowling has shown signs of it). But that is my concern with the GFFP: it can fill in some "wouldn't it be neat to know..." details (which we will hate if they are not what we imagined!), but not provide any of the "truths" that Tolkien put into his stories.

This will be less of a concern with TH: there is plenty of room for both.
I like that interpretation of PJ's style of fandom.I can assure you that the 12-year who first read Lord of the Rings that still lingers in me thought that PJ held back too much! I'm not that 12-year old anymore: but I remember him, and that really is a big draw for Rings. The good thing was that they did not let that be the only draw.

One thing that the mix did do was make the movie appealing to women. New Line's stats indicated that only 42% of Fellowships' audience was female, at least in North America. That is a really unbalanced draw for a movie that sold over 50M tickets, but it was in keeping with the generalization of Tolkien fans as boys who are afraid of girls: unsupervised adventure in a female-free world! (And more than one movie reviewer made note that the Eye of Sauron looked suspiciously like something else that terrifies such young men.... :p)

However, New Line's stats showed that over 50% of the audience for King was female. The big build up in audience was bringing in all of those women, and that had to be due to Phillipa and Fran's contributions as much as the sexiness of Orlando and Viggo. In particular, the Frodo & Sam friendship really resonated with women, it seems.


But that leads to a big question: what do you do for female presence in The Hobbit??? Off hand, I cannot think of a single female character of any note in the story!!!

although i could still have done with fewer dwarf jokes :rolleyes:heh, well, sometimes you gotta roll with the punches!

However, that brings up another problem. Bombur is a naturally comic character, and (even more so than Gimli) the director has the choice of having the audience laugh at Bombur or laugh with him. But a bigger problem arises: much of the natural "humor" around Bombur involves his obesity: and people do not find obesity funny anymore. (Indeed, the show "Lost" uses one character's propensity to taunt another fat character to develop the first character as a jerk and to paint the obese character in a sympathetic light.)

Now, TH will need some humor and levity. And, quite frankly, with 12 dwarves, there has to be some distinguishing features. So, who should be the comedians and how should they be comical?

Klio
May 2nd, 2008, 2:41 am
Wimsey - firstly, I don't think that the BOOK readers split 40:60 in favour of men before the films came out. I can believe, however, that female fans were much more sceptical of PJ's films than men (especially the crucial 15-25 demographic).


And I have to say it AGAIN, a thousandth time (OK, I haven't said it here before). A book DOESN'T need female characters to appeal to women. Most women have no problem identifying with male characters.

it seems to be MALE critics (who apparently find it hard to identify with female characters) who seem to think that women don't like books with few women in them FOR that very reason. In my experience it isn't true. It IS true that many boosk that don't have many female characters also aren;t very well written in other aspects.

But a well written book set in a predominantly male world is no problem to most women, as far as I can tell. :)
At least not if they are not influenced by society telling them that women don't read 'that sort of book'.

Wimsey
May 2nd, 2008, 5:02 am
Wimsey - firstly, I don't think that the BOOK readers split 40:60 in favour of men before the films came out. I can believe, however, that female fans were much more sceptical of PJ's films than men (especially the crucial 15-25 demographic).Well, book readers almost certainly were split along a similar line, or so it was generally thought: the deviation was explained away as being due to the fact that Tolkien fans were (in general) male. Now, obviously Tolkien fans were only a small minority of the audience, especially those who were playing close attention to the movies: the trailers were notable for having nearly 2 million hits worldwide (which was a LOT), but Fellowship sold over 16 million tickets in North America alone in its first week. So, it seems that the appeal from the advertising worked had the same demographic impact as the books!

Also, I think that I must have been unclear. The shift in demographics (to "Boy Geekfest" to "Orlando Bloom Ruined Everything") happened between films. King sold approximately 6-7 million more tickets (again, N. America alone) than did Fellowship. The male audience held steady (given New Line's Numbers), which means that there were 6-7 million women buying tickets to King that never bought tickets for Fellowship! This new crowd almost certainly outnumbered Tolkien fans (at least in 2001) in North America!

Again, I think that a very simple explanation applies here: because the promotion for Fellowship could not help but to emphasize just how "male" the story was, women just were not as interested in seeing Fellowship as men were. (Keep in mind that Fellowship still should have sold 20+ million tickets to women, and that is a lot: it is just a lot less than you expect for a film that sold 30+ million tickets to men.)
And I have to say it AGAIN, a thousandth time (OK, I haven't said it here before). A book DOESN'T need female characters to appeal to women. Most women have no problem identifying with male characters.Actually, I am quite certain that there are numerous studies falsifying this view! Women make a very big deal of this issue, both academically and socially, and not just with Lord of the Rings. Now, some of these studies demonstrate that females have less difficulty relating to the opposite sex than do males: but that just separates bad from worse!

At any rate, a traditional explanation for the male-baised fan-base of Rings was the lack of women in the story. My sample size obviously borders on anecdotal, but this certainly is the main reason why almost no women that I know liked Rings prior to the films. (I have no idea if this affected anyone's views on The Hobbit: it was so much more rarely a topic of discussion than was Rings.)

This goes well beyond literature and movies, and it's a very serious issue in academic circles as there are innumerable studies falsifying the notion that women (especially young women) relate as easily to men as they do to women. As a result, the training of young women in sciences and other academics is hindered by the lack of women already there. Now, sexism is almost certainly a huge factor, but it is not the whole story. Professional women are happier being mentored by other women than by men, and more apt to be successful. (This has resulted in very uneven distributions of women in the sciences: in those subdisciplines where there have been a handful of successful women, the ratios often are close to 50:50; in those subdisciplines that lack the pioneers, it often is still Yale circa 1968!) Ultimately, it really is the exact same issue in a different setting.

That being written, I do not think that this will greatly hinder the box office of TH. People will go to that because they liked Rings. They won't walk out in time to refund their tickets, either! However, I suspect that it might bring about greater criticism than Rings got on this score: at least Rings elevated Arwen and emphasized Galadriel. However, there are no Arwens or Galadriels or even Lobelias in TH! So, what to do?

ComicBookWorm
May 2nd, 2008, 2:26 pm
The shift in demographics (to "Boy Geekfest" to "Orlando Bloom Ruined Everything") happened between films.
Don't blame Bloom, it was all Viggo Mortensen :drool:.

Klio
May 2nd, 2008, 5:58 pm
Well, book readers almost certainly were split along a similar line, or so it was generally thought: the deviation was explained away as being due to the fact that Tolkien fans were (in general) male.

So it was *generally* thought. Wrongly, as I'd say.

I don't think anyone had bothered to look how things actually were! When the fandom came out of the woodwork in the months before FotR (and I remember it well, because I saw it with glee) there was quite a bit of surprise that on the boards before the films came out you saw a 50/50 split along gender lines, or a slight imbalance in favour of women! And the average age was well above 25 - before the Orli craze started in any case.

This accounted for the unusually (for the internet) mellow atmosphere on most Tolkien boards.


I don't think that this was because women had disproportionat eaccess to the web - I'd say that if anything, the oppsite would have been true because scientists in those days still had a slight internet advantage.... but people who remember the LotR usenet groups commented that even THEN (in the male-dominated scientific community that USENET was) the LotR groups had striking proportions of women in them.


I think the 'predominantly male' Tolkien fandom was never more than a prejudice.

Incidentally, if you are looking for an explanation, one factor could be that for decades women have been more likely to read big books during their teens. The difference is very big. If there really is a bias of women against books dominated by males then that would probably make up for it quite easily. LotR with its 1000 pages of dense prose is certainly more of an obstacle for teenage boys.



Now, obviously Tolkien fans were only a small minority of the audience, especially those who were playing close attention to the movies: the trailers were notable for having nearly 2 million hits worldwide (which was a LOT), but Fellowship sold over 16 million tickets in North America alone in its first week. So, it seems that the appeal from the advertising worked had the same demographic impact as the books!

Also, I think that I must have been unclear. The shift in demographics (to "Boy Geekfest" to "Orlando Bloom Ruined Everything") happened between films. King sold approximately 6-7 million more tickets (again, N. America alone) than did Fellowship. The male audience held steady (given New Line's Numbers), which means that there were 6-7 million women buying tickets to King that never bought tickets for Fellowship! This new crowd almost certainly outnumbered Tolkien fans (at least in 2001) in North America!

No, I understood you right. I think the shift is explained best if we DO think about this in terms of the 'LotR fans are spotty teenage boys' prejudice. For women who didn't know the books this probably had 'takes a Y chromosome to enjoy this' written all over it - like, I dunno ... SpeedRacer or Transformers, with the added geek value of swords'n'sorcery.

I think the shift in demographics from FotR to TTT can be explained mostly from the non-book reading audience, and the fact that at some point during 2001 those men made lots of women watch the FotR DVD and got them hooked. :D


Incidentally - after FotR, the female demographic pulled in by LotR was considerable. Empire magazine registered a significant shift in the gender balance of its readers (which, unfortunately, didn't stop it from remaining un apologetically and boringly blokish). They put this down to female LotR fans getting into films.... In those days they DID, in fact, end up doing more covers with yummy men (as opposed to superheroes or scantily clad women)....



Actually, I am quite certain that there are numerous studies falsifying this view! Women make a very big deal of this issue, both academically and socially, and not just with Lord of the Rings. Now, some of these studies demonstrate that females have less difficulty relating to the opposite sex than do males: but that just separates bad from worse!
Actually, I think the noise about this in academia is quite a bit louder than out there in the general population. And the fact that women ALSO read bridget Jones or watch The princess Diaries doesn't mean that they can't cope with stories about make heroes as well. However, I think women are more picky about good plotting and characterisation, and many 'male books' simply don't care about that much, because (I have to assume from the material) men don't seem to be fussed as much.

Ultimately, I think it is the focus on character development rather than the gender of the characters that makes the difference.



At any rate, a traditional explanation for the male-baised fan-base of Rings was the lack of women in the story. My sample size obviously borders on anecdotal, but this certainly is the main reason why almost no women that I know liked Rings prior to the films. (I have no idea if this affected anyone's views on The Hobbit: it was so much more rarely a topic of discussion than was Rings.)

I think that the traditional explanation simply wasn't very well reflected or backed up by evidence. I couldn't otherwise see how on earth the gender composition of those LotR boards would have been what it was BEFORE December 2001!!!!

My sample-size outside the internet is equally anecdotal, but a majority people I could eventually identify in the RL as pre-movie LotR fans were women (and my career tends to mean that I hang out in groups of people where women are in the minority).



This goes well beyond literature and movies, and it's a very serious issue in academic circles as there are innumerable studies falsifying the notion that women (especially young women) relate as easily to men as they do to women. As a result, the training of young women in sciences and other academics is hindered by the lack of women already there. Now, sexism is almost certainly a huge factor, but it is not the whole story. Professional women are happier being mentored by other women than by men, and more apt to be successful.

Personally speaking, I do0n't THINK that women prefer to be mentored by women rather than men. Women often succumb to the 'queen bee' syndrome, while men enjoy to see the success of their protegees (on the average). This is well attested. But it is true, I think, that men aren't always as enthusiastic in mentoring women, and often, erm, other motives get in the way.

Personally speaking, the mentoring I have enjoyed most in my career I have received from men, while a majority of the knives that have ended up in my back, as well as bullying has come from women of equal or higher rank. Women are less good at doing the 'old boy network' thing and the 'patronage' thing. Unfortunately.

But I guess we are digressing.....



By the way - although I agree with feminist ideas, I find that feminist studies more often than not don't represent my experience, and often seem to back up, rather than question stereotypes. I find that quite a few women feel that way. I am not saying that there isn't a difference between men and women, and that women don;t have a hard time getting their due. But feminisits' analyisis of causes and exact nature of these factors is often worryingly 'off', IMHO.

ginger1
May 2nd, 2008, 11:29 pm
For me, it isn't a question of the fan base for rings being male or female - it's to do with the story. How it was told, how one is drawn into the world of Middle Earth - and I know Wimsey takes issue with me here :) I really do believe that the hero of the tale is Middle Earth ...

It was conjured up, dreamed up by a scholar who was an expert in his field. Tolkien had it all worked out, all sewn up (well, a work in progress), and just let us glimpse a tiny bit of the whole. In Lord of The Rings, part of the saga is developed, fleshed out, so much so that we can delight in reading the trilogy, - and then it can be taken onwards into a new form - and the combination of a good director, wonderful writers and concept artists, and Weta, and the location and all the rest of it can bring that story to a form which has delighted a whole new set of people - ones who wouldn't dream of reading anything, let alone a great work of fiction.

I honestly feel that it has nothing to do with a male / female appreciation. Sure, we are pleased that the actors chosen were, for the most part, good - but it's all to do with engaging our interest, our sympathy. If we care about what happens to the characters, if we want to know what happens next - then the film maker has done his job. Personally I think they did it in spades which is why I'm up for Hobbit 1 Hobbit 2 and any other bits of story that came from Tolkien's Middle Earth. Though I grant you The Simarillion would be a little difficult to break up into chapters!

Klio
May 3rd, 2008, 5:41 pm
ginger.... :tu:

Well said.... :)

You said it beautifully - I got myself all tangled up in arguments abot gender balance, just to show that the 'spotty teenage boy fan' cliche is, in fact, inaccurate - but I think you have the better arguments. :)

Rell
May 4th, 2008, 4:16 am
That was awesome Ginger :D

I love LoTR for the poetic like dialogue, the beautiful landscape, the universal message - the characters play a small part in the masterpiece, so I don't really care if they're men or women.

ComicBookWorm
May 5th, 2008, 10:22 pm
I was attracted to the movies because I had enjoyed the books. I then was enthralled by how well PJ had captured and presented Middle Earth and the Ring Saga.

ginger1
May 10th, 2008, 12:37 am
Well now the Internet Movie Data Base has, not only Gandalf - rumoured - Ian McKellan, but also Gollum - rumoured - Andy Serkis! How's that! Things are looking up ... :)

Rell
May 10th, 2008, 12:44 am
I don't think I could stand anyone other than andy serkis to play gollum. he sooooo nailed the character.

ComicBookWorm
May 10th, 2008, 8:49 am
I can't imagine an effective Gollum by anyone else.

Klio
May 12th, 2008, 1:34 am
Serkis and Mckellen are in - this is as official as things get this early. http://www.stuff.co.nz/4501827a1860.html
It's also on the websites of both actors. :)


That's SUCH a relief.

I wouldn't want anyone but Serkis for Gollum - although I have to say, his interpretation is not the only amazing interpretation of the character.

The other one is by the awesome Peter Woodthorpe - he did the BBC radio Gollum which is beyond brilliant, though funnier than Serkis' versions.

Klio
May 25th, 2008, 3:51 pm
I thought some people in here may want to hear this news....


PJ and GDT did a Question & Answer chat on Saturday. VERY interesting stuff! The trasncript can be found at the WETA website (http://www.wetanz.com/holics/index.php?itemid=695&catid=2).

ginger1
May 25th, 2008, 6:36 pm
Thank you, Klio, for that great link. (Large smile starts spreading across my face ...) I'm delighted that things are progressing - and along the lines that many of us have hoped. Hobbit = movie 1 and "something else" - the bridge movie - as 2.

And Middle Earth as the star of both :)

DeathlyH
May 25th, 2008, 7:11 pm
Well now the Internet Movie Data Base has, not only Gandalf - rumoured - Ian McKellan, but also Gollum - rumoured - Andy Serkis! How's that! Things are looking up ... :)Yay! Ian McKellan is back. :D I can't imagine anyone else playing Gandalf, I'm so glad he's coming back. Also, Gollum during TT and RotK was one of the best movie creatures ever, so if it ain't broke don't fix it. :D

Raven_Girly
May 26th, 2008, 5:26 am
It's great to hear that McKellen and Serkis will be back to do The Hobbit films! I'd hate to see anyone else in these roles.

Thanks for the link Klio, it was an interesting read (although I didn't read it all - it was quite long!). I'm glad that all the filming will be in New Zealand again! :clap:

ginger1
June 9th, 2008, 10:55 pm
The latest snippet of information has the director del Toro deciding that no-one is going to be even hinted at for the role of Bilbo Baggins for at least a year (interview in Empire magazine) - but the Internet Movie Data Base has supplied us with an actor - rumoured - James McAvoy!

Thoughts anyone?

Legalese
June 11th, 2008, 5:17 pm
I think McAvoy would be perfect. He has the right "look" and is a good actor. There is a lot of buzz connecting him with this part. We will just have to wait and see what truth is in it.

Angie
June 11th, 2008, 6:16 pm
I'd love James McAvoy to do it, but it's possible he may not want to do another fantasy film after playing Mr Tumnus

Pearl_Took
June 11th, 2008, 6:24 pm
I'd love James McAvoy to do it, but it's possible he may not want to do another fantasy film after playing Mr Tumnus

Having sung McAvoy's praises on another site :lol: and saying how good he would be as Bilbo -- he's such a talented actor -- I think you might well be right about that, Angie. :tu: In any case, it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't want to get involved.

Time will tell. :D

P.S. You've been here 1,444 days and have made just 8 posts? :wow: That deserves some kind of award. :lol:

Wolfsbane216
June 12th, 2008, 1:41 am
I cannot wait for The Hobbit. I loved LOTR, and this one is gonna be good.

phoenix88
June 12th, 2008, 2:20 am
I'm looking forward to it as well. By then DH 1 and 2 would have already been released and I know I'll be going thru severe HP withdrawal at that point :upset:
Having the hobbit movie come out will definitely help :tu:
I'm so glad ian mckellen would be back. As fangirlish as this may sound, I would love to have Legolas and Aragorn back as well :lol::lol:

SoulOfRebirth
June 19th, 2008, 9:06 am
So...Del Toro is directing this...for real?

Kind of an odd choice for The Hobbit, I guess, but so far I haven't seen a movie of his that I've disliked.

I'd imagine his take on The Hobbit will be to Middle-Earth what Cuaron's PoA was to HP? That could have a weird result.

But are they really splitting it? That seems even more ridiculous than the DH split.

phoenix88
June 19th, 2008, 9:40 am
So...Del Toro is directing this...for real?

Kind of an odd choice for The Hobbit, I guess, but so far I haven't seen a movie of his that I've disliked.

I'd imagine his take on The Hobbit will be to Middle-Earth what Cuaron's PoA was to HP? That could have a weird result.

But are they really splitting it? That seems even more ridiculous than the DH split.

They're not splitting the Hobbit itself. The first movie will be all based on the Hobbit. The 2nd film has been described as "the bridge" film, which will be about the events that took place between the Hobbit and FOTR. It's supposed to be based on the appendices, etc.

GodricHollow
June 19th, 2008, 12:07 pm
I doubt it would be like Cuaron's POA to be honest. I've only seen Pan's Labrynth and Hellboy of his, and they seem to be very different to POA.

Pearl_Took
June 19th, 2008, 12:55 pm
They're not splitting the Hobbit itself. The first movie will be all based on the Hobbit. The 2nd film has been described as "the bridge" film, which will be about the events that took place between the Hobbit and FOTR. It's supposed to be based on the appendices, etc.

Indeed, and the whole idea makes me go: :rolleyes: I loved Jackson's LotR, despite the liberties he took with the material, but I'm fairly meh about the second 'bridge' film. :shrug:

But I do feel enthusiasic about Del Toro helming The Hobbit. :agree: And if he wants to take a darker approach to the material than the original text does, then I say go for it, Guillermo, my man! :tu: He's already said he wants all thirteen of the Dwarves in. :cool:

I'm counting on a good casting choice for Bilbo. :) McKellan and Serkis will be returning as Gandalf and Gollum. :clap: And I want somebody really hunky to play Bard. :D

Just no cheesy Arwen/Aragorn romance, please. :rolleyes: The fans have had enough. :lol: Unfortunately, that's exactly the kind of thing that will probably go into the second 'bridge' movie, which Tolkien fans have already dubbed The Other One, The One They're Making Up. :rolleyes: :lol:

Oh, I dunno. The second 'bridge' film could be fabulous, with a truly amazing script, of course ... but my natural instinct is to feel very suspicious about anything not based on a strong storyline that Tolkien actually wrote. What will the central narrative be of this 'bridge' story, and who will be the main protagonist? Aragorn? Cue cheesy romance with Arwen ... :p

LOL, we're all waiting for Bilbo :D
http://www.waitingforbilbo.com/2008/06/15/and-so-it-begins/

And back in 2001, there was the legendary ‘Waiting for Frodo’:
http://www.electricpenguin.com/waitingforfrodo/archives/000429.html

SoulOfRebirth
June 20th, 2008, 2:40 am
They're not splitting the Hobbit itself. The first movie will be all based on the Hobbit. The 2nd film has been described as "the bridge" film, which will be about the events that took place between the Hobbit and FOTR. It's supposed to be based on the appendices, etc.


Oh. I see.

But...did anything even remotely interesting happen in between the Hobbit and LOTR? I mean, sure lots of stuff happened, but I can't think of anything that would stand out as being a particularly good movie.

But one thing's for sure...Osgiliath will probably be taken over again, since apparently there's a siege there every other weekend.

Pearl_Took
June 20th, 2008, 10:56 am
Oh. I see.

But...did anything even remotely interesting happen in between the Hobbit and LOTR? I mean, sure lots of stuff happened, but I can't think of anything that would stand out as being a particularly good movie.

You read my mind. :cool: EXACTLY. There's obviously loads of history that happens between the ending of The Hobbit and the beginning of LotR, stuff that keeps a geek happily reading the Appendices for hours :p, but I cannot see an over-riding story narrative emerging from that material. Which means that they will have to Make Things Up. Heaven help us. :sigh:

Which is why I give a :tu: for Del Toro's Hobbit -- a film based on a classic story with narrative and dialogue that Tolkien actually wrote ! -- and give a :td: for this second bridge film idea ... quest ... thingy.

But one thing's for sure...Osgiliath will probably be taken over again, since apparently there's a siege there every other weekend.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

SoulOfRebirth
June 21st, 2008, 8:10 am
Which means that they will have to Make Things Up. Heaven help us.

I don't even see why there needs to be a "bridge" at all. It's not like The Hobbit introduces any plot threads that aren't resolved in LOTR (I mean, with the obvious exception of the Ring itself). If maybe there was some kind of overlap beyond just Gollum I could see the point; but what exactly is this movie supposed to accomplish? There aren't any hanging loose ends to resolve and there's no need to explain how the world ends up as it is in LOTR (because LOTR already explained what it needed to of that).

But now that I think about it, I do have at least one lingering question. I do recall Gandalf frequently left during The Hobbit to deal with "some necromancer." Was that supposed to somehow, in some obscure way, set up the plot in LOTR? Was there an answer to that in the books? And is that what they're trying to make into the "bridge?" Even so I still don't think that's necessary at all.

jammi567
June 21st, 2008, 8:49 am
But now that I think about it, I do have at least one lingering question. I do recall Gandalf frequently left during The Hobbit to deal with "some necromancer." Was that supposed to somehow, in some obscure way, set up the plot in LOTR? Was there an answer to that in the books? And is that what they're trying to make into the "bridge?" Even so I still don't think that's necessary at all.
The necromancer was actually Sauron, hiding out in Dol Guldur whilst his servents caused terrible chaos across the land. But the driving out of Sauron happens at the end of the Hobbit (practically as a footnote), and that's what prompted him to proclaim himself and re-build the Dark Tower.

How's that? And that's something that the second film could show - the true details and reasons of what Gandalf was doing whilst he was away from the company.

Klio
June 21st, 2008, 11:31 am
Well, there is plenty of stuff that could happen between the Hobbit and LotR. I am also not quite sure why on earth they planned this 'bridge movie... thing' .... but it could be filled well (or extraordinarily badly, of course :D )

The hints we have had would suggest (perhaps?) that they'll focus a good deal on Gandalf's activities - the Necromancer story that is hinted at in the Hobbit, and then you can sort of see the creation of that world we see in LotR.

Gandalf and the Council worrying about Sauron., Saruman trying to distraft them, and then Gandalf setting a watch over the Shire... Gollum can be shown coming out from under the mountain and ending up in Mordor. Would be great to get the re-colonisation of Moria and its fall - that could be pretty exciting, and it does matter to LotR while also featuring some characters from TH.

Not sure - there is stuff I'd like to see.... but the whole thing could be pretty bad....

SoulOfRebirth
June 23rd, 2008, 4:42 am
The necromancer was actually Sauron, hiding out in Dol Guldur whilst his servents caused terrible chaos across the land. But the driving out of Sauron happens at the end of the Hobbit (practically as a footnote), and that's what prompted him to proclaim himself and re-build the Dark Tower.


I guessed as much, but I couldn't remember reading it anywhere.

Even so...a movie of that seems awfully self-indulgent.

Flameow
July 31st, 2008, 6:59 am
Del Toro is seriously directing this? Eeeee! :D
I'm a huge fan of his work, I can't wait to see how the Hobbit turns out. Del Toro is a master at creating monsters, and I know he'll do an amazing job with everything from the goblins to the dragon!

And to a previous post - I hope that Del Toro is to the Hobbit as Cuaron was to POA. Then The Hobbit would be jam-packed with awesome.

underscore
August 10th, 2008, 5:34 pm
Unless he can fill up this movie with loads and LOADS of more surrealist, magical, fictional elements than what actually exists in the Tolkien canon so that he can distract viewers from finally noticing his incapability of directing actors, then I'm afraid The Hobbit won't be able to live up to LoTR--except maybe for its action sequences. Still, Jackson's trilogy did have more than just cool battle sequences going for it.

Jezebel
August 13th, 2008, 4:49 am
I'm actually really excited for del Toro to direct The Hobbit. I think he'll do very well. I was bummed to hear Jackson wasn't directing, but he's still the producer. He's still got some say before the final product comes out.

I'm hearing rumors of James McAvoy as Bilbo. Whether it's old news now and they are officially not going with him, I don't know, but I think he'd be a good choice. I thought it sounded off at first, but after thinking about it I think he'd be great!

RemusLupinFan
August 13th, 2008, 5:07 am
I'm hearing rumors of James McAvoy as Bilbo. Whether it's old news now and they are officially not going with him, I don't know, but I think he'd be a good choice.That would be interesting, but I'd have thought they'd go with the original actor in LotR (Ian Holm), since there was a flashback to Bilbo finding the Ring in "The Fellowship of the Ring." Though I quite like James McAvoy, and despite the fact that he wears curly Hobbit-like hair very well (as Tumnus is an indication), I think I'd prefer to see Ian Holm reprise his role as Bilbo.

Jezebel
August 13th, 2008, 7:16 am
That would be interesting, but I'd have thought they'd go with the original actor in LotR (Ian Holm), since there was a flashback to Bilbo finding the Ring in "The Fellowship of the Ring." Though I quite like James McAvoy, and despite the fact that he wears curly Hobbit-like hair very well (as Tumnus is an indication), I think I'd prefer to see Ian Holm reprise his role as Bilbo.

I thought the same thing at first; why not just cast Ian Holm again. But, since Jackson isn't directing it I think it's safe for them to go with a slightly different cast. Even though it looks like Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis are reprising their roles (or at least they're rumored to). Thank God, because no one else could be Gandalf. McKellen owns!
Same thing with Serkis, he was brilliant as Gollum. As well as some of the other voice-overs he did.

I wonder if Serkis would do the voice of Smaug as well. I haven't exactly thought of anyone I'd like to hear voicing that character, but Andy would certainly do it justice I think.

RemusLupinFan
August 13th, 2008, 5:00 pm
I thought the same thing at first; why not just cast Ian Holm again. But, since Jackson isn't directing it I think it's safe for them to go with a slightly different cast. Even though it looks like Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis are reprising their roles (or at least they're rumored to). Thank God, because no one else could be Gandalf. McKellen owns!Ahh, I see. I very much hope Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis reprise their roles. As you say, they completely own those characters! I hadn't thought about Sirkis for the voice of Smaug, but I think he'd have to make it a lot different from his Gollum voice. I always pictured Smaug's voice to be really deep and booming. They're also going to have to find actors to play all the dwarves, as well as a whole bunch of stuntment for the orcs again. Even though I don't think this movie will compare to the LotR trilogy, I am looking forward to seeing it.

Pearl_Took
August 13th, 2008, 5:43 pm
Much as I love Sir Ian, and adore his performance as Bilbo -- he really IS Bilbo :agree: (and he was also awesome as Frodo in the 1981 BBC radio dramatisation of LotR) -- I do think he will now look too old to play a youngish, fifty-year old Bilbo in the Hobbit film. :shrug:

And anyway they need someone younger and with a much more 'sexy' profile for such a major part. 'Sexy' as in pulling in the crowds, I mean, not sexy in the way Aragorn is sexy. ;) Or young Elijah's dishy little Frodo. :eyebrows:

McAvoy has certainly been mentioned, and it was quite a serious rumour ... I am not sure if he has turned it down though. He'd have been good, he's a very versatile actor with a sort of hobbity look to him. :) But he has been Mr Tumnus, so maybe one fantasy franchise is one too many for him.

Gandalf can only be McKellan. And Serkis for Gollum.

As for Smaug, I want the voice of Alan Rickman. :D Only fitting he should be the snarkiest dragon ever. :lol:

Jezebel
August 13th, 2008, 6:58 pm
That's what I was wondering; if McAvoy would turn down The Hobbit just because of his role in another fantasy movie. Hopefully that wouldn't hinder his decision in taking on the role of Bilbo.

When reading the book I kind of always hear Ian McKellen's voice for Smaug. I know it wouldn't work in the movie since he'll probably, hopefully, be Gandalf. But that's who I hear.
Rickman would make one heck of a dragon, and snarky indeed!

Pearl_Took
August 14th, 2008, 12:00 am
Wouldn't he just? :rotfl:

ComicBookWorm
August 14th, 2008, 9:29 am
McAvoy has also been Leto Atreides in the Children of Dune miniseries.

RemusLupinFan
August 14th, 2008, 4:29 pm
McAvoy has also been Leto Atreides in the Children of Dune miniseries.Yup, that's where I first found him. :eyebrows: I think if Ian Holm doesn't play Bilbo again, McAvoy could do a good job. He was certainly great as Mr. Tumnus in Narnia. I can't really think of anyone else off hand who would be great for the role of young Bilbo, so I'm inclined to go along with whomever is cast.

I also wonder who they will choose to play the Dwarves, particularly Thorin Oakenshield (the dwarf king).

Jezebel
August 14th, 2008, 6:18 pm
I agree with you ^ I haven't been able to think of anyone I'd like to see play Bilbo (aside from McAvoy), so I think I'd accept anyone they chose to cast for the part.

The dwarves will be interesting. I wonder if they'll just go with unknown actors or try and get someone big to play the part.

Yewberryblu
August 20th, 2008, 9:19 pm
I read an article in The Guardian today about there being two Hobbit films...(the film section of www.guardian.co.uk) and that there seems to be some doubt about who is going to write the screenplays...

Sorry if this has already been discussed but I had no idea that there would be two films - I can't tell you how happy that makes me! Yay - the Aragorn/Arwen love story - the White Council - the Necromancer - Gandalf's previous ventures into Moria - Aragorn in Rohan/Gondor...?

Wonderful! :lol:

RemusLupinFan
August 20th, 2008, 10:14 pm
I read an article in The Guardian today about there being two Hobbit films...(the film section of www.guardian.co.uk) and that there seems to be some doubt about who is going to write the screenplays...

Sorry if this has already been discussed but I had no idea that there would be two films - I can't tell you how happy that makes me! Yay - the Aragorn/Arwen love story - the White Council - the Necromancer - Gandalf's previous ventures into Moria - Aragorn in Rohan/Gondor...?

Wonderful! :lol:I hadn't heard about this - thanks for posting it. :) I guess it looks like they are going to do one movie based on The Hobbit book, and another from the time where The Hobbit ends up until the Lord of the Rings begins. Here's what the article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/aug/20/lordoftherings.thehobbit) says:Tolkien only wrote one book, which Jackson has said will form the basis of one of the movies. That means he and Del Toro face the challenging task of adapting the author's thinly-sketched writings about the period between the end of The Hobbit and the start of The Lord of the Rings into a standalone sequel. The two films will be shot simultaneously, and should arrive in cinemas in 2011 and 2012.This is definitely exciting news!

GodricHollow
August 20th, 2008, 10:52 pm
I would think that they'll focus more on the forming of the Council and the original take-down of Sauron.

Yewberryblu
August 21st, 2008, 9:50 am
You're welcome, Remus :) - anything to add to the general levels of Tolkien joy in the world :lol:

I wonder how that second film would work in reality? The Hobbit plot is simple, strong and really, really good. The LOTR plot was driven and fantastically well put together on film (IMO).

But a film which has to scratch around in the appendices of LOTR or from the hints and facts dropped by characters as to what went on before Frodo grows up ? Might it have no real plot driving it forward? It would rely on the audience having watched The Hobbit and being familiar with LOTR - which many of us fans will be (hey, I bet most of us here could quote verbatim long stretches of both book and films ;)) - but it's that narrative drive that I'm concerned about.......no one main story propelling it all forward?

I guess that is where Gandalf, the White Council and the Necromancer come in to it....but I still wonder if it might end up being a conglomeration of disjointed scenes.....

I'll still be there, of course! :p

Pearl_Took
August 21st, 2008, 1:22 pm
.......no one main story propelling it all forward?

I guess that is where Gandalf, the White Council and the Necromancer come in to it....but I still wonder if it might end up being a conglomeration of disjointed scenes.....

This is precisely my concern about this second 'bridge' film. :shrug: What's the story? The narrative? Who will the main protagonist be -- Gandalf or Aragorn? I want a bit more than Portrait of Isildur's Heir as a Young Man. :whistle: :p

I'm jazzed for Del Toro's Hobbit :) but I feel a bit grumpy about this second film, almost like a purist. :p I can tolerate the screen treatment of the Arwen/Aragorn romance in the trilogy but Liv and Viggo never quite had the chemistry of Wenham/Miranda ... or Viggo/Miranda, come to that. ;)

RemusLupinFan
August 21st, 2008, 4:12 pm
What's the story? The narrative? Who will the main protagonist be -- Gandalf or Aragorn? I want a bit more than Portrait of Isildur's Heir as a Young Man. I'm also wondering what the story will be. If it is to be a bridge movie between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, it couldn't be about the first downfall of Sauron, because that happens before The Hobbit takes place (though that would make an interesting movie). I'm trying to think what actually happens in that time period, and the only things I'm coming up with are (like you said) the story of Aragorn and Arwen, Aragorn and Gandalf's hunting for Gollum, or perhaps something about the Necromancer in Mirkwood and Gandalf's dealings in trying to confront him. I suppose the second film could have some overlap in the timeframe that the first film takes place in, but instead of being from Bilbo's point of view it could be from Gandalf's (or Aragorn's). Myself, I hope Aragorn is the protagonist. :whistle:

Yewberryblu
August 21st, 2008, 9:33 pm
I want a bit more than Portrait of Isildur's Heir as a Young Man. :whistle: :p

I can tolerate the screen treatment of the Arwen/Aragorn romance in the trilogy but Liv and Viggo never quite had the chemistry of Wenham/Miranda ... or Viggo/Miranda, come to that. ;)

**** :lol: - whaddya mean, you don't like the sound of "The Diary of Aragorn Elessar Aged 65 and a Half" ? :lol:

Liv and Viggo...heh....Eowyn and Grima had more sexual chemistry than those two! I would willingly volunteer for the role of Arwen ; with some botox, sellotape, make up and phenomenal CGI I could be Arwen, I really could be....:evil: Heck, I feel 3,000 years old, it wouldn't require much acting......

I wonder if an idea for the bridge film is to centre it all on the Ring...to show Bilbo getting "thin and stretched"...to see Frodo coming into his life...to see the Necromancer growing in power, etc.

And I wonder if Aragorn's mother will show up?

Siriusandme
August 21st, 2008, 9:53 pm
I'm really looking forward to the Hobbit film, but i'm not sure about the 2e one.... What I would really love is a film about the last alliance.. Cute elves and men and a big battle... Can it get any better???:love: But i suppose that won't be happening... :no:

SoulOfRebirth
August 21st, 2008, 10:02 pm
I'm really looking forward to the Hobbit film, but i'm not sure about the 2e one.... What I would really love is a film about the last alliance.. Cute elves and men and a big battle... Can it get any better??? But i suppose that won't be happening...

I agree with you. I think a prequel would be a lot more interesting than this in-between rubbish.

Eowyn and Grima had more sexual chemistry than those two!

Ew. Never say that again. Haha.

Siriusandme
August 22nd, 2008, 8:03 am
Exactly.. They can't do a film about the entire Silmarillion and the Last Alliance part seems like the best part for a film....

I just don't want that guy from the Fellowship as Gilgalad...He didn't look very elvish to me.. :no: Should be someone who looks like he is 20... Ben Barnes looks elvish enough (whatever that is...:err:), but I'm not sure he could pull it off... And not Hugo Weaving as Elrond. He looks too old!!!!!

Pearl_Took
August 22nd, 2008, 11:47 am
**** :lol: - whaddya mean, you don't like the sound of "The Diary of Aragorn Elessar Aged 65 and a Half" ? :lol:

Funnily enough, no. :D Although I'd read Cassie Claire's Secret Diaries of the Fellowship any day. "Still not king." :lol:

Liv and Viggo...heh....Eowyn and Grima had more sexual chemistry than those two!

:rotfl: Too true. ;) Although Aragorn snogging Arwen at the coronation was :tu:

Oh, and if my day job involved snogging Viggo in his Aragorn gear ... :evil:

And I wonder if Aragorn's mother will show up?

I wonder if Frodo's mother will show up. :p That would be so cute ... Drogo and Primula. :love:

Exactly.. They can't do a film about the entire Silmarillion and the Last Alliance part seems like the best part for a film....

Those hot Elves from the Second Age? :drool: Bring it ON! :tu:

If they cast Ben Barnes as some scorchingly hot Noldorin dude, I'd be RIGHT there, lemme tell ya. :eyebrows: First in the queue for cinema tickets. :lol:

Klio
September 4th, 2008, 2:38 am
.... mhhhhh..... Ben Barnes as one of the sons of Feanor.... or something. mhhh.... :drool:


... wait... you almost had me distracted there. No Silmarillion material on film anytime soon. Christopher Tolkien won't have it. *sigh*

RemusLupinFan
September 4th, 2008, 2:44 am
No Silmarillion material on film anytime soon. Christopher Tolkien won't have it.That's too bad - I'd have loved to see something like Luthien and Beren and the taking of one of the Silmarils from Morgoth's crown. I guess we still don't know what the "in-between" movie will cover. :shrug:

vampiricduck
September 7th, 2008, 5:24 am
That's too bad - I'd have loved to see something like Luthien and Beren and the taking of one of the Silmarils from Morgoth's crown. I guess we still don't know what the "in-between" movie will cover. :shrug:

I would dearly love to see Eru's story committed to celluloid. It's one of the most beautiful things I have ever read. *mesmerized*

Aw, I've read that Christopher Lee, though he would love to be involved, doesn't think that, at his age, he would be happy with flying to New Zealand. Such a shame.

ginger1
October 10th, 2008, 1:29 pm
Recent interviews with Del Toro seem to suggest that it is a two-part Hobbit - and not the hobbit and something else (breathes sigh of relief :) ) - in fact he is quoted as saying that "it will be possible to consider his two films and Jackson's three as one continuous film."

He also hints that the first film will end with the death of Smaug - leaving the second part to cover the battle of the five armies and Bilbo's return to Bag-End.

Thoughts?

vampiricduck
October 10th, 2008, 4:26 pm
I figure that makes a great deal of sense, sticks to the books and ends appropriately at the death of Smaug for the first one. Makes perfect sense to me, and I would dearly like that. It means there'll be no rush, it will work as he wishes it to, and we'll get just as much luxury out of it too.

:D

ComicBookWorm
October 12th, 2008, 4:49 pm
There isn't that much material in the Hobbit. It's not that long a book.

vampiricduck
October 12th, 2008, 5:42 pm
No, it's not, but there are enough characters that we should get some extra time with them to make it work to perfection. I mean, otherwise I know for a fact that people not used to the book would be mildly lost, you know? I went to see LoTR with my mom and she was missing some of the vital clues about characters. She kept asking who was who, while agreeing that the films themselves were stunning. So I like the idea that dragging it out slightly will be good, but I hope it doesn't go overboard to that extent.

Along with that, I'm sure the "turning to stone" scene will be great- and I know it will be there because Bilbo actually tells that part of the story to some younger hobbits in Fellowship of the Ring. Therefore, if it's not there (and it's a huge part, so I assume it will be), the films won't run together so well.