Peter Jackson Hints At The Hobbit 721
Hellboy0101 writes "News.com.au is reporting that New Line Cinema is currently in talks to purchase the rights to the film adaptation of The Hobbit. There are apparently some difficulties with getting the go ahead from Tolkien's son Christopher, who is executor of the estate. When asked if New Line has approached him about the project, Jackson said he has not ruled it out, but not until after King Kong is done. 'New Line, which spent $US300million ($415 million) making the films, is already planning to continue its Rings success with an adaptation of Tolkien's novel The Hobbit.
More difficulties with the Tolkien estate were looming, said Jackson, who added that he would be keen to get involved after he finishes remaking King Kong in 2006. "New Line haven't actually talked to me about The Hobbit. I know there's difficulty about the rights, certainly if they want to talk to me about it I'd be keen," he said.'"
Please, no hobbit! (Score:4, Insightful)
Gandalf aging backwards? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Keen? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Seems odd (Score:1, Insightful)
For the Community (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone should tell Jackson that there's a whole lot you can do for a community besides put up a museum or a monument to what you did with their tax break, and it need not even be an eyesore like that statue he wants. How about building parks and playgrounds? Contributing to local health programs? Financial aid for economically depressed areas? Charities? Libraries? Help for schools?
These and a whole lot of others are ways to give back to the community in ways that really help. And they don't require the permission of the Tolkien estate either.
the Hobbit will be better than LOTR (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember the animated version? It was really goood! I'd imagine that a live action version, using WETA's technology, could potentially be even better.
Re:It'd suck. Guaranteed. (Score:4, Insightful)
I wouldn't put down The Hobbit like that. Even though the details are simplified, it doesn't mean they aren't there. I read The Hobbit, and then LOTR, the Silmarillion, then going back to reread The Hobbit I found that it's remarkably consistant with the materials from the other books (granted, Tolkien did a bit of revisionist history with "The Hobbit", but I digress).
The Hobbit also introduces us to the hardy race of halflings which at first seem unlikely that little Bilbo could even survive the dangerous journey with the dwarves, but later he turns into the most resourceful and most heroic character in the book (very convincingly too).
The only way it would work would be if it was deliberately filmed and marketed as a movie for young children.
I'm not sure it'll be terribly suitable for young children. It's going to have giant spiders biting the protagonists, and the battle of five armies is rather bloody indeed.
Re:Please, no hobbit! (Score:5, Insightful)
So? That's generally the situation with any movie adapted from a book. Movies written from pre-existing works are based on another's perception of that work, never a direct expression of the work itself (unless, I suppose, the author of that work participates in the film-making. In which case the movie will still by slightly influenced by the director's interpretation). Besides, I wouldn't necessarily rule out the possibility that the same children you think are reading The Hobbit are also reading the LOTR books. In any case, they'll still get the full value of the books if they are read, and still much of the story if they just watch the movies instead without ever reading them. Either way the story is told, which is the important thing.
It's like that version of Romeo and Juliet we all had to watch in middle school. It was a pretty loose interpretation of Shakespeare, but for those that would have never read it on their own, it atleast instilled a good sense of the work.
Re:I haven't read the book (Score:4, Insightful)
But if you don't like it, no big deal.
Re:Details, please? (Score:5, Insightful)
Go Jackson! (Score:2, Insightful)
And it would give a chance for Peter Jackson to prove that prequels (though Hobbit isn't exactly a prequel to LoTR) to hugely popular trilogies can work!! *Star Wars... hint hint*
And ohh, I'd much rather see The Hobbit than King Kong.
Re:Seems odd (Score:2, Insightful)
The 1933 version was avante garde at the time, being 'movie magic'. But the plot has been retread so many times, it just needs a burial. You can only dress it up so much with CG, but you can't capture the original story's 'wow' in today's time.
Hopefully PJ will get the Hobbit contract inked in advance, just in case....
Re:Please, no hobbit! (Score:5, Insightful)
actually, if the movie is tailored for a wide audience (PG-13) then most kids will get a chance to read the book before they're old enough to see the movie.
When I was seeing the "The Two Towers", before the movie started, my wife and I started talking to this young girl (must have been under 8) who was there with her mother. She was seated in front of us and doing the usual young child sit-backward-in-the-seat-and-gape-at-strangers trick. We asked her if she'd seen the first movie; she said yes. We asked her if she liked it; she said yes. I asked her if she liked reading the books (hell, I first read them when I was about her age) and she replied, "Oh no, I don't have to read the books - my mom is buying the DVD!".
I didn't know who to slap - the little girl or her mother.
Re:It'd suck. Guaranteed. (Score:2, Insightful)
they even mention "the necromancer" in the hobbit, which is a clear reference to sauron, if not just one of his nazgul.
I think it has amazing potential.
Re:For the Community (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My personal opinion (Score:4, Insightful)
Moreover, the simple structure of his myths contain, if anything, a parallel to the Gnostic pseudo-christian myths of the 15th century with a creator-god with no direct intervention in the world, not to mention the lack of any Christ-figure, is quite contrary to normal Christian mythos.
Re:Gandalf aging backwards? (Score:5, Insightful)
Gandalf is not a man -- he is istari, an immortal Maya (sort of a "lesser god"). He came to Middle Earth a few thousand years before the action of LOTR takes place and he was already old back then, considering he's been around in one shape or the other since the creation of Arda. :)
See more here: Encyclopedia of Arda [glyphweb.com]
Damn... Did I just fail the geek outing test?
Re:Please, no hobbit! (Score:2, Insightful)
When did this fixation that books were somehow 'superior' to visual media first come into vogue? I've seen some very moving movies in my time, and read some awful books.
So the kid doesn't want to read the LoTR. It's not a big deal, they'll probably read the next Harry Potter or something. The important thing is that they enjoyed it. Maybe they'll find time to read the books later.
YLFIRe:For the Community (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:ATTN: PETER JACKSON (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Please, no hobbit! (Score:5, Insightful)
On the contrary said the author, my book still exists in its original form. Nothing has changed except that a new movie was made.
Re:Please, no hobbit! (Score:5, Insightful)
King Kong Bomb (Score:4, Insightful)
The remake is being done on the strength of Mr. Jackson's 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy, which has sold (or will have sold in a few months time) over a billion dollars US in box office tickets after costing roughly $200 million to make and promote worldwide. Impressive, yes.
The Lord of the Rings is a dense multi-volume fully realized fantasy that has offered a rich complex story and hundreds of opportunities for using state-of-the-art computer-generated imagery to complement the plot into a strong, enveloping film fantasy.
But $400 million for King Kong?!? This is a flimsy plot about a giant ape who develops an obsession about a tiny blonde human woman pet. (Hollywood metaphor anyone?). Big monkey lives on a distant island; whites come; they capture him (somehow); they take him to New York, he flips out, smashes up some shti, climbs a building, and gets shot down. Duh, end of story.
How is this worth making into a $400 million movie? Or, rather, how is $400 million going to make a better movie than the original or the 1978 Jessica Lange remake? More computer graphic imagery? Of what? A big monkey smashing things in NYC? Didn't we see all that already in the remake of Godzilla? You remember that... The remake of Godzilla that cost $80 million and lost most of it because it was stupid and a completely unnecessary film? How are you going to cover a $400 million investment on a big monkey film?
I haven't seen the new Peter Jackson 'King Kong'. Hell, it hasn't even been made. In fact, the producers are wracking their pointed little heads trying to think of some new angle that will get 45 million people to pay $10 each just to cover the pre-production cost ($400 million film and $50 million in publicity).
But I just know it's a bomb. It's the 'Gigli' of Summer 2006. And it's going to take a studio or two down with it.
This isn't a troll, it's a tragedy...
Thank you kindly,
Re:King Kong Bomb (Score:2, Insightful)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Re:Please, no hobbit! (Score:5, Insightful)
It would, quite frankly, rock.
Gee I wonder why... (Score:2, Insightful)
Gee, I wonder why... could it be because the lord of the rings' adaption to the big screen was everything Tolkien was afraid of and his son is now starting to realize the old man was right ?
nah, they prolly just didn't offer enough money
lone, dfx
Re:King Kong Bomb (Score:5, Insightful)
Dear Christopher Tolkien... (Score:2, Insightful)
You said the movie trilogy would be an unsuccessful adaptation of the book. Yep. A $300 million budget with triple return profits. Nah. It'll never work...
Regardless to ones opinion on whether or not bringing LOTR to film was successful or not, it has brought hundreds of thousands of minds, young and old, to the works of your father and to his books.
I had never read The Lord of the Rings. Never planned to. I saw LOTR, ran and tripped over myself to buy and read those books. I discovered a tangible world of unsurpassed creativity and passion.
Let the dreamers dream. Should Tolkien Enterprises have to look over every painting, writing, thought, or daydream, to see if its in line with your fathers vision?
The LOTR movies are an interpretation of the book, by a handful who loved the book. As cliche as that is, its so very accurate. More lives have been touched by the books than ever before. It is the second highest selling book internationally next to the bible. With Peter Jackson's help, it looks like we might just be giving Jesus a run for his money.
The fans aren't stupid. They know who J. R. R. Tolkien is. These movies have not, and cannot touch that. Don't suppress the creativity of others because your worried it will tarnish his legacy... If anything, these movies, through exploring and digging deeper into the works of your father have only strengthened his honor.
I have a funny feeling that your pops would give Peter Jackson a nice warm smile and firm hug after viewing the movies.
So stop being silly. Lets make The Hobbit.
Some things are hard to unlearn (Score:3, Insightful)
Not all experience, or learning, is positive, and some things can't be unlearned.
"Polanyi admits that focusing on particulars may improve our capacity to attend to the overall meaning. For instance, when we analyze poetry we might temporarily destroy our appreciation of it but it also makes for a much richer understanding once our attention is returned to the whole. It can be expected that one's understanding will be different from one's original understanding once attention has been shifted to the particulars and then back to the whole, in keeping with the idea that the relationship between the proximal and distal terms is dynamic and an active shaping of experience. The shifting of awareness may improve on previous understanding--as in the case with the poem, but, according to Polanyi, one's perspective can never be the same."
I believe that the contrast is also true, If you see a bad movie (or even a good one) it can forever alter how you view the book. Not always a bad thing, but usually somthing is lost after watching a bad film based on a good book.
Re:Details, please? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing is being "destroyed" here with Peter Jackson and WETA at the helm.
The problem with long copyrights (Score:5, Insightful)
Oops, he's been dead for thirty years. Probably isn't going to be writing another book set in Middle Earth I guess.
The Hobbit was published in 1937. I think 66 years is plenty of time to recoop the his effort. I appreciate the intent of allowing copyright to pass on to one's heirs, but it's been 30 years since Tolkien died. Can't Christopher Tolkien create something of value himself to provide for himself? Heck, he's got to be doing well, and at 77 maybe it's time to retire and let the rest of the world enjoy a work you didn't actually create!
The Founder's Copyright [creativecommons.org] still covers 99% of the potential value of copyrighted works and manages to do it without putting culture under chains.
Re:Please, no hobbit! (Score:3, Insightful)
The point, of course, is that film and literature are distinct arts, even when they avail themselves of each other.
It is quite possible that the LOTR films be "better" than the books. The books are wonderful, but they have flaws. There is some truly unnecessary material, from a narrative perspective, in the books. In Jackson's view, the Scouring of the Shire is one of those flaws. The Godfather films outshone the novels they were based on: likewise the film The Third Man and the Graham Greene story novel on which it was based. As far as I'm concerned, I don't really feel any need to read Mario Puzo's work.
Re:The problem with long copyrights (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't have to run all tales through the Jacksonian action filter before you may enjoy them. Sometimes the original might be good enough.
Fact check -- STOP blaming the Tolkien Estate! (Score:5, Insightful)
In 1976, the Saul Zaentz Co., doing business as Tolkien Enterprises [tolkien-ent.com], acquired rights to both The Hobbit and LotR. This agreement included the film rights. Tolkien Enterprises entered into an agreement with WB so that they could film the Rankin & Bass animated version of The Hobbit. Now comes the fun part: WB still has those rights, and they're sitting on them like a broody hen with only one egg.
New Line can't greenlight Peter -- they don't have the rights, and aren't likely to get them in the near future. Rumor has it that a few of the key brass over at the Frog Studio are a little cheesed off about the fact that a bunch of Hobbits, Elves, Dwarves, and other assorted mangy fairy-tale creatures have been collectively kicking the backside of a certain boy wizard at the box office for the past two Christmases running. Heh.
Now OTOH, the Tolkien Estate is being a pain in the butt about the idea of a movie museum in Wellington. And for that, Christopher Tolkien can rightly be accused of behaving like the dog in the manger.
Re:Please, no hobbit! (Score:3, Insightful)
It is Tolkien's character who are out of cardboard. That's the nature of a myth. There is nothing wrng with it. Go and read it again.
I love LOTR, and the vision that Jackson brought to screen is an excelent job. Get over it it is not the book - it is a movie. Pretty darn good movie. Nobody took the book from you - it is still on your shelf. Or, is it?
Re:Please, no hobbit! (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they are. Movies are limited to only 2 of he five senses. They're also limiited to the time people are willing to sit in a theater, the amount of money in the budget, the technical capabilites at the time of production, the abilities of the cast and crew, the interpretation of the dirctor, etc.
Books have no such limitation. The only limitations are the imagination of the reader and the ability of the author. They have far more room to grow and explore than movies do. Concepts that would utterly fail in a cramped media like film can work when powered by your imagination. And unlike movies, who's effects get dated, the power of the written word never fades.
You may find a few so-so books turned into decent movies. And you may find an adaptation that makes you look at something differently. But you will never find a good or great book that is surpassed by a movie version.
Re:You are in a comfortable tunnel like hall (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The problem with long copyrights (Score:5, Insightful)
Try reading the Silmarillion or the Unfinished Tales. Why, take a look at the Books of Lost Tales as well.
It is quite possible that those beautiful, indeed, essential volumes in the tale of the Middle-Earth would not exist without Christopher, or at least wouldn't, in all probability, fit in so well with the original published works of JRRT. Christopher is, quite understandably so, the best Tolkien scholar par none.
It's actually interesting how real life mirrors the fantasy. What Christopher's been doing with his father's writings is very much the same thing that Frodo and Sam did for Bilbo's Red Book.
I for my part am forever grateful for Christopher for publishing any- and everything his father left behind. And I understand his grudge with the franchising of Middle-Earth, even as I love the movies on their own accord.
Are they selling McLembas already?
Re:Please, no hobbit! (Score:2, Insightful)
So books taste better than movie popcorn? Sorry, I'll buy healthier (all that fiber), but not better tasting.
-Jeff
Hate to differ on taste... (Score:4, Insightful)
The Rings animated adaptation was doomed partly by the scope of the books, but your reaction's just colored by your having seen the live action first. My kids chose it to rent out last year too, and it had some things going for it, it genuinely did. I'd take the animated version of the hobbits' meeting with Strider over Peter Jackson's; it did a much better job of allowing him to be enigmatic, whereas the recent Fellowship telegraphed that scene badly. (I'm not so into Vigo in the role, he's way self-conscious.) In general the animated version has a lot less time for orcs screaming their lungs out to shell shock the audience, too, which ain't so bad to do without.
Not that they're perfect, but this isn't nearly as much of a train wreck as Attack of the Clones, or not in my book. The adapters did "get" the original stories, they understood the lines of each scene. If the Rings cartoon breaks down, it's mostly because of scope and their production values. And no, they didn't let the dwarves become a running short joke, either, or Legolas a rad surfer dude.
Re:Please, no hobbit! (Score:3, Insightful)
Shawshank Redemption. From the short story "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" by Stephen King. A very good story, but surpassed by the movie. The movie added richness that imagination could not, as most of us can't imagine the inside of a prison.
Re:Ridiculous corporate welfare! (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a growing trend to exempt corporations from all taxes, either directly or indirectly. (Enron, as a famous example, had a net government income from all its tax schemes
Corporations have had enough loopholes during the 20th Century to whittle down taxation enough. What's happening now is tax-abatement-whoring -- based upon a desperate and consuming greed that doesn't have the word "enough" in its volcabulary -- that is well on the way to ultimately collapse the so-called "civilized world". The end product will be a form of government by corporate fealty, letting millions starve and freeze out of their supposed civilization, while bribed groups of "enforcement officers" kill and kill like something out of a William Gibson novel.
Many people claim that this won't happen, but these claims are performed as an act of willful ignorance, and are squawks of desperation. Like the flat-Earth majority of ages past, they are wrong. Corporations are blackmailing municipalities left and right by the sheer mobility of their capital assets. This is producing further concentration of wealth which furthers the process of raping the social prosperity.
To nearly sum up this with an anecdote: a local property developer in Toledo OH was whining to the press that his application for a tax abatement was refused by the city council. He said something like "why is the council opposing this?". This illustrates current business thinking, in which welfare is so expected that not granting it is seen as stopping the process of business investment. But the process is only being stopped by the developer's reluctance to invest his money, which is an act of a dangerous elitist that America supposedly dispensed with 2 centuries ago.
In conclusion, I leave you with a paraphrased quote that my memory is unable to attribute at this time: "What people don't realize is that corporations are equally at risk to moral decay in the face of corporate welfare, as the poor are in the face of individual welfare."