Peter Jackson Says "Hobbit" Movie In The Works 442
Patik writes "'Lord of the Rings' Director Peter Jackson is planning to film 'The Hobbit,' according to this Associated Press article. Jackson, who is currently filming 'King Kong', is waiting for New Line and MGM, the two studios with rights to the film, to battle it out for rights to make the prequel. Jackson also mentions wanting the movie to feel just like the LOTR trilogy, including having Ian McKellen return as Gandalf." (This is better than just hinting.)
Ian Holm returns as Bilbo? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ian Holm returns as Bilbo? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ian Holm returns as Bilbo? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, moderately content.
Re:Ian Holm returns as Bilbo? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ian Holm returns as Bilbo? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Ian Holm returns as Bilbo? (Score:5, Informative)
Anyways, what I'm saying here is that they can have the guy that played Bilbo play it again. Same character, same looks. I can't wait to see the dwarves
Re:Ian Holm returns as Bilbo? (Score:5, Informative)
He felt like "butter spread across too much bread" because the Ring was exerting more and more of its power over him, turning him inexorably into what Smeagol ultimately became. Which is part of the reason that Gandalf was most insistent that Bilbo leave the Ring at that point (at the beginning of the Fellowship); later he may not have physically been able to do it.
Re:Ian Holm returns as Bilbo? (Score:5, Funny)
Although I found it weird in the movie that Gollum didn't age since Bilbo took the ring those decades ago. But Bilbo had aged considerably between leaving the ring for Frodo and setting out to the Grey Havens.
Gollum was so consumed with The Ring that he was like Sauron, only without all the cool powers. Basically, if the ring died, Gollum died. As long as it lived, he lived. As Gandalf said in the books, at least, Gollum's fate was tied to the ring for better or for worse.
Of course, falling headfirst into a pool of liquid hot magma (cue Dr. Evil finger to the mouth) is for worse...
Perfected? (Score:5, Interesting)
There were various other places in LOTR where you could clearly see how animated things were. A couple of scenes with Legolas, and the scene where Gandalf leads the fellowship through the giant underground hall come to mind.
Re:Perfected? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Perfected? (Score:5, Funny)
Plus no-one ever thinks of all the unemployed puppets that CG is producing... Falcor and the cast of Labyrinth (except Bowie) are all queued up down at the unemployment office thanks to Weta.
Re:Perfected? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Perfected? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Perfected? (Score:4, Insightful)
As for the CG effect.. Tolkien maybe meant him to be a sketchy character..
Re:Ian Holm returns as Bilbo? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ian Holm returns as Bilbo? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Ian Holm returns as Bilbo? (Score:5, Funny)
well hell we can just cut the ending short like we did with the scouring of the shire.
Re:Ian Holm returns as Bilbo? (Score:3, Insightful)
In any case, this is fantastic news!
Re:Ian Holm returns as Bilbo? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure he'd find it supremely uncomfortable to undergo this for an entire movie shoot, and I'm not sure it could be sustained for all the necessary camera angles. But of course CGI will have advanced significantly in the two or more years before I'd expect the film rights could be straightened out.
Re:Another possibility... (Score:5, Informative)
But at 33 a hobbit has just come of age, so he should look young. Since he was carrying the ring,
which more or less stops aging, he should continue to look young throughout the story.
Re:Another possibility... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Another possibility... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Another possibility... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Smell a Lucas? (Score:5, Informative)
If Jackson does cut the end from the Hobbit, would the title then be The Hobbit, or There and... ?
Uh oh.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Uh oh.. (Score:5, Informative)
The Silmarillion is all back-ground to the main story of LOTR, and although hard to get though it certainly gives many insights into the world as a whole. Not one to put into film, but definatly a book for anybody who wants to really get to grips with the works of J.R.R Tolkien
Re:Uh oh.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Isolated by chapter, there are at least 3 decent movies in "The Silmarillion". The material included is as complete as it needs to be, for the most part. You don't need a thick novel to make a film out of - look at all the PK Dick movies out there, or all the movies based on Stephen King short stories.
On the whole, I think an awesome movie could be made about the War of the Silmarils, though it would require looser boundaries than the LOTR adaptation.
As for The Silmarillion being a tough read, if people aren't taking into account the nature of the book (which is detailed explicitly in the prologue, notes and appendices) then they aren't reading it to begin with...
Re:Uh oh.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Uh oh.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Though I have to agree that there should never be a Silmarillion movie. The information density in The Silmarillion is much, much higher compared to LotR. If The Silmarillion had been written in the same style as LotR, it would probably be many thousands of pages long. There's no way that can be transformed into a watchable movie.
Should Peter Jackson really feel the need to make more Tolkien movies even after The Hobbit, I think he should look at the tale of Beren and Luthien (one of the more independent chapters from The Silmarillion, and not as complex as the rest of the book).
Re:Uh oh.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, I think the tale of Turin would work equally well. You could even, perhaps, make something useful out of Tuor and the fall of Gondolin.
There's plenty of material to mine in the Silmarillion, you just have to try to find good ways to isolate out elements of it. Usefully, of course, the more of the independent stories you tell, the more background you end up providing along the way, which allows you to work on the slightly more interwoven tales (the story of Earendil, for instance, would be fantastic, assuming a little bit of established background).
Jedidiah.
Jedidiah.
Re:Uh oh.. (Score:4, Interesting)
A nice tragic story about a somewhat socially inept (cursed in fact), but otherwise likeable guy, who is remarkably handy with a sword, for whom life constatly goes terribly wrong. Despite unending failures and setbacks he plods along as best he can and manages to slay the father of all dragons before being utterly carried away by the tide of failures stacked against him by his curse, and killing himself.
Hooray for dark gritty story telling that doesn't involve elf maidens dressing up as giant vampire bats.
Oh, and if you want beautiful women in the story, there's both Morwen and Nienor.
Jedidiah.
Re:Uh oh.. (Score:5, Funny)
Funny you should mention this. When I was a freshman in 9th grade, we had to do our first ever research paper for our english class. I chose the Silmarilion as my book, thinking I could make a logical argument about the story in my thesis and be done with it. After a couple weeks hammering through it, I began to hallucinate and think it was part of the torah.
Seriously, half the book was "and so-and-so begot so-and-so, who later went on and married so-and-so who begot so-and-so". By the time I was done, and my fragile little freshman mind was completely fried from trying to figure this thing out, I had a research paper on how Sauron wasn't evil and everybody else was out to get him. I don't remember how I proved this, but I somehow managed to find enough evidence to back it up. I got an A, and was forever known in that class as "the kid has too much time on his hands". God what I wouldn't give to still have a copy of that paper.
Re:Uh oh.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Part 1 - Principal character: Feanor. It would start with the awakening of the elves and then Orome taking the three elves to Valinor, and where they become kings and then return to middle earth to convince the others to come too. But some (the Sindar) stay (story of Thingol and Melian). Aule teaches the Noldor in craft skill and Feanor creates the Silmarils. Melkor and Ungoliant destroy the two trees. Feanor leads the Noldor out of Aman, kinslaying on Tol Eressa to steal the ships of the Teleri, and then Feanor sneaking away from Fingolfin and his host, making them cross the Helcaraxe. The movie would end with the creation of the Sun and Moon and the fortification of Aman.
Part 2 - Principal Character: Various men
Starts with the awakening of men and their migration west and sometimes friendly, sometimes weary relations with the elves, continues on to Dagor Bragollach and the battle of Fingolfin and Morgorth. Next would of course be the story of Beren and Luthien, and then the battle of Unnumbered Tears. Next
Part 3 - Turin, Tuor, Earendil
Starts with Turin and the slaying of Glauring. Next the ruin of Doriath chapter. Then comes Tuor's quest for Gondolin and the fall of Gondolin, and then finally, the huge finale, Earendil's quest for Valinor and the following War of Wrath.
There could even be a Part 4 for the Akallabeth. That would also rock.
I would rather see those four movies made than the Hobbit actually, but it's not my decision
Chris
How long can he wait? (Score:5, Informative)
A "few years" may make the movie seem disjointed from the rest of them. One of the great things about the first three is that noone really aged. If he waits 5+ years to make what is supposed to be a prequel, will those look out of place?
Re:How long can he wait? (Score:3, Informative)
I think the only reason to make it ASAP is cause I really want to see it.
Re:How long can he wait? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How long can he wait? (Score:3, Funny)
Doesn't matter. They can just get Mary Alice [cinescape.com] to replace him, and then throw in some jive bullshit about why he looks different and how "there was a cost".
Then again, judging from the senselessness of some of Jackson's alterations from the books, we can probably expect Tom Bombadil to show up in this one.
Re: How long can he wait? (Score:5, Interesting)
Nor do I think that continuity with LOTR is a good argument here. Yes, there he's 'well-preserved' for 111, but there are still some changes, and in the flashback to the finding of the ring, he's made to look younger. I doubt that, several years since that was filmed, they'd be able to keep that up for an entire movie.
No, I think we'll have to get used to the idea of someone else playing Bilbo. If they choose well, that someone will bring a liveliness and sense of humour to the story which will probably turn out for the best.
Re: How long can he wait? (Score:4, Interesting)
Uh, he did already, in Fellowship of the Ring. I'd be very surprised if they used a different actor for Bilbo. What's going to happen when you finish watching the Hobbit and then go into Fellowship and see that prologue? Ian Holm's gonna be the one stumbling across the ring in Gollum's cave. He's gonna be the one greeting Gandalf at Bag-End in the beginning. And he's the one Gandalf is going to say "hasn't aged a day."
Christopher Lee is like 82 freaking years old. If he can last three 3-hour movies playing an evil wizard, I think Ian Holm can stand to be a nervous little burglar running around invisibly.
Re:How long can he wait? (Score:5, Funny)
Wait...
Re:How long can he wait? (Score:5, Informative)
Bilbo,
Gandalf,
Elrond,
Gollum
Gandalf should probably appear older than his post-resurrected self anyway, but not much changed than from the Fellowship. Bilbo should appear roughly the same age as in the Fellowship since the ring preserved him. Elrond should appear more or less exactly the same. Gollum shouldn't be a problem age-wise. If they use the same actors they do need to do it within the next 5 or 6 years, I think.
Outside that, Legolas and Gimili's parents/relatives are in the movie. They might get the same actors to play the roles of the Elvish King of Mirkwood and one of the Dwarves in the Party.
I look forward to seeing CG Smaug.
I do have a concern about the Trolls. They are an important part of the book. Bilbo gains the respect of the Dwarves by defeating them. I hope they are handled well.
The Trolls should look nothing like the Cave Troll in the Fellowship. They are more like country bumpkins. They have clothes, sacks, ropes and know how to make jelly. They have some kind of civilization. They are stupid but are not animalistic like the trolls in LOTR the movie.
Oh well. I will wait the 5 or 6 years it takes for the movie to come out to be disappointed.
Re:How long can he wait? (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
He was even shown in the FotR movie, although he remained silent there.
Re:How long can he wait? (Score:4, Funny)
Only the Elves... (Score:3, Informative)
Kjella
Can he (or anybody) repeat it the glory though? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can he (or anybody) repeat it the glory though? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Can he (or anybody) repeat it the glory though? (Score:3, Insightful)
And it has a Dragon!
Re:Can he (or anybody) repeat it the glory though? (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is, people *do* know what to expect from "the Hobbit", having read the book and seen the LotR films. And this one is much more conductive to film than those were, which should make his work even easier. All PJ has to do is not foul things up and the fans will be back like they were for the previous movies.
High pressure (Score:5, Funny)
When can I... (Score:4, Funny)
yes!! (Score:3, Interesting)
smog (Score:5, Funny)
Let's hope Jackson keeps his movies straight. (Score:5, Funny)
HSX (Score:5, Informative)
Proper feel? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Proper feel? (Score:5, Interesting)
_The Hobbit_ is different. There are plenty of internal conflicts and chances to develop characters. Though the dwarves are a little (har har) cookie cutter, Bilbo and Gandalf can certainly be fleshed out. I personally think that _The Hobbit_ would be *easier* to make because it has a decent plot (questish, but still decent), enough battle scenes and is sufficiently dark to not alienate LOTR fans. With only a couple central characters, it would be more of an actor's movie.
Dark? The riddle scenes were, when I first read them, pretty engrossing. With a treatment like that given to Shelob, it would as threatening. There's maybe not as much psychological darkness, but there's lots to be said for physical terror (dragon, trolls, Gollum).
I don't mean to elevate TH above what Tolkien intended, but I have seen more than a couple papers contrasting/comparing TH with Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" and even Dante's "Inferno". Some of these are stretches, true, but I think that to discount the literary aspect of TH and call it strictly a fairy tale would be a disservice to Tolkien.
Re:Proper feel? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fairy tales are the centre of quite a lot of literary study, for there's often much more depth than there seems to be on the surface. Certainly, one of my favourite novels and films, The Last Unicorn, is clearly a fairy tale while also being a great piece of literature.
No, I'd say that The Hobbit is very much a fairy tale; and very much literary, as well. The two are not exclusive.
McKellen Up For It (Score:5, Informative)
The Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, it is a great story, and if done right it could be a great movie, but if it made along the lines of "Now we have better computers and can have ten times more people at the final battle" then that would destroy it (and the continuity).
In that sense, I think trying to make something out of the stories in The Silmarrilion would be better (those battles really were bigger) - but obviously brining that to the screen would involve basically filling a story around the history told in the book. And I doubt the movie rights were ever sold, or that Christoffer Tolkien would not.
Re:The Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
I see your point, but still have to disagree that The Simarrilion would be a better basis for a movie than The Hobbit. The Simarrilion was dripping with exactally the kind of complex histories, tangled family lines, and generally convoluted plots that Jackson et al worked so hard to remove from LOTR to make it watchable by the general public (i.e. people like my sister who had never read the books).
The hobbit on the other hand has a well-defined group of heros who go on an interesting walk thru the woods and see some nifty stuff along the way. And as for the 'better computers means more people in the final battle' thing, I'd hope the technology would scale well enough to do the battle of five armies justice - that'd just be plain cool.
Re:The Problem (Score:4, Insightful)
The execs are getting a movie with trolls, orcs (goblins), eagles, Beorn, a dragon and a battle of five armies. I expect that'll be "epic" enough to suit them and the audience without straying far from the source material.
Not to mention Peter Jackson will have as much (or more) creative control this time around.
Brian Blessed for Thorin! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Brian Blessed for Thorin! (Score:3, Informative)
http://imdb.com/name/nm0000306/ [imdb.com]
That is too bad. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd like to see someone find a worthy writer, hand them one of the stories from one of the Books of Lost Tales or one of Tolkien's other nearly-finished works, say "here, clean this up and turn it into something we can use as a screenplay", and make a movie out of it.
Could he do the Hobbit like The Godfather Part II? (Score:4, Interesting)
budget? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:budget? (Score:4, Informative)
Ummm, The Battle of Five Armies???
Re:budget? (Score:4, Informative)
And then there's the whole Smaug rampage scene.
The Elvish transition (Score:5, Funny)
"Fa, la, la, la lolly"
LoTR elves:
"Are time is done, woes."
Las Vegas Elvis:
"Do you take the woman to be your lawfully wedded wife"
San Fransisco Elvis:
"Do you take the woman to be your lawfully wedded husband"
Elvis Costello:
"Hey man, leave me out of you dumb Elvish thing."
Abbot and Castello:
"Who's on first..."
and so on
changes for movie (Score:5, Funny)
Re:changes for movie (Score:3, Funny)
Smaug, breathing smoke: "No MAN can kill me"
A dozen dwarves and a hobbit jump on him with spears.
Re:changes for movie (Score:3, Funny)
Arwen's in Lorien during the events of The Hobbit.
Christ, doesn't anyone read the appendices in LOTR?
Was LOTR really that good? (Score:5, Interesting)
Overall, while I enjoyed the movies, I would question some of the following:
- the character acting/development: maybe not bad, but the actors weren't given much to work with at times
- the script to the last movie: too scattered, trying to cram everything in without ever really coming together neatly in a form palatable for a movie
- the pacing: considering what was cut, there were some ridiculously ponderous bits and other parts where whole swathes of the book were glossed over in a couple of seconds
- the feeling that, by the end, Jackson is just telling someone elses story rather than presenting us with a piece of work in its own right. This combined with decisions to reduce Saruman's role and symbolism hurt the broader themes of the trilogy for me.
I wonder if, perhaps in desperation after what Lucas (*hiss* *hiss* tool of the devil!) and the Warchowskis heaved out this past few years we were all just so damn relieved that the LOTR movies didn't totally blow that we all got a bit carried away?
Thoughts? Flames?
PS
I still expect the Hobbit would rock - based on the above, I think it would be much better suited to Jackson's directing style, with more opportunity for strong character work and humour that is actually meant to be there.
Re:Was LOTR really that good? (Score:3, Insightful)
In some movies you get the idea that the characters are secondary to the plot and the visual. FOTR showed many sides to the characters but these tend to be missing in the latter films. Not that they weren't there, only that the battle was bigger. It felt as
Re:Was LOTR really that good? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Was LOTR really that good? (Score:4, Insightful)
I know ST was a violent affront to the book, but I tend to view it thus: it was so different it was really not an adaptation at all. I mean, in the book they barely even fight any bugs. As a schlock sci-fi movie with a ridiculous budget, ST has got to be one of the most entertaining movies I've seen, however - kinda like From Dusk Till Dawn in space.
Speaking of Fight Club, am I insane? Why do so many people hate/dislike this movie? It *is* startlingly great, right? And as an adaptation of a book, it couldn't be better done. As the author said, he felt slightly foolish after he saw how good the movie was, he felt the book didn't do it justice.
Re:Was LOTR really that good? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not a flame, just wondering if you've seen the extended edition of The Two Towers? While I agree that the cinematic cut of FOTR was the best the three cinematic cuts, The Two Towers EE is far more well structured than the theatrical version. It even *feels* shorter, despite being 45 minutes longer.
So, I'm waiting for the extended edition of ROTK before commenting on the series as a whole.
Re:Was LOTR really that good? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Was LOTR really that good? (Score:4, Insightful)
- the script to the last movie: too scattered, trying to cram everything in without ever really coming together neatly in a form palatable for a movie
- the pacing: considering what was cut, there were some ridiculously ponderous bits and other parts where whole swathes of the book were glossed over in a couple of seconds
- the feeling that, by the end, Jackson is just telling someone elses story rather than presenting us with a piece of work in its own right. This combined with decisions to reduce Saruman's role and symbolism hurt the broader themes of the trilogy for me.
I'll wait for the Extended Edition and its 40 extra minutes before saying anything about ROTK. The EE's for the former parts were excellent IMHO and often added "calmer" scenes when there was much action in the movies, to balance things.
I think the Theatre Editions are mostly just unfortunate side effects of giving the audience (and the movie company) something easier to swallow and not how PJ truly intended the movies to be watched... The TE's are there to satisfy as many as possible, the EE's are there to satisfy fans like you and me who enter discussions at Slashdot with movie analyses.
Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know that traditionally, the theatrical version has been the 'definitive' one, and that DVD extras have been add-ons thrown in quickly to make up the weight. However, despite PJ's comments a few months ago, IMO the definitive versions of LOTR are really the extended DVD editions. They have better pacing, a more coherent plotline, lots of telling details -- in short, the story is given more room to breathe, and works all the better for it.
So please don't judge ROTK until you've seen the EE. If the first two are anything to go by, I suspect we'll see a lot more character development (hopefully involving Denethor's corruption, and Faramir's and Eowyn's recoveries, and maybe more of Aragorn, as well as Saruman's closure), better explanation and progression of the plot, better pacing, and more balance in the grand themes and symbolism. Calling the theatrical versions 'edited highlights' would be unfair, but perhaps it wouldn't be that far from the truth. It's amazing what PJ managed to pack into each 3-hour slot; but the EEs are more amazing still.
Of course, even the EE won't be perfect. There are still flaws, awkward issues and disappointments. But despite those, I think LOTR is a magnificent achievement, wonderful to watch and better than we had any right to hope for.
BTW, I wonder if his may be the start of a deep change in the industry, where what you see in the cinema is no longer seen as the most important part of moviemaking, and where DVD &c editions may come to take on equal or greater importance overall.
Re:Was LOTR really that good? (Score:5, Insightful)
The sheer amount of technical work that went into the movies to create a completely believable world is mind-boggling. A great deal of skill also went into turning a dense, rambling, laboring, symbolist epic into a screen adaptation without losing any of its power, grace, or richness. Jackson struck exactly the right chord with most audiences: his version was easy to follow by people who didn't know the books, yet so chock-full of information as to satisfy even the most die-hard fans of the books.
No movie will ever live up to hype. Ever. Our minds can create expectations that will never be exceeded by the director. Where a movie succeeds despite the hype is how it seems later, when the roar has died down. Rewatching the LOTR films, I get more out of them every time. I pick up on more subtle plot points. I see character relationships I didn't notice before. I see small details. The picture gains depth.
Contrast this rewatching with something like The Matrix trilogy, or the Star Wars Prequels. Every time I rewatch Episodes I and II, I cringe. They are worse with every viewing, far removed from the gee-whiz special effects hype. The original Matrix movie holds up well, but that was back when the Wachowskis were trying to prove themselves. Reloaded still seems ok, although the mythology is a little cheapened, and the pacing is plodding. I don't like rewatching Revolutions at all, because it's far too over-the-top. There's no substance.
Do the LOTR movies stand as a work on their own? Well, yes and no. On the one hand, they can't be considered their own work: they are an adaptation of another work. But on the other hand, they are well executed and digestable by people who have not read the books.
*Disclaimer: I refuse to comment on whether or not Return of the King deserved best picture, either by its own right or as a proxy for the entire trilogy. The five movies nominated were so totally and utterly diverse that comparing them to each other would be a waste of time. There was no "single winner" in that category this year.
My only question (Score:3, Funny)
Re:My only question (Score:4, Funny)
1) Saying goodbye to Thorin. A bittersweet moment, after which the screen goes dark.
2) Saying goodbye to Bard and the Lakemen. A bittersweet moment, after which the screen goes dark.
3) Saying goodbye to the Mirkwood elves. A bittersweet moment, after which the screen goes dark.
4) Saying goodbye to Beorn. A bittersweet moment, after which the screen goes dark.
5) Saying goodbye to Elrond. A bittersweet moment, after which the screen goes dark.
Fans of the Hobbit will, of course, be outraged that Peter Jackson didn't film the auction of Bagend. "It's totally changes the whole theme of the story," one fan protests.
Okay (Score:5, Funny)
In other words, waiting for eight dozen corporate executives and lawyers to agree who gets paid how much and when?
Buy the book.
I wonder (Spoilers if you havn't read the Hobbit) (Score:5, Interesting)
Other than gandalf going on for about 5 minutes saying "yeah interesting ring and that gollum creature sounded neat, maybe it will be important in the future but I garuntee that absolutely nothing else will happen with respect to either until long after our adventure is done." I can't see how they'll possibly deal with the ring. Are there people here who read the Hobbit after reading LOTR and remember their reactions? Any ideas how they might deal with the ring?
Re:I wonder (Spoilers if you havn't read the Hobbi (Score:5, Informative)
It's only when Gollum researches the origins of his Precious, in order to find it again, that the name 'Baggins' is brought to the attention of Sauron. Gollum is caught and then released, whereupon he found and carefully evaded Shelob... both escapes for a price.
Re: I wonder (Spoilers if you haven't read the... (Score:4, Insightful)
(Of course, there were suspicious circumstances attached to it: Gollum's extreme possessiveness; its magical nature; Bilbo hiding it and then lying about its origin. Gandalf was suspicious of it from the first; in the film, maybe a few telling glances from him could speak volumes.)
That's often the nature of evil; it's deceptive and can appear perfectly innocent at first. (I know Tolkien didn't intend any direct allegories in his work, but occasional resonances like that do happen.)
Re:I wonder (Spoilers if you havn't read the Hobbi (Score:5, Informative)
As long as we don't have to listen to Elrond going on about how man can't handle things.
In the works? nah... Slashdot bait-n-switch (Score:4, Insightful)
It says two film studios have conflicting rights and are battling to see whose rights take precedence.
It says "if he were going to direct the movie" he would this... "I'd want Ian McKellen"... more *IF* statements.
Of course the studios want the movie made. Prequal to an 11 Oscars film? $$$
What the article basicly says is that there *isn't* a movie in the works. If it were in the works, and Peter Jackson was to direct it, he'd "like" this done this way or that way....
I saw absolutely no quotes where he said anything about something being "done".
This has offered no new information and just regurgitated wants and hopes and I resent being so happily drawn here by the RSS feed I saw it on.
Sleet
Leaked or Faked Trailer? (Score:3, Informative)
Anyone else see this, or know anything about it?
Re:Leaked or Faked Trailer? (Score:4, Informative)
borrowed scenes from the LOTR trilogy and some dragon movie that I didn't recognize. (Dragonslayer on further investigation.)
Very well done, as it obvious sucked you into believing it. But it was definitely faked.
See here [ananova.com] for instance.
LOTR actors that could show up in The Hobbit movie (Score:5, Informative)
From The Book
- Bilbo - Ian Holm
- Gandalf - Ian McKellen
- Elrond - Hugo Weaving
- Gollum / Smeagol - Andy Serkis
Possible LOTR Characters Cameos
- Legolas - Orlando Bloom (Legolas is the son of King Thranduil of Mirkwood (the Elvenking of "The Hobbit"))
- Arwen Evenstar - Liv Tyler (daughter of Elrond, but stayed at Lothlorien at times - unlikely to appear, but it could make an appearance)
- Aragorn / Strider - Viggo Mortenson (Aragorn was raised in Rivendell, and so could make an appearance. He's known in "The Fellowship of the Ring" to be good friends with Bilbo)
- Barliman Butterbur - David Weatherley (though Bree is not mentioned, I believe, Bilbo and company could easily pass through Bree as its on the way)
- Other LOTR Elves - most any could show again if desired
Unlikely To Appear
- LOTR Hobbits - mostly all too young
- Gimli - probably too young or not born, as Gloin, Gimli's father, is described, I believe, as a young dwarf in "The Hobbit". On the other hand, dwarves are long lived (compared to humans) and so what's "young"? Hobbits came of age in their 30's or 40's (can't remember which off the top of my head).
Others?
Cadmann
Re:LOTR actors that could show up in The Hobbit mo (Score:5, Informative)
Some you missed, sort of:
- Gloin appeared at the council of Elrond in FotR.
- Gwaihir, the eagle who rescued Gandalf in FotR also appears in the hobbit.
Ian Holm has already played Frodo (Score:4, Informative)
Yes he could carry off the part of Bilbo in the Hobbit but he would require a lot of care to stay healthy at the age he might be by the time the movie gets to be finally made.
two outside possibilities would be Bob Hoskins or Armin Shimerman [Quark in DS9}
Dammit! (Score:3, Interesting)
They had best hurry! (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, Andy Serkis would need to reprise Gollum, but he should look about the same, even though time hasn't been good to him so far
I do wonder if they would want Ian Holm as Bilbo or not. While I think he did a great job in LotR, the filming of another movie where he is the main role may take quite a toll on him.
Also, I would think they would want to try to reuse The Shire set that they built before it gets overgrown with weeds. And there is also the Rivendell set which they should probably reuse.
Re:rar (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Can you really make a 'good' movie on the Hobbi (Score:4, Insightful)
> The Hobbit was a children's book and not a very good one IMO.
IMO, The Hobbit holds up better as a story than LoTR did.
Re:The trilogy (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm very sorry that you didn't enjoy the book The Lord of the Rings, because it is a very epic, moving tale about many things. How good always triumphs against evil--but only through divine providence, when people fight as hard as they can (even against hope). About how war affects everyone, even those who would rather stick their heads in the sand and forget about it. And how even small, simple Hobbits can rise to the occasion and fight evil when it comes to their own lands. That last part was cut from the movie; never filmed.
So, LotR was not for you. I won't force Cliff Notes or an audiobook down your throat. I'm just sorry you don't appreciate the style of writing. I loved it, and I agree it was pretty slow here and there. But I'm hardly surprised you didn't enjoy the story of the movies
Let's see. First you watched The Two Towers, so that put you in the middle of the story with no beginning or ending, and without introducing any of the Fellowship, only Theoden and some of the Rohirrim. Then you put on The Fellowship of the Ring and watched the first half hour, and then left it running while you paid attention to other things, so you (again) missed the beginning of the story. Finally, you went with your family to see the end of the story, but you still hadn't seen the beginning. So you had no emotional attachment to the characters when the story ended and each of their fates was told.
Did you really expect anything else? You wouldn't read one of those Scandinavian legends by starting in the middle, reading a third, and then skimming the first 15 pages and jumping to the end where you left off, would you?
You don't have to enjoy the writing of LotR. It's certainly not for everyone. But if you're really curious about the story, I suggest watching The Fellowship of the Ring again (get the Extended Edition if you can rent or borrow it). If you enjoyed that, rewatch The Two Towers (Extended Edition if you can) and The Return of the King, in that order. Schedule a block of time where you can sit for three hours and pay attention. You know how densely the book was written. With so many pages squeezed into three hours each, you need to pay attention, or else not be surprised if you don't understand what happened afterward.
As for why I enjoyed the story so much, well, I read The Hobbit in 8th grade as an assigned book, and became fascinated by Chapter 5, where Bilbo gets the Ring. So I read The Lord of the Rings over the next year, and managed to get through The Silmarillion the next. I began reading The Hobbit to an 11yo friend, and when the movies came out, I brought him and his brothers to see them, too.Now, this is a kid who probably couldn't read through the books (I bought him copies anyhow), but the story is compelling enough that many people find it interesting. I like the struggle between good and evil, how when the Free Peoples of Middle-earth all tried their hardest, everything came together by the hand of God to allow Sauron to be defeated. I was fascinated by the Ring and by Gollum (as was my friend) and the glimpses of ancient history enchanted me. Especially, in the books, the Argonath (the two 700 foot stone statues guarding the old border of Gondor at the end of FotR, that you didn't see because you weren't watching). I note with some pride that the most triumphant music in the entire movie is at that scene.
I got the added bonus of all the cute comments my friend made throughout the movies--the questions and the excitement and the awe. But I'd say this just enhanced my viewing of the movies, since I fell in love with the story in the book.
So, to sum up, I respect your opinion, I don't think the story got a fair chance (you watched the movies out of order and didn't pay attention to the first one?!) and I hope you come to enjoy the movies or the book in the future, but since they are not for everyone, I can live with it if you don't. There was just one person I hoped to be able to enchant by the films, and I was completely successful.