Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Lord of the Rings Media Movies Security

Hobbit Movie in Four Years? 251

Posted by CowboyNeal from the there-and-back-again dept.
Antarctic Lemur writes "At the Powerhouse Museum LOTR Exhibition in Sydney, Peter Jackson has said a film version of The Hobbit is three years away at least. Reasons for the delay include the sale of MGM, which part-owns the movie rights to The Hobbit, and Jackson's recently filed suit against New Line Cinema, the other part-owner. Jackson is currently filming King Kong at his new facility in Wellington, NZ. Slashdot readers will also be interested in the high security planned for King Kong's pre-release screenings."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hobbit Movie in Four Years? More

Hobbit Movie in Four Years?

Comments Filter:
  • ...I suspect all of the parts to The Hobbit will be there when it finally ships...

  • Just what we need (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bender Unit 22 ( 216955 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @12:50PM (#11920407) Journal
    Another King Kong movie.
    We need it as much as another Police Academy movie.
    • I've been trying to understand why he's doing it ever since the first announcements, I really, really can't.

      I mean, will there be a King Kong remake every 30-40 years? Is this a trend? Will this CGI King Kong fight the CGI Godzilla?
      • " mean, will there be a King Kong remake every 30-40 years? Is this a trend? Will this CGI King Kong fight the CGI Godzilla?"

        40 years from now, we will have moved beyond flimsy CGI similucra. By 2045, genetic engineeering will have advanced to the point where you will have an actor fully mutated into a full-sized King Kong fighting an actor fully mutated into Godzilla. Generic modification of actors is the next frontier of Hollywood SFX technology.

        • Generic modification of actors is the next frontier of Hollywood SFX technology.

          Gee, would it be possible to modify Renee Zellweger to make her NOT SO GODD**MED IRRITATING? Or at least reduce the cheek pockets into which she always seems to have a winter's supply of nuts hidden?

          This has possibilities. We could insert talent into someone like Kevin Costner. Or a sense of humor into Sly Stallone. Or writing and story ability into George Lucas. Or add some height to Tom Cruise. Or Mel Gibson. Or Russell C

        • Sort of like major league baseball?
    • Well, think about it... you do a big film, then you can get away with some little films. (think about it)

    • Here's Why. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by simetra ( 155655 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @02:24PM (#11921076) Homepage Journal
      This is what happens. Geeky little bastard becomes "inspired" by a movie as a child, goes on to make it big, then has to remake the move that inspired him.

      Here's a partial list of movies that should NEVER, EVER, EVER be remade again, having been absolutely beaten into the ground:

      • King Kong
      • Dracula
      • Frankenstein
      • Tarzan
      • A Christmas Carol

      Please join me in ridiculing those who insist that these deserve yet another interpretation!!!

      Thanks
      • King Kong? Um...it's been remade once...that's it. The second "remake" wasn't really a remake anyway as it was an updated story.

        At least Jackson is keeping it in the 1930's. And it looks pretty good so far.

        But I agree with your other choices. But King Kong hasn't been "beaten into the ground" at all.

  • Whats next... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 12, 2005 @12:52PM (#11920428)
    In other news, King Kong vs. the Shire, coming soon to a theatre near you, Spring 2010

  • In Other News... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 12, 2005 @12:53PM (#11920432)
    My plans to kill myself have been postponed by at least 4 years.

  • All the security in the world... (Score:5, Funny)

    by CtrlPhreak ( 226872 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @12:54PM (#11920441) Homepage
    You can have all the security in the world and you can't keep king kong down, the chains, the fences. Nature always will find a way, he just likes climbing tall buildings grasping girls in his clutches. We just need to accept that and move on.

  • Why so much security? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tomjen ( 839882 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @12:54PM (#11920445)
    I cannot understand why he wants so much security- those who want it for free, will get i sooner or later, and it is not like the storyline is new in any, according to TFA it is a 193* classic.
    • I cannot understand why he wants so much security- those who want it for free, will get i sooner or later, and it is not like the storyline is new in any, according to TFA it is a 193* classic.

      He wants them to get it later rather than sooner. If the bootlegs appear at around the time of the first screening, many people will not go to the cinema. If the bootlegs appear _after_ the movie was shown in the theatres, the DVD sales may be a bit lower, but the damage will be less.

      • Broken logic mister. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Scrameustache ( 459504 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @01:56PM (#11920889) Homepage Journal
        If the bootlegs appear at around the time of the first screening, many people will not go to the cinema.

        The people who stay at home to watch the free low-quality bootleg wouldn't have gone to see it at the theatre anyway.

        Personally, as uninterrested as I am in yet another remake of King Kong, if I wanted to see it at all it would be on a BIG screem, to enjoy the bigness.

      • Early review? (Score:4, Informative)

        by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) * on Saturday March 12, 2005 @04:15PM (#11921842)
        If the bootlegs appear at around the time of the first screening, many people will not go to the cinema.

        Why? Is it that bad?

        If it's any good word of mouth would drive more people to the actual theaters - I'm not sure how you know it's going to be bad.

    • It will make the movie seem special.

      "Yeah, I heard they kept the raw footage on the Mountain of Despair beyond the River of Fire guarded by the Dragons of Eternity. Must be something special, no one would bother to guard a bad movie like that. Better go and see it."

      It's just a marketing trick, nothing more.

  • Homerkong (Score:4, Informative)

    by MouseR ( 3264 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @12:59PM (#11920471) Homepage
    The Simpsons already made another remake of King Kong. Move on Jackson!

    As far as Bilbo goes, I would wrap in as much of the Simarillion as is possible.
    • As far as Bilbo goes, I would wrap in as much of the Simarillion as is possible.

      Or if they cast Ice T as the king of the wood elves he could rap in as much of the silmarillion as possible.

  • One of the years most inticipated movies? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Monkelectric ( 546685 ) <slashdot@monkelectric . c om> on Saturday March 12, 2005 @01:00PM (#11920478)
    Security experts plan to keep King Kong, one of the year's most anticipated movies, out of the hands of pirates.

    I'll admit I opt-out of a lot of pop culture, but I don't know ANYONE looking forward to the King Kong movie.

    Is this wishful thinking on their part? Am I completely out of it? Or is this a new marketing tactic?

  • Yet... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 12, 2005 @01:00PM (#11920479)
    Pirate copies are already available in China.

  • Took long enough (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    But you know what they say : "You wait .. time passes"

  • Jackson... (Score:5, Funny)

    by flumps ( 240328 ) <matt.corby@gma i l . com> on Saturday March 12, 2005 @01:06PM (#11920525) Homepage
    sits down and starts singing about Gold.

    l

    You are in a comfortable tunnel like hall to the east there is the round green door you see :
    the wooden chest.
    Gandalf. Gandalf is carrying a curious map.
    Jackson.
    Gandalf gives the curious map to you.
    Jackson waits.

  • What about the Silmirilion? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Bucaro ( 758451 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @01:08PM (#11920535)
    Why would he focus on the Hobbit when the Silmirilion would make a much better movie. He could make a whole group of short films out of those stories, and then film the Hobbit as takes place after the Silmirilion. So if it is in chronological order, then I don't see his reasoning. The Hobbit may be more popular, but if he is going for quality of the films, the Silmirilion would beat it easily.

    • Re:What about the Silmirilion? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tyler Eaves ( 344284 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @01:13PM (#11920574)
      He has the sense to make movies people will actually WANT to see.

    • Re:What about the Silmirilion? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Scrameustache ( 459504 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @01:19PM (#11920614) Homepage Journal
      Why would he focus on the Hobbit when the Silmirilion would make a much better movie.

      The Silmarillion is not a good movie story. It's a collection of background notes that were never meant by their author to be published, a dense tome that is read by fanatics of the Lords of the Rings for it's value-adding goodness. Not a product suitable for mass market appeal.

      The Hobbit, however, is a light tale of dragon-slaying adventure with characters and settings already familliar to the consummers.
      • As someone who's never read it, it sounds from your description like there isn't any story whatsoever. Surely there's something to it other than just notes? Is there enough of a story there to even make one movie out of it?

        • As someone who's never read it, it sounds from your description like there isn't any story whatsoever. Surely there's something to it other than just notes? Is there enough of a story there to even make one movie out of it?

          Nope, thats about it. Seriously, it reads like a Cliffs notes history of middle earth. It wasn't published by Tolkien but by his family post death, if I recall correctly.

          • It seems more like the Middle-Earth bible to me. It's full of begats and slayings... And as dry as the sahara in the middle of summer during a dry spell after an airliner carrying a supply of dessicant pellets explodes overhead.
            • Maybe he could spice it up a bit and make "Passion of the Rings" or something... on a serious note, I'd like to see Jackson tackle some fantasy with less rabid canon-obsessed fans. Maybe something even original. Does R.A. Salvatore do any screenwriting?
        • There is an overarching story. However, it is true that basically it is a collection of related stories. As some other people said, who is too stop him from taking one interesting one and making a movie out of that. He'd have some latitude in filling in the blanks. Besides Beren & Luthien story which is an obvious candidate, you could also do the Fall of Numenor & The Last Alliance, which would end exactly where the LotR movie begins, with the battle where Sauron is vanquished.
          • What is to stop him? Only the fact none of the movie rights for anything except the Hobbit and LOTR were sold, and the Tolkien Estate has been pretty unhappy about movies being made for any reason, saying they cheapen the book experience (I'm paraphrasing). The snippets of pre-LOTR history such as the Last Alliance were only usable because they were directly discussed in LOTR. Similarly one could cobble together PIECES of the appendices, but they are largely insufficient for any additional full story with
        • As someone who's never read it, it sounds from your description like there isn't any story whatsoever. Surely there's something to it other than just notes? Is there enough of a story there to even make one movie out of it?

          It's commonly known as "The Silmarillion", but it's true name is "a bunch of notes we found in dad's study after he died". It's interresting if you are fascinated by the rich cultural background he created for middle earth, but it's only a story as far as the old testament is a story.
          An
      • Particular stores though, would make fantastic feature-length movies. You could get a great three hour film out of Beren and Luthien.

      • Re:What about the Silmirilion? (Score:4, Informative)

        by novakyu ( 636495 ) <novakyu@novakyu.net> on Saturday March 12, 2005 @02:01PM (#11920920) Homepage
        It's a collection of background notes that were never meant by their author to be published...

        I take it that you are not a Tolkien fan? Silmarillion was actually submitted to a publisher and rejected (more details available in the endnotes of "Lays of Beleriand", by Tolkien (whichever one you want)). There, in fact, JRR Tolkien is quoted as writing that he hope to publish it some day. The end result of the publisher wanting some more "Hobbit story" but rejecting the Silmarillion was, in fact, LOTR!

        Granted, the Silmarillion was never "complete", at least not to Tolkien's standards, but IMHO, it is far more complete (in plot-line and style) some of the junks I read in Sci-Fi (or any other fiction) genre.

        When the publishers rejected Silmarillion, they said, not to offend Tolkien, that "rather than a story in itself, it is a mine to be mined" (quoting from memory, so not sure whether my i's are dotted right and t's are crossed right) for other books, and so it became such for Tolkien (you can see lots of elements of LOTR mirroring what happened during the First or Second Era). If the movie-makers had any brain, it should be the same for them: Silmarillion should be a mine to be mined for more movie scripts! They always "defile" the originals anyway, and if they are going to change the original text, they should be doing it on an "incomplete" text as Silmarillion, not the completely-polished product as LOTR (yes, I didn't like LOTR movie trilogy too much) or Hobbit.

        • If the movie-makers had any brain, it should be the same for them: Silmarillion should be a mine to be mined for more movie scripts!

          There's no market for it. I can think of a ton of people I could tell that would be interrested to hear that a Hobbit movie is coming out, but only a few sword-owning ones who'd be interrested in the Silmarillion.

          In the Real World, brand recognition and mass market appeal make for good movie scripts. Not intricate histories and complex mythologies.
        • yes, I didn't like LOTR movie trilogy too much

          Then why would you want Jackson to remake the Simarillion? You probably wouldn't like that either.

      • I heard it once remarked that the Silmarillion oughtn't be made into a feature film, but rather fake documentary-type thing. You know, stock footage of elven soldiers preparing for war, home movies of Beren and Luthien, and after-the-fact interviews with the few people who survived and stayed in Middle-Earth. I can see it now: Sauron: "Well, Morgoth (or Melkor, as he liked to be called) wasn't so much of a bad chap. Sure, he wreaked havoc across Middle-Earth and caused the Two Trees to wilt, but he wasn

      • It's a collection of background notes that were never meant by their author to be published,

        Not true, Tolkien tried to get the Silmarillion published at the same time as the Lord of the Rings (though in a much different form than the version published by CJRT after Tolkien died), but it was rejected by the publisher.

        I do agree that it wouldn't make a good movie. (Certainly a single movie couldn't cover more than a small fraction of the content.) Personally, I think the book is a great work of literatu

        • Personally, I think the book is a great work of literature, but it usually doesn't appeal to casual readers (too many names to remember).

          That is probably the biggest issue I had with it. After a couple of hundred pages I had no idea who I was reading about anymore.
    • I'd rather have a Túrin Turumbar movie. Or a Beren and Lúthien movie. Both would be much more practical to make, and would actually have some appeal to non-geeks.
    • ...the Silmirilion would make a much better movie

      You simply cannot make a decent movie of the Silmarillion. It covers more time than and features more characters than even the Bible does, and it is utterly impossible to depict some of the characters (The Vala? Liv Tyler was a good shot for Arwen in LOTR, but which actress would you have playing the part of Beauty Itself, i.e. Elbereth? Not to mention Morgoth - Jackson wouldn't even show Sauron in LOTR) and it is even more impossible to cover all that t
    • People like cute little hobbits and the movie makers want to sell them to the people. You should have figured that out after watching LOTR.
    • Why would he focus on the Hobbit when the Silmirilion would make a much better movie. He could make a whole group of short films out of those stories, and then film the Hobbit as takes place after the Silmirilion. So if it is in chronological order, then I don't see his reasoning. The Hobbit may be more popular, but if he is going for quality of the films, the Silmirilion would beat it easily.

      First the Hobbit is a much better commercial prospect, it is a known quantity with broad appeal. The Silmirilion

  • Out of the way...... (Score:5, Funny)

    by darth_silliarse ( 681945 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @01:12PM (#11920565) Homepage
    1. I ,for one, welcome our new hobbit overlords.
    2. In Soviet Russia the hobbits own you.
    3a Make LOTR Trilogy
    3b Sue New Line Cinema
    3c Make Hobbit
    3d ?????
    3e Profit!
    4. Imagine a beowulf cluster of Hobbits!
    5. Hobbits? Do they run Linux?
    6. Hobbits are real, Netcraft confirms it.
    7. Didn't you RTFA??
    8. All your hobbits are belong to us.
    9. I have no hobbits, you insensitive clod!

  • Good for them (Score:4, Insightful)

    by roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @01:12PM (#11920566) Homepage Journal
    If I was distributing movies I wouldn't want anyone to get their little dirty hands on the copies and distribute the copies without my permission.

    Technically speaking it is possible to achieve this, it is possible to require ID from everyone going to see the movie, and keep that info in the database. The movie itself could have embedded watermarks of somesort, so that it would be possible to correlate the illegal copy to a specific screening, and by using cross linking with other copyright infringement incidents it could be possible to narrow down the list of suspects to just a few. Then bring out the lawyers and just destroy the mofos who film movies in the theaters and distribute them.

    Securing the DVDs sent to the Oscars judges (or whoever) is even easier, I cannot believe how many good quality copies are available.

    Anyhow, it should be possible to reduce the incidents of such nature by annihilating a few of these 'pirates'.

  • Fay Wray (Score:2, Funny)

    by Skiron ( 735617 )
    The obligatory scream:

    AaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhoooOOOOOO ooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

  • Hopefully done in an appropriate style (Score:5, Interesting)

    by quantax ( 12175 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @01:25PM (#11920645) Homepage
    While this is not un-expected, I really do hope that Jackson adopts a style that suits The Hobbit as the atmosphere in 'Lord of the Ringss' is much more serious than that in The Hobbit. What is enjoyable about The Hobbit as a book is that it has a much more fairy tale, easy-going quality than the epic that is LOTR; it is well suited for children, (for whom Tolkien originally wrote for anyway, his own children specifically). It's only at the end of The Hobbit that you really begin to see the type of writing that is present in LOTR, and the final battle of The Hobbit is the most action-filled scene in the book. I just hope Jackson does not merely use the same exact atmosphere from LOTR 'because it works', and instead considers that The Hobbit is not merely a prelude to LOTR, but its own seperate story & unique tone.
    • He'll probably cut out the last few chapters and skip the last battle.

      Worked for Lord of the Rings so why the hell not ?

    • Re:Hopefully done in an appropriate style (Score:5, Interesting)

      by j1m+5n0w ( 749199 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @02:28PM (#11921108) Homepage Journal
      I really do hope that Jackson adopts a style that suits The Hobbit as the atmosphere in 'Lord of the Ringss' is much more serious than that in The Hobbit.
      To some degree I agree with you, the Hobbit was not as serious a book as the LOTR, and had less serious themes, so it need not be as serious in tone as the LOTR. However, I don't think it need have as light a tone as the book, either. Remeber that within the tale, the Hobbit was written by Bilbo (in the 3rd person, but not an omniscient 3rd person), who wrote in a lighter tone than Frodo, who wrote most of the LOTR. The actual events were not necessarily as light in tone as Bilbo would have recorded them. The unreliability of Bilbo as a narrator can be seen to some extent in "The Quest for Erebor" from unfinished tales:
      But you know how things went, at any rate as Bilbo saw them. The story would sound rather different, if I (gandalf) had written it. For one thing he ded not realize at all how fatuous the dwarves thought him, nor how angry they were with me. Thorin was much more indignant and contemptuous than he perceived. He was indeed contemptuous from the beginning, and thought then that I had planned the whole affair simply so as to make a mock of him. It was only the map and the key that saved the situation.

      Also, later in life, Tolkien did not entirely approve of the way in which he had written the Hobbit:

      When I published The Hobbit - hurriedly and without due consideration - I was still influenced by the convention that 'fairy-stories' are naturally directed to children (with or without the silly added waggery 'from seven to seventy'). And I had children of my own. But the desire to address children, as such, had nothing to do with the story as such in itself or the urge to write it. But it had some unfortunate effects on the mode of expression and narrative method, which if I had not been rushed, I should have corrected. Intelligent children of good taste (of which there seem quite a number) have always, I am glad to say, singled out the points in manner where the address is to children as blemishes. (draft of a letter to Walter Allen, April 1959, from _The_Letters_of_JRR_Tolkien)
      I think it would be possible to make the movie in a more serious tone than the book without ruining the atmosphere or the story. I would be more concerned with any modifications that change the nature of Tolkien's characters (like they did to Faramir) or incompatibilities introduced between the events that occurred in the book and the events that occurred in the movie. Being given two irreconcilable accounts of a particular story is a quick way to destroy the imagined world a story tries so hard to create.

      They do have an opportunity to introduce additional scenes, for instance from "the quest for Erebor" from Unfinished_Tales, or a brief encounter with a young Aragorn (if he was alive and in Rivendell at the time, I haven't checked) without doing any harm to the tale.

  • I'm basing my comment on one thing: the lawsuit. And I'm hoping I'm wrong. Here's my thinking: when you do something for the love of it, and you take an inordinate amount of time to do it -- money be damned -- you might just create something amazing (although the movie Dungeons & Dragons was a labor of love, and it was unwatchable); but when you get caught up in the movie receipts and the merchandising revenue (which seems to be what is going on with Jackson), you've effectively become George Lucas.

    I

    • I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jesterzog ( 189797 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @02:11PM (#11921001) Journal

      I'm not exactly an insider (apart from living in the same town as Peter Jackson), but I don't think that's so much the issue here. As far as I can tell, he wants what's fair and what he was contracted for. Even if you love your day-job, you should make sure that your employer isn't ripping you off. They are getting your work out of it, after all. Look how much Newline's benefiting from Jackson's work. I'd be annoyed if they weren't giving me my fair share that'd been previously arranged.

      What Peter Jackson loves a lot is making movies (and various other things like restoring WW1 fighter planes). He's built up an entire industry in NZ, based around his film-making and special effects companies, which personally I think do a very good job. If Newline's shortchanged him by several tens or hundreds of millions of dollars (I forget how much it is), it automatically hinders his ability to do everything else that he really loves doing, including his own investment in other films that he thinks are worth making.

      In any case, I don't think he's another George Lucas. The telling point for me is that Lucas has been irritating his fans in exchange for the money he can make from them. Jackson's simply fighting with his employer for what he thinks he's owed.

  • For great security (Score:4, Funny)

    by CPgrower ( 644022 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @01:49PM (#11920833)
    The Motion Picture Association's New Zealand representative, Kevin Holland, said the industry took seriously the job of keeping movies secure from pirates.

    They hired an 800 lb. gorilla.
  • The ending's been leaked onto the internet...

    ...a large ape falls off a tall building and dies.

  • As long as they make it before Ian McKellen dies, otherwise they could have a problem - Gandalf has an even bigger part in The Hobbit than he did in LOTR.

    (not that I'm suggesting he's about to keel over... but he is getting on a bit - and look what happened to Dumbledore)
    • Dumbledore was played by Richard Harris, who was born in 1930, and died in 2002, making him 72 when he died of hodgkins disease.

      Ian McKellen is 66 in May this year, which is quite a bit older than I thought. Still, here's hoping he's got plenty of time to make more films!
  • Piracy is estimated to cost the movie industry US$3 billion ($4 billion) a year.

    And how much of that is from people who see a poor quality pirate copy, and realize that the movie is even worse than the pirates copy is, and certainly isn't worth the price of admission to see it in a good theater, or the price of a good DVD with all its extras? A lot, I'm guessing.

  • Hobbit Movie in Four Years? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kenchie ( 263895 ) on Saturday March 12, 2005 @06:30PM (#11922716) Homepage
    Personally I'd rather see Terry Gilliam make it - that would make for a far more interesting film!

Slashdot Top Deals

I had the rare misfortune of being one of the first people to try and implement a PL/1 compiler. -- T. Cheatham

Close