The Hobbit confirmed - with a twist
 

YES.

Peter Jackson to produce `The Hobbit' - Yahoo! News

If they're devoting two films to this relatively short story, I hope they'll be extremely faithful to the novel. Interesting that Jackson isn't directing, but I hope he retains a lot of creative control. It'd be great if Holm comes back... and I'll be right pissed if Howard Shore doesn't return.

Wasn't Bilbo quite a bit younger than Ian Holm could pull off during the events of The Hobbit? I doubt he will be returning.

And not only do they lack a director at this time, it is my understanding that they also lack a script, so they'd best get moving on this.

I really enjoyed The Hobbit when I read it ten years ago, and always felt like it would make an exciting movie, so I will be glad when this does finally get filmed.

Holm was able to play the younger Bilbo in the prologue well enough, and if I recall Bilbo wasn't exactly young when he went on his original adventure.

The way the announcement reads to me sounds almost like they're doing a "Hobbit" movie based on the book and a "Hobbit 2" that comes afterwards, which seems rather odd.

Hobbit 2 may be a creative license approach of bridging the gap between the LoTR Trilogy and the first Hobbit movie... but I'm nowhere familar with Tolkein's stuff to say for sure or not.

Still, I did enjoy the animated Hobbit movie when I was a kid, so it should be very interesting to see if they do it as well as they did the LoTR Trilogy.

There's enough in Tolkien's legendarium for a full movie about stuff that was happening at just about any point in his timeline. Or maybe they're going to embellish the film with some of that stuff (like Gandalf's attack on the Necromancer) and bloat it up to two films' worth.

Whos directing if Jackson isn't?

It hasn't been decided yet.

God this better turn out to be good...

If Jackson is involved. It will be good.

Dude, I don't wanna be insulting or condescending or anything, but this is Jackson we are talking about. He may not be directing but he is involved. I mean, if your ass hasn't fallen off from the lack of blood flow by the end of any of his movies, he feels like his job isn't done.

:eye:

We do realise Jackson isn't the be-all end-all of film, right?

If Jackson is involved. It will be good.

Oh yeah, because Jack Brown Genius wasn't fucking awful. And the Elves at Helm's Deep wasn't an embarrassing mangling of the book's metaphor and narrative. Or maybe Valley of the Stereos is your concept of a great epic bit of story telling? How about Meet the Feebles or Bad Taste? Oooo, or the Valley? Greatest bit of cinema history ever?

You're a goddamn putz. Lord of the Rings, for all I love them, are not perfect as films and certainly not as translations from literature. Get over your idiotic fanboyism.

Peter Jackson is highly overrated. That said, Lord of the Rings was pretty good, and The Hobbit, if they adhere to the book, should be pretty good AT LEAST, whether or not Jackson is involved.

voting for Deni to make a Monkey Island movie

Yes, yes, Deni. We ALL fucking know the book was slaughtered and effectively made into a hot dog. Streamlined, juicy, and goes well with your favorite condiments. The argument will be made for years and in 20 years I'm sure we'll all be saying that they could have been better. Those of us who have put the LOTR movies 1, 2 and 3 in our top 5 will be shunned and be given our own little corner of the world to be exiled in. (Perhaps where Bag End was filmed?)

That being said, I think we should all appreciate what Jackson and his cohorts did for the books in terms of adapting them for film and, though I buy it with great pain, I will gladly follow in lemming-like shambling to the movie theatres for any LOTR adaptations that Jackson has a hand in.

:lemming::lemming::lemming::lemming::lemming:

I never said I didn't like Lord of the Rings, o-friend-with-questionable-taste-in-sexual-partners. I said they weren't -perfect-, and that a statement resembling "If Jackson is involved, they will be good" is clearly bullshit, as he's made tons of bad movies to go along with Heavenly Creatures and his good work (amongst which, yes, I count Lord of the Rings as being good, the unforgivable elves at helm's deep and dwarf tossing jokes aside).

Actually I appreciate what they did with Helm's Deep knowing they had originally planned to have Arwen the Prevalent Warrior Queen fighting alongside everyone. At least having the elves there preserved a large part of the spirit of the novel, which was that of all the peoples of Middle-earth coming together to fight as one.

What pissed me off the most was Faramir's complete role reversal.
Book: "I would not touch it if I saw it lying by the roadside."
Film: "The Ring will go to Gondor. Here's my chance I'll show you Dad!!"
It's not so much his change in character that irked me as the consequences of his actions, which was essentially taking the Ring to Osgiliath where the Nazgul see it. I mean that contrivance destroyed the beauty of the quest to begin with: Sauron thought it was hundreds of leagues west in Isengard, in Saruman's possession. Nothing really comes of that confrontation on the Osgiliath bridge, but if the Ringwraiths know the ring is there so does Sauron. Whatever, no sense in arguing over it since it's like 6 years old now. :gonk:

But the point of Helm's Deep, sir, was to show that man alone was capable of standing against the darkness. He didn't need elves, or dwarves, or the older races. Just because man lacks the blood of Aragorn's kin, doesn't mean they would falter in the face of evil. Man is mighty, and though he will unite with the peoples of middle-earth to fight against an overwhelming enemy, he is not doomed once they've gone.

The movie basically says if anything bad happens once the elves leave, mankind is gon' get raped.

You're right, though, about Faramir. Bloody inexcusable.

Agh that's right. They really screwed around with the second film. It works pretty well on its own that I tend not to remember how much it deviates until I read the trilogy again every few years.[/QUOTE]

I enjoyed The Lord of the Rings novels, but The Hobbit was my absolute favorite. I truly hope they can make this work without straying too far from the story.

lol can I show my appreciation to him by tearing his beard off and having him eat it greased in his own belly fat ?

TTT was the worst of the trilogy, not necessarily in terms of faithfulness to the book (that was ROTK which was fucked around beyond belief) but in terms of actual quality. I'm worried though that if Peter Jackson is involved then he'll continue his trend of shitty films (King Kong, the film version of The Lovely Bones which is a shit book to begin with).

I'm a Tolkein nerd and I looooove the movies. It doesn't automatically offend me when a movie deviates from the book. Yeah, the movies have their flaws...although FoTR was damn near close to perfect for me. I liked how RoTK included Shelob and didn't break the two stories into completely separate chapters. Having Arwen rescue Frodo in FoTR was much more meaningful than when it was done by an elf general whom we never hear from again. Elves in Helm's Deep? Probably how the geeks on the writing staff let the audience know that elves were indeed involved in the war. Not to say that there's stuff in the movies I didn't like, but FoTR is definitely in my top 5 movie list.

I for one hope that the Hobbit movie is even LESS faithful to the original material than the LoTR trilogy. The Hobbit was written in a very different style than the other three. Great though it is, I'm not ready for talking spiders and eagles, Gandalf with little stars on his hat, or riddles with a giant (again talking) dragon. Mad props if they can pull of the ogre's turning to stone or the introduction of the dwarves to the shapeshifter in a non-embarassing way.

I know I've committed some sort of heresy. Sorry. :(

Dude is nearly 80 years old. Do you think he would be able to handle this? I mean, they would have to resort to a stunt double every time Bilbo has to move faster than a snail's pace. Do we really want that?

Oh really? How are they supposted to start the movie if they don't have one yet? :confused:

I'm sorry but all these Tolkien films should have been lump financed into a 10 hour film with 3 intermissions called The Abridged Adventures of Tom Bombadil.

They did it with Christopher Lee in LotR and Star Wars, so it can be done. They used scale stunt doubles for the younger hobbits half the time anyway.

They did that, but I heard they titled it Across the Universe or something like that.

They don't even have a script yet, Kimchi. They'll get a director when that's done.

Very exciting! I've heard something along the lines that Sam Raimi is being considered for a directorial role... we'll just have to wait and see.
It's good that Peter Jackson and Weta studio will reprise their roles in various areas of production. That should keep a sense of continuity from LOTR to the HOBBIT.

No he didn't. He barely pulled off the part in Gollums cave in about a 5 to 10 seconds shot. He was wearing a terrible wig and the only reason it appeared decent was due to camera tricks to make him seem younger than he actually was... For a 5 to 10 second shot it may work fine, but such techniques which would be useless for a full length feature. I don't believe he would be convincing for the role of a younger Bilbo for the entire duration of a film.

What I am saying is that it will probably pay off to hire an entirely different younger, more physical actor for the role of Bilbo. After all, the Hobbit script has plenty of actio, which will likely call for a more youthful and athletic approach to the role.

I believe Bilbo was nearly 50 years old at the time that Hobbit begins.

I think his point is that Jackson doesn't derail a Hobbit film in terms of creative output is he is not involved. Because, he really isn't the end all, be all of directors.

However, I do think the film will be derailed if Jackson doesn't direct as I think McKellen and some others didn't want to be a part of it if he didn't. So, pragmatically speaking, the film will suck if Jackson isn't there, because I don't think anyone would be willing to accept a Gandalf that isn't McKellen, but philosophically-- I don't really think Jackson is a requirement. There's plenty of good directors out there.

That said, I do think Jackson gets too much credit for Lord of the Rings. Yeah, he worked hard and certainly went beyond the requirements of merely point a camera and staging the actors, but it doesn't mean he doesn't output shit, which is I think Deni's chief point.

Not gonna lie, King Kong? Kinda thought it sucked. And wasn't his involvement similar?

And now with that said, Lord of the Rings is brilliant. I don't think someone can walk away from it and go: "Well, I didn't like it because of [blank]."

Yeah King Kong was a horrendous movie. I didn't watch it to the end.

I don't think Bilbo is going to have a success like the LOTR trilogy did since it is intended to be more like a child's book instead of an epic tale.

Since he,s not directing the movie, it might be good if they choose someone that is familiar with the story and mythology of JRR Tolkien.

It's been awhile since I've read LotR, so I might be wrong on this.
But as I recall, the Ents came to the humans' aide. Or if not the Ents then the forest sprouted up in the battlefield or something to that effect.
Either way, I remember the humans were bailed out of the fight somehow.

At the battle of the Hornburg, humans were bailed out by humans. Gandalf eventually leads the Rohirrim, or what is left of them, into the valley driving the orcs back. The only thing resembling ents that were there is a forest of the non moving ents, the living forest, which blocked a retreat alley. They don't aid in the fight until after it's already over. They mop up the enemies that had already been fully routed by the humans. In the movies, the elves turn the tide of battle, in the books, man turns the tide by perseverance and strength of will.