[Movie] The Hobbit confirmed - with a twist

YES.

Quote:

Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema have reached agreement to make J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Hobbit," a planned prequel to the blockbuster trilogy "The Lord of the Rings."

Jackson, who directed the "Rings" trilogy, will serve as executive producer for "The Hobbit." A director for the prequel films has yet to be named.

...

Two "Hobbit" films are scheduled to be shot simultaneously, similar to how the three "Lord of the Rings" films were made. Production is set to begin in 2009 with a released planned for 2010, with the sequel scheduled for a 2011 release.

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Dark Nation

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.

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Cellius

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.

Whos directing if Jackson isn't?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

It hasn't been decided yet.

God this better turn out to be good...

FELIPE NO

If Jackson is involved. It will be good.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by orion_mk3

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.

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Andrew Evenstar

If Jackson is involved. It will be good.

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

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

If Jackson is involved. It will be good.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Andrew Evenstar

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.



How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by The Dopefish

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.

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).

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Denicalis

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Cellius

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.

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

But the point of Helm's Deep, sir, was to show that man alone was capable of standing against the darkness.

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]

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by The Dopefish

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

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

How ya doing, buddy?

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 was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by orion_mk3

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.

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?

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Kairi Li

It hasn't been decided yet.

God this better turn out to be good...

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

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.