PJ wants to do The Hobbit {seriously}

[lindil]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Despite his exhaustion, Jackson is not resting on his laurels and said if complex rights issues can be resolved he would like to direct "The Hobbit", J.R.R. Tolkien's prequel to the "Rings" trilogy set some 50 years earlier. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><A HREF="http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=entertainmentNews&storyID=417967&section=news" TARGET=_blank>horse's mouth</A><P>OF course Fran and Phillipa better start re-writing the story, cause the Animated version proves that the story as is needs fixin...<P>actually all sarcasm aside, JRRT wanted to re-write the Hobbit in more of an LotR tone, and if PJ took that tack, included in the UT and Annotated hobbit's 'Quest for Erebor', and dealt a bit with Gandalf's going into Dol Guldor and finding the map and Key with Thrain [not too mention the back story of the destruction of Erebor] it could be a nice warm-up for the LotR.<P>He says Arwen may get to appear [ perhaps rescuing the Dwarves from the Trolls instead of Gandalf, with that husky she elf voice of hers .<P>More seriously, Legolas could legitimately make a few appearances and even be in the guard that captures the troop sans Thorin, at the feast. Also, at the battle he can slide down a spur of the lonely mountain taking out a whole battlion of orcs.<P>Too bad they did not save Agent Smith for Thranduil, he would have done much better than as Elrond methinks.<p>[ 4:28 PM December 13, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Silmiel of Imladris]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>While many of the lead "Rings" characters do not appear in "The Hobbit" story, the wizard Gandalf, played by Ian McKellen, and Gollum, the cave dweller corrupted by the powerful ring, do and should make a comeback. Arwen, the elf princess played by Liv Tyler, could also feature again, Jackson said.<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Ohhhh goooooody! Arwen is going to be in there so all her haters will freak out. : evil giggle: Legolas better be in there too!! It wouldn't be hard to stick him in with Thranduil so there would be no excuse. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Richard Taylor, whose special effects workshop made 48,000 props for the trilogy and whose work earned two Oscars, says "King Kong" will be even better than Lord of the Rings.<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I doubt it. <p>[ 5:08 PM December 08, 2003: Message edited by: Silmiel of Imladris ]

[Catherine]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Legolas better be in there too!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I am hopeing that Legolas is there!!<P>I downloaded a preview to the Hobbit from Kazza for anyone who has it. IT was a great preview...but it says it comes out in 2006 <BR>O-well I still cant wait!

[Orominuialwen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Richard Taylor, whose special effects workshop made 48,000 props for the trilogy and whose work earned two Oscars, says "King Kong" will be even better than Lord of the Rings.<P>"I have every aspiration to make King Kong much cooler," he said. "It's going to be a very beautiful film." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah right! LotR could beat King Kong any day, even if PJ is directing it (King Kong, I mean). That would be way cool if they did a movie of The Hobbit, although I think Arwen shouldn't be in it. I have nothing against her, but I don't think she should be in The Hobbit, except perhaps with a brief cameo in Rivendell.

[Arwen Evenstar the Fair]

That would be soooo cool if he made the Hobbit!!!!!!! I really think he should, you have my vote Peter!!!!!!!! Just FYI Catherine, that is a fake Hobbit trailer that someone put together for fun. But its a pretty good one though!

[ArathorofBarahir]

I think that PJ should make the Hobbit, personally I think it would be good however I prefer the Lord of the Rings.

[Silmiel of Imladris]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> that is a fake Hobbit trailer that someone put together for fun. But its a pretty good one though! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Drat! I just spent an hour downloading it.

[Lord of Angmar]

I would not choose anyone else besides Peter Jackson to the a film adapatation of <I>The Hobbit</I>. Not only have I been thoroughly moved by his first two <I>Lord of the Rings</I> films (and I hold out hope that the third will be even better!), I could not imagine anyone else's artistic take being brought into a <I>Hobbit</I> movie, as it would ruin the continuity of the Tolkien-film genre. I would have absolutely no problem with Arwen or Legolas making appearances in <I>The Hobbit</I>. I think a <I>Lord of the Rings</I>-like tone would be perfect for a <I>Hobbit</I> movie. I wonder, if they decide to take on this project, who will play Thranduil and the young Bilbo Baggins? Not to mention Thorin Oakenshield and the Dwarves, Beorn, Bard and the many others.

[Catherine]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Just FYI Catherine, that is a fake Hobbit trailer that someone put together for fun. But its a pretty good one though! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Haha really...it was a pretty good one! I wasn't sure if it was real but hey I was hoping that it was!

[andreadawn]

As soon as I saw FOTR I thought,"Peter Jackson MUST make The Hobbit.! I agree with Lord Of Angmar that PJ's artistic vision of the story is the only way to go. I hope that these aren't just rumors-with ROTK only nine days away, after I see it I'm going to need another movie to look forward to. Oh God, I sound like a junkie

[The Saucepan Man]

<A HREF="http://www.sundayherald.com/38504" TARGET=_blank>Here</A> is an article that I found on ToRN that explains more about the problems New Line are having in acquring the rights to the Hobbit from the Tolkien estate. Apparently, while Tolkien sold the film rights to LotR, he retained the rights to the Hobbit. And Christopher Tolkien, who harbours serious reservations about the film versions of LotR, is reluctant to allow them to film the Hobbit. Sadly, the films also appear to have given rise to a rift between Christopher and his son, Simon. The Tolkien family appears to quite split on this issue, with views ranging from Christopher’s reservations to the enthusiasm of Tolkien’s grandson, who plays a Man of Godor in the final instalment.<P>Interesting that Jackson thinks Arwen might have a role in the film. I would certainly not like to see her make more than a cameo appearance in Rivendell. I did wonder when I thought about how the Hobbit might be filmed whether Rivendell might be left out. After all, the Trolls are the only encounter between Hobbiton and Rivendell, so it would seem to break the tension at rather an inappropriate point in terms of film pacing. It would be interesting to see Hugo Weaving play a non-grumpy Elrond though. <P>Personally, I think it would be fun if Orlando Bloom, suitably aged, was to play Thranduil. <P>The point was made by Eurytus on <A HREF="http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=000408" TARGET=_blank>this thread</A> that it might make sense in film terms to cut down on the number of Dwarves. Although it would be a shame, I can see the point that he is getting at, since it would be difficult at first for viewers to tell the difference between all of them. They would have to be well differentiated, although it might work if only those that Eurytus mentioned (Thorin, Balin, Bombur, Gloin and perhaps Fili and Kili) were given a prominent role. Mind you, there might be problems in getting actors signed up, given the suffering that John Rhys-Davies went through with the make-up. <P>Even with the Hobbit being a shorter story, cuts would be inevitable. As I said, I thought that Rivendell might go. Beorn might also suffer, although I would hope not, particularly given the role that he plays in the Battle of Five Armies. Which brings me to a particular concern that I have over the Hobbit being brought to the screen. How will the final chapters be handled? The main focus of the film would have to be Smaug, since he is the reason for the Quest. And so his death would seem to be the obvious climax. And yet there is a whole Battle to get through after Smaug dies, and it might seem strange in cinematographic terms to have this all play out after the main focus of the film has been vanquished. I can see some re-writing going on here, and yet it is difficult to see how this would be done, since Smaug has to die before the Battle and the Battle certainly could not be left out (and I can’t see Jackson leaving it out, given his penchant for battle scenes ). Anyone have any ideas on how this might be done?

[Lord of Angmar]

That is an interesting point you raise, Saucepan Man. It seems to me that Peter Jackson would either have to leave the plot as it is and put aside the fact that audiences might be confused by the shift in storytelling, or he would have to revamp the entire plot in such a way that Smaug dies climatically during the Battle of Five Armies, which for me would be too much of a stretch and far worse than leaving the plot intact.<P>A good point is also made by Eurytus and Saucepan about Rivendell, but I think Peter Jackson would most likely choose to include it (if only briefly). <P>My, it seems that <I>The Hobbit</I> is even harder to sort into a movie than the <I>Lord of the Rings</I>.

[The Only Real Estel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Richard Taylor, whose special effects workshop made 48,000 props for the trilogy and whose work earned two Oscars, says "King Kong" will be even better than Lord of the Rings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Laughable. I know that everyone says that type of stuff, but it's still quite laughable .

[lalaith]

I think Lindil's idea of beefing up the Destruction of Erebor/Dol Guldor backstory is an excellent one. However, I don't know how/if they could establish the Necromancer as Sauron. Also, the Hobbit (book) does not really draw links between the Necromancer, the Orcs of the Misty Mountains and Smaug, and I think PJ might have to do that in order to give the film plot coherence. <BR>Oh, and I wonder how they will feature the Ring, which seems such an innocent thing in the Hobbit...

[Eurytus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Laughable. I know that everyone says that type of stuff, but it's still quite laughable <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Why is it laughable? Amongst film buffs King Kong is revered as a great, great movie. Many, many directors have commented on the fact that watching King Kong as a child inspired them towards their chosen career.<BR>Plus of course it is perhaps a little presumptuous to say that it is laughable for someone who is involved with the film to say that it is going to be better when of course none of us knows anything about what it is going to be like.<P>I would also think that the fact that it was Kong, not LOTR that was Jackson’s dream project says a great deal.

[lindil]

Lailath:'<I>I think Lindil's idea of beefing up the Destruction of Erebor/Dol Guldor backstory is an excellent one.</I><P>Thanks, I actually gave quite a bit of thought for a few days to how I would do 'There and Back Again'. Making the most of the White Council meetings, Lorien attacking Dol Guldor and Sauron feigning retreat.<P>All of these would imo be legitimate amplifications. We know it happened JRRT just gives an passing mention though.<P>We could also see glimpses of the Rangers in Bree, and maybe even Tom Bombadil peeping over the hedge of the East-West Road [quite subtly of course]...<P> <I>However, I don't know how/if they could establish the Necromancer as Sauron.</I><P>As far as I recall, don't they [The White Council] figure it out when he flees to Mordor [at the latest]? <P> <I>Also, the Hobbit (book) does not really draw links between the Necromancer, the Orcs of the Misty Mountains and Smaug, and I think PJ might have to do that in order to give the film plot coherence.</I><P>Not sure what you mean. Most of the Orcs of the Misty Mountains seemed to be something of free agents at the time, refugees from Angmar or Moria, not currently under the control of the Necromancer. That is really just my impression though, I can think of no texts offhand that support an active controlling link between between the Misty Mountain Orcs and Sauron until he starts to co-ordinate a greater Offensive in th LotR.<P><BR>"Oh, and I wonder how they will feature the Ring, which seems such an innocent thing in the Hobbit..."<P>Hopefully not with a flashing EYE as soon as Bilbo picks it up [although I bet PJ would be tempted]. Especially as the Eye was not yet [re-]established in mordor. That may deserve it's own thread...

[Lalaith]

Lindil, what I meant was that movie directors like to have a 'Big Bad', and having the Necromancer, the Orcs AND Smaug vying for top villain might be confusing.

[lindil]

gotcha.<BR>Well if PJ were to try something novel like staying true to the book [as the animation managed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!] then Sauron is only a potential baddie #1.<P>I would focus on the dark mysteriousness of 'The Necromancer' have the White Council expressing doubts and fears.<P>Samug [and Thorin's ego] are definely the Baddie Primo I would say.<P>Of course after he dies the void is unexpectedly filled by every army for 300 or so miles... then sauron can perhaps be seen trying to direct the goblins and wargs even as he flees to Mordor. <P>Actually having the Rigwraths initially sent to the mountain at smaug's deeath with an army that must turn around when Lorien and co. finally attack Dol Guldor would be cool though I am not sure if the timeline really supports that.

[lindil]

Of course all of this may bee moot as CJRT may [completely understandably imo] decide to use his executive veto to punish PJ's inability to simply build from the book and characters up, instead of telling 'his own version'.<BR>If I were CJRT I would only let him do it if I was able to approve the script [and force him to go back and refilm a few things in TTT ].

[The Only Real Estel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Why is it laughable? Amongst film buffs King Kong is revered as a great, great movie. Many, many directors have commented on the fact that watching King Kong as a child inspired them towards their chosen career.<BR>Plus of course it is perhaps a little presumptuous to say that it is laughable for someone who is involved with the film to say that it is going to be better when of course none of us knows anything about what it is going to be like.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Because if they had done Kong first & then LotR second, Taylor would be telling us that LotR will be even better than Kong . That's just the way they try to hype up their movies. I wasn't laughing at the fact that Kong will be nowhere near as good as LotR (maybe it will, maybe it won't), but more at the utter predictibility of Richard making that statement .

[The Saucepan Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Of course all of this may be moot as CJRT may [completely understandably imo] decide to use his executive veto to punish PJ's inability to simply build from the book and characters up, instead of telling 'his own version'.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Actually, if I was Christopher, I would licence the rights to New Line right now with a hefty royalty and make a serious amount of money for the estate. After all, the rights are likely to become available at some point (quite possibly after CJT's death) and there are much worse combinations that New Line/Jackson that might get their hands on it.

[Lord of Angmar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>there are much worse combinations that New Line/Jackson that might get their hands on it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Disney Presents <I>The Hobbit</I> with the voices of Tom Cruise as Bilbo Baggins and Mel Gibson as Thorin Oakenshield.<P> <p>[ 11:00 PM December 09, 2003: Message edited by: Lord of Angmar ]

[Eurytus]

I find Christopher Tolkien’s attitude to be somewhat mystifying. All this business about not liking the arrival of the films because the attendant hype will make life difficult for him and his family. This from someone who has been milking his father’s legend dry by releasing every single piece of writing he can find. And releasing them at a very high price too.<BR>From that angle I can’t see why he would have such problems with someone making the Hobbit, especially when his father’s attitude to LOTR was art or money. (Though in the end they got both there as far as I am concerned).

[Lord of Angmar]

His attitude is rather perplexing, Eurytus, but I suppose it can be explained. Perhaps it is as simple as Christopher Tolkien wishing to keep in his mind (and, I suppose, the minds of Tolkien's long-time readers) the image he has always had of his father's masterpiece. But it seems it is never that simple anymore.

[Eurytus]

That could be true I guess but I wish he would have an attitude more similar to the great classical composers. For them, another composer wanting to compose a variation on one of their themes would be a great compliment.<BR>I would personally consider a director wanting to make a film out of one of your father’s works to be likewise.

[Gilthalion]

Most of my own thoughts on this matter have been rather well covered!<P>As for the potential for anticlimax with the Battle of Five Armies following the Death of Smaug, perhaps that can be handled with the suggestions of a great battle put together with narrative. The interval between Smaug's demise and the Battle could also be filmed with far more brevity than the literary telling requires.<P>OR MAYBE WE REALLY NEED TWO EXTENDED FILMS TO TELL THE WHOLE TALE! (Nah. But then we could have all the backstory we desire.)<P>Gandalf became aware of Sauron as the Necromancer LONG before the Ring was discovered, 2850 TA, in fact, when he was in Dol Goldur. Bilbo was not even born until 2890!<P>Aragorn would have been 10 years old when Bilbo first set eyes on Rivendell, however, he did not meet Gandalf until he was 35.<P>Gimli was a young dwarf at the time and was not permitted to go on the Quest. How much would Gloin, or even Thorin, have resembled the adult Gimli? (Make up does wonders of course...)<P>As the Rankin-Bass production shows, it is possible to be fairly true to the book. Nevertheless, I imagine that the Extended Hobbit will be more satisfactory.<P>Oh. And while Elrond was not particularly grumpy, he might have been a little smug over his discovery of the rune letters on Thorin's map...<P>I cannot imagine Arwen in anything more than a Rivendell cameo, but I might be pleasantly surprised.

[Mattius]

Wow! After years of rumour Jackson has actually come foward and said he would like to make The Hobbit. CJRT may not like it but in the end I have no doubt that the movie will be made. Perhaps we have been a liitle bit spoilt by the fact we have a monumental LotR film every year a Xmas. Not to be offensive or crude (he gave us The Silm. for God's sake!) but CJRT is an old man and as he controlls a major part of the Tolkien say in matters once he is decessed the film will be open to be made.<P>One question that seems to have not come up is would you like to see Sir Ian Holm playing Bilbo or perhaps a younger actor? Remember, the Ring meant that he virtually did not age. However, the movie may not be made for another decade so perhaps another actor should take his role?<P>Matt<P>PS I remember asking on another thread who should voice Smaug- any ideas?

[lindil]

'I cannot imagine Arwen in anything more than a Rivendell cameo, but I might be pleasantly surprised.' How about a non-canonical scene of Arwen babysitting her foster brother, and looking at him with, well... perhaps we better just leaver her out...<P>Gilthalion, thanks for the chronological markers.<P>Eurytus, privacy is one thing, relatively major changes to a masterpeice is another. <P>Book to film conversions have never been judged along the lines of symphoic/musical variations. For starters, musical theme variations are within the same genre - so the variation can in no [comprable]way become a definitive statement of the work, and secondly with variations in music, they are a dime a dozen in a sense. A film version of LotR is on the otherhand so massive an undertaking that we will almost certainly not see another attempt for a couple of decades. So by a sort of financial default, only some one like Bill Gates or maybe George Lucas could afford to do another LotR anytime soon. <P>So like it or not, PJ and his 'LotR' [I shall endeavor to use quoets for his version from now on as a matter of priciple] has in a major way re-shaped the matrix by which the LotR is experienced as a written work for the vast majority of readers. CJRT is understandably reticient to countenance such.<P>On the other hand, had he been involved and used what little leverage the estate might have had in terms of input, perhaps PJ would have felt more beholden to reproduce the actual LotR, and not a 'Variations on LotR Themes'.<P>Yes, CJRT has put out a ton of expensive [ in HB] books fo his fathers writings, but he also worked with incredible diligence and persisitence to deal with an unbelievably chaoitic manuscript inheritance. I for one am incredibly glad he did it. In his shoes, I would have been lucky to put out a Silm and a fraction of the post LotR writings and packed the rest off to the Museum. <P>Btw, he has graciously ceded publishing responsibilities of the remaining linguistic material [supposedly thousands of pages!] to Vinyar Tengwar who publishes most of it [ PArma Eldalmberon does the rest[ for 2.oo$ an edition. THe Osanwe-KEnta for only 2$, not bad at all. HEck, it was probably not even asked of CJRT what the price would be on the books anyway.<P>As for the inevitability of a Hobbit film with or without CJRT's blessing, I would not be so confidant, if the stories are true about him writing his own son out of the decision making picture [not too mention never seeing that son's children again?!] then I would not at all doubt if he has engineeered a way to keep all other non- LotR, material away from movies.<P>In some instances this is a shame as Smith, Farmer, Roverandom, etc could all be made into delightful productions I imagine.<P>I have heard that the Silm is def off limits. <P>A relief in some ways as we might see Liv Tyler recast as Luthien ...<P>But as the Hobbit is already out there might as well sign over rights to someone who promises to reproduce it faithfully.<P>And to whoever may get the rights, the could establish most of PJ's 'feel' by hiring most of his crew, especially Howe and Lee for design. Just not Phillipa and Fran!!!

[Mattius]

CRJT is an old man and stuck in his ways but to cut out his son and his grandchildren for the sake of his father's books is ridiculous.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Perhaps, Mattius, we could take that as an indication of how much his father's writings mean to him. Christopher Tolkien is not alone in questioning New Line's motives and concern for the works they adapt; and while I could deplore his allowing this opinion to estrange him from his family, that's really none of my business.

My point would be that it is the right and the privilege of the owners of a work of art to withhold the right to adapt it from anyone, no matter how many fans they may have in their own right. Christopher Tolkien was involved in a minor way in the proof-reading and final printing of The Hobbit (he drew the first maps that were made for the story), and in many ways I'm sure that he sees the work as a personal link with his father. None of us want to see something that has that sort of sentimental value taken and 'adapted' by people whom we suspect of a lack of respect for it; and I'm afraid that for a lot of people that is what has happened to The Lord of the Rings.

Now for my opinion, which everyone will have worked out by now. I've always thought that Tolkien's books would make great films; but I would rather that people had to read the original books (and derive the pleasure I have from so doing) than allow themselves to be fobbed off with crass commercialisations of them, hyped as by the fans, for the fans, but actually written with no real respect for the material and aimed at a standard action film audience. The internal politics of the Tolkien family are none of my business or anyone else's, but I for one am glad that someone who really cares about Tolkien's versions of Tolkien's books has creative control over at least some of them. If that doesn't suit the people who want another rip-roaring action film, then tough. It didn't suit me that the film-makers were free to change as much of the plot of The Lord of the Rings as they liked, but there was nothing I could do about it. It's the same situation here, only in reverse. If the Jackson team had been a little less cavalier with the material over which the author's son had no control, then perhaps he might have let them film other books over which he does have authority. They have only themselves to blame that he now wants nothing to do with them.

[EDIT 9th October 2006] I have since learned that Christopher Tolkien hasn't disowned his son over the films, that the Tolkien estate doesn't control the film rights to The Hobbit and that C.T. hasn't expressed any opinions about the films other than that LotR is unfilmable. I was taken in by careless journalism, and I wasn't the only one.

[lindil]

The Squattter just got my vote for best, and most relevant Movie related post of the Year. Bravo!<P>I may put some of it in my signature, so well was it posted.

[The Saucepan Man]

Erm, perhaps best to avoid the debate over the rights and wrongs of CJT's current inclination to withhold the rights to the Hobbit. It looks to be one of those topics that just might get a <I>little</I> too heated. So I'll just stick to what I've already said.<P>So, moving on (or back) ...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> One question that seems to have not come up is would you like to see Sir Ian Holm playing Bilbo or perhaps a younger actor? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>A younger actor definately. Sadly Sir Ian is probably too old now to credibly play a younger Bilbo, much as I would like to see him in the role. He didn't look quite right to me in the prologue to FotR, despite the make-up job.<P>As for the voice of Smaug, look no further than Alan Rickman (Snipe in Harry Potter for those who don't know him) or Jeremy Irons (the bad lion in the Lion King).

[Lord of Angmar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>As for the voice of Smaug, look no further than Alan Rickman (Snipe in Harry Potter for those who don't know him) or Jeremy Irons (the bad lion in the Lion King).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Jeremy Irons. Yes, I can see it now.<P>This raises another point about a film adaptation of <I>The Hobbit</I> in my mind. Since it has been concluded that if such a film endeavour were to be undertaken, Peter Jackson and company would want the movie to have more of a <I>Lord of the Rings</I> feel than the book had. It might be strange in the context of the <I>Lord of the Rings</I> movie trilogy to have a dragon that talks, since obviously if <I>The Hobbit</I> were to be given a darker tone they would make Smaug out to be more villanous and purely evil (i.e. the Balrog in the <I>Fellowship of the Ring</I> movie). For mass audiences, the idea of a dragon talking, especially since it would have to take on certain characteristics of the "monster movie," might be unappealing. <P>Then again, it might not.<P>Cheers,<BR>Angmar<p>[ 7:45 PM December 10, 2003: Message edited by: Lord of Angmar ]

[Orominuialwen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> A younger actor definately. Sadly Sir Ian is probably too old now to credibly play a younger Bilbo, much as I would like to see him in the role. He didn't look quite right to me in the prologue to FotR, despite the make-up job. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I disagree. I though he looked all right in the prologue. Besides, the continuity would be rather messed up if Bilbo changes appearance. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> How about a non-canonical scene of Arwen babysitting her foster brother, and looking at him with, well... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Except that Arwen was in Lothlorien that whole time, and they didn't even meet until Aragorn was 20. Besides, that would just be too weird.

[lindil]

' Except that Arwen was in Lothlorien that whole time, and they didn't even meet until Aragorn was 20. Besides, that would just be too weird' Exactly, UNcanonical.<P>I think sir Ian is a toss up. <BR>If they could fim it now, I would say maybe, but what we have ibn FotR is what, 4 years old now? <BR>But of course if it is not filmed very soon [could it really start any sooner than 4 years? I think that is a best case scenario] Sir Ian will be really getting on. I liked him well enough, and there is much to be said for continuity, but I just do not see it in the cards. As for a talking dragon, the precedent in M-E was set ages before with Glaurung. Smaug must speak!

[Eurytus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> If the Jackson team had been a little less cavalier with the material over which the author's son had no control, then perhaps he might have let them film other books over which he does have authority. They have only themselves to blame that he now wants nothing to do with them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Quite apart from the hyperbolic claim that Jackson was “cavalier” with the material it is erroneous to say that if they had “doffed the cap” and treated the LOTR as some sort of sacred and unimpeachable text then CT may have accepted those and future films. The guy was so bitter about the prospects of ANY film being made that it simply would not have happened.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> in many ways I'm sure that he sees the work as a personal link with his father. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I would have more respect for his position in this regard if he wasn’t so obsessed with making money out of publishing any scraps of manuscript containing “personal links” with his father.<P>Once the period of copyright after JRR Tolkien’s death has expired then anyone will be free to make adaptations of his works. The sooner the better as far as I am concerned.<P>As soon as anyone starts behaving like any work of art is beyond any change or alteration then they are losing touch with reality. These aren’t the words of God. It isn’t the Qu’ran.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> crass commercialisations of them, hyped as by the fans, for the fans, but actually written with no real respect for the material and aimed at a standard action film audience. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>And I truly hope that anyone who truly believes the above does not even watch the ROTK. Though how anyone could watch the making of documentaries in the Extended Editions and then claim that Jackson and his team have no respect for the material is beyond me.

[Eurytus]

I would also like to say that after reading the following bits from the article that SaucepanMan linked to;<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Jackson wishes to use the hundreds of weapons, suits of armour and fantastic props left over from his epic cinematic endeavour as the foundation for a Lord Of The Rings museum in New Zealand. Both projects are now in severe doubt, however, following the refusal of Christopher, eldest of Tolkien’s four children and the author’s literary executor, to give the estate’s blessing.<P>He communicates with me now through his lawyer ... he will never speak to me again as long as he lives, he will never see my children and will never have anything to do with me<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I almost hope that he carries on refusing to let New Line and PJ do the Hobbit with the same care and attention they have lavished on the LOTR. <BR>Then the copyright can finally expire and Disney can do a version with songs and a lovely moral about beauty being within or similar. <P>Hmmm, I wonder which would serve his father’s legacy better?<P>Jesus, refusing to speak with your grandchildren because of something their father did. That is pretty damn low.

[Mattius]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>As for the voice of Smaug, look no further than Alan Rickman (Snipe in Harry Potter for those who don't know him) or Jeremy Irons (the bad lion in the Lion King).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Dammit I was going to say them too!

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Erm, perhaps best to avoid the debate over the rights and wrongs of CJT's current inclination to withhold the rights to the Hobbit.I couldn't agree more. I'm afraid that I got rather heated in my last post, and it was entirely because people seemed to be gloating over the age and inevitable death of someone who is after all a human being. I try not to voice my opinion of the New Line films too often, because I know what heresy some consider such criticism; but I draw the line when I read posts that heap scorn, derision and what borders on hatred on a man who is only exercising his legal rights. I'll be letting this issue drop once I've addressed the rather spirited rebuttal of my views above.

I for one wouldn't be too ready to judge an issue based on one aggrieved party's description of it. Family problems are seldom as simple as one issue, and I just don't want to involve myself in something that's a private matter between the Tolkiens. In my opinion there may well be more to that issue than what the article is telling us (journalists hate people who won't talk to them), and anyway that's not the point. My point is that if J.R.R. Tolkien's executor wants to stop a director from filming Tolkien's books, then he's entitled to do so; and I think he's a bit more qualified to tell what his father would have wanted than people who never met him.

Personally I thought that the most telling quotation in that article (from an artistic point of view) came from Michael Drout, who's currently editing Tolkien's translation of <I>Beowulf</I>: [Christopher Tolkien] appears to want to present JRR Tolkien’s work. Period. Given that the words have to be interpreted in order to be made into visual form, I can see why he didn’t participate.But even this is only speculation. Christopher Tolkien doesn't want to talk about the issue, and I think that this has been exploited by those who want to film his father's works, and others who perhaps have more personal grievances against him, to put pressure on him to give in. I believe that increasingly fans will be exploited and manipulated in order to generate this pressure, and Christopher Tolkien's siege mentality will only grow more pronounced the more this is done. This, too, will be exploited. That's just the way things are going to be: it's going to be acrimonious, it's going to be messy and a lot of people are going to suffer; but don't worry: there will almost certainly be more films, and New Line's backers will laugh all the way to the bank.

As for "cashing in" on his father's unpublished material: yes, the younger Tolkien has made a lot of money out of the Silmarillion, The History of Middle-earth and other posthumous publications, but he preserved a very high editorial standard throughout. Had he just wanted to make money he could simply have thrown the manuscripts together and sent them to the publishers, or hired somebody else to do the editing. As it was, he put a lot of time and trouble into compiling and explaining the material, whilst allowing his father's writing to take centre stage. He wasn't trying to "build on" J.R.R. Tolkien (that is to use his father's name to get his own Middle-earth stories published), nor was he trying to 'adapt' his father's writing (re-cast it in an image of his choosing), and that is what I mean by respect for the material. J.R.R. Tolkien believed in representing works that he translated as faithfully as the medium of English allowed, and making a film is a translation of a kind. In my opinion, and it can only be my opinion, given my scanty evidence, he would have been mystified by some of the character and plot changes that took place in bringing his work to film.As soon as anyone starts behaving like any work of art is beyond any change or alteration then they are losing touch with reality. These aren’t the words of God. It isn’t the Qu’ran.I know that, Eurytus; and it's a misrepresentation of my opinion to imply that I don't. I had no objection to alterations in the story that were clearly imposed by the demands of a visual medium and the time constraints of film-making. Although it's comfortable to assume that I wanted a word-for-word translation onto film, that isn't what I wanted or expected to see. I began to get annoyed only when new scenes were written (and I'm not referring to the Ents' attack on Isengard, but that ridiculous warg scene and Frodo and Sam's diversion to Osgiliath, to name but two), which took up valuable space that could have been used to film scenes that Tolkien wrote. That to me is arrogance: the attempt not just to film the book, warts and all, but to 'improve' it. What is worse for me is that their 'improvements' tended to leave plot holes and bizarre shifts in character that would otherwise not have been present. In other words, where the changes actually detracted from the work without being clearly necessary to translation, I got annoyed. Where I felt that a change was justified and well done I was content. Sadly, there were enough gratuitous changes for me to feel that the writers of the screenplay were more concerned with showing how much better The Lord of the Rings would have been had they written it than with telling the story that the film was supposedly all about.

I do find it amusing to note, however, that the very people who complain that the likes of me see Tolkien's books as sacred and unalterable texts seem to get very hot under the collar when anyone criticises the films, or suggests that they could have been done better. I am well aware that years of work went into them, but if they still don't strike me as good films, I'm entitled to say so. I am also entitled to disagree with what the producers and owners of a film say about its integrity and quality. As it happens, they are good films, just imperfect adaptations of Tolkien. Had they perhaps not carried Tolkien's titles and Tolkien's name I would probably have enjoyed them a lot more, but as it is they strike me as little more than inaccurate fan-fiction. Others are entitled to think of them what they will: I have no desire to persuade them otherwise, but I see no reason to remain silent in what is after all a discussion forum just because my opinion is unfashionable.

Returning, inevitably, to the issue of commercialisation. To my mind there's a world of difference between editing and publishing a lot of manuscripts with a commentary and presenting a substantially altered version of an existing, published work and using it as a vehicle to sell action figures, role-play games, calendars and whatever other bewildering arrays of merchandise have been released on the back of the films. I look at the New Line machine and I see fans being exploited for money by the usual suspects: corporate executives and shareholders. If it helps at all, I think that Peter Jackson has been used as well (although he's been well paid in return), and my anger is really reserved for the businessmen and script-writers who have tried to beef up the commercial appeal of a story that was already one of the most popular books of all time. There would have been nothing wrong with this, but they seem to have felt that the story as written somehow interfered with the potential popularity; a bizarre opinion, given the massive sales that the original story generated. I don't feel obliged to prostrate myself in gratitude before these people, but I'm not sitting here implying that they should die as soon as possible. I don't care if people want a Hobbit film. I don't care how much they loved the existing films, and I certainly don't want to persuade them that they shouldn't. I just wanted to make sure that somebody stood up and pointed out that Christopher Tolkien is well within his rights, that he has made a more valuable contribution than New Line Cinema to the understanding (rather than the popularity) of J.R.R. Tolkien's works and that the personal discussion of him was getting dangerously vitriolic. Jackson can make a film of The Hobbit for all I care. Even Disney could do it: at least then it would be so bad that it wouldn't overshadow the book; but personal attacks on those who oppose such moves are out of bounds as far as I'm concerned. I would feel exactly the same way about people making personal attacks on Peter Jackson for some family quarrel in which he was involved. Such quarrels are not for the public to discuss, but for the family to resolve as they see fit. I should object strongly and violently if people tried to interfere in my family's private affairs based on gossip they had heard, so I extend the same courtesy to those in public life. I think that we could all do as much.


Looking at this post again, I'm reminded why I normally avoid reading or participating in these discussions. I've got far too involved in this one already for someone who isn't interested in converting or being converted, so I shall now leave you to consider who would make the best cast for a Hobbit film in peace. Anyone who wants to drag me back to the issue will have to do so via personal messages.

[Finwe]

I honestly think that Chris Tolkien has suffered enough. True, many fans all over the world want to see The Hobbit in movie form, but when it comes down to it, it is Christopher's call. From his perspective, a director who butchered the Professor's favorite character, the one who was closest to him, shouldn't be allowed anywhere near The Hobbit. I felt the exact same way. Faramir was probably one of Tolkien's most favorite characters, and considering how badly PJ butchered him, Christopher's opinion makes sense. <P>I'm not saying that Christopher is completely infallible, because no one is. I agree that he is being stubborn, but we have to look at his reasons for being stubborn. If he genuinely feels that The Hobbit can't be made into a motion picture, then there honestly isn't much anyone else can do about it. The situation with Simon is grievous, and I am of the humble opinion that the Tolkiens shouldn't be estranged over this matter, but Christopher does have a right to deny Peter Jackson the right to film The Hobbit.

[The Saucepan Man]

I think we finally understand one another, Sir Squatter. <P>Seriously, that was a great post. While I may not share your views on the merits of these films, I largely agree with what you have said.<P>I only take issue with two points that you make:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> ... presenting a substantially altered version of an existing, published work and using it as a vehicle to sell action figures, role-play games, calendars and whatever other bewildering arrays of merchandise have been released on the back of the films. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I do not believe that these films, in their original conception (and largely in their execution) were intended as a vehicle for commercialisation, crass or otherwise. Yes, they were intended to make money, but then so are most films (and novels for that matter - Tolkien was quite peculiar in this regard). And all of the attendant commercialisation, ranging from action figures, calendars, visual guides and replica One Rings down to the Pringles and KFC endorsements, are an inevitable (albeit regrettable in the case of the aforementioned endorsements) accompaniment to films such as this nowadays. But the production team that worked on these films was, I believe, primarily motivated by the desire to make damn good films. My own opinon is that they succeeded.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I began to get annoyed only when new scenes were written ... That to me is arrogance: the attempt not just to film the book, warts and all, but to 'improve' it <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I don't believe that the scriptwriters and Jackson, as director, felt that they were "improving" on Tolkien's work. They were simply doing what they felt necessary to adapt it to the big screen. I can understand why they did so, even more so having just watched the documentary on translating the book for the screen on the TTT Extended Edition. The reasons that Jackson and Phillipa Boyens give for the changes that they made seem, in the main, wholly credible to me. Rather than thinking that they could tell a better story than Tolkien, I believe that they genuinely felt that the changes were necessary in order to bring that story to the big screen. Many will feel that they were wrong and that they would have done better by sticking closer to the original, but that is a matter of opinion and should not, in my view, be a reason to impugn their motives. It is clear to me, from watching the documentaries on the TTT Extended Edition, that Jackson and co do have the utmost respect and admiration for Tolkien's works. <P>You are right, of course, that we should not seek to pry into the privacy of the Tolkien family or speculate about the motives of its various members, particularly on the scant information that we have. My point was simply that, if I were Christopher Tolkien (and based on the limited information available), I would rather a film of the Hobbit be made by people that I do belleve have a lot of respect for the source material than by those who do not. While I do not wish for Christopher's death, the rights will become available at some point thereafter (in 30 years or so time at the latest, when the copyright runs out, but more likely sooner), by which time Jackson and co might no longer be in a position to take the project on. <P>Finally, just to pick up on the issue of Ian Holm's suitability to play Bilbo:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I disagree. I though he looked all right in the prologue. Besides, the continuity would be rather messed up if Bilbo changes appearance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Believe me, I would have loved to see Ian Holm play the part. I will always identify him with Bilbo. He has taken the role a number of times, most notably (I think) in the BBC audio version. But he is in his seventies now. And given that Bilbo was 50 years old (the equivalent of 30 in human terms) when he set out with Thorin and company, I just cannot see it working. As for continuity, I am sure that there must be a younger actor with a physical resemblance who could play the role credibly. Any ideas anyone?

[lord_of_rohan2003]

As cool as it would be to see the Hobbit made into a movie im affraid Chritopher Tolkien holds the rights to do so and he has made it very clear that does not like Jackson's LOTR.He believies that the movie should follow the book to a t,which as nice as that would be,is just not possible,who would want to sit through a 15 hour movie?<P>I think one day it could be possible but not as soon as people would like to see it(what was it 2008?)but then again CT is 77,maybe when the day comes he passes away the person who takes his plase will sell the rights not unless they respect his wishes to not sell it.So we just have to wait and see what futre holds...

[Elladan and Elrohir]

I have been reading this discussion with great interest and one thing I think we should all remember is that Christopher Tolkien is his father's son. For sure that's where he gets his stubbornness; just read J.R.R.'s letters if you don't believe me.<P>I can completely understand where he's coming from, and I think his position is similar to what his father's would be, were he alive today (and oh that he were). He sold the rights to LOTR to New Line hoping they would stay as close as the book as humanly possible.<P>They released three (OK, almost three, not quite three yet) movies that are, without a doubt, masterpieces in filmmaking, visually appealing, and very close to the books. However, they also took many creative liberties with the books.<P>I'm not saying I hate the creative liberties they took. In a lot of cases I like them. It's impossible to take a novel, turn it into a movie, and have it come out looking exactly the same.<P>But Christopher Tolkien felt that the movies went too far, and I can see how someone in his position might think that. And he is thus understandably reluctant to give the rights to Hobbit to New Line as well, so that they can (as he sees it) do more butchery of another of his father's classics.<P>Personally? I would love to see PJ do The Hobbit. I think he would do a terrific job with it, and he would stay pretty close to the book too.<P>Obviously, however, C.J.R. Tolkien doesn't see it that way. And for the present, there doesn't seem to be anything anybody can do about it.

[Eurytus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> As it happens, they are good films, just imperfect adaptations of Tolkien. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>As it happens I can agree totally with Squatter's statement above. The difference between us, I think, is that he sees the latter half of the comment as a flaw whereas I don't.<P>I can't see where anyone has been gloating over the age and possible death of CT though. In fact, unless I am mistaken, the copyright laws pertain to the date of his father's death rather than his.<BR>Indeed I do not believe that I mentioned the possibility of CT dying at all.

[Lord of Angmar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>As it happens I can agree totally with Squatter's statement above. The difference between us, I think, is that he sees the latter half of the comment as a flaw whereas I don't. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I entirely agree, Eurytus. Imperfection is the essence of a book's translation into a movie. I have to give credit where credit is due, and Peter Jackson deserves credit in my mind for being the best-suited director at interpreting Tolkien's words (though, granted, changing them rather often) and turning them into grand, epic, thoroughly enjoyable movies.<P>On a lighter note, I do not think that Ian Holm could play Bilbo any more, much as I wish he could. Saucepan has pretty much laid out all the reasons why he cannot. As for who <I>would</I> play Bilbo...er... that is indeed a harder question to answer, since Ian Holm basically <I>is</I> Bilbo Baggins. It will be hard to find that same, nutty, simple, hilarious hobbitishness in a contemporary actor, if ever <I>The Hobbit</I> is translated to the silver screen. A relatively unknown actor would probably be best, rather like Dominic Monaghan and Billy Boyd. In the area of casting Peter Jackson has, for the most part, earned my trust, so I suppose if New Line ever gets the rights we have only to wait and see!<P>Cheers,<BR>Angmar

[samrohan]

The role of Bilbo if ever the filming of The Hobbit will take place should be given to an unknown actor.<BR>I understand why CT feels betrayed by Newline in terms of them not following his fathers book and inventing new twists to the storyline. I felt let down by many scenes and changes when watching the Fellowship of the Rings, but thanks to the excellent filming and marvellous directing from PJ, I forgave him by the second movie and I am looking forward to seeing all these endings the previews are talking about.<P>It is trust that a movie cannot follow a book to the T. Some liberties should be taken. It actually hurts me to say this as I don't entirelly forgive all PJs changes.<P>I however would love to see PJ direct the Hobbit, but I wonder if he would be willing to direct it, as it would be less of a challenge after the LOTR.<P>" As long as he does not over-feature celebs like he did for Liv Tyler", my biggest grudge.

[Lord of Angmar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I however would love to see PJ direct the Hobbit, but I wonder if he would be willing to direct it, as it would be less of a challenge after the LOTR.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>PJ does wish to direct <I>The Hobbit</I>, as evidenced by this quote in the initial post of this thread:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Despite his exhaustion, Jackson is not resting on his laurels and said if complex rights issues can be resolved he would like to direct "The Hobbit", J.R.R. Tolkien's prequel to the "Rings" trilogy set some 50 years earlier. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>My guess is Peter Jackson would welcome a less-challenging project than the <I>Lord of the Rings</I> trilogy, although certainly making a hobbit movie would be no less challenging than each of the individual LotR movies was.<p>[ 11:10 AM December 12, 2003: Message edited by: Lord of Angmar ]

[Ainaserkewen]

Poor Christopher...I would be upset too not just because of the "adaptations" of his father's work, but all that came with it. The marketing, the merchandise the plays(After the fellowship came out a stream of amaturish impressice plays followed and everyone of them terrible) I for one loved the animated Hobbit to itti bitti bits(I'm not that picky when it comes to animations) and I would love to see Jackson's dream realised. I don't see why there can't be a comprimise between the two wizards. Jackson should direct the movie so that it remains consistent with the LOTR, but Tolkien should be there as an overseer. I don't understand why he wasn't with the project from the begining if it was so important. Jackson used conceptual artists Howe and [darn I can't remember the other's name] to keep the sets and scenery true enough(and it was pretty flawless, I thought) why can't Tolkien lend his carful eye to the completion of the Hobbit? It would make both him and his fans happy.

[The Only Real Estel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>why can't Tolkien lend his carful eye to the completion of the Hobbit? It would make both him and his fans happy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I don't think Jackson would want him. Seriously, it's unlikely that Christopher would give him much freedom if he was standing alongside him (can you imagine CT allowing PJ to change Faramir or cut the Scouring? Probably not...), & that would limit PJ's creativity. I doubt he would want him around to hinder his 'interpretation' of the books.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Jackson used conceptual artists Howe and [darn I can't remember the other's name] to keep the sets and scenery true enough(and it was pretty flawless, I thought)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>John Howe & Alan Lee.

[Dininziliel]

Something about this discussion of the rights of Mr. Christopher Tolkien and the filming of his father's stories reminds me of the debate in "The Council of Elrond." <P>How ironic that a story created to establish a mythology illustrating and celebrating the need for forgiveness, faith, companionship, and Love has, in the hands of "vox populi" become instead an excuse for condemnation, mistrust, and factionalism. <P>Makes me want to go read the book . . . again.

[Lord of Angmar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Makes me want to go read the book . . . again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Hear, hear!

[lindil]

"Makes me want to go read the book . . . again."<P>PJ can have that effect on one!

[Finwe]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Something about this discussion of the rights of Mr. Christopher Tolkien and the filming of his father's stories reminds me of the debate in "The Council of Elrond." <BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I just hope we don't have to go put together a Fellowship to destroy the One Copy of the LotR Trilogy, deep in the heart of Peter Jackson's kingdom. Somehow, a Quest to find the Trashcan of Doom inside Mt. Doom (i.e. WETA Digital studio) doesn't sound quite practical, if you take my meaning.

[Dininziliel]

Finwe writes: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Somehow, a Quest to find the Trashcan of Doom inside Mt. Doom (i.e. WETA Digital studio) doesn't sound quite practical, if you take my meaning. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>LOL. Erm, yes sir, I take your meaning!

[Man-of-the-Wold]

We (devoted adherents of the philosophy, minutia, etc., as laid down by JRR Tolkien) can understand C Tolkien, in never being satisfied with these films ... or with any films, I'd argue, that could realistically be made well in terms of cinematic standards.<P>I'm just glad they (3 separate motion pictures) were done now, with DVDs and so forth, and not in the `60s, `70s or `80s. Times change, of course, in terms of markets, technology, tastes and so forth, and perhaps truer versions would be possible 10 or 20 years from now, but it has been long enough in coming.<P>Why this reference to time? … because JRR Tolkien's genius and work belong to the ages and to all people. It is not even C. Tolkien's job to be "dogmatist-in-charge."<P>JRR Tolkien's post-LotR-publication letters show that he was eager for film adaptations for popular exposure, as well as financial reasons. [“Stanley U. & I have agreed on our policy: Art or Cash. Either very profitable terms indeed; or absolute author’s veto on objectionable features or alterations.”—Letters. #202 to Christopher and Faith Tolkien (emphasis in the original)] C Tolkien failed on both counts, it might seem, as a result of the Bashki decision, and regrets may be part of the issue with him now. JRR Tolkien was also well aware of the need for severe recasting of his huge story to make a movie out of it. Nevertheless, it is very sobering to compare the effort and sensitivity of Peter Jackson and crew with the stupidity from Hollywood that JRR Tolkien encountered in his lifetime.<P>The commercialism, however crass, does sustain and spread his work, and frankly, I find most of it to be sort of endearing, but it is also a reality of the need for money and marketing to make these films successful, for which they could not otherwise be made, and I’m sure much of it delights plenty of small children, as well.<P>The reality of the stories is that they are adventure epics. Despite the presence of so much more, the LotR plot does revolve around battles and exciting encounters. Hence, you have an action-packed film. How much more you can do with that as part of the screen-play is quite limited; that's the genre, in which one is stuck with, and I'm glad that these elements can be pulled off with a maximum of design, realism, skill and technology, not too mention decent writing, excellent acting, beautiful cinematography, and so forth. Poorly done costumes and goblin make-up would not have gone down well.<P>But it is all incredibly expensive, requiring confidence in mass-audience appeal, including female characters and relationships. Most literate folks, really don't read books, they wait for the movie to come out, and then perhaps, they read the book. This fact was certainly not lost on JRR Tolkien.<P>My biggest problem with the films remains (merely) the somewhat cartoon-like aspects at the Council of Elrond, Moria and in Fangorn. They could have been more sophisticatedly rendered. Despite Peter Jackson's brilliance at direction and visual impact, the screenwriters are not great ones, but if they had been, they would have likely sought even more to make their own artistic mark, and then there'd be clashes not only with the books but also with the Director, and so on. Life is full of trade-offs and non-ideal circumstances.<P>The substantive additions (“slight deviation” as facetiously said in the EE commentary) to the storyline are for me largely defensible in terms of what JRR Tolkien implied in the Appendices, other writings or earlier conceptualization that while not right for the book have value in a screenplay. It's all just Art, sub-creation, and not really canonical in a religious sense, notwithstanding the altar in the Barrow.<P>Much of the other things that bother us about the films are the unavoidable simplifications, abridgements, omissions, compression of time, re-juxtaposition of lines, scenes & places, visually driven renderings, composition of characters, changes of emphasis, and other such devices to adapt a story to screen<P>Also, in spite of the lavish budget and time afforded this project, both constraints were felt, restricting the filmmaker's ability to experiment and takes risks, and ultimately they had to work with what they had and deliver a product, which C Tolkien should recognize from the published Silmirillion, which I feel he and others regret overmuch.<P>Thirdly, this is a gargantuan undertaking. Neither any Tolkien, you, nor I could ever hope to do it, but humans, who make mistakes, plain & simple, did it. If they have an overwrought concern for maintaining dramatic tension, then that is one of the weaknesses, but they bring a lot of counter-balancing strengths to the table.<P>Moreover is the challenge of holding an audience’s attention. Most people do not like to read too many words at once; the majority will not yet have read The Lord of the Rings’ thousand-plus pages (much less recently or multiple times); they are easily confused, and they always resent being confused or having to think very hard, and will tune out immediately. This brings me to something that I find very troubling, and possibly C Tolkien does too: To keep the issues clear and the Ring’s significance obvious, the Films blatantly depict the Ring as an aggressively, overtly evil force (notwithstanding that even Film-Bilbo cheerfully carried it around for 60 years), and Men (per Isildur), are ‘easily corrupted’ and lusting of power (only Film-Aragorn is really different, but in contrast to the books, he’s on a markedly anti-power trip!).<P>This films’ treatment of the Ring & Men is not, of course, really inconsistent with themes from the book, but it sadly distorts JRR Tolkien’s message about humanity, morality and mortality. But to capture even a portion of the requisite nuance and breadth on these issues would mean an entirely different type of film, with long dialogue and cheap action sequences. Also at work is present-day political correctness. For “Men” read “white males.” (Even the books’ emphasis on nature and simplicity is given the decidedly and misleadingly “green” gloss of late 20th Century environmentalism) Whether the filmmakers were wrong in these regards, and couldn’t have found less simplistic and truer techniques to communicate about the Ring and keep it central to the story, it’s hard to say, given the constraints noted above. But even in vain retrospect, regarding “what I’d have done” or “how I think it should have been done,” I can’t really come up with a good alternative that wouldn’t have been lost on the average moviegoer (poor souls).<P>Finally, the filmmakers are artists to one degree or another, and JRR Tolkien might have appreciated the need to let them follow their own inclinations, talents and ideas. Micromanagers everywhere forget that when competent folks take on big jobs, control of the means, process and outcomes needs to be relented. Everyone has a different vision of The Lord of the Rings, and for someone to sit back and say that something isn’t right (now that it’s presented to them) is not exercising a positive influence. An author should either write the screenplay and be part of the project, or let go. I’m just glad the Films are not filled with cheesy Gallic moustaches or stereotypic Viking helmets.<P>We’re he alive today, JRR Tolkien would hopefully not be so arrogant as to exert inappropriate control. A Film is an entirely unique creation unto itself, however much it is based on another source. The Harry Potter movies show how unsatisfying an overly faithful adaptation can be, and they were feasible as such, in my opinion, only because of the film-friendly nature of those books and the first two installments’ relative brevity.<P>The Lord of the Rings (at least the first two parts) are not at all film-friendly, and it is a gorgeous but nevertheless complex and sprawling story, and again, I count my blessings that the ultimate extended edition DVD(s) will provide up to 11 hours of quality-made picture time, which is absolutely incredible. To render the books in truer form would necessitate at least another four hours and a fourth theatrical release, which in retrospect New Line might have done, but beforehand, the company was taking a tremendous gamble in bankrolling three, 180-minute productions at once.<P>If JRR Tolkien shared any of the perspective that I describe above, I feel that he would have been extremely appreciative and pleased with such treatment of his work. Obviously, C Tolkien knows him better than anyone else alive now, but JRR Tolkien left this world over 30 years ago. Busy with his own career and family, C Tolkien was plainly not very familiar with his father’s work on Middle-Earth during the final 20 years, as revealed in The History of Middle-Earth and the many things that he only lately uncovered. In short, no one knows what JRR Tolkien would have thought today, and ultimately C Tolkien is just another fan with his (however superiorly informed) viewpoints. And to some extent it doesn’t matter; note that if it weren’t for Rayner Unwin dedicated efforts to move JRR Tolkien along, as shown in Letters, The Lord of the Rings books could very likely have never seen the light of day.<P>So, obviously I would like to see the Tolkien Estate and the New Line/Peter Jackson folks come together and work out a deal. The Hobbit seems rather film-friendly to me, and I think it and JRR Tolkien’s memory deserve to see it also made into a high-quality, live action and widely seen motion picture. For better or worse, I feel that any film of The Hobbit needs to be consistent with the look and feel of Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings.<P>Here we must accept that New Line and Jackson now own (in the most general way) part of the JRR Tolkien legacy. Whether this is part of C Tolkien’s problems, who can say, but they have arguably expanded that legacy much more still. I don’t see what New Line and Jackson could do for the Tolkien Estate other than to be understanding and a bit contrite. They pulled off what no one could do for decades, except for the animated disaster, for which we can thank the Tolkien Estate. Though, Bashki did some good things, which Jackson copied more than he admits.<P>This doesn’t mean that Peter Jackson would actually need to direct The Hobbit, much less that it would need the same script-writing team, but the design and other folks would need to be reassembled to a great degree, and Peter Jackson involved as producer to maintain the consistency, that I find indispensable as a film package. And the Tolkien Estate could have a consultative role, but C Tolkien or whoever would need to be realistic about the appropriate extent of that role or share of the proceeds.<P>As for anything from the First Age, a rather different look and feel might be quite good, and those stories offer plenty of latitude for writers and filmmakers in terms of dialogue and other things, which cannot be directly compared with the literary work. Hopefully, they are not really off limits. I’d like to see Beren and Lúthien on screen.<P>I don’t really understand the whole thing about the rights to The Hobbit or the Tolkien family dynamics described above in this thread. Evidently, despite the Rankin|Bass animated Hobbit for television, the rights were retained by, reverted to or otherwise recouped by the Tolkien Estate. It seems unbelievable that C Tolkien could allegedly be so estranged from his son because the latter likes the Films and the former is unhappy with them. But someone might best be careful lest he “Inherit the Wind.”<P>I have (in addition to movie tickets) spent nearly $200 in terms of DVDs and other film stuff, and I’ll gladly spend more, regardless of the things that trouble me, but ultimately my complaints are vain; there is nothing I can do.<P>C Tolkien differs from us here. In a negative sense at least, he can do something by not releasing the rights to make films based on other of his father’s genius. Clearly, I don’t think that serves his father’s legacy or humanity, but maybe that’s just me.<P>C Tolkien may also regret the control that he forfeited, not to mention the vast sums of money involved; hundreds of millions of dollars are not so easily overlooked, even if the Tolkien Estate is presumably quite well endowed, in no small thanks now to the films’ effect on book sales. Of course, he did one smart thing, by quitting his job and devoting himself to producing his father’s written, albeit unfinished, work. Too bad his father was not so prescient 25 years earlier. But if C Tolkien so understands his father mind and vision, then why in the process of collecting and cataloguing the father’s prodigious writings did he not take the bold editorial steps to put it all together into a final, fully fleshed out and truly complete version of The Silmirillion and associated Legendarium? … as his father did wish to do.<P>C Tolkien has the talent, understanding and natural right to have done so, it would seem. Maybe, he just wasn’t so inclined or was restrained by the literary provisions of his father’s Will. Instead, he embarked on an equally challenging and probably more laborious task of the 12-volume History of Middle-Earth. But in this case, he assumes the role of the detached academic (for the most part) who is merely presenting a study of his father’s work. In a sense, he made a choice not to contribute to the popular and widely read legacy of his father (even if the HoME books have become fairly good sellers), but instead he sought to heighten respect of his father’s work from a more academic and philosophical perspective.<P>To this, movie-making, even if sensitive and sophisticated, contributes little, but I believe you can have both, and the bulk of moviegoers and lovers of the erudite are different audiences indeed. Perhaps, after all his work, C Tolkien may take it all a little too seriously.<P>Returning to speculation about The Hobbit film, I think it could quite closely follow the book. It could and should include more extensive back-story in terms of the Necromancer, assault on Dol Guldor and the pre-Unexpected Party story. Hugo Weaving and Ian McKellen should reprise their roles, and Orlando Bloom might be a minor part of the Woodland Realm stuff. Some elements and dwarves might have to be lost, but it is really a very compact story, and the double climax of Smaug’s destruction and the concluding battle could be cleverly done, not unlike the first Star Wars movie.<P>Ian Holm is a tough one. In the prologue they show him somewhat younger looking, maybe, hard to say, although later in the story it is indicated that like in the books, the Ring prevented him from aging, but the filmmakers may have wanted some contrast, rather then trying to push the non-aging point, in order to reinforce the impression that a long period of time has gone by. Peter Jackson like many filmmakers is uncomfortable with screen-play element that are not contained within in continuous stretch of current time, and indeed jumps in time often appear rather artificial and awkward on film. But given the physical demands and the fact that he is only supposed to be the equivalent of someone in his late 30s, the Bilbo role in The Hobbit would need to be played by a younger actor. Hopefully, it will happen.

[Meneltarmacil]

I'm somewhat confused over the whole rights issue. If Christopher Tolkien didn't sell them, then how did Rankin-Bass get the rights to it anyway?

[Kronos]

The position often stated regarding the filming of the Hobbit on this threads is often misleading and wrong. It is often stated that perhaps had PJ been more faithful to the books in his films then maybe CT would have given permission for him to film the Hobbit.<P>This is wrong in two ways. Firstly and lets be honest here, from the information we have it seems clear that CT would never had been happy with the Hobbit being filmed. He was against the films when they were optioned, he was against them during the planning and filming and has been against them ever since. Indeed I cannot recall a time when he was ever not against them. (although I do recall his father being less stringent when the family were not as well off as they are now)<BR>Given the situation described it is unclear exactly how PJ could have filmed the book in a way that would have satisfied CT. Lets be clear CT was not in favour of the films when he (and everyone else bar PJ) knew nothing about how they would be filmed. He did not change his tune when 2 world respected artists (well in Tolkien circles in any case) were brought onto the production. PJ could have included a peon of praise to JRRT at the start and finish of every film. He could have filmed them as one unabridged and unaltered 25 hour film and it is still extremely unlikely that CT would have revised his “un-filmable” opinion.<P>However, happily for the rest of the movie going world who are happy with the films, CT has no say whatsoever as to whether the Hobbit gets made into a film. The problem actually lies between New Line who have first refusal on making the film and Universal Artists who own the distribution rights. Until those two companies come to an arrangement there will be no film.<P>However, since PJ has stated that he would like to make the Hobbit, you have people like Ian McKellen and Howard Shore campaigning for the film to be made, and since any film based on Tolkien and directed by the (now big time director Peter Jackson) will make an absolute fortune it is practically inconceivable for the film not to be made. It is only a question of time.

[The Only Real Estel]

That all depends, Kronos. If Christopher Tolkien does actually hold the rights to the Hobbit (I'm not entirly clear on this), & if the movies can't be made without his go-ahead (not entirly sure on this, either), than I don't think there's a very good chance that they will be made. He's no doubt well enough off that he has no real need for the money, & he probably understands that a lot of the money it would make would be off of the type of cheap mass-merchandising that would make his father roll over in his grave. I have no doubt that if 'CT' doesn't want the Hobbit converted to a movie, it probably won't be. But this whole post is based on the assumption that he holds the rights & the 'go-ahead' needed to do the movie.

[The Saucepan Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> But this whole post is based on the assumption that he holds the rights & the 'go-ahead' needed to do the movie. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I had originally understood that Tolkien's Estate held the film rights to the Hobbit, but more recent reports that I have read suggest that Kronos is right and that the dispute is between the two companies. And that seems to me to be more credible scenario, given that the film rights to LotR were sold by the Estate. <P>And, assuming that this is correct, then I would agree that it is almost certain that the film will be made in the near future. Although, if Jackson is to make it, then he will not be doing so until after he has finished up on King Kong.<P>Edit: Still not sure how they will get round the lack of <I>any</I> female characters, though. Perhaps they will just have to bite the bullet on that one.<p>[ 6:57 PM January 07, 2004: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[HCIsland]

Doesn't the fact that an animated Hobbit was made speak to Chris Tolkien not owning the rights to The Hobbit?<P>H.C.

[The Only Real Estel]

True, HC, for some reason I hadn't thought of that . Well, if Saucepan Man is right (& I have no doubt he is), then I also have no doubt that PJ will get ahold of the Hobbit. Lets just hope he doesn't try to force any female characters in there. He's in a fix without them, but he could do a lot more harm then good by creating some.

[Kronos]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> That all depends, Kronos. If Christopher Tolkien does actually hold the rights to the Hobbit (I'm not entirly clear on this), & if the movies can't be made without his go-ahead (not entirly sure on this, either), than I don't think there's a very good chance that they will be made. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I thought that I was pretty clear in my post that he did not have the rights or any say in the go-ahead of the films.<P>But in case I wasn't, he doesn't in either case.

[Lathriel]

I would love to see The Hobbit becoming a movie and it would be nice to see actors return.<BR>Too bad this rights thing isn't going to well. It is pretty serious from everything I read. However i am still going to keep my fingers crossed.<BR>

[NoCoolTolkienName]

Man, this thread has me rolling in the aisles. Some of you folks are <I>really</I> over-analyzing this thing. $$ will make it happen, in spite of "protecting this", "presevering that", "legendary stubborness", etc...etc... If money were to go up against the One Ring itself, I'd take my chances on the former. There will be a Hobbit movie, it's just a case of when, not if.<P>I'm sorry, but people being so sensitive to the eventual death of C. Tolkien is another thing that has me laughing. Cripes! There are a half million things to be bothered about in this world, yet some people are getting incensed over the perception that some folks want the old man dead so his precious (no pun intended) Hobbit manuscript can be snatched from his cold, lifeless fingers.<P>The movies kept the essence of the books intact in spite of the alterations from the storyline. To say otherwise is a classic case of not seeing the forest for the trees. If J.R.R. Tolkien had been a film director in our time period, and not an author, I wonder how his vision of LOTR would have been altered from what we see in the books?

[Lathriel]

I just read on TORn yesterday that there might be new hope for getting the rights to the Hobbit. The article was a little short but it sounded very optimistic.

[Gorwingel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>However, happily for the rest of the movie going world who are happy with the films, CT has no say whatsoever as to whether the Hobbit gets made into a film. The problem actually lies between New Line who have first refusal on making the film and Universal Artists who own the distribution rights. Until those two companies come to an arrangement there will be no film.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Yes, this is actually right, from what I have heard recently. Christopher Tolkien and the Tolkien Estate does not own the film rights to The Hobbit, and additionally they did not sell the rights to LOTR directly to New Line either as some people have been saying (the rights to the films were sold years ago to Saul Zaentz, a producer, who also produced the animated films, and who acquired the rights before Tolkien died). The main conflict, and the reason a Hobbit film is not going straight into production is that United Artists (aka MGM) owns the rights to make the film, and New Line just recently acquired the rights to distribute the films. Of course both studios really want to make these films (New Line wants to continue their most popular series, and MGM could really use a hit film right now, because they have not been doing well recently, and are basically almost to the point of being sold to the highest bidder). But it looks like, most likely we will see a Hobbit film from PJ, and the people at New Line. If they fork over enough money for the rights (which they will probably eventually do) The Hobbit film will probably go into pre-production after King Kong is done.<P>I think the main reason that Christopher Tolkien is speaking out now is that it is just a good time to try to change public opinion with all these rumors gong around, and to rally the group of die-hard fans who have been sadden by the films. I appreciate both sides of this argument though, and I understand where both groups are coming from, and I really don’t know (after reading all of this) where I stand. I would actually like to see a Hobbit film, but then I don’t want it to stray as far away from the main storyline as the LOTR films have. I love the LOTR films and I wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for them. But now after reading the books multiple times, I find that the films really don’t show the true spirit of the story, and I find that much of the “quietness” of the books that I appreciated is gone from the film because it is considered “boring”.<P>It will be interesting to see what is going to happen in the next couple of years though. But I don’t think that Christopher Tolkien is being an enemy because he is speaking out against the films. This is a free world where we should be allowed to say whatever we would like, and he is just expressing his true feelings. And for me that is truly a refreshing thing

[Kronos]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> But I don’t think that Christopher Tolkien is being an enemy because he is speaking out against the films. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>But to be fair, beyond all the people on this site saying that CT is against the films I have seen very few (if any) direct quotes from the man himself.<P>To be frank I suspect that he is not against the films per se. He is more against the attendant hype and therefore focus on Tolkien that goes with them.<P>I suspect that the bottom line is that he is a very private man and would simply like to be left alone.<P>Oh, and to continue making money from Tolkien's legacy of course.

[thephantomcredits]

This is so tired. How many times will we debate the changes made in these movies. Even if you are bothered by the changes (Even if your Are Christopher Tolkien) how can these changes stand in the way of your enjoyment of the world on screen. Overall who could have made a better adaptation dealing with the hollywood pressure and common movie tendencies you need to include to make a wide audience appeal to the work. The goal of the movies is two fold, profit and art. Don't let the profit aspect stand in the way of the Art that was brought forth. In saying this I understand The many concerns Chris and BKT's (book first Tolkienities). I will ackknowledge even the moves made that seemed questionable or a strech. None of those changes is enough to discount the sweeping epic that was created. PJ opened the world of middle earth to me, introduced me to Tolkien. I'm glad he did. I Love the Silm just as much as the LOTR.

[thephantomcredits]

before I forget, If the Hobbit were to be made, Ian Mckellian to me is the essential bridge. His Gandalf the Grey is untouchable in my eyes. How about a Radagast cameo in Hobbit? I'm sure he can be fit in.

[Arwen Evenstar]

I just found out that PJ is going to start filming The Hobbit next year! Andy Serkis and Ian Mckellan will be in it, but I don`t know about Ian Holm and Hugo Weaving. You can read about it @ www.theonering.net. :D

[ElanorGamgee]

Horrah!

I wonder how PJ will handle Smaug...I'm sure that he will come up with a wonderful-looking dragon, but will it talk? I can see a talking dragon looking a little cheesy if it isn't done right, but a mute Smaug would take a lot of plot (and humor) out of the story. Hroom....

[Luthien_ Tinuviel]

Um... where exactly on the TORn page do you see that? All I'm finding is the Call to Pens.... which isn't entirely the same thing. ;)

[Silmiel of Imladris]

I do hope this news is for real for I have seen some very cruel April fools jokes lately and many them to do with the Hobbit. I am not sure about Ian Holm, but Hugo Weaving will probably be in there unless PJ decides to cut out the Rivendel part completely. :mad: He better not for how are they to know where they are going without Elrond's advice about the moon runes.

[Gorwingel]

I think though that the date that TheOneRing.net talked about (2005) is just a date that they threw out as part of their big April Fools joke. I still think that there is nothing else set in stone, and in addition I have heard nothing about New Line and MGM solving their differences, so I don't think anything is final. But I do think that if a Hobbit movie does go into production sometime soon, it will probably start around that date (or most likely a little bit later, 2005 is only next year :eek: time does go by fast).

[Miriel Undomiel]

how are they to know where they are going without Elrond's advice about the moon runes.

Don't you think PJ would cut out that as well if he decided to skip Rivendell?
He is known for taking certain liberties in his screen version of LotR. Why wouldn't he change things in the Hobbit then?

[Saraphim]

I assume they'll bring back Hugo Weaving if they have the Rivendell scene in there. Ian Something is Gandalf, and Andy Serkis for Gollum is a definite(I have sudden amnesia and can't remember how to spell his name, but you all know who I'm talking about)

Ian Holm may be a bit too old to play a young hobbit, though. I dont know how old he really is, but Bilbo's supposed to be about the same age as Frodo when they go on thier respective adventures.

[Luthien_ Tinuviel]

Well, TORn says his birthday is September 12, 1931.... Which makes him 72. That's a little old to play a hobbit fifty-year-old, granted! I think it would be a shame if he didn't do it, though.

[The Saucepan Man]

There are already a number of threads here dealing with the possibility of Jackson directing a film version of the Hobbit, so I am merging this thread in with one of those.

Read up and you can find all sorts of opinions on the likelihood (and desirability) of the film being made, potential changes to the story and views on who should play some of the roles.

And here's another thread discussing possible casting:

Cast the First Hobbit (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=10150)

[Oddwen]

Actually, the guy who played Farmer Maggot ("There's no Bagginses here. They're all up in Hobbiton.") reminds me very much of a younger Bilbo.


Could they not (as in the FotR party scene) have an older Bilbo played by Ian Holm narrating his adventure to a captive young audience?

[The Only Real Estel]

Oddwen: Actually, I think there's a much better chance of them just going with Ian Holm again. Although that all depends on how long it takes them to start filming the movie...he's no spring chicken :p.
If he is going to be 72, he'd have to do a really good job, especially if they want him to act considerably younger than the 50 he is in the books, like they did with Frodo.

[Orophin]

Its cool with me as long as they have all of the characters that are oalso in the lord of the rings return and it follows the book.

[Gil Galad]

Maybe not all of the characters, Legolas maybe, but not all of them. Someone made a hobbit trailer. Search for. It's real good, made by a fan.

[The_Hand]

I think someone else should do The Hobbit... It is a very different book and I would like to see what another talented director did with it. But I would love if Ian played Gandalf. He's so perfect for that role.

[Marared]

I dont think anyone but PJ should make The Hobbit. He's the only person I would trust.

Its been a while since I read The Hobbit, but arent the elves alot different than in LOTR? If I remember correctly the elves are mischievous and merry-making as opposed to wise and regal-like. How do you think the elves should be portrayed?

[The Only Real Estel]

But I would love if Ian played Gandalf. He's so perfect for that role.

It'd be interesting to see them do the Hobbit without Ian, since he's already Gandalf 'later on'. Not like stuff of that sort hasn't been done before, but I really think it'd be bad if Ian couldn't be in the movie (I'm sure Jackson would want him).

Orophin : I think we'd be lucky if we even got half of the dwarves in. I'm sure they'll leave out plenty of characters, but I still think it'd be cool to get another lotr movie :cool:.

[The_Hand]

I think the elves should be portrayed as they are in the book. I like them better in The Hobbit... they're alot more... merry! But then again perhaps if they just made them a little more merry than in Lotr, but not quite as serious.

[Lobelia]

Without going into the rights and wrongs of doing a Hobbit movie - I have mixed feelings on the issue, though I would be very sorry if I'd never seen the LOTR movies - I thought I'd mention I was at a con yesterday where one of the guests, a compositor who worked at Weta on ROTK, seemed confident the Hobbit movie would go ahead, probably after KING KONG. He said New Line has the film rights and - was it MGM, I forget? - has the distribution rights. There is too much money here, he said, for it not to happen.

All I can hope is that if it does go ahead, as seems likely, Christopher T will soften enough that he can actually be consulted over the thing and it would be more likely to be something his father wouldn't have minded. Unlikely, but you never know.

[The Only Real Estel]

Too bad they did not save Agent Smith for Thranduil, he would have done much better than as Elrond methinks.

Woh! Great point! I can't believe it took me this long to notice it, though O_o :rolleyes:.

[One of the Nine]

I can't wait to see if the "Hobbit" does come out. Where I'm from, there's a lot of buzz, but no certainties. I think PJ will make it though. He made the other movies, so why not? :rolleyes:

[ElberethVarda]

Actually, PJ has no intention as far as anyone knows, of doing the Hobbit now. He and Fran are totally occupied by King Kong. You can read to your heart's content about anything concerning the Hobit film here. (http://www.thehobbitfilm.com/)

[The Only Real Estel]

Actually, PJ has no intention as far as anyone knows, of doing the Hobbit now. He and Fran are totally occupied by King Kong.

Oh, he's certainly not worrying about it now. But apparently he is very interested in it after King Kong (as just about everybody has said in just about every post in this thread :)).

[Child of the 7th Age]

More fuel for speculation..... Here is a doozy of a story on The Hobbit.

Click here for PJ's comments on bringing back the "relatives" of the Ring characters. (http://www.wizardnews.com/story.20041209.html)

OK, Gimli is not a problem. You could certainly reprise Ian as Gandalf. And I suppose they could run into a younger Arwen or Aragorn or Legalos. The latter would make some sense in Mirkwood, perhaps even helping Bilbo escape.

But what could they possibly have in mind for Pippin or Merry or someone like Boromir or Faramir? (Just how far are they going with this thing?) And how do Ian and Elijah fit in here? If all his Hobbit buds were going back for the Hobbit shooting, I can't imagine Elijah being "left out".

Any ideas? You also get the impression that some of these actors still really miss the bonds they forged in making LotR.

[Lobelia]

[QUOTE=Child of the 7th Age]More fuel for speculation..... Here is a doozy of a story on The Hobbit.


OK, Gimli is not a problem. You could certainly reprise Ian as Gandalf. And I suppose they could run into a younger Arwen or Aragorn or Legalos. The latter would make some sense in Mirkwood, perhaps even helping Bilbo escape.

But what could they possibly have in mind for Pippin or Merry or someone like Boromir or Faramir? (Just how far are they going with this thing?) And how do Ian and Elijah fit in here? If all his Hobbit buds were going back for the Hobbit shooting, I can't imagine Elijah being "left out".

Any ideas?

Gimli says he was left at home as being too young at merely sixty (can't recall where this passage appears, somewhere in the HOME books, where the characters are sitting around Minas Tirith discussing the quest of Erebor).That leaves him out. Legolas would be there, but really, is there any reason Orlando Bloom couldn't just play Thranduil? That way they wouldn't have to stick in a cameo of a character who wasn't in the novel just to please the fans. Of course, he is a bit young to be convincing; Thranduil might look young, but has a mature dignity about him. I'd still rather see that than stick in Legolas. No, you couldn't have Boromir or Faramir, obviously, or even a young Denethor, because he wasn't born at the time! Arwen was in Lothlorien at the time - remember, when Aragorn first sees her, she's only just come home from there, and he's twenty at the time. Aragorn was ten and living in Rivendell during the period of The Hobbit - he could perhaps come in briefly while the maps are being interpreted and be shooed off to play. Though I sometimes wonder if Aragorn *ever* played. ;)

[Child of the 7th Age]

Lobelia,

Sorry if my entry about Gimli was confusing. Since PJ said the LotR staff would be playing "relatives", I assumed Rhys would be playing his own dad Glóin who was, of course, part of the dwarf contingent.

The same thing goes for the rest of the cast: these would have to be "relatives" in many cases, since the chronology wouldn't fit otherwise. The question is this: how far do they bend the story line to include these actors? Just how would Gondorians fit into this mix? :eek: And are we talking about a one-minute cameo or something more extensive? Perhaps, PJ was referring mainly to the Hobbits.

Iam not sure how Legalos would come over as Thranduil. That would be such a different character than Orlando has ever played. And I'm not just talking about how he looks!

Still, it is curious to think about these possibilities and whatPJ may have in mind....

P.S. I think Astin is such a good actor that, with a bit of make-up, he could make a thoroughly amusing Gaffer.

[mark12_30]

Sean Bean would rock as Bard.

In terms of Legolas, I guess it depends on how you interpret "Son of Thranduil". If he's crown prince then you'd have to make a big deal of him; but if Thranduil has other, older sons, then Legolas could show up just about anywhere, leading a group of elves to do just about anything, and speak any lines attributed to any un-named elf in Mirkwood, as long as it isn't the 'butler' or the turnkey. Wide open. I wonder if Legolas ever got sent to the Wine Cellar to run barrels? Perhaps for giving his father the King too much lip? "Roll-roll-roll-roll..." Ha!

I think Elijah Wood ought to play a short elf. Much better suited to that, bony-face, blue-eyes & all.... Hey-- how about the butler?? Or he could be one of the elves singing "Tralalalally."

*cough*

In terms of The Hobbits-- What is there for them to do, really? Aside from the departure at The Green Dragon and the auctioning off of Biilbo's stuff upon his return, there just aren't many scenes in The Hobbit for more than one Hobbit.

[Mister Underhill]

You know, I think it's worth pointing out that I don't see anything in that article that says that it was Jackson who was floating these ideas of the cast coming back to play relatives. Actors are always looking for their next job, and "There was talk..." could be nothing more than a few of the guys sitting around going, "Man, wouldn't it be great if we could come back and play our relatives in The Hobbit? Yeah! Make it happen, Pete!"

[Tuor of Gondolin]

I think I've commented somewhere about Hobbit movie(s). I'd like to see a
two-parter, the first ending showing the White Council, elves, and Dunedain
attacking Dol Guldur and Thorin & Co. either escaping from the Bonfire Glen or
entering Mirkwood. Two films would mean lots of $$$$$ for everybody, and
give more time to cover the story, perhaps in 2 1/2 hour movies, rather then one
longer film, which would also be preferable to one 3+ hours for movie theater scheduling for one longer movie.

And why not John R. Davies as Thorin? Of course, they'd have to have a
better makeup system so he doesn't get disabling rashes, since Bilbo, Gandalf,
and Thorin have more "screentime" then anyone.

And, just a thought, why not have four hobbits and nine dwarves in Thorin
and Co.? Perhaps a tolerable change (certainly more so then PJ's
botching of Denethor).

[*Varda*]

And, just a thought, why not have four hobbits and nine dwarves in Thorin and Co.? Perhaps a tolerable change (certainly more so then PJ's
botching of Denethor).

Personally I feel that if too many changes were made to The Hobbit (e.g. the changing of who was in the Company) I just wouldn't be happy with it, and I don't think I would even go and see it.

I have nothing against small changes being made that are necessary in adapting it to the big screen, but I think if it needs to be changed that dramatically just to have people going to see it, it shouldn't be done at all. Changing who is in the company to add more hobbits etc just changes the overall story, and I don't agree with it.

I also don't see the necessity for two movies covering the Hobbit - I think it could be condensed into one, although I agree that it would be difficult to end it, what with the killing of Smaug and the Battle of Five Armies.

[Fair_Dimithilien]

I am both for, and against.

For because the Hobbit is also a good book, and because Jackson would have a chance to make a more light-hearted film. Also Gollum appears for an interesting phase in the Hobbit :D

But against, because would it work? I mean, after LOTR, the Hobbit would seem quite small.. and it is much less powerful than the trilogy.

[AbercrombieOfRohan]

would they have ian holm as bilbo? He was clearly awesome as bilbo in lotr but is he to old? I hope hes not and he would be able to put up with having his face taped back everyday.

[mark12_30]

You know, I think it's worth pointing out that I don't see anything in that article that says that it was Jackson who was floating these ideas of the cast coming back to play relatives. Actors are always looking for their next job, and "There was talk..." could be nothing more than a few of the guys sitting around going, "Man, wouldn't it be great if we could come back and play our relatives in The Hobbit? Yeah! Make it happen, Pete!"

Good point....

*sigh*

[Lobelia]

Child:

Lobelia,

Sorry if my entry about Gimli was confusing. Since PJ said the LotR staff would be playing "relatives", I assumed Rhys would be playing his own dad Glóin who was, of course, part of the dwarf contingent.



Still, it is curious to think about these possibilities and whatPJ may have in mind....

P.S. I think Astin is such a good actor that, with a bit of make-up, he could make a thoroughly amusing Gaffer.

Ah, John Rhys-Davies as Gloin, nice idea - Gloin is a feisty character who thinks Bilbo is an idiot and would be a meaty role ... or he could do Balin, the kind one, or even Thorin.

Alas, much as I loved Astin as Sam, I think he's actually too *old* to play Hamfast, who was a young boy at the time - remember, early in LOTR he remarks that he had just become an apprentice to the previous gardener at the time of the Erebor quest?

Perhaps they should just start again with a new cast? And some new hunk as Bard (though not too young, because Bard, like Aragorn, is not young - at least, I don't get that impression.)

[ivo]

But against, because would it work? I mean, after LOTR, the Hobbit would seem quite small.. and it is much less powerful than the trilogy.

Are you kidding me? It's a magnificent tale. Imagine lots of Dwarves, Mirkwood and the Woodelves, Beorn (!), Gandalfs encounter with Sauron in Dol Guldur, the Battle of The Five Armies and above all IMAGINE Smaug!
I'd die to see Smaug flying on screen.

[Bungo Baggins]

I think the Hobbit would be a wonderful prequel to the series. PJ would do it justice and I think his team would know how to lighten it up a little bit. I think the original hobbits could work in small cameos, but not much more.

[Lobelia]

I think the Hobbit would be a wonderful prequel to the series. PJ would do it justice and I think his team would know how to lighten it up a little bit. I think the original hobbits could work in small cameos, but not much more.

Does it need a lot of lightening? Okay, Thorin dies, but there's plenty of humour in the rest of the novel - the smug, middle-class hobbit dragged off on a quest, after hosting all those Dwarves, running around like a chicken with its head off serving them afternoon tea, Beorn's bewilderment at the Dwarves turning up in pairs, the Elves' cheeky songs, Bilbo running around Thranduil's palace and struggling with the barrels...

;)

[ninlaith]

I trust PJ to a point. He is a very talented director, however, The Hobbit is an entirely different storyline than what he is used to. PJ likes the blood and gore scene. The Hobbit is a childrens fantasy which is a trifle less edgy than he's used to. If he wants to do it I trust him. I'll warrant it'll turn out just fine. Maybe not the greatest which it should be, but I don't think he will insult Sir Tolkien.

[THE Ka]

Does it need a lot of lightening? Okay, Thorin dies, but there's plenty of humour in the rest of the novel - the smug, middle-class hobbit dragged off on a quest, after hosting all those Dwarves, running around like a chicken with its head off serving them afternoon tea, Beorn's bewilderment at the Dwarves turning up in pairs, the Elves' cheeky songs, Bilbo running around Thranduil's palace and struggling with the barrels...

;)

Oh! Oh! Don't forget when the elves guarding the port passage way decide to take "but a few sips" of the barrels and end up tipsy and out... (Only way Bilbo was able to get past them) very funny in my opinion compared to the "serious" and "sober" elves of TLOTR... ;)

PJ better not screw this movie up! (If he ever so is inclined to do this book into film) This is my favorite next to the first of the LOTR, and i swear there will be hell to pay! :mad:

[Mister Underhill]

For those jonesing for The Hobbit: The Movie, steel yourself for more waiting. This article (http://aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=19072) on aintitcoolnews.com indicates that PJ & Co are targeting an adaptation of The Lovely Bones (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0316168815/qid=1105047176/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-2395121-4427163?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) by Alice Sebold as their followup to King Kong.

Even discounting legal difficulties with the rights, I'd reckon the new project tacks at least a year onto the wait for a possible Hobbit movie.

[narfforc]

ARRRRRRRRRRGH I can just see it, THE HOBBIT THERE OR THEREABOUTS. Legolas leads the attack that captures the dwarves, Gimli who just happens to be staying with his kin in the Iron Hills for the weekend, is in the forefront of the battle, The Necromancer of Dol Guldur is a slightly smaller eye, ARRRRRRRRRRRRRGH I am falling out of my tree.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Yess, Preciouss, and Narfforc's ignoring Arwen's presumed Hobbit Movie concern for 10-year -old Aragorn son of Arathorn. :eek: (well, at least he wouldn't have a
scruffy beard) :D

Hmm, or would Legolas/Paris kidnap Arwen and elope to northern Mirkwood?

[King of the North]

Wow, I dont know how long I have been waiting for this. I love the Hobbit, sometimes more than LotR because it delves deeper into the Dwarven culture. PJ would have a guaranteed audience if he made this film.

[Assasin]

YAY!!!!!!!!!! He's making the Hobbit!!!!!!!! I'm soooooo happy!!!!!! I do hope it won't be anything like the animated version.

[Orophin]

Hmmm, I heard about this a long time ago but this is the first Ive heard it confirmed. Does anyone know if the same people will be playing Bilbo, Gandalf and maybe Legolas?

[Neurion]

but I don't think he will insult Sir Tolkien.Really? Was he knighted?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Yes, this is an old thread- but it still comes up on Google searches, as do all the erroneous press reports (lazy journalists!) Thus this attempt to set the record straight.

Fact No. 1: The Tolkien Estate has absolutely no say in the film rights to The Hobbit, since JRRT sold them in his lifetime. The legal fight over the rights is between two Hollywood studios, New Line and MGM/UA, who each own part of the rights.

Fact No. 2: The Tolkien Estate did not pull the plug on a LOTR museum in New Zealand. Christopher Tolkien has been unjustly called every name in the book for something he never did. Unfortunately Peter Jackson misspoke, or a reporter misheard: the museum was blocked not by the Tolkien Estate, but by Tolkien Enterprises, which is owned by Hollywood producer Saul Zaentz and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Tolkien family.

[ninja91]

YAY!!!!!!!!!! He's making the Hobbit!!!!!!!! I'm soooooo happy!!!!!! I do hope it won't be anything like the animated version.

Although you have not visited the downs in 30 years... I second the thought that the animated version did not have the right feel that the book has.