The Hobbit in July 2007? [Archive] - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Azaelia of Willowbottom

09-01-2006, 03:20 PM

*sigh* I had a whole post written out, but my wireless decided to go all wierd and it died right as I clicked "submit reply", so here we go again...

I think that the date is just a rumor.

If I may, I'll use Harry Potter as an example. The fifth Harry Potter movie is set to come out in July 2007...but anyone involved in Harry Potter fandom has been hearing about the production of that movie probably from about the time the fourth movie left the theaters. The director's name came first, then the projected date of release...and then followed news of which actors had signed on, etc. That movie is already shooting now.

There has been no news of that kind about The Hobbit at all, which makes me suspicious. I hadn't expected a Hobbit movie until maybe 2010... and that's if they seriously started the process now! That would give them time to untangle their rights mess, pick a director, get at least a draft of the script, audition actors and pick a cast, actually shoot the movie, loop dialogue, give the CGI team enough time to do their magic, find a composer, write a soundtrack, go through the editing process, and then promote the thing for release. Obviously, some of that stuff happens stimultaneously, but still. It's a huge undertaking, and I just don't think that they can do it in under a year. Rumors about the LOTR trilogy started in January '98...the first of those movies didn't appear until December '01. Granted, that was a much larger undertaking, but still.

I don't trust this news.

And I actually wouldn't mind if PJ directed TH. I'm used to his style, and I may be in a minority, but I actually liked the movies, despite differences from the book. *ducks*. I've just been able to appreciate the movies for the movies and the book for the book. His Middle-earth looks enough like mine so that it isn't jarring to watch. And as Menel said, better PJ who we know loves the book, and will stay true at least to the spirit of the story, than someone we have no familiarity with at all. I would trust PJ with TH. *ducks again*

I've read the news, and I think that it's just not enough to trust. A glimpse of what may have been the words "The Hobbit" on a July '07 calendar...? Could mean anything, including wishful thinking on New Line's part. I'm not going to trust it until New Line actually comes out and says it...the fact that they still haven't is a red flag. This stuff isn't just rumored about one year before it happens. Also, I think it's strange that the reporter wanted to be kept anonymous. I guess that keeps him/her safe if it turns out to be untrue...suspicious. [/werewolf mode, :p ]

ninja91

09-01-2006, 03:21 PM

What movies are Jackson directing? Also, if it is for New Line, we cant count him out. Let us watch how this all plays out... :smokin:

The Saucepan Man

09-01-2006, 05:59 PM

I hadn't expected a Hobbit movie until maybe 2010... and that's if they seriously started the process now! That would give them time to untangle their rights mess, pick a director, get at least a draft of the script, audition actors and pick a cast, actually shoot the movie, loop dialogue, give the CGI team enough time to do their magic, find a composer, write a soundtrack, go through the editing process, and then promote the thing for release. Obviously, some of that stuff happens stimultaneously, but still. It's a huge undertaking, and I just don't think that they can do it in under a year. The date doesn't necessary have to mean the release of the film. It could signify the commencement of production, or even just a (legal?) meeting to discuss it.

What movies are Jackson directing?As far as I am aware, his current commitmments are directing the screen adaptation of the novel Lovely Bones and producing a re-make of The Dam Busters.

Rikae

09-02-2006, 04:23 PM

I don't believe it (unless, as TSM said, it's the date they'll start production). They would be filming it now, and they can't with the legal issues standing in the way.

I also hope that, when/if it's made, PJ directs it. I have a long list of complaints about his LOTR, but at the end of the day I liked them as movies and felt they were more faithful to the spirit of the books than not. I doubt another director would do better, and besides, it seems to me TH should have the same feel, as much as possible, as LOTR. I'll also be very disappointed if different actors play Gandalf and/or Gollum. (A different actor for Bilbo would be forgivable, since he would have looked much younger).

Child of the 7th Age

09-02-2006, 07:43 PM

It's definitely not the date of the film's release. It would take a lot longer than that to get everyone on board and do the filming. It could simply be the date for filming to start or some sort of a meeting relating to legal/business matters. Or quite possibly it means nothing at all and is just a figment of someone's overactive imagination.

Cúchulainn

09-02-2006, 07:47 PM

Probably a hoax, but I reckon it's a dead cert that 'The Hobbit' will become a movie eventually. I'd be annoyed if it didn't, like Lord of the Rings it's one of the finest works of Fantasy Literature I've ever read, children's book? Haha, I think not! :smokin:

narfforc

09-03-2006, 07:31 AM

If Peter Jackson does make The Hobbit into a film, what odds are there on him staying true to the storyline, would it be called: The Hobbit, There or Thereabouts and The Quest of Errormore.

davem

09-03-2006, 07:47 AM

If Peter Jackson does make The Hobbit into a film, what odds are there on him staying true to the storyline, would it be called: The Hobbit, There or Thereabouts and The Quest of Errormore.

I'm quivering with antici-pation.

With so many Dwarves there will be plenty of opportunities for Dwarf-tossing jokes; I expect a nod to the flatulence chorus in Blazing Saddles in the Troll capture episode, & personally cannot wait to see the Mirkwood Skate Park where Legolas honed his fighting skills.

Tuor in Gondolin

09-05-2006, 08:27 AM

[QUOTE] personally cannot wait to see the Mirkwood Skate Park where Legolas honed his fighting skills. QUOTE]

Hmm. Instead of Bard, Leggy skates down the Lonely Mountain
zapping Smaug after tossing an injured Gloin out of the way?

(And I do agree that, despite dumb bits by PJ [such as the
Green Slime at the Pelennor Fields and Gandalf asaultting
Denethor] he generally kept to the spirit of the book, and the
cast and scenary was good), with, to me, the FOTR by far the
best of the movies.

Gil-Galad

09-05-2006, 08:38 AM

Well if it is suppose to be out in July 2007, i would have epxected a trailer or even a teaser by now, Spiderman 3 comes out in 2007 and it had a trailer out this summer, as for Ghost-Rider. I would expect the date to be at least 2008, or even december 2007.

Elladan and Elrohir

09-07-2006, 01:46 PM

The Hobbit? In July 2007?

Ha! I laughed out loud when I read the subject line. Utterly ridiculous. We heard about the LOTR movies how many years before they were filmed? Trust me, if and when New Line does TH, the announcements and hype will be HUGE.

Honestly, it lowers my respect of TheOneRing.net that they reported this with the comment: "The BIG news has finally hit."

I don't think The Hobbit could be FILMED, filmed mind you, not released, any earlier than 2008, with PJ's schedule the way it is, and of course, way before it's filmed, it has to be announced. Of course, if it were to be filmed in '08, now would be the time to announce it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. New Line Cinema will release The Hobbit. It may take them a while to get to it, but they will do it. Moreover, lest you doubt, it will be directed by Peter Jackson. Ian McKellen, Hugo Weaving, and Andy Serkis will reprise their respective roles as Gandalf, Elrond, and Gollum. Richard Taylor, Andrew Lesnie, Ngila Dickson, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Howard Shore, and most of the rest of the LOTR crew will return to do what they do best.

As for Orlando Bloom doing more dwarf-grabbing and stair-sliding, I won't predict it, but I won't rule it out at this point either. ;)

Tuor in Gondolin

09-08-2006, 08:27 AM

I wouldn't be surprised at filming being done c. 2008-09
with a release date of 2010. There's just too much money
to be made to let legal problems block it for too long.
And a two-part hobbit (only 1 1'2 to 2 hours long each,
would be very tempting, especially with bits added such as
the White Counsel attacking Dol Guldur). And would Christopher
Lee still be too ticked off with PJ's handling/editing of his part
in TTT to participate? Didn't he refuse to go to the premiere?

Mister Underhill

09-08-2006, 02:48 PM

There's just too much money
to be made to let legal problems block it for too long.The enormous amounts of money are exactly the thing that could bog it down for years. With so much at stake, interested parties are willing to fight long, grueling battles for their share of the pie. Take a look at Spiderman as an example. The movie rights court battle started circa 1991 if I'm not mistaken, and the movie didn't make it to the screen until 2002.

Jackson is also supposed to exec produce the Halo movie, but "executive producer" is a pretty slippery title which could mean anything from virtually no involvement with the project to shepherding it all the way through the process, so there's no way to judge what that time commitment looks like.

Hyarion

09-10-2006, 02:51 PM

It looks like Variety has released some more rumors on The Hobbit. It sounds like they aren't even sure if it will be one film, but maybe two? Where in the world would they cut it at? The article also states the film will be in the $150-200 million dollar range and will hopefully be directed by Peter Jackson. Still nothing set in stone but it sounds like the rumors are starting to pick up which is a good sign.

News post on TolkienNews.net (http://tolkiennews.net/article.php?story=20060910160007605)

Child of the 7th Age

09-10-2006, 04:59 PM

Here is a copy of what One Ring quoted from variety....

Variety (via comingsoon.net): In a Variety article talking about
MGM's move back into the tentpole business, the trade mentions a few
highly-anticipated projects that are in the works:

'Over the next few years, MGM is planning to release half a dozen films,
some in the $150 million to $200 million-plus range. Studio is ready to
unveil such high-profile projects as "Terminator 4"; one or two installments
of "The Hobbit," which Sloan hopes will be directed by Peter Jackson; and a
sequel to "The Thomas Crown Affair" with Pierce Brosnan.

Two installments??

Azaelia of Willowbottom

09-10-2006, 05:54 PM

Child of the 7th Age

09-10-2006, 10:11 PM

Here is another link with more information: MGM announces the Hobbit (http://www.slashfilm.com/article.php/20060910the-hobbit-announced)

ninja91

09-11-2006, 05:24 AM

If Jackson says "he is anxious to return to Middle-Earth", I am sure that they will find a way to get him... ;)

Essex

09-11-2006, 06:39 AM

Does it really need two? TH is only one book, and it seems to me that it's short enough simple enough in the plot department, and tightly written enough that multiple installments would be just plain unnecessary. It sort of makes me wonder just what exactly they are planning on adding...

It's a much simpler book than each installment of LOTR...you'd think it could be easily done in one.

Nice to know that it is at least on their minds, though, and not just stagnating in its tangle of rights. Hopefully that installments number is going to get sorted out, though.But just imagine if you built in the goings on around the time of the Hobbit too? The White Council, Gandalf in Dol Guldur etc (I can't quite remember if the latter was in this time frame but I know the White Council was)

I also remember reading the Hobbit at school in our English class - and the main thing we always asked was 'where's Gandalf s*dding off to NOW??' all the time. Little did we know of Tolkien's grander vision of Middle Earth

Just imagine a couple of movies with gandalf/saruman/galadriel/elrond et all intespersed with the Hobbit? wouldn't that be great? and just imagine Gandalf entering Dol Guldur?

anyway, I can dream on.................

Gil-Galad

09-11-2006, 07:02 AM

I doubt that the movies will realize every fanboys and fangirls of tolkiens dreams, they are a product of hollywood and they aim at a broader scope of viewers. Before ROTK came out me and my brother was hoping for the Battle under the trees cameo, but alas that didn't happen because it was too off of the main story. That will be the same with the White Council in this Hobbit movie, Gandalf may or may not mention it, but i highly doubt we will see a big think about it. maybe even a flashback scene like the Elrond and Mt.Doom one.

Brinniel

09-11-2006, 08:23 AM

Since he already took on the trilogy, I'm sure PJ will somehow find a way to be involved in The Hobbit, whether it is as director, producer, etc.

Though if that does happen, pre-production probably wouldn't happen for another 2-3 years due to other projects he is involved in. Knowing how long it took to simply complete the first installment of LotR, any sort of The Hobbit movie most likely wouldn't be released until sometime after 2012.

Of course, that's just my guess.... :rolleyes:

Child of the 7th Age

09-11-2006, 09:08 AM

My guess is that this will not be packaged as the "pure" Hobbit but as the prelude to PJ's Lord of the Rings. If that is the case, it is to their commercial advantage to push this film out prior to 2012 while their prior audience is still alive and clamoring for more. :D Whether or not that's possible, I have no idea.

I wouldn't be shocked to see a PG-13 label on the movie. In order to emphasize the ties with the earlier films, there is a good chance we'll see brief flashes in the background of what Gandalf is doing and the growing awareness of Sauron. If anything, I think we might even see Sauron as the necromancer peeping over the edges of the film.

I could be wrong, but I can't see PJ doing a "classic" hobbit as a children's story which is also capable of being enjoyed by adults. It will likely have much the same feel of the earlier movies. The dangers on the road will surely be "darkened" and flashes of horror added.

To what extent will the humor be emphasized? I'm less certain of that. Since PJ, rightly or wrongly, used Gimli for comic relief, I would be curious to see how he portrays the Dwarves in this situation.

And what about the physical similarities of the landscapes in the two films? Will Rivendell be a carbon copy? That's a lot different than Tolkien's last homely house in the actual Hobbit.

narfforc

09-11-2006, 09:49 AM

I hope that The Necromancer is shown in the film for two reasons:

1. He is actually mentioned in the book.

2. They can therefore show visually Gandalfs 'business down south'.

Maybe they will find a way to use some of The Quest of Erebor (I won't hold my breath on that one)

Lalwendë

09-11-2006, 10:18 AM

I could be wrong, but I can't see PJ doing a "classic" hobbit as a children's story which is also capable of being enjoyed by adults. It will likely have much the same feel of the earlier movies. The dangers on the road will surely be "darkened" and flashes of horror added.

To what extent will the humor be emphasized? I'm less certain of that. Since PJ, rightly or wrongly, used Gimli for comic relief, I would be curious to see how he portrays the Dwarves in this situation.

Well, with PJ at the helm some good things to look forwards to might include whole troupes of evil Shelobs scurrying about in Mirkwood.

But with 13 Dwarves to play with there will be 13 times the opportunity for belching jokes so I'll be taking my ear plugs with me as it could get noisy. What about the potential for 13 Dwarves to be tossed off the Lonely Mountain by Smaug?

Tuor in Gondolin

09-11-2006, 12:21 PM

I think a two-part Hobbit would be a smart $$$
and story move for the project. Some of the bits added are
suggested above, plus it wouldn't be necessary to cut
out some events as would probably be necessary in
one movie. As to where to cut it there would seem
to be two possibilities, either as Gandalf leaves
Thorin and Co. and they enter Mirkwood, or with the
dwarves beiing captured by the giant spiders.
In the latter case there could be a longer ending of
Bilbo's return in the book + a suggested hint of the
Ring taking hold of him.

Mithalwen

09-11-2006, 01:40 PM

Child has made some splendid points but thinking about it, while the tone of the Hobbit is very childish, the action is really quite dark already once you leave Hobbiton and using the Quest of Erebor approach is something that would remedy that. I think that a "childs"version would work best as one of those classic sunday afternoon serials which would spread the "nasties" out into manageable chunks interspersed with lighter parts. I can't help thinking that condensing it into even a three hour film is likely to make it too unrelentingly scary for smaller children. Trolls, goblins, gollum, more goblins & Wargs,man who turns into a bear, sinister wood, unfriendly elves, even unfriendlier spiders ... and all before we even get to the dragon.....

Brinniel

09-11-2006, 03:35 PM

And what about the physical similarities of the landscapes in the two films? Will Rivendell be a carbon copy? That's a lot different than Tolkien's last homely house in the actual Hobbit.
Well, if PJ does indeed become involved with The Hobbit (or perhaps anyone who was previously involved in the trilogy), then I can imagine that all sets that were also in LotR would be rebuilt to look as close to the originals as possible. Though there may be a few changes, the filmmakers have to keep in mind the poor ignorant fools (aka those who refuse to read the books), who will be very confused if locations such as Rivendell are hardly recognizable. :rolleyes:

Yes, a big disappointment for us loyal readers, but it'd be just another change that we'd have to learn to accept....

Gil-Galad

09-11-2006, 04:35 PM

If we go two-part Hobbit, a good ending i thought of would be after Bilbo gets the ring from Gollum, and it'll black out with a dramatic 'to be continued' then part 2 wil lcome out and it could also alude to LOTR in the end.

narfforc

09-11-2006, 05:24 PM

Yes it would be good to end with a scene inbetween, maybe Bilbo out on a sunday walk some 26yrs later, where he bumps into his relatives Drogo and Primula Baggins and their new born son, and then further down the path he puts on the Ring to escape from Lobelia and Otho Sackville-Baggins and their screaming brat Lotho, the end scene of the door of Bag End opening and closing on its own.

narfforc

09-12-2006, 08:19 AM

This thread has started to really intrigue me. The Lord of the Rings films have been and gone, and I think due to their length it was not easy to fit in much more than the basic storyline, however with The Hobbit being much smaller, the scope for expanding it is far better. Within the pages of The Hobbit, and therefore covered by film rights, are touches of Tolkiens Silmarillion. Apart from Gondolin, Durin and Moria and Elronds ancestry we have paragraphs like the following:

The feasting people were Wood-elves, of course. These are not wicked folk. If they have a fault it is distrust of strangers. Though their magic was strong, even in those days they were wary. They differed from the High Elves of the West, and were more dangerous and less wise. For most of them (together with their scattered relations in the hills and mountains) were descended from the ancient tribes that never went to Faerie in the West. There the Light-elves and the Deep-elves and the Sea-elves went and lived for ages, and grew fairer and wiser and more learned, and invented their magic and their cunning in the making of beautiful and marvellous things before some came back into the wide world.

Here are another few paragraphs that echo Tolkiens older work:

In ancient days they had had wars with some of the dwarves, whom they accused of stealing their treasure. It is only fair to say that the dwarves gave a different account, and said that they only took what was their due, for the elf-king had bargained with them to shape his raw gold and silver, and afterwards had refused to give them their pay. If the elf-king had a weakness it was for treasure, especially for silver and white gems; and though his hoard was rich, he was ever eager for more, since he had not yet as great a treasure as other elf-lords of old.

This last paragraph is so similar to the story of Thingol, yet is supposed to be about Thranduil. Was this some kind of family story somehow garbled by time and telling. Celeborn grandson of Elwe's brother Elmo calls Legolas kinsman, was Oropher father of Thranduil related to the royal household of Menegroth, could he have been another son of Galadhon, or maybe son of Galathil brother of Celeborn and father of Nimloth.

Of course much of this is in Unfinished Tales, however it is not the genealogy that I wished to dwell on but the storyline. These words from the two paragraphs occur in The Hobbit so surely they can be used in any film, therefore adding to the story without having to invent fictitious storylines of their own.

The Only Real Estel

09-12-2006, 08:29 AM

Jackson is also supposed to exec produce the Halo movie, but "executive producer" is a pretty slippery title which could mean anything from virtually no involvement with the project to shepherding it all the way through the process, so there's no way to judge what that time commitment looks like.

Knowing Jackson it'll probably be closer to shepherding it if he's at all interested in the movie. ;)

This does sound interesting - two movies would make it all the more. I wouldn't at all be surprised to see PJ build up Gandalf's part of the story a little bit, I definitly see him (& the studio in general) pushing The Hobbit as the "prelude to Lord of the Rings" & not "a child's story" as Child said.

On the subject of 13 dwarves with their belching & tossing, I know there was another thread (probably very easy to find, but not with the time limit I have right now :D) where people discussed how they thought the Hobbit would turn out if/when it was made. The point was raised that the number of dwarves might even be reduced to make all the names to remember easier on the audience.

Whether that'd be another infamous case of 'Dumbing Down?' or not I don't know ;) but I wouldn't be overly surprised to see it.

Azaelia of Willowbottom

09-12-2006, 12:34 PM

But just imagine if you built in the goings on around the time of the Hobbit too? The White Council, Gandalf in Dol Guldur etc (I can't quite remember if the latter was in this time frame but I know the White Council was)

I also remember reading the Hobbit at school in our English class - and the main thing we always asked was 'where's Gandalf s*dding off to NOW??' all the time. Little did we know of Tolkien's grander vision of Middle Earth

Just imagine a couple of movies with gandalf/saruman/galadriel/elrond et all intespersed with the Hobbit? wouldn't that be great? and just imagine Gandalf entering Dol Guldur?

anyway, I can dream on.................

Oh wow. If that happens, I for one will be a very happy fan. I am officially converted. I now want two movies...thanks for changing my mind.

I think this also makes sense if it is filmed, as others suggested, as PJ's intro to LOTR. It would be awesome to tell the whole story, as filled in by LOTR. Explanations for Gandalf's frequent disappearances would be very, very cool...and Dol Guldur/the Necromancer would provide suitable fodder for PJ's flair for horror.

I hope PJ can resist the temptation towards dwarf-humor this time around...

I hope that he doesn't dumb down the Hobbit at all...already when I was reading it (after reading LOTR, which may be the source of my problems) I was getting frustrated because it read so much more like a children's book. It's not that I didn't like it, but that it was just a little too young or something... Maybe I should try it again.

Elladan and Elrohir

09-12-2006, 03:01 PM

Well, the new articles are exactly what I was looking for: tangible evidence that The Hobbit is indeed coming. It still won't be anywhere near July '07, though.

I'm excited. Excited? Nay, thrilled. Nay, tis still too weak a word. Erebor, here we come!

I really hope they don't do two, unless there's just no way to fit everything into one film. What would you call these two films? The Hobbit I and The Hobbit II? There and Back Again and A Hobbit's Holiday?

EDIT: Looking back, now that I've calmed down, the only source to mention the possibility of two Hobbit films is Variety, an entertainment magazine. And that's apparently their own idea, not a quote from MGM. So for right now, emphasis on right now, I think we should expect just one.

I agree 100% that this will be treated as an LOTR prelude. It will be rated PG-13, and will have the same tone and violence level that LOTR did. Which, to me, is a good thing, though I still have reservations about kids who aren't going to get what they expect out of it.

The best thing MGM and New Line can do right now is hand the whole thing over to PJ. Let him write the script with Walsh and Boyens; let him decide whether to make one film or two. I don't think this thing's gonna work unless it's 100% Jackson's baby, like LOTR was.

Let The Hobbit speculation begin!

Oddwen

09-12-2006, 07:36 PM

The Hobbit I: There... The Hobbit II: ...and Back Again
Awesome. More LotR to celebrate about. Maybe I threw my Burger King trash out too soon. :D

It would indeed be fantastic to see the White Council & Necromancer business - however, I am afraid that some of my favorite bits would be changed horribly with the upped rating. Namely, the talking spiders and the stupid clumsy elves. Oh well. At least if Orlando Bloom makes a cameo, the second part of that wouldn't be changed too much. :p

Child of the 7th Age

09-13-2006, 01:41 AM

Whoops! It appears that Mister PJ is a very busy man. The story just came through yesterday that he will is interested in doing the Termeraire fantasy series and has purchased an option on the three-book series: here (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/film/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003120747) and here (http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1540661/09122006/story.jhtml)

How he will fit all this into his schedule along with the hobbit I have no idea!

If you enjoy historical fantasy and have not read this series, it is worth a look.

Brinniel

09-18-2006, 05:25 AM

Yet another article (http://www.cinematical.com/2006/09/11/will-peter-jackson-direct-the-hobbit/) about rumors of The Hobbit being made into a movie, for anyone who's interested. :)

Mister Underhill

09-28-2006, 11:08 PM

And Jackson's schedule gets even busier:

Director Jackson signs Xbox deal
By Darren Waters
Technology editor, BBC News website, Barcelona

Peter Jackson
Peter Jackson directed the Lord of the Rings trilogy
King Kong director Peter Jackson has agreed a deal with Microsoft to create what he describes as a "new form of interactive entertainment".

The Oscar-winning film-maker said he would be creating a series based on the Halo video game franchise, created by Bungie Studios.

"I'm getting a little bored with films," he said.

The series will appear on the Xbox 360 games console and Xbox Live, the machine's online service.

Mr Jackson, who is also producing a movie based on Halo, said: "More and more I'm looking forward to the release of games and not movies. I am more aware and excited about games.

"I do not have to keep delivering stories as movies - there are other things I can do.

"Technology is at a point where we can blend a lot of film storytelling with interactive entertainment."

He added that the series would not be for hard-core gamers.

The surprise announcement was made at the X06 event in Barcelona, at which Microsoft unveiled its line-up of games for the coming 12 months.

Xbox boss Peter Moore also unveiled a HD-DVD, high definition player, for the console, which will be released in Europe in mid November, costing 199 euros (£129).

Microsoft also unveiled a further Halo spin-off, called Halo Wars, a real time strategy game based on the popular franchise to be made by Ensemble Studios.

Mr Jackson, who also directed the Lord of the Rings trilogy, will set up an interactive arm of his firm, Wingnut, and will work with Halo creators Bungie Studios to develop the series.

He admitted his team was at the start of the process and still had to "work out how to do it".

He added: "Gaming could be a form of entertainment that you could enjoy with the emotion of film, but you could also be interactive."

He said that he had chosen the Halo universe as the first series because it was an "amazing world".

"We put the best platform in the hands of the best story-tellers," said Mr Moore.

Peter Moore stressed that this did not mean that Mr Jackson was making Halo 4 or any sequels to Bungie's current game in development.

Child of the 7th Age

10-25-2006, 11:17 PM

Several articles in mid-September reported that MGM had announced it was definitely making the Hobbit sometime in the next few years and that the studio was attempting to lure PJ back as director: here. (http://www.slashfilm.com/article.php/20060910the-hobbit-announced) There was little mention of the earlier dispute over rights: we were all left with the impression that these problems had been settled.

Well, not it looks as if we'd better not hold our breath waiting for this to happen. An article in today's Hollywood Reporter is far less optimistic that the movie will be made anytime soon: MGM May Not be Making the Hobbit. (http://www.cinemablend.com/new/MGM-May-Not-Be-Making-The-Hobbit-3722.html) According to the Reporter, none of the legal issues had been settled. Attorneys from MGM and New Line are still locked inside a room trying to reach agreement. Whether or not you'd like to see a hobbit movie, that won't be happening until this mess is straightened out.

Mister Underhill

11-15-2006, 11:32 PM

This is excerpted from a longer article in today's Variety that's mostly about films that MGM actually is doing: As for "The Hobbit", [MGM Chief Harry] Sloan confirmed that MGM was in talks with Peter Jackson to make two movies based on J.R.R. Tolkien's "prequel" to "The Lord of the Rings".

However, making the film is contingent on negotiations with New Line, which owns the right to produce "The Hobbit" (MGM owns only the right to distribute the films). And people close to Jackson say that until his ongoing lawsuit with New Line -- over monies he says are owed him from the "Lord of the Rings" franchise -- is settled, a serious conversation over "The Hobbit" cannot proceed.

Even so, Sloane remains optimistic. He said the first "Hobbit" pic would be a direct adaptation of "The Hobbit", and the second would be drawn from footnotes and source material connecting "The Hobbit" with "The Lord of the Rings".

Tuor in Gondolin

11-16-2006, 10:09 AM

Sloane remains optimistic. He said the first "Hobbit" pic would be a direct adaptation of "The Hobbit", and the second would be drawn from footnotes and source material connecting "The Hobbit" with "The Lord of the Rings".

Curioser and curioser. If true, this could be a remarkably interesting
project, although I'd have certain reservations about PJ handling it.
The two movies would/should have a markedly different tone, with the second
movie perhaps a bridge in tone to LOTR. One reason I can see for such a project
is (sorry, Liv haters :D ) developing the Aragorn/Arwen relationship covered in the appendix.

Presumably Strider would be the chief protagonist in the second film.

Elladan and Elrohir

11-16-2006, 03:48 PM

So there's the solution. You still make one Hobbit movie, and you get to bring back (almost) the entire LOTR cast in the other one. Intriguing, to say the least. I can't say I like it, yet, but I can't say I dislike it either. The important thing is that they do it, and that PJ directs it.

Encaitare

11-20-2006, 12:36 AM

Letter from Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh to theonering.net... (http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1163993546)

Apparently they will not be making The Hobbit now. :(

Rikae

11-20-2006, 12:46 PM

Those fools! I have no faith in New Line whatsoever; no doubt whoever they get will botch the job horribly. :mad:

I know some of you think PJ did just that, but I'm in the "it was much better than I expected and I don't think another director would do a better job" camp.

EDIT: If anyone else is feeling as disgusted as I am:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/aintnohobbitwithoutPJ/

Brinniel

11-21-2006, 12:28 AM

Indeed, this is very disappointing to hear. Despite what they say, I don't think this issue is over. There will be much protesting before anything is fully resolved.

However, the way it is looking right now, there's no chance PJ and Fran will ever be involved with The Hobbit. I do think there is a director somewhere out there that can handle this project, perhaps another loyal Tolkien fan. The mystery is whether New Line will find and hire that "right" director. The Hobbit won't be the same without PJ (and most likely not nearly as amazing as LotR), but after the success of LotR, New Line and the new director will be careful not to completely screw up the film. Also, if majority of the crew of LotR decides to get involved with The Hobbit, a certain element from the previous films will be kept. Personally, I could not bear to watch The Hobbit without the same design team and Weta. Weta did such an excellent job- no other company could do The Hobbit justice.

Lalaith

11-21-2006, 03:52 AM

From the Guardian this morning:
http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1952973,00.html

Rikae

11-21-2006, 06:16 AM

Bear in mind, this most likely means not only no WETA, but no McKellen or Serkis, either. I predict an unwatchably awful Hobbit.

EDIT: Perhaps WETA will still be involved. From TORn:
"The severing of ties between PJ and New Line did not mean Weta was automatically barred from doing The Hobbit, according to Weta chief Richard Taylor."
http://www.theonering.net/index.shtml

Essex

11-21-2006, 07:40 AM

Bear in mind, this most likely means not only no WETA, but no McKellen or Serkis, either. I predict an unwatchably awful Hobbit.I'm not sure this would be true. as you said in your edit, weta might still be involved.

and why not mckellen or serkis? does an actor have to stay loyal to a director? no of course not. does jackson stay 'loyal' to actors by using them in each of his movies? of course he does not. ok, he used Serkis as Kong but that stands to reason. but he didn't use mckellen or anyone else in king kong. so why would that mean mckellen (or blanchett or elrond or Lee) not do the movie if it has another director?

perhaps serkis has some 'loyalty' to jackson, but I don't think jackson would mind if any of these actors took a part in a hobbit film with another director.

Lalwendë

11-21-2006, 09:12 AM

Essex - spot on, no actor needs to feel any kind of obligation to Jackson and only star in a film he makes.

I actually think this could be a blessing in disguise. I did have reservations about the 'lighter' fare of The Hobbit in the hands of Jackson, and it gives us an opportunity to see a different (and quite possibly much better) script writing team take on the tale. The 'design' of the LotR films may well be able to remain intact from what's been said, which would be good as the art and design (along with the acting) was one of the best features of the LotR films.

I'm now much more interested than I previously was!

Gil-Galad

11-21-2006, 09:34 AM

Sir Kohran

11-21-2006, 11:13 AM

Actually, they are still making the hobbit, just that it looks like Jackson won't be directing it, New Line will find somebody else to take over. So the Hobbit is still in production but not under the reins of PJ.

I hope this isn't true...it just has to be Peter Jackson. I just can't see anyone recreating the Middle Earth he presented in LOTR...it would be like having someone else write the books other than Tolkien.

Rikae

11-21-2006, 01:20 PM

Essex, yes, they wouldn't necessarily be out of the picture; however, that's the buzz on TORn, and on the Serkis fan forum I belong to. I would feel better about TH if I heard they would be involved.

SirK, I almost agree with you. Even though I read the books a good 15 years before the films came out, I feel Jackson's middle earth is the middle earth; the one I already saw in my mind's eye. While it's possible another director could do a decent job, I doubt that will actually happen and besides, I want to see TH set in PJ's world.

Furthermore, the whole situation sounds like New Line is up to no good, and I don't like to see them get away with it. I've seen how the film industry can be through my dad's and uncle's experiences (I'm not supposed to go into detail), and it's sickening.

Lalwendë

11-21-2006, 03:21 PM

Why shouldn't another director make a good job of it? We've already had a splendid BBC radio version of LotR, better than the films. Jackson doesn't 'own' the 'vision' of Middle-earth, we all do. Imagine if someone like Tim Burton got their hands on The Hobbit? Would be very interesting... :D

Rikae

11-21-2006, 04:07 PM

Oh, no! :eek:

Gil-Galad

11-21-2006, 06:03 PM

well it is true, The Hobbit is still going ahead as planned just with another director.

The Saucepan Man

11-21-2006, 06:09 PM

From the Guardian this morningIt is a measure of just how big LotR is that this story made the national press in the UK within a day or so of Jackson's letter featuring on theonering.net. The same story made the third page of The Times today.

:(

I would be rather sad not to see Jackson make the Hobbit film(s). But I must say that I deplore New Line's tactics in using the opportunity as an attempt to force the settlement of the royalties dispute. And Jackson is quite right that, had he agreed to that, it would have been completely the wrong basis upon which to go ahead with the project.

Brinniel

11-21-2006, 10:21 PM

Bear in mind, this most likely means not only no WETA, but no McKellen or Serkis, either.

and why not mckellen or serkis? does an actor have to stay loyal to a director? no of course not.
Indeed. One example I can think of is the Harry Potter movies. Now bear with me because I know we all have very different opinions on these movies (probably mostly negative), but I want to point out that the director has changed for every movie since Film 2. And yet, the entire cast as well as the production teams have for the most part remained involved with the films. In fact, as the directors have switched over the years, I think the films have actually improved.

I actually think this could be a blessing in disguise.
I think it's quite possible you could be right on this one. While I appreciated PJ's directing of LotR and thought he did a fantastic job, there are other directors out there who could do just as good. Or, God forbid, perhaps this new director, whoever he or she will be, just might outdo PJ and we could end up with something better than we ever expected. :eek:

Just because PJ is not involved, does not mean we should give up hope. At least a film for The Hobbit is certain to be made at all. We'll just have to wait and see what happens next...

Rikae

11-21-2006, 11:39 PM

First off, it isn't certain PJ won't be...or so MGM says (it's on the TORn main page...it's late and I'm too lazy to link at the moment)...
and secondly: the LOTR cast is an entirely different animal than the HP cast. Every time they've mentioned doing the Hobbit, they have made a point of adding "with Peter and Fran" or similar.

Thinlómien

11-22-2006, 01:55 AM

"Peter Jackson won't do the Hobbit" was one of the headlines in the Metro (one of those newspapers you get for free) in Finland. I'm very interested to see if there's anything of it in the biggest and most respected Finnish newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat...

I'm both relieved and disappointed by the news. The new director might do it much better, or much worse. I just hope that they hire a director with artistic vision and courage to show it on the screen.

Actually, I'm more relieved than disappointed. I'm not sure if The Hobbit, would have been a film I'd want to see directed by Jackson. PJ is good at doing epic action, and that's certainly not something I wish to see in The Hobbit. Just imagine a PJ-style action fight Bilbo vs. the spiders! :eek: ;) The Hobbit is a fairytale and I want to see a fairytale in the theatres too.

Lalwendë

11-22-2006, 03:02 AM

That whole 'fairytale' aspect is why I think Tim Burton might make a splendid film!

Got to say that what was wrong with the LotR films was the scriptwriting, messing about with the delicate balance of the storyline, so I'm quite pleased that the old team won't be let loose on The Hobbit. It has far more potential for silliness and after what they did with poor old Gimli I was a bit worried the film might come out like Bilbo Baggins and the Seven Dwarves. ;)

Thinlómien

11-22-2006, 03:19 AM

Child of the 7th Age

11-22-2006, 03:46 AM

First, as many "mistakes" as PJ made, I am even more skeptical about someone else doing this movie. I waited and waited for so many years hoping that someone would make a half-way decent LotR or Hobbit. The animated Hobbit wasn't too bad as a film strictly for children but every other project --those actually done or those merely planned--simply didn't measure up even to the extent that PJ's work eventually did. In an ideal world, we would have a director who could not only capture the visual world of Middle-earth (which PJ did quite well with the help of Lee and Howe and all the WETA people) but also have more feeling for the characters themselves. I just don't think such a director exists who can get both sides of the puzzle right. And if Serkis and Ian refuse to go with the new director, which is a definite possibility, I can't see people turning out to see the film. New Line knows this. MGM knows this, which is why the latter is already starting to grumble. I really believe it isn't a case of The Hobbit with PJ or The Hobbit without PJ. I honestly think it's the Hobbit with PJ or no Hobbit at all. I'd rather take PJ than no Hobbit!

Secondly, I guess I am with Rakae on this one. I am not convinced this is the end of the line. A lot of what's going on seems like legal posturing for the court case. New Line was obviously trying to bludgeon PJ into submission on the lawsuit but he refused to take the bait. PJ went public either because he felt he owed it to his fans or, just as likely, thought their wrath would help move New Line by making them realize the fan base won't accept a Hobbit without PJ. I don't think this is the last move or counter move.

Take a look at this interview that Zaentz gave last Friday, just two days before the call came to PJ "cutting him off". This excerpt was printed on the http://derhobbit-film.de/indexengl.shtml website. By the way, if you look at the numerous references to the Hobbit that extend back for many months on the first page of that website, you get the sense of an intricate dance being staged in public, with people trying to position themselves favorably in the negotiations.

11/17/2006
Producer Saul Zaentz said in an interview with the German movie magazine 'Cinema', The Hobbit surely will be made by Peter Jackson. MGM-boss Harry Sloan meanwhile gives 2008 or 2009 as date.
Translation from the magazine:
Q: What is with the long anticipated Hobbit-adaption?
A: It will definitely be shot by Peter Jackson. The question is only when. He wants to shoot another movie first. Next year the Hobbit-rights will fall back to my company. I suppose that Peter will wait because he knows that he will make the best deal with us. And he is fed up with the studios: to get his profit share on the rings trilogy he had to sue New Line. With us in contrast he knows that he will be paid fairly and artistically supported without reservation.
(own translation)

In relation to this quote, I had always thought that New Line brought out the film rights from Zaentz and just agreed to give him some kick backs from the LotR profits. (Of couse, MGM still has distribution rights.) However, the above quote confirms what PJ's letter mentions: the rights weren't bought by New Line. They merely rented them for a certain period and this period will end sometime in 2007. It sounds as if Zaentz really will have the film rights revert to him at this point. This quote also suggests that, just two days before the call to PJ, Zaentz not only assumed PJ would be the director of the movie but held out the possibility of having PJ negotiate directly with his own company (rather than New Line) after the rights reverted back. Kind of strange.....

I wish I knew more about the movie business or legal contracts so I could understand this. Can anyone (maybe Mr. Underhill) translate what all this means in terms of rights reverting back? What does New Line have to do to comply with the terms of the agreement and keep the rights for their own Hobbit film? Is it simply to have people sign on to some kind of a legal document? Is it possible that the rights will revert back to Zaentz if New Line doesn't come through with their side of the bargain? Would Zaentz then be in position to negotiate with PJ, MGM, or whoever he wanted? I do know that when the press tried to speak with Zaentz about PJ's letter, his spokespeople said he was "travelling in Europe and unavailable for comment." Convenient copout!

Have we really reached the end of the rope, or is this just another step in a very complicated dance among four different parties---NewLine, MGM, PJ, and Zaentz---to see who comes out on top?

Child of the 7th Age

11-22-2006, 04:52 AM

Just stumbled onto David Poland's movie blog. He is usually pretty knowledgeable. There are already over 30 comments, with everyone predictably disagreeing with each other.

Here is an excerpt:

As for New Line, finding a quality director to succeed Peter Jackson to work on any future Rings-related will be almost impossible. Getting any of the actors who are loyal to Jackson and Walsh will be almost impossible. Selling this as more of the same to the public? They will get 3 weekends out of one project if it is not slaughtered by critics. They will suck some money out of it. And ironically, they will probably be able to make some superior licensing deals.

But anyone who looks at this separation with glee? ......

Aesthetically, there is no call for joy, no matter how much one might have disliked the trilogy. There will never be an emotionless, dry, pseudo-intellectual version of any Rings film in the next decades. (Who knows what revisionism happens in 2030?) And it is quite unlikely that there will be a better version of this style of Rings film from any other filmmaker. This isn’t Harry Potter, bouncing from filmmaker to filmmaker....

Personally, I don't need to see The Hobbit or any other Rings stuff. I am more than pleased to see Walsh/Jackson move onto The Lovely Bones and other such projects. I think it is easy to get caught up in your greatest, unrepeatable success. But they are feeling forced to walk away from their child. And no one will win from it. So there is nothing to applaud. Nothing at all.

But then again, mommy and daddy's separation - even though they have now told the kids - isn't a divorce quite yet. So, who knows...

Essex

11-22-2006, 05:41 AM

And if Serkis and Ian refuse to go with the new director, which is a definite possibility, I can't see people turning out to see the film. Sorry, but I can't see this being the case. If it's a useless film, then fair enough it will not do as well as the LOTR trilogy, but having different actors as Gandalf and Gollum? Why would this drive people away from the movie? I would like both actors to be in the film, but if they are not, then I (and many others I reckon) will put up with it. The best character in the Harry Potter books (dumbledore) was replaced in the films half way through because of the death of an actor - and come on, dumbledore is a bit of a copy of Gandalf - and that worked ok. I didn't see much of a backlash with people not seing the next installment once a new actor came in to play dumbledore.....

The Saucepan Man

11-22-2006, 06:30 AM

I believe that Child's assessment is spot on.

Increasingly, litigation is being played out in the public arena rather than in the courts where it belongs, where the media perceives a "public interest" and one or both of the litigants see it in their interests to do so. Witness, for example, the very public dispute surrounding the break up between Paul McCartney and Heather Mills.

It is now common, in such cases, for the litigants (and even the lawyers) to engage PR consultants to handle the public side of their disputes. Any advantage that may be gained through the use of the media and other means of public reporting is seen as fair game.

So I would agree that their is a fair amount of public posturing going on, for tactical reasons related to the ongoing disputes. And there are, to my knowledge, at least two disputes involved here - between New Line and MGM, and between Jackson and New Line. There may be more (indeed, that is quite possible given the huge amounts of money at stake).

I have no idea as to the precise provisions of this "rights rental" agreement between New Line and Zaentz, as I am not familiar with these types of agreement. But it seems that, in order to retain the rights to make the film, New Line have to have taken certain steps in connection with realising the project and this, it would appear, involves lining up a director, and probably a core production team, at the very least. I would have thought that some sort of legally binding committment will be required.

If New Line are unable to meet these requirements then, yes, it does appear that the rights will revert back to Zaentz and that he will then be free to negotiate with the various parties himself or licence the rights to a different company. Perhaps MGM are angling to acquire the production rights, in addition to the distribution rights (which would certainly resolve the issue between them and New Line).

I do get the impression from what I have seen that Zaentz is very keen for this film to be made, one way or another, and for Jackson to direct. One thing is for sure. Given the potential financial rewards involved, the film (or films) will almost certainly be made. The only question is by whom. And that, it seems, is what all this legal wrangling and public posturing is all about.

Bêthberry

11-22-2006, 08:05 AM

Much as I enjoy Child's acumen and Sauce's insider take, I really have difficulty with this idea that only PJ could do The Hobbit.

Certainly, another director would have a different vision for the film, a different take. It would not be PJ's Hobbit. Yet why should that be a problem? Why must there be only one vision which pertains?

After all, isn't the great virtue of this Barrow Downs that we have so many different voices/takes/POVs on Tolkien? Aiwendil and Kuruharan in contrast to Hookbill and phantom. Contrast Squatter's tomes with burrahobbit's pith. Diamond's jibes with Fea's come-ons. Or even compare Anguirel's literary leanings with Rimbaud's. Fordim's reflections with Formendacil's. Estelyn's patience with Lal's passion or Lush's provocativeness.

Frankly, much as I enjoyed his posts, I really objected to davem's insistence that he was/is Mr. Downs all by himself. Much of what he posted would have been far less interesting without Lal's running commentary, as well as that of others. George Burns needed Graciebut that didn't mean people didn't enjoy The Honeymooners.

the same holds for film directors. What new would PJ bring to The Hobbit? Would it just be more of the same LotR flick or would it provide a new perspective on Bilbo and the Ring? Would it tell us something about Tolkien we don't already know?

Frankly, if we take anything from Tolkien, it is the cautionary tale that any One Ring is too authoritarian an approach to life.

Tim Burton has already been mentioned as one director who might have a very different take on TH. I think it would really be fascinating to consider what kind of TH film other directors might make.

Neil Gaiman has written for the screen, for instance, ...

Essex

11-22-2006, 08:51 AM

Tim Burton has already been mentioned as one director who might have a very different take on TH. I think it would really be fascinating to consider what kind of TH film other directors might make. but what character could his missus play? I can't think of any female leads in the Hobbit!!! Or would Mr Burton create one??? Mrs Bilbo Baggins instead of Mr Bilbo Baggins perhaps?? :p

Mister Underhill

11-22-2006, 09:01 AM

All of these developments have indeed been quite interesting, from a Hollywood observer's perspective as well as a Tolkien fan perspective.

Presumably New Line has what's called an "option" on The Hobbit. This is where you pay a small sum (smaller than you'd pay for outright purchase anyway, obviously) to acquire rights for a limited amount of time. These deals can be structured any way you want, but the typical option term is for a year. Often the party that holds the option can renew for another term when the option expires, assuming both the underlying rights holder and the optioner are both amenable -- some people make more money by having options renewed over a span of time than they do on outright sales of material. Presumably New Line has been paying rent as you say on The Hobbit for years. This talk of reversion is an interesting development though. It is clearly a threat on Zaentz's part that he won't renew when the option expires.

For New Line's part, that means the clock is ticking. Like I said, there is no boilerplate option -- they can be structured in many ways -- but probably New Line needs to get a greenlit picture before the option expires or rights would revert to Zaentz, who then is as free as a bird to shop his project elsewhere. But -- how can they move forward when things are still unresolved with MGM? Perhaps they made a play to pressure Jackson to commit so that, with a project that was really happening, MGM would be more inclined to come to terms. A bird in the hand and all that.

I'm even more puzzled by Jackson taking things public. Chances are he has a legitimate suit. Unfortunately, it's pretty much standard practice for studios to try to cheat profit participants out of their due. I also wouldn't be surprised if making a new deal to help resolve the suit really is "how things are done". With that in mind, I guess there are at least a couple of reasons for going public. The cynic in me wonders if Jackson was looking for an out and found it. He's able to walk away from the project with creative integrity intact and New Line looking like the bad guy. The flip side of the argument he's made on TORN is that if he was really passionate to make The Hobbit, he wouldn't let a compromise over money stand in the way.

On the other hand, this may be Jackson and Zaentz's way of playing hardball with New Line (does Zaentz also still have an unresolved suit with them over profits?). They know that the biggest obstacle for New Line if they lose Jackson and their option can't be renewed is time -- the time it would take for a new director and creative team to come aboard and develop the project into a go movie. All this with the MGM tangle still unresolved, too.

Verrry interesting. Anyway, I wouldn't count anything out yet. I'd say Jackson is still as likely as not to direct a Hobbit movie if he still wants to. We'll see how things play out.

Rikae

11-22-2006, 11:53 AM

On the topic of the consequences of using another director -
I admit I'm biased, (I've been a Jackson fan since Heavenly Creatures), but it seems to me PJ has an ability to get the audience to invest emotionally in scenes that, in another director's hands, would be either merely entertaining or unbearably "schlock-y". Yes, Jackson has been known to descend into schmaltz at times, but more often he pulls it off; he has a sort of childlike sincerity that draws viewers in; makes one set aside cynicism and feel for the characters. I think that ability was a major part of LOTR's success, and that The Hobbit is even more dependant on it.
PJ is the only director whose movies make me cry, and they do so repeatedly, from the murder scene in "Heavenly Creatures" to the scene when all of Gondor bows to the hobbits in ROTK, to the final scenes of King Kong. With any other director I would watch the first without emotion, and laugh at the cheesiness of the latter two. I'm doubtful that any other director will be able to give us a Bilbo we can love as much as we should, and that is absolutely essential.

As much as I dislike the prospect of a non-PJ hobbit, I'm even more distraught over the idea of a non-Serkis Gollum. Ian McKellen was an excellent Gandalf, and it would be a shame to lose him, but another Gandalf is concievable. Another Gollum is unthinkable to me - a sacrilege. If Serkis refuses, there are three possibilities I see:
1. An actor attempts to imitate the Gollum Serkis created. This sort of situation gives, at best, weak, empty results, and at worst, laughable ones.
2. Gollum is purely CGI, with only a voice actor. Hello, Jar Jar!
3. Another actor takes Gollum in a completely different direction; however, there aren't that many directions to go & still give us Tolkien's Gollum, so this approach would most likely give as a charater that is either too monstrous, or too shallow.

I hope what we're seeing with PJ and NewLine is, as Child says, part of a complicated dance, because if Pete and Andy sit this one out, we're going to end up with a version of "The Hobbit" that has two left feet.

*groan* ;)

Tuor in Gondolin

11-22-2006, 12:13 PM

Just a comment on another director then PJ. He obviously has plusses and minuses (more plusses, especially casting, or was that FW domain?)
But perhaps a better example of different directors actually enhancing a
story then Harry Potter is the original Star Wars set (Parts 4, 5, 6).
I thought different directors enhanced and broadened the story there.

The Saucepan Man

11-22-2006, 05:19 PM

Tim Burton has already been mentioned as one director who might have a very different take on TH. I think it would really be fascinating to consider what kind of TH film other directors might make. Yes, Tim Burton's ability to combine a children's tale with just the right touch of darkness would seem fitting for such a project. The question is whether he would have sufficient enthusisam for the works of Tolkien to make it work. I have no idea what the answer to that is.

I can think of another director who would be ideal for the project, were he so inclined (and, again, I have no idea whether he would). He has already made a film in which a hero with whom children may identify goes off on a strange adventure with a bunch of dwarves. In another of his films, an everyman hero is drawn from a mundane existence into a fantasy world following an encounter with a mysterious man associated with pipes. Yet another of his films involves a protagonist renowned for embellishing the tales of his fantastical adventures. And his most recent film, set on the edge of the real world and faerie, explored the nature of fairy-tale in a most novel way.

He is a wonderful, quirky director, eminently capable of combining the fantastical and the comedic but his films also often have a dark side to them, and he is no stranger to special effects.

Can you guess to whom I refer? :smokin:

Mister Underhill

11-22-2006, 05:27 PM

Nice call, Sauce -- I was going to mention Gilliam myself. He would certainly be an interesting choice -- better than Burton IMO.

Further to the question of actors and a Jackson-less Hobbit, I just saw this article: McKellan "sad" that Jackson may not make "Hobbit" (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22112006/325/mckellen-sad-jackson-hobbit.html). Notice how Sir Ian doesn't say he would never do TH without Jackson. And anyway, I seriously doubt that Jackson would want anyone to pass up the job for his sake. It's a hard world out there for actors. Choice parts like Gollum and Gandalf don't come down the road every day. My bet is that both men would return to reprise their roles -- with Jackson's blessing.

Rikae

11-22-2006, 05:35 PM

I adore him...but for The Hobbit?
Much as I would like to see Smaug argue about swallows (or sparrows in this case), and the Sackville Bagginses explode, I'd have to say he's a tad TOO quirky.

I'd be quite the birthday present, if they called him up today...

EDIT: X posted with Mr. Underhill

Rikae

11-22-2006, 06:55 PM

TORn just posted this:
"Word from a reliable source indicates that Sam Raimi has been approached to direct THE HOBBIT"

Mister Underhill

11-22-2006, 07:35 PM

Ooh, Raimi -- another very interesting possibility. He's certainly more than qualified to handle the FX side of things, and his handling of the emotional side of the Spiderman franchise has been pitch-perfect so far.

Rikae

11-22-2006, 09:24 PM

Has it been? I've never seen the Spiderman movies, which is why I didn't comment on Raimi. I'll have to go to Family Video tomorrow...

doug*platypus

11-23-2006, 01:38 AM

Well, well, so the speculation has ended, and for good or ill we now know that there will be no PJ Hobbit. In spite of my many gripes about Jackson's version of LOTR, I do admit that given his geographical position and passion for the job, the three movies would not have been made without him, and we would have missed out on the visuals and cinematic story which expanded and breathed life into Tolkien's works. So it was with mixed feelings that I heard the breaking news.

Although it could quite easily be argued that PJ was the only man for the LOTR job, I think that The Hobbit could quite successfully be handled by another director. At least the triumvurate of LOTR script writers would not then have their wicked way with any more of Tolkien's material, and we may get a more faithful adaptation (nice dream). I suppose that the tone and narrative style of a non PJ Hobbit would differ from the trilogy, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It would probably mean that the movie could stand on its own and not simply be a prequel. I for one am looking forward to the fresh perspective which another director will bring to The Hobbit.

It would be a shame if McKellen did not return to reprise his role as the grey wizard, and something of a loss if Andy Serkis was not there to perform as Gollum, but as for the other actors I am not too fussed. If Hugo Weaving were to return as Elrond it would do much for consistency between the movies, but on the other hand I would be interested to see whether an actor more suited to the part could be found (I wasn't a big fan of Agent Elrond). As for Galadriel, Legolas and Saruman, well I would prefer if the filmmakers stuck to the story as it is, rather than expanding on it and including scenes of the White Council and Dol Guldur, although I suppose an Orlando Bloom cameo would be good for fangirls/boys.

But whoever ends up directing and starring, I will be there with my popcorn and Coke (nice plug) watching the story unfold on the big screen. I may only watch it once, if it is terrible, but I will be entertained for a few hours at least! ;) At least whoever directs it will have to show us Smaug the Magnificent in all his glory.

BTW, while we're speculating or fantasising about directors, may I suggest Andrew Adamson (do I have his name right?). I thoroughly enjoyed The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. That is, unless he is busy.

The Saucepan Man

11-23-2006, 03:52 AM

Well, the report refers to a "reliable source" indicating that Raimi has been "approached". It's not necessailry a done deal. This may turn out to be another gambit in the war of words.

At least the triumvurate of LOTR script writers would not then have their wicked way with any more of Tolkien's material, and we may get a more faithful adaptation (nice dream).This is an important point. It is just as important, if not more so, that a decent screenplay writer is involved. And there are, I am sure, many who would do a good deal worse than the LotR triumvirate ...

Azaelia of Willowbottom

11-25-2006, 01:08 PM

Now that it's definite that PJ will not be back on board, I have to admit some skepticism about the whole project.

The movies stayed true to the spirit, if not the letter, of the books...And now that we know the same team won't be around, it makes me even more grateful for what we already had. It could be so much worse, though there is room for some improvement. There were problems and differences, but what they produced was a coherent adaptation of the LOTR book. They worked out of well-meaning passion for the story, and it could be much, much worse. We could wind up with a writer/director team only looking to please mainstream fans (in general, that means not us), and only after the money involved. Such movies would be tired and dull and definitely not up to standard.

I don't mean to be a pessimist about the whole thing, but I just feel like PJ is the man for LOTR...even though I know that many, especially here, will not agree with me. I didn't realize how much I trusted him until I read the news and began worrying: Oh no! What's going to happen now?!

I agree with Rikae's feelings about this movie.

I just don't trust anyone else with Middle-earth. *ducks, runs, hides*

Aaron

11-25-2006, 05:06 PM

The Hobbit without Peter Jackson may still work but I have a bad feeling that they'll do something awful.
And now...introducing Charlie Sheen as Gollum!
But seriously, there are plenty of good directors and as long as this doesn't reek of a shameless moneygrabbing scheme I'll be partially satisfied.

Rune Son of Bjarne

11-26-2006, 06:28 AM

Is this what you are fearing?

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k267/runesf/Hobbitnej.gif

Should I remove this photo again? I mean it really belongs in Mirth. . . .

Aaron

11-26-2006, 06:31 AM

The Saucepan Man

11-26-2006, 06:47 AM

Tom Cruise? Oh man, he already ruined War of The Worlds...I suspect that we are safe.

Tom Cruise would never take a role that deliberately made him appear short ... ;)

Aaron

11-26-2006, 06:54 AM

Good point.
I really hope that this film can at least get made although I'd prefer it not to if an insufficient job is done as I'm sure we can all agree. But I always knew that Jackson wouldn't do it, he never seemed too enthused about the idea.
But I think it may go well, as long as it isn't given a "happy ever after" ending, I mean, the destruction and death caused by the ring will be so terrible how can the film end on a happy note?

Rikae

11-26-2006, 10:06 AM

Caused by the ring? Are you thinking of a different book? I'm confused.

I watched Spiderman 2 last night, and I don't think Raimi has what it takes to capture the spirit of Tolkien, at all, at all. I saw badly blended CGI and too-bright colors; nothing like the beauty of LOTR. Even though Parker clearly was a character one should be able to empathize with, I didn't; it left me cold.
Of course, I hear Raimi's going to be fliming Spiderman movies all next year in any event; but the fact that they offered it to him indicates what direction NL is thinking of going. don't you think?

Aaron

11-26-2006, 10:19 AM

Were it not for the ring surviving the carnage within The Lord of The Rings would not have happened. if indeed the Ring has a mind of its own then my statement is valid.

Rikae

11-26-2006, 10:52 AM

In "The Hobbit", the ring is not much of a focus; Tolkien himself didn't know what direction he would take the story, if my understanding is correct. It merits only a touch of foreshadowing; it's ominous only to those who know the rest of the story. In itself, The Hobbit does have a (relatively) happy ending, although the death of Thorin does add a sobering note. The carnage in The Hobbit itself is caused by Smaug, the Orcs, and greed - war over Smaug's hoard. It's not primarily a prequel, but a self-contained adventure story that also serves the purpose of a prequel. I would prefer to see it filmed as such, and not turned into a fourth (first) installment in LOTR.

Mister Underhill

11-26-2006, 01:56 PM

I'd agree that Raimi is a longshot; but then again if he's a Tolkien fan, you never can tell. I'm trying to think who else would be on New Line's short list.

Gilliam may be on the list, but likely not near the top. I think he's perceived -- rightly, I guess -- as making fairly quirky films that don't necessarily perform all that well at the B.O. Plus he's known for being a maverick who's hard to control creatively.

Gore Verbinski has the B.O./FX/franchise cred to put him on the list. Plus he's just rolling off of Pirates 3 and doesn't have any commitments that have been made public that I know of. Johnny Depp as Elrond with eye shadow!

The Wachowski Brothers are working on Speed Racer, but they're known to be fantasy fans. They were briefly attached to an attempted Conan 3 before Arnold became governor.

Jon Favreau's directing star is riding pretty high these days. He's been attached to a couple of very high profile, big-budget tentpole flicks like the endlessly developed John Carter Mars stories of Edgar Rice Burroughs and, more recently, Iron Man. He's a dark horse who could end up in the chair.

What about a Mel Gibson directed Hobbit, all in native Westron with subtitles? :smokin:

Lalwendë

11-26-2006, 02:44 PM

Tom Cruise? Oh man, he already ruined War of The Worlds... ;)
But on subject I beleive that The Hobbit can succeed but I see it as being a very tense movie. The game between Gollum and Bilbo has to have an air of death around it because for me that is the most nerve-wracking part of the story.

I finally saw War of the Worlds yesterday. I was seriously wary of it because of Cruise being in it, but I had a shock in store - it was a cracking film. War of the Worlds has been a tale I've loved ever since a student teacher read us the HG Wells tale in primary school (I was only eight so you can imagine how frightening it was!), and every recent film I've seen Cruise in he's overacted and been just too intense for his own good (namely Eyes Wide Shut, The Last Samurai, Minority Report, Vanilla Sky), but he was understated and seemed like a real person in WotW.

Anyway, methinks that was a spoof ad anyhow... :p

I'm not so sure about Sam Raimi directing The Hobbit. Spiderman 2 was good, but I found the first one pretty boring, the Green Goblin was more funny than scary and it all seemed to be an excuse to show Kirsten Dunst in a wet t-shirt. Disappointing after the hype. :( But really I don't tend to follow directors, I'm not a film buff, I just remember them if they do something notably disappointing or not. Maybe the script writing will be more important, seeing as it was what spoiled the LotR films.

A wag wot I know has suggested they hire Mike Leigh to do The Hobbit...

Mister Underhill

11-26-2006, 06:31 PM

Heh -- Leigh regular Timothy Spall isn't a half bad prospect for Bilbo. Speaking of Spall, I found Brad Silberling's take on Lemony Snicket surprisingly entertaining. He wouldn't be a bad addition to the director candidates list.

Diamond18

11-26-2006, 10:10 PM

What about a Mel Gibson directed Hobbit, all in native Westron with subtitles? :smokin:

Hey, I'd watch it.... :p

Mister Underhill

11-26-2006, 10:44 PM

Me too.

Essex

11-27-2006, 02:55 AM

In reply to some comments on Serkis Gollum a while back, I'd like to take this thread on a short detour if it's OK.

I first was led into the world of Tolkien via the Cartoon Bahski version of LoTR when I was a ten year old. That is where I have picked up the chracters' voices inside my head.

So when I read LOTR for the first time I had some of the Bashki character voices in my head. Especially Gollum. Peter Woodthorpe did an excellent job as Gollum - his voice being, for me, the definitive version. Also, he replayed his role in the BBC Radio version. Alas, I believe he has now passed on so could not reprise his role.

Also, and I realise this now as I'm reading LOTR to my 8 year old son every night, in that I've also picked up Sam's strong West Country accent from the Cartoon version too. And when I read Strider's words for at least the first few readings I had John Hurt's melodious tones in my head.

So I think it's what version you first heard or saw, be it the Cartoon, radio of Film adaptation, is where you have your 'definitive' version from. So for Gollum's voice to change if Serkis does not reprise his role would not be a great loss to me, even though he did an excellent job in PJ's lotr.

Bêthberry

11-27-2006, 04:22 AM

mark12_30

11-27-2006, 06:20 AM

What about a Mel Gibson directed Hobbit, all in native Westron with subtitles? :smokin:

Wo pokupist menya dem tickets?

Rikae

11-27-2006, 11:29 AM

So I think it's what version you first heard or saw, be it the Cartoon, radio of Film adaptation, is where you have your 'definitive' version from. So for Gollum's voice to change if Serkis does not reprise his role would not be a great loss to me, even though he did an excellent job in PJ's lotr.
Well, not true in my case. I saw the cartoon version at 4 or 5, before even reading the book, saw it several more times later on, & always disliked that Gollum. I was expecting to hate the one in PJ's version as well, but instead I thought he was better than I could have imagined.

Aaron

11-27-2006, 01:44 PM

What about Martin Scorsese? The best director in the world!

Gil-Galad

11-27-2006, 05:11 PM

What about Martin Scorsese? The best director in the world!

i can just imagine a shoot-em-up version of the hobbit...

Mister Underhill

11-27-2006, 05:33 PM

Leo DiCaprio as Bilbo. Nicholson as Gandalf. Bobby DeNiro as Elrond. Maybe Harvey Keitel as Thorin.

mark12_30

11-27-2006, 07:21 PM

*shudder*

:P

I think I would pay NOT to see it.

goldfinger

11-28-2006, 06:25 PM

Have all not heared the news? Saul Zaentz is not giving up on PJ, and hopes to have him do the Hobbit.

Bêthberry

11-28-2006, 07:28 PM

Anyone who has demonstrated fondness for Bilbo's song deserves to be considered. Leonard Nimoy. He's even got the credentials to get the ears right.

Mattius

11-29-2006, 10:43 AM

On the subject of Raimi, and forgive me if this has been mentioned before, he is going to be filming the mini series of the fantasy book Wizard's First Rule in New Zealand. Info can be found here: http://www.prophets-inc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3828

My point (and question) is that along with perhaps Spiderman 4 and Wizard's First Rule will Raimi have time in the next 3, 4 or even 5 years to work on The Hobbit?

Also (and I literally will fall to my knees and beg for forgiveness if this has been mentioned) there was a press release from Saul Zaentz, the man who owns the production rights to Tolkien Enterprises, stating that he only wants Jackson to direct the movie and that in about a year Zaentz will regain full control of the project- where he will ask Jackson to take the project.

dancing spawn of ungoliant

11-29-2006, 11:08 AM

Have all not heared the news? Saul Zaentz is not giving up on PJ, and hopes to have him do the Hobbit.
There was an article about that in The Sun today, but how trustworthy is it? I guess we have to wait and see.

LORD OF THE RINGS director PETER JACKSON WILL direct the highly-anticipated prequel, The Hobbit.

There was uproar last week when New Line Cinema bosses told the King Kong director he was "no longer needed" in the making of The Hobbit and another unnamed Lord Of The Rings prequel.

Jackson - originally given the boot due to legal disputes over royalties - now has the thumbs up thanks to film producer SAUL ZAENTZ (One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest).

Zaentz, who owns the screen rights to Tolkien Enterprises, said: “(The Hobbit) will definitely be shot by Peter Jackson.

“Next year, The Hobbit rights will fall back to my company.

“I suppose that Peter will wait because he knows that he will make the best deal with us. And he is fed up with the studios.

“To get his profit share on the Rings trilogy, he had to sue New Line. With us, he knows that he will be paid fairly and artistically supported without reservation.”

(The Sun)

As to other directors, The Wachowski Brothers' take on the Hobbit could be interesting although I'm not sure how well it could reach the spirit of the Hobbit. If the job was given to Tim Burton, at least we'd be sure to get a fairytale. :D

Brinniel

11-29-2006, 03:52 PM

It'll be interesting to see how all this plays out. Fans will give a long, hard fight for PJ until a director is chosen. Even so, I seriously have my doubts whether PJ will end up as director- even if he does end up able to direct it, would he actually choose to? I'm not sure that is how PJ would want to become director of The Hobbit. Besides, while everyone is fighting for him, he'll be moving on and doing other projects. If PJ ever did end up as director, it would be years before a film is made.

I've noticed The Hobbit has popped up on IMDB, just underneath the 1977 version. Unfortunately, I can't access anything further, since I'm not an IMDBPro member and am not willing to pay. The film is listed to be released in 2009...of course that's only projected, but it gives an idea of what New Line's goals are.

If the job was given to Tim Burton, at least we'd be sure to get a fairytale.
Indeed. I've seen many of his films (Edward Scissorhands, Nightmare Before Christmas, Sleepy Hollow, Big Fish, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Corpse Bride) and loved them all. When I think about it, he could really pull off a decent Hobbit film. It would be in much contrast to PJ's films, though. An unfortunate thing for PJ fans, but I think in the end it could be a good thing. Good news: I checked on IMDB, and from what I see, he only has one project currently on his schedule. :)

dancing spawn of ungoliant

11-29-2006, 04:35 PM

When I think about it, he could really pull off a decent Hobbit film. It would be in much contrast to PJ's films, though. An unfortunate thing for PJ fans, but I think in the end it could be a good thing. And Mister Underhill just might end up watching Johnny Depp reading moon runes in Rivendell. ;)

Mister Underhill

11-30-2006, 12:19 AM

Johnny Delrond: "These are moon-letters, savvy?"

The latest news:
Jackson Kicked Off 'The Hobbit' In Fit of Pique, Says Report

New Line Cinema notified Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson that he would not be involved in the production of The Hobbit and another LOTR prequel after Jackson declined to contribute a video salute to the studio for its 40th anniversary celebration next year, the New York Times reported today (Wednesday), citing two people familiar with the matter. Jackson and New Line are locked in a legal dispute over profits from The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. The Times said that Jackson's camp has accused the studio of dropping him from the prequels "in a fit of pique." Meanwhile, a spokesman for MGM which owns distribution rights to The Hobbit, told the Times. "We support Peter Jackson as a filmmaker, and believe that when the dust settles, he'll be making the movie. We can't imagine any other result."

Thinlómien

11-30-2006, 02:49 AM

And Mister Underhill just might end up watching Johnny Depp reading moon runes in Rivendell. ;)I'd rather have him as Elrond than as Bilbo in the film... ;)

Beanamir of Gondor

11-30-2006, 12:13 PM

This might have been mentioned in another thread someplace (one of the other PJ-Hobbit threads) but I couldn't find it, so here's the blurb I found perusing a magazine today.

Newsweek, December 4th, 2006, p. 75
"Breaking the Hobbit"
It should've been a slam dunk. Peter Jackson, mastermind of the "Lord of the Rings" franchise, was all set to reteam with studio partner New Line on a film version of J.R.R. Tolkien's "Rings" prequel, "The Hobbit". Then a funny thing happened: New Line fired him. No one's using that word, natch, but in a letter posted on the fan site theonering.net, Jackson claims that the studio told him it "would no longer be requiring our services on 'The Hobbit' ". (New Line declined to comment; Jackson could not be reached.) Why the breakup? Fallout from Jackson's decision to audit New Line's accounting on "Rings". The studio wanted him to settle the matter before handing him "The Hobbit". He refused; that was that. It'll be tough to fill Jackson's shoes. For one thing, he doesn't wear any.
--Devin Gordon

And here's some OFFICIAL news on it from theonering.net. Elijah Wood and Ian McKellen tossed in their opinions, too.
http://www.mymovies.net/news/news_listing.asp?filmid=5975&sec=news

Any thoughts or feelings? (complaints? huzzahs?) I'm not sure yet if I'm glad for Gloin the dwarf-tossed, or sad for Bilbo the Ring-Finder.

Elladan and Elrohir

12-01-2006, 05:34 PM

No matter what anyone says, this ain't over yet. Saul Zaentz and MGM have both said multiple times that they want PJ making The Hobbit. I don't know that fan pressure is overwhelming, but I can assure you it's present. I predict New Line waits about six months so as not to appear quite as weak as they otherwise would, and then caves in, settles the suit, and offers the job to PJ. Hello, New Line! Who directed the three highest-grossing films in your history and brought home a truckload of Oscars in the process? Oh yeah, that fat guy from New Zealand. If he directs, TH is guaranteed to be one of the top grossing films of the year.

Honestly, if I knew another director would give TH the same treatment that PJ has given LOTR (i.e., the quality of costumes, sets, weapons, props, casting, score, little details for the fans), I might be OK with a director change. But it's not just PJ that we're losing here. We're losing Fran and Philippa as screenwriters. We're losing Andrew Lesnie as cinematographer. Despite what Richard Taylor says, we're probably losing the brilliance of WETA in weapons, props and visual effects. We're losing the brilliance of another Howard Shore score. We're almost certainly losing Gandalf, oops, I mean Ian McKellen, as well as the greatest Gollum to ever grace the earth, Andy Serkis.

Sure, these people can be replaced (except maybe the latter three). There are other competent people out there, particularly in the areas of writing and cinematography. But are they going to give TH the same TLC that we got with LOTR?

I would be far more willing to put this book in the hands of Peter Jackson and get a violent, epic, LOTR-style PG-13 Hobbit, than put it in the hands of another director, having absolutely no idea what I'm going to get.

Wow, sorry to rant about all this. It's something I feel strongly about. Which is probably why I have to convince myself that when the dust settles, PJ will be directing and everything will be okay. If I'm in heavy denial, I apologize.

Brinniel

12-02-2006, 04:57 AM

Who directed the three highest-grossing films in your history and brought home a truckload of Oscars in the process? Oh yeah, that fat guy from New Zealand.
Except you can't call PJ the "fat guy" (http://images.scotsman.com/2006/11/21/2006-11-21T013510Z_01_NOOTR_RTRIDSP_2_OUKEN-UK-LEISURE-JACKSON.jpg) anymore... :p

I mentioned before that it looks like New Line is aiming for 2009, but I seriously doubt that will happen. It took years to get LotR going, and with this ongoing battle, it'll take even longer to even get The Hobbit started.

As far as we know, the director and screenwriters (indeed, two very important parts) won't be the same, but I'm not going to guess on everyone else. I don't think most of the other crew member wouldn't participate in The Hobbit just because PJ isn't involved- if they don't participate, it'll be for other reasons. New Line would just be stupid not to bring back a single crew or cast member into the project. I feel confident that some will return. For one thing, there is no other team except WETA who can portray Gollum the same. And they can't animate Gollum without Andy Serkis (Gollum may be CGI, but his looks and personality come from Serkis). Gollum is an important character of The Hobbit, and if he doesn't come close to what he was in LotR, this movie will be a disaster for sure. New Line kicked PJ and Fran off the project, but no one else. I won't believe for a second that no one else in the cast and crew would return to work on The Hobbit until someone shows me some actual evidence.

Kuruharan

12-02-2006, 10:49 AM

It is funny, but after the original movies came out (even though I had mixed feelings about them at the time) I wanted The Hobbit movie to be made.

Now that this news has broken…I’m not so sure. I have to admit that I’ve come to have a more negative opinion about the original movies as time has passed so I don’t really want to see Jackson do The Hobbit. Unfortunately, none of the other names mentioned interest me and some are rather repulsive as far as I’m concerned (please, Eru, no…not the the Wachowski Brothers, and after seeing that silly Pirates 2 I don’t want Verbinski anywhere near Tolkien…although, on the other hand, at least we wouldn’t have sequels to worry about him messing up the characters. He’d only have to worry about getting it right once. :rolleyes: )

Lush

12-02-2006, 11:53 AM

I adore PJ, but if it's not meant to be, then...

Alfonso Cuarón is a great director. He did a magnificent Harry Potter 3, rescuing the saga from the clutches of Chris Columbus' bumbling mediocrity. He has an eye for the whimsical, and his films are gorgeous. He has also grown incredibly since "Great Expectations."

Mike Newell did a great job with the latest Harry Potter. I think humour is his greatest strength, and I think that he would make an awesome candidate, particularly when you look at the material he would be dealing with. And visually, the film was awesome as well.

And Guillermo del Toro! I loved "Hellboy," and I am hearing good things about "El Laberinto del Fauno" (Pan's Labyrinth) - it looks stunning. Ok, so he also did "Mimic," but then again, PJ was responsible for "The Frighteners" - so that doesn't mean anything. Del Toro has a brilliant, twisted imagination. He might make "The Hobbit" slightly darker - even in terms of something as simple as colour and the attention to detail. I think that could really work.

Then there is Julie Taymor - director of "Frida," which was so magical and vivid that I have little doubt that she could do great things with The Hobbit.

Luc Besson is also someone that I would look at closely for this. His commercials alone show what he is capable of.

Hungarian director Nimród Antal did a beautiful underground fairy tale called "Kontroll." I could not believe that this was his first feature film. He would be right for this story.

Then there's Kasi Lemmons - of "Eve's Bayou" and "The Caveman's Valentine." Also absolutely magical, imho.

I believe that someone like Sofia Coppola may do a surprisingly great job. She could probably do a departure from her usual subject matter - and do it well, and the way she films nature is amazing. I think Coppola could do great things with the Shire, the Misty Mountains, etc. - as long as the budget is decent. And she would handle the humour really well. People don't think that she could ever do a movie with a lot of outward scope, but I think she has it in her.

And, of course, people have already mentioned Tim Burton,

Child of the 7th Age

12-02-2006, 11:55 AM

Interesting stuff! An editorial appeared yesterday in the Boston Globe and was then reprinted in the Toronto Star urging New Line to have PJ make The Hobbit. See here (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1164927010525&call_pageid=970599119419) for the edited version.

And I can remember a time in the early sixties when mentioning Lord of the Rings or Tolkien would often get you blank stares!

Brinniel

12-02-2006, 09:42 PM

Throwing out some names:

Michael Gondry - directed Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and the Science of Sleep

Robert Zemeckis - directed Forrest Gump, Back to the Future trilogy, Cast Away, The Polar Express, and Beowulf (coming out next year)

Brian Singer - directed X-Men, X2, and Superman Returns

I'm interested in seeing how Stefen Fangmeier does with Eragon. This is his first movie as director. He's mainly a computer graphics/visual effects supervisor with films like Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, Hook, Twister, Saving Private Ryan, The Perfect Storm, Bourne Identity, Signs, Master and Commander, and Lemony Snicket. If I were to suggest him, at least he'd do a good job in finding a decent visual team and would pay close attention to the visual effects.

Then, of course, there's always Quentin Tarantino... ;)

Mänwe

12-03-2006, 08:43 AM

Brinniel, now a Tarantino film would be interesting. I bet on the Battle of the Five Armies scene morphing into black and white with katana wielding elves neatly taking off hands and feet of unfortunate orcs and goblins.

But it seems people are worried about the script and "feel" of the film. Which are obviously two highly important aspects of a film. Perhaps 'The Hobbit' without PJ will lack the same emotional quality, but would bring another script team. Can you see PJ working with anyone else other than Fran Walsh? So yes, perhaps a film without PJ would bring something new and better to the script. Although the obvious downside is, we won't know what it will be like until it came out. (If the film goes ahead.) Whereas we know what to expect if the "LoTR" script team also writes 'The Hobbit'.

Yet despite all the positives and negatives of not having PJ as director for 'The Hobbit' and all the contested points on his "LoTR", I would still be disappointed if he were not the director.

And seeing as we are suggesting directors, why not approach Christopher Tolkien?

Aaron

12-05-2006, 03:12 PM

Wait, is Christopher Tolkien still alive? I heard he was dead. :confused:
How about Spike Lee as a director? Oh, would that be amusing.

Tuor in Gondolin

12-06-2006, 12:20 PM

If not Spike Lee, what about
Sylvester Stallone? :D (See him
punch out all the Giant Spiders to save the dwarves).

Kuruharan

12-06-2006, 04:46 PM

Actually, I find Stallone to be surprisingly articulate when he is speaking as himself.

Except now I'm having horrible visions of The Hobbit starting off with Bilbo running up the stairs of the Mathomhouse in Michel Delving with the Rocky theme music playing in the background.

narfforc

12-08-2006, 10:28 AM

I find him very articulate after I drink ten pints of Orkbrew and watch three Arnie films.

Kuruharan

12-08-2006, 12:27 PM

I said "surprisingly" articulate. Not "very." ;)

There can be a profound difference between the two.

Mister Underhill

01-10-2007, 03:15 PM

The Jackson/New Line rift is growing wider and wider: Jackson Banned From Hobbit (http://movies.ign.com/articles/754/754322p1.html)

Child of the 7th Age

01-11-2007, 08:24 AM

Thanks Mr Underhill for that sorry link. It seems that this quarrel is pulling in other actors from the cast. There was one additional quote from New Line honcho Shaye implying this in another article:

Shaye said that many of the Rings trilogy actors "suddenly, because, I'm guessing, of Peter's complaint," have declined to participate in celebrating New Line's 40th anniversary. "I'm incredibly offended," he said.

PJ responded in Variety by saying it was "regrettable" Mr Shaye had made the issue personal and added this comment:

Jackson also disputed suggestions by Shaye that Rings cast members had declined to take part in New Line's 40th anniversary. "In light of these circumstances, I didn't think it was appropriate for me to be involved in [an anniversary video]," Jackson said. "I have never discussed this video with any of the cast of the LOTR. The issues that Bob Shaye has with the cast pre-date this lawsuit by many years."

Elladan and Elrohir

01-11-2007, 03:15 PM

Regardless of whether Shaye's criticism of Jackson is justified, his comments are downright idiotic. He has thrust the dagger into his own heart; now, with the latest comments from Wingnut, PJ has twisted it for him.

We now know for sure that PJ will not be making The Hobbit for New Line Cinema. Probably, this means that New Line is forfeiting their right to make the movie. Well, not forfeiting, but since their films rights expire in a year, since they can't make the film without MGM, and since MGM won't let them make it without PJ, New Line's effectively out of the discussion.

Which means that PJ almost certainly will be making The Hobbit, a little further in the future, though certainly not for New Line.

The Might

01-11-2007, 03:21 PM

Guess it's there loss, I'm sure the movie would have been a guarranteed success considering the profit made by the trilogy
I just hope that whoever makes it, makes it good.

I wonder if some of the previous films actors would be willing to play again...I liked Ian Holm as Bilbo

teleriferchnyfain

01-11-2007, 05:07 PM

Lathriel

01-27-2007, 05:06 PM

I just hope they'll make the movie before Ian McKellen gets too old.
Grrrrr, these politics are so annoying, so without any further ado "Get on with it!!" (Monty Python and the Holy Grail)

Child of the 7th Age

01-27-2007, 06:59 PM

Sam Raimi now reports that he is considering directing The Hobbit. Here. (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment/movies/la-fi-raimi27jan27,0,7633532.story?coll=orl-home-entlife)

Lalwendë

01-29-2007, 02:13 PM

Sam Raimi now reports that he is considering directing The Hobbit. Here. (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment/movies/la-fi-raimi27jan27,0,7633532.story?coll=orl-home-entlife)

Don't get too excited, I've read that he's looking at doing The Phantom next and that would happen over 2007-08.

Oddwen

01-29-2007, 11:29 PM

he's looking at doing The Phantom next...
...
...
...what?

;P

I'd be very interested to see someone else's version of the Hobbit, if it comes to that. The more I look back at PJ's version, the less and less I like it.

Child of the 7th Age

01-30-2007, 12:12 AM

Don't get too excited, I've read that he's looking at doing The Phantom next and that would happen over 2007-08

Excited? Nah.....

After waiting endless years for someone to do a film adaptation and then living through the flawed attempt of Bakshi and the even worse Rankin Bass, I am probably more forgiving of PJ than others might be. PJ's films were a long way from perfect but, in my mind, they were also a considerable distance from "bad", despite the pain of seeing Frodo and Faramir mangled. I found them visually stunning in parts and certain characters like Bilbo and Gandalf came close to how I've always envisioned them.

Overall, however, I would say that I am more disappointed than excited regarding The Hobbit. Whoever manages to pull the movie off (if anyone does), it looks as if we'll be waiting a long time for this to happen. My gut feeling right now is that, if what the papers are reporting is correct, New Line will not get its act together and that the rights will eventually revert back to Zaentz/MGM. At that point it's likely to go to PJ, but who knows for sure?

So many of these decisions and arguments seem to be tied up with money. Zaentz, like PJ, was suing New Line because he said they reneged on their contract with him and that they owed him another 20 million. So he would probably love to see the film rights come slipping back out of New Line's grip.

Raimi just doesn't excite me. I guess he'd be "competent" but that's about all. I don't think he'd have any more feel for "faerie" than PJ had. The advantage of having PJ do the film is that we would likely get Ian McKellen, WETA, and hopefully the same artistic crew of Lee and Howe. However, the Hobbit we get would not be the book, which is essentially a children's story but one that is richly layered with meaning by the time we reach the ending scenes. Instead, we'd get an adult prelude, possibly two, to the Lord of the Rings movie.

I know a lot of people prefer an "adult" Hobbit, but I would honestly love to see the original children's tale that Tolkien crafted. Otherwise, so much of the charm of the story will be lost. I doubt anyone is going to make that children's tale -- whether PJ or anyone else. So I'll just sit back and wait and see what happens. And, yes, whoever makes it, and whatever angle they take, I will likely go see it. So I am hoping that something comes through eventually.

Lalwendë

01-30-2007, 01:54 PM

Child, I wouldn't be excited by a Raimi directed film either. I found the Spider-Man films to be Curate's Eggs - good in parts, bad in others. Now, I thought they were mostly good, but the bad parts were very cheesy - especially in the first one which had that whole useless portrayal of the Green Goblin and that big excuse of showing Kirsten Dunst in a wet t-shirt. :rolleyes: Tobey Maguire was great though, a superhero of the post-Donnie Darko-era. If that makes sense.

What I'd love to see is an animated version of The Hobbit. Wait, don't run away...I mean one based on Tolkien's own artwork like that trailer of an animated short of Mr Bliss that you can find on YouTube : Mr Bliss (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itzcNwJ-y3M).

Thenamir

01-31-2007, 01:18 PM

I like that idea, Lal, but I'd take it a step further. Consider what might be possible if you were able to render photo-realistic digital landscapes based heavily on Tolkien’s artwork. With the great strides constantly being made in digital animation and rendering, it might be possible to actually create an entire digital Middle-Earth in glorious 3-D, and populate it either with real actors blue-screened in, or digital characters in the Tolkien-art style a la Andy Serkis’ Gollum. Hire some professional voice talent, and then you’d have it! I’d get behind that in a heartbeat.

Mister Underhill

04-18-2007, 12:19 AM

There are a lot of "ifs" in this article, but for better or worse Raimi has finally gone on record as wanting to do The Hobbit:

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20035161,00.html

Sauron the White

04-18-2007, 06:17 AM

New Lines rights expire within 18 months. There is no way they can make and release a first class blockbuster film heavy in CG and special effects in that time. The clock has ticked down and their rights are virtually dead at this point. The only real options they have are
1) rush a quickie HOBBIT into production on the same level as a made-for-tv movie and get it out next summer
2) make a deal with MGM to sell the interest they still have in the project
3) make nice-nice with Peter Jackson, pay him what he thinks they owe him, and get an extension from Zaentz to allow them to make a film on the same quality level as the LOTR films.

New Line has completely wasted the last six months in this sillyness with Shaye and Jackson. Shaye is 67 years old, has not had a good production record on films since LOTR, and is coming off a financial loser he directed in MIMSY. At some point you have to wonder if his superiors think he is worth it while letting Jackson and the franchise go.

This is a business where the mantra is indeed "what have you done for me lately".
And lately Bob Shaye has been a liability to New Line and its owners.

The Saucepan Man

04-18-2007, 06:36 AM

New Lines rights expire within 18 months. There is no way they can make and release a first class blockbuster film heavy in CG and special effects in that time.It depends upon the precise terms of the option agreement. New Line might be able to secure the option simply by commencing production within 18 months.

Folwren

04-18-2007, 09:32 AM

I know a lot of people prefer an "adult" Hobbit, but I would honestly love to see the original children's tale that Tolkien crafted. Otherwise, so much of the charm of the story will be lost. I doubt anyone is going to make that children's tale -- whether PJ or anyone else. So I'll just sit back and wait and see what happens. And, yes, whoever makes it, and whatever angle they take, I will likely go see it. So I am hoping that something comes through eventually.

I'd agree with everything that Child said in the post that I drew this from. I would love to see a childish Hobbit made... with all the humor and light heartedness that Tolkien put in it left in tact.

--

From what few posts I've read on this last page, am I correct to think that people here don't think that it's coming out this summer?

-- Folwren

Sauron the White

04-18-2007, 09:44 AM

Yes, you are correct in theory. However, based on discussions on other boards where people working inside the film industry have posted, it is my belief that the contract between Zaentz and New Line calls for substantial progress to have been made before that date (in production) for them to be able to do the film. Having a script in the works or naming a director or even scheduling a starting filming date would not be enough.

I realize that until one actually reads the contract and is aware of the actual terms all this is speculation. But I am basing this on six months of following this whole issue on a daily basis and the opinions of insiders who are in a position to know.

This whole thing reminds me of the scene in WIZARD OF OZ where the Wicked Witch turns over that gorgeous hourglass and Dorothy watches her time run out. Thats a great deal like New Line and their HOBBIT rights today. Each day that goes by means a little less chance that they will ever make this film.

Right now, they have nothing. No script. No actors under contract. No director. No special effects house. No crew. No shooting schedule. Nothing. THE HOBBIT is not like shooting a movie of the week where you can rope off a New York or LA street at dawn and shoot what is there with a small crew and a handful of actors. I imagine it will take a good six to nine months of pre-production work just to get everything in place to begin filming. And that is a very liberal estimate. It could take twice that.

With all the location shots and special work necessary the actual shoot could take another six months. Then there is a lengthy post production process in any film that is heavy with special effects and CG work. Adding all that up takes us beyond the expiration date of the New Line HOBBIT rights.

Zaentz has already said that Peter Jackson will make THE HOBBIT. He has positioned himself to make a deal with another studio and Jackson as soon as he is legally able to. Zaentz wants to maximize his profit participation and the way to do that is with the same man you turned the first three films into $4billion dollars US.

Look at it this way. I do not know what Zaentz's profit participation number is but lets say its 5% of gross. If New Line rushes something into production with a lesser director and the public does not take to it like they did the LOTR films, the gross could be way down compared to the LOTR films. Instead of looking at 5% of a billion dollar film, Zaentz gets a check for 5% off a $350 million dollar film. Thats a huge difference.

If he makes a new deal two things happen for Zaentz. He can negotiate a better profit participation deal than he now is getting and he can put himself in a position where he gets Jackson at the helm to insure his take. Its a win-win situation for both Zaentz and Jackson. Shaye and New Line can only lose.

ElentariGreenleaf

04-18-2007, 12:13 PM

Just read a few of the articles you guys have posted. My opinion of PJ just dropped so much. He sued them??? What? How could he? :(

Anyhoo, I think if the Hobbit does ever come out, that I'll probably go see it, but I won't exactly be excited about it. They better the Ian Mckellen to play gandalf, and various other characters that were in LotR otherwise I just think it'll be weird, lol. Although, Ian Holmes may not be up to playing Bilbo in that time of his life ^^; So changing Bilbo's actor I can understand.

I still think they may just drop it. Even though it has an awesome plot that'd be great for a single film.

Sauron the White

04-18-2007, 02:13 PM

My opinion of PJ just dropped so much. He sued them??? What? How could he?

ElantariGreenleaf ... let us say that you and I entered into a legally binding contract to do some bit of business together. It ended up being wildly successful, far more than we ever had a right to expect, and money rolled in like water over Niagra. We both ended up rich. I kept the books and financial accountings while you were the talent end of the partnership. You were provided with evidence that I had not paid you all that the contract said you were entitled to. In fact, the amount in question was in the millions of dollars.

The contract said that if a dispute arose about distribution of revenues, either party was entitled to an independent examination of the books. But when you asked me to provide those books to you - I refused claiming that I was insulted that you did not trust me. Besides, you already are rich from the deal and I paid you enough.

This is what we have in the case of Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema. Everyone who enters into such an agreement is entitled to have all the terms of the contract enforced fairly.

Folwren

04-18-2007, 02:18 PM

Youch. That's nuts. It's a pitty, but, really, don't blame PJ too much for sueing for millions of dollars.

I think instead of bothering my head about when the Hobbit might come out, I'll ignore this thread and wait until it does come out. I'm sure I'll hear about it sometime while it's still in theaters...maybe...

Thanks, StW, for your answer.

-- Folwren

ElentariGreenleaf

04-18-2007, 02:36 PM

Ah, I see. I dont think I quite understood why he was sewing. *opinion of PJ goes right back up* PJ rules! Yeah! PJ for Hobbit director!

Thanks for explaining Sauron

Sauron the White

04-18-2007, 02:50 PM

you are both very welcome.

narfforc

04-25-2007, 02:48 AM

Hi ElentariGreenleaf, I think you are right about Ian Holm, however wouldn't it be nice to see him as The Old Took, then he could have been Bilbo, Frodo and Gerontius.

William Cloud Hicklin

04-30-2007, 11:34 AM

Hi ElentariGreenleaf, I think you are right about Ian Holm, however wouldn't it be nice to see him as The Old Took, then he could have been Bilbo, Frodo and Gerontius.

A nice idea: but sadly the Old Took is dead by the time Bilbo's adventure begins.

I suppose he could play Holman Greenhand, Bilbo's gardener.

narfforc

05-01-2007, 05:55 AM

I know that William, Gil-galad had died before the War of the Ring but he still appeared in the movies, I was suggesting that Ian Holm played The Old Took as part of Bilbo's storyline in a cameo appearence, maybe I should have made myself clearer.

davem

05-07-2007, 04:01 PM

http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2007/05/07/hscout604370.html

Films that delivered the most "smoking impressions" included The Perfect Storm, Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring -- yes, the ritual smoking in the J.R.R. Tolkien movie counted -- Wild Wild West and Saving Private Ryan.

Anti-tobacco activists want Hollywood to reduce smoking in movies and adjust the ratings system to give R-ratings to movies with smoking.

However, there's always the option of starting with

'Bilbo Baggins was standing at his door after breakfast eating an enormous long stick of celery that reached nearly down to his woolly toes (neatly brushed)"

& ending

'Thank Goodness!' said Bilbo, laughing, & handed him the tofu.

Tuor in Gondolin

05-08-2007, 09:17 AM

Or Ian McKellan's idea of his chewing gum instead of
smoking a pipe to show he kicked the tobaccy habit. :eek:

narfforc

05-08-2007, 11:23 AM

Or maybe they could show him with a patch on his forehead from the company called The Wizard Weed Walloper.

Smoking is bad for your Elf, but not your Dwarf, Hobbit, Man or Wizard.

Smoking causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease and Yellow Fingers.

Sauron the White

05-09-2007, 08:02 AM

As someone who loathes smoking in any form I find this latest effort to be a bit silly. As long as films depict people or characters with real human behaviors then smoking will be something on the table. I hardly think Gandalf and his pipe encouraged anyone to take up the noxious habit.

Rune Son of Bjarne

05-09-2007, 10:23 AM

I think that we can all agree that it is silly if there was no smoking in the LotR films as it is a thing you notice in the books and which is done and talked about several times in the books.

As Davem says it would be silly if Saruman was to say "Youre love for the Halflings taters has clearly slowed your mind"

But I think there is a fair point in chritisiesing Hollywood to use smoking to an extreme, a lot of times there is absolutely no idea in the people smoking. . .It does not even do anything to their charachter. Of course there should be room for people making movies like "coffee and cigarets" and people smoking in "reservoir dogs", but often one is left with the impression that the only reason the person is smoking is because some industry pays for it.

William Cloud Hicklin

05-09-2007, 12:31 PM

Or the actor himself, like Jack Lemmon- who often couldn't make it through a take without lighting up.

Sauron the White

05-10-2007, 08:35 AM

Sir Kohran

05-10-2007, 11:05 AM

Latest in the rumor mill about the HOBBIT film is that New Line is courting Peter Weir from down under. His latest was MASTER & COMMANDER. I think his best was WITNESS or GALOPOLLI which are both outstanding films. A much better choice than Raimi.

I also thought M&C and particularly Gallipoli were great movies, but I'm not sure he could do fantasy - he does political/historical films mostly, it seems. However this down to earth tone may actually suit TH better - the story itself is not particularly magical. And he's certainly better than Raimi. All the same, I still want Peter Jackson back...

Sauron the White

05-10-2007, 11:56 AM

100% in agreement :) Jackson all the way.

Gothbogg the Ripper

05-10-2007, 07:31 PM

But he'll never do it. Peter Jackson is a broken man, look at him, he looks ill, like he never eats or sleeps. He needs serious medical attention and no, I'm not joking. So, for the sake of his health I don't think he should do this movie, he's suffered enough and I just hope that he can get over his drug problem soon :(
But at the same time I don't want Raimi directing it either, hmm, what about Spielberg?

The Saucepan Man

05-10-2007, 07:37 PM

... hmm, what about Spielberg?Renamed Raiders of the Lost Arkenstone perhaps? ;)

Gothbogg the Ripper

05-10-2007, 07:43 PM

Ah, the Saucepan Man. Long time no see. But yes, Spielberg could be quite a decent choice or how about...*Consults directorial handbook* Orson Welles, that guy with the cowboy hat, Ed Wood, Janis Joplin and, where is that bit of paper? Ah yes, Jack Daniels?

Child of the 7th Age

05-10-2007, 10:58 PM

But he'll never do it. Peter Jackson is a broken man, look at him, he looks ill, like he never eats or sleeps. He needs serious medical attention and no, I'm not joking. So, for the sake of his health I don't think he should do this movie, he's suffered enough and I just hope that he can get over his drug problem soon

Gothbogg,

Ahem.....I wouldn't spend too much time shedding tears. Jackson just negotiated a deal with Dreamwords for The Lovely Bones, and will began filming in October.

Sauron the White

05-11-2007, 08:02 AM

Gothboog -- in your post you act as if you have medical knowledge that the rest of the world is not aware of. Drug problems??? Not sleeping??? Not eating???
This is completely absurd. Its one thing not to like the work of the man - but to put forth stuff like this is simply ridiculous.

Elladan and Elrohir

05-12-2007, 08:39 AM

Yeah, I can only assume you're joking, despite saying you're not, because PJ has lost a ton of weight and looks better than he ever looked when he was making LOTR.

The latest from Raimi is that he would be interested in doing it, but that it's "Peter Jackson's movie".
http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2007/05/next_for_raimi_.html#more

Gothbogg the Ripper

05-12-2007, 11:47 AM

Jackson in an interview said that he was on all kinds of pills ans suffering from "stress". I know what I heard and it's the only thing that can explain how he seems to have fell apart so horribly.

Mithalwen

05-12-2007, 12:55 PM

[QUOTE=Sir Kohran]I also thought M&C and particularly Gallipoli were great movies, but I'm not sure he could do fantasy - he does political/historical films mostly, it seems. QUOTE]

I think Peter Weir would be fantastic (andI would prefer him to do "The Lovely Bones" too.

I feel he has a particular interest in enclosed communities - and their interraction or failure to interract with the wider world - not only Witness which is one of the best films I have ever seen, Dead Poets Society, and Picnic at Hanging Rock. It would be visually stunning I am sure and intelligently and sensitively done. Only question is whether it would interest him...

http://www.tabula-rasa.info/AusHorror/PeterWeir.html

Child of the 7th Age

05-12-2007, 10:51 PM

Meanwhile.....the Hobbit carousel continues.

Aintitcool.com reports that four more names are said to be on the long list of directors: Stephen Sommers, Michael Bay, Brad Silberling, and Bill Condon.

See here. (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/32616) No comment.

Tuor in Gondolin

05-14-2007, 11:15 AM

What about Clint Eastwood? :D
Actually, on second thought, why not?
He might like the challenge of making a different
type of movie. His battle scenes would sure be good. And he can
handle "human" interactions (see the whimsical
Bronco Billy movie and The Bridges of Madison County).

Sauron the White

05-14-2007, 06:33 PM

Frank Capra can direct THE HOBBIT part one.
H. B. Warner can play Gandalf.
Gary Cooper can play Bard. Edward Arnold as the Goblin King.

William Wyler can then do THE HOBBIT part two "The Best Trip of Out Lives".
Nothing from the actual book but it would show the emotional toll the episode took upon all those involved once they tried to return to the normalcy of home.

D. W. Griffith can do a silent version.
No CGI allowed - just a real cast of ten thousand on sets the size of Manhattan.

Or maybe David Lean could helm it.
Lots of boring parts but it would be as pretty as any great painting in the Tate Museum.

Or what about John Ford?
The big battle scene could be in Monument Valley out there in Arizona and Utah.
His brother Francis would make a wonderful Gandalf. And Ford got more out of John Wayne than any other director- Wayne for Bard.

All these guys have way more talent than the Spidey guy.

MatthewM

05-15-2007, 06:17 PM

This is hideous

Gothbogg the Ripper

05-17-2007, 02:40 PM

Peter Jackson?

Nimrodel_9

05-25-2007, 10:00 PM

Hey, this doesn't really mean anything, but we could be hopeful.

As many of you know, Dominic Monaghan (Merry) plays the character Charlie on Lost. If you are a fan and haven't seen this season's finale, then I wouldn't suggest following the link. ;)

Monaghan going to New Zealand (http://www.tvguide.com/News-Views/Interviews-Features/Article/default.aspx?posting={10F0A8C6-0C7C-49AF-BE6A-699645887B94})
(It's toward the end when they ask, "What's next for you?")

Like I said, Peter Jackson could be making just some movie and want Dom in it, but there's always room to hope for The Hobbit, right? ;)

Maybe someone else knows of some project PJ is starting. I didn't really look into it, so correct me if I'm way off!

Nimmy:cool:

Elladan and Elrohir

07-12-2007, 11:34 AM

Surprise, surprise, Bob Shaye is beginning to soften his stance on PJ. I wonder what could have prevailed upon his heart to do that?

FILM BIG LAYS IT ON THE NEW LINE (from end of article)

Shaye hints we should never say never at the idea of Jackson, whom he labeled "arrogant" last year, directing "The Hobbit" someday.

"There's nothing I can really talk about except to say that I believe 'The Hobbit' will be made," says Shaye, choosing his words carefully like the lawyer that he is. "There's a bunch of issues and elements that have to be addressed.

"I don't like to have issues with anybody. Any issues with Mr. Jackson, I would prefer to have them closed, rather than open."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07102007/entertainment/movies/film_big_lays_it_on_the_new_line_movies_lou_lumeni ck.htm

Knight of Gondor

07-12-2007, 12:42 PM

Very promising!

MatthewM

07-12-2007, 01:40 PM

Promising indeed!

radagastly

07-12-2007, 09:45 PM

One can only be hopeful that Robert Shaye will not direct The Hobbit himself. "It took a long time to lick the script, and I guess I was a bit more soulful by the time I got into the director's chair," he says. An "E.T."-like story of two youngsters who find a doll from the future, it's based on an old science-fiction story that Shaye, 68, had read as a child.

That story, "Mimsy Were the Borogroves" by Lewis Padgett copywrited in 1943 may involve children, but it is no E.T. It failed because he can't read. At least not well.

Still, I am hopeful that this is a sign that P. J. will direct The Hobbit, if anyone does. I hope they can get it done before Ian McKellan dies. He's getting up there. It wouldn't be the same with someone else as Gandalf.

Brinniel

07-13-2007, 12:37 AM

Still, I am hopeful that this is a sign that P. J. will direct The Hobbit, if anyone does. I hope they can get it done before Ian McKellan dies. He's getting up there. It wouldn't be the same with someone else as Gandalf.
Whoa, before he dies? Yeesh. McKellan is 68 and as far as I know, in good health. While 68 is certainly not young, I wouldn't exactly call that old...especially not to the point where he's ready to croak. :rolleyes:

It seems to me that Shaye is a bit embarrassed about his comments about Jackson after seeing how many are backing PJ up. Not to mention, I'm sure he's realising how much New Line could use another hit after all these flops over the past year (though I really am hoping The Golden Compass is good and successful).

I find it rather funny how much imdb.com jumps ahead on movies that have yet to be made. For The Hobbit, Sam Raimi is listed as the director (though they admit it's not confirmed), and the scheduled release date is December 1, 2009. Now I don't care what anyone says, but there is no way that the film could be completed by then...especially since they aren't anywhere close to even starting. If we must speculate on a date, I would say if they can decide on a director within the next year, somewhere between 2011-2013...if the film is made as carefully as LotR. But that's just my guess...

Elladan and Elrohir

07-13-2007, 12:22 PM

I would say 2010, if they gave it to PJ tomorrow. That's not likely, though. I think we could well have another year or two before Jackson is finally given the director's job. By that time, New Line may or may not be a part of the discussion. So 2011 or 12 (for a release date, that is) doesn't sound at all unrealistic to me. That would probably fit with PJ's schedule better anyway; he's rather busy right now.

Sir Kohran

07-13-2007, 04:44 PM

LOL, looking at the date the thread title seems a little strange...

...anyhow, I've said this before and I'll say it again. Peter Jackson is the only man who can make this work. He understands Tolkien and his stories in a way that all the comic book directors don't.

Whoa, before he dies? Yeesh. McKellan is 68 and as far as I know, in good health. While 68 is certainly not young, I wouldn't exactly call that old...especially not to the point where he's ready to croak.

No, but there's no telling what can happen to people, particularly older people. And the role of Gandalf is going to be demanding.

William Cloud Hicklin

07-13-2007, 09:11 PM

Sir Kohran

07-14-2007, 03:09 AM

Um, you do realize that many, many readers believe that putting another Tolkien work into Jackson's hammy fists would be a bad thing?

Not that anyone else I could think of would be any better. Come to think of it, the ideal situation is that the lawyers keep it tangled up forever and it never gets made.

No, actually, I think you'll find most people would rather continue with PJ, regardless of what they think of him, rather than bringing in someone completely new.

Perhaps there could be a poll on this.

davem

07-14-2007, 06:32 AM

No, actually, I think you'll find most people would rather continue with PJ, regardless of what they think of him, rather than bringing in someone completely new.

Perhaps there could be a poll on this.

From what I've seen 'most' of those demanding a PJ helmed Hobbit (outside sites like this one)haven't read the book, know little about it, other than that its 'another' Middle-earth tale - & believe is similar to LotR in style. What they don't get is TH is a children's story, & if a movie is made that is true to the book it will not be at all what they expect. And if its done in the 'adult' style of the LotR movies it won't bear anything other than a vague resemblance to the book.

It seems to me that those demanding a Hobbit movie don't actually want a movie of the book - they want another Middle-earth movie like LotR.

TH is a children's book. Anyone who doesn't want a children's movie made of it doesn't really want a movie of The Hobbit at all, & , I would say, doesn't actually care about Tolkien's work. Tolkien wrote the book for his children & children generally were the intended audience. If its made in the style of the LotR movies children would be excluded from seeing it, & personally I think that would be wrong - just as wrong as making a PG13 movie of Wind in the Willows with enough added sex & violence to appeal to the 17 year old boys who apparently make up the majority of the movie going audience.

Or, in short, a movie of The Hobbit that your five year old couldn't see & enjoy would be the greatest insult to Tolkien I can imagine.

Sauron the White

07-14-2007, 08:24 AM

JRRT himself opened the door very wide for anyone who wants to make the HOBBIT film more in line with the LOTR films when he attempted to do the same with his books. If JRRT thought it was a necessary and good thing to do why not is it not good for a filmmaker to make the same attempt?

Anyone who can argue that a HOBBIT film should be aimed at five year olds simply has blinders on to the realities of film making, film marketing and the potential audience for such a film.

A film is one thing. A book is another. There are some people here who seem like they would not be happy with anything other than a very strict line by line slavish adaption of the book to film regardless of its effects on dramatic pacing and other important film considerations. A very small number Tolkien purists may be pleased (but I doubt even that as they would nitpick at the tiniest of deviations or changes) but the public would not respond to it the way they did with LOTR films.

Elladan and Elrohir

07-14-2007, 09:17 AM

I don't know that I would call it an insult to Tolkien. He appears to have deeply regretted (in later life) the "childish" tone, and, of course, as StW has pointed out and as we're currently discussing on the "darker Hobbit" thread, he did indeed try to rewrite TH to fit the Legendarium.

But the point I was trying to make there, davem, is not that PJ and Co. could achieve Tolkienian magic by converting TH into a PG-13; as you pointed out, JRRT himself couldn't do that. It's merely that to make a PG-13 Hobbit, whether successfully or not, is not an insult to the author; it's a legitimate means of interpretation, and one that he himself considered.

I think you're likely right about the number of fans outside boards like these who want a Hobbit film: as you say, they generally know nothing of the book and want another LOTR. There are, however, plenty of people on this board and others like it who have read TH just as many as times as LOTR, love it deeply, and still want PJ to make the movie. I am of that number.

Does that mean I don't care about Tolkien's work? I don't think it does. And at any rate I would disagree with your comment about five-year-olds. I think movies require a higher maturity level than books. I read LOTR aloud to my nine-year-old brother (after reading him TH), but he won't be watching the movies for another three years. Obviously that does not eliminate the issue, but it does raise the projected target age, in my opinion. Honestly, all things considered, I'm not sure TH should be, or even would be, PG-13-worthy. Could not PJ make it with the level of violence of, say, Narnia? I see Lion Witch and Wardrobe and TH as being fairly comparable in terms of tone.

So really, I suppose that I'm closer to your point of view than I first thought, davem, even if I am a bit naive to think that PJ would give us a PG Hobbit. I agree that we don't need Bard smooching his made-up girlfriend or Thorin Oakenshield bloodily knocking off goblin heads.

It would seem that the trolls, at any rate, would have to be included in some form near to that of the book, since PJ has already had Bilbo telling the story of their argument and then later showing 'Gorn and the four hobbits beneath the stone figures.

OK, I've said enough for one post.

davem

07-14-2007, 10:28 AM

Well, Tolkien regretted the worst excesses of the childish tone. but I don't think he ever regretted the fact that TH is a children's story, & his attempt at revision was not to make TH more 'adult' as such, merely to try & make it fit more closely with the developed mythology. That's what he couldn't do, because TH was written before the Mythology was developed (at least as far as the Third Age went).

What Tolkien would have done, had he finished his revision, would have been to turn TH from a wonderful children's fairy story, a tale that can stand on its own, into a mere prequel to LotR. TH would have been diminished into nothing but a 'set up', & put in the service of something else.

TH is in many ways the best introduction to Tolkien's mythological world - even though it doesn't 'fit' properly, & its certainly the best introduction for children. The idea of taking that introduction away from them in order to please the Leggy-boppers & the teenage boys who want to see Orc blood splattering the screen is a sad one to me. In the book the 'horror' & violence is distanced, only referred to, & the last battle is not described. In any movie it would all be there, graphically depicted. Bilbo stabbing the spiders in Mirkwood would be there on screen, Beorn rending apart Goblins would be there, Fili & Kili would fall (like Haldir) in slo-mo before Thorin recieived his mortal wounding, etc.

Now, any reader who saw that kind of movie would never be able to read TH in the same way again. You'd have to avoid the movie altogether if you wanted to retain the simple charm of 'In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit.....in the morning of the world, when there was less noise & more green'.

Can you make the Hobbit movie that movie fans & producers want without trashing the innocent, light-hearted, 'high adventure' mood of the book? No. Adding in to TH the kind of violence & brutality that fans of the LotR movies expect & removing the silliness, the innocence, is effectively pornographising (yes, its a real word apparently!) the story. Its taking something which belongs by right to children & making it harsher & darker purely in order to sate the jaded palates of 'adults' who have fed to long & too deeply on the Hostels & Die Hards, & require darkness & brutality & ugliness in their movies. Remove the songs & the silly jokes that child readers love purely in order that the teenagers don't feel 'embarrassed' & start throwing their popcorn at the screen.

Sauron the White

07-14-2007, 10:42 AM

davem ... since popping up here a bit ago I have read many of your posts. You certainly have a great deal of knowledge about JRRT and his writings and I respect that. You have probably forgotten more about JRRT than I could ever hope to learn. But - in my humble opinion as an outsider - I do think you weaken your own positions by throwing in heavy handed judgments and value laden terms that attempt to strengthen your own position while they denigrate others. In your post above you talk about "TRASHING" the HOBBIT if certain changes are made. You then compare this to PORNOGRAPHY which is utter nonsense and ridiculous.

How do these flights of bloated verbage further this discussion?

davem

07-14-2007, 11:04 AM

You then compare this to PORNOGRAPHY which is utter nonsense and ridiculous.

How do these flights of bloated verbage further this discussion?

American Heritage Dictionary
por·nog·ra·phy (pôr-nŏg'rə-fē) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
2. The presentation or production of this material.
3. Lurid or sensational material: "Recent novels about the Holocaust have kept Hitler well offstage [so as] to avoid the ... pornography of the era" (Morris Dickstein)..

Sauron the White

07-14-2007, 11:08 AM

Perhaps I should grab a handy dictionary and define the word ABSURD?

Sir Kohran

07-14-2007, 11:08 AM

davem

07-14-2007, 11:29 AM

I have to agree here. Criticising PJ's vision of Middle-Earth is one thing. Comparing it to pornography is quite another, and is stupid, inappropriate and downright offensive.

PJ's version revelled in ugliness, brutality, gore & bad jokes. Apart from that it was embarrassingly bathetic.

And I think its best to avoid calling other people's posts 'stupid'. I offered a reasoned argument & offered a justification for the points I made. I even managed to demonstrate that a word may have more meanings than the usual one. I don't think I threw around insulting comments like 'stupid' & 'absurd'. I tend to avoid such, being that I am able to argue rationally.

Sauron the White

07-14-2007, 11:39 AM

davem

07-14-2007, 11:54 AM

from davem

PJ's version revelled in ugliness, brutality, gore & bad jokes. Apart from that it was embarrassingly bathetic.

The Jackson films also had moments of sheer beauty, kindness and emotional strength, tenderness and a sense of wonder. A term like 'bathetic' is an opinion which you certainly are entitled to. It is obvious that the larger part of the fim going world thought otherwise and thought so very clearly.

I don't have a very high opinion of the larger part of the film going world's opinion on anything, given the trash that Hollywood turns out. They are clearly all wrong if they found the LotR movies anything more than standard Hollywood fare. Overblown, dumbed down & tiresome.

In my opinion at least. There was more depth & profundity & beauty in any five minutes of Pan's Labyrinth than in the whole 12 + hours of the LotR movies.

Sauron the White

07-14-2007, 12:11 PM

from davem

They are clearly all wrong if they found the LotR movies anything more than standard Hollywood fare.

So yes indeed, everyone marching in the large parade is out of step but Johnny.

Sir Kohran

07-14-2007, 12:59 PM

They are clearly all wrong if they found the LotR movies anything more than standard Hollywood fare.

So the millions that praised these films are all wrong just because they disagree with you?

Overblown, dumbed down & tiresome.

Oh yes. Because the bit where Gandalf faces the Balrog is overblown, dumbed down and tiresome. The bit where Boromir dies is also overblown, dumbed down and tiresome. The bit where Frodo pulls Sam out of the river and takes him on the jounrey with him is also overblown, dumbed down and tiresome. The part where the Rohirrim make their last stand at Helm's Deep to be saved by Gandalf and the Rohirrim's arrival is also overblown, dumbed down and tiresome. The point where Sam speaks to Frodo of the despair others have felt and their determination to keep going is overblown, dumbed down and tiresome. The sequence where the beacons are lit on the mountains is also overblown, dumbed down and tiresome. The bit where Theoden and his army sound their horns and charge the Orcs on the Pelennor is also overblown, dumbed down and tiresome. The end of the quest on Mount Doom is also overblown, dumbed down and tiresome. The ending where Frodo says goodbye to his friends and Sam returns to his family is also overblown, dumbed down and tiresome.

davem

07-14-2007, 01:27 PM

Oh yes. Because the bit where Gandalf faces the Balrog is overblown, dumbed down and tiresome. The bit where Boromir dies is also overblown, dumbed down and tiresome. The bit where Frodo pulls Sam out of the river and takes him on the jounrey with him is also overblown, dumbed down and tiresome. The part where the Rohirrim make their last stand at Helm's Deep to be saved by Gandalf and the Rohirrim's arrival is also overblown, dumbed down and tiresome. The point where Sam speaks to Frodo of the despair others have felt and their determination to keep going is overblown, dumbed down and tiresome. The sequence where the beacons are lit on the mountains is also overblown, dumbed down and tiresome. The bit where Theoden and his army sound their horns and charge the Orcs on the Pelennor is also overblown, dumbed down and tiresome. The end of the quest on Mount Doom is also overblown, dumbed down and tiresome. The ending where Frodo says goodbye to his friends and Sam returns to his family is also overblown, dumbed down and tiresome.

Wow! That's weird. You know, I'd just been making a list of the bits I felt were overblown, dumbed down & tiresome, & you just got them all. Talk about great minds & all that!

Sir Kohran

07-14-2007, 04:18 PM

Wow! That's weird. You know, I'd just been making a list of the bits I felt were overblown, dumbed down & tiresome, & you just got them all. Talk about great minds & all that!

Considering most of those were taken from the books, I guess the book itself is overblown, dumbed down and tiresome.

davem

07-14-2007, 04:30 PM

Considering most of those were taken from the books, I guess the book itself is overblown, dumbed down and tiresome.

Not one of those scenes is depicted in the movies as they are in the book. The way they are portrayed on screen is overblown, dumbed down and tiresome.

Sir Kohran

07-14-2007, 04:40 PM

Not one of those scenes is depicted in the movies as they are in the book. The way they are portrayed on screen is overblown, dumbed down and tiresome.

Are you suggesting that in the books...

- Gandalf did not face the Balrog and shout 'You shall not pass', the bridge did not break, and Gandalf did not say 'fly your fools' as he was dragged down?

- Boromir was not killed by arrows as he defended Merry and Pippin?

- Frodo never rescues Sam from drowning?

- Gandalf never arrives with the men of Rohan at the break of day to destroy the enemy at Helm's Deep?

- Sam never encouraged Frodo and helped him on his quest?

- The beacons were never lit?

- Theoden and the charge of the Rohirrim on the Pelennor never took place?

- Frodo and Sam did not have a hard time reaching Mount Doom and that Gollum did not fall in the Crack of Doom?

- Frodo did not have a sad farewell to his friends as he left?

- Sam never went back to his family at the end of the book and said 'Well, I'm back'?

I find your perceptions of the books most interesting.

William Cloud Hicklin

07-14-2007, 04:43 PM

You mean, considering that PJ was too hamhanded to get even Tolkien's own scenes right, Gawd help us with the ones he made up. Eomer and his 2000 Rohirrim on horseback (NOT as in the book) charging down a ZZ-grade ski slope into a forest of polearms is one of the silliest, most groan-inducing moments in all of film. Boromir's death-speech is nonsense invented to go with the angstified, wimpified film-Aragorn. Sam's near-drowning is literally overbolwn- insanely and tiresomely prolonged for cheap suspense. Sam's trite speech at Osgiliath barely touches on Tolkien's original (on the stairs of Cirith Ungol), and doesn't pass up a single cliche. The beacons sequence looks great, but is preciptated by anabsurd scene of *Pippin* starting them, in line with the total reduction of shrewd, stern Denethor to a dribbling lunatic. The end of the Quest on Mount Doom is a device so old and tired and overused and cliched it's even entered the language- cliffhanger.

And of course we haven't touched on Xenarwen or Elves at Helm's Deep or warg attacks or wizard-fu or moronic, pacifist Ents or the Osgiliation or the cold-cocking of the Steward or the gawdawful Filmamir or sword-swinging Black Riders or shield-surfing or electrocution by Palantir or the disappearance of Arnor or the confrontation at the Gate replaced by anime trolls or dwarf-tossing or belches or PJ's complete lack of comprehension of or regard for any of Tolkien's themes etc etc etc etc etc etc etc..........

Sauron the White

07-14-2007, 04:54 PM

William ... I find it revealing that the two scenes you lead with - the charge of the Rohirrim and the death speech of Boromir - have been listed as some of the fan favorite scenes in several polls. I remember one on another Tolkien web site, either board77.net or torc.com in which the Boromir scene was voted as the best scene in any of the 3 films. The beacons scene was almost universally praised (perhaps with exception from the sacred cadre of True Believers) for its beauty and scope.

But of course you are nitpicking at one or two tiles rather than the beauty of the entire mosaic.

William Cloud Hicklin

07-14-2007, 08:38 PM

Oh, I can nitpick for pages given time. Look, I'll credit PJ (and Shore) for the Beacons sequence itself- unlike some purists I'll forgive him the logistical absurdity and geographical deviation from the book for the sake of sheer visual drama. But why the hell did Pippin light them? Because Gandalf told him to- countermanding the orders of the lawful Lord and Steward! Who didn't want them lit because his character was rewritten (and, yes, dumbed down) to make him a stock-Hollywood demented ogre.

So why not have them lit as Gandalf and Pippin are riding south, as in the book? Because PJ thinks he can "improve" one of the great stories of the 20th century- and in the process push might-for-right in total contravention of the books' moral compass.

William Cloud Hicklin

07-14-2007, 08:39 PM

[quote]some of the fan favorite scenes in several polls. I remember one on another Tolkien web site, either board77.net or torc.com in which the Boromir scene was voted as the best scene in any of the 3 films.[quote]

Do I sound like someone who gives a rat's heinie what movie fanboys think?

Imladris

07-14-2007, 10:46 PM

Oh my goodness someone let the children out.

However, I'd like to say that it's rather silly to say that since PJ produced a dumbed down Hollywood-ised version of Lotr/a wonderful beautiful film of LotR that the Hobbit will be the same. After all, look at PJs old track record --~~ I think most will agree that LotR was quite a step up from his norm, and there are a lot of other examples as well, including Tolkien. Most people I talk to (and I share this opinion) think that the Silmarillion does not add up to LotR, and that The Hobbit is inferior or superior, etc.

Sir Kohran

07-15-2007, 04:52 AM

Sauron the White

07-15-2007, 09:00 AM

from William

Do I sound like someone who gives a rat's heinie what movie fanboys think?

Obviously not - but that was never the point. Only that several of the scenes you were so disgusted with are the favorites of a much larger audience. And in this case an audience of Tolkien fans - not rabid fanboys as Kohran pointed out. You have every right to march out of step with the rest of the world. And you can even tell yourself that only you are marching properly. Thats freedom.

davem

07-15-2007, 11:13 AM

from William

Obviously not - but that was never the point. Only that several of the scenes you were so disgusted with are the favorites of a much larger audience. And in this case an audience of Tolkien fans - not rabid fanboys as Kohran pointed out. You have every right to march out of step with the rest of the world. And you can even tell yourself that only you are marching properly. Thats freedom.

Yes, but ...

We need to get some perspective here. The Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkien is a literary masterpiece which will outlast us all & will live alongside the works of Homer, Virgil, Malory & the Icelandic Sagas. The LotR movies by Peter Jackson were made to bump up studio profits & flog popcorn to teenagers. If it wasn't for the possibility of a Hobbit movie the LotR movies would by now have faded into obscurity.

These movies are pleasant enough entertainment if you want to spend a thought free few hours, but they can't be classed alongside the work of a literary artist like JRR Tolkien. Tolkien's work is for the ages. PJ's movies are for 3 hours with a pizza & a couple of beers.

Sir Kohran

07-15-2007, 01:07 PM

The LotR movies by Peter Jackson were made to bump up studio profits & flog popcorn to teenagers.

No, that's Eragon. The LOTR trilogy was ground breaking because it was capable of making profit and being deep, thoughtful and powerful in a way most movies don't bother to be.

but they can't be classed alongside the work of a literary artist like JRR Tolkien.

Of course not. They're not books. They're not supposed to.

PJ's movies are for 3 hours with a pizza & a couple of beers.

Again, more generalisations. If this was all the movies were made for then they could have made Independence Day or Pirates Of The Caribbean or some other mindless flick. The LOTR films are much more than that.

Sauron the White

07-15-2007, 01:23 PM

from davem

The Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkien is a literary masterpiece which will outlast us all & will live alongside the works of Homer, Virgil, Malory & the Icelandic Sagas.

Speaking for myself, I want to outlive everything. But lets hope you are correct. That would make me happy.

While you are making predictions as statements of fact would you be good enough to provide some winning lottery numbers for me? ;)

davem

07-15-2007, 03:48 PM

No, that's Eragon. The LOTR trilogy was ground breaking because it was capable of making profit and being deep, thoughtful and powerful in a way most movies don't bother to be.

Not to me. But perhaps our definitions of what constitutes depth, thoughtfulness & power are different. I found them overall shallow, thoughtless & weak. Any depth thought & power they contained - which was precious little - was lifted straight from the book. What they film-makers added was the nonsense, triviality & action movie idiocy. Whatever is in them that makes them at all bearable came from the books - & most of that was so messed up by the movie makers that if I hadn't already known the books I would have missed it.

Sauron the White

07-15-2007, 04:18 PM

Lets be very frank here. There was stuff in the books that thank God did not make it into the films because it could have potentially stunk up the theater. Tom the Hippie Spiritgod leads the list. But the idea of Sam forever pawing and petting Frodo would have produced a good deal more than nervous titters and laughter had they kept that sort of thing in. Being faithful to the book could have been a disaster. If they had kept to the timeline and the hobbits took as long to leave the Shire as they did in the books, the theaters would have half emptied in boredom. Just a few examples.

The oft repeated litany by the True Believers is that "if it was good it came from the book - it it was original it was bad" echoes here yet again. What about the death scene of Boromir? Lines of dialogue were added that were sheer poetry and very touching emotionally to much of the audience. In the book the death scene is sparse and simple - in the film its and emotional touchstone which was one of the highlights of the films.

This is an example of starting with the source material of JRRT and adding to it and tweaking it for film. That is the way it is suppose to work.

Nogrod

07-15-2007, 04:46 PM

Lets be very frank here.I do agree with this... :)

So some of us like action movies with overdramatisation and overheroisation that nears ridiculousness. And that's fine.

Some of us like more thoughtful movies that build the characters and express the emotions and the twists of the storyline in a more elaborate and delicate, in more nuanced way.

That wasn't a neutral formulation but let's follow the trend here. :p

I must say that I myself would have loved to see an original and "deep" interpretation of the books - even if it would have departed from the books a fair deal. To me it's more that they would be good as movies. For Tolkien's LotR I can always refer to the books on my shelf and a straight sentence by sentence rendering surely would be painful to look at. As I said earlier, movies and books are different things.

But I can't say PJ's filmatisation was anything near original or deep or having any other possible high qualities - except looking very beautiful indeed and the musical score was great as well. But just thinking about the directing (both the storyline and directing the actors), the added things (thence PJ's personal ideas) or the style with which he narrated the script (remember he didn't narrate the LotR but a script they had made from the books)... well not so far from Eragon or Kingdom of Heaven... or what say you?

Though you're right in saying that fex. Boromir's death was pretty well done... like indeed the cutback scene were Boromir and Faramir celebrated Osgiliath won back and then their father came... and there are some others. So yes, there were good moments. But having 10+ hours of film in our hands it would have been more than a disaster if they hadn't manage to make even a single decent scene... :D

Morthoron

07-15-2007, 05:17 PM

We need to get some perspective here.

Yes, a little perspective would be nice....

*The Dark Elf eyes the remainder of davem's post suspiciously*

The Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkien is a literary masterpiece which will outlast us all & will live alongside the works of Homer, Virgil, Malory & the Icelandic Sagas.

Hmmm....so much for perspective. I think perhaps even Tolkien would consider your statement to be presumptuous, if not a bit flippant. I am not as certain as you are in casting LotR in such august company, particularly since educators, editors and publishers (who, of course, write the textbooks and literary compilations) do not necessarily share your extreme position. One of my favorite texts is 'The Land and Literature of England (A Historical Account)' by Robert M. Adams, a witty and often profound literary commentator. Adams offers a one line mention of Tolkien in the book (in the same sentence as C.S. Lewis, coincidently):

Meanwhile, C.S. Lewis, long a belligerent conversationalist for Christianity, enjoyed fresh accesses of popularity for the witty apologetics of The Screwtape Letters (1942); and J.R.R. Tolkien, slowly meditating an entire new world out of his Anglo-Saxon studies, produced in The Lord of the Rings tetralogy a cosmos exotic in its coloring but deeply Christian in its structure.

It is an excellent summation for the tail-end of a compound sentence, don't you think? Meanwhile, Malory receives several pages of commentary, and I believe that's about it for Tolkien in the literary world...a footnote. When discussing British writers of the first half of the 20th Century, George Orwell and James Joyce get far more critical comment. That's the reality of the literary situation the good professor is up against. I think LotR is categorized by many critics in the same manner as Watership Down, or The Once and Future King, which David Garnett, the formidable publisher, writer and member of the Bloomsbury Group, described as "one the curious classics of English literature". 'Curious' is used as almost a pejorative adjective.

The LotR movies by Peter Jackson were made to bump up studio profits & flog popcorn to teenagers. If it wasn't for the possibility of a Hobbit movie the LotR movies would by now have faded into obscurity.

These movies are pleasant enough entertainment if you want to spend a thought free few hours, but they can't be classed alongside the work of a literary artist like JRR Tolkien. Tolkien's work is for the ages. PJ's movies are for 3 hours with a pizza & a couple of beers.

Oh come now, you are being a little too hard on the movies, aren't you? First of all, I can't believe I am pressed into defending Peter Jackson (ah, the irony!), but for all the innumerable scripting/plot flaws (which I think everyone can agree are at the heart of vehement opposition), visually the films are astounding, and the cinematography and design work alone merits the critical acclaim the movies received (particularly the work of Alan Lee and John Howe). The films make the Star Wars debacles sophomoric (I would put up the Gollum characterization against Jar-Jar Binks any day). Technically speaking, Jackson trumps Lucas in nearly every aspect of filmmaking (not that it's hard, but critics always seem to use Star Wars as a comparative basis for films of the genre).

Speaking of Gollum, I believe his portrayal was superb, and there are numerous moments throughout the films that literally mirror Middle-earth in splendor and awe (I always crank the DTS 6.1 when the balrog squares off against Gandalf). The Shire and Bag-end are just as I pictured it (and the repartee between Sir Ian Mckellan and Sir Ian Holm is a pleasure).

Is it the best film ever made, or in my top 50? No, not by a long shot, but I could place it at the rear of my top 100 somewhere, and that's saying something (for me anyway). But like so many others I bemoan the fact that if Jackson had not been so heavyhanded with his script changes (as I stated elsewhere, most of which were utterly unnecessary), then the LotR films would be much higher in my esteem. Had Jackson maintained the (somewhat) lore appropriate nature of FotR for the balance of the last two movies, the effect would have been much greater. Such scope and sheer will! It was a monumental and exhausting undertaking for Jackson, I am sure; unfortunately, it seems his ego grew with each successive film.

davem

07-16-2007, 12:21 AM

Hmmm....so much for perspective. I think perhaps even Tolkien would consider your statement to be presumptuous, if not a bit flippant. I am not as certain as you are in casting LotR in such august company, particularly since educators, editors and publishers (who, of course, write the textbooks and literary compilations) do not necessarily share your extreme position. One of my favorite texts is 'The Land and Literature of England (A Historical Account)' by Robert M. Adams, a witty and often profound literary commentator. Adams offers a one line mention of Tolkien in the book (in the same sentence as C.S. Lewis, coincidently):

I'd never heard of Mr Adams before. I can only say that LotR is not a 'tetralogy' & certainly isn't 'Christian in its structure' As Robert Cook points out re Njal's Saga in his introduction to the Penguin edition:Such a view is based on a false opposition between Pagan & Christian; it overlooks the fact that there are other Pagan virtues than heroism & pride, & that humility & willingness to make peace are among them....(the writer) is not preaching a sermon, nor writing a theological treatise, for he knows that the two systems are in many ways compatible.
I think that statement could be applied to Tolkien's Legendarium. For Mr Adams to misunderstand Tolkien's work so profoundly & dismiss it so curtly doesn't inspire me with any faith in his other opinions.

It is an excellent summation for the tail-end of a compound sentence, don't you think? Meanwhile, Malory receives several pages of commentary, and I believe that's about it for Tolkien in the literary world...a footnote. When discussing British writers of the first half of the 20th Century, George Orwell and James Joyce get far more critical comment. That's the reality of the literary situation the good professor is up against. I think LotR is categorized by many critics in the same manner as Watership Down, or The Once and Future King, which David Garnett, the formidable publisher, writer and member of the Bloomsbury Group, described as "one the curious classics of English literature". 'Curious' is used as almost a pejorative adjective.

I know that the 'literary world' doesn't care for Tolkien. The literati are so far up their own fundamentals that the resemble an ouroboros. I honestly don't care what David Garnett thinks of Watership Down. Why are you telling me about these psople? Who are they? Are they still alive, or do I have to dig them up to throw stones at them?

Brinniel

07-16-2007, 04:09 AM

They are clearly all wrong if they found the LotR movies anything more than standard Hollywood fare. Overblown, dumbed down & tiresome.
Overblown- yes, I agree. With the technology we have, everything in film is overblown these days. But honestly, I think if the scenes of LotR weren't overblown, the film would be boring to most audience members, including myself (I admit it...I love the overblown stuff :p).

Dumbed-down- well, I don't think the entire movies are...but I agree that certain scenes are dumbed-down. But let's face it: most people are idiots, and most have not read the books. The film is targeted towards not only book fans, but everyone else who enjoys watching movies (including those who have not read the books). *gasp* And therefore, some scenes must be dumbed-down in order to make sense for these ignorant audience members. It sucks, but it's true.

Tiresome- now this I don't really understand. Do you mean tiresome in the Hollywood sense? But I don't really see how LotR could have not been Hollywoodish...with the big budget and all, if that's what you mean. Because honestly, a low-budget independent LotR would've been terrible without the great casting and effects.

The LotR movies by Peter Jackson were made to bump up studio profits & flog popcorn to teenagers. If it wasn't for the possibility of a Hobbit movie the LotR movies would by now have faded into obscurity.
Now this here, I have to disagree with. First of all, New Line may have taken on LotR for the profit, but that wasn't PJ's primary reason. Yes, ultimately he does want to make money; he's a director...that's his job. But PJ was an LotR fan from childhood and no director could've spent the amount of time that he did without some heart.

Secondly, I believe LotR will remain a legacy for decades to come...perhaps in a similar way Star Wars has. I hear the film discussed by others quite frequently, and a lot of the people I overhear or talk about it with aren't hardcore fans and aren't completely aware that The Hobbit is even expected to come out. I'm a film major, and already in one of my classes, I recall my professor using LotR as an example when he taught a brief lesson on screenwriting. And that wasn't the only class where the films were discussed. LotR revolutionized the visual effects world...particularly with Gollum. Really, the trilogy has made quite an impact on the film industry...in many ways. So, I don't think they'll be forgotten anytime soon.

Personally, (and right now I feel like I'm the only one) I love the films. I mean, I won't say every second is perfect...there were certain scenes I was quite upset about, but I thought as a whole PJ did a beautiful job. I have seen some terrible book-to-film adaptations, but this is not one of them. In fact, the incredible use of detail in the film and amazing post-production is what helped me decide my career path. How they created the sound and visual effects, plus the editing is just...wow. Of course, perhaps I think this way because I try not to spend to much time comparing the book and film and would rather appreciate a film by its quality alone (and I admit, it's not always easy to do when you've read the book first).

When it comes to The Hobbit, part of me would like to see a new director who could create a much lighter atmosphere to the story, but ultimately, I think I would choose PJ over that. Because with PJ, at least he has dedication and we will somewhat know what we're getting. Plus, with him, much of the cast and crew needed will most likely return...and it is those other people we need the most in order for this film to work. While some of you may not like the LotR films, just remember: it could be a lot worse. There are more directors out there who could potentially completely botch The Hobbit rather than create a masterpiece, and I'd rather not let them get their grimy hands on it.

A film adaptation will never be as good as its book...there will always be cuts and changes, as much as any fan will hate it. But as I said, a film should be judged as a film regardless of where the script came from. If you try too hard to compare its quality to the book, of course you'll hate the movie. If you can't separate the two versions from each other and appreciate them individually, then it's probably best not to see the film at all. Hey...at least it'll save you money....

Morthoron

07-16-2007, 06:37 AM

I'd never heard of Mr Adams before. I can only say that LotR is not a 'tetralogy' & certainly isn't 'Christian in its structure' As Robert Cook points out re Njal's Saga in his introduction to the Penguin edition: I think that statement could be applied to Tolkien's Legendarium. For Mr Adams to misunderstand Tolkien's work so profoundly & dismiss it so curtly doesn't inspire me with any faith in his other opinions.

You are missing the point. This is a college level textbook. Adams wasn't being dismissive per se, rather, in a general summation of English literature from Beowulf to the present a small blurb is all that Tolkien warrants. Unfortunate perhaps, but generally academics would not share in your placing LotR with The Iliad, Beowulf or the Völuspá.

I know that the 'literary world' doesn't care for Tolkien. The literati are so far up their own fundamentals that the resemble an ouroboros. I honestly don't care what David Garnett thinks of Watership Down. Why are you telling me about these psople? Who are they? Are they still alive, or do I have to dig them up to throw stones at them?

Please, do try to pay attention. You needn't dig anyone up to stone them back into their graves. I was referring to Garnett's review of The Once and Future King as a 'curious classic' because that is the manner in which most critics view books in the fantasy genre. I know you don't care really what they think, and I wasn't agreeing with them; you merely stated "We need to get some perspective here", and I offered some perspective.

Nimrodel_9

07-16-2007, 10:34 AM

Oh my goodness someone let the children out.

:D

Perhaps we shall create a new thread? I find this off-topic arguement very amusing.

I'm not taking sides. I love the movies. I thought PJ did a beautiful job. Yes, there are parts that he went a little overboard, but the films are beautiful nonetheless. As for the books, they are also works of art, but there are parts in them as well that make you fall asleep. Any book or movie is like this. Anyone who disagrees can write a book or direct a movie that is exciting the whole time.... you will be the only one who thinks so, but that's ok. :)

davem

07-16-2007, 11:58 AM

You are missing the point. This is a college level textbook. Adams wasn't being dismissive per se, rather, in a general summation of English literature from Beowulf to the present a small blurb is all that Tolkien warrants. Unfortunate perhaps, but generally academics would not share in your placing LotR with The Iliad, Beowulf or the Völuspá.

Yes, but I could list a bunch of academics like Tom Shippey, Michael Drout, Verlyn Flieger & Jane Chance (who is a also a professor but whose books on Tolkien aren't actually very good) who would hold the opposite opinion & consider Tolkien to be a major literary figure, & all of whom are contributors to the journal Tolkien Studies. So I wouldn't give too much credit to someone like Adams. There are Tolkien courses at a number of universities on both sides of the atlantic, so I don't think you can hold up Adams as 'typical'. In fact, as time goes by I suspect that he will be part of an incresingly tiny minority of critics who fail to understand or appreciate Tolkien's work.

Please, do try to pay attention. You needn't dig anyone up to stone them back into their graves. I was referring to Garnett's review of The Once and Future King as a 'curious classic' because that is the manner in which most critics view books in the fantasy genre. I know you don't care really what they think, and I wasn't agreeing with them; you merely stated "We need to get some perspective here", and I offered some perspective.

But I really think a great deal could be gained by throwing stones at them, & if I'm prepared to spend some of my precious spare time doing so I can't see why that's a problem.

William Cloud Hicklin

07-16-2007, 08:06 PM

But PJ was an LotR fan from childhood

That is simply untrue. PR flack bullhockety. Garden manure spread around to quell readers' suspicions. PJ read the book one time, on a train ride at 17.

Morthoron

07-16-2007, 08:23 PM

In fact, as time goes by I suspect that he will be part of an incresingly tiny minority of critics who fail to understand or appreciate Tolkien's work.

While the cynic in me doubts the reach of reason in academia or the literary world in general, I do applaud your enthusiasm.

But I really think a great deal could be gained by throwing stones at them, & if I'm prepared to spend some of my precious spare time doing so I can't see why that's a problem.

Well, Garnett is dead, so stoning him will not be much of a challenge; however, Adams, although in his 70's might prove a little bit more of a difficult target...just give him a bit of a running start.

Oh, and you'd might like to read Adams critique of the Silmarillion and Tolkien's works in general in a 1997 review in the New York Review of Books (Adams was a contributor to the Review from 1962 to 1995). I am sure it will lead you to start amassing a goodly amount of throwing stones for your new hobby...

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/8321

Brinniel

07-16-2007, 10:35 PM

PJ read the book one time, on a train ride at 17.
Okay, I admit I thought him a bit younger, but nevertheless 17 is still a child. A very old child, but still technically a child. And it only takes one read to capture a fan...

Morthoron

07-17-2007, 09:21 AM

Another thought, all this wrangling between Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema et al, and whether or not the Hobbit will be ever filmed concerns the vast accretion of wealth (or the withholding of said filthy lucre as the case maybe) that The Hobbit is certain to amass. Isn't it a supreme irony that no one would have ever gotten the film rights to Tolkien's works if he had not been financially strapped and sold them out of desperation rather than conviction? It would seem the One Ring was not destroyed but melted down and minted into coinage for capitalistic endeavors.

Bêthberry

07-17-2007, 10:31 AM

Oh, and you'd might like to read Adams critique of the Silmarillion and Tolkien's works in general in a 1997 review in the New York Review of Books (Adams was a contributor to the Review from 1962 to 1995). I am sure it will lead you to start amassing a goodly amount of throwing stones for your new hobby...

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/8321

What a bone to give the stone throwers! That is a fascinating journey through Tolkien's texts and I'm sure it would even deserve its own thread for analysis.

For now, I am much entertained by this passage.

Above all, Tolkien has a fascination with names for their own sake that will probably seem excessive to anyone whose favorite light reading is not the first book of Chronicles.

>>>It came to pass [Chapter Ten informs us] during the second age of the captivity of Melkor that Dwarves came over the Blue Mountains of Ered Luin into Beleriand. Themselves they named Khazâd, but the Sindar called them Naugrim, the Stunted People, and Gonnhirrim, Masters of Stone. Far to the east were the most ancient dwellings of the Naugrim, but they had delved for themselves great halls and mansions, after the manner of their kind, in the eastern side of Ered Luin; and those cities were named in their own tongue Gabilgathol and Tumunzahar. To the north of the great height of Mount Dolmed was Gabilgathol, which the Elves interpreted in their tongue Belegost, that is Mickleburg; and southward was delved Tumunzahar, by the Elves named Nogrod, the Hollowbold. Greatest of all the mansions of the Dwarves was Khazad-dûm, the Dwarrowdelf, Hadhodrond in the Elvish tongue, that was afterwards in the days of its darkness called Moria; but it was far off in the Mountains of Mist beyond the wide leagues of Eriador, and to the Eldar came but as a name and a rumour from the words of the Dwarves of the Blue Mountains.<<<

Three or four names for each city of the Dwarves represent only a very small beginning; there is also an intricate genealogy of Elves to be mastered, a complete pantheon of Valar, various groups and combinations of men, plus a whole spectrum of special creatures—Ungoliant, Carcharoth, sundry Balrogs, Glaurungs, Maiars, and Periannath, the latter being, as it happens, Hobbits.

Such a barricade of grotesque and semi-pronounceable names is no small obstacle to a venturesome reader; but in fact the names are also a good part of the book's reward. Like the portmanteau words of "Jabberwocky" or the deeper and more violent conglomerates of Finnegans Wake, many of them sink into the mind, disintegrating the smooth and accepted conventions of everyday English to memorable effect. The dragon Smaug, the wicked and menacing Nazgûl, the Ents of Fangorn—such rich and mouthy names keep the mind busy tangling and untangling their phonemes. But when one has to keep Elendë (which is a name of Eldamar) distinct from Elendil the son of Amandil, and both distinct from Elendur the son of Isildur, while Elrond, Elros, Eluréd, and Elurín hover in the neighborhood, the effect is an irritating blur.

Adams is clearly an astute enough and venturesome reader to tap into the very fountainhead of Tolkien's creativity, his philology. Whatever else Adams says, he is certainly to be commended for this.

By the by, this thread is entitled The Hobbit in July 2007. We've got two weeks left.

davem

07-17-2007, 12:10 PM

Well, he should try reading some Icelandic sagas, where every other character's name seems to be a variation on 'Thor***' (Thorfinn, Thorgil, Thorolf, etc!)

Elladan and Elrohir

07-17-2007, 01:07 PM

This thread has seen some interesting discussion (both civil and uncivil), but it has veered woefully off-topic. I would love to see the discussion continue on another thread, but it doesn't really have any place here.

In the meantime, I think it quite likely that there will in fact NOT be a Hobbit movie released in July 2007. There's my feeble attempt to get back on topic. ;)

narfforc

07-20-2007, 07:57 AM

Your attempt is not feeble Elladan and Elrohir, it is full of power, let he (she) that hath understanding read thy powerful runes. The Hobbit MOVIE!!!!! is something that the vast majority of us wish for, as much as I like The Sagas and all the other nicey things introduced herewith, we are not discussing the Making of Their Movie.:eek:

davem

07-26-2007, 02:11 AM

Bit of a side-track, & I've pointed up this issue before but this could affect TH. Previously there have been calls for images of smoking to be banned in movies but now we see:

The Disney Studio has pledged to remove smoking from its family-oriented films.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6916293.stm

"We hope it's the beginning of a domino effect as other studios come into line," he told the BBC News website.

US anti-tobacco organisation The American Legacy Foundation said the announcement was "a good, solid step".

So, even though TH is not to be made by Disney, is this move is likely to be followed by other studios?

Could we really see Bilbo sitting outside Bag End sans Pipe? Personally I can't imagine Bilbo (let alone Gandalf!!!) without his pipe :eek:

Or maybe pipes will be excluded from the ban?

Mr Iger made the promise in a letter to US congressman Edward Markey. DVDs that show cigarettes will also carry anti-smoking announcements, he added.

Still, as long as they don't start banning all those cool guns & big explosions ...:rolleyes:

Lalwendë

07-26-2007, 05:11 AM

I know...:rolleyes:...it's quite alright to melt children's minds with images of near skeletal middle-aged women with the waist span of a six year old boy and so much plastic surgery and botox they look like the Stepford Wives dipped in plastic. And feed them product placement for greasy burgers and promote a lust for tacky bling. And drugs. And explosions. And assorted dodgy gubbins, but a cancer stick hanging out of someone's mouth is akin to showing them an Al-Qaeda training manual.

Still it will bring an interesting dimension of Thought Police to Tolkien's work to see Bilbo ripping his nictotine replacement patch from his arm as he collapses after the Unexpected Party at bedtime...

:smokin:

Morthoron

07-26-2007, 07:57 AM

I know...:rolleyes:...it's quite alright to melt children's minds with images of near skeletal middle-aged women with the waist span of a six year old boy and so much plastic surgery and botox they look like the Stepford Wives dipped in plastic.

I've always wondered how these waifish Madame Tussaud replicants managed to use the microwave to thaw their Healthy Choice microwaveable dinners. There must be dangers inherent in having so much plastic in close approximation to a heating element.

As far as Bilbo's pipe smoking, I find it interesting that Disney should wish to relegate smoking to the dustbin of political correctness, yet at the same time offer distorted views of princesses unable to find true satisfaction within their lives until their princes arrive to 'complete' them. On the other hand, I must applaud Disney on the fact that Captain Jack Sparrow -- although a murderer, a cheat and a liar -- does not smoke. We wouldn't wish to send the wrong message to our children.

davem

07-26-2007, 08:14 AM

Estelyn Telcontar

07-26-2007, 08:37 AM

If we follow your reasoning, davem, we'd have to remove weapons and violence from all movies, or high school kids will be inspired to take guns to school and mass murder their teachers and fellow students... :eek: :rolleyes:

Morthoron

07-26-2007, 08:46 AM

The reasoning seems to be that showing characters smoking will encourage impressionable movie goers to smoke. Seems to me that the lawyers could have a field day with this. Isn't it an admission that, despite all their earlier protests, movies do inspire copycat behaviour?

Is alcohol consumption to follow - no beer quaffing Hobbits in case it leads to alcoholism among movie goers?. No six meals a day for Hobbits in case it encourages over-eating & exacerbates the obesity problem?

Hmmm...I don't know about your TV viewing habits over in Britain, but when I was young we used to watch the Three Stooges (Larry, Moe and Curly) every day after school. To date I have never hit anyone in the head with a hammer, but then again I never considered mass-murder after listening to Black Sabbath albums, or hanging myself after seeing Alice Cooper in concert at age twelve (although I must admit that seeing Alice as a preteen was the motivating factor in purchasing my first guitar; therefore, Alice Cooper promotes music literacy ;)).

As I inferred earlier, I think the whole anti-smoking campaign in movies is more of a publicity stunt (a smoke screen?) rather than a true philanthropic effort to curb dangerous habits of impressionable youth. Why are they not more concerned about our society's seeming desensitization to excessive violence or the deluge of negative images dumped on young girls in order to rush them on the road to promiscuity? I am far more concerned for my daughter regarding 'Bratz Dolls' (which are banned from my house) than smoking in movies.

Child of the 7th Age

07-26-2007, 11:44 AM

I don't know if anyone remembers but when Fellowship first came out, Michael Martinez wrote a heartfelt essay "protesting" the depiction of smoking in the movie. He had recently had a relative die from lung cancer and felt it should not have been included. I found that fairly surprising from someone who does have an idea of the context in which Tolkien wrote and the role of pipeweed in the Shire.

Disney is a private company and has the right to lay down whatever restrictions they want on their own products. However, I don't have to like it or agree with a policy like this. I say that as someone who has lost two close relatives to lung cancer as a result of smoking. If I'm uncomfortable with something in a movie, I'd prefer to exercise my personal discretion as a parent to steer my kids away from what our family finds "objectionable".

I used to be in charge of book selection in a large public library system so I know this whole business is a terribly slippery slope. One person would object to "X" and another to "Y" and, before you know it, you've laid down rules that gut out the heart of a piece of literature or art. But, at the rate we're going in getting The Hobbit onto the screen (whether or not you like that idea), it seems as if we aren't going to have to worry about specifics like this for a while!

Lalwendë

07-26-2007, 01:21 PM

I think (but I don't know - he shall have to verify it ;) ) davem would agree with me that more or less, films, books and so forth are not quite the sinister influence some think they are. My personal view is that if someone is stupid enough to think smoking is cool because someone in a Hollywood film does it then it's Darwinism working at it's finest ;) The irony of course is that Hollywood claims films are not a bad influence and so it can get away with showing kids indulging in violent things (Home Alone - a kid messing with a shotgun for example), yet it seems to think they are at the same time a bad influence and we must not show the evil cancer sticks. So which is it, Hollywood?

davem

07-26-2007, 02:32 PM

OF course its annoying. And of course it starts with something 'bad', but it never ends there. I'm reminded of Gandalf's statement that he would take the Ring in order to do good, but that it wouldn't stop there...

If smoking is banned in the movie in case it encourages children & teens to start smoking, what about the books?

Its as if smoking has crossed over from being potentially dangerous to being immoral. I wonder how long smoking in the books will be acceptable? TH is a 'children's' book, but it seems an increasingly non-PC one. There's nothing in the book(s) that implies that smoking is wrong or 'dangerous'. Bilbo smokes & lives to over a hundred, & so do many of the other Hobbits & children read this! I wonder whether there are parents out there who do warn their children about the smoking in the book? I suspect that if TH was offered to a publisher today the smoking would not make it past the editor - it would be a case of 'If you want us to publish this the pipeweed will have to go!'

If smoking is not shown in the movie that's a clear statement about smoking in the book.

To me this is a bigger issue than whether smoking is dangerous & should be discouraged. Its about Hobbits as a people. Hobbits smoke, drink, eat too much & spend a lot of their time doing not very much - like going for long walks. They're a very laid back type of folk - adventures are 'nasty' & inconvenient because they 'make you late for dinner'.

Elladan and Elrohir

07-26-2007, 03:02 PM

I agree with you, davem. Smoking is part of Middle-earth, whether it's Gandalf, Aragorn, or the Hornblowers doing it. I remember that Michael Martinez raised a big stink about the smoking in the first two films in his initial reviews of them. I can certainly understand where people like him are coming from, and I do agree that smoking should not be portrayed in a positive light in most films. The Lord of the Rings, however, is not most films.

davem

07-26-2007, 03:10 PM

My hero....

Of course numberless Americans smoke numberless cigars; a great many others eat cigars, which seems to me a more occult pleasure. But there does exist an extraordinary idea that ethics are involved in some way; and many who smoke really disapprove of smoking. I remember once receiving two American interviewers on the same afternoon; there was a box of cigars in front of me and I offered one to each in turn. Their reaction (as they would probably call it) was very curious to watch. The first journalist stiffened suddenly and silently declined in a very cold voice. He could not have conveyed more plainly that I had attempted to corrupt an honorable man with a foul and infamous indulgence; as if I were the Old Man of the Mountain offering him hashish that would turn him into an assassin. The second reaction was even more remarkable. The second journalist first looked doubtful; then looked sly; then seemed to glance about him nervously, as if wondering whether we were alone, and then said with a sort of crestfallen and covert smile: “Well, Mr. Chesterton, I’m afraid I have the habit.”

As I also have the habit, and have never been able to imagine how it could be connected with morality or immorality, I confess that I plunged with him deeply into an immoral life. In the course of our conversation, I found he was otherwise perfectly sane. He was quite intelligent about economics or architecture; but his moral sense seemed to have entirely disappeared. He really thought it rather wicked to smoke. He had “no standard of abstract right or wrong”; in him it was not merely moribund; it was apparently dead. But anyhow, that is the point and that is the test. Nobody who has an abstract standard of right and wrong can possibly think it wrong to smoke a cigar.

—G.K. Chesterton

from “On American Morals”

Lalwendë

07-27-2007, 04:38 AM

It'd be interesting to see if there was any smoking in the Harry Potter books. One of the things about those which intrigues me is how often the underage witches and wizards wander into the local pubs of Hogsmeade and have a Butterbeer. No wonder they're always duelling with Draco Malfoy, they're all tanked up on alcopops. ;) I suppose this refelcts contemporary British society where if you do not drink then you are viewed as somehow suspect, yet if you manage the herculean task of ten pints of Stella or two bottles of Pinot Grigio in a night and manage to come to work next day you are hailed as an all-conquering hero. I can't even count the number of women I work with who turn psychotic if someone smokes near them, exist on a lettuce leaf at lunchtime and yet have slightly yellow, hollow faces because they drink a whole bottle of wine every evening. Bizarre.

If anyone in modern society today behaved like a Hobbit they'd have the thought police onto them in no time.

It might be unpalatable to many but Tolkien's pleasures in life included good beer, stodgy food and smoking. He then gave these same indulgences to his happiest, jolliest race of people - and what's more, made them quite evangelistic about these joys. Gloriously un-PC. ;)

Of course, Tolkien used to even smoke his pipe when riding his bike around Oxford. That's how keen he was on the habit. :smokin:

Sauron the White

07-29-2007, 08:31 AM

Smoking in real life and smoking in depictions of Middle-earth are two different things. Why cannot some people keep that straight? Smoking throws hundreds of noxious chemicals and poisons into the air and is a public health hazard. Governments, groups and individuals are correct to take proper and legal measures to discourage it, prevent it and get rid of it. Films and books are an art form and deserve the protections accorded all art. Tolkien was a smoker - immaterial. But was is material is that many of his characters were avid smokers in his creations. Nothing wrong with that if it is understood as part of the culture of that world and people which inhabit it.

davem

07-29-2007, 09:33 AM

Smoking throws hundreds of noxious chemicals and poisons into the air and is a public health hazard. Governments, groups and individuals are correct to take proper and legal measures to discourage it, prevent it and get rid of it. .

Same goes for the 'infernal' combustion engine - only that's far, far worse. Car exhausts smell far worse & produce far more carcinogens than tobacco. Will the studios ban those exciting car chases? Mustn't show smoking to be cool, or we may encourage them to start, but its fine to show those cool dudes (in shades, natch) racing through the streets, or blasting the bad guys with mach 10's. Gun's 'r' cool. Fast cars 'r' cool. This whole thing is either a cash in or its hypocrisy.

Bêthberry

07-29-2007, 09:58 AM

Same goes for the 'infernal' combustion engine - only that's far, far worse. Car exhausts smell far worse & produce far more carcinogens than tobacco. Will the studios ban those exciting car chases? Mustn't show smoking to be cool, or we may encourage them to start, but its fine to show those cool dudes (in shades, natch) racing through the streets, or blasting the bad guys with mach 10's. Gun's 'r' cool. Fast cars 'r' cool. This whole thing is either a cash in or its hypocrisy.

The "whole thing" is infinitely complicated by the fact that Hollywood was bought out by the tobacco industry years and years ago. Tobacco companies paid nicely for "product placement" as a way to promote the social acceptability and attractiveness of smoking and therebye increase cigarette sales. Even Ronald Reagan (while still just an actor) was hired to promote smoking.

So what is wrong with reversing decades of propaganda through hidden merchandising?

And there's no logical reason why one aspect, if it is proven harmful, should not be controlled or eliminated just because there are other equally harmful aspects that are yet to be controlled or recognised as harmful. It's called one step at a time.

Tolkien was hooked on nicotine. Bottom line, he was an addict. His substance was legal, but he was still an addict.

davem

07-29-2007, 10:24 AM

Tolkien was hooked on nicotine. Bottom line, he was an addict. His substance was legal, but he was still an addict.

No he wasn't. He was a smoker. There's no evidence to believe that he couldn't have stopped at any time he wanted. Of course as he was perfectly happy with his pipe I can't see that there was any problem. He managed to give up his car when he saw the damage the infernal combustion engine was doing to the environment & in my experience as a non driver, that is the real addiction. Fumes far, far more dangerous than any amount of second hand smoke, far more destructive to to humans & the environment, but can drivers give up their addiction to the car? Smoking is an innocent pleasure in comparison to the evils of the car, & the motor industry has Hollywood equally in its pocket - if not more so (& heaven knows how much profit Smith & Wesson made out of the Dirty Harry movies).

Bêthberry

07-29-2007, 02:37 PM

No he wasn't. He was a smoker. There's no evidence to believe that he couldn't have stopped at any time he wanted. Of course as he was perfectly happy with his pipe I can't see that there was any problem. He managed to give up his car when he saw the damage the infernal combustion engine was doing to the environment & in my experience as a non driver, that is the real addiction. Fumes far, far more dangerous than any amount of second hand smoke, far more destructive to to humans & the environment, but can drivers give up their addiction to the car? Smoking is an innocent pleasure in comparison to the evils of the car, & the motor industry has Hollywood equally in its pocket - if not more so (& heaven knows how much profit Smith & Wesson made out of the Dirty Harry movies).

Other than using a Palantir to peer into into Tolkien's mind--and the past--we do have some evidence that nicotine is a highly addictive drug that causes most people who attempt to give up smoking to go into withdrawal. Calling Tolkien simply a smoker is a fancy bit of denial--a common trait among addicts. Most smokers are addicted.

And Tolkien gave up driving a car when he realised what a hazard he was as a driver. He didn't stop using automobiles and would hire drivers to take him and his family on excursions, medical visits, etc.

Frankly, I think that when/if The Hobbit is ever shown on the big screen, it ought to come with trailers and adverts about lung diseases. Maybe even Gandalf coughing up and gasping for breath and reminding people that ships sailing west for healing were only available to Frodo and Gimli. Pictures of smokers' lungs would be pretty appetising beside those hobbit second breakfasts, too.

davem

07-29-2007, 03:22 PM

Other than using a Palantir to peer into into Tolkien's mind--and the past--we do have some evidence that nicotine is a highly addictive drug that causes most people who attempt to give up smoking to go into withdrawal. Calling Tolkien simply a smoker is a fancy bit of denial--a common trait among addicts. Most smokers are addicted.

Yes, well, as Chesterton pointed out in the excerpt I gave earlier:

As I also have the habit, and have never been able to imagine how it could be connected with morality or immorality, I confess that I plunged with him deeply into an immoral life. In the course of our conversation, I found he was otherwise perfectly sane. He was quite intelligent about economics or architecture; but his moral sense seemed to have entirely disappeared. He really thought it rather wicked to smoke. He had “no standard of abstract right or wrong”; in him it was not merely moribund; it was apparently dead. But anyhow, that is the point and that is the test. Nobody who has an abstract standard of right and wrong can possibly think it wrong to smoke a cigar., its a habit, but its not a sin. People do lots of things which are bad for them. Smoking is also a very relaxing & quite pleasurable indulgence - & I note in passing that the guy who invented jogging died from a heart attack while out jogging. I further note in passing that 100% of non smokers die.

Frankly, I think that when/if The Hobbit is ever shown on the big screen, it ought to come with trailers and adverts about lung diseases. Maybe even Gandalf coughing up and gasping for breath and reminding people that ships sailing west for healing were only available to Frodo and Gimli. Pictures of smokers' lungs would be pretty appetising beside those hobbit second breakfasts, too.

And surely there should be trailers & adverts depicting the horrors of alcoholism in movies where beer is drunk, the horrors of road accidents where cars appear in movies, of aircrashes when planes appear, of the horrors of global warming whenever a movie has scenes of cows (the methane produced by cattle apparently being one of the greatest contributors to climate change), of the Inquisition whenever a movie has a priest appearing in it. And let's not miss the chance to show trailers about Aids when two people of the opposite sex appear on screen.

Or we could just leave folk to their indulgences & let them take their chances. Personally, I accepted that one day something is going to finish me off, whatever I do, or don't do. I don't lecture others as to what they should or shouldn't do - I' like to think I'm quite 'Hobbitish' in that way. If it shouldn't be shown on films without anti smoking adverts being shown I can't see that it should be permitted in the books with similar warnings (though I expect to find such warnings will appear fairly soon, to be followed, no doubt, by the smoking references being edited out, along with the mentions of over-eating, the consumption of beer & all mention of pubs, the pipeweed to be replaced by healthy snacks of carrot sticks & celery, & the pubs by gyms.) Hobbits smoke too much, drink too much & eat too much & they don't jog or preach.

Morthoron

07-29-2007, 04:39 PM

Yes, well, as Chesterton pointed out in the excerpt I gave earlier:

As I also have the habit, and have never been able to imagine how it could be connected with morality or immorality, I confess that I plunged with him deeply into an immoral life. In the course of our conversation, I found he was otherwise perfectly sane. He was quite intelligent about economics or architecture; but his moral sense seemed to have entirely disappeared. He really thought it rather wicked to smoke. He had “no standard of abstract right or wrong”; in him it was not merely moribund; it was apparently dead. But anyhow, that is the point and that is the test. Nobody who has an abstract standard of right and wrong can possibly think it wrong to smoke a cigar.

, its a habit, but its not a sin. People do lots of things which are bad for them. Smoking is also a very relaxing & quite pleasurable indulgence - & I note in passing that the guy who invented jogging died from a heart attack while out jogging. I further note in passing that 100% of non smokers die.

I am not quite certain why you keep including that Chesterton quote in the conversation, as he was neither an authority on the subject, nor entirely subjective. The man died in 1936 and obviously had no conception of the addictive nature of nicotine or the proven health risks. Needless to say, cocaine, morphine and heroin were legal in his lifetime (not even listed as controlled substances until WWI). G.K. might have had a Coca-Cola or two prior to 1903 laced with cocaine (an advertised ingredient up to that point).

I think that smoking for most long-term users is no longer a habit or a 'pleasurable indulgence' (that would include myself and my pack-a-day jones). I cannot merely smoke a single cigarette in a day without significant discomfort; whereas, I can drink several porters in a single sitting and go for weeks without another (which would be disconcerting and unnecessary perhaps, but quite doable).

However, that being said I do not believe that removing pipe-smoking from The Hobbit or adding warnings is warranted as the story takes place in another age altogether. I despise attempts to homogenize literature or film due to the expedience of political correctness, particularly in the film industry which seems to be picking and choosing its ethics, which in itself is unethical.

Sauron the White

07-29-2007, 05:23 PM

There are great benefits to the internal combustion engine. Society as we know it would stop in its tracks without it. The lives of hundreds of millions of people would radically change as we know it.

You cannot say the same for smoking. No way - no how.

Sauron the White

07-29-2007, 08:25 PM

I note in passing that the guy who invented jogging died from a heart attack while out jogging.

Someone with an actual name and historical record is credited as inventing jogging? That is incredible! I was under the impression that running was a natural human movement that the human race has been doing since it has been on two feet. To now discover that it was only recently invented and it killed its creator is some bit of information.

Bêthberry

07-29-2007, 08:46 PM

, its a habit, but its not a sin.

I know. It's an absolute sin the way people take things in directions never meant. But if you want to talk about sin, I suppose you could explain if you mean smoking is not a venal sin or not a mortal sin. Myself, I've been talking about physiological addiction, so on that ground smoking would not be a sin, as it is no longer a voluntary act.

And surely there should be trailers & adverts depicting the horrors of alcoholism in movies where beer is drunk, the horrors of road accidents where cars appear in movies, of aircrashes when planes appear, of the horrors of global warming whenever a movie has scenes of cows (the methane produced by cattle apparently being one of the greatest contributors to climate change), of the Inquisition whenever a movie has a priest appearing in it. And let's not miss the chance to show trailers about Aids when two people of the opposite sex appear on screen.

However, that being said I do not believe that removing pipe-smoking from The Hobbit or adding warnings is warranted as the story takes place in another age altogether. I despise attempts to homogenize literature or film due to the expedience of political correctness, particularly in the film industry which seems to be picking and choosing its ethics, which in itself is unethical.

Actually, I'm waiting to hear that the casting for The Hobbit will be colour blind. I can just imagine the dilemma between choosing an Asian actor for Bilbo and Blacks for the dwarves, or a Black actor for Bilbo and Asian ones for the dwarves. Or maybe they will make all the dwarves female actors, but of course we'd never know it. I'm sure that if they made Smaug green, leprecauns would object, so I suspect that is out for Smaug.

Morthoron

07-29-2007, 09:00 PM

Actually, I'm waiting to hear that the casting for The Hobbit will be colour blind. I can just imagine the dilemma between choosing an Asian actor for Bilbo and Blacks for the dwarves, or a Black actor for Bilbo and Asian ones for the dwarves. Or maybe they will make all the dwarves female actors, but of course we'd never it. I'm sure that if they made Smaug green, leprecauns would object, so I suspect that is out for Smaug.

Perhaps they could get Morgan Freeman to be Gandalf. He's always cast as the wise old black guy (excuse me, African-American gentleman) in films. I could well imagine James Earl Jones as the voice of Smaug. Jackie Chan as Bilbo? It would be a hoot to hear him say the line "Thag you bery buch".

davem

07-29-2007, 11:58 PM

I think that smoking for most long-term users is no longer a habit or a 'pleasurable indulgence' (that would include myself and my pack-a-day jones). I cannot merely smoke a single cigarette in a day without significant discomfort; whereas, I can drink several porters in a single sitting and go for weeks without another (which would be disconcerting and unnecessary perhaps, but quite doable).

But I can. I smoke the odd cheap cigar as & when but can go for days, even weeks, without - & I was the when I smoked a pipe. Many people, unlike you, cannot go for weeks (even hours) without a drink. But this is not the point - the point is the one Chesterton made - smoking is being treated as a 'sin' not simply a potentially 'dangerous' activity. I've seen people in cars waiting at traffic lights with their engines running wafting away cigarette smoke from passing smokers - all the while churning out poison from their exhaust pipes, & mother's pushing their children along the street at rush hour with their faces at the same height as those exhaust pipes getting angry because someone fifty feet away is smoking a cig. Banning smoking from movies, or forcing movie goers to watch anti-smoking adverts because some smokers die from their habit (& most of them die in their 70's, 80's & 90's when they were going to die of something anyway) is as irrational as banning cars or inflicting dangerous driving adverts showing bodies scattered over the highway because cars kill people.

I'm not advocating smoking at all. Its none of my business whether or not people indulge. Yes, its an indulgence that may well kill you before something else does - but that's all one can say for it - 'cos something is going to kill you.