Inching closer to The Hobbit film [Archive] - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Sauron the White

10-04-2007, 07:18 PM

Without editorial comment, here are all the comments left at the EW site --- and I copied the entire first page.... this should let you know what the average reader of EW thinks about this.

Add Your CommentCommentsEnglish Professor in California Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 09:02 PM
MUST BE JACKSON. Give him whatever he wants. STUPID, Stupid studio people.

Tiria Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 07:48 PM
New Line has been screwing over Jackson and the actors the entire time. It's ironic, I suppose, that they escaped the clutches of the Weinsteins only to be sucked in by the behemoth that is TimeWarner. Honestly, as much as I would love for Jackson and New Line to come to an agreement soon (especially to work out details of an HD-DVD set for Rings) for the sake of The Hobbit, I actually hope this legal process stalls out for a couple more years so Zaentz can give the rights to another studio.

SueS Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 07:10 PM
No Jackson, no buy ticket. Actually, I haven't gone to a New Line film since Shaye's outburst about Jackson a while back

.Katy Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 07:00 PM
I am glad to see some movement on the Hobbit front. Of course, I'd go see a live action movie whoever the director was, but I think Peter Jackson would be the best choice. Look at what changing directors has done to the Harry Potter films; they just don't work together. Now I hope this movie will get done soon, as some of the actors aren't getting any younger.

Tulip Proudfoot Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 06:53
PM
I would love to have PJ direct "The Hobbit" and to use Weta and Weta Digital to do the FX. I would be loath to see "The Hobbit" made by anyone else.

Aiwendil Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 06:44 PM
I'd actually prefer that someone else directed The Hobbit. I just can't see Jackson pulling it off - The Hobbit doesn't strike me as his style. I suppose I also think he's somewhat overrated as a director.

StillCrazy Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 06:27 PM
I would like to see PJ and crew do it. But there are a handful of others that could do just as good of job. I'll see it no matter who does it, and hope its not as bad as the 70's one.

ElflingImp Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 06:20 PM
If Jackson does'nt do it I won't see it,it would break my heart.

viggolover1 Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 06:01 PM
I will see it only if Peter Jackson directs it. I started reading the books because of the movies. Even my husband who is not a big fanatic on going to the movies and for him a movies is just that a movie, was move by them and thinks that LOTR are the best movies ever!!!

Janne Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 05:59 PM
Im a longtime Tolkien fan, but I honestly think I wouldn't bother seeing a Hobbit movie directed by anyone but Peter Jackson. I have such a place in my heart for the LotR movies that I wouldn't want to spoil it with what must be a lesser vision.

Anonymous Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 05:27 PM
Peter Jackson is the only one to make the Hobbit! Middle-Earth would never be the same with someone else! I would not see the Hobbit in a theatre or on dvd/cable if Peter Jackson does not do the movie's! It would be so AWESOME to here that the Hobbit and second movie is really really going to be made by Jackson! Be still my heart and 3 cheers for Jackson!

Rian Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 05:09 PM
Oh still my beating heart! Could it be....The long expected party! Oh please please, with Jackson, Ian as Ganfalf, our beloved Gollum, Elrond, Weta and all the rest...and soooon!

Ann Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 05:06 PM
No, Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boynes MUST write it, Peter must direct, Weta Workshop must do the other stuff, everybody must come back from LOTR. Otherwise, it won't be the same. And Ian McKellen MUST play Gandalph. Get real New Line, you may hate him but he made you billions.

Horsegirl. Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 05:06 PM
I think that Jackson is the only man for the job- or at least(the very least) as "overseer" of the teams that co-directed the Trilogy with him. His vision of Middle Earth fulfilled all my expectations, and one of the key sequences from the "Hobbit" has already been filmed: Bilbo finding the Ring. Add to that another splendiforous score by Howard Shore,and life will be good...

John Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 04:19 PM
Um...what, exactly, was the point of this article? This has all been known for years now, and the only new 'information' was that "something might, maybe, could, possibly happen within the next year" in the articles' conclusion. Thats some crack reporting there, EW.

Pipkin Skytook Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 04:19 PM
Jackson should TOTALLY do the hobbit. Or eles we won't go to see. Isn't that right, preciousss?

Mells Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 04:09 PM
The Rings books were too expansive for me to get into but the movies are a work of art. Unless Peter Jackson makes The Hobbit I can't say I'd be as excited to see it. Jackson has truly immersed himself in middle-earth and any other director will doubtlessly be compared to Jackson and be found wanting.

anon Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 04:02 PM
Only Jackson can direct it. Period. If anyone else does it, no matter how good, we'll always wonder (as fans) what if... what if... what if... Also, am I the only person in the world that thinks Sam Raimi is a mediocre director? So he has success because of Spiderman. Is that because of the comic or his directing skills? Darkman was a lousy film.

Ultimate Warrior Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 03:53 PM
Greedy ****.....just do the movie ****

hobbitssunkenmeadow_rd Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 03:51 PM
What a question...I want Jackson to direct it, of course, but I found JRR Tolkien via Jackson's FotR and was hooked on the books. My curiosity would get the best of me and I would have to see it no matter who directed it. I'm weak that way.

ObiDon_Kenobi Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 03:40 PM
If Peter Jackson made it, I'd see it, no questions asked. If anyone else made it, I'd refuse to see it at the theatre, and wait until it came out on cable.

Aiwendil

10-04-2007, 07:37 PM

Sauron: I think the names and dates at the end of each of those comments actually belong to the following comment. I was the one who said I'd like to see someone else do it, not the one who "would be loath to see "The Hobbit" made by anyone else."

Just so nobody thinks I have dissociative identity disorder myself - or accuses me of "flip-flopping" (I'm looking at you, Farael!).

Sauron the White

10-04-2007, 07:49 PM

Aiwendil -- thank you for pointing out that error ... I fixed it ... hopefully it is now correct.

And I think you have a fan .... this was in comments from the last hour

To Aiwendil Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 09:22 PM
Are you CRAZY?! The Hobbit isn't Peter Jackson's 'style'?! Uh, hello? Did you happen to notice that The Hobbit is the prequel to LOTR? Duh! Dumbest statement I've heard in a long time. And he's "overrated"? Ever bother to watch the LOTR films? Give me a friggin break!

Not exactly the paragon of intelligent understatement is it?

Aiwendil

10-04-2007, 09:36 PM

I think I've been soundly refuted.

Mister Underhill

10-04-2007, 11:46 PM

Now that's worth a genuine lol. Aiwendil, you really must be CRAZY!! Hello, the average EW reader thinks so. Dumbest statement he's heard in a long time, and you know that's a high bar to get over.

Bêthberry

10-05-2007, 05:34 AM

Perhaps the most sanguine thing that can be said about the reply to Aiwendil's comment is that it would appear that not all the comments are coming from PJ's publicist. (All praise the anonymity of the internet.)

Well, at least, I would normally surmise that a professional publicist would find that particular bar not one to stretch to, but I suppose it is possible that anyone who makes Gimli the butt of jokes could have that kind of publicist.

Quempel

10-05-2007, 09:19 AM

:eek: It's funny to see myself quoted in one of my other identities. :cool:

I wasn't the one who refuted Aiwendil either. I don't like doing that to wizards, they tend to turn me into a fairy with frog legs, and I prefer being a fairy with wings.

William Cloud Hicklin

10-05-2007, 11:23 AM

This is, however, the average reader of Entertainment Weekly, not Philosophical Quarterly

You gotta love this: "The Rings books were too expansive for me to get into but the movies are a work of art."

BTW, Aiwendil, that's not much a refutation, since the poster apparently detects no difference in style between Hobbit and LR! (and calls it a 'prequel.' Gaaaah.....)

Sauron the White

10-05-2007, 11:27 AM

And even if William is correct making that statement while looking down his nose at the great unwashed , there are a whole lot more people who buy and read EW than PhQ. The movie business is about selling tickets to the masses. That is the way of the world - like it or not. I am certain that right now in the offices of New Line they have people reading the EW feedback postings and keeping track of how public opinion is going. They may be crooks and they may be greedy crooks, but they can count.

Aiwendil

10-05-2007, 03:47 PM

BTW, Aiwendil, that's not much a refutation, since the poster apparently detects no difference in style between Hobbit and LR! (and calls it a 'prequel.' Gaaaah.....)

I don't know, the poster makes a pretty well-reasoned case with: "Duh! Dumbest statement I've heard in a long time."

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Meriadoc1961

10-05-2007, 03:48 PM

I am looking forward to it, regardless of who makes it. Although I have offered my share of criticism, I still believe Jackson could and would do a good job with it.

Merry

William Cloud Hicklin

10-05-2007, 04:14 PM

Of course Bob Shaye can count. And if his beancounters tell him that PJ directing "Gandalf versus Godzilla" will put butts in the seats, he'll be on it like flies on roadkill.

A match made in Hell- the producer of Nightmare on Elm Street and the director of Brain Dead.

Sauron the White

10-05-2007, 06:24 PM

A match made in Hell- the producer of Nightmare on Elm Street and the director of Brain Dead.

That particular neighborhood of Hell certainly must produce some tremendous pairings for this one netted $4 billion dollars US, 17 Academy Awards including Best Film, numerous other industry awards including a spot on the American Film Institute top fifty films of all time, and nearly unanimous professional critical reviews.

If that was a union or match made in Hell, please put me down for the next pick of that litter.

Meriadoc1961

10-08-2007, 12:08 PM

"I'll say it again: There's way too much money to be made on a Hobbit film for it not to happen. It won't be here before 2010 (and even that's probably an early estimate), but it will come. And PJ will be at the helm."

E and E, I am not saying I disagree with you completely, but sometimes some individuals have enough money not to want to to do something again, even when they were successful together previously. The Beatles come to my mind. They were thrown all around all kinds of offers, even as much as $1,000,000 US for a single reunion concert, and it never materialized.

Still, I hope you are right.

Merry

Sauron the White

10-10-2007, 11:25 AM

This just in from MTV's Movie Blog

Still buzzing from the advance buzz of “The Golden Compass” at New Line’s 40th anniversary gala in New York on Friday night, New Line’s co-chairmen and co-CEO’s Bob Shaye and Michael Lynne were in great spirits — so we figured they wouldn’t mind a little “Hobbit” question. After all, “Golden Compass” features a mini “Lord of the Rings” reunion of sorts, with Ian McKellan (who of course played Gandalf) voicing the panserbjørne Iorek Byrnison, and Christopher Lee (who played the traitor wizard Saruman) making a cameo in the Magisterium (The voice you hear in the trailer is pre-McKellan, with a different voice actor).

So could a bigger “Lord of the Rings” reunion be in the making, as a “cautiously optimistic” Entertainment Weekly reports, possibly with Peter Jackson as the executive producer and someone else directing “The Hobbit”? (Hear what we learned after the jump.)

Neither New Line nor Jackson’s camp would give comment to the magazine, but Shaye and Lynne, as much as they tried to dodge it, did give comment to us. “One film at a time!” Shaye laughed. “‘The Hobbit’ is in the future,” Lynne said, somewhat mysteriously. Does that mean there’s hope? “There’s more than hope,” Lynne said with a wink, as he walked away. So no details yet, but plans are definitely underway.

davem

10-10-2007, 03:42 PM

Well, let's get it over with then.

I intend to try & avoid the whole thing. Another three hours of thud & blunder from PJ would be bad enough, but its the hype, the marketing, the action figures, burgers & breakfast cereal tie-ins, et al that make me really depressed.

Can't Jackson & New Line go off & make a multi billion dollar adaptation of The Wheel of Time or some other trashy fantasy 'epic' & leave TH alone? The thought of that beautiful little tale, the one that sparked my love of Tolkien, being turned into a 'Jacksonian' monstrosity, full of 'comic' dwarves, blood, violence, ugliness, beheadings & general stupidness is too awful to contemplate.

And does anyone really think that this children's book will make it to the screen in a form suitable for children to watch? Nope. More PG-13 close up nastiness to please the 17 year-old boys taking a couple of hours off from playing the latest incarnation of Grand Theft Auto.:(

Sauron the White

10-10-2007, 05:58 PM

Yet again -for what must be my now a number beyond calculation (see how easy it is to do this?) you lapse into hyperbole of the worst sort to heap your special brand of scron upon Peter Jackson. Exaggeration upon exaggeration equaling distortion which no longer even resembles reality is what you seem to specialize in.

THUD AND BLUNDER. No doubt one of your pet phrases since you have used it before in discussing these matters of the LOTR films. In point of fact davem, you may know a great deal about the writings of JRRT, but your knowledge of the films is tiny because of your own self induced blindness.

Here is an example of actual thud and blunder

With one stroke of his fifty-pound sword, Gnorts the Barbarian lopped off the head of Nialliv the Wizard. It flew through the air, still sneering, while Gnorts clove two royal guardsmen from vizor through breasplate to steel jockstrap. As he whirled to escape, an arrow glanced off his own chainmail. Then he was gone from the room, into the midnight city. Easily outrunning pursuit, he took a few sentries at the gate by surprise. For a moment, arms and legs hailed around him through showers of blood; then he had opened the gate and was free. A caravan of merchants, waiting to enter at dawn, was camped nearby. Seeing a magnificent stallion tethered, Gnorts released it, twisted the rope into a bridle, and rode it off bareback. After galloping several miles, he encountered a mounted patrol that challenged him. Immediately he plunged into the thick of the cavalrymen, swinging his blade right and left with deadly effect, rearing up his steed to bring its forefeet against one knight who dared to confront him directly. Then it was only to gallop onward. Winter winds lashed his body, attired in nothing more than a bearskin kilt, but he ignored the cold. Sunrise revealed the shore and his waiting longship. He knew the swift-sailing craft could bring him across five hundred leagues of monster-infested ocean in time for him to snatch the maiden princess Elamef away from evil Baron Rehcel while she remained a maiden — not that he intended to leave her in that condition … .

It was written by Poul Anderson in an essay discussing that type of writing.

http://www.sfwa.org/writing/thud.htm

a complete copy of the essay can be found through the above link.

Thud and blunder is a gross exaggeration to the point where it becomes a parody or satire of its original form - heroic fantasy or the sword and sorcery tale. However, you utilize it merely to throw dirt upon the Jackson films simply because you yourself do not approve of them. And that is rank bias.

A few days ago you posted a wonderful answer to me regarding the question of Sauron needing the ring to win his war against the Free Peoples of Middle-earth. You helped me see that I was looking at it all wrong. I value your opinion on the books and thanked you for that. You are a very knowledgable person when it comes to the writings of JRRT.

But when it comes to the films, you have a blind spot that is large and unyielding. In order to battle the films you take every single inch of possible fault and turn it into a mile. A single pound turns into a ton. A simple farmers hut turns into a skyscraper. You cannot simply state a real situation you must exaggerate it to the point of being ridiculous.

Because the LOTR films contained some sword fighting and battle action they now become thud and blunder. By that standard, every tale involving love becomes a sweaty bodice ripper. Every tale that sees someone killed becomes a bloody gorefest.

Perhaps these are not the films that you yourself would have done if the opportunity and skill had presented itself. But there is great beauty and subtlety in those films. There is great attention to detail and thousands of man hours of labor to get things as right as possible within the limits of the film medium.

davem

10-11-2007, 12:29 AM

Yes, yes, yes.....

We'll see who's proved right. The book can be read & enjoyed by anyone from five upwards. It is fun, moving, scary (as opposed to terrifying), exciting (as opposed to violent).

Face it - the 'fans' who are screaming for a Hobbit movie are screaming for another LotR, with the action & violence, I've lost count of the number of articles, message boards & discussion fora where those demanding a Hobbit movie have neither read, nor care to read, The Hobbit, are demanding that Aragorn & Legolas are brought back, think TH is a sequel to LotR, & would go absolutely MENTAL!!!! if they turned up to the cinema to see 'PJ's return to M-e' & found themselves watching a 'U' movie.

I've said this before - if a Hobbit movie contained material that made it unsuitable for young children to watch it would be the biggest slap in the face imaginable to Tolkien, who wrote the book for his own young children - but if a Hobbit movie does turn out to be suitable for such an audience the fanboys who are currently most vociferous in demanding a PJ Hobbit will whine about being presented with a kid's movie.

The Poul Anderson excerpt you gave is much more in PJ's line.

Sauron the White

10-11-2007, 06:23 AM

davem

My point with you was NOT in discusssing a non-existant movie that has not yet even gottene the green light. It seems the height of folly to argue about the merits of a Jackson helmed HOBBIT when we do not have such a product to look at. You seem bent on
1- strictly defining what YOU think the HOBBIT is and anyone who thinks otherwise is plainly an idiot
2- telling us what a Jackson HOBBIT will look like and judging this non-existant film to be trash
3- judging the motivations and thoughts of people who want to see a HOBBIT film as if they all had exactly the same beliefs

That is foolish.

Here is what you did say

We'll see who's proved right. The book can be read & enjoyed by anyone from five upwards. It is fun, moving, scary (as opposed to terrifying), exciting (as opposed to violent).

Proved right about what? My point with you was to take you to task for your continued misuse of the term "thud and blunder". Your continued use of gross exaggeration and misrepresentation of the Jackson films for your own biased purposes is what I am complaining about. You use it for the purpose of mocking the Jackson films and throwing dirt upon them. If you read the excerpt I citied and the entire Anderson article you will soon see that it DOES NOT apply to the Jackson films. Check that - a person with an open mind using rational thought would soon see that fact - a biased person with their mind already firmly made up is probably hopeless.

Face it - the 'fans' who are screaming for a Hobbit movie are screaming for another LotR, with the action & violence, I've lost count of the number of articles, message boards & discussion fora where those demanding a Hobbit movie have neither read, nor care to read, The Hobbit, are demanding that Aragorn & Legolas are brought back, think TH is a sequel to LotR, & would go absolutely MENTAL!!!! if they turned up to the cinema to see 'PJ's return to M-e' & found themselves watching a 'U' movie.

Again, you like to judge people and tell them what thoughts are in their head and what motivates their actions and beliefs. Some power you have. I would imagine that there are quite a variety of people who want the HOBBIT made and they have differing and varied things they want to see in it. That tends to be the way of human nature. Could you please identify what a U movie is? I googled it and found nothing that would help me understand your comment.

Will it be a kiddie movie? Who knows? Lets have that discussion when it comes out. I suspect - if Jackson helms it - that it will have elements from the book combined with the sense of Middle-earth that he captured in the LOTR films to give a sense of continuity to the films. Is it a sequel? I always thought it was a PREQUEL as the cover to the HOBBIT indicated for many years.

I've said this before - if a Hobbit movie contained material that made it unsuitable for young children to watch it would be the biggest slap in the face imaginable to Tolkien, who wrote the book for his own young children - but if a Hobbit movie does turn out to be suitable for such an audience the fanboys who are currently most vociferous in demanding a PJ Hobbit will whine about being presented with a kid's movie.

Again, you strictly define in your mind what the HOBBIT is and then argue from that very limited definition. I have never thought of the book as something for a five year old as you indicate in your post but more along the lines of THE WIZARD OF OZ. A tale for older kids to read and has enough interesting material in it to appeal to older readers also.

It seems to me that when you argue against a Jackson filmed HOBBIT, you very carefully craft your position so that you can jump up later and say "I told you so" irregardless of the eventual quality of that film.

The Poul Anderson excerpt you gave is much more in PJ's line.
You make a judgment and offer nothing to support this.

Bêthberry

10-11-2007, 07:40 AM

I have never thought of the book as something for a five year old as you indicate in your post but more along the lines of THE WIZARD OF OZ. A tale for older kids to read and has enough interesting material in it to appeal to older readers also.

Just a question here: how old were Tolkien's boys when he recited The Hobbit to them as a bedtime--rather, evening tea time--story? In Carpenter I can find this:

In 1937, shortly after the book was published, Christopher Tolkien recorded (in his letter to Father Christmas) this account of the book's origin: 'Daddy wrote it ages ago, and read it to John, Michael and me in our Winter "Reads" after tea in the evening; but the ending chapters were rather roughly done, and not typed out at all; he finished it about a year ago.' And writing to his publishers during the same year, Tolkien declared: 'My eldest boy was thirteen when he heard the serial. It did not appeal to the younger ones who had to grow up to it successively.'

Of course, children in those days were so much more innocent--naive?--than they are today. ;)

Tuor in Gondolin

10-11-2007, 08:50 AM

PJ would probably be safer doing The Hobbit then LOTR.
It would give him scope for the positives of the films (scenery,
movie character selection, etc.) while there are sufficient
"dramatic" scenes/characters in TH such as the trolls,
giant spiders, Battle of Five Armies, Beorn (probably
shown dismembering the orc and warg :rolleyes: ) that he
might not even have to resort to dwarf tossing (although
one can picture a PJ changed dwarf meeting with Beorn :eek: ).

And it does seem obvious, with all the $$$$$ to be made, that
there will be a (probably two-part) Hobbit made.

Folwren

10-11-2007, 09:43 AM

Davem's probably right, you know, STW. The Hobbit isn't going to be fit for kids as well as older people to watch. It'll be too violent (Beorn tearing apart and orc and warg limb by limb, as Tuor puts it) and too scary. Once more, my family and I will gather in the fireplace room to watch it, having to hold the remote control in hand ready to fast forward the parts that are gross and that my Mom doesn't want to see.

...That doesn't mean I won't enjoy it, but I do wish we didn't have to see unacceptable stuff, too.

-- Folwren

Sauron the White

10-11-2007, 11:13 AM

Middle-earth for children. For 33 years I taught public school. The last 23 as a high school teacher of 17 and 18 year olds. However, my degree and certification was for all grades. I distinctly recall taking two courses in Childrens Literature for my masters degree. I even had a hand in forming some childrens books of my own when I created a series of characters and the basic plot of a book called ODDKINS written by Dean Koontz. So I am not a virgin in the world of what children read and what appeals to them.

I have a grandson who will be six in a few weeks. He has already seen all three of the LOTR films- each and every scene without censorship - and (as of this writing) has not decapitated any of his fellow first graders at school attempting to emulate the Mouth of Sauron scene or, his personal favorite, Aragorn dispatching Lurtz in FOTR. He does very well at school and seems normal. Because some nameless person in the family indoctrinated him into the world of Middle-earth when he was just four, it is his favorite thing in the world.

I see nothing in the HOBBIT which would preclude anyone his age from seeing a film done in the style of LOTR. Jackson could make THE HOBBIT with every scene as JRRT wrote it, then adapting it to fit into the style of LOTR, and even stretching out the Battle of the Five Armies making it the Helms Deep of the piece. I see nothing there that kids could not see. Let us remember that these are the children of the 21st century not the kiddies of pre WWII times.

The budget on this film will be at least $100 million dollars US and probably closer to double that once all is said and done. No studio that I am aware of will allow that kind of money to be spent on a kiddie film aimed at ages 5 through 9. Not a one. And besides, kids at that age today would have little interest in seeing a dumbed down, sanitaized movie that harkens back to the decade of the Great Depression. It simply is not going to happen.

Folwren

10-11-2007, 11:20 AM

I see nothing in the HOBBIT which would preclude anyone his age from seeing a film done in the style of LOTR. Jackson could make THE HOBBIT with every scene as JRRT wrote it, then adapting it to fit into the style of LOTR, and even stretching out the Battle of the Five Armies making it the Helms Deep of the piece. I see nothing there that kids could not see. Let us remember that these are the children of the 21st century not the kiddies of pre WWII times.

Okay, forget the kids. What about me and other people like me? I'm nineteen and I still hide my eyes during battle scenes when they do close ups of people getting hacked to pieces and arrows going through orcses eyes. In theater I rolled up in a ball with my arms clasped about my ears and my eyes tight shut as the captain in Osgiliath was killed with a spear through his chest. It's disgusting, and while I accepted it for LotR because it was meant for adults, I don't think it'll be nice to watch it in The Hobbit.

And besides, kids at that age today would have little interest in seeing a dumbed down, sanitaized movie that harkens back to the decade of the Great Depression. It simply is not going to happen.

We're not asking it to be dumbed down. We're asking the opposite. There are other things beside violence and 'dumbed down' humor relief that makes movies good, and that's what I believe davem is saying.

Sauron the White

10-11-2007, 02:15 PM

from Folwren

Okay, forget the kids. What about me and other people like me? I'm nineteen and I still hide my eyes during battle scenes when they do close ups of people getting hacked to pieces and arrows going through orcses eyes. In theater I rolled up in a ball with my arms clasped about my ears and my eyes tight shut as the captain in Osgiliath was killed with a spear through his chest.

That was your honest reaction and you are entitled to it. I do have an sincere and serious question for you. Do you think that your reaction is typical of todays filmgoer? I am not trying to cast any doubts as to your intestinal fortitude but I saw the movie a dozen times in the theater and never once saw anybody around me who had that severe of a reaction to anything in the film.

If Tolkien wrote it, or wrote about it, or wrote scenes in which that type of thing very likely did take place (like carnage at Helms Deep which may not have been as specific in the books but which most certainly was part of it) it would seem fair game for inclusion by a filmmaker.

While I certainly am not a subscriber to magazines like Fangoria or other blood-and-guts valentines to sadism, I do see nothing wrong with a somewhat realistic portrayal of battlefield violence. In fact, I remember from my youth in the Fifties -- a time which was sanitaized to protect us little ones - when a person would get shot, there was no wound, no blood, no real effects at all. You can make a case that type of thing is far more harmful to ideas about real violence than a realistic portrayal is.

I guess if JRRT wrote it in THE HOBBIT, then its fair game for a filmmaker.

Child of the 7th Age

10-12-2007, 02:58 AM

I guess if JRRT wrote it in THE HOBBIT, then its fair game for a filmmaker.

Since the movie rights have been sold off, it is indeed fair game for a filmaker. I think we can be fairly certain that the Hobbit will not be presented as a children's film, although it was written as a children's book. Given PJ's overall filmaking resume and the tone of the LotR, I do not expect him to make a children's film. I am assuming that what we will get will be a prequel to LotR. Certain events and characters will be included in a two-part film that did not actually occupy a major place in the book. Hopefully, there will be logical reasons for what is included in this "expanded" Hobbit.

Would Tolkien roll over in his grave at the thought of an "adult" Hobbit. I'm not so sure. After all, he himself tried to revise it to make it a true prequel to LotR. He gave it up very quickly but the mere fact he tried to do it says a lot.

I am not a PJ hater. For the most part, I enjoyed the films and am glad they were made. They certainly introduced a lot of people to the books that would probably not have come to them any other way. The film will undoubtedly be more violent than the book. I can accept that. (And my daughter, ten at the time Fellowship came out, was one of those hiding her head in her hands at some parts of the film.) But I do hope that at least some of the "whimsy" and gentle humor of the Hobbit will be retained in the film. It would be a shame if all that was dropped. We shall see....

HerenIstarion

10-12-2007, 03:55 AM

Though I remember being asked not to discuss the director preferences but exchange news in this thread... most part of discussion up to now has been, well, a discussion of tastes and not mere exchange of news at all

So safe enough for me to plunge in I reckon...

Hopefully, there will be logical reasons for what is included in this "expanded" Hobbit...

...But I do hope that at least some of the "whimsy" and gentle humor of the Hobbit will be retained in the film. It would be a shame if all that was dropped. We shall see....

My feeling exactly. Though, if I were to be honest, I'd prefer someone else. Or whole crew of 'someone elses'. Ones that would not pointlessly add/cut/paste the way they did it in LoTR. 'Epic by Jackson, (C)) is all very fine, but all in all, after watching LoTR several times, I have a feeling there is nothing but epic in it. I've purchased copies as they came out (ordering them overseas through Amazon). But these last two years or so, I've lended them and am not too eager to ask them back, not even sure who exactly of the borrowers has them at the moment.

Probably I'll watch TH regardless of who films it, kind of a must do I assume :D But probably once.

Finduilas

10-12-2007, 06:56 AM

Talked to family last night, well only Mom, Pop, and sister, and parents said that they wouldn't mind a PJ'ed version, as long as you didn't see things that Tolkien didn't put in. They mentioned Helms Deep, and said they wouldn't want a chapter to take an hour again. Also, I brought up Beorn, as it was mentioned in this thread, and they said that since all that was in the book was Beorn with the skin and head, that is all that should be in the movie.

STW asked Folwren if she thought that all veiwers reacted the same way as she did. I'm sure they probably didn't. But that really isn't excusable. Just because this generation is exposed to everything doesn't mean they should be.

Bêthberry

10-12-2007, 07:42 AM

Though I remember being asked not to discuss the director preferences but exchange news in this thread... most part of discussion up to now has been, well, a discussion of tastes and not mere exchange of news at all

So safe enough for me to plunge in I reckon...

My feeling exactly. Though, if I were to be honest, I'd prefer someone else. Or whole crew of 'someone elses'. Ones that would not pointlessly add/cut/paste the way they did it in LoTR. 'Epic by Jackson, (C)) is all very fine, but all in all, after watching LoTR several times, I have a feeling there is nothing but epic in it. I've purchased copies as they came out (ordering them overseas through Amazon). But these last two years or so, I've lended them and am not too eager to ask them back, not even sure who exactly of the borrowers has them at the moment.

Probably I'll watch TH regardless of who films it, kind of a must do I assume :D But probably once.

It is always good to see a post from the Deadnight Chanter! Hi HI. And of course your timely return reminds us that you were one of the first Downs Daddies. How's the son? and wife of course too. Any new pictures? Have you read TH to him yet? In Engish or Russian?

As for watching TH once or more, I suppose it depends on how this two part film smorgashboard comes out. Would we be subjected to a similar kind of release, Part One one year, Part Two the year following? Frankly, even with padding and making up Legendarium stuff to fill it out, I wonder if the second wouldn't end up feeling like we've all over eaten. (Certainly all the battle scenes in RotK left me feeling that way.)

Mister Underhill

10-12-2007, 12:51 PM

If the filmmakers dramatize everything that's alluded to in TH, they could come up with a lot of event. I could see them opening up with Smaug's original attack on Lonely Mountain, for instance, or even with Gandalf encountering Thrain in the dungeons of Dol Guldur, though they'd have to be careful with that scene since they don't have rights to UT, which as I recall has a fuller account of how Gandalf obtained the map and the key.

The problem I foresee for a two-part adaptation is that part two would be battle heavy: the White Council's attack on Dol Guldur, Smaug running amok on Dale, and then of course the Battle of Five Armies. I suppose if you tweak and fuss you might be able to climax the first film with the attack on Dol Guldur, perhaps intercut with Bilbo & Co defeating the spiders only to be taken prisoner by Elves, as a sort of cliffhanger.

Of course, it's easy to see how the story of poor little Bilbo might get a little lost amidst all those fireworks.

Bêthberry

10-12-2007, 01:59 PM

The problem I foresee for a two-part adaptation is that part two would be battle heavy: the White Council's attack on Dol Guldur, Smaug running amok on Dale, and then of course the Battle of Five Armies. I suppose if you tweak and fuss you might be able to climax the first film with the attack on Dol Guldur, perhaps intercut with Bilbo & Co defeating the spiders only to be taken prisoner by Elves, as a sort of cliffhanger.

Of course, it's easy to see how the story of poor little Bilbo might get a little lost amidst all those fireworks.

And another Downer Daddy peeks out from the perambulating rounds of the Parental Abyss. How's the tyke, Mr. Underhill? Any signs of any Took forebears?

Gosh, doesn't this make three Downer sons? Four and we've got the start of a Fellowship!

Indeed, that is one of my concerns, too many battles, as with my boredom with RotK. Plus too much screen time to Aragorn and Legolas. I saw a comment recently where someone suggested that Jackson might have Arwen in Rivendell teach the dwarves and Bilbo some barrel rolling. :eek: :rolleyes:

davem

10-12-2007, 03:32 PM

The budget on this film will be at least $100 million dollars US and probably closer to double that once all is said and done. No studio that I am aware of will allow that kind of money to be spent on a kiddie film aimed at ages 5 through 9. Not a one. And besides, kids at that age today would have little interest in seeing a dumbed down, sanitaized movie that harkens back to the decade of the Great Depression. It simply is not going to happen.

Well, they don't have to make the movie, do they? You seem to be implying that the movie has to be made, & that the best has to be made of a bad job: The Hobbit movie must be made, but, tragically, it can't be made for children, & the tale must be re-written to include dwarf tossing jokes, beheadings & inhabitants of Esgaroth being turned into human torches by Smaug (& then running three laps around the Long Lake, climbing the Lonely Mountain & hurling themselves from the summit, no doubt ...)

If they don't want to make the Hobbit movie suitable for the same audience as the book they can leave it alone & make something else.

Sauron the White

10-12-2007, 05:21 PM

Perhaps what places me in a different category than some others is that I try to deal with reality. I am not attempting to predict the future but simply speculate on - what for the moment - appears to be the inevitable, a HOBBIT film. It looks like a deal will come soon, and if not, will then more than likely come a few tears later. But come it will.

I also accept the reality of the business aspect of movie making complete with its financial budgets and expectations of return of investment. I also understand what a target audience is.

Another difference is that I do not climb the five-hundred steps each day to better see the lowly world from my Ivory Tower in the Sky.

Mister Underhill

10-12-2007, 11:58 PM

Any signs of any Took forebears?Aye, he's already far too fond of adventure and mischief to be from the respectable side of the Baggins tree. A strong dash of Tookishness for sure, I reckon. Plus too much screen time to Aragorn and Legolas. I saw a comment recently where someone suggested that Jackson might have Arwen in Rivendell teach the dwarves and Bilbo some barrel rolling. :eek: :rolleyes:I don't see how you could get much more than a cameo from the two LotR heartthrobs, unless maybe Aragorn shows up at the attack on Dol Guldur. Come to think of it, who better than Lego to make the shot that brings Smaug down, perhaps after leaping aboard the great wyrm's wing and then taking a few acrobatic twirls around his midsection.

HerenIstarion

10-13-2007, 12:54 AM

Aragorn shows up at the attack on Dol Guldur.

2931 Aragorn son of Arathorn II born on March 1st.
2941 The White Council meets; Saruman agrees to an attack on Dol Guldur, since he now wishes to prevent Sauron from searching the River. Sauron having made his plans abandons Dol Guldur.

At the age of 10?... Though I would not put it past 'filmmakers' to tweak it a bit, why not if just a dozenful of years later another entry reads as

2956 Aragorn meets Gandalf and their friendship begins.

How's the son? and wife of course too. Any new pictures? Have you read TH to him yet? In Engish or Russian?

A little trouble with bronchial tubes for last two months but otherwise ok :)
http://www.geocities.com/gl_century/childpics/DSC02417.jpg
Read bits (English) - he tends to take away the book and play with it (= tear it apart with no malicious intentions, just for the fun of it)

Aye, he's already far too fond of adventure and mischief to be from the respectable side of the Baggins tree. A strong dash of Tookishness for sure, I reckon.

If mine were not a wizardling as he is coming from HerenIstarion, I would sign my name under the quote :)

Another difference is that I do not climb the five-hundred steps each day to better see the lowly world from my Ivory Tower in the Sky

You're too harsh with us. After all a movie may be a cash harvest and therefore a 'success', but that doesn't mean it won't be a ruin of a book. That last part we (I at least) begrudge the possible potential likely filmmakers.

Besides, with regards to 'kids movie that is going to fail' - Narnia movie has been made targeting kids for an audince and came out better for that (I believe) and did not fail financially either, did it?

davem

10-13-2007, 01:20 AM

Besides, with regards to 'kids movie that is going to fail' - Narnia movie has been made targeting kids for an audince and came out better for that (I believe) and did not fail financially either, did it?

Exactly - you don't have to aim a movie at seven year olds, but you do have to make a movie that suitable for, & understandable by, seven year olds. The idea that something that 'belongs' to children will be taken from them & turned into 'adult' (or at least teenage) fare, is depressing & simply unfair. And it would be done simply to boost the profits of New Line & Warner.

The idea of a Hobbit movie with the kind of graphic violence & horror we saw in the LotR movies is just unacceptable to me.

Sauron the White

10-13-2007, 08:08 AM

from HerenIstarion

You're too harsh with us. After all a movie may be a cash harvest and therefore a 'success', but that doesn't mean it won't be a ruin of a book. That last part we (I at least) begrudge the possible potential likely filmmakers.

Besides, with regards to 'kids movie that is going to fail' - Narnia movie has been made targeting kids for an audince and came out better for that (I believe) and did not fail financially either, did it?
__________________

I certainly do not want a book to be ruined. But I wonder how that can happen since the book will still exist as the book regardless of any film. But I do concede the validity of your concern. Nobody wants to see something they love turned into a travesty.

Regarding Narnia - I simply loathe almost any book or film which kisses the collective behinds of kids by thrusting children into the role of heroes as Narnia did. I taught school for 33 years- the first ten from grades 6 through 8 and then high school. The idea of the average kid, or even above average child saving the world is truly absurd. Most of these kids have difficulty going through simple daily tasks let alone saving the world. Remembering the proper books and supplies to bring to class is a major chore and too much for many of them. I cringe when I see Narnia age children outdueling evil adults with mystical powers. I rooted for the burglars in HOME ALONE.

Of course, THE HOBBIT is not handicapped by children in the lead roles or in hero roles. I would have no problem with a HOBBIT that had the tone of NARNIA or ET.

I cannot forsee the future but I would expect that Jackson (if it is PJ) would attempt to synthisize the world we already know through the first 3 LOTR films with what we know of THE HOBBIT. I imagine that Jackson and the writers will make much of the true fact that JRRT himself attempted to update his tale and make it more consistent with LOTR and they will do the same. I would hope that much of the whimsy and sweetness of the tale is kept while expanding the Five Armies sequence or adding other elements to fill in the blanks.

HerenIstarion

10-13-2007, 10:52 AM

Most of these kids have difficulty going through simple daily tasks let alone saving the world.

That's what makes them good books for me and probably for them. You can't aspire to something you can do perfectly well on daily basis yourself. I can't model my behavior and be thrilled by a story of a man who ate his eggs and bacon, went to the office, sat out boring morning there doing his duty reasonably well, than dined, slacked a little as you can't work well on full stomach, did the rest of his duty half-as-well as in the morning and than went home to do homely chores. I'm that man, I don't need a guide there. His story doesn't give me 'trembling inside' :rolleyes: The very impossibility (or is it? why? have we been there and tried? what if we did if we did if you follow my meaning, merciful sir?) is what attracts in the books of the kind.

Bilbo (and Frodo for the matter) was as unlikely 'to do a hero' as any kid would be to save the world (see above about what ifs, though), but the very fact they actually did is what makes it most astonishing wonderful

I suppose that you (with full respect to your experience as a teacher yet still) underastimate what children are capable of perceiving. As far as I remember (and been reading since age of six, starting with Three Musketeers I believe), I always was able to detect things that were 'conditional', but as soon as they were part of the 'rules' which worked within given book, they were ok. Willing suspension of disbelief I believe (pun intended :smokin:) the process have been called by Tolkien

If I wanted a book about myself as I am in this time and place, I'd read something along realism lines. But I know the parts of myself revealed by my daily life well enough. I need different mirror.

Sauron the White

10-13-2007, 11:44 AM

HerenIstarion ... I do understand your point about not wanting to see all of our mundane daily existences played out on the screen. Perfectly clear on that and I agree with you. My point about kids as heroes is that it is way off the end of the Absurd-O-Meter. The average ten year old kid cannot even take the trash out thirty feet from the house and will sit there letting it stink up the house for days as long as they can still play their mindless video games. If you give them a two week assignment in class, you had better have daily reminders stressing how much time has passed and how close that deadline is. And then when the day arrives be prepared to read several poorly written notes from parents asking for extensions due to the most extreme of emergencies. I once (back in the early 70's) had a kid in junior high bring in a parental note asking to retake the final exam because they had polio over the weekend. Thats POLIO for heavens sake. Nobody gets polio for a few days and then recovers.

So watching some self absorbed pre-adolescents save the world is just not my cup of tea. That one middle kid in Narnia drove me absolutely crazy. I wanted him to get killed in the worst sort of way. He screws up everything for his brothers and sisters due to his own faults and then whines about it while everyone struggles to pull his bacon out of the fire. Gimmeabreak.

Yes, there are highly intelligent exceptional children. But tell me of an instance in reality where they saved the world.

Bilbo (and Frodo for the matter) was as unlikely 'to do a hero' as any kid would be to save the world (see above about what ifs, though), but the very fact they actually did is what makes it most astonishing wonderful

I would take issue with this. Bilbo and Frodo were not children. The possessed reason, maturity and intelligence and used it. They are part of the tradition used by many writers of having onrdinary people placed into extraordinary events and seeing them rise to the occassion. Stephen King has made a nice living off of that formula.

HerenIstarion

10-13-2007, 12:46 PM

I rather tend to believe that things you do because you ought to may be perceptible and often are, as well may be doable and are often done regardless (and often against best advice provided by) 'reason, maturity and intelligence'. The very journey Bilbo (Frodo's may be argued for as his being reasonable, but his 'reason' ain't of a kind we commonly describe by the name, is it?) went on was against all three of them. He was well-off, lived in a healthy environment, had some entertainment, enjoyed good reputation, what did he need all dwarven gold for to go to loose all of the enjoyments he had and risk his life for it? :rolleyes:

Thats POLIO for heavens sake

M-mm... people may be mistaken. If you ask me to tell you the difference between laryngitis and chill, I won't be able to. Maybe they've thought it was just another and cool sounding name for the same thing called in vulgar tongue chill...

But tell me of an instance in reality where they saved the world

There was this boy they have a statue of in Belgium... or maybe Holland...somewhere around those places I'm sure... he saved a town I believe, a town I forgot the name of though :rolleyes:

You seem to be the exact opposite of the common (and strange to yours truly seem both cases, they do) perception of children as 'different race'. Just the other side tends to 'idolize' children and you seem to... my apologies if that's not the case but you do come across that way... to, well, feel about them as inferior and yet again 'different race'. Let's say they are just as human as adults are. So if human being is capable of saving the world in principle (are we? umm...), age mustn't be an issue.

Besides, you remember my mentioning 'suspension of disbelief' up there? If the inner rules of a book require it to be a child to be doing the saving, so be it - accept that as a given 'reality' and enjoy as you read along. Or don't read :) - I tend to abandon books/films midway I find myself incapable of believing in.

But lest I loose sight of our topic, let's go back to the Hobbit movie. It's a story supposedly written by a hobbit, it presents hobbitish perception of events, and only events seen first hand by certain hobbit. It can't possibly incorporate every horror and thrill that might have happened or have been rumoured to have happened but in fact haven't within 2,000 miles of Bilbo's route he could not have even known about. Let's name the movie 'Of the Ring Made, Lost and Found' and film nine parts of it starting with second age and making of the rings (lots of fighting going on, and lot of empty spaces for scriptwriters to fill in, eh?... Now that would be an endevour worth a praise. I'm only half joking. There is even a way to bring Viggo and Orlando back in there - the former would play a part of Elendur son of Isildur whom Aragorn greatly resembled, the latter may be Thranduil the father of Legolas and later on Legolas himself if need be. For a romance and psychological depth - Aldarion and Erendis. For great sea scenes - fleet of Numenor. Apocaliptical scenes of it's ruin. Great battle (parts already filmed) at Barad-Dur... Isildur's death (and Viggo Mortensen for Elendur. We may even tweak it a little and make him survive, to be in a way both Elendur who fought and died and Valandil who was in Rivendell and survived). Lots of things Gandalf might have been doing to entertain himself for 2,000 years he was about worth filming too...

But let us not name it the Hobbit, than (can't add any more smilies, imagine 'smokin' smiley here)

Sauron the White

10-13-2007, 01:02 PM

HerenIstarion ........... when you work behind the scenes in a four star restaurant, you soon lose the romantic perceptions of it that the customers have. The same with teaching. I taught for 33 years and loved it. I went into that work because I wanted to make a contribution with my life and always thought that kids were the hope of the future. And I still do.

Having said that, you cannot spend 33 years teaching thousands and thousands of kids without the rose colored glasses coming off and facing reality right in the face. Unless you are an idiot. I loved my job and the kids were the absolute number one best thing about it. I met lots and lots of really terrific kids from the sixth grade up through the 12th where I spent my last two decades.

I was simply making a point about movies where they have these pre-adoloscent kids save the real world from bad guys - usually adults. These are movies made to kiss the collective behinds of kids for one reason and one reason only ---- to obtain their money. Who are these films aimed at? Not thinking adults. Probably not even non-thinking adults. They are aimed at kids of that same age who want to see themselves as the saviors of the universe since they already are convinced they are the true centers of the universe. If that sounds harsh, so be it but it is true and valid.

I asked you if a kid ever saved the world. You mentioned some kid in Holland who saved his town. Fine. Pat that child on the back and give them a parade. But in movie after movie, some kid (and why is it usually a bratty, isolated, totally self-absorbed kid) manages to rise up and save the world from the bad adults. It is simply a marketing idea that is way way way off the extreme end of the Absurd-O-Meter.

I can willingly suspend my disbelief with the best of them. But not for stuff like that. That is willing suspension of disbelief times 100. One of the few times this was done well was when Speilberg did it in ET. And I think his view of kids is far more realistic and less romantic than many others.

HerenIstarion

10-14-2007, 01:25 AM

davem

10-15-2007, 10:51 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7044649.stm .

"I would be disappointed if they didn't want to have the original Gandalf."

Tuor in Gondolin

11-08-2007, 09:43 AM

A plus to PJ not being the dirctor could be
reprising a role as Saruman, since I believe
Christopher Lee wasn't happy with the handling of
Saruman's exit from movie LOTR and nonappearance
in movie ROTK.

In a movie Hobbit you could have a scene with the White Council
driving Sauron from Dol Guldur, although, as
JRRT realized, a weak point in LOTR is how to
handle Saruman becoming evil (going over to the
Dark Side :) ) without the apparently astute and
insightful Istari and elves realizing it.

William Cloud Hicklin

11-08-2007, 09:59 AM

Oh, no. No no no no no. Just film the book Tolkien wrote, dammit, and no bloody Hollywood 'inventions!'

Sauron the White

11-08-2007, 01:41 PM

Shoot the film with the book as the script?

Essex

11-09-2007, 03:06 AM

but the White Council meetings and attack on Dol Guldur will bridge the gap between the two books nicley. I would love to see this on screen - especially the scene (mentioned in Unfinishd tales I think) where Gandalf puffs out the giant Smoke Ring infornt of Saruman and goes to grab it before it vanishes. Now that would be good!

PS - how are they going to tackle the 'issue' of having talking birds? ignore it as they did in LOTR? not only the Eagles but the bird who helps Bilbo find the secret doorway and tells bard where to shoot the Dragon?

Tuor in Gondolin

11-12-2007, 09:47 AM

I tend to see Beorn's animals handled by them walking
normal animal style, with perhaps trays, cups etc. taken fom
the backs of some by the mouths of others (easily handled
elegantly by sgi)- but with no talking. Thorin's bird mesenger
could be shown listening and then carry written messages
between the Iron Mountains and Erebor.

And, yes, it might be quite interesting to see Saruman's
struggle for self-control (perhaps even show the beginning
of his pipe-weed addiction :D ).

Nerwen

11-13-2007, 02:10 AM

I again beg to differ

The very pattern of 'bratty, isolated, totally self-absorbed kid' 'rising up' seems positive concept to me. In 'real life' much more likely story would be the kid remaining isolated and self-absorbed, or becoming outwardly aggressive and bullyuing whilst inwardly remaning self-absorbed and weak. 'Only you can save mankind' is better message to plant for me than 'you are bratty and so will remain, noone understands what it is that makes you be, therefore, option A: whine your life away or option B: go to the boxing club to build up some muscle power and then show them all!

Yes and no. I don't agree with Sauron the White that the "kid saves the world" scenario is necessarily a bad thing. Recently a friend and I were talking about the dreary "young adult" novels we had to face (and study in school) in the late 80s and early 90s, in which the protagonist is typically a helpless victim. We both hated them, found them depressing and suspect they put a lot of kids of our generation off reading. (Teachers loved 'em, though...)

However, why does it have to be a 'bratty, isolated, totally self-absorbed kid'?

Why on Earth should they be the only type of kid catered for? I think those sort of stories work much better if the main character is likeable and relatively mature. Having a self-centred brat rewarded for his or her self-centred brat-hood is not, in my view, a good thing.

Sauron the White

11-13-2007, 04:54 PM

Hookbill the Goomba

11-14-2007, 04:30 AM

My comments about bratty self absorbed kids were mostly inspired by that horrible boy in NARNIA. I was dearly hoping that he would be rewarded with the tortures of the damned as a reward for both his selfishness and his stupidity. Instead, he ends up with a kingdom and a crown. Great lesson for us all I suppose.

But doesnt the fact that he doesnt get tortured etc make it a more interesting story? for me it does. If everyone got their 'just deserts' as it were, then the story would just be a predictable and normal Hollywood ending. But there you have a twist, something unexpected, not the usual way a story should end. The lesson C.S. Lewis was trying to get across was much more to do with his own theology. The fact that Edmund dosnet get thrown to the wolves, as it were, invites the reader / viewer to ask questions and enter into the story.
If Edmund had been killed or something, I don't think Narnia would have worked as well as it does. Indeed, it would completely miss the point for which it was first written, I think.

Besides all this, the 'lesson' for Edmund is one of humility. He does realise his mistakes and even with them hanging over him like a dark cloud he must still face his siblings and hope for reconciliation. He can do nothing to change his past and must live with it and his character (in the film at least) seems to show remorse. Do you think this is a bad lesson for children to learn?

But I don't think this is really the point of this topic, so let's move on... (If, however, you want to continue this line of thought, you may want to start a new thread and see what happens).

Sauron the White

11-14-2007, 10:13 AM

Hookbill - I am sure you are correct regarding the theology and intent of Lewis with the character of Edmund. I simply could not stand him - in fact loathed him. That may have nothing to do with Lewis theology but its just how I felt about the character.

Is it good to teach kids that you can screw up royally and then be redeemed and end up on top despite all your errors and failings? You could write a series of books examining both sides of that.

Tuors point about the serving animals in THE HOBBIT could work if done with a very deft hand so that the animals did not appear to be semi-human. The talking birds could also be handled in a more subtle way than the book does. Perhaps then everyone would be happy. (fat chance ;))

Elladan and Elrohir

11-21-2007, 12:04 AM

Well, returning after a long hiatus, I see there have been about two posts relating to Hobbit-movie news in this thread. Ah well, can't say I'm that surprised or even that disappointed, really. It's the nature of discussion boards. I think some interesting points have been made in the discussion (as well as some meaningless rehashing of old arguments), but I do wish they could find a thread that was devoted to them at the outset.

Boy do I sound grumpy; sorry about that. I'm not. I love to think about and discuss and argue the merits of a Hobbit film; just don't like doing it in this particular thread.

Aw, what the hey; this one's a lost cause anyway, so I'll throw out this bombshell: I don't think the assumption that Jackson will completely PG-13ize The Hobbit is necessarily warranted.

That's not a statement of absolute belief, just a hunch. Crucify me...

Sauron the White

11-21-2007, 07:53 AM

E&E ... you coud be correct. My suspicions have always run to Jackson doing several things with THE HOBBIT as a film. One would be to make it fit with the previous three films so that it is accepted as part of the same series --- and yes, I know it is not really. That would mean a more serious adaption. However, I also see him adding many moments that are lighter, sweeter and more in line with the feeling of the book. Sort of a best of both worlds approach.

Nerwen

11-23-2007, 11:39 PM

If I were Peter Jackson I'd be rather afraid of those die-hard supporters. I mean the ones who insist that only he can direct The Hobbit, and that they'll refuse to see it if anyone else does.

I can see them turning on him viciously if the film doesn't live up to their expectations– and arguably, nothing will. I know the capitals-and-exclamation-points crowd. (Some of my best friends, etc...) Honestly, some of them are going to be deeply disappointed if The Hobbit doesn't incorporate their way-out personal theories about Middle-earth (these having nothing to do with anything Tolkien wrote, and very little to do with the LotR movies either).:rolleyes:

I would say New Line is paying attention to all these protests, but also that they're taking them with a grain of salt. Do you really think nearly half of the movie-going public will stay home if The Hobbit has a different director?

Sauron the White

11-24-2007, 09:00 AM

Nerwen... while there may be people as you described in your above post, I do not see it as you do. As a serious fan of the Jackson LOTR adaptions, I merely want two things in a HOBBIT film. The first would be a good movie that gives us the essence of the story, and second, a film which fits with the style, look and approach of the first three LOTR Jackson films. If they can give us two, so much the btter.

Are those expectations so high that they cannot be satisfied or met? I would think not.

Nerwen

11-24-2007, 09:57 AM

Ah, but did I say I was talking about all fans of the movies? In fact, I thought I specifically said I wasn't. I'm just saying that many of those posters struck me as being a certain type of fan.

Sauron the White

12-01-2007, 08:50 AM

This in from a site called marketsaw which specializes in 3-D news. They have some track record as they have released some items about the James Cameron film AVATAR. Jacksons company is also doing some special effects work on AVATAR. While I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this site or this report, it is interesting and gives us something to speculate about.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friday, November 30, 2007
Hot Hobbit News! Jackson Will Helm "The Hobbit" As Two 3D Prequels to LOTRs! AND...
Ok folks - this is hot off my sources and they are the ones who provided the Avatar Ney'tiri image so it is pretty darn reliable:

Peter Jackson will indeed DIRECT "The Hobbit"! This is my second source telling me this. You can be 100% SURE that this is happening. The story will be split into two separate movies as was previously thought with the second relating much more to "Lord of the Rings" than the first.

Wait, as if that wasn't enough: Here is the kicker people: "The Hobbit" will be in 3D. Yes. You heard it on MarketSaw first - both Hobbit movies will be shot in 3D. FURTHER, New Line and Peter Jackson then intend on converting the Lord of the Rings trilogy into 3D as well and re-releasing them in theaters between 2012 and 2014! How is that for big news??Awesome stuff!! I have this news from one source, not two.

Of course this is exclusive news and has not been announced by New Line or Peter Jackson yet. If my sources are 100% correct (and I have plenty of trust in them, believe me) then we are going to see an announcement relatively soon as "The Hobbit" is not a trivial project to be sure and needs to get ramped up!

Just what does this mean for the 3D movie industry? It means total validation. It underscores that if you are going to do a huge motion picture from today on, it had better be in 3D. George Lucas is still intending on converting his entire stable of Star Wars films into 3D too. The validation is huge for the movie industry as a whole and for the theater customers! Lets just hope that my sources are bang on as they usually are.

SAME DAY UPDATE: Here is an excerpt from my email with my source regarding CASTING:

"No casting info yet. But they are looking forward to bring back Sir Ian McKellen, Andy Serkis and Hugo Weaving. For these 3 actors, the chances are really good.
I'm not sure about the release date, but I think 2010 for the first film, and 2011 for second, is what they are trying to get into everybodys calendar. So it would make sense with my information of following with the converted Trilogy in 2012 – 2014. That is all happening, but there must be said, that there is a possibility of +/- 1 to 2 years to the whole thing. If I get to know more, I try to tell ya."
I would heavily suspect that Jackson will shoot "The Hobbit" back to back as he is an old pro at that now and heck you know damn well that its gonna rake in cash. And as my source pointed out, finding a window to fit everyone's schedule is going to be damn hard.

Galendor

12-01-2007, 05:33 PM

Hot Hobbit News! Jackson Will Helm "The Hobbit" As Two 3D Prequels to LOTRs!

Thank you STW for posting this update news. But I don't think it is good news. I fear it means the primary emphasis will be on creating wow-bang! 3D special effects, and little things like, um, acting and storyline will suffer for it. All 3D movies have scenes stuck in them soley for the purpose of having something appear to come out of the screen at the audience. Bleah.

I fear Jackson will make The Hobbit as a vehicle to showcase 3D special effects and to appeal to the lowest common denominator, the popcorn-chewing masses. And The Hobbit story we know and love will get lost in all the SFX.

Worst case scenario, here is a potential synopsis of a Jackson 3D The Hobbit movie, from the perspective of his target audience member (a 15 year old boy):

Cool! Those smoke rings were coming right out at me!

Cool! That Troll reached right out at me!

Cool! Them wargs jumped right out at me!

Cool! That white stag jumped right out at me!

Cool! That giant spider jumped right out at me!

Cool! That Smaug fire came right out at me!

Cool! That black arrow flew right out at me!

Cool! That blood from Bolg sprayed right out at me!

Cool! Those eagles flew right out at me!

Sigh. I don't want 3D special effects. I just want the magic and beauty of the book to be carefully and thoughtfully turned into a movie that focuses mainly on storyline, acting, character development, and emotions. Just my 2 cents.

TheGreatElvenWarrior

12-01-2007, 08:55 PM

Ugh!

I think that 3D is a bad idea, because some people can't watch them. Like me, because you have to wear those funky glasses and some people can't use them because their blind in one eye or something.

Stupid special effects!.... I could shoot them!

Sauron the White

12-02-2007, 09:29 AM

There is no doubt that the history of cinematic efforts in 3D films is not a stellar one which has produced excellent films. And yes, it mostly has been a gimmick niche of entertainment where the story and acting has taken a distant backseat to the eyepopping effects. However....

Jacksons company is currently working with James Cameron in developing something revolutionary for his massive AVATAR project. Cameron is leading the way for an entirely new approach to film in much the same way that both sound or color did for feature films. We will have to wait another two years to see AVATAR and judge its effectiveness as a film and to judge its effect on the industry. I see Jacksons interest in 3D along the same lines of Cameron. I would fully expect the story to be excellent, the acting to be on a par with the LOTR films, and see a multi-layered approach to story telling complexity and characterization.

Of course, this story that I posted yesterday could be bogus. We will see. The one thing that tends to ring with a bit of truth is that Jackson may see an opportunity here with THE HOBBIT that he could not garner with any other film property. It is widely assumed within the industry that THE HOBBIT is a billion dollar property. It is also widely assumed within the industry that Jackson is the only man to make it and maximize that revenue potential. This combination gives Jackson more power and latitude in making the film than in any other choice he could make.

We will see.

Sauron the White

12-02-2007, 10:21 AM

AICN - aintitcoolnews is reporting that they have contacted Jacksons people and they are denying the story saying it is not true.

Sauron the White

12-06-2007, 08:35 AM

Marketsaw is not backing down from the earlier report that said Jackson would indeed direct THE HOBBIT in two parts. In fact they have gone even further saying that is is a definite thing already agreed to. Here is the story from their website

Concerning "The Hobbit":

Basically my source confirms that PJ's camp is covering up what they don't want the world to know yet. But this is what he can assure me:

1. New Line WANTS Peter Jackson to direct The Hobbit. (Another source has said that they are close to an agreement). My sources are "guaranteeing" that he will direct. I have never heard them say this before! My reputation is riding on this one. 100% veracity.

2. The Hobbit WILL BE a two part film - but here is the new information - the second film will be influenced by the foundation of "The Silmarillion" and "The History of Middle-earth Series" (which is a 12 part series of books where JRR's son, Christopher Tolkien analyses JRR's old manuscripts; the manuscripts that ultimately led to become "The Silmarillion", "Lord of the Rings" and "Númenor" which is sort of like Atlantis). The second movie will ultimately lead us up to creation of The Fellowship in a graceful and logical fashion! So for all of you out there that thought that "The Hobbit" is too short a story for two feature movies (let alone two Peter Jackson feature movies) then you were right. Before you ask, my source has reminded me that PJ has access to the JRR manuscripts and extensive notes as he did for the LOTR trilogy. These notes were the foundation for the two books mentioned above, but are not the books themselves (which are still in the Tolkien family's hands). I mention the books to better frame what he has in mind. Jackson borrowed from Tolkien's notes for LOTR to build the story he wanted. He will do so again for The Hobbit.

Now that is simply awesome news! There is a great deal of Middle-earth information in those manuscripts and the interpretation of Tolkien's son adds much more content of course. It goes without saying that this has not been officially announced. Peter Jackson will direct "The Hobbit" and it's sequel: This is insider information from sources that are on the battle front and they are staking their reputation on it! I have this info from two separate sources as I have posted before. I have never heard them be so emphatic about something taking place before. The Hobbit in 3D is just the sort of movie to bring 3D to the masses in a big way with Avatar providing the 1-2 punch.

Reactions???

Quempel

12-06-2007, 09:35 AM

Who is Marketsaw and what connection do they have to the movie industry, New Line, Peter Jackson and Tolkien? I researched the blog and to me it seems it's a blog by a single man who may or may not have any connection to anything. I have to ask where does he get his information.

William Cloud Hicklin

12-07-2007, 05:57 PM

the second film will be influenced by the foundation of "The Silmarillion" and "The History of Middle-earth Series"

Well, that redflags this source as totally unreliable immediately.

Christopher Tolkien owns those rights; will never, ever sell them, and even if he did Peter Jackson and New Line would be the last people on earth he'd let near them; and if any Silmarillion/HME material were used as the 'foundation' for a prequel his lawyers would be all over New Line faster than you can say 'Intellectual Property."

PJ has access to the JRR manuscripts and extensive notes as he did for the LOTR trilogy.

Poppycock. PJ had access to nothing (Christ, why would he need 'notes' ?) and he most assuredly doesn't have and won't get permission to access the originals in the Bodleian, nor, even if he did, could he do anything with them since they're copyright just as much as the published works.

It's bilge.

Sauron the White

12-07-2007, 06:19 PM

WCH - In essence, I agree with much of what you have said. I do suspect that the source for this information was not a Tolkien person who knows the books very well. I also suspect that they are confusing references in both THE HOBBIT and in LOTR that are made about events from the First and Second Ages as well as other events in the Third Age not seen in LOTR films. Of course the legal excuse for this would be the appendices. There are enough people, places and events named there to fill several movies providing someone would be willing to fill in the gaps creating dialogue.

I know nothing of this rumor beyond what I posted. However, I have always felt that a filmmaker who owned the rights to LOTR and The HOBBIT could make several films about the events mentioned in the appendices and books themselves if they were bold and creative and willing to chance the legal difficulties that may arise.

Do you really think a judge or court wants to spend the time necessary to distinguish between the mention of the Silmarils and Beren and Luthien as mentioned in LOTR and what is explained much further in the SIL?

William Cloud Hicklin

12-07-2007, 08:19 PM

For events of the Third Age the LR and its appendices are really the only source, aside from the 'History of Galadriel and Celeborn' and the historical essays in UT. I noted in a thread a while back that in the (EE) death of Isildur PJ stuck with the LR account and avoided any part of the more detailed UT version.

Nobody's going to bother with de minimis borrowings, like the Ring of Barahir or the origin of Elves. Brief mentions can fly under the radar. Full narratives, on the other hand, based on elements of say Akallabeth which are manifestly not in the Appendices would pose a problem.

What I think is more likely is that PJ or whoever is going to concoct a near-total fiction involving the White Council and the Necromancer, which legally they can do. Dammit.

TheGreatElvenWarrior

12-08-2007, 12:16 AM

You know what, putting the other Middle-earth books into movies would be GREAT... but not with the Hobbit, just stick with the story we all know and love.

Just Stick with the written story. Dammit!

Nazgûl-king

12-08-2007, 12:49 AM

I hope they do a good job on The Hobbit film, whenever they do it. Though I hope they include Beorn! He's my favorite character from that book.

TheGreatElvenWarrior

12-08-2007, 03:03 AM

Yeah Beorn would be nice, but he's not my favourite character.

Sauron the White

12-08-2007, 08:32 AM

WilliamCH - I agree with your analysis of rights, properties and usages. If you can, could you please expand on the statement you made above

Christopher Tolkien owns those rights; will never, ever sell them, and even if he did Peter Jackson and New Line would be the last people on earth he'd let near them;

I especially want to know how you came to the conclusion that Jackson and New Line would be the last people on earth that CT would be willing to work with. This is a rather strong statement and I wonder what supports it.

William Cloud Hicklin

12-08-2007, 09:44 AM

Without getting into specifics, let's just say that CRT's opinion of Jackson's work on his father's writing is very low. Please understand that I'm not in a position to quote or paraphrase anything he has said to me, so that will have to suffice as a basis for my assertion.

In any event it's rather academic, since the film rights to the posthumous publications are not for sale.

Sauron the White

12-08-2007, 10:46 AM

I can certainly appreciate and respect that you cannot betray a confidence. I do find it most interesting that many on this very site cling to the fiction that CT and the Estate have adopted a neutral stance on the films and neither praise or criticize them preferring to stay above the fray. At the same time there are statements like yours which seem to disprove that convenient fiction.

William Cloud Hicklin

12-08-2007, 11:00 AM

StW, surely you can distinguish between the official public position of the Tolkien Estate, and Christopher Tolkien's private opinion, can you not? Like any human being CRT is bound to have some opinion of the movies, good or bad. He has indeed 'stayed above the fray' by not making that opinion public.

Please note also the distinction between the charge of 'opposing' the films sight unseen before they were ever made, and being critical of the finished product.

Groin Redbeard

12-08-2007, 11:06 AM

The Hobbit WILL BE a two part film - but here is the new information - the second film will be influenced by the foundation of "The Silmarillion" and "The History of Middle-earth Series" (which is a 12 part series of books where JRR's son, Christopher Tolkien analyses JRR's old manuscripts; the manuscripts that ultimately led to become "The Silmarillion", "Lord of the Rings" and "Númenor" which is sort of like Atlantis).

I'm not so surre I like the idea of having the Hobbit as a two part film. I'd like it better if PJ just stuck to the book.

Sauron the White

12-08-2007, 11:11 AM

davem

12-08-2007, 12:09 PM

William - I see it as contradictory and two-faced that they can maintain the false illusion of two differing positions. One for public consumption which seemingly attempts to take the high road of indifference while the other is far more honest and critical.

I honestly don't see why you have to put such a spin on it. The position of the Estate, & of CT himself, is that they have no official comment to make re the movies. At the same time its obvious that if CT, Adam, Priscilla, or any other member of the Family/Estate have seen the movies they will have formed a personal opinion on them. I don't see this as either being two faced, hypocritical or anything else.

What you seem to miss is that the Tolkien Estate is a very different thing to Christopher Tolkien, & a STATEMENT by the Estate criticising or praising the movies is not going to be forthcoming, as that is not their job. Bottom line is the Estate have nothing at all to do with the movies & have chosen to keep their distance from them. If CT, having seen the movies, decides the whole thing was a wasted opportunity & made a pig's ear out of a silk purse then he's entitled to his personal opinion.

I wasn't aware until Mr Hicklin's comments that CT had even seen the movies, or what his opinion of them was. All I can say is, I'm really not surprised he doesn't like them ...I would be interested to know his opinion of the BBC radio adaptation.

William Cloud Hicklin

12-08-2007, 12:28 PM

So the Tolkiens have a negative opinion, and choose not to broadcast it. Is that not their right? 'Two-faced and contradictory' would be an applicable charge if the Estate were to have publicly praised or endorsed the films, while privately loathing them: but this they have not done.

"No comment" doesn't contradict anything.

Sauron the White

12-08-2007, 12:39 PM

WCH - "No comment" indeed contradicts nothing. Unless of course there are other pronouncements, statements or actions which say otherwise. Which goes back to my original question as to what supports your statement that the last people in the world CT would work with would be Jackson and New Line. And you seemed to indicate this is much more than a mere suspicion or deduction that you hold true.

davem - everyone, including CT and his family and Estate partners, have a right to their opinion. That is fine. I do think it is less than honest for someone to take one position on an issue where they maintain the high road due to their official capacity in an organization and then take a far different position and claim it is only the feelings of a single individual and means nothing. Lets face it and be frank about this. Is there any single person alive who is more the face and power behindThe Tolkien Estate than Christopher Tolkien?

William Cloud Hicklin

12-08-2007, 01:14 PM

"No comment" indeed contradicts nothing. Unless of course there is other pronouncements, statements or actions which say otherwise.

"No comment" contradicts nothing, including other comments. It's just a way of saying "whatever I may think, I'm not telling you." As a lawyer, my telling a reporter "no comment' doesn't mean I have no opinion about the case!

If your spouse/significant other puts on what you deem to be an absolutely hideous outfit, it's not 'contradictory or two-faced' to keep your mouth shut and avoid a night on the sofa.

"No comment" certainly isn't some sort of declaration along the lines of "I promise not to form a personal opinion about the movies when they come out."

I do think it is less than honest for someone to take one position on an issue where they maintain the high road due to their official capacity in an organization and then take a far different position and claim it is only the feelings of a single individual and means nothing.

Your argument would have force only if the Estate/Tolkien family had done some such thing. In fact, their personal and private opinions have remained private. Moreover, you again assert that there are 'far different' positions involved here: which is, in your phrase, comparing apples to cinderblocks when one 'position' is mere silence. Nothing in CRT's public statements declares or implies "I'm completely indifferent." Just "I'm not talking."

Sauron the White

12-08-2007, 02:46 PM

WCH - Is Christopher Tolkien a private person in the same way that you or I are? Can someone of the stature and fame of CT ever be a private person? I do not feel it is possible for someone of that stature to become a private person when they feel it is convenient for them to do so.

There are issues here which are never discussed by folks like yourself. For example.... why did the Estate willingly participate in the promotion of the movie through reissues of the books with cover tie-ins with the films in return for higher than normal royalty payments? How do you willingly participate in that, cash the checks from the revenues which were four to five times higher than in non-film years, and then engage in comments against the hand that is helping to feed you?

How do you sit at the head of the Estate, perhaps wielding enough power to be the Estate itself for all practical purposes, and take one position of "we have nothing to say about the movies" and then conveniently put on the uniform of the private person and engage in letter writings, conversations with people like yourself and others saying negative things about the movies? Especially when you have a very reasonable expectation that many of the feelings you expressed as a private person will somehow filter back in places just like this forum making your true feelings known to your hardcore fan base?

Yes, you sometimes try to take the high road of non-involvement but in actuality are taking a side which has been well known. But your hypocritical position then gives cover to your hardcover true believers who can then post in places like this and claim with a straight face that there is no position pro or con on the movies from CT and the Estate?

I think that is less than honest and straight forward. Just like I have repeatedly stated that the selling of COH as a "new book" was less than honest and straight forward as well.

Mithalwen

12-08-2007, 03:19 PM

Personally I would say that yes Christopher Tolkien is a private person in the same way as I am. In fact he is more of a private person than I am since I choose to voice my opinions in public fora and he does not. He has never been a public person other than in the way that any academic who lectures is public.

Why you seem to expect him to be grateful to Jackson I don't know. If he was interested in the money there were far more lucrative ways off exploiting his father's works than slaving away for 20 years. And LOTR was voted book of the century several years before the films came out. You behaveas if noone had heard or bought the books before the film. It was hardly and original screen play or a little known work. Jackson was quite happy to take advantage of the huge existing fan base and insult them.....

I very much doubt he had the power to stop tie in editions being made. I bought mine cos I needed a new set at a knock down price at a supermarket so I doubt that greatly supplemented CT's pension. As for the allegation that CoH was sold as a new book - that really doesn't stand up. the origins are quite clear in every serious article I have seen. And if you don't happen to know the origins it is going to be new...... nouvel but not neuf.. English unlike French does not make the distinction between brand new and new to you.

The Tolkien Trust has donated the incidental revenue from the film to charity. If this is hypocritical then I can only hope that in similar circumstances I would be as good a hypocrite.

Sauron the White

12-08-2007, 04:05 PM

Mithalwen. New is new. Period. Something which has been around in slightly other form for some time now cannot be described as new. Its like being pregnant or dead. Either you are or you are not. The fact is that the origins of COH mean nothing in this regard. The book was sold by the designated publishers of the Tolkien Estate and marketed as a new book. In fact, if you look at the websites which promoted the book you will see that the word NEW - the first new JRRT book in thirty years - was a major part of the advertising campaign. That is an undeniable fact.

According to your reasoning, if I have not seen a certain TV show that has already been shown many times, it is new to me. In that regard, everything can said to be NEW according to someone who was ignorant or not aware of it. That is stretching the definition of NEW to something even Orwell did not comtemplate.

You do realize that the contract between JRRT (and now his heirs) and his publishers gave him far more monetary payback and artistic control than almost every other author. The idea that the Estate stands there powerless and impotent while the mean old money-grubbing publishers milk the books with movie-tie ins is naive at best, ridiculous at worst.

The fact is a simple one. The publishers sold four to five more times the number of books each year for the four years of the film cycle. The royalty checks to the Estate were higher because of the movie-tie ins. Had there been no movies and no tie-in movie stills as covers, the Estate would never had reaped that extra bonanza. That is a fact if you go back and look at sales for the previous 20 years.

You say Jackson insulted the fan base. How can he willingly go about to do that and expect to have a hit film? The fact is this --- there are a small number of hardcore book purists who hate the films and take that tact as is their right. But hundreds of millions of people bought tickets to the films and obviously were happy with them. Insult indeed!

Regarding charitable donations. Someone was good enough to provide the links to the people who received those monies. Yes, many were deserving and worthwhile. Among others were groups dedicated to Tolkien research and study. So some of the money was kept within the same circles while lableing it as charity. Its there money to do as they want. Fine.

All I want is to stop the double talk. When I bring up the fact that CT does not like the films I am told by others here that that is not true - that CT is silent and without a posive position. Then others want to use the opposition and feelings of CT to show that the films were not very good. You cannot have it both ways folks. Pick a side - any side - just stay on it and stay consistent.

Mithalwen

12-08-2007, 05:03 PM

Not my reasoning Shakespeare's.... but clearly I am dishonest for referring to the car I have had for a couple of months as my new car....it was built in 2003.... so no new is not new period to speakers of English. It is one "signifier" more than one thing signified. Death isn't that clear cut either these days either or pregnancy come to that ...

People are free not to take a position since we don't live in Airstrip One.

Yours is clearly to bash a decent man for allegedly not liking films he had no contol over. In the scale of crimes it isn't child murder is it.

I don't care whether CT liked the films or not. Why do you since you clearly do not respect him? Clearly he can do nothing right in your eyes. I provided a link to the charity but clearly funding an archive for the author is a misuse of funds.

You claim to know CT's opinions as fact. Know better than someone who actually knows him. You seem to think he should have withdrawn his father's works from sale else he is a hypocrite.... ridiculous.

Really so what if the book sales went up because of the film? I bought a new set becasue the old ones fel apart and bought others because I happened to have the money in 2001-2 that I didn't have as a teenager. So my pounds count to wards you bonanza but I wasn't motivated by the films. I onlymanaged to sit through the second two once..... even when they came on TV I found better stuff to watch and they seem dated already. The Jackson films will I think be as the Nahum Tate "improvements" on King Lear - popular at the time but little more than curiosities now. Tolkien will owe no more to Jackson than Shakespeare does to Tate.

davem

12-08-2007, 05:16 PM

Look, if the Estate made any comment about the movies, positive or negative, it would be taken as an OFFICIAL endorsement/condemnation & link the Estate into the movies for good or ill. The Tolkien Estate cannot express an OFFICIAL opinion on something which is, in effect, a matter of taste. Maybe some members of the Estate like the movies & others don't. Maybe none of them like the movies, but they want fans to be able to watch them & make up their own minds.

It could just be as simple as the fact that Christopher thinks the movies are rubbish but doesn't want to upset anyone who likes them by stating that opinion in public.

Sauron the White

12-08-2007, 05:26 PM

Mithalwen - I am not bashing anyone, especially CTolkien. I think he has done fine work and am glad I was around to purchase and enjoy it.... several times over. This discussion started today when William CH said that CT would not allow Jackson use of anything outside of what New Line already owned if he was the last person on earth. Thats pretty strong. What made this interesting is that right here in this very forum many people have told me that CT was silent about the films and took no position neither pro or con. I consider William Cloud Hicklin to be an intelligent and well informed Tolkien reader and fan. In fact, in my humble opinion, I would place him in the top ten percent of intelligence here. So when he writes such a strong statement and seems to know the mind of CT, I stop and listen and ask why and where he got this from?

It seems to me that you can parse the language all you want and reduce yourself to the level of a courtroom lawyer arguing about the meaning of what is is. Most people think they already know. That is probably because they use common sense, live in the real world where people do not talk like Harvard debaters who challenge every definition if it does not fit their preconceived arguments.

I know what new is. I know what a new book is. I know that COH was by no means the first new Tolkien novel in thirty years. That is simply advertising fraud. And if the Tolkien Estate had any imput on that then shame on them for being part of it.

You say I claim to know the opinion of Christopher Tolkien. No I do not because I read others here saying many different things on the same subject. But I am trying to find out. And CT is no more a private person than Stephen King is. Despite the seclusion and demand for privacy, his name is out there like it or not. You cannot be that famous and then put on the shroud of a private person and think you can hide behind that. It just does not work that way. Very few people in the real world cares if CT is the Tolkien Estate of how the Estate is constituted, how they make decisions or what CT has to do with it. Christoper Tolkien is Christopher Tolkien and is a whole lot more of a public person than I or most of us ever will hope to be.

There is a difference between funding charities for the poor and funding academic or scholarly research for your own cause. If I have to explain that, then we better go back to what the true meaning of is is.

Sauron the White

12-08-2007, 05:42 PM

davem - when the Tolkien Estate permits the re-release of the LOTR books over a four year period with numerous tie-ins with the films, that is OFFICIAL INVOLVEMENT. In fact, thats about as official as you can get in the book and film business. This idea that they did not officially get involved in the films is a self serving fiction.

William Cloud Hicklin

12-08-2007, 07:43 PM

All I want is to stop the double talk. When I bring up the fact that CT does not like the films I am told by others here that that is not true - that CT is silent and without a posive position. Then others want to use the opposition and feelings of CT to show that the films were not very good. You cannot have it both ways folks. Pick a side - any side - just stay on it and stay consistent.

I think you're rather misstating the arguments. In the first instance, the observation was that CRT/the Estate did nothing to block, oppose, or hinder the films, nor issue any statements/give interviews rubbishing them or doing anything to harm New Line's revenues. Quite to the contrary: CRT issued a press release saying that he had no problem with people liking the films.

The second instance was CRT forming a personal opinion (like any human being inevitably would) and then (God forbid!) sharing that opinion with family and friends- NOT the public. I did not use that fact to 'show that the films are not very good.' I brought it up to back up my assertion that any rights deal with PJ or Shaye is very, very unlikely when you challenged me on it. I think I now regret saying as much as I did in this public forum. I can't help but wonder if you're not simply miffed that Tolkien's son doesn't think as highly of the movies as you do.

BTW, the Estate only has a say in HarperCollins hardback covers. With paperbacks HC (and HM and Del Rey) can do what they like- which explains the horrible original Ballantines.

Sauron the White

12-08-2007, 08:26 PM

WCH - I understand your position and respect it - I guess its pointless to keep going on this.

I do have one question which may open up something else. Let us assume that you are correct about the Estates limited powers in determining covers for some of the books. I do not know this as fact and it is a surprise to me since they seem to have all kinds of power about everything from illustrations to calendars. Buts lets assume you are correct. If they are indeed concerned about some of the past covers being horrible, why have they not done anything to get that changed so the problem does not happen again and again? I would guess that periodically the contract comes up for renewal and does not lock them in for eternity. And even if that were not the case I would also guess that HC wants to keep the Tolkien Estate reasonably happy since they are one of their largest long term earners. If they do not now have the power over covers they certainly have been in a position to obtain it.

I had read somewhere that in return for the Estates allowing movie stills to be used on the covers, they in turn received a larger participation in revenue from the sale of those books. Is that accurate based on what you know?

William Cloud Hicklin

12-08-2007, 09:26 PM

I'm not privy to the contracts, of course, nor would anyone think it's any of my business. I do know that in publishing generally authors almost never have a say in cover design. The peculiar relationship between Unwin/HarperCollins and the Tolkiens stems from JRRT's personal relationship with Sir Stanley and Rayner, and Christopher and Rayner after that, and dates from Tolkien's having drawn the original Hobbit cover, and the core design of the original LR covers. I don't believe it's contractual or any more than an habitual courtesy- and covers UK hardbacks only.

I would be very surprised if HC offered additional compensation, since as it is Tolkien's estate enjoys the hugely lucrative half-profits deal JRRT struck, and I doubt any publisher would pay even more! Besides, HC's David Brawn quotes Christopher as saying "The Lord of the Rings would sell in a brown paper bag."

_____________

The Tolkien Trust

a quick Google turned these beneficiaries up in the first few pages:

Doctors Without Borders
Famine Action
The Simon Wiesenthal Center
Asylum Welcome
Landmine Action
The Woodland Trust
Womankind (equal rights and female-owned businesses in developing countries)
World Wildlife Foundation
Forced Migration Review
Create (fine arts for poor children)
University of Manitoba Medical School
Who Cares?
Mind (rights and independent living support for the mentally ill and handicapped).
Story Museum
Oxford Literary Festival
The Porch Stepping Stone Foundation (homeless relief)
Bath & North East Somerset Community Safety & Drugs Partnership
Royal National Institute of Blind People
St Peter’s Church, Eynsham (new roof)
The Big Issue Foundation (homeless relief)
Breakthrough (breast cancer research)
St Mary's Hall, Stonyhurst College
Prisoners' Education Trust

and 3400 more hits....

Makar

12-10-2007, 05:05 PM

Sorry to interject myself into this back-and-forth, but I was wondering if there was a thread specifically about the TH sequel (name?) and exactly what PJ has access to? It seems from your discussion here that he would only have access to LotR and TH and thus the LotR prequel/TH sequel would be based on sketchy info at best? Any speculation about the events to be contained in the sequel, assuming that TH ends where the book does and is extra-long because of the portrayal of a reconstructed White Council vs Necromancer fight? Tolkien's time line from LotR gives a rough outline of what could appear in such a film:

1. Sauron returns to Mordor and declares himself
2. Gollum searching for the ring
3. Last White Council meeting
4. Aragorn and Gandalf meet
5. Aragorn's exploits under Thengel and Ecthelion
6. Aragorn and Arwen
7. Gollum meets Shelob
8. Balin in Moria
9. Saruman's use of the Orthanc stone and subsequent ensnaring

Not to mention the birth and childhood of the various hobbit and human characters from LotR

The above-mentioned events are disjointed and separated by many years... I am suspicious of such a film

Sauron the White

12-14-2007, 09:20 AM

from Variety

Zaentz, New Line in court
'Rings' brings more rancor
By JANET SHPRINTZNew Line and Saul Zaentz are back in court again fighting over Zaentz's share of profits from the spectacularly successful "Lord of the Rings" trilogy.
In a suit filed Thursday in L.A. Superior Court, Zaentz alleges that New Line has refused to make records available to Zaentz's auditors and allow them to conduct an audit, making it impossible to verify whether his profit participation statements are accurate.

The complaint also notes that New Line and Zaentz are currently involved in arbitration. The nature of the arbitration is not specified, but the complaint alleges that New Line is attempting to leverage a settlement of some claims being arbitrated by refusing to perform its audit obligation until Zaentz agrees to resolve other claims in the arbitration.

The suit seeks unspecified money damages, as well as an accounting.

Zaentz first sued New Line in 2004, claiming he was owed $20 million under the license agreement, based on how gross receipts from foreign distributors were calculated. That suit settled the following year for an unspecified amount, but not before it was revealed in court papers that the octogenarian mogul already had collected $168 million from the three movies.

Zaentz purchased the rights to the "Lord of the Rings" novels, as well as "The Hobbit," in 1976 from United Artists. In 1997, Zaentz entered into a license agreement with Miramax to produce and distribute a "Rings" trilogy. Under the agreement, Zaentz would receive gross profit participation and the right to audit Miramax's books. Miramax assigned its rights under the agreement to New Line in 1998, and the terms of the license agreement with Zaentz remained the same.

In addition to the suits with Zaentz and a host of much smaller lawsuits, New Line also has been battling with director Peter Jackson over profit participation on the trilogy since he filed a lawsuit in 2005.

davem

12-14-2007, 12:22 PM

Well, unless something is sorted out soon to get a Hobbit movie made there may not be a New Line Cinema for anyone to sue, as they seem incapable of making money out of anything that isn't Tolkien related....

Estelyn Telcontar

12-18-2007, 10:41 AM

Looks like plans for filming "The Hobbit" are getting finalized - this article (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/071218/latu072.html?.v=101) sounds very definite: differences resolved, double studio backing, production dates scheduled, and Peter Jackson on board.

Oh, and here's the link to the official Hobbit movie blog (http://www.thehobbitblog.com/).

Quempel

12-18-2007, 10:52 AM

I just noticed this on a couple of other sites, and the reaction is strange, from happy to disappointed. Me I am just happy it's being made. Finally.:)

Thenamir

12-18-2007, 10:56 AM

Here's the scoop as reported from FoxNews: link here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317289,00.html)

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

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

Relations between Jackson and New Line had soured after "Rings," despite a collective worldwide box office gross of nearly $3 billion -- an enormous success. The two sides nevertheless were able to reconcile, with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios (MGM) splitting "The Hobbit" 50/50, spokemen for both studios said Tuesday.

"I'm very pleased that we've been able to put our differences behind us, so that we may begin a new chapter with our old friends at New Line," Jackson said in a statement. "We are delighted to continue our journey through Middle Earth."

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

Nazgûl-king

12-18-2007, 11:14 AM

It's cool that Peter Jackson's back, even if he is producing it. I wonder what they mean by two films, there is only one book. I don’t know how they are going to get enough material for two films, though if they do have two films they should certainly be able to get just about everything from the book in plus a little extra.

Galendor

12-18-2007, 11:22 AM

I just noticed this on a couple of other sites, and the reaction is strange, from happy to disappointed. Me I am just happy it's being made. Finally.:)

Me too - but my happiness is laced with dread over what Jackson might do to the story.

In LOTR he only had one dwarf to work with, but still managed to insert multiple instances of short jokes, dwarf tossings, and general comic behavior from and surrounding poor Gimli. In The Hobbit, he will have 13 dwarves as main charcters, and potentially hundreds more in The Battle of Five Armies - just think of the opportunities for basal humor! Jackson may be salivating already at this prospect - if his comic portrayal of Gimli is any guide for expectations - it might be hard to fit any real Tolkien dialogue into The Hobbit between all of the potential short jokes, dwarf tossings, body humor, etc. The audience could be rolling the isles at the whole grand slapstick comedy of it all ! :rolleyes:

Lalwendë

12-18-2007, 11:46 AM

Me too - but my happiness is laced with dread over what Jackson might do to the story.

In LOTR he only had one dwarf to work with, but still managed to insert multiple instances of short jokes, dwarf tossings, and general comic behavior from and surrounding poor Gimli. In The Hobbit, he will have 13 dwarves as main charcters, and potentially hundreds more in The Battle of Five Armies - just think of the opportunities for basal humor! Jackson may be salivating already at this prospect - if his comic portrayal of Gimli is any guide for expectations - it might be hard to fit any real Tolkien dialogue into The Hobbit between all of the potential short jokes, dwarf tossings, body humor, etc. The audience could be rolling the isles at the whole grand slapstick comedy of it all ! :rolleyes:

I know. When I go to see this film I'll be taking some earplugs because I don't want my eardrums bursting with the inevitable inclusion of a resounding chorus of 13 dwarves belching at once. I'm totally looking forwards to resumption of lots of "But it's not part of the Legendarium" rants from davem though ;)

Two films? Eh?! Maybe, just maybe, they will not have enough material so they will slip in a little extra based on Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Wight?

Is Jackson actually going to direct this? Or just produce?

Thenamir

12-18-2007, 11:50 AM

Oddwen

12-18-2007, 12:03 PM

My brother bets that John Rhys-Davies will play the voice of Smaug...Smaug won't have wings...Legolas will have brown hair...Arwen will have the *huge* warrior-princess role she was cheated out of in TTT...Andy Serkis will provide the mo-cap for all thirteen dwarves and Smaug...he also thinks Martin Freeman would make a good Bilbo. Oh, and that Legolas will help the Dwarves escape the prisons of the wood elves by creating "A Diversion!", namely, putting on a dress and attempting to seduce the guards away.

I think that at the beginning of FotR, when we first see Frodo and he's reading a book, I think that's Bilbo's book, and The Hobbit begins with Frodo reading it and it "coming alive", and PJ will edit FotR to add the line "The End" or something. Hey, better than "Storytime in Rivendell".

I, for one, wouldn't be a bit surprised at any of it, but am pleased as punch that the movie/s are being made. Yay!

Oh - and I hope Gimli makes a cameo - it'd be cool to see him begging to go with his father, and being told "No, you're too young". I'd like to see the White Council and more of the Rangers - maybe Halbarad could make an appearance? And Elladan and Elrohir! Perhaps they could be given a death scene, explaining their sad absence in LotR.

Lalwendë

12-18-2007, 12:04 PM

Does anyone have any ideas or suggestions as to where you might split the story in two? My money is on having the final scene of Hobbit I be a medium-shot of 13 barrels, Bilbo astride the last, drifting out of the dark of Mirkwood into the daylight on Long Lake...fade to black...roll credits.

If they do try and pull in a bit about Tom then maybe somewhere around the Gollum encounter.

Otherwise, maybe when they meet Beorn? Or at the point they get captured by the Elves?

One thing you can be sure of is that Legolas will appear in these films and he will be in it/them for some time as this will reel in the girlies. So that will influence where the split happens.

Lalwendë

12-18-2007, 12:08 PM

Thenamir

12-18-2007, 01:01 PM

My vote goes to Morgan Freeman as Bilbo...Danny DeVito as Thranduil...Gilbert Gottlieb as Thorin...Will Farrell as Bard...Warwick Davis as Beorn...The Backstreet Boys as the trolls...and David Tennant (Doctor Who) as the mayor of Lake Town. Throw in Judi Densch as the voice of Smaug, and you've got a winner.

Thenamir

12-18-2007, 01:06 PM

Other ideas for Bilbo:

Martin Short
Steve Martin
Jon Heder (Napoleon Dynamite)
Mike Myers
Ray Winstone

Groin Redbeard

12-18-2007, 01:07 PM

Other ideas for Bilbo:

Martin Short
Steve Martin
Jon Heder (Napoleon Dynamite)
Mike Myers
Ray Winstone

:eek:Are you insane?!

Thenamir

12-18-2007, 01:11 PM

Most definitely.

Oh, and Kevin Federline as Gandalf would be a big hit as well.

Sauron the White

12-18-2007, 01:40 PM

Mods may want to consider two threads on this subject. One for legitimate speculation about this subject in a serious vein.

The other for the last few posts and their ilk.

davem

12-18-2007, 01:50 PM

One for legitimate speculation about this subject in a serious vein.

The other for the last few posts and their ilk.

Which one would I post my comments about flatulent Dwarves & shield-surfing Elves in?

btw, for those interested, this in New Line's official movie blog site: http://www.thehobbitblog.com/

Sauron the White

12-18-2007, 01:52 PM

Which one would I post my comments about flatulent Dwarves & shield-surfing Elves in?

Not sure. Do we have a category for Very Trivial Ancient History Which In The Greater Scheme Of Things Means Nothing?

davem

12-18-2007, 01:55 PM

Not sure. Do we have a category for Very Trivial Ancient History Which In The Greater Scheme Of Things Means Nothing?

Yeah - its the Movies forum.

Sauron the White

12-18-2007, 01:57 PM

Touche.

Lalwendë

12-18-2007, 02:21 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thenamir View Post
My vote goes to Morgan Freeman as Bilbo...Danny DeVito as Thranduil...Gilbert Gottlieb as Thorin...Will Farrell as Bard...Warwick Davis as Beorn...The Backstreet Boys as the trolls...and David Tennant (Doctor Who) as the mayor of Lake Town. Throw in Judi Densch as the voice of Smaug, and you've got a winner.

Oi! David Tennant could play anything and he'd be good :D

Who's Warwick Davis? What about Windsor Davies? Meh.

Thenamir

12-18-2007, 02:26 PM

Warwick Davis - little professor Flitwick in the Harry Potter films (the midget music conductor), marvin the android in Hitchhiker's Guide (in the suit), and Wicket the Ewok in all the Star Wars films that had Ewoks in them.

William Cloud Hicklin

12-18-2007, 02:32 PM

How about Ray Winstone?

I AM RIPPER! SLASHER! TEARER! SLAYER! I...AM....BILBO!!!

Lalwendë

12-18-2007, 02:38 PM

Galendor

12-18-2007, 02:57 PM

Thenamir

12-18-2007, 03:01 PM

How about Ray Winstone?

I AM RIPPER! SLASHER! TEARER! SLAYER! I...AM....BILBO!!!

More like "I AM RING-WINNER! LUCK-WEARER! BARREL-RIDER! I...AM...BILBOWULF!!

Bêthberry

12-18-2007, 03:29 PM

Oi! David Tennant could play anything and he'd be good :D

Now we can't leave out Catherine Tate if we're going to have David. She'd be a smashing Galadriel, simply smashing. I bet she could do Arwen too; we'd see Arwen with an attitude like no one had ever imagined.

There will be Arwen and Galadriel, right, in a TH two parter? Have I got that right?

Galendor

12-18-2007, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by davem
Which one would I post my comments about flatulent Dwarves & shield-surfing Elves in?

davem, I think the Legolas shield riding incident in the movie was actually supposed to be a reference to skateboarding, not surfing. Just be thankful PJ didn't include a half-pipe at the bottom of the ramp so we didn't have to see Legolas do any "lip tricks" with the shield. It was a dreadful possibility.

davem

12-18-2007, 03:38 PM

Now we can't leave out Catherine Tate if we're going to have David. She'd be a smashing Galadriel, simply smashing. I bet she could do Arwen too; we'd see Arwen with an attitude like no one had ever imagined.

There will be Arwen and Galadriel, right, in a TH two parter? Have I got that right?

Matt Lucas in Vicky Pollard mode as Gollum?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=clKfwrVPJfc

Thenamir

12-18-2007, 04:25 PM

Now we can't leave out Catherine Tate if we're going to have David. She'd be a smashing Galadriel, simply smashing.
Naaah. Now Billie Piper as Galadriel, THAT would be something.

Sauron the White

12-18-2007, 04:40 PM

Gee kiddies - I hate to be the wet blanket and stop the fun and jovial merriment of sarcasim and poking fun at something you don't like... but this thread is about progress of THE HOBBIT.

So pardon me for some factual information. This hot off the press from Entertainment Weekly magazine.

MGM CEO Harry Sloan talks 'Hobbit'
Dec 18, 2007, 03:13 PM | by Vanessa Juarez

Categories: Movie Biz, The Hobbit

This morning, New Line and MGM announced that the Hobbit debacle was over and the first of two planned pics would finally be going into pre-production with Peter Jackson as executive producer. The Hobbit is scheduled for a 2010 release, and the sequel is expected the following year -- the latter having the better chance of being directed by the Lord of the Rings mastermind himself. Shortly after the announcement, Hollywood Insider spoke with MGM CEO Harry Sloan about the details.

EW: You must be delighted that this project is finally moving forward.
HARRY SLOAN: Ecstatic. It’s a great day for MGM and New Line, and to have two Hobbit movies with Peter Jackson, really, I couldn’t imagine anything better happening around Christmastime this year.

Can you talk about how this came together? Did this just happen overnight or the last few days?
Well, you know, nothing happens overnight. MGM has always said, and taken a firm position, that we want Peter to be involved, and we have to compliment and be very gratified that [New Line’s Bob Shaye and Michael Lyne] and Peter were able to put their differences aside for the good of these movies. We saw that take place over the last six months. I wouldn’t say it was instant by any means.

It’s seems that for the last year or so MGM has tried to stay out of the fray because this was a disagreement between New Line and Peter Jackson over the lawsuit. So when did you come into the picture, and how persuasive did you have to be?
It was very much in MGM’s interest that we get this property up and running. When I took over the studio, one of our first goals was to develop franchises, and this is the first one we have under the new management, and I also think between The Hobbits and James Bond, we now have two of the best-known franchises in the world, so it’s a really great day for MGM.

Have Peter Jackson and New Line resolved the lawsuit?
Yes, they have. That was part of it, because it wouldn’t have been a good atmosphere.

Peter Jackson did say all along that he didn’t want to go into a new deal without having settled the lawsuit.
And, of course, it added a level of complexity to putting the whole deal together. But I think the most important thing was for the participants, for Peter and Bob and Michael, to first get talking and start focusing on what great work they had accomplished together. That began to build a bridge toward cooperation on resolving the lawsuit and, of course, making a deal for Peter to oversee these two movies out of the Hobbit property.

Can you tease us with who might be in line to direct? Guillermo Del Toro, Sam Raimi...
Well, those are the names that have been mentioned and they’re both top directors, excellent directors. It’s Peter’s project. Peter and Bob Shaye are going to oversee it creatively but in the end ... our choice had always been Peter. But if after he and Fran [Walsh, Jackson's wife] and whoever they work with develop the script, if Peter feels comfortable and Bob feels comfortable with another director, then there will be another director.

Is there any chance that Peter could direct the Hobbit sequel?
Well, he could direct either of them.

He’s been busy with The Lovely Bones, so has it been a scheduling thing?
Well, he’s got Lovely Bones, he’s got Tin Tin, he’s got two or three projects, but it is the right time for him to devote his intentions to developing the property and the script with himself and Fran and maybe other writers as well. And once the property is developed and there’s a picture that’s ready to go, he may consider directing it -- although the second film might be more likely due to scheduling.

Does Peter have the right to refuse a director for this one, or script approval?
Neither us nor New Line would want to hire a director that Peter was not completely comfortable with. Remember it’s Peter’s project, he’s overseeing it. So I don’t want to tell you what’s legally in the contract.... But we wouldn’t do that.

This must be a good time for New Line to land this project, given that Golden Compass hasn’t done well. Did that play any sort of a role in getting this to come through at this point in time?
They can speak for themselves. But from my point of view, I’d say no because I think we were well on our way to having The Hobbit set to be developed and go into production long before Golden Compass opened.

Well, I’m sure they’re happy now. It’s good timing.
Look, any time perhaps the world’s greatest franchise has the opportunity to live on is good timing. That’s how we feel. We’re blessed every time we get another James Bond movie up and running.

With those two franchises, how challenging is it going to be with the writers' strike, if it continues to go on into the New Year, and there’s also the SAG negotiations next year.
We start shooting the new James Bond movie Jan. 7, and we’ll be done before [a potential] actors' strike, so it won’t affect James Bond. As far as The Hobbit, yes, it’s going to have an affect because we need the strike to get settled. We’ve got Peter Jackson, which is the biggest point here, but now Peter and the other writers who will be involved can’t write. So we’ve got to get this strike settled.

Any word on who would star in The Hobbit, or any expectations? I know a lot of the previous LOTR actors who would be able to have a role in The Hobbit have said that they would only be on board if Peter Jackson was.
Yeah, I think Peter stayed in touch. I think Peter’s been in touch over time with the other actors and is close with them and they’re close with him, so I think we’d be hopeful that some would reappear.

Hookbill the Goomba

12-18-2007, 04:42 PM

the latter having the better chance of being directed by the Lord of the Rings mastermind himself.

So they're resurrecting Tolkien for the occasion... I don't think he's qualified as a film director is he? ;)

davem

12-18-2007, 04:42 PM

Sauron the White

12-18-2007, 04:50 PM

The powers you must have to pass judgement upon something that is not even started to take shape are truly amazing.

davem

12-18-2007, 04:57 PM

The powers you must have to pass judgement upon something that is not even started to take shape are truly amazing.

Thank you.

William Cloud Hicklin

12-18-2007, 05:09 PM

Why is it 'amazing powers' to predict future performance based on past performance? There's every reason to expect PJ will bring to the Hobbit the same Merdas Touch he brought to the LR.

Sauron the White

12-18-2007, 05:20 PM

Aha! So you are predicting a billion dollar box office, lots of ancillary income, nearly unanimous critical praise from the professional film critics, and a boat load of awards from the film community?

I am sure the Tolkien Estate thinks so too. Sales of the books were four or five times what they were in the previous five non-film years. I am sure they would welcome a big boost in those profit sharing checks. Win-win situation.

Sauron the White

12-18-2007, 08:19 PM

This from yahoonews

MGM Chairman Harry Sloan, who was credited by all parties for bringing about the deal, said Jackson found it "impossible" to direct the film and meet proposed release dates in 2010 and 2011 due to other projects on which he is now working.

"He can't get it scheduled and he doesn't want the fans to have to wait for the next two movies," Sloan said. He said the studios might postpone the films if Jackson changed his mind.

Jackson's representative could not be reached for comment.

Sauron the White

12-18-2007, 08:24 PM

The New York Times names a dollar figure for Jackson to settle with New LIne over the previous films and money he felt was owed to him.

The pact, which two people involved said was worth nearly $40 million to Mr. Jackson, ends years of litigation and acrimonious auditing over his share of the profits from the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy.

Sorry this is "news" and not swarmy sarcastic casting jokes, but I thought it fit here.

Sauron the White

12-18-2007, 08:41 PM

This from Entertainment weekly.com - The Hollywood Insider may be the best account released so far today

'The Hobbit' is a go with Peter Jackson
Dec 18, 2007, 08:11 PM | by Nicole Sperling

Categories: Movie Biz, The Hobbit

It's back to Middle Earth for Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, and the boys from New Line. Finally, the years of disputes have ended, and the partners (including co-producer and co-distributor MGM) are gearing up for two new Hobbit movies. EW investigated, talking to the parties behind the negotiations to uncover how everything got resolved, and to get an idea of what viewers can expect of these adaptations of J.R.R. Tolkien's original literary masterpiece. Here's the lowdown:

Jackson and his life/creative partner Walsh have always envisioned the big-screen adaptation of The Hobbit as two movies. The first would deal with the 80-year old novel. The second, imagined entirely by Jackson and Walsh, would link the conclusion of The Hobbit to the start of the first Lord of the Rings book, The Fellowship of the Rings. New Line and Jackson will develop the properties over the next year with hopes of entering into pre-production by 2009 for a 2010 and 2011 release. No writers, including Jackson, Walsh, and their longtime partner Philippa Boyens, have been commissioned. (None can be, because of the strike.)

New Line has already decided that both films will be produced at the same time, in similar fashion to how the LOTR trilogy was put together, and no budgets have been assigned the films yet. According to New Line's co-chair Robert Shaye, "You can't budget an idea."

While MGM and New Line want to keep Jackson's involvement in the film as broad as possible, hinting that he may take up both writing and directing responsibilities, Jackson's manager Ken Kamins told Hollywood Insider that Jackson won't be directing the films. "Peter won't be directing because he felt the fans have waited long enough for The Hobbit. It will take the better part of every day of the next four years to writer, direct and produce two Hobbit films. Given his current obligations to both The Lovely Bones and Tintin, waiting for Peter, Fran, and Phillippa to write, direct and produce The Hobbit would require the fans wait even longer."

Directors Sam Raimi (Spider-Man), Guillermo del Toro (Pan's Labyrinth), and Alfonso Cuaron (Children of Men) are still the names that come up as alternate possiblities, but no official creative decision has been made. "There is obviously a small but significant number of directors who could handle two films of this magnitude, but we have no commitment to anybody," Shaye said. "Now that Peter is an integral part of the decision-making process, we all have to see eye-to-eye on any candidate we try to enlist."

Those creative pow-wows are set to begin in early 2008 when New Line plans to sit down with Jackson to hash out critical details. (Jackson will be filming Lovely Bones through February.)

Neither Jackson’s rep nor New Line will explain how the nasty battle between the two parties got resolved. The fight hit a low point in November 2006 when New Line actually "fired" Jackson from The Hobbit and Jackson took the battle to his website, TheOneRing.net, telling fans that “New Line would no longer be requiring our services on The Hobbit.” New Line’s Shaye now calls it, “a misunderstanding that wound up becoming a mini-war.” The two parties began negotiating this June, but it seems MGM’s Harry Sloan served a significant role as a mediator between the two sides.

According to New Line's co-chair Michael Lynne, "Harry served in a mediating function and at a certain sensitive moment he was very helpful." The New Line co-chairs do attest that once Sloan got involved, the studio was already well down the path of negotiating with Jackson. But Jackson's rep Kamins adds, "Harry, acting in the appropriate self-interest for MGM, used the fact that he owned a piece of the rights to be helpful to both sides in this converstaion. I really credit Harry greatly."

Shaye and company regret how acrimonious things became with Jackson. (In January, Shaye told Sci-Fi Wire website, "I don't care about Peter Jackson anymore. He thinks we owe him something after we've paid him over a quarter of a billion dollars!")

"From my side, I just regret that it happened," said Shaye. "It was a total misunderstanding about what anybody had to gain or lose. I'm extremely glad that the bad blood was just a little infection and not really a disabling malady."

New Line is quick to point out that The Hobbit resolution is in no way a reaction to disappointing domestic box office numbers for their most recent release, The Golden Compass, which they had hoped would launch a new franchise. "Absolutely not," said Lynne. "This has been in the works for a while now. Golden Compass, by the way, overseas, is performing spectacularly. Obviously, we have been disappointed with its performance here, but I think overall it will do quite well."

Regardless of Compass' performance, the studio now has a new, sure-fire hit to get underway. And even though the lawsuits are settled and the fences are mended, there are still numerous hurdles between this announcement and fans sitting in the theater watching Bilbo Baggins help 13 dwarves reclaim their treasure. First, there is the nasty writer's strike that trudges on; and second, a visionary writer/director/producer with a lot of other projects on his plate. Surely, though this triumph deserves a little celebration. Will Jackson be planning a bender back in New Zealand?

According to Kamins, not even close. "I haven't even talked to Peter," he said, laughing. "He just got home from Pennsylvania, (where Lovely Bones is filming) last night."

-- Additional writing and reporting by Missy Schwartz and Vanessa Juarez