DanJW

Jackson to direct Hobbit movie. Also sequal. Wait, what?

Recommended Posts

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=40300

OK, good news that Peter Jackson and New Line have sorted out the disputes and will be working together on The Hobbit. But where is this "sequal" coming from? Are they going to split the book into two parts? If so, fair enough. But it would probably be a bad idea to just invent one.

Hmm, maybe they should do Children of Hurin next... I can just see the depression, mass slaughter and incest going down well with audiences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Direct?

Apparently the first one is based on The Hobbit and second one is set between that and The Lord of The Rings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, produce, my mistake.

OK, but where are they going to be pulling this "in-between" movie from? There's some stuff in the appendices and perhaps in Unfinished Tales, but not enough for a movie. Basically they are going to be writing a new Middle-Earth story, and that's probably a bit dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From their arse probably.

A bit more about the project:

http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2007/12/its-back-to-mid.html

I was super excited about The Lord Of The Rings movies long before they were released, and I can't say they really disappointed me either. However, I'm not nearly that excited about this announcement, probably because of all the milking that took place when the LotR movies were released. I will still most likely go and see these films but I'm not dying to see them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the second movie will be fanfic.

Great.

edit: shame that the Golden Compass isn't doing great in the US. I liked the His Dark Materials books and think they have a lot mre to say than Harry Potter. Is the poor response due to the church outcry in some way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it definitely not just the book split into two, then? I remember reading way back when the LOTR trilogy had barely ended that the plan was to have two Hobbits, the book split into two. I think I did, anyway, ;(

Making it up seems a bit dodgy, although it isn't necessarily disastrous seeing as the first classic will have introduced everyone to the world and characters the Tolkien way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read The Hobbit a long time ago so I don't remember that much of it, but would it even be possible to split that into two movies wisely? So that everyone wouldn't feel ripped off after the first one?

I'm not saying that this arrangement is any better though. One movie would have been ideal in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the second movie will be fanfic.

Great.

edit: shame that the Golden Compass isn't doing great in the US. I liked the His Dark Materials books and think they have a lot mre to say than Harry Potter. Is the poor response due to the church outcry in some way?

I don't think it was marketed that much here, I rarely heard anything about it. I've only seen the preview once or twice while watching tv. It was also PG-13, I don't know if that had anything to do with it, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Working at a movie theater, we got promotional materials from the distributor despite the fact that we didn't get the movie (not really art house fare). These materials seemed to imply that they were having a huge contest between cinemas to see who could pimp out the movie most, so unless everyone ignored that I'm not sure where you're coming from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully they'll listen to a few of Maddox's suggestions for the fanfic film:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=lotr1

The Lord of the Rings trilogy sucked, plain and simple. The technology was impressive but I was bored within about 10 minutes. I've been trying to write a rant about the trilogy but I can't face watching any of them ever again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, what an exceedingly unfunny page. I've always been aware of Maddox being quite popular in slightly geekish circles and such, but man -- he sucks.

I loved LOTR and will not acknowledge any nonsense about it not being a superb trilogy. I didn't read the books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people liked them, and with good reason. They're good movies. Sure, not everyone will like them, but then that's life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most people liked them, and with good reason. They're good movies. Sure, not everyone will like them, but then that's life.

They're firm favourites at Castle Mania.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always kind of stand by my conclusion that they're incredibly pretty films, but not incredibly good ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Lord of the Rings trilogy sucked, plain and simple. The technology was impressive but I was bored within about 10 minutes.

They captured the books PERFECTLY (which a few minor quibbles - Gimli... sigh). If you didn't like them then you surely couldn't have like the books... and if you DID like the books, how could the films have possibly been improved?! (Go watch the Ralph Bakshi version and we'll discuss.)

I'd be willing to bet that most people who didn't "get" LOTR were people who heard the hype before they got excited about seeing it. Hype always kills movies :tdown:

It took me two watches to appreciate the first film, as I was TOO expectant, but on the second watch I saw it: A brilliant, non Hollywood, true to the original, imaginative, creative, beautiful vision of Tolkien's work. Seriously the most consistent trilogy of films ever made (that tell one big story).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, to be honest, there's always a difference between reading a book and watching a movie. It's really a matter of taste, though it's pretty weird to say they were bad movies. You don't have to like a movie to be able to appreciate the craft of its techniques, editing, dressing, acting, etc. In those respects, The Lord of the Rings was a hallmark trilogy.

For myself, it was a revelatory experience, seeing the first movie in theatres. Since then we've grown accustomed to incredible vistas with thousands of soldiers marching and waging war, but such a scale was unimaginable before then, so to speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They captured the books PERFECTLY (which a few minor quibbles - Gimli... sigh). If you didn't like them then you surely couldn't have like the books...

:finger:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the films are perfect renditions of the source material, more accurately a very good adaptation I would say. In this new film they need to lower the homosexual tension, reduce the frequency of spinning aerial shots and include a bit more irreverent dialogue (that either isn't plot specific or loaded with emotional overtones).

I'm looking forward to seeing the hobbit, it's a different kind of story that's well worth telling before the borrower posing as a hobbit pops his clogs :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. The films weren't perfect renditions, but they did capture the world and feeling you got from reading them better than I think anyone could have expected. Before the film came out, LotR was considered "unfilmable". Jackson and Co managed to perfectly capture the essence of the books while staying pretty damn true to them at the same time.

The "homosexual tension", as you call it, was there in the original books and was talked about a _long_ time before Jackson made his movies. Of course Jackson said that Tolkien was probably drawing on his own experiences in WWI, where he had seen people need to band together and rely on each other much more than they would in everyday life.

The aerial shots obviously weren't in the original books, but instead we have a detailed description of EVERY PLANT THEY WALK PAST! (Especially in the first book.) So, yes, I do love LotR, but I can see why people might not like the books, as they can be tough going at times.

There were definitely a few changes I could do without (the highpoint of all three books, The Battle of Helm's Deep, was the low point of the films for me... WHY did he have to change it...? moan moan whinge whinge :() but overall PJ defied all expectations and managed to take something considered unfilmable and turn it into something which pleased fans of the books (mostly) and average cinemagoers alike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel bad, I posted on this thread late and completely forgot I did so. The comment was a little glib and faecious.

Thunderpeel you are right I think the books are pretty meh. I read the books when I was younger and I have one of these ticks where when I read a book any descriptive sections I only read for as long as it takes to create a mental image. I have, in the past, ignored certain words and sentences because they are contrary to what I've imagined (I have mentally written furniture, hair/eye colour, rooms out of books). Lord of the Rings was a patronising and frustrating affair, I just felt like Tolkien didn't trust me to be imaginative enough to picture my own scenery and I spent large sections of the book skipping pages hoping that something would actually happen. The only scene I remember liking and thinking was quite chilling in the book was Boromir's death. The film embodied what I hated about the books by further changing my mind's eye version of that scene (and totally Hollywooding it in the process).

Like Miffy said it is visually rich but everything else about the film is dull. The acting is sub-par (Viggo Mortensen and Elijah Wood are especially bad) the changes in the plot are probably necessary to keep it ticking along and let the casual, Armageddon-loving, titanic-appreciating, masses find the whole thing a little more digestible. I still can't help but feel they all just looked like they had been implemented for the sake of a target audience (we feel the female demographic want to see more of Liv Tyler so lets change a couple of scenes so that we can do that hmmm?).

Also in defence to the link, as a criticism of Lord of Rings it doesn't really stand up, but as a piece of piss take that endorses Lo-Pan it rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hadn't jackson been working on the script for LotR in his own time for ten years or so? How could 'The Hobbit' match this, unless he was doing it alongside?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I have a bad feeling about the Hobbit... especially as Ian Holm is too ill for the role now (recovering from cancer) :tdown: It's going to make the "Why Bilbo, you haven't changed a bit" line in Fellowship seem like a corny in-joke :tdown: :tdown:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't Bilbo meant to be really young and impressionable in The Hobbit, as opposed to LotR where he's all old and crusty?

Genuine question as it's been well over a decade since I read it. :shifty:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now