Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Part 5: Quint and Peter Jackson talk THE HOBBIT and a potential return to low budget horror!!!

first yay !!! by giger167	Sep 16th, 2006 08:08:54 AM
lalalalala
I'm amazed no one has called about the Hobbit yet. by Mahaloth	Sep 16th, 2006 08:12:19 AM
Holywood can be moronic.
Jackson HAS to make The Hobbit by mattyholmes	Sep 16th, 2006 08:26:40 AM
no question about it. It would feel dirty like cheating on him if somebody else was to do it. www.obsessedwithfilm.com
great interview by misnomer	Sep 16th, 2006 08:30:26 AM
although I actually like the idea of "the hobbit" being a kids film....the future doesn't look that great for Jackson doing it though......out of all these, I'm most excited weta's involvement with cameron's avatar
Peter Jackson's ideas for The Hobbit sound awful. by brolly	Sep 16th, 2006 08:30:36 AM
The Hobbit is shorter than the first 'Rings' book so making two movies out of it is a complete waste of time. Structually it fits into one film better than any of the Lord of the Rings movies did, with a perfect action climax. Why the hell would you want to make it into another LOTR? Why not keep it as a childrens tale. Doing something tonally different would be far more interesting and it can still be epic without involving Aragorn and all the big themes of the LOTR trilogy. I was very interested in Jackson directing The Hobbit before but now it seems like he would ruin what could be a wonderful magical film by turning it in to a horrible monstrosity of a franchise.
2 movies? by Kizeesh	Sep 16th, 2006 08:35:56 AM
I'm quite intrigued by this idea, it has some potential, and to be honest I think the Hobbit (as a film) would benefit vastly from being expanded to include Aragorn, Saruman et al. You could call them The Hobbit and There and Back again, see ready made titles. Still Quint was right, Get Christopher Lee's footage done ASAP. Much as I love the old bastard, he won't be with us too much longer :( and give him a knighthood as well.
MGM & NEW LINE! WAKE UP AND ASK HIM YOU FUCKERS!! by The Ender	Sep 16th, 2006 08:35:59 AM
Before it is too late, MAKE THE GOD DAMN PHONE CALL! OFFER HIM THE RIDICULOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY! JESUS, WAKE THE FUCK UP!
Sue you, Jackson, I just wet my pants! by Grenouille	Sep 16th, 2006 09:10:15 AM
Thanx for devolving me into a giggling schoolgirl. Err, schoolboy. Let the story breathe, delve into all the thematic aspects Tolkien didn't venture into because, as we all know, he was not allowed to given the parameters he himself constructed for "The Hobbit". Alas, move fast, Master Jackson, because Sir Ian will stop filming any one of the days. You know what he says about THE PLAY, once he did it there's no stone left unturned. Though I guess, Gandalf might lure him in front of a camera again, since he obviously enjoyed the stay in NZ. Interviewed him once for X3, and he got all wet eyed once he stopped and though about LOTR and the time he shared with you guys. Brought a tear to my eyes as well. Move fast, or you'll lose him and possibly Sir Christopher (as it should be), making all these efforts not worthwile.
Ugh, expanding The Hobbit is a terrible idea by rev_skarekroe	Sep 16th, 2006 09:13:14 AM
Part of its charm is that it's so tonally different from Lord of the Rings. Bilbo's story is very different from Frodo's - he has no idea that he's actually involved in events that are shaping the future of Middle Earth. And frankly, every single thing that was wrong with the LotR films was due to something Jackson and Co. changed from the books, so I don't have much confidence in the quality of any expansions they would make.
ANOTHER box set for LOTR??? by JohnGalt06	Sep 16th, 2006 09:19:41 AM
Jesus H., this quadruple-dipping must stop. I don't think it's effective over such a short period of time anyway. Did anyone actually buy that latest release of the LOTR movies? As for THE HOBBIT, would another actor besides Ian Holm play Bilbo? I love the man dearly but he's old! Maybe Weta can do digital make-up to make him look younger. Splitting it up into two movies just seems silly. You could make THE HOBBIT in one two-hour movie and cover all the bases. One last note--glad to see that Jackson realizes his script for KONG was lacking. PJ PLEASE, release a shorter version of the movie that I will actually watch from time to time. Bought KONG on DVD, watched it once and have had absolutely no desire to watch it again...
More DVD Box Sets... by movieman742	Sep 16th, 2006 09:32:18 AM
And people are pissed at Lucas for all his Star Wars releases. Haha, such hipocrates.
I hope Jackson realizes... by sckbassg3	Sep 16th, 2006 09:42:09 AM
...how much the fans want him to make the Hobbit when he takes into consideration if he is going to accept it or turn it down. It wouldn't feel right having anybody else do it, I can't say that it would land a spot next to my LOTR trilogy if he doesn't do it.
Jackson has the right idea about The Hobbit by crackerfarmboy	Sep 16th, 2006 09:51:12 AM
The story would benefit so much if the White Council scenes were included in the story. It makes the story more epic and connects it the overall Lord of the Rings saga. It also helps to explain why Gandalf was so eager to kill Smaug (he was afraid that the newly reborn Sauron would recruit him for his army of evil) and why Orcs and Wargs are suddenly reforming and on the warpath. These additions will do nothing to hinder the story but will add so much. Also the characters Gimli, Legolas, Galadriel, Arwen, and Aragorn could very easily be incorporated into this film.
rev skarekroe by crackerfarmboy	Sep 16th, 2006 09:53:02 AM
Your right BILBO shouldn't know about Gandalf's true motives (to destroy Smaug and check Sauron's power) but scenes can be shown of Gandalf doing this on the side (which is what happens in the book).
Put the Hobbit on the front burner by gingeracrockford	Sep 16th, 2006 09:57:06 AM
especially if he's planning to include Christopher Lee, Cate Blanchett etc. The characters need to look as young or younger than they were in LOTR, if he waits more than a few more years Ian McKellen will be too old, Ian Holm already is. The two film idea sounds like it could work, not sure it's strictly necessary though. As for new casting, how about the following: Young Bilbo: MARTIN FREEMAN Thorin: BRIAN BLESSED Balin: JAMES COSMO Bombur: GREGOR FISHER Bard: STUART TOWNSEND Thranduil: PAUL BETTANY Smaug: RONALD PICKUP (voiced Aslan in the original BBC Narnia series)
when you think about it by DrLektor	Sep 16th, 2006 10:04:54 AM
Wouldn't Aragorn be around 10 years old in the Hobbit? According to the timeline in the appendices of LotR He'd be a kid when Bilbo first visits Rivendell. Any defending of the Shire would have to come a bit later on methinks.
Quint... by Mr.Nelson	Sep 16th, 2006 10:10:15 AM
Some amazing stuff. Thanks.
the hobbit doesn't involve lotr by aestheticity	Sep 16th, 2006 10:34:32 AM
it was written years before, as a kids book, before tolkien had a tenth the ideas he had in lotr. it happens to share some characters, thats all. there is no 'gandalf checking saurons power' story unless you imagine it. the only value in a hobbit film is as a nice little, simple prelude to lord of the rings. 1 filmsworth of it. besides, for all smaugs badass dragonness, iirc he gets killed by a minor characters arrow before he really goes to town. that's anticlimactic. theres no way theres 2 films in it.
Hmm... by moose4787	Sep 16th, 2006 10:34:54 AM
Does anyone else that this sort of sounds like lucas venturing down the prequals road. Next thing you know PJ will be rereleasing special editions with sceans not even filmed. Some how theyll make Argorn look like a wimp and not a dark ranger by having someone at the bar shoot first thus making hime not such a bad guy.
Make sure you get Christopher Lee on film... by zacdilone	Sep 16th, 2006 10:36:25 AM
...BEFORE HE'S DEAD!!! Nice tact there, Quint.
I'm looking forward to the TEMERAIRE series. by TheButcher	Sep 16th, 2006 10:40:03 AM
PJ please get to work on a live action version of Neon Genesis Evangelion!!
I like his Hobbit ideas by performingmonkey	Sep 16th, 2006 10:44:13 AM
Let's face it, a straight children's movie adaptation of The Hobbit would be OK, but looking at it in the same way as LOTR would be preferrable. In the book Gandalf sort of fucks off halfway through and when he comes back at the end he just says he's been 'here and there' or whatever, but we know from LOTR that he, Saruman, Galadriel and the others that made up the White Council (with Saruman as leader - this is just before or just as he was becoming corrupt) had a meeting and together they cast out the evil from Southern Mirkwood which, at the time, they didn't know was Sauron starting to build himself up. He held the fortress of Dol Guldur (or whatever). They HAVE to include that Dol Guldur stuff alongside Bilbo's story. Two movies of around the length of FOTR would be much better than an insanely long single movie. Even if Jackson doesn't direct he should be involved, and it should be made in this way.
Book to film by cyberskunk	Sep 16th, 2006 10:47:47 AM
I'd prefer that if a live-action Hobbit got made, it kept the tone of the book. I think making it less like a children's book would really undercut the intent with which it was written as well as the mood in the book and the author's voice and etc.
Make this movie for the kids, not the adults by old_toby	Sep 16th, 2006 10:56:02 AM
If you've ever read The Hobbit out loud to a child (as I have to my two sons, ages 7 and 10), you'll see how appealing the story is at a young person's level. Give this movie to the kids. In The Hobbit, the dwarves look and act differently than in the LOTR, what with their colored hoods, long noses, beards that touch the ground when they bow. They carry their instruments with them on their journey, and break into song at times. No PG-13 rating please, or many of these kids won't even be able to see it. Keep It Simple and don't turn a wonderful children's story into the prequels. Or at least save all the politics and council stuff for the director's cut DVD.
It is weird thinking about Hobbit without PJ... by brycemonkey	Sep 16th, 2006 11:03:00 AM
Just shows what a great job he did on LOTR that it seems almost impossible that he wouldn't direct Hobbit. If it ever gets made that is...
quite right aestheticity by DrLektor	Sep 16th, 2006 11:03:54 AM
at least until Tolki went back and revised the Hobbit to fit his growing mythology. From then on the Ring had a source, the characters had a hidden purpose and yeah, the two stories became part of one big tale.
Some thoughts... by Mr. Nice Gaius	Sep 16th, 2006 11:09:37 AM
I think PJ & Co. should be responsible for bringing "The Hobbit" to the big screen simply for continuity & quality's sake. It just wouldn't feel right if another director (and actors) was involved. It would break the overall consistency in tone. And I don't think it's necessary to split the story into 2 films. *** That being said, if PJ does accept this job, the whole production better get a move on. You've got that cheesy Sci-Fi Channel looking flick, "Eragon", on the way. And now that PJ has optioned this "TEMERAIRE" thing, that makes 2 dragon-themed productions in the works. WETA is going to have their work cut out for them in creating a kick-ass, monstrous dragon with Smaug. And I'm sure we can all agree, Smaug (the Magnificent) has got to look like the mother-of-all-dragons.
I trust him by sithlard	Sep 16th, 2006 11:12:38 AM
I have always thought that only one HOBBIT film would get made, since there is only one book, and it is not as dense. Saying that, however, I trust that if Peter Jackson and his team did this film that they would make the two-film idea work. I love the idea of expanding on some of the things only mentioned in THE HOBBIT and taking the film and making it feel more like THE LORD OF THE RINGS "tonally." It has always worried me that THE HOBBIT will feel somewhat disconnected if they write it to feel like the book does. THE HOBBIT always feels disconnected because it was written more for kids and written years earlier that LOTR. I'd like it to feel a bit more grown up and connected with LOTR. No matter what, it will not be on the same scale. But the tone, I think, should resemble the tone they had for THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING. If THE HOBBIT feels like FOTR does, I think it will work wonderfully. I do not know how I feel about someone else doing this project, which it is looking more likely that this will be the case since Jackson has a billion projects already lined up. I want THE HOBBIT to feel like the LOTR films do, and I am afraid that the only way this will happen is if Jackson does them. So my hope is that whoever is chosen to helm the project will be an extremely talented director who can figure out how to emmulate what Jackson did for LOTR, particularly FOTR. Also, Hobbiton should be built the same way it was before, with similar design and filmed at the same location as before. The other isssue is that I want any characters that were in the LOTR films that are in THE HOBBIT to be played by the same actors. Ian Holm, however is too old and I do not know how it would work having him play a younger Biblo. But I still hope that somehow they can make it work with Holm in the part. And if Saruman is included, no one but Christopher Lee seems right and he is probably going to die soon. I'm with Quint in saying that they should just shoot 10 minutes of Saruman with Lee right now. I think everyone else could come back though. McKellen, Mortensen, Tyler, etc. This is truly quite a task for anyone who takes it on. It would be the easiest to pull it off right if Jackson would do it, as far as getting the right look and feel for the film(s). But as far as scheduling, it would be easier to get another director. But getting the actual film to live up to the LOTR films would be harder.
old_toby-- To hell with the children! by ZeroCorpse	Sep 16th, 2006 11:16:45 AM
There is enough for kids out there. They have whole channels, fergoshsakes! Disney, Toon Disney, Cartoon Network 75% of the time, Nickelodeon. . . And as far as movies go, you can do serious and still appeal to kids. Narnia, Harry Potter, etc. all handle this just fine. Frankly, I think aiming The Hobbit at kids is a bad move. The audience isn't going to be children- It will be people who grew up with Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit. If kids want The Hobbit, they can watch the old Rankin-Bass animated flick. I've put up with that thing as my only version of The Hobbit for way too long. It's time they made something that makes me happy as an adult, dammit. The Hobbit as a more mature film won't take away from you being able to read and use funny voices for kids.
make it....NOW !!! by giger167	Sep 16th, 2006 11:17:56 AM
Love the hobbit and would dearly love to see it filmed by Peter Jackson. Wasn't the beginning of fellowship tonally different to the rest of the trilogy, didn't stop that film from acheiving greatness, and the book features many epic portents that could be expanded without ruining the narrative so why not extend to two films. Is there another director alive you would rathewr see this book filmed by ? As for the imminent high-def transfer of the lord of the rings, having seen some German 1080 files for the films all I can see is that they were astounding quality, so good in fact not buying them become a redundant argument :)
I will have more respect for PJ when... by Mr. N	Sep 16th, 2006 11:26:10 AM
He starts making up his own ideas into movies again. I hate that Hollywood has become so unoriginal. Everything is either a sequel, remake, comic book or other adaptation of some kind. It's like they're setting out to stifle as much imagination as possible. Heavenly Creatures is still his best movie because it's the most that's uniquely his. We should pride directors and writers for their originality rather than their high-priced hollywood-epic clusterbombs. But hey, if it grosses $400 mil, who gives a fuck?
What about Holm?... by Dolph	Sep 16th, 2006 11:38:47 AM
You dropped the ball there, Quint...it led right into it, ". I have zero interest in directing a Gandalf who wasn't Ian McKellen for instance", well, what about Holm. I'd love to have heard Jackson's thoughts, you know he's thought about it. CGI de-age? New actor (and replacing the flashback in LOTR). Btw, I hate the second idea. Otherwise, great interview, cheers Quint!
"The Script Should be born out of the Visuals" ???? by Ringwearer9	Sep 16th, 2006 11:45:44 AM
That's an insane, ass-backwards way of writing a script. It's all focused on the visuals first, and screwing with the story to showcase cool effects that have already been imagined, as opposed to coming up with coolest ways to support a kickass script visually. This totally punctures anything Jackson says about wanting to remedy past errors and not start filming until they have a great script. Because the script is already, in his mind, subordinate to the visual elements.
OBVIOUSLY He doesn't WANT to do the Hobbit... by Ringwearer9	Sep 16th, 2006 12:11:35 PM
... which is why MGM put out that press release. They've been getting zero feedback or enthusiasm from Jackson, even though they really would prefer him to do it. He said he didn't want to do it right after LOTR, because he was burnt out on LOTR, and 2 years later he's still not into it, and it's not going to be a practical thing any more. It's a big relief off my mind, but you Jackson fans who feel he MUST do it to maintain continuity ... doesn't look like it's going to happen.
Whoa there Mr. N by King Sweyn Forkbeard	Sep 16th, 2006 12:18:24 PM
What's the big problem with filming adaptations? 95% of Stanley Kubrick's output was an adaptation of some form or another and you don't hear anyone bitching about that.
As much as I like Jackson... by Orbots Commander	Sep 16th, 2006 12:21:17 PM
I'd be interested in seeing what somebody like Alfonso Cuaron or Peter Weir could do with The Hobbit.
Mr. N, I for one don't mind book adaptations. by Orbots Commander	Sep 16th, 2006 12:25:33 PM
Adapting a novel or a work of non-fiction is not a bad thing at all, and is actually a return to what Hollywood has always done best since the beginning of movies. Birth of a Nation after all was a book before Griffith adapted it.
How about Cuaron, who did Prisoner of Azkaban? by Ringwearer9	Sep 16th, 2006 12:28:09 PM
He'd be an awesome director for the Hobbit. I wonder who wrote the script for that? As I remember, Cuaron was very involved in the script, which a good director needs to be.
Oh, Orbots beat me to the punch about Cuaron. by Ringwearer9	Sep 16th, 2006 12:31:11 PM
Seconded, Seconded.
Noooo! Don't do it! NOT TWO MOVIES! by emu47	Sep 16th, 2006 12:42:45 PM
The Hobbit is nice 1.) because it stands alone, 2.) because it is about a scared little Hobbit learning to love adventure and journeying to far off places, and 3.) fucking Smaug and the greediness of evil dwarves and the Battle of Five Armies. Simple McKee logic, too, in that there is one point of view through the whole story. THE HOBBIT is about THE HOBBIT named Bilbo Baggins. Every scene should be about Bilbo and his quest. Jetting off to the White Council is just plain old bad storytelling.
Crikey these interviews are full of typos! by ulcer	Sep 16th, 2006 12:43:12 PM
they probably pass the spell check check, but there are a lot of repeated verbs, or skipped words that make this thing hard to comprehend at time
I hate 'original' film snobs by antonphd	Sep 16th, 2006 12:43:36 PM
Go fuck yourselves... then go watch movies before your lifetime or read books and realise that original is like Must See TV in the summers, if you haven't see it, it's new to you. Meanwhile, the rest of us will enjoy movies.
Azkaban wasn't that good by King Sweyn Forkbeard	Sep 16th, 2006 12:44:04 PM
Visually interesting, but as an adaptation it felt rushed and incomplete, like there were big bits chopped out of it. Ridley Scott could pull it off, but his characterisations aren't the best. If it's going to be LOTR standard then we better hope those crazy kids at New Line and MGM make PJ an offer he simply can't refuse, and sharpish.
as for a director, i say Cauron, as well by emu47	Sep 16th, 2006 12:48:14 PM
Or Guillermo Del Toro.
Good Lord, not I don't WANT him to do Hobbit by Gorrister	Sep 16th, 2006 12:52:55 PM
From what Jackson says, he just wants to do a 'reunion' show. Bring back Arwin, Galadriel and Legolas?? Why? They have NOTHING to do with the story of The Hobbit! And although Saruman wourld be cool to see, he also has nothing to do with this story! Fans want to see The Hobbit, not The Lord of the Rings: The Pre-Reunion. In order to include all of these characters, Jackson would have to take screen time away from the MAIN characters and plot lines.
The Hobbit by antonphd	Sep 16th, 2006 12:53:43 PM
I'm ok if they at least get Peter Jackson producing The Hobbit the way he is Halo. If he can't direct at least he can make sure it's going the right direction. And in his place? Bring on Alfonso Cuarón. He made The Little Princess and harry Potter and the Prisoner of Askaban and I think he would be perfect for The Hobbit. I think that he can capture both the sweetness and the danger and the bad assness that a Hobbit movie needs. And The Hobbit IS somewhat tonally different from LOTR and I think Alfonso Cuarón's got that tonal difference from the LOTR movies that would still make it feel apart of the LOTR movies that Peter Jackson made. Plus, they can put up his name as a former Harry Potter helmer and I think people will accept him as a director of The Hobbit if Peter Jackson can't make it. In fact... this is how it should happen. Peter Jackson should produce and have Alfonso Cuarón direct. I have just solved all of our delima with PJs filled schedule. I can 100% imagine PJ sitting down in the theater with his friends and family and a bucket of popcorn to watch Alfonso Cuarón's The Hobbit and loving every single second of it. :) He deserves to get that feeling of just enjoying a Tolkien movie the way he has given to all of us.
I agree, Azkaban was a better book than movie by Gorrister	Sep 16th, 2006 12:55:09 PM
I love the book Prisoner of Azkaban, but Cuaron did't to a good job with it. Not only did he leave gaping plot holes, but his visual style was abolutelyi annoying. Can anyone guess how many times he used that "Iris-In;Iris-Out" dissolve? I can tell you exactly how many times: TOO FUCKING MANY! :P
If you get Cuaron paired with a smart writer like by Orbots Commander	Sep 16th, 2006 12:58:19 PM
William Goldman (who has experience with fantasy by the way, The Princess Bride) to film The Hobbit, you could have something really special.
Now THAT sounds interesting by DrPeestain	Sep 16th, 2006 01:00:00 PM
While the LOTR films were still coming out, I was extremely excited for a Hobbit movie to come out. Then as time passed, I just didn't care anymore. But after reading Pete's ideas for a Hobbit movie, I pray he gets to make it right after The Lovely Bones! It would be amazing. (fingers crossed that Chris Lee stays alive)
Alfonso Cuarón by antonphd	Sep 16th, 2006 01:01:37 PM
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Askaban was almost beneath Alfonso Cuarón to make... it was a total rush job, look at The Little Princess... it was a masterpiece... still the best children's movie ever made and one of my all time favorite movies period. He also has a wonderful eye for color and motion and his movies are amazingly rich and beautiful. When I imagine The Hobbit... I can totally see him being a perfect match. HP3 was good, better than the first 2, but let's face it... it was rushed... but look what he did with it... it's a piece of art... not perfect, but amazing. I am now officially not dreading the inevitable absense of Peter Jackson from The Hobbit and I am officially excited for Peter Jackson to maybe get to enjoy a Tolkien movie himself. I watch Heavenly Creatures and The Little Princess and I see two sides of the same coin in these two directors.
Didn't Tolkien write a prequel to the Hobbit? by J Jonah_Jameson	Sep 16th, 2006 01:06:21 PM
Anyone who has knowledge of that? Because I've read the Hobbit and have never seen alot of the characters Jackson mentions being in it so I was thinking that maybe he read something I didn't? I could be wrong I haven't read it in ages. But I know it would have a huge cast. That is a whole lot of Dwarfs they would need! Also I always pictured The Hobbit being one movie. In comparison too the LOTR books it's not as lengthy. I would love to see this for The Riddles in the Dark chapter alone. That ruled when I first read that when I was little.
emu47 by antonphd	Sep 16th, 2006 01:07:32 PM
Guillermo Del Toro... I started to write him too, but then, I remembered his movies... and it's just not possible... sure, he would knock it out of the park, no questions, but what are they going to say 'from the director of Hellboy and Pan's Labrynth'? No way... he deserves to get to make it, but unlike PJ and LOTR, they will have to be able to sell the director for this movie to families... though... hehe... he is more like PJ than anyone else... but i can't see it... well... damn... ok... either Guillermo Del Toro or Alfonso Cuarón... those are the only 2 picks worthy of The Hobbit if PJ turns it down.
Quite right DrLektor. by morGoth	Sep 16th, 2006 01:07:41 PM
Aragorn was only ten when Gandalf and Thorin came to visit Bilbo and set him off on his adventure. As for guarding the Shire, the Rangers didn’t start until another 59 years had passed…Saruman had spies there first though. Although I think two movies could work, I agree that it might open up temptation for too many inventions which created many problems for the LoTR script. I remember PJ saying he was going to show some of the other back story, like the assaults on Lorien/DolGuldur and the fighting around Erebor, but instead we got the warg attack, etc. Not that I didn’t like some of those but it was a needless diversion from the better stories Tolkien had already written. I’d love to see Gandalf sneaking into Dol Guldur, disguised as an orc, and receiving the map and key to Erebor from Thrain. In other words…sticking to what’s already written. As for “'gandalf checking saurons power,” erm, yes, that’s what the Hobbit is all about when looked at from the Big Picture perspective. In fact, The Hobbit is simply a part of the tale of LoTR just as LoTR is a part of the Silmarillion…it’s all one big tale, really. There’s plenty of material for two movies if some back story, particularly from ‘Unfinished Tales,’ is included.
Ok... my final opinion by antonphd	Sep 16th, 2006 01:13:35 PM
Alfonso Cuarón for the first movie that follows the first half of the book... then Guillermo Del Toro for the second half with the giant battles... yeah, it's impossible, but it's the way I really think the movies should be done. The first half of the Hobbit is very different from the second half. I can see the strenths in the 2 directors really shining if they split it up. It's a pipe dream of course. But hell, who cares, it's talkback. let's just hope it's not a hip director, that would be horrible. i'm happy with hip directors for hip movies, but not for beloved treasures of literature.
there's a 'prequel' to the whole shebang by aestheticity	Sep 16th, 2006 01:17:45 PM
in the form of the silmarillion, which is a collection of tolkiens middle earth stuff, which there was a fuckload of, which is set from before the guy who was saurons boss was even around, right up to after sauron got beat like you see at the start of lotr. but it isn't very cohesive, spans a few millennia, and would need visuals i don't even know how you'd go about expressing on film. plus it has a whole bunch of loose ends from even MORE middle earth stuff that isn't collected into it. it's too messy to film.
okay, okay, I got it: by emu47	Sep 16th, 2006 01:28:24 PM
Michael Bay! And maybe Gandalf could paint flames on his face before storming Dol Guldur on his very own custom-made Battle Warg. That flies.
LOL hip directors and Tolkien. by Orbots Commander	Sep 16th, 2006 01:30:12 PM
Imagine Tarantino, Soderbergh or Robert Rodriguez directing a Tolkien adaptation like The Hobbit? It would probably turn out to be a Rocky Horror type laugh riot and camp-fest.
a response... by Mr. N	Sep 16th, 2006 01:32:57 PM
The number of good adaptations have greately outgrown good originals. I'm just pointing out that we've fallen back on adaptations and as a culture have popularly rejected unique imagination. Look at some of the recent 'original' films that have come out including the number one film at the box office (The Covenant). A shitty film that can be smelled a mile away. This is what originality has developed into. The number of adaptations to originals is way too lopsided in mainstream hollywood. Everything has become about adaptations because from a marketing standpoint they're better since they come with a pre-existing fanbase. Everyone's calling LOTR the new Star Wars, well, Star Wars was original. Please note that I'm not saying that Star Wars is better than LOTR, I'm just saying that it's a different kind of film classic (one that was always intended to be viewed on the film medium). While not all adaptations are bad, they've almost totally supplanted original imagination. Only seven of the top twenty films released in the last year have been original. You guys are telling me this isn't a bad thing? 7:13 is a depressing ratio. And while we still may have good films we have sacrificed total creative control. The only original film that I'm honestly looking foward to is The Fountain because I hope it can reverse the trend. But honestly, is The Fountain going come near $100 mil? I'd just like to see a new set of popular and original film classics, or else hollywood will just blend together. I know it sounds like I'm saying original writers are better than those that adapt, but I'm not. I'm sorry if it came out that way. In fact, I think it's probably more challenging to adapt something for the screen than create something out of thin air for it. Just look at the film "Adaptation" for proof. I just am sad to see hollywood continually depend on pre-existing stories and that naturally stifles unique creativity of someone like Peter Jackson. I can guarentee that people here would rather see The Hobbit as a film that an original story ala Heavenly Creatures. While this isn't neccesarily bad I think it definitely says something about our imaginatively-stilted culture.
2 Movies is a Bad Idea by Dapper Swindler	Sep 16th, 2006 01:36:48 PM
Not because it wouldn't work as 2 movies but because the motive for making it 2 movies is for the wrong reasons. Jackson had to beg and plead to get permission to make Lord of the Rings into 3 movies instead of 1 (which really would have sucked). But lots of people made money from this decision. Now the studio wants The Hobbit to be 2 movies for the same reason, to make money. If Jackson decided himself that it needed to be 2 movies in order to tell a great story, then I have no problem with it. So we have the studio already wanting to make decisions that will make them money. Even from this tiny bit of info in Variety, The Hobbit is off to a bad start.
But as far as MOVIES go, Azkaban was the best MOVIE. by Ringwearer9	Sep 16th, 2006 01:36:59 PM
All the others seemed kinda plodding and grim in comparison.. Azkaban preserved a sense of humor, and was able to compress story elements visually. And just the scene where the kids interact with Buckbeak for the first time was awesome. It played like real kids interacting with a real animal. Bring that quality to Bilbo and Smaug and you've got Wonder.
A response to Mr. N by Orbots Commander	Sep 16th, 2006 01:40:33 PM
You're making the mistake of thinking that adaptations are a modern and unique phenomenon. They're not. Shakespeare himself based not one, but every single one of his plays on pre-existing material. ALL of the bard's plays were adaptations of earlier works. By that line of reasoning, was Shakespeare 'unoriginal'?
No no and nooo!!! by MonteCristo	Sep 16th, 2006 01:51:52 PM
Of course, Peter Jackson said that he wasn't involved with the Hobbit like everyone thought he would say. And, now, that he said his story...I don't want him directing the Hobbit!! Or, at least, I don't want him writing it. I strongly hold firm to the belief that The Hobbit is a children's story, not like the violent deep LOTR trilogy. I don't want Saruman or Sauron or any of that stuff. I want to be able to sit back and relax in the theater and watch an epic children's tale, not a movie rife with foreboding. It's time to relax after the Lord Of The Rings. It's time to excel, not in the adult action/fantasy department, but in the children's action/fantasy department. William Goldman should write the screenplay, Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise can direct. If Peter Jackson directs, don't let him change the HOBBIT!!!
Adaptations aren't a modern by Mr. N	Sep 16th, 2006 01:58:36 PM
Adaptations aren't a modern invention, that's completely true. But I feel like our culture's artistic dependence on them has never been higher. And that's a problem. There's not enough balance anymore.
Jackson's lack of interest in HOBBIT = PROOF! by Ringwearer9	Sep 16th, 2006 01:58:54 PM
... Proof that he was a bad choice for Lord of the Rings in the first place.
Holm's not too old. by The_Deathticle	Sep 16th, 2006 02:03:07 PM
Ian Holm can and should still be Bilbo. Not only was his performance one of the best things about the whole movie trilogy, but he's already played "young" Bilbo during the flashback to Gollum's cave in FOTR. The key thing to remember here is that the Ring kept Bilbo from aging much, so that his appearance in FOTR is not far off from the way he looked when he first started wearing the Ring. Remember Gandalf's remarks upon arriving at Bag End in FOTR. He seemed a bit taken aback that Bilbo "hadn't aged a day." Just put the brown wig back on Holm and go for it. I think my favorite scenes in the entire LOTR movie trilogy were the ones between Bilbo and Gandalf. An entire movie with those two (played by Holm and McKellan) would be great.
The only proof that Jackson isn't cut out for something by MonteCristo	Sep 16th, 2006 02:03:29 PM
is his total idea of bastardizing the Hobbit to make it a "Lord Of The Rings 4".
One more thing: the studios don't give a shit. by MonteCristo	Sep 16th, 2006 02:11:38 PM
They look and say "2 movies! Ah-ha! That means twice the money! Fuck the fans! I'm rich, bi-atch!" And, then they say "Children's movie? Fuck that. We want some beheadings and some wizards duels and shit! Where's Quentin Tarantino?" And, before you know it, the Hobbit or (The Hobbit 1: Mo Money and the Hobbit 2: Battles and Shit) are some of the worst movies ever made. I rest my case.
http://www.bendshire.com/ by darthferris	Sep 16th, 2006 02:15:19 PM
Check that out.
Monte Cristo, yeah, "Lord of the Rings 4" by Ringwearer9	Sep 16th, 2006 02:17:05 PM
It's totally divorced from the mood of the original book, and is more of a money-making sequel mindset. Not "how do we adapt THE HOBBIT well" but "How do we make The Hobbit look like more Lord of the Rings, cos that's the safest way to ensure success". Sad, tiny-minded, hack-thinking
Adaptations vs. Original by one9deuce	Sep 16th, 2006 02:33:10 PM
Adaptations have always been around, and that is a good thing. We have all seen books we loved turned into films we loved. But the amount of original stuff IS dwindling, if only because film has been around for so long. What are the next big adventure franchises? Is there an Indiana Jones or Star Wars type series in our future? There probably can't be anything completely original, but a film or film series that samples many different genres, films, books, and ideas like The Matrix, Indiana Jones, and Star Wars all did is something I know I would like to see. And Peter Jackson for The Hobbit is definitely all wrong. I want to see The Hobbit, not The Lord of the Rings 4 and 5.
News Flash by Mr. Nice Gaius	Sep 16th, 2006 02:57:53 PM
The Harry Potter movies are boring tripe. Utter kids stuff. I want no one associated with those films approaching a Tolkien property.
Ringy... by Mr. Nice Gaius	Sep 16th, 2006 03:07:53 PM
Quote: "Proof that he was a bad choice for Lord of the Rings in the first place". -- There was no "choice" about it. He was the only one who believed in the material enough to try shopping it around Hollywood. We all know you don't like Jackson, Ringy. But the fact that you only seem to post on AICN when there is a PJ TalkBack is a bit obsessive and creepy. I think it might be best for you to face this obsession and start dealing with it. (Perhaps a 12-Step Celebrity Stalker Program?) Besides, your bottom-of-the-barrel minority opinion of LOTR/PJ is starting to sound like a lonely voice crying for attention in the vastness of cyberspace. Again.
Hobbit 2: Hobbit Justice by acebandage	Sep 16th, 2006 03:26:56 PM
The Hobbit can be done as two films and still be tonally right. Just keep the story elements involving Bilbo in the same tone as the book and the expanded elements that involve the big picture can take on the darker more sinister tone that will be more geared toward adults. That way the kiddies will love the stuff with Bilbo and will probably not "get" the political intrigue of the rise of Sauron, whereas the rise of Sauron story will offer more tie to the stories that follow in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It's not like these events didn't happen in the backdrop of Bilbo's story, they just weren't focused on. And the whole idea that this is a bad idea to make two films out of it because the studio decided to do it for the wrong reason (money), well wake up! THAT IS THE ONLY REASON THE STUDIOS DO WHAT THEY DO! If the right creative people luck into being involved with projects that were greenlit with sole (and souless) intent of simple monetary gain and are able to make something special then I am all for it. P.S. I'm sorry I can't recall who suggested it but, "the Hobbit" and "There and Back Again"...wonderful!
"Our dependence on adaptations has never been higher"? by Orbots Commander	Sep 16th, 2006 03:28:45 PM
Mr. N, I would be willing to wager a good sum of money that any odd year in the movie industry during the golden age of movies, i.e. mid 1930's - 1950's, boasted more adaptions of novels and plays than original works. Casablanca? Based on a play. Wizard of Oz? novel. Gone with the Wind? novel. Maltese Falcon? novel. Scarface? novel. The Mark of Zorro? short story/novella. etc. etc. etc.
about Aragorn's Age. by Datascream	Sep 16th, 2006 03:37:00 PM
keep in mind Aragorn in LOTR was at least 80-90 years old, because of his bloodline that made him age slower then average humans.
Acebandage, two movies can't possibly work! by MonteCristo	Sep 16th, 2006 03:45:31 PM
I, and many other people said, we don't want to see a Lord Of The Rings 4. We don't want to know about the White Council. That story is over and done. We want to know about Bilbo Baggins and his lighthearted adventures while acquiring the Ring of Power. It can be dark at times and action packed of course. But...it's not about any of the "LOTR" side story that was only hinted at in the book. It should be a nice PG, with violence at a "Star Wars" level. No decapitations, no "Lord Of The Rings 4", just a nice Hobbit movie to relax with after the deep thematic material of the LOTR films. And two Hobbit movies can't possibly work, because the book is a simple book with a simple purpose. Even when Tolkien rewrote the books to to fit Lord Of The Rings better, he didn't squeeze any White Council stuff in it. The book is shorter than Lord Of The Rings: FOTR. It could easily be one 2 hour 45 min film.
I DO want The Hobbit to be a LOTR prequel by crackerfarmboy	Sep 16th, 2006 04:25:22 PM
I don't understand why anyone else wouldn't? Sure it's a nice little story, but it's real significance is that it sets up the events of LOTR. Also the White Council adventure IS referenced in The Hobbit. It's importance though is not discussed until FOTR and The Silmarillion. Keep it the same tone as LOTR, let the whole story be told.
Aragorn's age by vikingSF	Sep 16th, 2006 04:25:38 PM
I've been reading this site for years and never posted on the talkbacks, but I had to for this - listen, Aragorn was over 80 years old (around 88, I believe) at the time of Frodo's adventure in the Lord of the Rings. Bilbo was 111 at the beginning of Lord of the Rings. Bilbo was 50 years old when he had his adventure in The Hobbit. Subtract 60+ years from 80+ years and you get an Aragorn in his 20s. Thanks.
To the one who asked about Aragorn's age... by Nachokoolaid	Sep 16th, 2006 04:32:29 PM
if my calculations are correct, Aragorn was 26 during the Hobbit. And PJ must see this as a priority. Seeing him talk about a -part Hobbit film with the inclusion of the White Council and the Rise of Sauron (something I always wished for but never thought I'd see included) makes me giddy. It also saddens me that he seems sort of ambivalent toward it.
For all the idiots by Nachokoolaid	Sep 16th, 2006 04:41:45 PM
who are saying that Saruman and Sauron and some of the characters from LOTR have nothing to do with the Hobbit are ignorant. Go read the appendices.
LotR succeeded DESPITE Jackson by PhilConnors	Sep 16th, 2006 04:41:54 PM
Yes, they were competent adaptations, any ways that they succeeded came directly from the books, while their flaws came completely from the writers/director. I'd be interested to see if someone could do a more genuine adaptation of The Hobbit (although I sure wouldn't mind Weta's involvement).
Michael Bay presents "The Hobbit" by 'Cholera's Ghost	Sep 16th, 2006 04:43:23 PM
Aw hell yeah.
Ask PJ or New line SUCKS! by tile_mcgillus	Sep 16th, 2006 04:44:42 PM
It is pretty much that simple.
Read the Hobbit. (NO TWO MOVIES!) by MonteCristo	Sep 16th, 2006 04:46:38 PM
I'm not talking about the fucking appendices. I'm talking about the book. And nowhere in the book is anything about Sauron and Saruman. I don't care what's going on in the background. I want a faithful adaptation. And, I sure as hell don't want two movies.
No Hobbit!!!! by alienindisguise	Sep 16th, 2006 04:47:47 PM
I for one don't want a 3 hour Hobbit flick building to a climax where Bilbo gets knocked the f out! You should've tried to get a few Avatar bits from Jackson, Quint!
"Hobbit, Shmobbit!" by The Savage Smeghead	Sep 16th, 2006 04:53:36 PM
I dug the LORT films (third one was my fave), but I'd much rather see Peter Jackson continue making films in the same vein as "Dead-Alive (aka Braindead)," "Bad Taste," and "Meet the Feebles." I would especially love to see a return to the universe of "The Frighteners," another film where, say, Dammers returns to give Frank Bannister hell (literally) while Frank's dealing with his own shit. I would love to see something like that. Or maybe find some way to team up Jackson with Sam Raimi for the ultimate grungy horror film experience.
Seriously though--A P. Jackson Hobbit not happenin' by 'Cholera's Ghost	Sep 16th, 2006 04:58:35 PM
From the sounds of it. If so, it's going to be years...YEAAARRRRRSSsss. And years are something McKellan does not have. I'm sorry. Congratulations, Ringwearer. Hey, Pete, get to work on Dune, and give Hobbit to Ridley.
George Miller, Tarsem, Peter Weir by Calico Pete	Sep 16th, 2006 05:36:30 PM
These would all be better options than PJ. Here's an article on Tarsem's The Fall (http://www.thehotbutton.com/t oday/hot.button/2006_thb/06091 5_fri.html) that will make your mouth water for Tarsem's The Hobbit. Miller, what with Babe Pig in the City (not to mention all the other stuff in his oeuvre) under his belt, would also be a fantastic choice. Peter Weir would be great too. The Truman Show, Master & Commander, Witness... all films that had strong visual styles, and successfully conveyed an intimacy and immediacy while feeling epic at the same time. PJ's films lacked that immediacy. They felt detached emotionally. Their visuals were too by the book.
NEW EPISODE OF SONIC WARRIORS by doctoremittbrown	Sep 16th, 2006 05:47:15 PM
the fifth episode of Sonic Warriors "Judger Be Judged" is ready to rock your face nuggets...WATCH IT!!! myspace video: http://vids.myspace.com/index. cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual &videoid=1174962415 youtube: Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =h0EJleR6Oo4 Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =cHJoESRpuvw
Cool, cool by Jaka	Sep 16th, 2006 06:02:10 PM
I hope the film(s) are made, with PJ, Fran and Phillipa and the original cast/crew etc. But like PJ I'll still go see them (at least the first one) if somebody else directs. But not if it isn't as many of the LOTR cast members as can possibly be fit into the story. And, whoever makes them, they need to dig into Christopher's historical/research books. They could easily fill out two movies with the Hobbit and those books. And they could do it in a way that stays true to the Tolkienn universe.
Must Do Hobbit by Darth Melkor	Sep 16th, 2006 06:07:59 PM
They have to, and they have to now. The actors are old. I don't want someone else playing Bilbo. I want Ian Holm! He's in his eighties, as is Christopher Lee. Hurry up and make this shit, gross your bajillion dollars, get your Oscar nominations, sell 20 bazillion DVDs, and make the fans happy.! :)
No two movies!! by MonteCristo	Sep 16th, 2006 06:08:15 PM
Jaka, what Hobbit and those books? There is only ONE book...the Hobbit! And don't mess up my "Hobbity" experience with your wizard duels and your battles.
All those moaning about The Hobbit as LOTR 4... by raw_bean	Sep 16th, 2006 06:10:41 PM
...should note the following three points (taken from the History of Middle Earth, Unfinished Tales, and Letters of JRR Tolkien): ---------- 1) After publishing LOTR, Tolkien went back and made some significant modifications and edits to The Hobbit to bring it more in line with LOTR. It's extremely unlikely any of you have ever read the original text of the Hobbit before Tolkien revised intending it to act as a proogue to LOTR. ------------ 2) The whimsical, silly and 'childish' tone of much of the book was something Tolkien came to deeply regret, believing (as I always have, particularly when I was a kid) that children hate to be talked down to, and were quite capable of understanding, and usually appreciative of, the more serious, grown-up tone the book strayed towards in the later chapters. ----------- And 3), because of the above two points, Tolkien began in later life, though never got very far with (as with far too many of his works due to the pressures of time) a complete rewrite of The Hobbit from scratch, intending to bring it much closer in tone and detail to LOTR. ------------ So on this one, I agree with Peter Jackson and JRR Tolkien, and would love to see a (or two) grown-up adaptation of The Hobbit in the style and tone of the LOTR films, acting as prologue to them and exploring all the cool stuff with the White Council and Sauron-as-Necromancer that worked its way into his simple children's story.
Agreed by SpikedBuffy	Sep 16th, 2006 06:46:46 PM
I agree with raw_bean that the hobbit was intended to tie in with lotr and could make two great movies. If you want a happy version, watch the cartoon. So much stuff is happening during the hobbit that bilbo is oblivious to, but would definately enhance the whole story and actually make the movies more fun to watch.
Fantastic talkback; a few responses... by colematthews	Sep 16th, 2006 07:17:52 PM
Crackerfarmboy: "Sure it's a nice little story, but it's real significance is that it sets up the events of LOTR." This kind of sentiment is usually felt by those who don't have a childhood sentimental attachment to "The Hobbit." If you change your statement slightly to read "...but the real significance of the EVENTS of The Hobbit..." it would have been true. The "historical" events that occur during Bilbo's quest do set up LOTR. But the charm of "The Hobbit" is that it is practically an ode to English Country living. No one rhapsodizes over descriptions of cakes laden with honey and fresh cream, or the virtues of sitting by the fire with the kettle just starting to sing like Tolkien, and THAT, more than anything, is the "significance" of The Hobbit. It should be all about Bilbo, as he is the audience's entry point into all the fantastical elements. On that note, Jack Colby: your hook of having the Hobbit being told like a story by Bilbo to young hobbit children is f-ing genius! In Bilbo's world, everything could take on a more fantastical look, with exaggerated colors and whimsical dwarvish features.
Raw Bean, NachoKoolaid, others... by colematthews	Sep 16th, 2006 07:28:10 PM
Constant harping that everyone who wants to "truly" understand The Hobbit has to read the appendices, the backstory, the fucking letters Tolkien wrote to his grandchildren, and also visit his grave to talk to his deceased spirit, it all grows wearisome. I have enjoyed The Hobbit, in its currently published form, since I was 5 years old, and I like it just fine. The fact is, intent is not really important when something has been in the public eye for nearly 70 years. It doesn't matter whether he wanted to change it, because he didn't. Many authors have regrets or things they wish to change, and sometimes there are revised versions of things published. However, unless it's in the final, published text of "The Hobbit", then I don't think it's relevant. There also seems to be 2 camps in regards to how important the White Council/Sauron events are in regards to a film adaptation of "The Hobbit". There are the completists, who seem to view this potential movie as some sort of historical document, where everything that transpired with relation to LOTR needs to be captured for posterity purposes. Then there are those that are fans of "The Hobbit" for what it is; a charming treatise on the pleasures of Hearth and Home, and the limited value of venturing out from them at least once in an otherwise leisurely life. Getting this across in terms of mood and tone could not be further from the mind of Jackson, who will obviously take everything to its utmost extreme whenever possible.
Return of the King is deeply flawed... by PurityOfEssence	Sep 16th, 2006 07:36:20 PM
I really enjoy it, but some of the things in it especially in the Extended Edition are just awful (such as: the breakin of Gandalf's staff and the fumbling of Gandalf's character in general, the handling Aragorn and Elrond's relationship, almost anything involving Liv Tyler...). So I don't know if what Jackson has planed is really what I would want to see.
the Hobbit is better than LOTR, by datachasm	Sep 16th, 2006 07:37:47 PM
i dunno, 2 films may be cool if they are released within months, 1 of the things i hated about the LOTR movies was the original intent to release within months until they turned it into a cash cow. plus, i cant tell the different factions and scenes apart. and there was too much padding the films with the walking around as stated in Clerks 2. anyways, the Hobbit was and still is my favorite of all 4 books, the LOTR takes itself 2 serious and could stand a heavy edit. books 2 and 3 were hard to get thru and generally dull. the Hobbit is a light read and very visual, i try to read it again every few years.
oh, and Quint... by datachasm	Sep 16th, 2006 07:41:34 PM
no one gives a ahit about your ideas for the Hobbit, including Peter Jackson, thanks
Revisions to The Hobbit were a SURPRISE to Tolkien! by Ringwearer9	Sep 16th, 2006 07:47:41 PM
At least, he says so in his letters. He says he had written the main "revision" to the "riddles in the dark" chapter as an exercise, and had sent it to his publisher as an example of how he intended to tie The Hobbit to the Lord of the Rings. But he had intended to include this chapter, or something like it, as part of Gandalf's story to Frodo abot how things really happened. Tolkien says that when he got the new, revised edition, he was surprised, because he never said that they should go ahead with it. He also expressed concern for the readers familiar with the way the story was told originally, and was so worried about their reactions that he wrote this big explanatory piece for the beginning of further editions, pointing out the change that had been made, and that the explanation for Bilbo's "lie" in the first version would be made clear in "The Lord of the Rings". Now, there are signs that Tolkien, as an old man, started to revise The Hobbit and make it less frivolous (Gandalf looking "strange and sorcerous" instead of "positively sorcerous", Smaug eating "Men and Dwarves of Dale" instead of eating "maidens"). He may regret the "talking to children" tone, but I, as a child, didn't regret it. I appreciated it, as it was a kind, intelligent voice that was talking to me. When people get old and grumpy they often become impatient with the silliness they might have indulged in as a young father, but that doesn't mean it has no value. Certainly, I managed to appreciated the mysterious hints of the "Necromancer" in the South of Mirkwood, as cool background flavor, even if it had nothing much to do with the main story.
Nothing about "The Hobbit" should be Nightmarish... by colematthews	Sep 16th, 2006 07:49:32 PM
...and I can already imagine at least 5 or 6 scenes in the PJ version that would be just that. Tolkien never made Bilbo putting on the ring anything more than pure fun at getting to be invisible. There were no repercussions (at least not immediately), he just put it on all the time for the fuck of it. Whenever it was handy to get him out of trouble. There was no swooning or PJ cam going on. And if I have to see Bilbo get that quasi-orgasmic look on his face like Frodo always had, I'm gonna lose it. I can also see the scene with the Spiders being way over the top, not comical at all. That's part of the thing that makes me think Jackson is wrong for this: most of "The Hobbit" is comical in tone, not all scary and creepy, even when the characters are technically in danger. I don't WANT the battle of 5 armies to be some 90 minute epic war story, with 50,000 cgi extras duking it out. I realize this may require some to want to revoke my geek card or whatever, but in relation to the story of Bilbo, this battle is fairly minor. It's only like 4 pages of one chapter. It just seems to me that Jackson's tendencies on LOTR were to focus on things that, while technically "part of the story", were not really what most would remember from the books. Always expanding on something he thought would be neat, then cutting out things that were actually in the books. Always adding in the darker material, taking out little comic touches that Tolkien liked. I was particularly annoyed at the way he handled the scene at the end of FOTR with Frodo trying to leave, and Sam insisting on coming along. In the movie, it's all dramatic, like we're actually supposed to be worried that Sam is going to drown in 5 feet of water. And after that it's nothing but lovelorn looks and oddly queer dialogue from Frodo. They took all the humor out of the scene, and left in the lamest parts of the sentimentality. Go back and read the scene as written in the book, it's literally the last page or two of Fellowship. I really like this exchange: "Of all the confounded nuisances you are the worst, Sam!" he said. "Oh, Mr. Frodo, that's hard!"
It WILL work by performingmonkey	Sep 16th, 2006 08:48:39 PM
The actual story in the Hobbit is a toned down version of what 'really' happened. It would seem stupid if Bilbo went running off with Dwarves, singing and not getting into much danger and being in this quite childish, cartoonish world where Trolls are more like trolls in kid's stories rather than real dangerous creatures etc. it wouldn't be the same world as LOTR. The Hobbit feels much more cliched with it's fantasy. I know I wouldn't accept it if the movie didn't provide the 'reality' of LOTR, all the work WETA put in to make the world feel like it had history, the darker version of Elves that were much more than singing 'fairy' types, all the details with the weapons and armour and the different breeds of orcs, the lack of 'frivolity', the updating of various elements for the modern audience whilst keeping the overall tone true to Tolkien. Bilbo's story would still be the MAIN element of the movie(s) but like LOTR it would split off to see other characters, namely Gandalf. In the book Gandalf has a fairly small role, he just starts off the adventure ('I simply gave your uncle a little nudge out of the door' or whatever he says at the beginning of the FOTR movie). If the movie followed Gandalf's story also it would be EXCELLENT. It isn't related to the RING at all. Gandalf just thinks the Ring, and Bilbo's reluctance to tell the truth about how he found it, is strange, but it isn't mentioned again. The beginning of FOTR would still play correctly because it IS only then that Gandalf realises the Ring is certainly something more than just a 'magic ring'. The throwing of Sauron (or the Necromancer, as he is known by at this point, Gandalf and co. don't realise it's Sauron until they actually go to defeat the Necromancer) from Dol Guldur will be a great thing to see. Gandalf gets thrown into the dungeons of the Dark Lord, if I remember correctly. There could be a huge battle, comparable with LOTR battles. The main battle that Bilbo is in will be amazing, as will Smaug the dragon burning the shit out of the lake people (in a PJ-13 way, of course). They could develop the Laketown people a little so we actually care when they get attacked. Their leader would have a bigger role than in the book, as would the guy that kills Smaug. As for Thorin Oakenshield, the ultimate badass Dwarf king who hates Bilbo, what a role that is. Maybe the best role in the movie. Who could they get for it? Brian Cox springs to mind, in fact he would probably be the PERFECT choice, unless they want a younger Thorin. As for LOTR cast appearances, Viggo couldn't do it because Aragorn is too young (unless they de-age him), a Legolas cameo would be pointless, Hugo Weaving as Elrond would be good as Elrond is actually in The Hobbit. Obviously, the main people they need back are Ian Mckellen as Gandalf the Grey and Andy Serkis as Gollum 'what has it got in it's pocketses?'.
Why doesn't PJ get off his arse and.... by J-Dizzle	Sep 16th, 2006 10:00:37 PM
...ask MGM and New Line himself?? For God's sake, he knows we want him to make The Hobbit, he knows that we expect it. This whole "Nobody's called me" excuse is lame! MGM's Hobbit announcment was huge, and kudos to them for stepping up to create the buzz and get the ball rolling. Now PJ knows, all he has to do is pick up that phone and make the call. Screw waiting, JUST DO IT PJ, WE EXPECT YOU TO DO IT! Otherwise MGM will do it without you. If the movies turn out to be great you'll be kicking yourself for not getting involved when you had the chance, if they turn out to be crap then you'll be kicking yourself for not getting involved and the save the movies when you had the chance!
king kong was overrated by Cotton McKnight	Sep 16th, 2006 10:04:33 PM
and the special effects were sub par. In fact I think Weta does some really lousy work.
NEON GENESIS EVANGELION by Ribbons	Sep 16th, 2006 10:13:20 PM
Not to sound churlish, because I've read this entire interview and loved most of it, but the next time you get Peter Jackson or someone at WETA on the phone, you should ask them about the status of 'Neon Genesis Evangelion.' For all I know, it's been dropped from their schedule completely. But I know that WETA has a couple of preliminary, conceptual sketches on its website and that Richard Taylor was, once, obsessed with making the film. So it would be interesting to hear where that's at now. Anyhoo, thanks for the interview Quint.
Not good news about The Hobbit. by rbatty024	Sep 16th, 2006 10:28:00 PM
I was hoping for a more family friendly film. Making it in line with the rest of Lord of the Rings seems like a terrible idea. In my perfect version The Hobbit would be a faster paced, more adventure oriented, instead of focusing on politics and war. Lord of the Hobbit sounds shitty. The greatness about LotR is that they were able to get the tone right even if they didn't follow the books exactly. If they throw out the tone of The Hobbit, then it'll be a major fuck up. Hopefully Jackson doesn't actually helm this film and we get someone more in tuned to action/adventure instead of the same godamn shot over and over again.
Cotton McKnight by Mr. Nice Gaius	Sep 16th, 2006 10:37:17 PM
"king kong was overrated and the special effects were sub par." -- I think the problem with Kong was that it was rushed to the theater. Although PJ and Universal (who were banking on the LOTR credibility) were pleased with the 3 hour cut, they basically ran out of time to refine it further. Obviously, no one in the production will admit to that but that's my theory. Reading Jackson's comments on deadlines only further convinces me of this.
Ribbons by Mr. Nice Gaius	Sep 16th, 2006 10:47:28 PM
RE: NEON GENESIS EVANGELION - it may depend on the studio and audience reception to "Transformers" that determines whether a similar robot/mech-style movie gets the greenlight. Yikes.
Sounds good to me by 4815162342	Sep 16th, 2006 10:59:39 PM
PJ should be the only one who gets it. LOTR was very well done.
Why Not Just Remake LOTR? by SnakesOnABicycle	Sep 16th, 2006 11:34:14 PM
It has been 3 years.
my opinions by FrodoFraggins	Sep 16th, 2006 11:52:05 PM
There is absolutely no need for two movies - it should be one movie at 2.5hrs or less. Legolas, gimli, arwen and aragorn need not apply. I understand the need to mantain some consistency with the LOTR trilogy. BUT, that doesn't mean they can't maintain the idea that this was a more innocent world than what we saw in LOTR. I don't have any issues with a small segway to the council, but the actions at Saurons fortress in mirkwood really aren't what this story is about. PJ "introduced" way to much stuff in the last two films, when there was plenty of material he could have taken from the books. There's no need for him to to bastardize "the hobbit" as well. It's a simple and fun story set in middle earth. Let's leave it at that. When the tolkien estate opens licensing to the Silmarillion and other tolkien works then PJ can have a field day. But don't turn the hobbit into something it was never meant to be.
Just for fun, what would a Jackson Hobbit be like? by Ringwearer9	Sep 16th, 2006 11:53:20 PM
1. The Unexpected Party : Lots of closeups of the Dwarves mouths eating tomato sandwiches messily, getting food in their beards. 2. Instead of Gandalf saving them from the trolls, it will be a troop of troll-surfing elves. 3. When Gandalf's magic sparks burn holes in the orcs under the Misty Mountains, they will literally burn big black holes all the way through, which the camera will swoop into and out of. 4. When the dwarves and Bilbo are caught on the top of that burning pine tree, Bilbo will be rescued, not by an Eagle, but by Arwen flying ON an eagle. 5. Beorn won't be in the movie, cos Jackson is a "serious" movie director, and Man-Bears are just silly. 6. Like Shelob, all the Mirkwood Spiders will have crusty sores on their faces, and Bilbo will jump around like he's on crack, just like Sam did. Maybe we'll be treated to closeups of the Wood-elves at their feasts, sloppily chomping tomato sandwiches to show how nasty they are to Bilbo and the Dwarves. 7. There will be another feast at Laketown, and another opportunity to show the greed and nastiness of the Laketown men as the camera does extreme closeups on their mouths as they eat tomato sandwiches. 8. Smaug, as I've noted before, will have filthy teeth and drool a lot, and have crusty, oozy sores on his jewel encrusted belly. His fabulous treasure will be filled with maggoty corpses, or hideous mummies, just like on Skull Island. 9. Plenty of shots of Lakemen running around on fire, just like Denethor, maybe one shot of the Mayor on fire running down a LONG pier. 10. The bowman who shoots down Smaug will also put an arrow into the aforementioned on-fire Mayor. 11. The Battle of the Five armies will go on forever, with multiple Olympic Orc Suicide Attacks and lots of Nazi elves marching in formation. 12. Other than burn big gory holes in the Misty Mountain goblins, Gandalf won't get to do anything else, because he'll accidentally drop his staff before the Eagle rescue.
Tomato Sandwiches? GENIUS!! by FrodoFraggins	Sep 17th, 2006 12:00:02 AM
Ringbearer9 said: "7. There will be another feast at Laketown, and another opportunity to show the greed and nastiness of the Laketown men as the camera does extreme closeups on their mouths as they eat tomato sandwiches." Will they be true sandwiches? Or will a sliced tomatoe act as the bread with blood pudding filling?
I'll direct the Hobbit by Westonian	Sep 17th, 2006 12:12:41 AM
Give me a call..
and Michael Clarke Duncan should play Bilbo by emu47	Sep 17th, 2006 12:49:52 AM
Because if this is a movie about some "Hobbit," that hobbit should kick some arse. No WAY does Bilbo sit out in the big fight. That just ain't Hollywood enough. We need him to have a moment where he grabs Smaug's tail, beats Smaug to death while flying through the air, and uses the dragon to dive-bomb the evil-doers. After a majestic surf off the dragon's head, Beastmaster Baggins bites the head off the mean dwarf and spits it at a giant gong.
Important moment in Jackson's Battle of 5 Armies by Ringwearer9	Sep 17th, 2006 01:24:42 AM
The orcs will suddenly roll up a ong line of mysterious large barrels, with short black ropes sticking out of the bung holes, right up to the front lines next to the elves. They will then retreat quickly, leaving a nice long space between the puzzled elves and the barrels. Then a line of Olympic Orcs without any armor will jog majestically towards the mysterious barrels with short black ropes sticking out of them. This will result in a nail-biting setback for the good guys.
The Hobbit is a children's story PERIOD by antonphd	Sep 17th, 2006 01:28:45 AM
In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole filled with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort. - read that outloud and tell me that The Hobbit isn't a children's book.
Ringwearer9 by antonphd	Sep 17th, 2006 01:33:37 AM
if you aren't already on some FBI watch list for crazy people who are likely to embark on a random killing spree, you should be. dude, whatever your opinion is, you made is a LOOONNNNGGGGGG time ago and now you are just kinda sounding like a scary nutcake. sit down, chill out, open your eyes and come back to reality. we get your points, we don't need to have them hammered over and over again. you're just coming across like an asshole now.
Ringwearer9 by antonphd	Sep 17th, 2006 01:50:20 AM
I'm right there with you on having Alfonso Cuarón for The Hobbit, but man, can you chill out with the Peter Jackson hate rants. You know, he's probably reading these, or someone who works close with him is, why don't we use this opportunity constructively instead of wasting it on pointless trash talking. We all know Peter Jackson doesn't have time to do The Hobbit in the time frame that MGM and New Line expect it to be done. But if he steps in as a producer with someone like Alfonso Cuarón, then we have the guarentee that the film will get a full budget backing from the studios and be forced to keep the films from turning into something aweful. I think Peter Jackson did an amazing job with LOTR and I think that Alfonso Cuarón did a fantastic job with HP3 and especially The Little Princess. I want to see a PJ produced AC directed The Hobbit movie in the next few years. This little window here in this talkback can be more influential than you can imagine. Don't forget who first suggested Frodo to PJ. Whether you like that decision or not, there is some influence here and it would be far better used in positive suggestions than wasting time shitting on Peter Jackson.
MGM PHONE JACKSON....NOW !!!!!! by giger167	Sep 17th, 2006 05:34:03 AM
When exactly did everyone start hating Peter Jackson ? Did I miss that memo ? If he wants to make the hobbit, and get's the chance, surely it's the most exciting movie news in years. I happen to think the Lord of the rings trilogy is the most important fantasy movie series in history and any time he wants to return to the series (whether it be the Hobbit, Silmarillion, or whatever else he decides to make) i'll be there at the front of the queue opening night. How any stduio can not have this on fast track defies belief, the last LOTR movie made over a Billion dollars, is there more of a sure thing in cinema history. If anything The Hobbit could be more sucessful, as the story is more accessible by far, and as revised by Tolkien to include more portents could easily be tied to LOtr trilogy. Really if Peter Jacksons The Hobbit doesnt get some possitive feedback on this site I supsect the haters have won :(
Why not change the Hobbit? by auraboy	Sep 17th, 2006 08:24:06 AM
The Hobbit needs changing. Forty five minutes of songs and being regularly saved by people bearing sandwiches would make an awful film. Sure it'd be kid friendly but then who else would care? Personally Beorn's talking, table catering mutts would be a little too much like that bloody Narnia disgrace...
If We Must Change Directors Go See-->Fernando Meirelles by The Ender	Sep 17th, 2006 10:26:50 AM
Here is one Director, I dont see fucking up ANYTHING in the near future. He has an amazing Visual Eye, is able to tell you about his characters and make you understand them in very short amounts of time, despite dealing with a lot of them. Breathtaking camera work, Top notch casting...this guy is the real deal. NEW LINE PAY FUCKING ATTENTION, DONT FUCK THIS MOVIE UP!
Sure, do two movies with new bogus material added... by chromedome	Sep 17th, 2006 10:35:41 AM
...and while you are at it, give it to Berman and Braga. If you are gonna hose it, hose it good! The reason things are edited down is usually to make it BETTER. If Tolkien left things out of Hobbit, well, I will go with his judgement. How many times do we see "deleted scenes" on dvds and it is really obvious why they were deleted. And some of the LOTR extended scenes were just filler or distracting, not adding to the story--often the original cut is best, and the so-called director's cut puts some crap back in that was rightfully cut in the first place. Think Exorcist and Blade Runner. Tolkien wrote a winner, make the winner.
A Sidenote, You All Do Realize In The Two Towers.... by The Ender	Sep 17th, 2006 10:35:57 AM
..in the book. There is indeed a part where he orcs blow up a part of the wall at Helms Deep. A friend of mine who considers themselves a Tolkien freak cried foul when she saw this happen on screen, saying that it wasnt in the book. I re-read that entire section and it is actually in there. Of course for the movie it became a very large part of the battle, which I can understand why. But it does indeed happen in the book. That is all.
Just for fun, what would a Ringwearer9 Hobbit be like? by Mr. Nice Gaius	Sep 17th, 2006 10:40:55 AM
#1. The Unexpected Party: Lots of smartly dressed Dwarves saying "Please" and "Thank you" as they pass around mutton-cucumber-dill hors d'oeuvres. Bilbo does not appear at all put-out by their appetites or their manners. #2. Gandalf will save them from the Trolls but the Trolls will also be smartly dressed with clean fingernails. #3. When Gandalf's magic sparks burn holes in the orcs under the Misty Mountains, Ringy won't show it because it's too violent. #4. When the dwarves and Bilbo are caught on the top of the burning pine tree, the fire will appear as a cooler shaded color because the he doesn't like the natural COLOR OF FIRE! #5. Beorn will be played by Bart the Bear from "The Edge" (which will completely miss the point). #6. Once in Mirkwood, Ringy will inexplicably insert the Rankin & Bass "Mirkwood Sequence" and supplement it with insert shots of Bakshi's Elves cause we all know that Elf chicks should be HOT! #7. Laketown will be used as the segment where Ringy inserts his political beliefs into the film = A small town of cowards living under sanctions turns its fate around with the help of 13 strangers...kind of like "The Seven Samurai". #8. Smaug will appear as a handsome dragon, one that doesn't look remotely evil. His fire will be green because, once again, Ringy doesn't like the color of fire to look like THE COLOR OF FIRE. The treasure will have neatly stacked polished coins that look like something out of the Sci-Fi Channel's "Ring of the Nibelungs". #9. There will only be 2-3 shots of people on fire during the attack on Laketown. Ringy will find it too violent and he will alter the flames to a "cooler" color because, again, he doesn't like the natural COLOR OF FIRE. #10. The bowman's name is BARD. Learn it. #11. The Battle of Five Armies will be largely overlooked as Ringy can't stand all the filth & fury of battle. He will not want to put up with all the post-production costs involved with painting out the COLOR OF FIRE that is sure to occur during a large battle. #12. Gandalf's staff will be more of a telescoping cane. This will be more practical since he could keep it in his pocket. We all know how forgetful and clumsy a 3,000 year old wizard can be!
Ender, your friend was right about the Olympic Orc by Ringwearer9	Sep 17th, 2006 10:51:48 AM
In the book they did blow up part of the wall, but the orcs just blew it up, they didn't plant the charge, then back up a bit so that an unarmored orc bearing a special hot flaming torch could jog down an alley made for him, making it really obvious he was up to something, just so he can touch off the bomb. And in the book, there were no elves at helms deep other than Legolas, but if there had been they wouldn't have needed Aragorn to tell them how to fight, and that orc would have had a pincushioned heart within seconds of starting his jog. And Legolas wouldn't have need Aragorn to tell him to shoot, but if he had, he'd have killed the unarmored orc with one shot.
Just to clarify... by Mr. Nice Gaius	Sep 17th, 2006 10:54:26 AM
During the first appearance of the "King Kong" trailer, Ringwearer9 (previously Ringbearer9) went completely psychotic over Peter Jackson's use of CGI sunsets and fire. The color of the sunsets = boring. The natural color of fire = phony. Unfortunately, you won't be able to look Ringbearer9's posts because he was banned. HA, HA, HA! Flame on!
I'm not a Jackson hater, but... by rbatty024	Sep 17th, 2006 10:57:41 AM
his comments about The Hobbit have me worried. I really liked The Lord of the Rings trilogy, reasonably liked King Kong, enjoyed Dead Alive, and actually liked The Frightners. However, to make The Hobbit fit the tone of LotR completely misses the point. The Hobbit should be a family affair, along the lines of the original Star Wars, The Wizard of Oz, or the first Harry Potter. It can be slightly trippy or scary, but overall it should be a more quickly paced adventure film. Breaking it into two and adding lots of stuff that was never in the book would kill Tolkein's purpose. They can change the book to more easily fit within the movie format, so long as the keep a more adventurous and family friendly tone.
Indeed Ringwearer, And I'm Not Alone Wishing by The Ender	Sep 17th, 2006 11:01:04 AM
That the elves hadn't shown up at Helms Deep, and it was Aragorns people instead. Since Two Towers came out I have read the Silmarillion 5 times, and LOTR twice. The Hobbit I read once in 15 years ago, I havent picked it up since then. I want this movie to be made badly, And I hope Jackson does Direct it. If not, IM ALL FOR FERNANDO MEIRELLES! LISTEN TO ME NEW LINE!!
Agh...The Nerd In Me Strikes Again... by The Ender	Sep 17th, 2006 11:02:38 AM
Ringwearer just to clarify, my friend was arguing that the wall blowing up Didn't happen at all. Not that the Olympic Orc blew it up, but that it just didnt happen. Since then, thy noob has been pwned. Okay..I'm done now. FERNANDO MEIRELLES!!
Fun stuff by auraboy	Sep 17th, 2006 11:05:54 AM
It's kind of funny trying to second guess everything Tolkien would or wouldn't have wanted in these movies. Very possibly he wouldn't have wanted any movies at all but we (well most of us) rather enjoyed watching them. Sure pay the author's intentions respect but making a line for line option on a book isn't going to work for any audience. Anyway, I thought Tolkien's one complaint about his own Lord of the Rings was that it was too short and he wanted more detail. If Jackson made the Hobbit he'd be making a prequel to his own version of the trilogy, with all his own quirks and revisions. The Hobbit would work much better as a serious prequel than one long kids road movie.
could it be that... by chromedome	Sep 17th, 2006 11:15:30 AM
...Ender IS Fernando Meirelles? :-)
If NiceGaius made the Hobbit ... by Ringwearer9	Sep 17th, 2006 11:18:47 AM
... he'd ask Peter Jackson how, because Peter Jackson is so cool! And AICN interviews him! Being a talkbacker here makes NiceGaius feel like an insider! It would suck if NiceGaius were an insider to lameness, therefore all Jackson is all good!
Oh, and Nice Gaius ... by Ringwearer9	Sep 17th, 2006 11:29:01 AM
Your Ratfinkus stripes are showing. You just posted something worthy of Ratfinkus, not NiceGaius. And you were trying so hard.
Oh Ringodangdoodle... by Mr. Nice Gaius	Sep 17th, 2006 11:33:14 AM
I have never said that "all Jackson is all good". In fact, I thought a lot of Kong was heavy-handed, useless, and somewhat cringeworthy. And some of the additions to ROTK:EE were unneccessary. However, whenever I see a chance to confront your insanity, I will take it.
Oh and Ringwearer... by Mr. Nice Gaius	Sep 17th, 2006 11:36:18 AM
you were owned. And I really don't have to try hard at all. You just make it soooo easy despite this desperate "Ratfinkus Defence" of yours.
focus on reality by sauronsfinger	Sep 17th, 2006 11:45:34 AM
All this fanboy talk about fave directors and childhood memories of a book seems to ignore some very pointed realities. First: PJ's version of LOTR was wildly successful on almost every level - financial - awards - critical reviews - fan acceptance - media awareness - merchandise spin-offs - the whole ball of wax that very few films ever approach. Second: MGM or New Line would be insane for attempting THE HOBBIT with anything but PJ and the crew he outlined in his interview. You do not mess with proven success and a track record of excellence. This is Hollywood and its a business to make money - NOT to allow you to fulfill your warped memories of a book that your wetnurse read to you when you were six. Third: JRRT himself invited others to join in and give their version of his mythology in several of his letters. PJ's version of Middle-Earth is just another version of the same story told by a different story teller with a different emphasis. Fourth: We are all jumping on this way too soon since it appears that the legal differences between Sony and New Line have yet to be worked out. But like it was said earlier --- I trust Peter Jackson. Nobody has the track record of excellent success with JRTT that he has. Or perhaps you wanted Ralph Bakshi to return?
Honestly, Peter Jackson makes Ralph Bakshi look good. by Ringwearer9	Sep 17th, 2006 12:03:52 PM
I mean, I saw Bakshi's verison in the theatre, and I thought it sucked, mainly because of the awful animation. But that was because of underbudgeting. Bakshi obviously wanted to do the story justice, witness some of the truly polished scenes. There are moments of pure beauty in Bakshi's version. Bakshi picked a real writer to write the screenplay (Peter S. Beagle). Bakshi actually CARED, even if that caring was aborted by lackof finances to finish the movie properly. Jackson, as he's stated in more than one way, just doesn't really care about the books, or bringing their tone, their sensibility, to the screen. Jackson had better financial backing, so his film LOOKS technically better, but the soul of the director behind it all is that of an orc. Omni magazine once reviewed Bakshi's LOTR by starting "Ralph Baksh is an Orc", but I think that's unfair to Bakshi. Peter Jackson is an orc, however, despite the layer of Tolkien loving compatriots in making the film, that helped disguise his orcishness and keep it suppressed.
Edward Scissorelf. by auraboy	Sep 17th, 2006 12:06:54 PM
Get Depp as the wood-elf king. You know you want him as Bloom's father.
No one likes ratfinks, Ratfinkus by Ringwearer9	Sep 17th, 2006 12:24:16 PM
If your strongest argument is ratfinking, then you'll have to live with no-one liking you. Not even the moderators whose asses you are trying to kiss.
Nice Gaius is right... by chromedome	Sep 17th, 2006 12:24:36 PM
...when he points out that some additions to ROTK EE were unnecessary. Recently watched it, and kept thinking "WTF? Why add THAT back in?" But he and I are just killing time in this TB, waiting as patiently as possible for the BSG talkbacks to resume. See you there, sir! :-)
Ringfinkus by Mr. Nice Gaius	Sep 17th, 2006 01:03:26 PM
What are you talking about? How am I "ratfinking" if I'm providing necessary background to your PJ Insanity? Please, take a step back, breath deep, and assess. OK? Good.
Roger that, chromedome! by Mr. Nice Gaius	Sep 17th, 2006 01:04:17 PM
October 6th, the fight for humanity's survival resumes!
ENDER, to be fair to your friend ... by Ringwearer9	Sep 17th, 2006 01:05:30 PM
... she was probably so annoyed by how stupid the whole scene was in the movie, she couldn't believe ANY of it was true to the book. That's Jackson's fault, not your friend's.
Ratfinkus, please continue ... by Ringwearer9	Sep 17th, 2006 01:44:29 PM
being yourself.
Ender and the "Wall Scene" by Mr. Nice Gaius	Sep 17th, 2006 01:48:05 PM
Bottom line: it worked great. Since Tolkien didn't specify how it was that they set off the explosion (he only refers to it as "blasting fire"), I thought the "suicide orc" was a nice touch. It fits in with the subtext of the orc's disregard for even their own lives - or as Theoden states, "such reckless hate". So, do not sweat Ringwearer's useless jibes. He's only exorcising his hate of PJ on this site.
"please continue being yourself". by Mr. Nice Gaius	Sep 17th, 2006 01:50:30 PM
Gladly. I present to you, Mr. Nice Gaius.
right back atcha, Nice Gaius... by chromedome	Sep 17th, 2006 02:31:34 PM
..."October 6th, the fight for humanity's survival resumes"...and until then, the struggle for the BSG fan's survival is ongoing.... Eureka is a nice diversion in the meantime, though!
Ratfinkus you are, and ever will be ... by Ringwearer9	Sep 17th, 2006 02:35:56 PM
... the time of Nice Gaius has passed. It was but a dream, and even dreams have an end.
Ringb(w)earer9 by Mr. Nice Gaius	Sep 17th, 2006 02:58:46 PM
Again, you have failed to answer what it is that I'm doing to constitute being called a "ratfink". But whatever. I can't take anything you say that seriously anyway. I'd rather drive a spoon into my ear. Although you are right about one thing - dreams do end. But sometimes they turn into nightmares. Don't make me become your nightmare, Ringy. I don't think you'll like that very much...
PJ did care about books by sauronsfinger	Sep 17th, 2006 03:02:39 PM
To throw out a silly idea such as PJ does not care about the books is just without factual foundation. Just watch the extras on the DVD's and you will see the writing team talk about including many scenes simply because they did care about the books and wanted to capture the essence of it. To say otherwise is just delusional and not supported by the films record. The fact that Peter Beagle wrote a book and was a writer on the Bakshi travesty means nothing in and of itself. Boromir as a Viking -- what a concept! Sounds like a PJ hater at work here who will not be swayed. "don't confuse me with facts" seems to be the mantra.
AICN comics up on bottom of page, & as for Hobbit... by kisskissbangbang	Sep 17th, 2006 03:13:58 PM
...by Jackson, I'm open-minded, though the notion of 2 films does strike me as excessive.
sauronsfinger by Mr. Nice Gaius	Sep 17th, 2006 03:19:18 PM
Welcome to the self-delusional world that is Ringb(w)earer9.
The boring parts of LOTR were the ones by CreasyBear	Sep 17th, 2006 03:19:35 PM
focusing on the Hobbits. This could be a mess.
More Diary of the dead news from the UK by Cleyu	Sep 17th, 2006 03:24:15 PM
http://tinyurl.com/m479t
Seriously? by auraboy	Sep 17th, 2006 03:24:39 PM
Oh who cares? Tolkien probably hated Lord of the Rings by the time everybody had finished eulogizing over it. Almost certainly he would have been happier if he'd written a complete linguistic history of Middle Earth with not a singular bit of descriptive action or character development at all. Or maybe would could encourage Jackson to film the Father Christmas letters. Plenty of intrigue and conspiracy. Though maybe lacking in squashy tomatoes. Andy Serkis as everybody but Santa.
AICN Comics up & as for Jackson Hobbit by kisskissbangbang	Sep 17th, 2006 03:25:06 PM
...I'm open-minded, though 2 films seem excessive. If you're looking for AICN comics, check the bottom corner, in the Comics section. What, no room at the top, guys?
Apology by kisskissbangbang	Sep 17th, 2006 03:27:07 PM
Didn't mean to post twice. I'm a tool. Bygones, as Fish would say.
MoCap Santa by auraboy	Sep 17th, 2006 03:27:11 PM
With realistic white facial hair algorithm. Almost as if the dude was there.
Jacksons film is stooopid by pokadoo	Sep 17th, 2006 03:41:16 PM
In the book version, Tolkien described what was happening using words and paper, but in the film version, Jackson used film and actors! This is not the same as what i read!! A more competent director would use a Malkovich-style portal, to beam the experience of reading the book 20 years ago, directly into the individual viewers head! Grrr.
I'm not saying LOTR was bad... by MonteCristo	Sep 17th, 2006 04:10:16 PM
...I'm just saying that although Jackson's idea could possibly be interesting, it would NOT be the Hobbit. It would be Lord Of The Rings 4. And, I don't want to see Lord Of The Rings 4. The Hobbit as one film would make a lot of money by itself. More kids would see it, and the nightmarish scenes would be gone. And, whoever, suggested the Hobbit as two film is mentally sick. Frankly, let's make a family-friendly Hobbit when things were simpler in Middle Earth. That doesn't mean there's no drama. That doesn't mean there's no violence. It just means that it isn't a LOTR 4. And that's what I, and many other people, want.
if you want to do another trilogy, do Silmarillion by oisin5199	Sep 17th, 2006 04:16:29 PM
Put me in the camp of the Hobbit being a strong SINGLE film with a different tone. If you want to do an epic trilogy and you want some freedom to flesh things out, do the fall of Melchior, Turin the Wanderer and the story of Numenor or something like that for an epic trilogy. These were sketches of stories, more like mythology with not as much detail so there's less to be 'faithful' to. I particularly think seeing the story of Galadriel would be interesting, since she fled with her brothers from the Valar, but she later repents. If you want epic and you want to bring back people like Galadriel and Elrond, then do some stuff on the First Age and Second Age.
Scary stuff by auraboy	Sep 17th, 2006 04:24:50 PM
Honestly, it may read like kid's stuff but putting a lot of the stuff from the Hobbit up on screen means showing some violence and bloodshed and immolation. Although I agree it doesn't have to be tonally as dark as Lord of the Rings but imagine a Shire similar to the early parts of Fellowship with only the occasional darker hint that something is growing into the larger story. Besides surely kid's rather seem to enjoy the bleak conspiracy stuff in Harry Potter. Or am I overestimating them? I always thought the rather child-like tone of The Hobbit got somewhat darker in later chapters anyway. Compare the dark description of the desolation of Smaug to the opening chapters. It almost sounds like Tolkien changed his mind half way through.
Storytelling though... by auraboy	Sep 17th, 2006 04:29:43 PM
Regardless of who does it or how though, somebody earlier mentioned the idea of beginning and ending the story as if Bilbo, or perhaps Frodo, were reading from the Red Book, which, given the very 'once-upon-a-time' opening to 'The Hobbit' seems like a perfect idea. If it were Frodo it'd be an easy way for Jackson to get Elijah Wood back in anyway.
There will never be a "The Silmarillion" movie. by Mr. Nice Gaius	Sep 17th, 2006 04:44:28 PM
There is no central character or central story thread. It would be like filming the first few books of the Old Testament. I can't imagine a studio taking that kind of risk.
If studios want to make LOTR fantasy franchises by Orbots Commander	Sep 17th, 2006 04:48:29 PM
they could no worse than look at Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time books (I believe that puppy is still ongoing as a series) or the original Margaret Weiss and Hickman Dragonlance series. Sure, they're all pale imitations of Middle Earth, but Tolkien was a one of a kind writer who successfully combined his adventure fantasy stories with deep themes about WWII, Norse mythology, Arthurian legend and generous doses of Christian symbolism. That's why his works are considered modern classics. Anyway, that's my two cents.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be dark AT TIMES... by MonteCristo	Sep 17th, 2006 04:54:20 PM
I'm saying that there shouldn't be two movies and there shouldn't be a detatched moment with the White Council and there shouldn't be a PG-13 rating... I'm saying that it should be lighthearted at times and action-packed at others...but not scary and foreboding.
Light-hearted is right... by auraboy	Sep 17th, 2006 05:02:52 PM
I like the idea that the Hobbit is essentially a simple tale but the film could enhance it's focus on Gandalf's side adventures etc etc. I also expect that you could watch it as a simpler tale, or read more darkness into it if you want to watch it as a run-on into the LOTR films. I imagine it'd be a case of simply re-using Shore's ring theme when Bilbo finds the ring, but essentially not mentioning it in words. It could be like a Star-Wars prequel that, y'know, worked. Personally I'd like it darker but I think the Hobbit could stand quite a bit of humour and simplicity in Bilbo's rather bad-tempered acceptance of his fate and his transformation into a more adventurous sort. Essentially that's his difference to Frodo. Frodo remains reluctant, Bilbo grows fond of the wandering life. You could interweave the rather basic 'quest' of Bilbo with the hints of a bigger story. Though, even there, two films might be stretched. One 3-hour piece would be a good 'starter' prequel for the LOTR. Much like the book.
Damn, way too popular a topic... by raw_bean	Sep 17th, 2006 05:20:30 PM
...to try and follow linearly all the way through. But in case anyone's doing like me and searching for their name: SpikedBuffy, thanks for agreeing, and colematthews, you say you've loved the Hobbit 'as is' (see my point regarding the fact that that isn't the Hobbit as first written and published) since you were 5 years old: I loved it whehn I was a small child too. But that's the point. I was a young teen when I decided (as Tolkien did) that it was far too childish and silly, and now I'd love to see certain things from The Hobbit made, but accurate to the world of Middle Earth, not slavishly accurate to the childish and silly Hobbit. In 'the great saga of the Jewells and the Rings' (Silmarillion, Hobbit, LOTR) the Hobbit stands out uncomfortably with its childish tone. I liked it until it lead me to the far superior LOTR and ultimately Silmarillion (in all its various unfinished incarnations).
But that's what the Hobbit IS... by MonteCristo	Sep 17th, 2006 05:39:25 PM
...and you either want a HOBBIT film or you're just looking at it as another excuse to go back to Jackson's view of Middle Earth. Imagine this. New Line Cinema presents The Hobbit. Ian Mckellen voiceover "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit". Cut to beautiful Shire view with calm beginning and Bilbo's journey and from then on it gets more adventurous and action packed until the Battle of Five Armies at the end.
MonteCristo by antonphd	Sep 17th, 2006 08:10:47 PM
Yeah, I hope they start out the film with narraration. hehe, that made me think of something surreal. maybe they could get Morgan Freeman... in a hole in the ground, there lived a penguin.
2 Films by antonphd	Sep 17th, 2006 08:16:06 PM
The ONLY reason I would like 2 films is that I'd like everything from the book in the films and 1 film is too short for all of it and 3 films is too long. I think two 3 hour movies would be good. Let's face it, if LOTR could have been 6 movies it would have been awesome. Each book in the 4 book series really deserves about 6 hours of screen time at least.
I'm still pro TV myself. by antonphd	Sep 17th, 2006 08:18:14 PM
I can't wait for the rights to run out and for The Hobbit to go public domain. Then maybe we can see a TV series the way Ian McKellan discribed. That's how it should really be done. Something with the production quality of Band of Brothers.
i refuse to see a HOBBIT movie... by teddanson37	Sep 17th, 2006 08:28:00 PM
that does NOT bring back the original cast from LOTR (Mckellan, Lee, etc.) and i'd be doubtful if Jackson is not involved.
The Silmarillion is useless by crackerfarmboy	Sep 17th, 2006 10:38:44 PM
The only important story here is the story of the rings of power. Silmarillion focuses on events that occurred thousands of years BEFORE the rings were even invented. That's the equivalent of wanting to tell a story of WWII and beginning by telling the history of Germanic tribes during the Roman Empire. It's just not necessary to the story.
I'm saying Silmarillion is a mythology by oisin5199	Sep 18th, 2006 12:22:00 AM
It doesn't have to be 'useful' to the Rings story. It's stories from Middle Earth, some that would lend themselves more to an expansion and revision because of how they're written, whereas the Hobbit is well sketched out already and doesn't need more. And there's certainly central characters. The story of the Valar and Melchior is definitely filmworthy - they don't have to connect to LOTR (even though they kinda do. See my above bit about Galadriel). But then again, I think there's incredible tales of mythology in other cultures that I'd love to see up on the screen. A Cuchulain epic, for instance. Hell, even adapting some of Morgan Llewellyn's Irish historical/mythical fiction (Bard, Red Branch, Lion of Ireland etc.) would be fantastic. Anyway, my point is that the Hobbit should be a standalone film with echoes of LOTR (including the 2 Ians), and that it shouldn't necessarily be shoehorned into an 'expanded' story to fill up 2 films. They're already adding tons of padding to the Prince Caspian script to fill just one movie.
PJ-Hobbit sounds awful by L. Duderino	Sep 18th, 2006 01:27:18 AM
The Hobbit is not LOTR-part 0, it is a wonderful childrens book.
If he does them, he can't wait 15+ years... by Kampbell-Kid	Sep 18th, 2006 03:14:58 AM
...or they will suffer the same fanboy fallout that the Star Wars prequels had.
2 films is a dreadful idea by Lost Prophet	Sep 18th, 2006 06:18:17 AM
hours of portentious tedium. No thanks.
Points gun at PJ "PUT DOWN THE OTHER PROJECTS!" by Dazzler69	Sep 18th, 2006 07:02:27 AM
and get to work on Hobbit b4 someone bites it. You know it's going to happen sooner or later. These actors go out like a bad lightbulb with their lifestyles. Get all the stock footage you can. You can edit later. We don't want Michael Bay taking over this do you? Can anybody say flames on Sting?
Forget the shire, set it in the future! by Reelheed	Sep 18th, 2006 07:03:55 AM
Doesn't it seem obvious that The Hobbit just wouldnt be worth doing without the cast and crew from LOTR. It'd be great to see it on the silver screen so I hope Mr. Jackson gets the call. Also I think there are loads of ideas to be plundered from the Silmarillion - I think that if any part of the middle earth material was asking to be brought to tv its the First Age...
Silmarillion by auraboy	Sep 18th, 2006 10:53:46 AM
I wonder what the readership of the Silmarillion is? It's obvious the vast popularity of both The Hobbit and LOTR brought a pre-made audience for the movies but are there enough people who read the earlier ages stuff to warrant any serious outlay? It's hard enough to movie-dramatise some of Tolkien's works anyway but the lack of some recognizably ordinary characters in the mythology stuff makes it hard to imagine it'd have character arcs audiences would invest in. Great battles would be a given but it might be too much of a history lesson to captivate.
"The Silmarillion" is unfilmable... by morGoth	Sep 18th, 2006 11:42:59 AM
…in its entirety, that is. It's just too dense and wide ranging. However, “The Tale of Beren and Luthien” by itself would be an absolutely killer movie. It's got Sauron as the main baddy again (pre-Ring gambit, natch) only this time he can turn into a werewolf but an actual actor could be cast in the role. It's got Morgoth, his boss. You could even re-cast Viggo as Beren and Liv Droolucious Tyler as Luthien. As for LoTR being separate from the Silmarillion, it's not. LoTR is merely a tiny part of the entire tale of Arda Marred of which the Silmarillion is a collection of tales concerning the back-story, ending with a synopsis of the War of the Ring. The Hobbit, of course, is the prequel to LoTR...in essence, the telling, in detail, of how the Ring came to be found. They are all part of the same story. ** Ninnyhammers! All one has to do to verify that Aragorn was only ten at the time of the Hobbit story is to look in the Appendices of LoTR. Do the math…he was only ten.
Aragorn by oisin5199	Sep 18th, 2006 12:12:52 PM
so does that mean that kid Aragorn was in Rivendell when Bilbo passed through the first time? I looked again at some of the appendix and Unfinished Tales info and it seems like if they did 2 movies, the second movie could handle some of the considerable story that happens between Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings - though Tolkien never wrote that story, he just had chronological notes. Unless they plan on fudging the timeline and making some of the events with the older Aragorn happen simultaneously with the Hobbit story. Which I think would be a giant mistake. Just make one good Hobbit movie!
i personaly think this is jackson positioning himself by kmw4121	Sep 18th, 2006 12:21:09 PM
think about it if pj wants to do it but he has this thing with new line what better way of getting us fanboys wipped up than saying how he would do the hobbit , it almost like blacmail me thinks . he also insinuated that the cast would only return if peter jackson was at the helm , i would LOVE to see this film done by peter jackson and not someone like "brett (i fuck up every film i do ) rattner
I think Jackson was saying... by auraboy	Sep 18th, 2006 01:13:11 PM
It's just plain bizarre that nobody has actually asked him. I mean MGM announcing they were going after him to direct the Hobbit without even picking up the phone first seems like a weird double-bluff or some sort of water-test by the studios.
Two hobbit movies by Staldo	Sep 18th, 2006 01:53:30 PM
I say the first hobbit movie could end in the "purple emperors" scene where Bilbo pokes his head above the canopy of Mirkwood. Perfect ending to a movie. As for a Silmarillion movie, you have no idea how much I don't want that to happen in any form. Ben Stiller for Feanor. Janeane Garofalo as Luthien. Dolph Lundgren as Morgoth.
MGM...New Line...GIVE HIM WHAT HE WANTS!!! by R.C. the "Wise"	Sep 18th, 2006 02:27:33 PM
There's too much money to be made to F*ck this up!
If they blow it with Peter Jackson... by R.C. the "Wise"	Sep 18th, 2006 02:30:25 PM
Don't do the film. If they have to pick someone, get the guy who directed NARNIA
Silmarillion cast by Staldo	Sep 18th, 2006 03:49:00 PM
Filming the Old testament? hasn't that been attempted several times? Right, production begins this summer. 1.vanyar elves-a bunch of Swedish fashion models 2.Noldor Elves-a bunch of Finnish fashion models, except for Feanor who will be played by Joaquin Phoenix. Elwe-David Bowie, Melian-Bernadette Peters. Beren-a CGI age-regressed Daniel Day Lewis. Luthien-that chick from Mirrormask. The entire population of Switzerland will play the Numenoreans and other sword-fodder and a huge, multi-billion dollar island of Numenor will be built and then sunk in the Pacific ocean for filming. all valar/maiar/other glowy, vague superbeings will be CGI motion-captured,except for the dragons, which will actually be living, genetically spliced animals grown in test tubes. I think we're ready to film this sucker.
Cool by auraboy	Sep 18th, 2006 04:24:02 PM
I want to see THAT movie.
Of course you're right Staldo {[;^) by morGoth	Sep 18th, 2006 04:27:31 PM
What was I thinking? Hey, wait a minute...friggin' Dolph Lundgren as M-m-morgoth?!! Why I oughta...at least get Jesse Ventura...with a heejous black wig.
'The Lord Of The Rings: The Hobbit'? by performingmonkey	Sep 18th, 2006 04:40:02 PM
D'you think that's what the execs would force PJ to call the movie? I just can't see them releasing it as 'The Hobbit'. 'The Lord Of The Rings' sounds impressive. Actually, the best bet would be 'The Hobbit - There And Back Again' which is kind of the proper title for the book anyway. Or 'There And Back Again - A Hobbit's Tale'. Another title could be 'The Lonely Mountain'. If they did two movies the first one could be 'There And Back Again' and the second 'The White Council' (even though it sounds too 'white'. Spooks would be like 'er, I doubt there's any black people on this 'White' council', which there aren't. Black people don't feature, even though they're meant to be the Haradrim, and Asian people are supposed to be the Easterlings)
Great TV by auraboy	Sep 18th, 2006 05:42:54 PM
That'd work. Imagine the 'previously on...' for each Silmarillion episode. You'd need modafinil to keep up.
Not so fast there Brother Bodet! by morGoth	Sep 18th, 2006 08:18:30 PM
If you read the more extended treatment of the Fall of Gondolin (Book of Lost Tales, II), you'd see that ol' Morgoth let loose a bunch of GIANT ROBOTS! Well, mechanical beasts filled with orcs but, hey, they moved by themselves and belched fire so that qualifies as a robot to me. C'mon, the Tale of B & L had werewolves AND vampires! Maybe Harry would finance it...
Gondolin robots by Staldo	Sep 18th, 2006 09:06:23 PM
Yep. Tolkien fucking hated industrial and military machinery, which is why the original version of the fall of Gondolin had those mechanical beast/troop carrier things, and why Saruman was actually a decent guy until he started getting interested in industry. Mechanical engineering degree holders beware.
New Tolkien in 2007 by Mr. Nice Gaius	Sep 18th, 2006 11:08:05 PM
http://tinyurl.com/j69do -- Speak of the devil. Looks like ol' Christopher is still hard at it publishing his father's work. Check it out guys.
HUGE MISTAKE... by CaptEgo	Sep 19th, 2006 12:24:59 AM
Just another voice joined in agreement with the notion that Jackson's ideas for a Hobbit film sucks (to quote listeners of a certain movie DJ) "The sweat off a dead man's balls". I saw a couple of people who at least made the logical connection between 'The Hobbit' and the 'Narnia' film(s). This is a 'classy' children's story with more than enough wit and action and wonder to satisfy any rational audience. Trying to align it with the Rings movies is not only a sign of excessive greed from the studios back a complete lack of comprehension about what kind of story it is. And I'm sorry, but those sad little wankers out there who want 'White Council' and 'Darker implications' just need to lighten the hell up. None of these things are remotely pertinent to 'The Hobbit' because the perspective of the story is Bilbo's and reflects a certain 'Hobbitish' innocence about the world and 'adventures'. It's about Bilbo going from being a completely insular little twit to an almost mature 'world traveller'. Adding all this LOTR crap would simply gut the story and make it into a bloated mess appealing to all those sad little people who occasionally fondle their LOTR resin cast figures and dream about girls without sharp knees. This is a story for kids that adults can dig and for those trapped in a pathetic life-long adolesence might I recommend shite like the Underworld films? Mr. Jackson, if this happens to pass your glance. DO NOT DO IT. Your contribution to the world of Tolkienians is complete, the tone and presentation of Middle Earth earn you great praise and (in my case) ameliorates the dismay about your 'add ons'. An 'adult' Hobbit would be a travesty and a grave injustice to what Professor T. accomplished with the Hobbit. Don't screw up what was largely a success.
"Hobbitish innocence" by Staldo	Sep 19th, 2006 01:23:25 AM
I agree Captego. I feel this movie should have a more innocent tone, however, I think the new director/production team would be well served to try and establish some continuity with the LOTR films as far as the "look" of the artifacts of the world. Gaius-I too read of Children of Hurin getting published, unfortunately, if this is the story of Middle Earth I think it is, it's going to be one depressing book.
I can't buy that NO ONE has called him about The Hobbit by GreatWhiteNoise	Sep 19th, 2006 02:36:01 AM
That just doesn't make any sense at all. None. There has to be more going on than he's letting on at the moment. I appreciate he's honest and forthright and always has time for the fans, but REALLY. Please. No talk about it? Don't buy it for a minute. Oh yeah, and 9/11 was all a right-wing conservative conspiracy frame-up too.
Well said CaptEgo. by rbatty024	Sep 19th, 2006 05:00:07 AM
The Hobbit is a different beast than LotR. Reading this interview it doesn't seem like Peter Jackson has the same love for this story as he did for the trilogy. He should probably hand this over to someone who can capture the spirit of that children's book.
yes, but who? by Lost Prophet	Sep 19th, 2006 05:23:15 AM
I can't think of a good example of a director that could cope with the burden of expectation. Especially one familiar with Children's movies.
Agreement with CaptEgo, et al. by tidge	Sep 19th, 2006 10:05:14 AM
I have no interest in any PJ/Fran/Phillipa 'treatment' of the Hobbit, aka LOTR The Hobbit 1: There, followed by LOTR The Hobbit 2: Back Again. For y'all who want a non-CGI re-animated Christopher Lee, have PJ go back and refilm the "Scouring of the Shire". There was plenty of actual story involving our favorite multi-hued wizard that the script team DIDN'T use, I see no reason why any fangeeks insist upon seeing White Council stuff shoe-horned into a Hobbit story. And yes, other actors can play the parts...fer crying out loud..Ian Holm played Frodo in the earlier BBC radio production!
I've got a bad feeling about this. by Childe Roland	Sep 19th, 2006 10:05:47 AM
If the Star Wars prequel trilogy taught us anything, it's that you shouldn't make more movie than you have story. Most folks I know agree that if Lucas had focused on just making the one prequel movie (a smarter version of Sith), the franchise wouldn't have left the horrible, toy-aisle-milking taste it did in so many folks' mouths. And, if there's something else Star Wars has taught us, it's that you should know the audience you're making hte movie for. George tried to have his cake and eat it, too, by taking the OT in a kid friendly direction witht he Ewoks, making that last film the least palatable of the three. Then, after making a mind-numbing kid-friendly first two prequels, he tried (unsuccessfully) to take things in the dark direction they needed to go in Sith to set up the more mature themed New Hope and Empire. Jackson doesn't have to do that. He can keep the Hobbit lighter, kid-friendlier (although, like Grimm fairy tales, The Hobbit was a scary story at times for kids) and let it serve as a stepping stone for fans to his epic trilogy. And he should just keep it at one movie about Bilbo and the 13 dwarves. If he feels he absolutely must address the "behind the scenes" stuff going on with Gandalf and the Council and Strider in the Shire, save that material for a super special edition of the movie that will force parents to double dip (the kiddie version for their larvae and the bells-and-whistles prelude tot he trilogy for them).
Just to be a huge geek... by CaptEgo	Sep 19th, 2006 10:19:32 AM
Seems like Morgoth had a typical bad guy fetish for the chaining to the mountains thing. Although technically it was Maedhros who was chained to a mountainside (by his wrist) whilst Hurin was forced to sit in a chair (up in the Mountains) and watch the 'Sauron-o-vision' version of how crap was going down out in the world. Wow...I didn't realize that Michiganians were that massive a bunch of Tolkien geeks. To think that the Natives had read Tolkien as well, it boggles the mind! The Children of Hurin or 'How Chris Tolkien added another layer of Security to his French Estate'.
It would have taken more than that to save the prequels by Lost Prophet	Sep 19th, 2006 10:51:15 AM
They were awful. Jackson sounds like he wants to do the same with the Hobbit. This is no fun without ringy frothing at the mouth over PJ's getting his Orcish, zombie directing mits on his beloved Tolkein.
What stepping stones? by morGoth	Sep 19th, 2006 11:29:38 AM
It’s a bit after the fact for an introduction to Middle-earth. Unlike the books, LoTR the movie has been released before the Hobbit. So, Jackson's movies like it or not, have already introduced millions to the story. Most, I'd say, have never nor do they ever intend to read the books but they will be expecting another Hobbit movie to be like LoTR. So, why stick to the kiddie-tone of the book? It can still be Bilbo centric even with back-story additions. I'd say if another team gets it, stick to the tone of the book and make it light hearted and only one movie. Comparing it to Star Wars (will it ever stop?) seems rather meaningless to me. I do agree with another poster above...I bet Tolkien would've rewritten the Hobbit to make it fall in line with the Hobbit sequel, LoTR. If he'd ever been able to publish Silmarillion while still alive, that is. So, here's Jackson's chance to do it for him. After all, it will be an adaptation of the story and not a literal re-telling. Yes, I wish he'd (or pick your fav director) done the Hobbit first too but he didn’t so no use what-iffing over it…the tone is fixed. Y’all need to get out of Rankin-Bassland.
Stars Wars prequels by auraboy	Sep 19th, 2006 11:42:05 AM
Wait, so people are saying that the 'kid-friendly' tone Lucas turned Star-Wars to is a bad thing but making 'The Hobbit' kid-friendly is a good thing? Okay let's just have a fucking family friendly LOTR musical...oh wait a minute...
Jackson may be playing hard to get to score big $$$ by Orbots Commander	Sep 19th, 2006 12:04:31 PM
from the studio. This could just be a negotiating/money play on his part. He would probably want a big fee plus a piece of the box office and DVD sales.
even more Tolkien... by m2298	Sep 19th, 2006 12:09:41 PM
The long awaited "history of Middle-earth" style MAKING OF THE HOBBIT is supposedly being published this May. http://tinyurl.com/jhkfg It supposedly has drafts of Tolkien's attempted 'adultification' of the book to bring it in line with LotR.
C'mon PJ, I know you are reading this... by WickedMonster	Sep 19th, 2006 12:18:43 PM
CALL MGM/NEW LINE NOW! MAke F'ing deal. Do Hobbit. Make group Happy. drool maniac look
You miss my point, morGoth. by Childe Roland	Sep 19th, 2006 12:50:26 PM
Sure, millions have already been introduced to the cinematic version of Middle Earth. But what about their kids? My first is barely a year old and I wouldn't want him watching the trilogy any time before he turned 10 (8 if he ends up being a precocious geek like his old man). That's a long time to wait before he and I can share some Middle Earthity goodness. But a somewhat kid-friendly (not dumbed down like the Star Wars prequels, but suitably dark-yet-fantastical like a Grimm story) Hobbit would make the perfect stepping stone for the introduction of future generations to the (movie) world of Tolkien. And if Jackson really wanted to film the extra material he's talking about, he could and would be able to make his more adult-oriented version available on one of the countless special edition DVD releases he's sure to put out. Saavy?
The SW prequels were not good...The Hobbit is good. by MonteCristo	Sep 19th, 2006 01:53:38 PM
Star Wars Episodes 4, 5, and 6 were all family friendly. And they are said to be some of the best films ever. Now, the SW prequels were just not good, and it they needed Sith to get them out of that stupor. But, The Hobbit, regardless of its family-friendly tone, is a very good book and, if in the right hands, would make a very good epic children's story. I'm not saying that it's just for children, and that anybody over the age of 10 won't enjoy it. I'm saying that it should be suitable for children, not pandering to them, but not neglecting them with nightmarish scenes and PG-13 violence. I'm saying that it should be a feel-good epic that, though action-packed and dark at times(without being nightmarish), is suitable for children.
There's a difference between... by rbatty024	Sep 19th, 2006 02:07:23 PM
a family film and a kid's movie. A family film can be enjoyed by any member of the family and is still appropriate for the younger kids. Wizard of Oz and Babe for example. A kid's movie is dumbed down so that it can only be enjoyed by someone with a first grade education. These are the movies that most studios turn out unfortunately. No one is suggesting that The Hobbit should be dumbed down, but rather that The Hobbit should be a family film. There are some scary parts in The Hobbit, and they can still be frightening, but more along the lines of Monster House and The Nightmare Before Christmas.
there might be too many mammoth interests inolved by ScreamingPenis	Sep 19th, 2006 03:10:01 PM
MGM, New Line, PJ. These are some big players. Sometimes it's tough enough getting one big actor to make a film. How in the hell are all of these parties going to agree on anything, especially when HOBBIT, whether one or two films, will be a money making machine?
Sacrilege by Halloween68	Sep 19th, 2006 03:29:41 PM
I love Peter Jackson. I love his version of LOTR (for the most part). But if this is what he's thinking with THE HOBBIT, I don't want him near it. Part of what makes THE HOBBIT so great is it's charm. If you take out all the charm and concentrate just on the action bits, you'll ruin it. Sure, it was originally written as a children's bedtime story (Tolkien wrote it for his kids). But it's only as much a children's book as you make of it. It's certainly "isn't" one, tonally. (Re-visit the parts about the orc caves and the spiders in Mirkwood.) Though it does differ in tone from LOTR. It isn't as serious. But what makes it different in tone is it's a faery tale structure. In the same way, Jackson didn't want to inject Bombadil into LOTR, you wouldn't want to inject LOTR into THE HOBBIT. Jackson professed to not liking the faery tale aspect of Tolkien. He wanted to concentrate on a more historical approach to RINGS. That was fine for it. LOTR is an epic story that has more to do with war than mischief and adventure. Tolkien's life had changed dramatically from the time he wrote THE HOBBIT until the time he wrote the histories of Middle Earth (THE SILMARILLION and LORD OF THE RINGS). Much of RINGS was reflective of his real time war experience. You can just go back and "re-imagine" THE HOBBIT so that it's no longer what made us all fall in love with Hobbits in the first place. For cripes sake, reread the first chapter of that book. It's one of the most brilliant and cleverly written pieces of literature ever written. It doesn't have to be complex. It just has to capture the imagination. "In the hole in the ground there lived a hobbit."
Think of the children! by auraboy	Sep 19th, 2006 03:49:14 PM
I understand the idea but personally I wanted to watch gore-infested horror films at age 7 so maybe I've just been disturbed for a long time. I remember loving The Hobbit as a kid but I'm sure most of the kids I knew could have handled a darker story. Probably why I like the fact that kids can handle the darker aspects of Harry Potter and (to some extent) The Narnia Chronicles. Maybe those of us who want darker, grittier takes on Tolkien's early work just missed out on this innocent childhood thing. Oh well. Maybe I missed out...
Maybe, and just maybe... by MonteCristo	Sep 19th, 2006 04:04:22 PM
Alfonso Cuaron, Gary Trousdale, and Kirk Wise can all direct. Peter Jackson can produce. William Goldman can write the script. It would be the perfect Hobbit movie.
I also had no desire to watch gore at age 7... by MonteCristo	Sep 19th, 2006 04:07:20 PM
...so I guess I'm part of the croud that loved classics and Disney animation and Tolkien fairy tales and all that good stuff. I guess that because I was raised on it, I do have a sort of nostalgia associated with it, but I think it is healthier for children(especially young children) to like fairy tales and wonder instead of violence and gore.
Fair enough by auraboy	Sep 19th, 2006 04:27:46 PM
I totally understand that maybe I was into a darker aspect of things as a youngster. As I said, I loved The Hobbit and adventure and everything but I suppose maybe some of us were more like Stephen King youth, hoping the adventure would lead to a decomposed body at the end... I think the argument that 'Tolkien did or didn't intend...' is redundant. He isn't adapting this thing he made. The only question is whether 'The Hobbit' THE FILM(s) is a detailed story of the early adventures of The Ring and some of it's assorted characters or whether its an almost entirely seperate nostalgic, cracking adventure, aimed at families but with child-like aims at heart. There's nothing wrong with either idea. I just personally prefer a prequel to the Ring trilogy in style and substance. But then I prefer LOTR to The Hobbit as a book as well. I don't think this is an evil or debased opinion, I just enjoy Tolkien's Middle-Earth in it's complexity and depth. I'd enjoy more of it, not less. I think it's clear Peter Jackson has a lot less love for The Hobbit as a work of literature than the LOTR, though I suspect it's because, frankly, the Hobbit is a much harder book to film. It's totally linear structure doesn't lend itself to an interesting adaptation - only briefly do we cut away from Bilbo at any point. I definitely agree that Alfonso Cuaron would be a better choice for a lighter adventure story. I just don't think Jackson is an evil, money grabbing hack for preferring to explore a bigger story and set up a prequel to his own films.
That's what I get for skim reading... by morGoth	Sep 19th, 2006 04:46:15 PM
...I gotcha now Childe. And, yes, that would be a perfect solution. One of the great things about Jackson's LoTR IS how many folk got turned on to the tale and did end up reading the books...Hobbit, Silmarillion and all. If that would be a way for even younger children to be introduced to it, via movies, then I'm all for it. I must say, however, that I noticed children in the theater during my many repeated viewings of LoTR. That would leave an entire existing fan base scratching their respective heads at the different tone of the Hobbit, yes? Exactly like, I might add, the way I felt when I first read the Hobbit. I read LoTR first since the old Ballantine paperbacks were loaned to me before I'd even heard of a hobbit much less 'The Hobbit.' I just want someone to make the movie in whatever form it takes.
But the Hobbit came first...not LOTR. by MonteCristo	Sep 19th, 2006 06:15:14 PM
And, even though the movies came first, the Hobbit was the first introduction to Middle-Earth ever received by the general public. And, the Hobbit was a light-hearted fantasy that happened before all the war in LOTR. Therefore, I think the audience should be able to enjoy it in the same way. This is the Hobbit, not the Lord of The Rings. Even FOTR was somewhat lighthearted to a point. (Tell me that humorous rendition of the "Hey-Diddle-Diddle" wasn't light-hearted) And, the Hobbit can deliver on the light, and a time in the beautiful lands of Middle-Earth before all the suffering. Same setting, different atmosphere, different time, different circumstances. And, I think the movie could greatly benefit by adventure and action. I think it should be rated PG for "action/adventure violence and peril". I think that it should be exciting for young and old. And, I think it should be good enough for people to accept it without having 2 films or the White Council stuff thrown in for the sake of giving a more "LOTR" feel. It's not LOTR...it's the Hobbit.
Okay, I'll let it go... by auraboy	Sep 19th, 2006 06:50:35 PM
It seems fairly obvious it'll be years before Jackson is free enough for the project anyway, so more than likely someone else will get drafted in before that. I see there's far more call for a lighter, more 'book-centric' adaptation of The Hobbit. I suppose my sense is that it'd be great to see some of the build-up to Lord Of The Rings on film and there's never going to be any other opportunity than a Hobbit movie. I suppose Jackson did say he quite likes the idea of how Lucas has expanded the Star Wars universe with animated stories etc. Maybe somebody could do a faithful Hobbit film and Jackson could expand into the prequel areas of Lord of the Rings in some other media format. I just want more! Bah! Maybe I just want to keep jackson away from adding another eighty minutes of CGI bugs into Kong...yawn...
I'm stupid.. by Staldo	Sep 19th, 2006 07:24:14 PM
did the spiders in Mirkwood talk in the book? I kind of have the book and the goofy-ass Rankin Bass Hobbit movie sloshing together in my mind. Also, if Glenn Yarbrough gets anywhere near this movie, it should be set to self-destruct. I just caught the guy on cable the other day, still doing his retch-inducing happy-go-lucky minstrel folk songs. ow.
Talking by auraboy	Sep 19th, 2006 07:31:07 PM
It's hard to find something that doesn't talk in The Hobbit. Eagles, wolves, dogs, bears, trolls, spiders, crows, trees...
Too many talking things, too "silly" for Jackson. by Ringwearer9	Sep 19th, 2006 08:30:24 PM
Because Jackson is "serious", Jackson isn't "childish", because Jackson has the fortitude to show arrows going into elephants' eyes. Tolkien mentioned Dwarves who DIED while TRYING to shoot AT elephant's eyes, he didn't describe it for the revolting delectation of an orclike audience.
The Mirkwood Spider's talked. Beorn's dogs did not. by Ringwearer9	Sep 19th, 2006 08:43:49 PM
Beorn's dogs looked like they could almost talk, they were so intelligent looking,(and acting) if I recall correctly. Oh, and to Ratfi ... Not So Nice Gaius, thanks, I was trying to think of Bard's name, but couldn't remember it til after I posted.
Yeah, could you even imagine LOTR with talking trees? by MonteCristo	Sep 19th, 2006 08:44:37 PM
I mean, that would be the silliest thing ever!! And, you forgot something. The troll's purse can talk, too.
The ideas couldn't be better by LotRlover13	Sep 19th, 2006 10:45:10 PM
I think Pete had wonderful ideas about how to add to the story, and if they have anyone else direct the film the only reason I would see it would be to ridicule the job that was done.
hot damn by yoko knowles	Sep 20th, 2006 01:58:11 AM
quint is sexy
Who did she have to fuck to get black box? by HEADGEEK	Sep 20th, 2006 02:05:20 AM
Fucking Yoko!
Hey, Headgeek... by TheRealMoriarty	Sep 20th, 2006 02:09:58 AM
... I've been meaning to talk to you about your chick. I mean, she's great and all, but you keep bringing her to rehearsal. What... you gonna have her play tambourine on the album, too? Maybe sing a little back-up?
with hips like hers - be a waste of a tam beater by HEADGEEK	Sep 20th, 2006 02:14:36 AM
though - I'm thinking all that pop shit you keep writing needs more COWBELL!
Christ almighty... by Massawyrm 1	Sep 20th, 2006 02:16:04 AM
So blacktext really does only go to those of us who have tasted of the spunk of the big cheese...I had to guzzle gallons of the stuff to get it. Now...it just doesn't seem as cool...
Wait...what's this happy horseshit? by Massawyrm 1	Sep 20th, 2006 02:18:14 AM
I guess my blacktext went to the tart!
Yo - Sutcliffe - stop acting like a Beatle, mate by HEADGEEK	Sep 20th, 2006 02:20:15 AM
Ever since your brain hemmoraged you just can't remember you're not one of us anymore.
Hey, Man... Harshing My Mellow... by TheRealMoriarty	Sep 20th, 2006 02:24:23 AM
... Stu's a good egg. Can't drum for shit, but you should let him call himself a Beatle. Maybe people will buy him drinks occasionally and toss their change in his football helmet.
Obviously by yoko knowles	Sep 20th, 2006 02:25:00 AM
You weren't delivering like I could. You probably also don't look as good in that cheerleading uniform as I do.
Huh? by Massawyrm 1	Sep 20th, 2006 02:26:47 AM
I always thought Glen was the 5th Beatle.
Bullshit Yoko by Massawyrm 1	Sep 20th, 2006 02:30:25 AM
My ass looks fucking SWEET in that Deepcrack High cheerleader outfit!
Glen - you talking about Pete Best? by HEADGEEK	Sep 20th, 2006 02:30:52 AM
To earn, we had to jettison Pete and add Herc to replace him. That beat needed a different drummer.
Hey - baby face Drew... Stu was our bass, not sticks by HEADGEEK	Sep 20th, 2006 02:33:27 AM
Linda's been giving you bad shit man! Yoko's got the magic mushroom delight. MMMMM... oooommmm....
Back in Black? by Massawyrm 1	Sep 20th, 2006 02:56:30 AM
Suck on THAT Yoko!
too much time on your hands, guys? by Lost Prophet	Sep 20th, 2006 03:27:31 AM
Does this mean the TB is fixed?
Headgeek is right by Lost Prophet	Sep 20th, 2006 03:39:14 AM
Stuart Sutcliffe and Pete Best were in the original line up of the Beatles. Stu on Bass, and Pete on Drums. Arguably, therefore- Stu is the fifth Beatle and Ringo or Pete Best the Sixth. Confusing eh?
Our Pete was Awesome, but how can one resist Ringo... by HEADGEEK	Sep 20th, 2006 05:20:41 AM
Glen ran a wonderful Coaxial, but Herc is our cute double amputee that plays extremely well on Coax. And Yoko is definitely cuter in a cheerleading costume... and I have pictures I can't share to prove it!
Pete Best was a way better drummer than RIngo by Lost Prophet	Sep 20th, 2006 05:27:06 AM
Ringo famously wasn't even the best drummer in the Beatles. He was also better looking than McCartney- which is why he got axed. c'mon headgeek- don't be a spoilsport.
But Ringo is cool by Lost Prophet	Sep 20th, 2006 05:30:51 AM
How can you not love someone who despite being the drummer in the biggest band in history still did the voice for Thomas the Tank Engine? I forgot to put this in the post above. Sorry.
And The Beatles are Relevant to this TB How? by Pawprint	Sep 20th, 2006 06:07:28 AM
Personally, I think the Beatles blow goats, to paraphrase Morrisey, "they say nothing to me about my life...", they were just the original boy band that's all - right place, right time. They have no relevance anymore. Anyway; The Hobbit. Good story, but told in too whimsical and childish a fashion to segue into the exsisting LOTR films. I think it could be done in the space of a 2 1/2 hour film, change the trolls to reflect the ones seen in ROTK and make them less 'West End cockney heavy', lose all the talking animals/spiders and all the animals acting as waiters (unless they are Monkeys! Monkey Butlers!). Adapt the dialogue to fit the exsisting films, ie; make it less 'drawing room' fashion. No need to include pointless 'cameos' from Legolas, Arwen, Aragorn etc. And I think it would make a great prequel. Anyone who thinks it should be a straight adaptation really needs to read over the encounters with the trolls and the Goblin King and try and imagine that exactly transferred to live action. It's embarrasing. I think PJ should be given first crack at this film; he could make a fine job of it, as long as he didn't get too carried away... Oh, and whoever suggested Martin Freeman as the young Bilbo - genius. Abso-fucking-lute genius. However, Ian Holm could still get away with it, so I can't see a need for Freeman to be cast. Shame.
The Black Box crew bought them up by Lost Prophet	Sep 20th, 2006 06:44:47 AM
They were overrated- I am the walrus is some of the worst drug-addled garbage ever recorded. Martin Freeman as the young bilbo is a horrid idea. He is a one trick pony of the highest order.
With a hefty dollop of irony... by auraboy	Sep 20th, 2006 07:07:55 AM
Talking animals rule. I never claimed this was otherwise. Paul has talking animals. This is what pop domination can buy you.
We got blackboxed cos we're the biggest talkback! by Ringwearer9	Sep 20th, 2006 09:31:09 AM
Cigars all around!
I haven't seen that much black since... by Mr. Nice Gaius	Sep 20th, 2006 09:41:15 AM
...Spinal Tap's "Smell the Glove" album.
And I'll take Keith Moon over Ringo anyday. by Mr. Nice Gaius	Sep 20th, 2006 09:44:54 AM
RIP, Moonie.
too right- by Lost Prophet	Sep 20th, 2006 09:51:35 AM
keith moon, Ginger Baker, John Bonham, fuck it- there's loads of them. Ringy- the only reason we are the biggest TB is because there is bugger all else happening. Now, do you want to rant about how Ringo wasn't an authentic drummer because his drums didn't sound "real" enough?
I think the band "Chicago" is more relevant... by Childe Roland	Sep 20th, 2006 10:16:31 AM
...to this talkback than the Beatles. Surely folks remember their 80s hit "Hard Hobbit to Break?" Thank you and be sure to tip your black boxers.
The Beatles blow goats and are overrated??? by Bubba Gillman	Sep 20th, 2006 11:29:38 AM
Wha-wha-whaaat???
But speaking of overrated... by Bubba Gillman	Sep 20th, 2006 11:33:18 AM
I read the Lovely Bones and thought it was tedious at best. The only relatable or likable characters were the dead girl and her sister. Hated the mother, the father came across as weak and the supposedly crazy/wild grandma was cliched. I was hoping to be moved by it but for some reason it left me cold. Having said that, I think Petey Jax can do something interesting with it, but I'd rather see him do the Hobbit instead. Haven't read these dragon books, but I may have to now (Petey was the reason I read Lovely Bones in the first place).
I never said they blew goats by Lost Prophet	Sep 20th, 2006 11:45:30 AM
just that they had off days like any other band. This is not a particularly controversial opinion.
and McCartney is a twat by Lost Prophet	Sep 20th, 2006 11:48:24 AM
look at recent behaviour. Changing the songwriting credits, for example. Preaching endlessly, humourlessly and tediously about veganism. Not forgetting his crimes against music (Mull of kintyre, the Frog chorus) yup, he's a twat. He didn't used to be, but he is now.
Anyhoo, The Hobbit shouldn't be WORD-FOR-WORD. by MonteCristo	Sep 20th, 2006 12:19:36 PM
That does not mean it has to be word-for-word what the book was. I didn't see Tom Bombadil or hear any "Hey Diddle Diddle" songs in the movie LOTR. Did you? But, the tone fit the book, and I thnk the tone of the Hobbit movie should fit the tone of the Hobbit book. I don't think anything in it should be changed to fit the tone of LOTR. Think about it this way: If the Hobbit came first(which it should have) and was a very family-friendly PG-rated movie that was also very good, would you, in turn, want LOTR to be a family-friendly PG-rated movie just to satiate the people who saw the Hobbit and liked it? I don't think so.
Prophet by Bubba Gillman	Sep 20th, 2006 12:21:03 PM
Someone else in the TB said "blow goats." I agree to an extent about McCartney's recent personal behavior, but I think his musicianship is inviolate (even if his lyrical content, particularly his solo work, occasionally veers towards the treacly and/or mundane). Overall, though I think the Beatles have the most consistent catalogue in the rock era (despite what Morrisey has to say about them). We certainly do seem to have opposite tastes in just about everything, don't we! Now what was this talkback about again?
Look out there Harryluvatar! by morGoth	Sep 20th, 2006 12:49:42 PM
Heh...you might get banned for "off-topic bullshit." ** To the poster who asked, it's Bard of Esgaroth, King of Dale though he was also referred to as Bard the Bowman. As for speaking animals in 'The Hobbit,' don't forget about the talking thrush (speaking of Bard!).
The Beatles are the Backstreet Boys of our time... by MonteCristo	Sep 20th, 2006 01:13:40 PM
I see no need to change the original topic for some overrated boy band!(Yeah, I said it!)
Isn't the band Chicago... by Childe Roland	Sep 20th, 2006 01:22:36 PM
...far more relevant to the subject of this talkback? The dilemma of Peter Jackson's desire to split this into two movies is captured most emotionally in their 80's hit "Hard Hobbit to Break." Thank you and be sure to tip your black boxers.
Mind that sacred cow! by auraboy	Sep 20th, 2006 01:26:00 PM
Wow, everyone is seriously bored.
Okay... by Childe Roland	Sep 20th, 2006 01:27:33 PM
...it's official. My posts aren't showing up for HOURS after I type them. Apparently I've been barred for being too good of a poster.
Beatles as "boy band"... by Bubba Gillman	Sep 20th, 2006 02:05:47 PM
...except that the Beatles played musical instruments, wrote their own songs, didn't dance and created Revolver, Rubber Soul, Sgt. Pepper's, the White Album and Abbey Road.
I read an interview jackson gave by tna7982	Sep 20th, 2006 03:11:48 PM
Where he mentioned something he signed with new line where he can't talk about doing (or not doing) a hobbit movie. They're trying to keep this stuff under wraps. I read in on the internet so it must be true!
Wow! Did you see that new 'Prestige' trailer? by MonteCristo	Sep 20th, 2006 05:31:17 PM
That was cool. I figure since this talback has gotten so off-topic, we might as well take from other topics. So, what did you guys think of that trailer? Pretty good, eh?
What kind of music do you listen to MonteCristo? by Forestal	Sep 20th, 2006 06:10:03 PM
Cause I'm betting its some shit like Linkin Park. The Beatles and the fucking Backstreet Boys should never be used in the same sentence.
Chris Nolan... by auraboy	Sep 20th, 2006 06:13:23 PM
...To direct Hobbit Reboot. Dwarf cowls that don't move, darker - more intense spiders that fuck Bilbo up and nipples just about everywhere you could possibly imagine. And Liam Neeson as Gandalf on the edge. Also we start with the death of Smaug and work backwards as Bilbo tries to rebuild his memory after being hit on the head rather hard before the battle of five armies.
The trailer for The Prestige WAS cool by Ringwearer9	Sep 20th, 2006 06:13:56 PM
I agree.
Linkin Park by Staldo	Sep 20th, 2006 08:41:36 PM
I love how when insecure kids try to defend their musical tastes, they always accuse the offending party of listening to Linkin Park. Linkin Park must be the ultimate least common denominator of music. Whatever happened to Winger?
I love Linkin Park...I mean, um... by MonteCristo	Sep 20th, 2006 09:38:57 PM
Anyhoo, did anybody hear about Moriarty's strangest three days of 2006? Apparently, there's some crazy violent movies that are coming out(like some people want the Hobbit to be).
Bitches talkin' Beatles and where am I? by mortsleam	Sep 20th, 2006 11:52:09 PM
At my new fucking job which fucking sucks. Almost as much every opinion a certain asshat has ever had, all the way back to when he said the shot of Frodo, Sam and Gollum that leaked before The Two Towers was obviously a wax replica because no CGI rendering could ever possibly look that realistic. I apologize for having in large part created him. But then you people seem to enjoy him, so I suppose it's what you deserve. Sincerely hope Jackson makes the Hobbit. One 2.5 hour movie with a lighter pastoral tone and only the slightest undercurrent of the larger tapestry of the tale.
no girls in Hobbit by Staldo	Sep 21st, 2006 12:14:25 AM
How do you think they'll try to shoehorn in a girl character in this one? The woodelves are an obvious answer. As Gimli Stated, female dwarves are almost indistinguishable from the males. Suppose one of the dwarves was a girl? Is anybody going to cry foul if Nori turned out to be a she-dwarf? Would that be heresy. Another answer would be to have a flashback at the beginning with the hobbit heroine Belladonna Took, played by none other than Salma Hayek.(isn't she like 4'10"?)
Putting Girls In The Hobbit Would Be A Mistake... by Pawprint	Sep 21st, 2006 06:08:40 AM
Why do directors seem to think that in order to make a film appeal to women, there must be a woman in a central role? PJ shoe-horned Arwen into LOTR to hopefully appeal to the ladies, but she makes no difference to the trilogy as a whole. That said, the most annoying part of her inclusion was the clumsy "Arwen's fate is now tied to that of the one ring" mess - that just seemed so tacked-on-at-the-last-minute. Really gripped my shit. I'm so glad PJ saw sense and removed the whole story-line of her turning up at Helm's Deep - that would have been shite. I didn't mind her turning up at the ford to rescue Frodo, that actually made a kind of sense and helped justify her presence in FOTR, rather than having Glorfindel do it and then never appear again. So, in short (!) I reckon keep the chicks away from The Hobbit - there's no place for 'em. As for The Beatles; I couldn't care less if they played their own instruments, or what albums they made. As far as I am concerned they started out as ordinary throwaway pop and ended up disappearing up their own arseholes into psychadelia. IMO, The Sex Pistols have had more of an influence on modern music than the Beatles will ever have (and I don't like the Pistol's music either, but respect where it's due!). OK, I'm done now.... can I have my pills now please? Take them anally? Rath-er!
Somebody has to be the frist to say it, I guess: by Sabster	Sep 21st, 2006 06:46:00 AM
HAPPY HOBBIT BIRTHDAY!
oops by Sabster	Sep 21st, 2006 07:38:08 AM
What - today is the 21st?!? I hereby withdraw my support from this calendar...
Chris Columbus to direct hobbit by DufusyteII	Sep 21st, 2006 08:59:32 AM
Whoever directed the first Harry Potter film should do the Hobbit because it is the same type of vibe: youngsters going on an adventure. PJ is totally wrong for the Hobbit because he has a grown-up viewpoint not a child/hobbit viewpoint. His suggestions about bringing in the White Counsel and all the grown-ups is totally off base for the Hobbit. The novel LOTR is essentially a hobbit's eye view of the world, but when PJ filmed LOTR he even got that wrong, and made it more a story about the grown-ups than the hobbits. Don't let him do the same mistake with the Hobbit - it must remain a hobbit's eye view story. "It's the hobbits, stupid."
Looks like i'm with the majority on this one... by moondoggy2u	Sep 21st, 2006 09:31:09 AM
Get someone else to make The Hobbit. LOTR, as done by Peter Jackson, was a veeerrrryyy good bunch of films, DESPITE the changes PJ and co. employed. As has been mentioned by nearly everybody, the weaker parts of LOTR (and there really aren't that many) were the PJ rewrites and scenes that had obviously been rushed due to PJ's inability to plan (or stick to a plan--take your pick) his film properly. Thats not to say he's a bad director, however, but he does have issues, and those issues bogged down King Kong and judging by PJ's above statements, would threaten the Hobbit. Two movies for a brisk children's book, shoehorning unnecessary cameos and asides, "left-turning" the entire plot of the story to depict the white council's ousting of the necromancer are all marks of a man who doesn't want to film the Hobbit, but rather, LOTR #0. And dont get me started on the obvious change in tone that PJ is daydreaming about. I also agree with Rolande and others in that the Hobbit is a family tale--it should be filmed like it. Again, I'm sorry if this irks the PJ fans, but his ideas speak for themselves. We liked PJ's direction of LOTR because, while not always faithful in plot or characterization, his direction remained faithful to the overall TONE of the source material. Judging by what I've just read, it doesn't sound like he wants to be faithful at all.
I second that Happy Birthday Sabs! by morGoth	Sep 21st, 2006 11:27:19 AM
Yes, 'The Hobbit' was first published this day in 1937. Let's see, that's 73 years old. Here's to 73 more. ** Actually, PJ never said he was going to do LoTR, the book. What he did say was that he was going to make a one helluva movie based on the books. No, it wouldn't be the end of the world if somebody else does the Hobbit. Funny, I seem to remember his movies starting with hobbits in the Shire and ending with hobbits in the Shire. If one views the emphasis on the third book, like the movie, as being Aragorn centric (though still with plenty of hobbity goodness to be had)...well, it isn't titled "The Return of the King" fer nuthin'. It was still told from the hobbit perspective...books or movies.
Anyone who thinks the Beatles music is "irrelevant"... by morGoth	Sep 21st, 2006 11:35:43 AM
...lives in that state commonly referred to as denial. I have children aged 21 and 25 who have dug the Fab Four ever since they first heard 'em. Boy band my Sooty Ass...we'll see who's still generating millions of sales in another 30 some years. It won't be, as me loverly morGettes say, "That no-talent whiney bitch Morrisey." I mean, people can have thier own unique musical taste but talent must always be recognized in an objective manner. I think Bilbo would agree.
Getting back on topic... by Bubba Gillman	Sep 21st, 2006 12:03:06 PM
...sort of. Has anyone in here ever read The Weirdstone of Brisingamen by Alan Garner? It's been referred to as a sort of LOTR-lite, and there may be some validity to that, but it's actually pretty good and has the ingredients for a good, younger skewing LOTR type movie. I'd like to see someone (i.e., Petey Jax) make a movie out of that.
Beatles=wallpaper by Staldo	Sep 21st, 2006 12:09:41 PM
saying you like or dislike the Beatles is meaningless. It's like saying you like or dislike air or water, or really can't stand the song Twinkle Twinkle Little Star. They are so pervasive, chances are that if you speak English, one of your favorite bands was directly or indirectly influenced by them. That includes heavy metal and quite a bit of country western and hip-hop and R& B.
D'oh! by morGoth	Sep 21st, 2006 09:26:11 PM
That would 69 years old...sigh. Move along, nothing to see.
A long expected yet unexpected party by Miami Mofo	Sep 22nd, 2006 05:34:52 AM
Today is September 22nd -- time to light a whole shit load of candles, 'cause it's Bilbo and Frodo's birthday. While I expected to see morGoth here, it's also nice to see Sabs along with some old timers like Halloween 68 and of course, Duffy! ***Regarding P.J.'s comment about a different climax for 'The Lovely Bones', I would like to offer the following scenario: The Ray/Susie-Ruth tryst still takes place in the apartment above Hal's motorcycle shop, however it now takes place in the middle of winter, when the icicles hang long from the eaves. In addition, Mr. Harvey does not drive by until Ray/Susie-Ruth are already between the sheets. Driving so close to where he his Susie's body (the sinkhole) infuriates the ghosts of his other victims and they cause Mr. Harvey to crash his car into a snowbank directly across from Hal's shop. As he approaches the front door to see if someone can help him free his car, he hears Susie-Ruth's earth-shaking, ear-drum-piercing screams of ecstasy as she reaches her first climax (who knew Ray was so well endowed?), Mr. Harvey looks up to see the source of the screams, only to have a falling icicle which was loosened by Susie/Ruth's screams, slash through his right eye and into his brain, causing immediate death. The End.
effin typos by Miami Mofo	Sep 22nd, 2006 05:37:38 AM
Needless to say, I meant to type: where he 'hid' Susie's body.
Beatles would've made awesome hobbits by Staldo	Sep 22nd, 2006 12:18:38 PM
John-Frodo,Ringo-Samwise,Georg e-Merry, Paul-Pippin. They could have filled out the rest of the cast with 60's icons as well. Funny thing is, Christopher Lee probably would have ended up being in it. Just hope they would jack the budget up from their previous movies. Did they do Help! just because they liked the concept of a magic ring?
I remember reading that John wanted to be Gollum. by Bubba Gillman	Sep 22nd, 2006 02:59:29 PM
And Paul wanted to be Frodo. Or maybe I heard it backwards on the White Album.
Yes MorGoth.... by Pawprint	Sep 22nd, 2006 05:22:33 PM
I'm in denial; I must be if I don't like the Beatles just because you do. Did you stop to consider that probably the only reason your children like the Beatles is because they probably had to endure you playing the albums all the time, thus growing up with them? My Daughter is 11 and she (and most of her mates) wouldn't know the Beatles if they were assaulted by them in the street, so her generation won't be buying any Beatles albums now or in the future. Just because I quote Morrisey, doesn't mean I'm a fan; so you'll not get a rise out of me there. Bubba Gillman; not many people have read Weirdstone - it's one of my favourite books of all time. It's the book that prompted me to 'discover' The Hobbit and LOTR books. I had Weirdstone read to me at age 8 and then went on to The Hobbit. I recently bought Weirdstone of Amazon for the first time earlier this year - was very shocked to realise the similarities with LOTR, but still enjoy it. I think it has been filmed by the BBC, or at least a Radio Play was made... can't remember...
hobbit as two movies. cut off at warg ambush/eagle run by DoodlyDingDongTickTock	Sep 23rd, 2006 12:03:01 AM
that would work.
I know Peter Jackson would by Staldo	Sep 23rd, 2006 12:25:40 AM
I know Peter Jackson would remove stuff like this in the interest of "narrative flow" but I think they really need to have the scene where Bilbo goes all the way back to the Shire shortly before facing Smaug and they are auctioning off his stuff because they presumed he was dead. If they transposed that to the end of the movie, or the beginning of the second one if there were two, it would be amusing, plus it flies in the face of the "heroic quest" structure, making it even funnier.
One last post about Aragorn's age by DrLektor	Sep 23rd, 2006 10:50:17 AM
And sorry if someone's mentioned this above, I skipped quite a few posts. If you do pay some sttention to the appendices at the back of LotR you will see:- 2890 = Bilbo born in the Shire. 2931 = Aragorn son of Arathorn II born. 2941 = Events of the Hobbit." Sure, Bilbo was 51 when he went off on his first adventure, but what you forgot was that a lot of time passed between him leaving Frodo in the Shire and Gandalf returning to set the young Hobbit off with the ring, some 17 years! That obviously got compressed in the film. Cheers. Hope this sets you right.
so then 2991 was Frodo getting the ring then? by DoodlyDingDongTickTock	Sep 23rd, 2006 06:58:34 PM
Hundred and eleventy first birthday. That would Aragon 60 years old. If there are 17 years between Frodo getting the ring and the Fellowship forming that would make Aragorn 77. But he tells Eowyn that's he's 83 in the EE of TTT.
Too Late. by msspurlock	Sep 23rd, 2006 09:11:00 PM
By the time they get around to it, Holm, McKellen and Serkis will be too old.
arrrrrgh, dude, ffs by DrLektor	Sep 24th, 2006 06:28:49 AM
For the last time. 2890 - Bilbo born, 2931 - Aragorn born, 2941 - Events of the Hobbit (Aragorn is now 10 years old), 3001 - Bilbo turns 111 and leaves the shire (Aragron is now 70!), 3018 - Frodo leaves Bag End with the One Ring, (Aragorn is a seasoned 87 years old!) 3019 - Battle at Helm's deep (just before this point in the movie he chats with Éowyn and reveals what? Yeah, he is in fact 87/88, whenever his actual birthday is) NOW does it make sense? Have I proved how much of an anal geek I am?
I think he could still make a single film but... by Avon	Sep 24th, 2006 01:15:09 PM
still work in a lot of the extra story that came to light later on in LOTR, e.g. the Gandalg / Galadriel meeting etc. It should be one film / one book. Spreading it out into something it is not would not be in keeping with an adaption but more a straight up complete re-work.
No Pawprint... by morGoth	Sep 25th, 2006 04:56:13 AM
...the denial part comes in you not acknowledging the cross-generational appeal of the Beatles. Just look at their sales. It has nothing to do with my personal taste. As for my daughters...they used to watch the old Beatles cartoon re-runs at me mums house and started bugging me to play some of their music. I did not impose any of my musical taste on them. If that were the case, their obvious and deep loathing of all things Yes would proves (like most kids/teens) otherwise. Their love of the Beatles music is due to the Beatles themselves, not me. I did read the Hobbit to them but it's not that they're complete Tolkien nutters like their old man.
Last by mortsleam	Sep 25th, 2006 10:42:21 PM
Time I post this, as it should be obvious: there was only one point in recent human history when everyone, white, black, teens, adults, children, music critics, everyone, was listening to and enjoying the same music. That was 1964, when the Beatles had 1 through 5 of the top ten singles on both the American and British charts. There has never been another confluence of popular and critical, hipster and mass appeal since. People have come close, but never equalled, never bettered. Their influence is boundless, the punks, the disco producers, heavy metal, hard rockers, grunge, modern rock, garage rock, hip hop, all that emo and pop punk shit, all of them admit to the inspiration and genius of the Beatles. There is simply no argument. The Hobbit should be as close to the book as possible. If they absolutely have to do a second movie, it should be from Gandalf's P.O.V., showing the real events, as well as all the White Council stuff he was up to. And as great as Martin Freeman would be as Bilbo, Bilbo was 50 when he set out from Bag's End. Martin Freeman is too young. Kenneth Brannagh, though, is the perfect age, is great at playing uptight restrained guys who eventually get more adventurous, and actually looks quite a bit like Ian Holm. What the fuck, do I have to direct this fucking thing or what?
I think you SHOULD direct it... by morGoth	Sep 26th, 2006 04:58:10 PM
...o' chiefest and greatest of Sleamy Calamities. As for the Hobbit sticking close to the book, I'm afraid I can no longer support TMBH (the Two Movie Backstory Hobbit). Alas, when speaking to my leoverly morGettes about it, #1 was adamant that the tone of the book be maintained. It seems the bedtime readings left a deep impression and they'll have their Hobbit movie just like the book...and nothing less, thank you very much! How can I not support Those Who Must Be Supported? Dammit mort, you'll have to stop putting things far better than myself...you hit it square about the Fab Four...goo goo and gajoob! Oh, and sorry but LAST!
some more info by 9lmdu1	Oct 23rd, 2006 07:22:01 AM
Whats better Imac or Windows ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
correction by 9lmdu1	Oct 23rd, 2006 02:46:36 PM
Who here hate mondays ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
just a summary by 9lmdu1	Oct 24th, 2006 03:51:55 AM
Anyone Running Windows Vista as their main OS ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
just a summary by 9lmdu1	Oct 28th, 2006 03:02:04 AM
Anyone Running Windows Vista as their main OS ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
just a summary by ygjnt4	Nov 3rd, 2006 11:45:30 PM
Anyone Running Windows Vista as their main OS ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
question by ygjnt4	Nov 4th, 2006 01:30:14 AM
Animated cartoons - who does them here ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i knew this by ygjnt4	Nov 9th, 2006 03:29:34 PM
Anyone in Korea the next two weeks ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
new info by ygjnt4	Nov 10th, 2006 03:10:40 PM
WP bloggers. What Meta and keyword plugins ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
new info by ygjnt4	Nov 12th, 2006 07:28:08 AM
What was the worst accident you had when you were child? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
When Black Boxes Go Wild, next on SpikeTV by 0rcus	Dec 6th, 2006 12:02:23 PM
Harry got married? I need to get out of the underworld more

Talkbacks

Part 5: Quint and Peter Jackson talk THE HOBBIT and a potential return to low budget horror!!!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks