I was wondering what was happening with this, don't they only have 'til the end of the year?

IF they can get the LOTR crew back together to make the Hobbit through New Line then that would be the best possible outcome in the whole situation. Anything else would be a compromise.

On topic, I love these LotR flicks (I prefer the "bloated" ones as someone quippy described the extended versions), however I am not that interested in The Hobbit. Haven't read any of the four books, but the ring trilogy suffices for me. Maybe they will surprise me with this one as they did with the last three though.....

I'm also trying to find my high school yearbook.

As for Smaug, I think he requires a truly majestic and sonorous voice. While I love Brian Cox, I don't think his timber would be appropriate. I can't think of anyone in particular right now but that will be (IMHO) one of the most crucial elements of the film.

Thanks Bronx. Yeah but I guess "lighted" just looks and sounds so retarded. Actually no it just sounds like a 4 year old is saying it. "I lighted the candle Daddy!" - ya can't even rely on the dictionary these days with all the stupid shit that's in there now. I hear people use the redundant "fantasticAL" and slap my forehead. Yeah so I'm anal, at least that's on topic, being a Rings tb and all!

I don't even need to use Armageddon - Remember Chuck and Larry opened with a 38 million weekend the other week and topped the B.O. Could there be a better illustration of my point?

They come as a package. As would Serkis, McKellen, and the vast majority of the creative team behind the Trilogy. Axing that whole connection to a unit proven in this world and starting afresh would be abject lunacy on the part of the studio.

And Brian Cox is a must for the voice of Smaugh, although John Rhys-Davies will probably do it.

I won't expect this to be a unilateral act. I'll offer to change my name to Neck Boy permanently in honor of the day I regrettably defended George Lucas' neck pouch from the ridicule by Talkbackers.

But I wouldn't complain too much about people hijacking these TBs. The Talkbacks are here for any number of reasons. This isn't a reasonable debate about this and that. This is AICN for fuck's sake. Relax!

IESB is saying Raimi still wants a crack at the Hobbit... I could see Raimi Directing with PJ Executive Producing.

They go on about how Bilbo hadn't aged and Gandalf becomes suspicious about the Ring because of that, right? From the moment he found the ring he hardly aged so basically when he found the ring in The Hobbit he looked pretty much as Holm did at the start of Fellowship, right? So why do they need to get a younger actor? The only thing I can think is that they tried to make him look younger in the Fellowship flashback because it's a film language thing where your average audience may not realise it's a flashback if he doesn't look younger. But then why have all the going on explaining how he hadn't changed because the ring had kept his appearance constant?

Explanation will be appreciated.

Except from raving lunatics like Ringy.

Now let's stop this nonsense and get this Hobbit thing started while Ian McKellan's still young. And I second Martin Freeman for Bilbo.

Jackson doing it in the same style as he did the Trilogy is right, and it's only sensible TBH. For me, the juvenile style The Hobbit is written in doesn't suit the story.

Starless, settle down there and get over it yourself! The gay thing, and the crying thing, especially in regards to the hobbits, is now a time-honoured AICN tradition. Stop being so stuffy about the baiting, ya big girl. ;)

Possibly Raimi...or DelToro...

That way, the New Zealand Crew will be involved, The Wingnut crew will be there for the assist--and There will be new blood in the director's chair giving it the difference it tone it needs to have.

The Hobbit, unlike Lord of the Rings, is a children's story and should have a lighter touch than the LOTR Trilogy--but it should still feel like it is connected to those films. Having Jackson on as a producer is the best solution--plus it is an olive branch to the fans, from whom New Line wants money...

Don't get me wrong, I fucking LOVE the book. But the idea of a film having to introduce a new character every 3 minutes while covering 10,000 years of Middle Earth history is ridiculous.

For those who'd be disappointed in an adult version of the Hobbit (like Tolkien's kids, including Chris, wanted in the first place), relax, there's always the book. Also, I think it would be great if we could have as much continuity with Jackson's LoTR as possible.

Goofy Dwarves? Yeah, they were pretty stumble-bum at the beginning of the Hobbit but things got serious after Gandalf left 'em to go muck around with the Necromancer.

I hate it, and it bores me to tears, but there is no doubt that it was a commercial success.

Who knows, maybe they'll get it up again now that Transformers made so much dough. It sure as shit got fucking Voltron (are you kidding me?) greenlit. Maybe they'll put Neill Blo-whatever his name is on it, as Halo got canned too.

Just on Kong, if Black had been that way I don't understand why he wouldn't have said the final "Beauty killed the beast" line and then just stayed there staring at the body long after everyone had gone, staring in disbelief.

I enjoyed Kong for its own sake having never seen the original. Sure, it was overlong, but from Skull Island onwards it was film making on a level few people operating today can even dream of achieving.

It'll be nice to see PJ return to smaller scale storytelling (although Bad Taste II is what he should be doing), but lets not pretend that he's not the best option to adapt The Hobbit if a deal can possibly be worked out.

Making the HOBBIT without everything that comes with Peter Jackson - set and prop design, Weta SFX, the actors from the LOTR trilogy, hell, even the music - everyone involved with the LOTR trilogy wants Jackson to do this. The ones who figure in the story will come with Jackson if he makes it. Why the fuck is there even an argument about this? If it doesn't fit seamlessly with that amazing trilogy, then is there even a fucking point to making this movie?

Damn, and to think I actually used to think the bods at New Line were SMART!

Then played an embarrassingly shy, stuttering, emotionally crippled Brit in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?

And somewhere in there played an embarrassingly shy, stuttering, emotionally crippled Brit in LOVE ACTUALLY?

This guy is the new Hugh Grant NO FUCKING WAY he should be Bilbo. And I HATED The Office. I will not worship at the fat ass of Ricky "plays a twat 'cos he IS a twat" Gervais. It wasn't funny. Several hours of people being bored, a fat manager working out his midlife crisis by behaving like a twat, and we're meant to fall at the feet of this godlike comedy genius? Fuck all that.

There is no hope for any actor who emulates Hugh Grant in every movie he does. So if you want Bilbo played as an embarrassingly shy, stuttering, emotionally crippled Brit, Freeman is your man. Crack on.

I agree that anyone who can't recognize what Jackson acheived is just a piss filled hater. Any perceived backlash is just a numbers game. Those who appreciate and love what Jackson did really don't need to defend LoTR. The movie speaks for itself, warts and all, and the vast majority of satisfied viewers have said it all in the past. Did I mention the Oscar sweep?

Finally, I don't recall Jackson saying his storyline changes were "better than the book". Better in the movie adaptation sense but not the story over-all. I do think Jackson a clod for not seeing the Scouring of the Shire for what it is but he's not alone in not liking bits of the story (someone mentioned Bombadil above) but loving it as a whole.

Though I'd prefer a faitful adaptation of The Hobbit, the notion of a "Prequel Hobbit" is rather exciting to this very long time Tolkien fan. Go for it PJ.

Mattyboy...not trying to argue either but you don't really see Sauron in the Last Alliance scene (beginning of Fellowship) either. You see his exquisite suit of armor but not ol' Gorthaur himself. I know, I know...uber nit-picking but you really don't see HIM. As for Aragorn fighting Sauron in the end, nah, didn't want to see that at all and I agree it would've been a cliche. Not to mention detracting from Frodo's pivotal moment. The troll, on the other hand, was a worthy adversary though I'd much rather Pippin would've knifed him (with his original Blade of Westernesse...natch) in his trolly gutty-wuts. Ah well, we gots what we got and maybe the next director who does LoTR will do a verbatim book version AND an un-read general public version. Yeah ,that's gunna happen {[:^)

Yes, you're on to my dirty little secret now. Of course, my posting handle could've clued you into my obvious preference (and interest) in anything to do with possible Hobbit news. Just out of curiosity, are you and the poster Tinfang one and the same?

I'm about 3/4 the way through the first doc and am enjoying it immensely. Snif, why oh why didn't PJ include more of the Elves in the Last Alliance footage? Really like the scene where Gil-galad and Elrond are leading the Elvish troops up to Mt. Doom. I guess this is just before Gil gets the fried Elf treatment from Sauron. And now I can rest content after seeing Sean Astin's cut foot tragedy. Dang, I though Elijah Wood was going to ask him for a "foot" of blood for a minute (vampire Hobbit?).

Oh yeah...LARST!

C'mon piper if you want to compare fictional creatures then you may argue with John Howe as he was the primary creature designer for LoTR. Yes, PJ had to approve everything and I might add that I didn't particularly care for the look of the cave troll but one can't really say that PJ "got it wrong" about representing a mythical creature. If you want to split hairs, then ask rather why the trolls didn't resemble the Entwives from which Sauron took his stock. Honestly, did you not like the movie for nothing more personal taste nit-picks?

Erm, I just thought that you might've picked up on the name Tinfang Warble as he was Tolkien's creation that represented the mythical creature who brings in the dawn by playing his pipes. Just curious and the other poster isn't speaking up either. Cheers…

Dunno at what point you started keeping track of the LoTR filming but I do recall, from Harry's original Twenty Questions to PJ, Jackson discussing just how to make the Elves look more, well, Elvish. I remember a pic that Harry floated that showed a Keanu Reeves looking head shot with the features Photoshopped to give a slightly lees than mannish look. I guess from your perception he didn't achieve that or is it maybe the change was so subtle you didn't notice it. Take a close look particularly at Liv Tyler in her first on-screen appearance as Arwen and compare that with the later scene at the Minas Tirith wedding. She definitly (to me) looks a bit "manipulated" in the face. I honestly don't get as much "effeminate" out of the male Elves as you do but then I'm not looking for it either. We can surely get our minds to perceive things that are flavored by our attitudes, yes? At any rate, let's just leave it that we disagree about that and I still don't recall PJ ever saying any such thing.

Yes, please feel free to disagree (I think you already have :) and I'm certainly no sycophant as I have a very long list of carps and complaints myself. I just think that in the larger sense, PJ succeeded wildly in bringing LoTR to the big screen. My cup is full though it doesn't run over. I do agree that Jackson did better in the monster department/battle scenes than he did with the beauty/ethereal stuff. Lorien was a bit too Disneyland for my taste but I also recognize that it was a very tough thing to pull off without it being any cheesier than it was. I guess I'm one of the few people on the planet who wasn't totally put off by "Electric Galadriel Boogaloo." It was the synthetic voice-over that turned me off, however. Much like the over-done treatment given to Gandalf as he's speaking the Ring inscription at the Council of Elrond (EE). For Pete's sake Pete, Ian already HAD a dramatic voice and the way it came off was to be almost unrecognizable as to what he was saying. What muddled it was the voice of Sauron overdub...bad choice (one of the very few though) from the sound editors. Eh, still a nit-pick and especially in view of how much Jackson picked up on Tolkien's own idea of "the hidden vista" aspect of introducing some backstory without the general public getting bogged down in a history lesson. Did you notice the beautiful tapestry behind Arwen and Elrond in Two Towers when he was explaing her "mortal choice"? It depicted the Two Trees of Valinor...surely something that only those familiar with the Silmarillion would pick up. Thanks for including long-time fans PJ.

Just curious, what is your take on the scene from Two Towers in Osgilliath where Frodo is holding up the Ring to one of the Nazgul?

The scene I described is where Faramir has decided to turn Frodo and Sam over to Denethor. About this time, the winged Nazgul attack and Frodo runs up to the top of some wall. Then we see the Nazgul rising up in front of him (the Nazgul Harrier jump-jet scene as some describe it). Frodo then offers up the Ring to the Nazgul only to have Faramir shoot the Nazgul's steed and then Sam tackles Frodo. Anyway, it seemed a pretty boneheaded scene (a total PJ fabrication...of course Faramir taking Frodo to Osgilliath in the first place was a total fabrication!) and flies in the logic face of earlier dialogue in Fellowship where Gandalf tells Frodo that the Nazgul are drawn to the Ring's mere presence. OK, so yer telling me that if you hold it up in front of one less than ten feet away he's not going to sense the Ring is right in front of him?!! Even if you go with Faramir driving him off I think that Nazgul would've gone straight to Sauron and told him what he saw. I think any reasonable person would conclude that Sauron would've reacted by sending the entire Minas Morgul garrison to Osgilliath immediately. The scene just didn't make sense to me even though it's wonderful looking. Eh, I just decided this particular Nazgul must've been an idiot and forgot about it even though it didn't seem to fit within the framework of the movie much less the book. In fact, I think that scene made even less sense than the notion of the Witch King being able to defeat Gandalf (not THAT again!) in the RoTK EE.

Jeremy Irons...yes, he would do quite nicely as the voice of the Chiefest And Greatest of Calamities. I'll have to think about that one and get back to you.