1.) Hobbit adaptation, just like the vast majority wanted CHECK!

2.) PJ gets to "embellish (see: invent)" another Tolkien story CHECK!

Holy Mother of Luthien Tinuviel but this is exciting news!

The best part of the deal is that Jackson will be filming both movies at once. Excellent.

Sorry about the caps folks but I just had to get PJ's attention.

I'm up for the extended edition box set that matches my LOTR sets.

Good news.

That way, both the childlike fairy tale aspects of the Hobbit could be retained in a more LOTR-feeling movie.

Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen both looked very good in the past sequence of X-Men 3.

I think PJ will do fine but I just hope they don't inject the story with their own sensibilities and changes so much like they did in LOTR. The Arwen/Frodo scene was terrible and took away from what it should have been, Frodo using what strength he had left and all of his will to escape the Black Riders. There also should have been elements of horror with them calling out to him to come back. I think that was the biggest jump the shark moment of LOTR but the rest of it was great, with some ugh scenes here and there. I'm looking forward to this.

You know, when Rankin-Bass pulls off a more faithful adaptation, you might want to rethink your priorities.

Deathly Hallows is going to be hurt by how they handle the Riddle scenes. If they keep them in, it's going to break up the flow of the movie; if they modify them, it'll get the purists hackles up.

Hobbit, on the other hand, they're not even attempting to be faithful to so they can do whatever they want to make it cinematic, and it'll have been seven years since the last one.

Anyone else think the mess that was Spiderman 3 put an permanent end to all of that noise?

It's good to have P.J back at the helm. Now, I hope these new films are closer in quality to LOTR than King (snore, stretch, yawn) Kong.

...but it had it's moments...

For that reason, I'm thinking an unknown would be the best bet, but then I'm also a big fan of Peter Jackson's casting greats like McKellan and Christopher Lee in key roles.

So how about another old-school Hammer actor or someone with some great British film cred? It's SOOO disappointing that Oliver Reed is dead, because he would have been fucking PERFECT as Smaug.

In his stead, I suppose Brian Blessed would be a pretty fucking awesome Smaug.

Think about it. Blessed's not that well-known in the States, and he has an incredible voice. If you're not going to cast him as Thorin, then the obvious choice is as Smaug.

Warner Brothers Execs, do we have to go through all the trouble of killing George Miller's JUSTICE LEAGUE fiasco just so we can get the solo movies of WONDER WOMAN and THE FLASH back or a GREEN LANTERN trilogy based on "Rebirth/The Sinestro Corps War/The Blackest Night"? Because we will. Gladly.

I'm tellin' you-- Brian Blessed all the way.

In light of how brief and sometimes-offensive the feminine parts of the books were, Fran Walsh's additions were necessary to draw modern viewers into the story-- Especially women. If Tolkien's idea of Arwen were presented on screen, she'd have been a flat, uninteresting, almost insultingly stereotypical character relegated to being a footnote in the battle.

While I normally like a filmmaker to stick with the source material, I do think that Walsh's updates gave these movies a little more sensitivity and heart, and moved them away from the near-misogynistic writing Tolkien offered in his books.

He wouldn't look that much different than he did in the flashback to Gollum's cave. He's not rotting or anything-- jeez! The guy aged a few years since then, but it's nothing a good makeup artist and lighting crew couldn't cover up. No CGI necessary.

I don't think any less of the man-- He was from a different time when women were considered less than they are now. He was a believer in marriage and the subservience of women due to his era, and he was writing a story based in a medieval setting, where women would have been little more than property. I accept that as realistic and genuinely good writing on his part.

However, modern audiences wouldn't accept that in a film. It wouldn't fly.

Sorry if you find that offensive, but it's not a new topic. People have written whole dissertations on whether or not Mr. Tolkien was fond of women as people, and the consensus seems to be that he was an old-fashioned kind of gentleman. He wasn't cruel to women, but he certainly didn't see them in the way a modern 21st-century man would. It's not a crime... it's just the age in which he lived.

Too bad Roddy McDowal is dead, too.

Blessed? Not so much. The last thing we need is Boss Smaug Nass or the impulse to yell "DIIIIIIIIVE!!!" when Smaug attacks.

We'll also get some champion talkbacking over the next few years as well. For those of us who have been here long enough to remember, the LOTR talkbacks represent truly high points in AICN history filled with erudite comments on the material at hand but also an enormous amount of madness, hilarity, outrage and venom.

Here's to the next few years of juicy tidbits, set reports, trailer rumors and what will certainly be an almost unendurable anticipation!

for VO work, I love the idea of Brian Blessed even if he's also a dwarf, however if you wanted to go more sinister, go for Irons or Rickman

and if this comes out 2010 along with Narnia and Deathly that's 3 dragon movies as Dawn Treader has a nice extended squence with Eustace as a dragon...btw I don't think DT is unadaptable, but it should be done by me as it is my fav of the Narnia books

Hopefully this second movie isn't a huge suckfest because The Hobbit is pretty awesome and I think it's pretty straightforward how it feeds into LOTR, but then again, the general public are a bunch of stupid fucks who need a whole nother entire movie to realize that Bilbo is the old dude from Fellowship of the Ring and that Frodo's ring is the same one he found.

I'm not saying that *I* know anything about it, or that I have any particular insight into Mr. Tolkien's heart or mind. All I'm saying is that the subject is well covered in discussions about literature, and that he didn't exactly write many compelling, interesting, fleshed-out female characters in his books. I'm saying that Fran Walsh's additions, despite pissing off Tolkien purists, were beneficial in a theatrical sense because they made sure half the audience didn't feel alienated. Sure, it's modern politically correct whitewashing, but it WORKED, and it's something Mr. Tolkien would NOT have done himself.

I am in no way judging the man, or his work. I'm merely pointing out that plenty of other people-- scholarly, important, well-read, well-informed people-- DO bring the topic of Tolkien's shying away from writing female characters into discussion.

There's no agreeing with me or not. I'm not taking a side in the issue. I didn't think his characterizations of women were particularly well-done (he makes them very two-dimensional) but I didn't have a problem with it in the context of what he was writing.

Stop putting words in my mouth or assuming I have some opinion that might question Tokien's brilliance. I do not. I am merely presenting information that literature scholars have gathered and debated for many, many years now.

Like I said-- before you jump down my throat, why don't you do a little research. it's a valid topic, no matter what opinion you hold. I personally hold NO opinion on the topic, but the topic IS out there, and it HAS been questioned before.

I don't have a problem with women. Frankly, I think they're better than men in several ways. However, I do think Mr. Tolkien shied away from writing women as much more than background characters. Not necessarily subservient, but certainly not fully realized in the same way his male characters were.

And again, for the record, a lot of the writings about Tolkien's dislike of women are NOT from feminists. Look around. You'll be surprised.

with

"Aragorn, Beren, Hurin, Turin, Tuor, Feanor, Fingolfin, Thingol, Turgon, Earendil, Elrond, Denethor, Boromir, Gandalf, Saruman, Bilbo, Frodo, Sam, Faramir, Eomer, Theoden, Merry, Pippin, Legolas, Gimli, Thorin, Thranduil, Bard, Beorn, etc. No-one's saying Tolkien didn't have a go at strong female characters, just that they were more the exception than the rule, and they were never his strong point. Though the stories are enriched by the ones he did do.

I liked Brother Theodore's Gollum voice.

And now, the calm before the storm.

move the fuck on!

Even as we type, ringwearer9 is busy at home, minuscule erection in hand, thinking up reasons and long-winded explanations for why, contrary to what we say, we actually HATE this news and DON'T want a PJ Hobbit.

Oh, and contrary to what you might recall, Ringy-poo and I didn't actually cross swords until the King Kong talkbacks. However, most of those "discussions" did indeed deal with LOTR. Some talkbackers (maybe morGoth?) do claim that Ring-a-ding-dingy WAS active in the LOTR TBs but under the name of "Orson".

First, there's an element of hypocrisy. The church is supposedly a place of morality where parents should feel safe to entrust their children to. This sense of hypocrisy lent more attention to the situation. Besides, the instances within the Catholic Church were about 4,392 priests, equaling about 4%. This is about equal to other institutions, not less than other institutions.

As 300 monkeys points out, there was a cover up. Cardinal Law moved at least two pedophile priests around to prevent their activities from being discovered: Paul Shanley and John Geoghan. Similar actions were taken throughout the Catholic Church. However, it goes even higher than that. Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope, sent out a letter to all Catholic Bishops stating that all reports of child abuse were pontifical secrets and were not to be disclosed to the authorities. All of this and I haven't even mentioned the billion dollar settlements.

Here are a few sites to back up my claims:

http://tinyurl.com/yoqrfg

http://tinyurl.com/26zoha

If you still don't think there was a cover up, and blame it on the "liberal media," then there's no hope for you. You just won't listen to facts. Have a happy holiday.

Is he having a laugh?!

However, King Kong needed a shorter climax. How many shots of planes flying by a giant ape do we need? Same with the Pirates sequels. Notice how they had to start focusing on ancillary characters in Pirates 2 and 3 because they didn't have enough story for the main characters. It was a real shame.

Faramir's arc was forgivable and actually fleshed out his character more and gave him character. Haldir and the elves showing up at Helm's Deep was actually pretty good as well so I'll give Jackson a pass at those.

But I will say that he better not make Bombur the annoying, comic relief character, it's just too obvious and would just be lazy writing on his and Walsh's part.

Good heavens man, don’t you know Hillary Clinton’s been cast as Bard’s twin sister? Obama Oschmama!

I must know…did you ever marry Ninja Galadriel?

Wonder if the Shire will be a carbon copy of LoTR...maybe the farmer in NZ will have to rent it back to PJ.

When I saw your posting handle I thought you might be the Wall Builder at first.

What do you think of the second movie concept?

That's religion folks. Deal with it.

I thought the scene at the Prancing Pony where Frodo accidentally (or WAS it?!!) slips on the Ring to be utterly over the top, “I see you! There is no life in the void!”, thereby setting the perception of “Ring Vision.” I don’t see it as much of a problem but it will require some bit of dialogue or visual to explain away.

Now, in the appendix of Return, it shows the time frame of the Necromancer occupying Dol Guldur (because of its proximity to the Gladden Fields) during the events of the Hobbit. He’s certainly looking for the Ring but in a far more secretive manner than later after the Nine have openly declared themselves. At least that’s how I remember it but I admit I need to re-read that portion.

Of course, Sauron, erm, Necromancer I mean, was very "awake" if you follow the Appendices and one could argue that the proximity of the Ring, especially after Bilbo had put it on to escape Gollum, might make Sauron even more aware of the Rings presence. Riddles in the dark...riddles in the dark.

Yes, I imagine PJ will have Tintin as a Serkis mo-cap and we'll see him running with a herd of dinosaurs over a cliff in France (hey, if your beloved Disney can show waterfalls in the flatlands of Tidewater Virginia then there can be cliffs in France!). I can just see that rascally Snowy turned into an Olog-like ape-dog. C'mon greeny, you know you can trust PJ!

Still working on the CA thing so just hang on a bit longer...I think your permission may have suffered during the Great Orson Purge...please try again and if raw_bean gives you any guff about it, let me know and I'll have his stiff little neck. Fer the love of Ungoliant, the damned sign was put up just for you (OK, and Ingold too)!

http://tinyurl.com/2xlkcm

Sam Raimi? Ngghh...eep...doop, I'll have to chew on that for a while (not to mention a female Smaug!).

Hey pipergates...I'm thinking the existing stone trolls from Fellowship...pretty large snoots iffen I remember.