MGM and New Line want PJ to Film The Hobbit

[PhantomWolf]

Here's hoping. (http://xtramsn.co.nz/entertainment/0,,12252-6290417,00.html)

[hhEb09'1]

So, if he don't do that, he'll remake Dambusters?

[PhantomWolf]

He's already going to be producing the remake of The Dambusters, though he's not directing it. Hopefully he'll still be interested enough in The Hobbit that he'll say yes and return to Middle Earth. After having moved on with other projects though.....

[antoniseb]

I'd like to see the PJ version of the Hobbit, but I'm picturing it being difficult to make it both live up to the atmosphere of the LoTR trilogy AND be consistant with the lighter air of the book.

[Donnie B.]

I'd like to see the PJ version of the Hobbit, but I'm picturing it being difficult to make it both live up to the atmosphere of the LoTR trilogy AND be consistant with the lighter air of the book.That shouldn't be terribly hard. A director can do a lot to change the mood with music, lighting, costuming, and casting.

And don't forget, The Hobbit has some pretty dark moments too -- the trolls, the Battle of Five Armies, and the dwarf/elf tension in Mirkwood.

[Roy Batty]

Not to mention the Goblins & Gollum encounters in the Misty Mountains, oh & don't forget them spiders in Mirkwood :)

[Gillianren]

And it's the only book of the lot that I've not only read but read more than once!

[Lord Jubjub]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3794116a10,00.html

PJ has quite a schedule on his hands. Here's hoping his projects succeed. McKellan has already volunteered to come back as Gandalf.

[Van Rijn]

And it's the only book of the lot that I've not only read but read more than once!

The Hobbit has a very different "feel" than LOTR. Personally, I prefer LOTR, though. If this movie is made, it will be interesting to see if it remains closer to the book's style or if it is made closer to that of the LOTR movies.

[Maksutov]

Well, if it's OK with the Hobbit, it's OK with me. I wonder if this will be like a reality film, following the Hobbit around day and night, recording his activities, or will it involve actors, rampant CGI, a unlikely plot of international intrigue, gun fights, car chases, and explosions, occasionally interrupted by steamy sex scenes?

[antoniseb]

I wonder if this will be like a reality film, following the Hobbit around day and night, recording his activities...
It might be fun seeing it as a documentary with an interview with Beorn discussing how he became a werebear, and perhaps a discussion between Gandalf and Radagast discuss the two missing wizards. The last half hour could be Bilbo and the barkeep having an icelandic-like genealogy discussion, tracing their families all the way back to the founding of the shire and the destruction of the Entwives.

[Ronald Brak]

Entwives? There's no Entwives here! And there's no need to go looking so closely at the furniture.

[Roy Batty]

:lol:

[Doodler]

Well, if it's OK with the Hobbit, it's OK with me. I wonder if this will be like a reality film, following the Hobbit around day and night, recording his activities, or will it involve actors, rampant CGI, a unlikely plot of international intrigue, gun fights, car chases, and explosions, occasionally interrupted by steamy sex scenes?


Barkeep, gimme what he's drinking and make it a double.

[WHarris]

Barkeep, gimme what he's drinking and make it a double.

It comes in pints?!?

[Paul Beardsley]

I was thinking that Gollum was killed in The Hobbit. Then I remembered that that only happened in the Melbourne House text adventure computer game version of the story.

But imagine! You're watching the film, they get to the Riddles in the Dark bit, and you're thinking, "Ah, this is the chap who has such an important role in Lord of the Rings." And then suddenly Bilbo turns round and stabs him to death with Sting!

[Andúril]

I would love to see The Silmarillion.

Of course, the vast time scale and huge number of characters will make filming difficult, but what if it would be made to look like some sort of "historical document"? Or maybe a TV series? :D


Edit: a link to a page containing magnificent illustrations of Tolkien's world:

http://tolkienilu.chez-alice.fr/epopee/illustrations.htm

[JohnD]

Fine, make The Hobbit!
Silmarillion? Hopeless. Tolkien would never have published his notes and back story as a 'book'. It reads about as thrillingly as 'The Golden Bough', Frazer's compendium of religious myths as anthropology, a stupendous piece of scholarship that just isn't literature.

But remake Dambusters? Isn't it a decadent trend to remake so many films? Indicative of a lack of originality and creative ability?
How many writers could announce to their publisher, "I'm going to rewrite 'A Tale of Two Cities'" and get away with it, let alone sell any copies?
Someone even remade 'Psycho', shot for short, camera angle for camera angle, and got their film reviewed. Rubbish.

A film waiting to be made, AND a myth retold as thrilling literature?
Mary Renault's 'The King must die".
If they can make 'Alexander' (and make a hash of it) why not Theseus?

John

[Matherly]

Silmarillion? Hopeless. Tolkien would never have published his notes and back story as a 'book'. It reads about as thrillingly as 'The Golden Bough', Frazer's compendium of religious myths as anthropology, a stupendous piece of scholarship that just isn't literature.


Yea, but...

Don't you just get a tingle thinking about watching 10 balrogs besiging Gondolin...

[HenrikOlsen]

But remake Dambusters? Isn't it a decadent trend to remake so many films? Indicative of a lack of originality and creative ability?
How many writers could announce to their publisher, "I'm going to rewrite 'A Tale of Two Cities'" and get away with it, let alone sell any copies?

You didn't say "Why did Peter Jackson bother to remake LOTR, it had already been done multiple times before," you didn't ask "Why did Boris Karloff bother to play Frankensteins Monster, Charles Ogle had already done it 21 years earlier," or "Why did Bela Lugosi play Dracula, it had been done to death already," or why make "The Wizard of Oz with Judy Garland, it's been done three times already," from your argument all those should have been scuttled as a senseless lack of originality and creative ability.

You are using the wrong analogy, ask instead how many theater directors could say "I'm going to set up hamlet this year" and get away with it, including selling tickets.

The movies follow theater in this, if you tell the story anew people will watch it again.

[Maksutov]

[edit]The movies follow theater in this, if you tell the story anew people will watch it again.Yup, even though, based on the quality of the various remakes over the past ~ten years, the movie will be a good replacement for a vacuum.

The title will probably be the first thing the suits decide needs to be reworked.

JJ: We need to get rid of that boring title. We need something with a ":" or a "," in it!
Suit 2: Yo, JJ, it just came to me. Crouching Smaug, Hidden Hobbit!
JJ: Yeah, yeah, that'll play in Peoria. Just get rid of that "Good Morning!" crap!

[PhantomWolf]

But remake Dambusters? Isn't it a decadent trend to remake so many films? Indicative of a lack of originality and creative ability?

Actually I believe one reason they want to remake it is that when the original film was made, much of the missions were still classified and couldn't be told. Now they can be.

[PhantomWolf]

BUMP!!!!

and WOOHOO! (http://www.theonering.com/articles1-5589863/THEOFFICIALANNOUNCEMENTOFaposTHEHOBBITaposISHERE)

Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh have settled with New Line and are announced to be the Excutive Producers of the Hobbit and a sequel to it, release dates 2010 and 2011!!!!

[Noclevername]

A sequel? HB2: This Time It's Personal!

The Hobbit II: Hob Harder

The Chronicles of Bilbo, in which we learn that he's the last survivor of a race of warrior hobbits.

Axe, the Shire is plagued by a psychotic Dwarf who forces his victims to chop off their own limbs.

Snakes on a Sailboat, the real story of the Elves' journey to the West.

[KrisSam]

the best part about this is that when they get around to making these, computer graphics will be even better! i'm SO glad PJ is doing this!

[Doodler]

Excellent.

[KaiYeves]

Well, my first mental picture on "want PJ to Film" was
"Sleepwear can direct?"
Y'know, as in "Put on your PJs." ;-)

[Lianachan]

I just hope he understands The Hobbit more than he understands The Lord Of The Rings.

[cjl]

Why?

Honestly, as movie interpretations go, the Lord of the Rings was about as good as I've seen. Sure, there was a lot of stuff left out or changed, but that's always true because of both time and format limitations. Overall, the amount changed was not unreasonable, and he left the main ideas and story alone (which I only wish were true about, for example, the Bourne movies, which departed from the books about as far as anything I've ever seen).

[Noclevername]

I just hope he understands The Hobbit more than he understands The Lord Of The Rings.

What did he misunderstand about LOTR? He gave a far more faithful rendition than the vast majority of Hollywood book-to-movie transformations. Starship Troopers, I Robot, the list of bad transitions with unrecognizable end products is nearly endless.

[Lianachan]

Why?

Honestly, as movie interpretations go, the Lord of the Rings was about as good as I've seen. Sure, there was a lot of stuff left out or changed, but that's always true because of both time and format limitations. Overall, the amount changed was not unreasonable, and he left the main ideas and story alone (which I only wish were true about, for example, the Bourne movies, which departed from the books about as far as anything I've ever seen).

I do appreciate that in the migration of a story from book to film, some changes are required simply because of the differences of the two mediums. I also appreciate that most of the (hundreds of) changes he made are of little actual significance. However, he did make a number of fundamental changes that modify the story or, in particular, characters in important ways. While the films do look good and do capture the "feel" of Middle-earth, these important changes do rather spoil the whole thing for me. In discussing the possibility of a film adaptation of his book, Tolkien himself said that they could make any changes they liked to the story (specifically stating they could leave out the battle at Helms Deep, for example) but that they should in no way change any of the characters. In this, Jackson, in common with everybody else who's tried to adapt the book to film, failed.

Usual disclaimer and background for this kind of discussion: These are my opinions, to which I am perfectly entitled. I read The Lord Of The Rings for the first time aged 6, and have read it every year since then (I am now 36). I have also read practically everything ever written by or about Tolkien, most of it many times. I've been a member of The Tolkien Society since long before these films existed, unlike most of the membership. However, I will reject, and resent, any suggestion that I am a "book purist" - as stated above, I appreciate that some changes are neccesary in the transition from paper to screen, and that the vast majority of the changes are of little or no significance.

[Noclevername]

So what changes do you think he made to the characters' fundamental natures (Except for turning Arwen into Xena, Warrior Princess, of course. We all know about that one ;)).

[Neverfly]

So what changes do you think he made to the characters' fundamental natures (Except for turning Arwen into Xena, Warrior Princess, of course. We all know about that one ;)).

Oh I dunno about that. Xena was pretty danged BUTCH and Liv Tyler is NOT butch at all!

I saw only a few of the silly Xena episodes- and I wanted to take a Grinder to her masculine jawbone and make a woman out of her.

[DyerWolf]

I would love to see The Silmarillion.

...
http://tolkienilu.chez-alice.fr/epopee/illustrations.htm

You actually finished it?

[Paul Beardsley]

The Silmarillion is a gorgeous piece of fiction. Yes, it's quite hard work at times, but it's worth it.

[Jim]

... (which I only wish were true about, for example, the Bourne movies, which departed from the books about as far as anything I've ever seen).

Matt Helm... Dean Martin... oh, God!!! The humanity, the humanity!

[ToSeek]

So what changes do you think he made to the characters' fundamental natures (Except for turning Arwen into Xena, Warrior Princess, of course. We all know about that one ;)).

The most common complaint from LOTR fans is the complete change to the character of Faramir, who in the books wanted nothing to do with the Ring.

[Lianachan]

The Silmarillion is a gorgeous piece of fiction. Yes, it's quite hard work at times, but it's worth it.

The Silmarillion is indeed splendid, but not everybody will feel that it was worth reading. I think it would lend itself well to a Young Indiana Jones Chronicles style adaptation - a high budget TV series of stories either filling one or spread over two hour long episodes.

[Lianachan]

The most common complaint from LOTR fans is the complete change to the character of Faramir, who in the books wanted nothing to do with the Ring.

Yes, that's probably the most obvious and annoying character change.

Other characters who are changed in significant ways that immediately spring to mind are (in order of the importance of the change in my opinion): Arwen (as suggested above), Sauron, Frodo, Gimli and Legolas. Characters who were changed in many annoying but mainly insignificant ways are many - the most obvious being the remaining hobbits of the Fellowship, Gothmog and Gandalf.

In addition to character changes, there are numerous examples of changes made for (presumably) cinematic impact - the Army of the Dead being at the Battle of Pelennor Fields, the Rohirrim horses getting in about the Mumakil, for example. These can, though, be forgiven. Changes like the Elves being at Helms Deep - well, that simply shows that the battle against Sauron/Saruman involves all and makes more sense than showing fighting in previously unseen parts of Middle-earth (in the Iron Hills, for example). What is less easy to forgive are the many seemingly pointless changes and the things that just don't make sense - Frodo facing the Nazgul at Osgiliath, which would have alerted Sauron to his intended route into Mordor, and the incorrect origins of the Uruk-Hai, for example.

[Lord Jubjub]

Faramir (with the attendant changes in plot) and the Dead Army at Pelennor are probably the two points which are particularly egregious.

[Kaptain K]

Second the vote for Silmarillion. Throw Akalabeth and we can keep PJ busy for many years to come!

[Doodler]

Supposedly its The Hobbit as a movie, then a filler movie excerpted from the Simarillion to link The Hobbit to Fellowship of the Ring.

I know some people, myself included, having a little fun with name ideas for the linking movie.

These were mine:

Brokeback Hearth

The Legend of Baggins Vance

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Pipes

Children of the Barley

I Know What You Stoled Last Summer

The Ring and I

I, Ringbearer

I, Hobbit

Sam & Frodo, Still Smokin'

Merry & Pippin, Up In Smoke

[Trebuchet]

The change that actually bothered me the most was the climactic scene with Frodo battling Gollum at the Crack of Doom and eventually hurling him in. That was a complete, and unnecessary change from the book and a real change in the meaning of the scene. Frodo was incapable of destroying the ring but Gollum, in his moment of triumph, fell over the edge and fulfilled Frodo's quest as well as Frodo's prophecy that if Gollum touched him again he would be cast into the crack. I was really disappointed in that scene.

But I'll watch The Hobbit when it comes out anyway!

[Neverfly]

The change that actually bothered me the most was the climactic scene with Frodo battling Gollum at the Crack of Doom and eventually hurling him in. That was a complete, and unnecessary change from the book and a real change in the meaning of the scene. Frodo was incapable of destroying the ring but Gollum, in his moment of triumph, fell over the edge and fulfilled Frodo's quest as well as Frodo's prophecy that if Gollum touched him again he would be cast into the crack. I was really disappointed in that scene.

But I'll watch The Hobbit when it comes out anyway!

Two Descriptions of the Film ending (wiki)(fan site):

Moments later, Frodo stood on the edge of the Crack of Doom, but was unwilling to destroy the Ring, claiming it for himself and putting it on. Then Gollum attacked again, and the two fought while Frodo was invisible. Finally, Gollum bit off Frodo's finger and seized the Ring. He gloated over his prize, dancing madly over the edge. However the Ring's curse was true and Gollum stepped too far and fell into the fires of Mount Doom, taking the Ring with him with a last cry of "Precious!" Thus, the Ring was destroyed and Sauron utterly defeated.

At the Crack of Doom, Frodo, instead of dropping the ring into the lava, succumbs to its power and puts it on, disappearing from sight. Gollum renders Sam unconscious, seizes Frodo's finger, and bites the Ring off. Frodo charges at him and they both fall over the edge. Gollum falls into the lava flow with the Ring while Frodo hangs onto the edge of the cliff. Sam rescues Frodo as the Ring finally sinks into the lava and is destroyed.

Description of the ending from J.R.R. Tolkien's book (wiki):

The two Hobbits, after a length of time, finally reach the Crack of Doom. Yet just as he is about to throw ring into Mount Doom, Frodo succumbs to the Ring's power and refuses to let it go. Just then, Gollum, who had been following the pair still, attacks Frodo and bites off his finger with the Ring. Gollum gloats over his prize but loses his balance and falls into the lava below, taking the Ring with him. The Ring is destroyed, freeing Middle-earth from Sauron's power. Frodo and Sam are rescued by Great Eagles who carry them from Mount Doom. Upon Sauron's defeat, his armies at the Gate flee.

Jackson felt that Tolkien's ending was too anti-climactic and originaly intended to have Frodo push him over the edge. He was convinced later, however, that it would appear that Frodo murdered Gollum if that scene was used.

The major difference that really irked me was the portrayal of the Steward of Gondor.

[ToSeek]

The major difference that really irked me was the portrayal of the Steward of Gondor.

That's the other one (after Faramir) that I've heard complaints about.

[Trebuchet]

Jackson felt that Tolkien's ending was too anti-climactic and originaly intended to have Frodo push him over the edge. He was convinced later, however, that it would appear that Frodo murdered Gollum if that scene was used.

The major difference that really irked me was the portrayal of the Steward of Gondor.

That's Hollywood for you. The first description of the film ending is not the way I remember it but is much closer to the book. The second one is the way I remember the film.

Now that I think about it, I didn't care much for the second movie at all. Way too much changed. The character of Treebeard, for instance.

[Neverfly]

That's Hollywood for you. The first description of the film ending is not the way I remember it but is much closer to the book. The second one is the way I remember the film.

Now that I think about it, I didn't care much for the second movie at all. Way too much changed. The character of Treebeard, for instance.

That first one struck me that way too- I thought the author may have been influenced by memories of the book- that is why I sought out a second one.

I didn't read all the books- so Im utterly ignorant as to how the book described Treebeard.

I enjoyed All of the movies a lot. In spite of the changes. It's funny though- the changes eat at you over time- almost souring it after enough time passes.

According to the wiki, Jackson was claiming "It isn't climactic enough! " all over the place... In spite of my annoyance over that- I cannot help but think he may be right too- as I have read and heard so many complaints about the movies taking too long or having boring scenes.

[Lord Jubjub]

I actually felt that the movies were rushed. Amazing that a properly paced story could take well over 20 hours to tell.

[Kaptain K]

Although The Lord of the Rings was sold as three books - The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and The Return of the King, Tolkien wrote it as six books. (I-VI)

The powers that be of the movie studio were extremely reluctant to fund three movies because they were to be shot nearly simultaneously and if the first one bombed they were going to be out a boatload of money.

If they had only known how overwhelmingly successful the franchise was going to be, Jackson could have filmed six movies and stayed closer to the written version. If nothing else, I could have seen Tom Bombadil in more than my mind's eye! :(

[Trebuchet]

I actually didn't object (much) to the omission of Bombadil as he didn't ultimately contribute much to the story, and sort of didn't fit into the general cosmology (theology?) of Middle Earth. In general I object less when filmmakers leave stuff out, which is usually necessary, than when they add stuff that wasn't in the book, which pretty much always makes it worse.

[Trebuchet]

And one more thing: The catapults in The Return of the King were all wrong. Onagers/Mangonels for the besieging orcs, who should have been using trebuchets for throwing more weight. And if I recall correctly, they were "spoonapults", that is with a bowl on the end of the arm instead of a sling. Slings work, and are historically correct. Spoons don't, and aren't.

And then there were trebuchets up on the walls of Minas Tirith, where onagers would have been appropriate. Massive counterweights swinging around on top of the walls are not good for them. And they're too hard to aim at the besiegers.

And despite all that, I really did enjoy the movies and will certainly see The Hobbit when it comes out.

[Lianachan]

I actually didn't object (much) to the omission of Bombadil as he didn't ultimately contribute much to the story, and sort of didn't fit into the general cosmology (theology?) of Middle Earth. In general I object less when filmmakers leave stuff out, which is usually necessary, than when they add stuff that wasn't in the book, which pretty much always makes it worse.

I think Bombadil's only major contribution to the story is providing the Westernesse blades to the Hobbits. It's the fact that he's using one of these that later allows Merry to wound the Witch-king. In the films, Aragorn produces normal blades seemingly from nowhere - in fact, there's a later sugestion that the blades aren't terribly good, as Eowyn tells one of the Hobbits to go and sharpen his, as "you'll not kill many orcs with that". The wounding of the Witch-king by a conventional blade is a possible sign that Jackson shared the same - incorrect - interpretation of the prophecy about the Witch-king that the Witch-king did himself!

But otherwise, Bombadil would mainly just confuse the great unwashed of the audience in my opinion. He's very much part of the Just A Sequel To The Hobbit, children's book style of the early Fellowship Of The Ring.

[korjik]

The wounding of the Witch-king by a conventional blade is a possible sign that Jackson shared the same - incorrect - interpretation of the prophecy about the Witch-king that the Witch-king did himself!



?

What do you mean by incorrect interpretation?

[KaiYeves]

The wounding of the Witch-king by a conventional blade is a possible sign that Jackson shared the same - incorrect - interpretation of the prophecy about the Witch-king that the Witch-king did himself!
I don't know beans about Middle Earth, but this just proves the First Law of Mythological Villians:
"Villians will always misinterpret the prophecy and act in a useless manner based on that misinterpretation."

[Lianachan]

?

What do you mean by incorrect interpretation?

Check the last dozen or so posts in this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/34209-tolkien-you-thief-2.html#post587850).

[Donnie B.]

What I missed most in PJ's movies was the Scouring of the Shire.

Yes, I know that many complained that the ending of the movies was already too long. But in my view, the Scouring was the real payoff to the trilogy. It demonstrated the growth of the Hobbit characters (except Frodo, who stayed out of the fight) and was an object lesson in the need to organize and stand up against oppression. What larger theme did the books have than that?

[Lord Jubjub]

A climax of a subplot after the main climax works in books. It doesn't work well in movies.

[Trebuchet]

I almost mentioned Merry's sword (knife) but didn't because I couldn't remember which hobbit! Obviously time for another re-read. The omission of that was disappointing.

As Lord J says, adding the scouring as a subplot in Return of the King wouldn't have worked. Obviously we need another movie!

[HenrikOlsen]

And then there were trebuchets up on the walls of Minas Tirith, where onagers would have been appropriate. Massive counterweights swinging around on top of the walls are not good for them. And they're too hard to aim at the besiegers.
Interesting, an article on trebuckets I read mentioned specifically that they where used in towers specifically because they apply lower forces to the support during firing than onagers, because the force comes from the free-swinging counterweight, rather than from torsion which work through force applied by pushing directly on the support.

Your point about aiming is well taken, though one answer to that is here (http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20071217), discussion in the second row of pictures:)