Home Forums Ganymede & Titan Forum The Hobbit film

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 30 total)
  • Author
  • #2067

    Uhm, yay!

    December 18, 2007


    Los Angeles, CA (Tuesday, December 18, 2007) Academy Award-winning filmmaker Peter Jackson; Harry Sloan, Chairman and CEO, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. (MGM); Bob Shaye and Michael Lynne, Co-Chairmen and Co-CEOs of New Line Cinema have jointly announced today that they have entered into the following series of agreements:

    * MGM and New Line will co-finance and co-distribute two films, ?The Hobbit? and a sequel to ?The Hobbit.? New Line will distribute in North America and MGM will distribute internationally.

    * Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh will serve as Executive Producers of two films based on ?The Hobbit.? New Line will manage the production of the films, which will be shot simultaneously.

    * Peter Jackson and New Line have settled all litigation relating to the ?Lord of the Rings? (LOTR) Trilogy.


    The two ?Hobbit? films ? ?The Hobbit? and its sequel ? are scheduled to be shot simultaneously, with pre-production beginning as soon as possible. Principal photography is tentatively set for a 2009 start, with the intention of ?The Hobbit? release slated for 2010 and its sequel the following year, in 2011.”


    Finally Peter Jackson is back on this project!! My faith has now been restored.


    To be honest, I’d already stopped believing this was ever going to happen. I’m quite, quite happy.


    To be honest I wasn’t a big fan of the TOTR films, but mainly because they were too damn long!


    I’ve just seen the extended versions of all three of them in one go last Sunday. If something’s entertaining, I don’t mind there being A LOT of it.

    I hope there are going to be long versions of the two new movies as well, and TONS of documentary to watch… :D

    Jonathan Capps

    I have mixed feelings about Jackson. I did really enjoy the LOTR films, and thought the effects were spot on, in the main. But King King was such an overblown, self indulgent mess of a film. It seemed like it was made by someone far too overconfident in his own talents and far, FAR too overconfident in the merits of loads of CGs. So, what do we get? The ultimate low point of a 20 minute (at least it felt that long) fight between a CG Ape and a CG T-Rex and me CLAWING MY OWN EYES OUT WITH BOREDOM.


    Good point.

    But then, PJ will be producing and maybe writing, not directing (he says he is too busy with other commitments). Maybe in that light this is good news?

    Ben Paddon

    To me, Peter Jackson’s single greatest achievement is The Frighteners. It’s the only halfway decent film he’s ever made. The LotR trilogy looks nice, but are just as boring (if not moreso) than the source material.

    However, I did enjoy reading The Hobbit – much more fun than LotR – so perhaps we’re on to a winner here.


    There’s a lot I like about King Kong, but there’s no denying that Jackson was making a film that really didn’t mesh with the genre and story he was working with. It’s a monster movie, not an epic journey, and you can’t establish a half-dozen characters only to ignore them AND leave them out of the last act. (A flaw in the original, compounded in the new edition.)

    But I make no bones about my love the LOTR films. The tone and progression totally pulled me in – and I found the books unreadable.

    Jackson’s making Lovely Bones first regardless, so that may help bring him down to Earth.

    Tarka Dal

    Del Toro for the Hobbit?


    I like LOTR (although I’ve always had an inexplicable attatchment to the unfinished cartoon version), but I think Jackson’s best work are the Frighteners and BrainDead.
    LOTR at times felt like it was long for the sake of long, and having Arwen shoved in every 5 minutes didn’t help (i’d also have preffered more Christopher Lee to the ‘its finished!…oh wait no its not’ ending(s) we got)

    Ben Paddon

    Well Peter Jackson originally approached new Line and said, “hey, we can make two movies.” New Line’s response was, ‘Well, why not make three?”


    And so they produced enough material for 6 movies! But all the better.

    > But I make no bones about my love the LOTR films. The tone and progression totally pulled me in – and I found the books unreadable.

    Andrew, you’re officially my soulmate on this matter


    The “Frighteners” was a Peter Jackson film…ooooh! I didn’t know that. I really quite like that film.

    Ben Paddon

    Aye, and it’s his best film too. Bar none.

    Turk Thrust

    > Aye, and it?s his best film too. Bar none.

    Better than Heavenly Creatures? Or Braindead? Not in my opinion. I thought it was a massive backward step.

    Ben Paddon

    I wasn’t impressed with those films for some reason. No idea why.


    I really liked Heavenly Creatures

    Danny Stephenson

    Braindead is a wicked film. loads and loads o killins.


    People are saying LOTR is a step back from Brain Dead?

    Don’t get me wrong. I liked Brain Dead. It was trash, but it was enjoyable trash that didn’t take itself seriously… and hence worked.

    I’m not sure it’s fair to compare it with the LotR films as they’re two so completely different genres…(well ok their are elements of horror in LotR, but I’m sure you know what I mean) but a step back?

    I did find the LotR films dragged a bit in the cinema (the story was good but it was so very long). Didn’t stop me getting the expanded editions, though, and, strangely it dragged less on the rewatching. Their probably the most rewatched DVDs I have in fact.

    Oh, ditto King Kong. Good CG, and it was watchable but… meh.


    > Didn?t stop me getting the expanded editions, though, and, strangely it dragged less on the rewatching.

    That’s because they mostly edited (what I thought were) key elements out for the theatrical versions, but left all the running-across-country scenes in…

    Turk Thrust

    > People are saying LOTR is a step back from Brain Dead?

    I don’t think that anyone was saying that. It was The Frighteners that was described like that.


    I thought Kong was good but he definitely fell into the trap of being more arsed about spending what looks like billions on the effects, particularly the excellent recreation of 1930s New York, than thinking enough about the characters (or about who he was casting – Jack Black being the only one with any spark, Naomi Watts and Adrien Brody were poorly matched, very bland, with the script doing them no favours). And yes, it was too long. By all means make a 3 hour movie, but the trick is making it feel like less. This can’t be done when you’ve got endless ship shots and endless shots of Kong and Ann staring at each other.

    Tarka Dal

    Erm hold on. The Hobbit and it’s sequel? Does this mean they are planning on splitting The Hobbit across two movies or they are going to make The Hobbit and then invent a sequel?


    At this point, no one knows for certain, but the majority of nerds seems to think that it is impossible to split the Hobbit into two full feature length films and that it would in many ways make more sense to have one Hobbit movie and another movie tying The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings together, based on Tolkien’s background material, Silmarillion and so forth. Some people were sure to have read something officiallish on this somewhere but no one can find the link.

    All we *know* is that it’s been decided to make two movies.

    Tarka Dal

    I’d prefer the first option A) Because it means more of The Hobbit on screen and B) A link movie, even one based on source material, to my mind wouldn’t really be strong enough to be comparable with The Hobbit or the LOTR trilogy.


    Presumably since The Hobbit is a little more child friendly than LOTR, it’ll be two 90 minute films that make up the book, rather than two 3 hour epics.

    It’s been a long time since I read it, would the book lend itself to being divided in two?

    John Hoare

    Presumably since The Hobbit is a little more child friendly than LOTR, it?ll be two 90 minute films that make up the book, rather than two 3 hour epics.

    This is what I think too – I was similarly puzzled when I heard it was going to be two films, but as soon as the potential different running times was pointed out to me, it suddenly made a lot more sense. I think doing the one book as two films would be fine.

    It?s been a long time since I read it, would the book lend itself to being divided in two?

    Same here – ages since I’ve read it. But I’m sure they could make it work.


    Read it again a few weeks ago and the story seems way too short.

    I’m all for a bridge movie, there’s more than enough stuff there, what with the White Council and the Necromancer and all that.

    Here’s just one example list from thehobbit-movie.com. Not what I’d prefer but it shows how much they have to choose from. There are others over at theonering.net etc.:

    For the first film ‘The Hobbit’

    • Opening: The histoy of Dragons, Melkor and Sauron.
    • Smaug the Dragon descends on Erebor (the Lonely Mountain) and expels the dwarves. Thror escapes with Thrain II and Thorin II. (There is a possible link between the Necromancer and Smaug)
    • While traveling to Erebor, Thrain II (now Dwarf King) is captured and imprisoned by the “Necromancer” in Dol Guldur (fortress in Mirkwood); the last of the Seven Rings of Power belonging to the Dwarves is taken from him.
    • Gandalf enters Dol Guldur, and confirms his suspicion that the “Necromancer” is Sauron. He learns that Sauron is gathering the Rings and seeking the One Ring. Gandalf also finds Thrain and receives the key of Erebor from him. Thrain dies.
    • The White Council meets and Gandalf presses for an attack on Dol Guldur. Saruman overrules him and begins to discreetly search for the Ring near the Gladden Fields, where it was lost by Isildur, and later ‘found’ by Gollum.
    • Gandalf returns to the Shire. Renews his friendship with Old Took.This will also nicely show the connection between Took and Baggins families. Gandalf sets off fireworks, entertains kids, sends some hobbits on adventures…[Credit to Mithrandir]
    • The White Tree of Gondor dies and is left standing. No seedling can be found.
    • Bilbo Baggins is born.
    • Aragorn II, descendant of Aranarth first Chieftain of the D?nedains, is born. His mother calls him Estel (“hope”) and sends him to live with Elrond.
    • Thorin Oakenshield and Gandalf visit Bilbo in the Shire. Bilbo joins the Dwarves’ quest to retake the treasures of Erebor. Among his many adventures, Bilbo meets Gollum and finds the One Ring.
    • Bard of Esgaroth slays Smaug the dragon with the aid of Bilbo. The Battle of the Five Armies?Men, Elves, Dwarves, Goblins, and Eagles? is fought over Smaug’s treasure. Thorin Oakenshield dies in battle, and Dain of the Iron Hills becomes King under the mountain. .
    • Bilbo returns to the Shire and begins to write his memoirs, the first volume of the Red Book.

    For the second film:

    • Opening: The arrival of the Wizards to Middle Earth. [Credit to Lenitas]
    • The White Council meets again and Saruman, hoping to keep Sauron from finding the One Ring, agrees to attack Dol Guldur. Sauron abandons Dol Guldur. (Possible Big Battle scene to get the movie off to a good start)
    • Sauron returns to Mordor.
    • Bard rebuilds Dale and becomes King. Gollum leaves the Mountains and begins his search for his “precious”.
    • Balin leads a company of Dwarves from Erebor to Moria, in an attempt to reoccupy it.
    • Sauron openly declares his presence and gathers his forces and sends three Nazg?l to hold Dol Guldur. Gollum heads toward Mordor in his search.
    • Elrond reveals to his ward “Estel” his true name and heritage at his coming of age and presents him with the greatest heirloom of Arnor, the shards of the ancient sword Narsil and the Ring of Barahir.
    • Arwen, returning from Lorien, meets Aragorn in the woods. They fall in love, but Aragorn leaves to prove his worthiness as a suitor to Elrond.
    • Last meeting of the White Council. Saruman claims to have discovered that the One Ring has rolled down the Anduin to the Sea. He begins to keep agents in Bree and the Shire, fortifies Isengard and sets spies on Gandalf.
    • Gandalf and Aragorn meet and become friends.
    • Aragorn as Thorongil serves both the king of Rohan and the Steward of Gondor, and protects the land of Eriador from the minions of Sauron.
    • Frodo Baggins is born.
    • Birth of Boromir son of Denethor II, steward of Gondor.
    • Aragorn enters Lorien and meets Arwen again. He gives her the ring of Barahir (Note: In the film version of LOTR, he still has the ring. Instead, it seems that Arwen gives him her pendant, Evenstar. [Thanks to Grey Pilgrim for catching this]), and they promise to marry.
    • Frodo Baggins loses both of his parents in a boating accident and is adopted by Bilbo.
    • Gollum reaches the confines Mordor. He is tortured, interrogated, and eventually “escapes.” He then becomes acquainted with the great spider Shelob.
    • Theoden becomes King of Rohan. Saruman begins using his influence to weaken Th?oden.
    • Balin is slain in Moria, and the colony destroyed.
    • Aragorn finally tracks Gollum down in the Dead Marshes, and brings him as a captive to the elven King Thranduil’s halls in Mirkwood.
    • Gilraen, Aragorn II’s mother passes away at the age of 100 years
    • Saruman risks using one of the seeing stones and is unknowingly enslaved to the will of Sauron.
    • Then comes Bilbo’s 111th birthday party.
    Tarka Dal

    I think it depends on how heavily they want to go in terms of prequels. I hope they treat The Hobbit with the respect it deserves as an individual novel and not just backstory for LOTR.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 30 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.