Discussion in 'Media Central' started by Black Dove, Dec 18, 2007.
Peter Jackson To Direct The Hobbit
It's about fucking time!!! This is awesome news!!!
Eveb though there are many things i absolutely hate about the rings films it would have made no sense at all for anyone else to do it.
Now, McKellen will almost certainly play Gandalf, but who will play Bilbo?...
Sorry about that, Chief. All fixed.
From the link...
Two Hobbit films?
Um, isn't that stretching it a bit? Whereas they probably could've made five LOTR films from the trilogy source material, I don't see The Hobbit providing such a gold mine of plotlines. And I just re-read it about a year ago.
Two films just seems like a money grab to me. But I hope it's not.
Tch, I almost don't care at this point.
They needed to strike while my Return Of The King hardon was still throbbing.
Well, I can see having enough material for two films. Sorta. Getting them to Smaug could fill up a film. And then there's killing the dragon and the Battle of the 5(?) armies. And getting home again. But I don't see how they will cut it so it works as two films. I think they'd be better off editing it down to a long theatrical film and a really long Director's Cut DVD.
At either rate with the time it will take to turn this around, by the time it hits theaters the time will be right for a theatrical release of the extended versions of LotR. And I wouldn't even mind a bit of tweaking to take advantage of improved CGI.
Just as long as Greedo doesn't fire first.
And no Jar-Jar.
As far as i know its not Hobbit in 2 films, its The Hobbit plus a LOTR prequel. Which i assume will be the forging of the rings, Sauron destroying the Elves of Eregion, the Dwarves being chased from Moria, the white council formation, the treason of Isengard, The finding of Thrain in the pits of Dol Guldor and the attack of the white council where Sauron pretends to flee. It may even go as far as things like Numenor and its destruction, the Witch King of Angmar and the failing of the Northern Kingdom.
I rather like the idea, unless they f%ck it up...
Another 4 hour boring movie based on a boringer book.
mm.. I really like that you have that opinion
Actually, if they added Gandalf's side quest down to Dol Guldur when he and the Council of the Wise kicked Sauron out of Dol Guldur. You could really get some mileage out of that.
You need Gandalf, Gollum, and Elrond back. I'm thinking Ian Holmes is a little too old for Bilbo, but we'll see.
The yahoo story says two hobbit films, filmed at the same time.
He is, which is unfortunate. In the flashbacks of him finding the ring in LOTR they had to pin the skin on his face and neck back to make him look younger. Apparently it was very uncomfortable and he hated it
Pinning skin back.....uncomfortable....?
Ah, it's Ian Holm. My bad.
Looked it up - he's 76 years old.
Yeah, they'll need to recast it.
He's producing and will adapt the books, but he's not directing them.
Wiki says Sam Raimi is trying for the gig.
I look forward to not only the battle of the 5 armies + 1 bear, but to the sacking of Dol Goldur by the forces of Lorien.
Now THAT will be worth seeing.
Ya know, I liked the books of The Hobbit and LOTR, but I just couldn't get into the other books and lost tales. They were incredibly dry and boring, and the prose was such that I felt like I was reading a bad translation of the bible.
I barely finished the Hobbit. Honestly, I almost quit after the first chapter just kept going and going and going and wasn't about anything. I never even bothered reading the LOTR books. Yet I enjoyed all three films. Go figure.
It sounds like the prequel could be a trilogy!
From a few sources
As blasphemous as it is, I liked the films more than the books... I just liked the darker nature of the movies (and the characters) much more than the light-heartedness of the books. Yeah, I realize people spoke differently when the books were written, but I just didn't care much for the language.
Light-hearted?! Light hearted?!
I don't know what books you read, but here comes Tom Bombadil to stick a big yellow boot up your ass.
There was some very odd stuff in LOTR, and Tom was the wierdest bit. But i wouldnt exactly call it a light hearted book
Dark scenery is not the same thing as darker characters. Now I've only read LOTR 2-3 times, but I found Aragorn's self doubt, Boromir's shame, Denethor's descent into madness, and other characterizations far more compelling in the movie than they were in the books.
McKellen will be too old. Remember, the Hobbit takes place a good while before LOTR. You'll need a new Gandalf.
And Gandalf was alive a good while before the Hobbit.
The Hobbit is written as though told to a child, so it kinda tends to dump on you like that as though responding to a child's questions, yeah.
The trilogy can also be rather heavy on description, but quite tolerably so IMO.
Yeah, that change in style for the "lost tales" was rather unfortunate. Although the trilogy also tends to read like the Bible (though not the KJV in particular) in that most of the prose focuses on people's words and actions (plus surroundings), and one has to interpret all that to get insight into what's going on in their heads.
Separate names with a comma.