Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Hobbit On Hold

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the had-such-a-nice-ring-to-it dept.

Lord of the Rings 142

Flea of Pain writes "Director Guillermo Del Toro has confirmed upcoming Lord of the Rings prequel The Hobbit has been put on hold indefinitely because the movie has been caught in a 'tangled negotiation' over the future of the MGM movie studio. The film, based on J.R.R. Tolkien's first book in the fantasy series, was reportedly due to begin shooting this summer, but has been mired in delays. Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson, who will act as producer on the new film, recently dismissed rumors of trouble with the picture, insisting, 'It's not really been delayed, because we've never announced the date.'"

cancel ×

142 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Dang (4, Funny)

2names (531755) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382262)

Now what will I do?

Re:Dang (4, Insightful)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382270)

Read the book.

Re:Dang (5, Funny)

2names (531755) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382330)

There's a book?

Re:Dang (5, Funny)

DeadDecoy (877617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382542)

Ya, I think it's based off the cartoon.

Re:Dang (4, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382826)

That was loosely based off the broadway show.

Re:Dang (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32384378)

That was based on the Leonard Nimoy song [youtube.com]

Re:Dang (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384444)

That's the one inspired by that Uwe Boll film, right?

Re:Dang (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#32385676)

Which was based off a conversation between two drunk homeless guys in an alley...

Re:Dang (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382764)

Not an especially good one. And I say that as a Tolkien fan.

Re:Dang (3, Insightful)

monoi (811392) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382904)

Not an especially good one. And I say that as a Tolkien fan.

If you're about ten (which I think was Tolkein's intended audience) then as I recall it's fantastic compared to the other books offered to you at that age.

Re:Dang (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383128)

If you're about ten (which I think was Tolkein's intended audience) then as I recall it's fantastic compared to the other books offered to you at that age.

I didn't like it much as a kid, either, preferring C.S. Lewis and Madeleine L'Engle. The story isn't especially thrilling, and there's a distinct impression that the writer is talking down to you.

Re:Dang (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32385060)

I liked it enough to get the Lord of the Rings, but the story wasn't very thrilling or original.

The Lord of the Rings was a lot better but the ending is very weak.

It's like some bad action movie where after the happy ending some left-over enemy kills the hero for the lulz. Only that not even that happened.

Tolkien desperately needed an editor to cut his bad ideas off and leave him with a superb novel.

Oh, and fuck you Tom Bombadil.

Re:Dang (1)

tecnico.hitos (1490201) | more than 4 years ago | (#32385724)

The Hobbit is a lighter read than LotR, but it is not bad. Maybe it is intended for a different public.

I remember having liked it more than LotR, when I read it for the first time.

Re:Dang (2, Funny)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383034)

There's a book?

That was my first thought. Now you're gonna tell me there was a sequel. . .

Re:Dang (1)

Loki_1929 (550940) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383800)

That doesn't make any sense, how could you have a book already when the movie isn't even [i]done[/i] yet?!

Re:Dang (1)

xanadu113 (657977) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384500)

Yeah, I hear they made a book out of that movie...

Re:Dang (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 4 years ago | (#32385792)

Bored of The Rings?

Re:Dang (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32383292)

Read the book.

But not that one.
I'd recomend Starship Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein.
Very nice book.
I must say, I've never seen this type of comment on Slashdot :D

Re:Dang (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382286)

I suggest you keep on regulating the funkiness. Where will the world end if you stop with that essential task? Keep it up, brother.

Re:Dang (4, Funny)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382474)

Now what will I do?

Play Duke Nukem Forever

Re:Dang (4, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382560)

Now what will I do?

Play Duke Nukem Forever

Not necessarily forever, he only has to play Duke Nukem until Hobbit will come into cinemas.

Re:Dang (0, Offtopic)

el_tedward (1612093) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383106)

I like pie.

Re:Dang (1)

tecnico.hitos (1490201) | more than 4 years ago | (#32385684)

It might be the same thing

thank goodness! (-1, Troll)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382304)

Thank the gods, I was so dreading the hobbit coming to film. It's bad enough LoTR brought out all the movie fanbois who never opened a single page of the book but a movie adaptation of the hobbit would be terrible!

Re:thank goodness! (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382346)

I remember the book containing a lot more botany.

Personally, I'm glad Peter Jackson didn't make it all about pipe-weed. The only thing worse than a LoTR Fanboi is one who smokes up every day.

Re:thank goodness! (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382436)

But there is little better than partaking and reading LOTR or watching the movies.

Re:thank goodness! (1, Interesting)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384928)

I'm glad they've put a stop to it too.

Fucking Aragorn in the Hobbit. What the fuck were they thinking.

Jackson fucked LotR, and was about to fuck the Hobbit (not a pretty thought). We should all rejoice with a handful of pipeweed.

The next James Bond as well! (5, Informative)

The-Pheon (65392) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382340)

Bond 23 [imdb.com] has also been delayed because of MGM's legal issues. http://www.imdb.com/news/ni2143090/ [imdb.com]

I was looking forward to seeing Mr. Craig shoot some guns, drive some fast cars, and flirt with some girls.

Re:The next James Bond as well! (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382364)

I still think Pierce Brosnan did a better job. Which is saying something, since he wasn't the best Bond.

Re:The next James Bond as well! (1)

Thanatos81 (1305243) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382502)

Not the best? Only Timothy Dalton was worse then Brosnan. But that's entirely my own gusto. And that's the funny thing: everyone has a different point of view. I assume there might even by some people who would argue that Mr. Brosnan was the best Bond...

Re:The next James Bond as well! (2, Interesting)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382576)

My girlfriend likes him, but in her defense, she hasn't seen Connery, Moore, or anyone else for that matter.

Re:The next James Bond as well! (1)

Thanatos81 (1305243) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382982)

Well, as stated before: It's her opinion and if she's happy with it she shall be. I just don't share her opinion ;_)

Re:The next James Bond as well! (3, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382646)

There is no debate, the correct answer is Connery was the best Bond. It really is that simple.

Re:The next James Bond as well! (2, Funny)

onkelonkel (560274) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382762)

All the really cool kids like George Lazenby.

Re:The next James Bond as well! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32382960)

Only if you're simple.

connery was the worst ever imo.

When ian flemming met connery he said "i'm looking for commander bond not an overgrown stuntman.

Roger Moore was a far better actor than connery, and he wasn't that great at all.

Re:The next James Bond as well! (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383738)

No he wasn't. I am so sick of that. The crappy accent, The awkward I'm standing her fiddling until your down with your lines body position. gah.

Re:The next James Bond as well! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32384690)

No he wasn't. I am so sick of that. The crappy accent, The awkward I'm standing her fiddling until your down with your lines body position. gah.

Translation to something comprehensible, please?

Re:The next James Bond as well! (2, Interesting)

sjbe (173966) | more than 4 years ago | (#32385404)

There is no debate, the correct answer is Connery was the best Bond.

I don't have a favorite Bond actor though I can't say I liked Connery best in the role. He was fine as Bond, sort of defined it I guess, but I think others have done at least as well. I do have a least favorite (Roger Moore) and Connery did not star in my favorite Bond movies (Casino Royale and A View to A Kill) so if I don't like Connery's Bond movies the best it's hard for me to like him best in the role. Moore was generally annoying in the role, a little to smug and "perfect", and though I really liked A View to A Kill, I hated Moonraker and several others he was in. None of the guys who have been in the role have done a terrible job. Sometimes the directing or the script has sucked.

Re:The next James Bond as well! (1)

GuruBuckaroo (833982) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383056)

Only Timothy Dalton was worse then Brosnan.

As you say, your own point of view. I actually thought Timothy Dalton was the closest to matching the Bond from the books. I quite liked him, and thought he wasn't given a fair shake. Too many people wanting Remington Steele as Bond, or a return of Connery or (gah) Moore.

Nobody really gave him a chance.

Re:The next James Bond as well! (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383150)

The Bond of the books wasn't an especially interesting character.

Re:The next James Bond as well! (2, Interesting)

sconeu (64226) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383370)

The funny thing is, Dalton may have been the worst film Bond, but he was probably truest to Fleming's vision of the character... world weary and burned out.

The best film Bond, of course, is Sean Connery.

Re:The next James Bond as well! (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383472)

I happened to like Brosnan, and thought he was one of the better ones (having seen many of the old ones too)... but that may just be because I saw GoldenEye first as a kid.

Re:The next James Bond as well! (4, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382996)

I think it's a false comparison.
Brosnan was at the last in a newest 'gadget' cycle of the series. Mr. Craig version he IS the weapon.

The bond series gadgets cycle in there and back again.

See what I did there?

Re:The next James Bond as well! (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382410)

Vladimir Putin or as he seems to be called here Mr.Craig is close to the worst James Bond ever. James Bond is supposed to be cool, smart and this lug looks more like a Neanderthal and acts like one too.

Re:The next James Bond as well! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32382788)

Vladimir Putin or as he seems to be called here Mr.Craig is close to the worst James Bond ever. James Bond is supposed to be cool, smart and this lug looks more like a Neanderthal and acts like one too.

no - james bond became cool and smart as the stories progressed. he was most definately a neanderthal thug at heart in the books and daniel craig does an excellent job of portraying it.

Re:The next James Bond as well! (2, Insightful)

acid_andy (534219) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382986)

No, he has style in the books and sophisticated tastes and is cool at least in his state of mind. He's also handsome and has dark hair. Purely in terms of the look I think Brosnan actually came closest and Craig is furthest. Brosnan just had terrible scripts (with the exception of GoldenEye although that's still far from the best)!

Re:The next James Bond as well! (1)

acid_andy (534219) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382936)

Yes he is the worst. He looks like a builder. He just needs the builder's bum! I hope the Hobbit does get made, but only if it's good. I'm getting sick of great stories being harvested to make a quickly churned out crap film (and don't even get me started on remakes!). The LOTR films were almost perfect I thought though so if it's close to them I can't wait! I don't know how they got the world to appear so similar to how I had imagined it when reading the books.

Re:The next James Bond as well! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32382950)

Come on...

Vesper: "How's the lamb?"
Bond: "Skewered. One sympathises."

Re:The next James Bond as well! (1)

PawnII (720562) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382746)

If you believe the latest gossip on the tabloids he may start flirting with some boys too.

Re:The next James Bond as well! (4, Funny)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382752)

I was looking forward to seeing Mr. Craig shoot some guns, drive some fast cars, and flirt with some girls.

Teaches me not to read the subject line first. For a moment I was wondering what version of the hobbit you were referring to!!!!

Re:The next James Bond as well! (3, Funny)

tool462 (677306) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383098)

Christopher Tolkien released an amended version of The Hobbit based on his father's notes and drafts.

Apparently the elder Tolkien did a LOT of speed in his autumn years...

Re:The next James Bond as well! (1)

MakinBacon (1476701) | more than 4 years ago | (#32385858)

The same thing happened to the new Stargate Atlantis and Stargate SG-1 TV movies that were in the works.

"On Hold" (5, Insightful)

TopSpin (753) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382384)

Given Jackson's track record with LOTR the Hobbit movies are worth a couple billion dollars in revenue. There is absolutely no possibility they won't get made. There have been several fits of "on hold" while the rights were negotiated with the Tolkiens. There will be more "on hold" moments while more parties wrangle for their cut. In the end it will make it to the screen because everyone, absolutely everyone, wants this.

Re:"On Hold" (0)

turkeydance (1266624) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382448)

well, not really.

Re:"On Hold" (5, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382718)

well, not really.

I must say, your well thought out post in conjuction with the reserve you maintained during your rebuttle, has caused me to reconsider my stance on what I believe. The GP almost had me convinced, but you so eloquently countered his every notion, leaving your thoughts superior. Tell me good sir, how do I subscribe to your newsletter?

Re:"On Hold" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32383054)

well, not really.

I must say, your well thought out post in conjuction with the reserve you maintained during your rebuttle, has caused me to reconsider my stance on what I believe. The GP almost had me convinced, but you so eloquently countered his every notion, leaving your thoughts superior. Tell me good sir, how do I subscribe to your newsletter?

Well, he does have a point. At least in that it would be trivial to prove the last statement of "everyone, absolutely everyone, wants this". Just find one person who does not want this, and the statement is rendered false.

That is, until we send out the Opinion Correction Officers after them to remedy the situation...

Re:"On Hold" (-1, Troll)

turkeydance (1266624) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383196)

how quaint.

Re:"On Hold" (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382792)

In the end it will make it to the screen because everyone, absolutely everyone, wants this.

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity to derail good work. This very real power eclipses the fictional magic of any ring.

Re:"On Hold" (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382832)

I sure hope so, it am really looking forward to it myself.

Re:"On Hold" (4, Funny)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382956)

There is absolutely no possibility they won't get made.

If it gets delayed until 2012, some would argue there's a very good possibility it won't get made regardless of how profitable it would be. Because that's when Sauron is prophesied to come back, and he has a really good legal team.

Re:"On Hold" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32385522)

Surely you must remember from your flat world history that with the destruction of the one ring, Sauron can no longer influence this world. Perhaps you mean Morgoth?

Re:"On Hold" (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383024)

Copyright expires in 2012. Think about that.

Re:"On Hold" (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383592)

Only because the world will end. Otherwise the MAFIAA will get copyright extended way past that.

Re:"On Hold" (1)

UnderCoverPenguin (1001627) | more than 4 years ago | (#32385262)

When are the earliest Mickey Mouse copyrights currently due to expire? I suspect 5 years before that is when the real push for another extension will begin.

Re:"On Hold" (0, Flamebait)

rec9140 (732463) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384538)

" In the end it will make it to the screen because everyone, absolutely everyone, wants this."

You would be wrong, sir.

I don't... and I didn't want the first 3 waste of film and DVD's...

I really don't get the connection to these dreadful books and the [nerd|geek]dom...

Way back in the day, at summer camp (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382418)

We actually performed The Hobbit in a play on stage, a musical no less.. What could a movie possibly add? Besides my list of movies to boycott is already full. I'm afraid I just can't squeeze any more in.

Re:Way back in the day, at summer camp (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32382728)

an audience.

Re:Way back in the day, at summer camp (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32386120)

Laugh it up, monkeyboy... we had to do it again the next evening... SRO

Re:Way back in the day, at summer camp (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383742)

I'm afraid I just can't squeeze any more in.

<Connery> Well that'sh what your mother shaid lasht night! </Connery>

Re:Way back in the day, at summer camp (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#32386042)

I'm afraid I just can't squeeze any more in.

<Connery> Well that'sh what your mother shaid lasht night! </Connery>

Was GP quoting you in his sig?

--
Man! It stinks in here

Seriously? (1)

SphericalCrusher (739397) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382476)

Enough with putting this movie on hold... they need to sort out their dispute now. I mean, personally, I really want to see this movie... but aside from my interest, this movie will be a blockbuster and it will make a lot of money. They are retarded for letting it be put "on hold"... get over it and make this damn movie.

Re:Seriously? (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 4 years ago | (#32385160)

If it was a pure Jackson movie, I would have seen it, and probably bought it too.
As it is a Toro movie, I won't. His creative use of camera zooms and distorted aspect ratios makes me motion sick, and the ping-pong dialogue is almost as bad as Whedon.

The Road Goes Ever On (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32382544)

Roads go ever ever on,
Over rock and under tree,
But not by a movie studio.

Time is of the essence (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32382592)

They can't wait too long. Ian McKellen just turned 71.

Re:Time is of the essence (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382780)

Well, 2008 Life Expectancies for the US were 77 to 80 years old, and in the UK its +80. I imagine thats where he spends most of his time. The biggest detraction to life expectancy right now is Obesity, and I don't think Ian McKellen has that problem.

I think they could put the movie on hold for another 5 years and he'd still be able to do it. Just my personal opinion.

Slashdot Opines About Hobbit On Hold While (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32382600)

British Petroleum (a.k.a. BP) [firedoglake.com] destroys the Gulf of Mexico.

The Hobbit can wait another 100 years. Hopefully by then Apple will be bankrupt from their iMeditate app so iPad fanboyz won't be able to watch it.

Yours In Smolensk,
K. T.

Re:Slashdot Opines About Hobbit On Hold While (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382744)

Slashdot has covered the leak a number of times, most recently yesterday.

Re:Slashdot Opines About Hobbit On Hold While (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382810)

And I thought our discussion of who was the best bond was off-topic.

maybe now they can start work on avatar porn /nt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32382692)

maybe now they can start work on avatar porn /nt

Freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32382872)

US senators will move to restrict access to this and other films like it, as it may induce notions of freedom and provocative thought amoungst an otherwise docile, ignorant and perverted American populus.

Necessary for it to be a Peter Jackson production (1)

Dex1331 (1810146) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382894)

I think it's very important that they use the same producers, studio, staff as much as possible so that the look and feel aspects of the production are consistent and in line with the wonderful epic triology. It should really fit seemlessly in with the LOTR. I'm not sure Ian Holm is young enough to play the part of Bilbo however, they did pretty good making him look young in the cave scene, finding The One Ring but I don't think they can swing him doing the entire film. He is talented enough to do it however, I would just hate to see them overlay a bunch of CGI and make him look like a star ware episode 5-6 Yoda.

They are waiting for copyright to expire in 2 (2, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382938)

years. The copy copyright was in 1937, 28 years, plus a possible 47 year extension. 75 years Max and assuming the filed properly.
2012 it expires. Seems to me the Tolkien estate should suck whatever blood they can get from our culture now.

The Renewal System
Under the 1909 copyright law, works copyrighted in the United States before
January 1, 1978, were subject to a renewal system in which the term of copyright
was divided into two consecutive terms. Renewal registration, within strict time
limits, was required as a condition of securing the second term and extending
the copyright to its maximum length.
On January 1, 1978, the current copyright law (title 17 of the United States
Code) came into effect in the United States. This law retained the renewal
system for works that were copyrighted before 1978 and were still in their first
terms on January 1, 1978. For these works the statute provides for a first term of
copyright protection lasting for 28 years, with the possibility for a second term
of 47 years. The 1992 amending legislation automatically secures this second
term for works copyrighted between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 1977.

The Hobbit was published in 1937. It had to be extende withing 28 year. 1965 at the latest.
The second extension is for 47 years. meaning the second, and final extension shoud ahve ended in 2007.

note: If a copyright originally secured before January 1, 1964, was not renewed at
the proper time, copyright protection expired at the end of the 28th calendar year
of the copyright and could not be restored.

Some of the first runs didn't even have a copyright mark, so one could argue the copyright is invalad. You would need to be a dick to argue that.

Re:They are waiting for copyright to expire in 2 (1)

asylumx (881307) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383532)

Wait... The copyright expires in 2012?? Don't tell me it happens in December....

Re:They are waiting for copyright to expire in 2 (5, Informative)

JimDarley (942005) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383952)

The US adopted the Berne convention in 1988, according to which:- "One important minimum rule was that the term of copyright was to be a minimum of the author's lifetime plus 50 years."

According to Wikipedia, Tolkien died in 1973, that plus 50 years means that it'll be 2023 before the copyright expires.

Copyright expiration is all over the map (2, Informative)

bgalbrecht (920100) | more than 4 years ago | (#32386138)

In life+50 countries like Canada, it will be 2024 (it becomes PD Jan 1 of the year after the 50th anniversary of the death), but in the US, since it was copyrighted under the rules in place then, with the extensions (geekoid forgot about the 20 year extension in 1998), the copyright will expire in 2033. In the UK and EU and many other countries where it is life+70, it will be PD in 2044. This is all assuming the terms aren't extended yet again.

Re:They are waiting for copyright to expire in 2 (1)

CrashandDie (1114135) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384340)

Also, Tolkien was British, and his work was published in the UK. US Copyright law is worth balls all, especially when it comes to extensions.

Re:They are waiting for copyright to expire in 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32385052)

US Copyright has a lot to do with it considering the size of the US market. Just because it was written in the UK doesn't mean that it doesn't receive protection in the US or that the protection it receives in the US is subject to UK copyright law. If they want to sell it in the US, those sales are subject to US copyright law for both the book and the movie. Likewise, if they want to sell it in the UK or any other country, those sales are subject to the copyright law in each of those countries.

So it really only matters that the US Copyright expires in 2 years if that's true of every other country in which they intend to release the film. Otherwise, they'll have to license the book for use in those countries.

Re:They are waiting for copyright to expire in 2 (1)

Naznarreb (1274908) | more than 4 years ago | (#32386012)

You would need to be a dick to argue that.

Or a financially troubled production company looking for some public domain source material.

Thief! We hates it! (1)

Chas (5144) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382952)

We hates it...FOREVER!

Jackson, or bust. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32382988)

im no zealot of anyone or anything about the movies, however, jackson did a good job with the trilogy. if so, i would consider it stupid to not use the guy who was tested and succeeded.

maybe i should not watch that, not taking the risk. 'tolkien estate' has valued their immediate profits over the importance and value of the lotr saga after all. it would send a good message.

i mean, really, as someone said about wall street, 'how many yachts you can water ski behind'.

Jackson, overrated (5, Insightful)

TiggertheMad (556308) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383244)

however, jackson did a good job with the trilogy.

Elf shield surfing.
Dwarf tossing jokes.
Rewriting parts of the story to make it 'more exciting'.


Let's just say that he did ok, hmmm?

Re:Jackson, overrated (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383784)

And it was still better then anyone else could of done.

It was a great Job. No, it wasn't perfect, but it was still an awesome movie that told the story.

LotR BluRay Extended Edition? (1)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384010)

Peter Jackson has said before that the Lord of the Rings Extended Edition will not be released on BluRay until after he is finished up with The Hobbit, because he needs to be directly involved in the project. So does this mean that, since he won't be busy on the Hobbit right now, he'll have time to work on that? Or is LotR EE BR now in indefinite hold too?

more waiting (1)

dx40sh (1773338) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384062)

So does this mean that the blu-ray EE trilogy will be delayed as well ?

First Book? (1)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384156)

The film, based on J.R.R. Tolkien's first book in the fantasy series

Not the first. [wikipedia.org]

Okay, so maybe the Silmarillion wasn't the first book to be published but it's the first in historical significance to the world of Middle-Earth. And if you didn't get the reference of my link text, we don't need your kind here. [xkcd.com]

Re:First Book? (1)

avg_joe_01 (756831) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384346)

Ok.. so am I bigger geek for knowing the reference... or for the words of Mandos being my first though at a glance before I read your post?

Re:First Book? (1)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384476)

Good memory, Joe. You're not so average after all!

Re:First Book? (1)

boredsenseless (1246818) | more than 4 years ago | (#32385336)

The words of "Mandos," the hands of fate?

"Mandos."

Three movies... (1)

xanadu113 (657977) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384968)

Lord of the Rings.. three movies of nothing but walking...

Re:Three movies... (1)

StupiderThanYou (896020) | more than 4 years ago | (#32385224)

Lord of the Rings.. three movies of nothing but walking...

Yes, in the same way that Die Hard is four movies of nothing but architecture.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?