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!

MGM and Warner Near On Deal For Hobbit Films

CmdrTaco posted about 4 years ago | from the it's-precious-to-me dept.

Lord of the Rings 222

Jamie found an NYT story that says "After months of negotiation and delay, Warner Brothers and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer are on the verge of an agreement that would allow the director Peter Jackson to begin shooting a two-part version of J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit early next year." The production has struggled recently with issues with unions, and a fire.

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

The cartoon was better (5, Funny)

simcop2387 (703011) | about 4 years ago | (#33784612)

Nothing can ever beat that cartoon.

Re:The cartoon was better (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33784732)

Which Cartoon?

Re:The cartoon was better (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33784950)

There was a "cartoon" version from a while back. Most of the "people" were shot live, then drawn over top of. Had a very weird look.

Re:The cartoon was better (4, Informative)

OldeTimeGeek (725417) | about 4 years ago | (#33785260)

No, Ralph Bakshi used rotoscoping [] for his version of The Lord of the Rings in 1978. Rankin-Bass's 1977 verson of The Hobbit was plain-old animation...

the cartoon called - The hobbit from 70's (1)

chronoss2010 (1825454) | about 4 years ago | (#33784958)


Peter jackson... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33784760)

Another one of my childhood favorite story just died by the hands of that moron.

Re:Peter jackson... (1)

mark72005 (1233572) | about 4 years ago | (#33784908)

ok... I know the books are always better than the films, a film can't conceivably cover what you can cover in several hundred printed pages, but I thought the LOTR films were pretty well done.

Why the hate?

Re:Peter jackson... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33785036)

He left out Tom Bombadil and the ending (the scourging of the Shire, or something like that?). I would consider those things potentially worthy of hate.

Re:Peter jackson... (2, Insightful)

SebaSOFT (859957) | about 4 years ago | (#33785146)

Neither of those chapters contribute to the story as a whole. Remember that (in the movies) Saruman died at Isengard, so the episode of the Shire wouldn't make sense. Also Tom Bombadil IMHO doesn't make sense with the darkish setting of the story.

Re:Peter jackson... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33785228)

Okay, but cutting short Bill the Pony's story is unforgivable.

Re:Peter jackson... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33785286)

Agree completely re: Bombadil.

The Scourging of the Shire, however, is important, despite Tolkien's concerted efforts to discourage any allegorical or moral reading of the story. Dark satanic mills my eye.

Re:Peter jackson... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33785304)

I would have preferred he left the undead army thing from ROTK out to be honest. Kinda made the whole struggle feel pointless when there was an army with noclip and god mode fighting that comes along and defeats the bad guys with ease.

And can you imagine ROTK with the attack on the Shire? People already complained about how long the ending dragged on. :p

Re:Peter jackson... (4, Interesting)

Defenestrar (1773808) | about 4 years ago | (#33785926)

Not to mention that the undead army never made it to Pelannor Fields. They defeated the Corsairs of Umbar, were released from service, and the reinforcements came from the freed slaves and the now un-besieged coastal region.

Allowing Saruman his final chance of redemption (to wait out the war & think about why he (and other Istari) was sent to middle earth), show that even Fangorn was susceptible to Saruman's final evil skill (voice), and show the damage which can still be caused by a hollowed out "powerless" voice set loose among a good-natured group such as the Shire, cheats Gandalf and Saruman of character and Tolkien of some of his more subtle points. Not to mention cheating the Shire of it's endurance before and hard-will after the rising sparked by the returning hobbits.

Re:Peter jackson... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33785380)

Agreed. Tom Bombadil doesn't even fit well with the book IMO. They seem like they were just shoved in there as if you already had a story from A to Z, but then later decided to add an E2 and E3 with a tone almost different from the whole book.

The movies are wonderful and keep the story moving.

The only issue with Saruman is, IIRC, he wasn't shown dying in the theatrical release but only in the extended scenes. But even in the theatrical release it made it seem that he was at least defeated and kept under guard.

Re:Peter jackson... (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | about 4 years ago | (#33785622)

I would have at least filmed it to put in as a bonus feature on the DVD.

Personally, I'm glad I didn't have to watch Orlando Bloom sing "Hey Diddle Diddle" stretched out to 13 verses.

Re:Peter jackson... (1)

AffidavitDonda (1736752) | about 4 years ago | (#33785992)

Maybe if they would've hired Ivan Doroschuk for that, it would have worked. The "Safety Dance" video comes quite near to how I imagined the Tom Bombadil chapter while reading LOTR: []

Re:Peter jackson... (3, Insightful)

FrankSchwab (675585) | about 4 years ago | (#33785090)

I'll agree with that...

Other than about 20 seconds worth of film, I think the LOTR films were a far better adaptation of the books than I thought possible.

When I heard that the story was coming out on film, I was expecting a treatment like "I, Robot" got - schlock only vaguely related to the book. Instead, we got a movie that captured the feel of the books almost perfectly, and told the same story. The movie was better for the visuals - it fleshed the world out much better than my puny imagination had been able to do.

I've never quite understood the haters, either.

Re:Peter jackson... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33785254)

But... but... Bill the Pony!!

Re:Peter jackson... (4, Insightful)

delinear (991444) | about 4 years ago | (#33785276)

I always wondered if the fact that Hobbits were used to eating 'shrooms and smoking their special tobacco is what made them slightly more resilient to the promises of the ring, and therefore the ideal ring-bearers, but the movie pretty much strips out all of that without really explaining why Hobbits are better suited to carry the ring than, say, the giant eagle (who presumably could have dropped off the ring in a couple of hours and been back in time for tea).

Re:Peter jackson... (4, Interesting)

Genrou (600910) | about 4 years ago | (#33785712)

I think this is well explained in the books and in the movie, though somewhat in the subcontext: hobbits have so little power and are so devoid of ambitions (other than living a very simple life) that the Ring doesn't have a strong effect on them. It would corrupt a powerful being such as a Maia (such as Gandalf) or a great Eagle. Moreover, that might explain why the Ring has absolutely no effect on Tom Bombadil. But maybe I'm seeing too much.

Re:Peter jackson... (1)

psycho12345 (1134609) | about 4 years ago | (#33785744)

I was always under the impression that the hobbits were not so easily corrupted by the ring, because their race had never wielded rings of power nor had any made for them, unlike the elves, dwarves and men. I guess the smoking also help, because it indicates a lifestyle that's about enjoying life, not accumulating power of some kind (power over nature, metal or other beings).

Re:Peter jackson... (4, Informative)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 4 years ago | (#33785892)

I was always under the impression that the hobbits were not so easily corrupted by the ring, because their race had never wielded rings of power nor had any made for them, unlike the elves, dwarves and men.

Gollum was a Hobbit []

Re:Peter jackson... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33786020)

Rather than never having had any rings of power themselves, I always thought that it was a lack of desire for power. Constantly, the other characters (especially in the books), even the good ones, are talking about using about using the ring to control for good (still desiring power). The hobbits on the other hand, just care about simple, peaceful existences. Additionally, in the book, it talks about the mercy of Bilbo in not slaying Gollum as playing a factor in the rings diminished power over him.

Re:Peter jackson... (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 4 years ago | (#33785834)

Well it's fantasy so take your pick:
1. It was guarded by the Nazgul. Only after the destruction of the ring are the eagles able to reach the mountain.
2. Their half-animal minds lack the strength of character and will to subdue the ring.
3. If the eagles could not resist using the ring near Sauron then he would sense it and send his minions.

If you look at the other members of the fellowship, they're pretty much all driven by some sort of ambition. It might be that Frodo isn't *that* special, but none of the other are really suited to the task, it would have to be another "nobody" that does not desire power. Or it might be Hobbit society, which you can see is far less war-torn than Elves or Men or Dwarfs and so instills a natural goodness in hobbits that the others don't have.

Re:Peter jackson... (5, Informative)

natehoy (1608657) | about 4 years ago | (#33785906)

What I got from both the books and the movie on that was simply that Hobbits don't really give two shits about power. Tolkien hammered on this concept until it hurt, and Jackson remained pretty true to that concept. They intentionally choose a simple life, they have little interest in controlling (or, let's be honest, even helping) anyone outside their borders, so the whole concept of a ring that gives absolute power has little meaning. The Ring can corrupt them (see Smeagol/Gollum and Frodo). Hell, even Bilbo got corrupted by it to an extent, but he managed to hold out for quite a while because he didn't know what it was.

The only people who could bear the Ring are those who could wield it (limited to a population of one, named "Sauron") and those to whom it would not occur to try.

Bilbo never had a clue what the Ring was, or what it represented. At least not until long after it was out of his hands, and I'm not sure he really knew anything other that it was a burden to Frodo, then forgot about that soon after. To him, it was a magical little shiny that allowed him to avoid unpleasant encounters and skulk around. He didn't have buttons the Ring could have pushed to seek absolute power. He didn't know about it, and didn't care, other than the small and insignificant uses he put it to. Even so, it took threats from Gandalf to get him to set it aside, and it still gnawed at him.

Frodo knew what he had from fairly early on, but lacked the sort of desire for power the Ring could leverage. Even so, the Ring did work on Frodo at the end. He was unable to cast it into the fires and actually started to try and wield it, and it fell on Gollum and a bit of clumsiness and happy chance to finally destroy the Ring.

Hobbits are also insignificant to the powerful to the point of near invisibility. Give the Ring to an Eagle, and he'd be spotted and intercepted, probably before he crossed the border into Mordor, if his own sense of power didn't turn his purposes to that of the Ring's first. No one could wield it without Sauron being aware of it (and eventually being subverted by it), and no one could openly fight past Sauron and into Mordor without wielding it. It was only through stealth that Frodo managed to get the Ring into Mordor without being immediately caught.

Remember, all of the people who understood the ring and understood power (Gandalf, Elrond, Aragorn, Faramir, Galadriel, etc) were strong enough to reject the ring but wise enough to understand that they were not strong enough to control it or even handle it. Boromir was weak enough to be unable to reject the ring, and though he managed to reject it briefly it was really only Saruman's orcs killing him off that saved him from eventually succumbing to its appeal and attempting to wield it. Denethor was weak enough that the mere concept that it slipped through Faramir's fingers was enough to drive him batshit crazy.

No one who was strong enough to understand what the Ring truly was would be strong enough to carry it for any length of time. Its power was too appealing.

Re:Peter jackson... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33785740)

I would go further: the books are written in an awful style and full of ideological bullshit, while Jackson have achieved pretty epic movies from them.

The book are for kids who can't read real ones.

Re:Peter jackson... (3, Informative)

JAZ (13084) | about 4 years ago | (#33785880)

It wasn't what was cut so much as what was changed:

Merri and Pippin weren't bumbling fools who accidentally kinna tagged along, they were dear friends who wanted to help and wouldn't let Frodo go without them.
There were no elves at Helm's Deep.
Faramir was a better man than his brother and didn't try to take Frodo or the ring back to Minas Tirith.
Shelob was a fabulous ending to the Two Towers but lost drama in the middle of RotK.
Aragon wasn't hiding from his heritage, he carried the broken blade with him as a reminder of his destiny (although he was cynical about it).
Arwen wasn't a bad-ass who could out-class the wraiths, Glorfindal was the bad-ass warrior who afforded the hobbits some protection so they could get to Rivendell.

Just a few examples off the top of my head, the main thing was how many character that were fundamentally "wrong" when compared to the books.

Re:The cartoon was better (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33784988)

Where there's a whip, *crack!*, there's a way!

I need glasses (5, Funny)

killmenow (184444) | about 4 years ago | (#33784632)

I swear I read that as "The production has struggled recently with issues with Unicorns, and a fire."

Re:I need glasses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33784774)

AAAAlways I wanna be with you....

Re:I need glasses (2, Funny)

dubbreak (623656) | about 4 years ago | (#33784830)

I swear I read that as "The production has struggled recently with issues with Unicorns"

I know it's the ultimate paradox. On one hand the original story didn't have unicorns on the other hand they are totally awesome.

I can totally see how that would hold up production. If you're going to do unicorns you want to do them right and not just CG them in after the fact because you changed your mind and decided the movie would be that much more awesome with them.

Re:I need glasses (1)

AdamsGuitar (1171413) | about 4 years ago | (#33784874)

You aren't the only one that saw that. Took me three times to see "Unions"

Re:I need glasses (1)

Tragedy4u (690579) | about 4 years ago | (#33784912)

I think you meant "struggled with Unicorns and a flood", that would make it a struggle of old testament biblical proportions.

Re:I need glasses (1)

pavon (30274) | about 4 years ago | (#33784938)

Hehe. My first reaction was "That's a strange way to spell Onions, is this some reference from LOTR that I have forgotten?"

Re:I need glasses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33785106)

Unicorns and Extreme Fever? PEGGLE! :D

Re:I need glasses (1)

delinear (991444) | about 4 years ago | (#33785294)

And in an even weirder twist, I read your comment as Unicron [] .

Re:I need glasses (0, Troll)

JWSmythe (446288) | about 4 years ago | (#33785370)

You've never tried to choreograph a dance routine with a dozen unicorns [] and walking trees, have you? It might sound like fun and games, but it's not.

    The fire was purely an accident [] I tell you. It had nothing to do with that backtalking birch [] . I told her if she didn't shut her hole [] , she'd get what was coming to her [] , but nooooo. nooooo. A guy can only take so much I tell you.

    (ohhh, if we could only post the pictures inline, it would make this so much funnier)

Re:I need glasses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33785986)

(ohhh, if we could only post the pictures inline, it would make this so much funnier)

The trouble is not unicorns so much as goats. Or something spelled similar to goats, as it were.

Re:I need glasses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33785538)

You don't need glasses, you need different drugs...

What about context... (1)

itsanx (1534709) | about 4 years ago | (#33785816)

That may be the result of context priming [] . I also read "Unicorns" and my glasses are perfect.

let's wait (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33784636)

Let's wait until there actually is an agreement made before we start celebrating. This thing has been "real close" to taking the next step too many times now.

Re:let's wait (1)

Defenestrar (1773808) | about 4 years ago | (#33786002)

Yeah - the trouble with a movie about a bunch of dwarves and a hobbit is deciding on who gets the short straw - there's not enough to go around.

bummer (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33784648)

The LOTR trilogy was cartoony, exaggerated stupid stuff, and didn't trust the story or the actors. (I shall not rant about the stupid 'dwarf toss' and other anachronisms; anothr time perhaps.) I suppose I can hope that Jackson won't wreck The Hobbit...nah, never mind.

Re:bummer (4, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 4 years ago | (#33784776)

...the stupid 'dwarf toss' and other anachronisms

I'd almost forgotten the skateboarding elf, thanks.

Re:bummer (2, Informative)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 4 years ago | (#33785196)

Tim, Tim Benzidrine
Hash, Boo, Valvoline
Clean, Clean, Clean for Gene
First, Second, Neutral, Park
Hie thee Hence, you leafy Narc!

(always wanted to do that)

Re:bummer (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 4 years ago | (#33784998)

While it could be said that -any- movie wasn't as good as the book, I really thought that the LoTR trilogy was really, really well done. Now, if you want to see a good book series get murdered in film, look at the Narnia movies...

Oh dear. (1)

Dragooner (1808336) | about 4 years ago | (#33784656)

I don't know why but I think I laughed for a few minutes when I read "The production has struggled recently with issues with Unions, and a fire." Is that so wrong?

I do look forward to the hobbit, one of the few books I ever read..

Re:Oh dear. (0, Flamebait)

mvar (1386987) | about 4 years ago | (#33784694)

It was a good book but i'm not sure if we should be happy that this is going to be made into a movie from the same man who literally destroyed Gimli (among others) in the lotr trilogy

Re:Oh dear. (1)

KlomDark (6370) | about 4 years ago | (#33784792)

Gimli died?

Sure you're not confusing him with Trinity?

Re:Oh dear. (0, Flamebait)

mvar (1386987) | about 4 years ago | (#33784862)

indeed, he would be better dead than playing the clown for the audience's comic relief

Re:Oh dear. (1)

lgw (121541) | about 4 years ago | (#33785708)

That was the least-concerning change for me. While the dwarf-tossing jokes were a bit 4th wall breaking (as anachronisms) and could have been done without, that was only a few seconds of film. As for the rest, Gimli always struck me as someone with unshakable self confidence, and an awareness of morale on long campaigns. It seemed fitting to his character that he'd be willing to lighten the mood at his own expense from time to time, not "destroying" his character at all.

While the growth of his friendship with Legolas (and the resultant character growth for each) was given very little screen time, and I would have liked to see more of that instead of "suddenly they were friends", there's only room for so much on the screen.

We already know how it ends (5, Funny)

sideslash (1865434) | about 4 years ago | (#33784660)

With the producers, director, actors, production crews, and distributors facing off in a lawsuit -- a great Battle of Five Armies over a huge pile of gold.

Don't get me wrong, I'm looking forward to throwing my $10 on the pile. I'm sure the film itself will be great.

First Dorks (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33784668)


Oooooh, anonymous sources! (4, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 4 years ago | (#33784684)

Magic Palantír Says: DON'T COUNT ON IT

Re:Oooooh, anonymous sources! (2, Funny)

LanMan04 (790429) | about 4 years ago | (#33784750)

Outlook not so good. MY EYES!

Hopefully Jackson Will Die Before (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33785358)

Sickening to think what that talentless hack Jackson will do to the Hobbit after how badly he butchered the LotR story.

Hopefully the fat fuck will die of a heart attack before filming starts and we can get someone who will actually bother to READ the actual source material before working on the film version...

Two parts? (5, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about 4 years ago | (#33784720)

ie. They're going to milk this for all it's worth.

Re:Two parts? (1)

Fishead (658061) | about 4 years ago | (#33784768)

Yup... and I will refuse to see the first part until the second part comes out and I can watch them back to back.

Re:Two parts? (1)

Ukab the Great (87152) | about 4 years ago | (#33785002)

Why buy the cow when you can milk the bull for free?

Re:Two parts? (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about 4 years ago | (#33785614)

> Why buy the cow when you can milk the bull for free?
Methinks you (pardon the pun), butchered that...

"Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" - FTFY

Anyways, the answer is: To keep the other bulls away so you have a monopoly on the milk... and the heifers...

But I digress.

Soooo, bringing this back ON topic, when have the movie studies NOT tried to screw the public out their money with all the [crappy] sequels.

Re:Two parts? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 4 years ago | (#33785052)

A large group of people throw money at a franchise and it's lame that they're 'milking' it?

Re:Two parts? (5, Funny)

bigredradio (631970) | about 4 years ago | (#33785058)

The first part is the movie. The 2nd part is the ending where everybody says goodbye to each other.

Re:Two parts? (1)

grub (11606) | about 4 years ago | (#33785096)

They could have cut the LOTR trilogy into 6 parts then I could skip parts 2, 4 and 6 where the Hobbits just ran through the woods.

Re:Two parts? (2, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 4 years ago | (#33785250)

The Hobbit was 2 parts. The lord of the rings really should have been about 9 movies. but you know that'd never happen. God forbid they ever try and do the silmarillion.

Re:Two parts? (2, Interesting)

lgw (121541) | about 4 years ago | (#33785742)

Actually, the Silmarillion would be fine - it's a set of short stories, many of which would make fine movies. No one needs to see Genesis on the screen, but there's great movie material past the begats.

Re: Two parts? (5, Funny)

killmenow (184444) | about 4 years ago | (#33785766)

God forbid anyone ever try and read the silmarillion.

Re: Two parts? (1)

lbalbalba (526209) | about 4 years ago | (#33785944)

> God forbid anyone ever try and read the silmarillion.
Actually, i have tried a few times - but always seemed to black out. All I can remember is some sort of historic summary, that goes like :
18xx - King Foo does Bar
19xx - King Foo dies
20xx - Elf X does Y
and so on and so on ...

Re:Two parts? (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 4 years ago | (#33785402)

For one Peter Jackson is not George Lucas, also I doubt he's had any deciding power in the DVD/BluRay release schedule which is an insult to all the fans. He had to fight hard enough to get his own money. If you're going to stay true to the book then I'd say one movie leading up to and ending in the climax of Smaug's defeat is a good first movie. Making that a little "middle climax" and the battle of five armies the final climax doesn't do it justice at all. Remember that the LotR movies were much, much longer than normal cinema movies so there's plenty material for two movies. I think it can be good, certainly much better than fellowship of the ring and that really did end in the middle of nowhere, and that wasn't a bad film at all.

Re:Two parts? (1)

BabyDuckHat (1503839) | about 4 years ago | (#33785488)

No, it's not like that at all. It's not a money grab, it's just that the story is so epic that they couldn't figure out how to put it all into just one part. Oh wait, never mind. That was Starcraft 2.

Re:Two parts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33785698)

ie. They're going to milk this for all it's worth.

Question(s): Is there a problem with a company wanting to get the most out of something?

I do wonder if two films makes sense, but I do know that 2 hours (or even 3) would not give the Hobbit enough time to cover all the material in the book without pissing off legion of fans by having to re-write part of the story to make sense for all the stuff they'd have to cut out.

I suppose this is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. If you make it into 2 films, you're a greedy money grubbing bastard and people jump on the "corporations are evil" bandwagon, that's so popular right now, mixed in the "Studios are the king of evil" group (a title that they certainly made for themselves for many reasons). You produce one film, cut a bunch of story out, rewrite the script to try and make sense for the stuff you had to cut (to avoid loosing people who don't have the book memorized), but try to keep enough to make the die-hard fans happy, and end up with an amalgamated mess that no one likes.


I'll wait for the film to be released, see it, and then decide if they deserve further support.

God forbid they decided to make two films because they couldn't make the best films possible without it, and making the best film possible means they'll make the most money as possible, because making one crap-tastic film won't win them much revenue beyond opening week hype.

If the films suck, then it's a rightful criticism that they just polished a turd to make money in a 'bad way'. If they're as good as the LotR's films(assuming we can agree that those films were good), I don't see any justification for shitting on their doorstep for making money for making a good product.

Sigh (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 4 years ago | (#33784722)

You know, with Duke Nukem Forever actually looking like it's going to come out, it's a shame that we're losing such a great internet meme, because I was just about to say how The Hobbit is starting to look like the Duke Nukem Forever of the film world. :(

Re:Sigh (1)

Shimdaddy (898354) | about 4 years ago | (#33785068)

We'll always have the Arrested Development movie :P

As I recall... (1)

HerculesMO (693085) | about 4 years ago | (#33784740)

The Hobbit was the most boring of the Tolkien books, but hey, I'm all for a movie!

Re:As I recall... (0, Troll)

corbettw (214229) | about 4 years ago | (#33784868)

The Hobbit was the most boring of the Tolkien books, but hey, I'm all for a movie!

Isn't that like saying the Pacific Ocean is the most wet of the oceans?

Re:As I recall... (2, Funny)

demonbug (309515) | about 4 years ago | (#33785012)

The Hobbit was the most boring of the Tolkien books, but hey, I'm all for a movie!

Isn't that like saying the Pacific Ocean is the most wet of the oceans?

Sure... if you're illiterate ;p

Re:As I recall... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33785558)

Tolkien's books have had a special place in my heart, ever since I read them as a child. But I laughed pretty hard at your post :-)

Re:As I recall... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 4 years ago | (#33785044)

I actually preferred The Hobbit to the LoTR trilogy by far. The Hobbit was much better written, I actually enjoyed reading through the entire book while it seemed like I had to force myself to read the LoTR trilogy. While LoTR had a better plot, when it comes to the actual book, I much preferred The Hobbit.

Re:As I recall... (4, Funny)

Noughmad (1044096) | about 4 years ago | (#33785104)

So I suppose you didn't read Silmarillion?

Re:As I recall... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33785734)

Check and mate!

"There was Eru in in Arda was call Illuvitar and from him came the Annur..."

What happened... (1)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | about 4 years ago | (#33784766)

They slipped a ring around all the issues they were having, and they just disappeared, later to be stabbed to death by these horsemen in black cloaks...

resolution with union (1, Troll)

Krau Ming (1620473) | about 4 years ago | (#33784772)

"The production has struggled recently with issues with Unions, and a fire." However, production has resumed smoothly following the ritualistic burning of the union leaders at the stake.

Oh goody... (4, Interesting)

droopus (33472) | about 4 years ago | (#33784876)

Yet another opportunity to wear funny glasses for three hours and have pointy objects thrust at me repeatedly.

Maybe he'll buck the trend and NOT do it in 3D?

Re:Oh goody... (2, Interesting)

edmicman (830206) | about 4 years ago | (#33785048)

This was the first thing I noticed. If they subscribe to the gimmick that is 3D in movies I'll have lost all respect for the crew that brought us LOTR.

Re:Oh goody... (1)

canajin56 (660655) | about 4 years ago | (#33785934)

I've seen documentaries filmed in IMAX 3D. 3D isn't a gimmick, it's absolutely phenomenal. Or at least it was 20 years ago. The gimmick is their desire to look "cool". Home Improvement made fun of it when all of the other stations were doing their 3D episodes, with glasses in the newspaper, what, 10 years ago now? (Third Rock from the Sun and many other shows all did it the same night, get glasses from paper, see episode in stunning 3D). So, Tool Time had it's own 3D episode, and Tim, Al, and Heidi spent the entire time just thrusting tools at the camera over and over going "Woah! WOAH! WOAAAAAH!". 3D movies that are filmed like movies are superb. The problem is with 3D movies that are filmed like they're "WOAH 3D MAN" instead of like they are still movies.

The same thing happened with stereophonic records. For a while, rather than just recording a normal song but in stereo, everybody became absolutely obsessed with the stereo effects. You even hear it on Beatles albums from the time, absolute ping ponging, instruments jumping from left to right just because they can.

The difference is, it's not new. For decades now they've been filming documentaries in polarized 3D. Everybody just ignored it until James Cameron remade Fern Gully with it. If only they had learned from him to just film the movie like normal, and let the 3D handle itself. If going overboard with shit flying at the camera would have been poor cinematography for a 2D movie, for a 3D movie it will be poor 3D!

Re:Oh goody... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33785216)

I hoping it's 3D stop motion animation, with the heads of actors digitally attached to their characters' plasticine bodies.

William Shatner! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33784916)

They absolutely need to cast William Shatner as Bilbo Baggens.
That would be the Nth degree of awesomeness.

Re:William Shatner! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33785300)

I used to work in that shop (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33784918)

Breaks my heart hearing it burned. I was on the first film and was in NZ for 7 months before I had to get back to the states. Some amazing models came out of that place under some extreme conditions, no time and no money. Nothing went to waste. We busted up rocks for set dressings and I remember bagging up all the dried leaves shed by the branches being dried for the forest set to break up and use as miniature set dressings. You had to be inventive. Richard Taylor had a brilliant idea for the models for the tree houses. The facings were actually carved in negative out of slabs of wax then resin was drizzled in to create the spider web like faces. Gorgeous stuff and the models could be melted down and reused. Hard to believe how much must have been lost when it burned. A lot of film history.

Help save a film from corporate American. Join the fight at:

Not a shameless promotion I don't even reveal my name I just want my film back. Check out the main link for more info and I just posted more renders. Bug the media and prove we can fight back!

Re:I used to work in that shop (1)

greyline (1052440) | about 4 years ago | (#33785268)

1997 called and wants their web site back.

union/fire (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33784942)

Is there a mere juxtaposition between the Union problems and the fire, or is there some sort of a cause/effect relationship there?

(for the record, this AC does not live in a right to work state -

(second FTR: the CAPTCHA in the initial submit attempt was 'control,' methinks the telco unions may be up to something).

2 parts? (1)

samsonov (581161) | about 4 years ago | (#33784986)

I'm in the dear god no camp... Why can't Hollywood find something original to do. I'm still waiting for the sequel to Moby Dick ;) Two parts? Really? Oh right, forgot Hollywood credo #2: Profit.

What really happened. (5, Funny)

gad_zuki! (70830) | about 4 years ago | (#33785010)

It began with the forging of the Great Rings. Three were given to the artists and writers; wisest and most creative of all beings. Seven, to the union actors, great visionaries and craftsmen of the stage. And nine, nine rings were gifted to the studio execs, who above all else desire power. For within these rings was bound the strength and the will to govern over each group. But they were all of them deceived, for a new ring was made. In the land of New Zealand, in the fires of Mount Cook, the Dark Lord Peter Jackson forged in secret, a master ring, to control all others.

Also, they tried to bilk Jackson out of LOTR $ (2, Interesting)

jbeach (852844) | about 4 years ago | (#33785102)

The studios pulled the infamous Hollywood Accounting scam, of trying to pretend that LOTR didn't make any money, in order to keep from paying Jackson his contractual shares of profits. []

I'd suspect that they must have come to some sort of an agreement with Jackson. Either setting up payment on what they owe in LOTR, or sweetening the $ from the Hobbit in some way in order to make up for it.

What's even more interesting to me, is that the article doesn't mention this at all. The article reads so much like a press release that I wonder if it's cribbed directly from a couple of different press releases.

Ian Holm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33785270)

Maybe they are courting Ian Holm to play Bilbo again?

It would sure be nice to see the two Ians together again.

He started in July (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33785542)

Having just moved out of Miramar and working as a freelancer I find this news a bit odd. They went into lock down in July and started production at Weta in July. Perhaps WB should get their story straight. Or someone needs to tell PJ that he's not actually got a contract yet. No doubt it'll be just as boring and lifeless as all the other tripe he does.

What I don't get (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | about 4 years ago | (#33785568)

is why they didn't do this with LOTR, each of the books were in two parts anyway (can't remember if the hobbit was or not) and they could've had a lot more detail and content. Bombadil? The elves in the shire? The scouring of the shire?

Re:What I don't get (1)

jbeach (852844) | about 4 years ago | (#33785876)

Peter Jackson actually didn't like Bombadil AND the scouring of the Shire. AND he almost cut the Shelob monster-spider scene.

He did a better job than almost anyone else I can think of, except perhaps Guillermo Del Toro; but his version of LOTR still misses the mark IMHO.

at what cost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33785592)

of course they have sent 3 or 4 good projects packing to make this overblown prequel.

I for one would have rather watched Darren Aronofsky's Robocop...

I hated the Lord of the Rings movies (-1, Troll)

elrous0 (869638) | about 4 years ago | (#33785932)

I'm not a troll here, I just felt that someone should say it. At the risk of losing my geek card, I found both the books and movies boring as hell. Randall in Clerks 2 [] pretty much sums up my feelings--just a lot of walking. The story never even made any sense to me either. Just seemed like everyone chasing after some lame ring whose only powers were to turn people invisible and turn everyone wearing it into an obsessive addict. I think the ring's only real power was the Paris Hilton effect--making everyone THINK it was so fucking important. Why they went to so much trouble to destroy the thing when they could have just let that CGI weasel hide it away as his crack fix is beyond me. For that matter, they could have just let the bad guy have the damn thing. It would probably have turned him into a pathetic weasel too. The whole thing seemed like a quest in search of an actual purpose--with a shitload of walking and boredom.

I'm not familiar with the Hobbit, but I suspect this one will be even lamer than the Lord of the Rings. Now they're bringing in the fucking b-team to walk too.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?