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!

MGM to Produce "The Hobbit"

Hemos posted about 8 years ago | from the hairy-feet dept.

518

pawnder writes, "According to two sources, MGM and New Line are partnering to produce 'The Hobbit' as part of MGM's new plans to create blockbuster movies again. From theonering.net: 'Over the next few years, MGM is planning to release half a dozen films, some in the $150 million to $200 million-plus range. Studio is ready to unveil such high-profile projects as "Terminator 4"; one or two installments of "The Hobbit," which Sloan hopes will be directed by Peter Jackson; and a sequel to "The Thomas Crown Affair" with Pierce Brosnan.'" With or without Tom singing, is what I want to know.

cancel ×

518 comments

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

age (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16082142)

Since all the actors are older, how are they going to portray them as younger looking? I'm mostly wondering about Gandolf and Gollum.

Re:age (0)

Cromac (610264) | about 8 years ago | (#16082157)

Since Gollum was CGI do you really think it will be hard to show them as younger looking? And how much "younger" do you think someone hundreds of years old is going to look when you've only gone back 30 or 40 years? Same for Gandalf, no reason for him to look any different in The Hobbit than LotR.

Re:age (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | about 8 years ago | (#16082485)

Well, hobbits (Ian Holm) only lived to 130 max. Ian Holm is going to be 5 or 6 years older, and he has to look like 70 years younger, that's a substantial amount.

Re:age (1)

slashdotmsiriv (922939) | about 8 years ago | (#16082486)

You my friend, obviously do not understand irony ...

Er... (1, Redundant)

AltGrendel (175092) | about 8 years ago | (#16082158)

Gandalf and Gollum are not good examples. Actually it shouldn't make much of a difference with any of them, the only race that ages quickly in the Tollkien world is Man.

Re:Er... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16082514)

>>Actually it shouldn't make much of a difference with any of them, the only race that ages quickly in the Tollkien world is Man

Aragorn was at least 80 during the LOTR. He lived to be 400 or so(in the appendix to ROTK). He was Numenorean, but technically still a man I think.

Re:age (-1, Redundant)

i kan reed (749298) | about 8 years ago | (#16082174)

It's instantly obvious that you've got no knowledge of Middle Earth history. Gandalf is possibly hundreds of years old. A few dozen extra wouldn't have changed him a bit. Gollem is also 900ish, so he wouldn't be too different either. Only bilbo, and a dwarf who only had a cameo should really change.

Re:age (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 8 years ago | (#16082219)

It's instantly obvious that YHBT. HTH, HAND.

Re:age (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16082347)

It's instantly obvious that you've got no knowledge of Middle Earth history. Gandalf is possibly hundreds of years old. A few dozen extra wouldn't have changed him a bit. Gollem is also 900ish, so he wouldn't be too different either. Only bilbo, and a dwarf who only had a cameo should really change.

Gandalf is certainly hundreds of years old. He's older than Elrond, who is at least 6,000 years old, just based on the chronology given since the fall of Numenor, which his brother Elros founded.

As the Maia named Olorin, Gandalf quite possibly existed before the creation of the world itself.

Re:age (2, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | about 8 years ago | (#16082378)

I didn't know Stephen Colbert read slashdot...

Re:age (4, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 8 years ago | (#16082400)

It's instantly obvious that you've got no knowledge of Middle Earth history. Gandalf is possibly hundreds of years old.
"Gandalf is possibly hundreds of years old"? You really shouldn't be saying other people don't know Middle Earth history.

Re:age (0, Redundant)

jimstapleton (999106) | about 8 years ago | (#16082200)

Bilbo: he's young in The Hobbit, old in LoTR: Probably a different actor, no big deal, though all things depending, Hollywood has this stuff called "make up" and "face putty"...

Gandalf: in regards to the other posts: try thousands of years. A little make up will more than do the trick.

Gollum: As someone said: CGI, no big deal there. He's also hundreds of years old, so they could probably use the same models.

Re:age (2, Informative)

erotic piebald (449107) | about 8 years ago | (#16082449)

Bilbo: he's young in The Hobbit, old in LoTR:

51, then 52 in the Hobbit, IIRC.
111 at the beginning of LOTR (his birthday party). 129? 130? at the Grey Havens?
Hobbits 'come of age' at 33. Assuming 21:33, 51 ~~ 32. So, early middle age, not "young", I'd say.

Re:age (1)

jimstapleton (999106) | about 8 years ago | (#16082469)

seems more young adult than anything, no older than 30 equivalent in human years.

Re:age (2, Insightful)

LDoggg_ (659725) | about 8 years ago | (#16082457)

Holm would do fine as the Ring had caused the aging process to slow. Gandalf was suprised at the beginning of Fellowship when he told Bilbo that he hadn't aged a day, so the stage is already set.
Also Elrond of Rivendell could still be done by Hugo Weaving.

If you could get Ian Holm, Hugo Weaving, Ian Mckellen, and Peter Jackson all together again, The Hobbit would have to be excellent.
The battle of the 5 armies could be done just as well as Pellenor Fields or the Black Gate, maybe better as the CGI will have progressed through a few more years of technological enhancements.

I'm psyched.

Re:age (4, Informative)

Grant_Watson (312705) | about 8 years ago | (#16082525)

Presumably, this is a joke, but what they hey.

Gandalf (TTT): "Three hundred lives of men I have walked this earth and now I have no time. "

PLEASE!!!! (2, Insightful)

Chineseyes (691744) | about 8 years ago | (#16082144)

NO MORE SEQUELS!!!

Re:PLEASE!!!! (1)

Moofie (22272) | about 8 years ago | (#16082153)

These are remakes, which set the bar even lower.

Having said that, there are a number of sequels and remakes that are actually worth watching. I can't tell if the percentage of good sequels/remakes is better or worse than the percentage of good movies.

Re:PLEASE!!!! (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | about 8 years ago | (#16082257)

NO MORE SEQUELS!!!

Well, T3, like Batman3, was a horrible piece of shit.
Hopefully, the masses will treat T4 to as few viewings as they did "Batman 4: Nipple Suits", and the franchise will die there.

I'll be doing my part by not showing up, and I hope you do too.

Re:PLEASE!!!! (1)

JeTmAn81 (836217) | about 8 years ago | (#16082324)

I'm of the opinion that T4 is a good idea no matter what you think of T3, since the only direction they have to go in with this is to show the future war, something most Terminator fans have always been interested in seeing. I think if they made a big war movie out of T4, and it didn't feature Arnold, it could be great. Just have it be about Nick Stahl fighting the machines.

Re:PLEASE!!!! (2, Informative)

brjndr (313083) | about 8 years ago | (#16082294)

The Hobbit would be a prequel.

Hobbit is gonna blow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16082145)

2 movies for the Hobbit? No. Terminator 4? Please, someone think of something new. Please.

At the very least set T4 in the future... (1)

geoffrobinson (109879) | about 8 years ago | (#16082492)

sending something back to the past has been done to death.

Huh?!?! (0, Flamebait)

Clockwork Apple (64497) | about 8 years ago | (#16082148)

They made the 6 books of LOTR in 3 flicks, but they are going to bust up There and back again into 2 movies?

I hate Jackson.

C.

Re:Huh?!?! (5, Funny)

Kuj0317 (856656) | about 8 years ago | (#16082170)

Yep.

One for there
One for back again

clean division.

I know, jokes aside i agree. However, this is hollywood, and epics=$$$.

Re:Huh?!?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16082213)

While technically your correct there are 6 books, most people only recognize them as a trilogy since that is how they have been packaged for many, many years. In fact, most people don't even know that they were originally written as separate books. So, yes, 3 books, 3 movies.

Re:Huh?!?! (2, Informative)

Volante3192 (953645) | about 8 years ago | (#16082336)

I thought it was packaged as one book way back in the day, but the binding couldn't hold the massive tome so the publisher asked Tolkien to split it up into more manageable parts, so he went to three and that's where the part titles came from...

Re:Huh?!?! (0)

jimstapleton (999106) | about 8 years ago | (#16082225)

There were only 3 LoTR books. Not 6.

Not on my watch! (4, Funny)

Scrameustache (459504) | about 8 years ago | (#16082281)

There were only 3 LoTR books. Not 6.

6, usually sold two by two in three volumes.

You're on notice, buster: One more show of geekish ignorance and I'll have your nerd badge!

Re:Not on my watch! (3, Informative)

OverlordQ (264228) | about 8 years ago | (#16082390)

Actually you should be put on notice.

It was written as one book, but was divided up due to wartime shortages on paper and to keep the printing price down on the first volume.

Stop confusing individual books with volumes.

Re:Not on my watch! (2, Informative)

Scrameustache (459504) | about 8 years ago | (#16082440)

Stop confusing individual books with volumes.

For publication, due largely to post-war paper shortages, but also to keep the price of the first volume down, the book was divided into three volumes: The Fellowship of the Ring: Books I and II, The Two Towers: Books III and IV, and The Return of the King: Books V and VI [wikipedia.org] plus 6 appendices.


That's it, hand it over. No more nerd badge for you until you complete basic training again... let's see you do the Vulcan salute, and then shine those d20s!

Depends on what you mean by "book" (4, Informative)

Kelson (129150) | about 8 years ago | (#16082446)

The term "book" can have two meanings:

1. A physical book, a.k.a. a volume.
2. A larger division of a work, which can include its own chapters.

It's not uncommon for a single novel to be divided into anywhere from 3-5 "books."

Les Miserables, for instance, has either five or six "books," but AFAIK it has always been packaged in one volume (often abridged -- that thing is massive). Never mind the many "books" of the Bible, which is itself one book.

So arguing over 3 books vs. 6 is simply arguing at cross-purposes.

Re:Huh?!?! (1)

bilbravo (763359) | about 8 years ago | (#16082287)

Each of the 3 books was divided into 2 books. There were 6 books.

"A Tale of Two Cities" was 2 books, similarly.

Re:Huh?!?! (1)

Jamu (852752) | about 8 years ago | (#16082482)

I think it's a shame the extended version of the film didn't go down the 6 DVD route. Although on second thoughts they'd probably price them as such too which wouldn't be so good.

Re:Huh?!?! (5, Informative)

JeTmAn81 (836217) | about 8 years ago | (#16082280)

First of all, technically there was only one LOTR book, which was split into three separate books for publishing purposes. The subdivision of "books" inside the novel denoted a separation that was more akin to chapters than actual whole books. Second of all, Jackson isn't doing anything on this project yet, so why are you blaming him? Lastly, Jackson made three GREAT films out of the single-book LOTR. I will applaud any effort he makes, if indeed he does make one, at making The Hobbit into a film or films.

Re:Huh?!?! (0)

belrick (31159) | about 8 years ago | (#16082461)

Actually *technically* it is 6 books physically published as 3.

Re:Huh?!?! (1)

Ahnteis (746045) | about 8 years ago | (#16082291)

I'd be OK with two 2-hour movies instead of one 4-hour movie. :)

RTFS (4, Informative)

Prien715 (251944) | about 8 years ago | (#16082298)

C'mon folks. I know that it's really hard to click through to the article, but can we at least read the summary?

One or two installments of "The Hobbit," which Sloan hopes will be directed by Peter Jackson

Looks like it's the studio that wants two in installments. Since Jackson hasn't even been hired onto the project, he can't be making decisions about it. I'm not a Jackson fan, but please, give credit to the formulaic movie execs where credit is due.

Re:Huh?!?! (1)

Kirin Fenrir (1001780) | about 8 years ago | (#16082299)

Um, no, there was one Lord of the Rings book, not six, or even three. The Fellowship of the Ring, the Two Towers, and the Return of the King "books" were all marketing stunts by the publisher; Tolkien was actually quite displeased they split his book up.

I hope you don't call yourself a fan!

Re:Huh?!?! (1)

$1uck (710826) | about 8 years ago | (#16082303)

"I hate Jackson"

Is that completely unrelated to your first statement? I hope so. If you read the intro you would see that Jackson isn't even pegged 100% to be the director. I hope he is, b/c I think LOTR the movie turned out as well as could be hoped for and I think the hobbit being done in a different fashion would suck.

I think Jackson has done some good stuff and some really bad stuff. *shrug*

Re:Huh?!?! (1)

phpWebber (693379) | about 8 years ago | (#16082318)

I hope you mean Kate or Michael because Peter created 3 wonderful films.

Unless you would prefer Hasbro/Lucas or Walkie-Talkie-of-Anduril-Spielberg, what's your beef?

Re:Huh?!?! (1)

dctoastman (995251) | about 8 years ago | (#16082319)

Might as well hate the original publisher as well, breaking the single novel into three.
Because LOTR was meant to be one solid work, published in full as one novel, subdivided into 6 books or sections.

But I understand, you are more interested in spouting off your "knowledge" than contributing anything useful.

Who cares about the hobbit? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16082150)

A sequel to the thomas crown affair! I am so excited.

I'd feel better (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | about 8 years ago | (#16082151)

If it were definitely Jackson in charge - and not just a hope. I would be sweet if this matched up well with his LoTR films - in look and all that.

Re:I'd feel better (1)

Etherwalk (681268) | about 8 years ago | (#16082211)

Only with someone new as the lead screenwriter--someone with a sense of a cadence and a good understanding of the books and the beauty of language. It's less important with the Hobbit than in would have been with the Lord of the Rings, but it would still be nice. Beagle or Stracynski, maybe. Come to think of it, while either of them would have been great for LOTR, given the sort of humor that runs throughout the Hobbit, I actually wonder if Whedon wouldn't be good for the project. Hmmm... fascinating thought.

Ian Holm (0)

eingram (633624) | about 8 years ago | (#16082160)

I hope Ian Holm plays Bilbo. And leave the singing in the books (where I skip them, anyway).

UM.. (1)

bigattichouse (527527) | about 8 years ago | (#16082161)

yah! um maybe.. I think? not sure if I'm excited or not.. I want the Hobbit done by Peter Jackson.. but it just seems like "hey look how cool this *could* be" sort of hype.

Re:UM.. (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 8 years ago | (#16082321)

yah! um maybe.. I think? not sure if I'm excited or not.. I want the Hobbit done by Peter Jackson.. but it just seems like "hey look how cool this *could* be" sort of hype.

While having Peter Jackson is no guarantee the movie will turn out well, it's a helluva starting point.

His WETA people will have a lot of experience with the design; and hopefully Ian McKellan, Vigo Mortensen, and a couple of the characters which span the books can be convinced to return for The Hobbit. If they give him a budget like they're talking about, it could be (yes, as you say could) potentially be a wonderfully well done movie with a lot of continuity with LoTR.

I, for one, welcome our new Hobbit overlords. ;-)

Cheers

Re:UM.. (1)

jfengel (409917) | about 8 years ago | (#16082422)

I don't recall an appearance by Strider in The Hobbit, though a cameo could be arranged without messing up the story.

Of more concern to me is that Ian Holm couldn't possibly do Bilbo: his brief appearance as the young Bilbo in Fellowship was accomplished only with very painful techniques to smooth out his face. Re-casting him is a bigger break to continuity than re-casting Gandalf, who makes some pivotal appearances but is absent for much of the book.

I would like to see John Rhys-Davies play Gimli's father Gloin. And given how much fancy camera work went into nearly every shot in the LotR movies, why not have him play Oin, too?

Re:UM.. (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 8 years ago | (#16082474)

I don't recall an appearance by Strider in The Hobbit, though a cameo could be arranged without messing up the story.

Doh, you are correct. Been a while since I read the Hobbit I guess. =)

I would like to see John Rhys-Davies play Gimli's father Gloin. And given how much fancy camera work went into nearly every shot in the LotR movies, why not have him play Oin, too?

Another actor I would like to see brought back if they actually make the film.

Totally agree about the actor for Bilbo though; he was cast well for an older Bilbo, but a younger one could be difficult. However, the actor who did the motion capture for Gollum would definitely need to be brought back. =)

Cheers

MGM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16082175)

What's It Got In Its Pocketses?

The Hobbit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16082178)

Please DO NOT use CGI for Gollum! I'm sorry but nothing would be more realistic or even half as scary (?!) as a real life person acting the part...

Re:The Hobbit (1)

PrescriptionWarning (932687) | about 8 years ago | (#16082204)

He looked pretty realistic and scary at the beginning of the return of the king during his transition to the current Gollum, when he had just a lil bit of hair left. It was only a moment on the screen but I thought it looked wicked.

Three movies I'd like to see (1)

boxlight (928484) | about 8 years ago | (#16082212)

This sounds like cool news. These would be three movies I'd like to see. After seeing King Kong, I'd love to see Peter Jackson bring Bwaug to the screen in THE HOBBIT.

TERMINATOR 3 was a kick ass very under-rated movie. TERMINATOR 4 -- awesome!

THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR was a smart, compelling little thriller, and probably the best movie Brosnan's ever made. Beauty.

Finally sounds like they're making good movies again.

boxlight

Re:Three movies I'd like to see (1)

boxlight (928484) | about 8 years ago | (#16082241)

> Bwaug

That's *SMAUG* -- damn keyboard.

boxlight

Re:Three movies I'd like to see (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about 8 years ago | (#16082296)

I also liked the Tomas Crown Affair. While I've seen better movies recently trying to do what it did (smart caper) it was still a good flick.

T4 - what'd it be without arnie? (1)

kwerle (39371) | about 8 years ago | (#16082305)

I just can't imagine our fine governor taking time out to make T4. Who would be in it?

Re:Three movies I'd like to see (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | about 8 years ago | (#16082356)

TERMINATOR 3 was a kick ass very under-rated movie.

T3 was an HIGHLY overrated piece of shit.

It's got explosions, but you can only appreciate them if you check your brain at the door. Characters contradict themselves (one minute Arnold knows human psychology and can manipulate Connor to perk him up, the next he knows nothing about wimminz), Connors was dumbed down and turned into a bumbling idiot in order to prop up their new female grrl-power character (I really cold have done without the "my dad taught me to fly. it of dialog when they were running to the plane, we already know Connors was raised to ride or fly anything he can find, useless dialog to justify a character now turned useless).

The robots were called "it. until then, but the new, better terminator is called a "she" for no valid reason (she turns into men and women, just like the T1000 did in the previous movie. He was called an "it", she's a "she", no valid reason).

The "more intelligent" robot acts so incredibly stupidly throughout the movie it's painfull to watch, etc.

Finally sounds like they're making good movies again.

You're from Bizarro World, aren't you?

For those that don't know the back story (2, Informative)

with_him (815684) | about 8 years ago | (#16082216)

While many may know the story for those that don't look here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit/ [wikipedia.org]

Graverobbing (1, Interesting)

linvir (970218) | about 8 years ago | (#16082217)

Surely Hollywood must be starting to run out of graves to rob by now? Titanic, Pearl Harbour, 9/11, King Kong, Godzilla, Lord of the Rings... even Pixar's stuff is basically the same movie every time, just anthropomorphizing a different theme.

Re:Graverobbing (4, Insightful)

kalirion (728907) | about 8 years ago | (#16082292)

Um, how is Pixar's stuff the same movie again? What exactly do Monster's Inc. and The Incredibles have in common? Or are you saying that all family friendly CGI cartoons where the good guys win are the same movie?

Re:Graverobbing (4, Insightful)

Scrameustache (459504) | about 8 years ago | (#16082509)

Um, how is Pixar's stuff the same movie again?

He's just bashing $POPULAR_THING to define himself by rejecting what is popular.

It's much easier to define yourself by rejecting things other accomplished than by accomplishing things yourself, you know.

Re:Graverobbing (1)

hpavc (129350) | about 8 years ago | (#16082343)

Let us all know when you can do better.

Re:Graverobbing (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 8 years ago | (#16082434)

Surely Hollywood must be starting to run out of graves to rob by now? Titanic, Pearl Harbour, 9/11, King Kong, Godzilla, Lord of the Rings...

Well, in the case of LoTR, it's not that much grave robbing.

Except for one, incomplete, badly rotoscoped animated attempt, I am not aware of LoTR having been brough to the screen by anyone before Jackson.

As far as King Kong goes, I think Jackson decided he was really interested in doing King Kong, and thought he could do a good job of it. I actually thought he succeeded in updating it's appearance, while keeping quite true to the original. Sure, he did it like an old saturday popcorn flick, but he did it exceedingly well. I thought Kong was 'acted' amazingly in that he actually emoted and the like.

All in all, I'm rather impressed with Jackson's film-making, and his WETA folks certainly seem to have figured out how to use CG in a way that lends itsself to the story instead of being CG for the sake of having it.

Cheers

The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused (5, Insightful)

lightyear4 (852813) | about 8 years ago | (#16082220)

Few are those who will understand the reference to Tom singing without having read the Hobbit and Tolkien's related works. As is often the sad truth about interpretations of books, sections get omitted for brevity and plot considerations. Unfortunately, this has a tendency to remove some of the depth present in the original work. Such is the case with Tom; this is why his name is unfamiliar whereas Bilbo et al are near universal in recognition.

Here are two rather good sources of information about Tom:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Bombadil [wikipedia.org]
http://www.cas.unt.edu/~hargrove/bombadil.html [unt.edu]

Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused (1)

AceCaseOR (594637) | about 8 years ago | (#16082260)

I've read the books, and, frankly, removing Tom Bombadil was probably a good idea, as adding would have stopped the momentum the film was building for the entire flight from Hobbiton dead.

Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused (1)

lightyear4 (852813) | about 8 years ago | (#16082279)

Indeed this is true - thus my reference to 'brevity and plot considerations.' Nevertheless, Tom is an interesting character and has a potential to add a bit to the character of a potential film.

Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused (1)

AceCaseOR (594637) | about 8 years ago | (#16082282)

adding would have stopped the momentum the film was building for the entire flight from Hobbiton dead
There was supposed to be a "that" between "adding" and "would", with an "in its tracks." at the end.

Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | about 8 years ago | (#16082338)

That, and the average movie goer would probably completely miss who Bombadil actually was.

Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16082425)

Care to enlighten us, since you seem to think yourself the only one who knows?

Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused (2, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 8 years ago | (#16082297)

While Tom is a relevant character, he also doesn't fit terribly well into the world Tolkien has created.

He's kinda just 'there' and would probably require more explaining than any director is willing to put on screen.

Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused (3, Informative)

coldmist (154493) | about 8 years ago | (#16082459)

On the contrary, It's from Tom (and the tomb where he rescues the hobbits) that they get the swords with ancient magic which can kill Sauron in the end. It is important for that point, if nothing else.

Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | about 8 years ago | (#16082484)

You mean the Witch-king of Angmar, not Sauron.

Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused (5, Insightful)

TopShelf (92521) | about 8 years ago | (#16082455)

Just remember, however, Tom Bombadil doesn't appear in The Hobbit...

Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused (5, Funny)

TrappedByMyself (861094) | about 8 years ago | (#16082460)

Well, if I had my way, we'd see a singing Tom AND he would be played by Shatner.

Such a missed opportunity.

Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused (1)

fullmetal55 (698310) | about 8 years ago | (#16082499)

It's been a few years since I read the Hobbit... but when did he sing in the Hobbit? I remember the long drawn out, boring part of Fellowship, (so boring the CHARACTERS fell asleep :P) But nothing in the hobbit about Tom... granted it's been a while... i'm going to listen to a book on tape i had on my 3 hour drive tonight just to make sure but i'm pretty sure he wasn't in the Hobbit... (and please don't put him in there... while I agree he should have had a part in the LOTR movies but don't go willy nilly putting characters in places they don't belong... i don't want another Arwen "you want him come and take him" incident... My concern is that they'll put Orlando Bloom in Mirkwood... or replace Bard with a more familiar face (Aragorn?) that being said I want Elrond (Hugo Weaving), Gandalf (Sir Ian McKellan), Bilbo (Ian Holm), Played by the same as the LOTR movies. Especially Elrond and Gandalf. Bilbo can be replaced because he is technically younger... and Ian Holm is no spring chicken...

Possibly the wrong Idea (3, Insightful)

AndyG314 (760442) | about 8 years ago | (#16082231)

I really think that the movie industry is out of touch with this one. The more spent on a movie, the bigger the risk is, since there is more up-front cost to recupe. So rather than going for new unproven ideas, they rehash the same ideas, and do sequils.

The problem is that the movie industry has grown so bloated that the idea of tightening budgest, and making movies on the cheap that don't need to grose as much to be profitable isn't even considered, instead they simply throw more money at the problem.

why would peter jackson direct it? (4, Interesting)

Frag-A-Muffin (5490) | about 8 years ago | (#16082237)

... one or two installments of "The Hobbit," which Sloan hopes will be directed by Peter Jackson ...

I thought Peter Jackson was quoted as saying he'd love to do it! (right after king kong?) And if they're saying the studio would want him to direct it. Umm, the only thing left I can see is financial terms. After the boatload of money he brought in for the LoTR trilogy*, I can't see them saying no to his terms :)

* yes, I know it's not really a trilogy, but that's what we're calling it cuz he made 3 movies, ok!? :P

Re:why would peter jackson direct it? (1)

lawpoop (604919) | about 8 years ago | (#16082316)

IIRC, Jackson and New Line got into a disagreement over payment after the first LOTR movie. New Line took a risk, and when it looked like LOTR was going to be successful, they wanted to keep the lion's share of the money (BTW movie studios are notorious for 'not making money' off of movies -- in order to avoid paying taxes on profits). Jackson stood up to the studio; I don't think that he was as concerned with the money, but also what the actors were getting paid was an issue. I think he even refused to finish the last two until more agreeable terms were found. Of course New Line had to cave -- the remaining two movies were almost guaranteed to be hits, too.

But each new movie is a risk. Just because you have made hits in the past, doesn't mean that you are a hit-maker. The next movie can still flop, despite what your last movie did. I think the studios were even wary of Jackson's King Kong remake, after the smashing success of LOTR.

rights (1)

notea42 (926633) | about 8 years ago | (#16082276)

While I'm hesitant to accept the truth of this information, if it is true, it could be an excellent sign that the movie will actually get made. Everything I heard was that all involved wanted to make "The Hobbit", but the Tolkein estate either wouldn't lease the rights to the story or had already leased them to somebody who was sitting on them. This sounds like MGM may have managed to aquire the rights, finally.

Tom Singing? (3, Informative)

dslauson (914147) | about 8 years ago | (#16082285)

"With or without Tom singing, is what I want to know."
Tom singing? Is he talking about Tom Bombadil? That's not in the hobbit, anyway, that was in the first book of LOTR, and was cut from the move, if I'm not mistaken. And rightly so. That was quite possibly the lamest part of the whole middle earth saga, IMHO.

Re:Tom Singing? (2, Funny)

Scrameustache (459504) | about 8 years ago | (#16082393)

Stop hatin' on Tom Bombadil, sucka.

I think you missed out a bit on the significance of Tom's friend Old Man Willow and the Ents the hobbits later meet...
Plus he smote a hundred orcs, he's hardcore, yo!

Re:Tom Singing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16082491)

Tom's not needed. He was kinda out of place in the book. I think Tolkien just added him because he liked the poetry/singing thing.

Re:Tom Singing? (1)

hey! (33014) | about 8 years ago | (#16082470)

Beorn, of course, is highly analagous to Tom Bombadil. They play similar thematic roles, but Beorn might be seen as "ordinary" magic, and Bombadil is more in keeping with LOTR's greater metaphyiscal weight.

Bombadil also belongs to a part of the LOTR story where Tolkien was still casting around for a theme. In some ways, the early part of FOTR looks like an author trying to reproduce his earlier success, yet reconcile it with a desire to do something ambitious. Some of FOTR, including Bombadil, has a kind of forced jolliness to it, but the material only really worked when it was thoroughly dark. After the council of Elrond, Tolkien succeeds in defining the story, and proceeds there with complete assurance and I would argue economy. Huge as the work is, everything thereafter functions as a whole, and little that could be cut from the story without a significant loss to it.

Jackson and New Line (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16082311)

I doubt that Jackson would direct The Hobbit if he's still involved in a lawsuit with New Line. Has there been a settlement worked out?

Tom Bombadil wasn't in The Hobbit... (2, Informative)

daniel422 (905483) | about 8 years ago | (#16082342)

I'm missing the Tom reference here. Tom Bombadil -- left out of Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy -- wasn't in The Hobbit. And I kinda liked the "Road Goes Ever On" music -- or maybe that's just my childish remeberences of the cartoon version.

DRM The Hobbit (-1, Offtopic)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | about 8 years ago | (#16082370)

I'm sure that producing the Hobbit will be an expensive risk for MGM. Given that, they have every right to choose to release the Hobbit with any DRM they choose in order to protect their investment and maximize their opportunity to realize a profit and plow that into their next great film effort. That's their right as content owners. It's their decision to use DRM or not.

Governor (1)

RexRhino (769423) | about 8 years ago | (#16082379)

While I would very much like the Governator return to cinema after his brilliant political career... Terminator 4? Didn't they blow up the world at the end of the last Terminator movie?

Why don't they make another Conan movie if they want to bring the Governator back?

Re:Governor (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | about 8 years ago | (#16082513)

While I would very much like the Governator return to cinema after his brilliant political career... Terminator 4? Didn't they blow up the world at the end of the last Terminator movie?
No, they're planning on doing the The Thomas Hobbinator Affair 4. See, what happens is that Gandalf was sent back in time by the Dunedain of the future in order to save Middle Earth from the invading hosts of goblins, and then there's this bobbit, see, who will grow up to be the one who organizes a party of 14 (a Fellowship, one might say) that plans on heisting the biggest hoard EVAR, that is, the one that Smaug accumulated.

This is the beginning of the new "Mashup" style of movies that are the obvious answer to Hollywood's lack of inventiveness.

Re:Governor (1)

Monkey (16966) | about 8 years ago | (#16082521)

Why don't they make another Conan movie if they want to bring the Governator back?

Damn right! Conan the King would be pretty sweet!

From the sequels that should never be made dept (1)

PMuse (320639) | about 8 years ago | (#16082401)

The story of the Thomas Crown affair is: Thomas and Catherine tear loose from their safe, mundane lives. Sure, you can write a story about the 'adventures' they had afterwards, but how is anything they do going to matter by comparison?

Re:From the sequels that should never be made dept (1)

LordPhantom (763327) | about 8 years ago | (#16082489)

Uhh.... I thought -he- was already a master theif in the movie. It's not as if it's his first caper :)

Cathrine on the other hand, well...

Silmarils (3, Funny)

toddhisattva (127032) | about 8 years ago | (#16082412)

Want some Silmarillion,

Directed by Mel Brooks:

History of the World, Part Zero

It's ture Ive never seen the movies! (1)

slashdotet (992348) | about 8 years ago | (#16082421)

Cool another LOTR -ish movie I wont see.

Not That I don't like Like the movies

It just Im just trying to be the only nerd that hasn't seen the movies.

I liked the books and I'm gonna stick to the books and trust me its not for lack of trying on my friends. Every chance I get they try and make me wacth them!

there's definitely.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16082444)

.. a role in there for Samuel L. Jackson!
I can picture it now: "Where's the motherfucking dragon?"

The biggest problem here (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | about 8 years ago | (#16082463)

Isn't Tom Bombadil, or barrow wrights or trolls turned to stone (which is gonna be hard to retcon); but the fact that "The Hobbit" is written (mostly) as a childrens book, and LOTR clearly isn't.

Terminator 4 (1)

ThatDamnMurphyGuy (109869) | about 8 years ago | (#16082500)

Let It Die. See New Start Trek Movie in 2008 for reference example.

That is all.

What have I got in my pocket? (3, Funny)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | about 8 years ago | (#16082511)

Oh yeah money, loads and loads of money.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>