MGM to Produce "The Hobbit" 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.
age (Score:5, Funny)
Er... (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:age (Score:5, Informative)
Gandalf (TTT): "Three hundred lives of men I have walked this earth and now I have no time. "
Hobbit casting (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wouldn't worry about Gandolf or Bilbo. Gollum's a big maybe
Gandolf is an angel / god that first showed up during the early years of the Middle Age - approx 2000 years before the events in LoTR
Gollum found the ring some time after Sauron was defeated the first time - and he and Bilbo both were supposedly ageless while in posession of the ring. I believe Gollum supposedly ag
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you paid much attention Gollum looks significantly different in each of the three LOTR films anyhow. He'll probably look different yet again in the Hobbit movies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:age (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:age (Score:5, Informative)
maiar != gods (Score:3, Informative)
Eru, the One, is the sole True God of Tolkien's mythos, and the Valar are "demiurges" (either minor godlings or arch-arch-angels -- presumably the name derives from the greek "demiurgos" and refers to the Valar's roles as the creators of Middle-Earth). Maia are equivalent to angels, so Gandalf is sort of like one of the brawling angels of christianity (think Micheal, for example) that get involved directly with human affairs.
Morgoth was an evil valar; Sauron, his li
Re:age (Score:4, Interesting)
It's only when you read all the back story notes Tolkien wrote before writing LOTR that you find out that the Numenoreans, Aragorn's ancestors, were so powerful that they kicked Sauron's butt and kept him imprisoned and tortured in a tower for a long, long time. They were so powerful that they made war on the Valinor, nearly made it, but then were cast down for their blasphemy. That's when Sauron escaped, and the survivors fled to found Gondor and the Northern kingdom.
So Sauron was really more like an evil Gandalf on steroids, and knew that Aragorn had the stuff to take him down.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's interesting to note in this context that it wasn't the Valar that beat them. When the Númenóreans chose to make war on Valinor and claim it for their own the Valar set aside their delegated authority and called upon Eru (Ilúvatar), the Supreme Being. The result of their appeal was that the rebelleous Númenóreans were defeated at sea, Númenor it
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 ha
Re: (Score:2)
oh no (Score:3)
I was reading that, and thinking, "Yeah, it could be really good."
And then I suddenly thought: to Peter Jackson, dwarves appear to be figures of fun.
There's thirteen of them as central characters in the Hobbit.
Thirteen.
It's going to be a couple of hours of spectacular cgi and dwarves falling over isn't it? I wouldn't be surprised if extra scenes were inserted where they all have to get past some gap or other obstacle, and Gandalf tosses them over, while they all protest about dwarf tossing. And I c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:age (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Gandalf might be tough.. (Score:5, Funny)
That was Ian the Grey. X3 starred Ian the White.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
PLEASE!!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
Who cares about the hobbit? (Score:5, Funny)
I'd feel better (Score:2)
UM.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 the
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Doh, you are correct. Been a while since I read the Hobbit I guess. =)
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
Three movies I'd like to see (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
That's *SMAUG* -- damn keyboard.
boxlight
T4 - what'd it be without arnie? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Good: Updating "Skynet" to change itself into a virus that takes over all the computers on the planet for itself. Definitely more realistic than the "giant supercomputer" concept from the original movie's time.
Bad: Making the new Skynet's first action the nuking of every major population center on Earth.
Pop quiz, Hollywood: Where are most computers? By the people who use them.
Translation: Skynet's first action was to lobotomize itself, and almost certainly effectively
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Graverobbing (Score:2, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Graverobbing (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 succeed
The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused (Score:5, Funny)
Such a missed opportunity.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly the wrong Idea (Score:3, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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!?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And his schedule of course. IMDB [imdb.com] shows him as having two films in pre-production already. I think the LoTR movies gave him a lot of financial independance to do as he pleases.
Cheers
Tom Singing? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
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 ki
Tom Bombadil is crucial to LOTR plot (Score:5, Informative)
Now, Tolkien, in true Tolkien fashion, had a back-story for everything, and the Tom Bombadil episode provided the back story for those swords. (It also did other things, but I won't go into that here). The four hobbits escape Buckland in the Shire into the adjacent woods where Bombadil rules. They have various adventures, but as they're just about to get back onto the road to Bree, they are taken by wights who drag them into ancient barrows. Bombadil comes to rescue them, and gives them swords he finds there. The barrows belonged to warrior kings of the Northern Kingdom, who forged their swords with spells to break the enchantments of the Witch King of Angmar, their mortal enemy.
So, at the moment of truth on the plains of Gondor, Merry's sword was the only one around that could have possibly broken the Witch King's invulnerability.
Re:Tom Bombadil is crucial to LOTR plot (Score:5, Informative)
The thing about Tom is his mysterious nature. My initial forays into the Internet, in the early 90s, was to discuss Tolkien and I specifically remember the early and best dialogues concerning Bombadil. I have often thought that he is one of the most, if not the most, discussed aspect of ME on the Internet.
Tolkien knew the power of the unfinished tale (no pun), and indeed made a doosey in Bombadil. To read about Tom in LoTR is to not get bogged down by his appearance or nonsensical nature. It is instead to realize that these mask an incredibly powerful being, of great mystery, who is embedded in the mythos of Tolkien. Tolkien was no dummy, and knew exactly what he was doing when having Gandalf answer the question of who Bombadil was with "he is" (akin to the "Yahweh" of Judaism). I think Tolkien very cleverly added aspects from Norse & other religions into his work as George Lucas, and others, have learned to do.
Tom carries incredible influence over everything around him, and is the only being to not only NOT be tempted by the ring, but to actually play with it and even, inversely, make the ring itself disappear (to which he laughs). If all else were to fall to Sauran, Gandalf explains, there would be only Tom, "he was the first and will be the last" (alpha/omega reference?). (I'm pulling these quotes off my head, but they should be 99% accurate.
Others see Tom as a nature spirit or with other meaning, but the point should be that he marries the LoTR to the greater cosmology. Leaving him out of the movies has almost elevated his mystery IMO. I think it was a good move all around.
I certainly do not remember him being in The Hobbit, and although I've not read The Hobbit in years, I have read it a half dozen times. Still, I've learned the hard way on making pronouncements about Tolkien's works -- so avid are the fans as even Ebert pointed out....
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Checking these facts myself as I hate getting it wrong, but I swear it does say, in the book, that he makes it disappear. Further, the great page on Bombadil states the same....
Who is Tom Bombadil? [unt.edu]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I always enjoyed this type of thing in books. Not only does the Witch King unknowing
Re:Tom Singing? (Score:4, Insightful)
As I explained above, Tom was not necessary to the telling of LoTR & Jackson can be forgiven for not including him. He is irreplaceable to the cosmology -- that primary effort of Tolkien wherein is found LoTR, The Hobbit, et al.
Such statements as you make reveal that you assume LoTR was Tolkien's main effort. It was not. He wanted, and indeed first did, create a cosmology wherein he placed a history and languages and then, oh yes, he decided it needed some stories and thus you have LoTR, The Hobbit, etc.,
This is why Tolkien is so rich and so landmark and arguably the creator of an entire genre -- modern fantasy (yes, yes, my English prof & I argued on that point, but he was responsible, if nothing else, for publishing fantasy abroad and birthing the modern form of it).
The main reason LoTR has such staying power is the layers underneath, and these layers are language built on history built on cosmology (and mythos). Lucky you are if you read other fantasy writer's beforehand. I messed up and made Tolkien my 2nd journey into fantasy as a teenager (I'm now near 40). I cannot enjoy any other fantasy now. It all goes back to Tolkien & so do I (ok, ok, Jordan is good stuff too)....
As one friend told me, "I really messed up and read Tolkien first, now I can't stand those other books."
Tom Bombadil wasn't in The Hobbit... (Score:2, Informative)
Governor (Score:2)
Why don't they make another Conan movie if they want to bring the Governator back?
Re: (Score:2)
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,
Re: (Score:2)
Damn right! Conan the King would be pretty sweet!
From the sequels that should never be made dept (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cathrine on the other hand, well...
Silmarils (Score:2, Funny)
Directed by Mel Brooks:
History of the World, Part Zero
The biggest problem here (Score:2)
Terminator 4 (Score:2)
That is all.
What have I got in my pocket? (Score:4, Funny)
The Octopussy Affair? (Score:5, Funny)
What are they going to do? Have Russo take the spy who loved her to Russia to test his nimble fingers at lifting a golden gun or some diamonds. Yeah, that's just what the doctor ordered, no? If they keep on stealing stuff forever, soon they'll be trying to rake in the moon!
That may be fine for your eyes, but I predict a thunderous ball of poo. Just live and let it die already.
Re:Huh?!?! (Score:5, Funny)
One for there
One for back again
clean division.
I know, jokes aside i agree. However, this is hollywood, and epics=$$$.
Re:Huh?!?! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
RTFS (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
So you would prefer the only filming of the Lord of the Rings to be Ralph Bakshi's masterpiece of lameness?http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077869/ [imdb.com]
Like Jackson or not, like his version or not, you have to admire him for being able to talk a studio into putting up the money to film it.
Not on my watch! (Score:5, Funny)
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! (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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" (Score:5, Informative)
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:Depends on what you mean by "book" (Score:4, Informative)
A tad more [webster.com] than two, actually.
So arguing over 3 books vs. 6 is simply arguing at cross-purposes.
Nope, it's arguing about the litteral content of the literary work in question: Inside the physical "book", sections are labelled by the author and publisher as books and volumes.
It is not arguing at cross purpose: I know for a fact that the division is 6 books, 3 volumes, one novel. This is the division that the creators of the work in question choose.
The people who argue against this are factually wrong, they based their error on a misinterpretation of the word "book", coupled with ignorance of the content of the work in question.
I will not pretend that they are right, when I can back up my claim with easily obtained evidence.
I guess that makes me a nerd.
Re: (Score:2)
"A Tale of Two Cities" was 2 books, similarly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Huh?!?! (Score:5, Informative)
LoTR is actually one novel of six books published in three volumes [tolkiensociety.org].
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No!
Not to be a stick in the mud about this but Jackson seems to have gone out of his way to take some of Tolkien's original work and warp it. Things that he could have easily have left as written were rewritten to suit his "needs" but not the needs of the story line.
I can understand why some material had to be cut, i'm not complaining about that. B
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I must agree that I used to feel the same way, however, now that I look back on the movies, I am impressed at how well he brought the story to life, and really, how much he left *IN* unmodified. I agree that according to the book it would have made more sense to have gollum dance and fall in, but for the drama of a non-Tolken audience it does not work as well, those who have not read the book
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That film would have sucked a whole lot less if those involved had given a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys about Douglas' original writings.
Including, perhaps, Douglas Adams himself? He was quite pleased with how no two versions of his work were ever consistent; with the radio programs, books, and TV series all having unique quirks, making the movie match any of them just wouldn't quite ring true. He was fairly heavily involved in production, up until his untimely death. I'll agree it wasn't his best work,