[Ryan Peter]

That's true Rob. I didn't think of that. Maybe if they gave PJ 3.5 hours and he figured out some stuff to cut out, he could swing it. A live action Hobbit would be sublime...

[Ryan Peter]

Come on Philip, after the Trilogy is over, people are going to forever associate PJ with LOTR. He obviously loves the material and has the talent to do it. Who would you suggest? I can't think of anyone else!

If PJ doesn't want to do it, I hope it goes CGI and Pixar does it. The first ever epic CGI film.

[Ryan Peter]

I tend to agree with you Rob, about Lothlorien and Rivendell. They are too cold and sterile compared to the book. Whereas the Shire comes across much better. It does seem like PJ associates Elves with Vulcans. But the rest of the movies shouldn't have too worry about with that kind of problem since Lothlorien is the last haven they stay at.

I can't wait to see what the ents look like!

[Dan Brecher]

Quote:

I thought Lurtz was pretty cool, but he didn't strike me as badass enough when he was fighting.

For me, he was good enough in battle, just pointless at any other time. The scene of his birth and what have you....really wasnt needed. Again I can only assume cutting back to this thing and Saruman gives in to desire to have a more physical presence of evil on screen.

Quote:

The problem with The Hobbit is that it covers so much ground you're either going to end up with a massively long film or one that is severely truncated.

Rob, I still stand by my feelings of the Hobbit could be done as a story of two movies, both at some three hours in length. Yes stuff would still have to go, but it'd be the best way to do it (indeed they're considering doing that for the fourth Harry Potter film, releasing both movies only a month apart)... Heck, if demand is so big for more Tolkien adventures to be brought to screen after Return of the King's release, make a friggin trilogy out of the Hobbit!

That said, I'd refuse to see anyone else but Holm in the role of Bilbo now. He's just delightful in the role and I truly wish him well...

Dan (UK)
-- still not figured out if I like the "lets hunt some orc" line or not.

[Ryan Peter]

Richard Harris would make a decent Gandalf in the event that Ian McKellen (hope he gets better) can't do it. But his role in Harry Potter could be problematic.

What is the deal with Gollum? I thought he was a CGI creation but they list Andy Serkis as playing him.

[Dan Brecher]

Ryan, McKellen is in tip top condition last I heard. It is Iain Holm who is being treated for cancer.

Serkis did Gollum's voice and was motion captured (I believe) for the movements. No idea if he was there on set too, I am sure someone will know. As someone who stayed well away from developments of the movie until seeing it on Wednesday, I'm of little help.

Dan (UK)

[Ryan Peter]

Thanks for the info Dan! That's sad about Holm, I hope he comes out in fit feddle (isn't that what they say in the UK?). I got my Ians mixed up. Good chatting with you blokes, it's almost 6:00AM in the morning here, I best be off!

[PhilipG]

[size=]

Quote:

Come on Philip, after the Trilogy is over, people are going to forever associate PJ with LOTR. He obviously loves the material and has the talent to do it. Who would you suggest? I can't think of anyone else!

The Hobbit is a much, much lighter story than TLOTR. I think PJ is unsuitable for that reason (unless people here would prefer a dark interpretation...?).

I would like to see Frank Oz or Rob Reiner have a stab at it.

Quote:

If PJ doesn't want to do it, I hope it goes CGI and Pixar does it. The first ever epic CGI film.

I really like that idea. Yes, give it to John Lasseter. [/size]

[Ryan Peter]

Well I'd prefer a dual collaboration then, PJ and Reiner. Reiner is good, but I can imagine a big muppet looking spider and it's not pretty :lol:

We agree, let Pixar have it, as long as it's 3 hours That would rule

RP (10-4 Over and Out)

[Dan Brecher]

Quote:

The Hobbit is a much, much lighter story than TLOTR. I think PJ is unsuitable for that reason (unless people here would prefer a dark interpretation...?).

I'd say you're having a stab at Jackson there for the wrong reasons. As a story, Fellowship and the events in the books that follow are themselves dark stories. In that respect, PJ isnt making the films dark because its his style, he's doing so in respect to the books. Looking at the delightful scenes in The Shire during Fellowship (movie) he'd be the obvious choice to tackle The Hobbit in my book.

Handing it to Pixar means handing it to Disney, something Tolkien himself would have hated (in having a known dislike for the house of mouse). I'm a big Disney fan, but I'd rather not have something so bold turned over to the marketing divisions of such a company, no matter how well Pixar may be able to do it.

My two pence,

Dan (UK)

[Kenneth]

Quote:

The problem with The Hobbit is that it covers so much ground you're either going to end up with a massively long film or one that is severely truncated. I mean, it has to cover all of these:

The Shire, character introductions etc (lots!)
The trolls
Rivendell
Mountain pass
Goblins
Gollum/Riddles In The Dark
Eagles and Wargs
Beorn
Mirkwood
Spiders
Wood-Elves
Esgaroth
Lonely Mountain
Smaug
Thorin's weird bit
The Battle Of The Five Armies
...and all the way back home again.

I think they could easily do this in 3 hours. The Rankin Bass version hit all those elements, except for Beorn (who I don't think is integral to the plot) in 80 minutes; and, if it's not too blasphemous, I think they did a good job

I agree that "The Hobbit" is a little lighter in tone, but I think that PJ could make the transition. The key thing to "The Hobbit" would be the songs, in my opinion. I won't lose sleep over their ommision from LoTR, but I would really like to see them in "The Hobbit". Hopefully, they can find a good voice for Smaug (Richard Boone was nearly perfect in the animated version).

Kenneth