The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) (1 Viewer)

[Terrell]

Okay, I just didn't see a clear cut answer earlier, with studios ranging from Buena Vista to Paramount. Thanks.

 

[Andrew_Sch]

Kami, I'm REALLY diggin' the new sig. I haven't finalized my plan yet, but I think I'll fire up the TTT preview before the main feature this Tuesday morning. Anyway, about the topic at hand, did it occur to anyone that by ROTK PJ could very possibly have had it up to here with hobbit-holes, prosthetic feet and Middle-Earth?
Cause I sure as hell don't think that would ever happen

 

[Nick Sievers]

Terrell, like I said, I was under the impression about those rights etc. I'm not 100% on it.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

I've had my fingers crossed for a PJ-directed Hobbit movie sinxw I realized how amazing the LOTR flicks were gonna be. It's a MUCH simpler and more straightforward tale, but it's got a LOT of sequences that would translate well to the screen...plus it's just a cool adventure story.
Obviously I'm not holding my breath, but it would be a perfect fit.
We'd get to see a young Gollum!

 

[Josh Lowe]

I think Spielberg could make a damn good Hobbit film.

Oh my god, that would be so terrible. Gollum would be reduced to a lovable creature that's just misunderstood and flies in a basket on Bilbo's bicycle. And all the swords would be changed to flashlights to avoid controversy.

 

[Seth Paxton]

It might be tough to get McKellan back for it by the time they do it. He's not exactly young and waiting at least 3-4 years before it would get going again wouldn't help.

You couldn't use Holm at all as far as I'm concerned. I would think you would want to have someone younger. It's one thing to hide his age in one brief cave scene and quite another to do it for an entire film.

With the money LOTR has done you would think the Hobbit would be a certainty, yet at the same time it seems like a project that will not come about any time soon.

I wonder if they are saving any of the sets right now? Certainly for reshoots I suppose, but once they pass that point? And what is going on with the Shire on that farmers land? I wouldn't think he was keeping it like that unless it's now a big tourist spot.

 

[JohnE]

I could probably live with new actors, so long as they kept the look and feel of Middle Earth as Jackson has portrayed it. I just don't know if I'd want a different director behind the helm though. PJ has just done to good of a job.

 

[Geoffrey_A]

What I'd like to see happen is the hobbit done as an animated film, like Shrek (except of course, going with Weta as opposed to PDI). It could be book-ended with live action pieces with Ian Holm as Bilbo, reading the story of the hobbit from his book. This would allow for Ian McKellan and Ian Holm to return to their roles, without the burden of going through makeup and a gruelling physical production. Done properlly it could work out really well.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

They really made Bilbo too young in the cave sequence of FOTR, because the Ring was supposed to keep him from aging (cf. Gandalf's comment about not having aged a day). So as long as they don't wait too long, Holm could still do it, especially if he put on a few pounds. Of course, whether he'd be well enough (anyone know how his cancer treatment is going?) is another question. I'd love to see him do the film, though. I think Holm is one of the best things about FOTR.

 

[Eric Bass]

I agree completely. FOTR is awesome, but in my opinion the two characters who are more or less flawless are Gandalf and Bilbo. I can't imagine a better Gandalf than we got, it was perfect. If the Hobbit is going to be made they should just shoot the thing now while they have both of those actors around. Especially as neither of those characters is supposed to change appearance much, it's fairly essential.
I'll finish by saying if they wait and do it with different actors, well it's gonna suck as bad as the new Star Wars movies (sorry Terrell, couldn't resist when I saw you in this thread! )

 

[Terrell]

Well Eric, it really doesn't bother me you think the new Star Wars movies suck ass. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Interesting topic. I just wanted to pop in and say that Geoff's ideas sounded quite nice to me. I think another director might actually be a wise choice for the film, but PJ as producer would ensure continuity and proper flavor.
As for PJ and his filmmaking ability...in this realm, even with his limited resume, he is king. Watching The Frighteners doc, one cannot help but be completely entranced by the man, his talent, and his drive. His vision is not limited to the wonderful genre of fantasy. In this, I agree with the other Jeff(erson), right man, right material, right vision, right time. Bring on King Kong...PJ is the no-s#!t real deal. Wait and see
Take care,
Chuck

 

[Eric Bass]

Well Eric, it really doesn't bother me you think the new Star Wars movies suck ass. Different strokes for different folks.

After the debate we had on new vs original Star Wars awhile back, I just couldn't resist one last cheap shot. Glad you didn't take it seriously. I was actually rather surprised at myself, but I really enjoyed Attack of the Clones and saw it three times in the theaters.

 

[Richard WWW]

I'd like to see a Hobbit film, but Peter Jackson is not the definitive interpreter of Tolkien. Puh-lease! My understanding is that he's not interested in pursuing making the Hobbit, and to suggest that McKellan is the only person who can play Gandalf is fanboy-ish. Peter Jackson merely adapted a work for the big screen. He did not invent middle earth. He was merely faithful to the source material in its interpretation.

I have a paperback copy of the Hobbit. The illustration in it of Bag End is remarkably similar to what we saw in Peter Jackson's film. Is that due to Jackson's brilliance? No. It's due to the attention to detail in Tolkien's work. Peter Jackson is an artist of immense talent. But there are other directors who could produce equally satisfying versions of Middle Earth. I realize that my making this statement is a form of prejudice, but I believe it's a more generous form of prejudice from those who would suggest the contrary.

 

[Sean Bryan]

This very issue is currently being discussed at TORC. I haven't had a chance to look through the whole thing, but the thread starts with someone stating that New Line bought the rights to The Hobbit.
Those interested can check out the thread here
I'll look through it later and pass on any definitive answers if there are any (unless someone else does first).

 

[Sean Bryan]

I'd also like to point out a significant part of why The Hobbit has a more "children's story" tone is because of the Narrator. The Narrator actually speaks directly to you in some parts as if you were a child and he was telling you this story. While the story itself is an adventure with some pretty dark stuff in it, the tone that the Narrator uses gives it more of the children's story feel than the actual story itself. At least that's my opinion.

If I were doing this film, I'd maybe shoot for a "hard" PG (but maybe a "softer" PG-13 compared to a "hard" PG-13) adventure picture. I'd use the same designs for Hobbits, Elves, Dwarves, Gandalf, The Shire, Rivendell, and Gollum.

I'd try as hard as I could to get Ian McKellen back. I'd also try hard for Ian Holm. I don't think his age should be to too much of a problem. Remember, on average, Hobbits live longer than our present day life-span. A Hobbit doesn't really "come of age" (like 21 for Americans) until age 33 (I think). Bilbo was 50 when he had his adventure in The Hobbit. The Ring kept him "well-preserved". In the film, they clearly gave him graying hair 60 years later, but didn't try to make his face look much older than what was shown when he found the Ring. After he gave up the Ring, they then gave him pure white hair and old age make-up so he looked like a 111 year old Hobbit now that the Ring no longer preserved him, but prior to that he was supposed to look like a Hobbit in his fifties.

In the novel, FRODO is also 50 when he sets out on his quest. (Wasn't Frodo about 33 when he got the Ring from Bilbo and was then "preserved" to look that age still when he was 50 and finally went of his quest?) Regardless, in the film the timeline is changed and Frodo goes on the quest at a much younger age than when Bilbo did. If they do The Hobbit, Bilbo doesn't have to look "young" like Frodo. I think that with a nice curly brown wig, the right make-up and lighting Ian Holm would be fine as 50 year old Bilbo.

Anyway, the film would be "lighter" and more of an adventure story than LOTR, but it would have it's darker elements. The whole thing with Gollum has to be very creepy, and the battle at the end is still a huge battle with main characters dying (poor Dwarves).

I see no point in making this film (which, lets face it, probably would not be made anytime soon if it wasn't for the success of Jackson's LOTR) if they go out of their way to make it a children's movie. Most 5-10 year olds probably wouldn't have seen LOTR. If they see a "kiddi-Hobbit" and beg Mom and Dad to let them see FOTR they might get nightmares! For the HUGE fan base that exists of people who love Jackson's FOTR, you'd find alot of them that are disappointed that they got all excited about a prequel only to find that it's too cutesy and kid-friendly to seem related to the trilogy its supposed to be setting up.

I say use the world established/translated by Jackson and the general style of the LOTR trilogy to just tell a fun (not silly) adventure story with some appropriate darkness. It should be something that can have slightly younger kids watching than with LOTR, but still appeal to a 40 year old Tolkien fan.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Wasn't The Hobbit originally written as a children's book?

 

[Sean Bryan]

I believe the book was written as a children's book, yes. But that doesn't change the fact that the sorry itself is not simple kiddie-fare. As I said, what made it a children's book is the style in which Tolkien "told" the story. Here's an example:

Gollum threw himself backwards, and grabbed as the hobbit flew over him, but too late: his hands snapped on thin air, and Bilbo, falling fair on his sturdy feet, sped off down the new tunnel. He did not turn to see what Gollum was doing. There was a hissing and cursing almost at his heels at first, then it stopped. All at once there came a blood-curdling shriek, filled with hatred and despair. Gollum was defeated. He dared go no further. He had lost: lost his prey, and lost, too, the only thing he had ever cared for, his precious. The cry brought Bilbo's heart to his mouth, but still he held on. Now faint as an echo, but menacing, the voice came from behind:

Thief, thief, thief! Baggins! We hates it, we hates it, we hates it for ever!"

As I said, while the book was written in a particular style that would appeal to children, there's more to it than saying it's just a children's book. I believe I read somewhere that Tolkien has said he had some regrets about how he wrote the Hobbit, particularly the way he directly stepped out of the story and addressed the reader.

So if you are making a film of The Hobbit BECAUSE of the success of the darker Lord of the Rings films, they don't have to change the story to make it any darker, but they should avoid blatantly trying to turn it into a kiddie-movie. Just tell the story that Tolkien told, and tell it in a way that doesn't make it seem that it doesn't belong in the same series of films as LOTR. It will be lighter by the nature of the story, but making it deliberately cartoony??!!? Please No!!

 

[Brian E]

I don't think it was so much a children's book as a young adults book. I seen to recall a quote from Tolkien about the story that would become The Hobbit. I remember him saying that while his 13 year old son John liked it, or "got it", but his younger children weren't really into it.

 

[JohnE]

Peter Jackson merely adapted a work for the big screen. He did not invent middle earth. He was merely faithful to the source material in its interpretation.

True Richard, but how many directors would have or even could have stayed so true to the source material. There are lot's of great directors, but I can't think of anyone who could have captured the vision of Middle Earth I hold in my head as closely as Peter Jackson did.
Just imagine what we could possibly have ended up with if a director like Michael Bay had ended up in charge.
:frowning: