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

[Holadem]

The plot thickens: http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/...ebatecontinues
--
H

 

[Tim Glover]

 

[Simon Massey]

Reading the comments here, I get a strong feeling that this is going to be just like The Phantom Menace all over again, Regardless of the merits of Episode I, there were impossibly high expectations from people wanting to capture the same experience of watching the originals and immense disappointment when this didnt happen. It didn't help that the film wasnt as good as the originals but how could it be given the status that the originals have with fans ?
I personally would prefer Jackson and co to be involved but I think the huge success of LOTR has left people wanting more of the same and The Hobbit seems to be the logical way of getting it. (Sometimes its better to be left wanting more ).As some have said it has a different tone to it and it could well leave people divided over it. If New Line are going the route of keeping the tone and story as close as possible to LOTR, then it seems pretty foolish to get rid of Jackson regardless of their issues, but if there is to be a different approach then I am certainly open to seeing another director's take on the book.

 

[PattyFraser]

Simon: What you say is very true--the success of LotR did leave people wanting more and we see The Hobbit as the way of getting it. Yes, it is lighter in tone, but this doesn't have to be a problem, and, oddly enough I am beginning to see the 2 movie solution, which I initially did NOT want, as being the best answer to satisfy those who want the lighter touch and those who want a bridge to the darker, LotR movies. The first movie could be told largely through Bilbo's eyes, and as such would be lighter--like the Shire, until he starts to feel real fear and frustration and stuff Hobbits have largely been shielded from--I'd say about when he was inadvertently left alone in the cave. Dark stuff starts to happen to the hobbit for the first time, and starting here and into the war and into the lead-in of the second movie we go into seeing that Bilbo's light-hearted, unaware view of the world around him starts to enlarge.
When I first heard about this second movie I was very much against it, but when I began to see its possibilities, without even changing stuff which was a part of what had happened or was happening in Middle-earth (although Bilbo wasn't aware of it) and how it all joined to the larger picture I began to get excited.
I've gotta admit that's all lessened considerably with the prospect of having to sign in mid-stream to someone else's vision of the adventure.

 

[Sean Bryan]

Is the first film supposed to be The Hobbit in it's entirety and the second film the "bridging film", or is the first film supposed to be part The Hobbit up to a point and then part bridging film so that the story of The Hobbit isn't finished until the second film?
If they are doing the two film thing, I think I'd prefer them to do the first film as entirely The Hobbit with only a small amount of extra stuff sprinkled in. Then the second film could pick up from the stuff "sprinkled in" in the first film and do it's own thing from there. That way we'd get one film that is a more accurate adaptation of the book, and then a second film that is more of a bonus and serves as the bridge.
That would seem to satisfy everyone, so hopefully that is they way they go.

 

[DavidPla]

My understanding of it is that New Line wants a new TRILOGY of films. They want to split up "The Hobbit" into TWO films and then have the THIRD film as the "bridging film" between the end of "The Hobbit" and the beginning of "The Fellowship of the Ring".

 

[Malcolm R]

My understanding of it is that New Line wants a new TRILOGY of films. They want to split up "The Hobbit" into TWO films and then have the THIRD film as the "bridging film" between the end of "The Hobbit" and the beginning of "The Fellowship of the Ring".

That's the first I'd ever heard that. The two-film option is all I've ever seen discussed anywhere.
If I were New Line, I'd spread "The Hobbit" over two films with some extra filler at the end of the second film. If you make the first film "The Hobbit," then the second film a stand-alone, the box office gross would fall off significantly. This way, if people want to see the complete "Hobbit," they'll have to shell out for both films.

 

[Sean Bryan]

All I've ever heard was the two film rumor as well. Never heard one mention of a trilogy.

 

[PattyFraser]

Please, please tell me this is a joke.
Ah, thanks.

 

[PattyFraser]

Interesting article written by Tolkien expert and former contributing editor to Hollywood Jesus Greg Wright is up on TheOneRing.net. He gives his viewpoint of the current Hobbit debacle (my word, not his.)
http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1170723597
He is on TOR.n on the main discussion forum talking to the posters right now.

 

[Claire Panke]

Thank you Patty, that was most enlightening.

 

[Ricardo C]

From Wright's piece:

The added bonus? Added roles for Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn, Liv Tyler as Arwen, Hugo Weaving as Elrond, Cate Blanchett as Galadriel, and Orlando Bloom as Legolas—maybe even John Rhys-Davies as Gimli. All of these characters were alive during the period of The Hobbit, and were certainly active during the period between the two tales. Heck, we might even get a major role for Craig Parker again as Haldir, which would make his subsequent death in The Two Towers all that more poignant.

Oh, for fuck's sake, man.

He certainly made a good point about how The Hobbit is not really a children's story. And yeah, there's tons of backstory that got left out of Jackson's Rings films. But let's not go crazy with the "fanfic-ation" of the story, ok? Shoehorning Haldir (or Gimli, or Arwen, or...) into an eventual Hobbit film might tickle the slashfic writers and the fans who can't get into the books but love the films, but what would it mean to Tolkien's story? I want to see "The Hobbit", no a 200-million-dollar fanfilm.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Two things...

1) I agree with Ricardo. That crap sounds terrible. It's fanwanking, and that never leads to a good film.

2) Neat article in Premiere about the whole fiasco. What interested me was that I think Jim Cameron saved the hell out of WETA with Avatar. Losing Halo put the hurting on their business, and Cameron got them a major contract when they really needed it.

 

[DavidPla]

Shia LeBeouf has been cast as Bilbo!
Kiddin... but Bob Shaye again stated his desire to make sure this film gets released in 2009 even though there's no script yet... I sure pray they don't rush this as they are seeming to do...
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=18994

 

[Jason_Els]

The Hobbit is not light by any means. It's actually quite tragic and parts of it are terrifying. I think two films would do it immense justice if only to capture everything that happens. There doesn't need to be any filler. The events between the closing of The Hobbit and the beginning of The Lord of the Rings are all documented by Tolkien and it's a fascinating period. The White Council begins searching for the One Ring, Saruman begins to go bad and he discovers Sauron is the Necromancer of Dol Guldur, but the forces of the White Council drive out Sauron and he is forced to flee to Mordor. Sauron then sends Khamûl, one of the Nazgûl, to re-establish Dol Guldur. During the battle of Pelennor Fileds, Lorien is attacked by the forces of Dol Guldur but are routed by Celeborn and Thingol. The fortress itself is finally cleansed and destroyed by Galadriel herself.
As for the idea of bringing back so many characters, well yeah. Legolas would have been at the court of Thingol, may even have been in contact with Thorin and Co. Elrond and Arwen would be at Rivendell, possibly Aragorn too. Galadriel and Saruman, as members of the White Council, which met immediately following the departure of Thorin and Co. from Rivendell, would be part of the story. Gimli would have been at the Battle of the Five Armies. Hell, we may even get to see Glorfindel, the only elf we know of for certain whose body was killed but then returned to Middle Earth after he was resurrected in the Halls of Mandos. These aren't gratuitous additions.
There is a whole world of fascinating events, most not well known, but all germane to The Lord of the Rings. A film version of The Hobbit could easily be very dark and very scary. If you ignore Tolkien's style of prose in the book, the events themselves speak of greed, passion, nobility, loss, and death. It's two movies easily, three if they really want to go into detail.
Many have commented that no matter how well you know Tolkien, there is always something unknown just on the horizon, some bit of a tantalizing story which is never realized. Tolkien did this intentionally to keep readers from feeling the story was ever complete, that all the history could ever be found. Even if Jackson goes into all the obscure history there will always be more to wonder, more questions asked than answered.

 

[Jason_Els]

Heck, we might even get a major role for Craig Parker again as Haldir, which would make his subsequent death in The Two Towers all that more poignant.

Ignoring the fact that the only elf at Helm's Deep was Legolas, Haldir didn't die. Elves do not die. When an elf's body dies, the spirit is immediately transported to the Halls of Mandos in Valinor. There they regain their bodies and spend time in contemplation of their lives. It is not a heaven. Valinor is a real, tangible place. Elves are free to hop a boat and return to Middle Earth if they so choose and one elf, Glorfindel [see above], whose role in The Lord of the Rings was replaced in the film by Arwen, did precisely that.
Think of it less as death and more like Scotty hitting the transporter button at a really bad time.

 

[Tony S]

Okay, even if New Line manages to get The Hobbit out within the next year, before their rights expire, how, in the world do they expect to get the second movie out by then?

 

[Tony S]

So, has there been any more news on this?

 

[Jose Martinez]

Maybe Peter Jackson can direct The Children of Hurin.

 

[TerryRL]

New Line's deal probably has some loop-hole that gives them flexibility if they are in the process of filming the movie(s) before the allotted time expires. That's just a guess on my part because I don't know the specifics of their deal.

As for Jackson helming "The Children of Hurin", it all depends on who nabs the film rights. If its anyone but New Line than I'd say the odds of Jackson doing it are excellent. Any other studio would probably give him a similar deal to the one he got for "King Kong".