Inching closer to The Hobbit film

[Sauron the White]

from HerenIstarion

You're too harsh with us. After all a movie may be a cash harvest and therefore a 'success', but that doesn't mean it won't be a ruin of a book. That last part we (I at least) begrudge the possible potential likely filmmakers.

Besides, with regards to 'kids movie that is going to fail' - Narnia movie has been made targeting kids for an audince and came out better for that (I believe) and did not fail financially either, did it?
__________________

I certainly do not want a book to be ruined. But I wonder how that can happen since the book will still exist as the book regardless of any film. But I do concede the validity of your concern. Nobody wants to see something they love turned into a travesty.

Regarding Narnia - I simply loathe almost any book or film which kisses the collective behinds of kids by thrusting children into the role of heroes as Narnia did. I taught school for 33 years- the first ten from grades 6 through 8 and then high school. The idea of the average kid, or even above average child saving the world is truly absurd. Most of these kids have difficulty going through simple daily tasks let alone saving the world. Remembering the proper books and supplies to bring to class is a major chore and too much for many of them. I cringe when I see Narnia age children outdueling evil adults with mystical powers. I rooted for the burglars in HOME ALONE.

Of course, THE HOBBIT is not handicapped by children in the lead roles or in hero roles. I would have no problem with a HOBBIT that had the tone of NARNIA or ET.

I cannot forsee the future but I would expect that Jackson (if it is PJ) would attempt to synthisize the world we already know through the first 3 LOTR films with what we know of THE HOBBIT. I imagine that Jackson and the writers will make much of the true fact that JRRT himself attempted to update his tale and make it more consistent with LOTR and they will do the same. I would hope that much of the whimsy and sweetness of the tale is kept while expanding the Five Armies sequence or adding other elements to fill in the blanks.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Most of these kids have difficulty going through simple daily tasks let alone saving the world.

That's what makes them good books for me and probably for them. You can't aspire to something you can do perfectly well on daily basis yourself. I can't model my behavior and be thrilled by a story of a man who ate his eggs and bacon, went to the office, sat out boring morning there doing his duty reasonably well, than dined, slacked a little as you can't work well on full stomach, did the rest of his duty half-as-well as in the morning and than went home to do homely chores. I'm that man, I don't need a guide there. His story doesn't give me 'trembling inside' The very impossibility (or is it? why? have we been there and tried? what if we did if we did if you follow my meaning, merciful sir?) is what attracts in the books of the kind.

Bilbo (and Frodo for the matter) was as unlikely 'to do a hero' as any kid would be to save the world (see above about what ifs, though), but the very fact they actually did is what makes it most astonishing wonderful

I suppose that you (with full respect to your experience as a teacher yet still) underastimate what children are capable of perceiving. As far as I remember (and been reading since age of six, starting with Three Musketeers I believe), I always was able to detect things that were 'conditional', but as soon as they were part of the 'rules' which worked within given book, they were ok. Willing suspension of disbelief I believe (pun intended ) the process have been called by Tolkien

If I wanted a book about myself as I am in this time and place, I'd read something along realism lines. But I know the parts of myself revealed by my daily life well enough. I need different mirror.

[Sauron the White]

HerenIstarion ... I do understand your point about not wanting to see all of our mundane daily existences played out on the screen. Perfectly clear on that and I agree with you. My point about kids as heroes is that it is way off the end of the Absurd-O-Meter. The average ten year old kid cannot even take the trash out thirty feet from the house and will sit there letting it stink up the house for days as long as they can still play their mindless video games. If you give them a two week assignment in class, you had better have daily reminders stressing how much time has passed and how close that deadline is. And then when the day arrives be prepared to read several poorly written notes from parents asking for extensions due to the most extreme of emergencies. I once (back in the early 70's) had a kid in junior high bring in a parental note asking to retake the final exam because they had polio over the weekend. Thats POLIO for heavens sake. Nobody gets polio for a few days and then recovers.

So watching some self absorbed pre-adolescents save the world is just not my cup of tea. That one middle kid in Narnia drove me absolutely crazy. I wanted him to get killed in the worst sort of way. He screws up everything for his brothers and sisters due to his own faults and then whines about it while everyone struggles to pull his bacon out of the fire. Gimmeabreak.

Yes, there are highly intelligent exceptional children. But tell me of an instance in reality where they saved the world.

Bilbo (and Frodo for the matter) was as unlikely 'to do a hero' as any kid would be to save the world (see above about what ifs, though), but the very fact they actually did is what makes it most astonishing wonderful

I would take issue with this. Bilbo and Frodo were not children. The possessed reason, maturity and intelligence and used it. They are part of the tradition used by many writers of having onrdinary people placed into extraordinary events and seeing them rise to the occassion. Stephen King has made a nice living off of that formula.

[HerenIstarion]

I rather tend to believe that things you do because you ought to may be perceptible and often are, as well may be doable and are often done regardless (and often against best advice provided by) 'reason, maturity and intelligence'. The very journey Bilbo (Frodo's may be argued for as his being reasonable, but his 'reason' ain't of a kind we commonly describe by the name, is it?) went on was against all three of them. He was well-off, lived in a healthy environment, had some entertainment, enjoyed good reputation, what did he need all dwarven gold for to go to loose all of the enjoyments he had and risk his life for it?

Thats POLIO for heavens sake

M-mm... people may be mistaken. If you ask me to tell you the difference between laryngitis and chill, I won't be able to. Maybe they've thought it was just another and cool sounding name for the same thing called in vulgar tongue chill...

But tell me of an instance in reality where they saved the world

There was this boy they have a statue of in Belgium... or maybe Holland...somewhere around those places I'm sure... he saved a town I believe, a town I forgot the name of though

You seem to be the exact opposite of the common (and strange to yours truly seem both cases, they do) perception of children as 'different race'. Just the other side tends to 'idolize' children and you seem to... my apologies if that's not the case but you do come across that way... to, well, feel about them as inferior and yet again 'different race'. Let's say they are just as human as adults are. So if human being is capable of saving the world in principle (are we? umm...), age mustn't be an issue.

Besides, you remember my mentioning 'suspension of disbelief' up there? If the inner rules of a book require it to be a child to be doing the saving, so be it - accept that as a given 'reality' and enjoy as you read along. Or don't read - I tend to abandon books/films midway I find myself incapable of believing in.

But lest I loose sight of our topic, let's go back to the Hobbit movie. It's a story supposedly written by a hobbit, it presents hobbitish perception of events, and only events seen first hand by certain hobbit. It can't possibly incorporate every horror and thrill that might have happened or have been rumoured to have happened but in fact haven't within 2,000 miles of Bilbo's route he could not have even known about. Let's name the movie 'Of the Ring Made, Lost and Found' and film nine parts of it starting with second age and making of the rings (lots of fighting going on, and lot of empty spaces for scriptwriters to fill in, eh?... Now that would be an endevour worth a praise. I'm only half joking. There is even a way to bring Viggo and Orlando back in there - the former would play a part of Elendur son of Isildur whom Aragorn greatly resembled, the latter may be Thranduil the father of Legolas and later on Legolas himself if need be. For a romance and psychological depth - Aldarion and Erendis. For great sea scenes - fleet of Numenor. Apocaliptical scenes of it's ruin. Great battle (parts already filmed) at Barad-Dur... Isildur's death (and Viggo Mortensen for Elendur. We may even tweak it a little and make him survive, to be in a way both Elendur who fought and died and Valandil who was in Rivendell and survived). Lots of things Gandalf might have been doing to entertain himself for 2,000 years he was about worth filming too...

But let us not name it the Hobbit, than (can't add any more smilies, imagine 'smokin' smiley here)

[Sauron the White]

HerenIstarion ........... when you work behind the scenes in a four star restaurant, you soon lose the romantic perceptions of it that the customers have. The same with teaching. I taught for 33 years and loved it. I went into that work because I wanted to make a contribution with my life and always thought that kids were the hope of the future. And I still do.

Having said that, you cannot spend 33 years teaching thousands and thousands of kids without the rose colored glasses coming off and facing reality right in the face. Unless you are an idiot. I loved my job and the kids were the absolute number one best thing about it. I met lots and lots of really terrific kids from the sixth grade up through the 12th where I spent my last two decades.

I was simply making a point about movies where they have these pre-adoloscent kids save the real world from bad guys - usually adults. These are movies made to kiss the collective behinds of kids for one reason and one reason only ---- to obtain their money. Who are these films aimed at? Not thinking adults. Probably not even non-thinking adults. They are aimed at kids of that same age who want to see themselves as the saviors of the universe since they already are convinced they are the true centers of the universe. If that sounds harsh, so be it but it is true and valid.

I asked you if a kid ever saved the world. You mentioned some kid in Holland who saved his town. Fine. Pat that child on the back and give them a parade. But in movie after movie, some kid (and why is it usually a bratty, isolated, totally self-absorbed kid) manages to rise up and save the world from the bad adults. It is simply a marketing idea that is way way way off the extreme end of the Absurd-O-Meter.

I can willingly suspend my disbelief with the best of them. But not for stuff like that. That is willing suspension of disbelief times 100. One of the few times this was done well was when Speilberg did it in ET. And I think his view of kids is far more realistic and less romantic than many others.

[HerenIstarion]

I again beg to differ

The very pattern of 'bratty, isolated, totally self-absorbed kid' 'rising up' seems positive concept to me. In 'real life' much more likely story would be the kid remaining isolated and self-absorbed, or becoming outwardly aggressive and bullyuing whilst inwardly remaning self-absorbed and weak. 'Only you can save mankind' is better message to plant for me than 'you are bratty and so will remain, noone understands what it is that makes you be, therefore, option A: whine your life away or option B: go to the boxing club to build up some muscle power and then show them all!

[davem]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7044649.stm .

"I would be disappointed if they didn't want to have the original Gandalf."

[Tuor in Gondolin]

A plus to PJ not being the dirctor could be
reprising a role as Saruman, since I believe
Christopher Lee wasn't happy with the handling of
Saruman's exit from movie LOTR and nonappearance
in movie ROTK.

In a movie Hobbit you could have a scene with the White Council
driving Sauron from Dol Guldur, although, as
JRRT realized, a weak point in LOTR is how to
handle Saruman becoming evil (going over to the
Dark Side ) without the apparently astute and
insightful Istari and elves realizing it.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Oh, no. No no no no no. Just film the book Tolkien wrote, dammit, and no bloody Hollywood 'inventions!'

[Sauron the White]

Shoot the film with the book as the script?

[Essex]

but the White Council meetings and attack on Dol Guldur will bridge the gap between the two books nicley. I would love to see this on screen - especially the scene (mentioned in Unfinishd tales I think) where Gandalf puffs out the giant Smoke Ring infornt of Saruman and goes to grab it before it vanishes. Now that would be good!

PS - how are they going to tackle the 'issue' of having talking birds? ignore it as they did in LOTR? not only the Eagles but the bird who helps Bilbo find the secret doorway and tells bard where to shoot the Dragon?

[Tuor in Gondolin]

I tend to see Beorn's animals handled by them walking
normal animal style, with perhaps trays, cups etc. taken fom
the backs of some by the mouths of others (easily handled
elegantly by sgi)- but with no talking. Thorin's bird mesenger
could be shown listening and then carry written messages
between the Iron Mountains and Erebor.

And, yes, it might be quite interesting to see Saruman's
struggle for self-control (perhaps even show the beginning
of his pipe-weed addiction ).

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

I again beg to differ

The very pattern of 'bratty, isolated, totally self-absorbed kid' 'rising up' seems positive concept to me. In 'real life' much more likely story would be the kid remaining isolated and self-absorbed, or becoming outwardly aggressive and bullyuing whilst inwardly remaning self-absorbed and weak. 'Only you can save mankind' is better message to plant for me than 'you are bratty and so will remain, noone understands what it is that makes you be, therefore, option A: whine your life away or option B: go to the boxing club to build up some muscle power and then show them all!

Yes and no. I don't agree with Sauron the White that the "kid saves the world" scenario is necessarily a bad thing. Recently a friend and I were talking about the dreary "young adult" novels we had to face (and study in school) in the late 80s and early 90s, in which the protagonist is typically a helpless victim. We both hated them, found them depressing and suspect they put a lot of kids of our generation off reading. (Teachers loved 'em, though...)

However, why does it have to be a

'bratty, isolated, totally self-absorbed kid'?

Why on Earth should they be the only type of kid catered for? I think those sort of stories work much better if the main character is likeable and relatively mature. Having a self-centred brat rewarded for his or her self-centred brat-hood is not, in my view, a good thing.

[Sauron the White]

My comments about bratty self absorbed kids were mostly inspired by that horrible boy in NARNIA. I was dearly hoping that he would be rewarded with the tortures of the damned as a reward for both his selfishness and his stupidity. Instead, he ends up with a kingdom and a crown. Great lesson for us all I suppose. And then there is the hero of HOME ALONE - while he does not save the larger world - he certainly does save his immediate world, his house. A more despicable child I have yet to see in the movies. I cheered for the burglars.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

My comments about bratty self absorbed kids were mostly inspired by that horrible boy in NARNIA. I was dearly hoping that he would be rewarded with the tortures of the damned as a reward for both his selfishness and his stupidity. Instead, he ends up with a kingdom and a crown. Great lesson for us all I suppose.

But doesnt the fact that he doesnt get tortured etc make it a more interesting story? for me it does. If everyone got their 'just deserts' as it were, then the story would just be a predictable and normal Hollywood ending. But there you have a twist, something unexpected, not the usual way a story should end. The lesson C.S. Lewis was trying to get across was much more to do with his own theology. The fact that Edmund dosnet get thrown to the wolves, as it were, invites the reader / viewer to ask questions and enter into the story.
If Edmund had been killed or something, I don't think Narnia would have worked as well as it does. Indeed, it would completely miss the point for which it was first written, I think.

Besides all this, the 'lesson' for Edmund is one of humility. He does realise his mistakes and even with them hanging over him like a dark cloud he must still face his siblings and hope for reconciliation. He can do nothing to change his past and must live with it and his character (in the film at least) seems to show remorse. Do you think this is a bad lesson for children to learn?

But I don't think this is really the point of this topic, so let's move on... (If, however, you want to continue this line of thought, you may want to start a new thread and see what happens).

[Sauron the White]

Hookbill - I am sure you are correct regarding the theology and intent of Lewis with the character of Edmund. I simply could not stand him - in fact loathed him. That may have nothing to do with Lewis theology but its just how I felt about the character.

Is it good to teach kids that you can screw up royally and then be redeemed and end up on top despite all your errors and failings? You could write a series of books examining both sides of that.

Tuors point about the serving animals in THE HOBBIT could work if done with a very deft hand so that the animals did not appear to be semi-human. The talking birds could also be handled in a more subtle way than the book does. Perhaps then everyone would be happy. (fat chance )

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Well, returning after a long hiatus, I see there have been about two posts relating to Hobbit-movie news in this thread. Ah well, can't say I'm that surprised or even that disappointed, really. It's the nature of discussion boards. I think some interesting points have been made in the discussion (as well as some meaningless rehashing of old arguments), but I do wish they could find a thread that was devoted to them at the outset.

Boy do I sound grumpy; sorry about that. I'm not. I love to think about and discuss and argue the merits of a Hobbit film; just don't like doing it in this particular thread.

Aw, what the hey; this one's a lost cause anyway, so I'll throw out this bombshell: I don't think the assumption that Jackson will completely PG-13ize The Hobbit is necessarily warranted.

That's not a statement of absolute belief, just a hunch. Crucify me...

[Sauron the White]

E&E ... you coud be correct. My suspicions have always run to Jackson doing several things with THE HOBBIT as a film. One would be to make it fit with the previous three films so that it is accepted as part of the same series --- and yes, I know it is not really. That would mean a more serious adaption. However, I also see him adding many moments that are lighter, sweeter and more in line with the feeling of the book. Sort of a best of both worlds approach.

[Nerwen]

If I were Peter Jackson I'd be rather afraid of those die-hard supporters. I mean the ones who insist that only he can direct The Hobbit, and that they'll refuse to see it if anyone else does.

I can see them turning on him viciously if the film doesn't live up to their expectations– and arguably, nothing will. I know the capitals-and-exclamation-points crowd. (Some of my best friends, etc...) Honestly, some of them are going to be deeply disappointed if The Hobbit doesn't incorporate their way-out personal theories about Middle-earth (these having nothing to do with anything Tolkien wrote, and very little to do with the LotR movies either).

I would say New Line is paying attention to all these protests, but also that they're taking them with a grain of salt. Do you really think nearly half of the movie-going public will stay home if The Hobbit has a different director?

[Sauron the White]

Nerwen... while there may be people as you described in your above post, I do not see it as you do. As a serious fan of the Jackson LOTR adaptions, I merely want two things in a HOBBIT film. The first would be a good movie that gives us the essence of the story, and second, a film which fits with the style, look and approach of the first three LOTR Jackson films. If they can give us two, so much the btter.

Are those expectations so high that they cannot be satisfied or met? I would think not.

[Nerwen]

Ah, but did I say I was talking about all fans of the movies? In fact, I thought I specifically said I wasn't. I'm just saying that many of those posters struck me as being a certain type of fan.

[Sauron the White]

This in from a site called marketsaw which specializes in 3-D news. They have some track record as they have released some items about the James Cameron film AVATAR. Jacksons company is also doing some special effects work on AVATAR. While I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this site or this report, it is interesting and gives us something to speculate about.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friday, November 30, 2007
Hot Hobbit News! Jackson Will Helm "The Hobbit" As Two 3D Prequels to LOTRs! AND...
Ok folks - this is hot off my sources and they are the ones who provided the Avatar Ney'tiri image so it is pretty darn reliable:

Peter Jackson will indeed DIRECT "The Hobbit"! This is my second source telling me this. You can be 100% SURE that this is happening. The story will be split into two separate movies as was previously thought with the second relating much more to "Lord of the Rings" than the first.

Wait, as if that wasn't enough: Here is the kicker people: "The Hobbit" will be in 3D. Yes. You heard it on MarketSaw first - both Hobbit movies will be shot in 3D. FURTHER, New Line and Peter Jackson then intend on converting the Lord of the Rings trilogy into 3D as well and re-releasing them in theaters between 2012 and 2014! How is that for big news??Awesome stuff!! I have this news from one source, not two.

Of course this is exclusive news and has not been announced by New Line or Peter Jackson yet. If my sources are 100% correct (and I have plenty of trust in them, believe me) then we are going to see an announcement relatively soon as "The Hobbit" is not a trivial project to be sure and needs to get ramped up!

Just what does this mean for the 3D movie industry? It means total validation. It underscores that if you are going to do a huge motion picture from today on, it had better be in 3D. George Lucas is still intending on converting his entire stable of Star Wars films into 3D too. The validation is huge for the movie industry as a whole and for the theater customers! Lets just hope that my sources are bang on as they usually are.

SAME DAY UPDATE: Here is an excerpt from my email with my source regarding CASTING:

"No casting info yet. But they are looking forward to bring back Sir Ian McKellen, Andy Serkis and Hugo Weaving. For these 3 actors, the chances are really good.
I'm not sure about the release date, but I think 2010 for the first film, and 2011 for second, is what they are trying to get into everybodys calendar. So it would make sense with my information of following with the converted Trilogy in 2012 – 2014. That is all happening, but there must be said, that there is a possibility of +/- 1 to 2 years to the whole thing. If I get to know more, I try to tell ya."
I would heavily suspect that Jackson will shoot "The Hobbit" back to back as he is an old pro at that now and heck you know damn well that its gonna rake in cash. And as my source pointed out, finding a window to fit everyone's schedule is going to be damn hard.

[Galendor]

Hot Hobbit News! Jackson Will Helm "The Hobbit" As Two 3D Prequels to LOTRs!

Thank you STW for posting this update news. But I don't think it is good news. I fear it means the primary emphasis will be on creating wow-bang! 3D special effects, and little things like, um, acting and storyline will suffer for it. All 3D movies have scenes stuck in them soley for the purpose of having something appear to come out of the screen at the audience. Bleah.

I fear Jackson will make The Hobbit as a vehicle to showcase 3D special effects and to appeal to the lowest common denominator, the popcorn-chewing masses. And The Hobbit story we know and love will get lost in all the SFX.

Worst case scenario, here is a potential synopsis of a Jackson 3D The Hobbit movie, from the perspective of his target audience member (a 15 year old boy):

Cool! Those smoke rings were coming right out at me!

Cool! That Troll reached right out at me!

Cool! Them wargs jumped right out at me!

Cool! That white stag jumped right out at me!

Cool! That giant spider jumped right out at me!

Cool! That Smaug fire came right out at me!

Cool! That black arrow flew right out at me!

Cool! That blood from Bolg sprayed right out at me!

Cool! Those eagles flew right out at me!

Sigh. I don't want 3D special effects. I just want the magic and beauty of the book to be carefully and thoughtfully turned into a movie that focuses mainly on storyline, acting, character development, and emotions. Just my 2 cents.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Ugh!


I think that 3D is a bad idea, because some people can't watch them. Like me, because you have to wear those funky glasses and some people can't use them because their blind in one eye or something.







Stupid special effects!.... I could shoot them!

[Sauron the White]

There is no doubt that the history of cinematic efforts in 3D films is not a stellar one which has produced excellent films. And yes, it mostly has been a gimmick niche of entertainment where the story and acting has taken a distant backseat to the eyepopping effects. However....

Jacksons company is currently working with James Cameron in developing something revolutionary for his massive AVATAR project. Cameron is leading the way for an entirely new approach to film in much the same way that both sound or color did for feature films. We will have to wait another two years to see AVATAR and judge its effectiveness as a film and to judge its effect on the industry. I see Jacksons interest in 3D along the same lines of Cameron. I would fully expect the story to be excellent, the acting to be on a par with the LOTR films, and see a multi-layered approach to story telling complexity and characterization.

Of course, this story that I posted yesterday could be bogus. We will see. The one thing that tends to ring with a bit of truth is that Jackson may see an opportunity here with THE HOBBIT that he could not garner with any other film property. It is widely assumed within the industry that THE HOBBIT is a billion dollar property. It is also widely assumed within the industry that Jackson is the only man to make it and maximize that revenue potential. This combination gives Jackson more power and latitude in making the film than in any other choice he could make.

We will see.

[Sauron the White]

AICN - aintitcoolnews is reporting that they have contacted Jacksons people and they are denying the story saying it is not true.

[Sauron the White]

Marketsaw is not backing down from the earlier report that said Jackson would indeed direct THE HOBBIT in two parts. In fact they have gone even further saying that is is a definite thing already agreed to. Here is the story from their website

Concerning "The Hobbit":

Basically my source confirms that PJ's camp is covering up what they don't want the world to know yet. But this is what he can assure me:

1. New Line WANTS Peter Jackson to direct The Hobbit. (Another source has said that they are close to an agreement). My sources are "guaranteeing" that he will direct. I have never heard them say this before! My reputation is riding on this one. 100% veracity.

2. The Hobbit WILL BE a two part film - but here is the new information - the second film will be influenced by the foundation of "The Silmarillion" and "The History of Middle-earth Series" (which is a 12 part series of books where JRR's son, Christopher Tolkien analyses JRR's old manuscripts; the manuscripts that ultimately led to become "The Silmarillion", "Lord of the Rings" and "Númenor" which is sort of like Atlantis). The second movie will ultimately lead us up to creation of The Fellowship in a graceful and logical fashion! So for all of you out there that thought that "The Hobbit" is too short a story for two feature movies (let alone two Peter Jackson feature movies) then you were right. Before you ask, my source has reminded me that PJ has access to the JRR manuscripts and extensive notes as he did for the LOTR trilogy. These notes were the foundation for the two books mentioned above, but are not the books themselves (which are still in the Tolkien family's hands). I mention the books to better frame what he has in mind. Jackson borrowed from Tolkien's notes for LOTR to build the story he wanted. He will do so again for The Hobbit.

Now that is simply awesome news! There is a great deal of Middle-earth information in those manuscripts and the interpretation of Tolkien's son adds much more content of course. It goes without saying that this has not been officially announced. Peter Jackson will direct "The Hobbit" and it's sequel: This is insider information from sources that are on the battle front and they are staking their reputation on it! I have this info from two separate sources as I have posted before. I have never heard them be so emphatic about something taking place before. The Hobbit in 3D is just the sort of movie to bring 3D to the masses in a big way with Avatar providing the 1-2 punch.

Reactions???

[Quempel]

Who is Marketsaw and what connection do they have to the movie industry, New Line, Peter Jackson and Tolkien? I researched the blog and to me it seems it's a blog by a single man who may or may not have any connection to anything. I have to ask where does he get his information.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

the second film will be influenced by the foundation of "The Silmarillion" and "The History of Middle-earth Series"

Well, that redflags this source as totally unreliable immediately.

Christopher Tolkien owns those rights; will never, ever sell them, and even if he did Peter Jackson and New Line would be the last people on earth he'd let near them; and if any Silmarillion/HME material were used as the 'foundation' for a prequel his lawyers would be all over New Line faster than you can say 'Intellectual Property."

PJ has access to the JRR manuscripts and extensive notes as he did for the LOTR trilogy.

Poppycock. PJ had access to nothing (Christ, why would he need 'notes' ?) and he most assuredly doesn't have and won't get permission to access the originals in the Bodleian, nor, even if he did, could he do anything with them since they're copyright just as much as the published works.


It's bilge.

[Sauron the White]

WCH - In essence, I agree with much of what you have said. I do suspect that the source for this information was not a Tolkien person who knows the books very well. I also suspect that they are confusing references in both THE HOBBIT and in LOTR that are made about events from the First and Second Ages as well as other events in the Third Age not seen in LOTR films. Of course the legal excuse for this would be the appendices. There are enough people, places and events named there to fill several movies providing someone would be willing to fill in the gaps creating dialogue.

I know nothing of this rumor beyond what I posted. However, I have always felt that a filmmaker who owned the rights to LOTR and The HOBBIT could make several films about the events mentioned in the appendices and books themselves if they were bold and creative and willing to chance the legal difficulties that may arise.

Do you really think a judge or court wants to spend the time necessary to distinguish between the mention of the Silmarils and Beren and Luthien as mentioned in LOTR and what is explained much further in the SIL?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

For events of the Third Age the LR and its appendices are really the only source, aside from the 'History of Galadriel and Celeborn' and the historical essays in UT. I noted in a thread a while back that in the (EE) death of Isildur PJ stuck with the LR account and avoided any part of the more detailed UT version.

Nobody's going to bother with de minimis borrowings, like the Ring of Barahir or the origin of Elves. Brief mentions can fly under the radar. Full narratives, on the other hand, based on elements of say Akallabeth which are manifestly not in the Appendices would pose a problem.

What I think is more likely is that PJ or whoever is going to concoct a near-total fiction involving the White Council and the Necromancer, which legally they can do. Dammit.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

You know what, putting the other Middle-earth books into movies would be GREAT... but not with the Hobbit, just stick with the story we all know and love.








Just Stick with the written story. Dammit!

[Nazgûl-king]

I hope they do a good job on The Hobbit film, whenever they do it. Though I hope they include Beorn! He's my favorite character from that book.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Yeah Beorn would be nice, but he's not my favourite character.

[Sauron the White]

WilliamCH - I agree with your analysis of rights, properties and usages. If you can, could you please expand on the statement you made above

Christopher Tolkien owns those rights; will never, ever sell them, and even if he did Peter Jackson and New Line would be the last people on earth he'd let near them;

I especially want to know how you came to the conclusion that Jackson and New Line would be the last people on earth that CT would be willing to work with. This is a rather strong statement and I wonder what supports it.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Without getting into specifics, let's just say that CRT's opinion of Jackson's work on his father's writing is very low. Please understand that I'm not in a position to quote or paraphrase anything he has said to me, so that will have to suffice as a basis for my assertion.


In any event it's rather academic, since the film rights to the posthumous publications are not for sale.

[Sauron the White]

I can certainly appreciate and respect that you cannot betray a confidence. I do find it most interesting that many on this very site cling to the fiction that CT and the Estate have adopted a neutral stance on the films and neither praise or criticize them preferring to stay above the fray. At the same time there are statements like yours which seem to disprove that convenient fiction.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

StW, surely you can distinguish between the official public position of the Tolkien Estate, and Christopher Tolkien's private opinion, can you not? Like any human being CRT is bound to have some opinion of the movies, good or bad. He has indeed 'stayed above the fray' by not making that opinion public.

Please note also the distinction between the charge of 'opposing' the films sight unseen before they were ever made, and being critical of the finished product.

[Groin Redbeard]

The Hobbit WILL BE a two part film - but here is the new information - the second film will be influenced by the foundation of "The Silmarillion" and "The History of Middle-earth Series" (which is a 12 part series of books where JRR's son, Christopher Tolkien analyses JRR's old manuscripts; the manuscripts that ultimately led to become "The Silmarillion", "Lord of the Rings" and "Númenor" which is sort of like Atlantis).

I'm not so surre I like the idea of having the Hobbit as a two part film. I'd like it better if PJ just stuck to the book.

[Sauron the White]

William - I see it as contradictory and two-faced that they can maintain the false illusion of two differing positions. One for public consumption which seemingly attempts to take the high road of indifference while the other is far more honest and critical.