The Hobbit in July 2007?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Gothbogg the Ripper

... hmm, what about Spielberg?

Renamed Raiders of the Lost Arkenstone perhaps?

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

Ah, the Saucepan Man. Long time no see. But yes, Spielberg could be quite a decent choice or how about...*Consults directorial handbook* Orson Welles, that guy with the cowboy hat, Ed Wood, Janis Joplin and, where is that bit of paper? Ah yes, Jack Daniels?

[Child of the 7th Age]

But he'll never do it. Peter Jackson is a broken man, look at him, he looks ill, like he never eats or sleeps. He needs serious medical attention and no, I'm not joking. So, for the sake of his health I don't think he should do this movie, he's suffered enough and I just hope that he can get over his drug problem soon

Gothbogg,

Ahem.....I wouldn't spend too much time shedding tears. Jackson just negotiated a deal with Dreamwords for The Lovely Bones, and will began filming in October.

[Sauron the White]

Gothboog -- in your post you act as if you have medical knowledge that the rest of the world is not aware of. Drug problems??? Not sleeping??? Not eating???
This is completely absurd. Its one thing not to like the work of the man - but to put forth stuff like this is simply ridiculous.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Yeah, I can only assume you're joking, despite saying you're not, because PJ has lost a ton of weight and looks better than he ever looked when he was making LOTR.

The latest from Raimi is that he would be interested in doing it, but that it's "Peter Jackson's movie".
http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2007...imi_.html#more

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

Jackson in an interview said that he was on all kinds of pills ans suffering from "stress". I know what I heard and it's the only thing that can explain how he seems to have fell apart so horribly.

[Mithalwen]

[QUOTE=Sir Kohran]I also thought M&C and particularly Gallipoli were great movies, but I'm not sure he could do fantasy - he does political/historical films mostly, it seems. QUOTE]


I think Peter Weir would be fantastic (andI would prefer him to do "The Lovely Bones" too.

I feel he has a particular interest in enclosed communities - and their interraction or failure to interract with the wider world - not only Witness which is one of the best films I have ever seen, Dead Poets Society, and Picnic at Hanging Rock. It would be visually stunning I am sure and intelligently and sensitively done. Only question is whether it would interest him...


http://www.tabula-rasa.info/AusHorror/PeterWeir.html

[Child of the 7th Age]

Meanwhile.....the Hobbit carousel continues.

Aintitcool.com reports that four more names are said to be on the long list of directors: Stephen Sommers, Michael Bay, Brad Silberling, and Bill Condon.

See here. No comment.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

What about Clint Eastwood?
Actually, on second thought, why not?
He might like the challenge of making a different
type of movie. His battle scenes would sure be good. And he can
handle "human" interactions (see the whimsical
Bronco Billy movie and The Bridges of Madison County).

[Sauron the White]

Frank Capra can direct THE HOBBIT part one.
H. B. Warner can play Gandalf.
Gary Cooper can play Bard. Edward Arnold as the Goblin King.

William Wyler can then do THE HOBBIT part two "The Best Trip of Out Lives".
Nothing from the actual book but it would show the emotional toll the episode took upon all those involved once they tried to return to the normalcy of home.

D. W. Griffith can do a silent version.
No CGI allowed - just a real cast of ten thousand on sets the size of Manhattan.

Or maybe David Lean could helm it.
Lots of boring parts but it would be as pretty as any great painting in the Tate Museum.

Or what about John Ford?
The big battle scene could be in Monument Valley out there in Arizona and Utah.
His brother Francis would make a wonderful Gandalf. And Ford got more out of John Wayne than any other director- Wayne for Bard.

All these guys have way more talent than the Spidey guy.

[MatthewM]

This is hideous

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

Peter Jackson?

[Nimrodel_9]

Hey, this doesn't really mean anything, but we could be hopeful.

As many of you know, Dominic Monaghan (Merry) plays the character Charlie on Lost. If you are a fan and haven't seen this season's finale, then I wouldn't suggest following the link.

Monaghan going to New Zealand
(It's toward the end when they ask, "What's next for you?")

Like I said, Peter Jackson could be making just some movie and want Dom in it, but there's always room to hope for The Hobbit, right?

Maybe someone else knows of some project PJ is starting. I didn't really look into it, so correct me if I'm way off!

Nimmy

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Surprise, surprise, Bob Shaye is beginning to soften his stance on PJ. I wonder what could have prevailed upon his heart to do that?

FILM BIG LAYS IT ON THE NEW LINE (from end of article)

Shaye hints we should never say never at the idea of Jackson, whom he labeled "arrogant" last year, directing "The Hobbit" someday.

"There's nothing I can really talk about except to say that I believe 'The Hobbit' will be made," says Shaye, choosing his words carefully like the lawyer that he is. "There's a bunch of issues and elements that have to be addressed.

"I don't like to have issues with anybody. Any issues with Mr. Jackson, I would prefer to have them closed, rather than open."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07102007...u_lumenick.htm

[Knight of Gondor]

Very promising!

[MatthewM]

Promising indeed!

[radagastly]

One can only be hopeful that Robert Shaye will not direct The Hobbit himself.

"It took a long time to lick the script, and I guess I was a bit more soulful by the time I got into the director's chair," he says. An "E.T."-like story of two youngsters who find a doll from the future, it's based on an old science-fiction story that Shaye, 68, had read as a child.

That story, "Mimsy Were the Borogroves" by Lewis Padgett copywrited in 1943 may involve children, but it is no E.T. It failed because he can't read. At least not well.

Still, I am hopeful that this is a sign that P. J. will direct The Hobbit, if anyone does. I hope they can get it done before Ian McKellan dies. He's getting up there. It wouldn't be the same with someone else as Gandalf.

[Brinniel]

Originally Posted by radagastly

Still, I am hopeful that this is a sign that P. J. will direct The Hobbit, if anyone does. I hope they can get it done before Ian McKellan dies. He's getting up there. It wouldn't be the same with someone else as Gandalf.

Whoa, before he dies? Yeesh. McKellan is 68 and as far as I know, in good health. While 68 is certainly not young, I wouldn't exactly call that old...especially not to the point where he's ready to croak.

It seems to me that Shaye is a bit embarrassed about his comments about Jackson after seeing how many are backing PJ up. Not to mention, I'm sure he's realising how much New Line could use another hit after all these flops over the past year (though I really am hoping The Golden Compass is good and successful).

I find it rather funny how much imdb.com jumps ahead on movies that have yet to be made. For The Hobbit, Sam Raimi is listed as the director (though they admit it's not confirmed), and the scheduled release date is December 1, 2009. Now I don't care what anyone says, but there is no way that the film could be completed by then...especially since they aren't anywhere close to even starting. If we must speculate on a date, I would say if they can decide on a director within the next year, somewhere between 2011-2013...if the film is made as carefully as LotR. But that's just my guess...

[Elladan and Elrohir]

I would say 2010, if they gave it to PJ tomorrow. That's not likely, though. I think we could well have another year or two before Jackson is finally given the director's job. By that time, New Line may or may not be a part of the discussion. So 2011 or 12 (for a release date, that is) doesn't sound at all unrealistic to me. That would probably fit with PJ's schedule better anyway; he's rather busy right now.

[Sir Kohran]

LOL, looking at the date the thread title seems a little strange...

...anyhow, I've said this before and I'll say it again. Peter Jackson is the only man who can make this work. He understands Tolkien and his stories in a way that all the comic book directors don't.

Whoa, before he dies? Yeesh. McKellan is 68 and as far as I know, in good health. While 68 is certainly not young, I wouldn't exactly call that old...especially not to the point where he's ready to croak.

No, but there's no telling what can happen to people, particularly older people. And the role of Gandalf is going to be demanding.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Um, you do realize that many, many readers believe that putting another Tolkien work into Jackson's hammy fists would be a bad thing?

Not that anyone else I could think of would be any better. Come to think of it, the ideal situation is that the lawyers keep it tangled up forever and it never gets made.

[Sir Kohran]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

Um, you do realize that many, many readers believe that putting another Tolkien work into Jackson's hammy fists would be a bad thing?

Not that anyone else I could think of would be any better. Come to think of it, the ideal situation is that the lawyers keep it tangled up forever and it never gets made.

No, actually, I think you'll find most people would rather continue with PJ, regardless of what they think of him, rather than bringing in someone completely new.

Perhaps there could be a poll on this.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

No, actually, I think you'll find most people would rather continue with PJ, regardless of what they think of him, rather than bringing in someone completely new.

Perhaps there could be a poll on this.

From what I've seen 'most' of those demanding a PJ helmed Hobbit (outside sites like this one)haven't read the book, know little about it, other than that its 'another' Middle-earth tale - & believe is similar to LotR in style. What they don't get is TH is a children's story, & if a movie is made that is true to the book it will not be at all what they expect. And if its done in the 'adult' style of the LotR movies it won't bear anything other than a vague resemblance to the book.

It seems to me that those demanding a Hobbit movie don't actually want a movie of the book - they want another Middle-earth movie like LotR.

TH is a children's book. Anyone who doesn't want a children's movie made of it doesn't really want a movie of The Hobbit at all, & , I would say, doesn't actually care about Tolkien's work. Tolkien wrote the book for his children & children generally were the intended audience. If its made in the style of the LotR movies children would be excluded from seeing it, & personally I think that would be wrong - just as wrong as making a PG13 movie of Wind in the Willows with enough added sex & violence to appeal to the 17 year old boys who apparently make up the majority of the movie going audience.

Or, in short, a movie of The Hobbit that your five year old couldn't see & enjoy would be the greatest insult to Tolkien I can imagine.

[Sauron the White]

JRRT himself opened the door very wide for anyone who wants to make the HOBBIT film more in line with the LOTR films when he attempted to do the same with his books. If JRRT thought it was a necessary and good thing to do why not is it not good for a filmmaker to make the same attempt?

Anyone who can argue that a HOBBIT film should be aimed at five year olds simply has blinders on to the realities of film making, film marketing and the potential audience for such a film.

A film is one thing. A book is another. There are some people here who seem like they would not be happy with anything other than a very strict line by line slavish adaption of the book to film regardless of its effects on dramatic pacing and other important film considerations. A very small number Tolkien purists may be pleased (but I doubt even that as they would nitpick at the tiniest of deviations or changes) but the public would not respond to it the way they did with LOTR films.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

I don't know that I would call it an insult to Tolkien. He appears to have deeply regretted (in later life) the "childish" tone, and, of course, as StW has pointed out and as we're currently discussing on the "darker Hobbit" thread, he did indeed try to rewrite TH to fit the Legendarium.

But the point I was trying to make there, davem, is not that PJ and Co. could achieve Tolkienian magic by converting TH into a PG-13; as you pointed out, JRRT himself couldn't do that. It's merely that to make a PG-13 Hobbit, whether successfully or not, is not an insult to the author; it's a legitimate means of interpretation, and one that he himself considered.

I think you're likely right about the number of fans outside boards like these who want a Hobbit film: as you say, they generally know nothing of the book and want another LOTR. There are, however, plenty of people on this board and others like it who have read TH just as many as times as LOTR, love it deeply, and still want PJ to make the movie. I am of that number.

Does that mean I don't care about Tolkien's work? I don't think it does. And at any rate I would disagree with your comment about five-year-olds. I think movies require a higher maturity level than books. I read LOTR aloud to my nine-year-old brother (after reading him TH), but he won't be watching the movies for another three years. Obviously that does not eliminate the issue, but it does raise the projected target age, in my opinion. Honestly, all things considered, I'm not sure TH should be, or even would be, PG-13-worthy. Could not PJ make it with the level of violence of, say, Narnia? I see Lion Witch and Wardrobe and TH as being fairly comparable in terms of tone.

So really, I suppose that I'm closer to your point of view than I first thought, davem, even if I am a bit naive to think that PJ would give us a PG Hobbit. I agree that we don't need Bard smooching his made-up girlfriend or Thorin Oakenshield bloodily knocking off goblin heads.

It would seem that the trolls, at any rate, would have to be included in some form near to that of the book, since PJ has already had Bilbo telling the story of their argument and then later showing 'Gorn and the four hobbits beneath the stone figures.

OK, I've said enough for one post.

[davem]

Well, Tolkien regretted the worst excesses of the childish tone. but I don't think he ever regretted the fact that TH is a children's story, & his attempt at revision was not to make TH more 'adult' as such, merely to try & make it fit more closely with the developed mythology. That's what he couldn't do, because TH was written before the Mythology was developed (at least as far as the Third Age went).

What Tolkien would have done, had he finished his revision, would have been to turn TH from a wonderful children's fairy story, a tale that can stand on its own, into a mere prequel to LotR. TH would have been diminished into nothing but a 'set up', & put in the service of something else.

TH is in many ways the best introduction to Tolkien's mythological world - even though it doesn't 'fit' properly, & its certainly the best introduction for children. The idea of taking that introduction away from them in order to please the Leggy-boppers & the teenage boys who want to see Orc blood splattering the screen is a sad one to me. In the book the 'horror' & violence is distanced, only referred to, & the last battle is not described. In any movie it would all be there, graphically depicted. Bilbo stabbing the spiders in Mirkwood would be there on screen, Beorn rending apart Goblins would be there, Fili & Kili would fall (like Haldir) in slo-mo before Thorin recieived his mortal wounding, etc.

Now, any reader who saw that kind of movie would never be able to read TH in the same way again. You'd have to avoid the movie altogether if you wanted to retain the simple charm of 'In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit.....in the morning of the world, when there was less noise & more green'.

Can you make the Hobbit movie that movie fans & producers want without trashing the innocent, light-hearted, 'high adventure' mood of the book? No. Adding in to TH the kind of violence & brutality that fans of the LotR movies expect & removing the silliness, the innocence, is effectively pornographising (yes, its a real word apparently!) the story. Its taking something which belongs by right to children & making it harsher & darker purely in order to sate the jaded palates of 'adults' who have fed to long & too deeply on the Hostels & Die Hards, & require darkness & brutality & ugliness in their movies. Remove the songs & the silly jokes that child readers love purely in order that the teenagers don't feel 'embarrassed' & start throwing their popcorn at the screen.

[Sauron the White]

davem ... since popping up here a bit ago I have read many of your posts. You certainly have a great deal of knowledge about JRRT and his writings and I respect that. You have probably forgotten more about JRRT than I could ever hope to learn. But - in my humble opinion as an outsider - I do think you weaken your own positions by throwing in heavy handed judgments and value laden terms that attempt to strengthen your own position while they denigrate others. In your post above you talk about "TRASHING" the HOBBIT if certain changes are made. You then compare this to PORNOGRAPHY which is utter nonsense and ridiculous.

How do these flights of bloated verbage further this discussion?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

You then compare this to PORNOGRAPHY which is utter nonsense and ridiculous.

How do these flights of bloated verbage further this discussion?

American Heritage Dictionary
por·nog·ra·phy (pôr-nŏg'rə-fē) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
2. The presentation or production of this material.
3. Lurid or sensational material: "Recent novels about the Holocaust have kept Hitler well offstage [so as] to avoid the ... pornography of the era" (Morris Dickstein).

.

[Sauron the White]

Perhaps I should grab a handy dictionary and define the word ABSURD?

[Sir Kohran]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

davem ... since popping up here a bit ago I have read many of your posts. You certainly have a great deal of knowledge about JRRT and his writings and I respect that. You have probably forgotten more about JRRT than I could ever hope to learn. But - in my humble opinion as an outsider - I do think you weaken your own positions by throwing in heavy handed judgments and value laden terms that attempt to strengthen your own position while they denigrate others. In your post above you talk about "TRASHING" the HOBBIT if certain changes are made. You then compare this to PORNOGRAPHY which is utter nonsense and ridiculous.

How do these flights of bloated verbage further this discussion?

I have to agree here. Criticising PJ's vision of Middle-Earth is one thing. Comparing it to pornography is quite another, and is stupid, inappropriate and downright offensive.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

I have to agree here. Criticising PJ's vision of Middle-Earth is one thing. Comparing it to pornography is quite another, and is stupid, inappropriate and downright offensive.

PJ's version revelled in ugliness, brutality, gore & bad jokes. Apart from that it was embarrassingly bathetic.

And I think its best to avoid calling other people's posts 'stupid'. I offered a reasoned argument & offered a justification for the points I made. I even managed to demonstrate that a word may have more meanings than the usual one. I don't think I threw around insulting comments like 'stupid' & 'absurd'. I tend to avoid such, being that I am able to argue rationally.

[Sauron the White]

from davem

PJ's version revelled in ugliness, brutality, gore & bad jokes. Apart from that it was embarrassingly bathetic.

The Jackson films also had moments of sheer beauty, kindness and emotional strength, tenderness and a sense of wonder. A term like 'bathetic' is an opinion which you certainly are entitled to. It is obvious that the larger part of the fim going world thought otherwise and thought so very clearly.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

from davem

PJ's version revelled in ugliness, brutality, gore & bad jokes. Apart from that it was embarrassingly bathetic.

The Jackson films also had moments of sheer beauty, kindness and emotional strength, tenderness and a sense of wonder. A term like 'bathetic' is an opinion which you certainly are entitled to. It is obvious that the larger part of the fim going world thought otherwise and thought so very clearly.

I don't have a very high opinion of the larger part of the film going world's opinion on anything, given the trash that Hollywood turns out. They are clearly all wrong if they found the LotR movies anything more than standard Hollywood fare. Overblown, dumbed down & tiresome.

In my opinion at least. There was more depth & profundity & beauty in any five minutes of Pan's Labyrinth than in the whole 12 + hours of the LotR movies.

[Sauron the White]

from davem

They are clearly all wrong if they found the LotR movies anything more than standard Hollywood fare.

So yes indeed, everyone marching in the large parade is out of step but Johnny.

[Sir Kohran]

They are clearly all wrong if they found the LotR movies anything more than standard Hollywood fare.

So the millions that praised these films are all wrong just because they disagree with you?

Overblown, dumbed down & tiresome.

Oh yes. Because the bit where Gandalf faces the Balrog is overblown, dumbed down and tiresome. The bit where Boromir dies is also overblown, dumbed down and tiresome. The bit where Frodo pulls Sam out of the river and takes him on the jounrey with him is also overblown, dumbed down and tiresome. The part where the Rohirrim make their last stand at Helm's Deep to be saved by Gandalf and the Rohirrim's arrival is also overblown, dumbed down and tiresome. The point where Sam speaks to Frodo of the despair others have felt and their determination to keep going is overblown, dumbed down and tiresome. The sequence where the beacons are lit on the mountains is also overblown, dumbed down and tiresome. The bit where Theoden and his army sound their horns and charge the Orcs on the Pelennor is also overblown, dumbed down and tiresome. The end of the quest on Mount Doom is also overblown, dumbed down and tiresome. The ending where Frodo says goodbye to his friends and Sam returns to his family is also overblown, dumbed down and tiresome.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

Oh yes. Because the bit where Gandalf faces the Balrog is overblown, dumbed down and tiresome. The bit where Boromir dies is also overblown, dumbed down and tiresome. The bit where Frodo pulls Sam out of the river and takes him on the jounrey with him is also overblown, dumbed down and tiresome. The part where the Rohirrim make their last stand at Helm's Deep to be saved by Gandalf and the Rohirrim's arrival is also overblown, dumbed down and tiresome. The point where Sam speaks to Frodo of the despair others have felt and their determination to keep going is overblown, dumbed down and tiresome. The sequence where the beacons are lit on the mountains is also overblown, dumbed down and tiresome. The bit where Theoden and his army sound their horns and charge the Orcs on the Pelennor is also overblown, dumbed down and tiresome. The end of the quest on Mount Doom is also overblown, dumbed down and tiresome. The ending where Frodo says goodbye to his friends and Sam returns to his family is also overblown, dumbed down and tiresome.

Wow! That's weird. You know, I'd just been making a list of the bits I felt were overblown, dumbed down & tiresome, & you just got them all. Talk about great minds & all that!

[Sir Kohran]

Originally Posted by davem

Wow! That's weird. You know, I'd just been making a list of the bits I felt were overblown, dumbed down & tiresome, & you just got them all. Talk about great minds & all that!

Considering most of those were taken from the books, I guess the book itself is overblown, dumbed down and tiresome.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

Considering most of those were taken from the books, I guess the book itself is overblown, dumbed down and tiresome.

Not one of those scenes is depicted in the movies as they are in the book. The way they are portrayed on screen is overblown, dumbed down and tiresome.

[Sir Kohran]

Originally Posted by davem

Not one of those scenes is depicted in the movies as they are in the book. The way they are portrayed on screen is overblown, dumbed down and tiresome.

Are you suggesting that in the books...

- Gandalf did not face the Balrog and shout 'You shall not pass', the bridge did not break, and Gandalf did not say 'fly your fools' as he was dragged down?

- Boromir was not killed by arrows as he defended Merry and Pippin?

- Frodo never rescues Sam from drowning?

- Gandalf never arrives with the men of Rohan at the break of day to destroy the enemy at Helm's Deep?

- Sam never encouraged Frodo and helped him on his quest?

- The beacons were never lit?

- Theoden and the charge of the Rohirrim on the Pelennor never took place?

- Frodo and Sam did not have a hard time reaching Mount Doom and that Gollum did not fall in the Crack of Doom?

- Frodo did not have a sad farewell to his friends as he left?

- Sam never went back to his family at the end of the book and said 'Well, I'm back'?

I find your perceptions of the books most interesting.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

You mean, considering that PJ was too hamhanded to get even Tolkien's own scenes right, Gawd help us with the ones he made up. Eomer and his 2000 Rohirrim on horseback (NOT as in the book) charging down a ZZ-grade ski slope into a forest of polearms is one of the silliest, most groan-inducing moments in all of film. Boromir's death-speech is nonsense invented to go with the angstified, wimpified film-Aragorn. Sam's near-drowning is literally overbolwn- insanely and tiresomely prolonged for cheap suspense. Sam's trite speech at Osgiliath barely touches on Tolkien's original (on the stairs of Cirith Ungol), and doesn't pass up a single cliche. The beacons sequence looks great, but is preciptated by anabsurd scene of *Pippin* starting them, in line with the total reduction of shrewd, stern Denethor to a dribbling lunatic. The end of the Quest on Mount Doom is a device so old and tired and overused and cliched it's even entered the language- cliffhanger.

And of course we haven't touched on Xenarwen or Elves at Helm's Deep or warg attacks or wizard-fu or moronic, pacifist Ents or the Osgiliation or the cold-cocking of the Steward or the gawdawful Filmamir or sword-swinging Black Riders or shield-surfing or electrocution by Palantir or the disappearance of Arnor or the confrontation at the Gate replaced by anime trolls or dwarf-tossing or belches or PJ's complete lack of comprehension of or regard for any of Tolkien's themes etc etc etc etc etc etc etc..........