Inching closer to The Hobbit film

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Well, what do you know? Seems that New Line's fairly interested in making a billion bucks. Entertainment Weekly's cover story reports on the slow reversal of Bob Shaye and Minions as they sheepishly come back to that Wingnut from New Zealand.

No new information except for several "insider" quotes that suggest PJ and New Line are coming close to a deal. But it's an engrossing read that well sums up the tumultuous Hobbit-film history to this point.

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,2003...142132,00.html

I'll say it again: There's way too much money to be made on a Hobbit film for it not to happen. It won't be here before 2010 (and even that's probably an early estimate), but it will come. And PJ will be at the helm.

If possible, I'd like us to keep this discussion limited to the news and speculation about the new Hobbit film; if you wish to trade opinions about how a Hobbit film should be made or who should make it or whether it should be made at all, please start a separate thread and I will heartily join the dialogue. Thanks!

[Sauron the White]

Thank you for posting this article and link. Rather extensive article describing all the trials and tribulations that have beset THE HOBBIT over the last few years. After you finish the article, click on the link at the bottom to read what readers think about a HOBBIT film with or without Jackson. So far, its pretty much one sided.

[Aiwendil]

I suppose I'm rather in the minority, but I would like to see someone other than Jackson have a crack at The Hobbit. Part of that, I suppose, is just a reflection of my dislike for certain aspects of his directorial style. But beyond a mere appraisal of his talents, I just don't see TH as fitting his style. The things that he did the best in LotR are the things that are absent or less present in TH. I guess what I chiefly fear is that TH would become too much an 'epic' in his hands, and that Bilbo himself would be lost in a sea of superfluous melodrama.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

This from the EW piece is just sad:

Many fans would argue that Jackson isn't merely ideal for The Hobbit, but indispensable. His vision is now synonymous with Tolkien's —

[Sauron the White]

Without editorial comment, here are all the comments left at the EW site --- and I copied the entire first page.... this should let you know what the average reader of EW thinks about this.

Add Your CommentCommentsEnglish Professor in California Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 09:02 PM
MUST BE JACKSON. Give him whatever he wants. STUPID, Stupid studio people.

Tiria Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 07:48 PM
New Line has been screwing over Jackson and the actors the entire time. It's ironic, I suppose, that they escaped the clutches of the Weinsteins only to be sucked in by the behemoth that is TimeWarner. Honestly, as much as I would love for Jackson and New Line to come to an agreement soon (especially to work out details of an HD-DVD set for Rings) for the sake of The Hobbit, I actually hope this legal process stalls out for a couple more years so Zaentz can give the rights to another studio.

SueS Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 07:10 PM
No Jackson, no buy ticket. Actually, I haven't gone to a New Line film since Shaye's outburst about Jackson a while back

.Katy Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 07:00 PM
I am glad to see some movement on the Hobbit front. Of course, I'd go see a live action movie whoever the director was, but I think Peter Jackson would be the best choice. Look at what changing directors has done to the Harry Potter films; they just don't work together. Now I hope this movie will get done soon, as some of the actors aren't getting any younger.

Tulip Proudfoot Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 06:53
PM
I would love to have PJ direct "The Hobbit" and to use Weta and Weta Digital to do the FX. I would be loath to see "The Hobbit" made by anyone else.

Aiwendil Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 06:44 PM
I'd actually prefer that someone else directed The Hobbit. I just can't see Jackson pulling it off - The Hobbit doesn't strike me as his style. I suppose I also think he's somewhat overrated as a director.

StillCrazy Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 06:27 PM
I would like to see PJ and crew do it. But there are a handful of others that could do just as good of job. I'll see it no matter who does it, and hope its not as bad as the 70's one.

ElflingImp Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 06:20 PM
If Jackson does'nt do it I won't see it,it would break my heart.

viggolover1 Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 06:01 PM
I will see it only if Peter Jackson directs it. I started reading the books because of the movies. Even my husband who is not a big fanatic on going to the movies and for him a movies is just that a movie, was move by them and thinks that LOTR are the best movies ever!!!

Janne Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 05:59 PM
Im a longtime Tolkien fan, but I honestly think I wouldn't bother seeing a Hobbit movie directed by anyone but Peter Jackson. I have such a place in my heart for the LotR movies that I wouldn't want to spoil it with what must be a lesser vision.

Anonymous Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 05:27 PM
Peter Jackson is the only one to make the Hobbit! Middle-Earth would never be the same with someone else! I would not see the Hobbit in a theatre or on dvd/cable if Peter Jackson does not do the movie's! It would be so AWESOME to here that the Hobbit and second movie is really really going to be made by Jackson! Be still my heart and 3 cheers for Jackson!

Rian Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 05:09 PM
Oh still my beating heart! Could it be....The long expected party! Oh please please, with Jackson, Ian as Ganfalf, our beloved Gollum, Elrond, Weta and all the rest...and soooon!

Ann Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 05:06 PM
No, Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boynes MUST write it, Peter must direct, Weta Workshop must do the other stuff, everybody must come back from LOTR. Otherwise, it won't be the same. And Ian McKellen MUST play Gandalph. Get real New Line, you may hate him but he made you billions.

Horsegirl. Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 05:06 PM
I think that Jackson is the only man for the job- or at least(the very least) as "overseer" of the teams that co-directed the Trilogy with him. His vision of Middle Earth fulfilled all my expectations, and one of the key sequences from the "Hobbit" has already been filmed: Bilbo finding the Ring. Add to that another splendiforous score by Howard Shore,and life will be good...

John Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 04:19 PM
Um...what, exactly, was the point of this article? This has all been known for years now, and the only new 'information' was that "something might, maybe, could, possibly happen within the next year" in the articles' conclusion. Thats some crack reporting there, EW.

Pipkin Skytook Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 04:19 PM
Jackson should TOTALLY do the hobbit. Or eles we won't go to see. Isn't that right, preciousss?

Mells Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 04:09 PM
The Rings books were too expansive for me to get into but the movies are a work of art. Unless Peter Jackson makes The Hobbit I can't say I'd be as excited to see it. Jackson has truly immersed himself in middle-earth and any other director will doubtlessly be compared to Jackson and be found wanting.

anon Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 04:02 PM
Only Jackson can direct it. Period. If anyone else does it, no matter how good, we'll always wonder (as fans) what if... what if... what if... Also, am I the only person in the world that thinks Sam Raimi is a mediocre director? So he has success because of Spiderman. Is that because of the comic or his directing skills? Darkman was a lousy film.

Ultimate Warrior Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 03:53 PM
Greedy ****.....just do the movie ****

hobbitssunkenmeadow_rd Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 03:51 PM
What a question...I want Jackson to direct it, of course, but I found JRR Tolkien via Jackson's FotR and was hooked on the books. My curiosity would get the best of me and I would have to see it no matter who directed it. I'm weak that way.

ObiDon_Kenobi Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 03:40 PM
If Peter Jackson made it, I'd see it, no questions asked. If anyone else made it, I'd refuse to see it at the theatre, and wait until it came out on cable.

[Aiwendil]

Sauron: I think the names and dates at the end of each of those comments actually belong to the following comment. I was the one who said I'd like to see someone else do it, not the one who "would be loath to see "The Hobbit" made by anyone else."

Just so nobody thinks I have dissociative identity disorder myself - or accuses me of "flip-flopping" (I'm looking at you, Farael!).

[Sauron the White]

Aiwendil -- thank you for pointing out that error ... I fixed it ... hopefully it is now correct.

And I think you have a fan .... this was in comments from the last hour

To Aiwendil Thu, Oct 04, 07 at 09:22 PM
Are you CRAZY?! The Hobbit isn't Peter Jackson's 'style'?! Uh, hello? Did you happen to notice that The Hobbit is the prequel to LOTR? Duh! Dumbest statement I've heard in a long time. And he's "overrated"? Ever bother to watch the LOTR films? Give me a friggin break!

Not exactly the paragon of intelligent understatement is it?

[Aiwendil]

I think I've been soundly refuted.

[Mister Underhill]

Now that's worth a genuine lol. Aiwendil, you really must be CRAZY!! Hello, the average EW reader thinks so. Dumbest statement he's heard in a long time, and you know that's a high bar to get over.

[Bêthberry]

Perhaps the most sanguine thing that can be said about the reply to Aiwendil's comment is that it would appear that not all the comments are coming from PJ's publicist. (All praise the anonymity of the internet.)

Well, at least, I would normally surmise that a professional publicist would find that particular bar not one to stretch to, but I suppose it is possible that anyone who makes Gimli the butt of jokes could have that kind of publicist.

[Quempel]

It's funny to see myself quoted in one of my other identities.

I wasn't the one who refuted Aiwendil either. I don't like doing that to wizards, they tend to turn me into a fairy with frog legs, and I prefer being a fairy with wings.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

This is, however, the average reader of Entertainment Weekly, not Philosophical Quarterly

You gotta love this: "The Rings books were too expansive for me to get into but the movies are a work of art."

BTW, Aiwendil, that's not much a refutation, since the poster apparently detects no difference in style between Hobbit and LR! (and calls it a 'prequel.' Gaaaah.....)

[Sauron the White]

And even if William is correct making that statement while looking down his nose at the great unwashed , there are a whole lot more people who buy and read EW than PhQ. The movie business is about selling tickets to the masses. That is the way of the world - like it or not. I am certain that right now in the offices of New Line they have people reading the EW feedback postings and keeping track of how public opinion is going. They may be crooks and they may be greedy crooks, but they can count.

[Aiwendil]

BTW, Aiwendil, that's not much a refutation, since the poster apparently detects no difference in style between Hobbit and LR! (and calls it a 'prequel.' Gaaaah.....)

I don't know, the poster makes a pretty well-reasoned case with: "Duh! Dumbest statement I've heard in a long time."

Quod erat demonstrandum.

[Meriadoc1961]

I am looking forward to it, regardless of who makes it. Although I have offered my share of criticism, I still believe Jackson could and would do a good job with it.

Merry

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Of course Bob Shaye can count. And if his beancounters tell him that PJ directing "Gandalf versus Godzilla" will put butts in the seats, he'll be on it like flies on roadkill.

A match made in Hell- the producer of Nightmare on Elm Street and the director of Brain Dead.

[Sauron the White]

A match made in Hell- the producer of Nightmare on Elm Street and the director of Brain Dead.

That particular neighborhood of Hell certainly must produce some tremendous pairings for this one netted $4 billion dollars US, 17 Academy Awards including Best Film, numerous other industry awards including a spot on the American Film Institute top fifty films of all time, and nearly unanimous professional critical reviews.

If that was a union or match made in Hell, please put me down for the next pick of that litter.

[Meriadoc1961]

"I'll say it again: There's way too much money to be made on a Hobbit film for it not to happen. It won't be here before 2010 (and even that's probably an early estimate), but it will come. And PJ will be at the helm."

E and E, I am not saying I disagree with you completely, but sometimes some individuals have enough money not to want to to do something again, even when they were successful together previously. The Beatles come to my mind. They were thrown all around all kinds of offers, even as much as $1,000,000 US for a single reunion concert, and it never materialized.

Still, I hope you are right.

Merry

[Sauron the White]

This just in from MTV's Movie Blog

Still buzzing from the advance buzz of “The Golden Compass” at New Line’s 40th anniversary gala in New York on Friday night, New Line’s co-chairmen and co-CEO’s Bob Shaye and Michael Lynne were in great spirits — so we figured they wouldn’t mind a little “Hobbit” question. After all, “Golden Compass” features a mini “Lord of the Rings” reunion of sorts, with Ian McKellan (who of course played Gandalf) voicing the panserbjørne Iorek Byrnison, and Christopher Lee (who played the traitor wizard Saruman) making a cameo in the Magisterium (The voice you hear in the trailer is pre-McKellan, with a different voice actor).

So could a bigger “Lord of the Rings” reunion be in the making, as a “cautiously optimistic” Entertainment Weekly reports, possibly with Peter Jackson as the executive producer and someone else directing “The Hobbit”? (Hear what we learned after the jump.)

Neither New Line nor Jackson’s camp would give comment to the magazine, but Shaye and Lynne, as much as they tried to dodge it, did give comment to us. “One film at a time!” Shaye laughed. “‘The Hobbit’ is in the future,” Lynne said, somewhat mysteriously. Does that mean there’s hope? “There’s more than hope,” Lynne said with a wink, as he walked away. So no details yet, but plans are definitely underway.

[davem]

Well, let's get it over with then.

I intend to try & avoid the whole thing. Another three hours of thud & blunder from PJ would be bad enough, but its the hype, the marketing, the action figures, burgers & breakfast cereal tie-ins, et al that make me really depressed.

Can't Jackson & New Line go off & make a multi billion dollar adaptation of The Wheel of Time or some other trashy fantasy 'epic' & leave TH alone? The thought of that beautiful little tale, the one that sparked my love of Tolkien, being turned into a 'Jacksonian' monstrosity, full of 'comic' dwarves, blood, violence, ugliness, beheadings & general stupidness is too awful to contemplate.

And does anyone really think that this children's book will make it to the screen in a form suitable for children to watch? Nope. More PG-13 close up nastiness to please the 17 year-old boys taking a couple of hours off from playing the latest incarnation of Grand Theft Auto.

[Sauron the White]

Yet again -for what must be my now a number beyond calculation (see how easy it is to do this?) you lapse into hyperbole of the worst sort to heap your special brand of scron upon Peter Jackson. Exaggeration upon exaggeration equaling distortion which no longer even resembles reality is what you seem to specialize in.

THUD AND BLUNDER. No doubt one of your pet phrases since you have used it before in discussing these matters of the LOTR films. In point of fact davem, you may know a great deal about the writings of JRRT, but your knowledge of the films is tiny because of your own self induced blindness.

Here is an example of actual thud and blunder

With one stroke of his fifty-pound sword, Gnorts the Barbarian lopped off the head of Nialliv the Wizard. It flew through the air, still sneering, while Gnorts clove two royal guardsmen from vizor through breasplate to steel jockstrap. As he whirled to escape, an arrow glanced off his own chainmail. Then he was gone from the room, into the midnight city. Easily outrunning pursuit, he took a few sentries at the gate by surprise. For a moment, arms and legs hailed around him through showers of blood; then he had opened the gate and was free. A caravan of merchants, waiting to enter at dawn, was camped nearby. Seeing a magnificent stallion tethered, Gnorts released it, twisted the rope into a bridle, and rode it off bareback. After galloping several miles, he encountered a mounted patrol that challenged him. Immediately he plunged into the thick of the cavalrymen, swinging his blade right and left with deadly effect, rearing up his steed to bring its forefeet against one knight who dared to confront him directly. Then it was only to gallop onward. Winter winds lashed his body, attired in nothing more than a bearskin kilt, but he ignored the cold. Sunrise revealed the shore and his waiting longship. He knew the swift-sailing craft could bring him across five hundred leagues of monster-infested ocean in time for him to snatch the maiden princess Elamef away from evil Baron Rehcel while she remained a maiden — not that he intended to leave her in that condition … .

It was written by Poul Anderson in an essay discussing that type of writing.

http://www.sfwa.org/writing/thud.htm

a complete copy of the essay can be found through the above link.

Thud and blunder is a gross exaggeration to the point where it becomes a parody or satire of its original form - heroic fantasy or the sword and sorcery tale. However, you utilize it merely to throw dirt upon the Jackson films simply because you yourself do not approve of them. And that is rank bias.

A few days ago you posted a wonderful answer to me regarding the question of Sauron needing the ring to win his war against the Free Peoples of Middle-earth. You helped me see that I was looking at it all wrong. I value your opinion on the books and thanked you for that. You are a very knowledgable person when it comes to the writings of JRRT.

But when it comes to the films, you have a blind spot that is large and unyielding. In order to battle the films you take every single inch of possible fault and turn it into a mile. A single pound turns into a ton. A simple farmers hut turns into a skyscraper. You cannot simply state a real situation you must exaggerate it to the point of being ridiculous.

Because the LOTR films contained some sword fighting and battle action they now become thud and blunder. By that standard, every tale involving love becomes a sweaty bodice ripper. Every tale that sees someone killed becomes a bloody gorefest.

Perhaps these are not the films that you yourself would have done if the opportunity and skill had presented itself. But there is great beauty and subtlety in those films. There is great attention to detail and thousands of man hours of labor to get things as right as possible within the limits of the film medium.

[davem]

Yes, yes, yes.....

We'll see who's proved right. The book can be read & enjoyed by anyone from five upwards. It is fun, moving, scary (as opposed to terrifying), exciting (as opposed to violent).

Face it - the 'fans' who are screaming for a Hobbit movie are screaming for another LotR, with the action & violence, I've lost count of the number of articles, message boards & discussion fora where those demanding a Hobbit movie have neither read, nor care to read, The Hobbit, are demanding that Aragorn & Legolas are brought back, think TH is a sequel to LotR, & would go absolutely MENTAL!!!! if they turned up to the cinema to see 'PJ's return to M-e' & found themselves watching a 'U' movie.

I've said this before - if a Hobbit movie contained material that made it unsuitable for young children to watch it would be the biggest slap in the face imaginable to Tolkien, who wrote the book for his own young children - but if a Hobbit movie does turn out to be suitable for such an audience the fanboys who are currently most vociferous in demanding a PJ Hobbit will whine about being presented with a kid's movie.

The Poul Anderson excerpt you gave is much more in PJ's line.

[Sauron the White]

davem

My point with you was NOT in discusssing a non-existant movie that has not yet even gottene the green light. It seems the height of folly to argue about the merits of a Jackson helmed HOBBIT when we do not have such a product to look at. You seem bent on
1- strictly defining what YOU think the HOBBIT is and anyone who thinks otherwise is plainly an idiot
2- telling us what a Jackson HOBBIT will look like and judging this non-existant film to be trash
3- judging the motivations and thoughts of people who want to see a HOBBIT film as if they all had exactly the same beliefs

That is foolish.

Here is what you did say

We'll see who's proved right. The book can be read & enjoyed by anyone from five upwards. It is fun, moving, scary (as opposed to terrifying), exciting (as opposed to violent).

Proved right about what? My point with you was to take you to task for your continued misuse of the term "thud and blunder". Your continued use of gross exaggeration and misrepresentation of the Jackson films for your own biased purposes is what I am complaining about. You use it for the purpose of mocking the Jackson films and throwing dirt upon them. If you read the excerpt I citied and the entire Anderson article you will soon see that it DOES NOT apply to the Jackson films. Check that - a person with an open mind using rational thought would soon see that fact - a biased person with their mind already firmly made up is probably hopeless.

Face it - the 'fans' who are screaming for a Hobbit movie are screaming for another LotR, with the action & violence, I've lost count of the number of articles, message boards & discussion fora where those demanding a Hobbit movie have neither read, nor care to read, The Hobbit, are demanding that Aragorn & Legolas are brought back, think TH is a sequel to LotR, & would go absolutely MENTAL!!!! if they turned up to the cinema to see 'PJ's return to M-e' & found themselves watching a 'U' movie.

Again, you like to judge people and tell them what thoughts are in their head and what motivates their actions and beliefs. Some power you have. I would imagine that there are quite a variety of people who want the HOBBIT made and they have differing and varied things they want to see in it. That tends to be the way of human nature. Could you please identify what a U movie is? I googled it and found nothing that would help me understand your comment.

Will it be a kiddie movie? Who knows? Lets have that discussion when it comes out. I suspect - if Jackson helms it - that it will have elements from the book combined with the sense of Middle-earth that he captured in the LOTR films to give a sense of continuity to the films. Is it a sequel? I always thought it was a PREQUEL as the cover to the HOBBIT indicated for many years.

I've said this before - if a Hobbit movie contained material that made it unsuitable for young children to watch it would be the biggest slap in the face imaginable to Tolkien, who wrote the book for his own young children - but if a Hobbit movie does turn out to be suitable for such an audience the fanboys who are currently most vociferous in demanding a PJ Hobbit will whine about being presented with a kid's movie.

Again, you strictly define in your mind what the HOBBIT is and then argue from that very limited definition. I have never thought of the book as something for a five year old as you indicate in your post but more along the lines of THE WIZARD OF OZ. A tale for older kids to read and has enough interesting material in it to appeal to older readers also.

It seems to me that when you argue against a Jackson filmed HOBBIT, you very carefully craft your position so that you can jump up later and say "I told you so" irregardless of the eventual quality of that film.

The Poul Anderson excerpt you gave is much more in PJ's line.

You make a judgment and offer nothing to support this.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

I have never thought of the book as something for a five year old as you indicate in your post but more along the lines of THE WIZARD OF OZ. A tale for older kids to read and has enough interesting material in it to appeal to older readers also.

Just a question here: how old were Tolkien's boys when he recited The Hobbit to them as a bedtime--rather, evening tea time--story? In Carpenter I can find this:

Originally Posted by Enter Mr. Baggins

In 1937, shortly after the book was published, Christopher Tolkien recorded (in his letter to Father Christmas) this account of the book's origin: 'Daddy wrote it ages ago, and read it to John, Michael and me in our Winter "Reads" after tea in the evening; but the ending chapters were rather roughly done, and not typed out at all; he finished it about a year ago.' And writing to his publishers during the same year, Tolkien declared: 'My eldest boy was thirteen when he heard the serial. It did not appeal to the younger ones who had to grow up to it successively.'

Of course, children in those days were so much more innocent--naive?--than they are today.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

PJ would probably be safer doing The Hobbit then LOTR.
It would give him scope for the positives of the films (scenery,
movie character selection, etc.) while there are sufficient
"dramatic" scenes/characters in TH such as the trolls,
giant spiders, Battle of Five Armies, Beorn (probably
shown dismembering the orc and warg ) that he
might not even have to resort to dwarf tossing (although
one can picture a PJ changed dwarf meeting with Beorn ).

And it does seem obvious, with all the $$$$$ to be made, that
there will be a (probably two-part) Hobbit made.

[Folwren]

Davem's probably right, you know, STW. The Hobbit isn't going to be fit for kids as well as older people to watch. It'll be too violent (Beorn tearing apart and orc and warg limb by limb, as Tuor puts it) and too scary. Once more, my family and I will gather in the fireplace room to watch it, having to hold the remote control in hand ready to fast forward the parts that are gross and that my Mom doesn't want to see.

...That doesn't mean I won't enjoy it, but I do wish we didn't have to see unacceptable stuff, too.

-- Folwren

[Sauron the White]

Middle-earth for children. For 33 years I taught public school. The last 23 as a high school teacher of 17 and 18 year olds. However, my degree and certification was for all grades. I distinctly recall taking two courses in Childrens Literature for my masters degree. I even had a hand in forming some childrens books of my own when I created a series of characters and the basic plot of a book called ODDKINS written by Dean Koontz. So I am not a virgin in the world of what children read and what appeals to them.

I have a grandson who will be six in a few weeks. He has already seen all three of the LOTR films- each and every scene without censorship - and (as of this writing) has not decapitated any of his fellow first graders at school attempting to emulate the Mouth of Sauron scene or, his personal favorite, Aragorn dispatching Lurtz in FOTR. He does very well at school and seems normal. Because some nameless person in the family indoctrinated him into the world of Middle-earth when he was just four, it is his favorite thing in the world.

I see nothing in the HOBBIT which would preclude anyone his age from seeing a film done in the style of LOTR. Jackson could make THE HOBBIT with every scene as JRRT wrote it, then adapting it to fit into the style of LOTR, and even stretching out the Battle of the Five Armies making it the Helms Deep of the piece. I see nothing there that kids could not see. Let us remember that these are the children of the 21st century not the kiddies of pre WWII times.

The budget on this film will be at least $100 million dollars US and probably closer to double that once all is said and done. No studio that I am aware of will allow that kind of money to be spent on a kiddie film aimed at ages 5 through 9. Not a one. And besides, kids at that age today would have little interest in seeing a dumbed down, sanitaized movie that harkens back to the decade of the Great Depression. It simply is not going to happen.

[Folwren]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

I see nothing in the HOBBIT which would preclude anyone his age from seeing a film done in the style of LOTR. Jackson could make THE HOBBIT with every scene as JRRT wrote it, then adapting it to fit into the style of LOTR, and even stretching out the Battle of the Five Armies making it the Helms Deep of the piece. I see nothing there that kids could not see. Let us remember that these are the children of the 21st century not the kiddies of pre WWII times.

Okay, forget the kids. What about me and other people like me? I'm nineteen and I still hide my eyes during battle scenes when they do close ups of people getting hacked to pieces and arrows going through orcses eyes. In theater I rolled up in a ball with my arms clasped about my ears and my eyes tight shut as the captain in Osgiliath was killed with a spear through his chest. It's disgusting, and while I accepted it for LotR because it was meant for adults, I don't think it'll be nice to watch it in The Hobbit.

And besides, kids at that age today would have little interest in seeing a dumbed down, sanitaized movie that harkens back to the decade of the Great Depression. It simply is not going to happen.

We're not asking it to be dumbed down. We're asking the opposite. There are other things beside violence and 'dumbed down' humor relief that makes movies good, and that's what I believe davem is saying.

[Sauron the White]

from Folwren

Okay, forget the kids. What about me and other people like me? I'm nineteen and I still hide my eyes during battle scenes when they do close ups of people getting hacked to pieces and arrows going through orcses eyes. In theater I rolled up in a ball with my arms clasped about my ears and my eyes tight shut as the captain in Osgiliath was killed with a spear through his chest.

That was your honest reaction and you are entitled to it. I do have an sincere and serious question for you. Do you think that your reaction is typical of todays filmgoer? I am not trying to cast any doubts as to your intestinal fortitude but I saw the movie a dozen times in the theater and never once saw anybody around me who had that severe of a reaction to anything in the film.

If Tolkien wrote it, or wrote about it, or wrote scenes in which that type of thing very likely did take place (like carnage at Helms Deep which may not have been as specific in the books but which most certainly was part of it) it would seem fair game for inclusion by a filmmaker.

While I certainly am not a subscriber to magazines like Fangoria or other blood-and-guts valentines to sadism, I do see nothing wrong with a somewhat realistic portrayal of battlefield violence. In fact, I remember from my youth in the Fifties -- a time which was sanitaized to protect us little ones - when a person would get shot, there was no wound, no blood, no real effects at all. You can make a case that type of thing is far more harmful to ideas about real violence than a realistic portrayal is.

I guess if JRRT wrote it in THE HOBBIT, then its fair game for a filmmaker.

[Child of the 7th Age]

I guess if JRRT wrote it in THE HOBBIT, then its fair game for a filmmaker.

Since the movie rights have been sold off, it is indeed fair game for a filmaker. I think we can be fairly certain that the Hobbit will not be presented as a children's film, although it was written as a children's book. Given PJ's overall filmaking resume and the tone of the LotR, I do not expect him to make a children's film. I am assuming that what we will get will be a prequel to LotR. Certain events and characters will be included in a two-part film that did not actually occupy a major place in the book. Hopefully, there will be logical reasons for what is included in this "expanded" Hobbit.

Would Tolkien roll over in his grave at the thought of an "adult" Hobbit. I'm not so sure. After all, he himself tried to revise it to make it a true prequel to LotR. He gave it up very quickly but the mere fact he tried to do it says a lot.

I am not a PJ hater. For the most part, I enjoyed the films and am glad they were made. They certainly introduced a lot of people to the books that would probably not have come to them any other way. The film will undoubtedly be more violent than the book. I can accept that. (And my daughter, ten at the time Fellowship came out, was one of those hiding her head in her hands at some parts of the film.) But I do hope that at least some of the "whimsy" and gentle humor of the Hobbit will be retained in the film. It would be a shame if all that was dropped. We shall see....

[HerenIstarion]

Though I remember being asked not to discuss the director preferences but exchange news in this thread... most part of discussion up to now has been, well, a discussion of tastes and not mere exchange of news at all

So safe enough for me to plunge in I reckon...

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

Hopefully, there will be logical reasons for what is included in this "expanded" Hobbit...

...But I do hope that at least some of the "whimsy" and gentle humor of the Hobbit will be retained in the film. It would be a shame if all that was dropped. We shall see....

My feeling exactly. Though, if I were to be honest, I'd prefer someone else. Or whole crew of 'someone elses'. Ones that would not pointlessly add/cut/paste the way they did it in LoTR. 'Epic by Jackson, (C)) is all very fine, but all in all, after watching LoTR several times, I have a feeling there is nothing but epic in it. I've purchased copies as they came out (ordering them overseas through Amazon). But these last two years or so, I've lended them and am not too eager to ask them back, not even sure who exactly of the borrowers has them at the moment.

Probably I'll watch TH regardless of who films it, kind of a must do I assume But probably once.

[Finduilas]

Talked to family last night, well only Mom, Pop, and sister, and parents said that they wouldn't mind a PJ'ed version, as long as you didn't see things that Tolkien didn't put in. They mentioned Helms Deep, and said they wouldn't want a chapter to take an hour again. Also, I brought up Beorn, as it was mentioned in this thread, and they said that since all that was in the book was Beorn with the skin and head, that is all that should be in the movie.

STW asked Folwren if she thought that all veiwers reacted the same way as she did. I'm sure they probably didn't. But that really isn't excusable. Just because this generation is exposed to everything doesn't mean they should be.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Though I remember being asked not to discuss the director preferences but exchange news in this thread... most part of discussion up to now has been, well, a discussion of tastes and not mere exchange of news at all

So safe enough for me to plunge in I reckon...



My feeling exactly. Though, if I were to be honest, I'd prefer someone else. Or whole crew of 'someone elses'. Ones that would not pointlessly add/cut/paste the way they did it in LoTR. 'Epic by Jackson, (C)) is all very fine, but all in all, after watching LoTR several times, I have a feeling there is nothing but epic in it. I've purchased copies as they came out (ordering them overseas through Amazon). But these last two years or so, I've lended them and am not too eager to ask them back, not even sure who exactly of the borrowers has them at the moment.

Probably I'll watch TH regardless of who films it, kind of a must do I assume But probably once.

It is always good to see a post from the Deadnight Chanter! Hi HI. And of course your timely return reminds us that you were one of the first Downs Daddies. How's the son? and wife of course too. Any new pictures? Have you read TH to him yet? In Engish or Russian?

As for watching TH once or more, I suppose it depends on how this two part film smorgashboard comes out. Would we be subjected to a similar kind of release, Part One one year, Part Two the year following? Frankly, even with padding and making up Legendarium stuff to fill it out, I wonder if the second wouldn't end up feeling like we've all over eaten. (Certainly all the battle scenes in RotK left me feeling that way.)

[Mister Underhill]

If the filmmakers dramatize everything that's alluded to in TH, they could come up with a lot of event. I could see them opening up with Smaug's original attack on Lonely Mountain, for instance, or even with Gandalf encountering Thrain in the dungeons of Dol Guldur, though they'd have to be careful with that scene since they don't have rights to UT, which as I recall has a fuller account of how Gandalf obtained the map and the key.

The problem I foresee for a two-part adaptation is that part two would be battle heavy: the White Council's attack on Dol Guldur, Smaug running amok on Dale, and then of course the Battle of Five Armies. I suppose if you tweak and fuss you might be able to climax the first film with the attack on Dol Guldur, perhaps intercut with Bilbo & Co defeating the spiders only to be taken prisoner by Elves, as a sort of cliffhanger.

Of course, it's easy to see how the story of poor little Bilbo might get a little lost amidst all those fireworks.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

The problem I foresee for a two-part adaptation is that part two would be battle heavy: the White Council's attack on Dol Guldur, Smaug running amok on Dale, and then of course the Battle of Five Armies. I suppose if you tweak and fuss you might be able to climax the first film with the attack on Dol Guldur, perhaps intercut with Bilbo & Co defeating the spiders only to be taken prisoner by Elves, as a sort of cliffhanger.

Of course, it's easy to see how the story of poor little Bilbo might get a little lost amidst all those fireworks.

And another Downer Daddy peeks out from the perambulating rounds of the Parental Abyss. How's the tyke, Mr. Underhill? Any signs of any Took forebears?

Gosh, doesn't this make three Downer sons? Four and we've got the start of a Fellowship!

Indeed, that is one of my concerns, too many battles, as with my boredom with RotK. Plus too much screen time to Aragorn and Legolas. I saw a comment recently where someone suggested that Jackson might have Arwen in Rivendell teach the dwarves and Bilbo some barrel rolling.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

The budget on this film will be at least $100 million dollars US and probably closer to double that once all is said and done. No studio that I am aware of will allow that kind of money to be spent on a kiddie film aimed at ages 5 through 9. Not a one. And besides, kids at that age today would have little interest in seeing a dumbed down, sanitaized movie that harkens back to the decade of the Great Depression. It simply is not going to happen.

Well, they don't have to make the movie, do they? You seem to be implying that the movie has to be made, & that the best has to be made of a bad job: The Hobbit movie must be made, but, tragically, it can't be made for children, & the tale must be re-written to include dwarf tossing jokes, beheadings & inhabitants of Esgaroth being turned into human torches by Smaug (& then running three laps around the Long Lake, climbing the Lonely Mountain & hurling themselves from the summit, no doubt ...)

If they don't want to make the Hobbit movie suitable for the same audience as the book they can leave it alone & make something else.

[Sauron the White]

Perhaps what places me in a different category than some others is that I try to deal with reality. I am not attempting to predict the future but simply speculate on - what for the moment - appears to be the inevitable, a HOBBIT film. It looks like a deal will come soon, and if not, will then more than likely come a few tears later. But come it will.

I also accept the reality of the business aspect of movie making complete with its financial budgets and expectations of return of investment. I also understand what a target audience is.

Another difference is that I do not climb the five-hundred steps each day to better see the lowly world from my Ivory Tower in the Sky.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Any signs of any Took forebears?

Aye, he's already far too fond of adventure and mischief to be from the respectable side of the Baggins tree. A strong dash of Tookishness for sure, I reckon.

Originally Posted by Bb

Plus too much screen time to Aragorn and Legolas. I saw a comment recently where someone suggested that Jackson might have Arwen in Rivendell teach the dwarves and Bilbo some barrel rolling.

I don't see how you could get much more than a cameo from the two LotR heartthrobs, unless maybe Aragorn shows up at the attack on Dol Guldur. Come to think of it, who better than Lego to make the shot that brings Smaug down, perhaps after leaping aboard the great wyrm's wing and then taking a few acrobatic twirls around his midsection.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Aragorn shows up at the attack on Dol Guldur.

2931 Aragorn son of Arathorn II born on March 1st.
2941 The White Council meets; Saruman agrees to an attack on Dol Guldur, since he now wishes to prevent Sauron from searching the River. Sauron having made his plans abandons Dol Guldur.

At the age of 10?... Though I would not put it past 'filmmakers' to tweak it a bit, why not if just a dozenful of years later another entry reads as

2956 Aragorn meets Gandalf and their friendship begins.

How's the son? and wife of course too. Any new pictures? Have you read TH to him yet? In Engish or Russian?

A little trouble with bronchial tubes for last two months but otherwise ok
http://www.geocities.com/gl_century/...s/DSC02417.jpg
Read bits (English) - he tends to take away the book and play with it (= tear it apart with no malicious intentions, just for the fun of it)

Aye, he's already far too fond of adventure and mischief to be from the respectable side of the Baggins tree. A strong dash of Tookishness for sure, I reckon.

If mine were not a wizardling as he is coming from HerenIstarion, I would sign my name under the quote

Another difference is that I do not climb the five-hundred steps each day to better see the lowly world from my Ivory Tower in the Sky

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?

[davem]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

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?

Exactly - you don't have to aim a movie at seven year olds, but you do have to make a movie that suitable for, & understandable by, seven year olds. The idea that something that 'belongs' to children will be taken from them & turned into 'adult' (or at least teenage) fare, is depressing & simply unfair. And it would be done simply to boost the profits of New Line & Warner.

The idea of a Hobbit movie with the kind of graphic violence & horror we saw in the LotR movies is just unacceptable to me.