Posted on 10/15/2010 7:51:41 PM PDT by Lucius Cornelius Sulla
OSCAR WINNER PETER JACKSON TO DIRECT “THE HOBBIT” IN TWO INSTALLMENTS
Peter Jackson Set to Direct J.R.R Tolkien’s “The Hobbit,” In a Two-Part 3D Production of Extraordinary Scope
(Los Angeles, October 15, 2010) The two films based on “The Hobbit” are now greenlit and will begin principal photography in February 2011, under the direction of Peter Jackson, it was jointly announced today by Toby Emmerich, President and Chief Operating Officer, New Line Cinema, Alan Horn, President and Chief Operating Officer, Warner Bros. and Steve Cooper, co-Chief Executive Officer of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc..
“Exploring Tolkien’s Middle-earth goes way beyond a normal film-making experience” Jackson says, “It’s an all-immersive journey into a very special place of imagination, beauty and drama. We’re looking forward to re-entering this wondrous world with Gandalf and Bilbo – and our friends at New Line Cinema, Warner Brothers and MGM”.
(Excerpt) Read more at theonering.net ...
About time!
PING!
You can say that again! The purists will be upset about the 3-D, but they are still griping about Tom Bombadil.
Amen! Although I hope they stick closer to the book then the Trilogy series did. Although I will concede, if they had included all that was in the trilogy books, we would still be watching movie number one.
Excellent news, but do we have any idea about potential cast members??
Bilbo?? Gandalf?? Thorin Oakenshield??
??
3-D, eh? Well, that's cool. I just hope they shoot it in 2-D simultaneously.
You know, if I'd read the trilogy before seeing the movies, I'd likely be a purist, too. In the case of LOTR, I'm happy that I'm doing it backwards. I probably wouldn't have enjoyed the movies half as much, if I'd known the story, beforehand.
3D is only bad if they focus on that so much the 2D viewed version is blech.
What about Tom Bombadil? They’re not leaving the character out, are they?
Btw, I always thought if young, Patrick Macnee would’ve made the perfect Bombadil.
And the downside to such a thing would be...??
I use to always pass over the part of Tom Bombadil but, as I have grown older, that story has become precious to me. As much as the story seemed out of place in the whole of LOR so is Tom’s life in respect to the whole of Middle-earth.
We all yearn for our own safe place where the terrors of the of the world CANNOT intrude. I could go on but... it’s time for bed!
Guess I’m a purist. :-)
I just find 3D to be distracting from the story ...
I wonder what continuity Jackson will be able to bring to the story, in casting decisions and so forth. As I recall, only Gandalf, Bilbo, and Gollum actually occur as characters in both The Hobbit and LOTR.
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! LOL!
‘Excellent news, but do we have any idea about potential cast members??’
I expect that they will start signing contracts and announcing cast members almost immediately. It is expected that the cast members from TLOTR who were in the Hobbit will repeat (Gandalf, Elrond, Gollum, Galadriel). Bilbo is much too old, and Saruman probably is too (he wasn’t in the book, but it is expected that the White Council will be included in the movies). Speculation has included nearly every English speaking actor in the world. Go to “ http://www.theonering.net/ “ for discussions.
And:
No Fatty Bolger and the house on the edge of the Old Forest
Arwen carrying Frodo to the ford
Not forging Anduril before they left Rivendell
Aragorn's bizarre reluctance to assume his rightful station
The Elves showing up at Helm's Deep
No Dúnedain accompanying Aragorn in the Paths of the Dead
No Scouring of the Shire
,etc.
But the films were a good effort.
Heck, I was a fan of Prince Imrahil, but they left him out anyhow.
They are going to include some of the darker material that occurs only as stories in The Hobbit, such as the White Council and the Necromancer.
“I have grown older, that story has become precious to me.”
It’s been called that before but not by you. I think you’ve had that story quite long enough. ;)
LOL!
My husband wondered if anyone would get it. When I was pregnant with my 3rd child, my husband worked nights and I didn’t sleep well. I fell asleep watching those movies every night. I have them memorized.
I am one of the Hobbit Hole Hobbits, ever since the original HH thread. Actually I started posting about the philosophical importance of the Ring movies since about the time they started filming them. Can’t say I’ve memorized them though. First read the books in the 1960’s.
Well the Silmarilion has about 10,000 years of history to adapt, but folks aren’t as familiar with it as TLOTR or The Hobbit.
I see a young Aragorn sliding into the screen, as well as Legolas (for the chicks in the audience).
Elrond and Saruman, of course, and maybe a reappearence of the Witch-King (at Dol Guldur by this time).
As Christian mythologist Tolkein is unsurpassed, imo, even by C.S. Lewis. I too read the books in the 60’s, twice. The second time straight through in 3 days. That was long ago and far away....
Legolas is particularly possible, since he was a Wood Elf, the ones that Bilbo and the dwarves meet up with. According to most chronologies, Aragorn would have been a teen-ager or younger. The character is possible, but not Viggo.
To make the story into a quality movie - which would require many installments - would be a feat near to the creation of the Sillmarills themselves.
Since good ‘ol Tom Bombadill was missing, it has me wondering if Beorn, the shape shifter will be included.
They blew the whole effort right there. It was the point of everything, according to Gandalf.
Should have been one movie. Making it in two parts is a marketing decision, not an artistic one.
My opinion of Peter Jackson as a movie maker was marred forever by having to sit through a screening of his remake of King Kong.
‘It was the point of everything, according to Gandalf.’
A good example of why a novel can’t be fully transmitted to film. As drama the Scouring of the Shire would have been an enormous anti-climax.
Not if it was done properly, I don’t believe.
But, in any case, it would have been better than the nonsense they tacked on the end of it anyway.
The ending of the movie was similar in tone to the end of the books, Bilbo, Frodo, and the last Elves sailing out of the Grey Havens, and Sam returning to his happy home.
Turning things over to the night shift, good night.
Great news!
IMO, it was very poorly done.
Bombadil didn’t appear in The Hobbit. He was left out of LOTR.
There is plenty of material to draw on from the Book of Lost Tales I&II as well...The Fall of Gondolin comes particularly to mind...
Telling the tale of the Silmarils and keeping it as close to the text as possible would be an even bigger challenge than LOTR was, but it could be done, but it would be a life’s work to keep a project like that on track. It would also be a way to break out of the entire cast of LOTR and start fresh with a new cast, but it would take more than three films to do it right.
Back to the Hobbit...I’ll be very interested to see who they pick up for the Dwarves too...
WooHoo!!
Yep, we are now in the Second Age, the time of The Hobbit.
True, it would have been interminable. I think Peter Jackson did an awesome job bringing Tolkein’s words to life. Folks can quibble about what was left in, and what was left out (The Scouring of the Shire, IMO, chief among many), but all in all it was a wonderful group of films.
I could dispense with Tom Bombadil, which wasn't really crucial to the story line, but I WAS upset about them leaving out "The scouring of the Shire", where the combat-veteran hobbits return to the Shire and deal a final conclusion to Saruman (who had taken over while they were busy with Mordor)
Not necessarily. One of the first things Gandalf says to Bilbo at the beginning of Fellowship is, "You haven't aged a day". It's my understanding that from the time Bilbo found the One Ring, his aging slowed, because of the power bestowed on the one who possesses it. So whatever Bilbo looked like at the beginning of Fellowship is what he would look like in The Hobbit. I could understand, though, if Jackson wants to go with someone a little younger than Ian Holm; it certainly wouldn't make me enjoy the movie any less.
See #36, above.
Sir Ian (Holm) has long said he is simply not up to it. (Nice to have a cast with TWO ‘Sir Ians’ again though).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.