Posted on 12/18/2007 8:50:25 AM PST by Abathar
NEW YORK - Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema have reached agreement to make J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Hobbit," a planned prequel to the blockbuster trilogy "The Lord of the Rings."
Jackson, who directed the "Rings" trilogy, will serve as executive producer for "The Hobbit." A director for the prequel films has yet to be named.
Relations between Jackson and New Line had soured after "Rings," despite a collective worldwide box office gross of nearly $3 billion — an enormous success. The two sides nevertheless were able to reconcile, with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios (MGM) splitting "The Hobbit" 50/50, spokemen for both studios said Tuesday.
"I'm very pleased that we've been able to put our differences behind us, so that we may begin a new chapter with our old friends at New Line," Jackson said in a statement. "We are delighted to continue our journey through Middle Earth."
Two "Hobbit" films are scheduled to be shot simultaneously, similar to how the three "Lord of the Rings" films were made. Production is set to begin in 2009 with a released planned for 2010, with the sequel scheduled for a 2011 release.
New Line Cinema is owned by Time Warner. Sony and Comcast are among the owners of MGM.
One thing in particular The Golden Compass, a disastrous failure endangering the survival of New Line Cinema.
The discussions I read on this subject say the break will occur after the end of the Hobbit, with the 'filler' you mentioned coming from some of Tolkien's appendices on the 60 years between then and TLOTR. There is another theory that the story which goes on in the background of the Hobbit, involving Gandalf's meeting with the White Council, and their actions against Sauron's gathering of strength in Mirkwood Forest could be included.
He's dissing the troops. He said specifically that, in his view, the U.S. is the bad guy, that we're bombing innocent civilians in Afghanistan, and so on. That's dissing the troops.
Listen, we have the LOTR movies on DVD, we went to see the movies, etc. etc. They made a lot of money from us. Now they're each using their fame to promote their political views. And it's important for everyone here to know that.
Huzzah!
There’s a nice Holiday Inn in Joplin, MO I used to stay in on my way back to Texas; while that was a few years ago, I don’t imagine they’d have done aught but improve it. Near the center of CONUS, a good day’s ride from MI or TX or VA or IA, and a couple from WA unless somebody wanted to fly to St Louis and be picked up by westward travellers....
The movies are great. But, Viggo just about ruined them all for me, too, especially because he played my favorite character. Also because he admitted he never even read LOTR until he was on the plane headed to start filming. I’m not sure he ever read the whole trilogy. Arghhh.
Also almost ruining it was the actor who played Gandalf with his political cause. What a shame.
Not even close.
either one of those would be good. I’d especially like a longer look at life in the Shire.
The stories are great and beautifully told, acted and filmed. It's just frankly not worth my time to keep up with everyone's agenda. I just know what I like.
IMHO, if we have to judge every movie, every TV show, every book based on the moral/political persuasions of the artists involved, then we're going to be awfully bored.
Your mileage may vary.
Sad, but true.
Squealing and clapping hands.
I wonder who they will cast for Biblo?
So The Golden Compass was good for something after all.
You said:
As a Tolkien fan, I have mixed feelings about Jackson’s adaptation of LOTR. It was good, but I wasn’t thrilled with some of his omissions and changes to the story. Having read many of JRRT’s published letters in which he lambastes things like poor translations and illustrations that were inconsistent with his vision, I think that the author would likely have hated Jackson’s films.
My thought:
I agree. I saw them all in the theater and enjoyed them at the time. I think the visuals are brilliant, but they were playing one of the movies on TV the other day and on reflection I realized that while I was dazzled by the production when I saw them in the theater, I felt that they hit the wrong tone with a lot of the characters and saw no need for many of the changes which, I think take away from Tolkiens amazing saga. For example, the way Faramir is portrayed grated on me. In the book he was probably the most noble character of them all.In the movie hecomes off like a jerk. I knew that compromises would need to be made to make a movie of the trilogy, but I think there were too many changes made for no damn reason at all which worked against the story. Just my NSHO.
Don't you mean Boromir? Faramir is the noble, rejected son. Boromir was the chosen son sent to Elrond's council.
The again, the book Faramir wouldn't have let his men beat the snot out of Gollum.
They were doing that when the movies first came out, when we had begun fighting back against the Taliban and were talking about going against Hussein. Most of their ire was aimed at President Bush and his administration for making the decisions. Soldiers don't go into wars on their own, they have to wait for the decision of the Commander in Chief.
I haven't seen much from Viggo or Peter lately, about the war.
My wife and I both agreed The Two Towers was the worst of the trilogy as far as unfaithfulness to the books. Faramir’s character, the stupid Aragon goes into the river scene, Frodo offering the ring to the Nazgul...blah.
BTW, go to this link LOTR symbolism
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.