The Hobbit films, previously to be directed by Guillermo del Toro and now to be directed by Peter Jackson again.

Oddly enough there didn't seem to be an actual thread for these yet, so.

Peter Jackson at Comic-Con -- script for first film near completion, budgeting and casting to follow. Films due in 2011 and 2012.

I've read somewhere that Mike Mignola will be joining the general design team, along with the usual WETA suspects plus Alan Lee and John Howe again.

hellboy/blade 2 director guillermo del toro is directing the hobbit movies under the watchful eye of peter jackson

won't be catching these then.

although they will look fantastic, there's little doubt of that.

I will definitely watch them.

If only to to offset darraghmac's non-watching policy

I'll definitely be seeing these, but I don't get why they need the 2 film treatment.

Supposedly the first one is the Hobbit story and the second film will take place in the interim between Hobbit and Fellowship. Could be good.

I have more faith in the Hellboy guy than the King Kong guy, for what it's worth.

Supposedly the first one is the Hobbit story and the second film will take place in the interim between Hobbit and Fellowship. Could be good.

What, so they're just making things up now? Tolkien franchise? Sounds crass. If it's not based on a book then wtf is it?

Supposedly the first one is the Hobbit story and the second film will take place in the interim between Hobbit and Fellowship.

That was an original plan but no longer -- as noted in the link above:

“There was talk about doing ‘The Hobbit’ as one movie and making an ‘Hobbit,’ and ‘Lord of the Rings,’ bridge movie. We didn’t really know ourselves but as we worked through the story line we thought ‘Well obviously we could squeeze ‘The Hobbit’ into one movie, but In a three hour movie you would be amazed at how much of the story you would have to lose.”

“The book, well the book is what the book is and we just worked through a process and included all the events that we we would like to see in the film, plus the fact that we wanted to embellish a few things and put a little extra narrative that includes Gandalf and what he was doing with the Necromancer and various side stories that are happening. So we decided really that the two movies we are doing would actually would be ‘The Hobbit.’ ”

the first one is the Hobbit story and the second film will take place in the interim between Hobbit and Fellowship. Could be good.

Not sure how the first sentence and the second one work together.

*cough* Um, my post? Just now?

Frankly if they can drop Tom Bombadil from the LotR movies but fit that were-bear twat into the prequels then fuck them even more than I already wanna fuck 'em.

I guess I just am comfortable with the fact that I read these books decades ago. So if someone wants to make a spectacular $200million fantasy film based on these properties, I'll gladly get high and watch them.

Sorry Ned. We crossed posts. Thanks for the illumination.

"Well obviously we could squeeze ‘The Hobbit’ into one movie, but In a three hour movie you would be amazed at how much of the story you would have to lose.”

Slightly heartening news, but not very heartening.

x-post -- No worries etc.

Really, all I want is for WETA and company to do the best dragon EVER on screen. I have a feeling they will.

Everyone who clicks on this thread will pay to see this movie. Quit frontin youse nerds!

Not everybody, I can guarantee.

We had a discussion about D-Wars vs Reign of Fire last night (while watching the intolerably boring Sky Crawlers). I really enjoyed Dragon Wars, while Reign of Fire was hugely disappointing (88 minutes of dudes flexing, 2 minutes of dragons. WTF!).

So yeah--an epic SMAUG would be really timely.

So if they split it in two, wheredo they put the break? When Gandalf leaves them before Mirkwood, or at the end of the barrel riders?

Leaving 'em before Mirkwood makes for a perfect cliffhanger as such, so probably that.

They could base it on the adventure game and leave them stuck in the Misty Mountains forever.

Fleeing the Goblins with assist from the Eagles could be an epic ending.

It just depends if they want to spend an hour on the Battle of Five Armies or not.

Part of me doesn't want this to happen because I love the Rankin Bass version, warts and all. Plus, the voice of Smaug in that still gives me shivers. Plus, "Theodore".

I hope they keep the song "15 birds, in 5 fir trees, their feathers were burned, in the fiery breeze..." I could go on and on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLVgGADHg60

Awesome Nate!

I can (and do) quote this movie all the time (and sing the songs). I've watched it every Christmas morning for the last 20-some years.

Not the right movie, but I was once in a band that did a cover of "Where There's A Whip."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdXQJS3Yv0Y

We had a discussion about D-Wars vs Reign of Fire last night

where does dragonslayer fit into this

Saw Dragonslayer at the cinema when it came out. As a 12 year-old felt a bit cheated cos it was 90 minutes of build-up and 5 minutes of dragon-slaying action, but the gore was cool when it finally happened.

d-wars is the most utter garbage!!!!!!! def watched reign of fire a lot as a kid. maybe four or five times.

Hey at least D-Wars has dragons in it. Reign of Fire is a bullshit tease. Could have been the best movie ever if they'd done it right. What a premise!

"Where There's a Whip, There's a Way" -- great song! Great lyric!

xx-post - Dragonslayer - yawn. There is a boob shot though, right?

I do like the dragon from Fritz Lang's Siegfried though. An oft-overlooked fantasy classic!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu-J9ewSDrc

(actual dragon fight takes place about 4:20 in that clip btw).

Oh I've wanted a DVD of Nibelungen for years. Think there's a bunch of sub-Wagner mythology movies from the 10s and 20s, yeah?

Yeah this is the only one I've seen. Really awesome. This is by no means the best part.

I had the idea that Eureka! had put out Lang's "Die Nibelungen" on DVD, but I can't find any ref to it whatsoever on their site. Kino do a 2DVD vers of it (which I got to admit I haven't got -I watched it on youtube :-/ ). The dragon is great! Best bits for me are the scenes in the primordial forest, which IIRC they built the sets for in an old Zeppelin hangar. Amazing visuals, throughout. Pt1 here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7Ah2MNqeoU

Just looked. Was confused in my inebriated state last night cos Amazon have the Kino release as a US import, but it seems to be Region 2.

Hey at least D-Wars has dragons in it. Reign of Fire is a bullshit tease. Could have been the best movie ever if they'd done it right. What a premise!

― Nate Carson, Saturday, July 25, 2009 2:41 AM (9 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Matthew McConaughey is pretty hilarious in it as the crazed baqld dragon-hunter from America

er that should be "bald"

hellboy/blade 2 director guillermo del toro is directing the hobbit movies under the watchful eye of peter jackson

won't be catching these then.

um, why? I think it's important to remember del toro is also (and more relevantly) the director of the devil's backbone and pan's labyrinth.

you say "director of pan's labyrinth" like thats a good thing...

I hope the vid game they make of this just involves floating in a darkened barrel.

...in your barrel, smelling your apples.

we wanted to embellish a few things and put a little extra narrative that includes Gandalf and what he was doing with the Necromancer

stop it!

Having a torrid affair with the Necromancer

Heh, yeah. I just think that it's important to the atmosphere of The Hobbit that when Gandalf disappears for big chunks of it, you don't really know where he's gone, or why, or whether he'll come back. I think filling in those gaps can only hurt the story.

(Although I've not read it for 20 years, I may be remembering wrongly - maybe he does explain all that stuff really).

Betcha Middle-Earth has a magical creature with eyes in its hands that we won't have known about until this movie comes out.

And I for one would be happy to have that around.

There's a quick mention of the Necromancer at the start and end of the book, the end part being Gandalf and Elrond talking in Rivendell about having driven the Necromancer out of Mirkwood but that he's still at loose. So there is a brief explanation but that's it, and it's after the fact, so yeah, it's the lack of information about his departure which makes the story.

(That said -- I can't remember if these details I just mentioned were always in the story or were part of the revisions Tolkien introduced in the second edition done as part of his retconning after LOTR.)

Someone told me yesterday that the Necromancer is actually Sauron. Is this true? I only recall the Necromancer from RPG supplements...

Yes, same character.

I think that's so.

wait, 'pan's labyrinth' is not good?

'pan's labyrinth' is good. greenwood becomes mirkwood due to the creeping penumbra that is sauron reconstituting himself as the necromancer

i think there are people here who don't think pan's labyrinth is good and they are people you can ignore

Feel free to ignore me then! Love, love, love Devil's Backbone but Pan's was just pretty, boring, drivel. I disliked Children of Men too, if that helps your casual dismissal.

yes

An epic Smaug will be great. I still remember Smaug from the animated movie, thinking "Jeez, how are they going to kill THAT guy?" His voice was awesome - "I can hear your breathing. I can smell your breath." Damn!

I, for one, hope they go with an elongated, wyrm style dragon, instead of a shorter, stouter dragon, a la Reign of Fire.

Turns out, I quote the passage about Bard's black arrow whenever I find something I've misplaced - "You have never failed me, and I've always recovered you!"

Especially funny when you've misplaced a cocktail two or three times.

Haha nice. (And yeah that speech of Bard's might actually be Tolkien's best take on epic dialogue.)

Smaug as a character similarly is his best out-and-out evil character, as opposed to the ominous but ultimately near voiceless Sauron and Gollum and his broken psyche. Gives him a chance to create a creature who is nothing but sneering spite and cruelty and needs no other explanation.

His voice was awesome - "I can hear your breathing. I can smell your breath." Damn!

Fuck yes, Richard Boone. I wish he'd lived long enough to do more voice work.

Complications:

I've collected several knowledgeable accounts of what happened during yesterday's multi-hour contentious MGM conference call with bondholders who were "very loud and very upset". Here's why:

The call was for the benefit of the lenders, and MGM management made the presentation along with Stephen F Cooper, that Zolfo Cooper restructure specialist. MGM made a desperate plea for money because the studio had missed its numbers and was going to be out of funds very soon. "The implication was that it's teetering on bankruptcy," one source told me. MGM said it needed $20M in short-term cash flow to cover overhead, and an additional $150 million to get through the end of year and continue funding its projects, and to start Peter Jackson's Hobbit.

The Bond franchise is the other big one under consideration in all this. Comments in the story speculate Warner will swoop in to lock it all down.

(Lock down the Hobbit, not Bond, etc.)

the hobbit would be a much bigger money maker than bond. cost more though I guess.

I guess I just am comfortable with the fact that I read these books decades ago. So if someone wants to make a spectacular $200million fantasy film based on these properties, I'll gladly get high and watch them.

this is the the best outlook on this subject i've read.

these are also more conventional fantasy stories - not nearly as complicated or as much info to try to squeeze in as LotR, so i'm actually more hopeful about these than i was about the Fellowship of the Rings when it was announced. i just hope each one isn't 3 hours long. i really have no patience for long-ass movies.

Thanks for the back-up rockapads. See you in the front row.

have changed outlook from 'not seeing these' to 'will be seeing these but am dreading them'

That's years of dread dude. Bummer.

it's fairly low level stuff, tbh. am coping.

How in the world is MGM 'teetering on bankruptcy'?

Nvmd, this is a dismal looking list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer_films#2008

xpost reparations for those traumatised by stargate

Maybe the MGM managers should go on a magical quest to steal some treasure off a big dragon.

IT WAS NEVER ABOUT THE MONEY U FUK

BAGGINSES' JOB TITLE WAS "THIEF" FFS

you may have something there.

Wow, how did MGM become such garbage?

del Toro's out.

So happy about this. Love this guy's imagination, but he has a knack for making dreck.

Then again, you could do a lot worse. Fingers crossed for Alfonso Cuarón or, why not?, David Gordon Green.

We're not talking about Brett Ratner here. Maybe he's made some stuff you didn't care for but "dreck"? Please to explain...

time to get luc besson on dis ting, about a decade too late imo

cometh the hour, cometh mcg

up and coming s spielberg should probably get a chance at a big franchise

It's all down to the basket case that is MGM and the extended unsureness around finally resolving a sale so they could get the funding locked in. Personally I'm pretty bummed about this, I think he would have done wonders. Jackson's indicated he's not directing so hmm. Might be interesting to see if he looks at home for someone; it would actually make a little more sense given his often-stated desire to continue developing NZ's film industry as a whole.

yeah jeez del toro is perfect

o shi: JOHN BOORMAN

The main story on this:

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2010/05/30/36920-guillermo-del-toro-departs-the-hobbit/#more-36920

i know these guys are rich and all but i do feel bad for people in such an all-or-nothing business that they can work on pre-production on something for a couple years and then just have it all go up in smoke like this

Maybe he's made some stuff you didn't care for but "dreck"? Please to explain...

The two Hell Boy movies are pretty much my archetype of "cool design", "neat story and characters", "wow is that a shitty finished movie".

^ OTM OTM OTM

i wonder if his Hobbit movies would've had neat stories and characters.

And let's not forget Blade 2

would've been pretty easy to snort "lol The Frighteners" a decade ago too

yes, yes it would.

I dunno: Frighteners felt promising, not quite the movie Jackson seemed to want to make. Whereas del Toro's failures just feel like he sorta sucks. (I enjoyed Pan's Labyrinth until the ending.)

it turns out middle earth was just a figment of a little girl's imagination

Dreamed by a dog on an island.

the little fat beardy girl forgot about tom bombadil, but misremembered in some fucking werewolves in the second film iirc

The above assessments of Del Toro OTM, but damn this could get a lot worse. Scared to hear the next name.

Michael Winterbottom-

Dwarf-orgy (hardcore, obv) followed by prolonged and explicit killing of an actual dragon.

Boorman would be dope actually. Too old now, I suspect.

Haha I've got it-- Von Trier!

was tryin to think of van trier tbh

David Lynch. He did Dune, so why not?

He did Dune

as long as it isn't peter jackson

Good point. xpost

Re del Toro dreck: I liked both Hellboy movies, Pans Labyrinth...he has a great 'fairytale sensibility' imo ...am bummed he's off this.

Just watched Adventures of Baron Munchausen....god Gilliam could make an awesome Hobbit (assuming Gilliam wasn't Gilliam and could bring it in on time, in budget, &c...that is to say, so not gonna happen)

Pretty good summary post on what the background all was:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2010/05/guillermo-del-toro-hobbit-mgm-peter-jackson-quits-baggins.html

See also the past six months of MGM commentary over at Nikki Finke's site.

If there's one message that "Inside Job," Charles Ferguson's new documentary about the financial crisis, imparts to audiences, it's that even the most far-flung factors can give rise to serious real-world consequences.

On Sunday an object lesson in that truism hit the film world, as fan boys and the rest of us suddenly found ourselves the unexpected victims of Wall Street woolliness.

CHILLING. really brings it all home. "can't happen here" much??

I learned it all from you, s1ocki! Oh wait wrong moral lesson.

If anything I'm betting McKellen's out now as Gandalf; he'd already said he would be involved only if he didn't have to commit for another long back-and-forth period to NZ and I don't think anyone would blame him if he bowed out.

i really can't see how this can possibly happen now unless they just completely hand it over to another studio

Well the only reason why this has to do with MGM at all is the extremely bizarre rights situation, which came about thanks to, of all things, that Rankin-Bass animated Hobbit talked about upthread. Ever since the seventies when Saul Zaentz -- who I think still has final say as original rightsholder, but I could be wrong -- split the difference between the Rankin-Bass TV projects and the Bakshi movie there's been no one overall Tolkien film rights package, and the making of that earlier Hobbit created a situation that eventually resulted in MGM having a say in the matter instead of it just being New Line/Warners straight up. It's one reason why Warners went ahead and put in the bid to take it over but MGM's creditors didn't accept that and etc. etc. here we are today.

Actually looking over at Finke (though the story is by Mike Fleming) there's this:

http://www.deadline.com/2010/05/del-toro-leaves-the-hobbit-and-evidently-peter-jackson-wont-be-next/

...which mentions that Sam Raimi had initially wanted the directing job. So maybe him?

Some 'where it stands' stuff from that story:

It seems particularly unfortunate that after putting years into writing scripts and making endless trips to New Zealand, del Toro would depart solely because of the MGM situation. That rationale only came up recently, after del Toro completed two scripts with the original Lord of the Rings writing team of Jackson, Philippa Boyens, and Fran Walsh. They'd just begun talking about shooting in 3D. If MGM is really the sole reason, that's too bad because there are signs that things are going to happen soon to decide the ultimate ownership of The Hobbit and other assets. Clearly the fact that the studio -- and a talented production and marketing team -- has been frozen in suspended animation has been as much an albatross around The Hobbit as it has been for the James Bond series. But everybody is happy with the two Hobbit scripts and all involved still expect production to start late this year or early next year--it will have to, if New Line and MGM are to get the pictures in theaters December, 2012 and December, 2013. This franchise is too valuable to let languish much longer and the debt holders of MGM won't be happy when they realize that the director has walked because they've allowed things to fester so long and handcuffed the executives brought in under Harry Sloan to turn things around.

Though under financial duress, MGM has continued to meet its rights payment obligations on The Hobbit, but hasn't been able to do any more than that. Warner Bros is the lead studio on the project, and has ultimate say on green light, but perhaps the films are too large an investment to front alone, or that prospect doesn't benefit the leverage Warner Bros has in a potential buyout of MGM's assets. Rumblings are that there may well be a new player entering the fray shortly, bringing equity and new experienced management. Summit Entertainment and Spyglass are the names most often mentioned, though we also hear Terry Semel and Peter Chernin, the latter of whom reportedly doesn't want it.

Everyone knows that at the end of the day it'll be the dude that did "Transporter"/"Incredible Hulk," or Joe Johnston, or some other competent hack that can bring this in quickly and on-budget - hell, even Ratner or McG - because Hobbit movie = movie that really does not need to be made. After all this dithering, I imagine they want to just get it done (in 3-D, natch) and over with.

If anything I'm betting McKellen's out now as Gandalf

This'll be an absolute laughing stock if this turns out to be the case.

McKellen's been "out" for a while now, I thought.

I make the bad jokes so you don't have to!

And they are appreciated.

LOL one of the projects Del Toro now returns to is a Dan Simmons adaptation. That's more his speed if you ask me. Dude is a visual wizard but makes empty films.

Between those two articles the outlook sounds pretty bad. Cuaron or Raimi could do it IMO.

"Dude is a visual wizard but makes empty films."

Is angst-ridden Bilbo with rich interior life appropriate for The Hobbit?

Well I mean empty in the sense of leaving you with nothing afterward. Surely this film should have feeling of some sort.

That's because of his scripts, though. Which wouldn't have been a problem on The Hobbit.

He did co-write it, and they are using those scripts, but Jackson/Boyens being the other 2/3rds is probably safeguard enough. Del Toro strikes me as someone who could really shine in collaboration, actually. His movies come CLOSE to hitting the mark.

Pan's Labyrinth is great. I'm under the impression The Devil's Backbone is too, though I have yet to see it.

TDB is the best thing he's done, though I'm also inordinately fond of Hellboy II.

his more popcorn movies aren't that great, although i wish they were (first 30 mins of hellboy 1 is awesome tho). his more personal arty ones are better.

I tried so hard with those Hellboys.

they should get jodorowsky to direct and turn it into a 10hr epic w music by pink floyd

I thought the character relationships in the second one rang true and were even quite affecting. The production design was not just gorgeous, but also incredibly full of personality. Add great action scenes, and what's not to like?

xpost re Hellboys

the action scenes were lifeless horrible eesh

2nd Hellboy was a major buzzkill to me, lame story/villain and some of the most painful attempts at snappy banter ever. one of those rare movies that would've been improved by the auteur farming out some of the script to a more formulaic Hollywood hack.

All y'all disappointed by Hellboy, watch Prince of Persia and you will feel about 100000000x better about Hellboy.

Watching horrible crap to feel better about mediocre crap is not the right way to enjoy movies imho.

PS Hellboy 2 was mediocre crap

PPS I am American

Oh, I just realized del Toro is the guy who did Cronos. I remember liking that movie a lot, though it's been loooong since I saw it. Hellboy was a bit of a disappointment, Hellboy and Abe Sapien themselves were nicely done and they'd found the perfect actors to play them, but I found the plot and the action scenes lacking a bit. Also, I expected it to have loads of cool monsters, which is the main attraction in the comic, but instead it had loads of copies of the same monster, which was kinda boring. (Maybe Hellboy II corrects this? I haven't seen it.) The finale was nice though.

Hellboy II has a cool plant monster but you never get a good chance to ogle it. And a boring vengeful elf warrior. And an elf king played by Roy Dotrice [my audiobook reader hero] who barely says anything.

Goblin Market is visual high point of II but again, you don't get a chance to enjoy it.

For Hellboy to be mediocre crap, there'd have to be comparable excellent crap, and the upper-limit of property-franchise movies doesn't raise the bar that much past Hellboy. LOTR series had lifeless action and clunky dialogue, too.

Director's Cut of first "Hellboy" is pretty great. Second "Hellboy" totally pointless, but no one but Del Toro would toss in that incredible scene of the giant plant demon/monster/god in its death throws.

best part of 2 is the angel of death

wd take either hellboy over LOTR in a heartbeat

half a heartbeat

Hmmmm not sure about this HB over LOTR!
you do know hell boy's made up & and LOTR's was real don't you?

Only reason i was excited about Hobbit was Del Toro would be involved, maybe it's best left unmade!

& and? just choose one ;-/

they should get jodorowsky to direct and turn it into a 10hr epic w music by pink floyd

― don cab for cutie (Future_Perfect), Tuesday, June 1, 2010 12:52 PM (3 hours ago)

Yes!

kenneth branagh to direct, randall wallace to script, visual design sean bean

wld take both Hellboys on TV over any one LOTR in the cinema

(NB do not watch either Hellboy on TV, they suck there)

Peter Jackson is on!

Huh.

gilliam pls

in what amounts to a dream come true for fans of Middle Earth

All fans of Middle Earth?

Pick a fan, any fan.

he'd write a better script, that random fan

It is darraghmac's chance to shine.

entire script in prose, all elvish songs to end 'john terry is a cunt' or soforth

Figures.

Should be said that http://www.theonering.net/ makes it sound like this is all still up in the air.

I still can't read that without seeing it as The Onering, like something that oners.

Hahaha

M. Night Shmalayan's The Onering

ew

And imagine the twist ending.

"Gollum was a hobbit all along!"

"Well, yeah."

*silence*

I see onionring :-( (xxposts)

Apparently, it'll cost 350 million Euros to film, will be in 3D and in two parts. First part in cinemas in December 2012, second part in December 2013. (was in a Belgian newspaper today, am too lazy to find english source :-) )

here you go
http://www.imdb.com/news/ni4941178/

thankig u

Simon Pegg's interview in the Observer today had him casually dropping the fact that Martin Freeman has been cast as Bilbo. Anyone heard anything about this?

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=29175

Already a google image search of this dude is bringing up hobbity photoshops.

good bilbo, i'll give them that much.

Perhaps some studio bigwig made him do it, but Pegg retracted that via Twitter.

how will he top the lovely bones? i'd rather it be stop motion animation like 'mary and max' or 'chicken run'

chicken run style hobbit would be the best thing ever. especially if the hobbits were chicken hobbits.

shouldn't think he'll be changing all that much from the billion dollar franchise that paid for his lipo tbh

And here come the casting announcements:

http://www.deadline.com/2010/10/peter-jackson-sets-first-names-for-the-hobbit/

Richard Armitage is a hell of an actor. amazing in the bbc version of north and south.

There's a whole bunch of crap going on down here in NZ at the mo about this project - may be moved from NZ - it's all getting a bit bizarre. This pretty much covers the situation if anyone's interested http://publicaddress.net/default,hardnews.sm

Yeah seems like the final hurdle is whether or not it actually is filmed in NZ.

you know what? i will probably not see these cuz of the 3d. it's more expensive and gives me a headache.

i am just so damn tired of hobbitses

3D movies are always released in 2D versions as well, you know!

I'm fine with the choice for Bilbo, wasn't Jack Black rumoured for it once? That would've been terrible!

I'm mainly happy for Tim. Should keep Dawn in art equipment for a while.

Ha yeah, how many crayons?

watching harry potter and half blood prince right now

jim broadbent would have made a perfect older bilbo, though i've no complaints against ian holm

i thought fam was 1p3 mods only

oops

let it stand

zing

Cate Blanchett and Ornaldo Bloomps to reprise their roles as EXTREME ELVES.

maybe the two worst-cast characters in the lotr movies.

Or maybe all the elves were terribly cast. Yeah that could be it

wait waht? Neither of those characters is in the Hobbit

They're doing two plots hence the two films, apparently.
Gossip and rumours here
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/board/nest/174599595

marton csokas was dope as whoever he played, he should come back

tell me where is gandalf
forimuchdesire to speak with him
tell me where is gandalf
forimuchdesire to speak with him

Who was the super camp one who copped for it at helms deep?
"you breath so loudly master dwarf i could have shot you in the dark" mmmmm ;)

I really have seen it too many times :(

They're doing two plots hence the two films, apparently.

ugh waht

this is stupid

I had a dream last night that Peter Jackson decided to do Lucas-style re-releases of all the LOTR movies that included new footage of new characters, a corsair played by Nic Cage in an eyepatch and an evil witch played by Andie McDowell.

― assorted curses (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, January 3, 2011 6:44 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark

he's just gonna cut a battle with king king vs a cave troll halfway through, because the plot needed speeding up.

dunno why i used 'cut' there when i meant the opposite, but fuck peter jackson f'real

Serkis and McKellen are in, hooray!
http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=29860

So is Elijah Wood, er, what?
http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=29849

Concerned Jackson might be coming down with a case of the Lucases.

so looking forward to hating this

I'm up for a single Hobbit film, under two hours, showing young Frodo having some fun uncomplicated adventures and maybe filling those who don't know in on how he met Gandalf, found the Ring etc. Doesn't look like that's what we're getting.

marton csokas was dope as whoever he played, he should come back

tell me where is gandalf
forimuchdesire to speak with him
tell me where is gandalf
forimuchdesire to speak with him

― omar little, Monday, January 3, 2011 4:44 PM (1 week ago) Bookmark

lol

I like how the two film thing was talked about at the start of the thread and then seems to continually surprise people. I look forward to it happening again.

showing young Frodo

Not quite.

Yeah I meant the other one.

Bongo.

Concerned Jackson might be coming down with a case of the Lucases.

the LOTRs were already a massive drop from his previous films (even The Frighteners is better than Two Towers)

C'mon they're aiming for radically different things. I'd probably say that Heavenly Creatures is his best film, but you wouldn't watch it when you're in the mood for some orc slaying. The LOTRs aren't flawless, but I maintain they're pretty damn good on their own (admittedly ludicrous) terms.

giblets in a lawnmower >> billions of CGI orcs falling over

yeah, when i'm in the mood for some orc-slaying, i find that i still have to wait for someone to fucking make one

a decent movie about it, that is...

I'm up for a single Hobbit film, under two hours, showing young Frodo having some fun uncomplicated adventures and maybe filling those who don't know in on how he met Gandalf, found the Ring etc.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

was really hoping that this would be a tonal shift from the LOTR movies, and would reflect the fact that The Hobbit was just a simple fable. i dunno, as a kid, i felt like moving on to the LOTR was a legitimate act of maturity. after this is made, future viewers are probably going to watch them chronologically and i think that, in the long-run, an "uncomplicated" fantasy film that introduces middle earth would be so, so much better than a ret-con'd star wars prequel

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1524134/

great tag line

I love all of Jackson's pre-LotR movies too, and Heavenly Creatures is most likely the best thing he's ever done, but I still think the Lord of the Rings movies were very, very good at what they were supposed to do. Can't imagine any other Hollywood director managing to distill the essence of the books so skillfully, while still avoiding most of the cliched, "the viewers are idiots" type of solutions movies of this size tend to have. Just compare LotR to Avatar, or the new Tron movie, or the Star Wars prequels to see how much stupid things an epic movie like that could have had, and how well Jackson actually managed to make everything work.

Tuomas OTM. there are some stupid/lame things in the LOTR movies but holy shit @ the amount of stuff Jackson got right. it is a miracle that something as cohesive and coherent and came out of the Hollywood blockbuster grinder.

totally! and that's probably the only thing giving me faith in the hobbit.

otoh personally I don't have much faith in this Hobbit movie lol

this was my favorite part of the LOTR films fwiw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWzlgnK87_4

It's been said before itt but the whole two film thing is perplexing. The Hobbit is such a short book, I can't see a justification for stretching it out. It makes me doubtful that it will be very faithful to the original despite Jackson's involvement.

god you guys are such killjoys

these movies will be sweet

i really love the LotR movies -- compare the trilogy to its parallel blockbuster fantasy trilogies (star wars prequels, the matrix) and see how many things weren't fucked up. i do a marathon of the extended editions about once a year (w/ friends and beer); they're really wonderful old-school epics, shaded and lived-in and funny and generous to their actors. when they came out, press focus was understandably on the new tech, and there were a lot of snotty half-assed critical pieces complaining about "all those pixels fighting each other" and how un-stirring it was, but that's exactly backwards: it's only in the impossible aerial shots that the battle scenes are made of pixels. in most of the movie they're people wearing a huge amount of makeup, standing in the mud and rain. they look weighed down by it and it's fantastic.

anyway the books suck but the hobbit is fantastic, which means i have no idea what this movie's gonna be like. sort of wish it weren't being given the Epic Treatment, yeah, but oh well.

Oh I'm definitely looking forward to them. I just think there are indications the story isn't being tackled the way I think it should be, and it's my right to whine about it on the internet, dammit.

xpost

is this the appropriate point to continue twisting the knife re: the Bilbo/Frodo confusion or should I wait

Oh, whenever you like.

As long as it's not a Nazgul knife like poor Bilbo copped on Weathertop.

i used to wish they'd let ian holm play bilbo again. now he really is too old, but before... one of the things i always liked about this book was that it's a bildungsroman about a 50-year-old. and yeah yeah i know Hobbits Mature More Slowly but all that mythos came later -- bilbo has all the trappings of a mild and satisfied middle-class englishman, and i love that it's not too late for him.

yeah I always liked that too. hitchhikers a bit similar in that sense.

anyway the books suck but the hobbit is fantastic

o_O

When I was a kid I totally didn't like him being that age! I didn't want a story about someone older than my dad.

yeah! except hitchhiker's is fairly brutal -- nobody ever really does anything heroic. arthur just hangs out with a bunch of debauched cynics until he winds up back "home", with all his history and species pride stripped from him.

(that's only the first two books or the first series of the radio show -- i guess arthur helps save the world in book 3. but the second radio series is really just as bleak and cruel, and the final book seems to have been written from a place of real resentment.)

anyway, bilbo gets a bit more of a heroic arc than that. ALTHOUGH one of the other things i like about the story is that he doesn't actually do all that much for the Cause, except tell the comically generic deus ex machina hero dude about smaug's weakness. it's clear in the book that the real heroic climax is when he's in the tunnel, invisible, unwatched, and realizes he could turn around for home and never think about any of this again.

(xpost)

it's clear in the book that the real heroic climax is when he's in the tunnel, invisible, unwatched, and realizes he could turn around for home and never think about any of this again

Good call. Might be hard to put on film but I hope they have it there.

In the end, and as I'm sure I've said on this thread, I just want the cinematic dragon to end all dragons.

When I was a kid I totally didn't like him being that age! I didn't want a story about someone older than my dad.

when i was little i honestly probably didn't even notice he was that age; he acts like a scared kid most of the time, and that worked for me. when i was older i realized that the book shows the ways in which decent mild older people who have maybe had a little too much comfort can act like scared kids -- but also how they can force it down, and do brave things, and (bonus!) their mildness and compassion can make them braver, or more effectively brave, or nobler, than the gruff born-brave warrior types. "child of the kindly west, if more of us valued your ways...", and all that.

That dying speech of Thorin's is flat out one of Tolkien's best moments. For something best seen as 'just' a fairy tale, no matter how much he retconned it late, he has some of his highest points as an author in the book. (Also some of his goofiest -- none of that elf talk in Rivendell is going to survive.)

yeah that speech for me marks the high-water mark, as far as tolkien could go towards a moving paean to mild apolitical wine-and-song agrarianism before he became a frightened middle-class crank.

wait when did that happen

enh I think that's a ref to the not very subtle xenophobia of LOTR

yeah i don't want to make a big furious Good Leftist deal of it or anything (like i said, i love the movies, where it's barely softened at all) but, you know, lol @ all the swarthy men from the East allying with the brutish and apparently cultureless Orcs to come into my garden and build WINDMILLS

lol yeah I know what you mean. just wanted to know if there was more to it than that

i can't believe Holm's almost 80!

i really love the LotR movies -- compare the trilogy to its parallel blockbuster fantasy trilogies (star wars prequels, the matrix) and see how many things weren't fucked up. i do a marathon of the extended editions about once a year (w/ friends and beer); they're really wonderful old-school epics, shaded and lived-in and funny and generous to their actors. when they came out, press focus was understandably on the new tech, and there were a lot of snotty half-assed critical pieces complaining about "all those pixels fighting each other" and how un-stirring it was, but that's exactly backwards: it's only in the impossible aerial shots that the battle scenes are made of pixels. in most of the movie they're people wearing a huge amount of makeup, standing in the mud and rain. they look weighed down by it and it's fantastic.

anyway the books suck but the hobbit is fantastic, which means i have no idea what this movie's gonna be like. sort of wish it weren't being given the Epic Treatment, yeah, but oh well.

― difficult listening hour, Tuesday, January 11, 2011 4:20 PM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark

v. otm

Does anyone else think they might pad this out into two movies by adding in Gandalf's off-screen southern Mirkwood spy mission against Sauron? It would tighten the ties to the LotR stories, and allow Jackson to again do his own thing outside the actual books.

^^^um that IS what their doing, as posed upthread

Feel tempted to post the equivalent of 10 PRINT "READ THE WHOLE THREAD" 20 GOTO 10 RUN now.

Sorry! Too much skimming.

Never mind.

feel v confident that anything jackson changes will be a stunning disimprovement.

Will still have to see these obv, before ned explodes

Bang?

/\

Hopefully smaug is a little more impressive than this

Well, you know. He sleeps most of the time and all.

lifelong smoker, gotta do damage that

http://www.volapukblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/tumbleweed1.jpg

Filming to begin in less than two months...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/07/us-hobbit-idUSTRE7165JY20110207

I guess I just am comfortable with the fact that I read these books decades ago. So if someone wants to make a spectacular $200million fantasy film based on these properties, I'll gladly get high and watch them.

My thoughts exactly.

Last week's New Yorker profile of Del Toro, featuring all the Hobbit back story, is fantastic, albeit weirdly weight-obsessed. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/07/110207fa_fact_zalewski

"pictures from the set of Hobbiton, used in Lord of the Rings and currently being prepared for filming of the new "The Hobbit" movie."

http://www.flickr.com/photos/59354874@N04/

page 2: http://www.flickr.com/photos/59354874@N04/page2/

Bilbo's house is on the second page.

I have never understood why anyone would put a door handle in the middle of a circular door. I don't care how short you are, it doesn't make any sense

actually the shorter you are, the harder time you would have opening it, because you're arms are too short!

After reading that NYer profile, I'm kind of glad he's off this. Really want him to make that Lovecraft flick though, which the wikipedia page seems vague on whether it was actually greenlit or not.

http://io9.com/#!5757616/first-video-of-the-dwarf-and-hobbit-cast-of-peter-jacksons-the-hobbit-together-at-last/gallery/5

whoa, didnt know andrew sullivan was gonna be in this

Via Ian McKellen's blog: http://www.mckellen.com/cinema/hobbit-movie/110308.htm

I've seen Bilbo — in three dimensions.

I was visiting old friends in the Stone Street offices and heard Martin Freeman was just round the corner by the permanent greenscreen, done up as Bilbo, testing his costume in front of the 3D cameras. Indeed, there he was in the open air, mostly oblivious to the camera, though turning this way and that as required. Martin improvised a hobbity gait, padding back and forth, testing his big hairy Hobbit feet, pointy ears and little tum.

Beneath the shade of a tent, in a sun hat, Andrew Lesnie was remotely controlling the two lenses within the mighty camera which digitally records in 3D. His screen showed the familiar 2D image but next to it, above the director's chair, was a large colour screen in full magical three dimensions, much as it will appear in the cinema — courtesy of the spy-glasses that transform the blurred outlines onscreen to the high definition exactitude of the 3D effect.

oh man

FUCK 3D

goddamn you Avatar so much to answer for

i have no desire to see any movie in 3D but how much does shooting it that way effect (or dim) the visuals if you're watching it in 2D (in a regular theater or at home later)?

"the spy-glasses"

Well to me it suggests that instead of shooting the film to make the best 2D movie they possibly can, they will be splitting their attention between two different formats, and possibly with an edge to 3D gimmicks.

"I've seen Bilbo — in three dimensions."

This statement seems so dirty to me...

Could it be that people aren't going out to see movies at the rate they used to unless they are 3D IMAX MEGABLOCKBUSTERS?

That's my guess.

People want to see those 1D blockbuster stories in 3D!

so can we talk for a second about how he was watching Martin Freeman live in costume doing motion capture work and that's not the part he's talking about re: "I saw him in 3D"

He saw Martin in reality and Bilbo on screen in 3D is how I understood it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfesknLk5uI

This is the first truly exciting thing I've seen about The Hobbit in a loooonnnggg time.

I'm totally psyched now and I think Peter Jackson as director is great move.

April 1st lol @ http://www.mckellen.com/cinema/hobbit-movie/blog.htm

Surprised no-one posted about the 48 frames per second thing. Sounds much more interesting than it being in 3D.

I'd like to see a comparison 24/25 fps vs 48 fps because I'm not sure what to think. If it were such an improvement, wouldn't they've been shooting at 48 for years already?

can the human eye tell much difference?

"Dear Mr. Lucas. Please take note.... ehem..

REAL FUCKING SETS!!!!

Thank you for your time.

aegisgfx 1 hour ago 5 "

It'll look a lot more like video. x-post

martin freeman doing well for the ol' Postwar British Comedy scoreboard between arthur dent and bilbo. he should go oscar with money or something.

(totally looking forward to this though)

xpost

Let's not forget that he's Dr. Watson too!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13599286

Sir Ian McKellen and Elijah Wood will reprise their roles as Gandalf the Grey and Frodo respectively.

??? Was Frodo even born during the events of Hobbit? Or will the movies include an epilogue with Frodo or something?

Yeah some sort of framing thing.

I think Frodo is seen during a song and dance number with Smaug called "Don't be takin' my treasure/My precious Ring(reprise)"

There's gonna be a heck of a lot padding in these things

please God no long drawn out scenes with enya in the background and Hobbits sniffling and hugging

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20504849,00.html#20980350

http://www-images.theonering.org/torwp/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Dori-Nori-and-Ori.jpg

^ dwarves, not Hobbits, obv

Ugh.

So, in this period of Middle Earth, dwarves are made of plastic?

They're related to garden gnomes.

nice to see he's using a lighter touch this time. subtly done, those plastic midgets

god i need to remind myself to stop opening up "anticipating" threads

haha max

is this whole movie gonna be short people? if so they should only charge half price.

quarter price, since they're gonna split this movie into two parts

I had troll dolls that looked more convincingly human.

but they're not human, they're dwarfs, do you see???

wasn't the cartoon hobbit only 1 1/2 hours? i thought they captured everything necessary in that, and even padded it with songs. i totally don't get why this is gonna be 2 movies, and am a bit worried now!

Entirely my concern! Should be a nice lighthearted prologue to the overblown Lord of the Rings.

even the flimsiest novella can be adapted for the screen into two 3-hour movies -- the material is there, they may as well shoot as much of it as they want

But they are putting in loads of stuff that isn't in the book.

eh, i kinda disagree. i mean i'd be happy to be proved wrong by the movie itself - if it's 6 hours of film in 2 sittings and it all rocks, ok, great, i take it all back! but i feel like the hobbit's a fairly concise story, and filling it out into 2 long movies is kinda stretching it out more than is strictly necessary. i mean, are they really gonna put Gandalf's Adventures Somewhere Completely Different in the middle of the frikkin hobbit? frankly i'm worried.

the lord of the rings was overblown, but that's kinda it's charm. and yet how muchm of the books (not to mention filmed footage) did they have to excise to make it a compelling narrative? don't get me wrong, i'm not complaining, i thought the movies were great - enjoyed every minute. but they really couldn't have been a millisecond longer without starting to bore me.

the hobbit needs no new material - it's perfectly written to be transformed to a single feature length film. god, is this the studios pressuring (or even just encouraging/indulging) pj to make 2 movies instead of one, just to automagically double the ticket sales? ugh.

(xpost 1 up)

<already firing up final cut to make a "phantom edit" of bloated 6 hour hobbit epic fail>

They're going to have a whole bit about driving the Necromancer out of Mirkwood. Probably a big battle scene and everything

they didn't 'have to' excise anything from the books to make lotr compelling, but pj & clunkin scriptwriter team did so anyway because the story needed less wonder and more werewolve action sequences.

These will be worth watching, and regardless of above pic i can't believe they'll look anything less than amazing, but if the same hatchet job is done on the script and the acting is as wooden as in lotr, it'll be another almost-but-not-quite job. Tolkien deserves better than that.

I don't think they're doing two films cos of studio pressure, i think it's entirely down to the hubris of Peter Jackson

i would love to anticipate this, as i LOVED the hobbit as a kid. and loved it just as much when i reread it as an adult. never felt as passionate abt the LOTR books, which i know is heresy, but too much of a great thing is still just ... too much. still, the hobbit, man! fuck.

but good christ i hated the LOTR movies. hated their imagination-free visual style, pitiless length, sopping sentiment, bland characters and funcrushing reverence. half liked the first one in the theater, or tried to, but was utterly defeated by the next two. and fared no better in attempting to give them another chance on video. twice! such awful, awful things.

so how am i gonna anticipate a six-hour hobbat? did no one notice that the book is abt one-fifth the length of the LOTR series? not two fucking thirds...

wasnt one of the complaints about the LOTR movies that they sacrificed the leisurely pace of the books for action movie hijinks? maybe this will be a slow and pastoral journey through middle earth~

if you want to anticipate the Hobbit, imagine a hairy foot disappointing a human face — forever

wasnt one of the complaints about the LOTR movies that they sacrificed the leisurely pace of the books for action movie hijinks? maybe this will be a slow and pastoral journey through middle earth~

more that they dragged some sections, left others out and invented whole new ones in order to 'correct' what jackson saw as pacing difficulties, but yeah.

you might be on to something if we didn't already know that jackson is shooting an entire movie about things that weren't in the hobbit at all.

Some pics

http://imgur.com/a/BXXBA

Wonder why we didn't post the initial trailer...oh wait, ILX was down then.

well here it is

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0k3kHtyoqc

u know what would be cool is if they really take advantage of their short stature to shoot this in a really crazy wide aspect ratio like 4:1

Can't play it cool, I'm pretty excited about this. Martin Freeman looks like he'll be perfect.

Some of the dwarves don't look all that dwarfish though, more like samurai or something.

^yeah, it gets even a little more concerning than that...

Fili & Kili
http://www.flicksandbits.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/kili-fili-hobbit.jpg

Looks like PJ's intent on bringing individual character and backstory to each of the 238 or so identical dwarves in the book. No wonder we're in for six hours of movies. Wasn't it kind of a joke that there were loads of them and they were pretty much interchangeable in the book?

Still excited though.

this sounds weird

http://www.vulture.com/2012/04/will-new-hobbit-footage-change-3-d-forever.html

some footage about to be shown live streaming right now:

http://www.theonering.net/live/

wait so if it's at 48fps does that mean it looks like when you visit your parents and they're too old to notice that they've got that batshit setting on the tv that makes everything look like a wedding video? surely it doesn't look like that.

(although i'll tell you what's a trip: computer-animated movies with that setting on.)

Jeffrey Wells has seen the revolution at 48 fps:

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2012/04/48_frames_chang.php

I don't really understand why that would make it brighter or anything but the flickering is definitely a problem.

You're watching, it seems, high-def video footage that, in an earlier time, might have been shot simultaneously along with the traditionally captured, more cinematic version that would be shown in theatres...or so you would have told yourself as you watched it in 1998 or 2005 or whenever. Except this is now and the high-def, 48 fps footage we saw this morning is it -- this is how the movie will actually look.

Is this actually saying anything?

prob not, it's Jeff Wells

Hopefully they will charge 2x for tickets to cover the cost of all that additional movie we're being graced with.

i dont think anyone knows how many theaters are actually going to be able to project it at 48fps, but im guessing not very many

"In a manner of speaking I was creaming in my pants this morning."

Jeff Wells in a nutshell tbh

fucking dwarves

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlB77vM2FMg

(That's the safe for work version. This isn't.)

see now that i can use

Giant scroll from the movie showing a bunch of scenes including dwarves in barrels and Gandalf kicking it with Beorn.

Wow, that's a lot more into the book than I would have thought the first movie would have gotten, about two-thirds. Guess they're really going to spend a lot of time in Lake-town/Lonely Mountain/Battle of Five Armies (which I'm good with).

Martin Freeman has looked so weird in all of the promotional pictures for this, it's like he's had some sort of digital plastic surgery.

I never did like the posters for the LOTR movies, I admit, so it's nice to see that tradition carried on here. Just gimme a new trailer!

Guess the spiders will be the climactic sequence.

Yeah, looks like they're arranging the division between the two movies for Maximum Cumberbatching, which is really your only winning strategy these days.

LOL at invisible Bilbo

http://geek-news.mtv.com/2012/07/10/exclusive-the-hobbit-figures/

Ice Ice Bilbo

Though now I wonder if they're going to do some bullshit thing where he's transparent in the movie or something (like the Rankin-Bass version), even though the LOTR movies went a full-on invisible route.

It's probably just another toy to sell. IIRC they sold invisible Frodo figures as well.

Makes sense.

Also, call me amused:

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/07/08/58398-benedict-cumberbatch-visits-the-zoo-for-inspiration/

Some Jacksony stuff from his FB:

Looking forward to giving fans a glimpse of the Hobbit, answer questions and share a few stories about our return to Middle-earth.

For those of you who won't be attending Comic Con, we have several things in the pipeline to share with you over the next few weeks. Our new video will be ready very soon - in fact our video blog crew has already left for Comic Con, and we'll be capturing a behind the scenes look at our experiences there. We're talking about possibly including a few clips from our Hobbit reel in the blog.

We are also working on our next trailer, which you should expect to see sometime in September.

Lastly, let me give you more detail about my decision to screen the Hobbit Reel at Comic Con in 2-D and 24 fps. My LA Times quotes are brief and the topic deserves a little more detail than that. We have conducted many private screenings of Hobbit footage in the US and several international territories, running the same reel twice - once at 24fps, and secondly at 48fps. This has allowed distributors and exhibitors direct comparison of the two formats. The response has been universally strong for the higher frame rate of 48fps.

When we screened only the 48fps reel at CinemaCon a few months ago, some bloggers focussed stories, not on the content, but on their negative reaction to 10 mins of high frame rate footage. This reaction convinced me that the only fair way to experience 48fps, is to sit down and watch a complete feature length movie, with a narrative, not quick trailer cuts. Do I want the ComicCon Hobbit stories to be all about 48 fps? Of course I don't. I want to present footage from a movie we're all proud of, with terrific performances and I'm looking forward to seeing what you think.

I've always been happy to bet on myself, and for me the experience of watching the full Hobbit movie in 3-D and 48 fps is something really special. Fully immersive, like stepping into Middle-earth. The screen disappears, and you enter the world of the movie in a vivid way. I love it.

The subject of high frame rates has serious film industry implications, and it's important that it's judged in the fairest possible context. I'm afraid that a presentation of a short clip reel in a huge convention center is simply not the way to do it. I'm sorry if people attending Comic Con were hoping to see a glimpse of 48 fps, but let me say that in December, if you choose to see the Hobbit in a great cinema, projecting the higher frame rate, you will be in the best place to make up your own mind. And you will have the choice - there will be plenty of cinemas screening both versions.

Here's my prediction: this time next year, there will be several movies shooting at 48 fps. As an industry, we have to push the current technology to provide more spectacular and immersive experience in the cinema, on a nice huge screen.

fuck you and your 48fps hire a fucking writer

uh not you, ned

take it to the beef thread darragh jeez :)

i'm p sure peejay doesnt do beef anymore

lol

Astounding!

More PJ:

Q: Even as well as you know Tolkien, I'm sure the process of making these two new films has presented you with new insights and connections with the material. What surprises have you found in Middle-earth or in the work of the bookshelf wizard?

A: As slight as people think the "Hobbit" novel is, compared to the "Lord of the Rings" books, we have been surprised at how rich the world is, and how many interesting themes and characters there are to explore. We are also using extensive parts of the appendixes, which were published at the end of "Return of the King." This is not just "The Hobbit" - it's "The Hobbit" set in a much greater context of events taking place throughout Middle-earth during this period. The material is so rich. In fact, only this last week or two, we've been talking to the studio about allowing us to shoot some additional material next year, to fully complete the story.

Bits of the trailer hinted at that use of the extra appendices material, like the whispered, intense exchange between Thorin and Gandalf.

These comments seem to be being spun into a "Is The Hobbit now going to be three films, not two" story

http://www.hitfix.com/news/peter-jackson-considering-hobbit-2-film-split-watch

Or maybe they're separate comments, actually.

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/07/30/59780-peter-jackson-confirms-third-film/

Eye-rolling big time here.

Why not four films

This seemed like a foregone conclusion to me the very second the idea was first floated.

so there's gonna be a lot of slow motion in these movies I guess

It is only at the end of a shoot that you finally get the chance to sit down and have a look at the film you have made. Recently Fran, Phil and I did just this when we watched for the first time an early cut of the first movie - and a large chunk of the second. We were really pleased with the way the story was coming together, in particular, the strength of the characters and the cast who have brought them to life. All of which gave rise to a simple question: do we take this chance to tell more of the tale? And the answer from our perspective as the filmmakers, and as fans, was an unreserved ‘yes.'

We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance. The richness of the story of The Hobbit, as well as some of the related material in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, allows us to tell the full story of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and the part he played in the sometimes dangerous, but at all times exciting, history of Middle-earth.

So, without further ado and on behalf of New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Wingnut Films, and the entire cast and crew of “The Hobbit” films, I’d like to announce that two films will become three.

It has been an unexpected journey indeed, and in the words of Professor Tolkien himself, "a tale that grew in the telling."

Cheers,

Peter J

aloha on the steel guitar

Christ. Each one three hours long presumably.

Ok, I'm checking this thread again in 2018 when the Extended Edition Blu-Ray box set of The Hobbit + LOTR is released. Bye!

ugh.

and here I was thinking that stretching this into two films was a bad idea...

I'm sure none of the New Line or Warners execs were exactly trying to talk Jackson out of stretching things out more.

xpost -- It is a bad idea. This is worse.

See the part of me that (yes) loves the appendices, the minutiae and everything extended and sprawling about what Tolkien did perversely enjoys this huge expense to film what was essentially his retconning of his own work.

But dramatically this really could have been been a great self-contained film, a glorious if long one-off. Two films, a stretch. Three films telling this story? I just don't even.

Warners needs to milk those cashcows (esp since there is never ever going to be another Batman film).

I sincerely hope this turns out to be three 70-minute flicks.

(esp since there is never ever going to be another Batman film).

Yeah I'm pretty certain there will be, albeit quite possibly not another decent one.

As somebody who loves Peter Jackson's early movies, it's a bummer that it looks like his work is going to be centered on the Hobbit/Tolkien for the forseeable future. Not that I didn't like the first trilogy of movies, but I would like for him to do something different.

He's rumoured to be adapting Phillip Reeve's excellent Mortal Engines books at some point, which I would be more excited to see than more Middle Earth twaddle at this point.

http://mortalengines.wikia.com/wiki/Mortal_Engines_%28film%29

I think they're already kicking around the idea of another Batman flick now with it coming out in 5 years or so under a different director

no wonder Del Toro ran a mile

This io9 photo seems apt.

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17uftph5epp2cjpg/original.jpg

'DEAL WITH IT'

http://io9.com/5930350/some-totally-real-reasons-why-the-hobbit-had-to-be-a-trilogy

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - December 14, 2012
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug - December 13, 2013
The Hobbit: There and Back Again - July 18, 2014

http://www.movies.com/movie-news/the-hobbit-third-film/8949

sigh, fine.

The Hobbit: Hobbity and Hobbiter - May 28, 2015

hobbit, hobbit, for the love of god please hobbit at once

The Silmarillion VIII: the Reckoning - December 14, 2024

with charles bronson

The Hobbit III: There and Back, Again!

The Ho4bit

Complaining about how it's "stretched" begs the question. With two movies, it always seemed to me that stuff would still have to be compressed or left out. Plus you know they'll expand the battle o' five armies, which was just a short summary in the book.

Oh yay cause the battle scenes were so the best thing in LOTR :/

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

I so, so hope this one'll be a meditation on draconian ennui, three hours of nothing but Cumberbatch moping around.

Go not to Dragons for ennui, for they will say "Oh I suppose so"

New trailer tomorrow.

She's Gotta Hobbit

lol

Bilbo Fever

A Sam Gamgee Joint

Et voila

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYz0JWJioOM

Wargs! Trolls! Orcs! Gollums! Bears!

Think I'll wait till there's an edit without Martin Freeman.

Damn, even the stone giants in the Misty Mountains. Didn't think they'd actually show!

Okay LOL at Radagast having a sled pulled by a trained team of huge attack rabbits. Night of the Lepus!

Rabbitgast the Brown

(secretly so excited I can't stand it but will shroud excitement in detached enthusiasm)

eh, it's cool I guess

*grin*

Think I'll wait till there's an edit without Martin Freeman.

See, I think he is a jackass but his acting is okay? I can overlook it anyway.

I am going to go see this and pretend he is Arthur Dent the whole time.

same difference

Hell yes.

Note to Hollywood: Make more movies with wizards in them!

Eh, if you broke it down I bet the wizard to movie ratio has been relatively high the last few years.

Harry Potter ruined the curve.

lol

What's that weird black blob at 0:31?

See, I think he is a jackass but his acting is okay? I can overlook it anyway.

I don't knock his acting, I think he's great at playing Martin Freeman. I just never saw Bilbo as being very Martin Freemanish. Same for Dr Watson. Arthur Dent - could've been Freemanesque if Simon Jones hadn't got in there first. Tim from The Office, yeah he was Freemany.

Is the CGI finished? It seems a lot cartoonier than in LOTR.

I'm excited for these, been rewatching the LOTR trilogy with my wife over the past few weeks (taking forever because why extended editions) and forgot how much I enjoyed 'em.

Fellowship is the only one that's significantly improved in the extended cut iirc.

Yeah, midway through Two Towers and that seems to be true, so far anyway.

I wish there could be a special moodles cut edition that included about half the extra scenes from the extended cuts but left the rest as is.

the extended Faramir/Boromir story arc from ROTK was a worthwhile addition iirc.

That actually played out better than I expected.

the dumbest shit in the extended editions is the whole Aragorn falls off a cliff/Arwen love story subplot

and yeah Fellowship is absolutely the best

Fellowship and Towers both better in the extended version. Return of the King is the only one that comes out worse, but the shorter version isn't so hot, either.

I like the extra Mordor scenes in ROTK

Pick a dwarf, any dwarf:

http://www-images.theonering.org/torwp/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Hobbit-movie-dwarf-poster.jpg

Not sure if I can take 7 hrs of that.

yeah i think that poster lost me

or at least whatever was left of me that was still a motivated interest

Pretty true to the spirit of the book imo.

what's with the Fonzie dwarf?

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mb0mtuobi11qz6f9yo1_500.jpg

(thx tubmlr dudes)

Aidan Turner sticks out as being very Aidan Turner-y while the rest look very...tolkien.

james nesbitt (3rd, top row) will be p familiar to brit viewers too

what's with the Fonzie dwarf?

― Number None, Friday, September 28, 2012 5:19 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

lol, was wondering the same thing. lorenzo lamas dwarf imo

horribly familiar xpost

there's more Tolkein vibe in that Dutch(?) book cover than there is in the whole of the trailers i've seen so far, the heavy, dingy, po-faced look of everything outside the Shire is totally absent of any magic or otherness, just another grubby cartoon action-movie. even the giants throwing rocks which reads as a cute simile for the weather in the book has to become actualised and uglified and serious-business-ified and ugh ugh ugh i've decided i don't hate Tolkein just this lame literalist murdering of everything that was decent in his books

something Deleuze/Guattari wd have fun with about the way the book's pack of dwarves has to become these differentiated characters with a quirk attached to each so's they breathe off the page god those trolls make me angry too

so on balance, you're lukewarm?

i can't explain quite what it is but magicless wd be as close as i can get to my objection, and the whole dragging of a world that belongs to the 1930s/40s into the tedious quest for "realism" that is the 21st century. i'm sure somebody more invested in Tolkein than me has written something comparing Jackson's entire enterprise to Saruman's work on the Shire

I don't know what he would have thought of Jackson's movies, but the notes from Tolkein in the annotated version of The Hobbit lead me to believe that he would not have cared for that book cover. He was vehemently opposed to the illustrations for foreign editions of his book having any influence from Disney or being cutesied up.

i don't think that cover's very Disney

No, but its awfully cute. I want to hug it.

yeah it's cute. i think there's a primitivism that chimes with something Tolkeiny, i seem to recall Smith of Wootton Major's original illustrations having that folk tale vibe to it too

I just don't get why about half the dwarves look dwarfy and the rest just look like dudes.

i am not a tolkien fan At All and i much preferred the lotr movies to the books and i like martin freeman but i have no hope for this thing. i read the hobbit like ten times as a little kid and will always love it and yeah i'm with NV; a lumbering epic triptych with lots of whispered conversations about the dark lord is just the furthest furthest thing from the hobbit i can imagine. (it's like the lord of the rings or something.) the small scale of the hobbit is its best feature, the way a mercenary (even criminal!) job for a bunch of shady gold-lovers and their semiattentive and vaguely abusive wizard patron turns into a bildungsroman for a 50-year-old man (yeah yeah i know hobbits live long so 50 is actually like 15 or whatever but all of bilbo's mannerisms and habits and likes are middle-aged, and his awakening from a kind of vacantly satisfied middle-aged british pastoral childishness is all the better for being juxtaposed w/ thorin's awakening to the positive points of this same childishness). how great is it at the end when for the generic heroic work of Slaying The Dragon tolkien drags on and just as quickly shoves off a generic hero, because 1) this isn't bilbo's department and 2) we don't care, since bilbo slew the dragon that mattered when he could have turned back in the tunnel and didn't. obviously the movie is not out yet and could be anything but i find it verrrrrrrry hard to imagine that the fairy-tale smallness, the focus on very minor forms of heroism, could be preserved across a nineish-hour trilogy that knows about the ring.

reviewing this thread i find that i have already posted all of that. all of it. bedtime i think

Remake of "The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins" or GTFO

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/10/08/62953-neil-finn-of-crowded-house-provides-the-end-title-song-for-an-unexpected-journey/

"the greatest adventure"

actually this film's principal failing is likely to be its omission of "that's what bilbo baggins hates"

Though apparently one of the trailers shows the dwarves singing...something at Bag-End. Maybe just Pogues songs.

You're kind of the last person I'd expect to have not seen the trailers by now, Ned!

But yeah I was rereading the book and there's a lot of "and then they carried on with much singing" - it would be kind of hilarious if the films were 50% musical.

TBH what I suspect will happen is that they're just not going to be the 4-hour butt-numbers that the LOTR films were - if you split it at entering Mirkwood / Smaug's death, and stick in all the Dol Guldur stuff in the last section, you could make three snappy 90-minute films out of it.

(I don't really think it's going to be 90 minutes, I just reckon it'll be closer to 90 than 240)

You're kind of the last person I'd expect to have not seen the trailers by now, Ned!

Eh? I had seen them! I just remembered a bit like that in one of them -- sure seems like they're singing something. Anyway.

(I don't really think it's going to be 90 minutes, I just reckon it'll be closer to 90 than 240)

I would be fine with this.

Imagine if Part 1 is just hobbit songs and stories

xp Ah right, the 'apparently' threw me - yeah, the song they're singing in Bag End is the one from the book afaict.

the latest rumoured running time for the first one is 2hrs 44mins

lol

man i had somehow forgotten that that song's in the book! was just thinking of the cartoon. never mind then.

But yeah I was rereading the book and there's a lot of "and then they carried on with much singing" - it would be kind of hilarious if the films were 50% musical.

There's a lot of singing in LotR too, but they left almost all of that out, except for Pippin's Enya number in the third film (which I don't think was in the book?). I had high hopes that, based on the source material, the movies would've been more musical-ly, but sadly they weren't... For example, when Gandalf "dies" in the first book, the other members of the Fellowship burst into a multi-part lament, with Aragorn starting to sing spontaneously, Legolas continuing after him, etc. How awesome would've it been if that was in the movie?!

*leafs through book, does not find anything resembling that scene* (Frodo sings a song in lothlorien 35 pages later but Legolas says the grief is still to near for him to sing.)

Hmm, maybe I misremember, but I'm pretty sure there's some scene in the books where the characters start to spontaneously sing when they think someone is dead... Maybe it was when Legolas, Gimli and Aragorn think Merry and Pippin have been killed by orcs?

in the first book, the other members of the Fellowship burst into a multi-part lament, with Aragorn starting to sing spontaneously, Legolas continuing after him, etc. How awesome would've it been if that was in the movie?!

If by awesome you mean very irritating. I am so glad there was not more singing in the LOTR movies, I skipped all the songs and poetry in the book when I was a kid. I just wanted to get to the orc killing.

You know what both audiences and production executives love? Stopping a movie dead in its tracks for the characters to sing a lament to a dead person.

It works in musicals and Disney films, no?

The scene you're thinking about the funeral of Boromir at the start of The Two Towers

Ah, yeah, that's it!

Ah yes.

"You left the East Wind to me," said Gimli, "but I will say naught of it."
"That is as it should be," said Aragorn. "In Minas Tirith they endure the East Wind, but they do not ask it for tidings."

Transl: "I'm not fucking singing." "Good, we'd rather not have to fucking listen, lol."

If that had ended up in the film I suspect farts would have been involved.

This movie was not marketed as a Disney film or a musical, it was marketed as "Serious adventure is serious, and also hobbits."

Yea, but if it had included all/most of the songs from the books, obviously the marketing would've been different too.

And why can't a musical be serious? Do you think The Umbrellas of Cherbourg is not serious?

The movie was what it was. Of all the criticisms that were provided, and they were legion, I don't recall any of them being "Not enough musical numbers!"

i saw QI tonight (maybe a rerun, in fact do episodes of QI ever air in originality or do they come into being pre-viewed and full-fledged as reruns? i digress) and sandy toksvig was there in a red jacket and i thought to myself that she would make a splendid hobbit, a first-rate bilbo indeed. too late now, but maybe there'll be a chance before her clogs are self-popped for a scriptwriter to have a decent crack at the franchise, eh

i've decided i don't hate Tolkein just this lame literalist murdering of everything that was decent in his books

― syntax evasion (Noodle Vague), Friday, 28 September 2012

confident that this too shall pass and you will indeed in the fulness of time remember that you do in fact hate tolkien

Much as I will probably quite enjoy these, I kind of hope they flop massively just to teach everyone a lesson.

And that somebody on the internet does a single two hour edit of all three that everybody agrees is much better.

Hmm...

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=35541

I hope he's Bard.

Hahaha if only.

"Black arrow! You've never failed me, and I've always recovered you. I had you from my father, and he from of old. If ever you came from the forges of the true King under the Mountain, go now and speed well!"

songwise, there's the part in the fellowship movie where sam recites a little poem about gandalf's fireworks in lothlorien. watched it once w a friend, and sam says "the finest rockets ever seen / they burst in stars of blue and green / or after thunder, silver showers" and friend suddenly yells "THAT WAS ONE OF GANDALF'S POWERS". still laugh.

HA!

was the green dragon song merry and pippin sing in rotk in the theatrical cut or the extended? ages since i've watched it. was that in the book?

Theatrical IIRC. Not in the book (nor was that whole sequence, because what happened was *two hour lecture follows, everyone flees*).

movies cut out lots of lectures iirc. Also the multiple decades between the birthday party and Frodo fleeing the shire.

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/10/22/63709-tolkiendrim-com-hi-res-photo-of-bolg-spoilers/#

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbvowvopaT1rqyl6qo2_250.jpg

I'm kind of seeing

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090817155808/heman/images/2/29/Beastman1.jpg + http://www.warmphotos.net/img/music/black/black02.jpg

A Saturday morning cartoon about Immortal would be the bollocks.

That's a shit costume.

saw the trailer in the theater the other day and i'm kinda dreading this. i haven't been so much of a JRRT fanatic since i was 12 (tho i'm still enough of one that i get upset when someone casually suggests that jackson's overcooked trilogy is better than the books) but 'the hobbit' is one of my favorite kids' books in the world and i have no desire to see it mucked up with a bunch of pseudo-serious 'this is the real backstory' bullshit. i dug all the LOTR movies at the time but, lke DLH upthread, really don't think that the jackson/LOTR vibe is suited AT ALL for this story and these characters. but yeah, i'm sure i'll still see it.

bilbo baggins is such a great character -- he's like if bertie wooster was suddenly forced into danger and had to develop some jeeves-y cleverness.

http://www.mediabistro.com/prnewser/dennys-hobbit-menu_b48172

Rejoice, ye fans of Bilbo, Frodo, Gandalf and “second breakfast”! Thanks to Denny’s, you no longer need to live in The Shire to eat like a Hobbit. As part of a joint marketing effort with the upcoming flick The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, the restaurant chain is about to launch a special, limited-time-only menu chock full of Middle Earth-inspired delights.

Beginning November 6, Tolkien fans can choose from 11 breakfast, lunch, and dinner items including “Hobbit Hole Breakfast”, “Frodo’s Pot Roast Skillet,” and “Gandalf’s Gobble Melt”. Denny’s offers plenty of options for any mealtime, whether you’re sitting down to enjoy breakfast, second breakfast, elevensies, luncheon, afternoon tea, dinner or supper.

In support of its promotional menu, the company will launch an accompanying ad campaign including a full TV spot (sneak peek below) set to begin airing on November 12–roughly a month before the movie’s December 14 release. Denny’s hopes to cash in on fans’ growing anticipation by offering trading cards with each special entree; the chain also plans to print QR-coded place mats that enthusiasts can use to unlock movie-related content like videos and online games.

"Hobbit Hole Breakfast" what is this I can't even

gandalf's gobble melt.

anyway this is america we've been eating like hobbits for like sixty years now

Frodo's Pot Roast Skillet is the only one that doesn't sound like an unspeakable sexual act

hobbit hole breakfast already has a subreddit iirc

It gets worse:

Hobbit Harvest Pies
Lonely Mountain Treasure
Radagast's Red Velvet Pancake Puppies
Bilbo's Berry Smoothie
Lone-lands Campfire Cookie Milk Shake

wtf are "Radagast's Red Velvet Pancake Puppies"

like anyone cares about radagast.

They are little red hush puppies made of pancake dough. I only know this because of GIS btw.

but... red velvet implies they are chocolate? chocolate pancake hush puppies?

http://www.discountqueens.com/uploads/2011/11/Red-Velvet-Pancake-Puppies.jpg

radagast should probably see a doctor

red velvet pancake poopies

hobbit harvest pies

how closely related are these to cow pies I wonder

Rereading The Fellowship of the Ring recently, I'm pleased to find that my pre-Jackson ways of imagining these scenes have remained intact. I'm not obliged to view Sauron as literally a GIANT EYE.