New Hope for Jackson Hobbit Film? 268
DrJimbo writes "Just in time for the 70th Anniversary of the Hobbit (published September 21, 1937) Entertainment Weekly has a 5-page article on a possible reconciliation between Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema that may pave the way for the director of the Lord of the Rings trilogy to return and helm the filming of The Hobbit. It was previously reported here that Jackson would not be making the Hobbit film. The EW article says that Jackson wants to make two films: first the Hobbit in its entirety and then another film that bridges the roughly 60 years between the end of the Hobbit and the start of the Lord of the Rings. Unfortunately Jackson already has a lot on his plate with filming of The Lovely Bones scheduled to start this month and a live action Tintin film in the works."
Would it really be so bad if he didn't direct it? (Score:4, Interesting)
Do we care? (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, if he manages to get a script written for the 60 year time difference, and it's not 60 years of Gandolf riding around in grey and the hobbits having teaparties (since that's basically what happened), then I'm all for the new film and Jackson. I'm not real hopeful, though, since all the really interesting stuff happened in the books and the other years weren't covered because they simply weren't that interesting.
Or maybe someone can name some of the interesting things that supposedly happened in those 60 years? Gandolf was obviously out doing some sort of research, but I don't think anything specific was ever mentioned. And the hobbits were pretty clearly doing hobbit-like things in their little boring houses. They don't really even have politics, just a few that don't particulary care for each other from feuds that happened generations ago over silly things.
Re:Hope? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you think that Peter Jackson ruined the movies for you, why did you watch all 3? Or did you? Or are you just a troll?
Re:Hope? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yep, the general public already complained that there were 3 endeds to Return of the King, why not throw a 4th one in there also....just so those 4 people in the world that complained that the LOTR wasn't word for word like the books will be happy. Happy with really long, boringly edited movies.
Re:Hope? (Score:2, Interesting)
Saw the first in the cinema, said I wasn't going to pay to sit throught that sort of crap again. Fiancee talked me into going to the second shit-fest. That was that. I've never seen the third and I still want my money back for the first two. Jackson couldn't direct traffic in a ghost town.
TWW
Re:Er, what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmm.. I'm not 100% on the timeline but...
Gandalf and Aragorn meet. The romance of Aragorn and Arwen. Aragorn serving with the Armies of Rohan.
Gollum pursues Bilbo from the mountains. I beleive Gandalf investigates the creature and discovers its history in this period. Mordor also captures Gollum at some point.
The Dwarves (including Balin of the hobbits) try and retake Moria.
Sauruman is corrupted by Mordor through the Palantir.
Sauroman corrupts Theoden through Grima Wormtongue.
Sauron, identified as the 'Necromancer' was discovered as the source of evil in Mirkwood and was driven out by the White Council, only to resurface later rebuilding in Mordor.
I dunno... I've seen movies made on smaller premises than that
Re:Would it really be so bad if he didn't direct i (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not public domain (Score:3, Interesting)
I wanted to ask (almost) exactly the same thing, but then I decided that I don't know very much about copyright law in the US or the UK. Anyway, it seems that in the USA
Wikipedia on Copyright [wikipedia.org]So it should be still copyrighted in the USA if it is still copyrighted in the UK. At least that's how I anderstand it, IANAL.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Dragons! Balrogs! Morgoth! Silmarils! (Score:3, Interesting)
Lord of the Rings IV... (Score:4, Interesting)
This is the one they should have made first! I can't wait to see Episodes V and VI.
Re:Oh please don't (Score:1, Interesting)
Though I'm sure you'll get modded down for this, it is a viewpoint other authors share [revolutionsf.com].
Re:Someone smack New Line with a cluestick? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Er, what? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, some additions and omissions were quite understandable (though I did miss the Scourge of the Shire scene, which I think was the whole point of the original books), but there wasn't really any reason to change some of the key scenes in the trilogy that PJ decided to change.
Why not keep the ending of the Battle of the Pelennor Fields faithful to the original, with Eomer holding his sword up in defiance to the newly arrived Corsairs only to see Aragorn's banner unfurl, and with the three HUMAN armies (Rohan, Gondor, and Corsair) conversing in the center for the victory? Why add the undead to that battle? The Siege of Gondor was broken by the strength of **MEN**, not by the undead!!
Why not keep the dialog and overall feel of the scene of Saruman's fall at Orthanc true to the original? It was a very dramatic conversation in its own right, with Galdalf and Saruman exchanging invitations for the other to join, and with Gandalf finally shatting the building doubts with the following lines: "Behold, I am not Gandalf the Grey, whom you betrayed. I am Gandalf the White, who has returned from death. You have no colour now, and I cast you from the order and from the Council." He raised his hand, and spoke slowly in a clear voice. "Saruman, your staff is broken." There was a crack, and the staff split asunder in Saruman's hand, and the head of it fell down at Gandalf's feet.
Changes to speed up the plot and/or add excitement are one things, but arbitrary changes to the climaxes of key scenes in the book which are already extremely dramatic and well-written ... and which were already burned into the minds of millions of fans ... is quite another.