Forgot your password?
Books Lord of the Rings Movies Entertainment

Filming For The Hobbit Begins In July 298

Posted by samzenpus
from the chip-the-glasses-and-crack-the-plates dept.
krou writes "Sir Ian McKellen has revealed that filming for The Hobbit and its sequel is scheduled to begin in July, and will take approximately a year to complete. Casting is now 'taking place in LA, London and New York,' and [director Guillermo] Del Toro is already 'living in Wellington, close to the Jacksons and the studio in Miramar.' Apparently the script is still being worked on, and 'the first draft is crammed with old and new friends, again on a quest in Middle-earth.' The planned sequel to The Hobbit is to be an original story not written by Tolkien, covering the 60 years between The Hobbit, and The Lord of the Rings."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Filming For The Hobbit Begins In July

Comments Filter:
  • by PHPNerd (1039992) on Thursday March 18, 2010 @11:15AM (#31523910) Homepage

    The planned sequel to The Hobbit is to be an original story not written by Tolkien, covering the 60 years between The Hobbit, and the Lord of the Rings."

    A sequel NOT written by Tolkien? Ew. How about instead another prequel taken from The Silmarillion? That would be full of awesome, almost guaranteed to win several internets.

  • []


    it will be hard to nail tolkien's tone in a made up "middle movie". even if it isn't "studio committee of frat boys"ed to death, lotr fundamentalist fanboys will eviscerate it. they can deal with no tom bombadil, since its a story line that's so out of touch with the rest of lotr that it can safely be surgically removed, but whatever they do with the rumored necromancer plotline for this "middle movie" they better be damn respectful to the world of lotr: []

    as an aside, i always thought a good jumping off point for lotr fanfiction/ hollywood exploitation would be an examination of the blue wizards: []

    so little is sketched by tolkien of them and the world to the east of mordor they went too, that it could make for some great lotr-type stories without stepping on any middle earth toes or the fanboys who guard the mythology's continuity

    it could have an east asian or russian mythology theme, keeping in touch with all those maps that overlay mordor with either germany, transylvania, or the middle east

    and maybe we would get more oliphants! ;-P

  • May be too late. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by VShael (62735) on Thursday March 18, 2010 @11:29AM (#31524106) Journal

    Gandalf tells Bilbo he hasn't aged a day. He's celebrating his 111th birthday in the first movie.

    And in the flashback, where Bilbo finds the ring, obviously Ian Holm looked pretty much the same as he did in Fellowship.

    They should have made The Hobbit with Ian Holm a few years ago. Or at least scanned him in so we could AVATAR his performance into the movie, if the need arose.

    Now, we'll have a movie with a different Bilbo, an older Aragorn, an older Gandalf... even an older Elrond.

  • by RobotRunAmok (595286) on Thursday March 18, 2010 @11:31AM (#31524120)

    ...and create something new, genius. Something that would require a little more effort, something that would have a little more risk because it lacked an installed fan base. Something without a fuckin' elf.

  • Re:ugh, sequel (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hey! (33014) on Thursday March 18, 2010 @11:47AM (#31524384) Homepage Journal

    I'm agnostic on that.

    Drama is not a medium Tolkien wrote for, so we can expect The Hobbit, like the LotR film trilogy, to be largely paraphrase. The Hobbit film will be a different story set in the same world, more or less following the events of the novel.

    That said,the vast world Tolkien created practically begs for more stories to be written in that setting. It's a shame that copyright prevents this. Little of what would be written would do it justice, but it's not like there's a lack of writing genius in the world. Neil Gaiman could do wonderful things with that world. It wouldn't be Tolkien of course, but it would definitely have echoes. Gaiman is one of the most unpretentiously erudite writers I can think of.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 18, 2010 @11:57AM (#31524478)

    She's not a wood elf either. She is a High Elf (an exiled of the Noldor to be specific). No Wood Elf is blond-haired. Legolas is half Wood Elf / half Grey Elf (actually, the son of their king, Thranduil and some elf princess of the Sindar) and cannot be blond-hair because of his genes. Also, he's not retarded like Orlando Bloom.

  • Re:Oh yippy skippy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Eil (82413) on Thursday March 18, 2010 @11:57AM (#31524480) Homepage Journal

    Tolkien's dialogue can't, and never could, survive a direct adaptation to the big screen. Even if it could be managed, people would still complain that the actors didn't act in the manner that they themselves had envisioned while reading the books. Perhaps more importantly, books have the luxury of taking up entire chapters to describe background, settings, and conversations; movies do not. Tolkien purists will never be satisfied with *any* adaptation of his work. Luckily for them, the source material will always be available for their enjoyment.

  • Re:ugh, sequel (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bhsurfer (539137) <bhsurfer AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday March 18, 2010 @12:11PM (#31524646)
    I think the siege of Gondolin out of the Silmarillion would make a hell of a movie, as would the part where Morgoth & Ungoliant destroy the trees. Man, I need a life. I also agree that, given the right writing, the sequel they're planning could be decent.
  • Re:Sequel (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BlueStraggler (765543) on Thursday March 18, 2010 @12:16PM (#31524698)

    Well, Tolkien did tell us all the things that happened in those 60 years, so it's not like they are going to *completely* make it up. No matter how hard they tried, they couldn't come up with a better story, than, say, the recolonization and fall of Moria, or the fight against the Necromancer in Mirkwood. My money is on the former. It will be called "Moria", and the tag line will be "They are coming..."

  • Well (Score:2, Interesting)

    by kenp2002 (545495) on Thursday March 18, 2010 @12:28PM (#31524862) Homepage Journal

    A: Tolkien was good, but not great. So the high and mightys worring about a sequel, rest: The Hobbit was a good book but it is hardly the greatest Fantasy Novel ever. In fact parts of Tolkien's writing is just plain boring. For all the people that bitch about copyright lasting too long and stifiling innovation and crap all bets are off if they think about expanding on Tolkien. I mean seriously could you imagine someone writing books about Star Wars besides Lucas? Madness they would all suck and drain the life out of his creative masterpiece!

    I mean come on that Tim Zhanwhatever's sequel's to Star Wars were aweful and destroyed the franchise right? Mara Jade = Jar Jar err wait....

    So It comes down to the Lost years between the two. No problem since there are plenty of unanswered questions between the two.

    Relax. It is no more likely to suck then the movie the Hobbit itself.

    Case Point: Star Wars -> Empire is to Matrix -> Whatever that shit they crap out was called. Nothing about a second movie implies it being worse then the original statistically speaking. Both the first and second Friday the 13ths were pretty good compared to the rest of the franchise.

    On a more serious note let's not forget that the Hobbit is also considered on of the WORST books ever written since the perspective changes 1/2 through the book (actually isn't it like 1/3rd of the way in?) You can't really fuck up the movie more then that and we still call the Hobbit a great work... It's like Hobbits are Fuck-Up-Proof!

    B: Butchering the story in making it a movie. Well they've tried what 4 times now and failed every time. They may not know what to do right but they'll have plenty of archive material to tell them what they did wrong. Yes they are going to rape your childhood, too bad it isn't yours anymore. Grab some lube if you are worried.

    C: Flat acting concerns... Well... actually that might work better. The Hobbit was a pretty flat affair of classic folklore. The Elves should be flat (they are a rather dull people to begin with) and Dildo, I mean Bilbo wasn't much fun. Bard comes pretty much otta nowhere, the dwarves couldn't have been more of a Bavarian carcature if you tried, and the classical elements are all there almost page for page (Heroes' journey blah blah blah.)

    I know I am old and cynical but seriously, Star War, B5, Star Trek, LOTR\Hobbit, Star Ship Troopers, Discworld are great and fun works but they are not "Mental\Spiritual\Philisophical\Humanistic Awakening" causing works. They good, they will be around in 100 years for sure, but few if any are going to pick up the Hobbit and say 40 years later, "They day I picked up the Hobbit was the day my life truely changed for the better."

    Tolkien = Good, but so is Terry Brooks, Ann Mcaffery, Weis and Hickman, etc.

    I would in all honesty be more excited about a Shanara movie then the Hobbit. I would also be more excited about winning $50 on a lottery scratch off.

    That is the problem as you get older, the underlying plots are all the same and it is harder and harder to not notice that long enough to enjoy the movie. Like Avatar.... ZZzz.... Dances with Wolves in Space......

    I am actually more interested in the proposed sequel to the Hobbit then the movie. I'd like to see something unexpected and new. No matter what a movie cannot compare with a book (even a comic book to a degree) because you can set the pace, you control to a greater degree what the world looks like, etc.

    Just chill and try to enjoy the movie on it's own merits and if you can't, like me, rent and bitch about it at home and quit ruining the movie for those that can.

  • Re:Sequel (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 18, 2010 @12:39PM (#31525036)
    We've already got enough stories about the Hobbits anyway. I'd rather see them do a story about Balin's expedition into Moria.
  • Re:Sequel (Score:3, Interesting)

    by natehoy (1608657) on Thursday March 18, 2010 @01:23PM (#31525606) Journal

    Yes, but Tolkien left a large gap in there that could be filled in with a story pretty easily.

    When we leave "The Hobbit", Bilbo Baggins is still a young Hobbit in his 50s, flush with treasure. When we start "Lord of the Rings", he's 111 (a ripe old age only attained by liberal use of The One Ring) and his nephew Frodo takes over. There are a lot of good stories about what uses he put the Ring to, if nothing else. Frodo might deserve a bit of a back-story. I'm sure Sauron and Saruman weren't sitting around watching HBO and eating fried food. Gollum, for all that he was in a cave, had to have done something interesting during that period after losing the Ring to Bilbo.

    Tolkien didn't see any grand adventures in there to write about, but that doesn't mean a 60-year gap in the action can't contain any interesting stuff.

    I love "The Hobbit" and "Lord of the Rings". I truly do. But I finally accepted Jackson's LoTR as a different story from J.R.R. Tolkien's work. No less a masterpiece for all that, but a slightly different story. I expect "The Hobbit" to be the same, and in that context I'm perfectly OK with Jackson et al filling in some blanks that Tolkien himself left.

    It's like Abram's reboot of "Star Trek" - based on, but different. Except without all the lens flare.

The use of anthropomorphic terminology when dealing with computing systems is a symptom of professional immaturity. -- Edsger Dijkstra