Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Lord of the Rings Movies Entertainment

The Hobbit On Hold 142

Posted by Soulskill
from the had-such-a-nice-ring-to-it dept.
Flea of Pain writes "Director Guillermo Del Toro has confirmed upcoming Lord of the Rings prequel The Hobbit has been put on hold indefinitely because the movie has been caught in a 'tangled negotiation' over the future of the MGM movie studio. The film, based on J.R.R. Tolkien's first book in the fantasy series, was reportedly due to begin shooting this summer, but has been mired in delays. Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson, who will act as producer on the new film, recently dismissed rumors of trouble with the picture, insisting, 'It's not really been delayed, because we've never announced the date.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Hobbit On Hold

Comments Filter:
  • Dang (Score:5, Funny)

    by 2names (531755) on Friday May 28, 2010 @05:18PM (#32382262)
    Now what will I do?
  • by The-Pheon (65392) on Friday May 28, 2010 @05:25PM (#32382340) Homepage

    Bond 23 [imdb.com] has also been delayed because of MGM's legal issues. http://www.imdb.com/news/ni2143090/ [imdb.com]

    I was looking forward to seeing Mr. Craig shoot some guns, drive some fast cars, and flirt with some girls.

    • I still think Pierce Brosnan did a better job. Which is saying something, since he wasn't the best Bond.

      • Not the best? Only Timothy Dalton was worse then Brosnan. But that's entirely my own gusto. And that's the funny thing: everyone has a different point of view. I assume there might even by some people who would argue that Mr. Brosnan was the best Bond...
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          My girlfriend likes him, but in her defense, she hasn't seen Connery, Moore, or anyone else for that matter.

          • Well, as stated before: It's her opinion and if she's happy with it she shall be. I just don't share her opinion ;_)
        • by h4rr4r (612664) on Friday May 28, 2010 @05:44PM (#32382646)

          There is no debate, the correct answer is Connery was the best Bond. It really is that simple.

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by onkelonkel (560274)
            All the really cool kids like George Lazenby.
          • by geekoid (135745)

            No he wasn't. I am so sick of that. The crappy accent, The awkward I'm standing her fiddling until your down with your lines body position. gah.

            • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward

              No he wasn't. I am so sick of that. The crappy accent, The awkward I'm standing her fiddling until your down with your lines body position. gah.

              Translation to something comprehensible, please?

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by sjbe (173966)

            There is no debate, the correct answer is Connery was the best Bond.

            I don't have a favorite Bond actor though I can't say I liked Connery best in the role. He was fine as Bond, sort of defined it I guess, but I think others have done at least as well. I do have a least favorite (Roger Moore) and Connery did not star in my favorite Bond movies (Casino Royale and A View to A Kill) so if I don't like Connery's Bond movies the best it's hard for me to like him best in the role. Moore was generally annoying in the role, a little to smug and "perfect", and though I really like

          • I personally prefer Craig, but have you read any of the books? The Bond of the books is Craig to a tee, all the others are rather different.
        • Only Timothy Dalton was worse then Brosnan.

          As you say, your own point of view. I actually thought Timothy Dalton was the closest to matching the Bond from the books. I quite liked him, and thought he wasn't given a fair shake. Too many people wanting Remington Steele as Bond, or a return of Connery or (gah) Moore.

          Nobody really gave him a chance.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by sconeu (64226)

          The funny thing is, Dalton may have been the worst film Bond, but he was probably truest to Fleming's vision of the character... world weary and burned out.

          The best film Bond, of course, is Sean Connery.

        • I happened to like Brosnan, and thought he was one of the better ones (having seen many of the old ones too)... but that may just be because I saw GoldenEye first as a kid.
      • I think it's a false comparison.
        Brosnan was at the last in a newest 'gadget' cycle of the series. Mr. Craig version he IS the weapon.

        The bond series gadgets cycle in there and back again.

        See what I did there?

    • by h4rr4r (612664)

      Vladimir Putin or as he seems to be called here Mr.Craig is close to the worst James Bond ever. James Bond is supposed to be cool, smart and this lug looks more like a Neanderthal and acts like one too.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Vladimir Putin or as he seems to be called here Mr.Craig is close to the worst James Bond ever. James Bond is supposed to be cool, smart and this lug looks more like a Neanderthal and acts like one too.

        no - james bond became cool and smart as the stories progressed. he was most definately a neanderthal thug at heart in the books and daniel craig does an excellent job of portraying it.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by acid_andy (534219)
          No, he has style in the books and sophisticated tastes and is cool at least in his state of mind. He's also handsome and has dark hair. Purely in terms of the look I think Brosnan actually came closest and Craig is furthest. Brosnan just had terrible scripts (with the exception of GoldenEye although that's still far from the best)!
      • by acid_andy (534219)
        Yes he is the worst. He looks like a builder. He just needs the builder's bum! I hope the Hobbit does get made, but only if it's good. I'm getting sick of great stories being harvested to make a quickly churned out crap film (and don't even get me started on remakes!). The LOTR films were almost perfect I thought though so if it's close to them I can't wait! I don't know how they got the world to appear so similar to how I had imagined it when reading the books.
    • by PawnII (720562)

      If you believe the latest gossip on the tabloids he may start flirting with some boys too.

    • by syousef (465911) on Friday May 28, 2010 @05:51PM (#32382752) Journal

      I was looking forward to seeing Mr. Craig shoot some guns, drive some fast cars, and flirt with some girls.

      Teaches me not to read the subject line first. For a moment I was wondering what version of the hobbit you were referring to!!!!

  • "On Hold" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TopSpin (753) on Friday May 28, 2010 @05:28PM (#32382384) Journal

    Given Jackson's track record with LOTR the Hobbit movies are worth a couple billion dollars in revenue. There is absolutely no possibility they won't get made. There have been several fits of "on hold" while the rights were negotiated with the Tolkiens. There will be more "on hold" moments while more parties wrangle for their cut. In the end it will make it to the screen because everyone, absolutely everyone, wants this.

    • by syousef (465911)

      In the end it will make it to the screen because everyone, absolutely everyone, wants this.

      Never underestimate the power of human stupidity to derail good work. This very real power eclipses the fictional magic of any ring.

    • I sure hope so, it am really looking forward to it myself.

    • by interkin3tic (1469267) on Friday May 28, 2010 @06:05PM (#32382956)

      There is absolutely no possibility they won't get made.

      If it gets delayed until 2012, some would argue there's a very good possibility it won't get made regardless of how profitable it would be. Because that's when Sauron is prophesied to come back, and he has a really good legal team.

    • by geekoid (135745)

      Copyright expires in 2012. Think about that.

      • by sconeu (64226)

        Only because the world will end. Otherwise the MAFIAA will get copyright extended way past that.

        • When are the earliest Mickey Mouse copyrights currently due to expire? I suspect 5 years before that is when the real push for another extension will begin.

          • by amiga3D (567632)
            Yes...who is the current senator from Disney? We need to start keeping an eye on any legislation he proposes.
    • In any case, given that del Toro is a better director than Jackson, I think that the final product will be great.

      Producing is an entirely different beast from directing. Actually an overbearing director can be the worst news for a film, since he may want to see his ideas in the film, robing creative control form the person that should have it: the director.

  • We actually performed The Hobbit in a play on stage, a musical no less.. What could a movie possibly add? Besides my list of movies to boycott is already full. I'm afraid I just can't squeeze any more in.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      an audience.

    • by Ihmhi (1206036)

      I'm afraid I just can't squeeze any more in.

      <Connery> Well that'sh what your mother shaid lasht night! </Connery>

      • by Culture20 (968837)

        I'm afraid I just can't squeeze any more in.

        <Connery> Well that'sh what your mother shaid lasht night! </Connery>

        Was GP quoting you in his sig?

        --
        Man! It stinks in here

  • Enough with putting this movie on hold... they need to sort out their dispute now. I mean, personally, I really want to see this movie... but aside from my interest, this movie will be a blockbuster and it will make a lot of money. They are retarded for letting it be put "on hold"... get over it and make this damn movie.
    • by arth1 (260657)

      If it was a pure Jackson movie, I would have seen it, and probably bought it too.
      As it is a Toro movie, I won't. His creative use of camera zooms and distorted aspect ratios makes me motion sick, and the ping-pong dialogue is almost as bad as Whedon.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Roads go ever ever on,
    Over rock and under tree,
    But not by a movie studio.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, 2010 @05:41PM (#32382592)

    They can't wait too long. Ian McKellen just turned 71.

    • Well, 2008 Life Expectancies for the US were 77 to 80 years old, and in the UK its +80. I imagine thats where he spends most of his time. The biggest detraction to life expectancy right now is Obesity, and I don't think Ian McKellen has that problem.

      I think they could put the movie on hold for another 5 years and he'd still be able to do it. Just my personal opinion.

      • Life expectancy is the average death age of all people born. What you need are some good actuarial tables that tell you the average death age of a person who's managed to reach 71. It'll be higher.
        • by TheLink (130905)
          > What you need are some good actuarial tables that tell you the average death age of a person who's managed to reach 71.
          > It'll be higher.

          It's significantly higher if you reach that age and are still reasonably healthy. Not so much higher if most of your organs are in poor condition already...

          I guess Ian McKellen has still a fair number of years left, unless "stuff happens".
      • I would think that being alive was not the only requisite for being an actor.

        Of course, Gandalf's role in The Hobbit is much lighter than in LotR.

        • by TheLink (130905)
          > I would think that being alive was not the only requisite for being an actor.

          Even if he dies it's not a technical problem if you have a big enough budget. Just scan him or reconstruct his likeness from existing images and have an actor play his part using the Avatar movie making tech.

          The problems will be legal ( again :) ) - whether his estate will allow his likeness to be used etc, how much $$$$ etc.
    • by tgd (2822)

      If they get a release on his likeness, death would only be a cost bump in the film -- its easy enough to do him digitally.

  • years. The copy copyright was in 1937, 28 years, plus a possible 47 year extension. 75 years Max and assuming the filed properly.
    2012 it expires. Seems to me the Tolkien estate should suck whatever blood they can get from our culture now.

    The Renewal System
    Under the 1909 copyright law, works copyrighted in the United States before
    January 1, 1978, were subject to a renewal system in which the term of copyright
    was divided into two consecutive terms. Renewal registration, within strict time
    limits, was required as a condition of securing the second term and extending
    the copyright to its maximum length.
    On January 1, 1978, the current copyright law (title 17 of the United States
    Code) came into effect in the United States. This law retained the renewal
    system for works that were copyrighted before 1978 and were still in their first
    terms on January 1, 1978. For these works the statute provides for a first term of
    copyright protection lasting for 28 years, with the possibility for a second term
    of 47 years. The 1992 amending legislation automatically secures this second
    term for works copyrighted between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 1977.

    The Hobbit was published in 1937. It had to be extende withing 28 year. 1965 at the latest.
    The second extension is for 47 years. meaning the second, and final extension shoud ahve ended in 2007.

    note: If a copyright originally secured before January 1, 1964, was not renewed at
    the proper time, copyright protection expired at the end of the 28th calendar year
    of the copyright and could not be restored.

    Some of the first runs didn't even have a copyright mark, so one could argue the copyright is invalad. You would need to be a dick to argue that.

    • by asylumx (881307)
      Wait... The copyright expires in 2012?? Don't tell me it happens in December....
    • by JimDarley (942005) on Friday May 28, 2010 @07:23PM (#32383952)
      The US adopted the Berne convention in 1988, according to which:- "One important minimum rule was that the term of copyright was to be a minimum of the author's lifetime plus 50 years."

      According to Wikipedia, Tolkien died in 1973, that plus 50 years means that it'll be 2023 before the copyright expires.
      • In life+50 countries like Canada, it will be 2024 (it becomes PD Jan 1 of the year after the 50th anniversary of the death), but in the US, since it was copyrighted under the rules in place then, with the extensions (geekoid forgot about the 20 year extension in 1998), the copyright will expire in 2033. In the UK and EU and many other countries where it is life+70, it will be PD in 2044. This is all assuming the terms aren't extended yet again.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by edjs (1043612)

        I don't believe the US was obligated to apply that to works created before they adopted the Convention.

        From my reading of the circulars below, The Hobbit would be copyrighted (in the US) until 2032. It would have expired in 2012 if they hadn't extended the term an additional 20 years in 1998.

        There is, of course, plenty of time to extend it further.

        Copyright Basics [copyright.gov]

        Duration of Copyright [copyright.gov]

    • Also, Tolkien was British, and his work was published in the UK. US Copyright law is worth balls all, especially when it comes to extensions.
    • by srleffler (721400)
      Your information is out of date. U.S. copyright terms were extended by the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 [wikipedia.org]. Assuming the copyright was renewed by 1965, its term was extended for 95 years from the date of publication, so the copyright will expire around 2032.

      Not only will The Hobbit's copyright not expire in 2012, but in fact with rare exceptions no copyrights will expire in that year, or in any other year until 2019. The change in copyright terms was motivated by the then-imminent expiry of the copyr

  • We hates it...FOREVER!

  • im no zealot of anyone or anything about the movies, however, jackson did a good job with the trilogy. if so, i would consider it stupid to not use the guy who was tested and succeeded.

    maybe i should not watch that, not taking the risk. 'tolkien estate' has valued their immediate profits over the importance and value of the lotr saga after all. it would send a good message.

    i mean, really, as someone said about wall street, 'how many yachts you can water ski behind'.
    • Jackson, overrated (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TiggertheMad (556308) on Friday May 28, 2010 @06:32PM (#32383244) Homepage Journal
      however, jackson did a good job with the trilogy.

      Elf shield surfing.
      Dwarf tossing jokes.
      Rewriting parts of the story to make it 'more exciting'.


      Let's just say that he did ok, hmmm?
      • by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland @ y a hoo.com> on Friday May 28, 2010 @07:08PM (#32383784) Homepage Journal

        And it was still better then anyone else could of done.

        It was a great Job. No, it wasn't perfect, but it was still an awesome movie that told the story.

      • by unity100 (970058)
        the other people replied to you quite well. its the general atmosphere and flow of the story, correct representation of the characters that makes a movie. not a few glitches here and there. tom bombadil, was actually in the books, and far more stupid.

      • Rewriting parts of the story to make it 'more exciting'.

        Are these the tediously-long battle sequences?

        Just started Fellowship with my daughter last night, coincidentally, and the extended version has much better pacing, except for the "we have Massive, so by golly that's worth half an hour of screentime" parts.

      • by john83 (923470)

        Let's just say that he did ok, hmmm?

        He translated a celebrated book which was considered unfilmable into a commercially successful, oscar-winning film, introducing the book to a huge number of people who would otherwise have never considered reading it. Yeah, he did "okay".

  • Peter Jackson has said before that the Lord of the Rings Extended Edition will not be released on BluRay until after he is finished up with The Hobbit, because he needs to be directly involved in the project. So does this mean that, since he won't be busy on the Hobbit right now, he'll have time to work on that? Or is LotR EE BR now in indefinite hold too?

  • So does this mean that the blu-ray EE trilogy will be delayed as well ?
  • The film, based on J.R.R. Tolkien's first book in the fantasy series

    Not the first. [wikipedia.org]

    Okay, so maybe the Silmarillion wasn't the first book to be published but it's the first in historical significance to the world of Middle-Earth. And if you didn't get the reference of my link text, we don't need your kind here. [xkcd.com]

  • Lord of the Rings.. three movies of nothing but walking...
    • Lord of the Rings.. three movies of nothing but walking...

      Yes, in the same way that Die Hard is four movies of nothing but architecture.

  • So is the movie going to suddenly change perspective and go fro 3rd person to first person "Through Dildo's Eyes" ala The Blair Witch Project?

    Let's not forget that the Hobbit was the crappies book he wrote. He should have smoked less pot at the time and at least kept the point of view consistent....

Lisp Users: Due to the holiday next Monday, there will be no garbage collection.

Working...