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."
Not public domain (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not public domain (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Want to blame someone go after Victor Hugo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not public domain (Score:5, Informative)
As with so many people in these near-xenophobic times, you appear to be making the incorrect assumption that the Constitution only applies to US Citizens. When the constitution means "United States" things, it explicitly says so. Section 8's enumerated power of copyright applies to all writings of authors everywhere in the world.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sure it is ! (Score:2, Informative)
70 years on and The Hobbit isn't in the public domain. It truly is a shame to see our constitution thwarted in this manner.
According to this chart [museumscopyright.org.uk], "The Hobbit" [wikipedia.org], has been in the public domain since 21st September 2007.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Dahh, my bad ,, (places foot in mouth)
Peter Jackson (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I donno, Leonard Nimoy (Spock) might work (Score:2)
Dear Mr. Jackson (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dear Mr. Jackson (Score:5, Funny)
Uh, ok, I see your point.
Re: (Score:2)
Er, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
What exactly happens, of any interest, in that period? Bilbo uses the Ring a few times to avoid the Sackville-Bagginses. Writes memoirs. Lends mithril armour to the Michel Delving Mathom-house. Wow, riveting stuff.
In the wider world, Sauron has returned to Mordor and is rebuilding Barad-dur. Three hours on an Orcish construction site, then?
The only excitement you might get is following Aragorn incognito in the guard of Minas Tirith. But to what end?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's a comedy about a bunch of Orcish misfits called "Auf Wiedersehen, Nazgul"?
Other than that, without resorting to making stuff up, there's really not a lot going on outside Mordor is there? LoTR makes it pretty clear that pretty much everyone got caught off guard by Sauron's return to Barad-dur, and even Gandalf's suspicions only got roused by Bilbo's disappearing act at his birthday party at the start of LoTR. The only other thing I can think
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But he still took it.
I know there are going to be people who are going to fight me on this but... I realize that Jackson had a ton of material to work with and not all of it was going to end up in the films. I understand this about The Hobbit too. What irks me is that Jackson, at points, went out of his way to botch the film-book relationship. He took up creative license in areas where the books had just as good of an answer that would have req
Re:Er, what? (Score:4)
The worst is when he does it in the name of comic relief and makes what JRRT created as strong, competent elements into common oafs. The ents are a prime example of this.
Wait...what? Of all the things, the Ents were pretty damn close to how JRR Tolkien wrote them; very deliberate to the point where they appeared slow and oafish, but terrible when roused, and pretty out-of-touch with the world in any case. If anything, Tolkien's Treebeard was sillier than Jackson's.
On the other hand, I was pretty irritated when the elves showed up at Helm's Deep. I'll admit, 300 against tens of thousands looks pretty ridiculous on screen (even if it's Spartans v. Persians, never mind scraggly horsemen v. orcs), but the additional troops robbed it of that 'Battle of New Orleans' sort of feel, and also made the elves unnecessarily sympathetic.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Treebeard was not by any means out-of-touch with the world. He was fully aware of what was going on, as he had had many sources of information -- Gandalf and and even Saruman had once spoken often with him, beca
Re: (Score:2)
The one thing that I did miss in the movies that wasn't there from the books was the sense of joy and mirth that the elves can have. I mean, it was much more prevalent in the Hobbit than it was in LOTR, but it was still very much out of character in the movies. The elves were always sad and somber, never happy and singing, and they were constantly singing in the books. They moved and walked and talked slowly and deliberate, whereas in the book they were whooping and hollering and asking Bilbo for a 2nd r
Re: (Score:2)
I couldn't agree more. While all around me were raving about the LOTR films, I was hanging my head in disbelief at how badly Jackson had screwed them up. I think the best possible outcome at this point would be for "The Hobbit" to never be made into a film
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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
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:Er, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Dwarves, Elves, and Humans were already fighting Suaron on their own fronts by the time they talked about it at Elrond's Rivendell council in Fellowship. Plenty of elaborate battle scenes for Jackson to film. If they can get at least a handful of the same actors from the other movies, they'll do fine.
Re:Er, what? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose some kind of anthropological documentary on hole digging in the Shire and Barad-Dur building in Mordor could have some kind of thing going for it... If they get a good actor to read the commentary... They could sell it to National Geographic or something.
Re:Er, what? (Score:5, Funny)
(apologies to the English, I have a poor ear for accents)
Orc 1: 'E's done it agin'.
Orc 2: Wot's dat?
Orc 1: E's gone an' changed the bloody plans ag'in.
Orc 2: Piss off! Wot's 'e done this time?
Orc 1: Mr. 'igh and mighty dark lord's changed the tower top. Wants to mater'alize up thair.
Orc 2: But 'e's jus' a giant dis'm'bodied flamin' eyeball. It'll look ridik'lous!
Orc 1: Tha's wot I said! "Barad'dur'll look like a giant bleedin' lighthouse," I says. "Wot'll you be doin', guidin' ships in o'er the flamin' lakes o' lava?"
Orc 2: Cor, you didn'!
Orc 1: Yes, I says it! Right to his flamin' eyeball!
Orc 2: S'ppose that explains the singe and smoke about you. Bits're flakin' off.
Orc 1: Yes, yes it does. So I'm off t' round up the gang. Eyeball turrets for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Would it really be so bad if he didn't direct it? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
As for the whole part of "between the hobbit and LO
Re:You are taking the piss, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
While not entirely successful, changes were necessary to make it possible to make a poetic work function dramatically.
Dramatic storytelling is fundamentally unrealistic, because it overemphasizes the power of an individual's ability to control situations through their decisions. LotR doesn't believe the fundamental model. In LotR, no individual is capable of achieving success. While individuals may fail through their own actions, they cannot succeed. This is a profoundly un-dramatic viewpoint; the rules of drama say that the protagonist must overcome adversity through his own virtues. In LotR, characters may attain their ends, but they do not achieve them. It is not accidental that Frodo fails in his quest, it is a deliberate philosophical statement about the action of grace in the lives of people who at least try to be virtuous.
In Tolkien's world view, the agency of individuals even in their own decisions is limited. People roll along in the grooves that their habitual actions have worn in their character. We are carefully presented with pairs of characters in which the practice or non practice of the Christian virtues of faith, hope and love play out in their destinies: Frodo/Gollum, Theoden/Denethor, Faramir/Boromir. The idea that a character's destiny is part of a larger process than the events of the story is also anti-dramatic.
It is inevitable that changes are made to make the movie work dramatically -- at the very least the elaborate parallelism of Tolkien would have doubled the length of the movies. This is not heresy, Tolkien himself was the kind of author who never stopped changing a manuscript until it was torn from his hands. Some of the movie changes work, some of them don't.
The changes that don't work fail because the story is simply too complex already for them to be developed adequately. As it is, considerable familiarity with the story is needed to follow the movies. The story changes work to the degree their ends are consistent with time available. The changes in Faramir, for example, simply don't ring true, because there isn't enough time to show him making a believable "change of heart" decision. Rewriting Theoden's death scene to be played with Eowyn was not only time efficient, it heightened the emotional impact of the scene. It also brings the somewhat brash screen Theoden back to Tolkien's Theoden, whose saving grace was humility.
Many changes were done to preserve pieces of poetry in the original; Eomer's words are put in Theoden's mouth; the words of the unnamed narrator are put in Gandalf's mouth. By in large these are to the benefit of the movies in that they preserve some of the beauty of the original.
I was watching the DVD of Return of the King recently, and I was particularly struck by the Rohirrim in the Battle of Pelennor Fields. This was of course altered to fit the needs of dramatization, but I believe Tolkien would have been thrilled. It shows how Jackson understands the heroic values of Lord of the Rings, even if he is not 100% successful in translating those values to the screen: heroism is not conferred by victory, but by acting courageously when reason tells you victory is impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, in a nutshell, there are a total of three outright changes to the story that I unequivocally liked: (1) giving Theoden most of the alliterative poetry lines, (2) Replacing Merry with Eowyn at Theoden's death scene, (3) giving Gandalf the lines of the unnamed narrator f
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which was pretty much inevitable. No two people would make the same choices, therefore any specific changes are bound to cause dissatisfaction in some people. Fan satisfaction/dissatisfaction is not a viable criterion for judging whether a change works.
My opinion is that in order for changes to work, they have to have screen time to play out. This means that reasonable changes that condense the story nearly always
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, my claims are not sweeping at all. You have the burden of proof here: what changes were actually arbitrary? Propose some examples, and we will see.
I've also read origina
Re: (Score:2)
I will confess to believing I have one advantage over Tolkien in this matter: I have actually seen the movie.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I doubt it too. Because everyone knows that a truly gifted author such as Tolkein must by virtue of being a skilled author of novels and short stories also be a master of film as well. They are basically the same medium, after all. So a defense of Peter Jackson's decisions is clearly unfounded, as Jackson, being a mere director, could not possibly have any idea what makes a good
Re: (Score:2)
It is an interesting piece, although I'm not entirely sure it is skillfully done, in the sense of being something that you could succefully stage. It's a bit like Michael Jordan trying out baseball a few years ago, in that it suggests intriguing possibilities for how things might have gone differently if Tolkien had applied himself in that direction early on. He was a gifte
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Would it really be so bad if he didn't direct i (Score:2)
Re:Would it really be so bad if he didn't direct i (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Would it really be so bad if he didn't direct i (Score:5, Insightful)
Uwe Boll (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Uwe Boll (Score:5, Funny)
Paul Verhoeven: He would probably choose some aspect of the story and hyper emphasize it. The movie would also have blatant political satire.
Michael Bay: The fight scenes would be dramatic, but we would not have any idea who was fighting or who was winning until the end when we finally got a somethings besides blurred elbows and bodies and the wide angle shot showed us the winners standing.
David Lynch: A very strange film with gollem losing an ear and sauron going on and on about mommy while taking nitro.
Joel and Ethan Coen: An offbeat humorous version with every goofy character in LOTR played up and heightened magical reality.
David Cronenberg: Would use LOTR as a metaphor to examine the nature of reality. At the end, there would be a tie-in between Sauron and current modern reality.
Stephen Chow: A rollicking humorous version of LOTR with lots of special effects. He would probably focus on the one on one fight scenes more than the big battle scenes. No doubt, Gandalf's robes would be reduced to tatters by the Balrog's first attack and we would see his long underwear for a comedy effect before they both tumbled into the abyss.
Quentin Tarantino: This hyper-kenetic, super dark version of LTR would have lots of squick scenes. The lust between Aragorn and his love interest would be played up. Harvey Keitel would appear as Aragorn. Juliette Lewis would star as Arwen.
Michael Moore: Sauron as a metaphor for corporations or the Bush presidency... The hobbits as the socialist paradise (with a scene showing how hobbits were so happy because they had socialized medicine and ate only natural food).
Woody Allen: Woody would of course be Bilbo. Back in the day Mia Farrow would have been Arwen. Someone would have an affair.
Night Shyamalan: Whatever happened during the movie-- the ending would involve some sort of massive twist. Perhaps it will turnout Sauron was so desperate to build power because he was trying to stop something even worse from happening (ala "colossus and crab").
Spike Lee: Black hobbits for sure! Probably black elves. And the orcs would be white. Sure the evilness of the "white hand" would be played up.
George Lucas: 9 hours of wonderful actors giving horrible performances... true to the plot and great special effect scenes tho.
Clint Eastwood: Man.. I like his work but can't imagine what his version would be like. He might be aragorn tho.
---
I think if people consider what we could have had.... They will realize how grateful we should be that Jackson took this on.
Re:Would it really be so bad if he didn't direct i (Score:2)
The main problem I had with Jackson's version is that he left out or didn't do justice to what I thought were some of the most memorable "scenes" from the book. In particular, he made the battle for Minas Tirith pretty spectacular, but things like Gandalf's standoff with the witchking, Aragon's banner coming up
Middle-aged? (Score:2)
I don't think Wood was a particularly bad choice visually, I just don't think he did a great acting job (or perhaps he wasn't directed well).
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: (Score:2)
The Harry Potter movies have different directors and every one of them since the second one has a slightly different look and tone to it. For instance, why totally change the way certain sets look? Hagred's cabin was the same in the first two movies (that had the same director), yet in the third movie they had to go and change it to look different. That's just a "for instance".
Granted, Bilbo will probably have to be
Re: (Score:2)
Will the cavalry come to the rescue again in the battle of the five armies?
Will he really portray the elves as nasty pieces of work?
Will he be able to capture the humour of the moment in a story that is often very amusing? LOTR (the film) wasn't exactly a laugh a minute was it despite having two natural comics in Pippin and Merry.
What about the 60 years in-between? Well I do think we have enough info
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of Bilbo rescuing the dwarves from the spiders he'd probably have Arwen rescuing Bilbo then taking him to those nice wood elves to receive splendid gifts and advice on how to kill dragons.
No cancel that he'll probably have Arwen riding the damn dragon.
No cancel all of that I don't want to put ideas into his head
"Gandolf riding around in grey" (Score:2)
I remember, when we watched two towers with one of my friends who has never been into anything lotr, heck even fantasy and sci-fi, (he is an academics lawyer) his jaw ACTUALLY dropped in the scene where gandalf throws out his cloak and makes saruman leave theoden's body, and he wasnt able speak for a 3-4 seconds.
boy, if some director can direct films like that, you dont let him/her go. and take no chances.
Re:Do we care? (Score:4, Funny)
Well, based on secret Tolkein notes in my possession which I found taped to the back of a forgery of the Mona Lisa, Middle Earth developed transforming robot technology by deeply studying the Ents killed while deforesting vast tracts of land to build huge areas where people could shop for goods and services.
There was eventually a brutal war that, amongst other things, reduced all subsequent Kings of Men to whiny little sissy boys with girly hair. Something to do with a demasculation spell getting tangled up with an elven birth control device.
The technology was banned when a hobbit named Periwinkle Butler lead a jihad against "the evil devices that move of their own volition". It was actually sticken from the historical record, and people forgot all about it due to a forget spell leaking in from a parallel fantasy Universe called Xanth. This is why it's never mention in LOTR.
They don't really even have politics
Which makes then the most advanced and enlightened race in all of Middle Earth.
A bit OT, perhaps (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
(I kid I kid, dutchy here)
Someone smack New Line with a cluestick? (Score:5, Insightful)
So New Line realizes they could stop buggering the goose that laid the golden egg and make another fat pile of shiny if they treat it nice? DUUUH, but still a bit of cluefulness not expected from Hollywood. Now go make the movie!
Re:Someone smack New Line with a cluestick? (Score:4, Informative)
Overall good point, but:
Jackson & crew actually went way over budget, and the total was closer to $500 million plus, with all the extra effects shots they had to do in the latter movies because of lack of planning in principle photography (which, understandably focused more on the first two films, which is why there's less special effects in the first films than the last one), and the need to do pick-ups, etc.
In addition, they renegotiated contracts with pay rises for members of the crew after the crew discovered that they were really onto something, and New Line wasn't spreading the wealth.
Re:Someone smack New Line with a cluestick? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and the parade of nameless directors of the Harry Potter films are responsible for their success as well!
First off, Potter ain't Lord of the Rings.
Funny how none of the great Peter Jackson's other movies can manage to make a dime, what with his tremendous appeal and all. It's almost as if the draw of LOTR had nothing whatsoever to do with him.
Second off, how many good properties have you seen absolutely murdered on-screen? Starship Troopers anyone? how about Disney adaptations of fantasy? Yuck. Or look at Transformers -- not that I was holding out hope for it, not being a nerdy adult fan or anything, but by Azathtoth that was an awful bit of cinematic diarrhea. Lord of the Rings could just as easily been like that with farting hobbits, peeing orcs, and Gandalf cracking dick jokes. Hell, they would have
Start the live-action Evangelion movie, please! (Score:2, Informative)
So what to call the second film? (Score:2)
Re:So what to call the second film? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So what to call the second film? (Score:4, Funny)
Stop it, you're quilling me!
Since he have made a trilogy (Score:2)
meh (Score:2)
Dragons! Balrogs! Morgoth! Silmarils! (Score:3, Interesting)
Can we just get another director? (Score:2)
New Hope? (Score:4, Informative)
- Are you sure you're not an Ewok in disguise?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Sounds like another case... (Score:3, Insightful)
Adam Sandler to direct The Hobbit. (Score:4, Funny)
HOLLYHELL, Monday — In an admirable display of synergy between hard-headed business sense and sensitivity to artistic rightness, New Line Cinemas has hired Adam Sandler to direct The Hobbit, the prequel to The Lord Of The Rings.
"Peter Jackson may have made us three billion dollars and paved our goddamn driveways with Oscars," said a spokesdroid, "but when he dared question the three nickels and a gum wrapper payment, well. We knew we just couldn't work with someone so risibly unprofessional."
Sandler is likely to be working under renowned producer Uwe Boll. "Okay, here is what I am thinking, ja? Your Bilbo Baggins will be a WOMAN in Nazi Germany. A naked woman. And the One Ring will not show up. And she gets raped by Hitler! Gandalf will be played by Keanu Reeves. I AM THE DIRECTOR! I mean programmer. PRODUCER."
Jackson has lost weight, shaved his feet and gone back to his roots to make a warmhearted New Zealand-based family film in the style of his earliest works, under the working title Zombie Cancer Bukkake Pus-Nodules, with a budget in the range of over forty New Zealand dollars.
Work at New Line continues. "We at New Line are convinced that Professor Tolkien would have agreed with us that Adam Sandler will realise her artistic vision eleventy-one percent. We've bought three years' worth of shark futures."
Date of Publication (Score:2)
The EW.com article was published October 4, 2007.
Jackson, MGM and Zaentz are stalling (Score:4, Informative)
Technically, MGM owns the production rights to The Hobbit. New Line and MGM currently have a partnership agreement to produce The Hobbit, but the rights revert back to Saul Zaentz sometime next year if principal production hasn't begun. Since Michael Shaye (president of New Line) has been such a dick to Jackson in recent months, it makes total sense for MGM to stall the process until the rights revert, then MGM and Jackson can repurchase the rights and make the film(s) Jackson wants, which will please the fans and cut New Line out of any revenue from it.
The fans, MGM, and Zaentz all want Jackson to direct.
Zaentz bought the film rights for all of Tolkien's works in 1971 so the Professor could pay back taxes. Tolkien didn't believe any part of Middle Earth could be done justice on the big screen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Such people are never happy with any adaptation no matter how close to the original material. It's simply not possible to adapt such a story to the cinema and not change things. At the very minimum it's impossible to match what such pedants imagined in their heads so something will always bother them.
On the other hand, Jackson's version was just plain bad.
TWW
Re: (Score:2)
The interesting thing about LOTR was the internal cohesion of the world. It was never "great literature."
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, yes, but not as you put it. The Return of the King should have ended with Aragorn's crowning which seems a natural end. Then the Scouring of the Shire could have been a seperate short film. Saruman is assumed locked up in Orthanc, guarded by the Ents, so nothing more needs to be done there.
Mind you, I really liked the films and I'd already read the books too many times too count, so it's not all fans who were disappointed. There were some aspects I didn't
Re: (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: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I may not like your opinion...but I will fight to the death for my right to fight to the death with you!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I happen to love the books...read them back in the 70's when I was a teen and re-read them every few years. I knew from the beginning that the movies were NOT going to be verbatim like the books and some things in the movies really bugged me, but overall the movie
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Where do you get off saying that if you loved the books, you didn't like the films? If that's the extent of your ability to think, can't say it gives much validity to your opinion.
"Isnt it terrible when the thing you like so much is hated by others who seem more invested in the thing than you are?"
Terrible? Of course not. Your "investment" does come across as kind o
Re: (Score:2)
if a movie is done well, no problem. but fool s/he be anyone who would go and take chances on a new director, whereas there is already a director that has done the exact same thing spectacularly well.
and (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if, someone can effectively translate the spirit of a book that well to screen, s/he can as well make any irrelevant episode in a lore relevant and in-line.
Re: (Score:2)
i look at lotr, and i see a 'grand' scale. and persons, places, events described as they were in the book. this matters.