Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Lord of the Rings Movies Entertainment

MGM and Warner Near On Deal For Hobbit Films 222

Jamie found an NYT story that says "After months of negotiation and delay, Warner Brothers and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer are on the verge of an agreement that would allow the director Peter Jackson to begin shooting a two-part version of J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit early next year." The production has struggled recently with issues with unions, and a fire.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MGM and Warner Near On Deal For Hobbit Films

Comments Filter:
  • by simcop2387 ( 703011 ) on Monday October 04, 2010 @11:47AM (#33784612) Homepage Journal

    Nothing can ever beat that cartoon.

    • That all depends on how much pot you smoke right before you watch it.

  • by killmenow ( 184444 ) on Monday October 04, 2010 @11:50AM (#33784632)
    I swear I read that as "The production has struggled recently with issues with Unicorns, and a fire."
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by dubbreak ( 623656 )

      I swear I read that as "The production has struggled recently with issues with Unicorns"

      I know it's the ultimate paradox. On one hand the original story didn't have unicorns on the other hand they are totally awesome.

      I can totally see how that would hold up production. If you're going to do unicorns you want to do them right and not just CG them in after the fact because you changed your mind and decided the movie would be that much more awesome with them.

    • by pavon ( 30274 )

      Hehe. My first reaction was "That's a strange way to spell Onions, is this some reference from LOTR that I have forgotten?"

    • And in an even weirder twist, I read your comment as Unicron [wikipedia.org].
  • let's wait (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Let's wait until there actually is an agreement made before we start celebrating. This thing has been "real close" to taking the next step too many times now.
    • Yeah - the trouble with a movie about a bunch of dwarves and a hobbit is deciding on who gets the short straw - there's not enough to go around.
  • by sideslash ( 1865434 ) on Monday October 04, 2010 @11:51AM (#33784660)

    With the producers, director, actors, production crews, and distributors facing off in a lawsuit -- a great Battle of Five Armies over a huge pile of gold.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm looking forward to throwing my $10 on the pile. I'm sure the film itself will be great.

    • I'm going to get mauled for this... but I really enjoyed reading The Hobbit and think it will make a great movie.

      The LoTR movies were good, and so were the books. The problem I had with the LoTR movie is the same problem I have with any massive chronicle. Namely, special effects -- no matter how great -- cannot even really compare with imagination. Plus, there's so much happening in LoTR movie that my small brain got a little lost. The same thing happened with Transformers, X-Men, The Mummy, etc..

      The Hobbi

  • by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Monday October 04, 2010 @11:54AM (#33784684) Homepage
    Magic Palantír Says: DON'T COUNT ON IT
  • Two parts? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Monday October 04, 2010 @11:57AM (#33784720) Homepage

    ie. They're going to milk this for all it's worth.

    • by Fishead ( 658061 )

      Yup... and I will refuse to see the first part until the second part comes out and I can watch them back to back.

    • Why buy the cow when you can milk the bull for free?

      • > Why buy the cow when you can milk the bull for free?
        Methinks you (pardon the pun), butchered that...

        "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" - FTFY

        Anyways, the answer is: To keep the other bulls away so you have a monopoly on the milk... and the heifers...

        But I digress.

        Soooo, bringing this back ON topic, when have the movie studies NOT tried to screw the public out their money with all the [crappy] sequels.

    • A large group of people throw money at a franchise and it's lame that they're 'milking' it?

      • I still remember putting my first LOTR DVD into the player and being greeted by an advert for the extended edition - "Available next month!!"

        There's milking, and there's ripping off.

        • Did you look into it at all before you made a purchase? I ask because every time I've seen a complaint about this the announcement was made before the release of the lite DVD.

    • by bigredradio ( 631970 ) on Monday October 04, 2010 @12:24PM (#33785058) Homepage Journal
      The first part is the movie. The 2nd part is the ending where everybody says goodbye to each other.
      • by grub ( 11606 ) *
        They could have cut the LOTR trilogy into 6 parts then I could skip parts 2, 4 and 6 where the Hobbits just ran through the woods.
      • That's the one thing I disliked about Return of the King. There were too many goodbyes and they seemed to drag on forever. The journey to the sea was in the appendix of the Return of the King as part of a timeline of what happened later. They could have done it as a voice-over epilogue which would have cut the movie by 10 minutes.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      The Hobbit was 2 parts. The lord of the rings really should have been about 9 movies. but you know that'd never happen. God forbid they ever try and do the silmarillion.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by lgw ( 121541 )

        Actually, the Silmarillion would be fine - it's a set of short stories, many of which would make fine movies. No one needs to see Genesis on the screen, but there's great movie material past the begats.

      • by killmenow ( 184444 ) on Monday October 04, 2010 @01:26PM (#33785766)
        God forbid anyone ever try and read the silmarillion.
        • >
          > God forbid anyone ever try and read the silmarillion.
          Actually, i have tried a few times - but always seemed to black out. All I can remember is some sort of historic summary, that goes like :
          18xx - King Foo does Bar
          19xx - King Foo dies
          20xx - Elf X does Y
          and so on and so on ...
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            It took me about 4 tries but it was worth it.

            Once you read it a few times you start remembering who is who and then the significance of the story emerges.

            Even the names of swords are important and it's easy to forget 100 pages earlier that you already were introduced to character.

            It also helps to understand the structure of the story: The first page is the entire story. The 1st chapter is the entire story and then it decompresses exponentially from there.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by halcyon1234 ( 834388 )

        God forbid they ever try and do the silmarillion.

        I think they should do an entire HBO vignette series out of the Silmarillion. There's lots of good fodder in there that would distill down nicely to a 3-story episode, or a multi-part story arc or two. Plus they can bring on multiple actors, directors and writers to suit the individual stories.

        And can you seriously tell me that you don't want to see an epic battle against a horde of Balrogs? Or an invasion of an armada so vast that the only way to defeat t

        • Re:Two parts? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Shining Celebi ( 853093 ) on Monday October 04, 2010 @06:09PM (#33788844) Homepage

          And can you seriously tell me that you don't want to see an epic battle against a horde of Balrogs? Or an invasion of an armada so vast that the only way to defeat them is to crack the planet?

          Or cool Elves! By the time of the Lord of the Rings, the only remaining Elves are the uncultured types (Legolas) and the aging hippies laying around and doing nothing but reminiscing about better days (Elrond and Galadriel). The Silmarillion is like, their Woodstock with fire and demons. Take Feanor, the greatest Elf ever to live. You know the Palantir? Those were like, one of his weekend projects he did when he got bored one day. When he wasn't making cool stuff, he was standing up to the Man. And by that, I mean when the most powerful god in Middle-Earth came knocking, the guy who could take on all the other gods alone in the beginning, the guy who kept Sauron around as a pet, Feanor slammed his door in the dude's face and told him to gtfo. This dude's last words were basically "DO IT BIG, GUYS. DO IT BIG."

          And you know how all the Elves in LotR are goody-two-shoes pansies? Not in The Silmarillion. Do things like "the Kinslayings", "the Curse of the Noldor", the "Oath of Feanor", and "The Grinding Ice" sound like pansy crap to you? When these Elves showed up, the Big Bad had to invent dragons because Orcs were completely and utterly outmatched. When they saw Balrogs, these Elves didn't call out for Gandalf. Feanor took on multiple Balrogs and their troll-guard at once. Glorfindel - the same dude who got cut from the LotR movies - fights and kills a Balrog. And dragons, oh man, were there dragons. Smaug in the Hobbit is like a baby dragon. Ancalagon the Black crushed mountains (plural) when he fell from the skies.

          The Silmarillion - if you take the time to get past Genesis, which is important backstory - is not a story for the faint of heart. It's full of incest, treachery, gods, treachery, and much more. You'll recognize a couple characters from the Lord of the Rings. The Silmarillion is a very, very intricate story, and it does take time to understand, but once you've got a grasp on it, it's pretty mindblowing.

          Also, you get to see Sauron put to shame by a man, his girlfriend, and their loyal dog.

    • by Kjella ( 173770 )

      For one Peter Jackson is not George Lucas, also I doubt he's had any deciding power in the DVD/BluRay release schedule which is an insult to all the fans. He had to fight hard enough to get his own money. If you're going to stay true to the book then I'd say one movie leading up to and ending in the climax of Smaug's defeat is a good first movie. Making that a little "middle climax" and the battle of five armies the final climax doesn't do it justice at all. Remember that the LotR movies were much, much lon

    • No, it's not like that at all. It's not a money grab, it's just that the story is so epic that they couldn't figure out how to put it all into just one part. Oh wait, never mind. That was Starcraft 2.
    • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *
      I hear they're doing the same thing with the next Harry Potter book. Then they'll probably go to three movies for the next book. That poor kid is going to be 40 by the time they get to the last movie in that series. Guess we'll see if his magic spells can fix thinning hair.
  • You know, with Duke Nukem Forever actually looking like it's going to come out, it's a shame that we're losing such a great internet meme, because I was just about to say how The Hobbit is starting to look like the Duke Nukem Forever of the film world. :(

  • They slipped a ring around all the issues they were having, and they just disappeared, later to be stabbed to death by these horsemen in black cloaks...
  • Oh goody... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by droopus ( 33472 ) * on Monday October 04, 2010 @12:08PM (#33784876)

    Yet another opportunity to wear funny glasses for three hours and have pointy objects thrust at me repeatedly.

    Maybe he'll buck the trend and NOT do it in 3D?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by edmicman ( 830206 )

      This was the first thing I noticed. If they subscribe to the gimmick that is 3D in movies I'll have lost all respect for the crew that brought us LOTR.

      • I've seen documentaries filmed in IMAX 3D. 3D isn't a gimmick, it's absolutely phenomenal. Or at least it was 20 years ago. The gimmick is their desire to look "cool". Home Improvement made fun of it when all of the other stations were doing their 3D episodes, with glasses in the newspaper, what, 10 years ago now? (Third Rock from the Sun and many other shows all did it the same night, get glasses from paper, see episode in stunning 3D). So, Tool Time had it's own 3D episode, and Tim, Al, and Heidi s

      • by cgenman ( 325138 )

        The options (and outcomes) are:

        1a: Film it in 3D. 3D dies before the movie comes out, and it is displayed in 2D.
        1b: Film it in 3D. 3D is still alive before the movie comes out, and it is displayed in 2D and decent-looking 3D.
        2a: Film it in 2D. 3D dies before the movie comes out, and it is displayed in 2D.
        2b: Film it in 2D. 3D is still alive before the movie comes out, and some hack executive forces a godawful 3D conversion.

        Filming in 3D might take a little more time, but you do cover your bases.

    • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *
      And pass up on all that extra money the studios can charge you for the ticket? Are you MAD?!?!?
  • by gad_zuki! ( 70830 ) on Monday October 04, 2010 @12:20PM (#33785010)

    It began with the forging of the Great Rings. Three were given to the artists and writers; wisest and most creative of all beings. Seven, to the union actors, great visionaries and craftsmen of the stage. And nine, nine rings were gifted to the studio execs, who above all else desire power. For within these rings was bound the strength and the will to govern over each group. But they were all of them deceived, for a new ring was made. In the land of New Zealand, in the fires of Mount Cook, the Dark Lord Peter Jackson forged in secret, a master ring, to control all others.

    • You know, I was going to nitpick that using gift as a verb couldn't have been in usage when the original was written, but sure enough. I guess I'm going to have to give that up as a pet peeve.
  • by jbeach ( 852844 ) on Monday October 04, 2010 @12:28PM (#33785102) Homepage Journal
    The studios pulled the infamous Hollywood Accounting scam, of trying to pretend that LOTR didn't make any money, in order to keep from paying Jackson his contractual shares of profits.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting#Examples [wikipedia.org]

    I'd suspect that they must have come to some sort of an agreement with Jackson. Either setting up payment on what they owe in LOTR, or sweetening the $ from the Hobbit in some way in order to make up for it.

    What's even more interesting to me, is that the article doesn't mention this at all. The article reads so much like a press release that I wonder if it's cribbed directly from a couple of different press releases.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      I don't know the specifics of the deal but I understand Jackson did not agree to percentage of profits. He agreed to percentage of gross revenue. My understanding was of the disagreement had to deal with licensing rights [nytimes.com]. Jackson was to get revenue based on the licensing. NewLine Cinema is part of Time Warner. Jackson is alleging that NewLine sold the rights to other Time Warner subsidiaries in a closed system for far less than what they should have gotten. This way on paper NewLine gets less revenue

      • by jbeach ( 852844 )
        I stand corrected. Going for a cut of the gross isn't quite as dumb as going for a cut of the net - still, it is surprising that he went for it.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Most people in Hollywood go for gross points instead of net points because of past experience with the studios. However the studios finds ways like the closed bidding system in order to get as much money as possible.
    • by cgenman ( 325138 )

      I'm kind of shocked Jackson actually fell for a cut of the net. I know his clout currently stems from the LOTR movies, but Hollywood Accounting is as old and straightforward a rule as you will find in LA these days. First year acting students are told not to take a cut of the net. How did he fall for that?

      • by jbeach ( 852844 )
        It is amazing, isn't it? Going for a cut of the gross isn't as dumb as a cut of the net (which I thought he did, before I was corrected), but it's still quite trusting.

        Perhaps he really didn't think they would cut off their nose to spite their face with the further possible movies he could make?
  • two-part version of J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit early next year

    The Hobbit was the shortest book in the series. It was a much easier read then the actual Lord of the Rings series. Why does it need to be TWO movies? I bet I could read The Hobbit in less time then it'll take to watch this movie!

    I'm getting so sick of Jackson's super-extended movies that I think I'm just going to pass on this one. I don't need to watch Bilbo fly on the back of a bird for 20 minutes because Jackson just can't bear to cut any frames out.

    • Maybe that's the version you need.

      Some of us like the fact that instead of trying to stuff the entirety of the Lord of the Rings into a single movie, or two movies, or even three short movies, Jackson went all the way and immersed us in Middle Earth for several hours. I dislike that Saruman's demise was altered, and the departure at the end of RotK went on too long, but I am happy that Jackson gave us a full, meaty interpretation of the books.

      The Hobbit is a shorter work, but it's easy to envision it as a t

  • ack! Too late! "The Hobbit" directed by Guillermo Del Toro is now the great lost films of our generation. I really hope there's a chance of re-attaching him to the project. His lightness of touch with fantasy would have suited this material so well.

    Last time I felt like this was the canning of Darren Aronofsky's "Batman: Year One"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_Year_One#Canceled_film [wikipedia.org]
    which would have been pretty awesome too....

  • > two-part version of J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit

    Huh? He fit the Ring books into a film each, yet the Hobbit, smaller than any of them, needs two parts? Uggg.

e-credibility: the non-guaranteeable likelihood that the electronic data you're seeing is genuine rather than somebody's made-up crap. - Karl Lehenbauer