Pj To Produce The Hobbit!
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071218/...ilm_the_hobbit

Check this out! An agreement has been reached!

The fact that Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh are the executive producers of these two films means a great deal. But what it means above all else for them is one thing - power. They will be in charge. They will be the boss. They will have the last word. No running to anyone else for approval. No hiding from studio executives who want to poke around on set. No arguement about final cut or anything else. Jackson and Walsh will be gods on this film

I would guess that they will get the best possible financial deal that anyone has ever recieved for a film.

In the movie business, the studios will sooner part with money than with power. To get this deal done they had to part with both.

And as a side note, this probably puts the final two nails into the coffin of any sequels to GOLDEN COMPASS. New Line is going to marshall their economic and production forces behind these Middle-earth films and are not going to waste resources on something which has proven to be a loser.

The next year will be extremely interesting as we get the announcement of director (in all probablity Jackson), cast members, and other talent. It will be a very interesting year.

Let the speculation begin.:D

One question...

What is the sequel?
How can you make a sequel to the Hobbit, when you've already done it...it's LotR! :confused:

Questions, questions...
 

TM: Hobbit in two parts, not a literal "sequel".

1. Two movies? Hmmm...where is the likely split point, I wonder? What will the cliffhanger be in Hobbit I? Caught by spiders? Imprisoned be Elves? A barrel ride down the forest river?
2. Casting -- Gotta have Ian McKellan back as Gandalf?
3. Legolas could potentially be hangin' with Dad in Thranduil's fortress so ya gotta have Orlando Bloom?
4. And what about Ian Holm? Too old to play Bilbo, now? Who would take his estimable place, or perhaps he could be a younger Ian with the help of CGI, a la Beowulf?
5. Christopher Lloyd as Thranduil? :D
6. The voice of Smaug?
7. What elements will have to be CGI, and what should not?

Just a starter list, for conversation. :smokin:

No, I think I know what it's about Thenamir.
If I remember correctly, I read an article some time ago where they were planning the Hobbit and another movie about other events that took place before LotR. Maybe stuff like the Dwarves losing Moria, Rohan coming to Gondor's help or the Wise attacking Dol Guldur.
Problem is I can't really see how you can combine these different storylines...
Then again, I might be wrong about that. What I could imagine is a series of animated minifilms (something like the Animatrix or the Clone Wars) that would deal with these separate events...

On the other hand, I can't really believe that they would make the Hobbit in two parts.
I mean RotK was one movie and that's one large novel, with three books in it. TH is much smaller and simply there isn't enough going on to make that possible.

Hmmm. That actually makes more sense, TM. And I would salivate rather embarassingly at the idea of a series of independently-produced minifilms in the same vein as The Animatrix.

Wouldn't bank on it being a loss maker. I was watching 'movie' news on Sky today and they were saying it's doing well outside the USA (it's not the whole of the film-going world you know ;) ), and it hasn't even opened yet in every territory. It will turn a profit, sorry to disappoint you. If it does lose money then it's more likely part of an ongoing trend as films aren't taking in as much money in the USA right now due to the economy and the net result of that will be that less money is available for The Hobbit - so in the long run it will be a Very Good Thing if Golden Compass does alright.

I can. It's called twice as many ££££££s.

Oh, such a cynic. I just hope they chuck enough money at it to hire a proper scriptwriter and to take on Alan Lee and John Howe again.

I don't know anything, so I am just guessing, but it would seem to me that they would have to have the first movie based upon events in The Silmarillion, and then follow the story line of The Hobbit. But I suppose the two books could be spliced together to make two movies.

Merry

I can't remember WHERE I read it, but from what I understood at the time, PJ meant to add material such as the White Council and the "defeat" of the Necromancer/Sauron. That should give enough extra material for two movies methinks.

What I'm scared about is how they'd deal with things that Tolkien never really wrote on... I REFUSE to see Gandalf shooting fireballs Saruman-style while Elrond commands the forces of nature to attack an army of goblin and Galadriel wields a HUGE sword, slaying Sauron's biggest warrior.

Wow! Great news! Absolutely stunning. Now comes the simple matter of casting the voice of Smaug. I vote for Timothy Dalton!

So two films it will be. I'm looking forwards to it even if I don't hope for too much...

I'd like the scenario where we would get a lot of Silmarillion stuff and other general background with all the visual mastery those guys have in their hands. Also getting deeper into those persons involved in the story, how their relations and beliefs are tested and how they cope and change etc. Maybe some interesting viewpoints to Gollum as well - and a long scene with the riddles in the dark - and the eccentric Beorn as a fabulous creation of modern digi-tech with his message of being one with nature! The disturbing role of the elves as the self-presumed master-race and all the moral problems it will wake up, the questions of history and ownership, bonds and loyalty, greed and friendship, letting go and forgiving vs. standing bravely and with honour etc... There would be so much to say in that film!

Then maybe something of an adventure story just enough to give it enough marketing credibility.

Sadly it will not be so as the Silm-stuff or the harder themes of the book are not for the box office... And cash is what they are going for anyways.

So what could it be then in reality?

Let me guess...

So we will have a nice and partly humorous adventure-story as film one in which Bilbo and the dwarves reach the Lake Town. The people who know the story or are familiar with the LotR-movies are given some hints to the gravity of situations with fex. musical themes reminding that of the Ring's theme or with other gadgets like that in the scenes where Bilbo gets the ring. But those will be just small things. It will be a nice fantasy adventure with some stunning effects and suitable for all the family without any previous knowledge of Tolkien's world.

Then with the second movie they will say that it has "darker tones" in it.:rolleyes: They will try to make Smaug "the next Gollum" and it will gain a lot of screentime. All this will then lead to the massive battle of the five armies which will surpass the battle at the Pelennor fields in RotK with it's magnitude as the technology has advanced since the LotR - and will take half of the film... And in the end some green-grey slime will just wipe the battlefield clean... :D

Nice box office stuff indeed.

A bad filmatisation of the Hobbit though...

.....
EDIT:
Sorry Farael, you'll need to either close your eyes or just leave the film... that's what they will do.

Well depicted, though...

It's great that we finally have some news on The Hobbit film (Or films I should say), as for who should voice Smaug, I always imaged Smaug sounding like James Earl Jones (who voiced Darth Vader in Star Wars). As for them splitting it into two parts, this should mean that they should be able to put just about everything (if not everything) from the book in, as well as putting in some extra stuff, like the White Council's attack on Dol Guldur. What do you think they are going to name the second one?

It'll probably be something like "The Hobbit: There..." and "The Hobbit part II: ...and back again." Or just "There and Back Again".

here is an update from Entertainment Weekly which contains some authoritative information
---------------------------------------------

Sorry, folks, there's not going to be any Silmarillion material.

See, there you go. Making authoritave statements when there clearly is a difference of opinion about what even constitutes "SIlmarillion material". I would remind you that the word Silmarallion was used by JRRT in the Appendicies to LOTR where he described many events of the First and Second Ages. That material from LOTR is owned as film rights by Saul Zaentz and New Line Cinema.

And yet some people think there is nothing to work out? Please.

Nope, there's nothing to work out. If Zaentz/New Line use Tolkien material not included in the LR, then the lawyers will descend. Period. Why should the Estate 'compromise' when the other side has a null claim?

He also used the word 'the' in LotR, & having spent most of last night checking I find he used it in all his other fiction - I think this is proof positive that when Tolkien sold the film rights to LotR & TH that actually included everything he wrote that includes the word 'the'.

To strengthen the case - he also made use of commas in all his writings.....

The rights to The Lord of the Rings (including the appendices) and The Hobbit are separate from the rights to The Silmarillion. [By which I mean the book published under that title in 1977, okay?]

That doesn't mean that New Line won't try and get permission to use material from The Silmarillion in their upcoming movies– but that has nothing to do with the use of the word "Silmarillion" in Appendix A of The Lord of the Rings.

When people talk about The Silmarillion, they are, by default, talking about the published book, not the synopses of some of the events included in Appendix A. (Anyway, Tolkien didn't call Appendix A The Silmarillion, either.)

Surely you understand the difference?

Nerwen ... yes, I do understand the difference. Yes, I do understand what constitutes the book length SILMARALLION. Yes, I do understand the material found in the Appendicies in which Tolkien uses the term Silmarallion. And yes, I do understand that there is a good deal of overlap between the two. And there is the rub.

To quote myself (in the First and Second Age Film Rights thread)

My vote for the voice of Smaug: Michael Dorn -- give him a proper British accent and rough up the edges of that voice (Lt. Worf on Star Trek, for those not in-the-know), and it could be smooth and mysterious riddling with Bilbo, and wild and dangerous attacking Lake-Town. James Earl Jones is already too many great voices, Sean Connery has already voiced a dragon (Dragonheart), John Rhys-Davies is both Gimli and Treebeard, and Christopher Lee has already been marked in my mind as Saruman.

But please, please, don't get someone like the voice artist, whoever he was, who did Smaug in the Rankin-Bass version. (Aptly named -- "rank" means stinking, and "bass" is a fish.) That was simply dreadful.

Of course not. If it's in the Appendices, they've got it (presumably- there might be an exemption clause in the contract, but we can't know that). The issue is the rather astonishing claim that all the First and Second age material Tolkien ever wrote is somehow 'incorporated by reference' into the Appendices.

from WCH

Could be please cite the quote where anyone made that "rather astonishing claim"? And I would like the exact quote not some rehash, a retelling , a paraphrasing, a translation, an "its the same thing as...", or "it sounded like to me that ...".

Then, to avoid any futher accusations of 'strawman' or 'twisting', will you please, Sauron, make a succinct statement of why you think New Line has a right or a claim of a right to Silmarillion material?

Mr. Hicklin - could you please answer my previous request to you first and then we can move on? First things first.

Again, you stated

And I asked you.....Could be please cite the quote where anyone made that "rather astonishing claim"? And I would like the exact quote not some rehash, a retelling , a paraphrasing, a translation, an "its the same thing as...", or "it sounded like to me that ...".

Please be good enough to cover that ground before we move on. Thank you.

OK, quotes ensue:


Now, how have I misinterpreted your argument?

Again good sir, I ask you to please produce the quote where I made - in your words the astonishing claim that

Quote:

all the First and Second age material Tolkien ever wrote is somehow 'incorporated by reference' into the Appendices.

The quotes taken from my posts indicate that some material would be covered but I see nothing there going to the extreme position that you take in your quoted claim.

I stand ready to be corrected.

Then allow me to moderate the statement you take issue with.

As I understand you, you appear to be claiming that if the LR includes a brief sketch or synopsis of some tale or incident from the earlier history, than that tale or incident in all its forms, including, e.g., the full 25-page 'Of Beren and Luthien,' is 'incorporated by reference' into New Line's film rights.

Again sir, before we move on, you were in error and wrong when you stated that persons here were making this supposed argument

I am more than happy to discuss this with you or anyone else and freely answer your questions. However, I do approach with some trepidation the opponent who somehow, someway and for some reason purposelly exaggerates my position to the point of absurdity and inviting ridicule. Lets us deal with things as they are please.

It has to be someone who is known for pulling off sarcasm. Now there's a whole lot of people good at that around right now, unfortunately most of them presenters, which rules out say Charlie Brooker or the Top Gear team (as highly amusing and inappropriate as it would be to have Jeremy Clarkson voice Smaug... :D), but one or two actors remain. Maybe Richard Wilson or Bill Nighy? David Tennant?

I, as you, would love to see David Tennant in almost anything (was rather surprised, in re-watching HP & The Goblet of Fire, to see Tennant there as Barty Crouch Jr.), but you'd have to do some digital magic to his voice in order for his high-tenor to sound serious and resonant enough for a lumbering giant of a man-bear.

He could voice Smaug though (sorry - wasn't clear there!) as there's nothing to say that a Dragon has to have a deep, manly voice. He can 'do serious and scary' very well though as shown in the past series of Doctor Who. Speaking of which, John Barrowman would make a fabulous Elf!

My mistake entirely, for some reason I had Beorn on the brain. Smaug is indeed the context.

Let me eat a bit more crow, here, and make something a bit clearer. The two films, noted on a news story posted in another thread, will be "The Hobbit" proper, and the "sequel" film will cover what might be called Middle-Earth's "intertestamental" period, the 60 years from the end of the Hobbit to the beginning of FOTR.

Well, if we are looking for a traditional 'deep, manly' voice full of power and authority without being too Darthish, there's the actor who voices Optimus Prime in Transformers. Peter Cullen? It's a good-guy resonating voice.


I just cannot see them doing The Hobbit proper in the first film and then making it all up for the second. I think it would work much better the other way around, so they could explain how TH is merely a slight deviance from the Legendarium in the first, and then to TH proper in the second. Better box office that way, leaving the solid Tolkien stuff to the last. I bet they could get davem to do a good job of it, too, stringing TH into The Silm.

davem could be a good Smaug actually, as he's good at being sardonic ;) And they're both Northern too*

:D


*I'm having visions of Smaug in a flat cap...

All this talk of them making up extra stuff has me in fits. It could be a rare thing and be quite decent but the odds are that it risks turning the whole business into being something like a cruddy Middle-earth soap opera, such as so many sci-fi series turned into in the end with all their spin-offs.

I'm also not looking forwards to spending the rest of my whole life explaining to people "No! It's NOT in the books!"

Still, the machine rolls on in so many ways. More money to pay for Hollywood execs' supplies of disco dust and more grist for Tolkien fans to argue about.

I'm actually not surprised by this; I didn't think that New Line could ever seriously try to go ahead with TH without Peter Jackson on board. That would be the equivalent of Allen and Unwin saying 'There will be more Middle-Earth stories, but Tolkien won't be writing them'. Anyhow this is the best news I've had today and probably all week, unless tomorrow they announce I've been selected to play Bard or something.

Good luck PJ!

Thenamir said: Quick question for you. I understand them making "The Hobbit", but what kind of script are they able to come up with for "after the hobbit but before LotR"? If what you say is true, then how are they going to accomplish this because there really isn't a whole lot to say that could be put into a movie.

Unless of course one movie is about Bilbo and his journey and the other is about more about Gandalf, the white council, and Dul Guldor.

I really, really hope they don't split it up. I am glad there is a balance of 'knowledgable' authority and money into this at the moment, (because golden compass was simply ruined and elements of mutliple books being missmatched was disastrous), but I've seen what happens when they take shorter works and try to split them. It's not pretty, and you go home with an ill feeling in your stomach and mind.

If they do split it, question is ultimately, where? There really isn't an ultimate cut off point in the book, simply if you think hard enough, because Tolkien didn't intend The Hobbit to be a series. At first he wasn't even sure of having LoTR connected, but thankfully that worked out :). What makes it different is this, LoTR has points in between works, because of it's sheer size and effect. It's something that fits wonderfully well with such a work, with TH? No, not really.

I kindof understand adding some material at the end, to give the audience (those who haven't read LoTR yet, or are fuzzy) an indication as to how the two are related. With films, it is pretty much standard practice (as is seen at the beginning of FoTR).

The good thing I am happy about now is, if and when it comes out, I can take my mum and not have to explain it, since she's read TH and remembers it quite well. (Sorry, I am very happy at least about this... :D).
Hopefully this is true with the general audience that sees The Hobbit, that they have read TH in their childhood, or taken a taste of it at least once, to get the warm and fuzzy feeling (or inevitably, the sore ear and jaw from having to explain it, thus leading to tiresome but enjoyable conversations... ;)) of seeing some form of respect towards it.

I dunno though, The Hobbit is absolutely one of my favourites, something I really cherish, I just hope that it is given more consideration in the time coming.