Ian McKellen says filming for the Hobbit to begin in June!
 

http://filmonic.com/ian-mckellen-say...g-in-june-2011

OH MY GOODNESS!!!!!! Brb going to New Zealand....

Aieek. *is scared* :D

Inspired by the article I started wondering if TH will be a 3D movie...

A 3D Hobbit? That would be most awful.

I was thinking along the same lines but I'd still be willing to give it a try...

Please, no 3-D! Those glasses give me a headache!

If it is 3d it will be definitely that I can't watch let alone won't ... it makes me nauseous in seconds.... Mind you I don't know how reliable a source McLuvvie is.. didn't he claim Bilbo was cast months ago?

I suppose we won't know for sure until much later. I'd like to think they'll stay with a non-3D movie like the trilogy. It'll feel too tacky in that fancy 3D stuff. I feel so old saying that. :rolleyes:

Although - it would be interesting to see what del Toro would do with 3D.

Don't panic. They'd do a 2d print as well, I'm sure.

The real danger will be that the makers might get carried away with the whole "ZMOG LOOK EVERYBODY 3D! SEE RANDOM OBJECTS BEING THRUST AT THE CAMERA! WEEEEEE! 3D! IT'S LIKE TOTALLY MINDBLOWINGLY AWESOME" thing, to the detriment of all other aspects.

But I'd hope better of them than that.

I'm a little bit out of date here, since I haven't been following the news around the Hobbit much.

Two films means one is the Hobbit and the other is based on other stories taking place prior to the WotR as they had planned to?

I think they scrubbed that idea and it is merely splitting the Hobbit story so they can extract 2 lots of box office revenue from the fanbase. I suppose htey may well pad out with what Gandalf is up to while away.

I don't see that it needs so much screentime. It is so much shorter and simpler than LOTR it doesn't need 2/3 of the time. So much of the Hobbit is stuff that can be shown on film in an instant but which takes a while to describe in writing. I just wonder if it will hold the audience enough to wait a year for the end.

Regarding the subject line... maybe not...

McKellen's website has updated so that the date is, once again, more indeterminate.

I don't think a two-part Hobbit would turn out well.
You simply don't have enough going on to keep the story going. Unless you have a big intro to it with stuff like Smaug attacking Erebor or the Battle of Azanulzibar in a prequel film and then the Hobbit.

I tend to think a two-part Hobbit would work well both
artistically and financially. One of the problems PJ had
with the lotr films was arguing for longer ones, a 2 part
Hobbit could be in the two hour + range each, making
movie theaters very happy by, of course, ensuring more
playing times per screen. And if you put in the White Council
meeting and attacking Dol Guldur there's plenty of material
for two films. Among other seperate scenes you'd have An
Unexpected Party, the trolls, Rivendell, The Goblin King Incident,
wolves glade, eagles aerie, Beorn, the Enchanted Stream, trudge
through the forest plus Bilbo tree climbing, elves partay,
giant spider fight, etc. etc.

A good cutoff point could be Thorin and Co. entering Mirkwood
while the White Council invests Dol Guldur and that conflict begins.

P.S. I do like The Might's ideas above. the one really good of PJ's lotrs (FoTR)
was helped immeasurably by that prequel, and, since Gollum only has
one scene in the book you could bookend appearances at the beginning of Part I
and ending of Part II (with Gollum emerging and vowing to find The Precious
and get Thief Baggins.

P.P.S. A scene with Smaug attacking The Lonely Mountain while someone
recites the early version of the poem would be really cool (although a hot time
for the dwarves).

P.P.P.S. While it rather stretches time and geography (like that would stop PJ) you might even
have Gollum peeking out of the Misty Mountains and watching one of Smaug's strafing runs.

I'm quite excited at the idea of a two parter, I hadn't realised that was the plan!!! Cool. :D

And the 3D, I think it depends, when it's simply used to add some more depth to the shots it looks really cool once you get used to the glasses, but if it's the type where they have stuff popping out at you all the time then that could be annoying. But usually you have the option to go see it without the 3D (at least at my theatre you do), so if people don't want to they don't have too. I think it would be cool though. I'm terribly excited, I've been waiting for this movie for so long!

Interestingly, McKellen's site was recently changed to say that there is not yet a filming date. I assume that someone told him not to get ahead of things.

I heard yesterday that the next James Bond film is being delayed for financial reasons - I know it is a different company and probably potentially a bigger budget.. but if James Bond of all things is delayed then it doesn't bode well for the Hobbit getting going soon.

It's been made clear repeatedly that MGM's financial situation is holding up The Hobbit. Since they hold half the rights they're pretty much necessary for financing, but with them three billion dollars in debt, they're not in a position to finance anything.

Sorry it IS the same company... and if 007 is suspended indefinitely which much be about the nearest to a sure fire hit you can get what ever the production costs then I don't think the Hobbit will get made first.... especially since the His Dark Materials and Narnia franchises haven't been that successful. And after the "Lovely Bones" the gilt may have come off the gingerbread as far as PJ is concerned...

Apparently, they're still shooting for a 2012 release, depending on how soon MGM finds a buyer.

Yes. It was ok for Avatar - but The Hobbit? No way! Full CGI is meant for pure entertainment, not serious storytelling (IMO). I would shoot myself if they tried to make it in 3D. It would totally ruin the fun.:(

Some of the best storytelling around comes from Pixar, which is "full CGI." Of course, that's beside the point, because 3D isn't the same as CGI. I will agree that 3D has rarely been more than a gimmick - but that is beginning to change.

Another interesting tidbit out of Hollywood: http://movies.ign.com/articles/108/1087541p1.html

The article is about cost-cutting on the new Pirates of the Caribbean flick. Seems like all the news out of tinseltown these days revolves around changing business models, financial woes, and slashed costs. Avatar excepted, of course. Seems like Cameron could fund a small nation-state off that film if he felt like it.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how things go for The Hobbit once this MGM business gets cleared up. I for one am in favor of (relatively) sensible budgets and leaner shooting schedules. If they're forced to dial back on the bloated spectacles that summer films have mostly been reduced to, filmmakers might actually have to revert to story to attract an audience. What a concept!

And force them to forego dazzling visuals in favour of interesting characterisations and compelling scripts? Shocking! :rolleyes:

TH could be especially susceptible to over the top visual
effects (the trolls, Beorn, giant spiders, Smaug), if PJ
isn't kept in check. Not to mention (ugh) 3-D
(see Smaugh shoot flames at you, fly along with
a giant eagle, etc.).

That's just crazy talk! ;) :D

What we need is more special effects, more CG...and trolls with lasers!

I want my kids leaving this movie not knowing anything about Tolkien's works, but just that the movie was "so cool!"

And Bilbo uses a taser to zap the giant spiders. :eek: