# YES! Jackson to make Hobbit film



## qstor (Dec 18, 2007)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071218/ap_en_ot/film_the_hobbit


----------



## Eridanis (Dec 18, 2007)

Yahoo article said:
			
		

> "I'm very pleased that we've been able to put our differences behind us, so that we may begin a new chapter with our old friends at New Line," Jackson said in a statement. "We are delighted to continue our journey through Middle Earth."
> 
> Two "Hobbit" films are scheduled to be shot simultaneously, similar to how the three "Lord of the Rings" films were made. Production is set to begin in 2009 with a released planned for 2010, with the sequel scheduled for a 2011 release.




A very nice Christmas present. No word if he will write it, but I hope that comes about, too.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 18, 2007)

good to know!


----------



## Arnwyn (Dec 18, 2007)

_Two_ hobbit films? I'm curious to see how they do that (as, right now in the early stages, I'm unsure if it's necessary).


----------



## Steel_Wind (Dec 18, 2007)

Well, all I can say is that on opening night  - for the midnight showing - I'll be there.

(And if you think New Line and PJ are please, neither of them are remotely as happy as Games Workshop and EA to hear this news. Those licenses are worth hundreds of millions of dollars in sales to each. When it comes to GW, that's business that was otherwise never, ever going to come back.)


----------



## MojoGM (Dec 18, 2007)

I just read this on the little elevator news screen at work, and it made my day!

Too bad we have to wait until 2010.


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 18, 2007)

Sweet, sweet vindication.

On 08-11-07 I wrote:

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3693851&postcount=5



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> I have every confidence Jackson WILL make The Hobbit, at least as a producer.
> 
> The first sign was that New Line's head of Marketing, Russell Schwartz, was fired.  It was a sure sign that things have gotten desperate at New Line.  They badly need a big hit.
> 
> ...




I guess The Golden Compass bombing was the final straw.

Great news!


----------



## jester47 (Dec 18, 2007)

Me loves some golden compass bomb.


----------



## EricNoah (Dec 18, 2007)

I bet the first one is called "There."  The second, of course, will be "Back Again."


----------



## Kaodi (Dec 18, 2007)

Unfortunately, it has been a while since I last read The Hobbit, so I am not really sure where to break the film... Either at Beorn's, or after Bilbo gets the casks rolling down the river I would guess.

I think it is possible perhaps to lengthen it out they might feature the side trek of Gandalf at some point. Been too long, had something to do with Aragorn and the Necromancer a.k.a. Sauron, right?


----------



## Traycor (Dec 18, 2007)

WOOT!

I doubt he will write, because he will be busy still with "Lovely Bones" and "Tintin" during the time when the films will be written.

And they won't be breaking the one book into two. They will do the Hobbit, then they will cover the gap in time between Hobbit and LotR


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Dec 18, 2007)

Traycor said:
			
		

> And they won't be breaking the one book into two. They will do the Hobbit, then they will cover the gap in time between Hobbit and LotR



That's an interesting approach. Myself, I'd rather see the book in two parts. Less cut out that way.

Oh well.

Jackson's doing The Hobbit! Jackson's doing The Hobbit!

*Bad white-boy dance


----------



## qstor (Dec 18, 2007)

Kaodi said:
			
		

> I think it is possible perhaps to lengthen it out they might feature the side trek of Gandalf at some point. Been too long, had something to do with Aragorn and the Necromancer a.k.a. Sauron, right?




I think it would work better if it was a Hobbit prequel. I forgot the dates but I found Wikipedia  "In 2850 Gandalf again entered Dol Guldur, finding the dying Thráin, and was entrusted with the map and key to give to Thorin Oakenshield, although Thráin could not tell him his own or his son's name before he died. Gandalf confirmed that Sauron was the master of Dol Guldur at that time."

maybe the 2nd part is on: "In 3009, Gandalf grew suspicious of the ring belonging to the Hobbit Bilbo Baggins, which later turned out to be the One Ring, the source of the Dark Lord Sauron's evil power. Aragorn went at his request into Rhovanion in search of Gollum, who had once possessed the Ring. He caught the creature in the Dead Marshes near Mordor, and brought him as a captive to Thranduil's halls in Mirkwood, where Gandalf questioned him."

But I don't think there's much written on this.

Mike


----------



## messy (Dec 18, 2007)

allo

i hope he makes "the hobbit" a solid, 2-hour movie, rather than another 3-hour epic. :\

messy


----------



## Traycor (Dec 18, 2007)

qstor said:
			
		

> maybe the 2nd part is on: "In 3009, Gandalf grew suspicious of the ring belonging to the Hobbit Bilbo Baggins, which later turned out to be the One Ring, the source of the Dark Lord Sauron's evil power. Aragorn went at his request into Rhovanion in search of Gollum, who had once possessed the Ring. He caught the creature in the Dead Marshes near Mordor, and brought him as a captive to Thranduil's halls in Mirkwood, where Gandalf questioned him."



I remember reading a blurb months ago (back before PJ released his "they don't want me anymore" letter about Newline). The blurb basically indicated that the 2nd movie would be about what you just described above.

But in truth, I bet even PJ doesn't quite know yet what they will do with the 2 movies. They are probably busy figuring that out right now.


----------



## Traycor (Dec 18, 2007)

Traycor said:
			
		

> And they won't be breaking the one book into two. They will do the Hobbit, then they will cover the gap in time between Hobbit and LotR



I could be wrong. This old interview with PJ on Aint It Cool News indicates otherwise. You'll have to skip down to the Hobbit bits of the interview, but PJ liked the idea of fleshing out and splitting The Hobbit to give it more of an adult feel like LotR

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/30085


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Dec 18, 2007)

messy said:
			
		

> allo
> 
> i hope he makes "the hobbit" a solid, 2-hour movie, rather than another 3-hour epic. :\
> 
> messy



That would be good. That way when the extended edition dvds come out it'll only take a quarter of a day to watch both. Plus, assuming you didn nothing but watch the entire Middle Earth saga, you could do it in a period of one day.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Dec 18, 2007)

I haven't read the Hobbit in a good long time, but _two_ movies?  There's only one book... and it's not a terribly long book at that.


----------



## EricNoah (Dec 18, 2007)

There might be some Smaug, dwarf and Laketown backstory that could make for some excellent "padding" if such is needed.


----------



## Pinotage (Dec 18, 2007)

Well, that's excellent news. Don't care much about how many movies they make - the more the better. I just wish that, somehow, in some way, they could turn the Silmarillion into a film!   

Pinotage


----------



## Dire Bare (Dec 18, 2007)

messy said:
			
		

> allo
> 
> i hope he makes "the hobbit" a solid, 2-hour movie, rather than another 3-hour epic. :\



Not me!  I'm all for two 3-hour theatre versions followed by two 5-hour DVD versions!!!

As long as the story is told well and the pacing is maintained well, Jackson can entertain me as long as he wants!  (hmmm, that sounds a bit dirty . . .)


----------



## Agamon (Dec 18, 2007)

They could have easily made each LotR books into 2 movies, so I can see The Hobbit getting two movies, especially if PJ's idea for it is going to make one very long movie.  Two shorter ones is better.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Dec 18, 2007)

I am good with two 2-hour movies. As for the break there are a couple of options. The actual middle around the spiders in the forest. There is a good cliffhanger there with Thorin separated from the rest, the dwarves all captured, and Bilbo not sure where everyone else is. They could also break after the escape from the goblin caves leaving Bilbo and Gollum and Bilbo's escape as the climax. If they break here they could do more flashbacks in the first film expanding on Smaug taking the mountain, and Gandolf getting the key.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 18, 2007)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> I am good with two 2-hour movies. As for the break there are a couple of options. The actual middle around the spiders in the forest. There is a good cliffhanger there with Thorin separated from the rest, the dwarves all captured, and Bilbo not sure where everyone else is. They could also break after the escape from the goblin caves leaving Bilbo and Gollum and Bilbo's escape as the climax. If they break here they could do more flashbacks in the first film expanding on Smaug taking the mountain, and Gandolf getting the key.



 I like this better (ending after the Gollum thing).


----------



## Shade (Dec 18, 2007)

Between this news and the trailer for the new season of Lost, I'm in geek heaven today.


----------



## Traycor (Dec 18, 2007)

MGM CEO Harry Sloan talks 'Hobbit'

http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2007/12/mgm-ceo-on-the.html


----------



## Cabled (Dec 18, 2007)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> I haven't read the Hobbit in a good long time, but _two_ movies?  There's only one book... and it's not a terribly long book at that.




But the length of a book and a movie aren't all that closely connected, and from the filmmaker's point of view are almost inverses.  What takes a lot of page space to describe in a book, such as detailed setting or character details, is conveyed quickly visually.  By the same token, things that typically take little space in a book, such a an epic battle (because "he swings, she swings, they swing" makes for boring reading in general) are much more interesting visually and stretch on a good deal longer.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Dec 18, 2007)

If it was anybody other than PJ and Fran Walsh, I might be a little spooked about two movies. But they have earned my confidence and loyalty - so I'm good with this - and then some 

And yes - _Golden Compass _ bombing looks like good news for us


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 18, 2007)

YES!!!

Though I'm apprehensive about the two-movie thing.  I don't think splitting the Hobbit is a good idea; I'd rather seen Beorn dropped to truncate the length into one longer movie.  I also don't think there is enough filler material for between Hobbit and LotR to make anything that resembles a single movie with a coherent plot -- there are lots of little sub-plots, but you'd have a hell of a time pulling them together to make a stand-alone film.


----------



## replicant2 (Dec 19, 2007)

Yes, great news. I just wrote a post about my longing to see *The Hobbit * on screen 10 days ago at my blog, The Silver Key, and now the big news hit!

There are a couple things that concern me with this story. One is that Jackson is the executive producer, not the director. The other is that some news outlets have called the second film "a sequel." I'm assuming this means a two-part adaption of the book, but I fear that it could mean an entirely new film.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Dec 19, 2007)

Cabled said:
			
		

> But the length of a book and a movie aren't all that closely connected, and from the filmmaker's point of view are almost inverses.  What takes a lot of page space to describe in a book, such as detailed setting or character details, is conveyed quickly visually.  By the same token, things that typically take little space in a book, such a an epic battle (because "he swings, she swings, they swing" makes for boring reading in general) are much more interesting visually and stretch on a good deal longer.



I agree. For instance, if they ended the first film with the barrel escape, the first film could easily open with 15 to 20 minutes of white water and rescue that took, what, two sentences? 

The big question for me, possibly even the make or break question is simple : Songs or not?   (I should totally make a poll on that...)


----------



## Steel_Wind (Dec 19, 2007)

Traycor said:
			
		

> I could be wrong. This old interview with PJ on Aint It Cool News indicates otherwise. You'll have to skip down to the Hobbit bits of the interview, but PJ liked the idea of fleshing out and splitting The Hobbit to give it more of an adult feel like LotR
> 
> http://www.aintitcool.com/node/30085




I would agree. I expect the backstory that takes place during the Hobbit, namely, the White Council's attack on the Necromancer of Dol Guldur will be more front and centre.

PJ is not going to go towards making a children's film after copping a best picture for RotK. 

I expect their spin will be: _"Tolkien had a devil of a time finding a publisher for serious adult fantasy and so he was forced to package the Hobbit as a children's book - obscuring the much deeper and more adult tale that lurked within. The adult tale had to wait to appear in LotR. The adult tale that was always within The Hobbit is the one Tolkien always wanted to tell - and one we think the fans in the 21st century now want to see.  But as always, we'll respect the original vision and maintain the same feel for Middle Earth that we always have." 
_

(Mind you, if one of those dwarves becomes cute, female, beardless and a Bilbo love interest, Jackson will have to join Rushdie in hiding.)

If it was anybody other than PJ and FW - I'm looking for the fire exits. But I think its pretty clear they love this material as much as anybody on this - or Middle- Earth.


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 19, 2007)

PJ should direct. It's not like he's going to make a _HALO_ film anytime soon (not like we desperately need a _HALO_ film).


----------



## ssampier (Dec 19, 2007)

*Smaug smaug smaug*

Yes! A good "Hobbit" movie.


----------



## thalmin (Dec 19, 2007)

Looks like 4 more DVDs to purchase. YES!


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 19, 2007)

Just so long as he doesn't get George Lucas to direct...


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Dec 19, 2007)

I haven't even bought the LotR trilogy on DVD yet, though I do have the first on VHS. I'm waiting for it to come out in HD/BD.


----------



## Orius (Dec 19, 2007)

Kaodi said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, it has been a while since I last read The Hobbit, so I am not really sure where to break the film... Either at Beorn's, or after Bilbo gets the casks rolling down the river I would guess.
> 
> I think it is possible perhaps to lengthen it out they might feature the side trek of Gandalf at some point. Been too long, had something to do with Aragorn and the Necromancer a.k.a. Sauron, right?




Gandalf at this point had convinced the White Council (Elrond, Saruman, Galadriel, and a few other important elves) to attack Dol Guldur to drive Sauron out.  This wasn't his first attempt to get the Council to do so, because previously Saruman had resisted.  Saruman cooperated at this point because Sauron's agents were snooping around the Gladden Fields were Isildur died, and Saruman was worried that those agents would find the One Ring before his own agents did.  Naturally, Gollum had the Ring, and Bilbo ended up with it.  And the strike on Dol Guldur was largely meaningless, since Sauron just snuck out and returned to Mordor.

With two films, I certainly hope Beorn gets some screen time.  The Battle of the Five Armies is probably going to be great the way it is given the PJ has already proven how well he can handle the epic battles, but it won't be the same without a massive CG Beorn in bear shape smacking down goblins left and right.  The audience will likely cheer when he shows up and saves the day.

As for the second film, I believe that PJ wants to show some of the stuff that connects the story of the Hobbit with the LoTR.  So possibly there'll be Dol Guldur, elements of the White Council, and maybe Gandalf meeting with Thorin and the other dwarves before recruiting Bilbo.  There may also be stuff that occurs between the two books.


----------



## Arkhandus (Dec 19, 2007)

......And many huzzahs and hoorays were heard across geekdom, like unto thunder....  

*GLEE!*


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 19, 2007)

Frukathka said:
			
		

> I haven't even bought the LotR trilogy on DVD yet, though I do have the first on VHS. I'm waiting for it to come out in HD/BD.



I don't think New Line put their films on Blu-Ray.


----------



## David Howery (Dec 19, 2007)

_*does happy dance*_
PJ is making "The Hobbit"!!  PJ is making "The Hobbit"!

but...

two films?  I dunno... I'd rather see one long movie on The Hobbit.  If they really want to do a second film.... why not one on the events around the Lonely Mountain during the War of the Ring, when Sauron's forces invaded... the battle of the Lonely Mountain, the fall of Dain and the human king whose name I can't remember... that'd be pretty neat....


----------



## horacethegrey (Dec 19, 2007)

A little late on the bandwagon here, but here's one Tolkien fan who's glad to hear this news.  

I'm only sorry _The Golden Compass_ had to bomb in order for it to happen, but that's life for you.

Now that PJ's involved, we all know the visuals, production designs and everything will be visually consistent with that of LOTR. My only concern is for certain actors to return to their respective roles. Most importantly Ian Mckellen as Gandalf, I doubt the fans would settle for anything less than a return from him. But please, enough of the talk that Ian Holm should reprise his role as Bilbo. _The Hobbit_ is the story of young Bilbo Baggin's journey into heroic lore, and having an elderly Holm play the character would be laughable at best.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Dec 19, 2007)

w00t! 

I hope they are epic marathon-types again. But I hope more strongly that they are immensely popular, so if A precludes B, I'll settle for B.

And it would be great if the first movie is 'The Hobbit' proper, and the next covers some of the 'tween events. But again, I'm not going to be _overly_ fussy, as I'm just so damn pleased it's being done, finally!


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 19, 2007)

Orius said:
			
		

> With two films, I certainly hope Beorn gets some screen time. The Battle of the Five Armies is probably going to be great the way it is given the PJ has already proven how well he can handle the epic battles, but it won't be the same without a massive CG Beorn in bear shape smacking down goblins left and right. The audience will likely cheer when he shows up and saves the day.




You mean you don't think it will be like the book? y'know, Bilbo gets bonked on the head and falls unconscious and wakes up when it is all over? It would sure cut down the CGI costs


----------



## messy (Dec 19, 2007)

horacethegrey said:
			
		

> But please, enough of the talk that Ian Holm should reprise his role as Bilbo. _The Hobbit_ is the story of young Bilbo Baggin's journey into heroic lore, and having an elderly Holm play the character would be laughable at best.




i disagree. ian holm was so good as bilbo in "lord of the rings," i think he should definitely play the role in "the hobbit." with modern makeup, they can certainly make him look younger. 

messy


----------



## Traycor (Dec 19, 2007)

I'm interested to see if he opens up the first movie with Smaug blasting all the dwarves from their home in the Lonely Mountain.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Dec 19, 2007)

Cabled said:
			
		

> But the length of a book and a movie aren't all that closely connected, and from the filmmaker's point of view are almost inverses.  What takes a lot of page space to describe in a book, such as detailed setting or character details, is conveyed quickly visually.  By the same token, things that typically take little space in a book, such a an epic battle (because "he swings, she swings, they swing" makes for boring reading in general) are much more interesting visually and stretch on a good deal longer.




So what you're really saying is... they balance each other out.   

No, I see what you're saying.  You're right of course.  I have not read the book in a loooooong time (20 years) so I may be misremembering quite a bit, but I still think two movies could be a bit much.


----------



## horacethegrey (Dec 19, 2007)

messy said:
			
		

> i disagree. ian holm was so good as bilbo in "lord of the rings," i think he should definitely play the role in "the hobbit." with modern makeup, they can certainly make him look younger.



You mean like that fake and plastic finish they gave Patrick Stewart and Mckellen when they played the younger Xavier and Magneto in _X-Men III_ respectively? Please. That makeup was laughable and quite distracting, and I'd hate to see Holm acting under that stuff.

I'm not hating on Ian Holm, far from it. But the Bilbo Baggins in _The Hobbit_ was a young and active character, and it calls for a young actor to play that role. I'm pretty sure Jackson knows this. Hell, he had the sense to replace a younger actor for an older one when casting the role of Aragorn. Why should the reverse be any different?


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Dec 19, 2007)

messy said:
			
		

> i disagree. ian holm was so good as bilbo in "lord of the rings," i think he should definitely play the role in "the hobbit." with modern makeup, they can certainly make him look younger.
> 
> messy




They don't have to make him look look much younger. All he really needs is a wig, his face has held up pretty well. Remember Bilbo was not a young man on this adventure, he was 50 years old and a respectable hobbit. I would really like for everyone to come back that can, I like continuity.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Dec 19, 2007)

You realize Ian Holm is... *76* years old?

Honestly it was pushing it to cast him as Bilbo for LotR. Don't get me wrong, he did a great job and is a darn fine actor, but the reason he got the part in the first place was a nod to his playing Frodo in the BBC radio drama. At this point he's just to old for the part.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Dec 19, 2007)

A while back, someone suggested Martin Freeman. This, I think, would be genius.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Dec 19, 2007)

Traycor said:
			
		

> I'm interested to see if he opens up the first movie with Smaug blasting all the dwarves from their home in the Lonely Mountain.



I'd like to see that scene, but when they are giving Bilbo the backstory. I disliked the Fellowship movie decision to stick all the background in a beginning exposition, instead of flashbacks as the characters learned it.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Dec 19, 2007)

Darkwolf71 said:
			
		

> You realize Ian Holm is... *76* years old?
> 
> Honestly it was pushing it to cast him as Bilbo for LotR. Don't get me wrong, he did a great job and is a darn fine actor, but the reason he got the part in the first place was a nod to his playing Frodo in the BBC radio drama. At this point he's just to old for the part.




Yes I realize he is 76, which is why I went looking for current pictures before posting. As I said he has held up quite well except for his hair. He has few wrinkles and with a wig could pass for 50.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Dec 19, 2007)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Yes I realize he is 76, which is why I went looking for current pictures before posting. As I said he has held up quite well except for his hair. He has few wrinkles and with a wig could pass for 50.




But the thing is, 50 in Hobbit years doesn't look like 50 in human years. Even though Bilbo was "well preserved" at 111, nobody was saying to themselves "my god, he can't possibly be that old." Hobbits live longer. I think 30 is probably a better estimate of how old a 50 year old Hobbit should look.

Remember, in the novel, Frodo waited until he turned 50 before setting out, so as to follow more closely in Bilbo's footsteps (and yes, I know that wasn't so in the movies, but to me it implies that Bilbo shouldn't look significantly older than the Frodo of the movies).


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Dec 19, 2007)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Yes I realize he is 76, which is why I went looking for current pictures before posting. As I said he has held up quite well except for his hair. He has few wrinkles and with a wig could pass for 50.



It's not only a question of appearance, although I would disagree with you there as well.

Bilbo in The Hobbit is a much more _active_ role than the Bilbo of LotR. It would be a disservice to the book to tone that down due to concerns about a very old actor. I shudder at the thought of a scene in which Ian Holm is running away from Gollum or, good lord, running around the forest fighting spiders and rescuing dwarves. No, a younger actor is needed if the film is to be taken at all seriously.


----------



## jester47 (Dec 19, 2007)

Orius said:
			
		

> Gandalf at this point had convinced the White Council (Elrond, Saruman, Galadriel, and a few other important elves) to attack Dol Guldur to drive Sauron out.  This wasn't his first attempt to get the Council to do so, because previously Saruman had resisted.  Saruman cooperated at this point because Sauron's agents were snooping around the Gladden Fields were Isildur died, and Saruman was worried that those agents would find the One Ring before his own agents did.  Naturally, Gollum had the Ring, and Bilbo ended up with it.  And the strike on Dol Guldur was largely meaningless, since Sauron just snuck out and returned to Mordor.
> 
> With two films, I certainly hope Beorn gets some screen time.  The Battle of the Five Armies is probably going to be great the way it is given the PJ has already proven how well he can handle the epic battles, but it won't be the same without a massive CG Beorn in bear shape smacking down goblins left and right.  The audience will likely cheer when he shows up and saves the day.
> 
> As for the second film, I believe that PJ wants to show some of the stuff that connects the story of the Hobbit with the LoTR.  So possibly there'll be Dol Guldur, elements of the White Council, and maybe Gandalf meeting with Thorin and the other dwarves before recruiting Bilbo.  There may also be stuff that occurs between the two books.





Besides New Line already has Giant Bear CG technology...


----------



## Eridanis (Dec 19, 2007)

horacethegrey said:
			
		

> You mean like that fake and plastic finish they gave Patrick Stewart and Mckellen when they played the younger Xavier and Magneto in _X-Men III_ respectively? Please. That makeup was laughable and quite distracting, and I'd hate to see Holm acting under that stuff.



Not makeup; CGI. There's an article online somewhere detailing how they did it, with "before and after" shots.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Dec 19, 2007)

I don't think there is any question that we are going to get Bilbo cast as as much younger actor.

I also don't think that they will pay that much attention to the age Bilbo is "supposed" to be in the Hobbit, either.

PJ and Fran Walsh on one of the extended DVD are asked what they think Tolkien would have thought of their casting choices made in LotR. They agreed that the main problem that Tolkien would most probably have had would have been with the age of the Hobbits as portrayed in the film.  They were cast as early-twenty-somethings. Sam and Frodo, at least, should have been close to middle age, accordng to the books.

They made that deliberate choice as part cinema requirements, part marketing, part glitz - and with a fair bit of Hollywood wisdom, too.

They were right to cast as they did originally - and I expect they will do the same, all over again.

We might get a thirty-something Bilbo. We *won't* get a middle-aged one. and we certainly won't get Ian Holm. Dealing with Ian McKellan's advancing years (and he's supposed to look old!) will be quite enough for their insurers to worry about.

It will be interesting to see if Christopher Lee is *ahem* still alive when they begin shooting and if they will choose to use him (and if he will agree - as he was *quite* put out by having his death moved to the Extended DVD). If so, I expect the insurance cost for that casting will be significant. (You insure against older actors dying before principle photography is complete. It's obviously damned expensive to recast and reshoot it all over again).

I can't imagine that Ian McKellan, who was nominated for an Oscar as Gandalf, will have much of a problem in agreeing to reprise the role.  As for the other actors like Hugo Weaving and Cate Blanchett who may be required for a White Council scene, again, I cannot imagine there will be much difficulty there.

*sigh* Does Legolas make it into the Hobbit? You could certainly place him in Thranduil's hall without any difficulty - he DOES live there, after all.

They need to tread carefully of course. A few to many steps off the path and "The Hobbit" becomes NOT "The Hobbit", without much warning.

Ah well. Fun times agead. I'm looking forward to it.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Dec 19, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> *sigh* Does Legolas make it into the Hobbit? You could certainly place him in Thranduil's hall without any difficulty - he DOES live there, after all.
> 
> They need to tread carefully of course. A few to many steps off the path and "The Hobbit" becomes NOT "The Hobbit", without much warning.




They can also place Arwen at Elrond's House as well if they wish. 

I wouldn't be surprised to see Arwen and Galadriel in the film somehow as the only named female I recall in the book at all was Lobielia Sacksville-Baggins and that was only at the end as she was holding the auction at Bag End (And lets face it you can't really sell to the female audience on her).


----------



## Mark Hope (Dec 19, 2007)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> They can also place Arwen at Elrond's House as well if they wish.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised to see Arwen and Galadriel in the film somehow as the only named female I recall in the book at all was Lobielia Sacksville-Baggins and that was only at the end as she was holding the auction at Bag End (And lets face it you can't really sell to the female audience on her).



And naturally, Elrond will send Arwen with the dwarves to help them on their quest.  Perfect way to lend assistance to a dangerous quest and hit that vital chick demographic as well.  Great idea, imho...


----------



## Steel_Wind (Dec 19, 2007)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> They can also place Arwen at Elrond's House as well if they wish.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised to see Arwen and Galadriel in the film somehow as the only named female I recall in the book at all was Lobielia Sacksville-Baggins and that was only at the end as she was holding the auction at Bag End (And lets face it you can't really sell to the female audience on her).




Well, if they intend to write in the White Council's behind the scene attack on the Necromancer of Dol Guldur, there seems little doubt that Galadriel will be in the movie. I don't even object to including in the movie events that are referenced in LotR, in the Appendices or as happening "off-stage" in the Hobbit itself as if it were in the novel.

My trouble is not in supplementing the film with material we are told happened elsewhere, it is in changing the novel itself so that things that are depcited in the novel do not happen, or happen in a significantly different manner.

It's a fine between clever and stupid.


----------



## EricNoah (Dec 19, 2007)

Thought of the day: Just as Gollum (the technical side of bringing him to life, and the writing/performance around him) was key to making Two Towers work as a film, I bet they're going to pull out all of the stops on Smaug.  I'd love to see them knock that out of the ballpark.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 20, 2007)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Thought of the day: Just as Gollum (the technical side of bringing him to life, and the writing/performance around him) was key to making Two Towers work as a film, I bet they're going to pull out all of the stops on Smaug.  I'd love to see them knock that out of the ballpark.



 Judging by the dragon in Beowulf, the guys at WETA Digital have their work cut out for them.


----------



## Traycor (Dec 20, 2007)

Darkwolf71 said:
			
		

> It's not only a question of appearance, although I would disagree with you there as well.
> 
> Bilbo in The Hobbit is a much more _active_ role than the Bilbo of LotR. It would be a disservice to the book to tone that down due to concerns about a very old actor. I shudder at the thought of a scene in which Ian Holm is running away from Gollum or, good lord, running around the forest fighting spiders and rescuing dwarves. No, a younger actor is needed if the film is to be taken at all seriously.



While I agree that they probably won't cast Ian Holm, his age isn't really an issue. Ian McKellen had a very actice part as Gandalf (lots of running, frequent fights) and they used doubles and CGI to pull all of that off nicely.

Even Christopher Lee did one killer fight scene with yoda in Star Wars II, and he was old as dirt at the time. They doubled him and CGI'd his face on another guy. Big budget movies can work around these kinds of things.


----------



## Odhanan (Dec 20, 2007)

They might expand the whole episode of the "Necromancer", Gandalf and Dol Guldur in the second movie, who knows?


----------



## horacethegrey (Dec 20, 2007)

Traycor said:
			
		

> While I agree that they probably won't cast Ian Holm, his age isn't really an issue. Ian McKellen had a very actice part as Gandalf (lots of running, frequent fights) and they used doubles and CGI to pull all of that off nicely.
> 
> Even Christopher Lee did one killer fight scene with yoda in Star Wars II, and he was old as dirt at the time. They doubled him and CGI'd his face on another guy. Big budget movies can work around these kinds of things.



It's easy to accept an elderly Ian Mckellen kicking ass as Gandalf because of the nature of the character. Think about it, the guy's a 4,000 year old wizard who can go toe to toe with trolls and fire demons, all the while looking the part of a decrepit old geezer. A huge suspension of disbelief accompanies the character, one that audiences have come to readily accept. Much like they've come to accept an aging Christopher Lee bitch slapping Hayden Christiansen's ass in _Attack of the Clones_, what with the whole Jedi thing and all.


----------



## RC Hagy (Dec 20, 2007)

horacethegrey said:
			
		

> Much like they've come to accept an aging Christopher Lee bitch slapping Hayden Christiansen's ass in _Attack of the Clones_, what with the whole Jedi thing and all.





From what I have read and listened to, most were waiting for and glad Hayden got back handed by a geriatric!  


RCH


----------



## Orius (Dec 20, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> You mean you don't think it will be like the book? y'know, Bilbo gets bonked on the head and falls unconscious and wakes up when it is all over? It would sure cut down the CGI costs




Wellllll....

If they want to do it, _like the book_, they can still bonk Bilbo and show the CG Beorn in a flashback when Gandalf tells him what happened....  

But c'mon, Beorn showing up will be a scene the audience'll love, if it's done right.  And I think PJ can do it right.


----------



## qstor (Dec 20, 2007)

Orius said:
			
		

> Gandalf at this point had convinced the White Council (Elrond, Saruman, Galadriel, and a few other important elves) to attack Dol Guldur to drive Sauron out.  This wasn't his first attempt to get the Council to do so, because previously Saruman had resisted.  Saruman cooperated at this point because Sauron's agents were snooping around the Gladden Fields were Isildur died, and Saruman was worried that those agents would find the One Ring before his own agents did.  Naturally, Gollum had the Ring, and Bilbo ended up with it.  And the strike on Dol Guldur was largely meaningless, since Sauron just snuck out and returned to Mordor.




Right but that was years before the events in the Hobbit, I think it would be better if a 2nd movie were the events between the LOTR and the hobbit. _However_, the problem is there isn't much known about that time period.

Mike


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 20, 2007)

jester47 said:
			
		

> Me loves some golden compass bomb.




That's the worst feat name yet.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 20, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> That's the worst feat name yet.



 ... so far.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 20, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> ... so far.




... yet.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 20, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> I expect their spin will be: _"Tolkien had a devil of a time finding a publisher for serious adult fantasy and so he was forced to package the Hobbit as a children's book - obscuring the much deeper and more adult tale that lurked within. ...
> _




That does not match the history of the publication as I know it.  Given the number of Tolkien fans who are almost scholors on the subject, they will not bend the truth in spinning it - it would look bad.  

Specifically, I don't believe there's much evidence to suggest Tolkien purposely repackaged the book for kids.


----------



## horacethegrey (Dec 21, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Specifically, I don't believe there's much evidence to suggest Tolkien purposely repackaged the book for kids.



_The Hobbit_ was orginally written for Tolkien's children, so I don't think he rewrote it to fit a young audience's taste. He only rewrote some chapters (specifically the chapter "Riddles in the Dark") in later editions so that there'd be some plot continuity with the sequel. The sequel being of course, _The Lord of the Rings_.


----------



## David Howery (Dec 21, 2007)

well, the book may have been written for kids, but there's some stuff in it that would be pretty graphic on screen... spiders getting stabbed, a troll getting stabbed in the eye with a torch, Beorn sticking the head of a goblin on a post, and the whole Battle of Five Armies at the end of it (I imagine PJ isn't going to have half of it happen off camera as it did in the book, after Bilbo got knocked out)...


----------



## shilsen (Dec 21, 2007)

I'm always amused about the assumption that kids can't handle graphic violence. Having met a few children in my time, I generally find they're extremely fond of violence and suffering, as long as it's inflicted on others. And the more graphic the better.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 21, 2007)

David Howery said:
			
		

> well, the book may have been written for kids, but there's some stuff in it that would be pretty graphic on screen... spiders getting stabbed, a troll getting stabbed in the eye with a torch, Beorn sticking the head of a goblin on a post, and the whole Battle of Five Armies at the end of it (I imagine PJ isn't going to have half of it happen off camera as it did in the book, after Bilbo got knocked out)...



 Dude,

Disney's Hercules stabbed a gigantic cyclops in the eye with a torch.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 21, 2007)

Well, looking at the NEWS page I see: Sam Raimi look to be the director! 

http://www.circvsmaximvs.com/showthread.php?t=36676


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 22, 2007)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> Well, looking at the NEWS page I see: Sam Raimi look to be the director!
> 
> http://www.circvsmaximvs.com/showthread.php?t=36676



Meh. Everyone is split on whether he's the right one for the job.

If PJ is still alive and breathing, he should do it, IMNSHO.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 22, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Meh. Everyone is split on whether he's the right one for the job.
> 
> If PJ is still alive and breathing, he should do it, IMNSHO.



 I'd rather have one of the LotR's second unit directors working under PJ's supervision.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 5, 2008)

horacethegrey said:
			
		

> You mean like that fake and plastic finish they gave Patrick Stewart and Mckellen when they played the younger Xavier and Magneto in _X-Men III_ respectively? Please. That makeup was laughable and quite distracting, and I'd hate to see Holm acting under that stuff.
> 
> I'm not hating on Ian Holm, far from it. But the Bilbo Baggins in _The Hobbit_ was a young and active character, and it calls for a young actor to play that role. I'm pretty sure Jackson knows this. Hell, he had the sense to replace a younger actor for an older one when casting the role of Aragorn. Why should the reverse be any different?




Because he's already established a face for the character, given his presence in the other three movies...

Banshee


----------



## Psionicist (Jan 28, 2008)

Looks like Del Toro will direct this movie. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080128/film_nm/hobbit_dc



> LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Guillermo del Toro is in talks to direct back-to-back installments of J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Hobbit," which is being co-financed by New Line and MGM.
> ADVERTISEMENT
> 
> Del Toro's name was on a short list of directors who could tackle the project, one of the most anticipated literary adaptations of the past decade. An ill-chosen director for "Hobbit" could put billions of dollars at stake for New Line and MGM and could turn off an audience that encompasses millions of passionate readers, Tolkien fans and obsessive geeks.


----------



## Mark Hope (Jan 28, 2008)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> Looks like Del Toro will direct this movie. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080128/film_nm/hobbit_dc



Read this news today as well.  Awesome.  Totally awesome.  I love his directing.  _Devil's Backbone_ is one of the creepiest films I have seen in ages and _Pan's Labyrinth_ was, of course, magnificent.  I had hoped that the Weitz brothers might have been able to snag him for _Elric_, but I guess that _The Hobbit_ will be a bigger draw.


----------



## Klaus (Jan 28, 2008)

That is Good News.


----------



## horacethegrey (Jan 28, 2008)

Oh yeah! I'm all for it!


----------

