# Two Hobbit Films???



## Ranger REG (Nov 16, 2006)

Source: http://www.darkhorizons.com/news06/061115i.php



> Finally, Sloan confirmed MGM was in talks with Peter Jackson to make two movies based on J.R.R. Tolkein's "The Hobbit" though that is contingent on negotiations with New Line, which owns the right to produce "The Hobbit".
> 
> The first "Hobbit" will be a direct adaptation of "The Hobbit," and the second would be drawn from footnotes and source material connecting "The Hobbit" with "The Lord of the Rings".


----------



## paradox42 (Nov 16, 2006)

The only thing I can think of that the second movie might mean, aside perhaps from a biopic showing Bilbo's comfortable Shire life in the years between the books (which IMO would be boring and not really worth making a movie over), would be showing just where Gandalf went after the Beorning stay and why he was gone until after Smaug.

Will we be seeing the Necromancer on-screen, and all the Istari gathered to face the threat? If so- *glee!!!*


----------



## Prince Atom (Nov 16, 2006)

Yeah, just like the rumors I heard about George Lucas doing a TV show spanning the time between the two groups of Star Wars movies. I thought Luke's life on Tatooine was supposed to be _really, really boring_.

I really don't think that watching Bilbo grow fatter and argue with the Sackville-Bagginses over his silver collection is going to be all that interesting. Maybe some of the other characters will make cameos?

[Ponders]

TWK


----------



## Aeson (Nov 16, 2006)

The Whiner Knight said:
			
		

> Yeah, just like the rumors I heard about George Lucas doing a TV show spanning the time between the two groups of Star Wars movies. I thought Luke's life on Tatooine was supposed to be _really, really boring_.
> 
> I really don't think that watching Bilbo grow fatter and argue with the Sackville-Bagginses over his silver collection is going to be all that interesting. Maybe some of the other characters will make cameos?
> 
> ...



Not to threadjack but I thought the Star Wars series was going be a bounty hunter show and not focus on the characters from the movies. It would be set between III and IV.


----------



## Eridanis (Nov 16, 2006)

O. M. G.

You know the LotR trilogy made a heap o' cash when they're seriously thinking about making a movie of the Silmarillion to keep the cash flowing. Never in my wildest dreams. Or Tolkien's, for that matter.

(Assuming that's what they mean by "source material.")

If Jackson is at the helm, then consider my money spent already...


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Nov 16, 2006)

Eridanis said:
			
		

> (Assuming that's what they mean by "source material.")




They're probably referring to the info on the White Council from Silmarillion.  Its not a lot - basically info about Gandalf going to the Necromancer's lair.  Personally I think they should avoid that and stick to the book, and make it one movie.  But thats just me.  As the LoTR movies progressed they deviated more and more from the novels, and to diminished effect, IMO.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 16, 2006)

It is also possible the "second" is a sort of extended version for DVD release.  Not that you can't fill two movies with _The Hobbit_, but I don't know if the book has a good dramatic breakpoint in the middle like there was between the various LotR books.

A _Silmarillion_ movie?  Interesting concept, but all the F-named elves (Feanor, Finwe, Fingolfin, Forgotwhoelse) would certainly confuse the audience.  I had to keep a bloody family tree on hand to keep them all straight.  But, perhaps cut down to dealing only with Morgoth/Melkor and Sauron might be a small enough chunk to swallow as a movie.


----------



## Zaukrie (Nov 16, 2006)

At this point I'd be happy if they could just decide on one film and start work on it. It's been several years now, and they still can't decide how to split up the money.


----------



## qstor (Nov 16, 2006)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> Personally I think they should avoid that and stick to the book, and make it one movie.  But thats just me.  As the LoTR movies progressed they deviated more and more from the novels, and to diminished effect, IMO.





I agree. I think the book can be made into one movie without a second film. The footnotes and stuff would be too esoteric for the ordinary movie go-er to create much interest. It makes it seems like Peter Jackson is a super duper Tolkien fan like some of us 

But I'm happy with one movie.

Mike


----------



## Brakkart (Nov 16, 2006)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> At this point I'd be happy if they could just decide on one film and start work on it. It's been several years now, and they still can't decide how to split up the money.




Well said. The actors aren't getting any younger, so if they plan on using the same people to play the same characters, the studios really need to get their asses in gear and get the show started.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 17, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> A _Silmarillion_ movie?  Interesting...



Interesting, but not going to happen, unless my darkest wish will come true (Christopher Tolkien and his sympathizing trustees dies).


----------



## trancejeremy (Nov 17, 2006)

I really hope that Leonard Nimoy's song makes it into at least one of the movies.


----------



## horacethegrey (Nov 17, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Interesting, but not going to happen, unless my darkest wish will come true (Christopher Tolkien and his sympathizing trustees dies).



Dude... Isn't that a bit harsh? I know Chris Tolkien has been a bit unreasonable in the defense of his father's estate (unreasonable may be a bit too kind, *fanatical * is more like it), but that's too much. 

As for my thoughts on the subject at hand, well, as I said before in a previous thread, I'm all for a Hobbit movie, so long as Peter Jackson and Weta are involved. But a second movie to fill in the story gaps?   Eh, I'm curious, but I don't see how anyone can pull it off.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 17, 2006)

I don't know -- if you cull all the sources, there's a lot of material between Hobbit and LotR in an "Adventures of Gandalf the Grey" sort of theme:

- Gandalf against the Necromancer
- Balin's return to Moria
- Hunt for Gollum (w/ Aragorn & Legolas added to draw a female demographic)
- More Aragorn & Arwyn
- Bilbo adopting Frodo

A Hobbit prequel might be even better:

- Smaug coming to the lonely Mountain
- Thror, lost in Moria, and Gandalf's search for him there
- Gandalf and Thrain in the dungeons of the Necromancer
- The dwarves in the Ered Luin
- Assembling the expedition to the Lonely Mountain


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Nov 17, 2006)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> I really hope that Leonard Nimoy's song makes it into at least one of the movies.




You'll be disapointed. I know I was when Frodo of the Nine Fingers didn't make it into The Return of the King.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 18, 2006)

horacethegrey said:
			
		

> Dude... Isn't that a bit harsh?



Yes, hence the term "darkest wish."


----------



## Shag (Nov 19, 2006)

It could easily be 2 films, if you read the hobbit alot of stuff is really compressed in the text.  Remember the hobbit takes place over the same time period as Lord of the Rings does. Its basically a one year journey there and back.  Alot of stuff happens in the hobbit.
And if you add in even a bit of backstory at all.  Especially the story that Gandalf tells the fellowship after the Coronation of Elessar in Minas Tirith about how he met Thorin and what led him to the shire.
Then tack on even a bit of the white council driving out Sauron from Dol Guldur easily 2 movies.
Remember the 10 minute scene that came from the screenplay that simply said:  And they cross the bridge of Kazad-dum.


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 19, 2006)

Shag said:
			
		

> It could easily be 2 films, if you read the hobbit alot of stuff is really compressed in the text.  Remember the hobbit takes place over the same time period as Lord of the Rings does. Its basically a one year journey there and back.  Alot of stuff happens in the hobbit.
> And if you add in even a bit of backstory at all.  Especially the story that Gandalf tells the fellowship after the Coronation of Elessar in Minas Tirith about how he met Thorin and what led him to the shire.
> Then tack on even a bit of the white council driving out Sauron from Dol Guldur easily 2 movies.
> Remember the 10 minute scene that came from the screenplay that simply said:  And they cross the bridge of Kazad-dum.



The first one could end with Smaug's last moments. The battle over smaug's hoard could easily inflated into another 1/2 movie with the connecting of the Hobbit & LOTR as the other 1/2.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Nov 20, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Interesting, but not going to happen, unless my darkest wish will come true (Peter Jackson dies).




Fixed that for you.


----------



## horacethegrey (Nov 20, 2006)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Fixed that for you.




And how pray tell is that fixing anything?


----------



## Aaron L (Nov 20, 2006)

horacethegrey said:
			
		

> And how pray tell is that fixing anything?




Requisite internet snark against anything that is popular.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 20, 2006)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Fixed that for you.



More like "for you", than for me.   

Do pray that I die before [a] _LOTR_ film(s) of *your* liking is/are made. Let it be *your* darkest wish.


----------



## Elf Witch (Nov 21, 2006)

I just read that Peter Jackson is no longer involved in the project that he and New Line Cinema are fighting over money.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Nov 21, 2006)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I just read that Peter Jackson is no longer involved in the project that he and New Line Cinema are fighting over money.



This has been confirmed.


----------



## qstor (Nov 21, 2006)

Frukathka said:
			
		

> This has been confirmed.





That sucks!! damm lawyers 

Mike


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Nov 22, 2006)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I just read that Peter Jackson is no longer involved in the project that he and New Line Cinema are fighting over money.




Thank the Valar!


----------



## Sholari (Nov 22, 2006)

Letter from PJ...

http://www.theonering.net/staticnews/1163993546.html

What you can do about it...

http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1164129588


----------



## horacethegrey (Nov 22, 2006)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Thank the Valar!




 :\ 

Some people, no pleasing them.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 22, 2006)

horacethegrey said:
			
		

> :\
> 
> Some people, no pleasing them.



Now, now. There is a reason why "condescending" is in the dictionary. We need examples.


----------



## horacethegrey (Nov 22, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Now, now. There is a reason why "condescending" is in the dictionary. We need examples.



 Dude. You make my day everytime. You know that?


----------



## reanjr (Nov 22, 2006)

I would really like to see the Quenta Silmarillion done by the History channel people as if it were true event. Now THAT would be the way to present the Silmarillion.


----------



## Mycanid (Nov 22, 2006)

reanjr said:
			
		

> I would really like to see the Quenta Silmarillion done by the History channel people as if it were true event. Now THAT would be the way to present the Silmarillion.




Hmm ... that would indeed be an interesting thing.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 23, 2006)

reanjr said:
			
		

> I would really like to see the Quenta Silmarillion done by the History channel people as if it were true event. Now THAT would be the way to present the Silmarillion.




That would certainly help me get to sleep early every night.


----------



## Fast Learner (Nov 26, 2006)

MGM says Jackson's not out of the loop after all.


----------



## Taelorn76 (Nov 27, 2006)

That's good to hear, but if New Line has producing rights, I don't think MGM has a say in it.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 27, 2006)

Taelorn76 said:
			
		

> That's good to hear, but if New Line has producing rights, I don't think MGM has a say in it.




MGM has the rights to distribution.  New Line can make whatever movie they want, but if the distribution stinks they won't make much money off of it.  If MGM thinks it'll be a flop without Jackson, they'll put the minimum allowable effort into distributing the thing, which will seriously hurt New Line's bottom line.  So, while they don't have any direct say, they certainly have influence.


----------



## Klaus (Nov 27, 2006)

New Line can make any movie they want, but they HAVE to distribute it through MGM. So MGM has a LOT of clout here.


----------



## Eridanis (Nov 27, 2006)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> MGM says Jackson's not out of the loop after all.




Heh heh. This is going to get really interesting. Where's the popcorn smiley when you need it?

I realized a possible reason for two movies: if New Line and MGM are going to need to divide the pie, what better way to do it that to make two movies? You get one, I get the other, let's make lots of money!

I hope everything works out. Or, if PJ and WETA end up not on board, I hope they find a visionary director who'll hire Howe and Lee as design directors to keep the look consistent.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 27, 2006)

Eridanis said:
			
		

> I hope everything works out. Or, if PJ and WETA end up not on board, I hope they find a visionary director who'll hire Howe and Lee as design directors to keep the look consistent.



I sincerely hope not.

If New Line won't have PJ, then New Line should not have production film right, which expires next year. Not only does MGM want PJ, but the head of Tolkien Enterprise, Saul Zaentz (the owner of _LOTR_ and _Hobbit_ film rights) is backing PJ. Even Sir Ian McKellan stated on his web site that it would be sad if PJ is not helming the _Hobbit_ film, and cried foul on New Line for their "childish negotiating tactics."


----------



## Vocenoctum (Nov 27, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I sincerely hope not.
> 
> If New Line won't have PJ, then New Line should not have production film right, which expires next year.




If it really does expire next year, then New Line is probably in the right, IMO. Jackson's success lets him choose his own pace, but with a year to start production, new Line would probably be out of the picture. Maybe that's what Jackson wants and if they delay long enough he'll get an MGM deal out of it.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 27, 2006)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> If it really does expire next year, then New Line is probably in the right, IMO. Jackson's success lets him choose his own pace, but with a year to start production, new Line would probably be out of the picture. Maybe that's what Jackson wants and if they delay long enough he'll get an MGM deal out of it.



New Line is right to underpay PJ (the reason for his one-year-old lawsuit against them)? Gee, I hope your employer is as "generous" as New Line suits.  :\ 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/27/b...int&adxnnlx=1164668258-0iqjBjxNluuBkcJCgNgS0w

They could have settled it but they didn't.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Nov 27, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> New Line is right to underpay PJ (the reason for his one-year-old lawsuit against them)? Gee, I hope your employer is as "generous" as New Line suits.  :\



They're right in seeking to get the film made, before it's too late. The lawsuit is a seperate issue.


> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/27/b...int&adxnnlx=1164668258-0iqjBjxNluuBkcJCgNgS0w
> 
> They could have settled it but they didn't.



Thanks for the link, it at least explains what the actual suit is about. The problem with a suit like that, is trying to determine what the rights would have been worth. We can tell what money was generated now, obviously, but how much would the rights be worth before the Super Success of the trilogy?

Either way, I can't say who is really right or wrong in regards to the lawsuit, or the amount. It does seem obvious to me that New Line would want to make the film before they can't anymore. (Or at least not without renegotiating.)


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 27, 2006)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Either way, I can't say who is really right or wrong in regards to the lawsuit, or the amount. It does seem obvious to me that New Line would want to make the film before they can't anymore. (Or at least not without renegotiating.)



The way I see it, New Line is milking the franchise as much as they can, regardless of whether or not it will ruin the experience for us intelligent fans (the kinds that don't buy into the iPod and PS3 craze). And with the expiration date looming, no doubt it will a cram or rushed job.


----------



## Klaus (Nov 27, 2006)

In order to get a movie done before the rights expire, the production would have to be underway for quite a while (scout location, book actors, record soundtrack), otherwise it'd still be in post-production when the film rights expire. The only way New Line can get that done is to hire Uwe Boll...


----------



## Taelorn76 (Nov 28, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> In order to get a movie done before the rights expire, the production would have to be underway for quite a while (scout location, book actors, record soundtrack), otherwise it'd still be in post-production when the film rights expire. The only way New Line can get that done is to hire Uwe Boll...




Well does the movie need to done, finished, ready for release, by the time their production rights expire, or do just have to have production started by said date?


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 28, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> In order to get a movie done before the rights expire, the production would have to be underway for quite a while (scout location, book actors, record soundtrack), otherwise it'd still be in post-production when the film rights expire. The only way New Line can get that done is to hire Uwe Boll...



Have I wronged you in another life? Killed your son in some ancient battle?

You are just too cruel ... too cruel. Even Satan's saying, "that's a cruel joke for me to say that."


----------



## Umbran (Nov 28, 2006)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> They're right in seeking to get the film made, before it's too late. The lawsuit is a seperate issue.




They're _smart_ to seek to get the film made before it is too late. What is smart is not necessarily what is "right". 

As far as Jackson is concerned, the lawsuit surely is not a separate issue. Failure to properly pay for the last job surely bears on whether you'll deal properly on the next one...


----------



## Vocenoctum (Nov 28, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> They're _smart_ to seek to get the film made before it is too late. What is smart is not necessarily what is "right".



they're right, within their motive/ methods. A corporation is designed to make money, they've spent money for the rights, but time is dwindling for them to see a return on that.


> As far as Jackson is concerned, the lawsuit surely is not a separate issue. Failure to properly pay for the last job surely bears on whether you'll deal properly on the next one...



Right, I'm sure Jackson has every reason not to sign a new deal until the old one is settled. That said, as surely as they tried to use settling as incentive to make Hobbit, he's using Hobbit to push their hand on the settlement. In addition, he could just name his price on the new contract and they can turn it down if it's too much. I don't know that he's ready to make the movie right now anyway, and it may be to his advantage to wait for the rights to expire and make it via someone else.


----------



## Tyler Do'Urden (Dec 1, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> The only way New Line can get that done is to hire Uwe Boll...




I'm usually not a big fan of murder.

But for that suggestion, I can make an exception.


----------



## horacethegrey (Dec 2, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> The only way New Line can get that done is to hire Uwe Boll...




Maybe the Boll and Jackson could have a boxing match to determine who directs the flick!


----------



## thalmin (Mar 21, 2007)

Sorry to resurrect this old topic, but are there any further developments?


----------



## krunchyfrogg (Mar 21, 2007)

Eridanis said:
			
		

> If Jackson is at the helm, then consider my money spent already...



Who here honestly wouldn't see any new Hobbit film or films, even if PJ had nothing to do with them?  I don't even see "Sauron with the Spiky Helmet" making a comeback.


----------



## krunchyfrogg (Mar 21, 2007)

Brakkart said:
			
		

> Well said. The actors aren't getting any younger, so if they plan on using the same people to play the same characters, the studios really need to get their asses in gear and get the show started.



What same characters?  Frodo and Gandalf are the only characters in both.  You don't need the same actor to play either one IMO.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 21, 2007)

No really firm news either way:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/3969605a1860.html


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 21, 2007)

krunchyfrogg said:
			
		

> What same characters?  Frodo and Gandalf are the only characters in both.  You don't need the same actor to play either one IMO.





I've heard Bilbo has a part in _The Hobbit_.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Mar 21, 2007)

krunchyfrogg said:
			
		

> What same characters?  Frodo and Gandalf are the only characters in both.  You don't need the same actor to play either one IMO.




It is Bilbo, not Frodo. Elrond and Gollum are also is in both. Legolas could make a cameo as he is the son of Thranduil who has pretty big role. Gloin also showed up in RotK but he was very old in the movie and should be recast. The last character that I can think of that is in both is Gwaihir  Lord of the Eagles, but since he is totally CGI that shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 21, 2007)

krunchyfrogg said:
			
		

> What same characters?  Frodo and Gandalf are the only characters in both.  You don't need the same actor to play either one IMO.




Assuming you meant Bilbo, not Frodo...

A new actor playing Bilbo is probably essential, since he's supposed to be a lot younger. But the notion that anyone other Ian McKellan could/should play Gandalf is blasphemy of the highest order.   

(Okay, I exaggerate. But not by much.)


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Mar 21, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Assuming you meant Bilbo, not Frodo...
> 
> A new actor playing Bilbo is probably essential, since he's supposed to be a lot younger. But the notion that anyone other Ian McKellan could/should play Gandalf is blasphemy of the highest order.
> 
> (Okay, I exaggerate. But not by much.)




Except that Bilbo stoped (greatly slowed) aging when he got the ring. Plus the encounter with Gollum was filmed and part of the opening to RotK.

I also forgot two other characters that are/could be in both (with recasting). There is Lobelia Sackville-Baggins who is in possesion of Bag End when Bilbo returns and did have a cameo in the FotR (and another apperance in the book version of RotK). There is also the Old Gaffer (Hamfast Gamgee) who was certainly around and 32 years old at the time of the Hobbit even if he wasn't mentioned in the book.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 21, 2007)

I wonder what, if any, sections they might be tempted to cut?


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 21, 2007)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> I wonder what, if any, sections they might be tempted to cut?




Songs.  Lots of songs.


----------



## jonathan swift (Mar 21, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Songs.  Lots of songs.





But, but, I love the songs.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 21, 2007)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Except that Bilbo stoped (greatly slowed) aging when he got the ring. Plus the encounter with Gollum was filmed and part of the opening to RotK.




And my understanding of that scene is that they literally taped back Ian Holme's face to make him look younger.

I suppose they could do that for a whole movie, or use CGI to "youngify" him, but I don't know if he'd be up for that.

In either case, the idea of recasting Bilbo bothers me far less than the notion of recasting Gandalf.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Mar 21, 2007)

jonathan swift said:
			
		

> But, but, I love the songs.




Yes all the Quality songs: 

Chip the glasses and crack the plates!
Blunt the knives and bend the forks!
That's what Bilbo hates -
Smash the bottles and burn the corks!

Cut the cloth and tread on the fat!
Pour the milk on the pantry floor!
Leave the bones on the bedroom mat!
Splash the wine on every door!

Dump the crocks in a boiling bowl;
Pound them up with a thumping pole;
And when you've finished, if any are whole,
Send them down the hall to roll!

That's what Bilbo Baggins hates!
So, carefully! carefully! with the plates!


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 21, 2007)

jonathan swift said:
			
		

> But, but, I love the songs.



Then watch _SPAMalot._

Isn't someone producing _LOTR_ broadway musical?


----------



## Fast Learner (Mar 22, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Then watch _SPAMalot._
> 
> Isn't someone producing _LOTR_ broadway musical?



They staged one recently in Canada somewhere, Toronto iirc, and it totally bombed. The intent was eventual Broadway, but reports were really horrible.


----------



## horacethegrey (Mar 22, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Then watch _SPAMalot._




 Wouldn't it be just fad if the Python's mocked LOTR in this day and age?


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Mar 22, 2007)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> I wonder what, if any, sections they might be tempted to cut?




The Beorn interlude.  You can lose that with zero impact on the rest of the story.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Mar 22, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> In either case, the idea of recasting Bilbo bothers me far less than the notion of recasting Gandalf.



I always thought no one but John Huston could carry it off, but McKellan certainly made the part his own. While he's still alive and mobile, he'd be my choice.


			
				Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> The Beorn interlude.  You can lose that with zero impact on the rest of the story.



And all the Laketown political stuff. Whatever its other faults, I think the old Hobbit cartoon may have had it right in what to leave out.


----------



## Banshee16 (Mar 22, 2007)

krunchyfrogg said:
			
		

> Who here honestly wouldn't see any new Hobbit film or films, even if PJ had nothing to do with them?  I don't even see "Sauron with the Spiky Helmet" making a comeback.




Given how well done the LotR trilogy was in relation to other recent fantasy films, I would not be nearly as quick to decide on going, if it wasn't Peter Jackson making it.  He's proved  himself capable...who else has?

Banshee


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 22, 2007)

horacethegrey said:
			
		

> Wouldn't it be just fad if the Python's mocked LOTR in this day and age?



The Monty Pythons are still around?  :\ 

Must not be as well-preserved as Keith Richards.


----------



## horacethegrey (Mar 22, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> The Monty Pythons are still around?  :\
> 
> Must not be as well-preserved as Keith Richards.




Maybe not all of them (RIP Graham Chapman), but if even one Python like Eric Idle can mount a musical like _Spamalot_, I don't see Python spoof of _LOTR _ can't happen today.

If you have the chance, there's an episode of _Flying Circus_ you should watch where they made a hilarious parody of the Icelandic epic _Njal's Saga_. I wouldn't mind it if they did their LOTR spoof in that same vein.


----------



## krunchyfrogg (Mar 22, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Assuming you meant Bilbo, not Frodo...



LOL, yeah!


----------



## David Howery (Mar 22, 2007)

concerning the 'two movies' thing... I've long thought that if they really wanted to do another ME movie other than the Hobbit, they could do one set during the time of the War of the Ring, around the battle at Dale and the Lonely Mountain... Sauron sent a large force to take this place, and the Dwarves and Men of Dale barely won, losing both their kings in the process....


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 22, 2007)

David Howery said:
			
		

> concerning the 'two movies' thing... I've long thought that if they really wanted to do another ME movie other than the Hobbit, they could do one set during the time of the War of the Ring, around the battle at Dale and the Lonely Mountain... Sauron sent a large force to take this place, and the Dwarves and Men of Dale barely won, losing both their kings in the process....



Perhaps, but everyone would rather see _Hobbit_ (hopefully produced and directed by PJ) first.

That story above, is it detailed in the _LOTR_ appendix? Any ME literary works outside of _LOTR_ and _Hobbit_ belong to Tolkien Estate and they're adamant about licensing them to another medium (e.g., films).


----------



## David Howery (Mar 24, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but everyone would rather see _Hobbit_ (hopefully produced and directed by PJ) first.
> 
> That story above, is it detailed in the _LOTR_ appendix? Any ME literary works outside of _LOTR_ and _Hobbit_ belong to Tolkien Estate and they're adamant about licensing them to another medium (e.g., films).



it's not really detailed anywhere... it is briefly mentioned in the main text of LOTR....


----------



## Squire James (Mar 24, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but everyone would rather see _Hobbit_ (hopefully produced and directed by PJ) first.
> 
> That story above, is it detailed in the _LOTR_ appendix? Any ME literary works outside of _LOTR_ and _Hobbit_ belong to Tolkien Estate and they're adamant about licensing them to another medium (e.g., films).




Yes, it is.  Basically, anything that happened from Sauron's "commissioning" of the Rings of Power in the Second Age is pretty much fair game.  I can see a fair bit of drama about the Fall of Numinor, for instance.  Think of it - the last king of Numinor had an army so powerful they invaded Mordor and CAPTURED Sauron (a bad idea, as it turned out, but impressive nonetheless)!  It had a very dark ending, and some people really like that sort of thing.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 24, 2007)

Squire James said:
			
		

> Yes, it is.  Basically, anything that happened from Sauron's "commissioning" of the Rings of Power in the Second Age is pretty much fair game.  I can see a fair bit of drama about the Fall of Numinor, for instance.  Think of it - the last king of Numinor had an army so powerful they invaded Mordor and CAPTURED Sauron (a bad idea, as it turned out, but impressive nonetheless)!  It had a very dark ending, and some people really like that sort of thing.



Some.

If they can expand on the material without help from other sources, they should go for it ... AFTER _Hobbit._


----------

