Joined: 15 Dec 2004 Posts: 901 Location: Heard Island, Australia
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:41 am Post subject: The Hobbit - Peter Jackson
The great Tolkien adventure, The Hobbit, will be split into two movies by Peter Jackson. Part 1, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey should be in cinemas by December, 2012:
Looking good. After making one of the best movie trilogies ever, The Lord of the Rings, am looking forward to Peter Jackson's two new Middle Earth offerings over 2012 and 2013.
Part 2, a December 2013 release, will be called The Hobbit: There and Back Again.
Martin Freeman seems like an apt choice for the Bilbo Baggins' role.
Joined: 05 Jul 2011 Posts: 604 Location: Sunny Donny, up t' north, UK
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:16 am Post subject:
I've been looking forward to this since 2003 when I walked out of the cinema fresh from seeing Return of the King. I'm pretty glad Guillermo Del Toro backed out from directing, the same look and feel of the first trilogy is needed for these prequels which only Peter Jackson can provide, and it does look awesome
Pfft Harry Potter? Middle Earth is back!
Last edited by Mase on Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:24 am; edited 1 time in total
Apparently the second movie is set between 'The Hobbit' and 'The Lord Of The Rings' and will include characters that were not in 'The Hobbit' like Saruman. However it will not reference material from The 'Silmarillion' or 'Unfinished Tales' as New Line Cinema only have the rights to 'The Hobbit' and 'The Lord Of The Rings'.Should be good movies for Christmas but I'm more excited about Ridley Scott's 'Prometheus' coming in June.Apparently that will have a sequel also assuming it does the expected business at the box office.
Joined: 15 Dec 2004 Posts: 901 Location: Heard Island, Australia
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:33 pm Post subject:
ninelivecat wrote:
Apparently the second movie is set between 'The Hobbit' and 'The Lord Of The Rings' and will include characters that were not in 'The Hobbit' like Saruman. However it will not reference material from The 'Silmarillion' or 'Unfinished Tales' as New Line Cinema only have the rights to 'The Hobbit' and 'The Lord Of The Rings'.Should be good movies for Christmas but I'm more excited about Ridley Scott's 'Prometheus' coming in June.Apparently that will have a sequel also assuming it does the expected business at the box office.
Interesting, ninelivecat. Those copyright issues might impinge.....Are you sure Smaug's demise occurs in the first 2012 movie ?
The Hobbit is quite a sweeping epic, despite it being a simpler and less lengthy read than each of The Lord of the Rings' books. So, more than enough locations, character interactions and battles, I would have thought, to split the epic journey across two new movies. Especially if incorporating all of the other Jackson inclusions from character backstories / Middle Earth lore.
Joined: 05 Jul 2011 Posts: 604 Location: Sunny Donny, up t' north, UK
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:48 pm Post subject:
Canute wrote:
Interesting, ninelivecat. Those copyright issues might impinge.....Are you sure Smaug's demise occurs in the first 2012 movie ?
The Hobbit is quite a sweeping epic, despite it being a simpler and less lengthy read than each of The Lord of the Rings' books. So, more than enough locations, character interactions and battles, I would have thought, to split the epic journey across two new movies. Especially if incorporating all of the other Jackson inclusions from character backstories / Middle Earth lore.
Yeah! I'm sure that was the point of splitting it into 2 films, to incorporate all of that. Must be very richly filled with Tolkien lore if not even an extended special edition would do.
Edit: BTW It's been a while since I read the Hobbit, does the battle of 5 armies happen before or after Smaugs death? I should really get my hands on the book again and refresh my memory before the film comes out.
Edit: BTW It's been a while since I read the Hobbit, does the battle of 5 armies happen before or after Smaugs death? I should really get my hands on the book again and refresh my memory before the film comes out.
The battle happens after as the death of Smaug causes a power vaccuum in the region and each side wants to lay their claim to the treasure.
What is slightly moronic about the original is that Bard is first mentioned about half a page before he kills Smaug. Might need a bit of Hollywoodizing that!
Joined: 15 Dec 2004 Posts: 901 Location: Heard Island, Australia
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:13 pm Post subject:
DanSolo wrote:
What is slightly moronic about the original is that Bard is first mentioned about half a page before he kills Smaug. Might need a bit of Hollywoodizing that!
You're right there. I'm sure Jackson will expand upon the character backgrounds.
I read a rumour that this Part 1 movie may finish up just before the party enters Mirkwood, Gandalf's initial departure, etc...... I guess that would mark about half-way through the novel. Yet, just a rumour.
Looking forward to probable expansion into the White Council meeting that Gandalf attends, after he leaves Bilbo/Thorin and Company at Mirkwood, plus the subplot around "The Necromancer". Well, one can hope.
The White Council:
".......The White Council's head was the Wizard Saruman the White, (although Galadriel wished for Gandalf the Grey to be made the leader). Other members of the Council included the Bearers of the Three Rings of the Elves (Gandalf, Galadriel, and Elrond Half-elven), Círdan the Shipwright (who had borne Narya, the Ring of Fire before handing it on to Gandalf), Glorfindel and Radagast the Brown. It is assumed that others of the wise were also members of the White Council.
The White Council first met in TA 2463, at the end of the Watchful Peace. In TA 2851, the White Council met to decide on whether to act on Gandalf's discovery of the identity of the Necromancer but Saruman dissuaded the others. During this meeting there was much tension between Saruman and Gandalf, for Gandalf already suspected Saruman of desiring to have the Ring. Eventually Saruman relented and in TA 2941 during the time Gandalf was also involved with Thorin and Company and the Quest of Erebor, Sauron was driven out of Dol Guldur only to re-appear in Mordor. The Council last met in TA 2953; at this meeting Saruman insists that the One Ring has been swept out into the sea....."
Joined: 18 Oct 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 610 Location: Finland
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:51 pm Post subject:
I was just overwhelmed with images from LOTR trilogy. How similar they looked on big screen and in my brain when I read the books. Hopefully this'll do the trick too! _________________
I haven't read The Hobbit apparently it's more of a children's story.I thought the best part of The Lord Of The Rings trilogy was The Fellowship Of The Ring when The Hobbits were being pursued by the Black Riders across the open countryside.The Two Towers and The Return Of The King got a bit long drawn out for me in book form.I think when The Lord Of The Rings story first got published it was very popular but I have heard there are now numerous other similar fantasy novels that have superseded The Lord Of The Rings ?
Joined: 26 May 2002 Posts: 828 Location: Edinburgh, UK
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:29 pm Post subject:
plbyrd wrote:
I got goosebumps watching that trailer.
I wish I was so easily pleased. What was in that trailer to get excited about? It's been twenty years since I read the book so maybe that's why I can't see why it needs two films. Does enough happen in the book to fill two films? The fact that they'd add stuff that wasn't even in the book seems to say it doesn't.
In case you were in any doubt, I wasn't a fan of the LOTR films, although I've read the book three or four times. I preferred the Ralph Bakshi film. Really.
Joined: 05 Jul 2011 Posts: 604 Location: Sunny Donny, up t' north, UK
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 12:14 am Post subject:
Troy wrote:
plbyrd wrote:
I got goosebumps watching that trailer.
I wish I was so easily pleased. What was in that trailer to get excited about? It's been twenty years since I read the book so maybe that's why I can't see why it needs two films. Does enough happen in the book to fill two films? The fact that they'd add stuff that wasn't even in the book seems to say it doesn't.
In case you were in any doubt, I wasn't a fan of the LOTR films, although I've read the book three or four times. I preferred the Ralph Bakshi film. Really.
Oooh! Controversial... The Ralph Bakshi Lord of the Rings started off okay. nice animation etc.. but about halfway through from about when The Two Towers started right to the end it was rushed through, doesn't seem like a complete film. Lots of live action colour tint/silhouetting going on, with blokes in gorilla masks playing orcs like they'd ran out of money to pay the animators or something... and who is Aruman?
The least said about the stand alone Return of the King animation the better LMAO!
Joined: 26 May 2002 Posts: 828 Location: Edinburgh, UK
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 1:33 am Post subject:
I preferred it, but it was far from great. The Jackson films are even further from great. You're right, the 'roto-scoping' in the Bakshi films was a failure. A lot of the backdrops were beautifully drawn though, if I remember right.
I only read recently that Sean Connery was originally offered the role of Gandalf in the Jackson films. Gandalf with a Scottish accent. Cool. Actually I think he wouldn't have made a good Gandalf. I think Max Von Sydow would have made a great Gandalf.
Joined: 15 Dec 2004 Posts: 901 Location: Heard Island, Australia
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:33 am Post subject:
Some staunch Tolkien literature purists never have been happy with Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings' trilogy.
I beg to differ. Jackson's LOTR trilogy - a masterpiece. Even with the differing plot liberties he took (eg. exclusions such as Tom Bombadil + enhancing the female characters' roles), one can tell Jackson had deep respect for Tolkien's original work. Yet, he also made Middle-Earth accessible for the mainstream.
I particularly like the very long special extended editions for DVD. Much more character and political developments included in these - impractical for the cinematic releases.
I'm with plbyrd regarding the the early The Hobbit trailer. If anyone can do a great adaptation of The Hobbit, Jackson can. He's already got the whole artistic vision sorted in LOTR. Does not need to change too much.
Years ago I was actually looking forward to Sean Connery taking up the role of LOTR Gandalf. He used to do the energetic old sage act very well in 1990s' movies. His accent ? A great voice of power. And a bit Deckard Cain-like out of Diablo (ok, I diverge too much)! Thought he would have been superb (better than McKellan) in look and presence. Yet, McKellan has made the role his own.
Ah, this is interesting: ".....Connery.....rejected a bunch of films - including Lord Of The Rings, which he supposedly turned down because he didn't fancy being in New Zealand for more than a year...... " So, Sean turned the role down. He was actually preferred over McKellan.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/s...-22505795/
The Hobbit novel ? Although purposely written for kids, The Hobbit novel isn't exactly a kids' pop-up book! Great 300-page fun for all adults to read!
Last edited by Canute on Fri Feb 17, 2012 12:17 pm; edited 2 times in total
Joined: 05 Jul 2011 Posts: 604 Location: Sunny Donny, up t' north, UK
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:51 am Post subject:
ninelivecat wrote:
I haven't read The Hobbit apparently it's more of a children's story
Harry Potter (I hate to use that comparison) is essentially a kids book, yet adults have their own edition (and it's exactly the same, not like they added more gore and sex or whatever). Completely pointless except as a marketing tool to appeal to an older demographic who would say the same thing. If The Hobbit had an adult edition or if you'd even read it you probably wouldn't be saying that.
I haven't read The Hobbit apparently it's more of a children's story
Harry Potter (I hate to use that comparison) is essentially a kids book, yet adults have their own edition (and it's exactly the same, not like they added more gore and sex or whatever). Completely pointless except as a marketing tool to appeal to an older demographic who would say the same thing. If The Hobbit had an adult edition or if you'd even read it you probably wouldn't be saying that.
As I remember The Lord Of The Rings preface gave an explanation of what happened in the Hobbit so I didn't feel a big need to read it.I would go as far as to say that The Lord Of The Rings is the book and that if you have read it then The Hobbit is something that is supplementary.
Joined: 26 May 2002 Posts: 828 Location: Edinburgh, UK
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:21 pm Post subject:
Canute wrote:
Ah, this is interesting: ".....Connery.....rejected a bunch of films - including Lord Of The Rings, which he supposedly turned down because he didn't fancy being in New Zealand for more than a year...... "
Apparently he was also offered a part in The Matrix, but I don't know which part. He would have been 68 in 1999 so probably too old to be running around as Morpheus.
Joined: 05 Jul 2011 Posts: 604 Location: Sunny Donny, up t' north, UK
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:42 pm Post subject:
ninelivecat wrote:
As I remember The Lord Of The Rings preface gave an explanation of what happened in the Hobbit so I didn't feel a big need to read it.I would go as far as to say that The Lord Of The Rings is the book and that if you have read it then The Hobbit is something that is supplementary.
Yeh it gives you the basic jist, referring to events that took place. I suppose it's how invested you are in the characters to want to know more about their back story. Middle Earth is such a well realised world it's totally optional to skim the surface or delve a bit deeper.
Hollywood is always bringing out prequels to cater to the fans who want to see the origin story take place even if it's touched upon before. The Hobbit is no different, except it's not an afterthought.
I'm looking forward to the part with the 3 trolls, and the spider forest, and the encounter with Gollum and Bilbo acquiring Sting and his Mithril armour etc etc...... it should be epic.
Well maybe I will read The Hobbit if I can pick up a copy I have a first edition of The Silmarillion which I picked up quite a few years ago cheap which I have never read either.
I read LOTR once, about 20 years ago. Never read The Hobbitt or Silmarillion. But I did read Ice and Fire, and was instantly hooked. Only a few months left until season 2 airs
Joined: 15 Dec 2004 Posts: 901 Location: Heard Island, Australia
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:17 am Post subject:
Troy wrote:
Canute wrote:
Ah, this is interesting: ".....Connery.....rejected a bunch of films - including Lord Of The Rings, which he supposedly turned down because he didn't fancy being in New Zealand for more than a year...... "
Apparently he was also offered a part in The Matrix, but I don't know which part. He would have been 68 in 1999 so probably too old to be running around as Morpheus.
Perhaps. Anyway, as you probably know, Connery has been having considerable health problems since around 2003. Sad.
However, Christopher Lee (Saruman), now over 90 is back for the new Hobbit movies (I think). He get his parts filmed in UK though (White Council scenes?). NZ too far.
Christopher Lee was pretty old as Saruman and Count Dooku about 10 years ago! He did say in interviews that there always was a stunt-double or graphics in his frenetic fight scenes. His legs no longer had the strength!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Tip: Get C64 Forever for super-comfy C64 emulation with pre-installed games, demos and other goodies!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
(ok, I diverge too much)! Thought he would have been superb (better than McKellan) in look and presence. Yet, McKellan has made the role his own.
for super-comfy C64 emulation with pre-installed games, demos and other goodies!