The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

[Stout]

I was desperately trying to find a translator that would let me refer to you as a geek in Elvish, but I winded myself from carrying around all the heavy irony.

Thus making you an equal geek

 

[UncleChris]

Git 'er done!

Seriously, though, I'm glad Jackson isn't directing. He set a standard with a lot of how the film should be filmed, but he took far too many liberties in certain areas for me to want him to do the Hobbit.

Ditto

 

[Chaplin]

It's official:

ACADEMY AWARD WINNER PETER JACKSON AND NEW LINE CINEMA JOIN WITH MGM TO PRODUCE “THE HOBBIT,” EAGERLY-ANTICIPATED FANTASY ADVENTURE EPIC

NEW LINE AND MGM TO CO-PRODUCE AND SHARE WORLDWIDE DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS

PETER JACKSON AND FRAN WALSH TO EXECUTIVE PRODUCE TWO FILMS BASED ON “THE HOBBIT”

Los Angeles, CA (Tuesday, December 18, 2007) Academy Award®-winning filmmaker Peter Jackson; Harry Sloan, Chairman and CEO, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. (MGM); Bob Shaye and Michael Lynne, Co-Chairmen and Co-CEOs of New Line Cinema have jointly announced today that they have entered into the following series of agreements:

* MGM and New Line will co-finance and co-distribute two films, “The Hobbit” and a sequel to “The Hobbit.” New Line will distribute in North America and MGM will distribute internationally.

* Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh will serve as Executive Producers of two films based on “The Hobbit.” New Line will manage the production of the films, which will be shot simultaneously.

* Peter Jackson and New Line have settled all litigation relating to the “Lord of the Rings” (LOTR) Trilogy.

Said Peter Jackson, “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. ‘The Lord of the Rings’ is a legacy we proudly share with Bob and Michael, and together, we share that legacy with millions of loyal fans all over the world. We are delighted to continue our journey through Middle Earth. I also want to thank Harry Sloan and our new friends at MGM for helping us find the common ground necessary to continue that journey.”

“Peter Jackson has proven himself as the filmmaker who can bring the extraordinary imagination of Tolkien to life and we full heartedly agree with the fans worldwide who know he should be making ‘The Hobbit,’” said Sloan, MGM’s Chairman and CEO. "Now that we are all in agreement on 'The Hobbit,' we can focus on assembling the production team that will capture this phenomenal tale on film."

Bob Shaye, New Line Co-Chairman and Co-CEO comments, “We are very pleased we have been able to resolve our differences, and that Peter and Fran will be actively and creatively involved with ‘The Hobbit’ movies. We know they will bring the same passion, care and talent to these films that they so ably accomplished with ‘The Lord of the Rings’ Trilogy.”

“Peter is a visionary filmmaker, and he broke new ground with ‘The Lord of the Rings,’” notes Michael Lynne, New Line Co-Chairman and Co-CEO. “We’re delighted he’s back for ‘The Hobbit’ films and that the Tolkien saga will continue with his imprint. We greatly appreciate the efforts of Harry Sloan, who has been instrumental in helping us reach our new accord.”

The two “Hobbit” films – “The Hobbit” and its sequel – are scheduled to be shot simultaneously, with pre-production beginning as soon as possible. Principal photography is tentatively set for a 2009 start, with the intention of “The Hobbit” release slated for 2010 and its sequel the following year, in 2011.

The Oscar®-winning, critically-acclaimed LOTR Trilogy grossed nearly $3 billion worldwide at the box-office. In 2003, “Return of the King” swept the Academy Awards®, winning all of the eleven categories in which it was nominated, including Best Picture – the first ever Best Picture win for a fantasy film. The Trilogy’s production was also unprecedented at the time.

For more information about “The Hobbit” films, please visit www.TheHobbitBlog.com.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

 

[Renz]

Hopefully, it will be better than King Kong.

 

[Mulli]

Hopefully, it will be better than King Kong.

Or at least shorter.

 

[MadCardDisease]

What is the sequel to the Hobbit? I didn't know that there was one.

 

[Linderbee]

What is the sequel to the Hobbit? I didn't know that there was one.

The Hobbit II, duh.

 

[Covert Rain]

Git 'er done!

Seriously, though, I'm glad Jackson isn't directing. He set a standard with a lot of how the film should be filmed, but he took far too many liberties in certain areas for me to want him to do the Hobbit.

I completely disagree. The changes in story is part of what made them so great. I had read the stories so many times since I was a kid that making a scene for scene version of the books would have been boring to me. The new stuff made it worth while for me.

He is going to bring in the same production team, writers etc. So he will do the same with the Hobbit. I still hope the guys directs as well. It also sounds like they are breaking the Hobbit into 2 different movies (part 1 and part2). So obviously he put alot of thought into it and knows where it's going.

 

[Mike Olbinski]

I completely disagree. The changes in story is part of what made them so great. I had read the stories so many times since I was a kid that making a scene for scene version of the books would have been boring to me. The new stuff made it worth while for me.

He is going to bring in the same production team, writers etc. So he will do the same with the Hobbit. I still hope the guys directs as well. It also sounds like they are breaking the Hobbit into 2 different movies (part 1 and part2). So obviously he put alot of thought into it and knows where it's going.

It's still sad to me that some people don't like what Jackson did with the first movie...it's unbelievable.

You still have the books, you can READ them ANYTIME YOU WANT, and the movies are frickin' brilliant and totally hold dear what Tolkien felt was important.

The entire story is there, with a few changes that were actually good ones.

Stout Stout Stout.....

 

[Treesquid PhD]

Isn't there a giant singing bear in the hobbit? wonder how he handles that one.

 

[Gaddabout]

Isn't there a giant singing bear in the hobbit? wonder how he handles that one.

There's Beorn the shape shifter who can turn into a black bear. I'm sure he'll get the Jackson-Gollum treatment.

 

[Stout]

I completely disagree. The changes in story is part of what made them so great. I had read the stories so many times since I was a kid that making a scene for scene version of the books would have been boring to me. The new stuff made it worth while for me.

He is going to bring in the same production team, writers etc. So he will do the same with the Hobbit. I still hope the guys directs as well. It also sounds like they are breaking the Hobbit into 2 different movies (part 1 and part2). So obviously he put alot of thought into it and knows where it's going.

Nobody wants a blow-by-blow account of the books. That would be impossible. I love Tom Bombadil, but he had no place in it. Still, it would be nice if the elves didn't show up to Helm's Deep to ruin the 'men standing alone' idea, of if Gimli wasn't just a laughing stock, or if the Ents weren't treated like morons who didn't know what was going on in their own back yard. Ugh.

 

[Stout]

It's still sad to me that some people don't like what Jackson did with the first movie...it's unbelievable.

You still have the books, you can READ them ANYTIME YOU WANT, and the movies are frickin' brilliant and totally hold dear what Tolkien felt was important.

The entire story is there, with a few changes that were actually good ones.

Stout Stout Stout.....

I absolutely love what he did with the first movie, and like what he did with the third (except for leaving out the scouring of the Shire). The second, while a good movie, took far, far too many liberties that changed Tolkien's actual meanings.

 

[Covert Rain]

Nobody wants a blow-by-blow account of the books. That would be impossible. I love Tom Bombadil, but he had no place in it. Still, it would be nice if the elves didn't show up to Helm's Deep to ruin the 'men standing alone' idea, of if Gimli wasn't just a laughing stock, or if the Ents weren't treated like morons who didn't know what was going on in their own back yard. Ugh.

I absolutely love what he did with the first movie, and like what he did with the third (except for leaving out the scouring of the Shire). The second, while a good movie, took far, far too many liberties that changed Tolkien's actual meanings.

Like I said, any other approach would have been to "by the book" for me. There is no way you include all from the book. However, merely cutting out parts of the book but still staying to accurate would have been to boring.

I liked the fact that I didn't know where some of the scenes were going. I liked the little tweaks here and there. To me a movie takes to many liberties when it doesn't feel like the books. The Lord of the Rings felt like the books all the way for me.

Hands down probably one of the top 3 trilogies in movie history.

 

[azsouthendzone]

Hopefully, it will be better than King Kong.

King Kong on HD DVD is prolific. Very underrated film.

 

[Stout]

Like I said, any other approach would have been to "by the book" for me. There is no way you include all from the book. However, merely cutting out parts of the book but still staying to accurate would have been to boring.

I liked the fact that I didn't know where some of the scenes were going. I liked the little tweaks here and there. To me a movie takes to many liberties when it doesn't feel like the books. The Lord of the Rings felt like the books all the way for me. Hands down probably one of the top 3 trilogies in movie history.

So we had to have Elves at Helm's Deep? The movie would have been boring then? Rubbish. Half of the point of of the book was that men stood alone. Alone. The only aid they had was the Huorns Gandalf brought, who merely cut off the orcs' escape. Then there is the fact that suddenly the Ents would not go to war, that they seemingly had no idea what was going on to their own forest. For no reason, other than a short, clever bit from one of the hobbits, Treebeard and the rest have half of their magic and wisdom completely discounted, and are made to look like infants.


I agree heartily with your bolded sentiment; one of the great trilogies indeed. It had an incredible first movie, a somewhat disappointing second movie, and a very good third movie. I was a little sad that the first was the best, but there you are.

 

[Covert Rain]

So we had to have Elves at Helm's Deep? The movie would have been boring then? Rubbish. Half of the point of of the book was that men stood alone. Alone. The only aid they had was the Huorns Gandalf brought, who merely cut off the orcs' escape. Then there is the fact that suddenly the Ents would not go to war, that they seemingly had no idea what was going on to their own forest. For no reason, other than a short, clever bit from one of the hobbits, Treebeard and the rest have half of their magic and wisdom completely discounted, and are made to look like infants.


I agree heartily with your bolded sentiment; one of the great trilogies indeed. It had an incredible first movie, a somewhat disappointing second movie, and a very good third movie. I was a little sad that the first was the best, but there you are.

We will have to disagree on that point. I liked that change. It was sort of the last great battle together in honor of the past. In terms of the Ents, I would have liked to have seen more. However, you can only fit so much into a 3 hour movie, lol. I think some changes had to be made in order to fit it in. Still not a bad change IMO.

 

[Stout]

We will have to disagree on that point. I liked that change. It was sort of the last great battle together in honor of the past. In terms of the Ents, I would have liked to have seen more. However, you can only fit so much into a 3 hour movie, lol. I think some changes had to be made in order to fit it in. Still not a bad change IMO.

Your disagreement on the elves point is not just an argument with me, but literally a disagreement, then, with Tolkien's writing. The obvious literary point of the book, reinforced vocally by the characters themselves, is that men stood alone. Instead of that very basic, very central point to the book, we had to bring elves back...why? Because they were pretty. Sad.

And you have the Ent point completely wrong. It ADDED extra time to make the change. They had the entmoot, and all that needed to happen was for Treebeard to say they were readying for war. Instead, foolishly, he said no, and we had to have an extra scene where Merry had to convince Treebeard of the damage to his own forest that he already frickin' knew about. A stupid scene that made Treebeard and the ents look dumb, and added time.

 

[Covert Rain]

Your disagreement on the elves point is not just an argument with me, but literally a disagreement, then, with Tolkien's writing. The obvious literary point of the book, reinforced vocally by the characters themselves, is that men stood alone. Instead of that very basic, very central point to the book, we had to bring elves back...why? Because they were pretty. Sad.

And you have the Ent point completely wrong. It ADDED extra time to make the change. They had the entmoot, and all that needed to happen was for Treebeard to say they were readying for war. Instead, foolishly, he said no, and we had to have an extra scene where Merry had to convince Treebeard of the damage to his own forest that he already frickin' knew about. A stupid scene that made Treebeard and the ents look dumb, and added time.

Like I said, we will have to agree to disagree with your interpretation of the changes. I thought they added to the story not took anything away.

 

[Stout]

Like I said, we will have to agree to disagree with your interpretation of the changes. I thought they added to the story not took anything away.

Sure, agree to disagree. Of course, there is no argument they changed one of the central themes of the book--men standing alone. Also, it's pretty compelling that they made the Ents into idiots that don't know what's happening in their own land. You're fine with them changing a central theme of the book, and some other artistic changes. That's cool. I'm not.

 

[Covert Rain]

Sure, agree to disagree. Of course, there is no argument they changed one of the central themes of the book--men standing alone. Also, it's pretty compelling that they made the Ents into idiots that don't know what's happening in their own land. You're fine with them changing a central theme of the book, and some other artistic changes. That's cool. I'm not.

 

[TBaslim]

Nobody wants a blow-by-blow account of the books. That would be impossible. I love Tom Bombadil, but he had no place in it. Still, it would be nice if the elves didn't show up to Helm's Deep to ruin the 'men standing alone' idea, of if Gimli wasn't just a laughing stock, or if the Ents weren't treated like morons who didn't know what was going on in their own back yard. Ugh.

Awesome movies, but I was also bothered most by the last point - they got the Ents wrong leading up to their war. It's a shame, as they are great in the book. Oh, and why use Rhys-Davies voice for Treebeard? Sounded too close to Gimli.

Ah well, quibbles - as the books and movies are classics.

Off to elevensies....

 

[Stout]

 

[UncleChris]

Likewise, they absolutely decimated Faramir's character, wasted considerable time with Faramir taking Frodo/Sam to Osgiliath, and greatly reduced Eomer's character in favor of a comedic Gimli. WHY??


BTW.... I loved all 3 movies, in spite of some grievous transgressions.