The Hobbit Pre-Production Discussion Thread

[Lilaena De'Ville]

LINK (http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2007/12/18/jackson-and-studios-agree-to-make-hobbit-films/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Farticle%2Fente rtainmentNews%2FidUSN1850603620071218&frame=true)

Peter Jackson and New Line have finally buried the hatchet! He and Fran Walsh have signed on to executive produce the Hobbit and a sequel (I assume that to fit everything in they are breaking the book into two parts, which is cool).


LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Director Peter Jackson, New Line Cinema and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc said on Tuesday they have agreed to make two movies based on the book "The Hobbit" by J.R.R. Tolkien, ending months of legal wrangling.

Jackson, the director of the smash hit "Lord of the Rings" movies, and producer Fran Walsh will executive produce both a "Hobbit" movie and a sequel, but no decision has been made about who will direct the films, Bob Shaye and Michael Lynne, co-chairmen and co-CEOs of New Line told Reuters.

MGM Chairman Harry Sloan, who was credited by all parties for bringing about the deal, said Jackson found it "impossible" to direct the film and meet proposed release dates in 2010 and 2011 due to other projects on which he is now working.

"He can't get it scheduled and he doesn't want the fans to have to wait for the next two movies," Sloan said. He said the studios might postpone the films if Jackson changed his mind.

Jackson's representative could not be reached for comment.
Jackson, Walsh and the studios share approval "on all major creative elements" and will start considering screenwriters and directors in January, Shaye said.

The movies will be made simultaneously in New Zealand, starting in 2009. Industry experts estimated the films would each cost $150 million to $200 million to make, based in part on the $400 million cost of the first three and inflation.


:eee :dance

[Droo]

It's great news but still, I have to ask, why is the man not directing this? It's like getting half a slice of fried gold. I want to have my cake and eat it. Oh well, it's fairly certain that Ian McKellen will be reprising his role as Gandalf. :)

[Jedieb]

If getting Jackson behind the camera meant waiting an extra year or two I'd be willing to wait. Hell, let Fran Walsh direct. Jackson would still have his fingerprints all over it. Fran did a lot of the scenes in LOTR, she could handle these two films.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I am curious what a sequel would be. I am not sure if the Hobbit could cover two films.

[stevenvdb]

PJ is quite busy....

I wonder how well a film adaptation of the Hobbit would fair, though. It's a very different experience than the the subsequent books, being aimed at a slightly younger audience and was specifically written with a narrative form as it grew from stories Tolkien told his children.

The nature of certain groups like Dwarves differ a good deal. They are a less physically robust folk in the Hobbit, more like the old desriptions Elves or Gnomes from fairy tales than like Gimli is depicted. Can you imagine 12 Gimli's onscreen?

Songs and stories told of things long ago and far apart from the main narrative play a more central role in creating atmosphere in the story, itself being much more linear and straitforward. Many things are told through exposition from the charactors in a condensed style, much like the council of Elrond is depicted in the books of the trilogy and would be rather hard to depict directly on the screen except in the style of film prologues. Much more than the LOTR trilogy, getting 'There and Back Again' and the play on one's sense of time passing, with descriptions of seasons and emotional landscapes and the desriptive history therein take precedent.

Fans would understand, but will those who's only exposure to ME are the other films make the leap? Likely , as they seem to be a more literate lot in general than other franchises, but I just have this feeling the film won't quite be the blockbuster the studio might be imagining.

Still you have a have a fair amount of adventure, from Spiders to Goblins, to Trolls to a nasty dragon.

With two films, I wonder... are they going to try to fold the Hobbit with supplements from some of Tolkiens other earlier works that bind more contemporaneously with the world of the Hobbit, to flesh out the story and try to bridge the slightly ajar worlds.

As much as I enjoyed seeing PJ's version of LOTR, and i'd love to see him at the helm, again, I wouldn't mind seeing someone else direct either, especially if they are alllowed access to the resources and production facilities of WETA and PJ's other studios. I still have NZ stuck in my mind as Middle Earth. :/

Ian McKellan said he would reprise, even if Jackson weren't to direct. Jackson sort of gave him a nudge as to say "It's ok.", if he didn't manage to make it back to the helm.

[Yog]

I am thrilled this is moving forward.

Two concerns though:

1. Who will be directing this?

2. As someone else said to me: "Have you ever read the hobbit? It's about the length of a bedtime story. Maybe 30% as long as a single LOTR book, with large print. How the devil is he going to stretch that tiny book into 2 movies?"

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Maybe they'll put Tom Bombadil into it. :mneh They could be planning on working in some of the other works of Tolkien from Middle Earth as well, though I have no idea how, for backstory or whatever. Perhaps more with the elves? Who knows. :)

[Kale]

They're filming the appendicies. And the Quenya lexicon.

;)

Hey, maybe they could do it as a Ken Burns-style documentary.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Maybe they can film the Similiarion as well :p

[Figrin D'an]

Filming the Silmarillion would be like trying to put a history text on the silver screen. If you are a real Tolkien geek, it has some cool things in it, but it's very, very dry.

The Hobbit could be done in one 3.5 hour film. I'm not really sure of a legit reason to split it into two films other than to raid everyone's wallet twice.

The Children of Hurin was a good read, I can forsee a film of this being made eventually.

[JMK]

The Hobbit could be done in one 3.5 hour film. I'm not really sure of a legit reason to split it into two films other than to raid everyone's wallet twice.


Ding ding ding!

[Jedi Master Carr]

Filming the Silmarillion would be like trying to put a history text on the silver screen. If you are a real Tolkien geek, it has some cool things in it, but it's very, very dry.

The Hobbit could be done in one 3.5 hour film. I'm not really sure of a legit reason to split it into two films other than to raid everyone's wallet twice.

The Children of Hurin was a good read, I can forsee a film of this being made eventually.

I know it is very dry. I read it and thought I was reading a history text. As for the Hobbit. The only thing I could see is a movie dealing with the pre LOTR stuff but still not sure you can justify a film for that. I remember the argument for Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire being split into two films. I was against that and that book was long enough where you could do it (although there is no place to cut the book in half really). Not sure what this will be like then.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Newest rumor - Guillermo Del Toro (Pan's Labyrinth, Hellboy) is in talks to take the helm and direct the two Hobbit movies.

This is quite possibly the best decision the studio could make, IMO, if they can't get Peter Jackson to do it. :thumbup

Link: Guillermo Doubles Up For 'Hobbit' (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i331d7d05b8008476b2fae087024a2b8e)

[Yog]

I loved Pan's Labyrinth. Sounds like the perfect director for me if Peter Jackson can't do it.

[Vince]

Man, as much as I'd like to see The Children of Hurin on screen, I don't think the incest and all the freaking bad luck he has will translate well on screen for viewers.

'Of Tuor and the Fall of Gondolin', however...that would make an excellent movie.

[Jedi Master Carr]

He would be a good choice to direct it.

[Atreyu]

Newest rumor - Guillermo Del Toro (Pan's Labyrinth, Hellboy) is in talks to take the helm and direct the two Hobbit movies.' (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i331d7d05b8008476b2fae087024a2b8e)
Fantastic choice if the rumour is indeed true. Pan's Labyrinth was great. :)

[Jedi Master Carr]

I know he was interested in Deahtly hallows as well. Jackson probably made him an offer first. There are rumors that WB will try to get Spielberg for DH but that is a rumor for another thread.

[Jeseth Cloak]

There are rumors that WB will try to get Spielberg for DH but that is a rumor for another thread.
The movie will probably be better off if Spielberg doesn't direct it. His movies often become cult classics - but masterpieces of cinema? Not really. :|

[Droo]

A few points need to be made. First of all, Spielberg making cult classics? I think you need to look up what defines a cult classic piece of cinema, Jes.

Jaws? ET? Shindler's List? Saving Private Ryan? And I'll even throw Minority Report and Munich into the mix. I suppose what determines a masterpiece is subject to opinion, but cult cinema this is not. Besides, it's not like any Potter films have attained the status of a masterpiece, yet. Azkaban was wonderful but still not quite there.

Regardless, I'd love to see Alfonso Cuaron return to direct the last film. If not, then Guillermo del Torro could certainly pull it off, I'm sure.

This is all off topic anyway. I love most of del Torro's work and I'm fairly sure he would do the work of Tolkien and Peter Jackson justice.

[Morgan Evanar]

There are rumors that WB will try to get Spielberg for DH but that is a rumor for another thread.
The movie will probably be better off if Spielberg doesn't direct it. His movies often become cult classics - but masterpieces of cinema? Not really. :|Please justify this statement posthaste because I'm not sure I comprehend it.

[Jedi Master Carr]

There are rumors that WB will try to get Spielberg for DH but that is a rumor for another thread.
The movie will probably be better off if Spielberg doesn't direct it. His movies often become cult classics - but masterpieces of cinema? Not really. :|Please justify this statement posthaste because I'm not sure I comprehend it.

I agree.

[Jeseth Cloak]

Taste in films is always subjective, but I've never been fond of Spielberg's stuff. It's good, but not good enough that I'd think the Hobbit would be done justice if he produced it.

[Aretsuya]

Good idea, just thought it came to them a bit late. :P

[Morgan Evanar]

Taste in films is always subjective, but I've never been fond of Spielberg's stuff. It's good, but not good enough that I'd think the Hobbit would be done justice if he produced it.That's not a justification. That's your opinion. Many other people's opinions say otherwise, including the vast majority of the film industry and critics.

I could understand if you didn't want him to direct it because you didn't think he'd do a good job (I think he would do ok, but there are better candidates who's style would suit the work better, IMO.) but to dismiss his work so casually is folly and nonsense.