Two Hobbit movies planned!

[GuardianRanger]

Two Hobbit movies planned (http://movies.ign.com/articles/741/741713p1.html)

I got the link from Digg, if I remember correctly.

Enjoy!

[Varokhâr]

Salivating as usual upon hearing the news :D

Can't imagine why they are planning two movies, though. If they want to do a series of Tolkien films, there's always the Sil. Seems to me that The Hobbit won't work as a two-parter right off the bat...

[Barliman Butterbur]

Two Hobbit movies planned (http://movies.ign.com/articles/741/741713p1.html)

I got the link from Digg, if I remember correctly.

Enjoy!

Wahoo!!!! Things might be jumpin' around here again somewhere down the road! :D :cool:

Here's a bit more on the subject:

===============================

10-07-06 Latest News

'The Hobbit' Petition: MGM Speaks!

Xoanon @ 8:58 pm EST

Lith writes: Here is a report on the deliveries of The Hobbit Petition to MGM and New Line on September 22nd. The petition, with the 39116 signatures accumulated at the time of printing, was delivered to the studios along with a copy of MrCere's open letter to the studios. Though we have had no feedback at this time from New Line, I did receive this very cordial email from Theo Dumont of MGM today, with full permission to pass it along. It should hearten fans a good bit.

"Dear organizers of The Hobbit Petition: We would like to give you the official statement from MGM. Feel free to pass this along to your members and affiliated web sites. Thank you and please see below:

"Peter Jackson's phenomenal success with The Lord of the Rings trilogy makes him the first and most ideal choice for directing The Hobbit," said MGM. "MGM would be thrilled to collaborate with the Academy Award-winning director on this MGM New Line Cinema production. And, I'm sure to the delight of the 50,000 filmgoers who have petitioned us in recent weeks, demanding we bring this film to fruition, we have had a few initial conversations about the project with Mr. Jackson's representatives."

Best regards,

Theo Dumont
Manager of Public Relations
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc.

===============================

Source: http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1160269092 As for the reason for two movies: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!!!

Barley

[Mike]

Two movies? Seems a bit much, don't you think?

Especially considering Rankin-Bass did a quite good adaptation in 72 minutes, I don't see the need for it.

And if Jackson's directing, I don't expect a two-movie adaptation would be any more faithful to the book either.

[Barliman Butterbur]

Two movies? Seems a bit much, don't you think?

Especially considering Rankin-Bass did a quite good adaptation in 72 minutes, I don't see the need for it.

And if Jackson's directing, I don't expect a two-movie adaptation would be any more faithful to the book either.

You're probably right about PJ's proclivity for inserting his infamous gratuitous Jacksonisms (but you can't ignore the hordes of Ringers clamoring for more of PJ's rendition of Tolkien) — but as for the length of the movie and the need for two installments — let us not forget such elegant opportunities for computer animation as The Fight With The Trolls; The Attack Of The Giant Spiders; Smaug the Dragon And The Destruction of the Town of Dale; and The Battle of Five Armies. I'm sure that any one of these things will set PJ salivating to the point of having to strap a drool cup to his chin whenever he contemplates what he can do with them. So I'm sure that we'll need two movies to hold them all! And I'm sure that computer animation has become even more sophisticated since last we saw Gollum fall into the fire. PJ's not about to let this chance go by!

I can't wait!

Barley

[Mike]

I actually thought there was far too much CGI in Jackson's LOTR, and I'm not really looking forward to seeing that much more. To some, this would be considered blasphemy. As such, I now am a heretic.

I'm already dreaming about the two-hour long finale at the battle of Five armies. *Shivers*

I wish they gave someone else the chance to direct, since we probably aren't going to see a hobbit movie after this one, and I'd like a fresh vision of Middle-Earth brought to the screen--just as Jackson's had been fresh when it came out.

But I suppose my opinion doesn't matter. I'll watch this movie, two parts or no, mostly just to see Beorn kicking some goblin-butt: something I'm sure, at least, Jackson will focus on.

[Barliman Butterbur]

Another article about the MGM/New Line/Hobbit movies:

http://movies.ign.com/articles/741/741713p1.html

On the other hand, maybe not (Mike could get his wish)...

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/MGM-May-Not-Be-Making-The-Hobbit-3722.html

Barley

[Snaga]

I've been mulling this over, and checking some of the rumour-mills.

One rumour is that the second movie would cover the White Council events - this seems to be based on another rumour that an EA game called "The White Council" got pulled by New Line because it wouldn't fit in with future marketing needs.

The difficulty with this is that the two movies would be dealing with simultaneous events with Gandalf ducking out of one story to appear in another. Maybe not a great problem. But it seems unusual in movie-land.

Another rumour suggests the first movie deals with the events of the Hobbit, and the second is some kind of bridge between the Hobbit and LotR. I can't see what that would deal with. Maybe with Aragorn's errantry as Thorongil. Maybe Balin's quest in Moria. I can't see how those bits would knit together. The Aragorn stuff might work I suppose, but probably with a bit of a lame conclusion (considering how lame movie-Aragorn is!). Overall, I'm not sure this is a good option at all.

I think of these two, the first is better.

[Sammyboy]

I read something in the paper a couple of days ago (I think it was the Daily Express in the UK) about The Hobbit film and the other one - they said it would be a 'prequel to Lord of The Rings' - I'm about to dive into my copy of the book to see what they might try making that film out of - I am thinking the events in general leading up to the start of FotR?

[Barliman Butterbur]

All the news fit to print about the two Hobbit movies can be found here:

http://www.thehobbitblog.com/

Barley :)

[e.Blackstar]

I may be in the minority here, but I'm actually not looking forward to the movie(s). We all have our opinions about Jackson's making of LoTR, but I can definitely see him butchering The Hobbit. It's just got such a different feel than LotR...LotR is so much more epic, while The Hobbit has that "fireplace children's story" feel. I think it is going to be ruined, frankly. And what's up with two movies?

I mean, I'll see it/them and all, but...I just see this going very very wrong.

[Bucky]

A more sutable split would be to cut the 2 movies with the fall of Smaug, but knowing PJ's penchant for changing things, I'm willing to bet Smaug will be in The Battle of 5 Armies.....

[Barliman Butterbur]

Hey Blackstar, good to see you back!

Barley

[Eledhwen]

The second film will, apparently, be the 60 intervening years, giving Elijah Wood a second bite at the cherry.

I thought folks would like to see The One Ring's cast speculations (http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2008/01/07/28227-speculation-on-hobbit-casting/) and Elijah Woods' comments (http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/01/11/elijah-wood-wants-to-go-back-again-to-the-hobbit) on a possible return to Frodo.

[Barliman Butterbur]

The second film will, apparently, be the 60 intervening years, giving Elijah Wood a second bite at the cherry.

I thought folks would like to see The One Ring's cast speculations (http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2008/01/07/28227-speculation-on-hobbit-casting/) and Elijah Woods' comments (http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/01/11/elijah-wood-wants-to-go-back-again-to-the-hobbit) on a possible return to Frodo.

Thanks for those well-chosen sites! The "speculation" was fun, and pretty much on the mark! I too vote for Perlman as Thorin. However, getting any of the recommended actors would mean quite a but of logistic maneuvering, considering their current schedules (whatever that means).

As long as they don't use the "interim" film to write things that are totally over-the-top non-Tolkien, that's what I'm most worried about: dishonoring the spirit of JRR any more than it already has been...

Barley

[Barliman Butterbur]

Hobbit-Watch:

Jackson and Del Toro will adapt Tolkien in-house

http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/08/hobbit-watch-ja.html

===============================

Apparently we're going to be double-dosed not only with gratuitous Jacksonisms, but with gratuitous Del Toroisms as well... :eek::eek::eek::eek:

Barley

[Thorin]

Yes, having two movies gives the unholy trinity of screen writers more time and space to add more gratuitous fabrications and PJ-isms in the movie. All this of course will be justified by saying 'Well this COULD have happened according to the spirit of Tolkien'

Having said that, however, I think that the Hobbit DOES allow more leeway to play with and much more fleshing out that can be justified. I don't have as much a problem with adding as I do with changing.

For example, I have no problems with fleshing out the character of Thranduil and Elrond as the book really doesn't do much for them. Giving the other dwarves other than Thorin more life would also benefit.

If Del Toro sticks to the script and fleshes out the rest, I think the Hobbit, even more than LoTR has the potential to be a fantastic adaptation and a CGI feast for the senses.

Here's for hoping...

[Nóm]

Is it just me, or does anyone else have little or no interest in this second movie yet? All I care about at present is The Hobbit!

[Illuin]

Well, in all honesty, I myself have a great deal of interest in the second movie :rolleyes:.

[Nóm]

I think my interest will come when I watch The Hobbit and am happy with it. Or maybe even after we find out what story will be featured in it.

[Eledhwen]

The beauty of The Hobbit is that so much is hinted at ... the greater world on the horizon of the story. I'm curious about how much of this will get into the film, which would be somewhat linear without it.

[Bucky]

I think my interest will come when I watch The Hobbit and am happy with it. Or maybe even after we find out what story will be featured in it.

I've read 2 different Del Toro comments in the past few months....

In the first, he stated that the book would concern 'other events in The Hobbit, The Council of White Wizards' (yes, those words).

Next, just a few weeks ago, he stated it would feature events between The Hobbit & TLOR - :eek: - A speculators nightmare of 'PJ-isms' as Thorin would say. ;)

[baragund]

Is it just me, or does anyone else have little or no interest in this second movie yet? All I care about at present is The Hobbit!

Maybe this lack of interest (or perhaps lack of excitement) is because it's hard to get a bead on what the 2nd movie will be about. When you look at the history of the 50-some year period between Bilbo's and Frodo's adventures you have the following:

*the hunt for the Ring
*Aragorn's coming of age
*the White Council and the evolution of Saruman's downfall
*the retaking of Osgiliath by Gondor
*Rohan's decline
*Some other things that I am sure to be forgetting :o

Interesting stuff if you are a middle-Earth scholar but there is no gripping adventure that jumps out at you. The adventure is something that will have to be created from scratch (shudder!:eek:) with the events listed above as the backdrop.

[Thorin]

Yes, if they decide to venture beyond The Hobbit-pre LoTR, the potential for disaster is huge. If PJ had a ball adding fiction to what was blatantly there to work with, I can't imagine what he will influence delToro to do to something that is barely mentioned in Tolkien's work.

My skin is beginning to crawl just contemplating it.

Fleshing out the White Wizard counsel to deal with the Necromancer would be an interesting thing. I wonder if Christopher Lee and Cate Blanchett would reprise their roles for it?

I also am curious to see how much of Tolkien's other sources other than LoTR and Hobbit del Toro et al will be using?

For example, there is a section in UT of further discussion between Gandalf and Thorin (the other one...the imposter :) ) before the dwarves showed up at Bilbo's home.

I am slighly apprehensive that the 'limbo' area between the two books will take the movie in a completely different direction (as PJ has been known to do).

Jeez...I hope they don't do that.

[Nóm]

I think you are right about the lack of interest, Baragund.

Thorin, Guillermo has mentioned that he has been reading up on everything JRRT wrote about Middle-earth. While he wasn't specific I would interpret this to include Unfinished Tales, all the Histories and Letters. But there could be other interpretations I guess. Or exaggerations...;)

Eledhwen
The beauty of The Hobbit is that so much is hinted at ... the greater world on the horizon of the story. I'm curious about how much of this will get into the film, which would be somewhat linear without it.
That's a good point I hadn't considered Eledhwen. I wonder if Del Toro has ever spoke of an appreciation for this? Maybe he finds it valuable enough to put effort into including this in the film.

Success in that will rely in part on the quality of the actor who plays Bilbo. How well can he go from his sheltered innocent life to the scary wide world. And how will he look out from the treetops of Mirkwood in wonder? Will Del Toro (unlike PJ) make use of subtle moments of quiet that do not feel rushed? There must be more than action and neato things to look at. Bilbo must be real. Will the audience feel like we are there living the adventure with him, looking out on the world for the first time, and wondering what lies beyond?

I would go as far as saying (if I haven't already done so in the past) that the characterization of Bilbo Baggins is more vital to a Hobbit film feeling right than any several characterizations were for the LoTR film. Is that too extreme? But Bilbo is what makes the book, and I dearly hope he makes the film! :D

[Thorin]

by Nom
I would go as far as saying (if I haven't already done so in the past) that the characterization of Bilbo Baggins is more vital to a Hobbit film feeling right than any several characterizations were for the LoTR film. Is that too extreme? But Bilbo is what makes the book, and I dearly hope he makes the film!

Nom, if PJ has any say in the direction, most likely it will become a dwarf story with Bilbo filling in the cracks just like LoTR, instead of truly focusing on the Hobbits' tale, became about Aragorn denying his birth-right, wiffle waffling on it, then deciding to reluctantly fulfill his destiny.

[Nóm]

Scary thought! Hoping Guillermo will have the final say on those kinds of things. From what I've read he will fight for what he wants. I remember reading somewhere that the casting of Bilbo may be effected by the way the character ends up being written. Hope they write him well!

GTD has continued to express that this movie will start with a much lighter tone and move to a darker more frightening world. It seems obvious that in order to accomplish this Bilbo's ignorance of the world outside must be one of the means by which it is done. If the film is from the focus point of the Dwarves, then they must be made naive like Baggins in order for the viewer to best experience this change. That would not be good!:D

[baragund]

In the book, the Dwarves were downright cartoonish all the way up to the point where besieged in the Lonely Mountain. (I'm so ashamed to admit this...) My image of the Dwarves the first times I read The Hobbit back in Middle School was pretty much the same as Disney'e treatment of them in Snow White. It didn't start to evolve until I started seeing art work of middle-Earth about the time I hit high school. Still, Tolkien portrayed of the Dwarves in The Hobbit pretty much like a bunch of goofballs.

I'm really curious to see how GDT will address this disconnect between this portrayal and their portrayal in the LOTR films.

[Thorin]

Yes, I got the same impression just from reading it a few weeks ago. It seemed that the only dwarf that actually put up some spunky fighting was...ahem...yours truly.

It would be nice for GDT to show a bit more bravery and fighting ability of what the history of Middle Earth has shown the dwarfs to be like.

I will not fault either he or PJ for making the dwarves more like Gimli in LoTR.

I think GDT has to show a 'grown up' version. The Hobbit was specifically a stand alone book for more childish reading. I believe that had Tolkien wrote LoTR first, The Hobbit would have been somewhat different and more mature in it's telling.

[chrysophalax]

I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I found the dwarves in The Hobbit rather disturbing, even menacing in a way. They start out like it's going to be a walk in the park, this re-taking of the Lonely Mountain, but as they have more adventures, they seem to become more "truly" dwarvish in nature, if that can be said.

Thorin's sudden single-mindedness shocked me when I first read it. It was sort of like watching a really bad family falling-out, or a fight between two good friends when he yelled at Bilbo, saying things in the heat of the moment. Quite uncomfortable.

I'm hoping Del Toro will surprise us all in a good way, by showing us characters with true depth and dwarves less amusing than Gimli. I hated the way he was portrayed throughout most of the trilogy, as a joke rather than a substantial part of the Fellowship.

[Prince of Cats]

I'm not sure what people mean by the dwarves not being portrayed as 'mature.' Should there have been nudie magazines? Should they have used foul language? Or maybe were they too humble for dwarves, what running from hordes of goblins in dark tunnels? :D

I don't get it. What's missing? We have the pride & greed when the matter of a thirteenth share for killing the dragon is something they are willing to die over

[Thorin]

I'm not sure what people mean by the dwarves not being portrayed as 'mature.' Should there have been nudie magazines? Should they have used foul language? Or maybe were they too humble for dwarves, what running from hordes of goblins in dark tunnels? :D

I don't get it. What's missing? We have the pride & greed when the matter of a thirteenth share for killing the dragon is something they are willing to die over


** Thinking of the Dwarvish equivalent of Playboy and shuddering (Beared lady Dwarves and hair everywhere!!)***

The issue with the dwarves is that they only seemed to be like the dwarvish nature of LoTR and the History of ME when holding the strong hold of Smaug. (At least Thorin was).

Before that it seemed that they were just more like what we'd see in Snow White. There was virtually no fighting from them, no spunk, no ability to defend or desire to vanquish the baddies with Dwarvish relish. They seemed to be more like what we'd expect Hobbits to be.

In fact, I'd say that the Dwarves were more Hobbit-ish in The Hobbit than Bilbo.

[Prince of Cats]

12 weary and usually starving dwarves versus ...

Hordes of goblins in their underground castle
Uncountable man-eating spiders
Three giant hungry trolls

When all you have to impress is a remarkably unimpressive half-ling, no time for feigning tough :)

[Thorin]

As for their circumstances...where were their weapons? Where were the axes? Fighting a pack of wargs at a tree with their axes flying, starving or not, is more dwarvish than climbing up it and sitting there waiting for goblins to come.

Not exactly dwarvish behavior.

I would risk it to say that Tolkien's view of Dwarves also evolved somewhat with the writing of LoTR where they become more warrior like. I don't think that was completely Tolkien's intention (or at least not his focus) when he wrote the Hobbit.

[Prince of Cats]

As for their circumstances...where were their weapons? Where were the axes? Fighting a pack of wargs at a tree with their axes flying, starving or not, is more dwarvish than climbing up it and sitting there waiting for goblins to come.

Not exactly dwarvish behavior.

I would risk it to say that Tolkien's view of Dwarves also evolved somewhat with the writing of LoTR where they become more warrior like. I don't think that was completely Tolkien's intention (or at least not his focus) when he wrote the Hobbit.

That seems like a pretty stupid creature to me, and rather one sided? :confused:

Dwarves seem to be all about themselves. All about their money or all about their pride. There, they were all about living another day and completing the journey so they have all the money and all the pride

[Starbrow]

As for their circumstances...where were their weapons? Where were the axes? Fighting a pack of wargs at a tree with their axes flying, starving or not, is more dwarvish than climbing up it and sitting there waiting for goblins to come.

I kind of figured that the goblins would have taken the axes when they captured the dwarves. I also think that they were pretty outnumbered by the wargs.

[Illuin]

by Thorin
I will not fault either he or PJ for making the dwarves more like Gimli in LoTR.


Ha; funny you should say that. When I first saw Gimli in the Trilogy; the very first thought that came to my mind was; "Hey, Gimli is supposed to be a 'Lord of The Rings Dwarf', not a 'Hobbit Dwarf'; Jackson's got his books mixed up :D." That’s a true story.

When Gandalf is telling Thorin how he obtained the map and key; I wonder if we will get a detailed glimpse of the dungeons of the Necromancer where Thrain was being held prisoner (maybe as Gandalf is telling the story - similar to the way Gandalf’s account of the battle with the Balrog was handled). Scenes like that could balance the "maturity level" a bit. A real dark, disturbing walk-through of Dol Guldur would be a nice treat.

[Ithrynluin]

A real dark, disturbing walk-through of Dol Guldur would be a nice treat.

What a great idea! Hopefully we do get something like that.