• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

The Hobbit (& its sequel)

vacantlook

Super Moderator
(Hat-tip to Jan, from whom I first read about this.)

The legal troubles holding up turning The Hobbit into a film are now resolved. Peter Jackson won't be directing, but he will be involved. There is going to be a Hobbit film and a sequel.

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: The Hobbit (& it's sequel)

If they get Ian McKellen on board I'm interested. I don't know where they'd divide the movie, though. Mirkwood, maybe? Gandalf leaving?
 
Re: The Hobbit (& it's sequel)

Yeah, I don't know about the whole sequel thing. My initial thoughts were that they'd split the book in two, but I don't know. Some comments others have made elsewhere are that they think the first film will be The Hobbit as we know it and the second film will be something else entirely. One comment I read said they'd like to see something along the lines of what occurs during The Hobbit but that we don't see: things like the meeting of the White Council and Gandalf's trip to Dol Goldur to acertain for certain whether the Necromancer is Sauron.

On the splitting it in two category, I don't know if there's enough there to fill up a whole movie, but I could see having the ending of the first one with Bilbo getting the One Ring from Gollum.
 
Re: The Hobbit (& it's sequel)

With Peter Jackson NOT directing it, I might be interested.
 
Re: The Hobbit (& it's sequel)

Mostly .. it was boring.

Too much weight on the visuals (which were impressive as hell, given) while completely failing to engage me emotionally. The battle at Helm's Deep literally made me fall asleep - so much battling, so little giving-me-a-reason-to-give-a-damn, after the Fellowship.

It was the typical example of a movie that I thought might have been good if it had had a tenth of its budget.

I'm neither a puritan fan of the books, nor am I opposed to battle-heavy movies as a matter of principle (I LOVED Batman Begins) .. but it just completely failed at making me give a shit. It just felt like .. a whole lot of showing off. With New Zealand's majestic landscapes, of the grand orchestra, and of the possibilities special effects had opened. It made me more interested in the size of Peter Jackson's nose than in what was happening with the story.

Add what I've heard of King Kong, and I really I don't get the impression PJ can find moderation with all his fancy toys.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Hobbit (& it's sequel)

Funny...these films moved me more than any film in a long time. To me the power of the emotional bonds were almost overpowering...and I'm known for my emotions.

Guess people are affected differently by different things.

CE
 
Re: The Hobbit (& it's sequel)

This sequel things bothers me as well. I guess I also want to know if they will split the book into two movies or do something else. I might split it after they escape from the elves via the barrels. I don't know, I'd have to think about it. It's really just a big, long trip in the beginning with one stop after another after another, then Laketown and Smaug and the war at the end.

This is good news. :)
 
Re: The Hobbit (& it's sequel)

As far as I'm concerned, both Ian Holm AND Ian McKellen are required for this project to gain interest. And yes, it needs to continue Peter Jackson's vision and handling of the trilogy, in order for it to be a decent prequel.

That said, I'm glad to see it will be going forward. I hope it turns out as good as the trilogy.
 
Re: The Hobbit (& it's sequel)

I'm not a huge fan of PJ myself, after the way he butchered Return of the King (Sam would never have left! Denethor was fey and noble, not bats*** insane!). And yes, he definitely went overboard on the visuals more than once, although the Edoras sequence and Gandalf and the Balrog falling into the subterranean sea were beautiful.


I just checked my memory, and I see that there actually is a natural break in The Hobbit roughly at the midpoint: they get to the Lonely Mountain about 2/3 of the way through the book (halfway through by chapter), and the rest of it is dealing with Smaug. Since I expect PJ's "vision" will be continued to the point of making the Battle of the Five Armies take an hour, that actually works pretty well.


UPDATE: I've just heard a rumor that the second movie is actually going to "bridge the gap between the Hobbit and LotR." The prospect of which fills my heart with dread. The movies ran off the rails the further they got from the books (seriously, people, Tolkien's pace may have been slow, but he knew how to put together some good characters!), so if they try to run an entire movie with no book to back it up...
 
Last edited:
Re: The Hobbit (& it's sequel)

That's interesting re: the second movie. Its not just a fear of them running of the rails as you put it without having a book to back it up. To me, its a big "who cares?" How much really can take place between the Hobbit and the LotR trilogy that hasn't already been alluded to in the movies, or that really needs to be told? Seems like fluff to me.
 
Re: The Hobbit (& it's sequel)

Funny...these films moved me more than any film in a long time. To me the power of the emotional bonds were almost overpowering...and I'm known for my emotions.

Guess people are affected differently by different things.

CE


That is certainly true. Thinking that Back to the Future is an emotionally touching masterpiece, it's not like I have much of a right to a high horse here :LOL:

Maybe it would have helped if I had actually READ the books to the end to make me care about the story, also. Who knows. (I read Fellowship, but never got any further due some .. complications. Long boring story, but it wasn't the book's fault :p ) Mind you, I generally have a problem with how effect-driven some things have become in recent years - I guess I've gotten an old fart prematurely. :D I just noticed yesterday that all my favourite computer games are now roughly 10 years old.

Though it does make me feel a lot more sane that while I'm pretty alone in disliking LOTR for the reasons that I do, I have heard LOTS of people say *exactly* what I have saying about LOTR for years .. about King Kong. That it is longer than does it any good, that it's way too effect-driven and not story-driven enough, that it had no moderation in its usage of effects, that it does not make you care about it as much as the source material should make you care.
 
Re: The Hobbit (& it's sequel)

That's interesting re: the second movie. Its not just a fear of them running of the rails as you put it without having a book to back it up. To me, its a big "who cares?" How much really can take place between the Hobbit and the LotR trilogy that hasn't already been alluded to in the movies, or that really needs to be told? Seems like fluff to me.

I too have read the rumor that the second "Hobbit" film is going to be done to bridge The Hobbit film and the LotR films. Honestly, what are they thinking? I'm looking through the timeline in Appendix B in the back of RotK, and I have to ask: what is there in there that'll actually make a movie?? There's nothing grand and climatic that occurs between The Hobbit and LotR.

Let's see what happens. Bard rebuilds Dale and becomes King. Gollum leaves the Misty Mountains and begins to search for Bilbo. Theoden's born. Sauron begins to rebuild Barad-dur. Saruman begins to fortify Isengard. Mount Doom erupts once again. Gandalf and Aragorn meet for the first time. Aragorn runs around helping people. Aragorn and Arwen do some stuff. Boromir and Faramir are born. Eowyn and Eomer are born. Saruman makes contact with Sauron through the palantir for the first time.

That's about it. There's no movie there, unless the whole movie is going to be action-free or they totally invent stuff to happen. The only thing I guess they could stretch into a film is Aragorn running around calling himself Thorongil and being all emo over Arwen.
 
I wouldn't put much stock in anything you read or hear for now, it's way too soon. I read a lot of speculation around the net already that what you saw as rumor might be the case. What I believe the case to be is that internet speculation has done what it usually tends to do, turned into rumors of facts.

I'd wait until I heard something from PJ personally.

And when are you referring to Sam leaving in the films, KoshFan?

As for the visuals, that's a matter of aesthetics. Personally, I felt PJ did a fantastic job of character and having the visuals there as a tool to tell the story, not be the story. They served their purpose beautifully and gave the films what Jackson wanted them to have, an epic, sweeping size and feel. I can't wait to see what he does with The Hobbit.

CE
 
Last edited:
As a big fan of the books I still loved the films for what they were. I loved the asthetics as well, which was largely down to the choice of concept artists who were taken from their previous Tolkien work.

Glad this is going ahead, the Hobbit would make a great film. As for the second film, there is a lot of backstory described in the White council scenes in Fellowship of a war against Sauron (The Necromancer) who is holed up in Mirkwood. This is why Gandalf keeps 'disapperaring' throughout. There is some scope for a movie there, but I would rather they did not.

Agreed though, it needs Mckellen and Holme to make it happen.
 
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I think a film to gap between Hobbit and LOTR would be a wonderful thing to see on the big screen. I think PJ did great with what he added to the LOTR Films to "fill in" through various places, though I would have preferred Glorfindel in his own role as opposed to Arwen taking his part.

I would love to see a LOT Of LOTR material on the screen: the romance of Beren and Luthien, etc. Luthien kicks more ass than any female in the mythology, imho. =)

I think we just need to wait and see what happens. And I'm not sure the battle of the 5 armies could take an hour. =) If I recall, Bilbo (who I imagine the film will be on his "shoulder" for the most part) gets knocked unconscious, doesn't he? And with the Eagles and such, it doesn't seem to get far.

My biggest joy will be seeing Smaug on the big screen.

"You have nice manners for a thief and a liar," said the dragon. "You seem familiar with my name, but I don't seem to remember smelling you before. Who are you and where do you come from, may I ask?"

"I am he that walks unseen."

"So I can well believe," said Smaug, "but that is hardly your usual name."
"I am the clue-finder, the web-cutter, the stinging fly. I was chosen for the lucky number."

"Lovely titles." sneered the dragon. "But lucky numbers don't always come off."

(giddy as a schoolgirl!)
 
And when are you referring to Sam leaving in the films, KoshFan?

My guess is that he's referencing when Frodo tells Sam to go home, and Sam complies, on the stairs into Shelob's lair. I've read a lot of people who have a problem with it saying that it's completely out of character for Sam to abandon Frodo, even if temporarily, the way he does in the film.
 
I have to ask: what is there in there that'll actually make a movie?? There's nothing grand and climatic that occurs between The Hobbit and LotR.

[...] Gandalf and Aragorn meet for the first time. Aragorn runs around helping people. Aragorn and Arwen do some stuff. [...] The only thing I guess they could stretch into a film is Aragorn running around calling himself Thorongil and being all emo over Arwen.

That was my thought: Aragorn fights alongside the Rohirrim with Theoden's father, and then serves Gondor with Denethor's father -- and Denethor, a young man at the time, is wicked jealous. That could actually be a reasonable story, if I had any confidence in their ability to do Denethor justice, but the way they handled him in Return of the King was an absolute travesty.

And when are you referring to Sam leaving in the films, KoshFan?

As for the visuals, that's a matter of aesthetics. Personally, I felt PJ did a fantastic job of character and having the visuals there as a tool to tell the story, not be the story. [...]

CE

I agree on some points, but Jackson gutted Frodo's strength by having Gollum come between them and by having Frodo send Sam away on the steps (Vacantlook guessed right). I liked that Frodo's sympathy for the Ring-ravaged creature came out clearly, but the story of the trip to and through Mordor is the story of Frodo leaning on Sam almost every step of the journey. The only time he ever gets angry at Sam is when Sam's holding the Ring, and he apologizes a second later. And Jackson did it to up the dramatic tension, at a point where it was hardly needed -- Shelob's Lair is intense enough as is.

Also, PJ savaged Denethor's character, for no good reason that I can see except massive oversimplification. In the book, Denethor is noble, loves his city, and is truly wise. His preparations for Sauron's attack probably save the city, or at least allow it to hold out. His greatest weakness is his pride: pride which makes him suspicious of Gandalf, and makes him certain that he can rule Gondor better than Aragorn ever could. It also leads him to challenge Sauron through the palantir. But even then he is never conquered and corrupted by Sauron the way Saurman was -- Denethor is brought down only by despair. He thinks that the world is doomed, and while we know a few things that we don't, he knows that the Ring has gone into Mordor, and he knows that's probably suicide. He's a complex person, good but not likable, very able in many ways but in the end betrayed by his not-unfounded confidence in himself.

How does Jackson present him? As a gluttonous madman with no understanding of the situation. Gandalf and Pippin have to sneak around him to send to Rohan for help, whereas in the books Denethor called for Theoden before Gandalf had even left Rohan. I understand that things need to be simplified for a movie, but not bastardized!


As to the visuals, Jackson had a tendency to go for broke on the visuals. Sometimes it's gorgeous -- witness the beacon-lighting sequence, or the forest of pillars in Moria. But the six-minute falling-stairway sequence was ridiculous, and those six minutes could have been used much better elsewhere to deepen certain characters; Legolas skateboarding down the stairway was buffoonish; the whole fight with the Warg-riders was entirely unnecessary and distorted the whole time-sequence of the trilogy... I could go on. Oh, yes, the avalanche of skulls deserves special mention.

He went overboard on several occasions, to the detriment of the story he was telling. I'm not a book purist (many of PJ's additions were rather inspired) but I, nothing more than a novice writer with no film-making experience, could tell him that if he took fifteen minutes away from his action sequences and gave them to character development, it would have improved the movies no end.



Whoa. Marathon post, there.... anyway, if Jackson makes The Hobbit, I expect him to get three or four things egregiously wrong, and the rest will be fine, even lovely.
 
I also dislike how they handled Denethor in the films. He does come off as a psychotic lunatic not that far off from Cartagia in B5. Denethor is supposed to be a much more poignant statement about succumbing to despair and the loss of hope, but the films make him into an almost cackling, caricature villain.
 
Now that I think about it, Denethor was a bit overdone. The one part that bothered me was when he was sitting there and telling Pippin to sing for him, while he's slurping away on food.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top