The Hobbit & The Bridge LOTR Film

Too bad Jackson won't be directing...
http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2007/...ck-to-mid.html


Story details here:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/30085

Um, Pete, it IS a kids book.

That statement and the segment of the interview it's in are just rife with wrong-headed thinking when it comes to The Hobbit. Not being like Lord of the Rings shouldn't be viewed as a negative to fix, since the two works are completely different in scope, tone and intention.

I think what Jackson means is that he wants more consistency between the movie styles: The Hobbit was a kid's book, but LOTR was more adult.

If he would just make The Hobbit with the same style as the first half of Fellowship, it would be just fine. That part of the book is stylistically closest to The Hobbit anyway.

Bitch bitch bitch, moan moan moan. If the DARK KNIGHT has shown us enything, it's that fanboys will get their hackles up and condemn the film maker's intent until they see the first trailer, at which they go to equal lengths to describe their ejaculations and relief that their pre-judgements were wrong.

Jesus, the guy only won 11 Academy Awards for LOTR. Let's just give him the benefit of the doubt and start complaining when there's something tangible to complain about.

Still, I wish he would direct.
Too busy will The Lovely Bones, and the Tintin trilogy.
I wonder if he'd bring Sam Raimi aboard? His name was mentioned when Jackson was on the outs with New Line. Raimi expressed interest as well.

I'd love to see TINTIN dropped. Who cares, anyway...?

LOVELY BONES also gets a thumbs down from me. I read the book and found it to be a self-indulgent mopefest about a girl named after a fish.

Who cares? Me and a billion other people.

Sure, these movies might bomb in the States, but the books are massive worldwide.

You're right, we should never question anything done by anyone who has ever won an Oscar.

We're not talking about a visual interpretation of a character that has had dozens of creators handle him over the last 70 years. We're talking about taking a book and artificially balooning it into something it's not simply because Jackson can't let go of LOTR. Not everything has to be this life-draining epic to work.

Compared to THE HOBBIT, TINTIN is a whimpering project with legs shorter than a bee's dick.

Just sayin'.

I seem to recall the same complaints regarding the early reports on LOTR. Added storylines, expansion of Arwen's role, etc etc ad nauseum.

Trust me: I have similar concerns. But I'm not going to start the Internet Bitching Machine until I see something to bitch about. So far, that bitching seems unwarranted.

At the very least, you get a film version of THE HOBBIT that slides in very nicely (continuity-wise) with LOTR, and you have an unnecessary but still entertaining "fake-quel" to watch or not watch as the spirit moves you.

Apparently, The Hobbit sequel will contain material from the apendices from the LOTR books and The Silmarillion and other lesser-known books in the series. Most if not all of the sequel will be original Tolkien stuff.

I'd love to see a Jackson directed version of The Hobbit, not so sure I'd want to see Raimi's version though. Spiderman 3 really shook my faith in the guy. If Del Toro signs on I'm definitely in for the ride.

As for the "bridge" movie, eh... I'd rather they didn't go there. There's so much other material they could tap for more Middle Earth movies. Why not find something in the Lost Tales or Silmarillion?

"Why not find something in the Lost Tales or Silmarillion?"

I just said that the Hobbit sequel would contain some of that stuff....

Because Christopher Tolkien holds the rights, and Christopher Tolkien is a bastard.

If it ain't in the Appendecies, you won't see it on screen.

Here ya go:

http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2007/1...it-avatar.html

There is plenty of Silmarillion info in the Appendecies that Jackson can use; but again, beyond LOTR, the rights are with the family, and the family isn't selling.

This is absolutely a PHANTOM MENACE opportunity.

What THE HOBBIT has to its advantage, though, is the benefit of a short turnaround from its predecessor. This will allow for a greater continuity of FX and actors, unlike the STAR WARS prequels that waited nearly two decades to emerge.

Honestly, I think The Hobbit is by far Tolkien's best book.

Guillermo del Toro responds to the rumors that he may helm The Hobbit movies.

http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2007/...guillermo.html

I think this bridge film being floated is the most cynical obvious money-grab Ive seen on behalf of a studio since Harvey Weinstein convinced Tarantino that the brilliance of his Kill Bill vision needed to be broken into two movies to do it justice.

Fuck New Line and their obvious bald-faced desperation for a few hits.

Im really wishing The Golde Compass had been watchable now.

LOTR prequels? Oh man those are going to suck donkey balls.

"At this stage, after Hellboy II, I’m unemployed. [Laughs]"

What about those million projects he's been hoarding? Is he joking or does he honestly not have funding (a studio) for any of those things rumored?

Not a fan of the trilogy, or not aware that the source materials already exist? Or are you just being a troll (the internet variety, not the cave variety)?

And I agree. It has a forward momentum in its narrative that the Lord of the Rings books, especially The Two Towers, sorely lack. There isn't nearly as much time spent describing what the hills and the grass look like, and what happened on this spot four hundred years ago. There's a nice economy of storytelling to it.

Which makes bloating it out to two movies even more ridiculous and counter-productive. I know it's heresy to question the Jackson around these parts, but the man isn't infallible, and does have the occasional bad idea. Going along with this plan may turn out to be his biggest one, although bloating King Kong up to three hours would still be pretty close.

Considering how Jackson, Walsh and Boyens surprisingly firmed up Tolkien's sprawling, diffuse narrative, I have no problem with them making The Hobbit however they see fit. I just hope that Peter Jackson stays disciplined in the editing room wrt to narrative focus. Yeah the LOTR films were hugely successful, artistically and financially, but as much as I love his Kong, I can see the side that thinks it to be way too long. There is a lesson to be learned in there somewhere.

I'm going to have faith for now, the LOTR trilogy was impressive so I'm going to ignore King Kong and believe that this will be mind blowing and it will fit in seamlessly with the other movies.

It's like 1996 all over again. This should be priceless.

Seconded. No. Also, that whole Internet nerdspeak "<>" thing? That stopped being cute about three years ago.

I think the difference between this and King Kong is that PJ & co. don't just have to pull stuff out of their asses. The material is there in the appendices. Granted, I thought they'd have pulled better stuff out of their asses for Kong too.

Count me in on this viewpoint.

But really, it's only going to work if it's done nothing like Lord of the Rings at all. The book is, at heart, for children. It has humour and whimsy where LOTR has nothing but overwrought seriousness, and the sweeping, epic approach Jackson brought to the films would destroy it.

The book doesn't fit in with LOTR at all well. Why should the film?

I'd argue that The Hobbit fits in nicely with all the Shire stuff at the beginning of FOTR. Tolkien drops the "Let me tell you" tone from The Hobbit, but he's still a lot more whimsical and light right through Bilbo's party. It's only when Gandalf comes back to tell Frodo the story of the Ring that the heaviness begins, nicely mirroring how the threat of Sauron has intruded on the idyllic nature of the Shire.

Then again, it's probably due to Tolkien starting of LOTR as a Hobbit sequel and expanding the story as he went along, losing the tone of the earlier book as his story got more serious.

What? Are you insane?

Maybe he just doesn't know how to use the <> signs properly.

So he either has awful taste in movies, or he sucks at algebra.

Or he's mentally deranged, let's not forget that option.

It doesn't make sense to have two movies. The whole plot is the story of the ring. If between The Hobbit book and FOTR book the ring just sits there with Bilbo there is no story unless The Hobbit itself is broken down into two movies. The first movie could end when Gandalf leaves and before they enter Mirkwood. I think someone mentioned this earlier.

It would make sense to give the whole White Council/Necromancer (Sauron) storyline, though. In a movie Gandalf would look like an asshole if he just left his friends, with only an explanation at the end. It would also tie The Hobbit into LOTR a little better. Showing Sauron escaping Dol Guldur for Mordor and whatnot.

edited for grammar

I think they'll split the narrative of The Hobbit itself into 2 films and stick in extra stuff along the way, but it brings up the question of what will make a good climax for the first film. Bilbo's battle with the spiders in the forest, followed by revelations at the White Council?

Also, since Gollum was so popular in the LOTR films, will he play a bigger part in this version of The Hobbit. Specifically, will they have Gollum follow Bilbo and party as they continue east from the Misty Mountains? It would make some sense, as his character was altered in the LOTR so as to be more obssessed with the ring, since the nature of the ring itself was reconsidered for LOTR.

SPOILER?: When I read The Hobbit, I shed a tear (a single tear, mind you) when Thorin died at the end. I don't remember the LOTR ever evoking sudden emotion like that, although it has more of a sustained majesty to it.

But yeah, The Hobbit is a more concise story, and structure-wise, it's better than LOTR. In that light, I don't know if spreading it out over 2 films is a good idea.

Gandalf falling? Boromir dying? Eowyn vs Witchking? Frodo, etc leaving Middle Earth?

You're being too literal. In the book Dol Guldur is a lesser fortress and it is merely a feint while he sets up Barad Dur. "Fleeing" in the sense of forces withdrawing or a fraction of his forces being defeated.

How do you reckon that? Apples and oranges, and all. Have you some objective criteria by which you judge?

And really, I want to agree with you about King Kong. There is a profound brilliance nestled in the film. I think the best parts of it are better than the best parts of LOTR. But I just can't ever bring myself to pop the Kong DVD into my player anymore, because I know beforehand that I will have to sit through all the extraneous elements that weigh down the narrative. Ultimately I don't feel for any of the humans except for Naomi Watts' character. Kong himself is a remarkable character, and I love that he is made more sympathetic in Jackson's version, but the film is too tied to the structure of the original for that to work properly. There's no payoff to the tragedy. No one learns a lesson in the end. It's just not worth sitting through any more.

Okay Barzun, I'll reflect on that.

King Kong is a lesser movie than LOTR because of the "extraneous elements." It is a series of exciting things instead of a story. The exciting moments in LOTR are, for the most part, in service to the story. The few times that these elements don't serve the story in LOTR is when it meanders.

The original story structure is what works. Lack of characterization and special effects not serving the story obscure the main point--that when that which is wild is tamed, it loses its essential nature and is destroyed. This ties into the idea of modernism destroying the primitive.

Quoted for truth.

Watched in proper order, the Hobbit should/would flow nicely into FOTR. Now, who nows with all the added "bridge" content.

No of course not, but:
While I agree that's a beautiful moment, you are ascribing motives to Kong that don't exist. Kong climbs the Empire State Building to try to get away from all the people shooting at him, not because he knew he was going to die and wanted to catch a sunset with his chick. He never sacrificed himself for beauty. He was mercilessly hunted and killed. There is tragedy in that but little else.

I did!

I believe I made some sort of threatening gang gesture and gave you some bad rep. I may have even used a few swears. Please proceed with the shit storm.

[QUOTE=Barzun]You might have inadvertently hit on a problem of the adaptation- namely, no villains.QUOTE]

What about Smaug?

Also, in order trolls, the weather, goblins, Gollum, wargs, goblins again, giant spiders, elves, Smaug, men/dwarves/elves and an ass load of goblins and their pals (vampire bats, wargs etc.)

The Hobbit is mainly a goal oriented travel story--"there and back again"--it has a series of antagonists. That may be the point of the story. Of all the antagonists the characters face, the most damaging is greed and stubborness. It gets defeated by cooperation. Very simple, keep in mind this is a children's story.

Not that differently. The elves in Rivendell help the dwarves (even though Elrond doesn't approve of their love of gold), but the Mirkwood elves, being a little more isolated, still harbor mistrust of dwarves. Legolas and Gimli disliked each other at first and then became friends when they went through some shit together. Gimli wasn't exactly welcomed into Lothlorien. If Aragorn and Legolas weren't with him he would've been chock full of arrows before he got near Lothlorien.

edited for grammar

But Bilbo is free thanks to the Ring, and manages to orchestrate their escape. That whole sequence underlines the mistrust between the elves and the dwarves -- all Thorin has to do is tell the elves why he's in Mirkwood, but he's to stubborn and proud to say anything -- and it also shows how much Bilbo has developed so that he can actually get the group out of danger.