CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › PETER JACKSON ENTERS TALKS FOR THIRD HOBBIT FILM
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

PETER JACKSON ENTERS TALKS FOR THIRD HOBBIT FILM

post #1 of 53
7/25/12 at 8:11am
Thread Starter 
by Tim Kelly: link

Director vows to be dragged out of the Shire kicking and screaming.
Reply
post #2 of 53
7/25/12 at 8:17am

Guess this worked

 

Reply
post #3 of 53
7/25/12 at 8:17am

Guy who plays Jaime Lannister for young Aragorn?

Reply
post #4 of 53
7/25/12 at 8:18am

How dare you question Viggo Mortensen's ageless good looks, sir.
 

Reply
post #5 of 53
7/25/12 at 8:20am

Hey, I'd be on board for more Viggo, no matter how old he is.  Just guessing they'd recast.  Perhaps Richard Ayoade?

Reply
post #6 of 53
7/25/12 at 8:21am

Noooo. Ayoade is Legolas. He's way too supple and lithe for Aragorn.
 

Reply
post #7 of 53
7/25/12 at 8:22am

All Viggo all the time I say. Slap some spirit gum on those wrinkles and he's fine. 

Reply
post #8 of 53
7/25/12 at 8:26am

Would dearly love to see Jackson get away from Tolkien and fantasy in general. He's already way too deep into Borovnia, you'd think he would've learned that too much immersion in a fantasy world isn't a good thing. I'm not a LOTR hater but I feel like five movies in that reality is more than enough. Then again I do have that cliched, annoying "I liked your earlier, funnier movies" thing when it comes to Jackson. Although Heavenly Creatures wasn't all that funny and it remains for me his best film.

 

...So anyway.

Reply
post #9 of 53
7/25/12 at 8:33am

They could easily cg-away Viggo's wrinkles.  Anyway, he will have long straggly hair and a lot of it will take place in the dark.

Reply
post #10 of 53
7/25/12 at 8:36am

The one thing that keeps on worrying me about these movies are Peter Jackson's love of bloat. King Kong and Lovely Bones were huge warning signs. Stretching out the Hobbit to two movies may work, but a random story in between will probably struggle to find a purpose.

Reply
post #11 of 53
7/25/12 at 8:41am

That's why if this third film DOES go through I hope he leaves the Bilbo Baggins story of The Hobbit to the two films he's already shot and the third is a stand alone bridge film that doesn't involve Bilbo or hobbits in general.

Reply
post #12 of 53
7/25/12 at 8:44am

That seems to be the idea.
 

Reply
post #13 of 53
7/25/12 at 8:48am

The problem I see with that is will audiences even go for a third film when the story they paid to see is wrapped up in the second? It would be like releasing The Bourne Legacy just a year later after The Bourne Ultimatum.

Reply
post #14 of 53
7/25/12 at 8:58am

I imagine they'd bill it as "the untold story" and play more off of nostalgia for the LOTR trilogy than the more recent films.

Reply
post #15 of 53
7/25/12 at 9:15am

I guess Jackson has made peace with being 'The Tolkien Movie Guy" once and for all.

 

If this happens I'm assuming it will basically be the bridge movie they were planning back in the Del Toro days. If they're actually stretching The Hobbit across 3 movies, then oh dear!

 

There's a load of epic stuff in the appendices right? I'm sure if they just throw all of that on screen it shouldn't be too hard to get people to pay to see it. Unless the Hobbit movies are terrible.

 

Anyone who's read both know how much of the Silmarllion is alluded to in the appendices? Enough for them to work around the rights issue and make a kind of pseudo-adaptation?

Reply
post #16 of 53
7/25/12 at 9:17am

Aside from the rights issues, the problem with attempting to film stuff from the Silmarillion is that it's so da-ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
 

Reply
post #17 of 53
7/25/12 at 9:20am

Tom Bombadril: Nazgul Hunter.

Reply
post #18 of 53
7/25/12 at 9:20am

But but but doesn't it have big balrog fights or something? And the entire universe getting blown out of a flute?

Reply
post #19 of 53
7/25/12 at 9:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather View Post

Aside from the rights issues, the problem with attempting to film stuff from the Silmarillion is that it's so da-ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
 

 

Does your head hurt when you're being so wrong?

 

I say scrap the talk about a third film. Take the money and do Sil GOT style.

Reply
post #20 of 53
7/25/12 at 9:34am

Christopher Tolkien put the Silmarillion rights in a big metal safe and dropped it to the bottom of the ocean. (That's what James Cameron was doing down there)

Reply
post #21 of 53
7/25/12 at 9:36am

Yeah, he's not a fan of the movies.

 

 

 

Quote:
 Invited to meet Peter Jackson, the Tolkien family preferred not to. Why? "They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully. "And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film."

 

http://sedulia.blogs.com/sedulias_translations/2012/07/was-first-felt.html

Reply
post #22 of 53
7/25/12 at 9:40am

I don't care what Christopher Tolkien thinks. He certainly had no problem selling Children Of Hurin.

Reply
post #23 of 53
7/25/12 at 3:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C View Post

I guess Jackson has made peace with being 'The Tolkien Movie Guy" once and for all.

 

If this happens I'm assuming it will basically be the bridge movie they were planning back in the Del Toro days. If they're actually stretching The Hobbit across 3 movies, then oh dear!

 

There's a load of epic stuff in the appendices right? I'm sure if they just throw all of that on screen it shouldn't be too hard to get people to pay to see it. Unless the Hobbit movies are terrible.

 

Anyone who's read both know how much of the Silmarllion is alluded to in the appendices? Enough for them to work around the rights issue and make a kind of pseudo-adaptation?


I'm already worried that stretching a simple children's story across two three hour films is going to ruin the project, but the fact they're talking about another one, with Jackson at the helm (after he said he was bored with directing LOTR and didn't want to do the Hobbit), just gives me a really bad feeling.

Reply
post #24 of 53
7/25/12 at 3:20pm
He changed his mind about directing THE HOBBIT. If you look at the video blogs it's clear he's enjoying himself.

I'm all for it. That said, I haven't read the book in 20 years and never read the notes so what do I know.
Reply
post #25 of 53
7/25/12 at 3:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post

I'm already worried that stretching a simple children's story across two three hour films is going to ruin the project, but the fact they're talking about another one, with Jackson at the helm (after he said he was bored with directing LOTR and didn't want to do the Hobbit), just gives me a really bad feeling.

 

Exactly.

 

Never a good thing when someone is forced to direct a movie they didn't want to.

Reply
post #26 of 53
7/25/12 at 3:47pm

I don't buy that. He was never forced. Directors can change their minds just like anyone else. Just watch the production diaries and you can tell there's huge enthusiasm there, maybe even more so than Lord of the Rings.

 

I don't know if this third movie idea is a good idea but it's definitely not for lack of passion in the project.

Reply
post #27 of 53
7/25/12 at 3:49pm

/shrug  Some guys can only get into it when it's a threesome.

Reply
post #28 of 53
7/25/12 at 3:50pm

Because he was chipper on the studio-approved video blogs that means its the real McCoy? Guys, stop.

 

This thing was full-steam ahead with del Toro. Then it stalled... and never moved an inch, and he (understandably) left with a lot of money sitting there that was going to be pissed away for nothing. Jackson had to step in. Pretty obvious. Hell, there are old quotes of his when the two films were announced and del Toro hired how he had zero desire to direct another one.

 

Even if the enthusiasm is real (and I don't buy it, sorry), how often has going back to the well reaped good results? Especially for someone coming off an under-performer and an outright flop, both expensive as shit and went horribly over-budget?

Reply
post #29 of 53
7/25/12 at 3:51pm

Yeah, cause you know the real story.

Reply
post #30 of 53
7/25/12 at 3:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by User_32 View Post

I don't buy that. He was never forced. Directors can change their minds just like anyone else. Just watch the production diaries and you can tell there's huge enthusiasm there, maybe even more so than Lord of the Rings.

 

I don't know if this third movie idea is a good idea but it's definitely not for lack of passion in the project.

 

If anything, it's probably from TOO MUCH passion for the project.

Reply
post #31 of 53
7/25/12 at 4:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie View Post

This thing was full-steam ahead with del Toro. Then it stalled... and never moved an inch, and he (understandably) left with a lot of money sitting there that was going to be pissed away for nothing. Jackson had to step in. Pretty obvious. Hell, there are old quotes of his when the two films were announced and del Toro hired how he had zero desire to direct another one.

 

This was my impression as well, but no one has been pushing him into making this supposed third movie. If he's really considering doing it, that would suggest a certain amount of enthusiasm for the project.

 

Incidentally I don't really buy all the talk of The Hobbit being inappropriate for two movies. If something as slight as Kill Bill can work as two, a story with about 15 main characters and as many things going on as this one does shouldn't have too much difficulty making up the running time.

Reply
post #32 of 53
7/25/12 at 7:46pm

That depends on whether you think a four-hour homage to a genre of film whose entries usually lasted no more than 90 minutes worked.

Reply
post #33 of 53
7/25/12 at 9:08pm

The first 90 minutes did!

Reply
post #34 of 53
7/25/12 at 9:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C View Post

 

This was my impression as well, but no one has been pushing him into making this supposed third movie. If he's really considering doing it, that would suggest a certain amount of enthusiasm for the project.

 

Incidentally I don't really buy all the talk of The Hobbit being inappropriate for two movies. If something as slight as Kill Bill can work as two, a story with about 15 main characters and as many things going on as this one does shouldn't have too much difficulty making up the running time.

The 15 main characters thing is overstating it a bit, don't you think? There are 12 dwarves, sure, but really Thorin is the one who gets any kind of real development. Everyone else is flavoring. And even so, really, there should be ONE main character, and he's, well, the hobbit in the picture.

Reply
post #35 of 53
7/25/12 at 11:50pm

It's true, there's enough incident in The Hobbit for two long movies, it just requires a different modulation than Rings, where the challenge was compression. 

 

For my money, the success or failure of this particular venture rests on what kind of story they want to tell. The world as created has endless possibilities, and if they're not trying to recapture the gigantic world-ending scope of the original trilogy, this could totally work. If they want to do some crazy Macbeth by-way-of Treasure of the Sierra Madres story except with Thorin the dwarf king, then fuck yeah. That makes a third film more palatable; maybe it'd be some kind of Ocean's Eleven style heist movie with wizards and elves breaking into the dungeons of the Necromancer. If it's not a copycat three film saga, the sky's the limit here.

 

Or alternatively, it could be Jackson and co. saying "Hey, remember that giant elephant battle? Here's one with giant rhinos or something! Eh?" I wouldn't say I've got tons of faith, especially after King Kong and Lovely Bones, but I've certainly got enough optimism to hope for the best. It's still possible all two/three movies will be terrific. It could happen.

Reply
post #36 of 53
7/26/12 at 12:51am

I said this on Facebook but it's worth repeating.  In the words of Galaxy Quest's Balthazar "But Why?"
 

Reply
post #37 of 53
7/26/12 at 7:03am

Buncha Debbie Downers, the lot o' yer. I'm in.

Reply
post #38 of 53
7/26/12 at 7:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Workyticket View Post

Buncha Debbie Downers, the lot o' yer. I'm in.

 

Agreed. I will reserve judgement and assumption this time.  The man has earned plenty of goodwill from me.  A third movie is not something I necessarily want, but I can't bring myself to be pissed that Peter Jackson wants to give me more Middle Earth.

Reply
post #39 of 53
7/26/12 at 7:41am

Tolkien has already laid enough story foundation for many, many movies to be made. And while I cannot lie and say that news of further works don't trouble it is created out of my love for what we already have. The LOTR trilogy is one of the far too few events of perfection that I've experienced in my life. One of those moments when you just say to yourself "Everything is as it should be" and just sit back and let the moment wash over you.

 

I'm terrified of having this taken away from me by future missteps.

Reply
post #40 of 53
7/30/12 at 8:45am

It's happening:

 

http://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-jackson/an-unexpected-journey/10151114596546558

Reply
post #41 of 53
7/30/12 at 8:46am

Goddammit.

Reply
post #42 of 53
7/30/12 at 8:49am

I suppose it's too much to hope he'll just edit The Hobbit into one film and make all the other stuff two films?

Reply
post #43 of 53
7/30/12 at 8:51am
Well I'm excited.
Reply
post #44 of 53
7/30/12 at 9:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post

Goddammit.

 

 

So Jackson has sucummbed to the Dark Power Of The BOx Office Ring..........

 

I hoped that the fiasco with "LOvely Bones " was just a bump,but now I am convinced that Jackson is going down the road that George Lucas went........

Reply
post #45 of 53
7/30/12 at 9:18am

Somewhere there's an alternate universe with a one-film Guillermo del Toro Hobbit and a much happier me in it.

Reply
post #46 of 53
7/30/12 at 9:21am
stelios is right, it's not like there isn't a whole ton of material to draw from; on the other hand, considering that this is plainly only happening because of Hollywood's trilogy addiction, I'm pretty antsy. Guess I'll just have to cross my fingers and hope for the best...
Reply
post #47 of 53
7/30/12 at 9:27am

I put Jackson and Del Toro on pretty much the same level as filmmakers, but I understand your dissapointment at this. The films will be filled with filler crap that Jackson pulled out of his butt and has little or nothing to do with Tolkien;s story.

And Jackson's "Going to the Appendices" is just an excuse. There is not enough meat in the additional material he can glean from the Appendices that actually pertians to the Hobbit to make two films out of the Hobbit let alone one. Most of the appendices material pertains to events that happened far before the time of  the Hobbit/LOTR,and a lot of it is pretty thin on details.

"Trust PJ" my ass. As a Tolkien lover, I feel he has stabbed me in the back. I know I am sounding like the butt hurt fanboy..a breed I usually despise. But DAMN this is disappointing.

 

And it is going to be open warfare between the Tolkien fans and the PJ fans. I am just afraid that the Middle Earth we will get in the Jackson Hobbit films is not going to have much resembelence to the Middle Earth of Tolkien.

Reply
post #48 of 53
7/30/12 at 9:27am

LOTR was three books worth of material.  Jackson cut out more than he added.  He's doing just the opposite here.

Reply
post #49 of 53
7/30/12 at 9:29am

Ohhhh this is going to be fun.

Reply
post #50 of 53
7/30/12 at 11:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post

I put Jackson and Del Toro on pretty much the same level as filmmakers, but I understand your dissapointment at this. The films will be filled with filler crap that Jackson pulled out of his butt and has little or nothing to do with Tolkien;s story.

And Jackson's "Going to the Appendices" is just an excuse. There is not enough meat in the additional material he can glean from the Appendices that actually pertians to the Hobbit to make two films out of the Hobbit let alone one. Most of the appendices material pertains to events that happened far before the time of  the Hobbit/LOTR,and a lot of it is pretty thin on details.

"Trust PJ" my ass. As a Tolkien lover, I feel he has stabbed me in the back. I know I am sounding like the butt hurt fanboy..a breed I usually despise. But DAMN this is disappointing.

 

And it is going to be open warfare between the Tolkien fans and the PJ fans. I am just afraid that the Middle Earth we will get in the Jackson Hobbit films is not going to have much resembelence to the Middle Earth of Tolkien.

 

700

 

Holy crap is that some hyperbole. "Stabbed in the back"? "Open warfare"? (And where does that put me, as a Tolkien fan and a Jackson fan?) Don't get me wrong, I thought two movies was more than enough to tell The Hobbit, even with Necromancer/White Council stuff added. That said, though, Jackson's been passionate about the material since forever, so I have to say I'm cautiously intrigued by what he might have in store in a third Hobbit and/or bridge movie. And given what he accomplished adapting Tolkien the last time around, I would say "Trust PJ" is entirely appropriate. How about a wait-and-see approach before we start declaring him a Lucas-esque childhood rapist, shall we?

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › PETER JACKSON ENTERS TALKS FOR THIRD HOBBIT FILM