Official The Hobbit thread

[Movies205]

What does Brazil have to do with the Hobbit???

Because it R0X0RS YOUR B0X0RS!

 

[Lighthouse]

Jackson might not be out of the running quite yet.

http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=691&Itemid=99

 

[green]

All excellent points and I realize this, I'm merely saying to everyone... Which I say every time a controversial call like this is made, just chill out and give it a chance, it might suck or it might be bad, in the end it's just a movie... I mean I'm personally a little happy there'll be a different team behind the Hobbit, because the Hobbit has always been to me a different animal then LoTR, it's a much more fun and smaller story. It's contained in one book, the characters aren't as grave, and it's much more light hearted. It definately doesn't have the scope of LoTr... If anything I'm more worried about this second movie, because what the heck is that going be about?

Yeah it is just a movie, a movie some fans have been waiting decades to see, so I can completely understand the concern over the director when one has already more than proven themself with the source material. Eh I'll hold out with the hope Jackson still does it, otherwise Im afraid The Hobbit is going to end up looking like Eragon.

 

[green]

Jackson might not be out of the running quite yet.

http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=691&Itemid=99

Sounds to me like this is going nowhere fast.

 

[raybia]

New Line made a big mistake.

 

[Killgore]

New Line made a big mistake.

Exactly. You have to try to follow Jackson's strategery on this one. He didn't send out a letter to Variety like everyone else in Hollywood does, he hit the fanbase knowing that the dissension my help his case with New Line. Hoping to not disassociate themselves from the enormous fanbase, New Line will probably cave and try to find a settlement instead of going to trial.

 

[raybia]

Exactly. You have to try to follow Jackson's strategery on this one. He didn't send out a letter to Variety like everyone else in Hollywood does, he hit the fanbase knowing that the dissension my help his case with New Line. Hoping to not disassociate themselves from the enormous fanbase, New Line will probably cave and try to find a settlement instead of going to trial.

Well, I can truly say that I am not interested in going to see "The Hobbit" directed by Joe No name Director or Bob Average Director.

 

[Movies205]

Exactly. You have to try to follow Jackson's strategery on this one. He didn't send out a letter to Variety like everyone else in Hollywood does, he hit the fanbase knowing that the dissension my help his case with New Line. Hoping to not disassociate themselves from the enormous fanbase, New Line will probably cave and try to find a settlement instead of going to trial.

Or he might end up pissing off an executive with an ego... I'm interested in seeing how this turns out... Will it go the way of a doomed property... Or will it take a watchmen route where everyone was shouting bloody murder when Hayter/Greengrass left and now everyone overly happy with Snyder direction... Only time will tell I suppose... If Jackson stays then awesome, and it might happen. If not, I'm not overly concern since the Hobbit is much lighter fair then LoTR, it's a fun tale, as long as it handle with the competence of Harry Potter production values then good, which is why I'm weary of jackson in which he'll tottally miss the point and pull a King Kong. King Kong is not a not an oscar story, it's a simply monster story, that was the beauty of it... Hobbit was a fun precursor with a simple moral, of not living so uptight as Biblo learns... It should not be a 3 hour epic, it should be a two hour long adventure.

 

[Dan33977]

I'm not going bother reading some long ass post you made explaining how your not a noob

Actually, my reply illustrated how your amazing, revolutionary "point" about fanboys is unimportant and irrelevant to the topic at hand (in other words, who gives a ****?).

I already made my point... Which if you can't accept that someone else can make a good Hobbit movie than Jackson, you are a noob

And how exactly is ignoring someone's response to your asinine "point" at all conducive to an intelligent, stimulating debate? You made your point and I made my point, which is that first of all, your point is extremely flawed and that second of all, for the umpteenth time now, I do not think that Jackson is the only director capable of bringing THE HOBBIT to life, so making your meaningless "point" was a waste of time to begin with because it didn't apply to me or anyone else who had yet replied to the thread, and it wasn't relevant to the topic of thread.

What's embarrassing is that even after I have I stated many time that there are many other directors besides Jackson who could direct THE HOBBIT, you still continue, even now, to throw around your trivial "point."

So, in the end, you're an elitist fanboy because you went ahead and assumed all this about me based solely on one of my replies in this thread that simply stated I would like Jackson to direct THE HOBBIT, but neither suggested nor implied that I thought he was the only director capable of doing it. Because you refuse to read my "long reply" (for one reason or another), I'm going to break it down for you nice and easily: recall in the past when a new director has taken over the reigns of a franchise—the result's usually not a pretty sight, is it? What usually happens in terms of mood, style, quality, and acting—simple continuity? My point is that not only is it perfectly valid to be wary someone other than Jackson directing THE HOBBIT, but anyone with more than half a brain would be doing this sort of analysis themselves instead of brainlessly bashing others about whom he knows nothing. There's no need to feel threatened by other people's opinions. There are several other intelligent, free-thinkers in the world besides you.

I just hope this reply isn't too long for such an open-minded, intelligent person such as yourself to read...

 

[Dan33977]

Even though I doubt it would ever happen (which is probably for the best), I wonder what a Tim Burton-directed THE HOBBIT would be like...

 

[tecnowraith]

Ok I have an interesting question here? what does everyone here think would Tolkien Estate would say about Jackson not doing the Hobbit? Would or could they have the right to pull the films rights to the Hobbit? If I remember, the Tolkien Estate was very please on the approach of what Jackson did before the trilogy was greenlighted.

 

[Dan33977]

If anything I'm more worried about this second movie, because what the heck is that going be about?

Jackson said in an earlier interview that if he did do THE HOBBIT, the two films would be more literal prequels to LOTR (i.e. the creation of the rings and fighting Sauron, etc) than they would be an adaptation of the actual novel, which intrigues the hell out of me.

I'm not overly concern since the Hobbit is much lighter fair then LoTR, it's a fun tale, as long as it handle with the competence of Harry Potter production values then good, which is why I'm weary of jackson in which he'll tottally miss the point and pull a King Kong...Hobbit was a fun precursor with a simple moral, of not living so uptight as Biblo learns... It should not be a 3 hour epic, it should be a two hour long adventure.

Again, I think they're going a different route with this than just a literal adaptation of the novel (think actual LOTR prequels with the same epic scope rather than just an adaptation of a simple, light-hearted tale), so Jackson wouldn't be bad idea since they'd be done in the same vein as the other three he did.

 

[KingOfDreams]

PJ would have been perfect. Dumbasses.

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Weird, there was a post where someone said that no one wants to see a Hobbit directed by "Joe No Name Director", and I responded but then it logged me out and cast my post into the abyss.

Anyway, no one had a problem seeing arguably the most famous fantasy books turned into movies directed by a at-the-time no name director. Who has heard of Peter Jackson beforehand, save for a very very small handful of people?

Even now, Jackson is at best an average director that has managed to adapt some books and made an overbloated, overindulgent remake. He is by no means great, and doesn't deserve nowhere near the fanboy adulation that is heaped on him. Once he creates something new and original and GREAT, then I'll reevaluate my stance on him.

There are many directors out there that could handle the material.

 

[Boom]

I'm not seeing this movie.

 

[Addendum]

I wasn't going to see the Hobbit anyway. I'm fine with the LOTR trilogy

 

[BloodyWolverine]

I think what in most important here is that you stick to the adaptible story line faithful to the book. Weither you have P.J or someone else directing it. I say write a good screen play find the second best director possible and most importantly offer Ian McKellan and Hugo Weaving a good bit of money. If you can't get P.J i say do this. Get an director that works well with actors and get the right fit. I know this is not his field but Bryan Singer has good writers and McKellan likes him. Also i know people don't like him BUt Ron Howard has worked with McKellan and well it wasn't a big hit but he did do Willow for George Lucas. Do remember its quailty that makes good films not always the biggest name.

 

[Rac]

An online petition about this, if someone wants to sign.

 

[Killgore]

Oh Boy!!! People Pay Attention To Those!!!

 

[Addendum]

Snopes.com about internet petitions

 

[Electrix]

The LOTR fans are already expressing a sense of betrayal. On my own account, I am very sad as I should have relished re-visiting Middle Earth with Peter again as team-leader. It's hard to imagine any other director matching his achievement in Tolkien country. We will have to await developments but being an optimist I am hoping that New Line, MGM and Wingnut can settle outstanding problems so that the long expected "Hobbit" is filmed sooner rather than later.

Quote from Ian Mckellen on his website

 

[Morgoth]

I feel the exact opposite! There's nobody who could pull of these stories (well, really almost any story) as well as Peter Jackson. I'm always surprised when a PJ basher pops up because I wonder how someone cannot at least admire what the man did.

But I have to totally disagree about the battle sequences. Helm's Deep, Plennor Fields, The Black Gates? These battles are nothing short of stunning. And what's even better is that PJ can handle the smaller, more intimate moments just as well.

I guess we'll just have to settle for Bret Rattner again.....oh well.

Don't listen to the bashers, they're morons who don't get it, don't care, and will complain just to do it, 'cause they are bitter jerks.

 

[logansoldcigar]

I will be very surprised if the hobbit and the the other prequel are not made by Wingnut. I suspect MGM will have a chat with new line (remember, MGM do own the distribution rights), and itll be settled.

If they aint, well, if they dont get McKellen, weaving and a few others back, then itll flop. The average bod on the street will look more for returning cast members, IMO.

and some-one has to suggest it: Morgan Freeman for Radagast the Brown

 

[matrix_ghost]

I will be very surprised if the hobbit and the the other prequel are not made by Wingnut. I suspect MGM will have a chat with new line (remember, MGM do own the distribution rights), and itll be settled.
If they aint, well, if they dont get McKellen, weaving and a few others back, then itll flop. The average bod on the street will look more for returning cast members, IMO.

and some-one has to suggest it: Morgan Freeman for Radagast the Brown

Well i really don't think it's as simple as a mere chat.
The case between Pete Jackson and New Line is money and money does talk in hollywood.
Pete's accusing New Line of reporting false numbers of income from the LOTR which would mean that Pete's has to get more money from them.
New Line accusing peter of just wanting more money.

Both parties won't budge and i really don't think that MGM can do anything about it.

As for not returning cast members. I dunno what's the deal with the second movie after Hobbit which ties it to the LOTR movies.
But for Hobbit they merely need McKellen for Gandalf , Weaving for Elrond and maybe Ian Holm for Bilbo.
McKellen might be the problem since he's quite loyal to Peter Jackson ( 2 Oscar Nom. will do that to ya ) but then again he did come back for the 3rd X-Men movie . I really don't see any problems with Weaving or Holm returning.
Maybe...just maybe...they'll recast the role of Bilbo due to the age of Ian Holm.

 

[logansoldcigar]

Im using "chat" as a metaphor for "crack some heads together."

and as for the second prequel, i dont think we see the hobbit as a single stand alone movie: I think it will be the hobbit spead across two movies, intertwined with this other story (first movie more hobbit centred, second movie more other story centred, but both stories spread across both)