PDA

View Full Version : The Hobbit



Jek Porky 2002
01-01-2003, 07:19 AM
Are the rumours that I have heard true? Is Peter Jackson planning on making The Hobbit as a prequal to The Lord Of The Rings?

I would love to see it, would anyone else?

Beast
01-01-2003, 09:52 AM
It's just rumblings now, nothing confirmed yet. But it's possible that it could happen. Especially after the huge success of both Fellowship and Towers. And the likely success of Return as well. I'm sure that Peter Jackson will want to take a while off though, before he actually delves into the world of Middle Earth again. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

derek
01-01-2003, 10:33 AM
i'd only want to see this made if the same actors play thier roles from FOTR. (bilbow, gandalf and gollum)

Beast
01-01-2003, 10:50 AM
They probably would keep the same actors Derek, especially since we saw Bilbo in the flashback to finding the ring at the start of Fellowship. They were able to make him easily look younger, just by pulling back the skin to smooth out his wrinkles.

Ian McKellan can also easily be made to look a bit younger. Though I think Gandalf looks the same in the Hobbit as he does in LOTR's. And Gollum is CGI, so no need to worry about the actual actor aging. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Pendo
01-01-2003, 10:56 AM
Because I've never read any of the books, I don't know anything about them. Are The Hobbit and The Lord Of the Rings the only books centered around the Baggins' family, and Gandalf? Or do they appear in more books. Do you think we'll see any more films made from the other books?

PENDO!

Jedi_Master_Guyute
01-01-2003, 11:48 AM
Pendo!- The hobbit isn't really centered on the Baggins family persay, but Bilbo is tapped to help take out the evil dragon, Smaug. Gandalf kinda, i don't wanna say forces him into it, but convinces him to do it. It's kinda like another Fellowship, cause Bilbo has many companions on his journey. You kinda hear him talk about it a bit in the film FOTR where he says he wants to see mountains and see Murkwood (sp?) and stuff. It's in the Hobbit where the Elves give him Sting and hence why Gollum would recognize it. He even tells the hobbit children a story at this party.

It just kinda happens he stumbles upon Gollum in his cave and beats him in a game of riddles and finds the ring. Bilbo uses the ring a few times in the book to take enemies out though.

This is just from my memory of reading the book a few years back in high school. If anybody has any more details or corrections, lemme know. cheers! :D

kadamontaga
01-01-2003, 02:40 PM
My girlfriend and I were talking about making the actor who plays Bilbo look younger, and she quite rightly pointed out that there's no need for him to look any younger during The Hobbit than he looks in the Shire at the start of the Fellowship movie - he doesn't really age whilst he has the ring.
She a clever 'un.

LTBasker
01-01-2003, 03:32 PM
I think I read something where Jackson said he has NO plans in making the Hobbit. I wish he would though, I've seen the Hobbit cartoon movie and I would love to see it in live-action.

kadamontaga
01-01-2003, 05:21 PM
Personally, I hope they don't make The Hobbit. Although I know The Hobbit was originally written and published before the Lord of the Rings books, I think a prequel would still feel like a spin-off.
I'm probably a bit biased though - I don't like The Hobbit book very much.

bigbarada
01-02-2003, 12:37 AM
I also heard that Peter Jackson has no plans to make The Hobbit into a film, but he did say that he hopes someone does in the future. Who knows? Maybe he will allow another director to tackle it with WETA at his disposal.

There were also rumors about a Simarillon mini-series airing on the HBO network, directed by PJ. But he specifically stated, in the interview I read, that he wants to move on to smaller movies after ROTK. He stated that he never understood why people didn't film three movies at a time when he started, but he understands now better than anybody.:)

Just think though, that when ROTK is released, it will be a film that has been eight years in the making.

JON9000
01-02-2003, 11:16 AM
If the Hobbit were to be translated to film I think it would leave a lot out, even more than LOTR has. The movie would basically consist of Gandalf and the dwarves meeting Bilbo, being captured by the Trolls, Rivendell, going under the Misty Mountains/Bilbo finding the ring, a couple of events in Mirkwood perhaps, then onto the Dragon and the Battle of the Five Armies. That would be tought to fit into a 3 hour film.

Rogue II
01-02-2003, 12:14 PM
After reading this tread and seeing both FOTR and TTT in the past 2 weeks, I going to have to go watch the animated version of the Hobbit again.

Mandalorian Candidat
01-03-2003, 01:49 PM
I'm in the middle of reading the Hobbit to my kids (it's my first time too) and would really love to see it made into a movie. I think it's totally doable and with the responses of all the actors having such a great time doing LOTR I bet they would come back. However, I would replace Ian Holm for Bilbo with Elijah Wood. It would make sense. IH just doesn't look that young to me in the FOTR prologue and I don't think he'd be believable doing all the action he'd be required to do for the Hobbit.

John Rhys-Davies could be Gloin and possibly other dwarves like he did for the FOTR prologue, but who else could round out the other 12?

Capitan_Moroni
01-03-2003, 04:59 PM
I dont think it would be that hard to fill out the other 12 dwarfs, most of them only 1 or 2 lines in the entire book (most have 1 in the cartoon "we are all at your service"). The only dwarfs that have really notible lines are Thorin, Balin, and Bombor (if memory holds). So just get a bunch of big guys like John Ryce Davies and do shrink them down a bit. I dont know who they would get to play Thorin, I cant picture him like the dwarfs look in FOTR, I picture him skinny like in the cartoon.....

I agree that it would be hard to fit all of the story in a 3 hour time slot, but I'd kill to see Beorn in there (they left him out of the cartoon), and the battle of 5 armies (I want to see a huge dwarf army in battle, axes and all). I also want to see the awsome musical numbers like in the cartoon!

I guess theres some stuff they could leave out or speed up, like the months that they are in Lake Town, they could speed up the begining a bit, and they could leave out them journying from Lake town to the Lonley mountian.

Eternal Padawan
01-05-2003, 09:19 AM
For some reason, whenever I read the Hobbit, I picture James Earl Jones as Beorn. :)

Sean Connery should play the Bard.

Charles Dance could play the Mirkwood Elf King (that's Legolas' dad to all you continuity buffs!)

I dunno who could do Smaug's voice. I always here the cartoon version in my head.

The thirteen dwarves would be very difficult to individualize. Did anyone notice how only three die in the book, but seven or eight buy it in the cartoon? Weird.

EricRG
01-05-2003, 11:01 AM
MandCand...you have to remember that once Bilbo gets the ring, he no longer ages significantly. So I thought that Bilbo actually looked TOO young in the flashback sequence.

The Hobbit is a VERY short book, even shorter then ROTK. I think they could easily do 90% of it in 3 hours. The whole tone would have to be completely different...much less dark then the current films. More aimed at children. And here's my vote for Darth Vader to do Smaug's voice.

derek
01-05-2003, 01:45 PM
if i were taking bets, i would wager that the hobbit will become a film in the near future. the LOTR films are making way too much money for new line or whom ever has the rights to just walk away from this franchise. the two towers is on pace to become the 2nd highest grossing film of all time, behind titanic.

http://www.theforce.net/episode2/index.shtml#19281

Capitan_Moroni
01-05-2003, 06:58 PM
I think they should stick with the guy that did Smaug's voice in the cartoon...

If they do the dwarfs the same way as in the cartoon, alot of them look alike (i.e. Fili/Kili, Oin/Gloin, Bifor/Bofor, Balin/Dwalin ect.) If I remember correctly, the only ones that were really individualized were Thorin and Bombor (the only diffrence between Balin and Dwalin is the color of their hoods.)

My whole view of elves is also thrown off from the cartoon/movie diffrences. The elves in Mirkwood are blue in the cartoon, blue!

ConvergeDW
01-05-2003, 07:00 PM
How on earth did Titanic make 1.8 billion dollars?

bigbarada
01-06-2003, 12:28 PM
I think John Huston did Smaug's voice in the cartoon, along with Gandalfs. In fact I didn't think I would ever be able to accept anyone else as the voice of Gandalf but John Huston, fortunately Ian McKellan did such an excellent job as to completely wipe out that concern.

In loved Smaug's voice in the cartoon though. It was so unlike what you would expect a dragon to sound like. Most voice-actors would just give him a hissing snake-like voice, but John Huston made him sound ancient and wise beyond any man (not to mention a little tired of life also).

Anyways, I would love to see The Hobbit made, even if a different actor is used for Bilbo. If for nothing else than to see the Battle of the Five Armies at the end (I love the idea of watching an army of dwarves in battle).

The Overlord Returns
01-06-2003, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by ConvergeDW
How on earth did Titanic make 1.8 billion dollars?

Same reason TTT might......it was released in the winter months ( a slow time for hollywood, filled exclusively with crap) and had no big budget competition.

Still, it's doubtful that TTT will crack a billion worldwide.

JON9000
01-06-2003, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by ConvergeDW
How on earth did Titanic make 1.8 billion dollars?

The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of 8-18 year old girls who have a crush collectively on a young male star. That is why New Kids on the Block eclipsed Beatles record sales, and why Titanic was what it was. Its crossover appeal helped too, because the 1.5 hours of schlock was followed by 1.5 hours of the greatest disaster flick ever which brought the likes of me in to see it.

Beast
02-14-2003, 02:39 AM
This was in my recent issue of Request magazine. Apperantly, if New Line decides to do "The Hobbit", Peter Jackson would find it hard to not offer himself to direct. :cool: :D

Director Peter Jackson Looks To Break The Hobbit

Peter Jackson may have delivered another stunning masterpiece wih The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, but the New Zealand director's not necessarily going to make hobbits a habit. Asked whether he's intrested in adapting The Hobbit after the final film in his Lord of the Rings trilogy is released in December, Jackson insisted that he and New Line Cinema have not discussed the possibility. "I don't know if I'd do it." Jackson says, "but I'd feel sort of weird not doing it if they decide to make it." Hear that, New Line?

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Eternal Padawan
02-14-2003, 08:50 AM
I would love to see it, but give it a few years.

Greyfolk
02-23-2003, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Capitan_Moroni
I guess theres some stuff they could leave out or speed up, like the months that they are in Lake Town, they could speed up the begining a bit, and they could leave out them journying from Lake town to the Lonley mountian.

They'd definatleyt cut out all of the songs. Which would be a shame, but who wants to hear Ian Holm sing?

Eternal Padawan
03-05-2003, 07:27 AM
I read that Ian McKellan said he would love to do it as a year long television series (mini series?) with PJ executive producing.

I think that would be sweet!:D

Pendo
03-05-2003, 12:02 PM
Yeah that would be great :). I hope something is done to transfer the Hobbit to TV/Cinema.

PENDO!

187-Maul
03-06-2003, 10:20 AM
that would definitly by nice, I finished The Hobbit some weeks ago and the book is great, I'd also love to see the scene with the giant spiders if they made a movie

The Overlord Returns
03-06-2003, 10:23 AM
OK, I haven't read the hobbit in ages, so someone refresh my memory...

Does Aragorn appear in the book? My gut says no, as I don;t even think he was born when Bilbo got hold of the ring.....but...it's all fuzzy.

Eternal Padawan
03-06-2003, 11:03 AM
According to the apendices in LOTR, Aragorn is well over a hundred by the time the Fellowship is formed (something about humans back then...they lived longer, the blood of Numenore and all that) so he alive when Bilbo fought Smaug, etc, but he wasn't in the book.

Beast
09-25-2003, 05:02 PM
Some new news about the potential Prequel to the LOTR Trilogy have surfaced. The rights issues that prevented 'The Hobbit' from being made in the first place have been worked out. New Line now owns the rights to produce the film. Now the only question is whether or not P.J. still wants to do it. The info is from 'The Green Dragon: Middle-Earth Collectible Heaven' website. :)

In the News: HUGE Small Little Tidbit of Hobbit News

Today we learned something that should not come to a surprise to anyone who has ever visited this site or any other Lord of the Rings collector /movie site. As most of you know (or don't) Peter Jackson intended to make The Hobbit FIRST, but both he and New Line ran into difficulty with licensing issues. PJ plainly stated this in the most recent Fan Club interview. To avoid dragging it out, they decided to pursue the trilogy instead...and I bet we are all glad they did! Now for the new news...according to sources that I WILL NOT name under penalty of death, New Line has worked out the licensing issues for The Hobbit and now OWNS THE RIGHTS. In other words, they will more than likely be making The Hobbit sometime in the near future. As far as Peter Jackson's being director...unknown at this point, but he definitely wants to be involved (director or producer?). Stay tuned for more details as we learn more.

SPECIAL NOTE: Neither Toybiz, nor any other licenses collectible producer for the New Line Movies has rights to The Hobbit...so it will be ANOTHER bidding war for toys, and collectibles alike if The Hobbit comes to pass. Hope and pray that Toybiz, Sideshow, Play Along, etc. retain the licenses and we get the appropriate scale figures/toys from The Hobbit to go along with their trilogy line. Lets just hope we get a Deluxe SMAUG!
MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

derek
09-25-2003, 06:08 PM
that's good news jar jar! :) i knew this movie would get made, as the LOTR trilogy has made way to much money for some studio to pass up this movie.

i just hope sideshow makes the 12 inch figures. toy biz makes a nice 6 inch figure, but they stink in the 12 inch departmant. :frus:

mrmiller
09-26-2003, 01:57 AM
That's great new! I was pretty sure something would get worked out eventually, but the sooner the better, as I'd like to see all the original actors in the same roles.

BTW- has anyone seen the fan made Trailer for the Hobbit? It's pretty darn good. A friend of mine was convinced it was real. :crazed:

=MATT=

Mandalorian Candidat
09-26-2003, 09:42 AM
Great news! Now let the debate continue on who should be cast in this flick.

I still say Elijah Wood should play Bilbo and IMK as Gandalf with Serkis as Gollum.

RooJay
09-30-2003, 01:10 AM
Pendo!- The hobbit isn't really centered on the Baggins family persay, but Bilbo is tapped to help take out the evil dragon, Smaug. Gandalf kinda, i don't wanna say forces him into it, but convinces him to do it. It's kinda like another Fellowship, cause Bilbo has many companions on his journey. You kinda hear him talk about it a bit in the film FOTR where he says he wants to see mountains and see [Mirkwood] and stuff. It's in the Hobbit where the Elves give him Sting and hence why Gollum would recognize it. He even tells the hobbit children a story at this party.

It just kinda happens he stumbles upon Gollum in his cave and beats him in a game of riddles and finds the ring. Bilbo uses the ring a few times in the book to take enemies out though.

This is just from my memory of reading the book a few years back in high school. If anybody has any more details or corrections, lemme know. cheers! :D

You forgot about the Mithril shirt that saves Frodo's life during the Cave Troll battle in Fellowship having been given to Bilbo by the dwarves at the end of Hobbit, as well as the appearance of the petrified remains of the three troll brothers in the background of Fellowship just before Aragorn and the Hobbits arrive at Weathertop. ;) Oops - and also the appearance of Smaug (however implied) in firework form during the 'long expected party".


However, I would replace Ian Holm for Bilbo with Elijah Wood. It would make sense. IH just doesn't look that young to me in the FOTR prologue and I don't think he'd be believable doing all the action he'd be required to do for the Hobbit.

An interesting idea, but that would hardly be accurate - Bilbo was 51 years old during The Hobbit, and Hobbit's tend to age (normally) about the same as humans (regular ones, that is - as opposed to Numenoreans). That would make Elijah Wood about 25 or so years too young for the role. I'm really hopin' that if it comes to pass, that Ian Holm would reprise his role as Bilbo.


Does Aragorn appear in the book? My gut says no, as I don;t even think he was born when Bilbo got hold of the ring.....but...it's all fuzzy.

Aragorn is actually 90 years old (Tolkien states that he is 210 years old when he dies - working back from his age at the date of his death to the date of the War of the Ring gives us this info) as we see him in the LOTR film series. Unfortunatly, he had had no dealings with the Baggins family during the story presented in The Hobbit. In fact, he may even have been serving the royal family of either Rohan or Gondor under the alias of Thorongil at this time. :D

Mandalorian Candidat
09-30-2003, 09:56 AM
An interesting idea, but that would hardly be accurate - Bilbo was 51 years old during The Hobbit, and Hobbit's tend to age (normally) about the same as humans (regular ones, that is - as opposed to Numenoreans). That would make Elijah Wood about 25 or so years too young for the role. I'm really hopin' that if it comes to pass, that Ian Holm would reprise his role as Bilbo.


But Holm looks much too old to play Bilbo at the younger age. Who's to say that Hobbits don't look similar in age to Frodo in LOTR when they're in their fifties? Holm was perfect for an older Bilbo in LOTR, no doubt about it. However, I can't see him doing the action he'd have to do for The Hobbit like fighting the Mirkwood spiders. On the other hand it would be interesting to see him verbally sparring with Gollum...

If PJ takes the reins on this project, I'm sure the casting will turn out OK.

Turambar
09-30-2003, 08:50 PM
Imigosh!!! That's fantastic news!!!
For years I'd read that the Hobbit would never be made into a movie because the rights were so hotly disputed.
What a great story it is. Beorn, goblins, giant spiders, a dragon, and an army of dwarves at the end!!! I must be dreaming.

ThomasLane
10-01-2003, 02:22 PM
But Holm looks much too old to play Bilbo at the younger age. Who's to say that Hobbits don't look similar in age to Frodo in LOTR when they're in their fifties? Holm was perfect for an older Bilbo in LOTR, no doubt about it. However, I can't see him doing the action he'd have to do for The Hobbit like fighting the Mirkwood spiders. On the other hand it would be interesting to see him verbally sparring with Gollum...


In LOTR, I believe Frodo was in his mid-forties before he started his journey (it's been a while since I read the books though), so if Elijah Wood can play Frodo at that age, it would probably be age-appropriate to cast him as Bilbo in "The Hobbit". Personally though, I loved Ian Holm as Bilbo, and would be happy to see him reprise the role.

Phantom-like Menace
12-01-2003, 09:52 PM
Check this link out:

http://www.cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp?aff_id=0&this_cat=Movies&action=page&type_id=&cat_id=270338&obj_id=40294

That's the latest.

I actually haven't brought myself to read The Hobbit (though the characters seem infinitely less annoying than Tom Bombadil), but despite slight changes to the first book and some rather major changes to the second book I've loved the movies so far, and I'm looking forward to third and final movie like I was awaiting Episode I all those years ago.

For my money, though, I'm one of those who thinks The Silmarillion includes some of the coolest stuff Tolkien ever created. I would be insane with anticipation to see Glorfindel and Ecthelion fighting balrogs during the fall of Gondolin, the sons of Fëanor mercilessly holding to their oath to obtain the Silmarils, and of course Beren and Lúthien's story. It would also be extremely cool to see the events of the Akallabêth, the fall of Númenor, from which Aragorn's direct ancestors escaped.

Actually, I'm such a fan of history (even fictional histories), I'd love to see the early events of the Third Age played out on screen. The fall of Arnor via wars with the Witch-king Angmar, Osgiliath in its prime, and many other things covered in the appendices of The Return of the King would be great to see.

But on my original point of The Hobbit: I'd definitely be interested in seeing this project actually happen, even if I never read the book.



Aragorn is actually 90 years old (Tolkien states that he is 210 years old when he dies - working back from his age at the date of his death to the date of the War of the Ring gives us this info) as we see him in the LOTR film series. Unfortunatly, he had had no dealings with the Baggins family during the story presented in The Hobbit. In fact, he may even have been serving the royal family of either Rohan or Gondor under the alias of Thorongil at this time. :DThird Age 2931 is when Aragorn was born; Third Age 2941 is the year at the beginning of The Hobbit, so he was ten during that time (the Ring is destroyed in 3019 when Aragorn was 88). Third Age 2957 is when Aragorn, as Thorongil, begins serving King Thengel of Rohan, and the next year I find for him is Third Age 2980 when he stops serving in Gondor. So in 2941, during The Hobbit, I imagine a very young Aragorn was living in Rivendell with his mother. However since Rivendell is between the Shire and Mirkwood, I would almost bet a movie from Newline and Peter Jackson would show the young Aragorn. I had no idea when The Hobbit took place nor when the years of Aragorn's service to Rohan and Gondor took place prior to this reply, though.

arctangent
12-02-2003, 03:14 AM
i assume the hobbit will be one stand-alone film and they will end up having to leave so much out of it, just as they have with the lord of the rings trilogy, which i personally have found disappointing, the biggest crime being that they are not going to the end of the third book and the hobbits return to the shire.

and i think the silmarillion would be a disaster if they tried to make that for either big or small screen. it is such a convoluted work and covers such a vast timescale i think many people would be confused and lose interest.

Turambar
12-02-2003, 09:31 PM
Right on, Phantom-like, about the Silmarillion!

The Silmarillion & Unfinished Tales have some of Tolkien's most amazing works. I believe you forgot to mention the Narn I Hin Hurin (tale of the children of hurin) which is complemented by The Tale of Turambar in Unfinished Tales. What a tragic tale that was! Years ago, I always thought that story would be perfect to make into a great movie.

But yeah, it would be impossible to do a movie of the entire book.

scruffziller
12-04-2003, 08:07 AM
I would like to see a series of movies that tells of Sauron's origins.

El Chuxter
12-11-2003, 12:22 PM
Gandalf, Elrond, and Gollum would have to be the same actors. Bilbo should be, too.

There should be material brought in from other Tolkien works to explain the context, as with the LOTR movies.

It should be very clear to "unread" viewers that the Necromancer is Sauron.

Arwen, Saruman, and Legolas could easily make cameos, and Aragorn wouldn't be pushing it too much, either.

The dude who played Hagrid (name escapes me) could play Beorn. Beorn has to be there because (altogether now) bears make everything better!

Mandalorian Candidat
12-11-2003, 04:51 PM
Gandalf, Elrond, and Gollum would have to be the same actors. Bilbo should be, too.

There should be material brought in from other Tolkien works to explain the context, as with the LOTR movies.

It should be very clear to "unread" viewers that the Necromancer is Sauron.

Arwen, Saruman, and Legolas could easily make cameos, and Aragorn wouldn't be pushing it too much, either.

The dude who played Hagrid (name escapes me) could play Beorn. Beorn has to be there because (altogether now) bears make everything better!

Legolas wouldn't be too much of a stretch since he is from Mirkwood and Thranduil (who makes an appearance in The Hobbit) is his dad. Arwen...I don't know. She's supposed to be in Lorien with Galadriel during this time I believe. Saruman has no place in this story. It would be like a cheesy celebrity cameo on a 70's show like Fred Astaire on Battlestar Galactica.

Eternal Padawan
12-11-2003, 06:00 PM
Actually, Gandalf meets up with all the other Wizards to go fight the Necromancer, so having Saruman show up wouldn't bee too far fetched.

I always thought James Earl Jones would make a good Beorn. And Sean Connery as the Dane.

Mandalorian Candidat
12-12-2003, 09:59 AM
Actually, Gandalf meets up with all the other Wizards to go fight the Necromancer, so having Saruman show up wouldn't bee too far fetched.

I always thought James Earl Jones would make a good Beorn. And Sean Connery as the Dane.

Having Saruman show up in the Hobbit wouldn't work at all unless they did show a minor scene with the five wizards going off to Dol Guldur. However, I don't see it happenning unless PJ does it and tries to tie Bilbo's adventure closer to the background of LotR.

LOL about JEJ as Beorn! I picture him reprising his role as the baddie in Conan the Barbarian with all that funky fur.

As for Sean Connery...it would only work for me if he could slip in the word "Pooooshy." ;)

El Chuxter
12-12-2003, 12:23 PM
I was going to say that about Saruman, but EP beat me to it. :p

Jackson has a tendency to show where Tolkien tells. Like the fight between Gandalf and Saruman. Didn't actually happen in the book. (Well, he tells about it later, but we don't see it.) Just a change that better fits the media of film.

Since the scene in which Gandalf tells Bilbo (or was it Frodo) that the Necromancer turned out to be Sauron wasn't in the movie, it would be necessary to put something in a Hobbit film to make that connection in the minds of viewers who haven't read the books, and a scene with Gandalf, Saruman, Merlin, Dumbledore, and Willard the Wizard might do it.

Y'know, unless he was planning LOTR when he wrote Hobbit (and I'm not sure about that), Tolkien majorly copped out when he sent Gandalf against "The Necromancer" for half the book.

Beast
01-08-2004, 03:44 PM
More news on the 'The Hobbit' project. Ian McKellen sounds ready to go, if it gets made. Since he prefers Gandalf the Grey, to Gandalf the White. The news comes via Dark Horizons. :)

McKellan appeared yesterday on the UK's Richard &Judy chat show where he was asked about the persisting rumours that New Line is planning to go ahead with the prequel to the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy now its finally over.

McKellan seemed more upbeat and forthcoming than expected: "There is currently a situation where two companies own the rights, but when that's sorted out Peter (Jackson) and I will sit and talk it over. We've mentioned it recently and Peter is looking forward to getting it into production...It won't be long until I have to put on that blue hat again and become Gandalf - Gandalf The Grey that is!". The actor joked about his Gandalf the White being "a stick in the mud".
MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

JON9000
03-06-2004, 11:32 AM
Apparently Peter Jakson is up for making the Hobbit with the original cast returning. It sounds like he feels it is his project and doesn't want anyone else mucking it up. The difficulty at the moment is between MGM and Newline. New Line has the right to make the film, while MGM has distribution rights. Click the link for the full article.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040306/D814VP480.html

scruffziller
03-06-2004, 12:33 PM
The only thing I feel is that would THE HOBBIT story would not fit one movie. It would have to fit a couple installments of film or three!!!:crazed:

jjreason
03-06-2004, 01:01 PM
I think 2 good 2 hr movies would about do it. The story is a little more fast paced; I think it was aimed at a slightly younger audience, almost to tempt them to read LOTR. I hope they can sort out the red tape, it would be amazing to see the movie made in the same style.

scruffziller
03-06-2004, 01:12 PM
I think 2 good 2 hr movies would about do it. Then with all the deleted scenes for DVD it would end up being a total of 6 hours between them!!:D

jjreason
03-06-2004, 01:42 PM
Sounds great to me! These stories are so fantastic, I'd even love to see "Expanded Universe" stuff - almost in the form of documentaries with commentary - showing the Kings of Men falling to Sauron, how the rings were distributed by him in the first place, the events leading up to the battle we see part of in Fellowship, a brief synopsis of the Silmarillion (set in the same land long before the rings, I believe - I've never read that story) on and on and on. Not all of it suitable for theatre viewing, but there's no end to the stuff that I'd love to watch set in that universe.

Mr. JabbaJohnL
03-06-2004, 02:07 PM
The movie wouldn't need to be very long, it could be done as one film that's about the same length in time as one of the other LOTR movies, maybe even shorter. The book The Hobbit is only about the same size as one of the books in LOTR (there are six - two for each movie/installment), isn't it?

Mandalorian Candidat
03-06-2004, 05:54 PM
Yeah, I agree wit' ya JJL. It doesn't need a whole lotta time--just on the order of 2.5-3 hours would do it. There's no need of a prologue, which would take up 10 minutes or so, and once the battle of the five armies is over there's no need for an extended ending.

What needs to be thrown in?


(Spoilers if you haven't read the book)



1)Intro w/Gandalf,dwarves,Bilbo
2)The trolls
3)Minor Rivendell scene
4)Misty Mountain orcs
5)Running into Gollum (this better be substantial and with Andy Serkis)
6)The wargs and eagles
7)Beorn (though this could be cut down substantially from the book or just snipped like Tom Bombadil)
8)Mirkwood spiders
9)King Thranduil and the woodelves
10)Lake Town (also could be somewhat minor)
11)The Lonely Mtn.
12)Smaug
13)Attack of Lake Town
14)5 armies
15)Roll credits...

Maybe it sounds like a lot, but if they make a decent portion of the movie with Gollum, Smaug, and the final battle, it would shape up to be kick A. The emphasis on the travelling part wouldn't need to be much because how it was done in LotR worked well (a huge trek in a short amount of time yet not seeming so).

If it were done over two movies it wouldn't have the same impact. Yes, some cool stuff may get left out but putting everything in then splitting it into two features would be diluting the plot. I guess the point's moot if MGM and NL don't get it together.

How does MGM have the distribution rights anyway and so what if they do? All NL has to do is let them pay to send the prints out to the theaters, right?

kool-aid killer
03-07-2004, 11:23 AM
I think the amount of money this movie could possibly make will be enough to iron out whatever legal issues there are. And with PJ sounding like he wants to do it after King Kong i dont think he will have much problems pushing it through. Im thinking this movie could work in a 3 hour time frame. Two films seems a bit much for it, plus i cant stand the thought of having to wait another year just to see the ending.

The 'Xir
03-21-2004, 02:29 PM
A little something whimsical concerning Hobbits:..

One of my favorite lines from any movie is(see sig line) in FotR.
But I was thinking, When Galdalf says that line to Frodo he begins it by stating, "so do all men who see such times, ..."; But Fodo is not a man he's a Hobbit!
So, I was thinking what would be a good nickname for Hobbits, like Human = Man/Men! Obviously I came up with Bits! But what about female Hobbits? Well seeing as how one major diffenece in both human or Hobbit women is more well endowed Breasts or T*ts! So T*ts + Bits = Tidbits!!! lol

So the realm of Hobbits consists of Bits and Tidbits! :D
OK maybe not. :ermm: :crazed:

RooJay
03-22-2004, 10:02 PM
Actually Hobbits are considered an offshoot of the race of men. In fact, the name 'halfling' was given to them by the tall Dunedain who noted that Hobbits were (more or less) little men, that were on average about half their own height.

And that's one to grow on! :D ;)

Card Dreamer
03-27-2004, 01:38 AM
I would love to see this movie get made with any and all original cast memebers taking up their roles again. This would be worth it for the battle with the dragon alone!

scruffziller
03-27-2004, 10:27 AM
I think it needs to be at least 3 1/2 hours if in one installment. Whatever the length of Braveheart was.

BoShek
03-27-2004, 11:02 AM
Yeah, two movies of The Hobbit would be a little better than trying to fit into one. Beorn should be John Reese-Davies in his tall grandure.

Turambar
03-27-2004, 02:44 PM
I think they could make it right in just over 3 hours.
In the LOTR movies, I felt PJ made Gimli into too much of a baffoon, so I would like to see the Hobbit just to see the serious nature of the dwarves. Not to mention seeing armies of them with chopping people up with mattocks & axes.

CropDuster
03-29-2004, 11:44 PM
A more serious portrayal of the dwarves would definitely be a welcome improvement, as would a more heterosexual portrayal of the hobbits. :D

Mandalorian Candidat
03-30-2004, 10:47 AM
...as would a more heterosexual portrayal of the hobbits. :D

Huh? Where's that coming from? Didn't Sam get married in RotK and have children?

Turambar
04-01-2004, 09:22 PM
A more serious portrayal of the dwarves would definitely be a welcome improvement, as would a more heterosexual portrayal of the hobbits. :D

LOL! Okay, so maybe PJ overdid the relationship between Frodo & Sam.
On the subject, I think the whole thing would have worked better if Frodo was over the hill and 15-20 yrs older that Sam.
In attempting to show the burden of the ring PJ ended up portraying Frodo as both weak and foolish while Sam became the hero.
Although, the ring took its toll on Frodo's physical being, he grew in wisdom throughout the epic. I just never felt that was shown in the movies.

RooJay
04-04-2004, 05:02 PM
I don't think the Frodo/Sam relationship was overdone at all. Let's not forget that these are 'hobbits' and not humans; to ascribe human emotion or thought processes to those characters and assume that they are absolute is ludicrous and counteractive to the statement that was being made. Tolkien, and Peter Jackson after him, never once implies anything other than a very close and powerful bond of friendship. To imply sexual context of any kind in the relationship only serves as a great disservice to that particular story arc.

arctangent
04-05-2004, 06:19 AM
I don't think the Frodo/Sam relationship was overdone at all. Let's not forget that these are 'hobbits' and not humans; to ascribe human emotion or thought processes to those characters and assume that they are absolute is ludicrous and counteractive to the statement that was being made. Tolkien, and Peter Jackson after him, never once implies anything other than a very close and powerful bond of friendship. To imply sexual context of any kind in the relationship only serves as a great disservice to that particular story arc.

my brother and sister in law went to a special screening of return of the king (because she works for part of warner bros here in the uk) and many members of the audience who obviously didn't know the books came out asking why all the hobbits were homosexual. so that idea must come across to people somehow. people tend to forget that the lotr was written in a more innocent time.

Beast
07-19-2004, 01:14 PM
Looks like 'The Hobbit' may end up happening with New Line and Peter Jackson, if Time Warener can complete it's purchase of MGM. Here's the news from Variety. :)

"With Sony apparently unable to construct a final offer for the purchase of MGM, it's looking increasingly likely that Time Warner will swoop in and grab the prize. Bringing MGM under their wing would give Time Warner a nice little bonus -- worldwide theatrical and television rights to J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Hobbit." Time Warner owns New Line Cinema... and what a sweet addition to New Line's "The Lord of the Rings" franchise that could be.
MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

JON9000
07-19-2004, 01:48 PM
Beorn should be John Reese-Davies in his tall grandure.
I think Brian Blessed would make an awesome Beorn.

I think he would make a lousy Borg. Sorry, couldn't resist. :stupid:

Mandalorian Candidat
07-20-2004, 06:47 PM
Thanks for the update, JJB. More good news for the fans.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
11-14-2006, 09:04 PM
Has it been over 2 years since this thread last got love? I swear we had a hobbit thread that was more recent!?!? Anyway, things are looking REALLY good right now. Stole this from coming-soon.net:


As for The Hobbit, Sloan confirmed that MGM was in advanced talks with Peter Jackson to make two movies based on JRR Tolkien's "prequel" to "The Lord of the Rings."

The first would be a direct adaptation of The Hobbit, and the second would be drawn from "footnotes and source material connecting 'The Hobbit' with 'Lord of the Rings,'" he explained.

An MGM spokesman emphasized that negotiations with Jackson are still in progress, and that production isn't likely until 2008 or even 2009.


Nice. And here's to hoping for same cast for reoccuring characters. Ian Holm, Sir Ian, etc. :thumbsup:

figrin bran
11-14-2006, 09:24 PM
i'll believe it when it happens!

time to keep the fingers crossed. so this second film would be a watered down mishmash of the silmarillion and other Tolkien works?

Phantom-like Menace
11-14-2006, 11:22 PM
It's consistently my opinion that these guys really need to get together and stop bickering. Together, these guys have all the necessary parts for some very special movies, just like the main trilogy. Apart, they have a children's book with all the inherent flaws. Beyond that, it seems financially advantageous for them to get together on the same page too.

Just based on that I have to imagine it's a foregone conclusion that these movies will be made and they will be made by Peter Jackson and Weta. Of course, people are seldom that rational, so I keep imagining MGM giving the job to some idiot who will make a terrible movie that entertains people only by way of the jokes they can make about it.

Ah, the Silmarillion. If a movie were to be made of even part of that story I would be ecstatic. Just the Fall of Gondolin would be enough for me.

RooJay
11-15-2006, 12:35 AM
Has it been over 2 years since this thread last got love? I swear we had a hobbit thread that was more recent!?!? Anyway, things are looking REALLY good right now. Stole this from coming-soon.net:



As for The Hobbit, Sloan confirmed that MGM was in advanced talks with Peter Jackson to make two movies based on JRR Tolkien's "prequel" to "The Lord of the Rings."

The first would be a direct adaptation of The Hobbit, and the second would be drawn from "footnotes and source material connecting 'The Hobbit' with 'Lord of the Rings,'" he explained.

An MGM spokesman emphasized that negotiations with Jackson are still in progress, and that production isn't likely until 2008 or even 2009.

Nice. And here's to hoping for same cast for reoccuring characters. Ian Holm, Sir Ian, etc. :thumbsup:

That could be incredibly awesome. Maybe we'd get to see the White Council and their confrontation with Sauron as the Necromancer at Dol Goldur! No doubt the diehard book fans would find plenty reason to complain about that though.

kool-aid killer
11-15-2006, 09:43 AM
I think the Hobbit would be best done spread over two movies. That would enable most of the book's important parts to be shown on film. Either way, i dont think the diehards will ever be satisfied if it isnt an exact replication of every single line written. Good to hear that the Hobbit has possibilites (and given how much money it would make, ive never doubted that it would be done) of happening relatively soon. I just wish things were happening now rather than later, i want to go back to Middle Earth.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
11-15-2006, 10:52 AM
I think the Hobbit would be best done spread over two movies. That would enable most of the book's important parts to be shown on film. Either way, i dont think the diehards will ever be satisfied if it isnt an exact replication of every single line written. Good to hear that the Hobbit has possibilites (and given how much money it would make, ive never doubted that it would be done) of happening relatively soon. I just wish things were happening now rather than later, i want to go back to Middle Earth.

KAK- Excellent point. The diehards aren't going to be pleased until their vision, word for word, scene for scene is up on on the silver screen and that won't happen. PJ won't ruin his LOTR films and since he's been awnting to do the Hobbit for a while, he'll take care of things. I just hate the diehards who are like, "wait wait wait, Frodo's hair isn't that dark! BLASPHEMY!" :thumbsup:

El Chuxter
11-15-2006, 11:06 AM
I just hate the diehards who are like, "wait wait wait, Frodo's hair isn't that dark! BLASPHEMY!" :thumbsup:

But it's not! It's BLASPHEMY!

:p

Jedi_Master_Guyute
11-20-2006, 12:29 AM
PJ sent this e-mail to the One-Ring.net. Detailing info about the film which he is NOT INVOLVED with directing. Basically, it's all due to this damn MGM/New Line lawsuit. Read on:



Dear One Ringers,

As you know, there's been a lot of speculation about The Hobbit. We are often asked about when or if this film will ever be made. We have always responded that we would be very interested in making the film - if it were offered to us to make.

You may also be aware that Wingnut Films has bought a lawsuit against New Line, which resulted from an audit we undertook on part of the income of The Fellowship of the Ring. Our attitude with the lawsuit has always been that since it's largely based on differences of opinion about certain accounting practices, we would like an independent body - whether it be a judge, a jury, or a mediator, to look at the issues and make an unbiased ruling. We are happy to accept whatever that ruling is. In our minds, it's not much more complex than that and that's exactly why film contracts include right-to-audit clauses.

However, we have always said that we do not want to discuss The Hobbit with New Line until the lawsuit over New Line's accounting practices is resolved. This is simple common sense - you cannot be in a relationship with a film studio, making a complex, expensive movie and dealing with all the pressures and responsibilities that come with the job, while an unresolved lawsuit exists.

We have also said that we do not want to tie settlement of the lawsuit to making a film of The Hobbit. In other words, we would have to agree to make The Hobbit as a condition of New Line settling our lawsuit. In our minds this is not the right reason to make a film and if a film of The Hobbit went ahead on this basis, it would be doomed. Deciding to make a movie should come from the heart - it's not a matter of business convenience. When you agree to make a film, you're taking on a massive commitment and you need to be driven by an absolute passion to want to get the story on screen. It's that passion, and passion alone, that gives the movie its imagination and heart. To us it is not a cold-blooded business decision.

A couple of months ago there was a flurry of Hobbit news in the media. MGM, who own a portion of the film rights in The Hobbit, publicly stated they wanted to make the film with us. It was a little weird at the time because nobody from New Line had ever spoken to us about making a film of The Hobbit and the media had some fun with that. Within a week or two of those stories, our Manager Ken Kamins got a call from the co-president of New Line Cinema, Michael Lynne, who in essence told Ken that the way to settle the lawsuit was to get a commitment from us to make the Hobbit, because "that's how these things are done". Michael Lynne said we would stand to make much more money if we tied the lawsuit and the movie deal together and this may well be true, but it's still the worst reason in the world to agree to make a film.

Several years ago, Mark Ordesky told us that New Line have rights to make not just The Hobbit but a second "LOTR prequel", covering the events leading up to those depicted in LOTR. Since then, we've always assumed that we would be asked to make The Hobbit and possibly this second film, back to back, as we did the original movies. We assumed that our lawsuit with the studio would come to a natural conclusion and we would then be free to discuss our ideas with the studio, get excited and jump on board. We've assumed that we would possibly get started on development and design next year, whilst filming The Lovely Bones. We even had a meeting planned with MGM executives to talk through our schedule.

However last week, Mark Ordesky called Ken and told him that New Line would no longer be requiring our services on the Hobbit and the LOTR 'prequel'. This was a courtesy call to let us know that the studio was now actively looking to hire another filmmaker for both projects.

Ordesky said that New Line has a limited time option on the film rights they have obtained from Saul Zaentz (this has never been conveyed to us before), and because we won't discuss making the movies until the lawsuit is resolved, the studio is going to have to hire another director.

Given that New Line are committed to this course of action, we felt at the very least, we owed you, the fans, a straightforward account of events as they have unfolded for us.

We have always had the greatest support from The Ringers and we are very sorry our involvement with The Hobbit has been ended in this way. Our journey into Tolkien's world started with a phone call from Ken Kamins to Harvey Weinstein in Nov 1995 and ended with a phone call from Mark Ordesky to Ken in Nov 2006. It has been a great 11 years.

This outcome is not what we anticipated or wanted, but neither do we see any positive value in bitterness and rancor. We now have no choice but to let the idea of a film of The Hobbit go and move forward with other projects.

We send our very best wishes to whomever has the privilege of making The Hobbit and look forward to seeing the film on the big screen.

Warmest regards to you all, and thanks for your incredible support over the years.

We got to go there - but not back again ...

Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh

Well, New Line and MGM both shot themselves in the foot with this one. I don't foresee ANY director showing as respect to the LOTR novels as Fran & PJ did. And they just lost my ticket sale, DVD sale, etc cos i won't see a LOTR flick PJ hasn't been involved with. He made those flicks work due to his love of the material. This new prequel won't be good. :upset:

El Chuxter
11-20-2006, 09:43 AM
Can you say "Lord of the Rings, Episode I: The Revenge of the Phantom Clones"?

kool-aid killer
11-20-2006, 10:23 AM
Interesting read, unfortunately, im dont like what ive read. Whoever directs "The Hobbit" is going to have high expectations to fill. But its too bad it had to be this way, Jackson had already proven he has the chops to get it done well.

Blue2th
11-25-2006, 11:38 AM
Bummer! Who else could possibly do the "Hobbit" justice? They gonna call in Tim Burton to save the day? This is unnaceptable. They need to patch things up right now! Any loss of monies and pride will surely be remedied by the amount of more cash they will make by having PJ at the helm. Why ruin this historic opportunity? I'm seriously doubtful this new course will be as succesful. Surely they can see that :upset:

2-1B
11-25-2006, 12:13 PM
fine with me, I'm burned out on all these epic fantasy movies that have been coming out.

RooJay
11-26-2006, 07:52 PM
Did anyone else here catch the news last week that MGM is planning on withdrawing from the deal (and I'm assuming taking back their control of the Hobbit film rights) if Peter Jackson isn't involved? I'll try posting a link tomorrow, but it seems as though MGM refuses to go ahead with production without Peter Jackson. It seems like New Line has tried using this as leverage against PJ in his lawsuit, and with MGM involved it's actually backfiring on them. I'm betting it takes a couple extra years, but all of this trouble will get smoothed over and we will eventually see Peter Jackson's The Hobbit.:thumbsup: I could even see New Line losing out on the deal, with PJ eventually doing the film for MGM.

Phantom-like Menace
11-26-2006, 10:27 PM
Did anyone else here catch the news last week that MGM is planning on withdrawing from the deal (and I'm assuming taking back their control of the Hobbit film rights) if Peter Jackson isn't involved?

I can't have just read that correctly. I realize it's unconfirmed, but it almost looks like a movie studio is showing a modicum of intelligence about their product. That's just radical thinking if true.

Edit: Oh, I see. This is post number 666 for me, so intelligence in movie studios could signify the end of the world.

Blue2th
11-26-2006, 11:21 PM
That is good news if true. A smart thing to do on MGM's part. I'm sure there are alot of people upset by these events. Hopefully it can be smoothed over by the time the Hobbit gets made. I agree but really don't care at all about the glut of epic fantasies that are being made, as I haven't even bothered and don't plan to see any of them since Return of the King. As far as I'm concerned LOTR and the Hobbit are the original, and the rest are wannabee's. Alot of us were influenced by the Tolkien books way before the movies. Peter Jackson is so important as the director to being faithful to the story as he has already proven.

RooJay
11-28-2006, 12:23 AM
Did anyone else here catch the news last week that MGM is planning on withdrawing from the deal (and I'm assuming taking back their control of the Hobbit film rights) if Peter Jackson isn't involved? I'll try posting a link tomorrow, but it seems as though MGM refuses to go ahead with production without Peter Jackson. It seems like New Line has tried using this as leverage against PJ in his lawsuit, and with MGM involved it's actually backfiring on them. I'm betting it takes a couple extra years, but all of this trouble will get smoothed over and we will eventually see Peter Jackson's The Hobbit.:thumbsup: I could even see New Line losing out on the deal, with PJ eventually doing the film for MGM.

...and here it goes:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/news/comments/?entryid=381433

Jedi_Master_Guyute
11-28-2006, 05:44 PM
and now the Sun is reporting that PJ is in fact DIRECTING The Hobbit.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2004580002-2006550342,00.html

Take this with a grain of salt. I'll believe it when PJ SAYS he's directing the film. still, gives me hope, Tycho style "false" hope. :thumbsup:

RooJay
11-29-2006, 12:41 AM
The fact that it's the sun reporting makes it suspect to begin with.;)

bigbarada
01-12-2007, 04:40 AM
According to an article I found on Yahoo, it seems that there is some dispute between Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema over LOTR profits, so he might not be allowed to be involved in the movie adaption of The Hobbit.

Here's the article with the full story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/eonline/20070111/en_movies_eo/d1f45be38812_4842_a8ba_17681258dea9

:( I'm not sure if I like the idea of them making The Hobbit without Jackson.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
01-12-2007, 09:52 AM
Merging this with "The Hobbit" thread. :thumbsup:

El Chuxter
01-12-2007, 10:11 AM
Maybe they should get Burton to direct?

Then it could star Jonny Depp and Pee Wee Herman!

Jedi_Master_Guyute
01-12-2007, 10:18 AM
I'd have to burst New Lines bubble, but a movie of "The hobbit" without the support of PJ and his people, will bomb, hard. MGM has stated that they want PJ on the project and since both MGM and New Line are involved in this discussion, this is far from over. With PJ, you'll get same love and respect of the material and not to mention that you have a better chance of McKellan and Holm to come back and reprise their characters. Banishing PJ would be one assinine mistake. So, yeah, this probably has no end in sight, sadly. :whip:

bigbarada
01-12-2007, 01:33 PM
The Hobbit kind of needs to be made soon if they plan to use Ian McKellan and Ian Holm, otherwise they are going to look too old compared to how they appeared at the beginning of Fellowship.

So if this gets delayed too long, then they'll have to start looking for new actors. Plus I think the two Ian's (not to mention Andy Serkis) would be more loyal to Peter Jackson than some New Line executive, so they would likely bow out of the project if Jackson gets banned.

Didn't Jackson also help create WETA? So would they be out of the project too?

:cry:

Jayspawn
01-12-2007, 04:04 PM
I dont know. Looks like PJ might be a one-film-wonder.

bigbarada
01-12-2007, 04:35 PM
I dont know. Looks like PJ might be a one-film-wonder.

Last time I checked wasn't LOTR three-films? Maybe he's just a one-saga wonder.

I wasn't really all that thrilled with King Kong, although my brother things it's just one of the best movies ever. He's thinks Peter Jackson could become the next George Lucas. I just say, "Let's hope not!" I like Peter Jackson too much to wish that upon him. lol

El Chuxter
01-12-2007, 04:40 PM
I think Peter Jackson is already the next George Lucas.

He has one incredible trilogy under his belt. And he's surrounded himself by sycophants and yes-men. Look at King Kong. It wasn't bad, but it needed some serious editing--maybe as much as a half hour. And, yet, no one seems to have said, "Uh, Peter, maybe releasing a longer version isn't a good idea."

If the circumstances surrounding King Kong and the extended cut of King Kong don't scream "Star Wars Prequels!" then I don't know what does.

Blue2th
01-12-2007, 05:20 PM
Well, for one thing though. If George Lucas would have done three hour episodes of the Prequels, we wouldn't have this shortage of characters to make action figures out of. We wouldn't have to make up one more clone from the Umpteenth Battalion :ninja:

Kidhuman
01-12-2007, 05:40 PM
I think Peter Jackson is already the next George Lucas.

He has one incredible trilogy under his belt. And he's surrounded himself by sycophants and yes-men. Look at King Kong. It wasn't bad, but it needed some serious editing--maybe as much as a half hour. And, yet, no one seems to have said, "Uh, Peter, maybe releasing a longer version isn't a good idea."

If the circumstances surrounding King Kong and the extended cut of King Kong don't scream "Star Wars Prequels!" then I don't know what does.


I concur with this statement totally. You took the words right off my keyboard. It was way too long, needed to be edited down by at least 30-45 minutes. What hey should have done was cut a bunch of s**t out and put in some other stuff if you wanted a 3 hour movie. I still wanna know how they got his fat a55 on the boat?

bigbarada
01-13-2007, 02:45 PM
I think Peter Jackson is already the next George Lucas.

He has one incredible trilogy under his belt. And he's surrounded himself by sycophants and yes-men. Look at King Kong. It wasn't bad, but it needed some serious editing--maybe as much as a half hour. And, yet, no one seems to have said, "Uh, Peter, maybe releasing a longer version isn't a good idea."

If the circumstances surrounding King Kong and the extended cut of King Kong don't scream "Star Wars Prequels!" then I don't know what does.

I watched King Kong for the first time on DVD, and I got a phone call about ten minutes into the movie and talked on the phone for over 45 minutes, when I got off the phone, I just continued watching the movie and it was like I hadn't missed anything. That entire first hour was completely unnecessary.

I couldn't really figure out what was up with the visual effects either. Were they supposed to look like crap? Was that an artistic choice? :confused: I'm talking mainly about the dinosaur stampede scene, it was comically bad.

So I was less than impressed with King Kong. Some great action sequences and some memorable scenes, not much of a story though.

Unfortunately, it seems that when directors experience a certain amount of success, they tend to just indulge their whims without really considering if it is a good idea.

Mad Slanted Powers
01-23-2007, 09:38 PM
I still like the 1976 version of King Kong.

Old Fossil
12-18-2007, 12:57 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071218/ap_en_ot/film_the_hobbit

Blue2th
12-18-2007, 01:12 PM
YES!!!!! Victory at last against the dark forces of New Line. Good thing MGM helped solve this conundrum by insisting PJ direct.
We don't need the Hobbit done like Beowulf or Aragon typical Hollywood style.

I noticed it will be a two-part movie. The longer the better. This tale needs to be told in great detail and love as only PJ can do.:thumbsup:

Jayspawn
12-18-2007, 01:24 PM
Just read about it -great news!

Let casting speculation begin!

DarthQuack
12-18-2007, 03:16 PM
See...I'm not sure how they can do two movies...according to comingsoon it's saying The Hobbit and a sequel....so I'm not sure how that's gonna work.

El Chuxter
12-18-2007, 04:35 PM
It looks to me like The Hobbit is going to be broken into two movies. That sounds like a good idea to me.

Ji'dai
12-18-2007, 04:50 PM
Welcome news indeed, though it says that Jackson will produce, not direct. Hopefully Ian McKellen will reprise his role as Gandalf. I don't think Ian Holm could pull off a younger Bilbo. 2010 seems so far away :sad:

Man, it feels weird just to type 2010.

General_Grievous
12-18-2007, 05:15 PM
Good news to me. I just hope Ian McKellen returns. You know, even if Ian Holm doesn't return as Bilbo, I say they cast James McAvoy (dude who played Mr. Tumnus in "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe") in the part.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
12-18-2007, 05:43 PM
Jackson not directing is kind of a major blow to the film, IMHO. The dude better have a serious say in how the film goes down or else it's gonna suck.

and basically if they don't get McKellen and Holms, I don't even bother. PJ needs to make sure this film goes down properly or he's going to **** off millions of fans.

I trust he'll have a voice in the casting/directing process too. Or at least, I hope.

still, GREAT NEWS though! :thumbsup:

TeeEye7
12-19-2007, 02:46 AM
Given Jackson's horsepower since LOTR, I think he will be a lot more hands-on in the process and have the ultimate say in the success of final product. I think his clout behind the scenes will be substantial.

If he's going to have his name on the product, I think he'll be mindful of the result and not let us (fans) down.

¡No te preocupes! (That's Elvish for "Don't worry!")

RooJay
12-19-2007, 05:54 AM
I've heard that Guillermo Del Toro is supposedly directing, though I cannot seem to find reliable confirmation of that anywhere. If true, I'd say that's pretty awesome!

Jedi_Master_Guyute
12-19-2007, 08:26 AM
Given Jackson's horsepower since LOTR, I think he will be a lot more hands-on in the process and have the ultimate say in the success of final product. I think his clout behind the scenes will be substantial.

If he's going to have his name on the product, I think he'll be mindful of the result and not let us (fans) down.

¡No te preocupes! (That's Elvish for "Don't worry!")

Really? That looks an awful lot like spanish! But I hope you're right!


I've heard that Guillermo Del Toro is supposedly directing, though I cannot seem to find reliable confirmation of that anywhere. If true, I'd say that's pretty awesome!

I'd say that'd be the best news ever. What's odd is that last night in my blog about the film, he was on a short list of people who could direct it; the other being Alfonso Cuaron and sam raimi, as he's expressed interest in the hobbit film. He needs to be kept on a short leash after the debacle of Spider-Man 3 though.

If Del Toro gets it, all my fears will be gone. :thumbsup:

Old Fossil
12-19-2007, 10:12 AM
I wish they could somehow convince Sean Connery to come out of retirement and play Thorin Oakenshield. He'd make for a very convincing hoary old Dwarven king-in-exile.

Qui-Long Gone
12-19-2007, 11:39 AM
What about Tommy Lee Jones as Oaken?

RooJay
12-20-2007, 01:08 AM
What about Tommy Lee Jones as Oaken?

I don't know...I think I'd have a bit of a problem with dwarf lords with down home southern drawls.

Mad Slanted Powers
12-20-2007, 02:03 AM
How about we get some real dwarfs this time? Actually, I guess real dwarfs are probably more hobbit sized, while the dwarves of Middle Earth are a bit taller.

Jargo
12-20-2007, 07:36 PM
Brian Blesed as a Dwarf. If they could slip him a little valium so he's not so loud. He even comes with his own beard. Robbie Coltrane, won't wear prosthetics but is already fat enough and scottish so no need for a fake accent or padding. John Goodman and George Wendt could probably manage it with voice coaching. They'll need an international cast to sell this thing. They should hire someone with an eastern european accent to voice Smaug. deep thick and treacley.
as for Bilbo, with CGI they can have anyone play the part and just have Ian Holm provide dialogue. slap a CGI mask of ian Holm's face over the other guy and poor old Ian wouldn't have to do any action stuff. Or suffer the feet.
As for who directs it doesn't really matter. Jackson is producing and will have a say in the creative process during pre-production and ongoing through the shoot. He's got half of middle earth in storage at Weta so if they use any of that armour and weaponary then they'll have access to the Warg props and the Bag End stuff. providing at least some continuity.
the big question for me is who's writing the script? And will Howard Shore be doing the score?

bigbarada
12-21-2007, 01:04 AM
I don't think Ian Holm could pull off a younger Bilbo.

If you remember at the beginning of FOTR, when Gandalf saw Bilbo again for the first time, he commented that Bilbo "Hadn't aged a day" since they last met. So the Bilbo in The Hobbit, should look the same as the Bilbo at the beginning of FOTR.

Blue2th
12-21-2007, 05:42 AM
McKellen will probably play Gandalf. The Wizard is already old in the story. A little less salt in the hair and some make-up, He's good to go.
We know Sirkis will play Gollum again.

As for who's writing it, or when it gets written, I read that is on hold because of the strike. I'm sure they'll get someone good eventually if they don't already have someone lined up unofficially, ready to work on it as soon as the strike ends.

bigbarada
12-25-2007, 11:42 PM
McKellen will probably play Gandalf. The Wizard is already old in the story. A little less salt in the hair and some make-up, He's good to go.
We know Sirkis will play Gollum again.

As for who's writing it, or when it gets written, I read that is on hold because of the strike. I'm sure they'll get someone good eventually if they don't already have someone lined up unofficially, ready to work on it as soon as the strike ends.

Are Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyen on strike? Or do they just not want to write it?

Blue2th
12-26-2007, 06:01 AM
Don't know, but there isn't a script written for it, and the producer(s) can't even approach any writers to start on it yet till the strike is over. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071218/jackson_hobbit_071218/20071218?hub=Entertainment

Maybe if they went the George Lucas way and got non-union people to work on it.
Most of us know how George got sued by the Writers Guild for something like putting the credits at the end of his OTC movies instead of at the beginning.

He filmed the last two SW films in Australia I do believe so he could use non union people ( maybe most but not all non-union?)
I remember reading how Gary Oldman was approached to do General Grievous' voice but turned it down because he didn't want to go against the Screen Actors Guild.
(please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this :) )

Jedi_Master_Guyute
01-11-2008, 04:27 PM
MTV interviewed Elijah Wood and he had some interesting blips:


Elijah Wood Wants To Go Back Again To ‘The Hobbit’
Attention Cate Blanchett, Viggo Mortensen, Orlando Bloom, and Sean Astin: You’ve gone “There.” Now get ready to go “Back Again” - at least according to Elijah Wood’s conversations with “Hobbit” maestro Peter Jackson.

“I haven’t spoken to him directly about it [but] I’ve e-mailed him, and as far as I know, the two films that they’re doing, one will be ‘The Hobbit’ and another will take place between the 60 years that happened between ‘The Hobbit’ and ‘The Lord of the Rings,’” the once and future Frodo enthused to MTV News, possibly confirming rumors that the second planned film would not be a Part II, but instead a narrative bridge.

Which means plenty of opportunities for all the stars of “LOTR” to reprise their famous characters in some capacity. None more so, perhaps, than Wood himself, who would arguably be a central figure along with Gandalf, Aragorn, Galadriel, and Gollum in any connecting story.

For his part, Wood is positively thrilled at the possibility.

“If I’m asked to go back and revisit that character and it makes sense, I would love to. I would absolutely love to,” he said.

True, hard-core Tolkien aficionados could tell you that not much is known about Frodo in the intervening years between “The Hobbit” and “LOTR,” excepting, of course, his parents’ deaths and some conversations and journeys with Bilbo which are alluded to in the later legendarium.

That makes it all the more a guarantee that Wood would return, he declared.

“Nothing was really written with Frodo involved in it. That was sort of an ancillary tale outside of ‘Lord of the Rings.’ I can’t imagine that they [Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens] would write great reams of information regarding my character,” he said of necessary invention outside of Tolkien’s established canon. “But if he [Frodo] should show up, it would actually be the perfect way to revisit because it could be small enough that I could go back and have a nice sort of reunion with the memories that I have of the experience.”

As an actor, Wood is excited about the possibility of returning with Jackson to the world of Middle-earth. But he’s even more excited, he said, as a fan.

“It’s a great triumph [that Peter is involved.] I think that’s really important that the same team that worked on the [earlier] films [work on “The Hobbit”], the same effects team, that it be shot in New Zealand. I think that it’s important that Ian McKellen is cast as Gandalf, just so that there’s a synergy between the films,” he insisted. “I think people want it to exist in the same world. So at least now we are assured that it will be done through that same lens, which is great. It’s exciting.”

Sounds pretty interesting and I kinda dig what this could be about.:thumbsup:

Kidhuman
01-11-2008, 07:50 PM
Sounds like it could be interesting. I am looking forward to the Hobbit, but the second one, the only thing I would question is age of the Characters. Gandalf is cool because they make him look alot older, but the other characters will show their ages.

General_Grievous
01-11-2008, 10:08 PM
I'd rather see a "Hobbit" movie alone. There's no need to go back to Frodo.

Jargo
01-13-2008, 09:43 AM
why do we need a narrative bridge? the hobbit is pretty self contained and the lord of the rings comes with a lengthy introduction explaining about the ages and different groups of characters. sounds like the two movies would be filmed back to back and the second one just used as a pure money spinner to reap profits on the back of the first.
I'd love to see the Hobbit made and add it to my DVD rack but the second movie sounds like a bad idea. If Christopher Tolkien is involved in the writing process it might make a difference though.

RooJay
01-13-2008, 07:19 PM
Sounds more like wishful thinking on Mr. Woods' part to me. Anyone familiar with the novels knows how difficult (read: impossible) it would be to work any action with Frodo into any kind of narrative bridge between Hobbit and Fellowship. They would have had to have rewritten the story for Fellowship previously in order to make that happen, which I can pretty much promise at this point just ain't gonna.

In fact, if I'm not mistaken Frodo was not even yet born during the story in The Hobbit. Having been born in 2968 of the third age (according to Tolkien's calendar) and Bilbo's journey to Erebor having previously happened twenty-seven years earlier in 2941 of the third age.

scruffziller
01-13-2008, 07:39 PM
I'd rather see a "Hobbit" movie alone. There's no need to go back to Frodo.

I agree, no need to water it down. I would opt for a 2 parter to tell the story of The Hobbit, as much could be shown.

El Chuxter
01-14-2008, 11:25 AM
I support this if it means the restoration of the true hero of Middle Earth, Tom Bombadillo. And he has to sing. A lot. He should be played by Tom Petty.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
01-28-2008, 01:06 PM
Del Toro to direct THE HOBBIT?!?!

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i331d7d05b8008476b2fae087024a2b8e

God, let this work out. :thumbsup:

RooJay
01-29-2008, 12:52 AM
Commencing nerdgasm...

General_Grievous
01-29-2008, 06:51 PM
That's what I'm TOLKIEN about!!!! :thumbsup:

(sorry...that was really lame :p)

Sure, it ain't Jackson, but it's the next best thing. Now all we need is Ian McKellen, Andy Serkis, Hugo Weaving and Ian Holm if he's up for it. If Holm declines to play Bilbo (which is possible...the dude's pushing 80), I'll say what I said before: James McAvoy would be an awesome Bilbo.

RooJay
01-29-2008, 07:19 PM
That's what I'm TOLKIEN about!!!! :thumbsup:

(sorry...that was really lame :p)

Sure, it ain't Jackson, but it's the next best thing. Now all we need is Ian McKellen, Andy Serkis, Hugo Weaving and Ian Holm if he's up for it. If Holm declines to play Bilbo (which is possible...the dude's pushing 80), I'll say what I said before: James McAvoy would be an awesome Bilbo.

He would be awesome, if not perhaps a little young for the role - let's not forget (rather - let's the director not forget) that Bilbo was already considered middle aged as far as Hobbits go when the story starts.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
02-11-2008, 08:07 PM
God f****** dammit.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080212/ap_en_mo/tolkien_lawsuit

I swear, New Line needs to stop being sketchy. This sucks and is probably gonna hurt the film. :upset::upset::upset::upset::upset:

General_Grievous
02-11-2008, 08:42 PM
I'm not worried. I strongly believe it'll still happen. My main concern is if it'll still be split into two movies. I mean, the book wasn't THAT long. I wouldn't mind seeing a three-hour "Hobbit" film in theaters and a four hour director's cut on DVD.

scruffziller
02-17-2008, 08:25 AM
It shows on IMDB.com that Del Torro is listed for the director and the first film is released in 2010 and The Hobbit 2 is released in 2011.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0868219/

AND!!!!

PJ is executive producing!!!!

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001392/

Jedi_Master_Guyute
02-17-2008, 08:46 AM
no offense Scruff, but I don't trust IMDB. I read an interview with Del Toro just a few days ago and he says they're still talking and figuring stuff out, etc.

Kidhuman
02-17-2008, 07:09 PM
I heard the same ting elsewhere. I cant rememer but DelToro is directing and PJ is exec. Prod because he is on other projects right now.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
02-17-2008, 08:30 PM
I heard the same ting elsewhere. I cant rememer but DelToro is directing and PJ is exec. Prod because he is on other projects right now.

That's been the plan all along, folks. Here is the interview with Del Toro that was posted on the 14th where he talks about how nothing is final yet.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/hobbitnews.php?id=42017

Kidhuman
07-18-2009, 01:44 PM
Well it looks like David Tennant of Dr Who fame is up for Bilbo

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/5849482/Doctor-Whos-David-Tennant-tipped-to-play-Bilbo-Baggins-in-The-Hobbit.html

Old Fossil
07-18-2009, 09:55 PM
YES!!! I AM PLEASED!:thumbsup:

Rocketboy
07-18-2009, 10:55 PM
Well it looks like David Tennant of Dr Who fame is up for Bilbo

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/5849482/Doctor-Whos-David-Tennant-tipped-to-play-Bilbo-Baggins-in-The-Hobbit.htmlSo is the guy from Wanted and Harry Potter. (http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/07/16/hobbit-casting-rumor-tennant-mcavoy-and-radcliffe-in-running-for-bilbo-baggins/)

But if the Tolkien family has anything to do about it there won't be yet another boring movie in this series. (http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/07/17/lawsuit-seeks-to-derail-the-hobbit-no-bilbo-casting-at-comic-con/)

Jedi_Master_Guyute
07-19-2009, 02:52 PM
Why not just get Ian Holm to do it?!?! That would it would flow with the scenes from the FOTR!! Unless I would have to buy a recut version of the EE. dammit.

Old Fossil
07-19-2009, 02:55 PM
Why not just get Ian Holm to do it?!?! That would it would flow with the scenes from the FOTR!! Unless I would have to buy a recut version of the EE. dammit.

He's 77... too old to play a middle-aged hobbit.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
05-31-2010, 07:21 AM
Del Toro has left "The Hobbit."

http://io9.com/5551446/the-hobbit-loses-director-guillermo-del-toro

Looks like the spat between MGM and New Line has delayed things for too long; they need to work this out ASAP. I want this movie, dammit!

Lord Malakite
07-06-2010, 06:33 AM
Looks like the spat between MGM and New Line has delayed things for too long; they need to work this out ASAP. I want this movie, dammit!
Looks like Power Rangers has, at least in part (http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/3886729/Movie-jobs-head-north-as-Hobbit-delays-continue), put this movie in even further danger of not being made. A good deal of the New Zealand production workers, such as costume designers, set painters, etc. are moving from Wellington to Auckland to work on Power Rangers at less pay due to the continuity/stability of being offered 3 year contracts.

jonthejedi
07-10-2010, 05:03 AM
I think I read online that Peter Jackson is in EARLY negotiations, now, to direct himself.

Jayspawn
07-10-2010, 09:59 AM
At this point, it's the only way the movie will get made. Would be better if he just did it himself. Jackson needs another hit anyway.

El Chuxter
10-21-2010, 10:07 PM
It appears that John Rhys Davies will not be playing Gloin.

Everyone out of the pool. Even though he was offered the role and declined it, I will, for reasons illogical, blame Peter Jackson and refuse to see this movie until he sends me a coupone for half off a Snickers bar to make up for this.

Mr. JabbaJohnL
10-21-2010, 10:48 PM
It appears that John Rhys Davies will not be playing Gloin.

Everyone out of the pool. Even though he was offered the role and declined it, I will, for reasons illogical, blame Peter Jackson and refuse to see this movie until he sends me a coupone for half off a Snickers bar to make up for this.
Huh? Why do Gimli and Gloin have to be played by the same guy?

Mad Slanted Powers
10-21-2010, 11:18 PM
Huh? Why do Gimli and Gloin have to be played by the same guy?

Perhaps it's not so much that it is the same guy, but that the movie would be better with him in it. It's Sallah for cryin' out loud!

El Chuxter
10-22-2010, 12:50 AM
IIRC, Gloin was played by Davies in a brief cameo somewhere in Fellowship of the Ring.

Lord Malakite
10-22-2010, 03:19 AM
Huh? Why do Gimli and Gloin have to be played by the same guy?
You know, I just noticed something. Its a good thing The Hobbit isn't Japanese in origin. Because then the letter L would make the same sound as the letter R.:p

RooJay
10-22-2010, 03:24 AM
I don't blame the guy. What with the reports that he'd suffered a terrible allergic reaction to the make-up pretty much his entire time filming the LOTR trilogy.

jonthejedi
10-22-2010, 04:23 AM
I just got a flash email from Sideshow that The Hobbitt is officially in production...why no big "to the general public" announcements??

Mr. JabbaJohnL
10-22-2010, 09:57 AM
I just got a flash email from Sideshow that The Hobbitt is officially in production...why no big "to the general public" announcements??
It's not technically "in production," even if they think it is. Peter Jackson said the film will start shooting in February, and he recently declined to shoot in New Zealand anymore due to all the trouble and union issues there. Which means that they'll need to redo all the pre-production work and find a new country in the span of a little over three months. It's looking doubtful.

EDIT: They mentioned the cast today, so who knows?

Rocketboy
10-22-2010, 10:13 AM
With all these casting and location woes they should just scrap the whole thing.

While they're at it, they should go back in time and stop the productions of the other ones and spend that money on something entertaining.

Blue2th
10-22-2010, 10:27 AM
Casting news:

Warner Bros. just released the following press release, confirming Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins and revealing a slew of other actors:

Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Rob Kazinsky, Aidan Turner, Graham McTavish, John Callen, Stephen Hunter, Mark Hadlow and Peter Hambleton have joined the ensemble cast of the The Hobbit, it was jointly announced today by Toby Emmerich, President and Chief Operating Officer, New Line Cinema; Alan Horn, President and Chief Operating Officer, Warner Bros.; Steve Cooper, co-Chief Executive Officer of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc., and Peter Jackson.

Since The Hobbit films received a green light on October 15, pre-production has been in full swing. Set for release in December, 2012 and December, 2013, we can confirm that Martin Freeman (The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Hot Fuzz) will play Bilbo Baggins, the hero of the story. Richard Armitage (UK TV's MI-5 and soon to appear in Captain America: The First Avenger) is set to play Thorin Oakenshield, the leader of the Company of Dwarves which sets off to reclaim the Lonely Mountain from a thieving dragon.

"Despite the various rumours and speculation surrounding this role, there has only ever been one Bilbo Baggins for us,” says Peter Jackson. “There are a few times in your career when you come across an actor who you know was born to play a role, but that was the case as soon as I met Martin. He is intelligent, funny, surprising and brave - exactly like Bilbo and I feel incredibly proud to be able to announce that he is our Hobbit.”

He adds “Richard is one of the most exciting and dynamic actors working on screen today and we know he is going to make an amazing Thorin Oakensheild. We cannot wait to start this adventure with him and feel very lucky that one of the most beloved characters in Middle-earth is in such good hands."

Rounding out the Company of Dwarves are Aidan Turner (TV's Being Human) and Rob Kazinsky (TVs EastEnders) who play Kili and Fili, respectively. Jackson comments "Rob is an extremely talented young actor with a huge career in front of him, I'm thrilled that he has agreed to take on the role of Fili. Besides his talent as an actor, Rob is also a champion sword fighter; I'm looking forward to seeing the damage he can do to a horde of marauding Goblins!" He continues, "Adian is a wonderfully gifted young actor who hails from Ireland. I'm sure he will bring enormous heart and humor to the role of Kili."

The remaining dwarves will be played by Graham McTavish (Secretariat and TV's 24) as Dwalin; John Callen (TV's Power Rangers Jungle Fury) as Oin; Stephen Hunter (TV's All Saints) as Bombur; Mark Hadlow (King Kong) as Dori; and Peter Hambleton (TV's The Strip) as Gloin.

Jackson notes, "Graham is a terrific actor, with a great depth of experience, which I know he will bring to the role of "Dwalin. I have worked with Mark Hadlow on many projects; he is a fantastic actor. I am thrilled to be working with both of them on these movies. He adds, "I am also proud to announce the casting of New Zealand actors as Peter Hambleton, John Callen and Stephen Hunter. Fran and I know that they will bring great depth and talent to our Company of Dwarves."

The two The Hobbit films are being co-produced by New Line Cinema and MGM, with New Line managing production, Warner Bros Pictures handling domestic distribution and MGM distributing internationally. Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Carolynne Cunningham are producing the films, with Phillipa Boyens serving as co-producer and Ken Kamins as executive producer.

The Oscar-winning, critically acclaimed LOTR trilogy, also from the production team of Jackson, Walsh and Cunningham, grossed nearly $3 billion worldwide at the box office. In 2003, “Return of the King” swept the Academy Awards, winning all of the 11 categories in which it was nominated, including Best Picture - the first ever Best Picture win for a fantasy film. The trilogy's production was also unprecedented at the time.

_________________

Lord Malakite
10-23-2010, 11:51 PM
The remaining dwarves will be played by Graham McTavish (Secretariat and TV's 24) as Dwalin; John Callen (TV's Power Rangers Jungle Fury) as Oin; Stephen Hunter (TV's All Saints) as Bombur; Mark Hadlow (King Kong) as Dori; and Peter Hambleton (TV's The Strip) as Gloin.
John Callen. I think he was the voice actor for the monster Sonimax.

jonthejedi
10-25-2010, 04:00 AM
Now add labor union problems to the slate of delays. Looks like Eastern Europe & not New Zealand will be the filming locale. Personally, I thought New Zealand was like another character in the LOTR trilogy. It would be a huge mistake not to return there.

Blue2th
10-25-2010, 10:25 AM
Yeah it's too bad NZ isn't the place they'll be filming, but if you think about it, other than the trip to Rivendell everything else takes place in different surroundings. Eastern Europe has a lot of neat unspoiled places and old growth forrests. I would think that NZ wouldn't even have the kind of creepy old forrest like Mirkwood.
I was surprised that many of the places in LOTR looked a lot like Colorado and western US more than the foggy English countryside I envisioned while reading the books. There's a lot of story in the Hobbit before they even get to the Misty Mountains that involves different terrain. Though a lot of it is covered well in LOTR, I think it could be done better.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
10-25-2010, 01:19 PM
I didn't think they had said anything official yet about NZ? I do hope they stay in NZ, but like said above, there are plenty of beautiful locales in EU that could work and I'm sure PJ will try to stay true to the look of the films as possible.

Blue2th
10-27-2010, 11:26 AM
I guess PJ and NZ worked it out. That's cool: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-27/-hobbit-to-be-filmed-in-new-zealand-after-warner-premier-key-strike-deal.html

bigbarada
10-27-2010, 01:34 PM
As long as the look of Hobbiton stays consistent within all the movies, then I could care less where they film it. It's been over a decade since I've read The Hobbit, but if I remember correctly that's the only major shared location between that book and LOTR.

Mad Slanted Powers
10-27-2010, 06:29 PM
As long as the look of Hobbiton stays consistent within all the movies, then I could care less where they film it. It's been over a decade since I've read The Hobbit, but if I remember correctly that's the only major shared location between that book and LOTR.

I believe they stopped in Rivendell. That would be another shared location.

Blue2th
10-31-2010, 11:59 PM
I was watching PBS's Masterpiece Mysteries "Sherlock" a new series with the hero and his sidekick in modern days. Actually pretty good.
Anyways Martin Freeman is John Watson (Dr. Watson)

He is definitely not as fresh faced young as Elijah Wood's Frodo, but middle aged like I believe Bilbo Baggins was. (it's been a while since I read the Hobbit)

I can see why Peter Jackson picked him.

Qui-Long Gone
11-24-2010, 02:42 PM
I believe they stopped in Rivendell. That would be another shared location.

And the spot near the Trollshaws where the Fellowship see's Bilbo's Trolls....

Phantom-like Menace
12-10-2010, 12:44 AM
Galadriel and Legolas in The Hobbit (http://blog.movies.yahoo.com/blog/256-the-hobbit-is-making-room-for-some-lord-of-the-rings-characters)

Apparently Jackson is sliding these two into the movie. I've got no problem with it. I'm sure if Tolkien had written The Hobbit after The Lord of the Rings, he probably would have put some LotR characters into the Hobbit too. I'd be really surprised if a lot of characters from the trilogy don't at least cameo or if some of the actors aren't involved in other ways, maybe playing other characters.

There's just no way Jackson isn't going to make significant changes to The Hobbit. It was straight up written as a children's story! I not only expect them but embrace them.

El Chuxter
12-10-2010, 12:56 AM
Well, Legolas is immortal, and I believe he's in Mirkwood, where there are a lot of elves seen, but never named. I half expected one of them to be retconned to be Legolas.

Phantom-like Menace
12-10-2010, 02:55 AM
Thranduil, the king of the Mirkwood Elves is Legolas' father, so it would seem weirder for him not to be there than to be there as far as I'm concerned.

RooJay
12-10-2010, 06:11 AM
THe Hobbit makes mention of several unnamed 'Princes of Mirkwood.' It's not much of a stretch to think Legolas may have been one of those present.

Blue2th
12-10-2010, 03:35 PM
It'll be interesting to see the elves of Mirkwood. They were kinda mean to the Hobbit and Dwarves. Agreed that's probably where we'll see Legolas.

I wonder where Cate Blanchett as Galadriel fits in? She's reprising her role too. I don't remember her in the Hobbit. Maybe the second half of the two part series?

RooJay
12-11-2010, 03:47 AM
Word is that the film will include the story of The White Council's battle with The Necromancer (who turned out to be Sauron) at Dol Goldur in Mirkwood.

The White Council was made up of Saruman (before he turned all evil and junk) Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, and Cirdan (bearer of the ring of fire and the guy whose ship bore Frodo and Bilbo away from the Grey Havens at the end of ROTK.) It's possible that other members may have included Radagast the Brown, elf warrior Glorfindel (whose role in the film trilogy was taken up by Arwen - in the book it was him who saved Frodo from the Ringwraiths, after Frodo was stabbed by the Morgul blade) Legolas' father, Thranduil, and Galadriel's husband, Celeborn.

Maradona
12-12-2010, 04:47 PM
Since so many liberties are being taken with the text, I wonder if, along with Radaghast the Brown, the other two of the five Istari will make an appearance (other than Saruman and Gandalf), maybe at least as a reference. Tolkien barely mentions the other two at all within the breadth of his work, but there were two more and, if I remember correctly, they were of two different shades of blue.

RooJay
12-14-2010, 02:38 AM
They are both blue, but I seem to recall Tolkien having mentioned that they were nowhere near the action that takes place during the LOTR trilogy. I'm pretty sure they were said to have been traveling far east of Mordor.

Phantom-like Menace
12-14-2010, 02:59 AM
The Blue Wizards, Alatar and Pallando (depending on sources) were--as RooJay said--involved in events off to the East of the famous map we always see of Middle Earth. All we know of what Tolkien said of them is that they most likely weren't successful in their activities. I vaguely seem to recall Tolkien somewhere saying he believed they may have done things even as important as Gandalf did in their areas of operation . . . but I can't find anywhere to confirm I'm not just making that up. Of course Tolkien changed things so much I may be thinking of an earlier version of their story.

I'd be really surprised if we saw anything of them, but it would be cool to see Radagast.

Qui-Long Gone
12-14-2010, 09:38 AM
I'm cool with any additions to this film. I'm tired of filmmakers attempting scene for scene film versions of books. Books and films are apples and oranges. I LOVED the Two Towers mostly because it kept the spirit of the books but went in it's own direction. I hope the Hobbit starts the same way Fellowship started, with a 5-8 minute pre-history montage of Middle Earth mythos. Then we could see most of the wizzards, elves, and pre-Gondor humans. Plus, I want to see alot of Smaug!!!!!!!

JediTricks
12-18-2012, 02:59 PM
Saw "An Unexpected Journey" last night in 2d, 24fps, and really enjoyed it. I had begun to worry after a week of conflicting reviews and a lot of talk about the 48fps "High Frame Rate/HFR" not looking good - I hate looking at HFR on 120hz tvs so I couldn't imagine seeing it 2d that way on the big screen (although I have heard it makes the 3D look much better, so I'm considering going back for 3D HFR).

The beginning of the film takes a long time to get going, and the stuff with Ian Holm and Elijah Wood introducing it via a scene set a few hours prior to "Fellowship of the Ring" really did nothing for me whatsoever. Hobbiton itself looked a bit flatter than before. It's been decades since I read "The Hobbit" and it wasn't until the Dwarves sing of what Bilbo Baggins hates that I got reminded. The focus on Thorin as a heroic character wasn't a bad choice, I get that he wasn't a great fellow and the task at hand wasn't noble in the book, but for cinematic use I think it was vital. Bilbo unfortunately is left taking a back seat more often though, he loses focus as the protagonist and some moments feel like he's just being dragged behind a cart rather than making his own choices.

The film puts more focus on action than on character building and while it's not a detriment, I found wanting more time with Bilbo fooling the mountain trolls and playing riddles with Gollum, more time in Rivendale, more time with the Dwarves as individuals and less time fighting, fighting, fighting. That said, it's still epic, it's still engaging, there are still character moments, still awe-inspiring elements that take your breath away.

And then there's Gandalf the Grey, who it couldn't be more of a pleasure to spend time with. Had Peter Jackson chosen to film every single nanosecond of this character's story from the book I would have sat through it no matter how long. Ian McKellen brings a twinkle to life, a wizardly element even when helpless, a humor where none should be obvious, and so much more to this part.

I can see why it's not as inspiring as LOTR, but this movie works on its own quite well and hit the right notes for me.

Maradona
12-18-2012, 07:44 PM
I loved the film. My screening of it was the IMAX 3D, which I later found out was not the 48fps - I think I'll see it again in 48fps to see if I detect any difference. After the showing, I saw a few people with posters, so I went to customer service to inquire and was given a four-print set that was given out the night before at the midnight showing.

The film had everything I wanted it to have. I was not bothered by the omission of Cirdan the Shipwright in the White Council, since he really wasn't necessary to it. That was the only scene I really hoped might be a bit longer, but it did what the story needed for it to do. I'm glad the eagles did not speak as they do in the book. I clapped loudly when Gandalf found Glamdring, a replica of which hangs on my wall (my car's license plate is Shadowfax). Every scrap of dialogue that Ian Mckellan delivers rings with such a genuine truth that I defy any audience member not to follow whatever instruction he gives. I can't wait to see how his confrontation with the Necromancer goes down.

I truly hope that each of these films hits the billion dollar mark so that the Tolkien estate seriously considers adapting The Silmarillion to the screen. That text could easily make five films, given the ground that is covered.

bigbarada
12-19-2012, 03:55 AM
I went back and watched the movie again for the second time on Sunday and I loved it even more. Like I mentioned in another thread, if I was forced to nitpick about anything it would be that some of the dwarfs don't look dwarfish enough, especially Thorin. However, I do understand the need for the audience to be able to distinguish between them all; but my favorite dwarfs from the film were the ones that fit the archetype the closest.

I agree with JT, that the opening scenes with Bilbo and Frodo felt unnecessary, but I was fine with them overall.

Bilbo, Gandalf and Gollum were just perfect on every level in the movie. I also really liked the Pale Orc. Plus the voices used for the Trolls and the Goblin King were pretty much exactly the way I imagined them in the books.

Our theater isn't really that hi-tech, so I didn't get to see the film in 48 fps or 3D. I think the complaints about the high frame rate might just be because audiences aren't accustomed to it yet. The human eyes can detect up to 60 frames per second, so 48 fps is still well below what our eyes see everyday. I remember reading about similar complaints when video tapes started to replace film. Video tapes have a 29.97 frame rate and audiences were initially disturbed by that, since they were used to 24 fps.

Also, I'm actually kind of confused on the sequel situation here. Is there going to be one more Hobbit movie or two more?

JediTricks
12-19-2012, 02:59 PM
I loved the film. My screening of it was the IMAX 3D, which I later found out was not the 48fps - I think I'll see it again in 48fps to see if I detect any difference. After the showing, I saw a few people with posters, so I went to customer service to inquire and was given a four-print set that was given out the night before at the midnight showing.

The film had everything I wanted it to have. I was not bothered by the omission of Cirdan the Shipwright in the White Council, since he really wasn't necessary to it. That was the only scene I really hoped might be a bit longer, but it did what the story needed for it to do. I'm glad the eagles did not speak as they do in the book. I clapped loudly when Gandalf found Glamdring, a replica of which hangs on my wall (my car's license plate is Shadowfax). Every scrap of dialogue that Ian Mckellan delivers rings with such a genuine truth that I defy any audience member not to follow whatever instruction he gives. I can't wait to see how his confrontation with the Necromancer goes down.

I truly hope that each of these films hits the billion dollar mark so that the Tolkien estate seriously considers adapting The Silmarillion to the screen. That text could easily make five films, given the ground that is covered. Thanks for the intel on Imax 3d, will be trying hfr next time I see it so I'll avoid Imax. Let us know what you think if you see the hfr.

The white council scene I think couldn't have stayed too much longer unless they had intercut with a scene with the dwarves and Bilbo, as it would be to much talking about things we won't be seeing.

I didn't realize you were such a fan! I am not anywhere near that but I did set up all my 1:6 LOTR figures on my dining table along with my master replicas fx light up Sting, which I wanted to bring had I made time to do a midnight showing.

I fear the film doesn't have the legs to make that pace. I thought the estate was super mad about WB licensing beyond approval for stuffs like the LOTR Lego game.


I went back and watched the movie again for the second time on Sunday and I loved it even more. Like I mentioned in another thread, if I was forced to nitpick about anything it would be that some of the dwarfs don't look dwarfish enough, especially Thorin. However, I do understand the need for the audience to be able to distinguish between them all; but my favorite dwarfs from the film were the ones that fit the archetype the closest.

I agree with JT, that the opening scenes with Bilbo and Frodo felt unnecessary, but I was fine with them overall.

Bilbo, Gandalf and Gollum were just perfect on every level in the movie. I also really liked the Pale Orc. Plus the voices used for the Trolls and the Goblin King were pretty much exactly the way I imagined them in the books.

Our theater isn't really that hi-tech, so I didn't get to see the film in 48 fps or 3D. I think the complaints about the high frame rate might just be because audiences aren't accustomed to it yet. The human eyes can detect up to 60 frames per second, so 48 fps is still well below what our eyes see everyday. I remember reading about similar complaints when video tapes started to replace film. Video tapes have a 29.97 frame rate and audiences were initially disturbed by that, since they were used to 24 fps.

Also, I'm actually kind of confused on the sequel situation here. Is there going to be one more Hobbit movie or two more?I think Thorin looking not so dwarf like was reasonable, but it'd the closest thing I have to a concern. The others I think look right and yet still distinguishable from each other, but I don't have a favorite so maybe I'm not paying enough attention. ;)

Audiences have hated the video tape look for 50 years now, it's not that they aren't used to it, they are now, it's still considered an unappealing look, overly fluid, like an undercranked movie. I see people complaining about it to this day, and most '60s and '70s shoes shot on video are treated with disdain for that look today.

There was going to be only 1 more movie, but they have so much content shot that it's now 2 more movies: next December and then July 2014.

bigbarada
12-20-2012, 05:43 PM
I'm glad the eagles did not speak as they do in the book.

That's something that I've been thinking about since the first LOTR movie. In one way, I kind of wish that they did speak so that audiences would realize that they are a sentient race of beings right alongside elves, dwarfs, hobbits, humans, etc.; but that's a tricky thing to make work in a movie, since birds' beaks are too rigid and can't move in the same way as a human mouth. So, trying to have the eagles' beaks move like lips would be Fakey McFakerson as soon as they uttered their first word. The other option would be to have sort of a "telepathic" speech, where their mouths don't move but you hear their voices. However, then you'd have the question of, "Does everyone hear them or does only Gandalf hear them?" So, I guess it's best to not allow the pacing of the movie to grind to a halt over such a minor detail and keep the eagle's speech out of the film.

Of course, there are still two movies to go. They might speak after all.



I think Thorin looking not so dwarf like was reasonable, but it'd the closest thing I have to a concern. The others I think look right and yet still distinguishable from each other, but I don't have a favorite so maybe I'm not paying enough attention. ;)

Audiences have hated the video tape look for 50 years now, it's not that they aren't used to it, they are now, it's still considered an unappealing look, overly fluid, like an undercranked movie. I see people complaining about it to this day, and most '60s and '70s shoes shot on video are treated with disdain for that look today.

There was going to be only 1 more movie, but they have so much content shot that it's now 2 more movies: next December and then July 2014.

I see what you are saying about the videotape. I remember hearing about all of those "lost" episodes of The Twilight Zone that were rarely shown because they were filmed on videotape and audience hated the look.

I'd still be interested in seeing the movie at 48fps.

I'm glad to hear about the 2 sequels. Especially since it's a case of "we have too much material for only 2 movies, so we are making three movies." Which is far preferable to "we only have enough story for one movie, but we're going to stretch it out into a trilogy so we can triple our ticket sales."

Bel-Cam Jos
12-20-2012, 09:07 PM
I liked it, but it was hard to follow some of the quick camera pans (I saw the "regular" non-3D version). I was the only one in the theater who LOL'd at various funny parts. Didn't see Stephen Colbert in it anywhere, nor in the credits; but I did notice a couple "Wilhelm scream" effects when army hordes plunged down.

Lord Malakite
12-21-2012, 01:43 PM
That's something that I've been thinking about since the first LOTR movie. In one way, I kind of wish that they did speak so that audiences would realize that they are a sentient race of beings right alongside elves, dwarfs, hobbits, humans, etc.; but that's a tricky thing to make work in a movie, since birds' beaks are too rigid and can't move in the same way as a human mouth. So, trying to have the eagles' beaks move like lips would be Fakey McFakerson as soon as they uttered their first word. The other option would be to have sort of a "telepathic" speech, where their mouths don't move but you hear their voices. However, then you'd have the question of, "Does everyone hear them or does only Gandalf hear them?" So, I guess it's best to not allow the pacing of the movie to grind to a halt over such a minor detail and keep the eagle's speech out of the film.
Or you could just go the route of having them speak, but do it as a behind the head shot so you don't actually see the beaks move. Its a bit on the cheap side to do it that way, but it seems like that be the most feasible way to do it without it looking silly fake or going into some convoluted tangent of an explanation about them being psychic and which characters can or can't hear them. Sometimes less is more.

bigbarada
12-21-2012, 03:01 PM
Or you could just go the route of having them speak, but do it as a behind the head shot so you don't actually see the beaks move. Its a bit on the cheap side to do it that way, but it seems like that be the most feasible way to do it without it looking silly fake or going into some convoluted tangent of an explanation about them being psychic and which characters can or can't hear them. Sometimes less is more.

I'm not sure something like that would fly these days, especially with the cost of movie tickets reaching an all time high. I think the bar for special effects has been set way too high for audiences to accept hiding a character's mouth from the camera while that character is speaking. In fact, that might actually be more jarring to the flow of storytelling than fake, CG "beak-lips."

Maradona
01-08-2013, 08:46 PM
Getting closer to the coveted billion dollar mark: http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hobbit.htm

It just might make it. I saw the film again in 48fps and noticed a discernible difference. Can barely wait for the next part.

bigbarada
01-09-2013, 03:20 AM
$827 million. Nice!

I really want this movie to do well financially, because I don't want the studios to start second-guessing Peter Jackson for the next two films.

JediTricks
01-09-2013, 02:18 PM
That's something that I've been thinking about since the first LOTR movie. In one way, I kind of wish that they did speak so that audiences would realize that they are a sentient race of beings right alongside elves, dwarfs, hobbits, humans, etc.; but that's a tricky thing to make work in a movie, since birds' beaks are too rigid and can't move in the same way as a human mouth. So, trying to have the eagles' beaks move like lips would be Fakey McFakerson as soon as they uttered their first word. The other option would be to have sort of a "telepathic" speech, where their mouths don't move but you hear their voices. However, then you'd have the question of, "Does everyone hear them or does only Gandalf hear them?" So, I guess it's best to not allow the pacing of the movie to grind to a halt over such a minor detail and keep the eagle's speech out of the film.

Of course, there are still two movies to go. They might speak after all.I think their actions are strong enough to convey that they're sentient, but parrots talk and they don't need fake lips to do so (I can't speak to parrot telepathy ;)). Still, they talk to Bilbo in the book so honestly, it seems like is has to be all or nothing on this. If they're doing a talking dragon, and they are, then there's room for talking giant eagles, but the LOTR films' precedent says to stay mute for cinema.


I see what you are saying about the videotape. I remember hearing about all of those "lost" episodes of The Twilight Zone that were rarely shown because they were filmed on videotape and audience hated the look.

I'd still be interested in seeing the movie at 48fps.I forgot about the not-really-lost-but-nobody-will-air-them Twilight Zones, they are very hard to watch, there were a few during marathon last year which I caught and had to look away from quickly.

I recently watched the first episode of Sherlock and it looks like a higher framerate, and I hated it whenever it caught my eye. It exaggerates small motions to make them look unnatural, nobody moves their arms that much when they walk slowly, that sort of thing, it looks like undercranked old timey movies.

All that said, I am somewhat interested in seeing it HFR in 3D.



I liked it, but it was hard to follow some of the quick camera pans (I saw the "regular" non-3D version). I was the only one in the theater who LOL'd at various funny parts. Didn't see Stephen Colbert in it anywhere, nor in the credits; but I did notice a couple "Wilhelm scream" effects when army hordes plunged down.I also was the only one in our theater laughing at certain parts, I'm not sure what that was about, it's like audiences treat this stuff as reverence or aren't engaged or something. I forgot to look for Colbert, but now I want to see his cameo. I also heard at least 1 Wilhelm and laughed despite it being a big action moment.



Getting closer to the coveted billion dollar mark: http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hobbit.htm

It just might make it. I saw the film again in 48fps and noticed a discernible difference. Can barely wait for the next part.Was the difference a negative or positive one for you?

Maradona
01-22-2013, 10:21 AM
I thought the film was exceedingly clear in 48fps and that was positive. I won't say the film was better or worse for it, just even more realistic.

As of this weekend, The Hobbit reached $920million worldwide. $1billion is within reach and considering that the battle with Smaug is in the next and the Battle of Five Armies is in the last one, giving each of the following films substantially more action, and thereby potential audience, than this one, the billion dollar mark seems reasonable for each of the three.

Maradona
03-04-2013, 12:51 PM
It hit a billion!

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hobbit.htm

JediTricks
03-04-2013, 07:23 PM
That's crazy, seems like its heat really died fast, surprised to hear it made it. Took over a month to get that last $80 mil though.

bigbarada
03-04-2013, 09:15 PM
I'm very glad to see that it finally made a billion. That's awesome news.

I think it's humorous that some critics have called the movie a flop because it didn't hit the $1 billion mark within just a couple of months. It's kind of funny what the standard for cinematic success is these days.

I believe financial expectations were simply too high for The Hobbit, similar to how people were claiming that Episode 1 would sell $1 billion worth of tickets in the US alone. The difference, of course, being that The Hobbit is a great movie.

In any case, I'm glad the movie is successful only because I don't want the studios to start second-guessing Peter Jackson when it comes to making the next two films.

JediTricks
03-05-2013, 04:13 PM
Well, the movie did cost a large fortune to make, and probably cost a lot to market as well, and then those costs are tripled when taking into account 2 more movies that each will need the same, so the metric the critics are using probably involves applying that timeline to trending for the future movies. It also doesn't help that it's doing less sales than LOTR:ROTK. But a flop? No.

Maradona
03-05-2013, 08:41 PM
The only flop was the toyline, which is not as bad as it could have been (I recently bought a few pieces on super clearance and they aren't wholly awful), but is certainly not what the Toy Biz line was.

bigbarada
03-05-2013, 09:10 PM
The only flop was the toyline, which is not as bad as it could have been (I recently bought a few pieces on super clearance and they aren't wholly awful), but is certainly not what the Toy Biz line was.

I don't know why they picked that company to handle the Hobbit toys. Those figures were just one step above "tourist trap" gift-shop quality. Not even close to the level of detail that we saw in the ROTK line. Very disappointing.

JediTricks
03-09-2013, 05:47 PM
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that The Bridge Direct got the license simply by wanting it and having enough investors to throw the most money and the right resources at Warner Bros. I notice that The Bridge now has the Looney Toons Show and Annoying Orange licenses as well.

Snowtrooper
04-11-2013, 05:43 PM
Well, I finally got around to seeing this last night on Blu-Ray. I ended up enjoying it more than I thought I would. I had heard that it was "long winded", so I never went to the theater to see it. Except for maybe the first part, it really wasn't that at all. I think it had a nice balance. It was nice seeing some of the old characters, especially Gandalf of course. I've never read the book, but I like how they included the ring in this story. I'll be looking forward to the next two.

JediTricks
04-12-2013, 08:54 PM
Even seeing your post saying "long winded" felt like a shock, the movie is long but I didn't get any longwindedness from it, it's much more an adventure than the LOTR films were. Not a ton of big speeches and moments. The beginning does take WAY too long though.

Snowtrooper
04-12-2013, 11:34 PM
It was a term that a few movie critics used. They were definitely wrong. I hope the other movies continue with the "adventure" tone that this one had. My daughter enjoyed it so much that she started reading the book the next day.

JediTricks
04-13-2013, 02:46 PM
It was a term that a few movie critics used. They were definitely wrong. I hope the other movies continue with the "adventure" tone that this one had. My daughter enjoyed it so much that she started reading the book the next day.Sounds to me like critics using that term were gauging it based on preconceived notions from the LOTR movies rather than what this movie actually was.

Glad to hear your daughter liked it that much. The Hobbit was a easy enough book for me to get into as a kid, never could break through the LOTR books though, they'd just keep losing me early into the first one, too dense, too much info-dumping in a very specific style.

Snowtrooper
04-13-2013, 03:14 PM
Its probably true. I have to admit that I had the same preconceived notions that kept me from going to see it in the theaters. I saw all the LOTR movies in the theaters but felt like ROTK kinda drug on too long and could have been wrapped up alot quicker. When I read "long winded" on some of the reviews, it turned me off and I decided to wait for the DVD release.

JediTricks
04-13-2013, 03:36 PM
For me, ROTK the theatrical cut was the worst experience of that trio, but not due to longwindedness, just having no real emotional core and no major drama the way the previous 2 did. The extended cut changed that considerably, but did feel like it had longwindedness I suppose.

It's too bad those reviews kept you out of the theaters. On the other hand, a movie this long, maybe staying home and having an intermission isn't a bad thing. ;)

Snowtrooper
04-14-2013, 10:41 PM
I should know better by now than to listen to some stuffy critics. But they still get to me every now and then. They sometimes have legitimate gripes about movies, but they usually have an elitist attitude that the average person can't relate to.

One mark of a good movie is when you don't realize how much time has passed. My daughter and I watched the whole thing straight through and didn't know 2 plus hours had passed.

So the extended cut of ROTK made it alot better? I would've thought the opposite. I'm curious enough that I might borrow my brothers dvd to see for myself.

JediTricks
04-15-2013, 02:41 PM
Criticism is a mix of objective and subjective expressions, so it's very easy to get haughty when one gets wrapped up in objective superiority. One can argue "the camerawork is not expressive" and get that correct statement puffing up the ego of "I found this part boring" translating into "this was definitely longwinded". I find that a mix of reviews generally finds common truths from professional cinema critics, but that they tire too easily of "just entertainment" movies. Human nature, I suppose. Roger Ebert was IMO the best at seeing through the elitism that came from that, and even he was quite guilty of those mistakes at times.

That's great to hear you guys went through it and didn't notice the passage of time.

I don't know if I can say "a lot better" objectively, so I'll describe briefly how I felt with it in both scenarios:

ROTK theatrical cut lacked dramatic content for everybody except Frodo and Samwise. Gimli and Legolas' bits were repetitive of prior movies, mostly fighting and jibing while fighting, they felt shallow and wasted. Aragorn and Gandalf's scenes feel rote and lack impact. A few characters we knew pretty well in prior get cast aside, Pippin gets the short shrift and Sauruman even worse. The focus on Frodo's miserable final journey feels overwhelming.

ROTK extended cut had more for Aragorn, Saruman, and Pippin, a better balance in the battle to make the turning of tides better, the mouth of Sauron which never should have been cut in the original because it ties the non-Frodo stuff together far better. Gimli and Legolas get a little more to do and a little more weight to their drama, but still are on the short end. The film is more engaging but definitely is long enough that you need that mid-film disc break for an intermission.

Bottom line, when ROTK won the oscar I was surprised and felt like it won on the backs of better films. When I saw the extended cut, I no longer felt that way.

Snowtrooper
04-16-2013, 11:24 AM
I like to read what both critic's review and audience's reviews have to say. I think it usually gives me a fairly good idea of what the movie is like. I think I was watching Roeper's review of it and he was one who used the "longwinded" term. I found Ebert was fairly reliable over the years as well, although, as you said, he could really miss the mark on some movies.

You pretty much summed up what I thought of ROTK as well. Frodo and Samwise seemed to be the only ones that really mattered. The rest just seemed like filler with not a whole lot of meaning to it. I got to a point where I was saying to myself "Geez, not another battle" and I love watching epic battles. It also seemed to take forever to end on the original cut. I think they could have ended it where Aragorn says to Frodo and Samwise " You will bow to no one" but thats just my opinion.

Until you mentioned it, I didn't even know about the mouth of Sauron or some of the other significant cuts. I'm actually kinda wanting to see his movie again.

JediTricks
04-16-2013, 01:54 PM
When they brought in Roeper to replace the late Gene Siskel, I can't say I liked much about him. He does have that air of elitism about the way he talks about movies, it doesn't surprise me that he'd be the one to use it. College boy! :p

Hopefully you'll enjoy ROTK EE when you finally get a sixth of a day :eek: see it, there's a number of pure changes as well as additions which make it feel weightier.

Snowtrooper
04-18-2013, 04:36 PM
I'm probably going to have to spread the movie out over a whole week. Its getting to be that time of year when I don't watch a whole lot of tv.

bigbarada
04-18-2013, 10:21 PM
Bottom line, when ROTK won the oscar I was surprised and felt like it won on the backs of better films. When I saw the extended cut, I no longer felt that way.

I absolutely loved ROTK when I saw it in the theater. I can see how some people might think that the end dragged on too long, but I kind of wish they had extended it even further in the EE. If I'm going to sit down and watch any of the LOTR films, I'm going to watch ROTK. It's just the grandness and scale of that movie that I love so much.

However, I agree that when it won best picture, they were giving that award to the entire trilogy, not just ROTK.

JediTricks
04-19-2013, 12:13 PM
I'm probably going to have to spread the movie out over a whole week. Its getting to be that time of year when I don't watch a whole lot of tv.Good luck. I haven't watched it in that many pieces, not sure how easy to follow that will be, but am very curious to hear how that turns out.


I absolutely loved ROTK when I saw it in the theater. I can see how some people might think that the end dragged on too long, but I kind of wish they had extended it even further in the EE. If I'm going to sit down and watch any of the LOTR films, I'm going to watch ROTK. It's just the grandness and scale of that movie that I love so much.

However, I agree that when it won best picture, they were giving that award to the entire trilogy, not just ROTK.For me, the end wasn't a problem (tho it was 1 too many endings, especially considering the Hobbits don't get the actual story ending with the Shire being rebuilt), it was the big battles that felt hollow, along with the repetitive notes with Gimli & Legolas and Sam & Frodo. The EE really brought the film back together for me. Compared to The Two Towers, which had a lot more heart and story and character in the theatrical, I just came out of the theater on ROTK feeling like something was missing.

I wonder if Return of the Jedi had been better, if it would have won best picture for all 3 Star Wars movies the same way. SW was nominated for best picture but lost to Annie Hall (which is utterly ludicrous).

bigbarada
04-19-2013, 04:58 PM
Good luck. I haven't watched it in that many pieces, not sure how easy to follow that will be, but am very curious to hear how that turns out.

For me, the end wasn't a problem (tho it was 1 too many endings, especially considering the Hobbits don't get the actual story ending with the Shire being rebuilt), it was the big battles that felt hollow, along with the repetitive notes with Gimli & Legolas and Sam & Frodo. The EE really brought the film back together for me. Compared to The Two Towers, which had a lot more heart and story and character in the theatrical, I just came out of the theater on ROTK feeling like something was missing.

I wonder if Return of the Jedi had been better, if it would have won best picture for all 3 Star Wars movies the same way. SW was nominated for best picture but lost to Annie Hall (which is utterly ludicrous).

I would agree that Two Towers is the strongest of the three films and the closest to being a satisfactory stand-alone movie. However, I think that's just the nature of trilogies. The first film needs to set everything up and still provide an entertaining movie-going experience. The third film needs to properly tie up all the loose ends, resolve all the plotlines and provide a satisfactory resolution to the overall story. The second doesn't have to worry about any of that and can spend its time developing the characters and it can introduce new plot-points without the burden of needing to resolve them at all.

This is why I think so many people enjoy ESB more than ANH or ROTJ and it's also why TTT feels like a stronger movie compared to FOTR and ROTK.

I do kind of recall feeling a bit empty after my first viewing of ROTK, but I chalked that up to the fact that I went to the midnight showing and the film didn't let out until close to 4 in the morning. I also knew that we would get an extended cut on DVD so it didn't really affect my opinion of the film.

That is an interesting point about ROTJ, though. However, I remember my initial impression of ROTJ after watching it for the first time was disappointment. I thought it was a major letdown. So I think it would have needed to be much, much better to win best picture for the whole trilogy. It wasn't until repeat viewings that I really began to appreciate the film.

Mad Slanted Powers
04-19-2013, 11:16 PM
It has been a while since I have seen any LOTR movies, and I probably only watched the extended versions once. I probably liked FOTR the best on first impression. I liked them all though. I just don't remember much detail about them. Kind of like the way it was when I re-read the books before the movies came out. Other than the first half of FOTR and vague recollections of the lengthy wandering of Sam, Frodo and Gollum in Mordor, it was as if I had never read the books before. Perhaps this summer I will try to watch both versions of the movies again.

I thought ROTJ was great when I first saw it. I enjoyed ESB as well, but it did not stand alone like the first movie, and left too many things hanging that we had to wait for ROTJ to resolve. I suppose the darker nature of how it ended was a bit disturbing to me as a 10 year old. Nothing traumatic, but just kind of creepy to look at photos of Han in carbonite with the orange glow on him.

JediTricks
04-21-2013, 05:48 PM
To me, FOTR is the best film of the trilogy, it's more rounded and if that had been the only film, I'd still have found it quite satisfying (not in the way ANH was though, because that ending was always meant to be the end of that saga and was moved up to make the film a whole story), if Sam and Frodo had sailed off on their own at the end it would have made its own statement on the fellowship and on the nature of impossible quests.

But TTT obviously has a triumphant return of Gandalf, the Ring taking hold of Frodo, the Gollum material, and of course the spectacular Helm's Deep setup and payoff. It definitely could stand alone were it not for the thread of the destruction of the Ring.

My first viewing of ROTJ was when I was 7 about to turn 8. I remember coming out of the theater feeling very jazzed on what worked, the big battle between Luke and Vader, the space battle and inside the Death Star, Jabba's destruction, and even the Endor victory - basically, I took it as a kid would. There are a lot of strong elements in there, but they're surrounded by a mess of a film in so many ways. Had the film held the writing, editing, producing, and directing quality of ESB, I wouldn't be surprised to have seen it an Oscar contender (it probably would have lost to Terms of Endearment no matter what though, apparently Hollywood was full of easily-manipulated melodrama-loving academy voters that year), but the movie was just a trainwreck of bad decisions from the top down and what works seems to work mainly in spite of the intentions of TPTB rather than because of them.

I was 4 or 5 when I saw ESB and I remember coming out of the theater very depressed and sad at that ending.

bigbarada
04-21-2013, 09:43 PM
Even though I was 10 when ROTJ came out, I didn't see it (or ESB) until I was 13 years old, which would have been 1986. I grew up in a pretty strict Baptist household and my parents didn't allow us to go to movie theaters until the mid-80s. I didn't see ANH until its television premiere in February 1984.

So I knew the entire story behind the Star Wars trilogy before seeing any of the films and that might have changed my perceptions a bit. I remember still being totally blown away by ANH when I first saw it. When we finally saw ESB and ROTJ, it was at my cousin's fiance's house and we watched both films on VHS back to back. I might have been a little let down by ESB as well, but I think my overall reaction was more positive than my initial impression of ROTJ. However, after 6 years of anticipation for ESB and 3 years of anticipation for ROTJ, I'm not sure if any movie could have lived up to that... except for ANH which still impressed me after 7 years of anticipation.

That's probably why ANH is the measuring stick by which I grade every movie even today.

El Chuxter
04-22-2013, 02:08 PM
SW was nominated for best picture but lost to Annie Hall (which is utterly ludicrous).
Not saying I disagree, but, if Star Wars is going to be robbed, I'd prefer the Oscar to go to Woody Allen's masterpiece than to just about anything else. :)

Snowtrooper
04-24-2013, 03:03 PM
I finally got around to watching ROTK EE over the past couple of nights. You were right JT, it makes a huge difference having the cut scenes put back in. I enjoyed it a whole lot more than when I saw it in the theater. Since I hadn't seen it in awhile, I couldn't tell you 100% what was in the theatrical release or in the EE, but things happening outside of Frodo and Samwise seemed more significant. I also agree with you that the mouth of Sauron should never have been cut. That was damn creepy. I still did find the ending a bit long, but not near as bad as I remembered it in the theatre.

We had a few rainy days here, so I was able to watch it over two nights, which was about right.

Now that I've seen the ROTK EE, I'm curious about the EE versions of FOTR and TTT. Do the extra scenes improve those as well?

Maradona
04-24-2013, 04:36 PM
Not saying I disagree, but, if Star Wars is going to be robbed, I'd prefer the Oscar to go to Woody Allen's masterpiece than to just about anything else. :)

Annie Hall is an amazing film. I hated it as a kid because it beat out Star Wars, but when I finally saw it completely as a 17-year old, I fell in love with it. I watch that and Manhattan at least once a year. Woody is a film god.


I finally got around to watching ROTK EE over the past couple of nights. You were right JT, it makes a huge difference having the cut scenes put back in. I enjoyed it a whole lot more than when I saw it in the theater. Since I hadn't seen it in awhile, I couldn't tell you 100% what was in the theatrical release or in the EE, but things happening outside of Frodo and Samwise seemed more significant. I also agree with you that the mouth of Sauron should never have been cut. That was damn creepy. I still did find the ending a bit long, but not near as bad as I remembered it in the theatre.

We had a few rainy days here, so I was able to watch it over two nights, which was about right.

Now that I've seen the ROTK EE, I'm curious about the EE versions of FOTR and TTT. Do the extra scenes improve those as well?

I prefer all of the EE versions. I can't watch the FOTR in non-extended form. The films make great marathon viewing in the winter. I watched all three blu-ray EE versions during winter break while opening a bunch of figures (my holiday tradition).

JediTricks
04-24-2013, 05:56 PM
Even though I was 10 when ROTJ came out, I didn't see it (or ESB) until I was 13 years old, which would have been 1986. I grew up in a pretty strict Baptist household and my parents didn't allow us to go to movie theaters until the mid-80s. I didn't see ANH until its television premiere in February 1984.

So I knew the entire story behind the Star Wars trilogy before seeing any of the films and that might have changed my perceptions a bit. I remember still being totally blown away by ANH when I first saw it. When we finally saw ESB and ROTJ, it was at my cousin's fiance's house and we watched both films on VHS back to back. I might have been a little let down by ESB as well, but I think my overall reaction was more positive than my initial impression of ROTJ. However, after 6 years of anticipation for ESB and 3 years of anticipation for ROTJ, I'm not sure if any movie could have lived up to that... except for ANH which still impressed me after 7 years of anticipation.

That's probably why ANH is the measuring stick by which I grade every movie even today.I wonder what changed your parents' minds about movies at that time. Ghostbusters maybe? ;) Thrawn and I used to talk about 1985 being the pinnacle of western civilization, going from 1984's Ghostbusters, Indiana Jones 2, Beverly Hills Cop, Gremlins, Karate Kid, Police Academy, Star Trek 3, Romancing the Stone, Purple Rain, Amadeus, The Natural, Revenge of the Nerds, Buckaroo Banzai, Dune, Last Starfighter, Killing Fields, Splash, Muppets Take Manhattan, Neverending Story, Once Upon a Time in America, Repo Man, Sixteen Candles, The Terminator into '85's Back to the Future, Rambo First Blood pt 2, Rocky 4, Goonies, Fletch, European Vacation, The Breakfast Club, Pee Wee's Big Adventure, Better Off Dead, Brazil, Clue, Enemy Mine, the Ewoks movie... ok, you get the idea. :D

That must have been rough waiting to see the SW movies after everybody had been talking about them. That's rough about ESB feeling like a letdown, maybe that wasn't the best way to see them, VHS wasn't a great format and back to back can be challenging. ANH as the measuring stick makes sense to me, it works in spite of its shortcomings thanks to thoughtful editing and a clean, understated cinematography that stayed out of the way of the story. ESB has it easier, more money, more time, more resources, a more seasoned director, more writing talent, and Lucas not getting in the way of himself.



Not saying I disagree, but, if Star Wars is going to be robbed, I'd prefer the Oscar to go to Woody Allen's masterpiece than to just about anything else. :)I liked Manhattan and Zelig more, I'd put Annie Hall above Sleeper though.


I finally got around to watching ROTK EE over the past couple of nights. You were right JT, it makes a huge difference having the cut scenes put back in. I enjoyed it a whole lot more than when I saw it in the theater. Since I hadn't seen it in awhile, I couldn't tell you 100% what was in the theatrical release or in the EE, but things happening outside of Frodo and Samwise seemed more significant. I also agree with you that the mouth of Sauron should never have been cut. That was damn creepy. I still did find the ending a bit long, but not near as bad as I remembered it in the theatre.

We had a few rainy days here, so I was able to watch it over two nights, which was about right.

Now that I've seen the ROTK EE, I'm curious about the EE versions of FOTR and TTT. Do the extra scenes improve those as well?Glad to hear you saw it and enjoyed it. I was the same way after I saw the ROTK EE, couldn't tell you what exactly was in the theatrical but I could feel such a massive difference in my enjoyment of the rest of the movie beyond Frodo's tale. The ending is long, not surprised there. 2 nights seems right, was it at the natural disk break?

Both the other EEs are terrific if you love spending time in those universes, I'd say TTT gains the least from its EE simply by being such a good theatrical experience, FOTR I may never have seen the theatrical cut, we went to the theater when the EE got a limited release, ROTK really gains the most from its EE though.


Annie Hall is an amazing film. I hated it as a kid because it beat out Star Wars, but when I finally saw it completely as a 17-year old, I fell in love with it. I watch that and Manhattan at least once a year. Woody is a film god.

I prefer all of the EE versions. I can't watch the FOTR in non-extended form. The films make great marathon viewing in the winter. I watched all three blu-ray EE versions during winter break while opening a bunch of figures (my holiday tradition).I bristle at the idea that Woody Allen is to be put on a pedestal, his work is talented but should be enjoyed on the levels it was created, he acts and he writes and he does silly cartoon stuff and heavy drama, and to me it seems like Annie Hall was the point where he got pigeonholed into being the American cinematic auteur, the critical darling who could do no wrong so long as he kept doing exactly the same thing again and again. I didn't watch Annie Hall for decades because of the SW snub, I watched most of his other films but actively avoided Annie Hall until it came on TCM a few years ago in HD, and when I finally saw it it was fine but by avoiding the "gravitas" that the critics had bestowed upon it, it was more enjoyable as a movie.

Just like my idea for the SW OT, they should re-release the LOTR EEs as a roadshow during the summer, FOTR a week in one town then move onto the next town and the first town gets TTT, then a week after it moves on that first town gets ROTK for a week. That'd be fun, as good as it is on the HDTV it's so much better on the big screen and seeing it with a group.

El Chuxter
04-24-2013, 06:14 PM
I don't pay attention to the critics. I just enjoy Woody Allen as a funny, cynical b*****d. :D

Truth be told, I like his books better than his movies, even though there are only a few of them.

Snowtrooper
04-24-2013, 07:42 PM
I prefer all of the EE versions. I can't watch the FOTR in non-extended form. The films make great marathon viewing in the winter. I watched all three blu-ray EE versions during winter break while opening a bunch of figures (my holiday tradition).

Sounds like a good tradition to me. I liked the theatrical release of FOTR. Is the EE a huge improvement on that one as well?


Glad to hear you saw it and enjoyed it. I was the same way after I saw the ROTK EE, couldn't tell you what exactly was in the theatrical but I could feel such a massive difference in my enjoyment of the rest of the movie beyond Frodo's tale. The ending is long, not surprised there. 2 nights seems right, was it at the natural disk break?

Both the other EEs are terrific if you love spending time in those universes, I'd say TTT gains the least from its EE simply by being such a good theatrical experience, FOTR I may never have seen the theatrical cut, we went to the theater when the EE got a limited release, ROTK really gains the most from its EE though.

The difference is really amazing. I couldn't believe how much better it was. Yeah, the breaks came at the end of the discs(it was on DVD). At some point I think I'm going to watch all of the EEs.

bigbarada
04-24-2013, 07:42 PM
I wonder what changed your parents' minds about movies at that time. Ghostbusters maybe? ;) Thrawn and I used to talk about 1985 being the pinnacle of western civilization, going from 1984's Ghostbusters, Indiana Jones 2, Beverly Hills Cop, Gremlins, Karate Kid, Police Academy, Star Trek 3, Romancing the Stone, Purple Rain, Amadeus, The Natural, Revenge of the Nerds, Buckaroo Banzai, Dune, Last Starfighter, Killing Fields, Splash, Muppets Take Manhattan, Neverending Story, Once Upon a Time in America, Repo Man, Sixteen Candles, The Terminator into '85's Back to the Future, Rambo First Blood pt 2, Rocky 4, Goonies, Fletch, European Vacation, The Breakfast Club, Pee Wee's Big Adventure, Better Off Dead, Brazil, Clue, Enemy Mine, the Ewoks movie... ok, you get the idea. :D

That must have been rough waiting to see the SW movies after everybody had been talking about them. That's rough about ESB feeling like a letdown, maybe that wasn't the best way to see them, VHS wasn't a great format and back to back can be challenging. ANH as the measuring stick makes sense to me, it works in spite of its shortcomings thanks to thoughtful editing and a clean, understated cinematography that stayed out of the way of the story. ESB has it easier, more money, more time, more resources, a more seasoned director, more writing talent, and Lucas not getting in the way of himself.

Star Trek 3 was actually the first movie that my brother and I were allowed to see in a theater. I always thought it was because one of our friend's parents offered to pay for our movie tickets and my parents didn't want to offend them by saying no. The very next movie I saw in a theater was Karate Kid 2, in 1986, then Top Gun, Labyrinth and Aliens all in that same summer. But that was the summer that we spent at our aunt's ranch in California, so my parents weren't around to object. After the summer of 1986 my parents weren't as strict on the no-theater rule. We still didn't go to very many movies though. I remember going to see Dragnet in 1987, but that's about it.

I do agree with your point, though, I think movies as a whole have been going downhill since the mid-80s. There are still a few high points (like LOTR), but it's almost unheard of for so many big, iconic films to be released in one year these days.

We watched ESB and ROTJ when we spent the summer in California as well. They were VHS recordings of the HBO broadcasts of the film. So the quality really wasn't there at all; but I knew the story for the movies almost backwards and forwards by then. I had read the storybooks and the novelizations and whatever else I could find about the films, so they kind of got built up in my mind into more than what they were. I think my biggest disappointment with ESB was the battle of Hoth being so short and no Wampa attack on the Rebel base. ROTJ just felt like it dragged on way too long between blowing up Jabba's Sail Barge and blowing up the second Death Star.


Glad to hear you saw it and enjoyed it. I was the same way after I saw the ROTK EE, couldn't tell you what exactly was in the theatrical but I could feel such a massive difference in my enjoyment of the rest of the movie beyond Frodo's tale. The ending is long, not surprised there. 2 nights seems right, was it at the natural disk break?

Both the other EEs are terrific if you love spending time in those universes, I'd say TTT gains the least from its EE simply by being such a good theatrical experience, FOTR I may never have seen the theatrical cut, we went to the theater when the EE got a limited release, ROTK really gains the most from its EE though.

Just like my idea for the SW OT, they should re-release the LOTR EEs as a roadshow during the summer, FOTR a week in one town then move onto the next town and the first town gets TTT, then a week after it moves on that first town gets ROTK for a week. That'd be fun, as good as it is on the HDTV it's so much better on the big screen and seeing it with a group.

I try to watch all 3 extended editions at least once a year. I break them up over six nights and just watch one disc a night. In my mind they feel like the true release of each film. The theatrical releases are just what they put out there for the unwashed masses.

JediTricks
04-26-2013, 03:09 PM
The difference is really amazing. I couldn't believe how much better it was. Yeah, the breaks came at the end of the discs(it was on DVD). At some point I think I'm going to watch all of the EEs.The disc break makes the most sense, at least, I'd hate to have that momentum be broken up more artificially.

Wise choice on the EEs, they're a lot of fun, and had I more time I'd be rewatching them now just because this conversation is riling me up on the idea. I'll be curious to hear your thoughts on them.



Star Trek 3 was actually the first movie that my brother and I were allowed to see in a theater. I always thought it was because one of our friend's parents offered to pay for our movie tickets and my parents didn't want to offend them by saying no. The very next movie I saw in a theater was Karate Kid 2, in 1986, then Top Gun, Labyrinth and Aliens all in that same summer. But that was the summer that we spent at our aunt's ranch in California, so my parents weren't around to object. After the summer of 1986 my parents weren't as strict on the no-theater rule. We still didn't go to very many movies though. I remember going to see Dragnet in 1987, but that's about it.Had you and your brother seen Star Trek 2 at that point? It seems like ST3 would be a tough film for a young person to jump in on, a very dark turn for the series and a challenging film to stand on its own (although I think it does pretty well, and catches too much "odd-numbered Trek film" flak). The rest is a good assortment of films to see without parental permission at least. Dragnet, I remember that one in theaters too, I can see that being the end of theatrical entertainment. ;) I wonder what your parents thought as you grew into this new experience, did you talk with them much about that change or was it left quiet?


I do agree with your point, though, I think movies as a whole have been going downhill since the mid-80s. There are still a few high points (like LOTR), but it's almost unheard of for so many big, iconic films to be released in one year these days.Yeah, and if you look at '84 and '85, very few of those are sequels or remakes, a lot of great entertainment ideas were allowed to be fostered and turned into entertainment, and I think it spurred the few remakes and sequels to be themselves better. That was before the studios got overrun with the corporations who had just bought them though.


We watched ESB and ROTJ when we spent the summer in California as well. They were VHS recordings of the HBO broadcasts of the film. So the quality really wasn't there at all; but I knew the story for the movies almost backwards and forwards by then. I had read the storybooks and the novelizations and whatever else I could find about the films, so they kind of got built up in my mind into more than what they were. I think my biggest disappointment with ESB was the battle of Hoth being so short and no Wampa attack on the Rebel base. ROTJ just felt like it dragged on way too long between blowing up Jabba's Sail Barge and blowing up the second Death Star.Do you think knowing the stories ahead of time affected your opinions of the films? I remember feeling very frustrated and disappointed with The Princess Bride, of all movies, for not living up to the book even as everybody else was praising the film. But the LOTR movies and The Hobbit I definitely didn't have that with.


I try to watch all 3 extended editions at least once a year. I break them up over six nights and just watch one disc a night. In my mind they feel like the true release of each film. The theatrical releases are just what they put out there for the unwashed masses.My problem is I can't control myself, if I watch the first half of these movies, I want to watch the second half right away, but I rarely have 4 solid hours to do that, and when I have 4 hours free I end up spreading my time around various interests instead. I should do it though while I can. Brutal assessment of the theatricals, but I guess not false gauging by the reactions in this thread to the EEs.

bigbarada
04-27-2013, 06:40 PM
Had you and your brother seen Star Trek 2 at that point? It seems like ST3 would be a tough film for a young person to jump in on, a very dark turn for the series and a challenging film to stand on its own (although I think it does pretty well, and catches too much "odd-numbered Trek film" flak). The rest is a good assortment of films to see without parental permission at least. Dragnet, I remember that one in theaters too, I can see that being the end of theatrical entertainment. ;) I wonder what your parents thought as you grew into this new experience, did you talk with them much about that change or was it left quiet?

We knew the basic storyline for Wrath of Kahn, but we had never seen it prior. But they did a flashback of Spock's death scene at the beginning of Search for Spock, so it wasn't really that hard to follow. I seem to recall watching Karate Kid 2 before seeing the first movie as well, so jumping into the middle of a story was not that uncommon for us as kids.


Yeah, and if you look at '84 and '85, very few of those are sequels or remakes, a lot of great entertainment ideas were allowed to be fostered and turned into entertainment, and I think it spurred the few remakes and sequels to be themselves better. That was before the studios got overrun with the corporations who had just bought them though.

I think the problem is that studios have boiled the formula for making profitable, blockbuster movies down to a science and it seems like they are making movies according to a well-established checklist of what's been successful in the past. As a result, most movies today are very big on budget and spectacle and they make a lot of money, but very low on originality or heart and they fail to make a lasting impact on the audience.


Do you think knowing the stories ahead of time affected your opinions of the films? I remember feeling very frustrated and disappointed with The Princess Bride, of all movies, for not living up to the book even as everybody else was praising the film. But the LOTR movies and The Hobbit I definitely didn't have that with.

Well, keep in mind that I not only knew that Darth Vader was Luke's father before my first viewing of ESB, but I also knew that Leia was Luke's sister and that Darth Vader would eventually sacrifice his own life to save Luke at the end. So that completely changed the dynamic of ESB and, for me, the ending of the movie felt a little flat (keeping in mind that this was just my initial impression of the film and in no way represents how I feel about it now). What didn't help was the bland interior sets that they used for Bespin which looked like something from a low budget TV show. That's why I think the digital alterations they made to the interiors of Bespin in the Special Edition significantly improved the movie. In fact, those are the only Special Edition changes that I think were absolutely necessary.

I think the simple fact that I was such a big fan of Star Wars for so many years before even seeing all of the movies is one of the main reasons that I'm still a fan today. Throughout most of my childhood, Star Wars was a toy line first and a series of movies second. Which probably also explains why I can still be a fan of specific elements from the Prequels without even liking the Prequels as films.


My problem is I can't control myself, if I watch the first half of these movies, I want to watch the second half right away, but I rarely have 4 solid hours to do that, and when I have 4 hours free I end up spreading my time around various interests instead. I should do it though while I can. Brutal assessment of the theatricals, but I guess not false gauging by the reactions in this thread to the EEs.

It does take a bit of self control to not just pop the next disc in and watch the rest of each film, but after almost 9 years of watching these, I've learned that taking them in little bites keeps them fresh and exciting. I also think it's better to leave a movie still feeling fresh and wanting to see more, rather than leave a movie totally exhausted and mentally drained because the film went on too long and just wore you down.

Maradona
12-15-2013, 02:32 PM
Hobbit 2: The Orcs Strike Back was an incredibly entertaining film. Jackson pummels the viewer with action sequence after action sequence. I look forward to watching it again, but in HFR. I saw it in regular 3D.

Also, during the Thanksgiving break, I watched the extended edition of the first Hobbit, along with a marathon of the special features - I was very happy with how both turned out.

bigbarada
12-15-2013, 03:57 PM
I enjoyed it a lot and I definitely want to see it again as soon as possible. I've actually wanted to see a cliffhanger ending like that at the theater for years now, but no filmmaker has ever really had the guts to just stop a movie right in the middle of the main action sequence. It'll be interesting to see how that plays with audiences around the world.

I was kind of worried about them shoehorning Legolas into the movie, since he never appeared in the book, but they did a good job by regressing his character in a believable way. His prejudice against dwarves made perfect sense in the context of how we were introduced to him in FOTR.

Also, Evangeline Lilly makes a perfect elf. I'd say she even fits the role of an elf better than Liv Tyler.

Bel-Cam Jos
12-26-2013, 06:42 PM
Since we're re-naming it, :rolleyes: I too saw The Hobbit: Almost Like the Avengers. Liked it immensely, even cheering or chuckling aloud a couple times. Best scenes: dwarfs down the river, Gandalf's bubble defense, any running through Laketown. Loved how it ended, too (my audience groaned and cheered at the same time).

Mad Slanted Powers
12-29-2013, 05:36 PM
Since we're re-naming it, :rolleyes: I too saw The Hobbit: Almost Like the Avengers. Liked it immensely, even cheering or chuckling aloud a couple times. Best scenes: dwarfs down the river, Gandalf's bubble defense, any running through Laketown. Loved how it ended, too (my audience groaned and cheered at the same time).
Kind of a similar reaction by the audience when I saw it yesterday. I enjoyed it. Now to pick up where I left off in re-reading the book to see the differences from the movie.

Mr. JabbaJohnL
12-30-2013, 12:52 PM
I saw part of the first movie on HBO while at my family's home this weekend. My sister and I ended up making fun of the way they pronounce "Smaug," but otherwise it was a lot of sitting around reading contracts and singing about washing dishes. I liked LOTR and I do still want to see it, and it sounds like the second one is much better as an actual movie, but I still can't get over how much it feels like doing homework.