"I have no memory of this place..."

[serendipity]

What does everyone think of Peter Jackson's plans to make not one but two Hobbit movies--the Hobbit and a sequel-- to be released in 2010 and 2011 respectively? I'm excited about a PJ Hobbit, but the idea of the sequel makes me nervous. Is he trying to improve on Tolkein???

--Sere

[makofan]

I thought he was just splitting the book into two movies, like the way he split LOTR into three

[greentongue]

Didn't seem like it was big enough for two movies if you could do the LotR in 3.

Maybe the Retaking of the Shire will be the second.
=

[korgoth]

serendipity said:

What does everyone think of Peter Jackson's plans to make not one but two Hobbit movies--the Hobbit and a sequel-- to be released in 2010 and 2011 respectively? I'm excited about a PJ Hobbit, but the idea of the sequel makes me nervous. Is he trying to improve on Tolkein???

--Sere

I found Jackson's LoTR trilogy to be a horrible misinterpretation of the books... the first one (Fellowship) was OK, but after that it took a nosedive. "Saving Private Frodo" or something.

The Hobbit is not as deep as LoTR, so the potential to defile and destroy it is thereby lessened, but I still expect him to figure out some way to mess it up. As to the question of making two movies out of it, or making a sequel, I just assume that is part of his disastrous and uninformed plan.

[Finarvyn]

While Jackson did alter a few things in LOTR, overall I think it was a good product. It's hard to convey the full story to non-LOTR fans while not boring the LOTR-knowledgable, but I think he did a decent job. Most importantly, his love for the books really comes through in terms of the detail he put into props, costumes, and the like. I think overall the LOTR movie trilogy is a lot like professor Tolkien might have imagined it had he had a movie media at his disposal.

Now as far as the Hobbit goes, I would assume that he would put similar care and love into the project so it's probably going to be a pretty good movie. (At least you probably know what you're getting in advance. If you liked LOTR you'll probably like Hobbit, if you didn't like LOTR you probably won't.)

I'm a little puzzled about the two-movie thing, however, as Hobbit shouldn't take more than one movie to tell. If the other movie was a Silmarillion type story, that would be neat. If it's a brand-new story then I have mixed feelings....

[doc]

I'm a little leery of having ANYBODY come and say that they are going to add things to JRR's mythology that weren't already there. However, Peter Jackson's track record with Middle Earth has been very good so far, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one until I actually see it. At this point, we have literally no clue as to what he intends to do, so there is no use getting peeved over it yet.

Doc

[serendipity]

doc said:

At this point, we have literally no clue as to what he intends to do, so there is no use getting peeved over it yet.

Doc

Ah, but what's the point of getting peeved after it's a done deal? By then it will be extremely clear whether it was a coup or a tragedy. No, no. Much better to have it out now, while the playing field is level. ;D

--Sere

[Stonegiant]

From my understanding PJ plans on doing the HOBBIT proper in the first movie. In the second movie they are going to use the Simillrion (unsure of the spelling) and other sources to put together the story of what happens from the end of the HOBBIT to the beggining of the LOTR.

[Deleted]

Not being an "Uber" Tolkien fan in the first place, I have to say that "The Hobbit" is my favorite (The Book of Lost Tales comes in 2nd, The Silmarillion 3rd, Farmer Giles of Ham [which ISN'T set in Middle-Earth anyway] a 4th, & the LOTR trilogy 5th). I think Peter Jackson is a very talented filmaker, & if "The Hobbit" is anything like the LOTR movies, it should be really good (I'm hoping for better than LOTR). Just my op.

[EDIT]: Oh, & I want to see Smaug smoke Laketown... ;D

[Rhuvein]

I would have thought he could do this in 1 movie, but perhaps there is too much. I'm OK with 2 movies, just don't screw it up.

I wonder if they'll go with Ian Holm as Bilbo. They should be able to make him look younger with CGI.

[dwayanu]

It's a bit curious. Apart from the "surfer dude" elf and some mistreatment of Merry and Peregrin, Jackson did about what I thought a tolerable LOTR movie version would do. The first installment in particular suggested some cuts that led in turn to other changes. On the other hand, was there a notable scene with a troll in Moria in the original? In any case, that felt somehow "video-gamey" to me.

I saw all three flicks with my father, who still had not finished the last book when we'd seen the last film. I averred to there being "more to the story" and "not leaving Evil behind with Goblinland," and the like.

In that context, perhaps one weakness in Jackson's movies in their own right is also a strength in terms of leaving something profound left to discover in the books.

There is much more of that, of course, and Da (both a History major and a Seminarian) is full of unearthed arcana!

[edit:] The portrayal of Gollum raises many issues in terms of fidelity. but I think it stands in its own right as a great work. The movie Blade Runnner is at odds with Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? -- but I cannot on that basis call the director's work inferior; it stands as a cinematic triumph. In Jackson's production, Frodo and Samwise also stand out as performances for the ages. There is as much in them of nobility, pathos and (startlingly in contrast) comedy as in any Shakespearean role. Gondor's dysfunctional ruling family jerked more an honest tear from my eyes than any "chick flick" in recent memory. On balance, the trilogy was a taste of Hollywood at its best amid an otherwise dismal field of tinsel-town product.

[Finarvyn]

oltekos said:

Farmer Giles of Ham [which ISN'T set in Middle-Earth anyway]

Farmer Giles of Ham has always been one of my favorites as well. A bit off-topic, but did you know that there is a special edition hardback with a fragment JRRT wrote as a sequel?

[Deleted]

I sure didn't--I'll check around on the net for it. If it's within our price range, I'll pick it up (the copy I have is really old; I bought it at my favorite haunt when I was around 12 or so [& it was "well used" then]). Thanks for the tip, Fin!

[Finarvyn]

Still OT --

Look for "Farmer Giles of Ham, 50th Anniversary Edition"
J.R.R. Tolkien, Edited by Christina Scull and Wayne G. Hammond

[Falconer]

korgoth said:

I found Jackson's LoTR trilogy to be a horrible misinterpretation of the books... the first one (Fellowship) was OK, but after that it took a nosedive. "Saving Private Frodo" or something.

The Hobbit is not as deep as LoTR, so the potential to defile and destroy it is thereby lessened, but I still expect him to figure out some way to mess it up. As to the question of making two movies out of it, or making a sequel, I just assume that is part of his disastrous and uninformed plan.

The Hobbit may not be as deep as The Lord of the Rings, however it is the more tightly constructed narrative and the more charming. As a children's story, it carries with it a heavier weight of nostalgia. If Jackson screws it up like LotR, it will be more devastating than LotR. And all I've heard leads me to believe he'll do it as much like LotR as possible--which it absolutely should not be. Regards.

[serendipity]

I know it's a horribly unpopular position to take , but I loved the three LotR movies done by PJ, and I hope the two new hobbit movies are similar in style. I wonder if they'll be able to use the same locations they used before? I'm also wondering which familiar actors might appear...

--Sere

[Finarvyn]

Well, the characters Hobbit and LOTR have in common are (and correct me if I leave any out)
* Elrond
* Gandalf
* Bilbo (but a younger version)
* Gollum

You could probably use the Legolas and Gimli actors in other elf/dwarf roles, as cousins or some such. (Partilcularly since Orlando Bloom seems to be a plus for movie sales...)

[carjack]

Actually, I think Ian Holme is about the right age to play Bilbo. That is, unless they want to "young him up" like they did to Frodo. (Which I'm hoping they don't do. Bilbo really doesn't act like a young person and a young actor wouldn't be fussy enough to be Bilbo properly.)

[serendipity]

What about Arwen. She was around, even if she didn't appear in the Hobbit. They have to do something in that second movie. I suspect Liv Tyler's role in the LotR movies was expanded simply because in JRRT's stories women have basically zero impact, something at odds with today's We Can Do It attitude. (Insert mental picture of Rosie the Riveter here.)

Also, what about Gimli? Mightn't he have been around during the Hobbit? If not, he could play one of his ancestors...
--Sere

[greentongue]

serendipity said:

Also, what about Gimli? Mightn't he have been around during the Hobbit? If not, he could play one of his ancestors...
--Sere

The actor that played Gimli will not likely play in the hobbit. He had an allergic reaction to the makeup needed and stated he would NEVER do it again.
=

[brumbar]

The one major problem that I see with this movie was PJ portrayal of dwarves based on the first movies. His love affair with elves is obvious and I would not be surprised to see him replace the dwarves in the story with elves (just kidding). But I am concerned based on how he played up Legolas and down played Gimli in the LOtR trilogy.