Peter Jackson directs "The Hobbit"

Isn't it all moot though until somebody with cash buys MGM? The Red Dawn remake is in a similar situation...

I was crushed when I heard the news about del Toro quitting the project. I'm a huge fan of Pan's Labyrinth and enjoyed listening to all of the special features when del Toro had something to say. He comes across as extremely intelligent and passionate about the work he does. I'm very sad about this, and I sure wish him the best in his future endeavors.

Anyways, I just wanted to tag the thread. I hope the movie turns out ok because the Hobbit is one of my favorite stories. I think I have at least 5 different copies/collector's editions of the book lying around.

Dammit. I was really looking forward to del Toro's take on the story =/

I loved District 9 but I think the project's been diminished by del Toro's departure.

Now IGN is reporting that Peter Jackson himself will step in to direct. My only question is this: how on Earth are they going to pad The Hobbit out into two feature-length films?

ClockworkHouse wrote:

Now IGN is reporting that Peter Jackson himself will step in to direct. My only question is this: how on Earth are they going to pad The Hobbit out into two feature-length films?

The Hobbit, Vol 1: There
The Hobbit, Vol 2: Back Again

ClockworkHouse wrote:

Now IGN is reporting that Peter Jackson himself will step in to direct. My only question is this: how on Earth are they going to pad The Hobbit out into two feature-length films?

Perhaps the natural break point is when the dwarves get captured by the Mirkwood elves. Or perhaps a little before, after they escape from the Misty Mountains and meet up with Beorn.

It is my understanding they are fleshing it out with some Silmarillion. Also, the big battle at the end will be appropriately epic.

A quote from Firstshowing.net

Let's hope MGM's problems don't delay this production any longer

How could they not? MGM has already halted the next Bond film indefinitely and quite honestly those movies cost a lot less to make and do quite well. There have also been rumors about them delaying "Cabin in the Woods" (Joss Whedon), and "Red Dawn" Everything they are doing is being plagued by their money troubles.

KaterinLHC wrote:

Perhaps the natural break point is when the dwarves get captured by the Mirkwood elves. Or perhaps a little before, after they escape from the Misty Mountains and meet up with Beorn.

I can see where they'd break it, but I can't see where there's enough content to support four hours worth of movie. Will we have to suffer through all of Tolkien's songs and poems so that MGM can put up two movies at the box office instead of one?

End of the first: Slaying the dragon

End of the Second: Resolution of the Battle of Five Armies

I don't think they'll have a hard time finding enough content for two movies, the 70th anniversary unabridged / annotated version of the book had a ton of content. I wouldn't be surprised if they gave Gollum a larger part and explained his history more.

I believe I read this several months ago. The first film would be the main plotline of The Hobbit. The second film would expand on events that were only hinted at in the book (defeat of the Necromancer by Gandalf and others).

gewy wrote:

I believe I read this several months ago. The first film would be the main plotline of The Hobbit. The second film would expand on events that were only hinted at in the book (defeat of the Necromancer by Gandalf and others).

This is how I understand it as well. So they would be stand-alone.

As for the MGM money issues, I read that it is very likely these things won't begin until MGM is bought. The reasoning being the buyer may pull the plug while they are in production, so having the money to start the project isn't as important as one would think.

gewy wrote:

I believe I read this several months ago. The first film would be the main plotline of The Hobbit. The second film would expand on events that were only hinted at in the book (defeat of the Necromancer by Gandalf and others).

Read that as Neuromancer, and saw Gandalf as "Gibson".. weird cognitive flash for a second there. But Molly would be *very* fun in the Misty Mountains

They also said a good chunk of the beginning will cover events of the Silmarillion. And not just a Galadriel voice-over.

Grenn wrote:

They also said a good chunk of the beginning will cover events of the Silmarillion. And not just a Galadriel voice-over.

Doesn't that mean we swap "How do they stretch out The Hobbit into two films?" for "How do they pick just one film's worth out of The Silmarillion?"

Guys, this is Peter Jackson we're talking about. The man who took 4 hours to tell the story of King Kong. If anything, he's going to have a hard time not stretching this out to a third movie.

0kelvin wrote:

Guys, this is Peter Jackson we're talking about. The man who took 4 hours to tell the story of King Kong. If anything, he's going to have a hard time not stretching this out to a third movie.

And I was doing so well forgetting that movie exists...

Thin_J wrote:
0kelvin wrote:

Guys, this is Peter Jackson we're talking about. The man who took 4 hours to tell the story of King Kong. If anything, he's going to have a hard time not stretching this out to a third movie.

And I was doing so well forgetting that movie exists... :(

Someone quick, bring up something cool about Lord of the Rings films!

mrwynd wrote:
Thin_J wrote:
0kelvin wrote:

Guys, this is Peter Jackson we're talking about. The man who took 4 hours to tell the story of King Kong. If anything, he's going to have a hard time not stretching this out to a third movie.

And I was doing so well forgetting that movie exists... :(

Someone quick, bring up something cool about Lord of the Rings films!

IMAGE(http://onedoesnot.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Rock-into-mordor.jpg)

Thin_J wrote:
0kelvin wrote:

Guys, this is Peter Jackson we're talking about. The man who took 4 hours to tell the story of King Kong. If anything, he's going to have a hard time not stretching this out to a third movie.

And I was doing so well forgetting that movie exists... :(

I really enjoyed PJ's King Kong. Why all the hate?

EriktheRed wrote:
Thin_J wrote:
0kelvin wrote:

Guys, this is Peter Jackson we're talking about. The man who took 4 hours to tell the story of King Kong. If anything, he's going to have a hard time not stretching this out to a third movie.

And I was doing so well forgetting that movie exists... :(

I really enjoyed PJ's King Kong. Why all the hate?

I enjoyed it too. You are not alone.

EriktheRed wrote:
Thin_J wrote:
0kelvin wrote:

Guys, this is Peter Jackson we're talking about. The man who took 4 hours to tell the story of King Kong. If anything, he's going to have a hard time not stretching this out to a third movie.

And I was doing so well forgetting that movie exists... :(

I really enjoyed PJ's King Kong. Why all the hate?

Why all the hate? Well... because it's an awful movie and your opinion is wrong. That's why.

Thin_J wrote:

Why all the hate? Well... because it's an awful movie and your opinion is wrong. That's why.

Funny, that's how I've felt about the Lord of the Rings movies for the past decade.

/can't let it go

Gravey wrote:
Thin_J wrote:

Why all the hate? Well... because it's an awful movie and your opinion is wrong. That's why.

Funny, that's how I've felt about the Lord of the Rings movies for the past decade.

/can't let it go

I've grown to really dislike the second one. I still sort of halfway enjoy the other two though. I'll agree with you at least partially

Gravey wrote:
Thin_J wrote:

Why all the hate? Well... because it's an awful movie and your opinion is wrong. That's why.

Funny, that's how I've felt about the Lord of the Rings movies for the past decade.

/can't let it go

If I remember correctly, you actually think the books are well-written though, so I'll just ignore your opinion here.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

If I remember correctly, you actually think the books are well-written though, so I'll just ignore your opinion here. ;)

I can fault your taste, but I can't fault your memory.

Thin_J wrote:

I've grown to really dislike the second one. I still sort of halfway enjoy the other two though. I'll agree with you at least partially :P

Good enough for me!

I like the LOTR movies and I'm always right. I have proof too. The first one (and extended editions of the other two) has Sean Bean and anything with Sean Bean is automatically great. Any evidence to the contrary means you're a furry.

Edit: I was disappointed in the portrayal of the Entmoot and the Battle of Isengaard.

Gravey wrote:

The Hobbit, Vol 1: There
The Hobbit, Vol 2: Back Again

This is why I sit on these forums. The gaming discussions are just gravy.

Fyedaddy wrote:
Gravey wrote:

The Hobbit, Vol 1: There
The Hobbit, Vol 2: Back Again

This is why I sit on these forums. The gaming discussions are just gravy.

Only Gravey is allowed to post? Whoa.

Malkovich wrote:

Malkovich, malkovich malkovich.

Malkovich wrote:

Malkovich? Malkovich malkovich malkovich malkovich.

Hm, as clever and photoshoppy as I am, that's a probable nightmare I could live without.

Vector wrote:

I like the LOTR movies and I'm always right. I have proof too. The first one (and extended editions of the other two) has Sean Bean and anything with Sean Bean is automatically great. Any evidence to the contrary means you're a furry.

Hollow words, coming from Lionel the Lion-Faced Man!