Peter Jackson directs "The Hobbit"

Aw nuts. I was actually hoping for two parts. Like KaterinLHC noted, there is a lot of material to get through. The bridging concept makes me nervous.

Personally, I'm just going to operate under the assumption that Ain't It Cool is full of sh*t like they usually are until I hear otherwise from somewhere else.

zeroKFE wrote:

Personally, I'm just going to operate under the assumption that Ain't It Cool is full of sh*t like they usually are until I hear otherwise from somewhere else.

here you go

Quick, Nerd Fight!

Meh, both that second link and AIC seem to be just interpreting the wording of the press release. In some places it seems like their interpretation (Hobbit + sequel NOT based directly off a book) might be correct, but in others it sounds more like "two movies based on the Hobbit," and in any case it's never made clear what the actually content of the either movie will be, just that there will be "The Hobbit" and a sequel.

I wonder what is going with Sam Raimi...

Heretk wrote:

Aw nuts. I was actually hoping for two parts. Like KaterinLHC noted, there is a lot of material to get through. The bridging concept makes me nervous.

But, that material isn't very long and doesn't have that much depth. We must remember that The Hobbit is a children's story, not an epic like the Lord of the Rings. Most of those scenes aren't very long, even in the book. In the book, they jump from the party right to running into the trolls, there isn't much in between.

No worries, guys. The end of the world will happen in 2013 anyway. Just in time for the complete extended edition boxed set of all 5 movies, totaling 21 hours including extended footage and the scene where Bilbo and the dwarves are caught by the trolls. Since that scene isn't necessary to "move the story along," just like Tom Bombadil wasn't necessary in the first 3 movies. *sigh*

Go read the books again.

Ulairi wrote:
Heretk wrote:

Aw nuts. I was actually hoping for two parts. Like KaterinLHC noted, there is a lot of material to get through. The bridging concept makes me nervous.

But, that material isn't very long and doesn't have that much depth. We must remember that The Hobbit is a children's story, not an epic like the Lord of the Rings. Most of those scenes aren't very long, even in the book. In the book, they jump from the party right to running into the trolls, there isn't much in between.

I agree and disagree. Are there not several elements that Tolkien merely alluded to in the book? Granted, if they did the screenplay on a word for word basis, there may not be enough for two movies. But I for one would like to see Jackson take a little dramatic license and fill that stuff out. Heck, the Battle of the Five Armies could take a big chunk of the second movie. As well as what Gandalf was up to when he wasn't with Bilbo.

Ulairi wrote:

But, that material isn't very long and doesn't have that much depth. We must remember that The Hobbit is a children's story, not an epic like the Lord of the Rings.

I wonder why you - and others, not picking on you - say that because The Hobbit is a children's story, it doesn't have much depth. Children's stories are, in general, far deeper than we give them credit for.

While The Hobbit may be written in a simpler style and isn't quite as thick as The Lord of the Rings (thank God), I think its themes are just as mature and meaningful. If anything, I'd argue that Bilbo's a deeper character than anyone we see in The Lord of the Rings, and to me, his loneliness and emotional isolation is far more poignant than Frodo's. Frodo at least had Sam. But Bilbo? Despite all the dwarves and wizards and such, Bilbo really had no one but himself. The closest he had to a friend was Balin, but he wasn't even there half the time. So Bilbo was pretty much on his own.

Ulairi wrote:

But, that material isn't very long and doesn't have that much depth. We must remember that The Hobbit is a children's story, not an epic like Harry Potter.

Oops!

KaterinLHC wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

But, that material isn't very long and doesn't have that much depth. We must remember that The Hobbit is a children's story, not an epic like the Lord of the Rings.

I wonder why you - and others, not picking on you - say that because The Hobbit is a children's story, it doesn't have much depth. Children's stories are, in general, far deeper than we give them credit for.

While The Hobbit may be written in a simpler style and isn't quite as thick as The Lord of the Rings (thank God), I think its themes are just as mature and meaningful. If anything, I'd argue that Bilbo's a deeper character than anyone we see in The Lord of the Rings, and to me, his loneliness and emotional isolation is far more poignant than Frodo's. Frodo at least had Sam. But Bilbo? Despite all the dwarves and wizards and such, Bilbo really had no one but himself. The closest he had to a friend was Balin, but he wasn't even there half the time. So Bilbo was pretty much on his own.

Just because something's a children story does not mean it lacks depth, I agree. However, I was just saying The Hobbit is not an epic story. I believe they can do everything you have talked about in a 2.5 hour movie. The story is great, and like someone else said, the first story I finished alone. I think splitting it into two stories will make two weak movies, instead of one good movie.

There isn't a clear "middle" or end point to spring off into two movies.

souldaddy wrote:

Two films? Ugh. The book just isn't that complex. I've seen what happens when Peter Jackson indulges his director freak, it's called King Kong and it was 1-1.5 hours too long.

If King Kong is the worst case scenario here, I'm happy

It makes no sense to make a sequel to 'The Hobbit' in the usual definition of the words. It is strongly implied in LOTR (the book) that Bilbo basically sits on his ass and spends his money. Doesn't sound like a great basis for The Hobbit 2: Bilbo's Revenge. Unless he goes Rambo on the Sackville-Bagginses of course.

I suspect (please god) that both those articles are based on misinterpreting a poorly worded press release.

Bring on Glenn Yarbrough!

I shouldn't have re-read Beowulf. Now I can only see terrible things happening as the result of a burglar nipping treasure from a dragon.

Who's playing Wiglaf?

Net rumor reveals the director-to-be as Sam Raimi. This is a good thing.

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=3&id=46618&type=0

KaterinLHC wrote:

The closest he had to a friend was Balin, but he wasn't even there half the time. So Bilbo was pretty much on his own.

Gandalf. I believe that's who you meant there.

I will be curious to see who they cast in The Hobbit. They are going to need a whole lot of dwarves and a new Bilbo just to start with.

dhelor wrote:
KaterinLHC wrote:

The closest he had to a friend was Balin, but he wasn't even there half the time. So Bilbo was pretty much on his own.

Gandalf. I believe that's who you meant there.

No, I meant Balin. "Friend" implies a relationship of more-or-less equals. Gandalf was more like Bilbo's mentor (kind of like how he was with Frodo). Throughout the first part of the book, Gandalf mostly just held Bilbo's hand throughout their various adventures. After the Misty Mountains, the Big G spent most of his time elsewhere, doing wizardly things apart from Bilbo and the gang. Gandalf didn't really seem to get close to Bilbo until the very, very end of the book, when Bilbo was back home in Hobbiton.

In fact, IMHO I don't think Gandalf ever had any real friends. He had people he was traveling with, and allies with whom he had a common quest, and of course plenty of people he was trying to protect/save from certain annihilation/keep from slaughter/etc. But friends who he could relax with and trade dirty elf jokes, who he could trust to have his back when times got tough (and not just the other way around)? Not from what I saw. Closest friend he seemed to have was Saruman, and, well, we all know how that turned out.

Course, I've only read LOTR once. And the Simarillion and other books, not at all. So I may be completely off base here.

But, that material isn't very long and doesn't have that much depth. We must remember that The Hobbit is a children's story, not an epic like the Lord of the Rings. Most of those scenes aren't very long, even in the book. In the book, they jump from the party right to running into the trolls, there isn't much in between.

Once the Ents show up at the Battle of Five...er Six Armies and Bilbo slips off a cliff, causing us all to think he's dead for about 5 minutes, you'll be amazed at how the time will just slip away.

Kat is right re: Gandalf. The closest friend Gandalf ever has, really, is Aragorn - they work together for decades to accomplish Aragorn's ascension to the throne of Gondor.

Balin was the dwarf who always helped Bilbo when he fell behind, believed in him, that sort of thing. And even then, it was more like a nice older brother relationship that that of equals.

I can see them making a Hobbit movie, and then a movie about Angmar and possibly the fall of Moria? All the stuff that happens during the time that Bilbo is happily cultivating his eccentric reputation in the Shire.

In fact, IMHO I don't think Gandalf ever had any real friends.

Sure, he had Aragorn, Elrond, Bilbo, Frodo, he called Theoden a friend at times, plus a slew of minor characters. Gandalf was just a healthy old man, and like all healthy old folks I know, he was probably his own best friend. No inner turmoil about himself. His attitude towards Bilbo on their first meeting is more a counter to halfing lethargy then anything else. Gandalf isn't afraid of showing his darker character to get the job done, he's got wisdom to see the bigger picture.

Brennil wrote:

I can see them making a Hobbit movie, and then a movie about Angmar and possibly the fall of Moria? All the stuff that happens during the time that Bilbo is happily cultivating his eccentric reputation in the Shire.

Wouldn't that be the coolest? One can only hope.

KaterinLHC wrote:

Course, I've only read LOTR once. And the Simarillion and other books, not at all. So I may be completely off base here.

I highly recommend you read the Silmarillion, it is really fascinating.

Gandalf's closest friends would most likely have been the other Wizards (Istar in the Elvish I think) including Saruman, Radagast and 2 others who never appear in any of the works I've read. They were his only equals.

The wizards were basically demi-gods due to being one of the Maiar incarnate, as was the Balrog. That is the reason for the close match when Big G and the balrog clashed, any mere human, even from the line of Numenor like Aragorn would have been toast in seconds.

No doubt he could have been friends with the other characters, but there would likely have been some distance and his relationships would have been largely of convenience and, to his time span, extremely short.

Yes, yes, I'm a LOTR geek.

When fighting Balrogs, death is assured. But if you're strong enough, you can take it with you. That's about the best you can do. Even Galdalf didn't survive his fight.

Brennil wrote:

Balin was the dwarf who always helped Bilbo when he fell behind, believed in him, that sort of thing. And even then, it was more like a nice older brother relationship that that of equals.

My bad, it's been a while since I've read the book. When she mentioned "he wasn't there half the time," the only person I could think of to whom that would apply was Gandalf.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

Gandalf's closest friends would most likely have been the other Wizards (Istar in the Elvish I think) including Saruman, Radagast and 2 others who never appear in any of the works I've read. They were his only equals.

Alatar and Pallando were their names, and they pretty much don't appear in anything.

dhelor wrote:
Brennil wrote:

Balin was the dwarf who always helped Bilbo when he fell behind, believed in him, that sort of thing. And even then, it was more like a nice older brother relationship that that of equals.

My bad, it's been a while since I've read the book. When she mentioned "he wasn't there half the time," the only person I could think of to whom that would apply was Gandalf.

Yeah, by "wasn't there half the time", I meant that Bilbo was too busy running around on his own, be it winning riddle contests, chatting with dragons, or saving kidnapped dwarfs. He seemed to do a lot of that last one.

Razorgrin wrote:

Alatar and Pallando were their names, and they pretty much don't appear in anything.

Duuuude, respect!! Didn't one go East and one South, so they never appear in the stories of the West?

Grenn wrote:

When fighting Balrogs, death is assured. But if you're strong enough, you can take it with you. That's about the best you can do. Even Galdalf didn't survive his fight.

I never really read it that way, but even so, his resurrection would most likely be due to his divine nature.

I just want to say I love you guys. Back to the Tolkien geekfest, for it makes me warm and happy with hobbitish delight.