Peter Jackson to film The Hobbit

[BarTopDancer]

Story here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071218/ap_en_mo/film_the_hobbit;_ylt=AjZkAGbQX2sfbfS2pz0V1MxxFb8C)

[LSPoorEeyorick]

He's only producing, not directing, though...

[Morrigoon]

I hope he retains the look. That would rock.

[Snowflake]

Since I was never able to get past Chapter 3 of the book all through my childhood, it will be nice to see what actually happens to Bilbao Baggins

[innerSpaceman]

Why split it into two movies? I don't get it.

In a way, I'm glad he's overseeing. The LotR films looked great. But, by and large, they sucked. I'll never understand how a film that was not shot in sequence could have ended up going from great to horrible in such a steady chronological decline.

I had hoped with the much smaller canvas of The Hobbit, a much tighter, single movie could be made.


Eh, we'll see.



I wonder how Jackson and New Line patched things up. Curious that it was the one good film of the three that was the sticking point Jackson was getting financially ripped off on. I thought the other two, far worse movies, each made more money. I wonder why the first one, the good one, the lowest-grossing one, was the one with the tricksey Hollywood accounting problems.

[Disneyphile]

Just called Ken with the news. If anyone sees a hobbity looking guy bouncing all over Target today, that would be him. ;)

Production begins in 2009. That means I have a bit of time to prove myself and try to land on that production.

At the very least, this might mean two more huge Oscar parties. :D

[Alex]

If they feel they need to split it into two movies, that doesn't bode well for Jackson avoiding the bloat of the last two movies for LotR. The Hobbit is a relatively simple, straightforward story. Nothing other than continuing the need to include absolutely everything (or at least reference it as a commercial for the 14-hour extended DVD version) would require 5-6 hours of movie.

But the man did manage to make King Kong into a 3-hour movie.

[Not Afraid]

It's the only Tolkien book I have read. I loved it as a child. I'm suspicious of a film.

[Moonliner]

The Fellowship Of The Ring - 480 pages - one movie
The Two Towers - 448 pages - one movie
The Return of the King - 512 pages - one movie

The Hobbit - 320 pages - TWO MOVIES????

The only reason I can see for that is ticket and dvd sales.


I've got a bad feeling about this...

[blueerica]

If they feel they need to split it into two movies, that doesn't bode well for Jackson avoiding the bloat of the last two movies for LotR. The Hobbit is a relatively simple, straightforward story. Nothing other than continuing the need to include absolutely everything (or at least reference it as a commercial for the 14-hour extended DVD version) would require 5-6 hours of movie.

But the man did manage to make King Kong into a 3-hour movie.

Agreed. It's not a large book, so even if he includes everything, I'm confused as to why it would need to be anything more than a slightly-longer-than-the-norm film.

[Moonliner]

Hey wait a second....
This article (http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2007/12/18/28150-peter-jackson-and-new-line-cinema-join-with-mgm-to-produce-%E2%80%9Cthe-hobbit%E2%80%9D/) says they are planning to film "The Hobbit" and a sequel. Which is very different from filming the Hobbit in two parts.

[Alex]

Well, a sequel based on original writing (I'm assuming, there isn't a Tolkein sequel is there? Sylmarillion is tangential pre-Hobbit history, isn't it?) sounds like an even worse idea that a bloated two-movie version of The Hobbit.

[mousepod]

Then let me be the first person on LoT to propose:

"Hobbit 2: Electric Boogaloo."

Thank you.

[Kevy Baby]

Since I was never able to get past Chapter 3 of the book all through my childhood, it will be nice to see what actually happens to Bilbao BagginsIt was easier for me to read The Hobbit than it was any of the LotR books.

Why split it into two movies? I don't get it. To make more money - pure and simple.

[innerSpaceman]

The Silmarillion would take about 17 feature films to cover.

It cannot be filmed.


End.

[Moonliner]

sounds like an even worse idea that a bloated two-movie version of The Hobbit.

If we can get a decent version of The Hobbit then I say it's a fair deal. I just won't see the sequel.

Of course it would be hard to beat the classic Rankin and Bass version of The Hobbit.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Yeah, I'd rather it be a single film of the book The Hobbit followed by some sequel based on other material than have the book split into 2 films. I can always ignore the sequel.

[Alex]

Good point.

Of course, I'd rather they get someone other than Peter Jackson to try. The possibility of Sam Raimi is very intriguing but he whiffed so badly on Spider-Man 3 that I fear another big piece from him and would prefer he spend a few years going back to smaller films.

[innerSpaceman]

Ditto with Peter Jackson. Smaller film penitence, please.