Bah, no way we're going to get the first movie by summer of 2011. Chalk me up as grateful that they are taking their time, but Lovely Bones better be ridiculously good if Jackson expects me to be OK with more waiting.
[ June 20, 2010, 05:29 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I suppose you should be grateful Jackson is back on the project in the first place.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Jackson has been back on the project for some time now, so this just sounds like bad news to me.
It's not that surprising though. Either way, del Toro is still putting the team together, casting, doing the behind the scenes stuff that has to be done before a film is made.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Why two movies? The Hobbit should "fit" into one.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Why two movies? The Hobbit should "fit" into one.
The second movie is supposed to outline events between The Hobbit and Fellowship of the Ring. Nobody has any solid grasp on what the actual plot will be.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Interesting. Derived from the appendices maybe? Oo...could have Aragorn stuff in it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There's only very, very sketchy information on what happens between the events of The Hobbit and Fellowship, and it's all over the place. Jackson would have to delve into the Histories, more than the appendices and the Silmarillion.
The problem isn't just that there isn't enough to make a movie, it's that there's no real plot. When Gandalf says in the movie "the board is set, the pieces are moving," really all that happens before that is they're in the process of moving more of the pieces around.
After the Hobbit, we find out that the White Council expelled the Necromancer from Dol Guldur, and that the Necromancer was actually Sauron. Sauron returns to Mordor and builds Barad-Dur, then rebuilds his army. I think somewhere in there Balin leads a Dwarf colony back to Moria, and it's lost. It's just a lot of piddly stuff, and for that matter, there's no plot, it's all just historical events. Aragorn is out and about during all of this, mostly either hanging out with Elrohir and Elladan, or out with his Ranger buddies. Saruman is chatting Sauron up over the Palantir. Gandalf is riding around trying to figure out what the heck is going on. Denethor takes over from Ecthalion II. Actually, that might be at least a recognizable plot. Aragorn during this interim period fought with both Thengal, Theoden's father, and with Ecthalion, Denethor's father, in their respective armies for a time before moving on.
Denethor especially during this time spent a lot of time reconquering parts of Gondor that had been lost, like the cut scene where you see Boromir and Faramir retaking Osgilliath (which means something like "City of the Stars" in sindarin).
But again, no plot! Jackson will have to spend quite a bit of time BSing stuff to make it fit into a watchable movie, and I'm going to absolutely hate it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I just hope that Viggo is still young enough to play Aragorn when they film. He is pretty.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Jackson would have to delve into the Histories, more than the appendices and the Silmarillion.
Is there any reason to believe that he (or his script writers) won't just make the story up from whole cloth?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
None that I can think of, well, except self-restraint. I'm saying if they wanted to actually base it on Tolkien, rather than making the whole thing up, that's where they'd have to go.
He's going to have to make up a large percentage of it though. There isn't enough material for a fluid story.
However, I don't think he'll make the whole thing up. Jackson made some questionable changes to the story when he made the movies, but ont he whole, I think most people would agree that he was pretty faithful to the material. Fran Walsh, Phillipa Boyens and Jackson are all Tolkien fans through and through, so part of me doubts that they'd totally disregard what material there was just for the sake of BSing a movie to make some cash.
That's just a personal opinion, but I think he'll do a Original Tolkien/Original Jackson hybrid. If it were up to me, it would just be a single movie, or maybe they'd try and do something from the Second or First Ages, where there is both a wealth of material, and some incredibly gripping and televisable material.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I'm not sure what to think of this second movie, either. I have a feeling I'm going to hate it, too.
The Hobbit itself, though? Oohh...so exciting. The trolls, Rivendell, the spiders, Beorn, the Eagles, Smaug, Bard, The Battle of Five Armies - it all has to be there. And if it's done well enough, I can definitely see myself loving this one movie so much more than the trilogy.
But I think I may have a heart attack from anticipation if they keep delaying this thing. Just make it already!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I wonder if they'll leave stuff out, like Beorn, or the Arkenstone, of it really will be an all inclusive bunch of awesome.
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
No to verge off topic, but this made me chuckle:
quote:The filmmaker, who is promoting his new film The Lovely Bones, made the statement while talking to a German website that the trade paper rather unprofessionally neglects to name. Alas, that's how they do at Variety.
That's from the linked article in the OP. I just think its kind of funny how Scott Collura from IGN rather unprofessionally bashes Variety for unprofessionally not citing their source.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Good, I have six months to make it in the movie business.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
The title of this thread made me laugh.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Why two movies? The Hobbit should "fit" into one.
The second movie is supposed to outline events between The Hobbit and Fellowship of the Ring. Nobody has any solid grasp on what the actual plot will be.
Woah, I hadn't heard that conclusively. I guess I haven't been paying attention this year, but that's pretty amazing.
First, cutting it into two films really allows him to cover every single inch of the book. Yeah there's a lot going on in The Hobbit, but it's really not that big or long of a book. Not like any single LOTR novel. Also, I'm both nervous and excited to see what happens with the White Council attack on Dol Guldur. There aren't any real details that I know of surrounding it, but it certainly gives an excellent chance to pull in some favorites from the LOTR movies, such as Galadriel, who I think was excellently played by Cate Blanchett in the trilogy.
I'm not quite sure what the obvious break that del Toro refers to as being the place to cut the movie in half. I just ran through a couple forums and a lot of the guessing seems to say that it'll happen after Smaug, but that seems pretty late in the film to me. I would think the better point would be after the White Council attacks Dol Guldur. Unless they do it in a really, really long flashback, that has to come between the Battle of Five Armies and Mirkwood, when Gandalf heads south and then comes back. Besides, if they did all that, then the second movie would just be the battle and then some mopping up afterward.
I think a first movie consisting of getting over the Misty Mountains and through Mirkwood to Thranduil's caves, and having the White Council oust the Necromancer, is a good first movie. End with them still in captivity, like they ended Fellowship with Merry and Pippin in captivity. Then you start the second one with Gandalf heading north with all possible speed, and maybe show some of the mustering of orcs in the Misty Mountains and Mt. Gundabad.
Thoughts?
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
The Wikipedia entry suggests that the "obvious break" point has more to do with character interactions than plot development:
quote:In June 2009, Del Toro revealed he had decided where to divide the story based on comments from fans about signifying a change in Bilbo's relationship with the dwarves.[46]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not sure if that really answers the question. I can think of half a dozen instances in the movie where Bilbo's relationship with the dwarves changes. When he figures out the map, saves them from the spiders, saves them from Thranduil, figures out the thrush and the backdoor entrance, the trick he pulls with the Arkenstone (that's maybe the biggest one, I'm not sure).
Lots of room for movement.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: The Wikipedia entry suggests that the "obvious break" point has more to do with character interactions than plot development:
quote:In June 2009, Del Toro revealed he had decided where to divide the story based on comments from fans about signifying a change in Bilbo's relationship with the dwarves.[46]
Maybe along the lines of, "Oh, Gandalf did find us a thief after all. Nice going, Bilbo!"
Speaking of all things LotR related, my fiance just bought a ton of cards for the game they made around when the trilogy was coming out, and our first game I will have a Hobbit Army, mostly because the idea just makes me smile. It's going to be awesome, probalby in a more ridiculous way than I can imagine, but awesome all the same!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Why two movies? The Hobbit should "fit" into one.
The second movie is supposed to outline events between The Hobbit and Fellowship of the Ring. Nobody has any solid grasp on what the actual plot will be.
Del Toro's quit and I can't blame him as there's no way The Hobbit even will even start production until next year. For me, this is incredibly disappointing. The only way this could become good news would be if they agreed to make only one movie and Peter Jackson agreed to direct it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Word on the street is that if all else fails, PJ says he will direct, but he'd prefer not to.
It looks like they'll have to find a replacement, and speculation is already running rampant. Personally, my vote is for Alfonso Cuaron, who is actually a good friend of GDT.
GDT will still spend more time in NZ working on the script, and he has spent a lot time on conceptual design work, but is out for the actual directing. The movie will still have a distinctive mark of GDT.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Rumor mill is saying Neil Blomkamp of District 9 fame will helm The Hobbit, with shooting to start in early 2011.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
BB, I think I speak for all of us when I say changing the title of this thread is just the humane thing to do. I'm sick of looking at it.
Please. Stop the suffering.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Don't blame me I hadn't noticed my thread had been raised from the dead.
Also, Ian McKellen has indicated that filming is still due to start this year.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Word on the street is that if all else fails, PJ says he will direct, but he'd prefer not to.
PJ to direct? Cool!
No WONDER he decided to stop being the moderator here!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
From what I've read, PJ at the very least has said that McKellen is premature in his announcement of filming this year. Filming is indefinitely on hold until after the MGM problem is solved. That's another saga that has had a lot of rumors floated around.
On the other hand, it has been confirmed that Neil Blomkamp will NOT direct, which still leaves room for my choice, Alfonso Curaron to direct.
Sorry for the thread necromancy, but it seemed silly to start a new thread when this one is exactly what the subject matter was about.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
Thread necromancy. One of my new favorite terms ever. As to the OP, since Del Toro and Jackson had a hand in all the pre-production work (designing characters, settings, locations, beginning storyboarding, etc.) I see no reason why a fairly competent director can't take this over at this point and have a successful telling of the story. And there are many, many competent directors out there who can manage to tell a story on film. The design aspects are what makes Jackson and Del Toro geniuses in their craft anyway. Additionally, I'm not that concerned about timetable. I'm willing to wait for a film to be done "right" rather than "right now." I think that's one of the (many) failings of the "Twilight" phenomena being brought to film.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I wouldn't even call it semi-official. They're in talks. Given how the history of the directorship has gone, that means the studio REALLY wants PJ to do it, and they're ready to start writing down dollar figures.
But with MGM still tied up, and with The Hobbit revenue pie already divvied up between Tolkien's family, Saul Zaentz, MGM, and Harvey Weinstein, among others, adding another hand to the pot, even on what will surely be a huge blockbuster success, is not a done deal. It also remains to be seen when shooting will actually start, as pre-production rolls on with PJ's involvement. People on the Hobbit team say that MGM's financial woes aren't a factor, but given the funding issues, I don't see how they couldn't be. The next Bond movie is being held up by the same problem.
It's not nearly a done deal...but it wouldn't surprise me if it ended up that way. Jackson doesn't want to see it in the hands of someone he doesn't trust, and from what I understand, he more or less has veto power. We'll see.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Looks like we should be hearing in the next week that Jackson is officially on board to direct the two Hobbit films. This is big news to Jackson supporters and fans of the first films.
The only reason I wanted someone else to do it was so the wargs looked like wolves and not hyenas, but that's a minor quibble. There isn't really much that Jackson can mess up in The Hobbit, unless he leaves out characters that there is really no reason to leave out. I'm kind of even hoping for some sweet back story scenes where he shows Smaug attacking Lonely Mountain, and even showing the Dwarf army attacking Moria and thus highlighting the feud between them, and Azog/Bolg. Lots of great stuff they COULD do. Maybe they'll even integrate some of the songs/poems from the book like they did the in the trilogies.
I mean, I can let the "tralalalalley way down in the valley" stuff go, but the poem when the dwarves explain Smaug's coming with their song in Bag End could be really cool.
I'm starting to get excited again!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I keep throwing terrible hexes at this movie and it's still getting made, what's up with that.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The Hobbit with Jackson at the helm leaves me in complete satisfaction and reassured that it will be both truthful to the book, compelling visual epic, and the entertainment of whatever year it gets made.
Weird nonsequitor deviations aside LotR I felt was fairly truthful.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I mean, I can let the "tralalalalley way down in the valley" stuff go, but the poem when the dwarves explain Smaug's coming with their song in Bag End could be really cool.
I'm starting to get excited again!
For sure about the song in Bag End. That could/should be awesome.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I keep throwing terrible hexes at this movie and it's still getting made, what's up with that.
Ha!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I keep throwing terrible hexes at this movie and it's still getting made, what's up with that.
It's almost like you don't have magic powers.
I, however, have learned recently in some disturbing happenstances that I might actually have magic powers. I'd set something up for you, but I actually want to see the movie made, so, maybe we can get together on Harry Potter or something?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lyrhawn: I'd appreciate it if you stopped the Star Wars movies from being released in 3D. If it's not too much trouble of course.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Last I heard the project was having union problems... Not to mention the array of legal complaints that have been flying like buzzards around everything having to do with the Tolkein movies in the last five years or so. Has something changed?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The union thing is a recent development, and I'm not totally sure what's happening with that. It had to do with the actor's union throwing a hissy fit about something, it was either non-union actors or payscales, but it wasn't so heinous that it would in any way hold up production. The money being talked about was child's play for a production this large. But there's another issue that will affect the workers as well.
One of the other big recent disputes is actually the shooting location. Other countries are offering big rebates to Warner to move production out of NZ and to wherever that country is. Canada is in serious contention, apparently, as are Australia, Scotland, and half of Eastern Europe. There's still no telling what will happen with that, and it could very well stay in NZ, but Fran Walsh had an interview saying she's very disappointed with the NZ government for not putting up a competitive fight for the project. Jackson was initially offered NZ as a shoot location as a courtesy from Warner, but when other countries came forward with big rebate offers, Warner told Jackson they were going to crunch numbers and see if they might need to force a change. If they move, some of those actor problems go away. It sounds like some of it was inside baseball anyway. A lot of NZ actors are independent contractors, and there was a push from Australian big unions to portray Jackson and the movie as anti-union perhaps as a power play to move filming off of NZ entirely. I don't think it's as big a problem as it is being made out to be.
As for the legal problems, what I've been reading is that they were close to a deal with Spyglass after the deal with Lion's Gate fell through. But now, a guy from Lion's Gate who was initially against the deal has bought 10% of MGM's debt in an effort to force a merger with his company. MGM and Spyglass have already started some formal paper work, and buying this guy out could end up being pricier than they are willing to go, so it's up in the air, but a lot of people are optimistic. Regardless, pre-production is continuing as if everything is fine, even though no contracts have been signed with actors yet (and Ian McKellen, for one, is anxious to have that done). There's still a bit of a grace period while pre-production continues before they actually need the go ahead, but that window might be an okay time period.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
I'm waiting for the announcement that it'll be in IMAX 3D. That would be epic.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Saw this, the labor disputes are being called a formality, and to be honest I think getting Jackson to agree on his salary, and MGM/Warner Bros giving the green light for funds were the biggest hurdles. Assuming all the actors thus far don't suddenly leave for whatever reason we might actually get a movie. Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: I'm waiting for the announcement that it'll be in IMAX 3D. That would be epic.
So, does this mean hes gonna be Tom Bambidel?
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
Yay for a green light! Finally!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
From what I've read elsewhere, Martin Freeman was at one point offered Bilbo, and I think it'd be a great choice. He had to turn it down due to scheduling conflicts, but now he's supposedly back in talks again.
The only role that really comes to mind for Tennant might be Bard, but he'd have to bulk up a little I'd think. Or I guess, if they do the White Council, he could be Radagast. I'm most curious about the casting choices for Bard, Smaug, Thorin and Beorn. I also think it'd be interesting if they make the orcs into actual characters rather than as snarling monsters like they were in Fellowship. The goblin king in the Misty Mountains and Bolg of Moria.
Some of my bigger narrative questions are how much of the pre-Bilbo story will be told. Will the first half hour be the formation of the White Council, Gandalf entering Dol Goldur and Gandalf's chance meeting with Thorin? Or will they just launch into the movie with Gandalf knocking on Bilbo's door, perhaps covering the rest in flashbacks? Also, I wonder if Galadriel will do the voiceover again. I really hope so. When I loved the cartoons as a kid, John Huston was the VOICE of LOTR for me. Cate Blanchett is the voice of LOTR for me now.
I plan to start a new Hobbit thread in the coming weeks as casting and production information starts to flow.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Cate Blanchett is the voice of LOTR for me now.
But Cate Blanchett has a horrible voice! *boggles*
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Cate was Galadriel right in the movies? She's good.
As for Tennant I can most assuredly attest that the man has a HUGE range of voices and could play any manner of roles, I have the audi books for "How to Train You Dragon" and he does the narration and every character pretty swell.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Cate Blanchett is the voice of LOTR for me now.
But Cate Blanchett has a horrible voice! *boggles*
Seriously? Don't get me wrong, John Huston is still a far better narrator, if we're comparing people who've made the attempt in some version of a LOTR film, but I thought she was fantastic in the prologue and throughout.
Posted by LargeTuna (Member # 10512) on :
I just realized (off of memory, so I hope I'm right) that the first chapter of The Hobbit is An Unexpexted party, and the first chapter of Fellowship of the Ring is A Long-expected Party.
I am finding this so awesome right now, I needed to share.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wow cool. I never put those together before. Awesome observation LT!
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Great link, Lyr. They all sound like really great choices.
In other news, I find it a little disturbing that I'm hoping Aidan Turner still manages to look sexy with a beard. O_o
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Anyone who is not sure whether Martin Freeman will be a good enough actor for the role needs to watch 'Sherlock' (it's a pretty different role, but it shows that he has serious range and talent - plus he looks like he has furry feet). He'll be a great. He also resembles Ian Holm enough for it to sync nicely with the other movies.
Now we just need them to film in New Zealand and it'll be perfect.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by LargeTuna: I just realized (off of memory, so I hope I'm right) that the first chapter of The Hobbit is An Unexpexted party, and the first chapter of Fellowship of the Ring is A Long-expected Party.
I am finding this so awesome right now, I needed to share.
That was the first thing I noticed when I read The Fellowship of the Ring Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: Anyone who is not sure whether Martin Freeman will be a good enough actor for the role needs to watch 'Sherlock' (it's a pretty different role, but it shows that he has serious range and talent - plus he looks like he has furry feet). He'll be a great. He also resembles Ian Holm enough for it to sync nicely with the other movies.
Now we just need them to film in New Zealand and it'll be perfect.
I think he's absolutely perfect for it. Not only does he have the look, he has the demeanor and mannerisms that I think would make Bilbo really pop (or not pop, since it's Bilbo).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Hobbit will indeed film in New Zealand. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Near as I can tell that was the last real obstacle.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
In case any one missed the memo, The Hobbit has officially begun shooting, and there are production videos that can be viewed, I believe on Jackson's FB page.
What a fun video, I'm excited!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
wOOt!!!
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
He's gotten chubby again to give himself nerd cred! Looks a lot healthier, also seems more jolly.
Posted by manji (Member # 11600) on :
I was skeptical of this movie. But seeing that video put a smile on my face.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
This video is way cool and I'm very much looking forward to the feature...but this comment...
"It's almost like you stepped into a movie"
...struck me as funny.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Ive heard other directors say that there is little else to do but eat while filming on a set, imagine having an all you can eat buffet at work filled with delicious food. And as the director you might expect there to be some of your favorites on the menu just for you.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
In that case, hobbits would love directing movies.
Posted by GarminForerunner (Member # 12555) on :
(Post Removed By Janitor Blade. Spam.)
[ April 15, 2011, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
I'm so excited I can't stand it!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
With your screen name I never would have guessed.
I LOVE my wife, she is as excited as I am about this. Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
It is a little bit odd to me that they destroy beuatiful sets like that when they are done, so much work undone for such little gain.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
For LOTR, they didn't destroy. They took them down and put them in storage. Not all of them maybe, but a lot of them.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
IIRC, the stuff they saved from LOTR were primarily the "bigatures" and other models, not the entire actual sets themselves. That's why PJ mentions having rebuilt the Rivendell and Bag End sets to perfectly match the originals - the original sets themselves are long gone.
Sets aren't designed to hold up for the long term. You'll notice that in the video, the new Rivendell set looks shockingly drab and tiny compared to the lush images we saw in LOTR. That's not because of shoddy workmanship - that's because that's how all sets look in "real life." The impression of vast, ancient beauty is a product of careful camera placement, lens selection, lighting, panning, and post-production, applied to a location ultimately made of foam and wood slats.
As a side note - this is why the new Harry Potter theme park cost more to build than the entire budget of one of the feature films. Building a perfect replica of the film sets as they appear in the film, and capable of withstanding the pounding of hundreds of thousands of visitors walking over and touching everything, requires an order of magnitude more effort (and cost) than building that same set for filming.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
That was a great video, I cannot wait for this movie.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)