| Author |
 Topic  |
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
 Posted - 12/19/2007 : 22:17:49
|
Thought I'd bring this discussion into its own thread before Mr. Salopian has a chance to object.
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Only yesterday, I PMed Baffy to suggest that the performance of THE GOLDEN COMPASS might hasten hatchet burial between Bob Shaye and Peter Jackson. And look what happened.
I read that this morning.  I'm curious to know the 'nature' of the deal. PJ believed he was owed around $100m.
"Believed" [more to the point, "asserted"?] and "sued" and "you lousy crooks" and such are annoyingly common phrases in La-La. I never "believed" for an instant that the Shaye/Jackson dust-up would prevent Jackson from eventually making THE HOBBIT [true, he apparently won't direct, but he'll still have Kubrick-level control over the project, so I say he's making the films], and at New Line. Worldwide fan sentiment, an unrelenting horde of negative pre-buzz, would make it idiotic to (1) hand the project to anyone else, and (2) take it if you were the schnook it was offered to!
The party line is that Jackson started making nice a year ago, it's just a coincidence that the announcement comes out right now. I don't "believe" that for a nanosecond. Yes, all parties waited around for the results, and New Line would have eventually made a deal no matter what, but TGC was New Line's blink: where do we sign, Pete, ol' pal?
Sam Raimi would reportedly like a whack at the director's chair [remember, we'll shoot both films at once, like RINGS, so once we decide, it's in for a pound]. I think he'd be a fine choice. Any other suggestions? |
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 12/20/2007 : 10:48:01
|
Yep I always thought they would 'patch things up'. It made far too much sense to have Jackson/Weta Workshops make this movie in NZ than anyone else doing it anywhere else. I'd guess that the LOTR dispute has been cleared up probably through a particularly good deal for PJ on the Hobbit. It would make sense to do it that way.
Direction? Raimi sounds good. But, Jackson had numerous assistant directors on LOTR, it's possible one of them may get the key job. That may be a good way of keeping the 'flavour' the same as it was for LOTR, if that's what they want. Gotta write it first though.  |
 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/20/2007 : 11:13:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Thought I'd bring this discussion into its own thread before Mr. Salopian has a chance to object.
Why would I object? I'm not one of the people who moans when a thread develops off course and announces that the discussion should be moved elsewhere. (I just don't like when people post completely new things in the wrong threads.) And please stop calling me Mr. Salopian.
How come there are going to be two films? Is the book divided that way. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 12/20/2007 : 12:27:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Thought I'd bring this discussion into its own thread before Mr. Salopian has a chance to object.
Why would I object? I'm not one of the people who moans when a thread develops off course and announces that the discussion should be moved elsewhere. (I just don't like when people post completely new things in the wrong threads.) (1) And please stop calling me Mr. Salopian.
(2) How come there are going to be two films? Is the book divided that way.
1) For two years I referred to you as "Sally," without hearing a peep, as a term of endearment a la Stan Lee, just like I do Baffy, Chocky, Whippy, and many others. Meant to inspire a jolly chuckle is all. One day you took umbrage and suddenly asked me to stop that, so I did, and I adopted a term of respect instead. Now I'm to cease using that as well. I think a foolproof solution may be not to refer to you at all. Yep, that'll work.
2) No, the book is not divided that way, but I guess the feeling is that there's enough material for two. There was a great deal left out of the RINGS trilogy. |
Edited by - randall on 12/20/2007 16:36:02 |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 12/20/2007 : 12:33:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Yep I always thought they would 'patch things up'. It made far too much sense to have Jackson/Weta Workshops make this movie in NZ than anyone else doing it anywhere else. I'd guess that the LOTR dispute has been cleared up probably through a particularly good deal for PJ on the Hobbit. It would make sense to do it that way.
Direction? Raimi sounds good. But, Jackson had numerous assistant directors on LOTR, it's possible one of them may get the key job. That may be a good way of keeping the 'flavour' the same as it was for LOTR, if that's what they want. Gotta write it first though.
Another way to go would be to hire a star director like Raimi, who's been though effects-packed blockbusters before. It's the Indiana Jones model. But you're right: first things first. |
|
|
|
Wheelz 
"FWFR%u2019ing like it%u2019s 1999"
|
Posted - 12/20/2007 : 13:01:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
How come there are going to be two films? Is the book divided that way.
Here's what I read (from Time Magazine online):
Principal photography on The Hobbit has been tentatively set to start in 2009, with the goal of releasing the film in 2010. And Jackson and Walsh have already come up with the plan for a sequel � a film that would link the conclusion of The Hobbit with the start of The Fellowship of the Rings. Expect that one in 2011. Which should give everyone time to start fighting again.
|
|
|
|
lemmycaution
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 12/20/2007 : 14:57:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Thought I'd bring this discussion into its own thread before Mr. Salopian has a chance to object.
Why would I object? I'm not one of the people who moans when a thread develops off course and announces that the discussion should be moved elsewhere. (I just don't like when people post completely new things in the wrong threads.) (1) And please stop calling me Mr. Salopian.
(2) How come there are going to be two films? Is the book divided that way.
1) For two years I referred to you as "Sally," without hearing a peep, as a term of endearment a la Stan Lee, just like I do Baffy, Chocky, and many others. Meant to inspire a jolly chuckle is all. One day you took umbrage and suddenly asked me to stop that, so I did, and I adopted a term of respect instead. Now I'm to cease using that as well. I think a foolproof solution may be not to refer to you at all. Yep, that'll work.
2) No, the book is not divided that way, but I guess the feeling is that there's enough material for two. There was a great deal left out of the RINGS trilogy.
"What do they call you up in Toronto?"
"They call me MISTER lemmy!" |
|
|
|
Beanmimo 
"August review site"
|
Posted - 12/20/2007 : 16:52:59
|
Something deep inside me recoiled at the use of the word prequel when referring to The Hobbit even though it is technically correct in the order the movies will have eventually being made.
For those not in the know, Tolkien wrote 'The Hobbit' first.
All the same i'm looking forward to it.
It was the only book that I read from cover to cover in one sitting at about the age of thirteen.
Just my pennys worth. |
Edited by - Beanmimo on 12/21/2007 12:09:06 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 12/20/2007 : 23:59:11
|
It does look like Raimi is expected to direct, and is just waiting for Jackson's approval.
Also, it does look like it's generally expected that the Hobbit will be one movie, and the 'sequel' will bridge the Hobbit/LOTR gap. There is material in the Appendices to LOTR that covers this period, although there isn't much detail.
Read all about it...
http://www.theonering.net/torwp/ |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/28/2010 : 21:36:32
|
| Here is an older thread. |
|
|
|
Sludge 
"Charlie Don't Serf!"
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 07/31/2012 : 05:43:11
|
Well the speculation has proven well-founded; there will be three Rings movies, not two.  Peter Jackson confirms it here, and I've pasted it below:-
"An unexpected journey
by Peter Jackson
on Tuesday, 31 July 2012 at 03:30 �
It is only at the end of a shoot that you finally get the chance to sit down and have a look at the film you have made. Recently Fran, Phil and I did just this when we watched for the first time an early cut of the first movie - and a large chunk of the second. We were really pleased with the way the story was coming together, in particular, the strength of the characters and the cast who have brought them to life. All of which gave rise to a simple question: do we take this chance to tell more of the tale? And the answer from our perspective as the filmmakers, and as fans, was an unreserved �yes.'
We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance. The richness of the story of The Hobbit, as well as some of the related material in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, allows us to tell the full story of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and the part he played in the sometimes dangerous, but at all times exciting, history of Middle-earth.
So, without further ado and on behalf of New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Wingnut Films, and the entire cast and crew of �The Hobbit� films, I�d like to announce that two films will become three.
It has been an unexpected journey indeed, and in the words of Professor Tolkien himself, "a tale that grew in the telling."
Cheers,
Peter J" |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 07/31/2012 : 21:29:18
|
| I suppose there's some satisfying balance to having two trilogies, but the whole thing smacks of unnecessary money grubbing to me. It's a 300 page book - don't tell me Jackson couldn't have managed it in two hours. Even two films was pushing it. The LOTR films worked because they are three big books packed with incident - plenty of material to use or drop - three Hobbit films feels like extension for the sake of extension. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 07/31/2012 : 23:35:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
I suppose there's some satisfying balance to having two trilogies, but the whole thing smacks of unnecessary money grubbing to me. It's a 300 page book
...and 125 pages of appendices from LOTR... that's a movie in itself.quote:
- don't tell me Jackson couldn't have managed it in two hours. Even two films was pushing it. The LOTR films worked because they are three big books packed with incident - plenty of material to use or drop - three Hobbit films feels like extension for the sake of extension.
PJ has always (since the 3-movies issue was raised) said it's because there was plenty of material available that they couldn't film, e.g., a couple of weeks ago.
Sure there's more money now there's an extra film, that goes without saying. But I always thought LOTR suffered (as excellent as it was) as a result of the material that was cut; the cinematic versions are decidedly inferior to the real thing (the Extended Cut) which is two hours longer. If the Extended Cut was a few hours longer it would be better still. In particular, the cinematic version of The Two Towers felt like an exposition of essential plot action crammed into three hours with little time left for the other material that helps it flow.
As it is, LOTR Extended Cut works out at about 100 pages per hour of movie and that's with a lot of stuff cut. That makes The Hobbit three hours at an absolute minimum with heavy cutting and compromising. Four hours and two movies sounds better, with another two-hour movie from the LOTR appendices. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 08/04/2012 : 22:03:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
I suppose there's some satisfying balance to having two trilogies, but the whole thing smacks of unnecessary money grubbing to me. It's a 300 page book
...and 125 pages of appendices from LOTR... that's a movie in itself.quote:
- don't tell me Jackson couldn't have managed it in two hours. Even two films was pushing it. The LOTR films worked because they are three big books packed with incident - plenty of material to use or drop - three Hobbit films feels like extension for the sake of extension.
PJ has always (since the 3-movies issue was raised) said it's because there was plenty of material available that they couldn't film, e.g., a couple of weeks ago.
Sure there's more money now there's an extra film, that goes without saying. But I always thought LOTR suffered (as excellent as it was) as a result of the material that was cut; the cinematic versions are decidedly inferior to the real thing (the Extended Cut) which is two hours longer. If the Extended Cut was a few hours longer it would be better still. In particular, the cinematic version of The Two Towers felt like an exposition of essential plot action crammed into three hours with little time left for the other material that helps it flow.
As it is, LOTR Extended Cut works out at about 100 pages per hour of movie and that's with a lot of stuff cut. That makes The Hobbit three hours at an absolute minimum with heavy cutting and compromising. Four hours and two movies sounds better, with another two-hour movie from the LOTR appendices.
Agree that the Extended Editions are the *real* LotR movies. But there's plenty of stuff that I was glad to see left out. For example, I didn't miss Tom Bombadil one bit.
As for three Hobbit movies, I plan to wait and see. Jackson is the only filmmaker thus far who has managed to successfully transfer Tolkien to the screen, so he's earned the benefit of the doubt as far as I'm concerned. |
Edited by - randall on 08/04/2012 22:05:39 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 02:14:11
|
| I just booked my 3D HFR ticket for next Thursday (the day after opening). Can't wait. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
The Hobbit
