Cheebs said:What I don't get is why The Hobbit needs TWO films to tell the story? One 3 hour film could easily get everything across.
GDJustin said:You're ****ing crazy if you believe that cutting the # of dwarves down will even cross their mind.
Yeah, you'd have to do a faithful adaptation of the book. Not going to happen.Memles said:How the HELL do you write a script that makes each of the 13 dwarves distinct characters with a reason for being there? It's the major problem put forth by Boyens/Walsh when discussing a possible scripting of the book. And honestly, I think it would be impossible to do it with 13.
Memles said:How the HELL do you write a script that makes each of the 13 dwarves distinct characters with a reason for being there? It's the major problem put forth by Boyens/Walsh when discussing a possible scripting of the book. And honestly, I think it would be impossible to do it with 13.
sp0rsk said:Yeah, I hope someone other than jackson is directing.
J2 Cool said:Anyway, I'd also expect the The Silmarillion to be made into films one day if they can at all create a screenplay or 4. I doubt they'd have any problem with taking the liberties to make a movie out of it.
ToxicAdam said:I don't see why this even needs to be made.
fixed.eLGee said:For me:
No Jackson - No go
No Ian McKellen - No go
No Ian Holm - No go
MagicJackBauer said:They need to do this soon. Ian Holm is getting old and I want a believable young Bilbo.
JayDubya said:I love movies but I'm not sure I understand studio politics and who owns what... but the LOTR movies were New Line... these are MGM... The obvious question - is there a link between the two studios?
Maybe this part of the story will be fully fleshed out."In Mirkwood he was known as the Necromancer. Gandalf the Wizard stole into Dol Guldur and discovered the truth; eventually the White Council of Wizards and Elves combined to put forth their might and Sauron was driven out of Mirkwood."
Read the thread -- you're wrong. The legal situation is such that New Line owns the rights to make the movie, but MGM owns the rights to distribute it.medrew said:There's no link.
the full article said:"The Hobbit" will be produced in partnership with New Line, which Sloan says shares the rights to the property with MGM.
Bloodwake said:I'm pretty sure this was the most predictable movie announcement of all time.
I mean, come on. Lord of the Rings did great. Hobbit is the best Tolkien book. It was only a matter of time.
The two film thing sounds weird.
snaildog said:How old was Bilbo supposed to be anyway? Wasn't it about 40 or 50? I don't see any reason why Ian Holm can't play him again; the ring was supposed to slow down his aging right up to LOTR anyway ("You haven't aged a day!").
I guess that could be cool... but I'd rather they limited it to the lighthearted goings-on of Bilbo and Co. The relative lack of doom 'n gloom in the book is one of the reasons I prefer it to LOTR.Fix The Scientist said:There's alot of stuff concerning Gandalf and Aragorn that goes on during The Hobbit but is never mentioned until later books. I can't remember right but i think when Gandalf disappears he gets up to something to do with Sauron in Mirkwood.
Maybe this part of the story will be fully fleshed out.
I think Aragorn has some plot line with Gollum, also Saruman and even Legolas could potentially appear if they really pushed things. Maybe they are stretching it out to two movies because more of the story that happened during The Hobbit (but was never explained in that book) will be told.
snaildog said:How old was Bilbo supposed to be anyway? Wasn't it about 40 or 50? I don't see any reason why Ian Holm can't play him again; the ring was supposed to slow down his aging right up to LOTR anyway ("You haven't aged a day!").
Fix The Scientist said:I think Aragorn has some plot line with Gollum, also Saruman and even Legolas could potentially appear if they really pushed things. Maybe they are stretching it out to two movies because more of the story that happened during The Hobbit (but was never explained in that book) will be told.
Yeah, I hope someone other than jackson is directing.
Jill Sandwich said:
what is wrong with youChristopher said:I think I must be the ONLY one ever to not be intersted in TLOTR...I remember seeing it as a school trip in Sophmore year, and was completely bored by it.
Ford Prefect said:what is wrong with you
New Line(who we know now is 100% involved) has the filmed planned to start production July 2007.robertsan21 said:well PJ has not been in talks with ANY of the studios about making The Hobbit!
but He would like to do it, but he has a very very tight schedule at the moment.
Its not a question about IF PJ will make this movie its more of a WHEN will he make this movie!
Cheebs said:What I don't get is why The Hobbit needs TWO films to tell the story?
DarienA said:They also announced a sequel to the Thomas Crown Affair.... why?!?!?!?
robertsan21 said:well PJ has not been in talks with ANY of the studios about making The Hobbit!
but He would like to do it, but he has a very very tight schedule at the moment.
Its not a question about IF PJ will make this movie its more of a WHEN will he make this movie!
Wrong. New Line & MGM came to a deal. MGM distrubutes the film while New Line produces it.Busty said:Frankly I don't ever see this happening. The hobbit is so caught up in various legal bindings that it'll probably never be made everone wants.
Cheebs said:Wrong. New Line & MGM came to a deal. MGM distrubutes the film while New Line produces it.