f13.net

ACADEMY AWARD-WINNER PETER JACKSON AND NEW LINE CINEMA JOIN WITH MGM TO PRODUCE “THE HOBBIT,” EAGERLY-ANTICIPATED FANTASY ADVENTURE EPIC

NEW LINE AND MGM TO CO-PRODUCE AND SHARE WORLDWIDE DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS

PETER JACKSON AND FRAN WALSH TO EXECUTIVE PRODUCE TWO FILMS BASED ON “THE HOBBIT”

Los Angeles, CA (Tuesday, December 18, 2007) Academy Award-winning filmmaker Peter Jackson; Harry Sloan, Chairman and CEO, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. (MGM); Bob Shaye and Michael Lynne, Co-Chairmen and Co-CEOs of New Line Cinema have jointly announced today that they have entered into the following series of agreements:

* MGM and New Line will co-finance and co-distribute two films, “The Hobbit” and a sequel to “The Hobbit.” New Line will distribute in North America and MGM will distribute internationally.

* Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh will serve as Executive Producers of two films based on “The Hobbit.” New Line will manage the production of the films, which will be shot simultaneously.

* Peter Jackson and New Line have settled all litigation relating to the “Lord of the Rings” (LOTR) Trilogy.

Said Peter Jackson, “I’m very pleased that we’ve been able to put our differences behind us, so that we may begin a new chapter with our old friends at New Line. ‘The Lord of the Rings’ is a legacy we proudly share with Bob and Michael, and together, we share that legacy with millions of loyal fans all over the world. We are delighted to continue our journey through Middle Earth. I also want to thank Harry Sloan and our new friends at MGM for helping us find the common ground necessary to continue that journey.”

“Peter Jackson has proven himself as the filmmaker who can bring the extraordinary imagination of Tolkien to life and we full heartedly agree with the fans worldwide who know he should be making ‘The Hobbit,’” said Sloan, MGM’s Chairman and CEO. “Now that we are all in agreement on ‘The Hobbit,’ we can focus on assembling the production team that will capture this phenomenal tale on film.”

Bob Shaye, New Line Co-Chairman and Co-CEO comments, “We are very pleased we have been able to resolve our differences, and that Peter and Fran will be actively and creatively involved with ‘The Hobbit’ movies. We know they will bring the same passion, care and talent to these films that they so ably accomplished with ‘The Lord of the Rings’ Trilogy.”

“Peter is a visionary filmmaker, and he broke new ground with ‘The Lord of the Rings,’” notes Michael Lynne, New Line Co-Chairman and Co-CEO. “We’re delighted he’s back for ‘The Hobbit’ films and that the Tolkien saga will continue with his imprint. We greatly appreciate the efforts of Harry Sloan, who has been instrumental in helping us reach our new accord.”

The two “Hobbit” films – “The Hobbit” and its sequel – are scheduled to be shot simultaneously, with pre-production beginning as soon as possible. Principal photography is tentatively set for a 2009 start, with the intention of “The Hobbit” release slated for 2010 and its sequel the following year, in 2011.

The Oscar-winning, critically-acclaimed LOTR Trilogy grossed nearly $3 billion worldwide at the box-office. In 2003, “Return of the King” swept the Academy Awards, winning all of the eleven categories in which it was nominated, including Best Picture – the first ever Best Picture win for a fantasy film. The Trilogy’s production was also unprecedented at the time.

For more information about “The Hobbit” films, please visit www.TheHobbitBlog.com.
Click here to find out more!

For the love of gawd use real little people this time ala Willow (I know they won't but it'd be nice). Warwick Davis ftw!

A *sequel* to the Hobbit.....?

(http://www.its2.uidaho.edu/video/Podcast/hobbit-2.jpg)

The original idea that Jackson pitched was to break the Hobbit up into two movies.  That's probably what they are talking about.

Although I know he's producing, I wish and hope that he will also direct, or at the least get Sam Raimi on the job.

What fucking sequal to the Hobbit? Are they talking "There's the Hobbit, which ends in Mirkwood, and then there's the Hobbit Part Two, which ends with Bilbo wandering back into Bag End", or are they inventing a sequal, or did Tolkien write some sort of damn Hobbit sequel I never heard of?

I love movies about walking.

The Hobbit is a much better book to base a movie on than the LotR series.  I'm pretty stoked about the fact that they're breaking it into two parts, too.

Here's hoping they keep the musical numbers from the book and get someone good to write the melodies.

Or, you know, they could just use the versions that were made for the cartoon in the 70s.  Which were awesome.

(http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/8126/bearnotimpressedsz2.png)

This won't work.  Whose glistening, curled hobbit hair will Bilbo gently push back as he gazes deeply into the other hobbit's eyes?  Which hobbit will jump on his bed when he's feeling blue?  Without two male hobbits traveling together, we're left with hobbit/dwarf deviancy.   :cry:

Awesome.

But two movies ?

No wai.

"I’m very pleased that we’ve been able to put our differences behind us, so that we may begin a new chapter with our old friends at New Line."

In other words - they've paid me the millions that they owed me from doing Lord of the Rings so I don't have to sue them anymore. 

I gather this is going to be the Hobbit and extra bits culled from Tolkien's vast array of Notes and Scribblings as well as material sourced from "The Silmarillion", "Unfinished Tales", "Lord of the Rings Online" and "Romancing the Stone".

I can see no good reason, narratively speaking, to make the Hobbit into two movies other than an absolute whore-like money grab. There's just no reason. One 3-hour movie should be more than enough.

But I'm sure we'll get 2 separate 3-hour movies, then a DVD release of those movies, then an extra-special 5-hour collector's edition of each with never-before seen, completely made-up scenes involving hobbit grooming or some such bugfuckery.

Seriously, JUST FUCKING GET AN EDITOR WHO WILL TELL YOU "NO." I loved the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but there is no reason to make 2 Hobbit movies, just like there was no reason for a 3-hour King Kong movie.

Oh, I don't know - there's a fair old bit of story there.
Part one: Everything up to & including escaping the Mirkwood elves (meeting up, leaving the Shire, trolls in the woods, up into the Misty Mountains, orcs/goblins, gollum & "What have I got in my pocket?", escape into Mirkwood, spiders, elves, and escape in barrel)s.

Part Two: Lake-town, the Lonely Mountain, Smaug, the theft, the Arkenstone, the death of Smaug, the siege of the mountain, the Battle of Five Armies, Bilbo returning home.

Throw in a little more side-details (Gandalf's 'errands'/"The Necromancer", what the dwarves were up to when Bilbo was playing riddle games, etc) and make the final battle epic enough and there's ample there for two 2 to 2 1/2 hour films.

It didn't even make a two part Graphic Novel.

You're reaching.

It'll be interesting to see the reaction to certain parts of the story that have "been done" in the LotR movies.  Scary spiders?  Giant Birds saving the day?

Still, I want to see Smaug.  If MacKellan is back and they find a decent Bilbo...

I can see some very good reasons to make the hobbit into two movies. There's a lot there. You've got all the journey parts and then you have a very extensive battle that even in the book feels a little rushed. The only question I'd have is where to end the first with a solid plot climax.

I hope they make a bundle and add a movie based on the scouring of the shire.

PLEASE don't let them fuck Smaug up.

I always forget about the bits after Smaug's death.  Probably because they suck.  :grin:

How about a Bifur & Bofur dwarf sandwich?

This is very good news.  Two movies!  I don't care what Jackson does, he has my full faith.  Sure the LOTR trilogy wasn't exactly by the book but you gotta take some artistic license. 

Woooo!

I don't know, I'm not so sure I can see it warranting 2 movies.  If there is tons of pointless character interactions and bodily humor that feels like filler and less of Tolkien's interesting delivery style, I will be disappointed.  But I'll still see it anyway and probably appreciate it for what it is since I know Jackson does respect the source material deeply.

Just so they don't do what they did in the 2nd LotR movie and turn it entirely into The Battle For Helm's Deep when quite a bit more actually went on and was dealt with in a different manner.

I disagree.  Jackson made the LotR movies because he thought it was the lowest common denominator of popular fantasy.  I never got the impression he had any deep respect for the source material.

Jackson fucking lived that source material. It's one of his favorite stories of all time and he's wanted to do it justice for years.

If he thought it was the LCD of fantasy, there would have been less boring walking. And the ents would have spent 1/12th the time on screen.

I had no idea until I watched all of the extra features on the expanded editions of LotR.  He justifies the hell out of what he did and why and went into all kinds of details and dilemmas that only someone who had read the series more than just a few times would have had.

I just put that down to him being a hack.   :awesome_for_real:  I liked the ents in the book, but the movie version of them sucked balls.

I'd be interested in hearing his justification for the radical plot change he made around the end of Two Towers.  You know the one I'm talking about.

The expiration date on bitching about deviations from the LOTR books went by about 3 years ago.

New of PJ doing another Tolkien movie reset it.   :grin:

Bitching aside, the LotR movies were watchable, and I think odds are good Hobbit will turn out even better.  Kids' stories always seem to make the transition to the screen much more readily.

LoTR is a children's book.  :grin:

In any case, I think splitting the hobbit into two good work well. Someone mentioned it earlier, but I'll rehash it, the first part will end with them floating down the river in barrels. Good call there. That's totally a Peter Jackson cliffhanger.

Please to be not smoking the crack.

That's why no one wants to fucking adapt books. Because of the motherfucking fans. And god knows, there are no fans as petty and twisted as LoTR fans. I have a friend that hasn't watched the damn things because Bombadil isn't in them. Seriously. That's his entire bitch.

The movies made a gazillion dollars, won't a gazillion awards, proved to the entire goddamn world that a "fantasy movie" can have mass appeal, proved to the entire goddamn world that you CAN take a heavy trilogy with a bunch of fucking walking and turn it into a movie that isn't a snoozefest AND people will watch, and it "sucks" in the eyes of the true fans because it doesn't have Tom Fucking Bombadil in it.

Here's the deal -- movies are an entirely different medium than books. ENTIRELY different. As such, no book can be converted directly into a movie. It would suck. Even the fans would agree it sucks.

Heck, I'll give a simple example -- the Dresden Files. One of the running jokes in the book is that Harry Dresden (main character) is like 6'5" or something ridiculous like that, and drives around in an old Beetle. So whenever the author wants levity, he makes a bit of a joke about big wizard cramped up in his tiny car. (It's not quite as lame in the book, but that's basically the joke).

When it got converted to a TV series, the Dresdon actor was just as tall as the Dresdon character -- but they ditched the Beetle in favor of a jeep. Why? Because in the book the author chose whether or not to make the joke by whether or not he wrote it. In the TV series, the joke happens every time the actor gets in and out of the fucking car -- even if the actual moment is supposed to be dramatic, sad, serious, whatever.

That's the problem with converting a relatively simple concept to film. Doing something like LoTR -- where so much of it is exposition, long dialogue that would take forever to speak, snips of poetry, implication, and various monologues or narrations is considerably more complex.

PJ made a watchable and good film out of material that was horribly difficult to turn into film. He did so while remaining relatively true to the spirit and ideas behind the book. The price for getting a watchable movie that captured the basic concepts of the book was, effectively, the loss of Tom Fucking Bombadil and accepting character changes designed pretty much to encapsulate stuff that was previously captured in narrative or bits of bad Elvish poetry.

If you're misusing "children" to mean teenagers (which usually get classified as "young adult" when talking about reading levels), I might agree with you.  Otherwise, you're crazy.  I read pretty far above my grade level as a kid, and I still couldn't make it through LotR until I was 15 or so.  I think I was about 8 when I read The Hobbit.  There's a pretty huge gap there.


The famous "they're movies about walking" rant that you're referencing was written by someone who had never read the books but thought the movies were a snoozefest.  FWIW.

I was being facetious. I, too, did not read the LoTR trilogy until my teens, but I believe Tolkien himself wanted it to be a "kids" book. In any case, I was just making a funny.

Oh, thank God.   :-)

My recollection is that LotR was originally conceived as a straightforward sequel to The Hobbit (i.e. another children's book), but ended up evolving into something else entirely over the 12 years it took him to write it.

It was an excuse to work on back story to all of the dwarven and elven languages he was writing.  He was a linguist, worked on the Oxford Dictionary, all that good stuff.  Bombadil was the first character, he wrote a story for his daughter about the adventures of a doll he accidentally flushed.

The inclusion of the whole Bombadil bit has never, ever made any sense to me.  I've read the trilogy several times, but after the first reading I always got to that part and thought, "oh, yeah, hobbit acid hippie trip" and skipped it.

As I understood it, The Hobbit was written so that he wouldn't have to include expansive back story when he finally got around to writing LoTR.  And Hobbit was written as a children's book so that they could grow into his more mature storyline.  All the stuff that came after(Silmarillion, etc) was the extra linguistic and historical stuff.

I've also heard some people explaining that Tom Bombadil was put into the story because he was some sort of elder god/creator figure.

I think Tolkein hinted at that (that Bombadil was one of the Valar), but that he deliberately left it unresolveable because he felt a world should have mystery.

Which sounds like EXACTLY the sort of bullshit I'd spew if I put in a stupid character during an early draft, liked him too much to remove, and never could come up with a decent reason he was there besides "I liked him!".

Want to start by saying you had some great points in the post before this one, Morat.  Especially in regards to differences in visual vs. written mediums.

I like the Bombadil bit.  It helps to establish that this is a wider and deeper world than just the Ring story,  just like the occassional reference to Sauron being only a minion to a deeper and more malevolent power.  It shows how the hobbits,  and most Men,  are really limited in their worldview.

It also sets up that there is an easy out for Frodo.  Just give the ring to Bombadil, who is unaffected by it and can handle himself.  It makes Frodo's choice to try and destory the ring, at whatever cost to himself, a heroic choice.  He doesn't take the easy path out.  That's the reason that he garners the respect he does from Gandalf, Aragorn, Galadriel, and the rest.

He chooses the path of self-sacrifice for the benefit of all,  rather than be railroaded down that path because he has no actual choice.

Dont forget the part with the Werebear guy, Beorn or something like that.

It was discussed at the Council that Bombadil would be a most unworthy guardian.  Aside from the possibility of him simply misplacing the ring and thus allow Sauron to get it, hiding the ring anywhere wouldn't stop the wheels already in motion.  I think the quote from the Council was along the lines of "he [Bombadil] would be last as he was first, but in the end he too would fall".  There is some suggestion that he was a Maia, and there is a great writeup on the web somewhere that argues that he was even Aule.

I think not; the Maia, and especially the Valar, were deeply interested in the goings on of Morgoth/Sauron.  Saruman and Sauron were both Maia under Aule, and the whole reason the Istari (Gandalf, Radagast, Saruman, and the blue wizards) came to Middle Earth was to put a stop to Sauron by aiding the people.  I don't think Aule (or another Valar) would have been indifferent to the Ring.

You are right that he is intended as an enigma; a contrast to the stark black and white that is all over the rest of LotR.  He's a reminder that there's something else in the world.  That something else may be a good thing or not.  It seems that Tolkien gives a strong affirmative that Gandalf is on the right path, since he died and was resurrectd by God (Illuvatar).  That's the only interferrance in ME that Illuvatar made that I'm aware of.  Still, it's a reminder that things aren't as dark as Sauron would like, nor is Sauron as strong as he'd like.

I was under the impression that the Valar had withdrawn from Middle Earth entirely at this point.  Hanging out on their little island with the refugee eleves, etc.  And if they really wanted to stop Sauron, it wouldn't be that much of a stretch for them at this point, sans Morgoth.  So I'm pretty sure that they wanted men to sort out their own mess.

They had changed tactics.  A lot of the problems that were caused weren't just from Morgoth, but the infighting that occured because the Valar were trying to control things too tightly.  The new tactic was to try to effect change indirectly - hence the Istari.  They did want to stop Sauron, but they did not want to do so through force of arms. 

I read Two Towers and Return of the King when I was 12 or 13.

I tried rereading the whole series and gave up when Tom Bombadil showed up.  it was dull and boring and silly.
Hmm, maybe I should just do it like I did as a kid and start from Two Towers...

Its wierd, but LOTR to me works better as a series of ungodly long movies (Extended Editions are way better than the theatrical cuts.) than as books.

I agree. I generally think the books are terribly written but the core story is good, which the films were able to distill down.

That's a shame, because outside of the Bombadil part, Fellowship was the best written book of the series. It didn't wander or dawdle like Two Towers did, and it didn't have the overwrought Biblical style of language that Return did. That's why it was also the best movie of the bunch.

I loved the series in collective, but I hate the Two Towers. I slogged through that portion of the books. It just never went anywhere for me, but the movie did a good job, I think, of bringing something to the screen that I was frankly dreading to watch.

I always felt that Fellowship was the best movie simply because as a book (or at least, where Jackson ended the movie) it had the most concrete and self-contained storyline. It was well spaced dialogue and action. And it ended well -- a climactic battle and a parting of ways. It's obviously not THE end, but it's a decent ending.

This is Peter Jackson, there is no way either film will be over in 150 minutes.


He left it unresolved because the Bombadil sequence was weakass self-indulgent allegory and Bombadil himself was a crappy dues ex machina which Tolkien (given his well reported hatred of allegory) should have been throughly embarassed about and probably was. Tolkien publically admitted that the only reason he was in was because he had invented the character and wanted to do something with him, whether or not it impacted the plot.

One of the best decisions Jackson made was cutting Bombadil and giving a few of his lines to Treebeard where they made some actual contribution to the piece.

In The House of Tom Bombadil was a fucking manatee chapter.

Heh.  It was the best because Aragorn Saluted the Orcs before going into a killing frenzy.

They do it because people will buy that shit.  I watched the first LOTRO movie in theaters, fell asleep about halfway through the second one despite my best efforts to give a shit about something so trite, and peaced out on the third.  If you quit paying for whatever mediocre crap they foist upon you, they'll quit making it.

I wanna see that magic arrow Bran uses to 1shotTripleBackstabCrit Smaug with. 

I was like 12 when I first read that, and I was still like "WTF??"  It made the Monty Haul AD&D modules for me at the time more trying, since my expectations were off.

I am actually looking forward to the Hobbit movie(s).  After the lame attempts at fantasy books-to-movies of the Golden Compass, the Water Horse (haven't seen it and am not inclined to), Eragon *shudder* and the one released in last October, it will be nice to see good fantasy movies again.  As for making two movies, I say sure! Why not?  I for one would go see them.  (Yes I was one of those nerds who saw the Fellowship of the Ring 5 times in the theater.) Face it, with all the crap being released these days, movies like that are rare enough.

I only hope they get a good Bilbo.  Ian Holm is too old and I never really liked him as an actor.   

That dude ruled as Ash in Alien.

Perhaps, but Alien was almost 30 years ago.  However, if they bring back Ian Mckellan and Hugo Weaving, that would be awesome.

(http://www.alicia-logic.com/capsimages/5e_071HandsUp.jpg)

Bruce Willis as Bard? I don't think he's killed a Dragon before. He can do with with a Helicopter instead!

There's only one logical choice for Bilbo:

(http://www.agirlsworld.com/rachel/hangin-with/pix/sith1.jpg)

DIE.

I vote for the guy who played Arthur Dent in the Hitchhiker's movie.  He did good in that, and it's basically the same role.

Not even worth it. These movies will be terrible.

Would rather watch Willow. For the 900th time.

Late to the party.

Where would they split this, movie wise (and knowing actual chronology and time lapse is up for grabs)? Part 1 ends with Smaug realizing his fortune's been stolen? Or when he's killed? Part 2 being all about the infighting and then Orcs/Waurgs?

One place they could split the movies would be when Gandalf bails on Bilbo and the dwarfs right before they enter Mirkwood.  But that wouldn't really leave much of a climax/cliffhanger for the first movie *shrug*. 

I haven't read The Hobbit, but I'd guess it would be right after the hour-long battle scene.

Nice try.  :awesome_for_real:

Cutting it at Bilbo being alone in the Dark or when he pushes the dwarves into the water in Barrels.

This is partly why I don't understand it being two films.  Cutting it is going to make no sense wherever you do it.

Why wouldn't Part 1 being Smaug (either discovering the theft or being killed) and Part 2 being Battle of the Five Armies make sense? Seems like they'd want to have a good climax for each if they could do it, whereas having OMGCGI Dragon Battle and OMGCGI Army in the same film would be overkill.

Someone earleir said these not being very long movies individually, and I that I agree with. There's a lot that goes on in The Hobbit, but like Bombadil, some of it is not germaine to the central plot elements needed for a good movie.

You couldn't stretch out that part 2 beyond 45 minutes.

You'd be as well remaking 300 with dwarves.

You just gave Hollywood a chubby.

Now all we need is a shot of Gimli screaming OVER 9000!!! and we can officially declare that the internet has jumped the shark.

Damn, so close.

(http://www.myconfinedspace.com/watermark.php?src=wp-content/uploads/2007/04/300-over-9k.jpg)

Guillermo del Toro is in talks to direct both parts (http://icv2.com/articles/home/11991.html).  Sounds like the writers strike is going to hold things up a little bit, but I think del Toro is perfect for the job.

Oh Gods.

I'd hate to write this with Jackson and del Toro looking over my shoulder.

"Ok the dwarves FLING Bilbo's plates but he dodges them Matrix-style!"   :drill:

I'm afraid this little popcul reference has totally passed me by.  Where's it from.

As for Del Toro and The Hobbit... yeah, I'll go with that.  Better choice than Sam Raimi that's for sure.  

Meme derived from a Dragonball Z episode.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBtpyeLxVkI

Hilarious. Well played, sir.