The Hobbit Film Trilogy Thread

[Kendal_Ozzel 32]

And now to contradict my earlier post...

PJ's manager says directing them is "not something he can consider at this time as he has other commitments to other projects."

...PJ himself says of directing: "If that's what I have to do to protect Warner Bros' investment, then obviously that's one angle which I'll explore."

I find it a little amusing that he says he might do it, while his manager says no, he has other commitments. But more than that, I find the possibility encouraging.

Now, shall we start a donation box for MGM?

[Quintus 5,391]

C'MON PETER! Do the honours, lad!

*says a little prayer to himself*

[Wojo 2,442]

The only part of this project that I was looking forward to was Shore's score.

Otherwise, the tone of "The Hobbit" as a book is very different from that of its successor, "The Lord of the Rings." It's a children's book, with a friendly all-knowing narrator that speaks to the reader as if he were there rather than simply recount events, and animals that talk to both men and magical folk.

To make this children's story more like TLOTR films -- dark, violent, action-filled PG-13 epics -- would not be true to the book, and to make the film like the book would alienate the fans of the movie who didn't read the books. So I was never entirely sure what "voice" this movie would have, and now I'm less sure.

[Datameister 1,394]

I agree, Wojo.

[Jay 27,216]

I too didn't like the direction the film was going in, trying to make it be more dark and epic than it is.

I hope the new director lightens things up and just directly adapts the book. Its already written to flow like a fun movie, not much adapting is really needed.

[Charlie Brigden 5]

Did PJ and/or GDT say they were going darker? I know they were going for something that would fit with LOTR (which makes sense), but I never read anything that said they were going to take it to the same level as the dark tone of much of LOTR.

I still trust PJ to make the right decision. I just can't think of any other director who would be more suitable than PJ.

[Jay 27,216]

Perhaps "dark" is the wrong word, but they were taking a simple story and splitting it into 2 movies, adding a bunch of scenes from the LOTR appendixes, etc. That's all unnecessary. Just film the book as a single movie, a nice fun summer popcorn movie romp.

[Wojo 2,442]

I was purely being speculative when I used the words dark and epic. I wouldn't believe anything I would read as true movie gospel until the film(s) came out...now less so, if they ever do.

Shelob's scenes in ROTK could be absolutely terrifying for small children, but in "The Hobbit," Bilbo must deal with three or more large spiders at once...and they talk! Do you film it like ROTK or in the light, cheerful tone of the source book?

I am certain that the Battle of Five Armies could be depicted in a very long and epically drawn-out manner, lasting a half hour or so...

An hour or longer if Michael Bay directs. Dwarven sappers would provide the necessary explosions.

[Marian Schedenig 5,521]

Otherwise, the tone of "The Hobbit" as a book is very different from that of its successor, "The Lord of the Rings." It's a children's book, with a friendly all-knowing narrator that speaks to the reader as if he were there rather than simply recount events, and animals that talk to both men and magical folk.

To make this children's story more like TLOTR films -- dark, violent, action-filled PG-13 epics -- would not be true to the book, and to make the film like the book would alienate the fans of the movie who didn't read the books. So I was never entirely sure what "voice" this movie would have, and now I'm less sure.

I disagree, with reservations. Of course it's a lighter story, and I hope they're paying attention to that. But it has its share of dark material, and the original The Hobbit (both the original original "birthday present" version and the LOTR rewrite) is not the only canonical version of the tale. I've always liked the atmosphere of poor insecure Bilbo going on this huge adventure to some distant mountain, which in no way depends on the somewhat childish presentation in the book. Gandalf's account of how the whole enterprise came about (written for the LOTR appendices, though I'm not sure right now if it was included there) is a far more "serious" wording, and leaves out many passages, but includes the larger context of the War of the Ring. Both combined could make a fabulous movie, complete with the White Council's activities and all the stuff associated with them.

[fommes 126]

I agree, I hope it doesn't become just another popcorn film.

[Charlie Brigden 5]

I agree, I hope it doesn't become just another popcorn film.

Agreed. I'm scared I'll wake up one day and see someone like Jon Favreau's name attached. Or Ratner.

[Wojo 2,442]

Marian, you didn't read my follow-up post. I didn't mean the story was devoid of any tension or conflict.

The goblins threaten to eat our heroes.

The Elves capture all the Dwarves.

Gandalf disappears and returns a few times. If they film his side quests as they should, the visit to the Necromancer should top the scenes of Sauron-the-Great-Eye-Lighthouse, because of how well his disguise would deceive the Wizards.

Smaug will be a scary dragon like Malificent or Vermithrax Pejorative, not cuddly like Pete's or Puff. My favorite sequence in the entire trilogy is probably Moria, so seeing Erebor as a dragon lair would be a treat.

The Battle will be tremendous, including the deaths of many Dwarves.

If they can't get a director to do the book justice, I would be just as happy if they shit-canned the whole project, rather than make a shit movie.

[Marian Schedenig 5,521]

Waaah, Merge Chaos.

Marian, you didn't read my follow-up post. I didn't mean the story was devoid of any tension or conflict.

No I didn't, it wasn't there yet when I wrote my post. Don't see what it changes though, with regards to my own post.

[Quintus 5,391]

Am I the only one here who wouldn't suddenly (and automatically...) reject talking spiders and dragons, even if they did merge two contrasting tones together?

Two words: Execution and Conviction. As per usual.

[Wojo 2,442]

Oh it could be done. I would be more worried if the director of The Hobbit would choose to omit the talking animals out of fear they wouldn't fit within the context of the previously established movies. Even though the TLOTR books didn't really include talking animals.

Somebody will correct me, I'm sure, if Gwaihir the Eagle actually speaks within The Lord of the Rings. On film, he probably chitchats with Gandalf and we just don't hear it. I know he speaks in The Hobbit.

Dragonheart had a talking dragon, while the horses didn't talk. And the Harry Potter franchise has some enchanted talking animals -- the spiders in COS, most notably -- while other animals, like the owls and each animagus in their animal form, do not. And both examples are well executed and convincing within the context of their movies.

[Charlie Brigden 5]

Somebody will correct me, I'm sure, if Gwaihir the Eagle actually speaks within The Lord of the Rings. On film, he probably chitchats with Gandalf and we just don't hear it. I know he speaks in The Hobbit.

Pretty sure he doesn't. The only animal-human conversation I remember was with Gandalf chatting up the moth.

[John Crichton 4]

Gwaihir speaks in the book, but not in the movies.

[Quintus 5,391]

I'm sure I read somewhere that del Toro didn't plan to do a "Connery" - and animate Smaug's mouth, as he spoke. I got the impression he had came up with something really smart, and new.

[fommes 126]

Smaug becomes Black Smaug and can turn into John Locke?

[Marian Schedenig 5,521]

Am I the only one here who wouldn't suddenly (and automatically...) reject talking spiders and dragons, even if they did merge two contrasting tones together?

Two words: Execution and Conviction. As per usual.

Dragon: No problem. Preferrably voiced by Jeremy Irons.

Spiders: Would have to be done well.

Oh it could be done. I would be more worried if the director of The Hobbit would choose to omit the talking animals out of fear they wouldn't fit within the context of the previously established movies. Even though the TLOTR books didn't really include talking animals.

Somebody will correct me, I'm sure, if Gwaihir the Eagle actually speaks within The Lord of the Rings. On film, he probably chitchats with Gandalf and we just don't hear it. I know he speaks in The Hobbit.

I've never been a fan of Beorn's talking animals. And I hope whoever does this movies doesn't give the dwarves coloured beards.

[Quintus 5,391]

Dragon: No problem. Preferrably voiced by Jeremy Irons.

Not bad, but I was thinking more Ron Perlman.

[Wojo 2,442]

War. War never changes.

Colored beards may be the only way to tell the dwarves and their lineage apart. Or maybe at least colored helmets or cuirasses.

I don't think that the talking animals should move their lips/mouths to speak. That's too Disney-like for the subject matter, and dragons, spiders, and Beorne's shape shifters don't have the proper mouth types to speak.

Perhaps the animals and monsters of the earlier Ages in Middle Earth could project their thoughts and statements to non-magical folk (humans, hobbits) just as well as magical ones (wizards, elves). And as the Third Age gradually came to a close, a gap grew between the magical and non-magical races. Or at least, the movie would have to establish that.

[Luke Skywalker 1,287]

Lets face it, the animals talk and the beards are rainbow. Its Tolkien's original vision, it must be preserved!

SOmehow i dont mind the dragon talking, but the other animals looks strange.

Though the narnia animals are not that bad. The beaks of the griffin even look 'real' as talking beaks go...

Im not sure about projecting the thoughts in the minds of humans. That only would make sense with the wizards....

I would prefer that the persons understand animal language. That would be perfect for the elves.

What if the one ring gave special propeties to bilbo and he understood animals?

[Henry B 49]

I'd love to have seen talking animals with fully animated mouths done by Del Toro. Or done by whatever genius did the puppetry for El laberinto del fauno. I think there's still a market for big budget films with conventional effects such as these. Anyway, welcome to development hell, The Hobbit.

[Charlie Brigden 5]

I think PJ should offer it to Verhoeven.

[Wojo 2,442]

Lets face it, the animals talk and the beards are rainbow. Its Tolkien's original vision, it must be preserved!

Then I hope the movie retains all of the songs and poems preserved intact from Tolkien's original vision, as well.

[Quintus 5,391]

Tra la laa

[Wojo 2,442]

The greatest adventure...

[scallenger 374]

I think the talking spider "aragog" from Harry Potter was done pretty well. Sure he looked a bit too animatronic in parts, but the way they made him talk was creepy because you never saw the mouth move, just the eyes. And his voice was done very well.

[Wojo 2,442]

That's because the people who made Harry Potter 2 realized that a spider's mouth doesn't have any moving parts, like ours. It's just a straw designed to drink its victim. So Aragog just threw his voice by not moving his "mouth", just his eyes. And his voice was audible, not telepathically linked to a character's brain, because he could talk to Hagrid, who doesn't really use magic -- and neither will Bilbo, when the time comes -- and it didn't have that "I'm talking in your mind" sound to it.

There are a lot of appendages around many spiders' mouths. If they could simulate a thick beard that covers a mouth, or just all move a lot when the spiders speak, you've solved the "problem." Moving eyes show emotion while speaking to great effect, and would distract the audience's attention from a non-humanlike mouth.

You want to see a talking straw? Sy Snootles will sing "Jedi Rocks" for you. And "Lost in Space" (the movie) has an anthropomorphic spider. Neither option is appealing.

And we all "know" that Wilson, Tim Taylor's neighbor on Home Improvement, has a mouth because he always has a lot to say. The show just hid his lower face. Doing the same to multiple talking spiders in the forest would be contrived, I'm just saying.

Rowling and Tolkien simply inserted talking spiders into their stories, and left the mechanics of the visuals to the readers. They didn't have to explain "how" they talked any more than they had to explain "how" their characters use magic. (Midichlorians, anyone?)

[indy4 152]

Jackson's in negotiations to direct!

http://www.screened.com/news/peter-jackson-in-negotiations-to-direct-the-hobbit/302/

[gkgyver 1,638]

David Yates?

Dear god, what on earth would possess them?

[pixie_twinkle 44]

Jackson's in negotiations to direct!

http://www.screened.com/news/peter-jackson-in-negotiations-to-direct-the-hobbit/302/

I was about to post that same thing! Great news if it happens.

[Jay 27,216]

Best possible news imho

[John Crichton 4]

It's the logical choice after what happened. He probably should just have signed on from the start.

[Muad'Dib 1,514]

My bet is that MGM really wanted Jackson to direct, and until he accepted to do so, they were holding the project as long as possible.

[Quintus 5,391]

Part of me wanted del Toro's vision of this; but I'll still be over the moon if Jacko makes this thing finally happen.

[gkgyver 1,638]

And I hope Phillipa Boyens and Fran Walsh have a bit more influence on this one.

You know, to emphasise the lyrical aspect some more to counter Jackson's natural, um, instincts

[Ollie 859]

I'm somewhat concerned that if Jackson didn't want to direct in the first place he may not bring his A game to the chair this time around.

[Red 73]

I'm somewhat concerned that if Jackson didn't want to direct in the first place he may not bring his A game to the chair this time around.

If he doesn't want to commit to it he won't direct it, if he does direct it it's safe to assume he's in it completely. The Lovely Bones was a bit of a disappointment, maybe that changed his mind about it.

[Quintus 5,391]

I think Jackson is utterly loyal to this franchise, his "baby".

[Marian Schedenig 5,521]

Also, if he's going to put all this time and energy into the project anyway, it would seem absurd to do it without his heart.

[indy4 152]

I thought he couldn't (not wouldn't) direct it originally?

[Muad'Dib 1,514]

I thought he couldn't (not wouldn't) direct it originally?

Apparently there were problems because Jackson has to direct the Tintin sequel, but apparently he sorted that out. Either he'll direct it too, or Spielberg will, or some other director maybe.

[indy4 152]

I thought he couldn't (not wouldn't) direct it originally?

Apparently there were problems because Jackson has to direct the Tintin sequel, but apparently he sorted that out. Either he'll direct it too, or Spielberg will, or some other director maybe.

So his original reluctance wasn't due to being unenthusiastic about Middle Earth. So he may still be just as eager as he was when he did LotR.

[Melange 446]

David Lynch

for this

Really freak out the audience

[Quintus 5,391]

http://www.metro.co.uk/film/840177-sherlock-star-martin-freeman-turns-down-the-hobbit

He looked the part, but I'm kinda glad he's not doing it.

[Marian Schedenig 5,521]

I like Freeman, but never once would I have imagined him as Bilbo...

[BloodBoal 7,532]

[Marian Schedenig 5,521]

More than that, I find the timing odd. Isn't the whole project right now still in financial limbo?