Peter Jackson officially producing The Hobbit
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071218/...ilm_the_hobbit

Wha??? 2 Hobbit films??? I never realized Hobbit was that big that it needed 2 films. *blinks* None of the other Hobbit films have been that long. Ah well...

I wonder if Leonard Nimoy's Ballad of Bilbo Baggins will be on the soundtrack??? :lol:

Credits, anyone? :P

I'm glad that Peter Jackson is doing it, so it can have that same feel as the other films. However... I'm not too sure about splitting it up. Hobbit is a story that should be able to be told in one movie, especially if it's a three-hour monster. I guess I'll make my judgement call when I see it.

I also hope they don't weigh it down too much with Serious. Hobbit is a lighter story than Lord of the Rings.

Err...Kinda misleading thread title there. Jackson isn't directing.

I think this is pretty unnecessary, but I guess if it has to happen I'm glad Jackson is involved.

Yeah, seriously. He's only f*cking producing.

I guess this'll be cool, though. I actually liked The Hobbit, quite unlike my disgust of the Lord of the Rings books.

I'm just curious, but why did you hate the LotR books, Peanut? I hope it's not just because you think they're boring because they're not meant to be action-packed books.

This is great news. I believe they will expand the movie to incorporate the White Council storyline so they don't loose Gandalf for a Third to Half the movie. This way they could also get the same actors to appear in the roles of Galadriel, Celeborn, and Saruman. Hopefully the same ones for Elrond, Gandalf and Gollum as well of course. This would deffinately expand the movie into two for length reasons and would still technically be faithful to the storyline of The Hobbit as the events DID happen at that time during the story. It just wasn't told in that particular book, thought it was mentioned in it.

It is because they're too boring. I don't really care what they're "supposed to be" I care if I'm entertained by the words on the page, and I was rarely, if ever, entertained by the LotR books. There's a stupid poem or song every other line and all the huge battles may as well be non-existent with the way he writes. I'm not a fan of his writing style in the least. Tolkien is great at describing a setting, but he couldn't tell you a compelling character story in that setting if his life depended on it. I'd fall asleep reading through those books so often that it took me well over 2 years to read all three of them.

Did you like the movies, though? The story itself is really good, it's just that the books bury it under heaps and heaps of tangents.

I actually liked reading LOTR better than The Hobbit. But yeah, some parts of LOTR are incredibly dull.

Yeah, I totally loved the movies. I read the books and wanted to tear my hair out, and then because of that, I avoided Fellowship all the way up until about a week prior to Two Towers release. Saw Fellowship and loved it though, in no small part to the fact that it broke down the story to what needed to be told, and got rid of all the needless bullsh*t that Tolkien loves to throw in with reckless abandon.

I'm with Peanut here. Though I am not happy that he's producing. I liked the old Hobbit movies; I just know this is gonna be an elongated borefest. Two movies for this? :|

Because Peter Jackson is not directing and only producing, I'm curious to see who steps up to the plate to direct this.

I've heard that Sam Raimi is rumored. I like that idea. After the dissapointment of Spidey 3, this is just what Sam needs. Plus, it'll be a director with a different style than Peter Jackson's, so it'll be a fresh take on the LOTR universe, but with Pete producing, it won't be completely different.

What I hear is that the first movie will be The Hobbit itself, while the second will fill in the blanks between Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. Which is cool I guess, but did all that much really happen inbetween? I guess they could really go into the Necromancer stuff and follow that through...

Should be interesting, though.

The only things I can think of that they could do in the second film if the first film is The Hobbit proper is to show what happens to Smeagol between the two stories, show how Sauron is defeated in Mirkwood before he retreats to his kingdom in Morder, and perhaps set up the Dwarves and Elves for LotR to explain why they were concerned enough to visit Rivendell in FotR. They may also show how Sauron got the last Dwarven ring because I think that happens between the two stories as well.

So there's plenty to tell in a "Hobbit 2" movie even without them making stuff up that Tolkien never wrote, but it's too early to tell what they might use and how they'll fit it all together so that it feels like a self-contained movie.

EDIT: Heh, of course "Hobbit 2" may just be all about Bilbo running around the Shire abusing his ring to evade the Sackville-Baggins's. How's that for boring?

As far as I know, the first movie will be The Hobbit and the second will be a LotR prequel, like Masked Ninja said. They won't be making stuff up though; it will be material from the Appendix and such.

And the LotR movies aren't boring, want to fight about it?

Agreed. They aren't boring in the least, and I will join Mecha in battle against any who say otherwise.

Who is there to fight with? I think everyone here agrees with you. Although I did finally get tired of watching the extended dvds after the first 30-40 times.

Anyway, the books are a bit dull in certain places I'll admit, but the reason I love the books so much more than the movies (and I absolutely love the movies, don't get me wrong) is because it does such a wonderful job of making Middle-earth feel so much larger than the characters you meet and the places they travel. The movies don't accomplish that. The books aren't meant to be read as a typical novel, but rather as a record of a journey in a world that has a full, meaningful, and well thought out history. And for those who really enjoy the history of Middle-earth, The Silmarillion is some top-notch stuff, but it's far more difficult to read than LotR is.

But if you're just interested in the core story behind LotR, then the movies are definitely where you should place your time. If you just want something exciting or entertaining to read, though, then avoid LotR -- The Hobbit would be more worth your while because it is supposed to be read as a typical novel.

I have a man crush on Legolas. I wish I were as cool as him. :cry:

So is it completely weird and totally out of whack that I actually enjoyed The Silmarillion more than LotR as well?

Actually, yes. I am genuinely surprised as I had a much harder time reading Silmarillion than LotR. I still enjoyed it -- I even read it twice -- but it was harder for me to follow.

On the other hand, it does make sense that you would enjoy Silmarillion more because there are a lot more stories going on in Silmarillion than there are in LotR and they are much shorter and less connected to each other. I'm not saying you could jump around in the book and understand what's going on, but each story wraps up relatively quickly and leads into the next in Silmarillion as opposed to LotR.

The Hobbit, LotR, and Silmarillion are all different stories told in fairly different ways.

Well... I don't agree. I never saw the third because the first two bored me outta my skull. But I'm not fighting about it, that's just my opinion. I was sadly disappointed, too. I thought they'd be good.

*shrugs*

But go on with your talks, heh.

They ARE. Pay attention!