• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

MGM Annouces The Hobbit!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cheebs

Member
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.
 
I always thought The Hobbit was too much for one film...but at the same time there's not a very good stopping point in the middle.
 

Cheebs

Member
MadraptorMan said:
I always thought The Hobbit was too much for one film...but at the same time there's not a very good stopping point in the middle.
Right before the big war perhaps? You KNOW they will extend that extremely to be like the battles from TTT or ROTK.
 

DarienA

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on
They also announced a sequel to the Thomas Crown Affair.... why?!?!?!?
 
Cheebs said:
Right before the big war perhaps? You KNOW they will extend that extremely to be like the battles from TTT or ROTK.

That wouldn't leave much for the second film...it would be one huge war movie. I think maybe it would be best to cut it off when they're trapped in Mirkwood or something...I dunno.
 

Cheebs

Member
I wouldn't worry about Jackson. He has stated he wants to do it and you know MGM will pay almost anything to get him.
 

Amir0x

Banned
I won't believe this news until I see it. And I will only accept it if Peter jackson directs. The vision needs to be consistent!
 
Cheebs said:
What I don't get is why The Hobbit needs TWO films to tell the story? .



Man%20counting%20money.jpg
 

unifin

Member
MGM? Surprising...

If this isn't a Peter Jackson Tolkien movie, I will be concerned.

If this isn't a WETA-backed Tolkien movie, this kitten dies:

cute_kitten.jpg
 

Cheebs

Member
Amir0x said:
I won't believe this news until I see it. And I will only accept it if Peter jackson directs. The vision needs to be consistent!
A offical studio annoucement isn't enough to believe it is coming?
 

temp

posting on contract only
unifin said:
MGM? Surprising...

If this isn't a Peter Jackson Tolkien movie, I will be concerned.

If this isn't a WETA-backed Tolkien movie, this kitten dies:

cute_kitten.jpg
Yeah. WETA or bust.
 

Amir0x

Banned
Cheebs said:
A offical studio annoucement isn't enough to believe it is coming?

Nope. Not until I see a trailer. This has been in legal limbo for too long for me to let my heart get excited!
 

FoneBone

Member
Cheebs said:
A offical studio annoucement isn't enough to believe it is coming?
That's not an "official studio announcement," though it's 99% certain. I guess they've settled the legal issues with New Line?
 

ManaByte

Gold Member
FoneBone said:
That's not an "official studio announcement," though it's 99% certain. I guess they've settled the legal issues with New Line?

New Line has the rights to produce the movie, but MGM (through United Artists) has the rights to distribute it. So this won't be MGM making it; they'll just distribute it.

http://www.theonering.net/archives/main_news/8.23.06-8.31.06#1157077589

I was in New Line's NY offices to discuss upcoming projects when I clearly saw something very intriguing on a year planner. 'The Hobbit' was clearly marked on what looked like July 2007. I couldn't exactly take a moment to investigate the calendar with my audience in the room, but it definitely said 'The Hobbit'. Lets hope this is a PJ project!"

It won't be much different than something like Titanic that was jointly finaced by Fox and Paramount with one handling the domestic distribution and another the international. Or Master and Commander that was Fox and Miramax.
 

FoneBone

Member
ManaByte said:
New Line has the rights to produce the movie, but MGM (through United Artists) has the rights to distribute it. So this won't be MGM making it; they'll just distribute it.

http://www.theonering.net/archives/main_news/8.23.06-8.31.06#1157077589
No shit; what the **** do you think I was talking about? Stop acting like you know everything about the movie industry, when you've proven time and again how hilariously clueless you really are.
 

Cheebs

Member
FoneBone said:
No shit; what the **** do you think I was talking about? Stop acting like you know everything about the movie industry, when you've proven time and again how hilariously clueless you really are.
You seem angry.
 

J2 Cool

Member
FoneBone said:
No shit; what the **** do you think I was talking about? Stop acting like you know everything about the movie industry, when you've proven time and again how hilariously clueless you really are.

:lol

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.
 

FoneBone

Member
Cheebs said:
You seem angry.
Well, the guy constantly comes into movie threads acting like the most well-informed source around when he gets all his news off of AICN (and AICN TalkBacks).

mrroboto said:
We need to clear this up asap! If New Line is in the picture, you can forget Jackson doing it plain and simple.
There's no "if." ManaByte's right, for once, and presumably there is some kind of co-financing deal between the two.
 
Amir0x said:
I won't believe this news until I see it. And I will only accept it if Peter jackson directs. The vision needs to be consistent!
QFT

Also, am I the only one a little hesitant about a Hobbit movie? The Hobbit lacks a lot of things when compared to LOTR, mainly interesting characters. How is an audience going to care about 12 dwarves? That's going to be hard to pull off in my judgement.

Also, the book is far more simplistic in comparison to LOTR. If anyone can pull this off it's Jackson, but still...
 

Peru

Member
I hope there's less focus on battles and more about exploration and making use of the great fantasy world The Shire (and other locales) is. **** the battles. Fellowship of the Ring was by far the best LOTR.
 

Drensch

Member
Finally. Hobbit in my opinion is way better than Lotr, not as much whiny melodrama.

The problem I see with the hobbit is the way they handled the ring in lotr. Anyone who got near the ring in lotr turned into a psychopath. In the Hobbit, Bilbo is happy go lucky with the ring.


I hope there's less focus on battles and more about exploration and making use of the great fantasy world The Shire (and other locales) is. **** the battles. Fellowship of the Ring was by far the best LOTR.

qft
 

fallout

Member
J2 Cool said:
:lol

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.
I get the feeling that they would be the most boring and dry movies ever created ... and I'd still watch them over and over.
 
Cheebs said:
So what? He'd get tons of money by doing The Hobbit and new line would probably make more if he came back.

Money talks.

What do you mean so what? They tried to rob him blind. He's going to go to another studio, make millions, and make New Line pay for backstabbing him. Similar to what Lucas did with Indiana Jones.
 

Cheebs

Member
PhoenixDark said:
What do you mean so what? They tried to rob him blind. He's going to go to another studio, make millions, and make New Line pay for backstabbing him. Similar to what Lucas did with Indiana Jones.
He isn't going to MGM with the hobbit. MGM OWNS The Hobbit.
 

Peru

Member
I don't want anyone else to handle this material. He's shown himself to be extremely competent in doing just that. BUT, petey, hire a new editor and stay out of the cutting room.
 

Cheebs

Member
Peru said:
I don't want anyone else to handle this material. He's shown himself to be extremely competent in doing just that. BUT, petey, hire a new editor and stay out of the cutting room.
No don't cut it up. The Hobbit unlike King Kong deserves a 3+ hour running time.
 
J2 Cool said:
:lol

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.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

Butchered beyond belief, it would be.
 
Cheebs said:
No don't cut it up. The Hobbit unlike King Kong deserves a 3+ hour running time.

King Kong was a great, great movie.

Hobbit could be a very boring movie for casual audiences. Watching 12 dwarves wandering around doesn't offer much to that kind of audience. How will they pull that off?
 
ANYONE complaining that PJ movies are to long should drink a cup of SHUT THE HELL UP right now!

I want a 6 hours hobbit fest!
PJ DO IT!

I cant understand why anyone could complain that any of the films in LOTR saga where to long.

I could have easily sat thru a 5 hour long film!

and extended versions should have been 7 hours each or more, I wanted EVERY material in the book to be covered, tom bombadill and other stuff they left out:(
 

Memles

Member
Here's what will happen:

- They will cut the number of dwarves by 3-5. Getting down to a manageable number is key, although I think that the team dynamic of the dwarves is the emotional core of the story.
- Gandalf's role will be somewhat increased in terms of his prescence. By this I just mean that the story will linger longer at points where he is there, as opposed to cutting down the scenes where he is. They will want any connection to LOTR proper to be as strong as possible. This means keeping more of the Beorn scene than will be necessary, and spending more time in Rivendell with Elrond.
- The final battle will likely be seen to a much larger component than the book, however we won't see MUCH more of it. We'll see the fall of Thorin, we'll see the important story notes that we only learn about in hindsight really, but I think that when Bilbo falls the battle will not go on forever. It would be silly to do so.
- The most obvious place for cutting is the deneoument, aka anything after Smaug is shot. There is a bit too much time spent on the politics of it all and it slows things down. I still expect that to stand as the story's climax, if not the action's, but I think that they'll move from fall of Smaug to the battle a bit faster.

As for how they'll handle Bilbo, I'm not sure where I stand on that one...it'll be tricky, for sure.
 

GDJustin

stuck my tongue deep inside Atlus' cookies
Memles said:
Here's what will happen:

- They will cut the number of dwarves by 3-5. Getting down to a manageable number is key, although I think that the team dynamic of the dwarves is the emotional core of the story.

You're ****ing crazy if you believe that cutting the # of dwarves down will even cross their mind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom