Great Society

Children of the Sun => Movies & Entertainment => Topic started by: RottingCorpse on November 20, 2006, 10:25:48 AM

Title: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 20, 2006, 10:25:48 AM
Basically, Peter Jackson is saying that he's not doing The Hobbit because Hollywood is greedy.

Quote from: Peter Jackson
Dear One Ringers,

As you know, there's been a lot of speculation about The Hobbit. We are often asked about when or if this film will ever be made. We have always responded that we would be very interested in making the film - if it were offered to us to make.

You may also be aware that Wingnut Films has bought a lawsuit against New Line, which resulted from an audit we undertook on part of the income of The Fellowship of the Ring. Our attitude with the lawsuit has always been that since it's largely based on differences of opinion about certain accounting practices, we would like an independent body - whether it be a judge, a jury, or a mediator, to look at the issues and make an unbiased ruling. We are happy to accept whatever that ruling is. In our minds, it's not much more complex than that and that's exactly why film contracts include right-to-audit clauses.

However, we have always said that we do not want to discuss The Hobbit with New Line until the lawsuit over New Line's accounting practices is resolved. This is simple common sense - you cannot be in a relationship with a film studio, making a complex, expensive movie and dealing with all the pressures and responsibilities that come with the job, while an unresolved lawsuit exists.

We have also said that we do not want to tie settlement of the lawsuit to making a film of The Hobbit. In other words, we would have to agree to make The Hobbit as a condition of New Line settling our lawsuit. In our minds this is not the right reason to make a film and if a film of The Hobbit went ahead on this basis, it would be doomed. Deciding to make a movie should come from the heart - it's not a matter of business convenience. When you agree to make a film, you're taking on a massive commitment and you need to be driven by an absolute passion to want to get the story on screen. It's that passion, and passion alone, that gives the movie its imagination and heart. To us it is not a cold-blooded business decision.

A couple of months ago there was a flurry of Hobbit news in the media. MGM, who own a portion of the film rights in The Hobbit, publicly stated they wanted to make the film with us. It was a little weird at the time because nobody from New Line had ever spoken to us about making a film of The Hobbit and the media had some fun with that. Within a week or two of those stories, our Manager Ken Kamins got a call from the co-president of New Line Cinema, Michael Lynne, who in essence told Ken that the way to settle the lawsuit was to get a commitment from us to make the Hobbit, because "that's how these things are done". Michael Lynne said we would stand to make much more money if we tied the lawsuit and the movie deal together and this may well be true, but it's still the worst reason in the world to agree to make a film.

Several years ago, Mark Ordesky told us that New Line have rights to make not just The Hobbit but a second "LOTR prequel", covering the events leading up to those depicted in LOTR. Since then, we've always assumed that we would be asked to make The Hobbit and possibly this second film, back to back, as we did the original movies. We assumed that our lawsuit with the studio would come to a natural conclusion and we would then be free to discuss our ideas with the studio, get excited and jump on board. We've assumed that we would possibly get started on development and design next year, whilst filming The Lovely Bones. We even had a meeting planned with MGM executives to talk through our schedule.

However last week, Mark Ordesky called Ken and told him that New Line would no longer be requiring our services on the Hobbit and the LOTR 'prequel'. This was a courtesy call to let us know that the studio was now actively looking to hire another filmmaker for both projects.

Ordesky said that New Line has a limited time option on the film rights they have obtained from Saul Zaentz (this has never been conveyed to us before), and because we won't discuss making the movies until the lawsuit is resolved, the studio is going to have to hire another director.

Given that New Line are committed to this course of action, we felt at the very least, we owed you, the fans, a straightforward account of events as they have unfolded for us.

We have always had the greatest support from The Ringers and we are very sorry our involvement with The Hobbit has been ended in this way. Our journey into Tolkien's world started with a phone call from Ken Kamins to Harvey Weinstein in Nov 1995 and ended with a phone call from Mark Ordesky to Ken in Nov 2006. It has been a great 11 years.

This outcome is not what we anticipated or wanted, but neither do we see any positive value in bitterness and rancor. We now have no choice but to let the idea of a film of The Hobbit go and move forward with other projects.

We send our very best wishes to whomever has the privilege of making The Hobbit and look forward to seeing the film on the big screen.

Warmest regards to you all, and thanks for your incredible support over the years.

We got to go there - but not back again ...

Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh

Xoanon here, this is a big blow to the LOTR community. I feel like there has been a death in the family...there are a LOT of questions that will remain unanswered for the time being. Why couldn't New Line come to an agreement with PJ? Is there really a time option on the film rights for New Line? Who will they get to direct? Those are some massive shoes to fill if you ask me. I hope that whoever they get to direct will not try something 'new' with the look and feel of PJ's Middle-earth...and what is this LOTR 'prequel' project?

There have been rumors about The Hobbit being split into two films, will this prequel project then become the third film in another trilogy? Who knows...

I'm sure Peter and Fran aren't going to want to talk more about this, but that doesn't mean we won't be begging for a sitdown and chat! Stay tuned for more...
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Tatertots on November 20, 2006, 11:55:43 AM
Oh, thank god!
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on November 20, 2006, 12:25:51 PM
See?  I told you people in the King Kong thread -- PJ is holding on to his values so far.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 24, 2006, 07:36:20 PM
So, now it WILL happen, only not with New Line.

Explain to me again why I'm trying to break into this business?

Quote from: IMDb
As Lord of the Rings fans mounted a protest following word that New Line had dropped Peter Jackson from consideration as director of The Hobbit and another Lord of the Rings prequel, producer Saul Zaentz has given assurances that Jackson will indeed direct the two films. A German website, Elbenwald.de, posted an interview with Zaentz, who acquired the rights to the works of the late Rings writer, J.R.R. Tolkien, in 1976 (the Saul Zaentz Company owns Tolkien Enterprises), in which Zaentz says, "It will definitely be shot by Peter Jackson. ... Next year The Hobbit rights will fall back to my company. I suppose that Peter will wait because he knows that he will make the best deal with us. And he is fed up with the studios: to get his profit share on the Rings trilogy he had to sue New Line. With us, in contrast, he knows that he will be paid fairly and artistically supported without reservation." (The preceding quotation is a translation that appeared on TheHobbit-Movie.com from the German interview posted on Elbenwald.de.)
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on November 25, 2006, 11:20:29 AM
See?  I told you people -- he's lost sight of his values.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 25, 2006, 11:23:41 AM
That made me snort coffee.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 10, 2007, 03:43:45 PM
Speaking of drama . . .

Quote from: scifi.com
Shaye: New Line Blacklists Jackson

In the latest comment in the controversy surrounding a proposed movie based on J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit, New Line head Robert Shaye told SCI FI Wire in no uncertain terms that the studio won't work with Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson on that film or any other film. Ever. At least not as long as Shaye is in charge.

Shaye's comments marked the first time a New Line executive has commented publicly on the fracas since Jackson announced that he has pulled out of the project and also appears to harden New Line's position against Jackson.

"I do not want to make a movie with somebody who is suing me," Shaye—New Line's chief executive officer—said in an interview on Jan. 5 while promoting The Last Mimzy, a New Line family fantasy that marks his first time in a director's chair since 1990's Book of Love. "It will never happen during my watch."

Jackson had told TheOneRing.net in November that he and partner Fran Walsh were bowing out after New Line, which produced the Rings films and has production rights to The Hobbit, told them the studio was moving ahead with The Hobbit without them. Jackson has said he won't discuss The Hobbit until a lawsuit against New Line over Rings accounting practices is settled.

As far as Shaye is concerned, Jackson is no longer welcome. "There's a kind of arrogance," Shaye said. "Not that I don't think Peter is a good filmmaker and that he hasn't contributed significantly to filmography and made three very good movies. And I don't even expect him to say 'thank you' for having me make it happen and having New Line make it happen. But to think that I, as a functionary in [a] company that has been around for a long time, but is now owned by a very big conglomerate, would care one bit about trying to cheat the guy, ... he's either had very poor counsel or is completely misinformed and myopic to think that I care whether I give him [anything]."

Shaye, who was also an executive producer on the Rings films, added: "He got a quarter of a billion dollars paid to him so far, justifiably, according to contract, completely right, and this guy, who already has received a quarter of a billion dollars, turns around without wanting to have a discussion with us and sues us and refuses to discuss it unless we just give in to his plan. I don't want to work with that guy anymore. Why would I? So the answer is he will never make any movie with New Line Cinema again while I'm still working for the company."

Shaye said that many of the Rings trilogy actors "suddenly, because, I'm guessing, of Peter's complaint," have declined to participate in celebrating New Line's 40th anniversary. "I'm incredibly offended," he said. "I don't care about Peter Jackson anymore. He wants to have another $100 million or $50 million, whatever he's suing us for. He doesn't want to sit down and talk about it. He thinks that we owe him something after we've paid him over a quarter of a billion dollars. ... Cheers, Peter."

New Line's hardened position against Jackson isn't the end of the story, of course. MGM, which owns the distribution rights to The Hobbit, on Nov. 20 told Variety through a spokesman that "the matter of Peter Jackson directing the Hobbit films is far from closed."

In his own online statement, Jackson said that New Line executive Mark Ordesky, who shepherded the Rings trilogy, argued that New Line is dumping Jackson because the studio has a "limited time option" on the film rights, obtained from Saul Zaentz.


Then Ain't It Cool News had this to say . . .

Quote
The dirty fighting is starting between Peter Jackson and New Line. Moviehole.net reported on an interview with Bob Shaye done by Sci-Fi.com, where he rips into Jackson and says he's not welcome at New Line ever again.

He points out what Jackson has been paid so far on Rings... a lot of money... but he doesn't answer why New Line refuses to allow Jackson's representatives into the books. I believe Jackson is suing over his contracted percentage on the FELLOWSHIP DVDs, but from Jackson's letter to the fans about the situation, it sounds like he just wants to make sure he's not being short changed. So, the question still remains... If New Line is sure they've fulfilled their contractual obligation to Jackson and Co, why are they fighting this?

I guess now it's personal and Shaye is going to do his damndest to fast track HOBBIT, which is always a good reason to make a film. Here's hoping MGM, who still owns the North American distribution rights, puts their foot down and stops a hastily made HOBBIT movie. If they can filibuster New Line and Saul Zaentz gets the rights back, he's said he wants Jackson to do it.

Even if Jackson ends up having nothing to do with a HOBBIT film, I'd still love to see it made right. Not just for the right reasons, but with the right amount of care put into the project. His blessing on the project would also open up the possibility of returning actors who wouldn't come back in this new situation at New Line. I know Ian McKellen has publicly stated that he won't return unless Jackson does.

So, a clusterfuck. Hopefully the fans aren't the ones who take it up the pooper in the end, but I think that's where Mr. Shaye is taking us right now.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on January 10, 2007, 03:50:10 PM
I like how Shaye, in talking about arrogance on the part of Jackson, comes across as insanely arrogant.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 10, 2007, 03:56:30 PM
I've always liked Shaye because he's the guy who helped bankroll the original Nightmare on Elm Street, and has never forgotten that Wes Craven and that film put New Line on the map.

However, yes, he sounds extremely arrogant here.

Then again, it's his word against Jackson's. The difference is, the fans LOVE Jackson.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 10, 2007, 10:45:06 PM
A rebuttal from Wingnut Films. (Jackson's film company.)

Quote
"Our issue with New Line Cinema has only ever been about their refusal to account for financial anomalies that surfaced from a partial audit of The Fellowship of the Ring. Contrary to recent comments made by Bob Shaye, we attempted to discuss the issues raised by the Fellowship audit with New Line for over a year but the studio was and continues to be completely uncooperative. This has compelled us to file a lawsuit to pursue our contractual rights under the law. Nobody likes taking legal action, but the studio left us with no alternative.

For over two years, New Line has denied us the ability to audit The Two Towers and The Return of the King, despite repeated requests. Film auditing is a common and straightforward practice within the industry and we don't understand why New Line Cinema has taken this position.

In light of these circumstances, I didn't think it was appropriate for me to be involved in New Line Cinema's 40th Anniversary video. I have never discussed this video with any of the cast of The Lord of the Rings. The issues that Bob Shaye has with the cast pre-date this law suit by many years.

Fundamentally, our legal action is about holding New Line to it's contractual obligations and promises. It is regrettable that Bob has chosen to make it personal. I have always had the highest respect and affection for Bob and other senior management at New Line and continue to do so."
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 13, 2007, 05:58:52 PM
Quote from: Yahoo News
Jackson can still make The Hobbit
 
Peter Jackson could still make Tolkien's The Hobbit, despite falling out with the studio which commissioned him to film The Lord of The Rings trilogy.

Bob Shaye, head of New Line Cinema, has told The Los Angeles Times his studio -- which Jackson had sued for profits from The Lords of The Rings -- was in talks with Jackson's representatives in a bid to mend fences and get him to direct The Hobbit.

"Notwithstanding our personal quarrels, I really respect and admire Peter and would love for him to be creatively involved in some way in The Hobbit," he said.

He had previously labelled Jackson as "arrogant", while Jackson and partner Fran Walsh took the unusual step of issuing a long statement on the Internet last year declaring that because of clashes with New Line they had "no choice but to let the idea of a film of The Hobbit go".

A spokesman for Jackson told The Dominion Post last night: "Peter and Fran have always wanted to do The Hobbit but whether that happens is yet to be decided."
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: fajwat on August 13, 2007, 06:02:44 PM
Peter: looks greedy for wanting the money (from the existing LOTR franchise)
Studio: looks magnanimous for wanting the money (from The Hobbit)

I love capitalism.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 05, 2007, 10:13:42 AM
History of the Hobbit debacle and a primer in Hollywood politics.

Quote from: EW.com
'The Hobbit': Peace in Middle-Earth?

Last month, in the academic journal Science, paleontologists presented new evidence that they had discovered an overlooked relative of prehistoric man. Officially, they've labeled the species Homo floresiensis — unofficially, they're calling them ''hobbits'' — but by any other name what they've found are the 18,000-year-old fossilized remains of a three-foot-tall hominid with a recessed chin and a brain the size of a Wiffle ball.

As it happens, they're digging for hobbits in Hollywood, too. The kind with a thing for finger bling and a knack for raking in billions at the box office. Up until a few weeks ago, it was looking as if this breed might be extinct as well, wiped out by dark lords more powerful than Sauron himself — entertainment lawyers. But now the legal battle that's kept The Lord of the Rings' prequel, The Hobbit, hung up for years — a bitter feud between Rings director Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema co-chairman Robert Shaye — may finally be nearing resolution. For once, there's reason to be cautiously optimistic. At this writing, no agreements have been announced and details of the negotiations are sketchy (neither New Line nor Jackson's camp would comment to EW on any aspect of this story), but sources close to the talks tell us that they're detecting a lot less frost in the air, and that a deal may be reached that could help usher J.R.R. Tolkien's maiden Middle-earth masterpiece to screens before the end of the decade. ''There has been a détente,'' says one insider. There is now the beginning of a discourse between Peter Jackson and New Line that's running parallel to the litigation proceedings.''

Okay, so it's not the sort of declaration of peace that sets church bells clanging. But it is a vast improvement from just 10 months ago, when Shaye and Jackson duked it out in the press and the studio co-chief angrily told a reporter that the director was too arrogant for his tastes, adding ''I don't want to work with that guy anymore.'' Besides, in Hollywood, any movement on this long-stalled project is major news. It was The Hobbit, after all, that first introduced the world to the lovely and terrifying universe of Middle-earth. The novel is set about 60 years before Lord of the Rings, and for many readers who dove into Tolkien's work as kids, it retains a warmer glow in memory than the daunting and sometimes slow-moving trilogy. Its hero is one Bilbo Baggins, an unassuming homebody hobbit who gets dragooned by one wizard and 13 dwarves into an adventure during which he relieves a dragon named Smaug of an ill-gotten treasure and the wicked Gollum of a certain all-powerful ring. Only a few LOTR cast members make return appearances in this earlier tale. But the story has precisely the same themes — of loyalty and unexpected bravery — that made the Rings series huge. And by huge we mean gargantuan, with each film earning about a billion dollars worldwide between 2001 and 2003, along with 17 Oscars, including ones for Best Director and Best Picture. In Hollywood, in other words, The Hobbit is that rarest of magical creatures — a sure thing.

And that's what makes this lawsuit mess so mystifying. What disagreement over Lord of the Rings could possibly be so important, so personal, that both sides would blow a potential billion dollars in revenue over it?

The irony is that once upon a time, Peter Jackson and Bob Shaye gave each other the greatest gifts of their careers. In 1998, Jackson's bid to make LOTR as three separate films — as opposed to two, or even one — had been rejected by virtually every studio in Hollywood. Shaye and New Line were his last hope, a fact the director camouflaged by calling a couple of times to reschedule the appointment with New Line because of his supposedly hectic itinerary. Jackson and Shaye made for an odd pair: a shy Kiwi perennially in short pants and bare feet, and one of the last real Hollywood mavericks, who was so fond of his sunglasses that Jack Nicholson once took to calling him ''Bobby Shades.'' What Jackson and Shaye did have in common was a kind of fearlessness and an absolute indifference to what other people thought was financial or creative suicide. Shaye greenlit Jackson's dream of a trio of $100 million fantasy films about elves and dwarves. (Not even Harvey Weinstein had the stomach for that; he told Jackson he'd sign on for only two. Because he was an executive producer, he wound up with a cut of the box office anyway.) And Jackson gave Shaye a $3 billion franchise and a new image for his company. New Line, which Shaye launched 40 years ago by discovering such camp classics as Reefer Madness and marketing them out of his apartment, is no longer best known for A Nightmare on Elm Street or Austin Powers.

There's invariably tension between studios and filmmakers during production. New Line learned quickly that despite being grateful for the job, the director and his partner, Fran Walsh, were not people to be shoved around. So there were scuffles and hurt feelings of varying magnitudes on both sides, all of which was compounded by the industry perception that Shaye had literally bet his studio on The Lord of the Rings. The first public indication that all was not well came around 2003. The second LOTR installment, The Two Towers, had earned its billion dollars, and it began to dawn on cast members that they weren't exactly sharing in the wealth. (Two sources close to the production recall a principal player receiving a merchandising residual check for 45 cents.) Eventually, after the bigger-name actors hinted they'd be too busy to do further publicity for the films, New Line coughed up extra bonuses. (The second-tier performers have since filed a lawsuit alleging that the studio withheld merchandising revenues.) Then came rumblings from producer Saul Zaentz. He had bought the film rights to the LOTR trilogy and The Hobbit from United Artists back in 1976 — UA partner MGM retains distribution rights to The Hobbit — and in 2004, Zaentz filed a lawsuit too, claiming that New Line wasn't paying all it owed him in royalties. His case was settled a year later for an undisclosed sum, but by then Jackson was elbows deep in his own audit of New Line's financial records.

Nobody enjoys getting audited, but it's a fact of life in Hollywood. Shaye, however, seemed to have taken Jackson's audit personally. ''It rankled him,'' notes one observer. ''Like, 'I gave this guy his shot — where does he get off?''' Shaye had apparently forgotten that Jackson was not just some cuddly Kiwi. When New Line began planning to sell the LOTR props and costumes at auction, Jackson intervened and said that he'd like to have them, both for sentimental reasons and for a museum he hoped to set up one day. The studio balked. Jackson then pointed out that he had never signed a contract for the extended Return of the King DVD. He informed New Line that he'd be happy to accept the costumes and props as his fee — the suggestion being that he might not work on the DVD otherwise. Those extended cuts had become far richer revenue streams than anyone could have predicted. Jackson got his props. The relationship between the filmmakers and the studio at that point was said to fall somewhere between hellish and nonexistent.

In November of 2003, Jackson and Walsh sat in their private theater in New Zealand, making last-minute tweaks to the trilogy's final film, The Return of the King. ''The ghosts are looking good, but to my eye the heroes are a little big,'' Jackson said of a sequence known as the Paths of the Dead. He drew circles on the screen with a laser pointer, then moved on to the close of the movie where Sam Gamgee returns home and embraces his family. The shot needed the slightest tweak. Jackson asked his special-effects team how long it would take. Ten days, he was told. ''No, no, no, no,'' he responded. ''Ten days would cause cardiac arrest in L.A.'' Walsh smiled. ''That's not such a bad thing,'' she said. As tittering spread throughout the theater, Jackson turned around: ''Show of hands, everybody?''

If the audit irked Shaye, the worst was still to come. In February 2005, Jackson filed his suit against New Line, claiming the studio had been dragging its feet providing documents to his auditors. The lawsuit asks for no specific dollar amount in damages, but insists that Jackson be allowed to examine the studio's books, looking into matters such as how New Line, a division of Time Warner, sold the ancillary rights to his films. (Entertainment Weekly is also owned by Time Warner.) In several instances, New Line struck deals with companies within the Time Warner family, such as Warner Bros. Records and the TBS cable network. If Jackson can show that New Line could have signed more profitable deals with outside companies, he might be able to demand some significant lost revenue.

In any case, once the lawsuit was filed, The Hobbit was roadkill. New Line did approach Jackson about making the movie at least once, in the fall of 2006, promising to settle the dispute (and pay him an appropriate amount) if he agreed to make the film. No dice. Jackson continued to insist a settlement had to come first. He'd already gone on to make King Kong. For Universal.

The low point came last November, when Shaye actually ''fired'' Jackson from The Hobbit. Jackson took the fight directly to the people. ''[We were told] that New Line would no longer be requiring our services on The Hobbit,'' Jackson wrote in a memo posted on the fansite TheOneRing.net. ''This was a courtesy call to let us know that the studio was now actively looking to hire another filmmaker.'' Shaye erupted. In January 2007, he blasted Jackson in a now-famous public tirade. ''I don't care about Peter Jackson anymore,'' he railed to the Sci Fi Wire website. ''He thinks that we owe him something after we've paid him over a quarter of a billion dollars!''

Shaye didn't appear to be bluffing. New Line began dangling The Hobbit in front of other directors. Like Sam Raimi. (''Peter Jackson might be the best filmmaker on the planet right now,'' the Spider-Man director told EW in March, but ''if Peter didn't want to do it...'') Not that anyone thought it was the greatest idea. ''Frankly, anybody else would be a secondary choice,'' says one high-profile movie executive. ''It won't be the movie people want.'' It certainly wouldn't be what Ian McKellen wanted; the actor, who played Gandalf in the trilogy, has been waging a one-wizard campaign to get Jackson back behind the camera, asking both sides to settle their differences. ''I should have relished revisiting Middle-earth with Peter,'' he wrote on his website. Viggo Mortensen's character, Aragorn, doesn't figure in The Hobbit's plotline, but even he can't imagine the film being made without Jackson. ''He's the ideal candidate,'' Mortensen tells EW. ''In their heart of hearts, New Line [knows] he's ideal.'' Many fans would argue that Jackson isn't merely ideal for The Hobbit, but indispensable. His vision is now synonymous with Tolkien's — as is the work of his F/X houses, Weta Workshop and Weta Digital. ''Would fans go see the movie if someone else directed it?'' asks the editor-in-chief of TheOneRing.net, Michael Regina. ''Maybe 90 percent would, but they'd be upset about it. It would break their hearts.''

It wouldn't be the sunniest scenario for Bob Shaye and New Line, either. In fact, time may be running out to launch the movie. On some not-too-distant date, the rights to The Hobbit will revert back to Zaentz. Most insiders guess it's 2010. To make the movie then, New Line would have to renegotiate — assuming Zaentz would want to do business with them again — on much more expensive terms and with plenty of competition from other studios. And there may be another deadline: Shaye and studio co-chair Michael Lynne reportedly have only until late 2008, when their contracts with New Line are said to expire. Not much time to add one last Tolkien triumph to their legacy.

But the real pressure on New Line right now is coming from the courts. Last month the company was fined $125,000 for failing to provide requested accounting documents. Even in the weeks before that ruling, there were signs that New Line's hard line was beginning to buckle. ''Notwithstanding our personal quarrels,'' Shaye told the L.A. Times this August, ''I really respect and admire Peter and would love for him to be creatively involved in some way in The Hobbit.''

Finally, an olive branch.

Of course, even if the lawsuit is settled tomorrow, there are still a few details to iron out before The Hobbit could get made. Like a script, for instance, which nobody has actually written. In the past, Jackson has suggested that he would make two films, with the second one filling in the story arc between the end of The Hobbit and the beginning of Rings. Although Tolkien never wrote a novel bridging the eras, he did scatter clues in shorter pieces and epilogues that could form the basis of a screenplay. This is not unprecedented. Jackson, Walsh, and screenwriting partner Philippa Boyens enhanced the Rings love story between Mortensen's and Liv Tyler's characters with material from Tolkien's extensive appendixes.

Still, it's hard to imagine Jackson having time to direct one Hobbit movie, let alone two. He will soon begin shooting his adaptation of the best-selling novel The Lovely Bones in Pennsylvania. And after that, he's scheduled to make Tintin with Steven Spielberg. There's speculation that New Line might offer him a deal to executive-produce The Hobbit, letting him pick a proxy director and oversee the production. That might be enough to keep fans' hearts from breaking, but would it be enough for Jackson? Amazingly, after all he's been through — eight years making Rings and several more in court fighting over it — the Shire still holds him in its spell. In fact, Jackson may turn out to be the only person who never once lost hope in the movie. Even in 2003, when his relationship with New Line was quite bleak, Jackson was still giving editions of The Hobbit as gifts. ''Great book,'' he wrote in one copy. ''Wonder when the movie's coming out??''
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Reginald McGraw on December 18, 2007, 04:08:09 PM
<Ding>

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2007/12/18/28150-peter-jackson-and-new-line-cinema-join-with-mgm-to-produce-%E2%80%9Cthe-hobbit%E2%80%9D/
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on December 18, 2007, 04:11:33 PM
Quote
and a sequel to “The Hobbit.”

Oh wow!  They're going to do Lord of the Rings as well?!  This is gonna be --

Oh, wait...
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on December 19, 2007, 02:23:45 PM
Meh.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 19, 2007, 04:03:43 PM
I second the traitorous Minister who defected to France.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on December 19, 2007, 05:51:39 PM
I second the traitorous Minister who defected to France.

Some fois gras?
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 28, 2008, 08:46:54 AM
Quote from: the Hollywood Reporter
Del Toro doubles up for 'Hobbit'

Guillermo del Toro is in talks to direct back-to-back installments of J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Hobbit," which is being co-financed by New Line and MGM.

Del Toro's name was on a short list of directors who could tackle the project, one of the most anticipated literary adaptations of the past decade. An ill-chosen director for "Hobbit" could put billions of dollars at stake for New Line and MGM and could turn off an audience that encompasses millions of passionate readers, Tolkien fans and obsessive geeks.

Few filmmakers have the cachet that del Toro has, as well as a deep love for the source material, an assured grasp of fantasy filmmaking and an understanding and command of geek culture as well as its respect. Del Toro has built that goodwill through such films as the Oscar-nominated "Pan's Labyrinth," "Hellboy," "Blade 2" (which was made by New Line) and "The Devil's Backbone."

For New Line, making "Hobbit" had become a priority in the wake of its billion-dollar success of the Oscar-winning "The Lord of the Rings" movies, which were co-written and directed by Peter Jackson. Jackson wanted to adapt "Hobbit," but when he got into a dispute with the studio over profit participation, the project went into limbo; neither New Line nor MGM, both rights-holders to the film, wanted to risk alienating fans of the trilogy by making an adaptation that didn't have Jackson's involvement.

The December resolution of the Jackson suit, facilitated by MGM CEO Harry Sloan, paved the way for "Hobbit" to get back on the road to the screen. However, because of other commitments that included "The Lovely Bones" and "Tintin," Jackson could not take on writing and directing roles, opting instead to become an executive producer with approval over creative elements of the pair of films.
 

Because of the strike, no writer has been hired to adapt Tolkien's children's classic, though that process will be fast-tracked once it's resolved. Del Toro and Jackson will oversee "Hobbit's" writing.

Principal photography for the films, which will be shot simultaneously, is tentatively set for 2009. The production budget is estimated at $150 million per film. The release of the first film is slated for 2010 and the second in 2011.

"Hobbit," which Tolkien initially wrote for his children, was published in the U.K. in 1937 to wide acclaim. It centered on Bilbo Baggins, a hobbit who joins a group of dwarves and the wizard Gandalf on a quest to find the treasure of a dragon named Smaug. Tolkien went on to write "The Lord of the Rings" 17 years later.

Del Toro is putting the finishing touches on Universal's summer release "Hellboy 2: The Golden Army" and recently produced the critically acclaimed ghost story "The Orphanage." He is repped by Endeavor and Exile Entertainment.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on January 28, 2008, 09:07:34 AM
Pan's Labyrinth was great. His other stuff... meh.

Hellboy was okay.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Matt on January 28, 2008, 09:25:32 AM
Hellboy was pretty generic, considering he's one of the most iconic new comic book superheroes. I hope the sequel, Golden Army, is closer to the feel of the comic books.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 28, 2008, 09:31:16 AM
Hellboy kind of sucked.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on January 28, 2008, 09:43:56 AM
But Pan's Labyrinth... wow.

Also, why can't New Line just suck Peter Jackson's cock, say sorry, and get him back on board?
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Reginald McGraw on January 28, 2008, 11:45:38 AM
Also, why can't New Line just suck Peter Jackson's cock, say sorry, and get him back on board?

He is on board.  They resolved their differences in December.  He will be the Executive Producer and probably write some of it.  He's busy with two other films.

Also, read this thread for the same information.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 28, 2008, 01:32:22 PM
And New Line apparently just got bought up by Warner Bros., so it'll be interesting to see how that deal effects everything.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on February 12, 2008, 11:36:00 AM
Quote
The Tolkien Trust, the British charity that manages the estate of J.R.R. Tolkien, and publisher HarperCollins filed a $150 million lawsuit against New Line Cinema on Monday reports Variety.

The suit claims the trust has not received any of its gross profit participation payments for the three films based on the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy and seeks both punitive damages and a court declaration that they can terminate any further rights New Line may have to the Tolkien works under the agreements including the upcoming "The Hobbit" film.

According to the suit New Line has failed to pay the Tolkien Trust any portion of the gross profit participation (up to 7.5% of the gross) to which they are entitled under their deal, despite the $6 billion in revenue the trilogy has made the studio.

The estate's U.S. Counsel Bonnie Eskenazi says "New Line has brought new meaning to the phrase 'creative accounting.' I cannot imagine how on earth New Line will argue to a jury that these films could gross literally billions of dollars, and yet the creator's heirs, who are entitled to a share of gross receipts, don't get a penny."

This comes just two months after New Line and Peter Jackson settled their own notorious fight about profit participation in the "Rings" trilogy. New Line declined to comment on the new suit.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Matt on February 12, 2008, 10:11:59 PM
It's true what they say; mo' money mo' problems.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 29, 2008, 09:25:01 AM
New Line Cinema officially got absorbed by Warner Bros. yesterday. Robert Shaye helped build the company forty years ago, so it's sort of sad that he's basically getting squeezed out of his company.

I put this in the Hobbit forum because a lot of people think part of the reason this happened is due to LOTR/Peter Jackson fallout.

Below is the email Shaye and CEO Michale Lynne sent out to New Line's staff.

Quote
February 28, 2008

To: New Line Colleagues

From: Bob Shaye and Michael Lynne

Subject: Our Company

This afternoon, Time Warner is announcing that New Line will become a unit of Warner Bros. This is, of course, a very difficult and emotional time for all of us who have worked at New Line. While there is not much we can say that can lessen the impact of this announcement, we did want you to know about the decision before you read about it in the press.

New Line will maintain its own identity and will continue to produce, market, and distribute movies. But New Line will now do so as part of Warner Bros. and will probably be a much smaller operation than in the past. Time Warner hopes that operating New Line as a unit of Warner Bros. will allow New Line to focus on the creative side of movie-making, while reducing costs and taking advantage of Warner Bros.' distribution systems. The company will be holding group meeting with New Line employees tomorrow in Los Angeles and New York to discuss this announcement, and is committed to letting employees know as soon as possible about how this change affects them individually.

For our part, we will be stepping down as Co-Chairmen and Co-CEOS of New Line. This was a painful decision, because we love New Line and the people who work here have been like our second families. But we will be leaving the company with enormous pride in what all of us at New Line have accomplished together. From its humble beginnings 40 years ago, our studio has created some of the most popular and successful movies of all time. Those movies are a tribute to the amazing creative energy and entrepreneurial abilities of the talented people at New Line. They are a legacy that will endure forever.

Although we are stepping out of New Line, we intend to remain actively involved in the industry in an entrepreneurial capacity, and will keep you advised of developments.

We thank all of you who have worked so hard to make New Line such a success. We are very proud of every one of you.

Bob & Michael
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on February 29, 2008, 10:30:24 AM
Damned Warner Bros. !!!!

*Shakes fist*
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Matt on March 02, 2008, 09:34:34 AM
That's pretty shitty.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on March 02, 2008, 01:33:41 PM
Damned Warner Bros.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 24, 2008, 10:47:37 PM
The sequel covering the time between The Hobbit and Fellowship sounds like a horrible idea.

Quote from: Variety
Guillermo del Toro to direct 'Hobbit'
Filmmaker signs on helm feature and sequel

In a major step forward on “The Hobbit,” Guillermo del Toro has signed on to direct the New Line-MGM tentpole and its sequel.

The widely expected announcement -- which had been rumored for several weeks -- came Thursday afternoon jointly from exec producers Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh, New Line president Toby Emmerich, and Mary Parent, newly named chief of MGM’s Worldwide Motion Picture Group.

Del Toro’s moving to New Zealand for the next four years to work with Jackson and his Wingnut and Weta production teams. He’ll direct the two films back to back, with the sequel dealing with the 60-year period between “The Hobbit” and “The Fellowship of the Ring,” the first of the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy.

New Line is overseeing development and will manage production. Both pics are being co-produced and co-financed by New Line Cinema and MGM, with Warner Bros. distributing domestically and MGM handling international.

Del Toro won’t leave for New Zealand immediately as he’s still in post-production on U’s “Hellboy 2,” due out in July. His previous pic, “Pan’s Labyrinth,” was released through New Line’s Picturehouse and set a record as the highest grossing Spanish language film in U.S. box office history.

The official signing of Del Toro comes four months after New Line settled a lawsuit with Jackson over “The Lord of the Rings” and announced that it had agreed with MGM to turn J.R.R. Tolkien’s “Hobbit” into two live-action films. Sam Raimi had been preceived as the initial front-runner as director but Del Toro had emerged in recent months as the likely candidate.

The studios didn’t give a start date on production and don’t yet have a script. Though no screenplay deal’s been set, it’s expected that the “LOTR” scripting team of Jackson, Walsh and Philippa Boyens will collaborate with Del Toro.

With Del Toro blocking out four years for the project, it’s likely that the studios are aiming at starting shooting next year and releasing the films in late 2011 and 2012.

Jackson’s WETA stages, post-production and visual effects facilities -- built for “The Lord of the Rings” -- will be used for both films. And New Zealand will again be the site of Middle-earth, with the story centering on Bilbo Baggins taking the Ring of Power from Gollum.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on April 25, 2008, 09:31:32 AM
Yikes - holy shit.

That sounds abysmal.

It would be like "Lord of the Rings: Pre-College Years."
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on May 04, 2009, 10:55:06 AM
So Hobbit news has been hot and heavy for a while now, but I've been ignoring it.

What I can't ignore, though, is the fan film that's been getting tons of press.   It's out and I can't watch it at work, but will get it in me tonight:

http://www.dailymotion.com/huntforgollum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunt_for_Gollum

http://thehuntforgollum.s3.amazonaws.com/index.html
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on May 31, 2009, 12:48:44 PM
So Hobbit news has been hot and heavy for a while now, but I've been ignoring it.

What I can't ignore, though, is the fan film that's been getting tons of press.   It's out and I can't watch it at work, but will get it in me tonight:

http://www.dailymotion.com/huntforgollum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunt_for_Gollum

http://thehuntforgollum.s3.amazonaws.com/index.html

It's not bad for an amateur production.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 15, 2009, 12:09:50 PM
Tobey Maguire's name is being bandied about this morning as "in talks" to play Bilbo Baggins.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Matt on December 15, 2009, 03:03:28 PM
Tobey Maguire's name is being bandied about this morning as "in talks" to play Bilbo Baggins.

bleah
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Matt on December 15, 2009, 03:04:27 PM
you want someone who looks like a young Ian Holm, not like Frodo. Frodo was like a second cousin or something, only marginally related to Bilbo
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on December 15, 2009, 07:40:34 PM
Danny De Vito!
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Cassander on December 15, 2009, 10:02:34 PM
Nicholas Cage!

Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on December 15, 2009, 10:08:00 PM
John Travolta!
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Nubbins on December 18, 2009, 12:02:58 PM
Willow Ufgood!
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Nubbins on December 18, 2009, 12:03:48 PM
*peck* *peck* *peck* *peck* *peck*
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on December 18, 2009, 01:00:49 PM
(https://greatsociety.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.greatsociety.org%2Fuploads%2Fuserfiles%2F3%2Fpeckpeckpeck.gif&hash=49f9d8b7f6d0a7d8724dc5b0bb78b5a61a2d5443)
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Poppy Propercock on May 31, 2010, 01:15:50 PM
Quote
The creative team for “The Hobbit,” the long-awaited live-action film adaptation of J. R. R. Tolkien’s novel about the diminutive fantasy hero Bilbo Baggins, has shrunk. Over the weekend the filmmaker Guillermo del Toro said he was departing the project as its director, amid uncertainty about a start date for shooting and the future of the studio releasing it.

In a statement posted Sunday on the Tolkien fan Web site TheOneRing.net, Mr. del Toro, whose films include “Pan’s Labyrinth” and the “Hellboy” movies, said: “In light of ongoing delays in the setting of a start date for filming ‘The Hobbit,’ I am faced with the hardest decision of my life. After nearly two years of living, breathing and designing a world as rich as Tolkien’s Middle Earth, I must, with great regret, take leave from helming these wonderful pictures.”

The online post said that Mr. del Toro would remain a screenwriter on “The Hobbit,” which is planned to be released in two parts in December 2012 and December 2013, and produced by New Line Cinema and MGM. Last year MGM, which also owns the film rights to the James Bond franchise, put itself up for sale, and is continuing to seek potential buyers for the studio, which carries $3.7 billion in debt.

Peter Jackson, the director of the “Lord of the Rings” movies and a writer and executive producer of “The Hobbit” films, said in the online posting that he was sad to see Mr. del Toro step down as director but understood his decision.

“The bottom line is that Guillermo just didn’t feel he could commit six years to living in New Zealand, exclusively making these films, when his original commitment was for three years,” Mr. Jackson said.

Mr. Jackson said he and his producing team would meet this week with studio executives “to ensure a smooth and uneventful transition, as we secure a new director for ‘The Hobbit,’” adding, “We do not anticipate any delay or disruption to ongoing pre-production work.”
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 16, 2010, 05:00:03 PM
Quote
It's official: 'Hobbit' greenlighted

 The announcement, made jointly by New Line president and COO Toby Emmerich, Warner Bros. president and COO Alan Horn, and MGM co-CEO Steve Cooper, says the "the two films based on 'The Hobbit' are now greenlit and will begin principal photography in February 2011, under the direction of Peter Jackson."

The announcement does not mean, however, that the labor issue acting as a hurdle for the production has been resolved. And it's the resolution of that dispute which will determine where the movie will shoot.

The dispute lies between Jackson and an array of unions, including New Zealand Actors’ Equity and SAG. A “do not work” order is in place on the production, which has refused to recognize union jurisdiction for local actors. Discussions in New Zealand are being facilitated by that country’s government, with little progress reported to date. SAG would not comment on whether it is involved in negotiations.

If the movie does not shoot in New Zealand, the country where Jackson made his "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, the filmmaker said Warners are looking at five different locales around the world to host the project.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on October 16, 2010, 05:01:14 PM
The Hobbit -- staring Anthony Hopkins and filmed in Las Vegas on a $22,000 budget!
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 22, 2010, 09:33:41 AM
All the cast can be seen here: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/47150 (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/47150)

Quote
Martin Freeman to play Hobbit's Bilbo Baggins

WELLINGTON (AFP) – British actor Martin Freeman  from "The Office" was officially cast in the starring role of "The Hobbit" Friday, as New Zealand flagged a last-ditch compromise to stop the production moving offshore.

Director Peter Jackson took time out from a bitter row with acting unions to announce Freeman would play Bilbo Baggins in the two-part prequel to "The Lord of the Rings".

The Oscar-winning director said Freeman was always his first choice to play the J.R.R. Tolkien character.

"Despite the various rumours and speculation surrounding this role, there has only ever been one Bilbo Baggins for us," Jackson said.

"There are a few times in your career when you come across an actor who you know was born to play a role, but that was the case as soon as I met Martin.

"He is intelligent, funny, surprising and brave -- exactly like Bilbo."

Freeman, 39, rose to prominence in the Ricky Gervais comedy "The Office" and has also featured in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", "Love Actually" and "Shaun of the Dead".

The casting decision came as the New Zealand government scrambled to try to ensure "The Hobbit", which will begin filming in 3D next February, was shot in the country.

Prime Minister John Key flagged possible changes to industrial laws at the centre of a dispute between Jackson and the actors' union NZ Equity, saying he was hopeful the films would still be made in New Zealand.

"I don't think we should write off our chances of retaining the movies," he told national news agency NZPA.

"There's work to be done and the government hasn't given up trying to do its best to secure the movies," he added, saying he would meet with Warner Bros executives due to arrive next week to make a decision on locations.

The row over the 500 million US dollar project erupted over NZ Equity's demand that Jackson allow it to negotiate minimum standards for actors, which the director refused, saying it would set an unacceptable industry precedent.

It escalated when NZ Equity last month called for a global boycott of the production through international actors' unions, which was lifted this week.

Warner Bros said in a statement that the boycott had already disrupted its plans to shoot in New Zealand.

"The actions of these unions have caused us substantial damage and disruption and forced us to consider other filming locations for the first time," it said. "Alternative locations are still being considered."

New Zealand provided a stunning location for "The Lord of the Rings" and Jackson said Thursday that the country's three billion dollar (2.3 billion US) a year film industry would be devastated if "The Hobbit" moved elsewhere.

Producers have mentioned Scotland, Canada, Ireland, Australia and eastern Europe as possible alternative locations, along with the Leavesden Studios near London, where the "Harry Potter" movies were filmed.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 08, 2010, 06:49:49 PM
Not really earth shattering, but it's been slow for movie news of late.

Quote
Cate Blanchett To Reprise 'Lord Of The Rings' Role For 'The Hobbit'

Cate Blanchett is heading back to Middle Earth.

The Oscar winner will reprise her role of Galadriel, the Lady of Lothlorien, in Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit," according to The Hollywood Reporter.

"Cate is one of my favorite actors to work with," Jackson told the trade of Blanchett, who previously played the role in "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy. "And I couldn't be more thrilled to have her reprise the role she so beautifully brought to life in the earlier film."

Also joining the cast are Ken Stott (as Dwarf Lord Balin), Sylvester McCoy (Radagast the Brown) and Mikael Persbrandt (Beorn).

The new additions join the previously announced Martin Freeman - who will play Bilbo Baggins, as well as Richard Armitage, Aidan Turner, Graham McTavish, John Callen, Stephen Hunter, Mark Hadlow and Peter Hambleton.

Production on "The Hobbit" - which will be split into two films - is slated to begin in February 2011, with release dates of December 2012 and December 2013, for Parts 1 and 2 respectively, targeted.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on December 08, 2010, 06:53:56 PM
Galadriel wasn't in The Hobbit, though...

Also, the 7th Doctor is playing the other Wizard!  Nice.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 09, 2010, 10:08:56 AM
Hunh?

Quote
After New Line Cinema announced Cate Blanchett's return to Middle Earth for 'The Hobbit,' I'm told that Orlando Bloom will likely be the next original cast member set for an encore. He's near a deal to return as Elven archer Legolas. And it's for more than a cameo, I'm told. I'd have expected them to first set Ian McKellen (Gandalf), Andy Serkis (Gollum) or Hugo Weaving (Elrond), whose characters figured in the book. But those talks have been arduous and aren't completed yet.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on December 09, 2010, 10:29:17 AM
Hunh?

Quote
After New Line Cinema announced Cate Blanchett's return to Middle Earth for 'The Hobbit,' I'm told that Orlando Bloom will likely be the next original cast member set for an encore. He's near a deal to return as Elven archer Legolas. And it's for more than a cameo, I'm told. I'd have expected them to first set Ian McKellen (Gandalf), Andy Serkis (Gollum) or Hugo Weaving (Elrond), whose characters figured in the book. But those talks have been arduous and aren't completed yet.

Every step of this has been a horror show... It just gets worse by the day.

So it's the Hobbit...with the characters from LotR instead of the characters from the Hobbit?

Next they'll bring Frodo back as the Ghost of Christmas Future.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on December 17, 2010, 12:44:57 AM

Next they'll bring Frodo back as the Ghost of Christmas Future.

L0Lz0rz!
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on January 07, 2011, 03:58:47 PM
Well, there it is. Rumors that Frodo will be squeezed into the Hobbit.

What...as a fetus?
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on January 09, 2011, 06:48:27 PM
Confirmed!  Frodo will be in the Hobbit.  60 years before his birth.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 09, 2011, 06:49:30 PM
Is Lucas directing this?
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on January 09, 2011, 11:56:31 PM
Holy fuck....

This is becoming a mess. Thank fuck these idiots didn't have their hands on LOTR.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on January 10, 2011, 04:35:39 PM
Quote
The One Ring reports that:

    As readers of "The Hobbit" know, the tale of "The Downfall of The Lord of the Rings" and "The Hobbit or There and Back Again," are contained in the fictional "Red Book of Westmarch." In Peter Jackson's LOTR films, the book is shown on screen and written in by Bilbo and Frodo and handed off to Sam Gamgee. (Not explained on film are Sam's progeny later having the book and being Wardens of the Westmarch—hence the book's title.)

    The fictional book, and either the telling from it or the reading of it, will establish Frodo in the film experiencing Bilbo's story. Viewers are to learn the tale of The Hobbit as a familiar Frodo gets the tale as well.

    Since the speculation is now everywhere around the interwebs, TORn can confirm that as of now, the plans are to feature Frodo in the opening sequence of the films. It is unlikely that studio Warner Bros. or Team Jackson would change the script at this point in response to the web buzz so we may have just "spoiled" December 2012 for some, but we warned you.

They also claim that Sean Astin could also make a return as Samwise Gamgee since, if we're to believe the matter of Frodo's inclusion in the films, the door would be wide open for him.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 11, 2011, 09:15:39 AM
Gollum and Gandalf are officially back.

Quote
Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis join cast of The Hobbit

Swiftly following confirmation that Elijah Wood is reprising his role as diminutive hobbit Frodo in the two-parter, both McKellen and Serkis will be returning to Middle Earth as Gandalf and Gollum.

With Deadline reporting that Christopher Lee and Ian Holm are also considering returning, it looks like director Peter Jackson almost has a complete set.

Orlando Bloom’s apparent return is still not yet a done deal, though, with THR reporting that it’s uncertain if a contract with Bloom can be ironed out before filming commences.

Shooting kicks off this February, with the first Hobbit released in December 2012.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 03, 2011, 06:43:28 PM
*snicker*

Quote
Ringer Spy Mr. Underbelly monitors movie titles that are registered by major film studios. Mr. Underbelly noticed that New Line has recently registered the following two film titles:

The Hobbit: There and Back Again

and…

The Hobbit: An/The Unexpected Journey
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on March 03, 2011, 07:44:10 PM
I've decided to tune this whole experience out.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on March 29, 2011, 03:22:14 PM
What's that about the end times, RC?

Jackson's bringing back all the LotR folks, we know. But now he wants to infuse more women into the Hobbit:

Quote
To that end, Jackson has already brought Cate Blanchett's Galadriel back for the two-part prequel, even though she's nowhere in Tolkien's Hobbit, and he's looking for another actress to head to Middle-earth. A casting sheet reveals the role to be:

[ITARIL] FEMALE, A WOODLAND ELF, this character is one the Silvan Elves. The Silvan Elves are seen as more earthy and practical. Shorter than other elves, she is still quick and lithe and physically adept, being able to fight with both sword and bow. Showing promise as a fighter at a young age, ITARIL was chosen to train to become part of the Woodland King's Guard. This is the only life she has ever expected to live, until she meets and secretly falls in love with a young ELF LORD. This role will require a wig and contact lenses to be worn. Some prosthetic make-up may also be required. LEAD. AGE: 17-27. ACCENT - STANDARD R.P.

Saoirse Ronan, who worked with Jackson on The Lovely Bones, has been mentioned in conjunction with The Hobbit—and perhaps this is the role she'd play—but nothing is set in stone.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on March 29, 2011, 08:16:08 PM
Fuck female characters.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 14, 2011, 09:21:07 AM
Peter Jackson's FB page is apparently where all the action is.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Peter-Jackson/141884481557 (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Peter-Jackson/141884481557)
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on April 14, 2011, 10:21:22 AM
I'm still getting used to skinny Peter Jackson.

Also, I now believe that the Hobbit will be essentially a fan film that he makes in his backyard.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 24, 2011, 04:50:09 PM
Quote
Martin Freeman ('Bilbo') is saying that Benedict Cumberbatch - who stars with Freeman in the magnificent and continuing BBC production SHERLOCK - will appear in Peter Jackson's HOBBIT.

Freeman offered no further insight into Cumberbatch's HOBBIT role.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on May 24, 2011, 04:57:49 PM
Mmm... Sherlock! New episodes coming up later this summer! We're going to tackle the Hound of the Baskervilles... And I see that the final episode will be "The Reichenbach Fall," which would be the "Adventure of the Final Problem." That is, Holmes dies.

Well... At least, he died for a couple of years until ACD ran out of money and brought him back.

I think ACD was born 100 years too early.

Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 31, 2011, 10:19:47 AM
Quote
"The Hobbit" films get titles and release dates

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) – Peter Jackson's two upcoming movies based on J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Hobbit" have been given official names and release dates.

The first of the two films, which are currently being filmed back-to-back in New Zealand, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey," arrives in theaters on December 14, 2012.

The sequel, opening December 13, 2013, will be known as "The Hobbit: There and Back Again." Both will be released through Warner Bros.

The two prequels to Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy follow the adventures of Bilbo Baggins -- to be played by Martin Freeman, with Ian Holm reprising his role as the elder Bilbo -- in his quest to reclaim the lost Dwarf Kingdom of Erebor from the dragon Smaug.

The sprawling cast includes a number of other "Rings" veterans: Ian McKellen as Gandalf the Grey; Cate Blanchett as Galadriel; Orlando Bloom as Legolas; Christopher Lee as Saruman; Hugo Weaving as Elrond; Elijah Wood as Frodo; and Andy Serkis as Gollum.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on May 31, 2011, 10:27:48 AM
I was hoping they would both come out next week so we could hurry up and get this over with.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on June 18, 2011, 10:09:59 PM
Sherlock's voicing Smaug. Talk about coming out of nowhere and going instantly to the top, eh?
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on June 20, 2011, 11:28:38 AM
Where's the dining car on the Nightmare Train?


Quote
Writes Peter Jackson on his Facebook page: "Evangeline Lilly will be playing a new character — the Woodland Elf, Tauriel. Her name means 'daughter of Mirkwood' and, beyond that, we must leave you guessing! (No, there is no romantic connection to Legolas.)" (Also: "I'm also highly excited that Barry Humphries' (a.k.a. Dame Edna) "will be portraying the Goblin King, in much the way Andy Serkis created Gollum.") Considering Lilly's extensive experience shooting on remote, idyllic islands, we're sure she'll fit right in.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on June 20, 2011, 01:16:29 PM
Um, so who's NOT in this movie?
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on June 20, 2011, 01:29:38 PM
Heath Ledger's cut scenes from Dark Knight CGI'd so that he's a new Wizard that they stumble across while in line at the Mordor White Castle.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 21, 2011, 11:25:46 AM
Poster:

(https://greatsociety.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Fcoolproduction%2Fckeditor_assets%2Fpictures%2F2543%2Foriginal%2FThe-Hobbit.jpg&hash=bd3eb472b47c0d0557061e00871478e58d05acb1)
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on July 21, 2011, 11:30:58 AM
I would have preferred Gandolf kicking a dead horse.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 21, 2011, 05:47:25 PM
We've bitched a lot about this, but....

Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Reginald McGraw on December 21, 2011, 10:32:42 PM
Mmm...tugs the strings a bit for me.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on December 28, 2011, 07:13:05 PM
Mmm... not so sure; I'll go to see it anyway because I'm so very gay for Gandalf.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on January 03, 2012, 08:38:34 AM
I'll see it. Hell... I still go back to the all-singing, all-dancing cartoons every couple years and cry.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on July 24, 2012, 12:58:31 PM
Jackson's done a great job with his production blog... Here's the Comic-Con edition, including the footage he showed so we don't have to suffer through Youtube cams... And, yes, I'm just posting this for 7th Doctor action...


Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on July 25, 2012, 10:53:52 AM
So... He finished shooting, right? It's all in the bag and split into two movies, I thought. How can you shoehorn another movie in there? And, yes, the below (from io9, and everywhere else) is correct: How can you make The Hobbit into three movies? I could see two, if you really wanted to do every little detail (and, as has been alleged, insert all the stuff from the Silmarillion into it), but not three.


Quote
After revealing his desire to turn his Hobbit adaptation into a trilogy, Peter Jackson has reportedly spent the last week with producer and wife Fran Walsh and writer-producer Philippa Boyens to figure out the logistics of shooting as much as two more months worth of footage. The challenges include sorting out the actors' contracts for them to return, making sure the financials make sense for Warner Bros. to give it the green light, and securing any lingering rights questions — and with The Hobbit, there are always lingering rights questions, for whatever reason. Reports indicate the decision on whether to go ahead will be made in the very near future, with the goal being to "tell more of the story", even if it seems like an open question whether there's really enough story in The Hobbit for two movies, let alone three.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on July 30, 2012, 03:37:57 PM
Confirmed...


Quote
We've all heard the rumors—Peter Jackson himself even hinted at it during Comic-Con. Now it's official: The Hobbit will be split into three films. Read what the master of Middle-earth, himself, had to say about it.

The news was just announced on Peter Jackson's official Facebook page.

This is what Jackson had to say:

It is only at the end of a shoot that you finally get the chance to sit down and have a look at the film you have made. Recently Fran, Phil and I did just this when we watched for the first time an early cut of the first movie — and a large chunk of the second. We were really pleased with the way the story was coming together, in particular, the strength of the characters and the cast who have brought them to life. All of which gave rise to a simple question: do we take this chance to tell more of the tale? And the answer from our perspective as the filmmakers, and as fans, was an unreserved 'yes.'
We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance. The richness of the story of The Hobbit, as well as some of the related material in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, allows us to tell the full story of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and the part he played in the sometimes dangerous, but at all times exciting, history of Middle-earth.

So, without further ado and on behalf of New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Wingnut Films, and the entire cast and crew of The Hobbit films, I'd like to announce that two films will become three.

It has been an unexpected journey indeed, and in the words of Professor Tolkien himself, "a tale that grew in the telling."

Cheers,

Peter J
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on August 02, 2012, 10:26:55 AM
Jesus...

First -- everything that's been added (which is all cool):
http://io9.com/5931001/everything-peter-jackson-added-to-the-hobbit-++-with-proof

But, then:


Quote
So now that it's official that Peter Jackson is going to make a third Hobbit film, there's only two things he needs: a budget and a script.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, Jackson has neither—which is unprecedented for a studio project of this scope. Yet apparently nobody—not Jackson nor studio executives—seems particularly worried about it.

One source close to the project said, "If anybody had been a big hindrance, it wouldn't have happened. It was such a short window of time to make this decision, if anybody had said no, it would have been two movies."

Although studios don't usually release exact budgets anymore, the cost of the two already-announced parts of The Hobbit is said to total $500 million. A third film will be less expensive—perhaps as low as half one of the other two movies—because Jackson has already shot a lot of material that will end up in it. But a budget can't be nailed down until a script is written, and that has yet to happen.

Jackson pitched the third film to the studios, Warner Bros. and New Line, in early July and got a green light right away. Since the cast members were only hired for two films, new deals had to be made with them and were done at lightning speed, with everyone on board before Jackson officially announced the third movie on his Facebook page later that month.

With some additional shooting for the second movie already slotted for next June, that time frame is going to expand by several weeks so that Jackson can get enough footage in the can to turn The Hobbit into a trilogy, with the third movie coming out in summer 2014.

But what exactly will that footage consist of? Until Jackson and collaborators Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens actually write it, we just don't know.


Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on August 06, 2012, 12:37:56 PM
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 06, 2012, 12:49:47 PM
Okay, so I now realize that Andy Serkis doing the Gollum voice is enough to get my blood pumping.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on August 06, 2012, 02:02:37 PM
Okay, so I now realize that Andy Serkis doing the Gollum voice is enough to get my blood pumping.

The power of Serkis! I agree.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on August 11, 2012, 12:34:57 PM
*Gollum*
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on September 20, 2012, 12:03:38 PM
The latest:

Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on October 03, 2012, 06:11:57 PM
I've a feeling this is going to end up being a gay-fest for shitty, childish humour.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on October 03, 2012, 06:26:15 PM
What are we up to, now? 14 parts?

You know...I hate that they're doing this at all.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on October 03, 2012, 06:40:53 PM
The Hobbit was originally a kids book, really.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on November 13, 2012, 12:16:13 PM
It's an action-adventure now.


Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on November 22, 2012, 11:06:15 AM
Gay.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on November 22, 2012, 12:13:00 PM
I love all the side stuff going on. The PETA lawsuit, the Tolkien estate lawsuit... What a fucking disaster.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on November 26, 2012, 11:48:27 AM
The PETA lawsuit? Why are they scrabbling for attention now?
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on November 26, 2012, 11:50:35 AM
The PETA lawsuit? Why are they scrabbling for attention now?

So they caged up all of the animals on an unsafe farm, ignoring the complaints of the wranglers, and several animals died. It's bizarre. We're talking penning horses on the edges of cliffs and sinkholes and shit.

Every new news item about the Hobbit just has me going, "What?"
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 26, 2012, 12:53:45 PM
I've been sick of The Hobbit Since Return of the King came out.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on November 26, 2012, 01:25:24 PM
I've been sick of the Hobbit since I hung out with all my proto-hipster friends in the late 80s!
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on November 30, 2012, 12:25:12 PM
Uh-oh... The specter of Jar Jar has been summoned...

Quote
The first review of Peter Jackson's The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey has hit the Web, and it's generally positive—except for one thing.

The Hobbit had its world premiere in Wellington, New Zealand, on Wednesday (Nov. 27), and while critics in New York and Los Angeles are embargoed from publishing reviews until next week, a fellow named Ethan Sacks at the New York Daily News has seen it and offered up his thoughts on the highly anticipated first chapter in Jackson's new trilogy.

Sacks describes The Hobbit as "lighter and funnier than its Lord of the Rings predecessors," adding that it "remains faithful to the fantasy world last seen in the 2003 Academy Award-winning The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King."

He also goes into some detail about the controversial 48-frames-per-second (also known as HFR, or high frame rate) format in which Jackson shot the film, and in which it will be projected in around 400 theaters when it opens in the U.S. on Dec. 14.

The format is twice as fast as normal, 24-frame-per-second film, and is said to provide awe-inspiring clarity and depth to the image. However, a screening of 10 minutes of 48fps footage earlier this year at the CinemaCon exhibition in Las Vegas left both critics and theater owners less than enthused, with some saying it looked too much like video.

According to Sacks, "After a minute or two of adjusting, the higher resolution is eye-popping, similar to discovering HD television for the first time."

Although he does not go much more into depth about the movie, the reporter did offer up one criticism—but because of what it invokes, it's a nasty one: "Like all unexpected journeys, there are a few pitfalls along the way, most notably the tangential subplot surrounding bumbling wizard Radagast the Brown (Sylvester McCoy), whose buffoonery at times descends into Jar Jar Binks territory."

Yes, Sacks said the name that cannot be spoken. All we can hope is that Radagast is not around for much of the movie's 160-minute running time.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on December 05, 2012, 12:00:12 PM
So, apparently, this 48 frames per second experimental filming is making all the NZ audiences physically ill... Current rumor is that the US release won't get the same experimental treatment, not even those 400 select theaters mentioned above.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Reginald McGraw on December 05, 2012, 10:15:13 PM
I don't get it. Why would 48fps do anything? Is this a hold over from us being told that movies must be 12fps and you know 24fps (like soap operas) is worse quality?
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on December 05, 2012, 10:20:05 PM
Probably just IMAXing their way down New Zealand mountains.

Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 05, 2012, 10:21:30 PM
The argument behind 48fps is that it more seamlessly integrates CGI. This is a huge debate in the world of geeky cinephiles.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Reginald McGraw on December 05, 2012, 10:27:27 PM
See that makes sense to me. More fps...less change to rendered objects per frame...should be smoother. But what's this about people being sick?
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on December 05, 2012, 10:27:58 PM
So maybe those fucking Kiwis just couldn't handle the most realistic looking troll they've ever seen?

Or dragon! I can just imagine Smaug at this supposed CGI-is-more-real-than-real 48fps.

That would upset me. Because Smaug as a cartoon is upsetting.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 05, 2012, 10:28:56 PM
I think it's over a 100 years of being conditioned to 24fps. Our brains go wonky after 3 hours of 48fps, I guess.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Reginald McGraw on December 05, 2012, 10:30:06 PM
We've got to reprogram!! Onward!
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on December 05, 2012, 10:30:43 PM
I also wonder if this harkens back to the Jar Jar factor and The Hobbit is some sort of action-filled roller coaster insanity, six storeys high, 48fps, no bathroom breaks.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on December 05, 2012, 10:31:21 PM
By the way...are we finally going to get ourselves together and have a group Hobbit-fest?
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on December 12, 2012, 10:00:21 PM
What worries me is how much bullshit padding will be needed to make The Hobbit into three movies.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on December 12, 2012, 10:03:54 PM
What worries me is how much bullshit padding will be needed to make The Hobbit into three movies.

Dude...no shit. The NZ reviews suggest that they've turned Sylvester McCoy's version of Radagast into Jar Jar. So I guess that's one way to turn a children's book full of annoying songs by a myopic author into 9 hours worth of movie.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on December 15, 2012, 01:17:59 PM
Oh no.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on January 02, 2013, 08:03:03 AM
Oh, look. The screener leaked! Watching tonight...
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 02, 2013, 10:10:24 AM
What does it say that I have zero desire to see this?
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on January 02, 2013, 10:20:39 AM
What does it say that I have zero desire to see this?

Same boat here. I feel like I should go see it in the theaters...but I just can't get behind it. And why bother? So much going against it...the horror show of the making of, the bizarre decision to make it a trilogy, the kind of cheap-feeling cashing in aspect, and the knowledge that the (always better and more rewarding) special edition DVD's can be watched at our leisure in the comfort of our homes.

So...yes, I'll steal the screener. Fuck them.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on January 02, 2013, 05:40:55 PM
Fuck Peter Jackson and his extra 6 hours of film that does not need to exist.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on January 02, 2013, 06:02:33 PM
Fuck Peter Jackson and his extra 6 hours of film that does not need to exist.

When I heard about McCoy camping shit up, my heart sank. Hell, everyone hated McCoy when he became the 7th Doctor! He's the man who stuck ferrets down his pants on a proto-talent search type show! The death knell for classic Doctor Who and, 25 years later, for the Hobbit!

Oh, and, more generally: Whhhhhyyyy?!?!

But I'll go home and fucking watch it tonight like a good boy.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on January 03, 2013, 08:16:40 AM
Watched it last night. My reaction is....complicated. It's entertaining, it's beautiful, it kept me there, I'm looking forward to the next.

That said, it's a horrific rape of the LOTR trilogy. At best, it's a mockery. Full of awkward moments, annoying Jar Jar-level characters, and it wipes its AIDS_infected ass with all of the original source material -- especially the endless padding from all the stupid posthumous stuff which, in itself, is endless literary padding. This movie could have easily been an hour shorter. Fuck, the first 15 minutes is consumed with a pre-prequel set during the events at the start of Fellowship! It also verges closely to getting lost in flashbacks. Oh, now this is the flashback! For sure, because they used the smoke to transition and Bilbo's young now!

The tribute/homage to LOTR infects the storytelling, making this almost feel like some sort of strange, billion-dollar fan fiction.

And, as predicted, McCoy's handling of Radagast almost made me go get the brown liquor and the .38.

But...you know, it was fun.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on January 03, 2013, 10:22:11 AM
Yeah, I too had mixed reactions to The Hobbit. Below is Monkey's Bit-by-Bit Review:

20 minutes in and it's okay so far.
Some gay fork dancing.
Showing off their talents of dexterity for future fight scenes I'd imagine.
Oh no… not a faggot, Scottish dwarf.
Haha! His running and expression whilst shouting, "I'm going on an adventure!" makes him look like a Downs-Syndrome Rain Man.
And the Scottish dwarves are racist against Orcs.
Rabbit Sledge… wtf?
Seriously.
Troll fight is fun.
I think the trolls were my favourite characters so far.
Very obvious weed smoking references. Gandalf is gay, and a stoner!
Goblin King needs to go on a diet. Wears a Hamas beard.
Gollum is a dick.
I think Orcs are terrorists...?
The Hobbit isn't too bad.
It has somewhat of a deliberate pace, but...
Not as bad as I'd feared.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on January 03, 2013, 10:35:01 AM
I just now figured it out -- it's Return of the Jedi bad, not Phantom Menace bad. So, all things considered, that's a relief.

Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Reginald McGraw on January 03, 2013, 09:51:58 PM
Shut your dirty mouth. Return of the Jedi is great!
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on January 03, 2013, 10:52:34 PM
Wellll.... Yeah. But...hmmm?
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Reginald McGraw on January 04, 2013, 12:39:41 AM
Excellent. I'm now expecting The Hobbit to be as good as Return of the Jedi. Yoda's in this one right?
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on January 04, 2013, 07:41:45 AM
Excellent. I'm now expecting The Hobbit to be as good as Return of the Jedi. Yoda's in this one right?

No. Ewoks. Lots of them.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Reginald McGraw on January 05, 2013, 11:47:02 AM
Hmm....

Well, I'm going to see the 3D HFR version with my boy this afternoon. We shall see.

I wish there was a non-3D HFR version.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on January 05, 2013, 11:57:43 AM
Go with an empty stomach! Especially during the Radagast chase scene. That made me a little sick on the low quality screener...can't imagine it in 3D HFR.

Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 05, 2013, 02:02:32 PM
I'm skipping it. Do I have to turn in my geek badge?
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on January 06, 2013, 11:48:05 AM
I'm skipping it. Do I have to turn in my geek badge?

Not in my opinion. But tune in for the next movie for Cumberbatch Love.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Reginald McGraw on January 06, 2013, 11:17:38 PM
Well, the boy didn't want to go...so we didn't. I'll try to catch it before it leaves theaters, but yesterday was probably the best shot.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on March 27, 2013, 10:53:54 AM
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on March 27, 2013, 12:41:38 PM
Verily!
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on June 12, 2013, 11:52:16 AM
Trailer for Legolas, er The Hobbit 2.

Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on June 12, 2013, 02:42:37 PM
I really was hoping the gods would intervene before the second movie...
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 01, 2013, 12:54:05 PM
When I heard Cumberbatch's voice at the end of this, all I could think was "He'd make a great Unicron."

Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on October 01, 2013, 01:04:28 PM
Don't worry. I'm sure it can happen. He obviously has a personal goal to be in 37 movies a year.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on December 14, 2013, 10:54:27 AM
Apparently, Hobbit 2 is everything Hobbit 1 was not.

I've still lost all trust for the franchise, though.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on December 14, 2013, 02:33:07 PM
Apparently, Hobbit 2 is everything Hobbit 1 was not.

I've still lost all trust for the franchise, though.

I'm going to pay for an over-priced cinema ticket sometime before Xmas.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 14, 2013, 06:00:36 PM
Who hasn't seen Hobbit 1?

*raises hand*
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on December 14, 2013, 07:06:24 PM
Who hasn't seen Hobbit 1?

*raises hand*

You're better for it.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on December 14, 2013, 07:39:26 PM
Who hasn't seen Hobbit 1?

*raises hand*

You're better for it.

It wasn't that bad.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on December 14, 2013, 09:25:03 PM
Who hasn't seen Hobbit 1?

*raises hand*

You're better for it.

It wasn't that bad.

Says the rapist to the small child.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on December 15, 2013, 11:17:40 AM
Who hasn't seen Hobbit 1?

*raises hand*

You're better for it.

It wasn't that bad.

Says the rapist to the small child.

If they have no tongue they can't tell mother.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 15, 2013, 12:17:13 PM
*shudder*
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on December 15, 2013, 01:52:51 PM
*shudder*

Shuddering from ejaculation?
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on December 15, 2013, 07:04:48 PM
*shudder*

Shuddering from ejaculation?

Ohhhh, yeeesss, Radagast! Lead the Orcs back to us, while you're supposed to be leading them away, while we sit here motionless and watch blankly.... And, now, a 15 minute song from The Silmarillion known only to Tolkien scholars.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 16, 2013, 10:04:20 AM
Radagast is a fair to middling Czech beer.

So have you seen Hobbit 2: Judgement Shire?
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on December 16, 2013, 10:22:53 AM
Radagast is a fair to middling Czech beer.

So have you seen Hobbit 2: Judgement Shire?

Not yet. They aren't getting my money.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on December 16, 2013, 10:53:19 AM
But it's shiny n' shit!
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 16, 2013, 11:09:10 AM
n' shit!
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on December 28, 2013, 04:18:47 PM
So part two leaked. Watching it now... Too exhausted from writing to do a live blog, though.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on December 28, 2013, 04:51:51 PM
I always like the moment where Bilbo could have told Gandolf about the ring so very early on and, in a split second, ended the whole story. J.R.R. Tolkien -- author of that one 200 page fantasy book that neatly tied everything up in one sentence.

No? Oh...guess not.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on December 28, 2013, 05:33:26 PM
So I don't see what the big deal is in the Lord of the Ring trilogy. End of days? Really? because this comical band of drunken/elderly/untrained dwarves just killed more orcs in the river scene than were killed in the first two LotR movies. Like, effortlessly. Like Droid Army against two Jedis effortlessly.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on December 28, 2013, 07:01:34 PM
What. The fuck. Is this. Shit?
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on December 28, 2013, 07:25:22 PM
Just out from watching it in the cinema.

LONG. Oh, so long....

And it's legal to kill people who kick the back of your seat in the cinema, right?
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on December 28, 2013, 07:31:46 PM
The pacing was terrible, and the CG was quite patchy, especially during action scenes. It really stood out at times. Sure, the CG for Smaug was brilliant, but I think they were bored when it came to blending characters against backgrounds.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on December 28, 2013, 07:38:39 PM
The pacing was terrible, and the CG was quite patchy, especially during action scenes. It really stood out at times. Sure, the CG for Smaug was brilliant, but I think they were bored when it came to blending characters against backgrounds.

All this fucking movie does is make me want to watch the 1977 cartoon. Which, strangely, was better executed and had more convincing effects!
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on December 28, 2013, 07:40:03 PM
And fucking Legolas has become The Hobbit's Jar Jar Binks.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on December 28, 2013, 07:43:34 PM
And fucking Legolas has become The Hobbit's Jar Jar Binks.

Also, why was that freckled tart from Lost shoved down our throats without at least one pinks-spread scene?
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on December 28, 2013, 07:47:47 PM
And fucking Legolas has become The Hobbit's Jar Jar Binks.

No. Radagast has.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on December 28, 2013, 07:49:58 PM
And fucking Legolas has become The Hobbit's Jar Jar Binks.

No. Radagast has.

The Hobbit has two Jar Jar's.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on December 28, 2013, 08:38:07 PM
Who do I have to kill to get a remake of the 1986 Transformers movie with Cumberbatch voicing Unicron?
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on December 28, 2013, 08:40:00 PM
Kill Lost bitch's vagina.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on December 28, 2013, 08:50:49 PM
Kill Lost bitch's vagina.

You remember that she exists after being exposed to what 99.9% of the film's budget was spent on? Benedict as Smaug? Because I'm sitting here stunned and wishing the last fucking two hours had just been Smaug and nothing else.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on December 28, 2013, 08:56:31 PM
Oh! I see. She and Legolas come back with no explanation for the final reel. Of course.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on December 28, 2013, 09:25:57 PM
Well. That was three hours of agony and I regret every minute.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 28, 2013, 10:24:31 PM
So happy I'm skipping these movies.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on December 28, 2013, 10:31:02 PM
One more to go...one more to go...have to do it...have to do it...ugh...ugh...hurts...huuuuuurts...
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on April 21, 2014, 10:43:02 AM
I find it an interesting commentary on modern film making that the "Everything Wrong With..." videos are getting longer and longer.

14 minutes for the second Hobbit movie...

Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on April 21, 2014, 10:49:41 AM
One factor is surely that movies are now expected to be at least 2 hours in length to be 'normal' and often are longer... the longer a film goes on the more shit is needed to be crammed into it.

More filler, less killer...
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 21, 2014, 12:18:26 PM

More filler, less killer...

This is why many of these genre projects are better suited for TV where long form storytelling is far for successful.

But I just think the Cinesins guys think they're funnier than they are. Half their jokes don't land. If [i}they[/i] employed some kind of restraint and quality control, they'd make tighter funnier videos as well.

The parodies ape the originals ape the satires ape the novels ape the...
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on April 21, 2014, 12:43:06 PM
A quick note on the implication that the Hobbit is better suited for TV. Padding it out on TV would be just as bad... It's a short book. It's a 300 page children's book that's probably best used as a vague introduction and early world building to the follow-up trilogy.

But, yes, overall...doorstopper fantasy stuff (like GoT) is better suited to TV. I agree with that.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on April 21, 2014, 03:32:53 PM
My sweet fuck. The Hobbit shouldn't be anything more than one film. That's it. ONE film.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 23, 2014, 03:17:01 PM
Comic Con has been rather uneventful so far...

(https://greatsociety.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.aintitcool.com%2Fmedia%2Fuploads%2F2014%2Fmerrick%2Fhobbitbattle_large.jpg&hash=1f2bcd7473e0530f1a4be31f0e5de0e2d6882936)
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 28, 2014, 05:31:19 PM
I'm trying to figure out if YouTube is playing this trailer at 48fps or if I'm having a stroke.

Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on July 28, 2014, 07:22:27 PM
I don't even know why they bother advertising. The whole world will go to see this movie, even though everyone also hates it.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 28, 2014, 07:31:01 PM
Everyone except me. I'm waiting for the internet cut of all three movies that'll be the single hour and a half movie it should have been.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Reginald McGraw on July 28, 2014, 09:13:00 PM
Everyone except me. I'm waiting for the internet cut of all three movies that'll be the single hour and a half movie it should have been.

This. Haven't watched a frame.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on July 29, 2014, 08:16:40 AM
The first two are horrible. I think the internet cut will basically be the introduction followed immediately by the Battle of the Five Armies.

What worries me is how they'll handle the franchise now. Will they turn The Adventures of Tom Bombadil into a six season HBO series?
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on December 08, 2014, 01:53:42 PM
Yeah. This puts a nail in it.

Quote
L.A.-based editor Joel Walden wanted to know what a trailer for The Hobbit might have looked like, had Peter Jackson's trilogy been released as a single film. The result, which Walden calls "The Hobbit: The Complete Journey," is pretty excellent.

Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on December 17, 2014, 04:02:42 PM
A well thought-out review from Tor...

http://www.tor.com/blogs/2014/12/movie-review-the-hobbit-the-battle-of-the-five-armies

They mainly point their finger at the studio, which is interesting. I've been guilty of blaming Jackson for this debacle, along with everyone else, but Tor's review is the first hint that WB was more deeply involved in fucking these movies up.

Though there is a fair share of blame for Jackson.

I'll watch the finale. I've watched the last two. I'm all about completion... But I'll wait for it, and I don't mind waiting for it. I've been nothing but disappointed.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on December 18, 2014, 12:23:43 PM
This is what happens when you stretch a 300 page children's novel over 9 hours of film packed with shitty musical elements and painfully slow progression.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on January 04, 2015, 01:01:16 PM
I went to see "The Hobbit 3: Return to Dragon Dome, this time it's personal" last night with the parents... pushy, maudlin crap with little cohesion. Still, better than the second one.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on January 04, 2015, 01:20:10 PM
Oral surgery is better than the second one.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on January 04, 2015, 02:10:24 PM
Do you have a word replacement for surgery/rape?
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on January 07, 2015, 08:56:58 PM
From the very beginning Battle of the Five Armies is awful. Bard the Bowman isn't bothered by the thousand pound bell ringing an inch from his head? He should be on the floor immobilized. Or is he deaf?
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on January 07, 2015, 09:27:35 PM
Man, where were these superpowered Ringwraiths in the LotR movies? The creepy monsters have been replaced by poorly rendered videogame avatars.

And since when did Sauron parade around like that? I'm starting to wonder if Peter Jackson ever read the Hobbit.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on January 08, 2015, 06:40:10 AM
I get the feeling he asked an intern to read through Silmarillion and tie it in with the Hobbit in less than five minutes.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on January 08, 2015, 07:40:04 AM
I get the feeling he asked an intern to read through Silmarillion and tie it in with the Hobbit in less than five minutes.

Yes! Like it was some sort of sick game.

I made it through an hour then had to give up. I'll knock out the rest tonight, I suppose, just to say I did... But holy shit. This whole trilogy has been an experiment in terror.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on January 08, 2015, 07:58:20 AM
I get the feeling he asked an intern to read through Silmarillion and tie it in with the Hobbit in less than five minutes.

Yes! Like it was some sort of sick game.

I made it through an hour then had to give up. I'll knock out the rest tonight, I suppose, just to say I did... But holy shit. This whole trilogy has been an experiment in terror.

Yes... I suffered through all at once in the cinema. Memories still disgust me.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on January 09, 2015, 11:44:42 AM
Finished it. Utterly horrible. What a shameful way to treat the story... Disgusting.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on January 17, 2015, 06:46:47 AM
Finished it. Utterly horrible. What a shameful way to treat the story... Disgusting.

We should treat Peter Jackson how the other soldiers treated Mr. Fat-Fuck in Full Metal Jacket. Then wait for him to commit suicide.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on January 17, 2015, 10:47:25 AM
How sad that it's come to that... He was my b-movie gorefest hero growing up.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on January 17, 2015, 12:57:24 PM
And now he's a corporate whore.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on January 17, 2015, 01:07:01 PM
Of course, let's be fair. If someone offered you a billion dollars...
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on January 17, 2015, 01:17:05 PM
Of course, let's be fair. If someone offered you a billion dollars...

I would cast Will Smith as Gandalf the White in the next Star Wars.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 17, 2015, 04:39:30 PM
Of course, let's be fair. If someone offered you a billion dollars...

I would cast Will Smith as Gandalf the White in the next Star Wars.

There's the rub, eh? I think it's foolish to believe that Jackson was operating here with complete autonomy. There had to be corporate pressure to make it all fit into some kind of "Save the Cat" structure in order to appease the higher ups at Warner Bros. (Isn't that who owns New Line now? I've completely ignored the Hobbit movies which is really all that's left of the old New Line Cinema.) With that large a budget, they're certainly not going to let him work in a vacuum are they? Maybe they would. Maybe the Rings trilogy was that big a hit the higher-ups said, "Do what you want. Just make ga-jillions." I doubt it though.

Then again, he's the Tolkien expert. The higher-ups may have deferred to him to make sense of it all. If that's the case, then it is his fault.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on January 18, 2015, 07:13:59 AM
It was probably more along the lines of, "Hey, you, Fatboy, you know that Elves and fairy stuff... make us another few billion. With extreme prejudice. Also, we'll kill your family."
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on January 18, 2015, 12:35:04 PM
I think I need you to explain "Save the cat" again RC, because you use it like Fezzini used inconceivable in the Princess Bride.

My understanding is that STC is a method of storytelling, much in the way Campbell's Hero's Journey has been applied to movies. In STC, though, it's a simplification of the narrative and the characters designed to lead the audience along in a sort of paint-by-numbers approach to narrative, right? It ultimately boils down into a "tell" vs. "show" thing. The story moves along because the characters are forced to make decisions that the audience understands and would make for them, and suspense, etc, is artificially applied to the story through trope-like classic methods (Ripley saves the cat/Newt/her immortal soul, "the call is coming from inside the house," etc.)

Am I sort of on target there?

So in the Hobbit movies, Jackson is doing what the Tolkien estate -- namely Christopher -- has been trying to do all along. He combined the posthumous collections into the larger story. The Tolkien estate has been making hay off of JRR's notes and story bible that was written largely to help him create the universe and then discarded. Some of this stuff ended up in the copious appendices in all the books, but the rest went into the bin until Chris Tolkien went on the cash-in train.

If anything, The Hobbit trilogy is so suspiciously toeing the line of the Tolkien estate's wishes for how the source material should be told, it feels like the Hobbit trilogy is some sort of payoff for being allowed to do LoTR somewhat loyally...

But, in terms of strict storytelling, Jackson isn't taking the sort of liberties that STC would imply. He's staying with the source material, it's just a question as to whether or not he should be using the source material that he's using. If you take the Silmarillion and  the Red Book stuff and all the appendices and The Road Goes Ever On and Unfinished Tales and Lost Tales and The History of Middle Earth (a twelve book series largely devoted to JRR's notes about the background motivation of characters in LoTR) and the Miscellany and The Children of Hurin and assume that they're all part of the larger prologue in which The Hobbit is merely a chapter (as Christopher Tolkien would love for you to do) then, viola, you have a trilogy from a children's book you can read in a couple hours.

Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 18, 2015, 02:13:28 PM
"Save the Cat" is a screenwriting book written by a guy named Blake Snyder that was published in the early 2000s. Like Syd Field's "Screenplay" before it, it has become the studio executive's standard as to what gets green lit over what doesn't. It's a beat sheet that tells you what should be happening at what point in your screenplay right down to the page numbers. I've included the beat sheet below.

Executives uses the beat sheet as a way to cover their own asses. They can say, "It's not my fault John Carter flopped. We had an 'all is lost' moment on page 75 like we're supposed to." Few films get green lit these days unless the script follows this format. It's also why all the blockbusters feel like the same movie.

Snyder died a few years after it was published. Therefore, he didn't get to see the dark side of how it effected the industry. He didn't have the opportunity to write another book to soften the militancy of the idea. (The way Syd Field softened his view of three-act structure after executives latched onto it in a similar manner.)

Look, we're hardwired for narrative and it all goes back to the stasis/catalyst/rising action/climax/denouement we all learned in grammar school. The same storytelling formula has been around since Aristotle and all the various structures are just a play on that. Every story has a certain wavelength the narrative part of our brain recognizes. My biggest problem with "Save the Cat" is that it is SO specific. It leaves no room for another method, another approach for the structure. I like Field's three act structure because while it is indeed a formula, it leaves a lot of room for the individual beats to play out.

It's also why the "Big Break" script may be my breakthrough because my writing partner and I followed Snyder's structure right down to the page numbers... which is somehow depressing.

http://www.amazon.com/Save-Cat-Blake-Snyder-ebook/dp/B00340ESIS (http://www.amazon.com/Save-Cat-Blake-Snyder-ebook/dp/B00340ESIS)

Quote
SAVE THE CAT Beat Sheet
Blake Snyder’s SAVE THE CAT Beat Sheet is a popular tool for analyzing and developing three-act story structure in screenplays.  Here is my own paraphrased and augmented explanation of the fifteen “Beats”:

(Target page numbers are in parentheses, and examples from the movie LEGALLY BLONDE in ALL CAPS.)
 
1. Opening Image (1):  The audience is first engaged with something compelling that sets the tone – and we begin to see how things as they are right now (they will be clearly different at the end).
 
2. Theme Stated (5):  Usually spoken to the main character in a snippet of dialogue, this gives a sense of the deeper issues that this story is “about.”
 
3. Set-Up Section (1-10):  We meet the main character, who is living a compromised life in some way, while dealing with problems – and has something about them we can respect or like.  We get a broad enough sense of their “status quo” life to feel we understand them, and can begin to care about them.  We see the world through their eyes, and will for the rest of the movie — meaning we mostly get what they are thinking, feeling, wanting and trying to achieve, from scene to scene. There are no big crises yet – but examples of life as it is.  (The first act presents the “thesis” of their current life.)
WE MEET SORORITY GIRL ELLE, AND SEE THAT SHE’S A GOOD PERSON BUT KIND OF SILLY, NAÏVE, WITH A LIMITED VISION OF WHAT HER LIFE COULD BE.
 
4. Catalyst (12):  An event rocks the main character’s world completely, and sets in motion the central problem of the story.  It’s an external problem (not just internal, about thoughts and emotions) that demands to be dealt with now – it has clear and present stakes we can identify with and feel.
WARNER BREAKS UP WITH ELLE.
 
5. Debate Section (12-25):  The main character questions what has happened, tries to figure out what to do, and often seeks to avoid the true “call to adventure.”  But they don’t just talk: they take initial logical actions to try to fix things, which fail, narrowing their options.
ELLE REELS FROM THE BREAKUP, TRIES TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO, FINALLY DECIDES TO TRY TO GET INTO HARVARD LAW, AND BEGINS THE WORK NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THAT.
 
6. Break into Two (25): The main character enters an “upside down world” – where they’re completely out of their element.  This is a new arena for them, where they’re overmatched as they attempt to confront their story problem.  (They will stay in this “antithesis” to their normal life until the Break into Three.)
ELLE ARRIVES AT HARVARD LAW, HAVING BEEN ACCEPTED.
 
7. B Story (30): A second story begins, which will run parallel to the “A Story”, and interweave with it throughout the rest of the movie.  The theme and the character’s inner journey tends to be explored here.  (Often it’s the “love story,” or deals with some relationship issue.  Like the “A Story,” it’s about a problem that builds and develops. It can’t just be a relationship that’s going well.)
ELLE MEETS PAULETTE, WHO HAS HER OWN PROBLEM WITH MEN.
 
8. Fun and Games Section (30-55): The entertaining aspects of the story’s premise are explored (in scenes that might make the movie trailer) – highlighting the main character’s unlikeliness for this “upside down world – which are fun to watch, but NOT fun for the main character, who is essentially in HELL until the end of the story.
LIFE AT HARVARD IS HELLISH FOR ELLE, AND WARNER IS ENGAGED TO SOMEONE ELSE — WHO GETS HER KICKED OUT OF CLASS, AND TURNED INTO A LAUGHING STOCK.  SHE WORKS TO FIND HER PLACE THERE, WITH EMMETT’S HELP.
 
9. Midpoint (55):  The stakes are raised: the problem becomes more focused, more serious, more important and urgent.
ELLE GETS THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK ON THE BIG CASE WITH THE FITNESS QUEEN, ALONGSIDE WARNER – THERE IS NOW A LARGER FUTURE POTENTIAL FOR HER, AND SHE’S DOING SOMETHING WITH BIG CONSEQUENCES FOR OTHERS.
 
10. Bad Guys Close In Section (55-75):  There may be no specific “bad guys,” but the PROBLEMS should get worse and worse – the main character seems to be failing in their approach, and/or is facing more and more seemingly impossible obstacles.  Things escalate with their antagonistic forces, often with a “punch-counterpunch” feel (their relationships with allies tend to break down, too).  Note the page count here — this section, along with Fun & Games, Finale, Set-up & Debate are made up of multiple scenes, and represent big chunks of the movie.
WORK ON THE CASE IS DIFFICULT, AND THEY SEEM TO BE LOSING. ULTIMATELY, THE PROFESSOR HITS ON ELLE.
 
11. All Is Lost (75):  The story seems to be over, and the main character seems to have no hope now.  The main problem of the story seems to have been answered in the negative.  Everything they were trying has failed, and they have no other options.  Things are worse than ever before.
ELLE IS OFF THE CASE, AND IS GOING TO LEAVE IN DISGRACE.
 
12. Dark Night of the Soul (somewhere between 75 and 85):  The main character reels from the “all is lost” – and there’s often a “whiff of death.” 
ELLE IS HUMILIATED, BELIEVING SHE NEVER DESERVED TO BE HERE AFTER ALL, AND IS QUESTIONING WHO SHE IS.
 
13. Break into Three (85):  A new idea, a new hope, a new plan for solving the story problem emerges (often the A Story and B Story “cross” – the B Story should also be unresolved and at its worst).
ELLE WILL GET BACK ON THE CASE THANKS TO THE SUPPORT OF HER FRIENDS (INCLUDING PAULETTE, WHO SHE HAS HELPED), AND EMMETT.
 
14. Finale Section (85-110): A five-part challenge akin to “storming the castle to rescue the princess.” The hero fails at first, and is pressed to their absolute limit – forced to confront their own demons, and possibly change their approach to life – before the story problem is finally resolved.
ELLE WORKS TO WIN THE CASE. THIS ULTIMATELY GETS WARNER’S ATTENTION, BUT SHE DOESN’T WANT HIM ANYMORE – SHE DISCOVERED A NEW VERSION OF HERSELF, AND THE LIFE SHE WANTS.
 
15. Final Image (110):  Reflecting the new status quo now that this story is over.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on January 18, 2015, 05:17:56 PM
So I know the history of it all, yes... My point is that the Hobbit didn't adhere to the formula, in my opinion. How does STC apply in the context you used it when you said " I think it's foolish to believe that Jackson was operating here with complete autonomy. There had to be corporate pressure to make it all fit into some kind of "Save the Cat" structure in order to appease the higher ups at Warner Bros."
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 18, 2015, 06:18:41 PM
I haven't seen the Hobbit, so I have no idea how it's structured. I used Save the Cat erroneously because it seems to ruin everything else. If you say The Hobbit doesn't fit the STC structure then fault for the Hobbit movies lies squarely on Jackson's shoulders.

What I'm saying is that Jackson probably had some sort of corporate pressure put on him, Tolkien estate or otherwise. Was the idea to make it three movies instead one or two as originally proposed his or was it some greedy exec's move? Splitting up book adaptations into two or more movies to make more cash seems to be the popular move these days. I do know that the STC structure is practically a mandate for big budget films these days. If Jackson was allowed to bypass it because of his LOTR success, power to him... though it sounds like the movies, for all the money they're making, are a narrative clusterfuck.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on January 18, 2015, 06:27:29 PM
Well, I guess that's my question... What's the true analysis of the narrative clusterfuck that is all three movies? My final takeaway is that it's too much -- First, the Hobbit itself is a little twee. But then you shoehorn in JRR's now commercialized notes and you can't help but get a major muddle.

Actually, all this said, perhaps the STC thing does apply with the non-canon involvement of all the LoTR characters...
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 18, 2015, 06:37:54 PM
Well, I guess that's my question... What's the true analysis of the narrative clusterfuck that is all three movies?

I've seen none of them so I'm totally not the guy to ask. I'm just assuming the virus that afflicts Superhero movies and Nu-Trek afflict The Hobbit as well.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on January 20, 2015, 11:14:24 AM
I thought someone had posted about the fan edit in this thread, but didn't see it...

I'm actually rather excited to watch this. The Hobbit movie we deserved!

Quote
Well, this was inevitable. A Tolkien fan — less enthused by Peter Jackson's expansive, three-movie adaptation of The Hobbit than others — has created his own edit of the trilogy, trimming the 9+ hour-long saga into a much trimmer four hours and 21 minutes

Created by the quite succinctly named "TolkienEditor" and dubbed "The Tolkien Edit," here's some of what he/she dropped from this slim-downed version:

• The investigation of Dol Guldor has been completely excised, including the appearances of Radagast, Saruman and Galadriel. ... Like the novel, Gandalf abruptly disappears on the borders of Mirkwood, and then reappears at the siege of the Lonely Mountain with tidings of an orc army.

• The Tauriel-Legolas-Kili love triangle has also been removed. Indeed, Tauriel is no longer a character in the film, and Legolas only gets a brief cameo during the Mirkwood arrest.

• The prelude with old Bilbo is gone. As with the novel, I find the film works better if the scope starts out small (in a cosy hobbit hole), and then grows organically as Bilbo ventures out into the big, scary world.

• Several of the orc skirmishes have been cut. I felt that the Battle of the Five Armies provided more than enough orc mayhem. If you pack in too much before then, they just become monotonous, and it lessons their menace in the audience's mind.

• A lot of filler scenes have been cut as well. These are usually harder to spot (and I've probably missed a couple), but once they're gone, you'll completely forget that they ever existed. For example, the 4-minute scene where Bard buys some fish and the dwarves gather up his pay.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 20, 2015, 11:52:03 AM
Monkey emailed it didn't he?
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on January 20, 2015, 11:53:50 AM
Yep!
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on January 20, 2015, 12:17:26 PM
Ah! Right. I was confusing MonkeyNET with GS!
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: monkey! on January 20, 2015, 12:24:23 PM
Ah! Right. I was confusing MonkeyNET with GS!

One of us.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on January 23, 2015, 04:34:30 PM
Just grabbed the Tolkien Edit... And it looks like at just the right time. They're cracking down on it.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 06, 2021, 10:44:34 AM
I want a Nacho review of this:

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/04/30-year-old-soviet-tv-adaptation-of-the-lord-of-the-rings-surfaces-on-youtube/

Quote
30-year-old Soviet TV adaptation of The Lord of the Rings surfaces on YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vquKyNdgH3s
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: nacho on April 12, 2021, 09:13:10 AM
Nice! I'll try and find the time for sure.