The Hobbit

Yep, after years of being in Development Hell, a movie version of "The Hobbit" is being produced! :D

edited 15th Oct '10 7:18:04 PM by theLibrarian

And it's still going to have Sir Ian McKellen as Gandalf, right? All is right with the world.

edited 15th Oct '10 7:46:47 PM by Accela

Source?

Wasn't Sir Ian kinda iffy? He's pretty old, and flying to New Zealand for a year doesn't sound very fun to me.

Article found here [1]. Guillermo Del Toro Peter Jackson will be directing the film too and will be shot entirely IN 3D!

edited 16th Oct '10 11:22:17 AM by Mattonymy

Didn't del Toro leave the movie?

Sorry, what I meant to say was Peter Jackson will be directing. And before you start talking about the Budget Disputes like last time, MGM stated that they "will be finding its share of the project’s funding from external sources and, if that fails, Warner Bros has pledged to step in and lend the money to MGM."

edited 16th Oct '10 11:23:28 AM by Mattonymy

Guillermo Del Toro is my favorite director, beating out Robert Zemeckis by a hair. This is sad. Still, Jackson ain't bad. I'm sure I'll enjoy the movie.

CUT OUT THE FUCKING 3-D NON SENSE ALREADY!!!!!!!!

Anyway its great to have Jackson back at the helm, let's just hope Ron Pearlmen is still in it.

I dunno, I think a 3D The Hobbit film could be pretty cool, especially during the fighting scenes with Smaug

There's nothing wrong with 3D as long as they don't shoehorn it into a 2D film at the last minute.

I think you mean The White Council has been greenlit, because I doubt Bilbo will get even half the screentime in favor of the "more exciting" battle sequences going on in Mirkwood. No nevermind that Bilbo's story, NOT the White Council, was what made people fall in love with Middle-earth to begin with.

And 3D always sucks. It's a stupid gimmick with no bearing on the plot and it hurts my frikkin eyes!

edited 16th Oct '10 6:30:07 PM by WeirdRaptor

Bilbo's story has plenty of big battle sequences. Like the Battle of Five Armies, or Smaug burning a town, or Bilbo slaughtering Mirkwood spiders.

Yeah, but its not related to driving Sauron out of Mirkwood which eventually forced him to take residence in Mordor once again, thus it will be shortened, or cut, and overshadowed by whatever the hell the White Council is doing. I highly doubt we'll ever even see what Bilbo and the dwarves were up to in Mirkwood or Lake Town.

Yes, yes, I know it sounds like I'm being negative on purpose. I can't help it. The Hobbit is very dear to my heart and that Jackson and co are going to go tinkering with it just absolutely kills any confidence I have in the project. Why a straight up adaptation is out of the question will forever remain a mystery to me.

I think you're letting your bias against Peter Jackson get a bit out of hand- it is extremely unlikely that the entire Mirkwood sequence will get cut, and Laketown will have to be in so they can showcase its horrific destruction.

My guesses:

Likely to be cut:

-The trolls. The depiction of trolls as basically stupid hillbillies is a poor fit with the giant savage monsters of Lot R.

-The time stuck in the elven king's palace. Well, I don't know about how likely Jackson is to cut it, but it is a big chunk of the story with very little action.

Likely to stay:

-Gollum. For continuity with Lot R.

-The Goblins. Needed to explain how Bilbo ends up in Gollum's cave.

-Smaug and the destruction of Laketown. Too spectacular to cut from a 3 D action film.

-The Battle of Five Armies, for the same reason as above.

-The Mirkwood Spiders, for the same reason as above.

-Rivendell.

-The opening Shire scenes.

Could go either way:

-Beorn.

-Everything inbetween Smaug's death and the Battle of Five Armies.

However, knowing Jackson, he'll probably keep a lot of stuff in by making the film three to four hours long.

I have no bias against Peter Jackson. In fact, his adaptation of The Lord of the Rings are my all-time favorite films. Its just that his initial refusal to direct this paired with most of the changes/additions to he made in Lot R were often not the better just gives me a strong distrust here. And, he insists that ''The Hobbit' just absolutely must be made more relevant to the grander scheme to the point where I honestly am beginning to think that Bilbo will be tossed aside. For me, Bilbo is the heart of the story (the book's title is The Hobbit, you know) and I want to see his adventures. I don't really want to see the White Council or the Necromancer.

edited 16th Oct '10 7:35:55 PM by WeirdRaptor

I really doubt the trolls will get cut, because the Fellowship movie already referred to the incident. The theatrical version had Bilbo retelling the incident to some children at his birthday party, and the extended cut adds a scene where Sam calls attention to the statues of these same trolls.

I know a lot of people criticize Jackson, and you seemed to share that bias, but maybe I was wrong.

Though actually, I could accept the film spending a fair amount of time on the White Council.

Edit: I forgot the trolls were in The Fellowship of the Ring.

edited 16th Oct '10 7:51:22 PM by Lancer

Even though I have my own fair share of concerns and criticisms for this project, overall I'm just pleased that they're finally pulling this out of the Waste Land and beginning work.

I hope they get a good voice for Smaug. And I'd be glad if the same Gollum from TLOTR was brought back.

Damn straight. Andy Serkis should play Gollum.

Alright, then.

On Smaug: my one and only choice for the voice of Smaug has always been and always will be Clancy Brown.

Just watch, Jackson will suddenly decide that this is the movie that needs Tom Bombadil.

...probably not.

Christopher Lee for Smaug?

No Gary Oldman.

Christopher Lee as Saruman and Smaug? What, is he a transformer?

I knew that I was trying to come up with voice actors for Smaug, and Lee is the only person who came to mind.