MGM to Produce "The Hobbit"

pawnder writes, "According to two sources, MGM and New Line are partnering to produce 'The Hobbit' as part of MGM's new plans to create blockbuster movies again. From theonering.net: 'Over the next few years, MGM is planning to release half a dozen films, some in the $150 million to $200 million-plus range. Studio is ready to unveil such high-profile projects as "Terminator 4"; one or two installments of "The Hobbit," which Sloan hopes will be directed by Peter Jackson; and a sequel to "The Thomas Crown Affair" with Pierce Brosnan.'" With or without Tom singing, is what I want to know.

age

Since all the actors are older, how are they going to portray them as younger looking? I'm mostly wondering about Gandolf and Gollum.

Re:age

Presumably, this is a joke, but what they hey.

Gandalf (TTT): "Three hundred lives of men I have walked this earth and now I have no time. "

Re:age

Gandalf is indeed a maia (god), and his first appearance in Middle Earth was around 1,000 in the Third Age, though, making his current form about 2,019 years old.

Re:age

That's true, and it always put me in mind of another thing that doesn't make sense if you only saw the movies: why would Sauron be afraid of Aragorn, and how is it that Aragorn was able to resist the temptation of the ring and deny Sauron the palantirs? In the movies Sauron is a seemingly omnipotent evil.

It's only when you read all the back story notes Tolkien wrote before writing LOTR that you find out that the Numenoreans, Aragorn's ancestors, were so powerful that they kicked Sauron's butt and kept him imprisoned and tortured in a tower for a long, long time. They were so powerful that they made war on the Valinor, nearly made it, but then were cast down for their blasphemy. That's when Sauron escaped, and the survivors fled to found Gondor and the Northern kingdom.

So Sauron was really more like an evil Gandalf on steroids, and knew that Aragorn had the stuff to take him down.

Re:age

It's instantly obvious that you've got no knowledge of Middle Earth history. Gandalf is possibly hundreds of years old.

"Gandalf is possibly hundreds of years old"? You really shouldn't be saying other people don't know Middle Earth history.

Re:age

It's like goldy or bronzy, only it's made out of iron.

Re:Gandalf might be tough..

If he died shortly after filming, I am absolutely floored by how well they animated his corpse in X3.

That was Ian the Grey. X3 starred Ian the White.

PLEASE!!!!

NO MORE SEQUELS!!!

Who cares about the hobbit?

A sequel to the thomas crown affair! I am so excited.

I'd feel better

If it were definitely Jackson in charge - and not just a hope. I would be sweet if this matched up well with his LoTR films - in look and all that.

UM..

yah! um maybe.. I think? not sure if I'm excited or not.. I want the Hobbit done by Peter Jackson.. but it just seems like "hey look how cool this *could* be" sort of hype.

Three movies I'd like to see

This sounds like cool news. These would be three movies I'd like to see. After seeing King Kong, I'd love to see Peter Jackson bring Bwaug to the screen in THE HOBBIT.

TERMINATOR 3 was a kick ass very under-rated movie. TERMINATOR 4 -- awesome!

THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR was a smart, compelling little thriller, and probably the best movie Brosnan's ever made. Beauty.

Finally sounds like they're making good movies again.

boxlight

For those that don't know the back story

While many may know the story for those that don't look here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit/ [wikipedia.org]

Graverobbing

Surely Hollywood must be starting to run out of graves to rob by now? Titanic, Pearl Harbour, 9/11, King Kong, Godzilla, Lord of the Rings... even Pixar's stuff is basically the same movie every time, just anthropomorphizing a different theme.

Re:Graverobbing

Um, how is Pixar's stuff the same movie again? What exactly do Monster's Inc. and The Incredibles have in common? Or are you saying that all family friendly CGI cartoons where the good guys win are the same movie?

Re:Graverobbing

Um, how is Pixar's stuff the same movie again?

He's just bashing $POPULAR_THING to define himself by rejecting what is popular.

It's much easier to define yourself by rejecting things other accomplished than by accomplishing things yourself, you know.

The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused

Few are those who will understand the reference to Tom singing without having read the Hobbit and Tolkien's related works. As is often the sad truth about interpretations of books, sections get omitted for brevity and plot considerations. Unfortunately, this has a tendency to remove some of the depth present in the original work. Such is the case with Tom; this is why his name is unfamiliar whereas Bilbo et al are near universal in recognition.

Here are two rather good sources of information about Tom:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Bombadil [wikipedia.org]
http://www.cas.unt.edu/~hargrove/bombadil.html [unt.edu]

Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused

On the contrary, It's from Tom (and the tomb where he rescues the hobbits) that they get the swords with ancient magic which can kill Sauron in the end. It is important for that point, if nothing else.

Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused

Sorry, Which they use to kill the captain of the ring-raiths, not Sauron.

Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused

Just remember, however, Tom Bombadil doesn't appear in The Hobbit...

Re:The singing Tom Bombadil - for the confused

Well, if I had my way, we'd see a singing Tom AND he would be played by Shatner.

Such a missed opportunity.

Possibly the wrong Idea

I really think that the movie industry is out of touch with this one. The more spent on a movie, the bigger the risk is, since there is more up-front cost to recupe. So rather than going for new unproven ideas, they rehash the same ideas, and do sequils.

The problem is that the movie industry has grown so bloated that the idea of tightening budgest, and making movies on the cheap that don't need to grose as much to be profitable isn't even considered, instead they simply throw more money at the problem.

why would peter jackson direct it?

... one or two installments of "The Hobbit," which Sloan hopes will be directed by Peter Jackson ...

I thought Peter Jackson was quoted as saying he'd love to do it! (right after king kong?) And if they're saying the studio would want him to direct it. Umm, the only thing left I can see is financial terms. After the boatload of money he brought in for the LoTR trilogy*, I can't see them saying no to his terms :)

* yes, I know it's not really a trilogy, but that's what we're calling it cuz he made 3 movies, ok!? :P

rights

While I'm hesitant to accept the truth of this information, if it is true, it could be an excellent sign that the movie will actually get made. Everything I heard was that all involved wanted to make "The Hobbit", but the Tolkein estate either wouldn't lease the rights to the story or had already leased them to somebody who was sitting on them. This sounds like MGM may have managed to aquire the rights, finally.

Tom Singing?

"With or without Tom singing, is what I want to know."

Tom singing? Is he talking about Tom Bombadil? That's not in the hobbit, anyway, that was in the first book of LOTR, and was cut from the move, if I'm not mistaken. And rightly so. That was quite possibly the lamest part of the whole middle earth saga, IMHO.

Tom Bombadil is crucial to LOTR plot

In the movie, Aragorn randomly hands the four hobbits four short swords right before the Nazgul attack at Amon Sul. He doesn't explain where they come from nor how he came to have them. Later, Merry uses his to stab the Witch King in the back of the knee, which despite the admonition "no man can slay me," seems to be pretty effective at hurting him and rendering him vulnerable to Eowyn's coup de grace. But nobody knows why.

Now, Tolkien, in true Tolkien fashion, had a back-story for everything, and the Tom Bombadil episode provided the back story for those swords. (It also did other things, but I won't go into that here). The four hobbits escape Buckland in the Shire into the adjacent woods where Bombadil rules. They have various adventures, but as they're just about to get back onto the road to Bree, they are taken by wights who drag them into ancient barrows. Bombadil comes to rescue them, and gives them swords he finds there. The barrows belonged to warrior kings of the Northern Kingdom, who forged their swords with spells to break the enchantments of the Witch King of Angmar, their mortal enemy.

So, at the moment of truth on the plains of Gondor, Merry's sword was the only one around that could have possibly broken the Witch King's invulnerability.

Re:Tom Bombadil is crucial to LOTR plot

Interesting point on Merry's sword vs. the Witch King. I never made that connection before.

The thing about Tom is his mysterious nature. My initial forays into the Internet, in the early 90s, was to discuss Tolkien and I specifically remember the early and best dialogues concerning Bombadil. I have often thought that he is one of the most, if not the most, discussed aspect of ME on the Internet.

Tolkien knew the power of the unfinished tale (no pun), and indeed made a doosey in Bombadil. To read about Tom in LoTR is to not get bogged down by his appearance or nonsensical nature. It is instead to realize that these mask an incredibly powerful being, of great mystery, who is embedded in the mythos of Tolkien. Tolkien was no dummy, and knew exactly what he was doing when having Gandalf answer the question of who Bombadil was with "he is" (akin to the "Yahweh" of Judaism). I think Tolkien very cleverly added aspects from Norse & other religions into his work as George Lucas, and others, have learned to do.

Tom carries incredible influence over everything around him, and is the only being to not only NOT be tempted by the ring, but to actually play with it and even, inversely, make the ring itself disappear (to which he laughs). If all else were to fall to Sauran, Gandalf explains, there would be only Tom, "he was the first and will be the last" (alpha/omega reference?). (I'm pulling these quotes off my head, but they should be 99% accurate.

Others see Tom as a nature spirit or with other meaning, but the point should be that he marries the LoTR to the greater cosmology. Leaving him out of the movies has almost elevated his mystery IMO. I think it was a good move all around.

I certainly do not remember him being in The Hobbit, and although I've not read The Hobbit in years, I have read it a half dozen times. Still, I've learned the hard way on making pronouncements about Tolkien's works -- so avid are the fans as even Ebert pointed out....

Re:Tom Singing?

Informative? Yes, on Tom not being in the Hobbit. A resounding "No!" on Tom as lame (of course, I think I'm eating troll bait here).

As I explained above, Tom was not necessary to the telling of LoTR & Jackson can be forgiven for not including him. He is irreplaceable to the cosmology -- that primary effort of Tolkien wherein is found LoTR, The Hobbit, et al.

Such statements as you make reveal that you assume LoTR was Tolkien's main effort. It was not. He wanted, and indeed first did, create a cosmology wherein he placed a history and languages and then, oh yes, he decided it needed some stories and thus you have LoTR, The Hobbit, etc., ... almost as an afterthought.

This is why Tolkien is so rich and so landmark and arguably the creator of an entire genre -- modern fantasy (yes, yes, my English prof & I argued on that point, but he was responsible, if nothing else, for publishing fantasy abroad and birthing the modern form of it).

The main reason LoTR has such staying power is the layers underneath, and these layers are language built on history built on cosmology (and mythos). Lucky you are if you read other fantasy writer's beforehand. I messed up and made Tolkien my 2nd journey into fantasy as a teenager (I'm now near 40). I cannot enjoy any other fantasy now. It all goes back to Tolkien & so do I (ok, ok, Jordan is good stuff too)....

As one friend told me, "I really messed up and read Tolkien first, now I can't stand those other books."

Tom Bombadil wasn't in The Hobbit...

I'm missing the Tom reference here. Tom Bombadil -- left out of Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy -- wasn't in The Hobbit. And I kinda liked the "Road Goes Ever On" music -- or maybe that's just my childish remeberences of the cartoon version.

Governor

While I would very much like the Governator return to cinema after his brilliant political career... Terminator 4? Didn't they blow up the world at the end of the last Terminator movie?

Why don't they make another Conan movie if they want to bring the Governator back?

From the sequels that should never be made dept

The story of the Thomas Crown affair is: Thomas and Catherine tear loose from their safe, mundane lives. Sure, you can write a story about the 'adventures' they had afterwards, but how is anything they do going to matter by comparison?

Silmarils

Want some Silmarillion,

Directed by Mel Brooks:

History of the World, Part Zero

The biggest problem here

Isn't Tom Bombadil, or barrow wrights or trolls turned to stone (which is gonna be hard to retcon); but the fact that "The Hobbit" is written (mostly) as a childrens book, and LOTR clearly isn't.

Terminator 4

Let It Die. See New Start Trek Movie in 2008 for reference example.

That is all.

What have I got in my pocket?

Oh yeah money, loads and loads of money.

burn-out

It appears Hollywood is showing signs of burnout. Their best bet to pull out their slump is to rehash old movies and old actors? Where is the creativity to develop new ideas that resonate with the audience? Creativity isn't making Arnold look 20 years younger while allowing him to balance making another movie while doing his day job. I suggest Hollywood go on sabbatical, take a vacation, or lavishly spend their millions. Another thing to do is the exact opposite by taking themselves off the pedestal and go with live with ordinary people (their audience). The audience is usually never in a car chase, an explosion, or being chase down by a fire breathing dragon. Their lives don't seem interesting at first glance but if they pay attention long enough, they might just get that idea to make the next blockbuster.

The Octopussy Affair?

Sure, a man who is no longer on Her Majesty's secret service needs a new gig, but some roles you can can't live twice.

What are they going to do? Have Russo take the spy who loved her to Russia to test his nimble fingers at lifting a golden gun or some diamonds. Yeah, that's just what the doctor ordered, no? If they keep on stealing stuff forever, soon they'll be trying to rake in the moon!

That may be fine for your eyes, but I predict a thunderous ball of poo. Just live and let it die already.

singing

With or without Tom singing, is what I want to know.

Tom? Who cares about Tom?!?

The real question: with or without Leonard Nimoy singing [alteringtime.com]? (Warning: QT video embedded. But so, so worth it.)

Hobbit break point?

If they do make the Hobbit and they do make it as two films, where is the best break point for splitting it in two?

Do they leave it as a cliff hanger in "Flies and Spiders" or with the Dwarves trapped by the Elven King? I think the best break point might be right when they are leaving Lake-town and heading for the Lonely Mountain.

two sources?

Both sites cite Variety as their source.... so there is only one source

One source to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

"Maybe" Peter Jackson?

I've got a feeling that they will probably go with a more influential director, like Michael Bay.

Is Hollywood dry?

I wouldn't pay big bucks to go see another fucking sequel of a set of movies that I really didn't enjoy enough to call "classics".

Enough with the sequels. Enough with the comic books. The only one in that group mentioned worth making would be The Hobbit. And they better get the producers and directors that did the LOTR trilogies.

How about something fresh and new?

Everyone wonders why Hollywood is going broke...it's not Piracy, it's lack of talent and creativity. Special effects will only go sofar.

Scouring of the Shire

I'd like to see the Hobbit done by Peter Jackson, but what I really want to see is a stand-alone Scouring of the Shire movie by Jackson. I know, I know, he killed off Sauruman in the trilogy, but you could conveniently ignore that and just make a movie about the heroism of the returning Hobbits.

Then again, I've been waiting for somebody to make a good screen adaptation of The Prydain Chronicles, or John Christopher's Tripods trilogy (well, now it's a tetralogy, which is ironic since it's about tripods, but that's another post...) I don't understand why Hollywood recycles bad movie plots when there are so many good untapped books out there.

Will the Ah-nold play in T4?

He wants to but will be put that idea aside to run for politcal office again?

With or Without Leonard Singing...

With or without Leonard Singing [wikipedia.org] is all I wanna know.

Terminator 4

I can't believe people haven't started talking about how Terminator 4 will be a turd from future in something like 140 comments. Can anyone see this as a combination of trying to get blood from a stone while simulataneously trying to beat a dead horse?

Please no more Terminator sequels. The last one was bad enough.

Length

I liked the LOTR movies, even waited in line to watch them opening night and all that. Just a few things I ask though for The Hobbit. Please don't make it faster to read the book than to watch the movie. Those movies just became incredibly too long. Also, don't split it into two films.

So how long will it be before Hollywood make the Shannara books by Terry Brooks now?

If the hat goes to Jackson

The greatest thing about Jackson's LOTR trilogy is the amount of respect he & everyone else involved had for Tolkien's original text. When you look at other books-made-film, you see that this is indeed a rarity. Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy comes to mind here. That film would have sucked a whole lot less if those involved had given a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys about Douglas' original writings.

Terminator 4?

Is arnold ready to go back to acting? I can just imagine Terminator 4 with out Arnold, Hobbit with out Peter Jackson, and the Thomas Crowne Affair with out Bronson. Three great sequal ideas that can be ruined with out their core actors.

Btw the Hobbit doesn't need the same Bilbo, he's 60 years older in Lord of the Rings. He'll probably look radically different anyways.

Tom singing?

Do the people who post these things know anything about the topic?

re: With or without Tom singing, is what I want to know

Tom Bombadil never appeared in the Hobbit - so why should he be singing in the movie version? I agree that Ian Holme may not be able to be the young Bilbo for this movie, but I'm sure they can come up with someone reasonable. Heck, look at the replacement for Dumbledore - ok, bad example. A lot of people I know hate the new version - not because of the look, but because his demeanor changed so differently. WIth Bilbo, you would need someone that kept the personality everyone was expecting.

And yes, Gandalf would still look pretty much the same as long as he ws made up as Gandalf the Gray and not the White. It's all prosthetics and makeup, anyway.
Sheesh

Surprised? Are u kidding..

Why is everyone reacting as though this is a surprise? Its pretty obvious when the 3 movies became such huge hits that it was only a matter of time before the Hobbit was gonna be made into (a) movie(s)..I mean its never been done before, has it, make a series of movies that spawn cults (and geeks) and THEN make a sequel to them explaining the roots of the original hit movies......oh wait a minute...must..hit..myself..over the head..with..Light Sabre...

If Peter directs, it won't be for a while

Peter Jackson won't be done with The Lovely Bones until next year, he's remaking The Dam Busters, and he's producing Halo. So if the producers aren't stupid and decide to wait out for him, I imagine we won't be seeing it until 2009 at the earliest.

From the Article

"Also in the pipe is 'Titanic II: 28 Days Later,' where the doomed crew and passengers return to New York only to eat the Big Apple's brains. Uwe Boll is set to box Michael Bay over directing rights to it."

Groan

Groan. If Peter Jackson gives The Hobbit the same treatment that he gave King Kong, we'll be subject to two three-hour long pagents.

Please keep The Hobbit to a reasonable length.

Didn't see Terminator 3-- won't see Term 4

Term 2 ended the story properly.

Terminator 3 tossed out the entire philosophical underpinning ("You make your own fate").

There are lots of other things I can watch (such as the DELIGHTFUL "Dead like Me" currently in syndication on Sci-Fi) instead of prostituted warmed over rehashed crap.

T1 Great.
T2 A true successor to T1.
T3 Uh.. sort of like "Highlander: The final dimension" and in some ways worse than "Battlefield: Earth"

marketing

so this book is called "the hobbit" in english? in germany it's called "der kleine hobbit" which means "the little hobbit"... I'd bet some marketing jerk came up with this additional word... "the hobbit? that sounds like nothing!... noone will buy it!... I'll put a 'little' in, so maybe people buy it for their kids, cause this sounds like a cute book for children..."

Anyone heard ...

... if they're going to have Jackson remake "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes"? Man, that would rock!

Or, rather, would be better than doing "The Silmarillion".

Just like the animated movies

Those, too, suffered licensing rights and (probably) production issues causing them to be split oddly and made by two different companies.

"The Hobbit" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077687/ [imdb.com] was by Rankin-Bass, done as an animated movie geared towards children (as the book was) and compressed to fit in a two hour TV slot with built-in ad breaks.

"The Lord of the Rings" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077869/ [imdb.com] was done by Thorn EMI, was a cell over live action animation and was geared as a full length movie. This movie basically covered the first three "books," that being all of "Fellowship of the Ring," and the first half of "The Two Towers."

"The Return of the King," http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079802/ [imdb.com] was another Rankin-Bass made for TV movie. It almost picked up where the Thorn-EMI LotR left off starting with Samwise trying to rescue Frodo from Cirith Ungol.

It looks like we're going to have something very similar with a Hobbit movie made by a different production company than the LotR movies.

Personally, as long as they get Glen Yarbrough to sing (well, he's 76) "The Greatest Adventure" and "The Road Goes Ever, Ever on," I'd be happy.

Any bets that they replace a couple of the 13 dwarves with women? :-)

Live Action or Animation

I'm wondering if this would be live action or animation? The original was actually fairly scary when I was a child, and to some extent it still is. The newer live action Hobbit movies have nice effects but they just don't have that fright of the original. But I'm sure some Peter Jackson lovers will have plenty to argue about this.

An excuse for Clerks III?

I guess the next line will be "All it was, was a bunch of people walking, four or possibly five movies of people walking to a fu*king volcano."

sequels

...more and more damned sequels...:(

"Terminator 4"; one or two installments of "The Hobbit," and a sequel to "The Thomas Crown Affair"

Never mind Peter Jackson..

I'd like to see James Cameron do "The Hobbinator 2", where it turns out that just before Gollum got tossed into Mount Doom with the ring, Sauron used his power to send a Nazgul disguised as a Hobbit back in time to kill Frodo. But Gandalf finds out and also sends a lone warrior back in time to protect Frodo... um. Faramir. Yeah, thats it. Also discuised as a Hobbit. Or just crouching a lot. Or something like that..

Re:Huh?!?!

Yep.

One for there
One for back again

clean division.

I know, jokes aside i agree. However, this is hollywood, and epics=$$$.

Re:The Hobbit

He looked pretty realistic and scary at the beginning of the return of the king during his transition to the current Gollum, when he had just a lil bit of hair left. It was only a moment on the screen but I thought it looked wicked.

Re:Huh?!?!

First of all, technically there was only one LOTR book, which was split into three separate books for publishing purposes. The subdivision of "books" inside the novel denoted a separation that was more akin to chapters than actual whole books. Second of all, Jackson isn't doing anything on this project yet, so why are you blaming him? Lastly, Jackson made three GREAT films out of the single-book LOTR. I will applaud any effort he makes, if indeed he does make one, at making The Hobbit into a film or films.

Not on my watch!

There were only 3 LoTR books. Not 6.

6, usually sold two by two in three volumes.

You're on notice, buster: One more show of geekish ignorance and I'll have your nerd badge!

Re:Not on my watch!

Actually you should be put on notice.

It was written as one book, but was divided up due to wartime shortages on paper and to keep the printing price down on the first volume.

Stop confusing individual books with volumes.

Depends on what you mean by "book"

The term "book" can have two meanings:

1. A physical book, a.k.a. a volume.
2. A larger division of a work, which can include its own chapters.

It's not uncommon for a single novel to be divided into anywhere from 3-5 "books."

Les Miserables, for instance, has either five or six "books," but AFAIK it has always been packaged in one volume (often abridged -- that thing is massive). Never mind the many "books" of the Bible, which is itself one book.

So arguing over 3 books vs. 6 is simply arguing at cross-purposes.

Re:Depends on what you mean by "book"

The term "book" can have two meanings:

A tad more [webster.com] than two, actually.


So arguing over 3 books vs. 6 is simply arguing at cross-purposes.

Nope, it's arguing about the litteral content of the literary work in question: Inside the physical "book", sections are labelled by the author and publisher as books and volumes.

It is not arguing at cross purpose: I know for a fact that the division is 6 books, 3 volumes, one novel. This is the division that the creators of the work in question choose.
The people who argue against this are factually wrong, they based their error on a misinterpretation of the word "book", coupled with ignorance of the content of the work in question.

I will not pretend that they are right, when I can back up my claim with easily obtained evidence.
I guess that makes me a nerd.

Re:Huh?!?!

Each of the 3 books was divided into 2 books. There were 6 books.

"A Tale of Two Cities" was 2 books, similarly.

Re:Huh?!?!

I'd be OK with two 2-hour movies instead of one 4-hour movie. :)

RTFS

C'mon folks. I know that it's really hard to click through to the article, but can we at least read the summary?

One or two installments of "The Hobbit," which Sloan hopes will be directed by Peter Jackson

Looks like it's the studio that wants two in installments. Since Jackson hasn't even been hired onto the project, he can't be making decisions about it. I'm not a Jackson fan, but please, give credit to the formulaic movie execs where credit is due.

Re:Huh?!?!

Um, no, there was one Lord of the Rings book, not six, or even three. The Fellowship of the Ring, the Two Towers, and the Return of the King "books" were all marketing stunts by the publisher; Tolkien was actually quite displeased they split his book up.

I hope you don't call yourself a fan!

Re:Huh?!?!

"I hate Jackson"

Is that completely unrelated to your first statement? I hope so. If you read the intro you would see that Jackson isn't even pegged 100% to be the director. I hope he is, b/c I think LOTR the movie turned out as well as could be hoped for and I think the hobbit being done in a different fashion would suck.

I think Jackson has done some good stuff and some really bad stuff. *shrug*

Re:Huh?!?!

I hope you mean Kate or Michael because Peter created 3 wonderful films.

Unless you would prefer Hasbro/Lucas or Walkie-Talkie-of-Anduril-Spielberg, what's your beef?

Re:Huh?!?!

Might as well hate the original publisher as well, breaking the single novel into three.
Because LOTR was meant to be one solid work, published in full as one novel, subdivided into 6 books or sections.

But I understand, you are more interested in spouting off your "knowledge" than contributing anything useful.

Re:Huh?!?!

I thought it was packaged as one book way back in the day, but the binding couldn't hold the massive tome so the publisher asked Tolkien to split it up into more manageable parts, so he went to three and that's where the part titles came from...

Re:Huh?!?!

There were only 3 LoTR books. Not 6.

LoTR is actually one novel of six books published in three volumes [tolkiensociety.org].

At the very least set T4 in the future...

sending something back to the past has been done to death.

Re:Huh?!?!

I hate Jackson.

So you would prefer the only filming of the Lord of the Rings to be Ralph Bakshi's masterpiece of lameness?http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077869/ [imdb.com]

Like Jackson or not, like his version or not, you have to admire him for being able to talk a studio into putting up the money to film it.

Re:Huh?!?!

I hate Jackson.

What the hell does this have to do with Jackson?

Re:there's definitely..

I'm tired of all the mother fucking dragons in this mother fucking mountain.

Re:Huh?!?!

me too. i would be so pissed if he did that. im already fuming because "Kill Bill" is split apart. i hate waiting for sequels!

Re:Huh?!?!

Pete Jackson's the man. He's redoing Dambusters. That's one film I won't complain about being updated. I hope they recreate the 1940's British accents though.

Re:Huh?!?!

Also don't forget that when The Lord of the Rings was pitched, no one predicted the public's apetite for fantasy. from the wiki [wikipedia.org]:

The trilogy began pre-production as a two-film deal similar to a few other projects. Then Miramax, citing budget concerns, decided to condense the project into one film, before selling it off altogether to New Line Cinema in 1998. Robert Shaye, head of New Line Cinema, immediately decided to expand the project to three films (with a budget of $270 million), famously replying to Jackson's offer, "Aren't there three books?"

So smarting about how it wasn't six films in hindsight when it was only made to 3 films because of a daring and risky maneuver might be a tad misplaced.

Wait... 6 books??

LotR by itself is only three books, one per film.

The fact that it was even divided into three books was against Tolkien's will. He wanted the whole thing to be one huge book but the publisher talked him into dividing it into thirds since one huge book is quite a beast to tackle.

Re:Huh?!?!

Don't forget, it's a very long story. There's gotta be some spiders... imprisonment at the hands of an elf king or someone... barrels... lots of barrels... dragon... treasure... and then, when all's well, a war!

I was quite surprised and disappointed that they didn't include the depressing ending to the LotR story in the films. I was looking forward to it for three years. At least with two films they might be able to include everything.