New Hope for Jackson Hobbit Film?

DrJimbo writes "Just in time for the 70th Anniversary of the Hobbit (published September 21, 1937) Entertainment Weekly has a 5-page article on a possible reconciliation between Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema that may pave the way for the director of the Lord of the Rings trilogy to return and helm the filming of The Hobbit. It was previously reported here that Jackson would not be making the Hobbit film. The EW article says that Jackson wants to make two films: first the Hobbit in its entirety and then another film that bridges the roughly 60 years between the end of the Hobbit and the start of the Lord of the Rings. Unfortunately Jackson already has a lot on his plate with filming of The Lovely Bones scheduled to start this month and a live action Tintin film in the works."

Peter Jackson

I'm interested to know if Peter Jackson will elect to star in the lead role of Bilbo.

Dear Mr. Jackson

Please, don't film Tintin. Thanks.

Re:Dear Mr. Jackson

Please, don't film Tintin. Thanks.

Why not ? It worked fine for other comics, like Daredevil, Hulk, Dennis the Menace, Garfield...
Uh, ok, I see your point.

Er, what?

another film that bridges the roughly 60 years between the end of the Hobbit and the start of the Lord of the Rings

What exactly happens, of any interest, in that period? Bilbo uses the Ring a few times to avoid the Sackville-Bagginses. Writes memoirs. Lends mithril armour to the Michel Delving Mathom-house. Wow, riveting stuff.

In the wider world, Sauron has returned to Mordor and is rebuilding Barad-dur. Three hours on an Orcish construction site, then?

The only excitement you might get is following Aragorn incognito in the guard of Minas Tirith. But to what end?

Re:Er, what?

What exactly happens, of any interest, in that period?

Hmm.. I'm not 100% on the timeline but...

Gandalf and Aragorn meet. The romance of Aragorn and Arwen. Aragorn serving with the Armies of Rohan.

Gollum pursues Bilbo from the mountains. I beleive Gandalf investigates the creature and discovers its history in this period. Mordor also captures Gollum at some point.

The Dwarves (including Balin of the hobbits) try and retake Moria.

Sauruman is corrupted by Mordor through the Palantir.

Sauroman corrupts Theoden through Grima Wormtongue.

Sauron, identified as the 'Necromancer' was discovered as the source of evil in Mirkwood and was driven out by the White Council, only to resurface later rebuilding in Mordor.

I dunno... I've seen movies made on smaller premises than that :)

Re:Er, what?

Agreed.
Dwarves, Elves, and Humans were already fighting Suaron on their own fronts by the time they talked about it at Elrond's Rivendell council in Fellowship. Plenty of elaborate battle scenes for Jackson to film. If they can get at least a handful of the same actors from the other movies, they'll do fine.

Re:Er, what?

They can also inject the revelation that Frodo has an unusually high midichlorian count. Something has to explain the hobbits unnatural hardiness against the dark call of the ring! Why not explain it with random new science!

Re:Er, what?

In the wider world, Sauron has returned to Mordor and is rebuilding Barad-dur. Three hours on an Orcish construction site, then?

Use your imagination. Think Red v. Blue, use the existing LOTR games to make a machinema of it. A sarcastic take on evil overlords from the underling point of view.

(apologies to the English, I have a poor ear for accents)

Orc 1: 'E's done it agin'.

Orc 2: Wot's dat?

Orc 1: E's gone an' changed the bloody plans ag'in.

Orc 2: Piss off! Wot's 'e done this time?

Orc 1: Mr. 'igh and mighty dark lord's changed the tower top. Wants to mater'alize up thair.

Orc 2: But 'e's jus' a giant dis'm'bodied flamin' eyeball. It'll look ridik'lous!

Orc 1: Tha's wot I said! "Barad'dur'll look like a giant bleedin' lighthouse," I says. "Wot'll you be doin', guidin' ships in o'er the flamin' lakes o' lava?"

Orc 2: Cor, you didn'!

Orc 1: Yes, I says it! Right to his flamin' eyeball!

Orc 2: S'ppose that explains the singe and smoke about you. Bits're flakin' off.

Orc 1: Yes, yes it does. So I'm off t' round up the gang. Eyeball turrets for everyone.

Re:Er, what?

The worst is when he does it in the name of comic relief and makes what JRRT created as strong, competent elements into common oafs. The ents are a prime example of this.

Wait...what? Of all the things, the Ents were pretty damn close to how JRR Tolkien wrote them; very deliberate to the point where they appeared slow and oafish, but terrible when roused, and pretty out-of-touch with the world in any case. If anything, Tolkien's Treebeard was sillier than Jackson's.

On the other hand, I was pretty irritated when the elves showed up at Helm's Deep. I'll admit, 300 against tens of thousands looks pretty ridiculous on screen (even if it's Spartans v. Persians, never mind scraggly horsemen v. orcs), but the additional troops robbed it of that 'Battle of New Orleans' sort of feel, and also made the elves unnecessarily sympathetic.

Would it really be so bad if he didn't direct it?

Am I the only one who felt the LOTR movies were not especially good and that Jackson's eccentric style may not have been the best fit for the book?

Re:Would it really be so bad if he didn't direct i

No, you weren't. I was going to ask why everyone is so excited about the possibility of Jackson filming The Hobbit. Personally I think his rendition of the stories missed an awful lot of what I thought was important, not the least of which was real character development. I slept through the second and third installments. The first was an excellent start, but he failed miserably by focusing on the battles and not the characters, in my opinion.

Re:Would it really be so bad if he didn't direct i

Am I the only one who felt the LOTR movies were not especially good and that Jackson's eccentric style may not have been the best fit for the book?

When I think how incredibly bad it could have been, I'm really glad Jackson delivered a decent adaptation. It may not be not insanely great, but it's fair, and given the complexity of the task that's already quite something IMO.

Re:You are taking the piss, right?

There were significant 'invented' plot lines, and a number of characters had their personalities seriously warped. Jackson couldn't have even read JRRT's complaints about plans made in his lifetime because he repeated many of the same mistakes.

While not entirely successful, changes were necessary to make it possible to make a poetic work function dramatically.

Dramatic storytelling is fundamentally unrealistic, because it overemphasizes the power of an individual's ability to control situations through their decisions. LotR doesn't believe the fundamental model. In LotR, no individual is capable of achieving success. While individuals may fail through their own actions, they cannot succeed. This is a profoundly un-dramatic viewpoint; the rules of drama say that the protagonist must overcome adversity through his own virtues. In LotR, characters may attain their ends, but they do not achieve them. It is not accidental that Frodo fails in his quest, it is a deliberate philosophical statement about the action of grace in the lives of people who at least try to be virtuous.

In Tolkien's world view, the agency of individuals even in their own decisions is limited. People roll along in the grooves that their habitual actions have worn in their character. We are carefully presented with pairs of characters in which the practice or non practice of the Christian virtues of faith, hope and love play out in their destinies: Frodo/Gollum, Theoden/Denethor, Faramir/Boromir. The idea that a character's destiny is part of a larger process than the events of the story is also anti-dramatic.

It is inevitable that changes are made to make the movie work dramatically -- at the very least the elaborate parallelism of Tolkien would have doubled the length of the movies. This is not heresy, Tolkien himself was the kind of author who never stopped changing a manuscript until it was torn from his hands. Some of the movie changes work, some of them don't.

The changes that don't work fail because the story is simply too complex already for them to be developed adequately. As it is, considerable familiarity with the story is needed to follow the movies. The story changes work to the degree their ends are consistent with time available. The changes in Faramir, for example, simply don't ring true, because there isn't enough time to show him making a believable "change of heart" decision. Rewriting Theoden's death scene to be played with Eowyn was not only time efficient, it heightened the emotional impact of the scene. It also brings the somewhat brash screen Theoden back to Tolkien's Theoden, whose saving grace was humility.

Many changes were done to preserve pieces of poetry in the original; Eomer's words are put in Theoden's mouth; the words of the unnamed narrator are put in Gandalf's mouth. By in large these are to the benefit of the movies in that they preserve some of the beauty of the original.

I was watching the DVD of Return of the King recently, and I was particularly struck by the Rohirrim in the Battle of Pelennor Fields. This was of course altered to fit the needs of dramatization, but I believe Tolkien would have been thrilled. It shows how Jackson understands the heroic values of Lord of the Rings, even if he is not 100% successful in translating those values to the screen: heroism is not conferred by victory, but by acting courageously when reason tells you victory is impossible.

Re:Uwe Boll

I was considering the impact of other directors...

Paul Verhoeven: He would probably choose some aspect of the story and hyper emphasize it. The movie would also have blatant political satire.

Michael Bay: The fight scenes would be dramatic, but we would not have any idea who was fighting or who was winning until the end when we finally got a somethings besides blurred elbows and bodies and the wide angle shot showed us the winners standing.

David Lynch: A very strange film with gollem losing an ear and sauron going on and on about mommy while taking nitro.

Joel and Ethan Coen: An offbeat humorous version with every goofy character in LOTR played up and heightened magical reality.

David Cronenberg: Would use LOTR as a metaphor to examine the nature of reality. At the end, there would be a tie-in between Sauron and current modern reality.

Stephen Chow: A rollicking humorous version of LOTR with lots of special effects. He would probably focus on the one on one fight scenes more than the big battle scenes. No doubt, Gandalf's robes would be reduced to tatters by the Balrog's first attack and we would see his long underwear for a comedy effect before they both tumbled into the abyss.

Quentin Tarantino: This hyper-kenetic, super dark version of LTR would have lots of squick scenes. The lust between Aragorn and his love interest would be played up. Harvey Keitel would appear as Aragorn. Juliette Lewis would star as Arwen.

Michael Moore: Sauron as a metaphor for corporations or the Bush presidency... The hobbits as the socialist paradise (with a scene showing how hobbits were so happy because they had socialized medicine and ate only natural food).

Woody Allen: Woody would of course be Bilbo. Back in the day Mia Farrow would have been Arwen. Someone would have an affair.

Night Shyamalan: Whatever happened during the movie-- the ending would involve some sort of massive twist. Perhaps it will turnout Sauron was so desperate to build power because he was trying to stop something even worse from happening (ala "colossus and crab").

Spike Lee: Black hobbits for sure! Probably black elves. And the orcs would be white. Sure the evilness of the "white hand" would be played up.

George Lucas: 9 hours of wonderful actors giving horrible performances... true to the plot and great special effect scenes tho.

Clint Eastwood: Man.. I like his work but can't imagine what his version would be like. He might be aragorn tho.

---

I think if people consider what we could have had.... They will realize how grateful we should be that Jackson took this on.

Do we care?

Do we honestly care if he directs them? I mean, we care that a bad director doesn't get to, but as long as it's a decent director, does it really matter who it is?

On the other hand, if he manages to get a script written for the 60 year time difference, and it's not 60 years of Gandolf riding around in grey and the hobbits having teaparties (since that's basically what happened), then I'm all for the new film and Jackson. I'm not real hopeful, though, since all the really interesting stuff happened in the books and the other years weren't covered because they simply weren't that interesting.

Or maybe someone can name some of the interesting things that supposedly happened in those 60 years? Gandolf was obviously out doing some sort of research, but I don't think anything specific was ever mentioned. And the hobbits were pretty clearly doing hobbit-like things in their little boring houses. They don't really even have politics, just a few that don't particulary care for each other from feuds that happened generations ago over silly things.

Re:Do we care?

Or maybe someone can name some of the interesting things that supposedly happened in those 60 years?

Well, based on secret Tolkein notes in my possession which I found taped to the back of a forgery of the Mona Lisa, Middle Earth developed transforming robot technology by deeply studying the Ents killed while deforesting vast tracts of land to build huge areas where people could shop for goods and services.

There was eventually a brutal war that, amongst other things, reduced all subsequent Kings of Men to whiny little sissy boys with girly hair. Something to do with a demasculation spell getting tangled up with an elven birth control device.

The technology was banned when a hobbit named Periwinkle Butler lead a jihad against "the evil devices that move of their own volition". It was actually sticken from the historical record, and people forgot all about it due to a forget spell leaking in from a parallel fantasy Universe called Xanth. This is why it's never mention in LOTR.

They don't really even have politics

Which makes then the most advanced and enlightened race in all of Middle Earth.

Someone smack New Line with a cluestick?

Let's see, Jackson only made them what, $3 billion dollars? I think each movie was directly good for around a billion, plus or minus $100 million, and this is talking straight box office, not even considering DVD's, TV rights, moichandizin', etc. I would be no way surprised in hearing the total take is up to $5 billion at this point, and a project like this is going to be like Star Wars or the goddamn Beatles catalog, a fat stream of recurring revenue for decades to come. And this is off an initial investment of $300 million for the whole trilogy? Do they think they could have pulled it together without someone like Peter Jackson at the helm? By all rights, the trilogy should have flopped -- Hollywood can't do quality. LOTR being brilliant is about as long of odds as Babylon 5 finishing its entire five year run and only sucking in the last season.

So New Line realizes they could stop buggering the goose that laid the golden egg and make another fat pile of shiny if they treat it nice? DUUUH, but still a bit of cluefulness not expected from Hollywood. Now go make the movie!

Re:Someone smack New Line with a cluestick?

Overall good point, but:

And this is off an initial investment of $300 million for the whole trilogy?

Jackson & crew actually went way over budget, and the total was closer to $500 million plus, with all the extra effects shots they had to do in the latter movies because of lack of planning in principle photography (which, understandably focused more on the first two films, which is why there's less special effects in the first films than the last one), and the need to do pick-ups, etc.

In addition, they renegotiated contracts with pay rises for members of the crew after the crew discovered that they were really onto something, and New Line wasn't spreading the wealth.

Re:Someone smack New Line with a cluestick?

Jackson & crew actually went way over budget, and the total was closer to $500 million plus, with all the extra effects shots they had to do in the latter movies because of lack of planning in principle photography (which, understandably focused more on the first two films, which is why there's less special effects in the first films than the last one), and the need to do pick-ups, etc.

That's part of what I find so amazing. When I was watching the commentaries and hearing about the turmoil they went through, I was shocked that the movies were great, let alone watchable. I mean, they recast Aragorn in the middle of filming! Pages of script were getting rewritten as the scenes were being acted. In the Babylon 5 commentaries, JMS descripted this as being the norm on network television and was one of the reasons why he felt he could do Babylon 5 for half the budget most would estimate, because the scripts would be written far in advance and the production staff could plan things out in advance. It's the surprises, last minute changes, and overtime pay in the mad dash to get things done that kills budgets along with quality. If I'd heard the production story before seeing the movie, I would have predicted utter failure.

New Hope?

- My name is Hobbit Skywalker - I've come to rescue you!
- Are you sure you're not an Ewok in disguise?

Lord of the Rings IV...

... A New Hope

This is the one they should have made first! I can't wait to see Episodes V and VI.

Adam Sandler to direct The Hobbit.

HOLLYHELL, Monday — In an admirable display of synergy between hard-headed business sense and sensitivity to artistic rightness, New Line Cinemas has hired Adam Sandler to direct The Hobbit, the prequel to The Lord Of The Rings.

"Peter Jackson may have made us three billion dollars and paved our goddamn driveways with Oscars," said a spokesdroid, "but when he dared question the three nickels and a gum wrapper payment, well. We knew we just couldn't work with someone so risibly unprofessional."

Sandler is likely to be working under renowned producer Uwe Boll. "Okay, here is what I am thinking, ja? Your Bilbo Baggins will be a WOMAN in Nazi Germany. A naked woman. And the One Ring will not show up. And she gets raped by Hitler! Gandalf will be played by Keanu Reeves. I AM THE DIRECTOR! I mean programmer. PRODUCER."

Jackson has lost weight, shaved his feet and gone back to his roots to make a warmhearted New Zealand-based family film in the style of his earliest works, under the working title Zombie Cancer Bukkake Pus-Nodules, with a budget in the range of over forty New Zealand dollars.

Work at New Line continues. "We at New Line are convinced that Professor Tolkien would have agreed with us that Adam Sandler will realise her artistic vision eleventy-one percent. We've bought three years' worth of shark futures."

Re:Not public domain

Where in the constitution does it talk about British books?

Re:Not public domain

That would be Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

As with so many people in these near-xenophobic times, you appear to be making the incorrect assumption that the Constitution only applies to US Citizens. When the constitution means "United States" things, it explicitly says so. Section 8's enumerated power of copyright applies to all writings of authors everywhere in the world.

Re:So what to call the second film?

only if he writes the script using a fountain pen....