Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

MGM to Produce "The Hobbit" 518

Posted by Hemos
from the hairy-feet dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MGM to Produce "The Hobbit"

Comments Filter:
  • age (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11, 2006 @12:13PM (#16082142)
    Since all the actors are older, how are they going to portray them as younger looking? I'm mostly wondering about Gandolf and Gollum.
    • Er... (Score:2, Redundant)

      by AltGrendel (175092)
      Gandalf and Gollum are not good examples. Actually it shouldn't make much of a difference with any of them, the only race that ages quickly in the Tollkien world is Man.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Jboost (960475)
      They've already done it [wikipedia.org].
    • Re:age (Score:5, Informative)

      by Grant_Watson (312705) on Monday September 11, 2006 @12:53PM (#16082525)
      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. "
    • by tverbeek (457094)
      Director Joel Schumacher will be recasting the role of Gandalf with a younger actor. Val Kilmer and George Clooney are on the short list.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by merlin_jim (302773)
      Since all the actors are older, how are they going to portray them as younger looking? I'm mostly wondering about Gandolf and Gollum.

      I wouldn't worry about Gandolf or Bilbo. Gollum's a big maybe

      Gandolf is an angel / god that first showed up during the early years of the Middle Age - approx 2000 years before the events in LoTR

      Gollum found the ring some time after Sauron was defeated the first time - and he and Bilbo both were supposedly ageless while in posession of the ring. I believe Gollum supposedly ag
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by John Harrison (223649)
        You're worried about Gollum, a CGI character? Why on earth is that? If you are trying to be funny then I'm sorry.

        If you paid much attention Gollum looks significantly different in each of the three LOTR films anyhow. He'll probably look different yet again in the Hobbit movies.
  • PLEASE!!!! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Chineseyes (691744)
    NO MORE SEQUELS!!!
    • NO MORE SEQUELS!!!

      Well, T3, like Batman3, was a horrible piece of shit.
      Hopefully, the masses will treat T4 to as few viewings as they did "Batman 4: Nipple Suits", and the franchise will die there.

      I'll be doing my part by not showing up, and I hope you do too.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by brjndr (313083)
      The Hobbit would be a prequel.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11, 2006 @12:13PM (#16082150)
    A sequel to the thomas crown affair! I am so excited.
  • 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.
  • 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.
    • by gstoddart (321705)

      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.

      While having Peter Jackson is no guarantee the movie will turn out well, it's a helluva starting point.

      His WETA people will have a lot of experience with the design; and hopefully Ian McKellan, Vigo Mortensen, and a couple of the characters which span the books can be convinced to return for The Hobbit. If they give him a budget like the

      • by jfengel (409917)
        I don't recall an appearance by Strider in The Hobbit, though a cameo could be arranged without messing up the story.

        Of more concern to me is that Ian Holm couldn't possibly do Bilbo: his brief appearance as the young Bilbo in Fellowship was accomplished only with very painful techniques to smooth out his face. Re-casting him is a bigger break to continuity than re-casting Gandalf, who makes some pivotal appearances but is absent for much of the book.

        I would like to see John Rhys-Davies play Gimli's father
        • by gstoddart (321705)

          I don't recall an appearance by Strider in The Hobbit, though a cameo could be arranged without messing up the story.

          Doh, you are correct. Been a while since I read the Hobbit I guess. =)

          I would like to see John Rhys-Davies play Gimli's father Gloin. And given how much fancy camera work went into nearly every shot in the LotR movies, why not have him play Oin, too?

          Another actor I would like to see brought back if they actually make the film.

          Totally agree about the actor for Bilbo though; he was cast well

  • 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

    • by boxlight (928484)
      > Bwaug

      That's *SMAUG* -- damn keyboard.

      boxlight

    • I just can't imagine our fine governor taking time out to make T4. Who would be in it?
    • TERMINATOR 3 was a kick ass very under-rated movie.

      T3 was an HIGHLY overrated piece of shit.

      It's got explosions, but you can only appreciate them if you check your brain at the door. Characters contradict themselves (one minute Arnold knows human psychology and can manipulate Connor to perk him up, the next he knows nothing about wimminz), Connors was dumbed down and turned into a bumbling idiot in order to prop up their new female grrl-power character (I really cold have done without the "my dad taught me
      • by Jerf (17166)
        You missed my personal favorite "WTF?".

        Good: Updating "Skynet" to change itself into a virus that takes over all the computers on the planet for itself. Definitely more realistic than the "giant supercomputer" concept from the original movie's time.

        Bad: Making the new Skynet's first action the nuking of every major population center on Earth.

        Pop quiz, Hollywood: Where are most computers? By the people who use them.

        Translation: Skynet's first action was to lobotomize itself, and almost certainly effectively
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by keithburgun (1001684)
        I very much agree with scrameustache. Also, the idea of a "female, SEXY terminator" is LAME right off the bat. Terminator 2 was one of the best action films of all time, and one major reason for that was Linda Hamilton. She did all the heavy weight acting. 3 had simply no business being made. And the fact that they're THINKING of making a 4 is just outrageous and I hope that moviegoers simply give up on movies all together and strangle the industry, like what's happening in the music industry. you can
  • Graverobbing (Score:2, Interesting)

    by linvir (970218) *

    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kalirion (728907) on Monday September 11, 2006 @12:28PM (#16082292)
      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?
    • by hpavc (129350)
      Let us all know when you can do better.
    • by gstoddart (321705)

      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...

      Well, in the case of LoTR, it's not that much grave robbing.

      Except for one, incomplete, badly rotoscoped animated attempt, I am not aware of LoTR having been brough to the screen by anyone before Jackson.

      As far as King Kong goes, I think Jackson decided he was really interested in doing King Kong, and thought he could do a good job of it. I actually thought he succeed

  • by lightyear4 (852813) on Monday September 11, 2006 @12:21PM (#16082220) Homepage

    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]

  • by AndyG314 (760442) on Monday September 11, 2006 @12:22PM (#16082231) Homepage
    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.
  • by Frag-A-Muffin (5490) on Monday September 11, 2006 @12:22PM (#16082237) Homepage
    ... 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

    • by lawpoop (604919)
      IIRC, Jackson and New Line got into a disagreement over payment after the first LOTR movie. New Line took a risk, and when it looked like LOTR was going to be successful, they wanted to keep the lion's share of the money (BTW movie studios are notorious for 'not making money' off of movies -- in order to avoid paying taxes on profits). Jackson stood up to the studio; I don't think that he was as concerned with the money, but also what the actors were getting paid was an issue. I think he even refused to fin
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by gstoddart (321705)

      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.

      And his schedule of course. IMDB [imdb.com] shows him as having two films in pre-production already. I think the LoTR movies gave him a lot of financial independance to do as he pleases.

      Cheers

  • Tom Singing? (Score:3, Informative)

    by dslauson (914147) on Monday September 11, 2006 @12:28PM (#16082285) Journal
    "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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Scrameustache (459504) *
      Stop hatin' on Tom Bombadil, sucka.

      I think you missed out a bit on the significance of Tom's friend Old Man Willow and the Ents the hobbits later meet...
      Plus he smote a hundred orcs, he's hardcore, yo!
    • by hey! (33014)
      Beorn, of course, is highly analagous to Tom Bombadil. They play similar thematic roles, but Beorn might be seen as "ordinary" magic, and Bombadil is more in keeping with LOTR's greater metaphyiscal weight.

      Bombadil also belongs to a part of the LOTR story where Tolkien was still casting around for a theme. In some ways, the early part of FOTR looks like an author trying to reproduce his earlier success, yet reconcile it with a desire to do something ambitious. Some of FOTR, including Bombadil, has a ki
    • by Phoenix666 (184391) on Monday September 11, 2006 @01:20PM (#16082843)
      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.
      • by Himring (646324) on Monday September 11, 2006 @02:23PM (#16083420) Homepage Journal
        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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Agripa (139780)
        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.

        I always enjoyed this type of thing in books. Not only does the Witch King unknowing
    • Re:Tom Singing? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Himring (646324) on Monday September 11, 2006 @02:11PM (#16083304) Homepage Journal
      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."

  • 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.
  • 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?
    • 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?

      No, they're planning on doing the The Thomas Hobbinator Affair 4. See, what happens is that Gandalf was sent back in time by the Dunedain of the future in order to save Middle Earth from the invading hosts of goblins, and then there's this bobbit, see, who will grow up to be the one who organizes a party of 14 (a Fellowship,

    • by Monkey (16966)
      Why don't they make another Conan movie if they want to bring the Governator back?

      Damn right! Conan the King would be pretty sweet!
  • 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?
    • Uhh.... I thought -he- was already a master theif in the movie. It's not as if it's his first caper :)

      Cathrine on the other hand, well...

  • Silmarils (Score:2, Funny)

    by toddhisattva (127032)
    Want some Silmarillion,

    Directed by Mel Brooks:

    History of the World, Part Zero

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

    That is all.
  • by CrazyJim1 (809850) on Monday September 11, 2006 @12:52PM (#16082511) Journal
    Oh yeah money, loads and loads of money.
  • by PMuse (320639) on Monday September 11, 2006 @12:59PM (#16082608)
    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.

Do you suffer painful illumination? -- Isaac Newton, "Optics"

Working...