Multiple prequel films?
It didn't work for Lucas.
Shooting on Peter Jackson's two Hobbit movies will finally get underway on 21 March, Reuters reports. The pair of Lord of the Rings prequels were originally slated for release in 2010 and 2011, but have been been hit by a series of delays as well as the departure of director Guillermo del Toro over "issues around the funding …
It didn't work for Lucas.
Yeah, but Jackson is a master filmmaker, and Lucas isn't. 'Nuff said.
...have you seen The Lovely Bones?
"...have you seen The Lovely Bones?"
Oh, the horror. Hopefully he doesn't screw the LOTR prequels up THAT bad....
As a fan of the books I liked the LOTR films and am optimistic for The Hobbit. But should we expect some horrific traversty for the in-between film or are they basing it on Tolkein's work in some form?
"But should we expect some horrific traversty for the in-between film"
If it is horrific, then it will become like the Matrix:
"The Matrix was a great film."
"Yeah, what about the sequels?"
"There were no sequels."
"The second - slated for release a year later - is an "original story" bridging the 60-year gap between Tolkien's first Middle Earth outing and the Lord of the Rings trilogy"
Anyone else get a "Lord of the RIngs: The Clone Wars" feeling?
The Clone Wars plots/stories aren't bad. I like the cartoons better than a lot of the content of the prequel films.
that this may go pear shaped, too much pre-production hassle is usually an indication that the film will be crap. Most unfortunate, as the source material should be brilliant fodder for a great film.
The Tolkien estate's been milking prequels, sequels and stitched together scraps for decades now, and with steadily decreasing success. An original story helmed by someone who's demonstrated a stunning grasp of how to tell the original stories in a concise (in LOTR terms) and gripping fashion has the potential to be much better.
the money problems weren't to do with the film itself, but more that MGM(?) were in financial mess - and they owned a share of the rights. Would you say the same about Bond films cos the next one of them has also been help up by MGM
I had heard there were delays filming The Hobbit - I just presumed they were short-staffed.
Coat? Thanks, it's bitter out...
[insert obligatory long-count calendar reference here.]
I just hope they don't make a film version of the Silmarillion.
The creation, corrupting influence, theft, and recovery sort of of the silmarils would make for some absolutely, utterly, and totally tremendous films, IMHO.
Imagine the the fall of Gondolin as a hour-long set piece, with epic Balrog vs Elf action....mmmmmm....Balrog action.....
<cough> sorry about that, lost my train of thought for a moment.
The Silmarillion was drawn out, wordy, and compared to other works, pretty boring, but it did have a compelling story and some great scenes. It was overly full of descriptive text, which, translates into a few seconds on screen, making all the boring parts vanish and leaving a good story...
In the words of Mary Gentle -
"Pass me another elf, sergeant. This one's split."
I'm curious how much they muck around with the Hobbit's story. I have a feeling the ending won't be as the book. Having your main protagonist, growing and becoming braver throughout the story, at the climax of the film vanishing, hiding and then getting knocked out probably won't appeal to the casual viewer. sigh, I'll still watch it.
If they are looking for more money, should just do bits of the silmarillion. But I fear it will be a movie talking about how Bilbo built C3PO.
Horrific travesty, given who will likely be writing it.
Given the US-centric reframing of the Jackson films, expect the second film to be about Aragorn going off to be part of 'regime change' in Near Harad on the basis of reports of Rings of Mass Destruction there (there's acting work again for both Viggo and Liv!).
Looks like they dropped the bridge film idea a while ago:
Yay, back on schedule to get the hobbit film.
Yay, Peter Jackson back at the helm and he at least made a good 80% attempt at the LOTR books.
I am dreading to think where a leading lady can fit into a plot of 14 male dwarves (I can never remember if there is 14 or 13?) and a hobbit. Where exactly can a liv tyler 'shoe in' go? Poor hollywood might have to stick to the book on this one.
Having a stop gap film to explain the middle 60 years (which don't need explaining) means it will be penned by someone from hollywood which means it will suck ass big time.
Fili, Kili, Oin, Gloin, Thorin Oakenshield, Dwalin, Balin, Bifur, Bofur, Bombur, Dori, Nori, and Ori.
Bilbo rounds the number out so that they aren't unlucky thirteen as I recall.
The movies were 2.5 hours long already. I think Jackson did the best book adaptation ever. Except maybe for Narnia.
let me see:
Middle east = oil
South america = bananas
new zealand = LOTR film's
usa = hate
Seriously, Ken Stott?
and will he have a Hibs badge pinned to his tunic?
1. Quenta Silmarillion would make a good TV series, not a film.
2. My understanding is that the films will only cover the events of The Hobbit, but split into two films like Hermione Granger and the Camping Trip of Doom. The "bridge" idea was a crummy one because being the lovable lunatic he was, Tolkien had sketched out the intervening period in sufficient detail that there's not really room to fit an "original" story in there.
A reprise of Galadriel? In The Hobbit? Damn, it's already f*cked up.
Dear God the Wood Elves in Mirkwood better not have a single blond among them. Orlando Bloom, as what? A teenage Legolas?
An original story bridging the 60 years between The Hobbit and LotR? What's that about, farming in the Shire, eating mushrooms, and smoking a lot of Old Toby down at the pub? Yeah, that sounds like that'll keep 'em on the edge of their seats.
First, you're ignoring the possibility that Cate Blanchett might be reprising her secondary role as narrator-- we won't know until we see the script, etc. If she does have screen time, it will likely be in the second, 'original story' film.
Second, you're apparently unaware that Legolas is, in all likelihood, very old. To quote from The Two Towers, when Legolas spoke of Fangorn Forest, "It is old, very old. So old that almost I feel young again, as I have not felt since I journeyed with you children." That he should have at least a bit part in the first movie, being the son of King Thranduil of the wood elves, is natural.
Third, plenty of things occurred in the gap between The Hobbit and Fellowship of the Ring, though not all of them are terribly exciting: the early life of young Aragorn and his romance with Arwen (see above for Cate Blanchett's role as Galadriel, who is Arwen's grandmother, and Arwen spent much time in Lothlorien with her), the rebuilding of Barar-dur and regaining of Sauron's strength, and the (final) corruption of Saruman, just to name a few.
The Hobbit sounds like a reasonable idea to me. But The Silmarillion has so much more potential for epic battles and gorgeous scenery, which was what made the films successful in any case. The Hobbit is more a children's story and the only way I'd go see it is if they gave Tom Bombadil a lot of screen time. <NerdRant>
There was no Tom Bombadil in The Hobbit, silly. There was, though, Beorn, whom *should* get a lot of screen time.
Depending on how the writers weave the backstory, it would be possible for Galadriel to make an appearance.
In the Hobbit, after the interlude at Beorn's house, the team split up with Gandalf at the entrance to Mirkwood. Gandalf heads south on business of his own but I believe he is heading to join the White Council (including Lady G) to drive the Necromancer (Sauron in disguise) from Dol Guldur.
Arwen is around in this time-frame, and looking exactly as she does in the Jackson LOTR trilogy (immortal!). She'll be in Rivendell, Lothlorien or (less likely) Mirkwood at the time of Thorin's quest.
Aragorn is around and about too, though looking a bit younger!
The timeline for this period is:
200 - Arwen born
2931 - Aragorn born
2941 - Bilbo sets off with Thorin et al ("The Hobbit")
2951 - Aragorn told the truth of his heritage, meets Arwen for the first time
2956 - Aragorn meets Gandalf for the first time
2957-2980 - Aragorn's 'great journeys', proposed to Arwen at the end
3018 - Start of the War of the Ring ("The Lord of the Rings")
LOVE the fact Aragorn was nearing his 80s during the quest to destroy the One Ring...
Not that difficult really. He was great at inventing history, but he wasn't exactly the person you'd turn to for character development and dialogue. Also a few great gaping plot holes - for instance, why no elves or dwarfs at the siege of Minas Tirith or at the Black Gate in Tolkien, given that all Sauron's armies were at Minas Tirith? (Jackson didn't solve the mystery of the missing dwarfs, but he did at least sort out the elves.)
"why no elves or dwarfs at the siege of Minas Tirith or at the Black Gate in Tolkien, given that all Sauron's armies were at Minas Tirith?"
At that time, Galadriel and Celeborn had their hands full with Sauron's troops attacking Lothlorien from Dol Guldur.
And, if I recall correctly, the Men of Bree and the Dwarves of the Mountain were under siege in the Mountain, from forces from the N and E.
IIRC, New Line Cinema only has rights to The Hobbit and the six books collectively referred to as The Lord of the Rings. New Line cannot borrow from the other books without getting into legal trouble. HOWEVER, The Lord of the Rings does contain much background information (which is fleshed out in the other works) which is unencumbered.
Well, sorry to hear it was delayed, but having PJ back at the helm means consistent direction for all five LOTR films. That is something the Star Wars films did not have.
God speed Mister Jackson. Best of luck.
Tolkien covers this, and Jackson nods to it.
It is in the Appendices to the books
Basically Lothlorien, Mirkwood, the Lonely Mountain and the Iron Hills as well as the human kingdom of Dale were all attacked during the War of the Ring.
So the reason that there were no Dwarves of Elves at the Black Gate was that they were busy, IIRC still fighting after the Ring was destroyed.
There are some stirring scenes in there, I can recommend rading it
@ Graham Bartlett
The Elves and Dwarves were engaged in battle with Sauron's armies in the upper Vales of Anduin during the War (it's detailed in the Appendices to the books).
Jackson, by the way, originally had Arwen (Tyler) doing action stunts at Helm's Deep. And no, I don't think it an improvement - less is more with fantastical characters, as Tolkien at least was well aware.
I haven't read the books too heavy going (althought I managed to get through the Thomas Covenant Chronicles). My ex partner was a big fan of the books and evertime the films were on she would start shouting about all the bits they got wrong. I enjoyed the films and explained books can't always be translated in films due to the way films are made but with no success. I mean even the Tolkien society said they were ok.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017