Jump to content
LCVG

MGM Announces some new movies...one of them about Hobbits


kelley
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=16424

 

MGM has announced that they are going to go forward and offer up the cash to make Terminator 4, Thomas Crown Affair 2, Bond 22, Pink Panther 2, and The Hobbit.

 

MGM hopes that PJ and WETA will come back and make it for them. They also hope it will span two films.

 

MGM you better get this through your heads right now, no PJ and WETA, no sale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That would be two of the Main cast. Bilbo and Gandalf.

Nope. Elrond appears in The Hobbit as does another semi-important character (just a tad;)) by the name of Gollum.

 

I don't think we'll see Ian Holme return as Bilbo. However, I could see Hugo Weaving, Andy Serkis, and Ian Mckellen returning if PJ is involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAY

 

Is there a dancing with joy smiley? ABOUT DAMN TIME.

 

Everything I read was that Ian Holm was simply too hold to play a younger Bilbo. To get the young look in the FOTR prelude they pinned his skin backwards somehow to pull out the wrinkles - very uncomfortable.

 

But fucking Ian McKellan had better be on board. He's THE Gandalf. They'd better hurry it up already, he's pretty old. We don't want him dying on us before doing the Hobbit.

 

I thought this boded well:

 

The Hobbit (film or films) will be produced in partnership with New Line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think we'll see Ian Holme return as Bilbo

 

If they could perfect that technique of making actors look younger, as seen at the start of X Men 3, I'd like to see Holm continue to play Bilbo with something like that implemented because I’m far too used to his playing Frodo in the radio series and knowing how well he could play a younger Bilbo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gollum is CG anyway

Which means nothing without Serkis' performance underneath. He's critical to the role IMO and if he weren't portraying the character, I wouldn't even bother with the film to be quite honest.

 

We know Serkis would portray him because honestly...what else is he doing anyways?

I don't doubt they could ring him back in for the movie. Though timing will be a consideration.

 

As far as what else Serkis is doing these days? His 2006 slate is quite full with appearances in Longford, Flushed Away, Rendition, and the forthcoming The Prestige by Christopher Nolan. Not to mention in 2007 he'll be appearing in Sugarhouse Lane as well as directing Freezing Time. He's also been attached to "Addict" which has been a project Johnny Depp has been associated with as well. So to answer your question; quite a bit actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hate to rain on the parade but I have my doubts that this will actually happen -- at least with Peter Jackson behind the camera.

 

I know that all parties, including Jackson, have expressed interest in the past, but the reality is that things have changed significantly between "then" (making of LOTR) and now. Between ego, scheduling conflicts, and the all-important dollar, it seems very unlikely to me that everybody, including and most especially Jackson, will be involved in this project at the same level as LOTR.

 

More likely IMO that MGM/New Line go on without him, or he signs on as executive producer but leaves directing to someone else.

 

Don't get me wrong, I want him behind the camera, but . . . one only needs look as far as Indy 4, the Terminator, Spider-Man, Batman, and Superman franchises, etc. to see that Hollywood doesn't pull off these types of "reunions" and big-name collaborations on action franchises too often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm halfway hoping they don't make the Hobbit, Peter Jackson onboard or not. It feels like a step back and a quest for much more cash. The Hobbit story isn't as tight as the LOTR trilogy, the characters aren't as strong, and it just feels like trying to capture lightning in a jar for the second time. The LOTR trilogy was great, if the Hobbit isn't just as great I would feel let down.

 

After the hole that Star Wars Ep1-3 left in my fanboy soul, I'm very suspicious of trying to follow up a great body of work with a lesser prequel. What's wrong with letting LOTR stand the way it is?

 

Of course they'll make it (for the huge $$$ to be made) and I do hope PJ and WETA are driving, it just feels sort of ... unneccesary at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Hobbit story isn't as tight as the LOTR trilogy, the characters aren't as strong, and it just feels like trying to capture lightning in a jar for the second time.

 

After the hole that Star Wars Ep1-3 left in my fanboy soul, I'm very suspicious of trying to follow up a great body of work with a lesser prequel.

I'd actually disagree and say the intention of The Hobbit as a book was entirely different than LOTR. It's a children's book and a very straightforward adventure as opposed to the grandiosity and multi-layered story that is The Lord of the Rings. I think The Hobbit would translate BETTER on film than the trilogy Jackson made.

 

I'm personally not a fan of splitting it up into two films as I don't find it to be necessary. Goblet of Fire was done in one film and though I've not read the books myself, most Harry Potter fans I know were more than satisfied with the plotting of the film in comparison to its literary counterpart. I think The Hobbit would suffer if it were done as two films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd actually disagree and say the intention of The Hobbit as a book was entirely different than LOTR. It's a children's book and a very straightforward adventure as opposed to the grandiosity and multi-layered story that is The Lord of the Rings. I think The Hobbit would translate BETTER on film than the trilogy Jackson made.

 

I'm personally not a fan of splitting it up into two films as I don't find it to be necessary. Goblet of Fire was done in one film and though I've not read the books myself, most Harry Potter fans I know were more than satisfied with the plotting of the film in comparison to its literary counterpart. I think The Hobbit would suffer if it were done as two films.

You are correct sir. The Hobbit can easily be done in a 3 hour or 3 1.2 hour film.

 

As far as Potter goes, you are also correct. I have read all of the books and the last two films have done a great job of taking the meat and potatos of the book to the screen. Order of the Phoenix may be a tad tougher but I think it will be OK. What I am really worried about is the Half-Blooded Prince. There is a ton of backstory in there about Voldermort and I think it is very important to the main story. I hope they are able to not cannibalize the story too much because of runtime.

 

-Dean-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goblet of Fire was done in one film and though I've not read the books myself, most Harry Potter fans I know were more than satisfied with the plotting of the film in comparison to its literary counterpart.

 

This is a total tangent but I just re-read The Goblet of Fire a few weeks ago and I finally got around to opening my DVD and watching it last night. In my opinion the movie version did a terrible job of conveying the events in the book. After generally enjoying the first two and quite liking the third movie, I was frankly shocked and mightily disappointed with the fourth movie, and a lot of my frustration was due to the amount of material left out of the movie that added context and relevance to what happens.

 

I don't know if making two films is the answer for the Hobbit but if the other choice is to have a Goblet-like conversion from the book to the film then by all means make two movies.

 

[edit] Posted at the same time as Dean...as usual I'm right and he's wrong. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to have a well-done The Hobbit, though considering the source material, it made for great children animation, but I don't think we'd be missing much if this never came to fruition. (The story told in The Hobbit works better, IMO, as flashback.)

 

It's simply not of the caliber of LOTR, and released after the fact would only emphasize that.

 

And I'd second that were Jackson to be involved, it would be in a producer's capacity as I think this would be "beneath him" to direct at this point in his career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't mind another trip back to middle earth. It would be nice if Peter Jackson was involved, directing it.

 

As a quick side tangent on the Harry Potter, I was dissapointed that the movie version of Goblet of Fire cut out a pretty important chapter from the book, where Dumbledore really breaks it down to Harry and basically sets up the next book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[offtopic]Sadly the Harry Potter movies have removed a great deal of information and have added in some very odd things... such as the beginning of the 3rd movie where Harry is practicing magic in his bedroom at Privet Drive. Um... hello? He can't practice magic out of school... even if it is just "Lumos." [/offtopic]

 

Glen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...