Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 30, 2014, 02:00:44 PM
534562 Posts in 40446 Topics by 5077 Members
Latest Member: shapeshifter77
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Press Releases and Film News  |  Peter Jackson is producing The Hobbit « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Peter Jackson is producing The Hobbit  (Read 3056 times)
trekgeezer
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 0
Posts: 4969


We're all just victims of circumstance


« on: December 18, 2007, 01:10:20 PM »

Looks like Peter and New Line kissed and made up. The only part that bothers me is that he is not directing the movies (yes, it will be in two parts).


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071218/ap_en_mo/film_the_hobbit
Logged




And you thought Trek isn't cool.
akiratubo
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 414
Posts: 3371



« Reply #1 on: December 18, 2007, 06:30:52 PM »

I'm actually glad Jackson won't be directing.  IMHO, the LOTR movies weren't all that and King Kong owed every bit of goodness it possessed to Naomi Watts and Andy Serkis, not Jackson.  Dead Alive seems almost like a fluke compared to Jackson's latest output.

I'm not too keen on The Hobbit being presented in two movies.  Regardless of how verbose Tokien could be, there's just not enough plot there for two movies.  Hell, LOTR could have been compressed into one three hour movie!
Logged

Kneel before Dr. Hell, the ruler of this world!
indianasmith
Archeologist, Theologian, Elder Scrolls Addict, and a
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 1398
Posts: 8192


A good bad movie is like popcorn for the soul!


« Reply #2 on: December 18, 2007, 07:20:40 PM »

The LOTR trilogy are my favorite films of all time, and I can't wait to see THE HOBBIT . . . . although I don't understand splitting it in two either.  Still, the end product should be awesome!
Logged

"Carpe diem!" - Seize the day!  "Carpe per diem!" - Seize the daily living allowance! "Carpe carp!" - Seize the fish!
"Carpe Ngo Diem!" - Seize the South Vietnamese Dictator!
Torgo
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 530
Posts: 5272



« Reply #3 on: December 18, 2007, 07:32:14 PM »

I think that it would work better for Peter Jackson to not direct The Hobbit but to just produce it and exercise almost entire creative control over it in terms of casting and all that.

It would appear to people that he was just going back to the well after the massive success of the LOTR films and I think it could also be viewed as him not moving forward as a director but rather moving back into the past a bit. 

hope that made sense. I'm loaded up on cold medicine today!
Logged

"There is no way out of here. It'll be dark soon. There is no way out of here."
Justy
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 56
Posts: 427


Oh the humanity!


« Reply #4 on: December 19, 2007, 08:32:36 AM »

I'm actually glad Jackson won't be directing.  IMHO, the LOTR movies weren't all that and King Kong owed every bit of goodness it possessed to Naomi Watts and Andy Serkis, not Jackson.  Dead Alive seems almost like a fluke compared to Jackson's latest output.

I'm not too keen on The Hobbit being presented in two movies.  Regardless of how verbose Tokien could be, there's just not enough plot there for two movies.  Hell, LOTR could have been compressed into one three hour movie!

Well, I have to disagree with you here. Without having Jackson's involvement LOTR would have been hacked into one movie by people who don't appreciate the nuances of Tolkein.  TongueOut

As for The Hobbit being broken into two parts my guess is that the seperating point of the story is the death of Smaug. The second climax would be the battle of the five armies. I enjoy long movies I hate being ripped off by a short film. If you go to a theater buy your ticket and some modest concesions you're at $20 most places. If I'm spending that for some picture that's only 90 minutes its a ripoff.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2007, 08:34:16 AM by Justy » Logged

-----------------------------------------
"Hey that's great, but who're the Chefs?"
-----------------------------------------
Gerry
B-Movie Site Webmaster
Bad Movie Lover
****

Karma: 49
Posts: 972


It's not what you say, it's how you say it.


WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 19, 2007, 11:02:02 AM »

Quote
As for The Hobbit being broken into two parts my guess is that the seperating point of the story is the death of Smaug. The second climax would be the battle of the five armies.


My guess is that they will break between the Misty Mountains encounter and the entry into the Mirkwood.  The climax of the first will be the dwarves escape from the goblins assisted by the eagles, and naturally the second climax the battle of five armies.  Knowing Jackson's style, I imagine the first movie will end with Gandalf going off to the south to face the "Necromancer" leaving Bilbo and the dwarves to enter the Mirkwood on their own.

I just don't think there's enough material between the death of Smaug and the end to fill a whole feature.
Logged
Gerry
B-Movie Site Webmaster
Bad Movie Lover
****

Karma: 49
Posts: 972


It's not what you say, it's how you say it.


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 19, 2007, 11:50:09 AM »

Just read this:

From Stuff

Quote
"Jackson and Walsh envision the first film covering the events of The Hobbit and the second bridging the 80-year gap between that novel and the first book of the trilogy.

Much of the plot for the second film would be gleaned from footnotes in The Hobbit that address that gap, Kamins said.

It was that vision that led MGM, which holds film rights to the book, to insist Jackson and Walsh make the movies.

"Once (they) played out their vision for The Hobbit as two movies ... MGM just took the position that we wanted to deal with Peter and it was not an option to do it with anybody else," Sloan said."
Logged
Andrew
Administrator
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 0
Posts: 8434


I know where my towel is.


WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 19, 2007, 01:20:57 PM »

If you go to a theater buy your ticket and some modest concesions you're at $20 most places. If I'm spending that for some picture that's only 90 minutes its a ripoff.

I disagree with this statement in a major way.  What I want to see is an entertaining movie.  Quite often, I think some mediocre movies would have been much better if they were shortened from 2 hours to 90 minutes and the story tightened up to the important parts.
Logged

Andrew Borntreger
Badmovies.org
Justy
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 56
Posts: 427


Oh the humanity!


« Reply #8 on: December 19, 2007, 02:29:33 PM »

If you go to a theater buy your ticket and some modest concesions you're at $20 most places. If I'm spending that for some picture that's only 90 minutes its a ripoff.

I disagree with this statement in a major way.  What I want to see is an entertaining movie.  Quite often, I think some mediocre movies would have been much better if they were shortened from 2 hours to 90 minutes and the story tightened up to the important parts.

I understand what you are saying. Yes, there are movies that work well when they streamlined. However, my main gripe is when people, mainly critics, look at the legth of a movie and criticise it solely on the length not content. "Oh the movie was great, but it was too long... blah... blah..." Those critiques really get my goat. It is my opinion that as long as the movie is watchable longer is better. Especially when it comes to movies based on novels. It annoys me when they say you can't use the whole story because the movie would be too long. So that is basically what I was referring to before.
Logged

-----------------------------------------
"Hey that's great, but who're the Chefs?"
-----------------------------------------
BoyScoutKevin
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 148
Posts: 2958


« Reply #9 on: December 22, 2007, 03:24:34 PM »

Well, I have no interest in seeing it. I did not enjoy "The Fellowship of the Ring," and I enjoyed "The Two Towers" even less, so I saw no point in seeing "The Return of the King." So, I see no point in seeing this one neither. But I do wonder if it is not too little too late. It would seem that the best time for "The Hobbit" would be a year or two after "The Return of the King," not seven years after, as it is scheduled now.
Logged
Justy
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 56
Posts: 427


Oh the humanity!


« Reply #10 on: December 23, 2007, 07:51:11 PM »

Well, I have no interest in seeing it. I did not enjoy "The Fellowship of the Ring," and I enjoyed "The Two Towers" even less, so I saw no point in seeing "The Return of the King." So, I see no point in seeing this one neither. But I do wonder if it is not too little too late. It would seem that the best time for "The Hobbit" would be a year or two after "The Return of the King," not seven years after, as it is scheduled now.

Well, I don't see how anyone could have sped it up. Peter Jackson and New Line weren't talking. As for it being late, I disagree. The Hobbit has a built in audience who will see it. It's not a fad whose time has passed. As long as they don't do anything really stupid in casting or the adaption from the book they should be fine. Since the Hobbit was only one book and not three I don't see anything being cut from the book especially with it being split between two movies. So they're not likely to tick off anybody in that regard. People will go in droves when it comes out. The story is your basic fun little adventure, it's hardly the historically deep story that LoTR was.
Logged

-----------------------------------------
"Hey that's great, but who're the Chefs?"
-----------------------------------------
akiratubo
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 414
Posts: 3371



« Reply #11 on: December 23, 2007, 08:15:09 PM »

As long as they don't do anything really stupid in ... the adaption from the book

Like splitting it into two movies?   Wink

Logged

Kneel before Dr. Hell, the ruler of this world!
Justy
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 56
Posts: 427


Oh the humanity!


« Reply #12 on: December 24, 2007, 11:25:14 PM »

As long as they don't do anything really stupid in ... the adaption from the book

Like splitting it into two movies?   Wink



True... true... although personally it doesn't phase me at all. We'll just have to see how they craft the two movies.
Logged

-----------------------------------------
"Hey that's great, but who're the Chefs?"
-----------------------------------------
trekgeezer
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 0
Posts: 4969


We're all just victims of circumstance


« Reply #13 on: December 26, 2007, 01:59:01 PM »

They don't actually intend on splitting the book into two movies. They plan on filming the Hobbit and then making a film using Tolkien's other writings to bridge the 60 year gap between The Hobbit and the LOTR.

According to who you believe right now it looks like Jackson won't be directing. He is currently working on The Lovely Bones and will be starting a trilogy with Spielberg of the Adventures of Tintin. These will be motion capture animation and each director will helm one of the films, with the third director as yet unnamed. 
Logged




And you thought Trek isn't cool.
BoyScoutKevin
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 148
Posts: 2958


« Reply #14 on: December 29, 2007, 01:31:05 PM »

They don't actually intend on splitting the book into two movies. They plan on filming the Hobbit and then making a film using Tolkien's other writings to bridge the 60 year gap between The Hobbit and the LOTR.

According to who you believe right now it looks like Jackson won't be directing. He is currently working on The Lovely Bones and will be starting a trilogy with Spielberg of the Adventures of Tintin. These will be motion capture animation and each director will helm one of the films, with the third director as yet unnamed. 


According to the discussion about this on another board, what Trekgeezer says about the idea for the films seems to be right. He just beat me to what I was going to say about the two films.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Press Releases and Film News  |  Peter Jackson is producing The Hobbit « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.