Okay maybe I've been living under a rock but I just saw the trailer for the upcoming Hobbit movie and it looks great! This is news to me, I've heard rumours but nothing as substantial as this up till now. Yay I can't wait :D .

[ 12-30-2003, 10:36 PM: Message edited by: SpiritWarrior ]

I saw it on the news that they were considering making the prequel. I didn't know it was a sure thing. Links please?

<font color=skyblue>I assure you what you saw was fake. There is talk of maybe doing the Hobbit someday...but there is no trailer other than fabricated ones.</font>

Yep I think It's fake too actually. I just checked for the official word and there is none. I downloaded this on Kazaa and there are many scenes from the origianl LOTR's while referring to the discovery of the ring (in the fellowships epilogue) which someone could easily just sham together. However, there are other scenes of Bilbo facing a dragon, another with him running from the cave and the water is on fire and yet another of a dragon attacking a village with the buildings on fire. What struck me though was how similiar the dragon looked to that of the ones on 'reign of fire' the movie ;) .

I dunno, the title says 'Leaked preview of the Hobbit' and boasts It's release Dec 19th 2006...regardless of what it is it still makes me feel good..hey, I can dream [img]smile.gif[/img] .

Is it just a touched-up version of the commercial for the videogame? 'Cause I just got back from the theater where the commercial played... and the scenes you describe sound JUST like what I saw.

It wasn't direct3d or opengl graphics if that's what you mean. This was film, raw scenes of combat, action etc.

Well, Peter Jackson did he say he was going to film 'the Hobbit' as well. I hope it works out [img]smile.gif[/img]

PJ needs the rights.

Hell will freeze over before it is surrendered to him. Given what I have read about Christopher Tolkien.

New Line has the rights to make the hobbit but not the rights to distribute it. If I remember correctly the distribution rights are owned by United Artists.

On a side note, someone needs to remove the staff up Christopher's butt [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 12-31-2003, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: Rokenn ]

What have you read about him? I haven't heard anything, but I haven't been looking either. Is he asking for too much $$ or what?

I believe he hates the movies.

EDIT- Dracolisk now.... [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 12-31-2003, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: Sir Goulum ]

It's beyond hatred, he has gone as far as forcing siblings off the board of directors of the Tolkein Estate that disagree with him. He guards what he sees as the integrity of the books with more religious zeal then any Ayatollah railing against Israel. The man is total fruit cake [img]smile.gif[/img]

Hopefully once he pass on (he's in his 70's now) more rational heads will prevail and at least allow Peter Jackson to pull what is left of the LOTR props and sets out of mothballs to make a museum in NZ.

It's beyond hatred, he has gone as far as forcing siblings off the board of directors of the Tolkein Estate that disagree with him. He guards what he sees as the integrity of the books with more religious zeal then any Ayatollah railing against Israel. The man is total fruit cake [img]smile.gif[/img]

Hopefully once he pass on (he's in his 70's now) more rational heads will prevail and at least allow Peter Jackson to pull what is left of the LOTR props and sets out of mothballs to make a museum in NZ. </font>[/QUOTE]Wow, what a whackjob! Hopefully I'm wrong and there is another Hobbit movie coming out. That would be incredible!

<font color=deepskyblue>Peter Jackson does want to film the Hobbit, using some of the same actors from the LOTR series. You can read about it here.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...gs_director_dc

There was a discussion on another forum regarding the "issues" faced by Peter Jackson (namely, Christopher Tolkien) in getting the rights to the Hobbit. You can read the comments and opinions of those forum members here (and you will probably recognize many of the members, since most of them belong to IW also).

http://www.theoasisforums.com/yabbse...y;threadid=826
</font>

[ 01-01-2004, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: Cerek the Barbaric ]

It's beyond hatred, he has gone as far as forcing siblings off the board of directors of the Tolkein Estate that disagree with him. He guards what he sees as the integrity of the books with more religious zeal then any Ayatollah railing against Israel. The man is total fruit cake [img]smile.gif[/img]

Hopefully once he pass on (he's in his 70's now) more rational heads will prevail and at least allow Peter Jackson to pull what is left of the LOTR props and sets out of mothballs to make a museum in NZ. </font>[/QUOTE]Christopher tolkein is against any interpretation of his fathers work, meaning any condensed book format, movies, cartoons, etc he wants J.R.R.'s works to stand as written and not as seen through the eyes of anyone else, but the individual reader.

i really hope they make a hobbit it would be cool

I also ran into a trailer for the hobbit but it was definetly a fake. They used footage from the LOTR movies and footage from Dragonslayer. It was well done though. I would like to see them do a Hobbit movie though.

Just my 2

You know, I'm definitely not a fan of the way Christopher Tolkien has chosen to run his life and his family/corporation, but that's definitely a very valid point he has. The reader is ultimately the true judge of the work, and accepting the views of a third party (e.g. PJ) is essentially ripping yourself off: Deliberately reading spoilers, if you will. Instead of reading the book and forming your own thoughts/images of the story, you instead turn to someone else's.....thus robbing yourself of ever coming up with your own ideas on the subject. Seeing the movie (before reading the book) robs the imagination. Imagination might very well be the linchpin to the whole love/hate relationship to PJ's LotR: If your imagination is shallow or mediocre, you can see the films and be absolutely blown away by the cool imagery. If your imagination was better than PJ's, you can see the films and be disappointed.

With that said, I am not against a film version of LotR. And the funny thing is, under the right circumstances, Christopher might not be either. Christopher has said that <u>what his father wrote</u> is gospel. But, if you had gone back 40 years, and asked J.R.R. if he'd care to write (or endorse) a screenplay, I'm pretty sure he'd say, "Heck, yeah." But as that never happened, it's a shame that Christopher has one more thing to be stubborn about. It's a shame that he's so immovable, really--there are some errors in LotR that are just begging to be fixed (for example, there ain't a reason in hell that Aragorn would be carrying the actual shards of Narsil out in the wilderness), but I couldn't even get Christopher's permission to make an *authorized* film version, because I'd have to change those things.

Ahhh it's good to know that all of us that enjoyed the movies for what they were lack imagination and are shallow. Thanks SoS!

You know, I'm definitely not a fan of the way Christopher Tolkien has chosen to run his life and his family/corporation, but that's definitely a very valid point he has. The reader is ultimately the true judge of the work, and accepting the views of a third party (e.g. PJ) is essentially ripping yourself off: Deliberately reading spoilers, if you will. Instead of reading the book and forming your own thoughts/images of the story, you instead turn to someone else's.....thus robbing yourself of ever coming up with your own ideas on the subject. Seeing the movie (before reading the book) robs the imagination. Imagination might very well be the linchpin to the whole love/hate relationship to PJ's LotR: If your imagination is shallow or mediocre, you can see the films and be absolutely blown away by the cool imagery. If your imagination was better than PJ's, you can see the films and be disappointed.

With that said, I am not against a film version of LotR. And the funny thing is, under the right circumstances, Christopher might not be either. Christopher has said that <u>what his father wrote</u> is gospel. But, if you had gone back 40 years, and asked J.R.R. if he'd care to write (or endorse) a screenplay, I'm pretty sure he'd say, "Heck, yeah." But as that never happened, it's a shame that Christopher has one more thing to be stubborn about. It's a shame that he's so immovable, really--there are some errors in LotR that are just begging to be fixed (for example, there ain't a reason in hell that Aragorn would be carrying the actual shards of Narsil out in the wilderness), but I couldn't even get Christopher's permission to make an *authorized* film version, because I'd have to change those things. </font>[/QUOTE]Or you could accept the fact that there is always something lost (and gained) in the translation of book to film, sit back, enjoy and be thankful it wasn't a flop like D&D and every other fanstasy film before this :D .

Quote:

Originally posted by SixOfSpades: Imagination might very well be the linchpin to the whole love/hate relationship to PJ's LotR: If your imagination is shallow or mediocre, you can see the films and be absolutely blown away by the cool imagery. If your imagination was better than PJ's, you can see the films and be disappointed.

Where was that foot again? Oh yef... mow Iff vound iss. Even elves would be proud of your dexterity.

I've read the Rings, the Hobbit, the Silmarillion, and the Unfinished Tales multiple times... I've Listened to the Rings, the Hobbit and the Silmarillion on audio cd (the Hobbit multiple times with the kids). I've also read virtually every book that's been reviewed in this forum (well... more than 90% anyway) NO one would accuse me of having a mediocre imagination, and I thought the movies were some of the greatest that have ever been made. The key is not having a good or bad imagination, the key is being able to see someone ELSE'S imagination. PJ and his team created a world that was theirs too, sure they changed a lot that I wouldn't have... but I didn't make the film. I enjoyed both the scenes that exactly fit how I imagined the story AND the scenes that were different and in effect created a NEW story from the one I know so well.

Yeah, I knew I'd be taking some heat over that, but felt morally obligated to post it anyway. Note, however, my use of the word "can." I said "If your imagination is shallow or mediocre, you can see the films and be absolutely blown away by the cool imagery. If your imagination is better than PJ's, you can see the films and be disappointed." That does <u>NOT</u> equate to my stating that liking the films proves that you're shallow.

With that said, however, there are plenty of people in the world with less imagination than PJ. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, either.

True--but wouldn't it have been the ultimate triumph for PJ if he had produced a definitive version of LotR, one that met or exceeded the book's qualities in every way, and was actually *SO GOOD* that it convinced Christopher Tolkien that PJ actually knew which way was up, to the point that Tolkien willingly gave PJ the film rights to <u>The Hobbit</u>? That would have been the best possible outcome for all concerned, and the only way that PJ would ever get to make The Hobbit. But, thanks to his foibles in adapting LotR, that will never happen.

Yep but I would say one step at a time, mate.

Check you facts SoS. Christopher Tolkien is NOT THE ONE holding up a new film version of the The Hobbit. One movie company (Universal) ones the distribution rights and another (New Line) owns the rights to make it. Once their lawyers settle the difference then it will happen. What CT is holding up is the musuem the PJ wants to open in New Zealand featuring the artwork and props form the movies.


oh and PS- your wrong [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Lets see, Princess Bride, Conan the Barbarian, LadyHawk, just a few fantasy movies that are actually very good.

Lets see, Princess Bride, Conan the Barbarian, LadyHawk, just a few fantasy movies that are actually very good. </font>[/QUOTE]And yet none did what LOTR's did.

I would add 'Willow' to that list of good movies though!

You can't compare LOTR with movies that were made over a decade ago (i.e. Conan the Barbarian) that easily SpiritWarrior.

The only way that could have happened is if PJ had made Christopher Tolkien's definitive version - he wouldn't have accepted a general-public definitive. If Chris have been involved with the LotR movies, we'd have had another Harry-Potter style movie: stuff taken out, nothing added. That would certainly not have been the the best possible outcome, not even for the majority of Tolkien fans.

I'd suggest that the same sentiment can be applied in both directions... there's a LOT of people out there who hate the movies because their imagination is too limited to allow more than one (their) interpretation of the text. I've really enjoyed watching the movie and listening to the book on cd and noting the many changes to the storyline that PJ and team made. Some were good, some not so good... but in the end I feel the movie was faithful to Tolkiens vision and the majority of their alterations were pretty well done.

I further believe that it would not be possible to create a 100% faithful version of the story, even if the character text was followed exactly, there would still be poeple complaining about PJ's interpretation of the sense imagery. Additionally there'd be a LOT of people complaining about how slow the story progressed (there was enough of that in these movies)... heck... the hypothetical perfect LOTR movie would be at MINIMUM twice as long as they are now, likely closer to three times as long.

Errrr...I didn't, Link. I added Willow (not Conan) to a list of good fantasy movies in the history of fantasy movies.

Willow was a good story, and even though the Conan's were very simple I enjoyed them at the time.

I also enjoyed The Dark Crystal (I was pretty young, pre-teen methinks... right in the target audience for the movie), and the Neverending Story too.

I agree that none of these did what LOTR did though... which is to tell a serious adult story. No comedy conversion (Princess Bride and Willow) or childs story (Dark Crystal, Neverending Story). Although IMO PJ did turn Gimli into more of a "Comic Relief" than I'd have preferred.

By the way " The Princess Bride 2 " is now being made,and this morning on Mark and Brian they were interviewing PJ and he did say he would love to make the "Hobbit" if they get the legal stuff taken care of.

Well it is gonna happen. I just heard on the news that MGM and new line (?) are now fueding in pre-production court about who owns the rights. Eventually someone will win but time is a factor here. I read this about Spiderman 7 years ago.

Yes I saw that also. Read a bit on it. Looks like New Line has the rights to make it, but MGM still has the distribution rights.

"I guess MGM's lawyers and New Line's lawyers are going to have a huge amount of fun over the next few years trying to work it all out," he told reporters recently in Los Angeles, according to AP Radio. "I'm obviously busy for a couple of years on 'King Kong' so those lawyers can just go at it for a long time." ~Peter Jackson