There can't be a sequel. Nothing happened between the finding of the Ring and the trilogy. If they do a prequel, it will likely be Isildur's saga. Even if they did a movie about the driving-out of Sauron from Mirkwood, it would not only be at the same time as the Hobbit, it would suck ass as a movie.

sauromatian wrote:There's a bunch of stuff described in the LotR appendix between The Hobbit & LotR, but whatever movie they derive from it will possibly suck anyway.

I don't know about that.  After reading what Tolkien fans are saying about the two movies, I think there is sufficient material to make an interesting movie just based on the appendices.

http://forum.thehobbit-movie.com/viewtopic.php?t=8

However, we may be confused about what is meant by "two films."  The original announcements were:

"Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh will serve as Executive Producers of two films based on "The Hobbit." New Line will manage the production of the films, which will be shot simultaneously."

"MGM and New Line will co-finance and co-distribute two films, "The Hobbit" and a sequel to "The Hobbit." New Line will distribute in North America and MGM will distribute internationally."

I personally am hoping for two films about the book The Hobbit. just because I do not want anything left out.  Especially when you consider that these movies will want to connect everything to the LOTR movies, gap material will need inserting.

The tricky part comes in deciding where to cut the book in half.  I personally think it could come after Bilbo escapes from the goblins in the caverns.  Film one climaxes with the escape with the ring and film two climaxes with the Battle of the Five Armies.  Film one starts with Smaug's attack on Erebor and establishing himself on Lonely Mountain.  Film two starts with the Wargs chasing the party up into the trees.  I could get excited about that!

Either way, I'm just glad they are doing these films.  Peter Jackson does fantasy as well as anybody.  I believe he'll make it work whether the book is divided or not.

killjoy32 wrote:nah i think it will be cool. there is no way they will allow it to be lame. new line have seen how much the $$$ can be pulled off a project like this that is handled just right by the right person pushing the right buttons, so i hope PJ has the same approach to all this that he did when he went about LOTR.

Al

It won't be directed by Peter Jackson.  

He was dumped from the project when he insisted on being paid all of the money he was owed for the three previous films.

One hopeful thought:  

The Lord of the Rings films established a standard for quality and a sense of reality in fantasy film settings.   They also established the basic film look of the Tolkien world.

Just for instance, we now know that the flora and fauna of Middle Earth looks very much like our own...rather than a land of mushrooms and butterflies.

For another instance, we have established that hobbits are full-sized actors filmed with trick perspective...possibly mixed in with midgets...rather than just midgets, as in Willow.  (No insult to midgets intended, of course.)

Although the Harry Potter movies have shown that there can be small variations between directors, the overall tone and look of Middle Earth is set.

It will be interesting to see if Smaug is a new sort of dragon concept, or follows the tradition of Dragonslayer and Reign of Fire.  

Mark

new line & PJ agreed terms relating to the LOTR debacle.

PJ is going to be executive producer.

either way, it will be a quality piece of film imo. there is no way they will allow this to suck as they will see the shitload of cash they made from LOTR.

Al

Now...Sting would make an excellent Aragorn.  Wouldn't he?

Interesting to hear about the appendix story plans.  I say, "Cool!"

Might not be as interesting to a general audience, since they are not generally interested in that material in its present form.  (How many Tolkien readers read the apendixes?  I didn't until years later - and this is from a guy who took turns with his wife reading the entire trilogy aloud to our unborn son - mostly because we were fans, not because we are freaks, by the way.)

serleran wrote:Really, honestly, and truly... don't care at all about any Hobbit film. It might make a good watch, but I despise the source, so anything not boring would be wonderful.

Attack away, but, man, if you've got the patience to read 60 pages of "and he took 50 years to leave Hobbiton..." than, well, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

i agree you with you on that score. i am seriously hoping that barring the meeting of bilbo and the dwarves - they hurry the story along to mirkwood and beorn - that i cant wait to see!

i always had that problem with reading LOTR. i must read it about once a year. every single time, i skip the first 120 or so pages and then just pick up the story.

Al

FormCritic wrote:
You might be confusing the beginning of Fellowship of the Ring with the beginning of The Hobbit.  

Granted, today's editors would not allow a writer to begin a children's novel with, "In a hole in the ground lived a hobbit."

If The Hobbit were written today it would start out, "The dragon's breath seared the darkness, melting gold to slag and blazing red hot on burnished armor." The rest of the story would then be a flashback to that point.

But then, if The Hobbit were written today, Bilbo would also be bi-sexual.  Hobbit society would not be small-minded...it would be intolerant.  The main crimes of the religious fundamentalist known as the Necromancer would be homophobia and insensitivity to women. Smaug would be a manifestation of nature's wrath against global warming.  Half the characters (including Gandalf) would be kick boxing women.  The Lonely Mountain would symbolize the giant closet in which all dwarves repress their true feelings for each other.  Oh...and the dwarves would end the story by learning that the hostility of the goblins was their own fault for being Dwerro-Centric...and the Arkenstone would symbolize mankind's exploitation of Mother Gaia's bounty......and Bilbo would marry the woodelf king in a glorious pagan ceremony of peace and tolerance.

As it stands, The Hobbit is a remarkably modern novel with mature themes presented to children with grace and honesty.  Not everyone likes it, but (in terms of distribution) it is the single most successful childrens' novel of all time and an honored part of the work of the 20th century's most influential writer.  So...you know...count your blessings, aye?

Mark

So you've read Pullman, Mark?  

Mike B.

FormCritic wrote:.and the dwarves would end the story by learning that the hostility of the goblins was their own fault for being Dwerro-Centric

There is a little bit of this in the Silmarillion- 'Mim the Petty Dwarf' claims that Elf civilization is built on a vanquished earlier Dwarven one. Hence the creation myth that the Dwarves awoke first, then were put back to sleep so the Elves could be the first people.

The next conflict between Elves & Dwarves involves a rejected Dwarven request for Elven brides. Overtly, Thingol's rejection is towards the possibility of Elf/Dwarf hybrids, but I think Tolkien was suggesting that such unions did in fact take place, then became taboo to mention. The Noldor, originally called Gnomes, would be good candidates. They share the Dwarves' skill in metalwork, & lived near Moria in Eregion. There's a dwarf in the woodpile, so to speak.

FormCritic wrote:I don't know who Pullman is.

Is that a good thing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Dark_Materials

Check out the areas under "Controversy"....

Besides having The Church, God and religion as the bad guys, Pullman has gone on records saying both Tolkien and C.S. Lewis are idiots and their writings are crap (actually, it's a bit harsher than that, but I paraphrased...)

Mike B.