the "Hobbit" movie . . .
. . . will *not* be directed by Peter Jackson.
Possibly a good thing, but rather a depressing reason. In an ideal world, lawsuits would have nothing to do with decisions about art.
Oh, and regarding the "two movie" thing, apparently the studio is planning a single Hobbit movie, followed by a second movie "drawn from footnotes and source material connecting The Hobbit with The Lord of the Rings."
Feel free to speculate on the appalling possibilities this opens up . . . .
Possibly a good thing, but rather a depressing reason. In an ideal world, lawsuits would have nothing to do with decisions about art.
Oh, and regarding the "two movie" thing, apparently the studio is planning a single Hobbit movie, followed by a second movie "drawn from footnotes and source material connecting The Hobbit with The Lord of the Rings."
Feel free to speculate on the appalling possibilities this opens up . . . .
posted by erendis nasard at 12:05 PM
5 Comments:
Random fact: How the mighty have fallen! Dean Batali and that other dude (I forget his name) are working on That 70's Show now. I was pretty bummed to find that out.
And thank you for your message the other day.
(Rob DesHotel)
Random fact: When you work in TV, you take the jobs you can get. Bummer, but true. One reason that Dean Batali left BTVS was because of the amount of research he had to do into occult stuff for the show. Couldn't do it in good conscience.
And now back on topic - they should have gone with PJ. Even if the new director is good, PJ may very well be the key to getting people (such as the Sirs Ian) to reprise their roles. Not to mention the vast amount of research that his people put into making LOTR that could've been applied to The Hobbit. The films at least need to have a similar look and feel - the world should be the same.
The speculation that I've heard about the second movie has just mentioned it being a "prequel," which I had always assumed to mean something Silmarilliony. I don't like the idea either way, but I'd almost prefer an ancient prequel as opposed to something set in between Hobbit and LOTR.
Well, there's one possibly-good thing here. As Wileyman points out, the absence of PJ might prevent key actors from signing on--and that might kill the prequel idea. I mean, they can't very well do it without, say, Gandalf and Aragorn and Elrond . . . (Especially if they're going with the whole Necromancer/White Council/Aragorn hunting Gollum plot, which is what PJ himself wanted to do.)
At this point, dead prequel idea = happy me.
Though it would be nice to have a good "Hobbit," and you kind of need Gandalf and Elrond for that one too . . . and, as Glim says, if they get anyone else to play Gandalf, I'm not sure I'll even go see it.
I thought that was a depressing reason for him not to direct, too. I thought about blogging about it, but you've done a good job and I won't duplicate your efforts. :-)
The idea of two prequels weirded me out. Hobbit itself wouldn't stretch to two films, and making up a story sounds terrible. As Wileyman mentioned, there's lots of good stuff in the Silmarillion. I was wondering/hoping/fearing they'd do Beren and Luthien. It's a great tale, but girl-power proponents could far too easily get it entirely wrong.
I'm just rereading FOTR, and oh, the number of details the movies perverted is painful. Now, reading the book, I hear most of the characters talk with their movie voices. I kind of preferred it the other way.
Post a Comment
<< Home