I found this this morning: Film rights wrangle may kill off The Hobbit By KATIE NICHOLL and MATT NIXON in London A WRANGLE over the film rights to The Hobbit could wreck plans for a prequel to the blockbusting Lord Of The Rings trilogy. Oscar-winning director Peter Jackson is desperate to complete his masterpiece with one final film based on J.R.R. Tolkien's first book. But the legalities over the film and distribution rights are threatening to derail the project – worth millions of dollars at the box office – and disappoint fans. New Line Cinema, the company that made the Lord Of The Rings trilogy with Jackson at the helm, owns the movie rights to The Hobbit. But the distribution rights governing the release of the film belong to United Artists, although New Line has first refusal on producing the movie. Sir Ian McKellen, who plays wizard Gandalf in the trilogy, has revealed Jackson is trying to obtain the film rights. "Peter wants to do it, and if he doesn't ask me I'll be very upset," McKellen said. The New Zealand-born director had been undecided about making a film of The Hobbit, but has confirmed plans to do so. "I'd be interested in doing it as it would give continuity to the overall chapter," he said. The author's great-grandson, Royd Tolkien, 34, said yesterday: "I would love to see Peter Jackson make a film of The Hobbit. "That would be the perfect ending."
Even though it would be the begining chronologically . [/b][/quote] Smart ass I don't really like 'The Hobbit' as a book, maybe it will be great as a movie.... well, I hope so!
I hope to f*cking God he gets the rights. I will go to war with whoever doesn't let Peter make the movie.
I'll help you out Will. I think it's really a good idea. I'd definitely have to say that the Hobbit would need a little boost of seriousness. It just seems to be way to, like, jolly. But aside from that, it should be awesome if PJ does it.
The Hobbit = Best book I've ever read. But I haven't read the Lord of the Rings books. What an amazing movie it'd be, though. Wow.
The Hobbit will probably be a better movie than the Lord of The Rings on the whole. Its a much more FOCUSED book, and deals more with the characters than the history. There is also some really comical moments that will make it on Bookwise though, LoTR kills The Hobbit. And The Silmarillion for me is halfway in between, cause I like the sorta stuff. Its really disjointed but The Silmarillion tells how Middle-earth and its peoples were formed. Covering the First Age, where Morgoth is defeated (read the book!) up to the Fall of Numenor (island realm of men, you may have heard the name in LoTR; again read the book!). Tolkien is such a genius....
Amen! And Silmarillion is great, plus I just got both Books of the Lost Tales, so Im stuck in those, godly stories there.
Amen! And Silmarillion is great, plus I just got both Books of the Lost Tales, so Im stuck in those, godly stories there. [/b][/quote] I just got 'Unfinished Tales', it covers stuff like (if you can remember ) Tuor and warning Turgon about the fall of Gondolin; stuff about the Five Wizards; an in depth look into Numenor; Rohan's formation; and other stories not covered in The Hobbit and LoTR. I also got the first book of 'Lost Tales'. There are 12 BOOKS in that whole series!
I'm with you completely! I trust no one else to make this movie. He did such an incredible job on the LOTR trilogy, and I'd hate to see The Hobbit in the hands of another director.
Hobbit's great, but NOTHING compared to LoTR. READ IT MARK! [/b][/quote] I didn't want to read the books until I saw the 3 movies because I found that alot of people liked the movies less because certain parts of the books were left out or incorporated into previous/future movies (apparently the part with the spider happens in the second book, whereas it happens in the third movie?). I'll definately read them after exams finish.
it's kind of like star wars where they did episode 3-5 i think, then went back and did 1 and 2. I'd really want to see it as a movie, my bro did it for a play and it would be cool to see it as a movie.
I didn't want to read the books until I saw the 3 movies because I found that alot of people liked the movies less because certain parts of the books were left out or incorporated into previous/future movies (apparently the part with the spider happens in the second book, whereas it happens in the third movie?). I'll definately read them after exams finish. [/b][/quote] That's true. But, eventually, most of the things that happen in the book happen in all three movies. The only part that was left out (to my knowledge) was the scouring of the Shire. All the other parts that have been cut out have been put on the DVDs in the extended portions or whatever you want to call them. On the DVD for "The Fellowship Of The Ring," Elrond's Council (the longest chapter of all three books) is extended by almost 15 minutes. But, yeah, even though some things were left out of the movies, they will all eventually be on the DVDs. "The Return Of The King" had over an hour and a half of footage (I think) cut out for the theatrical release. That makes the movie 5 hours long. But, yeah, the books are definitely better. "The Two Towers" is the best book, in my opinion.
Not really. A lot of things we're still left out, particularly the journey through the forest with Tom Bombadil in the Fellowship of the Ring. That was like half the book (seriously) and it was all of ten minutes in the movie. Not complaining, I love the movies and understand why things are cut but they still left out quite a bit. Even in the extended versions.
perter jacksons current project is "King Kong" movie, how would hobbit be made? even if he gets the rights, he has to finesh king kong first....and on the "Return of the King" dvd, there will be no scorring of the shire, peter jackson said himself, he hated that part of the book, and never even filmed it..completely left it out..sorry folks, no little hobits beeting the crap out grown men on the dvd