Comments on: Hobbit news examined

by: Oliver Townshend

Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:13:28 +0000

Just remember that whatever happens can only be what’s mentioned in the Hobbit, because that’s the only book that has been optioned. So fighting the necromancer makes more sense.

by: hobbylobby

Sat, 22 Dec 2007 21:20:27 +0000

we know that Gandalf and Aragorn spent a good bit of that time in search for Golum.

and Golum was tortured in Minas Morgul…

I don’t have my copy of the book in my hand right now, but isn’t that in the Appendices?

not that I’m saying there’s enough material for a 2nd film there.

I really hope they don’t pull another re-write like with the Two Towers (It was my favorite of the books, and least favorite of the films because of the unnecessary changes).

by: Tolkien Scholars Consider Two, Count ‘Em, Two Hobbit Films « educating alice

Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:11:01 +0000

[…] Hobbit news examined […]

by: links for 2007-12-21 « Commonplace Book

Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:25:49 +0000

[…] THE BEAT » Blog Archive » Hobbit news examined (tags: tolkien the_hobbit movies) […]

by: Dave McKenna

Thu, 20 Dec 2007 20:31:10 +0000

Well hey, at least there’ll be some good ol’ down ‘n’ dirty troth-plighting, hubba-hubba!

by: Scott King

Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:51:50 +0000

That’s really odd they’d make a movie to bridge “The Hobbit” and “LOTR.” Wonder if it was Jackson’s idea or the studios.

by: Edward Liu

Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:32:46 +0000

If the “60-year gap” story is true, then the good news is that “The Hobbit” won’t be like Jackson’s “King Kong,” which I felt was a very good 90-120 minute movie that had been crammed into 3 hours.

The bad news is that the reason why I didn’t like “The Two Towers” much wasn’t because they shifted Helm’s Deep to be the climax of the movie. It was because that change left a big hole in the middle of the movie, and they filled up the time with a bunch of made-up stuff, all of which really sucked compared to the original material. Now it sounds like “Hobbit Part 2″ is going to be an entire movie of made-up stuff. Hmmm.

by: James

Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:01:33 +0000

The theory I’ve heard is that the two movies will mingle the tale of the Hobbit with Gandalf’s other mission, in which the White Council drives the Necromancer from Mirkwood. With the way they played around with the timeline as it is, this could work quite well… balancing out the battle of the Five Armies in northern Mirkwood with the White Council/Necromancer war in the south, which could be expanded into quite an interesting battle, with rangers and elves fighting goblins… and given the timeframe in the truncated timeline, a young Aragorn could even make an appearance!

by: Elio M. García, Jr.

Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:52:48 +0000

Scott,

No, it’s pretty clear that it’s supposed to bridge the 60 year gap. Splitting the Hobbit into two parts won’t do that.

Heidi,

Funny you mention fan fiction. I dubbed the sequel as sounding much like cinematic fan fic (and thus not interesting to me) on another site.

I completely agree that it’s a silly notion.

As to the Silmarillion material, my recollection is that New Line doesn’t hold the rights to that. IIRC, in fact, I think the Tolkien estate haven’t sold the rights and probably won’t be doing so any time in the next couple of decades at least.

by: Scott King

Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:05:41 +0000

My understanding was that “The Hobbit” is being split into two parts. So really the two films are “The Hobbit Part 1″ and “The Hobbit Part 2.”