THE HOBBIT (2012/2013): News, Rumors, Pics Till Release

[AvBaur]

Well, they can make it in 2043, after the copyright runs out.

[Reverend]

Emh wrote:

---

That was only because of smaller issues. New Line always had the rights to film The Hobbit but they won't be able to film The Silmarillion as long as Christopher Tolkien is alive.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but isn't Christopher Tolkien in his late 80s...?

Regardless, I REALLY don't see 'The Silmarillion' as being a particularly viable candidate for a cinematic adaptation. It'd be like adapting the entirety of the Old Testament. Most of it's pretty dry and what little drama there is is really only sketched out. Reading that book requires a *lot* of imagination.

I've said this several times before (probably in this very thread at some point) but I maintain that (rights issues aside) the best way to adapt any significant portion of 'The Silmarillion' would be in the form of an anthology of animated short in the vein of 'The Animatrix' or 'Gotham Knight' with different studios/art styles for the different tales.

[Emh]

I agree filming it in its entirety is too much, but there are definitely some interesting stories to be told, particularly Feanor.

[superdeluxe]

The staff at the one ring net give their thoughts on the footage at comic con, obvious spoilers, but it is safe to say that they loved what they saw:

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012...bbit-showreel/

[JD]

Skywalker wrote:

---

None, since the Tolkien Estate isn't budging on the film rights.

What's Tolkein's issue with Jackson? I saw another thing somewhere that said the Tolkein estate hated the LOTR movies. I honestly, thought this was rather surprising, because I think they were probably the closest we'd ever be able to get on film. It's not like they made any huge changes drastic changes or anything. At least not any more than what most book adaptations do.

[Wereghost]

^ The simple and unvarnished truth is that Christopher Tolkien appears to have an enormous stick up his butt. Kudos to him for what involvement he had with The Children Of Húrin, though; that was a classic work of fiction.

[InklingStar]

It seems that Christopher Tolkien shares his father's view that faithfully transferring the story to film is simply impossible. JRR Tolkien only sold the movie rights because he needed the money.

[Gojira]

InklingStar wrote:

---

It seems that Christopher Tolkien shares his father's view that faithfully transferring the story to film is simply impossible. JRR Tolkien only sold the movie rights because he needed the money.

Books and Film are two different media in which to tell a story and I am surprised that some people have expectations that a film will be just like the book. They are just setting themselves up for disappointment in my opinion. I think it is possible to venture too far from the spirit of a book but for the most part a film will be a different interpretation of a story.

[JarodRussell]

InklingStar wrote:

---

It seems that Christopher Tolkien shares his father's view that faithfully transferring the story to film is simply impossible. JRR Tolkien only sold the movie rights because he needed the money.

The problem lies with the word "faithfully". What is faithful? Word for word, scene for scene? Or a film that transports the meanings and themes? I'd say that Jackson's Lord of the Rings did a really good job at this.

[Gaith]

Some old farts just don't like movies. It's their right.

[The Mirrorball Man]

After The Hobbit, I hope Peter Jackson tackles The Catcher in the Rye as a trilogy of three interconnected 3-hour films in smell-o-vision, with Andy Serkis playing Holden Caulfield as a CGI puppet.

[Gaith]

^ Well, there is related/extended material to work with there, as well...

[Jax]

It seems that Christopher Tolkien shares his father's view that faithfully transferring the story to film is simply impossible. JRR Tolkien only sold the movie rights because he needed the money.

And they'd be wrong.

[RoJoHen]

The Mirrorball Man wrote:

---

After The Hobbit, I hope Peter Jackson tackles The Catcher in the Rye as a trilogy of three interconnected 3-hour films in smell-o-vision, with Andy Serkis playing Holden Caulfield as a CGI puppet.

Well, I'm certainly intrigued.

[stj]

The Conanesque swordplay and The Frighteners ghosts alone are two reasons for the Tolkien family to dislike the Jackson movies. The omission of the Old Forest and Tom Bombadil could reasonably offend someone with an emotional investment in the book, the whole book and nothing but the book. Jackson did remarkably well in adapting The Lord of the Rings, a novel that proves rules about good writing can be broken to good effect. But these were childhood stories for Christopher Tolkien. Nostalgia is a powerful set of lenses.