millenniumfalcon.com

http://www.theonering.net

---

PETER JACKSON AND NEW LINE CINEMA JOIN WITH MGM TO PRODUCE “THE HOBBIT”

December 18th, 2007
PJ Thumbs UpDecember 18, 2007

ACADEMY AWARD-WINNER PETER JACKSON AND NEW LINE CINEMA JOIN WITH MGM TO PRODUCE “THE HOBBIT,” EAGERLY-ANTICIPATED FANTASY ADVENTURE EPIC

NEW LINE AND MGM TO CO-PRODUCE AND SHARE WORLDWIDE DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS

PETER JACKSON AND FRAN WALSH TO EXECUTIVE PRODUCE TWO FILMS BASED ON “THE HOBBIT”

Los Angeles, CA (Tuesday, December 18, 2007) Academy Award-winning filmmaker Peter Jackson; Harry Sloan, Chairman and CEO, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. (MGM); Bob Shaye and Michael Lynne, Co-Chairmen and Co-CEOs of New Line Cinema have jointly announced today that they have entered into the following series of agreements:

* 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.

* 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.

* Peter Jackson and New Line have settled all litigation relating to the “Lord of the Rings” (LOTR) Trilogy.

Said Peter Jackson, “I’m very pleased that we’ve been able to put our differences behind us, so that we may begin a new chapter with our old friends at New Line. ‘The Lord of the Rings’ is a legacy we proudly share with Bob and Michael, and together, we share that legacy with millions of loyal fans all over the world. We are delighted to continue our journey through Middle Earth. I also want to thank Harry Sloan and our new friends at MGM for helping us find the common ground necessary to continue that journey.”

“Peter Jackson has proven himself as the filmmaker who can bring the extraordinary imagination of Tolkien to life and we full heartedly agree with the fans worldwide who know he should be making ‘The Hobbit,’” said Sloan, MGM’s Chairman and CEO. “Now that we are all in agreement on ‘The Hobbit,’ we can focus on assembling the production team that will capture this phenomenal tale on film.”

Bob Shaye, New Line Co-Chairman and Co-CEO comments, “We are very pleased we have been able to resolve our differences, and that Peter and Fran will be actively and creatively involved with ‘The Hobbit’ movies. We know they will bring the same passion, care and talent to these films that they so ably accomplished with ‘The Lord of the Rings’ Trilogy.”

“Peter is a visionary filmmaker, and he broke new ground with ‘The Lord of the Rings,’” notes Michael Lynne, New Line Co-Chairman and Co-CEO. “We’re delighted he’s back for ‘The Hobbit’ films and that the Tolkien saga will continue with his imprint. We greatly appreciate the efforts of Harry Sloan, who has been instrumental in helping us reach our new accord.”

The two “Hobbit” films – “The Hobbit” and its sequel – are scheduled to be shot simultaneously, with pre-production beginning as soon as possible. Principal photography is tentatively set for a 2009 start, with the intention of “The Hobbit” release slated for 2010 and its sequel the following year, in 2011.

The Oscar-winning, critically-acclaimed LOTR Trilogy grossed nearly $3 billion worldwide at the box-office. In 2003, “Return of the King” swept the Academy Awards, winning all of the eleven categories in which it was nominated, including Best Picture – the first ever Best Picture win for a fantasy film. The Trilogy’s production was also unprecedented at the time.

For more information about “The Hobbit” films, please visit http://www.TheHobbitBlog.com

---

Peter Jackson to produce 'The Hobbit'


Just announced?

A Hobbit Duology - looks like Jackson is only producing but great news nonetheless!

Ahhh, Hackson gets another chance to murder Tolkien.

a "sequel" to the Hobbit huh? no thanks.

I was hoping the 2 movie idea would split the Hobbit in two, inter cut with the scenes and plots about the White Council and the expulsion of the Necromancer (Sauron) from Dol Goldur... But if they put that in the first movie and center the second as a bridge between The Hobbit and LOTR I am ok with it so long as they stick to Tolkien.

This will go on my 'ignore' list. Three PMS-laced films were enough, thank you.

well doing the Hobbit is fine and will probably be quite a good movie. But a sequel that Tolkien never wrote?? That's just being greedy.

Doing The Hobbit now is kind of anti-climactic in a way. I liked the story fine as a kid, but it seemed like just a cute little intro once I read the LOTR trilogy. The epic scale of the war and the grand tale that it allowed to evolve really outshined Bilbo's quest to defeat the dragon.

I'll still see it, of course. And buy it on DVD. But it will seem disconnected and kind of strange if they don't get Sir Ian back as Gandalf. I wonder who they will cast as Bilbo. The guy who played him in LOTR looks a little too old to play a younger version of Bilbo. Still, ought to be worth a watch.

But the whole sequel idea has me perplexed. Wtf is that going to be, actually? An abridge version of some existing Tolkien material or something pieced together for moviegoer continuity consumption? I don't get it. That could be a mistake if they don't do something worthy, allthough from what I've read on here not everyone thinks Jacksons version was in itself worthy. I think those folks may be annoyed whatever it is. I guess we shall see.

That's more or less how I feel about it. Still, prequels to give added exposition to a previously existing saga - there's no harm in that, right?

Also, I'm sincerely hoping that "The two “Hobbit” films – “The Hobbit” and its sequel" simply is a poor way of writing that there's a two-part Hobbit, although even that seems somewhat excessive. I would much rather not have a movie based on J.R.R.'s miscellany, which is rather boring (and in this case seems like it would be mostly "a la Tolkien" rather than actual Tolkien anyway).

I think this is precisely why they're doing two movies -- it's an attempt to beef things up a bit, to lend a little more importance to Bilbo's theft of the Ring. Of course it could also just be for the cash.

I also suspect that whatever business deal these guys hammered out was a lot more precise in its language than the original LOTR deal. I do expect that Jackson will eventually be announced as director, but that he wanted the production deal to be a separate entity.

I think the main HOBBIT story will be spread out over two fims, but they will both be littered with back story from the LOTR Appendicies & Lost Tales. It will come off well, as I trust Peter and Fran. The big question is who will direct these films? If it ain't Peter, it won't be worth it.

Exactly.

The ONE story will be split into two, it's not like they're "writing a sequel"

This just made my day. I love it.

Now does the movie need to be made? No. But what movie "needs" to be made? But I think it will make a great addition to the story. And this is also the first reports were getting on it. I trust PJ's judgment, especially for this series. He knows what's he's up against with the fan base and making a marketable movie. I think it will come out great. And it wouldn't surprise me if these films had a darker tone to them then the book, to keep up with the continuity of the series.

That all said, I can't friggin wait!

I think on the official blog somebody mentioned that Guillermo Del Toro would do a good job. I can see that. Certainly hope it's not Sam Raimi, though as I said above, I still think Jackson himself will sign on.


Yes, it is exactly like they're writing a sequel. There's less material in The Hobbit than there is in any of the 3 LOTR books, and they were each made to fit into a single film. There's no reason for The Hobbit to be spread over two films.

Finally...




http://www.thedigitalbits.com

Am I the only one not interested in sucking Peter Jackson's dick?

WTF does chugging man root have to do with any of this? Got something on your mind Sunshine? I don't think you've read the entire thread if you think everyone here is a big Peter Jackson fan.

no, you're not the only one. I mean, they were good movies, had some really neat parts (Golum) but some really crappy parts as well, (the whole love story with the king and Liv Tyler)


I just felt really NERD dirty after watching these things. Like MY dick wasn't going to get sucked that night or something.

No, I read it, and this just seems like a really, really lame idea. I was talking more about the press release, which is a bunch of rich, white men sucking each other's dicks.

I was never a fan of LOTR and these movies sound incredibly boring and I guess New Line desperately needs the money--I know Jackson doesn't.

From a recent Variety article:

"After "Drag Me to Hell," Raimi is expected to go right back up the mountaintop and take the helm of "The Hobbit" films for New Line and MGM now that Peter Jackson has made it clear he won't direct."

The Liv Tyler/Vigo Mortensen production-made love story in LOTR was indeed wretched. Unless they are going to invent a gay dwarf tryst plot element, I don't see this happening in The Hobbit. But then again, if the director of the trainwreck that was Spider-Man 3 is involved, I suppose any manner of mindlessly irelevant bullshit could sneak in here. I am far less enthused all of a sudden.

I just want to see a badass dragon

go watch Reign of Fire then. it's got Christian Bale in it to boot!

That movie is a'ight. McConaughey's final leap with the axe was one of the most bad-ass, even though futile, action movie moments. The dragons themselves were done pretty well too, the big one at the end especially. I'd imagine Smaug would be bigger though.

That's right! For what I thought would be b-movie special effects/plot, I actually enjoyed that movie. More dragons I say!

well i've been waiting for The Hobbit to happen, so this is great news to me

however talk of a "sequel" to TH worries me. if they're going to split TH into two films and padding it out by using relevant stories from the Silmarillion or the Unfinished Tales then thats fine by me. i think its important to show where Gandalf ran off too in the middle of the Hobbit-- he had to attend the White Council Meeting, which is a relevant event that will lead into LOTR.

A sequel - *Ternian squirms*

Sequel was bad term (and quite misleading) to use. Material will be taken from the The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales for the second installment.




Put me at the mad batters table for this release..

They can't use Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales material for a "sequel" because they don't own the movie rights for those books. Unless that changes, any "extra" material will have to come from the LOTR Appendixes.

well, you do have a point there DoubleSith.

unless Tolkien Estate gives permission to use certain elements in Sil or UT, or maybe some kind of grey area where the filmmakers can plead their case to justify a plot's inclusion into the movie, (like the White Council Meeting.)

I wonder if Rami is really a bad choice. The Hobbit was much lighter and more "kiddy" than LORT, so having a different director may be good, to be able to stick with the flow and feel of the books.

I really hope PJ directs these movies.

In his absence, Guillermo Del Toro.

Please.

I agree with those choices. No Sam Raimi, please!

Seems like Del Toro is in talks for directing. Great news, IMO. He's my choice for the job, second only to PJ.



www.hollywoodreporter.com

Del Toro is the man. Thank God.

hooray

only negative is that Del Toro's At the Mountains Of Madness adaptation is now years and years away...4 years in NZ? Geez.

Glad to see this project is in the right hands. I wasn't a fan of Jackson's LOTR but Del Toro's involvement in The Hobbit has definitely piqued my interest.

"And then, just after the Sam and Frodo suckfest, Sam full-on bricks in Frodo's mouth."

www.comingsoon.net hobbitnews.php?id=44453

QUOTE: "Well, I had the most charming meeting with Sir Ian, and all bureaucracy pending, he’s on board, as is Andy Serkis. We will continue giving you progress reports as the occur. It is our intention that we will not lose any of the key elements."

That's good news I guess, although the big reveal of Golum in the Two Towers won't have the same impact after these.

Jesus Christ, I think I suffered a massive cerebral hemorrhage reading the comments on that site. Please provide some warning next time.

Personally,

Gollum's big reveal isn't the problem. The problem is that the lotr trilogy (from Fellowship to return) sucked. I'm not talking about the films. I'm talking about the books by J.r.r.

The Hobbit- Masterpiece of simple, wonderful adventure. I read that thing probably 50 times thorugh my lifetime. It was my favorite book as a kid, and to some degree, still is for sentimental reasons. The "big 3" trilogy books were written (and Tolken was the first to offer this up himself) as a reaction to the fans and their outcry for more, and were not his best works, let alone did they contain the original kind of literary spark as their predecessor.

When I read the big three. I had the same knee-jerk reaction to them as I have to the makers of the films themselves. Self congratulatory bullshit that I "air wacked off "to while rolling my eyes.

Give me a break. They should have made The Hobbit FIRST.

I really enjoyed the LOTR movies, btw. At home far more than at the theatre. On DVD I can skip past the parts I find annoying. And in those 85 hours of film, there are quite a few. And I can pee and smoke when I want to. Aragorn giving any sort of speech, particularly on horseback in front of the Black Gates, usually warrants a skip. And everytime Sam and Frodo appear to be on the way to buy Erasure tickets. Ugh.

Okay, but I really liked the special effects and the intricate production of such an Epic journey. The look and feel of it was great, as were the action sequences. Allthough, each installment seemed to drag on too long at times. When the Hobbits finally return to the Shire, I actually felt glad for them. That would have been a good place to end it, but they still had about 40 minutes left. The need to tie up every loose end didn't seem so annoying in print as it does on screen.

And I don't think the interest was there to film the Hobbit prior to LOTR. If anyone would have asked me if it was a good idea, I would have told them to go watch that annoyingly musical cartoon version from 20 years ago and stfu. I know some folks find it more interesting than the trilogy, but as far as a film property is concerned, in todays climate, it works best as prequel. That's not because I want it to be that way, I don't have an opinion either way, I'm just saying people wouldn't have gone to see it until now, and will, because of the trilogy. Shit, prior to it, the only people who knew what an orc was had D&D dice in thier pockets.

I hope this Hobbit is better than the last one. I mean, look at what fans of the genre had to put up with just to see this thing told visually.




Quite illogical, Spock. Turn in your ears immediately. Although this song wasn't actually from the movie (I don't think), the musical bits in the 70's animated version make me want to puke.

With a better soundtrack, it might have been great.

I disagree with your opinion here , I too have read the big 3, and enjoy them even more after continued readings.

The Hobbit as well, I share this opinion with all of his Middle Earth works.



This opinion, I agree with 100%

yeah, I wasn't reacting to your middle earth rant, just your dumb picture. but we can be nice. I really don't care much about the lord of the rings. I mean, they were allright, the Fellowship was better than the other two, but they're just really hard to sit down and watch for 3 hours at a time. It's a bunch of walking and sometimes running and a bunch of retarded elvish talk going on.

I'm up to watching the Hobbit, I like dragons and all, but this filler movie they're making in between the two books, THAT I don't care much about.

Personally, I'd hate to be the guy who has to construct a screenplay based around (I'm assuming) the Middle-Earth history books and written fragments left behind by Tolkien (and completed and released by his children, but that doesn't count as true LOTR). Seems to me that you really have to love LOTR in order to sit down and sift through that crap. It makes me think of the guy who has to do inventory in the 'Raiders' warehouse - shudder.

LOTR to me reminds me of the time I went to a party and listened to Tool. I thought they were the best band, so the next day I borrowed some albums from a friend and listened to them clean - man, I wasn't impressed. Like LOTR, I guess you just have to be in the right mindset to enjoy them. So like TroyObliX, I skip to my favorite parts. Love that Shelob.

According to Empire Online, Hobbit director Guillermo del Toro had this to say about casting the pivotal role of Bilbo for the upcoming films:

"We are writing based on [Ian Holm's performance], but other than that, we have ideas [of who could play him]. I can tell you that it's down to a few names that we all agree upon. And that our first choice... completely, magically, we said the same name. All of us!"

From the British newspaper Daily Express:

"A number of names have privately been doing the rounds, including Daniel Radcliffe and Jack Black." However, the rumors are that James McAvoy (Mr. Tumnus, from the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe) "is the one the film’s bosses really want." A final decision could be coming soon, however. The Daily Express also reports, "[del Toro and Jackson] are expected to have talks with [McAvoy] soon so hopefully it could be confirmed in the not too distant future."