Peter Jackson to direct the Hobbit movies, probably

Marcus Aurelius

Since I did not see this posted anywhere:

Original article in here: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Peter-Ja ... 19233.html

Quote:

You asked for it, you prayed at night, you got the studios to listen to you, and now your nerdy dreams have come true: Peter Jackson is in negotiation to direct both parts of The Hobbit.

The news comes from Deadline Hollywood, where they say bringing Jackson on as a director was the only way the two movies would be ready to start shooting by the end of the year. Presumably this will swiftly bring the film the greenlight that Jackson has repeatedly said it's missing, and the returning cast and new actors will fall in line as well.

Given that last we heard Brett Ratner was close to getting the job, this is fantastic news, the nerd equivalent of God himself coming to Earth and sorting out the mess we've made of things here. Jackson may have been anxious to move on to other projects or even give another director he respected the chance to play around in the world he built, but when Guillermo del Toro walked away at the end of last month, it was clear Jackson's return was the only way the two Hobbit films could avoid disaster. All the co-producing studios are anxious to start production and finally start making money on the property (particularly poor bankrupt MGM), and introducing a new director to start filming so soon might not have sunk the film, but it certainly wouldn't have helped.

Everyone take a moment and thank Peter Jackson for allowing you to go into your weekend in peace. If he manages to make these two movies any good, we'll forgive him The Lovely Bones as a bonus.

I think this was to be expected when del Toro stepped down as the director. In general I think it's a good thing, since it will guarantee a compatible imagery and overall milieu with the LotR trilogy.

Crossroads Inc.

The #1 thing I hope we get from this is continuity in the sets and props.

When Biblo gets to Rivendale, I am hoping its the SAME Rivendale as LotR. Likewise I hope Smeagle looks the same and as much of Hobbiton as they can get as well. Again mostly for sake of continuity and consistency.

fgalkin

Well, bugger.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

The Romulan Republic

fgalkin wrote:

Well, bugger.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

What's so bad about Jackson?

He overuses slow-motion and has a rather crude and clumsy sense of humor, but barring that he's reasonably competent.

fgalkin

The Romulan Republic wrote:

fgalkin wrote:

Well, bugger.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

What's so bad about Jackson?

He overuses slow-motion and has a rather crude and clumsy sense of humor, but barring that he's reasonably competent.

He's a kid in a candy store. He gets a huge budget, and just goes wild, never knowing where to stop. King Kong was too long by an hour, the Lovely Bones by something like half an hour, and the less said about the Extended Editions of LoTR the better. He also throws things in that look cool without thinking them through (a lot of the King Kong scenes, and the infamous Rohirrim Charge at Helm's Deep just two of the examples). And, well, we already seen his take on Tolkien- long, pretty visuals, somewhat boring. I was hoping for something new.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Marcus Aurelius

fgalkin wrote:

He's a kid in a candy store. He gets a huge budget, and just goes wild, never knowing where to stop. King Kong was too long by an hour, the Lovely Bones by something like half an hour, and the less said about the Extended Editions of LoTR the better. He also throws things in that look cool without thinking them through (a lot of the King Kong scenes, and the infamous Rohirrim Charge at Helm's Deep just two of the examples). And, well, we already seen his take on Tolkien- long, pretty visuals, somewhat boring. I was hoping for something new.

Jackson is not without flaws and has made some duds, but I would be interested to know in what way the theatrical edition LotR movies are boring. The Two Towers especially is too action packed with not enough breathers. Then there is of course the fact that Tolkien nerds already complained about the movies taking too many shortcuts, because they had problems understanding that Tolkien's text does not translate to a movie very easily. As for making things that look cool but are not really believable if you use your brain; please, that's the standard MO of big budget Hollywood SFX movie directors and hardly something typical to Jackson.

The problem with Jackson's King Kong was not only or even predominantly the length, but the goofiness of the basic idea and generally uninspired script. You could not have made a good movie out of it by just cutting it shorter. King Kong is basically the Western version of Godzilla and making it believable in this millennium would require a very exceptional script and direction. Jackson was not able to pull it off, but there are not too many established Hollywood directors who I would trust with the job, either. It is not a coincidence that all the other King Kong remakes after the original have been more or less duds as well.

The Romulan Republic

fgalkin wrote:

He's a kid in a candy store. He gets a huge budget, and just goes wild, never knowing where to stop. King Kong was too long by an hour, the Lovely Bones by something like half an hour, and the less said about the Extended Editions of LoTR the better.

Note that the Extended Editions were not what was shown in theatres. And actually, I'm a fan of the Return of the King Extended Edition-it actually included quite a few things that should have been left in the theatrical cut, though I felt the other two Extended Editions added little but length.

Kong I'm only too happy to criticize. However, Kong was quite inferior to LotR in a number of ways, and I don't want to permanently condemn a director based on just one bad film.

Quote:

He also throws things in that look cool without thinking them through (a lot of the King Kong scenes, and the infamous Rohirrim Charge at Helm's Deep just two of the examples).

I'm not going to argue about the Helm's Deep scene, though it generally takes more than one silly scene to wreck a film. As for Kong, it was to my best recollection essentially an exercise in over-the-top melodrama. LotR, however, was not in my opinion nearly as bad.

Quote:

And, well, we already seen his take on Tolkien- long, pretty visuals, somewhat boring. I was hoping for something new.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Quite honestly, I think The Lord of the Rings had to be long. I suspect any decent adaptation would have been long, no matter who directed it. Boring is more a matter of personal taste, and personally, I wasn't too bored by most of the series.

Whiplash · **Joined:** 2010-02-27 10:02am **Posts:** 363

fgalkin wrote:

The Romulan Republic wrote:

fgalkin wrote:

Well, bugger.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

What's so bad about Jackson?

He overuses slow-motion and has a rather crude and clumsy sense of humor, but barring that he's reasonably competent.

He's a kid in a candy store. He gets a huge budget, and just goes wild, never knowing where to stop. King Kong was too long by an hour, the Lovely Bones by something like half an hour, and the less said about the Extended Editions of LoTR the better. He also throws things in that look cool without thinking them through (a lot of the King Kong scenes, and the infamous Rohirrim Charge at Helm's Deep just two of the examples). And, well, we already seen his take on Tolkien- long, pretty visuals, somewhat boring. I was hoping for something new.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Well damn, you made him sound like Michael Bay just now.

I've yet to actually see the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but what you said about Lovely Bones is true.

Marcus Aurelius

Whiplash wrote:

Well damn, you made him sound like Michael Bay just now.

I've yet to actually see the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but what you said about Lovely Bones is true.

I haven't seen Lovely Bones, but I doubt it is half as bad as Pearl Harbor. Also, Michael Bay has not made a decent movie since The Rock, although Armageddon is fun to watch from an unintentional comedy perspective and The Island was not terrible, just very mediocre.

Stylistically Bay and Jackson are very different: Jackson has a tendency to make his movies too long with tangential fluff, whereas most Bay movies are "turbocharged" to the extreme, which in the end makes poor pacing, since there is no time to appreciate the last action scene. He is also not a really good action director, he just tends to have a lot of action in his movies, in other words quantity in place of quality. Pearl Harbor is an exception though; it has lots of poor drama instead and action only intermittently. Not surprisingly Bay has not attempted to direct drama after that flop. In any case, when Jackson manages to control his "candy store" impulses, he is clearly the better director of the two.

Whiplash · **Joined:** 2010-02-27 10:02am **Posts:** 363

Yeah ... that needed to be explained to me. :roll:

Nothing in your post needed to be said. I don't see why you're using Lovely Bones and Pearl Harbor in the same sentence.

I was simply referring to the kid in the candy shop description. That same description is also used for Michael Bay, that's all I was saying.

JLTucker · **Joined:** 2006-02-26 02:58am **Posts:** 2642

Marcus Aurelius wrote:

In any case, when Jackson manages to control his "candy store" impulses, he is clearly the better director of the two.

Of course. I am a fan of Bay, but none of his earlier films can even touch Jackson's Heavenly Creatures, which is still think is outstanding every time I watch it. I happen to love King Kong, especially the last third when Kong and Darrow's relationship is further explored. The ice skating scene is one of my favorites in the entire movie. Some see it as unnecessary but I think it is the start of an excellent setup for the tragic ending.

Balrog

Better the devil you know....

I also think it'll work better in terms of continuity between the trilogy and these new movies. And since they are splitting the book into two movies should hopefully keep pacing problems down; though personally I think they'd have been better off with just one, the way the animated movie worked almost everything in. And that was just a 90min film, you could easily fit everything else that was cut (i.e. Beorn) with an extra 60min.

Marcus Aurelius

Whiplash wrote:

Yeah ... that needed to be explained to me. :roll:

Nothing in your post needed to be said. I don't see why you're using Lovely Bones and Pearl Harbor in the same sentence.

I was simply referring to the kid in the candy shop description. That same description is also used for Michael Bay, that's all I was saying.

You wrote that you haven't seen the LotR trilogy, so I naturally assumed that you don't know much about Jackson's previous movies. But I apologize for my presumption.

JLTucker wrote:

Of course. I am a fan of Bay, but none of his earlier films can even touch Jackson's Heavenly Creatures, which is still think is outstanding every time I watch it.

I'm also a big fan of Heavenly Creatures and I think that it's still his best movie despite lacking the grandeur of the LotR trilogy. Kate Winslet is also a tremendous actress, although her much less well-known co-star Melanie Lynskey was great as well.

Lord Revan

Btw why are assuming that all the pacing problems in LOTR films were Jackson's fault, now I like the books but Tolkien's pacing is rather subpar at places, so while Jackson has faults in his style (granted I've not seen any of his post LOTR work) it would be unfair to put the sole blame of the problems with the LOTR films on him.

JME2

Crossroads Inc. wrote:

The #1 thing I hope we get from this is continuity in the sets and props.

When Biblo gets to Rivendale, I am hoping its the SAME Rivendale as LotR. Likewise I hope Smeagle looks the same and as much of Hobbiton as they can get as well. Again mostly for sake of continuity and consistency.

Likewise.

I'm more concerned about the returning actors because 10 years have passed since the trilogy was filmed. McKellen and Weaving should be able pull off Gandalf and Elrond and Serkiss won't have any problems with Gollum. But Bilbo is a problem; Ian Holm is 78, after all and even with digital technology ala X-Men 3, it's likely going to be too physically demanding a role for him at his age.

LadyTevar

JME2 wrote:

Crossroads Inc. wrote:

The #1 thing I hope we get from this is continuity in the sets and props.

When Biblo gets to Rivendale, I am hoping its the SAME Rivendale as LotR. Likewise I hope Smeagle looks the same and as much of Hobbiton as they can get as well. Again mostly for sake of continuity and consistency.

Likewise.

I'm more concerned about the returning actors because 10 years have passed since the trilogy was filmed. McKellen and Weaving should be able pull off Gandalf and Elrond and Serkiss won't have any problems with Gollum. But Bilbo is a problem; Ian Holm is 78, after all and even with digital technology ala X-Men 3, it's likely going to be too physically demanding a role for him at his age.

Here's a thought... could they use ... (mindblanks) ... Uh ... wassisname, played Frodo. :oops:

i feel so dumb right now....

The Romulan Republic

Elijah Wood.

Somehow, I can't see him playing Bilbo, not unless he's a highly versatile actor anyway. They're very different characters.

Spekio · **Joined:** 2009-09-15 12:34pm **Posts:** 342

Crossroads Inc. wrote:

The #1 thing I hope we get from this is continuity in the sets and props.

When Biblo gets to Rivendale, I am hoping its the SAME Rivendale as LotR. Likewise I hope Smeagle looks the same and as much of Hobbiton as they can get as well. Again mostly for sake of continuity and consistency.

Smeagle was tortured when he went searching for Bagginsssss. He should look a little better. Emphasis on "little".

Vympel

Casting for Bilbo? This stuff is all over the internet guys. They're not casting Ian Holm and there was never any question that they would.

Marcus Aurelius

Vympel wrote:

Casting for Bilbo? This stuff is all over the internet guys. They're not casting Ian Holm and there was never any question that they would.

I don't think it was quite that simple. The rumor is that he refused the role in preliminary inquires for reasons unknown, but physical health is the most likely cause, since it would be fairly demanding role physically and he probably does not want to have a stuntman playing him for half the time. It also appears that they want to make Bilbo somewhat younger than he was in the book, probably no more than 40 by modern human standards, which would also make it difficult for Ian Holm, since he would have to wear heavy makeup during filming. On the other hand, it may be that they decided to make Bilbo younger after it was clear that he would not be available.

Latest official info from del Toro was that there is really only one candidate left for the role at this point, although I am not sure if the change in directors has any effect on that. Probably not, since Jackson was the producer the whole time anyways.

Imperial Overlord

Bilbo was in his 50s in the book, but hobbits live longer than humans and aren't even considered adults until they're in their 30s. So if you're casting for a hobbit in his 50s, you're casting for a well preserved 40s and lower.

LadyTevar

I mentioned Elijah Woods because Frodo and Bilbo were distant kin. The family resemblance would explain it, imho. A little makeup to make him look older (Frodo was in his 'tweens', which was adolescent for a Hobbit), and Elijah should be able to carry it.

FSTargetDrone

The "problem" with a recast is that we already have a scene of Holm as younger Bilbo finding the ring in Fellowship. IIRC, the film's commentary mentioned how the skin of Holm's face was literally pulled back with tape or whatever to remove some of the wrinkles.

Scene starts at 5:24:

Kodiak

I didn't know if this warranted a new thread, but here goes:

Entertainment Weekly wrote:

Warner Bros., New Line Cinema and MGM have finally officially announced that Peter Jackson will direct J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit with production beginning in February 2011. The film is planned to be divided into two installments and will be shot in 3D. Said Jackson, “Exploring Tolkien’s Middle-earth goes way beyond a normal film-making experience. It’s an all-immersive journey into a very special place of imagination, beauty and drama. We’re looking forward to re-entering this wondrous world with Gandalf and Bilbo – and our friends at New Line Cinema, Warner Brothers and MGM”.

All I can say is - it's about damn time. If they're only beginning production in February '11 when could we expect the films? How much of the stuff they built for LotR is still standing?

Stofsk

Actual filming wouldn't take a long time, maybe a couple of months or thereabouts, it's the pre- and post-production which takes a long time. If they start in February '11 I'd say a couple years before release, and I'd wager a '12 Xmas release for the first installment, and a '13 Xmas release for the second seems likely.

Peter Jackson to direct the Hobbit movies, probably

Who is online