The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[Blu-Benny]

really happy to see a lot of work going on with this!!! can't wait.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

Isn't Bilbo supposed to be fifty in The Hobbit? That would make all of the choices wrong.
I think Martin Freeman would be good for the role. But anything's better than Daniel Radcliffe. He just can't act.

Frodo was also 50 in LOTR and Elijah would fit pretty good. 50 for a hobbit is about late 20's early 30's in human term.

[sfmarine]

I'd like McAvoy but like everyone else said...he's too young. We'll see what happens. This better not get derailed. 2011 is a long time already lol. And also a long time for the rumored extended cut editions of LOTR on blu-ray...

[SillyMammo]

I hadn't thought about David Tennant as Bilbo, but now that its been mentioned, I think it would be a good choice. He's a true Shakespearean actor and would bring some real acting chops to the role. Unlike some other hobbit roles erm...Frodo.

[SonOfArathorn]

Only problem is that, like I said, they already showed Bilbo looking middle aged when he find the ring, then Gandalf sees him at the door and says "you haven't aged a day".

I hope to god they don't make the Elijah mistake again and cast too young. And for whomever said Frodo fit 50 in the movie the filmmakers have already said they changed his age on purpose, Elijah looked no older than a teen and that was a conscious change on their part. They've already established a time line so hopefully they don't do it again. None of the 3 rumored actors should play Bilbo, and if history has shown anything none of them probably will.

[Riff Magnum]

Peter Jackson looks like he's dropped a ton of weight, since the LOTR.
Maybe he was just eating like a hobbit while filming LOTR. Those elevensies and second breakfasts will kill you.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by SonOfArathorn

I'd also like to see someone like Angus McFadyen (Robert the Bruce from Braveheart) as Bard. That's going to be a key role and they'd better nail that casting as well... same with the voice of Smaug (please not Jeremy Irons) and Thorin. Fingers crossed they get it right... They nailed so many in LOTR but dropped the ball on the most crucial (Frodo). Viggo as Aragorn almost made up for it though.

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by SillyMammo

I hadn't thought about David Tennant as Bilbo, but now that its been mentioned, I think it would be a good choice. He's a true Shakespearean actor and would bring some real acting chops to the role. Unlike some other hobbit roles erm...Frodo.

I really hope not. He reminds me of Clay Aiken.

[GreenScar]

What Peter Jackson plans for the two Hobbit movies and why

Today producer/director Peter Jackson talks about The Hobbit films, updates us on their status, debunks a few rumors and talks about what the two movies will actually encompass and why.

Among the highlights: The script for the first film is about three weeks away; no casting has been decided; the two movies will encompass the story in the book and won't be one movie about the book and a second to bridge the period between The Hobbit and The Fellowship of the Ring, as has been speculated; and the films will draw in narratives from the same era as told in other writings.

This is part two of our group interview with Jackson from Comic-Con in San Diego last week; part one, about The Lovely Bones, posted yesterday, and part three, about his upcoming sci-fi action movie District 9, posts tomorrow.

Jackson first talked about his decision to hire Guillermo del Toro to direct the two movies, based on J.R.R. Tolkien's fantasy book and precursor to The Lord of the Rings.

"Guillermo's there not because I'm a mentor of him, but I just thought he would do a terrific job with that film," Jackson said. "It wasn't the type of movie I [wanted] to give to a young, novice filmmaker and have them sort of godfather it through. I wanted someone who ... was established, who I could trust with it. ... With The Hobbit, I really don't want to ... be too involved in looking over the shoulder of the director."

Jackson added that he chose not to direct the films himself for a specific reason: "So I didn't have to compete against myself," he said. "Because with the Lord of the Rings movies I did make, those were the very best films that I could make, given the circumstances and everything else. ... I poured my heart and soul into those films, and I just thought that I'd given everything I could to The Lord of the Rings, and now, with The Hobbit, I'd have to go there again, and now I'd be competing against myself. And how did I shoot Hobbiton the first time around? And how did I shoot Gandalf coming through the door? Now I'd have to look back at what I did the first time and do something different. Or not. And suddenly I could just imagine myself having this rather weird year or two where I was relating to my own work in a way in which I didn't feel comfortable. So I thought that the best thing—and honestly the best thing for the project and the fans of Tolkien and everything else—was to find another filmmaker who would do a really great job, and let them shoot Gandalf coming in the door, and let's all enjoy what they do with it and give somebody else a chance to do something fresh and original with it."

Jackson remains heavily involved, writing the scripts with longtime collaborators Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens, as well as del Toro.

Following is an edited version of our conversation about The Hobbit, which is in preproduction in New Zealand.

Can you update us on the status of The Hobbit?

Jackson: ... We're about three weeks, I would say—give or take a little tailwind—about three weeks from turning over the first script for the first Hobbit movie to the studio. The process that we've been through so far is we wrote—and when I say "we," it's the four of us, it's Guillermo, Philippa, Fran and myself—we wrote an extensive treatment of the two films, which we pitched to the studio on a long conference call, and that was, I guess, about three or four months ago. And that was good, that went well, and they liked the idea. Because no one was really [in disagreement about] "Should it be one film? Should it be two films?"

gollum.jpg

There was talk about doing The Hobbit as one movie and doing an in-between-The Hobbit-and-The Lord of the Rings [movie], a bridge movie. ... We worked through the storyline, and we thought, "Well, obviously, we could squeeze The Hobbit into one movie," but even, like, a three-hour movie, you'd be amazed at how much of that story you'd have to lose. It's weird. I mean, the book ... is what the book is, and we just worked through a process of including all the events that we'd like to see in a film, and it was clear [that] it wasn't going to fit. Plus, the fact that we want to embellish a few things and put a little bit of extra ... narrative in for Gandalf and what he's doing in Dol Guldur and the Necromancer and various sort of side ... stories that are happening. And so we decided really that the two movies we were doing should be The Hobbit part one and part two.

So we devised this treatment, we pitched it to the studio, and they were happy with it. So then we set about, about three months ago we started in earnest to write the screenplay, which we're now about three weeks from delivering the first film.

And we haven't done any casting yet. I mean, that's the truth. There's all these rumors about people, but we haven't offered a single role to any actor yet, because everything's a process, and we haven't got a green light, and we haven't got a budget. And when you make an offer to an actor, one of the things that you have to obviously expect is they're going to ask to see a script, so we have to wait until we have a script. The other thing that you also need when you offer the role to an actor is you need dates. You need to be able to tell them when you want to start work and when they're going to finish work and how long they're going to work for. Because, obviously, an actor's deal is very much tied to the commitment of work. And so it's not until we deliver the script that we can break the script down, that we can get a budget, and then once we've got a budget we have to get a green light, which we haven't got.

I mean, we've been talking about releasing the first movie in December '11 and the second in December '12, and that's what we're aiming for. But we've only ever been aiming for it, and the studio obviously are not going to sign off on the films until they see a script and the budgets that are budgeting to that script.

So we're three weeks away from the first movie, the first script going in, and we haven't started working on the second script yet. We're just doing one at a time. But we'll start work with that as soon as we're done with the first script. And as soon as we do the first script, there'll be a breakdown of that done. We'll work out the needs of the cast. We'll do some extrapolating. We're not going to wait for the second script before we do a budget, so we'll use the first script, and we'll kind of do a guesstimate based on that how much we think the two films are going to cost. We'll be able to block out the actors' times that we think we're going to need. When we're going to start, when we're going to finish. What the duration of the [shoot is]. And then at that point we can actually go and talk to their agents and offer them a role. So there really isn't any casting news that I can report, and that's the reason why.

Have you talked about casting among yourselves? Are there people in mind that you can think of?

Jackson: ... There are some, yeah, which I wouldn't [want to say]. Obviously, there, ... the thing that we want to do is, any characters that were seen in The Lord of the Rings, we obviously want the actors that originated the characters to come back and play them again. So that obviously goes without saying.

And in terms of new characters, in some regards we are talking about people as ideas, but ... obviously it would be wrong of me to talk about that here, because we should talk to the actors themselves first before we talk about it over the 'net.

And in other ways we're waiting until we finish the script, because ... a key bit of casting are the dwarves, and the dwarves are ... important characters in the sense that they're a variety of personalities. And we're developing up those personalities as we write the script. And it's very fluid, and we don't ... even want to start thinking about who would play those roles of the dwarves until we really nail the scripts. Because, you know, is this Happy or Sleepy or Dopey or Grumpy or Doc? We need to know who's who. ... We need to know the personality of the particular character and what their function in the story is before we really can figure out what actor would be suitable for that role. So ... we're not really thinking too much about that at the moment.

[kernel_thai]

i was hoping for a Hobbit movie and the tweener. Not much of a Hobbit fan; skews a little young for me. Certainly dont need four plus hours of it. Now two hours of Aragorn and the Rangers would have been great.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Frodo was also 50 in LOTR and Elijah would fit pretty good. 50 for a hobbit is about late 20's early 30's in human term.

No, it's not. Hobbits don't age differently, they have a different concept of adulthood because they have a simple and family-oriented life without the hustle and stress of the urban world. The only meter-stick we are given is that one is considered an adult at thirty, meaning their parents don't put any rush on them to strike out on their own. Bilbo lived so long because of evil magic, and if they do tend to live long lives, it's because they live stress-free and sleep a lot.

Originally Posted by kernel_thai

i was hoping for a Hobbit movie and the tweener. Not much of a Hobbit fan; skews a little young for me. Certainly dont need four plus hours of it. Now two hours of Aragorn and the Rangers would have been great.

Don't be surprised if such material is included.

Originally Posted by Mr.White

Do think people will go ga-ga over these films like they did for LOTR?

Absolutely... I think these have the potential to outsell LotR. It's even more of a family film. Just consider the colossal grosses from Star Wars Ep. I based on the anticipation from waiting a decade or so: absence makes the heart grow fonder, and LotR has only gained exposure in that time. It runs on cable constantly.

Originally Posted by SonOfArathorn

I think once the trailers hit excitement will build and yes, people will be lining up for these movies. Don't know that it'll match the LOTR craze though, that came at a time in the world that is very different from now and those movie lifted a lot of people's spirits so soon after 9-11, the war in Iraq etc.

How much different is it, really? In a lot of ways, times are worse now than they were then... at least there were jobs then. There's a very good chance people will be just as sullen and in need of escape by 2011. We will almost certainly still be in a war (or wars), and I don't think our leaders have any real solutions to the tribulations we face today, things are mostly just going to get worse over the next two years.

I think the three names that the press is flogging are all terrible choices for so many reasons... just like Elijah Wood was terrible for so many reasons, (hearing American actors fake an effeminate and ghastly excuse for a british accent makes me grind my teeth, and he was definitely wayyyyy too young; and that's just the beginning of the list). Martin Freeman would be good. Remember that Bilbo must have a comic aspect... he starts out almost as comic relief, then he learns to respect himself and act like a man, and eventually commands the respect of his fellows through his personal growth and courage.

Peter Jackson and Guillermo del Toro are extraordinarily gifted artists, as are Richard Taylor, Howard Shore, Mike Mignola, et al. With all those people on board, I am confident this will be a glorious film in two parts. It's a film-production dream-team. I'm practically bursting with anticipation for this.

[tommyboy81]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

Absolutely... I think these have the potential to outsell LotR. It's even more of a family film. Just consider the colossal grosses from Star Wars Ep. I based on the anticipation from waiting a decade or so: absence makes the heart grow fonder, and LotR has only gained exposure in that time. It runs on cable constantly.

I remember the anticipation of the Matrix Reloaded as well. It didn't do Star Wars Ep.1 money but people were wanting it badly then when the first trailer came out just like Star Wars that's all everybody talked about. Waiting waiting waiting. The same will go for The Hobbit.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

No, it's not. Hobbits don't age differently, they have a different concept of adulthood because they have a simple and family-oriented life without the hustle and stress of the urban world. The only meter-stick we are given is that one is considered an adult at thirty, meaning their parents don't put any rush on them to strike out on their own. Bilbo lived so long because of evil magic, and if they do tend to live long lives, it's because they live stress-free and sleep a lot.

Then Elijah Wood was the wrong choice for Frodo, way too young for the role.

Frodo was adopted by Bilbo at the age of 21. He lived for 12 years with Bilbo, until 33 and then Bilbo left. Another 17 years pass where Frodo lived in with the Ring in The Shire, until the age of 50 when he finaly left on his quest. Elijah Wood was in his early 20's when they began the movie.

[Darkhawk9587]

Originally Posted by cflames89

If this does not happen, someone will pay.

Agreed. I hope that everything is settled soon so Jackson and Del toro can move ahead with this project.

[Diesel]

Posted this over in the more recent thread, but thought it should be here in the main thread as well:

Hobbit Rumors Debunked: No Trilogy or Radcliffe

Along with the previous casting rumors of who will play the titular character in Guillermo del Toro and Peter Jackson’s adaptation of The Hobbit, we also recently had a rumor floating around saying that The Hobbit would be split into three movies. Today, however, we have news that debunks one of the rumors, and at least part of the other.

The latest Hobbit rumors pertain to the casting of Bilbo Baggins, which we last heard was a three-man race between Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), David Tennant (Doctor Who) and James McAvoy (Wanted). Courtesy of the LA Times’ Hero Complex (as well as the actor himself), we now know that Daniel Radcliffe will NOT be starring in The Hobbit as Bilbo Baggins (or anyone else for that matter). Here’s a quote from the actor:

I’m very glad to hear that Radcliffe’s name has been officially crossed off the list of Baggins candidates, for the very same reason the actor himself cites. The Hobbit/Lord of the Rings universe is too similar to the vein of Harry Potter movies, which Radcliffe is still very much associated with (do you think will he ever be able to shake that image off?). On top of that, I also don’t think Radcliffe is right for the role of Bilbo, and I would much rather see either of the other rumored actors, McAvoy or Tennant, get the role.

Then there was this latest rumor (which comes from MarketSaw) about The Hobbit being cut into three movies instead of the two films it was previously confirmed to be. According to the rumor, the The Hobbit is going to be split into two parts with a third movie serving as a bridge between The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Here’s a quote from Market Saw’s source:

The rumor also states that del Toro would still direct the two Hobbit movies, with Peter Jackson himself directing the “bridge movie.” However, after deciding to e-mail del Toro outright to check the validity of these rumors, Latino Review got a reply from the director himself that debunks them. Del Toro says that all of it is speculation, with some of it being, “quite wild and inventive.”

Market Saw also has some info - which may be true or not - on the characters of The Hobbit book being darker in the movie version. We’ll just have to speculate as to how much darker they will be - that’s if the info turns out true, of course.

When The Hobbit was first announced, the rumor was that the structure of the two movies would be one Hobbit movie and one bridge movie. That rumor turned out to be untrue and now this one looks to be untrue as well. It would have been nice, in a way, if there WAS some kind of “bridge movie” so that we could see some of the characters and actors from LOTR make a return to the big-screen. However, I’m still happy with the way they seem to be going with the project.

It’s inevitable these sort of rumors come up - particularly with a high-profile project like The Hobbit. I’m guessing that we’ll be seeing (and shooting down) lots more of these rumors over the next couple of years.

The first film of The Hobbit is set to hit theaters in December, 2011, with the second following a year later in December, 2012.

[sfmarine]

So many rumors... I'd like to see McAvoy get the part. Radcliffe just didn't make sense.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by sfmarine

So many rumors... I'd like to see McAvoy get the part. Radcliffe just didn't make sense.

McAvoy I could see as Bilbo, yes I can see it.

[Pondosinatra]

In a hole there lived...???

[Josh]

The two Hobbit films will definitely have some linking material (LOTR did that), but I don't see one linking film. A lot of material would have to be made up in order for a story to unfold.

[MCT]

Originally Posted by Josh

The two Hobbit films will definitely have some linking material (LOTR did that), but I don't see one linking film. A lot of material would have to be made up in order for a story to unfold.

and thats why I really hope they leave that idea for a third bridge movie alone.....