Peter Jackson fired (quits) LotR prequel & the Hobbit movie

[Trufire]

It's all good. I was laughing too. Just imagine what a script would be like though without being looked over for spelling errors. That could make a movie all in itself hilarious at times.

[anubis]

Does anybody out there know the status of Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit"? The last I heard there was some legal wrangling going on preventing production of the film. I'm not sure how far in development they got either. If they do, does anybody have any idea on who would be good casting for Bilbo? Ian Holm is too old to play a young Bilbo. How about Hayden Christensen.   Bilbo is pretty whiny and complains a lot in the book. Hayden could be as whiny as he was in "Shattered Glass".

[anubis]

I thought Lorien looked a lot like a Thomas Kinkade painting.

[Blueguy]

Just saw on IGN yesterday that the pres of New Line says it's on schedule.  Funny seeing as how they still don't have a director.  He wouldn't comment on the rumors of Sam Raimi being offered the job either.

[J-Proof]

Just saw on IGN yesterday that the pres of New Line says it's on schedule.  Funny seeing as how they still don't have a director.  He wouldn't comment on the rumors of Sam Raimi being offered the job either.

Well, if the rumors about Raimi are correct, then I suppose they have a director "in-the-bag" so to speak.... which really disappoints me. My hopes lie in the project falling through for New Line, Saul Zaentz getting the rights to the movie back, and him hiring Jackson to do the next set of movies.

I respect Raimi for his Evil Dead cult-wonder, but I really don't like the Spider Man series all that much, and don't think he'd be a good choice. Alfonso Cuaron or Ridley Scott would be excellent replacement directors, but I would still prefer Jackson (which I already know many people don't agree with me on

I doubt New Line will drop the ball unless they absolutely have no other choice but to ditch the project. There's no way that they can afford to lose such a guaranteed money-maker with all the stinkbombs they've been releasing recently. I don't know when the rights to the material goes back to Saul Zaents, but whenever they do will be the final decision-maker of the whole ordeal. (Zaents did say that the rights become his this year sometime).

[anubis]

Also - Hobbit is more "fantasy" esque. Giant spiders, trolls, fiery pinecones, and dragons.

I do admit that many people could direct a movie version of hobbit - just as long as it's not the director of any of the Harry Potter Movies

I dunno. LOTR had a giant spider (Shelob), trolls, dragons (the Fell Beasts), and while it didn't have a fiery pinecone, it did have breakdancing wizards and a fairy princess (Legolas).

lol - yeah but I just meant there's /more/ spiders and /more/ trolls, perhaps the coolest dragon in literature is in the Hobbit, and /all/ this stuff happens in one movie.

I agree. Smaug is the coolest dragon in literature. Just the scene where Bilbo is invisible and taunting him alone would be the price of admission. It definately reads like a children's book (it is), but I think a more adult approach could be taken and it would be an incredible movie. (Let's just limit the singing, please. I am still reeling from the "Where there's a whip, there's a way" song from the animated version.)

[scottrkrv]

As for a LOTR "prequel" besides The Hobbit, Why? (To make more mucho moolah, of course.) As "unfilmable" as the trilogy had always been considered, The Silmarillion would 100 times more difficult, as there's virtually no through-line plot. At least LOTR had getting the Ring to Mount Doom for a central plot. Filming The Silmarillion would be like filming a European history textbook. I could maybe see The Hobbit as two films, though, especially if they were to spend a good chunk of time on Gandalf attending the White Council, which occurred entirely "off screen" in the book.

Obviously you couldn't possibly film the whole thing, but you could do a series of shorts- one where that guy cuts the gem from the crown of Mr. Pre-Sauron, and suchlike. Although I don't recall anything else with much of a plot besides that story, and it's pretty much the same plot as Lord of the Rings.

Well, your faulty memory not withstanding...

The Silmarillion takes place over a 600 year period (not including the eons that happened before the sun and moon were "created".)

TLOTR happenend over a 2 year period, and included a 30 second "prologue" for the previous 3000 years, and another 5 minute "act" for the Smeagol/Deagol story, and another 30 second scene for "The Hobbit."

The Silmarillion is many "short stories' cobbled together by Tolkien's son after his death.

[Smith Dr John Smith]

They're going to hire Uwe Boll, I just know it... 

I guess it would be exactly like Peter Jackson's films, then.

Wow,an issac bashing Peter Jackson post!  This is a piece of forum history and must be saved.

[Smith Dr John Smith]

As for a LOTR "prequel" besides The Hobbit, Why? (To make more mucho moolah, of course.) As "unfilmable" as the trilogy had always been considered, The Silmarillion would 100 times more difficult, as there's virtually no through-line plot. At least LOTR had getting the Ring to Mount Doom for a central plot. Filming The Silmarillion would be like filming a European history textbook. I could maybe see The Hobbit as two films, though, especially if they were to spend a good chunk of time on Gandalf attending the White Council, which occurred entirely "off screen" in the book.

Obviously you couldn't possibly film the whole thing, but you could do a series of shorts- one where that guy cuts the gem from the crown of Mr. Pre-Sauron, and suchlike. Although I don't recall anything else with much of a plot besides that story, and it's pretty much the same plot as Lord of the Rings.

Well, your faulty memory not withstanding...

The Silmarillion takes place over a 600 year period (not including the eons that happened before the sun and moon were "created".)

TLOTR happenend over a 2 year period, and included a 30 second "prologue" for the previous 3000 years, and another 5 minute "act" for the Smeagol/Deagol story, and another 30 second scene for "The Hobbit."

The Silmarillion is many "short stories' cobbled together by Tolkien's son after his death.

You while it would not work as a film I could see it working as a Tv series running for two or three seasons.

[MontyServo]

Why are you responding to a five year old post?

[Smith Dr John Smith]

Well because I only just saw it and the Issac part makes this a piece of forum history.

[torgosPizza]

Well because I only just saw it and the Issac part makes this a piece of forum history.

Not really. There are examples of him bashing Jackson's LOTR films all over the place. No need to resurrect dead threads.