It is Bound to Happen

[Fatty]

Well Peter Jackson wants to direct it, New Line Cinema want to fund it....just those pesky rigths issues with distribution to sort out.

We have stuck up a poll on the main http://www.warofthering.net/
let us know your initial thoughts.

[Grima Wormtongue]

i wanna knwo why everyones calling it the prequel to lord of the rings. ok, yeah,the movie would be, but the book was before lord of the rings, lord of the rings is the sequel to the hobbit so why is everyone saying "a movie based on the book the hobbit,t he prequel to lord of the rings" i dunno, maybe im mistaken but it shouldnt be called a prequel

[Legolas]

Why are they making another? They already made a "The Hobbit " movie. You can find it at blockbuster... most likely. It's called "The Hobbit" and it's a cartoon... ohhhhh... maybe it's because it's a cartoon, and they want a live one... i dunno... maybe!

Legolas

[BwMaster]

Maybe because he already has evereything he needs and I don't think anyone else will be willing to go through where he went to acheive it.

It would also be something to look forward to, people will want to see more ...

[Lady Melanie]

I would rather that the hobbit would be made into a mini-series. Ok, it wouldn't have as much coverage as a movie would but a movie would only be about 2 hours and I think that a lot of detail would be left out.

[Faramir]

It could be 3 hours like the theatrical versions of LOTR, and not leave anything out, because it is a much shorter and simpler story.

The problem with mini-series (being on television, i assume) is just that they always suck with effects and action. Smaug would just look terrible.

[Fëalossë]

If they do make the movie, I hope they make it slightly different than their version of LotR. The Hobbit was a book written for children, so if they do the same kind of filming for this movie children might find it a bit scary. If any of you didn't think that LotR wasn't scary, let's just say this... my own mother had to close her eyes for a great deal of it. Maybe she's just a bit skittish, but I hope they make it less scary, because a children's book should be a children's movie.

On the other hand, maybe kids nowadays are just really desensitized and it won't make a difference.

On a more personal note, I'd rather see a movie that never even attempts to scare me for once. It's getting a bit old, don't you think?

[Black Rider]

oh yeah, great thread idea. i hope it happens. i was in a play of the hobbit once. i was an elf of rivendell and i had to do a little elf dance, which was really corny but it was still fun... anyways... the movie... i hope it happens.

[Miriel Baggins]

i wanna knwo why everyones calling it the prequel to lord of the rings. ok, yeah,the movie would be, but the book was before lord of the rings, lord of the rings is the sequel to the hobbit so why is everyone saying "a movie based on the book the hobbit,t he prequel to lord of the rings" i dunno, maybe im mistaken but it shouldnt be called a prequel Umm, because it is a prequel.

Good point, Fëalossë, I completely agree. I can't imagine that they would try to make it a scary movie. That would be a little bit forced, I would think. :) It's such a happy, lovely little children's book, after all. It would be really fun to have that movie from Pete, but it could be a serious failure from New Line's point of view. It seems almost like they should've just made it to stick on the RotK EE, but then, I suppose it'd be too long . . . . I dunno. Anyways, I hope they do make it -- wouldn't that be great?! :grin:

[Finglas]

there is also a cartoon version of lord of the rings, by the same creator of the hobbit.

[Faramir]

Originally posted by Finglas
there is also a cartoon version of lord of the rings, by the same creator of the hobbit.

Actually, they're different. Rankin/Bass did The Hobbit and Return of the King. Bakshi did the animated lord of the rings (fellowship and part of the two towers)

[Fëalossë]

I think there's opportunity for them to make it a somewhat scary movie. After all, most of the movie is about the dragon, Smaug. I didn't expect LotR to be as "scary" as it was. I don't mean that it scared me (except for the part where Bilbo saw the ring in Rivendell! :elfeek: ) but it could have been a little more mellow. For example, in the book, when Galadriel had her "episode" at the sight of the ring, Sam still said that she should take the ring afterwards, so it couldn't have been as creepy as it was in the movie. There was lots of little things like that in LotR, and I think they'll probably do the same thing to the Hobbit. But let's hope not.

[Grima Wormtongue]

Originally posted by Miriel Baggins
Umm, because it is a prequel.
:

how so?

opk, yeah, i guess in movie terms, the movie itself would be a prequel, but since the book WAS written before LOTR it isnt really a prequel, prelude, yes, prequel, no.

a prequel is something written after the fact to explain more back story or a previous work(i.e. star wars episodes 1-3) so since the hobbit was written before LOTR in definition its not really a prequel.

[Mirkgirl]

You have a point there... but for the people who just watch the movies without reading Tolkien's books it is a prequel. Plus now when they film the hobbit they have to consider LotR as it was there first. And it just kind of stuck to the book as well... most people don't even think about the real meaning of prequel.

I can't see what was that scary in LotR... but I was allowed (or rather no one thought of banning 'em) to watch horrors since forever

Originally posted by Miriel Baggins
Good point, Fëalossë, I completely agree. I can't imagine that they would try to make it a scary movie. That would be a little bit forced, I would think. :) It's such a happy, lovely little children's book, after all. It would be really fun to have that movie from Pete, but it could be a serious failure from New Line's point of view. It seems almost like they should've just made it to stick on the RotK EE, but then, I suppose it'd be too long . . . . I dunno. Anyways, I hope they do make it -- wouldn't that be great?! :grin:
I completely disagree.
First going from far when was the last time you read a fairytale where no one got killed eaten baked or cut open? Or watched a cartoon where the main characters don't explode or become flat every 10 seconds?
Second in this very book. I'd like you to look at the topic in the Hobbit forum in the Library named "Bats" where Gil(I think?) says it very well that the bats were there to scare the readers. Also we have talking spiders which pinch the long noses of the dwarves. And a dragon eating the ponies. And the eyes in the wood and the good but yet scary as hell Beorn. You have the main dwarf and his two lovable young cousins dying in the end... hell it's scarier and darker than LotR and it should stay this way. Because it's its charm and because no one ever thought of the hunter in Red Riding Hood making clisma of the big bad wolf cause cutting him open would be too cruel.

[Black Rider]

hate to burst everyone's bubble, but when in doubt, go to dictionary.com...

pre·quel ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prkwl)
n.
A literary, dramatic, or cinematic work whose narrative takes place before that of a preexisting work or a sequel.

however....

se·quel ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skwl)
n.
Something that follows; a continuation.
A literary, dramatic, or cinematic work whose narrative continues that of a preexisting work.

so lotr is the sequel to the hobbit, and the hobbit is the prequel to lotr. it's all good...

as for scariness, i hope that it turns out pg, not g because a little fear is ok, especially if it's what they wrote, but just don't go overboard, like how pj likes blood and gore. it would be wise fo him to leave that out.

[Mirkgirl]

And ofcourse Merriam-Webster says the same yet not quite: Main Entry: pre·quel
Pronunciation: 'prE-kw&l
Function: noun
Etymology: pre- + -quel (as in sequel)
Date: 1972
: a literary or dramatic work whose story precedes that of an earlier work

[Grima Wormtongue]

so yeah, as i said the movie it self is a prequel, its a continuation of a pre-existing stoy whos narrative takes place before said story.

but the book wouldnt be, it was written befoire LOTR, thus isnt a continuation of LOTR it was done before and thats it. LOTR is a continuation of the hobbit. so yes, the movie is most definately a prequel, but the book, IMO, is not. so they should stop saying the movie is based on "the prequel to LOTR"

[Aerandir]

on scariness....

its gonna have to be at least somewhat scary...smaug, beorn, the whole episode with the goblins of the misty mountains...not overly scary but has to be scary....

and, on the book the hobbit, front cover of the one I have

"The enchanting prelude to the Lord of the Rings" so its not a prequel its a prelude, lol, its setting up LotR although when Tolkien wrote it, he really wasnt planning on it


-Aerandir

[Legolas]

for one... they already made a movie of the hobbit... and for two... lotr came after the hobbit.

[Orkybash]

Originally posted by Legolas
Why are they making another? They already made a "The Hobbit " movie. You can find it at blockbuster... most likely. It's called "The Hobbit" and it's a cartoon... ohhhhh... maybe it's because it's a cartoon, and they want a live one... i dunno... maybe!

Legolas

Maybe because the cartoon version of The Hobbit... (wonders how to say this gracefully...) didn't exactly hit the mark, IMO.

[Miriel Baggins]

About the whole "prequel" thing. Moviewise, The Hobbit will be a prequel. It's gonna come after LR. That's all I meant. Bookwise, The Hobbit comes first, obviously. And, maybe some would call it a prequel, but that doesn't seem to fit the def. Like Aerandir said, it's a prelude. But not the movie.

And, um, on scariness:

First going from far when was the last time you read a fairytale where no one got killed eaten baked or cut open? Or watched a cartoon where the main characters don't explode or become flat every 10 seconds?
Second in this very book. I'd like you to look at the topic in the Hobbit forum in the Library named "Bats" where Gil(I think?) says it very well that the bats were there to scare the readers. Also we have talking spiders which pinch the long noses of the dwarves. And a dragon eating the ponies. And the eyes in the wood and the good but yet scary as hell Beorn. You have the main dwarf and his two lovable young cousins dying in the end... hell it's scarier and darker than LotR and it should stay this way. Because it's its charm and because no one ever thought of the hunter in Red Riding Hood making clisma of the big bad wolf cause cutting him open would be too cruel. Obviously. But, honestly, can you really say that The Hobbit scared you? Were you honestly freaking out while you read it? I mean, sure, it kept you on the edge sometimes, but the whole atmosphere was light and funny. In a movie, if they try to make the "scary" parts ultra-scary, the entire feel of the movie is going to be dark and creepy. Not like The Hobbit at all. It's a children's book, okay? Despite the cutting-opens and the deaths :p, it remains an overall happy book. The dark parts are spoken of fairly lightly. And, Mirkgirl, it's definitely not as heavy as LR.

[Fëalossë]

Originally posted by Mirkgirl
First going from far when was the last time you read a fairytale where no one got killed eaten baked or cut open? Or watched a cartoon where the main characters don't explode or become flat every 10 seconds?

True, but I'd like to see one. Kids are going to expect this to be a kid's movie. I'd rather not see yet another generation of children completely desensitized to violence. But, then, I suppose there's no stopping it.

[Mirkgirl]

You mean you are desensitized to violence then? Kids have to learn both and they have to make the choice themselves. Eventually they will have to anyway.

Miriel, I don't know if I'm the right person to ask about "The Hobbit" and the feelings it invoked... I read it years after I read LotR and even after Silm. And I have to say that the atmosphere near the end is not quite cheerful. As to scary I think they'll keep the humour motiv in the movie, that's what makes it not scary. Otherwise all those spiders are no less scary than Shelob Herself for example.

[Miriel Baggins]

That's a good example: Shelob and the giant spiders in The Hobbit. See, with Shelob, it was all poison and evil and darkness and death; with the ones in The Hobbit, it could have been, but it wasn't. Even that potentially dark place was lightened by Bilbo's little 'Attercop!' song and his silliness. That's how most of the "scary" things in The Hobbit were. That's all I mean.

And, Fëalossë, I agree with you. This generation of kids has been thoroughly desensitized to violence (it's happening to me, too -- imagine! ;) ). Actually, not just violence. Basically, we're being desensitized to all kinds of immorality. But, as Mirkgirl said: it's basically in our hands now. :elfeek: Scary thought, huh? lol But, anyways, now that I'm done preaching :p. . . I think The Hobbit will be a splendid movie, if they do end up making it. They know what they're doing, after all.

[Fëalossë]

Originally posted by Mirkgirl
You mean you are desensitized to violence then?

Naturally.:grin:

Just kidding. But I think that Miriel is right, they know what they're doing. I think it will be a splendid movie too.

But I didn't understand what you meant by kids choosing for themselves. Did you mean that they should choose between voilence and non-violence? Why should violence be a choice in the first place?

[Mirkgirl]

Originally posted by Miriel Baggins
That's a good example: Shelob and the giant spiders in The Hobbit. See, with Shelob, it was all poison and evil and darkness and death; with the ones in The Hobbit, it could have been, but it wasn't. Even that potentially dark place was lightened by Bilbo's little 'Attercop!' song and his silliness. That's how most of the "scary" things in The Hobbit were. That's all I mean. Well yeah I'm sure they'll keep that... but just before that we have some scary descriptions of eyes, noises and other scary stuff... I want to see/feel that too:
There were queer noises too, grunts, scufflings, and hurryings in the undergrowth, and among the leaves that lay piled endlessly thick in places on the forest-floor; but what made the noises he could not see. The nastiest things they saw were the cobwebs: dark dense cobwebs with threads extraordinarily thick, often stretched from tree to tree, or tangled in the lower branches on either side of them. There were none stretched across the path, but whether because some magic kept it clear, or for what other reason they could not guess.
It was not long before they grew to hate the forest as heartily as they had hated the tunnels of the goblins, and it seemed to offer even less hope of any ending. .... Even the dwarves felt it, who were used to tunnelling, and lived at times for long whiles without the light of the sun; but the hobbit, who liked holes to make a house in but not to spend summer days in, felt he was being slowly suffocated.
The nights were the worst. It then became pitch-dark - not what you call pitch-dark, but really pitch; so black that you really could see nothing. Bilbo tried flapping his hand in front of his nose, but he could not see it at all. Well, perhaps it is not true to say that they could see nothing: they could see eyes. They slept all closely huddled together, and took it in turns to watch; and when it was Bilbo's turn he would see gleams in the darkness round them, and sometimes pairs of yellow or red or green eyes would stare at him from a little distance, and then slowly fade and disappear and slowly shine out again in another place. And sometimes they would gleam down from the branches just above him; and that was most terrifying. But the eyes that he liked the least were horrible pale bulbous sort of eyes. "Insect eyes" he thought, "not animal eyes, only they are much too big."
Although it was not yet very cold, they tried lighting watch-fires at night, but they soon gave that up. It seemed to bring hundreds and hundreds of eyes all round them, though the creatures, whatever they were, were careful never to let their bodies show in the little flicker of the flames. Worse still it brought thousands of dark-grey and black moths, some nearly as big as your hand, flapping and whirring round their ears. They could not stand that, nor the huge bats, black as a top-hat, either; so they gave up fires and sat at night and dozed in the enormous uncanny darkness.
Originally posted by Fëalossë
But I didn't understand what you meant by kids choosing for themselves. Did you mean that they should choose between voilence and non-violence? Why should violence be a choice in the first place? Because if it's not a choice then it's the forbidden apple and there are lots of snakes around.

But then again I have always had too much faith in free choice while most people just like to slide on the drift...

[Pil]

But surely the hobbit can't be a prequel to lotr then cos lotr was pre-existing when it was published....the only thing that can be sed is that lotr is a sequel to the hobbit???? *confuzzled* lol

I really do hope the hobbit is made :)

[Harlow]

Originally posted by Legolas
Why are they making another? They already made a "The Hobbit " movie. You can find it at blockbuster... most likely. It's called "The Hobbit" and it's a cartoon...

Legolas

i have to agree with Orkybash.... the Cartoon Hobbit did not cut it at all... it was too short the elves looked like shriveled raisins and the music was absolutly rediculous... on a personal note that version creeps me out!!

[Faramir]

Did anybody else notice the French accent on the wood elves?

[Harlow]

no, but now i'm going to lol

[Fëalossë]

I'll tell you why they're making the movie... to make money!!

After all, you'll watch it, won't you?

[Miriel Baggins]

lol Good point, Fëalossë. And then, too, there was already a LR movie, but they made another. (Thanks goodness!) I've never seen either of the animated movies, and I'm not exactly interested. :p *French accents!* :elfeek:

[Fëalossë]

I saw about two minutes of one of the animated Lord of the Rings. Then I shut it off. lol It was rather horrible!

[legolastheawesome]

lol I have never seen the animated versions. My friend told me she saw it when she was five, and it scared her. She was refusing to go see Fellowship with me, but she got in there, and became quickly addicted. lol lol

I have not read the Hobbit :blush:

I know, a big no no. lol lol. I have to slake through it though. My sister read it and loved it, and she will drag me to the theaters to go see it, if it comes out....Although, I strongly believe it will happen.

[Pearl Took]

Oooh, I watched the animated version too. Purely horribly incredibly terrible. I wanted to cry. lol

[Astaroth]

roflmao wow.... lot of things to say

1. Hobbit movie: Well do it under PJ direction! nice job on LORT
2. Sequel, prequel??: whatever, all I know is that hobbit was writen before LORT, and the hobbit sets a base for LORT like characters, histories and things like that.
3. Children movie? NOOOO WAY I don't wanna see a Harry Potter type Hobbit movie it woudl be nasty!
4. Starwars. some one said ep 1-3 was writen after ep 4-6. For what I know... the whole history was written as one. The reason why GL decided to published ep 4-6 first was cuz special effects stuff, and some important things would be already revealed.
5. Violence. Sadly this is a violent world, in the streets, TV, video games, etc, etc. But I think the parents rol is to make the kids know whats right and whats wrong.

[Black Rider]

if they make it into a children's movie and make it all fluffy and stuff i will be really angry. sure it's a book for children but if you put it exactly like it is onto the big screen it is not that children-ish anymore. so they should not water it down.

[Shire Girl]

According to an article Ive just read in the Mail on Sunday newspaper, it says "Peter Jackson is desperate to complete his cinematic masterpiece with one final film based on JRR Tolkein's first book. But legalities over the film and distribution rights are threatening to derail the project. Sir Ian McKellen has revealed that Mr Jackson is trying to obtain the film rights. He said: 'Peter wants to do it and if he dosen't ask me I'll be very upset'. Mr Jackson said: 'I'd be interested in doing it because it would give continuity to the overall chapter.'"

[HobbitFriend]

I would be so excited if PJ turned The Hobbit into a movie! With the whole violence issue, someone mentioned the violence in the book before, and it's true... even though it is considered a children's book, there is a lot of violence in The Hobbit, so for PJ not to at least stay true to how the book describes the more violent scenes, the movie would look fake and lose some of its quality, i think.
I like LotR, even with the violent or more scary parts, because that's the way it was in the book. I mean, i hear a lot of people saying how scary Shelob was and many people said they even closed their eyes when she came on, but just imagine how lame that segment would be if PJ didn't make Shelob that life-like and scary?

Also... Ian McKellen as Gandalf... no one would be more perfect!! I think we'd be as upset as Sir Ian if PJ didn't ask him back, but i'm sure he will, since he did such a wonderful job as Gandalf in LotR :)

(and a last note: The Hobbit is definately a prequel to LotR... whether it be book or movie... this is becaue the events occuring in The Hobbit take place before the events in LotR... as was shown by the Google search on the front page -- i personally go with dictionary.com ;) )

[vanya mornie]

Originally posted by Fëalossë
I'll tell you why they're making the movie... to make money!!

After all, you'll watch it, won't you?

absolutly;)

after the amount made from lord of the rings who would pass up making the hobbit? it will clearly make a fortune!

and why ask? dont look a gift horse in the mouth [it may have bad breath] if they're making it, fantastic!roflmao

looking forward to it.
and it will be nice to have the hobbit made with the same gollum/bilbo/gandalf as in the lord of the rings movie that we all love so much.
who cares if there is already a movie of the hobbit?
most good, timeless movies are made heaps of times.
don't you wan't to be able to watch 'the hobbit' and go strait to watching 'lotr' and have the sceanery, acter/charicter, quality of effects and style of music match up? so you can believe it is one story [or the history of one world]
i personaly cannot wait!:thumbs:

[vanya mornie]

on scaryness:
the hobbit is very different to lotr. it isn't scary, but also the elves, who are so serious and wise in lotr, are silly in the hobbit [don't mean that in a bad way;) ] and everyone sings silly songs, and does silly things to break the tention of the scary bits.
whoever makes the hobbit will have to make a decision between staying true to the book or really making a prequal to the lotr movies that is set in the same serious and scary type of world/style. [by prequal i mean another lotr movie with the hobbit storyline, as oposed to a movie in in its own right]
hard choice - which audience to apeal to? kids [who beg their parents for money] or teenages and adults [who have their own money]
don't get me wrong. adults and teens would see it even if it was aimed at kids [i know i would] but try and see it from a film makers point of view.:cool:

who knows? just smile, be happy and lets weight and see what happens :thumbs: