Moi Dix Mois on 23/11/2006 at 12:25
Yeah it is a history, but there are lots of little(ish) stories that could make a passable film on their own. Beren and Luthien being the one that springs to mind immediately, it seems epic enough.
The part about Turin Turambar (the cursed guy with the black sword) might also work on its own.
If it's not the Silmarillion, and they already plan The Hobbit as a seperate film I can't even begin to imagine what kind of prequel they're thinking of making. Unless they come up with their own story for it.
:erm:
Paz on 23/11/2006 at 12:30
Isn't it possible that they just screwed up the reporting there, and that "The Hobbit" and "The LOTR 'prequel'" are the same thing in the minds of the studio - but mentioned twice in that piece, because someone thought they were separate?
(Pre-emptive nerd fending: I know The Hobbit isn't really a prequel, but you know how these things are)
Chimpy Chompy on 23/11/2006 at 12:41
From what I've heard, there are indeed two films planned - the Hobbit, and another bridging the gap between that and the events of Fellowship.
R Soul on 23/11/2006 at 12:41
When someone says "an officer and a gentleman" nobody ever thinks they're talking about two people.
Moi Dix Mois on 23/11/2006 at 13:00
Quote Posted by Jackson
However last week, Mark Ordesky called Ken and told him that New Line would no longer be requiring our services on the Hobbit and the LOTR 'prequel'. This was a courtesy call to let us know that the studio was now actively looking to hire another filmmaker for both projects.
Seems pretty clear cut that they mean two seperate films.
A film set between The Hobbit and Fellowship? I wonder what angle they'd be going for?
edit - (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit#Film) Wikipedia says it'll focus on the White Council.
Paz on 23/11/2006 at 13:45
Ahh, that does seem quite clear-cut then.
Perhaps they're planning The Incredible Adventures of Tom Bombadil and His Amazingly Tedious Subplot?
[edit] An excellent use of page 4, I'm sure you'll agree
PigLick on 23/11/2006 at 14:50
I would rather have seen you on page 3
Aerothorn on 23/11/2006 at 17:32
Bored of the Rings FTW - sorta. I'd hate for it to go mainstream and have the 'updated' references just be stupid - it's place in the 60s/70s culture is part of the fun.
The Hobbit...well, zzz. I mean, I loved the book when I was younger, but why does it need to be a movie? It's not a difficult read and it's short - just go read the damn book. And $150-$200? You could make 21,429 -28,571 Primers for that cost. Insane.
Cruster on 28/11/2006 at 07:50
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
The Hobbit...well, zzz. I mean, I loved the book when I was younger, but why does it need to be a movie? for that cost. Insane.
Why does any book "need" to be made into a movie. If you loved the book as a child, why shouldn't it be made into a film for todays children to enjoy? Also Tom Bombadil and the Old Forest were some of the best parts of the LOTR books, all you people who didn't like them should stick to the newest Tom Clancy
:nono:
Briareos H on 28/11/2006 at 09:03
What does that 'todays children' mean ? Movies and books are completely different media. Although both allow you to decorporate and discover new worlds, the usual reason for making movies out of books is to transform an active imaginative process into a passive visually appealing recreation (unlike thought-provoking movies).
Today no more than 20 years ago, the pleasure that a child will get from seeing a movie is nothing similar to the experience of the book and most movies are a pathetic excuse for people afraid of books - in terms of thinking content.
So no, every book doesn't need a movie for 'todays children'. The said book needs to be better marketed to the children.
