digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

The Hobbit Greenlit with Peter Jackson

theonering.net — Peter Jackson and NewLine have made up, and The Hobbit is moving forward.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • hjartad, on 12/18/2007, -4/+312This news just made my day.
    • spaceman255, on 12/18/2007, -19/+6That is the same thing i said to my self when i read it.
      • chris4404, on 12/18/2007, -2/+31Great, then hit the green thumb and save us all some time.
        • RpgActioN, on 12/18/2007, -10/+1How sassy, you cleverly sarcastic and thus oh-so-original commenter!
          • kris33, on 12/18/2007, -1/+5I hit the red thumb on your comment. Would have saved me some time, but I commented anyway.
          • Godlike, on 12/19/2007, -1/+5It would save you all some time to stop being the drama queens of Digg and move on with your lives.
    • RetroRufio, on 12/18/2007, -19/+10I agree that it's great news, but I'd really love to hear that Halo is back in production :(
      • Elranzer, on 12/18/2007, -3/+6Jackson was only set to produce Halo, not direct. That doesn't make it a Peter Jackson movie. That means he's just whoring his name on it to make it sell.
        • Abomonog, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1Actually it means that he is controlling the production money.
      • KaiUno, on 12/18/2007, -6/+7Oh come off it. The Halo back story is pretty thin and pretty absurd. It might serve the shooter well, you are more or less permanently distracted from its shortcomings by the flashy lights and the constant action, but I for one wouldn't want to sit through 3 hours of video game cut scenes, thank you very much.

        That's probably why most videogame movies fail so miserably. They lack the game that's supposed to come with them.
        • ClarkNoHeart, on 12/18/2007, -3/+6Wrong. Halo has three games, three books, and a graphic novel all using it's "pretty thin and pretty absurd" back story. Halo has plenty of depth for a movie, if done right.
          • KaiUno, on 12/18/2007, -0/+8Have you ever counted the number of AD&D books? Did you like the movies? The number of crap produced for a particular intellectual property does not contribute to the overall quality of it.
        • Killwize, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1No, Video game movies don't do well because they always make the wrong ones... Doom... Seriously! WTF!

    • Chompy, on 12/18/2007, -1/+64I'd be happier if Jackson was directing instead of producing, but this is still great news.
      • groberts1980, on 12/18/2007, -0/+15I said the same thing, but he'll hand pick the director, use his own companies (Weta) to make the movie, and generally make sure its done right. He of all people knows what he has to live up to.
      • Daggity, on 12/18/2007, -4/+11"Coming fall of 2009: The Hobbit, directed by Uwe Boll."

        And thus the reign of Hollywood met its end.
        • TedTschopp, on 12/18/2007, -0/+6buried for offensive language.

          No one uses that language in polite company. No One!
        • markperia, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1No, no... don't even think it... That is not right... Take it back right now!
        • bosssmiley, on 12/19/2007, -1/+1The phrase "The Hobbit, a Michael Bay production" makes me whimper in fear.
          Colour me heretical, but why do we *need* a Hobbit movie. The Hobbit as a book is little more than a thematic draft of LOTR. Apart from Smaug I have a horrible feeling we've seen it all before, and better.
      • gudnbluts, on 12/18/2007, -4/+0I'm actually not sure he'd be right to direct the Hobbit. It's a much more lightweight and funny book, and is aimed firmly at children. He might be a bit heavy handed, and end up turning it into LOTR 4.
        • kooft, on 12/18/2007, -0/+8I think his success with LOTR was due to the amount of listening he did to the Tolkien community. No one wanted to see a glorified slash'em flick, instead they wanted something true to the book (as much as possible) and that's what he provided. There's no indication he'd cast aside the community's wishes for this movie and make something dark and ominous.
        • markwilcox, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1Definitely, kooft. Just look at all his films before LotR.
        • Abomonog, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1Actually The Hobbit is not aimed at children. It's lighter because because it's staged in a situation that Tolkien himself was in. That is living in a land that is in a hopeful state. LOTR is so dark because it was written in foxholes during WW2 and much of that war is reflected in the books. Everything in both The Hobbit and LOTR reflects events in Europe between 1919 and 1945 with the ring representing a treaty signed in 1919 that sets up a war in 1938. Read the books along side a history book and you will be suprised at how closely LOTR tracks a fantasy version of WW2.
      • TedTschopp, on 12/18/2007, -0/+4Most of what Jackson did on Rings was Producing it. With 7 different filming locations going at once, you have to count on the AD at each location to catch most of the issues.
        • musicbear, on 12/19/2007, -0/+2Yeah, just watch the commentaries on the extended editions, there are points when all the unit directors, producers and even his wife were shooting footage just to get it all done. He did direct the most important scenes though including one of the best being Frodo "dying" in Sam's arms on Mt Doom which was basically one take with two cameras. As long as he's involved in the way he was involved on LotR, it will be well worth checking out.
      • themastersb, on 12/19/2007, -1/+4Losing over 200 pounds in such a short time makes him look like a completely different person.
    • blackmage439, on 12/18/2007, -3/+6While I usually do not condone aLl CaPs shouts, I think I speak for everyone when I say

      YES!!!
    • deezp1, on 12/18/2007, -2/+12Now lets get this writers strike over so we can move forward with the script
    • Elranzer, on 12/18/2007, -19/+9This is bad news indeed. It just shows corporate greed on all levels...

      1. Peter Jackson to PRODUCE?? Produce !=direct. Of course, it's possible to direct AND produce, but for now it's ambiguous. For all we know, Joel Schumacher could be director.

      2. A Hobbit SEQUEL?? This could mean they're dividing the book into two films. Or could mean it's the Silmarillion in movie form. Maybe it's one of Chris Tolkein's horrible little stories. Finally, it could be a "new" story made up by the studios. In all cases... that's a BAD idea. Just one movie would be fine, but I guess two is better for the profits. Look for the second movie to ruin the series.

      3. MGM means Sony. Sony involvement is always a bad thing. Especially with sequels (see: Spider-Man 3). Look for this one to be Blu-Ray exclusive.

      I think Jackson and NewLine might have missed something. The Hobbit already HAS a sequel... Lord of the Rings.
      • eleven, on 12/18/2007, -0/+21The Silmarillion would not be much of a sequel considering that it mostly has to do with middle earth's distant past.
      • Chompy, on 12/18/2007, -0/+21"2. A Hobbit SEQUEL??"

        Hobbit 2: Hobbit Harder.
      • groberts1980, on 12/18/2007, -1/+3And why would Blu-Ray only be bad? I assume you're in the HD-DVD camp. Like there aren't enough great movies that are HD-DVD only. The only real option at this point is to buy one of each player.
        • Elranzer, on 12/19/2007, -0/+2No, I'd rather they were available in both formats. Give the consumers a choice you know.
          • Bootes, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1By the time this comes out, the war will be over.
      • Abomonog, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1How about the rise of the Witch King? If I remember right this involves the decimation of a Hobbit tribe but takes place some 200 years earlier.
    • Xcel, on 12/19/2007, -0/+5This is fantastic! The Hobbit was my favorite of out of LOTR series, even though it isn't considered a part of it, I still feel like it all starts with Bilbo. =)
    • blackeagle613, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1right there with you
    • Rich711, on 12/19/2007, -2/+2Speak for yourself... I just put on my last pair of clean pants.
  • mkriss5681, on 12/18/2007, -4/+29This is great news!! I'm glad that it seems like these movies will be handled right.
    • Hobbes24, on 12/18/2007, -2/+38...i'm all for the Hobbit...but a sequel?...that makes me sort of nervous
      • petebot, on 12/18/2007, -3/+27I think they're just splitting it into two parts. You know, to make twice the money...
        • jspegele, on 12/18/2007, -0/+5I don't think so, the article says "The Hobbit" and a sequal to "The Hobbit". I don't think they're splitting the book, but there's plenty of Tolkein material to base a sequal on. I doubt they'll pull a story out of thin air.
          • theodenking, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2Yes there is, but not a lot that would form a sequel to The Hobbit. AFAIK the only material on Bilbo's life and the interim between the Hobbit and LotR is the appendix to LotR and a short chapter in Unfinished Tales. Not very interesting either.

            So yeah, as a huge Tolkien fan I'm worried about that but I trust Jackson to do it right.
          • Fizban140, on 12/18/2007, -1/+2It is obviously splitting the book into two parts, which has to be done to follow the book without butchering it.
        • weareglass, on 12/18/2007, -0/+7I can imagine a possibility where they split it into two halves and just call it "The Hobbit" and "The Hobbit II" or whatever, thus making it a sequel. It does worry me though. Personally I'd welcome them including more material in the storyline, in the animated film they had to drop important things like Beorn and the Arkenstone, I wouldn't want those to go the way of Tom Bombadillo.
        • joaob, on 12/18/2007, -5/+3don't you guys have better things to worry about?
      • obrysii, on 12/19/2007, -0/+2Clearly the sequel will actually be The Adventures of Tom Bombadil.
    • Reaper2806, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1The eagles are coming!
  • warchant, on 12/18/2007, -5/+55i think i just wet myself
    • NCecil, on 12/18/2007, -3/+22... and not with urine...
    • banmaster, on 12/18/2007, -2/+12I think I just wet yourself too!
    • datagod, on 12/19/2007, -4/+3No, that is Smeagol drooling on you...he REALLY wants his precious I-phone back...
  • gmillerd, on 12/18/2007, -3/+15Agreed, awesome news.
  • masterood, on 12/18/2007, -2/+117About time - - but what does a "sequel to The Hobbit" mean?
    • nonymous666, on 12/18/2007, -0/+69AintItCoolNews said something like the second movie will be about what happened between the time of the The Hobbit and the Trilogy. Content and storyline take from copious notes that Tolkien left behind.
      • Battleloser, on 12/18/2007, -0/+13Would that be the wizards outing Sauron from that forest?
        • random19, on 12/18/2007, -0/+10That's really the only thing of consequence that happened between Hobbit and LotR. But that would make for a pretty pointless movie, IMO.

          They should do Children of Hurin instead. Or the tale of Beren and Luthien.
        • Crosshare, on 12/18/2007, -1/+13Wow, this is getting too geeky, even for the likes of me. :P
        • jspegele, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2I don't think any of that would sell in the mainstream. I think it'll be based on Tolkien's backstory of the hobbits and the shire.
        • theodenking, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1Actually that happened at the same time as the Hobbit, it's why Gandalf has to leave. I don't think they could stretch it to a film anyway. Nothing particularly interesting happened in that interim... just Sauron regaining his power slowly.
          The Children of Hurin would make an awesome set of films, it's easily as epic as LotR.
        • Skooma714, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1The forest is Mirkwood and the fortress is called Dol Guldur.

          Gandalf and the White Council discovered Sauron was the master of Dol Guldur after finding the dying Thrain II (Dwarf king) there. It was put under a Nazgul to rule, it was not conquered until Sauron himself was defeated.
      • cusoman, on 12/18/2007, -10/+3Wrong. They are splitting up the entire Hobbit story, the one we know and love, into two movies. Both will be filmed at the same time like the trilogy and there will be a year between releases. Hobbit part 1 in 2010, part 2 in 2011.
        • jspegele, on 12/18/2007, -1/+2cite?
        • cusoman, on 12/18/2007, -0/+6You know what, nevermind, I read too much into the article on E! Online I saw about it :)

          [citation needed]
    • zachshmack, on 12/18/2007, -2/+168It's just 60 years of Bilbo getting wasted and running around invisible.
    • LeeSoong, on 12/18/2007, -18/+5Get these @#%*@&%@ Hobbits off of my @!*&!@$ Plane !
    • Nanobe, on 12/18/2007, -4/+17It'll be a romantic comedy. Bilbo Baggins finds a new magic ring which enables him to time travel to the modern world where he falls in love with a cynical and ambitious girl named Kate McKay.
      • ErrorS, on 12/18/2007, -0/+6oooh! My niece would love that movie!
      • Alfonzo, on 12/19/2007, -0/+5. . . and then Bilbo and Gandalf accidentaly switch bodies - with hilarious consequences . . .
    • pat25fire, on 12/19/2007, -2/+2Money, it means money.
    • dobesov, on 12/19/2007, -0/+21The Hobbit: There and Back Again
      The Hobbit II: There and Back Again... Again
    • mashedpotatoes, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1It doesn't mean sequel in the normal terms. Basically they are going to film one giant movie and then split it in half and show the second half a year later with a different title. Most people don't want to sit in a theatre for 4+ hours (I would).
    • bubba9999, on 12/19/2007, -0/+2Tom Bombadil
  • DYMongoose, on 12/18/2007, -4/+11Woohoo! Sequel huh? Maybe they're splitting the book into two parts? Dunno how you could do that though...
    • joncarr, on 12/18/2007, -10/+2From the article:

      PETER JACKSON AND FRAN WALSH TO EXECUTIVE PRODUCE TWO FILMS BASED ON “THE HOBBIT”
      • jspegele, on 12/18/2007, -0/+10Also FTA:

        "The two 'Hobbit' films – 'The Hobbit' and its sequel ". A two part movie is very different than a movie and its sequal.
        • groberts1980, on 12/18/2007, -0/+3I'm guessing they're splitting The Hobbit into two movies. Calling it a sequel is probably a mistake in the wording of the article. History shows you have to cut so much material out to adapt a book into a movie. Adapting a book into two movies gives you 4-6 hours of film instead of 2-3 hours to tell the story.
      • cybrguy, on 12/18/2007, -0/+3A two part movie CAN be very different than a movie and its sequal. I'm expecting it to be a lot like the LOTR series. I just hope they keep the movies long and engrossing, and then add 30 minutes of extra footage for the DVD release for both of them. Couple that with some neat behind the scenes footage like before. and it will bring in 1.5-2 billion dollars.
  • navghtivs, on 12/18/2007, -23/+10Though I love LOTR movies, I will prepare for disappointment this time, since these milking movies usually do not live up to expectation.
    • brendoman, on 12/18/2007, -0/+31I honestly don't think this is a "milking movie". The book stands up on its own and I think the movies will too. Add to that Peter Jackson's experience filming the LOTR movies and I think it's going to be really great. And Weta doing Smaug is going to be gorgeous.
      • Elranzer, on 12/18/2007, -2/+6Jackson is producing, not directing. That means he's not filming. For all we know, it could be McG directing.
      • nonymous666, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2The director is "yet to be named". Jackson could end up directing, too; deal just maybe isn't done yet.
        • Abomonog, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1There was an article earlier that said the director was to be the guy who directed "Pan's Labyrinth".
    • nonymous666, on 12/18/2007, -0/+20They'd be milking it if they came out with a Middle Earth movie based on nothing more that a screenwriter's made up script. This is being work that Tolkien published or left behind just as the triliogy was.
      • Jektal, on 12/18/2007, -1/+2That "Sequel to the Hobbit" wording makes me think that movie #2 is going to be very very very loosely based on something Tolkien once jotted down on a napkin.
        • nonymous666, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1For what it's worth (or not), I heard AintItCoolNews is reporting that the second movie will be about the time between the Hobbit and the trilogy and is based on copious notes that Tolkien left behind. I'm not sure of the details as I haven't gone to the aicn site to see what's been said.
    • mwalker05, on 12/18/2007, -2/+5are you forgetting who peter jackson is?
      • dnields, on 12/18/2007, -3/+2No, but I think Peter Jackson forgot who Peter Jackson is. What happened to the classics like "Bad Taste" or "Dead Alive"? Make some movies like you used to, Pete.
      • Funpolice2050, on 12/19/2007, -0/+0He is Mrs. Jackson's husband.
    • peterkatheter, on 12/19/2007, -1/+1i have to give it to navghtivs, though the lord of the rings movies were pretty good it is still a milking business.
      they left out a lot of details that especially made tolkien's books what they are. sometimes it is just better not to make movies based on great books...
      • bagboyrebel, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1Here's the thing, no matter what the movie is like the book will still be just as good. So even if you don't like the movie others still might and you can just forget about it.
  • chuckDontSurf, on 12/18/2007, -1/+258Nothing like a box-office flop (Golden Compass) to remind New Line where their bread is buttered.
    • praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -19/+8People everywhere are masturbating on my bread and butter, and it's delicious.
      • thatcrazycommie, on 12/18/2007, -1/+6Is that from the "it's insane this guy's taint" sketch on Mr. Show? Damn, way to whip that one out.
    • wtfpwned98, on 12/18/2007, -0/+8http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2229273,0 ...
      • MrMacMan, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1The Budget for Golden Compass was something like $150Million... its in the red big time right now.
        • accn112, on 12/18/2007, -0/+4Well most "BIG TIME" movies are in the red if you don't add merchandising/dvd sales/etc.
      • Arcesius, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2Yeah, I like that movie. I'm glad it's doing better elsewhere than it is in the US.
      • fisherdr, on 12/19/2007, -3/+1Am I the crazy one because I thought Golden Compass looked like the same cookie-cutter movie that we've seen a hundred times before?
        Special artifact + Chosen one (a child) = Saving a Fantasy Realm.
        • bagboyrebel, on 12/19/2007, -0/+3well if you simplify a plot that much them you'll find that a lot of books and movies are the same. What makes the story good isn't the basic plot but the direction th author takes the plot. Under your definition The Golden Compass and Lord of the Rings are just cookie cutte stories, but I don't think that anyone would consider them to be the same story.
          • fisherdr, on 12/19/2007, -0/+0Actually it seemed to me that Golden Compass was a cookie cutter of LOTR. I couldn't call LOTR a cookie cutter story, because it had been around for a very long time as a book before it became a movie.
            It's probably a personal preference that I've burned out on fantasy-realm movies.
  • ytsohptwhere, on 12/18/2007, -4/+10Yes Christmas come early!
    • MillionsLivio, on 12/18/2007, -0/+14No, Festivus came early.
      • muniak, on 12/19/2007, -2/+2No, your dad came early.
        • zizzy, on 12/19/2007, -2/+1And that's how you were born. Pulling out is not an effective form of birth control.
  • Muligan21, on 12/18/2007, -4/+1I was curious about the sequel as well.. The only thing I can think of would be that New Line / MGM are trying protect themselves just in case the Hobbit will take two movies to cover and/or they foresee The Silmarillion coming into play as another movie. I'm not sure but I would bet it's merely to protect themselves and leave the opportunity for further negotiations.
    • Battleloser, on 12/18/2007, -0/+7I don't think there's a big enough mid-book climax to justify cutting it into two movies.
      • weareglass, on 12/18/2007, -0/+4How about escaping from the goblins with the ring?
      • csl5049, on 12/18/2007, -0/+3The shenanigans with the elves in mirkood could be a movie on its own.
      • kooft, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1I think they're thinking about filling in some of the 50-60 years between The Hobbit and LOTR.
      • lacronicus, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1Keep in mind that the battle of helms deep bore little significance to the second book, whereas that was what the second movie really centered around. Those filmmakers know what they're doing with a story, and can get a lot out of a little bit.
    • gmillerd, on 12/18/2007, -2/+1The guys that did ren and stimpy were involved in some short stories series for the simarillion
    • pajamamoose, on 12/18/2007, -0/+3According to the article, the second movie would be a sequel to the Hobbit, not a prequel, which would exclude the Silmarillion which is essentially the creation story of middle earth. Got to say I'm glad - loved the other books but couldn't even finish the Silmarillion.
      • kooft, on 12/18/2007, -0/+4The Silmarillion was a great book. It's not something you read from front to back but it has some impressive stories in it. Some of these stories could themselves be turned into movies, but as they predate The Hobbit, they wouldn't fit in a sequel.
    • morninglorii, on 12/19/2007, -1/+4A movie about the Silmarillion would be worse to watch than a movie about the answers section of my calculus textbook.
      • bpeacock22, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1I agree. It will be extremely difficult to translate to the screen and hold an audience's attention. It took me two times to just start to grasp the detailed story of the Elves in the First Age. For the dedicated Tolkien fan only.
  • rorymenteer, on 12/18/2007, -5/+0***** yes. was just wondering last night if this project was ever going to move forward.
  • BagginsBoy, on 12/18/2007, -16/+14I've been waiting for this for years!
    I was the loser who walked around school quoting Gandalf all day long!
    • donte, on 12/18/2007, -1/+43Somehow we already knew this, BagginsBoy
    • MillionsLivio, on 12/18/2007, -0/+14The one that got his ass kicked and no one liked? Ah, I remember you.
    • mandarin, on 12/18/2007, -1/+6How many years were you in school?
      • DangerMouse9, on 12/18/2007, -0/+223. He liked it so much he never left. He was the only 9th grader old enough to legally drink, but chose not to because it would affect his D&D "skills."
    • shaka999, on 12/18/2007, -6/+1Your last name is Colbert is it?
    • Nick519, on 12/18/2007, -2/+4don't let the bastards get ya down, bagginsboy. i quoted gandalf all the time, too. still do, in fact.
  • MaximusD, on 12/18/2007, -6/+1Peter Jackson will make sure these two movies rock -- they will probably split the book into two movies, that way less awesomeness ends up on the cutting room floor. Smog better be ridiculously awesome -- I'm seeing this in IMAX.
  • davdev, on 12/18/2007, -13/+5I just shot a load in my pants.
    • imightbewrong, on 12/18/2007, -1/+10thats disgusting
    • deezp1, on 12/18/2007, -0/+4and with a comment like that, assures you virgintiy for life
      • davdev, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1um, yeah, as I am sure you are an expert on the subject
    • DangerMouse9, on 12/18/2007, -1/+0I just shot a load into your mom.
  • Maxamegalon2000, on 12/18/2007, -0/+25According to AintItCoolNews, "The second project is believed to be a bridge between THE HOBBIT and THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy - culled from the titanic amount of periphery/ancillary/notated material found in Tolkien's works. Such material can already be seen in the exiting films."
    http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35108
    • TedTschopp, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1It would be doubtful as the only material that is fair game right now for movies is that info that is found in LotR and the Hobbit books. All other notes and books are strictly off limits.

      My guess is that the movie will split down the middle of the misty mountains. Movie one ends with them escaping the goblins in Moria.
  • chrismgtis, on 12/18/2007, -10/+5Well, it's nice to hear that New Line admitted that only Peter Jackson could bring this film to light and decided to go ahead with it. I'm interested in seeing what he does with The Hobbit. Personally, all of the drawings, cartoons and renderings of different sorts of Tolkein's masterpeice just never did the story justice and weren't that close to what I saw the books to be in my own mind. Peter Jackson hit the nail on the head perfectly and drove it home. I'm getting a nice hard back copy of The Hobbit for Christmas. I haven't read anything in years since I read LOTR and the Vampire Chronicles by Anne Rice. I would like to read The Hobbit again. The last time I read it was in junior high I think, about 11 or 12 years ago.
    • TheHydrogens, on 12/18/2007, -1/+12Sweet mother of *****! What in the world made you think anybody gives a *****?!?
    • doomeyes, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1So far Jackson hasn't been named the director of The Hobbit. If he ends up directing it, then you can get more excited for the things you mentioned.
  • galactus, on 12/18/2007, -1/+69But... will he DIRECT the film(s)? I didn't see anything about him getting behind the camera
    • Pandalume, on 12/18/2007, -0/+18According to CNN he will produce the films and they haven't found a director yet.
    • Elranzer, on 12/18/2007, -3/+8Hopefully yes. But since Sony (MGM) is involved, they'll probably hire a hack like Bryan Singer or even worse, Sam Raimi.
    • lazydrumhead, on 12/18/2007, -1/+9dangit, if he's not directing, I almost feel as though my excitement was in vain.
    • drizzlelicious, on 12/18/2007, -3/+7What's the point of not having Jackson direct?
    • groberts1980, on 12/18/2007, -0/+6He can always decide to direct as well if they don't find someone up to his standards. As exec producer, I'd assume he'll have final say on the director. That being said, he'll make sure its done right even if he doesn't direct.
    • Nick519, on 12/18/2007, -0/+6the LOTR films were a labor of love for peter jackson. he poured everything he had into them for YEARS -- does anyone believe for a second that, even if he DOESN'T direct, that he'd be able to stand idly by and watch another director jack up the worlds he created for the LOTR films? i can totally see him getting involved with the entire look and feel of every shot, whether or not his name is finally tied to the films as "director".
    • dn11, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1It doesn't say anywhere that it is out of the question - but I think New Line dragged their feet too long on this and now his schedule is full up. personally I wouldn't mind a different director under Peter's producing wing - he may well prove to be an even better producer than director - he obviously has epic organizational skills.
  • gothsquirrel, on 12/18/2007, -7/+2What two movies wtf is that all about. It's one book and the story is not nearly as long or complicated as the Ones in The Lord of the Rings Books. Now I have reservations about it.
    • eleven, on 12/18/2007, -1/+2No no, there is a clear split in the book right around when the eagles rescue them. They could easily cut it in two right there and have 2 climatic endings. It may not be a complicated book, but there is a lot of travel and they would be able to show us all more detail while slowing down the pace a bit too.
      • kooft, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1I'd prefer not to have the pace slowed down just to stretch the content into two movies. The Hobbit is a great book but I'd rather have a 3-hour Hobbit movie and a 3-hour' in-between' movie, rather than a 6-hour Hobbit movie.
    • SLockhart, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1Even an average size book like the hobbit needs to be condensed to fit into a 2 hour movie.
  • jchrome, on 12/18/2007, -0/+28That newline CEO sure is a jackass. Nice to see him eating crow for Xmas. Great news.
  • mdavis, on 12/18/2007, -0/+7This is the greatest news since The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Absolute perfection!
  • eleven, on 12/18/2007, -3/+10digg digg digg digg digg until your mouse button gives out.
  • maineman99, on 12/18/2007, -0/+28Hollywood will put aside personal differences when there's money to be made. Thanks to Golden Compass tanking, Bob Shaye realizes that Peter Jackson brings something to the table that is very special, and VERY PROFITABLE.
    • chrismgtis, on 12/18/2007, -0/+4Those guys must have enough cash to fund thirty films with all the money they made off LOTR.
      • TedTschopp, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1All the New Line money made from LotR is gone.
      • dn11, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1I'm sure that money all disappeared into cocaine, hookers, and bad movie production choices long ago.
  • gummih, on 12/18/2007, -1/+90In 2010, there will be proper Christmas again.
    • praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -0/+6Man...the year 2010 sounds like it should have flying cars and robot maids. Damnit, we better advance by then or else we won't do that year justice!
    • ticketmack, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1I am so there!

      ...in 2010.
    • mufasa, on 12/19/2007, -0/+2Haha i know, ever since i saw LoTR RoTK i felt that all the other movies i was looking forward to was somehow not as exciting longer.
  • spaceman77, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1Yeeeeeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaawwww!
    Peter Jackson is thee man for this production!
  • sindex, on 12/18/2007, -4/+5I have to change my pants.
    • DangerMouse9, on 12/18/2007, -2/+0You have no bladder control? My grandma has the same problem.
  • wingzman, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1Happy Days!
  • doomeyes, on 12/18/2007, -3/+8But apparently Jackson is not directing it. The director will make/break this movie. I hope he will end up directing it.
    • dn11, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1it doesn't say he won't direct it, but I think his schedule might be full up now because New Line dragged their feet too long
  • Tearlock, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1Hooray. I thought it would never happen, I really didn't think it would.
  • jun2san, on 12/18/2007, -4/+23Damn.....you all are a bunch of nerds.

    (secretly giggling like a little school girl about the news)
    • chrismgtis, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1Well, if you would rather watch The Sound of Music, that is just fine with me. :-) I'll keep my Peter Jackson nerd films. :-D
  • Metropolis, on 12/18/2007, -9/+2I think I just pooped a little.
    • DangerMouse9, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1My two year old does the same thing, only he's ashamed to announce it.
  • MikeonTV, on 12/18/2007, -1/+6Great, while everyone is waiting in line for the opening I will be the only one on Digg.
  • Therent, on 12/18/2007, -1/+18Is this really that great of news? There's no mention of him directing the films or writing the scripts. An Executive Producer is not even the top level producer on a film. Actors' managers who never set foot on a set get Executive Producer credits. He'll likely have some say about pre-production but after that I wonder how much involvement he'll really have? Could this possibly be New Line trying to pay him off just to attach him name to the film and give it his blessing?
    • eleven, on 12/18/2007, -1/+12Do you really think Jackson would agree to be a puppet if they slaughter his trilogy and destroy his reputation?
    • Elranzer, on 12/18/2007, -0/+4About as much "involvement" as Quentin Tarantino had to do with Hero or Hostel.
    • t.toe, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1Well, technically, the Executive Producer DOES have the final say on a movie. While the director is responsible for the vision and most of the creative decisions, the ultimate authority lies with the Executive Producer. At least that's what I was taught in film school.
    • RareSaturn, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1No, the Executive Producer is the head honcho, it means he owns the project basically. I believe you're thinking of Co-Producers which are throwaway titles.
  • petebot, on 12/18/2007, -13/+6Digg's gonna be really slow today, after being clogged up with all this nerd semen...
  • QSidious, on 12/18/2007, -11/+2I just came in my pants
  • blackhole82, on 12/18/2007, -1/+2It's about damn time. I've been waiting for this for years.
    • rlutterb, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2You mean you've been waiting "four" years.
  • bigbill780, on 12/18/2007, -2/+57Bring back fat Jackson!
    • SLockhart, on 12/18/2007, -2/+2No doubt, he looks decidedly unhealthy now.
    • atticus8, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1I demand fat Jackson. The glass satellite dishes that he used to wear on his face must also return.
    • bosssmiley, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1Amen. Fat PJ > skinny PJ.
  • emoat, on 12/18/2007, -1/+2Sweet!! I'm glad I read this before going to work, at least one part of my day is/was good.
    Two movies though? Why always so greedy?
  • eleven, on 12/18/2007, -0/+4Better get in line now if you want to be the first person in the theater.
  • Akvj1n, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2Yay! This is awesome.
  • OfficeSpacing, on 12/18/2007, -12/+2People seem happy about this.

    You mean aside from the music, the LOTR trilogy by Jackson actually didn't suck?
    • rogersj3, on 12/18/2007, -1/+2Um...I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say there - but sweeping the academy awards surely says something for a movie doesn't it? Winning awards for both best soundtrack and best picture must say something about the quality of the film.
      • OfficeSpacing, on 12/18/2007, -3/+2The academy awards? The awards ceremony that only grants Best Picture awards to bland, generic, cliched dramas? Yes LOTR recieved that, because that's exactly what it WAS.

        And yes it recieved best soundtrack, but that is due to Howard Shore not Peter Jackson.
        • ixnayonthadigga, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1Where's your movie, smart ass? "Those who can, do. Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't do or teach, criticize."

          Then there's you. lol.
          • OfficeSpacing, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2Actually the saying appropriate here is "Those you can't refute a point in an internet argument bring up the lame overused sayings to avoid having to argue for themselves".

            Get it? If I don't have a right to validly criticize a movie just because I'm not one of the few people in the world who make multi-million dollar cheesy Hollywood blockbusters, then you don't have a right to complement it or even comment on it, because apparently you don't have enough authority on the subject. Either we both can have valid criticisms and compliments, or no one can comment at all. Take you're pick.

            Plus you're an idiot.
      • groberts1980, on 12/18/2007, -1/+2Please don't feed the troll.
        • OfficeSpacing, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1You sound more like a troll than anything I said.
          • groberts1980, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1You're saying the LOTR trilogy by Peter Jackson sucked. That's pretty much the exact definition of being a troll. Making comments for the sole purpose of getting a rise out of people. Now stop posting here and go learn common internet terms.
  • inajeep, on 12/18/2007, -0/+8They are taking the book and splitting it up into 2 movies or is this sequel something totally new. Either way one of my favorite books is being made into a movie. I am happy and scared at the same time.
  • Homest4r, on 12/18/2007, -4/+4Hopefully Peter Jackson will direct along with his producing duties.
    • mzsparrow, on 12/18/2007, -0/+0I'm hoping the director will come to realize that Pete should be the one directing and hand it over to him..... ah if only!!
  • Aspie, on 12/18/2007, -0/+0YES!
  • mzsparrow, on 12/18/2007, -2/+0I'm hoping something spectacular might happen when the director realizes Pete should be the one directing and hand it over to him....
  • MadScientist420, on 12/18/2007, -12/+6I heard the end of the sequel will end with Frodo and Sam coming out of the closet with the final shot showing Frodo bricking in Sam's mouth.
    • DarkDragon, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1The Hobbit comes before LOTR, duuhhhhhh.
    • Myonosken, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1So that'd be just before the Fellowship and be Frodo ***** the farmhand?
    • sammypai, on 12/19/2007, -0/+12hobbits1cup
  • Renuvian, on 12/18/2007, -6/+8Am I the only person that was hoping someone else would get a chance to direct this?
    The LOTR movies are really good, but they're not really a reflection of the books by Tolkien. Peter Jackson directs horror movies and the LOTR movies reflect that. Read the books and pay attention to the description of orcs, then watch the movies. You will find two completely different creatures depicted. Orcs in the books laugh and make jokes and are pretty funny. They're almost like orcs from Warcraft 2, cartoony in a way. They are not horrific monster-beasts.
    If Orcs and Goblins are portrayed as slimey, disgusting, horrific monsters in The Hobbit then I don't think it will be much of a reflection of the book. I really wish we could've gotten someone else to direct this movie.
    • Radan, on 12/18/2007, -1/+12Well, that is also why Jackson's LOTR succeeded where all other failed. I mean, Jackson got to be the only man in whole movie business who can let an old guy with a funny hat say the line "Aim for the Trolls!" and still make it look bad ass.
    • dalittle, on 12/18/2007, -1/+5I thought a large part of the LOTR is the fight between nature and industry. If the orcs are funny it does not make industry (like tearing all the forests down to build armies) such a terrible thing. I like it the way it is.
    • ixnayonthadigga, on 12/18/2007, -8/+1"but they're not really a reflection of the books by Tolkien" - oh boo hoo. you nerds make me laugh. you think the world should revolve around your geekdom, when in fact, the reason you are usually drawn into fantasy worlds like LOTR to the point of wanting to nitpick how the orcs pick their asses is case in point for how lonely and sad you are. action movies polarize good and evil for the sake of dramatic simplicity. even movies the length of LOTR are scripted in a tiny fraction of words compared to Tolkien's epic manuscripts, not to mention his painfully detailed back histories. watch it for what it is - ENTERTAINMENT - and stop griping that it doesn't fulfill your every expectation. if you want the books, read the damn books. geez.
    • AdrenalineJunky, on 12/18/2007, -10/+0I'm glad he wasn't "true" to the books. The books were incredibly boring. Of all the fantasy genre books I've ever read, these were the worst. I would not even have completed them if not for them being called "classic". Hey, kudos to Tolkien for whatever role he played in growing the whole genre.... but that's about it. Pretty much all other fantasy books are better, and that even includes the TSR branded crap.

      OMG the worst part was the songs. I tried to read a few of them and then finally skipped the rest.
    • atticus8, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1You got your wish; he's not directing.
    • bpeacock22, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1Movies cannot be translated precisely from a book. They are always an interpretation. It's like language...sometimes you don't get the exact, literal meaning of a word, but you get something close. Some ideas in printed media cannot be transposed to visual media--it won't hold interest or attention or work well. I'm as much a fanboy of LOTR as the next guy--as well as other series like Harry Potter--and take no issue with small deviations in movie plot, as long as the heart of the book is there. Eragon would be an example of a truly terrible job of translation, but not LOTR (or HP for that matter).
    • sadfly, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1I have a feeling that they'll give the orcs a little bit more personality in the Hobbit. Part of what I love about the Hobbit is the humor. What would the scene with the trolls and the dwarves be without a funny argument between the trolls?
  • ibeetle, on 12/18/2007, -5/+7Do a google search for a more compleate and reliable souce than the folks over at The One Ring.
    Nothing has been finalized. This is a proposal from NewLine. Peter Jackson is not directing... he is not producing... he is receiving a executive producing credit and a portion of the profits (if any). This all stems from his lawsuit with NewLine.
    This works out great for him. He will have absolutely nothing to do with this movie but by lending his name it will be a sure fire money maker for NewLine.
    • alwilson, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1"He will have absolutely nothing to do with this movie but by lending his name it will be a sure fire money maker for NewLine."

      ... and it will get everyone at Digg all fired up for the wrong reason.
    • alexkorova, on 12/19/2007, -0/+2"He will have absolutely nothing to do with this movie but by lending his name it will be a sure fire money maker for NewLine."

      Well, he might be afraid that it taints his name if turns out to suck.
  • KevinRWright, on 12/18/2007, -4/+24Buried for the misleading headline and description. He's only a producer, which means that it could still be throughly screwed up by whoever directs it.
    • postalblowfish7, on 12/18/2007, -0/+4well, lucas directed episode iv, but they brought in irvin kershner for empire (which made a new hope look like buck rogers) - if they can get the right visionary (someone who doesn't want to make a stupid live action cartoon), it will be good.

      i mean, how can you ***** up the battle of 5 armies or the slaying of smaug?
    • maxsunset, on 12/18/2007, -0/+3How exactly is the headline misleading? "The Hobbit Greenlit with Peter Jackson". 'With' could mean a lot of things... like producing!
    • dn11, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1people downplay the importance of a good producer - especially one that has more than just financial interest in a project.
  • Hoogs, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1This news literally just made my week. I recently read "The Hobbit" and really enjoyed it. Thought it would make a great movie, and alas. Great news indeed.
  • Kumaku, on 12/18/2007, -5/+3How about a greenlight for Halo!
    • groberts1980, on 12/18/2007, -2/+1Really, when have movies based on video games ever been good? With any luck, Halo will never be green lit.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 114 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.