Hobbit Movies Finally Receive Studio Greenlight
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
they were actually going to make the movie with a non-peter jackson director?! thank god that changed...
I am so darn glad that Jackson is directing this. Not because I think he is the best director ever (although he is up there) but because I wouldn't want a Tolkien tale directed by anyone else.
2012!?! I have to wait until 2012 to see this awesomeness!?!
GAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!
But nonetheless, it's awesome that it's going to happen.
GAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!
But nonetheless, it's awesome that it's going to happen.
"I wish the (movie) had (already) come to me. I wish none of this [delay] had happened."
"So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All you have to decide is (when) to (see) the (movie) that is given to you."
"So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All you have to decide is (when) to (see) the (movie) that is given to you."
Jackson directing another movie based on LOTR? =)
TWO Hobbit Movies? =D
...
3D? =\
Hope they get that part right, and by that I mean release it in normal mode, too, so I can watch it without getting my eyes messed up.
TWO Hobbit Movies? =D
...
3D? =\
Hope they get that part right, and by that I mean release it in normal mode, too, so I can watch it without getting my eyes messed up.
I assume the 500M figure is for both halves, so if you consider each a single film, that makes it 250M each, between the budget of Dark Knight and Transformers.Traun said:That was Bilbo. But seriously I agree, most of the book was walking through forests and plains. How the hell do you spend 250 million (per movie) on a friggin' forest with 8 midgets and an old guy.teknoarcanist said:Five-hundred million dollars?!
Are you f**king kidding me?
What kind of movie needs that much money?!
Transformers cost 300!
Dark Knight took 185!
District 9 was made for 30!
Do they have money-burning parties on back-lots now?
Seriously, man; what is even in The Hobbit that requires a budget that large? Half the book is Frodo and a bunch of dwarves marching around and camping
2) Despite being a shorter, tighter story, I tend to doubt the Hobbit is going to require fewer effects shots per minute than LOtR. There are more dwarves shot together in the Hobbit than there generally are hobbits and/or dwarves in the trilogy, and that will require again the mix of manipulation, body doubles, and camera trickery to create the proper sense of scale against human characters. The stable of fantastic creatures to be created is not much less extensive than the trilogy's: Trolls, goblins, Beorn, wolves, eagles, wood-elves, spiders, Gollum, and finally Smaug. About the only thing that the trilogy has that the Hobbit doesn't need to portray are the Nazgul. The variety of locations is also not much thinner: the Shire, Rivendell, the Misty Mountains (mountain passes and caves), Mirkwood, Lake Town, and finally the Lonely Mountain. While the trilogy visits two human inhabitations (Rohan and Gondor) the Hobbit visits only one (Lake town) and both visit two Elf inhabitations (Rivendell and Lothlorien, and Rivendell and the Elf city inside Mirkwood).
Yeah, when I got to that part I felt a bit of trepidation as well. It could be cool, but I think plain ol' 2D will probably age better.bbch said:
I am glad to hear that they wouldn't try to make an in-between movie to tie it more tightly to LotR. I can't see that being done in any way that would please the fans.
Awesome! I can't wait, it has been a really, really long time...like, hopefully the whole LotR phase hasn't washed over everyone.
We have to hope for a summer release, impossibly a double film summer release, both at once. Because the end of the world 2012 isn't really suppose to happen until December 12, 2012, 12/12/12.Sparrow said:
Hopefully, I will be jumping up and down on that day laughing at all the people that think it will happen. Oops, looks like we are all still here.
Seriously? Come on, the Battle of the Five Armies! What is more epic than that? It would be just as big or bigger than any battle from The Lord of the Rings.this isnt my name said:
That is what I am worried about. Will Peter Jackson do right by the book this time? He left out some stuff that would have been great to see in the Lord of the Rings movies, like Tom Bombadil, that would have been fun to see.Bravo 21 said:
Also, Jackson had problems with adding things to the story. Yes it was epic seeing the elves come to aid at the Battle of Helms Deep, but it was stupid to put that in because it didn't happen in the book.
Ok, so they're finally making it. Great!
3D? Not so much.. I mean, implement it fittingly and it's alright, but just doing it because everyone else does it, then I must ask you to take a long thought about what you're doing..
3D? Not so much.. I mean, implement it fittingly and it's alright, but just doing it because everyone else does it, then I must ask you to take a long thought about what you're doing..
3D!!!! NOOOOOOOO!!!!! I hate this new trend, it's so stupid. I really hope there's a 2D version for theaters too.