The Lord of the Rings- J.R.R. Tolkien

I doubt it, since that actor would still be too old. And I don't buy the comments on Yahoo that say, "well, they would need a 30 year old actor to play Aragorn in Hobbit". Not so. Aragorn was 87 in TTT, didn't look a day over 35. ;)
 
If you read the appendix in LOTR there is enough material to make a prequel wether you like it or not. We know Arwen dwelled in Lothlorien and he met Arwen there and there is enough background story for Frodo when he became an orphin. So I don't want to burst your bubble but there really is enough material to make a prequel. I do hope they stay close to the books/appendixes when they make one
 
Arvan said:
Good. They've already got Legolas. Let's not make this into a LOTR prequel, people!
Click to expand...

Isn't it technically a LotR prequel? I mean, it does explain why characters in later films are what they are..... :rolleyes: And I dunno...I would've liked to see a young(er) Aragorn in the movie.
 
Wouldn't Aragorn be like a kid at the time of the Hobbit???
And technically you could say that the Hobbit films are "prequels", but really LOTR is a sequel to The Hobbit. Jus' sayin...
 
not really; wasn't it only 60 some odd years between Hobbit and LotR? I forget the timeline.

And the whole sequels vs. prequels=circular reasoning that does absolutely no good in discussion.
 
I just don't get why The Hobbit has to be split into two parts? I understood for The Deathly Hallows, and Breaking Dawn, because there is a lot in those books, and they are very long books. The Hobbit is such a short book, and they could've just made into one movie. I also don't like the fact that it has been years since the LOTR movies came out, and there finally adapting The Hobbit. It just doesn't peak my interest to see it, and I do hope they do justice to the book.
 
Because 1. there was a lot of wrangling from (I think) the Tolkien estate over the rights, and 2. there was a lot of shuffling just within the production department; i.e. whats-his-name who was supposed to direct the movie left and PJ accepted the deal. But I think the legal issues is what has stalled the production the longest. You have to realize: there's a reason they made LotR first. It's like with LWW. LWW is not chronologically the first book, but it's the book everybody recognizes. LotR is the same way; not first chronologically, but by far the most popular/most widely recognized.

I have a feeling that, because PJ loves to dig stuff out of the appendices, the movies will wind up being longer than they could have been. Do I think they'll be the length of, say, Fellowship? Easily, but I really doubt it. And do remember, what works well on paper doesn't always work well on screen. That was probably best seen with the characters of Arwen and (don't hit me) Faramir. What worked well for those characters in the book(s) just didn't work in the films. I also don't think that Hobbit will turn out an extended edition. I don't think PJ could make them that extended without completely making up backstory.

Another thing, there were 5 years between the making of Dawn Treader and LWW. Fireproof was released in 2008, yet it took 3 years for Sherwood to release Courageous. While I think it would be great for films in a series to come out every year, it just doesn't really happen that often. I didn't realize until the other day that twilight released 1 movie a year, which I think is pretty remarkable considering that they're books being adapted into movies. With estates like the Lewis and Tolkien estates (i.e. the authors are dead), the legal battles clearly take longer to work out. Hobbit is in the right hands, and I firmly believe it will be as good as LotR was.
 
I already knew a lot of what you posted! I never asked why they made LOTR first. As for LWW it was the first Narnia book published, and that's why it had such an impact on readers, and why it was made into a movie first. It might not be the first chronologically, but if you read the other Narnia books some things wouldn't make sense.

I know before Lewis died he was thinking of having them changed of which order they should be read, and wrote a letter to someone stating that. I also know that certain things work better on film then if they were going to get things right out of the book. I have no objections to the LOTR movies. My main thing was that it took so long to get it made, and I know why it did that I don't know if I will go to movies and see it, or just wait for it to come out on dvd.

Yes Twilight did an amazing job at making the books into films, and Breaking Dawn Part 1 was truly fantastic! I just think if they wanted to make The Hobbit so much they could've started so much sooner, and have everyone in agreement to be on board. I won't judge the film until it is shown, and if any of the trailers look promising.
 
Because the world is NOT perfect, and not everybody agrees on conditions. It's easy to say, "everyone should have been on board, and should have agreed", but that does not work. I don't know the fine details behind the production of the Hobbit, but clearly people were NOT in agreement, and could NOT agree on the terms of production. There was also a lot of shuffling with actors Ian McKellen and Hugo Weaving. Had something to do with the SAG (an actors' union), and the fact that since they're both members, they couldn't work for a movie in a country without the guild presence (not sure how this issue was resolved; that happened I think over a year ago). In fact, I think the main reason why it took 5 years to make Dawn Treader (okay, not to make, but there was a 5 year gap) is because of production problems and legal issues with Fox/Disney/Walden.

And obviously, the ones connected with Twilight were in agreement over everything in production, which doesn't happen very often at all. I am kind of wondering if perhaps they also delayed Hobbit's production because of 2 franchises coming to an end, Harry Potter and Twilight. Remember, Breaking Dawn part 2 is coming out next November, a month before Hobbit is released. I have a feeling that BD part 2 will still be a threat in the box office (though why these movies make so much money is beyond me; nothing fascinating about a bunch of demonic creatures and a rebellious teenager), so Hobbit will have to push hard to be on top. HP is no longer an issue since the franchise is over with.

But I personally am tired of this debate 'cause I dislike having to repeat myself more than once.

Note: something else I was thinking of the other day-could Hobbit, part 2 be years after Hobbit, part 1 (story-wise)? Is there the possibility that part 1 will convey most of the book, part 2 will wrap it up, and part 2 will also move forward several years? Doesn't make a lot of sense, but could happen, I think.
 
Back
Top