Peter Jackson interested in doing "The Hobbit"

[kingpaul]

Oh wow, can you imagine going to see the Hobbit and then the LOTR EE on the big screen in order?!?

We're talking, what, 15-16 hours of movies? Yeah, I can do that.

 

[kengar]

We're talking, what, 15-16 hours of movies? Yeah, I can do that.

I didn't mean in a MARATHON (though that could be fun for some, I suppose). I meant seeing the 4 films over the course of a week or so (individual showings). But then, I'm a geezer and I tire easily.

 

[jester47]

The only thing is keeping something like that under wraps has got to be friggin impossible in this day and age. Harry Knowles has pudgy little spies everywhere!

Actually, I don't think it would be that hard to keep it under wraps. Of the major actors, you have the Ian's and Serkis. Then you have 13 actors playing dwarves. Maybe they just recast JRD with a grey beard as Thorin (I mean heck he was treebeard too). With the ammount of secrecy they have actually managed to pull off, I would not be surprised that if they did film it already they did it very hush hush. I remember one report of a guy that blabbed about a small part in Bree and lost the job. Most spy reports have either been intentionaly leaked or they are quick snapshots of sets. And the guys in WETA digital won't talk either if they are told not to.

As for filming already having been done - not a chance. They wouldn't spend the money without the rights, and they couldn't keep the rights secret - nor would they want to.

As funding goes, this would be somthing they could pull off at very little extra cost (comparatively) since everything they need except laketown, the hall of the elven king, and the entry to the lonely mountain has already been made. And many of the sets can be easily reconstructed to provide what they need for principle photography. And it is no secret that they got (well this is hear say) the rights to make the Hobbit when they did LotR. The only thing (again hear say) that would be stopping them is the distrobution problem. If they know that going in, they make the blockbusters and then when it comes time to release the hobbit, they go and offer MGM a bit of the pie.

I would not think this if I did not think that PJ was the type to do somthing like this. But it is right up his alley...

Interestingly enough, if the Hobbit were done in the same style as LotR, (that is same sets and similar costumes) it would be absolutely awesome. I say this because when I imagine the hobbit, I imagine the Rankin Baas version. Also I find it funny that the maps that were drawn by ICE were quickly accepted by the tolkein estate who now own the rights to them.

 

[Ranger REG]

EDIT: So New Line just needs to throw UA/MGM a piece of the action and it's all good, right? I mean, if you figure the Hobbit would cost approx 1/3 that LOTR did and New Line would be footing the production bill, the film should still make more than enough to see everyone a fat profit. Especially if they were clever and released it at something like Christmas 2008 and led it off by screening the extended versions of the trilogy in theatres that December as well!

The thing is, I'm afraid that UA/MGM are going to exaggerate their asking price for New Line to make the film with Peter Jackson, after having seen the box office revenue on the LOTR films to date. The old arrangement was for the LOTR. That means a new arrangement must be negotiated.

Also, I'm skeptical that they have made any principal photography on The Hobbits except for a few scenes needed for the Prologue/Backstory. No production company is going to foot a bill for something that at this point cannot be distributed (and make money off of it).

 

[jester47]

The thing is, I'm afraid that UA/MGM are going to exaggerate their asking price for New Line to make the film with Peter Jackson, after having seen the box office revenue on the LOTR films to date. The old arrangement was for the LOTR. That means a new arrangement must be negotiated.

Also, I'm skeptical that they have made any principal photography on The Hobbit except for a few scenes needed for the Prologue/Backstory. No production company is going to foot a bill for something that at this point cannot be distributed (and make money off of it).

I guess that is my argument, that doing it while they were doing the filming of the Trilogy would reduce the cost so much that they might as well do it then. That was the whole idea behind filming them all at once, it saves money. Thats the thing that seems to get by people. They already have most of the sets, hired actors, CGI creatures, airial flybys, costumes, weapons, and resources needed to film contracted out and present. These costs have already been paid. My point is that it could have been done and canned without any additional funding and with very little extra resource expenditure. This all reduces the cost to the point (in my estimation) that it becomes a "hell, why not" situation rather than "well, we are going to need another 100 million."

Essentially what I am saying is that the money, work and investiment essentially has already been made with the Trilogy. They would not need to do much extra to film the hobbit while they were filming the Trilogy.

Now, does this mean I am absolutely sure they have filmed it? No. I am just saying that it would have been a really really good business decision to just go ahead and do it even though at the time it might not see the light of day. Especially if that factor could be cleared up in some sort of contract.

Aaron.

 

[Ranger REG]

Essentially what I am saying is that the money, work and investiment essentially has already been made with the Trilogy. They would not need to do much extra to film the hobbit while they were filming the Trilogy.

A valid point, but that is assuming that UA/MGM is going to allow distribution of the Hobbit films. Even back then in 1998-1999 production of LOTR, they can't predict if the films will be THIS successful, unless they have a working palantir that allow them to see the future.

To shoot the Hobbit alongside LOTR would just be a waste of resources and investment. And while I am surprised that New Line Cinema ordered Peter Jackson to make three films, I doubt they would toss in a fourth film, again back in the last millenium when the production started.

Otherwise, that is just wishful thinking.

 

[kengar]

A valid point, but that is assuming that UA/MGM is going to allow distribution of the Hobbit films. Even back then in 1998-1999 production of LOTR, they can't predict if the films will be THIS successful, unless they have a working palantir that allow them to see the future.

To shoot the Hobbit alongside LOTR would just be a waste of resources and investment. And while I am surprised that New Line Cinema ordered Peter Jackson to make three films, I doubt they would toss in a fourth film, again back in the last millenium when the production started.

Otherwise, that is just wishful thinking.

I agree. As big a gamble as the studio took on PJ (New Line would have sunk without a trace if LOTR flopped), the extra $__ million dollars and complications of added shots would have been too much. Not to mention it might have slowed down production on the the trilogy.

 

[Mistwell]

I think Jackson would do a great job of it no matter how its done, and I need to admit that I am suspicious.

I think they have already filmed it.

It would not be that hard. They have enough dwarf costumes, props, the right actors, extras, and body doubles. They would only need the actors for the close ups and speaking roles. They already have the trolls turned to stone, rivendell sets, etc. Anyone asks questions as to why they are filming a scene from the hobbit, they are told "oh it might be used for background." We have a filmed scene of Bilbo finding the ring. So I think what has happened is that PJ snuck in another movie and will release it when the rights get cleared up. In all the fuss I think he could have done it. And it would be just like him to do it.

Aaron.

You, sir, are a total loon.

It isn't nearly as easy to film a movie, even one with existing stuff, as you seem to think. And I will let it rest at that.

 

[Fast Learner]

It would, of course, be a total hoot if it had already been filmed.

Unfortunately (as Mistwell implied), the expensive part of making a film -- the most expensive part -- is all of the people. The dozens-to-hundreds of people it takes in the background to make a film are much, much, much, much more costly than the sets. As nice as it would be, it would be far too speculative to do such a thing.

Fantastic theory, though!

 

[jester47]

It would, of course, be a total hoot if it had already been filmed.

Unfortunately (as Mistwell implied), the expensive part of making a film -- the most expensive part -- is all of the people. The dozens-to-hundreds of people it takes in the background to make a film are much, much, much, much more costly than the sets. As nice as it would be, it would be far too speculative to do such a thing.

Fantastic theory, though!

I don't think I am that much of a loon.

However, in truth, I agree. I do not think it has been done. Still its an interesting case study.

But I think my point is that the cost would be largely subsumed since there is a lot of resource reuse going on already. Battle of the five armies- use the "massive" program and film some close in fight shots. They would only need new sets for Laketown, The Hall of the Elven King, Erebor, and the exterior of Erebor and the goblin caves. ("only" need he says!) Costumes are done, props are done (ok they would have to make orcist), Trolls (moving and stone) are done, gollum is done, hobbiton was done until they burned it down..., scores of extras have already been paid for, and the Ians would find it fun. With that in mind the extra cost might be that of the single digit millions. Maybe even less. But...

I guess I need to make clear that even with the "relative" ease of filming the hobbit under people's noses, I do not think that it happened. I am just saying that in hindsight doing all four would have been economicly and logistiocly viable given the results of the trilogy. And people have hinted at it but not really pointed it out, the thing that actually makes my argument work is the thing that destroys it too. That is the way the movie was filmed. While they were doing principle photography, they had no idea that the films were going to be successful (watched yes, successful no). And it makes good business sense not to do a film you can't distribute. Also, by the time Fellowship went to can, they were done with most of the filming. So there was no way to know while filming was going on. I guess I am looking at it in a business case study. Still, it would be funny if they did do it and did not tell anyone. But I think it is somthing that is going to happen and has not happened yet.

Now keeping my first point in mind, and assuming that most of the set pieces might still be intact, there is no doubt that the hobbit could be made very cheaply (relatively speaking). As was pointed out, they would at this point pretty much just have to pay for people and about half the sets. Again, given demonstrated return, and considering a cut with whoever has the rights to distro, even if they ask an inflated price, it might make good business sense to film it.

It would be interesting to see the Dwarves decked out like Gimli rather than their Rankin Baas counterparts, to see the ruins of Dale, and all the detail that escapes the animated version. And that would be the first time the hobbit met LotR seamlessly as the book comes off as lighter than LotR and the animated versions are a patchwork. So it would be good to get some consistency between the prelude and the trilogy.

Aaron.