NEW YORK (AP) -- Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema have reached agreement to make J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Hobbit," a planned prequel to the blockbuster trilogy "The Lord of the Rings." Jackson Peter Jackson is set to oversee the film adaptation of "The Hobbit." Jackson, who directed the "Rings" trilogy, will serve as executive producer for "The Hobbit." A director for the prequel films has yet to be named. Relations between Jackson and New Line had soured after "Rings," despite a collective worldwide box office gross of nearly $3 billion -- an enormous success. The two sides nevertheless were able to reconcile, with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios (MGM) splitting "The Hobbit" 50/50, spokemen for both studios said Tuesday. "I'm very pleased that we've been able to put our differences behind us, so that we may begin a new chapter with our old friends at New Line," Jackson said in a statement. "We are delighted to continue our journey through Middle Earth." Two "Hobbit" films are scheduled to be shot simultaneously, similar to how the three "Lord of the Rings" films were made. Production is set to begin in 2009 with a released planned for 2010, with the sequel scheduled for a 2011 release. New Line Cinema is owned by Time Warner. (Time Warner is the parent company of CNN.) Sony and Comcast are among the owners of MGM.
Coming in 2015 to theaters everywhere, a 9-part Silmarillion saga... ...and I see each one on opening night.
I'm glad they settled their differences and that Jackson is going to be a part of it...really couldn't have it without him in my opinion. I wonder if they will have Andy Serkis as Smeagol?
I'm sure Serkis will do it. The two big questions are 1) If Jackson is only producing, who will direct? 2) Ian Holm is very, very old. Who will be playing a young Bilbo Baggins?
What could the sequel be is what I am wondering. Didn't it go from The Hobbit to The Lord of the Rings?
Yeah, I never finished reading it, but I want to start again. It seemed sweet, but it was way too advanced for me in 7th grade, I think.
Definitely has its tough parts. Long chapters that are nothing more than describing the geography and stuff. If nothing else, read Beren and Luthien or Turin Turambar. Or the Numenor stuff. Fuck it, just read the bastard. It's worth it.
Gotcha, I misread your question. And FlashGordon answered it properly; The Hobbit is going to be two different movies. Edit: What a clusterfuck of quick edits and quick quotings.
I'm sceptical if Jackson is only producing. Also, splitting The Hobbit into 2 movies, when it's not even as complex as 1 of the LOTR movies, seems like a cash grab to me. I hope I'm wrong.
That was the first thing I thought of. There's nothing in the Hobbit that would take that long to explain, especially since half the things that need extensive explanation in LOTR were rushed through. Hell, they made a cartoon movie out of it that was mostly music. I have no idea what they will do to justify that length of film.
Thats what I am thinking. The Hobbit is a shorter book than any of the Lord of the Rings' books. Each of those films ran for atleast 3 hours. Could they try to split The Hobbit into two 1 hour 30 minute movies? That would suck.
I think the second movie could be full. Mirkwood, Smaug's lair, the Battle of five Armies. I don't know how great the first movie would be.
