You mean in terms of pre-production delays? The original Lord of the Rings trilogy would count. That production even switched studios.

It took 6 years to relaunch the Bond franchise with Pierce Brosnan's Goldeneye.

There was 8 years of development between Batman & Robin and the reboot Batman Begins.

Yay! Saoirse Ronan has joined the cast.

http://www.firstshowing.net/2011/cas...ng-the-hobbit/

And another bit of good news from that link:

In related news, Deadline reports that the start of filming on The Hobbit will be delayed because of surgery Peter Jackson had, but it's not going to cause a delay in the 2012 or 2013 releases, so it's not much to worry about.

Thats great news. She was terrific in the Lovely Bones imo (saved that movie for me), as well as in Atonement.

I'm gonna have to read the book again (it's been almost 10 years) because her character isn't ringing any bells.

http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/new...brandybuck.php

Casting Couch By Cole Abaius on January 27, 2011 | View Comments Share 0
digg


It’s just been announced that Saoirse Ronan will work with Peter Jackson again. This time, of course, it’s for The Hobbit. She’s played a dead rape victim, a young girl trained to kill, and now she’ll play some sort of fantasy creature from Middle Earth.

According to an interview with the Irish Film and Television Network (that Coming Soon was nice enough to find), casting director Ros Hubbard confirmed Ronan’s involvement as well as the hiring of Aidan Turner (Being Human) to play Kili (a dwarf) and James Nesbitt to play Bofur (another dwarf).

So who will Ronan play? Good question, and I’ve got a good guess. Or two.

As there is a sincere lack of female characters in the book, the producers are going to invent a few. A casting call for the film mentioned a character named Itaril, an elf that’s not in the original text.

Here’s the description:

[ITARIL] FEMALE, A WOODLAND ELF, this character is one the Silvan Elves. The Silvan Elves are seen as more earthy and practical. Shorter than other elves, she is still quick and lithe and physically adept, being able to fight with both sword and bow. Showing promise as a fighter at a young age, ITARIL was chosen to train to become part of the Woodland King’s Guard. This is the only life she has ever expected to live, until she meets and secretly falls in love with a young ELF LORD. This role will require a wig and contact lenses to be worn. Some prosthetic make-up may also be required. LEAD. AGE: 17-27. ACCENT – STANDARD R.P.

Ronan is fairly elf-like already and the age matches, but the age also matches for another role. One that was in the book. Frodo’s mother:

[PRIMULA BRANDYBUCK] Primula is a bright, lively and pretty young Hobbit. She is considered to be ‘wayward’ and ‘not proper’. But PRIMULA doesn’t care. – Prone to letting words and thoughts tumble out of her mouth without pause, PRIMULA can also be acutely observant. Kind hearted with a loving nature, she is the type of person who can light up a room. LEAD. AGE: 18-27 STANDARD R.P. OR SLIGHTLY ACCENTED REGIONAL ENGLISH ACCENT.

Ronan isn’t exactly hobbit-esque in appearance, so it might be a surprise to see her in that role, but Peter Jackson is full of surprises. Still, it’s not like she’s going to play Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, right? Right?

Who do you think she might play?

That's because she doesn't exist -- apart from background characters and maybe one or two women in Laketown, there are no females in the book. But we already know PJ's going to be making shit up to expand the story to two films, so this shouldn't be surprising.

PJ really expanded Arwen's role in LOTR, and nobody really complained too much about that one. I remember when initial shooting was taking place there were rumors that she was going to be a part of the Fellowship (false) and that she would be fighting at Helm's Deep (true, but thankfully PJ realized this would be bad move in the long run). I will admit, even the added/made-up stuff for LOTR was well done, so I trust PJ to do it right.

Some good, some not so good. I really think that middle section of TTT with the warg attack and Aragorn's near death experience was the weakest part of the series. No coincidence that it wasn't part of the original story...

Not really digging the 'everything and the kitchen sink approach' we have going on here. Cameos that aren't needed are just going to distract from the primary story. Nothing wrong with individual movies in a series feeling a bit different and being there own thing, not everything has to be so interconnected. It's the same issue I have with the Marvel movies...

Then there's the part where the story halts so Galadriel can recap what's going on, and then Faramir's aide breaks out a map and recaps what's going on again. TTT could've been a two hour film without the additions, and it would've been better for it.

The Hobbit could easily be a single 2.5 hour movie without losing anything important. Two films, added stories, added character -- I have a bad feeling about this.

I can't really comment on TTT because those parts aren't really ringing a bell...I'd have to go back and watch it again, but right now I definitely agree with you about The Hobbit being 1 movie.

We should all reserve judgement until it actually gets released, but thinking back to the book, I just don't see how it can be turned into a 2 part movie that would end up being over half as long as the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy--assuming The Hobbit is split into two 2.5 hr movies totalling 5 hrs and The Lord of the Rings theatrical trilogy clocked in at roughly 9.5 hrs total. The Hobbit is a pretty simple story where the Lord of the Rings is MUCH more in depth in my opinion. The Hobbit just doesn't seem to have enough story to end up being 5 hrs long.

A while back I heard rumors that parts of the Silmarillion would be added into The Hobbit and if that's true then I guess I could see how it could end up getting long, but it seems to me that 2.5 hrs would be more than enough time to tell the story of The Hobbit on its own.

I see. Not a good sign. I'm cool with changing things around (expanding Arwen's role helped get rid of a pointless character and bring out her story arc with Aragorn a lot better than in the book) but making up characters altogether seems stupid.


I can see how it can be done. I just don't see why. The Hobbit is a straightforward adventure story. Not an epic. Adding stuff from the Silmarillion and/or making up new scenes/characters is just adding bloat.

I think they said they aren't adding anything from the Simarillion, because they don't have the film rights to that.

That's good news, if true. Now if they could only get their heads out of their asses and just make it one movie.

I know there was a big hullabaloo with the rights and Tolkien's estate and all that, but what exactly is the deal? Who owns the rights to the Silmarillion and why are the Silmarillion rights different from The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings? Does it have something to do with Christopher Tolkien's part in the publishing of The Silmarillion?

Each book would have individual rights. I believe Christopher Tolkien has the rights to that book and doesn't want to give them up.

JRRT sold the rights to LOTR and the Hobbit back in the 60s to cover a tax bill
The Silmarillion wasn't published till after his death after Christopher assembled it from his fathers voluminous writings.

Jackson does have the rights to all the appendices of the LOTR books, which are pretty extensive, so that's supposedly where they're pulling all this stuff from (all the Arwen stuff was from the appendices. I had read the books before seeing the movies, but I hadn't read the appendices. It was pretty interesting reading going back afterwards).

I really don't have a big problem with this stuff being added. The Hobbit may have just originally been a straight adventure story, but it became a part of something bigger and I would even argue it might do it a disservice to ignore such a rich backstory.

Two Pre-Production shots released


Yes, that's Peter Jackson in the pics. It barely looks like him.

Can't.Fucking.Wait

Wow. He looks THIN. Good for him. Very excited for these films, I'm sure PJ will do the book justice.

I thought Jackson lost the weight a while ago, before The Lovely Bones. Or did he just lose some and then more later?

Somehow this slipped by.
http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2011...tles-revealed/

Hobbit films get individual titles:

The Hobbit: There and Back Again

and…

The Hobbit: An/The Unexpected Journey

Yeah he's been thin for a little while now. When he first got thin I thought he looked sick...like a cancer patient or something. Maybe it was just because I was used to seeing him fat, but he just looked weird. He looks really good now.

On another, somewhat related topic, I finally caught The Devil's Backbone by del Toro a couple days ago. I still fail to see why the guy gets so much praise and why people would actually rather have him direct the Hobbit rather than Jackson. Don't get me wrong...it was good, but nothing even close to spectacular.

I've now seen all of del Toro's movies except for Cronos. Pan's Labyrinth is great. Devil's Backbone is good. Mimic, Blade 2 and both Hellboy's are downright rotten.

Explain to me how this guy is much different than M. Night Shamalamadingdong. Most people believe Night directed one great movie--Sixth Sense, one good movie--Unbreakable and the rest stinkers.

I know it's different strokes for different folks but I took the advice of people here and checked out both The Devil's Backbone and Pan's Labyrinth and I agree that Pan's Labyrinth is a great movie, but I would NEVER rush out to see a del Toro movie and, as a fan of the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, I'm thrilled that Jackson is directing and not del Toro.

Now you've done it.
This thread has been blissfully Del Toro-free since he stepped down as the director. Now his fans will swoop in and we'll have 5 more pages of unrelated Del Toro content in our precious Hobbit thread.
But at least it's not more "Art of Lemmy".