I'm sure they could massage the script to work around that issue. In fact, Smaug doesn't really seem to fit in with the movie version of the Trilogy when you think about it. LOTR was Fantasy, but with a heavy dose of reality - kind of like the first Conan movie.

Could you imagine if the Mummikills (sp?) spoke instead of trumpted/roared? - "Take that Rohan scum!" Or if the Nazguls talked instead of screeched? - "Death from Above!"

I don't think we're going to see a movie version of the Hobbit, and if we do, it will be a disappointment of Episode 1 proportions. Putting aside the trick rights issues, it would be impossible to bring back the same level of magic that made the LOTR trilogy so special.

This sucks..... why cant anything run smoothly

Why do you think this? There isn't anything that would indicate to me that any "magic" would be lost by taking some time off and coming back to do it later. And why does Star Wars always have to be brought into the discussion?

Well for one, the source material isn't nearly as good. The Hobbit is a weak work compared to LOTR and The Silmarillion and much different in tone.

But I have faith if Jackson does it, he will serious and darken it up to match the LOTR movies, and improve the narrative a great deal in doing so.

If anyone else does it, I don't have high hopes.

Personally, I prefer THE HOBBIT to any of THE LORD OF THE RINGS books...

Same here, it's my favorite book of all time, actually.

I wonder how THE HOBBIT would fair as a movie, especially coming out after the LOTR movies. I would imagine a lot of disappointment (at least by the non-book readers) as it's not as epic and grand as LOTR, it's smaller, simplier, more personal, and definitely "lighter".

Smaug will be fine onscreen, especially since Treebeard worked out great. DRAGONHEART's dragon didn't work because it wasn't taken seriously, it was all RenFaire "wink wink, nudge nudge" style comedy and action like the rest of the movie, which is why most fantasy movies don't work (and why LOTR did... and the first CONAN and DRAGONSLAYER and EXCALIBUR and LEGEND....). That and Sean Connery's voice was too recognizable. Man I hate that movie. The trailers at the time made it seem pretty serious, almost CONAN-like or at least like DRAGONSLAYER. Disappointing.

Actually, Draco worked out incredibly well, as a character and especially as an effect. I thoroughly enjoyed the character. Hell, Draco was the best thing about the film, and the only memorable part of that entire movie. He's the reason you'd see Dragonheart in the first place.

By the way, The Hobbit has far bigger obstacles to hurdle than Jackson suing New Line.

If you didn't like Dragonheart, did you like the re-make "Shark Tale?"

I speak strictly in terms of CGI's capability to render a believable and compelling talking dragon; I intend no reference to voice or scriptwriting talents.

The Hobbit at Least 3 Years Away

March 12, 2005

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...-23109,00.html

OSCAR winning director Peter Jackson says it will be at least three years before he shoots The Lord of the Rings prequel, The Hobbit.

Jackson this weekend took a break from his busy schedule filming King Kong in Auckland, stopping by Sydney's Powerhouse Museum to check out the Lord of the Rings (LOTR) exhibition.

Tonight, the very private director will give a talk to fans about his films at the State Theatre.

A slimmed-down Jackson, who arrived in Sydney yesterday, was asked today how long it would be before he started production on The Hobbit.

"Three or four years would be accurate, I would say," Jackson said.

The rights to J R R Tolkien's novel, The Hobbit, are split between two major Hollywood studios, MGM and New Line Cinema.

Jackson said he was keen to return to Middle Earth for The Hobbit but that MGM's sale to Sony Corporation made the project's future unclear.

"I think there is probably a will and a desire to try and get it made," he said.

"But I think it's gonna be a lot of lawyers sitting in a room trying to thrash out a deal before it will ever happen."

As I've said before, the studios are retarded for not wanting to cooperate with each other. LOTR made dumptrucks full of money. Sitting on the rights gets them no money at all and wasting money paying of the rights. Working together will cut down on their portion of production costs and will get them money. Tons of other studios work together, why not these two?

The two studios are working together to try and get the movie made. The problem is that there are lawyers involved, as well as vast sums of money in cost and potential profit. Things like mergers can severly slow down these proceedings too.

Fact is that the sale of MGM hasn't been completed yet.. and until that is resolved, all future projects not in immediate pre-production are on hold. Sony has allowed, I think, 6 projects on MGM's slate to go forward.

Even if the problems were solved today, it'll probably still be 3 years before PJ gets around to it. He's still finishing up KONG this year and then off to THE LOVELY BONES next year. I'm sure he has other projects set up that we don't know about yet.

A bunch of internet fanboys, yes. The people who made the films huge profits? no...

3-4years
 

The Hobbit gonna start filming in 3-4year .... heard on the news couple nights ago .....thats what Peter Jackson said!

if someones already posted this info ...then i appologise... i havent got time to ready the posts later!

Was it really hard to look seven posts above yours? -ohbfrank-

See, my friend... that's how rumors get started.

Is it the word "dragon" they keep blotting out? And why??? Is that considered a spoiler? I don't see how part of the basic plotline of a book written decades ago could be a spoiler.

I don't see why anyone would think this won't work as a film. Maybe you'll have like LOTR better, but Hobbit lovers will enjoy this as much as LOTR lovers enjoyed that. I happen to love them all and I'm sure if Jackson makes it it'll be great.

According to CHUD and the 9/10 news on TORN, MGM and New Line look like they're parterning up to do something with The Hobbit, possibly in 2 installments.

http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=7582
http://www.theonering.net/index.stat

Hopefully this not only comes to fruition, but maintains the same quality the LOTR trilogy had.

As well as COMING TO AMERICA. Net profits in Hollywood mean nothing.

The Hobbit can actually very easily and cleanly split into two movies.

Why would they want/need to split it? Seems to me they could make it a tight 3 hour movie and get all that the book had into the movie.

Need - I can't see a reason for them to need to split it...
Want - $$$