The Hobbit

I found this link of The Hobbit. Now if anyone read any of my comments around Oscar time they will know how much I hate & loathed the LOTR trilogy. However, in May I was actually interested & in the mood to watch all 3 of these movies and I must say (as I watched them with more of an open mind), that I DID enjoy them. Hench, I would like to see Peter Jackson make The Hobbit (although I STILL don't think these movies are THAT GREAT, but I do enjoy them & somewhat see what the big craze is all about).

411mania

I like the LOTR trilogy and would like to see The Hobbit made. I read all four books and enjoyed them very much. The thing I like about the books is that they are so deep. It's as if middle earth wasn't made for the books, but the books were made about middle earth (if that makes sense ) Just very deep, which is one reason I like the Godfather trilogy so much.

Irishman, I'm highly pleased that you turned out to like LOTR after all! I too look forward to the Hobbit; I haven't a clue what it's about, other than it's a prequel, and follows Bilbo not Frodo. Should be fun (if done properly).

Mick

HOLY SHIT! Can I be reading this correctly? Irishman liked the LOTR movies? I must admit I haven't seen them, but I remember when Irishman loathed the movies. Wow, I may just have to see these movies. And BTW, The Hobbit is really good.

Yeah I liked the movies, and now I'm in the middle of reading The Fellowship of the Ring. I liked the Fellowship the most, then Return of the King, and the Two Towers last (really didn't do too much for me). Any have the extended editions on DVD? I asked 2 friends to each get me one & I haven't seen them yet (I watched the theaterical versions first). Is there THAT much that they left out or no??

I finished the book at 0304 this morning!

What a jolly good read it was I must say! And I shall be using exclamation marks in abundance in this post, as did Tolkein Himself when writing this very fine novel indeed!

Terrific read in the entertaining sense. Won't further you education-wise, but Tolkein's wit and brisk style really does capture one's imagination.

I haven't read LOTR, and to be honest, don't think I will. The movies are enough for me, but I'm very pleased I read this.

If Jackson makes the movie, and stays true to the original in both size and narrative, it will definitely be (by some distance I imagine), due to its easier digestion and lighter adventure, the best of the lot!

Spoilers Ahead: only read if you've read the novel!
The ending somewhat disappointed me a little, with Thorin suddenly turning sore at everyone, and then the goblins came from nowhere! I've never liked reading pages and pages of battles, though (they were always the weakness in Tom Clancy's novels too).

I've just started today John Fowles' The Magus, which looks altogether a far more challenging read, which is just what I need to get me back into the writing/reading process. The Hobbit was a fine bridge between Catch-22 and The Magus, though.

Mick

I remember in 7th grade The Hobbit was THE book to read. I never read it and am sick of hearing about the LOTR trilogy and how great peter Jackson is.(Please dont get me started on that one)The trilogy is highly overrated, with Part 2 being the best, and it is not all that spectacular of a flim. The Hobbit, forgetaboutit!

There's a 1977 animated version of "The Hobbit" that I highly recommend. Its a fairly accurate telling of the story, done in a beautifully drawn style with awesome colors. Its every bit as good as any Disney animated flick.

Bilbo Baggins

Just when I thought the case was closed...

Lol, just playin. But yea, Im glad you enjoyed them Irish. I remember back during the Oscars you were one of my advisaries regarding this topic. Its good to know that you like them after all.

Yeah ragginbull, I have The Fellowship of the Ring & Two Towers Extended Edition DVDs, now I'm waiting on The Return of the King to come out in December (I'm actually going to watch the ROTK tomorrow because I've only seen it once & was in the mood to watch it, so I'm looking forward to it). But I only got to read TFOTR & TT this summer. I've been waiting to read ROTK, but I'll probably have to wait until Christmas break for it, and then probably next summer until I can get around to reading The Hobbit.

After that, I wanna read The Godfather, Wiseguy and Casino and Phil Jackson's new book sounds interesting enough to maybe pick up.

MGM Eyes Hobbit

September 11, 2006 - After years of ups-and-downs, MGM is getting back into the studio big leagues by planning a number of $150+ million tentpole films to be released over the next few years, including The Hobbit and Terminator 4.


MGM is also said to want Oscar-winning Lord of the Rings helmer Peter Jackson to direct The Hobbit, according to Variety. A report earlier this month at TheOneRing.net claimed The Hobbit was on New Line's schedule for a July 2007 start date. (New Line released the LOTR films.) But the Variety piece says The Hobbit is an MGM production. Are the studios teaming for the project?

Possibly. As Variety states, "(MGM's) goal is to release two or three tentpoles a year, all of which will be made with financial partners, including Wall Street money or other studios."

So if MGM is wooing Jackson, and is working with New Line on the film, does that mean Jackson has finally settled his lawsuit against New Line over profits from the LOTR trilogy? And how did such a settlement escape the notice of the media? IGN attempted to investigate these matters a few weeks ago but was met with stony silence from various parties.

Source: FilmForce

I12,

Most Harry fans I know do not like those little hobbits. Im glad you have found some enjoyment out of them.

Yeah well I hated them at all first. First it was Star Wars, then I absolutely LOATHED Lord of the Rings and finally was Harry Potter. But you know what, then I began to like them. First it was Harry Potter, then Lord of the Rings and finally Star Wars

Two Hobbit Films Planned

October 25, 2006 - MGM and New Line Cinema are moving ever closer to making J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit a big-screen reality. And now it seems that the studios may be planning not one, but two films based on the 1937 fantasy novel.


MGM chief operating officer Rick Sands revealed the plans this past weekend during a trade show in Orlando, Florida, according to the Hollywood Reporter.

The Hobbit follows Bilbo Baggins on an adventure with a band of dwarves and the wizard Gandalf as they attempt to reclaim the dwarves' stolen treasure and restore their kingdom

This is the second time in the past month that Sands has publicly commented on the project. A few weeks ago, he issued a statement in response to a fan petition urging MGM and New Line to pursue Lord of the Rings helmer Peter Jackson as the director of The Hobbit.

"Peter Jackson's phenomenal success with The Lord of the Rings trilogy makes him the first and most ideal choice for directing The Hobbit. MGM would be thrilled to collaborate with the Academy Award-winning director on this MGM New Line Cinema production," Sands said.

Keep your browser set to IGN for more Hobbit updates.

Source: IGN

"What does the future hold for arguably the most anticipated film on the studio's development slate, The Hobbit? Sloan confirmed that MGM is in early discussions with Peter Jackson to make two films. The first film would be a straight-up adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's prequel to The Lord of the Rings. And the second, he says, would be crafted using "footnotes and source material connecting The Hobbit with Lord of the Rings."

Sloan gave no projected start dates for The Hobbit projects, but an MGM spokesperson told Variety that talks with Jackson are on-going and that the production isn't expected to get underway until 2008 or 2009."

Source: IGN

My kids would love to see a Hobbit movie
They love the LOTR films and watch at least one of them a week!

Peter Jackson dumped from Hobbit movie!
Posted : November 20, 2006 Writer : Clint Morris
In a move that’s destined to have the Hobbits picketing, New Line is said to have shafted director Peter Jackson from “The Hobbit”.

Jackson said in a statement to TheOneRing.net that he would’ve definitely been back to direct the “Lord of the Rings” prequel, but its no longer his decision.

“Several years ago, Mark Ordesky told us that New Line have rights to make not just The Hobbit but a second "LOTR prequel", covering the events leading up to those depicted in LOTR. Since then, we've always assumed that we would be asked to make The Hobbit and possibly this second film, back to back, as we did the original movies. We assumed that our lawsuit with the studio would come to a natural conclusion and we would then be free to discuss our ideas with the studio, get excited and jump on board. We've assumed that we would possibly get started on development and design next year, whilst filming The Lovely Bones. We even had a meeting planned with MGM executives to talk through our schedule”, said Jackson. “However last week, Mark Ordesky called Ken and told him that New Line would no longer be requiring our services on the Hobbit and the LOTR 'prequel'. This was a courtesy call to let us know that the studio was now actively looking to hire another filmmaker for both projects.

“Ordesky said that New Line has a limited time option on the film rights they have obtained from Saul Zaentz (this has never been conveyed to us before), and because we won't discuss making the movies until the lawsuit is resolved, the studio is going to have to hire another director. Given that New Line are committed to this course of action, we felt at the very least, we owed you, the fans, a straightforward account of events as they have unfolded for us.
“We have always had the greatest support from The Ringers and we are very sorry our involvement with The Hobbit has been ended in this way. Our journey into Tolkien's world started with a phone call from Ken Kamins to Harvey Weinstein in Nov 1995 and ended with a phone call from Mark Ordesky to Ken in Nov 2006. It has been a great 11 years.
“This outcome is not what we anticipated or wanted, but neither do we see any positive value in bitterness and rancor. We now have no choice but to let the idea of a film of The Hobbit go and move forward with other projects


-----------------------------------------------------------------

oh yeah, i see this going well

wtf is wrong with New Line.

I'd like to see Jackson further prove his worth outside that trilogy, if he hasn't already.

That majorily BITES that Jackson won't be directed it. I'll still see it but I don't think it'd be as good now

MGM responds to Hobbit news
Posted : November 21, 2006 Writer : Clint Morris
Though he thinks he’s no longer in the race, MGM says they’re not going to give up on Peter Jackson directing “The Hobbit”.

Yesterday, the “Lord of the Rings” director told TheOneRing.net that New Line have removed him from the project. The filmmaker’s statement also reiterated in detail his stance on "The Hobbit" -- that he is not willing to have a serious conversation about directing the film until his ongoing lawsuit with New Line over what he considers improper accounting practices over "LOTR" profits is settled.

New Line's given reason for proceeding sans Jackson is that the studio's rights to the pic are about to expire, and seeing as the lawsuit with Jackson isn't moving ahead, well, the message was that New Line is.

An MGM spokesperson tells Variety today that they’re going to fight for Jackson. The spokesperson states, "The matter of Peter Jackson directing 'The Hobbit' films is far from closed."

You only have to do a Google search for one of the “Rings” forums to see what size backlash this one’s had.

Chris Pirrotta, co-founder of TheOneRing.net says "They [the fans] are very upset, - We are seeing calls for everything from letter writing campaigns to a boycott of the studio."



-----------------------------------------------------------------

that's gotta be the quickest response from a studio that i've ever seen. Less then 24 hours since i first posted about Jackson being kicked out of his directors seat. It's also nice to see the "ringers" getting together to fight New Line.

That's true mr. soprano. It makes me happy now that there's still "hope" PJ will direct The Hobbit

Hopefully my constant updates on the Hobbit aren't pissing anyone off...lol. But here is another piece of interesting news. Can't Say that i think replacing jackson with raimi is a good idea. I mean raimi is good with special effects but i don't think he has the vision Jackson has.



-----------------------------------------------------------------

The Lord of the Dead?
Posted : November 23, 2006 Writer : Clint Morris
No doubt a ploy to keep the infuriated fan boys at bay, New Line are said to have asked Sam Raimi – replacing Peter Jackson – to direct “The Hobbit”, according to TheOneRing.net.

The “Spider-Man” and “Evil Dead” filmmaker has a huge following among genre buffs, so the news may just cool a few maddened ‘Rings’ fans down.

One man that won’t be happy with the decision – in fact, he won’t be happy until Jackson is re-hired for the job – is actor Ian McKellen, who plays Gandalf in the series.

McKellen tells TheOneRing.net that "It's hard to imagine any other director matching his achievement in Tolkien country."

That was my second concern. They had better bring back Ian McKellen and Ian Holm

I personally did not like Jackson's LOTR trilogy. Tolkien's books are a modern tale. They're along the lines of Beowulf or The Ring of the Nibelungen (but not as important because of obvious reasons)

The story belongs to literature, not the fantasy world which, I feel, Jackson represents. He's made movies that target that kind of audience. Not to say there's anything bad in doing that in general, but the man butchered LOTR.

So I say keep him the hell away from the Hobbit before he butchers that too.

I'm just curious, but how exactly did he butcher LOTR?

Whatever, the movies are cool and add their own artistic interpretation to the story. Besides, without the movies there are lots and lots of ppl who would never have picked up the books and read them.

He made up parts of the plot that weren't in the books. I know that no story makes an easy transition from book to movie, but he went ahead and inserted stuff that didn't belong and cut whole parts of the plot.

So keep him away from The Hobbit, because I can only imagine what he would change

To me thats a good thing.

Tolkien being an ardent born-again Christian does not necessarily make me dismiss his philosophy, but it ain't helping.

The books and the movies were fun. Thats about all the credit I would give them. I liked them a lot.

However, if I lived in the desert, I don't think the shire or dirty footed little hobbitses would be as appealing to me.

Jackson Could Still Direct Hobbit

November 27, 2006 - Just a few days, the news broke that New Line wouldn't hire Peter Jackson to film their movie version of The Hobbit. Jackson himself explained the situation, confirming a lack of involvement due to a lawsuit between his company and New Line, and not due to a lack of enthusiasm for the film.

But what if it's not New Line that gets to make The Hobbit? That could, in fact, turn out to be the case. According to Germany fantasy news site Ebenwald.de, film producer Saul Zaentz expects that New Line's rights to the film will expire and revert back to him next year, at which time he will partner with MGM to bring J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings prequel to life.

The tussle between studios is almost certainly not over, but if Zaentz and MGM end up producing The Hobbit, Jackson is their pick for the job.

"It will definitely be shot by Peter Jackson," said Zaentz. "The question is only when. He wants to shoot another movie first. Next year the rights to The Hobbit will fall back to my company. I suppose that Peter will wait because he knows that he will make the best deal with us. And he is fed up with the studios: to get his profit share on the rings trilogy he had to sue New Line. With us in contrast he knows that he will be paid fairly and artistically supported without reservation." (translation from TheOneRing.net)

It seems clear from Zaentz's statement that Jackson has not actually agreed to any terms yet. As for a timetable, the producer stated he expects production to begin in 2008 or 2009. The Hobbit could also end up as a two-part film, which is a sensible idea considering the winding storyline of the novel.

Variety has an additional comment from MGM on the matter; the studio, which was originally planning to partner with New Line on the Hobbit film, dispute the certainty of Jackson's dismissal by New Line and say the issue is far from closed. Could they be anticipating a Hobbit without Jackson? Will New Line try to rush out a film before their contract to make it expires? Watch this space for ongoing news.

Source: IGN

Thanks for the update, i'm curious to see what new line will do. I'm hoping they do the smart, and profitable thing by just coming to terms with Peter Jackson and allowing him to direct the movie. them pushing out the Hobbit without him in a rush will be a bad idea, considering that a rushed movie never, ever seems to come out a good movie.

I think Jackson needs to get out of the automatic, process factory-mentality of blockbusters, and do that nice-sounding LOVELY BONES, which would be a return to the small movies he made for years before The Shire came onto the map.

I remember FOTR and TTT having a refreshing, organic drive to them from somebody that wasn't a veteran with major big-budget movies. Then with RETURN OF THE KING....I don't know what happened. Maybe PJ left too much he had to tackle in the last movie. Yet it still works.

KING KONG though, what a disaster. I expected such artificial, emotional manipulation from Michael Bay or some other hack. Its bad when by the halfway point, one wants to kill the big ape.

Thing is, if PJ recharged his batteries, get his head out of the blockbuster mentality, and went back to the basics, his THE HOBBIT would be a good movie. That's what New Line Cinema really doesn't seem to get. He'll do the movie. Give him time, and when he gets around to it, it'll make the big bucks that everyone wants a cut of. Trust me, the fans will be patient for it.

P.S. - Anyone seen CLERKS 2? "There is only one Return, and its not the King, its the Jedi!"

What are you talking about? King Kong was great. Definteily in my top 3 for last year, my favorite Peter Jackson movie, and it even made me appreciate the 1933 version of King Kong even more.

king kong definatly was one of the most entertaining movies of last year. And even with the extra hour on it, it still held up to my expectations.

I hafta agree with Irishman. The 1933 version is one of my favorite movies of all-time and when I first saw Jackson's remake I went into it thinking I wouldn't like it (because a remake could never live up to a loved original). I was a little turned off by the three hours initially but upon subsequent viewings I enjoyed it more and more.

The FX were a little disappointing in spots ... when the sailors are running with the brontosaurs, for instance. But, in other sequences they were absolutely amazing (the large insects in the bottom of the ravine comes to mind now).

The remake was campy (often copying and referring to the original) which made it very enjoyable for me. I wasn't particularly thrilled by Jack Black in it, but Naomi Watts' portrayal was spectacular and the image of Kong looking at her just before he fell off the Empire State Bldg. was one of the most melodramatic and saddest scenes I've ever viewed in ANY movie.

It was a beautifully filmed movie... very visually appealing, and the "look" of the 1930's came through extremely well.

The "emotional manipulation" (as rrA puts it) added a depth that the original lacked and Jackson worked up that angle perfectly. My favorite scene (and now one of my all-time favorites) is when the tyrannosaurs have Watts cornered and are about to attack and Kong jumps in front of her, leans forward on his haunches and stares down the dinosaurs (as if to say, "You want her, you hafta come through me first"). It was from that point that I started cheering for the giant ape.

.

It still held up to my expectations as well and I didn't think it was too long at all really (it had its share of slow parts sure, but what 3 hour movie doesn't?). I'm looking forward to seeing the extended cut. That's one thing I never understood about this movie. People say it's too long yet these are the same ringers who'll sit through 4 hours of Return of the King

I like the extra hour Peter Jackson adds more depth to the story, especially Anne Darrow's background. Though to be honest ihaven't seen the original since i was about 12, but the remake just seemed to give Kong and Anne's relationship more of a realistic relationship. I'm definatly glad they didn't include kong trying to undress her! lol.

DITTO!



Don Cardi

Raimi Considering The Hobbit?

January 29, 2007 - After New Line and Peter Jackson's recent and very public spat over the proposed film version of The Hobbit (the next movie in the The Lord of the Rings series), the question of who might direct said picture in place of Jackson has come up often. Spider-Man uber-director Sam Raimi's name was rumored last fall as a possible replacement for Jackson, but there was no real indication that he was considering the job. As such, that particular whisper went away like so much Internet chatter... but now that's all changed.

The Los Angeles Times is reporting today that Raimi has been talking to "associates, as well as his corporate masters at Sony" and telling them that he is considering taking over the directorial reigns of The Hobbit. The paper, which to say the least has slightly more journalistic integrity than your average J.R.R. Tolkien messageboard, also cites two "top-level insiders" who claim to have heard this directly from Raimi.

If the filmmaker were to move over to The Hobbit, this would clearly affect Sony's Spider-Man series. With the third film in the webslinger's franchise coming in mere months, talk of a fourth entry has already begun to leak, but with Raimi focusing on the no-doubt huge Hobbit production, would he have the time or inclination to make another Spidey film? And will Sony be willing to wait for him?

The paper hastens to add that New Line says it doesn't have a deal with Raimi and that he has yet to meet with the execs who would have to sign off on him. And then there's also the matter of MGM, which owns the distribution rights to the film and is continuing to champion Jackson as their pick for helmer. So stay tuned…

Source: Filmforce

How about some thoughts Irish?

None yourself ronnie

Ugh, I haven't been following this thread or any of the Hobbit news even though I'm a huge Lord of the Rings fan. I didn't know that Peter Jackson wasn't going to direct The Hobbit. I'm sad. With as much as I like Sam Raimi, I still feel like we don't need a movie about Hobbits with a few awkwardly sped up sequences like in all his other movies. Really I just think Peter Jackson SHOULD be directing it.

I agree. If Peter Jackson doesn't do it it just won't be the same. Knowing New Line they'll hire someone (Raimi's not a bad choice) to quickly make the film before New Line losses the rights entirely to MGM (who DOES want Jackson to do it). That'd be really sad it New Line took that route but it wouldn't surprise me one bit. If I were Jackson, and as a big FU to New Line, I'd remake it after MGM had the sole rights to it.

Peter Jackson would be my hero if he did that

Sorry to break your bubble fanboys, but if PJ had even cared about making THE HOBBIT, which movie would we get? Would we get FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, or the never-ending RETURN OF THE KING and its 12-endings?

Really, the problems of RETURN OF THE KING got inflamed and evasticated in KING KONG. God forbid what would happen if PJ had made HOBBIT at this rate.

Anyway Irish, you post everything you read? I mean, no thoughts on whatever you think the news is legit or not? Hell, no opinions on that fucking silly Sam Raimi story?

Yes, for now I just post news for those who might not research it on their own and want to be "kept in the loop." Furthermore, this is a way to engage discussion (I'm beginning the discussion by posting the news and others can post their comments, much like blibblebabble did)

Probably so, although I WOULD be interested to see Hobbit w/ the Jackson touch. I love what he did with LOTR, and maybe he will learn his lesson from ROTK and re capture the magic from the earlier films.

I admit I must be an idiot because I don't get what you are saying here. I ask respectfully, what do you mean? From what I understand he DID care about making The Hobbit but there are legal issues. I don't know the details but I'm sure I could find them if I read every post in this thread. But I guess I'm confused by what you were saying about what movie would we get, Fellowship or Return of the king.

Another question, is the term 'fanboy' sort of a negative word? That's how I've always heard it used and I find it funny that you are calling me, someone who had hardly any idea what was going on with the Hobbit, and Irishman, someone who didn't even post his opinion, fanboys. I guess I am technically a fan of that movie, but wouldn't that make every single person alive a fanboy? Whether it's LOTR or the Godfather or any other movie? I'll settle for FanMan though, being as that I haven't been a boy for quite some time

Hobbit Talks Happening?

October 5, 2007 - Just months after New Line Cinema chief Robert Shaye said that he "would love for (director Peter Jackson) to be creatively involved in some way in The Hobbit" comes word that the studio and the Oscar-winning Lord of the Rings filmmaker are trying to mend fences in an effort to finally bring the J.R.R. Tolkien tale to the big-screen.

Entertainment Weekly reports that "there's reason to be cautiously optimistic" that the legal feud between Jackson and New Line may soon be resolved: "At this writing, no agreements have been announced and details of the negotiations are sketchy (neither New Line nor Jackson's camp would comment to EW on any aspect of this story), but sources close to the talks tell us that they're detecting a lot less frost in the air, and that a deal may be reached that could help usher J.R.R. Tolkien's maiden Middle-earth masterpiece to screens before the end of the decade."

A source for the magazine revealed there is a state of "detente" between the two sides even as they hash things out in court. But, as EW points out, even if Jackson and New Line agree to make the movie together the busy filmmaker may not have the time to direct it. One possible solution that's reportedly been suggested is to have Jackson exec produce The Hobbit, thus "letting him pick a proxy director and oversee the production."

Source: IGN

If NLC and Jackson can get their squabbles over money put behind and make THE HOBBIT, it would be good, yes?

Lets just hope Jackson isn't so damn self-indulgent as he was with ROTK and KING KONG. Some ask what the hell I mean, and I shrug.

Even though I liked ROTK and King Kong, I agree with you about King Kong... ROTK though, I don't. Maybe it's because I read the trilogy a couple of times before I knew there would be movies and loved the books, so I know that there was so much in the last book that it was impossible to get it all into one movie.

Peter Jackson did his best and it was very impressive. People talk about how long the ending of ROTK was, but in the book there was an entire OTHER ending involving the hobbits fighting back against Saruman in their own little village (Because the wizard was pissed that he was brought down by a couple of hobbits). Can you imagine if PJ decided to include THAT ending as well?? How self-indulgent would you have thought of him then??

I can't imagine anyone other than Peter Jackson directing The Hobbit, because he has already done such a great job with the LOTR trilogy, and he obviously has a deep respect for the original writings by J.R.R. Tolkien.

I could care less about the books. Unlike FOTR and TTT, ROTK as a film itself is clunky, inconsistent with its narrative pacing, and its REALLY obvious how PJ was cutting by the deadline.

Think of this. The other films were 3 hours, but they felt like a simple stroll. ROTK's 3+ hours felt like 5 hours.

Now saying all that, ROTK isn't a bad film. Its got some wonderful moments* that can make me tolerate and enjoy the film.

But its good compared to KING KONG, jesus christ.

I mean, an adventure tale about New Yorkers going to an exotic isolated island full of dinosaurs and giant apes, and then such ape lay a rampage on New York City, 3 hours worth of such adventure, thrills, CGI sights...

...and Peter Jackson somehow makes it mundane & boring. A pity because the cast is there, it SHOULD have worked, but it doesn't. Why?

I worked for me! The special effects alone was worth the ticket money for me. The dinosaur stampede scene was magnificent. The plot didn't make any sense though.

No shit.

I watched the original KONG awhile back, and now I realize honestly the biggest problem with PJ's KONG.

The mother fucker was still on LOTR "seriousness" mode with KONG, and well....its an adventure tale, not an epic drama. Pfft.

I thought King Kong was great.... once they got to the island. It just took so long to get there. I think the beginning could have been cut down quite a bit, but after that I wouldn't have changed a thing.

Problem is, the beginning is so botched, the movie is just fucked. Its like building a great house on quicksand.

del Toro on Hobbit

You've heard the rumors and now there's some substance behind the word on the street. The Hollywood Reporter says that Guillermo del Toro has entered official talks to direct the two back-to-back installments of THE HOBBIT. Should things get resolved quickly with the WGA strike, HOBBIT would be del Toro's next film after wrapping up HELLBOY II: THE GOLDEN ARMY. Because of that pesky strike, New Line and MGM haven't set a writer to adapt Tolkien's "The Hobbit" into two films but del Toro and Peter Jackson would "oversee" production of the script. The studios have already set a 2009 start date for the movies, which have been budgeted at $150 million a piece (wowsers). Sam Raimi was an early rumored name for the directing gig after it became clear that Jackson would be too busy to return as director. But it became clear to fans (and obviously studio heads) that del Toro was the man for the job. He brings passion for the material, visual flair and experience in the fantastic. So while I never was a huge fan of the LOTR series, I'm still eager to see what del Toro can do with the material (cause oddly enough I dug that Rankin-Bass animated version when I was a kid).

Source: JoBlo

Guillermo del Toro is a lot better than the Sam Raimi rumors I've been hearing up until now! Raimi's directing style is too quirky most of the time.

I still wish Jackson would do it but I know he won't. Between the two other choices, yeah, I'd go with del Toro too