It’s about freaking time.  He’s not named Director (yet?), but this is definitely a huge positive.

And sorry for the all-caps.  That’s the article talking, not me.

[url=http://tinyurl.com/2afsac]PETER JACKSON AND NEW LINE CINEMA JOIN WITH MGM TO PRODUCE

. . .and a sequel to

I don’t know.  I was wondering myself.  There are several possibilities I can see.

1) The Silmarillion and the press release just got things mixed up.  Since it would be released after The Hobbit they think it’s a sequel when it’s really a prequel.  (And I have no idea how they would make the Silmarillion into a movie, let alone more than one movie.  It’s very convoluted and covers a whoooole lot of time.)

2) Expanding some story somewhere from the LotR appendices.  (It’s been a while since I read them and I don’t distinctly remember anything in there from between The Hobbit and LotR, but maybe.)

3) Something from any of the various books published after his death that deal with the world.  Again, “sequel” probably isn’t the correct word to use.

4) A completely made up Middle-earth story because, you know, this is a cash cow and people will pay to see it anyway.  Especially if Peter Jackson is attached to it.

5) They retained the option of keeping him on, in case they make one out of the Simarillion, or some other movie?

Tah - 19 December 2007 03:46 AM

4) A completely made up Middle-earth story because, you know, this is a cash cow and people will pay to see it anyway.  Especially if Peter Jackson is attached to it.

I don’t see why they’d simply make up a story, since as you say the Silmarillion has tons and tons and tons of material that could be fleshed out into genuine Tolkien stories.  But Hollywood does some straaaaange things at times.  Just look at the movie I, Robot from a few years back.

Maybe by “sequel” they just mean that it will be a second joint venture between New Line and MGM that focuses on the same world.  It might not be a chronological sequel.  It could be The Children of H

Maybe…they are just going back through all the literature & stories Bilbo talked about and creating a chronological movie of his stories of things AFTER the Hobbit.

The Hobbit was always my favorite.  I had the cartoon…one of those “read along” books that came with a tape.  And of course the book.  I loved it a lot more than LOTR…but I think b/c it was more concise.  Beginning…middle…end…all in a single volume.

All the other writings are too disjointed and too broad.  It would be like making a movie based on an encyclopedia or almanac.

Tah - 18 December 2007 11:17 PM

It’s about freaking time.  He’s not named Director (yet?), but this is definitely a huge positive.

And sorry for the all-caps.  That’s the article talking, not me.

[url=http://tinyurl.com/2afsac]PETER JACKSON AND NEW LINE CINEMA JOIN WITH MGM TO PRODUCE

- Starring Will Smith.

The sequel is the second half of ‘The Hobbit’- they decided the book was too long and complex to put all in one movie.

Why don’t they just make intermissions anymore?

Snowy - 19 December 2007 08:17 PM

The sequel is the second half of ‘The Hobbit’- they decided the book was too long and complex to put all in one movie.

That actually makes me happy.  Too often they try to cram an entire book into the space of one movie, which ends up doing a disservice to both the book and the movie.  The Harry Potter movies are like that; they’re trying to cram an 800-page book into 150 minutes, and they end up cutting out a lot of the stuff that’s interesting but not absolutely essential (as well as much of the stuff that explains what’s going on).