Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
YahooNews on Hobbit: wrong, or Appendix movie gone?


Apr 25 2008, 3:14am

Post #1 of 9 (644 views)
YahooNews on Hobbit: wrong, or Appendix movie gone? Can't Post


Guillermo del Toro is directing "The Hobbit" and its sequel, New Line Cinema announced Thursday. The 43-year-old filmmaker will move to New Zealand for four years to make the films back-to-back with executive producer Peter Jackson.

"Please note that this version DELETES INCORRECT reference to second movie spanning time between "Hobbit" and "Rings"; New Line now says movies are based on book only."


Um, what the heck? They've said CONSTANTLY: "The first movie is based on the book "The Hobbit", and the second will be a "bridge movie" based on the Appendix which will be about the backstories Tolkien wrote for what's happening in the intervening years.

Why would YahooNews actually make a RETRACTION like this? Can someone (i.e. higher ups on TORN) confirm or deny this or e-mail YahooNews if they're morons?

"Pleased to meet you, hope you guessed my name, but what's puzzling you, is the nature of my game"

Formerly known on TORN as "Draug the Unspeakably Violent"


Apr 25 2008, 4:22am

Post #2 of 9 (372 views)
Very interesting indeed. [In reply to] Can't Post

I wouldn't be surprised if Yahoo's got it wrong, or maybe something changed because of the litigation with the estate? Sheesh, they've got so many contracts to go through, probably no one knows what's going on at this point.

I liked the idea of the bridge movie; I'd be disappointed if there won't be one.

Sr. Staff

Apr 25 2008, 4:45am

Post #3 of 9 (385 views)
It seems reasonable to me - but the press release contradicts it [In reply to] Can't Post

I work in the news industry (hard to believe considering all of my typos today - heh) and Yahoo or any other news organization doesn't rush out to print a correction, especially on-line where the errors can just vanish, unless the subject of the news story requests the correction - usually with some verve. So by way of logic it makes some sense. It isn't hard to imagine that the Estate in negotiating with New Line/MGM/Warners requested that the studio stick only to the Hobbit.

This might be a concession the studio is willing to make because they still get to produce two Hobbit films (break the serial nature of the story into two three-act plays) and then they wouldn't be messing with material in the Appendices or even worse in the eyes of the Estate, making stuff up. So, it isn't impossible to imagine movie studios giving the Estate a piece of the Hobbit pie with promises not to get into peripheral material. So, it isn't impossible to imagine that New Line demanded Yahoo change that in its story.

However, this is from the press release that New Line issued just, what six hours ago?

Speaking of Del Toro, "He will helm the two films back to back – telling the story of “The Hobbit,” and its sequel, which will deal with the 60-year period between “The Hobbit” and “The Fellowship of the Ring,” the first of the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy."

I think the press release that one can safely assume has been more-or-less finished since at least Monday (we got the riddle right!) and has been looked at by legal teams and agents from every side, trumps whatever or whomever was in contact with Yahoo asking for a correction.

Somebody is messing with Yahoo. That is how I see it.

I have no choice but to believe in free will.

The cake is a lie
The cake is a lie
The cake is a lie

(This post was edited by MrCere on Apr 25 2008, 4:51am)


Apr 25 2008, 5:00am

Post #4 of 9 (373 views)
Well, for one .. [In reply to] Can't Post

I'd be happy with no "Bridge" (I cant cope with that word for these movies Crazy) Movie concept.
It will be intersting to see what happens, and I think you might be onto it - although this has now got a greenlight - I'd be tip toing through this too.
The correction on yahoo is interesting though.

Were off to Hobbiton finally!

Tolkien was a Capricorn!!
Russell Crowe for Beorn!!


Apr 25 2008, 5:59am

Post #5 of 9 (371 views)
From the lawsuit [In reply to] Can't Post

In the actual lawsuit if you read it, it says throughout it that New Line only has the rights to produce movies based on the literary books of JRR Tolkien and names The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, The Return of the King and The Hobbit. The Appendix A which will cover the material is part of the literary book, The Return of the King. I think the Estate probably feels that New Line cannot imply so people infer that the second movie is completly made up and/or is not based on the literary works of JRR Tolkien, ie The Fellowship, The Two Towers, The Return of the King or The Hobbit. That is what I am taking this to mean until and if it is clarified. I don't take it to mean that the second movie is not based on the information from Appendix A, but it is really based on the book, The Return of the King since there is no specific book that covers that sixty year period.

Another thing I think this is showing is that the Estate and New Line/Time Warner are talking and talking very specifically. It is a good sign that if the Estate is asking for this and New Line is complying that New Line is working with the Estate to resolve their concerns and correct their errors.

This might give insight that on the second movie in the sense that the source material will have to follow the material in Appendix A in The Return of the King. Perhaps the Estate fears someone trying to create something in Middle Earth that is NOT a creation or from the creative works of the author J.R.R. Tolkien? I don't think it means the second movie is not based on Appendix A, but the correct terminology is that the second movie is based on Appendix A in The Return of the King by J.R.R. Tolkien. Symantics? Perhaps, but it is evidently important to someone and for that matter I understand it. I think it is HIGHLY IMPORTANT that J.R.R. Tolkien receives full credit for everything adapted to the big screen, and have it not implied that someone else made a movie based on some ideas, but it it really a new creative work on Middle Earth.

" . . . (we are ) too engrossed in thinking of everything as a preparation or training or making one fit -- for what? At any minute it is what we are and are doing, not what we plan to be and do that counts."

J.R.R. Tolkien in his 6 October 1940 letter to his son Michael Tolkien.


Apr 25 2008, 7:44am

Post #6 of 9 (379 views)
Well.... [In reply to] Can't Post

As long as we see Dol Goldur and the White Council in either of the films, I'll be happy. I just dug out my (really dog -eared:)) copy of ROTK (the 2001 version) and looked it up. It all takes place within the necessary one-year time period. That shouldn't be messing with anything!

Registered User

Apr 25 2008, 11:15am

Post #7 of 9 (344 views)
It makes sense [In reply to] Can't Post

While I am in favour of fleshing the Hobbit movie out, most of the interesting back story actually happens while the events of the Hobbit are taking place (Dol Guldor/White Council stuff) so I don't think a bridge would be a good idea, it would be too "bitty". That said, I'd still go and see it!


Apr 25 2008, 12:05pm

Post #8 of 9 (343 views)
I saw the same 'correction' [In reply to] Can't Post

The same correction was posted to the online article in my local paper. The story was based on an AP feed, as I imagine the yahoo news article was. So either AP got it wrong, or AP was asked to make the correction.

"That is one thing that Men call 'hope.' Amdir we call it, 'looking up.' But there is another which is founded deeper. Estel we call it, that is 'trust.' It is not defeated by the ways of the world, for it does not come from experience, but from our nature and First Being. If we are indeed the Eruhin, the Children of the One, then He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any enemy, not even by ourselves. This is the last foundation of estel, which we keep even when we contemplate the End. Of all His designs the issue must be for His children's joy."
Finrod, Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth, HoME X Morgoth's Ring


Apr 25 2008, 8:00pm

Post #9 of 9 (346 views)
Bad info [In reply to] Can't Post

Jimdorey says it's wrong. See: http://newboards.theonering.net/...cgi?post=91551#91551

-mwirkk :)


Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.