Buchanicus
Lorien
Aintitcool news writer Capone posted an interview he conducted with Peter Jackson at SDCC where he talks about The Hobbit and District 9.
Notihng really new, but he does expand and offer some insight on the project. Here's the whole interview...
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/41848
I found this part to be the most insightful:
Capone: I did want to ask you at least one question about THE HOBBIT. What people seemed to think was going to happen was: first film is the book, second film is the bridge. But based on what you said last night, that won't be the case.
PJ: It was going to be the case, once. When we first started talking about the project, that was the assumption. I mean, everyone's sort of been watching this process as it was happening live as it was streaming down into your homes [laughs], but when we really looked at what we really had, we decided that we would just do THE HOBBIT. The good thing is, and I'll make sure I answer your next question--no one will throw you out--because I think it's worth explaining this. The good think about THE HOBBIT that is interesting and what we've really got our heads around now is that because Tolkien wrote THE HOBBIT first as a children's book, obviously, and then he went on 20 years later to publish THE LORD OF THE RINGS, and he drastically expanded his vision of Middle Earth by the time RINGS came out. And what is contained in LORD OF THE RINGS is a lot of retrospective information about the time of THE HOBBIT.
So when Gandalf disappears during THE HOBBIT, which is unexplained largely in the book, we learn later about the Necromancer and Sauron returning to Dol Guldur and Mirkwood. And there's all sorts of hints and appendices that have to do with the Necromancer and the trolls and the goblins in the mountains, all this political backstory that Tolkien was throwing in there that he was retrospectively applying to THE HOBBIT, which never made it into THE HOBBIT novel. And so what we got excited about when we really started looking at it was that as filmmakers, we can actually take his later expansion and we can apply it to THE HOBBIT and we can present THE HOBBIT as this view of what he was ultimately thinking about what was happening in that time, which is neither adapting THE HOBBIT in that simple form, nor is it really making stuff up either. It's actually blending together his material to present a kind of view of the world, which is larger than THE HOBBIT itself. And that's why it's going to take us two films to do that.
Notihng really new, but he does expand and offer some insight on the project. Here's the whole interview...
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/41848
I found this part to be the most insightful:
Capone: I did want to ask you at least one question about THE HOBBIT. What people seemed to think was going to happen was: first film is the book, second film is the bridge. But based on what you said last night, that won't be the case.
PJ: It was going to be the case, once. When we first started talking about the project, that was the assumption. I mean, everyone's sort of been watching this process as it was happening live as it was streaming down into your homes [laughs], but when we really looked at what we really had, we decided that we would just do THE HOBBIT. The good thing is, and I'll make sure I answer your next question--no one will throw you out--because I think it's worth explaining this. The good think about THE HOBBIT that is interesting and what we've really got our heads around now is that because Tolkien wrote THE HOBBIT first as a children's book, obviously, and then he went on 20 years later to publish THE LORD OF THE RINGS, and he drastically expanded his vision of Middle Earth by the time RINGS came out. And what is contained in LORD OF THE RINGS is a lot of retrospective information about the time of THE HOBBIT.
So when Gandalf disappears during THE HOBBIT, which is unexplained largely in the book, we learn later about the Necromancer and Sauron returning to Dol Guldur and Mirkwood. And there's all sorts of hints and appendices that have to do with the Necromancer and the trolls and the goblins in the mountains, all this political backstory that Tolkien was throwing in there that he was retrospectively applying to THE HOBBIT, which never made it into THE HOBBIT novel. And so what we got excited about when we really started looking at it was that as filmmakers, we can actually take his later expansion and we can apply it to THE HOBBIT and we can present THE HOBBIT as this view of what he was ultimately thinking about what was happening in that time, which is neither adapting THE HOBBIT in that simple form, nor is it really making stuff up either. It's actually blending together his material to present a kind of view of the world, which is larger than THE HOBBIT itself. And that's why it's going to take us two films to do that.
]
]
