The Hollywood Reporter has reported that Andy Serkis will be doing more than just repraising Gollum in The Hobbit. He'll also be serving as second unit director.
“I think I understand Peter’s sensibility and we have a common history of understanding Middle Earth,” Serkis told The Hollywood Reporter. “A lot of the crew from The Lord of the Rings was returning to work on The Hobbit. There is really a sense of Peter wanting people around him who totally understand the material and the work ethic."
“It is wide ranging and encompasses a lot of directing aspects of filmmaking and story. Yes, there is some performance capture, but I will be very much on the live action sets and locations helping Peter to tell the story."
The actor also has performances in two additional anticipated movies are on the way, both of which are performance capture. He will play Caesar in the Planet of the Apes prequel Rise of the Apes, slated for an Aug. 4 debut; and Captain Haddock in the December release The Adventures of TinTin: The Secret of the Unicorn.
If that info's correct, my interest in Apes just went up a bit: I only vaguely knew Serkis was in it, but if it's mo-cap that's a more interesting choice (especially after Kong). Tin Tin, of course, I still have high hopes for (especially, after the debacle of Mars Needs Moms, Weta will be going all out to make sure the eyes really shine like only they can do).
Not surprised he's becoming a director though: I actually thought he'd directed a film before, but I guess not. He's produced, though, and is obviously a very talented guy. I'm interested to see where he goes with that and what he comes up with.
Ben, I'm afraid of this, but the story itself is simpler than the one in Lord of the Rings. Then again, Peter Jackson expanded that story to include many more emotional plot points so it could be done again.
Rodney wrote:Ben, I'm afraid of this, but the story itself is simpler than the one in Lord of the Rings. Then again, Peter Jackson expanded that story to include many more emotional plot points so it could be done again.
It's going to get a (groan) LOT of expanding, as Warner was too "disappointed" it couldn't become another trilogy, and tried to stretch it out to two films with the historical-appendix material. (To anal-retentively bring the movie canon full-circle, a la "X-Men: Wolverine")
Just how much of it ends up in the first movie, which will probably be most of the original book, we shall no doubt find out on the next blog.
It seems my poor, middle-of-the-night attempt at lampooning our recent "overrated/underrated" forum posts didn't hit the intended bullseye!
More seriously, from what I understand, the simpler Hobbit book will be mostly split in two, though the first film will be roughly two thirds of the book, the second film a bit more of a continuation/lead-in to LOTR.
Nice to see the production diaries starting up again and funny to hear Jackson referring to the "next two or three years", and also nice to see him putting a bit of weight back on: he was looking seriously gaunt after Kong and through Lovely Bones.
Warner Bros. once again looking to take more money outta people's pockets by playing the extended editions of LotR leading up to the Blu Ray launch at the end of June.
Fellowship of the Ring - June 14
Two Towers - June 21
Return of the King - June 28
I think this is a good thing. It will almost ten years (!) since the original came out. There are a lot of kids out there that never got to see the original in theaters. This will be their chance.
I'm getting a little worried that this is becoming "face"-heavy. I have utmost faith in Peter Jackson, but where the LOTR trilogy relied on great performances from a relatively un-superstar cast, this one seems packed with (yes, albeit stars from those films) big names amongst the new additions.
I just they don't unbalance the movie while we subconsciously play "ooh, it's them!" as opposed to just believing in the characters again.
Does anyone else here think that The Hobbit will be underrated compared to The Lord Of The Rings, or vice-versa?
Hasn't that been the case since the LOTR trilogy was finished as a set of novels?
Over the years, animated special or not, I've found The Hobbit to be more accessible.
The problem I've always had with LOTR is that in many cases it's overwritten and there are tons of details and anciliary characters that really don't add to the main story. Those are wonderful additions for something like The Silmarillion or compiled notebooks but as for the main storylines---! I wasn't sad to see things left out of movies... the main points were faithfully adapted.
Don't know how I feel about The Hobbit being broken in two, though.... Not until I see the finished films.
As far as the LOTR films are concerned, I think once in the theaters was enough for me. I don't feel compelled to watch the films again until at least another ten years. I feel the same with the books. I'm not stuck on them like the hardcore are re-reading and memorizing line-by-line. (I couldn't even do that when I went to church!) Heck, I haven't even watched any of the good Star Wars film all the way through for years!
