THE HOBBIT IS COMING!!!!! WDW better get their act together and bid on Tolkien.

[Shadowdawn]

Ahhh the great debate of the ordering of the books...It is only in recent years to they "young uns" that the books were re-numbered with Magician's Nephew being the first.

I know about the forward "blah blah blah, this is what Lewis wanted"

But the first book he ever wrote on Narnia and published was a stand alone story called "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe"

As a matter of fact "Prince Caspian" was originally subtitled, "the Return to Narnia"

In response to a young reader after all 7 books were eventually published, the reader had stated he found that chronologically the MN came first. Lewis wrote back that "Yes, you could certainly read them that way."

The movies are being made in a "correct" order, the original publishing order which was known for many years until recently with a new publisher.

Okay, back to the Hobbit...

Thank you for correcting me. I honestly did not know that, I've really always been a Tolkien gal so I'm not so up to date on Lewis (although they were very good friends). However, I do still say that it is by far the most popular.

 

[echoscot]

Thank you for correcting me. I honestly did not know that, I've really always been a Tolkien gal so I'm not so up to date on Lewis (although they were very good friends). However, I do still say that it is by far the most popular.

Oh, please know that I did not intent that as a correcting type of thing...I love the Narnia stories and have read them in both orders many, many times. I just figured some people did not know the history of the books because they have only fairly recently been introduced to them ( ie last 10-15 years or so)

I know there are other who will take the bait and argue for the different readings and I could honestly care less if they start with the 7th book.

I love the Tolkien stuff too, it is much darker and heavier though.

FYI baz, LOTR is loaded with Christian imagery as well, just more heavily veiled.

 

[baz212]

I know but it doesn't hit you over the head with it. You have to look for it. I hated the Narnia books as a kid back when i was christian. I have always loved Tolkien. I actually don't think he's a good fit for Disney though. I don't think Narnia is either.

Oh, please know that I did not intent that as a correcting type of thing...I love the Narnia stories and have read them in both orders many, many times. I just figured some people did not know the history of the books because they have only fairly recently been introduced to them ( ie last 10-15 years or so)

I know there are other who will take the bait and argue for the different readings and I could honestly care less if they start with the 7th book.

I love the Tolkien stuff too, it is much darker and heavier though.

FYI baz, LOTR is loaded with Christian imagery as well, just more heavily veiled.

​

 

[echoscot]

I know but it doesn't hit you over the head with it. You have to look for it. I hated the Narnia books as a kid back when i was christian. I have always loved Tolkien. I actually don't think he's a good fit for Disney though. I don't think Narnia is either.

I love both stories, LOTR is much deeper of a story while Narnia tends to be more simplistic and moralistic, though I find that as an adult there is even more to them.

Thank you for not jumping down my throat, I seem to be triggering that response a lot tonight...:shrug:

 

[Tower_of Terror]

I can't see Disney shelling out for a massive atrraction based on any LOTR or the Hobbit stuff. They could makle plenty more from Narnia if they've really an urge for the fantasy adventure thing...

It would be a shame if nothing from the such an important and prominent movie franchise featured in a revamped GMR though... still, thats the problem with the whole ride - I don't suppose there would be any chance of New Line / MGM agreeing even to a scene in that as they'd want to hold on to exclusive theme park rights to sell for a handsome fee, perhaps to Universal.

 

[echoscot]

Very good point. The trailer for Prince Caspian looks pretty good, though, maybe they could replace the Wizard of Oz scene in GMR?

 

[echoreyn]

MGM and New Line will co-finance and co-distribute two films, “The Hobbit” and a sequel to “The Hobbit.” New Line will distribute in North America and MGM will distribute internationally



Ummmm they do realize that The Hobbit already has a sequel right? It's called The Lord of the Rings

Glad to see I'm not the only LOTR fan who is bothered by this fact. The Hobbit is just one book. One book = one movie unless somebody decides to add stuff to it that wasn't in the book. This worries me greatly... :fork:

As to whether they should secure the rights to LOTR for a ride/parade/event, I would love to see something done with this, but I honestly don't want Disney to do it. It somehow just doesn't fit. To be clear though, I too would rather see Disney do it than Universal. :lookaroun

 

[Shadowdawn]

Oh, please know that I did not intent that as a correcting type of thing...I love the Narnia stories and have read them in both orders many, many times. I just figured some people did not know the history of the books because they have only fairly recently been introduced to them ( ie last 10-15 years or so)

I know there are other who will take the bait and argue for the different readings and I could honestly care less if they start with the 7th book.

I love the Tolkien stuff too, it is much darker and heavier though.

FYI baz, LOTR is loaded with Christian imagery as well, just more heavily veiled.

I wasn't meaning to sound sarcastic with my thanks if it "sounded" like that, I honestly am glad to now know this bit of trivia.

As for Christian imagery, Tolkien hated allegory and had said many times in his letters that his stories weren't to be taken as such (I can look up the exact letters if you like.) Much of his imagery comes from universal symbols.

 

[Shadowdawn]

Glad to see I'm not the only LOTR fan who is bothered by this fact. The Hobbit is just one book. One book = one movie unless somebody decides to add stuff to it that wasn't in the book. This worries me greatly... :fork:

As to whether they should secure the rights to LOTR for a ride/parade/event, I would love to see something done with this, but I honestly don't want Disney to do it. It somehow just doesn't fit. To be clear though, I too would rather see Disney do it than Universal. :lookaroun

I'll admit that I didn't read the whole OP just got stuck on that line. But hopefully the article is wrong on that particular point. Unless they mean doing some of the Silm. as a sequel but that would just be silly. Or perhaps some of the Lost Tales.

 

[2gether]

Not sure I agree.

no. but the content is too plain and brain-level for todays mass appeal audience.. There is no wiz-bang like in LOTR, and it's going to disaapoint because of it..

I would compare it to the modern jack-black King kong.... a nice try, but off the mark.....

Although there are quite a few points in the book that are a little slow, there is a fire-breathing dragon who lives on hoard of gold, is shot by a bowman and then destroys an entire town as he dies. There is a full scale battle between five different armies, which includes eagles coming to the rescue and a shape shifter. There in imprisonment, a magical ring, and all the other elements of the LOTR.

Also wondering about the second film.....
The language of the book is quite a lot different, but the plot is certainly conducive to a HUGE movie.

 

[csmat99]

Mark my words... The Hobbit will flop.

There is no chance the Hobbit will flop. There is a huge following that will guarantee at least a 60 million plus opening. Hell "I am legend" just made 70 million. So you must be some disgruntled ex- WETA employee. :xmas:

 

[FigmentJedi]

Also wondering about the second film.....
The language of the book is quite a lot different, but the plot is certainly conducive to a HUGE movie.

Second film's apparently the stuff that happened in between Hobbit and LOTR. One Ring.Net has some speculation: http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2007/12/18/28159-what-does-a-sequel-mean/#more-28159

 

[Master Yoda]

Very good point. The trailer for Prince Caspian looks pretty good, though, maybe they could replace the Wizard of Oz scene in GMR?

It is my understanding that Ted Turner owns the rights to Wizard of Oz so there is no reason that it will be leaving due to the MGM?Disney split.....If that was in fact what you were referring to. If not "Move along looky lous, nothing to see here"

Glad to see I'm not the only LOTR fan who is bothered by this fact. The Hobbit is just one book. One book = one movie unless somebody decides to add stuff to it that wasn't in the book. This worries me greatly... :fork:

As to whether they should secure the rights to LOTR for a ride/parade/event, I would love to see something done with this, but I honestly don't want Disney to do it. It somehow just doesn't fit. To be clear though, I too would rather see Disney do it than Universal. :lookaroun

I was a little worried about that too but in further reading the book will be broken into 2 parts which IMHO is a good thing. I will take a 6 hour 2 part Hobbit over a 1 part 3 hour Hobbit any day. At most we might have a little of The Silmarillion, Lots Tales or some history of Middle Earth slipped in.

 

[Green Lantern]

I'm really excited about this movie, but I really want Peter Jackson to write and direct. They said the second movie would be based off all the notes Tolkien wrote, which there was a lot of, so that should be good.

I'd love to see a theme park create the Shire and a ride, make like an entire section just for the Hobbit.

 

[echoscot]

I wasn't meaning to sound sarcastic with my thanks if it "sounded" like that, I honestly am glad to now know this bit of trivia.

As for Christian imagery, Tolkien hated allegory and had said many times in his letters that his stories weren't to be taken as such (I can look up the exact letters if you like.) Much of his imagery comes from universal symbols.

I wasn't intending that you sounded bad, I just didn't want you or anyone to think I was being condescending in my remarks.

As to the other point, I know that both Lewis and Tolkien claimed to eschew allegory. But the instances I was pointing out was imagery, which is different. And in spite of Lewis claim, he definitely went with allegory in The Pilgrim's Regress, and other works. But the Narnia stories are more imagery.

Imagery is a hint or draft of not a direct one-to-one representation. Many Christians like to make the one-to-ones with Narnia, but there are many points where it fails, and simply is a fantasy/adventure, albeit moralistic in the telling.

Tolkien, of his own admission, wrote of his Christian influence in the writings of LOTR, but he did also include more universal images as well.

Oops, once again, a mini-lecture. I am so sorry, I can't help myself, I love both of these stories and authors although I haven't researched them to the full Geek level of some.

 

[Timmay]

Tolkien, of his own admission, wrote of his Christian influence in the writings of LOTR, but he did also include more universal images as well.
.

Dead on...Tolkien said after finishing his trilogy that his Christian beliefs were very clear, although he did not intend it to be that way. It showed him that he couldn't help writing what influenced him and what was meaningful to him.

 

[JEANYLASER]

No way! I don't like this movie!

 

[echoscot]

No way! I don't like this movie!

Uhmmm isn't that a little premature of a view? I mean it hasn't even started filming yet...

 

[Master Yoda]

Uhmmm isn't that a little premature of a view? I mean it hasn't even started filming yet...

or writing a script for that matter.

 

[Timmay]

or writing a script for that matter.

Must have gotten their crystal ball back from the shop.