Jackson and Hobbits to Quest and Save Hollywood Yet Again?

Variety/Comingsoon ^ | Nov 14th 2006

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Only if they do the same to him special-effects wise as they did to Gollum!

[SunkenCiv]

Wholeheartedly agree.

[Dr. Scarpetta]

bump

[RosieCotton]

I really didn't like what they did to Faramir. Apparently, from what was said in some of the "making of" documentaries, they felt that his character needed to seen to grow, so they didn't like that he was so good to begin with and they made him weaker.

I fail to see why that was at *all* necessary.

[RosieCotton]

Oh, geesh...talk about flashbacks!

[Rameumptom]

JRR Tolkien said in an interview (I read it long ago, couldn't give you the source) that Faramir was the character most like him. I didn't like the film actor much either. In the book Faramir resembles Aragoron more. He's a Ranger not the wimpy sniveling whiney interpretation Peter Jackson went with.

[Rameumptom]

Aragoron = Aragorn




Sheesh, sorry

[T-Bird45]

Article today in the NZ Herald (not allowed to post on FR) says the accounting details on the trilogy are keeping them from moving forward so Jackson has withdrawn. Info is also posted as a letter from Jackson on the theonering.net.

NZ Herald link: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=100&objectid=10411754

So, as usual, follow the money or the funny accounting methods of the film industry. Too bad since Jackson made New Line a pot of money and could have done it again, had they treated him fairly.

[HairOfTheDog]

That's big news.

ecurbh ping.

[ecurbh]

Some significant news posted by T-Bird45:

Article today in the NZ Herald (not allowed to post on FR) says the accounting details on the trilogy are keeping them from moving forward so Jackson has withdrawn. Info is also posted as a letter from Jackson on the theonering.net.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=100&objectid=10411754

TheOneRing.net - Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh Talk THE HOBBIT

Ring Ping!!

Please support our Hobbit Hole Pocket knives for the troops project.

Anyone wishing to be added to or removed from the Ring-Ping list, please don't hesitate to let me know.

[HairOfTheDog]

Variety article has MGM saying it's 'far from closed'

Variety.com - Inside Move: It's hard to be a 'Hobbit'

New Line, MGM, Jackson tussle over pic

By NICOLE LAPORTE, NICOLE LAPORTE, DAVE MCNARY, DAVE MCNARY

Jackson

Ordesky

Who's the boss of "The Hobbit"?

This question has been growing more heated in recent weeks as the principal parties involved in the film -- New Line, MGM and director Peter Jackson -- have been duking it out, each staking their claim as a key player in "The Hobbit" along with a prequel to "The Lord of the Rings."

Behind the jostling is the fact that while New Line owns the rights to produce the pic, MGM owns the distribution rights and Jackson is the creative force behind the franchise's staggering success.

In the most recent flurry of events, Peter Jackson and producing partner Fran Walsh posted a letter Sunday night on the "LOTR" fan site Theonering.net saying that New Line told them last week that it was going to make "The Hobbit" without their services.

The letter also reiterated in detail Jackson's stance on "The Hobbit" -- that he is not willing to have a serious conversation about directing the film until his ongoing lawsuit with New Line over what he considers improper accounting practices over "LOTR" profits is settled.

New Line's given reason for proceeding sans Jackson is that the studio's rights to the pic are about to expire, and seeing as the lawsuit with Jackson isn't moving ahead, well, the message was that New Line is.

All of this has riled MGM, which in recent weeks has been openly touting the fact that the newly revamped studio is serious about making "The Hobbit" -- with Jackson.

An MGM spokesman said that "the matter of Peter Jackson directing 'The Hobbit' films is far from closed."

Though New Line no-commented inquiries about Jackson's statement, the mini-major's move is a loud statement to both MGM and Jackson that the studio is in the driver's seat when it comes to "The Hobbit."

Jackson noted in his letter that New Line exec Mark Ordesky, who shepherded the "Rings" trilogy, explained that New Line is ditching Jackson because it has a "limited time option" on the film rights obtained from Saul Zaentz.

There are already online revolts from fans who can't fathom a "Hobbit" directed by anyone else, and Jackson makes clear in his letter that he's not budging on the issue of the lawsuit or "The Hobbit."

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Well this is one more example of the 'business' end of 'show business'. Not to be naive about business in general, I often think that the predatory practices of businessmen portrayed by Hollywood types is based on their knowledge of business practices in their town.

[DaveLoneRanger]

I heard this sad news today. Bummer.

But there is hope. Have you seen the fan trailer for this interesting fan film?

Born Of Hope looks like a high-quality fan film.

[maquiladora]

What a mess. PJ's letter to TORN really does sound quite final, it really does sound like he's made up his mind to give up on The Hobbit after that unbelievable call from New Line. Really is sad to hear just how far things had gone with MGM.

I suppose if we look at the positive side of things, this doesn't mean that The Hobbit isn't going to happen, in fact, we now now the rights are time limited, so its definitely going to get made, just probably not with PJ.

There is always a possibility that whoever ends up making the Hobbit will be a very creative and talented director that might bring an interesting look and feel to The Hobbit. I guess it might be fun to begin thinking about names...Sam Raimi, Peter Weir, Christopher Nolan, Guillermo del Toro, Bryan Singer...

Also, it's interesting to see that WETA boss Richard Taylor has already stated that the creative team behind LOTR would still love to be asked to be involved in The Hobbit, even without PJ at the helm, and that has to be a good thing.

[maquiladora]

Ok...theres a rumor circulating already that New Line are getting Jean-Pierre Jeunet to make The Hobbit...

[300winmag]

There are already online revolts from fans who can't fathom a "Hobbit" directed by anyone else, and Jackson makes clear in his letter that he's not budging on the issue of the lawsuit or "The Hobbit."

Well, I'm certainly revolting. And I'm not too happy with this movie business, either. Jackson not only spent years making what many, myself included, consider the greatest movie of the 20th century, he had to fight studios to give him the money and the artistic freedom.

New Line was less-nearsighted than the rest of Hollywood, and they've been richly rewarded. You'd think by now they would have learned to give Jackson whatever he wanted, up to and including 49% of the studio. Instead, they figure they have a turnkey franchise, and can turn it over to some second-string director.

If PJ doesn't direct it, it's just a cheap ripoff, and I ain't goin'.

[HairOfTheDog]

I agree with your sentiments... At this point it wouldn't feel right if PJ doesn't make it. That was a whole ~team~ that worked, and I was looking forward to seeing many of the same players assemble for the Hobbit.

Maybe this is just a lot of posturing and noise... and it'll settle out our way in the end. I really don't know.

[300winmag]

Maybe this is just a lot of posturing and noise... and it'll settle out our way in the end. I really don't know.

Doesn't New Line know that it was Peter Jackson who made them all those billions on the first place, and not their lawyers? It seems like a proven track record wasn't good enough for them any more.

Anybody who sees a non-Jackson "Hobbit" will go only once, and bring sharpened axes and knives with them.

It's amazing how Hollywood can screw up a no-brainer.

[maquiladora]

For all who are unhappy, want to make their voices heard :

www.boycottnewline.com

Or :

mark.ordesky@newline.com

[maquiladora]

I guess the studio was counting on Jackson's love for Middle Earth and desire to make The Hobbit being stronger than his desire to have an independent audit of the profits from FOTR. On the face of it, it might seem like greed, but all Jackson is asking for is an independent audit to see whether there were any irregularities or not, and it's been New Line's refusal to agree to this which has caused the whole mess. Regardless of whether PJ needs more money or not, it's the sheer principle of not letting yourself be screwed out of something you deserve.

It was a smart move by PJ to make this public, and though it does seem unrealistic, there is a chance that PJ is still playing mindgames with New Line, and by going public like this and stating that the dream is over, he is hoping that out of desperation in the face of overwhelming negative reaction, the studio will come back and offer an agreement on the lawsuit. There's still time I think, but it's a really slim chance.

[300winmag]

I guess the studio was counting on Jackson's love for Middle Earth and desire to make The Hobbit being stronger than his desire to have an independent audit of the profits from FOTR.

The movie and music industries seem to regularly employ accounting practices that would get most other CFOs thrown in prison.

[maquiladora]

Latest buzz now is that Sam Raimi may be making The Hobbit...

[300winmag]

Latest buzz now is that Sam Raimi may be making The Hobbit...

I'll wait for it to come out on DVD. Probably six months after hitting the theaters.

[JohnnyZ]

Question is, will Ian Holm be up to portraying Bilbo in his younger years?

Ian Holm was the best part of LOTR. Gandalf the Gay was awesome too - Boromir decent, and -- well, I must praise Orlando Bloom or be shredded by hrodes of mall rats!

[JohnnyZ]

Latest buzz now is that Sam Raimi may be making The Hobbit...

With Bruce Campbell as Beorn:

[DaveLoneRanger]

Ian Holm was barely on screen for a half-hour of the combined trilogy. He doesn't strike me as the best part. I think all of the characters were great for their roles. The all-time favorite scenes are the seige of Gondor, and Aragorn's death charge coinciding with the Crack of Doom and the End of All Things. *Goosebumps*

And have you heard the Complete Recordings soundtrack?!

[JohnnyZ]

I think all of the characters were great for their roles.

Sounds like we disagree completely. I will say that most if not all the characters LOOKED the part (not the orcs); that was phenomenal. But many personalities were seriously misshapen, Aragorn of course, and Faramir, and Elrond, and Merry and Pippin to some extent, and the mockery of Saruman.

Ian Holm was so good in his limited role that he showed how pedestrian an actor Elijah Wood and the other hobbits were. He and Gollum/Serkis showed the power of the Ring, which was not communicated effectively elsewhere in the movies, despite attempts like the third rate Galadriel scene.

As for the soundtrack, I was disappointed, although really there are few original soundtracks worth listening to; the Basil Poledouris score for Conan the Barbarian is an exception.

It will be interesting to hear 13 dwarves all speaking with Welsh? accents.

But I would love to see Sam Raimi do The Hobbit, and I seriously would love to see Bruce Campbell as a supporting actor, either Beorn or Bard. That would be classic!

[DaveLoneRanger]

Ah, a Tolkien purist. :-D

I like the way one behind-the-scenes commentator talked about the changes between the book and film. He said that, now we have two windows on Tolkien's world. One shows different angles than another, and while they do not complement each other, they are not mutually exclusive either.

I agree there were changes in character behavior. Aragorn was far more doubtful and even declared that he never wanted his kingly destiny. (His doubt in the book was about his ability to rise above the failures of the line of Isildur.)

Faramir's decision to take the Ring to his father is just an outright contradiction, but the way they built it, you can almost understand his actions, and it makes the moment that much stronger when he releases the hobbits.

While Elrond wasn't as fatherly to Aragorn as he would have been in the books, I think his role overall was carried well.

I'm not sure I see Merry and Pippin as inappropriate. There were some story changes, but they were immature at the beginning, and grew into a rapid, deep-seated, grim maturity by the film's end, just like in the books.

I'm not sure I get your point about the mockery of Saruman either.

I don't mean to demean Ian Holm, but I think his good representation was brought on by the fact that he wound up playing so limited a role in the film's grand scheme. In other words, there wasn't enough for the filmmakers to work with to change around. (There was one change, though. In the books, Bilbo did, in fact, journey back to Laketown and the Lonely Mountain. In the film, he says he wanted to, but age caught up with him.)

I'm not saying the film got it all right. But I think that we should appreciate Peter Jackson's dilemma of having to cater to Tolkien ignorants, Tolkien purists, and everyone in between. His adherence to the original spirit of the story, and his concern for so much that stems from the book (right down to Sam grabbing Frodo's hand after awakening at Rivendell) all make me more likely to overlook minor (and even forgive a few major) changes.

We'll have to agree to disagree about the soundtrack. I think it was absolutely phenomenal. Undoubtedly one of the best soundtracks I have ever heard.

[Dante3]

That is a scary thought.

[JohnnyZ]

He said that, now we have two windows on Tolkien's world. One shows different angles than another, and while they do not complement each other, they are not mutually exclusive either.

Every change or addition was a downgrade in terms of consistency, feel, plot integrity, characterization ... it was really a remarkable, though dubious, accomplishment.

Faramir's decision to take the Ring.... it makes the moment that much stronger when he releases the hobbits.

It's a joke. An abrupt turnabout of the sort that only happens "in the movies", literally, in this case.

While Elrond wasn't as fatherly to Aragorn as he would have been in the books, I think his role overall was carried well.

I hear they have Michael Richards lined up to play him in The Hobbit.

I don't mean to demean Ian Holm, but I think his good representation was brought on by the fact that he wound up playing so limited a role in the film's grand scheme.

His ACTING. It's called GOOD ACTING.

[Jackson's] adherence to the original spirit of the story

Again, we differ. The look and feel was outstanding, but so many essentials of the characterization were changed or misunderstood -- and not for the better -- that the movies, despite the classic source material, were considerably less than classic. For that I blame Viggo Mortensen and Peter Jackson, principally.

Sam Raimi would, I believe, inherit the look and feel of Middle-Earth but vastly improve everything else.

[DaveLoneRanger]

I'm reading your tone as hostile, and it doesn't have to be that. I'm just sorry you couldn't enjoy LotR more. I think PJ knew that he couldn't only target people like you and I who could name the three unions of mortal and elfkind, who read the histories, The Silmarillion, the Books of Lost Tales, and the appendices. He also had the fangirls. (Hence, Orlando Bloom.)

Regardless, if Sam Raimi does the film (I don't think even the studio execs know at this point), I'm sure he'll put his own unique spin on it, but at the same time, have his eye on the success and tradition that Jackson has already set.

[JohnnyZ]

I'm reading your tone as hostile

Well, you are right, though the hostility is meant to be directed toward the shortcomings on the LOTR movies.

I do think criticisms I and others have of the films are ones that, if addressed, would have benefitted all viewers, whether hardcore Tolkienites or newcomers.

For example, I did not object to adding Aragorn-Arwen material (except for its hamfistedness), and if anything I thought the trilogy could have focused on them in the intro, perhaps playing up the Heir of Isildur angle. After all, the finale is titled "The Return of the King", not "The Destruction of the Ring".

How they're going to manage to keep Aragorn as the reluctant pansy and expect him to play a role in both of the prequels is beyond me.