 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.
Posted on 11/20/2006 11:37:38 PM PST by MadIvan
They sold the rights to the movies. I don't think they retained any say in how they were done. Christopher Tolkien, as I'm sure you know, thought Peter Jackson's LOTR was a travesty.
I think you're right. In an age when most of what comes out of Hollywood resembles excrement, these movies were the greatest epics since Star Wars.
Hopefully this is all just positioning.
It won't be the same without him. Although 200 million is a huge amount of money, Peter Jackson earned every bit of it and deserves to share in the merchandising profits. The trilogy is nothing short of genius and NO ONE could devote the attention to detail like he did. I am saddened (but not surprised) that New Line could throw him to the curb. My best to Peter Jackson, I am a huge fan. :-)
Agreed Ivan, I'm not happy either. Hard to think the Hobbit will have the same feel as LoTR without PJ.
Last I heard, he claimed to have not even seen them. He thought the ~idea~ of films was a travesty.
"It is a good film, but so much is lacking. And Frodo always seems so so queer."
I agree Jackson changed some of the fundamentals of the story and not for the better. Case in point is the character of Frodo who challenges, battles and bests some of the greatest in the book only to fall at the end while the movie has him as a victim and failure nearly from the start.
The story unravels when they strayed too far from the books and it's my guess that a new director would do the same but with worse results.
The Silmarillion will be hard to translate to the screen, big or small, period. It's a collection of individual stories with an overall plot/theme to them. It would have to be done as some form of serial to do any justice to them, otherwise, it would wind up being a massive re-write of the source material.
I don't want to see anyone other than Jackson handle this, but if that rumor is true, it would make a lot of sense when you think about it.
Interesting.
I'd thought Tolkien was sharper on the business issues than that.
Crazy world.
Saul Zaentz (the guy who locked up all the merchandising rights to the LOTR franchise decades ago) did the same thing to John Fogarty in the seventies, and it looks like he's at it again.
It's hard to imagine how they will get all the other players to work well together with out Jackson at the helm, and to get New Zealand's help -- so that could be a negative.
On the other hand, it wasn't likely to be as good as the trilogy even if Jackson WAS directing, and Jackson might not have done a good job, he might have felt pressure to overdo it, or to trump his old work. Certainly a King Kong-like movie was as likely with Jackson as another LOTR-type movie.
As to the LOTR, I thought most of the ommisions and changes were tolerable, including leaving out Tom because it just didn't fit well with the story. I do think there was too much angst with the Frodo character.
But I was truly dissappointed that they ended the story the way they did, without the Shire being ransacked. The war coming to the shire seemed almost the point of the book, that no place is safe from the evil, that there are consequences even to victory and the moral high ground. I realise it was another entire scene, and probably another 50 million dollars.
You could almost have made a 4th movie out of it.
The plan (which appeared on the extended edition but not in theatres) to just kill Saruman off after he lost the battle of the Ents was really lame.
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.
You so do not rule.
what a revoltin' development.
Well, he did steal Thorins treasure. I wonder if that'll be cut in favor of the upcoming massive battle scene. CGI actors work for cheap, and dont get overtime.
My son, wife and I all agree that Peter Jackson should not direct childrens' films, and the Hobbit is a children's story. So him not being involved with the movie version is a good thing.
Does New Line have a lock on The Hobbit? There was another thread about MGM looking to get Jackson to develop two Hobbit movies. Could there be competing Hobbit films?
On the other thread about this the "saving hollywood" thread, I posted a Variety article that had the MGM reaction to all this, 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
Who's the boss of "The Hobbit"?
Jackson
OrdeskyThis 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."
Yeah, you'd think 200 million would be plenty. But if New Line is breaching their contract, then Jackson is entitled to sue. 'Course, I don't think any of us really knows what's going on legally.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
