Movie News

J.R.R. Tolkien's great grandson weighs in on the whole PJ/HOBBIT situation!

Published at: Dec. 12, 2006, 1:34 a.m. CST by quint

Ahoy, squirts! Quint here with another opinion on the whole Peter Jackson/New Line/MGM/Hobbit situation. I wouldn't post this by itself if it didn't come from a man with J.R.R. Tolkien's blood running through his veins. I met Royd Tolkien a few years ago on the set of RETURN OF THE KING and the look on his face was classic. He told me that his grandfather wasn't too keen on letting the rights go to LOTR, but that the entire family was so impressed with Jackson's translation of his great-grandfather's world. He wore a giant smile each time I saw him on the set. Now, he's sent in a request to post his opinion on this site. Who am I to tell a Tolkien he can't voice an opinion on the troubles surrounding Middle Earth? Here's his thoughts. You can also visit Royd at his MySpace page for his continuing commentary on the situation. Enjoy!

Before Peter made Lord Of The Rings, all i knew of his work is that he made films that i really enjoyed. That all changed a few years ago. He's now not just a filmmaker, he is someone that i trust and respect. Before the films were made i held massive reservations and fears that JRRT and LOTR would be used as merely a tool in producing revenue and ultimately a substandard film. But it's different now, and it's different because of Peter. 3 weeks ago those feelings returned. Without him, and without question, The Hobbit will become what i feared LOTR was to become. To find a new director after the time and dedication Peter and all his people put in would not just be wrong, it would also be a bad decision. Now i know and understand that some purists would disagree with me, and whilst i again understand and agree with their right to have an opinion, just imagine how bad it could have been without Peter at the helm. Peter didn't just direct a film, he brought together a team. Think about the different elements of his team: The thoughtfulness and professionalism of Richard Taylor and everyone at Weta who realised the complex detail needed to make it believable; The beautiful music of Howard Shore that compliments and binds the film; The wonderfully detailed concepts of Alan Lee and John Howe whose insight helped craft the feel of the film; The fabulous costumes of Ngila Dickson; The photography and vision of Andrew Lesnie and not to forget New Zealand, a country that lends itself perfectly to Middle Earth with its breathtaking and varied landscapes... and many many more elements that he brought together not just as a filmmaker, but as a team leader. How could a different director do what Peter has done. How would they find a similar team of people who have the knowledge, passion and understanding of a world they helped create. Surely that doesn't make any sense when Peter already holds the key. I do understand and agree with Peters position, although i only know on the surface what must be a very difficult, and frustrating decision for him. I know it's not simply a matter of saying yes, there's a mountain of issues that lie between New Line and Peter, but there must be some way to resolve this. I imagine there's been an awful lot of letters and conversations between both camps, heels have been dug in and hair pulled out. If only there was some way to sort out the stalemate between them and find that common ground and resolution which is needed to do justice to such an important book. Whilst i don't know the inner relationship between New Line and Peter, what i do know is that they backed him, all those years ago, to produce LOTR. For that part and many more they played, i'm forever grateful. When i saw the end result on screen, knowing that everyone had played a part in putting it there; and were all united in putting it there; it made me smile. I'm sorry but has everyone forgot those simple smiles. Isn't that what making films is all about. If Peter hadn't made LOTR with the respect he showed to my Great Grandfather, i'd not have felt compelled to voice my opinion Royd Tolkien.

Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Dec. 11, 2006, 2:08 a.m. CST

    So writing ability isn't genetic

    by Aust1n

    2

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 2:10 a.m. CST

    well if Tokien's great grandson wants Jackson in

    by Cedar_Room

    I guess the whole situation is resolved.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 2:11 a.m. CST

    Well said, Royd

    by Zorak5

    I think it's interesting hearing Royd Tolkien's opinion on this, especially since he was on set and did get to see PJ work firsthand.<p>Just last week, I was warming to the idea of a new director (Sam Raimi, for example), but then I had a LOTR marathon this weekend. Watched all three films in 2 days, and there's really no denying with the films fresh in my head that it would be wrong for someone else to make The Hobbit.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 2:16 a.m. CST

    I second that, how about you Roj?

    by Nomy

    I second that, how about you Roj?

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 2:18 a.m. CST

    Theres always an idiot on every board...

    by Ridge

    Who decides to post something absolutely moronic. Congrats Aust1n. Anyhow, I honestly don't see how anyone else could do the movie justice other than the original team.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 2:18 a.m. CST

    STOP!! Grammar Time!!

    by godoffireinhell

    Royd Tolkien needs to go back to grade school. I agree with what he seems to have tried to say, though.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 2:21 a.m. CST

    He makes a fair point

    by Franklin T Marmoset

    Jackson is the very, very obvious choice, and you'd hope the people involved would move heaven and earth to have him make this Hobbit film. That said, The Hobbit is quite a different book from Lord Of The Rings. It's not so epic and it's also funnier, I think, much more of a children's book. Maybe a different creative team could be a good thing?

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 2:27 a.m. CST

    This guy's going to have Royd rage if they don't

    by comedian_x

    get PJ.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 2:29 a.m. CST

    What's the big deal...

    by tie3456

    This whole topic is pointless. New Line is gonna do exactly what it wants to do. If the ghost of Tolkein materialized in front of the New Line execs and told them he wanted PJ to direct The Hobbit, they still wouldn't let him do it. This whole Peter Jackson must direct thing has got to be put to rest. I mean, yes, I appreciate the job that he did on LOTR, I really do. I don't think the movies would have been half the success they were if he hadn't been behind the camera. But honestly, there are plenty of other directors and production teams out there that can bring The Hobbit to life on the screen with the same level of dedication as Jackson and Weta. Why not let someone else try their hand at recreating Middle Earth. A breath of fresh air never hurt anybody. If Peter Jackson comes back to direct The Hobbit...great. If he doesn't...who cares.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 2:35 a.m. CST

    PJ or bust

    by odysseus

    'Nuff said.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 2:34 a.m. CST

    Can I point out the obvious...

    by chaplinatemyshoe

    The movie doesn't need to be made anyway. It will never be able to come close to matching the cartoon. I still have that damn "Where There's a Will, There's a Way" song stuck in my head...

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 2:36 a.m. CST

    besides...

    by chaplinatemyshoe

    The Hobbit's more of a children's story. Every Tolkien fan I talk to acknowledges this. Not saying Peter Jackson isn't capable of making a children's movie, but wouldn't he want to give it more of a horror edge like he does every other movie he's directed...

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 2:42 a.m. CST

    I'll just throw a name out there...

    by Shermdawg

    Brian Henson

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 2:41 a.m. CST

    Hmm.. Studio PR through AICN

    by Cyberfury

    It could be the next big thing..

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 2:50 a.m. CST

    wow

    by antonphd

    1. either some people who've posted in this work for fucking New Line or 2. they are just morons who just say shit about shit they don't understand.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 2:53 a.m. CST

    grammar police

    by antonphd

    you guys are fucking assholes. what the hell is wrong with you? you correct grammar but you have no manners. fuck off.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 3:02 a.m. CST

    Oh, comedian_x, how that name suits you! "Royd Rage"

    by The Wrong Guy

    Hi-larious. ;)Also gotta say, I laughed at Aust1n's 'moronic' comment. Observational humour at it's best, that's what that was.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 3:09 a.m. CST

    Whilst I respect Royd Tolkien's views

    by Conan_the_Humble

    I'd prefer to hear Christopher TOLKIEN. I've got a strong feeling that he does NOT approve of PJ's "interpretation" of LOTR, nor do I think he's overly thrilled with the idea of the Hobbit being made into a movie. But anyway. The decision from New Line still sucks. Cheers.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 3:20 a.m. CST

    Odysseus, my dear friend....

    by Quintus_Arrius

    ... you are absolutely correct. Jackson simply must direct this film; it would be utter maddness for another person to helm it. Hail!

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 3:27 a.m. CST

    Peter Jackson not helming ths film would be like...

    by Monkey_King

    having someone else play Freddy Krueger than Robert Englund, or having Rob Zombie direct 'The Sound of Music'(BTW Not a slam on Rob, he's a brilliant director and I'm looking forward to his reinterpretation of HALLOWEEN )

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 3:38 a.m. CST

    PJ

    by Power_Girl

    PJ will end up doing it. MGM will hold out from making a deal with New Line to make The Hobbit. Once the rights return to The Tolkien family MGM will make it with PJ. As far as I know New Line cant just make these movies without MGM.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 3:47 a.m. CST

    Royd Tolkien

    by NachoNegro

    I have never begrudged anyone from making a living. Seriously. But you have to put this into context. Royd Tolkien has absolutely no say in anything. You can't argue with his points, but don't be fooled into thinking he's an 'insider', who has 'specialist knowledge', and access to the 'inner sanctum'. Nothing could be further from the truth. He is no different from 'Eugene 'Rod' Roddenberry' - someone looking to make a living from a relatives success. And that's fine, I don't have a problem with that. But don't con people into thinking you are part of the 'management team'.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 3:54 a.m. CST

    I hear Floyd Tolkien Thinks Otherwise

    by tonagan

    He and Royd had a falling out over a girl a few years back, though.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 4:01 a.m. CST

    And Boyd Tolkien Thinks His Brothers are Both Morons

    by tonagan

    I'm ashamed of myself.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 4:11 a.m. CST

    New Line gets a bad case of the Royds

    by mr. brownstone

    NL are fools not to give Jackson the 20 mill they owe him. It's pocket change compared to the credibilty, fan faithfulness and critical support Jackson at the helm unquestioningly engenders. Without him they have to start from scratch and fight and up hill battle with everyone against them. 20 million seems like a bargain to get rid of all that ill will and doubt.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 4:19 a.m. CST

    Why we mock Royd's awful grammar

    by godoffireinhell

    The reason is that he's the grandson of J.R.R. TOLKIEN, simple as that. We're used to bad grammar on the internet in general and this site in particular but the fact that Royd is making this statement, being who he is and most likely trying to be taken seriously by both fans and New Line, using l00t-style language and incorrect punctuation is hilarious in an embarrassing kind of way.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 4:21 a.m. CST

    godoffireinhell, his gradfather was Tolkien!

    by Talkbacker with no name

    Yours just spunked out a line of arseholes which I hope end with you!

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 4:26 a.m. CST

    The guy said it.

    by Seph_J

    ... not much more to say really...... errm........[whistles a tune]..... [plastic bag blows by in the wind].....oh yeh, and The Lord of the Rings Trilogy is the best movie ever made, with NO exceptions.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 4:32 a.m. CST

    PJ isn't the right guy to direct this

    by kuguy3000

    I know, I know...that sounds awful, but everyone knows it's true. That's not because Kong was too long, or the LOTR films weren't any good...<br> <br> It's because The Hobbit and LOTR have such VASTLY, VASTLY different feels and tones... I'm afraid that PJ would frame "The Hobbit" like he did LOTR and KONG...it's just not like that. It needs a different direction and different touch. It's nothing personal, but the two stories, as connected as they are, should feel as different as their source material was.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 4:36 a.m. CST

    Royd is entitled to his opinion,

    by RocketScientist

    but frankly, given his involvement in the project, it doesn't mean much. Royd is a music manager and TV producer, and as such much more closely connected to commercial fancruft than to his ancestor's academic background. Given that Christopher Tolkien broke off every contact to his very own son when he said something positive about the movies, I doubt that Royd's depiction of the family's attitude towards the movie is anywhere near accurate. And while I am critical towards Christopher's conduct in a lot of ways (including this, since it's patently silly), I believe that he is one of the people with the most comprehensive understanding of the work of his father. For all his talk, Jackson catered to fantasy fans and to the producers, not to JRR.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 4:56 a.m. CST

    He makes a compelling argument.

    by WONKABAR

    You gotta trust that Peter & Co. would make adjustments tone-wise and deliver. Though I do think it would be interesting to possibly see two different versions of The Hobbit (ala Never Say Never Again/Octopussy) if I were New Line, I'd just go ahead cough up whatever dough was needed to get PJ on the case as soon as possible. If they are concerned about dealines, pay him above and beyond what he wants on top of what he belives he is owed. At the end of the day it's pocket-change compared to what The Hobbit would make.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 5:39 a.m. CST

    Trouble is, though...

    by Mr Jonse

    ..no decent A list director would touch this. Not just out of respect for PJ but they wouldn't risk damaging their own rep by not matching up to what PJ did. At best we'd be looking at a Ratner-style, competant-but-underwhelming, hack job. Richard Lester territory (all due respect to him)...

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 6:03 a.m. CST

    WELL

    by THE KNIGHT

    Great letter! I'm glad he's putting his opinion out there.... *wipes crust out of eyeball*

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 6:36 a.m. CST

    "no A list director would touch this out of respect"

    by NachoNegro

    Are you mad? Why are people deifying PJ after LOTR? Why don't you actually try watching those films? They were good, sure. But they were not flawless - don't make them out to be. PJ is a fine 'General', as is Lucas. But he's not Cameron - as you'll find out when Avatar hits the screens.....

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 6:40 a.m. CST

    Peter Jackson for Director again!

    by Dazzler69

    I don't see a problem with getting internet hype going on making PJ the director again. It's not a bad thing. It could be worse like Flames on Smaug, oh wait that is a dragon so it applies toward that. I guess Michael Bay could direct after all!

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 6:51 a.m. CST

    Damn you Batman

    by Wazoo

    Damn you Batman

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 6:52 a.m. CST

    Nacho, I didnt say they were flawless...

    by Mr Jonse

    ...by having respect for PJ what I meant was; whatever you think of his LOTR films, they were obviously his babies, something he worked his ass off for. I can't see any other real director not having respect for that. You take this film over from Peter Jackson and you get negative press before you even shoot a reel (X3 anyone?). Couple that the lack of McKellan/Serkis that would almost certainly come without PJ you've got a risky prospect on you hands from the start. If you were Cameron/Scott/Spielberg, would *you* want that?

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 6:57 a.m. CST

    Who cares.

    by DigitalDong

    If anyone just read this site and nothing else, they'd think there was only 5 directors out there. John-Q-public didn't give a shit that PJ directed the LOTR movies. Only geeks do. If PJ isn't the director, only the geeks would care. The reason its called the movie business is because its a business that "makes money" by making movies. If PJ doesn't want to make money, then he can afford too.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 6:58 a.m. CST

    You met a guy named "Tolkein"?

    by JackPumpkinhead

    Well, what did he have to do with JRR, about whom this is supposed to be?

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 7 a.m. CST

    Roid?

    by Frankenblogger

    Why do we have a link to this guy's MySpace page? Seriously. And what's a "Hobbit"?

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 7:10 a.m. CST

    Royd Tolkien

    by antonphd

    People responding to Royd Tolkien about how some other director could do as good or better a job at the Hobbit than Peter Jackson are missing the point of what Royd is saying. Let me spell it out for those of you who can spot bad grammar but can't understand what you are reading. It's not just Peter Jackson... is the whole huge ass fucking team that made the movies! You guys have no fucking goddamn clue what it takes to make a movie. What do you think is going to happen when they get another director? You think all those people who worked a decade on LOTR are coming on board? No. It'll be a rush job and they'll get whoever they can and it will be hacked together as fast as possible. You won't get as good or better, you'll get half ass. They can never put together a team like Peter Jackson had, let alone within a year or two. It's not opinion... it's practical sense.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 7:14 a.m. CST

    Digital, Peter Jackson's name...

    by Mr Jonse

    ...slipped into pop-culture after LOTR. People care. And A-List directors don't shoplift each other's franchises. The point I'm trying to make is, yeah, their are better directors on the world than PJ but; A) none of them will direct this film given the circumstances and B) People go to sequels (or prequels) because they enjoyed the first film and want to be in that world again. Without PJ that's not what this will be.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 7:26 a.m. CST

    Welcome to the world of a corporation raping art

    by antonphd

    If New Line pushes ahead on a Hobbit movie before their rights for it run out, without the experience from Peter Jackson and team, what we will get will be at best is Harry Potter 1 and at worst Lost in Space. People talk about The Hobbit as though it's something so easy to put together and translate to a film. That other creative people should get a chance with it?! But there's what?? A year or two for them to prepare for it at best?! LOTR films were like Rocky. Sorry for the movie analogy here, but the truth is that the films weren't just made by great people. Those people had something to prove and they were proud and gave 200% to the films. You can't just buy that. I say it's like Rocky because the movie wasn't just made, it was made from the heart against impossible challenges. You guys who think anyone could take this and run with it don't know what it takes to make a movie like the Hobbit... not only in an artistic sense, but even just in a practical sense. THAT is why it's just plain stupid to hand The Hobbit to anyone but Peter Jackson and team. And you know what? Unless New Line pushes the movies thru, Peter Jackson IS going to get to make The Hobbit.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 7:37 a.m. CST

    and here is another opinion

    by emeraldboy

    Before Lotr of the rings movies came out Christopher Tolkien, JRR's Tolkiens Son said that as executor of his fathers estate, he will not allow anymore of his fathers books to be turned into movies. he was asked would he see Lord of the rings movies and he said no. it seems like the bakasi version is permanently open sore. The books under his control are the silmarillion etc.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 7:47 a.m. CST

    It took new line 5/6 years of pre-production

    by emeraldboy

    before these movies started to lens. You cannot knock films like this in a year. A better a analogy is x-men 3, a film that I enjoyed. But Fox made a rabitt stew of that and rushed the film into theatres. Personally I will be glad to see Singer come back and finish what he started.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 7:49 a.m. CST

    Royds statement that all the family were impressed is

    by emeraldboy

    BS for reason I have already stated in this thread.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 7:57 a.m. CST

    for Pete's sake...

    by skynetbauxi

    it's TOLKIEN, not TOLKEIN

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 7:58 a.m. CST

    But the only member of the family who seemingly...

    by Mr Jonse

    ...wasn't impressed was Christopher Tolkien who, by his own admission, hasn't seen the films. His opinion on whether the books should have been made into films is own and he's entitled to it but by definition he can't have an opinion about PJ's work.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 8:05 a.m. CST

    Somewhere...

    by DocPazuzu

    ...in a dank, fetid, hate-blackened chamber Ringwearer9 stirs to hideous life...

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 8:04 a.m. CST

    Can't say as though I approve...

    by Childe Roland

    ...of the way this whole thing is playing out in the "press." Peter and New Line have things to talk about. But New Line isn't holding the movie hodtage. Peter is. He's been offered a settlement. He'd prefer to use paranoid fans as leverage to get his way. Distasteful.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 8:05 a.m. CST

    Royd?

    by beelkay

    With a name like Royd, the look on his face was probably painful! Yeah, I did. Had to.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 8:11 a.m. CST

    agree with Mr Jonse

    by skynetbauxi

    there's only ONE director in the world who might be "fuck-ya-all"-ish enough to try following in PJ's footsteps: Uwe Boll. any other director wouldn't touch this with a 20 foot pole. you'd be dissed like Daniel Craig from day 1 of pre-production, except that you'd have no chance to redeem yourself with an excellent movie (like Craig did), because it would be like "it's ok, but it's not PJ" for all time.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 8:15 a.m. CST

    Doc, please don't tempt fate like that...

    by Mr Jonse

    And Childe Roland, c'mon now, that's just your perception of a situation neither you, nor I, nor anyone outside of NL or Wingnut really knows anything about. Don't get caught up in either side's PR.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 8:28 a.m. CST

    Wouldn't mind fresh blood - PJ was getting Lucas-itis

    by Behemoth

    Make no mistake - all three LOTR films were amazing pieces of work, but the IDIOTIC choices made at times, which seemed to increase exponentially with each release, really annoy the crap out of me on every viewing. It all started in Two Towers, with the very poor-looking - and TOTALLY unnecessary - Warg scenes, the RIDICULOUS amount of scenes where an Orc is just about to kill someone, only to pause and deliver a line like, "I'm going to put me rancid orc-member into your pancreas" then, like clockwork, cue sword/spear/etc. to emerge from Orc's gut from behind at last possible second. One or two of these scenes? Okay, fine. More than that? H-A-C-K-N-E-Y-E-D and pathetic. Then the part in the films that annoys me the most: The old "person hanging impossibly from ledge with one finger" cliche, ala Frodo at the end of ROTK. Again, a NEEDLESS, CLICHED PIECE OF CRAP DECISION that mars the beauty of the film as a whole. A TRUE CASE OF LUCAS-ITIS if ever there was one. And then we have the overblown fiasco that is King Kong. Lucas-itis unabated is leading to the artistic death of another once great director. So, since the Hobbit is so different from the LOTR films anyway, I have NO problem with a new person coming on board, as long as it's someone with talent and a vision, not some rushed piece of crap solely to cash in.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 8:29 a.m. CST

    New Line will laugh all the way to the bank

    by performingmonkey

    If you think they won't go ahead and get this made without Peter you're very much mistaken. I doubt they want to pay him a penny more, so instead they'll get some cheap hack who'll do it for a tenth of what Peter's price would be. People will flock to it without PJ on board, trust me. Do you think the majority of Joe Public John Fucking Does give to mother fucks about the director? No. Just because we do doesn't mean they do also. Fuck you and go to hell TBers.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 8:31 a.m. CST

    okay

    by lionbiu

    ...I swear I have heard several members of Tolkien's family say they were not impressed with the movies. If anyone has read the books, you will know liberties were taken and many subtexts were omitted...they were still fine films, but I am not surprised that they did not like it. It's pretty much the same with Mary Poppins.....in that the author despised the movie, but the movie still was a huge critical success.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 8:31 a.m. CST

    Agree with Mr Skynetbauxi

    by Franklin T Marmoset

    Uwe Boll would do wonders for this Hobbit film. He would cast Don Swayze as Bilbo Baggins, Billy Zane as Gandalf, and use all sock-puppets for the dwarves. Also, there would possibly be nudity (boob only). That is a version I'd like to see. If nothing else, it would make me appreciate the LOTR films more.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 8:33 a.m. CST

    added

    by lionbiu

    I really don't see why the hobbit has to be made, its a great story and I think it should be left alone. The last two movies in the LOTR trilogy were bad, they were far more obsessed with spectical and fantasy rather than character and story

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 8:42 a.m. CST

    performingmonkey, what the Joe Public cares about..

    by Mr Jonse

    ...is seeing another LOTR film, and to them this means the same look, feel and (where relevant) cast. By the way, really impressed with the amount of times you said 'fuck' in your post. Made you sound really clever...

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 8:43 a.m. CST

    performingmonkey

    by antonphd

    Batman and Robin. Yeah. WB executives laughed all the way to the unemployement office after this movie.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 8:47 a.m. CST

    Hey, Quint

    by Halloween68

    If you are going to name drop, at least get the name right. It's Tolkien not Tolkein. Haha. Just shitting you. But, seriously, it is Tolkien not Tolkein.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 8:51 a.m. CST

    LOTR and the public

    by antonphd

    The LOTR movies are loved by the public. Sure, some people don't care for them. But 300m+ each movie for 3 years in a row says that a shitload of people love these movies. Not to mention all the books and DVDs. The books flew off the shelves during he movies run. When has that ever happened ever. For 3 years the world was affected by LOTR thanks to Peter Jackson and team. People who don't like them and want to say shit about them are a minority. And you know what? Call yourself elite that you are above everyone else in the world, while you are talking on a TB in a movie website. But don't talk about how people don't care if Peter Jackson makes The Hobbit. Peter Jackson is now a Spielberg or a Disney. His name makes people think of magic and imagination.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 8:57 a.m. CST

    New Line's trying to Cheat Pete for LOTR

    by CrichtonAstronut

    That's the only reason any of this is in question. He's only asking them to dislose their financial records. Why? Because like many studios they have a department of Creative Accounting producing more fantastic than anything theyu put on the screen. So they can say "Oh, I'm Peter we didn't make much profit. I'm if the 500 million world wide gross, per-film, not counting multiple DVD releases, gave that impression. We actually only about $5.00 for the whole trilogy." They reach in their pocket and pull out a nickel. "Here's your cut." How do I know it's something like that. 'Cause they don't want to turn the records over. Even to get a new film off him practically guaranteed to fill threaters if his name makes the credits. And they want him to commit to working for them again before they pay him proper for the last film. Hell no, he shouldn't do that. I sure as hell wouldn't in his position. But, no he's the bad guy 'cause after directing, producing, writing, casting, editing, and suppling the a special FX for one New Line greatest hits, if not their absolute greatest, he wants to get paid. Wow! What a concept! A guy actually wants to get paid for doing his jod. And well I might add. I could apprreciate Fox's position when Bryan Singer pulled out of X3 without so much as a polite goodbye. But on this I got to side with Peter. Dude's gotta stick to his guns on this one. Not be a little bitch. And the New Line folks to be hit in head with an anvil or something, knock some sense into them. Their already getting so much bad press that if they do make a the Hobbit without, it'll pretty much be a flopp. At the very least they should know that it won't make as much as it would if fans of LoTR knew Peter was at the helm. So you tried to cheat New Line, I don't blame you for that, you're a corporation it's you're job to cheat. But you've been caught Pete wasn't the rube from Kiwi country you thought he was, and look to the future profits you can playing straight withis guy 'cause your a corporation and getting a profit's also you're job. And by the way according to ENtertainment Weekly Sam Rami hasn't returned New Line's calls. Good for him. My already great respect for the man has grown. Say it directors "We're not the studios bitches."

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 9:08 a.m. CST

    $300mill not 500mill, my bad

    by CrichtonAstronut

    Still, not as bad chunck of change consdidering the whole trilogy cost less than 300 mill. But I guess they can plead a little poverty. I mean who could live on that of money. Right.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 9:14 a.m. CST

    I was gonna say something clever about "you know who"..

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    ...but DocPazuzu beat me to it.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 9:17 a.m. CST

    I'm confused....

    by EUROPA

    ...when are we getting the Donner Cut of the Two Towers???

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 9:24 a.m. CST

    PLANTS! WEEDS! PLANTS!

    by veritasses

    It's so obvious that this TB is infested with Plants from New Line. Their attacks on Royd are dirty, pathetic, embarassing and disgraceful. They need to just shut up and let PJ make the movie. He took an incredibly difficult body of work to translate to the screen, turned it into one of the greatest (if not the greatest) cinematic achievements of all time, generated billions in BO, DVD and merchandising sales and made hundreds of millions of geeks and non-geeks alike marvel and revel in the world of Tolkien’s epic masterpiece. PJ’s certainly earned the right to make the film and we fans deserve to have our expectations met with the same vision, quality and continuity of Jackson’s brilliant trilogy.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 9:34 a.m. CST

    You have to remember

    by Kristian66

    This/these films could turn out to be a steaming pile of shite no matter who directs the fuckers. LOTR was good because it consisted of all different races, but most of The Hobbit is 1 Hobbit and a shit load of dwarfs. No offence on the fellow that played Gimli, but the dwarf part of the films was without doubt better in small doses. There are some elves and some humans being a pain in the arse in this, but mainly 1 Hobbit and a shit load of dwarfs.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 9:36 a.m. CST

    How can ANYONE watch...

    by Fawst

    the opening scenes in The Shire (post prologue) on either the regular or special editions of FOTR and say that Jackson can't hit the tone or feel of The Hobbit? There was more warmth and good feeling packed into those scenes (especially the extended cut moments) than any buddy movie, romantic comedy or anything of the sort had in the past decade. For that matter, can anyone honestly say that Jackson didn't nail those few seconds of Bilbo in Gollum's cave? Pure fucking gold. Game over, end of story. Jackson needs to direct this. P.S. The dwarves were bumbling idiots for the most part in The Hobbit. His sense of them being comedic relief actually will work in The Hobbit as compared to LOTR.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 9:40 a.m. CST

    Peter Jackson MUST direct "Silmarillion"

    by Doctor_Sin

    Typical. Royd takes the time to weigh in for our benefit and the TB collapses under the weight of weedish plantiness and general nastiness. Look, PJ should do the Hobbit, then we can have The Peter Jackson Middle Earth Collection Box Set (Deluxe Director's Cut) Limited Edition Collectible "Shire" Edition sitting on our shelves. Just make it so, let him do it, then the saga is complete and it's all done under a strong guiding hand.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 9:40 a.m. CST

    Kristian66

    by Franklin T Marmoset

    Yes, there's a shitload of dwarves, but they're funny dwarves, and they'll be funnier still when they're all played by naked female midgets in Albert Pyun's The Hobbit. Also, Tim Thomerson will star as Gandalf.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 9:44 a.m. CST

    christopher tolkien...

    by LegoKenobi

    can bitch and moan all he wants to about how the movies broke canon and whatnot, but he sure clams up when it comes time to deposit those royalty checks now, doesn't he? hypocrite. he's just bitter that someone besides him is making money off of his dad's work. agree with Fawst -- those opening scenes of the shire in fellowship were spot-on, and they capture the look and tone needed for "the hobbit" better than anything else ever done. all the naysayers for PJ have a lot of explaining to do if they don't think PJ can do it. rock on, peter!

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 9:50 a.m. CST

    According to Christopher Tolkein

    by emeraldboy

    As long as the publishing rights for Silmarillion and other post fellowship books remain under his control, these books will not be made. I dont know how many times I will have to repeat it. We will just have to take the man at his word. I aint going to happen.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 10:02 a.m. CST

    Actually Jonse, the only element of my post...

    by Childe Roland

    ...that was subjective was my characterization of a film held hostage. New Line did, in fact, offer PJ a settlement as part of the proposed directorship of The Hobbit. PJ turned it down. These facts aren't in dispute as far as I know. I personally don't think The Hobbit needs PJ (or his rather self-serving vision for the reimagining of that story), but his camp seems hell-bent on creating the perception that New Line is preventing him from doing the movie. Again...he turned down their proposal. One is pretty much forced to assume it's because he feels entitled to more than they were offering. I've got nothing against PJ, and hold him in high regard for his adaptation of the trilogy, but he is by no means the only man who can bring The Hobbit to the screen. From his own description of how he'd like to handle it, I'd say he's the wrong guy for the job. If the project moves forward without him, I think it will be for the best (because the integrity of the story as a largely kid-focused fantasy fairy tale will be preserved and we won't see it re-forged into some ultra-realist TLOR Trilogy prequel). If, by some miracle, the stars align and he does end up at the helm, I hope he makes two versions and saves all of the Trilogy-relevant created stuff for an extended edition somewhere down the road. I'd buy it simply for the sense of completion, but I'd hate for my son to miss out on what could be one the coolest big-screen fantasy myth since The Dark Crystal because PJ thought he could tell the Hobbit better than Tolkien did.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 10:05 a.m. CST

    if the hobbit is made into a film

    by emeraldboy

    There is just one catch. I live in Ireland and at the moment there is a bit of a row between Ward anderson who own 50% of Irish cinemas the rest are owned Vue, cineworld etc and EFD(enterainment in film distributors) .EFD hold the rights to all newline films in Ireland and 15 months ago they terminated there distribution deal with ward Anderson, so if the hobbit is to be made made by newline it will not be shown in the following cinemas. The Screen, the Savoy, the IMC cinema Chain as well as Cineplex chains and omniplex chains. The row means that I didnt get to see the departed with Jack nicholson. bastards. One newline film I did see on DVD was WEdding crashers. Patchy in places but over all in enjoyed. The cleary famil were insane. What was the name of the actress who played the granny and also the rapping granny in the apalling wedding singer.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 10:06 a.m. CST

    Ever since Kristian66 said that...

    by Mr Jonse

    ...I've been thinking and I can't think of a single film that wouldn't be improved by a shitload of dwarves. Think about it; Hostel - shit film, Hostel with a shitload of dwarves - slightly better film. Don't know why I havn't thought of this before...

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 10:14 a.m. CST

    Never Say Never Again/Octopussy???

    by Cedar_Room

    to whoever made that comment, Never Say Never Again was actually a remake of Thunderball---James Bond anal moment over--- The Hobbit will be/won't be shit without Peter Jackson, this Tolkien guy is/is not a retard, ROTK was really gay etc etc etc

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 10:16 a.m. CST

    Childe Roland

    by Fawst

    I made this point in a previous Talkback. If you were hired to do a job, you did it, and then found out that when you got paid, you didn't get paid what you should have, would you then go ahead and do another job for the person that hired you? I'm guessing no. He turned down their offer because their offer sucked. New Line is trying to bribe Jackson into dropping his lawsuit. Why? Because they know he's right. They are trying to get him to settle it so that they can get out of paying him what he deserves. At least, that's my interpretation. Then again, I still stand by my analogy. I wouldn't want to do a job for a boss that I know is going to shaft me. ESPECIALLY when my job performance far outshined their wildest dreams. Come on, a billion dollar franchise, and they're gonna pinch pennies? Jackson has the balls to stand up to the establishment. His pride is more important to him than getting a movie made, and I agree with that. I applaud it, in fact. As much as I want my Hobbit movie, I also don't want it done by anyone but Jackson. And I am fine with his decision.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 10:24 a.m. CST

    Childe Roland, I understand what you're saying...

    by Mr Jonse

    ...but for all we know, the settlement NL offered him could have been an insult. Truth is we don't know what's going on behind the scenes (though in the 'money grabbing' stakes, logic would appear to incriminate the Major Hollywood Studio over the guy who spent years making low budget schlock just for the love of it). Your opinion that he's not the man to make the film is a matter of personal taste, but you seemed to be using more that a little conjecture about the financial stuff to back that opinion up.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 10:52 a.m. CST

    Nude scene for Liv Tyler wouldn't go amiss either.

    by NachoNegro

    Speed Fricassee has said it best so far. The sad thing is, Christopher Tolkien may have something to say about the Silmarillion, but he has nothing to say about the Hobbit - at least for another few years. I have no problem with another Director taking a crack at this - what I would have a problem with is ditching the TEAM that produced the films. I could even live without WETA - frankly, some of the CGI they produced was actually a little shaky. Go back and look at Gandalf on the horse when Denethor jumps in the flames. It looks like it's been produced for an XBox 360 - horribly rushed. As for the person saying that this story is just about Hobbits and Dwarves, I think the idea is that it will be extended somewhat to cover the parts only hinted at in the book. For instance? Gandalfs various machinations, the events leading up to the Battle of Five Armies, The rise of the necromancer AKA Sauron, Elrond, Radagast The Brown, the Quest of Erebor, etc. I have no doubt that there will be some element of revisionism applied, and story elements changed here and there to fit in 'new' material.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 10:51 a.m. CST

    alfonso cuaron could do it

    by occula

    but unfortunately, it all doesn't matter. everyone's right about new line doing whatever the frak they want. there are numerous lawyers in numerous rooms doing things we'll never know about or understand regarding the lawsuit and new line's policy and if it came up at some point it's likely PJ would be on another project anyhow, since, well, the guy gets work, and he's not going to sit around with his thumbs up his ass waiting. and then the studio wouldn't wait either. and, to mr jonse...i myself am SMACK in the middle of the same situation (on a tiny scale, relatively, but you get the picture), a client is withholding payment from me and i'm instigating a lawsuit, and it doesn't matter one whit how much money it's for. i busted my ass doing a good job and i want the money owed to me...and i think PJ deserves his money too...but, again, all the lawyers in all the rooms...

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 11:03 a.m. CST

    *sigh* i never type what i goddamned mean to

    by occula

    sorry mr jonse, i think my post sort of came out wrong. i meant specifically to address the idea that what new line offered pj might have been an insult and then i said something that didn't really respond correctly to that - sounded like i was picking on the 'insult' comment. i meant to AGREE and say it doesn't matter how much money is involved, that there are principles for those of us who do our jobs. i don't do the same job that PJ does, and neither do any of us, but the world is full of assholes who want to get something for nothing out of those of us who work hard at whatever it is we do, and i believe some of those assholes MIGHT be film studio lawyers. just conjecture, really.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 11:28 a.m. CST

    yeah hmmmm

    by chimcham3000

    they have these things called editors that tell writers when they need some grammatical help. however why he needed to hire one to satisfy you fucking tits is beyond me.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 11:35 a.m. CST

    sincere letter to fans+grammar nazis=

    by Datascream

    ignored message + grandstanding asswipes.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 11:48 a.m. CST

    if this is legitimate...

    by mrbong

    the Tolkien family are going to be concerned about this Hobbit business because of a little thing called ROYALTIES. if PJ does not make it, there's some sort of "boycott" threatened. if he does now make it, many people will pay much money to see it as it has been "given back" to do by PJ. as for Mr Jackson, he made some excellent indie films, he did an ace job of turning out loyal film versions of really dull and cumbersome books, and then he blew it all on the mess that was King Kong. who cares who makes it? i have no need for even more homoerotic midgets waltzing around the shire, thank you.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 11:57 a.m. CST

    but the homoeroticism was the best part

    by Freakemovie

    every time Frodo and Sam have a gay moment, drink

  • Dec. 11, 2006, noon CST

    I didn't know anyone from Tolkien's family liked PJ

    by Orionsangels

    or his version of LOTR on the big screen.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 12:33 p.m. CST

    Grammar? , Who gives a shit!

    by Evil_Imp

    Who gives a shit about his Grammar? only petty little pissants who overlook the Body of the message and focus on what they can tear apart. that is a popular thing to do here.This is AICN after all . lol get a life. Correcting Bad Grammar does not an Intellect make.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 12:34 p.m. CST

    Like PJ is the ONLY one capable of doing this?!!!

    by DarfurOnTheRocks

    Why not give another director a shot at INTERPRETING Middle Earth? Where does it say that PJ is the preserver and guardian of all things Tolkien? I am glad that he made the LOTR trilogy. But this idea that ONLY PJ can do The Hobbit is simply wrong.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 12:40 p.m. CST

    Grammar

    by Duke of Hurl

    Indeed... Quint misspelled the man's name multiple times in the intro... think of that when you point a finger. Besides, J.R.R. was the writer.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 12:50 p.m. CST

    *sigh* It'll end up going to Spielberg

    by Doctor_Sin

    I can just smell it. One of my friends thinks George Lucas should do it, just to piss off every aspect of fantasy fandom. "We need more CGI dwarves!!!!"

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 12:57 p.m. CST

    Childe Roland is Right

    by DeeJay

    I don’t fault Jackson for trying to leverage for more money. I do, however, think it’s inaccurate to roundly say he was “cheated,” as that implies that he was told he’d be paid the amount he claims he was worth. Such is actually not the basis for his suit. His role as film director of these properties is much like that of Sean Connery. He’s widely recognized as the greatest of James Bonds, but not the first nor the last. Beyond this, having a different director for “The Hobbit” could, in the long run, be better for the world of film directors. Most fields aren’t hurt when they add another multimillionaire to their ranks, and that would be the likely result here. If *anything* is an issue in the wake of “Lord of the Rings,” it’s the tsunami of LOTR-ish films being cranked out in the wake of the trilogy’s success. Even stories that, in their original form, were not decidedly in the same vein are now being presented as Tolkein-like...

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 1:54 p.m. CST

    Orionsangels: Most family members take a cue from Chris

    by chrth

    And refuse to endorse/detract any Tolkien project that's outside their immediate control. One of them who does speak up sometimes is Simon, who is (I believe) Chris' nephew and JRRT's grandson.<p> The problem with Simon is that he's a lawyer, and I've never trusted him. A lot of people don't like Chris because he refuses to let his father's universe get EU'd, but they're idiots, to put it bluntly. I paraphrase Frodo regarding Aragorn when referring to Chris and Simon:<p> Chris seems foul but feels fair, while Simon seems fair but feels foul.<p> As for Royd, well, to be honest I've not heard of him before now. I kind of wonder, though, if he's Simon's son.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 1:56 p.m. CST

    NEW DIRECTOR NEEDED

    by livingwater

    ....preferably a new face, someone talented...

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 2 p.m. CST

    Corrections to my previous post

    by chrth

    Simon is actually Chris' son from his first marriage. Royd is not Simon's son (not sure if he's a nephew or cousin 1st removed).<p> Still don't like Simon.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 2:05 p.m. CST

    Get Kevin Smith To Do It!

    by DarfurOnTheRocks

    Clerks II was awesome!

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 2:10 p.m. CST

    10 YEAR OLD RICH BRAT GRANDKID

    by SPECT

    It's ridiculous that we have to listen to this 10 year old brat rich great grandkid whine about the Hobbit. He's only interested in the profits of these movies. Well you know what, Roid, or whatever your name is...finish elementary school first and then maybe we'll listen to you.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 2:21 p.m. CST

    SPECT: Uh, Royd's in his mid-30s

    by chrth

    And already has JRRT's Great Great Grandson running around the house.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 2:22 p.m. CST

    I would also like to see someone else direct this.

    by superninja

    After watching the Two Towers on t.v. yesterday, I have to say I think the films just aren't all that spectacular given the source material. Emphasis in the wrong places, downplaying character traits, unnecessary additions, etc. Don't get me wrong, there are some outstanding moments and very fine casting in some cases (Gandalf, Legolas, Gimli), but as with my impression in the theater, the films are lackluster. They even have a t.v. miniseries quality, if I may be so bold.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 2:27 p.m. CST

    CHRTH:

    by SPECT

    Well, he should then take his kid's pacifier and shove it in his own mouth!

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 2:27 p.m. CST

    superninja: was it regular or extended edition?

    by chrth

    The Twin Towers is the one film that benefits the most from the extended edition treatment. I feel no need to watch the original of that one anymore.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 2:43 p.m. CST

    Chrth, I'm not sure but I imagine its not the extended

    by superninja

    version since it was on cable network?

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 2:59 p.m. CST

    Freakemovie

    by mrbong

    dude, that's like every time they are onscreen together, and they have that special quasi-midget shirtlifter glint in their eyes. anyone who can watch all three films in a row and have a drink every time there is a gay moment will be crowned King (or, perhaps correctly) Queen of Drinkers. even if it is some sort of non-alcoholic thing.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 3 p.m. CST

    Jackson

    by Shaw

    The problem is, if you don't get Jackson you don't get Serkis, McKellen, etc.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 3:29 p.m. CST

    It's not the lack of PJ that will hurt the Hobbit

    by Fawst

    It's the lack of ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE ELSE INVOLVED in the LOTR that will go out the door with him. You lose PJ, you lose WETA, you lose Serkis, you lose all the actors. Did I miss anyone? So yah, I'm pretty sure that you CAN'T do The Hobbit and have it look as authentic as LOTR without PJ. Eragon? Looks pathetic. Lion/Witch/Wardrobe? Looked cartoonish. Harry Potter, while good, still has that off feel to it. LOTR was 100% believable that that world existed. No one can duplicate that but WETA. Maybe ILM would come close, but that still doesn't cut it. It's a package deal, take one aspect away, you may as well lose the whole thing, because it won't gel. No Serkis? No Gollum. That's an immediate no-no. No WETA? No EVERYTHING. Well now, that can't be lived with either. No Jackson? No leader. The rest falls apart. I'm sorry, but my opinion (which I fully admit is mine and I hold no one to believe it) is that The Hobbit should either not be made, or be made RIGHT. As in, with PJ. In case you missed the whole point of this post.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 3:40 p.m. CST

    Difficulties? Two words...Brett Ratner!

    by biggles2_22

    Sure, PJ would be a great choice. But when a movie hangs in limbo like this one, you gotta call the guy who can make it happen with almost professional directing capabilities that leave the likes of Uwe Boll in the dust!

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 3:43 p.m. CST

    "Before the films were made...."

    by datachasm

    "i held massive reservations and fears that JRRT and LOTR would be used as merely a tool in producing revenue and ultimately a substandard film." nothing pissed me off more than LOTR coming out once a year instead of every 3 months... and then the 20 versions on DVD and all the other crap saturating the market. i wanna see someone else do "The Hobbit"... if its another PJ affair that digs into my pockets 50 times ill not bother seeing this film, no matter how many millions of dollars they spend to tell me " i just gotta see this"

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 3:51 p.m. CST

    PLANTS IS RIGHT

    by antonphd

    Fuckheads from New Line should stay the fuck out of here or at least say who they are.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 3:54 p.m. CST

    datachasm

    by antonphd

    Dumbass, they were working on the films up to the release of each one. that' the production deal they had to work around. they weren't holding it off so they could get more money. and there are not 20 versions on DVD. there are what? 2-3?

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 3:53 p.m. CST

    I think the last two Potter films beat LOTR hands down.

    by superninja

    In terms of character, charm and atmosphere. But I'm probably alone in that. Easier source material, no doubt. :) However, you are right about Narnia being b-o-r-i-n-g! What a shame. Anchorite, it's probably true they are trying to stiff Jackson. I wouldn't cut a deal with them if that's the case. But I don't think we should feel lucky that we get anything at all. Just look at the SW prequels.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 4:12 p.m. CST

    Actually, Jonse, the financials and my personal...

    by Childe Roland

    ...opinion on Jackson's suitability for the source material should be read with mutual exclusivity. And that's what I'm arguing for in terms of everyone looking at and reacting to updates on the "negotiations" (which seem to be playing themselves out more in the form of orchestrated strongarm tactics favoring PJ's side of things while he just sits there and shrugs blamelessly). You've revealed your bias in your juxtaposition of "the Major Hollywood Studio over the guy who spent years making low budget schlock just for the love of it." PJ obviously made enough money to graduate from the Dead Alives of the world to the Frighteners to the kind of budget and trust necessary to pull off the Rings trilogy, so to imply that he suffered harder or longer than many in his industry on the way up is a romanticization of his career path and motives. Ultimately, he does what he wants (see King King, which was pretty much just for him) and he's paid for it. Must be rough. I've got nothing at all against PJ. In fact, I love what he did with the Rings books in adapting them to film. And he is entitled to ask for what he feels he's worth. But the studio is also entitled to not pay that if they don't think, after a cost/benefit analysis, that they need to spend that much to make this movie well. There's nothing underhanded or evil or unprecedented in the way they're approaching this. The fact that my personal opinion is that PJ misses the point of the Hobbit if he thinks its a Rings prequel is probably why I can see more clearly where New Line is coming from. I've read that book (The Hobbit) perhaps ten times more than any one of the Rings books (each of which I've read about five times in my too-many years), and I think PJ wants to change the essence and point of it to make it fit more snugly with his ultra real cinematic adaptation of the Rings books. This is completely unnecessary. In his Rings movies you got the sense of a world that had turned dark rather quickly and in which magic had been pushed back into the shadows even as the more fantastic of creatures (Trolls, Balrog) had been driven underground or out of sight. It was a world that might've until recently been quite fantastical and magical and (at least through a Hobbit's eyes) often whimsical. That's the tone and feel you need for The Hobbit. Not a two-movie stage setter featuring characters, themes and plot points that never occurred anywhere but in Tolkien's appendices. Does recognizing this allow me to more readily see things from New Line's perspective? Sure. But it doesn't cloud my ability to see that both New Line and PJ are in this for the money, ultimately. New Line offered PJ a sum in exchange for his not pursuing a (presumably) greater sum AND the opportunity to make a film he claims to be passuionate about (not ot mention the ancillary benefit of even more money to be made from that film). You can try to call it a bribe (if you're Fawst) but that's being naive. It's what settlements are and it's NEVER an admission of guilt or wrongdoing (in fact, most are structured specifically to avoid that issue entirely). PJ turned it down. The truth is, you want the offer to have been an insult (and would probably view it as such regardless of how high it was revealed to be) because then the image of PJ as the artist with integrity and vision would be untainted by nasty, dirty capitalism. Hell, I wish that were true, too. But it very obviously isn't, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. Business sense and personal taste have coexisted (though almost never peacefully) for as long as Hollywood has been a tourist attraction. In fact, any time someone pays for anything designed specifically to entertain them, that symbiotic relationship grows stronger. How did you think PJ was able to gain all that weight he recently lost in the first place? He's certainly not going hungry now for a lack of money to buy food with. As for the loss of WETA to The Hobbit if PJ weren't involved, yeah, that'd be a shame. But it's not like a competent effects house couldn't pattern their work on WETA's designs (readily available to all with a rental fee even if they didn;t have studio access) and change the visuals up enough to convey the very different atmosphere that is required for The Hobbit. The loss of MacKellan as Gandalf (assuming he's joined to PJ's hip) would be a tragedy and ditto for Weaving's Elrond, but not insurmountable. And the loss of Holm would be for the best as Bilbo was younger in The Hobbit and would have to be quite agile. Serkis isn't necessary for the brief role Gollum plays in this story. I've heard about fifty people do a more-than-serviceable impersonation of him in character since the Rings films came out and Gollum's actions would be largely shrouded in the deep shadow of the mountains for this film. So let's try to keep things in perspective. Really, those all worked up over the travesty a Jacksonless Hobbit would so surely be (please read the eight words preceding this parenthetical with the appropriate sarcasm) are either: A.) not very familiar with the source material, B.) fear change or the unfamiliar in general, or C.) are on PJ's payroll. Any combination thereof would also make for a perfectly good excuse to bitch about this whole deal.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 4:22 p.m. CST

    What is the buzz on Eragon? No reviews

    by superninja

    is not good news. Also, twin hams Malkovitch AND Irons. The lead looks like a WB kid.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 4:25 p.m. CST

    Uwe Boll....

    by BillyPilgrim

    Needs a chance at this movie. It would be cinematic gold(en shower). Seriously now, Michael Bay. Bruce Campbell as golem. Mark Hamil as Bilbo. The options are endless. This flick just might be as good as Dungeons and Dragons the movie.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 4:30 p.m. CST

    Childe Rowland, I am with you on this.

    by superninja

    The Hobbit does not need the gritty LOTR treatment. The loss of McKellen's Gandalf would be nearly insurmountable, though. He is the best part of the LOTR. Not so much Mr. Smith as an elf or the rest of the cast. Are we sure that Mr. McKellen can not be persuaded by sheer greed?

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 4:48 p.m. CST

    Well, superninja...

    by Childe Roland

    ...Sir Ian had no trouble doing X3 after Singer left the franchise, so it's not as if there isn't some precedent for money overriding director loyalty with the guy. I do agree, he would be the biggest loss and the hardest to overcome. But how many dumbledore's has Potter had now? Just askin'.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 5:03 p.m. CST

    Cedar_Room

    by WONKABAR

    I know Never Say Never Again was a remake of Thunderball...everybody knows that. Clearly, it and Octopussy are different films. What I was getting at was the situation in which two studios/producers had the rights to the same characters/franchise, and both put out movies around the same time. If New Line rushes out a PJ-less Hobbit film before their time expires, we could very well see PJ come out with a NL-less Hobbit movie later on. ie dueling Hobbits. The non-PJ flick would be released in future DVD box-sets with LOTR included, and considered the "official" prequel by NL. While a PJ Hobbit flick would be outside the NL-canon, but considered the "real-deal" by many fans. So, it would be a similar SITUATION to what happened in 1983 with Bond. NSSA = the non-Bond-franchise Connery flick, while Octo = the non-Connery "Bond" flick. Get it?

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 5:03 p.m. CST

    Sean Connery as Gandalf?

    by Doctor_Sin

    "If I shay he ish a Burglar, a Burglar he ish."

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 5:09 p.m. CST

    Jackson can go - WETA needs to stay...

    by Knugen

    Well, Philipa Arsecunt Boynes needs to go anyway. To Davy Jone's Locker! YARR!

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 5:20 p.m. CST

    Brett Ratner can do it. He can emulate anything

    by George Newman

    I can't believe I just tried to make that joke. I, uh, oh gaw...*BARF* OOOOOOARRGGGGGGGHHHHHguh. AAAAAAOOOOOOGHHHHH, huk, huk, HUUUUUURRWWWWOOOOOAGGGHHHHAGAGAGAG, *cOugh*, FFFIFF. *sigh*. It's really burning in my nose

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 5:31 p.m. CST

    Knugen

    by antonphd

    Peter Jackson owns half of WETA. Yeah. No Peter Jackson and no WETA.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 5:41 p.m. CST

    Cool! Royd Tolkien's Myspace Link !

    by Ringwearer9

    I just popped over there and let him know what was what. Man, the guy has bad taste in music! And what's with writing everything in lower case? He does NOT sound like a really literate guy. A nice guy, but how often has he read his grampa's books? I'll bet no more than once, if that.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 5:46 p.m. CST

    I actually prefer Gambon to Harris

    by superninja

    (a much more subtle actor), but getting to your point, McKellen is such a fine actor and so instantly iconic as Gandalf, that I can't think of anyone who could replace him - sorry! Christopher Lee's Saruman is quite disposable, though.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 5:49 p.m. CST

    Ringwearer9

    by antonphd

    I'm sure Tolkien would side with obsessive readers over his own children for sure.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 5:52 p.m. CST

    Actually Antonphd...

    by Ringwearer9

    He probably would, given that he practically disowned one of his sons for disagreeing with him.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 5:51 p.m. CST

    I was going to say...

    by superninja

    how well do you know his children?

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 5:56 p.m. CST

    How long will it be before DocPazuzu and Nice Gaius ...

    by Ringwearer9

    ... start posting about how much I love Nazis over on Royd's blog? 5, 4, 3, 2 ....

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 6 p.m. CST

    Why does WETA need to stay, Knugen?

    by Ringwearer9

    I mean, their conceptions of the Dark Tower and Saruman's war factories were pathetic, and showed little imagination. The only other project I know they've done was "Chronicles of Narnia" and that was disastrous (though perhaps they were working to "spec" and we really can't blame them. The movie was hideous overall, not just the special effects). I'd really like to see a group that weren't handpicked admirers of Jackson's lousy taste.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 6:11 p.m. CST

    Director

    by Cobbio

    Peter Jackson will NEVER direct "The Hobbit" prior to his multi-million dollar lawsuit with New Line being settled. That's the sticking point. If the suit doesn't get settled, someone else directs the film. It's as simple as that.<p> I guess I'm hopeful that Jackson will direct "The Hobbit," but I can think of about ten other directors who would also do a fantastic job of it. Jackson set the standard by which all fantasy movies will be judged for years to come, but I'm certain a different director for "The Hobbit" could blow audiences away with his or her interpretation of the book too.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 6:21 p.m. CST

    Nay, Ringbearer9! Nay, I say!!!

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    I won't start posting about your love of Nazis. However, I just got done reading the sad (but HI-LARIOUS) tale of your bannishment in The Zone.<P>Shall I cut-n-paste it here & there for everyone's edification? It would certainly stand to counter your ridiculous assessments of the Dark Tower or Saruman's machinations. Cause insanity cannot be taken seriously, you see?

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 6:30 p.m. CST

    Hmmm....Jack Black kind of looks like Bilbo.

    by superninja

    Just sayin'.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 6:36 p.m. CST

    Peter Jackson blows goats... he's a greedy snivily tard

    by wolvenom

    Granted the first Fellowship of the Ring was done well and faithful to the books but i cant figure for the life of me why his grandson thinks he was faithful to the last two books. Has he even read his grandfather's trilogy? Peter Jackson completely butchered the story in terms of being faithful to the books for the last two books. He was only interested in huge fight scenes and battles (a masterbatory display of CGI)....the dialogue was lost in the last two films, and whole sections from the books were ignored. As we've seen from recent diarreah showings of huge battle scenes in cinema (Alexander, Troy, etc) audiences are getting rather bored with the huge battle scene bullshit. AND WE ALL KNOW EXACTLY HOW FUCKING LONG AND BORING PETER JACKSON IS GOING TO WANT TO MAKE THE BATTLE OF FIVE ARMIES!! DONT TELL ME YOU SERIOUSLY WANT TO SIT THROUGH A FUCKING HOUR OF THAT CRAP OF SHITTY CAMERA WORK AROUND HACKING AND SLASHING AND GIANT ENDLESS SWEEPING CAMERA PANS OF CGI CREATURES DUKING IT OUT TEN TIMES WORSE THAN WHAT WAS IN THE LAST TWO LORD OF THE RINGS MOVIES. As for peter jackson's letter to the fans he showed his true colors about how much of a greedy money grubbing tard he is. And I hope he gets his up and commings. I personally would love to see a new director take on the hobbit. Maybe they'll actually stay fucking faithful to the book which was a fucking children's book might I add. No council of the istari or bs sauruman crap in there anywhere like he was wanting to put in. Maybe we'll actually get a director who WAS A FUCKING FAN OF JRR TOLKIEN.. not some douche who read the book ONCE when he was a teenager and then just SKIMMED THROUGH IT FOR THE GOOD PARTS WHILE HE WAS FILMING IT. So fuck off with the peter jackson loving.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 6:39 p.m. CST

    As for "practically disowning one of his sons"...

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    ...don't you mean Christopher and his son (Simon), not J.R.R.?

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 6:43 p.m. CST

    wolvenom

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Did you just plop out of Ringy's ass?!

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 6:45 p.m. CST

    Get Alfonso Cuarón

    by superninja

    He would make an excellent Hobbit film.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 6:50 p.m. CST

    Well said, Wolvenom ...

    by Ringwearer9

    ... well said.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 6:56 p.m. CST

    Gaius

    by half vader

    Post it, man. Paste away, I say.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 6:55 p.m. CST

    There are no Plants from New Line here.

    by Ringwearer9

    Only angry and betrayed Tolkien fans, who hope New Line realizes that Jackson's overweening sense of self-importance and entitlement spell disaster for the the quality of future films made with him. Dumb Jackson, New Line! Dump him fast, dump him hard, dump him upside down in his own pile of manure. Make the new film without him!

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 7:02 p.m. CST

    Half Vader, the story is simple.

    by Ringwearer9

    I posted something in response to a Moriarty thread, then Adam Balm (who runs the zone) suddenly announced me banned before Moriarty could reply to me. He claimed that I had been raving around the Zone posting profanity laden anti-Moriarty spam everywhere. I don't know whether Adam was an idiot, who can't read IP logs to see if seperate posters are indeed the same, or if he just got scared because the cranky Moriarty was being made crankier by my presence, and pretended I had been posting spam all over to avoid Moriarty's wrath, or to suck up to him. But I posted nothing other than the posts that are still there, and that remain undeleted. If the Zone rampager actually existed, I think there were obvious alternate candidates than myself, who was already participating openly in the forum.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 7:07 p.m. CST

    Oh, and Ratfinkus ....

    by Ringwearer9

    ... don't you ever think, before you post, "won't people see me as a slimy little tattletale?" or is that how you reall want people to see you?

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 7:14 p.m. CST

    RE: "a slimy little tattletale"???

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Abso-fuckin'-lutely not. More like a stalwart whistleblower. Because you see Ringy, sometimes the insane need to be reminded of their insanity. It also serves as a public service to those to who don't know any better.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 7:23 p.m. CST

    That's nice, Ratfinkus.

    by Ringwearer9

    Whatever helps you live with the shame.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 7:27 p.m. CST

    half vader

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    The beauty of Ringy's bannishment in The Zone was not so much the circumstances (we've all seen his insanity in TB) as it was the severe ownage delivered unto him by Mori right before the punishment was delivered. Adam Balm's actions came afterwards. And I'm sure the true nature of Balm's actions vs. Ringy's claims could easily be verified by the mods of The Zone. Yes, despite what you may think Ringodoodles - they are quite adept at identifying IP logs...

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 7:30 p.m. CST

    DocPazuz and Mr. Nice Gaius are the same person...

    by wolvenom

    this is true. DO NOT DENY IT!!!

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 7:31 p.m. CST

    Even more worrisome, Ringledingle9...

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    ...is why you come out of the woodwork only when there is a Tolkien/Peter Jackson TB on AICN. It's an obsession that seems to border on madness. It's most unsettling and more than a little creepy.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 7:32 p.m. CST

    And wolvenom, you must be...

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    ...zfisk/homewrecker?

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 7:35 p.m. CST

    Nice Gaius, no Ownage was delivered by Mori.

    by Ringwearer9

    He announced that he had written up a reply, lost it, and seeing as Adam had banned me, that it was just as well that he hadn't posted it. Adam banned me first. You have history wrong. Adam did NOT check the ip logs, because he banned someone else, assuming it was me. But from what he described, it was probably the pissed off Goatzinger. (forgive me Goaty, if I am slandering you) who had been reposting my reviews of Kong all over the place.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 7:36 p.m. CST

    lastly, im sick of those like Peter Jackson who think

    by wolvenom

    they're the next god damn spielberg and are entitled to overflowing chests of gold, tiaras, and diamonds because they made big on one fucking film (ie lotr). Frighteners was garbage, king kong was garbage, heavenly creatures was decent, and im sorry but meet the feebles and bad taste were garbage as well. So all in all if we average all his films out he becomes a mediocre director... and I dont see why he thinks he should be raking in the cash from LOTR as much as he thinks he should be. If anyone made that fucking trilogy happen, it was New Line, and the producers protecting their investment... not fucking peter jackson's mediocrity.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 7:39 p.m. CST

    Mr. RatGaius, your concern is appreciated.

    by Ringwearer9

    except it's a flimsy cover for your snivelling ratfinkery. No one is fooled. Go back to licking Pazuzu's toe cheese.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 7:46 p.m. CST

    boycott...

    by tibbar

    if PJ isnt doing the hobbit, im not going... simple as that

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 7:47 p.m. CST

    No, Ringydingy...

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    ...there is a very specific post that occurs before the one you are referencing. And you know exactly which one I'm talking about.<P>The timeline of my previous post is correct. And though it may very well be that the person(s) Adam banned was someone else, the point is that you were also banned in kind.<P>But we digress. By all means, continue you personal assault and crusade against all things PJ. I'll let your obsession speak for itself.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 7:51 p.m. CST

    Ah, but RatGaius, I don't care. You wanted to post it.

    by Ringwearer9

    Backing out? Lying little weasel.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 7:56 p.m. CST

    Tibbar, Jackson Shmackson

    by Ringwearer9

    Did you go see the movies because you knew Jackson was directing them? You like them anyway, didn't you? Try the same thing with the next director. You might be pleasantly surprised.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 7:57 p.m. CST

    RE: "your concern is appreciated."

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Well, if it makes you feel better Ringo, the Zonies just had their Annual Zone Awards. Amongst their numerous creative endeavors was an "In Memoriam" segment which scrolled the names of all the bannished trolls. Be comforted to know that your name appeared like a champ.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 8:04 p.m. CST

    If New Line absolutely insists on a new director

    by Orbots Commander

    for THE HOBBIT, they could do worse than hire like someone above mentioned, Alfonso Cuaron or even a guy like George Miller. Miller knows how to do sweeping action and children's movies as well---HAPPY FEET and the BABE movies. Of course, at the end of the day the studio is going to do what they're going to do. I suspect that they'll go with someone hacky like Joel Schumacher, Ratner, McG or Ian Whats-his-name who directed K-Pax.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 8:13 p.m. CST

    Bingo

    by NachoNegro

    "Chris seems foul but feels fair, while Simon seems fair but feels foul.". Now this is a comment from someone who has *read the fucking book*. There is an army of fuckwits on this site who haven't read a book in their lives - and if you don't understand this reference, you have no fucking business commenting on this franchise, bottom line. Well said sir.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 8:23 p.m. CST

    New Line WILL have to take from some other...

    by NoHubris

    ...successful franchise like one of the Harry Potter directors to hedge its bet - SMART THINKING Superninja. If not Alfonso Cuarón, then maybe Chris Columbus, Mike Newell, or David Yates. I wouldn't even be surprised if Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) ended up as Bilbo to make sure they filled up the seats...For the record, though, I prefer PJ.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 8:30 p.m. CST

    Thanks, NachoNegro (&Ringwearer9)

    by chrth

    I feel warm and appreciated now.<p> Ringwearer9: I can understand that you didn't like what PJ did with LotR ... but since a lot more people did like it, wouldn't it make better sense just to let PJ do it and have a 'complete set'? I mean, I like the Hobbit and all, but it pales in comparison to LotR in my opinion, and I'm content to let PJ do it. Whether or not you agree with what PJ kept in or took out (do NOT get me started on Denethor or 'no man may kill me'), at least he delivered a quality viewing experience.<p> I mean, have you seen the Eragon trailers? Ugh. Manwe forbid we get Smaug looking like that.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 8:31 p.m. CST

    How about not making it?

    by bender7

    After Superman and Fantastic 4 and with Transformers and TMNT, I'm sick of childhood rape

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 8:33 p.m. CST

    bender7: We'll always have the Rankin-Bass version

    by chrth

    Just slap it in the DVD Player and let yourself go ... down down to goblin town

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 8:48 p.m. CST

    Peter will make it...no doubt.

    by Burning_Tyger

    I have actually been warming to the idea of another person making the Hobbit. But it doesn't matter, because this film cannot be made without Peter at the helm. At least not for a long time. Here is why: New Line can't make the film without MGM's blessing. MGM will not give their blessing to any version of the Hobbit that doesn't have PJ at the helm. New Line's lisence to make the film will eventually expire, at which point MGM will have control. Who do you think they will get to direct the film? Bottom line: Peter Jackson will direct this film or it just won't get made.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 8:53 p.m. CST

    Chrth, Eragon truly looks Awful, but whose fault is it

    by Ringwearer9

    I't Jackson's and WETA's! That's the style every shitty fantasy film is imitating, the gray CGI, "gritty" fantasy, low budget directors. The chances of getting some FUN LOTR ripoffs is practically nil.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 9:22 p.m. CST

    Gaius, what a nice In Memoriam!

    by Ringwearer9

    To think that I only posted 2 posts max in the Zone, and I'm listed third in the list! But, although I like the pic of the kid playing with scissors, I don't quite get the joke ...

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 9:31 p.m. CST

    Why not give Joel Schumacher a shot?!!

    by RetroActive

    Hobbit children with hairy feet AND hairy nipples! And maybe they could throw in a super duper hobbit girl who's secretly Gandalf's niece...can you you all smell the piles money?!!

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 9:46 p.m. CST

    I'm with Wolvey and Ringey

    by Ben-Thayer Dunnthaedt

    Yep....lovely piece of visuals PJ's version was, but in terms of adaptations? Not a chance. Rankin-Bass was closer to the original storyline. Anyone familiar with Earl Hamner Jr.'s discussion of his adaptation of Charlotte's Web? The first rule of adapting a story is: DO NO HARM. Forgive me, but I don't recall Tolkien having very much to say about dwarf tossing. It was nothing short of appalling what Jackson and Co. did with their depiction of a very noble character (Gimli of course). But blah blah blah "Jackson is a demi-god, he made quatrillions of dollars on those films." I for one am patiently waiting for Tolkien's story to be adapted...accurately. So sure...let PJ direct. Just so long as he and his wife aren't allowed anywhere near whatever writing (adapting) utensils are available for the project. And that goes double for Flip-offa Boyens.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 10:31 p.m. CST

    Ringy...

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Factually, you managed to post 6 times before bannishment.<P>WOW.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 10:42 p.m. CST

    As for the scissors...

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    I think it's alluding to someone who runs with them...

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 10:55 p.m. CST

    Ringwearer9

    by antonphd

    Could you please tell us which movies you have produced and directed? While you are at it, please tell us which fantasy movies. I'd just like to know where your confident criticism of the LOTR movies comes from. Please don't tell me it's simply from being a fan of the books, please, that's bullshit. I want to know what films you've made. Please. List them out. Don't pussy out either. I want to know.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 10:55 p.m. CST

    Ringwearer9

    by antonphd

    Could you please tell us which movies you have produced and directed? While you are at it, please tell us which fantasy movies. I'd just like to know where your confident criticism of the LOTR movies comes from. Please don't tell me it's simply from being a fan of the books, please, that's bullshit. I want to know what films you've made. Please. List them out. Don't pussy out either. I want to know.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 10:55 p.m. CST

    Ringwearer9

    by antonphd

    Could you please tell us which movies you have produced and directed? While you are at it, please tell us which fantasy movies. I'd just like to know where your confident criticism of the LOTR movies comes from. Please don't tell me it's simply from being a fan of the books, please, that's bullshit. I want to know what films you've made. Please. List them out. Don't pussy out either. I want to know.

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 10:56 p.m. CST

    wtf, multi-posts

    by antonphd

    ok, that was weird

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 11:46 p.m. CST

    superninja is now officially the opposite of me

    by mortsleam

    Thank god I never have to pay attention to any more of her posts. Jackson and company did a fantastic job, much better than was anticipated, much better than should have been done given the times in which we live and the business in which they work. They were three films filled with heart, passion, and talent, on ample display, for which they were roundly, justly rewarded. There were problems, yes, and flaws, to be sure, and a better sereis of films might have somehow been made... but I think this is about as good as we are likely to get in this reality, and as it is it's pretty damn good. Going forward, it seems best to let Jackson go off and do what he wants to do next, follow his own passions and not be tied down to MIddle Earth. He shouldn't make the Hobbit just for money, and neither should New Line, for that matter. Unless they can get someone with a real love of the source material, and a vision for recreating that world on film, they shouldn't rush it. At best, it will be Termintor 3 or X-Men 3: rushed, empty, only intermittently entertaining spectacles. At worst: Queen of the Damned. Or X-Men 3. (I vacillate a lot on that one.) I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Get PJ to exec produce, WETA, Lee and Howe to do the design and effects, hire McKellan, Serkis and Weaving to reprise their roles, get Kenneth Branagh in there as 50-year old Bilbo, and give the director reigns to Cuaron. Or fuck, give it to me. I love the book, I'd be respectful of the tone, and yet mindful of the LOTR movies, I've written a handful of scripts, directed one ten-miute live action short and one four-minute animated short. I could use the money. C'MON!!!!!

  • Dec. 11, 2006, 11:59 p.m. CST

    mortsleam

    by antonphd

    I couldn't possibly agree with you more(lol except giving it to you, sorry). I think you have it best. I am scared shitless that NL will get someone as great as Cuaron but without the support of WETA and Lee and Howe and the returning actors. I personally think a PJ and Cuaron team would make a PERFECT Hobbit movie. I think having Cuaron's touch to The Hobbit would make it a magically wonder. I love the LOTR movies for so many reasons, but I would actually prefer Cuaron's touch on the Hobbit but keeping the continuity like he did with the Harry Potter movie.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 12:18 a.m. CST

    It's not so mysterious, antonphd

    by Ringwearer9

    After you posted, you got a wierd blank page, backed up to your message, posted it again, got the same wierd blank page, backed up to your message and posted it again. At this point, you probably got the same wierd blank page again, you decided to refresh the talkback and voila! The full horror of your folly was revealed!

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 12:33 a.m. CST

    Too Soon!!!

    by grievenom

    i can go another 20 years without hearing from the And-royd.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 12:37 a.m. CST

    Ringy's Kong review

    by DocPazuzu

    It's been referenced in this talkback, and most of us already know how insane Ringy is -- a true hater if there ever was one, but for those of you who haven't read Ringy's nine-page(!) talkback review of KK, either post your e-mail address here or seek me out in the Zone and I'll send you a copy. Trust me, it's worth it.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 12:59 a.m. CST

    hey ringdork#9

    by tibbar

    i DID go see them just because they were directed by peter jackson, as a matter of fact. see, i didnt go in there all willy-nilly for some elves... i went in a peter jackson fan, having loved his films like dead alive and heavenly creatures for years before hand. oh and someones complaint about the frighteners??? at least he had the balls to try something so ambitious way before the technology/budget allowed him to really perfect it. yeh, how about how peter jackson elevated film-making as an artform in a society that views tits and explosions as high brow???? yeh... almost forgot about that? lotr is an epic... jackson made it epic

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 1:48 a.m. CST

    Well, what can I say? I'm picky.

    by superninja

    I still think the last two (and last two only) Potter films are the ones to beat. Which is why I suggested Cuaron handle The Hobbit. His Potter film was flawless for its atmosphere, charm and character. LOTR films have some good moments, but overreliance on CGI and lack of character focus and tone, sorry, just doesn't cut it.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 2:36 a.m. CST

    Isn't the SILMARILLION where it should be heading?!?

    by CarmillaVonDoom

    10-15 more years, and people will finally get on board. This is one of the best books ever written.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 2:36 a.m. CST

    Ringwearer9

    by antonphd

    no dork, i lied. i just wanted to make sure you saw the post. i'm waiting for you answer. tell me about the films you've made.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 2:38 a.m. CST

    Ringwearer9

    by antonphd

    no dork, i lied. i just wanted to make sure you saw the post. i'm waiting for you answer. tell me about the films you've made.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 2:38 a.m. CST

    Ringwearer9

    by antonphd

    no dork, i lied. i just wanted to make sure you saw the post. i'm waiting for you answer. tell me about the films you've made.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 2:44 a.m. CST

    Ringwearer9

    by antonphd

    hell, tell me what creative thing you have ever done so we can see if you know shit about what you are talking about. i'm guessing you are a talentless consumer idiot. but please, go ahead, tell us about what you've done and we'll talk about your shit the way you do Peter Jackson LOTR movies.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 2:46 a.m. CST

    Ringwearer9

    by antonphd

    don't pussy out on me now. you want to talk shit, you better be man enough to let us see your creative endevours.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 2:57 a.m. CST

    Ringwearer9

    by antonphd

    I've worked professionally as a Radio Announcer for a Radio Station, Graphic Artist and Editor for a Newspaper, Digital Imager and Composer for Wildlife Photography, Graphic Artist and Programmer for Art Galleries and many Artists and finally I am a producer making Games. That's my professional artistic experience. I know what it is like to have every fuckhead and his sister tell professionals how much better they could do their job while these half wits have no fucking clue what it takes to do the job. I've only worked in TV and Film as an ametuer, but especially in games I can extrapolate the work it takes to produce a trilogy like the LOTR by Peter Jackson and anyone who says shit about them is a fucking retard who doesn't have a clue about making professional art. I have my opinions, but I don't talk shit about people's work like I could do it better because I have respect for the work it takes to do movies. Sure, when an asshole throws together a movie to cash in on some fad it sucks, but when someone like Peter Jackson champions making LOTR when no one else would have touched it for decades you don't give them shit because some how some way the films could have been better or because you don't like the way they turned out?! Have some respect for the decade of his life he spent making the films. Don't be such an ignorant dickhead.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 3:15 a.m. CST

    Childe Roland, sorry I'm only replying now....

    by Mr Jonse

    ...but I only just finished reading your post *Ba-Dum-Bum-TSHHH!* Yeah, my bias is with the artist over the conglomerate. Isn't this the ususal position of a fan of any type of art? Your opinions on the financial situation between PJ and NL, and your opinion about his suitability for The Hobbit may well be mutually exclusive, but you can't deny that you're using one to frame the other. Your argument as to why he shouldn't direct is valid and well thought out (though I don't agree with it). Why put it alongside your personal take on who's the 'bad guy' and who's the 'good guy' in a dispute over money that could just as easily be spun in favour of either side? It weakens what you're saying and makes you sound like a bad politician.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 4:16 a.m. CST

    @antonphd

    by RocketScientist

    You say "I've only worked in TV and Film as an ametuer, but especially in games I can extrapolate the work it takes to produce a trilogy like the LOTR by Peter Jackson and anyone who says shit about them is a fucking retard who doesn't have a clue about making professional art. I have my opinions, but I don't talk shit about people's work like I could do it better because I have respect for the work it takes to do movies." No, you just talk shit about adaptations of huge literary works you never even came close to understanding. Yes, it takes a lot of work to do movies. No one ever doubted that. It also takes a lot of work to have an idea what one is talking about. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and while PJ had a lot of good intentions, good intentions aren't enough. The "ignorant dickhead" here is the one who thinks that putting in a decade of work is all that it takes. If it were for people like you, we should just close down universities, because knowledge is totally unnecessary. Who cares whether anyone has any idea what he's doing? Let him work for a decade and he's beyond reproach. Maybe try and research some issue before spewing venom at others. You said above "The books flew off the shelves during he movies run. When has that ever happened ever." Never mind that the books were already one of the best-selling literary works before the movies. But yeah, you make quite clear that effort and money are all that counts for you. Quality is overrated and competence is for sissies.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 4:59 a.m. CST

    Rocket, sorry to chime in...

    by Mr Jonse

    ...but aren't we really just talking about personal taste here? There are a virtually unquantifiable number of ways someone could have adapted these books into films, but a *lot* of people seemed to like PJ's version. I know that mass appeal is no indicator of quality but these films didn't just hit in a Fantactic Four; bad-film-but-enough-morons-dug-it-for-it-to-make-it's-money-back kind of way. They clicked with people in a way that hasn't happened with any other films for years. Are you really arrogant enough to suggest that you're right and all these people are wrong? This was the film version and as such suceeded phenomenally. If you want the books, read the books. They didn't go anywhere.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 6:07 a.m. CST

    RocketScientist

    by antonphd

    Nice strawman horseshit there. I am saying that talking "SHIT" is uncalled for. I didn't say opinions are wrong or that the movies couldn't be improved on or disapproved of. I said that talking like a dickhead about them is bullshit. And for the record. My first date with my wife was reading The Hobbit to her under a waterfall in a beautiful place in Montana. We then read it and then the Lord of the Rings everynight thru our first year of marriage. Then we saw the movies each year for the 1st and 2nd and 3rd anniversaries. We have been married 6 years now. LOTR, both the books and movies are a big part of our lives. The movies are as loved as the books. Why can't you guys accept that? Why do you have to be assholes about people who love the movie and who appreciate the sacrifice that Peter Jackson and team made to film them.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 6:19 a.m. CST

    RocketScientist

    by antonphd

    I am not some money grubbing fucktard either. You guys sit at home and consume your books and movies and games and have no fucking idea what it is like to make them. Good intentions?! FUCK YOU. Come walk in the shoes of someone who has made a movie or game or tv show or painting or sculpture and tell me that the way to hell is paved with good intentions?! You are a fucking consumer! What the fuck would you know?! And I write stories all the time in my little amount of spare time. I draw. I make art for art's sake. I have to be creative, it's like breathing for me. And you think because I make a living doing it that I'm just about money?! FUCK YOU. You don't live my life?! You don't know shit. But you guys talk shit about artists all the time like they are all fucking Tara Reid or shit?! Don't confuse famous personalities with artists. You guys completely dis all the work done by 1000s of people who poured there heart into the LOTR movies and you sum it up as good intentions paving the way to hell?! Where the fuck are you coming from?! Fucking clueless assholes think because you read a book that you know shit. Do something with your life beyond living and bullshiting and then come back and judge artists.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 6:30 a.m. CST

    TomBodet

    by antonphd

    Do you think for a second that any of the players of the Red Sox would sit down and listen to a fan shit all over their performance at a game? No fucking way. You know why? Because sucking isn't the same as not trying. That's what fucking consumers don't get. Just because you failed, doesn't mean you deserve to be talked shit to. Some fat ass fucking piece of shit obesessed fucker is going to say "why didn't you just do this or that?" and you think they know what the fuck they are talking about?! Are they on the fucking field playing with those guys? No. They are not. They are getting entertained. Fans who boo when someone fucks up are assholes too. And they certainly don't know what the fuck it's like to have worked your ass off for years to get into the game and then to compete against other professionals. Fucking people who think that watching makes them fucking experts. You know, it's just normal human decency to respect someone's efforts. You guys are too used to be driven like slaves at work that you think it's ok to treat artists or athletes like you own them.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 6:37 a.m. CST

    Do I sound like I'm offended?

    by antonphd

    You know, you work your ass off and you dream and you put your heart and soul into something and it gets shit all over. Tolkien knows what I'm talking about. He wrote the LOTR and most people thought it was SHIT. Now some people who see it for the wonderful work of art that it is turn around and do to Peter Jackson what people did to Tolkien. You think that just because YOU don't like something that it means it's shit?! Well, according to your rules, the LOTR books are SHIT. Forget that they took decades to write. Forget that they are beloved by hundreds of millions of people. SOMEONE thought they were shit compared to other books and that means that they are, you know. Cause those few who don't get it are right. They are the right ones! The pure and good and holy ones! Bow down and worship at the feet of the almighty consumer who didn't like the LOTR books when they released. Fucking bullshit. And it takes a real idiot to not see how rediculous it is to talk shit about Peter Jackson's LOTR movies. A total idiot who claims to be smarter than everyone else. Yep.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 6:42 a.m. CST

    Ringwearer9

    by antonphd

    I'm just waiting for you to either say that you haven't done anything or to list it out and suffer everyone you've offended publically shitting all over your work or for you to turn out to be fucking Stuart Townsend or someone from Miramax. But I hope you are someone who's worked hard at writing or some other art and you have the balls to put it up here and let people critique it. Maybe you'll learn that having someone obsessiving dog your hard work isn't so nice.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 6:43 a.m. CST

    Yeah but TomBodet, to further extend your...

    by Mr Jonse

    ...stadium analogy to the LOTR movies, if the whole stadium is cheering and you've got a couple of assholes booing for the most inane of reasons, are you saying those assholes wouldn't get called out about it? It's not just the effort PJ and co went to, it's the *success* they had in the eyes of all but a few whining naysayers. Seriously, if everyone one on this site who dislikes the PJ LOTR movies each made their own versions, do you really think they'd bitch any less about each other's efforts than they do about the PJ version? Something like LOTR means different things to different people. Saying there's a right and a wrong way of doing it is like saying there's a right way to cook steak. It depends on what you prefer...

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 6:47 a.m. CST

    antonphd

    by DocPazuzu

    You should really read Ringy's King Kong "review", although it might make your head explode, Scanners style.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 6:59 a.m. CST

    Antonphd, are you saying that only nice guys work hard?

    by Ringwearer9

    Because the point is not that Jackson did or didn't work his ass off on the LOTR films, but that he's an ASSHOLE who didn't really like the books he was adapting. What he liked were the CGI monsters in the story and the CGI battles, and the advertising for his WETA company that the films would provide. People can work their asses off for many many reasons. We aren't required to applaud them for it. Didn't Hitler work his ass off to conquer Europe and cleanse it of Jews? Should we shut up and applaud him for those sleepless nights he spent trying to bring his dream to perfection? Well, we don't have to applaud Jackson's money grubbing, Zombie loving, indifference to Tolkien sensibility. The harder he works to bring HIS putrid vision to the screen, instead of Tolkien's superior vision, the more we can boo and hiss.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 7 a.m. CST

    antonphd and DocPazuzu

    by Franklin T Marmoset

    I liked very much what you wrote there, antonphd. I didn't necessarily agree with all of it, but you make a fair point about the thoughtless ease with which some people sling mud around. I like it here at the AICN, but the negativity can be a bit much sometimes. Also, congratulations on the marriage.<p>Dr Pazuzu - I saw before your invitation to read this epic dissertation on King Kong. If the invitation is still open, I'm at franklin_t_marmoset@yahoo.co.uk, minus any spaces this thing inserts. Thank you.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 7:02 a.m. CST

    my wife

    by antonphd

    hated Fellowship of the Rings when she saw it after spending a year reading the LOTR series every night during our first year of marriage. It didn't have all the great stuff she wanted to see. She was terribly disappointed. But she didn't turn to me and rant at me about how bad it sucked while I was loving it. She was happy for me. She still expressed her disappointment. Funny thing is, after watching the other two and loving them she watched Fellowship again without the expectations and really started to love it. Now, we can put that movie in ANY time and watch it. Is it as good as the books? Of course not. Is it different from how we imagined the books? Of course it is. Does it have the magic and beauty and wonder and lovable and bad ass characters like the book? Yes, it does. And that's why we love the movies. Are we going to show these movies to our kids before they read the books? Yes. But only because they will see them before they can read. Meanwhile, they will have been hearing the story of Bilbo and Frodo and Sam long before they are even able to really understand what we are reading them.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 7:07 a.m. CST

    Ringwearer9

    by antonphd

    That is your opinion of Peter Jackson and I'm sorry but I don't see how you could know him well enough to know that about him. Anyway, are you going to show us what you've done or not? Because I think that if you can dish it out that you should be willing to take it.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 7:05 a.m. CST

    Ringwearer9

    by Franklin T Marmoset

    I've just spent a couple of weeks slogging my way through the apendices on the LOTR extended DVDs. What comes across very strongly there, apart from the staggering amount of work involved, is that everybody - including Peter Jackson - seems to care about LOTR very much. Either that, or they are very, very good actors and should maybe switch to being in front of the cameras. It's okay that you don't like the films, but to suggest that Jackson et al only made these films for cynical reasons seems a bit harsh.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 7:13 a.m. CST

    Franklin T Marmoset

    by DocPazuzu

    I just sent it. Enjoy!

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 7:14 a.m. CST

    So, Anton, what matters is your wife putting YOU first

    by Ringwearer9

    Right? And in spite of her disappointment with the film, she had to learn to come around to the way YOU feel about it, in all your geeky appreciation of the technical side of making the films. What really matters for you, then, is the ARTIST not the Art. If you started beating your wife, she ought to still love you JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE YOU, not because you behave decently, right? And Artists should be loved just because they work hard, not because they please their audience, right? If they don't please their audience, the audience has to LEARN to love them, because it's their hard work that matters. And how about reading the books TO your kids yourself, instead of lazily letting Peter Jackson's vision of Tolkien's world poison the books for them, forcing them to see Elijah Wood's doe eyed goofy face every time they read it for themselves?

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 7:17 a.m. CST

    Franklin T Marmoset

    by antonphd

    Thanks :)

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 7:18 a.m. CST

    Ringwearer9

    by antonphd

    Strawman Strawman Stawman. Come on, stop dodging the question.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 7:20 a.m. CST

    Ringwearer9, have you heard yourself?

    by Mr Jonse

    Didn't please his audience? You may not have heard but Peter Jackson's LOTR films won massive amounts of critical and commercial acclaim. What you mean is; he didn't please you. And from reading your post on this site, I can't imagine one thing in the world that would. Dude, if you were being blown you'd be complaining that the giver wasn't incorporating Tom Bombadil in some way...

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 7:23 a.m. CST

    Franklin T. Marmoset, Jackson did NOT care.

    by Ringwearer9

    Not in a personal way, not about the books. I grant that many many people involed in the project DID care, and what power and beauty the films had is largely due to them. But not Jackson. In fact, you see his own wife Fran and co-writer Phillippa Boyens openly mocking Jackson's poor taste (like the Dwarf tossing jokes)on the director's commentary, and talk all you like about the attention the team spent looking at the Appendices to the books ... that was everyone except Jackson, who didn't even bother to reread the books prior to making the film. He actually says in his autobiography that the only time he read the books, 15 years previous, it took him forever to "plow through them". So you want to give him credit because his actual dislike of the books made making the films extra hard for him? I don't. I especially don't trust him to make the Hobbit after hearing his views on how he "hates wizards and magic" and how he tried to make Gandalf as unmagical as possible because of his feelings about wizards and magic. By this time "his" success with the LOTR films will have gone to his head, and he'll think that HIS vision of how Middle Earth should be should be put more to the foreground, and he can safely ignore the Dwarf Tossing Haters.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 7:26 a.m. CST

    Artists should be respected

    by antonphd

    I didn't say you should love it. I said you should be respectful enough not to just shit on someone's work. Did it every occur to you that maybe Peter Jackson just isn't a good artist? My younger brother liked Christian rap when we were kids. A couple guys from church started making fun of him for it once. I hate christian rap. But my younger brother really liked it alot. But these guys just thought they should make him feel like shit for liking music that they didn't like. My younger brother also has epilepsy, violent seizures. He was very insecure. Didn't have an easy time making friends from being shy. He found something he loved and people who 'knew it was shit' just had to take it away from him. Why? Why can't people enjoy something that you think is shit? Why do you have to jump in every conversation on AICN where people are enjoying LOTR movies and shit all over them? Why can't you just let the stupid people have the little bit of stupid pleasure they get in life? Why do you have to take that away too? You wouldn't have ever had a LOTR movie to hate or love without Peter Jackson. What do you lose letting people feel good about how much they love the movies? Why convince them that they should hate them? You KNOW that in the REAL WORLD that there is no hope of a better LOTR movie, even if Peter Jackson's hadn't been made. What is the point? Why do you have to fuck with everyone?

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 7:31 a.m. CST

    Ringwearer9, it's always a pleasure to see your...

    by Talkbacker with no name

    insane ramberlings but I must pull you up on a few things. <p>1. He never disowned one of his sons for disagreeing with him. That was a rumour about his son Christopher (which was debunked by Christopher long ago as nothing more than a stupid internet rumour). <p>2. Weta were not a group that were handpicked admirers of Jackson's lousy taste. Jackson (along with Richard Taylor) own WETA! <p>3. you're an idiot and your banning in the zone was hilarious! <p>4. we all know you have multiple usernames from other IP addresses. Hell you even just admitted as much when you said the messages are still here! What username did you use to go back and check I wonder? <p>I find it ironic that the very person who hates Jackson's rings movies is nothing more than a cave troll himself.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 7:32 a.m. CST

    Ringwearer9

    by Franklin T Marmoset

    You listened to the commentary for a film you clearly dislike? Just the director/writers track, or all four of them?

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 7:36 a.m. CST

    Mr. Jonse, you confuse Jackson with the "Film".

    by Ringwearer9

    As many people do. Jackson didn't "create" all the people who were involved with the project, he just lucked out (or didn't) depending on who was available, and who was recommended to him. Sometimes people seem to credit a director, almost as if he had been hanging over the shoulder of every artist involved, guiding their hands. AND the fact is, because I'm a big fan of the books, Jackson's film managed, in many places, to remind me of them, and that memory colored the films while I was watching them, the first time I saw them. Extrapolating from my experience, this is why the films were a success. I saw it, everyone him my family, who had all read the books, saw it. Add to that the millions upon millions who saw it because they read the books, and who took boyfriends and girlfriends and friends to it, to try and turn them on to the story. That the books did an okay job, in many places, of reminding us of a good story has nothing to do with the fact that where it fell down for us was directly due to the director's asshole attitudes towards that very same story, attitudes that indicate that had he not been so beholden to the Tolkien fan community that he had depended on to help hype the movies, he wouldn't have cared to be as loyal as the FILMS turned out in the end. I don't give credit for someone going against their instincts. I give credit to those who shouted him down and told him he was going off the mark (and there were many many who did so, in the Tolkien fan community and from his own scriptwriters).

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 7:39 a.m. CST

    my wife

    by antonphd

    by the way. my wife didn't keep quiet about not liking FOTR. But she didn't throw a temper tantrum like you do. and she was sensitive that i did love it and she didn't want to ruin it for me. we have a common sense way of thinking about this stuff. if one of us loves something and the other doesn't like it, you don't ruin it for the one who had a good time, because good times are a treasure in life and you don't take them away from someone else just beceause you don't have it too. if she had suffered in some way i wouldn't have gone on about how much i loved it. that's the next part. if someone is loving something and the other is suffering from it the one loving it let's it go for the sake of the person suffering. it's just good and decent ways of relating to people.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 7:39 a.m. CST

    Franklin, no, just the writer's/director's track.

    by Ringwearer9

    I'm not a masochist. Besides, WETA's work was largely ugly. I wasn't much interested in the SFX people's comments. Wouldn't have minded hearing about how the Gollum animation was pulled off though. Gollum was a nice special effect/performance.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 7:42 a.m. CST

    Ringwearer9

    by antonphd

    I'm still waiting dude. Are you going to keep ignoring this? Come on. You know it's fair.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 7:41 a.m. CST

    Mr Jonse

    by Franklin T Marmoset

    Thank you so much for the Tom Bombadil BJ joke, which made me laugh out loud, which subsequently made everyone here at work look at me funny.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 7:43 a.m. CST

    Ringwearer9, even though gollum was nothing...

    by Talkbacker with no name

    like in the book really? interesting so there are changes in the movies you do like. You really are an idiot!

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 7:45 a.m. CST

    antonphd, he ignores the truth it seems

    by Talkbacker with no name

    hence when i pointed out to ringwearer - "we all know you have multiple usernames from other IP addresses. Hell you even just admitted as much when you said the messages are still here! What username did you use to go back and check I wonder?"

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 7:48 a.m. CST

    The Tolkien Community?

    by antonphd

    Wait. So you are still pissed about Jackson not doing the movie with as much respect for the books and "Tolkien community advice" as you think he should?! Wow. Dude. Do you think there was some recipe that Peter was ignoring that he could have just followed if he wasn't such a bullheaded dick? Man. What do you do for a living. Do you have any idea what it's like to be creative for a living? It's not like doing a job you are trained for and repeat over and over again. Do you have any idea what it takes to balance all of the creativity that was going on with those movies? Man. this is why I want you to show what you've done. Cause you don't seem to know what it means to make a movie like the LOTR movies.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 7:48 a.m. CST

    I admire your dilligence, Mr Bearer9

    by Franklin T Marmoset

    You have to admit, that makes you at least a semi-masochist. Almost four hours of jibber jabber from three people you don't appear to respect about a film you didn't like? Good work, mate. I actually like the films, and even I haven't made it all the way through one of the commentaries yet.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 7:52 a.m. CST

    Who do we hate more here - Don Murphy or Ringpeice9?

    by Talkbacker with no name

    That's a real tough one!

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 7:54 a.m. CST

    i hate spinach

    by antonphd

    tastes like shit and it does NOT make you strong like Superman.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 7:56 a.m. CST

    RW9, your whole take on this thing can be summed up...

    by Mr Jonse

    ...from your sentence "Extrapolating from my experience, this is why the films were a success". You really seem incapable of reconciling the fact that you're in the minority here. You seem to need to incorporate everything that happened with these films into your own narrow (and if memory serves, preconceived) view. The films were a success because they are great. You can't get success on that scale by any other means. Yes they deviated from the books and they were right to do so. And your argument that all the bad things about the films are down to PJ and all the good things down to others, frankly makes you sound crazy. Fine if you don't like the guy. So stop obsessing about him.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 8 a.m. CST

    Antonphd "balance the creativity"?

    by Ringwearer9

    Why don't you tell us what it takes to "balance creativity" in a movie? Let's look at a previous example, in George Lucas. If you read about how the first Star Wars film was made, it turns out that he "balanced creativity" by being so stressed out that he wasn't able to properly put a lid on the "creativity" which ended up making the film go into budget deficits, forcing Lucas to go begging for more money from the studio to finish it. When Lucas came back to direct Return of the Jedi, after letting another director "balance the creativity" in Empire Strikes Back, he clamped down on things, made sure things went his way, and produced the first soulless Star Wars film. And years later, he perfected the art of soulless "creativity balancing" and directed the prequels. Everything about George Lucas suggests that he was a jackass control freak, and that Star Wars, as good as it was, happened because he was NOT in control of the creative process, that in fact, much of it happened despite him, despite his natural instincts and inclinations. So, I'm glad people like the LOTR films, and don't notice the flaws. I'm not bashing people for noticing the flaws, any more than I bash myself for loving Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back. I'm just saying that the films are entities unto themselves, and Jackson is an entity unto HIMself. And that Jackson, by himself, is a loathesome toad that the films could would have been better without.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 8:15 a.m. CST

    Actually, Jonse, you should go back and reread...

    by Childe Roland

    ...that post of mine you responded to above. This time try for some comprehension of what I was actually saying re: "good guy" and "bad guy." Specifically, there aren't clear examples of either in this instance. You need to crawl out from up PJ's bum long enough to realize he's in it for the money just as much as New Line is. That point has absolutely nothing to do with my (by your own admission) well thought out opinion of PJ's insuitability to direct the Hobbit. The connection between the two is only in the fact that my personal opinion about PJ's suitability allows me to see clearly what you wish weren't true...PJ's just as much a money whore as any movie maker in Hollywood. Now, for our next exercise, please provide five examples of good politicians. I'll check back in a few days to see how you're doing with that.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 8:15 a.m. CST

    Franklin, to be honest ....

    by Ringwearer9

    ... when I first listened to the DVD commentaries I didn't dislike Jackson, or the films, as much. It was the commentaries that opened my eyes to what a troll Jackson really was, and brought into focus the odd elements that bothered me in the films themselves. Frankly, prior to that I had, like everyone else, been semi fooled by the hype about what a Tolkien lover Jackson supposedly was.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 8:16 a.m. CST

    Lucas didn't direct Return of the Jedi!

    by Talkbacker with no name

    ok, i'm done with you. You debate about things you know nothing about!

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 8:21 a.m. CST

    Ringwearer9

    by antonphd

    Yeah. I think Lucas made it too hard for the actors to do their job. If he hadn't had such excellent actors I imagine the performances wouldn't have just been souless but just plain badly acted altogether. Poor actors. How do you do your job with an hour to prepare?

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 8:23 a.m. CST

    And folks asking for the Silmarillion...

    by Childe Roland

    ...can relax if PJ gets the Hobbit gig, because that's pretty much what he wants to turn that long-beloved children's book into. Okay, I'm exaggerating that, but as an illustrative metaphor I'm going to go ahead and stick by it. The Hobbit was ENVER intended to be background story for TLOR. To treat it as such is to sell it WAY short. It's a self-contained story with some thematic and character ties to the latter, more sophisticated work. It's Tolkien 101: An intro to MIddle Earth whereas TLOR is AP Tolkien: Middle Earth Political Science and The Silmarillion is graduate-level Tolkien Theology/Philosophy. The viewing experiences should be parallel.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 8:27 a.m. CST

    Ringwearer9

    by antonphd

    You know. I don't think Peter Jackson is the devil you think he is. I think he just did the best he could. You know, there are times where you just have to settle for the sucky solution because you just plain have to. It's not like people write blank checks for movies. Except King Kong, which, let's face it, is a Peter Jackson movie untethered. I personally love it. It's too boring to watch twice, but I loved it when I watched it. But it drags. I wouldn't mind a shorter version with some scenes trimmed.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 8:30 a.m. CST

    Childe Roland, it's a good point but

    by Talkbacker with no name

    I don't think the viewing experiences should be parallel. Books and movies are two different things. I love the idea that the hobbit would be more like the lord of the rings world. Even Tolkien went back and added stuff to the hobbit (the first to do a directors cut maybe? :)) in later versions of the books that went on sale. He was unhappy that the two didn't connect as well. There was quite a bit about gollum and bilbo regarding the ring that was added.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 8:29 a.m. CST

    Childe Roland

    by Franklin T Marmoset

    That's an interesting point you make about the differences between those three 'books'. I'm re-reading The Hobbit at the moment and am struck by how much lighter and simpler it is than Rings. The problem, I think, is that these film studio types think in film studio terms, and they most likely see The Hobbit as (dramatic roll of thunder and crack of lightning) a prequel. And prequels, for some reason I have yet to fathom, really get their collective mojo working. That being the case, it seems pretty unlikely that a faithful adaptation of the book will be made - it will most likely be a carbon copy of Jackson's films, with or without Jackson himself.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 8:33 a.m. CST

    So let me get this straight, Childe Roland...

    by Mr Jonse

    ...your opinion about his suitability the director of The Hobbit in some way gives you a unique insight into his financial scruples? Well you certainly showed me a thing or two. Last time *I* argue LOTR with a guy who has magical powers. Are you absolutely sure it isn't just guesswork and cynicism on your part? My residence in PJ's anus notwithstanding (god, that's an image that's going to stay with me), I have no idea who's in the wrong with the financial stuff and if you're really really honest with yourself, neither do you. Difference is you're the one bringing it into an argument about moviemaking. Stick to the facts. I still maintain you've got a strong argument. You weaken it by trying to demonize the guy.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 8:36 a.m. CST

    Childe Roland

    by antonphd

    nice layout of the appropriate audience for the different books. The Silmarillion is definitely an exploration of Theology/Philosophy. I was a theologian before i started exploring entertainment fields and finally ending up in games. I read The Silmarillion and the creation of the Earth is clearly the creation in the Bible. I was shocked reading it. How much it was a complete copy of the Bible. But it was cool. It felt like an exploration rather than a book to be published like The Hobbit. I also think it's funny how much modern charismatic christianity has adopted a Silmarillion based understanding of the Devil and Angels. Very funny. Charismatic Christianity today is very much rooted in the stories and writing of Tolkien and Lewis.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 8:43 a.m. CST

    Talkbacker, Marquand was the ROTJ director, but

    by Ringwearer9

    Lucas was overseeing it all very closely.; Lucas had been pissed by the way Irving Kershner had taken creative liberties with "his" movie in Empire Strikes Back, you see, when Lucas had turned the reins over to him almost completely.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 8:49 a.m. CST

    anyone wondering if NL or JP is right

    by antonphd

    need only have the smallest experience in the world of entertainment. NL is definitely fucking with PJ. you just have to understand the role and practices of suits in the entertainment industry. they are there to make money. lie, cheat, steal, exploit. whatever it takes. they never know when they will strike gold so it is common practice to squeeze money any way they can. they are definitely fucking over PJ. it's obvious. as obvious as the fact that despite denials, Ted Haggard is obviously gay. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if NL wasn't fucking with PJ it would be the first time they weren't fucking someone over. welcome to the wonderful world of corp trying to squeeze money out of artists. does Peter Jackson want to make money? fuck yeah! does that somehow make him a bad guy? that's rediculous. is it possible that this time the corp is being wronged by the artist? yeah. and it's possible that Ted Haggard didn't have gay drugged sex with a prostitute. he just talks and acts gay because he's gentle.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 8:51 a.m. CST

    Ringwearer9, yeah I know. i told you that...

    by Talkbacker with no name

    Lucas wasn't the director! Your talkbacks are like the ramberlings of a madman!

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 9:14 a.m. CST

    HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA!!!

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    I told ya, his insanity speaks for itself. I love it.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 10:02 a.m. CST

    Another Segueway To Star Wars?

    by DarfurOnTheRocks

    I amazes me how SW is constantly pulled into debates concerning LOTR? I would definitely like to see some other director have a crack at The Hobbit, which is a much more introspective piece of literature than LOTR. It is a story that stands alone and does not need to be validated by its association to LOTR. This is what I do not understand with those insisting that ONLY PJ can pull off Tolkien. We should not forget that PJ did not create this universe but is interpreting established work. This is clearly unlike GL rein over HIS creation Star Wars. I enjoyed PJ's interpretation of Middle Earth, but I must profess disappointment to the bloated and shallow nature of King Kong. New Line should pick another solid director to helm their interpretation of The Hobbit.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 10:11 a.m. CST

    The point was, Talkbacker, that Lucas was co-director

    by Ringwearer9

    He was pretty much controlling things on Jedi, even if Marquand was officially directing. Marquand was a director-for-hire, to do the diryt work, but he had to do it to Lucas's spec, so Lucas was the de-facto director on that film, the one making all the important decisions and setting the timetables.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 10:41 a.m. CST

    You're still missing the point, Jonse.

    by Childe Roland

    What I'm saying (and please do pay attention to this part as it's critical to your misunderstanding of my position) is that NEITHER Jackson NOR the studio is the "bad guy" in this case. They're two players in an age-old game that balances creativity and profit motive and neither is wholly blameless nor wholly to blame for the quagmire currently surrounding the Hobbit. The very fact that you consider my putting PJ on equal footing witht he studio int his moral regard as demonization is an indication of how far up the man's arse you've forced your perspective (what did he have for supper last night, buy the way?). My objectivity hasn't granted me magical palantir-like powers of insight into the hearts of men, but your lack of objectivity is seriously hamstringing you in this discussion. For the logically impaired (not necessarily you, but anyone erroneously trying to assert that by pointing out PJ's profit motive I'm somehow characterizing him negatively), I'll break it down very simply: I love Petey's Rings movies but I don't think he "gets" the Hobbit as intended. Because I recognize this, I'm not passionate about keeping him on to direct The Hobbit (not passionately against it, either, as I think he's capable of getting it...he just hasn't demonstrated that yet). And because my objectivity is unclouded by the passion you so clearly have for the man and his particular vision, I can see why New Line might be of the mind that they can find another director capable of making this film well and avoid paying PJ what he believes he's entitled to. Neither party is "wrong," "bad," or even uncharacteristicaly greedy in their stances on the money issue (at least until proven otherwise in arbitration, and any assumption made to the contrary prior to that is just what people would like to believe). Get it now?

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 10:55 a.m. CST

    Can PJ 'get' the Hobbit?

    by tidge

    One omission from the LOTR film canon that makes me doubt PJ's willingness to really do justice to the 'Hobbit' story is the dramatic choice to completely ignore the 'Scouring of the Shire'...yes, that part of the story was not necessary to the 'Return of the King', but themeatically it is probably one of the most critical elements of the 'Lord of the Rings'. This is just one of the choices that PJ/Fran/Phillipa made in the LotR story that makes me question if they are the right 'team' for the very different narrative of 'The Hobbit'. (They can work on the sets...just leave the script and direction to someone else!)

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 11:09 a.m. CST

    Childe Roland, you can try to suggest that you're...

    by Mr Jonse

    ...just trying to show that both sides are equally culpable now, but that isn't what you were doing when you first came on the TB. Quote you: "New Line isn't holding the movie hodtage. Peter is. He's been offered a settlement. He'd prefer to use paranoid fans as leverage to get his way. Distasteful." That's what I was responding to. And this love for him that you imagine I have; not at any point during this TB have I said even he's the best man for the job. Quote me: "their are better directors on the world than PJ but; A) none of them will direct this film given the circumstances". Clearly you are incapable of forming an argument against someone without adding some imaginary negative slant about their motives. If you genuinely believe that my saying "I have no idea who's in the wrong with the financial stuff" is more clouded and illogical than you describing the guy as a whore because you heard he refused a settlement, it's your own ass you should maybe think about climbing out of. Get it now?

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 11:38 a.m. CST

    OT: Eragon

    by veritasses

    Haven't really heard much of anything about this movie on this site. What's the word on the film?

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 11:52 a.m. CST

    It would be like

    by jtp8000

    someone like Timothy Dalton or George Lasenby playing James Bond instead of Sean Connery.<sarcasm for the slow> Though I would see it in a second if they casted Jack Nicholoson as Gandalf and the Rock as Bilbo<Haven't decided is this is sarcasm or genious>

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 11:52 a.m. CST

    It would be like

    by jtp8000

    someone like Timothy Dalton or George Lasenby playing James Bond instead of Sean Connery.<sarcasm for the slow> Though I would see it in a second if they casted Jack Nicholoson as Gandalf and the Rock as Bilbo<Haven't decided is this is sarcasm or genious>

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 12:02 p.m. CST

    Sylvester Stallone for Bilbo Baggins

    by NachoNegro

    You know it makes sense.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 12:29 p.m. CST

    If that's the only statement you were replying to...

    by Childe Roland

    ...throughout our debate, Jonse, then you clearly chose to disregard everything that followed (some of it immediately). Admittedly, that initial statement was a cold splash of water intended to put the matter in clearer perspective for those buying into the whole "Jackson just wants to make a movie...let him" argument that is so prevalent on these boards. But every substantiating argument I made (even within lines of that quote in the same initial post) was intended to and did place Jackson on equal footing with the studio in terms of profit motive and culpability. As far as whether Jackson is leveraging paranoid fans or not, it might well just be his PR people (also hoping for him to make more money) who planted the seed -- which you and others have so hungrily devoured and carefully cultivated -- that PJ genuinely just wants to make this movie and that New Line's stubborn refusal to do what (he believes and, therefore, his fans will agree) is right concerning the settlement. That's a simplistic view of a complex situation. It takes two to tango, as it were, and there are two sides to the money issue between PJ and New Line. But since money IS, objectively and undeniably, THE ISSUE, it's naive and downright foolish to assume that one party's motives are more altruistic (or wholly artistic) than another. Like I said much earlier and you've consistently refused to do, Jonse, read my argument in its entirety instead of fixating on the one line you believe can debate. You'll come off sounding much more reasonable.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 12:30 p.m. CST

    New Line = Deadbeats - no more respect

    by Russman

    I can't beleive that they would actually pull the Hollywood Accounting game con on Jackson. To think that those 3 movies/dvd sales and other merchandise sales saved that studio. Parsons was gonna fold them up after the AOL merger, but with all the money they stood to make, they were allowed to live - and this is how they repay the guy who saved their asses - by fucking him over with his royalities. It's amazing how people hire and promote assholes. New Line gets an F in my book.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 12:46 p.m. CST

    antonphd - good post

    by Russman

    Like WETA is gonna give up the code for all of the CGI. The new director would have to rebuild EVERYTHING from scratch.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 12:58 p.m. CST

    Ah ChildeR I see, so the fact that what you're...

    by Mr Jonse

    ...saying now, and what you were saying first are different is because your initial statement was just shock tactics intended to sober up all those lunatics crazy enough not to share your opinion? Glad you cleared that up cos it seemed like an about-face to me. And suddenly money is THE ISSUE when before you were making 2 points and they were mutually exclusive? Following your argument would be much easier if it wasn't constantly in flux. And lectures on sounding reasonable from the guy who first brought colon exploration into the conversation, I can do without.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 1:26 p.m. CST

    By the way, I'm pretty sure I've answered every...

    by Mr Jonse

    ...one of your points. Anything thing you want clarification on, hollaback.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 2:06 p.m. CST

    Well said, tidge...

    by Ben-Thayer Dunnthaedt

    Well said. The sets were great, weren't they? However, it appears that with all the name calling and cursing in this TB the important issue at hand has been overshadowed: most of the intricate elements that made Tolkien's work so wonderous were ignored completely and omitted shamefully from PJ's movies. So much so that the films cannot be called "JRR Tolkien's LoTR", but instead "Peter Jackson's LoTR". And please don't say "it's because 'this or that' wouldn't translate well to the screen." In truth, Tolkien's elaborate descriptions of the topology of Middle Earth were translated quite well with PJ's choice of locations in the filming process. What's missing is crucial dialogue, critical plot connectivity, THE TIMELINE, character development and depiction...in short, nearly everything that made Tolkien's work magnificent. And much of the story was replaced with scenes nowhere to be found in any of the novels that only served to consume screen time. To illustrate: Re-read the paragraphs in The Tower of Cirith Ungol where Tolkien describes the orcs fighting among themselves over the mithril mail, and compare it to the screen version. Tolkien's - absolutely BRILLIANT. Jackson's - uh, hardly. But by all means carry on with the venemous name-calling...it's quite amusing!

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 2:07 p.m. CST

    OFF TOPIC - Green Lantern Creator Martin Nodell Dies

    by Abin Sur

    MIAMI (AP) - Martin Nodell, the creator of Green Lantern, the comic book superhero who uses his magical ring to help him fight crime, has died. He was 91. Nodell died at his home in Muskego, Wis., on Saturday of natural causes, his son Spencer Nodell told The Associated Press on Tuesday. He previously lived in West Palm Beach. Nodell was looking for a new idea for a comic book in 1940 when he was waiting for a New York subway and saw a train operator waving a lantern displaying a green light, said Maggie Thompson, senior editor of Comics Buyer's Guide. Nodell imagined a young engineer, Alan Scott, a train crash survivor who discovers in the debris an ancient lantern forged from a green meteor. Scott constructs a ring from the lamp that gives him super powers, and becomes a crime fighter. He brought his drawings and story lines to All-American Publications, which later became a part of National Periodical Publications, the company that was to become DC Comics, Thompson said. The first Green Lantern appearance came in July 1940, an eight-page story in a comic book also featuring other characters. The character then got his own series, and Nodell drew it until 1947 under the name Mart Dellon. After its cancellation, the series was reborn in 1959 with a revised story line, and it has been revived several times. Meanwhile, Nodell left the comics field for an advertising career. In the 1960s, he was on a design team that helped develop the Pillsbury Doughboy. In later years, Nodell traveled the comic book convention circuit with his wife, Caroline, who died in 2004. "There were myriad of fans who would come up to my dad and would say `Green Lantern got me to read' or `Green Lantern got me to do something in my life,'" Spencer Nodell said. Nodell was born in Philadelphia and studied at art schools in Chicago and New York. Besides Spencer Nodell, survivors include another son, six grandchildren and three great-grandchildren.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 2:30 p.m. CST

    First of all, Jonse, you're awfully defensive...

    by Childe Roland

    ...for someone who wants us all to believe he's ever-so-sure of himself. On my initial line, which was definitely intended to slap the sense back into the starstruck and far-too-eager-to-demonize-(your word, by the way)-the-studio masses, I stand firm. The gist of the comment is true even if I took it to the extreme for illustrative purposes. New Line actually offered PJ an opportunity to make the movie he claims to really want to make. No argument from you on that? Good. Stay with me now. He said "no." Why? Because he believes he is entitled to more money from the studio than they are willing to give him. Good for him and his self confidence. That's his right. But for him to address the fan base after breaking off negotiations and say how much he'd really like to make the movie if only New Line could see its way clear to his definition of what is right and fair is pretty manipulative. It's certainly not what we would call negotiating in good faith (although I would argue the tactic is fairly commonplace, I still find it distatsteful that the media allows itself to be played in that way). Whether it was his call, his lawyer's call or his spin folk, it's an attempt to put pressure on New Line to create a more favorable bargaining position for PJ if and when he decides to resume talks or revisit the issue (during arbitration, perhaps, if a second settlement offer is made, he'll counter?). And it's a less than straightforward agenda this site is furthering in the slant of its coverage (re-read the articles on this issue and tell me they aren't designed to stir up panic among fans of the Rings films -- then read the talkbacks and see how eagerly folks took the bait). The fact is, both New Line and PJ are in this for the money, but New Line is being pretty honest about it. If PJ truly were in it for the fun, as you and many others have suggested, would the difference of a few million (out of tens of millions) of dollars really be enough to dissuade him from a project he claims to be passionate about (while demonstrating a profound lack of understanding of the source material, I might add -- but then you'd try to convince me I'm not being objective)? Of course not. In fact, Hollywood folk (creatives, like actors and PJ, I mean...not those evil suits, obviously) have a pretty well-documented history of taking less than their usual paychecks for projects they really care about. Why wouldn't PJ do that here? Kind of puts the emphasis on the money again, doesn't it? Not that there's anything wrong with that, but let's call it what it is. If my talk of being up PJ's ass offended you, I wholeheartedly apologize. I simply assumed most talkbackers to be made of sterner stuff than that...just as I assume most Hollywood actors, directors and really anyone associated with the movie business are more than accustomed to being called whores. What are they doing again? Something most of us would do for free, given the opportuinity, because we would get off on it...and they're getting paid hefty sums of money to do so. Not enough evidence to draw a playful parallel to the world's oldest profession for you? Well how about the way PJ is talking about this particular movie? "Oooh...I'd REALLY love to do it for you, baby. I'd do it just right. But it's going to cost you more than that." Another exaggeration? Sure. But the point's sinking in, I suspect. Hell, I've been called a whore for doing what I do (and I can't imagine most folks would want the job if they truly understood it), but I can laugh about it because I understand that, to a certain extent, any exchange of non-tangible yet gratifying services that someone really ought to be able to obtain for free or provide themselves for money is a form of prostitution. The reason that prostitution is the world's oldest profession and still going strong, however, is because people like the prostitute. They enjoy the way he/she does something for them. As long as everyone is protected (in this case, I'd argue that protection constitutes keeping your perspective and realizing that the prostitute doesn't love you and has probably become desensitized enough to the act by now that he doesn't love it as much as you wish he did, either) where's the harm? So, yeah. I'll call PJ a whore. And New Line's no better, from that standpoint, in that they're the cat house. Oh, and since you obviously misinterpreted yet another of my points: Money is THE ISSUE between PJ and New Line. Not between me and PJ. I could care less how much he makes or for what. My issue with him is that I don't believe he's demonstrated an understanding of The Hobbit that indicates he would do the work justice on screen. It's a ompletely separate issue (for me)from the money. But I understand how -- if New Line employs anyone even remotely familiar with the source matierial -- they might come to a similar conclusion about his aptitude for the project and have further reason not to want to bend over and write Petey the check he wants. Is it me or do you have difficulty with multi-faceted points of view? It seems like your thought process is awfully linear and that you need to dwell on one aspect of larger, more complex issues at a time in order to reach any sort of understanding. Here's a test you can try at home: Rub your tummy in a clockwise direction and pat your head simultaneously. No...don't rub your head. Pat it. There. Got it? Good. Now reverse direction on the tummy but keep patting your head. You still there? Good. Next time on multitasking 101: Walking and chewing gum.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 2:35 p.m. CST

    On a more pleasant subject, for the TB'er with No Name:

    by Childe Roland

    That's a great observation about Tolkien's "Director's Cut" of the Hobbit. ANd you're right. He did make additions to help lend the discovery of the ring more weight. But he didn't change the overall tone of the story (in other words, he didn't rewrite it to appeal to a more sophisticated audience). Essentially, he added in some easter eggs that fans of the Rings books would appreciate without detracting from the overall kid-friendly experience of the faerie tale. If PJ had said he intended to take that kind of approach (and maybe a little further than Tolkien himself did), I'd be all aboard for the idea of him helming this thing. But he was talking about something more designed to service his trilogy than to tell its own story, and that would be a shame.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 2:36 p.m. CST

    Hey Yack:

    by Ricky Henderson

    Visit Pleasantville much? Oliver Stone is screening "WTC" and taking questions and answers tonight. Google "Jacob Burns Film Center" for into. I'd go, but I'm busy.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 2:44 p.m. CST

    Do you know what just because...

    by Mr Jonse

    ...of the effort you put in there I'll tell you what you want to hear; I'm wrong, you're right. OK? Your unique perspective on a situation you can't possibly know anything about has won the day. I wasn't quite convinced but then when you started with the patronising at the end there you totally won me over. I'll get you next time you wily fox [shakes fist].

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 3:09 p.m. CST

    Everyone's prespective is unique, Jonse...

    by Childe Roland

    ...and none of us can really be certain of anything in the post Einsteinian world (hell, Socrates had that figured out way back when he asserted that he was certain of nothing save his own ignorance). But we've all got the same basic information here and our conclusions based on observation of that common evidence are all we've got to talk about. Assuming we're interested in discussing them, that is. Seems to me a lot of folks are more interested in picking up pitchforks and torches and heading over to New Line. Different strokes, I guess.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 3:11 p.m. CST

    And obviously "prespectives" should be...

    by Childe Roland

    ..."perspectives" unless you want to read all of that last post as an ironic commentary on the nature of prejudice. Could be funny either way, I s'pose.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 3:16 p.m. CST

    PETER JACKSON IS A BAD EXAMPLE

    by whatever57

    ....of a director with little or no talent, acquiring and using other people's work, maximizing the power from it, then, finally, manipulating the fans by using the rest of Tolkien's works as a leverage point to renege on his SIGNED contract to strong arm the studios into eseentially..... giving him more money. He doesn't care about the Hobbit. He just wants to control New Line's finance department. Instead of organizing the lawyers at the beginning he does this. GREED. PURE GREED. He doesn't give a shit about The Hobbit. Tolkien must be rolling in his grave. The fans and The Hobbit and are being used as Peter's pawn to simply gain more money. TOLKIEN will benefit from FX work being done elsewhere, as did ROWLING, and the remainder of the books will benefit from a diversity of talented artists and new directors. WETA has people going in and out all of the time. As long the film has Tolkien's success to grab, PJ is a winner....but the fact is Peter Jackson is actually a fictional talent, as the failure of nearly every other film he has ever made proves ! GO AND SEE !! http://tinyurl.com/yx5pcd !! KONG'S monsterous under performance (one of the most expensive films ever made!) and WETA'S manipulative aquired arrogance ("make other director's want to give up") are THE BEST reasons to put this content into other facilities and let PJ to do his own original work. Jackson should work on FRIGHTENERS 2. Let's see how that one does......

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 4:03 p.m. CST

    WELL

    by THE KNIGHT

    PJ will do it... You can count on it...

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 4:31 p.m. CST

    Bad Grammar?

    by glodene

    Whatch y'all be talkin'bout? Royd articumulated hisself real well. Y'all be sum sidity snobs and be hatin' on a mofo because he be comin' from a betta' family tree then y'all. So don't hate, congragulate!

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 4:31 p.m. CST

    Mr. Jonse... Are You Serious?

    by DeeJay

    Mr. Jonse... “if” Peter Jackson’s attempt wasn’t to get LOTR fans worked-up in an anti-New Line frenzy, then what do you believe *was* the intention behind the initial web letter that we’ve all been referring to? I’d like to read your theories as to anyalternative motives that don’t simultaneously contradict both common sense and the actual response we’ve observed. Let me just reiterate my point (which I don’t think is too far off from Childe Roland’s)... the studio may very well be in the wrong, but the only “evidence” presented to-date has been dubious. That being said, I refuse to be so sequacious as to rush to Jackson’s side, when he hasn’t entered this situation with clean hands. Another thing that I find somewhat strange is the entire manner in which people on this board have maligned New Line as a studio, yet have rarely (if ever) offered specific names of people who are out to “get” Peter Jackson. This boogeyman-type approach has even extended to the paranoid idea that New Line has plants on this message board. Seriously--- think about it--- what could a studio plant actually *accomplish* on AICN?

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 4:54 p.m. CST

    Ben, that is what I'm talking about.

    by superninja

    I'm not sure why that stuff gets a pass.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 4:56 p.m. CST

    Yo DeeJay!

    by glodene

    You sound like a New Line confederate sent here to undermine us AICN talkbackers false sense of power and relevance. Whadup wit dat?

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 5:02 p.m. CST

    Thanks for the Humor

    by DeeJay

    Glodene... :-)

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 5:13 p.m. CST

    Stop feeding the troll!

    by JD1866

    This train wreck of a talk back is precisely why the Tailenders have all but abandoned posting at aicn. Hint to antonphd: Dude, you’re wasting your time.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 6:17 p.m. CST

    Rather than bitching...

    by Dapper Swindler

    What would happen if everyone in first world countries gave Jackson a nickel out of their own pockets and said, "There, that's the money new line owes you. Now go make the fucking movie." Seriously, how much is a nickel compared to how much time and effort you've already spent worrying about this?

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 6:51 p.m. CST

    Thanks Mr Gaius

    by half vader

    For the info. If I started hanging around the zone I'd never get any work done.

  • Dec. 12, 2006, 11:17 p.m. CST

    Uhhh wasn't it PJ who decided to make the Hobbits......

    by BRUTICUS

    GAY? There was WAY too much gayness in LOTR because of those thilly wittle hobbits jumping and giggling and gazing adoringly into each other's eyes. A PJ movie all about Hobbits? Would probably make me sick.

  • Dec. 13, 2006, 2:54 a.m. CST

    Childe Roland, sure i can respect that

    by Talkbacker with no name

    I'm a fan of the books and the movies (as well as a fan of jacksons films) and really like Jackson's way of approaching it. I feel you could still set it in PJ's rings world but have a lighter tone to it that fits in with the books story. Different strokes for different folks I guess. <p>This is very interesting regarding the additions - 'In the first edition, Gollum willingly bets his magic ring on the outcome of the riddle game. During the writing of The Lord of the Rings Tolkien saw the need to revise this passage, in order to reflect the concept of the One Ring and its powerful hold on Gollum. Tolkien tried many different passages in the chapter that would become chapter 2 of the Lord of the Rings, "The Shadow of the Past". Eventually Tolkien decided a rewrite of The Hobbit was in order, and he sent a sample chapter of this rewrite ("Riddles in the Dark") to his publishers. <p>In the introduction of The Lord of the Rings, as well as inside "The Shadow of the Past", the differences of the first edition are explained as a "lie" that Bilbo made up because of the One Ring's influence on him, and which he originally wrote down in his book. Inside The Lord of the Rings, Bilbo finally confesses the true story at the Council of Elrond, although Gandalf had deduced the truth earlier. As Tolkien presented himself as the translator of the supposedly historic Red Book of Westmarch, where Bilbo and Frodo's stories were recorded, he further explained the two differing stories in The Hobbit by stating he had originally used Bilbo's original story, but later retranslated the work with the "true story" recorded by Frodo.'

  • Dec. 13, 2006, 3:31 a.m. CST

    Talkbacker, Tolkien's "rewrite" was partly an accident.

    by Ringwearer9

    I read one of his letters where he says that that rewrite of the chapter was one he hadn't intended to replace the original passage in the Hobbit. He had sent it to his publisher as an example of how he intended to revise the story in "The Lord of the Rings", and he had intended to incorporate the story into Gandalf's telling of the story to Frodo. But the publisher just went ahead and replaced the passage in The Hobbit, and the first Tolkien was aware of it was when he recieved a copy of the new edition. That's why Tolkien made a big deal about the change, and included introductory notes to further editions explaining the change, because he felt he owed it to people who had read (and liked) the previous version of the story. He had in fact originally intended NOT to change the original, out of concern for readers who had become used to that version.

  • Dec. 13, 2006, 5:11 a.m. CST

    Tolkien re-wrote Riddles In the Dark...

    by morGoth

    ...to bring it in line with the larger LoTR. He originally had Gollum willingly turning over the Ring to Bilbo after he (Bilbo) won the Riddle Game. That didn't jibe at all as Gollum was incapable of willingly giving it up, even if he desired, at that time. To say that Tolkien didn't want it published with the corrected version is simply wrong. ** Hola JD {[:^)

  • Dec. 13, 2006, 8:12 a.m. CST

    You're right, of course, Talkbacker w/No Name...

    by Childe Roland

    ...that critical element of Riddles in the Dark is decidedly different from first edition to revision. But to me that amounts to a big easter egg considering the rest of the story is pretty much as was intended originally. And tonally, although things do get decidedly more urgent and tense in the rewritten version of that passage, it doesn't shift the overall mood of the book. If you read what Jackson intended to do with the Hobbit, we'd really be looking at a different story entirely. I simply don't think such a sweeping recreation is necessary when the original (and the revised original) hold up so well in our memories.

  • Dec. 13, 2006, 8:18 a.m. CST

    The Silmarillion and The Children of Húrin = no movies

    by livingwater

    ARTICLE QUOTES: "As a young man, Christopher was much involved in his father's writing of "The Lord of the Rings". He had always kept track of the various threads of the stories, and interpreted his father's maps of Middle-earth, eventually creating the one published with the book in the 1970s. After J.R.R. Tolkien's death, Christopher became the literary executor of his estate. There were masses of notes left on his father's death - drafts for the ongoing project of "The Silmarillion", often notes jotted in pencil half a century earlier. With the assistance of author Guy Gavriel Kay, Christopher began ordering his father's notes for The Silmarillion with a view to publication. J.R.R. Tolkien had never intended to publish the book in such an unpolished form, as several inaccuracies and contradictions remain. However, Christopher felt that the book would be of such value to Tolkien enthusiasts that such problems could be overlooked. After the publication of the Silmarillion, Christopher Tolkien began on others of his father's notes: resulting in "Unfinished Tales" and the massive "History of Middle-earth". Christopher Tolkien has jealously guarded the Tolkien legacy for over 30 years. Anxious not to allow his father's work to be cheapened or belittled, the copyright on all aspects of the works has been fiercely protected. Though J.R.R. Tolkien sold the film rights to The Lord of the Rings in 1969, Christopher has long insisted that the books are not suited to movie interpretation, and was vehemently opposed to the recently released New Line Cinema trilogy. His championship of his father's work has led him to shun his only child, Simon. When Simon Tolkien expressed his support for the movie trilogy, Christopher Tolkien effectively disowned him, barring him from the board of the Tolkien Company, despite the fact that Christopher's second wife Baillie and nephew Michael were a part of the organization. "

  • Dec. 13, 2006, 9:44 a.m. CST

    like Forrest Gump had been a loss?

    by CrichtonAstronut

    See, that's what I'm talking about. And I'll evn go you one better. I was at a writers conference with a man lecturing on the business of screen writing. He told us that when it came time to pay the screen writer of Batman. Warner Bros. tried to make it look like Batman came out fo a loss. Now, just to be clear I'm talking about the Tim Burton version, not one from 70s series. The version that kicked off the franchise that the good people of Warner Bros. described to Joel Scumacher as their most valable corporate asset. (Heard him say that on an interview from Starz! Directors series). That's just the kind of crap Studio executive pull. And if you want tomake money as a film maker you have to fight that stuff. And what's all this about Peter Jackson being cynical and greedy and betraying his fans because he wants to get paid for doing his job. Whatever anyone thinks of those movies(I loved them, just so you know) I can't see how anyone can argue that he failed to produce successful franchise that got audiences to the theaters and put New Line's in the head lines (up 'til now in a positive way). What does a studio want from a film anyway. An audience? He got that. Prestigue? The last one got a friggin Oscar. Profits? Come on. Does anybody really beleive that after and fve DVD releases they didn't squeeze a little coin out of this project. And if they didn't why would they have tried to get him on the Hobbit, while they were shafting for the Rings. Or why invest in all DVD releases in the first place. As much as I'd love to see Peter Jackson direct the Hobbit, I do not want to see him bend over and play New Line's bitch to do it. I respect the stand he's taking for himself and all writers and directors. Directors deserve have kids and bills and all too, and they work. As do writers musicians and actors(note I say actors not celebrities, acting is a job celebrity is a concesquence of some jobs.) Anyway, when deliver on their end, they deserve to get paid? And it may be easy for the people who just watch movie or read books to think of the nobility of starving for one's art. But they aren't the ones having feeling those hunger pains.

  • Dec. 13, 2006, 10:31 a.m. CST

    Have you never sacrificed for something...

    by Childe Roland

    ...you believed in, Chricton (if not, you need to give back that screen name). Personally I spent more years than I care to count as a journalist, despite making barely enough to pay my students loans (and having offers for much more profitable employement) because I believed in what I was doing and feared no one else believed as strongly as I did (turned out I was right about that, but that's another story). Anyway, it's NEVER easy to suffer for one's art or one's convictions, but that's why they call it suffering. If it's worth it to you, you do it. That's not to say there's no nobility in doing something just for the money (if you've got a family to support and it's their well being and futures you're working for), but I do think it's important to be clear on the distinction between starving/going hungry for one's art and not making as many millions as one would prefer. Despite his weight loss, I don't think anyone is laboring under the misconception that Jackson or his loved ones are wanting for anything monetary or physical right now.

  • Dec. 13, 2006, 10:43 a.m. CST

    Childe Roland Has My Vote

    by DarfurOnTheRocks

    As a student of English Lit, the idea of reader response and ownership of text fascinates me. Unfortunately, too many people are looking at PJ as being the authoritative voice on all things Tolkien. He is merely interpreting the source material. That in itself is not a bad thing, as long as we do not forget that it is not gospel and untouchable. In regards to NL vs. PJ, Childe asks a simple question: If this is a labour of love, then why is PJ bickering over a few million? It is a question that I have not seen answer to my satisfaction.

  • Dec. 13, 2006, 10:52 a.m. CST

    Childe Roland, until Fran and Philippa take a crack at

    by Talkbacker with no name

    the book to screenplay, I wouldn't take what Jackson said as a dead cert. Look how much 'Rings' changed from the start of the project to what finsihed up on screen. <p>I have every reason to believe it will be handled with respect and care as I feel 'Rings' was (whatever the naysayers say). <p>Hold on! should we be slinging insults at eachother by now? this conversation is going far too well for my liking! hehe

  • Dec. 13, 2006, 11:07 a.m. CST

    DarfurOnTheRocks, it's the principal!

    by Talkbacker with no name

    I think Jackson has every right (and gets my respect) for standing firm against the studio who are trying to blackmail him into a deal. It's not a money issue for Team Jackson at all! PJ said "we do not want to tie settlement of the lawsuit to making a film of The Hobbit. In other words, we would have to agree to make The Hobbit as a condition of New Line settling our lawsuit. In our minds this is not the right reason to make a film and if a film of The Hobbit went ahead on this basis, it would be doomed. Deciding to make a movie should come from the heart - it's not a matter of business convenience. <p>and<p>"Michael Lynne said we would stand to make much more money if we tied the lawsuit and the movie deal together and this may well be true, but it's still the worst reason in the world to agree to make a film."<p>Seems pretty straight forward to me. I've no idea what answer would be to your satisfaction?

  • Dec. 13, 2006, 11:10 a.m. CST

    Well then, who ever said Jackson works for free?

    by morGoth

    As a very long time fan of Tolkien's works, I was immensely satisfied with what PJ and his folks did on the LoTR movies. I had to get used to the notion, however, that he was making a movie adaptation of the books…not canon. I don’t recall anyone ever voicing the notion that he was the be-al end-all authority on things Tolkien. He certainly surrounded himself with those who were close to it though. While his “love” of the books may or not match yours or mine, he certainly carried enough love and respect for them to get it mostly right. Everything else is, in the end, a mere quibble over details. Now, if you expect him to jump into the Hobbit without settling the money issue then I think it’s a naïve notion. So, does that mean he doesn’t truly “love” the book, The Hobbit? It’s a subjective notion anyway and from my perspective I would say, yes, he does. Though I agree most folk (including and especially my loverly morGette’s) want to maintain the light-hearted tone of the books, I would also love to see a full blown Silmarrillionesque (if need be)-Unfinished Tales-Quest For Erebor-backstory type adaptation. Either one will work for me, personally. Having gained my respect AND trust by his LoTR treatment, I’d rather see PJ do the Hobbit than another director. All this talk about him using fans as a leveraging tool to hold out for justly deserved monies is idle speculation by everyone except those most intimately involved in the transaction.

  • Dec. 13, 2006, 11:30 a.m. CST

    morGoth, well said!

    by Talkbacker with no name

    A lot of people seem to forget this is just a movie adaptation and haven't even read the statement by PJ properly!

  • Dec. 13, 2006, 11:48 a.m. CST

    It's not sacrifice to let yourself be cheated. It's

    by CrichtonAstronut

    giving up. Quitting. And for what pricible so a billion dollar company and have a few dollars money owed to him. And if he does that everyone in the creative fields looses. He's already sacrificed for a vision LOTR he beleived he sacrificed years, he sacrificed effort. I don't he did that just for the money, but that doesn't mean the money owned him. or that he shouldn't stand up for his rights. And if he did give in what kind of example would that make. And as to the Crchton comment, my recollection is that John Crichton wasn't big on giving up either. Jackson is in the right. Giving in would be wrong.

  • Dec. 13, 2006, 12:24 p.m. CST

    Actually, Chricton, if it had been determined yet...

    by Childe Roland

    ...that Jackson were in the right (and, by "right," I certainly don't mean morally or in principle...I'm referring to his accounting versus New Line's, and it's entirely possible that either or both are mathematically erroneous), I'd agree with you 100%. Since that hasn't yet been determined, I don't think it's fair to make the assumption that either party is in the right in the dispute. I also don't think it's fair to look at a settlement offer from New Line as some sort of dirty trick or left-field play. It's pretty standard procedure and makes every bit of sense (more importantly, dollars) from a corporate standpoint. An amicable settlement means no need for independent auditing and costly arbitration/litigation. From their perspective, it's a win-win. If Jackson truly wanted to make the movie anyway and was more concerned that it be made "right" (in this instance, meaning according to his and his fans' vision for it), one would think he'd accept the offer and forego the monies he believes he's owed (again, not that it has yet been demonstrated that he's owed these monies) in favor of the monies New Line (and much of the fan community) believes he will make from doing The Hobbit. Really, if anyone who's speculated on the appeal of this project is anywhere near in the ballpark, Jackson's looking at a net gain and really isn't being asked to sacrifice anything tangible. Is it the principle, for him, then? Maybe so. But if that principle...and the desire to see New Line open their books for his scrutiny and satisfaction...outweighs his desire to make the Hobbit, then speculation about his passion for that project and the source material is certainly reasonable. Does that make sense?

  • Dec. 13, 2006, 12:34 p.m. CST

    How much Bills could a Bilbo

    by DarfurOnTheRocks

    How much Bills could a Bilbo Bill , If a Bilbo could Bill... Ok.. I'm tired. I just hope all of this gets sorted out. Nuff Said from Me!!!

  • Dec. 13, 2006, 1:25 p.m. CST

    Studio Pricks

    by Talkbacker with no name

    Ooo how interesting

  • Dec. 13, 2006, 1:32 p.m. CST

    Oh it didn't work

    by Talkbacker with no name

    don't mind me

  • Dec. 13, 2006, 2:02 p.m. CST

    You need to relax Yackbacker.

    by Childe Roland

    I comment on this exhaustively because I've given it a lot of thought and what I'm arguing for is NOT the demonization or condemnation of Jackson. I'm arguing for a reasoned, even-handed approach to the situation from those of us who have nothing but what we see and hear to base our perceptions on (sound familiar? It seems like what you're arguing for as well). If the confidence with which I express and back up my opinions offends you, I suggest you skip them unless you can be bothered to refute them (rather than assuming you know what I'm saying without bothering to digest it and writing me off as arrogant). Frankly, I could give a shit if you think I'm an ass or not...but I would have had to have eaten a much bigger lunch.

  • Dec. 13, 2006, 2:13 p.m. CST

    Damn! Never thouht i'd see the day.

    by glodene

    Just seems like yesterday, that i was gettin' gangbanged by Yackbacker & Childe Roland on that M. Night Thread a while back an' here y'all is beefin' like 2Pac & Biggie...The vicissitudes of life indeed. LET THE DRIVE-BYS BEGIN!

  • Dec. 13, 2006, 2:30 p.m. CST

    Okay, now I'm imagining everyone typing...

    by Childe Roland

    ...with their fingers locked into gang signs. Thanks, glodene. Seriously, Yack, if you do read what I'm typing and try to imagine that I'm not smiling smugly as I do so, you'll see that what you and I are essentially saying is the same thing. No one knows enough about what's going on financially and legally between New Line and PJ to say one or the other is at fault, to blame or in the moral wrong. Where I seem to be getting people's hackles up is in pointing out there's reason to believe Jackson's motives are just as base and selfish as New Line's in this dispute. A lot of people don't seem to want to believe the guy is human. I loved his Rings movies. Not sure how many times I need to say that before I've amply demonstrated my respect for what he does. But people seem to have elevated him to demi-godhood and ascribed some fictional inability to do or be wrong to the man, and I'm sorry but the last guy who might have even qualified for that treatment (depending on who you ask) never made a movie and got nailed to a couple of two-by-fours by folks who were tired of being made to feel inadequate or unworthy because of their all-too-common-and-human shortcomings. You don't need to know dollar amounts to deduce that money is the main issue between PJ and New Line. nd you don't need to be arrogant or presumptuous to point out that others in Hollywood seem to have cleared this hurdle when it came to working on something they truly gave a shit about. As it happens, I'm glad to find Jackson isn't of that inclination, because I don't think he can do this movie the way I think it should be done. I humbly submit that there's nothing wrong with my believing any of what I just typed and that you should probably not take offense if you happen to be a Jackson fan who'd like to see him do some kind of Hobbit/History of MIddle Earth hybrid film. Some of us didn't get the Star Wars prequels we wanted...we weren't angry at the people who liked them (although I'm still kind of baffled by those folks). Maybe this impasse between PJ and New Line is Karma working within Hollywood's well-established rules of engagement in an effort to balance things out for us?

  • Dec. 13, 2006, 3:28 p.m. CST

    Wow!

    by biggles2_22

    Just checked back into this thread and couldn't believe that you guys were still going back & forth on this! (Quite verbously, Childe!) Note: When your post has become longer than the LOTR EE screenplay, it's time to move on to something else. You guys need to stop obsessing over PJ and get behind the man-who-gets-things-done-almost-professionally, Brett Ratner!

  • Dec. 13, 2006, 3:36 p.m. CST

    Is there a word limit I'm not aware of, biggles?

    by Childe Roland

    I thought typing away the day was what the Internets were for.

  • Dec. 13, 2006, 4:02 p.m. CST

    Apparently there is not one that you are aware of!

    by biggles2_22

    And I thought it's original purpose was to transmit porn more effectively accross college campuses. My mistake.

  • Dec. 13, 2006, 4:12 p.m. CST

    I, for one, don't want to see PJ directing Hobbit.

    by MonteCristo2

    I sure as heck wouldn't mind him producing it with the same creative...but PJ's style of direction isn't good for the Hobbit. The Hobbit moves along at comfortable pace without the threat of foreboding danger. PJ would make a PG-13 LOTR 4 that wouldn't do any of the Hobbit justice. But the same creative team? I would love to see Middle Earth again, albeit lighter.

  • Dec. 13, 2006, 4:29 p.m. CST

    Indeed, Biggles...

    by Childe Roland

    ...across college campuses and into our dens. God bless the Internets.

  • Dec. 14, 2006, 8:28 a.m. CST

    LOTR accounting question

    by half vader

    Just a quick question that I know you'll roll your eyes at (but please have patience) - the Rings movies are generally accepted to have cost 240-odd million to make, which breaks down to 80-something per flick, right? This is pretty damn impressive considering that usually you'd guesstimate flicks of that scope easily costing double. The question though, is whether that was in U.S. dollars or Kiwi money. 'Cause if it was NZ notes that'd be even more amazing. Personally I think that when they don't mention which denomination they'd mean American as a default, but this has been niggling at me lately and I thought this was an appropriate thread to ask. Also, my posts seem to kill talkbacks dead, so if you need to put a stop to ringy, lemme know. ;)

  • Dec. 14, 2006, 9:16 a.m. CST

    Good question half vader

    by CrichtonAstronut

    I don't know myself but I expect your and that if it wasn't American deominations the American news sources I've read quoting that cost would have specified otherwise. I also agree that it was a hell of a low price for the level of production that was achieved. I think this was primarily due to the clever decision to film all three movies together using the same sets. As opposed to the Star Wars prequals which came in at just over $200 million each. And for my money, on visual level. The Rings movies just looked better than the Star Wars prequals. Even the CGI looked more earthy and solid than the Star Wars CGI. Of course the Rings movies was also better written, acted, and directed but thats another discussion. Anyway, whatever happens with the Hobbit I'm really looking foreward to Lovely Bones. While this book could hardly be more different in tone or skope than the LOTR trilogy, he's done brilliant work on the more intimate scale. Watch Heavenly Creatures if you haven't already. A very dark a and twisted, and personal tale, quite similar in tone to Lovely Bones.

  • Dec. 14, 2006, 12:50 p.m. CST

    Essence of PJ's films = Ridicule

    by DufusyteII

    Every director has an essence, for Gibson, it is "Torment." It is the essence that runs through their films. For PJ, it is "Ridicule." PJ likes to ridicule everything and everyone, and that is what his films are about. Kong05 ridicules every character and everything in sight: directors, actors, studio execs, military men, even Kong himself is shown as a nasty creature.<br><br>The "ridicule" factor is toned down in the LOTR films because PJ felt pressure from the fans, and he was very nervous not to ruin the films, since they were a big opportunity for his career.<br><br>But now that PJ feels he is on top of the world, you can be sure that the ridicule factor will loom large in all his future films.<br><br>PJ is not comfortable depicting good characters: he made Galadriel into a frightening witch, he made Faramir into a threatening bandit, and in the extended edition he even poisoned the Shire, making it a subtly sinister place instead of a place of goodness and innocence.<br><br>PJ is unsuitable for the Hobbit because PJ is incapable of making a film accessible to children. Even Kong which is a fun adventure story became unsuitable for child audiences under PJ's direction.<br><br>Another oddity is that PJ likes to satisfy his crew rather than make a good movie. For example, he added the (totally irrelevant) Jimmy cabin boy subplot in order to please the black actor (forgive me for not knowing his name) who wanted to have an interesting storyline connected with his character. OK, great, add a subplot to make this actor's character more interesting - but it bogged down the film as a whole. And similarly, in the extended editions of LOTR, PJ threw in various scenes that "people had worked hard on" but which had been cut from the theatrical version (with good reason). But all the extra bloat came back into the extended version in order to please the people who had worked on the shots. And then there was the song that Liv Tyler recorded and she was telling everyone it would be in ROTK, and it was cut, and then PJ added it back into the extended version to please her - it is in the Houses of Healing segment - and it sounds pretty much out of place compared to the rest of the music in the film. But he adds in these things just to please the people he is working with, as though it is a personal favor to them, while it detracts from the film as a film. And as PJ becomes more confident, he does more and more of this self serving stuff that does not add up to a good film, as the extended editions and Kong05 attest. I am quite sceptical of his future films, and would hate to see Hobbit badly treated, as seems would be the case.

  • Dec. 14, 2006, 5:23 p.m. CST

    Crichton

    by half vader

    To be fair, the Star Wars prequels cost nowhere near $200m. They were between 115 and 135. Partly because Lucas owns post companies like ILM and Skywalker Sound (and of course there's an element of that with Rings and Weta) and the quotes don't reflect the same overhead as if charging an outside company, but also because Georgie is a tightwad just like his Dad. ;) I have friends that were screwed over even if they'd worked in the same capacity on the previous film - do it cheaper or for the 'prestige' (boy do LFL trade heavily on that one) of working on SW or there's always some rabid young fanboy that will do it almost for free so you put up with it or work in another capacity. Which may be true (the fanboy/hungry young professional thing), but God forbid you should want to pay your bills. SW recycled their sets too. Even though I'm a bit critical of their disingenuous business practices (to be fair there though it's a producer's prerogative to get the most for the least), it's too bad you have to drag SW through the creative ("just looked better"?!) dirt though because you like Rings. They're generally chalk and cheese aesthetically and where they do overlap (art noveaux for example), they're equally justified visually, whatever you think of the actual movies as a whole. I'm a bit tired of the whole "that spaceship/alien doesn't look REAL argument as we'll probably never have real aliens & spaceships to judge them against. But like you say that's another story (to be misunderstood by CG haters). As far as business practices go there are plenty of stories about Weta digital too. You don't have to shit on one to shine the other, I still get your point.

  • Dec. 14, 2006, 5:29 p.m. CST

    DufusyteII

    by half vader

    Is that you RIngy? You're walkin' like a duck! - I do hate Jimmy though. ;)

  • Dec. 14, 2006, 9:42 p.m. CST

    DufusyteII

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    That is quite possible the dumbest, most ill-informed, and ignorant post I have ever seen on AICN. Congratulations, "sir". You have discovered a new level of pathetic. Good grief.

  • Dec. 14, 2006, 9:43 p.m. CST

    That should be "possibly"...

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    ...for you spellcheck bitches.

  • Dec. 15, 2006, 7:50 a.m. CST

    Gottanutha question

    by half vader

    Why was Philippa Boyens called "Queen of the geeks"? All I remember was Harry going on and on about it at the time and never spilling the beans. Anyone still out there?

  • Dec. 16, 2006, 9:02 a.m. CST

    The funny thing is

    by mortsleam

    Most people realize that negative attention is a bad thing about the same time they realize they should stop playing with their own feces.

  • Dec. 19, 2006, 10:46 a.m. CST

    Wait, Royd posted that Blog 12 MONTHS AGO!

    by Ringwearer9

    Holy Crap! Talk about deceptive reporting! That was posted Jan 1 2006!

  • Dec. 24, 2006, 1:07 p.m. CST

    I have bowel cancer

    by Barndoor

    I heard that Peter Jackson and half of WETA dug up Mr Tolkiens corpse and sexually molested it. Is this true?

  • May 16, 2007, 7:25 a.m. CST

    No... 'tis not true..

    by Quintus_Arrius

    ..at all!

  • Oct. 29, 2008, 9:39 p.m. CST

    Last...

    by Conan_the_Humble

    He, he...

  • April 8, 2009, 11:45 a.m. CST

    Yeah fucking right

    by orcus

    HAW!

  • April 10, 2009, 10:52 p.m. CST

    Hey, Orc.

    by seppukudkurosawa

    I just figured out you must have been using that www.aintitcool.com/user thing to see which talkbacks you've posted in have been RE-POSTED in last.<p> If you haven't...then...well...I'm kinda scared.<p> Hope all's going well with you and your kid!

  • April 15, 2009, 10:26 p.m. CST

    Things are well Sepp

    by orcus

    Ol Orcus has been spending WAAAYYY to much time on Facebook recently playing those fucking addictive games. BTW The secret of the timetravellers must not be revealed to the Mortals