Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Not So Fast New Line - The Zaentz says THE HOBBIT, "...will definitely be shot by Peter Jackson"!!!!

Twenty fifth by velum	Nov 24th, 2006 04:13:16 PM
I hope this is true.
Or First by velum	Nov 24th, 2006 04:13:54 PM
Sorry I just had to.
Whoooot! by KillaKane	Nov 24th, 2006 04:14:23 PM
Fingers crossed this comes to pass.
Interesting by Ridge	Nov 24th, 2006 04:15:43 PM
So it may not be a Newline shot movie but it'll get made? Like that matters. I'll see it. If this article rings true, colour me excited.
Hmmm by John-Locke	Nov 24th, 2006 04:17:24 PM
Someone posted that in the Zone a few days ago, I hope it's true and not just wishful thinking. If Jackson doesn't want to direct I hope he at least produces and helps to adapt the book, as well as WETA, McKellan, Serkis and Weaving returning. Jackson not directing is one thing but it not being in the same world as the other films is just completely pointless.
FUCK YEAH! by Bean_	Nov 24th, 2006 04:20:00 PM
Please don't be BS!!
but how can zaentz stop new line from going ahead?? by slappy jones	Nov 24th, 2006 04:24:52 PM
only mgm potentially have the power to do that don't they?
I for one am afraid he will do a good job but take too by vivavitalogy	Nov 24th, 2006 04:26:31 PM
many liberites doing so.
Guess we're all glad he's off Halo. by darthbinks1220	Nov 24th, 2006 04:29:29 PM
PJ needs to purge our systems of the lengthy gorilla epic he subjected us too. Time to go back to a land where the hobbits dwell. Any ideas who's gonna be Mr. Bilbo Baggins?
So what... by kbass	Nov 24th, 2006 04:33:43 PM
What's the big deal about this Peter Jackson guy? I mean, what's he ever done. Just get Spielberg to do it and the movie will be fine.
Slappy by HEADGEEK	Nov 24th, 2006 04:36:10 PM
Lawsuits, restraining orders. You see THE HOBBIT has rights issues between MGM and NEW LINE - moving ahead without Peter is bad business. MGM is an agressive company right now, there's a good chance that Zaentz is talking with them to squeeze NEW LINE out - while intending to court Post-LOVELY BONES PJ.
KAIHORO.de says: THE NEWS ARE WRONG! by Kaiser13	Nov 24th, 2006 04:37:28 PM
The guys over Kaihoro.de (who have btw the BEST PJ-Fansite in the net!!! Yes, better then KiK.n, TOR.n and TBHL together) say that your news entry is wrong because it is related to an interview ZAENTZ gave the German moviemag "Cinema" 3 WEEKS AGO! Soooo...ZAENTZ made NO comment on this whole thing after PJs open letter to the fans...
Another Prequel? by Dauntless	Nov 24th, 2006 04:39:31 PM
Ok, I knew about the Hobbit, but what's the other Lord of the Rings prequel that Jackson will do? The 'Silmarillion'?
Dauntless by Jubba	Nov 24th, 2006 04:42:18 PM
the Hobbit is supposedly going to be made as 2 separate movies
The Zaentz Quote by TheRealMoriarty	Nov 24th, 2006 04:51:24 PM
Was obviously made before PJ published his recent letter. Still, if you connect the dots from New Line's panic about their impending date where they lose the rights and Zaentz crowing about how he'll pay PJ what he's worth once the studio's out of the way... I think you get a clear picture of what's going on with THE HOBBIT at this point. My question for all of you is how much of this will be baggage by the time the film shows up in theaters, in whatever form it does. Because New Line will fight to protect what they see as theirs, PJ has every right to feel proprietary and also to want to be paid what he's worth, and Zaentz is one of the last of the old-school take-no-prisoners producers, so he's sure to bloody his knuckles a bit before this is done. There's a fascinating story playing out here, and there's little doubt the press is being used to carry messages between the players.
Zantz Kan't Danz by NNNOOO!!!	Nov 24th, 2006 04:55:10 PM
I love the idea that Zaentz would win Jackson's loyalty by being the kind of producer who pays his artists fair. What would John Fogerty have to say about that?
Sure but... by Edward Brock	Nov 24th, 2006 05:03:35 PM
Who exactly will be financing the movie? MGM on their own?
DAMN YOU MICHAEL BAY by BRUTICUS	Nov 24th, 2006 05:10:49 PM
;)
Meh, just rerelease the Rankin Bass version! by chrth	Nov 24th, 2006 05:12:15 PM
Bilbo, my lad! Ho ho, my lad!
Zaentz has a shitty reputation by Riverman	Nov 24th, 2006 05:18:07 PM
When it comes to treating artists with respect, I wouldn't trust him. He screwed Fogerty... Hence the song.
OH LAWD TEH DRAMA!!!! by godoffireinhell	Nov 24th, 2006 05:28:20 PM
It's a global soap opera!
Two versions? by WONKABAR	Nov 24th, 2006 05:33:37 PM
Is it possible that New Line tries to rush out a Hobbit and then Zaentz and PJ make their own?.... Competeting Hobbit movies ala Christopher Columbus/1492, Never Say Never Again/Octopussey etc. etc.??
Is this going to be anything like the "extra" 007 by CreasyBear	Nov 24th, 2006 05:34:37 PM
"Never Say Never Again"? And was that a rights issue thing, too?
Tombstone, Wyatt Earp by WONKABAR	Nov 24th, 2006 05:37:03 PM
the list goes on...NNNooo!!!: Lol! "Vans can't dance but they steal your money"
We are part of history right here folks! by Talkbacker with no name	Nov 24th, 2006 05:37:35 PM
Fantastic turn of events which is turning into a great story of how The Hobbit was made. I'm loving it!
I saw a very good south Bannk show about Saul Zaents by emeraldboy	Nov 24th, 2006 05:43:03 PM
South Bank Show is Major arts program in the UK and they only cover major artists and they did a superb one on Saul Zaents. It was a two parter I think. The one line that summed it all up came from Anthony Minghella, who worked with Zaents on the English patient. On the english Patient, Zaents was in total control of the film and oversaw all aspects of the production, from the top of the Saul Zaents building. He brought minghella in and after Saul Zaents explained that Saul zaents was in charge of the movie, Anthony Minghella said so What do I do? to Zaents said Write the Script, anthony. You dont fuck around Saul Zaents, just ask JOhn Fogarty.
Pppppplease! by beelkay	Nov 24th, 2006 05:47:24 PM
Make it happen!
plant! by adambalm	Nov 24th, 2006 05:53:13 PM
Never trust any news that's been posted on the Zone. Except this. This is the one exception. Anyway, another interesting way of connecting the dots is that Zaents says Jackson is tired of all the studio fighting over LotR, and a couple weeks later Jackson publishes a letter saying exactly that. In fact he's so tired of the bickering and fighting with the studio that he's said goodbye to the property for good. If that's the case, if this isn't just posturing for a better deal, then it may not matter who ends up with the rights, since either way Peter Jackson won't be involved anyway...
Harry, what do you think of Sam Raimi taking over? by waggy	Nov 24th, 2006 05:59:27 PM
that's the latest rumor, and it made me sit up and take notice. definitely an interesting way to win over angry geeks.
Phartegod by WONKABAR	Nov 24th, 2006 06:03:40 PM
So, lets hear it...
Not bad... by iKon	Nov 24th, 2006 06:16:44 PM
Only 28 hours behind every other site on the net. How'd you manage that then?
Damn you New Line Cinema! by Pipple	Nov 24th, 2006 06:17:55 PM
Just relax, make a big epic kickass great movie and reap the benefits you bitches.
AND!!!! by iKon	Nov 24th, 2006 06:18:58 PM
Damn you michael bay
I hope they make 2 versions by INWOsuxRED	Nov 24th, 2006 06:21:33 PM
I don't think Peter's LOTR has the right tone for Hobbit, but I would like to see what he does. Two shots is the best of both worlds, although it could also just produce 2 horrible films. If New Line tries to make their own, I hope they put someone capable on it and try to keep the identity close to the book rather than an ape of Peter's work by a likely less talented crew. See Harry Potter, some of the Star Treks and Empire Strikes back, rather than seeing the likes of Alien 3/4, AVP, or some of the Star Treks. Changing directors can be good or bad, and keeping apparenlt sure fire hitmakers can be exactly the same.
Oh man! by Evil Lincoln	Nov 24th, 2006 06:31:13 PM
This whole story sounds it should be a movie itself!
Hey Harry (or Headgeek?) What's this other prequel? by YotzVonFrelnik	Nov 24th, 2006 06:32:36 PM
This is the question that's drivin' me nuts, because I didn't know anythign about any kind of a "second prequel". Like Dauntless said above, is it derived from The Silmarillion or just something like "The Hobbit: Volumes 1 and 2"?
Different subject.... by dead000	Nov 24th, 2006 07:05:04 PM
Anybody live in Pasadena or near Pasadena or can be in Pasadena next Thursday? First test screening of STARDUST will be happening at 7:30 p.m. Once I receive more details, such as the location, I will post them. If you hit the theater around 5:30-6:00 p.m. on that day I guarantee that you will be recruited for the screening.
I heard the second prequel would be... by rbatty024	Nov 24th, 2006 07:23:44 PM
derived from Tolkein's notes. Not sure I entirely like the idea. Despite my trepidation, I'm still willing to give Jackson a chance. He did a hell of a job on the trilogy.
i don't think.... by torpor_haze	Nov 24th, 2006 07:42:28 PM
any high profile director will touch this. They all know that LOTR is synonimous with Peter Jackson. If they do they'll look like scabs.
I hope they don't pull... by CZ	Nov 24th, 2006 07:47:56 PM
Zaentz needs to be careful making these kinds of promounced. It backfired on Anne Rice and "Queen of the Damned" was the result.
I don't think The Hobbit needs to be two movies by Doc_Strange	Nov 24th, 2006 07:51:12 PM
The book itself isn't that long, nor is it as long as Fellowship. I think that it could be made into one movie and still contain all the material as was presented in the book. Though I wonder if they just want to cash in on two 90 minute films as opposed to one 3 hour film. Whatever.
The SILMARILLION ?!?!? by CarmillaVonDoom	Nov 24th, 2006 07:56:47 PM
PJ stay far, far away it is too much even for your talents. The Hobbit is a stretch for one long movie to entertain adults, but TWO movies?? Hope it is not some of the lame 're-imagining' of inserting Aragorn into it and such. Yuchhhhh
Hobbits in two parts by chrth	Nov 24th, 2006 07:58:25 PM
They're going to include all the parts with the Necromancer that isn't actually in the book, maybe even the White Council meetings.
New Line Should Start Production On 20 Versions... by tonagan	Nov 24th, 2006 08:21:11 PM
simultaneously, with different directors and casts, before they lose the rights.
Actually by steele8280	Nov 24th, 2006 08:22:14 PM
The hobbit is a deceptively difficult story to put on screen... yes, it may be shorter than either of the LOTR parts, but if you read the book, it is just one event after another... not much room for characterization. Plus, you thought the nine in the fellowship would be work to give individual characteristics, imagine 13 dwarves distinguished by the colour of their hats... Needless to say, what happens in The Hobbit is mostly plot, and if one adds character moments (which is one of Team PJs strong points) and the White Council, the driving out of the Necromancer, and a proper all-out Battle of the Five armies, it could well be two two-hour films. Actually, I'd prefer it to be two shorter films than one hugely long. A natural braking point would be (again) Gandalf riding off to the White Council and Bilbo and the Dwarves entering the Black forest of Mirkwood. Or perhaps the capture by the spiders. The other prequel there has been talk about seems to be some kind of bridging film happening after the Hobbit and before LOTR, perhaps to explain why Bilbo is played by different actors as Ian Holm will probably be too old by the time this film goes into production.
Sure hope this is true by DarthJedi	Nov 24th, 2006 08:25:48 PM
And having him do an adaption of parts of the Silmarillion would be frigging cool IMO. Can you imagine actually seeing the creation of the Silmarils, Ungoliant and Morgoth killing the trees, the flight of the elves and the kinslaying, Feanor dieing in battle with SEVERAL balrogs, Fingolfin battling Morgoth, Beren and Luthien... so many more. I would love to see Beleriand realised on the screen and I could think of no one better suited that PJ and co to do it. Keeping my finger crossed!
Wow. by Darth Thoth	Nov 24th, 2006 08:38:31 PM
Very interesting development with sure to evolve ramifactions that will affect the industry even beyond those immediately involved in this issue. I'm staying tuned...
Bilbo's age by half vader	Nov 24th, 2006 09:01:30 PM
I thought it was a weird example of cinematic logic in LOTR when they flashed-back to Bilbo where he looked younger even though the Dorian Gray-like properties of the ring meant he looked exactly the same as in Fellowship and Gandalf even said he didn't look a day older. However, how do you show a flashback/the passing of time if Bilbo doesn't look younger in the insert shot? All the bellyaching about CG in those films but no-one ever mentions that stuff. So what I'm saying I guess is technically Ian Holm could actually play him.
New Line better be quick in hiring Ratner! by performingmonkey	Nov 24th, 2006 09:49:53 PM
So here's how it's looking - there's no way in fucking HELL that Peter will shoot the movies under New Line but he would STILL like to make them, however HOWFUCKINGEVER, New Line would OBVIOUSLY rather The Hobbit and it's 'companion' movie was made with their involvement NO MATTER WHICH FUCKER SHOOTS IT WHETHER IT'S W.S. ANDERSON OR SOME OTHER HACK MOTHERFUCKER they want these movies made with them. Maybe we'll get more info from New Line or someone, but we will be damned lucky if Peter gets to make the flicks. He already has that other trilogy lined up though so The Hobbit would have to be made with him pretty soon. They've been scripting The Lovely Bones. They will shoot SOMETIME next year but obviously it won't take as long as something the size of Kong. Whatever, we're not seeing The Hobbit 'till Christmas 2009 at the fucking earliest.
You know by seppukudkurosawa	Nov 24th, 2006 09:52:25 PM
reading Zaent's quote makes me think how much I've gotten used to the idea of a Jackson-free Hobbit. I'm not gonna make the Hairy Porter comparison, but I wouldn't mind a lot less schatological Middle Earth and a much more fantastical one; and I think a new director might be the key to getting it. If The Hobbit really is going to be played mainly as a kid's film, then I think the main draw for me would be making it as rich in wonder and fantasy as possible. I'd like to see it looking a lot more like that ballet sequence in the Red Shoes and a lot less like Braveheart. In a way, apart from the script, I think that's partly what messed up Narnia so much. It took a LOTR style approach to fantasy, and brought it crashing back down to Earth. I really love Lord of the Rings, don't get me wrong, it's just that I think Tolkien wrote The Hobbit while his mind was streaming with Hans Christian Anderson and Arabian Nights and Chinese fairy tales, and less with things like Beowulf in mind. So I'd prefer some new blood- maybe someone with a strong visual eye, or maybe a veteran like Jeunet.
Hobbit schmobbit... by Engelhast	Nov 24th, 2006 10:10:59 PM
I have seen all of the Tolken Halfling tales that I care to see on film thank you very much. Bring on a series of movies based on Terry Pratchett's Discworld books directed by perhaps Terry Gilliam and that will get my geek dick hard.
Sounds Like a Bluff to Me by DeeJay	Nov 24th, 2006 10:18:18 PM
Some key questions are not answered here. If the production rights aren't released until next year, would it be legal to proceed with any development work in that 1-year time span? Also... do any of the key performers have contracts tied to the studio versus the production company? Alas, are there any pending legalities with distribution rights? I'm not an entertainment lawyer, so I won't pretend to "know" any of these things... but I wouldn't be surprised if there exists a combination of challenges which would make Zaentz's words as threatening as Harry's gun (the one in the upper left hand corner of this webpage)...
Hope NEW LINES Rushed Hobbit is better than Corman's FF by Mace Tofu	Nov 24th, 2006 10:36:55 PM
Roger Corman's FANTASTIC FOUR, another rushed rights film and we ended up with 2 versions. I think Uwe Boll still has the Bloodrayne props and could easily rewrite his Bloodrayne 2 script into the hobbit so New Line could have it out next Christmas...then 3 years later we get Peter's version and New Line resells their '07 version as a 2 pack DVD with the Dungeons & Dragons movie.
I'll say it again (for the benefit of studio folks) by Calico Pete	Nov 24th, 2006 10:43:00 PM
George Miller, Tarsem, Julie Taymor, Peter Weir... any are better choices than Jackson.
The greatest adventure... by WhoDis	Nov 24th, 2006 10:43:16 PM
...is what lies ahead. Today and tomorrow are yet to be said. The chances the changes are all yours to make. The mold of your life is in your hands to break.
Jack be nibble, by Engelhast	Nov 24th, 2006 10:47:48 PM
Jack be quick, Jack burnt off his fuckin' dick. OHHHHH!
Re: Half Vader's Ring/Aging Complaint by YourNextPresident	Nov 24th, 2006 11:07:35 PM
In the Return of the King, we see how old Bilbo SHOULD have looked after so many years. He was an incredibly elderly hobbit; if you compare how Bilbo looks in Fellowship to how he looks in Return, you can see that Gandalf is right (assuming he's using the cleche, rather than speaking literally): Bilbo doesn't look nearly as old as he should.
If Bullshit was dynamite....... by Yoda's Ball Sack	Nov 24th, 2006 11:17:25 PM
Pete Jackson needs to stop his whining and gain his weight back so he looks like Harry's brother.
I can't believe Peter Jackson is gonna shoot a Hobbit! by Orionsangels	Nov 25th, 2006 12:06:48 AM
"THE HOBBIT, "...will definitely be shot by Peter Jackson"!!!!" Why? What did the Hobbit do? This is baffling to me. Which Hobbit will be shot? Frodo, Merry? Does he get a last request?
This is getting crazy. by mortsleam	Nov 25th, 2006 12:26:15 AM
Didn't Jackson say he didn't want to do it either way? What canZaentz or MGM do about that? And anyway, anyone see the fan-made trailer for the Hobbit that went around shortly after ROTK premiered? It used LOTR music and scenes of Bilbo and Gandalf and Gollum intersperesed with footage from Dragonslayer. It was overwrought, melodramatic and dark. And that it essentially the kind of movie Jacson says he wants to make, in order to tie it into the LOTR movies. And if that's the case, then I don't want him to make the Hobbit. It's the wrong tone, pure and simple. Of course New Line are being money grubbing tight-assed evil greedy bastards. Of course Jackson is being stubborn and just as greedy and not really taking fans wishes into account as he claims. They want the film to be true to the tone of the book, while retaining the production designs and vision of the LOTR movies. I think Jackson doesn't want or need to direct this movie. He's got The Lovely Bones now. But WETA should do the designs, and his production team should oversee the making of the film. He himself should stay away from it and save it from becoming an overlong wanna be epic. Alfonso Cuaron as director. Kenneth Branagh as Bilbo. Everyone else that can come back should. Is that so hard?
musical numbers by werideatdusk	Nov 25th, 2006 12:33:20 AM
I don't know how well Peter Jackson would handle all the musical numbers, talking dragons, singing elves, and so forth. I envision him kind of ignoring the more whimsical, childlike parts of the movie and really steamrolling it into a true "Lord of the Rings" prequel - less about the quest for the Lonely Mountain and more about the rising power of Sauron. Which could be cool. But as silly as this sounds, I think the old Rankin-Bass cartoon will be the more faithful of the two adaptations, assuming PJ takes the reins.
Phartegod... by WONKABAR	Nov 25th, 2006 12:34:03 AM
Danny Boyle? That's what I mean jackass...three days ago you said Iain Sofley...where are you getting your information oh god of teh phart? There's no need to speak with forked-tongue, I'm only curious.
'New Line's upcoming Jacksonless Hobbit quadrilogy..' by Darth_Inedible	Nov 25th, 2006 12:42:48 AM
'Directing wonderkind Brett Ratner has been tapped to helm New Line's ambitious slate of Hobbit-themed films, the first of which is set for a Christmas 2007 release. 'The Hobbit: Riddles in the Dark' will begin production in Los Angeles this spring following a whirlwind two month pre-production period after which director Ratner will lense the remaining three films simulatiously over the summer in the Las Vegas area. Shia LaBeouf is reportedly set to portray the titular hobbit-hero Bilbo Baggins while Tommy Lee Jones has been tasked with following-up Sir Ian McKellen's work as the cantankerous wizard Gandalf the Grey. Hobbitphiles starved for more furry-footed action can look forward to nearly 10 hours of new Tolkien-inspired thrills begining with the aformentioned 'Riddles in the Dark' next December, followed by 'The Hobbit: Queer Lodgings' in 2009, 'The Hobbit: Clash of the Four Armies' in 2010 and 'The Hobbit: Flames of Erebor' in 2011.'
At this point a Pjax Hobbit would be shite... by CaptEgo	Nov 25th, 2006 12:42:54 AM
All this yapping about The Necromancer and white council versions of the hobbit is the kind of crap that appeals only to obsessive little twerps unable to comprehend that the hobbit was a kids story. Get a grip you weiners! The hobbit is a story about singing dwarves (and Goblins and Elves for that matter) with talking eagles and a honey-cake baking bear-man for chrissakes. Just because ya'll are so pathetically nerdy as to be filled with self loathing about your horrible scarred childhoods, the rest of the well adjusted world deserves 'The Hobbit' not some Lord of the Rings:The Phantom Menace shite. The End.
The Hobbit: A Story About a Honey-Cake Baking Bear-Man by colematthews	Nov 25th, 2006 12:57:58 AM
Original title before C.S. Lewis suggested "There and Back Again."
Seriously, though... by colematthews	Nov 25th, 2006 01:03:14 AM
Agree wholeheartedly with all those who think Jackson would strike the wrong tone for The Hobbit. I want my Hobbit Whimsical and Fantastical, not dark and foreboding. I don't want flashes of the Eye, or any pointless scenes of Saruman starting to slip to the dark side. I want the whole thing to actually feel like it's being told from a Hobbit perspective, which LOTR was decidedly lacking in. I want Bilbo to have a sense of wonder and also his stubborn streak that's oh-so-British. And yes, I want a honey-cake baking bear-man. Eliminating Tom Bombadil seemed like a good idea at the time, but I see now it was just one more way to elbow out the more fantastical elements that connected the inhabitants of Middle Earth with Nature. Doing so with Beorn would be foolish. Plus, he's a dude that turns into a bear, how cool is that?
The Hobbit by Valebant	Nov 25th, 2006 01:17:49 AM
By some curious chance one morning long ago in the quiet of the world, when there was less noise and more green, and the hobbits were still numerous and prosperous, and Bilbo Baggins was standing at his door after breakfast smoking an enormous long wooden pipe that reached nearly down to his woolly toes (neatly brushed) — Gandalf came by.
Anyhow... by Valebant	Nov 25th, 2006 01:20:09 AM
It's hard to beat the Hobbit for pastoral imagery and thematic elements. The Lord of the Rings has an entirely different feel.
Bad news for "Hobbit" lovers by NeotheLessar	Nov 25th, 2006 01:30:56 AM
I hate pretty much all of Jackson's ideas on his version of "The Hobbit". He's already ruined "Return of the King" and I can't imagine what he will do to this charming little children's tale once he gets down to the actual shooting. Jackson must be stopped.
This might sound crazy... by WONKABAR	Nov 25th, 2006 01:35:23 AM
but I think two different productions of The Hobbit would be interesting as hell. Maybe a one-film deal with NL, and the two-flim deal with Zaentz & Jackson. Choice is awesome for geeks. For instance, I LOVE the new Galactica, but I'm with Ron Moore in saying I think the world is big enough for a Desanto or whatever movie that's closer to the original show. Why not? I think it's cool to see different takes on things...the Donner-cut of Supes is good recent example. Like Headgeek said though, what happened to Jackson intitially was bad business. And PJ derserves his shot at this material. But there may yet be a bright spot in all this. As Mori put it, this is all very fascinating. I say the more Tolkien-movies the better. If anything, two competing productions would provide concrete evidence....I mean, if PJ makes a kick-ass Hobbit and NL puts out a shitty one, then the burn is just that much greater. Plus, comparing and contrasting them would fuel these TB's and forums all over the internet for years. Bring it on I says. Better two, three, or even four Hobbit-movies than none....of course, there's always the cartoon...
WELL by THE KNIGHT	Nov 25th, 2006 01:46:58 AM
I'll see you in hell NEW LINE!!
Imagine ... by Canadian Cricket Team Fanclub	Nov 25th, 2006 02:03:08 AM
If Hollywood was run by Saul Zaentz. His statement "he will be paid fairly and artistically supported without reservation" must make many directors, actors and writers weep.
I was the first to predict that Mr.Zaentz would do this by workshed	Nov 25th, 2006 02:10:52 AM
Check the original story and you'll see me predictions... good ol' SOUL. He has always cared about the end product - films that last for generations. All we can hope is that Peter tempers the urge to make a massive three-part epic from a book that is smaller in so many ways than LotR trilogy. Put all the eggs into one Hobbit-sized basket/film and it will rock. Start trying to fuck with Tolien's format and it will become a bloated bed-ridden obeseity with Jackson, Walsh and Boyens as the feeders. It could be an all-time classic but it must be ONE-BIG-MOVIE..!
"That boy is our only hope" - "No, there is another" by newc0253	Nov 25th, 2006 02:34:40 AM
folk seem to be forgetting that Saul Zaentz has already worked with another director on LOTR. that's right, bitches: Ralph Bakshi is gonna direct the Hobbit! complete with the rotoscoping and 'Auruman' and the general shittiness. remember, you heard it here first!
Actually, Zaentz totally fucked Bakshi... by WONKABAR	Nov 25th, 2006 02:47:14 AM
on his LOTR-film if I remember correctly...it was mainly because of his controlling nature that Bakshi was unable to shoot the second part and got screwed budget-wise on the first (hence, the shitier rotoscoping in some parts). Bakshi's LOTR had alot going for it and he got robbbed IMO. If PJ goes for two flicks with Zaentz, let's hope to god history doesn't repeat itself.
Why do people automatically think that Jackson by Monkey Butler	Nov 25th, 2006 03:05:42 AM
Would get the tone wrong? If random geeks on the Internet can realise that there's a difference between The Hobbit and LOTR, I have a feeling that Jackson can figure it out too.
James Mcavoy for Bilbo by KillaKane	Nov 25th, 2006 03:18:41 AM
He's perfect for the role, an up and coming, critically lauded actor, and a fresh talent to boot. He's got that wide eyed Bagins look and the physicality for an adventurous Hobbit. Brits will recall him as Steve from Shameless and more recently as the young doc in the excellent Last Scotsman
Prediction. by WONKABAR	Nov 25th, 2006 03:33:15 AM
Peter will definitely take the deal with Zaentz regardless of whether NL makes their own Hobbit or not (in fact, if they did it would probably encourage him to one-up them) because I would guess at this point he probably wants get to the Lucas-point of filmmaking where he can finance his own films. In order to accomplish that he needs his own "Star Wars" if you will. Something that has a sure-fire fan-base. He won't turn away from that chance, and if it means hopping in bed with/getting a loan from Zaentz to achieve that goal, then he'll do it. Zaentz, hoping for a can't miss opportunity himself( and also cuz he's getting kinda old) will most likely keep his word and let Jackson do whatever the hell he wants. He'll also let NL go ahead with their version because even if it comes out a couple years before "his" it will maintain/generate interest and create a buzz among filmgoers/critics/fans as they await "the real Hobbit". A battle only builds hype over the years we have to wait for PJ to finish. So the restraining orders & lawsuits Harry mentioned probably won't happen I'd wager. Why would Zaentz give a shit? He'd have his man, and he didn't seem to mind Rankin-Bass doing ROTK back in the day. Btw I don't mean to imply that PJ is only concerned about money and builing an empire, he's demonstrated passion, concern for fans and respect for Tolkien, and I believe he is inclined to repeat himself. I'm just providing a theory as to other motivations and incentives for the folks debating the "he doesn't want to do it" question. For the reasons I outlined above, I think he would be short-sighted not to.
Monkey Butler by Valebant	Nov 25th, 2006 03:39:50 AM
People feel PJ will get the tone wrong because he's talking about making the Hobbit as a prequel to The Lord of the Rings. The book simply isn't a prequel.
Even though I respect Jackson's LOTR enough... by BendersShinyAss	Nov 25th, 2006 03:53:25 AM
... I've never once thought that the man is the only filmmkaer in existance who could have pulled it off. and I'll never think he did the best job - just an admirable one. When it comes to King Kong, he made the same mistakes that he did with LOTR - he over did it. thanks to dvd there are a lot of bits of king kong I will never see again - because I am always flicking over chapters. I don't want The Hobbit to be another 'flick through' film. I can sit down and watch any number of film (most recently smokey and the bandit) from start to finish. I can NEVER do that with Jacksons epics. And splitting the film into 2 films just tells me they don't have their ideas in order. Remember they were going to make all the lord of the rings books as 1 big film and split in into 2. that was one of those 'out there' ideas and this feels very much the same. it's in league with the idea of making a 3hr+ king kong film. Also, as beautiful as New Zealand is, it's not the onlyplace in the world with wonderous scenery. I think the hobbit would benefit greatly from a new team and talent and new locations. seriosuly. buuuut if Jackson ends up doing... cool enough
Ridley Scott by tig.Valen	Nov 25th, 2006 03:55:55 AM
This is the only man to fill PJ's fat loafers. Scott should also do Superman, but hey, wft do I know?
so you guys hate jacksons vision for the hobbit by slappy jones	Nov 25th, 2006 04:01:45 AM
is that bnased on his treatment you haven't or the script you haven't seen? or are you basing that on a few off the cuff remarks?? jesus you fuckers are a pack of moaning cunts...
although I would love to see 2 productions going head t by slappy jones	Nov 25th, 2006 04:05:10 AM
..that would be great....lets face it whether or not we agree it is fun to see all of this played out in public. I also agree with the guy a few posts above..if us dingalings out here in computer land realise the tone for the hobbit has to be different i am pretty sure jackson will too.....
RANCID SLICE! by Barndoor	Nov 25th, 2006 04:30:36 AM
This has all gone to the wankstation.
New Line should pay Peter for saving their company by dragon-lord	Nov 25th, 2006 04:51:14 AM
and get over their bean counters trying to rip him off. Sheesh. Pay up, then you can go ahead with Peter, MGM, and Zaentz now. It's only fair.
Give it to Del Toro by Spartacus Hughs	Nov 25th, 2006 05:24:27 AM
.
I have seen nearly all of jacksons films by emeraldboy	Nov 25th, 2006 05:27:54 AM
Heavenly Creatures is my favourite without a doubt. I just love that movie. I just loved the balance between the real world and the Fantasy world. I loved the frighteners too. John AStin is in that filom and that is how Sean Astin got to be in the hobbit. Because John Astin and Peter Jackson became very good friends. Says so in the book.
emeraldboy by kwisatzhaderach	Nov 25th, 2006 05:36:10 AM
I agree, Heavenly Creatures is far and away his best movie.
This was news three days ago... by Eyegore	Nov 25th, 2006 06:25:34 AM
When it was posted on slashdot's front page. I just hope they can get these movies done while Gandalf is still in good health.
Just get it done... by SWR 77	Nov 25th, 2006 07:02:57 AM
Do we HAVE to get a cobbled together second film to go with The Hobbit? I'd rather Jackson just went ahead and made this so it will fit with the trilogy. Lose almost all the songs and adapt the rest as straight forward as possible. That might mean the trolls don't talk, but so what?
Give The Hobbit to Lucas! by Atticus Finch	Nov 25th, 2006 07:16:25 AM
He's already proven his fantasy-mettle with Willow. ILM is better than Weta and would have no problem with the complicated effects (imagine an ILM Smaug!). Pretty much everyone thought Kong sucked and that the LOTR films were too bloated for their own good (Tolkien portions of LOTR films=excellent, PJ "imaginings" in LOTR films=shit), so why is there this feeling that only PJ can do The Hobbit? And this 2nd "prequel" smacks of just putting it out there to milk the franchise.
Runtime: 29 hours by CuervoJones	Nov 25th, 2006 07:17:43 AM
50 fake deaths in slow motion. No blood Shaky-cam battles Desaturated colors Fake helicpter shots
re: Atticus Finch by Kizeesh	Nov 25th, 2006 07:42:19 AM
Lucas only came up with plot and some production aspects of Willow. He didn't direct it, thank christ. Also ILM cgi is crap, it invariably looks cartoonish and fake, just look at the star wars prequels
Valebant by Monkey Butler	Nov 25th, 2006 07:46:12 AM
Well, technically, the Hobbit IS the prequel to LOTR. I know that's just semantics, but who knows what Jackson meant by making the Hobbit a "prequel". Maybe he meant just using the same designs, locations actors etc. Maybe he really does want to completely change the story so that it fits in with the LOTR films, who knows. I think he probably should have earned the trust of the Tolkien fanbase by now (at least, the more rational sections of it) in that regard.
CONNERY AS GANDALF? read this: by Ray Gamma	Nov 25th, 2006 07:46:52 AM
http://tinyurl.com/ynbkop
Second Movie Prequel??? by Spherehead	Nov 25th, 2006 08:49:08 AM
I'm not so sure that second film would be to fill in the gap between Hobbit and Fellowship. If you look at Tolkien's own notes and appendicies in the books, there really isn't a whole lot that happens it that time space. The years are 2951-3001 which is 50 years and about the only important things that happen are the births of many characters in LOTR. Seems to me they would have to either make up a bunch of stuff or go back even before Hobbit to fill up a second film.
Other Directors.... by dead000	Nov 25th, 2006 08:50:47 AM
Terry Gilliam, Guillermo Del Toro, or Alfonso Cuaron...I'd only want to see one of those filmmakers assume the reins from PJ. Sam Raimi? Really? I don't think so. Ridley Scott? Whomever made that decision I hope it wasn't based off of seeing LEGEND. Granted LEGEND has it's moments but I wouldn't want Ridley Scott doing this. It's not his speed. I'd take Del Toro, he could do it.
meh by visitor_q	Nov 25th, 2006 09:02:04 AM
fuck lotr fan boys and fuck peter jackson, NEXT!
ILM vs. WETA???? by dead000	Nov 25th, 2006 09:02:35 AM
ILM better than WETA??? Oh please, you get the work in POTC 2 and all of a sudden, ILM is back on top? I don't think so. They acheived a slight milestone with POTC 2 with Davy Jones but they have been capable of great work and have dropped the ball one too many times. WETA is acheiving the kind of milestones reserved for an F/X house after years spent trying to establish themselves. WETA and ILM are BOTH great F/X houses but the advantages goes to WETA. ILM relies too heavily on utilizing just digital technology anymore. Whereas WETA employs a wide variety of different techniques such as miniatures, matte paintings...stuff that ILM gave up on. You can have your ILM, I'll take WETA, THE ORPHANAGE, ASYLUM, CINESITE anyday.
If Newline DO go ahead minus Jackson who'd dare direct? by alucardvsdracula	Nov 25th, 2006 09:17:10 AM
My Money's on Paul W.S. Anderson! He's the only one gormless and talentless enough to go against the will of the people and common sense. While this fucker lives and breathes this is a dangerous world we inhabit.
A Battle of FIVE Armies? by OpticNerve	Nov 25th, 2006 09:19:08 AM
Jackson, New Line, Zaentz...Sounds to me like we only need two more interested parties for this saga to mirror the very one it's attempting to bring to the big screen. Ironic? Or just a tidy Headline waiting to be written...
NOT SO FAST NEW LINE! by thebearovingian	Nov 25th, 2006 10:03:59 AM
Slow your role! Bitches
OpticNerve by WhoDis	Nov 25th, 2006 10:22:40 AM
Good observation! (non-sarcasm) And just for the sake of THE FUNNY, throw MGM and The Tolkien Estate in there to fill out the 5.
middle by kirttrik	Nov 25th, 2006 10:29:33 AM
middle... and I hope to god this is true.
This is actually more intringuing than the novel itself by Orbots Commander	Nov 25th, 2006 10:31:11 AM
Reminds me of all the drama behind what it took to get a new Superman movie to come about. The behind the scenes maneuvaring and backstabbing is soapy-Melrose Place-the O.C.-type fun.
THIS IS SPARTA!!!!! by Ultron ver 2.0	Nov 25th, 2006 10:35:51 AM
I'm going to try my damndest to make this the new AICN catchphrase for 2007. *********** I'm hoping PJ does the Hobbit.....I have to tell you, I'm already having MiddleEarth withdrawals.....this needs to happen!
PJ is freeing himself from New Line by Cyberfury	Nov 25th, 2006 10:39:38 AM
..and New Line doesn't want the Industry/shareholders to connect the dots. They just waited too damn long and now they realize there is not enough time to sign Peter (who won't sign untill the court case is resolved) before the rights fall back to Zaents. Its a mess and New Line is trying to save their face. Heads will quitely roll overthere trust me on this. You wouldn't believe the amount of greed, backstabbing and manipulation that's going on in the industry. Just ask people like Dave Chapelle, the poor guy.. Too good for is own good.
PJ is just a geek by Cyberfury	Nov 25th, 2006 10:42:08 AM
who wants to make movies. I hate to say it but thank God for Paul Zaentz, the lesser of two evils..
Wow, people hating on Jackson... sad to see the day... by Daddylonghead	Nov 25th, 2006 10:48:45 AM
don't you pitiful wretches realize NOBODY could have or WOULD HAVE done Lord of the Rings even ONE THIRD as well as Peter Jackson? Man, I hate talkbackers right now... ungrateful fucking mealymouthed bitch motherfuckers, you're given the greatest fantasy trilogy of all time and 2 years later you're already going "eh, Jackson, whatever, ho hum, let's get Guy Ritchie to do the hobbit. Let's have ILM do the effects and cast Dax Shepard, and Nic Cage can be gandalf" And since nobody else here seems to have a clue, PharteGod (name cleverly taken from PhateGod of the Transformers talkbacks) is some kooky burnout from another internet site with an axe to grind, ignore him.
blasphemy by kirttrik	Nov 25th, 2006 11:03:20 AM
blasphemy, sheer, ignorant blasphemy.
I got middle motherfuckers by kirttrik	Nov 25th, 2006 11:04:24 AM
I got middle, I'm totally cool.
Man-of-Stool by WhoDis	Nov 25th, 2006 11:10:41 AM
Definitely living up to his nick
Legend by Cyberfury	Nov 25th, 2006 11:12:34 AM
Is a fucking piece of art. No matter when you look at it..
Damn the movie aint even made by Cyberfury	Nov 25th, 2006 11:26:53 AM
and here come the trolls
Sam Raimi has been approached to do it by Bazka Berzerker	Nov 25th, 2006 11:48:40 AM
THEONERING.NET: Word from a reliable source indicates that Sam Raimi has been approached to direct THE HOBBIT. Since Peter Jackson's (Middle-)earth shattering news that he is off the project, it seems the Spider-Man director may step into his place. Raimi was born on October 23rd, 1959 in Royal Oak, Michigan. His first big hit was 'The Evil Dead' but he really gained cult status with 'Evil Dead II'. It is his amazing work on the Spider-Man series that has propelled Raimi to the mainstream. His latest film 'Spider-Man 3' is due out this May. While there is no word on Raimi accepting the invitation, it remains to be seen who, if anyone, will be replacing Peter Jackson!
WONKABAR: On the Rankin Bass ROTK by chrth	Nov 25th, 2006 12:41:30 PM
The reason Rankin Bass did the ROTK was because Bakshi wasn't go to be able to complete Part II. While it's not a true sequel to the Bakshi version, they did just ROTK to be a pseudo-sequel.
Oh My..... by Posthumos1	Nov 25th, 2006 01:03:37 PM
I can't believe that any single person would evenbegin to think that George Lucas would begin to touch middle earth in any good way. That would blow. Raimi is cool, I like his film work; However, he does not "feel" like Middle Earth. His style is more aggressive than that. What Middle Earth needs in a director to come off well is a passionate attention to detail. And that costs a lot of money. Where are they gonna shoot this movie? There is no better place on this planet than New Zealand for capturing the scope of that land. Anyone else, other than PJ is going to find that they cannot touch that film without going into a HUGE budget crisis and having it be good. The reason New Zealand was chosen to shoot the film was that in that neck of the woods they could save millions of dollars. I have a suspicion that NZ would not be warm to any film company that chose to shoot a bastardized Hobbit production there without their prince directing it. I will probably not see this movie without PJ running the Production/Direction. As a fan who read the books before the films I think he translated it wonderfully. In any book film adaptation there will be differences in story. You cannot easily convey writing to live action, try to do it once, you'll see. You can feel the passion that PJ had for Tolkien's work with every single camera shot in that trilogy, Lucas has NEVER pulled that one off. I like Cuaron but he is a hack and slash director from book to film translations from what I see. He, and basically everyone since the second Harry Potter film, forewent character development and panache in favor of a jumble of jumping sequences meant to pack as much information in a shortened film as possible. I like the Harry Potter films but I think since Columbus left the directing helm there has been a deficiency in the story and feel of the franchise. I truly hope that Jackson will get the opportunity to take us back to HIS Middle Earth. I will be sad if he doesn't. Oh, and Gandalf too. McKellen is THE Gandalf.
I got a nightmare scenario for you by kirttrik	Nov 25th, 2006 01:15:00 PM
Kevin Smith Directing, George Lucas Producing and adapting the Screenplay. Bilbo played by no other than Matt Damon, Gandalf...Robert Redford. CCCraaptacular.
oh, and Elron could be... by kirttrik	Nov 25th, 2006 01:20:08 PM
... Sly Stallone.
Fuck it, give it all to Stallone by kirttrik	Nov 25th, 2006 01:27:56 PM
I'm gonna be the first to say this. Stallone! Adapts, Directs, and Stars(As Bilbo) in 'The Hobbit'. If PJ craps out of course. PHoock'n Sweeeeeeeet!
whats the bet ultimately jackson sinds up doing it by slappy jones	Nov 25th, 2006 02:30:33 PM
they are just fucking with each others heads....new line although they made dumb and dumberer and failed to see the world was laughing at snakes on a plane not with it are dumb enough surely......
To hell in a handbasket. by BDT	Nov 25th, 2006 03:09:14 PM
Where is the integrity of anything anymore? Does everyone have to read The Art of War just to keep from being trampled by greed, lies, jealousy, vindictiveness and manipulation? Can't anyone figure out how to do the right thing for it's own sake anymore? Peter should make the Hobbit because he has a passion, the vision and drive to recreate Middle Earth once more, not because the fans are pressuring him to and not to settle a business deal. New Line should offer this opportunity to Jackson, because it would show faith in someone who made them billions of dollars; it would show integrity and loyalty in their business dealings; and it would be a smart business move. Saul Zaentz should support the vision and artistic talents of Jackson and Weta because they were so successful at bringing Tolkien's work to life for (the first time) in a medium outside the books. Out of the three parties involved in this controversy, my bet is Jackson will come out ahead because he seems to have enough talent and drive to succeed no matter what he does as well as the greatest integrity. I just hate to see talent & resources become muddled by bad intentions and misplaced motivation.
Augh. Peter. For Gods sake do something ELSE... by :-o	Nov 25th, 2006 04:22:34 PM
Are you serious? You are so good and you think you actually need to go back to this?? A bit of advice: Ignore All Fanboys. They are sick. The enemy of art.
Anyone know how much Zaentz made from the 3 LOTR films? by BDuncan	Nov 25th, 2006 06:14:15 PM
He obviously won't be able to take it with him (as Mr. Zaentz turns 86 in 3 months), but does anyone know how much he made from the 3 LOTR films, as it'd have to be near (or probably not too far off from) the half billion dollar mark, which isn't too bad for someone who originally bought the film rights off a very naive Mr. Tolkien for virtually nothing and just sat on his ass while Mr. Jackson did all the work and New Line funded the LOTR trilogy.
BDT and your comments about Hollywood by SK909	Nov 25th, 2006 07:18:13 PM
Yes, everyone is vindictive, mean, and nasty. That is, everyone who has no talent and are just parasites on the ass of the industry: the majority of agents, producers, executives, publicists, etc. You are correct in assuming that the one with the most integrity and the one who will come out on top is Jackson, because he's an artist who just wants to do his job in relative comfort along with other artists. The industry, however, in the last 15-20 years has become overrun by these parasites. It's a veritable thicket to wade through, so anyone who CAN get in with their honesty and integrity intact has performed a minor miracle. In the late 60's, early 70's, this wasn't the case. Everyone from the 'film school generation', actors included, stuck together and tried to support one another's work. Today, it's hard to do that without having to trample friendships or watch as one's stock rises inexorably because you're the flavor of the month while those you came up with become jealous and resentful and nobody in the studio will listen long enough for you to help them get their foot in the door as well. Here's something that happened that basically formed the entire career of one of our greatest living directors: Ellen Burstyn is hot off of the Exorcist and John Calley wants to make another movie with her. She finds a script she likes called Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore. While in a limousine with Coppola (and I think Friedkin?) she turns to Coppola and says, "Do you know of any good young directors?" Coppola says, "Check out a movie called Mean Streets." That movie was, by no means, a success at the time, but just the fact that Scorsese HAD SOMETHING TO SAY was enough. Anyway, the rest, as they say, is history. I'm not saying this doesn't happen anymore, I'm just saying it's a thousand times more complex and money and 'heat' play a MUCH larger role than at that time. I love James Gray's The Yards (even so, it's grown so large in the 'overlooked' undercurrent that I'd say it's almost becoming overrated), and Harvey Weinstein basically vindictively buried it upon its release. I guess he wanted to pump more money into Chocolat. Check out the DVD and 8 years later, you have Charlize Theron, Mark Wahlberg, James Caan, and James Gray sitting around on camera scratching their heads wondering why nobody gave a shit about something they considered among their best work. You can also see, therein, how decent these people really are. Sure they have foibles like everyone else, but I don't get the impression they have nothing to say artistically. Charlize Theron saw Little Odessa (which I don't reallly like) and basically stalked James Gray for a while afterwards. I'm not even sure what I'm getting at here, I guess I'm just trying to say that, within Hollywood, there are a lot of people who desire to do good work and that's it. Surrounding them are a bunch of people whose motivations have NOTHING to do with good work and everything to do with money, access, and being famous by association. I know a lot of publicists through a close friend and having a conversation with any of them turns my stomach. One related(more like feigned while self-consciously puffing on a cig at a party) how 'hard and boring it was' to follow a certain female star of a very big recent comic book film that wasn't very liked on this website around on a press junket in France. (I can't get too specific) Everything about it was false, shallow, and parasitically frightening. Do I think they're all like that? For the most part, yeah, I just can't see how most of these people would decide to do that with their lives, but c'est la vie and that's just me. The industry having a schizophrenic relationship with both art and money is nothing new, I know. They're in the 'business' to make money. But in recent years, for every director who was inspired by the film school generation to go into filmmaking ala friggen Dawson's Creek there seem to have been one hundred sons and daughters of rich, well connected asshole families situated within spitting distance of Manhattan (where I actually believe what I'm talking about is MORE prominent) and LA who are able, because of those connections, to get into a position where they are nothing more than gatekeepers who have no idea what talent is and really are not very decent to begin with. They're actually very self-conscious and act like assholes because they know they don't have much to offer so they pull rank as much as they can from their little positions as readers, agents, assistants, whatever you want to call them, and, more often than not, they actually PREVENT actors, actresses, (good) producers, and directors from connecting with new talent. I think there's a story about Tarantino and James Woods and James Wood's agent that goes along with this as well, but I can't remember it. I have a ton of stories about this, another about the brother of a friend who blew off another friend of mine with a great treatment twice - once while an assistant at an agency and he was supposedly looking for talent to help him go from chrysalis-like assistant to the 'Ari' stage of being agent. He then went to work for the production company of a well-known actor where he did the exact same things again to other people. Not long ago, I found out he was fired. So, in closing, BDT, at least it's still often true enough that what goes around comes around. Anyway, sorry for the essay, but if you're aware of any of this and you or people you know deal with it on a daily basis, it really sticks in your craw. So much so that you wind up going on sites like this and talking about it without having the balls to name names.
Why is Peter Jackson so angry about money? by Savio	Nov 25th, 2006 07:54:49 PM
New Line gave him 10 million+gross points when he wasn't a big name and then he got paid 20 million AND 20% of the gross of that shitfest King Kong. I don't see why he's after more money, isn't this just being greedy?
edit to previous post by Savio	Nov 25th, 2006 08:33:09 PM
It says on IMDB he made 125 million from the LOTR trilogy, why isn't that enough?
Can`t PJ dump Lovely Bones since nobody cares by dinosauron	Nov 25th, 2006 08:46:49 PM
for that movie and do Hobbit since everybody cares? He had a 3-parter interview with AICN and part one about Halo got, like, 200+ replies, roughly 70% of them going "Fuck Halo, do Hobbit". Part 2 Lovely Bones got only miserable 32 replies, 31 out of 32 goes "Fuck Lovely Bones do Hobbit". Finally, part 3 The Hobbit and anything Hobbit-related always gets 300-500 and up replies. If so many fans want to see Hobbit as soon as possible, studio wants to do it as soon as possible than why doesn`t he do it as soon as possible? I live in my momma`s basement and my momma says Lovely Bones sucks ass. Toilet paper material. Even chicks and senior cintizenettes won`t bother to see this shit. Just do Hobbit, man. It`ll give you your God-like status back which you lost when King Kong didn`t make other directors give up their jobs.
Lets play Hobbit volleyball shall we! by dirtsandwich	Nov 25th, 2006 09:40:16 PM
Gee what a shocker that money would be at the center.
I WANT TO DIRECT THE SILMARILLION by The Ender	Nov 25th, 2006 09:42:51 PM
THAT IS MY FUCKING DREAM! I HAVE A SCRIPT FOR TURIN TURAMBAR, FINSHED IT TWO MONTHS AGO!! IT's FUCKING BRILLIANT! I HAVE TWO VERSIONS OF BEREN AND LUTHIEN AS WELL, AND HAVE THE FIFTH BATTLE MAPPED AND SHOT IN MY HEAD! LET THE ENDER DIRECT THIS MOVIE, I'D DO IT BETTER. Jackson is fantastic, he can have the Hobbit. And he can do the whole thing with Aragon and Gandalf guarding Hobbiton, and the White Council's last meeting etc. But seriously, I'm a fucking brilliant director and I need to direct the silmarillion. It would be a 3-4 part film. As Feanor's backstory I think is crucial, and the whole thing with Melkor and (OMFG imagine seeing Tulkas beating down Melkor on film, or Melkor destroying the Trees Of Light? Fucking wow!) Anyway, I'll direct the silmarillion so dont worry it'll kick ass.
Or How About Finrod Felagund Discovering Humans? by The Ender	Nov 25th, 2006 09:43:47 PM
That would be such a memorable scene. Ahhhh jesus, let me make this film.
And felagund means Cave Hewer Bitches by The Ender	Nov 25th, 2006 09:44:33 PM
The Dwarves gave it to him as a kind of surname, dont fuck with my silmarillion knowledge.
Prepare for... by JackBristow	Nov 25th, 2006 09:53:17 PM
New Line Cinema's "THE HOBBIT," followed by Peter Jackson's "BILBO'S QUEST." If New Line gets their movie into gear fast enough, a court won't care who the fans won't. New Line will argue that PJ's Hobbit movie will confuse people with New Line's version, and cannot bear the same name. Maybe if you're lucky, you'll get "PETER JACKSON'S THE HOBBIT."
JackBristow... by WONKABAR	Nov 25th, 2006 10:04:43 PM
or "THERE AND BACK AGAIN"
hey savio..that isn't the point by slappy jones	Nov 25th, 2006 10:19:04 PM
its the fact that they probably owe him even more as per the original deal. they can't just decide that he has had wenough and atop givin ghim the money he is owed. so you are saying if you thought someone had cheated you out of millions you would just let it go? bullshit..if your boss owed you money you would go after it??rubbish... he hasn't just decided he wanted more money for no reason so it isn't greed - he is going after what is rightfully his - as any of us would do.
hey savio..that isn't the point by slappy jones	Nov 25th, 2006 10:19:04 PM
its the fact that they probably owe him even more as per the original deal. they can't just decide that he has had wenough and atop givin ghim the money he is owed. so you are saying if you thought someone had cheated you out of millions you would just let it go? bullshit..if your boss owed you money you would go after it??rubbish... he hasn't just decided he wanted more money for no reason so it isn't greed - he is going after what is rightfully his - as any of us would do.
and yes by slappy jones	Nov 25th, 2006 10:20:14 PM
my post if full of errors.
I'm betting Raimi is just an unfounded rumour by performingmonkey	Nov 25th, 2006 10:21:48 PM
Why would ANYONE other than the TOP people know that Raimi had been offered it? That's just a friggin' rumour, maybe thinking plucking a decent name out of the air will try and appease people, make a false promise that The Hobbit isn't going to be raped by someone like W.S. Anderson when it WILL because all the studios care about is money and they will go cheap for director. IMO the only way The Hobbit will NOT be made by New Line without Jackson is if EVERYONE from the LOTR trilogy tells them 'fuck you' including the whole of WETA and cast such as Andy Serkis. If it is made without WETA and LOTR cast the movie will feel like one of those imitation fake toys trying to fool dumb consumers into thinking they're close enough to the official product that they just get them for their kids anyhow, but the kids KNOW that they're not the same.
PJ could do The Hobbit like Kill Bill by Dr Hemlock	Nov 26th, 2006 12:34:26 AM
Two 2-hour movies released 6 months apart. Or why not two 2-hour movies released one week apart?
DUMP JACKSON; DUMP CONSUMER CONFIDENCE by Sepulchrave	Nov 26th, 2006 01:57:20 AM
in the product, simple as that; Jackson's Hobbit versus someone else's Hobbit is a HUGE risk.
Well put Daddylonghead! by KillaKane	Nov 26th, 2006 04:37:04 AM
And as for those attention deficit addled, febrile minded saps who think the likes of Lucas can adapt and make a better film of the Hobbit; those of us with a semblance of taste understand that such attributes as depth of characterisation, calibre of adaptation, nuance, scope and visual grandeur would be traded in for a gaudy MTV paced hoary sound and vison wankfest with fucking cyphers for characters and stilted dialogue that flows like coagulated squitshit! PJ's got more heart, passion, literary nouse and more of an unwavering work ethic than most of the studio's hatchet ment suggested here. Granted, the likes of Cuaron, Del Torro, Scott, Aranofsky, Nolan, Fincher, Weir, Gilliam and any other beloved of the geek masses could turn in something of merit, I'm sure. But, for one, I fucking love Jackson's Middle Earth, I admire the man and his team's signifcant accomplishments evinced by the LOTR trilogy. I want to revisit THAT realm one last time, and with a Howard Shore score to guide me on my merry fuckin way. BTW. James Mcavoy for Bilbo!
ZENTZ HAS NO POWER : GET A NEW DIRECTOR by livingwater	Nov 26th, 2006 05:05:28 AM
...imagine Aliens if it were done by Scott. The industry needs new talent. This constant emphasis on WETA is bullshit. Before PJ directed the first one, everyone was wary. It is time for fresh talent. Get a talented director to do it as his/her first movie. THAT would be exciting. The industry is becoming dull. The Two Towers have HORRIBLE effects and PJ isn't that good. The grading on LOTR was HORRIBLE too. PJ is very over rated. Who has seen Brain Dead, Meet the Feebles, Forgotten Silver, Frighteners or any of his other films. This industry needs to diversify. PETER JACKSON IS *NOT* TOLKIEN !!!! Even though he has tried hard to make you believe that with "Peter Jackson's Lord of The Rings". In actual fact it should be "JRR TOLKIEN'S Lord of the Rings" directed by Peter Jackson. These books are very famous and will make very good without Peter involved. I mean , look at Potter !!!! Who can tell the difference ??!?!?!
I am currently reading an article from the british by emeraldboy	Nov 26th, 2006 05:26:38 AM
based independent which is owned by Sir Anthony O Reilly. It makes for interesting reading. Keanu earned 200 million from the Matrix. No wonder Hollywood is Fucked. the link for the article is http://enjoyment.independent.c o.uk/film/features/article1988 532.ece
I could live with Raimi doing it by King Sweyn Forkbeard	Nov 26th, 2006 05:49:16 AM
Essentially his career has been a mirror image of Jacksons. Both started out doing low budget horror comedies, both moved onto smaller character pieces with not much BO success, both then surprisingly were trusted with a much loved literary property and delivered in spades despite huge pressure. Del Toro also has the fantasy thing down so I wouldn't say no to him either, but if PJ doesn't get it Raimi should.
Weta was 50% of the greatness of the LOTR films by Jugs	Nov 26th, 2006 09:51:29 AM
...as PJ is part owner I don't think they will work on a Hobbit film with anybody else.
Film Critic and broadcaster and the man who nurtured by emeraldboy	Nov 26th, 2006 09:53:13 AM
U2, dave fanning calls the people as featured in SK09's Post Clipboard Nazis. Fanning has been a movie critic for nearly twenty years and has interviewed almost everybody. But those clipboard nazis were for him the final straw and he has stopped going to all the major premieres and he no longer interviews stars because he got sick of the bullshit that he had to put up with.
Martin Freeman as Bilbo! by Frankenblogger	Nov 26th, 2006 10:17:55 AM
'Nuff said.
Giving Creedence where Creedence is due by Miami Mofo	Nov 26th, 2006 10:58:57 AM
I hope this comes to pass, but as a John Fogerty / Creedence Clearwater Revival fan, I take anything that Saul Zaentz says about "integrity" with a strong dose of caution -- 'cause we all know that, "Zaentz can't dance."
The World without PJ's Hobbit by Drexl	Nov 26th, 2006 02:14:48 PM
Look fellas, you can bitch and moan about Peter Jackson all you want but the fact is the guy made Lord of the Rings one of the most beloved film series of our time and helped a lot of people (including me) discover Tolkiens literature. Are his films the ultimate versions of the books? Hell no! They are interpretations but they happen to be versions I really love. Part of the appeal to me is exactly Jacksons muddy horror-like ideas that a lot of people seem to hate. I for one hope the guy ends up doing The Hobbit. Hell, if there can be two volcano-flicks, two CGI-ants movies and two Capote biopics for fucks sake there sure as shit can be a bunch of Hobbit pictures, vastly different in their approach (by the way, I doubt Raimi ends up doing this but if they do choose him to direct it, it might turn out to be very PJ-ish because the two are very much alike). I say the suits give PJ everything he needs in order to get The Hobbit made. Two movies, three movies... hell, I'm up for it. No version ever has to be a definitive one (I would have loved to see Boormans take - that would have been hardcore R!). If I were a producer on this I'd hire Jackson and his creative team asap, get the movie(s) in production and keep an eye on the future where I would kick off adaptations of certain chapters of the Silmarillion. I'd have WETA in charge of the effects, bring Jackson in as an executive procucer and hire some good solid directors who could each take on a story and explore Tolkiens universe, with all the tools they require. Imagine Guillermo Del Toro, Alfonso Cuaròn, Robert Zemeckis, Gore Verbinski, Sam Raimi, Tim burton or maybe even guys like Walter Salles, Iñárritu or even Mann goin' at it. Hell, even Pixar could turn one of the stories into an all CGI-flick. The logistics would be daunting but all I'm saying is, the possibilities with this material are endless and all we have now is another bullshit debate about money. If they really wanna do Tolkien justice they'd work on as many, stylistically and thematically diverse versions that are humanly possible. But for now, as a starting point, I wanna see Jacksons Hobbit go into production. It's the safest bet and the smartest thing to do!
Re: slappy by livingwater	Nov 26th, 2006 06:36:30 PM
This substitution was ESSENTIAL for PJ to go from the yet another box office failure (The Frighteners) into Tolkien impersonator (look how quickly he dropped the bare foot, long haired look after production). He never mentioned Tolkien hardly ever during production, a toal avoidance. There was always a debate if he could do a good job and he did a pretty good job even though the grading sucked and TT has some horrible FX shots during Isengard. The Hobbit and Silmarillion can be done better. PJ is really not that good of a director or he would have had more success on his own material: which invariably bombs. PJ's success largely depends on taking talent, using them and attempting to destroy them, then replacing them with weaker people who take credit: so people don't get power from the material, like he did. The relationship with New Line is typical and is only the most recent example. Look at how how Howard Shore was replaced. Look at how Allan Lee was shoved aside in production after all his art work was used. Look at what happened to Charlie Mcklellan (who was interviewed here) or Mark Stetson, who sat next to PJ for the entire trilogy and then was shoved aside for 3 academy awards, and only got one because he complained.....or many, many other people. PJ is actually a vampire. You think he is a fat hobbit. He isn't. He is a backstabber. It is great these books are hitting the screen, but the success of Potter sequels shows that a coherent cinematic vision of a great book series can have a variety of directors and STILL BE superb and coherent. Did you ever see Dr Strangelove ? There is a character in it: TJ KONG who goes down with a bomb. The future isn't at WETA. Well done to New Line for standing up to this meglomaniac that was created from Tolkien's talent.
My two cents. by caltsoudas	Nov 26th, 2006 06:47:15 PM
As fun and popular as it was at the time, in hindsight, Lord of the Rings sucked. The first one was pretty good but the other two were too long and drawn out. Cinsidering the simplicity of the story's plot, that could have been either made into a two-parter or a single three and a half hour (four hour?) long epic. It definately was not the kind of story that required nine+ hours of film to be told--especially when it's been successfully adapted into a single 3 hour long play that has apparently gotten great revues. The only interesting fleshed out characters out of that whole thing were Sam and Gollum IMO. I saw a cartoon movie of The Hobbit once (from the seventies, I think) and I really liked it. I can't see how anyone could turn that story into a dark gritty epic without it looking really hoaky though.
Fuck Jackson - I want Michael Bay's "The Hobbit" by Itchy	Nov 26th, 2006 07:22:57 PM
Starring Hulk Hogan as Gandalf the Grey and Rosie O'Donnel as the voice of Smaug. "Stay away from the dragon, little BROTHER"
Re: Livingwater and Slappy by SK909	Nov 26th, 2006 07:23:55 PM
First off, to anyone who commented on my other post, thanks, I'm glad somebody liked reading my rants. I think I will use 'Clipboard Nazi's from now on as well.(Of course, giving full credit to Mr. Fanning). Anyway, I have to say that I partially agree with livingwater's post. Unless there is overwhelming evidence that New Line failed to pay a great sum of money according to the deal, then I can understand. But it's a gift just to get to make the movies on that scale. It's a gift to get to make movies at all! You prove you have the talent and then they give you the money to make the films. It's a weird symbiotic relationship between the studios and the artists and, despite everything I said in my earlier post, I also think that when the studio is taking a big chance on you, they really deserve the biggest financial rewards. It's not the artist's financial ass on the line. If the movie fails it may be hard for them to get more work but most seem to always manage somehow. Studios, however, can go under from something as large and strange as the prospect of LOTR was prior to its getting made. Everything is really complex, but PJ himself related on those DVD's that New Line was like a last-ditch effort to get the thing made and they made it, even going so far as to stretch it from two films and letting him make 3, AND it vaulted him into the leagues of Spielberg, Lucas, and Cameron. So, personally, I think he should be happy if he wound up with over 100 million dollars. The studio took the financial risk and there's just no way, in my mind, that Peter Jackson should have financial parity with the studio. On his NEXT film, yeah, you have some leeway and they better do right by you if they want to work with you again, but, in the general public, who the hell had heard of Peter Jackson before Lord of the Rings? I know someone said, 'if they owed you money, don't tell me you wouldn't go after it,' but I'd have to say, I think I'd be pretty fucking happy with 125million and the fact that I got to make my dream film afterwards (King Kong) exactly as I wanted it AND have all these fucking DVD versions I'm allowed to make and have control over. Are you an artsit or do you want to be Donald Trump? What makes me laugh about this is that when George Lucas puts the money up to make the Star Wars movies, he believes it's ok for HIM to keep all the profits and hand everything out as he sees fit, and he's right. However, when the shoe is on the other foot and the studio is really taking a chance, you get people like what happened with Damon and Affleck with Good Will Hunting, crying over residuals when they should have just been happy to be getting paid for acting and that a studio took a risk and put everything they could behind a film starring unknowns. As much as I don't like some of his decisions, Harvey Weinstein said it best, "When I was coming up in this business, the Robert Deniro's and Al Pacino's weren't looking for their summer tentpole picture. It's the triumph of the agents, it's not about the coolest material anymore." I can UNDERSTAND Harvey Weinstein being greedy because he's like all schizo producers - they love movies, but they love money more. Why 'actors' and 'directors' need a billion dollars in the bank, I'll never know. For Cuckoo's Nest, Nicholson had forgone his usual 5 million upfront so that HE could have final cut. All he was really doing was protecting Milos Forman. Forman did his cut, Nicholson looked at it and went, "beautiful" and that's it. Think Brad Pitt would put his ass on the line for a director? Look what he did to Aronofsky! (I haven't seen the Fountain, so maybe the decision was good in hindsight), But no matter what you think of The Fountain, I'm sure you'd agree that it's a better choice than Troy. Lastly, I don't know if all of that is true about Peter Jackson pushing aside others in order to hog credit, but I'm sure that after all those years of killing himself to finish those films, anyone would become possessive, in a way, over the credit for really pulling it all together. I'm not saying he's right... I am saying that on those DVD's, from what I saw, credit is given where it's due to all the people who helped out, even in the tiniest way, to make those films happen. On the issue of money, however, I'm sorry, I think he's in the wrong. If he doesn't like it, then why doesn't he put his ass on the line, LIKE Lucas, and finance his next film himself.
thats all and well and good... by slappy jones	Nov 26th, 2006 08:24:22 PM
but if a studio makes a deal they should pay up. it doesn't matter that they took the risk. that has nothing to do with it....sure they put up the money and deserve the reap the financial rewards but if you make a deal with someone you shouldn't be allowed to get away with cooking the books to cheat them out of their money. don't offer points if you don't want to give them. jackson made a deal - how much money he has received already has nothing to do with it. a deal is a deal. if they have ripped him off ...and notice I said if...I don;t know if they have or not but lets be honest will anyone be surprised to find out they have? but if they have he should get every penny he is owed. New Line funded LOTR. it made them billions. jackson isn't after parity with new line...not at all - he is after what THEY agreed to give him....he hasn't just decided he wants more money for no reason. Plus no one forced new line to take such a huge risk on rings...they are a studio.that is what studios do and this case they got a pretty good return on their investement. although I didn't realise jackson had nothing to do with that. apparently it was due to some guys called mark stetson and charlie mclellan according to living water. New lines role is to fund movies so this whole argument that jackson should just be grateful they made them and forget about the millions they have quite possibly cheated him out of is ridiculous. they made a film. a risky one for sure but a movie nonetheless. you know...they did their job. living water you have selected memory then. In every interview i saw and even in the making ofs jackson constantly referred to the book...did he have to preface every single interview and every single question about the film with a comment about tolkien adn the books? that is a desperate attempt to attack the guy over something that just isn't true.... the books were referred to all the time....plus even if he had done a few interviews where he failed to mention tolkiens name or mention that the films were being adapted from books I guess he figured he didn't need to remind people every fucking day that he didn't write them....considering they are probably the most famous and popular books of all time I guess he safely assumed that people were already aware of that.
PJ = overated by datachasm	Nov 26th, 2006 08:37:33 PM
the first one was decent, but other 2 ... uggh. i had already read the books years ago but the movie versions i was hard pressed to figure out what was going on. everything looked the same and there were way too many long looks and sappy scenes. mckellan was great, but ended up using LOTR as a vehicle to gayness. christopher lee was robbed, but then star wars did the same thing to him. the orcs... omfg terrible. gollum = overated and weird. i guess the voice of gollum does the publicity circuit = desperation. anyways, what i am trying to say is another director, and im not talking about a no name el cheapo, but a good director could make the Hobbit shine for what it is, the best fantasy story ever.
datachasm by slappy jones	Nov 26th, 2006 08:47:14 PM
"a vehicle to gayness??" there have been some dumb things written on these boards over the years...I have written some of them myself but that is quite possibly the dumbest.
The Jackson Lawsuit by DeeJay	Nov 26th, 2006 08:53:23 PM
Slappy... though you emphasize the use of the word "if", the arguments you offer are all completely consistent with the assumption that Jackson's lawsuit has merit. Why do you believe this? Don't you find it convenient that his suit came to the forefront after New Line did his bidding with King Kong? I don't doubt that the accountants at New Line have an agenda (as was the case with Fox, related to David Duchovney's "X-Files" lawsuit), assuming that Jackson is somehow the good guy is preposterous. If Jackson's suit has a much merit as he claims, why is the suit his alone, with no other talent joining his filing? It looks to be yet another debate over accounting practices, so good luck to Jackson. His argument (as much as has been offered) doesn't have the same substance of Duchovney's, and the fact that he's currently trying to wage a PR war would imply that he's working with a weak "hand," in this game.
Slappy by SK909	Nov 26th, 2006 09:01:38 PM
I agree that studios shouldn't cook the books and that they should stick to their deals. Now let's come back from the land of Oz. This dirty laundry is being very publicly aired and I have to say, I just can't feel sorry for someone who, according to what others have said is on the IMDB, was paid $125 million. There are many with points, net and gross, who don't get ANYTHING. I also can't help but feeling that if King Kong had done better, this would be a non-issue. They would have paid up. You think Spielberg has to deal with this? Ever? No, because his power and box-office draw are unassailable. Every studio thinks twice before fucking with paying out his points, I'm sure. I honestly think that they're testing whether or not he's a one-trick pony and they're hedging their bets. Yes, it's fucked up that King Kong created an open wound and they're taking advantage of it like hyenas on the serengetti. Seriously, I think he's a great filmmaker. I think he did a great job on LOTR and I love his earlier films. But it's a huge game of power and how to leverage it, and if King Kong made a billion dollars, New Line would pay up and then some just to get in line for Jackson's next film.
MNG... Where Are You? by DeeJay	Nov 26th, 2006 09:40:13 PM
Slappy... would you not agree that Jackson can smell what his accountants are cooking, as well? While I'm indifferent to the idea of Jackson directing “The Hobbit,” I think this lawsuit is risky, considering that he’ll not receive the net present value of the dollars he'd have been guaranteed had he cooperated with New Line. In modern years (unlike Golden Era talent), talent that recognizes vulnerabilities in their early contracts are able to rebound well when signing subsequent deals. Just look at Eddie Murphy, who was financially murdered under the terms of his first multi-film contract. In the last decade, however, he took a Jerry Lewis-like approach, and that will pay him dividends for years to come. Being among the people who don’t really feel sorry for Jackson, I think he'd better spend his time adding to the interest he's seemingly compounding for some future endeavor. While he’s at it, he could stop manipulating the genre community that has--- thus far--- supported him like a Republican Presidential candidate in the 80's, and actually give something back to said community...
For what it's worth... by Cold Winter Wind	Nov 26th, 2006 11:02:12 PM
...I'm coming in late to the party on this whole PJ vs. New Line lawsuit, but a few points bear emphasis. There's more than one kind of talent in the film industry. There's the artistic talent of the director, cast & crew; then there's the financial talent of the 'suits'. The ability to pick the right project in which to invest, one that will show a (hopefully) large-ish ROI. Make no mistake, studio's are in THE BIDNESS of making movies, rather, making money from the tickets people buy to see movies. There are artistically gifted directors who are virtually unknown because nobody see's their films. On the other side of the street, there are artistically-challenged hacks using paint-by-numbers who have a permanent seat at the studio's cash bar. Why? Because the hack films plant butts in theatre seats. Which is better? Depends on where you're standing when you look. So what's this all about? IMHO, power. Who's got it, who's dishin' it out. In Hollyweird, as in many walks of life, power comes at the bottom of a bank statement. I truly don't have an opinion on this specific case, but if history is any indicator, just look at how many musicians and singers have been BOHICA'd by the record industry. Perfectly wonderful artists used-up and discarded by profit hounds. I say give PJ his day in court, and let a disinterested third-party sort out who's owed what. As far as making The Hobbit goes, I suspect that New Line knows that PJ's name is, at least for 2 or 3 generations, going to be associated with Tolkien's works in the minds of the ticket buying public; and any 'Tolkien movie' that doesn't have PJ attached is going to be met with a severe case of "MEH" by that same ticket buying public.
Please God!!! by EdwardApplebee	Nov 27th, 2006 12:52:16 AM
If i could have one wish this Christmas it would be that Peter Jackson has signed on to do the hobbit films with complete creative control... if i could have two wishes this Christmas, first it would be the stuff about peter jackson, secondly there would be world peace. and if i could have only 3 wishes this christmas, fist peter jackson, secondly about the peace, and thirdly i would receive 30% of the profits of the new hobbit films. and if i could have four wishes this christmas...
"a vehicle to gayness" by DocPazuzu	Nov 27th, 2006 05:04:13 AM
Smells like new AICN catchphrase time.
Cuckoo's Nest, Nicholson forgone his usual 5 mil by antonphd	Nov 27th, 2006 05:24:15 AM
I thought the first actor to make 5 million for a movie was Bruce Willis in Die Hard? Hey, I was young when I heard that on the news, so, if I'm wrong, cut me some slack.
Fuck you Peter Jackson haters by antonphd	Nov 27th, 2006 05:36:16 AM
Blah blah blah someone else could do it better. You know what the most annoying thing about being a professional artist is? Having fuckwits show up and tell you how you could do it better. They have no fucking clue what it takes to make what you are making but they think they can tell you how to do it better. Guess what asswipes... the LOTR movies are diamonds compared to what anyone else would have done in Peter Jackson's position at the time. Fuck you for saying it could have been better. It's not like a studio said 'hey, these books are really popular, let's make some movies of them to cash in'. Peter Jackson loved the books and wanted to make movies of them. That's called being an artist. Taking something you love and making art out of it. Even when it's art. So go fuck off you fucking retarded consumers. And as for the law suit. Did it ever occur to you fucking assholes that Peter Jackson wants the money so he can make movies? What do you think he's going to do with another 100 million? Buy New Zealand?! He's going to do what he's been doing for his whole fucking career!! Make movies. You guys who talk like you have a clue what the fuck this is about should shut the fuck up. Unless you work for New Line... then, by all means, do you dirty work here.
Movies and Money by antonphd	Nov 27th, 2006 05:50:17 AM
I make games for a living. You better believe that if I am supposed to get royalties on a game that I pitched and produced and directed for 10 fucking years and the publisher trys to tell me that they will pay up if I make a sequel... i would fucking be pissed. Peter Jackson is 100% in the right here. I was talking with a prospective artist about a game I am producing and he actually asked my take. I am making 4 times more than anyone else. I am also carrying the entire responsibility of the game on my shoulders. Any one of the employees can walk away and quit. I will be responsible for the game being made. If the publisher thinks they can tell me in 2 years that they didn't make any profit after the game makes 1 billion... you better fucking believe I'm sueing them. Wake the fuck up. It's not greed on Peter Jackson's part. It's not about getting a paycheck for working for someone. It's about getting your share of profits from a business partnership. Why the fuck is anyone fucking siding with a studio?! The movies made money. That money is part Peter Jacksons. Not Viggo or Elijah or the fucking cameraman. They didn't produce the movie. It's not like Peter Jackson stood around looking pretty all day for a year and made millions. He didn't win the lottery. He spent a career working toward what finally ammounted to the LOTR trilogy and he spent a 1/8 of his life working on it. He deserves every penny.
Money and Movies by DeeJay	Nov 27th, 2006 08:49:26 AM
Anton... honestly, I could see where someone would try to shortchange you simply based on the way you communicate. That being said, I don't think New Line ever claimed that the trilogy didn't make money, nor did Jackson claim that he wasn't compensated. His claim is that he wasn't given the level of compensation agreed, and he wishes to substantiate this through an audit of New Lines' financials. Would it be possible for one of your employees to someday sue you, regarding their interpretation of how you've shared profits on a game? How would you respond, if their suit was tied to their request to audit your records? As an aside, would you not agree that actors sometimes take on a producer's role? Does this not further complicate the range of financial relationships which exist? I'm not claiming that New Line is in the right. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't. I'm just not convinced that Jackson has made his case, given all the possible scenarios, and am reluctant to take a one-way trip down to Guyana to join his merry fellowship.
I'm so happy that bogus story gave some losers hope... by Great Mattock	Nov 27th, 2006 09:25:23 AM
that their precious PJ would ruin The Hobbit for them so they could watch a 5 hour, dumbed down version of a wonderful story. And kudos to Harry for not even posting a correction or update after running like an idiot with that link without any thought whatsoever. The front page still has that horribly misleading link. No wonder he thought PJ's LOTR was so great.
UNHOLY PISSFLAPS by Barndoor	Nov 27th, 2006 09:34:15 AM
Great Mattock why don't you go and do what you do best, that is to say, fucking young boys.
::sigh:: by onemanarmy	Nov 27th, 2006 09:41:14 AM
Half of you will love this movie no matter what, the rest will hate it. Civil war will ensue...and the fanboys will destroy each other once and for all. /cue creepy sounds
AUDIENCES DON'T GO TO A MOVIE IF JACKSON DIRECTS by livingwater	Nov 27th, 2006 10:01:05 AM
The domestic failure (aka an industry flop of a huge scale) of King Kong (2005) proved to New Line, the Studios and the rest of the film industry that people WILL NOT GO TO A PETER JACKSON FILM SIMPLY BECAUSE PJ DIRECTS IT. THAT IS A FACT. People went to LOTR because it had a pre-existing fan base. I remember a few years ago when these talkbacks were screaming for Connery and Gilliam, now you have been served something different, all you want is that. WAKE UP. Give me something fresh. If it is done like Potter it will be JUST AS SUCCESSFUL. FACT.
Exactly (people don't see PJ movies, they see LOTR) by Great Mattock	Nov 27th, 2006 11:36:38 AM
His 1st swing at bat right after LOTR, a well known commodity and absolutely monstrous hype. And what happens? PJ proved that TOLKIEN'S success went to his head. Word of mouth killed that pretentious snooze-fest faster than a speeding bullet.
i know i mean king kong only by slappy jones	Nov 27th, 2006 01:42:08 PM
did 550 million dollars at the box office. what was that like jacksons 4 film in a row to make over 500 million ww...thats a record not even speilberg has. that is how bad jackson is. thats a terrible record. I mean no one went and saw kong.literally no one...apart from the 550 million dollars worth of people who did...aside from them no one....oh and then of course the millions of dvds it has sold. but outside of the 500 million Bo and the millions of dvds absolutely no one went and saw it in any form. thats what happens when only 84% of the critics like your film.....and it only wins 3 oscars....technicals ones sure but still...only 3???.we wll know they were expecting the film to have gotten a 100% good reviews, made $4,586,5768,567,456 domestic and have won 45 oscars. the academy should have introduced new catagories just to give it more awards....anything short of that was a disaster. a total failure. we all know no one outside of LOTR fans went and saw LOTR too. it was the fans of the books. 3 billion dollars worth. not one person who had not read the books went and saw them not a single one.
My Own Casting Choice by TimBenzedrine	Nov 27th, 2006 03:38:36 PM
Al Gore as Beorn the Manbearpig. Also I believe "A vehicle to gayness" was the tagline for he Mazda Miata.
Slappy by crackerfarmboy	Nov 27th, 2006 04:21:00 PM
I could care less what the critics think or how much box office it made, King Kong still SUCKED royally.
King Kong still failed despite it's take by Great Mattock	Nov 27th, 2006 04:35:14 PM
King Kong made a ton of money but it completely failed relative to expectations. It had a massive built in fanbase (Ringers) and all the hype a movie could dream of... and it fell flat because the movie itself was (to many people) BORING. PJ blew his wad on that one and it lowered his stock. If it had lived up to expectations, NL would give him whatever he wants to make The Hobbit.
all i was pointing out by slappy jones	Nov 27th, 2006 05:02:05 PM
is it wasn't as great a disaster as everyone makes out.if jackson himself had ever said "kong will be my biggest film ever and make more money than all the rings films" then I could see why people would go on about it failing but he didn't. in fact he said himself he knew it wouldn;t be as big as rings and he knows he will probably never have anything as big as rings ever again. did it go over budget yes it did but it is hardly the first film to do that. where did these "save the box office slump" expectations come from anyway? did anyone connected to the film ever say anything about it being one of the biggest films of all time? show me the quote where jackson or universal said " we are going to make over a billion dollars with this film" of course not. I liked kong myself obviously. a lot. I was never that big on lotr but I loved kong. I like gloriously over the top films and to me that is what kong was. sure it failed to reach the unrealistec expectations placed on it but people talk like jackson is washed up and will never make a film again. people are so fickle...so he made a film that "underperformed"? big deal....if singer can get another film after superman i think jackson will be fine....it is jacksons time to be attacked...thats how it happens to everyone..once you get big people turn on you.you watch lovely bones. it will be treated like a comeback and people will love him again....cut them down build them up cut them down build them up. that is the nature of this business. I am not abusing you guys for not liking kong.it is totally fair enough.... I can understand why some people wouldn't like it...- the guys who claim it is the "worst film ever" bug me though as it is clearly isn't. you may have hated it but there are a lot of films that a lot worse than kong out there.
Crossing Fingers by justcheckin	Nov 27th, 2006 05:50:52 PM
I hope he gets to direct... I'm interested in seeing how they are going to break the book down. Dauntless asked if the The Similarion might be what they are thinking about doing. I know someone answered your question, but good grief, have you read that book. It would be a nightmare to write a script for. Yikes!!!
Harry, you're slipping by dj_d	Nov 27th, 2006 06:56:14 PM
This story is already a few days old - this 'interview' was done long before the news about New Line giving Peter Jackson the ax was posted, and therefore is not accurate.
PJ is still one of the best directors out there by werideatdusk	Nov 27th, 2006 07:44:36 PM
I agree that the tone PJ used in the LOTR trilogy might not mesh that well with the whimsical, childish (in a good way) "Hobbit." However, I think he's proven himself to be a versatile and audaciously talented director who would easily adjust and bring us a great "Hobbit" movie. "King Kong" was long and bloated, and there were misfires, but it was full of very effective scenes that showcased his raw talent. As for "Lord of the Rings," there's very little I'd change about the movies, and I think he brought a great subtle touch to a lot of the scenes, and handled the epic action brilliantly. I think most of the PJ-haters don't hate him for how he directs, they hate him foremost for the way he adapted "Lord of the Rings." Purists and even just fans of the book were probably expecting something a little slower and brighter in a LotR film. But I think his movies have been exceptionally entertaining. Reports of his career's death have been greatly exaggerated.
werideatdusk - you are totally right. by slappy jones	Nov 27th, 2006 09:50:42 PM
i completely agree...I loved kong but was it perfect...no...was it a career ender?? of course not and the people on here seem to be actually hoping it is as if that in some way validates their sad sad existence where writing some "funny" message about just hope bad they thought kong was is actually the only creative thing they have ever done and its as close as they will ever get o having an audience for anything they ever do. I am sure there are legitimate people who hated kong...and fair enough. it isn't a raesoned debate when you have people saying "worst film ever hahah kong 2electric boogaloo hulk hogan etc etc" you can't please all the people all the time but some of the hate on here is so over the top it is clearly obvious they are either trying to rile people up or they just outright hate jackson for some other reason. If anyone thinks jackson will have trouble getting work you are crazy...kong will be seen as nothing more than a misstep...not to me it won't as I fucking loved it but mark my words...when lovely bones comes out it will be lavished with praise...build them up tear them down build them up tear them down...thats the way it is with guys like him. plus this is the only place where the hate for him is as strong as this. not that everywhere else is a love fest but the hate on here has become a parody of itself!!it is actually quite amusing to see just how much some of these bigshots hate him. its nuts.
Most likely, the director by FilmNerdJamie	Nov 27th, 2006 10:16:38 PM
Most likely, the director behind The Hobbit and the untitled LOTR prequel will be someone who the New Line/MGM can control on a lease; like the Bond films. If anything, he'll be an Andrew Adamson and Stefen Fangmeier (i.e. someone with a special effects background!) And if that's the case, why not let Richard Taylor helm them?
UWE BOLL'S THE HOBBIT !!! WOOOOT by wolvenom	Nov 27th, 2006 11:00:10 PM
that's where its at.
The point is that NEW LINE is falsely reporting-- by Bob Cryptonight	Nov 27th, 2006 11:25:06 PM
--their profits. That's why Jackson is suing. Just because imdb says how much Jackson "made"...that doesn't mean that he has been paid! Studios do that all the time...production companies do it too [ask James Garner about how the studios tried to fuck him over concerning THE ROCKFORD FILES profits; he won a highly regarded legal battle against them]--in fact, that's why RICHARD LESTER was brought in to direct SUPERMAN II...he was in litigation with the producers over THE THREE [and FOUR] MUSKETEERS (aside from the filming-two-movies-at-once legal thing...they just never paid him what he was owed and then, ultimately, all parties agreed to a specific sum that included taking over SUPERMAN II). My point is that Jackson's lawsuit is legitimate and not based on greed. You should be paid what you are owed.
Will He Or Won't He? by HaveCameraWillTravel	Nov 28th, 2006 03:04:04 AM
Sometimes I feel they are toying with the fans just to see how badly the fans want the movie made.
One of the actors who was in the running to play by emeraldboy	Nov 28th, 2006 05:39:25 AM
was connery. He turned it down but read on to see what lost out on.Ouch.... Connery Lost Hundreds of Millions Turning Down Gandalf Posted Nov 26th 2006 12:00AM by Ryan Stewart Filed under: Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Casting, Deals, New Line, RumorMonger, Celebrities and Controversy, Fandom, Peter Jackson, Comic/Superhero/Geek Had Sean Connery taken the lucrative deal that was presented to him in 1999 by New Line Cinema to play Gandalf the Grey in Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy, he could have cleared up to as much as $434 million. Connery's squandered opportunity is the subject of a story in today's edition of The Scotsman, which gleaned the information from a passage in Brian Sibley's recent biography of Jackson. According to the piece, New Line was so worried about staking the Rings threesome without a single major, international star attached that they crafted for Connery a lavish backend deal similar to the one that lured Nicholson to play The Joker in 1989's Batman. Peter Jackson is quoted as saying that Rings executive producer Mark Ordesky told him "New Line was prepared to give him [Connery] between 10 percent and 15 percent of the films' income." Had that happened, Connery would have cashed more scratch for a single project than any actor in history. The famously prickly Connery has gone on record saying that he wouldn't have taken the role of the big-hatted wizard because "I never understood it. I read the book, I read the script, I saw the movie, and I still don't understand it." The book also implies that Jackson wasn't keen on casting Connery, either. "I couldn't imagine him wanting to spend eighteen months in New Zealand," Jackson says, which sounds like polite movie-talk for "Please don't come and spend eighteen months in New Zealand." I personally could see Connery as a quiet, reflective Obi-Wan type, but anyone who remembers The Rock knows how silly he looks with long hair, so his interpretation of Gandalf might not have gone over well.
JACKSON'S DEAL/LAWSUIT WITH NEW LINE by livingwater	Nov 28th, 2006 06:10:52 AM
This is what is going on, from the New York Times. They aren't falsely doing anything. This is what is going on at most places, since they are all essentially interconnected: . The suit charges that the company used pre-emptive bidding (meaning a process closed to external parties) rather than open bidding for subsidiary rights to such things as "Lord of the Rings" books, DVD's and merchandise. Therefore, New Line received far less than market value for these rights, the suit says.Most of those rights went to other companies in the New Line family or under the Time Warner corporate umbrella, like Warner Brothers International, Warner Records and Warner Books. So while the deals would not hurt Time Warner's bottom line, they would lower the overall gross revenues related to the film, which is the figure Mr. Jackson's percentage is based on.According to people on both sides of Mr. Jackson's lawsuit, the claim strikes at the heart of the modern vertically integrated media company. One of the apparent - though largely unproven - benefits of media integration is the ability of conglomerates like the Walt Disney Company, Time Warner, the News Corporation, Viacom, Sony and General Electric to sell subsidiary rights to the many divisions within the company. By painting this corporate synergy as "self-dealing," Mr. Jackson's lawsuit and similar suits filed in the last few years, called vertical integration lawsuits, argue that the idea of the media conglomerate is at odds with the interests of the creative minds behind the content. If that idea was not enough to make studio heads very nervous, Mr. Jackson's status in the business could encourage other directors and stars who take a percentage of gross revenues to look more carefully at the accounting on their films. And because deals between corporate siblings are approved at the highest levels, vertical integration lawsuits often focus on senior division executives and their sales chiefs.. Since no studio head or corporate executive wants to be subpoenaed in a lawsuit over accounting, vertical integration lawsuits are almost always settled before reaching open court. The "Rings" film trilogy, produced for an aggregate $281 million, has made more than $4 billion in retail sales from worldwide film exhibition, home video, soundtracks, merchandise and television showings, and cleared more than $1 billion for New Line after payments to profit participants, according to one of Mr. Jackson's lawyers, Peter Nelson. Thanks to escalators in the contract Mr. Jackson signed to serve as director, co-writer and co-producer of the trilogy, he reportedly receives about 20 percent of the gross revenue realized by New Line for the trilogy, minus expenses such as taxes. http://tinyurl.com/yzkwxy
Emeraldboy by Great Mattock	Nov 28th, 2006 08:53:58 AM
OMG! Not that Sean C. is going to run out of money anytime soon but this will go down as one of the biggest Hollywood blunders (for an actor, not studio) in modern times. He's great but I'm definitely glad they used Ian instead. I'm all for a different director but I just hope they get Ian to be in it.
Sean can make up for it... by Ghostball	Nov 28th, 2006 09:07:33 AM
...by getting into that bear-man costume and baking us some honey-cake. I smell oscar
Regarding connery... by emeraldboy	Nov 28th, 2006 09:25:19 AM
Read boormans tales of a suburban boy and in it there is a chapter on Zardos. You will see why boorman and connery have never worked together since.
Engelhast and Capt ego are retarded. by SCYTHEOFLUNA	Nov 28th, 2006 10:35:05 AM
Go ahead and bash hardcore Tolkien fans, and make wise cracks about talking bears and honey cakes all you want, but maybe you missed the parts of the book where the dwarves are hewing limbs off of goblins, or where Sting got its name, or maybe the part where they're all nearly consumed by GIANT FUCKING SPIDERS. Sure the Hobbit is more light hearted than the trilogy, but it's not by any stretch of the imagination a kid's book by modern standards. The battle of the five armies is hardcore, and that talking bear and those eagles mutilated many a goblin. So get over yourselves douchebags, your opinion isn't any more valid than the rest of us.
wow capt ego, you're aptly named, my arrogant friend by SCYTHEOFLUNA	Nov 28th, 2006 11:05:01 AM
"All this yapping about The Necromancer and white council versions of the hobbit is the kind of crap that appeals only to obsessive little twerps unable to comprehend that the hobbit was a kids story." Wow be sure to be as insulting as possible, it really adds weight to your argument, (or makes you appear as if you're a total tool, depending on whether you're an idiot or not). First of all, those scenes are something Jackson said he'd "like" to do, not that he's written them into the as-of-yet non existent script, so nitpicking is a bit premature. And since Jackson's take on the trilogy grossed in the billions, and garnered dozens of awards, for some reason I'm inclined to think he might be more qualified to make that call than some little nobody like you. Adding those scenes will not somehow alter the framework of the book or detract from the story or diminish it's value to "kids". First of all, these scenes (if they're even filmed) are derived from Tolkien's notes. (He's the guy who wrote the books if you remember). He hadn't even conceived of Lord of the Rings when the Hobbit was written, and when his publisher asked for a sequel, it turned in to far more of an epic project than he had anticipated and over shadowed the original in terms of depth and tone. Had he started from the outset intending to weave interconnecting threads to tie the books together more closely, it's entirely possible that there would have been some elaboration as to what Gandalf's urgent business was when he left the party in Mirkwood, and it's also likely that we'd have seen some element of the White council. Since Mr. Tolkien isn't around to ask, I think perhaps you should just shut the fuck up, and quit pretending to be an expert on books you didn't write. Until "twerps" like you have directed a film or two yourself, I prefer Jackson's vision. Also, my pompous friend, you did notice that they want to stretch this into two films right? What exactly do you think they're going to do to turn 300 pages into two films? I don't think any director with half a braincell is going to include the songs from the book, and I find it highly unlikely that this is going to be marketed as a "kid's film". Let us not forget that we live in a society that's so stupid that they have to change words in the Harry Potter books when they print them stateside because American kids are too ignorant to figure out what some of the British words mean. I think it's safe to say that most kid's with an ounce of sense who have read the books and have seen the trilogy aren't going to be phased by a few extra scenes tying the Hobbit to the previous films. This is an "ADAPTATION", after all, just like the trilogy was.
the thing is by slappy jones	Nov 28th, 2006 07:18:37 PM
all the people complaining that "the hobbit is a kids story -jacksons wrong for it he would make it dark..it needs to be a kids film" are the exact same fuckers who would complain that the film was to kiddie friendly if it did turn out all nice and sweet...
Another Onering updade by WONKABAR	Nov 28th, 2006 09:48:07 PM
http://tinyurl.com/y2wmvg You know, why doesn't NL just pay Jackson the 100 mil...I mean, at the end of the day they stand to make a billion with PJ at the helm. Even with the time limit, if they just paid him a shitload up front it might go long ways toward convincing him to postpone Lovely Bones. 100 or 200 mil is pocket change compared to what they would stand to make. I know they're using that arguement to get PJ to back down...but they are the ones who should back and pay up, even if they think they're right, it's not worth it to fight Jackson over $100 million. ...LAST!
LAST! by WONKABAR	Nov 28th, 2006 09:48:52 PM
Update I meant
Harry, not that you're still reading this.. by Jaka	Nov 29th, 2006 12:16:53 AM
I only see two issues here. One, New Line clearly owes PJ money. Two, a great majority of the human beings on this earth that know anything about it want PJ, HIS crew and HIS cast to be involved with any future middle-earth related films. Frankly, I don't care how they resolve it. The end result will be the same for me. If PJ, his cast and his crew are involved, I will see it. If they are not, I won't. All of this does make more clear to me comments that Peter was making way back when they were still in production. Comments about not needing to make any more money for New Line. I think there may even be some in the docs on the EE DVDs. Hey, a quest! lol Sweet.
Save Bilbo! by reelfan	Jan 13th, 2007 01:31:02 PM
Sign the petition - www.reelfans.com/hobbit

Talkbacks

Not So Fast New Line - The Zaentz says THE HOBBIT, "...will definitely be shot by Peter Jackson"!!!!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks