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

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

So writing ability isn't genetic by Aust1n	Dec 11th, 2006 02:08:42 AM
2
well if Tokien's great grandson wants Jackson in by Cedar_Room	Dec 11th, 2006 02:10:43 AM
I guess the whole situation is resolved.
Well said, Royd by Zorak5	Dec 11th, 2006 02:11:55 AM
I think it's interesting hearing Royd Tolkien's opinion on this, especially since he was on set and did get to see PJ work firsthand. Just last week, I was warming to the idea of a new director (Sam Raimi, for example), but then I had a LOTR marathon this weekend. Watched all three films in 2 days, and there's really no denying with the films fresh in my head that it would be wrong for someone else to make The Hobbit.
I second that, how about you Roj? by Nomy	Dec 11th, 2006 02:16:47 AM
I second that, how about you Roj?
Theres always an idiot on every board... by Ridge	Dec 11th, 2006 02:18:21 AM
Who decides to post something absolutely moronic. Congrats Aust1n. Anyhow, I honestly don't see how anyone else could do the movie justice other than the original team.
STOP!! Grammar Time!! by godoffireinhell	Dec 11th, 2006 02:18:28 AM
Royd Tolkien needs to go back to grade school. I agree with what he seems to have tried to say, though.
He makes a fair point by Franklin T Marmoset	Dec 11th, 2006 02:21:34 AM
Jackson is the very, very obvious choice, and you'd hope the people involved would move heaven and earth to have him make this Hobbit film. That said, The Hobbit is quite a different book from Lord Of The Rings. It's not so epic and it's also funnier, I think, much more of a children's book. Maybe a different creative team could be a good thing?
This guy's going to have Royd rage if they don't by comedian_x	Dec 11th, 2006 02:27:29 AM
get PJ.
What's the big deal... by tie3456	Dec 11th, 2006 02:29:32 AM
This whole topic is pointless. New Line is gonna do exactly what it wants to do. If the ghost of Tolkein materialized in front of the New Line execs and told them he wanted PJ to direct The Hobbit, they still wouldn't let him do it. This whole Peter Jackson must direct thing has got to be put to rest. I mean, yes, I appreciate the job that he did on LOTR, I really do. I don't think the movies would have been half the success they were if he hadn't been behind the camera. But honestly, there are plenty of other directors and production teams out there that can bring The Hobbit to life on the screen with the same level of dedication as Jackson and Weta. Why not let someone else try their hand at recreating Middle Earth. A breath of fresh air never hurt anybody. If Peter Jackson comes back to direct The Hobbit...great. If he doesn't...who cares.
Can I point out the obvious... by chaplinatemyshoe	Dec 11th, 2006 02:34:45 AM
The movie doesn't need to be made anyway. It will never be able to come close to matching the cartoon. I still have that damn "Where There's a Will, There's a Way" song stuck in my head...
PJ or bust by odysseus	Dec 11th, 2006 02:35:38 AM
'Nuff said.
besides... by chaplinatemyshoe	Dec 11th, 2006 02:36:21 AM
The Hobbit's more of a children's story. Every Tolkien fan I talk to acknowledges this. Not saying Peter Jackson isn't capable of making a children's movie, but wouldn't he want to give it more of a horror edge like he does every other movie he's directed...
Hmm.. Studio PR through AICN by Cyberfury	Dec 11th, 2006 02:41:18 AM
It could be the next big thing..
I'll just throw a name out there... by Shermdawg	Dec 11th, 2006 02:42:48 AM
Brian Henson
wow by antonphd	Dec 11th, 2006 02:50:16 AM
1. either some people who've posted in this work for fucking New Line or 2. they are just morons who just say shit about shit they don't understand.
grammar police by antonphd	Dec 11th, 2006 02:53:00 AM
you guys are fucking assholes. what the hell is wrong with you? you correct grammar but you have no manners. fuck off.
Oh, comedian_x, how that name suits you! "Royd Rage" by The Wrong Guy	Dec 11th, 2006 03:02:44 AM
Hi-larious. ;)Also gotta say, I laughed at Aust1n's 'moronic' comment. Observational humour at it's best, that's what that was.
Whilst I respect Royd Tolkien's views by Conan_the_Humble	Dec 11th, 2006 03:09:16 AM
I'd prefer to hear Christopher TOLKIEN. I've got a strong feeling that he does NOT approve of PJ's "interpretation" of LOTR, nor do I think he's overly thrilled with the idea of the Hobbit being made into a movie. But anyway. The decision from New Line still sucks. Cheers.
Odysseus, my dear friend.... by Quintus_Arrius	Dec 11th, 2006 03:20:52 AM
... you are absolutely correct. Jackson simply must direct this film; it would be utter maddness for another person to helm it. Hail!
Peter Jackson not helming ths film would be like... by Monkey_King	Dec 11th, 2006 03:27:59 AM
having someone else play Freddy Krueger than Robert Englund, or having Rob Zombie direct 'The Sound of Music'(BTW Not a slam on Rob, he's a brilliant director and I'm looking forward to his reinterpretation of HALLOWEEN )
PJ by Power_Girl	Dec 11th, 2006 03:38:16 AM
PJ will end up doing it. MGM will hold out from making a deal with New Line to make The Hobbit. Once the rights return to The Tolkien family MGM will make it with PJ. As far as I know New Line cant just make these movies without MGM.
Royd Tolkien by NachoNegro	Dec 11th, 2006 03:47:49 AM
I have never begrudged anyone from making a living. Seriously. But you have to put this into context. Royd Tolkien has absolutely no say in anything. You can't argue with his points, but don't be fooled into thinking he's an 'insider', who has 'specialist knowledge', and access to the 'inner sanctum'. Nothing could be further from the truth. He is no different from 'Eugene 'Rod' Roddenberry' - someone looking to make a living from a relatives success. And that's fine, I don't have a problem with that. But don't con people into thinking you are part of the 'management team'.
I hear Floyd Tolkien Thinks Otherwise by tonagan	Dec 11th, 2006 03:54:35 AM
He and Royd had a falling out over a girl a few years back, though.
And Boyd Tolkien Thinks His Brothers are Both Morons by tonagan	Dec 11th, 2006 04:01:59 AM
I'm ashamed of myself.
New Line gets a bad case of the Royds by mr. brownstone	Dec 11th, 2006 04:11:49 AM
NL are fools not to give Jackson the 20 mill they owe him. It's pocket change compared to the credibilty, fan faithfulness and critical support Jackson at the helm unquestioningly engenders. Without him they have to start from scratch and fight and up hill battle with everyone against them. 20 million seems like a bargain to get rid of all that ill will and doubt.
Why we mock Royd's awful grammar by godoffireinhell	Dec 11th, 2006 04:19:43 AM
The reason is that he's the grandson of J.R.R. TOLKIEN, simple as that. We're used to bad grammar on the internet in general and this site in particular but the fact that Royd is making this statement, being who he is and most likely trying to be taken seriously by both fans and New Line, using l00t-style language and incorrect punctuation is hilarious in an embarrassing kind of way.
godoffireinhell, his gradfather was Tolkien! by Talkbacker with no name	Dec 11th, 2006 04:21:11 AM
Yours just spunked out a line of arseholes which I hope end with you!
The guy said it. by Seph_J	Dec 11th, 2006 04:26:48 AM
... not much more to say really...... errm........[whistles a tune]..... [plastic bag blows by in the wind].....oh yeh, and The Lord of the Rings Trilogy is the best movie ever made, with NO exceptions.
PJ isn't the right guy to direct this by kuguy3000	Dec 11th, 2006 04:32:43 AM
I know, I know...that sounds awful, but everyone knows it's true. That's not because Kong was too long, or the LOTR films weren't any good... It's because The Hobbit and LOTR have such VASTLY, VASTLY different feels and tones... I'm afraid that PJ would frame "The Hobbit" like he did LOTR and KONG...it's just not like that. It needs a different direction and different touch. It's nothing personal, but the two stories, as connected as they are, should feel as different as their source material was.
Royd is entitled to his opinion, by RocketScientist	Dec 11th, 2006 04:36:25 AM
but frankly, given his involvement in the project, it doesn't mean much. Royd is a music manager and TV producer, and as such much more closely connected to commercial fancruft than to his ancestor's academic background. Given that Christopher Tolkien broke off every contact to his very own son when he said something positive about the movies, I doubt that Royd's depiction of the family's attitude towards the movie is anywhere near accurate. And while I am critical towards Christopher's conduct in a lot of ways (including this, since it's patently silly), I believe that he is one of the people with the most comprehensive understanding of the work of his father. For all his talk, Jackson catered to fantasy fans and to the producers, not to JRR.
He makes a compelling argument. by WONKABAR	Dec 11th, 2006 04:56:13 AM
You gotta trust that Peter & Co. would make adjustments tone-wise and deliver. Though I do think it would be interesting to possibly see two different versions of The Hobbit (ala Never Say Never Again/Octopussy) if I were New Line, I'd just go ahead cough up whatever dough was needed to get PJ on the case as soon as possible. If they are concerned about dealines, pay him above and beyond what he wants on top of what he belives he is owed. At the end of the day it's pocket-change compared to what The Hobbit would make.
Decent letter seems like. by TomBodet	Dec 11th, 2006 05:01:18 AM
But hey, it's the way of the world-if Sir Petey and New Line can't play nice w/ each other now, then fine, someone else can do the job. Yes you need a Ridley Scott or _Bay to do it justice, but it CAN be done.
Trouble is, though... by Mr Jonse	Dec 11th, 2006 05:39:11 AM
..no decent A list director would touch this. Not just out of respect for PJ but they wouldn't risk damaging their own rep by not matching up to what PJ did. At best we'd be looking at a Ratner-style, competant-but-underwhelming, hack job. Richard Lester territory (all due respect to him)...
Damn you Michael Bay by MCMLXXVI	Dec 11th, 2006 05:39:42 AM
Damn you Michael Bay
WELL by THE KNIGHT	Dec 11th, 2006 06:03:32 AM
Great letter! I'm glad he's putting his opinion out there.... wipes crust out of eyeball
"no A list director would touch this out of respect" by NachoNegro	Dec 11th, 2006 06:36:44 AM
Are you mad? Why are people deifying PJ after LOTR? Why don't you actually try watching those films? They were good, sure. But they were not flawless - don't make them out to be. PJ is a fine 'General', as is Lucas. But he's not Cameron - as you'll find out when Avatar hits the screens.....
Peter Jackson for Director again! by Dazzler69	Dec 11th, 2006 06:40:16 AM
I don't see a problem with getting internet hype going on making PJ the director again. It's not a bad thing. It could be worse like Flames on Smaug, oh wait that is a dragon so it applies toward that. I guess Michael Bay could direct after all!
Damn you Batman by Wazoo	Dec 11th, 2006 06:51:50 AM
Damn you Batman
Nacho, I didnt say they were flawless... by Mr Jonse	Dec 11th, 2006 06:52:28 AM
...by having respect for PJ what I meant was; whatever you think of his LOTR films, they were obviously his babies, something he worked his ass off for. I can't see any other real director not having respect for that. You take this film over from Peter Jackson and you get negative press before you even shoot a reel (X3 anyone?). Couple that the lack of McKellan/Serkis that would almost certainly come without PJ you've got a risky prospect on you hands from the start. If you were Cameron/Scott/Spielberg, would you want that?
Who cares. by DigitalDong	Dec 11th, 2006 06:57:49 AM
If anyone just read this site and nothing else, they'd think there was only 5 directors out there. John-Q-public didn't give a shit that PJ directed the LOTR movies. Only geeks do. If PJ isn't the director, only the geeks would care. The reason its called the movie business is because its a business that "makes money" by making movies. If PJ doesn't want to make money, then he can afford too.
You met a guy named "Tolkein"? by JackPumpkinhead	Dec 11th, 2006 06:58:00 AM
Well, what did he have to do with JRR, about whom this is supposed to be?
Roid? by Frankenblogger	Dec 11th, 2006 07:00:51 AM
Why do we have a link to this guy's MySpace page? Seriously. And what's a "Hobbit"?
Royd Tolkien by antonphd	Dec 11th, 2006 07:10:16 AM
People responding to Royd Tolkien about how some other director could do as good or better a job at the Hobbit than Peter Jackson are missing the point of what Royd is saying. Let me spell it out for those of you who can spot bad grammar but can't understand what you are reading. It's not just Peter Jackson... is the whole huge ass fucking team that made the movies! You guys have no fucking goddamn clue what it takes to make a movie. What do you think is going to happen when they get another director? You think all those people who worked a decade on LOTR are coming on board? No. It'll be a rush job and they'll get whoever they can and it will be hacked together as fast as possible. You won't get as good or better, you'll get half ass. They can never put together a team like Peter Jackson had, let alone within a year or two. It's not opinion... it's practical sense.
Digital, Peter Jackson's name... by Mr Jonse	Dec 11th, 2006 07:14:39 AM
...slipped into pop-culture after LOTR. People care. And A-List directors don't shoplift each other's franchises. The point I'm trying to make is, yeah, their are better directors on the world than PJ but; A) none of them will direct this film given the circumstances and B) People go to sequels (or prequels) because they enjoyed the first film and want to be in that world again. Without PJ that's not what this will be.
Welcome to the world of a corporation raping art by antonphd	Dec 11th, 2006 07:26:36 AM
If New Line pushes ahead on a Hobbit movie before their rights for it run out, without the experience from Peter Jackson and team, what we will get will be at best is Harry Potter 1 and at worst Lost in Space. People talk about The Hobbit as though it's something so easy to put together and translate to a film. That other creative people should get a chance with it?! But there's what?? A year or two for them to prepare for it at best?! LOTR films were like Rocky. Sorry for the movie analogy here, but the truth is that the films weren't just made by great people. Those people had something to prove and they were proud and gave 200% to the films. You can't just buy that. I say it's like Rocky because the movie wasn't just made, it was made from the heart against impossible challenges. You guys who think anyone could take this and run with it don't know what it takes to make a movie like the Hobbit... not only in an artistic sense, but even just in a practical sense. THAT is why it's just plain stupid to hand The Hobbit to anyone but Peter Jackson and team. And you know what? Unless New Line pushes the movies thru, Peter Jackson IS going to get to make The Hobbit.
and here is another opinion by emeraldboy	Dec 11th, 2006 07:37:20 AM
Before Lotr of the rings movies came out Christopher Tolkien, JRR's Tolkiens Son said that as executor of his fathers estate, he will not allow anymore of his fathers books to be turned into movies. he was asked would he see Lord of the rings movies and he said no. it seems like the bakasi version is permanently open sore. The books under his control are the silmarillion etc.
It took new line 5/6 years of pre-production by emeraldboy	Dec 11th, 2006 07:47:24 AM
before these movies started to lens. You cannot knock films like this in a year. A better a analogy is x-men 3, a film that I enjoyed. But Fox made a rabitt stew of that and rushed the film into theatres. Personally I will be glad to see Singer come back and finish what he started.
Royds statement that all the family were impressed is by emeraldboy	Dec 11th, 2006 07:49:40 AM
BS for reason I have already stated in this thread.
for Pete's sake... by skynetbauxi	Dec 11th, 2006 07:57:53 AM
it's TOLKIEN, not TOLKEIN
But the only member of the family who seemingly... by Mr Jonse	Dec 11th, 2006 07:58:05 AM
...wasn't impressed was Christopher Tolkien who, by his own admission, hasn't seen the films. His opinion on whether the books should have been made into films is own and he's entitled to it but by definition he can't have an opinion about PJ's work.
Can't say as though I approve... by Childe Roland	Dec 11th, 2006 08:04:13 AM
...of the way this whole thing is playing out in the "press." Peter and New Line have things to talk about. But New Line isn't holding the movie hodtage. Peter is. He's been offered a settlement. He'd prefer to use paranoid fans as leverage to get his way. Distasteful.
Royd? by beelkay	Dec 11th, 2006 08:05:11 AM
With a name like Royd, the look on his face was probably painful! Yeah, I did. Had to.
Somewhere... by DocPazuzu	Dec 11th, 2006 08:05:55 AM
...in a dank, fetid, hate-blackened chamber Ringwearer9 stirs to hideous life...
agree with Mr Jonse by skynetbauxi	Dec 11th, 2006 08:11:14 AM
there's only ONE director in the world who might be "fuck-ya-all"-ish enough to try following in PJ's footsteps: Uwe Boll. any other director wouldn't touch this with a 20 foot pole. you'd be dissed like Daniel Craig from day 1 of pre-production, except that you'd have no chance to redeem yourself with an excellent movie (like Craig did), because it would be like "it's ok, but it's not PJ" for all time.
Doc, please don't tempt fate like that... by Mr Jonse	Dec 11th, 2006 08:15:41 AM
And Childe Roland, c'mon now, that's just your perception of a situation neither you, nor I, nor anyone outside of NL or Wingnut really knows anything about. Don't get caught up in either side's PR.
Wouldn't mind fresh blood - PJ was getting Lucas-itis by Behemoth	Dec 11th, 2006 08:28:06 AM
Make no mistake - all three LOTR films were amazing pieces of work, but the IDIOTIC choices made at times, which seemed to increase exponentially with each release, really annoy the crap out of me on every viewing. It all started in Two Towers, with the very poor-looking - and TOTALLY unnecessary - Warg scenes, the RIDICULOUS amount of scenes where an Orc is just about to kill someone, only to pause and deliver a line like, "I'm going to put me rancid orc-member into your pancreas" then, like clockwork, cue sword/spear/etc. to emerge from Orc's gut from behind at last possible second. One or two of these scenes? Okay, fine. More than that? H-A-C-K-N-E-Y-E-D and pathetic. Then the part in the films that annoys me the most: The old "person hanging impossibly from ledge with one finger" cliche, ala Frodo at the end of ROTK. Again, a NEEDLESS, CLICHED PIECE OF CRAP DECISION that mars the beauty of the film as a whole. A TRUE CASE OF LUCAS-ITIS if ever there was one. And then we have the overblown fiasco that is King Kong. Lucas-itis unabated is leading to the artistic death of another once great director. So, since the Hobbit is so different from the LOTR films anyway, I have NO problem with a new person coming on board, as long as it's someone with talent and a vision, not some rushed piece of crap solely to cash in.
New Line will laugh all the way to the bank by performingmonkey	Dec 11th, 2006 08:29:53 AM
If you think they won't go ahead and get this made without Peter you're very much mistaken. I doubt they want to pay him a penny more, so instead they'll get some cheap hack who'll do it for a tenth of what Peter's price would be. People will flock to it without PJ on board, trust me. Do you think the majority of Joe Public John Fucking Does give to mother fucks about the director? No. Just because we do doesn't mean they do also. Fuck you and go to hell TBers.
Agree with Mr Skynetbauxi by Franklin T Marmoset	Dec 11th, 2006 08:31:20 AM
Uwe Boll would do wonders for this Hobbit film. He would cast Don Swayze as Bilbo Baggins, Billy Zane as Gandalf, and use all sock-puppets for the dwarves. Also, there would possibly be nudity (boob only). That is a version I'd like to see. If nothing else, it would make me appreciate the LOTR films more.
okay by lionbiu	Dec 11th, 2006 08:31:56 AM
...I swear I have heard several members of Tolkien's family say they were not impressed with the movies. If anyone has read the books, you will know liberties were taken and many subtexts were omitted...they were still fine films, but I am not surprised that they did not like it. It's pretty much the same with Mary Poppins.....in that the author despised the movie, but the movie still was a huge critical success.
added by lionbiu	Dec 11th, 2006 08:33:44 AM
I really don't see why the hobbit has to be made, its a great story and I think it should be left alone. The last two movies in the LOTR trilogy were bad, they were far more obsessed with spectical and fantasy rather than character and story
performingmonkey, what the Joe Public cares about.. by Mr Jonse	Dec 11th, 2006 08:42:09 AM
...is seeing another LOTR film, and to them this means the same look, feel and (where relevant) cast. By the way, really impressed with the amount of times you said 'fuck' in your post. Made you sound really clever...
performingmonkey by antonphd	Dec 11th, 2006 08:43:02 AM
Batman and Robin. Yeah. WB executives laughed all the way to the unemployement office after this movie.
Hey, Quint by Halloween68	Dec 11th, 2006 08:47:41 AM
If you are going to name drop, at least get the name right. It's Tolkien not Tolkein. Haha. Just shitting you. But, seriously, it is Tolkien not Tolkein.
LOTR and the public by antonphd	Dec 11th, 2006 08:51:50 AM
The LOTR movies are loved by the public. Sure, some people don't care for them. But 300m+ each movie for 3 years in a row says that a shitload of people love these movies. Not to mention all the books and DVDs. The books flew off the shelves during he movies run. When has that ever happened ever. For 3 years the world was affected by LOTR thanks to Peter Jackson and team. People who don't like them and want to say shit about them are a minority. And you know what? Call yourself elite that you are above everyone else in the world, while you are talking on a TB in a movie website. But don't talk about how people don't care if Peter Jackson makes The Hobbit. Peter Jackson is now a Spielberg or a Disney. His name makes people think of magic and imagination.
New Line's trying to Cheat Pete for LOTR by CrichtonAstronut	Dec 11th, 2006 08:57:01 AM
That's the only reason any of this is in question. He's only asking them to dislose their financial records. Why? Because like many studios they have a department of Creative Accounting producing more fantastic than anything theyu put on the screen. So they can say "Oh, I'm Peter we didn't make much profit. I'm if the 500 million world wide gross, per-film, not counting multiple DVD releases, gave that impression. We actually only about $5.00 for the whole trilogy." They reach in their pocket and pull out a nickel. "Here's your cut." How do I know it's something like that. 'Cause they don't want to turn the records over. Even to get a new film off him practically guaranteed to fill threaters if his name makes the credits. And they want him to commit to working for them again before they pay him proper for the last film. Hell no, he shouldn't do that. I sure as hell wouldn't in his position. But, no he's the bad guy 'cause after directing, producing, writing, casting, editing, and suppling the a special FX for one New Line greatest hits, if not their absolute greatest, he wants to get paid. Wow! What a concept! A guy actually wants to get paid for doing his jod. And well I might add. I could apprreciate Fox's position when Bryan Singer pulled out of X3 without so much as a polite goodbye. But on this I got to side with Peter. Dude's gotta stick to his guns on this one. Not be a little bitch. And the New Line folks to be hit in head with an anvil or something, knock some sense into them. Their already getting so much bad press that if they do make a the Hobbit without, it'll pretty much be a flopp. At the very least they should know that it won't make as much as it would if fans of LoTR knew Peter was at the helm. So you tried to cheat New Line, I don't blame you for that, you're a corporation it's you're job to cheat. But you've been caught Pete wasn't the rube from Kiwi country you thought he was, and look to the future profits you can playing straight withis guy 'cause your a corporation and getting a profit's also you're job. And by the way according to ENtertainment Weekly Sam Rami hasn't returned New Line's calls. Good for him. My already great respect for the man has grown. Say it directors "We're not the studios bitches."
$300mill not 500mill, my bad by CrichtonAstronut	Dec 11th, 2006 09:08:11 AM
Still, not as bad chunck of change consdidering the whole trilogy cost less than 300 mill. But I guess they can plead a little poverty. I mean who could live on that of money. Right.
I was gonna say something clever about "you know who".. by Mr. Nice Gaius	Dec 11th, 2006 09:14:50 AM
...but DocPazuzu beat me to it.
I'm confused.... by EUROPA	Dec 11th, 2006 09:17:24 AM
...when are we getting the Donner Cut of the Two Towers???
PLANTS! WEEDS! PLANTS! by veritasses	Dec 11th, 2006 09:24:42 AM
It's so obvious that this TB is infested with Plants from New Line. Their attacks on Royd are dirty, pathetic, embarassing and disgraceful. They need to just shut up and let PJ make the movie. He took an incredibly difficult body of work to translate to the screen, turned it into one of the greatest (if not the greatest) cinematic achievements of all time, generated billions in BO, DVD and merchandising sales and made hundreds of millions of geeks and non-geeks alike marvel and revel in the world of Tolkien’s epic masterpiece. PJ’s certainly earned the right to make the film and we fans deserve to have our expectations met with the same vision, quality and continuity of Jackson’s brilliant trilogy.
You have to remember by Kristian66	Dec 11th, 2006 09:34:15 AM
This/these films could turn out to be a steaming pile of shite no matter who directs the fuckers. LOTR was good because it consisted of all different races, but most of The Hobbit is 1 Hobbit and a shit load of dwarfs. No offence on the fellow that played Gimli, but the dwarf part of the films was without doubt better in small doses. There are some elves and some humans being a pain in the arse in this, but mainly 1 Hobbit and a shit load of dwarfs.
How can ANYONE watch... by Fawst	Dec 11th, 2006 09:36:03 AM
the opening scenes in The Shire (post prologue) on either the regular or special editions of FOTR and say that Jackson can't hit the tone or feel of The Hobbit? There was more warmth and good feeling packed into those scenes (especially the extended cut moments) than any buddy movie, romantic comedy or anything of the sort had in the past decade. For that matter, can anyone honestly say that Jackson didn't nail those few seconds of Bilbo in Gollum's cave? Pure fucking gold. Game over, end of story. Jackson needs to direct this. P.S. The dwarves were bumbling idiots for the most part in The Hobbit. His sense of them being comedic relief actually will work in The Hobbit as compared to LOTR.
Peter Jackson MUST direct "Silmarillion" by Doctor_Sin	Dec 11th, 2006 09:40:02 AM
Typical. Royd takes the time to weigh in for our benefit and the TB collapses under the weight of weedish plantiness and general nastiness. Look, PJ should do the Hobbit, then we can have The Peter Jackson Middle Earth Collection Box Set (Deluxe Director's Cut) Limited Edition Collectible "Shire" Edition sitting on our shelves. Just make it so, let him do it, then the saga is complete and it's all done under a strong guiding hand.
Kristian66 by Franklin T Marmoset	Dec 11th, 2006 09:40:14 AM
Yes, there's a shitload of dwarves, but they're funny dwarves, and they'll be funnier still when they're all played by naked female midgets in Albert Pyun's The Hobbit. Also, Tim Thomerson will star as Gandalf.
christopher tolkien... by LegoKenobi	Dec 11th, 2006 09:44:40 AM
can bitch and moan all he wants to about how the movies broke canon and whatnot, but he sure clams up when it comes time to deposit those royalty checks now, doesn't he? hypocrite. he's just bitter that someone besides him is making money off of his dad's work. agree with Fawst -- those opening scenes of the shire in fellowship were spot-on, and they capture the look and tone needed for "the hobbit" better than anything else ever done. all the naysayers for PJ have a lot of explaining to do if they don't think PJ can do it. rock on, peter!
According to Christopher Tolkein by emeraldboy	Dec 11th, 2006 09:50:54 AM
As long as the publishing rights for Silmarillion and other post fellowship books remain under his control, these books will not be made. I dont know how many times I will have to repeat it. We will just have to take the man at his word. I aint going to happen.
Actually Jonse, the only element of my post... by Childe Roland	Dec 11th, 2006 10:02:32 AM
...that was subjective was my characterization of a film held hostage. New Line did, in fact, offer PJ a settlement as part of the proposed directorship of The Hobbit. PJ turned it down. These facts aren't in dispute as far as I know. I personally don't think The Hobbit needs PJ (or his rather self-serving vision for the reimagining of that story), but his camp seems hell-bent on creating the perception that New Line is preventing him from doing the movie. Again...he turned down their proposal. One is pretty much forced to assume it's because he feels entitled to more than they were offering. I've got nothing against PJ, and hold him in high regard for his adaptation of the trilogy, but he is by no means the only man who can bring The Hobbit to the screen. From his own description of how he'd like to handle it, I'd say he's the wrong guy for the job. If the project moves forward without him, I think it will be for the best (because the integrity of the story as a largely kid-focused fantasy fairy tale will be preserved and we won't see it re-forged into some ultra-realist TLOR Trilogy prequel). If, by some miracle, the stars align and he does end up at the helm, I hope he makes two versions and saves all of the Trilogy-relevant created stuff for an extended edition somewhere down the road. I'd buy it simply for the sense of completion, but I'd hate for my son to miss out on what could be one the coolest big-screen fantasy myth since The Dark Crystal because PJ thought he could tell the Hobbit better than Tolkien did.
if the hobbit is made into a film by emeraldboy	Dec 11th, 2006 10:05:44 AM
There is just one catch. I live in Ireland and at the moment there is a bit of a row between Ward anderson who own 50% of Irish cinemas the rest are owned Vue, cineworld etc and EFD(enterainment in film distributors) .EFD hold the rights to all newline films in Ireland and 15 months ago they terminated there distribution deal with ward Anderson, so if the hobbit is to be made made by newline it will not be shown in the following cinemas. The Screen, the Savoy, the IMC cinema Chain as well as Cineplex chains and omniplex chains. The row means that I didnt get to see the departed with Jack nicholson. bastards. One newline film I did see on DVD was WEdding crashers. Patchy in places but over all in enjoyed. The cleary famil were insane. What was the name of the actress who played the granny and also the rapping granny in the apalling wedding singer.
Ever since Kristian66 said that... by Mr Jonse	Dec 11th, 2006 10:06:38 AM
...I've been thinking and I can't think of a single film that wouldn't be improved by a shitload of dwarves. Think about it; Hostel - shit film, Hostel with a shitload of dwarves - slightly better film. Don't know why I havn't thought of this before...
Never Say Never Again/Octopussy??? by Cedar_Room	Dec 11th, 2006 10:14:20 AM
to whoever made that comment, Never Say Never Again was actually a remake of Thunderball---James Bond anal moment over--- The Hobbit will be/won't be shit without Peter Jackson, this Tolkien guy is/is not a retard, ROTK was really gay etc etc etc
I just got off the phone with Paulie Tolkien by YackBacker	Dec 11th, 2006 10:15:57 AM
He says that you should all go see ROCKY BALBOA.
Childe Roland by Fawst	Dec 11th, 2006 10:16:27 AM
I made this point in a previous Talkback. If you were hired to do a job, you did it, and then found out that when you got paid, you didn't get paid what you should have, would you then go ahead and do another job for the person that hired you? I'm guessing no. He turned down their offer because their offer sucked. New Line is trying to bribe Jackson into dropping his lawsuit. Why? Because they know he's right. They are trying to get him to settle it so that they can get out of paying him what he deserves. At least, that's my interpretation. Then again, I still stand by my analogy. I wouldn't want to do a job for a boss that I know is going to shaft me. ESPECIALLY when my job performance far outshined their wildest dreams. Come on, a billion dollar franchise, and they're gonna pinch pennies? Jackson has the balls to stand up to the establishment. His pride is more important to him than getting a movie made, and I agree with that. I applaud it, in fact. As much as I want my Hobbit movie, I also don't want it done by anyone but Jackson. And I am fine with his decision.
Childe Roland, I understand what you're saying... by Mr Jonse	Dec 11th, 2006 10:24:49 AM
...but for all we know, the settlement NL offered him could have been an insult. Truth is we don't know what's going on behind the scenes (though in the 'money grabbing' stakes, logic would appear to incriminate the Major Hollywood Studio over the guy who spent years making low budget schlock just for the love of it). Your opinion that he's not the man to make the film is a matter of personal taste, but you seemed to be using more that a little conjecture about the financial stuff to back that opinion up.
alfonso cuaron could do it by occula	Dec 11th, 2006 10:51:52 AM
but unfortunately, it all doesn't matter. everyone's right about new line doing whatever the frak they want. there are numerous lawyers in numerous rooms doing things we'll never know about or understand regarding the lawsuit and new line's policy and if it came up at some point it's likely PJ would be on another project anyhow, since, well, the guy gets work, and he's not going to sit around with his thumbs up his ass waiting. and then the studio wouldn't wait either. and, to mr jonse...i myself am SMACK in the middle of the same situation (on a tiny scale, relatively, but you get the picture), a client is withholding payment from me and i'm instigating a lawsuit, and it doesn't matter one whit how much money it's for. i busted my ass doing a good job and i want the money owed to me...and i think PJ deserves his money too...but, again, all the lawyers in all the rooms...
Nude scene for Liv Tyler wouldn't go amiss either. by NachoNegro	Dec 11th, 2006 10:52:19 AM
Speed Fricassee has said it best so far. The sad thing is, Christopher Tolkien may have something to say about the Silmarillion, but he has nothing to say about the Hobbit - at least for another few years. I have no problem with another Director taking a crack at this - what I would have a problem with is ditching the TEAM that produced the films. I could even live without WETA - frankly, some of the CGI they produced was actually a little shaky. Go back and look at Gandalf on the horse when Denethor jumps in the flames. It looks like it's been produced for an XBox 360 - horribly rushed. As for the person saying that this story is just about Hobbits and Dwarves, I think the idea is that it will be extended somewhat to cover the parts only hinted at in the book. For instance? Gandalfs various machinations, the events leading up to the Battle of Five Armies, The rise of the necromancer AKA Sauron, Elrond, Radagast The Brown, the Quest of Erebor, etc. I have no doubt that there will be some element of revisionism applied, and story elements changed here and there to fit in 'new' material.
sigh i never type what i goddamned mean to by occula	Dec 11th, 2006 11:03:08 AM
sorry mr jonse, i think my post sort of came out wrong. i meant specifically to address the idea that what new line offered pj might have been an insult and then i said something that didn't really respond correctly to that - sounded like i was picking on the 'insult' comment. i meant to AGREE and say it doesn't matter how much money is involved, that there are principles for those of us who do our jobs. i don't do the same job that PJ does, and neither do any of us, but the world is full of assholes who want to get something for nothing out of those of us who work hard at whatever it is we do, and i believe some of those assholes MIGHT be film studio lawyers. just conjecture, really.
yeah hmmmm by chimcham3000	Dec 11th, 2006 11:28:47 AM
they have these things called editors that tell writers when they need some grammatical help. however why he needed to hire one to satisfy you fucking tits is beyond me.
sincere letter to fans+grammar nazis= by Datascream	Dec 11th, 2006 11:35:17 AM
ignored message + grandstanding asswipes.
if this is legitimate... by mrbong	Dec 11th, 2006 11:48:40 AM
the Tolkien family are going to be concerned about this Hobbit business because of a little thing called ROYALTIES. if PJ does not make it, there's some sort of "boycott" threatened. if he does now make it, many people will pay much money to see it as it has been "given back" to do by PJ. as for Mr Jackson, he made some excellent indie films, he did an ace job of turning out loyal film versions of really dull and cumbersome books, and then he blew it all on the mess that was King Kong. who cares who makes it? i have no need for even more homoerotic midgets waltzing around the shire, thank you.
but the homoeroticism was the best part by Freakemovie	Dec 11th, 2006 11:57:13 AM
every time Frodo and Sam have a gay moment, drink
I didn't know anyone from Tolkien's family liked PJ by Orionsangels	Dec 11th, 2006 12:00:55 PM
or his version of LOTR on the big screen.
Grammar? , Who gives a shit! by Evil_Imp	Dec 11th, 2006 12:33:02 PM
Who gives a shit about his Grammar? only petty little pissants who overlook the Body of the message and focus on what they can tear apart. that is a popular thing to do here.This is AICN after all . lol get a life. Correcting Bad Grammar does not an Intellect make.
Like PJ is the ONLY one capable of doing this?!!! by DarfurOnTheRocks	Dec 11th, 2006 12:34:08 PM
Why not give another director a shot at INTERPRETING Middle Earth? Where does it say that PJ is the preserver and guardian of all things Tolkien? I am glad that he made the LOTR trilogy. But this idea that ONLY PJ can do The Hobbit is simply wrong.
Grammar by Duke of Hurl	Dec 11th, 2006 12:40:00 PM
Indeed... Quint misspelled the man's name multiple times in the intro... think of that when you point a finger. Besides, J.R.R. was the writer.
sigh It'll end up going to Spielberg by Doctor_Sin	Dec 11th, 2006 12:50:22 PM
I can just smell it. One of my friends thinks George Lucas should do it, just to piss off every aspect of fantasy fandom. "We need more CGI dwarves!!!!"
Childe Roland is Right by DeeJay	Dec 11th, 2006 12:57:09 PM
I don’t fault Jackson for trying to leverage for more money. I do, however, think it’s inaccurate to roundly say he was “cheated,” as that implies that he was told he’d be paid the amount he claims he was worth. Such is actually not the basis for his suit. His role as film director of these properties is much like that of Sean Connery. He’s widely recognized as the greatest of James Bonds, but not the first nor the last. Beyond this, having a different director for “The Hobbit” could, in the long run, be better for the world of film directors. Most fields aren’t hurt when they add another multimillionaire to their ranks, and that would be the likely result here. If anything is an issue in the wake of “Lord of the Rings,” it’s the tsunami of LOTR-ish films being cranked out in the wake of the trilogy’s success. Even stories that, in their original form, were not decidedly in the same vein are now being presented as Tolkein-like...
Orionsangels: Most family members take a cue from Chris by chrth	Dec 11th, 2006 01:54:57 PM
And refuse to endorse/detract any Tolkien project that's outside their immediate control. One of them who does speak up sometimes is Simon, who is (I believe) Chris' nephew and JRRT's grandson. The problem with Simon is that he's a lawyer, and I've never trusted him. A lot of people don't like Chris because he refuses to let his father's universe get EU'd, but they're idiots, to put it bluntly. I paraphrase Frodo regarding Aragorn when referring to Chris and Simon: Chris seems foul but feels fair, while Simon seems fair but feels foul. As for Royd, well, to be honest I've not heard of him before now. I kind of wonder, though, if he's Simon's son.
NEW DIRECTOR NEEDED by livingwater	Dec 11th, 2006 01:56:07 PM
....preferably a new face, someone talented...
Corrections to my previous post by chrth	Dec 11th, 2006 02:00:24 PM
Simon is actually Chris' son from his first marriage. Royd is not Simon's son (not sure if he's a nephew or cousin 1st removed). Still don't like Simon.
Get Kevin Smith To Do It! by DarfurOnTheRocks	Dec 11th, 2006 02:05:57 PM
Clerks II was awesome!
10 YEAR OLD RICH BRAT GRANDKID by SPECT	Dec 11th, 2006 02:10:06 PM
It's ridiculous that we have to listen to this 10 year old brat rich great grandkid whine about the Hobbit. He's only interested in the profits of these movies. Well you know what, Roid, or whatever your name is...finish elementary school first and then maybe we'll listen to you.
SPECT: Uh, Royd's in his mid-30s by chrth	Dec 11th, 2006 02:21:37 PM
And already has JRRT's Great Great Grandson running around the house.
I would also like to see someone else direct this. by superninja	Dec 11th, 2006 02:22:02 PM
After watching the Two Towers on t.v. yesterday, I have to say I think the films just aren't all that spectacular given the source material. Emphasis in the wrong places, downplaying character traits, unnecessary additions, etc. Don't get me wrong, there are some outstanding moments and very fine casting in some cases (Gandalf, Legolas, Gimli), but as with my impression in the theater, the films are lackluster. They even have a t.v. miniseries quality, if I may be so bold.
CHRTH: by SPECT	Dec 11th, 2006 02:27:16 PM
Well, he should then take his kid's pacifier and shove it in his own mouth!
superninja: was it regular or extended edition? by chrth	Dec 11th, 2006 02:27:45 PM
The Twin Towers is the one film that benefits the most from the extended edition treatment. I feel no need to watch the original of that one anymore.
Chrth, I'm not sure but I imagine its not the extended by superninja	Dec 11th, 2006 02:43:18 PM
version since it was on cable network?
Freakemovie by mrbong	Dec 11th, 2006 02:59:39 PM
dude, that's like every time they are onscreen together, and they have that special quasi-midget shirtlifter glint in their eyes. anyone who can watch all three films in a row and have a drink every time there is a gay moment will be crowned King (or, perhaps correctly) Queen of Drinkers. even if it is some sort of non-alcoholic thing.
Jackson by Shaw	Dec 11th, 2006 03:00:29 PM
The problem is, if you don't get Jackson you don't get Serkis, McKellen, etc.
Though I care not whether Jackson makes Hobbit... by anchorite	Dec 11th, 2006 03:09:23 PM
It seems fairly likely that New Line still owes Jackson a considerable sum of money from his work on the LOTR trilogy, and that they are simply trying to quickly gloss over the entire issue by making a sizable offer to Jackson to direct The Hobbit with some stipulation about not being able to pursue the LOTR issue any further. In that situation, Jackson would be a fool to accept the job when his previous grievance has yet to be resolved with New Line. He would actually be hurting himself in a legal sense if he accepted the Hobbit directing gig because it would be hard at that point to argue in a court of law that New Line was giving him such a raw deal on LOTR that he chose to work with them again on the Hobbit! Jackson doesn't seem like a fool to me. And as for the question as to whether or not New Line likely owes Jackson a great deal of money from the LOTR trilogy: when I worked for Paramount I was privy to a great deal of information that opened my eyes as to how the studio finance departments operate. Scoundrels and brigands, they are. They actually tried (and almost succeeded) to make it look as if Forrest Gump had been a loss for the studio! The bean-counters at the studios are expert at massaging numbers and cooking books to make things look grim for those they have financial obligations to. It would actually surprise me more to find out that New Line didn't owe Jackson a great sum of money. In any case, if you want to be pissed at Peter Jackson for wanting to collect as much money as he thinks he is owed for his work on creating the life-saving franchise for new Line pictures, go right ahead. If you want to be pissed at New Line for not ponying up the money PJ thinks he is rightly owed, feel free. It won't change a thing, Royd rage or not. Ultimately, I believe SOMEONE will make the Hobbit movie because there is too much money potentially to be made from it. Hollywood isn't at all interested in continuity of creative vision. They have shareholders to please, many of which aren't even avid filmgoers. I suggest you go watch Eragon this weekend and thank your lucky stars for being given the opportunity to see fantasy films at all.
It's not the lack of PJ that will hurt the Hobbit by Fawst	Dec 11th, 2006 03:29:07 PM
It's the lack of ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE ELSE INVOLVED in the LOTR that will go out the door with him. You lose PJ, you lose WETA, you lose Serkis, you lose all the actors. Did I miss anyone? So yah, I'm pretty sure that you CAN'T do The Hobbit and have it look as authentic as LOTR without PJ. Eragon? Looks pathetic. Lion/Witch/Wardrobe? Looked cartoonish. Harry Potter, while good, still has that off feel to it. LOTR was 100% believable that that world existed. No one can duplicate that but WETA. Maybe ILM would come close, but that still doesn't cut it. It's a package deal, take one aspect away, you may as well lose the whole thing, because it won't gel. No Serkis? No Gollum. That's an immediate no-no. No WETA? No EVERYTHING. Well now, that can't be lived with either. No Jackson? No leader. The rest falls apart. I'm sorry, but my opinion (which I fully admit is mine and I hold no one to believe it) is that The Hobbit should either not be made, or be made RIGHT. As in, with PJ. In case you missed the whole point of this post.
Difficulties? Two words...Brett Ratner! by biggles2_22	Dec 11th, 2006 03:40:41 PM
Sure, PJ would be a great choice. But when a movie hangs in limbo like this one, you gotta call the guy who can make it happen with almost professional directing capabilities that leave the likes of Uwe Boll in the dust!
"Before the films were made...." by datachasm	Dec 11th, 2006 03:43:37 PM
"i held massive reservations and fears that JRRT and LOTR would be used as merely a tool in producing revenue and ultimately a substandard film." nothing pissed me off more than LOTR coming out once a year instead of every 3 months... and then the 20 versions on DVD and all the other crap saturating the market. i wanna see someone else do "The Hobbit"... if its another PJ affair that digs into my pockets 50 times ill not bother seeing this film, no matter how many millions of dollars they spend to tell me " i just gotta see this"
PLANTS IS RIGHT by antonphd	Dec 11th, 2006 03:51:03 PM
Fuckheads from New Line should stay the fuck out of here or at least say who they are.
I think the last two Potter films beat LOTR hands down. by superninja	Dec 11th, 2006 03:53:46 PM
In terms of character, charm and atmosphere. But I'm probably alone in that. Easier source material, no doubt. :) However, you are right about Narnia being b-o-r-i-n-g! What a shame. Anchorite, it's probably true they are trying to stiff Jackson. I wouldn't cut a deal with them if that's the case. But I don't think we should feel lucky that we get anything at all. Just look at the SW prequels.
datachasm by antonphd	Dec 11th, 2006 03:54:06 PM
Dumbass, they were working on the films up to the release of each one. that' the production deal they had to work around. they weren't holding it off so they could get more money. and there are not 20 versions on DVD. there are what? 2-3?
Actually, Jonse, the financials and my personal... by Childe Roland	Dec 11th, 2006 04:12:35 PM
...opinion on Jackson's suitability for the source material should be read with mutual exclusivity. And that's what I'm arguing for in terms of everyone looking at and reacting to updates on the "negotiations" (which seem to be playing themselves out more in the form of orchestrated strongarm tactics favoring PJ's side of things while he just sits there and shrugs blamelessly). You've revealed your bias in your juxtaposition of "the Major Hollywood Studio over the guy who spent years making low budget schlock just for the love of it." PJ obviously made enough money to graduate from the Dead Alives of the world to the Frighteners to the kind of budget and trust necessary to pull off the Rings trilogy, so to imply that he suffered harder or longer than many in his industry on the way up is a romanticization of his career path and motives. Ultimately, he does what he wants (see King King, which was pretty much just for him) and he's paid for it. Must be rough. I've got nothing at all against PJ. In fact, I love what he did with the Rings books in adapting them to film. And he is entitled to ask for what he feels he's worth. But the studio is also entitled to not pay that if they don't think, after a cost/benefit analysis, that they need to spend that much to make this movie well. There's nothing underhanded or evil or unprecedented in the way they're approaching this. The fact that my personal opinion is that PJ misses the point of the Hobbit if he thinks its a Rings prequel is probably why I can see more clearly where New Line is coming from. I've read that book (The Hobbit) perhaps ten times more than any one of the Rings books (each of which I've read about five times in my too-many years), and I think PJ wants to change the essence and point of it to make it fit more snugly with his ultra real cinematic adaptation of the Rings books. This is completely unnecessary. In his Rings movies you got the sense of a world that had turned dark rather quickly and in which magic had been pushed back into the shadows even as the more fantastic of creatures (Trolls, Balrog) had been driven underground or out of sight. It was a world that might've until recently been quite fantastical and magical and (at least through a Hobbit's eyes) often whimsical. That's the tone and feel you need for The Hobbit. Not a two-movie stage setter featuring characters, themes and plot points that never occurred anywhere but in Tolkien's appendices. Does recognizing this allow me to more readily see things from New Line's perspective? Sure. But it doesn't cloud my ability to see that both New Line and PJ are in this for the money, ultimately. New Line offered PJ a sum in exchange for his not pursuing a (presumably) greater sum AND the opportunity to make a film he claims to be passuionate about (not ot mention the ancillary benefit of even more money to be made from that film). You can try to call it a bribe (if you're Fawst) but that's being naive. It's what settlements are and it's NEVER an admission of guilt or wrongdoing (in fact, most are structured specifically to avoid that issue entirely). PJ turned it down. The truth is, you want the offer to have been an insult (and would probably view it as such regardless of how high it was revealed to be) because then the image of PJ as the artist with integrity and vision would be untainted by nasty, dirty capitalism. Hell, I wish that were true, too. But it very obviously isn't, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. Business sense and personal taste have coexisted (though almost never peacefully) for as long as Hollywood has been a tourist attraction. In fact, any time someone pays for anything designed specifically to entertain them, that symbiotic relationship grows stronger. How did you think PJ was able to gain all that weight he recently lost in the first place? He's certainly not going hungry now for a lack of money to buy food with. As for the loss of WETA to The Hobbit if PJ weren't involved, yeah, that'd be a shame. But it's not like a competent effects house couldn't pattern their work on WETA's designs (readily available to all with a rental fee even if they didn;t have studio access) and change the visuals up enough to convey the very different atmosphere that is required for The Hobbit. The loss of MacKellan as Gandalf (assuming he's joined to PJ's hip) would be a tragedy and ditto for Weaving's Elrond, but not insurmountable. And the loss of Holm would be for the best as Bilbo was younger in The Hobbit and would have to be quite agile. Serkis isn't necessary for the brief role Gollum plays in this story. I've heard about fifty people do a more-than-serviceable impersonation of him in character since the Rings films came out and Gollum's actions would be largely shrouded in the deep shadow of the mountains for this film. So let's try to keep things in perspective. Really, those all worked up over the travesty a Jacksonless Hobbit would so surely be (please read the eight words preceding this parenthetical with the appropriate sarcasm) are either: A.) not very familiar with the source material, B.) fear change or the unfamiliar in general, or C.) are on PJ's payroll. Any combination thereof would also make for a perfectly good excuse to bitch about this whole deal.
What is the buzz on Eragon? No reviews by superninja	Dec 11th, 2006 04:22:45 PM
is not good news. Also, twin hams Malkovitch AND Irons. The lead looks like a WB kid.
Uwe Boll.... by BillyPilgrim	Dec 11th, 2006 04:25:16 PM
Needs a chance at this movie. It would be cinematic gold(en shower). Seriously now, Michael Bay. Bruce Campbell as golem. Mark Hamil as Bilbo. The options are endless. This flick just might be as good as Dungeons and Dragons the movie.
Childe Rowland, I am with you on this. by superninja	Dec 11th, 2006 04:30:01 PM
The Hobbit does not need the gritty LOTR treatment. The loss of McKellen's Gandalf would be nearly insurmountable, though. He is the best part of the LOTR. Not so much Mr. Smith as an elf or the rest of the cast. Are we sure that Mr. McKellen can not be persuaded by sheer greed?
Well, superninja... by Childe Roland	Dec 11th, 2006 04:48:34 PM
...Sir Ian had no trouble doing X3 after Singer left the franchise, so it's not as if there isn't some precedent for money overriding director loyalty with the guy. I do agree, he would be the biggest loss and the hardest to overcome. But how many dumbledore's has Potter had now? Just askin'.
Cedar_Room by WONKABAR	Dec 11th, 2006 05:03:06 PM
I know Never Say Never Again was a remake of Thunderball...everybody knows that. Clearly, it and Octopussy are different films. What I was getting at was the situation in which two studios/producers had the rights to the same characters/franchise, and both put out movies around the same time. If New Line rushes out a PJ-less Hobbit film before their time expires, we could very well see PJ come out with a NL-less Hobbit movie later on. ie dueling Hobbits. The non-PJ flick would be released in future DVD box-sets with LOTR included, and considered the "official" prequel by NL. While a PJ Hobbit flick would be outside the NL-canon, but considered the "real-deal" by many fans. So, it would be a similar SITUATION to what happened in 1983 with Bond. NSSA = the non-Bond-franchise Connery flick, while Octo = the non-Connery "Bond" flick. Get it?
Sean Connery as Gandalf? by Doctor_Sin	Dec 11th, 2006 05:03:54 PM
"If I shay he ish a Burglar, a Burglar he ish."
Jackson can go - WETA needs to stay... by Knugen	Dec 11th, 2006 05:09:05 PM
Well, Philipa Arsecunt Boynes needs to go anyway. To Davy Jone's Locker! YARR!
Brett Ratner can do it. He can emulate anything by George Newman	Dec 11th, 2006 05:20:39 PM
I can't believe I just tried to make that joke. I, uh, oh gaw...BARF OOOOOOARRGGGGGGGHHHHHguh. AAAAAAOOOOOOGHHHHH, huk, huk, HUUUUUURRWWWWOOOOOAGGGHHHHAGAG AGAG, cOugh, FFFIFF. sigh. It's really burning in my nose
Knugen by antonphd	Dec 11th, 2006 05:31:33 PM
Peter Jackson owns half of WETA. Yeah. No Peter Jackson and no WETA.
Cool! Royd Tolkien's Myspace Link ! by Ringwearer9	Dec 11th, 2006 05:41:49 PM
I just popped over there and let him know what was what. Man, the guy has bad taste in music! And what's with writing everything in lower case? He does NOT sound like a really literate guy. A nice guy, but how often has he read his grampa's books? I'll bet no more than once, if that.
I actually prefer Gambon to Harris by superninja	Dec 11th, 2006 05:46:10 PM
(a much more subtle actor), but getting to your point, McKellen is such a fine actor and so instantly iconic as Gandalf, that I can't think of anyone who could replace him - sorry! Christopher Lee's Saruman is quite disposable, though.
Ringwearer9 by antonphd	Dec 11th, 2006 05:49:13 PM
I'm sure Tolkien would side with obsessive readers over his own children for sure.
I was going to say... by superninja	Dec 11th, 2006 05:51:34 PM
how well do you know his children?
Actually Antonphd... by Ringwearer9	Dec 11th, 2006 05:52:54 PM
He probably would, given that he practically disowned one of his sons for disagreeing with him.
How long will it be before DocPazuzu and Nice Gaius ... by Ringwearer9	Dec 11th, 2006 05:56:17 PM
... start posting about how much I love Nazis over on Royd's blog? 5, 4, 3, 2 ....
Why does WETA need to stay, Knugen? by Ringwearer9	Dec 11th, 2006 06:00:01 PM
I mean, their conceptions of the Dark Tower and Saruman's war factories were pathetic, and showed little imagination. The only other project I know they've done was "Chronicles of Narnia" and that was disastrous (though perhaps they were working to "spec" and we really can't blame them. The movie was hideous overall, not just the special effects). I'd really like to see a group that weren't handpicked admirers of Jackson's lousy taste.
Now now now.... by TomBodet	Dec 11th, 2006 06:01:30 PM
Wasn't Royd in Return of the King? Had that real JRR Face-easy to spot him. Gets killed by orc, etc. Kinda cool. How about this one for ya Ringy? "Sir Petey-He'll do for The Hobbit what he Did for KONG!" or "Sir Petey-Re-Writin' Tolkien Again-yessir, this time it's Jimmy and Mr. Hayes again! Falling still from their logroll of Death, they have landed upon a heap of Goblin Shite inside The Misty Mtns. Get ready for Gollum and a breakdancing Tire Iron. Sure to be worthy additions to all involved. Stay tuned for Jack Black cameo as Bard."
Director by Cobbio	Dec 11th, 2006 06:11:39 PM
Peter Jackson will NEVER direct "The Hobbit" prior to his multi-million dollar lawsuit with New Line being settled. That's the sticking point. If the suit doesn't get settled, someone else directs the film. It's as simple as that. I guess I'm hopeful that Jackson will direct "The Hobbit," but I can think of about ten other directors who would also do a fantastic job of it. Jackson set the standard by which all fantasy movies will be judged for years to come, but I'm certain a different director for "The Hobbit" could blow audiences away with his or her interpretation of the book too.
Nay, Ringbearer9! Nay, I say!!! by Mr. Nice Gaius	Dec 11th, 2006 06:21:14 PM
I won't start posting about your love of Nazis. However, I just got done reading the sad (but HI-LARIOUS) tale of your bannishment in The Zone. Shall I cut-n-paste it here & there for everyone's edification? It would certainly stand to counter your ridiculous assessments of the Dark Tower or Saruman's machinations. Cause insanity cannot be taken seriously, you see?
Hmmm....Jack Black kind of looks like Bilbo. by superninja	Dec 11th, 2006 06:30:03 PM
Just sayin'.
Peter Jackson blows goats... he's a greedy snivily tard by wolvenom	Dec 11th, 2006 06:36:38 PM
Granted the first Fellowship of the Ring was done well and faithful to the books but i cant figure for the life of me why his grandson thinks he was faithful to the last two books. Has he even read his grandfather's trilogy? Peter Jackson completely butchered the story in terms of being faithful to the books for the last two books. He was only interested in huge fight scenes and battles (a masterbatory display of CGI)....the dialogue was lost in the last two films, and whole sections from the books were ignored. As we've seen from recent diarreah showings of huge battle scenes in cinema (Alexander, Troy, etc) audiences are getting rather bored with the huge battle scene bullshit. AND WE ALL KNOW EXACTLY HOW FUCKING LONG AND BORING PETER JACKSON IS GOING TO WANT TO MAKE THE BATTLE OF FIVE ARMIES!! DONT TELL ME YOU SERIOUSLY WANT TO SIT THROUGH A FUCKING HOUR OF THAT CRAP OF SHITTY CAMERA WORK AROUND HACKING AND SLASHING AND GIANT ENDLESS SWEEPING CAMERA PANS OF CGI CREATURES DUKING IT OUT TEN TIMES WORSE THAN WHAT WAS IN THE LAST TWO LORD OF THE RINGS MOVIES. As for peter jackson's letter to the fans he showed his true colors about how much of a greedy money grubbing tard he is. And I hope he gets his up and commings. I personally would love to see a new director take on the hobbit. Maybe they'll actually stay fucking faithful to the book which was a fucking children's book might I add. No council of the istari or bs sauruman crap in there anywhere like he was wanting to put in. Maybe we'll actually get a director who WAS A FUCKING FAN OF JRR TOLKIEN.. not some douche who read the book ONCE when he was a teenager and then just SKIMMED THROUGH IT FOR THE GOOD PARTS WHILE HE WAS FILMING IT. So fuck off with the peter jackson loving.
As for "practically disowning one of his sons"... by Mr. Nice Gaius	Dec 11th, 2006 06:39:38 PM
...don't you mean Christopher and his son (Simon), not J.R.R.?
wolvenom by Mr. Nice Gaius	Dec 11th, 2006 06:43:33 PM
Did you just plop out of Ringy's ass?!
Get Alfonso Cuarón by superninja	Dec 11th, 2006 06:45:45 PM
He would make an excellent Hobbit film.
Well said, Wolvenom ... by Ringwearer9	Dec 11th, 2006 06:50:47 PM
... well said.
There are no Plants from New Line here. by Ringwearer9	Dec 11th, 2006 06:55:49 PM
Only angry and betrayed Tolkien fans, who hope New Line realizes that Jackson's overweening sense of self-importance and entitlement spell disaster for the the quality of future films made with him. Dumb Jackson, New Line! Dump him fast, dump him hard, dump him upside down in his own pile of manure. Make the new film without him!
Gaius by half vader	Dec 11th, 2006 06:56:42 PM
Post it, man. Paste away, I say.
Half Vader, the story is simple. by Ringwearer9	Dec 11th, 2006 07:02:06 PM
I posted something in response to a Moriarty thread, then Adam Balm (who runs the zone) suddenly announced me banned before Moriarty could reply to me. He claimed that I had been raving around the Zone posting profanity laden anti-Moriarty spam everywhere. I don't know whether Adam was an idiot, who can't read IP logs to see if seperate posters are indeed the same, or if he just got scared because the cranky Moriarty was being made crankier by my presence, and pretended I had been posting spam all over to avoid Moriarty's wrath, or to suck up to him. But I posted nothing other than the posts that are still there, and that remain undeleted. If the Zone rampager actually existed, I think there were obvious alternate candidates than myself, who was already participating openly in the forum.
Oh, and Ratfinkus .... by Ringwearer9	Dec 11th, 2006 07:07:27 PM
... don't you ever think, before you post, "won't people see me as a slimy little tattletale?" or is that how you reall want people to see you?
RE: "a slimy little tattletale"??? by Mr. Nice Gaius	Dec 11th, 2006 07:14:08 PM
Abso-fuckin'-lutely not. More like a stalwart whistleblower. Because you see Ringy, sometimes the insane need to be reminded of their insanity. It also serves as a public service to those to who don't know any better.
That's nice, Ratfinkus. by Ringwearer9	Dec 11th, 2006 07:23:39 PM
Whatever helps you live with the shame.
half vader by Mr. Nice Gaius	Dec 11th, 2006 07:27:54 PM
The beauty of Ringy's bannishment in The Zone was not so much the circumstances (we've all seen his insanity in TB) as it was the severe ownage delivered unto him by Mori right before the punishment was delivered. Adam Balm's actions came afterwards. And I'm sure the true nature of Balm's actions vs. Ringy's claims could easily be verified by the mods of The Zone. Yes, despite what you may think Ringodoodles - they are quite adept at identifying IP logs...
DocPazuz and Mr. Nice Gaius are the same person... by wolvenom	Dec 11th, 2006 07:30:08 PM
this is true. DO NOT DENY IT!!!
Even more worrisome, Ringledingle9... by Mr. Nice Gaius	Dec 11th, 2006 07:31:27 PM
...is why you come out of the woodwork only when there is a Tolkien/Peter Jackson TB on AICN. It's an obsession that seems to border on madness. It's most unsettling and more than a little creepy.
And wolvenom, you must be... by Mr. Nice Gaius	Dec 11th, 2006 07:32:54 PM
...zfisk/homewrecker?
Nice Gaius, no Ownage was delivered by Mori. by Ringwearer9	Dec 11th, 2006 07:35:55 PM
He announced that he had written up a reply, lost it, and seeing as Adam had banned me, that it was just as well that he hadn't posted it. Adam banned me first. You have history wrong. Adam did NOT check the ip logs, because he banned someone else, assuming it was me. But from what he described, it was probably the pissed off Goatzinger. (forgive me Goaty, if I am slandering you) who had been reposting my reviews of Kong all over the place.
lastly, im sick of those like Peter Jackson who think by wolvenom	Dec 11th, 2006 07:36:17 PM
they're the next god damn spielberg and are entitled to overflowing chests of gold, tiaras, and diamonds because they made big on one fucking film (ie lotr). Frighteners was garbage, king kong was garbage, heavenly creatures was decent, and im sorry but meet the feebles and bad taste were garbage as well. So all in all if we average all his films out he becomes a mediocre director... and I dont see why he thinks he should be raking in the cash from LOTR as much as he thinks he should be. If anyone made that fucking trilogy happen, it was New Line, and the producers protecting their investment... not fucking peter jackson's mediocrity.
Mr. RatGaius, your concern is appreciated. by Ringwearer9	Dec 11th, 2006 07:39:24 PM
except it's a flimsy cover for your snivelling ratfinkery. No one is fooled. Go back to licking Pazuzu's toe cheese.
boycott... by tibbar	Dec 11th, 2006 07:46:20 PM
if PJ isnt doing the hobbit, im not going... simple as that
No, Ringydingy... by Mr. Nice Gaius	Dec 11th, 2006 07:47:55 PM
...there is a very specific post that occurs before the one you are referencing. And you know exactly which one I'm talking about. The timeline of my previous post is correct. And though it may very well be that the person(s) Adam banned was someone else, the point is that you were also banned in kind. But we digress. By all means, continue you personal assault and crusade against all things PJ. I'll let your obsession speak for itself.
Ah, but RatGaius, I don't care. You wanted to post it. by Ringwearer9	Dec 11th, 2006 07:51:55 PM
Backing out? Lying little weasel.
Tibbar, Jackson Shmackson by Ringwearer9	Dec 11th, 2006 07:56:04 PM
Did you go see the movies because you knew Jackson was directing them? You like them anyway, didn't you? Try the same thing with the next director. You might be pleasantly surprised.
RE: "your concern is appreciated." by Mr. Nice Gaius	Dec 11th, 2006 07:57:30 PM
Well, if it makes you feel better Ringo, the Zonies just had their Annual Zone Awards. Amongst their numerous creative endeavors was an "In Memoriam" segment which scrolled the names of all the bannished trolls. Be comforted to know that your name appeared like a champ.
Naw Ringy. by TomBodet	Dec 11th, 2006 08:01:17 PM
I got banned w/ the Kong-doodle stuff but it wasn't in the Zone, been there once or twice max, I think. I enjoyed the 88 line, point by point, 'bats aren't strong enough to carry Kong' or whatever stuff you wrote, and if it pissed off some of the Mods here, you know it was well worth the being banned. Besides. Your sheer tenacity, pick-gnat-shit-outta-pepper and just plain jet black pure-d HATRED of all things Sir Petey Jax is simply very much worth witnessing, gits me right There. I honestly don't even Dislike the Lotr flicks, though HERE THERE BE A NON-VERN APPROVED NICKNAME Jurassic_Kong was Frighteningly, madly deserving of as many Bay City Roller-like brick bats as was possible to dump upon it's bloated, saggy, self-indulgent, putrid hyde. I will however be sure to Still defend All_Things Mikey_Bay, though am sure that's a cause for complete and total regurgitation if I'm not careful or from Iceland.
If New Line absolutely insists on a new director by Orbots Commander	Dec 11th, 2006 08:04:14 PM
for THE HOBBIT, they could do worse than hire like someone above mentioned, Alfonso Cuaron or even a guy like George Miller. Miller knows how to do sweeping action and children's movies as well---HAPPY FEET and the BABE movies. Of course, at the end of the day the studio is going to do what they're going to do. I suspect that they'll go with someone hacky like Joel Schumacher, Ratner, McG or Ian Whats-his-name who directed K-Pax.
Bingo by NachoNegro	Dec 11th, 2006 08:13:07 PM
"Chris seems foul but feels fair, while Simon seems fair but feels foul.". Now this is a comment from someone who has read the fucking book. There is an army of fuckwits on this site who haven't read a book in their lives - and if you don't understand this reference, you have no fucking business commenting on this franchise, bottom line. Well said sir.
New Line WILL have to take from some other... by NoHubris	Dec 11th, 2006 08:23:28 PM
...successful franchise like one of the Harry Potter directors to hedge its bet - SMART THINKING Superninja. If not Alfonso Cuarón, then maybe Chris Columbus, Mike Newell, or David Yates. I wouldn't even be surprised if Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) ended up as Bilbo to make sure they filled up the seats...For the record, though, I prefer PJ.
Thanks, NachoNegro (&Ringwearer9) by chrth	Dec 11th, 2006 08:30:26 PM
I feel warm and appreciated now. Ringwearer9: I can understand that you didn't like what PJ did with LotR ... but since a lot more people did like it, wouldn't it make better sense just to let PJ do it and have a 'complete set'? I mean, I like the Hobbit and all, but it pales in comparison to LotR in my opinion, and I'm content to let PJ do it. Whether or not you agree with what PJ kept in or took out (do NOT get me started on Denethor or 'no man may kill me'), at least he delivered a quality viewing experience. I mean, have you seen the Eragon trailers? Ugh. Manwe forbid we get Smaug looking like that.
How about not making it? by bender7	Dec 11th, 2006 08:31:32 PM
After Superman and Fantastic 4 and with Transformers and TMNT, I'm sick of childhood rape
bender7: We'll always have the Rankin-Bass version by chrth	Dec 11th, 2006 08:33:08 PM
Just slap it in the DVD Player and let yourself go ... down down to goblin town
Peter will make it...no doubt. by Burning_Tyger	Dec 11th, 2006 08:48:53 PM
I have actually been warming to the idea of another person making the Hobbit. But it doesn't matter, because this film cannot be made without Peter at the helm. At least not for a long time. Here is why: New Line can't make the film without MGM's blessing. MGM will not give their blessing to any version of the Hobbit that doesn't have PJ at the helm. New Line's lisence to make the film will eventually expire, at which point MGM will have control. Who do you think they will get to direct the film? Bottom line: Peter Jackson will direct this film or it just won't get made.
Chrth, Eragon truly looks Awful, but whose fault is it by Ringwearer9	Dec 11th, 2006 08:53:58 PM
I't Jackson's and WETA's! That's the style every shitty fantasy film is imitating, the gray CGI, "gritty" fantasy, low budget directors. The chances of getting some FUN LOTR ripoffs is practically nil.
Gaius, what a nice In Memoriam! by Ringwearer9	Dec 11th, 2006 09:22:00 PM
To think that I only posted 2 posts max in the Zone, and I'm listed third in the list! But, although I like the pic of the kid playing with scissors, I don't quite get the joke ...
Why not give Joel Schumacher a shot?!! by RetroActive	Dec 11th, 2006 09:31:09 PM
Hobbit children with hairy feet AND hairy nipples! And maybe they could throw in a super duper hobbit girl who's secretly Gandalf's niece...can you you all smell the piles money?!!
I'm with Wolvey and Ringey by Ben-Thayer Dunnthaedt	Dec 11th, 2006 09:46:06 PM
Yep....lovely piece of visuals PJ's version was, but in terms of adaptations? Not a chance. Rankin-Bass was closer to the original storyline. Anyone familiar with Earl Hamner Jr.'s discussion of his adaptation of Charlotte's Web? The first rule of adapting a story is: DO NO HARM. Forgive me, but I don't recall Tolkien having very much to say about dwarf tossing. It was nothing short of appalling what Jackson and Co. did with their depiction of a very noble character (Gimli of course). But blah blah blah "Jackson is a demi-god, he made quatrillions of dollars on those films." I for one am patiently waiting for Tolkien's story to be adapted...accurately. So sure...let PJ direct. Just so long as he and his wife aren't allowed anywhere near whatever writing (adapting) utensils are available for the project. And that goes double for Flip-offa Boyens.
Ringy... by Mr. Nice Gaius	Dec 11th, 2006 10:31:31 PM
Factually, you managed to post 6 times before bannishment. WOW.
As for the scissors... by Mr. Nice Gaius	Dec 11th, 2006 10:42:26 PM
I think it's alluding to someone who runs with them...
Ringwearer9 by antonphd	Dec 11th, 2006 10:55:02 PM
Could you please tell us which movies you have produced and directed? While you are at it, please tell us which fantasy movies. I'd just like to know where your confident criticism of the LOTR movies comes from. Please don't tell me it's simply from being a fan of the books, please, that's bullshit. I want to know what films you've made. Please. List them out. Don't pussy out either. I want to know.
Ringwearer9 by antonphd	Dec 11th, 2006 10:55:31 PM
Could you please tell us which movies you have produced and directed? While you are at it, please tell us which fantasy movies. I'd just like to know where your confident criticism of the LOTR movies comes from. Please don't tell me it's simply from being a fan of the books, please, that's bullshit. I want to know what films you've made. Please. List them out. Don't pussy out either. I want to know.
Ringwearer9 by antonphd	Dec 11th, 2006 10:55:59 PM
Could you please tell us which movies you have produced and directed? While you are at it, please tell us which fantasy movies. I'd just like to know where your confident criticism of the LOTR movies comes from. Please don't tell me it's simply from being a fan of the books, please, that's bullshit. I want to know what films you've made. Please. List them out. Don't pussy out either. I want to know.
wtf, multi-posts by antonphd	Dec 11th, 2006 10:56:44 PM
ok, that was weird
superninja is now officially the opposite of me by mortsleam	Dec 11th, 2006 11:46:07 PM
Thank god I never have to pay attention to any more of her posts. Jackson and company did a fantastic job, much better than was anticipated, much better than should have been done given the times in which we live and the business in which they work. They were three films filled with heart, passion, and talent, on ample display, for which they were roundly, justly rewarded. There were problems, yes, and flaws, to be sure, and a better sereis of films might have somehow been made... but I think this is about as good as we are likely to get in this reality, and as it is it's pretty damn good. Going forward, it seems best to let Jackson go off and do what he wants to do next, follow his own passions and not be tied down to MIddle Earth. He shouldn't make the Hobbit just for money, and neither should New Line, for that matter. Unless they can get someone with a real love of the source material, and a vision for recreating that world on film, they shouldn't rush it. At best, it will be Termintor 3 or X-Men 3: rushed, empty, only intermittently entertaining spectacles. At worst: Queen of the Damned. Or X-Men 3. (I vacillate a lot on that one.) I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Get PJ to exec produce, WETA, Lee and Howe to do the design and effects, hire McKellan, Serkis and Weaving to reprise their roles, get Kenneth Branagh in there as 50-year old Bilbo, and give the director reigns to Cuaron. Or fuck, give it to me. I love the book, I'd be respectful of the tone, and yet mindful of the LOTR movies, I've written a handful of scripts, directed one ten-miute live action short and one four-minute animated short. I could use the money. C'MON!!!!!
mortsleam by antonphd	Dec 11th, 2006 11:59:17 PM
I couldn't possibly agree with you more(lol except giving it to you, sorry). I think you have it best. I am scared shitless that NL will get someone as great as Cuaron but without the support of WETA and Lee and Howe and the returning actors. I personally think a PJ and Cuaron team would make a PERFECT Hobbit movie. I think having Cuaron's touch to The Hobbit would make it a magically wonder. I love the LOTR movies for so many reasons, but I would actually prefer Cuaron's touch on the Hobbit but keeping the continuity like he did with the Harry Potter movie.
It's not so mysterious, antonphd by Ringwearer9	Dec 12th, 2006 12:18:18 AM
After you posted, you got a wierd blank page, backed up to your message, posted it again, got the same wierd blank page, backed up to your message and posted it again. At this point, you probably got the same wierd blank page again, you decided to refresh the talkback and voila! The full horror of your folly was revealed!
Too Soon!!! by grievenom	Dec 12th, 2006 12:33:28 AM
i can go another 20 years without hearing from the And-royd.
Ringy's Kong review by DocPazuzu	Dec 12th, 2006 12:37:43 AM
It's been referenced in this talkback, and most of us already know how insane Ringy is -- a true hater if there ever was one, but for those of you who haven't read Ringy's nine-page(!) talkback review of KK, either post your e-mail address here or seek me out in the Zone and I'll send you a copy. Trust me, it's worth it.
hey ringdork#9 by tibbar	Dec 12th, 2006 12:59:10 AM
i DID go see them just because they were directed by peter jackson, as a matter of fact. see, i didnt go in there all willy-nilly for some elves... i went in a peter jackson fan, having loved his films like dead alive and heavenly creatures for years before hand. oh and someones complaint about the frighteners??? at least he had the balls to try something so ambitious way before the technology/budget allowed him to really perfect it. yeh, how about how peter jackson elevated film-making as an artform in a society that views tits and explosions as high brow???? yeh... almost forgot about that? lotr is an epic... jackson made it epic
Well, what can I say? I'm picky. by superninja	Dec 12th, 2006 01:48:04 AM
I still think the last two (and last two only) Potter films are the ones to beat. Which is why I suggested Cuaron handle The Hobbit. His Potter film was flawless for its atmosphere, charm and character. LOTR films have some good moments, but overreliance on CGI and lack of character focus and tone, sorry, just doesn't cut it.
Isn't the SILMARILLION where it should be heading?!? by CarmillaVonDoom	Dec 12th, 2006 02:36:15 AM
10-15 more years, and people will finally get on board. This is one of the best books ever written.
Ringwearer9 by antonphd	Dec 12th, 2006 02:36:43 AM
no dork, i lied. i just wanted to make sure you saw the post. i'm waiting for you answer. tell me about the films you've made.
Ringwearer9 by antonphd	Dec 12th, 2006 02:38:03 AM
no dork, i lied. i just wanted to make sure you saw the post. i'm waiting for you answer. tell me about the films you've made.
Ringwearer9 by antonphd	Dec 12th, 2006 02:38:24 AM
no dork, i lied. i just wanted to make sure you saw the post. i'm waiting for you answer. tell me about the films you've made.
Ringwearer9 by antonphd	Dec 12th, 2006 02:44:39 AM
hell, tell me what creative thing you have ever done so we can see if you know shit about what you are talking about. i'm guessing you are a talentless consumer idiot. but please, go ahead, tell us about what you've done and we'll talk about your shit the way you do Peter Jackson LOTR movies.
Ringwearer9 by antonphd	Dec 12th, 2006 02:46:04 AM
don't pussy out on me now. you want to talk shit, you better be man enough to let us see your creative endevours.
Ringwearer9 by antonphd	Dec 12th, 2006 02:57:32 AM
I've worked professionally as a Radio Announcer for a Radio Station, Graphic Artist and Editor for a Newspaper, Digital Imager and Composer for Wildlife Photography, Graphic Artist and Programmer for Art Galleries and many Artists and finally I am a producer making Games. That's my professional artistic experience. I know what it is like to have every fuckhead and his sister tell professionals how much better they could do their job while these half wits have no fucking clue what it takes to do the job. I've only worked in TV and Film as an ametuer, but especially in games I can extrapolate the work it takes to produce a trilogy like the LOTR by Peter Jackson and anyone who says shit about them is a fucking retard who doesn't have a clue about making professional art. I have my opinions, but I don't talk shit about people's work like I could do it better because I have respect for the work it takes to do movies. Sure, when an asshole throws together a movie to cash in on some fad it sucks, but when someone like Peter Jackson champions making LOTR when no one else would have touched it for decades you don't give them shit because some how some way the films could have been better or because you don't like the way they turned out?! Have some respect for the decade of his life he spent making the films. Don't be such an ignorant dickhead.
Childe Roland, sorry I'm only replying now.... by Mr Jonse	Dec 12th, 2006 03:15:57 AM
...but I only just finished reading your post Ba-Dum-Bum-TSHHH! Yeah, my bias is with the artist over the conglomerate. Isn't this the ususal position of a fan of any type of art? Your opinions on the financial situation between PJ and NL, and your opinion about his suitability for The Hobbit may well be mutually exclusive, but you can't deny that you're using one to frame the other. Your argument as to why he shouldn't direct is valid and well thought out (though I don't agree with it). Why put it alongside your personal take on who's the 'bad guy' and who's the 'good guy' in a dispute over money that could just as easily be spun in favour of either side? It weakens what you're saying and makes you sound like a bad politician.
@antonphd by RocketScientist	Dec 12th, 2006 04:16:57 AM
You say "I've only w

Talkbacks

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