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

Oooh, the gloves are off now. Robert Shaye strikes back at Peter Jackson, banning him from New Line!!

First by v for vienetta	Jan 10th, 2007 09:02:00 AM
Hmm, personally I don't want to see anyone but Jackson do the Hobbit.
I Know Who's Really Behind This... by MortGuffman	Jan 10th, 2007 09:02:09 AM
Randal Graves of Leonardo, NJ. He's just doing this to piss off Elias.
perfect! by Deus Vult	Jan 10th, 2007 09:02:14 AM
now PJ can concentrate on that Wizrd of Oz remake from Monday.
Rob and Petey need to cross the angry bridge by just pillow talk	Jan 10th, 2007 09:02:43 AM
or else we'll get a half-assed movie that could have been so much more. Still mad about X3....
Second? by Westoun	Jan 10th, 2007 09:02:46 AM
Fingers crossed New Line lose the rights.
THE HOBBIT GOTTA EAT!! by v for vienetta	Jan 10th, 2007 09:03:34 AM
Sorry. Nearly forgot the obligatory catchphrase.
Newline by nahdogg	Jan 10th, 2007 09:03:34 AM
A fast tracked hobbit will be a tragic mistake the fans will get the short end of the stick and we'll end up with a cross between Willow and Reign of Fire.
Just Watched These Movies Again in HD on TNT... by Sean38	Jan 10th, 2007 09:03:40 AM
...and they're just BEAUTIFULLY crafted. You can argue that they're too long, but, they're like the novels that way. Just a world you want to spend time in, no matter how much time that is. To make The Hobbit, without Jackson, is simply insanity. This sounds like something out of the show Entorouge - making a movie or NOT making a movie out of pure vengence. It's like the studios are being run by children.
FOOLS!!!!!!!! by BirdMcMonster	Jan 10th, 2007 09:04:15 AM
Those movies made so much frickin' money. Pay him. Whatever he asks for, pay him. And then let him make the Hobbit and you'll make even more money. If Jackson doesn't direct the Hobbit, it will be a tragedy.
FYI: Original interview at/by SciFi.com, not Moviehole. by robogeek.com	Jan 10th, 2007 09:07:17 AM
Actually, Moviehole didn't interview Bob Shaye - SciFi.com's Sci Fi Wire did at... http://tinyurl.com/y7s6uc
Bob Shaye should pull his head out of his... by Frank Black	Jan 10th, 2007 09:07:45 AM
I'm not the biggest Peter Jackson fan (HATED KING KONG, even the 1979 version was better, not visually of course but who cares,) but he loves those damn hobbits more than my nerd wife and truly brought those characters to life. New Line is cutting its own throat because fans will revolt.
We need to stop putting PJ on such a pedestal by Movietool	Jan 10th, 2007 09:08:20 AM
Yes, the LotR movies were great, but not so great that Peter Jackson should be the only person allowed to touch the IP. Does no one else deserve a crack at Tolkien without PJs "blessing?" Is Ian McKellan the ONLY guy capable of playing Gandalf? What a bunch of nonsense. Oh, and Shaye is suddenly betraying us fans? Wasn't he the one who made this whole thing possible by taking an ENORMOUS leap of geeky faith and allowing a relatively unknown director to take on the biggest fantasy franchise in history? I guess it's all about "what have you done for me lately."
Not All That Surprising by TheBigDogg	Jan 10th, 2007 09:09:37 AM
If someone sued me and I thought I was in the right, they could go and shite. That would be the end of it. I have no idea who is in the right and who is in the wrong here and there isn't enough info for any of us to make that judgement. Oh and... someone, eh, gotta eat...or something.
Jackson deserves the money by The Motts	Jan 10th, 2007 09:11:18 AM
Shaye's interview makes it seem that the only reason Jackson doesn't deserve the money he is seeking is that he's already been paid a lot of money. Well, if Jackson had a contract and he is owed money then he should be given that money, regardless of how much he's been paid already. It's true New Line took the chance and financed these films, and I'm grateful for that, but they should realize that without Jackson there is no shot that Weta, Ian McKellen, Hugo Weaving or others involved in LOTR will be in The Hobbit, which would be a real disappointment. New Line is being foolish, and I hoped that this would be resolved for the fans' sake, but it doesn't look like it will be. Let's hope the right lapse so Zaentz can get Jackson and team back on board.
Ugh by BizarroJerry	Jan 10th, 2007 09:12:30 AM
Fucking rich people getting mad at other rich people... waaah! waaahh!
Ian mckellan gotta eat by artie langes nut	Jan 10th, 2007 09:14:37 AM
Come on, you all know what Ian Mckellan gotta ear
Yes Mckellan is Gandalf by nahdogg	Jan 10th, 2007 09:14:45 AM
No one else should play Gandalf and it would be rediculous to throw away the production design of the first LOTR films. Just give us the Hobbit with PJ and then let someone else do a Similrillion Trilogy with new talent.
Stephen Summers is available by just pillow talk	Jan 10th, 2007 09:14:48 AM
There will just be a lot of mummies running around middle-earth.
Oh, Hollywood by Ribbons	Jan 10th, 2007 09:15:26 AM
Quint summed it up pretty accurately when he said that we're the ones who are going to take it up the pooper as a result of this protracted, public dick-measuring contest. Possibly New Line as well, if the final product totally blows, but they're still likely to pocket a pretty sum of money. And to be honest, Jackson deserves a lot of the blame as well, although I'd still rather see him make or sanction the movie than see New Line fasttrack the thing. I'm counting on you, Saul Zaentz.
How longbefore by artie langes nut	Jan 10th, 2007 09:16:09 AM
Harry has some animation posted in the upper right of a naked Peter Jackson rolling around on a bed of 100 dollar bills? How about that site Hobbit fans
Shaye - irrelevant since FREDDY 3: DREAM WARRIOR by Spacesheik	Jan 10th, 2007 09:16:34 AM
Shaye is sooo 1987 its not funny
I loved DREAM WARRIORS by artie langes nut	Jan 10th, 2007 09:18:49 AM
That was tbe best sequel Where the DREAM WARRIORS DONT WANT TO DREAM NO MORE....Seriously that was the one with the medium Arquette in it, I liked that one
CURSE YOU GOTTA EAT! CURSE YOU POUND SAND! by Deus Vult	Jan 10th, 2007 09:18:59 AM
I always knew it was superior to anything having to do with taint. worst of all, "gotta eat" works on so many more levels, hence its superiority. alright boys, I'm back to the drawing board to devise something equally as clever...mwa-hahahahahaaaaaaaa aaa!
The amount of money PJ made from King Kong by Shigeru	Jan 10th, 2007 09:22:27 AM
added to the $250 million Shaye says he made off the Rings movies... well what the fuck, man? Your net worth is in the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, why do DVD profit sharing from ONE of the THREE movies matter anymore? When most of the world is depressingly impoverished, it's hard to justify.
'FUCK'S THIS?! HOBBIT CLUSTERFUCK MANIA??!! by PoweredUpPacman	Jan 10th, 2007 09:26:47 AM
Someone oughtta put this horse out of it's freakin' misery. For good.
In All Seriousness... by MortGuffman	Jan 10th, 2007 09:27:41 AM
I've often found that studio execs who blacklist a director who netted record grosses for your studio, but of all-time in general, usually end up shitcanned pretty quickly. I don't know anything about the situation other than what is reported, but I really think that Robert Shaye is an idiot for saying that Peter Jackson is not welcomed at New Line.
Shaye is Nuts! by Scarbro	Jan 10th, 2007 09:28:38 AM
Shaye is being a bully and the typical Hollywood-type who will put himself before the film. If you've got nothing to hide then let the man see the books. Afterall, he did make you a billion dollars with his fims.
Shaye sounds like a pricksmoking asshole by Doctor_Sin	Jan 10th, 2007 09:29:16 AM
"If New Line is sure they've fulfilled their contractual obligation to Jackson and Co, why are they fighting this?" Exact-a-mundo.
Who cares? Where's Part 2 of the Cameron interview? by kwisatzhaderach	Jan 10th, 2007 09:29:47 AM
AVATAR pisses all over The Hobbit.
it'll have to be a long piss, since it's so far off... by just pillow talk	Jan 10th, 2007 09:30:24 AM
plus the one ring is in his possession, so back off Avatar!
Poop shoot. Hahahahaha! by kinghenryVIII	Jan 10th, 2007 09:31:03 AM
Love that phrase. Cornucopia of shit-ter! Plethora of backyard! Fuckin' chubby hobbit's. I hate pissing contests.
Good call Shaye by RodneyOz	Jan 10th, 2007 09:31:19 AM
Like THIS won't backfire on you incredibly badly. Way to taint a project before a foot of film has even rolled.
ill watch,but wont pay by presidentevil	Jan 10th, 2007 09:33:35 AM
ill pay for another movie and go see the hobbit if jackson isnt on bored....even if i have to pay for an electric boogaloo sequel
oops by presidentevil	Jan 10th, 2007 09:34:19 AM
spellcheck
Jackson is overrated by Gorrister	Jan 10th, 2007 09:34:32 AM
Personally, I think Jackson is full of himself. Jackson is a GOOD director, but he's not a GREAT director. Other than how he treated the title character, King Kong wasn't that great of a movie. Even elements of LOTR had problems with it, especially where he decided he was a better writer than Tolkien and decided to make serious changes to the story. (If it wasn't for the internet-based 'fan revolution', we would have seen "Arwen: Warrior Princess" at Helms Deep.) Jackson needs to get over himself. Like I said, Jackson is a good director, but he's not as good as he likes to think he is.
Heavenly Creatures is Jackson's best film. by kwisatzhaderach	Jan 10th, 2007 09:38:33 AM
Small = better.
Hobbit: The Last Stand by blindambition238	Jan 10th, 2007 09:40:27 AM
you know thats what itll come to
New Line by porterdsgn	Jan 10th, 2007 09:40:37 AM
is starting to fuck with the wrong nerds!
that shaye dick... by Buzzsawlenny	Jan 10th, 2007 09:41:44 AM
is gonna get Canned so fast his nuts will finally drop
Joel Schumacher!!!!!! by presidentevil	Jan 10th, 2007 09:42:52 AM
how 'bout 'dat!!!..oh yeah...put bruce campbell in it... his participation in 2 of the highest grossing (possibly 3!) movies of all time so far almost clinches box-office nirvana
Heavenly Creatures is a great movie by Gorrister	Jan 10th, 2007 09:43:34 AM
I find that most directors put out their best stuff when they are struggling to make a name for themselves. They are forced to prove themselves to studios and audiences, so they put a lot of thought into their movies. When they are suddenly famous and in demand, the quality of their work slips because they start thinking "now I can make whatever I want" (anyone remember a director named George Lucas?). They get arogant and lazy. They presume the same folks who swarmed their last film will swarm their next film just cause it has his name on it. And they are partly right! Look at all the Talkbackers who are saying things like "Hobbit will suck without Jackson" or "Only Ian can play Gandalf". That's a load of crap. Any good director can make a good movie with The Hobbit. And, believe it or not, Ian is NOT the only actor who has ever played Gandalf on the big screen. And McKellen will NOT be the last actor to portray him.
Gotta Eat's Gotta Eat! by jack-torrance	Jan 10th, 2007 09:44:39 AM
I want THE FRIGHTENERS PART II
Hulk Hogan as Gandolf by Bob_Loblaw_Jr	Jan 10th, 2007 09:46:08 AM
You will not pass Brother!!
Lebron-yeah you right! by Deus Vult	Jan 10th, 2007 09:47:36 AM
Two things fellas-Lebron, I'll take your sound advice. As for this topic, has anyone ever thought about the possibility that this is PURE SPIN?!? seriously, how else could new line and PJ keep all of dorkdom interested in the hobbit when both new line and PJ have other stuff going on right now? this is the perfect way! its no different than the hype of internal arguing and royalty battles prior to the 1st/2nd/3rd season of seinfeld coming out on dvd. they blew that shit up like a car bomb and when it came out it sold like afgahni poppies. so RELAX everybody, new line knows there's no hobbit w/o PJ and he knows it too. most of all, there's NO hobbit w/o PJ from what I remember Saul Zaents (sp) saying.
I'd actually prefer someone else direct. by rev_skarekroe	Jan 10th, 2007 09:53:38 AM
Someone with a lighter touch. I suspect Jackson's "Hobbit" would be too portentious and dark. However, if you can't have McKellan, Weaving, possibly Bloom and Tyler, WETA, and the old Bag End sets without him then he needs to be on board.
Jackson at Newline == Flames on Optimus! by Squashua	Jan 10th, 2007 09:53:48 AM
And Nips on the Batsuit!
New Line is Gay by Itchy	Jan 10th, 2007 09:55:10 AM
I love watching billionaries squabble about millions. C'Mon New Line - you know and I know that no one but Jackson is directing The Hobbit, so shut the fark up and work something out. This is as gay as the Disney-Pixar fight that - SURPRISE - ended up with Pixar continuing to work with Disney. You bitches know a good thing when you see it, and you're not going to piss away all the goodwill and investment in the franchise over an accounting spat. So shut the hell up and just get the movie made. Oh - and cast Rosie O'Donnell as the voice of Smaug and Donald Trump as Thorin Oakenshield.
Also, if Zaentz still has any say... by rev_skarekroe	Jan 10th, 2007 09:56:59 AM
...it ain't getting done without Jackson. Not that Zaentz cares about the art or anything - he's just the sort of old-school Hollywood type who knows that while a fast-tracked "Hobbit" movie with a bunch of scabs will make a quick buck, the LONG-TERM money's in a Jackson version.
WOW. How did it come to this?! by Mr. Nice Gaius	Jan 10th, 2007 10:03:07 AM
This is really becoming quite bizarre. Whatever the outcome of this debacle (i.e. choice of director, etc.), one thing is for sure - it stands a good chance of TAINTing the finished product. Here is my theory about why this is even happening in the first place: Bob Shaye = Ringw(b)earer9.
Hey Movietool... by Nachokoolaid	Jan 10th, 2007 10:03:45 AM
You said: Q1. Does no one else deserve a crack at Tolkien without PJs "blessing?" Q2:Is Ian McKellan the ONLY guy capable of playing Gandalf? A1: Maybe A2: Yes
Fighting over money not creativity by Darth Fart	Jan 10th, 2007 10:08:05 AM
If Peter has been paid a lot of money, then let bygones be bygones. Life's too short to be suing. Money will buy you a week in Hollywood but creativity will pay you a lifetime.
Dead Alive - jacksons best film BY FAR! by kinghenryVIII	Jan 10th, 2007 10:08:44 AM
Baby dead thing at the playground? Lunch sceene with the mothers face falling apart! The humor thru out! Classic. Got it right next to Slither and the Evil Dead movies. IMO the Lord of the Rings, yet awsome, had some serious snooze value ridden thru out. C'mon geeks - let thre bashing begin, but I did love those movies but there was also some serious lagging going on. I know in the books (I read them in High School) they did a fair amount of walking, but they bored the shit out of me in parts. Went to the potty, did a #2, drove to Wawa, came back, and still missed nothing. But I own the Extended Editions (for a sick day from work) so who am I to say?
How can you SUE someone and stay friendly with them? by Ringwearer9	Jan 10th, 2007 10:08:53 AM
It just doesn't happen. Just as when you ask your neighbor nicely, could he please keep his dog from digging in his lawn, you stay friends with him, whereas if you call the police, you become hard enemies. Jackson's a self absorbed, selfish goon. Again, if he really cared about making THE HOBBIT he'd have settled the lawsuit by rolling it into the new deal to make THE HOBBIT, just like they wanted him to. That means he didn't care about making THE HOBBIT that much, or he'd have jumped at the chance to make millions more and make a movie that he loves. Well, he didn't want to. Again, why do you think a Peter Jackson film of the Hobbit will NOT be "half-assed" since that's the way he feels about it?
Fuck you, Shaye. And fuck New Line. by Dannychico	Jan 10th, 2007 10:11:41 AM
This is so clearly bogus. They're scamming PJ. Let him into the books you stupid fucks. He turned you into something besides a third-rate horror studio.
Well, this seems like a bit of an overreaction... by Childe Roland	Jan 10th, 2007 10:14:50 AM
...on New Line's part, but I have to say the dirty fighting started with Jackson's letter to the fans, trying to get them all riled against the "evil, greedy studio" when he's the one demanding, like Delroy Lindo in Get Shorty "Open your books! Let me see a number with however many zeros behind it." There is no all good or all bad guy in this equation, just a couple of money-motivated hotheads with more pride than passion. Personally, I think moving forward with another director is the best thing that could happen, especially given Jackson's fundamental misunderstanding of the source material (in the Hobbit, as demonstrated by his interviews on the subject...he got the Rings books, essentially, but they're very different animals). It must be rough, though, to be giant children who can ban each other from each other's sand boxes and make sure that one's best friends won't play with the other unless they all play a certain way.
Sounds like Bob Shaye/New Line... by Trancer	Jan 10th, 2007 10:16:28 AM
need to get their head out of their ass. If Jackson just wants to see the books to verify he's not getting screwed, WTF are they having a hissy fit over? Jackson gave New Line a license to print money. They need to just suck it up and stop acting like 5 year olds.
I think it will all fall apart by droxford	Jan 10th, 2007 10:17:05 AM
I think New Line won't cave in. I think Jackson won't cave in. The rights will expire. The LOTR actors won't participate. The movie won't be made for a long time, and when it is made, it will be done by a different production co. with a different cast and a different director.
Aaand... let the masturbatory defense of Hackson begin! by JackPumpkinhead	Jan 10th, 2007 10:18:46 AM
"Oooh, his vision of LotR is so wonderful and creative! That hack Tolkien and that other hack Alan Lee should thank Peter for making them famous!", "King Kong was so great! It was better than the original! It should have been 8 hours long!", "Peter, make Halo!", "Peter is the best director who ever lived and he should take over Star Wars", blahblahblah. Congratulations to Mr. Shaye for having a spine, an own opinion that he's not afraid to speak out... and a big brass pair! (Of guts, of course. What else?)
Jackson LOST money with KING KONG !!!!! by Ringwearer9	Jan 10th, 2007 10:19:40 AM
So his success with LOTR has, rightly, been interpreted by the studio as TOLKIEN related. Remember the old adage about a film needing to make 3 times it's production budget to turn a profit? Well, 200 million pluse for King Kong means it needed to make 600 million. Guesss what, it didn't, not even worldwide. That means that New Line, despite being screwed by Jackson's bloated epic monkey movie, still wanted to give him a chance with PROVEN material, and Jackson just spit at them. Shaye won't be "shitcanned" for cutting off relations with Jackson, because King Kong is still fresh in their minds, and Jackson should be bowing and scraping and apologizing to them, and offering to cut his director's fee for THE HOBBIT to make up for Kong. Instead, he's suing them over a petty amount of the DVD sales! What a greedy little asshole Jackson is.
the fate is in the hands of ugly petty men, apparently by Freakemovie	Jan 10th, 2007 10:20:51 AM
From everything I've read on this topic, it sounds like Jackson's a decent guy who knows what he's talking about, and New Line is mishandling the entire thing. Really though, we'll never know which is more true. The point is that a small handful of people now have the fate of the Hobbit in their hands, and they seem very happy to make it for all the wrong reasons. Like Quint said, hopefully reasonable folks can stop this before it gets farther out of hand (hopefully from those at MGM who've said they fully believe in Jackson).
Foolishness by Barron34	Jan 10th, 2007 10:20:56 AM
It is just foolishness from a business perspective to attempt to make a HOBBIT movie without Jackson's involvement. Sure, a good director could make a good movie out of the book, but you are rolling the dice with an unknown quantity. Jackson and his people are proven commodities, and the hardcore fans will revolt without Jackson and company on board. The smart thing for New Line to do is to find a mediator to make nice between them and Jackson and get the deal done. A Jackson made HOBBIT is pretty close to a surefire thing, and that is uncommon in the movie biz. So, I think Shaye is being a bit foolish here. To whoever said that directors often get lazy and arrogant after they get rich and successful, yes, that is often true in many success stories, but the thing about Jackson and his people is that they sincerely love Middle-Earth and will at least make a real effort with the HOBBIT, and they have had proven success three times over with LOTR. New Line risks getting an inferior product if they risk the HOBBIT on another filmmaker, in my opinion, in addition to alienating fans of the LOTR movies. They should get a mediator and resolve these business issues with Jackson and move ahead with the HOBBIT. That is the smart business move.
NEW LINE IS FUKT by WISEBLOOD	Jan 10th, 2007 10:24:13 AM
PJ is the best thing to happen to that studio EVER. They should be licking PJs taint.
New Line made Blade.... by Kizeesh	Jan 10th, 2007 10:25:06 AM
And blade 2, and Blade Trini... Oh I see....
ringwearer by Quint	Jan 10th, 2007 10:25:33 AM
You do realize New Line had nothing to do with King Kong, right? That was Universal. And KONG made $550 million in BO, sold $100 million in DVDs the first day the theatrical cut was on sale and that's not counting the tie-in dollars (Chase Bank, chips, sodas, etc), toys or other merchandise. I'm tired of people saying a $550 million grossing film is a flop... but at least it's people that don't even know what studio made it. You can justify an opinion on the movie, but don't try make your opinion fact. I hate that X3 was a big success, but that's a fact. What is questionable is whether the franchise can continue. I give most of the credit for X3's BO take to having a great X2. We'll see what X4 does... Great. Now I'm sidetracked.
Kong made over 500 million worldwide by Freakemovie	Jan 10th, 2007 10:25:57 AM
...and had a buget of what, 200 or 220 or something. Plus marketing...but there's also DVD sales. Ringwearer, I always thought the line about a film needing to make three times its budget to turn a profit was a critique on studios always mishandling profits. But to be honest I don't the facts about the topic well enough. I always thought Kong's budget seemed a little high, although the studio was more than happy to throw money at him at that point.
by the way by Freakemovie	Jan 10th, 2007 10:27:20 AM
I didn't even think about that, but that's a good point Quint, the whole point is moot since it was Universal.
Jackson is overrrated by cooke	Jan 10th, 2007 10:28:11 AM
You guys make PJ into one of the great directors. Shock, he isn't. It's amazing he could control all 3 movies simultaneously, but at what cost? The shot continuity thoughout all the movies are pieced together from shots filmed months and months apart.
Shaking my got damn head by THE KNIGHT	Jan 10th, 2007 10:28:38 AM
Shaye is a shithead...
Universal, Shmuniversal. KING KONG LOST MONEY. by Ringwearer9	Jan 10th, 2007 10:33:03 AM
When you have to wait for DVD sales to finally make a profit, you realize that your Golden Boy director isn't that Golden anymore. And NEW LINE can look at Kong's box office and realize this about Jackson even if it was UNIVERSAL that felt the disappointment most keenly. Jackson lost his credibility with KING KONG, and lost that magic aura of being King Midas of the Movies forever.
so sad that he Shaye has to act like this by Russman	Jan 10th, 2007 10:33:06 AM
Pay the man his money and go out and make more $ with him. It's so simple and so easy. The people in this biz are such babies and assholes. It's pretty disgusting when you think about it.
Jackson not welcome at New Line? They are so dumb by performingmonkey	Jan 10th, 2007 10:34:50 AM
Jackson fucking MADE New Line in recent years. Sure, they took the gamble by hiring him to make three movies simultaneously, but fucking hell he DELIVERED for them and now they seem to be giving him the big FU just because he wants what he's owed. They are crazy. If they think everyone will flock to The Hobbit no matter what they are wrong. People only blindly flock to generic action flicks and CG kids movies, this won't happen with The Hobbit without Jackson. I think LOTR is almost like a running joke with the general audience now, despite the acclaim at the time and the fact that there ARE so many fans. ROTK left many general moviegoers never wanting to be in that universe for another minute.
jesus christ, ringwearer9 you are lame! by forgo10en	Jan 10th, 2007 10:36:45 AM
Saying that you know plain shit, would be too much. I am not sure if you suck in math or in common knowledge about movie industry. Both ways, go home!
How the HELL do you blacklist someone... by Zarles	Jan 10th, 2007 10:38:32 AM
...who has earned your company a billion dollars and an assload of Oscars? True Hollywood chutzpah.
I think I know the real reason... by Quint	Jan 10th, 2007 10:39:41 AM
why Bob Shaye doesn't want to give in to Jackson... Anybody remember the lawsuit over Coming To America royalties? That lawsuit forced the books to be opened and when they were, the studio was forced to pay not only the person who brought up the lawsuit, but everybody they were shortchanging, including some $25 million to Eddie Murphy, who had nothing to do with the suit. I'm thinking New Line's out more that what they owe Jackson if the books are opened. Also, one more thing for Ringwearer. Can you point out to me the dollar amount Jackson is suing for? That he's being such a greedy prick about? It might be hard because, as I understand it, he's not suing New Line for any money. He's just trying to get the books opened because his accountants think New Line is stiffing him on his contracted percentage. So there goes greedy Jackson suing for no money. Of course, if my theory is correct, New Line will do everything they can to keep those books from being opened.
Is everyone overlooking this fact.... by rollnstns	Jan 10th, 2007 10:40:10 AM
Where the hell is the outrage that Leonard Nimoy has not been contacted to perform the "Bilbo Baggins" Title Track?????? Spock Gotta Eat!!
Furthermore by Barron34	Jan 10th, 2007 10:40:51 AM
Yes, the Lord of the Rings movie succeeded because of Tolkien, but also because of Jackson, who basically succeeded in bringing the Lord of the Rings alive on film, even though some Tolkein fans take exception to that, in varying degrees. The Lord of the Rings could have been very poorly adapted to film, and that would have been an artistic and commercial catastophe. Jackson basically succeeded at a monumental and difficult task, and should be given due credit, in my opinion. But the greatest of the Lord of the Rings begins with Tolkein, not Jackson. The difference regarding KING KONG is that the world was basically waiting for a great (or at least good) LORD OF THE RINGS movie, whereas very few people were waiting for a KING KONG remake, other than Jackson himself. There was no massive built-in fanbase for a KING KONG movie as there was with the generations that grew up loving Tolkein's work. The KING KONG was essentially a very expensive pet project of Jackson's that did not have the market to justify its expense. This does not detract from the fact that Jackson and his people were intregral to the successful adaptation of Tolkein's work to film. Such a task could easily have resulted in absolute failure. While some hardcore Tolkein fans do not like the films at all, most book fans feel that the films effectively achieved the adaptation of the books to film, with some caveats. And that was far from guaranteed. Jackson and company pulled off one of the biggest coups in film history, first by simply getting th films made, and second by doing them to general acclaim. So, it would be a mistake to think that LORD OF THE RINGS succeeded as a film trilogy simply because of Tolkein. It also succeeded because of Jackson. I think it would be ill-advised to make another Tolkein film like the HOBBIT so soon after the success of LORD OF THE RINGS without Jackson's creative involvelment. Yes, in the future there will probably be other Tolkein films without Jackson and company, with other filmmakers and other casts, but that should probably be later than sooner. New Line would be smart to make nice with Jackson and get a HOBBIT film that is consistent with the LORD OF THE RINGS films.
DAMN YOU, ROBERT SHAYE!!! by Fat Chooch	Jan 10th, 2007 10:40:53 AM
Someone had to say it...
According to empire magazine... by emeraldboy	Jan 10th, 2007 10:41:13 AM
What really angered new line was Peter Jackson's snubbing of New line's 40th anniversary.
Oh, and Quint, how much profit did KING KONG make? by Ringwearer9	Jan 10th, 2007 10:41:28 AM
It was 220 production budget, which means, roughly, it needed to make more than 660 to make a profit. You say it made 550 million worldwide, plus 100 million in DVD sales. That's 650 million, which means it LOST 10 million for Universal. Now, I don't know whether Peter's multimillion director's fee is part of the production budget, but if it isn't, there goes more millions down the tube. Now, let's say Jackson took care of 20 million of the production costs, making Universal's need only 600 million, then there's a measly 50 million profit, minus the director's fee, and only after DVD sales come in. It isn't something they should be hugely grateful for, and it's such a poor performance on money spent that it justifies Shaye's attituded, and I doubt he's going to be "shitcanned" with KONG as the most recent performance rating for Jackson.
TheBigDogg by Russman	Jan 10th, 2007 10:43:19 AM
remember he asked to look at the books first. When NL dissed him then he sued. You may not know this but studios are always pulling fast ones on actors and directors and producers. ALWAYS! It's just natural to mistrust the studios. Even the guys who made Blair Witch Project had to knuckle up for a moment when Lions Gate started whispering about not paying them the contractual % of the gross that was in the contract - due to marketing and distribution expenses. I'm not going to say that every poor little artist is an innocent flower working hard to make a good product for the man - but I do know that in the history of this business it's always some limp dicked bastard finding some way to screw over the people who actually did the work to make him money. Is it limp dick's right to screw them over - sure, this is America and that's capitalism - but is it a good and healthy way to run a business that is based on relationships - I'd vote no.
Quint, you do realize, by beastie	Jan 10th, 2007 10:43:20 AM
that the majority of the people who never read the X-Men comics, loved X3, right? So, it didn't hurt the franchise much, if at all. To someone like me, who's never read an X-Men book, it was pretty much a continuation of X2. And I'm not a Ratner fan at all. Anyway, I want Guillermo del Toro to direct The Hobbit, after seeing Pan's Labyrinth. I think he would either equal or better Jackson's vision. Alas, after Newline dropping Hellboy (it was Newline right?), I doubt he has a great relationship with the studio, as well.
Screw X4 Quint, what about the Wolverine film? by Prague23	Jan 10th, 2007 10:45:23 AM
Isn't WB doing the Wolverine spin off before X4? And is there any news about that? Theatrical release date? Anything?
Brett Ratner's The Hobbit by Mgmax	Jan 10th, 2007 10:47:14 AM
On July 4... short people got a reason to live.
Quint, why would Jackson do that to his friends? by Ringwearer9	Jan 10th, 2007 10:47:44 AM
If New Line stands to lose terribly if their books are opened, why would Jackson insist on it? Why is he such a holy insister on "proper accounting practices"? Does he love the IRS or something? If the only way New Line can stay afloat is by cheating on their accounting .... hey, that's how they managed to finance Lord of the Rings in the first place, and catapult Jackson to fame and fortune. It's a pretty nasty trick to pull on a company that has done well by you, to stab them in their financial and reputational guts, pretending it's just the "principle of the thing".
The New Line/ Jackson debacle by jimmy rabbitte	Jan 10th, 2007 10:47:55 AM
While it may be possible for someone else to do a good job of making a film of The Hobbit; there's no way to tell who it could be or how they'd be able to do it. We've got to give credit where it's due. P.J. and his team did a great job with LOTR (let's not forget that Best Picture Academy Award for Return of the King). The real problem now is New Line wants to rush their film into production out of spite for Jackson. The only thing likely to result from that is a poorly made and probably incoherent film, that will pale in comparison to the very trilogy of films it is supposed to seamlessly match. A total disaster, the Suits are cheating the fans out of what should be a great film.
Say what you want by purplemonkeydw	Jan 10th, 2007 10:48:55 AM
There's already a good Hobbit film, and it's a cartoon. It's what got me into the books, and I loved it growing up. It's not bad on the whole...ok...I could do without the 'Greatest Adventure' being sung by some dude sitting on a washing machine during the spin cycle...
LOL @ Ringwearer by Ribbons	Jan 10th, 2007 10:53:49 AM
I love how Quint totally blows away your theory of "greedy, greedy Jackson" and instead of just shutting up or even acknowledging the touche, you plough ahead with some such crap about how much net money 'King Kong' made for Universal. Which is barely even tangentially related to what this article is about in the first place. Not to mention the fact that nobody takes your opinions on Peter Jackson seriously in the first place. He's the only thing you ever talk about -- ever -- because you're some deranged Tolkienite who's become obsessed with the man for "ruining" Tolkien's books. So surprise surprise, you think that Jackson is wrong in every conceivable way on this matter. In other news, the sky is blue.
I see by Quint	Jan 10th, 2007 10:55:08 AM
Ringwearer has ignored any aspect where I've proven him wrong and is still beating on the Kong budget. Did it underperform? Yes, it did. But you're a fool if you think Universal is hurting because of it. That $100 million in DVDs was just day 1, not counting all the rest of the DVDs sold and the EE. You do realize that when you see Kong's picture on a Pringles can that Pringles paid Universal to do that, right? So every tie-in has millions attached to it. So do Toy licenses. Kong was not the runaway success that Rings was, but it's not a flop. Ringwearer is right about one thing, though. Shaye won't be shitcanned. He IS New Line cinema. He might be cutting his nose off to spite his face right now and that might get Time/Warner upset at him down the road (but that'll happen when audiences can't recognize the characters or world they love in a rushed film or when New Line loses the rights and gets to make zero on a Hobbit film), but he's not going anywhere anytime soon.
McG's The Hobbit by ScreamingPenis	Jan 10th, 2007 10:55:22 AM
a bunch of multi-millionaires fighting over more millions. who cares? bring in someone who will work hard. bring in someone who has directed music videos. bring in someone who has directed Charlies Angels!!! McG is the answer. you know it. after this depressing Jackson-New Line debacle, this project needs fast-paced action sequences and clever showmanship with catchy pop tunes.
King Kong Box Office by Gorrister	Jan 10th, 2007 10:56:03 AM
I'm the furthest thing from a Jackson defender, but those of you who say Kong lost money are only looking at half the picture. True, in the United States, Kong barely made enough money to pay the expense of making the movie. However, Kong is MUCH better overseas, bringing in well over $300 million in ticket sales to add to the over $200 million in US ticket sales. So, in other words, the US audience pretty much paid the expense and everything that came in from overseas was mostly profit. Personally, I think Kong was as slow, drawn-out, boring movie.....but worse movies have gone on to greater success.
Nevermind by Ribbons	Jan 10th, 2007 10:56:17 AM
It appears that you just hadn't read his post before you wrote your initial response, but your rebuttal to the whole "business fraud" proposal is possibly even more hilarious.
Christ, Here We Go Again by Mr. Winston	Jan 10th, 2007 10:57:47 AM
The lack of knowledge about anything actually involving the film industry or how it works on this board is consistently staggering. Today we find no exception. 1. Bob Shaye is not going to get "shitcanned"; he's still running the company he started, what, like 30-some-odd years ago? Even if WB wanted to pull the plug on him they wouldn't. 2. KING KONG probably didn't win Peter Jackson many new fans that he didn't have already, but it also didn't lose many either. Either way, no one gives a fuck what kind of business KK did in relation to LOTR. I can't believe anyone is even stupid enough to suggest that. 3. Ideally, it would be nice to see Peter back to direct THE HOBBIT, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen. It's too bad, but it's not the end of the world, and it doesn't fucking guarantee a flop. In the plethora of oft-sought directors in Hollywood, Peter Jackson, I'm sorry to tell the drooling fanophiles, is middle-of-the-pack. Strictly. So let's not pretend this film can't come off without him, because it obviously could. What if Raimi DID want to direct? What if some other high-profile director wanted to hop into the chair? Speilberg? Cameron? Lucas? Singer? del Toro? What if Zack Snyder wanted to take a shot? Is any of that realistic? I certainly don't think so, but you never know with this town. What if STARDUST comes off incredibly well and Matthew Vaughn wants in? What if Favreau expresses interest? All of you pretending to shit your pants right now would flip immediately and be on another bandwagon just so you'd have something to eventually gripe about again. Can't we move past the fucking bellyaching and the fake idea that Jackson has the keys to Heaven? 4. All that said, there are less than 5,000 people in the known world that would actually boycott THE HOBBIT if Jackson wasn't directing. And guess what? Teh studios couldn't give a fuck about you. At the end of the day this movie will make hundreds of millions no matter what, and that's all they care about. All the nerdery in the world won't be enough to stop the train once it gets going, because the movies are made to play to people who don't know any better, not to you clowns, who think you know too much. 5. I hope to Christ New Line doesn't rush through this one. A 2009 timeline (I think, I'd have to check on that but I'm pretty sure that's when the rights revert) gives them two years to get into production. That's more than enough time to do it the right way; if they suddenly make an announcement that they're going to start shooting in December I think I'll have an aneurysm. All three LOTR films were highly enjoyable, and if they're smart about it not having Jackson onboard won't highjack that.
I can do this all day by Quint	Jan 10th, 2007 11:00:24 AM
But I really don't want to. Let me just ask Ringwearer one more thing... Why is it Jackson betraying his "friend" when he's asking them to live up to their end of a bargain. He did what he was contracted to do, but he's the greedy, evil friend for forcing them to do the same? How is not New Line being the shitty friend? I don't understand that logic. Jackson is being stubborn. That's true. But if I thought a studio owed me millions and is acting shady, you better believe I'd be doing the same thing.
Quint by Mr. Winston	Jan 10th, 2007 11:04:06 AM
Nail-hitting on the head with COMING TO AMERICA - that's a landmark with this kind of thing and the reason you now HAVE to sue a studio if you want to be sure about the accounting. I originally thought that this was something of a He Said/She Said argument until I started examining this more - it looks for all the world like New Line is just trying to hide something. Anyway, the whole situation sucks, but this kind of shit goes on every day - it just usually doesn't make it out into the open.
you know, Mr. Winston is pretty smart by Deus Vult	Jan 10th, 2007 11:06:52 AM
see now his post is the kind of post I think about writing, but then I fear I might be wasting my time typing it if no one reads it. then where would I be? oh, wait...I think I know as I'm typing this one...nuts
This is Disgusting. Period. by SydBarretsMyDad	Jan 10th, 2007 11:08:55 AM
Jackson didnt write the books, but he sure as shit made the movies that we all identify with now. Someone else making them is unacceptable. Should someone else have been allowed to make a Star Wars Prequel Trilogy? ......wait....on second though....
Rich vs. Rich? by casinoskunk	Jan 10th, 2007 11:09:35 AM
for those of you that are talking about how the rich people should stop fighting with rich people and that they are both just a couple of cry babies, you have to realize that Peter Jackson has Weta to pay. Weta Workshop and Weta Digital are his companies. His companies that produced thousands of man hours to help create these films. Peter Jackson was promised a certain percentage and feels that he did not get that percentage. I have a feeling that Peter Jackson is not doing this out of greeed, but of Gratitude for those people that work for his companies. Peter Jackson is just trying to run his business and New Line is, in his opinion, is giving him the short end of the stick. i would hate to see the hobbit turned into a huge steaming pile of Erongon, but i would like to see New Line see the errors of their ways, if it does come to that.
QUESTION FOR QUINT--- by Deus Vult	Jan 10th, 2007 11:10:13 AM
how can I get one of those awesome black background/white letter deals for my posts? do I need to live in austin? seriously! I lived there for a semester while interning at the comptroller's office back when it was John Sharp running the place. nice guy.
This is really...... by erichaislar	Jan 10th, 2007 11:11:01 AM
getting out of hand! They are fighting like babies WAAAAAAAA!
What I find surprising about this is... by CrichtonAstronut	Jan 10th, 2007 11:15:39 AM
that between Peter Jackson, the creative talent who has recently come into Big Hollywood Business, and Robert Shayne cheif executive of New Line Cinema. Jackson in his letter to the fans sounds responsible business man looking for an indepedent body to give imbiased rulling. And Shayne in his interview sounds like an angry child, who will never--ever--ever with let that man work at New Line as long as he's there. If I had stock in New Line I'd selling now based solely Shayne's lack of professionalism. At Mania.com he was quoted "$100 million or $50 million, or whatever he's suig us for." "...whatever he's suing?" He doesn't know what the case is about and he's going on this diatribe. Sounds he's the one taking bad council. And by the way, does that statement even sound an adult, let alone a man in a position of great responsibility. Somebody with his kind of job really should weigh their words a lot more carefully, especially to the press. Forget the legalisims or the Hobbit, this guy is just screwed up and his immaturity is a serious threat to anyone who owns stock in New Line. And I always thought it was the artists who were supposed to be tempramental.
NEW LINE without Jackson on the Hobbit is Eragon. by riskebiz	Jan 10th, 2007 11:17:59 AM
I think it's biggest hooey ever and anyone in the business from directors to stars ought to stay away from any offers New Line makes to do the Hobbit without Peter Jackson. That greedy suit there at New Line sucks the big one and ought to know better and there should be a consequence for what he is doing to Jackson. I think it's guaranteed that the Hobbit will get universal bad publicity for this and the box office will show it. Smart one, a$$holes.
Mr. Winston by Barron34	Jan 10th, 2007 11:18:18 AM
I don't think anyone is arguing that a HOBBIT movie made with someone other than Jackson wouldn't make money (at least I'm not arguing that). What I am saying is that Jackson and company are the only one to successfully portray Middle-Earth on film, and that it is somewhat foolish for New Line to sour their relationship with Jackson, who is pretty much a sure thing when it comes to Tolkein on film, whereas trying to put together another filmmaking team for THE HOBBIT could be a crapshoot. And yes, while it would be interesting to see a Del Toro version of THE HOBBIT, I think that the general audience will notice if THE HOBBIT is visually and tonally different from the LORD OF THE RINGS films, with different actors portraying Gandalf, Elrond, etc. And, there is no guarantee that New Line will land a Del Toro to direct. So, general audiences might not like a different flavor of Tolkein on film. In addition, hardcore LOTR film fans will not appreciate the change. I think that the LOTR fandom is much larger and more widespread than you imply. It is not just genre film geeks like the people on this site. It includes the wider Tolkein fan-base, old and new. In any case, in a business as unpredictable as the film business, it is usally wise to stick with what works, and we know that Jackson's version of Middle-Earth works, definitely in the commercial sense. So, while New Line might make money off of a HOBBIT film, they probably will not do as well as if they stuck with Jackson and made a film that is of a piece with the LOTR films. Just my opinion.
Peter Jackson: Still the best ever!!! Fuck Bob Shaye by Daddylonghead	Jan 10th, 2007 11:18:42 AM
and fuck all you haters. Maybe you sniveling farts are on New Line's pay roll, otherwise hard to imagine anyone else taking the side of BOB SHAYE, ARROGANT AND OBSOLETE STUDIO SUIT over that of Peter Jackson. Anyone who doesn't think the LOTR films and the team who made them, esp. the director, were the best thing since sliced bread is retarded and should fuck off!
Quint, Apparently Jackson's pal Ordesky told him ... by Ringwearer9	Jan 10th, 2007 11:19:32 AM
... that it was impossible to resolve these things in the film business by suing directly. Jackson is on record saying that Ordesky told him that the way to resolve it would be to roll whatever Jackson thought he was owed into the new deal to make THE HOBBIT. Jackson deliberately went public with that private phone conversation between him and Ordesky, which seems in very bad taste. You know it would be incredibly bad business for them to just open up their books and let Blabbermouth Jackson tell everyone what was in there, encouraging more lawsuits by other parties. They wanted to to it in a friendly way, out of the public eye, and Jackson insisted on manipulating the fan base and his Internet contacts (AICN and TheOneRing most prominently) to make him look like a principled saint, and New Line as unreasonable bastards, when the more realistic scenario is that he just didn't want to make the Hobbit, thought he could get a better deal with another company greedy for the LOTR profits, and is deliberately antagonizing New Line because he just doesn't care whether he does business with them again, and doesn't mind screwing them because he feels he can go elsewhere. Any studio that does business with him in the future better watch their backs.
who cares if jackson has made a quarter of a billion by BEARison Ford	Jan 10th, 2007 11:21:17 AM
does that automatically mean he's not entitled to the other moneys that are owed to him? just because he's rich already? that's some fucked up logic if you ask me. i wonder if robert shaye would refuse to pay me 10 bucks if he already paid me 100. of course there's two sides to every coin and i'm sure there's more to this story than meets the eye.
LOL "Bob Shaye = Ringw(b)earer9." by finky089	Jan 10th, 2007 11:25:52 AM
whata tool
One Thing Is For Certain... by chuknowz	Jan 10th, 2007 11:25:53 AM
This whole debacle will take up 2 of the 4 discs in telling, on the Hobbit SE DVD set when it comes.
Peter Jackson's 2 wives Gotta Eat his Taint by DOGSOUP	Jan 10th, 2007 11:25:54 AM
Fran and Phillipa threeway every fucking night. OPEN THE BOOKS NEW LINE!!!!
They're all the same - rich, egotistical bastards by Moa Kaka	Jan 10th, 2007 11:27:01 AM
Producers, actors, directors, they're all rich self-centered assholes. Even our "heroes" like PJ. I don't care when rich conceited people argue with each other or sue each other. May the man with the best lawyer win. Now, if someone was giving Paul Newman shit, then I would care. The only truly talented, classy man left in Hollywood.
David Goyer should direct HOBBIT ... by forgo10en	Jan 10th, 2007 11:28:25 AM
as he had already driven cool Blade franchise to the ground. Hiring guy who writes movies to direct just becouse he "saw" how the first two were made is like letting a plummer do an open heart surgery just becouse he is a fan of ER.
Bob Shaye by Judge Dredds Dirty Undies	Jan 10th, 2007 11:28:44 AM
Isn't fit to sniff Peter Jacksons taint.
QUINT, I HAVE A SERIOUS QUESTION... by Arch Nemesis	Jan 10th, 2007 11:29:36 AM
...regarding the topic you and ringwearer have been vollying back and forth, I'm not in the business so I don't know. His point was that a $220 mil budget needed $660 mil just to break even; but doesn't the $220 mil they spent cover all the costs, including director fees etc.? And if that's the case then isn't the profit enormous, since a $330 mil profit is just the beginning excluding aforementioned additional dvd sales etc.?
I liked Pirates 2 better also by Gorrister	Jan 10th, 2007 11:30:51 AM
I can nickpick Dead Man's Chest with the best of them, but I do think it was a lot better than the first movie. My biggest gripe is the the character of Elizabeth was almost completley useless for most of the picture. She didn't serve any real purpose until towards the end. I think, if they tried harder, they could have made her more important to the story....or, failing that, reduce her on-screen time.
Barron34 by Mr. Winston	Jan 10th, 2007 11:30:56 AM
Believe it or not, I'm actually agreeing with almost everything you said. In fact I think it's a rather scary proposition to lose Jackson - not because Jackson is the end-all, be-all of directors, but because they lose WETA in the process. And THAT is going to be something difficult to overcome. But my point is that it CAN be overcome. And, in fact, I think a lot of people ARE trying to argue that the film can't be profitable and can't be made well without Jackson, which I think is ridiculous. Do I really think New Line can convince a huge name like Speilberg or Lucas to helm the film? Of course not. But they took a chance with an up-and-comer in Jackson, and if someone convinced them they can do an equal (even if the tone or look is a little different), class job, would it really be that crazy to give them a shot? And trust me, I know the LOTR fandom well runs deep and true. It's not even up for debate. But if the film gets made without Jackson...how many of those fans - really, seriously now - are going to stay home and boycott this? Very, very few. After that, people in Middle America probably aren't going to notice much of a difference - if it's done well - if anything at all. If they just slap some shit together and don't bother with quality, then I'm with you - it'll tank. But it'll tank on quality, not on the director (or lack thereof).
Arch Nemesis ... Where do you get 330 million profit? by Ringwearer9	Jan 10th, 2007 11:33:51 AM
????
Oh and... by chuknowz	Jan 10th, 2007 11:37:04 AM
they'll have to re-do and re-release the original LOTR DVD sets with all the 'chummy" Oderesky appearances omitted.
I love PJ Movies, but... by Gil Brooks	Jan 10th, 2007 11:37:19 AM
...apparently his (and his people) business practices are pretty well known for being bad and unethical. Sorry, but if this was like Marvel's Civil War, my little banner would say "I'm with New Line".
Creative Accounting by Barron34	Jan 10th, 2007 11:38:14 AM
All of Hollywood operates on creative accounting, and Jackson seems to want to operate on an above-board basis. Perhaps he should have just made a "friendly" (ie, shady) deal with New Line, agree to drop his lawsuit for additional monies in THE HOBBIT deal, and just make the movie. But he didn't. I believe that some people honestly can not operate on a level other than that of being above-board and honest, and maybe Jackson sincerely is that way. Hollywood studios are notoriously reluctant to open their books, as others have pointed out, since so much of their business does depend upon a certain amount of "creative accounting". I suppose I can understand both sides here a bit. Shaye feels that New Line took a big chance on Jackson when he was far from a sure thing, and that Jackson got rich and famous as a result, and should not be looking a gift horse in the mouth and rocking the boat by requesting an audit of their books (to mix metaphors). Jackson, on the other hand, suspects he might not be receiving money he is contractually due to recieve, and so perhaps feels deceived and cheated. Thus the business relationship has soured, and everyone is suffering for it: Jackson, New Line, and the fans. My suggestion: find some neutral party in Hollywood known to both Shaye and Jackson to step in and act as a mediator to smooth this over and try to get both parties back to the table and to come to an accomodation. New Line should want to make this movie with Jackson and vice versa, and it is better for both business and the fans if this happens. Just an idea.
Boycott by Massage...Bored	Jan 10th, 2007 11:42:26 AM
Its easy folks, we boycott any hastily made Hobbit-drivel that comes out of New Line. I, frankly, won't see a Hobbit film that PJ hasn't crafted. But if it is crafted by PJ, you'd better belive I'll pay to see it five or six times in the theatre. New Line, you fools! You are missing out on soooooo much capital that its not even funny.
its amazing how different the tones of these talkbacks by Deus Vult	Jan 10th, 2007 11:42:45 AM
are based on the story or news topics. for instance, when we read about the faux wizard of oz remake dear ol' pj is directing, we talked happily and as a team about how wonderful judy "dorothy" garland's taint (perenium) would be in the new movie, provided it wasn't GCI of course. needless to say it was wonderful this one however is perhaps one of the most vile I've seen in quite some time. in fact, I can't remember the last talkback where an AICN editor had three posts to his own story or people were attacking each other with such ferocity relevance you ask? RELAX! its not like you're settling some great debate here. there's no question that New Line isn't reading these posts or cares about how the AICN perceives them to be. also, not unlike lucas or speilburg or whoever, PJ's work made millions, far more than the combined wealth of everyone reading this site from its inception to today (barring stallone and cameron of course, provided jimmy reads it anyway) and in a capitalist economic system, that's all that matters boys: not your quality of work, but the quantity of dollars it generates.
Why Jackson is wrong for the Hobbit by DufusyteII	Jan 10th, 2007 11:44:27 AM
PJ wanted to have Sauron battle Aragon hand to hand at the end of ROTK; PJ was so keen on this (idiotic) idea that he even filmed the sequence, which you can learn from the bonus disks. And PJ was also so keen on the (idiotic) idea of Arwen fighting at Helms Deep that they even filmed that as well (also in the Bonus material). And PJ was so keen on having Saruman die impaled on a wheel, that he not only filmed it but stuck it into the Extended Edition. The point is that PJ had alot of very very bad ideas about LOTR which could have totally spoiled the films, and he was so keen on these bad ideas that he came within inches of actually implementing them, and it was only the fans who held him back. The problem is that now PJ is so confident that he does not allow himself to be hled back by fans nor by anyone else, hence the venomous Kong05 which snidely mocks everyone PJ deals with, from studio execs, to actors, to the military, to everything in sight without restraint. Kong05 is like a giant flip off to the entire film industry. It even mocks the original Kong, which is quite surprizing but undeniable. Hobbit is a children's adventure story and PJ cannot make a children's film (similar to Potter, Narnia, etc). Even King Kong was not suitable for child audiences under PJ's direction. If PJ wanted to make the Hobbit, he could have made it while his lawsuit is in progress (New Line was agreeable to this), or accepted an out of court settlement (New Line offered this). PJ has been acting like a giant ape out of control, and no one can meet his demands. I hope that someone (else) will do a fine job on the Hobbit! It scares me to think what (idiotic) ideas PJ and friends would put into the story; their stated intention to make it a grown up LOTR prequel totally misses the mark to begin with. Maybe they will have Arwen slay the dragon, or have Sauron appear like a 50 foot giant, or impale Smaug on a spiked wheel. The Scouring of the Shire is the true conclusion of the LOTR story, which has the narrative arc: Paradise in the Shire, Paradise lost in the Shire due to the unselltling presence of the Ring, Paradise restored to the Shire through the valiant efforts of the hobbits, culminating in the Scouring of the Shire. J. R. R. Tolkien is a hobbit at heart, and Tolkien's focus is always on the Shire as the heart of the plot. The travels to Rohan and Gondor are just diversions for the hobbits and for Tolkien. PJ totally missed this point, and PJ is more concerned about the world of men than the world of the hobbits. PJ did not include a Scouring of the Shire because PJ's vision is not Shire-centric, i.e., not hobbit-centric. For PJ, the story ends when the world of men is safe (victory of Gondor). PJ really does not care what's up at the Shire. But for J. R. R. Tolkien, the story is only complete with the victory of the Shire, which was a more important skirmish than the entire war at Gondor/Mordor. The point is that PJ does not have a hobbit focus. Indeed, making The Hobbit into a LOTR Prequel will once again take the focus away from the hobbits and place the focus on the human/elven characters. Just say NO to this.
Barron, It's very clear Jackson's being cheated by jimmy_009	Jan 10th, 2007 11:49:12 AM
"Perhaps he should have just made a "friendly" (ie, shady) deal with New Line, agree to drop his lawsuit for additional monies in THE HOBBIT deal, and just make the movie. But he didn't." Then who's to say they wouldn't pull the same stunt on him when he made them ass loads of cash on the Hobbit? "Well, we won't pay you what we owe you, but we'll let you make another picture with us." P. Jackson shouldn't fall for that kind of deal, because he'll basically keep getting screwed over. I can't imagine why New Line wouldnt show it's book to P.J. unless they have something to hide. My guess is they'll get what's coming to them when their Hobbit movie get's a thumbs down and P.J.'s lawyers get him his money anyways. New Line tanks. End of story.
I don't know, Uwe Boll's pretty overrated too... by Ribbons	Jan 10th, 2007 11:55:32 AM
...you think you know how bad his movies are, until you see them and they turn out to be even worse than you could have possibly imagined...
This won't be a problem for future Matrix movies. by Some Dude	Jan 10th, 2007 11:56:13 AM
Audience lack of interest might be, though.
Any Accountants Here? by DarfurOnTheRocks	Jan 10th, 2007 11:56:45 AM
The idea that you just open your books to anyone is a joke. And I also find the anti-New Line sentiment that permeates the story to be ridiculous. As for The Hobbit, let us once again clarify that the universe is not Jackson's, but rather Tolkien's. This idea that only Jackson can do Tolkien is ridiculous. Get someone who is hungry, not a chap that simultaneously claims to love the universe and then shakes the studio, who committed a large chuck of money on LOTR, for more cash.
Sauron is Behind all of this!!!!!! by DarfurOnTheRocks	Jan 10th, 2007 12:00:17 PM
Look how he turned New Line and Peter Jackson against each other!!!! Ever since PJ won that Oscar, there has been that gleam in his eye...
NEW LINE will have a head start on THE HOBBIT ... by Ringwearer9	Jan 10th, 2007 12:03:20 PM
... which MEANS that if Jackson wants to compete with his own "authentically Jacksonized" Hobbit, he'll be at least a year behind, 2 years if New Line starts right away. WHICH MEANS that of the two versions, New Line's is the one most LIKELY to NOT be rushed, to be a QUALITY production. If Jackson waits 2 years and then does it right (not likely, lots of shoddiness in ROTK and KING KONG)he still loses because the majority of moviegoers will already have seen New Line's version, and won't be much in the mood for another, even if it's stuffed with cameo insertions for actors from Jackson's LOTR. And if Jackson rushed THE HOBBIT into production to beat New Line's to market, it's going to necessarily be shoddy and rushed. I know which film I'm going to boycott ... Jackson's, because I'm boycotting any filmmaker who makes the Hobbit only if he gets the millions he's owed, not because he truly loves the story. That, of course, might be true of New Line's new director, but I'm willing to give that guy a chance. Jackson has proven himself to be a gigantically uninterested in Tolkien other than as an opportunity for his effect company to show off... if it hadn't been for his wife and Boyens being fans of the books, he'd have turned into an All-Orcs-All-The-Time shitfest, and tried as hard as he could to do that.
v for vienetta = awesome by misnomer	Jan 10th, 2007 12:04:54 PM
kudos
Ringwearer9... by Mr. Winston	Jan 10th, 2007 12:05:39 PM
...What in the bloody fuck are you talking about? Jackson can't compete with New Line on a simultaneous project that he doesn't have the rights to. In what world do you live that you could possibly have concocted this scenario?
Guillermo Del Toro for "Hobbit" by Christopher3	Jan 10th, 2007 12:08:03 PM
New Line still likes him, right?
BringingSexyBack: You Are Right.... by DarfurOnTheRocks	Jan 10th, 2007 12:08:44 PM
Yeah, I see your point. But if that was the case, wouldn't it be an open and shut case to gain access to the books? Just wondering?
Ringwearer9, take it like a man by Talkbacker with no name	Jan 10th, 2007 12:10:16 PM
you have once again been proved wrong on every level! I tihink you enjoy being the most hated talkbacker of all time. Well done, egghead. I think it will be a real shame to lose Jackson. I for one really like this 'rings' world and would nothing more than to see his Hobbit movie...but it's not over yet, let's not forget MGM are the ones here who can do something about it (if they haven't started already on getting full control some how).
Dear Mr Winston, by Talkbacker with no name	Jan 10th, 2007 12:10:51 PM
you have a problem with Del Toro's Pan fantasy movie (it's fantasy whatever you say) but would be quite happy for him to do the hobbit? Looks like you have just made my pwning by you the other day void. hehe thanks!
Dufusyte by FluffyUnbound	Jan 10th, 2007 12:13:17 PM
LOTR explicitly does not end with "paradise restored". Frankly, the entire point of the Scouring and of Frodo's departure is that "sometimes you have to give things up, to lose them, so that others may keep them". The end of LOTR is bittersweet, and the bitter part of it is the entire point of the story. To Tolkien all change was loss and the best we could hope for was to minimize that loss and pass on what we could. The Shire and Middle Earth are not the same at the end of the story, and everything in the appendices makes that clear, and only adds to the tone of loss at the end of the narrative. And while "The Hobbit" is in some ways a children's story [the Rankin-Bass version makes that clear] it doesn't read as exclusively a children's story. The narrative voice is very light and airy, but if you look at the actual events of the story [and looking is what we're going to be doing in a film version, after all] it's practically a horror film. The bit with the trolls is comic relief, naturally, but the other sections - the capture by the goblins, a better-fed Gollum on his own ground, the spiders of Mirkwood, Smaug, the Battle of Five Armies - wouldn't exactly be "My Little Pony" if shot on film and not animated.
Stallone to direct Lord of the Rings IV: The Beginning by kirttrik	Jan 10th, 2007 12:17:44 PM
Coming this December 2007. Every Journey has a Beginning where the journey begins. To walk you have to step. Peter O'toole as Gandalf. Stallone as Bilbo Baggins. and introducing Jim Carrey as the magical Gullum. This holiday... experience the power...of the beginning... of the ONE RING! Written and Directed by Sylvester Stallone Produced by Robert Shaye Associate Producer: Ringwearer9 aka:goofydouche Get ready to experience AAAWWWESOME! (Theatrical poster tag line.)
Jackson saved New Line. by Russman	Jan 10th, 2007 12:18:36 PM
How easy people forget.... When AOL bought Time Warner (which owned New Line at the time), the executives were gonna shut New Line down. It was only after they saw how cheap Rings was going to be, after factoring in the credits and exchange rate, that they opted to keep it around and see how the movies were going to do. So Jackson saved that company.
Mr. Winston, You are Correct ! by Ringwearer9	Jan 10th, 2007 12:19:44 PM
I was imagining the rights being available again come their expiration, even if there was an ongoing production by the previous holder of those rights. Does starting production LATE (just before rights expire) extend those rights for as long as the production and marketing of the DVDs takes? If that's the case, New Line wins again, because Jackson is shut out of making his version for a few years after the rights expire. That means, sets deteriorate, original teams turn over (Jackson said on Kong that it was a rush to make use of LOTR's effects team anyway, before they naturally drifted away or changed) and actors lose their loyalty and get hopelessly involved in other projects. If New Line just plays it cool, and doesn't get all superstitious about the Jackson Golden Touch, they stand to really clean up with a Hobbit movie. If they'd stuck with Jackson, we'd have gotten the King Kong treatment of the Hobbit. As a lover of that book, it's the last thing I want to see.
Mr. Winston by Barron34	Jan 10th, 2007 12:20:48 PM
Fair enough. I'm glad that you basically agree with my prior post. I likewise agree with most of what you have said prior. But give Jackson a chance to prove himself beyond LOTR. I think in the long run, if he can produce other films that stand up well in his post-LOTR resume, he might prove that he is more than just the guy who managed to make the LORD OF THE RINGS films. Even that is obviously enough to earn him his place in Hollywood history, but the question now is, does he have staying power and can he make good or even great films beyond LOTR. I think Jackson might prove that he can, in the long run. That is if he does not retreat into a Lucas-like self-imposed exile from the mainstream of movie-making. My personal feeling about Lucas was that he simply should have kept making Star Wars movies after RETURN OF THE JEDI, interspersing them with other non-Star Wars films, thus keeping his hand directly in the filmmaking process. By the time he returned to the Star Wars universe, too much had changed and too much time had gone by, in my opinion. But, that is another matter...
Russman, TOLKIEN Saved New Line. by Ringwearer9	Jan 10th, 2007 12:22:02 PM
In spite of Peter Jackson and his crappy taste in Zombie effects.
But is PJ "untouchable?" by Movietool	Jan 10th, 2007 12:23:40 PM
I wonder if, given his current clout, PJ would have pushed through the "Warrior Princess" Arwen at Helm's Deep instead of capitulating to the fans. If PJ didn't have LotR behind him - maybe someone could have talked him out of some of the more tedious and ridiculous aspects of "King Kong" (the bronto-stampede and the whole Jimmy go-nowhere "Heart of Darkness" sub-plot spring to mind. "Untouchable" directors like PJ and George Lucas can lead to very bad movies. In the end, I'm a little more interested to see a newcomer take a crack at The Hobbit than let PJ go willy-nilly on it, as King Kong leads me to believe he would.
Dear Talkbacker with no name by Mr. Winston	Jan 10th, 2007 12:23:43 PM
1. No matter what you claim, PAN'S is still only about 15% fantasy film. 2. I can't believe you just tried to use the term "pwning" seriously. Do you have any idea what an incredible level of douchebaggery you've just reached? I will never, for the life of me, understand you Internet Huggers. 3. Point out to me where I said that I personally want to see del Toro take over THE HOBBIT. Please. Because, as you well know, that's not what I said at all. What I was doing was simply making the point that, if he wanted to take over the film, Jackson Nation would immediately trip over themselves to dump ol' Peter and hop on the GDT bandwagon. Even you're smart enough to have intuited that. Frankly, though, I'd be more than happy to partake in GDT's version of THE HOBBIT. He's a great director, as I emoted in the PAN'S thread. He's just a shitty writer. So as long as he sticks with just the directing and isn't allowed anywhere near the screenplay, that's cool with me.
Not a big fan of Jackson by ewokstew	Jan 10th, 2007 12:24:13 PM
or any of the LOTR movies. I'm not saying they weren't technically well done. I just ain't in to it. Honestly, the only real fond memories I've had of the whole LOTR universe was the animated one they did when I was a wee lad. I'd watch that again before any of the LOTR flicks. Just my opinion, though.
Indiana Jones and the Raiders of Peter Jackson's Taint by Forestal	Jan 10th, 2007 12:27:08 PM
Featuring Bob Shaye as the wacky sidekick.
Barron34 by Mr. Winston	Jan 10th, 2007 12:29:32 PM
I'm with you - if this whole lawsuit thing hadn't come up I think I would have been puzzled and upset if New Line had tried to go on without Jackson. In theory he absolutely deserves a chance to make THE HOBBIT, but practically it doesn't seem like that's going to be a reality. My only point was that the lack of Jackson doesn't negate the possibility of a quality film, especially if New Line can bring another accomplished director onboard. Even though I'm not his biggest fan ever, I'd still rather see PJ complete the series than it be given to someone else; the problem is that the reality of the situation sort of makes that a moot point, especially from the business perspective. My contention with Lucas will always be that he got so caught up in the CGI aspect of the STAR WARS films that he either forgot how to work with real people and practical sets or decided to just phone in the "directing" of the material.
Guys, enough with all the stupid talkback sayings. by brokentusk	Jan 10th, 2007 12:29:46 PM
It's really fucking annoying trying to have a discussion and seeing a million "so-and-so GOTTA EAT!" It's enough. As for this article, Robert Shaye can lick my balls. Really, nothing was said in the article that hasn't been known already, but to repeat myself for the Nth time, New Line's greed will only bring them troubles.
Man, I LOVE it when AICN does a PJ story. by Mr. Nice Gaius	Jan 10th, 2007 12:32:59 PM
Because when they ring that dinner bell, Ringwearer9 (like a starving, mangy mutt) comes a runnin'.
Thank you, Nice Gaius. by Ringwearer9	Jan 10th, 2007 12:34:39 PM
Stay close behind me, and I'll drop you some chicken bones.
Jimmy-009 by Barron34	Jan 10th, 2007 12:36:44 PM
I basically agree with your viewpoint and with the concept that principles, contracts, and above-board business practices SHOULD be the norm.. What I was trying to point out, perhaps not so successfully, is that Hollywood does not generally operate in this manner, and that maybe half a loaf is better than none. DEals in Hollywood are more about leverage than principle, unfortunately, and I was just pointing out that Jackson probably COULD have come to some accomodation where he got more money out of New Line, and gone on to direct THE HOBBIT, without completing his lawsuit and getting a look at New Line's books. I am not saying that this is the way it SHOULD be, but am saying that it is the way it generally IS. In one sense, I applaud Jackson for sticking to his guns, but in another sense, as a film fan, I regret that he did not just take a deal and direct THE HOBBIT. I am basically pro-Jackson, but in the post you refer to, I was trying also to see it from the studio's side, insofar as they have one. My ultimate point was that both sides could benefit from a mediator. My own interest in the matter is that I would just like to see the film, preferably directed by Jackson.
I just read Robert Shaye's comment. by brokentusk	Jan 10th, 2007 12:37:02 PM
What an ungrateful son of a bitch. It's almost as if he said, "Sure the guy made some good movies, but whatever." Hello you moron! The guy made you more money than your studio had ever seen before! He guaranteed your studio a place in film history! He won numerous Oscars for your studio! If he wants to check that he isn't owed some money, re-assure him that he isn't! I feel sick just thinking about the unfairness going on here.
Ringwearer9 by Mr. Nice Gaius	Jan 10th, 2007 12:39:34 PM
Aww, charity. That's nice.
Dearest Mr. Winston, by Talkbacker with no name	Jan 10th, 2007 12:39:46 PM
"use the term "pwning" seriously"? I'm far from serious, I just thought that was how smartarse TB's like you talked to each other? I was just trying to communicate with you on a level I thought you would respect and I did admit you out did me in a battle of the minds (even if english is not my first language and still I don't agree with anything your said). You know, we might have been friends in a fantasy life. You just need a big hug! Oh come here you silly billy.
Quint, I AM an X-Men comic fan... by ejcarter9	Jan 10th, 2007 12:42:19 PM
...or was... but I loved the HELL out of X3. Loved it loved it LOVED IT! So fuck all you haters. I mean that in the nicest way possible.
Mr Winston me old mate, by Talkbacker with no name	Jan 10th, 2007 12:42:21 PM
For the record Lucas has never been able to work with real people...i'm not havign a go before you crush me, just saying. Now where's that hug?
Stupid executives by beelkay	Jan 10th, 2007 12:45:38 PM
They're always fouling things up.
Ringwearer9 to adapt Lord of the Rings IV: IT BEGINS by kirttrik	Jan 10th, 2007 12:46:32 PM
Coming this December 2007. Every Journey has a Beginning where the journey begins. To walk you have to step. Peter O'toole as Gandalf. Stallone as Bilbo Baggins. and introducing Jim Carrey as the magical Gullum. This holiday... experience the power...of the beginning... of the ONE RING! Directed by Sylvester Stallone. Produced by Robert Shaw. Adapted for the screen by Ringwearer9 aka:goofydouche and Sylvester Stallone. "Get ready to experience AAAWWWESOME!" (Theatrical poster tag line.)
BSB, Thanks for Clearing that Up by DarfurOnTheRocks	Jan 10th, 2007 12:49:13 PM
Isn't it always interesting that when there is an accounting "error" is almost always favours big business?!!!
Twnn by Mr. Winston	Jan 10th, 2007 12:50:58 PM
I don't know, I think I'd disagree. If we're sticking to STAR WARS specifically, you can point to a lot of good performances in the first three films. But in the second go-round...everyone sucks. I'll give a pass to Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor in PHANTOM MENACE, but when you make the idiotic decision to cast Hayden Christiansen, one of the worst working actors on the planet, and when even McGregor and Natalie Portman blow in the final two episodes...I think your head is stuck way too far into a computer.
I love Ringwearer9 by DerLanghaarige	Jan 10th, 2007 12:51:32 PM
Doesn'T matter how much I bitch about Tarantino, I know that HE is around and makes me look good with his pointless Anti-Jackson-bullshit. He is like Kevin Federline. Just in this world to make us losers look good.
Fuck Peter Jackson. by C Legion	Jan 10th, 2007 12:51:44 PM
You PJ nuts make out like it's his world, bollocks, it's Tolkiens, and I for one would like to see someone else have a crack at it. Jackson worked hard and made some decent films, they have some great elements but also some awful ones (including much of the acting). New Line put their arses on the line for an "unknown" director and they paid him handsomely, I would have thought the greedy bastard would be happy with the 100's of millions he's already made.
Better Directors, better choices. by Calico Pete	Jan 10th, 2007 12:56:41 PM
There are many directors who, creatively, could've done a better job than Jackson. George Miller. Peter Weir. Julie Taymor. I could go on... could they have handled the logistics of this massive endeavor? Jackson did a good job in that he shot 3 giant, technically complicated, expensive, movies w/o going severely over-schedule, over-budget, killing himself, becoming sick over the stress, etc. But he's not the only one who could handled these mechanics. If these other directors had made the films (or if any of them make the Hobbit), they'd open our eyes to the wonders of the story rather than the mechanics of it. As for the cast... as for the effects... as for all the other stuff you mention. Please. Elijah Wood? Frak, man. Gollum looked more realistic than him. I would have been less surprised to hear Wood had CG eyes than I was about Davy Jones' eyes in POTC2. And as for Gollum... I liked him in the 1st movie, but didn't like how they changed his look for 2. His acting was over-the-top mugging. If you watch ILM's Hulk, which came out around the same time as Two Towers, you'll much more subtle acting from a CG characteroid, IMHO. And as for Gandalf... here is my genius but controversial recommendation: Al Pacino. Wait, don't dismiss. Picture those eyes of his in Gandalf makeup. Give him the hat, the nose, the white hair. Those wild eyes are still hunting you from their perch. Add to that his acting abilities (goes without saying he can do the basics: a British accent and dropping the Pacino-isms, he's an actor fer chrissakes... check out "Looking For Richard"). Imagine, in other words, someone looking like Gandalf. Cake, right? There's makeup and wardrobe for that. (Remember the degree of physical transformation behind Dustin Hoffman's Hook, Danny DeVito's Penguin, and many other examples?) Now imagine you give that hypothetical someone Pacino's eyes. They can be haunted. They can be fiery. The can twinkle. They are behind one of the most powerful gazes in Hollywood. Now couple all of that with brilliant acting ability. Who is this hypothetical creature you're left with? Al Pacino. And no, he would not give us "Pacino's Gandalf(tm)", Scarface/Gandalf, not a parody, which is what most people of limited imagination picture. No. He's as much a chameleon as any other actor. He'd inhabit the character, and give us Gandalf, proper! BTW I'm not saying I didn't like McKellan. I'm just saying you can also succeed by making creative, NON-obvious choices, and you'd be all the more amazing for it. Jackson is not known for non-obvious, even among his biggest fans. As a test... answer me this: If you read nothing else in this post, answer me this: In terms of Jackson's choices, what delightfully surprised you the most about the LOTR films when you saw them? For me, shots and moments here and there, for example the scene where Gandalf whispered to the moth in Saruman's tower, or the way the ringwraiths moved, or the quiet moments in Moria before the storm. Something about these was refreshing and unexpected. But most pieces of those films were "as expected". The look, the battles, the emotional beats of the acting. It's as if being told the story of the books, in vivid detail, but by an average storyteller with an average imagination. Yeah, you get the story, you see the sights, but you're not touched by genius. It's someone showing you a slide show about their family trip to middle earth rather than you going there yourself. And don't start the Silver Surfer type argument of "what do you expect a silver guy on a surfboard to look like?!" "What do you expect an elf stabbing an orc to look like?" There are many ways to say "I love you," for example. There are moments in movies where those words echo predictably and moments where they punch you in the stomach. In the former case, you don't need the director. You can shut your eyes and plug your ears and you won't miss anything your imagination can't fill in exactly or better. In the latter, the director did his job.
OMG no PJ on The Hobbit!!!!!!!!!!!!! by MrJJonz	Jan 10th, 2007 12:57:38 PM
How will we cope. Could we persuade the whole world to boycott the movie?? Orrr - (now this is a stretch of the imagination so bear with me) - hope that New Line get a decent director to do the Hobbit rather like when they took a gamble on Jackson doing LOTR. Remember people PJ is not a god. Personally I enjoyed LOTR but would mind something new in The Hobbit
true about the prequels, Mr. W by Talkbacker with no name	Jan 10th, 2007 01:00:15 PM
but I think the performances in the trilogy are more to do with the actors than with George. Look at the making of on the star wars DVD. Carrie, Ford and Hamill all joke about Luca's style of directing them (was it "faster more intense"?). Back off ringbearer9! Winston and I are just patching up our differences and he doesn't want to be your friend!...do you MW?
Calico Pete by Mr. Winston	Jan 10th, 2007 01:08:35 PM
You just made me fall out of my chair laughing, even if that wasn't your intent. Still, you've convinced me, and now I'm drawing a line in the sand - I will boycott THE HOBBIT, no matter who the director is, if Al Pacino is not cast as Gandalf. The unintentional comedy that could result from this is incalculable. I have a feeling that it could be every bit as fantastic as Darrel Hammond impersonating Richard Dreyfuss when he auditioned for the role of C3PO in an SNL skit circa 1997.
Peter Jackson gotta eat, Too Soon... by boba_rob	Jan 10th, 2007 01:17:19 PM
F*** Michael Bay, Bomb in Ribcage, Sexiest Tomboy Beanpole, Bringing Sexy Back, Dick in a Box...Am I missing any??
Jackson is suing New Line for at least $100 million by Ye Not Guilty	Jan 10th, 2007 01:19:43 PM
It's not correct to say that Jackson isn't suing for any money. His lawyers have said Jackson is suing for at least $100 million, maybe more. There was an article about it in the New York Times called "The Lawsuit of the Rings" which explained much of the issues and claims and defenses of each party. So, sure, if I were PJ and I believed New Line was cheating me of at least $100 million, I would for sure sue. On the other hand, if I were a New Line CEO, and my accountants and attorneys advised me that Peter Jackson had absolutely received every dime he was contractually entitled to recieve, then I would act exactly as New Line is doing in this case. It's hard top say which party is in the wrong here, and who is being greedy. Ultimately, both parties will probably opt to settle rather than continue litigating, and we'll never find out the truth.
Studio would have to work real hard to fuck up Hobbit by Reelheed	Jan 10th, 2007 01:19:56 PM
Its a classic kids book and should make a great film with or without Peter Jackson. Its a shame money has caused such a problem but fat cats need to stay fat. God lord imagine if someone misplaced a few hundred thousand bucks of your cash.
But BringingSexy, Can't Jackson sue AFTER the Hobbit? by Ringwearer9	Jan 10th, 2007 01:23:14 PM
Is there a statute of limitations? Wouldn't making the Hobbit bring even more money into his coffers, help Wingnut and WETA reinvest in employees and projects and development? And then, LATER, when Jackson's star is falling and he doesn't see the need to play ball with Hollywood, he could sue, when murdering his own reputation as a team player wasn't an issue. It makes me wonder if Jackson doesn't know his star is falling, which is why he feels he has nothing to lose by this lawsuit, and everything to gain.
Peter is one of the stars by abovo	Jan 10th, 2007 01:23:21 PM
Doing the movie without Peter Jackson is like doing Indy 4 without Spielberg or a Godfather movie without Francis Ford Coppola. At a certain point, the director can become one of the stars, although unseen.
question for people who are glad to get rid of jackson by Talkbacker with no name	Jan 10th, 2007 01:26:03 PM
and you happy that all the major cast memebers will follow him? Are you sure you are happy for it to be recast? ...i'm not :(
Lord of the Rings V: Hobbit in Space by kirttrik	Jan 10th, 2007 01:28:48 PM
Coming this December 2007. Every Journey has a Beginning where the journey begins. To walk you have to step. AL PACINO as Gandalf. STALLONE as Bilbo Baggins. and introducing JIM CARREY as the magical Gullum. This holiday... experience the power...of the beginning... of the ONE RING! Directed by Sylvester Stallone. Produced by Robert Shaw. Adapted for the screen by Ringwearer9 aka:goofydouche and Sylvester Stallone. "This Summer, it Gets even AAAWWWESOMER!" (Theatrical poster tag line even though it's going to be released in Dec.)
As for Star Wars, I blame Rick McCallum by Doctor_Sin	Jan 10th, 2007 01:29:27 PM
He got almost as much on-air interview time as Lucas. Lucas was just as much a victim of his own marketing machine as he was perpetrator thereof.
Oh, and Steve Sansweet too. by Doctor_Sin	Jan 10th, 2007 01:30:37 PM
He got in the mix in 96 and lookee, lookee.
New Line owes me quite a bit of money as well by SpyGuy	Jan 10th, 2007 01:31:18 PM
Namely, refunds for AUSTIN POWERS IN GOLDMEMBER, FREDDY VS. JASON, LOST IN SPACE, MORTAL KOMBAT: ANNIHILATION, and SPAWN. Pay up, Shaye, you douchebag!
Shia Labeouf and Tommy Lee Jones as Bilbo and Gandalf.. by Darth_Inedible	Jan 10th, 2007 01:32:03 PM
Ratner can direct. Cheap it out a little on the production side and you're guarenteed a nice profit.
Talkbacker, what's to miss? by Ringwearer9

Talkbacks

Oooh, the gloves are off now. Robert Shaye strikes back at Peter Jackson, banning him from New Line!!