Thread: The Hobbit Movie Thread
December 1st, 2006, 11:27 AM #46
You're right, JBI, I should have said that I personally don't think Jackson did a good job with King Kong. But King Kong also proved to studios that Jackson is not as reliably bankable as they wanted him to be. (I don't think anybody could be, actually, though I am not of the view that all in Hollywood are souless moneygrubbers.) That doesn't mean that they aren't lining up to make movies with him, but it does mean they don't regard him as a guaranteed money tree no more. He's replaceable.
New Line has the rights to the LOTR franchise until 2008, and they understandably want to make the Hobbit before then. They've probably sunk a good bit of money into it already for pre-development -- some of it paid to Jackson. Embroiled in a revenue battle with Jackson on Fellowship (and I'm guessing New Line was trying to shaft him,) and with the fallout that Jackson won't/can't make the Hobbit until the dispute is resolved, not to mention he already has a schedule of other projects that would make a normal person blanche, then the logical move was to get another director. And by doing so, possibly galvanize Jackson to agree to do a deal to direct the Hobbit sooner, or at least move the project forward.
Jackson, for his part, is not just screaming about money, but that doesn't mean he isn't using his leverage out of this either. The likelihood is that they'll either: 1) work out a deal for Jackson to direct, with him promising to put Hobbit ahead of other projects; 2) Jackson will adroitly stall production, the rights revert, and we get a Hobbit movie directed by Jackson somewhere in the 2010-2012 time period, if he doesn't lose interest or gets too committed to other projects he's doing; 3) they work out a deal with a new director and Jackson is executive producer, which is the one I'm betting on.
These drama diva matches go on all the time in Hollywood. I remember when Mike Meyers and Ron Howard were getting down and dirty and then six months later they were buddies again. Everybody involved loves the Hobbit and nobody wants to bury it, much, so it will get worked out one way or another. And whether Jackson or somebody else directs it, it will be a lovely movie, because the story itself is a great one.
And of course McKellan and Serkis will be involved, unless McKellan has a health crisis, which is more likely to happen if shooting doesn't begin until 2009 or later. It's not fun that the parents are fighting and the kids have to wait for Christmas, but it can't be helped.
December 1st, 2006, 12:12 PM #47
December 1st, 2006, 06:03 PM #48
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
Any chance they could get a director with PJ's world building, but who sticks to the story exactly?
Don't get me wrong, I think he did an excellent job. But like many others who were LOTR fans before the movie came out, I wish they'd stayed with the original story. I was disappointed how they changed Faramir (one of my favorite chars).
The Hobbit is an excellent book. I would love to see it done precisely as Tolkien told it. But oh well, I can't think of any movie of a book that stayed with the book's story exactly(as much as possible in movie form, that is). They always want to "enhance" it for a movie audience.
Anyway, I'm not trying to rip Jackson. But I agree with Wayne....now that we have a basic framework for LOTR as a movie, the Hobbit should not deter greatly from it or it will be disappointing.
December 1st, 2006, 06:13 PM #49
December 1st, 2006, 07:27 PM #50
He was kind of an ass, in the books he helped Frodo out, in the movies he never actually even let them go at all, they escaped in the middle of a fight or something. He didn't come across as quite so much of an ogre in the extended edition but he was a long ways off from the heroic guy in the books.
December 1st, 2006, 07:52 PM #51
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
I believe Aragron and Faramir were the two men who never showed any corrosive desire for the ring (in the book). Then in the movie, Faramir is a sniveling weakling who wants nothing but power and approval from Daddy and only decides to do what is right at the very last instant.
December 1st, 2006, 07:53 PM #52
I didn't really see it that way. But, hey, to each his own opinion. I really loved the books and the movies. And on a related note: I really didn't miss Tom Bombadil. lol
December 1st, 2006, 10:16 PM #53
Just remember what happened when new directors took over the Batman franchise: George Clooney, and a batsuit with nipples on it. (Not to mention a horrible Robin and Batgirl).
(To be fair, Christopher Nolan has managed to re-invent the franchise. But I dpn't think Middle Earth needs re-inventing right now.)
December 5th, 2006, 05:52 AM #54
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- The sea, looking for food constantly.
I missed tom bombadil.
And the best part of all the ending. why on earth did they miss out the reclaming of the shire. that would have been awsome.
December 5th, 2006, 10:33 PM #55why on earth did they miss out the reclaming of the shire. that would have been awsome.
December 6th, 2006, 12:54 AM #56
December 6th, 2006, 11:51 AM #57Hey, Wardog. Faramir was definitely my favorite character in the books. Funny though, I thought PJ did a pretty good job with Faramir. I've read the books and seen the movies so many times I kind of get the portrayals mixed up. What did you think was amiss with PJ's Faramir?
Last edited by Evil Agent; December 6th, 2006 at 11:53 AM.
January 11th, 2007, 04:38 AM #58
January 11th, 2007, 08:35 AM #59
Oh, that's too bad. I hate to see that kind of mud-flinging, whether the subject deserves it or not. Well then, any word of just who will be directing the film, if definitely not PJ?
January 12th, 2007, 12:13 AM #60Well then, any word of just who will be directing the film, if definitely not PJ?
Here is the public attack that Bob Shaye (head of New Line) made on Peter Jackson this week: http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?id=39462
Here is Peter Jackson's response: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/31211
I have to say that Shaye's comments sound pretty fishy, especially because he just keeps repeating how much money PJ made, and trying to make PJ sound greedy. Saying PJ should just be happy with what he got. But ask yourself...why on earth would PJ care about a little more money, when he made so much? Because of the principal of the matter. I find myself leaning far more towards PJ's side of the story (that New Line probably messed with the books, and legally owes him).
I also think that Shaye has painted himself as a complete jerk (by bashing PJ), yet PJ has remained a class-act all the way (even saying that he still holds "the highest respect and affection" for the guy!!! LOL!).
Last edited by Evil Agent; January 12th, 2007 at 12:21 AM.