Peter Jackson Hints At The Hobbit

Hellboy0101 writes "News.com.au is reporting that New Line Cinema is currently in talks to purchase the rights to the film adaptation of The Hobbit. There are apparently some difficulties with getting the go ahead from Tolkien's son Christopher, who is executor of the estate. When asked if New Line has approached him about the project, Jackson said he has not ruled it out, but not until after King Kong is done. 'New Line, which spent $US300million ($415 million) making the films, is already planning to continue its Rings success with an adaptation of Tolkien's novel The Hobbit. More difficulties with the Tolkien estate were looming, said Jackson, who added that he would be keen to get involved after he finishes remaking King Kong in 2006. "New Line haven't actually talked to me about The Hobbit. I know there's difficulty about the rights, certainly if they want to talk to me about it I'd be keen," he said.'"

Comments

Please, no hobbit!

[Azadre]

If he does this, he'll ruin a children's classic. LOTR was okay because they were for a wider audience. However, The Hobbit is more about imagination and every child will get a different interpretation. A film puts out one interpretation thus squashing imagination.

Re:Please, no hobbit!

[mcpkaaos]

If he does this, he'll ruin a children's classic... A film puts out one interpretation thus squashing imagination.

So? That's generally the situation with any movie adapted from a book. Movies written from pre-existing works are based on another's perception of that work, never a direct expression of the work itself (unless, I suppose, the author of that work participates in the film-making. In which case the movie will still by slightly influenced by the director's interpretation). Besides, I wouldn't necessarily rule out the possibility that the same children you think are reading The Hobbit are also reading the LOTR books. In any case, they'll still get the full value of the books if they are read, and still much of the story if they just watch the movies instead without ever reading them. Either way the story is told, which is the important thing.

It's like that version of Romeo and Juliet we all had to watch in middle school. It was a pretty loose interpretation of Shakespeare, but for those that would have never read it on their own, it atleast instilled a good sense of the work.

Re:Please, no hobbit!

[Penguinshit]

actually, if the movie is tailored for a wide audience (PG-13) then most kids will get a chance to read the book before they're old enough to see the movie.

When I was seeing the "The Two Towers", before the movie started, my wife and I started talking to this young girl (must have been under 8) who was there with her mother. She was seated in front of us and doing the usual young child sit-backward-in-the-seat-and-gape-at-strangers trick. We asked her if she'd seen the first movie; she said yes. We asked her if she liked it; she said yes. I asked her if she liked reading the books (hell, I first read them when I was about her age) and she replied, "Oh no, I don't have to read the books - my mom is buying the DVD!".

I didn't know who to slap - the little girl or her mother.

Re:Please, no hobbit!

[drkich]

An author was once asked about a film adaptation of his movie that was just awefull. The person making the comment said that they ruined the book.

On the contrary said the author, my book still exists in its original form. Nothing has changed except that a new movie was made.

Re:Please, no hobbit!

[tbmaddux]

If he does this, he'll ruin a children's classic... A film puts out one interpretation thus squashing imagination.

On the other hand, "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" didn't ruin anything for me.

Re:Please, no hobbit!

[Overly Critical Guy]

Oh, please. Peter Jackson captured the whimsical nature of Hobbiton and that first half of Fellowship of the Ring perfectly. Every scene between Gandalf and Bilbo was magic. It'd just be that same tone throughout the Hobbit, with hints of the darker world to come in the LOTR trilogy.

It would, quite frankly, rock.

Re:Please, no hobbit!

[AuMatar]

When did this fixation that books were somehow 'superior' to visual media first come into vogue? I've seen some very moving movies in my time, and read some awful books.

Because they are. Movies are limited to only 2 of he five senses. They're also limiited to the time people are willing to sit in a theater, the amount of money in the budget, the technical capabilites at the time of production, the abilities of the cast and crew, the interpretation of the dirctor, etc.

Books have no such limitation. The only limitations are the imagination of the reader and the ability of the author. They have far more room to grow and explore than movies do. Concepts that would utterly fail in a cramped media like film can work when powered by your imagination. And unlike movies, who's effects get dated, the power of the written word never fades.

You may find a few so-so books turned into decent movies. And you may find an adaptation that makes you look at something differently. But you will never find a good or great book that is surpassed by a movie version.

Gandalf aging backwards?

[kutuz_off]

If they plan to do it, they better do it quick. The only (I believe) common character of the trilogy and the Hobbit is Gandalf. Ian McKellen isn't getting any younger.

Re:Gandalf aging backwards?

[Mr_Icon]

Gandalf is not a man -- he is istari, an immortal Maya (sort of a "lesser god"). He came to Middle Earth a few thousand years before the action of LOTR takes place and he was already old back then, considering he's been around in one shape or the other since the creation of Arda. :)

See more here: Encyclopedia of Arda

Damn... Did I just fail the geek outing test?

For the Community

[CaptainCarrot]

From the article: If he can't have a museum, Jackson wants a bronze statue of the film's characters in Wellington to thank the people of New Zealand for their support - and the $NZ300 million ($265 million) tax break they gave the producers. "We have appealed to (the Tolkien estate) at various times to do something for the community but they keep saying no," Jackson said.

Someone should tell Jackson that there's a whole lot you can do for a community besides put up a museum or a monument to what you did with their tax break, and it need not even be an eyesore like that statue he wants. How about building parks and playgrounds? Contributing to local health programs? Financial aid for economically depressed areas? Charities? Libraries? Help for schools?

These and a whole lot of others are ways to give back to the community in ways that really help. And they don't require the permission of the Tolkien estate either.

Re:For the Community

[IshanCaspian]

The guy's a filmmaker giving the equivalent of a giant thank-you card, not a civil servant.

the Hobbit will be better than LOTR

[myc]

I think the Hobbit, in a screenplay more true to the original book, will work better on film than LoTR, because it's a far shorter and more self-contained story that will translate to the big screeen more effectively. It's not as deep as LoTR, and will appeal to children. Because it has the potential to be more true to the books, the diehards will be happy, and new fans will also enjoy the simpler storyline.

Remember the animated version? It was really goood! I'd imagine that a live action version, using WETA's technology, could potentially be even better.

Re:Details, please?

[veddermatic]

Maybe he saw an advanced copy of Cat in the Hat and realized that people will destroy your loved one's creations to make really shitty stuff to get marketing gigs and product tie-ins.

Re:ATTN: PETER JACKSON

[ShadyG]

You ever notice Gimli says this right after he's finished shattering his axe in a vain attempt to cleave the Ring?

King Kong Bomb

[Simonetta]

Director Peter Jackson has been given $400 million US to remake the classic movie 'King Kong'. Excuse me, but this is insane...

The remake is being done on the strength of Mr. Jackson's 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy, which has sold (or will have sold in a few months time) over a billion dollars US in box office tickets after costing roughly $200 million to make and promote worldwide. Impressive, yes.
The Lord of the Rings is a dense multi-volume fully realized fantasy that has offered a rich complex story and hundreds of opportunities for using state-of-the-art computer-generated imagery to complement the plot into a strong, enveloping film fantasy.
But $400 million for King Kong?!? This is a flimsy plot about a giant ape who develops an obsession about a tiny blonde human woman pet. (Hollywood metaphor anyone?). Big monkey lives on a distant island; whites come; they capture him (somehow); they take him to New York, he flips out, smashes up some shti, climbs a building, and gets shot down. Duh, end of story.
How is this worth making into a $400 million movie? Or, rather, how is $400 million going to make a better movie than the original or the 1978 Jessica Lange remake? More computer graphic imagery? Of what? A big monkey smashing things in NYC? Didn't we see all that already in the remake of Godzilla? You remember that... The remake of Godzilla that cost $80 million and lost most of it because it was stupid and a completely unnecessary film? How are you going to cover a $400 million investment on a big monkey film?
I haven't seen the new Peter Jackson 'King Kong'. Hell, it hasn't even been made. In fact, the producers are wracking their pointed little heads trying to think of some new angle that will get 45 million people to pay $10 each just to cover the pre-production cost ($400 million film and $50 million in publicity).

But I just know it's a bomb. It's the 'Gigli' of Summer 2006. And it's going to take a studio or two down with it.

This isn't a troll, it's a tragedy...

Thank you kindly,

Re:King Kong Bomb

[BJH]

Are you sure that's not $400 million New Zealand dollars? (That's about $US200 million.)

The problem with long copyrights

[ChaosDiscord]

I'm so glad that the Tolkien estate has so much control over Hobbit derivatives. I'm sure that given the extended incentive provided by Congress, Tolkien is using the money he's still making to write yet more fiction for us to enjoy.

Oops, he's been dead for thirty years. Probably isn't going to be writing another book set in Middle Earth I guess.

The Hobbit was published in 1937. I think 66 years is plenty of time to recoop the his effort. I appreciate the intent of allowing copyright to pass on to one's heirs, but it's been 30 years since Tolkien died. Can't Christopher Tolkien create something of value himself to provide for himself? Heck, he's got to be doing well, and at 77 maybe it's time to retire and let the rest of the world enjoy a work you didn't actually create!

The Founder's Copyright still covers 99% of the potential value of copyrighted works and manages to do it without putting culture under chains.

Re:The problem with long copyrights

[jkantola]

Try reading the Silmarillion or the Unfinished Tales. Why, take a look at the Books of Lost Tales as well.

It is quite possible that those beautiful, indeed, essential volumes in the tale of the Middle-Earth would not exist without Christopher, or at least wouldn't, in all probability, fit in so well with the original published works of JRRT. Christopher is, quite understandably so, the best Tolkien scholar par none.

It's actually interesting how real life mirrors the fantasy. What Christopher's been doing with his father's writings is very much the same thing that Frodo and Sam did for Bilbo's Red Book.

I for my part am forever grateful for Christopher for publishing any- and everything his father left behind. And I understand his grudge with the franchising of Middle-Earth, even as I love the movies on their own accord.

Are they selling McLembas already?

Fact check -- STOP blaming the Tolkien Estate!

[geekwench]

The Estate (and Christopher) are not behind any difficulties currently facing a Wingnut Films production of The Hobbit. Warner Bros. Pictures, however, is.

In 1976, the Saul Zaentz Co., doing business as Tolkien Enterprises, acquired rights to both The Hobbit and LotR. This agreement included the film rights. Tolkien Enterprises entered into an agreement with WB so that they could film the Rankin & Bass animated version of The Hobbit. Now comes the fun part: WB still has those rights, and they're sitting on them like a broody hen with only one egg.
New Line can't greenlight Peter -- they don't have the rights, and aren't likely to get them in the near future. Rumor has it that a few of the key brass over at the Frog Studio are a little cheesed off about the fact that a bunch of Hobbits, Elves, Dwarves, and other assorted mangy fairy-tale creatures have been collectively kicking the backside of a certain boy wizard at the box office for the past two Christmases running. Heh.

Now OTOH, the Tolkien Estate is being a pain in the butt about the idea of a movie museum in Wellington. And for that, Christopher Tolkien can rightly be accused of behaving like the dog in the manger.