Slashdot Mirror
Peter Jackson Will Not Be Making The Hobbit
An anonymous reader writes "Due to legal wranglings with New Line Cinema over accounting issues for Lord Of The Rings, Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh will not be involved in the making of either The Hobbit or the planned Lord of the Rings prequel." I suppose there is still a chance that Jackson & Co. could end up involved, but at this point that looks unlikely.
Apparently they are.
Peter Jackson says:
I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
the hobbit isn't a prequel. the lord of the rings is a sequel to the hobbit. the hobbit was written first!
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
I was just re-reading bits of William Goldman's "Which Lie Did I Tell?", and there's a particularly interesting section, dealing with adaptations. And one of the first things he talks about is that, when adapting, you can't keep everything, sometimes, you barely keep anything, the trick being to, as he says, keep the "spine" of the story and reject anything that won't work on the screen, because books and movies ARE TWO DIFFERENT FUCKING MEDIUMS.
I, too have loved the LOTR books since I was a kid, and I too would have loved to have seen Bombadil in the movies, etc., but, let's be honest: Jackson & Co. made an absolutely amazing film trilogy, by ANY standard you care to measure, so can we fucking end shit like "hideous mess" already? It's not true, you know it's not true, so please just fucking leave it, alright? It makes you sound like you live in your mom's basement, and just annoys the rest of us.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
It could be worse...they could do The Lord of the Rings Holiday Special.
You're using her as bait, Master!
Way too much homo-eroticism going on between Sean Astin and Elijah Wood.
Ummm, have you READ the books? Did you manage to forget all of the "hand stroking"? If anything, Jackson toned it down.
It is also an interesting commentary on our society today. At the time, nobody saw this as homo-eroticism, guys were allowed to be friends and be close without being considered gay.
Finkployd
Given the hideous mess he made of LOTR, I'm relatively pleased that he won't be butchering The Hobbit in the same way.
:)
I hear it's Uwe Boll doing The Hobbit, so it definitely won't be butchered in the same way.
And rumour has it they're going to bring in the #1 expert on prequels and CGI characters.
I, for one, welcome George Lucas and our new taller, more prominently be-eared, rastafarian Gollum.
Meesa servsa the precious.
Now nothing stands in the way of the ideal Hollywood version, with Paris Hilton as Galadriel, Ben Affleck as Gandalf, Jack Black as Sam Gamgee, and Keanu Reeve as Frodo ("The ring... Whoa!")
Where were you when the voynix came?
I was actually going to post my thoughts, but since this article is slashdotted, and I still have the window open, i'll post my thoughts + the article text below them, for anyone who missed the article due to /.ing
...Obviously there are two sides to every story, but he really digs into some of the gritty details (naming names, etc), and the story he tells sounds like typical hollywood modus operandi to me. He is rather scant on details regarding the "accounting" irregularities, but nontheless he still vents pretty heavily in other regards.
WOW. Let me say, respect to Peter Jackson for telling it as he sees it.
I am a filmmaker myself, and have to deal with a variety of industry business annoyances on a daily basis, and I can sympathize with his frustration. This is an industry predicated upon many absurd practices. My assumption is that Peter Jackson must be pretty ticked off to be willing to vent in public like this.
Unfortunately for him, last we heard, he's hit a snag with HALO as well. Although general slashdot community concensus seemed to be "oh gawd, not another video game movie," so perhaps that snag is a bit less depressing than The Hobbit troubles.
11-19-06 Latest News
Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh Talk THE HOBBIT
Xoanon @ 10:32 pm EST
Moments ago we received this email from Peter Jackson and his crew down in New Zealand, take a look...
Dear One Ringers,
As you know, there's been a lot of speculation about The Hobbit. We are often asked about when or if this film will ever be made. We have always responded that we would be very interested in making the film - if it were offered to us to make.
You may also be aware that Wingnut Films has bought a lawsuit against New Line, which resulted from an audit we undertook on part of the income of The Fellowship of the Ring. Our attitude with the lawsuit has always been that since it's largely based on differences of opinion about certain accounting practices, we would like an independent body - whether it be a judge, a jury, or a mediator, to look at the issues and make an unbiased ruling. We are happy to accept whatever that ruling is. In our minds, it's not much more complex than that and that's exactly why film contracts include right-to-audit clauses.
However, we have always said that we do not want to discuss The Hobbit with New Line until the lawsuit over New Line's accounting practices is resolved. This is simple common sense - you cannot be in a relationship with a film studio, making a complex, expensive movie and dealing with all the pressures and responsibilities that come with the job, while an unresolved lawsuit exists.
We have also said that we do not want to tie settlement of the lawsuit to making a film of The Hobbit. In other words, we would have to agree to make The Hobbit as a condition of New Line settling our lawsuit. In our minds this is not the right reason to make a film and if a film of The Hobbit went ahead on this basis, it would be doomed. Deciding to make a movie should come from the heart - it's not a matter of business convenience. When you agree to make a film, you're taking on a massive commitment and you need to be driven by an absolute passion to want to get the story on screen. It's that passion, and passion alone, that gives the movie its imagination and heart. To us it is not a cold-blooded business decision.
A couple of months ago there was a flurry of Hobbit news in the media. MGM, who own a portion of the film rights in The Hobbit, publicly stated they wanted to make the film with us. It was a little weird at the time because nobody from New Line had ever spoken to us about making a film of The Hobbit and the media had some fun with that. Within a week or two of those stories, our Manager Ken Kamins got a call from the co-president of New Line Cinema, Michael Lynne, who in essence told Ken that the way to se
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
The guy made them a bleepin' 10^9 bucks with the trilogy, and they assume they can slot in any schmoe that can aim a camera?
Yes they do and yes they can.
There are 60,000 wannabe directors out there and with the DP and production staff from the original filming it would not be too hard. Hollywierd is known for butchering and making a mess of things.
Hollywood is known for borderline illegal accounting practices, NO move has ever made a profit, so if you get net points on a film you are royally "fubared" you want gross points as those are the real pay dollars..... dont believe me? ask Stan Lee about the profits he recieved from his Net points on the Spiderman movies and the lawsuits he has going against the studio about it...
There is a long tradition of making up expenses to suck up all profits a film m akes.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you. I mean who ever heard of a movie studio cheating someone out of their money? Really, it goes to show you, it doesn't matter who you are, the movie studio will try anything to keep their money.
Like the RIAA's accounting, movie studio accounting is even more devious. Whenever someone tries to get paid a "part of the profits" for which they deserve, the studios always pull the "but according to our estimates, we didn't make money on that film." That's why there will never be a Forrest Gump sequel. The author, Winston Groom, was supposed to get a part of the profits. But according to Paramount, Forrest Gump didn't make any profits despite its $600+ million in sales. So he refuses to let the sequel become a movie.
Another example is the dispute between Art Buchwald and Paramount. Buchwald pitched a script to Paramount about a movie in which Eddie Murphy playing an African king comes to America to look for a bride. After some development with director John Landis, it was abandoned. Paramount later produced a movie called Coming to America about an African prince played by Eddie Murphy that comes to America to find a bride. John Landis directed the movie. But according to Paramount, they were different movies completely. When Buchwald won his lawsuit, Paramount then argued the movie that though it had $350 million in sales, it made no profit according to their accounting. The court found their accounting "unconscionable". Rather than have the court delve into their accounting practices in detail, Paramount settled.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Given the size of the book it was inveitable he'd have to emit large chunks of it
Sorry, I don't mean to be a spelling nazi, but I just can't get over the mental image of Peter Jackson emitting large chunks of books. My day is ruined.
sudo ergo sum
"I have yet to find a single Tolkien fan who said he did an excellent job at capturing Tolkien's over all vision."
I'm a Tolkien fan. I was even a card-carrying member of the Tolkien Club of Finland back in the day. I have read LOTR maybe 15 times (lost count to be honest), Hobbit maybe 6-7 times, Silmarillion 3-4 times and miscellaneous other book few times. And I think that PJ did very good job capturing the overall feel of the book, especially when we take in to account the differences in the medium.
And I'm GLAD that he dropped Bombadil from the movie. While it works in the book, it would SUCK in the movie. Half the audience would walk out thinking "whats with the hopping and dancing dude?". Back when I first heard of the upcoming movie, my first thought was "whoa, this is great!". My second though was "um, how are they going to handle Bombadil?".
"I find a few Tolkien fans who are downright pissed with how badly ROTK came off compared to Tolkien's original work. (I'm one of them to be honest with you)"
maybe they should do their own movie then. They could waste all their time on pointless things, and the end-result would absolutely suck. PJ set out to create a good MOVIE. What many of those hardcore Tolkien fans (hell, I consider myself to be a hardcore fan, yet I can acknowledge the challenges PJ faced when making the movie) want is something that might be more faithful to the book, but would suck as a movie.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Agreed. It would be like making Star Wars 7 and not having Lucas remotely involved. It is just not a good idea period.
Great, you have an opinion. I'm glad. Unfortunately, it's only that, so quit trying to force an objective standard on a subjective medium. If you enjoyed the LOTR movies, we're all happy for you. Some of us didn't. Some of us are of the opinion that Jackson changed the spine of the story when he changed characters, i.e. Faramir (shows his quality by taking the ring to Osgiliath, yeah right), Theoden (let's make him a pansy so Aragorn looks better), and even Frodo (in Return of the King he never distrusts Sam).
Some of us are of the opinion that the first movie was actually great and Tom Bombadil did need to be cut out. Some of us enjoyed parts of the movies, but overall were upset by the changes we thought were unneccessary.
But in any case, it's our opinion, you have yours, and there's no need to use uncivilized language.
Yes, you can dance to Radiohead.
And King Kong was unwatchably, laughably bad.
Is a Director judged on their latter movies? Because if they are, I wouldn't want Jackson to do The Hobbit.[% slash_sig_val.text %]
Sorry, my friend. But you are 100% wrong here.
The story is the story. And that's that. JRR wrote it in a particular way to tell a particular story. If you make changes, you change the story. It is no longer JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. It becomes Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings - a different story.
Omissions, like Bombadil, I can excuse. It's not a change per se, it's an omission. In your mind's eye you can still imagine that they met Tom, they just didn't have enough time to show you the meeting. But the changes. Inexcusable.
If you'd like an example of why people get so torqued over this, consider Frodo. His relationship with Sam and with Gollum as they traveled. In the books it was Frodo, his trusted servant Sam, and Gollum whom he never really trusted. "His promise will hold him for a bit, Sam". That kind of a thing.
But making Frodo take the word of Gollum over that of Sam when they were at Minas Morgul? Exactly *how* does that help convey JRR's ideas better because it's on film???
Short answer is - it does not. It is a change that Peter Jackson thought would be better than the original story, or make for more exciting film, or whatever. And no offense PJ if you're reading this - but I seriously doubt you're a better story teller than the Old Professor.
Omit things due to time, fine. Add a few cute scenes that don't change the story (like the wagon ride with Frodo and Gandalf at the beginning of Fellowship) - fine.
Make a change because you think you're a better storyteller than JRR - no way. If you think you're a better storyteller then write your own damn stories and make movies of those.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
You're joking, right? Tolkien is the master of wasting pages. The entire fucking flight from the Shire took roughly 150 pages and consisted of hobbits walking, cowering in the bushes because the Nazgul came by, and pissing themselves in fear. 150 pages and there was no plot development, no character development, no action, or anything else of substance!
Someone needed to take a red pen to that bloated manuscript. Jackson at least did a good job of it. He may have irritated obsessive purists, but he took what was a decent story mired in excessive ink struggling along at a wretched pace, and turned it into a well-paced story accessible even to those who don't have the patience to read page after page of nothing.
It is also an interesting commentary on our society today. At the time, nobody saw this as homo-eroticism, guys were allowed to be friends and be close without being considered gay.
Interesting indeed.
In the "bad" old days, the taboo against male-male sexual relations made a safe space for male-male close friendship.
It was precisely because it was unthinkable that there be a sexual dimension to it that it was OK to show affection to a male friend.
So it's actually the newfangled "enlightened" attitudes that have led to "homophobia", by introducing so much ambiguity.
I couldn't agree more. The scouring of the Shire was one of the most important things in the book. In the classical tradition of epic the journey home is an essential part. In the Odyssey and the Aeneid the troubles experienced by the heroes on their arrival are very important parts of the story.
I was most disappointed that the scouring wasn't even in the extended edition because it has been hinted at in the Two Towers. Instead we were left with a derivative Hollywood ending with 1/2 hour of hugging.
The whole point of the scouring is that Frodo isn't regarded as a hero in the Shire even though he saved Middle Earth. The hobbits had their own problems and weren't interested in hearing about difficult to understand adventures on the other side of the world. Merry and Pippin fought in a war though and when they came back they saved the Shire.
It's removing the ending which was the point to the story in the first place. It's what completes the explanation of hobbits as characters.
the more they over-think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the pipe
You know, I've never understood all the Silmarillion-bashing. Call me a drooling fanboy, but I enjoyed the Silmarillion far more than the Hobbit, and about as much as LOTR. Tolkien captured the feel and pace of the medieval literature he studied and loved all his life. If you are at all familiar with the Norse sagas, or with a lot of the original Arthurian literature (as opposed to the pap novels put out in the past 50 years), or with Spenser and Chaucer and Beowulf and Sturluson, The Silmarillion conveys their flavor with remarkable authenticity, and adds some theological, philosophical and moral depth. Reading some of Tolkien's predecessors in fantasy (E. R. Eddison, George Macdonald, William Morris, even H. Rider Haggard to some degree), you can also see where he learned some of his stylistic habits; Morris's style is echoed especially. The style is archaic, certainly, and that could make it difficult for a modern reader, but that is not a flaw per se. It's an aesthetic choice that has its own cadences and beauties.
Attempting to read the work as a modern novel will not serve the reader well. If people go into it expecting a genre fantasy novel, they are bound to be disappointed. But it is a tremendous and unique accomplishment in fantasy. Read it with an eye to its place in the fantastic tradition, and with an understanding that you are not reading a novel, but a chronological and cosmological saga (in the old, strict literary sense, not the back-of-the-paperback-blurb sense), and its power and creativity are breathtaking.
How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?