Slashdot Mirror
Tolkien Enterprises To Film Hobbit With Jackson?
cyclomedia writes "TheOneRing.Net has a new scoop on the ongoing Hobbit Movie saga, sourced from elbenwald.de. Apparently the rights to make the Hobbit film fall back to Saul Zaentz 'next year.' He claims that, under their stewardship, The Hobbit will 'definitely be shot by Peter Jackson.'
For the whippersnappers amongst you: Mr. Zaentz is the head honcho of Tolkien Enterprises, which originally acquired exclusive rights to productions of the LOTR and Hobbit material in 1976, prior to overseeing the Bakshi animated version of LOTR."
Who is this Tolkein you are talking about?
I guess this is perhaps why New Line didn't want to hang around for Jackson any longer and why they sounded in such a rush to get it started in their statements?
How does film licensing work, if New Line doesn't finish the film by the time Tolkien enterprises gets the license back are they allowed to publish it still or do they lose all rights to it?
Peter Jackson will write a book "If I Did It". He will also sing a reggae song "I shot the Hobbit" (featuring Gollum as a CGI Bob Marley).
-- Rastignac was here.
... what all these guys have against the Hobbit? I mean, this Saul guy is hiring that thug Peter to have the Hobbit shot... That Hobbit should have banged his wife or something...
May I be the first to suggest that the props team make all the weaponry from Damascus steel http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/1 6/2348254. That way they can join in the rest of us with the huge collective "w00tz" at this news!
They keep getting the same guy to direct. It's like a bad hobbit. Hope his elf holds up.
Well, if there's anything Return of the King taught us, it's the value of a good Steward.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
...if New Line can *start* production before the date of expiry. I can think of two examples off the top of my head of movies which were rushed into production before the film rights expired - Roger Corman's version of The Fantastic Four (which admittedly was never released), and Queen Of The Damned - made by Warner Bros, who also own New Line. I'm sure there are others.
Whether New Line would do this depends entirely on their prediction of profit vs loss. If they think enough people will go and see a Hobbit film even without Jackson for them to get a good enough return on investment, they could well rush a film into production, and let their lawyers handle Zaentz's objections.
You must think in Russian.
Why is this a troll? It's one thing to edit and abridge a story in order to make it fit a motion picture format. It's another thing entirely to take huge liberties with the characters and create fictitious events in order to justify these "new" characters. Some of the greatest drama in Return of the King was reduced to petty bickering between the main characters - in order to leave more room for the "special effects".
I also shudder to think to what they will do to The Hobbit.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Tolkien, Hobbits, Elf's??? All of this sounds as if it has a bad ring to it.
The books were written in the 30s and 40s. I thought they would be in the public domain by now?
Just Me, My Elf, And Eye.
No, looks more like an orc.
I missed Tom Bombadil and the other leftout's as well, but face it he would look stupid on film :) (probably in some obscure Jar Jar Bings CG way)
You mean this one?
How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
I missed Tom Bombadil and the other leftout's as well, but face it he would look stupid on film :)
I didn't miss Tom at all - that would have been silly in a film. I just didn't like all the stuff they did to Faramir - I mean come on the ONLY reason they "went back to Osgiliath" was to allow for more special effects; and the stupid interaction with Frodo, Sam and Gollum (nyah nyah he believes ME not YOU) at the end. Faramir and Sam are extremely strong, principled characters, and PJ managed to tarnish that quite well, without actually adding anything to the film.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Um, actually its already been done...as a musical that played in Toronto for a while. Since ticket sales were not up to expectations (and the one review I read said it was for the most part boring) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptations_of_The_Lo rd_of_the_Rings#Toronto_musical, they closed it down and put it on the road:
http://www.lotr.com/home.php - its opening in London next spring. We'll see how well it does there.
Going on means going far
Going far means returning
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/news/comments/?entry id=381433
Looks like Tolkien Enterprises isn't the only one who wants to let Jackson do the job.
Now I really, really liked the LOTR movies a lot. "Braindead" was a hoot, and "Heavenly Creatures" was absolutely brilliant. But those are all films with a very different story and tone than "The Hobbit".
So is Jackson really the best person to get for what is, after all, a "lighter" work? There are, after all, other directors who would probably do a great job with "The Hobbit", and maybe a better one too. (Brad Bird might be an interesting choice, f'rinstance.)
(At this point, I had a great argument about how you wouldn't get the guy who directed "Casino Royale" to do "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" simply because both books were written by Ian Fleming. Then I discovered that they actually did do that back in the 60's. Still... you get my point.)
- Jeff
If Peter Jackson has anything to do with Saul Zaentz, he should take care. Zaentz treated a certain other Peter rather poorly in conjunction with the production of the Lord of the Rings animated film.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
What part is he gonna play? I didn't think Hobbits were his thing. :erm:
I really thought that the Faramir part of the movie was very poorly done. I can understand wanting to make Faramir more of an obstacle than the free pass that he was, but they did it so horribly that I think it was the wrong call. Faramir's 'conversion' just didn't work. I mean Frodo almost hands the ring over to the Chief Nazgul and this somehow convinces Faramir that he's the right person to try to take the ring straight into Mordor? Now, if he had cold-cocked Frodo and handed the ring off to Sam I might have believed it.
However, on the whole I think PJ did a darn good job with the books and I want to see him do the Hobbit. It may have been written as a childrens book, but there is so much of a dark side to it that I think it could actually be a much darker and scarier movie than LOTR. It will be interesting to see how they handle the elves in that one, since they aren't exactly the good guys.
I've never understood the frequent "but the film makers changed the story wah wah wah" complaint - for any movie, not just LoTR.
Film is Film, TV is TV, Books are Books, Opera is Opera, etc etc... it is near impossible to adapt a book or a play to the big screen without changing elements - for a whole variety of reasons. For example, the drama of a play is delivered by actors who are so far away from their audience that subtle gestures HAVE to be replaced by dialogue, for a movie you can lose all that dialogue and replace it with close-ups and reaction shots. Books can allow characters to have narration or internal monologues which invariably looks cheesy on the big screen. The rhythm, cadence and pacing of a book is usually radically different from the needs of a movie.
They are NOT the same. They will NEVER be the same. Whether they are better or worse is subjective. They give out oscars for screen adaptations for a reason. It is damn hard.
Feel free to compare apples to apples - i.e. it is perfectly valid to compare a remake with the original film, but comparing film to book is not necessarily valid. The important thing to realize is that they are NOT mutually destructive. You actually can enjoy the book and also enjoy the movie. Or only one of them if you dislike the other. You lose nothing.
And...a bad film version will not mean that there can never be another film version.
elves, not elf's. :P
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Your point is a good one, but they had reason's for why they did it as they did. Culture has changed durastically in the past half-century. The things that the original readers would have found enjoyable in the books just go straight over most peoples heads today. I think the change is not so much because poeple have become stupider (although there probably is some of that) but that the theather targets a much less educated audience. Bookworms and couch potatoes are pretty different audinences. People like you and I are a rarety these days (actually, I think we always have been). The movie studios wanted to produce something that most poeple could understand, and they had to make compromises to accomplish that.
Obviously you aren't aware of how difficult it is to translate books to movies. Some minor or even major changes are needed for the flow of the film. LOTR would not have faired well if Peter Jackson had made the movies "exactly" like the books. For one thing the books were extremely long in certain parts and its not certain how well American audiences would have handled Bob Bombadil.
Yes he changed things but did his dammedest to try and keep to the spirit of the original works. They referred back to the books on every scene they shot and though the movie isn't exactly like the novels it preserves the feeling of dread of desparation felt by the characters. I applaud Peter Jackson on the care, dedication, and attention to detail that was put into LOTR.
Every detail in the movie was scrutinized, every prop was hand made by local New Zealander craftsmen and WETA Workshop. Everything from the armor worn by the different characters, to the furniture, to the buildings, to the cups they drank from where all hand made for the movie. absolutely nothing from any previous film was used in making LOTR, everything was new. Costumes, weapons, armor, EVERYTHING. The making of the LOTR triology was the biggest film making undertaking in the history of cinema. LOTR was a testiment to the genius of Peter Jackson and the guys/gals at WETA Workshop. This increcible attention to detail was their homage to J.R.R. Tolkien who also approached writing LOTR in such detail as well.
You strike me a person who has no appreciation for art at all, and that's sad.
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
thezorch@gmail.com
http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
Was I the only person to think they were talking about Samuel L. Jackson?
"I'm sick of these mother fuckin' hobbits in this mother fuckin' shire!"
- A
I'll have to admit, I've never really quite gotten most of the complaints against the lord of the ring movies. It seems to me that allot of the people complaining are expecting every little bit and piece of the book to end up in the movie. given that movies and books are extremely different artistic mediums, really the only thing a person should expect from a movie version of a book is that it stays true to the spirit of the book. this, i think, the movies did a rather good job with.
With that said the one thing i do hope jackson does better in the hobbit (assuming he does make it) is represent dwarves a little better. while i certainly understand that there were silly elements associated with dwarves in the ring trilogy, i felt in the movie they got in the way of the fact that dwarves are some of the most badass warriors in the tolkien universe. glimli was just too silly to be taken seriously in this respect. I know dwarves are even sillier in tolkien's hobbit, i just hope whoever ends up making the hobbit movie doesnt play this up to the detriment of the other qualities dwarves posses.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Bob Bombadil? Wasn't he the lazy stay at home beer drinking welfare state sucking brother to Tom Bombadil? American audiences would have loved him. Its that no good non union hard working brother Tom that they can't stomache.
Pick up the DVD and watch the movies with the "Director/Writers" commentary track on. You will discover that Jackson, Walsh, & Boyens know the story to a T, and if they are ever uncertain they can reference the book in a mere minute. They justify all of their adaptations. If you can watch that commentary track and still not respect the film, well.. I guess that's you then.
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
It's a troll because a huge number of people (including those who have read and appreciated the books) think that Peter Jackson did a fantastic job. The word butchered implies a pretty obvious fuck up that no-one can deny, when that is clearly not the case. The "in my mind" comment lacks any information content - it could be applied no matter what Jackson did, good or bad. There is not a single piece of supporting evidence to support a negative, emotional-not-logical comment that many intelligent people disagree with. Can't get much more of a troll than that.
As for "huge liberties" and "creating fictious events" (often simply refered to as "interpretation" and "trying to stay true to the spirit of the book" etc), while it might indeed be entirely different to simply abridging the story, it is still entirely acceptable. It is commonly done in biographical dramas, let alone fictional works, as a valid dramatic technique. Don't demean yourself for disagreeing with what Jackson did by applying bullshit "I understand the characters and they don't" or "my rules are more righteous than yours" arguments.
He kept talking about how he had to do his childhood fantasy monkey movie before the Hobbit. That came, and went (and was terrible, IMO), so why hasn't he moved on already? Some of the actors in the Rings could be used in the Hobbit...maybe Golum, Gandalf...not sure about others though -- Kate B. could provide a narration in her Elvin persona (as she would likely have had some knowledge of it even though, I don't remember her being in the book).
l
I am utterly sick to death of those Tolkien fans who expect the films to be exactly like the book. It's NOT POSSIBLE you whiny buggers! Films are not books, they work differently, things aren't explained in the same way in films, some things that are easy in a book are entirely different in film.
For Christ's sake, call it "Peter Jackson's Lord of The Rings" if you prefer and QUIT WHINING! Clearly, a huge number of people DID enjoy it (including myself, a life-long Tolkien fan (I even enjoyed the Silmarilion!))
Inevitably, ANY filming of the book will change things and you whingers would complain no matter what. If you don't like it, go film your own version, or even better, just enjoy the fucking books and get a life.
PJ's explanation of his treatment of Faramir was simply that the character makes no sense. If he's strong, noble, a warrior and "he wouldn't pick [the ring] up if [he] found it lying in the road", then why the hell doesn't HE take it into Mordor? He's the perfect warrior, he's immune to the Ring's influence and he's not a measly Hobbit.
By having him tempted by the ring, it makes sense that he would see that Frodo is better equipped to bear the ring than he.
Now, I don't know if you agree with that reasoning or not, but it was hardly just random destruction of the book's characters, it was attempting to make a character work on screen. I think that PJ's Faramir is one hell of a lot more believable than Tolkien's.
From the NZ Herald story. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid =00055C1C-29AC-1562-A69383027AF1002A
Jackson dumped from future Tolkien projects
11.30am Tuesday November 21, 2006 By Joanna Hunkin
New Zealand director Peter Jackson will not be making The Hobbit or a second Lord of the Rings prequel, according a letter posted on LOTR website Theonering.net.
The letter, from Jackson and partner Fran Walsh was posted this morning and states that New Line are actively seeking another director.
A spokesperson from Wingnut Films confirmed to nzherald.co.nz this morning that the letter was genuine.
"Last week, Mark Ordesky called Ken [Kamins, Jackson's manager] and told him that New Line would no longer be requiring our services on The Hobbit and the LOTR 'prequel'. This was a courtesy call to let us know that the studio was now actively looking to hire another filmmaker for both projects," wrote Jackson.
The announcement comes after an ongoing dispute between Jackson's Wingnut Films and New Line, regarding differing accounting practices, revealed during an audit of the income from The Fellowship of the Ring.
While New Line suggested Jackson agree to make The Hobbit in order to settle the lawsuit, the director refused.
-- Are they surprised????
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
'It's another thing entirely to take huge liberties with the characters and create fictitious events in order to justify these "new" characters. Some of the greatest drama in Return of the King was reduced to petty bickering between the main characters - in order to leave more room for the "special effects".'
Tolkien said something rather similar about an earlier (unfilmed) treatment of the story (letter #210, June 1958):
"He has cut the parts of the story upon which its characteristic and peculiar tone principally depends, showing a preference for fights".
and:
"I do earnestly hope that in the assignment of actual speeches to the characters they will be represented as I have presented them: in style and sentiment. I should resent perversion of the characters (and do resent it, so far as it appears in this sketch) even more than the spoiling of the plot and scenery."
This seems rather appropriate, too:
"Part I in general respects the line of narrative in the book, and retains some of its original coherence. Part II exemplifies all the faults of Part I ; but it is far more unsatisfactory, & still more so Part III, in more serious respects."
And this really says it all:
"The canons of narrative an in any medium cannot be wholly different; and the failure of poor films is often precisely in exaggeration, and in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies."
I don't think Jackson made 'poor films', but they're a very long way away from Tolkien. The BBC Radio version got much closer to 'the core of the original' in a different medium.
Apparently some people are confused as to who owns what.
Both Jackson and New Line tried to buy MGM's license multiple times in the last decade. MGM wouldn't sell for any reasonable price.
With the expiration of MGM's license drawing nigh, they realized that they finally had to do something in order to profit from it. What's the simplest thing to do? Go to New Line and offer a partnership that puts Jackson in the mix.
What MGM didn't count on is the accounting suit Jackson has against New Line regarding profits from FotR, a suit that New Line is stonewalling, but apparently tried to settle as a condition of Hobbit production, which Jackson didn't like. Everyone involved knows that any Hobbit film is dependent on Jackson's involvement for maximum profitability.
And now MGM's license is about to expire. MGM has to be pissed at New Line for allowing this to happen. Jackson is probably annoyed at New Line for trying to drag his lawsuit into it. New Line is probably salivating at the prospect of finally getting the Hobbit license for themselves, to do with as they wish. They just have to hope Jackson doesn't get it, if he wants it.
If Jackson does get the Hobbit license, wouldn't it just be a kick in the balls if he had MGM distribute it?
If he's strong, noble, a warrior and "he wouldn't pick [the ring] up if [he] found it lying in the road", then why the hell doesn't HE take it into Mordor?
... something tells me that if Tolkien wrote that, LoTR would not have been so interesting or successful.
Because Denethor didn't sent him to the Council, he sent Boromir instead. Arguably one of Sauron's most powerful weapons against Gondor was the demoralisation of Denethor, and part of that would surely have been encouraging his over-reliance on the weaker son Boromir. Had Faramir attended the Council representing Gondor, his qualities would probably have been recognised and the whole story would have been different.
For "neatness" of epic storytelling, Aragorn should have been the person to destroy the Ring, atoning for the actions of his ancestor Isildur
Quick wafting zephyrs vex bold Jim
Sorry no. It's really very simple - Like Gandalf, Faramir has enough insight to know that if he ever picked up the ring, it would corrupt him - no matter how noble he was or how good his intentions were - that's what makes the ring ultimately so dangerous. That is why Faramir is wiser than his brother.
It's really not that hard to understand - or make the audience understand, P.J's explanation is lame.
Was there any reason Gandalf couldn't have whistled up an eagle to carry Frodo to Mount Doom? Aside from ending the story after 10 minutes.
I read on rotten tomatoes that MGM (which has the distribution rights for the hobbit movies) will right for jackson. It'll be kind of hard for New Line to make money on a film when the company that has the rights to distribute it, won't. New line can either give jackson the money that they owe him (and i do believe they owe him money) and let him produce the film OR not make ANY money at all. Heres to hoping the New Line execs arent that short sighted but hey you never know....
Yes, Faramir was not at the council, so didn't get the job, but once Frodo was in the his grasp and he recognised the ring, it became posible that Faramir could carry the ring. Which is my point.
Tolkien's perfect Faramir is a neat character, PJ's human Faramir is also pretty cool IMO. They're both different and both good in the story they exist it.
I think you vastly overestimate the inteligence of the average movie-goer.
Sorry, but I fully expect a PJ The Hobbit / There and back again to be bright and colorfull and stuff... I for one am not expecting anything dark and sinister from THAT movie.
/G
Just my DKK 0.13
Mordorian air force (Nazguls).
If they flew in on a dark stormy night I don't think they'd have been spotted. Even if Sauron had radar in Barad-dur, eagles aren't that reflective. The Nazgul seemed to be able to sense the Ring only when someone was wearing it, they walked right past Frodo several times.
In the hobbit animation the animators mixed up the two blocks of runes on the map. They had the normal direction runes portrayed as the moon runes and the moon runes as the normal ones. May sound small thing to complain about, but it has bugged me for years.
I remember editing altchar.sys and changing the ascii chars to runes on the Z-100 so my folks couldn't read over my shoulder. Had to make up some characters that didn't match and I had my own numbers, but I got pretty good at reading them. Had to be in order to use WordStar, PeachTree, Condor rdms, etc. in green monochrome runes.
-s
-- They say you die a little bit each day. Have a nice day!
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Yes, but the reason wasn't presented in the text of LOTR, which was a real weakness in that story. The Silmarillion makes it clear that the Ents and Eagles both are if anything antagonistic to humans, hobbits, or any intelligent biped. The Ents were created to protect the flora from wanton destruction by the peoples of middle earth, and the Eagles the fauna.
There is, of coruse, much development on the Ent side - basically, the Ents just don't care how many people die in wars between people, as less people is better in their view. Only when the Ents become hot-headed about Saruman do they act, and then only to stop Saruman.
Similarly, the Eagles aren't going to risk one feather to help one side or the other in some ring war (and trying to get past the flying Nazgul to drop the Hobbits off would have been quite risky). Gandalf has a personal friendship with Gwaihir and so can ask for personal favors, such as his own rescue from Orthanc, and rescuing the Hobbits after the danger has passed, the war is over, and the Eagles don't have to choose a side.
However, because none of that justification is actually present in the text of LOTR, it's all really just fanwank, especially given Tolkien tossed the Eagles into the Battle of Five Armies earlier.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
expired yet? How long ago was this published? Is their sue everyone stance just making people afraid to use it?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Fa la la la lolly.
Welcome bad to the valley.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It was good, but the elves seen completly destroyed the point of the elves leaving.
Yes, I understand why Tom Bombadil was left out, and it was the right choice. I do wish they filmed it for the DVD.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Michael Jackson will do a spoof of the movie with little kids to replace the little hobits.
"To be is to do." --Socrates
"To do is to be." -- Aristotle
"Do-Be-Do-Be-Do..." --Sinatra
The eagles did't have a relationship with Gandalf when they first rescued him, Bilbo and about a dozen dwarves from being roasted when they had been treed by goblins and wargs in the Hobbit, as I recall. They seemed to do it just to spite the goblins. The Eagles also intervened not once but twice in full scale battles between composite armies of men, elves & dwarves on one side and goblins/orcs on the other, the Battle of Five Armies and during the dust up between the Captains of the West & the hosts of Sauron at the Black Gates of Morannon. In all three cases the Eagles acted at their considerable peril for no direct benefit to themselves. The internal logic of Middle Earth suggests that Gandalf could have persuaded a single Eagle to dare a solo mission to save all of creation from falling under the Shadow of the East.
No, the Eagles are Tolkien's favorite deus ex machina, one he relied on far to often to write himself out of twists in the plot to which there was no obvious solution. But the point of dei ex machinis is to untangle a problematic story line, not to end the story itself prematurely.
Well, Tolkien certainly gets bad marks for not addressing the issue at the council in Rivendell. Especially since the Eagles, much like the Ents and Bombadil, wouldn't be particularly tempted by the ring. Personally, I don't think it would have been an acceptable risk, as the Eagles are pretty darn conspicuous because of their nature - but without that argument in the text it is as I said: all just fanwank.
The events in the Hobbit aren't really that relevant: we know Tolkien didn't take that work as seriously, and as far as I'm concerned he gets a buy on throwing the Eagles into a kids book because they were cool. Of course, Tolkien threw Bombadil into LOTR just because he was cool, so who knows.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Just don't let him make Smaug go ice-skating in central park.
Narnia was a children's book too and the movie made a shitload of money.