But seriously, it's been reported by normally reliable sources that New Line's people are in talks with Peter Jackson's people again, about the possibility of his involvement in The Hobbit film adaptation.
It may not come to anything, but who knows?
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh man, that would be so awesome! I loved the LOTR movies, but the Hobbit is such a fantastic story, it would make a wonderful movie.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Awesome! I can't wait to see Smaug, and the spiders (shudder), Rivendell, and more Gandalf and Gollum! Basically I really want this movie to happen. ASAP. With Peter Jackson.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
First they're probably going to discuss rebuilding bridges and cleaning away the bad blood between New Line and Jackson.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just make sure he gets his share, give him a huge budget, and let him do his thing. Shouldn't be any more complicated than that. In theory anyway.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any other director would be crazy to make it. I'm sure they've found other directors turn them down right and left.
Why would they be crazy?
Because they could only lose. Make a good movie, and all that would be said is, "Managed to continue Jackson's legacy well." Make a bad movie, and you'd be unforgiven and lambasted.
So best case scenario would be working in Jackson's shadow, worst case scenario would be screwing up big time.
Any director they'd consider would get paid enough to do other projects they wouldn't neccesarily need to do this one for the money. The greater the attraction the money would be, the less inclined New Line would be to want to go with that person.
And, I suspect, a certain amount of required solidarity among directors may have spurred those they approached to say, "Why would I want to do a movie with you, when you can't work things out with the director who made you all the money on the first one?"
But that's all just speculation.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a lot of guesswork flying around, but unsurprisingly, it appears Bob Shaye of New Line is backing off of his earlier vitriol concerning Peter Jackson.
From an LA Times article about New Line:
quote:Eager to move ahead with "The Hobbit," New Line has quietly been trying to mend fences with "Rings" filmmaker Peter Jackson, who has sued the company over his share of profits from the first "Rings" films. When asked if it was true that company insiders had been in talks with Jackson's reps, Shaye replied, "Yes, that's a fair statement. Notwithstanding our personal quarrels, I really respect and admire Peter and would love for him to be creatively involved in some way in 'The Hobbit.' "
Ian McKellen, when asked in New Zealand during an interview about playing King Lear had this to say on the question of playing Gandalf again in the Hobbit:
quote:"Oh, I think that's a question for another occasion but I'm seeing Fran and Peter Jackson this evening and no doubt we will talk about that and other matters.
Jackson and Fran Walsh in a recent statement after those two statements said something to effect of (via spokesperson): 'Frank and Peter have always wanted to make The Hobbit, but they don't yet know what is going to happen.'
The latest rumor I have seen is that Bob Shaye meant Jackson to be more of a creative director, and that Sam Raimi, asked before to be director, would actually direct, so the two would be some sort of directorial team on the project. But this is totally unconfirmed up until now.
This isn't a surprise at all. Fans are clamoring for Jackson to be the director. Despite what many see as mistakes in the actual content of the LOTR trilogy, I can't recall any arguments for saying visually or technically there were any problems at all. The man made that world come to life. Besides, The Hobbit should be a lot easier.
And of course New Line is backing off of what they said before. They just fired their marketing director, Lionsgate has taken over the horror genre which used to be New Line's romping ground, and they are losing out a lot of star power to bigger studios. They had a few flops this year as well that have caused heads to roll, and they are concerned with the future of the company. So seeing a cash cow staring them in the face, and knowing that they lose the rights to make the movie soon, they are eating their previous words and quietly making overtures to PJ to get this thing made and get more money in the bank.
If it doesn't pan out, then Peter will likely make The Hobbit with Saul Zaentz sometime in the next four years or so anyway, so it's either now, or a little bit later, but it'll get made, and it'll get made with Peter.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah...they're banking a -lot- on The Golden Compass starting a new fantasy franchise for them late this year...but why not go with a sure thing?
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frankly I think it's a mistake to market Golden Compass so heavily as the successor to LOTR. It's a lesser known fantasy series, and their marketing makes a lot of people think they are making another LOTR movie because of the references and the giant ring in the trailers.
If people see Golden Compass and feel it doesn't live up to LOTR, then they won't come back for more, which I think is a lot more pressure put on the film than needs to be there. I don't doubt it will be a hit, but it's not THIS movie they need to cash out on, it's all the sequels down the line they want made and want to cash in on. It seems silly to risk almost $200 million on this, with what I see as a pretty lame marketing campaign, when you have a guaranteed billion dollars in front of you with the Hobbit.
Pride goeth before the fall, New Line.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I love the imagery (and actual film lines) in the trailers, the attempts in the text and phrasing to tie this into LotR is ill-advised. His Dark Materials is a very different story...and it may bring bad publicity if a journalist finds out author Phillip Pullman is -not- a Tolkien fan. Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think "The Hobbit" should be directed by Quentin Tarantino.
quote:Gandalf: You're... Bilbo, right? This is your house? Bilbo: Sure is. Gandalf: I'm The Wizard. I solve problems. Bilbo: Good, we got one. Gandalf: So I heard. May I come in? Bilbo: Uh, yeah, please do.
quote:Bilbo: What is your name? Elrond: Elrond. Bilbo: What does it mean? Elrond: I'm Elvish, pal. Our names don't mean s***.
You know, to give it that modern era edge that this film so desperately needs.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Elrond means "Vault of Stars", if you trust JRR over Chris Tolkien.
Must be the difference between Sindarin and High Elven, because I always though "gil" was "Star" in Elvish. Which I guess would give more credence to the translation of "Elf of the Caves," except I know Elwing was "Star-Spray."
I guess the better joke would have been:
Bilbo: What does it mean? Elrond: I'm Elvish pal, it means 20 different things.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
There's rumors everywhere. Actors are all talking about it, Howard Shore is talking about it, Alan Lee is talking about it. There's more buzz right now than since ROTK finished filming the EE DVD.
I'm still very nervous about this second movie he wants to make. Frankly I think a Silmarillion movie tied into a tv show would be better, considering PJ is working with...sketchy information at best to form the story.
Best estimates I would say, is that he makes Lovely Bones still, he can't stop now, and then Tintin could possibly be put on hold, or he makes it right afterwards. In other words? Hobbit before the end of the decade.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was recently reading something about an upcoming Uwe Boll film. "Controversial director Uwe Boll brings his vision of...." blah blah blah.
I thought: controversial? Boll is not controversial, he's universally despised. What is the controversy? I've never, ever, not once, I mean never-- heard anyone say they liked his films. He's horrible. There has never been less controversy about a filmmaker.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
From Wiki: Also, in the 2007 G-Phoria awards on G4 (the annual video game awards), G4 has created a special award titled the "Games most deserving of a Uwe Boll movie" stating that some of the most disappointing and overall horrible games could be made into disappointing and horrible movies by Uwe Boll. The 2007 nominations include Red Steel (Wii), Fuzion Frenzy 2 (Xbox 360), Full Auto 2: Battlelines (PS2, PSP), Bomberman: Act Zero (Xbox 360), and Bad Day: L.A (PC)
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TL: I was recently reading something about an upcoming Uwe Boll film. "Controversial director Uwe Boll brings his vision of...." blah blah blah.
I thought: controversial? Boll is not controversial, he's universally despised. What is the controversy? I've never, ever, not once, I mean never-- heard anyone say they liked his films. He's horrible. There has never been less controversy about a filmmaker.
Go read a write-up on the storyline and trailer of Postal, then wonder if you still think he might not be controversial...
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
