Thanks for the link. *sad*
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Urgh. I hate to be so negative, but I can't help thinking that if someone else (probably someone who cares less about the story and more about pleasing the studio) makes 'The Hobbit', it'll never fit properly with the original trilogy. I can see this ending up as another film I wish had never happened. While I didn't love everthing that PJ and co. decided to do with the story, (losing the Scouring of the Shire still annoys me), you could tell that they genuinely loved Tolkien's original work. Plus, P.J. and co.'s career was made by the original films, so they have a reputation to preserve. Who else is going to care enough to make these films as good, without the dollar signs in their eyes getting in the way?
And as for making THREE more prequels, um, Star Wars anyone? And we know how brilliantly that worked out. Lots and lots of money - very little artistic merit.
(By the way, do you think they mean stories from 'The Silmarillion'? Because that might be interesting, if they did it right .)
I think everyone is going to end up regretting this, probably including Peter Jackson.
[ November 20, 2006, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: Bella Bee ]
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
i couldnt imagine too much from the Silmarillion, since it lacks heavy dialog
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Relax. Have a donut.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Any other director would have to be pretty presumptuous to take on a movie project that the whole world regards as belonging to Peter Jackson.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
I'd have no choice but to completely ignore "The Hobbit" made by anyone other than Peter Jackson. Sorry, but he's got my loyalty after doing so well with the Trilogy.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Dear New Line,
Swallow your pride, agree to an impartial arbitrator looking over the accounting, and let Peter Jackson make the film. If you fail to do this, chances are that many of the legions of fans who made the LOTR trilogy a huge cash cow are not going to turn up for your envisioned prequel(s). Show the business sense that God gave a grapefruit.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
This is bull.
I almost want to blame part of it on PJ for not just going ahead and tying the suit the deal. He's said in previous interviews that the movie and the suit are separate issues, but now they are inextricably tied, so tie them more, and make a deal.
New Line, for the love of God, after the BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars that we the fans have given you for backing LOTR the first time, you friggin owe us. PJ and the fans made billions for you, so swallow your pride and give Jackson what he's owed, then go back a few more billion with him.
Basically echoing Sterling.
I won't boycott Hobbit, regardless I want to see it. But this might be the first time ever that I'll actually send a paper letter to New Line to complain.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Why does the lack of "heavy dialogue" in The Silmarillion preclude it being made into a successful movie? It's a great story: write the dialogue.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
There are several online petitions to make The Hobbit happen, I'd like to see one petitioning New Line to swallow their pride and do what Jackson asks.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
That means that my dream can still happen: The Hobbit directed by John Woo!
[Begin slow motion] [Bilbo dives across the cave for no apparent reason] [Smaug incinerates a white dove] [Zoom in to the the Kanji symbol for "Magic" etched in to Gandalf's staff] [Random explosions] [Bilbo rolls across cave for no apparent reason] [A window pane shatters] [Gandalf screams] [Six unidentified actors run in to view and are instantly killed by Bilbo from a hundred yards away] [Gollum sneers at camera while he runs backward] [Bilbo runs out the cave clutching the One Ring in one hand and a newborn baby in the other] [Mountain explodes]
Hey, we can only hope...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cashew: Why does the lack of "heavy dialogue" in The Silmarillion preclude it being made into a successful movie? It's a great story: write the dialogue.
Not just heavy dialogue, ANY dialogue. Most of the Silmarillion is like a history book, with the writer telling us about conversations that happened, rather then showing us the actual words. Some of the more drawn out stories of the first age have dialogue, but almost nothing that takes place of consequence in the second or third ages (until the Hobbit) has dialogue at all.
LOTR was heavily drawn from the dialogue that was written in the books by Tolkien. Word for Word in some cases (too few, I think). But anyone who wrote a script for a Sil prequel would have to almost BS the whole thing, without only a basic outline for what needs to happen. There's a lot of pontential for disaster there, and I think at the very least it loses some of the magic the LOTR had, from having Tolkien's words already there to go on.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Would the director of the Hobbit movie(s) necessarily have to be from NZ, GB, or AU. I could easily go for a Tim Burton goth version.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
George Lucas should do it.
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
Nooooooooooo!!!!! Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: George Lucas should do it.
For the love of all things holy, go drown in a gutter!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Aw come now. If the man wasn't AT ALL involved in the writing, just the conceptualizing and the directing, you might end up with something like the original Star Wars movies, only with present day ILM graphics (in terms of quality anyway). That's all good stuff.
Besides, with Jackson totally out of the picture, I'm GUESSING, but this isn't assured, that Weta Digital won't be used for the new movie, they'll probably be busy working on whatever project he has going at the time anyway, be it Lovely Bones, Halo, Temmeraire or whatever, ILM is other obvious choice to do the CGI on The Hobbit (and I think, will be the choice if Weta isn't chosen, which may be likely).
And he has a basic Jackson-like Hobbit look about him (well, what Jackson used to look like anyway).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
ok as long as he isn't writing or directing. I can respect his contributions in the fields of special effects and even his new digital story boarding system that is supposedly quite efficient. Just keep him out of the director chair and the script.
I agree that Weta will probably stick with whatever Jackson is doing, rather then make their schedules incompatable.
You can pull your head out of the gutter now Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Any chance of The Hobbit being part of a unified whole with th LotR movies is now gone.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
OKay, off on a Holy Crusade to thos epeopl's Head quaters to do crtusaderesqe.. things ot them! yargh! ZC'mon I need ana mry of fanatacic al volunteers.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That's a lame reason not to allow him to direct the movie when he did such a brilliant job with L of the R.--------------
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
STOP MAKING BAD MOVIES OUT OF MY FAVORITE BOOKS!!!!
sorry to scream
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't see how it was a bad movie... At least it's not like the Harry Potter movies, a constant source of frustration to me.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I can't watch LotR, the Harry Potter movies, or that dreadful remake of hitchhiker's guide.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Just keep him out of the director chair and the script.
Ugh, never should've brought him up. Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
You're right. You shouldn't have. Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
*sigh* bureaucracy...
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
There's the BBC story on it. Says much the same things. Kinda depressing Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think Hatracker LOTR fans should join with the Ringers in a letter writing campaign.
We can at least say we tried.
Posted by Queen Mab (Member # 9218) on :
This is so wrong. Peter Jackson started these movies he should be allowed to finish them. New Line can't even begin to comprehend what kind of monetary pitfal they are walking into by not having Jackson film The Hobbit. I'm serioulsy debating seeing it now.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
MGM is holding out hope. Despite New Lines intention to go forward, it possible that MGM, which holds the distribution rights, may not agree to a deal unless New Line and PJ kiss and make up. It's also possible that PJ may be playing hardball with New Line to resolve his law suit and neither side wants to blink first. I suspect that MGM will apply some pressure to both sides to come back to the table before all is said and done.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Can they really not see how unpopular this decision is at New Line?
I just don't see what box these executive must live in to think this is really the best course, unless there is something we don't know down here in the front lines.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
MGM spokesman:
quote:"The matter of Peter Jackson directing 'The Hobbit' films is far from closed."
If he doesn't direct, at least we won't have a scene where Bilbo ropes Smaug and rides him for 8 seconds.
With him at the helm we may.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
pffft, Harry Potter movies were awesome, LOTR films were awesome, if I hadnt read the books I wouldnt have noticed the descrpency with the elves at Helmsdeep.
Frankly its A MOVIE books cant fit well into a movie so things need to be cut out a lil'
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oooo an unexpected snag in the controversy.
Quite frankly, I'm wonder what the deal was that originally settled the New Line/MGM argument to begin with. Just a year or two ago they were at each other's throats, and Hobbit looked like it might be a decade before they settled it, and all of a sudden it's on the front burner for both of them. If New Line is REALLY on a time limit, and MGM isn't, they could be able to force their hands. But Jackson is on a time limit too. He wants to push forward on Lovely Bones and other projects, and won't sit on his hands for long.
MGM had better get on their horse and push hard. Have to say though, good form on their part. Good form indeed.
Posted by gums (Member # 9874) on :
Maybe they watched King Kong, possibly the worst movie made this decade.
I gotta give Jackson his props, without him the LOTR movies might never have been made, but the man is not a good storyteller.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think the problem with King Kong was perhaps what was partly responsible for felling Lucas in the prequels. King Kong looked more like a resume for Weta Digital than it did a movie.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Gums, most people will disagree with you about Jackson's story-telling ability. In my opinion, he is a superb story teller, and that is why his LOTR movies were so good. Most, if not all, of the changes he made, did improve the pacing and clarity of the plot, such as having Frodo leave the Shire only a short time after Bilbo left, rather than wait 50 years as in the book. The elves never marched into Helm's Deep in the book, but when they did in the movie, audiences cheered. It was a wonderful moment that added to the story for them. Leaving out the Scouring of the Shire arguably avoided something anticlimactic that diminished the impact of the book's ending. Leaving out Tom Bombadil did not in any way hurt the story, since truthfully that character did nothing to advance the plot. It was just a bit of Middle Earth local color.
I would trust Peter Jackson (along with the screen writing of Fran Walsh) to tell a fantasy story in the best way more than any other director I know of.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Agree with you Ron. I thought King Kong was great, and while I didn't agree with all that PJ did with LotR, the story was superbly told.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Gums, most people will disagree with you about Jackson's story-telling ability. In my opinion, he is a superb story teller, and that is why his LOTR movies were so good. Most, if not all, of the changes he made, did improve the pacing and clarity of the plot, such as having Frodo leave the Shire only a short time after Bilbo left, rather than wait 50 years as in the book. The elves never marched into Helm's Deep in the book, but when they did in the movie, audiences cheered. It was a wonderful moment that added to the story for them. Leaving out the Scouring of the Shire arguably avoided something anticlimactic that diminished the impact of the book's ending. Leaving out Tom Bombadil did not in any way hurt the story, since truthfully that character did nothing to advance the plot. It was just a bit of Middle Earth local color.
I would trust Peter Jackson (along with the screen writing of Fran Walsh) to tell a fantasy story in the best way more than any other director I know of.
You may be right, but I thought King Kong stunk.
As for LOTR, it is probably my love of the books and what I thought they said that is speaking. I don't think Jackson got out of them what I got out of them.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)