Oh no! No Peter Jackson on The Hobbit

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Very disappointing news indeed.

I would hope that they would swallow their pride enough to (1) at least rent from PJ the Hobbit and Rivendell sets that he still has (2) employes WETA to keep contunuity with the look and feel of Middle Earth as already presented to the paying public.

But then they'll probably start from scratch, dolts.

That being said - with Halo stopped for the moment and now The Hobbit falling through, maybe PJ can get on with Temeraire, which I am very interested in seeing now that I've read (and loved) the books.
 
jlcmsu said:
yeah both sides are acting like small children. I'm so ****ing mad right now I could strangle someone.

I don't see how PJ is acting like a child. If you worked for someone and they paid you but at the same time promised you a bonus if certain parameters were met but then DID NOT honor the agreement by making bogus claims (Hollywood accounting), how would that make you feel? Knowing that the company has raked in hundreds of millions of dollars in licensing fees and ticket sales in PROFITS. And PJ is not even asking for a certain amount of dollars, he is asking for his right-to-audit, which is in his contract with New Line Cinema. NLC is being petty by trying to avoid paying him his fair share. They could give him $50 Million in a handbasket, they'd still owe him for what he and his team achieved.

I can wish that Jackson would just swallow and give in but I can certainly appreciate that he doesn't wish to continue under these circumstances. Working on something, holding even the slightest grudge, will inhibit your creative output.

I for one am convinced that Hobbit without Jackson/Walsh/Boyens will be less interesting, even more so without Lee and Howe for conceptual designs, Shore for music, Weta Workshop for FX. And McKellen and Serkis? All those people were fans and loved the material and project. From here on in anybody attached will just see big $$$ signs. I won't go see it, as someone wrote elsewhere, I will download it so NLC doesn't get one "f*cking red cent" from me!

Beren

P.S. My 100th post!! Yay for me!! :)
 
jimmyjamesf said:

I was thinking the same thing, Bob. That's might be our only option to make they change their mind.
Or it would be great if all other turned down the project - Mckellen, Weta, Howe, Lee, Weaving and Shore. How can NL think that a movie will be a sucsess if none of the org cast and crew is onboard...
 
Beren said:
NLC doesn't get one "f*cking red cent" from me!

Beren

P.S. My 100th post!! Yay for me!! :)

Yay for you, Beren!

I'm boicotting NLC from now on :emperor
 
jlcmsu said:
yeah both sides are acting like small children. I'm so ****ing mad right now I could strangle someone.

I know there's some irony in that statement... just can't find it :lol

I know that I will still see the Hobbit, no matter what since I love the book so much. I am no longer excited about it though and this is really terrible news. But the reality seems to be that PJ is not gonna be involved and we can now only hope that whoever gets the job doesn't f' it up!
 
Here are two names that I think are just as important to the success of The Hobbit as Peter Jackson and Ian McKellin: JOHN HOWE AND ALAN LEE... If these guys are brought on board, no matter who the director is, I believe there may still be hope.
 
Very dissapointing news.

This might be a good time to read this PJ interview again. It was quite relvealing his personal thoughts during the development of talks about the film(s) a few months back.......

If you haven't already you can read the whole interview here:
https://www.aintitcool.com/node/30085

QUINT: So, if you got a phone call tomorrow telling you that you could have any budget you need and creative freedom, but it has to be finished and in theaters by December 2009. Would you find room for THE HOBBIT?


PETER JACKSON: Well, it depends. No one has phoned me, which is kind of weird, but I don't know. We're very, very excited and committed about the films that we're working on now, so I don't know. I'd have to sit down and look at it all. Obviously, I'm interested in THE HOBBIT, but right now we have no emotional investment in it. For the last few years, we have put our hearts into other projects. It would seem strange to have somebody else do it, although some part of me would be interested in going to see somebody else's HOBBIT, be able to buy my popcorn and go and sit and watch the film.


I'm not against that and if our schedule is impossible, then that's what they'll do. They'll certainly go and get someone else to make it. They won't wait, which is their right.


QUINT: Could your lawsuit against New Line be a problem?


PETER JACKSON: No. It's a seperate thing. I mean, I can't discuss the law suit, but it is just about rather dull audit issues, not people or projects. New Line called us about a Lord of the Rings box set a few weeks ago. A high definition one, so we are still talking.


QUINT: Maybe they will offer a settlement that includes The Hobbit.


PETER JACKSON: No. Well, they might, but we would never do that. Never. You make movies because you love the idea. You feel kind of emotionally driven. I would never commit to a 2 or 3 year project because of a court order! I mean, what a jinx. It would bring bad karma. No, our dull audit stuff can get figured out by lawyers or courts or whatever. We'll keep our movies completely untarnished by that.


QUINT: I think no matter what you should write some dialogue for Christopher Lee and pack up the robe, staff and beard and go film about 10 minutes with him playing Saruman again while you still have the chance!


PETER JACKSON: I would love to! If I was doing THE HOBBIT I'd try to get as many of the guys back as I could. I mean, there's actually a role for Legolas in THE HOBBIT, his father features in it, obviously Gandalf and Saruman should be part of it. There's things that you can do with THE HOBBIT to bring in some old friends, for sure. I have thought about it from time to time... Elrond, Galadriel and Arwen could all feature. Elves have lived for centuries. Part of the attraction would be working with old friends. I wouldn't want to do it unless we could keep a continuity of cast. I have zero interest in directing a Gandalf who wasn't Ian McKellen for instance. Strange to be even talking about it, for three years it's been in this rights situation limbo.


QUINT: They must have figured it out.


PETER JACKSON: It looks that way. I've always thought that New Line would go to MGM and offer them some money and basically buy them out, then New Line would make the film. But I can see what MGM is doing. If I was MGM I'd do the same thing. What MGM is gotta be saying is, "Well, we'll partner in the film with you. We'll pay for half of it and you pay for half of it and we'll share it." That's what studios do a lot with these films. If I was MGM, I'd think that was the smart thing to do. "We'll share the rights," and actually become a partner in what is already a successful franchise.


It must create problems for New Line because they have all these output deals with these independent guys, who did a great job releasing LORD OF THE RINGS in all the different (foreign) territories. They release a package of New Line films over 2 or 3 years and they get 20 films or whatever. And I'm sure that New Line would prefer to offer their partners 20 films plus THE HOBBIT as part of the package, so MGM might be taking domestic and New Line international. I really have no idea, but it's interesting to see how the politics works. That stuff intrigues me. They must have figured out something I guess. I mean, there's too much money involved. If I was the Time/Warner board, I would have been hassling New Line for a Hobbit film for the last three years! It's a billion dollar franchise for the studio.


QUINT: And I'm sure they'd love the idea of two HOBBIT films. Twice the box office, more DVDs to sell...


PETER JACKSON: I saw that. Yeah, we're supposed to be writing The Lovely Bones, but of course Phil, Fran and I read the thing on the net and spent most of this morning talking about The Hobbit. We think the two film idea is really smart. One of the problems with The Hobbit is that it is a fairly simple kids story, and doesn't really feel like The Lord of the Rings. Tonally I mean. It's always may be a little worried, but with two films that kinda gets easier. It allows for more complexity. At that implied stuff with Gandalf and the White Council and the return of Sauron could be fully explored.

That's what we talked about this morning. Taking The Hobbit and combining it with all that intigue about Sauron's rise, and the problems that has for Gandalf. It could be cool. That way, it starts feeling more like The Lord of the Rings and less like this kids book. You could even get into Gollum's sneaking into Mordor and Aragorn protecting The Shire. That's what we'd do. Love to work with Viggo again.


Anyway, we talked for a while and got back into the Lovely Bones. As I said, that's where our hearts are at the moment. We're extremely happy with the projects we're involved in now and we're busy for a few years. I really have no idea. If someone else makes it, I'll be first in line! Actually, I'd try to be, but Philippa is the Queen of the Geeks and she'd definately get there first!
 
pordey2 said:
I was thinking the same thing, Bob. That's might be our only option to make they change their mind.
Or it would be great if all other turned down the project - Mckellen, Weta, Howe, Lee, Weaving and Shore. How can NL think that a movie will be a sucsess if none of the org cast and crew is onboard...

That would be nice. I'd love to see as much egg on NL face as possible right now.

galactiboy said:
I know there's some irony in that statement... just can't find it :lol

I know :rotfl
 
tomandshell said:
Holy smokes, that is unreal.

Maybe they are going to try to get Uwe Boll or Paul W.S. Anderson.

Imagine if they were able to land Michael Bay! :sick






:lol :rotfl :lol
 
tomandshell said:
PJ is digging in his heels and won't talk to New Line until the law suit is settled. The production folks at New Line aren't going to sit around and wait for the accounting folks to get their ducks in a row--they want this movie made. PJ had the option of working with the production people while awating the outcome of the suit against the accountants and he decided not to do this. It was ultimately his call. It's a bummer, but it sounds like the decision to focus on money instead of getting a chance to do The Hobbit was his. It's a shame that New Line didn't respond by postponing the project indefinitely, but they did what they did in response to PJ's unwillingness to talk until the legal issues were settled.

The whole situation is a frustrating mess.

That's about it Tom...New Line only has the rights to make this movie for about another year, so obviously, that has them on a deadline. PJ has other projects he is focusing on in the immediate future, PLUS things are a little on the frosty side between him and NewLine at the moment. So, yeah, It's a battle of wills and egos and pride at the moment. And the losers?? The movie going public.:monkey2
 
About my post earlier,I was implying that the hobbit would suck anyway but without PJ it will just suck more.

I thought the Lord of the Rings films were good but not excellent but the reason they were good was because of Aragon,Legalos ect, a film about the worst characters ever "hobbits" and "Frodo!" will suck,I think.

No offense to fans but I just think it sounds boring,the Lord of the rings films needed to be long but imagine PJ doing "The hobbit" it would be three hours long and would bore you to tears.
I think though good films should be as long as Star Wars and not three hours.

Matty
 
I think though good films should be as long as Star Wars and not three hours.

Matty[/QUOTE]

SW Eps I and II run an hour less than LOTR movies and still they have LONG stretches of boredom and amateurish acting (I don't blame the actors, it's the writing and the director). I grew up with Star Wars and really wanted the PT to be good. By the third viewing of Phantom Menace all I looked forward to was the Darth Maul duel (which ended in a very unconvincing manner!)

I personally don't feel LOTR having any moments of embarassing dialogue or acting and in Star Wars PT they are a'plenty.

There are plenty of GOOD 3 hour movies out there, Godfather I and II? Titanic made good use of a full 3 hrs even if some dialogue was painful. Spartakus? Gone with the Wind? Some stories are EPICS and usually that happens in a 3 hr span, not two.

Beren
 
I went to www.newline.com, under "Corporate", "FAQ", I sent an email. This is what I wrote:

"I read yesterday Peter Jackson's statement about being off the Hobbit project. I won't vent or send expletives your way, I was able to vent on online forums. I watched each LOTR movie 7 times in the theatre, bought all the extended gift set editions and spent thousands upon thousands of dollars on LOTR merchandise.

I can tell you that without Peter Jackson and his creative team involved, I have ZERO interest in the Hobbit movie and will not see it, and so will many other millions of fans. Sincerely... "
 
buffy-collector said:
About my post earlier,I was implying that the hobbit would suck anyway but without PJ it will just suck more.

I thought the Lord of the Rings films were good but not excellent but the reason they were good was because of Aragon,Legalos ect, a film about the worst characters ever "hobbits" and "Frodo!" will suck,I think.

No offense to fans but I just think it sounds boring,the Lord of the rings films needed to be long but imagine PJ doing "The hobbit" it would be three hours long and would bore you to tears.
I think though good films should be as long as Star Wars and not three hours.

Matty


Sorry but "The Hobbit" isn't about Frodo. It's about Bilbo. And actually, LOTR wasn't really about Aragorn, Legalos, etc., either. It really was about the seemingly most inconsequential and smallest peoples in Middle Earth, without benefit of magic or special warfighting skills, and how they were just as effective and impactful in its history. Don't mean to sound argumentative (and I apologize if I do).
 
buffy-collector said:
About my post earlier,I was implying that the hobbit would suck anyway but without PJ it will just suck more.

I thought the Lord of the Rings films were good but not excellent but the reason they were good was because of Aragon,Legalos ect, a film about the worst characters ever "hobbits" and "Frodo!" will suck,I think.



Matty

Umm, Frodo isn't IN "The Hobbit"; Bilbo is the main protagonist. Regardless, though, you have crafted a very well-thought-out, eloquent, and reasoned analysis. :rolleyes:
 
It will definitely be a bummer if PJ doesn't direct "The Hobbit" but it was never going to be as good as FOTR, TTT, or especially ROTK even with all the same players involved.

The story of "The Hobbit" just doesn't lend itself to beating out the LOTR. So I can at least take comfort in the fact that the best possible Tolkien movies have already been made. "The Hobbit" was always going to be the icing on the cake.

If the new movie sucks there's always the book and the cartoon (both of which I love.)
 
Back
Top