Hell yeah! Bring on The Hobbit!!!! - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

mary · 09-18-2006, 08:50 AM

Will Peter Jackson Direct The Hobbit?

Posted Sep 11th 2006 6:32PM by Christopher Campbell
Filed under: Action & Adventure, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, MGM, New Line, Sony, Fandom, Peter Jackson, Comic/Superhero/Geek, Remakes and Sequels

In what seems like an effort to put the roar back into the lion, MGM chairman-CEO Harry Sloan is looking to turn the studio into a tentpole factory and is about to announce some of the big-budget films currently in development. Not surprisingly, since the studio is anchored by its library of franchise-available titles, most of these tentpoles will be sequels, including Terminator 4, a second installment to the remake of The Thomas Crown Affair, the previously reported Pink Panther sequel, as well as a few that Erik mentioned last week.

One release to rule them all is The Hobbit, to which MGM co-owns the rights (with New Line, who made the Lord of the Rings films), and which actually may end up as two releases. There is a good chance the LOTR prequel will be a blockbuster no matter how it's produced, but Sloan is really hoping that Peter Jackson can be snagged to direct. Seeing as Jackson still has The Lovely Bones and The Dam Busters on his calendar, if he were to be interested in the project, Sloan will have to wait a few years to get it started. In the meantime, he can take another look through the library and find some more films in need of easily extended into sequels. Otherwise, he will have to find someone else ... someone that fans will trust and approve. Man, how long with that take?

Earlier this month, Mark reported on a New Line leak that claimed The Hobbit is scheduled for next summer, but the above information doesn't seem to make that possible.

u2sarajevo · 09-18-2006, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil MGM money collectors

Otherwise, he will have to find someone else ... someone that fans will trust and approve. Man, how long with that take?

Dang it.... if he doesn't I will be mad. Although I would really like him to stay true to the book..... I have read that he has his own thoughts on getting the classic filmed. In two parts.... according to The Hobbit-movie.com... http://derhobbit-film.de/indexengl.shtml (see the Hobbitt film notices)

mary · 09-18-2006, 09:22 AM

Well even LOTR had some deviations that made it more marketable to the general public. I really hope they're patient with doing this....Jackson was obviously awesome and it would be a shame to see this movie tainted by someone with less talent (like Tim Burton, for example..YAK!)

u2sarajevo · 09-18-2006, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mary

Well even LOTR had some deviations that made it more marketable to the general public. I really hope they're patient with doing this....Jackson was obviously awesome and it would be a shame to see this movie tainted by someone with less talent (like Tim Burton, for example..YAK!)

I know.... but the only egregious error (in my opinion) he made was the blown up role of Arwen (and leaving out the Scouring of the Shire.... I mean at least on the extended edition........ but oh well). But according to reports he wants to bring back the roles that were in LOTR.... how would you explain that? Frodo and Sam? Sure it would be fun, but it wouldn't be factual.

edit: to add I would have liked to have seen Bombadil also.... at least a mention.... he is a mystery in the book and I thought that would add intrigue to the first movie....

mary · 09-18-2006, 09:47 AM

Quote:

edit: to add I would have liked to have seen Bombadil also.... at least a mention.... he is a mystery in the book and I thought that would add intrigue to the first movie....

I always thought that Bombadil would make a "surprise" appearance at the end of the 3rd movie as they were travelling back to the Shire...but I can understand why he was left out.

If he's thinking of putting Frodo and Sam in The Hobbit...that's definitely taking things too far.....that would be dissappointing to myself and those who loved the books so much.

Flacolaco · 09-18-2006, 10:08 AM

I would be very very very very excited to see a Peter Jackson directed Hobbit.

but I would be completely ecstatic if Ian McKellen agreed to Gandalf it up again....

Big Boy Laroux · 09-18-2006, 10:22 AM

of all the places to cut the books down, bombadil was the obvious selection. it's a fun read, but would have had casual audiences saying WTF?

to me, jackson has earned the right to make any LOTR related film for the rest of his life. so he better be doing the Hobbit.

no way they can do the Hobbit without McKellan. McKellan IS gandalf. as for Bilbo, they don't need Holm. they can go with someone younger.

but bring back Weaving, too. also, it'll be awesome to see smaug on screen.

Flacolaco · 09-18-2006, 11:11 AM

Yes the greatness of Weaving will also be needed.

Someone younger for Bilbo.... yes

But damn....you need Serkis. To me, even though I read the books long before the movies, Serkis IS Gollum, as much as McKellen IS Gandalf.

Im excited just thinking about how much greatness that could be if it all came together right. But you know it wont....

Big Boy Laroux · 09-18-2006, 11:28 AM

oh, of course you need serkis, too. and the same effects team.

Nemesis · 09-18-2006, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Boy Laroux

of all the places to cut the books down, bombadil was the obvious selection. it's a fun read, but would have had casual audiences saying WTF?

to me, jackson has earned the right to make any LOTR related film for the rest of his life. so he better be doing the Hobbit.

no way they can do the Hobbit without McKellan. McKellan IS gandalf. as for Bilbo, they don't need Holm. they can go with someone younger.

but bring back Weaving, too. also, it'll be awesome to see smaug on screen.

Sorry U2, I totally agree with Bigboy here. Little twinkle toes prancing through the forest is a part of the book I have read only twice in my numerous reads of LOTR. I feel like I am back in high school reading Silas Marner where I drift off in some other place not realizing that I just read 50 pages of gobaly gook. Anyway, it definitely has its place in the book but it is not for the the movies.

I do agree with U2 on the shire, I felt like the 30 minute love fest at the end of ROTK could have been used for the uproar, the remenants of Saruman, and of course the last meeting with Treebeard who sums up the whole thing with the best quote in the book. Ironically, this is how the move trilogy began with Galadriel saying those great words. I cannot wait for The Hobbit. (only if Jackson directs it, which he has stated many times, he will.. www.theonering.net)

fluid.forty.one · 09-18-2006, 08:36 PM

I am 100% sure he wouldn't try to put frodo and sam in the Hobbit. That would be a huge disaster.

sike · 09-18-2006, 11:14 PM

I'm game, even if it takes a few years...waiting for Jackson is a must.

mqywaaah · 09-20-2006, 12:38 AM

If he doesnt, a lot will be disappointed.

Five-ofan · 09-20-2006, 11:21 PM

Honestly imo this was the best of the 4 books. As for bombadil he would have been cool but as has been mentioned if you hadnt read the books you would go wtf? When he says bring back the LOTR characters does he mean all of them? As has been mentioned, Sir Ian needs to be Gandalf and Gollum needs to be Gollum but aside from that no one is really that important as far as the same actors that i can think of?

Flacolaco · 09-20-2006, 11:45 PM

Yeah youre right about that. Gollum and Gandalf.....and Elrond, but thats not absolutely necessary. Was Gimli in the hobbit? or am I thinking that Gloin was written into the fellowship OTR?

I disagree about the Hobbit being a better book. But to each his own. Thats the greatness of Tolkien.

Five-ofan · 09-21-2006, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Yeah youre right about that. Gollum and Gandalf.....and Elrond, but thats not absolutely necessary. Was Gimli in the hobbit? or am I thinking that Gloin was written into the fellowship OTR?

I disagree about the Hobbit being a better book. But to each his own. Thats the greatness of Tolkien.

Its been a while since i read them but im fairly certain gimli wasnt in the hobbit. Thoren Oakenshield and his bunch were the dwarves in the hobbit if i remember correctly.

mary · 09-21-2006, 08:39 AM

No love for The Silmarillion? You could probably get at least half-a-dozen Middle Earth movies out of it. I liked The Hobbit, but its much more of a children's fairytale, and really lacks the darkness of LOTR.

u2sarajevo · 09-21-2006, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

Its been a while since i read them but im fairly certain gimli wasnt in the hobbit. Thoren Oakenshield and his bunch were the dwarves in the hobbit if i remember correctly.

That is correct. Gimli's father(Gloin) was one of the dwarves, but not Gimli himself.

Five-ofan · 09-21-2006, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mary

No love for The Silmarillion? You could probably get at least half-a-dozen Middle Earth movies out of it. I liked The Hobbit, but its much more of a children's fairytale, and really lacks the darkness of LOTR.

the silmarillion was good and i read it out of order(after the others even though it is the first book) and i guarantee you there would be a market for a movie simply due to its connection with lotr BUT i dont think it presents itself into a movie for the same reason you said you could get a dozen movies. Too many different stories.

Flacolaco · 09-21-2006, 09:19 AM

Several things....

The Simarillion is a good read if you really really really enjoyed LOTR, and are interested in the history, but I cant see making a succesful movie out of any of it. It gets so bogged down in a sort of "bible-like" creationism rhetoric for much of the book. I enjoyed it though.

2nd.... who cares when the next harry potter movie comes out? Warner Brothers has killed that movie franchise by allowing every different director free reign on what will be in the movie and what wont be. Leaving out vital information, not looking at the big picture, and only concerned for their movie.

The better question is, when does book 7 come out? (sometime next summer I hope)

u2sarajevo · 09-21-2006, 11:50 AM

I think they could make a great movie with the theme of following Melkor and his evil ways.... that would be fun!

u2sarajevo · 09-21-2006, 12:11 PM

Long live Bilbo!!!!! (desperate attempt to get thread back on topic)

Flacolaco · 09-21-2006, 12:16 PM

Ok Ok....U2.....

Very interesting to think about what Smaug might look and sound like while talking? How do you pull off a giant talking dragon with minimal cheese?

Big Boy Laroux · 09-21-2006, 01:21 PM

i know this isn't the best reference, but i think they pulled off a talking dragon quite well in that "Dragonheart" movie. i actually liked that. and that was released in 1996. i think they'd be able to do A LOT better now.

of course, that dragon was voiced by sean connery, who is, of course, a badass.

Flacolaco · 09-21-2006, 02:08 PM

I didnt see it, but Im sure anything that was done in 96 can be improved upon.

I guess they pulled of a giant talking tree so....

Nemesis · 09-21-2006, 11:11 PM

That giant talking tree is named Treebeard. We can all take a page from his demeanor.

Five-ofan · 09-21-2006, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Boy Laroux

i know this isn't the best reference, but i think they pulled off a talking dragon quite well in that "Dragonheart" movie. i actually liked that. and that was released in 1996. i think they'd be able to do A LOT better now.

of course, that dragon was voiced by sean connery, who is, of course, a badass.

is that the one with Dennis Quaid as the knight? I actually kind of liked that movie.

Five-ofan · 09-21-2006, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blab's Nemesis

That giant talking tree is named Treebeard. We can all take a page from his demeanor.

Actually Treebeard wasnt a tree. He was an Ent i believe.

u2sarajevo · 09-21-2006, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

Actually Treebeard wasnt a tree. He was an Ent i believe.

Yep, Ent.... but Ent's look like Tree's and protect Tree's (and bushes, plants, etc...).

Five-ofan · 09-22-2006, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

Yep, Ent.... but Ent's look like Tree's and protect Tree's (and bushes, plants, etc...).

But just cus it looked like a duck..... in this case, it wasnt a duck(Or tree in this case)

Big Boy Laroux · 09-22-2006, 09:55 AM

yeah, 5-0, that's the one with Dennis Quaid.

Flacolaco · 11-21-2006, 11:30 AM

VERY BAD NEWS

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15821905/

Jackson dropped from The Hobbit.

Apparently he has some gay dispute with New Line a la Nellie and Cuban.

u2sarajevo · 11-21-2006, 11:32 AM

I predict failure.....

Big Boy Laroux · 11-21-2006, 11:34 AM

they better work that shit out.

Flacolaco · 11-21-2006, 11:36 AM

I didn't know I felt so strongly about this, but I am immediately crest-fallen. This is awful. I love what Jackson did with LOTR so much, I agree with u2, I feel this is going to be a tragedy now.

Without Jackson, I doubt very much whether McKellan will come back. I do think they can get Serkis back, and I hear the composer Howard Shore has expressed interest. which is good, the music is very important.

u2sarajevo · 11-21-2006, 11:37 AM

Not so fast....

-------------------------------
Variety Has A Hobbit Snippet From MGM

11/20/06, 11:44 pm EST - Demosthenes
Variety has a short story rounding up the fracas surrounding the making of The Hobbit right now. Among all the regurgitation, the most interesting point is this one that provides some insight into the current thinking of MGM - which holds the distribution rights.

All of this has riled MGM, which in recent weeks has been openly touting the fact that the newly revamped studio is serious about making "The Hobbit" -- with Jackson.

An MGM spokesman said that "the matter of Peter Jackson directing 'The Hobbit' films is far from closed."

Big Boy Laroux · 11-21-2006, 11:48 AM

i read a little bit more on this. apparently, New Line (or MGM, whoever the suit is against) wanted to settle out of court, which jackson was happy with. BUT! New Line (or MGM) wanted to make one of the stipulations of the settlement that jackson HAD TO make "The Hobbit". of course jackson WANTS to make the hobbit, but he doesn't want to be FORCED to by a court agreement. which i respect. you want him to make it because his heart is into it. it's about principles.

Flacolaco · 11-21-2006, 11:49 AM

Letter from Jackson...

Quote:

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 settle the lawsuit was to get a commitment from us to make the Hobbit, because "that's how these things are done". Michael Lynne said we would stand to make much more money if we tied the lawsuit and the movie deal together and this may well be true, but it's still the worst reason in the world to agree to make a film.

Several years ago, Mark Ordesky told us that New Line have rights to make not just The Hobbit but a second "LOTR prequel", covering the events leading up to those depicted in LOTR. Since then, we've always assumed that we would be asked to make The Hobbit and possibly this second film, back to back, as we did the original movies. We assumed that our lawsuit with the studio would come to a natural conclusion and we would then be free to discuss our ideas with the studio, get excited and jump on board. We've assumed that we would possibly get started on development and design next year, whilst filming The Lovely Bones. We even had a meeting planned with MGM executives to talk through our schedule.

However last week, Mark Ordesky called Ken 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.

Ordesky said that New Line has a limited time option on the film rights they have obtained from Saul Zaentz (this has never been conveyed to us before), and because we won't discuss making the movies until the lawsuit is resolved, the studio is going to have to hire another director.

Given that New Line are committed to this course of action, we felt at the very least, we owed you, the fans, a straightforward account of events as they have unfolded for us.

We have always had the greatest support from The Ringers and we are very sorry our involvement with The Hobbit has been ended in this way. Our journey into Tolkien's world started with a phone call from Ken Kamins to Harvey Weinstein in Nov 1995 and ended with a phone call from Mark Ordesky to Ken in Nov 2006. It has been a great 11 years.

This outcome is not what we anticipated or wanted, but neither do we see any positive value in bitterness and rancor. We now have no choice but to let the idea of a film of The Hobbit go and move forward with other projects.

We send our very best wishes to whomever has the privilege of making The Hobbit and look forward to seeing the film on the big screen.

Warmest regards to you all, and thanks for your incredible support over the years.

We got to go there - but not back again ...

Flacolaco · 11-21-2006, 11:52 AM

Any possibility the studio is bluffing (about hiring a new director) to get them to settle?

Big Boy Laroux · 11-21-2006, 11:54 AM

i think maybe it was a bluff at first, and they then realized the backlash would be HUGE (not sure why they didn't realize it first), so they're probably deciding against it.