Tolkien Enterprises To Film Hobbit With Jackson? 152
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."
Tolkein? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Tolkein? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
i before e except after c
too much 'Mortal Kombat' confusing you CmdrTaco ?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
A wierd rule, bieng niether accurate nor sufficeint as a guide to spelling. I wish the people who came up with these rhymes would check thier facts more sceintifically.
Re: (Score:1)
Does this explain New Line's decision? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:Does this explain New Line's decision? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Does this explain New Line's decision? (Score:5, Insightful)
1) "Let's try and screw him for his royalties, but in the process piss him off so he'll never work for us again."
or
2) "Let's be really nice to him so he'll keep making these financially successful films for us."
How far up your arse does head need to be for 1) to see like the best option?
Re:Does this explain New Line's decision? (Score:5, Funny)
But, but, after you account for all the 5 star hotels, first class air tickets, german cars, party girls and cocaine, the film actually lost money! "What - you mean we have to buy our OWN coke?" - A random New Line executive
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They tell us all the time that they are nice, and that they are striving hard to protect the starving artists who put in a ton of work to produce these films. Are you implying that this is not true and that the MPAA is not made up of nice people? OH NOES tell me it ain't so!!! I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that you would make such allegations!
Re:Does this explain New Line's decision? (Score:5, Interesting)
The details of the deal aren't too well known. In fact Jackson wasn't aware until recently that the rights would expire at all. It's hard to speculate but it appears that New Line still have time to make the Hobbit and the deal should cover some overrun so that work can still continue on an unfinished project.
After that the rights revert to Tolkien Enterprises so unless there's a clause in the contract that stops Tolkien Enterprises from reshooting the Hobbit immediately it's entirely possible that Jackson could make another version within a year or two (or within months if they were to write the script and do preproduction before they acquire the rights).
A New Line Hobbit film is likely to be profitable so there's a good chance they might try that and hope that Jackson doesn't want to take the risk to compete with a later attempt.
Re:Does this explain New Line's decision? (Score:5, Insightful)
Given this development, it's more likely that New Line will scrap their version unless they are really shortsighted (which is entirely possible). It's kind of like trying to sell a mediocre 1.2 release of a product when everyone is buzzing about the far superior 2.0 release just ahead.
And with the size of the official LOTR fan club, the fact that New Line has much more marketing muscle won't matter as much; word of mouth will be huge in advertising "Peter and the Ring V2.0".
MGM may override New Line (Score:5, Informative)
Looks like Tolkien Enterprises isn't the only one who wants to let Jackson do the job.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW, I speed-read LOTR in 3 days (after school - before bed, say 4 hours a day) when I was about 12 or 13. I had already read it five or six times previously though.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't mind going to the cinema a couple of times a week as long as there's something good on. Spiderman 3 is my next must-see film, no clue when it comes out though..
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Except, in a classic case of overly-complex intellectual property laws, New Line doesn't own distribution rights to The Hobbit. MGM does. Which means New Line could make the film, they just couldn't send it out to any theaters without MGM's permission. And MGM is saying [variety.com] that "the matter of Peter Jackson directing 'The Hobbit'
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that simple. There's no guarantee that he can continue to make successful films. If you look at the career of any "great" director (except for a few luminaries), you will find hit, flop, flop, hit, hit, flop, flop, hit, etc. Even if they made what is considered a classic film, it may have lost money or not been very successful at the box office.
So yes, continuing to work with Peter Jackson is still
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So yes, continuing to work with Peter Jackson is still a big risk. Case in point: King Kong. Which pulled in 550 million from the theatrical release al
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
when will these people have enough money? Particularly, is $50m more really worth having a crappy "The Hobbit" movie? If I already had $300m, I'd be more interested in securing rights for the BETTER PRODUCER than the one that can bring me more money. Serenity/Firefly is the perfect example of this IMO. If you have all that money, what do you do with it if there's nothing fun worth buying?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe there's still hope: Maybe they both can lose.
Background here [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
It makes me think of what Sierra did with Valve (Half Life games). After Valve made the two hugely successful cash cows that are half life 1 and 2 Sierra decided to try to screw them. It went to court and in the end Valve won and then dumped Sierra for Electronics Arts. How stupid do you have to be to act like that with your successful business partners?
Re: (Score:2)
Vanity... definitely my favorite sin.
Re:Does this explain New Line's decision? (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, it's the Jackson/WETA name that would put bums on seats rather than the New Line name. I mean, which would you go to see? A rush-job put out so NL could monopolize on the license before it expired, or a piece where Jackson *and* Tolkien Enterprises paid the proper respect to the IP? Thanks for the offer of a Big Mac, but I don't want to ruin my appetite.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I wish they'd introduce those in the USA. Is it an American chain that offers this? It would save me hundreds per year.
Re: (Score:2)
I think they expect to make money off of food, because since I don't have to pay for tickets anymore, I've been more tempted by the food even with its ridiculous pricing.. £4 for a little tub of ice-cream!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Does this explain New Line's decision? (Score:5, Interesting)
If New Line do not get production underway pretty soon, they risk the rights being taken away from them and I have a feeling that is the primary reason why they are making noise about moving on without Peter Jackson, because evidently they do not want to stop fighting the lawsuit but that is probably the only way it could happen any time soon. What they risk is the backlash that is beginning now, with stars such as Ian Mckellen expressing "dissapointment" at the Jackson scenario, I have a feeling that New Line will run into some problems getting a number of the actors and crew back on board without the man who practically 'made' the franchise what it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Egad, I hope that's not how it works. If they haven't picked a director yet, and they're still going to try to film and release the thing within a year, it's going to be a rush job. Overall, I liked Jackson's take on LOTR, although I have some serious complaints (extraneous additions and tin-eared dialogue that would have made JRRT weep, making
Re:Does this explain New Line's decision? (Score:5, Insightful)
I always found it kind of funny that the guy playing the dwarf was basically the biggest one in the movie. Besides, who says warriors can't also be something of a comic figure? After so many times of someone wanting to split your skull, it becomes something you start to have a bit of a sense of humor about - otherwise you crack =]
Re: (Score:2)
The advantages in filming were significant but yeah it was ironic.
Re: (Score:2)
New Line has an "option". If they want to actually make the film, they have to pay (a lot) as specified in their option contract to exercise that option. Once they do that, they have a set time, probably several years, to produce and release the film before these rights expire. Otherwise, the option expires and it seem
New scoops coming soon (Score:5, Funny)
Re:New scoops coming soon (Score:5, Funny)
I'd buy it!
I just wanna know... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Glamdring et. al. (Score:2, Funny)
Tolkein effort. (Score:2, Funny)
Stewardship (Score:5, Funny)
Rights expiring don't mean much... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Rights expiring don't mean much... (Score:4, Insightful)
Obviously they won't do it then, since apparently they lost so much money with LOtR...which is why they don't want to pay PJ in the first place...
Re: (Score:2)
Of course few movies actually lose money....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. There are more players involved in this: MGM, not New Line, owns the distribution rights, which means New Line could make the film but not distribute it. And thus far, MGM doesn't seem too
I dunno.... (Score:4, Funny)
Elves! (Score:2)
Should LOTR not be public domain? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Should LOTR not be public domain? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And given that Disney died in 1966, this means that the Tolkien copyright will never expire.
Re: (Score:2)
The copyright on Steamboat Willie expires:
eight minutes of silent-era sight gags with synchronized sound connected by a thin narrative thread.
Make of that what you can.
You do not get the rights to the trademarked character designs. You do not get the rights to the Mouse in any of his later incarnations.
LOTR - The Very Expurgated Version (Score:2, Funny)
Should PJ Direct "The Hobbit" in the First Place? (Score:2, Interesting)
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 ho
Peter Jackson should take care (Score:4, Interesting)
Samuel L. ? (Score:4, Funny)
"I'm sick of these mother fuckin' hobbits in this mother fuckin' shire!"
Re: (Score:2)
"You want me to make a movie with little people? Again?"
monkey movie down, hobbit to go... (Score:2)
l
Who owns what (Score:4, Informative)
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?
isn't that damn copyright (Score:2)
As the elves say (Score:2)
Welcome bad to the valley.
Ice Skating (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I also shudder to think to what they will do to The Hobbit.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, looks more like an orc.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 t
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 reasonin
Re: (Score:2)
It's really not that hard to understand - or make the audience understand, P.J's explanation is lame.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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, o
Re: (Score:2)
The events in the Hobbit aren't really that relevant: we know Tolkien didn't take that work as serio
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Hooray! (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With that said the one t
watch the writer/director commentary track on dvd (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 Silmaril
Re: (Score:2)
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 princ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes he changed things but did his dammedest to try and keep to the spirit of the original works. They referred back to the
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I understand why Tom Bombadil was left out, and it was the right choice. I do wish they filmed it for the DVD.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wait, I did to. I'm a sick, sick person...
Re: (Score:2)
Down here in NZ, Jackson's announced that he will *not* be directing the Hobbit movie.
11.30am Tuesday November 21, 2006 By Joanna Hunkin
Down there in New Zealand, you seem to be a bit behind the times. Over here in Europe it is Friday November 24 already, and the news has moved on. RTFA for more details.
Re: (Score:2)