Peter Jackson Hints At The Hobbit 721
Hellboy0101 writes "News.com.au is reporting that New Line Cinema is currently in talks to purchase the rights to the film adaptation of The Hobbit. There are apparently some difficulties with getting the go ahead from Tolkien's son Christopher, who is executor of the estate. When asked if New Line has approached him about the project, Jackson said he has not ruled it out, but not until after King Kong is done. 'New Line, which spent $US300million ($415 million) making the films, is already planning to continue its Rings success with an adaptation of Tolkien's novel The Hobbit.
More difficulties with the Tolkien estate were looming, said Jackson, who added that he would be keen to get involved after he finishes remaking King Kong in 2006. "New Line haven't actually talked to me about The Hobbit. I know there's difficulty about the rights, certainly if they want to talk to me about it I'd be keen," he said.'"
Re:Please, oh please... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Details, please? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Gandalf aging backwards? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Gandalf aging backwards? (Score:2, Informative)
After he gives it up to Frodo he ages quite rapidly.
Re:Details, please? (Score:4, Informative)
Iron Crown had a bit to do with it as well. I've talked with some of their authors, and to a one, they all blame ICE. The causes are numerous. Not focusing on new customers, issuing more regional background material than they did adventures, chasing the CCG fad while letting the RPG base deteriorate, etc. Tolkien Enterprises merely sunk an already sinking ship.
Re:Keen? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Gandalf aging backwards? (Score:3, Informative)
Transcript snippet from FOTR Script [seatofkings.net] at www.seatofkings.net.
That's from the movie, of course.
Put another way:
Later,
Re:Keen? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:ATTN: PETER JACKSON (Score:5, Informative)
Have you ever seen the damned thing? I have to admit I think it got the mood right, but man, those misshapen heads- and they really screwed up the elves! They were like little gremlins! The cartoon creators were obviously thinking of the elves that live up at the North Pole making presents for Santa. That's the wrong kind of elf. Although they did refrain from skateboarding down stairs while shooting arrows. That's one thing they did get right.
Re:A Euphemism and an Alliteration (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Keen? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Gandalf aging backwards? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I read that, and al I could think is (Score:4, Informative)
Hitler's favorite movie was Metropolis.
Let Tolkein's estate know... (Score:2, Informative)
Tolkien Estate
Cathleen Blackburn
Manches & co.,
3 Worcester Street,
OXFORD,
United Kingdom.
OX1 2PZ
Re:ATTN: PETER JACKSON (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Keen? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:ATTN: PETER JACKSON (Score:5, Informative)
At least they won't have to rebuild sets (Score:4, Informative)
I think he cracked a joke about building it somewhere and living in it, but hey, this way they can just break it out of storage and rebuild it and it will be the same set from Fellowship... instant continuity.
Re:King Kong Bomb (Score:5, Informative)
Re:just saw Return of the King (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed! I didn't actually notice this until I read your post and checked at IMDb.
FOTR: 178 min (208 min)
TTT: 179 min (222 min)
ROTK: 210 min
Are Peter Jackson actually going to make an Extended Edition of ROTK? I assumed so before, but seeing the non-EE version is about as long...??
Re:Please, no hobbit! (Score:4, Informative)
If you consider a book to be a straight narrative from plot point to plot point then you're frankly missing the point. The Scouring of the Shire is my own very-favorite part of the series, because the fate of the world does NOT hinge upon it. These days I tend to look carefully at any work that has as its aim the Saving of the World. When looking at what I can take away from a story, the belief that the act of saving the world is harder than figuring out truthfully what must be done for it to be saved is looking progressively more stupid as I age. I don't blame Jackson for excising it (*something* had to go, I suppose), but it is not an extraneous portion of the story.
Looking at the larger picture, what bothers me isn't that *some* movies are better than the books upon which they were based. If you want a prime example look at The Wizard of Oz, the originals weren't bad but the movie is great. However, the longer the book has been around, the less likely that a movie version, if it happens, will be better, because the older a book is, the better it has to be for studio execs to scent gold it. Also, the older and more beloved the work, the greater a wall of public regard that must be torn down in order to work their grimy magic upon it.
But to step back a bit, what bothers me is the general public perception that the movie is *automatically* better than the book, because it's a *movie*, which is not even true half the time. Yet, Harry Freaking Potter excepted, everyone watches the movie, and far fewer read the book. Film and literature may be different arts, and they mey exchange letters and invite each other over for tea every Tuesday, but the neigoborhood still gossips about them. And the fact is, people always compare them to each other. The fact that movies are extremely huge money these days while most authors work second or even third jobs contributes to this effect.
What got me all hot under the collar in this department was seeing countless works of literature sold with their covers matching the movie adaptation, looking exactly as if they were mere novelizations, copies of truer celluoid. Now it's happening to Lord of the Rings -- just a couple of days ago I saw at the bookstore a compilation of the three novels in the trilogy, with a movie still cover and with movie Gandalf and movie Frodo collectable bookends in a big movie-themed cardboard box. What I hate is the sense that the movie appearances of these characters will become the "official" versions in the minds of everyone who isn't at least an undergrad (which is to say, most people). You may not believe this, but the picture on my own mind of what a Balrog looked like was a hell of a lot nastier than that CGI version, and my own image of hobbits did not take into account the Elijah Wood factor.
Hurting my own argument: What about the Ralph Bakshi versions? No one complained about them?
Ah, but they didn't have hundreds of millions of dollars pushing them into the public consciousness, did they?
Re:Fact check -- STOP blaming the Tolkien Estate! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:ATTN: PETER JACKSON (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, it's travesty called "not reading the post" (Score:5, Informative)
Scroll to the top and reread the story.
Wait, don't both here it is:
"New Line, which spent $US300million ($415 million) making the films, is already planning to continue its Rings success with an adaptation of Tolkien's novel The Hobbit. "
That plainly says they spent the money on the LoTR series, not on the King Kong Remake. Further hints include the little know fact that "films" is plural, whereas "the King Kong remake" is singular.
Oh, and not to pick any nits or anything, but Universal is the one paying Jackson to do the remake of King Kong, and has budgeted 100 million to the project.
The only "insight" is that Simonetta didn't seem to read the original post. The tragedy is that s/he went off on poor defenseless strawman, and got a +5 insightful.
Just goes to show that put enough monkeys at a keyboard and let them bang away, eventually they'll mod anything and everything up to +5 insightful.
Re:King Kong Bomb (Score:2, Informative)
I'll give you 50c for the rights to your "idea"
Re:Fact check -- STOP blaming the Tolkien Estate! (Score:4, Informative)
Isn't NewLine part of AOL^H^H^H Time Warner?
According to This [timewarner.com], they are.
And Warner Pictures is too?
Considering there were a number of reports that TW's profits for the last few years was largely influenced by LOTR:FOTR & TTT - it shouldn't take much for NewLine to receive the rights....
Should it?
Re:LOTR actors (Score:3, Informative)
He doesn't particularly mind doing Gandalf, but I wouldn't say it's his favorite, by a long shot. Read the White Book [mckellen.com] entry from three weeks ago, especially the part about signing autographs. For more of his take on LOTR, read his journals [mckellen.com]. I'd reproduce the relevant paragraphs here, but the site doesn't allow it.
Different studios, same parent... (Score:3, Informative)
In situations like this, the parent company is perfectly happy to take a hands-off approach, because it's in their best interest in the long run. In other words; let the kids squabble. It'll mean that more money goes into AOL/TW's pocket if anything gets done. And if not, the parent company hasn't lost anything.
Chalk up another one for the Big, Evil, Faceless Corporation (TM).
Re:LOTR actors (Score:3, Informative)
Um, have you watched any of the special-edition DVD special features? Apparently the man would dig a tunnel to hell if it looked like it would be the perfect location. AND he'd pay gardeners to tend any temporarily-moved flora of hell so they could be replaced a year later. Oh, and he'd retouch every frame to get the color of the flames in the corners *just* right.
I think, if it was best for the film, he'd find a way to make Iam Holm look like a teenager. Not a problem. And, frankly, if you can't get the original actors back, along with Peter Jackson, I don't really see the point of making the movie, anyway.