Hobbit film delays and blaming GdT

[eborr]

[Note: I split this off from the Hobbit film set thread. This is the link eborr is referring to, which I had posted in that thread - VtF]

thx for the link, even the Waikato times is blaming GDT for delays in production - the studio thought police get everywhere

[Voronwë the Faithful]

thx for the link, even the Waikato times is blaming GDT for delays in production - the studio thought police get everywhere

That's a stretch to say that the paper is blaming Guillermo for delays in production. All it says is "Other delays in the production of The Hobbit occurred last year when the original director, Guillermo del Toro, departed and then Warner Bros threatened to take the production to Europe because of union demands." That's a pretty darned neutral, fact-based statement. To read any GdT-bashing into that you have to really be looking for it.

In my opinion, of course.

[eborr]

Don't share your view on that one V.

The reason that we have been told the GDT left the production both by GDT and PJ was that the project was being delayed for reasons beyond the control of PJ and GDT and that the delay was predjudicing other projects GDT was committed to. When GDT left the studio had not yet "green lit" the project.

As the project was "owned " by PJ production company they obviously had an incentive in staying with it, but if GDT was an employee and he had other better and more cetain offers, then he really had no alternative but to leave.

What the paper has done is to have set the story on it's head and it stating that the delay was due to GDT. This is either very shoddy sub-editing or the writer has an another agenda

The second reason for the delay was the little spat over the where the film was to be based. I cannot see that this would have caused any great delay, it was a storm in a tea-cup although it made major news in New Zealand.

We all know why the film was delayed, MGN were broke and needed rescuing, why did the paper just not come out and say that - mayhap they were afraid that MGM would take a dim view of such a story and hold it against them in future.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That simply isn't true, eborr, no matter how much you and others think it is true. Not only did a New Line/WB spokesperson specifically state that MGM's finances had no part in the delay in greenlighting the film just after GdT left, but the proof is in the pudding in that even after MGM has gone through it's bankruptcy and come out the other side, WB is still paying for the whole production (which is what I said would happen all along). MGM's situation never had anything to do with the delays. Whether or not the main reason that GdT left was the delays up to that point (and I personally don't believe for a second that it was, and the recent New Yorker article tends to confirm that feeling), there is little question that his leaving the project delayed the greenlighting further. The article simply makes a statement of fact, and certainly doesn't include any negative statements or implications about Guillermo. Again, one has to be looking for such negative implications (and looking hard) in order to find them here.

[Elentári]

GDT left because the project was still far from being greenlit...which presumably then meant the project could not be greenlit without a director ready in place.

sort of cause and effect?

[River]

IIRC, didn't PJ step up to the plate like ten minutes after GdT left?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

No. It was many months later. During the interim, there was tremendous speculation as to who would take the job. At one point it was reported as a done deal that Neill Blomkamp, the director of District 9 had been hired. Some time after that, it was reported that Jackson was considering stepping in, but there was considerable negotiations before that became a reality.

[SirDennis]

Well, this came up before but perhaps not here. It's a subtle thing but the way that last paragraph reads implies the delays were caused by Guillermo leaving, as well as the union action.

As trite summaries go this one is wide of the mark. And the more it is repeated, the more it will become the official story (if it is not already).

By the time GDT left there was as yet no green light even though the projected theatrical release date (December 2010) he had signed on for was a mere six months away. With a shooting schedule of 18 months, well, the math alone justifies his departure.

The delays up to that point were caused by legal wrangling and MGM's organizational and financial problems. While his departure may have been a setback, it was concurrent with the ongoing financial problems -- to say nothing of whatever plans Warner Bros. had in the works for milking the NZ government for better incentives.

The question eborr raises, and I believe Voronwë is addressing, is whether that last paragraph (an increasingly familiar tag on) is a deliberate swipe at GDT? I do not believe it is aimed at him per se. But it is unfair. And it does seem to be the way people are being lead to remember The Hobbit production's dark past.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Well, this came up before but perhaps not here. It's a subtle thing but the way that last paragraph reads implies the delays were caused by Guillermo leaving, as well as the union action.

But his leaving almost certainly did cause some of the delays, though obviously there were also additional factors beyond that, and the union dispute.

By the time GDT left there was as yet no green light even though the projected theatrical release date (December 2010) he had signed on for was a mere six months away. With a shooting schedule of 18 months, well, the math alone justifies his departure.

I don't believe that is correct, Dennis. I'm not going to track down links right now, and I fully expect you prove me wrong if I am wrong, but I am fairly certain that the release dates had initially been scheduled for 2011 and 2012, and got put back one year, not two years. And a one year delay in a project of this nature is par for the course, really. Which is big reason why I have always been suspicious about the story of GdT leaving because of the delays. One doesn't commit to a project this massive and then leave because it is going to take six years of your life rather than five. It just doesn't make sense.

The delays up to that point were caused by legal wrangling and MGM's organizational and financial problems. While his departure may have been a setback, it was concurrent with the ongoing financial problems -- to say nothing of whatever plans Warner Bros. had in the works for milking the NZ government for better incentives.

Again, as I stated before, WB firmly denied that MGM's situation had anything to do with the delay, and the fact that WB is footing the full bill tends to support that claim. As for "whatever plans Warner Bros. had in the works for milking the NZ government for better incentives" unless you can show that WB somehow manipulated the unions into their incredibly short-sighted actions, which opened the door for WB to be able to "milk the NZ government" than I don't believe that was a factor. [eta: a factor in the delay up to the point that GdT left, that is]

Jackson did make a comment at one point that one of the factors that influenced the delay was an issue regarding negotiations over rights with the Tolkien Estate. I am hoping (though I suspect it is a fool's hope) that what that was about was a negotiation to allow some references to things in the Quest of Erebor, but that is pure speculation.

If I remember correctly, GdT made a reference after he left to "political issues" that contributed to the delays. But that was never clarified, so I don't know whether he was referring to the eventual union battle, or something else entirely.

I must say (though I know this will be an unpopular opinion to some), that I believe that one of the contributing factors to the delay (and to GdT leaving) was the creative tension between GdT and WETA (and probably Jackson as well) that is hinted at in the recent New Yorker article. However, that is just my sense, not based on any hard evidence at all.

The question eborr raises, and I believe Voronwë is addressing, is whether that last paragraph (an increasingly familiar tag on) is a deliberate swipe at GDT? I do not believe it is aimed at him per se. But it is unfair. And it does seem to be the way people are being lead to remember The Hobbit production's dark past.

Perhaps I am naive, but I suspect that once the production gets under way, people will stop thinking so much about GdT's departure, and once GdT finally get's down to making his next film, people will associate him with that rather than The Hobbit. Which is as it should be.

[SirDennis]

I don't believe that is correct, Dennis. I'm not going to track down links right now, and I fully expect you prove me wrong if I am wrong, but I am fairly certain that the release dates had initially been scheduled for 2011 and 2012, and got put back one year, not two years. And a one year delay in a project of this nature is par for the course, really.

Since essentially we are talking about historical revisionism, collective memory and media here I thought it worthwhile to track down that info. From an early press release:

ACADEMY AWARD-WINNER PETER JACKSON AND NEW LINE CINEMA JOIN WITH MGM TO PRODUCE “THE HOBBIT” MOVIE
December 18, 2007
The two “Hobbit” films – “The Hobbit” and its sequel – are scheduled to be shot simultaneously, with pre-production beginning as soon as possible. Principal photography is tentatively set for a 2009 start, with the intention of “The Hobbit” release slated for 2010 and its sequel the following year, in 2011.
Retrieved today from http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2007/12 ... e-hobbit”/

About a month later, del Toro was announced as director. By the time I started paying attention a few months after that, the December 2010 release was still on the table. About a year later, when it was clear filming could not start in 2009, the release date was moved to 2011; and then again, since PJ took over, to 2012.

IIRC at the start there was a question about which of Tolkien’s writings New Line held film rights to. To an extent this held up script writing and may or may not have caused the uncertainty over whether they would have a bridge film or a fleshed out Hobbit in two parts. The legal side of that dispute was covered and interpreted by you. (It was through those reports that I was introduced to your sobriety but also your wit.) Once that was settled, and no longer available as an excuse for delays, New Line/MGM’s financial straits came to light.

What ensued was, as you said, wrangling over who would float the production. At the time Warner's had distribution rights only. I note that your early prediction that NL/MGM would remain nominally attached to the production, but that Warners would foot the entire bill (production and distribution), was spot on.

Regardless, and in spite of what MGM has said about its finances, I would sooner believe that clarifying the rights to source material and figuring out who would pay for the production had more to do with the delays than GDT’s departure or the aborted union action ever did.

Also, as I have said elsewhere, the ill-conceived union action came out of nowhere. Because of its timing, it appeared to be seized on by PJ as an excuse to move in case Warner's demands for a sweeter deal from NZ did not succeed. At one point Warners indicated they were concerned about NZ's definition of contractors and employees for some time. They were likely planning on asking for greater tax breaks for some time as well but were unable to before settling the issue of who would pay for the production.

Perhaps I am naive, but I suspect that once the production gets under way, people will stop thinking so much about GdT's departure, and once GdT finally get's down to making his next film, people will associate him with that rather than The Hobbit. Which is as it should be.

That is my hope as well. The problem is statements such as the one tagged onto the end of the Hobbiton set article offend our sensibilities. As they should.

Honestly, there are far more pressing matters to be paying attention to and debating than what really happened on The Hobbit. But historical revisionism via media -- whether by design or lack of due diligence -- is a serious matter.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I agree that there are other important subjects to discuss, primarily involving the content of the film to come, rather than the film that might have been, but I also agree that it is important to address historical revisionism in the media.

One point that I want to clarify in case it was not clear. When I referred to Jackson making a comment that part of the delay was due to rights issues, I wasn't referring to the lawsuit, but rather issues that PJ seemed to be suggesting had arisen after the lawsuit. Let's see if I can find a link ... Here's something from Entertainment Weekly, on October 4, 2010, before the greenlight (and before Jackson was officially named the director):

Still, sources are confident that filming could get underway by January as intended. Warner and its New Line division have been busying themselves recently with, among everything else, clearing up rights issues that remained with the J.R.R. Tolkien estate.

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2010/10/04/h ... w-zealand/

[SirDennis]

hrumph, ho, I wonder what the status of those negotiations is? Care to shave off another side thread?

Actually thanks for the clarification. The delays at the beginning might safely be attributed to the lawsuit in progress at the time. But I don't recall anyone ever explicitly saying so. It did appear to be a roadblock of one sort or another though. My memory is a little hazy on that point.

[Holbytla]

I look at this whole thing as a "read between the lines" kind of story.
Just guessing here, but I would imagine that if there were no delays in the film process, the GDT would have been there for the ride until either he or PJ came to a point where the other wouldn't or couldn't compromise their vision for the films. With the labor delay and the lawsuit delay, any such clash was conveniently avoided or GDT was given an easy out.

In any case, there was no way Kukla, Fran and Ollie weren't going to have their thumbprints all over these movies. The Hobbit is the offspring of their offspring and they were going to have a great deal of input into how it was made. GDT was never ever in an autonomous position, and I will bet anything that he felt constrained by that.

[SirDennis]

Since Holbytla hints at artistic differences I wanted to pick up on the point VtF made here as well:

I must say (though I know this will be an unpopular opinion to some), that I believe that one of the contributing factors to the delay (and to GdT leaving) was the creative tension between GdT and WETA (and probably Jackson as well) that is hinted at in the recent New Yorker article. However, that is just my sense, not based on any hard evidence at all.

I'm leaning more in that direction than I was initially. Hard evidence may yet come, but not for some time, as GDT hinted he might write a book about his time in NZ.

As for evidence we can point to now? Well the New Yorker did paint a picture of an odd fit -- overall mind you, not just because of his ideas going into the Hobbit. (On a side note: though it seems counter intuitive, being a Tolkien expert is not the prime requisite for being the best film maker to adapt his works.)

Further to this, in response to some of the wild statements floated on FB after that cartoon dragon was posted there (that thread has since disappeared btw) someone with the last name Falconer made a very defensive post about the collaborative design process inferring that GDT's ideas were likely rejected by Weta. There was a palpable sense that they were worried about people trashing The Hobbit before it was made. I realize this is a flimsy connection (a specialty of mine as you know well) but there you have it.

[eborr]

That simply isn't true, eborr, no matter how much you and others think it is true. Not only did a New Line/WB spokesperson specifically state that MGM's finances had no part in the delay in greenlighting the film just after GdT left, but the proof is in the pudding in that even after MGM has gone through it's bankruptcy and come out the other side, WB is still paying for the whole production (which is what I said would happen all along). MGM's situation never had anything to do with the delays. .

V since when did a New Line spokesman talking finances have any more credibilty than the Chairman of the Flat Earth Society discussing Geography !

Secondly whilst MGM was in danger of going through bankruptcy and it held some of the rights to the production of the Hobbit, there wasn't a cat in hells chance that Warners would commence production of the Hobbit.

The risk is really a simple one to understand - even if the rights were only held in a tandential way by MGM and the production went ahead without the Bankruptcy being dealt with then any creditor of MGM could have issued an injunction to hold up production.

Lets not forget, it wasn't only the Hobbit that was delayed, the James Bond franchise was also caught up in the same difficulties. Maybe they will blame GDT for that as well. Well it has to be him or Doctor No

It's clear that the production had been delayed with factors to do with the studio and not Wingnut/Weta/GDT - I am sure we all remember the I McK statements that were talking about being in New Zealand.

As to whether there were any creative difficulties, well time may be the judge of that, but both PJ and GDT have good records of collaboration in delivering films, GDT in the Hellboy films and it picking up on part of the Blade franchise, working with Cameron on the future ITMOM project, and PJ with a number of project, District 9/TinTin.

Furthermore I would have expected the creative tensions to have been realised in the early stages of the project, when the major decisions were being made, rather than what must have been a later point in the production when they must have been at a detail level.

If we take this point and explore it a little more, GDT is not short of work, he has a number of projects that are very close to his heart that he is working on now. If he had been unhappy with the progress on the Hobbit and his working relationship with PJ & Weta then he would have left earlier and got on with stuff.

Sorry the GDT casuing the delay does not add up, it may be of course due to the uncertainlty caused by the delays that additional stresses were created, as PJ and GDT were not the only stakeholders in the process. Clearly the project was a major part of the Weta business plan, and if it had fallen through then quite a large number of jobs at Weta could have been at risk