Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh out of "The Hobbit"

[Primula Baggins]

It would be nice . . . but I'm wondering if these are the Tintin movies.

[Alatar]

Interesting article on the situation.

Once more on New Line, Peter Jackson, and The Hobbit

After several months of raised and dashed hopes, the question of who will direct the film of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit remains open. I first weighed in on the question back on October 2 of last year, when this blog was in its infancy. MGM had just announced that they would be making The Hobbit and hoped that Peter Jackson would direct. At that point I was trying to sort out Peter Jackson’s large number of film projects and to explain how his schedule might include time to direct The Hobbit.

Subsequently there was a clarification. MGM, which owns the distribution rights to any film version of the novel, would co-produce with New Line, which produced The Lord of the Rings and owns the filmmaking rights for The Hobbit.

Then, early this year, New Line founder and co-president Bob Shaye declared in an interview that Jackson would never direct The Hobbit while he is in charge of the company. The obstacle was a lawsuit that Jackson had filed against New Line; he wanted an accounting of earnings on the DVDs of The Fellowship of the Ring and various licensed products. See my January 23 attempt to explain all that.

As before, no doubt negotiations are going on behind the scenes. To reiterate my disclaimer from the earlier entries, I have no inside information, given that my contact with Jackson and the other filmmakers was back in 2003 and 2004, during the research for The Frodo Franchise. As someone who has followed the situation very closely since undertaking my book back in 2002, however, I can make what I hope are some enlightening comments on the scraps of news that have appeared since January.

A faint hint that Shaye might possibly be backing away from his absolute rejection of Jackson as director for The Hobbit came in a brief interview in the April issue of Wired (also online). As far as I could tell, this went largely unremarked at the time. The first two questions related to The Last Mimzy, the children’s fantasy directed by Shaye, which was then being released to what proved to be disappointing box-office results. Inevitably, though, the interviewer switched to the Hobbit situation:

You recently said Peter Jackson would never touch The Hobbit while you were at New Line.

You know, we’re being sued right now, so I can’t comment on ongoing litigation. But I said some things publicly, and I’m sorry that I’ve lost a colleague and a friend.

Is The Hobbit still a viable project?

I can only say we’re going to do the best we can with it. I respect the fans a lot.

Shaye’s statements might be seen by some as implying that he regretted his rejection of Jackson as a director. Given that the vast majority of fans want Jackson to direct, the last sentence seems to offer hope that Shaye might relent and bow to their wishes.

A greater stir was caused by Entertainment Weekly’s April 16 announcement that Sam Raimi had expressed interest in directing The Hobbit—a possibility that had been circulating widely as a rumor since shortly after Shaye’s January pronouncement. As I suggested in my previous entry, however, most directors would shrink from upsetting Jackson and his fans by simply taking the job. Raimi made it clear what circumstances would be necessary: “First and foremost, those are Peter Jackson and Bob Shaye’s films. If Peter didn’t want to do it and Bob wanted me to do it—and they were both okay with me picking up the reins—that would be great. I love the book.” (Raimi presumably refers to films in the plural because MGM had suggested in September that it was considering a two-part adaptation.)

Raimi risked riling not only Rings fans but Spider-Man afficionados, who were upset at the idea that he might bow out of a presumed fourth entry in his own franchise. In the nearly two months since Raimi’s statement, there has been no public indication that he is being seriously courted to accept the job directing The Hobbit.

Jackson, however, has been busy. The projects on his plate have changed considerably since early October. Only a few weeks after my summary, Universal and Twentieth Century Fox, which had been on board to finance the video-game-to-film adaptation of Halo for co-production by Jackson and Microsoft, bowed out. The project is now on hold, with the assumption that the release of the Halo 3 game, announced for September 27, will regenerate studios’ interest.

The remake of The Dam Busters is moving forward, but it is being directed by Christian Rivers rather than Jackson, who serves as producer. The acquisition of Naomi Novik’s “Temeraire” series by Jackson and partner Fran Walsh, announced September 12, apparently has not resulted in a specific project. The pair presumably have the option of making it into a film at some future date or letting their option lapse.

The project that has made great progress is Jackson and Walsh’s adaptation of Anne Sebold’s bestseller The Lovely Bones. Their script was up for bids this spring, and on May 4, Variety announced its sale to Dreamworks. Reportedly the film will be delivered by the fourth quarter of 2008. It might be possible to commence pre-production work on a Hobbit film while The Lovely Bones is in progress.

Less than two weeks later, Variety revealed that Steven Spielberg is teaming with Jackson to produce three feature films based on the classic Belgian comic books starring Tintin. Each plans to direct one of the features, with a third director undertaking the others.

In October I suggested that most of Jackson’s projects were flexible in their timing, and that left the possibility that he could shift them around to fit in The Hobbit. Given that no timing has been announced for the Tintin films, Jackson’s only apparent project with a deadline is The Lovely Bones.

Finally, at the Cannes Film Festival, Shaye and co-president of New Line Michael Lynne spoke to Variety’s editor-in-chief, Peter Bart, about the Hobbit project. Their remarks might give Rings fans cause for hope.

Shaye maintained his stance, declaring that New Line had paid Jackson and Walsh $250 million in profit participation. “The clash happened because ‘one of us has gotten poor counsel,’ Shaye said, without elaborating.”

The story continues: “Co-chief Michael Lynne struck a more upbeat note. ‘We do want to settle our dispute and I think we will.’” Neither would comment on the rumors that Raimi was being wooed for the Hobbit adaptation. When asked about Raimi, Lynne replied, “There’s never been any announcement.” Shaye added, “Like a lot of people, he might.”

I think there are two major factors underlying this feud between Jackson and Shaye that haven’t been pointed out and need to be. First, lawsuits of the type Jackson brought are pretty common in Hollywood. Second, Shaye is perhaps forgetting the amount of personal investment and financial risk Jackson took to get Rings made—investments that cost New Line nothing but which brought in a hugely successful film on a surprisingly low budget. (I explain how in the first chapter of The Frodo Franchise.)

Jackson’s isn’t even the first suit against New Line by someone central to the film’s making. Independent producer Saul Zaentz sold the adaptation rights to Miramax back in 1997, and that company in turn sold them to New Line in 1998. As part of these deals, Zaentz was to receive 5% of gross international receipts. He sued, claiming that the $168 million paid to him was calculated on net receipts, leaving a balance of $20 million owed him. The suit was to come to court on July 19, 2005, but New Line settled for an undisclosed amount shortly before that. The same thing could happen in Jackson’s case, and the settlement could come at any time.

Zaentz isn’t the only other person claiming to have been shortchanged by New Line. On May 30 of this year, a group of fifteen Kiwi actors filed a suit claiming that they had not been paid the 5% of net merchandising revenues for products bearing their likenesses. (The group includes Sarah McLeod, who played Rosie Cotton, Craig Parker, who played Haldir, and Bruce Hopkins, who played Gamling.) The suit isn’t likely to reach court soon, if ever, but Jackson isn’t alone in his doubts about New Line’s accounting practices.

Moreover, Jackson and Walsh spent an enormous amount of their own money upgrading the filmmaking firms in Wellington to make them sophisticated enough to handle all phases of Rings’s production. Weta’s two halves, Digital and Workshop, of which the couple owns a third, were vastly enlarged. Jackson and Walsh bought the country’s only post-production facility, The Film Unit, when it was for sale and under threat to be moved out of New Zealand. They went into debt to do that, and it, too, was enlarged and moved into a huge facility full of highly sophisticated equipment. Much of this expansion was paid for with the money Jackson received for making Rings.

The result was a trio of films that grossed nearly $3 billion internationally, as well as untold additional revenues for the DVDs, video games, and other ancillaries. New Line went from a small subsidiary of Time Warner known mainly for its Nightmare on Elm Street series to a well-respected company making prestige films like Terence Malick’s The New World and the upcoming The Golden Compass, an adaptation of the first novel of Phillip Pullman’s award-winning trilogy. Oh, and there’s the matter of the seventeen Oscars Rings won. Previously New Line, founded in 1967, had won two.

In the wake of Rings, Jackson was faced with having to keep Weta, The Film Unit (now renamed Park Road Post), the Stone Street Studios, and his WingNut production firm going. Beyond the physical facilities, which no doubt involve enormous overhead costs, there are the many hundreds of employees to be paid. New Line did not invest in these facilities. Jackson and Walsh, along with their partners Richard Taylor and Jamie Selkirk, did.

When I first visited Wellington, there was a question as to whether there would be enough business to keep the facilities going and the employees in work. King Kong helped in the short run, but would other big films follow? Since then, Weta Workshop has diversified and is thriving. Weta Digital gets regular work doing the CGI for large numbers of shots in such films as X-Men 3: The Last Stand and Eragon. James Cameron’s decision to make Avatar in Jackson’s facilities seems the final seal of approval. Weta Digital is now widely considered one of the top digital effects houses in the world, alongside such firms as ILM, Sony’s Imageworks, and Rhythm & Hues.

Now the Wellington facilities all seem to be doing well. Nevertheless, in the era before Rings’s release and huge success, Jackson took as big a risk as Shaye did. Maybe bigger. Shaye might ponder that as he decides what to do about the Hobbit project. He owes the Kiwi filmmaker gratitude for more than simply directing a runaway hit.

Beyond that, unless New Line has short-changed Jackson very badly through its accounting procedures (and all that would presumably come out eventually when the suit finishes up), the added value provided by the director’s name on a Hobbit film would surely be at least as great as the money owed. Unless there is some major unknown factor influencing Shaye’s decision, he would do well to tamp his resentment, make peace, and initiate a project that is as close to a guaranteed mega-hit as anything can be these days. He could settle out of court, as he did with Zaentz, and just get on with it.

[Alatar]

Possible news on this:

Raimi and Jackson on The Hobbit!
Written by Stephanie Sanchez
Friday, 10 August 2007

We’ve got a follow up to our story “Sam Raimi Possibly Directing Clash of the Titans” and it’s a doozie!

All indications from our inside sources are saying that while Raimi was seriously considering the Titans offer, he has a much bigger fish to fry and has possibly chosen to go in the direction of Middle Earth instead.

While we are being told that negotiations are still underway for the prequel and final deals won’t be reached immediately, Raimi is leaning towards directing The Hobbit as his next big project.

Where does this leave the legendary Peter Jackson?

Although New Line’s Bob Shaye and Jackson had a much publicized dispute over “the green,” the LA Times recently spoke with Shaye and he had this to say,

Eager to move ahead with "The Hobbit," New Line has quietly been trying to mend fences with "Rings" filmmaker Peter Jackson, who has sued the company over his share of profits from the first "Rings" films. When asked if it was true that company insiders had been in talks with Jackson's reps, Shaye replied, "Yes, that's a fair statement. Notwithstanding our personal quarrels, I really respect and admire Peter and would love for him to be creatively involved in some way in 'The Hobbit.'"

All sources indicate that although Jackson won’t be back to direct, our source is telling us that Raimi is looking to helm The Hobbit with Peter Jackson attached to produce. Raimi has said in the past that he would not take on the project without Jackson’s blessing. Well, looks like he may have it!

This could be the best of both worlds. With PJ producing we'd still get practically the whole package of Shore, Weta, McKellan and Co. I would assume PJ, Fran and Philippa would still do the script, leaving Raimi with the direction. Since many people felt the weaknesses in the LotR movies were down to PJ's excesses, perhaps Raimi can solve that particular problem.

Who knows!

[Primula Baggins]

I think I have to agree, Alatar—although I would be happy to have PJ direct, this is an excellent second-best (and could, as you say, actually make for a better film). And we would still have the creative continuity and all the assets you name.

Out of curiosity, where was this story posted?

[Alatar]

It was reported here:

http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=co ... &Itemid=99

I picked up the link on TORC.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't believe it for a second. And I wouldn't like it if it were true. Sam Raimi? Not my first choice. Or my second. Or my third ... .

[yovargas]

Could it be that I've turned into a PJ purist?



Yeah, I won't be happy with any news that isn't "PJ is directing".


*sigh*

[Alatar]

I don't believe it for a second.

Why not Voronwë? I'm curious. They are apparently pretty confident that their source is accurate.

Personally, I'd like PJ to direct, but if its a choice between PJ producing, with the LOTR team; or the whole lot being handed off to someone else, I'll take what I can get.

[Primula Baggins]

Thanks for the link, Alatar. That's a respectable site.

Personally, I'd like PJ to direct, but if its a choice between PJ producing, with the LOTR team; or the whole lot being handed off to someone else, I'll take what I can get.

That's how I'm seeing it. If PJ is definitely ruled out as director, this is a darn good second best. Raimi would not be my pick, either (Peter Weir . . . ), but he's got some talent; he's not a hack like Michael Bay.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't believe it for a second.

Why not Voronwë? I'm curious. They are apparently pretty confident that their source is accurate.

First, I've learned to be very skeptical of internet reports that are "pretty confident their source is accurate". I'm not familiar with that site; do they have any record of accuracy?

Second, I find it very hard to believe that Peter Jackson would be involved in this project - with Bob Shaye's blessing - and not direct it. It doesn't makes sense from PJ's point of view: why let someone else tinker with his legacy? And it doesn't make sense from New Line's point of view: having PJ at the helm is the best way to guarantee the greatest profits.

Finally, I have insisted all along that PJ will direct The Hobbit, and I hate being wrong.

Personally, I'd like PJ to direct, but if its a choice between PJ producing, with the LOTR team; or the whole lot being handed off to someone else, I'll take what I can get.

Yes, I certainly agree with this. Though I can't imagine Raimi working with Shore, for instance, in the same way that PJ did.

[Primula Baggins]

I've looked a few other places, and the ones mentioning Raimi all cite IESB's report, which doesn't give a source for the Raimi idea. The actual confirmable news is Bob Shaye's statement that he would like to see PJ involved in THE HOBBIT. One site said this is doubtless a statement made to appease New Line stockholders, who like everyone else think Shaye is nuts to pass up two guaranteed blockbuster hits over a routine financial disagreement.

All in all, I think this is a hopeful sign—even if you don't care for PJ, this gives us Shore, Weta, probably a lot of the same designers and production people, Lee and Howe. . . .

[Breogán]

It would be a dream come true if Hollywood just left Tolkien alone. I respect and admire Peter Jackson and his work, even if I don't like and cant understand many of the changes he made when adapting LotR.
I seriously doubt this new project can be better than PJ's (I like Raimi, but I believe he's not the right director for a Hobbit film/s), and I fear that if The Hobbit film is made, it will be a Hollywood product through and through...

[Alatar]

Ah but Breogán, that dream can come true for you simply by not watching! For the rest of us, though, we'd mostly like to get a good movie, and still have the book.

[Breogán]

Alatar, it's not that easy.
I don't oppose adapting Tolkien's works, I would enjoy a good and proper adaptation as much as anyone else, but I just don't like doing it for the sake of making money, jumping on the bandwagon after PJ's success and now that the F(antasy)-word has proved to be business worth investing in. As it has happened many times before, this could be another missed chance to do something great.
Don't know if you've seen Alatriste, that is a good example to illustrate the point I'm trying to make. What the Alatriste books had achieved - quite an accurate depiction of the Silver Age of the Spanish Empire under the shape of historical thriller, with interesting and well-crafted characters, action, humour... - the film destroyed in 147 min. This flop had nothing to do with lack of money and resources, or even the lack of talent. It was just a very poor adaptation, where the film industry interests were the ones calling the shots, where those with the money decided not to take any risks and followed the guidelines of conventional film-making intended to get the largest profit and where the story only came second.
I may decide not to go and see The Hobbit film, that's true, but that doesn't change the fact that it pains me to see good stories/books being treated this way

[vison]

Well, it pains me, too, but nonetheless I'm glad the LOTR movies were made. Parts of them were wonderful and I can ignore the rest since I don't watch them much anyway.


Movies are made 'for money'. What other earthly reason could there be? Do I work for the sheer love of it? No, and I don't think many other people do, either.

Peter Jackson and crew had, apparently, an "artistic vision" and they are likely satisfied that they saw it through to completion. But they also had to satisfy the people whose money they got to play with. Yet, truthfully, have there been more fantasy movies since LOTR than usual?

The movies were not what I would have made!!! But since I have no clue how to make movies it's just as well I didn't give it a try.

Beloved books don't translate well to the big screen, or at least they don't if they're "my" beloved books. When I allow my mind to dwell on the horror of the Greer Garson/Laurence Olivier version of Pride and Prejudice . . . then I say, "Hats off to PJ."

[Breogán]

Vison
I don't live in lollypopland , I know the film industry is that, an industry, and films are made to make money. There's nothing wrong in making good money out of them, the problem, imho, takes place when money is the only thing that matters.
PJ's films, which I like even if I don't agree with some of the changes, were not all about making money, they intended to do something else, and sometimes they succeeded.
Anyway, I am entitled to have an idealistic approach to what the film-making industry should be... hence my opinion on The Hobbit project

[Primula Baggins]

Well, I am hopeful. It's true there are many more cheap ripoff "adaptations" than careful and thoughtful ones, but I thought PJ's efforts were far above the average. And there are other examples—for me, the best are Peter Weir's Master and Commander and the 1995 BBC Pride and Prejudice.

The Hobbit is more likely to be a good adaptation if it's a conscious follow-up to PJ's LotR with many of the same people involved. I suspect that if PJ is involved (pretty much assuring a hit), they will also be willing to spend more to make it in the right way than they would if they were simply exploiting their film rights with a hack director, conventional production values, and a phoned-in score.

[Alatar]

I'm of the same opinion as Prim. In fact I'm very hopeful that with PJ aboard as Producer we'll get the two-film adaptation with White Council stuff that he spoke about. Frankly, the Cartoon Hobbit is a pretty purist adaptation, even if the Elves are a little, erm, different, and I'd like to see what can be achieved with a little more vision.

[vison]

Sorry if I was a bit sharp. It's rather ironic, me arguing for PJ, since I have spent 6 years loathing the movies . . . maybe not loathing, but terribly dissatisfied.

The thing is, though, as we both know, movies must make money. If FOTR had been a dismal flop, we might never have seen TTT or ROTK, or if we had, they would have been awfully different than we got. And I don't think "awfully different" would have been less than "awful", since any actual artistic content would have been chucked aside in favour of more blood and possibly some sexual content. . . .

Mind you, it is possible that someone would have said, "Oh, dear, this movie has failed because it left Tolkien out, so let's put more Tolkien in and satisfy those durned purists." Sure. Sure.

I have never, personally, seen an Ingmar Bergman film. Yet I have been reading for decades about how "artistic" they are, how pure, how true to the artist's vision they are, and that may be true. But, then, he wasn't making movies FROM anything but his own head and since the movies are not Hollywood blockbusters, they aren't viewed in the same way by the same people. (I haven't not seen them for any reason other than it's terribly inconvient for me to travel the distance necessary to see any non-mainstream movie and somehow it never occurs to me to buy the DVDs.)

Last night we watched The Last of the Mohicans with Daniel Day Lewis and I gave myself permission to think, once again, what a tremendously good Aragorn he would have been. It is futile now to think so, but so what? I did read The Last of the Mohicans many long years ago, but I don't know whether the movie was a faithful adaptation. It was a lovely movie, though.

The adaptation (or not) of The Hobbit doesn't matter to me at all. It is such an inferior book to LOTR that in my mind it might as well have been written by someone else.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I can relate to both attitudes (though I tend to lean more towards that of Alatar and Prim). I just want to emphasize that both are perfectly attitudes to hold. We can disagree about this respectfully (as this discussion shows).