Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh out of "The Hobbit"

[baby tuckoo]

Ang Lee, anybody?????

[Alatar]

Yeah, cause the Hulk was such a triumph....

[WampusCat]

I hear Sacha Baron Cohen is interested.

[TORN]

Here's what Variety has to say -- in my usual self-serving manner, I will bold the language that supports (kinda) my previous desperate cling to faint hopes . . .

btw -- I don't subscribe to Variety -- I signed up a while back for one of those short-term freebee access thingies which they claim has ended but I still seem to have access

Inside Move: It's hard to be a 'Hobbit'
New Line, MGM, Jackson tussle over pic

By NICOLE LAPORTE, NICOLE LAPORTE, DAVE MCNARY, DAVE MCNARY

Who's the boss of "The Hobbit"?

This question has been growing more heated in recent weeks as the principal parties involved in the film -- New Line, MGM and director Peter Jackson -- have been duking it out, each staking their claim as a key player in "The Hobbit" along with a prequel to "The Lord of the Rings."

Behind the jostling is the fact that while New Line owns the rights to produce the pic, MGM owns the distribution rights and Jackson is the creative force behind the franchise's staggering success.

In the most recent flurry of events, Peter Jackson and producing partner Fran Walsh posted a letter Sunday night on the "LOTR" fan site Theonering.net saying that New Line told them last week that it was going to make "The Hobbit" without their services.

The letter also reiterated in detail Jackson's stance on "The Hobbit" -- that he is not willing to have a serious conversation about directing the film until his ongoing lawsuit with New Line over what he considers improper accounting practices over "LOTR" profits is settled.

New Line's given reason for proceeding sans Jackson is that the studio's rights to the pic are about to expire, and seeing as the lawsuit with Jackson isn't moving ahead, well, the message was that New Line is.

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."

Though New Line no-commented inquiries about Jackson's statement, the mini-major's move is a loud statement to both MGM and Jackson that the studio is in the driver's seat when it comes to "The Hobbit."

Jackson noted in his letter that New Line exec Mark Ordesky, who shepherded the "Rings" trilogy, explained that New Line is ditching Jackson because it has a "limited time option" on the film rights obtained from Saul Zaentz.

There are already online revolts from fans who can't fathom a "Hobbit" directed by anyone else, and Jackson makes clear in his letter that he's not budging on the issue of the lawsuit or "The Hobbit."

[Primula Baggins]

Well, this was definitely a way for PJ to bring both MGM and the fans strongly down on his side, make New Line look greedy and unreasonable, and cause public comments unfriendly to a non-PJ film—all good moves at this point.

[axordil]

I suddenly am reminded of the old Monty Python album, "Monty Python's Contractual Obligation Album." Which was roughly as good as might be expected.

[truehobbit]

Tom, I agree with what you said, except for: My guess is that out of loyalty to Jackson they would not make the film.
It's about business, not loyalty.

There are already online revolts from fans who can't fathom a "Hobbit" directed by anyone else,

But the fans' memories are short, and if what they get is a movie made by someone else, they'll get used to the idea.

As to WETA, who knew WETA before LOTR? So why shouldn't some other company get the chance to do the same for themselves by getting hired for The Hobbit? If WETA passes on the opportunity to do the movie, then someone else will take it, and chances are, they'll do a good job, too.

The more I think of this, the more I think it might be good to start with a whole new crew. What people seem to be asking is "more of the same" from PJ. But "more of the same" is hardly ever good. Companies that made one or two excellent movies, for example, are hampered in their creativity by the market's requirements to produce more of the kind.

Tolkien was at one point asked to write a sequel to The Hobbit - more of the same. I'm rather glad that he didn't and wrote something quite different instead.

[Primula Baggins]

For me, it's not so much not wanting to see what someone else would do, as genuinely wanting to see more from Weta, from Howard Shore, and from PJ. I am not afraid they would all suddenly fall into a rut, after being able to sustain their creativity over all those hours of film already. And that was a marathon; they've all had a long rest now.

I'm genuinely worried about the Hobbit film(s) ending up much lesser than the LotR films. I was excited about the idea of a five-film cycle reflecting the vision of this particular creative team; I would be really sorry to see the Hobbit done with generic costuming and a boring score by a director more interested in the bottom line and keeping to his schedule than in recreating Middle-earth. And I'm afraid that's exactly what we'd get.

Alatar, Ang Lee also did Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Sense and Sensibility: wonderful films. But I don't get the feeling he would connect to Middle-earth very well.

[yovargas]

What people seem to be asking is "more of the same" from PJ.

Well, yes. More of the same commitment, passion, detail, talent, ect. I completely doubt anyone else will be able to match any of that.

[Alatar]

Alatar, Ang Lee also did Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Sense and Sensibility: wonderful films. But I don't get the feeling he would connect to Middle-earth very well.

I know Prim. I just like reminding people that he's not infallible.

[Primula Baggins]

Well, no one is. But PJ and his team seemed to understand a lot about Middle-earth, and their passion and commitment helped make those films what they were. (I know not everyone agrees about PJ's directorial decisions—I dislike some of them very much myself—but it's hard to argue with the quality of the sets and costumes and score and special effects and, particularly, Gollum. All of which would have to be re-envisioned, from scratch, by a new team with a new director. And would they care as much?)

[yovargas]

(I know not everyone agrees about PJ's directorial decisions—I dislike some of them very much myself—but it's hard to argue with the quality of the sets and costumes and score and special effects and, particularly, Gollum.

And don't forget the acting. PJ should get credit for getting so many excellent performances out of such a large cast. (Watch someone come by now and point out the two or three performances they didn't like...)

[Aravar]

Well I thought Hugo Weaving was too grumpy, Viggo Mortensen not kingly enough, and Orlando Bloom just wooden.

Will that do?

[Old_Tom_Bombadil]

Tom, I agree with what you said, except for: My guess is that out of loyalty to Jackson they would not make the film.
It's about business, not loyalty.

Yeah, you're right, those old fashioned values just don't fly in today's world.

...I am not afraid they would all suddenly fall into a rut, after being able to sustain their creativity over all those hours of film already. And that was a marathon; they've all had a long rest now.

I'm genuinely worried about the Hobbit film(s) ending up much lesser than the LotR films. I was excited about the idea of a five-film cycle reflecting the vision of this particular creative team...

I just remembered what happened what happened to Star Wars after George Lucas had a long rest then went back and did the prequels to the original three movies.

[Frelga]

Maybe they can start with those "George Lucas does LOTR" clips from youtube.

Me - I think PJ could direct a wonderful Hobbit, or it could be an FX-drowned bunch of his beloved reversals. I think another director could cobble together an awful B-movie or come up with a vision of Middle Earth as magical and faithful but different from PJ's. We won't know until it happens, will we?

As far as directing actors, I was impressed with how much acting PJ actually got out of Bloom. My complaint was that he directed the actors to play Tolkien's characters in a way that was directly opposite to Tolkien. mAragorn in particular has very little in common with his book counterpart, starting with his history (chose exile????) and ending with MoS. But within PJ-verse, every performance was impressive.

[Primula Baggins]

But, Tom, one could argue that the first three SW films work as well as they do precisely because Lucas was still accepting input from others (he didn't even direct Empire or Jedi). By the time he made the prequels he was unable to let others "mess with" his vision, and so his bland direction and less-than-subpar dialogue sabotaged all three.

Whereas I think PJ would still think of the production team as a team, and the "vision" as Tolkien's (PJ's view of it, granted, but he got a lot of things brilliantly right).

Frelga, yes, we don't know what we might get in either case. I just prefer the odds if they go with PJ.

Consider even the politics of the case. A skilled and prominent director might be very reluctant to take over Academy-Award-winning director Peter Jackson's signature project, especially if the opportunity arises because a studio has successfully cheated him (as a director would see it).

So, we might not be able to hope for anyone top-drawer to take this on.

[truehobbit]

What people seem to be asking is "more of the same" from PJ.

Well, yes. More of the same commitment, passion, detail, talent, ect. I completely doubt anyone else will be able to match any of that.

Why?

Why should not someone be perfectly able to match that?

It's as though, having tried one dish you liked, you refuse to try any others, convinced nothing can be as good.

It just doesn't make sense to me.


Tom, StarWars came to my mind, too.


I think the one problem another director would face is that he'd have to use a world that is already created (i.e. PJ's Middle Earth), or re-start the whole thing from scratch, and I doubt that this would be possible after only three or four years.
Any similarity to PJ's images would be considered "copied", any departure "not the true ME".

[yovargas]

What people seem to be asking is "more of the same" from PJ.

Well, yes. More of the same commitment, passion, detail, talent, ect. I completely doubt anyone else will be able to match any of that.

Why?

Why should not someone be perfectly able to match that?

It's as though, having tried one dish you liked, you refuse to try any others, convinced nothing can be as good.

It just doesn't make sense to me.

LOTR is my favorite movie. If tommorrow you went to a new restaurant and thought the chef made the single best meal of your entire life, what are the odds you'll go to a different chef the next day and find a meal just as good (or better)? It's possible...but if given the option, I'm gonna stick with the first chef.

[Aravar]

In mayn ways I think PJ would be better for The Hobbit than I tihnk he was for LOTR. It is a far less serious work than LOTR and I think his style would work.

Even if PJ doesn't do it, and I very much suspect that he will*, hopefully Lee and Howe will be back on the project. I think it is their input that is the most crucial. I'm sure many of the cast would come back too.

Losing Howard Shore wouldn't bother me that much. I've never understood the enthusiasm for the score.


*The exchange that sparked the thread strike me as: PJ saying that you need me more than I need you; New Line responding with, 'We're bigger than you we can do it without you'. PJ knows that within a few months someone else may be trying to make the film with him at the helm.

[Old_Tom_Bombadil]

But, Tom, one could argue that the first three SW films work as well as they do precisely because Lucas was still accepting input from others (he didn't even direct Empire or Jedi). By the time he made the prequels he was unable to let others "mess with" his vision, and so his bland direction and less-than-subpar dialogue sabotaged all three.

I wasn't saying that it would happen with Jackson. I was just saying that it came to mind.

As far as the performance of young Mr. Bloom, we have to remember he was right out of acting school when he took the role. (I seem to recall he originally auditioned for Faramir, too.) While his role was primarily that of super-cool elf warrior dude, I thought the dry sense of humor that Legolas displayed in Jackson's movie were in keeping with Tolkien's character.

I thought Bloom's weakest moments were the goofy facial expressions after Gandalf's and Boromir's death. I recall Bloom saying something about Elves being immortal and have never witnessed death. I thought, "Legolas would have never seen his comrades die in skirmishes with orcs?"