Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh out of "The Hobbit"

[Breogán]

Obviously, I'm the bird of ill omen here *croaks*

[Voronwë the Faithful]

No, you're not, Bre. As I just said, your perspective is perfectly valid, and one that I respect very much.

[Primula Baggins]

Of course—I was only expressing my own opinion, not prescribing anyone else's, Bre.

[Breogán]

Vison, sorry, I forgot to add that you were not harsh I perfectly understood what you meant

Voronwë, thanks

Prim, I know I have not taken offence

[rwhen]

Well I did and I don't even post here that much... (that was a joke to lighten up the tone)

To add to discussion on The Hobbit...PJ/Ramey/Shaye...

I have been following the thread over at TORC as well and wanted to see if you folks had anything else to offer over here.

I think it would be great if PJ and company produced. IMO, It doesn't matter that much as with PJ getting final approval on all of the direction, I would think he could lead ME through making the movie. Of course having read The Hobbit about 100 times since 1968, I feel I know it just about word for word. Just sayin'.

I think ONE reason that they may be going the PJ/Produce ----> route is that he is so tied up now and probably for the next several years if not at least 18 months. So this solution would allow for the project to at least begin.

They need to begin because of the NL losing the rights in a short amount of time...I thought I read within this year, but could be wrong on that. So if they get the deals signed right away, then NL keeps the rights and the money. PJ is still the master planner and we get a movie that I think would be great.

Regards making movies out of our favorite books.....my personal opinion is that the movie versions of my favorite book never changes my opinion on how much I love them. I guess I would get upset at a bad adaptation because OTHER people who had not read the book would not understand how great they were? ..... But if others have not read the book prior, then they can't know if it is good or not? Just thinking this through as I am typing it.

I guess it is for history, maybe. That I would not want my favorite book portrayed as a bad movie. Now I have to think that it is up to the individual as to what is good and bad and LotR's/PJ is the perfect example. The people who had never read the books, most loved the movies...the people who had...many loved the movies and MANY hated them.

Mostly I am trying to say that this is such a double edged sword viewpoint, either side can debate (not saying this is a debate) either way and still come down on an agreeable side.

Hope this made sense.

AND, I should post more often here!!

Caio for now..

*waves* to Alatar, Voronwë, Vision, Prim and Breogan!!

[Primula Baggins]

rwhen, I completely agree that you should post more often here!

And I also agree that a big problem with adaptations that get it wrong is that for many people the movie supersedes the book. Now, I love PJ's LotR, but even I am not happy about some aspects of that. Knowing the films is better than knowing nothing about LotR, which was true of most people before the films came out. But I hate to think of people deciding not to bother to read LotR because they saw the films—thinking they've had the full experience, when the book is so much more than the films ever could be!

[Athrabeth]

Knowing the films is better than knowing nothing about LotR, which was true of most people before the films came out. But I hate to think of people deciding not to bother to read LotR because they saw the films—thinking they've had the full experience, when the book is so much more than the films ever could be!

I would think that someone who was drawn to the emotive heart of the tale (which Jackson and company, IMO, were successful in conveying) AND was the "bookish" type, would want to experience the tale as a reader. If an adaptation of a book really grabs my interest in some way, I pretty much always pick up the original text sooner or later because I know that there's a high probability that the book will offer me greater insights into themes and characters that have already appealed to me on some level. It's my impression that people who will never read LOTR because they think the films have offered them the full experience of the story would fall into two camps: those who felt the tale just wasn't compelling enough to commit to the book, and those who just don't like reading very much (and that could be for a myriad of reasons). My husband read LOTR after seeing the movies, something that thirty-plus years of being married to a Tolkien geek could not inspire him to do, and he is very glad that he did........although he still remains incredulous that I will re-read it every couple of years (and that I actually talk with others about it online!)

As for The Hobbit, well, something in me just can't get that worked up over the "who's" and "how's" and "why's" about its eventual cinematic form. I expect that when everything actually gets firmed up, I'll start to get more interested. I suppose that the latest news that Alatar posted seems more positive than negative to me, because it forebodes some kind of continuity and cohesion with at least the sensory aspects of Middle-earth that Jackson so adeptly captured. I would dearly love to see McKellen return as Gandalf the Grey. And it would be nice if Hugo Weaving could be Elrond without the "Thingolification" of his character.

rwhen, I completely agree that you should post more often here!

And I completely agree with Prim!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

rwhen, I completely agree that you should post more often here!

And I completely agree with Prim!

I think that is something that we ALL can agree on.

Actually, I pretty much agree with everything that Athrabeth has stated, but that is not unusual, as long as the subject is not free will in the Silmarillion.

[rwhen]

Thank you to three loverly folks.. I shall do my best to spread my wings and get out of a one note posting situation. I think it will do me good.

Question to Athrabeth: This is not picking your words apart, but when I read your post, a thought came to me based on the previous posts. IF you saw a movie that prompted you to buy the book, which you read and loved and got more from than the movie, would you still say that you had and would enjoy the movie, or would having read the book, spoil the movie for future viewings?

BTW...I read like the true Tolkien geek I am..at least once every two years or less. *pffffft* I have to get out more!!

Athrabeth, if I don't already know you from another place, may I make your acquaintence now? Hello. Pleased to meet you.

Caio for now!!

[Padme]

But I hate to think of people deciding not to bother to read LotR because they saw the films—thinking they've had the full experience, when the book is so much more than the films ever could be!

Don't tell the PJ fanboys about that, they don't acknowledge that Tolkien had anything to do with LoTR, its all PJ and only PJ. Tolkien and his views mean nothing to the PJ fanboys most of the time.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Meanwhile, there is this from Rotten Tomatoes (a much more established site than IESB) dated today:

Jackson Directing The Hobbit After All?
Thaw imminent between director and New Line?
by Jeff Giles | August 13, 2007
Just a little over six months ago, New Line's Bob Shaye publicly stated that the Lord of the Rings trilogy's director, Peter Jackson, was not only out of the running for the LotR prequel The Hobbit, but would "never make any movie with New Line Cinema again" as long as Shaye was with the studio. Few bridges are permanently burned in Hollywood, however -- particularly where billion-dollar franchises are at stake -- and IGN Movies reports that white flags might be on the horizon for Jackson and Shaye.

According to the article, conciliatory quotes are coming from all sides. Yep, even Shaye is getting in on the fence-mending:

The Los Angeles Times spoke with Shaye, who admitted that New Line insiders have been in talks with Jackson's reps to try and make amends. "Yes, that's a fair statement," said Shaye when quizzed about it. "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."

The article goes on to include hopeful quotes from Ian McKellen and a spokesperson for Jackson, all of which would seem to indicate that if the right deal can be struck (and relevant lawsuits can be settled), Ring fans just might get the movie they've hoped for after all.

No mention of Sam Raimi at all.

Edit: Here is the LA Times article.

[Athrabeth]

Athrabeth, if I don't already know you from another place, may I make your acquaintence now? Hello. Pleased to meet you.

I think we may have passed each other on the seas of TORC a few years back, but the shipping lanes there were pretty busy then. It's great to meet you, as well.

Question to Athrabeth: This is not picking your words apart, but when I read your post, a thought came to me based on the previous posts. IF you saw a movie that prompted you to buy the book, which you read and loved and got more from than the movie, would you still say that you had and would enjoy the movie, or would having read the book, spoil the movie for future viewings?

It's an excellent question, rwhen! I really do tend to respect the fact that books and movies are very different vehicles for story-telling (even for the same story!), and that a literary work simply can't be "perfectly" rendered as an adaptation, especially one that has the kind of depths that LOTR has.
Back at TORC, Voronwë coined the term "transcendentalist" for those of us who were able to embrace many of the changes that the scriptwriters made because thematically they remained essentially harmonious with the book. There are, unfortunately, quite a few moments in the films that just can't be reconciled for me, and most of those seem to fit into the category of Jackson's idea of "kewl".

I think that I'm basically willing to be a transcendentalist when it comes to pretty much all the movie adaptations I've seen, even when it's turned around, and the movie was seen and enjoyed before the book was read and enjoyed. If I’ve really liked a movie, I always expect that there will be at least some very real differences to deal with in the book that was its source, but I also expect that the essential core of each major character will be familiar, along with foundational themes and plotlines, and that what I found compelling in the movie should be rediscovered in some meaningful way within the text. I guess I always expect to get more from a book than from a movie, and judge adaptations with this in mind.

[Alatar]

Meanwhile, there is this from Rotten Tomatoes (a much more established site than IESB) dated today:

Jackson Directing The Hobbit After All?
Thaw imminent between director and New Line?
by Jeff Giles | August 13, 2007
Just a little over six months ago, New Line's Bob Shaye publicly stated that the Lord of the Rings trilogy's director, Peter Jackson, was not only out of the running for the LotR prequel The Hobbit, but would "never make any movie with New Line Cinema again" as long as Shaye was with the studio. Few bridges are permanently burned in Hollywood, however -- particularly where billion-dollar franchises are at stake -- and IGN Movies reports that white flags might be on the horizon for Jackson and Shaye.

According to the article, conciliatory quotes are coming from all sides. Yep, even Shaye is getting in on the fence-mending:

The Los Angeles Times spoke with Shaye, who admitted that New Line insiders have been in talks with Jackson's reps to try and make amends. "Yes, that's a fair statement," said Shaye when quizzed about it. "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."

The article goes on to include hopeful quotes from Ian McKellen and a spokesperson for Jackson, all of which would seem to indicate that if the right deal can be struck (and relevant lawsuits can be settled), Ring fans just might get the movie they've hoped for after all.

No mention of Sam Raimi at all.

Edit: Here is the LA Times article.

Actually Voronwë, thats slightly older news. The TORC thread is a step ahead of most of the generic online reports, cause, well, there's loads of Tolkien guys there scouring the web for everything they can find out.

I'm not saying the IESB story is true, just that its "our latest intel" and as such is always going to be a little more suspect than the news from two weeks ago.

I've put in the timeline below!

*Edited to correct a mistake*

[Alatar]

Here's a timeline from TORC of the news up till a few weeks ago:

Hey! I know most of these are already in other topics, but I wanted a new thread with the premise that things are moving forward, instead of absolutely being stuck, or hopeless ad they were 6 months ago.

It's been 10 months since MGM said they were doing The Hobbit with Peter Jackson. Article here.

Days later, it is said MGM plan on doing two movies: The Hobbit and a LotR prequel. Peter Jackson is delighted with the idea, as he mentions in an interview with aicn.com, where he says he hadn't been contacted yet, but the prospect was looking nice. Article here.

It's been 8 months since PJ's letter for the fans, in which he said he wouldn't be doing The Hobbit, names that appeared in the letter were Michael Lynne and Mark Ordesky.

Article here.

Then hell was unleashed and Robert Shaye said Jackson wouldn't work with New Line again as long as he was in charge. Jackson answered by saying he respected a lot of people at New Line, but didn't elaborate on his current relationship with Shaye.

Actors stepped up, and Wood, Bloom and McKellen were clear about them wanting Jackson to return. Bloom and McKellen even said they would not appear in a Hobbit movie directed by someone else. Monaghan and Howard Shore were more diplomatic on their statements saying they still had good relationships with New Line Cinema.

After a lot of not so kind statements, a rumour sprang on the Internet, saying Sam Raimi had been approached by NL to direct The Hobbit. After a month of so of silence, Raimi, choosing his words carefully, said it was Jackson's project, and that he wouldn't take it unless Jackson "gave him his blessing".

In the meantime, Saranthir posted some inside information, saying not everyone at NL was happy with the attitude Shaye was taking towards Jackson and the project. Things cooled down. Shaye stayed in the spotlight while Michael Lynne, co-CEO stayed surprisingly quiet.

Silence was broken in Cannes, when both CEO's had small statements on Jackson and The Hobbit. Shaye said: The clash happened because "one of us has gotten poor counsel" he didn't specify who got poor counsel. (that is mine) Lynne, in an upbeat note said: "We do want to settle our dispute and I think we will."

Neither of them eleborated on the possibility of having Raimi direct.

Article here.

On July 10, statements were even more careful and mesurated, when Shaye told the New York post "I don't like to have issues with anybody. Any issues with Mr. Jackson, I would prefer to have them closed, rather than open." And according to the author of the article, Shaye hinted that "we should never sya never about Jackson directing The Hobbit".

Article here.

Finally, McKellen, in a conference about gay rights, made a small statement about The Hobbit: "I detect that there is movement and it's movement in the right direction. I'll be seeing Peter (Jackson) when we tour (New Zealand) next month. I hope it will happen."

A radically different statement from those he had given.

Article here.

To me, things are moving forward, statements are a lot less harsher nowadays. We'll have to wait, but I believe Jackson directing The Hobbit is no longer a longshot.

Thanks to www.derhobbit-film.de for helping me complete my own timeline.

July 30th Raimi is Interviewed and this comes up:

Interviewer : What's goin on with The Hobbit? Any updates there?

Raimi : Um, the last I heard ..er... New Line was in negotiations and I actually don't know what's happening (there?) right now.

Interviewer : But that would be something you would wanna do if ... if everything worked out...

Raimi : Umm, I just couldn't say at this time.

August 10th the LA Times said:

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.' "

Also from August 10th:

Jackson's spokesman said last night (responding to Shaye's comments): "Peter and Fran have always wanted to do The Hobbit but whether that happens is yet to be decided."

IESB speak on 11th August:

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!

Moria_dweller from TORC contacted IESB on 12th August about the story they ran:

I emailed IESB.net regarding their source saying Raimi is directing. They actually responded and are pretty confident in their source. If you really read what Mckellan, Shaye and Raimi have all said in their latest comments- it really does point to PJ producing, not directing. I am officially giving up hope of PJ helming either film.

So, there you have it. Thats the story so far! Draw your own conclusions.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Thanks, Al. I've actually been following that thread pretty closely, but I'm sure that others have not been. Lot's of good info there.

My point, however, was not that the RT article had anything new, but rather that the more established sites are disregarding the IESB report and sticking with the facts that are solidly known. I think that if there was any substance to the report that Raimi was directing and PJ only producing, it would get picked up by sites like RT and Coming Soon.

But perhaps that is only my wishful thinking; I am not a big fan of Raimi's and I do think that even with PJ "producing" a Raimi-directed film will be even more in the "Hollywood" direction.

[Alatar]

Ah yes, but we've always loved the rumours too.

Its what makes fandom fun, trying to sift the truth out of the rumours!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

True enough.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The latest news is that New Line has been sanctioned $125,000 for failing to turn over court-ordered documents in the ongoing legal battle with PJ. This bring to mind Shaye's comment that one side of the dispute was not getting adequate representation. I'm sure he meant PJ, but it seems clear that it is New Line's lawyers that are screwed up. There is no excuse for failing to provide relevant documentation in a lawsuit.

What effect, if any, this might have on the possibility of PJ's involvement in The Hobbit is impossible to say.

New Line hit with $125K in court sanctions

[solicitr]

It may not be the lawyers' fault- some clients simply refuse to produce discovery, no matter how hard their counsel beg abd browbeat. That this is the case here wouldn't be surprising if Shaye really is trying to hide cooked books.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

True enough, although if I had a client like that, I would withdraw from the case.