Wow.

That's a huge endorsement for PJ. I remember when the production began on LOTR, there was a lot of negative feelings from the Tolkien family and estate regarding the movies over the possible commercialization and departure from J.R.R.'s original vision. It's good to know that at least one member of the family supports PJ's work, and that he feels the same way as the rest of the fans do over New Line's decision to dump PJ. Royd's words not only resound with the community, they are very thoughtful and nicely put. I wish someone high up at New Line would take note of this. Hopefully some industrious fan or someone in PJ's camp will forward this to their execs.

Royd's dad, whose name escapes me, was also supportive of the LOTR movies, at least to the extent of saying give them a chance. That allegedly cost him his relationship with his father, Christopher, tho that seems quite a stretch to me.

Here's an interesting bit from theonering.net:
Anne Petty Talks 'THE HOBBIT'
Xoanon @ 9:17 pm EST
TheOneRing.net asked Anne to comment on the recent activity regarding The Hobbit, she was more than happy to oblige!
Would I prefer that Peter Jackson direct a film version of The Hobbit? Generally, yes, mostly because I'd like to see a continuity of the visual imagery and sense of place that Jackson established in the three Lord of the Rings films. I thought the way Jackon's Middle-earth looked and moved and sounded was breathtaking. It was also amazingly close to the way my imagination saw many of these places and events when I began reading the books so many years ago. For example, the film moment when the Rohirrim emerge onto the field of battle with Théoden's rousing battle cry ringing over the hills, still brings tears to my eyes. I think it would be unpleasantly jarring to see a very different depiction of Middle-earth at this point. Bringing back the entire New Zealand crew who so artfully brought Middle-earth to life would be a plus, in my opinion.

A case in point is the third Harry Potter film directed by Alfonso Cuarón. In that film, the familiar setting for Hogwarts was replaced by an incredibly precipitous landscape, especially the approach and immediate surroundings of Hagrid's hut, and the interior for the school we thought we knew so well emerged in highly disorienting camera angles with ”House of Usher" look and feel. The effect was so distracting that I found it hard to lose myself in the flow of events on the screen. The casual costuming and general direction of the children constituted somewhat of a culture shock as well. Cuarón's film is certainly as competent as any of the others in the series, but his vision of Hogwarts was so radically different that I had trouble relating to the characters as part of the established Potter universe.

I would also hate to think that someone other than Ian McKellen would be cast as Gandalf. I greatly enjoyed his nuanced portrayal of our favorite wizard and feel that anyone else's performance (however competent it might be) would suffer by being constantly compared to McKellen's gold standard. For example again, as others have pointed out, Michael Gambon's Dumbledore suffers by comparison with Richard Harris' portrayal. I might also mention that an unfortunate result of all the lengthy dithering over the Hobbit film rights is that Ian Holm is probably now too old to play Bilbo, even with the wonders of movie makeup, which is a considerable loss for the film.

If Jackson directs, I assume the same scriptwriters (Jackson, Boyens, Walsh) would be included on the project. This is the least positive element for me. I had serious issues with the way Jackson and his scriptwriters altered Tolkien's carefully wrought storyline. When you unravel a major thread, such as Faramir, many of the plot's other underpinnings come loose as well, resulting in skewed character motivations (Aragorn, anyone?). So, I have trepidations about this same trio adapting The Hobbit into a screenplay. There is a significant difference, however, that might make this a non-issue, and that is that The Hobbit is largely episodic with a single straight-ahead storyline. Also, the material does not have the gravitas of The Lord of the Rings until Thorin and company reach the Lonely Mountain. I feel that a large part of the problem with Jackson's LOTR adaptation was that the screenwriters simply lost control of Tolkien's complex storyline and every attempt to simplify it or reduce it only made things worse as they went along. This probably wouldn't be the case with The Hobbit. It's also possible that the frequent flattening of Tolkien's majestic prose into cringe-worthy banal movie dialogue wouldn't be as out of place in the lighter material of The Hobbit. It's also possible (maybe even probable) that different scriptwriters working for a different direct would do much worse.

So, with considerable caveats, I'd prefer to see Jackson & Company take on The Hobbit. [/indent]

This PJ/New Line feud is getting as ridiculous as the Trump/Rosie O'Donnell feud. Here's something disgusting from theonering.com:

New Line Head will "Never" Work With Peter Jackson on The Hobbit

January 10, 2007
Submitted By Jonathan

Robert Shaye, the head of New Line Cinema, has made clear New Line Cinema's position on the e xp ected timeframe of working with Peter Jackson again.

Never.

Yep, there's not a human's chance in the Halls of Mandos that Jackson will ever work with New Line on The Hobbit (as long as Shaye's in charge). Here's what he said in an interview promoting The Last Mimzy:

"I do not want to make a movie with somebody who is suing me. It will never happen during my watch."

"There's a kind of arrogance. Not that I don't think Peter is a good filmmaker and that he hasn't contributed significantly to filmography and made three very good movies. And I don't even e xp ect him to say 'thank you' for having me make it happen and having New Line make it happen. But to think that I, as a functionary in [a] company that has been around for a long time, but is now owned by a very big conglomerate, would care one bit about trying to cheat the guy, ... he's either had very poor counsel or is completely misinformed and myopic to think that I care whether I give him [anything]."

"He got a quarter of a billion dollars paid to him so far, justifiably, according to contract, completely right, and this guy, who already has received a quarter of a billion dollars, turns around without wanting to have a discussion with us and sues us and refuses to discuss it unless we just give in to his plan. I don't want to work with that guy anymore. Why would I? So the answer is he will never make any movie with New Line Cinema again while I'm still working for the company."

"I'm incredibly offended. I don't care about Peter Jackson anymore. He wants to have another $100 million or $50 million, whatever he's suing us for. He doesn't want to sit down and talk about it. He thinks that we owe him something after we've paid him over a quarter of a billion dollars. ... Cheers, Peter."Now, when all is said and done, New Line doesn't have the absolute final say on what happens with The Hobbit. As MGM (who owns the distribution rights to the film) says, "the matter of Peter Jackson directing the Hobbit films is far from closed."

There is, to me, no uncertain irony that it is the greed of men that has gotten between the formerly good relationship between Jackson and New Line; the sort of greed that Tolkien made clear was the doom of humanity.

Funny that Shaye speaks of PJ's arrogance, when his words practically drip with it. Not to defend Jackson when none of us truly knows the particulars of what is going on, but did PJ not state that he simply requested an audit of the books at first, as well as a full disclosure of what was going on in the accounting dept. before he was forced to proceed with a lawsuit due to New Line's unwillingness to meet him halfway?

Whoever is telling the truth out of those two, someone is being a rat about it. Whatever the case, I can't agree with Shaye's completely unprofessional tone. As if he wouldn't do the same in PJ's shoes! Isn't protecting that money from PJ's allegedly greedy hands and act of greed itself on par with what he is railing against? Jackson has stated he is not seeking more money per se, only a full disclosure, and if there is indeed some money that is owed to him, then he is rightfully entitled to it. Seems like New Line's continued intractability on the issue is more an admission of guilt than anything more this guy can say. I also dislike how they continue to crucify PJ over the fact that he made a lot of money from these movies. Did they e xp ect him to work for free? The movies made lots of money, hence he was paid lots of money for his work. Why can't Mr. Shaye see the simple logic in this rather than sounding like he's begrudging every dollar that PJ made? I don't get it.

At any rate, no one loses here but us, the fans.

Valkrist wrote: At any rate, no one loses here but us, the fans.

Which is why it is our duty to revolt against New Line. If we, the fans, stand our ground, and if everyone gets together, they can probably pursuade them to come to some agreement otherwise the fans will... perhaps not see the film or something drastic.

This is your classic, "the film studio doesn't care about art" situation. New Line would be wise to solve the lawsuit and have PJ direct The Hobbit. If he does do it, they should see another large chunk of money coming there way from the huge sucess that the film would be.... if they bring in another director... if they can find someone to do it, they will probably be heavily compared and it would probably make or break his/her career.

True under most normal circumstances, however...

Problem here is, as Olorin pointed out, this has now crossed the threshold into the realm of the ridiculous, and when grown men revert back to the playground and resort to hurling insults at one another, the time is long past for reasonable mediation. I don't doubt PJ would would agree to make this movie once this lawsuit issue was resolved. Problem is, in order to do so, New Line execs, including Robert Shaye, would have to be willing to put past issues behind them and break new ground. Shaye's prideful and petulant remarks go a long way to dispelling any such notions.

It's not that near-impossible things haven't occurred before, it's just that in this case, intuition tells me that this is pretty much over and there's no going back. Any positive resolution for us would mean New Line pretty much losing face after releasing statements like this, and unfortunately bruised and prideful egos are completely deaf to reason and appeal.

There comes a point when even a fan must admit defeat and move on. I've made my noise and signed my petitions, but when men stoop to this, I give up.

How much time does New Line have to make its version of "The Hobbit" before it loses its access to the rights to make the film? Don't they e xp ire in 2009?

I think once New Line loses the film rights, we'll see action on with MGM/Zaentz and Jackson. Unfortunately, that means we'll have to wait at least a couple more years.

I personally think New Line is being stupid about this feud. If they settled the lawsuit with Jackson, they would make boatloads of money with his version of "The Hobbit."

I believe New Line has to initiate production within 2007. What does that mean? I don't know. We speculated on that further back in this thread.

I would worry that New Line would just lurch ahead with something to preserve their hold on the rights, but the fact that this has to be done cooperatively with MGM (who holds the rights to distribute it) gives hope that New Line will either see the light or lose the right (hey, I like that!). It would be hysterical if NL made a movie and MGM refused to distribute it, and it just had to sit locked in Bob Shaye's office.

In the mean time, Ain't It Cool News had this to say, including PJ's response:
Wingnut and Peter Jackson respond to Bob Shaye's tongue-lashings!!


Ahoy, squirts! Quint here again with the response out of Wingnut about this whole mess that Bob Shaye made when he publicly attacked Peter Jackson today. This is all starting to get into a side of the business that I really hate and AICN rarely covers. I felt comfortable posting the Bob Shaye comments because that seriously affected the future HOBBIT movie. I'm posting this because it's only fair to print Jackson's response, although I don't think he needed to respond. I think Bob Shaye did more damage than good for himself with his comments. Some pretty crazy ****'s going down. I had a theory that I posted in the talkback to the previous article and reading the below makes me believe it even more.

Someone sued Paramount over COMING TO AMERICA in which the books on that film were opened and audited. That lawsuit resulted in Eddie Murphy, having nothing to do with the lawsuit, getting a crazy amount of money and never having to go to court. The studio was cheating everybody, so they were forced to pay everybody, not just the person who sued.

It sounds to me like New Line isn't risking just having to pay Jackson what they owe him, but if the books on all 3 movies are made public, they could owe so many more people money. Or they could have completely fulfilled their contractual obligations to everybody, but then why would they deny access to a contracted party? And why would they do everything they could to make it go away, roll it in with that deal for Jackson to direct HOBBIT? It's looking more and more like New Line cooked the books a bit and shortchanged at least Jackson, if not more we don't know about.

The seedy underbelly of Hollywood... I hate dwelling on this stuff, so unless any further comments are directly related to Middle Earth, or a kiss and make-up party happens, this'll be the last I post on this topic.

Here's the official statement from Wingnut:"Our issue with New Line Cinema has only ever been about their refusal to account for financial anomalies that surfaced from a partial audit of The Fellowship of the Ring. Contrary to recent comments made by Bob Shaye, we attempted to discuss the issues raised by the Fellowship audit with New Line for over a year but the studio was and continues to be completely uncooperative. This has compelled us to file a lawsuit to pursue our contractual rights under the law.

Nobody likes taking legal action, but the studio left us with no alternative. For over two years, New Line has denied us the ability to audit The Two Towers and The Return of the King, despite repeated requests. Film auditing is a common and straightforward practice within the industry and we don't understand why New Line Cinema has taken this position.

In light of these circumstances, I didn't think it was appropriate for me to be involved in New Line Cinema's 40th Anniversary video. I have never discussed this video with any of the cast of The Lord of the Rings. The issues that Bob Shaye has with the cast pre-date this law suit by many years.

Fundamentally, our legal action is about holding New Line to it's contractual obligations and promises. It is regrettable that Bob has chosen to make it personal. I have always had the highest respect and affection for Bob and other senior management at New Line and continue to do so."

Cheers to Wingnut/Jackson for a calm and reasoned response, which is far more than can be said for Shaye's comments. Glad to see one side of this issue displaying some maturity at least. I hope the board of directors at New Line holds Shaye accountable for what he said. As AICN said, I think he did far more damage to his cause than win any support.

Shaye's whole approach to this is to try to make PJ look unreasonable, when he is in fact perfectly reasonable. But if you make enough noise, and "deceive, obfuscate, inveigle," to quote a classic line from The X Files, you can convince people the sun rises in the west.

Put another way, Shaye sounds like a perfect candidate to be the White House spokesperson.

THE SKINNY: Dominic Monaghan while promoting the next portion of this season of ABC’s hit series LOST, stopped to comment to iF on the state of affairs with THE HOBBIT movie (prequel to the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy) which is locked in a battle between New Line Cinema and director Peter Jackson.

When asked point blank what he thought of the bitter war over the rights to the Tolkien story, the actor very wisely stated, “ This is a very iffy subject that you have to be careful with professionally as an actor because I’ve worked with New Line Cinema and I’ve worked with Pete Jackson and I have good relationships with both of them. My personal feeling as a fan is I think it’s a real shame that New Line and Pete Jackson don’t seem to be able to work out what’s going to happen with THE HOBBIT. I think fans of that franchise would like to see New Line Studios attached with Pete Jackson directing."

The actor continued to reinforce his stance that he only hoped for some sort of successful resolution in the battle and maintained his praise for both Jackson and New Line.

“As I’ve said, my relationship with New Line has always been very good,” e xp lains the actor. “ I would bend walls to work with Pete Jackson again, so it’s unfortunate that it’s turned into a battle of words. For me personally, I can’t get involved in that because you’re just going to come away with your hands dirty and you’re not going to look good.”

Sounds like Dom has what it takes to run for office.

Oh brother....

From the LA Times: In a move that would have ramifications for several major multi-nationals, and millions of fans, "Spider-Man" maestro Sam Raimi has been telling associates, as well as his corporate masters at Sony, that he is thinking of directing "The Hobbit," the prequel to J.R.R. Tolkien's masterwork, "The Lord of the Rings." At least two top-level insiders – who declined to be named -- have heard the words out of the director's mouth.

Just for this... I have added a new smiley to the forums....

:p rotest:

This is the same guy who some of those Hercules and Xena TV shows and movies along with a bunch of other things. Sigh... will the madness never end?

Everyone, sigh this petition.

http://www.petitiononline.com/hobfilm/petition.html

Sam Raimi may have done those shows (I don't know), but he's better known as the director of the Spiderman movies.

There was more to that article, but I couldn't access it. The blurb came from theonering.net, but they excerpted it from the LA Times, which requires a registration to access their website, and I'm tired of having to register to read (so I didn't).

The Hobbit

R.I.P.

I'm still trying to hope that this will all work out somehow. Even if PJ doesn't direct, there could be good in that. A different approach that doesn't reduce characters to cheap, belching, farting, comic relief, for example. What bothers me perhaps more about the absence of PJ is what it portends for others associated with LOTR: the possibility of no Ian McKellen, no WETA, no Howard Shore, etc. I just don't want to imagine someone other than Ian playing Gandalf, ditto Howard for the score.

While some players in this game may refuse out of principle and respect for their friendship with PJ (Shore, Mckellen, etc) other factors may yet remain in play that would likely produce a movie that is a reasonable facsimile to LOTR, namely Weta Workshop and Digital. Though PJ and Wingnut Films are closely associated with Weta, they are not the same entity or contractually obligated to only work with one another. Loyalty and friendship aside, this is still a game of money, and Richard Taylor & Co. may not want to burn their bridges and tell New Line what to do with themselves if approached about working on The Hobbit. Not only that, if there is any doubt in their minds should that time come, I think PJ has displayed enough class as a person to even give them his blessing in this new endeavour without him.

Fact remains that for me at least, I just don't think this is going to measure up somehow. All due respect to Sam Raimi, but I think he's completely wrong for this project. Then again, many probably said that about PJ pre-LOTR, and now people can't imagine LOTR without him, so go figure. One thing seems for certain: when the rumour mill begins to churn out snippets of info like this, it's a clear sign that somewhere in the dark halls of New Line, the wheels are already in motion to making this project a reality, and that can only be bad news for anyone waiting for their rights to this movie to e xp ire. There's still the MGM factor to consider also, but when high-profile directors start to openly e xp ress an interest in directing a particular project, you can rest assured preliminary talks are already underway somewhere. Note also that, unless he's being misquoted, Raimi declared that he is 'thinking of directing The Hobbit' not 'thinking about how much he would like to direct The Hobbit,' two statements that while similar, are vastly different in meaning. Has New Line already contacted Raimi as a candidate for this? I wouldn't put it past them.

Note that they say the studio is now "in a rush," which is the worst possible reason to make a movie, in my opinion. This is going to be nothing more than a mad dash for a desperate cash grab, and a way to thumb their noses at Jackson by rushing this movie out the door before he has any chance to be eligible as a director again.

What I also find interesting about this situation is that until yesterday... I had not once heard of Sam Raimi. However, his name came up twice. If he has indeed e xp ressed some interest in the Hobbit... I think it would probably have to wait until he starts and finishes the Sword of Truth mini-series which he will be directing. The mini-series will consume a lot of time.

My only hope now is that whatever contract New Line has, will e xp ire before they get very far.

I've been familiar with Sam Raimi's work as far back as the Evil Dead series (including Army of Darkness,) but what he is most famous for is Spider-Man, of course. I don't have anything personal against the guy, and I think he does fantastic work. I suppose New Line could do worse that grab a guy of his calibre to direct The Hobbit, but not only is it hard to let go of the notion of Peter Jackson directing this, something inside me just tells me that Raimi isn't right for this. If he's not available in time for New Line's mad rush to get this done, I'm sure there's more than a few idle directors out there that would love a chance to tackle this project. My main fear right now is that all this urgengy and rushing about often leads to poor choices and regrettable mistakes, and we are the ones that pay the ultimate price. Mind you, given their recent behaviour, I wouldn't mind seeing New Line take a bad financial bath with a botched Hobbit movie that flops. It would serve them right.

Sam Raimi is well-known as the director of the Spiderman franchise and the Evil Dead franchise. I've seen the Spiderman movies and while they were competently done, they certainly failed to wow me. I haven't seen Evil Dead, and my reaction to its director doing the Hobbit would be "aaaaccckk!" but for the fact, as Val alludes to, that PJ was known pretty much just for low-budget splatter flix, if at all, prior to LOTR. So Raimi could do ok--I won't reject him right out of the box, based on his pedigree.

What I am bothered by is New Line's intent to do this movie by hook or crook, ASAP. If they have to start it by this year, that means that whoever gets the nod to do it has to come up with a script soon. While The Hobbit is nowhere nearly as complicated as LOTR, I'd hate to see somebody do a rush job on the script just to get images on a screen.

WETA might be willing to work on the movie, and the ever-affable PJ might be willing to give them his blessing, but since PJ is a part-owner of WETA, I imagine that d***head Bob Shaye will not want them to work on it, since it would be money into PJ's pocket.

While I am trying to be optimistic on this, I estimate there's a greater than 50% chance that New Line is going to churn out a big disappointment. And then the egg--and other gooey substances--will be all over Bob Shaye's ever-so-deserving face.

Here's something encouraging from theonering.net, a long and interesting op-ed from Greg Wright, a Tolkien author.

Greg Wright Talks 'THE HOBBIT'
Xoanon @ 7:59 pm EST
The scuttlebutt now, of course, as we all know, is that New Line Cinema has greenlit The Hobbit, but that both Peter Jackson and New Line head Robert Shaye declare that Jackson will not be at the helm of the project. At the heart of the issue, at least publicly, is the lawsuit Jackson and company have filed against New Line over profits from the ancillary rights to The Fellowship of the Ring. Jackson has said he “won’t discuss making the [Hobbit] movies until the lawsuit is resolved,” and Shaye has gone so far as to declare that he doesn’t “want to make a movie with somebody who is suing me… It will never happen during my watch.” Complicating perception of the truth is Saul Zaentz’ assertion that The Hobbit “will definitely be shot by Peter Jackson.”

What’s really being waged is not a fractious legal dispute. The real battle is a tussle over public opinion. No matter how badly all the parties might want The Hobbit to happen, and for Peter Jackson to be at the helm, they all also know that, until a film actually starts shooting, all bets are off. Even at that point, studios have been known to replace directors. So in the meantime, everyone’s jockeying for influence, control, and as big a share of the pie as possible. And what all the parties involved want to do is avoid pissing off the fans, upon whom all future largesse depends.

In this case, what that means is preparing us all for the worst possible scenario, whether it plays out or not. And my guess is that both Jackson and Shaye are pretty chafed that Zaentz has been the most forthcoming about the truth of the situation. “Next year The Hobbit rights will fall back to my company,” he told the German website Elbenwald in November. “I suppose that Peter will wait because he knows that he will make the best deal with us. And he is fed up with the studios: to get his profit share on the Rings trilogy he had to sue New Line. With us, in contrast, he knows that he will be paid fairly and artistically supported without reservation.”

The anxiety over the fate of Jackon’s association with The Hobbit began, for me, the night that The Return of the King won 11 Oscars. This is not, contrary to what some may think, the kind of event that brings glee to men like Robert Shaye. Yes, they are thrilled that their films win such accolades; but when the director’s fee for a follow-up project is guaranteed to skyrocket in the wake of such success, studio heads start to seethe. So immediately after the 2004 Oscars ceremony, the tough money was on the boxoffice results of King Kong: if that film mimicked The Lord of the Rings’ wild financial success, Shaye and New Line were over a barrel; if it tanked, Jackson would have huge contract concessions to make. Sure, Jackson didn’t get the call from New Line’s honchos about The Hobbit that he hoped for during that period; but he wasn’t exactly knocking at their door, either.

So when it became clear to Jackson that New Line wasn’t only stalling, but that they were also stiffing him to the tune of tens of millions of dollars due to the corporate practice of “self-dealing”—granting no-bid merchandising rights to members of its own broad corporate umbrella—he decided to up the ante, filing a lawsuit against New Line on February 28, 2005, according to The New York Times.

When, in actuality, King Kong proved neither a blockbuster nor a dog during the winter of 2005, the waters just got muddied. The fact that conversations had been stalled so long waiting on the outcome of Kong didn’t help, nor did the fact that both sides knew what the mutual silence was all about. All in all, there was nothing left but discontent on all sides.

The business being what it is, this is a story that is far from being over; and given that there are not just one but two studios involved, the political jockeying is far more complex than in most cases. My guess is that Zaentz is a lot closer to right than either Jackson or Shaye would like to admit—and that Shaye may regret the vitriol of his rhetoric. “There’s a certain piggishness involved here,” an unidentified New Line lawyer told The New York Times back in 1995 [sic; that's gotta be 2005--Olorin]. “New Line already gave [Jackson] enough money to rebuild Baghdad, but it’s still not enough for him.” When Shaye recently said, “[Jackson] thinks that we owe him something after we’ve paid him over a quarter of a billion dollars,” you know who Shaye has been talking to.

The smart money is on Jackson making both The Hobbit and the other planned film, and making them with New Line. Will that take place “on Shaye’s watch”? Maybe not. But since New Line has got corporate masters who may be even more demanding than Shaye, that may just mean bad news for Shaye—and good news for Tolkien film fans.

As to the wisdom of making two movies out of The Hobbit rather than just one, that’s quite a different matter. Without yet getting into the structure that such films might assume, it’s fair to say that Tolkien wouldn’t have written the same story that he did had he written it subsequent to The Lord of the Rings.

First, we know that, when Tolkien began writing The Hobbit, he had no intention of it becoming a part of the history of Middle-earth. Second, we know that Tolkien had to later revise The Hobbit to make it consistent with his masterwork, retooling Bilbo’s riddle game with Gollum. Third, we know that Tolkien had to temporarily suspend work on Rings in order to work out exactly how characters like Elrond, Gandalf, Aragorn, and the Hobbits themselves fit into his broader mythology. Fourth, we know that Tolkien gave up writing a Rings sequel because the material simply became “too dark.”

Complicating matters is the general perception amongst many fans—a sentimental, romanticized, and unexamined perception—that The Hobbit is a light, whimsical fantasy. It is not. It is, in fact, an allegorical bildungsroman, a coming-of-age tale, a story of loss of innocence. It’s about children no longer covering their eyes in terror and imagining giants and bogies, but rather coming to see the world with eyes wide open and finding out that the most dangerous monsters may be some of their fellow adventurers. The conventions of fantasy may dispose of Smaug quite neatly; dealing with Thorin—or Bilbo’s own complicity in a Great Wrong—is another matter entirely, but one which is at the heart of The Hobbit.

Given that The Lord of the Rings has already come to the screen, though (and stupendously so), we have already seen how blithe young Hobbits such as Pippin must learn to become grave warriors; we have already witnessed the darkness of battles like that at the Pelennor; through Théoden, we have already witnessed sleepers waking to the harsh reality of betrayal and self-deception; we have, in short, already lost the innocence of Middle-earth. Trying to recapture it—on a scale that would duplicate the boxoffice success of Rings—would be a bit like returning to fifth-grade summer camp after a stint in college.

So two choices present themselves: first, scale back the design of The Hobbit as Lord of the Rings Lite for the younger set, and hope that Peter Jackson’s fans have all spawned their own sets of Hobbit-sized kindergarteners who will be thrilled with a Curious George version of Middle-earth; or second, embrace the tone of the last third of The Hobbit and integrate the tale seamlessly with Peter Jackson’s other films. Boxoffice potential almost dictates the wisdom of the latter choice, regardless of the “violence” it does to Tolkien’s original tale.

If the first approach is taken, however, it would allow—perhaps even necessitate—all of the major roles to be recast. In order to see Gandalf in an entirely different light, for instance, a new Gandalf might be required. When pursuing this line of thinking, the financial wheels start turning, and we can pretty easily envision a project of this flavor if New Line somehow manages to go ahead without Peter Jackson (and the wallets of Jackson’s dedicated and thoroughly adult fanbase), especially considering that Jackson would never make such a film.

The second approach, though, begs for McKellan to return as Gandalf, Serkis as Gollum, and Holm as Bilbo—who, we must remember, convincingly played the younger Bilbo in Jackon’s “flashback” scenes as well as the opening sequences of Fellowship.
It also opens up intriguing possibilities for the proposed second Hobbit film—which, by the way, I think is a brilliant concept. Fans of The Lord of the Rings, the book, know that there’s a wealth of historical detail that’s left entirely out of Peter Jackson’ films. In particular, the length of time between Bilbo’s departure from Hobbiton and Frodo’s is collapsed to mere weeks rather than years. This presents a fantastic opportunity to create a narrative—once again temporally collapsed, as with Jackson’s trilogy—that tells both the tale of Sauron’s abandonment of Dol Guldur and the long search for Gollum.

The added bonus? Added roles for Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn, Liv Tyler as Arwen, Hugo Weaving as Elrond, Cate Blanchett as Galadriel, and Orlando Bloom as Legolas—maybe even John Rhys-Davies as Gimli. All of these characters were alive during the period of The Hobbit, and were certainly active during the period between the two tales. Heck, we might even get a major role for Craig Parker again as Haldir, which would make his subsequent death in The Two Towers all that more poignant.
And these are two films that Jackson should be the one to make, and ones that I would look forward to seeing.

Yet it behooves the fan base, I think, not to become too territorial with the intellectual rights to The Hobbit. The film production business is as wild and wooly as the American West (or the Far East of Middle-earth) once was. When on the frontier, wizards and artists will do what artists and wizards must; the best that we, the fans, can hope for is to voice our concerns—and then, for lightning to strike twice.

Greg Wright is the author of Tolkien in Perspective: Sifting the Gold from the Glitter, and is Writer in Residence at Puget Sound Christian College in Everett, Washington. Formerly Contributing Editor at Hollywood Jesus, Greg’s collected essays on Tolkien and Jackson have just been republished in a new archive at the site. Greg is now Managing Editor of Gospelcom’s movie review site Past the Popcorn. [/indent]

Great article. Would that more people thought like him. Not enough rationalization going on in this issue at the moment, particularly from New Line.

If I am to disagree with Mr. Wright in one thing, it is this: I don't care what kind of CGI wizardry or feats of makeup they can pull out of their hats, but Ian Holm could never convincingly portray Bilbo Baggins for me again. I don't quite get how someone of the obvious intelligence of Mr. Wright cannot see that while Holm was perfectly able to play a younger Bilbo in a flashback scene that lasted less than a minute of screentime, the frail health and considerably aged actor could not pull off an action role in what is sure to be a three hour movie. I've said this here, and I will say it again: Ian Holm is too old for this role. He was perfect as a much older Bilbo in LOTR, but to have him play a much younger version who needs to perform all kinds of highly physical action scenes throughout the movie is simply neither feasible nor realistic. Even if Jackson and everyone else were to return, this is one role that must inevitably be recast. I don't think most people realize that there is a period of seventy-seven years between the events of the Hobbit and the start of the Lord of the Rings. While Hobbits can live over a century, Ian Holm most likely will not, and does not look the part of a nearly eighty-years younger hobbit than what he played in Lord of the Rings. For these reasons, I cannot fathom Mr. Wright's comment.

I realize it seems like I am getting hung up on a tiny detail and remark, which isn't even the point of the article, but Bilbo IS the main character after all, and I feel it is very important that he be cast correctly. As much as I enjoyed Ian Holm's performance and will always regard him as the older Bilbo, we need a younger actor for this part.

All that aside, the article has made me feel more intrigued and ok with the concept of a second movie that bridges the time gap between both stories. My initial resistance to such an idea had to do with the fact that there is ample room there to invent things that have the potential to irk hardcore Tolkien fans like myself, but I suppose if done right, it could be an interesting look into some of the Professor's footnotes.

Well, I thought the same thing about Ian Holm. The man is a splendid actor, always memorable even in small parts, and he was the perfect Bilbo in LOTR. But it would take more than digitally removing wrinkles (a la X-3) for him to do it—he would need a younger, more agile body. So unless they plan to use a stunt double and do digital face replacement throughout the movie, I can't see Sir Ian Holm doing it. And I can't see them doing that much face replacement. So like you, Val, I regretfully conclude that Bilbo has to be recast.

The possibilities for a bridging movie are very intriguing, as long as they stick to Tolkien. There's enough stuff in the Appendicies and Unfinished Tales to provide a story. The question would be, can they take all that disparate material and work it into a coherent story thread? And without overlapping either the Hobbit or LOTR? For example, one of my favorite stories is of how Gandalf chanced to meet Thorin and set him in motion to regain Erebor—but that comes before the Hobbit proper. Another is the story "The Hunt for the Ring," which among other things deals with the Nazgul questioning Saruman and then Wormtongue—but it occurs during LOTR. I think it will be a challenge to put something together that is not time-transgressive of the other movies and which is not a total fiction that would dismay the hardcore fans.

But first the Hobbit has to move forward—we can worry about the bridge movie later.

In a recent interview, famous director James Cameron had this to say on the topic:

Meanwhile he also talked with Premiere Magazine and weighed in on the whole Peter Jackson suing New Line lawsuit. He says Fox, whom he's always worked with, "has always been very transparent financially. It's almost automatic that you do an audit."

The inference here seems to be that he feels New Line is acting unreasonably. At least that's what it sounds like to me.

The way I see it, if Peter Jackson wants an audit, then he should get one. The only reason why I can think that New Line would hold that back from him is because of something they have done... whether they "misplaced" money or failed to pay someone to the full extent. So I agree Valkrist, New Line is acting unreasonably.

Jackson definitely is entitled to an audit, as his contract allowed for it. I also thought Cameron implied that New Line is trying to screw PJ, but I was perplexed by his comment that Fox had been so good to work with. He and Sigourney had to sue them over Aliens!

I wonder if there is any credibility at all with New Line's reasoning. Is it remotely possible that it is actually PJ & co. who are the ones being stubborn?

My first reaction, of coure, is that PJ's right, NL execs are wrong. But, I simply don't know enough about the situation.

I guess I could sign one of those petitions out there, but otherwise the only things to do are wait and hope.

Phooey!

Of course it's possible that NL is right and PJ is wrong, but when you look at their statements—PJ reasonable, level-headed, and unemotional, and Bob Shaye, arrogant, blustering, and petulant, it's very hard to imagine that PJ is not 100% right.

Beyond signing petitions, you could try writing to people. I think Bob Shaye is a lost cause, but you could write to the head of Time-Warner, who's ultimately Shaye's boss.

The more I read about this guy, the less and less I like him. Read on and judge for yourself, but it should come as no news now that if Robert Shaye has his way, the Hobbit will go forward, and PJ's involvement will be forever consigned to the realm of wishful thinking. The only dim ray of hope, if anyone has any of that left, is that the article mentions that Shaye's contract as the head of New Line e xp ires in 2008 and the movie wouldn't be released until 2009. However, for an '09 release, things would have go get moving well before Shaye's exit from the company, and there's also the distinct likelyhood that Shaye's contract could simply be renewed.

He emerged from the coma and after two months in the hospital, he was permitted to go home to his Manhattan residence. Even then he took many months to recover, unable initially to walk for more than two or three minutes at a time, and slowly taking up work again.



But Mr. Shaye says he thinks more clearly now than he did before his illness. “It’s difficult to e xp lain, but I have a clarity of thought and, I believe, of reason, which was one of the gifts” of his illness, he said. And, he added, “I certainly appreciate the normal functioning of life a lot more.”
One thing that has not been blunted by illness is Mr. Shaye’s temper, which flared last year when he was asked about a lawsuit filed by Mr. Jackson over profits from “The Lord of the Rings.”
Mr. Shaye, criticizing what he called Mr. Jackson’s “arrogance” and calling the director “myopic,” told Sci-Fi Wire: “I don’t care about Peter Jackson anymore.” He added, “He wants to have another $100 million or $50 million, whatever he’s suing us for. He doesn’t want to sit down and talk about it. He thinks that we owe him something after we’ve paid him over a quarter of a billion dollars.”
Asked about the remarks last week, Mr. Shaye said that he made the statement “in a moment of emotion” but did not regret it. “I regret losing a friend,” he said, as he showed a visitor a Gandalf sword that Mr. Jackson had sent him as a gift, before the lawsuit.
A representative for Mr. Jackson declined to comment.
But the ill will has held up plans to make “The Hobbit.” Without specifically saying he would not make the film with Mr. Jackson, Mr. Shaye made it plain that he had no interest in working with difficult filmmakers. “Some directors are impossible,” he said. “Are there a few people I wouldn’t work with? Yes, but I won’t name names.”
And he would not comment on reports in the news media that the “Spider-Man” director Sam Raimi had been asked to direct “The Hobbit.” He said, however, that although there was no workable script yet for the film, he intended to release it in 2009.
The Hollywood rumor mill has worked overtime in debating the future of New Line, which has had to justify its existence repeatedly over its 40-year history. Some people have questioned, for example, why the studio that made Will Ferrell’s breakout hit “Elf” in 2003 has not made other movies with him.
Until now. This month New Line began production on “Semi-Pro,” starring Mr. Ferrell; Mr. Shaye said that Mr. Ferrell had not found material he wanted to make at New Line until now, and chose not to make a sequel to “Elf.”
And although the studio is now part of Time Warner, current and former executives said that it continues to operate much like a family. Mr. Shaye, the father figure of the group, described his partnership with his co-chairman, Michael Lynne, this way : “I’m emotion. He’s reason.”
But as in a family, some producers and agents complained of confusion in their business dealings with the studio. Several said they had made deals with Mr. Emmerich or another executive at the studio, only to have Mr. Shaye redefine the terms later.
An executive connected with the coming film “Rendition” said the same thing happened on that project, a big-budget production under way in Morocco, starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Reese Witherspoon and Merryl Streep. Weeks after the producers closed the deal with the studio, said the executive, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect his business relationships, Mr. Shaye came back to them and placed additional conditions, like finding a financing partner.
In an e-mail message, Mr. Emmerich disputed that account, saying that Mr. Shaye had reservations about the script from the start.
Still, some agents and producers point out that the loose atmosphere at New Line can also lead to daring decisions, like the one that led to the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy.
Mr. Shaye denied that any executive changes were in the works, and said that Mr. Emmerich would continue to run production, while Russell Schwartz would continue to run domestic marketing.
Mr. Bewkes, the Time Warner president, said that he regarded the three years of success with “Rings” to be an anomaly — albeit one that brought in well over $3 billion in revenue to New Line.
“The business they’re in is a combination of all those ‘little titles,’ which add up to a steady stream for the indie business, and occasional but pretty regular big commercial franchises, like ‘Rush Hour,’ ‘Lord of the Rings’ or ‘The Golden Compass,’ ” he said. “I feel confident about New Line’s future.”
And Mr. Shaye, whose contract is up in 2008, seemed to fully agree. “It’s never business as usual, because the business is unusual,” he said, adding, “but we’d rather work on movies than anything else — every one of us.”

the only thing i like is that if its not Peter Jackson that it might be Sam Raimi. I have waltched almost all of his work since he got started and have seen how it has grown and think he is a great director

I'll agree Raimi is a good director, just not certain he is the right man for this particular project. I wouldn't mind seeing Steven Spielberg or Ridley Scott take a crack at it though.

If Shaye is "emotion" and Michael Lynne is "reason," then maybe Shaye should sit back, shut his mouth, and let Lynne handle the situation with PJ.

He's "emotion", huh? I hope that that Glamdring prop of his is one of the safety versions!

Valkrist wrote:“I regret losing a friend,” he said, as he showed a visitor a Gandalf sword that Mr. Jackson had sent him as a gift, before the lawsuit.

On the serious side, maybe PJ really should sit down and have a talk.... with "Reason", that is. "Emotion" should probably sit this one out.

Here's an article from the Chicago Sun Times. No new news on the Hobbit; in fact, Shaye refused to talk about it.

http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/p ... 18.article

I don't think we'll see an answer to this anytime soon and Shaye isn't obviously willing to cooperate anymore. Theres not much else I can say... that hasn't already been said.

Shaye is an ass. I'm glad the man pulled through his difficulties, no one deserves to go before their time and his clearly wasn't up. However, though a brush with death usually has the effect of softening a person inside and making them realize that carrying bitterness, anger, and spite around with you is not a good way to live, the effect on Shaye seems to have been the opposite.

Whereas before he was all bluster and bombast, hopefully his silence now on the issue of the Hobbit means he is no closer to nailing down a script or a director.

Not exactly Hobbit news, but definitely lack-of-Hobbit news, to which I must say "OH BROTHER!"

http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/1/1175443484

I thought Jackson's idea of remaking King Kong was bad but making a live version of the Powerpuff Girls cartoon is many times worse. YUCK! I wish they would get things sorted out so Jackson could make The Hobbit.

I didn't think anyone would ever make a PPuff film. The TV is hilarious sometimes, but they will have to keep that humour if they want to do anything good with it.

Sigh.

I think this one wins as the main reason why it's dangerous to surf the web on April 1st. Runner's up?:

My favorite band announcing that their newest album would be released on vinyl only, and possibly audio casette later.

Superhero Hype announcing the rated-R cuts from Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer with the Invisible Woman appearing naked on screen.

Goooood times. Off-topic, I suppose, but anyone else got good 'net stories for April 1st?

Oh Lord, I forgot it was April Fools' Day—sorry everybody! Theonering.net is known for pulling pranks on AFD, too. I suppose they figured that if they said Jackson just go the go-ahead for the Hobbit and it wasn't true, they'd be lynched, so they concocted this instead. Don't I feel silly....

Don't feel bad. After reading the news about my fav. band, I started wondering if my parents' record player was still in working condition. Once I got to the part about the audio casette it -finally- clicked.

Happens to the best of us.

Haha. Damn. If anyone is on facebook... they sent a message around saying that the first 100 people from each network would be able to send a live poke where someone from Facebook would personally poke one of your friends.

Yeah, that whole 'poke someone in person' thing seemed a little sketchy. Didn't occur to me that it was a joke, though. Just thought Facebook was getting -that- much creepier.

See, happens to the best of us...

EDIT: It -really- does happen to the best of us: http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.ph ... 0&id=40855