Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

467 comments

A new record (-1, Offtopic)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914108)

"nothing to see here" and slashdotted already.

article text within (5, Informative)

adam (1231) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914528)

I was actually going to post my thoughts, but since this article is slashdotted, and I still have the window open, i'll post my thoughts + the article text below them, for anyone who missed the article due to /.ing

WOW. Let me say, respect to Peter Jackson for telling it as he sees it. ...Obviously there are two sides to every story, but he really digs into some of the gritty details (naming names, etc), and the story he tells sounds like typical hollywood modus operandi to me. He is rather scant on details regarding the "accounting" irregularities, but nontheless he still vents pretty heavily in other regards.

I am a filmmaker myself, and have to deal with a variety of industry business annoyances on a daily basis, and I can sympathize with his frustration. This is an industry predicated upon many absurd practices. My assumption is that Peter Jackson must be pretty ticked off to be willing to vent in public like this.

Unfortunately for him, last we heard, he's hit a snag with HALO [imdb.com] as well. Although general slashdot community concensus seemed to be "oh gawd, not another video game movie," so perhaps that snag is a bit less depressing than The Hobbit troubles.



11-19-06 Latest News
Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh Talk THE HOBBIT
Xoanon @ 10:32 pm EST

Moments ago we received this email from Peter Jackson and his crew down in New Zealand, take a look...

Dear One Ringers,

As you know, there's been a lot of speculation about The Hobbit. We are often asked about when or if this film will ever be made. We have always responded that we would be very interested in making the film - if it were offered to us to make.

You may also be aware that Wingnut Films has bought a lawsuit against New Line, which resulted from an audit we undertook on part of the income of The Fellowship of the Ring. Our attitude with the lawsuit has always been that since it's largely based on differences of opinion about certain accounting practices, we would like an independent body - whether it be a judge, a jury, or a mediator, to look at the issues and make an unbiased ruling. We are happy to accept whatever that ruling is. In our minds, it's not much more complex than that and that's exactly why film contracts include right-to-audit clauses.

However, we have always said that we do not want to discuss The Hobbit with New Line until the lawsuit over New Line's accounting practices is resolved. This is simple common sense - you cannot be in a relationship with a film studio, making a complex, expensive movie and dealing with all the pressures and responsibilities that come with the job, while an unresolved lawsuit exists.

We have also said that we do not want to tie settlement of the lawsuit to making a film of The Hobbit. In other words, we would have to agree to make The Hobbit as a condition of New Line settling our lawsuit. In our minds this is not the right reason to make a film and if a film of The Hobbit went ahead on this basis, it would be doomed. Deciding to make a movie should come from the heart - it's not a matter of business convenience. When you agree to make a film, you're taking on a massive commitment and you need to be driven by an absolute passion to want to get the story on screen. It's that passion, and passion alone, that gives the movie its imagination and heart. To us it is not a cold-blooded business decision.

A couple of months ago there was a flurry of Hobbit news in the media. MGM, who own a portion of the film rights in The Hobbit, publicly stated they wanted to make the film with us. It was a little weird at the time because nobody from New Line had ever spoken to us about making a film of The Hobbit and the media had some fun with that. Within a week or two of those stories, our Manager Ken Kamins got a call from the co-president of New Line Cinema, Michael Lynne, who in essence told Ken that the way to settle the lawsuit was to get a commitment from us to make the Hobbit, because "that's how these things are done". Michael Lynne said we would stand to make much more money if we tied the lawsuit and the movie deal together and this may well be true, but it's still the worst reason in the world to agree to make a film.

Several years ago, Mark Ordesky told us that New Line have rights to make not just The Hobbit but a second "LOTR prequel", covering the events leading up to those depicted in LOTR. Since then, we've always assumed that we would be asked to make The Hobbit and possibly this second film, back to back, as we did the original movies. We assumed that our lawsuit with the studio would come to a natural conclusion and we would then be free to discuss our ideas with the studio, get excited and jump on board. We've assumed that we would possibly get started on development and design next year, whilst filming The Lovely Bones. We even had a meeting planned with MGM executives to talk through our schedule.

However last week, Mark Ordesky called Ken and told him that New Line would no longer be requiring our services on the Hobbit and the LOTR 'prequel'. This was a courtesy call to let us know that the studio was now actively looking to hire another filmmaker for both projects.

Ordesky said that New Line has a limited time option on the film rights they have obtained from Saul Zaentz (this has never been conveyed to us before), and because we won't discuss making the movies until the lawsuit is resolved, the studio is going to have to hire another director.

Given that New Line are committed to this course of action, we felt at the very least, we owed you, the fans, a straightforward account of events as they have unfolded for us.

We have always had the greatest support from The Ringers and we are very sorry our involvement with The Hobbit has been ended in this way. Our journey into Tolkien's world started with a phone call from Ken Kamins to Harvey Weinstein in Nov 1995 and ended with a phone call from Mark Ordesky to Ken in Nov 2006. It has been a great 11 years.

This outcome is not what we anticipated or wanted, but neither do we see any positive value in bitterness and rancor. We now have no choice but to let the idea of a film of The Hobbit go and move forward with other projects.

We send our very best wishes to whomever has the privilege of making The Hobbit and look forward to seeing the film on the big screen.

Warmest regards to you all, and thanks for your incredible support over the years.

We got to go there - but not back again ...

Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh



Xoanon here, this is a big blow to the LOTR community. I feel like there has been a death in the family...there are a LOT of questions that will remain unanswered for the time being. Why couldn't New Line come to an agreement with PJ? Is there really a time option on the film rights for New Line? Who will they get to direct? Those are some massive shoes to fill if you ask me. I hope that whoever they get to direct will not try something 'new' with the look and feel of PJ's Middle-earth...and what is this LOTR 'prequel' project?

There have been rumors about The Hobbit being split into two films, will this prequel project then become the third film in another trilogy? Who knows...

I'm sure Peter and Fran aren't going to want to talk more about this, but that doesn't mean we won't be begging for a sitdown and chat! Stay tuned for more...


No kidding... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16914608)

And look at this little gem Hemos decided to add to make the news look a bit bigger than it really is...

I suppose there is still a chance that Jackson & Co. could end up involved, but at this point that looks unlikely.

Gee, that's really insightful too! I suppose there is a chance I will get laid tonight too, but at this point that looks unlikely as well...

Re:A new record (1)

Stanistani (808333) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914774)

Cue sound of orcs cackling wildly.

Perhaps (-1, Flamebait)

Bloke down the pub (861787) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914128)

Oh NOES!!!


On the other hand, perhaps now they'll follow the books properly (ducks for cover).

Re:Perhaps (0, Flamebait)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914200)

Or, at the very least, not make us sit through a 25-minute slow pan over some forest in the middle of a scene that took up about 2 pages in the books.

Re:Perhaps (1)

Chris whatever (980992) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914626)

Oh yeah great

this is going to be a musical if they really follow the book's storyline. By cutting him off they sealed their own fate, the movie will suck if it's another than Peter jackson. We will see actors that dont fit the profile.

maybe they'll get Michael bay on the project, now that would be a serious challenge for him to get a US flag in there somewhere.

prequel? (3, Insightful)

SeaPig (649774) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914138)

I am confused - The Hobbit is the LOTR prequel - Are they doing two prequels?

Re:prequel? (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914208)

My thoughts exactly.
Something seems to have been lost in translation, from another article about the movie:

The Oscar-winning director is planning to film ''The Hobbit'' the prequel to ''The Lord of the Rings'' trilogy by J.R.R. Tolkien, but two studios must first fight over legal rights to the film.

link here

Re:prequel? (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914266)

errrrr I think I missed something:
link here [thebatt.com]

Re:prequel? (4, Informative)

spellraiser (764337) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914232)

Apparently they are [moviehole.net] .

Peter Jackson says:

Several years ago, Mark Ordesky told us that New Line have rights to make not just The Hobbit but a second "LOTR prequel", covering the events leading up to those depicted in LOTR.

Re:prequel? (5, Funny)

Znork (31774) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914444)

And rumour has it they're going to bring in the #1 expert on prequels and CGI characters.

I, for one, welcome George Lucas and our new taller, more prominently be-eared, rastafarian Gollum.

Meesa servsa the precious.

Re:prequel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16914684)

Hobbits... ewookies... they are all the same.

Re:prequel? (4, Informative)

Delirium Tremens (214596) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914326)

I am confused - The Hobbit is the LOTR prequel - Are they doing two prequels?
The 5 Silmarillion [wikipedia.org] books come to mind.

Peter Jackson (0, Flamebait)

Tet (2721) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914160)

Given the hideous mess he made of LOTR, I'm relatively pleased that he won't be butchering The Hobbit in the same way. I am, however, horrified at the thought of a "prequel" to LOTR, no matter who ends up directing/producing it.

Re:Peter Jackson (3, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914196)

Next up: Jim Henson's Hobbit Babies.

Re:Peter Jackson (2, Insightful)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914252)

Given the size of the book it was inveitable he'd have to emit large chunks of it to fit it into any reasonble time. As it was its , what , 9 hours for all 3 films? Personally I think it was a mistake to miss out the Tom Bombadil section in Fellowship but I guess if he'd left that in he'd have had to have cut out something else perhaps more crucial to the story. Who knows.

Re:Peter Jackson (1)

uchian (454825) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914516)

To be fair, tom bombadil adds nothing to the main lord of the rings plot; even the bbc radio version that comes on 13/14 cds (I think it's about 20 hours long) still misses out bombadil.

It does explain Merry and Pippin's height gain (1)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914580)

IIRC, they drank something at Tom's (or maybe it was with the Ents) that made them grow taller, which factored in to the Scouring of the Shire. Of course, without the Scouring, there really was no need for Tom. I, for one, didn't really care for all of Tom's singing, anyway.

Re:It does explain Merry and Pippin's height gain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16914832)

They grew due to the drink they received while with the Ents

Re:It does explain Merry and Pippin's height gain (1)

torqer (538711) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914938)

Ent draught was the drink in question.

Re:Peter Jackson (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914656)

If you really understood the book, you'd know how Tom Bombadil's song explains everything.

Re:Peter Jackson (5, Funny)

famebait (450028) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914852)

Given the size of the book it was inveitable he'd have to emit large chunks of it

Sorry, I don't mean to be a spelling nazi, but I just can't get over the mental image of Peter Jackson emitting large chunks of books. My day is ruined.

Re:Peter Jackson (1)

Randolpho (628485) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914274)

Oh, come now, the movies weren't that bad. In fact I quite enjoyed them. Yes, they weren't true to the books (I especially disliked the way Aragorn was a 'reluctant hero' rather than 'wants-to-be-king-so-he-can-marry-his-woman', and pretty much the whole Aragorn/Arwen relationship), but overall the movies -- as movies -- were damn good.

Re:Peter Jackson (2, Informative)

Viriatus (886319) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914856)

the Aragorn/Arwen relationship is mentioned in Unfinished Tales

Re:Peter Jackson (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16914302)

I am, however, horrified at the thought of a "prequel" to LOTR, no matter who ends up directing/producing it

Why is this? How about if Tolkien himself rose from the grave to write a prequel? Just because it might not be exactly how *you* would have it. They same could be said for a sequel (including perhaps the 2nd and 3rd books - maybe they spoiled what the reader had in his mind would/might happen).

Re:Peter Jackson (5, Insightful)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914352)

I was just re-reading bits of William Goldman's "Which Lie Did I Tell?", and there's a particularly interesting section, dealing with adaptations. And one of the first things he talks about is that, when adapting, you can't keep everything, sometimes, you barely keep anything, the trick being to, as he says, keep the "spine" of the story and reject anything that won't work on the screen, because books and movies ARE TWO DIFFERENT FUCKING MEDIUMS.

I, too have loved the LOTR books since I was a kid, and I too would have loved to have seen Bombadil in the movies, etc., but, let's be honest: Jackson & Co. made an absolutely amazing film trilogy, by ANY standard you care to measure, so can we fucking end shit like "hideous mess" already? It's not true, you know it's not true, so please just fucking leave it, alright? It makes you sound like you live in your mom's basement, and just annoys the rest of us.

Re:Peter Jackson (1, Offtopic)

Jaruzel (804522) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914800)

Woah, a little less of the f**king and maybe people will pay attention to the point you are making.

-Jar.

Re:Peter Jackson (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16914878)

holy fucking shit batman, it's the goddamn prude police!

Re:Peter Jackson (1)

rk (6314) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914940)

Sorry, Mom!

Re:Peter Jackson (1)

nagora (177841) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914408)

Given the hideous mess he made of LOTR, I'm relatively pleased that he won't be butchering The Hobbit in the same way.

Totally agree, however:

I am, however, horrified at the thought of a "prequel" to LOTR, no matter who ends up directing/producing it.

If they mean to give the Silmarillion to someone with a talent for something other than eating, then I'd be interested.

TWW

Re:Peter Jackson (1)

arb (452787) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914420)

And given the even more hideous mess he made of King Kong, it is obvious that the success of LotR went to Jackson's head and Ghod alone knows what abomination he would have produced if he did make the Hobbit. It would probably have been a seven hour long movie crammed to the gills with unnecessary whiz-bang CGI effects and 20 extra sub-plots that lead absolutely nowhere... But it sure would look pretty, and that's what counts these days, right?

Re:Peter Jackson (4, Funny)

baryon351 (626717) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914422)

Given the hideous mess he made of LOTR, I'm relatively pleased that he won't be butchering The Hobbit in the same way.

I hear it's Uwe Boll doing The Hobbit, so it definitely won't be butchered in the same way. :)

Re:Peter Jackson (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16914888)

In case you didn't know, (I didn't) Uwe Boll is a german 'film director' who makes shit films as a tax loop hole for investors.

Re:Peter Jackson (2, Insightful)

Ardanwen (746930) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914648)

Hideous mess is your meaning, not a fact. I was very very pleased with the LOTR.. so while for you the article might be good news, for me it is bad. I'd have loved Peter Jackson to make the hobbit. I wonder if with 'accounting issue' they mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting [wikipedia.org] Whenever someone brings up the argument that we're stealing from artists when we dload a movie or music, and we kill all music, I hum a little hollywood-accouting tune in my head.

Maybe now (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16914170)

Maybe now someone will do an animated version!

A Prequel??? (2, Funny)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914182)

"The Hobbit or the planned Lord of the Rings prequel"

Sorry?? The Hobbit *IS* the prequel to LOTR. Please tell they're not going
to get some Hollywood paint-by-numbers screenwriters commitee to butcher Tolkeins
ideas and come up with some Phantom Menace debarcle? Will they have Gollum with
dreadlocks and speaking in some fau-jamaican patois and Gandalf as some all-american
apple pie and freckles kid who Has Yet To Discover His Powers blah blah etc etc.
Gah!

Re:A Prequel??? (5, Insightful)

compro01 (777531) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914320)

the hobbit isn't a prequel. the lord of the rings is a sequel to the hobbit. the hobbit was written first!

Re:A Prequel??? (-1, Flamebait)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914470)

Pedant.

Re:A Prequel??? (5, Funny)

Robber Baron (112304) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914364)

It could be worse...they could do The Lord of the Rings Holiday Special.

off-topic (0, Offtopic)

kisrael (134664) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914636)

Sorry, didn't see any further contact info but your "geeks as teamsters" sig is thought-provoking...

as a geek i always thought we get treated pretty frickin' well, relatively, like salary wise and all that. But we provide criticial functions as well. which side of that does your .sig mostly mean to imply, or is there another angle I'm not thinking about?

Re:A Prequel??? (0, Offtopic)

AlanS2002 (580378) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914724)

"The Hobbit or the planned Lord of the Rings prequel"

Sorry?? The Hobbit *IS* the prequel to LOTR. Please tell they're not going
to get some Hollywood paint-by-numbers screenwriters commitee to butcher Tolkeins
ideas and come up with some Phantom Menace debarcle? Will they have Gollum with
dreadlocks and speaking in some fau-jamaican patois and Gandalf as some all-american
apple pie and freckles kid who Has Yet To Discover His Powers blah blah etc etc.
Gah!


No, "The Hobbit" is not a prequel to LOTR. As pointed out by another poster LOTR is a sequel to "The Hobbit". "The Simarillion" however is a prequel to LOTR.

Re:A Prequel??? (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914838)

Yes, nice karma whoring. The point is the Hobbit is set before the events in the LOTR so call it the first book, call it a prequel or call it Tracey , makes little odds. It comes before. Which is what a prequel would do.

A dictionary says otherwise (0, Offtopic)

AlanS2002 (580378) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914932)

prequel [m-w.com]
One entry found for prequel.
Main Entry: prequel
Pronunciation: 'prE-kw&l
Function: noun
Etymology: pre- + -quel (as in sequel)
: a work (as a novel or a play) whose story precedes that of an earlier work

As for karma whoring, why would I bother? My karma is already good.

So what? (1, Insightful)

igb (28052) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914190)

The Hobbit is a great deal more readable than the tedium that is The Lord of The Rings. Not having read the three volumes of torpor in twenty-five years, I re-read them in a couple of sittings over the new year break last year. Tolkein is supposed to have said that nothing of value had been written in English since 1066, and I'm fairly certain his books don't change that. The trailers for the films were tedious in the extreme, but I did try to watch a few bits of the films as they had their terrestrial premiere on C4 over the past few weeks. They take `thumpingly literal' to new depths, and as I understand it (I didn't last long enough to find out) the one interesting bit of the books --- The Scouring of The Shire --- wasn't filmed anyway.

So filming The Hobbit might be a good idea, as the book has a lightness of touch that most of LotR sadly needs. But getting Peter Jackson to do it would remove any chance of said lightness of touch anyway.

Re:So what? (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914346)

"Tolkein is supposed to have said that nothing of value had been written in English since 1066"

Given English as we know it didn't exist in 1066 (ever tried reading Anglo Saxon?) I think he may have been wrong on that account :) English as we know it doesn't start becoming vaguely intelligable to modern ears until the 14th century in chaucers time , and even then you'd be doing well to understand more than 50% of whats written without a translation.

Re:So what? (2, Insightful)

igb (28052) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914560)

Given English as we know it didn't exist in 1066 (ever tried reading Anglo Saxon?) I think he may have been wrong on that account :)
I was going to add a flame against JRRT's position on precisely that basis, but I didn't because I wasn't confident enough of the quote. He might have said ``In England'', for example. I think his belief was that the last great stories were the Norse and Icelandic sagas (Egil's Saga, etc). The move towards literary styles of writing, as opposed to the simple recording of oral tradition, was to him a bad idea. Which is why his books periodically break out into what Morrissey (in another context) referred to as ``such bloody awful poetry''.

Of course, the irony here is that LotR may be just about readable as written text --- go on, how many people don't skim through most of The Two Towers? --- but it's absolutely unreadable as spoken prose. If your claim is that literary English isn't as beautiful as spoken English (or spoken Icelandic), it behooves you to write at least passable spoken English. Which he fails, utterly, to do. Try reading a few paragraphs aloud. Then read, say, Tyndale's translation of the New Testament aloud.

Re:So what? (1, Informative)

jjohnson (62583) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914944)

The Scouring of the Shire was filmed, but didn't make the final cut. Christopher Lee was pissed because that cut halved his screen time.

Re:So what? (1)

Himring (646324) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914972)

You misspelled, "hi, I'm not a fan. I'm a troll. Please respond to my post...."

Above, someone else stated the movies were deplorable. Tolkien fandom has widely embraced the movies (notice the official fan club in the credits, many of whom being authors themselves). This was a tough sell seeing how JRRT stated his works uniquely leant themselves to not being dramatized. Being a huge fan myself, I felt Jackson & co. were fans making a fan movie. They did a splendid job. Not to mention the two primary artists behind Tolkien artwork (Alan Lee) as well as Christopher Lee (real life friend of Tolkien), et al. were all behind the movies. Lee, very large personae as a Tolkien authority and fan, stated that the very few differences between the movies and books were well done.

To this second point that the books themselves hold no value, I would say you are not a fan on any level, so why respond at all? Show some basic manners and save your posts for those topics you do have something positive to add. Tolkien is called "master fantasist" by other fantasy authors and heralded as the father of the modern genre. I have heard others make the reverse criticism: that LoTR is written for adults and The Hobbit for children, so they prefer the former. All of his works are delightful and, honestly, the popularity of it all speaks for itself. Tolkien's works make other authors pale by comparison. How many writers invent a language? Tolkien invented five! The only regret I have is having read Tolkien I can hardly stomach other fantasy as it all seems a rip off of what he did. Thankfully, I read Steven R. Donaldson before Tolkien -- Donaldson having shamelessly taken from LoTR.

There. I ate troll bait hook, line and sinker.

*burp*

Re:So what? (2)

Angostura (703910) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914980)

The difference between The Hobbit and LoTR is that the former is primarily a kid's book.

First reaction... (3, Interesting)

Randolpho (628485) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914194)

.... WTF? What do you mean "The Hobbit or the planned Lord of the Rings prequel"? Aren't the two the same thing? Or is this an allusion to The Silmarillion? Alas, the article is slashed, so I can't find out!!!

Good! (1)

Philosopher-Geek (970748) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914204)

He got off to a good start, but the third installment was painful to watch. I guess it might not be all of Jackson's fault. I just hope that the same actors are not involved. Way too much homo-eroticism going on between Sean Astin and Elijah Wood.

Re:Good! (5, Insightful)

finkployd (12902) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914400)

Way too much homo-eroticism going on between Sean Astin and Elijah Wood.

Ummm, have you READ the books? Did you manage to forget all of the "hand stroking"? If anything, Jackson toned it down.

It is also an interesting commentary on our society today. At the time, nobody saw this as homo-eroticism, guys were allowed to be friends and be close without being considered gay.

Finkployd

Re:Good! (1)

jlechem (613317) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914616)

I always found the relationship between Frodo and Sam somewhat creepy especially reading it as an adult. But I read some things that pointed out what you said. In tolkiens time this wasn't considered homo-erotic, men could be close friends without being called gay.

Re:Good! (1)

hal9000(jr) (316943) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914966)

Rememeber in the movie when the coucil was discussing what to do with the ring, and Frodo stepped up? Nest thing ya know, there's Aragorn offering him is sword. Sorry, but that just brings up a Beavis and Butt-head giggle everytime.

inevitable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16914506)

the relationship between an officer and his batman can be, if you only get down the very visible sections of it, inevitably looks homo-erotic.

Think of it like this: do you love your brother? If "yes" then just hearing you love another man sounds a bit squiffy. When you find out what sort of love you have, then it seems normal.

A film cannot catch nuance unless that is central to the piece.

MGM be warned : (2, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914218)

Lack of Jackson in hobbit will cost more than the gain you will make wrangling over the accounting issues.

Re:MGM be warned : (4, Funny)

crossmr (957846) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914954)

Agreed. It would be like making Star Wars 7 and not having Lucas remotely involved. It is just not a good idea period.

And There Was Great Rejoicing In Middle Earth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16914228)

After how badly Jackson butchered LotR, this is fantastic news.

Whoever does the Hobbit should have to have a reasonable understanding of the material. And promise not cast Liv Tyler would be appreciated.

Studio management == morons (3, Funny)

rkhalloran (136467) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914234)

After I RTFA, it looks like they're trying to spank Jackson for calling them on their accounting practices. He wouldn't settle on their terms, so "his services will not be needed".

The guy made them a bleepin' 10^9 bucks with the trilogy, and they assume they can slot in any schmoe that can aim a camera? And I suppose they're too damn cheap to go back to WETA Digital for the FX too, they'll get some folks from over at Sci-Fi Channel and it'll be just fine.

At this point we can only hope the project collapses from being nickle-and-dimed to extinction.

Re:Studio management == morons (2, Funny)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914646)

And I suppose they're too damn cheap to go back to WETA Digital for the FX too, they'll get some folks from over at Sci-Fi Channel and it'll be just fine.
I vote for the MST3K team!!! Just imagine...

Re:Studio management == morons (4, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914672)

The guy made them a bleepin' 10^9 bucks with the trilogy, and they assume they can slot in any schmoe that can aim a camera?

Yes they do and yes they can.

There are 60,000 wannabe directors out there and with the DP and production staff from the original filming it would not be too hard. Hollywierd is known for butchering and making a mess of things.

Hollywood is known for borderline illegal accounting practices, NO move has ever made a profit, so if you get net points on a film you are royally "fubared" you want gross points as those are the real pay dollars..... dont believe me? ask Stan Lee about the profits he recieved from his Net points on the Spiderman movies and the lawsuits he has going against the studio about it...

There is a long tradition of making up expenses to suck up all profits a film m akes.

Re:Studio management == morons (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914876)

I seem to remember somehting about the studio selling the merchandising rights for a very small sum (to a subsidiary or partner company without direct GL connection). The vast sums of money from marketing the merchandise were never accounted for on the film studio side, except for the (absurdly low) fixed fee paid. Thus the studio execs made money, while denying anyone with net points on the film a whiff of the money from merchandising. All legal, all underhanded.

Re:Studio management == morons (1)

KlomDark (6370) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914918)

Looks nice and slashdotted at this point. Made a copy of it here [servebeer.com]

Slashdot effect (-1, Offtopic)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914254)

The website is unavailable due to ... the slashdot effect [wikipedia.org] !

Re:Slashdot effect (1)

spellraiser (764337) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914322)

In other news:

The tides turn due to ... the tidal effect [wikipedia.org] !

Re:Slashdot effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16914822)

This just in... apple falls due to gravitation! [wikipedia.org] . In other news, area man [wikipedia.org] recovering from a blow on the head. Police suspect foul play.

Blame Jackson? (2, Interesting)

MeanderingMind (884641) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914290)

For all the negative comments towards Jackson's work on the trilogy, the fact that they somehow have the idea that a prequel and "the Hobbit" are two seperate things bodes very ill for the "It absolutely must be exactly like the book" nerds.

On the plus side, maybe some of us will appreciate Jackson more when we see how Hollywood botches these films. That or I'll eat my words.

Re:Blame Jackson? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16914644)

I think that some people are getting confused about the idea of the whole "two prequal" thing. The Hobbit is indeed the proper prequal to the LOTR books, as it takes place directly before those stories. What I believe was meant by a prequal here was the story of the first war of the rings, you know the one that they endlessly flash back to durring the movies. Yes, it is story matter that pertains to the other movies, but calling it a prequal is like calling the Greek republic system a prequal to our own. The two things are supposed to have happened in two different "ages of middle earth." I think that it was something like 4000 years or something.

Well, you can all tell that I may pay too much attention to this sort of theing, but I am, at least, not one of the people that dresses up like a hobbit and stands outside of the theatre for a day and a half in bare feet just to be "real." I do however have an nifty view of said shenanigans from my window:)

imho, excessive affluence is killing our culture (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16914330)

unearned, undeserved and excessive profiteering has corrupted our culture

I wonder how much is lost when every creative person is bought up and sold out

Two prequels??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16914370)

" ... in the making of the either The Hobbit or the planned Lord of the Rings prequel. ..."

What is "the planned Lord of the Rings prequel" if not "The Hobbit"?

No PJ, I'm not interested (3, Insightful)

Phoenix666 (184391) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914374)

Peter Jackson has amply demonstrated that his skills match up to Tolkien's complexity. There were others who tried LOTR and the Hobbit before, and made a mess of it. So if Peter Jackson is not involved with the Hobbit or a LOTR prequel, then Newline should save its money because I'm just not interested.

Re:No PJ, I'm not interested (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16914526)

Complexity? Tolkien is about as complex as GWBs either you're with us or your against us rethoric.

And further more, a more boorish and long-winded writer has never existed. If he had a decent editor, the fucking book would be 200 pages long.

Re:No PJ, I'm not interested (2, Insightful)

east coast (590680) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914624)

Peter Jackson has amply demonstrated that his skills match up to Tolkien's complexity.

Really? My impression from most Tolkien fans is that they felt that PJ did an OK job given the limitations of what he had to work with (screen time mostly) but I have yet to find a single Tolkien fan who said he did an excellent job at capturing Tolkien's over all vision. I find a few Tolkien fans who are downright pissed with how badly ROTK came off compared to Tolkien's original work. (I'm one of them to be honest with you)

There were others who tried LOTR and the Hobbit before, and made a mess of it

Yeah, a couple of animated features that were about 2 hours each and that were obviously geared to a younger, less seasoned crowd. I haven't seen the LOTR animations in a long long time but from what I remember of The Hobbit cartoon it did no worse a job than PJ considering the times, the fact it was animation and the fact that it's target audience was under the age of 13. This is by no means to say it was great or even good but if this was my 6 year old nephews introduction to Tolkien I wouldn't think badly of it.

So if Peter Jackson is not involved with the Hobbit or a LOTR prequel, then Newline should save its money because I'm just not interested.

Yeah, because without your money the last time the LOTRs trilogy would have taken a loss... [rolling of the eyes]

Listen, not to dick on you or anything but get over yourself. I'm sure there will be many people to take your empty seat at the theater if you decide not to attend a non-Jackson Hobbit movie. As long as the trailers come off a bit better than The Hulk film I'll be one of them. I hope that you take the time to consider that PJ is not the end all and be all of the Tolkien experience and that others can do well in his place. I think there is room for improvement on the PJ version of LOTRs and that a new director working on The Hobbit may be able to pull off something fantastic. To reject it without even seeing a trailer is short sighted.

Re:No PJ, I'm not interested (4, Insightful)

10Ghz (453478) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914892)

"I have yet to find a single Tolkien fan who said he did an excellent job at capturing Tolkien's over all vision."

I'm a Tolkien fan. I was even a card-carrying member of the Tolkien Club of Finland back in the day. I have read LOTR maybe 15 times (lost count to be honest), Hobbit maybe 6-7 times, Silmarillion 3-4 times and miscellaneous other book few times. And I think that PJ did very good job capturing the overall feel of the book, especially when we take in to account the differences in the medium.

And I'm GLAD that he dropped Bombadil from the movie. While it works in the book, it would SUCK in the movie. Half the audience would walk out thinking "whats with the hopping and dancing dude?". Back when I first heard of the upcoming movie, my first thought was "whoa, this is great!". My second though was "um, how are they going to handle Bombadil?".

"I find a few Tolkien fans who are downright pissed with how badly ROTK came off compared to Tolkien's original work. (I'm one of them to be honest with you)"

maybe they should do their own movie then. They could waste all their time on pointless things, and the end-result would absolutely suck. PJ set out to create a good MOVIE. What many of those hardcore Tolkien fans (hell, I consider myself to be a hardcore fan, yet I can acknowledge the challenges PJ faced when making the movie) want is something that might be more faithful to the book, but would suck as a movie.

Re:No PJ, I'm not interested (1)

SouthCat (1028586) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914946)

Err.. what others? As far as I know there has only ever been ONE other attempt to film LOTR; Ralph Bakshi's 1978 animation http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077869/ [imdb.com] Which while falling into the same trap of messing with the characters and plot for no good reason and having a really weird on-drugs style wasn't that bad.

Apart from that, the only other example that I can think of was the BBC radio adaptation which is pretty much the most faithful version of all. The only thing that I can think to say against it is that the superb cast made it sound like it was all taking place on the playing fields of Eton ("I say old boy is that a Balrog behind you?). But that is a very minor complaint.

George Lucas is going to do it (2, Funny)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914392)

Gandalf the brown (named because of his cloak) will guide young Baggins in the way of the Foot in his quest against the evil dragon master. Along the way Bilbo becomes an expert at fighting with light staffs. Gollum is going to become very ashmatic and have a penchant for black outfits with funny helmets. The 13 dwarves, or dwarf army as they will be referred to dont really feature.

Re:George Lucas is going to do it (1)

Speare (84249) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914810)

How can you have a George Lucas movie that doesn't heavily feature a clan of excitable little people? Maybe American Graffiti, but I think that was just due to a misunderstanding about how long it had been since that Opie Taylor kid had actually appeared on film.

And these guys... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16914428)

...are retards. One of the biggest moneymakers EVER, and the incredible job that Jackson and his crew did, and they say that they wouldn't use him to direct them?

What retards.

Closing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16914430)

If Peter Jackson really wanted to impress me he would have ended it at the logical closure point.

Re:Closing (1)

KlomDark (6370) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914620)

Get back to RST, Randal.

The Silmarillion? (2, Interesting)

Upaut (670171) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914474)

Man I hope they don't try to tackle that one... Its not a novel, but a book of history. To cover it properly one needs a three week mini-series run on the history channel. (Please? With sugar on top? I put up with a week of fictional bible history, give me my Tolkein...)

History Channel? No: Animal Planet! (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914760)

No, put "The Silmarillion" on Animal Planet, with Nigel Marven [itv.com] traveling back in time to capture and tangle with dragons and trolls.

Prequel is not what you think.. (1, Informative)

Danzigism (881294) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914488)

People need to get the definition of Prequel correct.. The Hobbit was written before LOTR.. A prequel is something written AFTER a preexisting novel.. Definition from dictionary.com:

"A literary, dramatic, or cinematic work whose narrative takes place before that of a preexisting work or a sequel."

The Hobbit is and never was considered a prequel.. It was simply a book written prior to the triology.. But I will agree that a prequel written at this day and age, would be absolutely horrible..

Actually, it is sort of a prequel (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914562)

Tolkien specifically revised "The Hobbit" after he wrote much of "The Lord of the Rings" in order to make it fit better.

Re:Actually, it is sort of a prequel (1)

Danzigism (881294) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914654)

thats understandable.. but it's still not a prequel.. thats just a revised edition..

Re:Prequel is not what you think.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16914926)

Read your own definition: "A literary, dramatic, or cinematic work whose narrative takes place before that of a preexisting work or a sequel." Since LOTR is a sequel to The Hobbit, and its narrative takes place before LOTR, then the Hobbit it a prequel to LOTR.

Now we can get the RIGHT version made !!! (5, Funny)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914522)

Now nothing stands in the way of the ideal Hollywood version, with Paris Hilton as Galadriel, Ben Affleck as Gandalf, Jack Black as Sam Gamgee, and Keanu Reeve as Frodo ("The ring... Whoa!")

Re:Now we can get the RIGHT version made !!! (1)

xlordtyrantx (958605) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914764)

Whoa, ok, we are talking about the Hobbit. There is no Frodo or Sam at this point. Just trying to make sure this is clear. It only going to be Gandalf, Bilbo, and the Dwarves.

Re:Now we can get the RIGHT version made !!! (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914804)

"Whoa, ok, we are talking about the Hobbit. There is no Frodo or Sam at this point"

Dude, we're talking Hollywood. You'll not only have Frodo and Sam, you'll also have appearances by Smith of Wooten Major, Morgoth, Rand al'Thor and Optimus Prime.

Hoooray!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16914530)

Let George Lucas do it!!!

Then we would never want^H^H^H^Hneed to watch movies again...

I felt a disturbance in the Force... (1)

Volatile_Memory (140227) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914556)

...as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, bla, bla bla.

v.m

How about no? (2, Interesting)

CharAznable (702598) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914726)

How about not making the Hobbit at all? I loved the Lord Of The Rings movies, but for all the good in them, they ruined the books forever for me. When I read them now, I can't help but imagine Frodo being Elijah Wood and Gandalf being Ian McKellen. Every picture that had been formed in my mind by reading the books has been wiped over and replaced with Peter Jackson's vision, and that sucks.

Movie studio screwing someone over money? (5, Interesting)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914750)

I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you. I mean who ever heard of a movie studio cheating someone out of their money? Really, it goes to show you, it doesn't matter who you are, the movie studio will try anything to keep their money.

Like the RIAA's accounting, movie studio accounting is even more devious. Whenever someone tries to get paid a "part of the profits" for which they deserve, the studios always pull the "but according to our estimates, we didn't make money on that film." That's why there will never be a Forrest Gump sequel. The author, Winston Groom, was supposed to get a part of the profits. But according to Paramount, Forrest Gump didn't make any profits despite its $600+ million in sales. So he refuses to let the sequel become a movie.

Another example is the dispute between Art Buchwald and Paramount. [wikipedia.org] Buchwald pitched a script to Paramount about a movie in which Eddie Murphy playing an African king comes to America to look for a bride. After some development with director John Landis, it was abandoned. Paramount later produced a movie called Coming to America about an African prince played by Eddie Murphy that comes to America to find a bride. John Landis directed the movie. But according to Paramount, they were different movies completely. When Buchwald won his lawsuit, Paramount then argued the movie that though it had $350 million in sales, it made no profit according to their accounting. The court found their accounting "unconscionable". Rather than have the court delve into their accounting practices in detail, Paramount settled.

Quentin Tarantino is interested in doing it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16914758)

That's the rumor.

Oh well (1)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914842)

Looks like he'll have loads of time to continue working on the Halo movie instead!

The only thing worse... (1)

IrishLimey (938545) | more than 7 years ago | (#16914844)

The only thing worse would be the news of George Lucas being announced as the new writer/director of the films. ...Mesa wants my precious.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...