The problematic rights issues over J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit may be cleared up, if Time Warners bid for MGM goes through. Sony Corp. seems to be the only other serious bidder... story here.

This in from Aint It Cool News... so you know it must be true!

Looks like Harry doesn't bother to read CNN... they were reporting that WB was getting closer to purchasing MGM a week ago.

But if it's true... here's hoping Jackson and Co. come back.

(Mods - if you want to delete my no-post thread on the MGM/WB merger, feel free.)

Not. Gonna. Happen.

Nevertheless, Sony will be a fool to pass up this golden opportunity. They should partner up with Time Warner and give New Line the foreign rights and keep the domestic rights at Columbia. "The Hobbit" is a $1 Billion dollar grosser waiting to happen.

Sony-Led Group to Acquire MGM for $3B

A quick update. Pretty much more of the same, but at least Jackson isn't writing off the idea of filming this. Jackson says it will be 3 to 4 years before The Hobbit goes before the cameras...



Full story here.

Well, at least Jackson is still talking about making this movie. I hadn't heard anything about it since the DVD release of RotK, until now.

I heard some rumors a long time ago that if PJ does make this movie, Arwen would have a central role. Don't get me wrong, I like Arwen , but I don't quite see how she could fit into this story. Nevertheless, I'll be happy if he makes it at all.

Sheesh!! Why didn't they think to consider filming "The Hobbit" before they filmed the rest of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy??! ?
The "Hobbit" was the opener, and the most important episode, to boot.

From what I understand, New Line didn't have the rights to the Hobbit, and New Line was the best studio for the LOTR movies.

I like that they filmed the trilogy first. The ring and Bilbo are really the only connection between the two stories (maybe Gimli, son of Gloin), and I personally prefer LOTR anyway. They also had several references to the Hobbit, especially in the first film, so they at least acknowledged it in case they never did acquire the rights.

MGM announces plans to make this film in "one or two installments". Oy vey. Is there really enough material here for TWO movies? And is there any natural place to put a cliffhanger?

Also, is Peter Jackson really the person we want to tell this story? I'm all in favour of using the props and sets and even the actors from the earlier films ... but is this really the same kind of story?

I would have mixed feelings about seieng Jackson as the director. He would need to take a hint from the critics of Kong and try to restrain himself from going over the top at every possible opportunity.

The Hobbit is a much smaller story, and needs to be treated that way. If it's going to work, it'll be made with a lighter touch.

They'll need to stick to the text, without bloating small episodes into big action set pieces.

I'm confident that Serkis would be a highlight as Gollum again, but could they restrain themselves from writing Gollum a larger role?

And they absolutely must not sacrifice important episodes in order to make room for a sprawling 20-minute battle scene at the end. (So please, dear Lord, keep it away from Adamson.)

If Holm's going to play Bilbo, they'll have to do some marvelous effects work to make him seem younger. (I think McKellen's still in great condition to play Gandalf the Gray.)

Anybody have a good candidate for a young Ian Holm, a middle-aged Bilbo? Hitchhiker's Martin Freeman, perhaps?

Indeed--remember that Gandalf is NOT human and was never any "younger"...

Indeed. Overall, I think I would want Jackson to be at the helm to keep as much continuity of feel between LOTR and The Hobbit. But you're right he would need to go about it in a somewhat different way. And two movies is just ridiculous. By splitting the story (presumably in the hope of having two blockbusters) they run the danger of making both parts into complete turkeys.


Good suggestion. James McAvoy? By the time this film happens we won't think Tumnus every time we see him (though encountering him in real life dispels the connection immediately - it's the legs I think, and the fact that he's fully clothed, and his strong Scottish accent).

Or how about this for a wierd suggestion: since Holm played Frodo in the classic BBC radio adaptation of LOTR from the early 80s, how about using Elijah Wood? He'd need different prosthetics of course, but we'd feel there was a certain family likeness!

tony

I think Wood wouldn't even consider the part, in order to avoid typecasting. Just a guess, though. (And I'd rather see Sean Astin if we're going to take anyone from LOTR.)

Brian Blessed IS Beorn. 'Nuff said.

Well, FWIW, Holm DID play the Hobbit-era Bilbo only a few years ago, albeit very, very briefly, in the FOTR prologue in Gollum's cave. Is it so inconceivable that he could do it again? It would give the films great continuity.

I'm hip.

Putting aside my entirely negative feelings about a PJ-helmed Hobbit, Freeman could be fun. But I'll stick out my purist neck and offer up an unabashed 100% American voice that I still think might be able to bring some fun to the party: Josh Molina.

Yup, you can laugh now. But I've got you thinking...come on...think think think.

Re: McKellen and Gandalf's age -- it was my impression that in the Lord of the Rings films, McKellen played Gandalf a little "older" (more coughing, stiffer limbs, etc.) in the EARLY scenes, and then got "younger" when he changed from Gandalf the Grey to Gandalf the White. So if McKellen himself should have less "acting" to do when it comes time to play Gandalf the Grey again ... well, it wouldn't necessarily pose any continuity problems.

Todd,

I'm thinking, thinking, thinking... and I just don't see it. You'll have to persuade me.

During an interview years back, Fran Walsh once pointed out the difficulty of making distinct and well-rounded characters out of all the dwarfs. I wonder if that would indeed pose a dramatic problem.

I was Bombur in my junior high play. I had yards of 3 inch foam around my middle. It does not belabor my modesty to say I was the most well-rounded of the Dwarves.

Do you think that MGM will get Orlando Bloom to do a Legolas-cameo in Tharanduil's palace?

I don't like monkeying around with characters like that (I was intensely irritated by the lack of Glorfindel in LOTR) but in this case I think it's not a bad idea.

And what about Arwen? If we're going to Rivendell, will she pay Bilbo a visit?

And then we could flash back to Arwen from time to time, watching her worrying through her day. And when Bilbo gets knocked out at the battle of the Five Armies, it could be Arwen who psychically awakens Bilbo by wiggling her fingers while lying on her couch.

Now I also expect:

--Christopher Lee and Cate Blanchett to appear in a cutaway scene explaining what Gandalf was doing while he wasn't with the adventurers (including a 5 to 10 minute battle scene attacking Dol Guldur).

--John Rhys-Davies reuniting with his father Gloin at the Battle of Five Armies

--Viggo Mortensen in the background while Arwen greats Bilbo at Rivendell.

--The cat-eyed orc from Moria (or at least his cousin).

I don't like the sound of these 'ere cameos and flash-backs.

I was of the opinion that Jackson might be OK to do The Hobbit if he could keep himself in check. But
Peter Chattaway's blog doesn't ecnourage me at all.


I can understand the temptation from Jackson's side, but he needs to think about the story itself and how to do justice to that. All the LOTR back story would be fun, but it would surely wreck the narrative of The Hobbit itself.

Viggo back? Dang, I was just kidding--didn't think he'd take me seriously! Maybe Jackson could add in the original fall of Osgiliath to the Witch King (including both Bean and Wenham)--so a flashback to a flashback only in the TTT:EE! See, this could help set the context for the wider movements going on that prompted Gandalf to spur Thorin's quest to get his gold--we all know that the only reason for Gandalf's involvement in "The Hobbit" was to eliminate Smaug as a threat on the Free People's northern flank.

Hmm. Are you sure the motivation was entirely political? Both Gandlaf and Smaug have a long history - I wonder whether Gandalf and Sauron may have been at school together and raided a dragon's nest while egg-collecting, taking an egg out of which eventually hatched Smaug who was incensed at being taken away from his mother. Meanwhile, Sauron, having had his fingers burnt, turns into the school bully... Jackson could a trilogy of 3-hour films out of all this!

I just want to see the Riddle Game. The rest of it can go hang.

Precisely.

MGM reveals how they plan to divide the two movies . . .

Not sure I like the two-movie idea. Inevitably, the second film will drift away from Tolkien and into the realm of Hollywood speculation...do we really need films about obscure events that happened around the time of The Hobbit? I can see that getting monotonous and sort of pointless after a while...Then again, if PJ makes it, I know I'll still pay to see it.

The Hobbit really could fit into one three-hour movie, IMO.

Heck, Rankin/Bass covered The Hobbit in 90 minutes, and, for all of its wince-worthy flaws, I still enjoy that version.

I feel somewhat calmer about the two-film business now I know that the plan is not to split The Hobbit itself over two films.

I still worry that Jackson will be too heavy handed for it, but on the other hand I've come to think that I would prefer to have a consistency of approach across all the films rather than have someone else come along with a totally different style so that they don't feel connected.

The film of linking material has some appeal I've concluded. There's plenty of back-story from LOTR which would allow the two to be tied together nicely. The challenge there will be having a coherent enough narrative I suspect.

Peter Jackson wants to make The Hobbit.

But apparently, he won't be the one.

So... um... who SHOULD direct it?

ALFONZO CUARON!!

Anybody who can deliver A Little Princess, make The Prisoner of Azkaban into the best of the Potter films, and then can create a standard-setting sci-fi epic like Children of Men gets my vote.

I can't think of anybody better.

Del Toro can do fantasy brilliantly, but he's too dark. Gilliam's fighting to save his reputation after Brothers Grimm and Tideland. Spielberg? Forget it. Not his kind of thing. Andrew Adamson? Please, Lord, no.

Good call. He'd get my vote.

Funny, when I first heard about Jackson making The Hobbit I wasn't thrilled at all, but the more I reflected on it the more I thought he should. And now I feel deeply disappointed.

Quite a disingenuous little note from PJ. I'm shocked, shocked I say, that New Line is moving on to a new director after being sued by the LOTR oscar-winner for a larger portion of the profits.

I would have liked to have seen a PJ helmed Hobbit, but now I'm on pins and needles waiting for the soon-to-be announced Brett Ratner version!

Buckeye, that's a really scary thought, especially since X3 was such a huge hit.

But CinemaBlend has got the rumor mill started by saying they're hearing rumblings about Jean-Pierre Jeunet.

And now TheOneRing.net thinks it's likely to be...

SAM RAIMI.

Don't be too shocked. The lawsuit over FOTR was filed while they were still in production on The Return of the King, as I recall. Jackson isn't suing for a "larger portion of the profits" -- he's suing over standard studio practices that hide profits and allow even blockbusters to be accounted as if they were financial failures (which allows them to stint on back-end payment). Jackson's contracts for TTT and ROTK were written differently specifically because of the irregularities over FOTR.

This is likely not the end of the story, either. Jackson understands the influence that the fanbase wields, and his letter is undoubtedly at attempt to embarass New Line into rethinking its position. OR -- the situation is being manipulated by New Line in order to get Jackson to publically admit that his desire to make The Hobbit is not about money, but about passion for the project, so that they can negotiate a lower fee.

Nothing is what it seems in the film business, laddies. Nothing. It's the nature of the beast, the grand illusion.

Studio Briefing reported today that Saul Zaentz is guaranteeing that Peter Jackson will make the film, if only because the rights revert to Zaentz next year and Zaentz is personally guaranteeing that Jackson can make the movie however he wants to make it, but when you check the website quoted by Studio Briefing, you discover that Zaentz said this at least a week ago -- well BEFORE Jackson said he was dropping the project.

I find this intriguing because, when Jackson wrote that letter explaining why he was dropping the project, he basically said that New Line was "committed" to making the film within a year, with or without him, because "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)".

So it looks like Jackson wrote his letter AFTER Zaentz had publicly signalled that Jackson didn't NEED New Line Cinema in order to make this movie -- and both he and Zaentz could be gambling that New Line will be unable to make the movie WITHOUT them in the next twelve months. (I mean, sure, New Line could give the greenlight to a film version of The Hobbit, but would any of the LotR actors want to come back if Jackson was not on board? And who owns the digital code for Gollum, etc. -- Wingnut/Weta, or New Line? And how marketable would a Hobbit movie be WITHOUT any of those cast or crew members?)

(Or, hmmm, is it possible that New Line might make its own Hobbit movie next year, and then Zaentz and Jackson will go ahead and make ANOTHER one right away? Y'know, kind of like what Marvel is doing with that new film version of The Incredible Hulk?)

The editors at TheOneRing.net have asked me to contribute a commentary about the Jackson-Hobbit controversy. When they publish my column, I'll add a link here.

In the meantime, I've come out with a "revised edition" of the LOTR coverage at Hollywood Jesus, spending nearly a week cleaning tidying up the 80+ webpages of reviews, interviews, commentary, and guest articles (including one from Jeffrey Overstreet) that I assembled over five years. There's literally over 200,000 words of unique content there -- and if folks are unfamiliar with my books on Tolkien and Jackson, a big chunk of the content is available at HJ -- plus artwork!!

I'm really very proud of the work I did at HJ during those years, and am very happy to offer this updated "edition" at the "New Look" Hollywood Jesus, though I no longer am on staff there. Highlights include Jeffrey's guest feature, the entire interview series, and my entire catalogue of 28 feature articles.

Check it out, and please comment here if you see fit.

Bob Shaye says Peter Jackson will never work for New Line again. Not that New Line will matter for much longer ...

History shows that people who publically say such things usually lose their jobs soon after.

TheOneRing.net has just published my guest editorial on the subject. Read it, if you care to.