Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Lord of the Rings Media Movies

New Hope for Jackson Hobbit Film? 268

Posted by Zonk
from the something-worth-fighting-for dept.
DrJimbo writes "Just in time for the 70th Anniversary of the Hobbit (published September 21, 1937) Entertainment Weekly has a 5-page article on a possible reconciliation between Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema that may pave the way for the director of the Lord of the Rings trilogy to return and helm the filming of The Hobbit. It was previously reported here that Jackson would not be making the Hobbit film. The EW article says that Jackson wants to make two films: first the Hobbit in its entirety and then another film that bridges the roughly 60 years between the end of the Hobbit and the start of the Lord of the Rings. Unfortunately Jackson already has a lot on his plate with filming of The Lovely Bones scheduled to start this month and a live action Tintin film in the works."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Hope for Jackson Hobbit Film?

Comments Filter:
  • Not public domain (Score:3, Insightful)

    by speaker of the truth (1112181) on Monday October 08, 2007 @07:05AM (#20896409)
    70 years on and The Hobbit isn't in the public domain. It truly is a shame to see our constitution thwarted in this manner.
    • by dave420 (699308) on Monday October 08, 2007 @07:58AM (#20896871)
      Where in the constitution does it talk about British books?
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by struppi (576767)

        I wanted to ask (almost) exactly the same thing, but then I decided that I don't know very much about copyright law in the US or the UK. Anyway, it seems that in the USA

        In addition, works published before 1964 that did not have their copyrights renewed 28 years after first publication year also are in the public domain, except that books originally published outside the US by non-Americans are exempt from this requirement, if they are still under copyright in their home country (see How Can I Tell Whether

        • These are special cases involving the extensions of copyright. If a book is copyrighted for 1,000 years in England, that doesn't mean it will remain copyrighted for 1,000 years in America.
        • by LWATCDR (28044)
          It is an the copyright is extended by the Beren convention of which the US is a signatory of.
          Want to blame someone go after Victor Hugo.
      • The law doesn't differentiate between American or non-American works (except for works surrounding the period of when the extensions are granted).
      • Re:Not public domain (Score:5, Informative)

        by KutuluWare (791333) <kutulu.kutulu@org> on Monday October 08, 2007 @12:25PM (#20900097) Homepage
        That would be Article I, Section 8:

        The Congress shall have power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries


        As with so many people in these near-xenophobic times, you appear to be making the incorrect assumption that the Constitution only applies to US Citizens. When the constitution means "United States" things, it explicitly says so. Section 8's enumerated power of copyright applies to all writings of authors everywhere in the world.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by CRCulver (715279)
      The Hobbit isn't the kind of book that makes me pissed off about length of copyright. After all, you can get a copy of it for as little as a dollar [amazon.com]. Meanwhile, in my own field of linguistics, there are quite old works that are still useful, but they are still under copyright. In one case, the rights are owned by the academic publisher Routledge, which obscenely prices [amazon.com] a 100-page paperback as high as $135. When students can't build up a library of important literature, and scholarship is impaired, then there
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by edwardpickman (965122)
      So I take it you were hoping for a lot of low budget knocks offs by producers like Corman and Charlie Band? "Bilbo VS Dollman" or "Puppetmaster 12, Gandalf's revenge"?
    • Sure it is ! (Score:2, Informative)

      by AftanGustur (7715)


      70 years on and The Hobbit isn't in the public domain. It truly is a shame to see our constitution thwarted in this manner.

      According to this chart [museumscopyright.org.uk], "The Hobbit" [wikipedia.org], has been in the public domain since 21st September 2007.

  • by ta bu shi da yu (687699) on Monday October 08, 2007 @07:07AM (#20896427) Homepage
    I'm interested to know if Peter Jackson will elect to star in the lead role of Bilbo.
  • by thetagger (1057066) on Monday October 08, 2007 @07:08AM (#20896431)
    Please, don't film Tintin. Thanks.
  • Er, what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by meringuoid (568297) on Monday October 08, 2007 @07:09AM (#20896439)
    another film that bridges the roughly 60 years between the end of the Hobbit and the start of the Lord of the Rings

    What exactly happens, of any interest, in that period? Bilbo uses the Ring a few times to avoid the Sackville-Bagginses. Writes memoirs. Lends mithril armour to the Michel Delving Mathom-house. Wow, riveting stuff.

    In the wider world, Sauron has returned to Mordor and is rebuilding Barad-dur. Three hours on an Orcish construction site, then?

    The only excitement you might get is following Aragorn incognito in the guard of Minas Tirith. But to what end?

    • by Zocalo (252965)
      Three hours on an Orcish construction site, then?

      Maybe it's a comedy about a bunch of Orcish misfits called "Auf Wiedersehen, Nazgul"?

      Other than that, without resorting to making stuff up, there's really not a lot going on outside Mordor is there? LoTR makes it pretty clear that pretty much everyone got caught off guard by Sauron's return to Barad-dur, and even Gandalf's suspicions only got roused by Bilbo's disappearing act at his birthday party at the start of LoTR. The only other thing I can think

    • I would guess the point of filming that period is that it would allow Jackson to make a lot of the content himself. It's probably a lot easier to please everyone that way. The lord of the rings gave him very little room for creativeness.
      • lord of the rings gave him very little room for creativeness.

        But he still took it.

        I know there are going to be people who are going to fight me on this but... I realize that Jackson had a ton of material to work with and not all of it was going to end up in the films. I understand this about The Hobbit too. What irks me is that Jackson, at points, went out of his way to botch the film-book relationship. He took up creative license in areas where the books had just as good of an answer that would have req
        • by Elemenope (905108) on Monday October 08, 2007 @08:30AM (#20897193)

          The worst is when he does it in the name of comic relief and makes what JRRT created as strong, competent elements into common oafs. The ents are a prime example of this.

          Wait...what? Of all the things, the Ents were pretty damn close to how JRR Tolkien wrote them; very deliberate to the point where they appeared slow and oafish, but terrible when roused, and pretty out-of-touch with the world in any case. If anything, Tolkien's Treebeard was sillier than Jackson's.

          On the other hand, I was pretty irritated when the elves showed up at Helm's Deep. I'll admit, 300 against tens of thousands looks pretty ridiculous on screen (even if it's Spartans v. Persians, never mind scraggly horsemen v. orcs), but the additional troops robbed it of that 'Battle of New Orleans' sort of feel, and also made the elves unnecessarily sympathetic.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            Wait...what? Of all the things, the Ents were pretty damn close to how JRR Tolkien wrote them; very deliberate to the point where they appeared slow and oafish, but terrible when roused, and pretty out-of-touch with the world in any case. If anything, Tolkien's Treebeard was sillier than Jackson's.

            Treebeard was not by any means out-of-touch with the world. He was fully aware of what was going on, as he had had many sources of information -- Gandalf and and even Saruman had once spoken often with him, beca

          • by zerocool^ (112121)

            The one thing that I did miss in the movies that wasn't there from the books was the sense of joy and mirth that the elves can have. I mean, it was much more prevalent in the Hobbit than it was in LOTR, but it was still very much out of character in the movies. The elves were always sad and somber, never happy and singing, and they were constantly singing in the books. They moved and walked and talked slowly and deliberate, whereas in the book they were whooping and hollering and asking Bilbo for a 2nd r
        • by Tet (2721)
          At this point I don't care who directs The Hobbit. In a lot of ways I don't even care if it ever gets made. This is largely due to seeing how much Jackson got away with botching LOTRs and now has set up a precedent for the future botching of JRRTs works.

          I couldn't agree more. While all around me were raving about the LOTR films, I was hanging my head in disbelief at how badly Jackson had screwed them up. I think the best possible outcome at this point would be for "The Hobbit" to never be made into a film

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by StarvingSE (875139)
            Why can't you just accept both versions as seperate works, and enjoy them. I see Jackson's LotR films as an adaptation inspired by the books. I've read the books many times over, and agree that a direct page-for-page film would be both extremely long and boring. Movies by their nature need to have dramatic events, action, and at times exaggerated events to keep the audience interested and excited. A book, on the other hand, can take more time to delve deeper since it doesn't have to fit into a 2-3 hour
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by Richard Steiner (1585)

              Why can't you just accept both versions as seperate works, and enjoy them. I see Jackson's LotR films as an adaptation inspired by the books. I've read the books many times over, and agree that a direct page-for-page film would be both extremely long and boring.

              Yes, some additions and omissions were quite understandable (though I did miss the Scourge of the Shire scene, which I think was the whole point of the original books), but there wasn't really any reason to change some of the key scenes in the

    • Re:Er, what? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by vux984 (928602) on Monday October 08, 2007 @07:49AM (#20896787)
      What exactly happens, of any interest, in that period?

      Hmm.. I'm not 100% on the timeline but...

      Gandalf and Aragorn meet. The romance of Aragorn and Arwen. Aragorn serving with the Armies of Rohan.

      Gollum pursues Bilbo from the mountains. I beleive Gandalf investigates the creature and discovers its history in this period. Mordor also captures Gollum at some point.

      The Dwarves (including Balin of the hobbits) try and retake Moria.

      Sauruman is corrupted by Mordor through the Palantir.

      Sauroman corrupts Theoden through Grima Wormtongue.

      Sauron, identified as the 'Necromancer' was discovered as the source of evil in Mirkwood and was driven out by the White Council, only to resurface later rebuilding in Mordor.

      I dunno... I've seen movies made on smaller premises than that :)

      • Re:Er, what? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by LDoggg_ (659725) on Monday October 08, 2007 @08:30AM (#20897187) Homepage
        Agreed.
        Dwarves, Elves, and Humans were already fighting Suaron on their own fronts by the time they talked about it at Elrond's Rivendell council in Fellowship. Plenty of elaborate battle scenes for Jackson to film. If they can get at least a handful of the same actors from the other movies, they'll do fine.
      • by aicrules (819392) on Monday October 08, 2007 @09:56AM (#20898119)
        They can also inject the revelation that Frodo has an unusually high midichlorian count. Something has to explain the hobbits unnatural hardiness against the dark call of the ring! Why not explain it with random new science!
    • by Fred_A (10934)
      Isn't there at least 1/2 a page in the Silmarillion telling all that's happening during all that time ?

      I suppose some kind of anthropological documentary on hole digging in the Shire and Barad-Dur building in Mordor could have some kind of thing going for it... If they get a good actor to read the commentary... They could sell it to National Geographic or something.
    • by jollyreaper (513215) on Monday October 08, 2007 @08:31AM (#20897207)

      In the wider world, Sauron has returned to Mordor and is rebuilding Barad-dur. Three hours on an Orcish construction site, then?
      Use your imagination. Think Red v. Blue, use the existing LOTR games to make a machinema of it. A sarcastic take on evil overlords from the underling point of view.

      (apologies to the English, I have a poor ear for accents)

      Orc 1: 'E's done it agin'.

      Orc 2: Wot's dat?

      Orc 1: E's gone an' changed the bloody plans ag'in.

      Orc 2: Piss off! Wot's 'e done this time?

      Orc 1: Mr. 'igh and mighty dark lord's changed the tower top. Wants to mater'alize up thair.

      Orc 2: But 'e's jus' a giant dis'm'bodied flamin' eyeball. It'll look ridik'lous!

      Orc 1: Tha's wot I said! "Barad'dur'll look like a giant bleedin' lighthouse," I says. "Wot'll you be doin', guidin' ships in o'er the flamin' lakes o' lava?"

      Orc 2: Cor, you didn'!

      Orc 1: Yes, I says it! Right to his flamin' eyeball!

      Orc 2: S'ppose that explains the singe and smoke about you. Bits're flakin' off.

      Orc 1: Yes, yes it does. So I'm off t' round up the gang. Eyeball turrets for everyone.
      • by rubycodez (864176)
        now that was some funny shit when reading the book I never thought the Eye was visible physically, just something one felt searing the mind
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08, 2007 @07:10AM (#20896445)
    Am I the only one who felt the LOTR movies were not especially good and that Jackson's eccentric style may not have been the best fit for the book?
    • by Shivetya (243324)
      While I think the movies are good I don't think they are exactly Tolkien. Its more like Peter Jackson's LOTR instead of Tolkien. A few liberties were taken but for the most part they didn't damage the story. Sure you will find a few Tolkien fanatics who can recite a dozen if not hundred changes/errors/omissions but these are the same types that would not be please unless even the dialog matched word for word... and still they would find something amiss!

      As for the whole part of "between the hobbit and LO
    • I didn't think the movies fit my experience of the books, but in hindsight I believe his interpretation is more true to the books than mine. I think it largely stems from him making it much more of an "grown up" experience than what I saw the book as. The movies were gloomy - reinforced by the soundtrack and the level of color saturation -, but the books never seemed that way to me. I read LOTR for the first time when I was around 13, and that probably has colored my impression of it a it.

    • by bkr1_2k (237627) on Monday October 08, 2007 @08:01AM (#20896899)
      No, you weren't. I was going to ask why everyone is so excited about the possibility of Jackson filming The Hobbit. Personally I think his rendition of the stories missed an awful lot of what I thought was important, not the least of which was real character development. I slept through the second and third installments. The first was an excellent start, but he failed miserably by focusing on the battles and not the characters, in my opinion.
    • by Fred_A (10934) <fred&fredshome,org> on Monday October 08, 2007 @08:01AM (#20896911) Homepage

      Am I the only one who felt the LOTR movies were not especially good and that Jackson's eccentric style may not have been the best fit for the book?
      When I think how incredibly bad it could have been, I'm really glad Jackson delivered a decent adaptation. It may not be not insanely great, but it's fair, and given the complexity of the task that's already quite something IMO.
    • Uwe Boll (Score:2, Funny)

      by ThirdPrize (938147)
      We could always get him [imdb.com] to direct it. I hear he is quite good.
      • Re:Uwe Boll (Score:5, Funny)

        by Maxo-Texas (864189) on Monday October 08, 2007 @11:46AM (#20899561)
        I was considering the impact of other directors...

        Paul Verhoeven: He would probably choose some aspect of the story and hyper emphasize it. The movie would also have blatant political satire.

        Michael Bay: The fight scenes would be dramatic, but we would not have any idea who was fighting or who was winning until the end when we finally got a somethings besides blurred elbows and bodies and the wide angle shot showed us the winners standing.

        David Lynch: A very strange film with gollem losing an ear and sauron going on and on about mommy while taking nitro.

        Joel and Ethan Coen: An offbeat humorous version with every goofy character in LOTR played up and heightened magical reality.

        David Cronenberg: Would use LOTR as a metaphor to examine the nature of reality. At the end, there would be a tie-in between Sauron and current modern reality.

        Stephen Chow: A rollicking humorous version of LOTR with lots of special effects. He would probably focus on the one on one fight scenes more than the big battle scenes. No doubt, Gandalf's robes would be reduced to tatters by the Balrog's first attack and we would see his long underwear for a comedy effect before they both tumbled into the abyss.

        Quentin Tarantino: This hyper-kenetic, super dark version of LTR would have lots of squick scenes. The lust between Aragorn and his love interest would be played up. Harvey Keitel would appear as Aragorn. Juliette Lewis would star as Arwen.

        Michael Moore: Sauron as a metaphor for corporations or the Bush presidency... The hobbits as the socialist paradise (with a scene showing how hobbits were so happy because they had socialized medicine and ate only natural food).

        Woody Allen: Woody would of course be Bilbo. Back in the day Mia Farrow would have been Arwen. Someone would have an affair.

        Night Shyamalan: Whatever happened during the movie-- the ending would involve some sort of massive twist. Perhaps it will turnout Sauron was so desperate to build power because he was trying to stop something even worse from happening (ala "colossus and crab").

        Spike Lee: Black hobbits for sure! Probably black elves. And the orcs would be white. Sure the evilness of the "white hand" would be played up.

        George Lucas: 9 hours of wonderful actors giving horrible performances... true to the plot and great special effect scenes tho.

        Clint Eastwood: Man.. I like his work but can't imagine what his version would be like. He might be aragorn tho.

        ---

        I think if people consider what we could have had.... They will realize how grateful we should be that Jackson took this on.

    • I think you have to look at the other Tolkien movies (all animated - The Hobbit, The Return of the King, and The Lord of the Rings.) Jackson did not do any worse, and in some cases much, much better.

      The main problem I had with Jackson's version is that he left out or didn't do justice to what I thought were some of the most memorable "scenes" from the book. In particular, he made the battle for Minas Tirith pretty spectacular, but things like Gandalf's standoff with the witchking, Aragon's banner coming up
  • Do we care? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Aladrin (926209) on Monday October 08, 2007 @07:13AM (#20896467)
    Do we honestly care if he directs them? I mean, we care that a bad director doesn't get to, but as long as it's a decent director, does it really matter who it is?

    On the other hand, if he manages to get a script written for the 60 year time difference, and it's not 60 years of Gandolf riding around in grey and the hobbits having teaparties (since that's basically what happened), then I'm all for the new film and Jackson. I'm not real hopeful, though, since all the really interesting stuff happened in the books and the other years weren't covered because they simply weren't that interesting.

    Or maybe someone can name some of the interesting things that supposedly happened in those 60 years? Gandolf was obviously out doing some sort of research, but I don't think anything specific was ever mentioned. And the hobbits were pretty clearly doing hobbit-like things in their little boring houses. They don't really even have politics, just a few that don't particulary care for each other from feuds that happened generations ago over silly things.
    • by sgant (178166)
      Well, if we care about the look and feel and tone to be close to the LOTR movies...then yeah.

      The Harry Potter movies have different directors and every one of them since the second one has a slightly different look and tone to it. For instance, why totally change the way certain sets look? Hagred's cabin was the same in the first two movies (that had the same director), yet in the third movie they had to go and change it to look different. That's just a "for instance".

      Granted, Bilbo will probably have to be
    • I'd be gutted if Jackson directed The Hobbit and shudder to think what he is going to change this time round.
      Will the cavalry come to the rescue again in the battle of the five armies?
      Will he really portray the elves as nasty pieces of work?
      Will he be able to capture the humour of the moment in a story that is often very amusing? LOTR (the film) wasn't exactly a laugh a minute was it despite having two natural comics in Pippin and Merry.

      What about the 60 years in-between? Well I do think we have enough info
      • by Aladrin (926209)
        I agree with you except the elves... They WERE nasty and antagonistic things in the book. The books made it VERY clear that humans were not only unwelcome, but beneath them.
        • That is indeed what I meant about the elves. After Jackson's comprehensive misrepresentation of them in LOTR I'd have real doubts about his ability to give them their real face in the Hobbit.
          Instead of Bilbo rescuing the dwarves from the spiders he'd probably have Arwen rescuing Bilbo then taking him to those nice wood elves to receive splendid gifts and advice on how to kill dragons.
          No cancel that he'll probably have Arwen riding the damn dragon.

          No cancel all of that I don't want to put ideas into his head
    • Pal, there are millions exactly waiting to see that.

      I remember, when we watched two towers with one of my friends who has never been into anything lotr, heck even fantasy and sci-fi, (he is an academics lawyer) his jaw ACTUALLY dropped in the scene where gandalf throws out his cloak and makes saruman leave theoden's body, and he wasnt able speak for a 3-4 seconds.

      boy, if some director can direct films like that, you dont let him/her go. and take no chances.
    • by Quiet_Desperation (858215) on Monday October 08, 2007 @09:58AM (#20898173)
      Or maybe someone can name some of the interesting things that supposedly happened in those 60 years?

      Well, based on secret Tolkein notes in my possession which I found taped to the back of a forgery of the Mona Lisa, Middle Earth developed transforming robot technology by deeply studying the Ents killed while deforesting vast tracts of land to build huge areas where people could shop for goods and services.

      There was eventually a brutal war that, amongst other things, reduced all subsequent Kings of Men to whiny little sissy boys with girly hair. Something to do with a demasculation spell getting tangled up with an elven birth control device.

      The technology was banned when a hobbit named Periwinkle Butler lead a jihad against "the evil devices that move of their own volition". It was actually sticken from the historical record, and people forgot all about it due to a forget spell leaking in from a parallel fantasy Universe called Xanth. This is why it's never mention in LOTR.

      They don't really even have politics

      Which makes then the most advanced and enlightened race in all of Middle Earth.
  • by bytesex (112972) on Monday October 08, 2007 @07:26AM (#20896563) Homepage
    But I'm looking forward more to the Tintin movies than to the Hobbit-one.
    • But I'm looking forward more to the Tintin movies than to the Hobbit-one.

      Then presumably you are Belgian with little experience of interesting comic books.

  • by jollyreaper (513215) on Monday October 08, 2007 @07:28AM (#20896583)
    Let's see, Jackson only made them what, $3 billion dollars? I think each movie was directly good for around a billion, plus or minus $100 million, and this is talking straight box office, not even considering DVD's, TV rights, moichandizin', etc. I would be no way surprised in hearing the total take is up to $5 billion at this point, and a project like this is going to be like Star Wars or the goddamn Beatles catalog, a fat stream of recurring revenue for decades to come. And this is off an initial investment of $300 million for the whole trilogy? Do they think they could have pulled it together without someone like Peter Jackson at the helm? By all rights, the trilogy should have flopped -- Hollywood can't do quality. LOTR being brilliant is about as long of odds as Babylon 5 finishing its entire five year run and only sucking in the last season.

    So New Line realizes they could stop buggering the goose that laid the golden egg and make another fat pile of shiny if they treat it nice? DUUUH, but still a bit of cluefulness not expected from Hollywood. Now go make the movie!
    • by Iftekhar25 (802052) on Monday October 08, 2007 @08:43AM (#20897317) Homepage

      Overall good point, but:

      And this is off an initial investment of $300 million for the whole trilogy?

      Jackson & crew actually went way over budget, and the total was closer to $500 million plus, with all the extra effects shots they had to do in the latter movies because of lack of planning in principle photography (which, understandably focused more on the first two films, which is why there's less special effects in the first films than the last one), and the need to do pick-ups, etc.

      In addition, they renegotiated contracts with pay rises for members of the crew after the crew discovered that they were really onto something, and New Line wasn't spreading the wealth.

      • by jollyreaper (513215) on Monday October 08, 2007 @10:27AM (#20898513)

        Jackson & crew actually went way over budget, and the total was closer to $500 million plus, with all the extra effects shots they had to do in the latter movies because of lack of planning in principle photography (which, understandably focused more on the first two films, which is why there's less special effects in the first films than the last one), and the need to do pick-ups, etc.
        That's part of what I find so amazing. When I was watching the commentaries and hearing about the turmoil they went through, I was shocked that the movies were great, let alone watchable. I mean, they recast Aragorn in the middle of filming! Pages of script were getting rewritten as the scenes were being acted. In the Babylon 5 commentaries, JMS descripted this as being the norm on network television and was one of the reasons why he felt he could do Babylon 5 for half the budget most would estimate, because the scripts would be written far in advance and the production staff could plan things out in advance. It's the surprises, last minute changes, and overtime pay in the mad dash to get things done that kills budgets along with quality. If I'd heard the production story before seeing the movie, I would have predicted utter failure.
  • I really enjoyed LOTR, really, but there is a project that Weta has in the pocket that I would like much more to see realized: a live-action Evangelion movie. They have being studying it for quite some time but it's "on hold" [wetaworkshop.co.nz] for quite some time already.
  • is the new "Episode IV - A New Hope"?
  • This is the only Hobbit movie [amazon.com] I need.
  • by PhilHibbs (4537) <snarks@gmail.com> on Monday October 08, 2007 @08:53AM (#20897427) Homepage Journal
    I want to see The Silmarillion [wikipedia.org] made as a mini-series!
  • I mean really. He did a good job overall, quibbling over storyline changes from the books notwithstanding. That being said, there are a lot of very competent directors out there who would jump at the chance at doing an adaptation of _The Hobbit_. The real genius was Tolkien, not Jackson. Let him have Tintin, hire another director and give us a good movie.
  • New Hope? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Spy der Mann (805235) <spydermann,slashdot&gmail,com> on Monday October 08, 2007 @09:41AM (#20897945) Homepage Journal
    - My name is Hobbit Skywalker - I've come to rescue you!
    - Are you sure you're not an Ewok in disguise?
  • by OglinTatas (710589) on Monday October 08, 2007 @09:56AM (#20898135)
    ... A New Hope

    This is the one they should have made first! I can't wait to see Episodes V and VI.
  • by abb3w (696381) on Monday October 08, 2007 @10:03AM (#20898237) Journal
    where some studio bigwig has "the intellectual capacity of an artichoke", as Harlan Ellison so famously put it.
  • HOLLYHELL, Monday — In an admirable display of synergy between hard-headed business sense and sensitivity to artistic rightness, New Line Cinemas has hired Adam Sandler to direct The Hobbit, the prequel to The Lord Of The Rings.

    "Peter Jackson may have made us three billion dollars and paved our goddamn driveways with Oscars," said a spokesdroid, "but when he dared question the three nickels and a gum wrapper payment, well. We knew we just couldn't work with someone so risibly unprofessional."

    Sandler is likely to be working under renowned producer Uwe Boll. "Okay, here is what I am thinking, ja? Your Bilbo Baggins will be a WOMAN in Nazi Germany. A naked woman. And the One Ring will not show up. And she gets raped by Hitler! Gandalf will be played by Keanu Reeves. I AM THE DIRECTOR! I mean programmer. PRODUCER."

    Jackson has lost weight, shaved his feet and gone back to his roots to make a warmhearted New Zealand-based family film in the style of his earliest works, under the working title Zombie Cancer Bukkake Pus-Nodules, with a budget in the range of over forty New Zealand dollars.

    Work at New Line continues. "We at New Line are convinced that Professor Tolkien would have agreed with us that Adam Sandler will realise her artistic vision eleventy-one percent. We've bought three years' worth of shark futures."

  • Is it too much to ask to have a date of publication listed at the start of the article? I thought this was old news the instant I read the first paragraph. The description of Homo floresiensis was first published in October 2004. (Yes, I realize that EW.com was referring to the Science article which was published last month, but they make it sound like Science broke the story.)

    The EW.com article was published October 4, 2007.
  • by Dracos (107777) on Monday October 08, 2007 @12:39PM (#20900289)

    Technically, MGM owns the production rights to The Hobbit. New Line and MGM currently have a partnership agreement to produce The Hobbit, but the rights revert back to Saul Zaentz sometime next year if principal production hasn't begun. Since Michael Shaye (president of New Line) has been such a dick to Jackson in recent months, it makes total sense for MGM to stall the process until the rights revert, then MGM and Jackson can repurchase the rights and make the film(s) Jackson wants, which will please the fans and cut New Line out of any revenue from it.

    The fans, MGM, and Zaentz all want Jackson to direct.

    Zaentz bought the film rights for all of Tolkien's works in 1971 so the Professor could pay back taxes. Tolkien didn't believe any part of Middle Earth could be done justice on the big screen.

Nothing succeeds like success. -- Alexandre Dumas

Working...