Peter Jackson will not direct "The Hobbit"

[Renegade Paladin]

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112100505.html)
Jackson Says He Won't Be Making `Hobbit'

The Associated Press
Tuesday, November 21, 2006; 10:27 AM

WELLINGTON, New Zealand -- Peter Jackson says he will not be directing a movie based on J.R.R. Tolkien's novel "The Hobbit" or a planned prequel to "The Lord of the Rings."

In a letter posted on Theonering.com., Jackson and partner Fran Walsh said an executive from New Line Cinema had called to tell them the studio was moving ahead with "The Hobbit" without him.

"Last week, Mark Ordesky called Ken (Kamins, Jackson's manager) and told him that New Line would no longer be requiring our services on `The Hobbit' and the LOTR `prequel,'" the 45-year-old New Zealand director wrote.

"This was a courtesy call to let us know that the studio was now actively looking to hire another filmmaker for both projects," he said.

Robert Pini, a New York-based representative for New Line Cinema, said Tuesday the studio had no comment.

New Line Cinema holds the rights to produce "The Hobbit" and Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer has the rights to distribute it.

Jackson, who shepherded Tolkien's Middle-earth saga to the screen in a series of three films, won a best-director Oscar for 2003's "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King." The trilogy also includes 2002's "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" and 2001's "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring."

A spokesman for Wingnut Films, Jackson's production company in Wellington, who spoke on his standard condition that he not be named, confirmed Tuesday the letter was genuine.

The announcement came amid an ongoing dispute between Wingnut Films and New Line Cinema over the amount Jackson was paid for "The Fellowship of the Ring," including DVD payments.

While Jackson hasn't said how much he believes he was underpaid, The New York Times last year quoted his lawyers as saying it was as much as $100 million. He is suing New Line Cinema over the shortfall.

The Dominion Post newspaper quoted Jackson as saying that because he and Walsh didn't want to discuss upcoming movies "until the lawsuit is resolved, the studio is going to have to hire another director."

"We are very sorry our involvement with `The Hobbit' has ended this way," the pair added.

Plans for Jackson to make a $128 million movie version of the sci-fi video game "Halo" were also scrapped this month after backers 20th Century Fox and Universal Pictures pulled out.

Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy grossed nearly $3 billion at box offices worldwide.

[Logic]

I thought he was also slated to direct the Halo movie, but I hear he is not directing that either.

[Renegade Paladin]

He's not directing it because the project was pulled; Universal and Fox both backed out of the deal.

[Glarx]

Pity, Halo would have been an amazing movie. Perhaps Blizzard could do it? After all, they did such great work in the cinematic for World of Warcraft. Indeed, Blizzard and Bungie, together. Hmm...now THAT is something I'd pay to see. But who would direct it...?

[Yossarian]

Great. They kicked out the one man actually capable of making Tolkien even more trite and longwinded.

I hope you're proud of yourselves, New Line.

[General Leitmann]

Pity, Halo would have been an amazing movie. Perhaps Blizzard could do it? After all, they did such great work in the cinematic for World of Warcraft. Indeed, Blizzard and Bungie, together. Hmm...now THAT is something I'd pay to see. But who would direct it...?

I could not picture Halo the movie being animated. If that were the case, even a veteran Halo-er would turn away from it.

[TinSoldier]

Great. They kicked out the one man actually capable of making Tolkien even more trite and longwinded.

I hope you're proud of yourselves, New Line.Wait... what?

I am saddened by this. I can't see anyone else doing better than making a hash of this.

[Jerthanis]

Well, Peter Jackson is the master of taking plots without a whole lot of, you know... EVENTS, but a lot of thematic stuff (LotR/King Kong) and making actually watchable movies which are still longer than they need to be.

And since in the Hobbit, stuff is happening all the freakin' time, and it's practically an action movie with how much fighting and adventure there is in every chapter, while in LotR there were like, three battles and a lot of moving over terrain.

I mean, the Hobbit's awesomeness (and clear superiority to the LotR IMHO) is proven in Bilbo's blustering speech where he is trying to intimidate a freakin' dragon by talking about all the awesome stuff he's done so far, "Barrel Rider" and "Spider Slayer" and so forth... and it's all stuff he actually did. All in a short book, no more than 300 pages or something. When LotR is a 1000+ page story where a total of approximately 8 awesome things happen, at least three of which happened "offscreen" in the books.

So in my mind, they don't NEED Peter Jackson to make the Hobbit watchable.

[Wizzardman]

Yeah, but continuitywise, it would kinda help to have the same person who directed LOTR to direct The Hobbit.

Besides, we already know that Peter Jackson is a good director--at least in my opinion. Having Jackson do it at least would have insured that it was good. There are plenty of easy to hire and popular directors out there who absolutely suck at making good movies.

Can you imagine what the Hobbit would be like if they had Chris Columbus direct it? [wince]

[TinSoldier]

Or maybe Uwe Boll?

[Puck]

I think this cartoon pretty much says it all:

http://archive.gamespy.com/comics/dorktower/images/comics/dorktower536.gif

[Yossarian]

Well, Peter Jackson is the master of taking plots without a whole lot of, you know... EVENTS, but a lot of thematic stuff (LotR/King Kong) and making actually watchable movies which are still longer than they need to be.

And since in the Hobbit, stuff is happening all the freakin' time, and it's practically an action movie with how much fighting and adventure there is in every chapter, while in LotR there were like, three battles and a lot of moving over terrain.

I mean, the Hobbit's awesomeness (and clear superiority to the LotR IMHO) is proven in Bilbo's blustering speech where he is trying to intimidate a freakin' dragon by talking about all the awesome stuff he's done so far, "Barrel Rider" and "Spider Slayer" and so forth... and it's all stuff he actually did. All in a short book, no more than 300 pages or something. When LotR is a 1000+ page story where a total of approximately 8 awesome things happen, at least three of which happened "offscreen" in the books.

So in my mind, they don't NEED Peter Jackson to make the Hobbit watchable.

Well... I can agree with the gist of your analysis, at least to the extent that I can observe the phenomenon of Peter Jackson's directing as you describe it. His general directorial strategy seems to be to pare the story down to one hour of film time, then pad out the movie with an additional two hours of action scenes. If he had any talent at directing dramatic action sequences, this would be a very sound movie-making strategy. While he's handled the large-scale battle scenes competently enough, though, his very favorite scene to shoot is the monster scene--and I've found most of his monster scenes to be positively unwatchable.

Unfortunately I think Tin Soldier's assessment is probably correct; whoever they bring in to replace him will probably make a hash of The Hobbit, for exactly the same reason you mentioned. The pacing is vastly quicker and more upbeat, and a lot of things happen--probably too many for most directors to maintain the integrity of the narrative, whether they try to cram everything in or make strategic cuts. So, I'm betting they cut out too much stuff and yes, make a hash out of it.

Not that that wouldn't have happened anyhow. Come on--if Peter Jackson directed it, you know the spider scene would have taken up 90 minutes. Even if the studio let him hit four hours he wouldn't be able to fit in everything else after that.

[BDO]

A german movie site (http://www.kino.de) states in a side line, that a MGM spokesman said, they will fight for Jackson making the movie...

So let's see what will happen.

[Renegade Paladin]

Or maybe Uwe Boll?
Let us never speak of this again. *Shudder*

[Lord Fullbladder, Master of Goblins]

Of course, The Hobbit won't need Petey to make it watchable. It's already been condensed into a very watchable, slightly-over-an-hour animated film dating back to the eighties. Sure, it skipped such things as Beorn and the Arkenstone, but that's really no different than cutting out friggin' Tom Bombadil out of the Fellowship of the Ring.

I'm just disappointed that Jackson, having made the populace, even those who are illiterate and/or hate fantasy/Tolkien, love the Lord of the Rings, is cut short before making possibly THE most anticipated movie since... God, I'm not much of movie buff, so bare with me here... something or other. He'd be able to make it the best, though I cannot explain why.

Note: Please excuse my rant running short. I was unfortunately interrupted in the middle of it.

[bosssmiley]

This is for the best. No, I'm serious here. Hear me out. Prequels, as an almost invariable rule, suck donkeys. Amirite? Therefore even a PJ-directed "The Hobbit" would ultimately be a disappointment. We know the end, we've seen Middle Earth before, and, to be quite honest, "The Hobbit" is just a triter, more limited version of the LOTR plot.

Sure, I'll miss seeing Smaug on the big screen, but he'll always look cooler in my head. Better that PJ makes other films instead; that way he can't do a Lucas on us. :smalltongue:

[ray53208]

i really couldnt care less about halo. why do we need another crappy video game movie? as for the hobbit not being directed by peter jackson: thats totally insane! its been my opinion that most entertainment execs suffer from gluttial-cranial displacement syndrome.

without peter jackson the hobbit will tank. big time.

[Renegade Paladin]

Well, the major difference between the Halo movie and the other recent video game movies is that the hack known as Uwe Boll wasn't going to direct Halo. :tongue:

[Wayril]

Nooooo! I wanted Halo to come out. It probably would be another Doom even though it has a good storyline. But Gears of War is the best fps I've ever played and has a really cool storyline. That should be made into a movie.

[Myatar_Panwar]

Ahhhh Crap! But It says, "until the lawsuit is resolved they will have to hire another director." Couldent they just wait until this is all resolved until they direct the movie, or are they being forced to make this movie by the deadline by Demons from the very Abyss? I mean, I personally would wait for this.

[Logic]

Nooooo! I wanted Halo to come out. It probably would be another Doom even though it has a good storyline. But Gears of War is the best fps I've ever played and has a really cool storyline. That should be made into a movie.
It isn't an FPS, it's a TPS. But it still rocks hardcore.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

This is for the best. No, I'm serious here. Hear me out. Prequels, as an almost invariable rule, suck donkeys.

...snip...

Better that PJ makes other films instead; that way he can't do a Lucas on us. :smalltongue:

Um... LotR is a sequel to The Hobbit, dontcha know. That's the order they were written in, not the other way round.

I don't care who makes The Hobbit, just as long as they stick to the story and most of the dialogue. Otherwise, let's just leave it unmade.

[Lord of the Helms]

Well, considering I absolutely hated the LotR movies and wish I hadn't ever watched that tripe, this is awesome news.

[SDF]

My thesbian friend told me about this and he is steamed over it. I really hope they try to stick to Jackson's "style" and they might not completely ruin it. Or they could hire a good director like Cameron.

[Dinosxanthi]

Well, considering I absolutely hated the LotR movies and wish I hadn't ever watched that tripe, this is awesome news.



If the above comes from a person that liked/loved the books and thought the movied distorted/destroyed his mental image, I understand your opinion even though I disagree.

But on first reading your post, my first thought was "burn the heretic"

I loved the books, I am a student of English literature but I also loved the movie. IMO, losing PJ from the boat is a major bad decision.
I hope this changes.

[The Black Prince]

You know that he is supposed to direct a His Majesty's Dragon Movie. For those of you who haven't read it it's a Napoleonic Wars Alternative History. WITH DRAGONS. Seriousl there are three books out so far pick His Majesty's dragon up. Read it. And Watch the coming up movie. (Hopefully)

[Death, your friend the Reaper]

Looks like we aren't going to get to see a hobbit riddle a dragon.

Pity, I am sure everyone that saw the trilogy would go just because they were curious...

[Lord of the Helms]

If the above comes from a person that liked/loved the books and thought the movied distorted/destroyed his mental image, I understand your opinion even though I disagree.



That would be the case, yes. I shall not elaborate on this, done it before and it tends to lead to endless rants on my behalf.

I'll just stick to "Yay! No more Jackson!" :smallbiggrin:

[PaleAngel]

I think the thing that disturbs me the most is that he's neither directing The Hobbit, nor the other untitled LotR prequel. Unless they're filming the Silmarillion, we don't need a second prequel, and it's arguable if we actually need a live-action Hobbit as well.

And on a side note, Peter Jackson was never directing the Halo movie, he was executive producing it, with a first time director in the helm.

[bosssmiley]

Um... LotR is a sequel to The Hobbit, dontcha know. That's the order they were written in, not the other way round.

Thanks Altair, I am vaguely aware of that. :smalltongue:

Any "The Hobbit" movie would stand in relation to Jackson's LOTR trilogy in such a way as to fit the definition of a prequel per "Godfather" and "Star Wars" (the best and most famous instances of 'prequelism'); a film made after the original exploring related events chronologically or thematically prior to those shown in the first made film. So in film terms "The Hobbit" = "LOTR prequel".

[The J Pizzel]

I'm crying.

(and yes, PJ is exec. producer of halo, not director - very big difference...and yes - I said is exec. producer; because if i shut my eyes and pretend i didn't read the above article; then these nightmares will all go away)

[BlueWizard]

They are being cheap! Pay him the money! I want the movie to be consistant!


Movie STUDIOS: PAY JACKSON WHATEVER!

[Ravyn]

Pity, that. I have to wonder what they're thinking.

And easy on the tripe-calling. While there were a lot of things that Jackson could have done better and things that really would have been switched, he has to have done something right with LotR--it restored a pretty hefty portion of my faith in book-into-movie that had been shattered since my run-in with Disney's attempt at the Black Cauldron, after all, and got my sister, who'd been soured on early portions of The Hobbit (*shrugs* Whatever.) to give Tolkein a chance--and my family's long contact list of serious Tolkein fans had no glaring complaints. Amusing commentary, yes.

[Mr. Moon]

This is just getting out now? I've known this since the third movie came out on DVD. Although I hear he's bought the rights to the Tememire serries, which I read every now and then.

[Xerillum]

Sure, it skipped such things as Beorn and the Arkenstone, but that's really no different than cutting out friggin' Tom Bombadil out of the Fellowship of the Ring.


Yeah. Freakin' tom bombadil and the barrows! If he did it, they'd likely cut out something like Bilbo in the barrels, or something.

[Warlord]

Whatever your concerns, I think that Tom Bombadil was a serious space eater. It had no bearing on the plot and nothing important was lost in deleting that portion in the script.

As Jerthanis mentioned, some parts were cut out of the show, but from a director's point of view, surely being able to convey a watchable story (which I'm sure some may dispute, but I think the majority agree was at least worth sitting down for) is more important than how many things you can cram into a show? After all, try to cram too many concepts into a show and you'll wind up with a confused audience wondering what the hell happened. After all, many viewers will not have read the books to help them figure out what's going on.

As far as I'm concerned, I think Jackson did a good job and if the allegations are true, I wish New Line wouldn't stiff him of his deserved payment.