RE: I think it's called that... but not sure. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie News



Message


Flatulent_Bob -> RE: I think it's called that... but not sure. (20/11/2006 11:38:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: UGonnaBarkAllDayDog?

If only the execs had the mirror of Glandriel... then they could look into the future and see what a major fuck up this idea is going to be!


Why do you think it won't make any money?




balthamos -> Other Directors (20/11/2006 11:40:33 AM)

TBH I'm quite interested to see which directors even express and interest. I mean PJ's left some massive polyurethane footprints so they're going to have to have some guts. I think that the next question now is whether WETA will still be involved I mean Richard Taylor and Jackson get on so well. As others have mentioned I think there's a great deal of loyalty to PJ in the cast and crew so we'll have to wait and see. My heart tells me that PJ still some part to play yet for good or ill. :s sorry will go and sulk in a corner.




UGonnaBarkAllDayDog? -> I think it's called that... but not sure. (20/11/2006 11:43:58 AM)

If only the execs had the mirror of Glandriel... then they could look into the future and see what a major fuck up this idea is going to be!




D.L. -> RE: Not With Jackson! Not with us! (20/11/2006 11:46:11 AM)

In reply to Bob, cheers for the response to the post. Your point of view is interesting, but I have to say that I differ with you here. I think there is a lot of potential for Jackson to win this game.

With time Jackson's "hand” has great potential to improve as a result of the films finical difficulties. On top of this, as Empire readers are pointing out here, surely Jackson will have the backing of the LOTR's cast.

It is a great shame as you rightly point out that this matter comes down to financial issues, but of course film production for the studios is all about money. Each studio is a business so it is understandable.

I am however not simply "hoping that both MGM and New Line will miss up the chance to make hundreds of million of dollars” so that Jackson can direct. I am suggesting that if this must be about money, it would be wise for MGM to realise that they can increase their potential gain by waiting until they and producer Saul Saentz can progress with the project in 2007 without New Line. As a result MGM would not have to reach a deal with New Line and therefore would not have to share the profit margin.

Finally I'd like to add in response to your comment that "all you guys will go and watch it regardless, even if only to slag it off”, I certainly will not be seeing this film if the Jackson team are not behind it.

I would imagine that many other LOTR fans will have a similar attitude (such as The Todge for example; well in mate).

All the best.




UGonnaBarkAllDayDog? -> RE: I think it's called that... but not sure. (20/11/2006 11:51:36 AM)

It will make money, but I think its a mistake because surely with Jackson comes Ian McKellen and OBVIOUSLY Andy Serkis' Gollum!!!
Someone doing a bad impression?! Im not ready for that!




mancalledpete -> Wheres the love? (20/11/2006 12:01:56 PM)

Shocking news. The guy has the vision & the creds... A bad blow for the studio more than Jackson. Imagine a preqeuel without the same flavour & Jackson vibe... could sit totally independantly from the Big Three and be disastourous.




Dave B -> RE: Wheres the love? (20/11/2006 12:16:39 PM)

So is the problem that Jackson is asking for two much money in regards to the budget or his salary? I can understand the studio's being wary if Jackson is asking for too big a budget as his name didn't do King Kong any huge favours at the box office. Still it's a short book so surely it can't cost all that much to make?




steveg66 -> (20/11/2006 12:27:53 PM)

Who's starting the petition website to change their dumbass minds and where do I sign?




davidpanik -> Oh no no no no (20/11/2006 12:33:32 PM)

Oh no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no. It's the second prequel idea which worries me more. Oh no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no.




El-Branden Brazil -> No Jackson! NO AUDIENCE!!!! (20/11/2006 12:40:58 PM)

Jackson has made a massive impact on the world of Tolkien. To remove Jackson from The Hobbit equation is like removing Harrison Ford from Indiana Jones. You just end up with The Young Indy Jones.

Mind you, Bob Shaye took over the directorial reins of Wes Craven on the sequel to A Nightmare On Elm Street. Look what a "classic" the sequel is. BOB, CLEAR THE AIR, BE A MAN, AND GET THE REAL THING BACK ON THE PROJECT!!!

THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!!!!




Dirty Hartigan -> RE: Wheres the love? (20/11/2006 12:52:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dave B

So is the problem that Jackson is asking for two much money in regards to the budget or his salary? I can understand the studio's being wary if Jackson is asking for too big a budget as his name didn't do King Kong any huge favours at the box office. Still it's a short book so surely it can't cost all that much to make?



It's nothing to do with budget at all, mainly the lawsuit Jackson filed against New Line for profits from the trilogy that he believes he has not been paid yet, as mentioned in the article.




katbirdnz -> RE: Wheres the love? (20/11/2006 1:07:27 PM)

I've already expressed my utter disgust over in Future Films and do so again, awful awful news and if they don't backtrack and sort this shit out the amazing legacy of the LOTR trilogy and the affection and respect people all over have for it will be utterly ruined, by a bunch of moneymen c*nts in suits.
Sorry for strong feelings but i'm a Kiwi so this is doubly insulting. [&:]
I can just see it, the Hobbit directed by Paul Anderson! Starring Jim Carrey as Bilbo!!! Shot for 20 million dollars on a backlot in Bulgaria!!! [:@][:@][:@]




DGE Fuller -> So? (20/11/2006 1:14:52 PM)

I only like the first one anyway, and I could never get into the books. That said, a lot of people love these movies and their source material, and Jackson proved his mettle to me as a great epic film maker with King Kong (despite remake fever). The Hobbit could be made into a great movie by another film maker, just so long as they pay heed to the aesthetic of LOTR as established by Jackson and Co. I don't like LOTR, but this other project just seems to belittle the whole thing as much as the relentless DVD reissues and repackaging of the same action figures did already. Commercialism bites hard, people. You buy it, you break it.




easyworld -> (20/11/2006 1:27:53 PM)

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Hillsman -> Ludicrous (20/11/2006 1:31:04 PM)

Obviously, some sour grapes over the current Financial Dispute have had a bearing on this ridiculous decision. The bottom line is, no other team of writers & director has the proven track record, is more familiar with the source material or is better at telling (and in places improving) Tolkien's story. Given what has already been achieved, how can someone else come in and reproduce that sort of quality. A change of director's almost always leads to disaster. This is a sad day for Rings fans everywhere.




sir_sich -> RE: Ludicrous (20/11/2006 1:33:36 PM)

Obviously it's going to drag-on [:D] because of the money, but the big question is...will Orlando return as Legolas? The story takes them to his daddy's home, so we'll obviuosly hear him say, 'Father, the dwarves are coming!' and a few acrobatics at the end




Miksterious -> RE: Ludicrous (20/11/2006 1:36:51 PM)

One of two things is going to happen.

Either New Line will push through with this quickly, in which case we will PROBABLY end up with a poor director, which will result in no returning cast members and a half-arsed script.

Or they will find that they cant get a production this size underway so quickly and the rights will end up reverting back to Saul Saentz who has already indicated that he wants PJ to do the film through MGM.

One way is potentially tremendous, the other dangerous.




khac6876 -> Dear New Line (20/11/2006 1:52:10 PM)

No, stop it.
You'd hope that McKellan, Holm and Serkis would all say no when New Line start throwing money at them. But that would require actors to have a degree of integrity, so fat chance.




Flatulent_Bob -> RE: Wheres the love? (20/11/2006 1:52:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: katbirdnz

I can just see it, the Hobbit directed by Paul Anderson! Starring Jim Carrey as Bilbo!!! Shot for 20 million dollars on a backlot in Bulgaria!!! [:@][:@][:@]


I would say it would cost £20 Million to get Carrey on his own.
Dave B has a point about Jacksons cut.  There is much more to this than meets the eye and you aren't going to get the full story from a press release by one of the parties involved.   Jackson isn't the same box office gold that he was after ROTK, he did take a big hit with Kong but I feel he wants the money to make The Hobbit. As I said before Jackson needs to give some ground not the otherway around. If New Line has no choice they will make this film before 2007 between them and MGM they aren't going to let a potential $2 Billion go without a fight. Do you think MGM will stick to their guns when half this sum is waved in their direction?




Deckard** -> aka Batman and Robin (20/11/2006 1:57:20 PM)

Poor showing from New Line. It was Jackson and his teams passion for the LOTR novels which resulted in there being such great films with great performances. New Line will be looking at the bottom line so will hire a director who'll cut the film like they want and i think if any of the cast return they'll do it for the money alone and not the movie maker




Miksterious -> RE: aka Batman and Robin (20/11/2006 2:06:35 PM)

You need to think about the stars who were handpicked for LotR. None of them work for the money, all of them work for the craft.




rams -> (20/11/2006 2:08:00 PM)

Who wants to bet they will put Brett Ratner on this?
They better be bringing Ian Mackellen back,and what's with this "other"prequel that ties in to LOTR?If Tolkien didn't wrote it they shouldn't be doing it.If they do it than soon we will have sequels to the Return of the King,which is bad because It was intended to be the end of Tolkien's Universe.




Flatulent_Bob -> RE: aka Batman and Robin (20/11/2006 2:11:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deckard**

Poor showing from New Line. It was Jackson and his teams passion for the LOTR novels which resulted in there being such great films with great performances. New Line will be looking at the bottom line so will hire a director who'll cut the film like they want and i think if any of the cast return they'll do it for the money alone and not the movie maker


I think New Line are getting a real bad rap here and it is all totally unfair. Making Lord of the Rings was a massive project and New Line took the risk when no one else was interested. They were the only ones who stood to lose anything.  Fellowship alone cost £93 Million which is a massive budget for a fanstasy film and they had already committed to £160 Million minimum for the other two which I believe was increased. Thats a massive commitment from the studio of over £250 Million for a unpopular genre with an unproven director, with a film that had already been passed on by a major studio.
I think you "fanboys and fangirls" should give another thought as to who were the major factor in making LOTR the films that you love. Sure include Jackson, Walsh etc but nothing would of happened without New Line allowing Jackson to make Fellowship with the freedom that they did, especially while bacnkrolling the project as well.




Cuchulainn -> RE: (20/11/2006 2:12:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rams

Who wants to bet they will put Brett Ratner on this?
They better be bringing Ian Mackellen back,and what's with this "other"prequel that ties in to LOTR?If Tolkien didn't wrote it they shouldn't be doing it.If they do it than soon we will have sequels to the Return of the King,which is bad because It was intended to be the end of Tolkien's Universe.
Well actually,Tolkien had started work on a 'sequel' to The Lord Of The Rings for his publishers,but finally gave up as old age and his grief after the death of his wife took their toll...




patcurley81 -> what's all the fuss about? (20/11/2006 2:21:05 PM)

The Hobbit is just another film about people walking somewhere - instead of fighting evil, you've got a Hobbit, a wizard and some dwarfs (or should that be drarves? any geeks out there who know and/or care?) trying to steal some gold off a dragon. With Peter Jackson in charge all you'll get is a LOTRs clone - a similar story, the same or similar actors/charactors, similar or the same special effects and a whole load of pointless special editions and extended edition DVDs being released 12 months and 2 years after the "Theatrical Edition" DVD. It's not the end of the world if PJ doesn't make this new film. lets face it, he's not some sort of director genius - King Kong was pants.




DeadCell79 -> NO PJ = no viewers, (20/11/2006 2:29:49 PM)

IM SORRY but i will not watch this movie if PJ is not directing and meny others will feel the same..if the actors had any sense (not saying they dont) they will not do this movie without PJ aswell. were would this movie really end up if IAN HOLM, ian mckellen, Andy Serkis. & any 1 else who was involved in the LOTR'ssay no to this movie. it would be pointles then. let PJ do this or let it be just a dream for us LOTR die hards. Bcos i cant bear to think of another director TRYing to capture that LOTR feeling that Pj and his team can do




The Todge -> RE: NO PJ = no viewers, (20/11/2006 3:02:10 PM)

There's obviously more to this than we're being told and we#'ll probably never get the full story, the jist of it is enough tho.

Basically New Line want to pressure Jackson into making The Hobbit is what I took from it.  They are in effect saying "Ok we'll settle up, but we're handcuffing you to the films."  That, whatever way you look at it, is bullshit.  That doesn't imply that Jackson has any creative control over the project and to make a film to settle a lawsuit is not the way he wants to operate.  It's disrepctful to the legacy of the trilogy and to the millions of LOTR fans who'd expect something magical from him.

You can tell he wants to do this, he had an interview with Quint from Aint It Cool a while back and was talking about The Hobbit, and hwo he'd like to explore stuff that's not in the books (possibly relating to the second prequel mentioned) i.e elements of The White Council and Saruman's turning, linking it more directly to the trilogy.

It's a fucking sad state of affairs.  But well, never give up hope. It might work out yet, nothing's signed, sealed and delivered. 

If anybody gets wind of a petiton going tho or wants to create one, then I'll sign it for sure.

I've just posted an e-note on McKellen's official website.  See if we'll get any response.




Johnny Pneumonia -> RE: aka Batman and Robin (20/11/2006 4:04:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flatulent_Bob

I think New Line are getting a real bad rap here and it is all totally unfair. Making Lord of the Rings was a massive project and New Line took the risk when no one else was interested. They were the only ones who stood to lose anything.  Fellowship alone cost £93 Million which is a massive budget for a fanstasy film and they had already committed to £160 Million minimum for the other two which I believe was increased. Thats a massive commitment from the studio of over £250 Million for a unpopular genre with an unproven director, with a film that had already been passed on by a major studio.
I think you "fanboys and fangirls" should give another thought as to who were the major factor in making LOTR the films that you love. Sure include Jackson, Walsh etc but nothing would of happened without New Line allowing Jackson to make Fellowship with the freedom that they did, especially while bacnkrolling the project as well.


Totally right. Besides, this is clearly never going to happen without the original cast, which wont happen without Jackson, Weta etc. As Bob said, its just the suits playing hardball.






adamdavidsmith -> What the f**k? (20/11/2006 4:05:57 PM)

Peter Jackson and his crew are why LOTRS is what is is. How on earth they could give this film to someone else confuses me and many others i expect. If Peter Jacksaon can't make The Hobbit it should'nt be made and I wont go and see it.




saint mark -> Another Prequel with no soul (20/11/2006 4:11:37 PM)

They are nuts doing the Hobbit without the soul of Jackson who gave LOTR the soul and legs to walk on.

We get now the Hobbit as a two parter doen by somebody who doesn't really care with generic CGI.
It is this time not about the story but about the bucks. To bad that New Linae has chosen for the bucks instead of the artistic value that a person like Jackson & Co adds.
I'll stick to the book instead and get an illigal copy to watch it if ever.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.046875