| PJ vs Bob Shaye |
Regardless as to how much money Peter Jackson has already been given under contract by New Line already, it doesn't mean that if he is owed any more he shouldn't get it. If Bob Shaye is starting to get nasty about this audit, this would suggest to me that he has something to hide. However, I like to keep an open mind so taking it to court is a good way of finding out the truth. Mind you I don't think it would be a good idea to give helming duties of The Hobbit to Terry Gilliam, his fantasy is to More
Posted by Pallando at 21:19 on 17 January 2007 | Report This Post |
 |
|
|
|
I don't think Shaye is telling the whole story. I think New Line is making stuff up and being greedy. I think Peter Jackson did not sue anyone. Peter Jackson should still be allowed to make films with New Line, after all Peter makes some real good movies that make a whole lot of money. More
Posted by MovieNerd13 at 21:03 on 15 January 2007 | Report This Post |
|
|
|
| All down to the baiscs isn't it? |
Money talks and bullshit walks. Jackson as olirog said "full-blown prima donna" its all down to who gets what first!
Jackson should just walk away, hide for a while and come back with something new, an idea of his own rather! More
Posted by nybras at 14:34 on 15 January 2007 | Report This Post |
|
|
|
| Who's right and who's wrong? |
Peter Jackson should make the Hobbit, as it is NOT a completely different universe to LOTR and any necessary changes to the environments they would make. I don't know who is telling the truth within this argument but I hope they can resolve it so the Hobbit can be made the RIGHT WAY!!!! More
Posted by jonedney at 16:34 on 13 January 2007 | Report This Post |
|
|
|
| RE: Give it to Gilliam |
Completley agree. The Hobbit would be best approached in a much different manner. It is a different beast than LOTR, much more fantastical and fairy-tale, whereas LOTR is the fully realised matured version.
I've agrued that probably the best strategy would be an all-CGI version not only to set it apart from PJ's world, but to give some of the characters the chance to be truer to the source material. If so, you need someone who deeply loves Tolkein's world (much as More
Posted by Smudge at 15:32 on 13 January 2007 | Report This Post |
|
|
|
|
Lets face it. Are ever really going to know who the REAL bad guy is in all of this? have any of us got a Plaintir that can see into the inner workins of PJs mind? Have any of us got a magic Ring that turns us invisible so we can sneak into New Line? No (but if we did, how cool? - well to a certain value of Geeky coolness anyway) thats why we hve court case - to find out who is right and who is wrong. Of course we are all going to think the big, faceless studio is in the wrong, and the chirpy, More
Posted by Nahald at 10:57 on 13 January 2007 | Report This Post |
|
|
|
|
Love jackson, or hate him. Noone can really deny that he MADE the LOTR trilogy what it is.
New line need to thank their lucky stars that he made it such a success, and earned them a very handsome amount of money.
I mean, i seriously doubt that ANYONE is greedier than a film production company More
Posted by silent_dave at 16:41 on 12 January 2007 | Report This Post |
|
|
|
| RE: New Line Vs. Jackson |
L: Miksterious
What you people dont seem to be realising is the other side of the coin.
Jackson gave an interview to AICN where he absolutely refuted what Shaye has said:
sue with New Line Cinema has only ever been about their refusal to account for financial anomalies that surfaced from a partial audit of The Fellowship of the Ring. Contrary to recent comments made by Bob Shaye, we attempted to discuss the issues raised by the Fellowship audit with New Line for over a year but More
Posted by Anthropos at 16:34 on 12 January 2007 | Report This Post |
|
|
|
| RE: New Line Vs. Jackson |
What you people dont seem to be realising is the other side of the coin.
Jackson gave an interview to AICN where he absolutely refuted what Shaye has said:
sue with New Line Cinema has only ever been about their refusal to account for financial anomalies that surfaced from a partial audit of The Fellowship of the Ring. Contrary to recent comments made by Bob Shaye, we attempted to discuss the issues raised by the Fellowship audit with New Line for over a year but the studi More
Posted by Miksterious at 12:36 on 12 January 2007 | Report This Post |
|
|
|
| RE: New Line Vs. Jackson |
Erm...
www.empireonline.com/forum/tm.asp?m=1138084 More
Posted by Gazdance at 11:56 on 12 January 2007 | Report This Post |
|
|
|
| Give it to Gilliam |
Forget Jackson, The Hobbit is a completely different beast from LOTR and needs to be done is a completely different way.
Give it to Terry Gilliam and we'll get a very dark, very funny, very memorable Hobbit
Jackson should move on to The Silmarillion (the real prequel to LOTR) More
Posted by griet at 09:53 on 12 January 2007 | Report This Post |
|
|
|
| Lord of Greed |
I'm coming round to thinking that New Line is being had by greedy-guts Jackson running on full-blown prima donna steam: he knows we'll all think the studio's the villain…! Pity, a quarter of a billion is no mean amount, and he wouldn't have had a chance to get that if New Line hadn't taken a bloody big risk in the first place. More
Posted by olirog at 08:54 on 12 January 2007 | Report This Post |
|
|
|
| Lord of Greed |
I'm coming round to thinking that New Line is being had by greedy-guts Jackson running on full-blown prima donna steam: he knows we'll all think the studio's the villain…! Pity, a quarter of a billion is no mean amount, and he wouldn't have had a chance to get that if New Line hadn't taken a bloody big risk in the first place. More
Posted by olirog at 08:53 on 12 January 2007 | Report This Post |
|
|
|
| Yep, it's all about the money !! |
Well that's settled then, after this fairly public cat fight, the chance of seeing what P.J. would have made of the Hobbit is now dead. He can move on with other stuff , and someone else will make it, and before you all get too upset just remember that some really good movies have been made as sequels (or prequels in this case) to films that are held in high regard that were directed by other people, Aliens, the Empire Strikes Back,Terminator 3, and many more that I'm not thinking of, these were More
Posted by boredbluekoala at 22:39 on 11 January 2007 | Report This Post |
|
|
|
|
Yeah but there's a difference between working set hours and having someone pay you to live out your dream, More
Posted by CameronJames at 20:09 on 11 January 2007 | Report This Post |
|
|
|
| getting paid |
Lets put the argument this way. If you or I worked a certain number of hours we'd expect to be paid the full amount for them. We wouldnt say "Woah now, thats enough of you paying me, your far too generous!" and if they chose not to pay us the full amount we'd probably say "Fuck you I want my damn money!", well I would anyway. I think its pretty much the same thing but on a bigger scale. More
Posted by draney at 19:31 on 11 January 2007 | Report This Post |
|
|
|
| RE: RE: |
Oh I'm sorry Mr. English Teacher how's that for CAPITAL's. I do know what scenary and backround are for. its so there isn't a big black screen to look at and so the film doesn't look cheap. Which lets face it Jackson is. Is he looking for some more money to fit in a home gym in his house which will never be used. More
Posted by boscoduffy at 18:22 on 11 January 2007 | Report This Post |
|
|
|
|
To be honest I'm on Shaye's side, Jackson is starting to just look like a greedy cunt. He should care more about making movies than getting rediculous amounts of money for it More
Posted by CameronJames at 18:03 on 11 January 2007 | Report This Post |
|
|
|
| RE: |
How am I not surprised that a guy who doesn't seem to understand what captial letters are used for doesn't care about story, background or character. More
Posted by Masked Dave at 17:56 on 11 January 2007 | Report This Post |
|
|
|
|
greedy bastard.im a star wars fan true and true. im only recently starting to like the LOTR, because i love sword fight films. but i hate all the melodramtic sequences in the trilogy. plus the man can't make a proper fast paced 2 hour film. granted he was sticking to the books as much as possible ,but with king kong there was no need for the first hour. that could have been done in ten minutes More
Posted by boscoduffy at 17:49 on 11 January 2007 | Report This Post |
|
|
|
| Why? |
Just because Jacksons alreayd recieved a huge amout doesn't mean he doesn't deserve the rets of what the films made, off the back of his talents.
The Hobbit doesn't seem likly to be made. I don;t think many directors would wnat their reputation up against LOTR, if it went belly up they'd be paying for it the rest of their career, only Jackson could take it on. More
Posted by BlueDragon21120 at 17:46 on 11 January 2007 | Report This Post |
|
|
|
|
This may be an unpopular opinion, but much as I love the Lord of the Rings films (and King Kong come to that), as long as it's a good director who does the Hobbit, I don't really mind who. Especially since a lot of the hard work in designing Middle Earth has been done already.
It might even benefit from a different director's style. The Hobbit is a children's book and I'd like the film to reflect that, the thought of them splitting into two is kind of appalling. I want a pacey, fun and friend More
Posted by Masked Dave at 17:42 on 11 January 2007 | Report This Post |
|
|
|
| |
