I've honestly been looking at recent news that MGM wanted to produce The Hobbit with Peter Jackson directing with sort of a jaded eye. I honestly didn't expect that Jackson would just want to jump back into Middle-earth again. Well, apparently he's not.
The Fanboy Network is abuzz right now with disappointment and anger at the news that Peter Jackson is not going to direct the movie version of The Hobbit, the novel that served as a precursor to The Lord of the Rings. (Quick aside: stop calling The Hobbit a prequel, you fucking dumbasses; a prequel is a sequel that takes place at an earlier time; if English is your first language, I really suggest you become intimate with it so you don't look like a dumbshit.) Jackson and his partner Fran Walsh have officially made it clear that there is no chance of their making The Hobbit due to problems with New Line and MGM's recent decision to press on without him and his company, Wingnut Films.
The fact is, Wingnut Films is currently involved in a lawsuit with New Line over profits from The Fellowship of the Rings. After performing an audit on the company, Peter Jackson alleges that Wingnut has not received their full and legal share of the income. In his statement, Jackson says he won't discuss The Hobbit until the situation is resolved: "This is simple common sense - you cannot be in a relationship with a film studio, making a complex, expensive movie and dealing with all the pressures and responsibilities that come with the job, while an unresolved lawsuit exists."
Makes sense, of course. However, it seems like New Line was trying to dangle The Hobbit in front of Jackson in order to get him to drop the lawsuit. And that's unethical at best. They've even been trying to do it publicly, because a couple of months ago it was all over the news that MGM was going ahead with The Hobbit.
All this time, Jackson and Wingnut have been making the film adaptation of The Lovely Bones, but were always planning to get back to The Hobbit. According to Jackson, there was a meeting planned with MGM to talk about scheduling for The Hobbit and possibly another Middle-earth film. But now Jackson says he was told last week that "New Line would no longer be requiring our services on The Hobbit and the LOTR 'prequel'. This was a courtesy call to let us know that the studio was now actively looking to hire another filmmaker for both projects."
Well, there it is. And I have to say, I'm fine with this news.
See, I love Peter Jackson. The man is one of my favorite filmmakers. This all started in 1996 when I went to see The Frighteners for my 20th birthday. The movie was getting uniformly negative reviews, but it was produced by Robert Zemeckis and had Michael J. Fox in it, and the commercials made a big point of selling it as a comedy in the Back to the Future vein made by this acclaimed director of Heavenly Creatures. Because I read the British film magazines rather than the American ones, I had heard of Peter Jackson. I knew he had started making independent horror movies that hadn't come over here to any wide audience, and that American critics only knew him from Creatures, which was a critical darling in 1995. I had seen Heavenly Creatures and thought it was wonderful, and was trying to seek out Bad Taste, Meet the Feebles, and Braindead (aka Dead Alive), which were much harder to find a decade ago than they are now. I was excited by The Frighteners, which was a huge budget for Jackson.
Well, I went to see The Frighteners, and I hated it. I was so disappointed by it. It wasn't funny. I didn't understand it. I liked some of how bizarre it was, but I just didn't understand why I didn't like the movie more. It almost got away from me.
But then, in the interim, I saw Jackson's other films. And I loved them. They were brilliant films, full of style and energy and witty, disgusting special effects. I could see the progression in Jackson's work, and Heavenly Creatures made so much more sense in that context. The American critics had excoriated Jackson for making this sensitive, lyrical film and then "selling out" with The Frighteners, which led Jackson to say in the British horror magazine Shivers: "There's a saying that you should never overestimate the intelligence of the American audience, and I'm afraid it's true." Americans weren't familiar with his work and didn't seem to know that The Frighteners was not his second movie, but his fifth.
I wanted to give the movie another chance, and it happened to hit the second-run theaters in October, just before Halloween when you're really in the mood to see bizarre horror movies. And it was brilliant. I was floored by the movie. How could I not have noticed what a perfect horror movie it was before? How well it all worked? It's been one of my favorite horror movies ever since, and the recently-released director's cut is even better, fleshing out the characters a little more so the whole thing flows evenly. I don't say this much, especially about horror movies, but the movie is perfect.
Since then, I've been a huge fan of Peter Jackson. I sought out the underrated (and largely unknown) Forgotten Silver, which he made in 1997. I was extremely disappointed in 1998 when I read a bootlegged copy of his King Kong screenplay and discovered that Universal had decided not to make the film (which is funny, because it reads a lot like The Mummy, which is what Universal threw themselves behind instead). And when it was announced that Peter Jackson was going to make The Lord of the Rings, I finally read the damn books and fell in love with them, hard. And even though it took years of no new movies, I waited patiently for each LOTR film, sneaking off to see each one the day it opened, even as I lied to family and said I would wait to see them on Christmas day. Yes, I've been having an affair with Peter Jackson's work.
And I loved every minute of The Lord of the Rings, despite my inner fanboy telling me some details were wrong or that The Two Towers was unfocused. I bought and watched the extended versions several times. And when it was over, I truly felt like I'd seen something that equalled the way I felt about Star Wars when I was a kid. And when King Kong came out, I was there too, falling in love with it and, a year later, about to buy the extended edition of it. I am all about Peter Jackson.
But Peter Jackson directing The Hobbit? I was never completely into that. The entire development and creation and putting to bed of The Lord of the Rings stretched from 1995 to 2004, when the extended version of The Return of the King hit store shelves. It is, collectively, one of the greatest achievements in the history of film.
So, isn't it about time for Peter Jackson to do something new?
He doesn't have to prove himself anymore, does he? King Kong was absolutely excellent. I can't wait to see The Lovely Bones. I want to see Peter Jackson branch out and do different kinds of movies now. The Lord of the Rings is over, and we can revisit it any time we want. I've revisited a few times. And it's never going to get old or less exciting for me. Why ask him to go back and try to do it again? Revisiting Star Wars was obviously a bad idea. Why Lord of the Rings? Every fantasy movie is ripping it off, anyway.
I think this is ultimately a good thing. Fanboys need to stop focusing on what Peter Jackson isn't doing and look forward to what he is.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Peter Jackson: No More Hobbit
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
MYSTERY CARROT AWARD
10 comments:
If you still want to see Peter Jackson direct 'The Hobbit', please sign this petition.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/aintnohobbitwithoutPJ/
"(Quick aside: stop calling The Hobbit a prequel, you fucking dumbasses; a prequel is a sequel that takes place at an earlier time; if English is your first language, I really suggest you become intimate with it so you don't look like a dumbshit.)"
Ah yes, but if the Hobbit was made a movie, wouldn't it then be a movie prequel? Since the LOTR was made a movie first, and then the Hobbit would be a sequel taking place before the LOTR? Other than that I completely agree with the Hobbit BOOK being a precursor. ;)
Touche!
obviously you aren't so quick. if the hobbit was made into a movie it would be a prequel to the lord of the rings. get a grip asshead.
Here's something that might interest everyone - MGM's response when they heard about the letter(as posted in Variety Magazine)
All of this has riled MGM, which in recent weeks has been openly touting the fact that the newly revamped studio is serious about making "The Hobbit" -- with Jackson.
An MGM spokesman said that "the matter of Peter Jackson directing 'The Hobbit' films is far from closed."
Anon 1: Good luck with that, but the whole point of my post was that I didn't really care if Jackson made the movie or not.
Jonas: As I said, good on you for pointing that out.
Anon 2: Wow, what a fucking asshole. Not only do you miss my point (that the BOOK The Hobbit is not a prequel), but you were so excited about the possibility of being perceived as clever by an outsider for once your little fanboy life that you managed to completely miss the comment from Jonas in which he not only (a) got my point, but (b) pointed out in a witty fashion that, in a way, I was both right and wrong depending on how one viewed it. You're like a child who tries to repeat something funny he saw on television last night but has such a tenuous grasp on the concept of what he's witnessed that he just sounds like a simpleton. And while it's amusing to see a toddler try and explain the governing principles of the universe, it's also very tiresome. I'm sure that I'm using a lot of big words that you don't understand here (certainly words more sophisticated than "asshead," anyway), and that you're doubtless baffled by my use of something so mundane as capital letters. So, before you give up reading out of frustration, let me close by personally inviting you to eat my ass out. Go to bed, now.
Anon 3: I think that sounds more like MGM trying to bait Peter Jackson. I don't think it'll happen, and I frankly don't see that it has to.
I became a fan of Peter Jackson (et al) with the release of The Fellowship of the Ring. I had been a serious reader of the Tolkien book since the mid ‘70s and had worn out the binding of many copies and various editions. I am currently in the position of having to replace the book I purchased in 2004 which is now falling apart.
In the late ‘90s I heard about the LOTR ‘movie’ but was not terribly optimistic since previous attempts at translating the brilliant Tolkien story to film had not been satisfying. I didn’t see the FOTR in the cinema until it was at final showings on small towns. I had been impressed with Enya’s exceptional song (it should have won the Academy Award) and thought “why not give the film a chance”. Well … I was extremely impressed with the visual aspects of the film and was very happy with the actors chosen to play the much-loved characters. I couldn’t really hear the music because the sound system in the small-town theatre was dreadful.
I purchased a copy of the Theatrical Release the day it was released and was literally blown away by all aspects of the film. The amazing music of Howard Shore, the exceptional visuals of Alan Lee and John Howe and the wonderful artisans of The Weta Workshop and Weta Digital, the brilliant cast of actors, and the underlying emotion captured by the film were immediately evident. I became a lifetime fan of the filmmakers.
I eagerly awaited the release of the Extended Version and was even more impressed. Peter Jackson and his team of filmmaking professionals became more like personal acquaintances to me than strangers. I thrived on the positive ‘never-say-die’ attitude of all participants which was as refreshing as a dose of oxygen in the world I was forced to live in filled with under-achievers and air heads.
The subsequent films allowed me to continue a much-needed personal journey replete with commitment and loyalty and ultimate success. The Tolkien characters came alive in a way that even Tolkien himself, were he in a position to view these films, would have applauded.
We must not understate the contribution of Peter Jackson and his team to these films. New Line must be applauded for providing the opportunity to make 3 films … but … it was the vision and labour of the highly talented team of professionals brought together by Peter Jackson that were able to translate this magical book and present to the world a series of films that will probably never be equalled.
Should the film version of The Hobbit be placed in the hands of any other filmmaker, the result may prove adequate, but will probably never be as satisfying as the first three films. I have been very optimistic that Jackson will also bring to us The Silmarilian.
I am very disappointed by the political tactics being employed by New Line. If New Line believes that Jackson is so desperate to make the ‘movie prequel’ that he is caught between a rock and a hard place … New Line is obviously mistaken. Jackson and Walsh get marks for their ethics and handling of the current situation. Hats off to Jackson and Walsh.
It appears to me that New Line is proving itself to be typically Hollywood-shallow, manipulative, and obviously “unworthy of the task” of producing Tolkien’s The Hobbit. I suggest that the Saul Zaentz Company, MGM, Howard Shore, the brilliant cast of actors, and Weta Workshop and Weta Digital use whatever tactics available to them to stall the production of the film by New Line until the New Line rights to the film expire leaving the door open for a far-sighted organization to take the reigns and employ the original filmmakers.
The Hobbit MUST equal the LOTR films in both quality and emotion or it can only ever be just another film. I believe the only people talented enough to bring that about is Wing Nut Films and Peter Jackson. In the hands of ANY other filmmaker, we can only expect an adequate result. In the hands of Peter Jackson and his fellows we can expect another wonder of filmmaking.
I am a committed fan of Peter Jackson and his films; past, present, and future. Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh (and the writing contributions of Philippa Boyens and the music of Howard Shore cannot be forgotten, either) have awoken in me a love of film and the process of filmmaking that I have not experienced since I was a very young girl. I thank them all from the bottom of my heart.
Regardless of the outcome for The Hobbit film, I will certainly be a Jackson film fan long into my old age. This team is destined to produce new and exciting films for a very long time to come. I don’t, however, see the same successful future for New Line …
Nina, thank you for that commentary; it was very reasoned and heartfelt, and I'm glad to have read it. I agree with almost everything you said, except for one thing: I don't know that there's not another filmmaker who could do justice to The Hobbit. And I only say that because several years ago, no one really imagined that Peter Jackson could make something so impressive. I would never have looked at Bad Taste and imagined the possibility. The truth is, we really don't know what some filmmakers are capable of.
To counter my own argument, though, there's always the (increasingly likely) possibility that New Line will try to go with a "proven" hitmaker instead of someone who is going to devote real attention and care to the films. But to counter THAT, I'm still not sure that making another Middle-earth film would be as special as the trilogy was (and I do think they're very, very special movies).
It should also be pointed out that New Line has always had a short memory, and has ALWAYS been willing to cut bait right away. They built themselves up on the Nightmare on Elm Street series; for many years, Kane Hodder (who was playing Jason in Friday the 13th for Paramount) was trying to push a Freddy vs. Jason movie. When New Line decided to make it, they didn't even ask Hodder to reprise the role of Jason. It's that kind of total lack of loyalty that New Line is known for (too bad, considering how willing they were to stick by Jackson before).
I don't expect Jackson to make The Hobbit at this point, and I'm not too upset about it, personally. MGM and New Line are acting the way Hollywood does, and Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, and Wingnut have chosen to remain dignified.
And The Silmarillion? I could see the appeal, but it's so episodic (as any legendarium would be) there's a good chance it could be a total mess. I just want to see Peter Jackson make other movies; I feel like he's done Tolkien perfectly and going back to it would either weaken it or get boring.
Personally I think it’s a good idea for PJ to stand back. Although obviously competent in producing sweeping panoramas of special effects, I felt LOTR to be about as emotional as a block of wood. Yes it did stir some feelings in the battle sequences, but the rest – shocking – especially the last 20 minutes of ROTK – really, really spoiled it. Blatant over acting and way too much of the onion used. Frodo and Sam must have lost their own weight in tears by the end of that sequence – appalling. PJ desperately needs some tutoring in the subtleties of human emotions.
Well, obviously I disagree there. I thought it was one of the few genuinely emotional movies I've seen in my life, not manufactured at all.
Post a Comment