The Hobbit...

Nice to know that the parties involved didn't let millions and millions of dollars in disputed revenue between them stand in the way.
 
Yeah, good to see that studios can get away with screwing a guy, and then offer him half of a movie to make up for it (I'd like to see the accounting on this when all is said and done.)

Two films? It has been a while, but isn't it just one book with chapters?

(...and couldn't this be posted in Film Discussion?)
 
Yeah. I definitely think they could do it in one movie. IIRC (and it has been decades), the Hobbit was more of a straight ahead adventure story, with less history and depth than LoTR.

But 2 movies can mean a lot more revenue if done right...
 
No problem...I didn't know we were supposed to differentiate between a film that is going to be made and one that already has.
 
Eh, I just couldn't resist being a smart ass.
:)

As far as where the thread goes - that's for the Mods to decide.
I just figured 'Film Discussion' meant discussion of the actual film... seeing as this one won't be out for years the only thing that can really be talked about is the business side of things, and thoughts on how it will be made (that is IF it actually gets made).

Speaking of which, looks like the New Line lawsuits aren't over just yet - this is from just a couple of days ago:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4325630a1870.html

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/film/story/2007/12/15/lotr-profits-lawsuit.html
 
i'm reading that the first film will be an adaptation of the book and the second will be an original work bridging The Hobbit to the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
 
What's with that whole thing anyways? I thought that studios didn't try and pull fast ones once a director/star/whatever reached a certain status.

You never hear Spielberg get into these messes....Nicholson got his money from Batman...

Did they figure Jackson has already peaked, so he was fair game?

Doesn't it make it a bit tougher to attract big name talent when you have allegations of not honoring your agreements floating around and going to court?
 
What's interesting is the timing of this, hot on the heels of The Golden Compass bombing at the boxoffice. I imagine the board of directors pressured the suits at New Line to resolve things with Jackson now that they're out several hundred million dollars of expected revenue. PJ should call Chris Weitz and thank him.
 
There might be something to that. They know the man can deliver.

Even if the film is horrible, which is doubtful, it's guaranteed to do over 100 million opening weekend. It's about as close to a sure thing as you can get in the film biz.
 
Personally I think "Hobbit" lends itself much better to feature film adaptation cuz of its simplicity.
 
Last edited:
Although I agree that it could be done in one movie, I would rather see it in two, well written one and a half hour films rather then one three or three and a half hour epic.
 
i'm reading that the first film will be an adaptation of the book and the second will be an original work bridging The Hobbit to the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

So the first will be right out of JRRT's pages and mind, while the second will be some sort of logical fill in the gap story?

Interesting...will it be based on some notes the author had written, but never used? Surprising that the estate would allow it to be done that way.

I think big box office is guaranteed. As soon as I saw some clips of TLOTR in class, before the film was released, I asked the VP of film marketing at Alliance Atlantis (the distributor up here) why they didn't get the rights for The Hobbit right away, and make it themselves after TLOTR hit.

I know it is possible to screw up a film, but this seems as sure a thing as any...
 
I thought that jackson did a good job (although I disagreed with some decisions) of using the appendices and other sources to round out LoTR. He could do a good job.

No matter what, it should look amazing. I just hope that he doesn't have Bilbo snowboarding on a shield down Smaug's back.
 
Back
Top