The Hot Blog

Aren't most of these end-of-rights deadlines based upon the start of shooting . . . not the end of production? If so, wouldn't that give them a good couple of years for preproduction?

Presumably, production on the second film could push right up to the dates... but it's not like they could have waited to make this deal next fall.

Somebody on another blog mentioned Guillermo del Toro as a possibility. I'm trying to remember the story of The Hobbit...so Ian Holm will star? Maybe Elijah and co. get onboard for the sequel?

This is a step back for Jackson. His last two films, The Return of the Rings and King Kong, were marred his own delusion of grandeur. He got cocky and big and long-winded and by the end of them, let's face it, audiences were worn out.

And now he's going to expand a 300 page children's book into not one but TWO 3 hour films?

I also think Jackson will end up directing this. It just seems to be in the cards.

If he doesn't, I would certainly push Raimi over Darabont. First off, I think he is a far more gifted director with a real passion for the material. People know his name from Spiderman and it will ease any nervous nellies who are worried about the absence of Jackson.

I think Darabont, on the other hand, scored early with Shawshank and The Green Mile but his recent output has been lacking. The Mist, which I recently saw, was dreadful. And, because these things do matter, Darabont has many Pullman-like quotes out there that could drag the film down in the homestretch to box office glory. The same demos that made Narnia so big also contributed sizably to Rings - and helped turf Compass. The last thing New Line needs is another artist directing a franchise aimed at a demographic he has many quotes saying he has contempt for. Darbont's talent or lack thereof aside, that would be bad business.

If Jackson directs and it's lean and focused like FOTR, it might be could. If it's loud, meandering, and over-indulgent like his last three films, it'll suck just as they did. Caveat: ROTK isn't too bad, but the two around it are garbage.

Ugh, does this really need to be two films? I understand they want to milk this thing for all its worth but that seems like a bit of overkill.

If you read the release, The Hobbit will be one film and the second film will deal with events between The Hobbit and Fellowship of the Ring, culled from Tolkien's many other works.

Finally, we get that adaptation of The Silmarillion we've all been waiting for.

Nicol, in a franchise like this, nobody would care about Darabont's past statements unless they were reflected in the movie itself, and there's no reason for that to happen in The Hobbit.

Jeff,

The Lord of the Rings has many fans. Many are secular and do not care about Tolkien's subtext. But many are not and do care. And they are a huge part of the audience. That cannot be ignored. Not after the Compass debacle.

To say everyone would care would be wrong. To say no one would care would be wrong. But, a sizable portion would care. I am not saying they would avoid the film, but if I were New Line, I would certainly keep it in the back of my mind.

Especially when you have a more superior director like Raimi who is more then willing to take the plate. It would also make me question how respectable Darabont would be to the subtext of the material. A huge part of the support of Rings came from Jackson acknowledging respect for that portion of the fan base. He didn't pander to it, but he showed them respect and they respected him in kind.

You lose that with Darabont right out of the gate.

Again, I am just saying this from a purely business perspective.

Of course, GOLDEN COMPASS could also be underperforming because it's just not very engaging. I haven't seen it, though friends have. Some are fans of the books, some haven't read them. Both were underwhelmed. The most forgiving reaction was, "It's a book report in the form of a movie." So, that doesn't help.

Nicol, I'm sorry but I find that last statement a little disingenuous. I think you're overstating - a lot - the size of the audience that demands what you're demanding. The Golden Compass didn't flop because of the anti-religion aspect, it flopped because the marketing was a failure and because the movie simply didn't look like anything special.

And honestly, I am unaware of any particular Christian subtext in The Hobbit - or for that matter, in Jackson's trilogy.

All that said, I don't think Darabont would be good for this movie for the simple fact that his command of action and visual spectacle is nothing special. Del Toro would be a much better choice.

L.B. - 2 things. One, opening never has anything to do with the quality of the movie.

And two, I think the first hour is slow, but that's a little too tough. We're the more forgiving on Narnia?

The tendency to think failure or success of a film is because it's "right" is wrong at least 80% of the time.

Four words... Irvin Kershner, Richard Marquand.

the christian subtext is throughout Lord of the Rings, though it's not deliberate. It's not allegory, it wasn't forethought like Narnia or His Dark Materials. the subtext is simply a reflection of the stories and experiences that shaped the authors worldview and are embedded in his own subconscious and reflected in his art. there's as much philology as there is christianity in the Lord of the Rings, but you don't really need to KNOW either to get the full satisfaction of the story.

Golden Compass is doing very well overseas, but New Line sold off all the rights. It might be a smart move by New Line to sell the rights to the sequels to a British production company (or Besson's production company) rather than make them themselves, there's money to be made on the international level off the franchise, just not much to be mined at the domestic level. Subtle Knife would be an intelligent risk for a foriegn production company, there's sections of it in the real world, and it's not as expansive or grand a vision of alternate worlds and milieaus as Golden Compass and more character focused as Lyra and Will start to figure things out. of course I could be wildly wrong it's ages since I read the book, but a company could risk making the sequel for relatively cheap compared to the first film (80 million versus 200) and probably earn a healthy profit in the international sector.

I agree, David. Opening is about the salesmanship and they clearly fumbled that, at least on this side of the Atlantic. But it's inability to create much fervor in the people who have seen it can't be discounted in the long run. It's a crowded season and I have a lot of things I want to see. A number of my movie friends have seen GC and have all said, "Don't worry about it." They even recommend THE MIST over it. (Which I enjoyed a great deal more than seems to be refected on these boards.) That's the nail for me. I have too many other things to see, my fantasy epic love is at an ebb, and it would have taken some extra pushes to get me there. No one seems to be pushing anyone to see this.

However, I'd be willing to bet that a movie that really worked that had the same subtext as GC could make bucketloads. But you have to interest people in it as a movie and that hasn't been accomplished yet.

For my own subtext I'm bristling a bit because, GC aside, with everything else the holy rollers have shoved down our throats over the last decade or so, I'm pissed that they can still exude any influence over what we see and read, etc. It's a personal thing, so I'll try not to let it color everything I talk about. But it seems to be this time they're after a movie that's a stiff whether they're involved or not.

Y-A-W-N. While I guess interesting news from a business perspective, is it anybody really fired up to see this movie, beyond the hardcore fans?

I think New Line is overlooking that the LOTR films, especially the first one that got the ball rolling, was of a very certain moment, right after 9/11, when people wanted something comforting, and predictable, where they knew the good guys would win. Whenever the Hobbit comes to theatres (2009?) we will have fully returned to our cynical ways, drenched in the Iraq War, and this film will not be a huge moneymaker. (Of course, I guess you could also take the same argument and reason that people will be so sick and tired of the war, especially after an election year, that they will want something spoon-fed and bland.)

Second, in what world in Sam Raimi a better director than Darabont? Sure, he is clever, with a nice sense of humor and a touch with genre, but do the astute readers of this blog really equate box office success with artistic merit? Darabont would be a fine choice for this, though I think he's too smart for it. While Raimi might be a "name" for now, please tell me what movie of his makes you think he can handle the epic scope of the Hobbit?

Unlike Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit was written for kids. It is a rather quickly paced and linear childern's adventure fable, and a stentorian, epic production would do the story a great disservice.

Who should direct? Someone who's good at kids movies. Who's the guy who did Terabithia? Get him.

Sam Raimi for The Hobbits? Come on. Look what he has done to Spider-Man 3. But Jackson wouldn't be a good choice. As someone already said, he's too in love with himself (like Raimi for Spidey).

DP, I've been lurking here for some time and finally just *have* to post.

I feel that your defense of Compass is more like a knee-jerk reaction to Finke's bad form. Compass is doing OK overseas, but so did Eragon. In fact, Compass may end up grossing less than Eragon worldwide. But, THAT fantasy film was roundly trashed, poo-pooed, called out for a bomb, etc., etc.

Compass really is a turkey. It shouldn't matter if Nikki trashed it or not--that's not a reason to carry its buckets of Golden showers.

Interesting that you decided to make this your moment to comment, Kid.

I don't really care whether Nikki trashed it. I am too amused watching her lick Shaye's ass this morning after all that bile. She rolls over like a puppy, just waiting for someone to rub her belly.

I am not defending the box office turn of the film. I am defending the movie, which was hardly a home run, but isn't a still birth either. For me, it was better than the first Narnia and behind any of the Rings... as I have written before.

Box office is not a happy story and got no better between the first and the second weekend. It could well be a $30 million-plus write off for New Line, depending on their international deals. I have said from the start that the idea of this as a $250 million prodution cost movie is insane. ANY $250 million movie is a mistake, but this one as much as any. But the failure of the opening is not about the quality of the film or the cost of the film, but marketing... same as every other film.

A bad open can be overcome by a great audience film. I agree that Compass was not good enough to overcome the relatively weak opening here in the US. But it ddn't open to less than half of Narnia because ticketbuyers saw a weak movie coming. They just never got interested.

I have never attacked or defended any film because of what someone else wrote. I will argue business with people who don't have the slightest idea what they are talking about, whether they are a bile shooter or a (relatively) benign sheepist.

LOTR means a lot to mean. I read it over and over in my teens. Read it my oldest son, now 19, when he was 8, and it became a central part of his life. We went together to all three LOTR movies at midnight and then out to breakfast.

I am highly confident that PJ overseeing the two films means they will be good. Hobbit is a straightforward story and should be a good film for lots of demographics, especially kids. The second film linking the The Hobbit with the trilogy will not be based on Silmarilion. That is the history of middle earth in the early days from creation onward. There is source material however for the second Hobbit film.

I will be there at midnight again no matter who directs and the film will be huge. Biggest opening ever. I am on record.

Hairy feet for the geeks with hairy palms...

Actually, I think George Miller would be perfect for a movie like this. He understands both action and children's sensibilities. Plus his visual style is similarly kinetic as Jackson's.

Dave, you have a big target on your chest because you have a big blog. Sorry that my first had-to-do-it-post was a critique.

Compass wasn't even Superman Returns good (which was surprisingly mediocre for all of the hoopla and $ spent). It doesn't make any sense.

I have read all of your posts for several months now, and it just seemed to me--and I am a neutral, outside observer--that the Golden Compass matter seemed to be flavored by your dislike of Nikki.

Just my opinion.

All that said, I really, really enjoy reading your posts daily.

They could make The Hobbit motion capture with Ian Holm made to look younger! If they can make Ray Winstone into a buff hottie then they can make Ian Holm young.

Still, I'm not versed on the story of The Hobbit so I'm just assuming it's set when his character was indeed younger.

Mad Max + Babe = The Hobbit! I second George Miller!

I've been saying just that for some time, Camel. They wouldn't even have to totally replace Sir Ian with a digital double. They could just "smooth him out", similar to what they did with those two venerable Shakespeareans in the last X-Men -- though it would have to be done much more convincingly, since we'd be looking at his mug for the entire runtime. They'll probably tweak his voice, too.

Some time in the near future, an ambitious director will use this technology to allow the same actor to play a character over the span of many years, from childhood to old age. And it will probably be Zemeckis.

Frankbooth, I believe that's pretty much what Fincher is up to with Benjamin Button. Give or take.

Isn't Benjamin Button achieved by just makeup and regular effects?

I believe they're digitally aging him. Unless they switched tactics.

Recast Holm with Sam Neill. He looks enough like him imo, and though Neill's tall they'd have to shrink him down anyway.

Guillermo Del Toro as director would be fantastic, imo. It'd probably be more appealing to Jackson because the ego would be less than with a Raimi or even Darabont. Especially Raimi. How the hell do you go about telling a director of a $350mil movie he can't do something? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: