The Hobbit in July 2007?

[Brinniel]

Yet another article about rumors of The Hobbit being made into a movie, for anyone who's interested.

[Mister Underhill]

And Jackson's schedule gets even busier:

Director Jackson signs Xbox deal
By Darren Waters
Technology editor, BBC News website, Barcelona

Peter Jackson
Peter Jackson directed the Lord of the Rings trilogy
King Kong director Peter Jackson has agreed a deal with Microsoft to create what he describes as a "new form of interactive entertainment".

The Oscar-winning film-maker said he would be creating a series based on the Halo video game franchise, created by Bungie Studios.

"I'm getting a little bored with films," he said.

The series will appear on the Xbox 360 games console and Xbox Live, the machine's online service.

Mr Jackson, who is also producing a movie based on Halo, said: "More and more I'm looking forward to the release of games and not movies. I am more aware and excited about games.

"I do not have to keep delivering stories as movies - there are other things I can do.

"Technology is at a point where we can blend a lot of film storytelling with interactive entertainment."

He added that the series would not be for hard-core gamers.

The surprise announcement was made at the X06 event in Barcelona, at which Microsoft unveiled its line-up of games for the coming 12 months.

Xbox boss Peter Moore also unveiled a HD-DVD, high definition player, for the console, which will be released in Europe in mid November, costing 199 euros (£129).

Microsoft also unveiled a further Halo spin-off, called Halo Wars, a real time strategy game based on the popular franchise to be made by Ensemble Studios.

Mr Jackson, who also directed the Lord of the Rings trilogy, will set up an interactive arm of his firm, Wingnut, and will work with Halo creators Bungie Studios to develop the series.

He admitted his team was at the start of the process and still had to "work out how to do it".

He added: "Gaming could be a form of entertainment that you could enjoy with the emotion of film, but you could also be interactive."

He said that he had chosen the Halo universe as the first series because it was an "amazing world".

"We put the best platform in the hands of the best story-tellers," said Mr Moore.

Peter Moore stressed that this did not mean that Mr Jackson was making Halo 4 or any sequels to Bungie's current game in development.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Several articles in mid-September reported that MGM had announced it was definitely making the Hobbit sometime in the next few years and that the studio was attempting to lure PJ back as director: here. There was little mention of the earlier dispute over rights: we were all left with the impression that these problems had been settled.

Well, not it looks as if we'd better not hold our breath waiting for this to happen. An article in today's Hollywood Reporter is far less optimistic that the movie will be made anytime soon: MGM May Not be Making the Hobbit. According to the Reporter, none of the legal issues had been settled. Attorneys from MGM and New Line are still locked inside a room trying to reach agreement. Whether or not you'd like to see a hobbit movie, that won't be happening until this mess is straightened out.

[Mister Underhill]

This is excerpted from a longer article in today's Variety that's mostly about films that MGM actually is doing:

As for "The Hobbit", [MGM Chief Harry] Sloan confirmed that MGM was in talks with Peter Jackson to make two movies based on J.R.R. Tolkien's "prequel" to "The Lord of the Rings".

However, making the film is contingent on negotiations with New Line, which owns the right to produce "The Hobbit" (MGM owns only the right to distribute the films). And people close to Jackson say that until his ongoing lawsuit with New Line -- over monies he says are owed him from the "Lord of the Rings" franchise -- is settled, a serious conversation over "The Hobbit" cannot proceed.

Even so, Sloane remains optimistic. He said the first "Hobbit" pic would be a direct adaptation of "The Hobbit", and the second would be drawn from footnotes and source material connecting "The Hobbit" with "The Lord of the Rings".

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Sloane remains optimistic. He said the first "Hobbit" pic would be a direct adaptation of "The Hobbit", and the second would be drawn from footnotes and source material connecting "The Hobbit" with "The Lord of the Rings".

Curioser and curioser. If true, this could be a remarkably interesting
project, although I'd have certain reservations about PJ handling it.
The two movies would/should have a markedly different tone, with the second
movie perhaps a bridge in tone to LOTR. One reason I can see for such a project
is (sorry, Liv haters ) developing the Aragorn/Arwen relationship covered in the appendix.

Presumably Strider would be the chief protagonist in the second film.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

So there's the solution. You still make one Hobbit movie, and you get to bring back (almost) the entire LOTR cast in the other one. Intriguing, to say the least. I can't say I like it, yet, but I can't say I dislike it either. The important thing is that they do it, and that PJ directs it.

[Encaitare]

Letter from Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh to theonering.net...

Apparently they will not be making The Hobbit now.

[Rikae]

Those fools! I have no faith in New Line whatsoever; no doubt whoever they get will botch the job horribly.

I know some of you think PJ did just that, but I'm in the "it was much better than I expected and I don't think another director would do a better job" camp.

EDIT: If anyone else is feeling as disgusted as I am:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/a...bbitwithoutPJ/

[Brinniel]

Indeed, this is very disappointing to hear. Despite what they say, I don't think this issue is over. There will be much protesting before anything is fully resolved.

However, the way it is looking right now, there's no chance PJ and Fran will ever be involved with The Hobbit. I do think there is a director somewhere out there that can handle this project, perhaps another loyal Tolkien fan. The mystery is whether New Line will find and hire that "right" director. The Hobbit won't be the same without PJ (and most likely not nearly as amazing as LotR), but after the success of LotR, New Line and the new director will be careful not to completely screw up the film. Also, if majority of the crew of LotR decides to get involved with The Hobbit, a certain element from the previous films will be kept. Personally, I could not bear to watch The Hobbit without the same design team and Weta. Weta did such an excellent job- no other company could do The Hobbit justice.

[Lalaith]

From the Guardian this morning:
http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/stor...952973,00.html

[Rikae]

Bear in mind, this most likely means not only no WETA, but no McKellen or Serkis, either. I predict an unwatchably awful Hobbit.

EDIT: Perhaps WETA will still be involved. From TORn:
"The severing of ties between PJ and New Line did not mean Weta was automatically barred from doing The Hobbit, according to Weta chief Richard Taylor."
http://www.theonering.net/index.shtml

[Essex]

Originally Posted by Rikae

Bear in mind, this most likely means not only no WETA, but no McKellen or Serkis, either. I predict an unwatchably awful Hobbit.

I'm not sure this would be true. as you said in your edit, weta might still be involved.

and why not mckellen or serkis? does an actor have to stay loyal to a director? no of course not. does jackson stay 'loyal' to actors by using them in each of his movies? of course he does not. ok, he used Serkis as Kong but that stands to reason. but he didn't use mckellen or anyone else in king kong. so why would that mean mckellen (or blanchett or elrond or Lee) not do the movie if it has another director?

perhaps serkis has some 'loyalty' to jackson, but I don't think jackson would mind if any of these actors took a part in a hobbit film with another director.

[Lalwendë]

Essex - spot on, no actor needs to feel any kind of obligation to Jackson and only star in a film he makes.

I actually think this could be a blessing in disguise. I did have reservations about the 'lighter' fare of The Hobbit in the hands of Jackson, and it gives us an opportunity to see a different (and quite possibly much better) script writing team take on the tale. The 'design' of the LotR films may well be able to remain intact from what's been said, which would be good as the art and design (along with the acting) was one of the best features of the LotR films.

I'm now much more interested than I previously was!

[Gil-Galad]

Actually, they are still making the hobbit, just that it looks like Jackson won't be directing it, New Line will find somebody else to take over. So the Hobbit is still in production but not under the reins of PJ.

[Sir Kohran]

Originally Posted by Gil-Galad

Actually, they are still making the hobbit, just that it looks like Jackson won't be directing it, New Line will find somebody else to take over. So the Hobbit is still in production but not under the reins of PJ.

I hope this isn't true...it just has to be Peter Jackson. I just can't see anyone recreating the Middle Earth he presented in LOTR...it would be like having someone else write the books other than Tolkien.

[Rikae]

Essex, yes, they wouldn't necessarily be out of the picture; however, that's the buzz on TORn, and on the Serkis fan forum I belong to. I would feel better about TH if I heard they would be involved.

SirK, I almost agree with you. Even though I read the books a good 15 years before the films came out, I feel Jackson's middle earth is the middle earth; the one I already saw in my mind's eye. While it's possible another director could do a decent job, I doubt that will actually happen and besides, I want to see TH set in PJ's world.

Furthermore, the whole situation sounds like New Line is up to no good, and I don't like to see them get away with it. I've seen how the film industry can be through my dad's and uncle's experiences (I'm not supposed to go into detail), and it's sickening.

[Lalwendë]

Why shouldn't another director make a good job of it? We've already had a splendid BBC radio version of LotR, better than the films. Jackson doesn't 'own' the 'vision' of Middle-earth, we all do. Imagine if someone like Tim Burton got their hands on The Hobbit? Would be very interesting...

[Rikae]

Oh, no!

[Gil-Galad]

well it is true, The Hobbit is still going ahead as planned just with another director.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

From the Guardian this morning

It is a measure of just how big LotR is that this story made the national press in the UK within a day or so of Jackson's letter featuring on theonering.net. The same story made the third page of The Times today.



I would be rather sad not to see Jackson make the Hobbit film(s). But I must say that I deplore New Line's tactics in using the opportunity as an attempt to force the settlement of the royalties dispute. And Jackson is quite right that, had he agreed to that, it would have been completely the wrong basis upon which to go ahead with the project.

[Brinniel]

Originally Posted by Rikae

Bear in mind, this most likely means not only no WETA, but no McKellen or Serkis, either.

Originally Posted by Essex

and why not mckellen or serkis? does an actor have to stay loyal to a director? no of course not.

Indeed. One example I can think of is the Harry Potter movies. Now bear with me because I know we all have very different opinions on these movies (probably mostly negative), but I want to point out that the director has changed for every movie since Film 2. And yet, the entire cast as well as the production teams have for the most part remained involved with the films. In fact, as the directors have switched over the years, I think the films have actually improved.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I actually think this could be a blessing in disguise.

I think it's quite possible you could be right on this one. While I appreciated PJ's directing of LotR and thought he did a fantastic job, there are other directors out there who could do just as good. Or, God forbid, perhaps this new director, whoever he or she will be, just might outdo PJ and we could end up with something better than we ever expected.

Just because PJ is not involved, does not mean we should give up hope. At least a film for The Hobbit is certain to be made at all. We'll just have to wait and see what happens next...

[Rikae]

First off, it isn't certain PJ won't be...or so MGM says (it's on the TORn main page...it's late and I'm too lazy to link at the moment)...
and secondly: the LOTR cast is an entirely different animal than the HP cast. Every time they've mentioned doing the Hobbit, they have made a point of adding "with Peter and Fran" or similar.

[Thinlómien]

"Peter Jackson won't do the Hobbit" was one of the headlines in the Metro (one of those newspapers you get for free) in Finland. I'm very interested to see if there's anything of it in the biggest and most respected Finnish newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat...

I'm both relieved and disappointed by the news. The new director might do it much better, or much worse. I just hope that they hire a director with artistic vision and courage to show it on the screen.

Actually, I'm more relieved than disappointed. I'm not sure if The Hobbit, would have been a film I'd want to see directed by Jackson. PJ is good at doing epic action, and that's certainly not something I wish to see in The Hobbit. Just imagine a PJ-style action fight Bilbo vs. the spiders! The Hobbit is a fairytale and I want to see a fairytale in the theatres too.

[Lalwendë]

That whole 'fairytale' aspect is why I think Tim Burton might make a splendid film!

Got to say that what was wrong with the LotR films was the scriptwriting, messing about with the delicate balance of the storyline, so I'm quite pleased that the old team won't be let loose on The Hobbit. It has far more potential for silliness and after what they did with poor old Gimli I was a bit worried the film might come out like Bilbo Baggins and the Seven Dwarves.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

That whole 'fairytale' aspect is why I think Tim Burton might make a splendid film!

Got to say that what was wrong with the LotR films was the scriptwriting, messing about with the delicate balance of the storyline, so I'm quite pleased that the old team won't be let loose on The Hobbit. It has far more potential for silliness and after what they did with poor old Gimli I was a bit worried the film might come out like Bilbo Baggins and the Seven Dwarves.

Tim Burton would be delightful indeed.

And I'm going to scream if they're going to have less than 13 dwarves.

[Child of the 7th Age]

First, as many "mistakes" as PJ made, I am even more skeptical about someone else doing this movie. I waited and waited for so many years hoping that someone would make a half-way decent LotR or Hobbit. The animated Hobbit wasn't too bad as a film strictly for children but every other project --those actually done or those merely planned--simply didn't measure up even to the extent that PJ's work eventually did. In an ideal world, we would have a director who could not only capture the visual world of Middle-earth (which PJ did quite well with the help of Lee and Howe and all the WETA people) but also have more feeling for the characters themselves. I just don't think such a director exists who can get both sides of the puzzle right. And if Serkis and Ian refuse to go with the new director, which is a definite possibility, I can't see people turning out to see the film. New Line knows this. MGM knows this, which is why the latter is already starting to grumble. I really believe it isn't a case of The Hobbit with PJ or The Hobbit without PJ. I honestly think it's the Hobbit with PJ or no Hobbit at all. I'd rather take PJ than no Hobbit!

Secondly, I guess I am with Rakae on this one. I am not convinced this is the end of the line. A lot of what's going on seems like legal posturing for the court case. New Line was obviously trying to bludgeon PJ into submission on the lawsuit but he refused to take the bait. PJ went public either because he felt he owed it to his fans or, just as likely, thought their wrath would help move New Line by making them realize the fan base won't accept a Hobbit without PJ. I don't think this is the last move or counter move.

Take a look at this interview that Zaentz gave last Friday, just two days before the call came to PJ "cutting him off". This excerpt was printed on the http://derhobbit-film.de/indexengl.shtml website. By the way, if you look at the numerous references to the Hobbit that extend back for many months on the first page of that website, you get the sense of an intricate dance being staged in public, with people trying to position themselves favorably in the negotiations.

11/17/2006
Producer Saul Zaentz said in an interview with the German movie magazine 'Cinema', The Hobbit surely will be made by Peter Jackson. MGM-boss Harry Sloan meanwhile gives 2008 or 2009 as date.
Translation from the magazine:
Q: What is with the long anticipated Hobbit-adaption?
A: It will definitely be shot by Peter Jackson. The question is only when. He wants to shoot another movie first. Next year the Hobbit-rights will fall back to my company. I suppose that Peter will wait because he knows that he will make the best deal with us. And he is fed up with the studios: to get his profit share on the rings trilogy he had to sue New Line. With us in contrast he knows that he will be paid fairly and artistically supported without reservation.
(own translation)

In relation to this quote, I had always thought that New Line brought out the film rights from Zaentz and just agreed to give him some kick backs from the LotR profits. (Of couse, MGM still has distribution rights.) However, the above quote confirms what PJ's letter mentions: the rights weren't bought by New Line. They merely rented them for a certain period and this period will end sometime in 2007. It sounds as if Zaentz really will have the film rights revert to him at this point. This quote also suggests that, just two days before the call to PJ, Zaentz not only assumed PJ would be the director of the movie but held out the possibility of having PJ negotiate directly with his own company (rather than New Line) after the rights reverted back. Kind of strange.....

I wish I knew more about the movie business or legal contracts so I could understand this. Can anyone (maybe Mr. Underhill) translate what all this means in terms of rights reverting back? What does New Line have to do to comply with the terms of the agreement and keep the rights for their own Hobbit film? Is it simply to have people sign on to some kind of a legal document? Is it possible that the rights will revert back to Zaentz if New Line doesn't come through with their side of the bargain? Would Zaentz then be in position to negotiate with PJ, MGM, or whoever he wanted? I do know that when the press tried to speak with Zaentz about PJ's letter, his spokespeople said he was "travelling in Europe and unavailable for comment." Convenient copout!

Have we really reached the end of the rope, or is this just another step in a very complicated dance among four different parties---NewLine, MGM, PJ, and Zaentz---to see who comes out on top?

[Child of the 7th Age]

Just stumbled onto David Poland's movie blog. He is usually pretty knowledgeable. There are already over 30 comments, with everyone predictably disagreeing with each other.

Here is an excerpt:

As for New Line, finding a quality director to succeed Peter Jackson to work on any future Rings-related will be almost impossible. Getting any of the actors who are loyal to Jackson and Walsh will be almost impossible. Selling this as more of the same to the public? They will get 3 weekends out of one project if it is not slaughtered by critics. They will suck some money out of it. And ironically, they will probably be able to make some superior licensing deals.

But anyone who looks at this separation with glee? ......

Aesthetically, there is no call for joy, no matter how much one might have disliked the trilogy. There will never be an emotionless, dry, pseudo-intellectual version of any Rings film in the next decades. (Who knows what revisionism happens in 2030?) And it is quite unlikely that there will be a better version of this style of Rings film from any other filmmaker. This isn’t Harry Potter, bouncing from filmmaker to filmmaker....

Personally, I don't need to see The Hobbit or any other Rings stuff. I am more than pleased to see Walsh/Jackson move onto The Lovely Bones and other such projects. I think it is easy to get caught up in your greatest, unrepeatable success. But they are feeling forced to walk away from their child. And no one will win from it. So there is nothing to applaud. Nothing at all.

But then again, mommy and daddy's separation - even though they have now told the kids - isn't a divorce quite yet. So, who knows...

[Essex]

And if Serkis and Ian refuse to go with the new director, which is a definite possibility, I can't see people turning out to see the film.

Sorry, but I can't see this being the case. If it's a useless film, then fair enough it will not do as well as the LOTR trilogy, but having different actors as Gandalf and Gollum? Why would this drive people away from the movie? I would like both actors to be in the film, but if they are not, then I (and many others I reckon) will put up with it. The best character in the Harry Potter books (dumbledore) was replaced in the films half way through because of the death of an actor - and come on, dumbledore is a bit of a copy of Gandalf - and that worked ok. I didn't see much of a backlash with people not seing the next installment once a new actor came in to play dumbledore.....

[The Saucepan Man]

I believe that Child's assessment is spot on.

Increasingly, litigation is being played out in the public arena rather than in the courts where it belongs, where the media perceives a "public interest" and one or both of the litigants see it in their interests to do so. Witness, for example, the very public dispute surrounding the break up between Paul McCartney and Heather Mills.

It is now common, in such cases, for the litigants (and even the lawyers) to engage PR consultants to handle the public side of their disputes. Any advantage that may be gained through the use of the media and other means of public reporting is seen as fair game.

So I would agree that their is a fair amount of public posturing going on, for tactical reasons related to the ongoing disputes. And there are, to my knowledge, at least two disputes involved here - between New Line and MGM, and between Jackson and New Line. There may be more (indeed, that is quite possible given the huge amounts of money at stake).

I have no idea as to the precise provisions of this "rights rental" agreement between New Line and Zaentz, as I am not familiar with these types of agreement. But it seems that, in order to retain the rights to make the film, New Line have to have taken certain steps in connection with realising the project and this, it would appear, involves lining up a director, and probably a core production team, at the very least. I would have thought that some sort of legally binding committment will be required.

If New Line are unable to meet these requirements then, yes, it does appear that the rights will revert back to Zaentz and that he will then be free to negotiate with the various parties himself or licence the rights to a different company. Perhaps MGM are angling to acquire the production rights, in addition to the distribution rights (which would certainly resolve the issue between them and New Line).

I do get the impression from what I have seen that Zaentz is very keen for this film to be made, one way or another, and for Jackson to direct. One thing is for sure. Given the potential financial rewards involved, the film (or films) will almost certainly be made. The only question is by whom. And that, it seems, is what all this legal wrangling and public posturing is all about.

[Bêthberry]

Much as I enjoy Child's acumen and Sauce's insider take, I really have difficulty with this idea that only PJ could do The Hobbit.

Certainly, another director would have a different vision for the film, a different take. It would not be PJ's Hobbit. Yet why should that be a problem? Why must there be only one vision which pertains?

After all, isn't the great virtue of this Barrow Downs that we have so many different voices/takes/POVs on Tolkien? Aiwendil and Kuruharan in contrast to Hookbill and phantom. Contrast Squatter's tomes with burrahobbit's pith. Diamond's jibes with Fea's come-ons. Or even compare Anguirel's literary leanings with Rimbaud's. Fordim's reflections with Formendacil's. Estelyn's patience with Lal's passion or Lush's provocativeness.

Frankly, much as I enjoyed his posts, I really objected to davem's insistence that he was/is Mr. Downs all by himself. Much of what he posted would have been far less interesting without Lal's running commentary, as well as that of others. George Burns needed Graciebut that didn't mean people didn't enjoy The Honeymooners.

the same holds for film directors. What new would PJ bring to The Hobbit? Would it just be more of the same LotR flick or would it provide a new perspective on Bilbo and the Ring? Would it tell us something about Tolkien we don't already know?

Frankly, if we take anything from Tolkien, it is the cautionary tale that any One Ring is too authoritarian an approach to life.

Tim Burton has already been mentioned as one director who might have a very different take on TH. I think it would really be fascinating to consider what kind of TH film other directors might make.

Neil Gaiman has written for the screen, for instance, ...

[Essex]

Tim Burton has already been mentioned as one director who might have a very different take on TH. I think it would really be fascinating to consider what kind of TH film other directors might make.

but what character could his missus play? I can't think of any female leads in the Hobbit!!! Or would Mr Burton create one??? Mrs Bilbo Baggins instead of Mr Bilbo Baggins perhaps??

[Mister Underhill]

All of these developments have indeed been quite interesting, from a Hollywood observer's perspective as well as a Tolkien fan perspective.

Presumably New Line has what's called an "option" on The Hobbit. This is where you pay a small sum (smaller than you'd pay for outright purchase anyway, obviously) to acquire rights for a limited amount of time. These deals can be structured any way you want, but the typical option term is for a year. Often the party that holds the option can renew for another term when the option expires, assuming both the underlying rights holder and the optioner are both amenable -- some people make more money by having options renewed over a span of time than they do on outright sales of material. Presumably New Line has been paying rent as you say on The Hobbit for years. This talk of reversion is an interesting development though. It is clearly a threat on Zaentz's part that he won't renew when the option expires.

For New Line's part, that means the clock is ticking. Like I said, there is no boilerplate option -- they can be structured in many ways -- but probably New Line needs to get a greenlit picture before the option expires or rights would revert to Zaentz, who then is as free as a bird to shop his project elsewhere. But -- how can they move forward when things are still unresolved with MGM? Perhaps they made a play to pressure Jackson to commit so that, with a project that was really happening, MGM would be more inclined to come to terms. A bird in the hand and all that.

I'm even more puzzled by Jackson taking things public. Chances are he has a legitimate suit. Unfortunately, it's pretty much standard practice for studios to try to cheat profit participants out of their due. I also wouldn't be surprised if making a new deal to help resolve the suit really is "how things are done". With that in mind, I guess there are at least a couple of reasons for going public. The cynic in me wonders if Jackson was looking for an out and found it. He's able to walk away from the project with creative integrity intact and New Line looking like the bad guy. The flip side of the argument he's made on TORN is that if he was really passionate to make The Hobbit, he wouldn't let a compromise over money stand in the way.

On the other hand, this may be Jackson and Zaentz's way of playing hardball with New Line (does Zaentz also still have an unresolved suit with them over profits?). They know that the biggest obstacle for New Line if they lose Jackson and their option can't be renewed is time -- the time it would take for a new director and creative team to come aboard and develop the project into a go movie. All this with the MGM tangle still unresolved, too.

Verrry interesting. Anyway, I wouldn't count anything out yet. I'd say Jackson is still as likely as not to direct a Hobbit movie if he still wants to. We'll see how things play out.

[Rikae]

On the topic of the consequences of using another director -
I admit I'm biased, (I've been a Jackson fan since Heavenly Creatures), but it seems to me PJ has an ability to get the audience to invest emotionally in scenes that, in another director's hands, would be either merely entertaining or unbearably "schlock-y". Yes, Jackson has been known to descend into schmaltz at times, but more often he pulls it off; he has a sort of childlike sincerity that draws viewers in; makes one set aside cynicism and feel for the characters. I think that ability was a major part of LOTR's success, and that The Hobbit is even more dependant on it.
PJ is the only director whose movies make me cry, and they do so repeatedly, from the murder scene in "Heavenly Creatures" to the scene when all of Gondor bows to the hobbits in ROTK, to the final scenes of King Kong. With any other director I would watch the first without emotion, and laugh at the cheesiness of the latter two. I'm doubtful that any other director will be able to give us a Bilbo we can love as much as we should, and that is absolutely essential.

As much as I dislike the prospect of a non-PJ hobbit, I'm even more distraught over the idea of a non-Serkis Gollum. Ian McKellen was an excellent Gandalf, and it would be a shame to lose him, but another Gandalf is concievable. Another Gollum is unthinkable to me - a sacrilege. If Serkis refuses, there are three possibilities I see:
1. An actor attempts to imitate the Gollum Serkis created. This sort of situation gives, at best, weak, empty results, and at worst, laughable ones.
2. Gollum is purely CGI, with only a voice actor. Hello, Jar Jar!
3. Another actor takes Gollum in a completely different direction; however, there aren't that many directions to go & still give us Tolkien's Gollum, so this approach would most likely give as a charater that is either too monstrous, or too shallow.

I hope what we're seeing with PJ and NewLine is, as Child says, part of a complicated dance, because if Pete and Andy sit this one out, we're going to end up with a version of "The Hobbit" that has two left feet.

*groan*

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Just a comment on another director then PJ. He obviously has plusses and minuses (more plusses, especially casting, or was that FW domain?)
But perhaps a better example of different directors actually enhancing a
story then Harry Potter is the original Star Wars set (Parts 4, 5, 6).
I thought different directors enhanced and broadened the story there.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Tim Burton has already been mentioned as one director who might have a very different take on TH. I think it would really be fascinating to consider what kind of TH film other directors might make.

Yes, Tim Burton's ability to combine a children's tale with just the right touch of darkness would seem fitting for such a project. The question is whether he would have sufficient enthusisam for the works of Tolkien to make it work. I have no idea what the answer to that is.

I can think of another director who would be ideal for the project, were he so inclined (and, again, I have no idea whether he would). He has already made a film in which a hero with whom children may identify goes off on a strange adventure with a bunch of dwarves. In another of his films, an everyman hero is drawn from a mundane existence into a fantasy world following an encounter with a mysterious man associated with pipes. Yet another of his films involves a protagonist renowned for embellishing the tales of his fantastical adventures. And his most recent film, set on the edge of the real world and faerie, explored the nature of fairy-tale in a most novel way.

He is a wonderful, quirky director, eminently capable of combining the fantastical and the comedic but his films also often have a dark side to them, and he is no stranger to special effects.

Can you guess to whom I refer?

[Mister Underhill]

Nice call, Sauce -- I was going to mention Gilliam myself. He would certainly be an interesting choice -- better than Burton IMO.

Further to the question of actors and a Jackson-less Hobbit, I just saw this article: McKellan "sad" that Jackson may not make "Hobbit". Notice how Sir Ian doesn't say he would never do TH without Jackson. And anyway, I seriously doubt that Jackson would want anyone to pass up the job for his sake. It's a hard world out there for actors. Choice parts like Gollum and Gandalf don't come down the road every day. My bet is that both men would return to reprise their roles -- with Jackson's blessing.

[Rikae]

I adore him...but for The Hobbit?
Much as I would like to see Smaug argue about swallows (or sparrows in this case), and the Sackville Bagginses explode, I'd have to say he's a tad TOO quirky.

I'd be quite the birthday present, if they called him up today...

EDIT: X posted with Mr. Underhill

[Rikae]

TORn just posted this:
"Word from a reliable source indicates that Sam Raimi has been approached to direct THE HOBBIT"

[Mister Underhill]

Ooh, Raimi -- another very interesting possibility. He's certainly more than qualified to handle the FX side of things, and his handling of the emotional side of the Spiderman franchise has been pitch-perfect so far.

[Rikae]

Has it been? I've never seen the Spiderman movies, which is why I didn't comment on Raimi. I'll have to go to Family Video tomorrow...