According to a press release, Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson will executive produce two films based on J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit.
Details from the press release:
* MGM and New Line will co-finance and co-distribute two films, “The Hobbit” and a sequel to “The Hobbit.” New Line will distribute in North America and MGM will distribute internationally.
* Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh will serve as Executive Producers of two films based on “The Hobbit.” New Line will manage the production of the films, which will be shot simultaneously.
* Peter Jackson and New Line have settled all litigation relating to the “Lord of the Rings” (LOTR) Trilogy.
Said Peter Jackson, “I’m very pleased that we’ve been able to put our differences behind us, so that we may begin a new chapter with our old friends at New Line. ‘The Lord of the Rings’ is a legacy we proudly share with Bob and Michael, and together, we share that legacy with millions of loyal fans all over the world. We are delighted to continue our journey through Middle Earth. I also want to thank Harry Sloan and our new friends at MGM for helping us find the common ground necessary to continue that journey.”
“Peter Jackson has proven himself as the filmmaker who can bring the extraordinary imagination of Tolkien to life and we full heartedly agree with the fans worldwide who know he should be making ‘The Hobbit,’” said Sloan, MGM’s Chairman and CEO. “Now that we are all in agreement on ‘The Hobbit,’ we can focus on assembling the production team that will capture this phenomenal tale on film.”
December 18th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Glad that Jackson and Walsh are involved - but who’s directing if he’s not? Raimi?
And who’s writing the scripts?
December 18th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Why are there TWO movies? I haven’t read the Hobbit since grade school, so can someone tell me if this is really justified?
AE.
December 18th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Ego - Jackson has always said that, because ‘The Hobbit’ was written as a prequel to ‘Lord of the Rings’, it is neccessarily “smaller” than those films, so that, in order to do right by the audience and raise the bar so as not to have them feel cheated, he expected that they would need to beef up a lot of stuff.
Hopefully, though, this won’t mean a lot of “Hey, didn’t you always wonder what Aragorn looked like when he was 6?” a la a certain other prequel series I could name.
December 18th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
But he isn’t directing The Hobbit…:-(
December 18th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Unless it specifically says he is not directing or that someone else is, there is no reason to speculate that Jackson won’t be helming this project.
December 18th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
I think it’s the other way around, Joshua. If he was planning to direct, they’d be yelling it from the rooftops.
December 18th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
I was in New Zealand this past June. Went on the LTR tour. I’m sure hope the settlement is what the New Zealand actors needed. Sounded like they got the shaft to me. This is a big big deal for the New Zealand people I’m sure.
December 18th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
I think I just went sexy time on my screen!
F**K YEAH!!!
December 18th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
I’m sure Joshua is right. The key part of this is the announcement that New Line, MGM and Jackson have all come to an agreement to make the film together. The next decision will be who directs it, and it’s nuts if it’s not Jackson. The only way he won’t direct it is if he doesn’t want to, he’s earned that much.
The quote from Sloan at the end probably indicates that they want Jackson to direct it anyway.
December 18th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
And lo, the sound of a million geek orgasms spread like wildfire over the land.
December 18th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Mega Gear X, that’s not necessarily true. Nobody’s directing this yet. There isn’t a script yet.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Great news ! Cant wait to see it, 2 movies seems a lot to cover The Hobbit but I trust Peter Jackson so we will see.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Odds are that PJ won’t be able to direct due to scheduling conflicts with prior committed projects (i.e. TinTin). But they’ve got my fanny in the seat with the mere mention of ‘A Film By Peter Jackson’. As long as he sits on top of the tower like the big flaming eye of Sauron and watches over everything, I don’t care who he gets to lead his army.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Perhaps by splitting it into two movies, they can each be under 147 hours long like the LOTR snoozers were.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
I know Ken….right!? What were they thinking with those three films…I mean, they didn’t even make any money.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Obviously, I don’t have any first-hand knowledge. But think about this:
- nobody in the world has given more thought by half to how to make ‘The Hobbit’ into a movie than Peter Jackson.
- New Line legally can not announce any screenwriter on the project due to the WGA strike. Due to the loose definition of “writing” that Hollywood uses, I believe that even a director making creative choices about which aspects of a book will be made into a movie could technically qualify as writing, which means that Jackson (a WGA member) can not sign on as a director to a movie which has no script [whereas, through a strange series of definitions and decisions, producers *are* allowed to guide those things when there is no director to do so].
- They say they’re planning to forge ahead with pre-production despite not having any officially written script or director.
This one is an opinion:
- Very, very few directors would, on the one hand, be talented enough to fill Jackson’s shoes and, on the other hand, be willing to take a backseat to Jackson’s vision in order to make this movie fit with the others (and especially because Jackson will obviously be in control of pre-production unless and until an official director is hired).
My thinking is… who else is gonna do it? I’m sure Jackson is already on board, and has probably had at least a rough outline of a script for a long time, but he can’t legally sign anything or do any writing as of right now.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Ken - Peter Jackson said that he wanted to make ‘The Hobbit’ into one single 294 hour film, so you probably won’t like the way it splits up.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
“Due to the loose definition of “writing” that Hollywood uses, I believe that even a director making creative choices about which aspects of a book will be made into a movie could technically qualify as writing, which means that Jackson (a WGA member) can not sign on as a director to a movie”
Directors have their own guild that is seperate from the WGA. Unless someone can actually show a guild clause that supports this, it seems very unlikely.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
An earlier rumor surrounding a potential two-film The Hobbit was that one film would be The Hobbit, and the other would be something that takes place between The Hobbit and LotR, which I think would be a terrible idea.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
gee wasn’t the ring trilogy the sequel to the hobbit?
December 18th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
PJ’s treatment for the Hobbit that he wrote quite a while back was for two films, with a lot of additional content pulled from the appendices.
December 19th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Perhaps the two films will be covering the Hobbit and the ring/Sauron aspects of the Simirillion.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:48 am
I’m pretty sure it’s going to be The Hobbit and then a musical comedy about Beorn when he was a kid.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Ken-Yeah, epic quest, clash of good vs evil, outstanding performances, incredible sfx, engaging characters, huge battles. Gosh, maybe this time they’ll put guns in it at least.
Go soak your head.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Let’s all gang up on the guy who didn’t like the movies. We’re right, he’s an idiot, woo!!!
And for the record, Jackson can sign on as the director if he wants to. Lots of movies have directors before they have writers. Many many movies hire their writers based on who the director wants as the writer. There is nothing at all stopping Jackson from signing on as a director. That would be like saying that he can’t produce it because there’s no script.
And also, if he had any intention or any THOUGHT towards directing it, I’m sure it would have been in the article. While it’s true that he could decide to direct it, I think it’s very unlikely. There’s little point to announcing his as an exec producer if he’s going to direct it. Having a big-name sign on as an exec producer is more about financing and hype (see Tarantino exec-producing the Hostel movies) and being able to point to a big name in the credits when the director is a small name. The big-name exec producer is good for putting “Big Name Director Presents” so that, again citing Hostel, there are people who saw “Quentin Tarantino Presents Hostel” and actually thought it was Tarantino’s new movie.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
They could expand it by adding in the meeting of the White Council which lead to the attack upon the tower of the Necromancer in southern Mirkwood which took place when Gandalf left the Dwarves and Bilbo.The Necromancer was Sauron and he then returned to Mordor, a move he’d already prepared for.That affected Gondor which might also be depicted.I’de have to look it up but I recall that Aragorn served in Gondor under an assumed name during his youth, with Denethor as his rival.But the timing might not be precise enough.Denethor’s father was Steward then.Of course, for better or worse, they may well put the second film somewhere during the 60 years between The Hobbit and LOTR even though Bilbo had no further recorded adventures in that time, though I believe he did occaissionally travel to places like Rivendel and Lonely Mountain for short visits.But I could be wrong. He might simply have wished he had as noted during LOTR.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:27 am
In case anyone is still trying to convince himself that Peter Jackson might direct:
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/hobbitnews.php?id=40333
December 20th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Variety is saying Raimi’s expected to do it once he finishes Drag Me To Hell.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117978006.html?categoryid=1236&cs=1
December 21st, 2007 at 4:05 pm
“Directors have their own guild that is seperate from the WGA. Unless someone can actually show a guild clause that supports this, it seems very unlikely.”
Jason - it’s not a literal clause, it is a question of personal ethics. Most of the show-runners in Hollywood — the writers who are also producers who are in charge of the shows — are striking now and refuse to do *any* creative work for the shows, even stuff which would ordinarily be considered “producing”, despite the fact that their contracts specifically deny them the right to do this.
As I say, it’s a question of personal ethics. I don’t know Jackson’s stance on the WGA or the strike, but I know that a lot of directors in recent months have turned down work because they would consider it unethical (not to mention probably illegal) to do creative work on a project while the strike was on.
Then, of course, you have guys like Vince Vaughn, taking re-write gigs that are offered because he’s not a WGA member. Hopefully, Jackson is not that much of a scumbag.
December 21st, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Oh, but Jason, to answer your question, there is a specific Hollywood definition of writing, which was created at a time when producers and directors used to try and force writers to put their names on the scripts. But the point is, individual people have different definitions of writing. Peter Jackson made at least two movies in his life which didn’t have scripts [and I can't imagine 'Forgotten Silver' had much of one]. ‘Bad Taste’ had no script written down, but he controlled the improvisation. Is that writing? It’s close enough that he got a writing credit for it.