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.
Quote:
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?