Thoughts on the Hobbit
Thursday, November 23rd, 2006 11:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
seraiI was reading the message board over at TORn, where they're nattering about l'affaire Hobbit, and I just realized something about that Saul Zaentz quote (see my last post).
The first time I read it, it sounded like he was talking about New Line being backed into a corner and having to deal with Peter in order to get him to make the film before the rights ran out. But you know, there's a different way to read his words. He could just as well mean that New Line could certainly go ahead and make a Hobbit movie without Peter, but that the rights will revert to MGM in a year regardless, and that's when MGM would finance Peter's film.
After all, it wouldn't be the first time that two films on the same or similar themes were released fairly close to each other. The example that comes to mind first is the two adaptations of Les Liaisons Dangereuses, Dangerous Liaisons with John Malkovich, and Valmont with Colin Firth (for my money, much the better of the two). Hollywood does that sort of thing a lot, and the fact that Peter would be working on the MGM version would automatically give it both more cachet and a built-in audience. And if MGM does declare, at some point, that they're gonna start production on Peter's Hobbit in 2007, all the people who worked on PJ's LOTR are going to go with him - Weta, the actors, everybody.
If MGM is smart, they'll just sit calmly and watch the fray. Then if New Line announces the production with another director, MGM should move to announce their competing production, slated to start rolling a year later. Even with the time offset, it would still turn out well for them in the long run, I think.
The first time I read it, it sounded like he was talking about New Line being backed into a corner and having to deal with Peter in order to get him to make the film before the rights ran out. But you know, there's a different way to read his words. He could just as well mean that New Line could certainly go ahead and make a Hobbit movie without Peter, but that the rights will revert to MGM in a year regardless, and that's when MGM would finance Peter's film.
After all, it wouldn't be the first time that two films on the same or similar themes were released fairly close to each other. The example that comes to mind first is the two adaptations of Les Liaisons Dangereuses, Dangerous Liaisons with John Malkovich, and Valmont with Colin Firth (for my money, much the better of the two). Hollywood does that sort of thing a lot, and the fact that Peter would be working on the MGM version would automatically give it both more cachet and a built-in audience. And if MGM does declare, at some point, that they're gonna start production on Peter's Hobbit in 2007, all the people who worked on PJ's LOTR are going to go with him - Weta, the actors, everybody.
If MGM is smart, they'll just sit calmly and watch the fray. Then if New Line announces the production with another director, MGM should move to announce their competing production, slated to start rolling a year later. Even with the time offset, it would still turn out well for them in the long run, I think.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: Friday, November 24th, 2006 06:43 pm (UTC)The example that comes to mind first is the two adaptations of Les Liaisons Dangereuses, Dangerous Liaisons with John Malkovich, and Valmont with Colin Firth (for my money, much the better of the two).
Another total agreement here. Valmont was so utterly beautiful--visually, musically, and Firthily. One of my favorites. I loved the scene where he dances with the four women--each in love with him in a different way--and he gives each of them something different. Just lovely.