Thoughts on the Hobbit

[serai]

I 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.

Comments

[estelanui.livejournal.com]

I SO hope you interpretation of the brief Saul Zaentz' quote is right!

I like to see two different 'school' and sensibilities shoot the same story

[serai1.livejournal.com]

It would be interesting, wouldn't it?

People keep forgetting that New Line didn't make LOTR; they just paid for it. Wingnut and Weta made the film with the money and help of New Line. MGM is just as capable of backing his Hobbit as New Line is.

[notabluemaia.livejournal.com]

Very interesting idea, Serai. It could well call New Line's bluff, if that is an option. It's hard to imagine a director as fine as needed for The Hobbit wanting to go head to head with PJ on this. One thing to go for it and enjoy - another entirely to know that Jackson is coming in with all the linkage to LotR (storywise and contextually, as well)

I wouldn't mind two films, though the thought of one w/o PJ and the historicity of LotR is disheartening.

[serai1.livejournal.com]

Well, remember that New Line's idea has been that their film would link to the LOTR that's already been made, whether or not PJ makes it. I don't think they're planning to make schlock here, which is the assumption that everybody seems to be making, that if PJ isn't there, it'll be shit. There's no reason why it couldn't be quite grand, just different. After all, one of the most common complaints about PJ's LOTR was that "it wasn't like I imagined it!!" Now instead of some people saying it's not like Tolkien's book, there will be (if this PJ-less one gets made) that the film isn't like Tolkien OR PJ's work. But it'll still be the same situation - fans wanting something that they're envisioning.

But for me, half the fun, hell most of the fun, in going to a movie is not knowing what it'll be like. I had no idea what PJ was going to do with LOTR, and each time the movies came out, it was a mystery whether they would "get it right". They weren't always perfect, either. I'm gonna reserve judgment on anything here until I actually see the movies, because I honestly think it's possible that a Hobbit without movie without PJ could be great.

I wouldn't have thought to ask Sam Raimi to do it, but then I wouldn't have thought to approach PJ either. Raimi is a damn good director, and he comes out of the same genre as PJ does. What with CGI and FX being so advanced these days (no clumsy Bakshi debacle in the offing, I expect), he could pull it off in the end, if New Line goes with him. It would just remain then to see if MGM would have the chutzpah to go ahead with their own version.

[celandine-g.livejournal.com]

Such an interesting theory and it makes sense in the overall "picture." It will really be interesting to see what happens.

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.