Werthead Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 Lord, this is turning into some kind of crazy soap opera. The Story So Far In the beginning was The Hobbit. Peter Jackson wanted to make a movie of both it and The Lord of the Rings, but Miramax talked him into concentrating on Lord of the Rings instead due to a headache-inducing rights situation revolving around The Hobbit (MGM/Universal had the distribution rights and wanted serious mullah for them). Miramax and Jackson had a disagreement on the Rings films, he jumped ship to New Line, the trilogy was a massive success and lots of people got very rich. Jackson wanted to bugger off and do some other projects before coming back to The Hobbit, and New Line were happy with this. It also gave them time to analyse the labyrinth rights situation between themselves and MGM. Anyway, Jackson goes off to make King Kong. And then he discovers that his company was ripped off from the profits of The Fellowship of the Ring. When New Line refused to talk about it, Jackson sued them. A lengthy war of words erupted, culminating at the end of last year when Jackson formally announced he would not be working with New Line until the lawsuit was settled. New Line had just sorted out the rights situation but only had a limited-time option. The original suggestion was that The Hobbit had to be in production before the end of 2007 otherwise the rights would revert to MGM, although apparently the correct date is Spring 2009. New Line announced that Jackson would not be working on the film and started talking to several other directors. Apparently Peter Weir was approached but New Line quickly fastened their hopes on Sam Raimi. Raimi seemed intrigued by the notion but stressed he'd only do it with Jackson's approval and permission. Ian McKellan, who would be the most prominent actor returning to Middle-earth, also stipulated he'd only take part with Jackson's approval. Whilst not quoted directly, apparently Andy Serkis allegedly also adopted this approach. The fans went a bit bonkers throughout all of this, some suggesting that fresh blood may be good for Middle-earth but the majority apparently demanding that Jackson at least produce, if not direct, The Hobbit. In the middle of this MGM announced that if the rights reverted to them, they'd do an adaption themselves with Jackson on board (although confusingly such an adaption would not be able to use any materials, props, sets, make-up, special effects, the same design for Gollum or anything from the Lord of the Rings trilogy, as all of that belonged to New Line). However, several things have now happened which puts the project back under the spotlight. First off, New Line had a pretty bad year. Secondly, Jackson won the first round of the lawsuit. Thirdly, Sam Raimi passed on the project. Fourthly, possibly due to a combination of the first three factors, New Line have now eaten humble pie and suggested they want to work with Jackson on The Hobbit. Jackson's representatives are non-committal. The full sorry saga can be read here. However, I wouldn't be surprised to hear in 12 months' time that Jackson will be at least producing The Hobbit for New Line, if not directing as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskeyjak Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 Damn, Gina. I hope Pete ends up directing it , myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anya, Vengeance Demon Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 How does MGM/Universal own the distribution rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niamh Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 IIRC Tolkien sold the rights long long ago because he needed the money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anya, Vengeance Demon Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 IIRC Tolkien sold the rights long long ago because he needed the money Okay, but why does MGM have just the distribution rights specifically, if New Line apparently has the rights to produce the movie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davos Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 Here's hoping that it can be worked on so that Jackson ends up directing it. It would be cool to have a Hobbit movie that is done in a fashion consistant with Jackson's LotR films. While there would be other ways to approach the material that would be just as valid as Jackson would, it would be very odd to have a a big budget, high profile take on the Hobbit so soon after jackson did the lord of the Rings that would clash, or at least not be consistant with, those films. I would also like to see how Jackson would handle the hobbit material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niamh Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 I would also like to see how Jackson would handle the hobbit material. With a lot of ridiculous dwarf jokes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon AS Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 With a lot of ridiculous dwarf jokes? Well, they wouldn't be completely out of place in The Hobbit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 My understanding is that United Artists had the full rights from Tolkien, and then sold most of the rights (but not, apparently, distribution rights for The Hobbit to Saul Zaentz). UA was later absorbed by MGM, who inherited the distribution rights. Why the distribution rights weren't part of the sale package, I'm not sure. Possibly UA sold only production rights to The Hobbit and LotR initially, but then sold the distribution rights outright for the latter when Bakshi's animated films were put together. Although this makes me wonder about the animated Hobbit and why something similar didn't happen then. IIRC, Rankin/Bass are the distributors of that film, so either there's something about it being animated that made a difference, or maybe U.A. only provided time-limited distribution rights... All quite confusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted September 29, 2007 Author Share Posted September 29, 2007 Okay, but why does MGM have just the distribution rights specifically, if New Line apparently has the rights to produce the movie? As Ran said, it's something to do with the animated Hobbit film from 1977. MGM/Universal retains distribution rights from any further Hobbit movie. I think they had production rights as well but New Line purchased them as part of the deal, so New Line can make the film any way they want but they must appease MGM/Universal if they want to release it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mance Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 sooooooooooo, basically we've moved away from "probably not" and we're back to "maybe"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gwinna Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 I'd heard about some of that, but thanks for explaining it so clearly, Werthead. Anyway, I hope the movie does get made. I'd like to see it. And as davos said, it would probably be best if Jackson is involved so that it fits with LOTR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guarneri Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 Eh, I for one wouldn't like a Hobbit movie. Unless they manage to change it quite a bit, like they did with LoTR, though I think it'd need a lot more changes than LoTR did. Though I may be a bit biased since I thought The Hobbit was god-awful, so who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tears of Lys Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 With a lot of ridiculous dwarf jokes? I could do without those, as well. Well, they wouldn't be completely out of place in The Hobbit... One of the reasons I didn't like the Hobbit as much as I liked othe JRRT writings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demonblade Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 Eh, I for one wouldn't like a Hobbit movie. Unless they manage to change it quite a bit, like they did with LoTR, though I think it'd need a lot more changes than LoTR did. Though I may be a bit biased since I thought The Hobbit was god-awful, so who knows. Completely agree but if they ever made it, I'd probably watch it opening night anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brude Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 Why the distribution rights weren't part of the sale package, I'm not sure. What Wert said sounds logical. Also, UA ceased to function as a true movie studio after the debacle that was the movie "Heaven's Gate," they went bankrupt. They eventually got bought by MGM and became a sort of sub-studio under the MGM banner doing only a small number of movies a year, like 3 or 4, though the James Bond franchise was still under the UA heading. (One of the first things I ever did when I worked in Hollywood when I first moved out there was temping as the 3rd assitant for the President of UA for about a week, a pretty interesting experience). I think UA is now completely absorbed into MGM and they just function as a label for certain movies and franchises, like Bond. MGM itself has had tremendous financial difficulties since forever. They don't do many movies any more and became largely a distributor of their back catalog, which is and ever shall be a gigantic cash cow. It makes sense that they would hold on to distribution rights for something like The Hobbit. Doesn't cost them anything to hold onto, and if/when a movie gets made it will likely bring in a LOT of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angalin Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 I thought Tom Cruise had revived UA after Paramount showed him the door, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Warpechowski Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 The Hobbit is a kid´s book. Yet, they could make it into a very amazing movie. Of course, if they made it a tad bit more darker. And I do hope Jackson do it, with most of the original crew. Otherwise it will just spoil the trilogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angalin Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 Yet, they could make it into a very amazing movie. Of course, if they made it a tad bit more darker. They can show the bit where the orcs/goblins eat the ponies, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KazigluBey Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 I always liked the Hobbit more than LOTR. LOTR was really good, but the Hobbit pulled me in from the start and I still have great memories of it. I'd actually rather Peter Jackson didn't direct it, I thought he completely butchered LOTR. Most of the great stuff from LOTR was the artwork and design, which Jackson had nothing to do with. I wonder what Guillermo Del Toro could do with it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.